With the east in flux, how far away is Orlando?

[Catman 380]

A lot of that can be attributed to Bill Self being terrible at developing pros. I got hammered on this board last year because I said I didn't trust Ben McLemore for that reason (and I turned out to be right). Wiggins you could argue is good enough to overcome one year with Bill Self.

 

And I didn't take your comment personally, I just disagree with you in the case of Wiggins.

 

 

How are you right about Mclemore after one year? That's ridiculous. I don't think anyone expected an immediate impact, as he has some development to work on.

 

"McLemore averaged 8.8 points and 2.9 rebounds and an assist while averaging 27 minutes per game in his rookie season, but improved and was getting more playing time in the last couple of months of the 13-14 season. He finished on a high with 31 points and five rebounds in the season-finale against the Suns. McLemore averaged 14 points per game in March, but he only shot 38 percent from the field for the season."

 

He could easily have started to turn the corner towards the end of the year. His poor shooting is an example of low confidence coming in, as we all know he has the stroke mechanics.

 

Regardless, last year's draft most likely will not yield one star player, but Oladipo/MClemore/Burke/and MCW all seem like solid starters moving forward.

[jec 427]

A lot of that can be attributed to Bill Self being terrible at developing pros. I got hammered on this board last year because I said I didn't trust Ben McLemore for that reason (and I turned out to be right). Wiggins you could argue is good enough to overcome one year with Bill Self.

 

And I didn't take your comment personally, I just disagree with you in the case of Wiggins.

 

It's not his job to "develop pros". How does one do that, exactly? And is it possible within one year? Just because star players that played for him don't turn into good NBA players doesn't mean he can't "develop pros". That's just dumb.

[God Hates Otis Smith 153]

isiah thomas is one of the 5 best PG's ever. besides tony parker, he's the only PG besides magic to "lead" a team to a title as it's best player in the last 30-35 years

 

it's really not even debatable, unless you choose to debate for the sake of trolling

[jmmagicfan 302]

Any credibility that this poster hoped to achieve is all but gone, add him to the list of posters who have absolutely trash opinions to the point that there is actually no conversation or argument worth wild. He is basically nearly implying that the NBA should review players who make it into the Hall of Fame and could be ousted if a better player comes around.

Wow, talk about completely mistating my point. The point is, the term "superstar" is vastly over-used, and just being a HoF player doesn't grant the "super" status. At no point did I say or imply anything about reviewing and removing players from the hall.

[Emory889 353]

Wow, talk about completely mistating my point. The point is, the term "superstar" is vastly over-used, and just being a HoF player doesn't grant the "super" status. At no point did I say or imply anything about reviewing and removing players from the hall.

 

Well, you are going to the opposite extreme and under-using it. Because in almost every case, a player making it in to the HOF means that they ARE a superstar. There's very few exceptions to that.

 

You didn't say anything about removing players from the hall but we are following your arguments to their natural conclusion. You said that you felt that with the exception of center, only the top 3 players off all time at each position could be deemed superstars. So its only logical to assume that if a player comes along that is better than Kobe Bryant, that you are going to deem Kobe no longer worthy of being a superstar. That was your argument.

[jmmagicfan 302]

This is seriously insane. By your view, there's only been 3 superstar point guards in league history? Seriously? Lets ignore for a second that Jerry West is typically considered a shooting guard, we will keep him on your list for argument sake. That still leave the majority of 2 decades of basketball unaccounted for in terms of a "superstar" pg.

 

John Stockton

Gary Payton

Jason Kidd

Chris Paul

Steve Nash

 

You are seriously saying that these guys aren't superstar players? Nash won the MVP award twice. Stockton led the league in assists for 9 straight seasons. Payton was the best pg of the 90s. And how does this work for point guards coming up? If you consider the Big O to be a superstar (and he absolutely was) then what happens when a truly transcendent point guard makes his way into the league? Does Robertson get his superstar status revoked? Who was the odd man out in the small forward category when Lebron came into the league?

 

Your thinking on this subject is seriously jacked up.

