RE: MLB General Information PT 4

RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Other Minnesota Sports] >> Minnesota Twins

Message

djskillz -> RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (7/15/2015 9:42:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CPAMAN quote: ORIGINAL: CPAMAN quote: ORIGINAL: twinsfan quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz Agree there too, Matt. If not Bonds/ARod, then Rickey was still better than bench. I'd have had one of Gibson/Maddux/Randy/Pedro over Koufax (if not Clemens). But I understand they wanted to mix up eras probably. I still would have taken Gibson. I think they tried to honor the old guy that won't be around much longer (Koufax) and a hometown guy (Bench). Had to be rigged. Matt, there is nothing "rigged" about Johnny Bench. He was the best offensive catcher in baseball history and also one of the best defensive catchers ever. Nobody could steal on him and few even tried. This is where you and Dustin are so "in the dark" with respect to baseball of the 1950-1980 era. You didn't watch these players. They were far better players with a career that was truly a career rather than four or five good seasons. Today, if a player wins an MVP and a couple of batting titles, they are penciled in as Cooperstown worthy because of WAR or some other stupid statistic used to measure that player's value. [sm=vomit.gif] Ya, because stats like WAR rate guys like Ruth/Gehrig/Aaron/Mays really poorly....

CPAMAN -> RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (7/15/2015 9:43:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz quote: ORIGINAL: CPAMAN quote: ORIGINAL: twinsfan quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz Agree there too, Matt. If not Bonds/ARod, then Rickey was still better than bench. I'd have had one of Gibson/Maddux/Randy/Pedro over Koufax (if not Clemens). But I understand they wanted to mix up eras probably. I still would have taken Gibson. I think they tried to honor the old guy that won't be around much longer (Koufax) and a hometown guy (Bench). Had to be rigged. Matt, there is nothing "rigged" about Johnny Bench. He was the best offensive catcher in baseball history and also one of the best defensive catchers ever. Nobody could steal on him and few even tried. He is the best living catcher of all-time and that is saying a lot because of Mike Piazza who is very close. Bench' throwing strength and accuracy was simply remarkable. With Morgan catching his throws and applying sweep tags, it was a thing of beauty to watch them gun down baserunners. Matt didn't say Bench isn't great; he is. He said he's not one of the best 4 living players on the planet. I agree.

djskillz -> RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (7/15/2015 9:44:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CPAMAN quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz quote: ORIGINAL: CPAMAN quote: ORIGINAL: twinsfan quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz Agree there too, Matt. If not Bonds/ARod, then Rickey was still better than bench. I'd have had one of Gibson/Maddux/Randy/Pedro over Koufax (if not Clemens). But I understand they wanted to mix up eras probably. I still would have taken Gibson. I think they tried to honor the old guy that won't be around much longer (Koufax) and a hometown guy (Bench). Had to be rigged. Matt, there is nothing "rigged" about Johnny Bench. He was the best offensive catcher in baseball history and also one of the best defensive catchers ever. Nobody could steal on him and few even tried. He is the best living catcher of all-time and that is saying a lot because of Mike Piazza who is very close. Bench' throwing strength and accuracy was simply remarkable. With Morgan catching his throws and applying sweep tags, it was a thing of beauty to watch them gun down baserunners. Matt didn't say Bench isn't great; he is. He said he's not one of the best 4 living players on the planet. I agree. And? Has anyone disputed that? I think he's the greatest living catcher too. Doesn't make him a top 4 living player IMO.

Trekgeekscott -> RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (7/15/2015 9:44:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CPAMAN quote: ORIGINAL: CPAMAN quote: ORIGINAL: twinsfan quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz Agree there too, Matt. If not Bonds/ARod, then Rickey was still better than bench. I'd have had one of Gibson/Maddux/Randy/Pedro over Koufax (if not Clemens). But I understand they wanted to mix up eras probably. I still would have taken Gibson. I think they tried to honor the old guy that won't be around much longer (Koufax) and a hometown guy (Bench). Had to be rigged. Matt, there is nothing "rigged" about Johnny Bench. He was the best offensive catcher in baseball history and also one of the best defensive catchers ever. Nobody could steal on him and few even tried. This is where you and Dustin are so "in the dark" with respect to baseball of the 1950-1980 era. You didn't watch these players. They were far better players with a career that was truly a career rather than four or five good seasons. Today, if a player wins an MVP and a couple of batting titles, they are penciled in as Cooperstown worthy because of WAR or some other stupid statistic used to measure that player's value. [sm=vomit.gif] Yep. So Two guys who cheated beyond all get out. Deserve to be considered top four living players over guys that did it when the only drugs on the market were detrimental to playing. Koufax cut his own career short but was one of the most dominant pitchers of his era. Gibson wouldn't disagree with that. Bench was chosen because he played his whole career for the Reds and the game was in Cincy. But he is among the top to ever play the position. And he succeeded at that position for a looooonnnnnngggggg time. Could I think of other players that should be on the list, like Nolan Ryan or Randy Johnson...etc Yeah, But it is no tragedy that Bench or Koufax is on that list.

