Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 261

Thread: BBF Post of the Day

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    21,435
    Don't mess with big felines! Cougar was responding to the idea that David Wright is not a team leader.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    Not a team leader?? The Mets lost their leadoff hitter and shortstop (Reyes), their cleanup-hitting first baseman (Delgado), their #3 hitting gold glove center fielder (Beltran), their #2 starter (Maine), and their #2 set-up man (Putz) -- and I'm leaving some out.

    How Wright is responsible for his team having a lousy season while sporting half a Triple A lineup is beyond me? What's he supposed to do, bat in five places in the lineup and pitch the 8th? That would be leadership, I suppose.

    Forgive me, but that statement is beyond ridiculous, and seems out of character for a smart poster.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    21,435
    KCGHOST makes an excellent point.

    Quote Originally Posted by KCGHOST View Post
    One of the great problems of the PED's era is the hypocrisy of the fans. If a guy gets caught and can still perform (Bonds, Arod, Manny, etc.) then he is welcomed back into the fold as you would an erring child. But, if he gets caught but is no longer productive (Palmeiro, Sosa, McGwire) he is shunned.

    And, yes, I know Bonds, Sosa and McGwire haven't officially failed a test.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    21,435
    I busted up laughing when I read this!

    Quote Originally Posted by Buntforahit View Post
    Chase Utley is a fantastic all-round player and a winner! I know this because I watch him every game and because Joe Morgan says so.
    Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 08-01-2009 at 02:07 PM.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    21,435
    Some good points made here.

    Quote Originally Posted by DTF955 View Post
    After reading this, since OP hasn't really elaborated, I'd say it appears the OP is a John McGraw-type who believes that "little ball" - BA, etc - is the only "real" way to win and be great. That's fine. Cobb and Hornsby might be a very unique 1-2 as far as the best 2 players in baseball history, but even *that* is, in a manner of speaking, not as far out there as if you go further down the list; although I'd remind people that that Ruth hit .393 in 1923, and if he'd chosen to focus on singles and doubles, could have hit .400 at least once, if not more.

    That being said...

    Mantle played in an era where BA was harder and harder to get; one can't take BA only into account, because it has too many things affecting it. The era, the home park, the talent pool (no integration before '47), night games, and so on. It shouldn't be discounted, by any means but Mantle had a number of disadvantages that others didn't. In fact, Old Yankee Stadium was a decidedly pitchers' park at times, and only a little above average, IIRC, for lefties.

    WHat this means is that even if you're going to use the McGraw argument that "the best players can all play little ball and get on base really well," Mantle's walks should be helping him here, in that analysis. That, I think, is where some are hung up. Would you rather have a guy who swung at all the bad pitches, and made outs so Berra couldn't drive people in? Or, would you rather have a guy who walked, advanced anyone who happened to be on first, and made it *easier* for Berra. Isn't that the very definition of "small ball," not just batting average, but getting the runs home any way you can? (Which may be what one poster meant when they said you'd have to talk to Casey about that.)
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    21,435
    SABR Matt with a nuanced post.

    Quote Originally Posted by SABR Matt View Post
    The idea at the time was that you did not want to give innings to pitchers who were less talented. On the surface, this seems like a no-brainer, but the problem is...sometimes a less talented pitcher can get BETTER results when used surgically as is more often the case today.

    So what we had in the 1970s was a dogmatic belief that your best starters were better than your relievers...so teams didn't have deep bullpens back then. Rather than trying to leverage the platoon split, get more out of their marginal pitching talents by allowing them to throw shorter appearances at max effort, and in so doing improve pitching performance, teams allowed tiring starters to throw for a very long time and when they went to the pen, it was usually one or two go-to relievers unless the game was out of hand. Just look at the crazy innings some of these relievers from the 70s booked!

    The dynamic we have here is therefore a game of trying to balance how relievers impact league pitching performance with how the increased use of relievers may be seen as a sign of shrinking overall league quality (more relievers being used BECAUSE the starters can no longer get deep into games?) or simply a sign of more intelligent management. It's hard to say for certain how things are interwoven in the data...but what I can say for certain is that there are enough contrasting advantages and disadvantages for the modern pitcher that attempting to make the argument that the league is so much weaker that Jerry Koosman is a greater pitcher than Tom Glavine is very...very dubious.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    21,435
    Bill with an excellent historical post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burgess View Post
    OK. I'm gonna give this subject a shot of my brand. Wish me luck.

    The modern branding of the New York Yankees starts in 1915 when Jake Ruppert and Tillinghast L' Hommedieu Huston bought team for $480,000. from Frank Farrell & William S. Devery in 1915. Two millionaires is always better than one. Twice the bankroll.

