RealGM

basically if you had to define which players you consider "superstars" and which just "all stars" what players would be the point where you start

the worst player you would still separate from "regular" all star into superstar status is that line

-goat contender
-all time great
-superstar
-all star/star
-elite role player

who would be the worst players you can think of that would still fit into those labels

GOAT contender - This would be Wilt Chamberlain for me. I think Russell, Kareem, MJ and LeBron are the clear mount rushmore of the NBA imo but Wilt's statistical dominance gives him an argument as well. Guys like Duncan, Shaq, Magic and other guys on the lower end or just outside the top 10 miss out because I don't really see possible criteria where they'd be ahead of the real GOAT contenders.

All-Time great - I'd say this one is a bit harder and I'm definitely not as concrete on it as the previous category. Roughly I'd go with like the top 40-50 guys in the NBA history. On the cusp here I'd say we're looking at guys like Kawhi on one hand (short but elite prime) or someone like Reggie Miller on the other hand (never among the absolute best in the league but stilll very good for a long time).

Superstar - Harder to give a range for as one year you could have 15 superstars and 5 the next year. To me superstars are the guys who can make an average to slightly above average teams a contender or make a trash team into a decent team. Important is that they produce at a high level consistently and can take over when needed. Superstar also has a lot to do with reputation, some young players will need to prove themselves while some older guys might hang onto the status of superstar longer than they are actually at that level. Like I can see Ja cementing himself as a superstar in the play-offs this year but he's not there yet. LeBron is an example of a guy who might be falling out of that superstar category but it'll take a while for me to actually accept that untill I see it for sure.

All-Star - There are more All-Star level guys than All-Star spots but at least being in contention/conversation for the All-Star team is generally a good indicator. I'm talking in terms of overall results though as the fanvote pushes some popular role players (Caruso), guys who used to good enough but aren't anymore (Rose and Carmelo) or straight up memes (Mo Bamba). Some of the lower end guys that are deserving of this tier would be for example the Kings duo of Fox and Sabonis.

Elite role player - Net positive rotation guys who could start on just about any team.

My superstar line is Isiah Thomas(80’s) combination of name draw, production and accolades.

The names of this era are Chris Paul, LeBron James, Stephen Curry, Kawhi Leonard, Giannis Antetokoumpo, Kevin Durant

I don’t think James Harden, Anthony Davis, Nikola Jokic, Joel Embiid etc are superstars.

The cutoff for me is probably top5 player in any given year.

Career superstar is a much different consideration. Then we're talking MVPs, perennial all-star, perennial all-nba, etc...

Statlanta wrote:My superstar line is Isiah Thomas(80’s) combination of name draw, production and accolades.

The names of this era are Chris Paul, LeBron James, Stephen Curry, Kawhi Leonard, Giannis Antetokoumpo, Kevin Durant

I don’t think James Harden, Anthony Davis, Nikola Jokic, Joel Embiid etc are superstars.

You don't think Nikola Jokic is a superstar?

if i can realistically see you winning the finals as the inarguable best player on a team, you're probably a superstar

keyword inarguable bc i dont think cp3 or booker are superstars

today, i'd say giannis jokic embiid steph KD lebron luka tatum kawhi off the top of my head

dame/harden/AD having probably dropped out due to injury (playing worse since getting injured), spots taken by luka and tatum

I wanted to say that if a person is good enough to win a title without another top 10 in the league player but team strength and concentration of talent varies greatly by era (as does the number of players in the league). You can't even say the top, say, 5% of the league because in the 9 team 60s, there is no real question that Wilt, Russell, Oscar, West were superstars (and possibly Pettit or Baylor) but in the 30 team current league, there probably aren't 15 players who deserve the title (or the pre-merger 70s for that matter).

Maybe the standard has to redefine itself each new "era" of the league.

GOAT Tier: requires basically a spotless resume including: multiple years having near universal recognition as the best player in the league, near universal acknowledgment as the best player in their generation and era, dominant statistical profile, dominant award profile, significant longevity. I have 4 guys on this tier. I know people with as small as 2.

Generational Player - not quite GOAT tier: basically a slightly worse version of the GOAT tier. Often times guys in this tier make most of the criteria but miss out in a key area.

Longevity: Maybe Magic Johnson would have gotten to the GOAT tier if HIV didn't happen. He retired as the 2nd best player in the NBA, behind only a GOAT peak, and his team immediately imploded, he didn't play for 5 years and came back and was almost immediately a very good player

Peak: Maybe if Duncan didn't have that knee injury in 2000, his athleticism would have been maintained at a higher level giving him the peak boost he needed for these conversations.

Environmental Issues: A lot of the hardcore plus/minus fans think KG was a GOAT tier player. Maybe they are right but his team circumstances meant it could never be demonstrated.

Mental aspect: Wilt/Shaq probably fall shortest here.

Guys in this tier were are typically the non-consensus best player of their era or the best player in their era outside the GOATs. Probably each of the players in this group have a portion of their fanbase who regard them as players as good as the GOAT tier guys.

Generational Player - by standards of mere mortals these are players with spotless resumes. But there is basically no way to lump them in with the GOAT tier and they tend to fall short of the not quite GOAT tier under careful analysis. Some of these players had skill-set limitations you don't see in the first tiers and in most cases these are guys who just never had quite the peak you needed to make it into the 2nd tier. At their peak they did have best player in the NBA caliber seasons.

Karl Malone is the best example in my opinion of a generational player.

HOFer - I'm not using the basketball HOF as the north star here. These are just players who accomplished enough in their career they warrant permanent basketball recognition even if they weren't necessarily generational players.

70sFan wrote:

Statlanta wrote:My superstar line is Isiah Thomas(80’s) combination of name draw, production and accolades.

The names of this era are Chris Paul, LeBron James, Stephen Curry, Kawhi Leonard, Giannis Antetokoumpo, Kevin Durant

I don’t think James Harden, Anthony Davis, Nikola Jokic, Joel Embiid etc are superstars.

You don't think Nikola Jokic is a superstar?

Not really a household name has the accolades much like James Harden though. I don't think he's held to the standard of superstars though.

[

the worst player you would still separate from "regular" all star into superstar status is that line

-goat contender - Duncan or Kareem is the bar for me
-all time great -- much tougher, would need to think about this more
-superstar -- going current day -- probably Chris Paul?
-all star/star -- Siakam
-elite role player -- Marcus Smart maybe?

jasonxxx102 wrote:The cutoff for me is probably top5 player in any given year.

Career superstar is a much different consideration. Then we're talking MVPs, perennial all-star, perennial all-nba, etc...

I used to say top 5, but there are years in the NBA where there are more than 5 "top 5" caliber players. Looking at the last few years:

Giannis, Curry, KD, Kawhi, LeBron, Jokic, Harden, AD, Luka, Embiid

Have all been "top 5" caliber within the last 2 seasons. Harden, LeBron and Davis are slipping outside that conversation now for me but point being there are definitely more than 5 players who can be slotted there.

I think when I've thought of superstar throughout my life of NBA watching, I've always thought of a guy who, with a decent roster around him, could be a strong #1 option on a title contending team. This ofc being the bias of the modern NBA and its emphasis on scoring.
Players who finish near the top in MVP voting multiple times in their careers are generally in that conversation as well.

In my mind players like that, I consider Tier 1. Its sort of my unofficial thing.

There's a couple of fringe guys like Paul George, Damian Lillard, Kyrie Irving, Jimmy Butler as well but I think they're a tad short of that top tier in overall ability/impact and I call them Tier 2. Guys that are high level #2 options but weak #1 options.

Then there's guys who will likely make the Allstar team most years but not guys you'd want to build around necessarily. Guys like Derozan, Lavine, Kris Middleton. These are Tier 3.

Tier 4 are guys who might make the Allstar team in one or two career years, but not every year. Kyle Lowry type.

Below that are role players and end of bench guys.

Fwiw, I'd probably slot a ultra high end defensive player like Gobert in Tier 2 ot Tier 3. I want to say Tier 2 but its my opinion that his playstyle is a little gimmicky for the playoffs and until I see him in a situation where its not as easy to counter (a lot of this is on his coach) I can't put him too high.

I think there's one more tier between the superstar and the ATG tier.

Superstar level is basically arguably top 10 player, who can lead average team to the playoffs(worths around +4 SRS a game). Mitchell,Irving,Tatum,Morant are on that level. Booker arguably on that level or maybe the worst player of the tier.

Edit: Also, I really don't like role-player terminology, NBA Starter call is a good fit.