Winning a title with just one All Star

[Wulfgar1224]

I've thought about this for a while now and thought it would be fun to start a thread about this topic. I've decided to go back 20 years to 1990. IMO, the Cavs have only one true All Star this year in LBJ. I'll probably get some people that will argue with that point and that's fine.

1990 Pistons. The bad boy teams were the teams that I hated the most. But, you can't deny that Isiah and Joe D were legit all stars.

1991-1993 Bulls. Obviously, MJ and Pippen were All Stars at the time.

1994-95 Rockets. Only Hakeem made it IMO. In fact, I think that the Rockets two year run is the only one in the last 20 years that a team had a single all star.

1996-98 Bulls. Same as before. MJ and Scottie were in their prime.

1999 Spurs. Tim Duncan was really terrific. David Robinson was still playing at a high level.

2000-2002 Lakers. Shaq and Kobe in their prime was a fearsome duo.

2003 Spurs. TD was terrific and Parker was coming into his own.

2004 Pistons. Chauncey and Hamilton were playing at an All Star level. Ben Wallace in his prime was an unbelievable defender.

2005 Spurs. The TD, Parker, and Ginobli trio was probably the Spurs best team.

2006 Heat. D Wade had a terrific finals and Shaq was still playing very well.

2007 Spurs. TD, Parker, and Ginobli dominated in the playoffs.

2008 Celtics. Obviously, the big 3 were playing at a high level two years ago for the Celtics.

2009 Lakers. Kobe and Gasol gave the Lakers more than enough to win it all last season.

Summing everything up, the point that I was making with this thread is that the vast majority of winners the last 2 decades had at least 2 legitimate all stars in addition to solid role players that every champion needs. I think the Houston Rockets are the only team that relied on a superstar and role players to win it. Granted, LeBron is a once in a generation talent and can't be underestimated. But, for the Cavs to win it all this year would be unusual given the last 20 years of precedent.

 

[Zog]

You could make a case that Jamison would have been an All-Star if he wasn't on the Wizards.

Shaq's numbers are actually very good when you consider that he plays slightly less than half of the game on average.

 

[BruceBowensFoot]

Yeah, but lately The All Star Game has been ass. It really doesn't matter who's selected to play as an all star as long as players can put up good numbers to help their teams win.

 

[blank964]

Yeah, but lately The All Star Game has been ass. It really doesn't matter who's selected to play as an all star as long as players can put up good numbers to help their teams win.

Yeah when AI keeps getting voted in as a starter, what does an All-Star nod really mean?

 

[Heej]

Hakeem also had drexler on his team during his championship run if I recall correctly. If you wanna go wayyy back Rick Barry had a team of complete scrubs that he carried to win a ring. That warriors team is widely regarded as the worst team to ever win a chip.

 

[Adam]

first rockets win only had hakeem, that would be a genuine example. Everyone else was quality role players who stepped up especially rookie sam cassell and mario elie if i remember correctly. Although you could argue john starks was the most valuable person for the rockets

 

[Lee]

Hakeem also had drexler on his team during his championship run if I recall correctly. If you wanna go wayyy back Rick Barry had a team of complete scrubs that he carried to win a ring. That warriors team is widely regarded as the worst team to ever win a chip.

The first Houston team did not have Drexler yet. He is an 8 time all star, so he counts as a star. It had a bunch of players average between 8-14 points a game and one stud in Hakeem who averaged 27.5 game. This one team is the best case for winning it all with only one star or all star. (next year they traded with portland for dexler and found hakeem his robin)

 

[Joe Henderson]

They had some real geriatric rosters in the late 90s with Barkley, Kevin Willis, Mario Elie, Eddie Johnson, Pippen joining them for 1 year, etc... These current Cavs look like a college team next to them.

and right, i realize that has nothing to do with the thread topic. just found it interesting.

 

[Lee]

They had some real geriatric rosters in the late 90s with Barkley, Kevin Willis, Mario Elie, Eddie Johnson, Pippen joining them for 1 year, etc... These current Cavs look like a college team next to them.

and right, i realize that has nothing to do with the thread topic. just found it interesting.

The current Celtics look like a highschool team next to them. (although a girls highschool team) :chuckles:

 

[theSTEREO.]

This team has 4 players that have been voted in by coaches as All-Stars in the past 2 years.

That's pretty telling. Just because the coaches decided to claim Al Horford was playing better than Shaq/Mo/Jamison this year does not make them any less All-Star caliber.

 

[Cavatt]

You can say that we only have one star, but it is getting harder and harder. You have 3 guys that were allstars last year, and another Jamison who has been an allstar with essentially the same numbers. So, for instance if we won, would you be able to say to other NBA fans,"We did it with only one allstar!" They may not argue the point today, but if it all works out they definitely would, and more guys would go to the allstar game next year.

 

[Triumph36]

This team has 4 players that have been voted in by coaches as All-Stars in the past 2 years.

That's pretty telling. Just because the coaches decided to claim Al Horford was playing better than Shaq/Mo/Jamison this year does not make them any less All-Star caliber.

To be fair, one was only in because of multiple injuries.

Outside of LeBron, we have three fringe(at best) All-Stars.

 

[Jon]

There's a good case for the Pistons, as only the Wallace's played in an All Star game before they won it all - and only Ben played in the All Star game the year they did win it. As great as Ben was on defense, he wasn't a superstar.

Hamilton and Billups each scored 17 ppg that season, and Billups just had 5.7 apg. Those are not All Star numbers. What they did have was solid depth that they couldn't hold on to in future seasons.

Of course there are people who claim the Pistons didn't deserve to win for various reasons - and that they benefited from a Lakers melt-down and a weak ECF, but that's another matter.