Pacers ganna give Paul George give 5 years 90 million....

[PapaG]

And the accolades just keep coming...

Evidently, everyone but PapaG got the memo: Paul George is a superstar and one of the best players in the league.

BNM

I don't think he's a LeBron/Durant/Paul superstar. Sue me.

 

[PapaG]

PapaG I think I may be misunderstanding, but aren't you saying that through the first 18 games of this season where PG is playing at a 24+ PER too small of a sample size to judge whether he is a superstar or not? But you're counter argument for why he is not a superstar is merely a single game, IE game 7 of last years ECF? Isn't 1 game an even smaller sample size than 18? Shouldn't the 18 games where he is averaging a 24+ PER weigh higher than a single game?

His career PER of 16 prior to his 18 game streak means he's not a "superstar" to me yet. I'd argue that a 25 PER isn't even superstar level until you see it for multiple years, let alone 18 games to start a season. I'm just not ready to crown him the next LeBron/Durant/Paul, and to put him in that category. I don't know why that has posters so upset to the point the point me out specifically in their post. I don't find it to be an unreasonable opinion after 18 games of elite play.

 

[PapaG]

What a stupid opinion. Kevin Durant/Duncan/Parker never won playoff series against the Heat either. Only one team wins a title. Were you one of the idiots who though LeBron was disappointing in Cleveland because he didn't carry a team by himself to a title?

Duncan and Parker have won multiple titles. Durant's last three playoffs: PERs of 24, 26, 27. That's superstar level play.

I do get the feeling that if George was a Blazer, instead of crowning him a superstar many of the same posters would be picking holes in his game, saying he shoots too much, how he disappeared against Miami, needs to elevate his game in the playoffs, etc. etc.

 

[Voodoo]

His career PER of 16 prior to his 18 game streak means he's not a "superstar" to me yet. I'd argue that a 25 PER isn't even superstar level until you see it for multiple years, let alone 18 games to start a season. I'm just not ready to crown him the next LeBron/Durant/Paul, and to put him in that category. I don't know why that has posters so upset to the point the point me out specifically in their post. I don't find it to be an unreasonable opinion after 18 games of elite play.

Fair enough, that makes more sense to me, I thought you were only using that one game as your sole criteria for your reasoning. We'll see if he can keep it up for the rest of the season, personally I think he can, but possibly you're right and he cannot, will be fun either way to see him play the rest of the season as that Pacers team seems to be pretty much for real.

 

[Voodoo]

Duncan and Parker have won multiple titles. Durant's last three playoffs: PERs of 24, 26, 27. That's superstar level play.

I do get the feeling that if George was a Blazer, instead of crowning him a superstar many of the same posters would be picking holes in his game, saying he shoots too much, how he disappeared against Miami, needs to elevate his game in the playoffs, etc. etc.

That's just because many of the posters in here seem to loathe the Blazers more than love them, it's an interesting dichotomy in here.

 

[Mediocre Man]

That's just because many of the posters in here seem to loathe the Blazers more than love them, it's an interesting dichotomy in here.

I don't know of one regular poster in here that loathes the Blazers.

 

[PapaG]

Fair enough, that makes more sense to me, I thought you were only using that one game as your sole criteria for your reasoning. We'll see if he can keep it up for the rest of the season, personally I think he can, but possibly you're right and he cannot, will be fun either way to see him play the rest of the season as that Pacers team seems to be pretty much for real.

If I'm giving the impression that he isn't a very good player, that's not my intention or my sentiment. I'm only saying that I tend to want to see "superstars" play at a Top 5 level for a few seasons. I don't consider guys like LMA/Love/Deron Williams/Paul Pierce/Damian Lillard/Paul George to be superstar players at this point. Some because they may be not ready yet (George/Lillard), and others because they don't have the complete games to be true superstars (LMA/Love/Pierce/Williams).

Superstar is a subjective term, though. Maybe 3rd-team NBA = 'superstar' for some. For me, I look at a superstar as a perennial threat to win MVP.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I don't know of one regular poster in here that loathes the Blazers.

Off the top of my head, I know of 3 regular posters who rejoice when the Blazers fail and make excuses when they succeed.

Of course, those three posters are actually only one person.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

And yet another misguided expert who thinks Paul George is a superstar...

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

I don't think he's a LeBron/Durant/Paul superstar. Sue me.

Typical PapaG. Things aren't going your way, so you change the argument. First, Paul George wasn't a superstar, not he's not on the same level as the top 3 players in the league. So, in your world can their only be 3 superstars at any one point in time?

BNM

 

[PapaG]

Typical PapaG. Things aren't going your way, so you change the argument. First, Paul George wasn't a superstar, not he's not on the same level as the top 3 players in the league. So, in your world can their only be 3 superstars at any one point in time?

