What I have noticed is that many people view Paul George as a superstar. Don't get me wrong, he is a great player and an intriguing talent, but calling him a superstar is going a bit too far. He's a good passer, great defender, and an improving shooter. But, he shot around 42/43 percent from the field in the playoffs and the regular season respectively, along with averaging 3 turnovers in the regular season and above four in the playoffs. Lebron, in comparison, averaged around 3 turnovers but has a higher usage rate. George is without doubt a future superstar, but offensively he is not developed enough to earn that title. Defensively, however, he could be considered a superstar. A good comparison for him is John Wall. He had an identical PER rating and an amazing year but most people do not consider him a superstar (yet). What do you guys think?
he's not labelled as a superstar yet anyway, but alot of people are really confident he will be one sooner rather than later though.
I see him as a good player, that can be great at times.
Like any good second tier player. If he isn't solely relied above as the first option. He doesn't have the mentality and perhaps the skills for it.
You will not find a bigger Paul George fan on this site than me. I 100% agree that he is not a Superstar as he hasn't done enough to warrant that status, will he get there? Well this is another question entirely.
As you stated he needs to cut down on the turnovers and become that undisputed leader in Indiana. The big thing that will help him is consistency offensively, as in clutch situations Vogel puts the ball in George's hands and he is able to deliver.
Indiana does not need a 20-25ppg a game player, they need a guy who they can blindly have confidence in when games are close and when others are struggling can step up and drop 30 to make sure the team wins. When he does this then we can start talking Superstar status, at this point he is a very good player on a very good team.
How many legit superstars are there at all? I think there are a ten or so AT MOST. Paul George is an
up and comer, just behind the legit "super stars". John Wall is probably also in this group with PG. I would also
put Kyrie Irving in the "next in line" category too. Maybe even Blake Griffin is in this category. Marc Gasol, too.
I think James Harden is also in this "next in line" category although there are probably some who think that he is ALREADY a
super star, although I wouldn't go that far.
The last guy to make that superstar leap was Carmelo Anthony. Another great season. Good regular season, turned the Knicks into a solid team and he also led the league in scoring. I think this year got Carmelo over the hump, though some have been saying for a few years now that Carmelo is a "superstar". Tony Parker probably also put himself into this rarefied category this year too with his stellar play.
Cp3 This group is definite "Superstars"
Paul Pierce Once you are a Superstar do you stay a Superstar until you retire?
Griffin Some would consider them Superstars
I think the whole is he a Superstar or not debate is overrated. What the hell does Superstar really even mean in NBA context? I once debated whether or not Scottie Pippen was a Superstar or not...I said he was and my friend claimed he was just the best role player of all time...in the end it is just linguistics.
I would rather debate who the better player is doing a comparison than comparing him to a word that everybody defines differently. Does averaging 25 points a game make you a superstar? How many playoff games do you have to win? Does your team even have to be good at all?
It is really a term that is more about popularity than production...that is why some were referring to Lin as a Superstar during Linsanity...the whole thing is pointless to me.
He's not there yet but he will be a superstar.
I mean, he plays terrific defense and if he gets his shooting numbers up, I don't see why he can't be a 24-8-5 type of player while notching two steals and playing some lockdown-D on the opposing best player.
Don't get me wrong, some people do like to overrate him. I don't think he should have been an All-Star this season either. I mean, 17-7-4 while shooting 42% doesn't scream All-Star but I think he can easily average 20-7-5 next season, becoming a legitimate All-Star.
I don't think George has a star mentality yet. He needs to learn how to assert himself more before he can make the claim of being a superstar. There were times in that Pacers-Heat series where I was just cursing at the TV because George was being so passive. He has the skillset to be a star, but he's not aggressive enough driving to the hole - especially when Lebron is guarding him.
Honestly, Lebron isn't that great a perimeter defender, you just have to move decisively against him and show no fear. If you attack him, you'll be successful, because he doesn't want no foul trouble.
So no, George isn't a superstar until he accepts that mantle. I honestly think Hibbert is a better player than George at the moment because he uses his talents more.
He is on his way. He always shows continuous improvement during off season and regular season. He seems humble too which is another thing I like about him. I think he could get close to Tmacs level on offense but he needs to be more assertive to get even close to that. His defense is amazing. He did great on Lebron on the perimeter, but once Lebron took him to the paint George had no chance.
