Is Brandon Roy a Superstar?

October 5th, 2009 | by jetcity |

I’m completely aware that I’ve offended most Trail Blazers fans simply by asking the question, but I think it’s an interesting one to ponder nonetheless… I took a poll amongst a pool of general sports fans recently as a prelude to this article, and I presented the same set of options that you’ll see at the bottom. I expect the results will be different here, given that the audience is heavily weighted with staunch Blazer fans. From the sample of general sports fans, 71% voted that Brandon is a “stud ,” but not quite there when it comes to the label “superstar “. Many posted articulate responses backing their vote as such, some of which guided the format and content of the analysis in this article.

I’m a Blazer fan too, so I admit bias when it comes to this topic. In order to step away from that bias, I want to break down the question by coming up with some parameters for the label “superstar”. What makes an NBA Superstar? Is it raw ability? Does selling merchandise or tickets have anything to do with it? Does a player have to win a championship to be one? The answer, of course, is that all of these aspects count in the equation that determines “superstar” status. It probably comes off as a wildly subjective popularity contest to some, and rightly so. I’m going to throw out the different dimensions that I think are the most representative. I’m sure I’m missing some good ones (please toss your two cents into the comments).

Winning

Superstars are winners. I think this is one of the few aspects of the label that nobody will be able to argue with. It’s very hard to be a superstar if your team loses all the time. Statistical dominance might gain a player some respect, but if they can’t power their team to wins, they’ll fall short of the highest accolades. Take, for example, the Kevin Garnett of his tenure with the Timberwolves. For years, he was one of the most consistently sterling players statistically, but his teams mostly missed the playoffs. KG wasn’t a superstar until he won a championship with Boston in 2008, and even he knew this. That’s why he was so deliriously happy after defeating the Lakers, proclaiming that he was “certified”…

If winning is a necessary part of being a superstar, does that mean winning a championship? I don’t think so. Charles Barkley and Karl Malone were superstars, but they never made it all the way to the top of the mountain. They did power championship-contender teams, however, and I think that’s the minimum bar that a player must reach. Barkley and Malone both made trips to the NBA Finals and were overwhelming candidates for “superstardom” in other areas.

How does Brandon Roy, the subject of our poll, measure up when it comes to winning? Well, his team won 54 games last year, which is no small feat. They were ousted from the playoffs in the first round, however, and that’s nowhere near the bar of making an NBA Finals appearance. Therefore, when it comes to winning, Roy has a lot of work to do.

Name Recognition

This was a big one that came up in my objective poll. Many responders began a comment with “Roy is a superstar in my book, but if you take a random person off the street, they won’t know who he is” (or something along these lines). I think this is a very valid point, and it weights the equation for players that are on big market teams. Is it simply harder to be a superstar in a small-market? Well yes, everyone knows that. In fact, this is probably the single biggest reason that guys like LeBron James, Chris Bosh, and Dwyane Wade may change zip codes next summer… Being a household name is an obvious litmus test for superstar status, and winning championships (our most important criteria, above), will definitely drive up name recognition.

Since Portland is a small market, and one located in the Pacific time zone no less, Roy will always be at a disadvantage here. In fact, perhaps the only way for Roy to get major exposure is for the Blazers to go deep into the NBA playoffs. At this point, Greg Oden is still more recognizable than Brandon Roy. Amongst NBA and fantasy basketball luminaries, this is something to laugh and shake your head at. Still, it’s going to remain true until Roy leads the Blazers on a campaign deep into the playoffs.

Ability to Sell

Another criterion that stars are measured by is their ability to sell a franchise. A somewhat useful reading is jersey and shoe sales, but ticket sales should also factor in. Allen Iverson’s style of play and persona have long proven potent for “putting butts in seats,” and you can bet that Memphis decided to sign him this summer largely for this reason (it certainly doesn’t make much sense for developing their young core of talented guards). Iverson is a perfect example of a player who is a present commodity primarily because of his ability to draw interest and sell a franchise. Of course, Iverson already has a resume that includes scoring titles, trips to the NBA Finals, and several All Star game appearances, so he really shouldn’t be compared directly to a young star like Roy.

Brandon Roy, situated in a small market, is always going to be at a disadvantage when it comes to selling merchandise. If you look at the top 15 NBA jersey sales, you see big market players like Nate Robinson and David Lee who are nowhere near the talent level of Brandon Roy. So here’s another criteria that’s severely weighted towards players in big markets – can a small market star ever be a superstar? The answer is yes, but it’s damn hard.

