"Star" status and maintaining it

Like real basketball, as well as basketball video games? Talk about the NBA, NCAA, and other professional and amateur basketball leagues here.

"Star" status and maintaining it

Postby skip2mahbaby on Sun Aug 10, 2008 3:44 pm

Okay, I can't think of any good title to this thread. But I just wondered, what does it take for one NBA superstar to reach the "star/superstar" status and maintain it. I am referring to guys like Kobe, Duncan, Tmac, Iverson, Bird, Jordan, etc, whos been around 10 or more years on the league and still, they are still considered "star" status.

I brought this up because most players reach the "star" status, became the star player of their team, but suddenly where out of focus and now nowhere to be found. Good example of this is Steve Francis. He's an all star, and was not given the nickname "Stevie Franchise" for nothing. It's like, at the time, he was one of the explosive scorers in the league. But after the trade, everything went down the drain. His stint with Orlando never gave him any chance to be his old self and with the trade to New York and now, back to Houston (I dunno if he's still there), he's just nowhere to be found.

There are many guys I can think of right now, who achieved their star status for like one or two seasons, and then *poof*, disappeared. Raef Lafrentz, Jerry Stackhouse (he's one of the leading scorers few years back), Glenn Robinson, Fatoine Walker...

Any thoughts in this one? What went wrong and what are other guys doing in order to be where they are right now (players on the first paragraph). Also, who do you think among the current generation of superstars with their "star" status be short lived.
Image
User avatar
skip2mahbaby
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:03 am
Location: Philippines

Re: "Star" status and maintaining it

Postby benji on Sun Aug 10, 2008 4:45 pm

It should be about winning games, not being popular.

Antoine Walker, Jerry Stackhouse, Jalen Rose, etc. may be stars because the media "experts" can only remember a few players per team and stupid teams want to give them max or other big contracts but that doesn't mean they do anything useful on the court except suck up possessions.

There's also the fleeting interest and opinions of the media. Remember, Stephon Marbury guaranteed the Knicks as a contender when he got there.
User avatar
benji
 
Posts: 14545
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 9:09 am

Postby Iceman_44 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 4:48 pm

I think theres really different levels of stars.
At the top you have guys who are "Franchise Players", they're in the MVP voting every year. Guys like Duncan, Kobe, Shaq (before he declined), Lebron, Jordan, Olajuwon, etc. These guys never have an off-year of loose their status unless its because of old age or a career altering injury.

Below them is another class of players: "Superstars", very good but not quite at the level of the former group. You usually find great scorers or all around players who are good but not quite capable of leading their team deep in the playoffs. (TMac, Carter, Pierce, J.Oneal).

After them, you have "Allstars", guys who are great as the second option. AK47, Artest. These are the guys who are prone to having unstable careers. I think Stackhouse, Walker are also in this category, a few years back they could score in bunches.

The guy that your thread reminded me off was Allan Houston, dude was pretty sick when the Knicks went to the Finals. A few injuries later and he fell of the face of the earth (Last I heard he was trying to come back at age 37). Steve Francis went from being one of the best point guards to a former star.

I think that, Kevin Martin (6th leading scorer at 23.7pts) is only that high because hes the main option on a bad team, in a few years he will probably fall off.
Image
User avatar
Iceman_44
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:41 pm

Postby benji on Sun Aug 10, 2008 5:36 pm

Iceman_44 wrote:I think that, Kevin Martin (6th leading scorer at 23.7pts) is only that high because hes the main option on a bad team

And because he shoots 61-62% with quite low turnover rates.
Steve Francis went from being one of the best point guards to a former star.

And it only took until his third season! (And then after fooling with his fourth, he said "nah, I'm serious" with his fifth, and continued his path downwards.)
The guy that your thread reminded me off was Allan Houston, dude was pretty sick when the Knicks went to the Finals.

You mean his worst shooting season of his non-rookie career? With his second highest turnover rate? Along with the worst shooting run of his short playoff career?

The next year was easily his best, but it still wasn't anything special.
I think Stackhouse, Walker are also in this category, a few years back they could score in bunches.

They were "stars" because they used a lot of possessions and were therefore the media focus on those teams. They were never great offensive players. Especially Walker, who's always been a complete disaster of a player.
User avatar
benji
 
Posts: 14545
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 9:09 am

Postby Andrew on Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:20 pm

Sooner or later, the players who are truly capable of being the best and/or most successful players in the league are seperated from those who have benefited from those who "status" has been enhanced by media hype. The latter may still be very competent basketball players who are still talented enough to be playing professionally but they may be stars by default in a favourable situation. Their numbers may be higher in these situations, particularly when it comes to scoring but as Ben pointed out they might not be scoring those points particularly efficiently. They just have the opportunity to put up a lot of shots.

In the case of such players, the longer they can remain in a situation where they are unquestionably a team's best player and/or first scoring option, the longer they can be "stars" in the league. The better and more versatile the player, the better their chances of being in that situation. I wouldn't say players who fall into this category are in fact bad players of course, just not necessarily as good as they're often believed to be.

Beyond media hype, there's always injuries. No matter what the sport, some athletes just aren't the same after a major injury either because they are more cautious for fear of re-injury or they have sustained a permanent weakness. That's something I would say affects both the truly remarkable and seemingly remarkable players alike.
User avatar
Andrew
Retro Basketball Gamer
Administrator
 
Posts: 115126
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Australia

Postby shadowgrin on Sun Aug 10, 2008 9:08 pm

benji wrote:Especially Walker, who's always been a complete disaster of a player.

Anymore bad-mouthing of Fatoine and I'll slap the taste off your mouth benji.
HE'S USING HYPNOSIS!
JaoSming2KTV wrote:its fun on a bun
shadowgrin
Doesn't negotiate with terrorists. NLSC's Jefferson Davis. The Questioneer
 
Posts: 23229
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 6:21 am
Location: In your mind

Postby skip2mahbaby on Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:07 pm

Yeah, I would say media has a lot to do with it. Considering how the media put all the hype on Lebron during his rookie year, good thing he exceeded their expectations.

Major injuries and attitude problems are also what comes to my mind about what makes a player make or break his career.
Image
User avatar
skip2mahbaby
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:03 am
Location: Philippines

Postby Sauru on Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:51 am

walker fucking sucks, god how i hated watching the celts when he was in town, it was like watching granny porn with your eyes held open by take while a goat chewed your balls off
User avatar
Sauru
 
Posts: 7726
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 11:01 am

Postby Jackal on Tue Aug 12, 2008 8:59 am

Sauru wrote:it was like watching granny porn


You know you loved it, gramps.
User avatar
Jackal
 
Posts: 14877
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 2:59 am


Return to NBA & Basketball

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests