We must compete now

[Celtics18]

I am fine saying Dirk is not in top 25, though he's very very close. KG is definitely in. But all that is bit meaningless.

You seem to think that i mean to say it is impossible to win without a top 25 player of all-time. I am not saying that. I am saying it is very very unlikely. The line in the sand at #25 is pretty randomly chosen, but it provides a good place to start. In ALMOST EVERY CASE, the NBA title team had a historically great player. Whether its 33 out of 34 or 32 out of 34 (because Dirk would be, what, #27? #29? its complete hairsplitting), it hardly matters. Its MASSIVELY STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

Its completely logical to follow from that that you need a superstar to win.

Someone on the board says "you need 12 players to win a title", and that's completely 100% wrong. It just couldn't be more wrong.

In a previous post you stated that you had been careful to not say that you can't win an NBA title without an all-time great, but saying that you need one to win a title comes awfully close to sounding like you are saying that you can't win a title without one. 

The other point to bring up here is that currently there is only one player in the NBA who is still in his prime who appears on anybody's list of top twenty-five (or even top fifty players) of all time. 

In that case, following your logic, the only reasonable and legitimate hope for winning an NBA title is to acquire Lebron James.  Short of that, there isn't even any point in trying to compete.

Personally, I would disagree with that philosophy.

he means for the most part, you almost always need 1.  And no, because there are players today that will likely crack that list of top 30, like Kevin Durant. some will come close, like dwight howard.

Personally, I think that when all is said and done Rajon Rondo has a good chance of being higher on any consensus all time list than Dwight Howard. 

[hwangjini_1]

I must say that in all the years I have been with CB, this may be the most disappointing thread I have ever seen. It started off with an incoherent ramble and took a nose dive from there.

Good night.

[SparzWizard]

U got to get all star players win

You need Chris Paul, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Durant, LeBron James, and Dwight Howard as your starting lineup to win.

And then a bench lineup of Derrick Rose, Dwyane Wade, Carmelo Anthony, Blake Griffin, and Chris Bosh to succeed.

There.

[LilRip]

Lol it would be much more likely that the C's land the first overall pick rather than the C's win a championship this year.

And as for the "you need 12 guys" v. "you need a genuine superstar", ragging on the point of top 25 is a worthless counter argument. Point is, stars win in this league. There are only 5 guys on the floor at a time for both offense and defense. Now, the Pistons showed us otherwise, but because it worked 1 in 34 times does not make it a winning strategy. To continue with the free throw analogy, with the game on the line, who would you put: Ray Allen or Kendrick Perkins? Sure ray Allen could miss (as he has for us in the past), but I'd take my chances on Ray Allen every single time over Perk.

[syfy9]

I am fine saying Dirk is not in top 25, though he's very very close. KG is definitely in. But all that is bit meaningless.

You seem to think that i mean to say it is impossible to win without a top 25 player of all-time. I am not saying that. I am saying it is very very unlikely. The line in the sand at #25 is pretty randomly chosen, but it provides a good place to start. In ALMOST EVERY CASE, the NBA title team had a historically great player. Whether its 33 out of 34 or 32 out of 34 (because Dirk would be, what, #27? #29? its complete hairsplitting), it hardly matters. Its MASSIVELY STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

Its completely logical to follow from that that you need a superstar to win.

Someone on the board says "you need 12 players to win a title", and that's completely 100% wrong. It just couldn't be more wrong.

In a previous post you stated that you had been careful to not say that you can't win an NBA title without an all-time great, but saying that you need one to win a title comes awfully close to sounding like you are saying that you can't win a title without one. 

The other point to bring up here is that currently there is only one player in the NBA who is still in his prime who appears on anybody's list of top twenty-five (or even top fifty players) of all time. 

In that case, following your logic, the only reasonable and legitimate hope for winning an NBA title is to acquire Lebron James.  Short of that, there isn't even any point in trying to compete.

Personally, I would disagree with that philosophy.

he means for the most part, you almost always need 1.  And no, because there are players today that will likely crack that list of top 30, like Kevin Durant. some will come close, like dwight howard.

