What is the best number of stars to have on your team to win a championship? There are two things to consider here: what is the optimum mix of stars and role players to win a title, and how many stars can you afford? Personally, I think the optimum mix is two stars plus role players that complement their games. In addition, it should be clear which of the stars is the go-to guy. Otherwise it just doesn't seem to be successful when the playoffs come around. Please state your beliefs and how they will affect the chances of the future success of the Rockets.
I agree...two seems to be just the right amount of star power to have on a team....any more and you could be facing chemistry issues (ala Portland). As for the Rockets, they seem to be in that vain right now with Yao and Stevie and then strong supporting players like Cat, Posey, EG and Cato (and Hawkins). That's why making a trade for another big-time player (like Brand) could hurt the rockets (too many egos and too many people wanting the ball).
It has been proven in the past time and time again that two stars win you championships along with a slew of role players. The Bulls had Jordan and Pippen, the Lakers had Kobe and Shaq, the Rockets had Clyde and Hakeem. Two star players allows for the other not to be counted on as much, and puts a lot more pressure on opposing defenses. With role players, you cant double team the star players because the other players will hit the shots that count ala Horry, Kenny Smith, Sam Cassel, Steve Kerr etc. The Rockets have two stars this year in Yao Ming and Steve Francis, but so do many other teams like the Lakers and the Celtics. In a couple of years, the Rockets will be championship bound.
Each team that has one the NBA title in a very long time has had two stars and a good supporting cast. 00-02 Lakers Kobe Shaq good supporting cast 99 Spurs Duncan Robinson good supporting cast 96-98 Bulls Jordan Quitten good cast 95 Rockets Olajuwon Drexler good cast (note the 96 rockets had hakeem clyde and charles and didnt win) 94 Rockets hakeem Thorpe good cast 91-93 Bulls Jordan Quitten good cast 89-90 Pistons Thomas Dumars good cast 87-88 Lakers Magic Worthy good cast (kareem too old to be a superstar) 86 Celtics Bird mchale good cast it keeps going although some superstars could be argued this shows why i belive two is the best. We have 2 Yao and steve
It depends on how you define "star." It also depends on how many players on the team THINK themselves to be stars. It also depends on what coach you have. It also depends on how many headcases you have on your team. It also depends on whether your stars are team players or not. You see, it's not that simple.
Actually it could be that simple. The problem lies in either getting the right two stars, or getting the right members around them. The plague of most teams in the NBA is players who are called stars and get paid like stars, but will never be good enough to bring championships to their teams. Allan Houston springs to mind immediately, but there are many other players out there who take up the cap space and number of shots of stars but don't have what it takes to win it all.
Interesting that you started a thread on this topic. I actually have a lot of thoughts on this issue. I'll share some of them right here. If by "star" you mean a franchise player, then I would go say two is ideal; with the problem and EGOS and EXPECTATION, you see most championship caliber teams having, on average, "two." When you think of some of the best teams assembled with "former" and "modern" franchise players (e.g. Portland), ego CAN get the better of them. Getting the right balance between two or more competiting franchise players is not that easy. Franchise players must necessarily be a "little" selfish b/c during crunch time they implicitly DEMAND the ball. Yet not all "star" players are franchise players. For example.... Could you envision building a team solely around Ray Allen or Steve Nash or Robert Horry? In my head, the answer is NO. However, they are ALL "star" players in my book... HUGE stars for that matter. "star" players are a MUST for championship caliber teams. But I do care to make the distinction btw "star" and "franchise" players b/c the former are really in a league fo their own. For example, among former Rockets, I consider Sam Cassell a franchise player and not merely a "star" player. Sam can carry his team and does wonders at his position. Alternatively, I see Mobley as a major "star" but a little shy of being a franchise player. Mobley CAN come up big, but he doesn't have some ABSOLUTE "competitive" advantage that gives him constant leg up on the competition. Centers and Point Guards Now, what's interesting about the "two" franchise players a team can build around is that some