Is Melo really a SUPERSTAR?

[JD617]

No. He might be the most overrated player on the planet. He's never been a top 10 player in the league at any point in his life.

 

[JD617]

No. He might be the most overrated player on the planet. He's never been a top 10 player in the league at any point in his life.

 

[nooera]

Dirk isn't a superstar?

Wow.

Anyway, I like Melo. Dude is definitely an elite player. Superstar? When it comes to Carmelo I guess it's a matter of opinion.

 

[nooera]

Dirk isn't a superstar?

Wow.

Anyway, I like Melo. Dude is definitely an elite player. Superstar? When it comes to Carmelo I guess it's a matter of opinion.

 

[jsindaa]

Originally Posted by JD617


He's never been a top 10 player in the league at any point in his life.

Swear ya'll just spew dumb stuff. I'd love to hear the 10 better players 06-07 season before the NYK incident

 

[jsindaa]

Originally Posted by JD617


He's never been a top 10 player in the league at any point in his life.

Swear ya'll just spew dumb stuff. I'd love to hear the 10 better players 06-07 season before the NYK incident

 

[doublejs07]

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

To me a superstar is broken down into a few parts.

1. Popularity. This is easily the most important part of the equation. Some would say production, but I beg to differ. Stardom is popularity. It isn't about how well you are in your field but how many casuals are willing to come see you when they have no emotions attached to the game. Being able to DRAW on the road is a big factor.

2. Production. People want to force themselves to believe a superstar MUST be able to do it on both ends of the court. LIke Larry Bird right? Like Steve Nash right? Like Barkley right? You don't have to do a thing on the defensive end to be considered a superstar. I hate when people bring that part of. Scoring is the most important aspect of the game. If you score so much that you aren't a liability on the other end of the court because you can SHOOT you team out of any situation, then you are fine. Forget defense.

3. Winning doesn't matter. Again, you don't have to win a damn thing to be considered a superstar. You can just look at most superstars in the history of the NBA. Most of them haven't won a damn thing, so does that disqualify them from superstar status? Of course not.

The superstars of TODAY
Kobe
LeBron
Wade
Dwight
Melo
Yao
Nash

I might be missing someone but those are the folks I am going with.

Now if we are asking about the best PLAYERS in the NBA< that is a different discussion. People confuse that and super stardom too often.

Dirk is just as big of a star (globally) as EVERYONE on that list not named Yao, Kobe, or Lebron....I'm not following how you can say that he's not a superstar but include the likes of Nash, Melo, etc....
  

 

[doublejs07]

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

To me a superstar is broken down into a few parts.

1. Popularity. This is easily the most important part of the equation. Some would say production, but I beg to differ. Stardom is popularity. It isn't about how well you are in your field but how many casuals are willing to come see you when they have no emotions attached to the game. Being able to DRAW on the road is a big factor.

2. Production. People want to force themselves to believe a superstar MUST be able to do it on both ends of the court. LIke Larry Bird right? Like Steve Nash right? Like Barkley right? You don't have to do a thing on the defensive end to be considered a superstar. I hate when people bring that part of. Scoring is the most important aspect of the game. If you score so much that you aren't a liability on the other end of the court because you can SHOOT you team out of any situation, then you are fine. Forget defense.

3. Winning doesn't matter. Again, you don't have to win a damn thing to be considered a superstar. You can just look at most superstars in the history of the NBA. Most of them haven't won a damn thing, so does that disqualify them from superstar status? Of course not.

The superstars of TODAY
Kobe
LeBron
Wade
Dwight
Melo
Yao
Nash

I might be missing someone but those are the folks I am going with.

Now if we are asking about the best PLAYERS in the NBA< that is a different discussion. People confuse that and super stardom too often.

Dirk is just as big of a star (globally) as EVERYONE on that list not named Yao, Kobe, or Lebron....I'm not following how you can say that he's not a superstar but include the likes of Nash, Melo, etc....
  

 

[rawsheed]

I like that list too but I feel you forgot about KD

 

[rawsheed]

I like that list too but I feel you forgot about KD

 

[airjordan jb23]

He's a superstar in my opinion. He can carry a team, he can bring people in to games, & he's a good #1 option on the team. At that he's one of the best players at his position.

 

[airjordan jb23]

He's a superstar in my opinion. He can carry a team, he can bring people in to games, & he's a good #1 option on the team. At that he's one of the best players at his position.

 

[addict4sneakers]

surprised no one has mentioned Durant yet. especially after this past summer/ season.

 

[addict4sneakers]

surprised no one has mentioned Durant yet. especially after this past summer/ season.

 

[whyte1der05five]

Originally Posted by DoubleJs07

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

To me a superstar is broken down into a few parts.

1. Popularity. This is easily the most important part of the equation. Some would say production, but I beg to differ. Stardom is popularity. It isn't about how well you are in your field but how many casuals are willing to come see you when they have no emotions attached to the game. Being able to DRAW on the road is a big factor.