Personally, I think that when all is said and done Rajon Rondo has a good chance of being higher on any consensus all time list than Dwight Howard.

Rondo is 27. Dwight is also 27.

As of right now, Dwight Howard has had an incredibly more dominant career than Rondo. He has been the premier and best center for almost a decade and has multiple DPOYs and 1st All-NBA team selections.

Stats and awards are what people will be looking at when it is all said and done.

Rondo would need to have multiple MVP-caliber seasons in the future and Howard would need to fade into obscurity for Rondo to surpass Howard's legacy.

And it just so happens that Dwight is on a potential contender this season - a ring could completely elevate his all-time list status. Where's Rondo?

[Mr Green]

Personally, I think that when all is said and done Rajon Rondo has a good chance of being higher on any consensus all time list than Dwight Howard.

Rondo is 27. Dwight is also 27.

As of right now, Dwight Howard has had an incredibly more dominant career than Rondo. He has been the premier and best center for almost a decade and has multiple DPOYs and 1st All-NBA team selections.

Stats and awards are what people will be looking at when it is all said and done.

Rondo would need to have multiple MVP-caliber seasons in the future and Howard would need to fade into obscurity for Rondo to surpass Howard's legacy.

And it just so happens that Dwight is on a potential contender this season - a ring could completely elevate his all-time list status. Where's Rondo?

Sippin.

[EDWARDO]

Personally, I think that when all is said and done Rajon Rondo has a good chance of being higher on any consensus all time list than Dwight Howard.

We agree on this! Hooray!  Rondo is an unusual case because he's generally somewhere between the 10th and 20th best player in the NBA during the regular season. Then in the playoffs, he just elevates his game to a much higher level.

I said on another thread that he's been a top 5 player in the NBA playoffs on a number of occasions. In 2012, he had to be up there, right? He was the best player on a team that took the eventual champions to 7 games. Only Lebron and Durant were for sure better in that playoffs...

[Onslaught]

I am fine saying Dirk is not in top 25, though he's very very close. KG is definitely in. But all that is bit meaningless.

You seem to think that i mean to say it is impossible to win without a top 25 player of all-time. I am not saying that. I am saying it is very very unlikely. The line in the sand at #25 is pretty randomly chosen, but it provides a good place to start. In ALMOST EVERY CASE, the NBA title team had a historically great player. Whether its 33 out of 34 or 32 out of 34 (because Dirk would be, what, #27? #29? its complete hairsplitting), it hardly matters. Its MASSIVELY STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

Its completely logical to follow from that that you need a superstar to win.

Someone on the board says "you need 12 players to win a title", and that's completely 100% wrong. It just couldn't be more wrong.

In a previous post you stated that you had been careful to not say that you can't win an NBA title without an all-time great, but saying that you need one to win a title comes awfully close to sounding like you are saying that you can't win a title without one. 

The other point to bring up here is that currently there is only one player in the NBA who is still in his prime who appears on anybody's list of top twenty-five (or even top fifty players) of all time. 

In that case, following your logic, the only reasonable and legitimate hope for winning an NBA title is to acquire Lebron James.  Short of that, there isn't even any point in trying to compete.

Personally, I would disagree with that philosophy.

he means for the most part, you almost always need 1.  And no, because there are players today that will likely crack that list of top 30, like Kevin Durant. some will come close, like dwight howard.

Personally, I think that when all is said and done Rajon Rondo has a good chance of being higher on any consensus all time list than Dwight Howard.

Rondo is 27. Dwight is also 27.

As of right now, Dwight Howard has had an incredibly more dominant career than Rondo. He has been the premier and best center for almost a decade and has multiple DPOYs and 1st All-NBA team selections.

Stats and awards are what people will be looking at when it is all said and done.

Rondo would need to have multiple MVP-caliber seasons in the future and Howard would need to fade into obscurity for Rondo to surpass Howard's legacy.

And it just so happens that Dwight is on a potential contender this season - a ring could completely elevate his all-time list status. Where's Rondo?

