jmmagicfan 302 Report post Posted June 10, 2014 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. We are just going to have to disagree on what makes a superstar. I could try and write all day why I think some are and some aren't, and maybe in trying to keep from writing a book I have oversimplified some of them. But you have partly made my case for me by listing 5 that you consider, on top of Magic (who no one has yet argued against) or the Big O, et cetera. Other people have argued for Isiah, some people might list other players from different eras like Bob Cousy or Lenny Wilkins. There is a large group of all-star, HoF worthy players at every position, that's why we have a HoF to begin with, to recognize the consistent excellence of these talented athletes. I fully anticipate that each and every one of the 5 guys you listed will eventually make the Hall, and deservedly so. My contention is, and has always been, that we throw around the term "superstar" for too easily instead of saving it for those few players that actually surpass that level. The fact that we disagree on who is and who isn't just makes us fans who see things differently. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jmmagicfan 302 Report post Posted June 10, 2014 It seems to me that everyone who disagrees with my views of "superstar" is doing so because we are using it differently. Most people seem to be using it for a level above "All-Star", and for players who have attained that All-Star Plus level for a couple of years. I look at it more as the Iconic players, those who have become known to even the most casual fan of the game, though I make some exception for players from earlier eras who didn't have the advantages (and disadvantages) of the massive media coverage we have today. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Optimist Prime 197 Report post Posted June 10, 2014 It seems to me that everyone who disagrees with my views of "superstar" is doing so because we are using it differently. Most people seem to be using it for a level above "All-Star", and for players who have attained that All-Star Plus level for a couple of years. I look at it more as the Iconic players, those who have become known to even the most casual fan of the game, though I make some exception for players from earlier eras who didn't have the advantages (and disadvantages) of the massive media coverage we have today. Maybe you should consider a different term? "Legends" could work. Superstar insinuates "better than a star," which is a measurement of ability. Legend insinuates historical greatness which stands out in their time and maintains a lasting effect. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Voodoo Man 99 Report post Posted June 10, 2014 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. Last years team played soft "D", unlike the 89-90 Pistons comparison. I'm done with this. You can convince yourself that what you posted makes sense, but you seem to be alone on an island here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Catman 380 Report post Posted June 11, 2014 Wow, he is still clinging to the Pistons argument? That is rather impressive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
