Star players are overrated

[LooseCannon]

Would rather have a pair of kings than hope to hit on a straight.

That's a really bad idea if you have a good straight draw and you're playing pot limit omaha.

[BudweiserCeltic]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology)

[guava_wrench]

The '14 Spurs had Duncan, but it was a 37-year-old very good Duncan, not the all-time great Duncan. If you blanked out the names on the jerseys and in the box scores, was that really the kind of star-studded team that this Celtics squad can't hope to mimic with a little more development and maybe one more defense-first semi-star addition to the frontcourt?

Leonard is considered a top 10 player at least.

The Spurs are deceiving because they don't need Parker and Duncan to do too much due to the system. But when the playoffs come, you see Leonard, Parker, and Duncan imposing their will at key moments.

Yeah, Leonard is considered that now. But in 2014? No. He's taken a huge step up the ladder since. At the time he was not a star.

Parker and Duncan were still all-NBA quality then and Kahwi was already good enough to be finals MVP. Just because the league didn't realize how great his talent was doesn't mean that the anti-star players concept has legs.

We also shouldn't confuse the stats of Spurs players in Pop's system with the state of their talent. Look at LMA. We know the kind of talent he is, but his counting stats are down across the board on the Spurs. LMA's stats this year are quite comparable to Duncan's 2 years ago.

2 years ago, when the Spurs won it all, Parker was second team all NBA. The previous year Duncan was first team all-NBA and TP second team. The year before that, TP was also 2nd team all-NBA. The Spurs in that period was converted to a faster paced team centered around Parker pressure defenses and Parker was around his peak. Parker will end up in the HOF, so I don't think the Spurs should be cited to support the OP's contention.

[flybono]

Love with Brooklyn pick or multiple piks with Horford and another shooter, u win the east next year

[Dino Pitino]

The '14 Spurs had Duncan, but it was a 37-year-old very good Duncan, not the all-time great Duncan. If you blanked out the names on the jerseys and in the box scores, was that really the kind of star-studded team that this Celtics squad can't hope to mimic with a little more development and maybe one more defense-first semi-star addition to the frontcourt?

Leonard is considered a top 10 player at least.

The Spurs are deceiving because they don't need Parker and Duncan to do too much due to the system. But when the playoffs come, you see Leonard, Parker, and Duncan imposing their will at key moments.

Yeah, Leonard is considered that now. But in 2014? No. He's taken a huge step up the ladder since. At the time he was not a star.

Duncan at 15 and 10 with his defense probably qualifies as a star, not to mention this is the Spurs and they don't follow normal rules. Regardless, if you count the 2013-14 Spurs as a superstar-less champion, that makes just two in the last two decades.

The '14 Spurs had Duncan, but it was a 37-year-old very good Duncan, not the all-time great Duncan. If you blanked out the names on the jerseys and in the box scores, was that really the kind of star-studded team that this Celtics squad can't hope to mimic with a little more development and maybe one more defense-first semi-star addition to the frontcourt?

Leonard is considered a top 10 player at least.

The Spurs are deceiving because they don't need Parker and Duncan to do too much due to the system. But when the playoffs come, you see Leonard, Parker, and Duncan imposing their will at key moments.

Yeah, Leonard is considered that now. But in 2014? No. He's taken a huge step up the ladder since. At the time he was not a star.

He was considered a star-level player by some fans of advanced metrics.  He did not have the sort of PPG that makes the general public view him as a star.

Okay, so then what we'd need to begin looking like those Spurs is a big man who can put up 15/10 and provide excellent defense, plus a 3-and-D wing who's beloved by the databall set? Plus an All Star scoring PG? Hmmm.

Yes, "only" they and the '04 Pistons would qualify as superstar-less teams. But remember that those same teams both came within a hair in a 7-game series of winning two championships, the Pistons the year after, the Spurs the year before. That's exactly as good an outcome as our '08 Celtics.

I get that the ideal model is a superstar-fronted team. But you need to be incredibly fortunate to wind up with a LeBron, a Kobe, a Curry. If you're not that fortunate, while you're waiting to capitalize on an opportunity for a player like that, then why not aim to be a consistent superstar-less contender like the '04 Pistons or '14 Spurs? Worst that happens is you repeatedly compete for a title. Best that can happen is that you strike gold and add a superstar to that.

[Lucky17]

Would rather have a pair of kings than hope to hit on a straight.

That's a really bad idea if you have a good straight draw and you're playing pot limit omaha.

We're playing basketball, though.

[max215]

The '14 Spurs had Duncan, but it was a 37-year-old very good Duncan, not the all-time great Duncan. If you blanked out the names on the jerseys and in the box scores, was that really the kind of star-studded team that this Celtics squad can't hope to mimic with a little more development and maybe one more defense-first semi-star addition to the frontcourt?

Leonard is considered a top 10 player at least.

The Spurs are deceiving because they don't need Parker and Duncan to do too much due to the system. But when the playoffs come, you see Leonard, Parker, and Duncan imposing their will at key moments.

Yeah, Leonard is considered that now. But in 2014? No. He's taken a huge step up the ladder since. At the time he was not a star.

Duncan at 15 and 10 with his defense probably qualifies as a star, not to mention this is the Spurs and they don't follow normal rules. Regardless, if you count the 2013-14 Spurs as a superstar-less champion, that makes just two in the last two decades.

The '14 Spurs had Duncan, but it was a 37-year-old very good Duncan, not the all-time great Duncan. If you blanked out the names on the jerseys and in the box scores, was that really the kind of star-studded team that this Celtics squad can't hope to mimic with a little more development and maybe one more defense-first semi-star addition to the frontcourt?

Leonard is considered a top 10 player at least.

The Spurs are deceiving because they don't need Parker and Duncan to do too much due to the system. But when the playoffs come, you see Leonard, Parker, and Duncan imposing their will at key moments.

Yeah, Leonard is considered that now. But in 2014? No. He's taken a huge step up the ladder since. At the time he was not a star.

He was considered a star-level player by some fans of advanced metrics.  He did not have the sort of PPG that makes the general public view him as a star.

Okay, so then what we'd need to begin looking like those Spurs is a big man who can put up 15/10 and provide excellent defense, plus a 3-and-D wing who's beloved by the databall set? Plus an All Star scoring PG? Hmmm.

Yes, "only" they and the '04 Pistons would qualify as superstar-less teams. But remember that those same teams both came within a hair in a 7-game series of winning two championships, the Pistons the year after, the Spurs the year before. That's exactly as good an outcome as our '08 Celtics.

I get that the ideal model is a superstar-fronted team. But you need to be incredibly fortunate to wind up with a LeBron, a Kobe, a Curry. If you're not that fortunate, while you're waiting to capitalize on an opportunity for a player like that, then why not aim to be a consistent superstar-less contender like the '04 Pistons or '14 Spurs? Worst that happens is you repeatedly compete for a title. Best that can happen is that you strike gold and add a superstar to that.

Okay, that little bit put a smirk on my face.

[LooseCannon]

Would rather have a pair of kings than hope to hit on a straight.

That's a really bad idea if you have a good straight draw and you're playing pot limit omaha.

We're playing basketball, though.

OK, it's a bad idea if your pair of kings are Rudy Gay and Ben McLemore.

[Lucky17]

Would rather have a pair of kings than hope to hit on a straight.

That's a really bad idea if you have a good straight draw and you're playing pot limit omaha.

We're playing basketball, though.

OK, it's a bad idea if your pair of kings are Rudy Gay and Ben McLemore.

Can't argue with that.

[guava_wrench]

The '14 Spurs had Duncan, but it was a 37-year-old very good Duncan, not the all-time great Duncan. If you blanked out the names on the jerseys and in the box scores, was that really the kind of star-studded team that this Celtics squad can't hope to mimic with a little more development and maybe one more defense-first semi-star addition to the frontcourt?

Leonard is considered a top 10 player at least.

The Spurs are deceiving because they don't need Parker and Duncan to do too much due to the system. But when the playoffs come, you see Leonard, Parker, and Duncan imposing their will at key moments.

Yeah, Leonard is considered that now. But in 2014? No. He's taken a huge step up the ladder since. At the time he was not a star.

Duncan at 15 and 10 with his defense probably qualifies as a star, not to mention this is the Spurs and they don't follow normal rules. Regardless, if you count the 2013-14 Spurs as a superstar-less champion, that makes just two in the last two decades.

The '14 Spurs had Duncan, but it was a 37-year-old very good Duncan, not the all-time great Duncan. If you blanked out the names on the jerseys and in the box scores, was that really the kind of star-studded team that this Celtics squad can't hope to mimic with a little more development and maybe one more defense-first semi-star addition to the frontcourt?

Leonard is considered a top 10 player at least.

