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

[SensiBull]

There was a time on this board when players who put up big numbers on losing teams got called "stat whores". Now, it seems, there are players who are putting up good numbers on bad teams who are "stars", whatever that means.

Can someone define a 'star' for me?

And, do 'stat whores' still exist or have we now dropped that term from our collective vocabulary?

[SensiBull]

Or have league marketing campaigns persuaded us to hold double standards in this area?

[Magilla_Gorilla]

There was a time on this board when players who put up big numbers on losing teams got called "stat whores". Now, it seems, there are players who are putting up good numbers on bad teams who are "stars", whatever that means.

Can someone define a 'star' for me?

And, do 'stat whores' still exist or have we now dropped that term from our collective vocabulary?

Would you like to give a few examples? Yoiu have a tendency to generalize when it comes to things said on this board - I'd like to know what exactly you are talking about.


Its a fact that someone has to score in the NBA, and that no team is going to be held scoreless. And in cases where a team is atrociously bad, one player might get overrated because he is picking up the scoring slack where there are no other options.

Take Hakim Warrick on the Grizz last year for example.

Want an example of a stat whore on a losing team? I present you Zach Randolph. A player only worried about his own stats, and not interested in winning basketball.

Want an example of a star on a losing team? Dwyane Wade.

[DuckIII]

Now, it seems, there are players who are putting up good numbers on bad teams who are "stars", whatever that means.

Who do you have in mind?

Let me try to answer your questions via my point of view:

A "stat whore" isn't the same thing as the "good player on a bad team." 1 year ago Kevin Garnett was a good player on a bad team, but he was hardly a "stat whore."

My definition of a "stat whore" is a player whose stats are inflated beyond the value they provide to the team. This is typically accompanied by selfish play. I consider Gilbert Arenas, Carmelo Anthony and Michael Redd to be stat whores, with Gilbert being the worst of the 3 since his results more from selfishness than the other 2. Steve Francis was a "stat whore" once upon a time, as was Stephon Marbury.

Conversely, players like Kobe Bryant, Elton Brand, Shareef-Abdur Rahim in his young days, Joe Johnson, Luol Deng this year, Kevin Garnett, Dwyane Wade, and many, many others have put up good stats, on good play, for poor teams.

As to what is a "star" - its kind of subjective I suppose. I think "stars" can come from good and bad teams alike. But its based on watching them play, how they play, and how they impact games more than it is about looking at their stats.

[SensiBull]

Shareef Abdur-Rahim.

[SensiBull]

And does it need to be a specific person?

When the term was being applied to SAR, the only definition was a player who put up great stats on an otherwise ineffectual team.

If that's generalizing, then I'm not the one generalizing. The definition was wrong and needed to be changed to something not so hard and fast.

What's the new definition?

[Magilla_Gorilla]

Shareef Abdur-Rahim.

I don't think he was ever a "star". He was a good player on a bad team, but he was also criticized as a "soft" player. He certainly wasn't a "star". I would put him more in the Hakim Warrick category.

[TB#1]

In my mind, they are not mutually exclusive terms. A "star" is a player who is popular with the fans and usually is a player who gets marketed by the league.

A "stat whore" gets his stats whether it is in the best interest of the team or not.

A given player can easily qualify as both.

[SensiBull]

If you need NAMES to define it, then, in essence, you're saying that you'll decide on a case-by-case basis who is (and who isn't) a "stat whore". And if the application of the term is that liberal, than the term is meaningless.

[SensiBull]

Imagine a legislature that, when faced with question of how to define statutory murder, said, "We don't know, but if you tell the name of the defendant, we can tell you if he's guilty or innocent."

[transplant]

I've read all the posts on this thread and still feel like I walked in on a conversation that had been going on for a while before I arrived.

[DuckIII]

Sensi, I'm having a really hard time understanding what you are getting at.

I just asked you if you were thinking of anyone in particular. If you aren't, cool. It was a question out of curiosity.

I gave you my definition AND a sample of names as examples for each category. I'm not really sure what more you are looking for.

As for taking it on a case by case basis, is there any other way to do it?

[Leslie Forman]

And if the application of the term is that liberal, than the term is meaningless.

Um…it is meaningless. Just like "star," "impact player," "game changer," or "Ben Wallace," it's just some vague generalization which has become part of basketball lexicon because some people are too lazy to elaborate on a player's actual abilities.

[Kneepad]

To me, a stat whore is simply a player who is more concerned about his individual stats than he is about his team winning and losing.

To me, a star is a player who is a significant factor in helping his team win. In the case of losing teams, a star can be a player who helps his team play as best that it can.

Lots of good examples of both have already been given.

[Magilla_Gorilla]

Stat whores are like porn - I'll know'em when I see's em.

[SensiBull]

You've answered the question, Duck. You have your own definition and your own criteria for deciding. The question is to the whole board. Take it easy.

[DuckIII]

You've answered the question, Duck. You have your own definition and your own criteria for deciding. The question is to the whole board. Take it easy.

I'm not upset. I'm confused.

What are your criteria by the way?

[TB#1]

Stat whores are like porn - I'll know'em when I see's em.

Reminds me of the time I cracked up my First Amendment Seminar in law school, when we were discussing the definition of pornography and I said:

"I don't know what pornography is, but I know what I like."



You probably had to be there...

[dougthonus]

I think as several people pointed out, a star is going to help your team win. A stat whore will compile stats regardless of whether it helps the team win.

I think the primary difference is probably either that the star knows his limitations and how much is helping the team vs hurting it, and the stat whore doesn't know his limitations and overextends himself trying to help the team and ends up hurting it. It could also just be that the star's limitations are so much greater that when they are demanding the ball they aren't hurting the team.

I don't think players actually go out there and think "I want my 20 points and I don't care if we lose!". I think the guys I consider stat whores still want to win vs accumulate statistics, but they have an overinflated view of how they impact the game and thus take more touches than is actually good for their team.

[fleet]

-= original quote snipped =-



Who do you have in mind?

Let me try to answer your questions via my point of view:

A "stat whore" isn't the same thing as the "good player on a bad team." 1 year ago Kevin Garnett was a good player on a bad team, but he was hardly a "stat whore."

My definition of a "stat whore" is a player whose stats are inflated beyond the value they provide to the team. This is typically accompanied by selfish play. I consider Gilbert Arenas, Carmelo Anthony and Michael Redd to be stat whores, with Gilbert being the worst of the 3 since his results more from selfishness than the other 2. Steve Francis was a "stat whore" once upon a time, as was Stephon Marbury.

Conversely, players like Kobe Bryant, Elton Brand, Shareef-Abdur Rahim in his young days, Joe Johnson, Luol Deng this year, Kevin Garnett, Dwyane Wade, and many, many others have put up good stats, on good play, for poor teams.

As to what is a "star" - its kind of subjective I suppose. I think "stars" can come from good and bad teams alike. But its based on watching them play, how they play, and how they impact games more than it is about looking at their stats.

I don't dispute Francis and Marbury whatsoever. Although Francis' manic obsessions were very fairly more effective early in his career. And I think he may have been more respected as opposed to now, where hes cancerous as a basketball player.
Arenas I'm not certain about. Maybe hes short of a "Stat whore", and more just basically flawed as a 2 way player and team leader.
'Melo is where I'm more reticent. I was not overly down on him, but only more suspicious of his team skills. Some of that was put to rest to an extent after the way he has played for Team USA 2 stints in a row, where his latest was even better. Maybe there was less ego and selfishness on a team like that, even as Melo often had awesome numbers and put some defense out there to a certain extent.
The guy was better than I though he was. Though I concede the pressure on Denver Nuggets may not promote his being as "team oriented" if you will. He could have effective play in him Duck, as he gets older. As opposed to guys like Francis and Marbury who are dyed in the wool one way primadonnaish hoops players with poor leadership skills