    Ruppert was the senior partner and President, while Huston was the junior partner and vice-president. Each put up around $200,000.

    Ruppert's background was that his father owned a beer empire and lots of real estate. Jake was 4 term US Congressman from 'Silk Stocking' district of Manhattan, 1898-1906.

    Huston was a a civil engineer, contractor & agriculturist, he supervised much of construction of Yankee Stadium, which cost about $3m.

    Right away, the 2 Colonels serve notice to the other owners and AL President that they are serious about acquiring top talent. In 1915, it is common knowledge among all ML team owners that all major player transactions must go through his office for approval. Johnson ran the AL as his private domain.

    The 2 colonels are quickly told that Cobb was unavailable for any price. Detroit boss Navin simply will not part with him. Speaker is in Boston and seems planted there. Collins and Joe Jackson have just been installed in Chicago and are locked up in multi-year contracts to Johnson's crony, Comiskey.

    So, one of the few venues for the 2 Colonels to acquire good players fast was from Red Sox owner, Harry Frazee. Harry proved willing to part with his players for affordable prices. Like Gimbels' bargain basement.

    In the next several seasons Harry parted with pitchers; Carl Mays, Herb Pennock, Sam Jones, Waite Hoyt, Joe Bush, Ernie Shore. He also sold shortstop Everett Scott, catcher Wally Schang, and left fielder Duffy Lewis.

    These transactions did not go unnoticed by the other AL owners or Ban Johnson. They precipitated enormous conflicts within the AL.

    In 1919, Red Sox pitcher Carl Mays got so intensely disgusted with his team blowing one of his games, that he simply walked off the team and went fishing. He didn't intend on going back to his team. He let that be known. Eventually, word of his defection got back to the 2 Colonels, who were always on the alert to acquiring quality talent. They contacted Carl and he indicated his desire to go to New York and work for them.

    Which is exactly what he did. And his former Boston owner, Harry Frazee didn't seem to care, as long as he got some money for Mays. The Colonels gave Frazee some money (I don't know how much), and things seemed settled.

    That was until AL President Johnson was reading his morning newspaper and read the story. He almost lost his breakfast. He was so furious that he could hardly contain himself. He immediately contacted Frazee and the Colonels and instructed them to return Mays to Boston, and fined Mays.

    The real reason that Johnson hated the deal was his eternal hostility to any player that showed any sense of freedom over their career. Johnson just wouldn't have a player walking off his team. Ever.

    The Colonels just laughed at him and promptly and summarily refused to consider it. Johnson then instructs his AL umpires not to allow any games to take place if Mays tries to pitch for the Yankees. The Colonels instantly anticipate this and get a New York judge to restrain the AL umpires from obstructing their 'commerce'. Johnson then gets another Chicago judge to restrain the New York injunction. It comes down to 'dueling restraining injunctions' and the Colonels win. Which is to say that money always wins. If you have enough of it, plus the savvy political maneuvering that comes from having been a politician, as Ruppert had been.

    Mays stayed with New York, but the matter is never forgotten by Ban Johnson. This was the first challenge to his power and was the opening salvo which all but tore the AL apart. In the political in-fighting, Chicago owner Charles Comiskey allies with Frazee and the 2 NY Colonels.

    From 1919 on, the story of the AL was the story of power in the AL and who was in charge. Who controlled the major moves? On one side it was AL President Ban Johnson, A's owner and manager Ben Shibe/Connie Mack, Senators' owner Clark Griffith, Browns' owner Phil Ball, Indians' owner James Dunn, Tigers' owner, Frank Navin. They became known as "The Loyal 5".

    On the other side of the aisle were Red Sox owner Harry Frazee, the 2 New York Colonels, and White Sox boss, Charles Comiskey. They were presumably, "The Disloyal 3".

    At one point, the injunctions became so bitter, that the Disloyal 3 threatened to leave the AL and start a rival league. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed.

    The way that baseball solved its 'Ban Johnson' problem was that it brought in an outsider to rule the game as its 'Czar'. It brought in Federal Judge Ken Landis, who was given a free hand. He was appointed baseball's first Commissioner, November 21, 1920. He was brought in specifically to quell the mutiny of the 'Disloyal 3', who were threatening to pull out of the AL.

    That was the real reason Landis was brought onboard. But to say so out loud was indiscreet and bad public relations, so the party line was created that he was brought in to clean up the game from the gambling interests. And coincidently, one of his first acts was to ban the "Eight Men Out" of the Black Sox. And that is how the game sold the line ever since. Typical of millionaires to lie through their teeth, smiling all the while. But business will always come first with those types of people. Back to our task at hand.

