I think Clyde was a superstar in his prime in as much as David Robinson was. Another way to look at it is "can a championship team be built around this player?" I think it could've been with Clyde and David. Their cases are very similar: both had a great series against better players, but were still severely outplayed by their counterparts on the opposing team (Clyde by Jordan, Robinson by Hakeem). When Clyde came to the Rockets, I think he was about as good as a player can get without being a superstar. I don't think you could've built a champion around Clyde at that point. The points Brian has raised about Kareem seem to cast some doubt on my 'best player' theory. Was Magic even the best on his own team? I think so, but I think he may have held back in favor of Kareem in his earlier years, not turning it on unless he absolutely had to, even though he was the better player. A couple of instances come to mind, in addition to the '86 example Barzilla gave: 1980 Finals, Game 6, Kareem out with injury. Magic (a rookie at the time) fills in at CENTER and scores 42 points as LA wins the championship -- we're talking something Michael Jordan couldn't even have dreamed of in his prime, and Magic was a rookie. Another instance is the 1985 Finals, where Magic hits a running hook shot in the lane, a shot he'd rarely used in games previously, to win the game for the Lakers, and Bird calling Magic "the best player I've ever seen". Kareem did win the MVP of that series at the age of 38, but I don't think he was the best player on the team. It's all opinion, and I'm too young to remember a lot of it, but I think Magic was probably the best player in the league for his first couple of titles, and definitely for his last three. Brian, can you post the link to where you got your info?
ok look this is the thing i think a true superstar is one that is truely great for instance a person on the 50 best players list of course all of these players weren't ALWAYS superstars (well maybe besides MJ). Hakeem was a superstar 5 years ago no doubt he could get double teamed and still make the shot or even sometimes when he was triple teamed and if not we had great role players who would constantly knock down the outside shot such as elie and smith evne horry and maxwell did that in some games. Also i don't think you can put iversons or garnetts in that superstar list just yet they are no doubt stars but they havne't shown anything yet. sure they took their teams to the playoffs single handedly but until they play for 10 years and show it you can't say they are superstars. Sampson played here for 3 very good years he averaged like 20/10 for that time period too doesn't mean anyone not even a crack head would say he's a superstar. stars are just a bit below superstar level or just havne't been in the league long enough...examples like any of the portland players they are great players but no ones going to say they are sure for the hall of fame or people like zo i still wouldn't consider him a superstar...kidd/kemp role players: players you'd use as trade bate like starks when the knicks were in the playoffs sam cassell wit the rockets scrub: scottie brooks.
BLASPHEMY!!!!! BLASPHEMY I SAY!!!! ATTENTION ALL ADMINISTRATORS: I announce a crime has been committed on CLUTCHCITY!!!! Someone posted that Clyde Drexler was not a Superstar!! What the !@#$!!!. Maybe on the SaltLake Tribune BBS I would have expected this but not in our house. There goes to f***ing neighborhood!!!! Lock your doors!!!!!!!!!!!
This brings up other questions: Has a team ever won an NBA title without any superstars in the line-up? What about the role-player that is also a superstar (ie, Bill Russell --- defensive role player and superstar)?
In terms of who wins championships, I think the league has been the same for at least the last 20 years. At least 85% of the time, the team with the best player in the league on it has won the championship (I'm counting Bird & Magic as the 2 best players of the 80s). This figure could be higher depending upon whether or not you think Isiah Thomas was the best in the league from '88-90 (I think it's very possible, but I'll play it conservatively and say he wasn't). I think the '83 Sixers are the only other exception. This year, look for the Spurs or Lakers to win it. I think Allen Iverson is clearly the best player in the East, so if by some miracle an Eastern Conference team wins the title, history says it will be the Sixers. I agree with most of what 4Chuckie says. There can only be one "superstar". It looks like he and I have the same definition of what a superstar is.
Yeah the Bill Walton led Blazers... ------------------ "We need to fockass".....Dream back in the day
Wig- Best example may be the Pistons. Isiah was great, but does everyone think he was a superstar? I probably wouldn't put him that category. Then again playing at the same time as Bird & Magic makes everyone else seem normal.
Brian, I admit that my definitions are somewhat subjective, but I think everyone's are and that's the whole point. If we can accept this notion "only one person can be 'the man' on the floor for any team" then this is where I would classify NBA teams. Upper Crust: These teams either have an established star or stars who know when it is their time to step up. They also have a full compliment of role players who go along with the strengths of the star or stars 1999 Examples: San Antonio, Seattle, LA, Miami The Next Level: These are teams that have their established star but do not necessarily have a full compliment of role players yet. 1999 Examples: Phoenix, Minnesota Pretenders: These are teams who have a player who thinks they are a star and the team thinks they are a star, but he isn't quite getting the job done. 1999 Examples: Phili, Boston, Atlanta Dazed and Confused: Teams that don't have a star on the roster or are still figuring out who it is. 1999 Examples: Basically any lotto team Wildcards: These are teams in a state of flux who don't easily fit in any category. 1999 Examples: Portland, Houston, Charlotte ------------------ Rockets When? Rockets When?
Thomas was clutch. His Pistons defeated the Bulls (with Jordan), challenged Bird's Celtics, and won two consecutive titles. If you measure a player by his opposition, Thomas is definitely a "super-star" player.
TheFreak: sorry, didn't see your post until this AM. I don't have the exact links, so you'll have to poke around these two sites for additional information. Also, you're not allowed to laugh at me for visiting them. Yeah, that's right, Kagy went to NBA.com I used their "50 Greatest Players" bios, and their year-by-year stuff, for the stats. Also, Information Please's website is helpful but not as informative. Barzilla: Well, I'm not really here to debate the definition of a superstar-- I just took exception to characterizing the mid-80s Lakers as a team with one star and a bunch of role players. That was clearly not the case, no matter how loosely we agree to define a role player. ------------------ Nothing but NET-- http://www.clutchcity.NET Don't Fight the Future
Okay guys, the historical debates are very interesting, but I'm not really sure that is what I intended from the get go. I suppose I need to refocus the questions (as much for myself as anyone) What kind of team is going to be the most successful in the next milennium 1. The One Shining Stars- Team with one star who is surrounded by capable role players who compliment his style. 2. Multiple Stars- The two headed and three headed monsters. Teams with multiple stars have the luxury of not relying on just one and the dilemma of deciding who gets control down the stretch. 3. Knights of the Round table- These are teams with a collection of good and very good players who share the load. Have at it ------------------ Rockets When? Rockets When?
