Star or Chemistry -- Which Wins Out?

[PhoSita]

Mike Gorman on Demarcus Cousins:

“He’s just got issues and you don’t want to be dealing with those.”

“It’s a real democracy (in the Celtics locker room). To bring Cousins in the middle of that would be crazy.”

http://redsarmy.com/2015/12/09/gorman-you-dont-want-cousins-in-boston/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RedsArmy+%28Red%27s+Army%3A+The+Voice+Of+Celtics+Fans%29

I've heard a few guys who are close to the Celtics express a strong sentiment against the team acquiring Demarcus Cousins.  The basic idea being that the Celts are a team that is thriving right now on egalitarian offense, fantastic chemistry, teamwide effort, and a general feeling that the team is a "democracy" under Brad Stevens, Mr. Even Keel.

The question, of course, is if not Cousins, then who?  What other major star is going to become available any time soon?  If the team is going to wait until the ideal star becomes available, how long might that wait last? 

To me this goes to a more basic question, which is whether the positives of the group we have right now -- a really likable group that is doing some things exceptionally well through the first quarter of the season -- should get priority over the effort to make moves that will give the team a chance at competing for a championship in the future.

Because that's the thing.  This team is a scrappy bunch of underappreciated guys.  They're playing better than many expected.  They're winning games without any major stars, or star prospects.  At the same time, I don't think even the most optimistic Celts fans think this team has any chance at a title, this year or in the future.  The Celts are playing elite, perhaps championship level defense, but their offense remains below average.  An upgrade will be necessary.

Upgrading this group may require disrupting, even detonating, the chemistry, perhaps even the style of play, that has lead to the success the team has enjoyed so far.  It's possible that an upgrade that helps the offense could set the defense back a ways (see: Milwaukee).  Team building is complicated and the results are not always easy to predict. 

But that's OK.  Ultimately, chemistry and togetherness are nice, but only if it leads somewhere further than the first round of the playoffs.

[LarBrd33]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NBA_champions

[Celtics18]

I'm with Gorman.  I don't mind building this thing up with the guys we have and through the draft.  If a big trade or free agent acquisition is made, I'd like to see it be for a guy who fits the culture we are developing here in Boston.

I certainly don't want to see an addition that changes the "DNA," a phrase I've heard Stevens throw out there quite a bit, of this team.

Gritty, defensive, cohesive:  Those are the qualities I want out of the next Celtics contender. 

I feel like we are on our way. 

[PhoSita]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NBA_champions

Right -- teams with Hall of Fame superstar talents win championships.  Teams without that talent don't.  That's a truism, more or less.  But how willing, then, are you to mess with or even completely detonate the chemistry and "democracy" that's helped the team enjoy success so far?

My feeling is, if you really think Stevens is such a great coach, you've got to be able to trust that he'll make it work when you bring in hotheads.  It's really nice that he's been able to lead the team to overachieve given their talent level. 

But no NBA team wants to stand pat with a group of scrappy role players.  Stevens will have to prove sooner or later that he can manage superstar personalities on a contending team.  Otherwise he's just another guy you keep around while your team rebuilds until you've got the horses to contend.

[PhoSita]

Gritty, defensive, cohesive:  Those are the qualities I want out of the next Celtics contender. 

I agree with you.  I guess I just think that these things are rarely linear.  It would be nice if the Celts could keep gradually adding to the current group and have them follow a straight line trajectory to contention, but that seems like wishful thinking, to me.

It's nice that the team is looking good so far this year, but I think that can be a distraction from the main goal here, which should be to get in place the key ingredients for a championship caliber team. 

First and foremost, that means having one or more elite talents who make a huge impact on the game almost every single night.  If adding those talents requires the team to reconfigure the game plan a bit to accommodate that talent, so be it.

[colincb]

The Cs don't want a cancer. They'll make pitches for any stars who are not.

[fairweatherfan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NBA_champions

Right -- teams with Hall of Fame superstar talents win championships.  That's a truism, more or less.  But how willing, then, are you to mess with or even completely detonate the chemistry and "democracy" that's helped the team enjoy success so far.

The HOF thing is a semi-tautology because rings are by far the biggest tiebreaker for getting marginal cases in, and in some cases guys who'd've never even been considered without rings.

