bobbob1313

Ortiz plays in a far better lineup than laroche, so that explains the RBI discrepancy. Ortiz has an .840 ops over the last month, which is ok, but not great. I guess it adds depth, and the red sox can afford to just add depth.

i guess it makes sense. The only person he is a clear upgrade over when healthy is ortiz, so if Lowell is healthy, they would do well to keep him, laroche and youk in the lineup.

is mike Lowell hurt?

Lugo and Duncan have been essentially the same player over the last two years in terms of ops, and at least lugo gets on base. Kind of a lateral move. Red sox picked up Adam la Roche, which could be a good move, but he's only really represents an improvement on ortiz. Are the really going to sit ortiz?

I think you may be correct. Perhaps it would have been tougher to portray snapes actions in a big battle scene like that? I probably should reread it. I didn't like that dumbledore didn't put Harry in the spell so he couldn't move. Harry has always been irrational and a bit of a risk taker, especially when emotions run high. He woulnt have just watched it happen.

Also, people have complained about them just walking out of the castle without a fight: I think tht better illustrates how dumbeldore's death further emboldened the death eaters and how truly helpless everyone else was.

It had been a while since I read the book, so I didn't notice so many of the things missing. The burning of the weasley's I thought was a compression of the wedding scene, but I guess that was in the 7th book. Maybe they wanted the destruction of the burrow but didn't want to get into the whole wedding thing inthe next movie, so they fudge it around?

On the one hand, the DH does suck and it is anti-traditional (although at this point, bashing the dh has become a tradition in and of itself) and changes the game a lot and most teams misuse it anyways(average ops of a DH is lower than for a 1b, which makes no sense). But, I do like that you get two very different leagues because of it. It makes interleague and world series matchup more interesting because you have scenarios where a teams three best hitters are all logjammed at first and third like the sox have the last few years. I like seeing what teams do to get their bats In the lineup

He's a tough case. I say yes. He had the peak and the longevity, even if his traditional numbers (HR and H) aren't quite up to snuff. He was just a flat out great hitter.

that's half true. I don't like the dh, but there are worse things. Still, you shouldn't penalize great hitters because they were DH's. Thome and Thomas are two of the best hitters ever.

DHs should get in, it's a position. A very good argument can be made that thome and Thomas were more valuable to their teams by not playing the defense.

Hmm. I guess I meant that the game isn't overrated, but peoples perception if him changed due to that game.

because for a lot of people, that will be the deciding factor in whether he makes the hall, or how he is remembered. For me, it adds nothing to his greatness. It is one moment that will come to define his career, and people wil overlook just how good he was anyways. So maybe he can be rated correctly on accident?

Absolutely. For the same reason an argument can be made for Hank Aaron as the games greatest hitter, even though he was never as great as mays, mantle, Ruth, Williams, or bonds. (his career ops ranks 37th of all time.) Longevity has got to count for something when assessing a player. That said, I would still probably rank Aaron behind a handful of players. Just my personal thing, I like peak value over length. And so it is with Rose. First ballot because he played so long. Though, his peak from 65-79 was enough to get him in. The rest of his career was just padding, more than anything.

That sounds like fun, actually. Off the top of my head and without really looking at stats or anything, and without much care given to the order: 5. Jim Rice- A really really good, Albert belle type of power hitter who, like Belle, dominated for a short time frame and then dissapeared. Probably shouldn't be a hall of famer (ergo, overrated), but his selection isn't as terrible as his detractors might make it seem (ergo, underrated). 4. Bert blyleven- pretty much the exact opposite of Rice: should be in the Hall of Fame (more so than rice), but he was not nearly as good as many sabermetrics t

I can't see sigs because I'm using the mobile theme. I swear, it made sense to me!

It is settled, then. Did you say 'wow' because you agreed with something I said?

Ok.

You can make an argument for anything. Believe me. I'm not necessarily saying rose should or shouldn't have been an all star however many times he was, I'm just saying that in judging his value as a player the fact that he made so many all star games at so many different positions doesn't really matter. He was a good player who's career is great because he played a very long time (though it's clear he was probably hurting his team more than helping in 6 of his last 7 seasons). He was very versatile because he could play 5 different positions (I'm not going to count cf. He did play there,

My gripe is more with how people react to and interpret all star selections. It's an exhibition that features most of the well known players in te game and some great younger ones. It's become a lot better at identifying greatness regardless of reputation and for recognizing a great year, which is more intune with how I feel It should be, but for a longtime it was strictly a popularity contest. Fans stuffed the ballots and one year the entire starting lineup was cincy players, though not every player deserved it. This should be recognized, and all star games shouldn't really come up in discu

Double post!!!!!!!

i was simply referring to John smith's points that rose was an all star at so many positions, and that that is an indication of anything other than that he was extremely popular. I'm fine with picking it how it is, but I hate when people turn around and say 'so and so was a great player. Look how many all star games he made.' For the most part, all star games are based on popularity and reputation. I think the baseball all star game is by far the best of the major sports (most watchable), but i don't like it being used as an argument for a player's greatness. Yes, there is some merit to

All star game selections suck.

I think Rose certainly didn't have the natural gifts a guy like Joe Morgan had, and I do think he had to put more effort in to get to the level he did. But the Reds weren't great because of him; he was a complimentary player. They did have the greatest second baseman of all time, after all. And when he went to Philly, he played with the greatest third baseman in the history of the game. He was alwys obviously trying harder than anyone, and that's admirable, but I think that might cause some to overstate his abilities. He was a good, not great, player who put everything he had into every pl

That's obviously the point.