Printable View
its because your head is up your a$$.Quote:
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that dickay is so thick-headed that he seriously does not comprehend what I'm saying, and that he keeps twisting it into a position that I'm NOT saying and arguing against that position. He's either insanely thick-headed and silly or trolling, and like I said, I really hope it's the latter because while I rarely ever agree with him, I don't think of him as an idiot.
This weekend will be a good time to go grab a wooden bat and murder two people.
This thread turned out fun. :)
Usually these types of threads are my fault.
Carry on. :)
Oh, Haveacigar, you sure a wooden bat will do the trick? I've been seeing a lot them break apart lately. College World Series is over, so I'm thinking some aluminum ones might be available.
Bringing up unrealistic trade possibilities does what? It's ACTUALLY a meaningless endeavor. Discussing all-time rankings is something baseball fans have done all the time, much like movie fans ranking movies, music fans ranking albums, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
OH MY ****ING LORD. Seriously. You compare them to each other BASED ON how they compare to their peers. For the god damn billionth time, let me spell it out real slowly for you:Quote:
thanks....you can compare to their peers. never said you couldn't. you've been comparing them to each other...ie the whole Babe is better than Griffey because he was better by X amount more than griffey was to his peers. again...you using your time warp comparing players of different eras.
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.
NONE of that is illogical. Yes, it is illogical to say that Babe Ruth teleported into the present would do better than Griffey. NOBODY IS ****ING SAYING THAT. STOP ARGUING AGAINST IT.
Yeah. Using the one technique you're describing, it is illogical. Problem is, nobody is using that technique and there ARE logical ways to compare players of different eras.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
LOL No. You're just continuing to argue against something I'm not doing (see SirKodiak's post).Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
It means that Babe provided more value to his team than Griffey did, so for an all-time ranking of players, Babe ranks above Griffey.Quote:
I agree Babe provided more value to his team than Griffey did to his. So what? What does that mean?
No. Griffey couldn't provide more value than Babe because Babe was better in comparison to his peers than Griffey was in comparison to his. Griffey did provide more value to his team than Ruth's teammate Earle Combs...not because the playing field wasn't the same but because Griffey outclassed his league to a greater degree than Earle Combs did. It's really simple.Quote:
Griffey COULDN'T provide as much value to his team because the playing field wasn't the same.
It's something sports fans have done forever for fun, for discussion, to put a player's accomplishments into better all-time context, etc.Quote:
There was much greater competition. Why the need to compare players of different eras?
My head is up my ass because you're arguing against a strawman. haha. There's a new one. Cool!Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
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.
Chris Coste to Astros, Kip Wells to Reds
Kips Wells is just painful to watch pitch...
Why does Kip Wells keep getting work? What do people see in that assclown?
http://www.fangraphs.com/pitchfx.asp...012&position=PQuote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
He throws hard and has ok movement
I suppose. Still, I don't know how many games of horrible K/BB and no effectiveness it takes before you're just like "no, he sucks, don't give him a job."
One hundred and fifty six gamesQuote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
What Toronto may want from NYY if they trade Halladay (most unlikely, but still):
Quote:
Apparently the Yankees "kicked the tires" to see what Toronto would want for Halladay. The combination's that were thrown out there for Brian Cashman:
1) Joba and Hughes
2) Hughes or Joba, Melancon, Austin Jackson or Montero.
Remember, these were conversations not discussions. The Yankees were never close to seriously considering any of those proposals. The issue with Halladay is the combination between money and age. Brian Cashman doesn't translate into giving up 2-3 top prospects. I agree with Cashman, but I would try a "take it or leave it" offer of Joba and either Melancon or Jackson. I think Halladay locks up a title this year, and maybe next.
The three teams also interested in Halladay are the Cubs, Red Sox, and Phillies. Remember, the Sox have tons of young arms that could entice the Blue Jays. That should worry the Yankees. If the Sox have Beckett and Halladay at the top of their rotation- watch out.
When it's all said and done, the Yanks would love Roy Halladay, but will not give up a king's ransom for him. I wonder if this could change if talks with Boston get serious. Also, will JP Ricciardi have the stomach to trade him in division? I mentioned to Frank that Joel Sherman thinks there is a 75% chance that Halladay stays in Toronto. He believes that it's more like 90% because you also have the Rios/Wells contracts in the mix. This is a very complicated scenario and Ricciardi is not about to undervalue his ace.
Thank you filihok. That's exactly the point. I never disagreed with the notion that Ruth, as he was, wouldn't be better than the best players today, yet that's exactly what dickay keeps arguing AGAINST, which is why I'm growing very aggravated. He continues to argue against something that nobody is saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
Dingdingding! Get this man a prize.Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
Here's a big cookie
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...hip_cookie.jpg
I eff'in love Z. It's such a relief to not have Bavasi as GM anymore. I'm especially happy that he, like Dave Cameron suggested, is in both "Buy" and "Sell" mode.
Mets trade Chuck 4 francour
Church for Frenchy. Don't know why
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/0...an-church.html
Wow. lol
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/...uired_nothing/
Royals acquired Nothing. :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Couldn't they have just moved Willie Bloomquist to SS? He's played there before and he's having a respectable season at the plate (for a guy of his caliber).
No because that would be smart.Quote:
Originally Posted by bucher34
Church for Francouer?
I'll trade you a dollar for a dollar.
But one dollar is old and wrinkley. One is crisp.
Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
Lol.