James Harden is a superstar

[G35]

Lebron was not a Superstar his first 3 seasons in the league, Kyrie Irving is not a Superstar, Blake Griffen is not a Superstar. A Superstar is a player that plays above the level of an all-star for an extended period of time while leading his team to success, that would not be replicated without them. Is James Harden playing like a Superstar? Yes. Is James Harden a Super star in the making yeah? YES. IS he a superstar? NO. Produce like this for 2 more years and then he can earn the title of SuperStar

My thinking goes something like this. A superstar is not made in one season unless they are Michael Jordan, Magic, Bird, Kareem, Wilt, Dr. J, David Robinson type players and those don't grow on tree's. Unless he is doing something unique on the court (and I don't see that) then he does not belong with Lebron, KD, and maybe Kobe. There aren't any other superstars right now. Not Melo, not Dwight, not CP3.

Being a superstar requires a level of consistent elite performance that few can maintain. And imo, efficiency isn't the holy grail of superstardom. I don't ever remember Adrian Dantley, Reggie Miller, or Kevin Mchale being labeled a superstar this soon if ever in their career's.

Harden has to do more statistically over a long period of time AND he has do something in the playoff's.....

Chris Paul isn't a superstar to you? Well that's just you being quirky dude.

What makes Chris Paul a superstar?

Amazing stats? To the stat guys and the hardcore fans on this board. But he hasn't even pulled a double double in the last three years.

Playoff success? Not really had any yet

Popularity? He's nowhere near on the level of Kobe/Wade/Lebron. That is the superstar group. Even Durant isn't quite on that level of popularity yet but he probably will after this year. CP3 is in the Dwight/Melo/Nash/Dirk group of popularity.


I'm not quirky, I just have higher standards for what a superstar is than you do. It takes more than being the best PG in the NBA or popular on a basketball forum to be a superstar.

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.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1300 ... sa/page/11

Not even in the top 10

http://www.totalprosports.com/2012/11/3 ... f-2012/#16

CP3 is tenth behind luminaries Blake Griffin, Rajon Rondo, and Derrick Rose

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciajesso ... ationally/

Was not a top 10 jersey seller 2011-12 season

To become a superstar in a small market you have to win in the playoff's. You have to get national/int'l recognition at the highest level. That was CP3's roadblock in New Orleans. Tim Duncan showed the blueprint to be a superstar in small market. Now that he is in a larger market his stats have regressed. So now he needs to start winning. His team is doing that now, but once again, he has to do it in the playoff's. No excuses. I mean if you think he's a superstar what is he going to be if he wins a ring/FMVP?

MEGA SUPERSTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRR......lol........

[CKRT]

Chris Paul is really really really good, and you are massively under rating him based on popularity. Implying he is anything less than a super star is damn silly. The guy has been the second best PG since Magic, and being second best is no slight when Nash is in front of you.

[G35]

Chris Paul is really really really good, and you are massively under rating him based on popularity. Implying he is anything less than a super star is damn silly. The guy has been the second best PG since Magic, and being second best is no slight when Nash is in front of you.

Dwight Howard has been the best C since Shaq. Is he a superstar? Well in some people's eyes, yes he is to.

I base a player on his contemporaries and his accomplishments.

CP3 is NOT on the level of Lebron, Kobe, or Wade.

Now if you want to use the argument, "Well what was Jordan from 1985-1990!". He was a superstar because he was doing things on the court that held the entire countries imagination. He was not only great statistically but he was revered as great player by the casual fan.

CP3 hasn't done anything unusual except by efficiency standards. He isn't that flashy, he isn't super athletic. He isn't a dominating presence. He's a great PG.

I'm not arguing that he isn't the best PG, or that he isn't an All NBA first team player. I'm saying he's not a superstar. I'll repeat again. There are at most 3-4 REAL superstars in the NBA at any given time.

This is based on a number of factors that all can't be measured with a number. I'm surprised that people don't realize that. It's like Derrick Rose. Everyone wanted to make him a superstar after his MVP season. But he's not. He hasn't developed the cachet that comes from repeated success......

[kaitanuva]

Dwight Howard has been the best C since Shaq.

Image only posts are considered post-padding in breach of the PC board rules. There are more constructive ways to indicate your disagreement. rrravenred

[Doctor MJ]

I'm not quirky, I just have higher standards for what a superstar is than you do. It takes more than being the best PG in the NBA or popular on a basketball forum to be a superstar.

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.

I suppose this cuts to the quick.

'Superstar' in sports has two different meanings. One based on play, one based on popularity. As a savvy sports fan it's supposed to be a given that you're aware of both and that you don't confuse the two. If you want to be a fundamentalist and say only the popularity should matter that's up to you, but it should never surprise you when people use the other standard.

