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

[Celtics18]

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

From what I can see, the only reason Rondo is on that list at #60 is because he was all-defensive 1st team in 2010 when we made the Finals.  Rondo has never made 1st or 2nd team All-NBA.  Elrod had Rondo listed as our best player on the 2010 runner-up.   For my money, that's nonsense.  KG was still our best player in 2010.   

This article was interesting, but I've basically already gone through this exercise a handful of times on a lesser scale.  Yes, you need superstars to win a title.  It's no coincidence that every champion has a top player or two.


At the most, Rondo is listed as a "bronze level" Superstar in this article and that's based on his all-defensive awards.  According to his article... how many teams have won titles with a best player as a bronze level superstar?  From what I can see... only ONE team.  THe 1979 Sonics... and they had two bronze level superstars... not just one.

In other words... History shows that we will never win a title with Rondo as our best player.  Hence why we're tanking this year (to try to land a proper superstar) and probably dumping Rondo for prospects before the year is out.

Sure, Rondo's only bronze right now, but of the fourteen active players ahead of him on Enchilada's list, only three of them are younger than Rajon.  He's at the very top of the bronze category as of right now.  I think considering his age and where he is that there's a fairly reasonable chance that he could move up into silver within the next few seasons, and possibly even gold. 

I would agree that platinum is most likely a stretch. 

[BballTim]

You think Celtics would have gone anywhere without Pierce/KG in 2010 or 2012?

  They wouldn't have gone any farther without KG or PP than they would have without Rondo in either of those years. Saying we wouldn't have had as much success without KG and PP isn't the same as saying they were carrying Rondo or were better than he was in those playoffs.

It's rather common knowledge at this point of the +/- impact of KG in 2012. It's kind of hard to argue Rondo was more important than him last year, but we all know your stance on Rondo, so no point in arguing that.

  No, KG was the most important player for us in the 2012 playoffs, I agree with that. But much of that importance was based on limiting the minutes of Steimsma (who was playing through an injury) and Hollins. That doesn't make him the best player though.

  If you're a fan of +/-, though, KG's astounding +/- in the 2012 playoffs was only slightly higher than Rondo's in 2011, where he played almost a third of his time with a barely usable left arm. It's also worth pointing out that the +/- of KG's that you referenced was (IIRC) the only time between 2009 and 2012 where any of the big three had a better +/- than Rondo in the playoffs.

As for 2010, NBATV aired a bunch of recent Celtics playoff games (from 2008-2010) and I recorded a lot of the memorable ones. KG at 76% was still so effective. Pierce was elite on both ends. Ray was hitting crazy shots. Rondo was making his circus passes. That was a team effort. You can rank them however you want, but they needed all four of them to get where they got. If KG was closer to 100%, it's not debatable IMO and we definitely hang another banner.

  I agree with that. If you watched the 2010 playoffs, you probably also noticed how Rondo's play was affected by the leg injury he picked up in the Magic series. If he'd have been healthy in the finals we'd have easily dispatched the Lakers.

[Celtics18]

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.

Lebron James, Shaquille O'Neal, Dirk Nowitzki, Paul Pierce, Kobe Bryant, Tony Parker and Kevin Garnett are all star players who have been either the best or second best player on a championship team who were not drafted in the top five by the teams that they won a championship with. 

There is evidence that there are other ways to get a superstar than picking him up in the top half of the draft lottery.

Of course, the alternate fantasy is that all we have to do is tank this season, and we are guaranteed a top pick from this year's draft who is in turn guaranteed to be a platinum level Celtic superstar for the next fifteen years, while leading us to multiple championships.

We've discussed this in the past, but I don't think it's really that binary.

The argument for tanking is not based on the premise that IF we tank THEN we will get a franchise superstar in the draft.

The argument, at least as I try to make it, is that our best chance of getting such a player is to select in the top 5-10 of the draft.  It's possible to do it other ways, but it's far more difficult.

You say it's far more difficult to do it other ways, but that's not really the case.  One aspect of this whole debate that I don't really think is discussed enough is the fact that even if teams do get a superstar at the top of the draft, those players rarely pan out to be championship leading type players while still on their rookie contracts. 

The problem with sacrificing everything to get high in the draft is that when good young players are stuck on crappy teams, they often want to get away to somewhere where they feel they have a chance of winning at their first available opportunity. 

This is one of the things that makes the be as bad as possible to get a high draft pick plan such a risky proposition.  Sure, 2007 worked out for us, but the majority of the time being bad just begets more being bad. 

