Author Topic: The superstar model may be irrelevant for the Celtics  (Read 18527 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: The superstar model may be irrelevant for the Celtics
« Reply #60 on: August 19, 2014, 12:18:11 PM »

Offline vjcsmoke

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3173
  • Tommy Points: 182
So we should model our future roster on the odds that we draft one of the best position players of all time and move our international scouting game so far ahead of everyone else that we can still draft All-Stars and Hall of Famers while winning 50 games a year, every year, all while drafting complimentary pieces and immediately trading the guys that don't fit.

Seems easy enough.

Spurs did it.  But they got some kind of special mojo going on there.  But let's not forget that Duncan was a former #1 overall pick.  the Celtics have always gotten screwed in the lotto.  We're like the opposite of Cleveland in that respect.

Re: The superstar model may be irrelevant for the Celtics
« Reply #61 on: August 19, 2014, 12:19:56 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
That's kind of my point -- the Spurs model is not any easier to accomplish than the Pistons's model, which doesn't seem to be any easier to accomplish than the Celtics/Heat model, either.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: The superstar model may be irrelevant for the Celtics
« Reply #62 on: August 19, 2014, 01:14:52 PM »

Offline LB3533

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4088
  • Tommy Points: 315
Did the Lakers suck horrifically in their other playoff series that year?

No Tim, not horrific.

2004 Playoff League AvG was 88.0 PPG on 42.1%

2004 Laker Playoff Avg against Opp (sans Detroit) was 90.0 PPG on 45.2%
2004 Laker Finals AvG against Detroit was 81.8 PPG on 41.6%

2004 Pistons defended other teams better than they defended the 2004 Lakers: DET's OP (sans LA) PPGA - 80.39 on 38.5%

So as good as the Pistons defended the Lakers in the Finals, the Pistons were better at defending their other playoff opponents.

Based on the 2004 Playoff standard conventional statistics to rank the best to worst offenses performances against the Pistons: 1.) Bucks 85.6 PPG on 41.6%, 2.) NJ Nets 83.3 PPG on 39.3%, 3.) Lakers 81.8 PPG on 41.6%, 4.) Pacers  72.7 PPG on 34.9%

From additional statistics:

1.) Lakers 96.1 OFF RTG on 44.5% eFG%
2.) Bucks 95.8 OFF RTG on 44.7% eFG%
3.) Nets 93.5 on 42.5%
4.) Pacers 87.8 on 38.3%

A case could be made that the Lakers were the best offensive team performed against the Pistons in the 2004 Playoffs.

Likewise, a case could be made that all the other teams the Pistons faced in those 2004 Playoffs just stunk up the joint more than the Lakers did.

A fine point to be made is the Pistons played like the exemplified team. While the Lakers played like the antithesis team.

This aspect of the 2004 Pistons does not garner the respect it deserves. But from some perspectives, the 2004 Pistons were "under rated", "they won the title with no superstar" or whatever schitck they could muster. That Pistons team won the title within a season where there was significant mid season trade. Bringing in Sheed greatly benefited Detroit, but it didn't happen by default. The rest of the Piston players with the guidance of coach Brown made that team work.

The 2004 Lakers' behind the scenes "drama" received too much attention or credence than it should have. But that doesn't mean it should be ignored. This team wasn't able to make it work like the Pistons were able to make it work. The responsibilities rest heavily on the two superstars of Shaq & Kobe, and of course coach Phil too needs to shoulder some blame. The average NBA fan would have believed that those Lakers should have won it all by default, after all they had the supposed best one-two punch (Shaq's voice), the supposed best head coach in Phil Jackson, then they added perernial all-stars Karl Malone and Gary Payton, why wouldn't the Lakers win it all, especially after they beat the Spurs (that D.Fisher shot!) & they beat MVP KG's T-Wolves.

But unlike the Pistons, the Lakers couldn't make it all work in the end. No doubt the Pistons had a hand in hindering the Lakers' efforts, but the Lakers did a disservice to themselves too.


Re: The superstar model may be irrelevant for the Celtics
« Reply #63 on: August 19, 2014, 01:38:42 PM »

Offline Who

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47114
  • Tommy Points: 2401
The Pistons did not have an MVP caliber player on their roster.

