Tyrese Haliburton and the NBA Superstar

—————————————————————————————————

On former NBA player Jeff Teague’s podcast, Club 520, Teague proclaimed that Tyrese Haliburton still isn’t a superstar after his NBA Finals Game 1 buzzer beater against the OKC Thunder on Thursday night. “He’s not polarizing, it’s not undeniable,” were some of Teague's statements about what it means to be a superstar, followed by “SGA’s not even a superstar yet. A superstar is like Lebron, you’re a household [name]. There is no denying you. You’re going to be a superstar next year.” While refusing to call SGA a superstar is a little too outrageous for me to get behind, for some reason I find myself agreeing with Teague on him giving Haliburton the “star” label as opposed to superstar. Thinking about this made me realize that I myself don’t even know what actually qualifies someone as a ‘superstar’ in the NBA.

What I gathered from this moment in Teague’s podcast is that he believes being a superstar has more to do with notoriety/popularity than individual performance/skill. The three people he mentions as examples of an NBA superstar are Lebron James, Steph Curry, and Nikola Jokic, “We talk about Jokic every day.” At first I thought that notoriety can’t be the only part of it, or else he would have mentioned someone like Zion Williamson; who is one of the most polarizing players in the league. However, on the follow up Club 520 podcast, co-host Bhen asked Teague whether or not Zion Williamson was a superstar. Teague couldn’t say yes or no. They talked about the whole superstar thing for a good portion of this podcast and it was completely centered around the ‘what-would-happen-if-you-stepped-outside’ factor of it.

Even still, at one point Teague says “When I look at a superstar, it’s when you walk into a room full of stars and you’re still the guy.” That doesn’t sound like popularity to me, that sounds like being better than the very best; which in short is exactly how I’ve been defining an NBA superstar (primarily). Going through this random hypothetical over and over again is a good way to determine who you personally think are the best players in the NBA. Let’s put the undeniable 3 current best players in a room: Giannis, SGA, and Jokic.. Do you feel like these following players can hang with them?

In my mind,

                Anthony Edwards:                        Yes

                Ja Morant:                                No

                Jason Tatum:                                Yes

                Tyrese Haliburton:                        No

                Luka Doncic:                                Yes

                Trae Young:                                No

                Zion Williamson:                         No

                Lamelo Ball:                                No

        Just by doing this thought experiment I can pretty confidently say that being a superstar in terms of skill and in terms of popularity do not align together. For instance, AS OF RIGHT NOW, the media talks more about Ja Morant than they do Tatum (generally speaking), and Lamelo Ball highlights are posted more to the NBA instagram than Giannis’ highlights. Not being a fan, you would think that Lamelo and Ja must be superstars, but Lamelo Ball is not better than Giannis, and Ja Morant is not better than Tatum. However, the flash of Lamelo and the controversial actions of Ja have given them more notoriety than the other two despite them being less accomplished, on worse teams, and statistically worse basketball players. This is actually a case where I think Lamelo and Ja could be NBA superstars, they just lack enough skill (and in Lamelo’s case, success). Unlike players like Donovan Mitchell and Kawhi Leonard, who I do think are already good enough but lack tangibles in other areas. Getting into that later.

        Both Ja and Lamelo actually lead me into my next thought; a player's value. Before the still incomprehensible outlier that is the Luka Doncic trade, it was certain that an NBA superstar on a good team was untouchable in trade talks. Think of players like Anthony Edwards, Jason Tatum, Jalen Brunson, SGA, Jokic, etc. The franchise of each of these respected players – under no circumstance – will be trading them; and the only reason the Bucks are looking at offers for Giannis is because he has made it clear that he wants to be traded. On the other hand, both the Grizzlies and Hornets are both looking at trades that they consider better options then their current stars [Lamelo Rumors] [Morant Rumors]. Again, I don’t think this is the end all be all either. The Pistons under no circumstance will be trading Cade Cunningham, and the same can be said about the Rockets and Amen Thompson, Cavaliers with Donovan Mitchell, Magic with Paolo Banchero, etc; but that mostly has to do with age. Young stars (Year 1-3) who show improvement every year are in the same value category as superstars for what they could be, not entirely what they are right now.…mind you, I think all of those players are stars, just not superstars.

The Weight is in The Word “Super”

        To be a star is one thing, to be a superstar is to be more superhuman. When I think of superhuman, I think of LeBron James’ 2018 playoff run, Nikola Jokic’s 2024-2025 regular season, James Harden’s 36 ppg in 2018-2019, and Luka Doncic’s 2023-24 regular season, just to name a few. These instances in NBA history are all undeniably superhuman. Words come to mind like unstoppable, unfair, magical, and unbelievable. At the same time, however, those same words come to mind when I think about Tyrese Haliburton’s insane clutch moments this postseason…key word…moments. Before his game-winning shot in Game 1 of the 2025 NBA finals, Tyrese Haliburton had 12 points on 5-12 shooting. Before getting sent to the line in Game 2 of the second round and pulling off a superhuman moment to win the game, he had 15 points, while only shooting 10 shots. Tyrese Haliburton is undoubtedly having superstar moments in these playoffs, but he has not consistently played at the level of a superstar. Having multiple playoff games with points in the single digits is so human that I could even do that shit (get the ball→bullrush the paint→get fouled and hopefully make 1 of 2). Tyrese Haliburton’s highest scoring game this postseason (so far) was 32 points, LeBron averaged 34 in the 2018 playoffs. Obviously, scoring isn’t everything, and Tyrese does a lot of things that most players cannot do; but when it comes to taking over a game and truly acting superhuman, Tyrese has only done it during the last play of the game. It makes sense to me that if you’re a superstar, you are, or, can be the best player on the court no matter who is in front of you. That’s something LeBron can do, that’s something Luka and Giannis can do, Tatum, SGA, etc etc. It’s hard to call Tyrese Haliburton a superstar when (in comparison) he’s been outplayed by the best player on every team he’s played in this year's playoffs; Giannis, Donovan Mitchell, Jalen Brunson, and now SGA. It should also be mentioned that consistency aligns with time. Wemby is good enough RIGHT NOW to be an NBA superstar, but we have not seen him long enough to definitively say he is a superstar. What this tells me is that CONSISTENTLY being the BEST and most DOMINANT player on the court is something all superstars share, whereas a star in Tyrese, Zion, or Jaylen Brown will often get outclassed by those deemed superstars.

The last factor I want to go over is success. Without exploring the connection of being a superstar and success, I would say that the two shouldn’t necessarily be related at all. James Harden never won a title…Luka was on some pretty bad teams until his finals run…Giannis just got bounced in the first round for the third straight year…However, with that logic I have a hard time not calling Donovan Mitchell a superstar, or Trae Young, or even Paolo Banchero. BUT, to be super…to dominate…is to win. Down 3-2 in the 2012 ECF, Lebron dropped 45 points in Game 6 to lead Miami to victory. Today, that performance is talked about more than Devin Booker's 70 point explosion in 2017, in which the Suns lost to the Celtics. Damian Lillard is not only one of the best, but most consistent scorers in NBA history, and he never gets talked about in being the best of the best because he’s never won anything. Like it or not, there are two outcomes of a game: a winner and a loser, and it just so happens to be the case that if you win against someone, it shows that in some way, you are better.

So, what makes an NBA superstar? From what I’ve gathered, all of the players that I consider to be NBA superstars are those untouchable in trade talks (unless a trade is demanded), winners, proven to be consistently the best player on their team and on the court, and can go toe-to-toe with other superstars. So for my final act, I’ve made a table with the best players in the NBA right now and determined their superstardom based off of the following checklist;

UNTOUCHABLE (Typically) - Any franchise would be foolish to trade you

PROVEN WINNER - Proven no matter the team/situation, you can be a consistent winner (Usually makes a team better).        

CONSISTENTLY DOMINANT - Does not occasionally “show up.” Only occasionally doesn’t.

CAN OUTDUEL ANY PLAYER - You’ve shown you can be the best on the court in any game against any player.

BTW… A lot of young guys in my view aren’t superstars yet purely due to their inexperience and therefore lack of sample size. Some guys like Cade, Paolo, and Wemby are basically superstars if they all do the same thing next year and maybe go on a playoff run.

You get the idea…