Does Boston Celtics 2024 fall under the category of a "Super-Team"?

[durantbird]

The term "Super-Team" doesn't have a hard definition, but according to your standards, is Boston considered a "superteam"?

On the one hand, it was built patiently with its core stars running together for a long time, each year they progressed and improved slowly, until (possibly?) the moment they are good enough to be a champion. Also, none of its stars signed there in free agency, it was built through draft and trades. Also, it doesn't have players who are viewed top 3 in the league, only one that is top 5/top 10.

On the other hand, it is a team that has 5 players of All-Star caliber - 4 of them were All Star already at certain points, plus a sixth guy who is a former All Star. For me, when the team's skeleton was formed in the offseason with Holiday and Porzingis, it had a superteam vibe.

Wikipedia describes the term "Super-Team" as follows:

A superteam in the National Basketball Association (NBA) is a team that is viewed as significantly more talented than the rest of the teams in the league. There is no official distinction, but it is generally viewed as a team that has at least 3 Hall of Fame, All-Star, and/or All-NBA caliber players that join forces to pursue an NBA championship.

Boston pretty much fits the description, but it depends on the meaning you attribute to the "join forces" part - because the players themselves didn't decide to join forces like in other historical cases, but were "put together" by a GM (it can still mean that they "joined forces" at the end).

So, which side are you on this?

[Owly]

I, personally, don't find "Superteam" is a terribly helpful term.

Fwiw, I would guess given the manner of construction and absence of clear cut tier 1, high level MVP candidate, mega production superstar (Tatum may change perspectives on some of this in retrospect?) or even perpetual all-star, sometimes all-NBA, high production, long-term team's star (a la Pierce, Allen) others wouldn't be (aren't?) calling this a "superteam". It depends what one means (see initial response) and I'm not saying this team doesn't have good players or isn't playing at a high level.

{edit: for clarity, reading back I realize it could be read as they don't have anyone at perpetual all-star, high production level, a team's long term-star guy (like Pierce and Allen) and Tatum is (at least) that and, given his impact profile, could be said to be more, but he's the number 1 guy - there isn't a 2 and 3 guy like that even if you think guys are as valuable (or more valuable) as contributors to superteams as people who have fulfilled that role]

[trex_8063]

Like Owly, I don't necessarily find the term all that helpful, as it generally only gets tossed around within the context of criticizing or otherwise "taking down a peg or two" the superstar at the top of said "superteam".

Boston has an extraordinarily talented starting line-up when at full health: basically five guys who are at least borderline All-Stars (like top 40-50 in the league), and can go about 9 deep on their roster without running into a true "replacement level" player. That is definitely a very talent-laden group. If you want to call that "super", OK. You do you.

[rrravenred]

Think Boston deserve a lot of kudos for assembling a deep team with multiple high-level contributors who are able to pass the baton almost seamlessly from game to game to ride the hot hand.

Agree with other posters that Superteam is an unhelpful, almost perjorative term. It also (and I think this is important) always depends on stars coming together after having BEEN stars elsewhere. People are more likely to call the 2004 Lakers a superteam than they are the 2014 Spurs.

[AdagioPace]

"superteam" it's a term that lends itself to capricious interpretations. I think the term would need to be stretched if applied to these Celtics, which seem to be a result-based superteam rather than a "high expectations" superteam like Heatles or Warriors were.

[durantbird]

"superteam" it's a term that lends itself to capricious interpretations. I think the term would need to be stretched if applied to these Celtics, which seem to be a result-based superteam rather than a "high expectations" superteam like Heatles or Warriors were.

Didn't you have high expectations from them the minute the team was put together in the off-season by adding Jrue and Porzingis? I know I did and it made me consider them title favorites

[lessthanjake]

It’s an inherently subjective term, but my definition of superteam is generally one that at least has two major superstars and at least one more genuine star. And I also think something feels more like it deserves the “superteam” label the more it was created by free agency as opposed to being organically created.

As applied to the Celtics, I don’t think it’s a superteam because it does not have two major superstars. I think if the Celtics win the title and Tatum is their best player in the Finals, then he will be regarded as a major superstar, but no one else on that team is even close to that IMO. It’s more akin to the Bad Boys Pistons—where you had one guy that was a borderline major superstar, along with several other all-star-level guys all on the same team. I don’t think that was a superteam, and I don’t think the Celtics are either. But, again, reasonable minds can differ on the application of an inherently subjective term.

