User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.4646 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Sam Hutcheson is the Rickey Henderson of... Posted: December 13, 2009 at 04:30 PM (#3411244)I do know Ed Price. He is not a moron. I disagree with his assessment of Barry Larkin's HOF candidacy, but I don't think I'll be using this silliness to bolster my argument next time we discuss it.
The writer seems excessively angry.
Here's our intrepid blogger, reacting to Ed's column: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YersIyzsOpc
I do always wonder how, personally, in conversation, writers justify these kinds of positions. In print (although less so now online, but only if you choose to answer) it's all one-way. However in person, in a debate, it's usually very easy to have someone face, repeatedly, the sheer nonsensical goofiness of such a position and because of the convention of conversation, they have to say SOMETHING. You wouldn't even have to be overbearing or browbeating for this one. Simple polite facts would do very nicely.
So, yeah, I wonder.
I do always wonder how, personally, in conversation, writers justify these kinds of positions. In print (although less so now online, but only if you choose to answer) it's all one-way. However in person, in a debate, it's usually very easy to have someone face, repeatedly, the sheer nonsensical goofiness of such a position and because of the convention of conversation, they have to say SOMETHING. You wouldn't even have to be overbearing or browbeating for this one.
So, yeah, I wonder.
Having argued countless times in person with people like Price, it's my experience that they're fully capable of simply not acknowledging that any statistical point you might bring up is at all relevant.
Jeez, I've talked to people who've argued that with everything else equal, a player with a .300 batting average and 20 walks is "a better hitter" than one with a .280 average and 150 walks. You have to be pretty damn dense to write this kind of stuff in the first place, and I'm not sure that simply switching to the live dialogue mode is going to change their basic cluelessness. If anything, they'll often just retreat into a shell and not listen to anything you say.
None of this is to say that the effort shouldn't be made, but it should be kept in mind that mostly you're going to be in the Charlie Brown role, with Lucy Price holding the football.
EDIT: And I'm certainly not recommending "dialogue" in the infantile FJM style.
I imagine that in some cases, they don't even bother - no "explanation" would stand up to simple persuasive debate. When it comes to Larkin, the only justification I can imagine is the old axiom about no player getting 100 percent of the HOF votes.
I know that Larkin was injury-prone and missed portions of seven different seasons. That's about the biggest knock anyone can place on a shortstop with a .371 lifetime OBP, over 2,300 hits and nearly 400 steals. I know that Young Master Beanball has already explained to us that Larkin's 12 ASG appearances and three Gold Gloves means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, but there may be a few people who take such things into consideration when forming opinions.
Does anyone know how Larkin's defensive reputation stands up against some of the more advanced defensive metrics?
Sean Smith's WAR has Larkin at +37 in TotalZone, with 3 years of +10 or more (and no disaster seasons).
Normal is a relative term.
Strat-o-Matic baseball brings people of all races, faiths and statistical inclinations together.
Considering he's 15, Eric Anno probably is a zit-faced geek in his mom's basement. And "Ed Price" is probably just a substitute for his stupid, ####### father who doesn't know ####.
True, and that's why I said like this.
Anybody ever gotten any of these people into a sim league (or a roto league which actually attempts to closely correlate dollar value to actual on-the-field value)? I'd just like to see people fleecing suckers like this in trades, seeing their high-average/low-secondary-average offenses crash and burn (not to mention the Storm Davis 5 rotation).
Also, this guy lost me with "I ####### hate puns." Puns are terrific.
If he's 15, maybe this is his first time.
Although, if he's 15, then he couldn't have ever seen much of Barry Larkin.
In college, on the 7th floor of the University of Miami football dorm, they called me Big Nick.
Hell, whatever we may think of this kid's manners, his actual reasoning when it comes to HoF voting is light years ahead of Chass's. Not that that's much to brag about.
Also, I like puns. Specifically, I like bad puns. The worse the pun, the more I like it.
Hey, leave us not forget that Mozart composed his first operas when he was 15. And Aaron Gleeman invented "GPA" when he was twelve. Prodigies abound.
I agree. I always say, there is no such thing as a bad pun.
And that's without even getting to Doogie Howser.
Let's not forget 3 year old Davey Crockett. Bears don't.