I don't disagree with everything you've said. But it's not really hard to be the most dominate center in the NBA these days. And not everyone has agreed that Howard is the most dominate with bums like Andrew Bynum around.
I'd say that without anyone really going against him in his position I find Howard to be a massive underachiever so far. The man should be dominating the game like no other but he's not really.

Rondo on the other hand has a long list of other PG's he's compared with. And last I looked he's always kicking their tale in things like assists. You know, the thing PG's should get lots of.

[Celtics18]

I am fine saying Dirk is not in top 25, though he's very very close. KG is definitely in. But all that is bit meaningless.

You seem to think that i mean to say it is impossible to win without a top 25 player of all-time. I am not saying that. I am saying it is very very unlikely. The line in the sand at #25 is pretty randomly chosen, but it provides a good place to start. In ALMOST EVERY CASE, the NBA title team had a historically great player. Whether its 33 out of 34 or 32 out of 34 (because Dirk would be, what, #27? #29? its complete hairsplitting), it hardly matters. Its MASSIVELY STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

Its completely logical to follow from that that you need a superstar to win.

Someone on the board says "you need 12 players to win a title", and that's completely 100% wrong. It just couldn't be more wrong.

In a previous post you stated that you had been careful to not say that you can't win an NBA title without an all-time great, but saying that you need one to win a title comes awfully close to sounding like you are saying that you can't win a title without one. 

The other point to bring up here is that currently there is only one player in the NBA who is still in his prime who appears on anybody's list of top twenty-five (or even top fifty players) of all time. 

In that case, following your logic, the only reasonable and legitimate hope for winning an NBA title is to acquire Lebron James.  Short of that, there isn't even any point in trying to compete.

Personally, I would disagree with that philosophy.

he means for the most part, you almost always need 1.  And no, because there are players today that will likely crack that list of top 30, like Kevin Durant. some will come close, like dwight howard.

Personally, I think that when all is said and done Rajon Rondo has a good chance of being higher on any consensus all time list than Dwight Howard.

Rondo is 27. Dwight is also 27.

As of right now, Dwight Howard has had an incredibly more dominant career than Rondo. He has been the premier and best center for almost a decade and has multiple DPOYs and 1st All-NBA team selections.

Stats and awards are what people will be looking at when it is all said and done.

Rondo would need to have multiple MVP-caliber seasons in the future and Howard would need to fade into obscurity for Rondo to surpass Howard's legacy.

And it just so happens that Dwight is on a potential contender this season - a ring could completely elevate his all-time list status. Where's Rondo?

Sure, Howard would be ahead if their respective careers ended right now.

If Rondo can lead the new Celtics on multiple deep playoff runs, he'll have a good shot of surpassing Howard, though.

It's not like Rondo has accomplished nothing:

4 consecutive All star games.
4 consecutive All defensive teams.
2 time top ten in MVP voting.
2 time assist per game leader.
1 time NBA champion.
2 time Eastern conference champion.
3 time Eastern conference finalist.
Top 10 playoff performer over the course of the last five years.   

[Celtics18]

i've given you hard evidence of why you have to have a superstar to win a title. A genuine superstar. 33 out of 34 times. Statistically significant.

43 out of 44 presidents have been white males.  Therefore, it would be stupid for a major party to run a presidential candidate who is either non-white or non-male.

OOH, that's good. I like that. In this case, the correlation vs causation argument is valid. The country is clearly changing and acceptance (i would say outright preference) for non-white males is growing. So you are absolutely right to point out that this in this case, this is unlikely to be the case going forward.

I'm open to SOME, ANY!, logic as to why you don't need a top 25 player of all time to win a title... none is being offered... in fact, NOTHING is being offered...

You say you are open to logic, but you aren't using legitimate logic yourself.  What you are saying is that a team can't win a title without a top twenty-five player of all-time. 

I don't know what sort of sample size you would need to validate your claim to at least the level of an acceptable rule, but 33 out of 34 (when you haven't even bothered to list who the 25 greatest players of all time are--of which, of course, a standard accepted list doesn't exist) simply isn't enough.

What about the 34 titles before the most recent 34?  Did more than 95% of those teams have a top 25 player of all time?  If so, how many top 25 players of all time are there?