Most title teams have had both tremendous superstar talent AND good chemistry, so the question for me goes - how many teams have won titles with great chemistry and little if any superstar talent?  A few, most notably the 04 Pistons and a couple of the 70s champs.  How many teams have won titles with great superstar talent but poor chemistry?  That's where it gets interesting, because it's hard to think of any clearcut examples for that one.  You could argue that the 00-02 Lakers had a lot of personality conflicts, for instance, but the oncourt chemistry always seemed much better than offcourt. 

Seems to me that both superstar talent and on-court chemistry are crucial, but it's "easier" (still nearly impossible) to win it all with great chemistry and (relatively) subpar stars than the other way around.

[wdleehi]

Stars are more important.  If the chemistry around the star isn't working, change the other chemicals. 



I want Cousins.  I want to see him out of the terrible run Kings and on the well run Celtics.   I want to see him get the chance to be on a team where this a clear goal and a clear plan on how to move forward vs. the Kings and the quick changes in both Coach and the GM. 

[Monkhouse]

I don't get this.

I don't get it at all.

"Cousins is a cancer," (every Celticsblog user that is against the notion of bringing DMC in.)

If he is a cancer, why do so many players on his team vouch for him? When have players ever consistently said anything negative about him? He's a hot head? He commits and causes technical constantly? People focus on the negative side of him, but never realize he has never ever committed any grievances outside of basketball, and doesn't have any misdemeanors, or felonies. People once vied for Okafor, but hes already been on the path of alienating most NBA fans with ridiculous off court demeanor's.

Umm, did people forget Kevin Garnett once made Glen Davis cry? How rough he was on rookies? Punching players in the ball, and playing absolutely dirty?

I mean, honestly, I think chemistry is VERY important, don't get me wrong!

But Cousins is on another level. He increased his free throw percentage even though he has been at PF, and stretching the floor at an extraordinary 11.7 FTA, which is around the same territory as Durant, Harden, etc.

One simple question. Has anyone EVER watched a Kings game? They suck. They really do. They play like they have no passion, or no lust or desire to completely put their hearts into it. George Karl is a good coach, but his system doesn't focus on defense.

Yes, we're taking a risk by bringing in Cousins. But if Stevens cannot even control someone like Cousins, what makes us think he can control Durant, Carmelo, or even KG, (had they stayed during the Brad Stevens era.)

In this league, you need stars. I'm hesitant on what trade package it would take to get Cousins, but I think people still need to think logically, and not emotionally. If this team truly just needs a superstar, (which it has been shown is the one important thing we need,) then Cousins is our best bet.

I would love Smart to be our key clog defensively. (If we can keep him of course.) I think he has already has the makings of a glue guy/Draymond Green type of guy that is our leader vocally, and defensively is the one who'll set the tone.

At the end of the day, contending and merely being competitive are two different things. Chemistry is always important, but you know what instills chemistry? Winning. We can certainly win without Cousins, and can certainly be on the right track with Cousins. If a player like Cousins who has statistically proven that hes on the path, to being one of the greatest bigs to play the game, why wouldn't you want him?

All this issues with him being hot tempered, and angry can make any fan wary, but I really don't get this evaluation where we psycho-analyze every distinct incident that Cousins has done in the past.

Its the past.

Cousins is clearly becoming more open minded, and understanding certain things that he can and cannot do. And you also got to take into account the environment; Sacramento Kings is a mess. No one and nobody can dispute that.

Had Cousins been drafted by a better franchise, I think he would've excelled. Sometimes when we're young, bad habits occur. I think if there is any coach in the league besides Pop, Rivers, and maybe a select few, Brad Stevens can definitely tame this beast.

[fairweatherfan]

Umm, did people forget Kevin Garnett once made Glen Davis cry? How rough he was on rookies? Punching players in the ball, and playing absolutely dirty?

Is this a typo or was it Nene?   

[td450]

I think we need to define our terms here.

Over a third of of the championships won in the past 60 or so years have been with a player you could describe as clearly the best player in the league. You have about a 50/50 chance if you've got that level of player.

Often it's true that there is no one that dominant, and the league still has to crown someone. Most of those times, whoever wins has someone you could argue is the best player in the league.

Once or possibly twice a decade or so, a team with chemistry and no MVP candidate wins a title.

Stars are nice to have, but unless you are talking top 3 MVP level stars, you need a lot of luck to win a title.

[td450]

I think we need to define our terms here.

Over a third of of the championships won in the past 60 or so years have been with a player you could describe as clearly the best player in the league. You have about a 50/50 chance if you've got that level of player.

Often it's true that there is no one that dominant, and the league still has to crown someone. Most of those times, whoever wins has someone you could argue is the best player in the league.

Once or possibly twice a decade or so, a team with chemistry and no MVP candidate wins a title.

Stars are nice to have, but unless you are talking top 3 MVP level stars, you need a lot of luck to win a title.

[Celtics18]

Gritty, defensive, cohesive:  Those are the qualities I want out of the next Celtics contender. 

I agree with you.  I guess I just think that these things are rarely linear.  It would be nice if the Celts could keep gradually adding to the current group and have them follow a straight line trajectory to contention, but that seems like wishful thinking, to me.

It's nice that the team is looking good so far this year, but I think that can be a distraction from the main goal here, which should be to get in place the key ingredients for a championship caliber team. 

First and foremost, that means having one or more elite talents who make a huge impact on the game almost every single night.  If adding those talents requires the team to reconfigure the game plan a bit to accommodate that talent, so be it.

I disagree.  My dream is to see the next Celtics' champion be a "starless" one.  I know it's very rare--the '04 Pistons are the only ones during my era  (and kind of the '14 Spurs) to pull it off. 

I like the direction we are headed.  You talk about "huge impact" every single night.  I'm of the opinion that we already have two guys in Jae Crowder and Marcus Smart who make that kind of impact on the game almost every night.  Of course it doesn't show up in the box scores so much because that impact is on the defensive end of the floor. 

I guess I'm not against bringing in a high volume scorer who's taller than 5'9", but not at the expense of what this team is all about. 



 

[PhoSita]

I think we need to define our terms here.

Over a third of of the championships won in the past 60 or so years have been with a player you could describe as clearly the best player in the league. You have about a 50/50 chance if you've got that level of player.

Often it's true that there is no one that dominant, and the league still has to crown someone. Most of those times, whoever wins has someone you could argue is the best player in the league.

Once or possibly twice a decade or so, a team with chemistry and no MVP candidate wins a title.

Stars are nice to have, but unless you are talking top 3 MVP level stars, you need a lot of luck to win a title.

You're right about a large portion of title teams having one of the best 2-3 players in the league on it.  I don't know if you can really "plan" to have that guy on your team.

I think the best you can do is try and build a team that has a shot at going deep into the playoffs and perhaps making the Finals, for 5-10 years.  If you do that, maybe once or twice your team gets to the Finals.  Then, in a single series, anything can happennnnnnnnnnn (cue KG).

[PhoSita]

Gritty, defensive, cohesive:  Those are the qualities I want out of the next Celtics contender. 

I agree with you.  I guess I just think that these things are rarely linear.  It would be nice if the Celts could keep gradually adding to the current group and have them follow a straight line trajectory to contention, but that seems like wishful thinking, to me.

It's nice that the team is looking good so far this year, but I think that can be a distraction from the main goal here, which should be to get in place the key ingredients for a championship caliber team. 

First and foremost, that means having one or more elite talents who make a huge impact on the game almost every single night.  If adding those talents requires the team to reconfigure the game plan a bit to accommodate that talent, so be it.

I disagree.  My dream is to see the next Celtics' champion be a "starless" one.  I know it's very rare--the '04 Pistons are the only ones during my era  (and kind of the '14 Spurs) to pull it off. 

I like the direction we are headed.  You talk about "huge impact" every single night.  I'm of the opinion that we already have two guys in Jae Crowder and Marcus Smart who make that kind of impact on the game almost every night.  Of course it doesn't show up in the box scores so much because that impact is on the defensive end of the floor. 

I guess I'm not against bringing in a high volume scorer who's taller than 5'9", but not at the expense of what this team is all about.

That Pistons team was cool and all, I guess I just don't believe their title is something you can try to duplicate.  Also I'd disagree with you if you were to suggest that anybody on the Celts right now is close to having a Ben Wallace level impact.  We don't even have a Billups or a Sheed on this team, in my opinion.  That Pistons team gets a bit underrated these days when we talk about how much talent was in the starting lineup.