You need a superstar to win it all

[And1+2]

Pascal has half a season left to evolve into one... And, really, playoffs are what makes a superstar.

So here's hoping!

[mieshpal]

add Iguodala to that roster and we look really scary

This season has been great but let’s remember the years prior to kawhi(superstar) in the playoffs. Always had a better record then.

You need a superstar in the playoffs. We have great deep team, but no superstar.

We will have to make a derozan type trade(probably Lowry or pascal involved) to acquire a superstar.

Which superstars in the league would you be willing to trade pascal or Lowry for?

We are still a better version of the 2004 Pistons even without Kawhi.

Chauncey Billups - Kyle Lowry
Richard Hamilton - Fred VanVleet
Tayshaun Prince - Pascal Siakam
Rasheed Wallace - Serge Ibaka
Ben Wallace - Marc Gasol

Their bench - Lindsey Hunter, Mehmet Okur, Mike James, Corliss Williamson
Our bench - Terrence Davis II, Rondae Hollis-Jefferson, Norman Powell, OG Anunoby

[howlin mad axer]

04 Pistons say hello.

[Kingsway_fan]

Pascal has half a season left to evolve into one... And, really, playoffs are what makes a superstar.

So here's hoping!

Yes... but only if he shows the consistency of the first month or so.... he s quite average of late...

[GreatWhiteStiff]

Fortunately, we may be targetting Jrue Holiday...

[bturn2210]

We have Norm.

[Edumacated]

Let's not forget the pistons beat the star laden Lakers and the Spurs also were successful running their system without a top 5 superstar.

WTF are you talking about? Tim Duncan is the greatest PF ever.

Maybe he meant the 2014 Spurs. Duncan was no longer a superstar at that point and Kawhi had yet to emerge as a star player.

[jrask]

04 Pistons say hello.

This is literally the one and only time a team won without a superstar.

And, there was a year (around that time) that 4 Pistons starters participated in the all-star game....So it was a team full of all-stars

[TheWave]

04 Pistons say hello.

This is literally the one and only time a team won without a superstar.

And, there was a year (around that time) that 4 Pistons starters participated in the all-star game....So it was a team full of all-stars

Klow FVV are in that conversation. Pascal is there. Norm if he keeps this up would be in the conversation and oddly... If Davis pulled it together considering he is developing insanely quick... This team is as deep as hell is hot, just pull out the black jerseys and go full dark horse on the league. Need to move McCaw first to free up mins though.

[fbalmeida]

04 Pistons say hello.

This is literally the one and only time a team won without a superstar.

Nope.

The whole "superstar" tag is essentially meaningless, insofar as it translates into wining championships.

To say that you need superstars to win is a roundabout way to smuggle in the concept of NBA Championship teams, more often than not, being built around one, maybe two, exceptionally gifted players, when there are perhaps only a baker's dozen to be found in the NBA. The "superstar" as a deterministic requirement for winning championships equates to asserting via reverse-reasoning, the existence of superstar championship winning magic dust, that omits all the other superstar laden teams in the NBA that don't win **** for many years, or ever at all, while also failing to consider the differences that make the difference, regarding roster construction.

It's a misguided, EPSN-like, and nuanceless view of when other teams shine. You miss all the important details while staring into the glare.

Take the Spurs 2014 title for instance. 37 year old Duncan was not putting up anything near his "superstar" level performances that year.
Tony Parker was never a "superstar".
Kawhi Leonard was not a superstar yet.

And they clutched the Larry OB from a team with Lebron, Wade, Bosh, and Allen. In 5 games.

They won because they had a better team.

Along the same line of reasoning, Nowitzki's Mavs should also have not defeated Miami's big-3 in 2011. But they did.

The superstar theory is also subverted to a degree with the Celtics' triumph in 2008, in which Kobe was defeated in his prime by a team without any superstar that could match him as their centre of gravity.

Look no further than our triumph: the Raptors Kawhi vs their Curry, Klay, and 11 minutes of KayD.

You can add all of this to the Pistons 5 game defeat of prime Shaq and Kobe. Exception to the rule, my foot. Better teams, win championships. Better teams often have stars. That's really all there is to see here folks.

And I'm reposting this every time someone refers to the 04 Pistons as the exception to a rule with no purchase on the reality or recent history of the NBA.

[Tacoma]

04 Pistons say hello.

This is literally the one and only time a team won without a superstar.

Nope.

The whole "superstar" tag is essentially meaningless, insofar as it translates into wining championships.

To say that you need superstars to win is a roundabout way to smuggle in the concept of NBA Championship teams, more often than not, being built around one, maybe two, exceptionally gifted players, when there are perhaps only a baker's dozen to be found in the NBA. The "superstar" as a deterministic requirement for winning championships equates to asserting via reverse-reasoning, the existence of superstar championship winning magic dust, that omits all the other superstar laden teams in the NBA that don't win **** for many years, or ever at all, while also failing to consider the differences that make the difference, regarding roster construction.

It's a misguided, EPSN-like, and nuanceless view of when other teams shine. You miss all the important details while staring into the glare.

Take the Spurs 2014 title for instance. 37 year old Duncan was not putting up anything near his "superstar" level performances that year.
Tony Parker was never a "superstar".
Kawhi Leonard was not a superstar yet.

And they clutched the Larry OB from a team with Lebron, Wade, Bosh, and Allen. In 5 games.

They won because they had a better team.

Along the same line of reasoning, Nowitzki's Mavs should also have not defeated Miami's big-3 in 2011. But they did.

The superstar theory is also subverted to a degree with the Celtics' triumph in 2008, in which Kobe was defeated in his prime by a team without any superstar that could match him as their centre of gravity.

Look no further than our triumph: the Raptors Kawhi vs their Curry, Klay, and 11 minutes of KayD.

You can add all of this to the Pistons 5 game defeat of prime Shaq and Kobe. Exception to the rule, my foot. Better teams, win championships. Better teams often have stars. That's really all there is to see here folks.

And I'm reposting this every time someone refers to the 04 Pistons as the exception to a rule with no purchase on the reality or recent history of the NBA.

Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it more right.

That '14 Spurs team had Championship pedigree of 3 HOF'ers who had already won 3 rings together, and then added Kawhi. We are not in the same or even similar situation. We have one ring on the back of one of the best ever playoff performances from Kawhi. When the pressure tighten, we basically gave the ball to Kawhi to do his thing. In fact, if you recall, we kept passing and no one wanted to shoot... until Kawhi said f*** it, I'm taking over.

Converse to the '14 Spurs, this team without Kawhi in 2018 choked badly and it wasn't just Lowry/DeRozan, but FVV, Norman and Ibaka also choked. You can say team is different because we know how to win in the playoffs now, but do we without Kawhi?

We were down 2-0 games behind MIL in ECF until Nurse decided to finally put Kawhi to defend against Giannis which turned the series. Can Siakam play Kawhi's role? Siakam has improved a lot but going from regular guy to all star is one thing, going from all star to superstar is another. Siakam could still do it this year and if he does he will win his 2nd consecutive MIP award. Not likely.

[PhilBlackson]

04 Pistons say hello.

The Lakers imploding (Shaq traded immediately after, Kobe & Malone beefin over Vanessa) ALLOWING them to win their ONLY championship is such weak example.

Kobe & Shaq don't boil over and the Pistons get curbstomped and the Superstar Theory continues to have 99.9% accuracy.

[fbalmeida]

This is literally the one and only time a team won without a superstar.

Nope.

The whole "superstar" tag is essentially meaningless, insofar as it translates into wining championships.

To say that you need superstars to win is a roundabout way to smuggle in the concept of NBA Championship teams, more often than not, being built around one, maybe two, exceptionally gifted players, when there are perhaps only a baker's dozen to be found in the NBA. The "superstar" as a deterministic requirement for winning championships equates to asserting via reverse-reasoning, the existence of superstar championship winning magic dust, that omits all the other superstar laden teams in the NBA that don't win **** for many years, or ever at all, while also failing to consider the differences that make the difference, regarding roster construction.

It's a misguided, EPSN-like, and nuanceless view of when other teams shine. You miss all the important details while staring into the glare.

Take the Spurs 2014 title for instance. 37 year old Duncan was not putting up anything near his "superstar" level performances that year.
Tony Parker was never a "superstar".
Kawhi Leonard was not a superstar yet.

And they clutched the Larry OB from a team with Lebron, Wade, Bosh, and Allen. In 5 games.

They won because they had a better team.

Along the same line of reasoning, Nowitzki's Mavs should also have not defeated Miami's big-3 in 2011. But they did.

The superstar theory is also subverted to a degree with the Celtics' triumph in 2008, in which Kobe was defeated in his prime by a team without any superstar that could match him as their centre of gravity.

Look no further than our triumph: the Raptors Kawhi vs their Curry, Klay, and 11 minutes of KayD.

You can add all of this to the Pistons 5 game defeat of prime Shaq and Kobe. Exception to the rule, my foot. Better teams, win championships. Better teams often have stars. That's really all there is to see here folks.

And I'm reposting this every time someone refers to the 04 Pistons as the exception to a rule with no purchase on the reality or recent history of the NBA.

Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it more right.

That '14 Spurs team had Championship pedigree of 3 HOF'ers who had already won 3 rings together, and then added Kawhi. We are not in the same or even similar situation. We have one ring on the back of one of the best ever playoff performances from Kawhi. When the pressure tighten, we basically gave the ball to Kawhi to do his thing. In fact, if you recall, we kept passing and no one wanted to shoot... until Kawhi said f*** it, I'm taking over.

