The Stark Truth

Collapse

Recommended Videos

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • NYJets
    Hall Of Fame
    • Jul 2002
    • 18637

    #16
    Re: The Stark Truth

    Speaking of ESPN writers books, how is Bill Simmon's book? Is it mainly for Red Sox fans or would someone who hates the Red Sox but loves his column and writing style like it?
    Originally posted by Jay Bilas
    The question isn't whether UConn belongs with the elites, but over the last 20 years, whether the rest of the college basketball elite belongs with UConn

    Comment

    • TheLetterZ
      All Star
      • Jul 2002
      • 6752

      #17
      Re: The Stark Truth

      Originally posted by Scottd
      Yeah I laugh at that one, he had 5000 strikeouts and gesh how many no hitters? I think it was 7. Yeah he is really overrated. Nolan was the man and was just nasty to face.
      He also has by far more walks than anyone else to ever pitch, and his ERAs were pretty mediocre when adjusted for ballpark and era.

      Comment

      • Hootiefish
        Pro
        • Aug 2002
        • 933

        #18
        Re: The Stark Truth

        Originally posted by Scottd
        Yeah I laugh at that one, he had 5000 strikeouts and gesh how many no hitters? I think it was 7. Yeah he is really overrated. Nolan was the man and was just nasty to face.
        Overrated in the fact that he was not the greatest right-hander in history like some would have you believe.

        292 losses and 8 losing seasons don't exactly reflect well on a career (although I myself don't put a whole lot of stock into W-L).
        Overall satisfaction also makes the decline!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Comment

        • Scottdau
          Banned
          • Feb 2003
          • 32580

          #19
          Re: The Stark Truth

          Originally posted by Hootiefish
          Overrated in the fact that he was not the greatest right-hander in history like some would have you believe.

          292 losses and 8 losing seasons don't exactly reflect well on a career (although I myself don't put a whole lot of stock into W-L).

          This wins to lost thing is overrated to me. Who cares how many loses he has. How many wins did he have? I'll take a guy with 300 wins and 200 loses compare to a guy with 200 wins and 100 loses. I just see it different. That is just like Ruth being the one of the greatest HR hitters and yet he has struckeout more times then anybody.

          Comment

          • mjb2124
            Hall Of Fame
            • Aug 2002
            • 13649

            #20
            Re: The Stark Truth

            Originally posted by Scottd
            That is just like Ruth being the one of the greatest HR hitters and yet he has struckeout more times then anybody.
            Ruth was 83rd all time in K's. I wouldn't say he struck out more times than anybody. In fact, comparing his total HR's to K's, his ratio is actually very, very good. Barry Bonds is 43rd all time as a comparison.



            Personally Wins and Losses are pretty useless as a stat for a pitcher. The example has been used many times, but Pitcher A can get a loss giving up 1 run over 9 innings and Pitcher B can get a win giving up 8 runs over 6 innings. Which pitcher had better stats? Pitcher A of course. However, Pitcher B got the W because his team did more for him. So using your 300/200 200/100 W/L ratio doesn't really mean much in terms of overall pitcher ability IMO.

            Comment

            • SPTO
              binging
              • Feb 2003
              • 68046

              #21
              Re: The Stark Truth

              Originally posted by Hootiefish

              292 losses and 8 losing seasons don't exactly reflect well on a career (although I myself don't put a whole lot of stock into W-L).
              Well for the bulk of his career he didn't play with great teams. In fact if you look at his prime years age wise he played with a craptacular Angels squad that only had 2 winning seasons in his 8 years there.
              Member of the Official OS Bills Backers Club

              "Baseball is the most important thing that doesn't matter at all" - Robert B. Parker

              Comment

              • Psyblast
                2023 National Champions
                • Jun 2003
                • 42584

                #22
                Re: The Stark Truth

                Originally posted by Scottd
                This wins to lost thing is overrated to me. Who cares how many loses he has. How many wins did he have? I'll take a guy with 300 wins and 200 loses compare to a guy with 200 wins and 100 loses. I just see it different. That is just like Ruth being the one of the greatest HR hitters and yet he has struckeout more times then anybody.



                Babe Ruth is 83rd on the all-time strikeouts list. Reggie Jackson is first.

                Comment

                • Scottdau
                  Banned
                  • Feb 2003
                  • 32580

                  #23
                  Re: The Stark Truth

                  Originally posted by Psyblast
                  Babe Ruth is 83rd on the all-time strikeouts list. Reggie Jackson is first.
                  OK maybe now, but there was a time that he had more then anybody. But I could wrong. Look at the years that the 82 batters played. I thought I read some where at the time he ended his career he had the HR recond and Stikeout record too.

                  Comment

                  • Scottdau
                    Banned
                    • Feb 2003
                    • 32580

                    #24
                    Re: The Stark Truth

                    Originally posted by SPTO
                    Well for the bulk of his career he didn't play with great teams. In fact if you look at his prime years age wise he played with a craptacular Angels squad that only had 2 winning seasons in his 8 years there.

                    I don't know, all I do know is 7 No No's and 5000 Strikeouts is pretty amazing to me.

                    Comment

                    • snepp
                      We'll waste him too.
                      • Apr 2003
                      • 10007

                      #25
                      Re: The Stark Truth

                      Hunter, like Andruw, is getting by a bit on his reputation as a "great" defensive centerfielder. He's still good, but not what he once was.
                      Member of The OS Baseball Rocket Scientists Association

                      Comment

                      • Sandman42
                        Hall Of Fame
                        • Aug 2004
                        • 15186

                        #26
                        Re: The Stark Truth

                        Originally posted by snepp
                        Hunter, like Andruw, is getting by a bit on his reputation as a "great" defensive centerfielder. He's still good, but not what he once was.
                        Pretty much everyone who wins the Gold Glove gets it based on reputation. It's one of the worst awards in sports.
                        Member of The OS Baseball Rocket Scientists Association

                        Comment

                        • CheesyPoofs58
                          Rookie
                          • May 2007
                          • 75

                          #27
                          Re: The Stark Truth

                          Originally posted by Sandman42
                          Pretty much everyone who wins the Gold Glove gets it based on reputation. It's one of the worst awards in sports.
                          Is it not awarded based on fielding percentage, or is that only in MLB: The Show?

                          Comment

                          • Brandon13
                            All Star
                            • Oct 2005
                            • 8915

                            #28
                            Re: The Stark Truth

                            Originally posted by CheesyPoofs58
                            Is it not awarded based on fielding percentage, or is that only in MLB: The Show?
                            No, it's voted on by the managers and coaches.

                            Comment

                            • snepp
                              We'll waste him too.
                              • Apr 2003
                              • 10007

                              #29
                              Re: The Stark Truth

                              Originally posted by CheesyPoofs58
                              Is it not awarded based on fielding percentage, or is that only in MLB: The Show?
                              Thank god no, that would make it even worse than it is now. Fielding percentage is a pretty awful indicator of how good a player actually is defensively.
                              Member of The OS Baseball Rocket Scientists Association

                              Comment

                              • CheesyPoofs58
                                Rookie
                                • May 2007
                                • 75

                                #30
                                Re: The Stark Truth

                                Originally posted by snepp
                                Thank god no, that would make it even worse than it is now. Fielding percentage is a pretty awful indicator of how good a player actually is defensively.
                                Why do you think it's an awful indicator? Not saying I think you are wrong, but I don't think that it's that terrible to atleast get a guesstimate of the best player by looking at who has the fewest errors. I would think it should atleast go into the decision for gold gloves.

                                Comment

                                Working...