RealGM

I know it's too commonly thrown out, but do you think he is close to being a Superstar or close to being one?

NO WAY!

If there is a huge debate about howard being one, there is no chance in hell that West is one.

I seriously doubt that anybody would pay for a ticket to watch a game solely for the reason that West is playing in it, maybe paul but not west.

someone clue me in on the dwight howard superstar debate. i must have missed it

but DX just put up 38 and 14 with 5 blocks in a game the hornets had to have in round 2 of the playoffs against the defending champs and a guy named Tim Duncan. he was an all-star and averaged 20 and 9 during the season. he might not be the "leader" but he sure as heck is the "enforcer" the way he got up in dirk's face.

a few more games, maybe another season. he isn't on cp3's level as tops at his position but he's climbing the PF ranks

No, he isn't a superstar yet. Maybe it will take him a couple of years. But no not yet, his value isn't that of a superstar, he is a great player, but can he even play this good without Paul?

No, not really.

I have a different opinion than most when it comes to superstars though. I think there are only 2 true superstars in the league right now (Kobe Bryant and LeBron James), with some other players very close to being superstars (Duncan, Garnett etc.), and a few developing into superstars (Paul, Howard).

Nope, not close, but he did rise above Josh Howard in the 2003 NBA draft ranks. Now my list looks like:

1. Lebron James
2. Dwyane Wade
3. Carmelo Anthony
4. Chris Bosh
5. David West
6. Josh Howard
7. Chris Kaman
8. Kirk Hinrich
9. TJ Ford
10. Leandro Barbosa

tkb wrote:No, not really.

I have a different opinion than most when it comes to superstars though. I think there are only 2 true superstars in the league right now (Kobe Bryant and LeBron James), with some other players very close to being superstars (Duncan, Garnett etc.), and a few developing into superstars (Paul, Howard).

Would you change the NBA all star game to one on one format? You could have Kobe and Lebron as the only competitors in every event. I would be interested to see who wins.

Definitely not. David West isn't close to being a superstar.

No, not yet.

Star, yes, superstar, no.

Too much lulz

The Main Event wrote:Would you change the NBA all star game to one on one format? You could have Kobe and Lebron as the only competitors in every event. I would be interested to see who wins.

No, but what does that have to do with anything? All players selected for the all star game aren't superstars. Far from it to be honest.

hoops4life wrote:NO WAY!

If there is a huge debate about howard being one, there is no chance in hell that West is one.

I seriously doubt that anybody would pay for a ticket to watch a game solely for the reason that West is playing in it, maybe paul but not west.

If that's the definition of superstar, as someone already pointed out, only Lebron and Kobe are superstars. Maybe Shaq too. Call me crazy, but I can see someone paying to see Shaq playing, but it's hard for me to believe that a casual fan would pay to see Duncan or KG playing. Was Jordan a superstar when playing for the Wizards? A lot of people paid to see him.
The definition of superstar is too subjective to me. Is it about marketability, wins, huge stats or all 3 of them?
If you judge West by the level he's playing, he's an all-star (I think he proved wrong anyone who thought he was non-deserving) who has stepped up his game in the playoffs and had a monster game last night. IMO, that's it for now.

West is quite good (except for his over-emotions), but is a level off from being a superstar. I don't see him reaching that point, either.

He's much better than I thought he was... He has one of the best midrange jumpers I've seen.. very comparable to Richard Hamilton's midrange jumper.

A team can't really be built around West because he can't really control the flow of games or spread the floor like Chris Paul, Kobe Bryant, or Lebron James can. He's a Superstar role player if that makes any sense (kind of like a Scottie Pippen).

My definition of a superstar is someone who is threat from pretty much anywhere on the floor and has no real weaknesses to their game. Also, they obviously make the most of what they have. Lebron uses his athleticism and power. Chris Paul can use his teammates better than anyone in the league. Kobe Bryant is deadly on the offensive end. The one thing they all have in common is that they all command the attention of the opposing team (double and triple teams). This disrupts the opposing teams defensive schemes and allows the superstar to set up his teammates for easy baskets. Of course, they all make big plays too when it counts.

While I think David West possesses much of these characteristics, I don't think he's a superstar because he can't create his own shot. He's usually set up for a wide open shot by Chris Paul or he gets baskets off of offensive rebounds. He also can't control the flow of games (very, very important)... the team's chemistry lies almost entirely in the hands of Chris Paul (which is basically the same case for Lebron James and Kobe Bryant).

I could also see Chris Paul playing just as well if he played with Tim Duncan, Pau Gasol, Kevin Garnett, and other great power forwards (I think that David West at this level with other forwards). Lebron James would probably play better with these guys. Kobe Bryant might be even more dangerous if he played with either Kevin Garnett or Pau Gasol.

No. What kind of question is this?

David West can create his own shot. He'd be an all-star level player even without Chris Paul. He's not a superstar and won't ever likely become one, but people still exaggerate how much Paul helps him.

Define "superstar"

No but he is a lot better than I thought he was. He is definitely a star in this league.