Star or Chemistry -- Which Wins Out?

[PhoSita]

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.

Doubt many teams even get to the Finals, let alone win a title, with poor chemistry.  That said, it seems to me that star talent (even the Pistons had that) is a lot harder to secure than good chemistry. 

You figure out the former and then work on the latter, not the other way around.

[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.

Doubt many teams even get to the Finals, let alone win a title, with poor chemistry.  That said, it seems to me that star talent (even the Pistons had that) is a lot harder to secure than good chemistry. 

You figure out the former and then work on the latter, not the other way around.

I'd agree with that, I'm just saying great chemistry is a modestly more common characteristic of champions than transcendent talent, when it's often perceived as the opposite.  That doesn't mean teams should forgo getting stars to work on chemistry, especially since as you note top talent is awfully rare.

The flip side though is that some stars legitimately are bad for chemistry to a degree their talents can't offset, making it nearly impossible to put a championship roster around them.

[Moranis]

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.

The Pistons may not have had a special room Hall of Fame player, but they had plenty of top level talent.  Ben Wallace won multiple DPOY and rebounding titles.  Sheed, Billups, and Hamilton were all multiple time all stars.  Prince was an All Defensive member for a number of seasons.  People forget that team also had Okur and Williamson.  In fact, I would argue losing Okur was one of the main reasons they didn't win the Finals in 05.   That team was certainly more of an exception, but it is almost impossible to duplicate because it is almost impossible to have that many multiple time all star players without having a special room player. 

[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.

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.

Those guys--Billups, 'Sheed, Big Ben--were all very talented.  I would argue, though, that their legacies are enhanced exponentially by the fact that they won a title.

Winning absolutely changes how players are perceived.  The '04 Pistons are a great example of that.

I also happen to think that being in the right situation can make players better.   

[PhoSita]

Winning absolutely changes how players are perceived.  The '04 Pistons are a great example of that.

I also happen to think that being in the right situation can make players better.   

You'll get no argument from me on either point, I still think you're underselling how talented that team was.

[PhoSita]

The flip side though is that some stars legitimately are bad for chemistry to a degree their talents can't offset, making it nearly impossible to put a championship roster around them.

That's true.  Perhaps guys like Gorman are of the belief Cousins is one of those players. I'm not convinced of that.

I've said before, my feeling is that Cousins just needs the right situation and he could have a turnaround like Z-Bo or Sheed had after starting their careers on troubled teams.  Cousins is probably more talented than either of them, too.

[Celtics18]

Winning absolutely changes how players are perceived.  The '04 Pistons are a great example of that.

I also happen to think that being in the right situation can make players better.   

You'll get no argument from me on either point, I still think you're underselling how talented that team was.

I think you may be underselling how talented ours is.  If we manage to make some noise in the playoffs with this group, our talent level will be perceived much differently than it is now. 

[CelticGuardian]

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.

I don't know about that... Cousins comes with some red flags and these are well documented... If you want to practice willful blindness and say his star power is worth it... than it is as much of a risk as picking a player in the top 5... it can work out but there are no guarantees...

[Ed Hollison]

A couple of thoughts on this…

1)   Sometimes guys who aren’t perceived as good teammates come to the right situation and become good if not great teammates. Wasn’t Dennis Johnson supposedly one example? Also, let’s keep in mind some of the stuff that supposedly legendary players have done to hurt their teams which we quickly forget. Paul Pierce technical fouled his way out of the last minute of a playoff game and showed up to the press conference joking around with a bandage around his face. Larry Bird broke his hand in a bar fight in the middle of the Eastern Conference Finals. Can you imagine what people would say if such a thing happened today?

2)   With that said, I think it’s too easy to conclude that Cousins is some sort of locker room cancer. I’m not saying he isn’t, I’m just saying there isn’t clear proof on this. I haven’t watched him a ton, but he definitely did dog it on a couple of trips down the floor in Mexico City. The question is: Does he care about basketball and about winning? I’d submit that it’s impossible for anyone, even with his physical talents, to put up the numbers that he has in his career without giving a sh**. On this topic, note that Cousins added a 3-pointer to his repertoire in the offseason after inking a mammoth new contract. Point is, I think the criticism of this guy is too harsh.

3)   I hear what people are saying about the fact that so few NBA champions have lacked superstars. But keep in mind that the rules of the game (literally) have changed. Most of the examples we cite are in a illegal defense world (not defensive 3-seconds), which heavily favored hero ball and isolation play over passing. It’s quite possible that in the current era, you don’t in fact need a super-duper star to win.

[PhoSita]

Winning absolutely changes how players are perceived.  The '04 Pistons are a great example of that.

I also happen to think that being in the right situation can make players better.   

You'll get no argument from me on either point, I still think you're underselling how talented that team was.

I think you may be underselling how talented ours is.  If we manage to make some noise in the playoffs with this group, our talent level will be perceived much differently than it is now.

Sure.  For example, Crowder is already refashioning himself from "scrappy bench guy" to "tougher Demarre Carroll for half as much money."  I didn't think Crowder could play this well in starter minutes, and I'm psyched about it.

