Lammycat Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Rice is underrated if he doesn't make the Hall and overrated if he does. That's a lose/lose for the guy. I sat on the fence about rice, too (as many did/do). he was a borderline candidate but I won't complain about his admission into the HOF. Why is Schilling's game 6 ALCS bloody sock effort and victory overrated? The man had a tendon stitched to ankle skin in order to pitch in a "must-win" game and performed his job exceptionally under the circumstances. I'd say that's rated.... Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted July 20, 2009 Author Share Posted July 20, 2009 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. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted July 20, 2009 Author Share Posted July 20, 2009 Why is Schilling's game 6 ALCS bloody sock effort and victory overrated? The man had a tendon stitched to ankle skin in order to pitch in a "must-win" game and performed his job exceptionally under the circumstances. I'd say that's rated.... 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? Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 If I believed this over-and-under thing, I'd put Carl Yastrzemski on my list. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 The bloody sock game is but one of (I think) 15 post-season games that he's become known for performing exceptionally in, though. His wins and win pct. rank highly, as well.... Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Just my personal thing, I like peak value over length. That's what she said? Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted July 20, 2009 Author Share Posted July 20, 2009 Hmm. I guess I meant that the game isn't overrated, but peoples perception if him changed due to that game. Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Jim Rice causes quite the conundrum for me. I easily see what a great hitter he was, but was he a dominant player? To me if Rice is in the Dawson, Parker, Mattingly maybe Dale Murphy and a couple others (Albert Belle?) who were all similar type players, granted some had more power than others, but still they were good players, who hit for average and power who to my mind just fall short, but now since rice has made it, it is difficult to argue that some of those other guys should not be in. On the pitchers side, Blyleven, Kaat and Tommy John all won a sh*t load of games over very long careers. Were they the dominant pitchers of their times? I don’t think so. Blyleven struck out a load of guys, pitched shutouts and lost many 1 or 2 runs games, yet I have a hard time including him because of the losses. Kaat had all those gold gloves and played for some pretty good Minnesota teams but was he ever the #1 starter for any team he played for? Tommy John might be the best bet out of those guys, but still…I don’t know. Schilling will probably be in the hall maybe even on a first ballot because of his stints with the DBacks and his Bloody Sox season. But I do think he is overrated. What about DH’s? Frank Thomas? Jim Thome? Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted July 20, 2009 Author Share Posted July 20, 2009 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. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 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. DH is an abomination and the worst thing to happen to baseball. Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 DH is an abomination and the worst thing to happen to baseball. Yeah...heaven knows that watching a PITCHER take at-bats in a game is SOOOOO exciting. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Why is Schilling's game 6 ALCS bloody sock effort and victory overrated? The man had a tendon stitched to ankle skin in order to pitch in a "must-win" game and performed his job exceptionally under the circumstances. I'd say that's rated....Because he's a douchebag? Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Yeah...heaven knows that watching a PITCHER take at-bats in a game is SOOOOO exciting. The NL game is more complex then the AL game. Double switches, bunts, hell it is fun. And yes seeing what a pitcher can do is pretty exciting. The AL game is a snooze fest. The AL game is more like checkers and the NL game is like chess. Probably an over simplification, but it is the way I see it. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted July 20, 2009 Author Share Posted July 20, 2009 DH is an abomination and the worst thing to happen to baseball. 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. Link to post Share on other sites
tugmoose Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Yeah...heaven knows that watching a PITCHER take at-bats in a game is SOOOOO exciting.Wow! I'd never noticed before, but sarcasm is even more dickish online! Well done! Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 There are few things in sports more awesome than a pitcher hitting a home run. Or even going 3-3. Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 There are few things in sports more awesome than a pitcher hitting a home run. Or even going 3-3. And that happening once a year is good enough for me. Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Because he's a douchebag? He didn't need the bloody sox for us to know that. The NL game is more complex then the AL game. Double switches, bunts, hell it is fun. And yes seeing what a pitcher can do is pretty exciting. The AL game is a snooze fest. The AL game is more like checkers and the NL game is like chess. Probably an over simplification, but it is the way I see it. Bullshit, both leagues today are primarily homer leagues. Live and die by the long ball. Sure teams manufacture runs now and then, but bludgeoning the other team is the weapon of choice. Look at the 2005 sox, they got talked about for Ozzie ball, playing small ball etc...yet how many homers did they bash out that year? Defensively there is no difference both leagues try to have the starters pitch 6 - 7 innings, middle relief then the closer. National league ball is no more smart or traditionally played than American league ball. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 National league ball is no more ... traditionally played than American league ball. ...except that little part about the pitcher in the batting order. Link to post Share on other sites
rareair Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Bullshit, both leagues today are primarily homer leagues. Live and die by the long ball. Sure teams manufacture runs now and then, but bludgeoning the other team is the weapon of choice. Look at the 2005 sox, they got talked about for Ozzie ball, playing small ball etc...yet how many homers did they bash out that year? Defensively there is no difference both leagues try to have the starters pitch 6 - 7 innings, middle relief then the closer. National league ball is no more smart or traditionally played than American league ball. bullshit. Link to post Share on other sites
The High Heat Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 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. Does Edgar Martinez get in? Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 OK I'll admit, statistically I might be wrong. AL teams this year are averaging 17 more homers, 17 LESS sacrafice hits and 8 LESS intentional walks per TEAM for the season. However they are hitting 7 points higher, OBP is 5 points higher, 28 fewer strikeouts, 13 SB (14 Attempts)4 fewer walks etc... blah blah blah. To me this shows that in some categories, notably scrifice's the NL appears to play more "small" or traditional bseball. But in other area's the AL apppears to have the edge. Overall I would say the NL probably bunts more, or at least is more sucessful with their bunting. If that is the definition of traditional baseball then I am wrong. But the DH has been around for 35 years so I wold say that it is traditional now too. For that matter what is traditional? Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 For that matter what is traditional? Long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days. Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 The Twins blew a huge lead, but the home plate ump blew and incredibly important home plate call last night. Not happy! Link to post Share on other sites
rareair Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 For that matter what is traditional? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts