Which star had the weaker support cast?

One_and_Done · Post #1 » by **One_and_Done** » Thu Jun 15, 2023 6:13 am

Which star had the weaker support cast when they won a title? I'm not asking about who faced tougher opponents, just the quality of the support cast.

EDIT: updated the poll

TheGOATRises007 · Post #2 » by **TheGOATRises007** » Thu Jun 15, 2023 6:24 am

Hakeem in 94.

-Luke- · Post #3 » by **-Luke-** » Thu Jun 15, 2023 6:38 am

Not 2021 Giannis and 2023 Jokic. The Nuggets had a very good #2 and a very solid roster from 3-7/8. The Bucks had good #2 and #3 options and good role players in Lopez, Tucker, Portis and a few others.

I would also not vote for 2022 Curry. One of the greatest defenders in Draymond, Klay had recovered enough at that point, Wiggins was really stepping up and they had solid depth with Poole, Porter Jr., Looney, Bjelica, GPII and guys like that.

That leaves me with Duncan, Hakeem and Dr. J. It's hard for me to evaluate Dr. J's supporting cast because I'm not well-versed in the ABA. On paper it looks similar to the 94 Rockets. The 2003 Spurs were a bit weird because that team looks great on paper, but they had post prime Robinson in his last season and pre prime Parker and Manu. I would argue though that they had very solid depth with Bowen, Kerr, Rose, Stephen Jackson etc. Also, that team won 60 games, the first time in the Duncan era. That speaks to Duncan's greatness of course, but also that it was a good team.

The 94 Rockets also won 58 games with no real #2 and not a lot of depth after the first 5-6 players. So I would go with them.

The cases for 94 Hakeem, 03 Duncan and 76 Dr. J seem pretty similar. We could also include 2011 Dirk, who had no clear number 2 and an aging veteran team. But Kidd (even at 38), Marion, Terry, Chandler etc. is better than 94 Rockets.

70sFan · Post #4 » by **70sFan** » Thu Jun 15, 2023 6:42 am

Giannis doesn't belong in this discussion.

Jaivl · Post #5 » by **Jaivl** » Thu Jun 15, 2023 6:47 am

2006 Wade is a very underrated one cause he had *names*.

2021 Giannis is absolutely not an option lol. Considering Murray's explosion, probably neither is Jokic.

GSP · Post #6 » by **GSP** » Thu Jun 15, 2023 10:22 am

75 Rick Barry should be an option def over 22 Steph and apparently since playoff Murray is just a borderline superstar prolly Jokic too

DQuinn1575 · Post #7 » by **DQuinn1575** » Thu Jun 15, 2023 2:23 pm

GSP wrote:75 Rick Barry should be an option def over 22 Steph and apparently since playoff Murray is just a borderline superstar prolly Jokic too

I took 75 GSW as Other vote.

Post #8 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sun Jun 18, 2023 9:38 pm

The fact I'm the first person to pick Dr. J makes me think that his supporting cast was too weak to establish a reputation as "weak" that could propagate through time.

AEnigma · Post #9 » by **AEnigma** » Sun Jun 18, 2023 11:08 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:The fact I'm the first person to pick Dr. J makes me think that his supporting cast was too weak to establish a reputation as "weak" that could propagate through time.

For me this was a comfortable two-man debate between Erving and Hakeem. Nuggets/Nets is the series with the biggest talent disparity between those two options, even if the specific matchup played well to Erving’s favour (in much the same sense the 1993 Finals played well to Jordan even as those Suns were probably the most “talented” Finals team he faced).

Still, relative to their respective leagues, Brian Taylor is a strong secondary piece (a Jrue facsimile if you will :wink:

), and much like the Rockets, the overall team at least makes sense as built around him.

One_and_Done · Post #10 » by **One_and_Done** » Sun Jun 18, 2023 11:13 pm

I think 03 Spurs edge out the 94 Rockets. That Spurs team was just 'names' who were either washed or not ready.

iggymcfrack · Post #11 » by **iggymcfrack** » Sun Jun 18, 2023 11:14 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:The fact I'm the first person to pick Dr. J makes me think that his supporting cast was too weak to establish a reputation as "weak" that could propagate through time.