Still, do you think anybody on this team is gonna go and win DPOY 4 years in a row?  That's what I mean when I say you're underselling the talent on this Pistons teams.  Ben Wallace was a historic player, not just because his teams went far in the playoffs, but because he was really good.

[Moranis]

Winning absolutely changes how players are perceived.  The '04 Pistons are a great example of that.

I also happen to think that being in the right situation can make players better.   

You'll get no argument from me on either point, I still think you're underselling how talented that team was.

I think you may be underselling how talented ours is.  If we manage to make some noise in the playoffs with this group, our talent level will be perceived much differently than it is now.

Ben Wallace had already won 2 DPOY, been an ALL NBA 2nd and 3rd member, an all star, and finished in the top 10 in MVP voting twice - BEFORE the 03/04 season even started.  Rip was a 20 ppg scorer already in his young career before the title season.  Sheed had multiple all star games before he was ever traded to Detroit.  Chauncey seemed to be helped a great deal by the title run, and wasn't an all star until a couple of seasons later. 

It is conceivably possible there are a couple of Chauncey type players on the current Celtics squad.  There is no Ben Wallace though.  No one is even close to him.  There probably isn't a Sheed level player either, though perhaps Sullinger may put it together someday (the key being someday). 

[PhoSita]

3)   I hear what people are saying about the fact that so few NBA champions have lacked superstars. But keep in mind that the rules of the game (literally) have changed. Most of the examples we cite are in a illegal defense world (not defensive 3-seconds), which heavily favored hero ball and isolation play over passing. It’s quite possible that in the current era, you don’t in fact need a super-duper star to win.

The 2011 Mavs might be an example.  Was Dirk a superduperstar at that point in time?  The rest of the main guys -- Terry, Marion, Chandler, Kidd -- were any of those guys stars when the team won a title?

Nevertheless, Dirk was, and still is, an amazing player, and that team was built perfectly around him.  With all that, they took advantage of a Western Conference that was open for the taking with the Lakers falling off, and a Heat team that was still figuring it out.  I think you can win with a team like that, but you've got to have a lot of things go your way.  The Mavs put contending teams around Dirk for a decade before they finally won.

Maybe the 2013 Spurs are another example.  Who on that team was a superstar when they won?  That seems to me like an example of how this can go the other way, though.  If you put a bunch of really talented players in a ball-sharing system under an amazing coach and their numbers go down, does that mean the team wasn't super talented, or does it just mean the guys weren't chasing their own numbers?

[SHAQATTACK]

Stars with Chemistry

[Celtics18]

Winning absolutely changes how players are perceived.  The '04 Pistons are a great example of that.

I also happen to think that being in the right situation can make players better.   

You'll get no argument from me on either point, I still think you're underselling how talented that team was.

I think you may be underselling how talented ours is.  If we manage to make some noise in the playoffs with this group, our talent level will be perceived much differently than it is now.

Sure.  For example, Crowder is already refashioning himself from "scrappy bench guy" to "tougher Demarre Carroll for half as much money."  I didn't think Crowder could play this well in starter minutes, and I'm psyched about it.

Still, do you think anybody on this team is gonna go and win DPOY 4 years in a row?  That's what I mean when I say you're underselling the talent on this Pistons teams.  Ben Wallace was a historic player, not just because his teams went far in the playoffs, but because he was really good.

I absolutely believe that if the Cs start winning fifty a year and putting themselves in legit contention that Marcus Smart and Jae Crowder would be in contention DPOY every year (maybe Avery as well).

Unfortunately, they'd probably steal votes from each other, though.

[Celtics18]

3)   I hear what people are saying about the fact that so few NBA champions have lacked superstars. But keep in mind that the rules of the game (literally) have changed. Most of the examples we cite are in a illegal defense world (not defensive 3-seconds), which heavily favored hero ball and isolation play over passing. It’s quite possible that in the current era, you don’t in fact need a super-duper star to win.

The 2011 Mavs might be an example.  Was Dirk a superduperstar at that point in time?  The rest of the main guys -- Terry, Marion, Chandler, Kidd -- were any of those guys stars when the team won a title?

Nevertheless, Dirk was, and still is, an amazing player, and that team was built perfectly around him.  With all that, they took advantage of a Western Conference that was open for the taking with the Lakers falling off, and a Heat team that was still figuring it out.  I think you can win with a team like that, but you've got to have a lot of things go your way.  The Mavs put contending teams around Dirk for a decade before they finally won.

Maybe the 2013 Spurs are another example.  Who on that team was a superstar when they won?  That seems to me like an example of how this can go the other way, though.  If you put a bunch of really talented players in a ball-sharing system under an amazing coach and their numbers go down, does that mean the team wasn't super talented, or does it just mean the guys weren't chasing their own numbers?

I think the Spurs are an interesting example.  I've always kind of thought that they make stars.  Not to take anything away from their great accomplishments, but I don't think Tony Parker or Manu Ginobili would be what they are if they had ended up elsewhere.  I think the same is probably true for Kawhi Leonard.