Boston Celtics Showing They Don’t Need Another Superstar

http://hardwoodhoudini.com/2016/12/28/boston-celtics-showing-they-dont-need-another-superstar/







Boston Celtics Showing They Don’t Need Another Superstar


by Tom Mulherin


4 hours ago



Boston Celtics are proving they have enough star talent to win a championship

All the talk surrounding the Boston Celtics in recent years has said that this team is just one or two superstar additions from winning a title, or at least seriously contending for one.

And after the Celtics lost in the first round of the playoffs for a second-straight year last season, that sentiment has carried over into this year – despite adding marquee free agent Al Horford in the offseason.


But that was before All-Star point guard Isaiah Thomas started averaging 27 points and 6.2 assists through 27 games played so far. That was before defensive guru Avery Bradley upped his offensive game to finally be recognized as a potential star himself. That was before Horford started playing to the max deal he signed in the summer, averaging 15.7 points, seven rebounds, five assists and 2.1 blocks per game as the team’s center.

I count three stars right there, with Marcus Smart showing early signs of possibly getting to that level too. Does Boston really need another?


Right now, the Celtics sit in third place of the Eastern Conference with an 19-13 record. Boston has won six of its last seven games and is starting to find a balance it can ride into the postseason, as noted by our own Joshua Bateman.

No, that record isn’t perfect, and the Celtics can be frustratingly inconsistent. It doesn’t help that they’ve only played about 18 games with a healthy lineup, and are 6-8 in games where they need to overcome adversity.

That doesn’t scream contender, but not because Boston needs another superstar. The offense is more than functional, ranking 12th in the NBA with 105.5 points per game. The defense is respectable with a deep defensive core of Bradley, Smart, Jae Crowder, Amir Johnson, Terry Rozier and Horford.

Areas where another star would be needed aren’t the problem. Instead, it’s just one little (but big) area where the Celtics need help; rebounding.

Nearly halfway through the season, Boston is allowing a whopping 11.4 offensive rebounds to opponents per game. That’s the fourth-most allowed in the NBA, which leads to the fifth-most second chance points allowed per game (14.2) in the meantime.

Considering that only three of the Celtics’ 13 losses this year have been by more than eight points, those 14 second chance points allowed each and every game sure do make a large impact. Say the Celtics had another big man – not a superstar, but a decent role player – and had helped cut that second chance point total in half, this team would 29-3 instead of 19-13.

Just let that soak in for a second. 29-3.

With half of those second chance points allowed gone away, Boston catapults its defense from 103.3 points allowed per game to 96.2 points. That would rank second in the NBA, trailing ony the Utah Jazz.

Forget more scoring options. Forget another defending forward. Just add one more big man that could rebound the ball more efficiently than Johnson, Tyler Zeller and Kelly Olynyk, and Boston would be one of the premier teams in this league.



Does that require a superstar big man like DeMarcus Cousins or Anthony Davis? Not at all.

The Denver Nuggets have the best rebounding ranks out of any team in the NBA, and they sit at 13-18 with the likes of Nikola Jokic, Jusuf Nurkic, Kenneth Faried and Darrell Arthur as their big men. The Chicago Bulls, Charlotte Hornets and Phoenix Suns rank around the top of the NBA in rebounding as well, and none of those teams have an elite core of bigs to rack up rebounds.

It can be done without a superstar player to matchup with Horford.

Beyond that, do you really want general manager Danny Ainge to trade away Bradley, Crowder or Smart, along with first-round draft picks, in order to acquire a big man of that star caliber? That would seriously mess with the flow of this team.

And with that addition of star, that means the Celtics would take on a hefty contract they need to pay for. With Horford already signed to a max deal, that would leave no money to re-sign Thomas, Bradley or Smart to the money they will warrant once they reach free agency after next season. If one or more of them left, Boston would need to rediscover the style of play it has become accustomed to.


Trading for a superstar at this point not only seems unnecessary, but also seems like it could be detrimental for the long-term future of the team. The only area the Celtics need to improve on is rebounding, an area that plenty of cheap trade possibilities could help fix. Why trade away current assets for a star when a simple role player would work wonders?

