|
Post by Chris on Jan 7, 2009 19:31:44 GMT -5
Doesn't the 2008 Offseason Thread fulfill that need?
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 7, 2009 19:37:13 GMT -5
I say keep the Hot Stove program talk in the MLB Network thread. I myself would like to see this thread encompass anything anyone wants to talk about stemming off of anything they have seen on the channel.
Balls, check out Prime Nine - CFs. Your buddy Kirby Puckett was indeed recognized in the top 9 best CFs of all time.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 8, 2009 9:15:44 GMT -5
I probably will get to Prime 9 eventually. I like the tag line about that show, saying it's not supposed to end arguments, but start them. So naturally, there will be some controversial choices there. Since I didn't see that show, I don't know who the 9 CFs are, and in what order, so I can't see who they omitted.
When making these decisions, how do you measure it? Do you look at a whole career? Do you look at the prime years alone? Total stats?
Look at pitching for example. If you look at total stats, a guy like Sandy Koufax wouldn't make the list. But you look at prime years alone, he makes it easily.
So a lot depends on criteria.
And defensive ability would matter too in this kind of a list, as would the percentage of games played in CF in a career. I can't say if Puckett should have been on this list or not, without getting an idea of who they chose, and who they left off.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 8, 2009 11:04:54 GMT -5
I know in this instance they involved the whole melange, from offense to defensive work, longevity and impact on the team and the game.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 8, 2009 11:40:34 GMT -5
The best part about the Prime 9 was slating Mantle over Joe D. I loved that. The only sad part is that both are dead, so Mick couldn't rub it in Joe's face.
On Hot Stove last night they went into some detail on Giambi returning to Oakland.
I can not believe the excitement they are attempting to generate of Jack Cust and Jason Giambi in the middle of that lineup.
I was glad to see that Giambi didn't really paint this as an "I'm so glad to be back home, out of New York" scenario. He had nothing but glowing remarks over his time in New York. I actually feel like he's probably pretty bummed out about the Yanks not picking up his option, and I don't mean because of the money.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 8, 2009 12:42:36 GMT -5
I can not believe the excitement they are attempting to generate of Jack Cust and Jason Giambi in the middle of that lineup.
In fairness this was being based on the fact that Oakland had the worst offensive numbers in the league last year. You are forgetting the third piece to this puzzle, Matt Holliday. Between Cust, Holliday, and Giambi, they are looking at well over 100 home runs, on the short side of things.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 8, 2009 13:04:27 GMT -5
Giambi doesn't have as good of a lineup behind him as he has in the past, which will make his pathetic numbers even worse. There's no guarantee he even does as well as he did here, which would be pathetic.
Not sure why anyone would be bummed at the Yanks not picking up the option, unless a) you're an A's fan, or b)you want me to be mad. I can understand both.
As for the Prime 9 (which actually MIGHT deserve its own thread given the arguments a show like that can generate), I'd have to look at the 9 guys to really get an idea of whether he belongs or not.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 8, 2009 13:26:22 GMT -5
Balls, none of these shows need their own thread. It can all be confined into this thread. If you have a certain argument about "best CF of all time" start a "best CF of all time" thread, not a "Prime 9" thread.
Besides, once the real baseball season takes hold, these shows will become so much less an issue, cause most of us will be watching the real games and not watching other baseball programming nearly as much. Hot Stove will be gone, replaced by the 8 hour or so nightly highlight show that will be running starting at 6PM each night.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 8, 2009 16:48:47 GMT -5
Balls, I said it seems like GIAMBI is pretty bummed about the Yankees not picking up his option, and not just for the financial reasons.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 8, 2009 17:46:38 GMT -5
It's not my fault that I read that wrong! I will say this--it's nice to go into a season with no Yankees that piss me off at the mere mention of their name. Of course, the offseason isn't over yet.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 8, 2009 18:14:14 GMT -5
Same here, thanks to the departures of Mussina, Abreu, and Farnsworth.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 8, 2009 18:31:00 GMT -5
Never hated Abreu or Mussina. They weren't my favorites, but I never felt like certain failure was coming when they got in the game.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 8, 2009 22:17:35 GMT -5
Cho, very happy to know that the mere mention of the name of a guy who won 20 games last year pissed you off.
Way to go!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 12, 2009 8:34:22 GMT -5
So I caught up on the 2 Prime 9s. Puckett as one of the 9 best CFs ever? Don't think so, but that wasn't the worst selection. Edmonds, for all his great glove, at #8? Yes, he is awesome, but we're talking the top 9 of all time. I don't think of him as a HOFer even, and I wouldn't even put him ahead of Puckett.
