James Harden is a superstar

[Krodis]

Harden didn't look lost and clueless in the Memphis game. He just missed a ton of jumpers.

I thought he did. It seemed to me that in his eyes and demeanor, the weight of how hard it is to be a #1 option was finally dawning on him.

Maybe he was just frustrated he missed 11 jumpers. Or maybe you're seeing what you want to see.

[East_Coast]

Harden didn't look lost and clueless in the Memphis game. He just missed a ton of jumpers.

I thought he did. It seemed to me that in his eyes and demeanor, the weight of how hard it is to be a #1 option was finally dawning on him.

Maybe he was just frustrated he missed 11 jumpers. Or maybe you're seeing what you want to see.

We all do that to a certain extent, don't we?

Harden can hardly be vewed as being "in synch" right now, and he's clearly been rattled by the defensive focus on him. Just look at the difference in attitude and demeanor between the first two games and the next three.

Recognizing that all players have bad games, you don't go from shooting way above 50% to around 30% in the space of 5 games without some sort of major negative influence.

Time will tell how it all plays out, but I'll maintain my opinion that Harden isn't a superstar.

[tsherkin]

On a per minute basis it's pretty much in the same range as Ginobili has been. (And it's probably inflated somewhat by the 10 he took in Game 1). And Gilbert Arenas had some efficient seasons north of this number, so I'm not too concerned about the volume of threes.

Gilbert Arenas bombed away from 3 at a destructively high volume. Yeah, he had 4 seasons at 35-38% from 3 while shooting 6-8 3PA/g, but it was always a bad move on his part. A LOT of those threes were low-quality pull-up 3s in transition or otherwise early in the clock and he went through insane streaks of hot and cold as a result. When he was on, yeah, it was great, but he didn't change his shot selection when he could have built a house out of all of his bricks. Harden is doing the same thing; players shouldn't be taking that many threes unless they are either a roleplayer or they are doing nothing but getting assisted buckets around screens and spotting up, it's just too unreliable.

As an on-ball player, you're going to be hella inconsistent on that kind of three-point shooting; it's everything about why Kobe struggles so much with consistency and runs so hot and cold as a scorer these past few seasons.

[tsherkin]

So, I stand corrected on the MJ bad games. My argument wasn't "annihilated" because it was also noted that Jordan never looked as lost and clueless as Harden did in the Memphis game. That was the point I was really trying to make regarding Harden's on-court demeanor.

And you're still wrong, though. Jordan had all kinds of nights, especially early on, where he didn't know what to do. Yeah, he knew what he wanted to do and he had superior physical tools and scoring skills compared to Harden, obviously, but he still had plenty of moments where he didn't really have an answer for the opposition. Look at him playing the Pistons and the Knicks in the late 80s and early/mid 90s; he was pretty clueless against their physical style of play for a while.

My assessments will stand up to any fair scrutiny. Because a minor error is made, an entire argument is not invalidated.

It's not just one error, it's a host of errors. Small sample size, factual inaccuracies, mischaracterizations of the situation, ignoring contextual factors... it's a weak argument.

The premise is interesting, of course. It's possible that Harden won't stand up to scrutiny as a #1 option. It's even more probable that he's not one of the handful of true superstars in the league. But the way you've gone about making that case is not effective argumentation.

[G35]

A superstar is suppose to lift his teammates up and they play off of him. Blaming his teammates is not an excuse for superstars. That's why they are superstars. They do what other's can't. Some players need talent around them to excel and some players can look good on bad teams.

A superstar can excel in any situation, which is my definition of superstar. There are only 3-5 superstars at a time in any given year. Harden is not one of them......

Name me any player you then called superstar after 5 games playing? And by that I know Harden has been in the league a few years but certainly not in the limelight for what you describe. I am not saying Harden is booked to be a superstar but I do think he should be given a full season to show us what capacity he'll be.

No superstar that ever played excelled in any or every situation unless you define a superstars failure higher then an average player's make.

Kareem
Shaq
David Robinson

You can see when a player has transcendent talent.

I have a higher standard than others for the superstar definition. A superstar is not someone who makes the All Star team (even multiple years). A superstar is an All NBA 1st team type talent that is usually in the top 5 in MVP voting annually.

Now I do think you can be a superstar and be on a losing team. However that prospective superstar has to throw in some transcendent, memorable performances to counter that losing record.

I think MJ, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Dr. J, Lebron, Wilt and others showed all that within 5 games. Naturally, yes a bigger game sample is desirable but some things are more readily apparent and it's just a matter of time. Imo, Harden never really showed his talent was "superstar-ish" enough to push into the starting lineup. I don't know any real superstars that had talent that would allow a coach to keep in the 6th man role. And yes I realize that Ginobli, McHale fit into the Harden role. I also don't think they were superstars either.

Currently the only superstars are Lebron, Durant, Dwight (when healthy)

Some players that are close but are in the gray area are:

Kobe - he's getting old and can't carry a team like he use to
Wade - he's getting older and more injury prone
CP3 - he's really close but he needs to make it happen for the Clips this year
Dirk - injured and older, similar to Kobe right now

After that no one else is a superstar in my mind. I think the NBA is actually in a slump for superstars, particularly big men. When a player like Harden is getting touted as a superstar then I think that is lowering the standard.....

[MacGill]

Kareem
Shaq
David Robinson

You can see when a player has transcendent talent.

Ok, so first with these responses these are your opinions and I am not going to try and tell you that you cannot form your own opinion, which I actually wish more poster's would do. However, I will question some things especially as per your own previous definition.

So I have to be under the assumption that you are old enough to have seen KAJ live and in person as I am not even sure how many actual televised games there were in 69-70 which I believe was his rookie year. However if this is just opinion because of his dominant college resume I still think this is reaching a bit in saying 5 games in as with your own definition you said 'excel in any situation' which you would hardly find in a 5 game sample.

I support Shaq more than the next guy but even then to understand how hard it is to make the leap from all-star, bondafied all-star to global superstar is extreme. I can say that even with Shaq who I watched from day 1 it took his entire first year before even the league was ready to start talking about him as an icon comparable to MJ.

Luv D-Rob but by your own definition failed simply by looking at his playoff performances and again something I know you hold very high with respect to player rankings.

I have a higher standard than others for the superstar definition. A superstar is not someone who makes the All Star team (even multiple years). A superstar is an All NBA 1st team type talent that is usually in the top 5 in MVP voting annually.

Yes and by your own definition you immediately cancel out any chance of making such claims 5 games in because no one makes All-NBA after 5 games or MVP voting. Again, even in the league you need sample size and we have seen many 1 hit wonders if you will who were to make this leap and never made it.

Now I do think you can be a superstar and be on a losing team. However that prospective superstar has to throw in some transcendent, memorable performances to counter that losing record.

Ok, again, keeping it in the 5 game perspective here. Do you not agree that it is silly to then state MJ/KAJ/D-Rob would have fit your own bill 5 games in as rookies?

I think MJ, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Dr. J, Lebron, Wilt and others showed all that within 5 games. Naturally, yes a bigger game sample is desirable but some things are more readily apparent and it's just a matter of time. Imo, Harden never really showed his talent was "superstar-ish" enough to push into the starting lineup. I don't know any real superstars that had talent that would allow a coach to keep in the 6th man role. And yes I realize that Ginobli, McHale fit into the Harden role. I also don't think they were superstars either.

Now go back and read your original definition you gave. The difference here is that Harden joined a team with the #2 draft pick 2 year prior and someone already made to be the face of the franchise. Everyone you mentioned was the undisputed #1 but who also had bad game stretches as well. The difference in how the game is played now alone should be more than enough to allow for this time period. Obviously, no one is comparing Harden to the above but he has shown falshes of brillance and should be allowed the same adjustment period others had during their early career who most forget had happened.

Currently the only superstars are Lebron, Durant, Dwight (when healthy)

And out of these superstars only 1 has any sort of clout to be compared against the others you mentioned. How in the world is Dwight even in the conversation?? LBJ is clearly head and shoulders above all so I do not think then if you are including Dwight as a superstar by your own definition that Harden isn't alloed time for a fair assessment here, no?

Some players that are close but are in the gray area are:

Kobe - he's getting old and can't carry a team like he use to
Wade - he's getting older and more injury prone
CP3 - he's really close but he needs to make it happen for the Clips this year
Dirk - injured and older, similar to Kobe right now

But if you took each peak/prime, wouldn't you agree that all/most are more superstar then Durant/Dwight currently? Again by your definition you seem to be stretching who becomes a member of your club here.

[quote]After that no one else is a superstar in my mind. I think the NBA is actually in a slump for superstars, particularly big men. [u]When a player like Harden is getting touted as a superstar then I think that is lowering the standard[u]...[quote]

Well aren't you doing the same thing in comparison to LBJ and others? Especially as no one of decent opinion is touting Harden yet but by definition you are annoiting much lesser players in the same breath?

