Author Topic: A superstar isn't necessarily a franchise player  (Read 983 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

A superstar isn't necessarily a franchise player
« on: March 09, 2017, 09:51:25 AM »

Online Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21005
  • Tommy Points: 1001
I've said this before on this board, but I think it might be worth its own thread.  I'm of the belief that there is a difference between a superstar and a franchise player.  Obviously all franchise players are superstars, but not all superstars are franchise players. 

A franchise player is a guy that no matter the team, you know that team is going to be a contender.  It is a guy that you could put on the Brooklyn Nets and the Nets all of a sudden become a 30+ win team.  At any given time in the league there are probably 5 or less franchise players in the league.  These are the guys that consistently finish in the top 5 for MVP voting, consistently make 1st team All NBA, are 1st ballot HOFers, etc.  Lebron James is your classic franchise player.  Kevin Durant is also clearly a franchise player. 

A superstar is a great player that produces well above your average player.  You can count on this player night in and night out.  You can pencil him into the all star game and an All NBA team.  With the right mix of talent, this player can be the best player on a title team, but he has to have the right team to be a real contender.  These guys should be in the HOF and might even win a MVP in the right season, but you aren't going to consider his team a contender year in and year out.  A guy like Kyrie Irving is a superstar, but he isn't a franchise player (Carmelo Anthony and Allen Iverson seem like classic examples of a superstar that isn't a franchise player). 

Sometimes the line is a bit blurry and it often takes a few years to really know the true potential of a player.  For example, is James Harden, Kawhi Leonard, or Russell Westbrook a superstar or a franchise player?  What about Anthony Davis or Steph Curry?  It might just take a few more seasons to really determine those guys places on the echelon.

So when a guy like Mark Cuban says Russell Westbrook isn't a superstar, he might just be saying he isn't a franchise player, and he might not be wrong on that, or since it is Cuban he might just be a hater trying to drum up interest.

Re: A superstar isn't necessarily a franchise player
« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2017, 10:07:41 AM »

Online Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24782
  • Tommy Points: 1127
  • What a Pub Should Be
Both are completely subjective terms better used in bars & blogs but, yes, I agree, there is a difference.

All franchise players are superstars but not all superstars are franchise players. 

Superstars can be 2nd & 3rd bananas on teams in some instances.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: A superstar isn't necessarily a franchise player
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2017, 10:23:01 AM »

Offline TheSundanceKid

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2288
  • Tommy Points: 188
It is all subjective.

For me I just think the word superstar is thrown around way too easily. People call Jimmy Butler a superstar, that's just ridiculous to me. A superstar is meant to be a rarity, it's not something every team should have. Every team should (in theory) have a star player. Amongst those star players should be a few who produce at that next level and take their teams beyond where they should go, or lead them to championships.

The only superstars in the league are Lebron James, Kevin Durant, Kawhi Leonard and Steph Curry. Past that there is an argument for Harden entering that standing but no one else. Irving, Davis, Lillard, George.. These guys are all star players.

It's just the way media like to hype everything up to the detriment of history. Even in the 80's there were only really 5-6 true superstars

Re: A superstar isn't necessarily a franchise player
« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2017, 10:52:28 AM »

Offline Surferdad

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10043
  • Tommy Points: 665
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
It is all subjective.

For me I just think the word superstar is thrown around way too easily. People call Jimmy Butler a superstar, that's just ridiculous to me. A superstar is meant to be a rarity, it's not something every team should have. Every team should (in theory) have a star player. Amongst those star players should be a few who produce at that next level and take their teams beyond where they should go, or lead them to championships.

The only superstars in the league are Lebron James, Kevin Durant, Kawhi Leonard and Steph Curry. Past that there is an argument for Harden entering that standing but no one else. Irving, Davis, Lillard, George.. These guys are all star players.

It's just the way media like to hype everything up to the detriment of history. Even in the 80's there were only really 5-6 true superstars
Where do you put Westbrook, in that 2nd tier with Harden?

Where do you put Nowitski?  He's not what he used to be, but he willed that 2011 team to a championship over the mighty Heat with little help.  I think he's a superstar.

Re: A superstar isn't necessarily a franchise player
« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2017, 11:04:45 AM »

Offline vgulab

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 442
  • Tommy Points: 54
This is so true. TP for the post.

To me a superstar is a guy who can average 25-30 but don't make his teammates better ( read Carmelo Anthony) Franchise player is a guy who is about winning and not just stats. We had great generation of franchise players who were winning where ever they played. Shaq, Kobe, KG, Dirk , Iverson... In todays nba we have a lot of superstars but not enough franchise players. Players who can change the face of the franchise and make the teammates adn the organization better. LeBron, Durant.....maybe one or two more names and that it's. short list

Re: A superstar isn't necessarily a franchise player
« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2017, 11:12:34 AM »

Offline gift

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1721
  • Tommy Points: 165
I agree with what you're saying, but I think the terminology is used differently. For instance I consider a superstar = franchise player. But there is also a star level player, which to me is what you've described as a superstar.

So there's:
Superstar/Franchise (same thing to me; less than 1% of the league)
Star (multi-All Stars; top 20-30 guys)
Borderline All Star (either makes an All Star game or two, or narrowly misses a few times; top 30-50 guys)
Above average/Starter level (generally a regular NBA starter outside of the top 50, or a guy who could be on most teams)
Role player/Specialist (most of the league)
Scrubs (usually guys who end up out of the league very quickly)

Re: A superstar isn't necessarily a franchise player
« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2017, 11:13:31 AM »

Online triboy16f

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21251
  • Tommy Points: 554
A franchise player is someone you can build a team around....and usually these kind of players are excellent two way players, good role models, top work ethic

Imo someone can also be labelled "franchise player"  but is not an excellent two way player... as long as he has a specific quality that stands out.  For example Durant is a good but not very good defender... however is clutch on the offensive end


Re: A superstar isn't necessarily a franchise player
« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2017, 11:57:39 AM »

Offline TheSundanceKid

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2288
  • Tommy Points: 188
It is all subjective.

For me I just think the word superstar is thrown around way too easily. People call Jimmy Butler a superstar, that's just ridiculous to me. A superstar is meant to be a rarity, it's not something every team should have. Every team should (in theory) have a star player. Amongst those star players should be a few who produce at that next level and take their teams beyond where they should go, or lead them to championships.

The only superstars in the league are Lebron James, Kevin Durant, Kawhi Leonard and Steph Curry. Past that there is an argument for Harden entering that standing but no one else. Irving, Davis, Lillard, George.. These guys are all star players.

It's just the way media like to hype everything up to the detriment of history. Even in the 80's there were only really 5-6 true superstars
Where do you put Westbrook, in that 2nd tier with Harden?

Where do you put Nowitski?  He's not what he used to be, but he willed that 2011 team to a championship over the mighty Heat with little help.  I think he's a superstar.

Westbrook I put with that 2nd tier of guys, the star players. What he does is insane but his efficiency is awful and he turns it over a lot. I can see Harden climbing into that upper echelon before Westbrook does.

Nowitzki! Fair to say that I made that list with the current day in mind. You make a very good point, it wasn't a one off either as he has been part of a competitive team his whole career, reaching the finals in 06 as well. Yes I think I would call him a superstar, not current, but certainly a career superstar.

Re: A superstar isn't necessarily a franchise player
« Reply #8 on: March 11, 2017, 07:41:25 PM »

Offline RAAAAAAAANDY

  • NCE
  • Kyrie Irving
  • Posts: 995
  • Tommy Points: 57
It is all subjective.

For me I just think the word superstar is thrown around way too easily. People call Jimmy Butler a superstar, that's just ridiculous to me. A superstar is meant to be a rarity, it's not something every team should have. Every team should (in theory) have a star player. Amongst those star players should be a few who produce at that next level and take their teams beyond where they should go, or lead them to championships.

The only superstars in the league are Lebron James, Kevin Durant, Kawhi Leonard and Steph Curry. Past that there is an argument for Harden entering that standing but no one else. Irving, Davis, Lillard, George.. These guys are all star players.

It's just the way media like to hype everything up to the detriment of history. Even in the 80's there were only really 5-6 true superstars
Where do you put Westbrook, in that 2nd tier with Harden?

Where do you put Nowitski?  He's not what he used to be, but he willed that 2011 team to a championship over the mighty Heat with little help.  I think he's a superstar.

Westbrook I put with that 2nd tier of guys, the star players. What he does is insane but his efficiency is awful and he turns it over a lot. I can see Harden climbing into that upper echelon before Westbrook does.


Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you.

I am so sick of Russ being horrifically overrated.

Re: A superstar isn't necessarily a franchise player
« Reply #9 on: March 11, 2017, 09:21:29 PM »

Offline KG Living Legend

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7110
  • Tommy Points: 988
It is all subjective.

For me I just think the word superstar is thrown around way too easily. People call Jimmy Butler a superstar, that's just ridiculous to me. A superstar is meant to be a rarity, it's not something every team should have. Every team should (in theory) have a star player. Amongst those star players should be a few who produce at that next level and take their teams beyond where they should go, or lead them to championships.

The only superstars in the league are Lebron James, Kevin Durant, Kawhi Leonard and Steph Curry. Past that there is an argument for Harden entering that standing but no one else. Irving, Davis, Lillard, George.. These guys are all star players.

It's just the way media like to hype everything up to the detriment of history. Even in the 80's there were only really 5-6 true superstars



 Good post. TP.

 I'd argue there is only two super freaks in the game. LeBron and Kawhi Leonard.

 Curry as amazing as he is. He gets smothered buy a true stud like LeBron when it counts.

 That's why Ainge said there are about five players in the NBA that I wouldn't trade for LeBron when he was in highschool.

 One of the smartest things he's​ ever said.
 In hindsight there isn't​anybody in the league, you wouldn't trade for LeBron.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required