Did the Raptors just settle the multiple stars debate?

Did the Raptors just settle the multiple stars debate?

You know the one; that you need multiple top tier All-Stars to win the NBA title.

I think they've proved it wrong, and made a strong case for building a contender from solid, if not top-shelf, players.

Did they catch a break or two along the way? Sure. But every champion seems to get a mulligan some time.

Top rung players? Kawhi. That's it. Gasol? Five or so years ago. Lowry? another aging A- to B list player. Siakam? Nice young player, not a super star by any means. Iggy? Maybe long ago when the Earth was flat. Err... I mean green. Ibaka? Very solid bench strength without a doubt, but about it at this stage. Green? no.

So one mid-first round pick from San Diego State who became a star, and that's it.

Let's chew on this for a while.

Yes. But didn’t the Cs settle this debate in the 60s?

No they have not settled the debate.

I do not believe they would have beaten GSW if they were healthy.

KyleCleric wrote:Yes. But didn’t the Cs settle this debate in the 60s?

Excellent point.

I'd answer that one yes and no.

Several HOF players on those squads, in a smaller league.

If KD and Klay were healthy, we would probably say, "see, you need superstars to win a championship".

dboss wrote:No they have not settled the debate.

I do not believe they would have beaten GSW if they were healthy.  

dboss,

I think Golden State is the exception that proves the rule. An extreme outlier, loaded with shooters with big contracts.

Also; Toronto won.

Doesn't matter who was or wasn't injured.

Can't take anything away from Toronto for getting there, staying healthy, and knocking off strong competition through the season and playoffs to do it.

Regards

tjmakz wrote:If KD and Klay were healthy, we would probably say, "see, you need superstars to win a championship".

But they lost.

Milwaukee and Toronto had great runs with a single star and strong supporting cast. There will be more.

That, and a team with younger players that contends. Give it time. That one could even be the Celtics.

It's the old case of the guy that says it can't be done getting interrupted by the guy who just did it.

This was the first team to win it all that did not have one lottery pick.

I really believe if we build around Jaylen, Jayson and Marcus Smart, keep them as the base, draft more key talent, sign some key vets, develop RW, we will be fine....

cowens/oldschool wrote:This was the first team to win it all that did not have one lottery pick.

I really believe if we build around Jaylen, Jayson and Marcus Smart, keep them as the base, draft more key talent, sign some key vets, develop RW, we will be fine....

I'm with you 100%.

NYCelt wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:This was the first team to win it all that did not have one lottery pick.

I really believe if we build around Jaylen, Jayson and Marcus Smart, keep them as the base, draft more key talent, sign some key vets, develop RW, we will be fine....

I'm with you 100%.

Me too. Though all 3 were lottery picks

Breaks of the game - but I hate to see the injury bug play such a huge role in any sporting event.

swish

KyleCleric wrote:

NYCelt wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:This was the first team to win it all that did not have one lottery pick.

I really believe if we build around Jaylen, Jayson and Marcus Smart, keep them as the base, draft more key talent, sign some key vets, develop RW, we will be fine....

I'm with you 100%.

Me too. Though all 3 were lottery picks

I like us getting talented lottery picks, now keep developing them.

Yes, injuries happened and they hurt GS.
Milwaukee was very good this year and they only have 1 superstar.
They were better than Toronto all season, up until the ECF.

If anything, this year showed that you still need a top 5 player to lead you to the championship.
You need a Kawhi, Lebron, Curry, Durant type of player.

If a team doesn't have a top 5 or top 10 player, you probably are not winning the championship.

NYCelt wrote:

KyleCleric wrote:Yes. But didn’t the Cs settle this debate in the 60s?

Excellent point.

I'd answer that one yes and no.

Several HOF players on those squads, in a smaller league.

NYCelt

Don't judge those late 50's and 1960 teams by the number of allstars they had on their roster. As little as 100 players in the league in 1956-57 - and 24 of them made the allstar team. Now its still 24 allstars but now it's about 450 players.

swish

tjmakz wrote:Yes, injuries happened and they hurt GS.
Milwaukee was very good this year and they only have 1 superstar.
They were better than Toronto all season, up until the ECF.

If anything, this year showed that you still need a top 5 player to lead you to the championship.
You need a Kawhi, Lebron, Curry, Durant type of player.

If a team doesn't have a top 5 or top 10 player, you probably are not winning the championship.

Durant is gonna be 32 by the time he comes back, Lebron will be 35 next year.

I gotta believe by the time they are 24-25, both 2 J’s will be avg 20+ points a game and be top 10 players in league at wing position....we could have 2.

cowens/oldschool wrote:

tjmakz wrote:Yes, injuries happened and they hurt GS.
Milwaukee was very good this year and they only have 1 superstar.
They were better than Toronto all season, up until the ECF.

If anything, this year showed that you still need a top 5 player to lead you to the championship.
You need a Kawhi, Lebron, Curry, Durant type of player.

If a team doesn't have a top 5 or top 10 player, you probably are not winning the championship.

Durant is gonna be 32 by the time he comes back, Lebron will be 35 next year.

I gotta believe by the time they are 24-25, both 2 J’s will be avg 20+ points a game and be top 10 players in league at wing position....we could have 2.

They could be top 10 players as could many other young players in the league.
We have no idea what the teams rosters will look like in 3 years.
Rosters will probably change dramatically in the next month.
As of right now, you still need at least one superstar to lead you through the playoffs.

NYCelt wrote:

dboss wrote:No they have not settled the debate.

I do not believe they would have beaten GSW if they were healthy.  

dboss,

I think Golden State is the exception that proves the rule. An extreme outlier, loaded with shooters with big contracts.

Also; Toronto won.

Doesn't matter who was or wasn't injured.

Can't take anything away from Toronto for getting there, staying healthy, and knocking off strong competition through the season and playoffs to do it.

Regards

If you take a look back in history you will find the vast majority of NBA champions had 2-3 allstars on their teams when they won. Even this year Toronto had Leonard of course but Lowery is a 5 time NBA allstar including this year.

I do not see anything really special about the Raptors winning. They are obviously an excellent team and a tough matchup for any opponent including GS.

I'm not taking anything away from the Raptors. But they do not get to double and triple team Curry when Durant is on the court. They do not get to double team Klay when Curry and Durant are on the floor.

I still believe that you need great players on the same team to win.

They have not settled the multiple stars debate.

NYCelt wrote:Did the Raptors just settle the multiple stars debate?

You know the one; that you need multiple top tier All-Stars to win the NBA title.

I think they've proved it wrong, and made a strong case for building a contender from solid, if not top-shelf, players.

Did they catch a break or two along the way? Sure. But every champion seems to get a mulligan some time.

Top rung players? Kawhi. That's it. Gasol? Five or so years ago. Lowry? another aging A- to B list player. Siakam? Nice young player, not a super star by any means. Iggy? Maybe long ago when the Earth was flat. Err... I mean green. Ibaka? Very solid bench strength without a doubt, but about it at this stage. Green? no.

So one mid-first round pick from San Diego State who became a star, and that's it.

Let's chew on this for a while.

I believe Siakam though not a Super Star..yet, at times played like one and is headed that way. I agree with the premise that you don’t necessarily have have multiple stars. Now, which Raptor goes by the name Iggy? Or did you mean Andre Iggy on the Warriors?

tjmakz wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:

tjmakz wrote:Yes, injuries happened and they hurt GS.
Milwaukee was very good this year and they only have 1 superstar.
They were better than Toronto all season, up until the ECF.

If anything, this year showed that you still need a top 5 player to lead you to the championship.
You need a Kawhi, Lebron, Curry, Durant type of player.

If a team doesn't have a top 5 or top 10 player, you probably are not winning the championship.

Durant is gonna be 32 by the time he comes back, Lebron will be 35 next year.

I gotta believe by the time they are 24-25, both 2 J’s will be avg 20+ points a game and be top 10 players in league at wing position....we could have 2.

They could be top 10 players as could many other young players in the league.
We have no idea what the teams rosters will look like in 3 years.
Rosters will probably change dramatically in the next month.
As of right now, you still need at least one superstar to lead you through the playoffs.

Oh really last year we got one game of the Finals with no superstar, just a bunch of talented kids that played as a unit and played as hard as they could. If we didn’t take so many bad 3’s in game 7 we easily could have gotten there and we would have put on a better series than Cavs....I believe Tatum avg 18.5 and Jaylen 18 a game leading us during last years playoff run, so if we got there last year we would have done it without an established superstar.

swish wrote:

NYCelt wrote:

KyleCleric wrote:Yes. But didn’t the Cs settle this debate in the 60s?

Excellent point.

I'd answer that one yes and no.

Several HOF players on those squads, in a smaller league.

NYCelt

 Don't judge those late 50's and 1960 teams by the number of allstars they had on their roster. As little as 100 players in the league in 1956-57 - and 24 of them made the allstar team. Now its still 24 allstars but now it's about 450 players.



 swish

Yeah but how many of those all stars ended up as HOFers? We had/have several. I believe therein lies the difference.

I think this is a silly debate.The 60s Celtics had Russell, Sam Jones , Havlicek, all hall of famers. Who gets to decide what constitutes a super star? Havlicek turned out to be one , when he was turned loose in the 70s. Heinsohn was pretty damn good, too. Apropos of nothing , Don Nelson lives in Hawaii, regularly hosts a poker game with frequent guests Woodie Harrelson and Owen Wilson and gets high with Willie Nelson. Not a bad retirement strategy. Of course Nellie pioneered positionless basketball too.

If the reference is to guys who were already recognized as super stars, yes, you could probably say the 60s Celtics answered the question, but it is a totally fictitious standard to begin with.

Ktronic1 wrote:

swish wrote:

NYCelt wrote:

KyleCleric wrote:Yes. But didn’t the Cs settle this debate in the 60s?

Excellent point.

I'd answer that one yes and no.

Several HOF players on those squads, in a smaller league.

NYCelt

 Don't judge those late 50's and 1960 teams by the number of allstars they had on their roster. As little as 100 players in the league in 1956-57 - and 24 of them made the allstar team. Now its still 24 allstars but now it's about 450 players.



 swish

Yeah but how many of those all stars ended up as HOFers? We had/have several. I believe therein lies the difference.

Ktronic

Whether it be All star or HOF it's only a reflection of their level of play during their playing days. But the HOF honor is not limited to a specific time frame - and still allows players from those early years to be selected to the HOF 60 plus years after they left the game. An honor that is based on the level of play and reputation of the distant past. That the Celtics were a super team during the Russell Dynasty goes hand in hand with the fact that they had the best talent yearly, which eventually led several of them to HOF careers.

swish

Right I think we covered this in depth swish and it was unanimous that Russell made many of his teammates into all stars and HoFers.

cowens/oldschool wrote:Right I think we covered this in depth swish and it was unanimous that Russell made many of his teammates into all stars and HoFers.

Does it really matter why they became good enough to be selected for those honors by the fans and selection committee?

swish