Posted by MikeT23 on 11/16/2017 7:31:00 PM (view original):
OK, you're dumb. Thanks.

Mikespeak for, “you’re right and I don’t have a counter-argument.”

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2017 8:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/16/2017 7:31:00 PM (view original):
OK, you're dumb. Thanks.

Mikespeak for, “you’re right and I don’t have a counter-argument.”

No, it's just you're dumb. 541 homers is a lot more than 493. Only a dumbass would say "Pretty much the same." As I said, .270 hitter compared to .300 hitter. Roughly 10%. Pretty much the same in the world of dumbasses.

When you make a really stupid statement, which is often, and stubbornly defend it, also often, it's just a waste of time to "counter-argue".

But, to be fair, sometimes I'm fine to counter-argue because I have time to argue against dumbassery. Sometimes I don't have time. Sometimes I just don't feel like it. This is one of those times.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/16/2017 8:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2017 8:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/16/2017 7:31:00 PM (view original):
OK, you're dumb. Thanks.

Mikespeak for, “you’re right and I don’t have a counter-argument.”

No, it's just you're dumb. 541 homers is a lot more than 493. Only a dumbass would say "Pretty much the same." As I said, .270 hitter compared to .300 hitter. Roughly 10%. Pretty much the same in the world of dumbasses.

When you make a really stupid statement, which is often, and stubbornly defend it, also often, it's just a waste of time to "counter-argue".

I never said, “pretty much the same.” I said it’s not significant. As in, “541 wow, that’s a hall of fame number, 493 nope, not good enough.” They’re close enough that you shouldn’t reach that conclusion.

Posted by wylie715 on 11/16/2017 5:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2017 5:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Tdiddy on 11/16/2017 5:17:00 PM (view original):
I'm a huge sox fan living in NY amongst Yankee fans. Not all of us agree he should be in. Some Yankee fans do and some don't. I'm not gonna make a case with numbers; everyone can cherry pick whatever numbers they want. I'm not even sure if I wasn't a sox fan that i would think this way...but within five years of him being on the ballot he will be in.

Well...yeah. Whether he does get in and whether he belongs in are two different questions.

For instance, Catfish Hunter is in the Hall of Fame, by definition, he's a Hall of Famer.

But he shouldn't be, because he isn't a hall of fame quality pitcher.

He's not a hall of fame quality pitcher IN YOUR OPINION!! Just because its your opinion, that does not make it true. I'm not even commenting on Hunter's qualifications for the hall. I'm commenting on your belief that because you think something is true, it must be true. That ain't the way it works.

This.

You really cannot trust the opinions about baseball from somebody who clearly has a low baseball IQ.

Posted by tecwrg on 11/16/2017 10:50:00 PM (view original):
You really cannot trust the opinions about baseball from somebody who clearly has a low baseball IQ.

Why does BL think he has superior insight into baseball?

Posted by sjpoker on 11/16/2017 11:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/16/2017 10:50:00 PM (view original):
You really cannot trust the opinions about baseball from somebody who clearly has a low baseball IQ.

Why does BL think he has superior insight into baseball?

Because he's a proponent of advanced stats like WAR.

And he doesn't need to watch the games, because he has the stats.

So Ortiz is out but Phil Rizzuto is in....come on now.

Posted by tecwrg on 11/17/2017 5:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 11/16/2017 11:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/16/2017 10:50:00 PM (view original):
You really cannot trust the opinions about baseball from somebody who clearly has a low baseball IQ.

Why does BL think he has superior insight into baseball?

Because he's a proponent of advanced stats like WAR.

And he doesn't need to watch the games, because he has the stats.

LOL, you really don’t need advanced stats to see that Hunter wasn’t very good.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/17/2017 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/17/2017 5:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 11/16/2017 11:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/16/2017 10:50:00 PM (view original):
You really cannot trust the opinions about baseball from somebody who clearly has a low baseball IQ.