The thing about getting a veteran superstar player through free agency or trade (although, I admit it's certainly not an easy thing to do considering those types of players' overall scarcity) is that you are getting a player who wants to be on your team and is getting paid good money to be there.  You are also getting a player who is seasoned enough to know how to win. 

If you can find a way to get one of those players to pair up with the homegrown superstar that you already have in place in a situation with good role players, a good coach, and a winning culture, then, in my opinion, you have a recipe for success. 

To me "Wiggins or Parker or Bust" isn't really much of a thoughtful plan for rebuilding a contender. 

[PhoSita]

The problem with sacrificing everything to get high in the draft is that when good young players are stuck on crappy teams, they often want to get away to somewhere where they feel they have a chance of winning at their first available opportunity. 

This is one of the things that makes the be as bad as possible to get a high draft pick plan such a risky proposition.  Sure, 2007 worked out for us, but the majority of the time being bad just begets more being bad. 

I've said this before, too, but I view what you're talking about here as something separate from acquiring a superstar.  What you're talking about is managing the talent you have and properly building a team around them.

I have faith in our management to do a good job once we've got that franchise talent in place.  Until we have such a player, my only concern is getting that player, or getting the assets necessary to trade for that player.

[PhoSita]

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.

  The "fantasy" exists because, by my rough count, close to half of the players in the "top players" lists since 2000 are outside of your "vast majority".

Yet still the vast majority that weren't acquired in the draft were acquired by trading draft assets.

Lakers --> I don't think the Celtics can hope to emulate the Lakers, due to a variety of factors.
Spurs --> Duncan
Pistons --> You have to get very lucky to assemble a collection of talent like that and have the more-talented teams run into bad luck / implode; I also think the new CBA militates against collecting multiple stars like that Pistons team did.
Celtics --> Pierce; Allen was acquired w/ the #5 pick; Garnett never agrees to the trade if not for Pierce + Allen.
Mavs --> Dirk
Heat --> LeBron + Bosh never come to Miami if Dwyane Wade isn't there already.


That's just the championship teams, of course.

[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....

  How far have those two taken the Celts when Rondo wasn't healthy?

on the flipside, how far will Rondo take the C's without those two?

my point is, your point of "cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs" bears no real significance.

[LilRip]

The problem with sacrificing everything to get high in the draft is that when good young players are stuck on crappy teams, they often want to get away to somewhere where they feel they have a chance of winning at their first available opportunity. 

This is one of the things that makes the be as bad as possible to get a high draft pick plan such a risky proposition.  Sure, 2007 worked out for us, but the majority of the time being bad just begets more being bad. 

I've said this before, too, but I view what you're talking about here as something separate from acquiring a superstar.  What you're talking about is managing the talent you have and properly building a team around them.

I have faith in our management to do a good job once we've got that franchise talent in place.  Until we have such a player, my only concern is getting that player, or getting the assets necessary to trade for that player.

This. How can you create a culture for where a superstar would want to stay if you can't even get said superstar?

And acquiring via free agency can potentially be as risky as acquiring via draft. You run the risk of 1) the superstar choosing to go to another team, 2) being left with poor talent since you originally had to clear so much cap space, and 3) overpaying for a secondary star.

point is, piecing together a contender is hard. I think only a bad GM will have such a simplistic mindset of "#1 pick or bust" or "free agency or bust" that ironically, so many posters (especially "anti-tank" ones) seemingly have.

i would think that a good GM sees the plethora of options available to him, and while he will have a preferred plan to get there (either lottery, FA or trade or combination of all 3), he will always remain ready for whatever opportunity comes his way.

I dont understand the hate for the draft. It is not a lazy option simply because you don't draft a contender. You can draft a franchise superstar but you still need to BUILD a contending team around him.

[BballTim]

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.

  The "fantasy" exists because, by my rough count, close to half of the players in the "top players" lists since 2000 are outside of your "vast majority".

Yet still the vast majority that weren't acquired in the draft were acquired by trading draft assets.

Lakers --> I don't think the Celtics can hope to emulate the Lakers, due to a variety of factors.
Spurs --> Duncan
Pistons --> You have to get very lucky to assemble a collection of talent like that and have the more-talented teams run into bad luck / implode; I also think the new CBA militates against collecting multiple stars like that Pistons team did.
Celtics --> Pierce; Allen was acquired w/ the #5 pick; Garnett never agrees to the trade if not for Pierce + Allen.
Mavs --> Dirk
Heat --> LeBron + Bosh never come to Miami if Dwyane Wade isn't there already.


That's just the championship teams, of course.

  Duncan was drafted by the Spurs, the best asset traded for any of the others was probably a #5 pick in a draft with 4 players that everyone wanted. "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" isn't really the case at all.