But they made up for that with multiple lower level stars and an excellent bench. Chauncey Billups was a top 10 PG developing into top 5 PG. Rip Hamilton was a top 10 SG developing into top 5 SG. Tayshaun Prince was developing into a top 10 SF. Rasheed Wallace was a borderline top 5 PF. Ben Wallace was a top 5 center.

Then they had a great bench behind them. Corliss Williamson won 6th man of the year the year previously. They had excellent big man depth with Memo Okur (later McDyess) and an old Elden Campbell (later Dale Davis). A tremendous defensive backcourt duo in Mike James and Lindsey Hunter that scared the crap out of everyone. And Darvin Ham as a more athletic wing forward when defense was needed there over Williamson's offense. Probably the best bench in the league. Definitely one of the best.

I think the 2004 Pistons and the 1979 Sonics are great examples of how to build a team without an MVP caliber guy to build around. Both were [1] excellent defensive teams in the league (best in league, both of them) [2] strong rebounding teams [3] lacked an MVP caliber player but had multiple lower level stars [4] and excellent depth.

I think that type of model of a team suits a star like Rondo (one of the best facilitators / team players in league) very well and should be pursued if Ainge fails to get an MVP caliber talent alongside Rondo. The rumours about Roy Hibbert were very interesting to me as well because I think Hibbert + Rondo would be an excellent foundation to a team in the mold of the 2004 Pistons / 1979 Sonics. Terrific defense & rebounding foundation to set team identity and to build the rest of the team around.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2014, 01:51:21 PM by Who »

Re: The superstar model may be irrelevant for the Celtics
« Reply #64 on: August 20, 2014, 10:29:59 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
Did the Lakers suck horrifically in their other playoff series that year?

No Tim, not horrific.

2004 Playoff League AvG was 88.0 PPG on 42.1%

2004 Laker Playoff Avg against Opp (sans Detroit) was 90.0 PPG on 45.2%
2004 Laker Finals AvG against Detroit was 81.8 PPG on 41.6%

  Right, so the Lakers went into the finals having one of the top postseason offenses, ran into the best defensive team in the playoffs and fell flat. You aren't really giving the Pistons enough credit for the Lakers bad play in the finals.

Re: The superstar model may be irrelevant for the Celtics
« Reply #65 on: August 20, 2014, 10:39:15 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
^ Agreed.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: The superstar model may be irrelevant for the Celtics
« Reply #66 on: August 23, 2014, 02:51:12 PM »

Offline LB3533

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4088
  • Tommy Points: 315
Yes, of course I do not give much credit to the Pistons.

It was and is very easy to underestimate the "non-super star" stereotype teams and much more easier to overrate the superstar team.

I am in the boat that overrate the Shaq/Kobe led superstar team.

A team like the Pistons with very good players, albeit not superstar stereotype players, but when these very good players play like a team and play together with a united goal.....this is produces a much better result than a team filled with superstars who are not playing like a cohesive unit.

I am also in the boat that do not put enough stock or credit to the Pistons' elite teamwork, and elite defensive abilities.

I am guilty of placing too much stock on the shoulders of the stereotypical superstars (Shaq/Kobe).

It's weird because, back in the day, I found myself rooting for the Iverson led Sixers vs the Lakers, but years later I was rooting for the Heat over the Mavs. I fell into the trap of being overly fascinated by the superstar image.

Re: The superstar model may be irrelevant for the Celtics
« Reply #67 on: August 23, 2014, 04:15:25 PM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11833
  • Tommy Points: 950
We can quibble about who is and isn't a superstar.  What the Celtics may copy from Detroit is having a defense-oriented team without a scoring superstar.  The only player on that roster who had a 20ppg season in his career was Rip Hamilton.

I can see Ainge trying to construct a contender without thinking it is mandatory to include an alpha-male go-to scorer superstar as part of the mix.  He might try to add role players who are go-to scorers.  I've suggested the team could use a sixth man wing scorer backing up Green and Bradley.  I don't think the team's offense needs to have a prototypical ball-dominant star scoring wing, so I don't care if that sort of player is a bad fit next to Rondo.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: The superstar model may be irrelevant for the Celtics
« Reply #68 on: August 23, 2014, 06:23:31 PM »

Offline GreenWarrior

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3275
  • Tommy Points: 228
if the goal is to contend without a star. wake me when it's over.

