The Superstar Theory

by bigballa10 on Aug 13, 2006 8:45 PM CDT Comment 77 comments

I recently came across this article on nbadraft.net and I think it's hard to argue with. It basically makes the point that a superstar (if not more than one) is generally a prerequisite for winning the NBA title. Also, check out the link to Robert McChesney's article on Real GM called "The SuperDuperStar Theory", which was written prior to the above article. Perhaps that top draft choice for 2007 will yield a future superstar.

FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.

0 recs | Comment 77 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I linked an 82games.com study that was somewhat similar. Basically saying you needed a top-5 player or defender to win a title.

http://www.blogabull.com/story/2006/6/9/14844/31117

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 13, 2006 9:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

No superstar

In that 82games.com study it was very painful to see Ron Artest (as a top 5 defender) and Elton Brand mentioned. As it stands now, I would say that we have a few top flight defensive players (Wallace, Hinrich, and Duhon). I'm hopeful that one of the youngsters develops into a superstar (Gordon, Deng, or Thomas) or next year's draft pick from the Knicks (which I'm sure will be another lottery pick).

by bigballa10 on Aug 13, 2006 9:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

"Top flight defensive players"

add noch to that list. insane how he gets into opponents heads, you can see how frustrated the opposing small forward gets when noch is on him.

by the great zambino on Aug 13, 2006 11:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

more like

"Top flight flopper"

by Paxson Jackson on Aug 13, 2006 11:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Does it matter

Whether he is actually fouled or not? No. Noch is a good defender and a great drawer of charges. Plus, he's Chapu.

by cubbybear on Aug 14, 2006 3:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes...

...noc takes the occasional flop, but far more he takes actual charges and is in good body position to make the call easy for the refs. to me, that means he's not only a good defender, but he's also willing to put his body, and physical pain, on the line for his teammates. not many 'superstars' in the nba are willing to do that. in that regard, i think noc deserves a wee bit of respect as a non-'superstar', despite his occasional blatant flop.

by leeac on Aug 14, 2006 9:43 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Good article

up until this sentence: "Guys like Paul Silas, Lenny Wilkens, Jack Sikma, Dan Issel, Bob Lanier, Michael Cooper, Bill Laimbeer, Horace Grant, Maurice Cheeks, John Starks, Kiki Vandeweghe, got no all-NBA or top 5 MVP recognition in their careers, but they were excellent players for many years. The list goes on and on."

Which one of those guys doesn't belong...

Hint: he made one all-NBA defensive team in 92-93.

I might be nitpicking, but this guy wasn't shouldn't even be an honorable mention.

by bullshooter on Aug 14, 2006 9:54 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Are you kidding?

John Starks clearly belongs on this list. This 1-time all-star carried those knicks teams to grand playoff exits. Every team needs a John Starks to jack up 3s. When I think of "John Starks," I immediately think of him as among the most efficent secondary players in NBA history.

by Scotter on Aug 14, 2006 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

gawah?

You forgot a ;) after that comment.

by Paxson Jackson on Aug 14, 2006 2:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

paper or plastic?

don't forget that Starks used to bag groceries, and was a former Bull. And, oh yeah, he is a published author, see here. ;)

As to the original theory, I can't forget that it was the desire for a "superstar" that led to the Bulls earlier demise, beginning with the embarrassing wooing of McGrady at the airport, the Brand for Chandler trade, and so on.

Also, the "superstar theory" seems like an obvious point. Was there ever an NBA champ that didn't have a superstar (offense or defense)?

by GWKD on Aug 14, 2006 3:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

not so obvious

it's pertinent since the Bulls are trying to win (currently) without one.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 14, 2006 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

or

stocking up on assets to try and get one.

by bullshooter on Aug 14, 2006 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

hard to do

I think we can all agree that winning championship in NBA without superstar will be hard to do

another area where superstars help is "respect / calls" from refs, ie. Wade in finals
I don't think Hinrich or Gordan gets the calls that Wade or Lebron would get

by NY Chicago Fan on Aug 14, 2006 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Part 2

That's exactly why I found it interesting, even though it is know that you need stars. I believe Pax has been going for the Pistons model, which the author is stating is a long shot. Check out part 2.
http://www.nbadraft.net/mcchesney002.asp

by bigballa10 on Aug 14, 2006 3:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The Brand trade

I can never understand how Krause felt like Brand would never get much better than he was. Ironically, he is exactly the type of low post consistent threat the Bulls need. I assumed that Krause was going to draft Curry and bring him along behind Brad Miller to team with Brand but...

by bigballa10 on Aug 14, 2006 3:39 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Stop the presses!!!

