Multiple superstars needed to win an NBA championship (article Elrod Enchilada)

[chambers]

This guy is a Celtics fan and one of my favorite casual writers on the Celtics. He's insightful and knowledgeable and has been researching the 'superstar' effect on NBA teams and their championship hopes.

He's finally put together a very detailed look at the history of NBA championships going back 58 years and just how hard it is to win an NBA title.

I guess the discussion point of such a topic is how the best way to get one of these type of players is. Have a look at which category Rondo falls in to and ask yourself does pairing Rondo with Aldridge or Kevin Love seem more realistic than a top 3 pick?
We don't have to argue on what is the better method, just which one is more possible in getting one of these sure fire superstars.

From Elrod on his method:

" My exercise is simple: First, I make a list of the very best players in NBA history over the past 58 years. Why do I begin with the 1955-56 season? That is when the MVP award was introduced and MVP voting is a key part of my evidence. I use objective criteria, not my personal opinion. I want the list to be made based upon regular-season performance, to avoid having a list of best players that rewards players for playing on championship teams.

Once I locate a list of the top NBA players over the past 58 years, I figure out who the two best players have been on each NBA champion, and the two best players on each team that lost in the Finals. I also determine the best players on the other two teams that lost each year in the conference finals. In other words I determine the best players on each of the NBA’s “final four” every season, as well as the second best player on the two teams in the finals. I then see how many of these best players are from the list of best regular-season players, and where on the list they can be found.

The results, as you will soon see, are astounding. "

Full Article: (warning VERY long read, but incredible).

http://basketball.realgm.com/article/229431/All-Superstars-All-The-Time-The-Secret-To-Winning-Or-Contending-For-An-NBA-Title-Section-A

[lightspeed5]

theres people on here that think olynyk will win us a championship, so this is a good read for them.

[Celtics18]

The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list. 

[Clench123]

That's why I hate this idea of tanking for an opportunity at the lottery pick

[Celtics18]

This guy is a Celtics fan and one of my favorite casual writers on the Celtics. He's insightful and knowledgeable and has been researching the 'superstar' effect on NBA teams and their championship hopes.

He's finally put together a very detailed look at the history of NBA championships going back 58 years and just how hard it is to win an NBA title.

I guess the discussion point of such a topic is how the best way to get one of these type of players is. Have a look at which category Rondo falls in to and ask yourself does pairing Rondo with Aldridge or Kevin Love seem more realistic than a top 3 pick?
We don't have to argue on what is the better method, just which one is more possible in getting one of these sure fire superstars.

From Elrod on his method:

" My exercise is simple: First, I make a list of the very best players in NBA history over the past 58 years. Why do I begin with the 1955-56 season? That is when the MVP award was introduced and MVP voting is a key part of my evidence. I use objective criteria, not my personal opinion. I want the list to be made based upon regular-season performance, to avoid having a list of best players that rewards players for playing on championship teams.

Once I locate a list of the top NBA players over the past 58 years, I figure out who the two best players have been on each NBA champion, and the two best players on each team that lost in the Finals. I also determine the best players on the other two teams that lost each year in the conference finals. In other words I determine the best players on each of the NBA’s “final four” every season, as well as the second best player on the two teams in the finals. I then see how many of these best players are from the list of best regular-season players, and where on the list they can be found.

The results, as you will soon see, are astounding. "

Full Article: (warning VERY long read, but incredible).

http://basketball.realgm.com/article/229431/All-Superstars-All-The-Time-The-Secret-To-Winning-Or-Contending-For-An-NBA-Title-Section-A

To answer your direct question; I would say, yes.

And a counter question:  What do you think the odds are of the top three players in this year's draft all eventually making the All-time Best Ever NBA Players list?

[Clench123]

This guy is a Celtics fan and one of my favorite casual writers on the Celtics. He's insightful and knowledgeable and has been researching the 'superstar' effect on NBA teams and their championship hopes.

He's finally put together a very detailed look at the history of NBA championships going back 58 years and just how hard it is to win an NBA title.

I guess the discussion point of such a topic is how the best way to get one of these type of players is. Have a look at which category Rondo falls in to and ask yourself does pairing Rondo with Aldridge or Kevin Love seem more realistic than a top 3 pick?
We don't have to argue on what is the better method, just which one is more possible in getting one of these sure fire superstars.

From Elrod on his method:

" My exercise is simple: First, I make a list of the very best players in NBA history over the past 58 years. Why do I begin with the 1955-56 season? That is when the MVP award was introduced and MVP voting is a key part of my evidence. I use objective criteria, not my personal opinion. I want the list to be made based upon regular-season performance, to avoid having a list of best players that rewards players for playing on championship teams.

Once I locate a list of the top NBA players over the past 58 years, I figure out who the two best players have been on each NBA champion, and the two best players on each team that lost in the Finals. I also determine the best players on the other two teams that lost each year in the conference finals. In other words I determine the best players on each of the NBA’s “final four” every season, as well as the second best player on the two teams in the finals. I then see how many of these best players are from the list of best regular-season players, and where on the list they can be found.