[Texas Chuck]

yep find that term unhelpful as well.

also don't think Boston is one under any traditional definition. They just have a very very good top 6 that is well put together. Really have to admire how they have remade that team around the two forwards.

[Owly]

"superteam" it's a term that lends itself to capricious interpretations. I think the term would need to be stretched if applied to these Celtics, which seem to be a result-based superteam rather than a "high expectations" superteam like Heatles or Warriors were.

Didn't you have high expectations from them the minute the team was put together in the off-season by adding Jrue and Porzingis? I know I did and it made me consider them title favorites

They had the best SRS for each of the previous two years: they had fairly high expectations anyhow.

And whilst I was probably too cautious on the additions versus cost (promoted depth better than I was aware of somewhat offsetting the loss of Williams, Williams, Brogdon and Smart - plus for all the hype "Timelord" has struggled to stay out on court) - the cost and the age are things I still don't love (though maybe the guys gone have been expensive - and good teams always face a Bird rights trap) - from memory and looking at the Reference pre-season title odds and over-under (versus that of a year previous) I don't think the roster turnover massively changed expectations, though that's only from memory and a surface glance at one source.

[OhayoKD]

"superteam" it's a term that lends itself to capricious interpretations. I think the term would need to be stretched if applied to these Celtics, which seem to be a result-based superteam rather than a "high expectations" superteam like Heatles or Warriors were.

Haven't the Celtics been the vegas title favorites for multiple years now

[jalengreen]

"superteam" it's a term that lends itself to capricious interpretations. I think the term would need to be stretched if applied to these Celtics, which seem to be a result-based superteam rather than a "high expectations" superteam like Heatles or Warriors were.

Haven't the Celtics been the vegas title favorites for multiple years now

2024 celtics were tied with nuggets at +450 as preseason favorites

2017 warriors were favored over the field at -128 as preseason favorites

2011 heat were +175 as preseason favorites

i think it's fair to distinguish them in terms of expectations

(granted I'm not sure how much that should matter)

[Cavsfansince84]

The only meaning I think it ever had was a few guys who had already established themselves as top 15 players coming together on one team which also usually meant that 1 or 2 had to take on a less productive role in terms of box score. It's more of a starpower/media hype term than based in how good a team actually is in terms of wins. The only way I'd see Boston as a superteam would be if a current top 15 player had joined them in the offseason. Jrue and KP aren't on that level.

[Doctor MJ]

The term "Super-Team" doesn't have a hard definition, but according to your standards, is Boston considered a "superteam"?

On the one hand, it was built patiently with its core stars running together for a long time, each year they progressed and improved slowly, until (possibly?) the moment they are good enough to be a champion. Also, none of its stars signed there in free agency, it was built through draft and trades. Also, it doesn't have players who are viewed top 3 in the league, only one that is top 5/top 10.

On the other hand, it is a team that has 5 players of All-Star caliber - 4 of them were All Star already at certain points, plus a sixth guy who is a former All Star. For me, when the team's skeleton was formed in the offseason with Holiday and Porzingis, it had a superteam vibe.

Wikipedia describes the term "Super-Team" as follows:

A superteam in the National Basketball Association (NBA) is a team that is viewed as significantly more talented than the rest of the teams in the league. There is no official distinction, but it is generally viewed as a team that has at least 3 Hall of Fame, All-Star, and/or All-NBA caliber players that join forces to pursue an NBA championship.

Boston pretty much fits the description, but it depends on the meaning you attribute to the "join forces" part - because the players themselves didn't decide to join forces like in other historical cases, but were "put together" by a GM (it can still mean that they "joined forces" at the end).

So, which side are you on this?

I think that in order for it to be a superteam, the players acquired need to be extremely high stature at the time of acquisition. I think it's clear that neither Horford nor Porzingis were at that level when Boston acquired them.

Holiday is a bit more debatable, but it's no small thing that he was only available traded him away for a guy with considerably greater stature than Holiday.