When the numbers change to 33 out of 35 or 34 out of 36 or 35 out of 37 or . . . well, you get the point, will it still be a firm rule that you can't win an NBA title without a top 25 player? 

What may seem like a large enough sample size for you to make your claim in reality is nowhere near a large enough sample size.  You didn't like LooseCannon's Presidents analogy so here's another one.  Let's say a great free throw shooter hits 33 out of 34 foul shots over a given stretch, will that mean that it is impossible for that shooter to ever miss another one?

No.  Of course it isn't.  We all know that.

the 34 titles before the last 34 dont count because its before the shot clock era.

The shot clock was implemented for the 1954-55 season.  Edwardo is only going back to the 1980 season.

[CelticConcourse]

I dont believe n tanking we must make a move this year all the king james and durants rondo right there to we have mutipule 1st round picks so lets get players in the league who had sucess  now. We can use some of our 1st round picks and use the brookln rejects and build a foundation with all star players then we go for paul george next year. Already

Wll i doent matr if u believ in taking bcuz no mtter what ther will stil be kin jams an d drant rond isn righ tther wit thm heha surger ydon u rrmmbr w cant evn us r mutipule frst rnd pciks unntl th drft whih is in yrs nd clrly brokln rjctz rnt gnn b a gd nuff funditaon t wni a tittle dnt u beeleve in r celtic they clrly shldnt compet no!!!1!1!!1!one!1

[billysan]

I must say that in all the years I have been with CB, this may be the most disappointing thread I have ever seen. It started off with an incoherent ramble and took a nose dive from there.

Good night.

Almost said ditto. TP

I would like to point out that assembling a team with a top twenty five all time player is nearly impossible in the NBA. nearly all on the list presented were members of NBA Championship teams long before they were determined to be "Top Twenty Five" on some list.

I guess you could make the argument that now that Lebron has been in the league q few years he would be the starting point. Same would go for Shaq, Jordan and a few others after a few years into their careers. Only problem is, you have to acquire them. Not easy to trade for one unless you give up the moon or they have some silly contrived love affair with a couple of your players like Lebron does with Wade and Bosh.

It's just a long shot to say you have or can simply 'acquire' a top twenty five player.

[D.o.s.]

I must say that in all the years I have been with CB, this may be the most disappointing thread I have ever seen. It started off with an incoherent ramble and took a nose dive from there.

Good night.

[LilRip]

I am fine saying Dirk is not in top 25, though he's very very close. KG is definitely in. But all that is bit meaningless.

You seem to think that i mean to say it is impossible to win without a top 25 player of all-time. I am not saying that. I am saying it is very very unlikely. The line in the sand at #25 is pretty randomly chosen, but it provides a good place to start. In ALMOST EVERY CASE, the NBA title team had a historically great player. Whether its 33 out of 34 or 32 out of 34 (because Dirk would be, what, #27? #29? its complete hairsplitting), it hardly matters. Its MASSIVELY STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

Its completely logical to follow from that that you need a superstar to win.

Someone on the board says "you need 12 players to win a title", and that's completely 100% wrong. It just couldn't be more wrong.

In a previous post you stated that you had been careful to not say that you can't win an NBA title without an all-time great, but saying that you need one to win a title comes awfully close to sounding like you are saying that you can't win a title without one. 

The other point to bring up here is that currently there is only one player in the NBA who is still in his prime who appears on anybody's list of top twenty-five (or even top fifty players) of all time. 

In that case, following your logic, the only reasonable and legitimate hope for winning an NBA title is to acquire Lebron James.  Short of that, there isn't even any point in trying to compete.

Personally, I would disagree with that philosophy.

he means for the most part, you almost always need 1.  And no, because there are players today that will likely crack that list of top 30, like Kevin Durant. some will come close, like dwight howard.

Personally, I think that when all is said and done Rajon Rondo has a good chance of being higher on any consensus all time list than Dwight Howard.

Rondo is 27. Dwight is also 27.

As of right now, Dwight Howard has had an incredibly more dominant career than Rondo. He has been the premier and best center for almost a decade and has multiple DPOYs and 1st All-NBA team selections.

Stats and awards are what people will be looking at when it is all said and done.