It just doesn’t make sense.



bob
MY NOTE:  Another superstar?  Do we have even one?  Maybe not, but another All-Star?  Yeah.  He says that our weakness is rebounding and that can be fixed with a role player.  Yeah, a role player who plays 25mpg.  Rebounds don't usually come in bunches, where someone can come in and grab 8 in a couple of minutes.  They need to be on the floor to do that and if they are on the floor who is off it?  If this rebounding monster isn't a scorer then what happens?  Our offense suffers.  Sure, we're not giving up as many 2nd chances but we're not putting the ball in the hoop as much either.  Optimally, I'd like to get a board monster for, say, Tyler Zeller.  If Danny is not committed to re-signing Kelly, then trade Kelly for him but if Kelly is gone then we are back closer to where we were vs Atlanta in the playoffs, with nobody to pull their bigs out away from the basket.  Guards don't drag bigs out, only bigs do that, and if we trade a shooting big then we have to consider what impact that will have on our inside-out game.  

His worry about trading our future is the same stuff we heard when we got Ray Allen and KG back in the summer of 2007.  How'd that work out for us?  The draft is a crap shoot.  Sometimes you strike gold with an Anthony Davis, Blake Griffin and KAT but you also get your Michael Bennetts too.  And those are just #1 picks, once you drop a bit you get your Michael Beasley's and Adam Morrisons at #2.  A proven performer, an All-Star, is a bird in the hand.

Young teams don't win championships, it's the grizzled veterans with the thousand-yard stare that do.  The ones who see the bright lights and cameras as an annoyance and not as evidence they "have arrived".  Get me Boogie (possible), get me Blake Griffin (improbable), get me Anthony Davis (HIGHLY improbable) and I'd gladly accept the responsibility of finding role players to fit in behind them on the depth chart.

Is this author completely unaware of what happened in GSW during this past offseason?  They got KD and Zaza, David West and Javale McGee practically threw themselves at Steve Kerr, begging him to sign them.  Is he not a Boston Celtic fan?  Is he completely unaware of how we got Eddie House, PJ Brown and James Posey? They practically threw themselves at Doc and Danny, begging them to sign them so they could come along for what looked like from Day 1 like a Championship ride.  History repeats itself and has repeated itself.  Nothing succeeds like success.


.

bob
I 'll give you a SUPER STAR for your above analysis - which is something this current Celtic team does not have as of today. Like I've pointed out on several occasions in the past, in 35 of the last 36 years the champ has had at least 1 super star on its roster. We ain't their yet.

swish

Boston does need a superstar.
As we've seen in the playoffs the last two years, it's hard to expect IT to play at a very high level against very good teams.

There are 7 teams with a better record than Boston.
Boston is 0-8 against those teams.
If you can't beat them in the regular season, you probably won't beat them in the playoffs, when you don't have a true superstar.

I do not think we need a super-star but they definitely need a high quality scorer off the bench and a high Quality PF that can either start along side AH or be the first big off the bench.

dboss

swish wrote:bob
I 'll give you a SUPER STAR for your above analysis -  which is something this current Celtic team does not have as of today. Like I've pointed out on several occasions in the past, in 35 of the last 36 years the champ has had at least 1 super star on its roster. We ain't their yet.

swish

So IT is not a superstar? I ask not be combative, just wondering what it would take to call him a superstar. Since his offensive numbers are in the superstar universe, it can't be that. It also can't be the elusive "winning" factor, since his presence clearly elevates the whole team (think not only the recent spat of games where he was hurt, but also how much we improved right after Danny traded for him). So it must be his defensive limitations. Do all superstars really excel in every aspect of the game? I know I'm not the first to say it, but I really thinks IT's size and draft position still affect how he is perceived.

Shamrock,

Good post.  This thread almost begs the question, "What is a Superstar?"

What are the criteria?  Is there a rule?  Top 5 player in the league, top 10?  Is it a combination of six things, any of five of them together make a Superstar?  What, what, what?

Who was our Superstar in '08?  All three; PP, KG and RA were past their primes.  Not one of them carried any of their prior teams to the promised land.  IMO, they all contributed to the whole, more so than any single one of them shined brighter than the rest.  They may have been Superstars in the past, but in '08, not so much.  In '08, the talents of the three fit together like a fine tuned machine, almost like they had played together for years.

In '08, it was more about the team than any one player.  A different player stepped up each game; most of the time it was the "big three" (of course), followed by Rondo, TA, Perk, Posey, House, PJ Brown, Leon Powe (yes even him!), Glen Davis, etc.

