What's new
By:

But...like really.....how the **** are we gonna get a star?

UGLI baby said:
Well, they are def on different tiers.

LeBron and Durant are all time greats and transcendent players, but George is still a star.



#nTn
Click to expand...

Fact.

People are confusing super-star and "holy **** this guy might be the best player ever". You can be a super-star and not be near as good as Lebron cause Lebron is that good.
 
NUMBERICA said:
Paul George is arguably the best two-way player in the NBA, but he somehow isn't one of the best players in the NBA. Can someone help me understand how that is possible?
Click to expand...

If I'm building a team I want to win championships with, I'm either going to choose one of the most offensively capable players in all of basketball, or an elite defensive player-- preferably a PF or C-- in order for him to mask the defensive inefficiencies of other players better than a wing-defender could.

We simply must have differing definitions of 'superstar', I guess. To me, superstar is the elite class of players that can single-handedly turn a franchise around.

You're kidding yourself if you think Paul George fits that label.
 
NUMBERICA said:
Lebron and Durant are in their own category. They own the 1st tier, no one else is in it. Then you get into Chris Paul (here because of health problems and that he's a sieve defensively), Curry (no defense), Harden (no defense) territory which is where George exists and yes, defense is a HUGE part of that (IT'S HALF OF THE GAME OF BASKETBALL, after all).

Players like George are rarer than a scorer that only plays on that side of the floor.
Click to expand...


Harden is not on the same tier as Curry IMO. Curry isn't a 'scorer that only plays on that side of the floor'. Neither is someone like Kevin Love.
 
dalamon said:
If I'm building a team I want to win championships with, I'm either going to choose one of the most offensively capable players in all of basketball, or an elite defensive player-- preferably a PF or C-- in order for him to mask the defensive inefficiencies of other players better than a wing-defender could.

We simply must have differing definitions of 'superstar', I guess. To me, superstar is the elite class of players that can single-handedly turn a franchise around.

You're kidding yourself if you think Paul George fits that label.
Click to expand...

It depends on what your definition of a superstar is. I think that generally is very specific to elite offensive players and defense is something that gets ignored in the title. So, I don't know if Paul George is a superstar or not, that's very subjective. But would he be in the top-10 of players I'd take in the NBA? Yes.
 
dalamon said:
If I'm building a team I want to win championships with, I'm either going to choose one of the most offensively capable players in all of basketball, or an elite defensive player-- preferably a PF or C-- in order for him to mask the defensive inefficiencies of other players better than a wing-defender could.

We simply must have differing definitions of 'superstar', I guess. To me, superstar is the elite class of players that can single-handedly turn a franchise around.

You're kidding yourself if you think Paul George fits that label.
Click to expand...

A superstar to me isn't someone who can simply "turn a franchise around", it's someone who you gives you the best chance of building a championship team around.

For example, Chris Paul or Steph Curry might be more capable of instantly making a ****ty team decent, but I think you would be hard pressed to ever build a true title contender with them as the main piece. George on the other hand is the main piece on a true title contender right now.



#nTn
 
dalamon said:
If I'm building a team I want to win championships with, I'm either going to choose one of the most offensively capable players in all of basketball, or an elite defensive player-- preferably a PF or C-- in order for him to mask the defensive inefficiencies of other players better than a wing-defender could.

We simply must have differing definitions of 'superstar', I guess. To me, superstar is the elite class of players that can single-handedly turn a franchise around.

You're kidding yourself if you think Paul George fits that label.
Click to expand...

George can turn a franchise around. He is the most responsible for the Pacer's turn around.

Drafted: They become a decent team in the East.

2nd year: Becomes starter, they become a playoff team

3rd year: Starter with biggest role on the team. They almost beat the Heat.

4th year: Starter and confirmed super-star by everyone in the league except Dalamon. Defenses plan for him. Best team in the East, better record than Heat.

Each year George has increased his workload, the Pacers have gotten better.
 
UGLI baby said:
A superstar to me isn't someone who can simply "turn a franchise around", it's someone who you gives you the best chance of building a championship team around.
Click to expand...


Srs? Tyson Chandler is a superstar then? Ben Wallace? Who was the 'superstar' on the 2004 Pistons? To me, the Pacers are quite representative of that.

For example, Chris Paul or Steph Curry might be more capable of instantly making a ****ty team decent, but I think you would be hard pressed to ever build a true title contender with them as the main piece. George on the other hand is the main piece on a true title contender right now.
Click to expand...

And I'd argue that Hibbert is the main-piece of that Indiana team right now. Both George and Hibbert are maxed-- but I'd bet my left-nut that the Pacers beating the Heat will come down to Hibbert, and not to George.

If I'm building a championship team, I take Hibbert over Paul George w/o thinking twice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top