The Spurs are deceiving because they don't need Parker and Duncan to do too much due to the system. But when the playoffs come, you see Leonard, Parker, and Duncan imposing their will at key moments.

Yeah, Leonard is considered that now. But in 2014? No. He's taken a huge step up the ladder since. At the time he was not a star.

He was considered a star-level player by some fans of advanced metrics.  He did not have the sort of PPG that makes the general public view him as a star.

Okay, so then what we'd need to begin looking like those Spurs is a big man who can put up 15/10 and provide excellent defense, plus a 3-and-D wing who's beloved by the databall set? Plus an All Star scoring PG? Hmmm.

Yes, "only" they and the '04 Pistons would qualify as superstar-less teams. But remember that those same teams both came within a hair in a 7-game series of winning two championships, the Pistons the year after, the Spurs the year before. That's exactly as good an outcome as our '08 Celtics.

I get that the ideal model is a superstar-fronted team. But you need to be incredibly fortunate to wind up with a LeBron, a Kobe, a Curry. If you're not that fortunate, while you're waiting to capitalize on an opportunity for a player like that, then why not aim to be a consistent superstar-less contender like the '04 Pistons or '14 Spurs? Worst that happens is you repeatedly compete for a title. Best that can happen is that you strike gold and add a superstar to that.

The '14 Spurs are not a good comparison. Parker was in his 3 consecutive year as 2nd team all-NBA. And as I already mentioned, LMA is a great example of how playing on the Spurs means lower stats -- just like Bosh in Miami with Wade, our Big 3 together, or Love in Cleveland.

The Pistons are a good comparison. Ben Wallace was a perpetual DPOY candidate, but not a superstar.

Of course, the Pistons starting lineup of Wallace-Wallace-Prince-Hamilton-Billups is in a different league than ours. If we ranked those 5 and our 5 starters, IT is the only Celtic that places in the top 6.

[Dino Pitino]

The '14 Spurs had Duncan, but it was a 37-year-old very good Duncan, not the all-time great Duncan. If you blanked out the names on the jerseys and in the box scores, was that really the kind of star-studded team that this Celtics squad can't hope to mimic with a little more development and maybe one more defense-first semi-star addition to the frontcourt?

Leonard is considered a top 10 player at least.

The Spurs are deceiving because they don't need Parker and Duncan to do too much due to the system. But when the playoffs come, you see Leonard, Parker, and Duncan imposing their will at key moments.

Yeah, Leonard is considered that now. But in 2014? No. He's taken a huge step up the ladder since. At the time he was not a star.

Duncan at 15 and 10 with his defense probably qualifies as a star, not to mention this is the Spurs and they don't follow normal rules. Regardless, if you count the 2013-14 Spurs as a superstar-less champion, that makes just two in the last two decades.

The '14 Spurs had Duncan, but it was a 37-year-old very good Duncan, not the all-time great Duncan. If you blanked out the names on the jerseys and in the box scores, was that really the kind of star-studded team that this Celtics squad can't hope to mimic with a little more development and maybe one more defense-first semi-star addition to the frontcourt?

Leonard is considered a top 10 player at least.

The Spurs are deceiving because they don't need Parker and Duncan to do too much due to the system. But when the playoffs come, you see Leonard, Parker, and Duncan imposing their will at key moments.

Yeah, Leonard is considered that now. But in 2014? No. He's taken a huge step up the ladder since. At the time he was not a star.

He was considered a star-level player by some fans of advanced metrics.  He did not have the sort of PPG that makes the general public view him as a star.

Okay, so then what we'd need to begin looking like those Spurs is a big man who can put up 15/10 and provide excellent defense, plus a 3-and-D wing who's beloved by the databall set? Plus an All Star scoring PG? Hmmm.

Yes, "only" they and the '04 Pistons would qualify as superstar-less teams. But remember that those same teams both came within a hair in a 7-game series of winning two championships, the Pistons the year after, the Spurs the year before. That's exactly as good an outcome as our '08 Celtics.

I get that the ideal model is a superstar-fronted team. But you need to be incredibly fortunate to wind up with a LeBron, a Kobe, a Curry. If you're not that fortunate, while you're waiting to capitalize on an opportunity for a player like that, then why not aim to be a consistent superstar-less contender like the '04 Pistons or '14 Spurs? Worst that happens is you repeatedly compete for a title. Best that can happen is that you strike gold and add a superstar to that.