Re: The superstar model may be irrelevant for the Celtics
« Reply #69 on: August 23, 2014, 10:14:56 PM »

Offline gar

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2629
  • Tommy Points: 247
  • Strength from Within
Pacers were trying to do it without a star; but could not pull it off unless Paul George played big. David West, George Hill, Paul George, Hibbert, Stephenson all good players; but no star to get them over the hump. You can win a lot of regular season games as they proved; but once the heat is turned up on defense someone has to be able to take control and in the end Stephenson was the only one to do it. George was not able to handle the playoff intensity.

Re: The superstar model may be irrelevant for the Celtics
« Reply #70 on: August 23, 2014, 10:50:05 PM »

fitzhickey

  • Guest
Pacers were trying to do it without a star; but could not pull it off unless Paul George played big. David West, George Hill, Paul George, Hibbert, Stephenson all good players; but no star to get them over the hump. You can win a lot of regular season games as they proved; but once the heat is turned up on defense someone has to be able to take control and in the end Stephenson was the only one to do it. George was not able to handle the playoff intensity.
I'd still classify George as a star

Re: The superstar model may be irrelevant for the Celtics
« Reply #71 on: August 24, 2014, 02:39:44 AM »

Offline obnoxiousmime

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2421
  • Tommy Points: 258
Duncan may not be performing like he used to but I still think he has great value in just leading the defensive effort. It's kind of like Garnett in his last effective seasons. Just because he wasn't scoring as much didn't mean he wasn't the key to the Celtics' success.

I'll also say that people talking about following the Spurs blueprint are not considering one thing: the Spurs created this strong environment and tradition by winning multiple titles. Celtics fans should know that after 08 everyone on the team had a new stature and respect around the league. Doc in particular benefited the most because his reputation had taken a hit after all the losing, now all of a sudden he's considered one of the top coaches in the league that stars openly talk about wanting to play for (Chris Paul, LeBron).

It's in that kind of environment that the Spurs can bring in young guys who get the picture and fall in line, and even take minor discounts to stay. The leadership of Ginobili, Parker, Pop, and Duncan are secure and they even make an example of taking a discount. The Celtics tried to do this, but the discount was never significant enough and Doc spurned them when he was asked to be their "Celtic for life" Pop-type coach. Then Ainge dealt Garnett and Pierce but of course in these situations we never know how much of it was the organization moving on and how much was the player telling management they'd rather not play for a rebuilding team.

To get back to my point, the Spurs were able to win those early titles because they had two HOF big men and overall no 1. picks in Robinson and Duncan. Was this current team possible if the organization hadn't been built around the experience of those early titles? I just think that simply saying "let's follow the Spurs model of no stars" is too simple and you can't just look at their team this season in a vacuum.

Popovich, Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker are better because they've been together for over a decade and they've won titles together. The organization is better from that experience as well. You can't get a deep group of talented but less-seasoned guys and simply say "Let's follow the Spurs model" because you'd be missing the part that's been building for the last 15 years.

Re: The superstar model may be irrelevant for the Celtics
« Reply #72 on: August 24, 2014, 07:39:11 AM »

Offline GreenWarrior

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3275
  • Tommy Points: 228
yeah, of course everyone wants to be the Spurs. but most don't seem to grasp the idea the only way we could even consider doing so is to get in the lottery and build through the draft. but even that is not enough, you still have to be bad at the right time to get that "Tim Duncan".

this trying to be an 8 seed will get us nowhere.

Re: The superstar model may be irrelevant for the Celtics
« Reply #73 on: August 24, 2014, 11:18:08 AM »

Offline gar

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2629
  • Tommy Points: 247
  • Strength from Within
Pacers were trying to do it without a star; but could not pull it off unless Paul George played big. David West, George Hill, Paul George, Hibbert, Stephenson all good players; but no star to get them over the hump. You can win a lot of regular season games as they proved; but once the heat is turned up on defense someone has to be able to take control and in the end Stephenson was the only one to do it. George was not able to handle the playoff intensity.
I'd still classify George as a star

Ok, even with one star (Paul George) and a deep bench the Pacers could not get it done.

Re: The superstar model may be irrelevant for the Celtics
« Reply #74 on: August 24, 2014, 12:49:25 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
if the goal is to contend without a star. wake me when it's over.

  If the goal is to try and get a transcendent superstar, should someone wake you when that happens as well?