What is your definition of "superstar"?

[Roundball_Rock]

This comes up all the time. The purpose of this thread is to see where most of ISH lies and to see how variant people's definitions are.

To me a "superstar" is a player playing good enough that he plausibly could be MVP in that year or be on first team all-NBA or be in the conversation for it. Regarding the former, this is different than actual MVP voting. That is influenced by team situation. For instance, Davis was not a MVP candidate this year but he clearly played at a level where he could have won MVP in another team situation.

In 2020, "superstars" to me were Harden, Giannis, LeBron, Luka, Davis, and Kawhi. Curry and KD would have been on that list if healthy. George was at that level in 2019 but not this year.

I would categorize guys like Butler, Jokic, Lillard as close but not quite on that level.

"Superstars" can play at that level for a sustained period. A lot of all-stars can do it for 5 games here, 10 games there, etc. but only the best of the best can play at that level for a sustained period.

Your take?

[AlternativeAcc.]

I agree with your assessment. Its about play/impact and has nothing to do with popularity. Some guys actually factor in popularity into the equation which is wrong, and laughable.

A superstar is a MVP caliber player. Simple as that

I think Jokic is a superstar, because he is MVP caliber

[HBK_Kliq_2]

- Multiple top 5 MVP candidate seasons

- Lead your team to finals as the best player or at least 1b player

You have to have at least one of those traits but preferably both. Superstar is one of them and all time great is both of them.

[scuzzy]

Household name


I think the world superstar is thrown around too much


For example I don't think Kawhi is a superstar, even though I think he's better than Curry


But I think Curry is a superstar because he's familiar by people who don't even watch the nba

[Walk on Water]

Superstars- Davis, Curry, Leonard, Giannis, Harden, Doncic
Borderline- Chris Paul, guy on Hawks
Stars- Westbrook, George, Butler, Thompson

[Roundball_Rock]

Superstars- Davis, Curry, Leonard, Giannis, Harden, Doncic
Borderline- Chris Paul, guy on Hawks
Stars- Westbrook, George, Butler, Thompson

KD? LeBron?


A superstar is a MVP caliber player. Simple as that

I think Jokic is a superstar, because he is MVP caliber

Yeah, I thought about him and Lillard making my list. They definitely would be 7th/8th after the clear cut "6" for this season.


- Multiple top 5 MVP candidate seasons

- Lead your team to finals as the best player or at least 1b player

Definition of 1b for another thread. :D That's another tricky one. People seem to define 1b and sidekick based on whether they like or dislike they go when people are similar cases.

Suppose James Harden spent his entire career playing with prime KAJ. KAJ would be the clear "#1". Harden would have a couple top 5 MVP seasons, a bunch of 1st team all-NBA selections. Harden wouldn't count as a superstar to you because he is a clear "#2" even though he would be a perennial top 5 player?


Household name


That is interesting. That would basically be LeBron and Curry then, wouldn't it? I don't think people who don't follow basketball would know KD, Kawhi, Giannis, etc.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

I agree with your assessment. Its about play/impact and has nothing to do with popularity. Some guys actually factor in popularity into the equation which is wrong, and laughable.

A superstar is a MVP caliber player. Simple as that

I think Jokic is a superstar, because he is MVP caliber

This is basically my definition. A player capable of winning the MVP given the right situation. Right now I would say:

LeBron, Davis, Giannis, Jokic, Doncic, Harden, Leonard, Curry, Durant are the one's that immediately come to mind.

Some borderline names: Lillard, Embiid, Butler (probably some recency/winning bias on my part), there are others probably.

[Stanley Kobrick]

Household name


I think the world superstar is thrown around too much


For example I don't think Kawhi is a superstar, even though I think he's better than Curry


But I think Curry is a superstar because he's familiar by people who don't even watch the nba
can't be named a superstar if you've been to 5 finals with 0 FMVP's and blown a 3-1 lead with HCA to matthew dellavedova

[HBK_Kliq_2]

KD? LeBron?



Yeah, I thought about him and Lillard making my list. They definitely would be 7th/8th after the clear cut "6" for this season.