Robert W. McChesney thinks a team needs really good players to win a NBA championship? My whole world is turned upside down! ;)

That article is useless. Considering players don't make it up McChesney's list wthout having a long career in the NBA, it doesn't help predict what teams or players will win anything. McChesney's conclusion is correct, but he seems to be confusing the chicken and the egg

In other words, you better have a Gold Medal Superstar to win a title; short of that, you might have an outside shot and get lucky if you have two Silver Medal Superstars, meaning two of the best 50 players in NBA history. Otherwise, you have no prayer, or better put, you only have a prayer. And you still need two top 84 all-time players to even have a Hail Mary prayer.

by Paxson Jackson on Aug 14, 2006 3:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Sarcasm aside...

I just found it to be an intersting article. If you had no use for it, that's fine. I think it just bangs the point home that you basically have no shot without a real superstar player. The breakdowns of the teams that won without them I found to be relevant to the current Bulls team.

by bigballa10 on Aug 14, 2006 3:52 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes,

I am attacking you because you linked to an article with an illogical theory. You're stupid! ;)

My point, which I may have not gotten across in my comment, was the Supertstar ranking system used in the article is based on a point system that recquires a long career in the NBA. Someone probably won't be a Gold-Medal superstar until the end of their career. Jordan's #2 ranking on the list didn't help the Wizz out at all.

Obviously the point of the discussion here is that the Bulls may or may not need a superstar player, which is very relevant, although McChesney's definition of one doesn't affect a current team.

by Paxson Jackson on Aug 14, 2006 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I also found it weird

that he used that indicator for a gold medal superstar...
It probably would have been more logical to look at the stars of every single one of the championship teams and see if they were superstars AT THE TIME (times) they got their ring(s).
However, I think the results would have been the same and his hypothesis is definetly not insane...

by spider from split on Aug 15, 2006 9:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

ouch, I try to block out 2000-2002

after getting Brand #1 in 1999 the Bulls had a horrible strecth with draft

2000
Was weak draft but we ended up with Fizer at #4 (as ISU grad I liked ok, but unfortunately he didn't dominate like I watched him do in college)
Then we dumbly traded Mihm for Crawford (ok maybe my hatred for Michigan clouded this but I hated this trade for the get go - crawford stinks and Mihm is servicable 7 fter)

2001
We know how well Curry and Chandler worked out. Could have Brand and Battier in post right now!

2002
missed out on Yao and ended up with nothing (JWilliams) instead of guys like Gooden / Wilcox / Studmire

by NY Chicago Fan on Aug 14, 2006 3:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

oh man

I've long ago made my peace and am pretty much tired of the 'If only we kept Elton Brand' stuff.

But to read 'If only we kept Chris Mihm'??

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 14, 2006 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

didn't mean

not meaning Mihm would have been superstar but better then Crawford experiment

sorry and yes I don't suggest going back an crying, can't dwell in past, just stating sometimes hard to know where that superstar will be found and there are many ways to get them if you are bit lucky and bit good

by NY Chicago Fan on Aug 14, 2006 7:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

true

although Crawford tantalized Isaiah more than Mihm would've :)

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 14, 2006 8:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Brand

When we talk about the bulls needing a superstar please don't bring up Elton Brand. Elton Brand is a good low post scorer with a decent jump shot. A superstar beats double teams, dribble out of double and finds a way to put the ball in the basket no matter what the defense throws at him. That's what we need. Elton Brand is not that guy.

by chris44 on Aug 15, 2006 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

did you miss 2005-06 season?

are you seriously saying Brand is not a superstar? in your description it seem you might be biased to guards who can dribble and I think you must have not watched Brand if you think he only has "decent" jump shot as he has great touch for big man. Brand was MVP canidate, led the prior to 05-06 helpless Clips into playoffs, plays D and scores in post - I don't know how anyone could say he wouldn't be great PF on Bulls right now

by NY Chicago Fan on Aug 15, 2006 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's been

playing great for Team USA too.

I can't wait for Iowa football!!

by sue369 on Aug 15, 2006 4:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Please

Let me put it this way. These guys take over games Kobe, l.J, D.Wade, P.Pierce, A.I. Elton is not that type of player. Brand can't score on double teams or get away from double teams like those guys. Yes he puts up numbers but he's no A.I, Kobe, L.J, Pierce, D.Wade who are you kidding. Those guys you give them the ball and get out of the way. End of conversation!

by chris44 on Aug 15, 2006 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

ok

none of your named players are post players
I woudn't argue that those players aren't stars, although I bet a lot of people would choose Brand over AI or Pierce right now

24.7pts .527fg% 10 rbs 2.54 blks 1.03 steals
thats pretty damn good

by NY Chicago Fan on Aug 15, 2006 5:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

So what your telling me is when the game is close and you need a closer to close out your game your going with Elton Brand over P.Pierce and A.I. I would love to play your team. Because all I have to do is double Elton and he's a non factor. Sorry you lose. A superstar shows himself at the ends of games. He does what it takes to win the game. Elton Brand is a good player but he's not the closer you think he is. Some guys got and some don't. Elton doesn't. He's no M.J, kobe, Bird, A.I, Pierce, L.J, D.Wade. We shouldn't be having this conversation.

by chris44 on Aug 15, 2006 6:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Then

Krause was right to trade him.

by bullshooter on Aug 15, 2006 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

argue the obvious don't you

I'm not the one wasting time saying Brand is no MJ, Bird, Lebron, Wade, Kobe ... of course he's a totally different player and not the closer those are

by NY Chicago Fan on Aug 15, 2006 10:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

flaws

first of all, u double team brand and hes a non factor...GREAT it leaves someone else wide open...magette, sam i am, kaman, livingston, anyone whose wide open.

secondly, pierce got blocked on a jump shot...twice....BY CHANDLER....

brand is a budding star. i think the term superstar has more to do with marketing than talent...what's the difference between john stockton and steve nash? there isnt much..they're both small white guys crom WCC schools. (wow, there ARE alot of similarites...kinda scary). WHile john stockton is undoubtidly one of the best PG's ever to play the game, he was by all means never a superstar in his day? Why? Let's look. Stockton played in a small market, nash plays in PHX, one of the fastest growing markets in the country. Nash is marketable, stockton isnt. Can you imagine stockton gracing the cover of a videogame?

No, superstardom has more to do with marketing ability, and brand will never be a superstar in the turest sense of the word. PF's generally do not become super stars. He's playing in LA which is laker territory. He plays in a city enamoured with kobe. He's very humble. He's a solid, all-around, hard nosed player. And our culture is in love with wing players and guards, not down and dirty post players

by milesgmsu on Aug 16, 2006 9:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Strangely enough...

Shaq, Yao Ming, Dirk Nowitzki, and Ben Wallace are all well known and "star" players in the NBA. Yao had more all-star votes than any other player last year. Judging a player's popularity is quite a bit different than debating talent, but considering the market Elton Brand plays in, and if the Clippers contiue to have success it shouldn't surprise anyone if the guy achieves stardom. He's only been on one good team his entire career.

Closer? Is Kobe really a closer? I guess, but his numbers in supposedly "clutch" situations aren't all that efficient. The standard late game NBA strategy is to fire up 3's, so I guess Kobe is more suited for a "closer" role than Brand, although Elton's "clutch" numbers certainly appear invaluable, as blocks, rebounds, some scoring, and protecting the ball are just as important, if not better than missing 3-pointers.

by Paxson Jackson on Aug 16, 2006 12:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

PF does nto equal center

Shaq and Yao and Wallace are all centers, and dirk might as well play center...he's 7 foot.

Furthermore, Shaq is a well known marketbale character, as are yao (china's booming population), dirk (european player, rememarable hair), ben wallace..the fro.

No one thinks of Brand as an instantainsouly marketable character.

by milesgmsu on Aug 16, 2006 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

Brand didn't come into the NBA with a huge shoe deal, hype, etc. The point is he has never been on a decent team until recently, which already has elevated his status. A good player in a major market on a good team? That's a recipe for marketing success.

by Paxson Jackson on Aug 16, 2006 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

believe it or not

centers are supposed to be post-players too, and considering Amare, Duncan, and Jermaine O'neal's success at the center position, I wouldn't worry too much over the difference between the 4 and 5.

by Paxson Jackson on Aug 16, 2006 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not that

position has anything to do with fame.

by Paxson Jackson on Aug 16, 2006 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

disagree

our basketbal culture is currently enamoured with wing players....wade, lebron, carmelo, marion, t-mac...even the players on the knicks are all wing and they ahve endorsements galore...

sure you have the occasional player like nahs or shaq (who is a remnant of a different decade of nba basketball (jordan II - appearance of lebron), but for the most part superstars in the league are wing

by milesgmsu on Aug 17, 2006 8:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

difference

between player superstars and media superstars

I could care less who the media and endorsments like, I care about production on the court which Brand brings every night

Duncan is PF superstar and has multiple rings due to skill not endorsments and media attention like many other players like McGrady

by NY Chicago Fan on Aug 17, 2006 8:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is there any way to prove that?

