What Makes A Player A 3rd Star

Lakers do need a third star. Look what happens when lebron or AD are out. If both are out, this team can't beat hardley anyone. Look at the clippers they win if George or Kawaii are out. A third star (solid on d and consistent on offense would really help this team. Like michael porter jr, A Derrick rose type would be great here.

 

For our team specifically, I think we have enough individual talent in terms of scoring, so we really need a playmaker to facilitate the offense when Lebron is not playing.

I think a player like Lamar or Draymond would qualify as our "third star." I agree that D Rose would be awesome here.

 

1. you don't plan teams expecting not to have people. how does that make sense?
2. yes, obviously, everyone should collect all the allstars so that a) they have them and b) their opponent don't. but the salary cap doesn't work this way. again, holiday makes the same amount of money as AD.
3. derrick rose is a third star? great! then we have 5 of them! this is why it's important to define these things.

 

A guy who can play at an All Star level AND has the skills set to complement your 1st 2 options

 

yeah, but the definition is still entirely unclear from the list, imo. jimmy butler has been a reasonable 1st star and is theoretically a good 2nd. i'd argue grant and hield don't qualify as 3rd stars.

was phx-era shawn marion a third star? i think so. and he fits your opening line.

i stick by my earlier definition and my contention that 3rd stars aren't necessary if your first two are REALLY good. it's only when 1 or 2 or both isn't dependable and effective in all situations that the need arises for another "star". otherwise, a team of good complementary role players should be enough to win a title. as we demonstrated last year and in basically all our rings this century.

was odom or artest a 3rd star? rick fox? glen rice? fisher? bynum was close, i guess.

 

but are those "third stars" or just third-most-important players? isn't there a difference? if there isn't, what's the conversation about?

 

i'd argue that that GS team didn't have a "third star". they had a bunch of highly competent role players capable of stepping up in various ways. people forget that bogut, iguodala, and livingston were all still very good players then. and they had harrison barnes, barbosa, and even the last good bit of speights at that time, right?

anyway, if it's about fit? is it a third star? i'd imagine the moniker "star" implies portability.

 

i disagree, but this is why we have the conversation.

if anyone can be a third star, the phrase isn't necessary, imo.

and most of the time i see it used, it doesn't really advance discussions as a rhetorical device. mostly because it's invoked as a shortcoming in team design, as if the "3rd star" is a thing all teams have, like an assistant coach or a power forward. some teams have a model that involves three guys carrying a lot of the load, and some don't.

back to cookie's question again: i think only a few teams employ that model, and i would argue they're not any more successful than two-star models that spread out the support roles. unless you get a kd/steph/klay group or what bkn has now, but that's a different animal altogether (i.e., no one could argue that everyone could just build their team this way--it's hard enough to get two stars, or, if you're small market, one!).

 

ooohhh, good new criterion: i'll take it further--should a "third star" should be able to fool really bad teams into thinking they're a 1st star? or is that second star territory only? is a third star the guy that people try to convince themselves is a second star to a non-first star?

so...porzingis and siakam?

in my world, bosh could actually have been a second star in the right circumstance. before opting for third stardom in miami, he had a good run as top dog.

antawn jamison strikes me as a good third star archetype, though only as an offensive player. but it seems that's what matters to most who want to develop the taxonomy.

 

feel like ayton has strong capela vibes in that the environment he's playing in is what makes his numbers look starry. i still like the component of portability as definitive of stardom. if you're not a star anywhere, you're not a star, imo.

maybe the stepping up into 2nd star for stretches is a good one for the ayton case. i think he'd fail that test (booker or cp is out, i don't think ayton's numbers look good nor does the team beat anyone).

ayton may be a capela case. i really think once they max him out and cp's done, a booker/ayton dual max team struggles to make the playoffs annually. but maybe that does mean he's a third star? could you add ayton to any 2-star team and feel like you've got the guy who can step up when someone else is having an off night? i really don't know.

 

James Worthy was a third star who could easily step up to be a 1st star. They do occur but seems much harder these days.

 

1st or 2nd. i buy second, easily. if worthy was your second-best player in his prime, your team could be a good one. but if he was your marquee guy? you think so?

but yes, definitely "3rd star" by any definition.

btw, that's another helpful way to define categories--bottom up. start with a list of guys everyone agrees are "third stars" then divine which features they share.