The problem with the discussion in this thread is still the definition of "star." Only Sage actually attempts to differentiate two type of stars: "franchise players" and mere "stars." That distinction is important. Otherwise, Pat is correct that Auerbach's Celtics had a team-full of stars. The showtime Lakers had 4 stars in the starting lineup: Kareem, Worthy, Byron, and Magic. And currently, both the Kings and the Mavs have at least 3 stars.
Thank you. Couple of things I'd have said differently, though. 1 -- Barkley's back was probably more of a burden than his elbow and knees. 2 -- Just to reiterate, 94 was always pretty much "Hakeem and 4 other guys" on the floor. 3 -- I have to say the Pistons were 1 star and a few almost stars. Lambier, Dumars, Rodman ... all those guys were solid. Depending on how bright your star shines, and how big of a role your role players play, you could need 1 or 12 stars on your team. There's no set formula for it.
I think you also have to differentiate between all-stars and true stars. Yes, Bill Laimbeer, Otis Thorpe, Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, Byron Scott, etc. were all-stars. However, could they lead a team by themselves if Thomas, Olajuwon, Bird and Magic were not there? I highly doubt it.
See what defines a star player? Kukoic was a star in Bull's system, but didnt do well anywhere else, so was Pipen. Matt Harpring was a neglectable player in the Sixer's team, but is sizzlin in the Jazz's team. I dont think there is an optimal number of star players for a basketball team. For every team there is a system, if the team would like to have players that fit into the team system. If all five players play like one person, then all of them are stars. To me, Stats dont define star if he doesnt play well with his teamates, and vise versa.
How about Kobe?? Hes a star with an attitude, and hes on the same team as Shaq. They did win 3 championships together ya kno . I think 2 is the ideal number, with one of the stars being the leader(Francis) and the other having raw skills(Yao)
Dont you think that Franchise,Dynasty and Brand could average 20 pts each and be satisfied. The big question is could we afford it?
First, we couldn't afford it because of the salary tax. Second, even we could afford it, there are not enough shots around to let 3 players score 20 ppg. One of them is bound to become a lesser 15 ppg scorer (and then we would complain about his lack of numbers for a max player). Nowadays in a typical NBA there are about 80 shots per game for a team. And to score 20+ every game, you need at least 20+ shots. That means if you want 3 20 ppg scorers, you only have 20 shots for the rest of 5-6 players (depends on your rotation), well that's impossible to happen and not good to happen. I don't think there is a team in history with 3 20 ppg scorers (not the ability but actually doing it), not even the old Lakers and Celtics. If you put together a team of Payton, Kobe, T-Mac, Duncan and Shaq (all having the ability of 20+ ppg), everyone of the stats is bound to suffer and I don't think one of them can score more than 20 a night.
Actually, I know of one: The Sonics of the late 80s had 3 20 point scorers in Tom Chambers, Dale Ellis and Xavier McDaniel. No others come to mind, although I am sure there has to be one or two more instances.
We need one red giant, two quasars, and, in the backcourt, a supernova paired with a pulsar. This will give us a universal team to scorch opponents with cosmic brilliance. Oh, the comets can watch from courtside.
There is no formula for winning the championship. Only the right combination of players. Kobe and Shaq can win a title. So could Jordan and Pippen. But how about a combination of McGrady and Iverson? Would that bring you a NBA title or a major clash of egos? They are both legit superstars but can a team function with both of them? Same goes for the supporting cast. You need the right guys for the job or you're screwed. Francis and Yoa could produce a title charge in the near future but if for example Mobley demands 20+ shots a game, this could take away from Yao...
The game is different in 80s with crazy scores like 142-153. It's usually in 80-90 score range with 80 shots for each team nowadays.
Not sure what the purpose of your response to my post is. I was answering a question, not saying that it could be done today.
Actually, it is very possible. In fact, Milwaukee did it with Cassell, Allen and Robinson the 3 season prior to this one. Also, I would have to look, but I believe LA did it with Shaq, Kobe and Rice (Rice may have been at around 17-18 PPG actually).
If I remember correctly, Cassell only scored around 16-18 ppg and Allen was only 18-19 ppg. Rice was only at 15 ppg as well. Plus the players around them were real crap. You don't want such bad "role playing supporting cast" in our team do you?
Again, that is not correct: 2001-2002 Allen 21.8 PPG Robinson 20.7 PPG Cassell 19.7 PPG 2000-2001 Allen 22 PPG Robinson 22 PPG Cassell 18.7 PPG 1999-2000 Allen 22.1 PPG Robinson 20.9 PPG Cassell 18.6 PPG Rice was actually at 17.5 PPG. Not close enough to 20 PPG to count, but still impressive considering that same season, O'Neal averaged 26 and Kobe averaged 20. Also, this season, there are several teams that have 3 players scoring close to 20 PPG: Atlanta: Abdur-Rahim, Robinson and Terry Dallas: Nowitzki, Finely and Nash Sacramento: Webber, Jackson and Stojakovich It has been done, it can be done and it is being done.
