AJC Mike Check Michael Cunningham’s ramblings from the world of sports. Of course Hawks need a superstar but they aren’t easy to acquire

[HawkItus]

AJC Mike Check

Michael Cunningham’s ramblings from the world of sports.

Of course Hawks need a superstar but they aren’t easy to acquire

By Michael Cunningham

May 17, 2016 

| Filed in: Ajc-sports.ajc, Atlanta Hawks

 

 

The Hawks got it right when they selected Al Horford No. 3 in the 2007 draft. He just never became a superstar. (Curtis Compton/ccompton@ajc.com)

It’s easy to say the Hawks won’t be a real championship contender until they get a superstar. Duh. It’s much harder for them to actually acquire one because those players are, by definition, a rare commodity. Dang.

There are 30 NBA teams but no more than 10 superstars, by which I mean players voted first- or second-team All-NBA. Right now at least two teams, the Warriors and Thunder, have a pair of superstars. So that leaves six superstars for the other 28 teams. There are never be enough to go around.

When it comes to winning NBA championships, history strongly favors those with a Top 10 player:

• There have been 66 NBA champions since the first was crowned in 1950, and 63 of those teams (95.5 percent) placed at least one player on one of the top two All-NBA teams during the season they won the title.
• Only 13 of 66 finals runner-up teams (19.7 percent) failed to place a player on one of the top two All-NBA teams.
• The 1990 Pistons are the last NBA champion without a top 10 player in the year they won it. They did have Joe Dumars, who was third-team NBA that year, second-team NBA in 1993 and now is a member of the Hall of Fame.
• The 2010 Celtics are the last NBA finals runner-up without a top 10 player in the year they won it. They did have Paul Pierce (second-team All-NBA the year before and Finals MVP in 2008) and Kevin Garnett (first-team All-NBA in 2008 and league MVP in 2004).

You get the picture. An NBA superstar has been a prerequisite for more than 9 in 10 NBA champions. It’s been a requirement for eight out of 10 conference champions. The exceptions include a lot of teams with ex-superstars or future superstars. The All-NBA teams haven’t been announced for this season but the trend isn’t going to change with the Warriors, Thunder, and Cavaliers certain to have at least one Top 10 selection and Toronto’s Kyle Lowry likely to make the cut.

[macdaddy]

I read this one.   I wish i got paid to write crap like this.   Cunningham is usually pretty good but this piece is about as uninformative as you can get.   Tell us something we don't know.

[NBASupes]

Fix the article

[macdaddy]

How about an analysis of how these teams acquired the players that became superstar/championship players?   How about a run down of potential superstars that may be on the move this summer and what it would take to get them?

[Guest]

I still can't read the article. It's too vertical lol

[Bankingitbig]

I think a case can be made for Paul Millsap on the second team All-NBA if Draymond Green is slotted as a Center. That would make Paul a superstar by his definition..

[macdaddy]

39 minutes ago, Spud2Nique said:

I still can't read the article. It's too vertical lol

It's narrow but fine on my machine.

[JTB]

I personally think the article is great just because we have some out there that don't believe the NBA is dominated by superstars. Therefore it's good to bring it to attention that having an solid all around team still won't put us in real championship contention. 

It's possible for the Hawks to have the best starting 5 in the east next season next to the cavs by simply adding batum if he were to come and even though batum would fix a lot of issues we will still not be a real championship contender.

in other words it's highly possible to have a solid all around team in the NBA and still just not be good enough to challenge the elite..even if 4 of your guys could be legit all stars (Teague, Batum,Sap,Horford) with a solid maybe top 12 bench (Dennis,hardaway or korver, Thabo, Scott, humphries)...good moves, great team overall....STILL not enough.

Bud has his hands full!...and it's not easy when you know it's tough to acquire a superstar.

what do you do?

some think millsap can be recognized as a superstar and maybe he could have once upon of time but at his age the NBA isn't going to promote him. If you don't get promoted as a star player before 31 or 32 you can hang that it up wishing for that.

we had our chances for our players to be stars. Johnson, Smith, Horford....and Teague was the latest one! All he had to do is repeat his performance from last year or improve but he only managed to play a half of season like an all star. Now we need to get Dennis on track and hope he becomes the star.

[macdaddy]

I don't think anyone believes the NBA is not dominated by superstars.   I think the only disagreement is on the best way to acquire one.   I think some of us prefer having a really good team to sucking, building, oops didn't work, tear down again.   Not to start the whole tank/treadmill argument again, but I think you are hard pressed to find anyone who thinks we're better off without a superstar.

Millsap isn't one.   I love him but he just doesn't have the ability of scorers like Lebron, Durant etc. to consistently deliver when it counts.  

[HawkItus]

I think the article is a good one for the mainstream fan.  Most people on here knew this probably.  Most quasi NBA fans don't.   Those who say why don't the Hawks just go get Durant for Teague and some Varisty dogs this summer.   Now I would love for someone to breakdown how the 1st/2nd team guys did who didn't win the title.   Did any of them have none playoff teams?  Were they mainly vets who took over spots held by other guys on the All-NBA teams?  What's the prime age of a All-NBA player winning a title?

[Guest]

This is an old hat debate with the same faults propping up again: Superstar isn't well defined. To the extent that it is (1st or 2nd all-nba) there's an obvious problem of....well Klay Thompson has never been voted to either and yet is assumed a "superstar" here.

Defining someone as a superstar is begging the question. They're a superstar because they gots the rangz and you can only get rangz if you're a superstar (or voted to 1st or 2nd all-nba)!

[Gray Mule]

You can't because you don't have because you can't because you don't have.

You can sit in a rocking chair and simply rock and rock.  Where did you go?

You didn't get any where.  You are still right back where you started.

Hawks can't win it all because they don't have a super star.  They don't have a super star because they can't win!

What makes a player a super star?  We all know there are only a few and they all belong to winning teams.

They win because they have super stars.  They have super stars because they win.

Watch a dog chase his tail.  Round and round he goes, his target just out of reach.  Watch the Atlanta Hawks as they

chase after a super star.  Dang.  We almost had that one !!

Super stars tend to flock together.  They expect and get big $$$ paydays.  Also, nearly super stars will hunt for and

join the super stars and these teams with the super stars go all out to sign them.  Example:  Cleveland, which is way

over the  $$$ limit but don't care because they are still wining in the playoffs.

[Sothron]

The definition of superstar should be something simple: do you think this player is good enough to win a title as the main player? If the answer is yes then that player is a superstar. If not then they are not a superstar. And yes, the Hawks do need one because we have not had one since Nique. The problem we have is the only way we seem capable of getting one is through the draft.

[Jody23]

4 minutes ago, Sothron said:

The definition of superstar should be something simple: do you think this player is good enough to win a title as the main player? If the answer is yes then that player is a superstar. If not then they are not a superstar. And yes, the Hawks do need one because we have not had one since Nique. The problem we have is the only way we seem capable of getting one is through the draft.

This exactly.

[MaceCase]

Just now, Sothron said:

The definition of superstar should be something simple: do you think this player is good enough to win a title as the main player? If the answer is yes then that player is a superstar. If not then they are not a superstar. And yes, the Hawks do need one because we have not had one since Nique. The problem we have is the only way we seem capable of getting one is through the draft.

I see a problem with that definition given that you are using Nique as an example.  It touches on what Fanatic is saying, are you a superstar as a result of achieving X or because you are a superstar you can achieve X?  Nique did neither yet is still considered a superstar so clearly a different definition needs to be used as "lead a team" and "lead a title team" are two different things. 

[Sothron]

6 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

I see a problem with that definition given that you are using Nique as an example.  It touches on what Fanatic is saying, are you a superstar as a result of achieving X or because you are a superstar you can achieve X?  Nique did neither yet is still considered a superstar so clearly a different definition needs to be used as "lead a team" and "lead a title team" are two different things. 

I see no problem with it. Nique was hands down good enough to win a title as the main player provided the rest of the team was good enough. It clearly was not but Nique was still a superstar. Just like Sir Charles, Ewing, Malone/Stockton, Payton/Kemp etc.

[Guest]

We need to define today's SuperStar.

Nique was the man, Charles, Ewing  with good solid pieces around them.

With players teaming up today it's a shared responsiblity.

I'm just rambling kinda like the article I guess.

[macdaddy]

3 minutes ago, Sothron said:

I see no problem with it. Nique was hands down good enough to win a title as the main player provided the rest of the team was good enough. It clearly was not but Nique was still a superstar. Just like Sir Charles, Ewing, Malone/Stockton, Payton/Kemp etc.

Is DWade?   He's never won a title without another, really better, superstar on the team.

Paul George?

Chris Paul?

Melo?

Harden?

Westbrook?

[MaceCase]

Just now, Sothron said:

I see no problem with it. Nique was hands down good enough to win a title as the main player provided the rest of the team was good enough. It clearly was not but Nique was still a superstar. Just like Sir Charles, Ewing, Malone/Stockton, Payton/Kemp etc.

Thus lies the rabbit hole.  If you are now including "team" into the discussion then that lessens the importance of the "superstar" if his ability to win a title is now tied in to the ability of his teammates.   Beyond that, wouldn't you have to put Nique a tier below all of those other guys given that they were actually the main guy in title rounds whereas he wasn't?

[JTB]

22 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

Thus lies the rabbit hole.  If you are now including "team" into the discussion then that lessens the importance of the "superstar" if his ability to win a title is now tied in to the ability of his teammates.   Beyond that, wouldn't you have to put Nique a tier below all of those other guys given that they were actually the main guy in title rounds whereas he wasn't?

I just don't feel like thats a fair argument when nique played against bird and the celtics who were extremely deep! The fact that nique showed up in those games and played just as good if not better than bird he's absolutely a superstar player and no doubt a hall of fame of course....unfortuantely he just didn't have a deeper team.