Guest N/A Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 All of them aside from Reggie Miller were considered superstars at some point in their career... If you say otherwise I have nothing else to say. I just said otherwise my friend, it's just my opinion just like it's your opinion that they're superstars. None of us are right, but it is a great debate!http://www.otrbasketball.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lkr Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 You're wrong my friend, KG, Paul Pierce, and Ray Allen didn't have the skill or the marketability to be Superstars. You have to have all of three to be a superstar otherwise you aren't. Also, all of the players you listed above were never superstars, just stars.KG was one of the more popular players in the NBA for a long time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest N/A Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 KG was one of the more popular players in the NBA for a long time Exactly, but he wasn't a superstar because his skill diminished by the time he got to Boston. He was marketable and had a ring, but he didn't have the skill to be considered a superstar. He is still a star in Boston. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lkr Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 KG didn't have the skill to be a superstar? LMAO he was a superstar. Get your head out of your ass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Regime Posted February 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Exactly, but he wasn't a superstar because his skill diminished by the time he got to Boston. He was marketable and had a ring, but he didn't have the skill to be considered a superstar. He is still a star in Boston. What? KG was still one of the best PF's in the game when he was traded to Boston. He was top 3 in terms of defense (in his position), was the leading rebounder in the NBA the previous four years, and still had one of the most unique offensive skill sets in the league. He wasn't a superstar, but to say that his skills diminished by the time he got to Boston, that's absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lkr Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 BTW, what KG did in 03-04 is good enough to make him a super star. He played with a shitty team and single handedly took them to the WCF basically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballorama Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Exactly, but he wasn't a superstar because his skill diminished by the time he got to Boston. He was marketable and had a ring, but he didn't have the skill to be considered a superstar. He is still a star in Boston. Maybe now.. but the year he came to Boston and won the title.. he was putting up respectable numbers in much less minutes + more supporting cast to carry the load offensively/rebounds. PLUS he was the DPOY. no way he wasn't a superstar when he came to boston. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Truth Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 You're wrong my friend, KG, Paul Pierce, and Ray Allen didn't have the skill or the marketability to be Superstars. You have to have all of three to be a superstar otherwise you aren't. Also, all of the players you listed above were never superstars, just stars.so you could average 50/10/10 and make it to the finals every year, but you're not a superstar because you don't have a ring yet? definitely one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. some of those guys I listed are top fifty players in basketball history, but they were never superstars? lol gtfo. Barkley and Malone are two of the five best to ever play their position. McGrady was once considered a top three player in the game, possibly the best. a few of those other guys won MVP's and/or Olympic gold throughout their careers as well, but because they never had a good enough supporting cast to win a title, they were never superstars? I could never agree with such foolish ideology. pretty much all those guys I listed were superstars at one point or another. most of them led mediocre teams to the finals or semis, but just weren't fortunate enough to ever get a ring because they had to play against Jordan's Bulls or some other crazy powerhouse of their era. winning a title and being marketable should never be required for deeming superstars. how well an athlete performs in his respective sport should be the only thing that matters. your argument is that someone could be the best in the world at what they do (LeBron, Barry Bonds, Barry Sanders) but because they never won a ring, they were never superstars? that's scandalous to say the very least. Bonds may be the best damn person to have ever touched a bat, but he was never a superstar? I just can't get over that. also, wtf does marketability have to do with anything? marketability makes an athlete marketable, it doesn't make them a superstar. just because you're good in commercials or have a nice smile doesn't mean you should be considered one of the best in your sport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 I watch plenty. I'm not the person who will say Amare is terrible on day, and then claim he's pretty much the GOAT the next day. . The real idiots are the ones that won't give up Raymond Felton in a deal for Melo. . /convo with clueless person. Terrible on day, GOAT the next? I've never said either, ever. Feel free to link me to a post though! :weaksauce fabricated story deflected: I had no say in Felton going, and he went. The idiots you referenced are...? Cute way to end with /convo with clueless person, after completely ignoring the purpose and content of my previous post. But who's surprised? It's... THE ECN WAY! Dirk compared to Marcus Fizer, I've literally never heard something so stupid on a forum. Oh, and I'll ask again... Why a period after a smiley face? I've never understood punctuation after an emoticon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 that doesn't make a player a superstar - it makes them popular. living in SoCal, the land of half-ass Laker fans, most people I ask would say they'd heard of Derek Fisher. so by your definition of superstar, none of these players have ever been superstars at any point in their career: Steve NashReggie MillerTracy McGradyAllen IversonElgin Baylor Charles BarkleyJohn StocktonDirk NowitzkiJason Kidd Patrick EwingCharles BarkleyKarl Malone and I guess KG, Paul Pierce, and Ray Allen were never superstars before a couple years ago. lol alright, bro. A good portion of those players were not superstars. You can be a great player, and not be a superstar. You can be a HOF'ER, and not be a franchise player or superstar as well. If you don't understand that, I don't know what to tell you besides watch some more basketball, and develop a better definition of what a superstar is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Force Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Terrible on day, GOAT the next? I've never said either, ever. Feel free to link me to a post though! :weaksauce fabricated story deflected: I had no say in Felton going, and he went. The idiots you referenced are...? Cute way to end with /convo with clueless person, after completely ignoring the purpose and content of my previous post. But who's surprised? It's... THE ECN WAY! Dirk compared to Marcus Fizer, I've literally never heard something so stupid on a forum. Oh, and I'll ask again... Why a period after a smiley face? I've never understood punctuation after an emoticon. True dominant superstars: Kobe, Lebron, Wade Afterwards come the normal superstars in Durant, Dwight,and CP3. Finally, come the one who are creeping in which are Dirk, Rose..etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest N/A Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 so you could average 50/10/10 and make it to the finals every year, but you're not a superstar because you don't have a ring yet? definitely one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. some of those guys I listed are top fifty players in basketball history, but they were never superstars? lol gtfo. Barkley and Malone are two of the five best to ever play their position. McGrady was once considered a top three player in the game, possibly the best. a few of those other guys won MVP's and/or Olympic gold throughout their careers as well, but because they never had a good enough supporting cast to win a title, they were never superstars? I could never agree with such foolish ideology. pretty much all those guys I listed were superstars at one point or another. most of them led mediocre teams to the finals or semis, but just weren't fortunate enough to ever get a ring because they had to play against Jordan's Bulls or some other crazy powerhouse of their era. winning a title and being marketable should never be required for deeming superstars. how well an athlete performs in his respective sport should be the only thing that matters. your argument is that someone could be the best in the world at what they do (LeBron, Barry Bonds, Barry Sanders) but because they never won a ring, they were never superstars? that's scandalous to say the very least. Bonds may be the best damn person to have ever touched a bat, but he was never a superstar? I just can't get over that. also, wtf does marketability have to do with anything? marketability makes an athlete marketable, it doesn't make them a superstar. just because you're good in commercials or have a nice smile doesn't mean you should be considered one of the best in your sport. Superstars are players who are recognized worldwide for their talents, look at Kobe, Jordan, and Wade and how marketable they are. As for skill once again... Yes, if you average 50 ppg 10 rpg 10 apg, but you have no ring are you really a superstar? Nope, you need the ring to be considered one. Once again... My expectations for a superstar. In order... 1.Skill2.Ring3.Marketability If you lack one out of the three you're a star automatically by default. That's why LeBron, Melo, Durant, Howard, and others are just stars for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Dirk compared to Marcus Fizer, I've literally never heard something so stupid on a forum. Oh, and I'll ask again... Why a period after a smiley face? I've never understood punctuation after an emoticon. Sorry, I was diagnosed with a learning disability before my junior year in college, so thank you. This reinforces that you're a douche-bag. Instead of having a normal, civilized response like most people, I'll just act like you! It's unfortunate that happened to you, but your responses to questions, or lack thereof, are terrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Sorry, I was diagnosed with a learning disability before my junior year in college, so thank you. This reinforces that you're a douche-bag. Being a fat kid with a unibrow isn't a learning disability. Instead of having a normal, civilized response like most people, I'll just act like you! It's unfortunate that happened to you, but your responses to questions, or lack thereof, are terrible. You are speaking of civilized responses? I apologize, but that is laughable. You tried to be condescending about someone's list, tied a group of all-stars with Marcus Phizer, Kwame Brown, and Michael Olowokandi, and then back peddled and played the victim when you were called on it and changed the subject. Your tactics are sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AboveLegit Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Instead of having a normal, civilized response like most people, I'll just act like you! It's unfortunate that happened to you, but your responses to questions, or lack thereof, are terrible.I'm sorry you have a terrible definaiton of what a superstar is, and I feel for you. You watch the [expletive]ing Wizards who are a bunch of scrubs, so anybody half decent looks like a HOF"ER to you. . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Truth Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 A good portion of those players were not superstars. You can be a great player, and not be a superstar. You can be a HOF'ER, and not be a franchise player or superstar as well. If you don't understand that, I don't know what to tell you besides watch some more basketball, and develop a better definition of what a superstar is.N/A believes NONE of those guys were ever superstars, which was the whole entire point of my argument, in case you didn't read the [expletive]in thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest N/A Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 N/A believes NONE of those guys were ever superstars, which was the whole entire point of my argument, in case you didn't read the [expletive]in thread. LOL, ECN doesn't read, he rambles http://www.otrbasketball.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Penny Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 that doesn't make a player a superstar - it makes them popular. living in SoCal, the land of half-ass Laker fans, most people I ask would say they'd heard of Derek Fisher.su·per·star (spr-stär)n.1. A widely acclaimed star, as in movies or sports, who has great popular appeal.2. One that is extremely popular or prominent or that is a major attraction. If I can tell random people from my school the names of basketball players and they know who they are, then that means they are extremely popular. The only (current) NBA players people recognise are Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, and Shaquille O'Neal, therefore they are the only players I consider superstars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest N/A Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) su·per·star (spr-stär)n.1. A widely acclaimed star, as in movies or sports, who has great popular appeal.2. One that is extremely popular or prominent or that is a major attraction. If I can tell random people from my school the names of basketball players and they know who they are, then that means they are extremely popular. The only (current) NBA players people recognise are Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal, therefore they are the only players I consider superstars. One of my main arguments above is shown^ You must be POPULAR to be a Superstar... It is one of my 3 requirements. 1.Skill2.Championship3.Marketability (Popularity) Edited February 24, 2011 by N/A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Truth Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 su·per·star (spr-stär)n.1. A widely acclaimed star, as in movies or sports, who has great popular appeal.2. One that is extremely popular or prominent or that is a major attraction. If I can tell random people from my school the names of basketball players and they know who they are, then that means they are extremely popular. The only (current) NBA players people recognise are Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, and Shaquille O'Neal, therefore they are the only players I consider superstars.it takes more than just popularity to be a superstar. how good a player is at their sport also has to be considered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Penny Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 it takes more than just popularity to be a superstar. how good a player is at their sport also has to be considered.People have different defintion, which is why this topic is so big. Players wouldn't get that popular if they sucked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest N/A Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 People have different defintion, which is why this topic is so big. Players wouldn't get that popular if they sucked. I disagree, Scalabrine is very well known http://www.otrbasketball.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lkr Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 I guess Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, and Sammy Sosa weren't superstars before they got busted. Most popular players in baseball and were some of the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.