As for the top HRs of all time, can't really argue with their choices, though I wonder if the Chambliss one really belongs.
I also think the Boone HR was actually underrated. Obviously, every single HR on that list was chosen because of the context. You'll never have a greater rivalry than Yanks/Sox. And there will never be a more important Yanks/Sox game than a Game 7 ALCS. Add to that the bad blood, and the dramatic comeback, Rivera's performance, and Wakefield's prior dominance, and the fact that it was a walkoff pennant winner, and I think it outdoes some of the choices they made.
Is a WS walkoff greater than a LCS walkoff? Probably, but I don't know if that's the case when you're talking Yanks/ Red Sox.
I definitely would put it ahead of Joe Carter and Mazeroski because of the Yanks/Sox thing. Not Bobby Thomson though. That HR was rightfully number one, not just because it was Dodgers/Giants (arguably the second biggest rivalry and maybe the biggest at the time), but because of the legendary call by the announcer.
I was glad there were no steroid HRs on the list.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 12, 2009 8:44:51 GMT -5
Is a WS walkoff greater than a LCS walkoff?
Absolutely. Stupid question.
In case you forget, there IS other baseball out there, outside of whatever the Yankees are doing at the time.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 12, 2009 8:52:56 GMT -5
Yes, and since you don't watch the Yankees, or give a shit about them, then you would know that the Yankees/Red Sox rivalry is unmatched by the rest of baseball. That series was so epic that it overshadowed the WS that year.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 12, 2009 12:26:06 GMT -5
Or the fact that the Yanks lost and it was a buzz kill. Yanks win and the networks trip over themselves.
WS winning HR is way more important. Give me a break.
ALSO: Give me two players you'd put on the all time CFer list instead of Edmonds and Puckett. 'Anyone' is not an answer.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 12, 2009 12:40:23 GMT -5
First of all, I would put Puckett ahead of Edmonds and knock Edmonds out with HOFer Ritchie Ashburn. There are a few deadball era CFs that could be ahead of them too, like Max Carey, known to be a great defensive CFer, as well as one of the best base stealers of all time.
If you are not in the HOF, or going to be a 1st ballot HOFer, you don't belong on the list, and Edmonds is not a HOFer.
Edd Roush had numbers comparable than Puckett. Better average (.323) More SBs, higher OBP, more runs scored. Lacked in the HR category, but had 3X as many triples as Puckett.
Different era, but certainly in the argument. Arguably ahead of Puckett, definitely ahead of Edmonds.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 12, 2009 12:56:33 GMT -5
Puckett is way better than those dudes with the glove. Edmonds is better than most of those guys also, although slightly, but he's more comparable.
Edmonds is also not done playing, so it's hard to say where he would go on the HOF radar. I don't see it, so it's a valid point. He's still one of the better and more underrated players of his era.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 12, 2009 13:05:46 GMT -5
But we're talking the list of all time. Top 9. Of all the greatest CFs who have played the game, I just don't think of Jim Edmonds as one of the best ever.
Hack Wilson is another name to consider. Also very similar offensive numbers to Puckett, in a less powerful era.
Of course, he was helped by one sick year.
I can understand Puckett making that list. It's hard to say who was better with the glove than the names I listed because we didn't see them play. Even MLB Network acknowledged that they felt Ashburn just missed the cut.
But Edmonds, as one of the top EIGHT of ALL TIME?
Yeah he's not done, but do you really see him making the HOF? You can't take away how good he was, but among the greatest of all time? I don't think he's there.
I don't even think Edmonds should be ahead of Bernie Williams. With the glove? Yes. Easily. But overall? No. Bernie in his prime was nowhere near as good in the field as Edmonds, but he was not as bad as we remember from his final days either. He did win several Gold Gloves in his own right. While that may not be the best level of proof, he WAS a good fielder in his prime--though not as good as Edmonds.
But when you factor in Bernie's bat, Bernie deserves the nod. Of course, he was a Yankee, so I guess that's impossible for some.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 12, 2009 22:10:58 GMT -5
Hack Wilson's bat is comparable to Puckett, his D is no where near Puckett's. If anything you are inadvertently showing why Puckett BELONGS in: His bat compares to CFs already in the Hall, and his D is leagues better then him. Throw in the fact that his career was cut short during his prime, and he's in 1st ballot. Good job!
