How efficient are pro sports at producing superstars?
 

I wasn't sure how else to title this post, but basically what I'm wondering is, given a player with superstar-caliber natural abilities/physical gifts (e.g. Kobe, Pujols, Randy Moss), how often do these players actually turn into superstars in their respective pro leagues?

In other words, how many Babe Ruths have come and gone from the league because they stayed on the bad side of variance a month too long? How many Michael Jordans have we missed out on because he didn't get enough playing time/was in the wrong situation? I don't doubt for a second that the superstars we have in every league truly are among the best in the world, but how many others should be there too?

On a related vein, do you think true superduperstar athletes are born, or made? Like, take an average Joe Schmoe, but let's make him 6'5" to make things a little easier. Assuming he did nothing but train starting as a toddler, how often would he make it as a pro basketballer/footballer/baseballer?

Re: How efficient are pro sports at producing superstars?
 

Your question is very vague.

Re: How efficient are pro sports at producing superstars?
 

I'm sure there are hundreds,or thousands of people out there that could have been huge if not for 1 little thing.

for instance, Larry Bird had dropped out of college and was a garbageman. he was close to never returning to college.

Re: How efficient are pro sports at producing superstars?
 

or, Mike Piazza, who is a HOF'er but was drafted only as a favor.

Re: How efficient are pro sports at producing superstars?
 

[ QUOTE ]
or, Mike Piazza, who is a HOF'er but was drafted only as a favor.

[/ QUOTE ]
im sure piazza would've gone to college and then been drafted really high and gone to the HOF anyway

Re: How efficient are pro sports at producing superstars?
 

baseball definently gets everyone except for a handful of marginal guys in AAA that should be in the majors somewhere

developing someone like pujols and getting to underpay him for 6 years is worth 9 figures to a baseball team. developing someone like kevin youkilis is worth prob like 25 million. so the incentive to not miss anyone is really high, which is why everyone gets a shot as a pro. its also v easy to objectively analyze baseball players which helps

Re: How efficient are pro sports at producing superstars?
 

I don't know how many Jordan's, Kobe's, Ruth's miss the mark because of bad luck/timing. I bet a lot of good/ maybe even HOF QB's are givin a year or less and forgotten. Baseball top prospects are often garbage. For every Ryan Howard/ Verlander there are dozens of Beltre's, Travis Lee's, Juan Encarnacion's, Brian Taylor's, and Ben Sheets's. And many that never get that far.

Re: How efficient are pro sports at producing superstars?
 

[ QUOTE ]
baseball definently gets everyone except for a handful of marginal guys in AAA that should be in the majors somewhere

developing someone like pujols and getting to underpay him for 6 years is worth 9 figures to a baseball team. developing someone like kevin youkilis is worth prob like 25 million. so the incentive to not miss anyone is really high, which is why everyone gets a shot as a pro. its also v easy to objectively analyze baseball players which helps

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of times the shot isn't long enough. Maybin was bad in his early trial for the Tigers. Bad enough that he has little chance, if any at starting with the club next year (I think he should get a chance in ST at the starting LF job). If he doesn't explode in the minors or has a bad callup his stock starts to drop. He could be out of Det's plans by mid 2009 with 9 bad months of baseball.

Re: How efficient are pro sports at producing superstars?
 

maybin will get chances in the minors until hes 30 no matter how bad he performs

if hes ever good enough to be a decent major leaguer he'll be in the major leagues