Maybe all we really need is slightly better rebounding, slightly better shooting and a little luck.  Plus some continuity going into the playoffs.

gyso

IT is most definitely a superstar this year

Shamrock1000 wrote:

swish wrote:bob
I 'll give you a SUPER STAR for your above analysis -  which is something this current Celtic team does not have as of today. Like I've pointed out on several occasions in the past, in 35 of the last 36 years the champ has had at least 1 super star on its roster. We ain't their yet.

swish

So IT is not a superstar? I ask not be combative, just wondering what it would take to call him a superstar. Since his offensive numbers are in the superstar universe, it can't be that. It also can't be the elusive "winning" factor, since his presence clearly elevates the whole team  (think not only the recent spat of games where he was hurt, but also how much we improved right after Danny traded for him). So it must be his defensive limitations. Do all superstars really excel in every aspect of the game? I know I'm not the first to say it, but I really thinks IT's size and draft position still affect how he is perceived.

 Shamrock1000, gypso, dboss

 For several years I have presented a stat that I use to single out a super star -  which I also refer to as an elite player.
    1) Selected to the all nba team at least 66% of the 3 years leading up to the championship year  or
    2) Selected as an all star at least 75% of the 5 years leading up to the championship year.
    3) An additional factor - The team must have played at least .610 ball the year preceding the championship year. This is to ensure that the team has a reasonably talented roster to warrant serious consideration as a contender.There was a big exception to this rule when the Celts of 07-08 were the champs after having a miserable year in 06-07. Of  course prior to the start of the 07-08 season the Celts added 2 super stars to a roster that already included a super star ( Pierce).
 
 In sumation
 In 35 of the last 36 years the champ  has met the 3 above requirements - the lone exception was in 20014-15 When the warriors defeated the Cavs who were minus Love and Irving.

 During those 35 championship years the championship was won by only 11 different teams - who were led by the following super stars.

     James, Duncan, Nowitzki, O'neal Magic, Jabbar, Bird, Garnett, Wallace, Thomas (Detroit),Jordan, Pippen, Olajuwon, J Iving, Moses Malone - and there are more.

  On average about 4 to 6 teams will meet the above standards each year.  Of course there is always the exception to the rule - but a .962 winning per cent is not easily dismissed when considering the role of a super star.

  swish

The authers final sentence is, "it just doesn't make sense"

Well... in middle or late June 15 teams will be thinking the maybe needed just one more star and THEY might have been the 2017 NBA champs.

Of course 14 other teams will realize they were more than one player away and one other team will have realized that this year they had just what it took.

Boston is not one of the 14 teams... bUT for the celtics every year that doesn't end with a new banner is a failure- currently against the leagues top two teams in each conference we are currently 0-7 against the spurs, warriors, raptors and cavs...

So while we are a playoff team what proof can be offered up we can beat a top 4 team in a 7 game series?

Mebbe I am shouldn't be but if the current teams remains as is and wins the title i'll be shocked..

If we do win the title then no we didn't need that other superstar. If like 28 other teams we don't win the last post season game of the 2016-2017 season then yeah... we did need that guy. So the answer really is..

See me in late june.

Matty wrote:
...

If we do win the title then no we didn't need that other superstar. If like 28 other teams we don't win the last post season game of the 2016-2017 season then yeah... we did need that guy. So the answer really is..

See me in late june.

Matty,

Great point and even better answer!

Regards

NYCelt wrote:

Matty wrote:
...

If we do win the title then no we didn't need that other superstar. If like 28 other teams we don't win the last post season game of the 2016-2017 season then yeah... we did need that guy. So the answer really is..

See me in late june.

Matty,

Great point and even better answer!

Regards

0-8 now... it's time for the cousins era.

In my mind, the question about whether the Celtics need another superstar was pretty well answered last night in the loss at Cleveland. Not only does Cleveland have two 'for sure' superstars (with Love a borderline superstar as well) they also have more talent in the top eight players in their rotation.

To beat teams like the Cavs the Cs DO need more talent plain and simple.

You could say that Horford had and off game, but that could very well be because Cleveland is a lot better than our team. Olynyk and Johnson made zero statistical contributions while many more of our players were shown to be kind of a step behind all night long.

I love watching our team and the effort of the Celtics players under Stevens has almost never been a problem, but when the team faces the better teams more talent is going to be needed to get to banner #18.

The question then is, "how is this better talent going to be acquired?".

wideclyde wrote:In my mind, the question about whether the Celtics need another superstar was pretty well answered last night in the loss at Cleveland. Not only does Cleveland have two 'for sure' superstars (with Love a borderline superstar as well) they also have more talent in the top eight players in their rotation.

To beat teams like the Cavs the Cs DO need more talent plain and simple.

You could say that Horford had and off game, but that could very well be because Cleveland is a lot better than our team.  Olynyk and Johnson made zero statistical contributions while many more of our players were shown to be kind of a step behind all night long.

