Why do superstars no longer exist in the MLB and NFL?

[startBBtoday]

I've been thinking about this for a while and there seems to be a lot of possible causes for it, but why do you think the NFL and MLB's top players aren't as "big" or famous the superstars that they once were in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s? Case in point, you couldn't possibly compare the fame of Albert Pujols to Mark McGwire, Hanley Ramirez to Cal Ripken Jr. or Matt Kemp to Ken Griffey Jr. Same goes for Chris Johnson to Barry Sanders, Adrian Peterson to Emmitt Smith, Darrelle Revis to Deion Sanders or Patrick Willis to Lawrence Taylor. All of those names were players that people's moms would even know, today? Not so much. There are certain players that still fit that bill, Alex Rodriguez, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning. But why is Tim Lincecum not as famous as Roger Clemens once was?

Is it actually due to oversaturation where every player is so well know by people in the know that the best players are no longer at a different level? Are todays players just not as good/have the same kind of longevity? Is it partially due to the decline of baseball and football cards where prices basically set which players were the best or most sought after? Are the leagues not as popular anymore?

I seriously don't know but I want to hear everyone else's opinions. Am I just getting old and looking at sports in a completely different way?

Also I really don't think this happens in the NBA, I think LeBron, Kobe, Wade, KG, Pierce and Howard are just as famous as players from years past.

[xbrokendownx]

i think part of it has to do with there being so many great players in the leagues now than there were in the past overall.

[startBBtoday]

i think part of it has to do with there being so many great players in the leagues now than there were in the past overall.

good point. i think the talent is definitely spread across those sports a lot less thin these days.

how does this translate to the respective sports hall of fames though too? with the hall of fame being partially a popularity contest, what happens when the best players aren't nearly as popular?

[SLoT]

good point. i think the talent is definitely spread across those sports a lot less thin these days.

how does this translate to the respective sports hall of fames though too? with the hall of fame being partially a popularity contest, what happens when the best players aren't nearly as popular?
I've been thinking this for a while now, one answer could simply be a players stats, but overall I think you're running into big trouble now because the sport itself has seemed to become easier to the players. Bigger, stronger, and faster players are emerging and crushing those great classic players. I see a problem with the baseball hall of fame with the introduction of heavy steroid use, although I don't follow baseball much. Has there been anything said about inducting McGuire or not due to his use of the drug?

[StrictlyBiznas]

I think a lot of it has to do with the overall increase in talent across the leagues. Standards are so high now for athletes that its harder for certain guys to stand out more than others.

[aloneatlastnj]

not only are more players in the sport just as talented, but they're not as dominant as some of the people you're thinking of. they also play on smaller teams or on teams that aren't very successful.

take your lincecum example - he's only been in the league for, what, 4 years? and on the san francisco giants who definitely do not get the same national coverage. though, in most cases, these players create their own "superstardom" by being out of your mind successful. compared to other pitchers of today, lincecum is up there in talent but he hasn't been around nearly enough to get the recognition by the general public as.

i also think you're off base with pujols. he's immensely popular and the reason my 6 year old cousin is picking up a glove and bat.

[Kaleidoscope]

there is a lot of talent, and every player is so accesible due to the different media outlets and, most of all, the internet. I still think each league has it stand-out guys though. Peyton/Brady, Jeter/Pujols, Kobe/Lebron, Ovechkin/Crosby... they're there.

Also, a lot of the leagues are much younger and the stars are still developing. If Lincecum/Greinke/Longoria and younger players stay around they'll be remembered.

[startBBtoday]

not only are more players in the sport just as talented, but they're not as dominant as some of the people you're thinking of. they also play on smaller teams or on teams that aren't very successful.

take your lincecum example - he's only been in the league for, what, 4 years? and on the san francisco giants definitely do not get the same national coverage.

yeah, but by 1993 ken griffey jr. was much more famous than lincecum and he was playing in seattle, which up to that point was about as small market as you could get.

[FondestMemory]

the media. and the 24 hour news cycle that we live in now.

players are afraid to have personality. the ones who are able to be themselves are usually fairly boring. the ones who have gigantic personalities are generally tamed by handlers and pr people and managers. the ones who do let their personalities out seem to worry too much about marketing it a certain direction.

joe namath was a slightly better than average qb, but a fucking superstar. why? personality. what would happen to joe namath today if he were playing and going about his life the same way he did back then?