CPAMAN -> RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (7/15/2015 9:45:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz quote: ORIGINAL: CPAMAN quote: ORIGINAL: CPAMAN quote: ORIGINAL: twinsfan quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz Agree there too, Matt. If not Bonds/ARod, then Rickey was still better than bench. I'd have had one of Gibson/Maddux/Randy/Pedro over Koufax (if not Clemens). But I understand they wanted to mix up eras probably. I still would have taken Gibson. I think they tried to honor the old guy that won't be around much longer (Koufax) and a hometown guy (Bench). Had to be rigged. Matt, there is nothing "rigged" about Johnny Bench. He was the best offensive catcher in baseball history and also one of the best defensive catchers ever. Nobody could steal on him and few even tried. This is where you and Dustin are so "in the dark" with respect to baseball of the 1950-1980 era. You didn't watch these players. They were far better players with a career that was truly a career rather than four or five good seasons. Today, if a player wins an MVP and a couple of batting titles, they are penciled in as Cooperstown worthy because of WAR or some other stupid statistic used to measure that player's value. [sm=vomit.gif] Ya, because stats like WAR rate guys like Ruth/Gehrig/Aaron/Mays really poorly.... I didn't say that. But players today do not maintain their greatness for more than a handful of seasons. Especially pitchers. Cabrera is an exception currently. Pujols also. Trout "hopefully" will be a really good player for another ten seasons. Not many others worth mentioning.

Trekgeekscott -> RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (7/15/2015 9:46:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz quote: ORIGINAL: CPAMAN quote: ORIGINAL: CPAMAN quote: ORIGINAL: twinsfan quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz Agree there too, Matt. If not Bonds/ARod, then Rickey was still better than bench. I'd have had one of Gibson/Maddux/Randy/Pedro over Koufax (if not Clemens). But I understand they wanted to mix up eras probably. I still would have taken Gibson. I think they tried to honor the old guy that won't be around much longer (Koufax) and a hometown guy (Bench). Had to be rigged. Matt, there is nothing "rigged" about Johnny Bench. He was the best offensive catcher in baseball history and also one of the best defensive catchers ever. Nobody could steal on him and few even tried. This is where you and Dustin are so "in the dark" with respect to baseball of the 1950-1980 era. You didn't watch these players. They were far better players with a career that was truly a career rather than four or five good seasons. Today, if a player wins an MVP and a couple of batting titles, they are penciled in as Cooperstown worthy because of WAR or some other stupid statistic used to measure that player's value. [sm=vomit.gif] Ya, because stats like WAR rate guys like Ruth/Gehrig/Aaron/Mays really poorly.... If WAR rates those guys poorly. It completely invalidates the stat. You've just completely killed WAR for me. I was willing to listen and you ruined it. Ruth was simply the best of his era. Gehrig was amazing Aaron the picture of consistency. Mays did everything well, how could he possibly have a poor WAR? One the best all around players ever.

Steve Lentz -> RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (7/15/2015 9:48:06 AM)
Koufax at his best was as good as anyone. His career was shortened by injuries, but at his prime....WOW!!!!! From 1962 through 1966 he led the National league in ERA all 5 times. I can easily see why he got the honor last night.

djskillz -> RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (7/15/2015 9:48:09 AM)
I don't think it's a big deal either, Scott. But I don't think those are 2 of the best four. That's all this was was Matt pointing that out.

twinsfan -> RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (7/15/2015 10:18:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz quote: ORIGINAL: CPAMAN quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz quote: ORIGINAL: CPAMAN quote: ORIGINAL: twinsfan quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz Agree there too, Matt. If not Bonds/ARod, then Rickey was still better than bench. I'd have had one of Gibson/Maddux/Randy/Pedro over Koufax (if not Clemens). But I understand they wanted to mix up eras probably. I still would have taken Gibson. I think they tried to honor the old guy that won't be around much longer (Koufax) and a hometown guy (Bench). Had to be rigged. Matt, there is nothing "rigged" about Johnny Bench. He was the best offensive catcher in baseball history and also one of the best defensive catchers ever. Nobody could steal on him and few even tried. He is the best living catcher of all-time and that is saying a lot because of Mike Piazza who is very close. Bench' throwing strength and accuracy was simply remarkable. With Morgan catching his throws and applying sweep tags, it was a thing of beauty to watch them gun down baserunners. Matt didn't say Bench isn't great; he is. He said he's not one of the best 4 living players on the planet. I agree. And? Has anyone disputed that? I think he's the greatest living catcher too. Doesn't make him a top 4 living player IMO. Even if people want to disregard Bonds, A-Rod and Clemens for the roids, I don't see how Johnny Bench eclipses Frank Robinson. And Randy Johnson had twice the career (figuratively and literally) as Sandy Koufax.