I love watching our team and the effort of the Celtics players under Stevens has almost never been a problem, but when the team faces the better teams more talent is going to be needed to get to banner #18.

The question then is, "how is this better talent going to be acquired?".

Wide,

I still like Matty's original answer.  There could not be a more true statement than to say if we win it all with what we have, we're good as is.

Of course we all know we're not yet strong enough, and I popped bold onto two of your comments I found on target, above.

What I believe we have now is a developing playoff roster.  Several guards have potential to be what's needed to get into, and perhaps past, the first round. We also have a forward that could be part of a contending team.  Beyond that we have some players that get the "nice player" tag.  Players you want for depth, that might give you 10 - 12 minutes a game without significant letup from the starters.  We also have a few that are at best end of bench guys, or, really, guys that couldn't stick on a contending championship level club.  Thomas, Bradley, Horford, Smart and possibly Crowder are the guys that I think could move the needle forward.  Too soon to say anything on Brown.

As to your well placed question "how is this better talent going to be acquired?," I think by trade is not the likely route.  At some point you have to establish a base on which to build.  In a non-fantasy trade scenario, other teams might look at just Bradley and Horford as attractive in an exchange.  At least, that is, in an exchange for a top level talent.  We'd have to package at least one of them with a high draft pick too.  That just blows up our current cornerstones then, so is probably not the way.

So that leaves us free agency and the draft.  We will have some money to spend on free agents.  But despite the glowing endorsement of mega-star Carmelo Anthony (heavy sarcasm here, in case anyone wonders), we still have trouble being viewed as a top destination for free agents.  If we can retain and develop a core 4 like I labeled earlier, that might not hurt our appearance to someone looking to join a playoff team.  A player at or near the stature of a Bradley, or Horford, thinking they could be a difference maker might be swayed.  I'm still not even identifying names, positions of need, or specific skill sets here, all of which narrow the list.

This is what brings me back to the draft, supplemented by mid-to upper mid tier free agents, and extreme patience.

No surprise in that we need a strong defensive forward and a sharp-shooting wing.  We don't have anyone we can trade for those types of player without blowing up the core we've started to build.  That Nets pick alone can't get it done, and wouldn't bring back an established top talent unless used in a big package anyway.

So what do you do?  Retain and use draft picks, while spending what you can on free agents, after you pay those core players you have to stick around.

This can be done right, and could result in an ongoing contender.  Unfortunately the term 'patience' is inadequate by itself.  This will take several seasons yet. A Player like Horford may help us start looking like possible champs, but may not have the gas in the tank to be part of #18.  Extreme patience.  Better use of picks in swaps or selections on more NBA ready players may be a factor (see Yabusele and/or Zizic).  Dogged, undying patience.

The draft, by necessity, may be the main ingredient.  We need more than a single draft, free agent signing, or 'ingredient' to make this a fully baked product.

It's the draft, then, and extreme, unflagging, long-term, hopelessly dedicated patience.  Followed by a long string of contending Celtics teams beginning five or six seasons from now.

Regards

Sidebar.  The time I'll put into something on the last business day of each year when I'm procrastinating sending the state tax check in is amazing.

I doubt That Danny will be relying on draft picks to find that next super star to fill out the roster. The incubation period is too long - 4 or more years to grow the youngsters into seasoned super stars. I'll bet on free agency or the trade route.


    swish

Anymore questions about IT's superstar status?

dboss

swish wrote:I doubt That Danny will be relying on draft picks to find that next super star to fill out the roster. The incubation period is too long - 4 or more years to grow the youngsters into seasoned super stars. I'll bet on free agency or the trade route.


    swish

Swish,

I'm thinking 5 - 6 years before we can build a serious contender anyway. That and the fact that we have nothing to trade to bring back a superstar. Might be we don't need a superstar (how do we define superstar? Top 5 in the league?) Maybe another player or two of Bradley or Horford's stature. My guess, at least.

Regards

NYCelt wrote:

swish wrote:I doubt That Danny will be relying on draft picks to find that next super star to fill out the roster. The incubation period is too long - 4 or more years to grow the youngsters into seasoned super stars. I'll bet on free agency or the trade route.


    swish

Swish,

I'm thinking 5 - 6 years before we can build a serious contender anyway.  That and the fact that we have nothing to trade to bring back a superstar.  Might be we don't need a superstar (how do we define superstar?  Top 5 in the league?)  Maybe another player or two of Bradley or Horford's stature.  My guess, at least.

Regards

NYCelt

Do you think that Danny has the mindset to want to add another 4-6 years to the 4 year rebuild he's already experienced ? By the way - I've posted my qualification for super star status in an earlier post.

swish

dboss wrote:Anymore questions about IT's superstar status?

dboss

dboss

He sure has been fantastic this year - superstar numbers for sure - but its quite likely that from this point forward he will be wearing a jersey with a huge bulls-eye on it. I'll pass final judgement at the end of the season.

swish

Good points all around.  However they are not mutually  exclusive.  On the one hand I do agree that we need another stud and DA said 5 years but this is still only year 4.

That is why DA has moved cautiously.   His thoughts must be on the value of the Nets pick both in terms of added young talent or a chip to be used in a trade.  

I like Danny.  He will have his cake and eat it too.  He can keep the promising HIGH pick and still make a deal using the Nets 2018 pick, some expiring contract and a player or two and add the next significant piece.

DA is still ahead of schedule.

dboss

Philly's win buts them in a tie with the Nets with 8 wins. Top pick looking a bit better.

swish wrote:

NYCelt wrote:

swish wrote:I doubt That Danny will be relying on draft picks to find that next super star to fill out the roster. The incubation period is too long - 4 or more years to grow the youngsters into seasoned super stars. I'll bet on free agency or the trade route.


    swish

Swish,

I'm thinking 5 - 6 years before we can build a serious contender anyway.  That and the fact that we have nothing to trade to bring back a superstar.  Might be we don't need a superstar (how do we define superstar?  Top 5 in the league?)  Maybe another player or two of Bradley or Horford's stature.  My guess, at least.

Regards

NYCelt

  Do you think that Danny has the mindset to want to add another 4-6 years to the 4 year rebuild he's already experienced ?  By the way - I've posted my qualification for super star status in an earlier post.

  swish

Swish,

Call me guilty of extreme mental lapse; of course your superstar definition is right there in your earlier post!

In baseball, there seems to be more clear cut definitions of superstar.  A position player, for instance, must at least be a 5-tool player before the conversation begins.  Since I've never seen a clear definition for basketball, yours seems reasonable.  I'll even go with or without your third, team oriented, qualification.

So to go back and answer your question on Danny Ainge's willingness to wait as long as I suggest; I would doubt that he wants to, I simply think he has no choice.  We don't have enough to trade to acquire a superstar unless we empty the cupboard and go back to square one.  In my opinion, in order to land a superstar, we would have to start the rebuild all over.  In part that even reaffirms my conclusion that we're 5 - 6 seasons away from serious contention.  Do it via draft, while assembling complimentary free agents, or swap our best chips for a superstar and then build a supporting cast...either way I think we're 5 or more seasons away from a title shot.

I don't think Danny likes it any better than the fans. In my view, I just think it's the clear picture.

Regards...and Happy New Year!

NYCelt wrote:

swish wrote:

NYCelt wrote:

swish wrote:I doubt That Danny will be relying on draft picks to find that next super star to fill out the roster. The incubation period is too long - 4 or more years to grow the youngsters into seasoned super stars. I'll bet on free agency or the trade route.


    swish

Swish,

I'm thinking 5 - 6 years before we can build a serious contender anyway.  That and the fact that we have nothing to trade to bring back a superstar.  Might be we don't need a superstar (how do we define superstar?  Top 5 in the league?)  Maybe another player or two of Bradley or Horford's stature.  My guess, at least.

Regards

NYCelt

  Do you think that Danny has the mindset to want to add another 4-6 years to the 4 year rebuild he's already experienced ?  By the way - I've posted my qualification for super star status in an earlier post.

  swish

Swish,

Call me guilty of extreme mental lapse; of course your superstar definition is right there in your earlier post!

In baseball, there seems to be more clear cut definitions of superstar.  A position player, for instance, must at least be a 5-tool player before the conversation begins.  Since I've never seen a clear definition for basketball, yours seems reasonable.  I'll even go with or without your third, team oriented, qualification.

So to go back and answer your question on Danny Ainge's willingness to wait as long as I suggest; I would doubt that he wants to, I simply think he has no choice.  We don't have enough to trade to acquire a superstar unless we empty the cupboard and go back to square one.  In my opinion, in order to land a superstar, we would have to start the rebuild all over.  In part that even reaffirms my conclusion that we're 5 - 6 seasons away from serious contention.  Do it via draft, while assembling complimentary free agents, or swap our best chips for a superstar and then build a supporting cast...either way I think we're 5 or more seasons away from a title shot.

I don't think Danny likes it any better than the fans.  In my view, I just think it's the clear picture.

Regards...and Happy New Year!

Happy New Year NYCelt
Its always a pleasure to get your slant on issues - but I want you to know that your opinion on this subject is creating a little grief for me. Championship ready in 6 years? - Yikes - that pushes me over the 90 year old threshold. Oh well - just another motivation to stay out of the fast lane. About baseball, the number one love of my youth. I had a book that addressed the issue of super star status which dated back to the 1950's. Could be that I still have it kicking around some where.

swish

IT has soared to new heights. Damn good vertical for a guy 5'9".

Swish,

I've personally been going with the mantra that 50 is the new 30.  If so, 90 is the new 70.  My mother is 90 and I swear she's mentally sharper than me.  My wife's grandmother lived to 109, and my mother-in-law is 91 and except for a little hearing loss is more youthful than many 70-year olds.  My expectation of you is no less than kicking a little backside well past 90.  Despite my stated view, if you want a championship prior to that, I'm on board!

Regards

swish wrote:

Shamrock1000 wrote:

swish wrote:bob
I 'll give you a SUPER STAR for your above analysis -  which is something this current Celtic team does not have as of today. Like I've pointed out on several occasions in the past, in 35 of the last 36 years the champ has had at least 1 super star on its roster. We ain't their yet.

swish

So IT is not a superstar? I ask not be combative, just wondering what it would take to call him a superstar. Since his offensive numbers are in the superstar universe, it can't be that. It also can't be the elusive "winning" factor, since his presence clearly elevates the whole team  (think not only the recent spat of games where he was hurt, but also how much we improved right after Danny traded for him). So it must be his defensive limitations. Do all superstars really excel in every aspect of the game? I know I'm not the first to say it, but I really thinks IT's size and draft position still affect how he is perceived.

 Shamrock1000, gypso, dboss

 For several years I have presented a stat that I use to single out a super star -  which I also refer to as an elite player.
    1) Selected to the all nba team at least 66% of the 3 years leading up to the championship year  or
    2) Selected as an all star at least 75% of the 5 years leading up to the championship year.
    3) An additional factor - The team must have played at least .610 ball the year preceding the championship year. This is to ensure that the team has a reasonably talented roster to warrant serious consideration as a contender.There was a big exception to this rule when the Celts of 07-08 were the champs after having a miserable year in 06-07. Of  course prior to the start of the 07-08 season the Celts added 2 super stars to a roster that already included a super star ( Pierce).
 
 In sumation
 In 35 of the last 36 years the champ  has met the 3 above requirements - the lone exception was in 20014-15 When the warriors defeated the Cavs who were minus Love and Irving.

 During those 35 championship years the championship was won by only 11 different teams - who were led by the following super stars.

     James, Duncan, Nowitzki, O'neal Magic, Jabbar, Bird, Garnett, Wallace, Thomas (Detroit),Jordan, Pippen, Olajuwon, J Iving, Moses Malone - and there are more.

  On average about 4 to 6 teams will meet the above standards each year.  Of course there is always the exception to the rule - but a .962 winning per cent is not easily dismissed when considering the role of a super star.

  swish

Hey Swish - thanks for the thoughtful reply, it gave me a lot to consider. Regarding points 1) and 2), the allstar selections you mention certainly would indicate a superstar-type player. But I guess I would like to know then, what does a player need to do to be selected to the allstar team that many times? What sort of play/stats would warrant this sort of respect from peers/coaches/fans?

To play devil's advocate, I could claim that IT will (or at least should) be selected as an allstar this year, which would be his second selection. One could also argue that the year prior, his first with the Celtics, he was playing like an allstar after the trade. Even if that last assertion is a stretch, assuming no injuries, it is not unreasonable to think IT will continue to out up similar numbers next year, warranting an allstar selection (which would be his 3rd). Suppose the C's end up playing 0.610 ball this year, which seems to be in play - would you then consider IT a superstar? or is a banner absolutely necessary?

My gut says IT is not a superstar, certainly not like Lebron/MJ/Bird/Magic. But how far is he really from a Paul Pierce/Ray Allen? Again, my gut says he cannot be at that level, but I wonder if I am biased by his size/draft position/etc?? The numbers say he is playing pretty other-wordly these days. Given is contract, he might be providing more bang for the buck than any other player in the NBA. Who would you trade IT for, other than Lebron/KD/Anthony Davis/Westbrook?