Is it possible to win a title today with no superstar?

[Bush4Ever]

Completely disagree. That pistons team had more than enough offense from RIP, Billups and rasheed wallace , they just played at a very slow pace. With Larry Brown coaching them and Defensive stoppers at pretty much every position they would make it very hard on the warriors to run their offense and would put up a good fight against them. This team beat a great Lakers team.

They were 18th in the league in points-per-possession in 2004. Their rate would rank them dead-last carried over to 2017 (yes, different eras, rules, etc...but still...). They hit 4 threes a game on 12 attempts. That volume would rank them dead last in 2017, and the percentage 27th.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/2004.html
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2017.html

Even in the playoffs post-trade, they were winning games and series scoring 80 points.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/2004-nba-eastern-conference-semifinals-nets-vs-pistons.html (barely squeaking by the 2004 Nets).

That simply isn't going to happen in the modern NBA against teams like the Warriors, Spurs, or even last years Cavs, let alone in multiple series in a single playoff (like against the Cavs and then the Warriors).

[Laerai]

My attempt (vaguely realistic, at least salary wise).

George Hill (20 mil)/ Malcom Brogdon (1.3 mil)
Khris Middleton (12 mil)/ Gary Harris (2.5 mil)/ Tony Allen (vet min)
Jimmy Butler (16 mil)/ Trevor Ariza (7 mil)/ Robert Covington (1.5 mil)
Paul Millsap (30 mil)/ Kristaps Porzingis (4.5 mil)/ Luc Mbah a Moute (vet min)
Nikola Jokic (1.6 mil)/ Karl-Anthony Towns (6 mil)

Adds up to 102.4 mil, a tad below the projected 103 salary cap. It's a little inaccurate due to rounding error though... Think this team would have a decent shot at taking on the Ws. Starting lineup keeps up as well as anyone defensively, and obviously a Jokic offense is the closest thing to the actual Warriors. Bench is all starting caliber players and should be dominant though, so if they can go on big runs in those 10-15 mins one of the Big 2 is off they have a real chance.

[JunkYardDog6ix]

The 2004 Pistons would be blown sky-high by the 2017 Warriors, even with a Ben Wallace-like analog in the modern game.

You simply can't be that deficient offensively and win a title in the modern NBA.

A team in the mold of the 2014 Spurs would have a much better shot, even if they are a reduced version of the 2017 Warriors. You don't have to beat them over a large sample of games or even score more points overall...just win by at least one at least 4 times out of 7. If the Spurs happened to catch the happy end of the shooting variance while the Warriors caught the bad end of it, that could happen. That's roughly what happened in 2014 anyway against the Heat.

That's more realistic than the Pistons taking a quantum leap forward offensively.

Completely disagree. That pistons team had more than enough offense from RIP, Billups and rasheed wallace , they just played at a very slow pace. With Larry Brown coaching them and Defensive stoppers at pretty much every position they would make it very hard on the warriors to run their offense and would put up a good fight against them. This team beat a great Lakers team.

It's all hypothetical, but please... Warriors are winning all the match ups.

Durant > Rasheed -- not close at all.

Curry > Billups -- not close.

Thompson > Hamilton -- could seem close. Both highly competent defenders. But both are there for their shooting and Thompson is a far better shooter. TS% .592 (2017) Vs .522 (2004). Hamilton wasn't even a great 3-point shooter. 3pt% .264 in 2003-2004, .346 for his career. It's just not comparable.

Green > Ben Wallace -- Two guys on top when it comes to defense, but Green is so far better on offense and more versatile on defense. Will Wallace be that useful guarding on the perimeter?

Iguodala > Prince -- close one. Both great defensive players. Iguodala is better offensively.

Okur was a better 6th guy than Livingston or Zaza. That's pretty much it. I think their 7th best guy was Mike James.

Warriors matches up well and it has SO much more firepower.

I already stated that they would need a modern defensive version of Ben Wallace for the New NBA , someone with defensive abilities like Draymond and they would put Sheed at C. As for the matchups , obviously the warriors win those , the whole point of this thread is to come up with a team that's greater than the sum of its parts. I'm sure the 04 Lakers won almost every match up as well but who won that series ?

[leolozon]

Completely disagree. That pistons team had more than enough offense from RIP, Billups and rasheed wallace , they just played at a very slow pace. With Larry Brown coaching them and Defensive stoppers at pretty much every position they would make it very hard on the warriors to run their offense and would put up a good fight against them. This team beat a great Lakers team.

It's all hypothetical, but please... Warriors are winning all the match ups.

Durant > Rasheed -- not close at all.

Curry > Billups -- not close.

Thompson > Hamilton -- could seem close. Both highly competent defenders. But both are there for their shooting and Thompson is a far better shooter. TS% .592 (2017) Vs .522 (2004). Hamilton wasn't even a great 3-point shooter. 3pt% .264 in 2003-2004, .346 for his career. It's just not comparable.

Green > Ben Wallace -- Two guys on top when it comes to defense, but Green is so far better on offense and more versatile on defense. Will Wallace be that useful guarding on the perimeter?

Iguodala > Prince -- close one. Both great defensive players. Iguodala is better offensively.

Okur was a better 6th guy than Livingston or Zaza. That's pretty much it. I think their 7th best guy was Mike James.

Warriors matches up well and it has SO much more firepower.

I already stated that they would need a modern defensive version of Ben Wallace for the New NBA , someone with defensive abilities like Draymond and they would put Sheed at C. As for the matchups , obviously the warriors win those , the whole point of this thread is to come up with a team that's greater than the sum of its parts. I'm sure the 04 Lakers won almost every match up as well but who won that series ?

The 04 Lakers didn't win all the match ups. They had 2 players and that was pretty much it. Derek Fisher + over the hill Payton and Malone were the next best players and they were less than average in the playoffs. Plus Shaq could only play down low and Wallace could make him work more than pretty much anybody. Didn't help that Kobe played really bad in the Finals.

[DoItALL9]

Mike Conley
Jimmy Butler
Paul George
Al Horford
Marc Gasol

All stars no current all nba guys though
Miami Heat's Bench

Sent from my LG-H872 using RealGM mobile app

[DoItALL9]

What If the Celtics traded picks for Paul George & Jimmy Butler this summer?

Sent from my LG-H872 using RealGM mobile app

[LLJ]

If every superstar were out of the playoffs there might be a chance

[DoItALL9]

The 2004 Pistons would be blown sky-high by the 2017 Warriors, even with a Ben Wallace-like analog in the modern game.

You simply can't be that deficient offensively and win a title in the modern NBA.

A team in the mold of the 2014 Spurs would have a much better shot, even if they are a reduced version of the 2017 Warriors. You don't have to beat them over a large sample of games or even score more points overall...just win by at least one at least 4 times out of 7. If the Spurs happened to catch the happy end of the shooting variance while the Warriors caught the bad end of it, that could happen. That's roughly what happened in 2014 anyway against the Heat.

That's more realistic than the Pistons taking a quantum leap forward offensively.

Completely disagree. That pistons team had more than enough offense from RIP, Billups and rasheed wallace , they just played at a very slow pace. With Larry Brown coaching them and Defensive stoppers at pretty much every position they would make it very hard on the warriors to run their offense and would put up a good fight against them. This team beat a great Lakers team.

It's all hypothetical, but please... Warriors are winning all the match ups.

Durant > Rasheed -- not close at all.

Curry > Billups -- not close.

Thompson > Hamilton -- could seem close. Both highly competent defenders. But both are there for their shooting and Thompson is a far better shooter. TS% .592 (2017) Vs .522 (2004). Hamilton wasn't even a great 3-point shooter. 3pt% .264 in 2003-2004, .346 for his career. It's just not comparable.

Green > Ben Wallace -- Two guys on top when it comes to defense, but Green is so far better on offense and more versatile on defense. Will Wallace be that useful guarding on the perimeter?

Iguodala > Prince -- close one. Both great defensive players. Iguodala is better offensively.

Okur was a better 6th guy than Livingston or Zaza. That's pretty much it. I think their 7th best guy was Mike James.

Warriors matches up well and it has SO much more firepower.

Why didn't you use zaza their starting center? Why not matchup the starting sf KD with T. Prince?

[PhilBlackson]

No and let's be serious, if there wasn't a massive meltdown happening in the Lakers lockerroom to the point that the Lakers were forced to subsequently trade the best big man in the game and generational player the Pistons wouldn't even have had one. Pretty much every other team in the last 2-3 decades was led by some superstar talent or another.

[leolozon]

Completely disagree. That pistons team had more than enough offense from RIP, Billups and rasheed wallace , they just played at a very slow pace. With Larry Brown coaching them and Defensive stoppers at pretty much every position they would make it very hard on the warriors to run their offense and would put up a good fight against them. This team beat a great Lakers team.

It's all hypothetical, but please... Warriors are winning all the match ups.