[East_Coast]

It's not just one error, it's a host of errors. Small sample size, factual inaccuracies, mischaracterizations of the situation, ignoring contextual factors... it's a weak argument.

Sorry, but there is no "host of errors". We've disagreed on a small number of mostly subjective topics:

1) Does Harden play a disciplined brand of basketball? I say 'no', you say 'yes'. Both views are opinions, not facts. Doubtlessly, one could find persons to agree with either side of the issue.

2) Is Harden playing the same way now as compared to his time at OKC? I say 'yes', you say 'no'. Again, a difference of opinion and possibly of interpretation, not of fact.

The overarching question is whether Harden is, or perhaps will become, a superstar and legit #1 option. For the reasons I've already cited, I feel that the answer is 'no'. It is not an ambiguous or weak argument. What I've posted is very clear. If it doesn't jibe with your opinion, then c'est la vie.

What you appear to be arguing is that his teammates are so abominably bad that Harden has a valid excuse for his lackluster play during the past four games. I say that's bull hockey.

I've already addressed the small sample size, and won't do so again.

[Krodis]

I suppose the most encouraging sign for Harden is his shot location chart is a reasonable enough facsimile of last year's, with a few more mid-range jumpers, and if he was hitting his 3s at 35%, then he'd be averaging 28 a game on about 60% TS%.

[fallacy]

I suppose the most encouraging sign for Harden is his shot location chart is a reasonable enough facsimile of last year's, with a few more mid-range jumpers, and if he was hitting his 3s at 35%, then he'd be averaging 28 a game on about 60% TS%.

Yup, his threes are the only thing that has really taken a dive.

At the rim: 71% or 1% better than last year

3-15 feet: He hasn't made a shot from this range all year. This isn't really a surprise because he's never attempted or made nearly any from this distance.

16-23 feet: 37%. It's not good and it's not terrible. It's right on his career average , don't expect much improvement here

23+ feet: 27%. This percentage will jump back up as the season goes. This concern here is how his threes are coming. Before this year he was assisted on nearly 90% of his attempts (it might be makes, i'm not sure how hoopdata works here), this year it's way down to 62%. He's much more comfortable shooting threes when someone else creates that shot for him, which won't happen near as much in Houston.

[tsherkin]

1) Does Harden play a disciplined brand of basketball? I say 'no', you say 'yes'. Both views are opinions, not facts. Doubtlessly, one could find persons to agree with either side of the issue.

Mmm, yes, that's a semantic debate, although you're implying he plays a pell-mell brand of basketball at odds with the style he played in OKC under different circumstances. Evaluating this after 5 games in Houston isn't effective, and saying he played undisciplined basketball doesn't make sense when he was spamming basic sets for the Thunder. He didn't have terrible shot selection, he didn't break the offense, he managed to play under control without wild turnover issues... the "undisciplined" characterization doesn't really have a lot of weight behind it.

2) Is Harden playing the same way now as compared to his time at OKC? I say 'yes', you say 'no'. Again, a difference of opinion and possibly of interpretation, not of fact.

No, it's a factual difference. He's isolating a lot more so far (20% of his possessions compared to 12.7% last year), he's spotting up almost half as often (8.3% versus 14.2%), he's not getting as many hand-off plays (3% versus 6.6%) and he isn't getting out in transition quite as much (17.9% versus 19.4%). On a more basic level, he's taking a much-increased rate of three-pointers per minute (+1.8 PER36, +1.5 per game) and he's getting assisted on way fewer of them (as many of them are coming out of isolation sets), which is harming his efficiency.

These are large differences in his approach to the game, which invalidates your suggestion that this is an opinion-based issue. You are just wrong here.

The overarching question is whether Harden is, or perhaps will become, a superstar and legit #1 option. For the reasons I've already cited, I feel that the answer is 'no'. It is not an ambiguous or weak argument. What I've posted is very clear. If it doesn't jibe with your opinion, then c'est la vie.

Your opinion is fine, we happen to share the opinion that Harden isn't a superstar, but your argument is definitely not a sound one.

What you appear to be arguing is that his teammates are so abominably bad that Harden has a valid excuse for his lackluster play during the past four games. I say that's bull hockey.

And that's wrong as well. It's pretty clear that when you have piss-poor spacing and no offensive creators besides yourself, no active off-ball efficacy and weaknesses in other areas all over the floor that defenses change the way they game plan for the one true offensive threat on the team.

