What's the Difference Between a "Star" and a "

[SensiBull]

My definition?

Where it is widely accepted that a player comes with a high price-tag in trades, or will presumably cost a lot of money to sign in free agency, I might use the term as an indication of the economic ramifications of pursuing players, but, other than that, I don't 'tout' or 'label' young players as 'stars'. I just don't. You'll never see me use the term in that context.

As for 'Stat Whore', there was a time on this board where there seemed to be an agreed upon hypothesis that, if a player was putting up good stats, but his team still sucked, he was a 'stat whore' as it were, until proven otherwise.

Thus my reference to SAR.

Dwyane Wade and Kevin Durant seem to have changed a few minds about that. The term seems no longer applicable. So, before the term gets re-introduced, I thought it might be good to do a health check and see where the line has now been drawn.

[fleet]

they are all stars. Stat whores are usually stars. There is similary no discretion in front Grauman's Chinese Theatre.

The discretion comes with HOF candidacy consideration, where the people who get to vote are using more exceptional criteria

[fleet]

so is this question going to people who say the problem with the Bulls is that they have no "stars"? Our problem is scoring after all. If it wasn't, people might be looking more for defensive players to add.

Since this "stat whore" thing is likely a reference to the scoring column, I list the NBA scoring leaders, who are all "stars":

LeBron James
Kobe Bryant
Allen Iverson
Carmelo Anthony
Dwyane Wade
Richard Jefferson
Michael Redd
Carlos Boozer
Dwight Howard
Amare Stoudemire
Dirk Nowitzki
Yao Ming
Joe Johnson
Baron Davis
Caron Butler
Chris Paul
Chris Bosh
Vince Carter
Antawn Jamison
Paul Pierce
Gerald Wallace
Josh Howard
Tony Parker
Al Jefferson
Jason Richardson
Kevin Durant
David West
Kevin Garnett
Rudy Gay

and whiles there can well be isolated cases like say for example the previously mentioned Zach Randolph and certain exceedinly cancerous team killing personalities, any of these guys should be welcomed on a team. I think probaly all these guys want to win, and have that in their minds. Especially on a team with good offensive options besides the whore. The term stat whore is probably overused imo, as it refers to a guy who just does not care enough to pass. Certain players are more effective than others, but who is a real stat whore in the truest sense? You have to have the element of caustic personality to a "selfish scorer" to morph him into a "Stat whore". Selfishness in looking to score is often a component of a guy trying to win too.

yeah you get into trouble with the "star" pining. But most people have these desirable scorers in mind when they mention "stars" that the Bulls need the most, and most if not not all of these players have reasonable flaws to take in addition.

[NoLayupRule]

Do you guys think Gordon is a stat whore or a star?

does he not qualify in either area? How about as far as the team goes?

IMO you have 2 stars on your team in Big Ben and Deng. You have 2 stat whores in Gordon and Noiconi. Hinrich I dont know where to place.

[SensiBull]

I think this is what DASMACKDOWN was referring to when he said 'the grass is always greener' with us [Bulls fans].'

[Rerisen]

Dwyane Wade and Kevin Durant seem to have changed a few minds about that. The term seems no longer applicable. So, before the term gets re-introduced, I thought it might be good to do a health check and see where the line has now been drawn.

What is the meaning of this paragraph? Wade and Durant are in no conceivable way comparable. Wade has proved otherwise (that he is not a stat whore). He led his team to a championship. And I don

[SensiBull]

Hey, man. Preach on. I don't think Durant's a 'star'. As I said earlier, unless its absolute consensus across the league, I don't use the term; and, even then, I think an objective look at the players strengths and weaknesses, as you've done with Ray Allen, for example, is still in order.

You need to have a chat with your boy Addicted123.

Stop being silly. The Bulls have been unlucky in that the drafts where they had a Top 3 pick, the draft class was weak. End of story. I don't know how you can argue otherwise. Brand, Williams and Tyson with Top 3 picks? C'mon! Where is Lebron, Durant, etc?

If there has been an argument for an objective way of determining who is a 'star' and who is a 'stat whore' you might have made it when you said:

What separates bad stats from good ones? Well you have to look at things like efficiency, PER, +/- over a long period of time, etc. Is the team vastly more productive with the player on the floor or does the team not suffer when he is gone?

This is not even to say that you are correct. This is, in effect, the 82games.com thesis re-worded, which is also tantamount to the argument made by Knicks fans of the late 90's that the team was better with Ewing on the bench, and, the rest, as they say, is NBA history.

But it is certainly a far cry from the prior definition of a 'stat whore' which said that any player putting up good stats on a bad team was open to the accusation, including the 8-28 Heat or the 9-27 Sonics and their 'stars', as each individual sees fit. That makes it a matter of opinion open to endless subjective debate. Thus this thread.

Let's settle this. What's a 'stat whore' and what's a 'star' on a bad team?

Yours is a welcome assertion. Even if it turns out to be incorrect, at least its intelligenly constructed around an objective principle, as opposed to the "I know it when I see it" responses others offer.

[SensiBull]

Let the discussion continue.

[Rerisen]

But it is certainly a far cry from the prior definition of a 'stat whore' which said that any player putting up good stats on a bad team was open to the accusation, including the 8-28 Heat or the 9-27 Sonics and their 'stars', as each individual sees fit.

Was that ever really the majority opinion though? I know you have used an example such as Shareef Abdur Rahim, and maybe he was or was not labeled a stat whore during his good years, I do not really recall. But just because he might have been, does not mean every player on a bad team putting up stats is a stat whore, or was even thought to be at the time. I don't think someone like Mitch Richmond was ever considered a mere stat whore, despite spending most of his time on some bad teams.

Is Elton Brand? Gasol? A lot of people seem to wanting these players despite their teams struggles. And I certainly think Gasol could help the Bulls a lot because I look at his individual skills vs what this team lacks and see a good fit there. I don't really care that he ran into some of the best teams the West had to offer and got swept in the playoffs on a team where he had little help.

This is, in effect, the 82games.com thesis re-worded, which is also tantamount to the argument made by Knicks fans of the late 90's that the team was better with Ewing on the bench, and, the rest, as they say, is NBA history.

Now you have to be careful here. Because I never said to look at +/- by itself. Only that if you have a player that year after year puts up negative numbers such that his team is better without him (say Marbury) you darn well better be suspicious about if their numbers are really helping the team, or at least to what extent. I also think it might not be wise to mix the Ewing example with 82games.com which actually produces some hard evidence, even if you don't accept conclusion gathered from those numbers. I don't think we have any comparable numbers on Ewing at the time and likely if we investigated we would see that those Knick fans were full of crap and the team really did not out produce their opponents more when Herb Williams (or whoever) was on the floor instead of Ewing.

[Rerisen]

Sometimes you need more than stats to determine if a guy appears to be 'stat whoring' or hurting his team. Sometimes there is no substitute for watching the interactions of a team from game to game.

If Zach Randolph shot 8-22, the stat doesn't tell you whether those were good shots that just missed or if they were forced or if there were better options. Watching the first game we played the Knicks with Zach, he put on one of the most appalling, black hole, examples of a player I have ever seen. Chucking left and right, taking shots when he had teammates wide open across the floor, etc. A classic case of stat whoring.

I have seen Michael Redd have similar nights. But I have also seen nights where Bogut looks like his feet were on backwards and the Bucks really didn't have many options better than Redd taking of ton of attempts and ending up at 11-25 or something and actually have it pay off in a win. So there is definitely support for taking it on a case by case basis and examining a particular player's circumstance even beyond his numbers. If that amounts to the term 'stat whore' being meaningless, then I guess its meaningless. I know it is not a term I find very useful.