Announcement

Collapse

Updated Baseball Fever Policy

Baseball Fever Policy

I. Purpose of this announcement:

This announcement describes the policies pertaining to the operation of Baseball Fever.

Baseball Fever is a moderated baseball message board which encourages and facilitates research and information exchange among fans of our national pastime. The intent of the Baseball Fever Policy is to ensure that Baseball Fever remains an extremely high quality, extremely low "noise" environment.

Baseball Fever is administrated by three principal administrators:
webmaster - Baseball Fever Owner
The Commissioner - Baseball Fever Administrator
Macker - Baseball Fever Administrator

And a group of forum specific super moderators. The role of the moderator is to keep Baseball Fever smoothly and to screen posts for compliance with our policy. The moderators are ALL volunteer positions, so please be patient and understanding of any delays you might experience in correspondence.

II. Comments about our policy:

Any suggestions on this policy may be made directly to the webmaster.

III. Acknowledgments:

This document was based on a similar policy used by SABR.

IV. Requirements for participation on Baseball Fever:

Participation on Baseball Fever is available to all baseball fans with a valid email address, as verified by the forum's automated system, which then in turn creates a single validated account. Multiple accounts by a single user are prohibited.

By registering, you agree to adhere to the policies outlined in this document and to conduct yourself accordingly. Abuse of the forum, by repeated failure to abide by these policies, will result in your access being blocked to the forum entirely.

V. Baseball Fever Netiquette:

Participants at Baseball Fever are required to adhere to these principles, which are outlined in this section.
a. All posts to Baseball Fever should be written in clear, concise English, with proper grammar and accurate spelling. The use of abbreviations should be kept to a minimum; when abbreviation is necessary, they should be either well-known (such as etc.), or explained on their first use in your post.

b. Conciseness is a key attribute of a good post.

c. Quote only the portion of a post to which you are responding.

d. Standard capitalization and punctuation make a large difference in the readability of a post. TYPING IN ALL CAPITALS is considered to be "shouting"; it is a good practice to limit use of all capitals to words which you wish to emphasize.

e. It is our policy NOT to transmit any defamatory or illegal materials.

f. Personal attacks of any type against Baseball Fever readers will not be tolerated. In these instances the post will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the personal attack via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue personal attacks will be banned from the site.

g. It is important to remember that many contextual clues available in face-to-face discussion, such as tone of voice and facial expression, are lost in the electronic forum. As a poster, try to be alert for phrasing that might be misinterpreted by your audience to be offensive; as a reader, remember to give the benefit of the doubt and not to take umbrage too easily. There are many instances in which a particular choice of words or phrasing can come across as being a personal attack where none was intended.

h. The netiquette described above (a-g) often uses the term "posts", but applies equally to Private Messages.

VI. Baseball Fever User Signature Policy

A signature is a piece of text that some members may care to have inserted at the end of ALL of their posts, a little like the closing of a letter. You can set and / or change your signature by editing your profile in the UserCP. Since it is visible on ALL your posts, the following policy must be adhered to:

Signature Composition
Font size limit: No larger than size 2 (This policy is a size 2)
Style: Bold and italics are permissible
Character limit: No more than 500 total characters
Lines: No more than 4 lines
Colors: Most colors are permissible, but those which are hard to discern against the gray background (yellow, white, pale gray) should be avoided
Images/Graphics: Allowed, but nothing larger than 20k and Content rules must be followed

Signature Content
No advertising is permitted
Nothing political or religious
Nothing obscene, vulgar, defamatory or derogatory
Links to personal blogs/websites are permissible - with the webmaster's written consent
A Link to your Baseball Fever Blog does not require written consent and is recommended
Quotes must be attributed. Non-baseball quotes are permissible as long as they are not religious or political

Please adhere to these rules when you create your signature. Failure to do so will result in a request to comply by a moderator. If you do not comply within a reasonable amount of time, the signature will be removed and / or edited by an Administrator. Baseball Fever reserves the right to edit and / or remove any or all of your signature line at any time without contacting the account holder.