positions are more important than others. IMO, the two most impt positions are the center and point guard positions, in this order. Why the center? Well, I could go on and on about this, but to me a franchise center boils down to: 1. a consistent offensive force esp in the half-court game (typical of playoff games) 2. a defensive presence that allows you to extend the D (consequently, good defensive teams USUALLY have a good center who holds down the fort) 3. a true rebounder who can seal and snatch those very impt defensive rebounds on a consistent basis (and thusly minimize opponents second shot opportunties) The point guard is next in line and here, even though good point guards get the points and assists, few point guards (with the exception of superhuman ones like Stevie Francis and Gary Payton) can be a force on the glass and on the defensive end. This is why they're overall impact is just a little shy than a premier center. Since guards are so far out and few, if any, can "seal" off rebounds, absent a good center, their teams may suffer from negative rebounding differentials. I can't overemphasize enough the importance of a low post presence and defensive rebounding. Moreover, relative to centers, point guards are a more plentiful commodity, yet teams that are solely point guard focused (e.g. Seattle, Suns, etc.) have had a hard time getting to the Finals-land. With the exception of the Bulls, I'm hard pressed to name NBA champions who didn't have a decent center. The 2002-2003 Rockets are truly blessed. We have one legitimate franchise player in Stevie Francis AND one potential franchise player in Yao AND mondo star players in Cuttino Mobley and Eddie Griffen. And what's most heartening is the fact that "EGO" doesn't seem to be a problem on this team. theSAGE
The key is balance. All the players should support each others weaknesses. They should compliment each others strengths. There are things that Francis can do that Yao can't do. There are things that Mobley can do that Francis can't do. There are things that Yao can do that Francis and Mobley can't do. Same with Griffin. There're should be a strength that covers each position. Think of a 5-pointed star. If one part is weak, then the star will crumple. P.S. I picked 3 stars. But, there's only ONE leader. And that ONE leader is the best of the bunch over-all, in terms of "making his teammates better."
Sorry, I have to disagree with these... The reason the 96 Rockets didn't win was because the "stars" were at the end of their careers; Hakeem (back/knees), Drexler (legs), Barkley (elbow, and knee). Not because they had "three stars." I call them the "Below the rim team." The 94 team: You think that Thorpe was a star? No. That was Hakeems team. And he was the ONLY "Star" on that team. The 80-90 Pistons had only ONE star (Isiah) and ONE villain (Bill Laimbeer). Lookup "defense" in the Websters Dictionary and you will find: "see: Detroit Pistons" The Lakers during the 80's had three stars. Magic, Kareem, and Worthy. A three-prong attack. The Lakers would not have won 5 titles in the 80's w/out Kareem.
I don't think it's the number of stars that matter, but the overall make-up of the team. Championship teams tend to have two stars because teams usually can't afford more than that, or that they have a 3rd 'star', but it doesn't show on the stats. After all, there are only so many shots to go around, and we pretty much define stars by their gaudy stats. One could say that having too many stars is a bad thing because of Portland. But Portland did not have anyone close to the caliber of Shaq or Kobe. And it's debatable how many on that team are actually stars. And they did almost beat the Lakers a few seasons ago. So it's not like the team was a huge failure.
2 superstars with role players. Especially with the current salary tax, it's impossible to keep more than 2 max players in 1 team. For example, I can't see how the Lakers managing to pay Kareem, Magic and Worthy fairly and keep them happy in nowadays climate. Would they be willing to pay their 3rd superstar Worthy max? Doubt it. Max players usually need to score 20+ ppg and to get those pts, you need shots and there is only 1 ball. Is there a team in the NBA history with 3 or more 20 ppg season scorers? I don't remember that happening. And I think the key to championships is to pick the right 2 superstars and surround them with right role players. Lakers have the right 2 superstars (Shaq and Kobe) so they are able to win 3 championships. But I can't imagine e.g. Pierce and Walker (the supposed 2 superstars in Boston) winning a championship to be honest. There are just too many teams who commit huge salary to talented players who they think are or are going to be superstars but turn out to be bad business.
