Star or Superstar?

What exactly is a superstar? Does everyone have their own definition or is there one definition that is set in stone? Google defines the term as a high profile and extremely successful performer or athlete. Okay. That’s just dandy, but what defines someone as being high profile, and what defines someone as being extremely successful? Aren’t the majority of athletes and performers extremely successful? They are in my mind, so this definition has its flaws. This appears to be one of those topics where there isn’t a right/wrong answer, yet people seem to think that there needs to be a majority decision on who is and who isn’t a superstar, specifically in the NBA. This has been a widely discussed topic recently and I don’t know why. At the end of the day, does it really matter how you’re labeled? As long as you give it your all when you step on the hardwood, who cares how you’re labeled? But of course, I feel the need to jump in on the debate so here’s my take on what makes a star "super."

Here’s what I know for sure: LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Carmelo Anthony and Kevin Durant are the only four obvious superstars in the NBA as of right now; it’s simply indisputable.

A few players that were once superstars but no longer have the physical capabilities to perform at that same elite level are Dwayne Wade, Dirk Nowitzki, Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan.

The largest category of stars contains the players that are simply stars. They’re just missing a couple things that the superstars have. Some of the players that come to mind are Dwayne Wade, Paul George, Dwight Howard, James Harden, Tony Parker, Russell Westbrook, Rajon Rondo, LaMarcus Aldridge, and Blake Griffin. (NOTE: These are not all of the “stars” in the NBA. There can be more and there can be less. It is simply a rough list.)

Dwayne Wade in his prime was a superstar, there is no question about it; he was an amazing player. He is still a great player, and still has the ability to lead, but a superstar can’t sit out between 20 and 30 games in a season just because he/she needs rest. If you get hurt it’s one thing, such as Kobe and Rose, because you can’t play through most injuries. But for rest? Come on man, how can your team trust you to take over in the fourth, or to play your best in games 6 and 7? They can’t. A superstar needs to be there for their team at all times no matter what. I know I’ll probably face the question, “What’s the difference between Kobe and Wade?” (Or something along those lines). Well, Kobe tried playing through injury and recovering as early as possible in order to help his team make the playoffs. The Lakers are still able to count on Kobe’s effort and leadership. They can still count on him to put in 110% every day, whether he’s hurt or not. Dwayne Wade on the other hand sat out 12 of the final 25 games, and played limited minutes in 3 others. In that same timespan the Heat went 11-14 and missed out on the top spot in the East. The real kicker in this whole scenario is that Wade played limited minutes in the FINAL THREE games of the year and the Heat lost each one, consequently earning the second seed rather than the first. As a huge sports fan that upsets me, and it’s what classifies Wade as a star rather than a superstar.

You’ll notice that I left Chris Paul, Derrick Rose and Kevin Love off of all three lists, and I am expecting to have a lot of people doubting my judgment, specifically about Chris Paul. Well, I don’t like how people throw around the term “superstar” like it’s a common thing, because it’s not. There is a hierarchy of players in the NBA, and obviously the top tier contains the superstars and the tier below that is made up of the “lesser” stars. There is a big step between stars and superstars; one vague example is that superstars make it to the list of 50 greatest players, and stars make it to the Hall of Fame at best, sometimes not even making it that far.  LeBron has made it clear that he is a superstar, along with Kobe. Both players have performed year in and year out in the playoffs, and both have had success when playing on teams with little supporting talent. They have taken over consistently in the fourth quarter, they are leaders on and off the court, and they do everything they can to win, no matter what. They have both won rings and MVP awards, and are surefire going down as some of the best in history. KD may not have won a ring yet, but he’s only been in the league for 7 years, and he’s won 4 scoring titles and an MVP award. He has proven that he isn’t just a scorer; he is a leader, a closer, a rebounder, a passer, and an improved defender, all of which was a factor when I placed him on that top tier.

Chris Paul is right there; he is about to cross the border, but can’t quite lift his feet to walk over. He is so close, and I want to label him as a superstar but I just can’t do it; not yet… First off let me make it very clear that I am a fan of Chris Paul; he is undoubtedly the best point guard in the NBA, and the most pure. He is one of the top defenders in the game, and a solid closer. With all of his awards and accomplishments taken into account, the man cannot win in the playoffs. Yeah, I get he didn’t have the greatest team in New Orleans, but guess what… They were better than the teams LeBron had, due mostly in part to David West. It took both players three seasons to bring their team to the playoffs, but once they did, LeBron has made the playoffs every year since and Chris Paul missed out one year. In the playoffs, Chris Paul has gone 16-24, never making it out of the second round. Kevin Durant has gone 29-25 and made it to the conference finals and the NBA Finals, and has been in the league for 2 less years than CP3. LeBron in the playoffs (prior to leaving Cleveland) went 42-27, making the NBA Finals once, and the conference finals another year. Durant has been knocked out in the first round once, LeBron has always made it out of the first round, and CP3 has been knocked out in the first round 3 times. The real kicker for me was last year. His Clippers were one of the best teams in the NBA and got bumped first round because Chris Paul didn’t fix what he originally ruined. The Clippers were up 2-0 on the Grizzlies in the first round and in game 3 (in Memphis), CP3 had 8 points, 6 rebounds, 4 assists, 4 fouls, 5 turnovers, and a -19. After that loss, the Clippers were unable to recover and dropped 4 games in a row.

That right there is all the evidence that I need to know that Chris Paul isn’t a superstar yet. He is an amazing player and one of the best in the game; but he isn’t at the “top tier” yet; and he won’t get there (in my eyes) until he proves something in the playoffs, and proves that he can win big games when he has to.

Originally, I had Melo labeled as a star and not a superstar. I just didn’t think he had that leadership quality that is necessary to be a superstar. But once I thought about it, Melo has everything I look for; he can score, rebound, play defense, close games, hit clutch shots, and lead, and he did make it to the conference finals once with Denver. And despite getting consistently knocked out in the first round, it’s his teammates and coaches that are the reason. Chris Paul and LeBron’s teammates weren’t head cases; they were just average and below average players, they knew their role. Melo’s on the other hand, all want/wanted to be the man. J.R. Smith, the man who thinks he’s Jordan, has played on Melo’s team the last eight seasons. Melo has also had to deal with Amare Stoudamire, Chris Anderson, Kenyon Martin, Raymond Felton, and now Andrea Bargnani. It’s really just unfair, sticking a player of his caliber with players like them. My point in all this is that LeBron and Chris Paul never had teammates that dragged them down; Melo did, and still currently does.

Now I’ll address Kevin Love. This dude can flat-out ball. BUT… (Of course there’s a but) he screws his team over sometimes. I saw too many games this year where Kevin Love just couldn’t put the ball in the basket but kept on shooting anyways, resulting in little to no offensive production. Aside from that, the guy has been in the league for six years now and hasn’t seen the playoffs. Scratch that, he hasn’t even seen a winning record! I refuse to call anybody a superstar who goes six years without accomplishing anything as a team; I just won’t do it. The only games I know Kevin Love will win is when he’s dressed as old man Wes playing alongside Uncle Drew.

All in due time Kevin, all in due time.

Lastly, I’ll briefly run through my thoughts on Derrick Rose. The guy can was on his way to being a superstar, and I think he can still get there, but he’s played a mere 49 games in the last 2 seasons, and he’s only played in 1 playoff game in the same time span. He is an amazing athlete, and a great basketball player. However, no one really knows how good he is right now, or if he’ll ever be the same player again. So I don’t have a label for Rose because it’s simply too unfair to judge at this point in his career.

This is one giant opinionated mess and it’s neither right nor wrong, but since everyone is so hung up on the superstars of the NBA I thought it to be worthwhile to chip in. To sum everything up, a superstar needs to have tasted a deep playoff run and proven that they can lead a team through adversity; in other words, they need to be a player that does more than win games in the regular season and put up pretty numbers.