He was the best player for a playoff team at 23 years old. I think getting excited is valid. He's rangy, a two way player, and a guy who's still getting better. His efficiency was not great this year, but he's not a true 1st option as a 3rd year player. If he were playing a 2nd option role, I bet his FG% would bump back up to 44 or 45. What I find incredibly encouraging about George is that he took on a new role, one that he may not have been ready for, but he rose to the challenge. He wasn't perfect but he had a great year and just because being a 1st option was an adjustment for him last year doesn't mean he won't get better at it...he's done nothing but improve over his 3 years...I don't think he's a superstar by any means, but if his hype suggests he could be one in 3 years or so then I think it's valid.
I completely agree...George is a good all around player and a All Star (East), but not a great player...but maybe down the line, sure? but not now.
Once he improves his ballhandling and decision-making he will be a superstar but right now, hes not up there in that group yet. But he is 23 years old and scary good. The Pacers and their fans should be mighty happy.
If i had to rank his position, LBJ, Durant, Melo, George.......First off there is nothing wrong with his handle, the only SF with better handle is LB. I'm going to make a bold statement and say that i would only take KD and LB ahead of him at that position. #1 option maybe not yet but he'll get there. Just look at how he played against Miami save for the last game where his inexperience as a #1 really showed, but other than that i take him over Melo ALL DAY because he makes his teamates better and is a willing defender. He doesn't have Melo's scoring ability however he's a better passer, ball handler and defender and has better vision. The only thing missing is assertiveness in the right situations and a cleaner jump shot, i say superstar next year.
Here are some guys who aren't superstars yet but I think will be at some point: Kevin Love, Steph Curry, John Wall, Kyrie Irving, Paul George, James Harden, and Blake Griffin.
Rajon Rondo is another guy who is somewhere between STAR and SUPERSTAR. To me, Rondo is basically a superstar but there are probably some out there who wouldn't put him into that category.
I'm a Celtic's fan and I wouldn't put RR in the Superstar column at least not yet. I believe he can and will improve, though. He's 27 and is a passing genius. The only thing he can improve is the jumpshot and this is something players can be tought (unlike passing which is pure talent), so yes - Rondo is a real floor general and a future superstar.
As for the others on your list - Kevin Love have to learn how to stay healthy or he will be remembered as a great rebounder and a low-efficiency high-volume scorer. Blake Griffin is younger than the before-mentioned two but he has reached his ceiling IMO.
....is used too often in today's NBA game and it is mostly for marketing purposes or hyperbole. Paul George is not a superstar. Neither is Carmelo Anthony, James Harden, and some of the other players on the list. That word should be used ONLY for those special, special players like Lebron James who can go to the Bobcats and make them win 50 games. That is a superstar. Harden and Melo are great talents but they aren't superstars. If you want to be honest there are only 2 superstars in the NBA. Lebron and Durant. Previously I would have included Dwight on this list but I will not at this time. Why do I say Dwight? Because Dwight Howard impacts the game in so many ways and in such a dominant way that he makes teams win automatically.
Why don't I include Melo? Because Melo is simply a scorer - a unique special scorer, but simply a scorer. He does nothing else on a basketball court at an elite level. James Harden is a great offensive player but again does not dominate the game in any other way.
I cannot call CP3 a superstar when he has only been out of the 1st round once.
I cannot call Melo a superstar when at age 28 almost 29 he has only been out of the 1st round twice (I believe).
Duncan WAS a superstar but at this age is no longer a superstar...still a great player at times but superstar is another level.
Dirk also WAS a superstar but age has taken him out of that categorization.
Again; that word is thrown around to include great players or talented players and it simply is over-used.
And so the answer is yes...Paul George is over-hyped based upon who he is currently but this is the way of the world. A guy has some short term success and all of a sudden he is better than a prime Tracy McGrady (things I heard during the playoffs about George).
Roy Hibbert had a few good games vs. an undersized Heat and all of a sudden a guy who averaged 7 rebounds a game at 7'2 is better than Dwight Howard.
This is the world we live in.
George? Talented player with a lot of tools but to be a superstar...heck... to be considered a great player you have to be great consistently. And I have not ever seen George be even great consistently. I've seen him be good consistently but greatness isn't 17ppg during the regular season and a good round or 2 in the playoffs.