BNM

Hmm ... I thought I posted this already.

Superstar is a subjective term, though. Maybe 3rd-team NBA = 'superstar' for some. For me, I look at a superstar as a perennial threat to win MVP.

 

[Boob-No-More]

His career PER of 16 prior to his 18 game streak means he's not a "superstar" to me yet. I'd argue that a 25 PER isn't even superstar level until you see it for multiple years, let alone 18 games to start a season. I'm just not ready to crown him the next LeBron/Durant/Paul, and to put him in that category. I don't know why that has posters so upset to the point the point me out specifically in their post. I don't find it to be an unreasonable opinion after 18 games of elite play.

Wow, that's one pretty tough standard. So, by your definition, most first ballot Hall of Famers, multiple time MVP winners and and members of the original Dream Team were not superstars. John Stockton, Steve Nash, Scottie Pippen and Clyde Drexler all had very long careers and were first ballot Hall of Famers, but between them, not a single PER => 25 season in their long storied careers. Gary Payton = ZERO PER => 25.0 seasons. Patrick Ewing => 1 PER = 25.0 season. Were NONE of these guys superstars in their respective primes? Not one of them meets your definition of a superstar. Even Kobe Bryant, one of the greatest players of his generation, only has 3 PER => 5.0 seasons in his 17 year career, and didn't have his first PER => 25.0 season until his 7th year in the league.

It's seems like you've created a deliberately unrealistic criterion just to bolster your argument. The problem is, that criterion excludes many all-time greats, who were clearly superstars.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

Hmm ... I thought I posted this already.

And again, changing the argument. See my post above. Steve Nash won back-to-back MVPs, but by your own definition of needing multiple PER => 25.0 seasons, he doesn't qualify as a superstar - or does he?

In your opinion, how many superstars are there currently in the NBA? Who are they?

BNM

 

[PapaG]

And again, changing the argument. See my post above. Steve Nash won back-to-back MVPs, but by your own definition of needing multiple PER => 25.0 seasons, he doesn't qualify as a superstar - or does he?

In your opinion, how many superstars are there currently in the NBA? Who are they?

BNM

Are you saying Paul George is at Steve Nash's level?

 

[Boob-No-More]

I do get the feeling that if George was a Blazer, instead of crowning him a superstar many of the same posters would be picking holes in his game, saying he shoots too much, how he disappeared against Miami, needs to elevate his game in the playoffs, etc. etc.

And, right on queue, the PapaG strawman. You're more predictable than Mixum. Thread not going your way, change the subject.

BNM

 

[PapaG]

I considered Clyde Drexler a borderline 'superstar', by the way. He was nowhere near the class of a Bird/Magic/Jordan/Barkley/Hakeem, but that's my subjective opinion.

 

[PapaG]

And, right on queue, the PapaG strawman. You're more predictable than Mixum. Thread not going your way, change the subject.

BNM

"Thread not going your way".

I don't consider Paul George to be a "superstar" at this point. You can keep doing your cut/paste link thing, but it's not going to change my opinion of Paul George, as of right now, being a "superstar". Why do you act so irrationally when somebody dares to have a different opinion that yours?

Superstar is subjective. I've already stated that George is a "very good" player. I also said I had doubts about him after last year's playoff performance in Game 7. You rebutted with George Hill and David West. That wasn't a strawman by you?

 

[Boob-No-More]

Are you saying Paul George is at Steve Nash's level?

No, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I'm saying by YOUR definition, Steve Nash was not a superstar. Neither as John Stockton, Scottie Pippen, Clyde Drexler, Gary Payton or Patrick Ewing.

BNM

 

[PapaG]

No, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I'm saying by YOUR definition, Steve Nash was not a superstar. Neither as John Stockton, Scottie Pippen, Clyde Drexler, Gary Payton or Patrick Ewing.

BNM

I also said "perennial contender for MVP."

Ewing, Pippen, Stockton, and Payton aren't top-tier superstars to me, either, at the level of what I think are superstars.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I considered Clyde Drexler a borderline 'superstar', by the way. He was nowhere near the class of a Bird/Magic/Jordan/Barkley/Hakeem, but that's my subjective opinion.

But, in spite of ZERO PER => 25.0 seasons, you still consider him a superstar. Yes, I think most people would. He was a member of the original Dream Team, voted one of the 50 greatest players in the history of the NBA and was a first ballot Hal of Famer. Same for Stockton, Pippen and Patrick Ewing, but none of them meet your definition of a superstar having multiple PER => 25.0 seasons.

BNM

 

[PapaG]

But, in spite of ZERO PER => 25.0 seasons, you still consider him a superstar. Yes, I think most people would. He was a member of the original Dream Team, voted one of the 50 greatest players in the history of the NBA and was a first ballot Hal of Famer. Same for Stockton, Pippen and Patrick Ewing, but none of them meet your definition of a superstar having multiple PER => 25.0 seasons.