[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.

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

  How far have those two taken the Celts when Rondo wasn't healthy?

on the flipside, how far will Rondo take the C's without those two?

my point is, your point of "cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs" bears no real significance.

  I don't think that the fact that Rondo's played less than half of his career and has barely entered his prime "bears no real significance" when comparing the career achievements of players. I'd say that if Rondo can't take this year's Celts team far, all it proves is that he's not LeBron, who would probably struggle to win with this cast.

[LarBrd33]

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

From what I can see, the only reason Rondo is on that list at #60 is because he was all-defensive 1st team in 2010 when we made the Finals.  Rondo has never made 1st or 2nd team All-NBA.  Elrod had Rondo listed as our best player on the 2010 runner-up.   For my money, that's nonsense.  KG was still our best player in 2010.   

This article was interesting, but I've basically already gone through this exercise a handful of times on a lesser scale.  Yes, you need superstars to win a title.  It's no coincidence that every champion has a top player or two.


At the most, Rondo is listed as a "bronze level" Superstar in this article and that's based on his all-defensive awards.  According to his article... how many teams have won titles with a best player as a bronze level superstar?  From what I can see... only ONE team.  THe 1979 Sonics... and they had two bronze level superstars... not just one.

In other words... History shows that we will never win a title with Rondo as our best player.  Hence why we're tanking this year (to try to land a proper superstar) and probably dumping Rondo for prospects before the year is out.

Sure, Rondo's only bronze right now, but of the fourteen active players ahead of him on Enchilada's list, only three of them are younger than Rajon.  He's at the very top of the bronze category as of right now.  I think considering his age and where he is that there's a fairly reasonable chance that he could move up into silver within the next few seasons, and possibly even gold. 

I would agree that platinum is most likely a stretch.

More likely we'll never see Rondo make an allstar game again.   That injury and losing 3 hall-of-fame teammates probably derailed his entire career.

Back when Rondo was in his prime, I could have seen him as the 2nd or 3rd best player on a contender.  But at this point, I don't think we're likely to see it... if he wins a title it'll be in the "Jason Kidd on the Mavericks" capacity.

[PhoSita]

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.

  The "fantasy" exists because, by my rough count, close to half of the players in the "top players" lists since 2000 are outside of your "vast majority".

Yet still the vast majority that weren't acquired in the draft were acquired by trading draft assets.

Lakers --> I don't think the Celtics can hope to emulate the Lakers, due to a variety of factors.
Spurs --> Duncan
Pistons --> You have to get very lucky to assemble a collection of talent like that and have the more-talented teams run into bad luck / implode; I also think the new CBA militates against collecting multiple stars like that Pistons team did.
Celtics --> Pierce; Allen was acquired w/ the #5 pick; Garnett never agrees to the trade if not for Pierce + Allen.
Mavs --> Dirk
Heat --> LeBron + Bosh never come to Miami if Dwyane Wade isn't there already.


That's just the championship teams, of course.

  Duncan was drafted by the Spurs, the best asset traded for any of the others was probably a #5 pick in a draft with 4 players that everyone wanted. "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" isn't really the case at all.

Well, the sentence you're quoting is a description of how things have been in the HISTORY of the league, not just since 2000.  You're right that things have shifted away from players necessarily winning for the team that drafted them.

Still, my assertion is that when you look at the teams that have won the championship since 2000, a key ingredient to reaching contention for almost all of those teams was getting a high pick that turned into a star, or that was traded for a star.

[D.o.s.]

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

From what I can see, the only reason Rondo is on that list at #60 is because he was all-defensive 1st team in 2010 when we made the Finals.  Rondo has never made 1st or 2nd team All-NBA.  Elrod had Rondo listed as our best player on the 2010 runner-up.   For my money, that's nonsense.  KG was still our best player in 2010.   

This article was interesting, but I've basically already gone through this exercise a handful of times on a lesser scale.  Yes, you need superstars to win a title.  It's no coincidence that every champion has a top player or two.


At the most, Rondo is listed as a "bronze level" Superstar in this article and that's based on his all-defensive awards.  According to his article... how many teams have won titles with a best player as a bronze level superstar?  From what I can see... only ONE team.  THe 1979 Sonics... and they had two bronze level superstars... not just one.

In other words... History shows that we will never win a title with Rondo as our best player.  Hence why we're tanking this year (to try to land a proper superstar) and probably dumping Rondo for prospects before the year is out.

Sure, Rondo's only bronze right now, but of the fourteen active players ahead of him on Enchilada's list, only three of them are younger than Rajon.  He's at the very top of the bronze category as of right now.  I think considering his age and where he is that there's a fairly reasonable chance that he could move up into silver within the next few seasons, and possibly even gold. 

