Knixkik wrote:

Solace wrote:I think the stars are what makes winning a possibility. In other words, you probably can't win without one. But the supporting cast is what can push things over the top.

In very rare isolated cases, you can win a championship without a star. But the only time I recall it happening was the 2003 Detroit Pistons.

Also, one thing to take into account: The player who is considered 'the better player', 'the bigger star', etc... That's often the guy who starts winning in the playoffs. So, ultimately, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yes exactly right. And people can say what they want about the Pistons, not having a "superstar" but they had 4 all-stars (Billups, Hamilton, Sheed, and Ben Wallace) in their primes, so again it all depends on your idea of star. All of these players were stars in some way at a point in time.

iguodala, gallo, lawson, and faried are near all-star caliber players. they need another season or two of developing and seasoning.

the term that should be abandoned is the "superstar" tag-- it is just a hype term that has no real grounds for existing.

there are only two players that can be called "superstars" nowadays.

everyone else is either an "all-star starter" or "all-star reserve"

another title is "all-nba" and here the only players that really count are the first-team and a few second teamers.

anyway, it is quite possible that lawson, gallo, and faried could be all-star reserve type players in the very near future.

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Solace wrote:I think the stars are what makes winning a possibility. In other words, you probably can't win without one. But the supporting cast is what can push things over the top.

In very rare isolated cases, you can win a championship without a star. But the only time I recall it happening was the 2003 Detroit Pistons.

Also, one thing to take into account: The player who is considered 'the better player', 'the bigger star', etc... That's often the guy who starts winning in the playoffs. So, ultimately, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yes exactly right. And people can say what they want about the Pistons, not having a "superstar" but they had 4 all-stars (Billups, Hamilton, Sheed, and Ben Wallace) in their primes, so again it all depends on your idea of star. All of these players were stars in some way at a point in time.

iguodala, gallo, lawson, and faried are near all-star caliber players. they need another season or two of developing and seasoning.

the term that should be abandoned is the "superstar" tag-- it is just a hype term that has no real grounds for existing.

there are only two players that can be called "superstars" nowadays.

everyone else is either an "all-star starter" or "all-star reserve"

another title is "all-nba" and here the only players that really count are the first-team and a few second teamers.

anyway, it is quite possible that lawson, gallo, and faried could be all-star reserve type players in the very near future.

very good post, as I said, there are just a couple , maybe 3 superstars... As you said, gallo, iggy, faried are on the cusp of being allstar players, actually iggy is an allstar and olympian for what it is worth..

tkf wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Solace wrote:I think the stars are what makes winning a possibility. In other words, you probably can't win without one. But the supporting cast is what can push things over the top.

In very rare isolated cases, you can win a championship without a star. But the only time I recall it happening was the 2003 Detroit Pistons.

Also, one thing to take into account: The player who is considered 'the better player', 'the bigger star', etc... That's often the guy who starts winning in the playoffs. So, ultimately, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yes exactly right. And people can say what they want about the Pistons, not having a "superstar" but they had 4 all-stars (Billups, Hamilton, Sheed, and Ben Wallace) in their primes, so again it all depends on your idea of star. All of these players were stars in some way at a point in time.

iguodala, gallo, lawson, and faried are near all-star caliber players. they need another season or two of developing and seasoning.

the term that should be abandoned is the "superstar" tag-- it is just a hype term that has no real grounds for existing.

there are only two players that can be called "superstars" nowadays.

everyone else is either an "all-star starter" or "all-star reserve"

another title is "all-nba" and here the only players that really count are the first-team and a few second teamers.

anyway, it is quite possible that lawson, gallo, and faried could be all-star reserve type players in the very near future.

very good post, as I said, there are just a couple , maybe 3 superstars... As you said, gallo, iggy, faried are on the cusp of being allstar players, actually iggy is an allstar and olympian for what it is worth..

If Gallo is on the cusp of all-star, then the same can be said about 75 other players in the league. Same can be said about Faried who is a solid young player who can put up numbers, but is far from an all-star. Only way these guys become all-stars soon is if Denver earns an all-star simply out of regular season record, not because that player is a true all-star.

Vmart wrote:

3G4G wrote:

JrZyHuStLa wrote:

3G4G wrote:GSW was missing Lee and Denver Gallo so we still don't know how things would have played out teams at full strength but big up to GSW. No excuses on who was playing and who was not playing. GSW beat them fair and square.

It only supports the few who said young teams are on the rise...GSW and Rockets who are still alive are evidence of this. Denver will return

GS and Houston have young and legit stars, which is the biggest reason they're on the rise.

Denver doesn't, which is the biggest reason they're not on the rise.

Okay Denver was never on the rise when Melo was there....so why did we trade for him? He lost repeatedly in the first round. Now we're on our 3rd yr hoping we survive the 1rst round.

What does the first round losing say about Karl's system.

Not a damn thing except that Melo is a system busting chucker....oh, wait, Karl lost in the first round the last 3 years in the playoffs without Melo on the roster....Nevermind....

Bonn1997 wrote:3 1st round playoff series losses in the west prove you need a superstar but 2 (so far!) 1st round playoff series losses for us with an alleged superstar in the leastern conference don't counteract the argument?

I would say the main thing you can take away from anything is there are no silver bullets. But you can find trends and figure out what is most likely.

At some point, it also stops being about specific personnel and it's the job to make them work together and maximize potential. The Knicks are currently at that point.

