Star players are overrated

[walker834]

I bet if you add up our production at each position we are top of the league.  We also don't suffer the same drop off teams do because we have depth and don't have many players playing a ton of minutes. 

PG-Isaiah
SG-Bradley/Smart
SF-Crowder/Turner
PF-Sully/KO

I bet if you add up all these positions we are close to top of the league. Center is really the only position we are  average and Amir is serviceable and a good glue guy.  It makes sense why Ainge would target a young center to go with our group though when you look at it this way.  I'm tired of media speculation though in general.  The media just runs with stuff that isn't reality.

Sully and KO are a very good PF duo.  We are strong at guard.  We have an allstar in Isaiah.  Crowder and Turner and who we mix in is also strong.

KO is out, suddenly Sully's minutes jump. Whether he can play major minutes like that over long stretches is something else but as far as a duo they are very good.  We have depth behind him too.

[Monkhouse]

I bet if you add up our production at each position we are top of the league.  We also don't suffer the same drop off teams do because we have depth and don't have many players playing a ton of minutes. 

PG-Isaiah
SG-Bradley/Smart
SF-Crowder/Turner
PF-Sully/KO

I bet if you add up all these positions we are close to top of the league. Center is really the only position we are  average and Amir is serviceable and a good glue guy.  It makes sense why Ainge would target a young center to go with our group though when you look at it this way.  I'm tired of media speculation though in general.  The media just runs with stuff that isn't reality.

Sully and KO are a very good PF duo.  We are strong at guard.  We have an allstar in Isaiah.  Crowder and Turner and who we mix in is also strong.

KO is out, suddenly Sully's minutes jump. Whether he can play major minutes like that over long stretches is something else but as far as a duo they are very good.  We have depth behind him too.

To be honest, you also gotta take into account how good our coach is. He gets them to play hard for him, and Stevens has done a brilliant job with what he's been given. You need stars in this league to compete, get the necessary fouls in the clutch, take the tough shots, and stars usually bring in other stars.

[Roy H.]

How many good, balanced teams without a superstar when titles?

I don't think star players are overrated at all, unfortunately.  A genuine superstar is probably worth three good, but not great, starters.

[walker834]

I agree but having an intelligent coach who knows how to use players strengths and weaknesses puts us at an advantage in ways where we can throw different guys out there vs just do or die with one guy.

I bet if you add up Crowder and Turners production though it's similar to Lebron.

[KeepRondo]

IT made the all star game. Crowder was probably within 5 guys of getting there.

And Smart is a first team all defensive player.

Not like we don't have talent.

[LooseCannon]

How many good, balanced teams without a superstar when titles?

I don't think star players are overrated at all, unfortunately.  A genuine superstar is probably worth three good, but not great, starters.

The wrong stars aren't worth it.  I'm leaning towards the idea that extreme Morey-ism and trying to acquire any stars and worrying about fit/chemistry later is probably the wrong approach.  It's probably best to avoid players whose perceived star status is based solely on scoring and do little to help win games when their shots aren't falling.  Those players have value, but they shouldn't be given max contracts.  I'm a lot happier acquiring players with star-level production who aren't seen as such because more of their value comes on defense rather than offense.

[chilidawg]

I agree that the relentless narrative about getting stars gets old.  You have to improve your talent, but also your chemistry.  I think Ainge really gets this, and that's why he's patient about making trades, being sure he's acquiring the right talent.

The relentless ESPN/media hype on the stars is part of the reason that the narrative is so strong.

[walker834]

Im more looking forward to the C's with this method just continue to add talent and keep playing this way as a team vs having 1 or 2 guys. So many teams in the league just bail on their teams and players and don't develop this way.  If a guy is better he will play more but I feel like depth is going to be an important factor for us and having an assortment of guys  who share t he ball and really maximize their potential together.

Currenty as a group we are top offensive and defensive team and have a top record over the last stretch.   We are better than a lot of teams.

[max215]

You can't win (in the postseason) without stars, and for every 2003-4 Pistons there are five 2014-15 Hawks.

[walker834]

We need a low post guy imo and players who can do things in spots and raise their game for sure but i wouldn't throw this out the window.

[mctyson]

I struggle with the constant use of the word "star" or "superstar" on this blog and in NBA journalism.  Can someone please define this for me?

With regards to needing one of these players...I think there are maybe 5 guys in the entire league right now that you can take off their current teams, place them on another, and that team becomes an instant contender for a title:  Lebron, Curry, Durant, Westbrook, and Chris Paul.  To me, this is the only group that the word "star/superstar" applies to.

There are probably 10-15 other guys you can say are almost at that level, and maybe one of them will get there someday.  You can't argue that these players really change contender status much because their teams either have multiple other really good players on them (ie Khawi and the Spurs), or their teams aren't that good (Paul George and the Pacers). 

Then there are always a few teams in the league that really don't have any of the players in these categories, but those teams are collectively much better.  Toronto and Boston this year, Atlanta last year, etc.. 

I agree that in the Conference or NBA Finals, having a guy like Lebron who can go off for a 45-point night on the road like in Game 6 of the 2012 EC Finals, down 3-2, is invaluable.  But honestly there is very little if anything you can do to get a guy like that on your team.  You just have to be lucky. 

In lieu of waiting for luck, you can build a culture of hard work, effort, defense, togetherness, and competitive spirit.  Thats what the 2016 Celtics are about and I love watching them.  In that sense, star players are vastly overrated because I enjoy watching this team play basketball about as much as I would enjoy watching any MVP candidate play.  And that's what this is all about.

[GreenWarrior]

I think everyone forgets that the post-season is when you need a superstar. in the regular season you can win a lot of games the way the Celtics do by simply playing hard and having a bench...fresh legs goes a long way. see Atlanta last yr.

in the post season the glaring hole in the superstar area will be noticeable. when all the "playing hard" is trumped by seeing the Cavs simply dump the ball into Lebron and he either scores or gets free throws out of it. 

[bballdog384]

It's tough, because if the other team has stars (which they will in the playoffs), they play ISO ball for most of the fourth quarter. A good team wins with ball movement and pace, but this can't be maintained if the other team slows the ball down and makes shots, which is what a star does.

[jambr380]

You can't win (in the postseason) without stars, and for every 2003-4 Pistons there are five 2014-15 Hawks.

The Pistons had four all-stars and Prince, who was also a very integral part of that team.

I think you can win a championship without a genuine superstar, but you do need talent. And as long as you have talent, cohesiveness, and solid coaching, you will be successful. With success comes the recognition of your players in the form of all-stars/all-defense...hence, stars.

[walker834]

I think winning makes stars though.  I don't think there is any set way really.  It's just logic.  We could use some pieces but what those pieces are is debateable. The goal is to be able to defend and put the ball in the basket in big games.  History really teaches us very little that way or depends how you look at it. Just because people say it has to be done this way or whatever doesn't mean those people are right.

Red used to be asked the questions too.  He has a quote about talent and said you need talent but that's not the end all be all.