You can chime in on what you see as the "proper" meaning of course, but this thread was clearly made with the other meaning in mind, and it's been around for like a year with over a 1000 posts, and even now your response isn't a crisp correction on these basic meanings. You come off as someone thus who isn't really using the dictionary as anything more than a justification for your broader opinion.

As far as "higher standards", that's possible. If you only see 2.5 superstars at any given time, that is very select indeed. However your definition is blurry. You mention Kobe as a "maybe" superstar right now. Unless you're actually arguing he's the 3rd best player in the league - which is not clear if that's what you're doing - then it's not that your standards for what it takes to be a superstar based on actually playing basketball are higher than mine, it's just that you insist on adding other things into the mix.

For myself, I won't bat an eye when people call Michael Jordan a superstar, because I understand the popularity-based definition of the word. In that same sense, I'm totally fine with Kobe Bryant remaining a superstar for the rest of his days. What I don't do is confuse that meaning with the one based on actual basketball because it's just pointless and confusing to do so. As a reward for having these definitions straight in my head, I'm able to understand that this thread is not about popularity, and not waste my time answering a question that wasn't asked.

lol, of course as a punishment for my compulsive nature, I still end up talking about answering the wrong question when others get confused.

[G35]

I'm not quirky, I just have higher standards for what a superstar is than you do. It takes more than being the best PG in the NBA or popular on a basketball forum to be a superstar.

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.

I suppose this cuts to the quick.

'Superstar' in sports has two different meanings. One based on play, one based on popularity. As a savvy sports fan it's supposed to be a given that you're aware of both and that you don't confuse the two. If you want to be a fundamentalist and say only the popularity should matter that's up to you, but it should never surprise you when people use the other standard.

You can chime in on what you see as the "proper" meaning of course, but this thread was clearly made with the other meaning in mind, and it's been around for like a year with over a 1000 posts, and even now your response isn't a crisp correction on these basic meanings. You come off as someone thus who isn't really using the dictionary as anything more than a justification for your broader opinion.

As far as "higher standards", that's possible. If you only see 2.5 superstars at any given time, that is very select indeed. However your definition is blurry. You mention Kobe as a "maybe" superstar right now. Unless you're actually arguing he's the 3rd best player in the league - which is not clear if that's what you're doing - then it's not that your standards for what it takes to be a superstar based on actually playing basketball are higher than mine, it's just that you insist on adding other things into the mix.

For myself, I won't bat an eye when people call Michael Jordan a superstar, because I understand the popularity-based definition of the word. In that same sense, I'm totally fine with Kobe Bryant remaining a superstar for the rest of his days. What I don't do is confuse that meaning with the one based on actual basketball because it's just pointless and confusing to do so. As a reward for having these definitions straight in my head, I'm able to understand that this thread is not about popularity, and not waste my time answering a question that wasn't asked.

lol, of course as a punishment for my compulsive nature, I still end up talking about answering the wrong question when others get confused.

Ummm what is this "other" meaning of what a superstar is? Is this the PC board meaning, your definition, or something else.

I posted the definition not because I think superstar means just popularity.

For me superstar encompasses:

Ability
Accomplishments/Awards
Team success/individual success
Popularity

For someone like CP3 he does not have the team success/popularity. You do not get the popularity in the NBA absent the talent/winning......

[rrravenred]

It's a semantic argument, but that's what these sort of "definitional" threads are about. If bast had merely started a thread saying "How good is James Harden?" that would be one thing, but his opening par was:

I've been watching this guy ever since the start of this season. James Harden is a superstar. he doesn't have flashy raw numbers, but he doesn't have a flaw in his game. he's black Manu Ginobili who's gonna be in the league for a LONG time. dude will rock this league for years to come.

Now I doubt Manu would meet G35's definition of a superstar either (not 100% sure he meets mine either... yet), but there's not really any objectivity to the term. I'm sure Chinese fans considered Yao a superstar. Hell, Stephon Marbury was probably considered a superstar by some.

Personally I'd ignore the closed nature of the thread title, and keep discussing Harden's actual play, which is impressive by anyone's standard.

[Doctor MJ]

It's a semantic argument, but that's what these sort of "definitional" threads are about. If bast had merely started a thread saying "How good is James Harden?" that would be one thing, but his opening par was:

I've been watching this guy ever since the start of this season. James Harden is a superstar. he doesn't have flashy raw numbers, but he doesn't have a flaw in his game. he's black Manu Ginobili who's gonna be in the league for a LONG time. dude will rock this league for years to come.

Now I doubt Manu would meet G35's definition of a superstar either (not 100% sure he meets mine either... yet), but there's not really any objectivity to the term. I'm sure Chinese fans considered Yao a superstar. Hell, Stephon Marbury was probably considered a superstar by some.

Personally I'd ignore the closed nature of the thread title, and keep discussing Harden's actual play, which is impressive by anyone's standard.

Thanks raven.

I would agree with raven. If you see someone start a thread based around a particular label for a player, the first thing to do is understand what they mean by the label. If they don't give any clarification up front about what they mean then of course you go by your own standards, but the OP here was pretty clear.

[Krodis]

Well... somehow Harden got to 25 again tonight, after that miserable first half.

[TheOUTLAW]

look at the free throws

Oh, and no he's not a superstar.

[Vator]

look at the free throws

Oh, and no he's not a superstar.

I read in another thread that you didn't actually watch the game tonight. Harden had a pretty horrible first half and seemed to be a little out of sorts all night. Bad passes and his handle was a little loose. 25 second half points and 16 4th quarter points when you haven't been able to throw the ball in the ocean all night and the game hanging in the balance is pretty darn impressive though. Takes a lot of confidence to come back from a 1-9 shooting start to make 5-8 with the game on the line.

[AussieBuck]

If Harden wasn't getting fouled going to the bucket he'd have a an assload more layups. Not sure I get the FT arguments about him.

[lorak]

If Harden wasn't getting fouled going to the bucket he'd have a an assload more layups. Not sure I get the FT arguments about him.

The thing is he relies too much on FTs. In playoffs, when he wouldn't get calls so easily and when smart teams would trap him badly (as Heat and Thunder showed multiple times) that would be big issue. And he's .507 eFG% player. Which still is very good for a guard, but obviously not as impressive as .600 TS% and IMO his true value as a scorer is better described by eFG, because after all only playoffs matter.

[bastillon]

let me get this straight, as I was starting this thread almost a year ago I didn't care about Harden's popularity. the reason why I participate in these discussions on the PC Board in the first place is because it's not about popularity contest for anyone. so I have no idea why G35 would wonder who a superstar is. everyone in this thread, be it Harden's fan or his opponent, nobody ever had a doubt about that. it was about playing level all along. now you can have a different standard for that too; for some superstar is can be a top10 player; for the other he needs to be a top5 player, for me it's more about being a high impact player. but let's debate whether Harden's playing level lives up to these expectations, not turn this into a popularity contest.

I understand Dstern's and fatal's concerns about Harden's game. it is true that trapping him elite defenses can shut him down because he's not versatile enough to make up for it with his midrange game. but Harden is such a great team player that trapping would have disastrous outcomes if his teammates were able to make them pay for it. to me it's not as much about Harden being limited because he's doing the right thing to pass out of double teams when he's getting trapped, it's about his teammates being very limited offensively. on the other hand turning into a midrange jumpshooter can be deceitful. maybe it gives you some balance offensively but it also makes your shot selection a lot worse. just think what would happen if Karl Malone was more aggressive offensively in the playoffs instead of fading away for jumpshots all game. fatal touched on this in the last project and it's somewhat connected to Harden game as well. maybe because Harden's midrange game isn't nearly as prolific as other aspects of his offense, he's using slashing/passing/3pt shooting more often.

I think teams will try to stop Harden by trapping him in the playoffs but and his numbers can be a lot worse but that doesn't really mean his impact will go down the toilet. if you're getting double teamed 25 feet away from the basket, the rest of your team is playing 4 on 3 and rarely defenses are quick enough to rotate their way out of this crappy situation. it's tough when you don't have a KG or Dream on your team and I don't see DPOYs growing in trees these days. Harden might get locked up in the playoffs but it's gonna be because his teammates suck ass offensively. with the spacing they have now, though, it's gonna be really hard for the defense if they keep making those 3s.

btw, I'm surprised why Harden didn't come up with that step back midrange J that Manu uses so often. Harden's midrange game is weak because he has trouble keeping balance when he's trying to shoot off the dribble. he doesn't have the feel that Kobe has (or Melo). developing that step back move should be his objective. it's very effective and gets people up on pump fakes (more trips to the line). Harden should just watch what adjustments Ginobili made when he was struggling. that'd really help him. I'm kind of disappointed by Harden's overall game though, I mean his impact is amazing, obviously, but he just doesn't have that defensive tenacity and overall versatility. I thought he'd attack the glass more and play better defense. sometimes it seems like he doesn't give a crap about it. this is what seperates Manu from Harden. the latter might be more dynamic, more dominant offensively, but intangibles-wise Manu has always been amazing. he was always one of the best defenders among non bigs (in terms of team impact), gave you rebounds, took charges etc. I thought Harden would be like that as well. on the other hand Ginobili might be impressive with his energy and all but he never so many responsibilities offensively as Harden does now. watch some Harden games from the start of last year and he was an amazing 2 way player too. he kind of gave up on being a 2-way player later that year though. Dstern once compared Harden to Bryant defensively. he can be great when he wants to but his effort is a concern. I don't know if that comparison is 100% correct because Bryant is a great man defender only, whereas Harden has amazing instincts in terms of picking passing lanes, rotating etc. it's gonna be interesting to see whether his defense improves in the postseason.

[tsherkin]

In deference to the mid-range game, he hasn't needed it at all to this point in his career; he's able to slither all the way to the rim on the majority of the possessions where he makes the attempt, so it hasn't been that important. Also, it's his first year as a primary scorer after playing on the bench through his first few years in the league, so it is very much likely that he'll have an adjustment period as he learns what he needs.

More over, as far as trapping defenses giving him trouble... of course they do? He's the focus of a defense and apart from Jeremy Lin (who was total crap in November before starting to figure things out in December), he had no other creators or dynamic threats on the team, offensively speaking, so teams could load up beneath him, trap him, really do whatever they wished on defense to make him rely on the worst shots in basketball. It's a good strategy against anyone in that context, not just Harden. Hell, if we're complaining, remember how bad Kobe looked in the 2008 Finals? Boston is an extreme example, of course, especially Boston of THAT season, but it kind of highlights that any star can be ruined if their teammates don't bust the defensive strategy when they start passing out of the extra coverage.

[Krodis]

I mean, he's taking 3 shots from 16-23 feet a game at 39%, which isn't great by any means, but isn't bad either. And he HAS developed a bit of a step-back jumper.

[kaitanuva]

Wow a lot of you guys are saying Harden doesn't have a mid range game. Are you guys sure you are watching Rockets games?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... qCY#t=139s

[G35]

let me get this straight, as I was starting this thread almost a year ago I didn't care about Harden's popularity. the reason why I participate in these discussions on the PC Board in the first place is because it's not about popularity contest for anyone. so I have no idea why G35 would wonder who a superstar is. everyone in this thread, be it Harden's fan or his opponent, nobody ever had a doubt about that. it was about playing level all along. now you can have a different standard for that too; for some superstar is can be a top10 player; for the other he needs to be a top5 player, for me it's more about being a high impact player. but let's debate whether Harden's playing level lives up to these expectations, not turn this into a popularity contest.

That's fine that you don't care about popularity. When I'm comparing a player neither do I. However, (as raven pointed out) you had a poor choice of words. You proclaimed Harden a "superstar". That word a has definite connotation associated with it's use.

You could have said a number of things if you wanted to focus on his performance/ability (but I doubt if this thread would be as long):

"James Harden is the best SG in the league"

"James Harden is a top 10 player in the league"

"James Harden is going to make the All NBA first team"

"James Harden is the most efficient scorer in the league"


Those titles would have taken out the ambiguity of the word "superstar" and had the same effect. You can't use the word superstar and decide what part of it you want to discuss. Superstar, by it's definition, INCLUDES popularity. I'm getting the impression people are thinking that's all superstar means is popularity but that's not correct. It's a combination of success in a particular field, along with a certain level of popularity.

What's confusing is why would you use such a vague term when you want to discuss only performance?.......

[Doctor MJ]

What's confusing is why would you use such a vague term when you want to discuss only performance?.......

This should not be confusing G35. It's how people talk.

[G35]

What's confusing is why would you use such a vague term when you want to discuss only performance?.......

This should not be confusing G35. It's how people talk.

let me get this straight, as I was starting this thread almost a year ago I didn't care about Harden's popularity. the reason why I participate in these discussions on the PC Board in the first place is because it's not about popularity contest for anyone. so I have no idea why G35 would wonder who a superstar is. everyone in this thread, be it Harden's fan or his opponent, nobody ever had a doubt about that. it was about playing level all along. now you can have a different standard for that too; for some superstar is can be a top10 player; for the other he needs to be a top5 player, for me it's more about being a high impact player. but let's debate whether Harden's playing level lives up to these expectations, not turn this into a popularity contest.

That's just an excuse. For a board that is so anal retentive and can take things down to the nearest tenth and then USING a word that is BASED around popularity in anyone's definition and then saying you didn't want to discuss popularity was his mistake. Raven does summarize this up the best.......

It's a semantic argument, but that's what these sort of "definitional" threads are about. If bast had merely started a thread saying "How good is James Harden?" that would be one thing, but his opening par was:

I've been watching this guy ever since the start of this season. James Harden is a superstar. he doesn't have flashy raw numbers, but he doesn't have a flaw in his game. he's black Manu Ginobili who's gonna be in the league for a LONG time. dude will rock this league for years to come.

Now I doubt Manu would meet G35's definition of a superstar either (not 100% sure he meets mine either... yet), but there's not really any objectivity to the term. I'm sure Chinese fans considered Yao a superstar. Hell, Stephon Marbury was probably considered a superstar by some.

Personally I'd ignore the closed nature of the thread title, and keep discussing Harden's actual play, which is impressive by anyone's standard.