$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 13, 2009 18:38:05 GMT -5
I think Balls wears ladies underwear.
|
|
|
Post by mac0822 on Jan 13, 2009 18:39:32 GMT -5
Alright. I've read enough of this bullsh!t.
I'd take Bernie over Edmunds at the plate. Obviously Edmunds was a far superior defender with a 500% better arm. Overall I'd take Bernie is his prime over Edmunds in his prime, but it's real close.
As far as Rice and the Hall of Fame. The guy was arguably the best hitter in the league for at least 5 years. He was an all star calibar player for over a decade. What else does he have to do? I know his #'s aren't up there as far as today's standards, but back then he was a monster.
If Pujols a HOFer if he retired after playing two more seasons? I think he's in if you ask me. The guy would have 10 nasty seasons under his belt. That's enough.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 13, 2009 18:44:58 GMT -5
Bernie in his prime versus Edmonds in his primes is apples to oranges Mac.
One guy played consistently, one guy was chronically injured. The chronically injured guy had vastly superior fielding skills, vastly superior power at the plate, fairly equivalent averages.....and if you were to extrapolate a relatively healthy career for Edmonds based on his numbers when playing, he'd blow Bernie away at the plate.
It's easy to say, in hindsight, I'd take Bernie over Edmonds, because Edmonds was always on the DL.
I'm fine with Rice getting in - the should put him in the asshole wing with Cobb and DiMaggio.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 13, 2009 19:00:48 GMT -5
They did not have fairly equivalent averages. Bernie was better all around. At the plate. So you can take Edmonds on the DL, and I'll take Bernie in the game. I'll have the better player. You can't extrapolate anything. You can't say, "if he was healthy..." when he wasn't. If Ruth didn't pitch, he would have hit 900 HRs. If Mantle didn't drink, he'd have broken every record in the book. If Gehrig didn't get a fatal disease, he would still be in the lineup today. If Woody had gone straight to the police, none of this would have ever happened.
It must bother Mac to echo my thoughts on this one.
As for Rice, while I agree with Mac's assessment of Rice's career, except that I do think that a player needs to have better numbers. The fact is Rice didn't last. His skills left him, not due to injury, but due to deterioration. I don't care about today's steroid/weaker pitching induced numbers. But Rice was outplayed by other HOFers of his era. I think he falls short, and a lot of people agreed because it took 15 years to get this done. Borderline.
I also think that either you are a HOFer or you are not. How do you fail to make it for 14 years and then get in? Do your stats improve? It's a big problem with the whole process. The only thing worse is the idea that a writer can NOT vote for a Rickey Henderson and still keep his right to vote.
|
|
|
Post by mac0822 on Jan 13, 2009 19:06:34 GMT -5
It doesn't bother me at all. It's rare I agree with your BS, but this is one time. Giambi is another.
As far as Rice - it isn't like he was getting like 5% of the vote all along & then jumped up out of nowhere. He was getting 40-50% of the vote without a problem. He was the ultimate borderline guy as far as the HOF goes. Somebody as to be borderline.
As far as Tommy John - no way in hell is he even close. I am torn on Blyleven, but there's no doubt he's more HOF worthy. The word "dominance" should be a factor in the HOF voting & I think of Blyleven being dominant. John is an old school Jamie Moyer at best.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 13, 2009 19:12:26 GMT -5
I understand, and I think that with Rice, it really depends on what standard you use. His numbers were better than guys like Puckett. I still consider him more borderline, but this isn't exactly an appalling selection. This isn't Bill Mazeroski.
12 more wins, and John is in. That's 1 win, every other year for him. I think he was much better than Moyer.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 13, 2009 19:38:42 GMT -5
No Balls.
Jim Edmonds has had a better career, at least in terms of personal stats and accolades. Period.
He has put up equivalent offensive numbers, with greater power, in significantly fewer plate appearances.
He has surpassed Bernie Williams by miles defensively.
The reason you can look back in hindsight and take Bernie Williams is for longevity and reliability only. You know (with the benefit of your time machine apparently) that Bernie will always be in the lineup, Edmonds wont be much of the time.
If someone asked you if you wanted an all-Galaxy defensive centerfielder who hits for average and power -OR- if you want a pretty good defensive centerfielder with a sub-par arm, who hits for somewhat higher average and significantly less power than the other guy......you're telling me that based on those description, you choose the latter?