 

These guys were and/or are all star players, no question about it. I am simply saying that the term "superstar" is thrown around way too loosely. I don't think there has to be someone classed as a "superstar" at every position, in every era/decade. Among other criteria, you have to be the best player on your own team first, you have to arguably be in the discussion for best player in the league multiple years, and you should make it to the conference and/or NBA finals multiple times. You should also be in the argument for best 3-5 at your position all time. Which would you say meet all of those?

[jmmagicfan 302]

Well, you are going to the opposite extreme and under-using it. Because in almost every case, a player making it in to the HOF means that they ARE a superstar. There's very few exceptions to that.

 

You didn't say anything about removing players from the hall but we are following your arguments to their natural conclusion. You said that you felt that with the exception of center, only the top 3 players off all time at each position could be deemed superstars. So its only logical to assume that if a player comes along that is better than Kobe Bryant, that you are going to deem Kobe no longer worthy of being a superstar. That was your argument.

 

I believe that is what debaters call "snow-balling" it - taking an argument to somewhat ridiculous extremes. I will admit to doing that to a certain extent when I said only the top 3-4 at any position; my point is, anyone referred to as a "superstar" is someone we should be able to point to as being significantly better than your regular all-star, HoF player at their position. Maybe I am under-utilizing it, I won't actually argue that point - but I don't feel the need to classify more than a couple of players in any generation as a superstar. There were a lot of very-good players in the 80's, but Bird and Magic stood out. There were a lot of very good players in the 90's, Michael stood out. From '95 to '05, Shaq stood out. From '00 to '13, Kobe stood out. From '10 to current, LeBron is standing out.

[Optimist Prime 197]

I believe that is what debaters call "snow-balling" it - taking an argument to somewhat ridiculous extremes. I will admit to doing that to a certain extent when I said only the top 3-4 at any position; my point is, anyone referred to as a "superstar" is someone we should be able to point to as being significantly better than your regular all-star, HoF player at their position. Maybe I am under-utilizing it, I won't actually argue that point - but I don't feel the need to classify more than a couple of players in any generation as a superstar. There were a lot of very-good players in the 80's, but Bird and Magic stood out. There were a lot of very good players in the 90's, Michael stood out. From '95 to '05, Shaq stood out. From '00 to '13, Kobe stood out. From '10 to current, LeBron is standing out.

 

Do you consider Duncan a superstar? Or Durant?

 

All-Stars are above average players, but superstars exceed that level of play. Stephen Curry is an example of a budding superstar right now. His level of play exceeds that of merely all-star level. To call him only a star would be mistepresentative of what he is accomplishing in the league right now.

[Voodoo Man 99]

Let's say we just ignore the part of jmmagicfan's post that said there were no superstars on the 89 and 90 Pistons team and just dwell on the fact that the roster he listed reminded him of the 89-90 Pistons team. I went back to the post, and looked at the players listed. It didn't help. It still doesn't make sense to me.

[Emory889 353]

These guys were and/or are all star players, no question about it. I am simply saying that the term "superstar" is thrown around way too loosely. I don't think there has to be someone classed as a "superstar" at every position, in every era/decade. Among other criteria, you have to be the best player on your own team first, you have to arguably be in the discussion for best player in the league multiple years, and you should make it to the conference and/or NBA finals multiple times. You should also be in the argument for best 3-5 at your position all time. Which would you say meet all of those?

 

Your rules for what qualifies as a superstar are completely arbitrary and they change a little bit with every post you make. Your very next post after this one you concede that a player should be in top 3 at his position to be a superstar may be a bit extreme but here you want me to pick the couple of guys off the list that might make the top 5 of all time list as if there is only room for 5 superstar point guards ever. Nevermind the fact that Chris Paul has dominated this league since the first day he stepped onto a NBA court. Nope, sorry Chris; the superstar quota for point guards is all filled up. I'm not going to waste my time and list every accomplishment of the guards that I named but I will give you the abridged version. I'm ignoring your criteria for them needing to be in the argument for top 5 all-time at their position because that is stupid.