BNM

I don't consider them to be true superstars. Then again, you're taking my PER of 25 thing very seriously. I probably should have posted low 20s, while also being a perennial MVP candidate. I basically put "25" because that's kind of been the standard theshhold for an MVP-type player by Hollinger himself, but of course there are subjective exceptions for every hard data point.

Such as the definition of "superstar", for example. It means different things to different people. He's a nice player who has had what, compared to his career, is an aberration in terms of level of play 18 games into this season. If he sustains that level of play for a few years, he gets elevated in my mind as a player.

Why is this such a difficult concept for you to understand?

Paul George isn't a "superstar", IMO. He's not even Pippen/Ewing/Clyde in my mind.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I also said "perennial contender for MVP."

Yes, you did say that - the second time you changed the argument to suit your needs.

Ewing, Pippen, Stockton, and Payton aren't top-tier superstars to me, either, at the level of what I think are superstars.

Ah, changing the argument for a 3rd time. Now, we have superstars and top-tier superstars. Did anyone ever claim Paul George was a top-tier superstar (whatever that means)?

Try telling the experts that voted Ewing, Pippen, Stockton and Payton into the Hall of Fame that they weren't superstars.

BNM

 

[PapaG]

Yes, you did say that - the second time you changed the argument to suit your needs.



Ah, changing the argument for a 3rd time. Now, we have superstars and top-tier superstars. Did anyone ever claim Paul George was a top-tier superstar (whatever that means)?

Try telling the experts that voted Ewing, Pippen, Stockton and Payton into the Hall of Fame that they weren't superstars.

BNM

You brought up Ewing, Pippen, Stockton, Payton, etc.

Not me. WTF?

 

[PapaG]

My only 'argument' is that Paul George isn't a "superstar" to me.

I'm flattered that you're so concerned about how I rate players, but I haven't changed my initial opinion about Paul George at all.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I don't consider them to be true superstars. Then again, you're taking my PER of 25 thing very seriously. I probably should have posted low 20s, while also being a perennial MVP candidate. I basically put "25" because that's kind of been the standard theshhold for an MVP-type player by Hollinger himself, but of course there are subjective exceptions for every hard data point.

Such as the definition of "superstar", for example. It means different things to different people. He's a nice player who has had what, compared to his career, is an aberration in terms of level of play 18 games into this season. If he sustains that level of play for a few years, he gets elevated in my mind as a player.

Why is this such a difficult concept for you to understand?

Paul George isn't a "superstar", IMO. He's not even Pippen/Ewing/Clyde in my mind.

Again, who currently meets your subjective definition of "superstar". How many of them ate better than Paul George right now?

If your list only consists of LeBron, Durant and CP3, win by default.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

You brought up Ewing, Pippen, Stockton, Payton, etc.

Not me. WTF?

WTF, you're the one who first said a superstar is someone who had multiple PER => 25.0 seasons. When I pointed out how ridiculous that was, you immediately changed your criteria to include perennial MVP contenders. It's pretty hard to discuss an issue logically and rationally, when the issue is a moving target.

BNM

 

[PapaG]

Oh, and yes BNM, I do subscribe to a tier-system of separating 'superstars'. Bill Simmons' Book of Basketball is as close I've seen as to how I personally rate NBA Hall of Fame players. I disagree with Simmons on a few players and how he has them rated, but his approach to a pyramid diagram of hierarchy made a lot of sense to me when I read it. I suggest you read it as well, and see what you think about that approach to rating players.

Or, everybody can just be "superstar" or "non-superstar" based on copy/paste of links, which requires no critical thinking.

 

[BBert]

If Paul George isn't an emerging superstar, no one is. Since the league business model is superstar driven, somebody has to be. And he is.

 

[PapaG]

WTF, you're the one who first said a superstar is someone who had multiple PER => 25.0 seasons. When I pointed out how ridiculous that was, you immediately changed your criteria to include perennial MVP contenders. It's pretty hard to discuss an issue logically and rationally, when the issue is a moving target.

BNM

You brought up those players, BNM. Unless you're trying to compare Paul George, who this thread is about, to Ewing/Pippen/Stockton, of course. In that case, what's your point?

Is 16 PER "superstar" Paul George at the level of the players you listed? If so, wow.

 

[Boob-No-More]

My only 'argument' is that Paul George isn't a "superstar" to me.

Then why did you go to the trouble of inventing multiple definitions of the term "supesrtar"? If your opinion is the only thing that matters, why drag in all the extraneous details about PER => 25.0 for multiple seasons, perennial MVP contenders, etc. Why not just be honest and say he's not a superstar to you and nothing anyone can say will change your mind?

BNM