i think we agree for the most part, i'm just pointing out where i disagree. PG was a superstar in Indiana. when he was injured, that team was straight garbage, proving the point. can PG be a superstar again if he joins a great team? absolutely. Klay, to me, can be a franchise player and it just depends on what situation he lands in. he doesn't dribble enough, and isn't a ball-dominant guard. but if you put him on any of the mid-tier team we see in the league, he has the potential to turn the team to a top-4 team in the WC. might even put him on a tanking team and pull off an 8th seed. i'd say that's almost superstar-level. Kevin Love can do similar things and we all can agree Klay is way better than Kevin Love. and you can't say these kinds of compliments about every player in the league. Klay/PG are special players, terribly underrated because of where they played and the team they're surrounded with.
You and me just have a different definition of superstar. Paul George is not a franchise player period, It's been proven. When he had his own team the past 3 years in Indy, not the one with Hibbert, west, hill and granger. Flat out He underperformed. In the east which has been pretty weak the past 3 seasons he led that Indy squad to .500 Records and a 7th and 8th seed, while getting bounced in the 1st round. Is he an allstar in the east? Absolutely. Is he an allstar in the west? if he was playing with houston, golden state or San Antonio, Most likely. But the guy is a career 20ppg guy who gets you 6 rebounds and 3 assist while shooting 41-43% from the field. He does provide very good defense and so from that standpoint with his above avg offense, yes it makes him a multiple time allstar. But he's not a franchise player. My definition of franchise player is guys who are consistently in the MVP convo and when they are not they are the best player on teams that win 50+ games and have atleast homecourt advantage in the 1st round. Harden, cp3, KD, Steph, Kawi, Lebron those guys are true superstars and can go anywhere and change the course of a franchise. Guys like davis, kyrie, Giannis, embiid and KAT have the potential to join that group but they need to win and win consistently. They all put up the superstar stats but it hasn't translated to winning. Klay Thompson is extreamly important to what the warriors do and he is a fantastic player and the 2nd best sg in the game hands down. But imo he doesn't have franchise changing ability to truely be a number one option. He has no handles and isn't a playmaker. Could he score 30ppg on a 41-45 win team? Maybe because he is a very good shooter but imo he can't be the best player on a championship team. I also think your underrating curry and KD if you think they couldn't win a championship without klay. Those guys are true franchise changing alltime greats. They would still be the heavy favorite with just a core of KD/Steph/green. Your point about George being better in houston, I agree. But he wouldn't be a superstar here. If he was a true franchise player the thunder wouldn't be struggling so much right now. They have plenty of talent on both sides of the ball. Stevens, Abrines, Patterson, Felton, grant and even Roberson would all get minutes in different capacity on the rockets. Those guys are the supporting cast around a big three of Westbrook, George and melo. What does that say about those three? Not franchise changers. There just polarizing.
I found more clarity in this post. Initially it seemed you agreed PG13 was not a superstar, but here you make it clear you think he's a superstar in the right situation. In this I would say @YaoMing#1 and I probably agree that our definition of superstar is someone that isn't reliant on a great team. When you call someone a superstar, I take it as a person who is an all-time great and cannot be overshadowed by a shoddy team. Of course, superstars get a lot less attention when the team is flailing, but it doesn't make them any less special. Maybe I'm off base but I think of Wade's 2006 Heat. They won a ship because of him. Shaq was still a beast but he was on the decline. I can't remember the other pieces on that team, but I don't think they were any good haha. I remember Haslem being an awesome role player and Alonzo Mourning awesome off the bench.
The Celtics Big 3 had Pierce, Allen, Garnett. On paper, isn't Westbrook, George and Garnett just as talented overall? I think it is coaching. Donovan looks like he might make a good defensive assistant NBA coach and of course NCAA head coach but he's just not head NBA coach material. I bet if they had the right coach, Thunder could turn it around.