Having too many stars IS a big problem. You know stars need stats to get contract and to get huge stats, you need the ball be it score/assist/reb. If you are the boss, would you be willing to pay a 15 ppg scorer max contact? Huh no of course. Another example, if we have 2 max players who score 20+ ppg and somehow are able to trade for Elton Brand and give him a max contract, what expectation/production would you have for Brand? I imagine 20 ppg, 10 ppg at least. But are there enough shots around for 3 players to score 20+ every night? Are there enough rebs around for 3 players to get 10+ every night? I don't think so. Then if Brand scores less than 20 ppg, you would think he is not worth the max. You don't give the max to a player to be a role player, do you?
I think it depends on the attitude of the stars. You can never have more than 1 star with attitude like AI or Shaq. But maybe you will do well with 3 or 4 stars with attitude like Hakeem or Yao? Maybe, just maybe.
With 3-4 stars, the ball needs to spread out to each of them, they would have to average 18 ppg at most, they wouldn't be considered as superstars then.
Well, think of it this way. Before joining Rox, they already prove that they are superstars, when they are with different teams. Everyone knows their ability. THEN they all come to Rox.
Then we would complain that their production (numbers) decline after being given a fat contract. See Portland. The players have proved that they were stars before joining and then... You won't win in this argument with me.
Clearly pre CBA days, but... Lakers, previously mentioned had three stars. I think Norm Nixon came over from the Clipps as a star. McAdoo was a fading star who contributed. Fox was considered the star when he played for the Celts, now a role player for the Lakers. ( I think his role is to start fights and foul out of super-hyped games) Celts had Bird, McHale and Parrish. Though in defference to Sageherb, we all knew who was getting the ball at crunch time. Though, because of his great passes, we did not know who would take the shot. Old Celts of 11 championships had about 10 stars. they were before my time and I can't name them all, but ... Bill Russell, Bob Cousey, John Havlachek, Don Nelson, Paul Silas, Bailey Howell, Tommy Hienson... It just depends on the make-up.
During the 90's two stars was the definite formula (except for our first title). All of the 80's teams had more than two stars, but that was a different era, granted. Like him or not, Bill Laimbeer = All Star. Byron Scott was an all star on the Laker showtime teams. Celtics = almost a full all-star team. DJ was an all star in his career, only "weak" link would be Ainge. Walton off the bench! The SacKings did really well last year for not fitting in the two big stars mold either. p.s. I think the complementary style of Yao makes it possible for us to have three stars.
Shaq and Kobe are SUPERSTARS. Michael Jordan was a SUPERSUPER STAR. Hakeem and Drexler were good...with a lot of good role players. I think the Rockets should have 3 stars. We already have 3 stars...Steve Francis, Cuttino Mobley, and Yao Ming. What I would really like is a POWER FORWARD who is a star and is consistent. Cuttino can tone it down and become a very good defensive player and still get points. You don't want 4 stars...not enough shots for each person. THREE IS THE BEST.
Given the youth of this team, I seriously believe that many of our players can well grow into "Stars." These are my thoughts on which players I believe to have "maxed" out their potential and others who have clear competitive advantages. Maxed Out Players Maurice Taylor - maxed out his potential; this is as good as he gets Glen Rice - seasoned veteran but injuries and age clearly getting the better of him Jaoquin Hawkins - old rookie but has his own "game" already. Franchise level Players Steve Francis - clearly an absolute competitive adv Yao Ming - clearly an absolute competitive adv Established Stars and Emerging Stars Cuttino Mobley - already an established star but doesn't command all the competitive advantages as Francis. Eddie Griffin - rebounds and blocks are how he can really distinguish himself. James Posey - he can become a big-time defensive specialist. That's a pretty darn good mix, if you ask me. theSAGE