Also: It kinda matters to me that none of these guys are the most valuable of the acquisitions the Celtics have made. That would be Derrick White, who has still never been an all-star.

So no, I don't think the Celtics are a superteam at this point, which makes them all the more impressive really.

[Colbinii]

I consider a super-team as a term to be a team with multiple super-stars.

The Celtics have one super-star, so I would not label them a super-team.

They have more talent than most title teams in NBA history, but that doesn't make them a super-team.

[tsherkin]

I think "superteam" is largely just fans kvetching and bitching that their team isn't as good as a given team, so I don't find it particularly useful.

Boston is a deep team with a diverse array of talent. In no particular order, they traded for KP, they drafted Tatum, they traded for Derrick White, they drafted Jaylen Brown, they traded for Jrue Holiday, they traded for Horford.

Fantastic moves, all around, and working out brilliantly. That's just a number of years of just great moves to acquire youth and veterans to help out the team by leveraging both the draft and the trade market. They've done a great job.

[trex_8063]

"superteam" it's a term that lends itself to capricious interpretations. I think the term would need to be stretched if applied to these Celtics, which seem to be a result-based superteam rather than a "high expectations" superteam like Heatles or Warriors were.

Didn't you have high expectations from them the minute the team was put together in the off-season by adding Jrue and Porzingis? I know I did and it made me consider them title favorites

I mean, they were awfully good in '23 (#2 seed, highest SRS in the league, and went 7 games in the ECF against an over-achieving Heat team). I figured they'd be very good again, but to me it was still a bit of an unknown if they'd be significantly better (at least better independent of any improvement by Jayson Tatum [which, he DID get better this year]).

Because though adding Jrue and Porzingis, they were also losing [from the '23 cast] Marcus Smart, Robert Williams [even though he was mostly injured in '23], and Mike Muscala.

Given the health of Porzingis would [based on historical context] be a bit of an unknown, and the fact that Jrue is likely edging into post-prime at 33 years old.......it definitely was not a given [to me] that these acquisitions would for certain improve their potential as a contender.

[rand]

What separates them from the superteams like the 2008 Celtics, the Heatles or the Hampton's Five is the lack of a true superstar. No LeBron, KG, Curry, KD, just a lot of really good players like the 2004/2005 Pistons.

[Slax]

I think of the NBA superteam as being based in the tradition of musical supergroups. Supergroups are formed when several star musicians whose notoriety peaked in separate bands decide to collaborate as a single musical act. The corresponding superteam concept for basketball teams requires multiple veteran star players from different teams to decide they want to play together, and so use their leverage to find a way onto a single team's roster, generally through free agency and/or trade demands. This is somewhat similar to the wikipedia definition, which specifies that multiple star players "join forces". Under my definition, teams that are dominant aren't necessarily superteams (and in fact the reverse is true - a superteam need not be dominant), nor is it always the case that a team with multiple stars are a superteam. Rather, they specifically have to be assembled as a collaboration project through the designs of the star players who end up playing on them, rather than as independent acquisitions by the team's GM.

The archetypal example of a superteam would be the LeBron-led Heat, and that is what really kicked off the player-driven movement trend that dominated a lot of teambuilding during the 2010's and early 2020's. The Kyrie/KD/Harden Nets also very easily qualify. I would probably also consider recent Suns and Clippers teams to probably qualify as superteams, albeit not especially successful ones. The KD Warriors are a borderline case because the core of the team was already assembled in a GM-driven way before they acquired KD, but they had the requisite number of stars and the KD acquisition itself was entirely player-driven and KD was such a huge part of their subsequent success - I probably still would say no, they're just the same old Curry Warriors but with another guy added through free agency, but it's a close call.

The current Celtics don't really fit this pattern. Tatum and Brown were drafted by the Celtics. Porzingis did give up money to get the opportunity to play with Tatum and Brown during free agency, but he's the only Celtics star who was acquired this way, and he's a much lower tier of star than people are generally talking about when they discuss superteams. And White and Holiday were entirely GM-driven trades, where the Celtics were willing to give up the best assets to the teams willing to give them up. So the Celtics were built primarily through GM-driven roster improvements, and with less notorious stars than superteams would generally have.