Bull SHIT!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 13, 2009 20:25:00 GMT -5
No Cho, he hasn't had a better career. Period.
Again, while I agree he dwarfs Bernie with the glove, Bernie's bat was superior.
In Bernie's prime, he was more consistent with the bat, even when the two both played full seasons.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 13, 2009 23:59:52 GMT -5
100 more HRs. 75 fewer RBIs Same OBP 13 point lower Average
...in 1200 fewer ABs.
Why don't you answer the question Balls?
Balls, as General Manager of the newest professional baseball team, to fill your Centerfield Position you have the choice of:
Player 1 - A glove and arm for the ages - perennial Gold Glove, hits for power (25 - 35 HRs), good OBP, very good slugging percentage, .284 average.
Player 2 - average to slightly above average glove, poor arm. Hits for average 10 to 15 points higher than Player 1, same OBP as Player 1, significantly lower slugging percentage than Player 1, much less power than Player 1, more stolen bases than Player 1.
By the way Balls, a little baseball 101 for you - you don't really need to steal bases when you're already standing on 2nd or trotting around the diamond.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 14, 2009 9:49:32 GMT -5
1200 fewer at bats, because he couldn't stay healthy. If you want a perspective, take away Bernie's final 1200 at bats. See how that raises his average.
A little Baseball 101 for you. You don't get to 2nd or trot around the diamond from the disabled list.
A little more baseball 101. You can't steal second when you strikeout, like Edmonds has done 450 more times in 1200 fewer at bats.
And of course, Bernie has more doubles than Edmonds. And given that Bernie has 455 more hits, Edmonds would have to hit .362 to catch up to Bernie over those 1200 at bats.
Bernie was not average to slightly above average in his prime. He was above average. He wasn't the shitty defensive CF he was at the end. So give me the above average fielder and better all around better player over the better fielder, higher strikeout lower average hitting guy any day.
|
|
|
Post by mac0822 on Jan 14, 2009 11:03:28 GMT -5
Another fact for MSB's point:
Edmunds use to sit vs. tough lefties. Bernie never did. Thus expalining why being a switch hitter is an advantage. You could expect Edmunds batting average to be lower if he had to face everyone, like Bernie did.
Also, Bernie's range in the OF was very good in his younger days. He may have made catches on the run that Edmunds dove for - then got sucked off on ESPN Web Gems. Just a thought.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 14, 2009 11:07:45 GMT -5
Yet he would still hit more home runs and drive in more runs.
He did this with the "lesser at-bats."
Ill take the better slugging / power numbers, thank you.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 14, 2009 11:23:27 GMT -5
Yeah, but power numbers are still rare. Guys like Edmonds can be all of nothing. They kill rallies with their ridiculously high strikeouts.
Give me the guy who makes contact and drives in the runs any day. An RBI is an RBI even if it comes from a single.
Both Edmonds and Williams played in 14 full seasons. Not adjusting for the 1994 strike, which hurts Bernie (and not counted for Edmonds since he wasn't a full time player yet),
Bernie averaged 156.2 hits per year.
Edmonds averaged 127.6 hits per year.
You can keep those extra HRs.
I'll take an extra 450 hits and have a better CF.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 14, 2009 11:35:17 GMT -5
Balls, you are factoring in the injury time. Why not do that for every player? Don Mattinglys average numbers dont look as good when you factor in his injury time, either.
Heres the story, go to baseballreference and work off the average season, and consider the players healthy.
In that time, while Bernie would have 182 hits, Edmonds would have 158. HOWEVER, Edmonds would average 32 homers to Bernies 22. And the K difference - 95 for Bernie to 140 for Edmonds, is not nearly as extreme as you make it.
Give me Edmonds 100 times out of 100.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 14, 2009 12:07:42 GMT -5
Of course I'm factoring in injury time--it counts. The fact that a guy couldn't stay healthy in a full season is a factor against the player.
And yes, 45 Ks a year EXTRA is a big difference, as is those 25 hits.
