Are the Suns and Hawks disproving the idea that you need multiple superstars to win?

[EL PRESIDENTE]

You're pushing the narrative that Chris Paul turned the lowly Suns into a playoff contender. The bubble proved that they had already started turning things around. If they hadn't added Paul do you think they miss the playoffs this year?

1. They didn't even make the playoffs.
2. You're saying "well, they played great in an NBA Bubble" which really doesn't mean anything at all. Because its a Bubble, after a 3 month break, isolated in a closed campus. Not a real world scenario.
3. Not sure if they would have made the playoffs without CP3. The West was really good, Warriors, Memphis, etc. I certainly don't think they would be title contenders without him.

 

[BigGameDamian]

Protocols to return are shorter if you’re vaccinated.

Only 6 days though? I could see if he was just exposed but he tested positive.

 

[Tince]

Phoenix has Booker, who is a legit superstar at this point, but Paul is an aging star and Ayton is a really good player but not a superstar by any means.

Atlanta has Trae, who will have vaulted himself up a few tiers after these playoffs, and they have Collins, but hardly any other superstars on that team.

This isn't the Lakers with LeBron and AD or the Clippers with Kawhi and PG13 or Golden State with Curry/Durant.

Are the Suns and Hawks proving that good coaching can take a team with only one real star and make them into a legit contender? Obviously their roster construction is better than teams like Portland. But there has been this belief that you need multiple superstars to win rings lately. This season might disprove that.

Atlanta you could make a case for, but not so much with the Suns.

Suns have multiple all-stars.

Atlanta only has one, small all-star, which historically means they are highly unlikely to make the finals. However, if they beat the Bucks, they deserve a tip of the cap. Atlanta feels like a younger version of our 2019 team that got a nice draw and played well at the right time. Like I said about Miami last year, I don't expect them to be able to string together finals/conference finals runs.

 

[Natebishop3]

Atlanta you could make a case for, but not so much with the Suns.

Suns have multiple all-stars.

Atlanta only has one, small all-star, which historically means they are highly unlikely to make the finals. However, if they beat the Bucks, they deserve a tip of the cap. Atlanta feels like a younger version of our 2019 team that got a nice draw and played well at the right time. Like I said about Miami last year, I don't expect them to be able to string together finals/conference finals runs.

I refuse to use All-Stars as some kind of status symbol.

How many All-Stars did the Jazz have? Did Mike Conley play like an All-Star? The NBA for some reason loves to reward winning teams with multiple All-Star nods. It waters down and cheapens the achievement. A better argument would be All-NBA teams. Chris Paul has made the past two All-NBA second teams (with Dame funny enough).

But I specifically said SUPERSTARS because to me, a superstar is a different caliber than an All-Star. Kyle Kover was an All-Star. Jamaal Magloire was an All-Star. Magic Johnson was an All-Star despite basically being retired. The nod means nothing, or at least very little. It really shouldn't be used as some kind of measuring stick for HOF nods.

 

[Tince]

I refuse to use All-Stars as some kind of status symbol.

How many All-Stars did the Jazz have? Did Mike Conley play like an All-Star? The NBA for some reason loves to reward winning teams with multiple All-Star nods. It waters down and cheapens the achievement. A better argument would be All-NBA teams. Chris Paul has made the past two All-NBA second teams (with Dame funny enough).

But I specifically said SUPERSTARS because to me, a superstar is a different caliber than an All-Star. Kyle Kover was an All-Star. Jamaal Magloire was an All-Star. Magic Johnson was an All-Star despite basically being retired. The nod means nothing, or at least very little. It really shouldn't be used as some kind of measuring stick for HOF nods.

I get it what you're saying and "all-stars" aren't a perfect measure (I haven't found a perfect measure), but to me it is a more consistent label than each persons definition of superstar, which can vary greatly. For sure, not every all-star is the same. However, as I've pointed out, it's incredibly rare for a team with only one all-star, who is of below average height to reach the finals. I think it's tough to make a case that the all-star designation is so meaningless when it has a strong correlation with playoff success.

