So who are the "stars"

[chilidawg]

Lots of chatter about how we need "stars" to compete.  I'm not quite sure what this means.  Of course there are varying degrees of stardom, .i.e Curry > Love. 

Personally, I'm more a fan of team building as opposed to accummulating stars, but I do agree that we need to consolidate our depth, youth and picks into better players.  So who is on your list when you say we need "stars"?  Here's a start:

No doubt, the guys with complete games:
Curry
Leonard
Westbrook
Lebron
Durant
Cousins
Paul
Davis

Second tier, may have a flaw or two, or just not quite a dominant player:
Butler
George
Bosh
Millsap
Drummond
Jordan
Griffin
Green
Horford
Harden
P. Gasol

Toast in my mind:
Howard
Wade
Anthony

What say you?

[Csfan1984]

Good list TP. I'd add IT, Wall, Klay, Lillard, M.Gasol, Lowry, Hayward, Derozan, and Favors to second list. Aldridge and Duncan may belong on 1st list at the very least the 2nd.

[PhoSita]

It's a subjective category.

I can offer a few suggestions for how you could choose to define it:

- A player who is usually one of the best two or three players on the floor for either team
- A player who has the ability to dominate a playoff series
- A player who can be a high usage scoring option playing 30+ minutes a night while also making an impact in other categories (e.g. passing, rebounding, defense, etc)
- A player who makes it easier for teammates to succeed on both ends of the floor
- Hand in hand with the last one, a player that creates very significant matchup / gameplan challenges for the opponent

And so on.


You can get into greater levels of hair splitting when we start to talk about the difference between a "star" versus a "superstar".  A useful distinction at times, other times kind of an inane debate.


My list of "without a doubt" stars would include

Curry
Lebron
Kawhi
George
Davis
Draymond
Wall
Paul
Irving
Westbrook
Durant
Griffin
Harden
Butler
Lillard
Cousins
Bosh
Aldridge
Dirk
Irving
Lowry

(looks like it's roughly the top 20 players, however you want to order them)

Then there are guys who may or may not meet your definition, depending on your perspective:

Howard
Marc
Drummond
Deandre
Thompson
Love
Millsap
Horford
Hayward
Melo
Isaiah
Brook
Reggie
Wade
Derozan
McCollum
Towns
Bledsoe
Favors

And so on.

[sofutomygaha]

I think you have to promote Butler, George, and Griffin. Those three are tier-1 players by any criterion I can think of-- all-stars, olympians, MVP vote-getters, and famous entertainers. If you had one of those, you'd absolutely build your team around him.

[PhoSita]

I think you have to promote Butler, George, and Griffin. Those three are tier-1 players by any criterion I can think of-- all-stars, olympians, MVP vote-getters, and famous entertainers. If you had one of those, you'd absolutely build your team around him.

Agreed.  You can build a winning gameplan around each of those guys, relying on them to do a lot of the heavy lifting for your team without hurting you on defense or breaking down.  That's as good a criteria I can think of as any.


I forgot to add above --- a "star" is probably at least in the conversation for top 5 at his position, meaning when you look at the starting lineup for a game that guy usually has a significant advantage over the guy lining up against him. 

Though that can get dicey if you're talking about an especially stacked position, like point guard. 

There are a lot of point guards these days scoring 18-20+ points a game as the focal point for their teams.  How does that change the way you evaluate if those guys are "stars" or not?

[KeepRondo]

Dang Pho. The NBA would need two all star games for your list.

[chilidawg]

Thanks, knew I would forget a few.  I'd definitely add Wall, Lillard, Lowry to at least the 2nd tier.  Lowry because he's such a good defender might make the first. 

Butler and George are on the cusp of the top tier for me, just haven't quite shown it in the playoffs yet.  Griffin I don't think so.

[PhoSita]

Dang Pho. The NBA would need two all star games for your list.

I mean, not really, since I only listed 21 guys on the "no-doubt stars" list.

This is where we get into that 'star' versus ' superstar' debate.  Who do you want as your best player, versus who could be really good in the right situation?

[Quetzalcoatl]

I think you have to promote Butler, George, and Griffin. Those three are tier-1 players by any criterion I can think of-- all-stars, olympians, MVP vote-getters, and famous entertainers. If you had one of those, you'd absolutely build your team around him.

Yeah Paul George especially.  8th in scoring, tied with James Harden for 3 pts made on the season (3rd place) while also being 9th in FTs attempted, 5th in steals, 5th in defensive win shares.... he's a beast.

Anyways, my two dream stars to get this offseason are Ben Simmons at the 4 and Marc Gasol at the 5.  That would be beyond amazing

[PhoSita]

Griffin I don't think so.