2. Production. People want to force themselves to believe a superstar MUST be able to do it on both ends of the court. LIke Larry Bird right? Like Steve Nash right? Like Barkley right? You don't have to do a thing on the defensive end to be considered a superstar. I hate when people bring that part of. Scoring is the most important aspect of the game. If you score so much that you aren't a liability on the other end of the court because you can SHOOT you team out of any situation, then you are fine. Forget defense.

3. Winning doesn't matter. Again, you don't have to win a damn thing to be considered a superstar. You can just look at most superstars in the history of the NBA. Most of them haven't won a damn thing, so does that disqualify them from superstar status? Of course not.

The superstars of TODAY
Kobe
LeBron
Wade
Dwight
Melo
Yao
Nash

I might be missing someone but those are the folks I am going with.

Now if we are asking about the best PLAYERS in the NBA< that is a different discussion. People confuse that and super stardom too often.

Dirk is just as big of a star (globally) as EVERYONE on that list not named Yao, Kobe, or Lebron....I'm not following how you can say that he's not a superstar but include the likes of Nash, Melo, etc....
  

THIS.


You wouldnt hear anyone questioning Melo before this season either.

 

[whyte1der05five]

Originally Posted by DoubleJs07

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

To me a superstar is broken down into a few parts.

1. Popularity. This is easily the most important part of the equation. Some would say production, but I beg to differ. Stardom is popularity. It isn't about how well you are in your field but how many casuals are willing to come see you when they have no emotions attached to the game. Being able to DRAW on the road is a big factor.

2. Production. People want to force themselves to believe a superstar MUST be able to do it on both ends of the court. LIke Larry Bird right? Like Steve Nash right? Like Barkley right? You don't have to do a thing on the defensive end to be considered a superstar. I hate when people bring that part of. Scoring is the most important aspect of the game. If you score so much that you aren't a liability on the other end of the court because you can SHOOT you team out of any situation, then you are fine. Forget defense.

3. Winning doesn't matter. Again, you don't have to win a damn thing to be considered a superstar. You can just look at most superstars in the history of the NBA. Most of them haven't won a damn thing, so does that disqualify them from superstar status? Of course not.

The superstars of TODAY
Kobe
LeBron
Wade
Dwight
Melo
Yao
Nash

I might be missing someone but those are the folks I am going with.

Now if we are asking about the best PLAYERS in the NBA< that is a different discussion. People confuse that and super stardom too often.

Dirk is just as big of a star (globally) as EVERYONE on that list not named Yao, Kobe, or Lebron....I'm not following how you can say that he's not a superstar but include the likes of Nash, Melo, etc....
  

THIS.


You wouldnt hear anyone questioning Melo before this season either.

 

[pmatic]

KD not quite up there yet.

Obviously he's produced, but he hasn't won enough or been seen in enough off court ads.

 

[deuce king]

He's never been a top 10 player in the league at any point in his life.
 

 

[deuce king]

He's never been a top 10 player in the league at any point in his life.
 

 

[pmatic]

KD not quite up there yet.

Obviously he's produced, but he hasn't won enough or been seen in enough off court ads.

 

[dipsetgeneral]

Originally Posted by smoothrick007


Hasn't his team made the playoffs every year since getting him?

This is Denver's record since drafting him.

2009-10	Denver	53	29	.646	1st	Northwest Division	2	4	.333	Lost West Conf 1st Rd
2008-09	Denver	54	28	.659	1st	Northwest Division	10	6	.625	Lost West Conf Finals
2007-08	Denver	50	32	.610	2nd	Northwest Division	0	4	.000	Lost West Conf 1st Rd
2006-07	Denver	45	37	.549	2nd	Northwest Division	1	4	.200	Lost West Conf 1st Rd
2005-06	Denver	44	38	.537	1st	Northwest Division	1	4	.200	Lost West Conf 1st Rd
2004-05	Denver	49	33	.598	2nd	Northwest Division	1	4	.200	Lost West Conf 1st Rd
2003-04	Denver	43	39	.524	6th	Midwest Division	1	4	.200	Lost West Conf 1st Rd

This was Denver's before drafting him.

2002-03 Denver 17 65 .207 7th Midwest Division - - - DNQ 2001-02 Denver 27 55 .329 6th Midwest Division - - - DNQ 2000-01 Denver 40 42 .488 6th Midwest Division - - - DNQ 1999-00 Denver 35 47 .427 5th Midwest Division - - - DNQ 1998-99 * Denver 14 36 .280 6th Midwest Division - - - DNQ 1997-98 Denver 11 71 .134 7th Midwest Division - - - DNQ 1996-97 Denver 21 61 .256 5th Midwest Division - - - DNQ 1995-96 Denver 35 47 .427 4th Midwest Division - - - DNQ

Not so good is it? Didn't he also lead syracuse to their first national championship? i know it's college but still..

Bravo

+

What @DCallAmerican said.

Melo is unguardable.

  

 

[dipsetgeneral]

Originally Posted by smoothrick007


Hasn't his team made the playoffs every year since getting him?

This is Denver's record since drafting him.