Another reason I like using all-stars and comparing it to playoff success is that all-stars are selected months before the NBA finals, so you can't just say the voting/selection process is based off of the team who already made it far.

Ultimately, there appears to be a simple formula to determine if your team has a realistic chance to make the finals:

1) Multiple All-Stars - Preferrably ones that have above average length for their position and impact the game on both end.
2) If only one All-Star, the player has to be a 1st team/MVP type player, who is above average height.

The Hawks may buck the trend (no pun intended), but I'll always bet the next years finals team will have multiple all-stars and/or an above average height MVP candidate player. You say you refuse to put any value in that label, but I'd guess you would agree that next years finals teams are more likely to have two all-stars than none. So it's not totally meaningless.

 

[tlongII]

The key is health.

 

[GrandpaBlaze]

So Chris Paul, NBA first ballot hall of famer, all star this year and last, who turned non-playoff team into an instant title contender isn't a superstar....because his ppg and asg are slightly down.....

Got it.

We had Carmelo, another first ballet hall of famer. Didn’t seem to help.

It isn’t just the primary ingredients, it is also having the right supporting ingredients to make the cake and the mixture of ingredients also need to have the right chemistry so everything interacts/reacts properly.

We didn’t seem to have the right supporting ingredients or at the least, the chemistry was wrong and the cake got burned.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

We had Carmelo, another first ballet hall of famer. Didn’t seem to help.

It isn’t just the primary ingredients, it is also having the right supporting ingredients to make the cake and the mixture of ingredients also need to have the right chemistry so everything interacts/reacts properly.

We didn’t seem to have the right supporting ingredients or at the least, the chemistry was wrong and the cake got burned.

I guess you missed the part where CP3 was an all star this year and last and Melo...well, wasn't.

 

[blazerkor]

I think the thing these playoffs are showing (besides the fact that a 4 month break and uncompressed schedule is healthier for players than a 1 month break and compressed schedule) is that roster construction is what matters the most. You have to have talent but the NBA is loaded with talent. The most important thing is if the talent fits together. Many in here will say that the coach is responsible for making the talent fit and that's part of it but it really isn't that simple.

The fact is that the Suns and Hawks have really good pieces that fill roles necessary to win. Trae is great but everyone on that team besides him has length and they're all really mobile, a ton of those guys spread the floor too. The Suns are incredibly athletic besides CP3 who is CP3 and is playing floor general with all of those athletes most of whom can shoot it with range. These teams are just mindfully put together to compliment each other. The coaches are doing well but they have the tools to do it with. No square pegs are being forced into round holes... that shit matters.

 

[BonesJones]

Phoenix has Booker, who is a legit superstar at this point, but Paul is an aging star and Ayton is a really good player but not a superstar by any means.

Atlanta has Trae, who will have vaulted himself up a few tiers after these playoffs, and they have Collins, but hardly any other superstars on that team.

This isn't the Lakers with LeBron and AD or the Clippers with Kawhi and PG13 or Golden State with Curry/Durant.

Are the Suns and Hawks proving that good coaching can take a team with only one real star and make them into a legit contender? Obviously their roster construction is better than teams like Portland. But there has been this belief that you need multiple superstars to win rings lately. This season might disprove that.

I wouldn't say that Atlanta's roster construction is better than ours.

 

[KSF-ERIC]

Doesn't that just prove you shouldn't hang all your hopes on two or three guys? Even the Bulls back in 93 were still so good that they lost MJ and still made it to the ECF with only Pip. The Clippers were shit last year with their superstars.

The Raptors won with only one 20+ ppg scorer.

The Spurs won without a single 20+ ppg scorer.

The Bulls did not reach the ECF without MJ in 1994. They lost in the 2nd round