PDA

View Full Version : Is Russell Westbrook A "Star"? And What Is Your Definition Of A "Star"?



Baller1
09-03-2010, 12:15 PM
I'm not here to compare him to Rose, Rondo, Curry, or anyone for that matter. I just want to ask a simple question, and get a few opinions from other fans around the NBA.

So... Would you, in your own opinion, consider Westbrook an NBA "star" at this point in his career?



Also, it's your definition of a star, so don't ask me what I mean by a "star". I want to hear your ideas of what exactly qualifies a player to be considered a star in this league.

Kashmir13579
09-03-2010, 12:18 PM
i think so. the dude is explosive. if he's not considered a star he will be soon.

mikealike305
09-03-2010, 12:20 PM
A star to me is someone that every nba fan wants to see even if hes not on your team, a guy that can sell out crowds in the opponents area, a guy that does dancing with the stars(lol jk), so no, i'd say hes not a star yet, and its going to be hard to next to durant

Swashcuff
09-03-2010, 12:21 PM
Don't really have the time to explain my definition right now but yes I do think he is a star.

TheWatcher34
09-03-2010, 12:22 PM
he's efficient and has impact on a game.
he seems to be a bit quiet tho, at least publicity wise. the making of a star will be up to the media in the first place.
don't forget that he has been and will be in the shadow of Durant as long as he plays for OKC.

save the knicks
09-03-2010, 12:27 PM
any one think his assist numbers are inflated? he is playing with kd

Jemikz9Clutch
09-03-2010, 12:31 PM
he's a star. but not yet in superstar level. we'll see how it goes for him this year.

97NYer
09-03-2010, 12:52 PM
I've seem a few people on this forum recently referring to Westbrook as a top 2 PG. I like the kid but I don't think he's there yet.

CP3
Deron
Rondo
Rose
Nash

I would put those 5 over Westbrook as of now.

sep11ie
09-03-2010, 12:55 PM
A star is a massive, luminous ball of plasma held together by gravity. The nearest star to Earth is the Sun, which is the source of most of the energy on Earth. Other stars are visible in the night sky, when they are not outshone by the Sun. Historically, the most prominent stars on the celestial sphere were grouped together into constellations and asterisms, and the brightest stars gained proper names. Extensive catalogues of stars have been assembled by astronomers, which provide standardized star designations.

For at least a portion of its life, a star shines due to thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen in its core releasing energy that traverses the star's interior and then radiates into outer space. Almost all naturally occurring elements heavier than helium were created by stars, either via stellar nucleosynthesis during their lifetimes or by supernova nucleosynthesis when stars explode. Astronomers can determine the mass, age, chemical composition and many other properties of a star by observing its spectrum, luminosity and motion through space. The total mass of a star is the principal determinant in its evolution and eventual fate. Other characteristics of a star are determined by its evolutionary history, including diameter, rotation, movement and temperature. A plot of the temperature of many stars against their luminosities, known as a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (H–R diagram), allows the age and evolutionary state of a star to be determined.

A star begins as a collapsing cloud of material composed primarily of hydrogen, along with helium and trace amounts of heavier elements. Once the stellar core is sufficiently dense, some of the hydrogen is steadily converted into helium through the process of nuclear fusion.[1] The remainder of the star's interior carries energy away from the core through a combination of radiative and convective processes. The star's internal pressure prevents it from collapsing further under its own gravity. Once the hydrogen fuel at the core is exhausted, those stars having at least 0.4 times the mass of the Sun[2] expand to become a red giant, in some cases fusing heavier elements at the core or in shells around the core. The star then evolves into a degenerate form, recycling a portion of the matter into the interstellar environment, where it will form a new generation of stars with a higher proportion of heavy elements.[3]

Binary and multi-star systems consist of two or more stars that are gravitationally bound, and generally move around each other in stable orbits. When two such stars have a relatively close orbit, their gravitational interaction can have a significant impact on their evolution.[4] Stars can form part of a much larger gravitationally bound structure, such as a cluster or a galaxy.


And yes, I think Westbrook is all that!

Baller1
09-03-2010, 12:56 PM
Who has said Westbrook is a top 2 PG?

I haven't seen that once.

Sly Guy
09-03-2010, 01:03 PM
the term 'star' and 'superstar' are thrown around too liberally these days. I'll say the only real 'stars' in the league are the ones who follow mikealike's definition.

d-baller23
09-03-2010, 01:05 PM
Can anybody say this dude name fast?
Its a tongue twister.lol

I say Russell WRestBrook.lol

This dude will be a star.