“Bigger Than Life Personality”

One of the more interesting talking points that arose out of my forum poll centered on the “personality” of a superstar. I have to admit, I wasn’t figuring this in at all when I was originally conceiving this article. I mean, an engaging personality can make a player more interesting, but is it really an important parameter for determining stardom? More than one responder brought up the name Terrell Owens (not an NBA player, but again, this was just a generic sports-talk forum). The point made was that a superstar has to have a massive ego, drawing attention and generating buzz around a sports team. If this is true, I’m not even sure that the label “superstar” is a positive thing. I can certainly buy the angle that “any publicity is good publicity” in the wider entertainment world, but I don’t think it applies to sports entertainment. Guys like Owens, Rodman, and Ron Artest can end up being huge distractions to their teams, and their egos often get in the way of team chemistry. In this sense, Blazers fans should hope that Roy continues to fall short on this particular axis. I’m still not sure that I even agree that it should be part of the equation, but it appears that the wider population of sports fans disagrees with me.

Statistics

This is another one that I’d almost be tempted to throw out, but fantasy sports make statistics even more important in the modern day. Statistical excellence can make a good athlete a huge star. Even more important, it will gain a player fans outside of their regular team following. Fantasy sports are what made NBA fans that could care less about the Timberwolves big KG fans. Fantasy sports make many of us Chris Paul fanatics. It’s not that ridiculous, as statistics are a fair model for the talent level of a player. Not a perfect model, but a decent one. You can’t put up amazing statistics without being very good. In this area, Roy has truly arrived . In most 2009 fantasy basketball mocks I’ve done, he goes in the late first round. This is “superstar territory” in fantasy sports.

Leadership

Finally, a slam dunk for BRoy! Almost everyone would agree that a superstar is a leader, someone vocal that can represent their team to the populace and who challenges their teammates to exceed. I can think of great athletes who had incredible statistics, played on winning teams, and achieved wide name recognition who would definitely not be termed superstars due to shortcomings in this area. I might cite Shawn Marion and Amar’e Stoudemire as examples. As a part of the exciting Phoenix Suns squads (of recent demise), they received great exposure and put up incredible statistical seasons. This made them stars, but not superstars. The one clear-cut superstar on those teams was the franchise leader, two-time MVP Steve Nash.

I can’t think of a better franchise leader than Brandon Roy. In every way measurable, he’s a paragon of leadership and character for the Portland Trail Blazers franchise. In his interactions with teammates, coaching staff, media, and all other parties, Roy is about one thing: winning. In this respect, Brandon Roy is already in the class of the league .

Highlights & Clutch Play

I combined these two criteria because a really clutch shot or converted field goal is a highlight on its own. This is another area where Brandon Roy has indisputably arrived. You want vicious, in-your-face dunks? Check out what Roy did to Cheikh Samb last year. Game winners? I’ve almost lost track of them all. One of the most indelible images of 2009 was Roy’s rainbow buzzer-beater to down the Rockets in overtime, the game that put the league on notice that Portland was a team to circle on the schedule. I’d argue that Roy is already one of the most clutch players in the league, and that this is definitely one of the most important measures of a superstar. What else is a superstar for, if not to make clutch plays when the game is on the line?

Conclusion

Just summarizing Roy’s placements in the above breakdown:

A) Winning: Not yet, he needs to lead his team deep in the NBA playoffs, perhaps all the way to a championship, to be measured a superstar.

B) Name Recognition: Not there yet, mostly due to A), but Roy is also hamstrung by his placement in a small market.

C) Ability to Sell: Roy hasn’t quite matured to superstar status here. This is a murky one – if he gets his own Nike shoe, does he meet the bar? You might argue that this is an unfair criterion to apply to players outside of the large markets, but I would point out in response that Chris Paul had the #4 selling NBA jersey at last report.

D) “Bigger than Life Personality”: This is not Roy, and never will be . If it takes a monster ego and relentless self-promotion to be a superstar, I think Roy himself would shun the title. Still, I don’t think that anyone would argue that Tim Duncan is not a superstar. This is the path for Roy, who will make up for his professionalism and quiet personal life (both commendable, which is why I hate that this is part of the discussion at all…) with on-court excellence and winning.

E) Statistics: Roy is just arriving now in this respect. He’s already one of the top guards in the league, statistically. I expect another leap this year, and I’m not alone. Roy is being selected as a late first rounder in most fantasy leagues, and I don’t think he’ll disappoint.

F) Leadership: Consummate leader and a model for some players who are already considered “superstars”.

G) Highlights and Clutch Play: Superstar, without question. Roy is one of the most clutch players in the league and has far more game-winners than some unquestioned “superstars” like Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan, etc.

That’s 3/7 , if you’re counting. Playing out in Portland, Roy really has to win a championship to be a household name. He already has the respect and recognition of his peers. This is the guy that Ron Artest called “the best player I’ve ever played against,” and he was serious. Brandon Roy is like Tim Duncan, only Duncan had more hype and accolades coming out of college, so Roy’s climb is a little steeper. If he wins a championship, he’ll be ranked among the greatest in the league. Nike will give him the signature shoe, and his jersey will pop into the top 15. I really doubt that Roy has any problem with this reality, as his ambition is to win championships anyway. Taking from everything I’ve heard from Roy in interviews, things like shoes, jersey sales, awards, and even big contracts are all “nice to haves” for him. Roy wants to be a champion , and when he gets there, the rest will follow.