I feel like a lot of people just didn't look into Dr. J's because it was so long ago and looked for a recent one they knew. The Nets literally had ONE player with a positive BPM other than Dr. J in the playoffs, Al Skinner at +1.2. That's insane. They're my vote for sure.

Post #12 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sun Jun 18, 2023 11:21 pm

One_and_Done wrote:I think 03 Spurs edge out the 94 Rockets. That Spurs team was just 'names' who were either washed or not ready.

I would disagree with that assessment of Ginobili. Remember that he's a 25 year old who was a star in Europe, and understand that he's not someone who became a plus-minus monster years into his career. He led the Spurs in the playoffs in raw +/- this year just like he did every year they won the title from there on out.

I would say that really, the Spurs weren't ready for Ginobili, and that's why they were cautious about incorporating him - and his frustrating tendency to improvise - into their core strategy. Until he was given more star-like primacy and minutes, his box score wasn't that impressive, but I don't think there's really much reason to think of Ginobili as taking a giant leap forward as a player in his late 20s.

One_and_Done · Post #13 » by **One_and_Done** » Sun Jun 18, 2023 11:33 pm

Manu's advanced stats are deceptive when you consider the Spurs were 10-3 in games he missed. Manu was also not paid like an all-star in 04 as a free agent. The Nuggets modest offer sheet was regarded as being an overpayment at the time. Whether that's because 'the league wasn't ready for him' doesn't change the fact that he wasn't overly impactful as a rookie.

Narigo · Post #14 » by **Narigo** » Sun Jun 18, 2023 11:34 pm

Julius erving

SHAQ32 · Post #15 » by **SHAQ32** » Sun Jun 18, 2023 11:50 pm

I'd take Hakeem's 94 supporting cast over Duncan's 03 Spurs cast. They had so much clutch shooting on that team. And for a guy like Hakeem, having Robert Horry back then was kinda unfair. Add in Otis Thorpe who was in that Horace Grant, Charles Oakley class at the time.

wojoaderge · Post #16 » by **wojoaderge** » Mon Jun 19, 2023 12:12 am

Rockets had no Super John

One_and_Done · Post #17 » by **One_and_Done** » Mon Jun 19, 2023 12:32 am

Otis Thorpe was a literal all-star. A borderline one at best, but certainly not anything you could say about any of the 03 Spurs support cast.

No-more-rings · Post #18 » by **No-more-rings** » Mon Jun 19, 2023 1:01 am

SHAQ32 wrote:I'd take Hakeem's 94 supporting cast over Duncan's 03 Spurs cast. They had so much clutch shooting on that team. And for a guy like Hakeem, having Robert Horry back then was kinda unfair. Add in Otis Thorpe who was in that Horace Grant, Charles Oakley class at the time.

I don’t feel strongly one way or another about overall casts, but you’re talking about only offense. Duncan had more help on defense with Drob, Bowen, Jackson, Rose and Manu for sure.

AEnigma · Post #19 » by **AEnigma** » Mon Jun 19, 2023 1:03 am

One_and_Done wrote:Otis Thorpe was a literal all-star. A borderline one at best, but certainly not anything you could say about any of the 03 Spurs support cast.

In 1994 he literally was not (and in 1992 he was an extremely weak one), so if players two years removed qualify, then Duncan had two.

Post #20 » by **Doctor MJ** » Mon Jun 19, 2023 1:04 am

One_and_Done wrote:Manu's advanced stats are deceptive when you consider the Spurs were 10-3 in games he missed. Manu was also not paid like an all-star in 04 as a free agent. The Nuggets modest offer sheet was regarded as being an overpayment at the time. Whether that's because 'the league wasn't ready for him' doesn't change the fact that he wasn't overly impactful as a rookie.

He was very impactful in those playoffs, and those playoffs are what we are talking about in this thread.

Whose support cast was weaker?