Why does BL think he has superior insight into baseball?

Because he's a proponent of advanced stats like WAR.

And he doesn't need to watch the games, because he has the stats.

LOL, you really don’t need advanced stats to see that Hunter wasn’t very good.

Wasn't very good or wasn't a HOF pitcher?

Posted by bad_luck on 11/17/2017 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/17/2017 5:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 11/16/2017 11:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/16/2017 10:50:00 PM (view original):
You really cannot trust the opinions about baseball from somebody who clearly has a low baseball IQ.

Why does BL think he has superior insight into baseball?

Because he's a proponent of advanced stats like WAR.

And he doesn't need to watch the games, because he has the stats.

LOL, you really don’t need advanced stats to see that Hunter wasn’t very good.

You say " . . . to see that Hunter wasn't very good.". Are you old enough to have actually seen him pitch? To have seen how dominant and clutch he was when it really mattered? To remember how every team wanted him when he was a FA?

Posted by cccp1014 on 11/17/2017 10:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/17/2017 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/17/2017 5:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 11/16/2017 11:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/16/2017 10:50:00 PM (view original):
You really cannot trust the opinions about baseball from somebody who clearly has a low baseball IQ.

Why does BL think he has superior insight into baseball?

Because he's a proponent of advanced stats like WAR.

And he doesn't need to watch the games, because he has the stats.

LOL, you really don’t need advanced stats to see that Hunter wasn’t very good.

Wasn't very good or wasn't a HOF pitcher?

He was slightly above average overall with 2-3 outstanding seasons. So, good, not great. Definitely not a hall of famer.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/17/2017 10:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 11/17/2017 10:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/17/2017 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/17/2017 5:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 11/16/2017 11:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/16/2017 10:50:00 PM (view original):
You really cannot trust the opinions about baseball from somebody who clearly has a low baseball IQ.

Why does BL think he has superior insight into baseball?

Because he's a proponent of advanced stats like WAR.

And he doesn't need to watch the games, because he has the stats.

LOL, you really don’t need advanced stats to see that Hunter wasn’t very good.

Wasn't very good or wasn't a HOF pitcher?

He was slightly above average overall with 2-3 outstanding seasons. So, good, not great. Definitely not a hall of famer.

OK, I can actually sort of see your point based on stats. Unfortunately I am too young and never saw him pitch so I cannot opine as others have how he did when he did pitch via the naked eye test. Where you and I disagree is the wins category. I do think it means something. I mean even Walter Johnson had wins when he pitched for some weak Washington teams. Same with Pedro in the late 90s with the Sox. To your point the Sox were not much better than an average team but when he pitched they certainly won a lot more than they lost.

Posted by cccp1014 on 11/17/2017 10:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/17/2017 10:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 11/17/2017 10:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/17/2017 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/17/2017 5:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 11/16/2017 11:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/16/2017 10:50:00 PM (view original):
You really cannot trust the opinions about baseball from somebody who clearly has a low baseball IQ.

Why does BL think he has superior insight into baseball?

Because he's a proponent of advanced stats like WAR.

And he doesn't need to watch the games, because he has the stats.

LOL, you really don’t need advanced stats to see that Hunter wasn’t very good.

Wasn't very good or wasn't a HOF pitcher?

He was slightly above average overall with 2-3 outstanding seasons. So, good, not great. Definitely not a hall of famer.

OK, I can actually sort of see your point based on stats. Unfortunately I am too young and never saw him pitch so I cannot opine as others have how he did when he did pitch via the naked eye test. Where you and I disagree is the wins category. I do think it means something. I mean even Walter Johnson had wins when he pitched for some weak Washington teams. Same with Pedro in the late 90s with the Sox. To your point the Sox were not much better than an average team but when he pitched they certainly won a lot more than they lost.

You can't compare Catfish Hunter to Pedro or Walter Johnson, but he does deserve to be in the HOF!