The question is what makes a player a 3rd star and how many NBA teams have one? For me it’s a guy who is consistently scoring 15 to 20 points. He isn’t a turnstile on defense or if he is, at least makes up for it on offense. Meaning he’d have to score in the 20ish range most nights. He isn’t an all star and won’t be voted in but might be a six man of the year candidate. His salary range is around 18-24 million a year. There are team like Brooklyn that have 3 stars but none of them are a 3rd star kind of guys, either because of stats or pay. Does Jordan Clarkson qualify as a 3rd star for Utah? Does Boston have a 3rd star? On paper I would think Drummond should be our 3rd star but so far the fit is clunky.
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.
3rd star can be a perfect complementary player IMO. It doesn't have to be an all-star necessarily, even if some are. A guy like Jimmy Butler, Bam Adebayo, Buddy Hield, Kyle Lowry, Jeramy Grant, Khris Middleton, Pascal Siakam, any great defender who has a second skill (shooting or playmaking)... To me it comes down to having 2 elite or at least very good skills...if thats the case, you can be a 3rd star in the right environment. It doesn't matter if he scores a lot of points or not..if its 10-15 ppg, thats good. You can't have 3 guys on the team scoring 20+...you can (like the Nets), but its not ideal. I'd rather have the offense built around 2 guys.
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.
Odom yes. None of the others, especially not Derek Fisher. But to further illustrate your point, Curry and Klay are a good one-two punch, but they need that third star in Draymond since they neither provide any size and Steph might as well sit down at half court while the Warriors are on defense. Lebron and AD can cover any need you might have. Even those Bulls teams with Jordan and Pippen needed Rodman and Grant as a 3rd star to provide something inside the paint.
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?
yes I agree if your first 2 guys are great, it doesn't necessarily need a third. But Golden State showed us a guy like Green as "third star" along with 2 very good/elite players made a historical run and Green isn't a star in my book. The heat back in the days had 3 stars and made a historic run, though Bosh was a legit #2 taking sacrifices. If you have 3, thats better than 2 lol. Whether the third one is a #1/2 and sacrifices or a "normal player "who is in the right spot" isn't important. And yes, Shawn Marion was a perfect 3rd star. The point that I tried to make is: Third star doesn't have to be a star player. It just has to be a player that complements the other 2 in a way that becomes invaluable. There are a 100 players that qualify as a third star in the right invironment. Imagine the Lakers having Buddy Hield to space the floor for LeBron and AD...that is a star...for this team at this time. Whether Buddy is a great player or not doesn't matter. The guy makes like 5 threes a game at over 40%. In other words...the fit is even more important than the level of talent.
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'd say yes, it is "starring" for the team, so technically that is a star for me. It doesn't mean he is an overall star player but anyone can be a "star" in a particular set.
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!).
I forgot about this conversation. Maybe being a 3rd star would also mean they could step up and be the second star for long stretches. It's why I consider Odom and Draymond "stars" since they could be the second best player on a team. Granted, it wouldn't be a championship team, but a pretty good team. Chris Bosh is another good example.
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.
I agree with @Savory Griddles that a 3rd star should be able to step up for long stretches to be a 2nd star if need be because of injuries or other reasons. I don’t think a 3rd star should be able to fool bad teams into thinking they are a 1st star. There are teams that treat a 3rd star as a 1st maybe but that only because they can’t attract a number 1 kind of guy and they have to give their fans something to root for. Is Ayton now a 3rd star for Phoenix? I’d say yes.
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.
