Is needing a superstar a fallacy?

[max215]

Because for every 03-04 Pistons there are five to ten 14-15 Hawks.

The same can be said about teams like the Rockets though. For every Golden state there are teams like Cleveland, Houston, etc that don't win.  Just look at the knicks.

Except when a team like the Rockets doesn't win, a team like the Warriors does win.

Not necessarily. 

When the 2013/14 (star filled) Heat didn't win, the Spurs did.
When the 2003/04 (star filled) Lakers didn't win, the Pistons did.

So doesn't always happen that way.  These are both examples of a team filled with big name stars getting beaten VERY convincingly by a team that didn't really have any big name stars.

The problem is that you've found two occurrences in the last decade, which kind of illustrates just how uncommon winning without a star is. And one could argue that both Leonard and Duncan were borderline stars when the Spurs won their most recent title.

[max215]

Cousins is similar to Rasheed Wallace imo.  We get Smart to go with Cousins......  And fill in hte other 3 spots.

Smart-6th pick
Rozier-16th pick
Turner-2nd pick
Olynyk-13th pick
Cousins-5th pick

Cousins doesn't have the offensive range of Rasheed Wallace. Cousins is strictly a low post beast.

This is where I'm going to disagree.

Around the period of Allstar break DMC was averaging 47.1 percent from mid range per basketball reference, from 10-16 feet, which is very impressive.

DMC has admitted himself that he would prefer to play PF, which I believe is the wrong assesment for his game. He is a 5, but only because trying to guard the quicker and more agile power forwards would lead him to more foul troubles. He averaged 4.1 fouls which is pretty bad, and 4.7 turnovers which is even worse.

But DMC is not just a low post beast, but a great mid range shooter, and is an underrated passer who had teammates who couldn't properly space the floor enough for him to operate.

The fifth-year man out of Kentucky is averaging 23.7 points, 12.3 rebounds and 3.3 assists in just 33.9 minutes per game. Those three main numbers—23 points, 12 rebounds and three assists—place Cousins among some rare company.

According to Basketball-Reference.com, only 16 centers have ever had a season in which they averaged at least 23 points, 12 rebounds and three assists. All of those players—with the exception of Spencer Haywood, whose Hall of Fame case is quite the debate—are either currently in the Hall or destined to be there.

This is an intriguing part of Cousins’ game. On the year, Cousins is shooting 46.7 percent, much lower than expected for a bruising back-to-the-basket big man. The reason for that is Cousins has attempted 296 mid-range jumpers so far this season—32.5 percent of his total shot attempts—and has only hit 37.2 percent of them, per NBA.com.

Compare that to the 58.8 percent he shoots in the restricted area and one would think that he should stop shooting jump shots entirely.

While it is true that he bails the defense out by shooting from the mid-range so much and his shot selection could improve, he shouldn’t cut it out altogether. Check out his free-throw percentage year-to-year.
Season    Age    Tm    G    GS    FT    FTA    FT%
2010-11    20    SAC    81    62    3.4    5.0    .687
2011-12    21    SAC    64    62    4.1    5.8    .702
2012-13    22    SAC    75    74    4.2    5.6    .738
2013-14    23    SAC    71    71    6.1    8.4    .726
2014-15 ?    24    SAC    52    52    7.3    9.1    .795
Career          342    320    4.8    6.6    .732

He has improved more than 10 percentage points from his rookie season to now. A big man who can score down low and shoot almost 80 percent from the line is a rare breed. That improved free-throw stroke also shows that he has good touch and should be able to become a consistent threat from mid-range.

If Cousins were able to hit that 15-17 foot jumper with regularity, it would force the defense to guard him tight farther from the basket. That would open up easier opportunities to pump fake and use his excellent-for-a-big-man handle to drive by slower centers.

Also, getting a few easy buckets off jumpers from mid-range could help boost his scoring and extend his career so that he doesn’t have to bang down low or get fouled for every point.

 

DMC has the potential to be a game changing big man. And even SAC would be stupid not to realize this.

Don't limit someone as talented as DMC as a 'low post threat,' its always been easy to quantify and compare free throw percentages to midrange/ 3pt capabilities.

If DMC worked on mid range, and progressively moved on to 3pt, which I think he could, DMC would probably be the first complete big man that could shoot in the low post, block, rebound, steal, pass, and shoot midrange/3pt with decent efficiency.