Durant > Rasheed -- not close at all.

Curry > Billups -- not close.

Thompson > Hamilton -- could seem close. Both highly competent defenders. But both are there for their shooting and Thompson is a far better shooter. TS% .592 (2017) Vs .522 (2004). Hamilton wasn't even a great 3-point shooter. 3pt% .264 in 2003-2004, .346 for his career. It's just not comparable.

Green > Ben Wallace -- Two guys on top when it comes to defense, but Green is so far better on offense and more versatile on defense. Will Wallace be that useful guarding on the perimeter?

Iguodala > Prince -- close one. Both great defensive players. Iguodala is better offensively.

Okur was a better 6th guy than Livingston or Zaza. That's pretty much it. I think their 7th best guy was Mike James.

Warriors matches up well and it has SO much more firepower.

Why didn't you use zaza their starting center? Why not matchup the starting sf KD with T. Prince?

Because Iguodala is their 5th best player, plays more minutes and finishes the games. Iguodala is the 5th guy, not Zaza. You really had to ask the question when the answer was obvious?
KD isn't the SF in their best line-up. And KD vs Rasheed and Iguodala Vs Prince, makes much more sense considering what they bring to the table. Offensive forward is a direct and easy comparison; defensive presence with limited offense is a direct and easy comparison. Could have gone with best VS best, 2nd best VS 2nd best, etc, but it's too tough to rank the Pistons starting line-up.

Anyway it wouldn't change the value of each player and wouldn't change my overall point, so I'm not sure what your larger point is or why you asked me for obvious answers.

[tidho]

First, the GSW exist (and have a superstar) so it isn't possible any time soon. Additionally, part of the reason folks become superstars is because they win titles, so there may be some self fulfilling failure in the question itself. All that said...

Yes I think a team of A- and B+ talents can win a title. You really have to catch lightening in a bottle to pull that off though. ...and it helps it you're the Pistons historically speaking, lol.

The Celtics might be the #1 seed in the East this year. I would not consider anyone on that team a superstar (yet).

[JXL]

I like what the Denver Nuggets are becoming if they continue to make an offense that prioritizes Jokic's skill. Yet they don't have much wing players and too many PF's.

[Edrees]

I can't figure out who's gonna guard curry and Durant in all these teams mentioned

[DoItALL9]

It's all hypothetical, but please... Warriors are winning all the match ups.

Durant > Rasheed -- not close at all.

Curry > Billups -- not close.

Thompson > Hamilton -- could seem close. Both highly competent defenders. But both are there for their shooting and Thompson is a far better shooter. TS% .592 (2017) Vs .522 (2004). Hamilton wasn't even a great 3-point shooter. 3pt% .264 in 2003-2004, .346 for his career. It's just not comparable.

Green > Ben Wallace -- Two guys on top when it comes to defense, but Green is so far better on offense and more versatile on defense. Will Wallace be that useful guarding on the perimeter?

Iguodala > Prince -- close one. Both great defensive players. Iguodala is better offensively.

Okur was a better 6th guy than Livingston or Zaza. That's pretty much it. I think their 7th best guy was Mike James.

Warriors matches up well and it has SO much more firepower.

Why didn't you use zaza their starting center? Why not matchup the starting sf KD with T. Prince?

Because Iguodala is their 5th best player, plays more minutes and finishes the games. Iguodala is the 5th guy, not Zaza. You really had to ask the question when the answer was obvious?
KD isn't the SF in their best line-up. And KD vs Rasheed and Iguodala Vs Prince, makes much more sense considering what they bring to the table. Offensive forward is a direct and easy comparison; defensive presence with limited offense is a direct and easy comparison. Could have gone with best VS best, 2nd best VS 2nd best, etc, but it's too tough to rank the Pistons starting line-up.

Anyway it wouldn't change the value of each player and wouldn't change my overall point, so I'm not sure what your larger point is or why you asked me for obvious answers.

I asked because you used random comparisons with no explanation and I'm not a mind reader. Moreover, regardless if GSW uses their "best five" wouldn't Detroit guard KD with Tayshaun Prince their best perimeter defender?
Why'd you decide to compare him to Rasheed Wallace?
Why not just compare based on the best cross matchups? (How'd Detroit\GSW would realistically play)

[Rosque]

Avery Bradley - can chase Curry
Butler - when enough offense on team he's a beast defensively
PG13 - same as Butler, can change defending KD
Millsap - Draymond before Draymond
Gobert - beast, destroys every Ws center

comes close to it I think as starting five.

Bench?

Jokic, Porzingis, Middleton, Beverley

[ThunderBolt]

No because the media will crown a player on that team as a superstar regardless if he deserves it or not. They've already annointed Lonzo Ball as a guy everyone wants to play with and he hasn't even played a game.

[Jadoogar]

Why "today"? Was it ever really possible to win without a superstar?
Pistons are the only real example.

[leolozon]

Why didn't you use zaza their starting center? Why not matchup the starting sf KD with T. Prince?

Because Iguodala is their 5th best player, plays more minutes and finishes the games. Iguodala is the 5th guy, not Zaza. You really had to ask the question when the answer was obvious?
KD isn't the SF in their best line-up. And KD vs Rasheed and Iguodala Vs Prince, makes much more sense considering what they bring to the table. Offensive forward is a direct and easy comparison; defensive presence with limited offense is a direct and easy comparison. Could have gone with best VS best, 2nd best VS 2nd best, etc, but it's too tough to rank the Pistons starting line-up.

Anyway it wouldn't change the value of each player and wouldn't change my overall point, so I'm not sure what your larger point is or why you asked me for obvious answers.

I asked because you used random comparisons with no explanation and I'm not a mind reader. Moreover, regardless if GSW uses their "best five" wouldn't Detroit guard KD with Tayshaun Prince their best perimeter defender?
Why'd you decide to compare him to Rasheed Wallace?
Why not just compare based on the best cross matchups? (How'd Detroit\GSW would realistically play)

Yes and Durant will not guard the other team's best perimeter player, which is exactly my point. Iguodala is the defensive specialist, just like Prince. How is it smarter to compare an offensive talent with a defensive talent, instead of comparing two defensive talent?

It's not random. Durant and Rasheed have a far more similar role in their respective team, just like Iguodala and Prince have a far more similar role. You can't compare at all what Iguodala is doing with what Rasheed was doing.

I decided to go : elite defensive big VS elite defensive big; sharpshooter VS sharpshooter; creator and scorer Vs scorer and creator; versatile defensive specialist VS versatile defensive specialist; offensive big with good defense VS offensive big with good defense.
How dumb and random is that!

If you don't like my justification, just do your own basic analysis of the situation and you will probably come to the same overall point I did.

[LofJ]

I'm surprised that so many people voted no. The question was if it's possible, not likely. We have an example of this happening in the not too distant past. So it is 'possible' for a team to win a title without a superstar, it just isn't likely.

[DoItALL9]

Because Iguodala is their 5th best player, plays more minutes and finishes the games. Iguodala is the 5th guy, not Zaza. You really had to ask the question when the answer was obvious?
KD isn't the SF in their best line-up. And KD vs Rasheed and Iguodala Vs Prince, makes much more sense considering what they bring to the table. Offensive forward is a direct and easy comparison; defensive presence with limited offense is a direct and easy comparison. Could have gone with best VS best, 2nd best VS 2nd best, etc, but it's too tough to rank the Pistons starting line-up.

Anyway it wouldn't change the value of each player and wouldn't change my overall point, so I'm not sure what your larger point is or why you asked me for obvious answers.

I asked because you used random comparisons with no explanation and I'm not a mind reader. Moreover, regardless if GSW uses their "best five" wouldn't Detroit guard KD with Tayshaun Prince their best perimeter defender?
Why'd you decide to compare him to Rasheed Wallace?
Why not just compare based on the best cross matchups? (How'd Detroit\GSW would realistically play)

Yes and Durant will not guard the other team's best perimeter player, which is exactly my point. Iguodala is the defensive specialist, just like Prince. How is it smarter to compare an offensive talent with a defensive talent, instead of comparing two defensive talent?

It's not random. Durant and Rasheed have a far more similar role in their respective team, just like Iguodala and Prince have a far more similar role. You can't compare at all what Iguodala is doing with what Rasheed was doing.

I decided to go : elite defensive big VS elite defensive big; sharpshooter VS sharpshooter; creator and scorer Vs scorer and creator; versatile defensive specialist VS versatile defensive specialist; offensive big with good defense VS offensive big with good defense.
How dumb and random is that!

If you don't like my justification, just do your own basic analysis of the situation and you will probably come to the same overall point I did.

I didn't call your comparison dumb. I don't necessarily believe it's wrong either. I do think it could be interpreted wrong or possibly oversimplified vs how the game would actually be played. There is where I was saying it could be easier to imagine if the teams were compared offense/defense & defense/offense. I appreciated your take. It seems accurate imo