Is Anthony Davis on the Verge of Becoming a Full-Fledged Superstar?

[Mythrol]

Why did you have to go and respond? We all were ignoring so nicely!

Here we go. Now this will turn into another Everyone vs. Da Throne thread. Ugh.

Lies. Isn't it clear by now that Drummond > Davis? Just look at how much potential Drummond has to improve. Far more than that capped out Davis who is going to be HAMSTRUNG by a good team this year.

In b4 mythrol's rant incoming

Wish i could have read your piece but today i worked something like 11 hours and i'm positively dead. I'll read it tomorrow before starting to put some work in, it's something that has been on my mind for awhile. Keep up the good work

How DARE YOU good sir. I've completely changed my approach after the Drummond thread.

[MichaelMcNamara]

Before this goes off track - What did people think of the list of superstars my Criterion came up with?

Is 5 too many? Not enough? Is it the wrong 5? What did my Criterion fail to account for?

[Mythrol]

Before this goes off track - What did people think of the list of superstars my Criterion came up with?

Is 5 too many? Not enough? Is it the wrong 5? What did my Criterion fail to account for?

I'll be honest w/ you MM. I haven't read the article YET. I came here and found exactly what I expected though.

I will read it after work today and give you a good constructive post that will get this thread on track asap.

[MichaelMcNamara]

I'll be honest w/ you MM. I haven't read the article YET. I came here and found exactly what I expected though.

I will read it after work today and give you a good constructive post that will get this thread on track asap.

Perfect - you haven't read it yet. Now that I have said my criterion produced 5 superstars from last year, who do you think they are and/or should be?

[odine]

I think they say it is a guard driven league because there are so many of them, not because they are more valuable. That makes having a special two-way big more important than ever. But again, there are so few. But when has a healthy Dwight Howard led team not been in the playoffs and/or close to contender status? And AD should be better than Dwight because of his more diverse skill set on the offensive end.

We haven't seen many dominant two way bigs since the mid-90's, but whenever you do see one, his team is a contender unless the rest of the roster is just absolutely brutal

When I watch games,it seems to me that guards can easily get to the free throw line by drawing contract while driving to the rim. There is also this 3 second defense rule. Maybe that's why Pelicans acquire slasher like Reke to support Davis.
I agree with your other point that Davis has better supporting cast. I just hope the injury bug won't bite again

[RekeHavoc]

Before this goes off track - What did people think of the list of superstars my Criterion came up with?

Is 5 too many? Not enough? Is it the wrong 5? What did my Criterion fail to account for?

Honestly I think your system worked pretty well. I feel like it is so hard give someone a label such as "superstar".

In my view I think of the top players as the top "2" and then Chris Paul as number "3" by himself. I'd probably go with those 3 as my superstars at the moment. But I think my number 4 and 5 would be Curry and Love. Someone could convince me to label Curry as a superstar but I think he's a little bit below CP in terms of overall impact. I just have minor worries about Kevin Love, mainly because of defense, effort, and that he's never played for a contender.

I think your criterion used was pretty damn good, but I'd say at the moment Lebron, KD, and CP are my only "superstars".

[Mythrol]

Perfect - you haven't read it yet. Now that I have said my criterion produced 5 superstars from last year, who do you think they are and/or should be?

If I had to guess I'd say your superstars were

LBJ, Durant, Blake,

The last 2 spots are hard because I have no idea your criteria but I have to assume one of the criteria is lead your team to the playoffs so that takes AD and Love out. I also think injuries played a part so that might remove CP3 and Westbrook.

I'll say the last two are Curry and Harden. I feel very shaky about the Harden pick that was really a shot in the dark. I could easily see CP3 in his spot if games missed isn't an issue.

My personal list for super stars last year would be LBJ, Durant, Blake, AD, and CP3.

One of my criteria would commercial exposure and I think those guys fit it quite well. On top of being really good players.

I'm now more excited to read the article.

[RaisingTheBar]

Why did you have to go and respond? We all were ignoring so nicely!

Here we go. Now this will turn into another Everyone vs. Da Throne thread. Ugh.

That's what my above comment was about lol

[AnthonyDavis23]

We need to make playoffs for him to be top 3

[pawel]

there are new videos on Pelicans on nba.com - it is nice to hear good words about the team (from I. Thomas and S. Smith)

soemthing new are good words on Dealer Dell from Isiah
enjoy (Pelican Season Preview)
http://http://www.nba.com/pelicans/video/

[Kibner]

I like the criterion of dragging a team to the playoffs. I think another good indicator (though still subjective) is answering"yes" to the question "Would I trade the #1 overall in a typical draft for this player?".

[Perth_Hornet]

While I agree with you that Davis is not a superstar yet and that he is probably a little overrated (understandably so) on this board, I am much more optimistic about his future than you seem to be. What would he have to do this season for you to see him as a true superstar?

The IGN boards rate him as third best player in da leeg and RealGM too so it's not just us.

