gehringer_2 Posted July 24 Posted July 24 (edited) 3 hours ago, chasfh said: Insiders really respect the ethereal and presumably transitive qualities of superstardom. i know. really dumb. Edited July 24 by gehringer_2 Quote
chasfh Posted July 24 Posted July 24 (edited) 1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said: i know. really dumb. Wellll, I might not say that exactly, unless you meant this as a sort of sarcastic rebuke to me. Actual superstars do generally help teams by dint of their elevated performance, which by itself makes teams better. But the idea that the performance of the rest of the team can be elevated with the infusion of a superstar is at best not proven, and perhaps not even provable. I could actually see a case where a superstar would be the exact wrong thing to add to certain teams, depending on how they are put together and led. Are we a team like that? Don't know for sure, but wouldn't doubt it. (Yes, I know Skubal is a superstar, but the difference is he did not swoop onto the team as a superstar.) Edited July 24 by chasfh Quote
gehringer_2 Posted July 24 Posted July 24 (edited) 22 minutes ago, chasfh said: Wellll, I might not say that exactly, unless you meant this as a sort of sarcastic rebuke to me. Actual superstars do generally help teams by dint of their elevated performance, which by itself makes teams better. But the idea that the performance of the rest of the team can be elevated with the infusion of a superstar is at best not proven, and perhaps not even provable. I could actually see a case where a superstar would be the exact wrong thing to add to certain teams, depending on how they are put together and led. Are we a team like that? Don't know for sure, but wouldn't doubt it. (Yes, I know Skubal is a superstar, but the difference is he did not swoop onto the team as a superstar.) You put a superstar on a good team, you have a better team, you put any better player on a good team, you have a better team. You put a superstar on a mediocre/poor team, you have a better but still mediocre or poor team. The 'Super' part is super overrated. Superstars have toiled in futility all over baseball from time immemorial not being able to raise their teams to any success (recently Trout, Ohtani) and teams with better construction have won more after shedding their superstars (Seattle after losing Griffey and ARod). A good team is always the true sum of the total of it's parts, and two good players will win you as many additional games as one great one. Even from the clubhouse angle, the players that do have a talent for helping to drive their team mates are often not even the best players themselves. Edited July 24 by gehringer_2 Quote
Tiger337 Posted July 24 Posted July 24 2 hours ago, chasfh said: Wellll, I might not say that exactly, unless you meant this as a sort of sarcastic rebuke to me. Actual superstars do generally help teams by dint of their elevated performance, Do you have proof of that? Mike Trout wants to know. Quote
chasfh Posted July 25 Posted July 25 1 hour ago, Tiger337 said: Do you have proof of that? Mike Trout wants to know. Look in the pudding. Quote
Tiger337 Posted July 25 Posted July 25 13 minutes ago, chasfh said: Look in the pudding. Haven't you been saying all year that the Tigers are doing so well because they have no stars? Everyone is buying into the system because they are young and hungry and there are no superstars ruining the chemistry. Quote
chasfh Posted July 25 Posted July 25 12 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: Haven't you been saying all year that the Tigers are doing so well because they have no stars? Everyone is buying into the system because they are young and hungry and there are no superstars ruining the chemistry. I spilled a bunch more words about it with what I thought was more nuance than that, but apparently not. Quote
lordstanley Posted July 25 Posted July 25 Is it true that the Tigers have been outscored 77-27 in past 11? Saw that one. Quote
casimir Posted July 25 Posted July 25 7 minutes ago, lordstanley said: Is it true that the Tigers have been outscored 77-27 in past 11? Saw that one. I believe it’s been 177-27. This stretch sucks. But we’ll be able to laugh at it after the Tigers sweep the Dodgers in October. 1 Quote
Tiger337 Posted July 25 Posted July 25 35 minutes ago, chasfh said: I spilled a bunch more words about it with what I thought was more nuance than that, but apparently not. Ok, I just looked at your post again. I didn't read it well at all the first time. Quote
casimir Posted July 25 Posted July 25 13 hours ago, casimir said: I believe it’s been 177-27. This stretch sucks. But we’ll be able to laugh at it after the Tigers sweep the Dodgers in October. See, someone is already laughing about. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.