Difference between "star," "superstar," and "franchise player"
I see these three words thrown around a lot in the forum, and I was wondering, how do you distinguish each of these?
For me, a "star" is somebody who gets good individual stats, is a high-level contributor to the team, and is someone who has a good to great overall skill set with maybe one or two elite skills, but would generally be a second (maybe third) option for a championship team. Lots of young up-and-comers, and fringe all-stars fit this list right now. Guys like Paul George, Greg Monroe, Jrue Holiday, Josh Smith, Joe Johnson, Brook Lopez, kinda fit this mold for me.
A "superstar" is trickier to define. I think for me, these guys are elite with many of their skills, but aren't quite at the level to carry a team all by themselves. They're great by themselves, but don't necessarily have the trait that makes everyone around them instantly better. They may be first options on championship teams, but they need equally good complementary pieces to help them get over the top. Kevin Love, Blake Griffin, Carmelo Anthony, Russell Westbrook, LaMarcus Aldridge, Deron Williams, D12, Wade and Bosh, Kobe (he doesn't make everyone around him better, that's why I put him here) fit here for me.
A "franchise player" is somebody who is head and shoulders above the rest of the league talent-wise, and probably athletically as well. These are the guys who can win you a championship and kill every night regardless of what D's throw at them. These are your first options, guys who can not only kill by themselves, but make everyone around them better with their play. Very few players ever make it to this level. Right now, I think the only guys at this level are LBJ, KD, and CP3. You could make an argument for a healthy D-Rose at this level too. The only two guys with potential to make this list in the future with their play right now are James Harden and Kyrie Irving. Even then, they both are question marks defensively, and may cap out at "superstar" level.
What do you all think the difference between these things are?
If you don't think Kobe is a franchise player, I guess that's fine. But if you are gonna break up the 3 elite levels of "star", "superstar" and "franchise player", you surely can't put him on the same level as bosh, love and griffin. You might need to add another tier or two.
A few things.
To me a franchise player is simply someone who can be the best player on a championship team.
That being said a franchise player won't get you a championship on his own. I don't care what you say, but you can't win a championship by yourself. Everyone needs help. There's a reason why Lebron didn't win a championship in Cleveland or why Lakers sucked in 04-05. It's because Lebron and Kobe didn't have any help. No team has won a championship with only one player playing great.
Oh, and Kobe belongs in the franshise player crop. I mean come on, he's a top 10-15 player of all-time.
D-Wade is also franchise player. He showed it in the 2006 NBA Finals.
D-Wade 2006 =/= D-Wade 2013, if he did then D12 would have to be in the franchise player group too because he was one just last season.
It's true that D-Wade is not the same player that he was a few years back, but in my eyes he could still be a franchise player with the right pieces around him. He's still averaging 21, 5&5 on 52pct. shooting. Yes, he's not guarded by the best defender on the other team with Lebron on the Heat, but without him on his team he would have the ball in his hands a lot more and could carry his team if he stayed healthy. Put a couple of good players around Wade and that team could be very succesful with him as a franchise player.
Hakeem Olajuwon with the Rockets wasn't a Superstar winning by himself? I'm talking about the first 'Chip without Drexler
I would actually switch Superstar with Franchise player. The way I see it every superstar is a franchise player because of their skill level , athletism and so on. So, franchise players are as you said players who are head and shoulders above the rest players in the league. Superstars not only belong to very top players in the league, they also are well known not only between basketball fans but ordinary people. I believe that superstar means not only that player is exceptionally good but also that he is very well recognisible and has huge marketability potential.
It means that not only his abilities as a basketball player determines whether or not he is a superstar but also his personality, recognition by other people and his potential as someone who could advertise products or services.
That being said I can only see two clear superstars in LeBron James and Kobe Bryant, while Chris Paul, Kevin Durant or even Kyrie Irving ( I think he has great personality for advertisements and no one can disagree ) could become, KD will definitely become he is just too good of player to not be used in advertising.
I agree with you. I was going to write pretty much the same thing, but seeing as you wrote it first I'm just adding on. It's absolutely the case in my mind that a superstar is a franchise player. The two are absolutely the same.
I think it was time to bring this topic up because The Superstar label is really thrown out way to often.
In general I agree with your list but would like to add one more aspect. Kobe for example is not in your franchise category wich is debatable to me. He is really balling as of late but the age factor is a reason why you may keep him out of this list. Aside from that fact Kobe or some other players still have the ability to to attract other stars to join their teams. Dirk for example is on his decline and not the same player after his injury right now. To me he is still a franchise player because he will be there for a few more years and I don't see a reason why he won't get 15 / 7 for the next 4 years. I'm pretty sure the Mavs are still an attractive team to free agents and players who came via trade and need to get new contracs, a la Mayo. Cuban is always willing to spend when it makes sense for him and has treated his players very well in the past.
