Not hung on 3 stars per se. I believe that in today's NBA a team can win with 2 stars and a strong top 40 player in the league NBA center. If you have a center who can at least match up ~80% of the production on O and D with the elite centers in the league, and then two other top 20 guys, I believe you can win a title. But thats the only solution, for me, short of 3 stars, that gets you there in today's NBA. If you don't have a top 40 center, and I am not nearly as bullish on Timelord as some of you, I do believe you need 3 stars to be able to compete for a title.
This is just my take. I know its possible (see Bucks) to compete with less, but thats almost always going to run through a truly elite center, one that plays the game in a way that is so beyond the norm that the act of trying to gameplan for it elevates the rest of the roster so much it almost doesnt matter. Beyond that, I just feel that 3 stars, or 2 stars and a top 6-7 or so league center, are the paths I have faith in.
@Cellar-Door- using your examples there : Dirk played the 4 but was a 7 footer so that counts as an elite C for me. Spurs were a bit of an anomaly (and probably the single best argument here against my theory), but still had a borderline elite C in Duncan and an elite Kawhi. And the Lakers have AD. I guess what im saying is, feels like a lot more wiggle room to fill out the roster with a truly top flight center.