News and Notes: Updated between Games

[AHF]

22 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Kareem didn't play in the championship clinching game.  Magic dominated that game and was the MVP!

I still don't understand your standard.  Is it being voted an award by the media?  If so, what awards count?  Finals MVP?  1st Team All-NBA?  What are the awards that clinch this?

Does it matter that the voting was compromised for this award:

Quote

CBS's Bob Livingston detailed in his book "Kareem":

After game 6 the tally had Kareem as the winner. CBS didn't want to present to an absent Kareem, so voters were pressured and coerced to change votes.

Enough of us saps changed our votes to deny Kareem the award by 4-3 count.

Is it having a single great game in the playoffs?  If so, does Luka putting up something like 40, 10 and 10 meet it? 

You know that Kareem was much better in that finals series overall, right?  Magic was amazing with his 42 points that game 6 for sure.  (Probably should also be mentioned that Jamaal Wilkes put up 37 and 10 who was yet another HOFer on that team was also great). In the other 5 games, he averaged:

17.4 points, 9 assists and 10.4 rebounds

(For perspective, Kareem had 40 and 15 in game 5).  That is great but not on the level of 33.4 points and 13.6 rebounds per game which led them to the other 3 wins.  This all ignores the defensive side of the court where Magic was not strong as a rookie while Kareem was the best defensive player on the floor for either team.

[Peoriabird]

4 hours ago, AHF said:

I still don't understand your standard.  Is it being voted an award by the media?  If so, what awards count?  Finals MVP?  1st Team All-NBA?  What are the awards that clinch this?

Does it matter that the voting was compromised for this award:

Is it having a single great game in the playoffs?  If so, does Luka putting up something like 40, 10 and 10 meet it? 

You know that Kareem was much better in that finals series overall, right?  Magic was amazing with his 42 points that game 6 for sure.  In the other 5 games, he averaged:

17.4 points, 9 assists and 10.4 rebounds

(For perspective, Kareem had 40 and 15 in game 5).  That is great but not on the level of 33.4 points and 13.6 rebounds per game which led them to the other 3 wins.

If I said that it was clear that Magic was a superstar by his 2nd year, would argue against that point also?

[AHF]

1 minute ago, Peoriabird said:

If I said the it was clear that Magic was a superstar by his 2nd year, would argue against that point also?

By what standard do you make that determination?  Is it a purely subjective "eye test" or is there some standard you are using?

Magic was neither an All-Star nor All-NBA his second season.

[Peoriabird]

7 minutes ago, AHF said:

By what standard do you make that determination?  Is it a purely subjective "eye test" or is there some standard you are using?

Magic was neither an All-Star nor All-NBA his second season.

He was an all star in 1980 his rookie season in 1981 he missed over 40 games

[kg01]

Admit it.  I'm not the only one enjoying this tet-a-tete.

[AHF]

1 minute ago, Peoriabird said:

He was an all star in 1980

His rookie season.  He was not an All-Star his second year or All-NBA either season.  

So is one All-Star appearance in a player's first two seasons the standard?

[Peoriabird]

Just now, AHF said:

His rookie season.  He was not an All-Star his second year or All-NBA.  

Didn't he miss over half the season?

[AHF]

8 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Didn't he miss over half the season?

Yes.  He missed 45 games.  Better than Jordan's 7 games started his sophmore year but definitely affects your ability to win accolades.  In the games he played, he was third on the team in scoring (21.6 ppg behind Kareem and Wilkes) and was second on the team in assists (behind Nixon again).

His per game scoring and assist numbers were not top 20 in either category.

[Peoriabird]

2 minutes ago, AHF said:

Yes.  He missed 45 games.  Better than Jordan but definitely affects your ability to win accolades.  In the games he played, he was third on the team in scoring (21.6 ppg behind Kareem and Wilkes) and was second on the team in assists (behind Nixon again).

So you didn't see Magic as a superstar in his 1st 2 years?  What about Lebron?  Did it take you a while to figure him out? What about Shaq or AI

[AHF]

4 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

So you didn't see Magic as a superstar in his 1st 2 years?  What about Lebron?  Did it take you a while to figure him out? What about Shaq or AI

I saw and/or see Magic, Trae, LeBron, Shaq, and Luka all as young superstars.  I'm trying to understand how you draw the line.

