Are 2 Potential All-Stars enough anymore?

It depends on what kind of stars you have on your team. Top 5, top 10, or top 20?

If Yao can truly become one of the 2 or 3 most dominant players in the league in 3-4 years, we can win the championship with the help of Steve and others.

Steve himself is one of the 3-4 best PGs in the league and have a chance to be one of the top 10 players in the league.

 

First off, what this talk of the spurs having more than 2 stars, they only have 1 - Duncan everyone else, Nesto, Park, Giobillie etc are role players

Second let's look at teams that win it all in the past decade plus,

Lakers, both Bulls dynasty, Rockets, two Spurs team, now how many of those team had more than 2 bonafide allstars? (don't tell me that the second bulls dynasty had rodman and he's an allstart, he's wasn't) NONE, ZERO, ZILCH.

Let's now look at teams with more than 2 stars in the past decade plus, The rockets with 3 hof twice (pippen era and the barkley drexler), LA (the year that they had 5!!! allstars -Shaq, Kobe, Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exle and one more player that slipped my mind), Blazers (pick a year), Dallas (last two years), Sac (Bibby, Webber and Peja for the past 2), Milwakee (Glenn Robinson, Sam Cassell, Ray Allen) and the suns (Barkley, KJ, Dan Majerle were all stars within a few years). How many championships those deep and strong teams with more than 2 all stars provide? NONE, ZERO, ZILCH. I rest my case.

 

Everyone has their own definition of a "star player." I guess for me it has to be a player that has either been on an all-star team or a player on the cusp of being an all-star. Basically, if you make that list then you are somewhat consistant with your play. That is something the Rockets need more of, is CONSISTANT nights from Yao and Francis and hopefully one more player.

Nevertheless, I really feel that unless you have a DOMINANT star player such as Shaq or Duncan, you can't make it to the top unless you have 3 star players. If Yao gets to the class of Duncan or Shaq then Yao and Francis and solid role players will be all that we need. Yao would make his other teammates better the way Duncan did with the Spurs last year. But if Yao can't get there then perhaps a 3rd star type player would put this team over the top. You add a Ray Allen or Rashard Lewis or an Elton Brand to the nucleus of Yao and Francis and some decent role players and this team is a championship team.

Just remember, Yao and Francis are still young. Our "championship years" might be a few years away. So we have time to obtain that 3rd star player. It does not have to be RIGHT NOW. And I think Les Alexander WOULD shell out the money for a 3rd star player if we knew it would take this team to the next level. In other words, money would be shelled out for a Ray Allen or Lewis or Brand but probably not for role players such as James Posey or Brian Grant. Again, someone else to come in to take the team to the next level.

If there is any way the Rockets can move Mobley/Griffin/Cato or some combination for a 3rd star player this team has to think about it.

 

According to my theory, if you have at least ONE totally dominant player you don't need 3 star players. This is Duncan.

I am talking more about TODAY's landscape in the western conference. Not in years past. Things have changed. There is a lot more talent in the West NOW then before which requires teams to load up.

Additionally, the Lakers and Bulls and Rockets all had the ONE totally dominant player on their teams. Like I said, if you have that player then you you are set. BUT if you do NOT have that player you probably need multiple star players. For this to work for the Rockets Yao has to be in the same league as Duncan, Olajuwon, Shaq and Jordan. If not? then get a 3rd star player.

3+ star players does not necessarily deliver you a championship. I am merely saying that 3 star players keeps you COMPETITIVE. All that you proved in the above paragraph is that a bunch of star players could not beat the most dominant star players during that time: Olajuwon, Jordan, Shaq, Duncan. But those teams that did not win the championship WERE competitive. They either got to the NBA Finals or conference finals. And that is all you can really ask, give a team the chance to get to the finals and see what happens. How did they get to the Finals or Conference finals? 3 star players.

I rest my case.

 

Good point. There is something to be said for that. And I am sure we ALL hope Yao can join that class of player. But if Yao can't then just to get to the finals to have a chance we probably will have to add a 3rd star player into the mix to take us to the next level.

 

You should just put a period after 'can't make it to the top' and cut off that last part.

 

Deuce: I pretty much agree with the gist of your post, but I have to stipulate that it matters WHAT third star player. I'd take any of the three you named, but there are a whole lot of other stars that would not fit here. What usually is required of a team with 3 stars is for one of them to subvert some portion of his game in favor of fitting in with the other two. Example: James Worthy could have scored a WHOLE lot more with some other teams, but he was willing to settle for being the first option on the fast break and a lesser scorer in the half-court in order to allow Magic and Kareem to play their games. On another team, Worthy could have been a Dominique or Alex English type scoring machine. Given that our two stars are a center and a point guard, our "third star" would probably have to be somebody like that. Unless you can get that kind of a third star, I'd rather have a more solid "role-playing" support cast.