Rondo would need to have multiple MVP-caliber seasons in the future and Howard would need to fade into obscurity for Rondo to surpass Howard's legacy.

And it just so happens that Dwight is on a potential contender this season - a ring could completely elevate his all-time list status. Where's Rondo?

I don't disagree with everything you've said. But it's not really hard to be the most dominate center in the NBA these days. And not everyone has agreed that Howard is the most dominate with bums like Andrew Bynum around.
I'd say that without anyone really going against him in his position I find Howard to be a massive underachiever so far. The man should be dominating the game like no other but he's not really.

Rondo on the other hand has a long list of other PG's he's compared with. And last I looked he's always kicking their tale in things like assists. You know, the thing PG's should get lots of.

trollololol  so in a 9-year career thus far, winning DPOY 3 times and being selected 5 times as all NBA first team (and 3rd team twice), and being the only player in NBA history to lead the league in both blocks and rebounding for more than one season isn't good enough for you? y'know, rebounding and blocks, the things big men should get lots of.

[D.o.s.]

I am fine saying Dirk is not in top 25, though he's very very close. KG is definitely in. But all that is bit meaningless.

You seem to think that i mean to say it is impossible to win without a top 25 player of all-time. I am not saying that. I am saying it is very very unlikely. The line in the sand at #25 is pretty randomly chosen, but it provides a good place to start. In ALMOST EVERY CASE, the NBA title team had a historically great player. Whether its 33 out of 34 or 32 out of 34 (because Dirk would be, what, #27? #29? its complete hairsplitting), it hardly matters. Its MASSIVELY STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

Its completely logical to follow from that that you need a superstar to win.

Someone on the board says "you need 12 players to win a title", and that's completely 100% wrong. It just couldn't be more wrong.

In a previous post you stated that you had been careful to not say that you can't win an NBA title without an all-time great, but saying that you need one to win a title comes awfully close to sounding like you are saying that you can't win a title without one. 

The other point to bring up here is that currently there is only one player in the NBA who is still in his prime who appears on anybody's list of top twenty-five (or even top fifty players) of all time. 

In that case, following your logic, the only reasonable and legitimate hope for winning an NBA title is to acquire Lebron James.  Short of that, there isn't even any point in trying to compete.

Personally, I would disagree with that philosophy.

he means for the most part, you almost always need 1.  And no, because there are players today that will likely crack that list of top 30, like Kevin Durant. some will come close, like dwight howard.

Personally, I think that when all is said and done Rajon Rondo has a good chance of being higher on any consensus all time list than Dwight Howard.

Rondo is 27. Dwight is also 27.

As of right now, Dwight Howard has had an incredibly more dominant career than Rondo. He has been the premier and best center for almost a decade and has multiple DPOYs and 1st All-NBA team selections.

Stats and awards are what people will be looking at when it is all said and done.

Rondo would need to have multiple MVP-caliber seasons in the future and Howard would need to fade into obscurity for Rondo to surpass Howard's legacy.

And it just so happens that Dwight is on a potential contender this season - a ring could completely elevate his all-time list status. Where's Rondo?

I don't disagree with everything you've said. But it's not really hard to be the most dominate center in the NBA these days. And not everyone has agreed that Howard is the most dominate with bums like Andrew Bynum around.
I'd say that without anyone really going against him in his position I find Howard to be a massive underachiever so far. The man should be dominating the game like no other but he's not really.

Rondo on the other hand has a long list of other PG's he's compared with. And last I looked he's always kicking their tale in things like assists. You know, the thing PG's should get lots of.

trollololol  so in a 9-year career thus far, winning DPOY 3 times and being selected 5 times as all NBA first team (and 3rd team twice), and being the only player in NBA history to lead the league in both blocks and rebounding for more than one season isn't good enough for you? y'know, rebounding and blocks, the things big men should get lots of.

Yeah, Dwight Howard has pretty clearly been a more important NBA player than Rondo for, uh, about as long as they've both been in the league.

OTOH, I think Dwight has done a wonderful job of making everyone forget all that and focus on his antics and flaws instead. Nice going, Dwight.