Converse to the '14 Spurs, this team without Kawhi in 2018 choked badly and it wasn't just Lowry/DeRozan, but FVV, Norman and Ibaka also choked. You can say team is different because we know how to win in the playoffs now, but do we without Kawhi?

We were down 2-0 games behind MIL in ECF until Nurse decided to finally put Kawhi to defend against Giannis which turned the series. Can Siakam play Kawhi's role? Siakam has improved a lot but going from regular guy to all star is one thing, going from all star to superstar is another. Siakam could still do it this year and if he does he will win his 2nd consecutive MIP award. Not likely.

The statement I see getting repeated without ever actually saying anything pertinent about why some star-laden teams win championships and other equally star-laden teams do not, is that the Pistons are the exception to the rule.

I'm basically stating that having a "superstar" - which is a conceptually imprecise and subjective status assigned to an NBA player - while it definitely helps, is not a strict requirement to winning a championship. A perfectly uncontroversial statement for ring-less superstars such as Barkley, Ewing, Harden, KD if he hadn't gone to Golden State, Stockton and Malone, Iverson, CP3, McGrady, Melo. Heck even Vince Carter.

The Pistons are the most obvious example, but the 2014 Spurs definitely render them as being more than just an exception to an imaginary rule.

I've provided several examples where intelligently built rosters converged with other factors to defeat truly star-laden and far shinier teams.

The Mavs, Celtics, Raptors, Spurs, and Pistons have all defeated teams with superior superstar power. I'm far more interested in discerning the decisive factors and distinctions between success and failure than in proclaiming a blunt rule: winning a championship requires the unction of a superstar.

[vbmeer]

Before the Raptors won the title, there were some people who always brought up the 2004 Pistons as reasons why the Derozan/Lowry/bench Raptors could win the title. This false hope permeated in the regular seasons every year with this fanbase.


Yet they never did, because they ran into a superstar in the playoffs that would make all their schemes and regular season, high-effort "hustle" look like amateur hour.

And the one, and only year the franchise had that superstar with the supporting cast they actually won the title. Not the 5 or so years of the false hope with none.

Now that false hope returns, and the build up starts again.

[fbalmeida]

Replace that superstar with another superstar who couldn't help defend Giannis and it would've made zero difference over DeRozan.

It's not the superstar status, but rather what that player, who happens to be considered a superstar, could do on both ends of the court that mattered.

There is no such thing as superstar pixie dust.

[team edward]

“You need a super star to win it all”
OK, what’s a super star?
“Well it’s admittedly a subjective and undefineable term.”
OK, how many super stars are there?
“At least 5. Maybe 10. Possible 15.”
Seems very exclusive. How many are in the east?
“Two, on different teams, each of which are flawed and beatable. Actually maybe three, maybe four.”
OK ... so is Pascal a super star?
“No, because he plays for the Raptors”
Yes makes complete sense.

[beeshake]

This season has been great but let’s remember the years prior to kawhi(superstar) in the playoffs. Always had a better record then.

You need a superstar in the playoffs. We have great deep team, but no superstar.

We will have to make a derozan type trade(probably Lowry or pascal involved) to acquire a superstar.

Which superstars in the league would you be willing to trade pascal or Lowry for?

The 2004 Pistons say "Hi" Who exactly was their superstar? The league has been dominated by super teams with 3 superstars. I'm not sure that team exists this year.

It's true, although the level that Rip Hamilton/ Prince/ Billups were playing at was through the roof

[ontnut]

This season has been great but let’s remember the years prior to kawhi(superstar) in the playoffs. Always had a better record then.

You need a superstar in the playoffs. We have great deep team, but no superstar.

We will have to make a derozan type trade(probably Lowry or pascal involved) to acquire a superstar.

Which superstars in the league would you be willing to trade pascal or Lowry for?

Totally willing to trade Lowry for Lebron. Would also consider Giannis and Kawhi.

[bstein14]

Pistons had 4 all-stars and some really good role players and a HOF coach.

Give a great coach 4 all-stars that are capable of playing elite team defense and you don't need a superstar or top 10 player to win.

It would literally be like putting this starting lineup out there.

C: Gobert
PF: Alderidge
SF: Tatum
SG: Beal
PG: Lowry

With a solid 4 to 5 guys off the bench and a HOF coach.

That team could win a championship no doubt about it, but it doesn't have a top 10 player.

[WaltFrazier]

Assuming we get back to full health for the playoffs, and Norm continues his great play of late. And given that we don't have "that guy", a Kawhi level superstar. Why are we force feeding Pascal to be a closer? Why can't a great team, without 1 true superstar, play share the ball, non-iso, even at the end of playoff games? Keep the other team from focusing on one guy. I don't recall those 04 Pistons always going to the same guy down the stretch. And the Bad Boys Pistons, another all round team without one scoring superstar, also had different closers at different times - Isaiah, Dumars, Vinnie Johnson