MICHAEL KIRAL / L’Observateur / August 12, 2000

What makes a player a superstar? Is it enough for them to be consistently among the best players in their respective sports in terms of statistics? Or does it take more? Does that player also have to possess great leadership skills and wear a championship ring (or two or three) on their fingers to be called a true superstar? It is a question that may not have one single answer.

Take Ken Griffey Jr., for instance. Griffey has been one of the best playersin baseball for almost a decade. He’s on pace to pass Hank Aaron as thegreatest home run hitter in Major League history and is a certain Hall-of- Famer.

Yet, Griffey’s teams have advanced to the second round of the playoffs just once, that when Seattle defeated New York in 1995 but lost to Cleveland.

And even then, he probably would not have gotten that far without the help of teammates like Alex Rodriguez and Randy Johnson.

This year, Griffey’s trade to Cincinnati was supposed to make the Reds World Series contenders. But the Reds are in danger of missing thepostseason entirely, trailing St. Louis by five games in the National LeagueEast as of Thursday. On the other hand, the team that Griffey left, Seattle,has the third-best record in baseball. Does that mean that Rodriguez orEdgar Martinez are more of a superstar than Griffey? Or look at Barry Bonds. Like Griffey, Bonds is on his way to Cooperstown. Hewas arguably the best player of the 1990s. But unlike Griffey, his teams arein the postseason hunt almost year in and year out. And often those teamswould be very average without him. It could be argued he is one of thoseplayers who are not only great but make those around him better.

Probably the best player that fits that mode is Michael Jordan. But theargument for Jordan can also go both ways. On the one hand, he did not win aworld championship until Scottie Pippen and Phil Jackson came along. On theother hand, the only times the Bulls did not win a championship in an eight- year period was when Jordan was in retirement. Chicago was a good teamwithout him, a championship one with him.

Shaquille O’Neal was a great player but one without an NBA title until he teamed with Kobe Bryant. Even then, it took them three years and thearrival of Jackson to win one. Maybe Jackson is the true superstar in all this.Of course, a team does not need a superstar to win a championship. TheYankees have not had what could be called a superstar in the mode of Griffey or Bonds recently but have won three World Series titles in the last four seasons.

And just because a team has one or more superstars on their roster doesn’t mean they are bound for postseason glory. The Chicago Cubs of the 1960shad Ernie Banks, Ron Santo, Billy Williams and Ferguson Jenkins and never made the playoffs. Michigan had the Fab Five and LSU had O’Neal, ChrisJackson and Stanley Roberts and did not cut down the nets at the end of a NCAA Championship game.

Perhaps superstars can be put into two classifications – those who are among the best in the game and those that are among the best teams in the game. Maybe the best ones are those that fit both descriptions.

Return To Sports Stories

Copyright © #Thisyear# Wick Communications, Inc.Best viewed with 4.0 or higher