toothlessgoon
Registered User
- Apr 18, 2020
- 218
- 84
For the sake of argument, let's call a "superstar" a top 5 player in the league.
Last edited:
Why are we so hung up in labels like this, subjective labels we cannot even agree the meaning of? Enjoy watching the player, he's fantastic! Or am I wrong, is he merely awesome? Or superb, but not magnificent? Where on the ladder of adjectives does he belong? Someone?
What's so subjective about it? Superstars are franchise players that you build teams around where you can reasonably hope to win a championship with him as your best player. Then there are players who are good but you can't have those same expectations. Or you don't really believe there are tiers of quality players?
Why are we so hung up in labels like this, subjective labels we cannot even agree the meaning of? Enjoy watching the player, he's fantastic! Or am I wrong, is he merely awesome? Or superb, but not magnificent? Where on the ladder of adjectives does he belong? Someone?
It's because of EA Sports NHL.Why are we so hung up in labels like this, subjective labels we cannot even agree the meaning of? Enjoy watching the player, he's fantastic! Or am I wrong, is he merely awesome? Or superb, but not magnificent? Where on the ladder of adjectives does he belong? Someone?
What is the exact definition of a super star in this case?
50 goals, 100 pts a season?
Conne Smythe plus 2 Harts?
Something else?
Cheers.For the sake of argument, basically a top 5 player in the league.
I feel like calling him a superstar now diminishes the label. He's already a star. To be a superstar, he would need to produce like Kucherov, Draisaitl, etc. To be a generational player, he would need to do something that McDavid or Matthews are doing. I think he can get to Kucherov and Draisaitl's level, but it may take another couple of years. He's only 22.