BGleas

I didn't mean you have to be MVP winner that particular season you win a title, but you need an MVP level talent to win a title. Yes, Duncan was older the last time the Spurs won, but it's like a HOF pitcher that has lost his fastball but learns how to pitch the edges and with control. The greatness is still there and comes out when the team needs it, just not for 82 games anymore. Duncan was still great for the Spurs when they needed it and a lot of what they did flowed through him, Dirk finished 6th the season Dallas won, but again it's not necessarily about being MVP caliber that season, just that you have a guy that has proven he can raise his game to that level when needed. Also, KG finished 3rd in the MVP the year the Celtics won the title. He was still a legit MVP caliber player (until he got hurt the following season) that season and won DPOY. History just shows this. If you go back to 1980, the Pistons ('89, '90, '04) are the only team to win a title without at least one former or current MVP.

I think one thing that history has shown, though the game/league is changing rapidly, is that it's very difficult to win an NBA title without a legit, viable MVP winner/candidate. I don't mean someone that finished 4th in the voting one time, I mean someone that is in the discussion annually and has either won an MVP or is clearly in a pool of players that will most likely win one (think Anthony Davis) in their career. I don't see guys like Kyrie, Oladipo, Wall, Paul George, Lilliard, Griffin, etc., actually ever winning an MVP or leading a team to an NBA title. Obviously I'm a huge Paul Pierce guy, having worked with him directly, he was a 10-time all-star and as much as I love him he wasn't winning a title until he played with an MVP in Garnett.

After all the drama with the Celtics a week or so ago, they’re on a 4-game winning streak with Kyrie averaging 30.8 ppg on 60.3% shooting (14-25 3-pt), 11apg and 2.5spg. It’s just a 4 game sample size and I still don’t think you win a title with Kyrie as your best player (there’s only handful of guys that can as the lead guy), but with all the recent drama there is no doubt that Kyrie is lifting this team up, making them better (along with Horford and a couple others) and being a leader.

Kyrie scored or assisted on Boston’s final 25 points tonight, in a game Toronto had a lead under 4 minutes to go.

I agree that you probably won’t win a title with Kyrie as your best player. I agree that it’s really hard to win a title with a point guard (predominantly scoring point guard) as your best player. I don’t think you’re winning a title with any of the following guys as your best player, Wall, Westbrook, Chris Paul (even in prime), Kyrie, etc. But, to say he doesn’t elevate his team isn’t accurate. He’s played much improved defense since coming to Boston and has blended in more than he has in the past. Boston was absolutely a better team with him than the year before with IT. If you saw the Toronto game tonight, Kyrie won the Celtics the game the last 4 minutes hitting huge shots and distributing. He finished with 27pts, on an extremely efficient 11-for-19 shooting, to go with 18ast (three straight during a crucial stretch the last 2:30 that won the game). It was just one game, but Kyrie absolutely dominated the last 4-5 minutes. Can he do that leading a team in a 7 game series in the Eastern Conference Finals? I don’t know. But, I also don’t know if Oladipo, Giannis, Embiid, or anyone in the East outside of Kawaii can. I do agree that for this Celtics group to win titles, they probably need to package some of the young assets and picks for another star to go with Kyrie. Obviously Anthony Davis would be the target.

Maybe it's not Kyrie? Among regular rotation players his ranks are below... PER: 15th WS: 14th VORP: 11th Box +/-: 7th Off Box +/-: 3rd The Celtics definitely have some chemistry issues, something isn't right, and Kyrie has probably contributed to some of that, but at the same time some guys just haven't shown up this season. I'm a fan of his, but Jaylen Brown has been bad this season, Rozier has had a difficult time going back to the bench and isn't embracing his role, and reintegrating Hayward has been more challenging than probably most thought.

Yup. Celtics are experiencing the same thing tonight.

