The Indy Talks To Himself (NBA) Thread.

Superstar goes above and beyond the game. All-Pro is the description for a top 5ish player, game related only.

 

Lol at New Balance trying to establish a presence in the NBA.

 

Superstardom seems like a combination of three things, IMO:

1. You are a top talent (top 20? 15? 10?).
2. Your team is a top team (maybe say at least second round playoff team?).
3. Your name is recognizable outside of the game.

If you have all 3 of these things to a decent degree, I think you’re a superstar. In other words, if you’re a top 15 player, your team makes it to at least the second round of the playoffs, and your name rings a bell to someone in my family (none of them watch or care about the NBA), you’re a superstar.

If you have 1 or 2 of the criteria to a high degree, but one of them to no or a lower degree, you can still be a superstar. For example, LeBron is easily top 2, probably number 1 player, and his name is known by almost anyone you ask. Therefore, still a superstar despite missing playoffs.

Kawhi makes the cut this way as well. Top 5 player (maybe better), team may soon be heading to Eastern Conference finals, but name not as recognizable to non basketball fans. Still a superstar.

I think the only one that’s non negotiable is the top talent. I don’t know what number it cuts of at, but if you aren’t in that top echelon, you can’t be a superstar, even if your team is awesome and your name is recognizable. Someone like Chris Paul probably falls in this category.

 

If you can go to any team and make them a contender, you are a superstar. If you cannot, you aren't.

 

I guess you'll have to define contender. If you mean a team that can challenge for a title, I'm not sure the NBA has a superstar.

 

So do the Rockets actually have a chance, or was the NBA just using the refs to squeeze as much out of this Houston/GS series as possible, knowing that the ratings are going to be horrible for the conference finals, which will likely be GS/Denver and Toronto/Milwaukee, along with the finals that follow?

 

Well, I would call Houston a contender this year, even though they could lose in the conference semis.

So I'm not that strict.

 

Golden State is in trouble. Must win tonight.

 

I disagree with the first statement and agree with the second.

 

"I think this series is over."

-Paul Pierce

 

Brogdon back. Roll over the Celtics. Eastern finals. Pretty damn sweet.

 

you just like to [uck fay] around in this thread.

 

Not at all.

I don’t think the Warriors are in trouble. I think the refs allowed the Rockets to play a physical style at home so that they wouldn’t get swept. The NBA desperately needed this series to be competitive, and now here we are. Warriors likely win with ease tonight.

But the game is still obviously a must win. You can’t go down 3-2 going back to their place.

 

I don't think the refs called a single foul on GS in Game 1. They are almost always the beneficiary of selective reffing.

 

Not in trouble; must win.
Seriously. We get it, you're a very funny guy.

 

Any game 5 at home with a series tied 2-2 is a must win game. You can’t give home court advantage back to your opponent.

That doesn’t mean you’re in trouble. It just means you need to take care of business, as expected.

 

Steph shooting 25% from the field, 17% from 3, and GS is still up 14 at half. No one, I mean no one, saw that coming.

 

Through 18 quarters of basketball against the Rockets, Steph is shooting 25% from 3, and 38% from the field.

Have we reached the point of admitting this is a problem yet, or are we still making excuses for him?

 

Uh oh

 

That might be the Achilles for KD. Damn.