[startBBtoday]

there is a lot of talent, and every player is so accesible due to the different media outlets and, most of all, the internet. I still think each league has it stand-out guys though. Peyton/Brady, Jeter/Pujols, Kobe/Lebron, Ovechkin/Crosby... they're there.

Also, a lot of the leagues are much younger and the stars are still developing. If Lincecum/Greinke/Longoria and younger players stay around they'll be remembered.

first, pujols isn't nearly as well known as everyone within the baseball circle thinks he is. we all know he's the best player, but he's not on a mickey mantle, barry bonds, hank aaron level, even though he's just as good. second, back in years past it wasn't one or two guys, it was like, 10 guys that were on that same level.

[aloneatlastnj]

yeah, but by 1993 ken griffey jr. was much more famous than lincecum and he was playing in seattle, which up to that point was about as small market as you could get.

i edited my previous post but, again, it has to do with being successful, the talent of the players around you, as well as endorsements. griffey was putting up season after season of batting over .300 and was all over the place.

[startBBtoday]

the media. and the 24 hour news cycle that we live in now.

players are afraid to have personality. the ones who are able to be themselves are usually fairly boring. the ones who have gigantic personalities are generally tamed by handlers and pr people and managers. the ones who do let their personalities out seem to worry too much about marketing it a certain direction.

joe namath was a slightly better than average qb, but a fucking superstar. why? personality. what would happen to joe namath today if he were playing and going about his life the same way he did back then?

this is true to a certain extent, but i don't think joe montana, jerry rice or troy aikman were well known for their personalities. they were famous because of what they did on the field.

[FondestMemory]

also, everything is too accessible.

this trickles down beyond superstars too. how many people can name the starting five on any of jordan's championship teams? shit, a lot of people would even be able to name the starting fives from the teams the bulls beat.

now how many people could name the starting five when the heat won? or the starting five of the spurs' first championship?

people don't have to watch the games to be overinformed anymore. you need to know something about a player or find opinions, you go find them easily. up until the early 00's you actually had to watch the sport to have intelligent opinions on it.

everything is too accessible. the awe factor is gone.

[startBBtoday]

i edited my previous post but, again, it has to do with being successful, the talent of the players around you, as well as endorsements. griffey was putting up season after season of batting over .300 and was all over the place.

'93 was his 4th year in the league though and sure his popularity was due a lot to his father and the hype that surrounded him, but it still didn't take nearly as long as it seems to now.

[Kaleidoscope]

first, pujols isn't nearly as well known as everyone within the baseball circle thinks he is. we all know he's the best player, but he's not on a mickey mantle, barry bonds, hank aaron level, even though he's just as good. second, back in years past it wasn't one or two guys, it was like, 10 guys that were on that same level.

I think any marginal sports fan today knows who Albert Pujols is. The reason there were ten guys who stuck out like sore thumbs was because mediocre guys, like a Marco Scutaro for instance, were never heard about. Yet, today you get news on every single player.

[aloneatlastnj]

also, everything is too accessible.

this trickles down beyond superstars too. how many people can name the starting five on any of jordan's championship teams? shit, a lot of people would even be able to name the starting fives from the teams the bulls beat.

now how many people could name the starting five when the heat won? or the starting five of the spurs' first championship?

people don't have to watch the games to be overinformed anymore. you need to know something about a player or find opinions, you go find them easily. up until the early 00's you actually had to watch the sport to have intelligent opinions on it.

everything is too accessible. the awe factor is gone.

this is a GREAT point.

[FondestMemory]

this is true to a certain extent, but i don't think joe montana, jerry rice or troy aikman were well known for their personalities. they were famous because of what they did on the field.

which was win. alongside personalities.

aikman was surrounded by emmit, haley, irvin and the likes. he stood out on that team, and they won.

montana and rice were on teams that dominated over a period of time on teams that were memorable.

i understand that isn't the sole reason. cause players like dan marino and others weren't great personalities, but at least they felt real. too many players feel so managed and processed that it's hard to actually feel like you know them. so many players are products anymore.