I think you highly undderrate Dennis Johnson. He definitely belongs in the Star group. He was a 5-time All-Star & 9-time All-Defensive Teamer. He was a franchise-type player for Seattle & Phoenix before he came to the Celtics in a supporting role. He was on the 1980-1981 All-NBA First Team (consisting of him, Bird, Kareem, Dr. J, and Gervin -- pretty elite company)! Bird called him the best player he ever played with. A perfect example of how a 3rd (or 4th) star can be helpful. But only if they have the right combination of game and personality to blend in with your Big Two.

 

No edit capability. I also meant to point out that D.J., while not one of the famous "50 Greatest" is one of only 70 players profiled at NBA.com's All Time Greatest site. I think he qualifies as a star.

 

I believe you are saying that to win the championship, you need one dominate and good role players or a team full of starts. I would like to go back to the examples I've pointed out and state that a team full of stars really couldn't win a championship for the past 10+ years. While they may be competetive, it's just too hard for them to go to the next level because there's really no one that you know will carry the team. It's really hard for a team of stars to compliment each other and also having too many stars without a trully established one will hinder every preventing the team from ever having one of it's stars dominate. I still say look at the Laker team with 5 all stars, 3 of them were moved out so it can become the Kobe and Shaq show, it was proven to be the right moves as those two started to learn to dominate. Remeber, when Eddie Jones was still with the Lakers, while Kobe started to play like an allstar, he was still wasn't to taking over games, and Shaq while getting close to being dominant, was no where near the player he was the past few years.

People on this board are already complaining about having Francis and Mobley taking too many too many shots, but what happens if we add a 3rd star (even if it means moving mobley), if the 3rd player is a bonafide star, do you think he'll improve or detract from Yao and Francis's developement (like the Lakers with Kobe and Shaq)?

 

There seems to be two paths to contender status in today's NBA: sign 3 or more perennial all stars ala Lakers and Mavericks or surround a perennial all star with 4 or 5 all star potential players ala Minnesota, Sacramento, and San Antonio. It will be interesting this season to see which approach wins out. Some people have commented that they didn't think the Spurs and Wolves had multiple all stars. True for the Spurs, arguable for the T-Wolves. Garnett is the Wolves only perennial all star, but Cassel should have twice been an all-star, Sczerbiak is a one time all star, and if Hudson plays this season like he did in last year's playoffs, he is a potential all star. Others would argue that Olowokandi has all star potential but I would disagree. Wolves have followed the Sacramento blueprint of surrounding their dominant PF/C with very talented role players for lack of a better adjective and I see them as legitimate contenders in a very tough western conference. So to answer the post's question, I do not think you need more than 2 "perennial" all stars to contend, but you have to at least surround your perennial all star(s) with very solid role players like the Kings did with Turkoglu, Bibby, Bobby Jackson, and Divac. I do not think a team with two perennial all stars surrounded by a bunch of second hand role players can contend which unfortunately is where teams like the Rockets seem to be at this time.

 

I think that used to be true, but this past off season may have changed that formula. The teams at the top of the west are by far the most talented teams ever assembled.

 

Good example. Worthy, although he was a special case (Laker got the 1st pick
again in 1982), he was a player that certainly would have scored a lot more on
a lesser team. He "agreeded" reduced role on the team to allow Magic/Karrem take the lead. Not all players of his caliber would have taken a back seat (Mobley?). He would have demanded more PT and/or more $$$. "If not, trade me!"

So, Worthy knew what was best for him. He stayed, became the 3rd option, and became a three time champ. I mean the guy averaged over 19ppg from 1985 to 1992 on the Lakers!

Yes, you don't have to convince me. But I listed him behind the top three:
Bird, McHale, and Parish. Although close, I still think that Parish contributed a little more in talent than Dennis. He was good though. That team was packed! Plus they had great chemistry!

 

Alirules, you get "best player" by default if you win the championship.

So, that player still has to do the work. Before last year, to say that Duncan was the MVP wasn't accepted as much as is today. Shaq was the "best," then Kobe. Even after Ducan won the title in 1999. Shaq was still considered the "best" player.

But Duncan rose to the occasion, and proved himself by beating the "best (Lakers)."

The Pistons handed Jordan his butt 3 years in a row during the late 80's. He was the "best" offensive player. But the Pistons team won.

Having one of the best players in the league does cause other players to want to play with you. So, a lot of players would love to come and play with Yao because they know one day he will be dominating.

If Garnett ever had more talent around him, then he might win a title. Then, people will be saying he's the "best in the league." See how that works?

Cause and effect.