No way Paul George is a superstar klay Thompson either. Would I want both on the rockets? Hell ya there damn good players. But there system allstar guys that rely on thrive off of playing with truely great talent. There has been plenty of paul George's and klay Thompson in the NBA for decades. The Lebron currys Hardens kds are the rare air, there's like 5 guys in every era that is on the level those guys. the true franchise superstars. Paul George is no different from jimmy butler. Allstar? Yes good player? Yes. Goes to Minnesota and boom they should be balling with him joining KAT and Wiggins among others. But no there barely over .500 playing mediocre ball. Harden or curry would have that team competing for the 1 seed same with Lebron and KD. Those are the stars.
Didn't say they're not winning a chip without Klay, just saying people will be surprised how big of a difference Klay is/was. Also, don't forget about Dray. Take Dray off the team, I don't think they can win a chip. Strong opinion here, but whatever. For me, you need to make buckets. When it comes to making buckets, Klay is as good as they come, and he's not even a high-volume shooter. He can easily average 30 if he takes more shots. Can he average these kinds of numbers in a different franchise? Maybe, maybe not -- we'll never know. But can he be even BETTER in a different system? Absolutely. He can take all kinds of shots, and can put up Devin Booker's 60+ pts multiple times in a season if he wants. Also, you don't always need handles, even if they're great to have. Athleticism, passing skills, ability to explode to the basket, shooting and making ridiculous amounts of baskets, and basketball IQ -- these are equally important characteristics to have. Larry Bird is a good example, and he truly was an iconic superstar, all-time great. Had 2 other HOFers on his roster, though, so I guess he's not a superstar? The narrative for GSW has been that Curry can throw up 30fters and is smaller so he's clearly better. On PG, I guess you're right that it did go both ways. We've seen the team make great strides and lose a bunch w/ PG on and off court. But in that team, PG was playing his role, and the team went with the mantra. And PG is considered the best player on that Indiana Pacers team by a large margin. Dude, I think PG meets all of your criterias for superstar players, it was just in the EC. And out in WC, PG only has 2 other SF players he gotta compete with -- Kawhi and KD. To be considered the 3rd best SF in the WC, after having a bad few seasons in Indiana, he's gotta be pretty good. OKC struggling -- PG has carried the team to some wins this season, just as much as RW. Got TMac telling ppl that OKC gotta use PG to get some wins because he's that good and I agree w/ him. To top it off, both Klay and PG are great defensively. Also, they're both only 27. Which means what I believe is they're not franchise player-caliber players just yet (on this point, I'll partially agree w/ you), but they certainly have the potential to be. I'm 90% sure that they can be.
I'm sure klay makes a huge difference for golden state but at the same time they prob have the best collection of talent and not only that but fit that any team in the history of the game has ever had. The booker exampke is good yes I agree klay could do that even better than booker but it's not translating to wins and that's what it's all about for me anyways. You gotta get the numbers but you also have to win and win at a high level 50+ yearly. To me a franchise player can go anywhere to any team and turn them into a 50 win squad. Iv seen harden cp3 KD Lebron and Steph do this as the best player on teams with different talent around them. Look at Hardens first season in houston. He's 23 never started and is playing with a 50 games played jlin a 2nd year Chandler parsons and Asia who was in his 3rd year and never played more than 15 min a game. With Carlos Delfino Francisco Garcia and a few other scrubs. He led that team to 45 wins and the playoffs. That team was picked to win 25 games from Vegas and be the worst team in the league before harden got there. Steph led golden stage that same season with a David west as his 2nd best player to 46 wins green and klay weren't who they are now. Green didn't even play that much. Lebron wins with anyone. KD won 50 games every year with okc and went deep in the playoffs he leaves and there basically a .500 ball club with Westbrook. Cp3 took the clippers to 50 wins in 5/6 seasons now there one of the worst teams in the league. Your right I don't know what klay would do on his own team but I do know by watching him he's not on those guys level at all. Could he win 41-45 games like Westbrook Paul George John wall? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say yes but i don't consider those guys franchise players. But if love to have them playing next to my franchise player. Well everyone but Westbrook he sucks. I love PG13 and I do like klay and think he would flourish even more than he does now if he played with harden. He'd prob avg 28 a game. But I don't think you can compete and truely contend for titles with them as the best player. I don't want you to take what I'm saying wrong. I do think there good players and are allstar caliber but there not franchise superstars imo. And the Larry bird thing flew over my head. He's one of the best players ever. He wasn't just a shooter. Larry was like the below the rim Lebron. He consistently avg 8+ rebounds and 7 assists ever year and was sneaky good at defense.
Yeah, I'll give you that Bird was phenomally talented in way more ways than Klay, so that's an unfair comparison for Klay. I'm just saying that you can still have a great career and not have handles. Putting the ball on the floor has gotten a bit overrated, can see it in how much they hype up Kyrie. The other point was that Bird was still surrounded by 2 other HOFers and you can't really take away Bird's greatness just because of his team, even though it's part of why he was great. I understand what you define as superstar, but man that's pretty hardcore. How many people fit in that term? like top-5? I mean, you're talking about Harden not fitting in that discussion 2 yrs back. And back then if you tried to tell me if Harden wasn't a superstar I'd stop talking to you and stop wasting my brain cells. By your definitions, you must admit, CP shouldn't be considered a superstar today. And that's because he's not the best player on this team. I see maybe 5 players fitting in your category of superstar. For me, I think if you can get like 30+ mil/yr you're a superstar, save for idiots who overpay scrubs. There's no easy test for judging players, I tend to judge w/ my eyes more than stats or simple wins.
A good team has two things, fit and talent. In terms of talent OKC has more than enough but they are like negative on the fit scale. Westbrick, Melo and George all play in the same area, all of them just take a few 3s and then spend their time in the post or in the mid range area so they get in each other's way. Maybe if they had Porzingis and Ryan Anderson for the PF and C position they will be pretty good cuz the PF and C will provide spacing while all 3 of them can share the space inside. Also don't compare OKc to Celts cuz Celts had way more than a big 3. For example they had Davis, Perkins and Rondo all om rookie deals. Then they had mike James, Brown and another decent dude I forgot on vet min. Also in terms of fit the Celts big 3 are superior because Ray Allen is a 3 pt shooter, KG is a catch and shoot mid range guy and Pierce is an all rounder.
I do think there is only 5 true franchise players in the game, True superstars. And I never thought harden wasn't one of the top 5 guys in the league. Only idiots didn't think that. And I do use my eyes cp3 is a superstar. His impact on a teams offense and the way he sets guys up as well as himself says that without looking at the numbers which are still fantastic. By your logic Steph isn't a superstar because he's not the best player on his team. That's silly to me because we've seen him win two MVPs and a championship as the best player on a team. And Larry bird did play with 2 other HOFs but he was unquestionably the best player on those teams. All great teams have multiple HOFs but making the NBA HOF is much easier than any other sport it's watered down. I mean Mitch Richmond is in the HOF, that says enough. You don't have to be able to dribble or pass to be a good player. Klay is a good player he's one of the best shooters of alltime and a very good defensive player. But all superstars true franchise guys are all around threats. They all do one thing in common and that's pass and make guys better. Klay has never demonstrated that skill set.
Of all the active coaches (and even including those that would possibly return to coaching), who could best turn around the Thunder? I guess everyone would say Popovich so who else?
Melo: We need to play more selfish. Russ: I don't give a damn about percentage. I wonder what PG thinks.
He's thinking about how nice living in LA is gonna be next season. WB's mentality is GREAT to have when everything is going good. But when you are playing .500 ball and its clear the offense is struggling because there isn't enough ball and player movement and you have Westbrick out there saying he's gonna keep chucking like a moron, and Melo out there saying we need MORE iso... LOL.
Thunder 5 Minutes Collapse (TM) 1. Thunder were up 50-33 -- 17 point lead -- with 5:40 to go in the first half. Sixers cut the lead down to 6 before the half. 2. Thunder were up 94-83 -- 11 point lead -- with 5:35 to go in the 4th quarter. Thunder did not score again in the 4th quarter. Sixers tied the game at the end. BONUS: Here's the play that started the 4th quarter collapse. Watch Melo just die and give up on Westbrook.