I've already addressed the small sample size, and won't do so again.

That's because you have no legitimate counterpoint; the sample size is too small to make definitive statements. Even if the argument is borne out (and I, like you, expect him to settle into something less than superstar-dom), that doesn't validate the argument itself.

Here are some other points where you were mostly wrong:

Harden's MO is to thrive in helter-skelter situations. He's at his best on the break when the defense hasn't had a chance to organize itself. Once the game slows down to the half-court, he isn't nearly as effective against set defenses. He just makes stuff up as the game goes on, rather than taking a systematic approach to breaking the other team down.

Like most players, it's true that Harden thrives in transition, but even last year with the Thunder, that represented only a fifth of his possessions. He spent a lot of time in the PnR and significant amounts of time isolating or spotting up, most of which came out of set plays in the half-court, which is directly contrary to your assertion that he relied primarily on transition offense. It is true that transition play is more efficient than half-court play, but that is true for EVERY player, and is relevant only if the player is much-reduced in efficacy compared to his peers in the halfcourt, which was not true of Harden last season and has only been true for three games now. His last game, against Detroit, he was over 58% TS again. A poor defense, of course, but he's still capable of exploiting those because they can't punish him for the uselessness of the rest of his roster the way good defenses can.

Ok, so the pieces aren't as good in Houston as in OKC. That's no excuse to shoot 22% in a game if you're a legit #1 option. You're giving him too many outs, imo.

We went over this; even players much, much better than Harden (like the greatest perimeter scorer in the history of the game, Michael Jordan) struggled at times. And he struggled with teammates both bad and good at times, though noticeably so with the weaker mid-80s Chicago rosters.

Seriously, c'mon with this. There aren't any very good players on the squad, but Delfino has popped up from time to time to hit key shots and keep them in games, Marcus Morris had had his moments, Patrick Patterson as well, and Chandler Parsons has been effective at times from downtown.

This was a gem; you tried to justify Houston's inefficacy by saying they had moments of success. I noted Delfino's 3pt shooting myself, but you forgot to mention that the Rockets are, as a team, 24th in the league in offense right now, 28th in FG%, 27th in 3P%, 26th in eFG%, 29th in TOV% and merely 15th in FT/FGA. Seven players on that team have played 100+ minutes and only Harden and Delfino are at 50%+ TS (Harden at 56.8%, Delfino at 51.8% against league average of 52.2%). They have been BRUTALLY ineffective on offense. Asik, Parsons and Patterson have been especially bad, as has Toney Douglas (with fewer than 100 minutes). You can't look at that and then attempt to justify them by commenting on momentary success, they've been one of the worst offenses in the league so far this season and it's primarily the other guys. Harden's actually not doing that poorly, despite struggling against some of the better defenses early.

Yes, LBJ had a better cast of characters, but they weren't great. The point that I'm making is that no matter what you have to work with, as a #1 option you have to raise the level of those around you. The Cavs had a higher ceiling than the current Rockets, but it would be nice to see some elevation impetus from Harden.

Then you tried to sell this bill of goods. Yeah, James' cast didn't have a stunning second star, but he had creators, he had excellent spot-up shooters, he had guys who could get some things done. Right now, the Rockets are a pale smear on the side of the road by comparison. As I outlined earlier, the 2010 Cavs had all kinds of three-point shooting opening up the interior for James, including an effective pick-and-pop partner in Ilgauskas. Patterson, the usual PnR big for the Rockets, is rocking a 44.5% TS, is 4/12 on long twos (33.3%) and 3.8 (37.5%) from 10-15 feet, meaning he isn't really an effective threat to pop and stick the J right now, nor is he drawing fouls or making himself worthy of any kind of defensive attention whatsoever, allowing teams to collapse in on Harden when he tries to get to the rim... which he's still doing at an epic level, where he's still finishing at nearly 72%. He's struggling with his long two and taking way too many threes, but part of that is how much less passing support he's getting as the primary initiator on a REALLY BAD offensive team.

By the way, I did some spot checking, and as far as I can ascertain Jordan never had a 20% shooting game. And he certainly never looked as lost and inept as Harden did last night.

You dropped this bomb and I blew that apart with a large number of contrary examples.