Definition of 1b for another thread. :D That's another tricky one. People seem to define 1b and sidekick based on whether they like or dislike they go when people are similar cases.

Suppose James Harden spent his entire career playing with prime KAJ. KAJ would be the clear "#1". Harden would have a couple top 5 MVP seasons, a bunch of 1st team all-NBA selections. Harden wouldn't count as a superstar to you because he is a clear "#2" even though he would be a perennial top 5 player?



That is interesting. That would basically be LeBron and Curry then, wouldn't it? I don't think people who don't follow basketball would know KD, Kawhi, Giannis, etc.

1B = multiple 1st team or multiple top 5 reg season mvp candidate

Players that qualify = Anthony Davis, Pippen, David Robinson, Kobe, and i guess curry/Durant whoever you think is 1b

There's players like Pau gasol, Lowry who don't make the cut but they balanced it out with a good 3rd wheel in Odom/Siakam.

[Roundball_Rock]

1B = multiple 1st team or multiple top 5 reg season mvp candidate

Players that qualify = Anthony Davis, Pippen, David Robinson, Kobe, and i guess curry/Durant whoever you think is 1b

There's players like Pau gasol, Lowry who don't make the cut but they balanced it out with a good 3rd wheel in Odom/Siakam.

That is interesting. You are a wild card since you don't fit into the common MJ or LeBron or Kobe fan boxes like 90% of ISH but you always have a consistent criteria (even if I disagree with your conclusion). :cheers:

Where would a guy like McHale fall? He was top 5 in MVP and all-NBA 1st team--but only once in each case. So that hints, correctly, that he had a higher peak than Gasol, Lowry types but he didn't have any other season like that. The other player who comes in mind like that is George with his 19' season (high peak but a one off, apparently) but he obviously hasn't been to a finals.

[kawhileonard2]

Ratings will dictate that. This year ratings were putrid while last years were awesome with Kawhi in the finals.

[SouBeachTalents]

The 3 absolute criteria

1. In the top 5 in MVP voting
2. On the All-NBA First Team
3. Capable of taking any team to the playoffs

If you're not doing those 3 on a consistent basis, you're not a superstar

[BigtimeNBAFan]

Ratings will dictate that. This year ratings were putrid while last years were awesome with Kawhi in the finals.

The 2016 and 2017 Finals are the highest rated finals since Jordan. Game 7 of the 2016 Finals is the 3rd most watched game in history. The NBA is lucky Lebron made the finals. With the bubble ratings were down across the playoffs. A Clippers-Heat finals would have gotten 50% worse ratings than it got as it was.

[BigtimeNBAFan]

Superstars- Davis, Curry, Leonard, Giannis, Harden, Doncic
Borderline- Chris Paul, guy on Hawks
Stars- Westbrook, George, Butler, Thompson
lol, ok this did make me laugh. Sometimes you Lebron hating trolls can be funny.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

That is interesting. You are a wild card since you don't fit into the common MJ or LeBron or Kobe fan boxes like 90% of ISH but you always have a consistent criteria (even if I disagree with your conclusion). :cheers:

Where would a guy like McHale fall? He was top 5 in MVP and all-NBA 1st team--but only once in each case. So that hints, correctly, that he had a higher peak than Gasol, Lowry types but he didn't have any other season like that. The other player who comes in mind like that is George with his 19' season (high peak but a one off, apparently) but he obviously hasn't been to a finals.

Yeah George is McHale. Clippers just didn't have a player on level of 3rd wheel 9 time all-star parish.

[Bush4Ever]

To me a superstar is someone who a) can win a title as a lead player with the "usual" level of supporting talent associated with title teams and b) lift subpar supporting talent to respectability (not titles but playoffs + win a round or two level).

[starface]

https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/eggplant-isolated-on-white-clipping-260nw-1075434959.jpg













































https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/011/061/lelbron.jpg

[kkb_12]

Superstar - player that is well known in general public, able to draw public focus - and widely recognized as important contributor to success or capable of heroics - Jordan, Shaq, Kareem, Magic, Isiah, Bird, Kobe, LeBron, Iverson, Barkley, Curry, Harden,Giannis but also Rodman, McGrady, Carter,Ewing, Reggie, Westbrook ahead of Duncan, Davis, Wade, Durant, or Kawhi who are better players but do not have the same draw...Players whose jerseys are worn by kids in non basketball countries like India, Kazakhstan, Bulgaria, Chad, Panama, Mexico...Stand on the side when kids are playing and you will hear whose names are they calling when they make a move... Robinson is superstar before Duncan...

[iamgine]

By core definition, the term 'superstar' HAS to include popularity.

Case in point, who do you think was the bigger superstar, Kobe or Duncan? By FAR Kobe's the much bigger superstar, even though we can say maybe Duncan's better or equal as a player. I'm not even sure Tim Duncan can be categorized as a superstar. Maybe in San Antonio.

[ThatCoolKid]

I agree with a lot of the basic things stated 1) MVP candidate 2) All NBA First Candidate 3) Can be the best player on a Title Contender.

One useful test I will add is when asking if a player is a superstar - can that player be the clear cut best player on their team and will their team through a conference semifinals series? Like, through the eye test, do they look like they are putting the team on their back and willing them to the conference finals. I call this the second-round test. A player that can do this in the first round a la Damian Lillard is very good, but if they can't do it in the second round they are not a true superstar.

I think this is what makes Jokic a superstar. He was carrying that Nuggets team against the Clippers, obviously Jamal Murray was good, but Jokic was the one who that offense relied on when the going got tough.

Kawhi is a great example vs the 76ers last year of how the second-round test can easily show you a player is a superstar.

Jayson Tatum doesn't cut it because he didn't have enough impact. Jimmy Butler is an interesting player via this test, he reaches borderline superstar status via this criteria, but he doesn't check the other 3 boxes and was way too streaky to really be considered carrying the heat. Bam and Dragic were at times the best players on that team.

Now obviously this test can only be used fairly for players on pretty good teams, but you can use it to extrapolate. For example, give Luka a slightly better team and he could have beaten the Clippers in the second round this year, or one of the teams in the East.

[Phoenix]

MVP candidate ( let's say top 5 or 6 in voting)

All-NBA first team/second team. That means you're recognized as one of the top 4 guards, top 4 forwards and top 2 centers. But, that definition needs some flexibility when a position may be loaded with talent at any given point.

Case in point, in 94 you had Hakeem, Admiral and Shaq at 1st/2nd/3rd team. Those 3 were quite clearly all superstars that year. In 2006 you had Kobe and Nash on the first team, Wade on the 2nd, Iverson on the third. All legit superstars. But then you had Chauncy on the 2nd team and I don't think anyone would use the term superstar behind his name. And then the forwards in this decade. Lebron, Durant, Kawhi, AD, Giannis. Obvious superstars but they all can't make the first two teams in any given season.

Others are mentioning popularity which is more of an intangible factor. A player can be better than someone else but less popular for whatever reasons. It could be a consideration but its further down the pecking order to the above criteria IMO.

[Manny98]

Someone that is capable of leading a team to a championship as the best player

[iamgine]

Others are mentioning popularity which is more of an intangible factor. A player can be better than someone else but less popular for whatever reasons. It could be a consideration but its further down the pecking order to the above criteria IMO.

I'd disagree with this because popularity is such a core component of superstardom. Kobe in 2014 was still a huge superstar despite his decline. So did Jordan in 2002 &2003. Heck, Jordan despite not playing in 1994 was still the NBA's biggest superstar by far.

[Phoenix]

I'd disagree with this because popularity is such a core component of superstardom. Kobe in 2014 was still a huge superstar despite his decline. So did Jordan in 2002 &2003. Heck, Jordan despite not playing in 1994 was still the NBA's biggest superstar by far.

Popularity is an intangible factor and taking the conversation beyond on-court prowess. I'm not arguing that it isnt or cant be a factor but its last on my list of reasons to class someone a 'superstar'. Frankly it's not that much of a consideration for me. Tim Duncan was as marketable as oatmeal but in my definition of superstar that's not a dealbreaker. Someone like Russell Westbrook would be more popular and marketable than Duncan. Better player? No. So should he be a superstar but Duncan isn't? This is all extremely subjective and your mileage will vary.

[Gohan]

Superstar-2005 iverson

That’s what I get from a quick google search

:bowdown:

[Tobio-Star]

Someone who can regularly put up numbers between 30 and 40

[Gohan]

Someone who can regularly put up numbers between 30 and 40

That’s actually accurate, kudos to you

[iamgine]

Popularity is an intangible factor and taking the conversation beyond on-court prowess. I'm not arguing that it isnt or cant be a factor but its last on my list of reasons to class someone a 'superstar'. Frankly it's not that much of a consideration for me. Tim Duncan was as marketable as oatmeal but in my definition of superstar that's not a dealbreaker. Someone like Russell Westbrook would be more popular and marketable than Duncan. Better player? No. So should he be a superstar but Duncan isn't? This is all extremely subjective and your mileage will vary.

I guess the definition of a word is up to each individual. I just think the word usage here is just wrong by definition. What many are describing are not superstar but rather just top tier performer.

[Roundball_Rock]

There seems to be a consensus on being high in MVP, all-NBA and capable of being the best player on a title team or contender.


MVP candidate ( let's say top 5 or 6 in voting)

And then the forwards in this decade. Lebron, Durant, Kawhi, AD, Giannis. Obvious superstars but they all can't make the first two teams in any given season.

Yeah, you have to factor in the competition, especially if you are talking a player on the second team like Wade behind Kobe and Nash when Wade definitely was 1st team caliber in 06'.

With AD, they are getting around that by counting him as a center. :lol He rarely plays center but they smuggled him onto the first team via counting him a center, otherwise he would have been behind LeBron and Giannis on the second team. The additional flexibility they have with all-NBA these days helps a bit compared to the past.

That still leaves KD, Kawhi, LeBron, and Giannis vying for two spots. It will be interesting who gets them.

[goozeman]

A player that gives a team instant championship pedigree. And by that I don't mean, "Oh, well... they got Durant now, they are obviously winning it all." I mean a guy that if you put him on the roster the front office can make a couple of moves and instantly be top two or three favorite to win everything according to Vegas. Lebron is actually a perfect example with the way the Lakers handled him. He goes to the Lakers and they don't even make the playoffs. They trade practically the whole team to get another star in Davis, make a few key veteran acquisitions, and they instantly win a championship. Because they had Lebron the front office moves needed to win were relatively streamlined. The process is simplified. There are only a few players you could replace Lebron with in that scenario (Kawhi, Giannis, healthy Durant, maybe Curry, etc.) and still have it be almost sure-fiire we are definitely making the finals and probably winning. There aren't a lot of superstars. To the casual fan the best player on your favorite team is a superstar, but in reality he's not a true one... just a pretender.

[Phoenix]

There seems to be a consensus on being high in MVP, all-NBA and capable of being the best player on a title team or contender.



Yeah, you have to factor in the competition, especially if you are talking a player on the second team like Wade behind Kobe and Nash when Wade definitely was 1st team caliber in 06'.

With AD, they are getting around that by counting him as a center. :lol He rarely plays center but they smuggled him onto the first team via counting him a center, otherwise he would have been behind LeBron and Giannis on the second team. The additional flexibility they have with all-NBA these days helps a bit compared to the past.

That still leaves KD, Kawhi, LeBron, and Giannis vying for two spots. It will be interesting who gets them.

With the way the center position is being played nowadays the lines are becoming more blurred between a PF and C. They may as well just make it 3 frontcourt players like they do the all-star game now.

[CelticBaller]

Top 10 players. All NBA 1st and 2nd team could be used for reference

[Roundball_Rock]

With the way the center position is being played nowadays the lines are becoming more blurred between a PF and C. They may as well just make it 3 frontcourt players like they do the all-star game now.

Or just get rid of positions altogether. Issue a list of the 15 best players in tiers of 5.