Scary.

Agreed on this.  DMC is also the one star player I'm pretty sure will be available at some point this season.  After some questionable moves in June/July, to me, all it's gonna take is Sacramento getting a difficult early season schedule and starting out like 7 - 13, and I think the Karl/Cousins combo starts to fall apart, and by the trade deadline will be a downright disaster and DMC will be available for the right package.  Then hopefully Danny can work some magic.

I think SAC fires Karl before they trade Cousins. You just don't trade somebody that young and talented who is still under contract unless they start sitting out games and start declaring they want out no matter who the coach is. I don't think the situation in SAC is at that point yet, but Cousins is hard to predict of course.

If that happens we might be able to offer a lot of picks but I think SAC doesn't want to totally rebuild. I can see a lot of teams offering more in terms of ready-to-play young talent.

If they enrage Cousins to the point where he publicly demands a trade, they won't have much of a choice left to make.

[Celtics4ever]

So far teams with stars have won more titles than teams that do not.  But I think good and great players matter more than stars.  Melo is a star, was a superstar and he has not won crap.

With our roster, we may find out.   I think of Hawks as a team who played well and did not have a superstar this year.   They had a great record but they got utterly dismantled in the playoffs.

[obnoxiousmime]

Because for every 03-04 Pistons there are five to ten 14-15 Hawks.

The same can be said about teams like the Rockets though. For every Golden state there are teams like Cleveland, Houston, etc that don't win.  Just look at the knicks.

Except when a team like the Rockets doesn't win, a team like the Warriors does win.

Not necessarily. 

When the 2013/14 (star filled) Heat didn't win, the Spurs did.
When the 2003/04 (star filled) Lakers didn't win, the Pistons did.

So doesn't always happen that way.  These are both examples of a team filled with big name stars getting beaten VERY convincingly by a team that didn't really have any big name stars.

I don't think anybody is saying the team with the biggest star ALWAYS wins. It's just that if you don't have a big star it's very difficult to sustainably be in title contention. There's a reason teams with LeBron have reached the Finals 5 years in a row even if he only won twice.

Sure the odds are against any team getting one of the GOAT-type players on your team in each particular generation so I'm not expecting that. After all, there's only a handful of those guys each decade. However, if you don't have one of those guys you do need a lot of depth and multiple second-tier stars (guys like Melo, McGrady, Pierce, Gasol, etc.). These are guys who are certain hall-of-famers but weren't ever seriously in the conversation for league MVP or perennially in the first-team All-NBA list.

We don't even have one of those guys yet, much less a GOAT-type. Even Ainge admitted last year that we simply don't have the talent on the roster right now.

[konkmv]

We surely need a star at least.. and i mean a new westbrook or durant

[HomerSapien]

Cousins is similar to Rasheed Wallace imo.  We get Smart to go with Cousins......  And fill in hte other 3 spots.

Smart-6th pick
Rozier-16th pick
Turner-2nd pick
Olynyk-13th pick
Cousins-5th pick

Cousins doesn't have the offensive range of Rasheed Wallace. Cousins is strictly a low post beast.

This is where I'm going to disagree.

Around the period of Allstar break DMC was averaging 47.1 percent from mid range per basketball reference, from 10-16 feet, which is very impressive.

DMC has admitted himself that he would prefer to play PF, which I believe is the wrong assesment for his game. He is a 5, but only because trying to guard the quicker and more agile power forwards would lead him to more foul troubles. He averaged 4.1 fouls which is pretty bad, and 4.7 turnovers which is even worse.

But DMC is not just a low post beast, but a great mid range shooter, and is an underrated passer who had teammates who couldn't properly space the floor enough for him to operate.

The fifth-year man out of Kentucky is averaging 23.7 points, 12.3 rebounds and 3.3 assists in just 33.9 minutes per game. Those three main numbers—23 points, 12 rebounds and three assists—place Cousins among some rare company.

According to Basketball-Reference.com, only 16 centers have ever had a season in which they averaged at least 23 points, 12 rebounds and three assists. All of those players—with the exception of Spencer Haywood, whose Hall of Fame case is quite the debate—are either currently in the Hall or destined to be there.