At this stage, we can see that you're operating primarily upon your "eye test" and under several false assumptions, with a poor track record for checking your facts and actually understanding what's going on with Harden, and a similarly poor track record because of your flagrant disregard for the contextual factors in play. I'd say that's a situation where your argument has been definitively shredded, personally. Again, the opinion itself is quite valid, but you've shown very little knowledge of Harden's game for someone who spent so much time watching him. It's quite possible that, in the course of just enjoying a game and everything, you've missed some of the details of the game. It's hard to enjoy and analyze at the same time. I don't know, I don't sit there with you while you watch the game, but your facts are off, so you might want to watch more closely and dig a little deeper when you do your research.

[G35]

Kareem
Shaq
David Robinson

You can see when a player has transcendent talent.

Ok, so first with these responses these are your opinions and I am not going to try and tell you that you cannot form your own opinion, which I actually wish more poster's would do. However, I will question some things especially as per your own previous definition.

So I have to be under the assumption that you are old enough to have seen KAJ live and in person as I am not even sure how many actual televised games there were in 69-70 which I believe was his rookie year. However if this is just opinion because of his dominant college resume I still think this is reaching a bit in saying 5 games in as with your own definition you said 'excel in any situation' which you would hardly find in a 5 game sample.

I support Shaq more than the next guy but even then to understand how hard it is to make the leap from all-star, bondafied all-star to global superstar is extreme. I can say that even with Shaq who I watched from day 1 it took his entire first year before even the league was ready to start talking about him as an icon comparable to MJ.

Luv D-Rob but by your own definition failed simply by looking at his playoff performances and again something I know you hold very high with respect to player rankings.

Nope I didn't see Kareem live but Kareem, in his rookie yea,r took a 2nd year franchise that was 27-55 and took them to a 56-26 record and the conference finals. In his 2nd year they won the championship. I don't think there was any doubt KAJ was not a superstar the moment he stepped on the court.

DRob this is his first 5 games in the NBA

Game 1 23 pts, 17 rebs, 3 blks, .670 TS%
Game 2 19 pts, 18 rebs, 8 blks, .494 TS%
Game 3 27 pts, 13 rebs, 2 blks, .591 TS%
Game 4 28 pts, 11 rebs, 3 blks, .588 TS%
Game 5 18 pts, 5 rebs, 2 blks, .584 TS%

Avg - 23 ppg, 12.8 rebs, 3.6 blks, .585 TS%

Four pretty spectacular games. One average, or subpar game for his standards. Now this is after just 5 games in the NBA. Would I say he is a superstar based on this? Not yet but I would say those are the numbers of a superstar. And this is without having the talent Harden had around him in OKC. DRob went on to be the ROY and turn the Spurs fortunes around tremendously. I didn't explain myself fully in that I don't think you can say for sure that someone is a superstar guaranteed after 5 games but you can develop a good idea. Harden has been in the league for four years now. It's pretty doubtful that a player is going to develop into a superstar after that amount of time in the league. The only ones I can think of that became a superstar after already been in the league for 3 years would Steve Nash, Tracy McGrady, Kobe, KG. But besides Nash those guys were high schoolers and Nash just blew up beyond anyone's expectations.

Harden was a high draft pick that couldn't break into the starting lineup and we saw what he was capable of. Yes he may score a few more points, an extra assist/rebound, but there is nothing in his game that I have seen that says he is going to be a superstar. Being efficient doesn't make you a superstar.

I do think Kareem, Shaq, DRob, Hakeem, Wilt would change the fortunes of just about any team. I can't say that about some others that get high ratings around here. Those were PROJECTED dominant players. Even Michael wasn't thought of to be as dominant as he was but these big men are drafted #1 because they can have league changing effect.

I agree with you that All Star to superstar to global all star is quite a leap. There have only been a few global stars. Michael, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron would be it imo. I don't think the NBA was global enough before the 1992 dream team.

I know I'm being haphazard in answering but I'm watching the NFL and going back over your response. Dwight is put in the superstar category because he has shown he can be a dominant force without a lot of help. He was able to lead his team to the finals AND keep the Magic in contention for several years. He is the one big man that can change a teams defensive fortunes. Now I do give you right now he has lost a lot of stature, but I'm assuming that once he gets healthy (and the Lakers get on the same page) he will return to his previous level of performance. If he doesn't then he will get dropped from the superstar level to. The superstar level is a liquid situation and it' takes a special player to stay at that level for any length of time.