    The Yankees continued to market their brand by their explosive acquisition of Babe Ruth from Frazee. Johnson had no legal standing to block this transaction.

    The details of the sale are actually quite a bit more complicated than is generally understood. So, I will let wikipedia save me some typing here and pick up the tail after that. So, the following is what appears in wikipedia for the Ruth sale to NY.

    below is Wikipedia excerpt of Ruth's sale to the Yankees.
    On December 26, 1919, Frazee sold Ruth to the New York Yankees. Popular legend has it that Frazee sold Ruth and several other of his best players to finance a Broadway play, No, No, Nanette (which actually didn't debut until 1925). The truth is somewhat more nuanced.

    After the 1919 season, Ruth demanded a raise to $20,000 ($212,733 in current dollar terms)—double his previous salary. However, Frazee refused, and Ruth responded by letting it be known he wouldn't play until he got his raise, suggesting that he may retire to undertake other profitable ventures. He'd actually jumped the team[citation needed] several times, including the last game of the 1919 season.

    Frazee finally lost patience with Ruth, and decided to trade him. However, he was effectively limited to two trading partners—the Chicago White Sox and the then-moribund Yankees. The other five clubs rejected his deals out of hand under pressure from American League president Ban Johnson, who never liked Frazee and was actively trying to remove him from ownership of the Red Sox. The White Sox offered Shoeless Joe Jackson and $60,000 ($638,200 in current dollar terms), but Yankees owners Jacob Ruppert and Tillinghast L'Hommedieu Huston offered an all-cash deal—$100,000 ($1,063,667 in current dollar terms).

    Frazee, Ruppert and Huston quickly agreed to a deal. In exchange for Ruth, the Red Sox would get $125,000 in cash and three $25,000 notes payable every year at 6 percent interest. Ruppert and Huston also loaned Frazee $300,000, with the mortgage on Fenway Park as collateral. The deal was contingent on Ruth signing a new contract, which was quickly agreed to, and Ruth officially became property of the Yankees on December 26. The deal was announced ten days later.

    In the January 6, 1920 edition of The Boston Globe, Frazee described the transaction:

    "I should have preferred to take players in exchange for Ruth, but no club could have given me the equivalent in men without wrecking itself, and so the deal had to be made on a cash basis. No other club could afford to give me the amount the Yankees have paid for him, and I don't mind saying I think they are taking a gamble. With this money the Boston club can now go into the market and buy other players and have a stronger and better team in all respects than we would have had if Ruth had remained with us."
    However, the January 6, 1920 The New York Times was more prescient:

    "The short right field wall at the Polo Grounds should prove an easy target for Ruth next season and, playing seventy-seven games at home, it would not be surprising if Ruth surpassed his home run record of twenty-nine circuit clouts next Summer."

    It also turns out that there was a solid basis for the No, No, Nanette story. As Leigh Montville discovered during research for his book, The Big Bam: The Life and Times of Babe Ruth (Random House, 2006, p. 161-164), No, No, Nanette had originated as a non-musical stage play called My Lady Friends, which opened on Broadway in December 1919. His research indicated that that play had, indeed, been financed as a direct result of the Ruth sale to the Yankees.
    (end of the wikipedia excerpt.)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So, in 1920 the Yankees have Carl Mays, Babe Ruth, Duffy Lewis and Ernie Shore, who had all been previously with the Red Sox. And Frazee would soon send them; Wally Schang, Herb Pennock, Sam Jones, Waite Hoyt, Joe Bush and Everett Scott.

    The 'Rape of the Red Sox' would devastate the Boston franchise for years to come. You just cannot sell that many good players for cheap and expect to stay competitive. Maybe Ban Johnson was right to try to drive Frazee out of baseball after all.

    Other developments are relevant to how the Yankees established their brand, too. Elsewhere in the AL, things were brewing. The Chicago White Sox threw the World Series to the Reds in 1919, which led to the permanent banishment of the Black Sox 8. No franchise can absorb that much loss of talent, with absolutely no compensation and stay competitive.

    The White Sox still had Eddie Collins, Ray Schalk, Dickie Kerr. But they were not enough. Not by a long shot. So, the upshot is that the 2 strongest AL teams in the 1910s, the White Sox and the Red Sox, were gutted, leaving the fight to others.

    The Yankees were the beneficiaries by default, as were the Tigers, Senators, Browns and Indians. The Browns were competitive in 1922, thanks to Sisler/Ken Williams, but couldn't keep it up. Sisler's eye problems did them in.

