Is Tatum a superstar?

[StrongLurk]

For me, the answer is no. He is clearly an elite player, but to me he is a high-level all star type guy.

He's just not an impressive enough playoff performer, especially finals performer, for me to give him a superstar label. The olympics made it even more obvious.

For me these guys are the superstars - Jokic, Luka, Giannis, Lebron, SGA, Curry, Kevin Durant, Anthony Edwards, Joel Embiid.

Tatum is in the next tier of guys.

[John8204]

Well he qualified for the Hall of Fame this season can you be a HOFer and not a Superstar that's the issue

[L.Kizzle]

He's like a guy right under a superstar.
Was Paul Westphal a Superstar, or Walt Frazier or Alonzo Mourning?

[Full Court]

No, he's not a superstar.


Being a "superstar" has to with widespread popularity and not just skill. Tatum just doesn't have that intangible thing that makes a superstar.

[Carbine]

You would have to have a very very strict definition of a superstar not to give that label to Tatum.

He has been all NBA first team three years in a row so he's obviously one of the very best regular season players in the world. You would have to say top ten at minimum even for his haters.

Playoffs are a level below that, I think it's fair to say he simply drops off to all star level instead of all NBA first team in the playoffs.

If your definition of superstar includes like 5-6 players in the entire NBA than no he is not, but that term is generally used liberally to include 10-15 players which he is clearly in that grouping.

[iamgine]

You would have to have a very very strict definition of a superstar not to give that label to Tatum.

He has been all NBA first team three years in a row so he's obviously one of the very best regular season players in the world. You would have to say top ten at minimum even for his haters.

Playoffs are a level below that, I think it's fair to say he simply drops off to all star level instead of all NBA first team in the playoffs.

If your definition of superstar includes like 5-6 players in the entire NBA than no he is not, but that term is generally used liberally to include 10-15 players which he is clearly in that grouping.

I think superstar is generally associated more with the top 5 player rather than top 10-15. Being the 10-15 best player in the NBA means you're an average-above average franchise player since there's 30 teams.

I don't think people associate being an average-above average franchise player to superstardom.

[90sgoat]

He's no Tracy McGrady, more a Lamar odom.

[SouBeachTalents]

Tatum imo is a Pippen/Pierce/PG level player, elite, but not quite superstar/consistently top 5 in the league.

[90sgoat]

Tatum imo is a Pippen/Pierce/PG level player, elite, but not quite superstar/consistently top 5 in the league.

I think PG had more swagger at his peak, but otherwise they're very comparably. PG had a career ending injury and came back after all.

[MMM]

What is your definition of Superstar because it varies from person to person. I would say its typically top 3 to 5 players, additionally some players that were previously top players if they are still star players. For me that means:

Jokic
Giannis
Luka

And

Bron
Curry
And KD

So no Tatum isnt a superstar but he also isnt a Lamar Odom type (Odom was a 3rd best player/6th man level), or above average franchise star. He should be clear of both thise destinations.

Pippen to Pierce teir that someone mentioned is fair enough for now

I dont think SGA, Embiid and Ant have done enough especially in the playoffs. I think Tatum actually has a superior playoff record and i dont think you need to use the ring argument.

To be fair Tatum entered his prime before SGA because SGA seems like more a late bloomer. SGA has had 2 consecutive seasons better than Tatum but before that Tatum was better. While Ant might still be a few years away from his prime. And we know Embiid has always been injured. So with full context, Tatum has the better playoff track record than those players.

It doesnt make sense to bash Tatum's Finals performance when theose players haven't even made the finals themselves. Also as underwhelming as Tatum has been in the finals i dont think it is out of norm for a player to struggle in their first final or two. Even guys supperior to Tatum like Bron, Kobe and steph have poor shooting series in the finals.

[L.Kizzle]

Embiid an MVP and led the league in scoring at over 30, twice. He's definitely a Superstar.

[Manny98]

What is your definition of Superstar because it varies from person to person. I would say its typically top 3 to 5 players, additionally some players that were previously top players if they are still star players. For me that means:

Jokic
Giannis
Luka

And

Bron
Curry
And KD

So no Tatum isnt a superstar but he also isnt a Lamar Odom type (Odom was a 3rd best player/6th man level), or above average franchise star. He should be clear of both thise destinations.

Pippen to Pierce teir that someone mentioned is fair enough for now

I dont think SGA, Embiid and Ant have done enough especially in the playoffs. I think Tatum actually has a superior playoff record and i dont think you need to use the ring argument.

To be fair Tatum entered his prime before SGA because SGA seems like more a late bloomer. SGA has had 2 consecutive seasons better than Tatum but before that Tatum was better. While Ant might still be a few years away from his prime. And we know Embiid has always been injured. So with full context, Tatum has the better playoff track record than those players.

It doesnt make sense to bash Tatum's Finals performance when theose players haven't even made the finals themselves. Also as underwhelming as Tatum has been in the finals i dont think it is out of norm for a player to struggle in their first final or two. Even guys supperior to Tatum like Bron, Kobe and steph have poor shooting series in the finals.

This

Jokic, Luka and Giannis are the only current superstars

KD, LeBron and Curry are superstars in terms of box office but they're all past their primes so I don't consider them superstar level anymore either

[hold this L]

What is your definition of Superstar because it varies from person to person. I would say its typically top 3 to 5 players, additionally some players that were previously top players if they are still star players. For me that means:

Jokic
Giannis
Luka

And

Bron
Curry
And KD

So no Tatum isnt a superstar but he also isnt a Lamar Odom type (Odom was a 3rd best player/6th man level), or above average franchise star. He should be clear of both thise destinations.

Pippen to Pierce teir that someone mentioned is fair enough for now

I dont think SGA, Embiid and Ant have done enough especially in the playoffs. I think Tatum actually has a superior playoff record and i dont think you need to use the ring argument.

To be fair Tatum entered his prime before SGA because SGA seems like more a late bloomer. SGA has had 2 consecutive seasons better than Tatum but before that Tatum was better. While Ant might still be a few years away from his prime. And we know Embiid has always been injured. So with full context, Tatum has the better playoff track record than those players.

It doesnt make sense to bash Tatum's Finals performance when theose players haven't even made the finals themselves. Also as underwhelming as Tatum has been in the finals i dont think it is out of norm for a player to struggle in their first final or two. Even guys supperior to Tatum like Bron, Kobe and steph have poor shooting series in the finals.

That's my list as well. I often go back and forth between including Embiid in the superstar list or not.

[MMM]

Embiid an MVP and led the league in scoring at over 30, twice. He's definitely a Superstar.

I was going back and forth on Embiid. I could see MVP plus scoring title can earn you that status but i think the playoffs are more of an indicator of what separates super stars from other star players. The best I've seen from Embiid was from 18 to 20 because he has been injured every year

[Wally450]

No