This is an intriguing part of Cousins’ game. On the year, Cousins is shooting 46.7 percent, much lower than expected for a bruising back-to-the-basket big man. The reason for that is Cousins has attempted 296 mid-range jumpers so far this season—32.5 percent of his total shot attempts—and has only hit 37.2 percent of them, per NBA.com.

Compare that to the 58.8 percent he shoots in the restricted area and one would think that he should stop shooting jump shots entirely.

While it is true that he bails the defense out by shooting from the mid-range so much and his shot selection could improve, he shouldn’t cut it out altogether. Check out his free-throw percentage year-to-year.
Season    Age    Tm    G    GS    FT    FTA    FT%
2010-11    20    SAC    81    62    3.4    5.0    .687
2011-12    21    SAC    64    62    4.1    5.8    .702
2012-13    22    SAC    75    74    4.2    5.6    .738
2013-14    23    SAC    71    71    6.1    8.4    .726
2014-15 ?    24    SAC    52    52    7.3    9.1    .795
Career          342    320    4.8    6.6    .732

He has improved more than 10 percentage points from his rookie season to now. A big man who can score down low and shoot almost 80 percent from the line is a rare breed. That improved free-throw stroke also shows that he has good touch and should be able to become a consistent threat from mid-range.

If Cousins were able to hit that 15-17 foot jumper with regularity, it would force the defense to guard him tight farther from the basket. That would open up easier opportunities to pump fake and use his excellent-for-a-big-man handle to drive by slower centers.

Also, getting a few easy buckets off jumpers from mid-range could help boost his scoring and extend his career so that he doesn’t have to bang down low or get fouled for every point.

 

DMC has the potential to be a game changing big man. And even SAC would be stupid not to realize this.

Don't limit someone as talented as DMC as a 'low post threat,' its always been easy to quantify and compare free throw percentages to midrange/ 3pt capabilities.

If DMC worked on mid range, and progressively moved on to 3pt, which I think he could, DMC would probably be the first complete big man that could shoot in the low post, block, rebound, steal, pass, and shoot midrange/3pt with decent efficiency.

Scary.

Agreed on this.  DMC is also the one star player I'm pretty sure will be available at some point this season.  After some questionable moves in June/July, to me, all it's gonna take is Sacramento getting a difficult early season schedule and starting out like 7 - 13, and I think the Karl/Cousins combo starts to fall apart, and by the trade deadline will be a downright disaster and DMC will be available for the right package.  Then hopefully Danny can work some magic.

I think SAC fires Karl before they trade Cousins. You just don't trade somebody that young and talented who is still under contract unless they start sitting out games and start declaring they want out no matter who the coach is. I don't think the situation in SAC is at that point yet, but Cousins is hard to predict of course.

If that happens we might be able to offer a lot of picks but I think SAC doesn't want to totally rebuild. I can see a lot of teams offering more in terms of ready-to-play young talent.

Agreed, it's not at that point yet, but Smokey the Bear says the forest fire risk in Sacramento is "very high".  If they start the year off badly I bet Karl starts taking subtle little shots at Cousins, and DMC starts to mail it in effort-wise, and after a couple of months it will be a full on blowout.  After Vivek completely destabilizing DMC's situation for 2 straight years it is not hard at all for me to imagine him publicly demanding a trade shortly there after.

I'm far less confident that the Celtics are actually the team that lands him, but hopefully we at least have the opportunity.  I think he'll be had cheaper than has been discussed this summer too (don't read that to say "cheap", just less than the demands this summer).

[obnoxiousmime]

Yeah to get Cousins we would really need at least one "star potential" young player like say Andrew Wiggins or a draft pick that is in the top 5 area. The fact that Cousins is a young big man means almost every team is in play for him, because why not? It's hard to think of a lot of teams that absolutely would not have space for a guy like that.

Things that help the Celtics:

1) You can eliminate western conference teams from the list of suitors, it would be foolish for Sac to deal him within their conference.
2) He is friends with Isaiah Thomas, isn't he?

Other than that, I can see teams like the Sixers, Heat, Hawks, or Bucks putting together a deal for him. The Hawks can offer Teague, though he may not want to re-sign in SAC. The Heat could do something like Luol Deng + Whiteside or Winslow. The Bucks could offer Monroe who isn't great but is at least under contract and is an OK big man replacement.

I think that at the very least the Celtics would have to include Smart in any offer. Sully and a pick is not going to get it done.

[jbpats]

The NBA was in a very bad place when the Pistions were dominant in the early 00's. In my opinion one of the most boring and unispired times for the NBA. They were almost the best by default, that kind of team would never be as dominant in today's NBA.
I think teams do need stars to compete in today's NBA for the following reasons.
1) I still think the NBA is rigged (unfortunately), I think the league wants their stars represented, it just holds for better TV and in the end more money in their pockets..
2) superstars always get calls. #1 culprit Lebron James, how many delayed calls have we seen go his way simply because he complained? How many games has he walked out with 0 or 1 fouls committed when he is one of the most physical players in the league? Superstars just get calls in their favor, and less often against. If that isn't a team advantage nothing is.

[the_Bird]

Oh, and they got the Lakers at the perfect imploding time.

Everything that you said was completely true, but this point seems to get forgotten when people hold up that Pistons squad as an example of how you can build a champion.  If the Lakers aren't coming apart at the seams, they're winning that series in five games.  The Pistons had a lot more talent that they are often given credit for, but really; the Lakers lost that series, just as much as the Pistons won it.

And the fact that Detroit was never again able to get over the hump, to me that's another point in favor of how you really NEED that superstar.  You don't necessarily need LeBron, but you better have in-his-prime Paul Pierce.

[Future Celtics Owner]

Oh, and they got the Lakers at the perfect imploding time.

Everything that you said was completely true, but this point seems to get forgotten when people hold up that Pistons squad as an example of how you can build a champion.  If the Lakers aren't coming apart at the seams, they're winning that series in five games.  The Pistons had a lot more talent that they are often given credit for, but really; the Lakers lost that series, just as much as the Pistons won it.

And the fact that Detroit was never again able to get over the hump, to me that's another point in favor of how you really NEED that superstar.  You don't necessarily need LeBron, but you better have in-his-prime Paul Pierce.

I agree. We need that PP type player before we start contending for the playoffs....IMO

[D.o.s.]

The NBA was in a very bad place when the Pistions were dominant in the early 00's. In my opinion one of the most boring and unispired times for the NBA. They were almost the best by default, that kind of team would never be as dominant in today's NBA.
I think teams do need stars to compete in today's NBA for the following reasons.
1) I still think the NBA is rigged (unfortunately), I think the league wants their stars represented, it just holds for better TV and in the end more money in their pockets..
2) superstars always get calls. #1 culprit Lebron James, how many delayed calls have we seen go his way simply because he complained? How many games has he walked out with 0 or 1 fouls committed when he is one of the most physical players in the league? Superstars just get calls in their favor, and less often against. If that isn't a team advantage nothing is.

When do you think superstars started getting calls?

[dreamgreen]

Superstar? Hard to say, what qualifies as a superstar and who currently is a Superstar?

Queen
Durant
Curry?
Harden?
Westbrook?

[PhoSita]

The NBA is a stars' league, always has been, and always will be.  Any team worth talking about from a historical perspective -- not just championship winners -- had Hall of Fame caliber players leading the way.

So no, it's not a fallacy.


No team exits a rebuild phase until it secures at least one core star.  Doesn't have to be a top 5 player / superstar (don't want to get into that semantics debate), but you need a top 15-20 guy.

[jbpats]

The NBA was in a very bad place when the Pistions were dominant in the early 00's. In my opinion one of the most boring and unispired times for the NBA. They were almost the best by default, that kind of team would never be as dominant in today's NBA.
I think teams do need stars to compete in today's NBA for the following reasons.
1) I still think the NBA is rigged (unfortunately), I think the league wants their stars represented, it just holds for better TV and in the end more money in their pockets..
2) superstars always get calls. #1 culprit Lebron James, how many delayed calls have we seen go his way simply because he complained? How many games has he walked out with 0 or 1 fouls committed when he is one of the most physical players in the league? Superstars just get calls in their favor, and less often against. If that isn't a team advantage nothing is.

When do you think superstars started getting calls?

Jordan era.

[D.o.s.]

Given what you know about the NBA and how difficult it is to actually referee the game of basketball, why the arbitrary start date? Who's to say superstars weren't getting calls during the Russell/Wilt era?