VII. Appropriate and inappropriate topics for Baseball Fever:

Most concisely, the test for whether a post is appropriate for Baseball Fever is: "Does this message discuss our national pastime in an interesting manner?" This post can be direct or indirect: posing a question, asking for assistance, providing raw data or citations, or discussing and constructively critiquing existing posts. In general, a broad interpretation of "baseball related" is used.

Baseball Fever is not a promotional environment. Advertising of products, web sites, etc., whether for profit or not-for-profit, is not permitted. At the webmaster's discretion, brief one-time announcements for products or services of legitimate baseball interest and usefulness may be allowed. If advertising is posted to the site it will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the post via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue advertising will be banned from the site. If the advertising is spam-related, pornography-based, or a "visit-my-site" type post / private message, no warning at all will be provided, and the member will be banned immediately without a warning.

It is considered appropriate to post a URL to a page which specifically and directly answers a question posted on the list (for example, it would be permissible to post a link to a page containing home-road splits, even on a site which has advertising or other commercial content; however, it would not be appropriate to post the URL of the main page of the site). The site reserves the right to limit the frequency of such announcements by any individual or group.

In keeping with our test for a proper topic, posting to Baseball Fever should be treated as if you truly do care. This includes posting information that is, to the best of your knowledge, complete and accurate at the time you post. Any errors or ambiguities you catch later should be acknowledged and corrected in the thread, since Baseball Fever is sometimes considered to be a valuable reference for research information.

VIII. Role of the moderator:

When a post is submitted to Baseball Fever, it is forwarded by the server automatically and seen immediately. The moderator may:
a. Leave the thread exactly like it was submitted. This is the case 95% of the time.

b. Immediately delete the thread as inappropriate for Baseball Fever. Examples include advertising, personal attacks, or spam. This is the case 1% of the time.

c. Move the thread. If a member makes a post about the Marlins in the Yankees forum it will be moved to the appropriate forum. This is the case 3% of the time.

d. Edit the message due to an inappropriate item. This is the case 1% of the time. There have been new users who will make a wonderful post, then add to their signature line (where your name / handle appears) a tagline that is a pure advertisement. This tagline will be removed, a note will be left in the message so he/she is aware of the edit, and personal contact will be made to the poster telling them what has been edited and what actions need to be taken to prevent further edits.

The moderators perform no checks on posts to verify factual or logical accuracy. While he/she may point out gross errors in factual data in replies to the thread, the moderator does not act as an "accuracy" editor. Also moderation is not a vehicle for censorship of individuals and/or opinions, and the moderator's decisions should not be taken personally.

IX. Legal aspects of participation in Baseball Fever:

By submitting a post to Baseball Fever, you grant Baseball Fever permission to distribute your message to the forum. Other rights pertaining to the post remain with the ORIGINAL author, and you may not redistribute or retransmit any posts by any others, in whole or in part, without the express consent of the original author.

The messages appearing on Baseball Fever contain the opinions and views of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of Baseball Fever, or of the Baseball Almanac family of sites.

Sincerely,

Sean Holtz, Webmaster of Baseball Almanac & Baseball Fever
www.baseball-almanac.com | www.baseball-fever.com
"Baseball Almanac: Sharing Baseball. Sharing History."
See more
See less

Lou Gehrig vs. Mickey Mantle

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I'm not intending this as criticism; everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but does anyone else find this a little strange? White Knight has admitted to using three stats as his primary tools for evaluating a hitter: batting average, ability to not strike out, and RBI. He also says he prefers raw stats to adjusted ones.

    There are some who theorize that there are alternate universes populated by everyone's opposite. Have we found 538280's opposite? Those beliefs of White Knight go against everything Chris has espoused on this site. Again, I'm not being critical; I just thought it was interesting.

    Regarding Mantle vs. Gehrig:

    Gehrig has a higher OPS+ in fewer PA. He's a little better in his five best years, which will do in peak. Let's ignore league quality for the moment. Gehrig is ahead by a little as a hitter.

    As baserunners, Mantle is clearly better. We don't have grounded into double play data for Gehrig's career, but Mantle was one of the best ever at avoiding the DP. It's a safe bet that Mantle was better. Mantle stole over 150 bases at an 80% clip, Gehrig stole over 100 at a 50% clip. Sure, they're different eras, but even adjusting for that, Mantle was the better base stealer. Mantle was also faster, so we will presume he was better at taking the extra base.

