bobbob1313

Don't start what? I was adding that for comedic effect. Calm down. And personal preference. I've explained why I find the NL more enjoyable to watch. To me it's a very different style of play, just like college baseball is a very different style of play to me (and is almost unwatchable because of it). I'll watch an AL game if it's on, but I'll choose an NL game over an AL game. And Matt, while I'll agree that triples are more exciting than home runs, generally, Hanley is more exciting than Jose because he'll give you both. My love for Hanley Ramirez knows no bounds.

My tires were slashed and I almost crashed but the Lord had mercy My machine she's a dud, I'm stuck in the mud somewhere in the swamps of Jersey

"in my opinion"? Yes, it's baseball, but I find the strategy in the NL and slap hitting, base stealing, scrapping, hustly, hearty play of the NL to be more entertaining to watch. It's not necessarily better baseball, but to me there is a major difference, and I definitely prefer the NL. Of course, I was raised on NL baseball, and I really got into baseball in the early part of this decade when the Marlins were all about that small ball stuff. Especially the 2003 world series team. I'll agree with Matt, except substitute Hanley for Reyes. Personal preference, of course, but the general

I think the style of play and general ideas about team and lineup construction in the NL is less conducive to winning baseball (thus their poor record in interleague), but it makes for a far more exciting, watchable game in my opinion. For instance, teams like the Yankees and Red Sox, who are extremely good, rely on home runs, walking, and seeing a ton of pitches. They are exceptionally good at baseball because of this, but it leads to very boring games, because they go on forever with each batter seeing a bunch of pitches and fouling them off. I despise the small ball type of play because I

I don't get the hate for PH. It's merely average, but everyone acts like it's some abomination.

Seriously, I hate that their background or the way they dress can lead someone to say something like that. It's so fucking shallow.

Bjorn, you're gonna have to do better than that. That's some shallow, shallow reasoning to be throwing around "minstrel show", which is a pretty shitty, loaded term.

The museum is pretty neat though.

Nl has more great young players.

Like I said, I don't think rice was necessarily an asshole, but it's not like mrrain pulled that out of his ass. That was my only point in posting that. That there are more hits for 'jim rice nice guy' means nothing. And rice's reputation has gotten much better as years have gone on. Jay jaffe had a pretty good piece on baseball prospectus about that. For a very long time he had a bad rep.

52,000 hits for "Jim rice asshole" on google. He's not the first person to suggest it. He was probably no more an asshole than any other famous professional athlete assholes. But he probably wasn't a very likeable guy.

There were some posts in this thread that made no sense at all. How can a pop band be an "updated minstrel show"?

Yankee Hotel Foxtrot.

Snuggy commercials are amazing. I love how frustrated the woman gets when she's stuck in the blanket.

I'm a glutton for punishment. And yeah, there is certainly an element of bad luck involved with his high number of double plays, but in Rice's case he also had tons of good luck with his RBI and R numbers because of the lineup he was in and his HR and SLG because of the park. I'm just pointing out that there are 'hidden' aspects of his game that take a lot of value out of his career that people don't really look at. Cryptique, the point of statistics isn't to account for a single event, but to make an accurate assessment of a whole season or career. What you keep going back to are the v

'Tique, I can safely say you don't really know much about statistical analysis, seeing as you cited fucking errors as a way that statistical analysis would miss a great player's defensive prowess. I think you have seen a couple of really shit stats used in a really awful, stupid way and that you've decided all are like that. I'm done trying to convince you of anything, but don't pretend like you really know anything about sabermetrics. I honestly don't see how having a knowledge of advanced statistics can detract from you're enjoyment of the game, but whatever. Buckner and Boggs hi

Fuck it. It's really not worth it.

That's a tough one. I'd like to say neither, because I don't think either belongs in. Since I'm being forced to pick one, I want to go with Dawson, because he's at least got the intangible stuff on Rice, but Rice was the better player. So Rice. Or Tim Raines. Or Bert Blyleven. Or Lee Smith. Or Mark McGwire. I'd have been pretty fucking scared of Ryan. 100 MPH fastballs with no control are terrifying.

Nolan Ryan didn't need no WHIP to know he was the most feared durn'd pitcher in all the land.

Bullshit. I've had tons to say about why Andre Dawson shouldn't be in the HOF, and he was a Marlin for a few years for christ's sake. I haven't mentioned his team once, even though I've been tempted to say that it did help him get in. Henderson was a sock too.

The fact that you just said this horrifies me. I can't put into words how terrible this statement is. You don't understand anything about the statistical community based on what you just said. This is woefully ignorant. I was going to go ahead and explain why fielding statistics have advanced and how useful they can be if you know what to look at, but then I remembered that you aren't interested. I've never assumed statistics can tell the whole story, but if you are trying to figure out which player was better than another, then there's no better place to look than their statistical re

'tique, wrt to your cfer question: the one play he makes look routine doesn't matter. If, over the course of his career he is as good as you say, then a stat like +/- would bear that out. You have a problem with statistics because you don't know about them and are completely unwilling to find out. Which is fine for you, but don't criticize me for looking beyond just what I see. And you must be watching/listening to some crazy sports media if you hear about vorp on a regular basis. My guess is 95% of the time you've heard of it is from me.

Failed to stay on the ballot after his first year. Which is why I asked why Rice deserves to be in but Belle shouldn't even be on the ballot.

I can't wait until Gary Sheffield doesn't get in the hall of fame. That's going to be fun.

I do, Jules. Every single day. I like that I added this part, because I know nobody will respond to it, because even though they are basically the same player (Belle was much better for a shorter period, but it pretty much evens out), nobody has childhood memories of Belle that they can't let go of.