Harden and Dwight shouldn't even be compared imo. If you think Harden will have the same impact as Dwight then I return the compliment that you have the right to your opinion and I wish more people would form their own instead of going with conventional wisdom. It's not like we haven't seen what Harden can do. He is a undersized SG that has gained acclaim because of advanced stats. He's Andrew Toney. Everyone now thinks any player that is efficient is a superstar. Look at what is happening in OKC now, Kevin Martin is pretty much duplicating what Harden was doing and many others predicted that.

We have seen 6 games with Harden. This is what he has done:

26.5 ppg, 5.2 reb's, 4.5 asst, 1.7 stl, .7 blks, 568 TS%

In a vacuum these are phenomenal numbers. 1st or 2nd team ALL NBA numbers.

However if you take his first 2 games and his last four games then you get a very different picture. Essentially Harden is living off the first two games of the season. Even against the Pistons he didn't have a really good game. I'm interested to see how well Harden holds up over the grind of the year and how efficient he remains. His shooting has been terrible; his getting to the line is the only thing saving his statline. He also isn't getting his teammates involved; he got 12 assists in the first game and after that it's been 2ast, 5 ast, 2 ast, 4 ast, and 2 ast in the next 5 games.

Lebron is the best player in the league and everyone knows it. That doesn't mean that other players aren't having a similar effect on their teams. You are making it appear as if I'm saying there are like 10 other superstars in the league. I said three players and one is on hold due to injury. At least Dwight and Durant have proven their status unlike Harden.......


edit - one question I have to ask is can people watch a game and see when someone is a special player or can you only tell after you see the numbers? To me that will say a lot about how people view players......

[MacGill]

Kareem
Shaq
David Robinson

You can see when a player has transcendent talent.

Ok, so first with these responses these are your opinions and I am not going to try and tell you that you cannot form your own opinion, which I actually wish more poster's would do. However, I will question some things especially as per your own previous definition.

So I have to be under the assumption that you are old enough to have seen KAJ live and in person as I am not even sure how many actual televised games there were in 69-70 which I believe was his rookie year. However if this is just opinion because of his dominant college resume I still think this is reaching a bit in saying 5 games in as with your own definition you said 'excel in any situation' which you would hardly find in a 5 game sample.

I support Shaq more than the next guy but even then to understand how hard it is to make the leap from all-star, bondafied all-star to global superstar is extreme. I can say that even with Shaq who I watched from day 1 it took his entire first year before even the league was ready to start talking about him as an icon comparable to MJ.

Luv D-Rob but by your own definition failed simply by looking at his playoff performances and again something I know you hold very high with respect to player rankings.

Nope I didn't see Kareem live but Kareem, in his rookie yea,r took a 2nd year franchise that was 27-55 and took them to a 56-26 record and the conference finals. In his 2nd year they won the championship. I don't think there was any doubt KAJ was not a superstar the moment he stepped on the court.

DRob this is his first 5 games in the NBA

Game 1 23 pts, 17 rebs, 3 blks, .670 TS%
Game 2 19 pts, 18 rebs, 8 blks, .494 TS%
Game 3 27 pts, 13 rebs, 2 blks, .591 TS%
Game 4 28 pts, 11 rebs, 3 blks, .588 TS%
Game 5 18 pts, 5 rebs, 2 blks, .584 TS%

Avg - 23 ppg, 12.8 rebs, 3.6 blks, .585 TS%

Four pretty spectacular games. One average, or subpar game for his standards. Now this is after just 5 games in the NBA. Would I say he is a superstar based on this? Not yet but I would say those are the numbers of a superstar. And this is without having the talent Harden had around him in OKC. DRob went on to be the ROY and turn the Spurs fortunes around tremendously. I didn't explain myself fully in that I don't think you can say for sure that someone is a superstar guaranteed after 5 games but you can develop a good idea. Harden has been in the league for four years now. It's pretty doubtful that a player is going to develop into a superstar after that amount of time in the league. The only ones I can think of that became a superstar after already been in the league for 3 years would Steve Nash, Tracy McGrady, Kobe, KG. But besides Nash those guys were high schoolers and Nash just blew up beyond anyone's expectations.

Harden was a high draft pick that couldn't break into the starting lineup and we saw what he was capable of. Yes he may score a few more points, an extra assist/rebound, but there is nothing in his game that I have seen that says he is going to be a superstar. Being efficient doesn't make you a superstar.

I do think Kareem, Shaq, DRob, Hakeem, Wilt would change the fortunes of just about any team. I can't say that about some others that get high ratings around here. Those were PROJECTED dominant players. Even Michael wasn't thought of to be as dominant as he was but these big men are drafted #1 because they can have league changing effect.