twinsfan -> RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (7/15/2015 10:19:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz quote: ORIGINAL: CPAMAN quote: ORIGINAL: CPAMAN quote: ORIGINAL: twinsfan quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz Agree there too, Matt. If not Bonds/ARod, then Rickey was still better than bench. I'd have had one of Gibson/Maddux/Randy/Pedro over Koufax (if not Clemens). But I understand they wanted to mix up eras probably. I still would have taken Gibson. I think they tried to honor the old guy that won't be around much longer (Koufax) and a hometown guy (Bench). Had to be rigged. Matt, there is nothing "rigged" about Johnny Bench. He was the best offensive catcher in baseball history and also one of the best defensive catchers ever. Nobody could steal on him and few even tried. This is where you and Dustin are so "in the dark" with respect to baseball of the 1950-1980 era. You didn't watch these players. They were far better players with a career that was truly a career rather than four or five good seasons. Today, if a player wins an MVP and a couple of batting titles, they are penciled in as Cooperstown worthy because of WAR or some other stupid statistic used to measure that player's value. [sm=vomit.gif] Ya, because stats like WAR rate guys like Ruth/Gehrig/Aaron/Mays really poorly.... If WAR rates those guys poorly. It completely invalidates the stat. You've just completely killed WAR for me. I was willing to listen and you ruined it. Ruth was simply the best of his era. Gehrig was amazing Aaron the picture of consistency. Mays did everything well, how could he possibly have a poor WAR? One the best all around players ever. Scott, he was being facetious. WAR loves Ruth, Gehrig, Aaron and Mays.

twinsfan -> RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (7/15/2015 10:21:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Steve Lentz Koufax at his best was as good as anyone. His career was shortened by injuries, but at his prime....WOW!!!!! From 1962 through 1966 he led the National league in ERA all 5 times. I can easily see why he got the honor last night. And Pedro did the same thing in a much tougher era. But I'm not arguing for Pedro. I'm arguing for Randy Johnson. Maddux was also just as impressive as Koufax IMO.

Mr. Ed -> RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (7/15/2015 10:22:19 AM)
Frasor first suitors may be Boston/Seattle Apparently Zunino was rushed too soon to the bigs The Mariners are close to striking a deal for a backstop, Jon Morosi of FOX Sports reports on Twitter. The report does not give any indication of the identities of the player or the other team involved in talks. Seattle, of course, has already traded for a catcher this year, acquiring Welington Castillo from the Cubs. But Castillo has since been shipped to the Diamondbacks as part of the Mark Trumbo deal. Mike Zunino, who is only 24, still looks like he could be a long-term piece for Seattle. But his struggles have become rather pronounced: his batting line sits at .160/.223/.292 after 277 plate appearances on the year. While Zunino is well regarded as a pitch framer, and Defensive Runs Saved is a fan (+7) of his work behind the dish. But Baseball Prospectus does not rate him highly in its measure of Fielding Runs Above Average.

Mr. Ed -> RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (7/15/2015 10:23:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: twinsfan quote: ORIGINAL: Steve Lentz Koufax at his best was as good as anyone. His career was shortened by injuries, but at his prime....WOW!!!!! From 1962 through 1966 he led the National league in ERA all 5 times. I can easily see why he got the honor last night. And Pedro did the same thing in a much tougher era. But I'm not arguing for Pedro. I'm arguing for Randy Johnson. Maddux was also just as impressive as Koufax IMO. Just find all the HOF guys alive, bring them to the all-star game, then ship them to the HOF induction ceremonies, and call it good.

djskillz -> RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (7/15/2015 10:31:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: twinsfan quote: ORIGINAL: Steve Lentz Koufax at his best was as good as anyone. His career was shortened by injuries, but at his prime....WOW!!!!! From 1962 through 1966 he led the National league in ERA all 5 times. I can easily see why he got the honor last night. And Pedro did the same thing in a much tougher era. But I'm not arguing for Pedro. I'm arguing for Randy Johnson. Maddux was also just as impressive as Koufax IMO. I'd argue for any of those 3 over Koufax, great as he was, but I'm sure they wanted the "old guys".

