Fact or Fiction: Isaiah Thomas is now an NBA Superstar

[Celtics18]

. . . and Dante Exum.

[Ilikesports17]

I'm with Mark Cuban in that I don't consider Russell Westbrook a superstar.  So I sure as hell don't consider Thomas one.

People have different definitions of Superstar.  Some think it's anyone who makes an all-star team.  Some think it's anyone who makes an All-NBA 1st team.  Some think it's anyone who wins MVP.  I'd say all three are wrong.  I never considered Rose or Nash "superstars" for instance despite them winning MVP awards.  SUperstars are the transcendent players that rarely come around.  Wilt.  Kareem.  Magic.  Bird.  Jordan.  Hakeem.  Shaq.  Duncan.  LeBron.  Embiid.  Simmons.  It's a short list.

By your definition, how many do you see in the league right now?

One, two . . . ?

I don't think there's a set number of superstars every year.  Some say it's the Top 5 players in the league at any given time.  I don't agree with that either.  LeBron is a superstar.  I honestly saw Durant as a superstar - which made it super depressing that he joined a 73 win team like a chump. 

It's really hard to argue against the idea that Steph Curry played like a superstar last year.  He was unbelievable.  Unprecedented shooting.

I just know that I don't see Westbrook as a superstar.  That said, I think guys like James Harden, etc are really good players.   The talent level in the league right now is really high.  There's a lot of great players that aren't superstars.

By your stringent definition, I could see Steph Curry ultimately being remembered as a guy who had an amazing couple of years at the height of his career, even leading his team to a title, but still not quite in that elusive, rarefied "superstar" category.

My money is on Giannis as the next generation player most likely to get placed into the All Time Greats category.

I agree with that.   Giannis, Towns, Davis and Embiid are all players who seem to have a chance of getting there.  Possibly Simmons too, but we haven't even seen him play yet.

I don't think Simmons has the scoring or athletic talent to become an all-time great. Porzingis has a better chance.

[Chris22]

Thomas has the highest fourth quarter PER of any player in the last 20 years.

[droopdog7]

No. 

[Vermont Green]

Thomas is playing at a superstar level for most of this season.  If he can keep this up for say 5 seasons, then he would be considered a superstar.  Teams adjust, it gets harder, superstars are able to adjust, we shall see if IT can.

Offensively sure, but IT is not a very good defender.  Both the eye test and advanced metrics tell you this.  And five years of this level on offense without defensive improvement won't make him a superstar.  It is IT's defense that will always keep him from the superstar level.

Can you name a player in the modern era (the last 20-25 years) that averaged 28 points and 6 assists with decent shooting that was not considered a superstar? It is possible there are people that fit this, but nobody comes to mind. I kind of doubt IT can do that, but if he does average 28 points per more on good shooting for 5 years it would not be possible to act like he wasn't a superstar.

Guys who put up generally those numbers for multiple seasons (not 5 years, but Thomas hasn't done that either).  Most aren't PG's so they don't have the assists but they do have more rebounds.  Alex English, Adrian Dantley, World B. Free, Jerry Stackhouse, Gilbert Arenas, Bernard King, Kik Vandeweghe.  Then you had guys that did it for a season like Tom Chambers, Mark Aguirre, Dale Ellis.  That of course doesn't account for pace, so if there were seasons where there were a lot less points scored, a guy with 26 ppg, might actually be equivalent to Thomas' 28 ppg of today (like Mitch Richmond, Glen Rice, etc.).  I'm not doing the math to figure that one out.

Of course those guys all have the defense problem that Thomas has, which is why they weren't considered superstars (though someone like Arenas was arguably a superstar during his prime).

I think this is a good list of comparable players that IT could aspire to if he can maintain his current level for some years (I picked 5 years almost just as an example).

IT does have a couple of things on most of these earlier stars, he is more efficient right now and get does get some assists.  I think the efficiency in particular is really important.  His efficiency is really good for this level of scoring.

This argument may be coming down to the difference between star and superstar.  This list by Moranis has a bunch of stars and maybe a few superstars.  IT is never going to be Bird, Magic, Wilt type superstar so maybe if that is the definition, we should be saying star not superstar.  I don't think he is even a true star right now.  But as I said, he is playing at a star level.

[celticsclay]

Thomas is playing at a superstar level for most of this season.  If he can keep this up for say 5 seasons, then he would be considered a superstar.  Teams adjust, it gets harder, superstars are able to adjust, we shall see if IT can.

Offensively sure, but IT is not a very good defender.  Both the eye test and advanced metrics tell you this.  And five years of this level on offense without defensive improvement won't make him a superstar.  It is IT's defense that will always keep him from the superstar level.

Can you name a player in the modern era (the last 20-25 years) that averaged 28 points and 6 assists with decent shooting that was not considered a superstar? It is possible there are people that fit this, but nobody comes to mind. I kind of doubt IT can do that, but if he does average 28 points per more on good shooting for 5 years it would not be possible to act like he wasn't a superstar.

Guys who put up generally those numbers for multiple seasons (not 5 years, but Thomas hasn't done that either).  Most aren't PG's so they don't have the assists but they do have more rebounds.  Alex English, Adrian Dantley, World B. Free, Jerry Stackhouse, Gilbert Arenas, Bernard King, Kik Vandeweghe.  Then you had guys that did it for a season like Tom Chambers, Mark Aguirre, Dale Ellis.  That of course doesn't account for pace, so if there were seasons where there were a lot less points scored, a guy with 26 ppg, might actually be equivalent to Thomas' 28 ppg of today (like Mitch Richmond, Glen Rice, etc.).  I'm not doing the math to figure that one out.

Of course those guys all have the defense problem that Thomas has, which is why they weren't considered superstars (though someone like Arenas was arguably a superstar during his prime).

Hey Moranis let's try this again since you did your standard tactic of confusingthe argument with unrelated stuff (did you take a class on how to do this in every conversation).

Lets slow it down again you commented "five years of this level on offense without defensive improvement won't make him a superstar. "

I asked you to name any player in the modern era that had this kind of performance last 20-25 years.

You named
1) Alex English: In hall of fame. Most consider the hall of fame being a superstar (not to mentioned he retired 25 years ago)
2) Adrian Dantley: In Hall of fame (not to mention retired 25 years ago
3) World B Free: Both retired more than 25 years ago, only averaged 28 points in two seasons in the late 70's never averaged more than 5 assists. Does not come close to meeting criteria that was required. Lazy bs inclusion designed to muddle the point
4) Jerry Stackhouse averaged 28 more than once his entire career. Again does not come close toi meeting what we were discussing. Lazy bs inclusion to muddle the point (not even in ballpark of what we are talking about)
5) Gilbert Arenas only averaged 28 twice entire career and also had career cut short by a combination of injuries and character issues (including a lengthy suspension for having a gun in the locker room). Lazy bs inclusion to muddle the point
6) Bernard King - In the hall of fame, but only averaged over 28 points once his career. Many do feel he could have been an all-time great without that injury.
7) Kiki Vand - Only averaged 28 points once per game in his career does not meet criteria. More lazyiness intended to muddle the point.

You then throw out a bunch more irrelevant stuff naming guys that do not meet the criteria.

So in summary you named 13 players. Almost none of the players you suggested actually met the criteria for what I asked.  The few that did come closest are in the hall of fame.

I can't stress how annoying it is to have you repeatedly do this kind of stuff and just constantly muddle discussions with irrelevant information to a pretty clear and fair question.

It's like being in my office and asking someone if they saw a red stapler recently and they come back mentioning they saw a blue hole puncher two weeks ago and a grey stapler 3 years ago in the old office. Please just stop doing this already.

To anyone else that wants to try and answer the question that Vermont Green asked, has there ever been a player that averaged IT's current offensive stats for 5 years in the modern era that was not considered a superstar?

[SHAQATTACK]

If Mayweather says so...

I'm not arguing 

[PhoSita]

To me a superstar is a guy who is not simply really good and really productive but who changes the game simply by being out there.  The rules of engagement change as a result of their presence on the court.

[Celtics18]

Thomas is playing at a superstar level for most of this season.  If he can keep this up for say 5 seasons, then he would be considered a superstar.  Teams adjust, it gets harder, superstars are able to adjust, we shall see if IT can.

Offensively sure, but IT is not a very good defender.  Both the eye test and advanced metrics tell you this.  And five years of this level on offense without defensive improvement won't make him a superstar.  It is IT's defense that will always keep him from the superstar level.

Can you name a player in the modern era (the last 20-25 years) that averaged 28 points and 6 assists with decent shooting that was not considered a superstar? It is possible there are people that fit this, but nobody comes to mind. I kind of doubt IT can do that, but if he does average 28 points per more on good shooting for 5 years it would not be possible to act like he wasn't a superstar.