DaBUU
09-03-2010, 01:08 PM
no not yet. Who knows who he is outside of basketball fans. Stars transcend their sport throught the country, while Superstars transcend their sport throught the world. And before anyone starts yelling Rose isnt either, i'd agree.

Avenged
09-03-2010, 01:16 PM
He's a star in the making.

Not yet a star.

His expected improvement + Durant + having a solid good team around him will only make him better and have him rated a bit higher.

Baller1
09-03-2010, 01:32 PM
no not yet. Who knows who he is outside of basketball fans. Stars transcend their sport throught the country, while Superstars transcend their sport throught the world. And before anyone starts yelling Rose isnt either, i'd agree.

:laugh2:

I was kind of worried about Rose somehow being brought up too, but no I'm not going to get that debate going again and I hope no one does.

Khalifa21
09-03-2010, 01:35 PM
Not a star yet, has the potential to be though.

Antipod
09-03-2010, 01:36 PM
Not a star yet. A good playoffs series aka WCF Finals, will do the trick :)

Bulls_fan90
09-03-2010, 08:17 PM
any one think his assist numbers are inflated? he is playing with kd

Yeah i feel he's a product of Kevin Durant. Im not saying he's not a good player but i don't consider him a star.

stawka
09-03-2010, 08:26 PM
A star to me is someone that every nba fan wants to see even if hes not on your team, a guy that can sell out crowds in the opponents area, a guy that does dancing with the stars(lol jk), so no, i'd say hes not a star yet, and its going to be hard to next to durant

I think you defines a superstar - not a star. He's a good
player, very exciting and is only Improving

safe to say he's borderline star

Hawkeye15
09-03-2010, 08:38 PM
He is a star in the making. Westbrook is a quick learner, and tenacious. I am not sure how you even define a star. But its someone everyone has respect for, regardless of their personal opinions, at the very least. Westbrook could be a top 5 PG eventually, and as he sustains more playoff success, more and more people will buy into his status

To those saying he is a product of KD, or his numbers are because of KD, that is totally false. Great duo's, trio's, whatever, depend on each other. Westbrook is just as important to Durant as Durant is to Westbrook.

Russell will see some all star games, and is for sure an up and coming star PG

Korman12
09-03-2010, 08:41 PM
Not yet, but certainly has the potential to be.

An excellent athlete and top-flight defender at his position, Westbrook fits well behind Kevin Durant. Not to be confused here, I don't think Westbrook will be a "superstar," but he'll be that tier below and can be a multiple-time all-star.

I think Westbrook perfectly draws the line between what a "star" is (if he becomes one) and a "superstar."

jackdawson
09-03-2010, 08:56 PM
I've seem a few people on this forum recently referring to Westbrook as a top 2 PG. I like the kid but I don't think he's there yet.

CP3
Deron
Rondo
Rose
Nash

I would put those 5 over Westbrook as of now.

How exactly Rose is a better point guard than Nash NOW? Please, explain.

Hawkeye15
09-03-2010, 08:57 PM
How exactly Rose is a better point guard than Nash NOW? Please, explain.

you had to bring up the name Rose, didn't you? haha.

But no, Rose and Westbrook are not top 5 PG's.

Paul

Williams

Nash
Rondo
Billups

the rest

DerekRE_3
09-03-2010, 08:59 PM
If he isn't he will be.

jackdawson
09-03-2010, 08:59 PM
you had to bring up the name Rose, didn't you? haha.

But no, Rose and Westbrook are not top 5 PG's.

Paul

Williams

Nash
Rondo
Billups

the rest

;)



EDIT: I absolutely agree with your list of top 5 point guards.

Tqafg96
09-03-2010, 09:19 PM
No he isnt. My definition of star means, can carry a team on their back.

Kyben36
09-03-2010, 09:20 PM
a star- the options on a winning team, and that being said,some teams only have one star, like Atlanta, they have yet to prove anyone on that team besides JJ is a star caliber player

Superstar caliber players are player who which the offense is run through, player like the old Shaq, Kobe, Wade, Paul D Willaims, Garnett, these are player who can do it all. im sure im missing some, but these are super star caliber players. (missed James but I personaly lost respect for him so imo, he doesnt exist )

as far as your question, I dont think Westbrook is a star, at least, not yet, I dont think he is in control enough for a PG to be considered a star. he is allways way to fast, he is a hell of a player, but untill he can get down with timing, I would not consider him any more than a very fast pased guard. he has potential to be, but no, not yet, he cant IMO run an offense of a winning team should durrant go down. thus, not a star.

Sadds The Gr8
09-03-2010, 09:41 PM
not a star yet, but soon. maybe this season he'll make the jump. I think a star is a player that is known by very casual nba fans, and not just hardcore fans.

blacknell
09-03-2010, 09:58 PM
He is not a star and neither is Curry.. But he is a bigger star than Curry is

nuggetsyankees
09-03-2010, 10:07 PM
i'd say he's an impact player...if he gets an All-star nod then he's a star in my book

Draco
09-03-2010, 10:16 PM
Yeah i feel he's a product of Kevin Durant. Im not saying he's not a good player but i don't consider him a star.

This.

Draco
09-03-2010, 10:18 PM
He is a star in the making. Westbrook is a quick learner, and tenacious. I am not sure how you even define a star. But its someone everyone has respect for, regardless of their personal opinions, at the very least. Westbrook could be a top 5 PG eventually, and as he sustains more playoff success, more and more people will buy into his status

To those saying he is a product of KD, or his numbers are because of KD, that is totally false. Great duo's, trio's, whatever, depend on each other. Westbrook is just as important to Durant as Durant is to Westbrook.

Russell will see some all star games, and is for sure an up and coming star PG

I can see Westbrook scoring a ton because the defense is focused on Durant but I don't see it the other way around nor do I see WB creating offense for Durant that Durant couldn't get on his own.. Durant is on the cusp of superstardom regardless of WB.

VinceCarter
09-03-2010, 11:18 PM
A star is a massive, luminous ball of plasma held together by gravity. The nearest star to Earth is the Sun, which is the source of most of the energy on Earth. Other stars are visible in the night sky, when they are not outshone by the Sun. Historically, the most prominent stars on the celestial sphere were grouped together into constellations and asterisms, and the brightest stars gained proper names. Extensive catalogues of stars have been assembled by astronomers, which provide standardized star designations.

For at least a portion of its life, a star shines due to thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen in its core releasing energy that traverses the star's interior and then radiates into outer space. Almost all naturally occurring elements heavier than helium were created by stars, either via stellar nucleosynthesis during their lifetimes or by supernova nucleosynthesis when stars explode. Astronomers can determine the mass, age, chemical composition and many other properties of a star by observing its spectrum, luminosity and motion through space. The total mass of a star is the principal determinant in its evolution and eventual fate. Other characteristics of a star are determined by its evolutionary history, including diameter, rotation, movement and temperature. A plot of the temperature of many stars against their luminosities, known as a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (HR diagram), allows the age and evolutionary state of a star to be determined.

A star begins as a collapsing cloud of material composed primarily of hydrogen, along with helium and trace amounts of heavier elements. Once the stellar core is sufficiently dense, some of the hydrogen is steadily converted into helium through the process of nuclear fusion.[1] The remainder of the star's interior carries energy away from the core through a combination of radiative and convective processes. The star's internal pressure prevents it from collapsing further under its own gravity. Once the hydrogen fuel at the core is exhausted, those stars having at least 0.4 times the mass of the Sun[2] expand to become a red giant, in some cases fusing heavier elements at the core or in shells around the core. The star then evolves into a degenerate form, recycling a portion of the matter into the interstellar environment, where it will form a new generation of stars with a higher proportion of heavy elements.[3]

Binary and multi-star systems consist of two or more stars that are gravitationally bound, and generally move around each other in stable orbits. When two such stars have a relatively close orbit, their gravitational interaction can have a significant impact on their evolution.[4] Stars can form part of a much larger gravitationally bound structure, such as a cluster or a galaxy.


And yes, I think Westbrook is all that!

So I guess the question is........WHO ARE THE WHITE DWARFS IN THE LEAGUE???

Drtino
09-04-2010, 12:39 AM
A star is a massive, luminous ball of plasma held together by gravity. The nearest star to Earth is the Sun, which is the source of most of the energy on Earth. Other stars are visible in the night sky, when they are not outshone by the Sun. Historically, the most prominent stars on the celestial sphere were grouped together into constellations and asterisms, and the brightest stars gained proper names. Extensive catalogues of stars have been assembled by astronomers, which provide standardized star designations.