    The Tigers could hit but lacked strong enough pitching to make a real fight of it, despite their credible showing in 1922-24. It remained for the Washington Senators to challenge the Yankees in the 20's and this they handled with 2 pennants. Thanks to Walter Johnson, Goose Goslin, Bucky Harris and Sam Rice. But then they too weakened.

    Colonel Huston sold his interests in the Yankees to Ruppert (June, 1923) for $1,250,000. And Jake just kept rolling along. He was quoted as saying, "In no sport can a man of means get the fun he will find in the ownership of a ball club." Apparently he was for real.

    In addition to bringing almost the entire Red Sox team to the Big Apple, Jake was quite serious about acquiring other players, when available. When the 1925 Yankees collapsed to 7th place, manager Huggins to GM Barrow and Ruppert, "This team is fried. They are bloated on success."

    Huggins and Barrow got rid of most of them and started their '26 spring training a new shortstop (Mark Koenig), catcher (Pat Collins) and second baseman (Tony Lazzeri).

    Jake Ruppert was just barely beginning to flex his wallet. Jake Ruppert armed his Yankee dugout with Lou Gehrig, Tony Lazzeri, Bob Meusel, Earl Combs, Marty Koenig, Joe Dugan. Jake was intent on making his team the envy of Balldom.

    Meanwhile, over in Philadelphia, hardly less earnest activity was in progress to meet the Yankees challenge on even terms. Mack suddenly was spending like Ruppert in an exclusive men's clothing shop. Mack & Ruppert turned
    the '20's into dueling checkbooks, & neither were bouncing any checks. Over in Philly, Mack was rebuilding & Connie wasn't kidding. In '21 he got Eddie Rommel, in '22, Bing Miller & Joe Hauser, '23 Rube Walberg, in '24, he got Al Simmons & Max Bishop.

    For 1925, he picked up Grove, Cochrane, Foxx, veteran pitcher Jack Quinn. For '26, he got shortstop Billy Wambsganss and vet pitcher Howard Ehmke, whom Ty had discarded after '22. These players proved that Connie wasn't fooling about bringing pennants home. He paid $100K for Grove in 10 installments, $50K for Cochrane( plus $150K invested in Portland team, just to sign Cochrane). These were major moves. Back in Detroit, Frank Navin contemplated no such moves during Ty's reign as manager.

    Both these teams, the 20's Yankees and Phil. A's were only 2 of the teams determined to win glory in the AL in the 20's. Coping with 2 of the greatest baseball teams of history was the task of the other AL team owners in the 20's. To this day, most of the most respected, authoritative baseball minds consider the 1929-31 Phil. A's & the 1926-28 Yankees as 2 of the very finest baseball teams in all-around balance, that ever played the game. And the 1924-25 Senators were just more icing on the cake.

    So, the BB powers in NYC & Philly not only were possessed of deeper pockets, but far more importantly, were possessed of far deeper determination to bring pennants home. They not only out-spent most of the other owners, they buried them completely.

    Lou Gehrig's coming to the Yankees was a blessing that slipped by the normally discerning eye of Giants' long-time manager, John J. McGraw. Apparently, John also missed the potential of Hank Greenberg, too. Both were products of the New York sidewalks. Home-grown products. Shame on McGraw. He normally was sharper than that. Lack of defensive skills is something that can normally be taught to rookies. Hitting is much harder to teach.

    Several other factors factor into this tale of how the Yankees succeeded so magnificently in branding themselves as the team to envy. The 1929 Wall Street Crash and the prohibition against the playing of professional baseball in Pennsylvania.

    It was said that both events crippled the A's as a major rival to the Yankees. It was said that Connie Mack lost a fortune in the 1929 crash and he also had to contend with his team couldn't play baseball in Philadelphia on Sundays until 1934. In November, 1933, the Pennsylvania legislature finally abolished its antiquated 'blue laws'. So, starting in 1934 both the A's and the Pirates could play double-hitters on Sundays, fattening up at the gate.

    After 1934, the A's couldn't compete with the Yankees anymore, despite their being allowed to play on Sundays.

    Babe Ruth made his exit from the Yankees after 1934. Yankee GM mailed Babe a contract for 1$. Babe returned it unsigned. And that allowed the Yankees to say that it was Babe's choice to not play for the Yankees anymore!!!

    That is how the Yanks showed how much they appreciated his fans paying off Yankee Stadium. And they also showed enthusiasm at his going to the Boston Braves!! How nice of them. That's like your ex-spouse showing great enthusiasm at you marrying the next person.

