Why isn't IT considered a superstar?

He's a star, not superstar. Difficult to win with a player that size. Big Isiah is the shortest best player on a champion and he was 6'0". He was very hard-nosed and clutch. The next shortest player was probably Wade at 6'4"... a strong, clutch player. Shaq could still be argued as the best player in that team. Curry (6'3") didn't win FMVP. It's just more difficult to affect games at that size when your shot isn't falling. The shortest Top 20 player is 6'6".

If Harden was 5'10" and guarding the post.... oh my.

 

He needs another great season and the praise will come.

 

Wait. Did OP watch the game? or was I the only one that didn't see IT on the court?

 

harden scores more, is a better passer, a better rebounder,, and even a better defender than IT (IT steals per game are pathetic).

i'd have more faith in harden being a number 1 on a championship team than thomas.

 

If IT was Harden's height he'd probably be a better player.

 

A superstar? ....I guess it depends on your definition of superstar.

How many superstars do you think there are in the league? If you think there are like 20+ then IT is a superstar.
For most people to consider someone a superstar he will have to be performing at the most top level and for more than a season. Being a winner also helps. Popularity also.

 

'If I was 6'4, I'd be the best ever'

 

Height matters a lot because the best players in the league are 6'8+. If you aren't at least 6'5 your team is just gimping themselves because you are paying the same amount as somebody 6'8+ and when crunch time comes, you have scenarios where 6'0 Chris Paul is being guarded by 6'8 Kawhi Leonard. There's a reason why teams with pg franchise players haven't won since Magic. And before you say Steph Curry...the guy is making 15M and that's why they could afford to field 5 all stars in their squad. If Curry made 30M and GSW can only afford 3 max guys and the rest are min lvl guys they would get owned by both the Spurs and Cavs.

 

2nd Team All NBA and a 2-time All Star not a superstar?! He is worthy of the max and has stepped up in the playoffs.

 

He'd have a bigger, more heart.

 

You can't just add height to IT and project him to be that much better

If he was much taller, he wouldn't be able to go through other players' legs or hide behind them or not be noticeable on the court....

 

imagine if westbrook was 7′ 6″ like yao ming

 

He's an analytical superstar, that's for sure. He just seems tough to build around. You need someone to take the ball out of his hands to win. When you take the ball out of his hands he's not as good of a player.

 

Well.... that's a terrifying picture.

As for IT. If you are under 6'0 and don't have PG skills, a team can't build their franchise around you. His on/off defensive numbers showed what a massive liability he is on D. On a contender he needs to play the Lou Williams/Jamal Crawford role.

 

IT is a solid All-Star caliber player, but he is not a superstar and I doubt he'll ever get there. There's probably at least 20 players I'd take over him. Boston will never win a championship with IT as their #1 option. Physical measurables matter. They need to get a new "Batman" and have IT be the "Robin". Or trade him.

There's really only one obvious superstar in the entire Eastern Conference and that's LeBron. Wade's one too, but he's declining. A good case can also be made for Wall and Irving.

 

I thought he already was.

 

I dunno if the Celtics tried to trade IT, if there would be a lot of takers. He's not a great fit on any team I can think of, especially for $30 million a year.