It'll be interesting to see how we look back on Griffin's career in 10 years.

All he's done since his rookie season is put up pretty close to 20-10 each season with good scoring efficiency and peripheral stats, playing lots of minutes and playing almost 90% of possible games (plus deep playoff runs), while making the All-Star team every year.

He's had plenty of playoff success for a young guy, too.  He's played in 44 playoff games, averaged 36 minutes a game and pretty close to 22-9-4, over four playoff runs.

Barring a major injury, it seems he could keep doing this for another 8-10 years, especially since he's shown a willingness and an ability to gradually expand his skillset.



Despite all of that, I get the sense people aren't that impressed by him.

[sofutomygaha]

Griffin I don't think so.

It'll be interesting to see how we look back on Griffin's career in 10 years.

All he's done since his rookie season is put up pretty close to 20-10 each season with good scoring efficiency and peripheral stats, playing lots of minutes and playing almost 90% of possible games (plus deep playoff runs), while making the All-Star team every year.

He's had plenty of playoff success for a young guy, too.  He's played in 44 playoff games, averaged 36 minutes a game and pretty close to 22-9-4, over four playoff runs.

Barring a major injury, it seems he could keep doing this for another 8-10 years, especially since he's shown a willingness and an ability to gradually expand his skillset.



Despite all of that, I get the sense people aren't that impressed by him.

There's kind of this question floating around that's hurting the perception of Griffin, and it goes like this- if Griffin is so great, then how come Griffin+Paul+a bunch of elite role players aren't the best team in the NBA? (Also, how come I hate them and they are annoying AF?) If the Clippers weren't so freaking annoying and so high-profile, they would be the Thunder and it would be harder to doubt the greatness of their two stars.

PhoSita, you framed the question well, but stopped short of the conclusion. Griffin is probably going to the hall of fame, and yet there's this hesitation to call him a top tier player. That's bizarre to me.

Paul and Griffin are a modern-day Stockton and Malone. Both are at the top of their craft, but they are playing in an era that is dominated by a few amazingly transcendent players/teams.

[sofutomygaha]

By the way, Rajon Rondo is the most interesting man in the NBA. That makes him a star in my book =)

[bdm860]

Griffin I don't think so.

It'll be interesting to see how we look back on Griffin's career in 10 years.

All he's done since his rookie season is put up pretty close to 20-10 each season with good scoring efficiency and peripheral stats, playing lots of minutes and playing almost 90% of possible games (plus deep playoff runs), while making the All-Star team every year.

He's had plenty of playoff success for a young guy, too.  He's played in 44 playoff games, averaged 36 minutes a game and pretty close to 22-9-4, over four playoff runs.

Barring a major injury, it seems he could keep doing this for another 8-10 years, especially since he's shown a willingness and an ability to gradually expand his skillset.



Despite all of that, I get the sense people aren't that impressed by him.

Personally, he reminds me a lot of a prime Amar'e Stoudemire, with Blake being a much better passer with a little more range and Amar'e being a much better shot blocker (and besides those stats, most of their numbers are pretty similar).

Both tend to set up in the high post and excel at rolling to the basket playing with excellent passing All-Star PGs.  Both had a string of All-NBA 2nd team appearances and some decent playoff success too.

Of course the comparison really stems from the fact that they're both incrediblly athletic, powerful dunkers.

I think we'll look back at Griffin the same way we look back at Amar'e's prime now.  He was a great player, but not really in that upper echelon of top 5 players who are always difference makers and can instantly make any team a contender, but more in the 6-15 range where you can lead just about any team to the playoffs but not guaranteed to get very far.

That's how I view Blake anyways.

[PhoSita]

There's kind of this question floating around that's hurting the perception of Griffin, and it goes like this- if Griffin is so great, then how come Griffin+Paul+a bunch of elite role players aren't the best team in the NBA? (Also, how come I hate them and they are annoying AF?) If the Clippers weren't so freaking annoying and so high-profile, they would be the Thunder and it would be harder to doubt the greatness of their two stars.

PhoSita, you framed the question well, but stopped short of the conclusion. Griffin is probably going to the hall of fame, and yet there's this hesitation to call him a top tier player. That's bizarre to me.

Paul and Griffin are a modern-day Stockton and Malone. Both are at the top of their craft, but they are playing in an era that is dominated by a few amazingly transcendent players/teams.

Everything you wrote here was pretty much perfect.

I agree, I just didn't want to invoke Malone because I never really watched him play.

[chilidawg]

The Stockton and Malone comparison seems apt, but Paul and Griffin would have to have at least another 5 years of high level performance to get close.  Stockton and Malone were a Jordan jump shot or two away from an NBA championship, the Clips haven't really gotten close yet.