[startBBtoday]

i know that albert pujols is well known. i know that every marginal sports fan knows who he is. but he is the best player in baseball and has been for some time now. my girlfriend likes sports, but i doubt she could tell you what team albert pujols plays for.

[aloneatlastnj]

'93 was his 4th year in the league though and sure his popularity was due a lot to his father and the hype that surrounded him, but it still didn't take nearly as long as it seems to now.

jeter was attaining superstar status in his first full season.


side note: his 1999 season was one of the best offensive performances i've ever seen in my life.

[Kaleidoscope]

well, what do you define a superstar as?

I think there are still superstars, they may be a little watered down, but they exist.

[aloneatlastnj]

i know that albert pujols is well known. i know that every marginal sports fan knows who he is. but he is the best player in baseball and has been for some time now. my girlfriend likes sports, but i doubt she could tell you what team albert pujols plays for.

the cardinals have been marginally successful. if the cardinals were all over the tv in the post season or even nationally televised games i'm sure that would change.

[startBBtoday]

jeter was attaining superstar status in his first full season.


side note: his 1999 season was one of the best offensive performances i've ever seen in my life.

i'm talking far more about players who debuted in the 00s or late 90s. jeter would definitely fall into that 90s era of players since he debuted in the mid 90s.

[startBBtoday]

the cardinals have been marginally successful. if the cardinals were all over the tv in the post season or even nationally televised games i'm sure that would change.

what? the cardinals have been in the playoffs 6 of pujols 9 seasons, he's been in two world series and won one.

[Kaleidoscope]

we've fallen into a strictly baseball discussion. How is Peyton Manning not a superstar?

[startBBtoday]

we've fallen into a strictly baseball discussion. How is Peyton Manning not a superstar?

this time read the entire first post or at least ctrl f peyton manning's name and see that i excused him and certain other players from this conversation as superstars.

[Kaleidoscope]

okay then how is there even an discussion? if you're saying there are superstars then your question of "why do superstars no longer exist?" is void... It's a contradictory statement. To a point, players are less personable, but it doesn't mean they aren't superstars.

[Scott Weber]

the real difference is our age. things in the past always gleam brighter than they do in the present.

media has also oversaturated things. you don't read about the amazingness of one player, you see it in a box score or on your fantasy team. before, you'd open a paper and check the leaderboards and rave about how griffey hit yet another homer, or how henderson stole 4 bases in a game. everyone's informed now so there's no legends to speak of, so to speak.

[we are cured]

dilution. and by that i don't mean the talent has eroded, but the playing field has become a lot more level with advances in technology, preparation, and access to information.

[preppyak]

everything is too accessible. the awe factor is gone.
Nailed it. I don't have to sit around and wait for the NBA on NBC to catch a Jordan game, or watch the 8am Sportscenter to see the highlights...they are instantaneous on the NBA.com site, or can be streamed from anywhere. It makes it infinitely easier to be a fan of a sport, but much harder to be a fan of a team or a specific player

[zachff]

You're also older. Scott made this point a few posts above me, but you have no idea what a 12 year old thinks. Beyond that, in the past when there wasn't something on TV 24/7 that appeals to everyone from every demographic, people were more united by sports. Old people watched sports, kids watched sports, families watched games together. Now with more options out there (be it film, music, TV, shitty bloggers) and the accessibility of the internet (internet celebrities anyone?) sporting figures don't have the unified pool from which they can harvest fame.

[mht]

this is true to a certain extent, but i don't think joe montana, jerry rice or troy aikman were well known for their personalities. they were famous because of what they did on the field.


You're picking guys that won CHAMPIONSHIPS. That were the face of the league because there wasn't things like the internet or facebook or twitter. These were the guys winning championships so their faces were always on television and their teams merchandise were always in every store, for kids watching the popular team was it. You got to understand you didn't have the luxury of Direct TV sports packages or streaming any game you want online, you had to basically watch the winner every week. So obviously the names get connected. In our age today, we have options. I lived in Pennsylvania all my life, but I don't cheer for one professional sports team in this state. The local coverage is all Eagles, Eagles, Phillies, Eagles, Phillies, sometimes Flyers and maybe a touch of the Sixers, but I now have the option through internet and satellite to by pass those games and watch my favorite teams in other parts of the country anytime I want. I can now watch Chiefs games on Sundays instead of my local Eagles coverage. I can now watch the Wizards and Warriors. Without ever having to leave the state of Pennsylvania. I have the option through technology to now watch and cheer for the shitty teams I like across the country, so I now fall into a niche, rather than having to sit and watch the winners or local pro teams on local TV every week.