    Lou Gehrig played great baseball up until 1937, when he first became ill. He was slumping at the end of the year, so he probably was suffering from his disease even that early.

    Joe DiMaggio was scouted by many ML teams when he was setting the Pacific Coast League on fire by hitting in 62 consecutive games. But he hurt his left knee several times and the last time he hurt it, all the other teams lost interest, except the Yankees. And their patience was well-rewarded for the next 15 seasons. You spoke with a thick Italian accept and was very self-consciouses and gave the appearance of being shy and introverted. The NY media machine went to work on turning his negatives into positives. Something they are very adept at doing. They are equally fluent in doing the opposite, when so inclined.

    But when you're playing for one of their teams, and hitting in many consecutive games in a row, they were inclined to spin him 'the right way'. Just like they did for The Babe. And Lou.

    The New York media machine is quite predictable. They laud you when your interests and theirs converge. When you help them sell their newspapers, they laud you. When you can't produce for them anymore, like Babe/Lou, they ignore how your team threw you away, and write how you were so good when in your prime. Typical media. They are professional sceptics.

    When Lou Gehrig got sick, he was allowed to remain on the team for 1939. His job was to give the umpire the Yankee lineup at the beginning of the game. As team captain, this he did. He had the dignity to take himself out of the lineup early at the start of the 1939 season. He was given a Lou Gehrig Day on July 4, I think. This was very nice. And then it came out later that year that he had been sick.

    But after the season ended, he was told by GM Ed Barrow, "I think it's time you found a real job." Meaning the Yanks wouldn't carry him another season, or give him a pension. That was before the days of baseball pensions, which only came along in the 50's. This was a cruel thing for the Yankees to do. Lou had been a strong, quiet, unassuming guy. The kind of conservative that Ruppert liked. But Ruppert himself had died January 13, 1939, and the team was controlled by people who might not have known Lou personnally. But Barrow knew him and he could have pensioned Lou like the Pirates had pensioned Wagner. They could have let him coach 3B and carried him at a modest salary of $10K annually. Down from his $39K salary. But they did not carry Lou. It remained for New York City Mayor La Guardia to put Lou on their parole board, since Lou had to keep working to pay his bills. So much for the Yankees taking care of their own.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    21,435
    Another retro POTD.

    Quote Originally Posted by digglahhh View Post
    Billy Beane is bad for baseball... He attempts to make decisions on the basis of empirical evidence and make use of modern tools that make research, data collection and prediction easier. He privileges this view above the divine wisdom derived from the chewing tobacco stained "guts" of "baseball men." He treats baseball like the billion dollar business it is, not like astrology. This of course, is counterintuitive to the anti-intellectual, alpha male culture of the game. While this post may read as satirical, to large extent, I believe most of it to be true.

    Beane is an iconoclast; those in his camp are a threat to the Luddites who dominate the industry. He must be maligned; it's survival. Dusty Baker and Joe Morgan MUST rail against the Beane-style paradigm. Were it to be accepted, it would mean the obsolescence of a lot of currently powerful, and highly paid individuals in the industry.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    21,435
    OMC with some BBF humor!

    Quote Originally Posted by OleMissCub View Post
    How on EARTH are the Cubs overrated??? Their entire schtick is that they've sucked for a century.

    That's like saying the French Army is overrated.
    When was the last time the French Army actually won a war?
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    An hour from Cooperstown
    Posts
    7,841
    Quote Originally Posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    OMC with some BBF humor!



    When was the last time the French Army actually won a war?
    I hear they stopped the fireworks displays at Euro Disney because every time they set them off, the French tried to surrender.
    "Tactics were resorted to, unworthy of fair, manly players" - Brooklyn Eagle, June 12,1890

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,090
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
    I hear they stopped the fireworks displays at Euro Disney because every time they set them off, the French tried to surrender.
    To be fair, Napoleon and Charlemagne were pretty awesome. That's what.... 30, 40 years of great with about 2000 years of getting their heads bashed in by the Romans, the Britons, the Spanish, the Dutch, the Germans, the Russians, the Prussians, the Germans again, the Germans again again, and the Germans again again again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    "Read at your own risk. Baseball Fever shall not be responsible if you become clinically insane trying to make sense of this post. People under 18 must read in the presence of a parent, guardian, licensed professional, or Dr. Phil."