Then there is another way to me how you can be a franchise player without beeing a superstar. Roy Hibbert doesn't belong in the Superstar category if you ask me. He is a great defender but has big troubles on the offensive end. On the other end I think he is player you can build a team around and this is kind of a franchise player to me. Don't get me wrong, he is no KD or LBJ but is a player you can mold your team around.
Ben Wallace was a franchise player in his prime but wasn't a superstar to me. He was DPOY multiple times but was not a max contract player nor a top 5 talent in the league.
What scares me most nowadays is that so many players are getting max money but are far from beeing even elite. Joe Johnson, Gasol and the younger ones like Rudy Gay or Eric Gordon.
You have to be at least elite in some kind of way to be considered a franchise player. Most of the overpayed max players are only scorers or overpaid big men first and don't have to offer much more.
I'm really scared that players like Jennings and Tyreke will get max or near max money this summer somewhere or their teams will match a max contract offer, while everyone knows they most likely won't be labeled Superstar or franchise player on their teams. T be the best player on you're team doesn't make you a superstar and both of them aren't even clear choices for beeing named best player on their teams.
Maybe we have to throw in another category like elite to round this levels out?
I think you explained it perfectly. Franchise players are players you can build around but in no way does that make you a Superstar. Who would your Superstars in the league be when healthy?
I guess it's all based on opinion, but personally, I believe that there are stars(Kevin Love, Amare two years ago, Rondo, Damien Lillard, Parker, Griffin, Bosh ect.) and then the Superstars to me are franchise players, but there are two levels, first the ones who are either younger guys who are almost there, or older guys who are still great but slowly fading away. Tier 2 would be D-Wade, James Harden, Westbrook, and Irving. Tier 1 is Kobe, a healthy Rose, Lebron, Melo, and Durant.
Howard belongs somewhere on that list but I'll hold judgement on him until next season, when his back should be better, or we realize that it really isn't ever going to get better.
Howard is a superstar. A superstar can be someone who garners massive attention and popularity based on individual stats and awards. Howard can be DPOY and lead the league in rebounds but right now he is not a franchise level. He had a really good team and coach in Orlando and he hasnt made a difference in L.A. Franchise level talent maybe....
I mean it's pretty easy to make the distinction between guys that are paid like superstars but aren't, and guys that actually are superstars, but after that, I think it all comes down to opinion. These are just mine.
Yeah...it's a hard one to define, so I guess thanks for the negs :P. Lol, I kid, I kid. It's so hard to pin down the difference between the upper two tiers.
In my opinion, I put Kobe and Wade there because of where they stand right now.
Kobe you could probably make a better argument to be put in the franchise player place, because he's clearly "the guy" on the Lakers. But in my opinion, he doesn't really make everybody else around him better the way a LeBron, KD, or CP3 does. He takes way too many shots and is too much of a ball stopper (let's be real- even if you're a die hard Kobe fan, you've gotta admit that he takes way too many ill-advised shots) to really make everyone else better. Except for when he decides to actually pass. Honestly, you could make a legitimate argument that while Kobe is clearly the better basketball player, Gasol is actually more valuable to the team (when healthy and when not coached by a horrible coach like D'Antoni) because of his unselfishness, overall skill level, and his ability to take pressure off Kobe and facilitate the offense from the high post. think that's one of the key differences between the franchise guys and superstar guys.
Wade was there once, but I think he's fallen a little bit; probably on purpose because LeBron came to Miami, but still.
That said, I agree that Kobe and Wade are a notch above guys like Griffin, Love, Bosh, etc.
I see a lot of you are saying KD is a better team player Than Kobe. What makes you say that? I haven't known KD to average that more assist a game than Kobe. And is KD being a more passive scorer and willing to let other players get more shots than him the reason y'all say this?
Looking at each of their first 6 years of NBA play, Kobe averaged about 30 more total assists per year than KD. So you've got me there in terms of passing, in that Kobe appears to be a more willing passer.
I think Durant has the perception of being passive because of his efficiency. Durant takes better shots, and doesn't take the time to show off on the dribble, hold the ball for the entire shot clock, and launch difficult, overly contested shots like Kobe does. Durant has also been a FAR more efficient scorer in his first 6 years. Kobe's FG percentages in his first 6 years have averaged the following: 45.18% FG/ 30.95% 3P/ 82.6% FT. His career percentages increase a little bit, but the difference isn't statistically significant.