I also believe that in today's society we like to give the trouble makers more television time than the good players. People want to see other people fuck up for some reason, and if that's what gives these media outlets ratings, than we care more about what athlete star is doing drugs, raping a girl, cheating, stealing, being a scumbag than actually being a winner. So we kind of do have superstars today, people our mothers do know of in terms of household names, just for more of a negative reason than good. If I asked my mom who Ben Roethlisberger is she probably wouldn't say: "A good football player that won 2 Super Bowls" more so "Oh that scumbag that got away with diddling chicks, is that pervert locked up yet" or something to that effect. I'm not saying she's right, but the every day person can recognize his name now from news and media reporting his fuck ups more than what he has done good in his career.

Also it's a lot easier in these sports leagues to be on top of the world one day and on the bottom the next I think. You can go from Superbowl MVP fan favorite one night to nearly blacklisted and poster child of trouble the next. With technology and the way it is today, everybody is watching and it's hard to get away with anything. I'm sure there were stars in the 70s, 80s and 90s doing things similar to what athletes do today, but back then we didn't have the luxury where you couldn't just take a photo with a cell phone and upload it to twitter and start a chain reaction that fireballs the players image like you can today.

So I don't think the sports and leagues are getting more talented, though I do believe players are getting a lot more enhanced. (faster, stronger, etc) but I also feel we are starting to see a trend where they are paying the price of longevity because of it, it seems athletes (stars) are burning themselves out way earlier than the careers of popular players in the 70s, 80s and 90s. There is still dominance but at what price?

[startBBtoday]

okay then how is there even an discussion? if you're saying there are superstars then your question of "why do superstars no longer exist?" is void... It's a contradictory statement. To a point, players are less personable, but it doesn't mean they aren't superstars.

how is it that everyone else in this thread understands the point and that there aren't AS MANY as there once was, but you don't?

[xbrokendownx]

You're picking guys that won CHAMPIONSHIPS. That were the face of the league because there wasn't things like the internet or facebook or twitter. These were the guys winning championships so their faces were always on television and their teams merchandise were always in every store, for kids watching the popular team was it. You got to understand you didn't have the luxury of Direct TV sports packages or streaming any game you want online, you had to basically watch the winner every week. So obviously the names get connected. In our age today, we have options. I lived in Pennsylvania all my life, but I don't cheer for one professional sports team in this state. The local coverage is all Eagles, Eagles, Phillies, Eagles, Phillies, sometimes Flyers and maybe a touch of the Sixers, but I now have the option through internet and satellite to by pass those games and watch my favorite teams in other parts of the country anytime I want. I can now watch Chiefs games on Sundays instead of my local Eagles coverage. I can now watch the Wizards and Warriors. Without ever having to leave the state of Pennsylvania. I have the option through technology to now watch and cheer for the shitty teams I like across the country, so I now fall into a niche, rather than having to sit and watch the winners or local pro teams on local TV every week.

I also believe that in today's society we like to give the trouble makers more television time than the good players. People want to see other people fuck up for some reason, and if that's what gives these media outlets ratings, than we care more about what athlete star is doing drugs, raping a girl, cheating, stealing, being a scumbag than actually being a winner. So we kind of do have superstars today, people our mothers do know of in terms of household names, just for more of a negative reason than good. If I asked my mom who Ben Roethlisberger is she probably wouldn't say: "A good football player that won 2 Super Bowls" more so "Oh that scumbag that got away with diddling chicks, is that pervert locked up yet" or something to that effect. I'm not saying she's right, but the every day person can recognize his name now from news and media reporting his fuck ups more than what he has done good in his career.

Also it's a lot easier in these sports leagues to be on top of the world one day and on the bottom the next I think. You can go from Superbowl MVP fan favorite one night to nearly blacklisted and poster child of trouble the next. With technology and the way it is today, everybody is watching and it's hard to get away with anything. I'm sure there were stars in the 70s, 80s and 90s doing things similar to what athletes do today, but back then we didn't have the luxury where you couldn't just take a photo with a cell phone and upload it to twitter and start a chain reaction that fireballs the players image like you can today.

