The unpopularity of ties in American sports is reflected in the saying, "A tie is like kissing your sister." The earliest known use of the phrase was by Navy football coach Eddie Erdelatz after a scoreless tie against Duke in 1953.

Never heard that one. My bad.

It doesn't make it any less of a weird example to use though just cuz someone else said it.

I think Mrs. Erdelatz might have been his sister. And it wasn't just someone else; it's been repeatedly used for almost 60 years now.

I think Mrs. Erdelatz might have been his sister. And it wasn't just someone else; it's been repeatedly used for almost 60 years now.

The poor woman. She must be, what, 85 years old now?

Besides, I think there's a difference between a tie game and a tie for the league lead in an individual category. If the World Series had an even number of games that ended in a tie and Selig declared a "co-champion", that would be stupid. But there are already 2 HR champs every year, so why does it matter if occasionally there's a 3rd (or like 5, in 1981)?

I think Mrs. Erdelatz might have been his sister. And it wasn't just someone else; it's been repeatedly used for almost 60 years now.

Okay. Doesn't change any of the points people are making, though. It was a weird comparison 60 years ago, it's a weird comparison today, and it was a weird comparison every time it was used in between then and now.

OK Fa-Fa; but you do seem a bit obsessed with what is an old and common analogy.

And there have been multiple HR Champs, but they were all co-leaders, not leaders.

It doesn't make it any less of a weird example to use though just cuz someone else said it.

It's an extremely common quote.

The world is full of phrases that aren't 100% logical.

How come no one writes an article explaining what's wrong with using the Triple Crown stats to judge players?

Doesn't take stolen bases or baserunning into account.
Doesn't take defense into account.
Doesn't take walking into account.
Doesn't take playing time into account.
Doesn't take doubles or triples into account.
Doesn't take park factors into account.
Doesn't take teammates into account.

There are so many things not to like about the Triple Crown stats without even using the word WAR.

And there have been multiple HR Champs, but they were all co-leaders, not leaders.

Eh. Semantics.

It's an extremely common quote.

I believe you. Like I said earlier, I just hadn't heard it. Again, my bad.

How come no one writes an article explaining what's wrong with using the Triple Crown stats to judge players?

There are so many things not to like about the Triple Crown stats without even using the word WAR.

Many people on this site have pointed those things out. And even those that think Triple Crowns are cool (like me) have never claimed that it's a fair, thorough, and all encompassing way of evaluating players. It's just for fun (though as has also been pointed out, every TC winner up to this point has also been the WAR leader amongst position players, so it does appear that it'd be fairly tough to win one WITHOUT being one of the best).

(though as has also been pointed out, every TC winner up to this point has also been the WAR leader amongst position players, so it does appear that it'd be fairly tough to win one WITHOUT being one of the best).

That was incorrect though. A few haven't led the league in WAR.

Unless someone hasn't been mentioned here, if you phrase it as "the WAR leader amongst position players", Paul Hines in 1878 (when I don't think there were RBI, and there certainly wasn't an MVP, and by the way he hit four homeruns) would be the only exception. Hubbell and Warneke were pitchers.

And there have been multiple HR Champs, but they were all co-leaders, not leaders.

I am disturbed to learn that the fact that I peacefully coexist with my coworkers means that none of us either work or exist.

That was incorrect though. A few haven't led the league in WAR.

That's why I said "amongst position players." Klein was third behind two pitchers.

As DA notes I guess you could count Paul Hines as the exception if you want to get technical, but I was only looking at the 20th century and beyond.

Since when does MVP mean WAR leader? It's one thing when it is given to a third rate player,(George Bell, anyone?), but Cabrera is a HOF player having a very good year and achieving something that has long been thought notable. Nor is it absurd for a sportswriter to favor Cabrera because he has been among the very best players for 8 years but has never received an MVP. Cabrera is a solid MVP by the usual standards for the award and the sniggering disdain for anyone who thinks so is off-putting. By the way, I would vote for Trout..

By definition, leading means being ahead of everyone.

That is not the definition of leading.

By definition, leading means being ahead of everyone.



That is not the definition of leading.

It could just as easily mean, no one is ahead of you.

The world is full of phrases that aren't 100% logical.

But, but, but ... words have meaning and they must be adhered to!

There's clearly no way you can say a tie is like kissing your sister unless you have kissed your sister. Don't give me any of that mumbo-jumbo about similes, words have meanings and they must be adhered to.

Consequently you can't say that tying for the ML lead in HR is like kissing your sister unless you've done both. That narrows our list of suspects as to who MIC is to Carlos Pena, Mark Teixeira, Jose Canseco, Cecil Fielder, Dale Murphy, Mike Schmidt, Armas/Evans/Grich/Murray, Reggie, George Scott, Yaz, Aaron or McCovey.

Now Canseco's a creep but I don't know if he has a sister. Murphy's a Mormon so, y'know, he's gotta be high on the list.

Again, there have in fact been years when nobody "led" the league in homers, only tied for the lead. Either you acknowledge there is a difference, or you acknowledge the meaning of the english language in this case is being perverted. Just because there is no official MLB rule covering the triple crown, it doesn't change the fact that in every definition including in Cooperstown, "lead the league is cited", not "lead or tie for the lead". And the statement: "If Carl Yastrzemski won the triple crown in 1967, then I led the major leagues in unassisted triple plays in 2011" is correct - mathematically and logically a simple truism; not open to personal interpretation or opinion.

In the 1950s I had a book called "Big Time Baseball" (or something like that) that noted Ralph Kiner leading the league in HR for 7 straight years. Since two of those years saw Kiner tied with Johnny Mize, baseball statisticians have obviously been "perverting the English language" for decades, probably since long before 1947-48, the years of Kiner-Mize ties. Now at long last we are being set straight. Be proud!

The specious comment about being tied for the lead in unassisted TPs (specious because one cannot logically lead when having zero) reminds me of a joke concerning the US-USSR track meets which used to be held annually for Cold War bragging rights. After an unsuccessful meet one year, the Soviet commentator would say, "The valiant Soviet team finsihed a strong second; the American team finished next to last."

These comments by Mutts are the most blatant examples of trolling I've ever seen on this site.

These comments by Mutts are the most blatant examples of trolling I've ever seen on this site.

His kids should have their kids taken away from them.

These comments by Mutts are the most blatant examples of trolling I've ever seen on this site.

He is a leader. He's leading. No co-leadership for him.