Why didn't Sam Perkins become a star in the NBA?

[HomieWeMajor]

That heroin addiction really messed him up. Dude could flat out ball.

[bizil]

I wouldn't really call him soft but he was not much of a banger, not very physical, and he played in an era filled with those types guys at his position, he was a pretty good rebounder but not that close to a great one, and his lack of passing skills also considerably hurts his game especially since he like to stay on the perimeter, not what you call a good defender too.

Sam was a good role player, just what he was... A PF (call him a stretch 4 if you want to) with good shooting skills, a big to stretch the floor that was taking more jumpers but could also post-up pretty well, that could score as high as 16 ppg, offered some rebounding, crafty player, not a good passer but smart, not a bad defender, wasn't very physical, didn't had that killer and that big scorer type of mentality... That was "it" basically, still good, and yea not everyone can be an all-star.

Well said! That era Perk played in was full of tough guys and enforcer types at PF. They were guys who were tough on AND off the court. Other than Chambers, basically all the top PF's in the L back then were bad asses. He had a versatile offensive skillset, actually on of the most complete ones at PF in that era. But he wasn't DOMINANT enough to be a true star. Let alone a superstar. But he was a very good player, certainly one of the top 15-17 PF's in the world in his prime years. The number one factor to being a great player is DOMINANCE! It's one thing to be very skilled and can do a number of things well. But u must be DOMINANT to really standout and be a star. Even a guy like Stockton was a dominant passer, arguably the most dominant passer of all time. Rodman was a dominant rebounder and defender. So u don't have to be a dominant scorer to be a great player.

[bizil]

I like the reviews Perkins has recieved. He was a very good player throughout hus career. But for the life of me, can someone explain why he and Divac (another player highly respected on this site) never get any acknowledgement as players for their role on the 91 Lakers. Some of you act as if that team had a doughnut in the middle after Kareem retired.

I agree! That Lakers team was very good with Sam and Vlade up front. I actually consider them a huge reason why the Lakers made the Finals in 91. Magic was still in his prime and the 2nd best player in the L. Worthy was still one of the top SF's as well. But the new bigs in Sam and Vlade added new life to the team and gave the Lakers some much needed depth up front. But I gotta admit, I was pleasantly surprised they made the Finals in 91. I thought they needed another year or so to gel and become a threat again.

[Replay32]

That heroin addiction really messed him up. Dude could flat out ball.

[Replay32]

I agree! That Lakers team was very good with Sam and Vlade up front. I actually consider them a huge reason why the Lakers made the Finals in 91. Magic was still in his prime and the 2nd best player in the L. Worthy was still one of the top SF's as well. But the new bigs in Sam and Vlade added new life to the team and gave the Lakers some much needed depth up front. But I gotta admit, I was pleasantly surprised they made the Finals in 91. I thought they needed another year or so to gel and become a threat again.

They upset Portland. Scott and Worthy played well in that series, but unfortunately worthy hurt his ankle. And Scott got hurt in the finals, I think it was game 3. I really feel the lakers could of beat the bulls or pushed them to 7 if worthy was healthy for the series.

Perkins was solid. He had post game and on occasion was a threat from 3. Vlade was a solid center as well, who could play inside and had a nice touch outside. The lakers surprised a lot of people that year.

[bizil]

They upset Portland. Scott and Worthy played well in that series, but unfortunately worthy hurt his ankle. And Scott got hurt in the finals, I think it was game 3. I really feel the lakers could of beat the bulls or pushed them to 7 if worthy was healthy for the series.

Perkins was solid. He had post game and on occasion was a threat from 3. Vlade was a solid center as well, who could play inside and had a nice touch outside. The lakers surprised a lot of people that year.

Ya I thought it was gonna be Portland vs. Chicago for sure. We got that series the following year though. Worthy and Scott getting hurt REALLY allowed MJ and Pippen to load up on Magic. I thought the Lakers had the edge as a whole with the PF and C positions. So those injuries to Scott and Worthy made a huge difference. I could have seen the Lakers pushing the Bulls to six or seven if they were healthy.

[Soundwave]

Is it really a given that a no.4 overall should be a star player?

He had himself a pretty decent career.

[97 bulls]

Ya I thought it was gonna be Portland vs. Chicago for sure. We got that series the following year though. Worthy and Scott getting hurt REALLY allowed MJ and Pippen to load up on Magic. I thought the Lakers had the edge as a whole with the PF and C positions. So those injuries to Scott and Worthy made a huge difference. I could have seen the Lakers pushing the Bulls to six or seven if they were healthy.

Well Jordan played with an injured big toe. I'm sure that effected his defense. He said it gave was hard to plant. So it evens out. Scott hurt himself in game four a game the Bulls had well in hand.

And the one game the Lakers did win I feel could be greatly attributed to the Bulls finals jitters. They all said that after game one, they felt the Lakers weren't as good as they thought they were.

[JohnMax]

That heroin addiction really messed him up. Dude could flat out ball.

[Force]

Sam became exactly what he was supposed to be.

I've never heard one person ever in my 30 plus years following the NBA call Perkins a bust or anything close to it. Never heard anybody say he didn't live up to his expectations. He had a damn good career.