The '14 Spurs are not a good comparison. Parker was in his 3 consecutive year as 2nd team all-NBA. And as I already mentioned, LMA is a great example of how playing on the Spurs means lower stats -- just like Bosh in Miami with Wade, our Big 3 together, or Love in Cleveland.

The Pistons are a good comparison. Ben Wallace was a perpetual DPOY candidate, but not a superstar.

Of course, the Pistons starting lineup of Wallace-Wallace-Prince-Hamilton-Billups is in a different league than ours. If we ranked those 5 and our 5 starters, IT is the only Celtic that places in the top 6.

Accolades aside, I get the feeling Tony Parker isn't who people are thinking of when they think of these Celtics lacking a star that could lead them to a championship.

You think a 37-year-old Tim Duncan would be averaging more impressive stats outside of the Spurs system? I think it's the opposite, that he's been kind of kept afloat there. Anyway, you're right, it's not about any one player's individual stats, but the stats and efficiency of the whole rotation. I don't think a collection of stats like the '14 Spurs is out of reach.

[PhoSita]

Were stars overrated when the Celts went from bottom of the barrel to 66 wins in 2008?

[jambr380]

Were stars overrated when the Celts went from bottom of the barrel to 66 wins in 2008?

Ubuntu...it was all Ubuntu.

[chilidawg]

The '14 Spurs had Duncan, but it was a 37-year-old very good Duncan, not the all-time great Duncan. If you blanked out the names on the jerseys and in the box scores, was that really the kind of star-studded team that this Celtics squad can't hope to mimic with a little more development and maybe one more defense-first semi-star addition to the frontcourt?

Leonard is considered a top 10 player at least.

The Spurs are deceiving because they don't need Parker and Duncan to do too much due to the system. But when the playoffs come, you see Leonard, Parker, and Duncan imposing their will at key moments.

Yeah, Leonard is considered that now. But in 2014? No. He's taken a huge step up the ladder since. At the time he was not a star.

Duncan at 15 and 10 with his defense probably qualifies as a star, not to mention this is the Spurs and they don't follow normal rules. Regardless, if you count the 2013-14 Spurs as a superstar-less champion, that makes just two in the last two decades.

The '14 Spurs had Duncan, but it was a 37-year-old very good Duncan, not the all-time great Duncan. If you blanked out the names on the jerseys and in the box scores, was that really the kind of star-studded team that this Celtics squad can't hope to mimic with a little more development and maybe one more defense-first semi-star addition to the frontcourt?

Leonard is considered a top 10 player at least.

The Spurs are deceiving because they don't need Parker and Duncan to do too much due to the system. But when the playoffs come, you see Leonard, Parker, and Duncan imposing their will at key moments.

Yeah, Leonard is considered that now. But in 2014? No. He's taken a huge step up the ladder since. At the time he was not a star.

He was considered a star-level player by some fans of advanced metrics.  He did not have the sort of PPG that makes the general public view him as a star.

Okay, so then what we'd need to begin looking like those Spurs is a big man who can put up 15/10 and provide excellent defense, plus a 3-and-D wing who's beloved by the databall set? Plus an All Star scoring PG? Hmmm.

Yes, "only" they and the '04 Pistons would qualify as superstar-less teams. But remember that those same teams both came within a hair in a 7-game series of winning two championships, the Pistons the year after, the Spurs the year before. That's exactly as good an outcome as our '08 Celtics.

I get that the ideal model is a superstar-fronted team. But you need to be incredibly fortunate to wind up with a LeBron, a Kobe, a Curry. If you're not that fortunate, while you're waiting to capitalize on an opportunity for a player like that, then why not aim to be a consistent superstar-less contender like the '04 Pistons or '14 Spurs? Worst that happens is you repeatedly compete for a title. Best that can happen is that you strike gold and add a superstar to that.

You mean Crowder, Sullinger and Thomas?

[crimson_stallion]

Love with Brooklyn pick or multiple piks with Horford and another shooter, u win the east next year

I respectfully disagree.

I think we would be very competitive with those guys added and would be an easy top 3 seed (I suspect with a very close win record to Cleveland and Toronto) but I'm not convinced that those two guys win us the East. 

I just don't think that they are big enough upgrades over what we have.  They are upgrades obviously, but not SIGNIFICANT enough upgrades IMHO to take us from where we are now, to winning the East. I think they make us maybe 3-5 wins better and put us up there around Toronto's win record.


Yeah yeah I know everybody is going to disagree with me, and that's fine.  This is just my personal opinion.