Who is a superstar?

[MurphDogg]

I wouldn't say Jones is overrated here. There are what, 3,000 posters on this board? With a community that big you are always going to find a number of posters who overrate a particular player and are vocal about it, and other people who always stress the player's flaws without giving enough credit for the positives the player brings. But overall, I think the board is pretty objective on Jones. The vast majority would say he is a good to very good player, but not a superstar. Of course, different people also have different criteria for how good a player has to be to deserve to be called a superstar. To some people, there are 50-75 players they'd call a superstar. But to me, that cheapens the term.

I agree with this. Obviously there are people on the board that overrate Jones but the consensus (middle 50 percent of the posters) is that he is good to very good. There is a much wider range of opinions on his defense, with the middle 50 percent perhaps rating him between well below average to slightly above average.

[skanar]

If Joey Votto isn't a superstar, something is wrong. He missed some games this year, I guess, but here's his OPS numbers: .981 (2000), 1.024 (2010), .947 (2011), 1.041 (2012). With Pujols looking human, only Votto and Cabrera are contenders for the title of "best hitter in baseball right now."

I'd put Clayton Kershaw on the "borderline" list, since he's awfully close: 4 straight full seasons with an ERA below 3.00; finished 1st in CYA in 2011 and 2nd in 2012. And drop Ryan Howard, who hasn't hit over .900 since 2009, and doesn't have the track record of an Ichiro or Jeter.

Also, ARod and Ichiro don't produce like superstars any more. They've had superstar careers, for sure. Frobby, obviously you'd say that superstar status doesn't fade with declining production?

[Frobby]

If Joey Votto isn't a superstar, something is wrong. He missed some games this year, I guess, but here's his OPS numbers: .981 (2000), 1.024 (2010), .947 (2011), 1.041 (2012). With Pujols looking human, only Votto and Cabrera are contenders for the title of "best hitter in baseball right now."

I'd put Clayton Kershaw on the "borderline" list, since he's awfully close: 4 straight full seasons with an ERA below 3.00; finished 1st in CYA in 2011 and 2nd in 2012. And drop Ryan Howard, who hasn't hit over .900 since 2009, and doesn't have the track record of an Ichiro or Jeter.

Also, ARod and Ichiro don't produce like superstars any more. They've had superstar careers, for sure. Frobby, obviously you'd say that superstar status doesn't fade with declining production?

All your points are good ones. As to whether superstar status fades with declining production, for me, it depends just how high the player was in the superstar stratosphere, and for how long. Scott Rolen might have been called a superstar in 2004, but he has lost his status because he was never at the very top of the list and it's been about 8 years since he was at his peak. ARod gets to keep his status because he was the top of the top, and it's only been a few years since he had a superstar-worthy season. I know that's pretty subjective and loosy-goosy, but that's my own way of thinking about it.

[skanar]

All your points are good ones. As to whether superstar status fades with declining production, for me, it depends just how high the player was in the superstar stratosphere, and for how long. Scott Rolen might have been called a superstar in 2004, but he has lost his status because he was never at the very top of the list and it's been about 8 years since he was at his peak. ARod gets to keep his status because he was the top of the top, and it's only been a few years since he had a superstar-worthy season. I know that's pretty subjective and loosy-goosy, but that's my own way of thinking about it.

Thanks Frobby. I appreciate your fuzzy definition; it does make some sense. An alternative approach would be to split the category and have media superstars and performance superstars. ARod gets plenty of media attention, because he's been good for a long time and, you know, New York; he no longer has superstar-level performance. Votto is toiling away in Ohio, and flies under the radar a bit because the Reds haven't done much in the playoffs, but his performance is clearly at a superstar level. Media superstardom seems to fade more slowly with age than performance superstardom does.

[Frobby]

Thanks Frobby. I appreciate your fuzzy definition; it does make some sense. An alternative approach would be to split the category and have media superstars and performance superstars. ARod gets plenty of media attention, because he's been good for a long time and, you know, New York; he no longer has superstar-level performance. Votto is toiling away in Ohio, and flies under the radar a bit because the Reds haven't done much in the playoffs, but his performance is clearly at a superstar level. Media superstardom seems to fade more slowly with age than performance superstardom does.

I had Votto on my "borderline" list only because he hasn't been doing it for too long. Same with Braun. It would be easy for someone to argue that they've been doing it long enough to be on the list now, but for me, I'd like to see one more great year before fully annointing them.

[Spoonless]

Without putting too much thought into it, I'd probably consider a player who plays for several years at a surefire first-ballot HoF level to be a "Superstar". The title can be revoked after a severe dropoff, or altered to "declining Superstar" during a slower loss of production.