Guys who put up generally those numbers for multiple seasons (not 5 years, but Thomas hasn't done that either).  Most aren't PG's so they don't have the assists but they do have more rebounds.  Alex English, Adrian Dantley, World B. Free, Jerry Stackhouse, Gilbert Arenas, Bernard King, Kik Vandeweghe.  Then you had guys that did it for a season like Tom Chambers, Mark Aguirre, Dale Ellis.  That of course doesn't account for pace, so if there were seasons where there were a lot less points scored, a guy with 26 ppg, might actually be equivalent to Thomas' 28 ppg of today (like Mitch Richmond, Glen Rice, etc.).  I'm not doing the math to figure that one out.

Of course those guys all have the defense problem that Thomas has, which is why they weren't considered superstars (though someone like Arenas was arguably a superstar during his prime).

Hey Moranis let's try this again since you did your standard tactic of confusingthe argument with unrelated stuff (did you take a class on how to do this in every conversation).

Lets slow it down again you commented "five years of this level on offense without defensive improvement won't make him a superstar. "

I asked you to name any player in the modern era that had this kind of performance last 20-25 years.

You named
1) Alex English: In hall of fame. Most consider the hall of fame being a superstar (not to mentioned he retired 25 years ago)
2) Adrian Dantley: In Hall of fame (not to mention retired 25 years ago
3) World B Free: Both retired more than 25 years ago, only averaged 28 points in two seasons. Does not come close to meeting criteria that was required. Lazy bs inclusion designed to muddle the point
4) Jerry Stackhouse averaged 28 more than once his entire career. Again does not come close toi meeting what we were discussing. Lazy bs inclusion to muddle the point.
5) Gilbert Arenas only averaged 28 twice entire career and also had career cut short by a combination of injuries and character issues (including a lengthy suspension for having a gun in the locker room). Lazy bs inclusion to muddle the point
6) Bernard King - In the hall of fame, but only averaged over 28 points once his career. Many do feel he could have been an all-time great without that injury.
7) Kiki Vand - Only averaged 28 points once per game in his career does not meet criteria. More lazyiness intended to muddle the point.

You then throw out a bunch more irrelevant stuff naming guys that do not meet the criteria.

So in summary you named 13 players. Almost none of the players you suggested actually met the criteria for what I asked.  The few that did come closest are in the hall of fame.

I can't stress how annoying it is to have you repeatedly do this kind of stuff and just constantly muddle discussions with irrelevant information to a pretty clear and fair question.

It's like being in my office and asking someone if they saw a red stapler recently and they come back mentioning they saw a blue hole puncher two weeks ago and a grey stapler 3 years ago in the old office. Please just stop doing this already.

To anyone else that wants to try and answer the question that Vermont Green asked, has there ever been a player that averaged IT's current offensive stats for 5 years in the modern era that was not considered a superstar?

Well, "superstar" is a fairly unclear designation.  LarBrd gave a description, which I actually kind of agree with, of a superstar as one of the rare, transcendent all time greats.  If that's the case, then getting into the Hall of Fame doesn't automatically imply superstardom.

If we are using the most stringent standards for admission to the club, then there have been a number of players to average @ 28PPG for five seasons (or more) who aren't "superstars."

I realize this is getting very semantic here.

[sahara]

Yes he is.

https://twitter.com/TheNBACentral/status/818637802967429120

[celticsclay]

Thomas is playing at a superstar level for most of this season.  If he can keep this up for say 5 seasons, then he would be considered a superstar.  Teams adjust, it gets harder, superstars are able to adjust, we shall see if IT can.

Offensively sure, but IT is not a very good defender.  Both the eye test and advanced metrics tell you this.  And five years of this level on offense without defensive improvement won't make him a superstar.  It is IT's defense that will always keep him from the superstar level.

Can you name a player in the modern era (the last 20-25 years) that averaged 28 points and 6 assists with decent shooting that was not considered a superstar? It is possible there are people that fit this, but nobody comes to mind. I kind of doubt IT can do that, but if he does average 28 points per more on good shooting for 5 years it would not be possible to act like he wasn't a superstar.

Guys who put up generally those numbers for multiple seasons (not 5 years, but Thomas hasn't done that either).  Most aren't PG's so they don't have the assists but they do have more rebounds.  Alex English, Adrian Dantley, World B. Free, Jerry Stackhouse, Gilbert Arenas, Bernard King, Kik Vandeweghe.  Then you had guys that did it for a season like Tom Chambers, Mark Aguirre, Dale Ellis.  That of course doesn't account for pace, so if there were seasons where there were a lot less points scored, a guy with 26 ppg, might actually be equivalent to Thomas' 28 ppg of today (like Mitch Richmond, Glen Rice, etc.).  I'm not doing the math to figure that one out.

