Do we really need a star player?

[vjcsmoke]

Depends on your definition of star player.

My definition of a star player is a player who helps your team win, where in the same situation an average player lacks the ability and/or mentality to rise to the occasion.

If you follow my definition of star player, then these are players who help your team win in the situations you need them most.  The question then is what team DOES NOT need a star player?  Answer:  A team that doesn't want to win.

Now that we know the answer the question is who on the Celtics is currently a star player?  If you can't identify any readily, then we need to go out and get some of them.  That is IF you're interested in winning. 

[walker834]

I consider Smart, IT, Rozier, and Sully stars or potential stars. Superstars probably not.  The rest of our roster is full of just solid players potentially.Just solid players.  Above average.

[walker834]

Even Avery Bradley could be considered a star player.  He has potential to make the all star team as a fringe player.  I dont consider him that. I more see him as an above average nba starting quality player.

He could start on a championship team and be a 4th or 5th wheel in other words.  Most of our guys are 3rd through 5th wheels. We dont have that #1 or #2.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

Yes, most everyone agrees we need one, the only debate is how we obtain one.

[walker834]

The issue is there are probably 10 superstars in the nba.  Guys who make and start tthe allstar game every year. That changes too as players age and players come up.  The teams that win etc.

[Future Celtics Owner]

My issue is this.  Players on our roster who i think are potential stars

Superstar ppotential.

No one. Maybe Marcus

Star potential

IT
Smart
Sully
Rozier

solid players potential

bradley
KO
Hunter
Bass
Turner
young
Zeller
etc...

I think that James Young could be a star or superstar. Thats what makes him special and why people like him/dont like him. He has all the tools to be a star in the league but may squander them or take time to develop the tools.
He would be best suited to play the 2 and even Stevens said he does a better job at defending the 2's. So we would also need a legit 3 to play beside James Young.

[GreenGoggles]

I think the only thing stopping Harris from being a superstar is his number of touches. He can create his own shot, is pretty clutch and wasn't even the #1 option on his team.

[mctyson]

I think we need someone to post analytics to quantify a "star."

Until then, I look at it this way:
 
1) Do we have any players that can make an All-NBA and/or All-Star team?

2) Do we have enough players that have one or two skills that are All-NBA/All-Star level, that can complement their teammates, and make the TEAM a star?

I think the answer to #1 is probably No at this point, though I think Sully is talented enough to be an All-Star and that Marcus Smart could be one if he develops offensively.  IT4 has the offensive talent to be an All-Star, but there are a lot of guys like that in the league.  Other than that everyone else on the roster is either an unknown or not capable.

The second question is more difficult to answer, but it is certainly the model that the Hawks followed (to a degree) that made them a 60 win team this year (and what propelled the Cs to the playoffs).  In a way the team was the star and their complementary players became All-Stars because of how well they played together. You could argue that Dallas also was similar, pre-Rondo.  These teams have some very good players, but probably only one that would qualify as a "star" on his own (Horford and Dirk).  You can debate all day whether Atlanta or Dallas were/are "contenders" and whether the teams would be as good if Horford and Dirk were removed and replaced with a lower-quality but serviceable replacement.

I think the obsession about having a "star" is really meaningless.  I mean, do the Knicks have a star in Carmelo?  What exactly has that star accomplished in his NBA career?

What we need is another good player who fills a role this team lacks (see:  3pt shooting, wing scoring, slashing, rim protection).  That will make this team better and get them one step closer to being a 50-win team and a credible contender.

 

[Chief]

I consider Smart, IT, Rozier, and Sully stars or potential stars. Superstars probably not.  The rest of our roster is full of just solid players potentially.Just solid players.  Above average.

Rozier? Come on. Noone has seen him play an Nba minute. I hope he becomes one but I will wait before labeling him.

[A Future of Stevens]

The short answer is yes we need a star. If we would like to compete long term in the playoffs, then a star is fine. However, some would argue that the ultimate goal of this rebuild is to contend for a title. Unfortunately, stars don't win finals. Superstars win finals (when surrounded by a high level of talent.)

Kevin Love, and Cousins also would not fit into the historical mold of what a superstar is. A superstar is an MVP caliber talent. (This is what erks me when people refer to melo as a superstar.) This doesn't mean they are MVPs at the time, but the talent to win MVP doesn't simply leave. They are still at that level of talent, even if their stats decline, and they sacrifice more for the team. Most of you will probably chastise me for this stance, but let me give a little historical background.

