Amount of All-Star teammate selections for superstars of the 2000s

[kentatm]

this post is stolen from Reddit but regardless it's interesting info link (https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/hjguug/superstars_in_the_2000s_how_many_teammate_allstar/)


The following is a list of the biggest superstars from the 2000s comparing the amount of total all-star selections (not including themselves) on there respective teams, ordered from most to least. Also included career win % for a little bit of context.

Steve Nash: 18 (.62 win%)

Dwyane Wade: 17 (.58 win%)

Shaquille O’Neal: 15 (.68 win%)

LeBron James: 15 (.66 win%)

Kevin Garnett: 15 (.56 win%)

Kobe Bryant: 13 (.62 win%)

Tim Duncan: 13 (.71 win%)

Dirk Nowitzki: 6 (.60 win%)



BTW two of those selections for Dirk were injury replacements, Josh Howard and Jason Kidd, with Kidd only getting the nod b/c there was a freak ice storm right before the ASG that shut down most flights into DFW and he was already in Dallas where the game was being held.

[tpols]

if you gave Dirk equal help, he could hang with any of those guys in a series. it'd be a coin flip.

in fact, he beat a bunch of them with less.

[ArbitraryWater]

I‘d be interested in a list on the all star +/- amount for every playoff series. Like you might have 2 all stars as help, but the opponent could have 4, and so you‘re still fighting an uphill battle.

Even that wouldn‘t do justice to some teams though.

Current LAC have 2 all stars coming off the bench.

[Norcaliblunt]

How many off those all stars are first ballot HOF level players?

[Roundball_Rock]

I‘d be interested in a list on the all star +/- amount for every playoff series. Like you might have 2 all stars as help, but the opponent could have 4, and so you‘re still fighting an uphill battle.

Even that wouldn‘t do justice to some teams though.

Current LAC have 2 all stars coming off the bench.

Yeah, and all all-stars are not equal. It should be compared by all-stars, all-NBA, and HOF level (not all all-NBA will be HOF, obviously) players to get a better handle on the degree of greatness were are talking about.

[Kblaze8855]

Thats a somewhat weird way to look at it. The 04 Mavs had Dirk, Nash, Walker, Jamison, and Finley all of whom were essentially the same level of player they were as all stars. But with all that talent none of them produced much that year. Does that make them less talented than say....the Hawks who had 4 all stars? Are we saying Nash in 04 isnt all star level but learned so much in 3 months off the 04 offseason he went from that to MVP? OF course not. A lot of such things are circumstance.

The best teams Dirk had far as how you win were not the ones with the most current star power. Shaq too. The 01 Lakers had 2 stars and murdered everyone.

Its rarely that simple.

[Carbine]

The general feeling I get when I read such arguments on "help" that a superstar had is like the 4th through 9 on the roster don't mean much. Jordan had Pippen, but really his 3rd through 8th and some games 9th best players are more important than Scottie. It shouldn't be a surprise - 5 guys should be more valuable than 1 guy but they rarely get recognized that way. Not every team had a Horace Grant caliber off-ball player, very few did actually. Not everyone had a sniper like Paxton to make teams absolutely pay for helping off him.

A couple examples had a duo so dominant that 3-9 wasn't as important, like Shaq/Kobe 2001 but still......the Fishers, Horrys and guys like that were still very very valuable and it's unlikely they get the 3 rings without those type of players.

[Roundball_Rock]

The general feeling I get when I read such arguments on "help" that a superstar had is like the 4th through 9 on the roster don't mean much.

Some of that is it is harder to quantify the value of those other players whereas you can look up all-stars, all-NBA, HOF, etc.


It shouldn't be a surprise - 5 guys should be more valuable than 1 guy but they rarely get recognized that way

That is baked in another way in that type of talk: the best player is assumed to be more valuable than the rest of the team when the data shows that isn't the case. The assumption is the best player does all the work and only needs nominal "help" when the reality is the best player can only do a fraction of the work in any team sport. Jordan's scoring is the context we hear this the most but he was scoring "only" roughly (off the top of my head--did not look it up) 30% of the team's points and when he retired the team's scoring obviously did not fall by 33 PPG.