Two teams in half a century have won a title without a superstar I think that's a large enough sample size
If you walked away from that article thinking that his overall point was that winning a title without a superstar is easy or very plausible then
He even suggests that they may have to trade for a bigger piece, or wait until the summer of 2016 to lure a star there with max space
The piece was simply a wrap up of the Hawks season, not some overall reaching theme about winning titles without stars
He understands that not all teams can land a superstar (unless through draft, and less likely via trade), the Hawks are in that boat, but they have no choice but to continue on their path and hope they can find ways to improve
Again, I SERIOUSLY doubt you actually took the time to read through the entire article and actually processed what you just read