|
On April 18 2014 12:00 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 11:19 DystopiaX wrote: I'm not gonna argue that Harden is good on defense at all but much like offensive highlight clips, stringing clips together of really good or really bad plays makes a player seem like complete shit or a god. I'd be willing to bet you could make compilations of shitty defensive plays from most players in the NBA. I doubt you could make another 11 minute one featuring a superstar. Harden is just atrocious.
kevin love is terrible on defense but at least i see some effort from him. harden looks like hes just waiting for the ball to be back in his possession
|
On April 18 2014 12:00 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 11:19 DystopiaX wrote: I'm not gonna argue that Harden is good on defense at all but much like offensive highlight clips, stringing clips together of really good or really bad plays makes a player seem like complete shit or a god. I'd be willing to bet you could make compilations of shitty defensive plays from most players in the NBA. I doubt you could make another 11 minute one featuring a superstar. Harden is just atrocious. Kyrie?
yeah but that one gif of K love boxing out while some dude just lays it in though
|
On April 18 2014 12:43 DystopiaX wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 12:00 Scarecrow wrote:On April 18 2014 11:19 DystopiaX wrote: I'm not gonna argue that Harden is good on defense at all but much like offensive highlight clips, stringing clips together of really good or really bad plays makes a player seem like complete shit or a god. I'd be willing to bet you could make compilations of shitty defensive plays from most players in the NBA. I doubt you could make another 11 minute one featuring a superstar. Harden is just atrocious. Kyrie? yeah but that one gif of K love boxing out while some dude just lays it in though He said superstar.
|
Man, how the definition of superstar has expanded. Kyrie Irving? Really?
Heck, Harden is a stretch.
|
Harden is probably the best SG in the game right now and he's not a superstar?
Kyrie might be a stretch but the league and a lot of the sportswriters/fans treat him like one.
|
You dont get to be a superstar because of position scarcity. And you particularly dont get to be because that scarcity is the result of metagame shifts that result in the position being essentially a role player (3 pt shooter) for half the league.
|
If you're the best player on your team, you're probably a superstar.
Though I feel the superstar term should be a bit more exclusive than it is. imo Durant, James, Curry, and Paul are true superstars.
|
best player on each team is the star, except for the bucks, sixers, and jazz.
|
ah the semi annual "What's constitutes a superstar?" discussion.
None of you are right or wrong. If someone thinks a superstar is just a top 10 player then they're not wrong to think it. If someone thinks a superstar is someone their sports hating friends and parents would know by name then they're not wrong to think it. If someone thinks that someone being the best at their position accounts for superstardom, more power to em.
Short of obvious trolling there's no real way to say someone's wrong for calling a dude a superstar.
|
On April 18 2014 12:00 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 11:19 DystopiaX wrote: I'm not gonna argue that Harden is good on defense at all but much like offensive highlight clips, stringing clips together of really good or really bad plays makes a player seem like complete shit or a god. I'd be willing to bet you could make compilations of shitty defensive plays from most players in the NBA. I doubt you could make another 11 minute one featuring a superstar. Harden is just atrocious.
to be fair. he is actually decent one-on-one post defender. that's why our crunch time lineup will be dwight-parsons-harden-bev-lin.
but as i said, off the ball, harden is just damn bad.
|
On April 18 2014 14:35 TwoToneTerran wrote: ah the semi annual "What's constitutes a superstar?" discussion.
None of you are right or wrong. If someone thinks a superstar is just a top 10 player then they're not wrong to think it. If someone thinks a superstar is someone their sports hating friends and parents would know by name then they're not wrong to think it. If someone thinks that someone being the best at their position accounts for superstardom, more power to em.
Short of obvious trolling there's no real way to say someone's wrong for calling a dude a superstar.
Id simply argue with the last point because like, if James Harden is injured for a year, does that mean Demar DeRozen is a superstar?
|
On April 18 2014 14:35 TwoToneTerran wrote: ah the semi annual "What's constitutes a superstar?" discussion.
None of you are right or wrong. If someone thinks a superstar is just a top 10 player then they're not wrong to think it. If someone thinks a superstar is someone their sports hating friends and parents would know by name then they're not wrong to think it. If someone thinks that someone being the best at their position accounts for superstardom, more power to em.
Short of obvious trolling there's no real way to say someone's wrong for calling a dude a superstar. That's fair, I suppose it's a matter of definition.
For me personally, I have a very tight set of boxes that have to be checked. Essentially only James, Durant, and Paul fall into that category, and I'm not sure about Paul.
|
On April 18 2014 14:26 cLutZ wrote: You dont get to be a superstar because of position scarcity. And you particularly dont get to be because that scarcity is the result of metagame shifts that result in the position being essentially a role player (3 pt shooter) for half the league.
I don't think there was a metagame shift. Lebron and Durant just happen to be taller than Jordan, Kobe and Wade.
|
Not for elite players, but its hard to see who is the Ron Harper, Jerry stackhouse type players who were essentially, really crappy versions of Kobe and Jordan. I think its shifted more towards crappy versions of Reggie miller and Ray Allen.
|
I think a lot of people who would be SGs just became larger, "scoring" PGs instead as well.
|
On April 19 2014 00:12 cLutZ wrote: Not for elite players, but its hard to see who is the Ron Harper, Jerry stackhouse type players who were essentially, really crappy versions of Kobe and Jordan. I think its shifted more towards crappy versions of Reggie miller and Ray Allen.
We still have guys like Paul George and Kawhi Leonard, I suppose. And maybe others that I missed. I think it's partly because of the rule changes that encouraged moving the ball more. Most NBA teams have learned that running iso plays for non-elite offensive players is dumb.
If players like Stackhouse were playing right now, they wouldn't be allowed to hoist up the type of shots they got away with. Harper got moved to PG late in his career when he actually got a good coach. The iso craze of the 90s overrated a lot of inefficient SGs into "stars".
edit: Looking at it further, George and Leonard are listed as SF rather than SG. DeRozan is listed as SG but he is bigger and taller than Ross. Likewise, Iggy is listed as the SF even though Klay is taller. Dunno about other people, but I've always viewed SG and SF as interchangeable and pretty much the same position, with the taller player being regarded the nominal SF.
|
On April 18 2014 21:23 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 14:35 TwoToneTerran wrote: ah the semi annual "What's constitutes a superstar?" discussion.
None of you are right or wrong. If someone thinks a superstar is just a top 10 player then they're not wrong to think it. If someone thinks a superstar is someone their sports hating friends and parents would know by name then they're not wrong to think it. If someone thinks that someone being the best at their position accounts for superstardom, more power to em.
Short of obvious trolling there's no real way to say someone's wrong for calling a dude a superstar. Id simply argue with the last point because like, if James Harden is injured for a year, does that mean Demar DeRozen is a superstar?
No? You'd still call Harden the best SG, usually with the caveat of "if he comes back from his injury at 100%"
Not that Demar Derozan is the second best SG in the league. Wade's probably still the best, we just dock him for playing time. Then there's a bunch of guys in a scrum that Derozan falls into, like Ellis, Ginobili (similar Wade provision), Afflalo, and hell, when Bledsoe was around Dragic was a pretty good SG.
Harden's just so much better than that scrum below that I have no problem with people saying he's a superstar if they want to go with a more lax definition.
|
I think Knicks should keep Woodson for the simple reasons that he was able to get the best out of Melo unlike any other coach, and we played good defense for the only time in the past decade last year. I honestly don't see any way out right now, whether or not Melo re-signs has very little impact on the future of the team.
|
On April 19 2014 00:25 DystopiaX wrote: I think a lot of people who would be SGs just became larger, "scoring" PGs instead as well.
Not sure if you saw Gary Payton's comments on PGs in the league right now, but he basically says that CP, Rondo, and Parker are the only true PGs atm. I'm inclined to agree with him for the most part, though guys like Curry+Westbrook really make it tough to fully agree.
Also, Rubio, Wall, and Lowry are underrated PGs I feel. Rubio has his obvious flaws(lawl scoring), but Wall and Lowry are usually your 7-8 assists and 15+ ppg kind of guys. Obviously missing out on some other PGs, but those 3 just come to mind off the top of my head.
|
Well, just based on population statistics it is going to be easier to find a guy in the 6'0"-6'4" range that loves basketball, is talented at basketball, and ends up developing those skills, than it is to find one 6'4"-6'8".
With rule changes allowing smaller guys to do more, its a natural progression.
|
|
|
|