Printable View
You apparently agree with me (Ruth provided more value than Griffey, for example), yet you continue to argue against something I'm NOT saying. If Ruth provided more value than Griffey, than, ranking players all-time, Ruth ranks above Griffey. It's really ****ing simple.
But go ahead, continue to argue against something NOBODY is saying (that Ruth teleported to the present would outperform Griffey). Funny, doing THAT is actually nonsensical. You know, arguing against nobody.
again with the teleportation crapola. its only you who's doing this HGM. I dont' know why you don't see it.Quote:
Ranking Babe Ruth above Ken Griffey does not mean that if Babe Ruth was teleported into the present, he would outperform Ken Griffey. It means that he was better in comparison to his peers than Ken Griffey was in comparison to HIS peers. It means that Babe Ruth provided more value to his teams than Ken Griffey did to his teams.
again, your your crapola rankings fail to give any consideration to the eras, yet rank playing equivalently based upon how they performed against their contemporaries within their respective eras. Its flawed...greatly, therefore meaningless.
There is a reason why MLB has benchmark #s for entry into the HOF...and there's talk that some of those benchmarks may change from what they were before. I suppose I could find some hack pitcher who pitched more complete games than anyone of todays game, and using your "timewarp machine" one could argue that this hack is more "VALUABLE" (hence ranked higher) than many of today because todays pitchers don't pitch complete games. Times change...what was 500HR's yesterday is not as meaningful as it is today. What is 15CG's today, is far more meaningful than it was yesterday.
You must take the era and overall talent level into consideration. Therefore it is not apples to apples in any way, shape, or form, to compare Griffey to Ruth based merely upon stats as they compared to the contemporaries of their era.
don't worry, I'll use Ash. No maple for this ****.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
and BTW...i'm done with this idiocy. reason i brought it up was your hypocrisy...b!tching at me for pages about a statement of opinion that I don't think its accurate to compare players of different eras and then you b!tch at someone for wishing to discuss trades they'd like to see. hypocricy.
...Holy ****ing ****. Yeah, I mentioned the teleportation crap, specifically ****ing saying that it's what I'm not doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Ranking based on how they performed against their contemporaties within their eras IS giving consideration to the eras. It's the very definition of considering the era.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
The MLB does NOT have benchmark #s for entry into the HoF, except for the requirement that a player appeared in 10 MLB seasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Sure, one could argue that, and they'd be wrong, because....Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Of that. (Although I think you mean 500 HR's yesterday was more meaningful than it is today.)Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
You've already admitted that Ruth gave more value to his teams than Griffey. So, it's fine to say that, but wrong to...rank them as such? :confused:
Clearly, it's hypocritical to ask someone what the point is of bringing up unrealistic trades that they admit would never happen, while also saying that it's not illogical and nonsensical to discuss all-time rankings.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
:confused:
Composite will last longer and you won't have get a new one during the act :pQuote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
So the Giants are interested in Halladay. If they were to get him, their rotation would be stacked. Halladay, Lincecum, Cain, Zito then Johnson. Could they catch the Dodgers with that? Not familiar with the Giants prospects but do they have the players to send to Toronto?
That's three potential 20-game winners right there. That's crazyQuote:
Originally Posted by asianinvasion
They'd likely have to part with Buster Posey, one of Tim Alderson/Madison Bumgarner, plus another lower prospect or two. If not more.Quote:
Originally Posted by asianinvasion
So the Royals get another low OBP guy in Betancourt. M's get Danny Cortes and Derrick Saito. Are they any good? So this could be a precursor to a Sanchez or Wilson deal or they could just stick with the current infield.
What does YB do for the Royals? He's exactly the type of player they have too many of.
Both of the players the Ms got back look like fringe relief arms, good amount of Ks but various problems with walks and hits. Cortes was posting solid numbers up until this year as a starter, so I think he could probably make it to the bigs if they switch him to relief. Either way, it's more than the Ms were going to get out of YB for a while, and it's another solid move by Z and company.
Two questions.
Dickay: Do you agree that Babe Ruth was better than his contemporaries by a larger margin than pretty much anyone not surnamed B*nds?
Houston: Do you agree that Babe Ruth, as he was, would not be one of the best players if he played now?
If you both agree, then you both AGREE, so why don't you spare us this argument?
well doneQuote:
Originally Posted by filihok
I think HGM and dickay completely understand each other just fine. I think neither just wants to be wrong, so they keep arguing imaginary opposing points to get the last word in. Hopefully Fili's post is the end of it.