Durant's first 6 years: 47.3% FG/ 37.2% 3P/ 88.3% FG. He also averaged fewer shots, about 2.5x more 3PT shots, and over double the FT attempts that Kobe did. This only reinforces the idea that Kobe's game is not nearly as efficient as Durant's.
"you could make a legit argument that while Kobe is clearly the better basketball player, gasol is more valuable to the team"... No you can't. At all.
I'm not trying to rip Kobe, just want to point something out. Everyone thought the Lakers were STACKED this year. Like when Harden got traded many thought they were the faves to win the West. Now that they started off so bad, their standards were lowered, and now it looks so great hes putting up these 40 points games and they are a game over .500. This was supposed to be a 55+ win team. His team last year, had Bynum instead of Dwight, and a healthier Gasol, worse Point Guard play and the same lack of depth, and they were the No.3 seed. Kobe has been phenomenal at times, but he also has had some games where he's taken way too many bad shots and has gotten too involved in the Dwight drama off the court. I just think for any player not named Kobe, being the 9 seed right now would be such a disappointment but since he they got off to such a horrific start, we are now crediting them for playing above average basketball, even though the last time they faced a really good team they got beaten down by 17.
Lakers were supposed to much better then they are. But talent on paper doesn't always translate. Nash, pau and Jordan hill have all missed close to 30 games this season. Earl Clark, metta and Steve Nash are not top 15 starters at their positions. Dwight is not at full strength and the bench is weak. To discredit in any way shape or form the 30+ points and 6+ assists Kobe has been putting up regularly is just not accurate.
Alot of people are hating on the Lakers but I think they are still championship contenders even know they are not in the playoff picture. The only thing that can hold them back is Nash's defence. If Howard can get it together which he has as of late, Kobe continues to do what he is doing and the team can find a way to contain the opposing teams gaurds this team contends. Dont sleep on LA. Howard is a multiple defensive player of the year, and like posted above has proven franchise player talent. Nash wants a championship and will play with fire in the playoffs. Artest will beat the crap out of the opposition at all times. Key players like Clark, Jamison, Meeks, and Gasol make for an extremely talented rotation. Watch out.
for me the franchise player is the best player on your team the alhpa dog the man that have the game to be the best in the league and the team leader even with great players around him to help him win rings...
Shaq was that with the magic and when he won his 3 rings with the lakers
Wade was it, until Lebron arrived
Kobe was the one after Shaq departement and he was already showing better skill on that regard with Shaq on board
Lebron was always the man in Cleveland he is now with the heat
I think you're confusing an all-around player with a franchise player. An all-around player might make people around them better, but that doesn't automatically brand them a franchise player. A franchise player is someone with and elite skill set by which you build a team around (whether that player makes players around them better or not). Carmelo Anthony is a franchise player and he doesn't make players around him better.
I also believe superstar and franchise player are still the same thing. Kobe is still a franchise talent as the Lakers have always built around him, even with the latest additions. Yes, the Lakers will probably not be building around him in the near future as he moves closer to retirement, but as long as he's still playing at a high level, the Lakers still build their team around him.
I can't take anything seriously that suggests *Kobe Bryant* isn't a franchise player.
Someone once said that regardless of how well their team does that a franchise player will be defined as an all star every year and in the All NBA Teams every year during their peak. This puts a player in the top 15 to 24 players in the league and then you look for players who achieve this across a number of years and also ideally in first or second all NBA teams so it narrows down to less than a dozen or so players.
We also has the differentiate between who has the potential to become a franchise player/ who is becoming a franchise player and who already is franchise player.
That is how I look to define a franchise player.
He might be a superstar. But he is not a franchise player. He had a losing record between shaq and Gasol. He is a glorified Scottie Pippen
Did you seriously just compare bean to Scottie pippen? What are you smoking?
Saskit is rhe local anti Kobe comedian, don't feed him. He also doesn't realize lakers 1st place in the west in 2008 prior to trading for pau.
I do remember them being in first and looking somewhat formidable even before the Pau trade, but they were in the same position at the break the season before and ran out of gas after that. To be honest, I remember them being considered more of a dark horse contender before the Pau trade rather than a frontrunner. Kobe was absolutely amazing, however Pau was the missing piece, whom they were able to get.
That season was the first year bynum started to break out an play like a 20-10 all star. Plus Trevor ariza was emerging as the starting sf. Lakers were in first place half way through the season and then those two both went down with season ending injuries in mid to late January. Lakers started to lose for a couple weeks and the team pulled the trigger on the pau trade. But if Ariza and Bynum would have stayed healthy, I think they would have held onto first place and went to the NBA finals, but who knows. Point is thwy were contenders before pau showed up.