Is Jason Robertson a future superstar?

[toothlessgoon]

For the sake of argument, let's call a "superstar" a top 5 player in the league.

Click to read more...

 

[DieselPig]

Already is a superstar, homie.

 

[Norwegianoiler]

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?

 

[toothlessgoon]

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?

 

[Norwegianoiler]

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?

The mere nature of defining what constitutes a "superstar" devolves immediately into defining another set of subjective parametres, such as "reasonable hope", "franchise player" and so forth. It is not to say that one cannot categorise or discern quality, but we spend an awful lot of time nitpicking on these categories and sometimes it seems our opinions on these categories is a hindrance to just enjoy players for what they are in the moment, whether it happens to be the peak month or year of their careers.

I believe the circumstances of the players are far more important than some set idea of the player himself. A player (or any human being) does not have a set value (that we can name superstar quality or whatever); but is affected by and affects their playing environment dynamically. Only for the sake of commercial interests may you truly say that someone is a superstar - as it is more tangibly evaluated through sponsorships or other measures of monetary value. Since I am interested in the players' value as teammates and not their sponsorship value, I don't think categorization into superstar or franchise player is particularly informative.

That players perform differently under certain coaches, with certain teammates, and not least with different levels of confidence is what makes the game beautiful. It shatters former heroes and elevates others. It's the combination of players and their collective games that matter, not whether or not you have three "superstars" or not. Therefore, I think too much time is spent bickering over categories or tiers.

 

[Machinehead]

He's a current superstar.

 

[hockeeyyy]

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.

 

[Xspyrit]

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?

/Thread

This poll doesn't make sense

Where is the definition for that term? What will be the concensus? Where are the options between "superstar" and "good player"?

 

[NjdevilfanJim]

He's legit....last night big game and he more than answered the bell....

 

[TheDoldrums]

I mean it depends on how you define a superstar. It seems like a very subjective term. I view it pretty strictly, you have to almost transcend the sport and become a household name to casual or non-fans. Guys like Crosby, Ovechkin, McDavid and maybe Matthews now.

But I think he's been a top 5 winger this season. He's incredibly good.

 

[Zach716]

One of my favorite players in the league. Yes

 

[elmaco]

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.

 

[NigerianNightmare]

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?

 

[WarriorofTime]

got nothing against him, seems like a good kid, but i don't think his shooting % is sustainable. My guess is he is going to regress to the mean next season.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Star, not superstar.

 

[toothlessgoon]

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?

For the sake of argument, basically a top 5 player in the league.

 

[bsu]

Star, not a superstar.

 

[rynryn]

I think maybe a Marion Hossa or Zetterberg level. Universally regarded by hockey intelligentsia as top tier players but without the marketability of a true superstar.

 

[NigerianNightmare]

For the sake of argument, basically a top 5 player in the league.

Cheers.
I've done some calculations here. I think he has a 27.6 per cent chance to become a superstar/top5 player

 

[TDK67]

Leafs fan here with very limited viewings of J. Robertson but I watched him last night and thought he was amazing in (arguably) Stars' most important game of the year. Best player on either team. Stars very lucky to have him.

 

[psycat]

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.

Matthews needs to get to Kucherov+Draisaitl level, arguably McDavid needs to get to Kucherov level(in playoffs for sure and so far lower peak in regular season, granted career regular season is not close). Robertson FWIW is a star, doubt he is ever a top 5 player in the game for any extended period of time(1 year+).

 

[dire wolf]

Oh - I voted yes before I saw your definition. No, not a top-5 player in the league - but a superstar by most people's definition

 

[BKarchitect]

I love Robertson but people are throwing around comps like Hosea and Zetterberg and Kucherov way too casually. I don’t think he ends up sniffing that level. Those are Hall of Famers. I think Robertson can be a slightly better Voracek. People with short memories or are too young to remember Jake in his prime will think that’s some kind of knock on him. It’s not. It makes him one of the top forwards and playmakers in the league.

Development isn’t linear and just because he’s 22 doesn’t mean every year is going to get incrementally better than this one. He IS already a star. He should absolutely continue to be one.

 

[ODoyle]

A star? Probably already is. Top 5 player in the league? Zero chance.

 

[Aashir Mallik]

He’s a superstar for normal peoples definition

He isn’t, and never will be OPs superstar definition