So I don't think the sports and leagues are getting more talented, though I do believe players are getting a lot more enhanced. (faster, stronger, etc) but I also feel we are starting to see a trend where they are paying the price of longevity because of it, it seems athletes (stars) are burning themselves out way earlier than the careers of popular players in the 70s, 80s and 90s. There is still dominance but at what price?

whats the password for your updated roster league? slyck needs it

[preppyak]

You're also older. Scott made this point a few posts above me, but you have no idea what a 12 year old thinks. Beyond that, in the past when there wasn't something on TV 24/7 that appeals to everyone from every demographic, people were more united by sports. Old people watched sports, kids watched sports, families watched games together. Now with more options out there (be it film, music, TV, shitty bloggers) and the accessibility of the internet (internet celebrities anyone?) sporting figures don't have the unified pool from which they can harvest fame.
True...and, add that into the point above about the sport itself being over-saturated and you get the combination that even a guy like A-rod or Peyton is unable to stand-out in a niche part of the entertainment world.

For example, Chad Johnson gets more people watching him by going on Dancing with the Stars than he does going out and playing a game on Sunday...so, even if Chad was the best NFL player and the most recognizable, he'd still have less public awareness than the least liked person on DWTS. I'd say Peyton is probably the most recognizable person in the NFL...because he does so much commercial work...yet, when have you ever seen a commercial with Peyton Manning that was airing outside of football season?

Part of me is curious if its also been a failing on the NFL's part to truly invest in certain players being the face of the sport. The NFL sort of had that going with Vick, and they got burned by that (because that story was covered on EVERY news network)...so, I think many leagues are shying away from having one or two guys be the sole face. And that's what seperates the NBA...because, while David Stern cares about the image of his league, he'd rather a few HUGE superstars and risk getting burned. Problem with that strategy is that when those guys aren't in the game...casual fans don't care.

[startBBtoday]

the real difference is our age. things in the past always gleam brighter than they do in the present.

media has also oversaturated things. you don't read about the amazingness of one player, you see it in a box score or on your fantasy team. before, you'd open a paper and check the leaderboards and rave about how griffey hit yet another homer, or how henderson stole 4 bases in a game. everyone's informed now so there's no legends to speak of, so to speak.

You're also older. Scott made this point a few posts above me, but you have no idea what a 12 year old thinks. Beyond that, in the past when there wasn't something on TV 24/7 that appeals to everyone from every demographic, people were more united by sports. Old people watched sports, kids watched sports, families watched games together. Now with more options out there (be it film, music, TV, shitty bloggers) and the accessibility of the internet (internet celebrities anyone?) sporting figures don't have the unified pool from which they can harvest fame.

i don't know about the age thing, i think that makes sense as far as players from the 90s, but what about players from the 50s and 60s? will we ever look at albert pujols or hanley ramirez or ryan braun like they did about willie mays or brooks robinson or ernie banks?

You're picking guys that won CHAMPIONSHIPS. That were the face of the league because there wasn't things like the internet or facebook or twitter. These were the guys winning championships so their faces were always on television and their teams merchandise were always in every store, for kids watching the popular team was it.

well you could also bring up dan marino or barry sanders, players who never won championships and weren't known for their personalities, but were just as big of stars as those players that did win championships.

[startBBtoday]

True...and, add that into the point above about the sport itself being over-saturated and you get the combination that even a guy like A-rod or Peyton is unable to stand-out in a niche part of the entertainment world.

For example, Chad Johnson gets more people watching him by going on Dancing with the Stars than he does going out and playing a game on Sunday...so, even if Chad was the best NFL player and the most recognizable, he'd still have less public awareness than the least liked person on DWTS. I'd say Peyton is probably the most recognizable person in the NFL...because he does so much commercial work...yet, when have you ever seen a commercial with Peyton Manning that was airing outside of football season?

Part of me is curious if its also been a failing on the NFL's part to truly invest in certain players being the face of the sport. The NFL sort of had that going with Vick, and they got burned by that (because that story was covered on EVERY news network)...so, I think many leagues are shying away from having one or two guys be the sole face. And that's what seperates the NBA...because, while David Stern cares about the image of his league, he'd rather a few HUGE superstars and risk getting burned. Problem with that strategy is that when those guys aren't in the game...casual fans don't care.

you bring up a very good point, and it's something i touched on in the first post, why can the nba still market players as superstars despite everything that everyone has posted in this thread?

[Kaleidoscope]

you bring up a very good point, and it's something i touched on in the first post, why can the nba still market players as superstars despite everything that everyone has posted in this thread?

Well, one guy can propel a team in the NBA more than any other sport. The Cavs are pretty shoddy without Lebron.

[Scott Weber]

i don't know about the age thing, i think that makes sense as far as players from the 90s, but what about players from the 50s and 60s? will we ever look at albert pujols or hanley ramirez or ryan braun like they did about willie mays or brooks robinson or ernie banks?



well you could also bring up dan marino or barry sanders, players who never won championships and weren't known for their personalities, but were just as big of stars as those players that did win championships.
the age thing is unquestionable to me. without a doubt the biggest factor. that being said, there's also the points fondest and others, including me, made about media and accessibility. if you can't see a guy for yourself any time you want, the legend only grows. did you hear he did this? no way! it gets exaggerated over and over to the point of being nearly invincible.

[startBBtoday]

the age thing is unquestionable to me. without a doubt the biggest factor. that being said, there's also the points fondest and others, including me, made about media and accessibility. if you can't see a guy for yourself any time you want, the legend only grows. did you hear he did this? no way! it gets exaggerated over and over to the point of being nearly invincible.

you really think that if we were 5-10 years younger matt kemp, roy halladay and hanley ramirez would suddenly seem like superstars rather than just very talented baseball players? it's not like we're 40 or anything.

[preppyak]

you bring up a very good point, and it's something i touched on in the first post, why can the nba still market players as superstars despite everything that everyone has posted in this thread?
Well, I think the other leagues could do it as well...but, for a variety of reasons they won't anymore. MLB won't for steroid reasons...NFL won't for similar reasons (Vick, now Roethlisberger, etc)...NHL sort of has 2 main superstars, but they are trying to push more.

The reality is that superstars are bad for a league...ask golf. When you create this cult of personality around 1 or 2 guys in your league, and it becomes the focus, the numbers die elsewhere when they aren't around. Golf ratings drop like 30% without Tiger...NBA ratings are down in general because they've done a terrible job getting the word out on 2nd tier guys who people would watch...and the NHL is desperately trying to get anybody who will listen to follow the leaders of smaller market teams...and they do that because they know if a casual sports fan knows 20 NHL players rather than 2, they are more likely to stay on a game.

I think the NFL does the best job of promoting all their players (rather than superstars), and the result is that they have the best ratings game to game. A Raiders-Chiefs game may not draw like a Colts-Patriots game...but the drop-off is far less than in other leagues...because even in a Raiders-Chiefs game you know the coaches, you know the QB's and skill players, etc.

[aloneatlastnj]

you really think that if we were 5-10 years younger matt kemp, roy halladay and hanley ramirez would suddenly seem like superstars rather than just very talented baseball players? it's not like we're 40 or anything.

absolutely. if i was 10 years younger i would've thought roy halladay was one of the best pitchers to ever play the game. we're also at the age where we're more than capable to make decisions and critically analyze a player, so some things these guys do or accomplish we just shrug off because we see a lot of it or know better.

[ace1112]

Steriod trials

[Scott Weber]

you really think that if we were 5-10 years younger matt kemp, roy halladay and hanley ramirez would suddenly seem like superstars rather than just very talented baseball players? it's not like we're 40 or anything.
5? no. 10? probably. 15, when we were kids? absolutely.

[startBBtoday]

absolutely. if i was 10 years younger i would've thought roy halladay was one of the best pitchers to ever play the game. we're also at the age where we're more than capable to make decisions and critically analyze a player, so some things these guys do or accomplish we just shrug off because we see a lot of it or know better.

5? no. 10? probably. 15, when we were kids? absolutely.

then why does there seem to be a big difference between NBA superstars and MLB and NFL superstars?

kobe, lebron, wade, shaq, kg, howard, melo, etc. are on a completely different plane than pujols,hanley, ryan braun, prince fielder, ryan howard and chase utley and for the nfl than chris johnson, ap, andre johnson, brandon marshall and reggie wayne.