The results, as you will soon see, are astounding. "

Full Article: (warning VERY long read, but incredible).

http://basketball.realgm.com/article/229431/All-Superstars-All-The-Time-The-Secret-To-Winning-Or-Contending-For-An-NBA-Title-Section-A

To answer your direct question; I would say, yes.

And a counter question:  What do you think the odds are of the top three players in this year's draft all eventually making the All-time Best Ever NBA Players list?

I see this point as well.  For the long term, this make sense

[European NBA fan]

I think the whole superstar concept is flawed. Wins make superstars ergo superstars are winners. Doh!

If you are the best player on a great team, there is a very good chance that you will get votes for All-Star, MVP, All-NBA teams etc. A great team will also win a lot of regular season games, and have a fair chance to at least reach the conference finals.

So if you construct a 55+ wins team around Rondo, there is a very good chance, that he will be perceived as a superstar.

[Celtics18]

I think the whole superstar concept is flawed. Wins make superstars ergo superstars are winners. Doh!

If you are the best player on a great team, there is a very good chance that you will get votes for All-Star, MVP, All-NBA teams etc. A great team will also win a lot of regular season games, and have a fair chance to at least reach the conference finals.

So if you construct a 55+ wins team around Rondo, there is a very good chance, that he will be perceived as a superstar.

Very good point.

It kind of helps to explain the fact that Rondo is already perceived as a superstar.

[Fan from VT]

I think the whole superstar concept is flawed. Wins make superstars ergo superstars are winners. Doh!

If you are the best player on a great team, there is a very good chance that you will get votes for All-Star, MVP, All-NBA teams etc. A great team will also win a lot of regular season games, and have a fair chance to at least reach the conference finals.

So if you construct a 55+ wins team around Rondo, there is a very good chance, that he will be perceived as a superstar.

I think the concept is solid but the curretnt/mainstream criteria for determining who is a "star" is exactly as you pointed out: flawed and filled with circular reasoning. Also ignored is the fact that many genuine superstars never win titles, which is actually completely logically consistent with the idea that you need stars to win, but is often misinterpreted/ignored.

[BballTim]

I think the whole superstar concept is flawed. Wins make superstars ergo superstars are winners. Doh!

If you are the best player on a great team, there is a very good chance that you will get votes for All-Star, MVP, All-NBA teams etc. A great team will also win a lot of regular season games, and have a fair chance to at least reach the conference finals.

So if you construct a 55+ wins team around Rondo, there is a very good chance, that he will be perceived as a superstar.

I think the concept is solid but the curretnt/mainstream criteria for determining who is a "star" is exactly as you pointed out: flawed and filled with circular reasoning. Also ignored is the fact that many genuine superstars never win titles, which is actually completely logically consistent with the idea that you need stars to win, but is often misinterpreted/ignored.

  Right, the real takeaway is that you need stars to win, but having stars doesn't guarantee that you'll win.

[BballTim]

The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.

  It's also worth pointing out that if you cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs the number of them with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far would drop dramatically.

[Fan from VT]

The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.

  It's also worth pointing out that if you cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs the number of them with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far would drop dramatically.

Happens to any player who benefits from being the young guy carried by 3 HOFers. Not surprising or very indicative of Rondo himself.

[PhoSita]

Unfortunately this gets us nowhere on these forums because the debate at the heart of these types of discussions is still the question of whether we ought to consider Rajon Rondo merely a complementary star, or instead a bona fide superstar.

Elrod's rankings tend to suggest that Rondo is in the former category, but since his points system revolves around subjective voting (although the voters are arguably better informed than the majority of us forum-goers) and results, those who believe Rondo is a superstar will find reasons to disregard Rondo's place on the list.

The other thing is that Elrod's article doesn't address how these teams acquired their franchise superstars.  I'd guess that the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft.  Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.

[Fan from VT]

Unfortunately this gets us nowhere on these forums because the debate at the heart of these types of discussions is still the question of whether we ought to consider Rajon Rondo merely a complementary star, or instead a bona fide superstar.

Elrod's rankings tend to suggest that Rondo is in the former category, but since his points system revolves around subjective voting (although the voters are arguably better informed than the majority of us forum-goers) and results, those who believe Rondo is a superstar will find reasons to disregard Rondo's place on the list.

The other thing is that Elrod's article doesn't address how these teams acquired their franchise superstars.  I'd guess that the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft.  Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.

Yeah, just started reading the article, but already MVP voting is incredibly subjective: Nash getting MVPs for playing half the game (offense) at a slightly lower level than CP was doing at the same time at the same position, for example, simply due to the TEAM outperforming expectations. Rose getting MVP despite there being better players that their teams WOULD NOT trade for Rose simply because he was the best player on a surprise team. Often MVP votes go up after a player is the key player on a title team, because now that player has proven they are a superstar because only superstars win so if they win they must be a superstar so now we can vote for them...

[LilRip]

The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.

  It's also worth pointing out that if you cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs the number of them with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far would drop dramatically.

i disagree that this is worth pointing out. well, maybe if KG and Pierce were lesser stars....