I think Earl Weaver might just disagree with you there. Nevermind John Henry, Theo Epstein, Grady Little, and Bill James.Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
E=I*R
I think Earl Weaver might just disagree with you there. Nevermind John Henry, Theo Epstein, Grady Little, and Bill James.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
in 37 years that group has a combined 2 world series victories between them. That's 2 of the World Series wins since 1969.
Yeah no kidding
Like a midget at a urinal
So in other words you CAN'T post someone from Dawson's era as a comparison.
E=I*R
Earl Weaver has 1400+ wins, and a .580 career winning percentage as a manager. Is that bad?
The group running Boston hasn't been around since 1969...
You said one guy yourself. Mark McGwire.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Banned
To say Mcgwire and Dawson are from the same era's is like saying Clemens and Steve Carlton are from the same Era's. It is a bit of a stretch...
No, but the winning percentage of those two groups is miserable.
Couldn't have said it better, Dawson was in the end of one era, McGwire was in the beginning of another.
Like a midget at a urinal
Wait... Dawson compares to McGwire... based on their 80's numbers?!?!?!?
One guy who Dawson was a contemporary of who had similar numbers in the 80's was Barry Bonds. Pretty darn good company.
That's what people fail to realize (particularly ones who are new fans) is that many of the "dominant" players of the expansion/Juiced ball/pathetic pitching era were hardly dominant (atleast not to the extant they were in later years).
Those offensive numbers that people are ga-ga about from guy's like Rodriguez and Griffey and Pujols aren't really impressive when you consider the sheer number of guy's consistently putting up those numbers in the current era. When Dawson was in his prime, you didn't have nearly the same number of players who consistently got 100 walks (or lord... 150 walks which was UNHEARD of until the late 90's!), and where 35-40 HR gave you an excellent chance of leading the league.
What's Billy Beane won lately?
.285, 28 HR, 90 RBI, was an excellent season in Dawsons age.
E=I*R
Well yea.. OK.
Here's his list of most comperable hitters, from Baseball-reference.com:
- [1] Billy Williams (892) *
[2] Tony Perez (886) *
[3] Dave Parker (865)
[4] Al Kaline (859) *
[5] Harold Baines (851)
[6] Dwight Evans (834)
[7] Ernie Banks (829) *
[8] Dave Winfield (827) *
[9] Vada Pinson (810)
[10] Fred McGriff (797)
From what I remember, Fred McGriff would probably be most comparable. It turns out that McGriff had slightly more power and control, though (.279/.323/.482 vs. .284/.377/.509).
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Like a midget at a urinal
Not if you consider position and. defense speed,e tc... Dave Winfeild would be a good comparable.
Like a midget at a urinal
Yep. That was what you hoped your all star no-defense first-baseman put up. Nevermind your gold glove, base-stealing Right Felder...
E=I*R
A .583 winning percentage is miserable? Weaver's Orioles were always playoff contenders as well. The lowest his team finished was 4th, which only occurred twice (1978 & 1981). You're seriously arguing the Weaver was a bad manager?
Boston isn't doing to shabby recently, either. Grady little was 188-136 (.580 win percentage) and finished second in both seasons that he managed the Red Sox. Francona has a 279-207 (.574 win percentage) record, with 2nd, 2nd, and 3rd place finishes. That's not bad at all, especially in a division like the AL East.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote