Does it take more than a superstar?

[celticsclay]

I feel like one of the more common things I have read is that you just need a superstar to win. However, it seems like this doesn't seem to be as true as it once was. When I was thinking about this recently I was remembering how Kevin Garnett got his Wolves teams to the playoffs almost every year, often with horrible horrible talent around him. It seemed like the Celtics were expected to make the playoffs with Pierce and little else most years (as a lower seed of course). Going back further you had a player like Grant Hill pre-injury on the pistons taking them to the playoffs with almost nobody else. It, at least in my mind, used to seem like a superstar got you a 7th or 8th seed and the right to get beat down. Now we have a number of players that are discussed as superstars, (Paul George, Cousins, Davis) but there teams are not even making the 8 seed. Is that a reflection on them? A changing in the league?

[Ilikesports17]

Davis carried the Pelicans to the 8 seed two years ago. Last year he was hurt a bunch and this year they are real bad,  but only a 1.5 games out of the 8 seed and trending upwards.

George carried his team to the 7 seed last year and the Pacers are the 7 seed again.

The Kings are currently in the 8 spot out West.

[fairweatherfan]

Yes, it takes more than a superstar, league history is riddled with superstars who either never won or couldn't do it until they got the right support around them. The point is that it almost invariably INCLUDES a superstar (or two, or three). Need more than that, but we've got a nice cast of players and assets to put around such a player.

[celticsclay]

Davis carried the Pelicans to the 8 seed two years ago. Last year he was hurt a bunch and this year they are real bad,  but only a 1.5 games out of the 8 seed and trending upwards.

George carried his team to the 7 seed last year and the Pacers are the 7 seed again.

The Kings are currently in the 8 spot out West.

Do I really have to point out the problem with this post? Cousins has not made the playoffs his entire career. It is pretty much impossibly for both of Davis and cousins  to make it this year and reasonably likely that neither will.

You say last year he was "hurt a bunch" but he played in 61 games (which is about his career average) and they were never seriously in the playoff hunt.
 
George may be the toughest to include on this because the year the pacers missed the playoffs he only played 24 games, but they have been in and out of playoff positioning all year and if they end up on the outside looking in you would have to think that reflects on george at least a tiny bit.

[Ilikesports17]

Davis carried the Pelicans to the 8 seed two years ago. Last year he was hurt a bunch and this year they are real bad,  but only a 1.5 games out of the 8 seed and trending upwards.

George carried his team to the 7 seed last year and the Pacers are the 7 seed again.

The Kings are currently in the 8 spot out West.

Do I really have to point out the problem with this post? Cousins has not made the playoffs his entire career. It is pretty much impossibly for both of Davis and cousins  to make it this year and reasonably likely that neither will.

You say last year he was "hurt a bunch" but he played in 61 games (which is about his career average) and they were never seriously in the playoff hunt.
 
George may be the toughest to include on this because the year the pacers missed the playoffs he only played 24 games, but they have been in and out of playoff positioning all year and if they end up on the outside looking in you would have to think that reflects on george at least a tiny bit.

Alright, but neither Cousins nor Davis are on standard issue, superstar on a bad team teams, their teams are truly awful. The Kings are perhaps the most pitifully run team in the NBA. They have rifled through coaches, flirted with relocation and their superstar is perhaps the least mature superstar of the last decade and could himself be the root of many of their problems.

Davis has been a superstar for Id say 2.5 years. 1 of which he carried the team to the 8 seed. This year he is a game and a half out and trending towards the 8 seed.

[Fan from VT]

I think it is one of those "Necessary but not Sufficient" things. In order to win it all, you NEED a superstar, but having a superstar doesn't guarantee a title. So if you want to win, you need at least 1 superstar AND some other stuff.


With the usual caveats that Detroit won it once.

[bdm860]

I think you're just romanticizing the past.  When I think back about the time I think your thinking about I see:

Dwyane Wade missing the playoffs in '09.  Only played 51 games, but his team was 10-41 when he did play.

Kobe missed the playoffs in '05, and while he got in as a 7th seed the 2 years after that, those were both on teams that wouldn't qualify most other years in the West.

Garnett missing the playoffs in '05, '06, '07.

Pierce missing the playoffs in '06 and '07, and got in with a 36 win team in '04.  In '07 when he did play, his team was 20-27.

Iverson missing the playoffs in '04 and '06.  (only played 48 games in '04, but the team was 19-29 when he did play).

Vince Carter missing the playoffs in '03 and '04.

Surely those guys were considered superstars at the time.  I don't think it's any different now with Cousins, George, and Davis than it was for guys like Wade, Kobe, Garnett, Pierce, Iverson, and Carter 10-15 years ago.  With those "superstars" on your team and nothing else, you could be in position to snag a #7 or #8 seed.  Still you need other chips to fall just right to make it happen, some years it happens, some years it doesn't.

[celticsclay]

I think you're just romanticizing the past.  When I think back about the time I think your thinking about I see:

Dwyane Wade missing the playoffs in '09.  Only played 51 games, but his team was 10-41 when he did play.

Kobe missed the playoffs in '05, and while he got in as a 7th seed the 2 years after that, those were both on teams that wouldn't qualify most other years in the West.

Garnett missing the playoffs in '05, '06, '07.

Pierce missing the playoffs in '06 and '07, and got in with a 36 win team in '04.  In '07 when he did play, his team was 20-27.