2009-10	Denver	53	29	.646	1st	Northwest Division	2	4	.333	Lost West Conf 1st Rd
2008-09	Denver	54	28	.659	1st	Northwest Division	10	6	.625	Lost West Conf Finals
2007-08	Denver	50	32	.610	2nd	Northwest Division	0	4	.000	Lost West Conf 1st Rd
2006-07	Denver	45	37	.549	2nd	Northwest Division	1	4	.200	Lost West Conf 1st Rd
2005-06	Denver	44	38	.537	1st	Northwest Division	1	4	.200	Lost West Conf 1st Rd
2004-05	Denver	49	33	.598	2nd	Northwest Division	1	4	.200	Lost West Conf 1st Rd
2003-04	Denver	43	39	.524	6th	Midwest Division	1	4	.200	Lost West Conf 1st Rd

This was Denver's before drafting him.

2002-03 Denver 17 65 .207 7th Midwest Division - - - DNQ 2001-02 Denver 27 55 .329 6th Midwest Division - - - DNQ 2000-01 Denver 40 42 .488 6th Midwest Division - - - DNQ 1999-00 Denver 35 47 .427 5th Midwest Division - - - DNQ 1998-99 * Denver 14 36 .280 6th Midwest Division - - - DNQ 1997-98 Denver 11 71 .134 7th Midwest Division - - - DNQ 1996-97 Denver 21 61 .256 5th Midwest Division - - - DNQ 1995-96 Denver 35 47 .427 4th Midwest Division - - - DNQ

Not so good is it? Didn't he also lead syracuse to their first national championship? i know it's college but still..

Bravo

+

What @DCallAmerican said.

Melo is unguardable.

  

 

[ap27]

Originally Posted by GaBeGRaMz

Originally Posted by PoeticJays

I feel like that term gets thrown around too casually. To me, a true superstar has to have two qualities:

1) Makes everyone around him better
2) Can single handily carry a team on his back, meaning surround him with bums and they're still making the playoffs (i.e. Kobe in 05-06, Wade in 08-09, KG in Minny, Lebron in Cleveland)


I personally feel like there are only a handful of true superstars in the league (kobe, lebron, wade, dwight, maybe chris paul/d-will), as in you could surround them dudes with YMCA cats and they'd still probably make the playoffs.

Now there is the second tier that are pseudo-superstars, who have one of these qualities, but not both. Players like Dirk, Durant, Melo are elite scorers and can be #1 options on a championship team, but don't really make their teammates better. Players like Nash, Gasol, Rondo make everyone around them better but can't carry the load night in and night out.

When I watch Melo play, I see elite scorer, clutch, not afraid of the moment. He's not much of a playmaker, doesn't lock up, doesn't rebound. For comparison purposes, if you stuck Melo on Cleveland would they be a playoff team? I say no. If you switched him with Wade on last year's Heat team or Kobe's 05-06 Laker team, would they make the playoffs? I don't see it.

In my eyes, if he goes to the Nets, they're the 5th best team in the conference.[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)] [/color]If he goes to the Knicks, they're pushing Chicago for 4th, but I'd still probably go with Chicago in a 7 game series. They still wouldn't beat the Heat, Celtics or Magic in a 7 game series.

Someone convince me that i'm wrong.

What?

Wrong. 9 rebounds a game for a SF.

Yes.

Stop it 5.

 

[ap27]

Originally Posted by GaBeGRaMz

Originally Posted by PoeticJays

I feel like that term gets thrown around too casually. To me, a true superstar has to have two qualities:

1) Makes everyone around him better
2) Can single handily carry a team on his back, meaning surround him with bums and they're still making the playoffs (i.e. Kobe in 05-06, Wade in 08-09, KG in Minny, Lebron in Cleveland)


I personally feel like there are only a handful of true superstars in the league (kobe, lebron, wade, dwight, maybe chris paul/d-will), as in you could surround them dudes with YMCA cats and they'd still probably make the playoffs.

Now there is the second tier that are pseudo-superstars, who have one of these qualities, but not both. Players like Dirk, Durant, Melo are elite scorers and can be #1 options on a championship team, but don't really make their teammates better. Players like Nash, Gasol, Rondo make everyone around them better but can't carry the load night in and night out.

When I watch Melo play, I see elite scorer, clutch, not afraid of the moment. He's not much of a playmaker, doesn't lock up, doesn't rebound. For comparison purposes, if you stuck Melo on Cleveland would they be a playoff team? I say no. If you switched him with Wade on last year's Heat team or Kobe's 05-06 Laker team, would they make the playoffs? I don't see it.

In my eyes, if he goes to the Nets, they're the 5th best team in the conference.[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)] [/color]If he goes to the Knicks, they're pushing Chicago for 4th, but I'd still probably go with Chicago in a 7 game series. They still wouldn't beat the Heat, Celtics or Magic in a 7 game series.

Someone convince me that i'm wrong.

What?

Wrong. 9 rebounds a game for a SF.

Yes.

Stop it 5.

 

[statis22]

For you to be a superstar I do think you have to do a bit of winning. Say if he was toiling away in a city like Memphis or Minnesota would he be as popular as he is now? I think he does enough winning to get him by.

I think he's a really really really good, just not a superstar.