It's a typo. U can't b a superstar forever. But his peer voted him the best curry mvp year, and now he isn't a superstar anymore.
Like I said u can't be a superstar forever. But like I also said at one point of his career harden was considered a superstar by his peers. What a concept. A player can reach superstardom and lose his skills over time due to age.
i wouldn't say so. you can believe whatever you want. someone who was constantly taking shots from the media and also from his peers wasn't looked at a superstar. They respected him enough as an mvp but superstar is just another level.
This thing should have a name like Jokic fallacy. It is like saying white men wins you president when all the candidates are white males. Good teams win you championships, not superstars. But almost all the good teams naturally have superstars because who wouldn't want to have one. Just the examples of Spurs and detroit should be enough to prove that you don't need a superstar to win it all because balanced strong teams with no superstar are rarely constructed and we already have two examples of them winning championships. that is a very good win rate. Same stuff with using 'Jokic did not win it all' so guard centric is the only way to go. As if we don't have maybe 10 guard centric teams to contend and Jokic trying to win it with a poor supporting cast. Sacramento will not win with this level of defense and offense just like Atlanta will not win it either with their superstar Trae. It is no different. The reason is not that they don't have a superstar.
Wait, @YOLO u think Harden wasn’t a superstar? to me he was a superstar that just couldn’t get over the hump…Doncic hasn’t won anything, but I consider him a superstar currently…Embiid too
superstar is what you can become when you lead your team to an nba championship. that's where you're confused
he was an mvp. the only thing left he had to do was get over the hump for a title and reach that. that's the only thing his resume is missing. i don't consider either of those superstars either. They're mvp caliber players who haven't actually won it yet. again, unless there's something higher than superstar its the highest label a player can attain. i believe a title needs be part of your resume to actually be considered a superstar
It should be a superstar is a player that CAN lead you to an nba championship team for multiple years. What you're describing is just being an NBA champion. Patrick Ewing or Charles Barkley weren't superstars to you?
U have 2 out of how many, and you’re calling that a very good win rate? there have been plenty of well balanced teams or really good teams constructed throughout history with no superstar to take them over the hump Jokic literally plays like a guard lol Trae isn’t even a superstar Sacramento will not win because of their defense, and because Sabonis is currently their best player
I read back couple pages and may of missed it. Where do you answer if Charles Barkley and Patrick Ewing are superstars or not in your eyes.
To me if u won an mvp or any individual accolades that sets u apart from your peers, u should b considered a superstar. I already considered Hakeem a superstar before he won his rings based on his personal achievements. Nba champions/hof is just the cherry on top. Just mind boggling to me that if Hakeem never won his rings he wouldn't b considered a superstar with that logic