    Factoring in baserunning, they're probably even offensively, again, without LQ adjustments.

    As defensive players, however, Mantle is way ahead. Gehrig wasn't a bad first baseman, but he was a first baseman, while Mantle was a center fielder. Mantle dropped off considerably in his decline phase as a fielder, but he was clearly more valuable defensively.

    If you account for the difficulty of dominating one's league increasing as time passes, that just puts Mantle further ahead. Gehrig was a great player, and an obvious choice for best 1B of all time. But Mantle was a better player. I might also add that the intangibles argument doesn't really work here, since Mantle did lead the Yankees to 12 pennants and seven World Series titles.
    "Any pitcher who throws at a batter and deliberately tries to hit him is a communist."

    - Alvin Dark

    Comment


    • #17
      I knew this BS story (DiMaggio allegedly causing the incident) would show up again. I think we should give blame where it's due, and that's the risen sprinkler.


      And get your facts straight. Yogi Berra said "he never had to lunge....... he always caught the ball in the AIR, chest high." So I guess when he went for a shoe-string catch, he caught the ball chest high.


      Mantle, god bless him, was a pretty clumsy man. I think we shouldn't blame this on him one bit, but if you're going to make assumption, I'll join you.

      Dude muscles was even quoted as saying he was surprised that DiMaggio got even near the ball.

      He underestimated DiMaggio's range.


      *sign*.
      Last edited by DiMag4Life; 09-06-2007, 03:18 PM. Reason: t

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Westlake View Post

        Here we go, DF1. TR is going to quote a book as gospel and pretend to dispel this very well known story with that one quote. Get ready.


        I should have figured you to be one of the main guys circulating this completely baseless story, Westlake. If it were true, I'd have absolutely no problem saying so. Do you have any evidence it's true, or are you just regurgitating some totally unsubstantiated and long discredited triple-hearsay nonsense?

        If you provide actual evidence to support your position, I'll rescind my own position. You may also want to take this opportunity to explain how the photo above supports your advocacy of this "well known story".

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by TRfromBR View Post


          I should have figured you to be one of the main guys circulating this completely baseless story, Westlake. If it were true, I'd have absolutely no problem saying so. Do you have any evidence it's true, or are you just regurgitating some totally unsubstantiated and long discredited triple-hearsay nonsense?

          If you provide actual evidence to support your position, I'll rescind my own position. You may also want to take this opportunity to explain how the photo above supports your advocacy of this "well known story".

          I'm circulating it? You're always the one saying that people misquote you... well, where am I circulating it? Where did I say I believed it? You quote the words 'well known story' like you don't agree with me saying that... is it not a well known story, TR? The three little pigs is a well known story too, doesn't mean I think it's true because I say it's well known. There ya go, putting words in people's mouths...

          I don't know if the story is true or not. I'll tell you one thing, that picture tells me absolutely nothing. How does that picture prove ANYTHING, other than Mickey falling?
          Originally posted by Domenic
          The Yankees should see if Yogi Berra can still get behind the plate - he has ten World Series rings... he must be worth forty or fifty million a season.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by DiMag4Life View Post
            Mantle, god bless him, was a pretty clumsy man. I think we shouldn't blame this on him one bit, but if you're going to make assumption, I'll join you.
            At times he was a clumsy man...but he was quite the athlete. I dunno if the 51 WS incident was anyone's "fault" per say, I doubt DiMaggio would have been so loathsome, or have had enough insight for that matter, to plan out a routine F8 and make Mantle run there and plan his route so he would stop right on the sprinkler head.
            "he probably used some performance enhancing drugs so he could do a better job on his report...i hear they make you gain weight" - Dr. Zizmor

            "I thought it was interesting and yes a conversation piece. Next time I post a similar story I will close with the question "So, do you think either of them have used steroids?" so that I can make the topic truly relevant to discussions about today's game." - Eric Davis

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqul1GyK7-g

            Comment


            • #21
              I doubt DiMaggio would have been so loathsome, or have had enough insight for that matter, to plan out a routine F8 and make Mantle run there and plan his route so he would stop right on the sprinkler head.[/QUOTE]


              Joe was an evil god......... he planted the sprinkler.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Westlake View Post
                I'm circulating it? You're always the one saying that people misquote you... well, where am I circulating it? Where did I say I believed it? You quote the words 'well known story' like you don't agree with me saying that... is it not a well known story, TR? The three little pigs is a well known story too, doesn't mean I think it's true because I say it's well known. There ya go, putting words in people's mouths...