I agree with you that All Star to superstar to global all star is quite a leap. There have only been a few global stars. Michael, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron would be it imo. I don't think the NBA was global enough before the 1992 dream team.

I know I'm being haphazard in answering but I'm watching the NFL and going back over your response. Dwight is put in the superstar category because he has shown he can be a dominant force without a lot of help. He was able to lead his team to the finals AND keep the Magic in contention for several years. He is the one big man that can change a teams defensive fortunes. Now I do give you right now he has lost a lot of stature, but I'm assuming that once he gets healthy (and the Lakers get on the same page) he will return to his previous level of performance. If he doesn't then he will get dropped from the superstar level to. The superstar level is a liquid situation and it' takes a special player to stay at that level for any length of time.

Harden and Dwight shouldn't even be compared imo. If you think Harden will have the same impact as Dwight then I return the compliment that you have the right to your opinion and I wish more people would form their own instead of going with conventional wisdom. It's not like we haven't seen what Harden can do. He is a undersized SG that has gained acclaim because of advanced stats. He's Andrew Toney. Everyone now thinks any player that is efficient is a superstar. Look at what is happening in OKC now, Kevin Martin is pretty much duplicating what Harden was doing and many others predicted that.

We have seen 6 games with Harden. This is what he has done:

26.5 ppg, 5.2 reb's, 4.5 asst, 1.7 stl, .7 blks, 568 TS%

In a vacuum these are phenomenal numbers. 1st or 2nd team ALL NBA numbers.

However if you take his first 2 games and his last four games then you get a very different picture. Essentially Harden is living off the first two games of the season. Even against the Pistons he didn't have a really good game. I'm interested to see how well Harden holds up over the grind of the year and how efficient he remains. His shooting has been terrible; his getting to the line is the only thing saving his statline. He also isn't getting his teammates involved; he got 12 assists in the first game and after that it's been 2ast, 5 ast, 2 ast, 4 ast, and 2 ast in the next 5 games.

Lebron is the best player in the league and everyone knows it. That doesn't mean that other players aren't having a similar effect on their teams. You are making it appear as if I'm saying there are like 10 other superstars in the league. I said three players and one is on hold due to injury. At least Dwight and Durant have proven their status unlike Harden.......


edit - one question I have to ask is can people watch a game and see when someone is a special player or can you only tell after you see the numbers? To me that will say a lot about how people view players......

I think for the most part you've answered my questions posed to you. And to note, I hope you are not taking this as I am part of the pro Harden camp. I have made my stance on this very clear as I will leave judging after this full season and obviously if he underwhelms it may not take that long.

The main objective as to why I quoted you originally was because of your definition of superstar and how 5 games in you could tell. Hindsight certainly makes it much easier to support opinion however to me it is just not possible and I think ultimately we are on the same page here now as you have clarified.

As for your current superstars in the league claim, I do not fully agree with your assessment on how you believe they earned that status which is why I responded the way I did. To me, LBJ is the only current in prime superstar Alpha Mega star, whatever name you want to use to seperate him from Durant & Dwight. I know you place a lot of emphasis around impact made to team and hold Dwight high because of 2009 but again using your own logic his 09 finals should almost make you redefine superstar then. Basketball is all about match-ups and we seen how Dwight played when the match-up was on a more equal playing field. A quick sample in LA is showing me that when he is actually counted on score, he is coming up short in creating his own offense while he is still getting to the line a ton (which also is not a great thing for him). However, like Harden I will reserve judgement until the end of the season. LBJ has proved not only can he mesh his talent but he can do so without sacrificing his own game. He has shown this throughout his career but never on a level with such marquee teammates. Now it's Dwight turn.

I do think you are being a tad hard with Harden given the difference in situation he was in versus now. Even Pippen had to adjust in 94 and that was with the same system in place, coach and many teammates. I am not looking at advanced stats and saying wow this guy is real good, I am watching games and seeing the bball IQ but so much changes when the support system changes, as D-Rob found out both negatively and positively. Like D-Rob's #'s you quoted, that is what we have for Harden and without breaking down the match-ups level of play of his first 5 games Harden has a decent base regardless of what teams he did it against. Even LBJ got shut down, right.

As for your question, Harden certainly is a special player I am just waiting to find out how special. He is now in an opportunity to showcase fully his skillset as a starter and right now #1 option.

