This is more of a philosophical debate than anything else, but you have to notice how the game evolves in the NBA. In the 80s, it seem the vogue to surround one superstar with a collection of "role" players. The Celtics, Lakers, and Pistons were great examples of that. The 90s saw more teams go with the two headed monster like Clyde/Hakeem, Shaq/Kobe, Stockton/Malone ect. Some teams (like the Rockets and Mavs) have experimented with the three headed moster with little results. To make a long story short, are we seeing the game evolve again? Let's take a few examples from today's dominant teams. 1. Portland- Who is the superstar? This seems to be a team made up of several good players, but no great ones. 2. San Antonio- Tim Duncan is as dominant as they come, but David has been relegated to a role player. 3. Lakers- Kobe and Shaq still going 4. Phoenix- Kidd and Penny? Is it working? 5. Minnesota- Garnett and ??????. Brandon is a solid role player, so are Joe Smith and Wally World. I think what is more interesting is to watch what happens to teams who lose their star. Do they crumble? 1. Phily- Won five games since Iverson went down. 2. Houston- won three and a row and took Phoenix and Portlant to OT after Hakeem went down. 3. New York- made it to the Finals without Ewing. This begs the question: Superstars? or Role players? Are superstars really that important for team success? How many do you really want or need? Are these examples above flukes or do they say something about superstars effect on the game? Does it have more to do with the superstars themselves? For now, I'm going to pull a Socrates and just wait to see what the answers are. You have to admit though, this could get interesting. ------------------ Rockets When? Rockets When?
Barzilla- Good topic. I would say multiple stars can exist as long as they know their roles. Many times stars become role players in certain situations. Also I will talk in terms of stars rather than superstars, which I would argue there are very few superstars) Old Bulls- Michael led a team with two other "stars" in Scottie & Rodman, but they knew MJ was the man. Spurs- I would argue Robinson could still be a star, and therefore is still a star. He knows his role is secondary to Duncan. Rockets- I think Dream has always been the man, and Chuck has publicly said Dream is the man, but Chuck could never fight off his instincts to take a back seat. At the same time Dream never stood up to Chuck to tell him he was the man. And now add Francis! Blazers- Could have several stars (if on different teams) such as Smith, Grant, Pip. For the time they all semm to blend together fine, but when things are good everyone is happy. Lakers- Another Rockets situation where Kobe said Shaq is the man, but Shaq isn't always in the game in crunch time. Who is the man? I guess my theory is stars can work fine together, as long as one lets the other take control (talking about it is fine, but one must actually do it), both off and on the court. David Robinson, Kevin McHale, James Worthy, Joe Dumars could have all been superstars in the league but they took the back seat for their fellow superstars and in return became Champions. Also I think every championship team will have a superstar. Wheter it was Dr. J-Moses 76ers, Birds Cetlics, Isiahs Pistons, Magic-Kareem Lakers, MJs Bulls, Dreams Rockets, or Duncanr Spurs. Role players are essentials, too many egos can kill. Look at the Bulls. 2 stars (3 when Rodman came) and 10 guys who could do their specialty well, but who would never be considered good players. The Spurs and Rockets are also good examples (during their championships). Both had guys that could knock down 3s when the post was doubled, and could play D. What do you think Socrates?
Freak interesting post about the best player winning the title. Never thought of that. You could make a case that in '83 Mo Malone was the best player (I believe he was the MVP that year). I do agree that Isiah may have been the exception. Good player, but I still think he was a step below Magic & Bird.
4Chuckie, So let me clarify your post. You would say we would have to classify players into three different categories: 1. Superstars 2. Stars 3. Role Players And then in some situations stars would relegate themselves to a specific role if there is another star on the team? Am I right so far? Well, this certainly begs the question: What is the difference between a star and a role player? You brought up several names. Some would be stars and some would not. David Robinson: Former MVP and Defensive Player of the Year. Certainly a star. Shaq: This is an interesting one. He's certainly a tremendous physical prescence, but a star depends on the definition. Kobe: I think time will prove him to be a star. Steve Smith: Was the best player on the Hawks for several years. Scottie Pippen: Quite possibly the best role player in basketball history. A star? I don't think so. Horace Grant?: No way I'm going to put forth the notion that stardom is not dependent on skill or ability, but a state of mind. Therefore, players like David Robinson and Steve Smith no longer consider themselves to be stars (for whatever reason) so they are not stars. Historical examples include Kareem and Bill Walton in their later years. This is of particular interest for Houston because you have three people who consider themselves to be stars. The biggest obstacle facing the Rockets this season is to figure out which player should be their star (is it a coincedence that the Rockets have won three in a row since they have only one star in the lineup?) and trying to convice the other two to consider themselves as a role player. Ironically, Houston is a great example of the other extreme. We traded for Scottie Pippen in the hopes that he would be the star to lead us to a championship. Pippen is uncomfortable with that distinction so he lashed back at the organization for asking him to step outside his comfort zone. Next question: How do we decide which stars are better than others ------------------ Rockets When? Rockets When?