Of course those guys all have the defense problem that Thomas has, which is why they weren't considered superstars (though someone like Arenas was arguably a superstar during his prime).

Hey Moranis let's try this again since you did your standard tactic of confusingthe argument with unrelated stuff (did you take a class on how to do this in every conversation).

Lets slow it down again you commented "five years of this level on offense without defensive improvement won't make him a superstar. "

I asked you to name any player in the modern era that had this kind of performance last 20-25 years.

You named
1) Alex English: In hall of fame. Most consider the hall of fame being a superstar (not to mentioned he retired 25 years ago)
2) Adrian Dantley: In Hall of fame (not to mention retired 25 years ago
3) World B Free: Both retired more than 25 years ago, only averaged 28 points in two seasons. Does not come close to meeting criteria that was required. Lazy bs inclusion designed to muddle the point
4) Jerry Stackhouse averaged 28 more than once his entire career. Again does not come close toi meeting what we were discussing. Lazy bs inclusion to muddle the point.
5) Gilbert Arenas only averaged 28 twice entire career and also had career cut short by a combination of injuries and character issues (including a lengthy suspension for having a gun in the locker room). Lazy bs inclusion to muddle the point
6) Bernard King - In the hall of fame, but only averaged over 28 points once his career. Many do feel he could have been an all-time great without that injury.
7) Kiki Vand - Only averaged 28 points once per game in his career does not meet criteria. More lazyiness intended to muddle the point.

You then throw out a bunch more irrelevant stuff naming guys that do not meet the criteria.

So in summary you named 13 players. Almost none of the players you suggested actually met the criteria for what I asked.  The few that did come closest are in the hall of fame.

I can't stress how annoying it is to have you repeatedly do this kind of stuff and just constantly muddle discussions with irrelevant information to a pretty clear and fair question.

It's like being in my office and asking someone if they saw a red stapler recently and they come back mentioning they saw a blue hole puncher two weeks ago and a grey stapler 3 years ago in the old office. Please just stop doing this already.

To anyone else that wants to try and answer the question that Vermont Green asked, has there ever been a player that averaged IT's current offensive stats for 5 years in the modern era that was not considered a superstar?

Well, "superstar" is a fairly unclear designation.  LarBrd gave a description, which I actually kind of agree with, of a superstar as one of the rare, transcendent all time greats.  If that's the case, then getting into the Hall of Fame doesn't automatically imply superstardom.

If we are using the most stringent standards for admission to the club, then there have been a number of players to average @ 28PPG for five seasons (or more) who aren't "superstars."

I realize this is getting very semantic here.

I get that part of it. I think that part is fair. People are going to have a different definition of superstar. However, even so it would be interesting to see how many guys did average 28 points or more 5 years in a row and were not considered a superstar.

 I imagine it is a pretty short list.

What I do object to is someone muddling the argument by naming a player like Stackhouse when he averaged 28 points or more once his entire career (on 40% for a horrid team no less).

[Celtics18]

Thomas is playing at a superstar level for most of this season.  If he can keep this up for say 5 seasons, then he would be considered a superstar.  Teams adjust, it gets harder, superstars are able to adjust, we shall see if IT can.

Offensively sure, but IT is not a very good defender.  Both the eye test and advanced metrics tell you this.  And five years of this level on offense without defensive improvement won't make him a superstar.  It is IT's defense that will always keep him from the superstar level.

Can you name a player in the modern era (the last 20-25 years) that averaged 28 points and 6 assists with decent shooting that was not considered a superstar? It is possible there are people that fit this, but nobody comes to mind. I kind of doubt IT can do that, but if he does average 28 points per more on good shooting for 5 years it would not be possible to act like he wasn't a superstar.

Guys who put up generally those numbers for multiple seasons (not 5 years, but Thomas hasn't done that either).  Most aren't PG's so they don't have the assists but they do have more rebounds.  Alex English, Adrian Dantley, World B. Free, Jerry Stackhouse, Gilbert Arenas, Bernard King, Kik Vandeweghe.  Then you had guys that did it for a season like Tom Chambers, Mark Aguirre, Dale Ellis.  That of course doesn't account for pace, so if there were seasons where there were a lot less points scored, a guy with 26 ppg, might actually be equivalent to Thomas' 28 ppg of today (like Mitch Richmond, Glen Rice, etc.).  I'm not doing the math to figure that one out.

Of course those guys all have the defense problem that Thomas has, which is why they weren't considered superstars (though someone like Arenas was arguably a superstar during his prime).

Hey Moranis let's try this again since you did your standard tactic of confusingthe argument with unrelated stuff (did you take a class on how to do this in every conversation).

Lets slow it down again you commented "five years of this level on offense without defensive improvement won't make him a superstar. "

I asked you to name any player in the modern era that had this kind of performance last 20-25 years.

You named
1) Alex English: In hall of fame. Most consider the hall of fame being a superstar (not to mentioned he retired 25 years ago)
2) Adrian Dantley: In Hall of fame (not to mention retired 25 years ago
3) World B Free: Both retired more than 25 years ago, only averaged 28 points in two seasons. Does not come close to meeting criteria that was required. Lazy bs inclusion designed to muddle the point
4) Jerry Stackhouse averaged 28 more than once his entire career. Again does not come close toi meeting what we were discussing. Lazy bs inclusion to muddle the point.
5) Gilbert Arenas only averaged 28 twice entire career and also had career cut short by a combination of injuries and character issues (including a lengthy suspension for having a gun in the locker room). Lazy bs inclusion to muddle the point
6) Bernard King - In the hall of fame, but only averaged over 28 points once his career. Many do feel he could have been an all-time great without that injury.
7) Kiki Vand - Only averaged 28 points once per game in his career does not meet criteria. More lazyiness intended to muddle the point.

You then throw out a bunch more irrelevant stuff naming guys that do not meet the criteria.

So in summary you named 13 players. Almost none of the players you suggested actually met the criteria for what I asked.  The few that did come closest are in the hall of fame.

I can't stress how annoying it is to have you repeatedly do this kind of stuff and just constantly muddle discussions with irrelevant information to a pretty clear and fair question.

It's like being in my office and asking someone if they saw a red stapler recently and they come back mentioning they saw a blue hole puncher two weeks ago and a grey stapler 3 years ago in the old office. Please just stop doing this already.

To anyone else that wants to try and answer the question that Vermont Green asked, has there ever been a player that averaged IT's current offensive stats for 5 years in the modern era that was not considered a superstar?

Well, "superstar" is a fairly unclear designation.  LarBrd gave a description, which I actually kind of agree with, of a superstar as one of the rare, transcendent all time greats.  If that's the case, then getting into the Hall of Fame doesn't automatically imply superstardom.

If we are using the most stringent standards for admission to the club, then there have been a number of players to average @ 28PPG for five seasons (or more) who aren't "superstars."

I realize this is getting very semantic here.

I get that part of it. I think that part is fair. People are going to have a different definition of superstar. However, even so it would be interesting to see how many guys did average 28 points or more 5 years in a row and were not considered a superstar.

 I imagine it is a pretty short list.

What I do object to is someone muddling the argument by naming a player like Stackhouse when he averaged 28 points or more once his entire career (on 40% for a horrid team no less).

I object to Stackhouse too.  People will want to kill me for this, but the best I got is probably George Gervin.

Even with the most exclusive Super Star list, I would personally want to add the "Ice Man."  He's a favorite of mine, but I could see leaving him off.

[Somebody]

Tbh asking this question on a blog that underrates their own players by some is not a good idea, if the OP wanted to get an answer he/she should be taking this with a big grain of salt, imo he's a top 5 PG or even top 3 this season (again, emphasis on this season). About defense, he really puts in effort and I don't think it's any more worse than kemba,kyrie and damian not giving effort on D (which they do for 90% of the nba season). In the playoffs, I still don't think the aforementioned are locks and IT is **** while giving a ton of effort, defense is all about the desire to guard your man, and it isn't like he's giving up half a foot to the guy he's matched up with.  (mostly around 6 feet)

[celticsclay]

So the first example that came to mind was Dominique Wilkins. In his best 5 year stretch he averaged 27,30, 29, 31, 26. Most people definitely consider him a superstar and that is the apex of his play. He was also known almost entirely as a great scorer without being particularly prolific as a rebounder or passer (although he had a stretch where he was definitely above average on the boards).

I'll reiterate two points here.

1) I don't think this is very likely to happen to at all. I think we can add another scorer or Thomas will switch teams and he will drop down to a 20-22 ppg game scorer
2) I realize this discussion (which greenvermont first posed) is a bit ridiculous to ask after one half season of this kind of scoring from IT.

However, this is just for fun and we all probably never thought he could average 28ppg for even a two week stretch prior to this season so it is a fun whatif.

I think if this what IT was for 5 years and he kept putting up these kinds of number there would be nobody that would not consider him an absolute superstar. Unfortunately I feel like this hypothetical is extremely unlikely.

[Celtics18]

Clay,

The Ice Man doesn't even fit your criterion.  He averaged over 28 PPG only thrice, with two additional seasons averaging just over 27 PPG.