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    21,435
    Quote Originally Posted by nerfan View Post
    To be fair, Napoleon and Charlemagne were pretty awesome. That's what.... 30, 40 years of great with about 2000 years of getting their heads bashed in by the Romans, the Britons, the Spanish, the Dutch, the Germans, the Russians, the Prussians, the Germans again, the Germans again again, and the Germans again again again.
    Hey, does William the Conquerer count?
    Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 12-06-2009 at 10:33 PM.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,090
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    Hey, does William the Conquerer count?
    He wasn't King or Emperor of the Franks/French, he was the Duke of Normandy. But he spoke French as a first language, so I guess he can count. I guess you can also make a case for Louis XIV, but his record wasn't all that impressive. He lost the War of Spanish Succession and the War of the League of Augsberg, and was only able to win by pummeling the crummy Dutch over and over.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    "Read at your own risk. Baseball Fever shall not be responsible if you become clinically insane trying to make sense of this post. People under 18 must read in the presence of a parent, guardian, licensed professional, or Dr. Phil."

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,308
    Quote Originally Posted by nerfan View Post
    To be fair, Napoleon and Charlemagne were pretty awesome. That's what.... 30, 40 years of great with about 2000 years of getting their heads bashed in by the Romans, the Britons, the Spanish, the Dutch, the Germans, the Russians, the Prussians, the Germans again, the Germans again again, and the Germans again again again.
    Actually, Napoleon lost, pretty disastrously. Also, you forgot the Turks. And the Viet Minh. And the Algerians.

    But you've got at least one too many Germans. The French were in fact on the winning side in the First World War, in which they did not surrender, were not conquered, and played the pivotal role in beating the Germans and turning the tide of the war for good at Second Marne.

    And, uh, keeping the world safe for baseball.
    Last edited by Pere; 12-07-2009 at 06:08 PM.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,090
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by spark240 View Post
    Actually, Napoleon lost, pretty disastrously. Also, you forgot the Turks. And the Viet Minh. And the Algerians.

    But you've got at least one too many Germans. The French were in fact on the winning side in the First World War, in which they did not surrender, were not conquered, and played the pivotal role in beating the Germans and turning the tide of the war for good at Second Marne.

    And, uh, keeping the world safe for baseball.
    Yes, I do have one too many Germans (it was for dramatic effect). And Napoleon destroyed most of the European armies with far inferior numbers; he's undoubtedly one of the greatest conquerors ever. I'd have

    1. Genghis Khan
    2. Alexander the Great
    3. Napoleon
    4. Adolf Hitler
    5. Julius Caesar
    6. Umar Ibn Khatab
    7. Trajan
    8. Tamurlane
    9. Suleiman the Magnificent / Great
    10. Peter I of Russia
    11. Ogodei Khan
    12. Charlemagne
    13. William I of England
    14. Gustavus Adolphus
    15. Attila the Hun
    16. Tokugawa Ieyasu
    17. Shih Huang Di
    18. Francisco Pizarro
    19. Caesar Augustus
    20. Shaka Zulu

    In terms of sheer peak value, I'd be tempted to give it to Napoleon. Between 1802-1810, he beat Prussia, Spain, Austria, Sweden, and, of course, Spain again. It's either him or Hitler (1940-1944 he was unmatched) for the greatest peak. There's a clear dropoff between three and four though.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    "Read at your own risk. Baseball Fever shall not be responsible if you become clinically insane trying to make sense of this post. People under 18 must read in the presence of a parent, guardian, licensed professional, or Dr. Phil."

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    21,435
    Quote Originally Posted by nerfan View Post
    Yes, I do have one too many Germans (it was for dramatic effect). And Napoleon destroyed most of the European armies with far inferior numbers; he's undoubtedly one of the greatest conquerors ever. I'd have

    1. Genghis Khan
    2. Alexander the Great
    3. Napoleon
    4. Adolf Hitler
    5. Julius Caesar
    6. Umar Ibn Khatab
    7. Trajan
    8. Tamurlane
    9. Suleiman the Magnificent / Great
    10. Peter I of Russia
    11. Ogodei Khan
    12. Charlemagne
    13. William I of England
    14. Gustavus Adolphus
    15. Attila the Hun
    16. Tokugawa Ieyasu
    17. Shih Huang Di
    18. Francisco Pizarro
    19. Caesar Augustus
    20. Shaka Zulu

    In terms of sheer peak value, I'd be tempted to give it to Napoleon. Between 1802-1810, he beat Prussia, Spain, Austria, Sweden, and, of course, Spain again. It's either him or Hitler (1940-1944 he was unmatched) for the greatest peak. There's a clear dropoff between three and four though.
    You list is a little light on great conquerors from the Americas. Did you apply an LQ adjustment to your list.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    northeast Ohio
    Posts
    26,621
    Quote Originally Posted by nerfan View Post
    Yes, I do have one too many Germans (it was for dramatic effect). And Napoleon destroyed most of the European armies with far inferior numbers; he's undoubtedly one of the greatest conquerors ever. I'd have