Briankagy, Who else from that Laker team would be considered a superstar besides Magic? Kareem? Kareem was well past his prime in the mid-80s. In fact, I draw a lot of parallels between him and Hakeem at this stage in his career. If Hakeem is willing to subjicate himself like Kareem did then this team has a chance. Worth? Worthy quite possibly could be the 80s Laker version of Scottie Pippen. He was a tremendous role player, but I can't see him as a star. Scott? Tremendous shooter in his prime, but brought little else to the table Cooper? The antithesis of Scott. He brought the defense. Green? Nope Rambis? Nope ------------------ Rockets When? Rockets When?
Barzilla- My Definitions Superstar- Someone who would run the show no matter which team he was on. Very few true superstars- in the mid to late 90's I would have MJ, Karl Malone, Dream, Chuck, Shaq, David Robinson, etc. These players change the complection of a game. Offense becomes centered around them and teammates expect them to be the leader. Star- Someone who excels for their team, but would not necessarily be the man in another town. Pip in Chicago comes to mind as someone who excelled in a system. Still is good player and is counted on by the team. May try to change the team, but team doesn't always follow. Just by putting him on a new team doesn't change the teams mentality or philosophy. A rocket example is Clyde, who was a great player but not a superstar. Role- Someone who is counted on for specific purposes (rebounding, defense, scoring), but is not necessarily an all around player. May possess skills to be an star but for what ever reason (system, teammates) isn't. Think of old rockets like Mario. When I said Grant- I was referring to Brian Grant for Blazers. Guys has a great game. Hustles, boarrds, good D, and get his points. I believe he could excel with another team. Also I still believe Pip was a star for the Bulls- but not for Rockets or Blazers. For the bulls he was counted on and did a good job feeding off from jordan.
Yeah I figure I will, but that is only my definition. Essentially Clyde came here and nothing really changed. Offense was still the post, centered around Dream. I know it won't be popular, and I do recognize Clyde was a great player, and that he led Portland to the finals.
Specialist: Does one thing well. [Matt Bullard] Role Player: Does a few jobs well. [George Lynch] Player: Can do a little bit of everything, but not enough to be a star. [Shandon Anderson/Cat Mobley/Rick Fox] Star: excels at everything, but cant lead a team to the playoffs on his own. [Penny/Adbur Rahim/Ray Allen] Superstar: Can shoulder a franchise. [Iverson/Garnett/Duncan]
Well, let's see. In 1985, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was an All-Star and won the NBA Finals MVP award. In Game 2 of the Finals, he scored 30 points, had 17 boards, 8 assists and 3 steals; in Game 5, he scored 36. In the regular season, he averaged 22 points and was fourth in the league in FG percentage. He followed that up the next year by making first-team all NBA and finishing ninth in the league in scoring, at 23.4 ppg. Those don't exactly look like the numbers of a "washed up" player to me. I think you are relying on your memory of Kareem's final seasons rather than looking at the factual evidence. And the factual evidence indicates that Kareem was still one of the best players in the game from 1984 through 1986. He qualified as a superstar, because his name carried a reputation, and his production backed up that reputation.
4chuckie take out your old rockets tapes and watch clyde, HE was our whole transition game, could rebound and racked up the assists as well as steals and the best part was the ball was not in his hands 90% of the game like Scottie or Charles,he did it in the flow of the game which is so crucial in bastketball. His D was not Mario but he was still one of the better defenders in the league. As for your comment on, Clyde didn't change the team he wasn't the go-to guy on this team and the Offense was still post-up? No offense but that was probably one of the stupidest things I have ever heard on Clutchcity actualy it is the dumbest if you consider its Clutchcity.net now, we had the best player in the NBA Hakeem Olajuwon, what the hell did you want us to do.... "Um Dream your like good and stuff, but I think we need to change the offense up I know we just won a second title but lets just scrap this post-up thing and lets just go to Clyde now, just rebound for Clyde and don't post up anymore because it clogs the lanes"..... You are a Barkley lover which is obvious to this day I have not seen one Broccli fan give Clyde his due other than my boy Primetime, Clyde was a superstar even when he retired HE was our offense in more ways than scoring the last two years he was in the NBA, Clyde's fatal flaws were that he played at the same time as Mj and that he played in Portland and in Houston not really the Media Markets as an La, Ny, Chicago or even Detroit. Had he played in a different city or just played in a different time than Mj he would probably would have gotten more credit than he did. Clyde took a sorry Portland team with Kevin Duckworth as their center to the finals twice. Only Terry Porter and Kersey were worthy enough to make it to the finals that year along with Clyde. I believe Jordan avg 32-33 on Clyde in one of those finals but at the same time Clyde avg 28-29 on his airness. Clyde was a superstar, but he will not be remembered as a great one just becuase of those reasons. ------------------ "We need to fockass".....Dream back in the day
Dakota- I agree Clyde was a great player for Portland. I guess, maybe it's my perception, that noone changed anything defensively against clyde & the blazers. I think its easier for me to see a post player being a superstar. Dream in his prime forced double teams and opened up shot for his teammates. Granted it is nearly impossible for a guard to force double teams on the perimeter. Like I said I would personally label him a great player, but I wouldn't label him a superstar. Some players are true-blue superstars, others it's more of a perception thing.
Brian, I think each of the terms: superstar, star, and role player bring about their own connotations for all of us. When I say Kareem is a role player I think a lot of us conjure up images of a Kurt Rambis or Mario Elie. I don't think of a role player in the same context. I must admit that I don't remember his numbers being that good at that time, but my immediate thoughts went back to when Hakeem completely dominated him in that 1986 Series. The reason I compare him to Hakeem is because Hakeem had almost the exact same experience last season with Shaq. That doesn't mean that Hakeem is washed up or that Kareem was either. His role on the team simply changed. Here are my connotations for what I think these terms mean. Superstar: thinks he is the man and really is the man Star: thinks he is the man, but sometimes really isn't Role player: A player who is willing to subjicate himself to a star or superstar. Specialists: can do only one or two things well. This is why I consider Kareem a role player on that team. He was willing to subjicate himself to Magic. That doesn't mean he wasn't a great player, but in that sense he was a role player. ------------------ Rockets When? Rockets When?
Scarface- Who labels a player a superstar? Is it you or me, I don't think so. Obviously this board won't be objective because Clyde played here in college & with the ring, but I think if you ask outsiders Clyde would be regarded as a great player, but maybe not a superstar. I take no offense if you consider my comments stupid, if you take no offense in me saying I think your perception is flawed. Clyde did a ton of good for Houston, but I don't consider him a superstar. Oh yeah i am a Barkley fan, so if that makes me an idiot to you, so be it. No offense taken.
Well, Barzilla, two things: 1) It seems as though your definition of a star depends greatly on understanding what's going on in that player's mind-- that's a pretty subjective variable to include. Especially because it seems like it would preclude Karl Malone from the list-- "breath comes in...breath goes out...breath comes in...breath goes out...wonder what time Tom and Jerry comes on...guh almost forgot to breathe there..." 2) As for Kareem's numbers, let's just say that I was pleasantly surprised that they turned out to back my position. I stand by that. The Lakers were definitely thought of as a tandem and even a trio if you include Worthy (which I don't). Kareem's production was such that he deserved that reputation. **** PS, 4chuckie: Keep in mind that at the time of Clyde's second Finals appearance, he was widely considered to be the 2nd-best player in the game-- behind only Jordan. Perhaps our recollections differ, but I recall Drex as being considered an absolute superstar. [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited December 07, 1999).]
Brian, I don't doubt Clyde was great, but remember one thing we thought Pippen was the greatest all-around player when we acquired him and he was widely known as the second best player in the league when he played along MJ. We definetely blew that perception pretty quickly! I am just saying in my perception that Clyde was not a superstar. Just my opinion based on my memories.