 

John Stockton - The only guy on my list that wasn't his teams best player. That might have something to do with the HOF PF he played next to his entire career. 10 x all-star, 11 all-nba teams, 5 X all defensive team, all-time assists and steals leader. 2 Finals appearances and multiple WCF appearances.

 

Gary Payton - Easily the best player on his team for multiple years....probably including the time when Kemp was at his best. Only PG to ever win DPOY. 9 X all-star, 9 all-nba teams, 9 NBA all defensive first teams. Probably the best defensive PG of all-time. 3 finals appearances and 1 championship when he was ancient...again multiple WCF appearances.

 

Jason Kidd - Best player on every team he played on until he got to Dallas, and it wasn't even close. 10 x nba all-star, 6 all-nba teams (that kind of surprised me actually), 9 all-defensive teams, ROTY. 1 NBA championship (when he was still a solid roleplayer despite being ancient), 2 finals appearances....and screw this, I'm tired of repeating myself on conference finals appearances.

 

Chris Paul - Keeping in mind that he still has a lot of career left in him......7 x all-star, 6 all-nba teams, 6 all defensive teams. In my mind, the best point guard of the past 5 years.

 

Steve Nash - The only player on the list who was a poor defender. I think he was the best player on the Suns although you could make an argument for Amare during a couple of the Suns glory years. 2 time MVP, 8 time all-star, 7 time all-nba, 5 time NBA assist leader, one of the few guys to ever average percentages of 50-40-90, something only 6 players have ever done and Nash did it 4 times. The next closest? Bird with 2.

 

I know I just wasted my time. You are going to immediately discount all of this information and tell me that this is what makes them star players but not superstars. I'm telling you that you are wrong. Gary Payton was the best point guard in the league for at least 5 years. When you make 9 straight allstar games and all-nba defensive first teams, and be the first, and only, point guard to ever win DPOY then you are a superstar player. It really doesn't matter if Jordan played at the same time.

[jmmagicfan 302]

Do you consider Duncan a superstar? Or Durant?

 

All-Stars are above average players, but superstars exceed that level of play. Stephen Curry is an example of a budding superstar right now. His level of play exceeds that of merely all-star level. To call him only a star would be mistepresentative of what he is accomplishing in the league right now.

 

Duncan, yes I would, his work ethic, consistently excellent level of play for a decade, leadership of a team to multiple titles, et cetera; no question. I am a big fan of Durant, and if he continues his excellence (and improves his defensive consistent intensity) I can see him attaining that plateau. Curry, way too early in what has been an injury-riddled career to this point. I am not saying he couldn't become a superstar, I think he has the potential, I am just concerned whether his body will hold up long enough. In that respect he reminds me of Penny Hardaway, Tracy McGrady, and Brandon Roy - brilliant careers cut short by physical limitations/injuries. I hope for his sake that his issues are past, but lower body issues early in a career tend to crop up again and limit the length of that career.

[jmmagicfan 302]

Let's say we just ignore the part of jmmagicfan's post that said there were no superstars on the 89 and 90 Pistons team and just dwell on the fact that the roster he listed reminded him of the 89-90 Pistons team. I went back to the post, and looked at the players listed. It didn't help. It still doesn't make sense to me.

 

I clarified what I meant by "reminds me" in post #43 of the thread "I am not saying that our guys are as good, certainly they have done nothing to justify that. I am saying that a team built up of players who understand their roles and being led by a couple of 2nd tier all-stars have a better chance in the near future, because the new salary cap is much more restrictive and the odds of any team being able to put together a team with 2 or 3 top-tier, max-salary level guys is much harder now."

 

Do we have 4-5 all-star caliber players on our team right now, no, though the hope is that a couple of our young guys may develop into that caliber. What I am saying is that Detroit was built around more of a complete team concept, not 2-3 guys doing 70% of the scoring for them every night. Yes they had 4-5 guys who were/had been/did become all-stars, and while Isiah was their leading scorer on a consistent basis, they frequently beat people by having 5, 6, or even 7 guys dropping double digits, and by playing some really hard "D". I credit some of the leagues subsequent rules changes to encourage scoring in part on the kind of "D" the Bad Boys played.