By the way, Shawn Marion actually logged most of his minutes at center last year.

by Paxson Jackson on Aug 17, 2006 9:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

NBA jersey sales

The most recent Top 25 I could find. No Marion on the list, and most of the top 25 seem to be point guards, power forwards, and centers. You could make the argument that the NBA has quite a few good wing players right now, but I would hardly identify the cause of the popularity of the Jordan II's as a basketball culture enamored with wing players. That's a little too much.

by Paxson Jackson on Aug 17, 2006 9:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the devil can cite scripture for his own purpose

6 of the top 8 are wing players, and 7 of the top 10, 9 of the top 25 are pure wing players, and there are a bunch of guards in there too (whihc is what my original statement was i believe...wings and guards...or it shoudl have been). It would be interesting to see sale # or sale percentage because that would allow us to see where the drop off is (im assuming around 16)

On a flip note, good for kirk and ben. i had no idea thye would be high on the list. granted chicaog is a huge city, but still i woulda though that marquee players on crappier teams from smaller cities would have gotten higher (howard, bosh, redd/bogut people like that). And i'm amazed the bulls were ahead of cavs in total jersy sales.

Furthermroe, with the additon of ben, we have 3 top 25 jersey sales people. And i wonder where jordan is on that list?

by milesgmsu on Aug 18, 2006 7:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wings and guards?

Oh, okay, so you have 3 out of 5 now. You really turne the tables on me. ;)

by Paxson Jackson on Aug 18, 2006 10:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i backpeddled a little

allow me please to clarify what i said earlier....

SG's and Wing players...especially the hybrid SG/WING.....think t-mac/bron-bron/dwade/melo/kobe/jrich

its that 6'5'' - 6'8'' height range where a guy could play SG or SF......

by milesgmsu on Aug 18, 2006 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's

my understanding of a wing player too, but as far as a "swing" type goes, I think a guy (or gal) who can switch to PF would count as well.

Regardless, there are quite a few mid-sized 6'5"+ players with talent, which would account for their current popularity. Although the NBA hype machine sucks, you can't blame the fans for liking the best player on their team, even if it's been speculated that Vince Carter, T-Mac, and others are apathetic about winning. There probably won't be another era like the 1990's when there were so many talented bigs, even the second tier guys like Antonio Davis, Rik Smits, Sabonis, and Vlade Divac were better than what most teams have now.

by Paxson Jackson on Aug 18, 2006 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

U of M

and why oh why, my trusted friend, do you hate the evil empire of ann arbor?

by milesgmsu on Aug 14, 2006 5:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

we all have our college teams

its half joking, I could go on with reasons (college basketball and football) but I'll keep this a Bulls blog

by NY Chicago Fan on Aug 14, 2006 7:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There hasn't been alot of similar teams

to the Bulls. Teams that win without relying on a couple of stars or a superstar are rare to begin with. But, it is true that balanced teams stuggled to win the championship because they ran into truly elite superstars. The Bulls teams of the 70's fit this description. The Cavs of the early 90's had roughly equivalant contributions from Price, Nance, and Daugherty, but always ran into Jordan. The best hope for Bulls seems to be the three Pistons championship teams. They won two titles with a single superstar in Thomas, and the Pistons won one with a third level superstar in Wallace. Particularly, the older Pistons model seems to fit the Bulls in terms of defense and depth. And those teams won two championships with Bird, Magic, and Jordan in the league.

by Scotter on Aug 14, 2006 4:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

still

They had Isiah Thomas.

Although, Kirk Hinrich is just as good (joke! related to the Chris Paul thread-of-unfortunateness)

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 14, 2006 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

True but Thomas

was considered a silver superstar if you want to use his rankings. Thomas was in no way statistically dominant. No one averaged more than 18.4 points per game on either of those teams. Thomas is admired much like Iverson for his heart and toughness, but he wasn't 1st rate superstar

by Scotter on Aug 14, 2006 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What??

"I am attacking you because you linked to an article with an illogical theory. You're stupid! ;)"

That's totally uncalled for.

by bigballa10 on Aug 14, 2006 4:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

;) = Sarcasm

I had a problem with article's reverse-logic content, not the discussion, and not you.

by Paxson Jackson on Aug 14, 2006 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

that's right everybody, play nice

And use emoticons!

I agree with PaxJax btw. I think there was a similar inherent problem with the 82games.com piece that looked at all-nba and all-defensive voting. As we have seen in recent years ::cough:: Nash ::cough::, these awards are heavily influenced by how the players' teams finish...so there's a definate chicken-or-egg problem.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 14, 2006 4:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

and they say

women are catty!

I can't wait for Iowa football!!

by sue369 on Aug 14, 2006 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Flawed

Well, since that's cleared up, there are definitely some flaws with the argument. The real issue here is, how/where do the Bulls get a real superstar or might they be able to slip through without one?

by bigballa10 on Aug 14, 2006 4:42 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

It depends

on your definition of superstar, but it doesn't apear that any veteran stars worth their bloated contracts are available. The Bulls have a talented young roster that should yield a star (or 2 if they're really lucky) in the next few years.

by Paxson Jackson on Aug 14, 2006 4:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

a sidenote

Paxson and Skiles would have to be true ego-maniacs to believe that they can continue to get better through depth and youth (which is great, and has worked, but only to a point). The stockpiling of good young players without trading 2 or 3 of them for this alleged star would be a poor strategy unless one or two players within the organization were expected, with certainty, to succeed at a very high level.

by Paxson Jackson on Aug 14, 2006 5:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

for his sake

Paxson says often that he'd like to find a star.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 14, 2006 8:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

for brevity's sake

please use "Paxiles". :P

by CRG on Aug 15, 2006 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

1988-1990 Pistons

I discussed some of this above, but I think those Pistons are a similar model to what the Bulls could due with depth and defense. Those teams featured an undersized backcourt, their low post play came from the small forward (Dantley and Aguirre), a defensive star in Rodman, and a center in Laimbeer that could space the floor. They had 5 double digit scorers, but no one scored 20 a night. It's a model that won multiple championships and the Bulls might be able to acheive, rather than blowing it up in pursuit of the mythical superstar.

by Scotter on Aug 14, 2006 5:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've decided to write a full diary comparing

the current Bulls to those Pistons and also to take a look at how much depth is necessary to overcome superstars.

by Scotter on Aug 14, 2006 5:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Superstars on the roster

I think Luol Deng has the potential to be a superstar and possibly Ben Gordon, but I think he's the ideal sixth man on a championship team. What struck me the most about the whole thing was the fact the the Bulls are exactly the kind of balanced team he was talking about has no real shot at winning it all. I think Pax knows this but doesn't have many "superstar" options. I do agree that the Piston's model is the best chance the current roster has and hoping these young guys blossom.

by bigballa10 on Aug 14, 2006 5:17 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

agreed

better for Pax to wait awhile then to just trade young talent for the sake of it, searching for a star that isn't really there

unfortunately for Bulls a real star isn't traded every day (ie Shaq to Miami or Barkley to Suns)

by NY Chicago Fan on Aug 14, 2006 7:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Two things

I took two things from the article. First, since it's a retrospective look, you can't really take much from it going forward, since we don't know how player's careers are going to play out. What it does demonstrate is that means we have to count on our guys taking their games to the next level if we really want to compete for a championship. We have some interesting pieces, but all of these guys either have to get better, or in Wallace's case play at a really high level way past the time we should expect them to. Given the way things have been going, I don't hold out much hope of getting a guy like LBJ or DW who would clearly make the Bulls better. That doesn't mean it won't happen, though.

by bullshooter on Aug 14, 2006 8:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Chicken or Egg

-- that's really the issue.

If the Bulls win a championship with more or less the current roster (whether this year or in the next few) then one of our players may have stepped up to the point where they become generally thought of as a "superstar."

I wonder whether the need for a superstar is just the need for one of your guys to raise his game to a high level. We have several who might do that. If one or more do, we have a shot to win it all, without trading for anyone necessarily. If not, we need to trade or draft someone who can be truly elite.

I'm excited to see whether any of our guys, who I am very fond of, develop into the elite player who helps bring a championship back to
Chicago. And that article doesn't convince me that that guy isn't already on our team.

by preverbal on Aug 14, 2006 11:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Deng

Seems like the only real option right now. Though Gordon and Tyrus have their upside. He has progressed well, has good size, can do everything except post up and draw fouls right now, which are not the major skills for a quick SF, but will lift him to a new level. Here is basketball-reference's comparisons:
You have to click the second and third and even more to see the best players he has comparable seasons at the same age.

by cubbybear on Aug 15, 2006 9:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Loul

There's a lot of love for Loul on this site, and I like him too. But for those hoping he makes it to the next level - that of a star, or ever superstar - it seems like a stretch.

I doubt he'll exceed the following's careers:
LeBron
P. Pierce
Carmelo
McGrady
Marion

Where will these guys end up on McChesney's list? Barring injury, LeBron will undoubtedly be near the top. McGrady might too. As for the rest, who knows, but my guess is it'll be somewhere in the middle.

Here are a few more forwards:
Richard Jefferson
Ron Artest
Atwan Jamison
Rashard Lewis
AK47
Al Harrington
Lamar Odom

How will Deng's career compare to these guys? It's too early to tell definitively, of course, but I think he'd being doing well if he wriggles into this group.

Here are a few more guys who've had good careers but are now on the downside:
Chris Webber
Peja Stojakovic
Grant Hill
Cliff Robinson
Antoine Walker

Will Deng be able to put up better numbers than these guys did in their primes?

I'm not saying I like all the abovementioned names, many of their games have warts, but in terms of this discussion, this SuperDuperStar Theory, it would seem that Loul's career would have to exceed most of these names in order to be placed high on McChesney's list. I doubt it.

by jamestkirk on Aug 15, 2006 11:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Too soon to tell

Its just hard to tell with Luol. He's got the physical tools. And he's still so young. But sometimes he seems to disappear a little bit, and his shot selection can be questionable at times. The latter problem is largely a matter of experience. Its the former issue that will determine how great Luol can be.

by preverbal on Aug 16, 2006 10:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The thing is

most guys who can really carry their teams (which I assume is pretty much a prerequisit to be a superstar) have one thing in common: Great athleticism (think LeBron in the playoffs when he willed the ball in the basket while two or three guys were hacking him).
While I like Lu's potential a lot and think he will be a very good 2nd or 3rd option I don't think he's got that ability to do that kind of thing.
I doubt that he'll ever be a franchise player...

by spider from split on Aug 16, 2006 5:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

Deng hasn't shown yet that he's a go to guy, needs to play more consistant mins

by NY Chicago Fan on Aug 16, 2006 9:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He has the potential but...

I think he has the ability to be a star, but he has never had to be the man. In high school he played with Charlie Villanueva, another McDonald's All American. At Duke, J.J. Redick shot most of the team and Deng got points of off hustle plays like offensive rebounds and fast break baskets. I look at a guy like Brandon Roy. He wasn't the main guy until last year, and he improved a great deal. A lot of it is a different mental approach to the game.

by bigballa10 on Aug 16, 2006 10:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

agree and agree

I agree with spider, Loul's just not one of those exceptional athletes. He's decent, but no where near jaw-dropping. Yes, there have been stars that were less than spectacular athletes, but they were either dead-eye shooters or crafty as all get up. If Deng were to take that route - becoming an unbelievable shooter or a guy that possess a truckload of tricks - his game would have to improve faster than Paris Hilton sheds her clothes.

Can he be good, even really good? Sure, and I hoping that's the case. But I also think NY Chicago Fan is right when he says Deng hasn't shown anything that makes you think he'll be more than a really good 2nd or 3rd option.

As I see it, there are four main ways Loul scores right now.

1.)    Run-outs and fast break points. (He runs well but doesn't finish like an elite player, and his ball handling skills aren't anything to write home about.)
2.)    Back cuts. (An underrated skill, it reveals a player's feel for the game and how well he plays without the ball. At this, he's already one of the best in the league.)
3.)    His power drive from corner, the one where he ends up not at the rim but with a 6 to 8 foot fade-away in the lane. (I'd say this is his pet move - it's unorthodox but effective. Because he's so long, this shot's money.)
4.)    Rhythm shots within the flow of the offense (He has a nice looking stroke, so he should become a much better shooter. This might be the part of his game that really blossoms.)

I like how Deng let's the game come to him instead of forcing the issue, so if he can expand his repertoire, find a few more consistent ways to score, he should be well on his way to putting up numbers like 18 and 7, or maybe even 20 and 8, which would be great, just not superstar numbers.

Well, that's how I see it anyway.

by jamestkirk on Aug 16, 2006 10:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

freak of an athlete

luol is a freak of an athlete...just repeated myself there.

he's 6 7-9, and has a huge wingspan, he can can jump almost out of the gym...he's just not insanely strong yet.......if he ever bulked up, he would be the same type of athlete as lebron

by milesgmsu on Aug 17, 2006 8:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs