Is needing a superstar a fallacy?

[walker834]

The pistons proved that having 5 quality starters can get it done.  Why can't having 5 quality starters, a really deep bench and a coach who can play all these guys start a new trend?  We'd be starting something new here.  Stars are made not born anyways. Teams win basketball games suddenly players get recognition in all  star games. 

We'd need players who are unselfish and can sacrifice for the team but that's what it's all about here anyways.

[wdleehi]

Because they had players playing at the star level.


Ben Wallace was a star defender.


Rasheed Wallace had star level talent but his game was much more team driven to the point that his stats took the hit.

Billups was a top PG at that time.


Rip was one of the premier weapons coming off a screen.




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





The Celtics do not have that level of talent on their team.

[max215]

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

[wdleehi]

Still not a fallacy.  The teams you would argue are "non-superstar lead" are an exception. 

[walker834]

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.

[Surferdad]

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

Bingo, there's a reason it hasn't happened in 11 years.

Yes Hawks built same way but w/ o a center.

[D.o.s.]

There is some evidence that Ben Wallace was playing at a superstar level that year for the Pistons, and it wasn't recognized at the time because of how hard it is to measure defense.

The Pistons proved that having 5 all-NBA caliber starters can win a championship. That's not surprising. If anything it proves that the idea that you don't need a superstar player to win a ring is a fallacy.

[wdleehi]

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.

They had the star in the Dream when they won. 

Not all stars can win every year.  But in most years, there was a star involved.

[Beat LA]

Never mind, point was already made.

[GreenWarrior]

There is some evidence that Ben Wallace was playing at a superstar level that year for the Pistons, and it wasn't recognized at the time because of how hard it is to measure defense.

The Pistons proved that having 5 all-NBA caliber starters can win a championship. That's not surprising. If anything it proves that the idea that you don't need a superstar player to win a ring is a fallacy.

so what's easier? getting a couple superstars? or getting  5 all-NBA caliber starters?

i'd say the 2nd option but I still believe a team with a couple superstars will win more than them.

[walker834]

There are only so many superstars in the nba who aren't grossly overrated.  I'd rather the celtics develop their own stars vs trading for an overpaid one.

The nba is different now I feel where you have to develop players.  There are very few that come in and are that out of the gate like Pierce or whoever.  It takes time.  I'd be upset if the celtics trade players we have been waiting on only to have them blow up on another team where we get some overpaid guy.

[D.o.s.]

There is some evidence that Ben Wallace was playing at a superstar level that year for the Pistons, and it wasn't recognized at the time because of how hard it is to measure defense.

The Pistons proved that having 5 all-NBA caliber starters can win a championship. That's not surprising. If anything it proves that the idea that you don't need a superstar player to win a ring is a fallacy.

so what's easier? getting a couple superstars? or getting  5 all-NBA caliber starters?

i'd say the 2nd option but I still believe a team with a couple superstars will win more than them.

That's hard to say -- we've all spent a really long time trying to figure out what makes a superstar a superstar rather than a "very good player", and I still don't think there's an acceptable dividing definition out there. Also hard because you can't play the way the Pistons did anymore: the league changed the rules to make the games more watchable.

Worth noting though, that the Pistons traded for / signed in free agency the key contributors to their championship team. Also, they had Larry Brown at the reigns, one of the best coaches of the era/all time.

[celticsfan8591]

So we should pursue a strategy that has worked, by my count, twice in the history of the league (the Pistons and '79 Sonics) instead of the one that has worked every single other season?

[wdleehi]

There are only so many superstars in the nba who aren't grossly overrated.  I'd rather the celtics develop their own stars vs trading for an overpaid one.

The nba is different now I feel where you have to develop players.  There are very few that come in and are that out of the gate like Pierce or whoever.  It takes time.  I'd be upset if the celtics trade players we have been waiting on only to have them blow up on another team where we get some overpaid guy.

If they are overpayed, they are not a superstar.

[walker834]

So we should pursue a strategy that has worked, by my count, twice in the history of the league (the Pistons and '79 Sonics) instead of the one that has worked every single other season?

I'm not saying we should be the pistons ei ther.  I think we should do our own thing and develop our own players.  If there is a superstar out there who is going to win us a championship more than likely that player isn't going to be traded anyways.  People talk about superstars but name me one that would come here.  Name me one that is going to win us a championship.