Iverson missing the playoffs in '04 and '06.  (only played 48 games in '04, but the team was 19-29 when he did play).

Vince Carter missing the playoffs in '03 and '04.

Surely those guys were considered superstars at the time.  I don't think it's any different now with Cousins, George, and Davis than it was for guys like Wade, Kobe, Garnett, Pierce, Iverson, and Carter 10-15 years ago.  With those "superstars" on your team and nothing else, you could be in position to snag a #7 or #8 seed.  Still you need other chips to fall just right to make it happen, some years it happens, some years it doesn't.

I will definitely give you KG. My memory was that he had made the playoffs every year except for one. Your other examples actually kind of make my point though listing a few isolated seasons from guys (and you acknowledge many of them were seasons the superstars missed lots of games) suggests that they all did make the playoffs most seasons.

Iverson is actually a great example of what I am talking about. For just about his entire career he was able to make the playoffs despite a really mediocre to bad supporting cast every season.
He went 6 out of 7 years in Philly once he really became a star in his 3rd season.

While I am not saying this is completely cut and dry, I do think there really is something to teams with one superstar having a harder go of it than in the past. My hypothesis would be the congregation of superstars on a few top teams and then superior role players also wanting to join those superstar teams leaving the teams with a single superstar in a really bad position.

Then again, this could all just my imagination, not something I feel super strongly on but thought it was interesting food or thought on a slow day.

[Moranis]

It is hard to look at the start of a player's career because teams and situations are so much different, but even so it is rare for a great player to make the playoffs the first couple of seasons especially when you are talking about a top 5 pick (i.e. a bad team). 

It was also a lot easier to make the playoffs in the 80's because there were less teams but the same amount of playoff teams.  I mean the Bulls made the playoffs in Jordan's first three seasons, but they won 38, 30, and 40 games, it wasn't until Pippen arrived in Jordan's 4th year that Bulls were a .500 team winning 50 games and making the 2nd round.  Take that 84-85 season (Jordan's rookie year).  The 6th seed in the East won just 40 games.  The 6th seed in the West won 41 games.  So 6 teams made the playoffs at .500 or below and the 5th seed in each conference was 42-40.  And that was pretty much the norm for the time period.  I mean when there are only 23 teams and 16 of them make the playoffs a lot of bad teams are going to be making the playoffs every year.  I mean the Spurs made the playoffs one year in the 80's at 31-51.  Expansion at the end of the 80's and early 90's started to help with that, but you still had plenty of below .500 teams making the playoffs in both leagues for awhile. 

[JohnP]

If they were in the East they both would have made the playoffs multiple times in my opinion. 

[celticsclay]

If they were in the East they both would have made the playoffs multiple times in my opinion.

It is actually a lot harder to make the playoffs in East right now and was also true last year. Do you realize the 8th seeded pistons won as many games last year as the 5th seeded Blazers? The West being the better conference really has not been true since the 2014-2015 season. The Kings won 29 games that year so I kind of doubt they could have made it any conference/division.

[celticsclay]

It is hard to look at the start of a player's career because teams and situations are so much different, but even so it is rare for a great player to make the playoffs the first couple of seasons especially when you are talking about a top 5 pick (i.e. a bad team). 

It was also a lot easier to make the playoffs in the 80's because there were less teams but the same amount of playoff teams.  I mean the Bulls made the playoffs in Jordan's first three seasons, but they won 38, 30, and 40 games, it wasn't until Pippen arrived in Jordan's 4th year that Bulls were a .500 team winning 50 games and making the 2nd round.  Take that 84-85 season (Jordan's rookie year).  The 6th seed in the East won just 40 games.  The 6th seed in the West won 41 games.  So 6 teams made the playoffs at .500 or below and the 5th seed in each conference was 42-40.  And that was pretty much the norm for the time period.  I mean when there are only 23 teams and 16 of them make the playoffs a lot of bad teams are going to be making the playoffs every year.  I mean the Spurs made the playoffs one year in the 80's at 31-51.  Expansion at the end of the 80's and early 90's started to help with that, but you still had plenty of below .500 teams making the playoffs in both leagues for awhile.

This is a fair point Moranis, so I appreciate that. I was trying to avoid discussing too many teams from the 80's and early 90's cause that part wouldn't be fair.

[Phantom255x]

Do you think Lebron is winning an NBA Finals without D-Wade and Bosh in their primes with Miami?

You think Lebron is winning last year without Love and Irving?

Yes Lebron makes the Cavaliers so much better and he does make a difference, but even Lebron needs some key pieces around him and a solid bench.

So yeah, you need a super star but you need a solid bench and another go-to guy in order to have a great chance of winning a championship.

That's why players like DeMarcus Cousins and Anthony Davis aren't winning championships right now or even making the playoffs. Superstars help but it's a team game as well.

[Who]

Three point shooting has become so inordinately important.

I wonder if it is something to do with that ??

Like a Superstar + 3 point shooting = playoffs.
Superstar but no 3 point shooting = no playoffs

[Vox_Populi]

Three point shooting has become so inordinately important.

I wonder if it is something to do with that ??

Like a Superstar + 3 point shooting = playoffs.
Superstar but no 3 point shooting = no playoffs

The alternative to shooting is possibly a good enough defense around the star. OKC are second to last in 3P% but are 9th in points allowed per possession. They will probably make the Playoffs though.