I'm not sure how many of you are reader of HardwoodParoxysm (hardwoodparoxysm.com) but I have noticed them recently taking a lot of unfair shots at the Celtics recently. I noticed another comment made there today about an article posted on our front page. I thought the response written by Moore was a bit weak because he seems to define the word "proven" as postseason success simply in order to weaken the point made on the front page when it seemed clear to me that what was implied by proven (on CB) was a championship winning core. I posted a long response on HP and thought we might have some discussion on the topic here as its pretty interesting
Undoubtedly, the Cavs have had a lot of postseason success. Finals appearence 2 years ago, took eventual champions to 7 games in second round, etc.). However, in the NBA, every 10 years, the number of teams with championships can usually be counted one one hand (if you select the 10 year window very carefluly, you might need an additional finger or two). This means that for many reasons, for any given era in the NBA, only a select few teams have the core necessary to win a championship. Many teams appear to have such a core (early 2000's Kings, Suns, Mavs, etc. ) but do not win championships despite much postseason success. The only way to prove, without a doubt, that you have such a core, is to win a championship. That, IMO, is the point being made by the Celticsblog writer. Out of all the cores in the NBA, only 2 have proven they can win the ring: The Spurs core, and the Celtics core (all other recent championship cores have since been dismantled). In that way, the Cavaliers core is not "proven." Of course, C's fans know better than anyone else (aside from Pistons fans) that the Cavs are a very dangerous team. But, we also know that they haven't proven the strength of their core yet.
The same point applies to superstars in the NBA. We find that every championship team has at least one player who is an all time great at their position (let's call this type of player super-elite for easy reference). On teams without rings, we speculate that such and such player may or may not be super-elite. However, because only a few teams win championships, we know that only a very small amount of players in the NBA at any given time are super-elite players (perhaps 4 or 5). Therefore, not all the players we speculate as super-elite are truly super-elite (in other words, Lebron, Kobe, Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, Kevin Durant, Derrick Rose, etc.) can't all be super-elite players. Only 3-4 of them truly are (since we know of at least 3 for sure (Duncan, Wade, KG.) The only true, foolproof way to know a player is super-elite is when that player is the best player on a championship team. In that way, Lebron and Kobe and CP3 and D12 are not proven in the way that D-Wade, Duncan, and KG are.
Oh, and before someone mentions the '04 Pistons, they lack a super-elite player only if you decide that defense is completely unimportant to the game of basketball. If you believe it is equally important to offense, you shouldn't have too much difficulty deciphering who the super-elite player on that team was.
Topic: Hardwood Paroxysm and the Celtics (Read 825 times)