[East_Coast]

At this stage, we can see that you're operating primarily upon your "eye test" and under several false assumptions,

Some minds naturally gravitate towards the big picture, while others tend to scrabble around in mostly specious minutia.

Harden himself will provide a comprehensive, if perhaps not determinative, body of work this season that will allow for an assessment on whether or not he's a legit superstar/#1 option.

[tsherkin]

Harden himself will provide a comprehensive, if perhaps not determinative, body of work this season that will allow for an assessment on whether or not he's a legit superstar/#1 option.

This, I agree with. A proper judgement can't be made yet, that's all. I sincerely doubt that he's top 10 material in an all-time sense, of course, and I don't think that he'll end up being on the same plane as someone like Lebron or prime Kobe or Wade, but given what he HAS continued to prove himself capable of doing and the other factors around him, I think he's got a pretty strong chance to be one of the best players in the league. Maybe Nique level, maybe better. Maybe not, but we'll see. He won't be a 38%+ 3pt shooter without increased passing support, that's for sure, and on that crappy Houston team, he's not going to get a lot of the off-ball sets that he enjoyed in OKC, which will help keep him under the ridiculous efficiency he had last season, though I don't think that's a surprise to anyone.

What I'm waiting to see is what happens when some of his less-crappy teammates start to normalize a bit, and maybe if Morey actually adds some useful players around Harden. Right now, though, they're terrible. Harden is coming through in many ways; we've seen him continue to get to the rim and to finish there at an elite level. We've seen him continue to draw fouls at an elite rate, and of course he's hitting those.

Right now, his biggest problem is much-decreased passing support on his 3PA and he's shooting worse from there while using the shot more frequently. We knew that he didn't use much besides shots at the rim and 3s, though, so it's hardly a surprise that he's struggling from mid-range. Whether or not he can add that to his game will be a major fact in whether or not he can become a truly dominant player. MJ had to round his game out, so did a lot of other stars. Didn't happen overnight, it was a process that developed over several seasons.

I think Harden will end up looking good at the end of the season, but of course Houston's roster is a boogly mess, so they won't get out of the first round if they even make the playoffs. That won't mean anything, of course, because even the truly great players have had sub-.500 seasons and/or missed the playoffs. Witness rookie MJ, rookie Shaq, etc. Guys who were given the reins from day one, but couldn't get it done because they had things to learn, skills to develop, teammates to arrive, etc, etc. We'll see.

A single season will be an interesting start to this analysis. Two or three years will be required for the final verdict on what Harden is capable of individually in the #1 role, and if he gets some players around him, then maybe we'll see him take a run at a title. But for the immediate future, we're going to see him continue to feast on bad teams, and then we'll see what he can do against stronger defenses without a ton of help. He's going to need to do much better on that mid-range jumper to get himself going, although when his three normalizes, that's going to help some.

Should be an interesting ride.

[CKRT]

I'm excited for tonight's game against the Heat. Judging from how much they gameplanned for Lin last year, and the piss poor offensive teammates around Harden, I expect them to zero in on Harden hard. In the Finals they were doubling him every time he tried to get a HC set going, with the third defender shading in case he got by them, so I imagine they're going to do something similar tonight.

I'm really expecting Harden to struggle badly unless someone on the Rockets really steps up.

[fallacy]

Well Harden was having an okay game through three quarters. He then proceeds to shat himself in the fourth and give the game completely away. I've watched Harden for four years and that fourth quarter might be the worst quarter he's every played. It was easily the worst "clutch" time performance in his career. Just awful. The Rockets had the game won too.

[Krodis]

He was playing quite good through three quarters. And even in the forth he had two really good passes to lead to threes. Dumb isolations at the end though.

The Rockets seem even less coherent offensively than the Thunder. And they should be able to punish all the trapping teams do to Harden, but they can't.

[CKRT]

yeah those ISOs were poor play calls. why not get some screen and rolls going? heck just a screen would've been a good idea.

[JordansBulls]

He was playing quite good through three quarters. And even in the forth he had two really good passes to lead to threes. Dumb isolations at the end though.

The Rockets seem even less coherent offensively than the Thunder. And they should be able to punish all the trapping teams do to Harden, but they can't.

Yeah I just don't get those plays near the end of the game. Some he just got trigger happy though.

[ahonui06]

Another good team and another poor performance from Harden. It's not looking good for Daryl Morey and the future of the Rockets franchise. It looks as though Harden doesn't have the clutch abilities to take over a game down the stretch and put his team on his back.