One of the things I like to preach about here at SonicsCentral.com is accountability. So, to practice what I preach, I think New Year's Eve is a good time to look back at the 12 columns I've written so far, noting the results (so far) of my predictions, and any errors I may have made.

Column #2 -- Why Gary Payton Should Retire a Sonic
What I wrote: "Payton's 33, and has bucked the aging trend until last season; he could be playing productively as a starter until age 37 or so (the 2005-06 season)."

In hindsight: Payton hasn't seen much drop-off in his game this season. His shooting suffered a bit in early December, and his free throws are down, but the change has not been significant. 2005-06? Well, maybe that's going a bit far.

What I wrote: "Neither [trade offer] offered the Sonics the young big man with potential they coveted. [Rasho] Nesterovic suffered the sophomore slump severely last season ...."

In hindsight: Nesterovic has proven a productive big man for the Timberwolves this season, and with the poor play and injuries of Calvin Booth, the Sonics could use another big guy. That said, I still wouldn't make the deal with Minnesota.

Column #3 -- About the Fans
What I wrote: "So, the Sonics sold out every game in 1995-96."

Correction: The Sonics did not sell out every game during that first season in the KeyArena, amazingly enough. 2,651 seats went unsold throughout the season. Very many? No, pretty insignificant, but I could have easily caught that.

What I wrote: "Unless the city of Seattle steps up to support them, the Sonics have no chance of exerting the type of home court domination they utilized in their playoff run from 1992-98."

In hindsight: Actually, the Sonics have been pretty darn good at home, 11-5 thus far this season. It's not quite the 38-3 of '95-'96, but it's getting there, despite continued apathy from the Emerald City.

Column #9 -- Deconstructing SonicsKevin
What I wrote: "Peja Drobnjak hits two more from the line. He is ballin' tonight, with 8 points here in a couple minutes of the first quarter. Use him more, Nate!"

In hindsight: Unfortunately, Drobnjak's play hasn't lived up to my expectations this year. He had a nice game on Saturday; perhaps that will get him going.

Column #12 -- Sonics Winning ... the Right Way?
What I wrote: "They've gone over 100 points 11 times on the season (as a side note, this seems to be being mis-reported in the P-I message boards as 10 times, with the Sonics 10-0. My records (and my memory) think that they scored 102 in a loss at Portland, making the record 10-1) ...."

In hindsight: My apologies. This was an easy one to look up, but I didn't notice until later than the Sonics lost 114-93 to Portland. Indeed, with the past week's games, they're now 12-0 in games in which they score 100 or more.

Well, that makes me feel pretty good. I think those are the only real significant errors in fact or judgement I've made this year; that's not too bad for 12 columns.

All of these seemed to have worked themselves out.

Not having one single offense isn't necessarily a bad thing. When that one thing goes wrong, for example, the team is screwed. The Sonics have many options. If Baker isn't playing well in the post, maybe the outside guys are hitting threes. Or maybe the transition game is working. If all else fails, Payton can still take over a game, as he did on Thursday against the Clippers, scoring 20 points in the fourth quarter.

As to the rotation, obviously injuries were part of the reason the starters were playing so heavily. Now, with most everyone healthy, the Sonics have developed a nice 9-man rotation with Earl Watson, Vladimir Radmanovic, Desmond Mason, and Drobnjak coming off the bench. When Calvin Booth and Jerome James return, as early as next Friday, they'll probably make it a 10-men rotation with Drobnjak's minutes going away. Another thing that Nate's been doing better is substituting early in blowouts. The starters have been able to get a lot of rest in big victories over Detroit and Toronto, respectively.

On defense, the Sonics finally seem to be rotating like they need to be to make the trap successful. On the interior, the open layups for guys like Sean Marks have disappeared completely. The rotation on the perimeter at times still has left something to be desired, but has been markedly improved. The proof, however, is in the pudding. The Sonics have shut down all of their opponents save perhaps Golden State on offense during the winning streak.

McMillan is a young coach, much as we may forget it. It doesn't surprise me in the least that he would be adjusting and doing a better job as the year goes on.

I suspect that SFS' problems come more from the application of the term than superstar players themselves. It is true that in today's NBA, virtually anyone who regularly puts the ball in the hole is considered a superstar, regardless of their efficiency in doing so or other skills.

That said, the fact is clear in my mind that an NBA team needs a dominant player to win a championship. (Of course, there is far more to NBA life than winning championships, but it is the eventual goal, right?) To put this to the test, I decided to use my own rating system to see if past champions have, indeed, always had at least one 'superstar' player.

The rating I used was VORP -- value over replacement player. This measures how much better a player was when he was in the game then would have been a marginal NBA type; about Shammond Williams this season. From the formula, I've found that a VORP score of about 300 correlates to a true superstar. How many of these are there a season? I haven't done enough research to know, but probably about 5 or 6 at the most -- certainly not enough to make media-anointed stars like Jerry Stackhouse and Allen Iverson amongst them.

For the Sonics, Payton has been over 300 five times in his career, making him a pretty good bet to be a Hall of Famer by my system. Vin Baker has been over 300 once, during the 1997-98 season, his first in Seattle.

The teams and their superstars (if they had one):

2001 Los Angeles Lakers
Shaquille O'Neal - 461
Kobe Bryant - 317

2000 Lakers
O'Neal - 520

1999 San Antonio Spurs - Note: I multiplied to make these equivalvent to an 82-game schedule
David Robinson - 308
Tim Duncan - 307

1998 Chicago Bulls
Michael Jordan - 369

1997 Bulls
Jordan - 467
Scottie Pippen - 314

1996 Bulls
Jordan - 517

1995 Houston Rockets
Hakeem Olajuwon - 407
Clyde Drexler - 357

1994 Rockets
Olajuwon - 451

1993 Bulls
Jordan - 501

1992 Bulls
Jordan - 509
Horace Grant - 411
Pippen - 361

1991 Bulls
Jordan - 595
Pippen - 333

1990 Detroit Pistons
(None)

1989 Pistons
(None)

My thoughts.

It's been over a decade -- 11 years, to be exact -- but if you go back far enough, teams have won without a truly dominating superstar. Isiah Thomas was considered the star of that team, but my system shows that they won largely based on having a number of players -- even reserves -- around 150-200, but nobody above 300.

It's this kind of team system, I'm quite certain, that SFS advocates. Could it work in today's NBA?

I think it could, but I think it's more difficult for several reasons. First off, while I wouldn't argue that expansion has really diluted the talent base, it has made it slightly more difficult to keep several productive players on a bench. Indeed, the Pistons lost valuable reserve Rick Mahorn in the expansion draft to Minnesota. As well, free agency's increased role means that a key reserve like the Pistons had in Mark Aguirre and Vinny Johnson, amongst others, would likley be lured elsewhere by the promise of minutes and playing time.

The thought in today's NBA is that you need two stars, and that would seem to make sense. The last truly 'one-man team' to win a championship was the 1994 Houston Rockets. Though some of the other teams aren't listed as having two stars that year, this is often due to injury or an off-year. Scottie Pippen and Kobe Bryant were still superstars in the other years their teams won titles.

An interesting trend is noted in that the brightest star of a team seems to burn out, at least in the regular season, over the course of the run. Jordan, Olajuwon, and O'Neal all scored worse in successive years of their dynasties. Phil Jackson's teams have had the reputation of relaxing more and more gradually during the regular season as their runs go on; perhaps this is an explanation for that.

Finally, I'd like to talk a bit about Horace Grant's 1991-92 season. That's not a statistical mistake that he's up there. Instead, he had perhaps one of the great fluke seasons of all time, even if it isn't apparent from his primary statistics. What amazed me about Grant's play that season was that he bettered his turnover total in rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks, an almost-unheard of feat that demonstrates how well-rounded his game was that season. Grant's always been, in my opinion, an unheralded critical component of the Bulls' run; this merely proves it to me.

Even with the Pistons' success, I do think it would be fair to conclude that in today's NBA, a superstar is required to win a title. However, the corolary to this -- a superstar means a title -- is most decidely not true. A superstar is no guarantee of anything. In the best season of Payton's career, 1999-00, the Sonics were a seven seed eliminated in the first round of the playoffs. Shaq has certainly been a star most of his career, only recently has the talent around him allowed him to go all the way.

Finally this week, let me wish everyone out there a Happy New Year. May 2002 bring success for you, the readers, SonicsCentral.com, and most importantly, the Sonics!