Interesting Test (concerning Barry Bonds and the Giants)

[TonyJ]

Originally Posted by Carlton

That's all you got?
That's your comeback?

(golf clap)

Your condescending barbs become predictable, much like yourself

I am sure you don't understand what THAT means either.

But you DO understand why I am in this thread NOW...you have to have that much inkling of intelligence.

It's not THAT hard to see the same crap going on as per usual of the same 'Subjects' that I have mentioned on more than one occasion. And all against one person....WTF is up with you kids? Is this your corner or something?

but if you call a truce I will as well, because quite frankly I am enjoying the discussion with the people who are discussing it NOW.

ok

[TonyJ]

Originally Posted by Carlton

Although I am sure the pseudo intellectual in a Freudian "Didn't get enough hugs" boyfriend of yours appreciates your chivalry

I, however, just think you overcompensate

Btw, this is the part that doesn't make any sense, except perhaps to you.

Couple questions:

Who is my boyfriend, exactly? Are you saying that I'm a pseudo-intellectual or that my boyfriend is? Are you saying my boyfriend didn't get enough hugs or that I didn't? What does Freud have to do with not getting enough hugs? Chivalry? Que?

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by cknox0723

but you're doing yourself a great disservice by ignoring them.

Oh, I don't ignore them. But evaluating the players in the Negro Leagues requires *both* evidence and testimony.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Carlton

WTF is up with you kids?

I ask that question a lot.

[DamnYankees]

Carlton, why do you discount Babe's pitching record? I mean, it did happen. It's part of his greatness. The tone of your post implies that anyone who considers it must be an idiot.

He was a damn good pitcher. That shouldn't count into our thinking?

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

My main comment about Win Shares is that the fact that you brought it up so late in the argument, it leads me to believe that you were looking for some statistical excuse to rank Koufax ahead of Pedro and Win Shares happens to be it.

Actually I was looking for some Cy Young information and there it was. Serendipity.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

Who is really the better fielding first baseman?

Hal Chase, obviously. You want to argue with Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson, and The Sporting News? And with Nap LaJoie and Ty Cobb, who also said he was the best fielding first baseman ever?

Art "The Great" Shires, who played alongside of him, who wrote, "I know he was the greatest first baseman there ever was. I believe he could have been the greatest second baseman if he wanted to."

Babe Ruth on Hal Chase: "Prince Hal was the greatest fielding first baseman that ever played."

[BigCity]

Quite frankly, a "levelized" discussion here seems impossible since everyone is intent on being right. Reading through this thread (and even taking part for a while) clearly points out few (if any) are willing to discuss differing opinions without putting their need to be right on "pause" for a bit.

We're certainly not the first ones to argue/discuss over whether Koufax is or isn't better than Pedro. Greater analists than us have debated that question and others, and not come to a definitive answer...and this must be the hundreth time I've read, or been involved, in a discussion about Hal Chase as well.

No one learns anything by taking up the position that they know the only truth - then insults the other side for not seeing things the same way. A little mutual respect (regardless if you think your right or not) would go a long way toward a constructive discussion. 80% of this thread has been simply throwing insults back and forth or blowing off opinions of others based on assumptions and pre-determined positions.

Look guys, everyone here has strong opinions - I certainly do - and given the opportunity, we can all state why we think the way we do - and in the process, maybe learn something from what someone else has experienced.

In the end, it isn't important whether we all agree who was better, it's only important that we understand why some think differently...

[cknox0723]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Oh, I don't ignore them. But evaluating the players in the Negro Leagues requires *both* evidence and testimony.

really?

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

Who is really the better fielding first baseman?

a. A guy who was lauded by his peers as being the greatest ever, but who apparently threw games so often and so obviously that one fielding metric in particular, which rates just about every other great fielding first baseman where they ought to be, calls him below average?, or

b. A guy who was lauded by his peers as being very nearly as good as the first player (or, in the case of, say, Keith Hernandez, was simply called the best because folks forgot about the first guy by then) but who gave nearly every game his best effort and who therefore ranks very, very highly on the list of great fielding 1B?

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Hal Chase, obviously. You want to argue with Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson, and The Sporting News? And with Nap LaJoie and Ty Cobb, who also said he was the best fielding first baseman ever?

Art "The Great" Shires, who played alongside of him, who wrote, "I know he was the greatest first baseman there ever was. I believe he could have been the greatest second baseman if he wanted to."

Babe Ruth on Hal Chase: "Prince Hal was the greatest fielding first baseman that ever played."

evidence and testimony?

[IatricSB]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Well, I'll let you argue with Walter Johnson, The Sporting News and the Babe, then.

No comment on the Win Shares data?

So how did Walter and the Babe get to watch all the first basemen that played after they died? I don't think people are arguing with Walter and Babe "at the time", but what about the years since?

[IatricSB]

Originally Posted by DamnYankees

Carlton, why do you discount Babe's pitching record? I mean, it did happen. It's part of his greatness. The tone of your post implies that anyone who considers it must be an idiot.

He was a damn good pitcher. That shouldn't count into our thinking?

That's his style. Discount the stats that don't help your argument. I would speculate/suggest that if Babe had been hitting full time all his years instead of pitching, we wouldn't have this argument because of the possible increase in stats. But that's just conjecture. What were left with is that he did pitch and those stats can't be ignored.

[Johnny Slick]

While we're pretending that anecdotal evidence is equal to statistical evidence, a couple words on Chase:

Until somebody worse can be found, he will serve as the archetype of all crooked ball players... his defects of character more than match his playing skill. - Harold Seymour, Baseball: The Golden Years

This one's the killer, from the Sporting News, June 1913:

"That he can play first base as it never was and perhaps never will be played is a well known truth. That he will is a different matter."

Just as I do not believe that players should be credited for homeruns they did not hit, neither do I think that Hal Chase should be credited for cashing in on potential and athletic ability that he did not.

[SoxWin]

Originally Posted by Carlton

That's all you got?
That's your comeback?

(golf clap)

Your condescending barbs become predictable, much like yourself

I am sure you don't understand what THAT means either.

But you DO understand why I am in this thread NOW...you have to have that much inkling of intelligence.

It's not THAT hard to see the same crap going on as per usual of the same 'Subjects' that I have mentioned on more than one occasion. And all against one person....WTF is up with you kids? Is this your corner or something?

but if you call a truce I will as well, because quite frankly I am enjoying the discussion with the people who are discussing it NOW.

Seriously. WTF??? Take your meds.

[sebastian0622]

Originally Posted by TonyJ

ok

roffle. (+1)

[Carlton]

Originally Posted by DamnYankees

Carlton, why do you discount Babe's pitching record? I mean, it did happen. It's part of his greatness. The tone of your post implies that anyone who considers it must be an idiot.

He was a damn good pitcher. That shouldn't count into our thinking?

Sorry if you thought I implied that...never said such a thing

It's apples and oranges.
Pitchers and Position players are so much different in baseball, it be like saying Patrick Roy is better then Bret Hull in hockey.

For statistical analysis, giving Ruth his pitching win shares against any position player is unfair. He should have his pitching in our minds, yes...but just because Cobb, Mays, Wagner, Ted Williams Mantle couldn't pitch...Babe GETS the added advantage? No. I did see an overview, much like added in potential for Williams' war years in which an estimate was given for Ruth playing RF instead of P in his early years...Cobb still had him beat, because Babe would have not been DYNAMIC during the deadball...he'd be Gavvy Cravath

I also stated that I know many support Ruth and that I DON'T mind, nor discourage it, but that it is not my viewpoint. From what a positon player CAN do, Cobb has Ruth over in a big way..Cobb had all 5 tools, retired with 90 plus records, never had the embarrasing Mays' decline, nor the cheated Hornsby PT platoon player decline

[Carlton]

Originally Posted by IatricSB

That's his style. Discount the stats that don't help your argument. I would speculate/suggest that if Babe had been hitting full time all his years instead of pitching, we wouldn't have this argument because of the possible increase in stats. But that's just conjecture. What were left with is that he did pitch and those stats can't be ignored.

You are like herpes, what is it that you feel a need to 'follow' me in every damn thread?

What exactly is missing in your pathetic life? Get a porn subscription or something.

[cknox0723]

Originally Posted by Carlton

You are like herpes, what is it that you feel a need to 'follow' me in every damn thread?

What exactly is missing in your pathetic life? Get a porn subscription or something.

carlton, you know i like you, man, so when i say that personal attacks are really freakin' lame, don't take it as an attack on you rather than what you're posting. it's entirely the latter. you're a hell of a bright guy; anyone who's read anything you've written on the deadball era knows that. you know your baseball and you're pretty damn funny. so cut out this petty, juvenile bullcrap. please?

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Well, I'll let you argue with Walter Johnson, The Sporting News and the Babe, then.

It's not much of an argument. There are easily a hundred major league first baseman better than Hal Chase.

Nothing special as a hitter and a great fielder who booted so many games away that his fielding record is unremarkable, as well.

[cknox0723]

Originally Posted by johnny slick

Just as I do not believe that players should be credited for homeruns they did not hit, neither do I think that Hal Chase should be credited for cashing in on potential and athletic ability that he did not.

this is tangential, but that's what makes the world go round. john, i'm interested in the first half of that statement. do you also include folks like ted williams missing time due to war in that? how about someone like grove who was blocked in the "lesser" minor leagues for forces beyond his control? do you credit them for that or prefer to stick to major league statistics on record?

just genuinely (or maybe disingenuously ) curious.

[DamnYankees]

Originally Posted by Carlton

Sorry if you thought I implied that...never said such a thing

It's apples and oranges.
Pitchers and Position players are so much different in baseball, it be like saying Patrick Roy is better then Bret Hull in hockey.

For statistical analysis, giving Ruth his pitching win shares against any position player is unfair. He should have his pitching in our minds, yes...but just because Cobb, Mays, Wagner, Ted Williams Mantle couldn't pitch...Babe GETS the added advantage? No. I did see an overview, much like added in potential for Williams' war years in which an estimate was given for Ruth playing RF instead of P in his early years...Cobb still had him beat, because Babe would have not been DYNAMIC during the deadball...he'd be Gavvy Cravath

I also stated that I know many support Ruth and that I DON'T mind, nor discourage it, but that it is not my viewpoint. From what a positon player CAN do, Cobb has Ruth over in a big way..Cobb had all 5 tools, retired with 90 plus records, never had the embarrasing Mays' decline, nor the cheated Hornsby PT platoon player decline

Fair enough. But this would merely mean Babe Ruth is not the best position player ever. You can divide up greatnes into many camps, and here is where I would put people

Best Player: Babe Ruth
Best Hitter: Ted Williams
Best Position Player: Ty Cobb
Best 5-tool player: Willie Mays

Each of these designations are slightly different, and thus have different answers.

And yes, Babe gets an added advantage: he could pitch, the others couldn't. Thus he has an advantage over all of them when figuring out the greatest complete player ever. I don't see the problem here.