TeamBall wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Solace wrote:I think the stars are what makes winning a possibility. In other words, you probably can't win without one. But the supporting cast is what can push things over the top.

In very rare isolated cases, you can win a championship without a star. But the only time I recall it happening was the 2003 Detroit Pistons.

Also, one thing to take into account: The player who is considered 'the better player', 'the bigger star', etc... That's often the guy who starts winning in the playoffs. So, ultimately, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yes exactly right. And people can say what they want about the Pistons, not having a "superstar" but they had 4 all-stars (Billups, Hamilton, Sheed, and Ben Wallace) in their primes, so again it all depends on your idea of star. All of these players were stars in some way at a point in time.

iguodala, gallo, lawson, and faried are near all-star caliber players. they need another season or two of developing and seasoning.

the term that should be abandoned is the "superstar" tag-- it is just a hype term that has no real grounds for existing.

there are only two players that can be called "superstars" nowadays.

everyone else is either an "all-star starter" or "all-star reserve"

another title is "all-nba" and here the only players that really count are the first-team and a few second teamers.

anyway, it is quite possible that lawson, gallo, and faried could be all-star reserve type players in the very near future.

No malice intended but what makes Gallinari an all star? I only watched him when he was here and even then I kept hearing so much hype about him and he never really panned out. I always thought he was a little overrated to be honest

all he needs to do is get his 3-point shooting above 40% and another FTA per game and he should be considered an all-star caliber player. insofar as the all-star game is a popularity contest we can be certain that gallinari will never be voted a starter no matter how good he may become. but if i am not mistaken coaches vote for the reserves. that's where he has a chance to make it.

he makes good decisions with the basketball and is a very good defender.

his floor impact is not immediately noticeable but he is a bargain for what he does:

http://www.denverstiffs.com/2013/1/12/3866818/inside-the-numbers-danilo-gallinari-denver-nuggets

Uptown wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:3 1st round playoff series losses in the west prove you need a superstar but 2 (so far!) 1st round playoff series losses for us with an alleged superstar in the leastern conference don't counteract the argument?

Whats with you guys and the black-white arguments? Our alleged superstar lost to the superstar of all superstars last year and the year before lost to 4 allstars with half a team....Now, if our alledged superstar loses 1st round this year, then we have something to talk about terms of his stint with the Knicks...

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Solace wrote:I think the stars are what makes winning a possibility. In other words, you probably can't win without one. But the supporting cast is what can push things over the top.

In very rare isolated cases, you can win a championship without a star. But the only time I recall it happening was the 2003 Detroit Pistons.

Also, one thing to take into account: The player who is considered 'the better player', 'the bigger star', etc... That's often the guy who starts winning in the playoffs. So, ultimately, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yes exactly right. And people can say what they want about the Pistons, not having a "superstar" but they had 4 all-stars (Billups, Hamilton, Sheed, and Ben Wallace) in their primes, so again it all depends on your idea of star. All of these players were stars in some way at a point in time.

iguodala, gallo, lawson, and faried are near all-star caliber players. they need another season or two of developing and seasoning.

the term that should be abandoned is the "superstar" tag-- it is just a hype term that has no real grounds for existing.

there are only two players that can be called "superstars" nowadays.

everyone else is either an "all-star starter" or "all-star reserve"

another title is "all-nba" and here the only players that really count are the first-team and a few second teamers.

anyway, it is quite possible that lawson, gallo, and faried could be all-star reserve type players in the very near future.

Iguodola is 30 next year, Gallo maybe back next spring, I disagree about them. I do think Lawson and Faried are have the potential to be all stars down the road.

obviously when i speak of iguodala i don't mean to include him in the "developing" aspect of the statement. the main thing is that, should iguodala remain, those four have a chance to galvanize. we'll have to wait and see. i hope he stays and that gallo heals quickly. nuggets need gallo.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Uptown wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:3 1st round playoff series losses in the west prove you need a superstar but 2 (so far!) 1st round playoff series losses for us with an alleged superstar in the leastern conference don't counteract the argument?

Whats with you guys and the black-white arguments? Our alleged superstar lost to the superstar of all superstars last year and the year before lost to 4 allstars with half a team....Now, if our alledged superstar loses 1st round this year, then we have something to talk about terms of his stint with the Knicks...

Wait, you're saying Boston in 2011 had superstars? They didn't even have an all-star starter. Actually, they didn't have anyone on the all NBA first, second, or even third all NBA team. How can you be a superstar if there are (at least) three better players than you at your position?
They had old guys who were solid players and once were superstars but they weren't remotely close to being superstars at the time.

First you conveniently skip the part about Melo playing with half a team. Tony Douglas, Anthony Carter, Roger Mason and Shawne Williams were getting major playing time in that series due to Stat being hurt and Billups being sidelined. BTW, this old team you speak was in the Finals the year before with shot to win it all in game 7. The same old team had Rajon Rondo putting up 11 and 11, Pierce was at 19 pts per at near 50% shooting, KG was at 15 and 9 and Allen was at 16 pts per. Also, nowhere in my post did I call them superstars....former superstars perhaps, but a few of them were closer to being star players than not.

holfresh wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:The really odd thing about this thread is that we're winning more because of the "role players" than melo this series.

How did we get here Bonn???..Riddle me that ...Melo's presence getting guys wide open looks..Watch the game bra...

He's saying our so called Star ain't doing jack and yet we killing the Celtics!