[DRDJ1]

[QUOTE=MichaelMcNamara;1248843]I wanted to take a look at this question seriously. First, I tried to define what a superstar is, then I looked at how Davis could become one, and finally, what that would mean for the Pelicans.

Warning: 3200 words. Might take a while to read, but as always, I try to make it worthwhile. Anyway, curious to hear the thoughts of others, especially on my criterion and if people agree with my current superstars list.

"Superstar" though often used to describe the best players is such an arbitrary designation that it is hard to create criteria but your scoring system did manage to include the 3 consensus superstars in the NBA. LBJ seems to be the player that everyone agrees on. Using your criteria and only looking at next year then Durant becomes questionable because of his injury but who can deny that he is a superstar. Also, no way Kobe can be a superstar based on last season but who can argue that he isn't.
MVP is not arbitrary and looking at lifetime achievement it should be a standard. If this was used as a criteria then Kobe, Dirk, DRose, Garnett, Duncan and Nash would have to be included.
Curry and Love as superstars? Time will tell.
Pete Maravich would not meet your criteria but was he a superstar? He is in the HOF. But since that includes players at all levels then Jimmer may qualify for HOF consideration but is he a superstar?

[Kurgan]

Honestly until he proves me wrong kobe is not on superstar level, not even close.

I read your piece MM and i must say i agree with pretty much everything. With davis though the main problem, to me, is how easily he gets injured. If he can't fix that at all, i don't know that he'll make all the difference he could. Bad luck or bad trainers or whatever else...he's not playing enough games

[Mythrol]

I'm really shocked at how close my guess was to the actual list.

I can definitely see Love over Blake last year but I also feel Love had a good enough team that he should have made the playoffs son I hold that against him some.

AD had just as historic of a season but didn't have the team to make the playoffs.

But that was last season. As good as AD was last year I'm really interested to see this team this year and see how their dynamic is.

[Bongzilla]

Before this goes off track - What did people think of the list of superstars my Criterion came up with?

Is 5 too many? Not enough? Is it the wrong 5? What did my Criterion fail to account for?

It is a nice piece, but I think you missed one of the major criteria. -- MARKETABILITY.

This is the true definition of a superstar, ---- commercials, media coverage, multiple articles being written about said person. - I will say that the 5 on your list certainly fit the description I just gave.

Also, why does making your teammates better only get 20 points? Don't you think making your teammates infinitely better is a lot more impactful than individual accolades?

[da ThRONe]

Sorry for not answering any of the direct question yesterday was a busy day. Flew in to NOLA and dealt with packing, a procrastinating wife and a demanding daughter.

Just to give a general overview. I think superstardom will always be subjective though I applaud MM effort to come up with a formula for something more tangible. The problem is the other players matter. Take Chris Bosh I would think based on MM scale with the Raptors he's a superstar and one year later because he teams with James and Wade I doubt on the scale he would qualify. Same with for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett. I see a similar fall in production for Love and/or Irving.

However if I was tweaking MM method I think their needs to be some level of consistency when calling a guy a superstar. Somebody like Goran Dragic or Al Jefferson can put together a huge year, but I wouldn't just elevate them to superstar status overnight. Also I'd put less stock in awards. They are popularity contest as much as they are based on the year. You can have a player be just as good as another player for a month or two and not get player of the month that shouldn't negate what a player does just because it falls short of an award and that goes double time for All-Star appearances. Also I wouldn't put to much stock into stats. As I've stated above with players like Bosh and Garnett all went from putting up crazy numbers to taking smaller roles for the sake of winning. Lets just look at the PER for Rudy Gay the last two years when he was traded in the middle of the season in back to back years.

Gay PER for MEM in was 14.1 in 42 games was traded and his PER jumped to 17.6 in 33 games with the Raptors. The following year Gay with the Raptors for 18 games PER was 14.7 and then jumped to 19.6 in 55 games with the Kings. Just one player and a sample size, but I think it makes a solid point. In basketball unlike most sports there's going to be at least X amount of chance for shots, rebounds, steals, blocks, etc. Generally being on a team with limited players means more chances to collect stats because in basketball somebody has to do it. The superstars does this and wins. However the role on a team does impact how effective and efficient a player is. So I like to focus on skillset. Bosh and Garnett didn't lose his 20-10 skills in one offseason. Ray Allen didn't lose his 25ppg ability in one offseason. Rudy Gay didn't become more efficient overnight.

[RaisingTheBar]

Sorry for not answering any of the direct question yesterday was a busy day. Flew in to NOLA and dealt with packing, a procrastinating wife and a demanding daughter.

Just to give a general overview. I think superstardom will always be subjective though I applaud MM effort to come up with a formula for something more tangible. The problem is the other players matter. Take Chris Bosh I would think based on MM scale with the Raptors he's a superstar and one year later because he teams with James and Wade I doubt on the scale he would qualify. Same with for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett. I see a similar fall in production for Love and/or Irving.