You can HAVE Edmonds 100 times out of 100. I'll take the better overall player--Bernie Williams.
|
|
|
Post by mac0822 on Jan 14, 2009 12:38:26 GMT -5
If only Bernie could outthrow my 9 year old niece. Then this would be a slam dunk for me.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 14, 2009 12:48:14 GMT -5
Yeah, but Bernie in his prime could out run her AND Edmonds. His defense never hurt the team until about 2003 on.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 14, 2009 12:49:17 GMT -5
Same OBP (this means he was on base as much), Higher Slugging Percentage, same run production in 1200 fewer At Bats..
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 14, 2009 12:51:38 GMT -5
And if he HAD those 1200 at bats, he would not have that higher slugging PCT or OBP.
And once again, a walk is NOT as good as a hit. Hits move runners more than 1 base and can drive in multiple runs.
Of course, Edmonds has significantly more strikeouts--in 1200 fewer at bats.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 14, 2009 12:51:52 GMT -5
I don't like it when Mac is reasonable!
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 14, 2009 14:06:36 GMT -5
Tom, you're the ratings monitor...how are the MLB Network's ratings thus far?
Speaking for myself, considering that I am a baseball fan exponentially more than I am a football, basketball, or hockey fan (and ESPN gives boxing no attention)....I haven't watched a minute of any of the ESPN channels since this MLB thing launched.
I've got to believe that this network is seriously cutting into ESPN's ratings.
I love this fucking channel. Other than crap I've Tivo'd, I haven't watched anything else since it's launch.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 14, 2009 14:18:23 GMT -5
I like that Hot Stove show a lot. I try to catch it when I can. Not worth DVRing to me, but it definitely kills that hour.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 14, 2009 14:20:20 GMT -5
too much actual baseball for ya?
Not enough Yankees?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 14, 2009 14:21:04 GMT -5
I don't need to watch a 24/7 baseball channel to keep up with things, especially when much of it is repeats.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 14, 2009 16:20:27 GMT -5
Why not DVR Hot Stove, and watch it while buzzing through commercials? Hell, DVR it and start watching around 720 and watch through, and get yourself an extra 20 minutes. I cant understand you people who watch shows live all the time.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 15, 2009 8:42:43 GMT -5
Another thing I like about this show is that they bring up great topics of conversation that might not come up on their own.
For example--look at what Paul Byrd is doing.
He decided to "semi-retire." Fuck spring training and the first half. I want to hang with my family. I'll keep in shape, and if someone wants to sign me, a contender of course, I'll sign then, but screw working the whole season.
Al Leiter thought hey, if that works, why not?
Barry Larkin ripped into him. It was a cool conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 15, 2009 12:11:18 GMT -5
The problem with Larkin and Reynolds is that they seem to want EVERYONE they played against inducted into the HOF.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 21, 2009 14:21:56 GMT -5
Here's something I've thought about ex-jock tv sports analysts....and I was reminded of these ponderings last night watching Reynold, Larkin, and others demonstrating a pickoff play at 2B.
If you have a team of analysts, I wonder how, if egos come into play in the studio based on how talented they were on the field.
CLEARLY Barry Larkin was a much more superior player than Harold Reynolds. When Harold Reynolds is running the show, pontificating on something baseball-related, does Larkin or Leiter (who also had a greater career than Reynolds) ever think or resent about Reynolds commanding the focus in the studio when if fact he was a sub-par player?
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 21, 2009 14:32:14 GMT -5
I highly doubt that.
And in this case I think this is even less a case cause Reynolds was quite a good ballplayer and has nothing to be ashamed of from his on-field career. And also, he is very good at his job as analyst.
You know who I thought was good the other day? Alex Gonzalez, when he was talking about Omar Vizquel. They got so many people going in and out of there its tough to keep up.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 21, 2009 14:37:27 GMT -5
Harold Reynolds wasn't really "quite a good ballplayer."
He was a serviceable ballplayer, at best...but no need to quibble over that.
But clearly we can agree that Larkin and Leiter had far more impressive major league careers.
I understand that Harold Reynolds is in the position he's in, because frankly he is the more dynamic and articulate of the two (he and Larkin) .... and although I think Leiter is much more insightful, Reynolds basically has more TV chops.
I just wonder, in the jock, competitive mindset, do these guys wonder, "Hey, I was a much better player than this guy...why is he running the show?"
|
|