As for Edmonds, I feel the same way, and he's one of my favorite players. He's going to suffer from being a part of the steroid era, that's for sure. Still, he put up solid numbers, probably would have had an MVP in 04 were it not for Bonds, and was a fantastic defender. He's one of those eternal borderline guys who won't get in because the standards changed from the guys who are already in the Hall that you brought up.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 12, 2009 23:44:55 GMT -5
But when you factor in Bernie's bat, Bernie deserves the nod
How so, exactly? Cause his lifetime batting average was a whopping 10 points more? Ill take Edmonds 100 more home runs, and just 100 less RBIs, in over 1100 less at-bats! Bernie's slugging % was .477, Edmonds' was over .520. He was a more potent stick.
LOL @ Bernie Williams. While his bat was respected, and his defense was quite competent, Edmonds is one of the best defensive centerfielders who ever played the game, thus his being on the list.
And way to discount Edmonds' hitting, cause he never wore a Yankee uniform.
Again, 100 more HRs and just 100 fewer career RBIs, in over 1100 less at bats! And even if you want to nickel and dime things somehow with the bat, no way Bernie was in any way so much better hitting to make up the distance in defense.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 13, 2009 1:23:22 GMT -5
Anyone else surprised he HAD to drag a Yankee into the argument?
How long did you have to read up on MLB greats of the past to cover up that you really just wanted to bring up Bernie?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 13, 2009 7:02:35 GMT -5
Of COURSE you have to bitch about a YANKEE being dragged into the argument. After all, the Yankees have produced some of the best CFs in the history of the game and the guy I talked about was better than Edmonds and was an all star cornerstone of 4 championship teams. Can't bring him up. He was a Yankee.
And as for Tom and his love of HRs, is it really shocking that he would piss on Bernie?
Yes, I will give you that Edmonds beats Bernie defensively. But in his PRIME, Bernie was not the defensive liability he was at the end of his career. He was one of the better CFs in his prime, hence the recognition with the gold gloves.
Edmonds was a very good player, but he was also injury prone. Why do you think Edmonds has 1100 fewer at bats? Bernie has 450 more hits than Edmonds.
Bernie has 5 100 RBI seasons. Edmonds has 4.
In case you didn't know, Bernie was a switch hitter. Edmonds was not.
Bernie stole over twice as many bases as Edmonds.
In 1100 fewer at bats, Edmonds has 400 more strikeouts. So while he had more power, he also had more potential to kill an inning.
Bernie had 5 All Star appearances. Edmonds 4. Bernie has a batting title, and finished in the top 5 in hitting 4 times. Edmonds finished in the top 10 just once.
Edmonds never had a 200 hit season. His career high is 184, and that happened just once. Bernie Williams AVERAGED 182 hits per 162 games.
Edmonds hasn't even had a 100 hit season since 2005, when he was 35 years old. Again, Bernie was more productive than Edmonds at this stage in his career.
Tom clearly only likes power. I like players that can do it all, and Bernie had more tools than Edmonds.
It must KILL you people that the Yankees produced Bernie from scratch. That's why you would rather argue that ANYONE was better than Edmonds.
Regarding Puckett, I can at least understand how he gets into the argument. But Edmonds? No fucking way.
And I'm not saying Edmonds wasn't good. Of course he was. The defense was HOF worthy, easily. He can match up with anyone. But overall? No way. He's not even as good overall as Bernie Williams.
Just because Edmonds doesn't rank with the best of all time doesn't mean he sucked. If the Yankees could get a Jim Edmonds in his prime type guy every year, they would chomp at the bit. But there have been quite a few better CFs.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 13, 2009 8:10:27 GMT -5
Sorry, ask 100 baseball-related people who they would prefer, and I would bet 90 or more pick Edmonds. You just dont get it, and you never will.
There is a reason Edmonds pops up on these shows, and Bernie Williams' name has never been mentioned on MLB Network.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 13, 2009 8:26:20 GMT -5
I HIGHLY doubt that 90 out fo 100 people would choose Jim Edmonds over Bernie Williams. The thought is laughable.
You need to realize that baseball has a team in the Bronx that has had a few good players in its day.
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Jan 13, 2009 10:34:11 GMT -5
Bernie was a better all-around player, but Edmonds was a much better CF. It depends how they were constructing the list. I haven't watched the show.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 13, 2009 10:37:50 GMT -5
Defensively--I agree. But like you said, overall, the nod easily goes to Bernie.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 13, 2009 10:43:26 GMT -5
I disagree strongly.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 13, 2009 10:45:52 GMT -5
Of course you do. You like lower batting averages, higher strikeout rates, and more injuries--as long as they aren't Yankees.
|
|