    1. Genghis Khan
    2. Alexander the Great
    3. Napoleon
    4. Adolf Hitler
    5. Julius Caesar
    6. Umar Ibn Khatab
    7. Trajan
    8. Tamurlane
    9. Suleiman the Magnificent / Great
    10. Peter I of Russia
    11. Ogodei Khan
    12. Charlemagne
    13. William I of England
    14. Gustavus Adolphus
    15. Attila the Hun
    16. Tokugawa Ieyasu
    17. Shih Huang Di
    18. Francisco Pizarro
    19. Caesar Augustus
    20. Shaka Zulu

    In terms of sheer peak value, I'd be tempted to give it to Napoleon. Between 1802-1810, he beat Prussia, Spain, Austria, Sweden, and, of course, Spain again. It's either him or Hitler (1940-1944 he was unmatched) for the greatest peak. There's a clear dropoff between three and four though.
    I'd love to see you compare these with "most similar" baseball players
    Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
    Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

  17. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by nerfan View Post
    Yes, I do have one too many Germans (it was for dramatic effect). And Napoleon destroyed most of the European armies with far inferior numbers; he's undoubtedly one of the greatest conquerors ever. I'd have

    1. Genghis Khan
    2. Alexander the Great
    3. Napoleon
    4. Adolf Hitler
    5. Julius Caesar
    6. Umar Ibn Khatab
    7. Trajan
    8. Tamurlane
    9. Suleiman the Magnificent / Great
    10. Peter I of Russia
    11. Ogodei Khan
    12. Charlemagne
    13. William I of England
    14. Gustavus Adolphus
    15. Attila the Hun
    16. Tokugawa Ieyasu
    17. Shih Huang Di
    18. Francisco Pizarro
    19. Caesar Augustus
    20. Shaka Zulu

    In terms of sheer peak value, I'd be tempted to give it to Napoleon. Between 1802-1810, he beat Prussia, Spain, Austria, Sweden, and, of course, Spain again. It's either him or Hitler (1940-1944 he was unmatched) for the greatest peak. There's a clear dropoff between three and four though.
    At least Genghis Khan has some experience with baseball equipment. Of course, his first impulse upon picking up a bat was to try to eat it.

    (C/O Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure)
    Bill Tom George Mark Bob Ernie Soupy Dick Alex Sparky
    Joe Gary MCA Emanuel Sonny Dave Earl Stan
    Jonathan Neil Roger Anthony Ray Thomas Art Don
    Gates Philip John Warrior Rik Casey Tony Horace
    Robin JEDI

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Round Lake Beach, Il
    Posts
    2,480
    Quote Originally Posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    OMC with some BBF humor!



    When was the last time the French Army actually won a war?
    Im sure you have done/heard this before, but if you, or anyone hasnt before and has a good sense of humor, go to google, type in "French Military Victories" and press "Im Feeling Lucky"

    Classic!
    "I don't like to sound egotistical, but every time I stepped up to the plate with a bat in my hands, I couldn't help but feel sorry for the pitcher."
    -Rogers Hornsby-

    "People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."
    -Rogers Hornsby-

    Just a note to all the active members of BBF, I consider all of you the smartest baseball people I have ever communicated with and love everyday I am on here. Thank you all!

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Magrathea
    Posts
    5,738
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by RuthMayBond View Post
    I'd love to see you compare these with "most similar" baseball players
    Me too. That is an amazing effort by nerfan.

    For starters, how about Napoleon = Lou Gehrig. Great peak, dominant, hit wall hard at the end (Napoleon - Russia/Waterloo, Gehrig - ALS)

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    northeast Ohio
    Posts
    26,621
    Quote Originally Posted by AstrosFan View Post
    Me too. That is an amazing effort by nerfan.

    For starters, how about Napoleon = Lou Gehrig. Great peak, dominant, hit wall hard at the end (Napoleon - Russia/Waterloo, Gehrig - ALS)
    Sounds good. I figure Cobb has to be at least one of those guys
    Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
    Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Magrathea
    Posts
    5,738
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by RuthMayBond View Post
    Sounds good. I figure Cobb has to be at least one of those guys
    I think Alexander the Great. Consistently great, old-school style.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Magrathea
    Posts
    5,738
    Blog Entries
    2
    Yogi Berra supposedly said, "Even Napoleon had his Watergate."

    Apocryphal or no?

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    northeast Ohio
    Posts
    26,621
    Quote Originally Posted by nerfan View Post
    Yes, I do have one too many Germans (it was for dramatic effect). And Napoleon destroyed most of the European armies with far inferior numbers; he's undoubtedly one of the greatest conquerors ever. I'd have

    20. Shaka Zulu
    Albert Belle or Dick Allen?
    Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
    Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    An hour from Cooperstown
    Posts
    7,841
    Quote Originally Posted by AstrosFan View Post
    Yogi Berra supposedly said, "Even Napoleon had his Watergate."

    Apocryphal or no?
    He also supposedly said "I never really said half the things I said". Or something like that.
    "Tactics were resorted to, unworthy of fair, manly players" - Brooklyn Eagle, June 12,1890

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,090
    Blog Entries
    1
    1. Genghis Khan

    Babe Ruth

    2. Alexander the Great

    Ty Cobb

    3. Napoleon

    Lou Gehrig

    4. Adolf Hitler

    Sandy Koufax, and we all know how much the two would like to be put together.

    5. Julius Caesar

    Old school guy? Let's go Christy Mathewson, just for the hell of it.

    6. Umar Ibn Khatab

    Holds a really important record, so let's say Barry Bonds.

    7. Trajan

    Supposedly liked drinking a lot and little boys a lot. Mickey Mantle liked one of those two also.

    8. Tamurlane

    Honus Wagner - intelligent, calculating, intense, legacious. That's the adjective form of legacy, by the way. Both were lame to an extent - Honus was bowlegged and built very oddly.

    9. Suleiman the Magnificent / Great

    Suleiman has a case to be the greatest king/emperor/shah/poobah/guy who's on the top ever. He's too bogged down by economic and social advancements (eww, defense) to be #1 on this list though. Let's give him a terrific two way player like Willie Mays.

    10. Peter I of Russia

    Once performed surgery on someone having only read a book on it once. That takes some balls. Also cocky as all get out, so how about Ted Williams.

    11. Ogodei Khan

    Son of a great conqueror, and crushed China and Central Asia, but died before being able to crush Europe. Ken Griffey Jr. was the son of a great baseball player, and won over Seattle and Cincinnati, but melted into mediocrity in Chicago.

    12. Charlemagne

    Charlemagne forced people to convert to Christianity. Sounds like Branch Rickey, but we need a player. I'll go with Walter Johnson - Charlemagne protected the Pope, and I'm assuming Walter protected his players.

    13. William I of England

    William I was an illegitimate Duke. Tempted to give him Duke Snider, but let's be honest, William is better than him. So let's give him a guy who conquered a tiny island and clung to it, like Rickey Henderson.

    14. Gustavus Adolphus

    Sweden, ja? Adolphus was intelligent and benevolent as well as superb. Let's give him Stanislaus Musial. Who's Polish, but Stanislaus, Gustavus? Sort of similar, ja?

    15. Attila the Hun

    He crushed the greatest empire on Earth, possibly ever. Who else did this? Oh right. Hank Aaron.

    16. Tokugawa Ieyasu

    The third of the famous Japanese unifiers. In honor of his heritage let's give him Sadaharu (I once accidentally Sekigahara) Oh.

    17. Shih Huang Di

    Like Ieyasu, he unified stuff. Unlike Ieyasu, he was evil and liked to burn books. Super famous and had a 'tude, so let's go Reggie Jackson. Reggie had the Reggie Bar, Shih Huang Di had the Great Wall.

    18. Francisco Pizarro

    Pizzaro would be higher if he didn't have a massively superior technology to the Incas in terms of weapons. He would be lower if his legacy was less potent and his army was bigger. As it stands, Pizzaro didn't have too much in the way of raw people but made up for it anyway with hustle. Pete Rose.

    19. Caesar Augustus

    3rd Roman on the list, and conquered Gaul again. Beating the French substantially more impressive than it was to become. Also took charge of Rome and brought the empire back from the assassination of Caesar. Joe DiMaggio, who took the Yankees back from the ALSination of Gehrig and also demanded to be addressed as the greatest, which is basically what you're saying when you call yourself Caesar.

    20. Shaka Zulu

    Josh Gibson. Though Zulu gets dissed somewhat due to his accomplishments being in the weaker AL (African League), his tactics were undeniably brilliant and he formed a strong nation pretty much singlehandedly. Gets bonus points for reorganizing the military and society, and died before the age of 40.
    Last edited by nerfan; 12-09-2009 at 06:56 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    "Read at your own risk. Baseball Fever shall not be responsible if you become clinically insane trying to make sense of this post. People under 18 must read in the presence of a parent, guardian, licensed professional, or Dr. Phil."

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •