TheBrooklynKidd wrote:vincecarter4pres wrote:TheBrooklynKidd wrote:
I never said he was making the team over dame. But he absolutely makes it on the eastern conference team. Lillard hasn’t made an all star team in years. Does that mean he isn’t a star? No it just means the West is absolutely stacked.
I disagree. I think there’s a lot more to basketball than catching the ball and getting a shot. You can still be a star at other aspects of the game and not be a role player.
I mean if you had to pick someone to get a shot you’re probably not picking Jason Kidd and his below 40% career FG to take it but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t a superstar. Same with Bill Rusell and his super low FG% for a Center. Both of those guys are hall of famers. You have a very narrow definition of star and broad definition of role player that I think trivializes many aspects of the game.
I don't think it's a lock at all he makes it in the East, except the fact there aren't a ton of top level forwards in the East and with the new format, that might not matter.
I like Dray a lot, but he's a star role player, not a straight up star. He's like a prime Al Horford, Iggy, Crash, etc.
He’s absolutely a lock in the east.
I consider all of those guys to be stars. Just because they weren’t go to scorers doesn’t mean they weren’t stars. There’s a lot of aspects of the game outside of creating your own shot. By your definition were Kidd and Bill Russell star role players as well? They weren’t scorers and they couldn’t get their own shots consistently. They excelled at passing, defense and rebounding. All things that Draymond excells at. Personally I think the term star role player contradicts itself.
I'd call a guy a star who can carry a team. Not to the Finals, not even necessarily to the playoffs. But as the best player on his team, he impact wins a ton and can carry said team if there aren't a bunch of other guys as good as him to at least 30 something wins.
I think if you put Dray on a team with a mix of average players and mediocre ones, that team is like 12 to 18 wins bad.
You swap him and Curry on that same team, they're winning 30 games at worst.
You swap a guy who's a star, but not superstar, like a DeRozan or Love, they're at least cracking the low 20's.
I get the game is played on both sides, on different levels, there's more than scoring, but he's a complementary player.
He's easily the most replaceable player on the Warriors. You can swap him with a player like Wilson Chandler and keep chugging along.
Pre-Durant, you can swap him with someone a little better than Chandler and still win the chip, just not with the same ease.
He's a luxury addition on a superstar team, who makes them unbeatable, but as a standalone player, he's just really good.
