View Single Post
08-11-2012, 07:28 PM
Chris G
Registered User
Chris G's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 224
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Issacar View Post
Which exactly serves my point. Max Pacioretty has shown a better development then Taylor Hall who seems to have developped a talent to become injured more then anything else.

If Hall = star


Pacioretty = star

There are star players who don't necessarily score 30 goals from season to season and still have that level of notoriety. I think that what makes Max Pacioretty a star, is his style of play and his work ethic more then his goal production. There's not that many players who are gamebreakers and bring the same edge. Also the only way he stop producing 30 goals per season it'll be because he has done another major concussin or sign a big juicy contract and stop caring about how he performs.
Totally agree, justifying players as star/not star is not as clear cut as everyone makes it out to be. From what I've seen on these forums especially is that star status at a young age is much more socially acceptable among the general population if the player has been successful/ superstar status in the junior ranks. I believe this is the case because the majority of us believe Hall has been a star in the junior levels so whats stopping him from being a star at the NHL level? On the otherhand, Patches has never been a bonifide star in the junior ranks especially with the lack of coverage playing in the usa. So, the majority who are not habs fans believe he has something to prove, even though he scored 30+ goals. This is very similar to the case of Phil Kessel if you want the flip side before he was traded to Toronto. It's a weird social standard we have when judging hockey players, but I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Chris G is offline   Reply With Quote