:D LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
Printable View
:D LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
fascinating. and not cool .Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
but
the reality is,
if one is going to routinely blog on and invite debate and then generally nullify
the other persons points while insisting upon converting them to ones own perspective as a matter of course, regardless of the topic,
this is to be expected.
<< Raines seemed at times too concerned about preserving his stolen-base percentage. >>
hgm did extract his own personal meaning from this.
the way i read it, the writer watched raines play, and
felt there were times that raines could have been more aggressive in situations that would have helped the team but didnt run specifically because in the writers opinion, he seemed (<<-- keyword) to be too concerned about the sb%.
this is not unlike high average banjo hitters who get accused of being selfish and being more concerned about their 340 ba then driving in a run.
apology accepted:pQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I never insisted upon converting anyone to my own perspective. I simply post my thoughts, and NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE, this guy debates me. As I said in the other thread, if you genuinely disagree with me and wish to debate, I welcome that, and I have no problem against you. But when someone AGREES with me and STILL has to argue with me, that gets incredibly annoying. Debate is healthy. Differing viewpoints are good. Arguing for the sake of arguing is petty and childish.Quote:
Originally Posted by MeetDaMets
The point is that no matter what I post, he'll find something to argue with me over.
But I've never heard of holding back a HOF vote for someone that did that. Like Ty Cobb. or Nap Lajoie.Quote:
Originally Posted by MeetDaMets
There's really only one way to take the whole statement that this guy said. Tim Raines was hurt, in his eyes, for not running more.
And for a guy that ran over 900 times, I think that's a tad bit ridiculous.
Also, I've heard many stories about Rickey Henderson being more concerned with his stolen base total than with making the smarter play. I heard one story about Henderson hitting a gapper that was a surefire triple, only to stop at second and attempt to steal third, and promptly get thrown out. I don't know if this true, but there's been many times I've heard about Henderson being selfish when it comes to his stolen base totals. So, if you're going to downgrade one guy for being selfish when it comes to his stolen base percentage, shouldn't you also downgrade the guy that's selfish when it comes to stolen base totals? Preserving your stolen base percentage is more advantageous to the team than always going for stolen bases.
how about this arguement, isn't part of being in thehall of fame is being FAMOUS? Henderson was a more reconizablle name in his generation...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
You kind of accidentally provided a reason why Raines' and Dawson's chances for the HOF are somewhat handicapped. Writers are somewhat geo-centric and therefore small-market and Canadian team players are often overlooked. It is hard to be famous when writers don't feel like talking about you. I wonder how many average players are in the Hall because they were on famous teams.
yeah many, some say especially when it comes to the yankees players...Quote:
Originally Posted by sardins
The only ones who would say that are the ones jealous of the 26 World Championships Baby!!!! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
all last millieum...:pQuote:
Originally Posted by RickD
Average players? None, really. But there are a few who were merely good--Phil Rizzuto, for one.Quote:
Originally Posted by sardins
Still, there's a difference between putting a good but not great player in the Hall because he was on several championship teams, and not putting a legitimately great player in because he was generally on mediocre teams. There are few fairly obvious examples of the former, but not any really clear-cut examples of the latter.
:pQuote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
He was named the American League's Most Valuable Player in 1950 after leading the team to its second consecutive pennant with a .324 batting average; he had been MVP runnerup the previous year. Rizzuto led the AL in double plays three times and in putouts and fielding percentage twice each. His 1,217 career double plays ranked second in major league history when he retired, trailing only Luke Appling's total of 1,424, and his .968 career fielding average trailed only Lou Boudreau's mark of .973 among AL shortstops. He also ranked fifth in AL history in games at shortstop (1,647), eighth in putouts (3,219) and total chances (8,148), and ninth in assists (4,666). A popular figure on a team dynasty which captured 10 AL titles in his 13 seasons, Rizzuto played in nine World Series, winning seven. He holds World Series records for most career games, putouts, assists and double plays as a shortstop.Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
Ty Cobb named Phil Rizzuto and Stan Musial as "two of the few modern ball players who could hold their own among old timers."
Rizzuto was noted for "small ball", strong defense, and clutch hitting, which helped the Yankees win seven World Series. As an offensive player, he is particularly regarded as one of the best bunters of his era; he led the AL in sacrifice hits every season from 1949 to 1952. In retirement, he often tutored players on the bunt during spring training.
Rizzuto was among the AL's top five players in stolen bases seven times. Defensively, he led the league three times each in double plays and total chances per game, twice each in fielding and putouts, and once in assists. Rizzuto ranks among the top ten players in several World Series categories, including games, hits, walks, runs, and steals. Three times during his career, the Yankees played until Game Seven of the World Series; Rizzuto batted .455 in those three games (1947, 1952, 1955).
Looks like a good player to me. Great defense, average hitting.
I don't really think he deserved that MVP, either. I mean, he has a legitimate case for it, but I don't even think he was the best player on his own team in 1950 - I would give that honor to Yogi Berra or Joe Dimaggio.