For at least a portion of its life, a star shines due to thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen in its core releasing energy that traverses the star's interior and then radiates into outer space. Almost all naturally occurring elements heavier than helium were created by stars, either via stellar nucleosynthesis during their lifetimes or by supernova nucleosynthesis when stars explode. Astronomers can determine the mass, age, chemical composition and many other properties of a star by observing its spectrum, luminosity and motion through space. The total mass of a star is the principal determinant in its evolution and eventual fate. Other characteristics of a star are determined by its evolutionary history, including diameter, rotation, movement and temperature. A plot of the temperature of many stars against their luminosities, known as a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (HR diagram), allows the age and evolutionary state of a star to be determined.

A star begins as a collapsing cloud of material composed primarily of hydrogen, along with helium and trace amounts of heavier elements. Once the stellar core is sufficiently dense, some of the hydrogen is steadily converted into helium through the process of nuclear fusion.[1] The remainder of the star's interior carries energy away from the core through a combination of radiative and convective processes. The star's internal pressure prevents it from collapsing further under its own gravity. Once the hydrogen fuel at the core is exhausted, those stars having at least 0.4 times the mass of the Sun[2] expand to become a red giant, in some cases fusing heavier elements at the core or in shells around the core. The star then evolves into a degenerate form, recycling a portion of the matter into the interstellar environment, where it will form a new generation of stars with a higher proportion of heavy elements.[3]

Binary and multi-star systems consist of two or more stars that are gravitationally bound, and generally move around each other in stable orbits. When two such stars have a relatively close orbit, their gravitational interaction can have a significant impact on their evolution.[4] Stars can form part of a much larger gravitationally bound structure, such as a cluster or a galaxy.


And yes, I think Westbrook is all that!

:facepalm:

Drtino
09-04-2010, 12:40 AM
He's getting there...

Celtic AL
09-04-2010, 12:42 AM
the dude has the tool to join the top 15 PG's

toovey107
09-04-2010, 01:09 AM
Yeah, def. not.

xxcubs22xx
09-04-2010, 06:25 PM
He's not a star yet. Like someone said, he's an impact player.

Just like with DRose, wait a year or two and they will officially be "stars"

Baller1
09-04-2010, 06:43 PM
the dude has the tool to join the top 15 PG's

:laugh2:

So you don't consider Westbrook a top 15 PG?

zambo4president
09-04-2010, 07:39 PM
Definitely not.

Sir Buckets
09-04-2010, 07:43 PM
He's a star in the making.

Not yet a star.

His expected improvement + Durant + having a solid good team around him will only make him better and have him rated a bit higher.This.

eagles4444
09-05-2010, 10:04 AM
IMO a star is a borderline all-star/on the cusp of being an all-star ala westbrook, rose, curry, etc. but there is a line between start and superstar. superstars being your durants, lebrons, dwades, melos of the world.. a star is someone who can be a main contributer on a championship contender while a superstar is one who can carry a championship contender

Hawkeye15
09-05-2010, 10:11 AM
the dude has the tool to join the top 15 PG's

since he is already a top 8 PG at worst, I guess I agree...

Not sure how you don't think he is not better than half the starting PG's in the league

effen5
09-05-2010, 10:14 AM
IMO, No. Not even close.

How would he do on a team with minimum weapons lets say if he swapped places with Evans with the Kings....would the Kings do as well or better with WB than Evans?

IMO hell no.

Baller1
09-05-2010, 12:08 PM
since he is already a top 8 PG at worst, I guess I agree...

Not sure how you don't think he is not better than half the starting PG's in the league

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who noticed this.

Hawkeye15
09-05-2010, 12:14 PM
IMO, No. Not even close.

How would he do on a team with minimum weapons lets say if he swapped places with Evans with the Kings....would the Kings do as well or better with WB than Evans?

IMO hell no.

why?

LALakersKC
09-05-2010, 08:41 PM
He's not a star yet. He will be next year though.

mynameismo
09-05-2010, 09:03 PM
Not yet. But he has all the talent to be one soon enough.

toovey107
09-06-2010, 03:04 AM
He's been pretty inefficient his first two years. The kid has skills, but he's a little over hyped IMO.

Wade>You
09-06-2010, 03:20 AM
I think he's definitely a star, but he plays in a loaded Western Conference.

I think any player that gets an EFF of 17 or higher could be an all-star if the conference is weak at their position.

xbrackattackx
09-06-2010, 12:09 PM
In two years him and Durant will be killing it, and if the thunder keeps letting Vets expire and bringing in more young talent. They will be deadly!

Raidaz4Life
09-06-2010, 12:10 PM
Not right now no... maybe one day

RedRicanoBx
09-06-2010, 04:57 PM
He is a star he was doing it to LA in the playoffs last year