2015- GS won with Curry (current MVP) and a wonderful supporting cast.
2014- SA won, and while they do exemplify a beautiful team concept, they also have Duncan, a 2x MVP winner (who also plays better than any 38 year old I can remember)
2013, 2012 - Heat won, and Lebron needs no introduction
2011 - Dallas- Another great example of team effort. However, from a talent standpoint, they had Dirk (07 MVP) and Kidd
2010 and 2009 - Kobe (08 MVP) and a huge amount of talent around him
2008 - Our good old days - Celtics won- Garnett (04 MVP), Allen and Pierce (about as good as you can get w/o MVP nod) and a great supporting cast
2007- Spurs - Little Timmy even closer to his prime
2006 - Heat win- Wade (one of the few not on this list with an MVP, but still top 3 player that year), and they had a past his prime Shaq (MVP 2000, still averaged 20 and 9 that season)
2005- Spurs - welcome back guys, wont be the last time they are on the list
2004- Pistons - as many have pointed out, this team was without an MVP type player. This should really drive home how rare it is to win without that level of talent
2003- Spurs - oh god we have to stop meeting like this
2002, 2001, 2000 - Lakers - MVP Shaq, and young athletic Kobe (future MVP)
1999- Spurs - Man did I mention Duncan and the organization is good or what?
1998, 1997, 1996- Bulls - Greatest player of all time and great supporting cast (if you can even call Pippen and Rodman just supporting cast)
1995, 1994 - Rockets- Hakeem (94 MVP, would be more if Jordan didn't exist)
1993, 92, 91 - Bulls- Jordan
1990, 89 - Pistons - great tough nosed all around team, no MVPs (Isaih was better than anyone we have any chance at getting, but we will count this team)

I stopped the list here, but as we head further back into the 80s the Lakers and Celtics really hurt the "no MVP level superstar talent" even more.

Final tally- between 2015-1989 (27 championships) 23/27 times the winner was a team with MVP level of talent on the roster. Not just stars.

This is a very sobering thought when we think about our chances of winning the ship any time soon, because out of the group of Smart, Love, Monroe, Cousins, Harris, none are even close to the level of talent needed to win a ship.

Anyway, lets go Cs.

[walker834]

I think we need someone to post analytics to quantify a "star."

Until then, I look at it this way:
 
1) Do we have any players that can make an All-NBA and/or All-Star team?

2) Do we have enough players that have one or two skills that are All-NBA/All-Star level, that can complement their teammates, and make the TEAM a star?

I think the answer to #1 is probably No at this point, though I think Sully is talented enough to be an All-Star and that Marcus Smart could be one if he develops offensively.  IT4 has the offensive talent to be an All-Star, but there are a lot of guys like that in the league.  Other than that everyone else on the roster is either an unknown or not capable.

The second question is more difficult to answer, but it is certainly the model that the Hawks followed (to a degree) that made them a 60 win team this year (and what propelled the Cs to the playoffs).  In a way the team was the star and their complementary players became All-Stars because of how well they played together. You could argue that Dallas also was similar, pre-Rondo.  These teams have some very good players, but probably only one that would qualify as a "star" on his own (Horford and Dirk).  You can debate all day whether Atlanta or Dallas were/are "contenders" and whether the teams would be as good if Horford and Dirk were removed and replaced with a lower-quality but serviceable replacement.

I think the obsession about having a "star" is really meaningless.  I mean, do the Knicks have a star in Carmelo?  What exactly has that star accomplished in his NBA career?

What we need is another good player who fills a role this team lacks (see:  3pt shooting, wing scoring, slashing, rim protection).  That will make this team better and get them one step closer to being a 50-win team and a credible contender.

Nice post. Thanks for explaining all of that.  I think the argument could be made either way.  Plus teams start winning suddenly these players that people talk about being the best in the league are that because the team is winning.  Then they are making all star teams.  That stuff is more the topping.  I think with the celtics winning comes first.  Do we want a guy focused on allstar teams screwing that up?

[walker834]

The difference between teams like detroit and SA is not as cut and dry as saying they dont have stars. Its like saying Pierce isnt a star.  Those teams are just more focused on team basketball and winning first. those players made allstar teams but it was more due to the fact the team was winning and those players were really deserving.  IT wasn't about the stats.  Those guys were unselfish. I think from the celtics perspective that's more what we want in ways.

[max215]

Also do people really believe Greg Monroe or Tobias Harris is going to be a superstar? I don't.  I think there are players already on our roster that have just as much potential if not more. They are just younger.

I genuinely think Harris could become a star. Probably not a superstar, but a perennial all-star contender (ie. a star).

[Csfan1984]

The short answer is yes we need a star. If we would like to compete long term in the playoffs, then a star is fine. However, some would argue that the ultimate goal of this rebuild is to contend for a title. Unfortunately, stars don't win finals. Superstars win finals (when surrounded by a high level of talent.)

Kevin Love, and Cousins also would not fit into the historical mold of what a superstar is. A superstar is an MVP caliber talent. (This is what erks me when people refer to melo as a superstar.) This doesn't mean they are MVPs at the time, but the talent to win MVP doesn't simply leave. They are still at that level of talent, even if their stats decline, and they sacrifice more for the team. Most of you will probably chastise me for this stance, but let me give a little historical background.

2015- GS won with Curry (current MVP) and a wonderful supporting cast.
2014- SA won, and while they do exemplify a beautiful team concept, they also have Duncan, a 2x MVP winner (who also plays better than any 38 year old I can remember)
2013, 2012 - Heat won, and Lebron needs no introduction
2011 - Dallas- Another great example of team effort. However, from a talent standpoint, they had Dirk (07 MVP) and Kidd
2010 and 2009 - Kobe (08 MVP) and a huge amount of talent around him
2008 - Our good old days - Celtics won- Garnett (04 MVP), Allen and Pierce (about as good as you can get w/o MVP nod) and a great supporting cast
2007- Spurs - Little Timmy even closer to his prime
2006 - Heat win- Wade (one of the few not on this list with an MVP, but still top 3 player that year), and they had a past his prime Shaq (MVP 2000, still averaged 20 and 9 that season)
2005- Spurs - welcome back guys, wont be the last time they are on the list
2004- Pistons - as many have pointed out, this team was without an MVP type player. This should really drive home how rare it is to win without that level of talent
2003- Spurs - oh god we have to stop meeting like this
2002, 2001, 2000 - Lakers - MVP Shaq, and young athletic Kobe (future MVP)
1999- Spurs - Man did I mention Duncan and the organization is good or what?
1998, 1997, 1996- Bulls - Greatest player of all time and great supporting cast (if you can even call Pippen and Rodman just supporting cast)
1995, 1994 - Rockets- Hakeem (94 MVP, would be more if Jordan didn't exist)
1993, 92, 91 - Bulls- Jordan
1990, 89 - Pistons - great tough nosed all around team, no MVPs (Isaih was better than anyone we have any chance at getting, but we will count this team)

I stopped the list here, but as we head further back into the 80s the Lakers and Celtics really hurt the "no MVP level superstar talent" even more.

Final tally- between 2015-1989 (27 championships) 23/27 times the winner was a team with MVP level of talent on the roster. Not just stars.

This is a very sobering thought when we think about our chances of winning the ship any time soon, because out of the group of Smart, Love, Monroe, Cousins, Harris, none are even close to the level of talent needed to win a ship.

Anyway, lets go Cs.

Another good one is top ten picks needed to win a title.

[walker834]

The short answer is yes we need a star. If we would like to compete long term in the playoffs, then a star is fine. However, some would argue that the ultimate goal of this rebuild is to contend for a title. Unfortunately, stars don't win finals. Superstars win finals (when surrounded by a high level of talent.)

Kevin Love, and Cousins also would not fit into the historical mold of what a superstar is. A superstar is an MVP caliber talent. (This is what erks me when people refer to melo as a superstar.) This doesn't mean they are MVPs at the time, but the talent to win MVP doesn't simply leave. They are still at that level of talent, even if their stats decline, and they sacrifice more for the team. Most of you will probably chastise me for this stance, but let me give a little historical background.

2015- GS won with Curry (current MVP) and a wonderful supporting cast.
2014- SA won, and while they do exemplify a beautiful team concept, they also have Duncan, a 2x MVP winner (who also plays better than any 38 year old I can remember)
2013, 2012 - Heat won, and Lebron needs no introduction
2011 - Dallas- Another great example of team effort. However, from a talent standpoint, they had Dirk (07 MVP) and Kidd
2010 and 2009 - Kobe (08 MVP) and a huge amount of talent around him
2008 - Our good old days - Celtics won- Garnett (04 MVP), Allen and Pierce (about as good as you can get w/o MVP nod) and a great supporting cast
2007- Spurs - Little Timmy even closer to his prime
2006 - Heat win- Wade (one of the few not on this list with an MVP, but still top 3 player that year), and they had a past his prime Shaq (MVP 2000, still averaged 20 and 9 that season)
2005- Spurs - welcome back guys, wont be the last time they are on the list
2004- Pistons - as many have pointed out, this team was without an MVP type player. This should really drive home how rare it is to win without that level of talent
2003- Spurs - oh god we have to stop meeting like this
2002, 2001, 2000 - Lakers - MVP Shaq, and young athletic Kobe (future MVP)
1999- Spurs - Man did I mention Duncan and the organization is good or what?
1998, 1997, 1996- Bulls - Greatest player of all time and great supporting cast (if you can even call Pippen and Rodman just supporting cast)
1995, 1994 - Rockets- Hakeem (94 MVP, would be more if Jordan didn't exist)
1993, 92, 91 - Bulls- Jordan
1990, 89 - Pistons - great tough nosed all around team, no MVPs (Isaih was better than anyone we have any chance at getting, but we will count this team)

I stopped the list here, but as we head further back into the 80s the Lakers and Celtics really hurt the "no MVP level superstar talent" even more.

Final tally- between 2015-1989 (27 championships) 23/27 times the winner was a team with MVP level of talent on the roster. Not just stars.

This is a very sobering thought when we think about our chances of winning the ship any time soon, because out of the group of Smart, Love, Monroe, Cousins, Harris, none are even close to the level of talent needed to win a ship.

Anyway, lets go Cs.

Another good one is top ten picks needed to win a title.

I think we want that one guy. I'm not sure high picks has everything to do with it.   Having KEvin Love and a wonderful supporting cast could get it done imo...   Kobe, Dwade, pierce, Steph were not top of the top in drafts.  Marcus was picked 6th so we do have one guy.

If a guy can play he can play I guess is what I'm saying. Saying he has to be drafted somewhere is kind of weird logic and kind of limiting.