I would agree that platinum is most likely a stretch.

More likely we'll never see Rondo make an allstar game again.   That injury and losing 3 hall-of-fame teammates probably derailed his entire career.

Back when Rondo was in his prime, I could have seen him as the 2nd or 3rd best player on a contender.  But at this point, I don't think we're likely to see it... if he wins a title it'll be in the "Jason Kidd on the Mavericks" capacity.

We still don't know that he's past his prime yet--although I agree that the injury certainly didn't help, it remains to be seen what Rondo 3.0 will look like.

[BballTim]

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

From what I can see, the only reason Rondo is on that list at #60 is because he was all-defensive 1st team in 2010 when we made the Finals.  Rondo has never made 1st or 2nd team All-NBA.  Elrod had Rondo listed as our best player on the 2010 runner-up.   For my money, that's nonsense.  KG was still our best player in 2010.   

This article was interesting, but I've basically already gone through this exercise a handful of times on a lesser scale.  Yes, you need superstars to win a title.  It's no coincidence that every champion has a top player or two.


At the most, Rondo is listed as a "bronze level" Superstar in this article and that's based on his all-defensive awards.  According to his article... how many teams have won titles with a best player as a bronze level superstar?  From what I can see... only ONE team.  THe 1979 Sonics... and they had two bronze level superstars... not just one.

In other words... History shows that we will never win a title with Rondo as our best player.  Hence why we're tanking this year (to try to land a proper superstar) and probably dumping Rondo for prospects before the year is out.

Sure, Rondo's only bronze right now, but of the fourteen active players ahead of him on Enchilada's list, only three of them are younger than Rajon.  He's at the very top of the bronze category as of right now.  I think considering his age and where he is that there's a fairly reasonable chance that he could move up into silver within the next few seasons, and possibly even gold. 

I would agree that platinum is most likely a stretch.

More likely we'll never see Rondo make an allstar game again.   That injury and losing 3 hall-of-fame teammates probably derailed his entire career.

Back when Rondo was in his prime, I could have seen him as the 2nd or 3rd best player on a contender.  But at this point, I don't think we're likely to see it... if he wins a title it'll be in the "Jason Kidd on the Mavericks" capacity.

  Rondo's just entering his prime. You're acting like he's the same age as "Jason Kidd on the Mavericks". Go back and check that list of players in that article and start finding players who accomplished everything that they did on that list before they turned 27. Your scenario isn't necessarily impossible but, historically speaking, it's probably less likely than the "History shows that we will never win a title with Rondo as our best player" claim you made.

[BballTim]

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.

  The "fantasy" exists because, by my rough count, close to half of the players in the "top players" lists since 2000 are outside of your "vast majority".

Yet still the vast majority that weren't acquired in the draft were acquired by trading draft assets.

Lakers --> I don't think the Celtics can hope to emulate the Lakers, due to a variety of factors.
Spurs --> Duncan
Pistons --> You have to get very lucky to assemble a collection of talent like that and have the more-talented teams run into bad luck / implode; I also think the new CBA militates against collecting multiple stars like that Pistons team did.
Celtics --> Pierce; Allen was acquired w/ the #5 pick; Garnett never agrees to the trade if not for Pierce + Allen.
Mavs --> Dirk
Heat --> LeBron + Bosh never come to Miami if Dwyane Wade isn't there already.


That's just the championship teams, of course.

  Duncan was drafted by the Spurs, the best asset traded for any of the others was probably a #5 pick in a draft with 4 players that everyone wanted. "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" isn't really the case at all.

Well, the sentence you're quoting is a description of how things have been in the HISTORY of the league, not just since 2000.  You're right that things have shifted away from players necessarily winning for the team that drafted them.

Still, my assertion is that when you look at the teams that have won the championship since 2000, a key ingredient to reaching contention for almost all of those teams was getting a high pick that turned into a star, or that was traded for a star.

  Almost every team in the league has either a high draft pick or a player that they traded one for. That's not what you'd call a differentiator.

[Vermont Green]

Not sure how this became a debate about Rondo but I think his place on the list is favorable to him.

I think the list is very unfavorable to Pierce and Kevin McHale.

I think that Rondo is elevated due to his all star appearance but he got that when all the best PGs were in the west or injured.  Antoine Walker was an all star too so that just shows that sometimes things fall into place for a player.

I hope Rondo comes back and continues to move up the list.  I think it will be much harder for him on a bad team though.  If he develops a better shot, he will still move up.