Trade Rumors

[ewing6]

Well I always get the argument that if blacks were allowed to play Babe wouldnt be as good. Its just annoying and a cop out argument.

agreed

[HoustonGM]

I fully understand what you're saying...and you should feel dumb because frankly its DUMB. Meaningless and pointless.

No, it's not. If you feel it's meaningless and pointless for you to participate in, then don't do so, but don't berate others for not feeling the same way as you do.

So in all-time rankings, because babe was better against his contemporaries than griffey was against his contempories...the babe is better in comparison to his peers

Fixed it for you. That's what you apparently fail to comprehend.

See...it is you comparing era's, thus using your time warp.

No. You're adding the time warp because you're apparently incapable of comprehending anything other than that...or you're trolling.

Every era is different. Griffeys contemporaries were not the same as Babes.

It's true, which is why we compare them to their contemporaries and rank them based on that. We're not ranking them based on how they'd do in a time warp scenario. We're ranking them based on how they did in their time period, and the value they provided to their team.

You can't do a time warp and compare apples to oranges.

Sure, and nobody's doing that.

nobody said it was babes fault...but how can you not consider the era people played in and the talent level when trying to say X was better than Z by Y amount?

If you were trying to say that X was better than Z by Y amount, meaning that if one was teleported into the other's time, X would do better than Z by Y amount, that'd be dumb. Of course, nobody's doing that, but that's apparently the only way you're capable of comprehending it, but it's not the only way to do all-time rankings. Let's see if I can put this into even simpler terms for you.

Babe Ruth provided more value to his team than Ken Griffey did.

[dickay]

Well I always get the argument that if blacks were allowed to play Babe wouldnt be as good. Its just annoying and a cop out argument.

So this isn't a cop out;

-Babe was X amount better than his competition and Bonds was Y amount better than his competition. X is bigger than Y so Babe was better.

If you're going to say my **** is bigger than your **** therefore I am better...you have to take into account the **** size enhancing medication i'm taking

[ewing6]

So this isn't a cop out;

-Babe was X amount better than his competition and Bonds was Y amount better than his competition. X is bigger than Y so Babe was better.

If you're going to say my **** is bigger than your **** therefore I am better...you have to take into account the **** size enhancing medication i'm taking

Ok good luck with that

[HoustonGM]

-Babe was X amount better than his competition and Bonds was Y amount better than his competition. X is bigger than Y so Babe was better in comparison to his competition... or X is bigger than Y so Babe provided more value to his team.

.

[ragecage]

May I remind HGM and Dice that haveacigar is currently looking you guys up

[ewing6]

.

.

[HoustonGM]

May I remind HGM and Dice that haveacigar is currently looking you guys up

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.

[SirKodiak]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[dickay]

No, it's not. If you feel it's meaningless and pointless for you to participate in, then don't do so, but don't berate others for not feeling the same way as you do.

I was merely stating my opinion and you didn't like it. Why is it wrong for me to do so but right for you to critique people for talking about trade possibilities? Hypocrite maybe?

Fixed it for you. That's what you apparently fail to comprehend.

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.

No. You're adding the time warp because you're apparently incapable of comprehending anything other than that...or you're trolling.

You're not this dumb...really? I'm the one saying its illogical to compare players of different eras. You're in here saying Babe was better than Griffey and i'm using a time warp and you're not?? Interesting....

Sure, and nobody's doing that.

YOu're dilusional and don't even know what kind of crap you're writing.

If you were trying to say that X was better than Z by Y amount, meaning that if one was teleported into the other's time, X would do better than Z by Y amount, that'd be dumb. Of course, nobody's doing that, but that's apparently the only way you're capable of comprehending it, but it's not the only way to do all-time rankings. Let's see if I can put this into even simpler terms for you.

Babe Ruth provided more value to his team than Ken Griffey did.

You're the only one talking about teleportation, take the star trek emblem out of your arse! I agree Babe provided more value to his team than Griffey did to his. So what? What does that mean? Does it mean Babes better than Griffey? Babe was ahead of his time...played in a different era. Griffey COULDN'T provide as much value to his team because the playing field wasn't the same. There was much greater competition. Why the need to compare players of different eras?

Babe was the best of his era...done.

Bonds was the best of his era (arguably)...done

Why compare the two? You can't logically. Its again merely bar fodder.

[dickay]

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.

its because your head is up your a$$.

[haveacigar]

This weekend will be a good time to go grab a wooden bat and murder two people.

[OldFatGuy]

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.

[HoustonGM]

I was merely stating my opinion and you didn't like it. Why is it wrong for me to do so but right for you to critique people for talking about trade possibilities? Hypocrite maybe?

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.

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.

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:

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.

You're not this dumb...really? I'm the one saying its illogical to compare players of different eras.

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.

YOu're dilusional and don't even know what kind of crap you're writing.

LOL No. You're just continuing to argue against something I'm not doing (see SirKodiak's post).

I agree Babe provided more value to his team than Griffey did to his. So what? What does that mean?

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.

Griffey COULDN'T provide as much value to his team because the playing field wasn't the same.

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.

There was much greater competition. Why the need to compare players of different eras?

It's something sports fans have done forever for fun, for discussion, to put a player's accomplishments into better all-time context, etc.

[HoustonGM]

its because your head is up your a$$.

My head is up my ass because you're arguing against a strawman. haha. There's a new one. Cool!