20 years worth of Washington Post headlines*** permanently cured me of that particular sentiment.
***"IN SHORT, RIPKEN A HIT AT THIRD"
"NO OFFENSE, BUT REDSKINS' DEFENSE IS WANTING"
...and so on, at the rate of about 10 a day. It was like Orwell's image of having your face stepped on with a boot---forever. They finally cut loose their addiction a few years ago, but it left permanent scars on countless subscribers' brain cells.
a combined .278/.348/.413 -- with 3173 hits and 447 SB (at 81%). The other guys were as bad as you'd expect. A combined .237/.291/.339. And they got just under 30% of the PAs.
He did well by DA (the earliest of the PBP based defensive metrics) in spite of a horror season. His 1995 is the worst DA recorded in the years we have DA (1988-95 -- Dale Stephenson did 1996 but I can't find his post on the matter) In spite of this he finishes 7th in DA (Gagne, Guillen, Smith, Ripken, Schofield and Vizquel) He's 5th in hits saved, 6th in runs saved (only OK on the DP)
Overall it looks like a solid B+ to me with the glove.
Shouldn't he find another hobby like huffing, girls, or Assassins Creed II? I waited until I was 17 to start reading Bill James.
well played, AROM
I still love Tom Lehrer's line about Mozart: "It's people like that who make you realize how little you've accomplished. It is a sobering thought, for example, that when Mozart was my age....
he had been dead for two years."
That would explain why he's so dependent on (mostly bad) stats. Nothing against stats, of course, but you don't really need to go heavy analysis to make a strong case for Larkin. Quality defender, offensive force from the middle infield, best SS of his generation. You don't need to break out the heavy spreadsheets for this one.
He comes off pretty bad, but no more adolescent than many other sportswriters tbh. Example
Seriously. The BBWAA-level HOF case for Barry Larkin is plenty strong enough: 12 All-Star games, 3 Gold Gloves (with the observation that Ozzie Smith was the only guy who prevented him from probably winning at least 3 more before that), 9 Silver Sluggers. He was the best shortstop in the NL for a decade, the best offensive shortstop in the NL for a decade, and the best defensive shortstop in the NL for probably half-a-decade. And he was arguably the best player on the last 3 Reds teams that were worth a damn (1990, 1995, 1999).
Shouldn't he find another hobby like huffing, girls, or Assassins Creed II? I waited until I was 17 to start reading Bill James.
Wait, does that mean that I can't be into girls or Assassins Creed II?
Kinda think it's gotta be one or the other.
"Just be still, baby." *sniiiiiiiifffffff*
Don't forget the MVP!
I remember debating a guy during the '80s who thought that Thurman Munson was significantly better than Johnny Bench. No amount of facts would sway him from this silly position. He would just swat away any statistical evidence that showed Bench was indeed the better backstop. Unfortunately, there are enough people in the world that do exactly the same type of thing on a variety of different subjects.
Yes, it's typically decide, THEN justify.
I try to be aware of it, but I'm probably as guilty of this as anybody else.
You go to GW or is there another place out there stupid enough to name a dorm New Hall?
So how is Mike Francesa doing these days?
DB
There's a dorm at RPI named Hall Hall.
I lived in New House. Then they built Next House right next door.
That should mean that you went to MIT, unless somebody else did that.
I lived in Bexley, 1973-77.
Several years later they renamed it Hudson Hall.
Duke had "New Dorms" for years, and for all I know they never re-named them, though in the days of naming rights I suppose they must have. When they were built in the mid-60's they were the only dorms on the entire campus with air conditioning.
Heh. This guy wasn't nearly as opinionated as that clown. He was just a hyper Yankee fan who didn't realize that there was a consensus that felt Bench was in the running for best catcher ever in the majors.
I recall another debate back then with someone else (another Yankee fan, FWIW) who thought Don Mattingly was easily the greatest player of the '80s because he was a terrific batter that played the toughest position on the field (look at all the chances first baseman have!!)
Yes, it's typically decide, THEN justify.
I try to be aware of it, but I'm probably as guilty of this as anybody else.
I'd like to think that most of us here would at least concede a valid point made by another during a conversation, though.
