That could very well be the case. Not having been alive during the BRM era, I'll defer to you on this one.Originally Posted by westofyou
That could very well be the case. Not having been alive during the BRM era, I'll defer to you on this one.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
Aqua. Velva.
it doesn't get anymore superstar than that.
Dubito Ergo Cogito Ergo Sum.
To me, you can't break it apart like that. By definition, star is the combination of ability and fame.
You can have one, but not the other, and you're not a star. Ben Zobrist is a wonderful player, but he's not a star.
For me, the sniff test on Star vs. Superstar is "does my mom know who he is?" If the answer is yes, he's a superstar. If the answer is not, he's not.
I think HOF voting tends to show this division. Superstars get in on the first ballot. Tim Raines isn't in the HOF yet because he wasn't a superstar. Alan Trammel wasn't a superstar. Rickey Henderson and Cal Ripken? Those guys were superstars. Ozzie Smith? Superstar. Barry Larkin? Star.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
I love it: "The People's Champion."
"Who cares about OPS?" -- Colin Cowherd.
Votto is a quiet guy. He's got superstar talent. If he stays healthy, he'll have years of superstar production.
And your mom still won't know who he is. And there isn't a thing wrong with that. Let the fair weather fans vote Pujols in year after year. He certainly has deserved every vote. Votto should have been a player or manager selection. It's wrong that he wasn't, and I bet he really did/does want it. I don't think he really wants the fame of superstardom though.
Dubito Ergo Cogito Ergo Sum.
I agree completely. I couldn't care less about how famous Reds' players are. I just don't think we confuse talent and fame. Votto is an extremely talented player who can anchor a World Series caliber offense. But I don't think he'll ever be a superstar.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
Maybe if he was playing for the Red Sox or Yankees
Is Scott Rolen a superstar? I don't want to spin the thread off topic, but I think it fits.
Joey Votto probably will be a Red for life....
He doesn't seem like one to run to chase money... If the Reds don't low ball him and keep it simple and give him cash, he'll be playing in Cincinnati for a long long time.
You think you got what it takes to play a real fantasy game? Join me at Jockstocks. You can play Baseball, Basketball, Football, Golf, Nascar and even Hockey!
Jockstocks Homepage
Do you have your shirt on? - Adam Dunn to Marty on the Bananna Phone.
Not fancy perfumes ...
or fancy prices ...
A man wants to smell like a man.
All my posts are my opinion - just like yours are. If I forget to state it and you're too dense to see the obvious, look here!
That's a Jay Bruce coinage, I believe. I really want it to stick. If Votto gets voted in to this All-Star game, it might actually have some truth to it!
“Every level he goes to, he is going to compete. They will know who he is at every level he goes to.” -- ED on EDLC
And later on, Grecian Formula 16.
Eric Stratton, Rush Chairman. Damn glad to meet ya.
I've never agreed with the argument that fame is a requirement to be a superstar, at least not as a player, although celebrity status obviously is huge when it comes to endorement opportunities. Paris Hilton may be a superstar celebrity but she sure isn't a superstar actress or much of anything else.
By the fame criteria, Henry Aaron did not achieve superstar status until shortly before he broke Babe Ruth's career HR record in 1974. In the 1950s and 1960s Aaron produced .300 seasons like clockwork and had a seemingly fascination with his uniform number as he regularly hit around 44 HRs a season, yet most "moms", at least outside of Milwaukee, didn't know who he was. By the fame criteria in the 1960s Roger Maris was baseball's superstar rightfielder---yet Aaron (and Frank Robinson and Roberto Clemente and Al Kaline) was a better rightfielder.
Barry Larkin was a better shortstop than Ozzie Smith, I don't care how many backflips Ozzie did.
"Hey...Dad. Wanna Have A Catch?" Kevin Costner in "Field Of Dreams."
I'd pay $5 to see him give Charlie Manuel the Peoples Elbow.
Dubito Ergo Cogito Ergo Sum.
I don't think we disagree. Being a superstar isn't about being the best. Larkin was the better SS. Ozzie was the Superstar.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote