When Does the Superstar Label Fall off Harper?

Where was this question LAST YEAR when Harper was awarded with a ROY award despite mediocre stats and regular slumping, and when both Wade Miley and Todd Frazier were much more impressive.

And this year, minus the slump and injury, he is actually living up to the hype. He is certainly improving since last year's pedestrian year, and with a guy who has a ceiling as high as his, improvement is an elevator.

I don't know what defines a "superstar" but I classify Harper as slightly below this status with the potential to be there one day.

BQ: The average baseball fan would say Mike Trout, because, well you know, they have identical baseball backgrounds. Both were brought up at the same time, 1-2 prospect punch. AL/NL ROY...

Klesko was a bench bum with Bengie Molina speed. I don't see how he illustrates Harper.

I would prefer to say a guy like Alex Rios or maybe a Hunter Pence. Someone who is "sort of" a 5-tool player. A 2nd tier major leaguer.

BQ2: A little early for that kind of prediction don't you think? But at this pace, Trout could be better.

No, he's not a superstar yet, but if he hits 40 home runs at the age of 20, he sure as heck is going to become one. The list of players that have done that in the history of baseball is exactly one--Mel Ott, a Hall of Famer.

Even if he only hits 30, which I am certain he will, the list of players who have hit 30 homers at age 20 consists of Ott, Ted Williams, Frank Robinson, Tony Conigliaro, A-Rod, and Mike Trout. Three Hall of Famers, a guy who was on his way there until a beanball stopped him, and two active players.

Comparing Harper to Klesko is a joke. Klesko didn't even become a MLB regular until the middle of his age 24 season. Harper was a MLB regular at 19. That is an enormous difference. If Harper at 20 is as good as Klesko in his prime, how good is Harper going to be when HE is in his prime, seven or eight years from now?

Trout is an excellent ballplayer, already one of the best players in the game at age 21. It's way too early to compare him to Mantle.

Well it depends on your definition of superstar. Does a superstar typically have to put up MVP numbers? I think a lot of people would consider CC Sabathia a superstar caliber pitcher. Yet he's only had one sub 3 ERA season and that was thanks to him pitching well with the Brewers for half a season.

Harper is making headlines and turning heads. And he's doing it while producing great numbers. I wouldn't be surprised if Harper really gets it going and finish the year batting .290/30homers/20stolen bases and 110 Runs scores. A great season. And the reason why his RBI numbers are so low is just like last year, because hes batting out of the 2 hole. If you looking at the RBI leaders in the MLB, how many of them are batting from the 2 hole? And playing in the NL, he has the 8th place hitter and pitcher spot hitting in front of him.

Personally, he is not a superstar to me. And my definition of superstar is someone who is an attention getter who can also back it up with great numbers. Bryce isn't one yet, because Im still waiting for that first 30/20 year. He is really young and I think the sky's the limit for him.

He's possibly a superstar right now, but a few years from now he will be one for sure. And Trout isn't equal to Mantle. Is that a joke? He's had one good year, and you're ready to call him Mantle?