The rationale behind that line of argument is of course absurd, but in the brief window from 1984 to 1986 it could have been argued that with his offensive production and his defensive skills, Mattingly was the best player in the game. Not a slam dunk by any means, but certainly in the ballpark.
I'd like to think that most of us here would at least concede a valid point made by another during a conversation, though.
I've yet to see either Nieporent or Ray concede a single non-trivial point in any discussion, no matter what the subject. If anyone can think of an exception, I'd love to see evidence of it.
Did he have a kid in Little League? If the primary form of baseball you saw was Little League, you could make that conclusion. Little League first basemen are typically among the best fielders on their teams, since they can reliably catch the ball when it's thrown to them and have to handle so many errant throws.
If by best player you mean best Yankee who did not refer to himself in the 3rd person, I'd agree.
I think he just loved Mattingly (which was totally understandable, since Donnie Baseball was indeed a legit MVP-caliber player) and tried to justify his opinion to an absurd extent.
If by best player you mean best Yankee who did not refer to himself in the 3rd person, I'd agree.
IOW you don't think that in those three years I mentioned (1984-86), Mattingly wasn't even in a serious debate? The Rickey had a far better career, but before Mattingly's injury it's no slam dunk at all that Henderson was better.
I hope so, but I doubt it.
Rickey's 1985 is far and away the best season of the six, but yeah, Mattingly is close. By WAR:
Rickey 1985 - 10.0
Donnie 1986 - 6.9
Donnie 1985 - 6.4
Donnie 1984 - 6.3
Rickey 1984 - 6.3
Rickey 1986 - 5.6
Edit: Boggs was probably the best player those years, with WARs of 5.8, 8.5, 8.6, plus 9.1, 8.7, and 8.2 the following three years.
I lived in Bexley, 1973-77.
Yeah. We knew each other pretty well. If I didn't disappear from this place for months at a time and then come back with different handles, you'd know who I am. And now you probably do.
Trevise??
Funny. I was just reading one of those old Primer threads linked here the other day, saw Trevise posting frequently, and wondered whatever happened to him.
You and I don't know each other, Jon. Srul and I overlapped at the Institute. Most of our interactions involved activities of questionable legality.
Larkin's real HOF case is that you can sensibly compare him to any SS not named Wagner (he may not win the comparison but he has important positives when compared to any of them)
I have no idea if he was. He just seemed the right age. Used to reference a lot of early 70s AOR.
Yes, I'm sure anyone here who has played in a sim league has run into owners like this, and odds are if it's a reasonably competitive league they do terrible, quit, and say the game is stupid and unrealistic.
Okay, let me amend it then:
An offensive force in an era where offense was actually part of the game, not the crap assed 70s; an above average defender at a high leverage position; the best SS of his generation; and ass-tons better than Dave Concepcion, who could not carry Barry Larkin's jock.
Better?
Ah. So how's the family? Last I clearly remember (or misremember), you were in Baltimore.
Is it? His HoF monitor score is 118. That the high grey area, but it's still the grey area, and he played in a high offense era, which the HoF Monitor does not account for.
The HoF Monitor is a predictor of Hall of Fame voting, it looks at who has gotten in and who hasn't and tries to make 100 the in/out, but it's generally gray from 70-130. Over 130 you are almost always in unless you eat children or take steroids. Under 70 and you have no chance.
I'm not saying he shouldn't be a slam dunk, he'd be at the top of my ballot this year. But I don't think it's as obvious as we think. Alan Trammell has the exact same 118 and he can't sniff the Hall of Fame. Ozzie Smith has a 142, Concepcion 106.
I think you do need the heavy spreadsheets for him, to truly appreciate him. It's just that most of us have already looked at those . . .
Charlottesville, actually. You probably just remember Baltimore 'cause it was the closest big league city. Anyway, the wife's still good, the new dog got old, and the kids are in high school. My daughter is starting to give the whole choose a college thing some serious thought (Hawaii is not in the running), and my son has developed a wicked changeup.
If he's not -- make him one. If one guy can learn to switch hit, another can learn to become a lefty.
Macho Man Randy Savage did it! No, seriously, he did, after an injury when he was a farmhand.
It seems only fitting that the loony kid should be a lefty.
DB
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main