However if I was tweaking MM method I think their needs to be some level of consistency when calling a guy a superstar. Somebody like Goran Dragic or Al Jefferson can put together a huge year, but I wouldn't just elevate them to superstar status overnight. Also I'd put less stock in awards. They are popularity contest as much as they are based on the year. You can have a player be just as good as another player for a month or two and not get player of the month that shouldn't negate what a player does just because it falls short of an award and that goes double time for All-Star appearances. Also I wouldn't put to much stock into stats. As I've stated above with players like Bosh and Garnett all went from putting up crazy numbers to taking smaller roles for the sake of winning. Lets just look at the PER for Rudy Gay the last two years when he was traded in the middle of the season in back to back years.

Gay PER for MEM in was 14.1 in 42 games was traded and his PER jumped to 17.6 in 33 games with the Raptors. The following year Gay with the Raptors for 18 games PER was 14.7 and then jumped to 19.6 in 55 games with the Kings. Just one player and a sample size, but I think it makes a solid point. In basketball unlike most sports there's going to be at least X amount of chance for shots, rebounds, steals, blocks, etc. Generally being on a team with limited players means more chances to collect stats because in basketball somebody has to do it. The superstars does this and wins. However the role on a team does impact how effective and efficient a player is. So I like to focus on skillset. Bosh and Garnett didn't lose his 20-10 skills in one offseason. Ray Allen didn't lose his 25ppg ability in one offseason. Rudy Gay didn't become more efficient overnight.

Throne,

This is an excellent post, and one that I agree with a lot of the points you made. But there's one thing that is still undefined and something I just can't get over that was in your previous comment.

"Davis is a really good player much better than I gave him credit for leaving UK, but he still has so many flaws you rarely see players overcome for me to think he'll ever be the "needle mover" that a qualifies him as a superstar."

Davis still has so many flaws that you don't think he can overcome? And those flaws are what stops you from saying he can eventually be a superstar? WHAT?

[Bongzilla]

Throne,

This is an excellent post, and one that I agree with a lot of the points you made. But there's one thing that is still undefined and something I just can't get over that was in your previous comment.

"Davis is a really good player much better than I gave him credit for leaving UK, but he still has so many flaws you rarely see players overcome for me to think he'll ever be the "needle mover" that a qualifies him as a superstar."

Davis still has so many flaws that you don't think he can overcome? And those flaws are what stops you from saying he can eventually be a superstar? WHAT?

You are wasting your time. You are not supposed to feed the trolls.

This is like a "white lie" that has spiraled out of control for Da Throne. He is too far committed now to ever admit he was wrong.

It will be hilarious watching him trying to discredit AD's MVP trophy in a few years.

[RaisingTheBar]

While I agree the argument will probably go no where da ThRONe is not a troll. Nola_NBA was a troll, a select few of the Jimmerites are trolls.

[Big-EZ]

Before I even read the responses on this thread, I'm going to predict Da Throne will have negative comments about Davis.

[Big-EZ]

Well that was an easy prediction....

[Kibner]

Throne,

This is an excellent post, and one that I agree with a lot of the points you made. But there's one thing that is still undefined and something I just can't get over that was in your previous comment.

"Davis is a really good player much better than I gave him credit for leaving UK, but he still has so many flaws you rarely see players overcome for me to think he'll ever be the "needle mover" that a qualifies him as a superstar."

Davis still has so many flaws that you don't think he can overcome? And those flaws are what stops you from saying he can eventually be a superstar? WHAT?

Most of Davis' weaknesses are actually on the defensive side of the ball and are almost entirely mental. His offense is great, but he constantly makes poor decisions or hesitates on rotations, takes bad angles, plays ball-handlers on the perimeter too close, establishing position for defensive rebounds, and not realizing when he can defend equally well by keeping his feet on the ground and his arms up.

[ajrochel]

Great Article as always, as a fan of this forum, we appreciate your hard work that goes into these articles.

I like your criteria for becoming a superstar but as you mentioned its not perfect. I think The one criteria i go with the most for AD to BECOME a superstar would be this team making the playoffs with his scoring/defensive jumps. Its the trend of the true superstars and if you want to be up there with Duncan or KG or even a modern day Steph Curry, we have to break that silence down.

Unfortunately for Davis this requires more consistent #2 guy who doesn't get hurt. I believe we can have a consistent depth and health, he would will have to put up and show it which i am confident he will. He has been more sufficient every outing, smarter so i can see him continuing to be dominant with the same amount of shots maybe a couple more but scoring going up from 20 to 24.5 or so and 10 boards to 12. with 2.5 blocks.

Healthy of his cast #1 most important
Then his Jump stats and effeciency #2
Finally that would end in playoffs #3

And thats his formula to being the next superstar. (based on your criteria)

[ajrochel]

Before this goes off track - What did people think of the list of superstars my Criterion came up with?

Is 5 too many? Not enough? Is it the wrong 5? What did my Criterion fail to account for?

5 superstarts seems fair, i dont think there should ever be too many, and no one gets a lifer award...superstar status is earned every year.