10-15-20 years ago jordan, magic, bird, shaq, malone, etc. were known just as well as griffey, emmitt, rice, barry sanders, frank thomas, cal ripken, mark mcgwire and barry bonds.

[Scott Weber]

then why does there seem to be a big difference between NBA superstars and MLB and NFL superstars?

kobe, lebron, wade, shaq, kg, howard, melo, etc. are on a completely different plane than pujols,hanley, ryan braun, prince fielder, ryan howard and chase utley and for the nfl than chris johnson, ap, andre johnson, brandon marshall and reggie wayne.

10-15-20 years ago jordan, magic, bird, shaq, malone, etc. were known just as well as griffey, emmitt, rice, barry sanders, frank thomas, cal ripken, mark mcgwire and barry bonds.
i think basketball in general lends itself to hero worship far more than other sports. anybody can pick up a ball in their backyard and pretend they're those players. most kids can't just play baseball or football whenever they want.

[ace1112]

i think basketball in general lends itself to hero worship far more than other sports. anybody can pick up a ball in their backyard and pretend they're those players. most kids can't just play basketball or football whenever they want.

idk about that i think basketball or hockey lends itself most to that

[Scott Weber]

meant to say baseball the 2nd time. fixed it.

[Silent7]

then why does there seem to be a big difference between NBA superstars and MLB and NFL superstars?

kobe, lebron, wade, shaq, kg, howard, melo, etc. are on a completely different plane than pujols,hanley, ryan braun, prince fielder, ryan howard and chase utley and for the nfl than chris johnson, ap, andre johnson, brandon marshall and reggie wayne.

10-15-20 years ago jordan, magic, bird, shaq, malone, etc. were known just as well as griffey, emmitt, rice, barry sanders, frank thomas, cal ripken, mark mcgwire and barry bonds.


Age to me seems to definitely be a huge factor. Growing up I followed all sorts of sports and I just remember thinking all kinds of guys were "superstars." I collected their cards and the things they did just seemed amazing to me. And I definitely still look back at them with a certain fondness but I'm starting to see that there are definitely guys in the leagues now that would compare to them if I were in middle school again.

Also, at my age now I really only follow football and the people I'm around follow football so there are people you listed (such as AP) that as far as I know, that is a common house hold name that everyone knows about. On the flip side, you assume that everone is going to know Carmelo Anthony (because you mention NBA being on a different level then the other leagues) but if I hadn't tried my hand at fantasy basketball a few months ago, I couldn't even of told you what team he played for. I barely know anything about the guy so to me I wouldn't even list him as a "superstar." I see just as many highlights of him on the internet as I do the next player so to someone who doesn't watch basketball there is really nothing to distinguish him as above and beyond to me as another player winning games. I just don't really see why you feel the NBA is on some higher plane of "superstars."

It just seems to me that it will always seem like there were more "superstars" when you were growing up because those were the people we wanted to be and we wanted to emulate and they will always stand out in our minds. As we grow up, these guys become more realistic and human and we start seeing them as great players and not so much as gods.

[phillipjacob]

tebow.

guy might not even become a starting qb ever
but he's a star for sure

[FondestMemory]

tebow.

guy might not even become a starting qb ever
but he's a star for sure

he's a college football superstar.

doesn't mean he'll be a superstar in the nfl. there will be a lot of hype around him to start, but he could be completely irrelevant in four years.

[salt1384]

I never really thought about it until know, but I do have a couple of theories:
1/There are simply way too many "great players" out there and they overshadow the few exceptional ones that are meant to stand out. I mean when you hear Micky Mantle, Babe Ruth, or Joe DiMaggio, you immediately think "superstar." Sure, players like A-Rod can be considered "superstars," but not in the same way as all of those incredible players. Some players are known for the wrong reasons. Thankfully, people are aware of that. Even though baseball is the American past-time, people are losing a sense of the real reasons why baseball is such a big sport in America. Babe Ruth said something once: "as the years go by, baseball becomes milder" or something along those lines and I agree with him 100%. Some players are getting the attention they deserve, while others who really don't deserve it, get a lot of the attention.
2/ Also, I think that when some of these players pass away, they'll leave behind a legend..maybe not as big as the Bambino's, but still big.
3/ It could very well be because these great players of the past have achieved it all already and there's not much more you can achieve. I mean, it's pretty rare to see someone today surpass one of the stats of people like Lou Gehrig. Jeter did and he will be greatly remembered..but not many others can do that.

