zoyathedestroya wrote:robdog_5 wrote:Utah has no stars (Mitchell will be one and on verge) but plays great together and has pieces that fit really well together. Vs OKC who has 2 legit stars and one older star and just looks so much better As a group. Glad we have Hayward but the Jazz are a fun team to watch.
All three series are far from over but the narrative that "stars win in the playoffs" gonna take a bit of a dent IF Pacers, Jazz, and Celtics all win over teams led by LeBron, Russ/PG, and Giannis although you can make an argument that Dipo, Mitchell/Gobert, and Horford are stars in their own right, just not perceived on the same level as the others. Coaching/system/ability to defend aforementioned stars can help you win against their teams in today's NBA and the notion shouldn't be dismissed rather easily.
Stars do win in the playoffs.
The only team you can argue ever really won without "stars" was the 2004 Pistons, and that team was absolutely loaded; it just lacked a superstar. Coaching means very, very little in the playoffs. If it did, the Spurs would win the title every year.
As for Oladipo, he is absolutely a legitimate star. The dude is arguably better than the Paul George that the Pacers traded for him. And as for OKC? They are a different animal. They do have stars, but their "Big Three" was a nightmarish fit from the beginning. Three ball-dominant perimeter players is not exactly a recipe for success.
I'm not denying that having a good system matters, but having stars is what will ultimately get the job done.