(AI was someone I did not view in this light after his 22.0 ppg / 6.2 apg sophmore season.  I liked his improved efficiency but viewed him more as an inefficient chucker for most of his career.  Talented but only accruing high per game scoring numbers off of an inefficiently high number of FGA).

[Peoriabird]

1 minute ago, AHF said:

I saw and/or see Magic, Trae, LeBron, Shaq, and Luka all as young superstars.  I'm trying to understand how you draw the line.

I'm not sure you can put those guys in the same category

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

I'm not sure you can put those guys in the same category

I don't view them as equivalent but I do put them all in that same category.  This is why the definition of the category matters.  They are all clearly in the category of players who made the All-Star team in their first two seasons.  They are all clearly in the category of players who were All-Rookie.  Magic and LeBron went on to put together compelling cases for top 5-10 All-Time in the NBA and Shaq himself put together a case for top 10-25.  By the definition I have for young superstar, however, I look back at the NBA and see many more than 25 in the league's history.  So someone doesn't need to be the equivalent of Magic or LeBron to be put in this bucket for me.

That takes us back to what it takes for a young player to get in the "young superstar" category for you.  If some of these players make it and others don't, what is the definition or standard for this category and what are the key criteria that you use to divide those that make it and those that don't?

[Peoriabird]

2 minutes ago, AHF said:

I don't view them as equivalent but I do put them all in that same category.  This is why the definition of the category matters.  They are all clearly in the category of players who made the All-Star team in their first two seasons.  They are all clearly in the category of players who were All-Rookie.  Magic and LeBron went on to put together compelling cases for top 5-10 All-Time in the NBA and Shaq himself put together a case for top 10-25.  By the definition I have for young superstar, however, I look back at the NBA and see many more than 25 in the league's history.  So someone doesn't need to be the equivalent of Magic or LeBron to be put in this bucket for me.

That takes us back to what it takes for a young player to get in the "young superstar" category for you.  If some of these players make it and others don't, what is the definition or standard for this category and what are the key criteria that you use to divide those that make it and those that don't?

Never heard of the term "Young Superstar" so I don't know what that is. 

[AHF]

3 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Never heard of the term "Young Superstar" so I don't know what that is. 

Just use your term and your own definition.  If your term is simply "Superstar" who is that defined?  What standards does someone need to meet that definition? 

Using your example of AI, what did AI accomplish that qualifies him while Luka and Trae don't?  (Because in addition to scoring less, having fewer assists and being less efficient scoring AI also wasn't an All-Star or All-NBA either season.)

[Peoriabird]

Just now, AHF said:

Just use your term and your own definition.

My term is super star and it was pretty obvious with certain players like Jordan, Magic, Shaq, Lebron, KD, Isaiah etc very early.  Other take time like Curry and Leonard

[AHF]

14 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

My term is super star and it was pretty obvious with certain players like Jordan, Magic, Shaq, Lebron, KD, Isaiah etc very early.  Other take time like Curry and Leonard

This tells me nothing.  If it it is just a subjective eye test, that is fine but is of limited usefulness since people's personal opinions can vary. 

If you simply don't have and can't come up with a formal definition then maybe using AI and Isiah Thomas and explaining the criteria that distinguishes them from Luka and Trae would be a helpful way to look at this.  Neither Steph Curry nor Leonard were close to Trae or Luka through their first two years so that isn't particularly useful in understanding how you define "super star."

I'm not sure what common threads put Allen Iverson and Isiah Thomas on one side of this issue and Luka and Trae on the other but perhaps sharing your take on it will help draw that out some. 

[AHF]

To kick this off:

[Peoriabird]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

To kick this off:

Offensive numbers don't define whether or not you are a super star.  Superstars can do things others can't.  They affect wins and loses.

[AHF]

Just now, Peoriabird said:

Offensive numbers don't define whether or not you are a super star. 

 

The following metrics noted above focus on or include defense:

DWS (IT 5.5, Luka 5.1, AI 3.8, Trae 1.3)

DBPM (Luka 0.6, IT -0.3, AI -1.7, Trae -2.6)

VORP and PER mix both offense and defense

 

Quote

Superstars can do things others can't.  They affect wins and loses.

Winning %

Luka 48.3% (best)

Isiah 46.3%

Trae 32.9%

AI 32.3% (worst)

 

So how again are AI and Isiah stars when you look to wins and losses and see that Luka > Isiah and Trae > AI?

[bird_dirt]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

To kick this off:

It's right there in front of you, @AHF. It's all about the steals.