:rolleyes: here we go againQuote:
Originally Posted by Cal Ripken, Jr.
Printable View
:rolleyes: here we go againQuote:
Originally Posted by Cal Ripken, Jr.
Hmm, well if we are going by Playoff performance we would be. I personally would go with the 2009 Yankees just on a sight test, they certainly were the scariest team of the decade. I'd put the 2004 Red Sox second since their postseason was a little more in doubt being so close to elimination...ChiSox third for the playoff run.. I didn't really look at stats here, just my off the top of the head opinion.
It depends entirely upon how one is evaluating. Unlike "greatest hitter" which in reference to baseball unambiguously evaluates who is the greatest at hitting a baseball...when asked which is the best team, leaves it entirely ambiguous. Does the "best team" mean the one that provided the most offense, defense, excitement, wins, drama, championships? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I can assume he means which was the most talented team, or the most dominant team, and both could lead to good discussion. But those assumptions could be wrong, he could mean by saying "best" that the 05 White Sox provided the most assortment of all the evaluation methods, or the most dramatic, or exciting. All in this instance would be correct because unlike the question, "who is the greatest hitter", "which team is the best" does not provide a clear evaluator.
2008 Brewers.
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Unlike you, I don't see much of a difference between "greatest" and "best." They both can be interpreted in different ways. Neither is 100% unambiguous.
don't put words into my mouth. I don't see any difference between the word "greatest" and "best". I do not however refuse to make different definitions for the term "hitter" which is very unambiguous. I can do this too :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
"Hitter" is not unambiguous. Once again, it can mean "ability/talent at hitting" or "value from hitting."Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Seriously the 2001 Diamondbacks is the team I would take in this discussion. You had an MVP candidate in Luis Gonzalez, and I would take Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling together anyday of the week. That was the scariest 1,2.
Its pretty tough to statistically compare everything, but this is the team I would go with out of all of them.
2008 Brewers.
2001 Baltimore Orioles. After that, it's all went downhill.
Actually, I believe it is defined as "Ripken, Jr., Calvin Edwin".Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
agree to disagree. Greatest hitter is the one who is the best at hitting a baseball (and not just contact..can't believe i have to say that). Value from hitting is irrelevant as the best hitter will provide the most value. Of course, value from hitting is relevant to the others in the leagues performance and value. Thus Babe Ruth was the best hitter of his time, and Bonds was the best of his time, which so happens to be a time where hitters are far more advanced/talented/etc. Bonds is the better hitter. Ruth was the more dominant hitter as his competition at the time was more inferior. He was the most dominant offensive player of all time, the most dominant hitter of alltime. Not the greatest hitter of alltime, by a long shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
You love arguing semantics, don't you? If the best hitter will provide the most value, and greatest and best mean the same thing, than wouldn't the greatest hitter provide the most value? :rolleyes: lol. You're twisting yourself in circles to disagree with me instead of just accepting the fact that there are multiple ways to evaluate players and it depends on what you're measuring (talent or value) and just because you prefer one way doesn't mean it's the only possible way... and you're even dragging it into other threads now. Incredible.