                I don't know if the story is true or not. I'll tell you one thing, that picture tells me absolutely nothing. How does that picture prove ANYTHING, other than Mickey falling?

                Another phony post, Westlake. After mocking me and implying my position is wrong, you now admit you have absolutely no evidence to the contrary. What a joke.

                P.S. If the photo above "tells [you] absolutely nothing", then you need more help than I can provide. Maybe you should just stick to defending Bonds.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by TRfromBR View Post

                  Another phony post, Westlake. After mocking me and implying my position is wrong, you now admit you have absolutely no evidence to the contrary. What a joke.

                  P.S. If the below picture "tells [you] absolutely nothing", then you need more help than I can provide.
                  Haha. Ok, TR. I didn't "admit" I had no evidence, because I never said I did. Where did I imply that your position was wrong? Because I don't except your side either? Now that's a joke. Just like you do with Ubi and WCOAB, you think that if someone isn't with you, they're against you. I'd rather wait to know the truth before throwing myself on one side of the fence.

                  And I ask you where the proof is in the picture, and you ignore it because you can give no real explanation.
                  Last edited by Westlake; 09-06-2007, 03:34 PM.
                  Originally posted by Domenic
                  The Yankees should see if Yogi Berra can still get behind the plate - he has ten World Series rings... he must be worth forty or fifty million a season.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    As for the argument, I'll go with Gehrig. He stayed healthy and produced EVERY year. He was far more consistent that Mantle. And you can say what you want about the era he played in, but Gehrig was at least the second best player in the league most years, and when Ruth retired, was probably the best player in the league. He was a better hitter, and I don't think it's really debatable. Mantle was better defensively and on the base paths, but Gehrig more than made up for it with his durbaility edge.
                    Last edited by DiMag4Life; 09-06-2007, 03:40 PM. Reason: t

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by AstrosFan View Post
                      I'm not intending this as criticism; everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but does anyone else find this a little strange? White Knight has admitted to using three stats as his primary tools for evaluating a hitter: batting average, ability to not strike out, and RBI. He also says he prefers raw stats to adjusted ones.

                      There are some who theorize that there are alternate universes populated by everyone's opposite. Have we found 538280's opposite? Those beliefs of White Knight go against everything Chris has espoused on this site. Again, I'm not being critical; I just thought it was interesting.

                      Regarding Mantle vs. Gehrig:

                      Gehrig has a higher OPS+ in fewer PA. He's a little better in his five best years, which will do in peak. Let's ignore league quality for the moment. Gehrig is ahead by a little as a hitter.

                      As baserunners, Mantle is clearly better. We don't have grounded into double play data for Gehrig's career, but Mantle was one of the best ever at avoiding the DP. It's a safe bet that Mantle was better. Mantle stole over 150 bases at an 80% clip, Gehrig stole over 100 at a 50% clip. Sure, they're different eras, but even adjusting for that, Mantle was the better base stealer. Mantle was also faster, so we will presume he was better at taking the extra base.

                      Factoring in baserunning, they're probably even offensively, again, without LQ adjustments.

                      As defensive players, however, Mantle is way ahead. Gehrig wasn't a bad first baseman, but he was a first baseman, while Mantle was a center fielder. Mantle dropped off considerably in his decline phase as a fielder, but he was clearly more valuable defensively.

                      If you account for the difficulty of dominating one's league increasing as time passes, that just puts Mantle further ahead. Gehrig was a great player, and an obvious choice for best 1B of all time. But Mantle was a better player. I might also add that the intangibles argument doesn't really work here, since Mantle did lead the Yankees to 12 pennants and seven World Series titles.

                      Astros Fan: I want to to complement you for what I believe is a superb analysis on your part.

                      I admire both these players a lot. I think you have clearly dileneated many of the main reasons why Mantle probably should be ahead. I also admire the fact that you played fair and didn't resort to speculative and self serving league quality adjustments.