[walshknilb281]

I feel like it has a lot to do with the talent throughout the league but I also feel it has to do with the times/technology. People seem to be less and less interested in actual atheletes and what not and more into celebrities and pop culture. Everything these days is a lot easier to access, like personal information and what not. Nobody is really idolized anymore except for maybe LeBron. I dunno I'm kinda drunk and I just feel that peoples interest in celebrities and short attention spans because of technology have really diluted the appeal of superstars. Just my opinion.

Even SportsCenter has stopped focusing on higlights and more on stories and athletes personal lives. We don't care what they do off the field, just on the field.

[poppa Q]

SC fucking sucks now

[lilRIPsta]

as much as I hate it when people blame everything on steroids, I really believe it has made people too skeptical to really fully embrace someone as a superstar. we the fans have just been let down time after time again. just think of all the former mlb superstars that are now linked with steroids: McGwire, Sosa, Rodriguez, Clemens, Bonds...

[W/O a Parachute]

I think a lot of it has to do with the overall increase in talent across the leagues. Standards are so high now for athletes that its harder for certain guys to stand out more than others.

not only do i whole heartedly agree with your statement, but by seeing your from Sicklerville (i grew up in Williamstown), and having a avatar as badass as yours, solidifies the awesomeness of your statement.

[fflash]

OP you drunk?

[Deth]

The point about the players being mentioned as "sticking out like a sore thumb" is the most valid point I read. The superstars that we all know from years prior all were the face of their respective team. Now a days there are more "superstars" on one team than back in the day.

[Killadelphia]

I think it has to do with our age. When we were younger, we looked up to certain players. Now me as a 26 year old, the best player in baseball (Pujols) is only 4 years older than I am. Pujols is a superstar. The best pitcher, Lincecum is a fucking phenom and he is a shitload younger than us.

Same thing goes for the NBA. Half of those players are younger than us.

Most people's favorite players are the players they grew up watching. That's who we tend to label super stars.

[Deth]

I'm much older than players like Jason Heyward and Kevin Durant, but I still see them as the next up and coming breed of superstars that will be known in every household.

[theguy77]

because as sports get more advanced due to the iconic legends who stepped their game to a whole new level (and in turn, forced the league to adapt to that), all of the new players are basing their skills off of the performance of their predecessors.

for example, lawrence taylor set a new standard for linebackers and now that's how linebackers are trained to play football from junior high school on up. over the next decade ray lewis and brian urlacher will become the standard and you'll have more players who learn how to play like them as well. it's the same thing happening with quarterbacks, how all the gunslingers are fading out and the quarterbacks who play the game very intellectually are becoming the new standard, and now you have a lot more players relying on pre-snap reads and audibles, because since peyton manning hit the limelight and have given the colts so many successful seasons and efficient offenses, that's becoming the way you're SUPPOSED to play quarterback in the NFL. and not to mention, since defenses have gotten better as well, it's becoming more and more unlikely to be a proficient QB in the league WITHOUT those kinds of skillsets. i bet a lot of quarterbacks who fail in the NFL today would have done great in the 80s.

but all in all the point im trying to make is, the players who are remembered, are remembered because they brought new skillsets and strategies to the table that changed the game. now everybody is emulating them, so even if they're just as good at it, it's nothing special anymore, everyone was trained to play the game that way by now. the ones who are changing the game now (your ray lewis's and peyton mannings) are the ones who will be iconic and remembered.

[Zeran]

SC fucking sucks now

i'm afraid espn is going to slowly turn into mtv for sports in the next couple of years.

[poppa Q]

i'm afraid espn is going to slowly turn into mtv for sports in the next couple of years.

That's exactly how I feel, and I think they're well on their way.

[Moth To A Flame]

I feel like it has to do with the players of the past already achieving these feats. The players of the past were the first of their kind and now players that are similar are not as impressive because a lot of these goals have been done before.

[Moth To A Flame]

To the older generations anyways. The young kids will view todays great players more of a superstar because they have not witnessed players of the past.