Commander of Awesome;1461183 wrote:Neitherm but Kawhi is more skilled IMO so if I have to chose I'll go him. Both are good players, but I dont see either being "superstars". Unless that's not your point? Who has best shot at making an all star team? In that case I'd go Kawhi as well.
I guess we would have to answer what is the difference between a star player and a superstar.
I personally like to reserve the term superstar for those who are just so far and beyond the others it's not fair. If there are more than 5+ "superstars" in a sports league at a time, I think you're being too liberal with the term.
For example, current NBA: LeBron and Durant (I think Kobe is past his time although he obviously was a superstar; I'm not sure what to do with Rose at this point, so for now he's only a star; and Stephen Curry has to show a lot more play like this year's past playoffs to be in this catagory so he has work to do.)
Now a star is just a player that can lead a team into the play-offs more often than not, and is regarded as one of the top few at his position in the NBA: Curry, Derrick Rose, Melo, Kobe, Chris Paul, Dwight, Duncan, Parker, Westbrook, Harden, Wade, Paul George, Dirk, etc. (As a Cavs fan I would like to think and believe Irving is a star, but I'd also like to see the Cavs in the play-offs and see how he does there.)
So I agree that neither would be a superstar. I was speaking more from a star point of view. Can either of those two be the future of the Spurs organization and keep them relevant in the play-offs once the old guard (Ginobili, Duncan and to some extent Parker) are done?
