But What Does That Mean for Horford?
What it means is that there's a real question as to whether he can be the alpha dog on a team of his own, or if his game is so married to the team concept that he's not going to be a superstar in his own right.
Not that there's anything lacking in that kind of a player; that means Horford's ceiling is to be the rich man's Chris Bosh. If Al Horford is the best player on your team, you're winning 45-50 games, making some noise in the playoffs, then watching the big dogs play in the Finals, which essentially makes Horford Dominique Wilkins at best and Paul George the rest of the time (and better than Chris Bosh, who never won anything in Toronto when he was The Guy.) Imagine Horford in a place like Phoenix or surrounded with actual NBA role players (but no stars) in Philadelphia. Or imagine him on that Dallas team after Nowitzki hangs 'em up.
If Al Horford is the second-best player on your team, then what you've got is a team like Toronto or Oklahoma City, very good in its own right but in need of one more superstar to really make the push into something special. Imagine Horford playing with Paul George in Indiana or Melo in New York and think of how that would work out for the Pacers or Knicks.
If Horford is your third guy in a three-max Super Friends scenario, like he's Klay Thompson or the Miami version of Bosh or (depending on how you feel about each guy) Tony Parker or Manu Ginobili circa 2005? You're winning a title. You're probably winning more than one. Imagine Horford in OKC, or imagine if a team like the Wizards got Horford then convinced some other major free agent (Durant?) to sign with them to try for a ring. It doesn't have to be realistic, just think of Horford's role on that team.