                      I think there might be a couple of additional points that could be made in Mantle's favor. Lou did have the luxury of batting in close proximity to the greatest hitter who ever lived, Babe Ruth. Babe was walked more times than any player in history up to that point. How many times did Lou get to bat with Babe on base after being walked? How many extra times did Lou get to face a pitcher pitching out of a stretch instead of a wind up? That is usually a distinct advantage for a hitter. By contrast, Mantle played on a lot of good teams with quality players, however he never had a batter anywhere near the Babe's caliber hitting in proximity to him. Mantle was the main hitter on his teams, the key player who the other team had to be most concerned with, while Lou first was sharing the stage with the Babe and then later with Joe D. In fact, I have always felt that one of the greatest testaments to Mantle's greatness is the fact that Roger Maris did not receive one intentional walk the season he hit his record 61 home runs, because Mantle was batting behind him.

                      Also. Lou led the league in OPS+ 3 times, while Mantle led the league in OPS+ 8 times. In that regard Mantle was even more dominating in his era than Lou was in his era.

                      c JRB

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Westlake View Post
                        And I ask you where the proof is in the picture, and you ignore it because you can give no real explanation.
                        *snickers*.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Westlake View Post
                          Haha. Ok, TR. I didn't "admit" I had no evidence, because I never said I did. Where did I imply that your position was wrong? Because I don't except your side either? Now that's a joke. Just like you do with Ubi and WCOAB, you think that if someone isn't with you, they're against you. I'd rather wait to know the truth before throwing myself on one side of the fence.

                          And I ask you where the proof is in the picture, and you ignore it because you can give no real explanation.
                          Like I said, Westlake, if that photo "tells [you] absolutely nothing", then I can't help you. But, I will say, that, when you do "throw yourself on one side of the fence", make sure it's in the stands, and not on the field.

                          With respect to my disagreement with you and Ubi and West Coast over Bonds' steroids use, I stand by my position that he cheated his way to both of his home run records. If you can't admit that Bonds cheated, you're beyond help in that regard, too. Or, if you're referring to Ubi's and West Coast's unsubstantiated charges that Hank Aaron regularly used amphetamines, I can not join in that conclusion without any verifiable evidence.
                          Last edited by TRfromBR; 09-06-2007, 03:49 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by TRfromBR View Post
                            Like I said, Westlake, if that photo "tells [you] absolutely nothing", then I can't help you. But, I will say, that, when you do "throw yourself on one side of the fence", make sure it's in the stands, and not on the field.

                            With respect to my disagreement with you and Ubi and West Coast over Bonds' steroids use, I stand by my position that he cheated his way to both of his home run records. If you can't admit that Bonds cheated, you're beyond help in that regard, too.
                            So, again, you give nothing. DiMag4life "snickers" instead of explaining it as well. I'm not surprised. No real answer, so dance around it.

                            I'd also like you to find ONE of my posts that says that I think Bonds did not take steroids or did not cheat. I agree he did both. You've just proven my theory on your 'you're either with me or against me' routine.
                            Originally posted by Domenic
                            The Yankees should see if Yogi Berra can still get behind the plate - he has ten World Series rings... he must be worth forty or fifty million a season.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I didn't mean to start a fight, but that photo tells me nothing, either. It's far from 'countervailing' evidence. There's no telling, in this photo, how DiMaggio necessarily came to be in that position. Joe appears to be reaching out for the ball in such a way as to 'confirm' both stories; he could have had to lunge for it at the last second when Mantle went down, or he could have been making a last-second lunge for it after belatedly calling Mantle off when it should have been Mantle's ball.

                              Again, I have no horse in this race, however that picture is far from convincing evidence one way or another.
                              Always go to other people's funerals, otherwise they won't come to yours. - Yogi Berra

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Westlake View Post
                                So, again, you give nothing. DiMag4life "snickers"
                                Then you didn't read my post from the other page. If you don't agree with it, there's absolutely nothing me or TR can say for you to believe it. The reasoning was right there, but you choose to ignore it, then try to mock me on how I didn't provide a theory.


                                *cries with laughter*

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X