I truly want to know which teams people feel we’re truly just carried by one star who was surrounded by role players and no real second star. The obvious one is 93-94 lead by Hakeem, arguably 94-95 too though averaging 21 points and given Drexler’s stature you’d think maybe not, but if you watched it then most nights it was Dream and another guy or several stepping up. The second one immediately coming to mind is 10-11 Mavs lead by Dirk. Strong role players sure, former all-stars yes, but Dirk was the lone star. Now I cannot really come up with a third since we had a lot of star studded teams: Warriors, Bulls, Celtics, Lakers, Pistons and since I didn’t watch the 80s or earlier and it’s not just a matter of looking at the roster. I think maybe you could have a case for 2004 Pistons based on what’s been said. Last year’s Raptors come close, though Lowry was an All-Star and Siakam played like one. Kawhi didn’t really lead in the finals, but definitely a team effort. So who you got and is this distinction even one we can make?
Well, no, I wouldn't say Parker was established in the sense of being a star, just a solid role player maybe. Also 2003 was before the rule changes, players like Parker were less valuable than in a few years later. Ginobili was a star by the next championship in 2005, but not in 2003. If we compare, then I would say that Tyson Chandler in 2011 (Mavs) was definitely more established and more valuable than Parker in 2003.
Yeah, that Pistons team was widely considered the only championship team that did not have a clear cut franchise level player. But they had a bunch of all star level players.
Parker was practically benched for Speedy Claxton in the finals. Parker I would say struggled a ton those playoffs, he was just up and coming at the time. EDIT: just looked back and I guess I was wrong. I could of sworn Parker struggled in those playoffs. Seems like he contributed scoring wise, but I remember him being benched a few times.
What exactly is a star? If you guys are saying "franchise players," then I think Kawhi's Raptors can count. Lowry and Siakam are all-stars, but I don't know if Siakam can lead Toronto to a title by himself.
How sweet it was and still is, still rejoiced how they dismantled the last of the Shaq and Kobe era, along with them the Glove and Mailman.
Last time a chip was won with 1 Star was Dallas I think. Arguement can be made for Toronto/ San Antonio. but I see Pascal Siakam as a star along side Kawhi and Kyle Lowry is an allstar pg San Antonio had Kawhi, end of career Tim Duncan, Manu, TP. But I can say Kawhi was the only star it was many near star level players playing at a star level
Did Robinson really care that team? I remember Duncan already being a monster and pretty much a second coming of the Twin Towers, but could be wrong.
To me it's not just about having all-star talent, Hakeem had that, but how one guy basically carried the team and 90% of the time was the one doing most of the lifting on both ends of the floor. That's why I think Kawhi is questionable.
Dallas has to take a backseat to the Rockets. Dirk wasn't a protypical 2 way player..... He could only carry them on one side of the court. He was surrounded by elite defenders and shooters.
2003 spurs for sure. Parker was benched for Speedy Claxton, thats how bad he was, he struggle because of all the Jason Kid to the spurs talk, wich would mean he would get benched or traded, and he was only 20 at the time. Manu was a rookie, coming of a bad injury on the world cup the year before that cost him like half a season and he struggle playing in the corner waiting for the ball to shoot. Robinson was on his last year, a good role player,but nothing more, and the rest where a bunch of decent defenders. Duncan was on his 5th season and he was a monster, peak physical power. Other than those 3 seasons, i dont know. I dont think the raptors season qualify, Lowry and an improving Siakam where good, and the last spurs championship it was like the pistons teams, just a lot of balance, im not even sure if kwahi really deserved that finals mvp.
'03 Spurs should count. Parker and Ginobili were not yet established. Robinson was at the end of his career, no longer a star.
i can't really count lowry and siakam (especially lowry with his history of awful playoffs) as stars, but on the other hand i can't really count the raptors as rightfully winning the title when durant missed the whole series and then klay missed a game and then missed the 4th quarter of a game 6 where he was on fire and the raptors still had to hold on for dear life at the end with kawhi going something like 0-3 in the 4th. so no one star title for kawhi. now kawhi was a clear one star show through the eastern playoffs, especially rounds 2 and 3. 2015 warriors have way too much non-steph talent for this category. can't really be in this category without a finals mvp. 2011 dallas definitely had a lot of defensive help for dirk (and even running the offense was handled largely by others), but dirk had such an amazing set of 4th quarters throughout those playoffs (and overall numbers before the finals) that this has to count. 2003 spurs definitely count. 2000 lakers are probably closer to this category than people realize but they still don't count. 1999 spurs definitely don't. 1994 rockets count. bad boys pistons were too much of a collection of good players like the 2004 pistons (thomas needs better numbers to be considered a star carrying the team). from the 70's, i would think walton's blazers count. rick barry's warriors? was the big O big enough or should kareem's milwaukee title count? all of the 60's teams had stars.
I agree with the part about Lowry and Siakam. But injury is part of the game. Didn't people say that the Warriors' titles were too "lucky" because they had been so healthy? By your logic, almost all championships were not legitimate. We Rockets fans should know better about that "asterisk" thing.