Celtics seemed to be getting things figured out. After a slow start, and the league's toughest schedule the first 15-20 games, the Celtics are 15-5 over their last 20. Much of the streak coincided with the schedule easing up a bit and moving Hayward and Brown to the bench and Morris and Smart to the starting lineup to balance things out a bit. Hayward is also beginning to get his legs under him; Hayward's last 4: 19.3 PTS 58 FG% (12.5 FGA) 50 3P% (5 3PA) 81.8 FT% (2.8 FTA) 5.3 REB 4.8 AST 27.4 MIN Going to be a fun race for the top 5 seeds in the East!

The dynamics are different when you're making more than your boss and more valuable to the company than your boss. Pro sports is not the same things as working a regular job.

Yeah, they’re just playing more cohesive, had some lineup changes, improving chemistry and the schedule softened a bit.

My C’s have won 6 in a row!

And the numbers aren’t even close.

The stat was since Durant got there.

There was a stat I saw the other day, and I don’t remember the exact numbers but it was the Warriors record without Curry vs without Durant, and they stink when Curry is out and basically don’t skip a beat without Durant.

Completely agree on the Celtics. At some point you just have to start winning games. With that said, I found a little more on their schedule. It's been incredibly difficult, but again a team that is supposed to be a legit title contender should be winning more of these games. https://twitter.com/SeanGrandePBP/status/1064027834040164352 If you can't view the tweet, here is the gist... The schedule. 13 of the first 16 were against teams at or above .500…composite win % .546 11 of the next 14 are against teams at or below .500… composite win % .343 14 of the 21 after that will be at home

Yup, Celtics have been a disappointment so far. Yet still just 1game behind the Pacers...

Big win for the Celtics tonight over the Raptors in OT. Kyrie with 43 and 11

The Celtics definitely have issues beyond just the schedule, though schedule is part of it, but I’m not concerned yet. The Hayward thing has been tough. They need to get him right but his defense has been awful and the players are doing the ‘take turns’ offensively which has caused way too much isolation basketball. They’ll figure it out though, I think Agree on the Raptors. I don’t like how he left SA, but I’ve always been a strong Kawai supporter. He’s a great player and to honest if I was starting a team I’d maybe take him over Durant.

I’m not too worried. Integrating Irving and Hayward has been more challenging than I think anyone realized, as it’s really impacted Tatum, Brown and Rozier, but they’ll figure it out. Stevens is too good and there’s too much leadership with Horford, Smart and some other guys. While the record is definitely disappointing, it’s rarely brought up that Boston has had the toughest schedule in the league. They play 9 of their first 13 on the road, including road games at Toronto, OKC, Indiana, Utah, Denver and Portland. They had a stretch of 5 straight on the road with 4 of them being against playoff teams. Definitely not a good start, but I’m not close to worried yet.

I’m curious if Philly wouldn’t part with Fultz or if Minny didn’t want him.

They also traded their only real shooting threats other than Reddick.

Agree, there’s not a ton of difference in 2018 between the NBA and NFL in terms of player marketing, but the NBA is the league that set the blueprint for this. They started marketing player over team in the early 80’s with ‘Magic vs. Bird’, and then it was taken to a new level with Jordan. The NBA was at the forefront on this. Completely agree that the college thing gives the NBA and NFL an advantage over MLB, but it’s also been widely covered that MLB has lagged in terms marketing its stars. Winning does play a part, but with that said Mookie Betts, Chris Sale, and Jose Altuve aren’t exactly mainstream, household names. MLB has just struggled with this over the years.

Do they though? Sports fans yes, but I don’t think the general, casual sports fans know who Kershaw is. For example, I’m going to a friends 40th birthday party tonight, mostly casual sports fans at best, I’d bet 80% or more know who Russell Westbrook is, and probably 20% or less know who Trout or Kershaw is.

Trout does play in the second largest media market in the country though. I’d say the general public also doesn’t know who Mookie Betts, Bryce Harper or Stanton are. MLB has just really struggles to market their individual players. In the NBA it doesn’t really matter where you play. Kevin Durant can spend 9 years in OKC and everyone knows his name.

I don’t understand your point? I said the NBA is the standard for player marketing. The NBA is the best at it and set the template for it. If you’re an NBA player it really doesn’t matter what market you’re in. MLB has had a terrible time marketing their athletes. Mike Trout is arguably on pace to be the best player ever and he’s not a household name.