djskillz -> RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (7/15/2015 10:32:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: twinsfan quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz quote: ORIGINAL: CPAMAN quote: ORIGINAL: CPAMAN quote: ORIGINAL: twinsfan quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz Agree there too, Matt. If not Bonds/ARod, then Rickey was still better than bench. I'd have had one of Gibson/Maddux/Randy/Pedro over Koufax (if not Clemens). But I understand they wanted to mix up eras probably. I still would have taken Gibson. I think they tried to honor the old guy that won't be around much longer (Koufax) and a hometown guy (Bench). Had to be rigged. Matt, there is nothing "rigged" about Johnny Bench. He was the best offensive catcher in baseball history and also one of the best defensive catchers ever. Nobody could steal on him and few even tried. This is where you and Dustin are so "in the dark" with respect to baseball of the 1950-1980 era. You didn't watch these players. They were far better players with a career that was truly a career rather than four or five good seasons. Today, if a player wins an MVP and a couple of batting titles, they are penciled in as Cooperstown worthy because of WAR or some other stupid statistic used to measure that player's value. [sm=vomit.gif] Ya, because stats like WAR rate guys like Ruth/Gehrig/Aaron/Mays really poorly.... If WAR rates those guys poorly. It completely invalidates the stat. You've just completely killed WAR for me. I was willing to listen and you ruined it. Ruth was simply the best of his era. Gehrig was amazing Aaron the picture of consistency. Mays did everything well, how could he possibly have a poor WAR? One the best all around players ever. Scott, he was being facetious. WAR loves Ruth, Gehrig, Aaron and Mays. [&:][&:] Man, I thought that was obvious. Sorry Trekky.

twinsfan -> RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (7/15/2015 10:34:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr. Ed quote: ORIGINAL: twinsfan quote: ORIGINAL: Steve Lentz Koufax at his best was as good as anyone. His career was shortened by injuries, but at his prime....WOW!!!!! From 1962 through 1966 he led the National league in ERA all 5 times. I can easily see why he got the honor last night. And Pedro did the same thing in a much tougher era. But I'm not arguing for Pedro. I'm arguing for Randy Johnson. Maddux was also just as impressive as Koufax IMO. Just find all the HOF guys alive, bring them to the all-star game, then ship them to the HOF induction ceremonies, and call it good. But then we wouldn't have these arguments, which are good arguments.

Mr. Ed -> RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (7/15/2015 10:41:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: twinsfan quote: ORIGINAL: Mr. Ed quote: ORIGINAL: twinsfan quote: ORIGINAL: Steve Lentz Koufax at his best was as good as anyone. His career was shortened by injuries, but at his prime....WOW!!!!! From 1962 through 1966 he led the National league in ERA all 5 times. I can easily see why he got the honor last night. And Pedro did the same thing in a much tougher era. But I'm not arguing for Pedro. I'm arguing for Randy Johnson. Maddux was also just as impressive as Koufax IMO. Just find all the HOF guys alive, bring them to the all-star game, then ship them to the HOF induction ceremonies, and call it good. But then we wouldn't have these arguments, which are good arguments. Define "good". If it results in taking veiled shots at each other,how good are they? Johnny Bench is a HOF, and a Cincinnati guy. If there were other "deserving" legends that should have been there, don't kid yourself, the local guy wins out. Sandy Koufax was dominating. MLB has tried for years to get Koufax out more in the public eye.Hasn't worked, the dude is not comfy w/it. Probably last try.

twinsfan -> RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (7/15/2015 10:59:27 AM)
I think I'd take Joe Morgan over Johnny Bench.

SoMnFan -> RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (7/15/2015 11:16:23 AM)
Nice to know there are other crazy people in the world. I'm as old as anyone in here, watched more baseball at ten then I do now .... And I cringed when I saw Johnny Bench out there. Icon. Terrific player and even better person. Isn't one of the top six living players, IMO. Maybe not even top ten. He freaked out stat heads because he changed the catching position as far as offensive output was concerned. The majority of catchers were #8 hitters in charge of the pitching staff. They were bowlegged defensive specialists until Johnny came along. Loved him. But don't feel he belonged out there.

djskillz -> RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (7/15/2015 11:21:30 AM)
Thanks SMF. Better said than any of the rest of us did. Didn't have a huge problem with it, being in Cincy and all, but let's call it what it was; a bone to the hometown crowd.

SoMnFan -> RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (7/15/2015 11:26:10 AM)
Didn't have a problem with it either, Skilz. But they did let their hearts do their talking.

Trekgeekscott -> RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (7/15/2015 11:30:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz quote: ORIGINAL: twinsfan quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz quote: ORIGINAL: CPAMAN quote: ORIGINAL: CPAMAN quote: ORIGINAL: twinsfan quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz Agree there too, Matt. If not Bonds/ARod, then Rickey was still better than bench. I'd have had one of Gibson/Maddux/Randy/Pedro over Koufax (if not Clemens). But I understand they wanted to mix up eras probably. I still would have taken Gibson. I think they tried to honor the old guy that won't be around much longer (Koufax) and a hometown guy (Bench). Had to be rigged. Matt, there is nothing "rigged" about Johnny Bench. He was the best offensive catcher in baseball history and also one of the best defensive catchers ever. Nobody could steal on him and few even tried. This is where you and Dustin are so "in the dark" with respect to baseball of the 1950-1980 era. You didn't watch these players. They were far better players with a career that was truly a career rather than four or five good seasons. Today, if a player wins an MVP and a couple of batting titles, they are penciled in as Cooperstown worthy because of WAR or some other stupid statistic used to measure that player's value. [sm=vomit.gif] Ya, because stats like WAR rate guys like Ruth/Gehrig/Aaron/Mays really poorly.... If WAR rates those guys poorly. It completely invalidates the stat. You've just completely killed WAR for me. I was willing to listen and you ruined it. Ruth was simply the best of his era. Gehrig was amazing Aaron the picture of consistency. Mays did everything well, how could he possibly have a poor WAR? One the best all around players ever. Scott, he was being facetious. WAR loves Ruth, Gehrig, Aaron and Mays. [&:][&:] Man, I thought that was obvious. Sorry Trekky. Seriously, sarcasm is really hard to convey in a written form.

Trekgeekscott -> RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (7/15/2015 11:31:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr. Ed Frasor first suitors may be Boston/Seattle Apparently Zunino was rushed too soon to the bigs The Mariners are close to striking a deal for a backstop, Jon Morosi of FOX Sports reports on Twitter. The report does not give any indication of the identities of the player or the other team involved in talks. Seattle, of course, has already traded for a catcher this year, acquiring Welington Castillo from the Cubs. But Castillo has since been shipped to the Diamondbacks as part of the Mark Trumbo deal. Mike Zunino, who is only 24, still looks like he could be a long-term piece for Seattle. But his struggles have become rather pronounced: his batting line sits at .160/.223/.292 after 277 plate appearances on the year. While Zunino is well regarded as a pitch framer, and Defensive Runs Saved is a fan (+7) of his work behind the dish. But Baseball Prospectus does not rate him highly in its measure of Fielding Runs Above Average. Right now Zunino is Eric Fryar without the advanced batting skills (snicker).

SoMnFan -> RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (7/15/2015 12:31:47 PM)
Sucked that AJ Burnett wasn't used last night. Giving him a batter wouldn't have killed the NL. And would have meant a lot.

McMurfy -> RE: MLB General Information PT 4 (7/15/2015 12:39:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz quote: ORIGINAL: CPAMAN quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz quote: ORIGINAL: CPAMAN quote: ORIGINAL: twinsfan quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz Agree there too, Matt. If not Bonds/ARod, then Rickey was still better than bench. I'd have had one of Gibson/Maddux/Randy/Pedro over Koufax (if not Clemens). But I understand they wanted to mix up eras probably. I still would have taken Gibson. I think they tried to honor the old guy that won't be around much longer (Koufax) and a hometown guy (Bench). Had to be rigged. Matt, there is nothing "rigged" about Johnny Bench. He was the best offensive catcher in baseball history and also one of the best defensive catchers ever. Nobody could steal on him and few even tried. He is the best living catcher of all-time and that is saying a lot because of Mike Piazza who is very close. Bench' throwing strength and accuracy was simply remarkable. With Morgan catching his throws and applying sweep tags, it was a thing of beauty to watch them gun down baserunners. Matt didn't say Bench isn't great; he is. He said he's not one of the best 4 living players on the planet. I agree. And? Has anyone disputed that? I think he's the greatest living catcher too. Doesn't make him a top 4 living player IMO. Wait, I thought we had to adjust for position. Dustin has told me so many rules I need to follow to determine player greatness that I can no longer keep them all straight. Don't adjust for position, except for Mauer, except when he plays First, because really his career needs to be based on him being a Catcher, where he won three batting titles, but batting average doesn't matter.

Page: << < prev 225 226 [227] 228 229 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode