OGTEleven

Having a great catcher is not important enough that it shows up on a pitchers performance? Do you actually believe that? You cannot create an alternate universe in which I was the Tiger's catcher this year but I can assure you that the results would have been different. And they would have manifested themselves in ERA's, wins and losses. I never once denigrated sabermetrics or any of the other methods. I don't care about them, but that doesn't mean I think they are without merit. I do know that I saw the game of baseball change to a degree based on the offensive attributes of Cal Ripken. Personally, I think that has to count for something. How much it counts is up for debate. You say it counts zero and that is your opinion. You're entitled to your opinion, saying your opinion is a fact does not make it a fact. My "You can't" statement may have been a bit strong or brash but you have trumped me there. Similarly, I have heard anecdotes that pitching mounds were lowered based on the dominance of Bob Gibson. For me that would likely bump him up a few spots in some ranking of stats. I doubt it would be pulled into the mathematical equation they used. The height of the mound yes, but the fact he was the cause? How would they measure that? Would you think it was important when deciding where you think Gibson stacks up? I have to admit that your level of loyalty to these stats is perplexing. You must like baseball to some extent or else it is unlikely you would have ever heard of the existence of the statistical systems or developed an interest. But if I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly, you would never need to have seen a game of baseball to determine the top 100 players of all time in order and there could never be any debate. If it were that cut and dried, why would you like baseball to begin with?

I never said your numbers were worthless. I never "threw them away". I never said they could not be used to compare players. I never said that Ripken was definitely better than Vaughn but I do say the point can be argued. It appears that to you, a number is a number and if something can't be measured with a number, it does not exist. What I do say is that you cannot rely entirely on any set of numbers to rank players. You can't set up a database that ranks all the players from 1-99,000. Why, because you simply cannot measure all the variables. You throw out things that cannot be measured with a number. You've done it in this thread. I cannot prove with a number that Pudge's trip to the mounds or his talks after games or his set up on each pitch in each game helps a young staff through a 162 game season. Maybe if he went to the mound after every time Verlander threw a bad pitch and kicked him in the balls it would be a better method. Who's to say? It can't be proven. That must mean it is unimportant.

Does holding down the 3rd slot in the batting order from a position traditionally slotted as 7th or 8th (or maybe 1st) have an offensive impact? Is it part of the "offensive" equation? Does having the expectation level of every shortstop in the league being increased have an offensive impact? Is that measured? Not being able to prove that Pudge working with the pitching staff has any impact does not render it moot. You can't measure but you can see it. Your comment on that topic to me was strange. You seemed to say that since you can't measure it with a number it doesn't exist. Is that really what you meant? Statistics are an important and fun part of baseball but they are not its entirety. If we take your claims in this thread at face value, we could rank every player in baseball history on their offensive ability from 1 to 99,000 and there is no point in ever arguing anything. Why not just do that?

It can for fantasy baseball. How does it measure Ripken's impact on baseball? What number does it assign to holding down the #3 spot in the order for 15+ years? What number does it assign to having SS seen as a production position throughout the major league after decades of Punch and Judies?? Can you argue that Vaughn was a better offensive player? Sure. Can you state that he was? No.

My point (using Pudge) is that not everything can be measured even in a sport so intrinsically tied to stats as baseball. Because I do not care, I do not know the ins and outs of VORP. I would be shocked if it could somehow manage to take into account how well the Detroit pitching staff was handled despite their makeup which included several talented but young arms and an ornery veteran. I give Pudge a lot of credit for that and don't care if it garnered him 3.2 extra VORPs or not. I know what I'm looking at when I'm watching a baseball game/season. Ripken changed the way SS is viewed, particularly with regard to offensive production, thoughout baseball. I watched that too. Parts of that can be measured and parts cannot. To say emphatically that Vaughn was a better offensive player than Ripken based entirely on pro-rated statistics is silly. To use it as part of a more holistic argument would certainly be reasonable but you have not done that. Ripken caused teams to go look for different types of Shortstops than they had in the past. The makeup of baseball, to a degree, was changed by Ripken's offense. I doubt the changes to the scouting philosophy of the Phillies earned him a VORP.

Horrible "luck" picking head coaches? That's not a lottery system you know.

How many VORPs did Pudge get this year? There is no way for the whole "sabermetrics world" to measure what he did for the Tigers. I play fantasy baseball. I like it. I never confuse it with real baseball. It is a fun diversion and a way to "argue" whether Johann Santana is better than Carlos Beltran. I like actual baseball a whole lot more. It is full of things that just can't be measured. How many VORPs does Ripken get for allowing the O's to carry an extra reliever because they knew they'd never have to pinch hit late in games for an anemic shortstop? How many VORPs did Tony Gwynn get for inside outing one of the nastiest sliders Randy Johnson ever threw for a double and turning around a playoff game? I don't like Ripken. I never really did. I do recognize what he did, particularly at the plate, had a huge impact on the sport of baseball. My opinon on the first ballot thing with Ripken vs Ruth vs Aaron, etc is that 2 wrongs don't make a right. Lots of writers vote. They are asked whether a player (in this case Ripken & Gwynn) belong in the hall. They are not asked anything else such as does he deserve to be in the hall someday but not yet. Ripken and Gwynn are in. As far as I'm concerned that locks in the votes of the 8 & 13 as forever saying they don't deserve it. They are wrong.

.270 20-80 for 20+ years equals 450 home runs from the shortstop position. That's not too common is it? For the record, I am VERY pro Eddie Murray and was pro Palmeiro pre juice revelation, but those guys both played a position where more production is expected. Ripken in some ways created SS production. That's important. Your origianl quote certainly casts doubt as to whether you think he should be in the hall.

Your condescending tone notwithstanding, simply using OPS does not take away from the fact that Ripken's production from the SS position was a major anamoly at the time he played and had a huge impact on the game. You can make an argument but to say Vaughn was definitively better when they were different types of players is silly. If he was, I guess that makes Ripken 3rd all time. Should that keep him from the hall on the first ballot?

This is a quote from your first post in the thread:

LOL? Vaughn hit for better average and ran far better than Ripken. Ripken had 4x the HRs, almost 2x doubles, and half again as many RBI. You can make an argument about what is most important but it is impossible to say one set of stats somehow is clearly better. Ripken brought power to the position that had not been there. You might not like that or like him but it is a fact. P.S. I don't like Ripken. I don't know why but I don't. The reason I'm pissed is about Gwynn. With that said, denying that Ripken is HOF material makes no sense. Even if Vaughn is deemed better offensively would being the third best SS hitter of all time (by the time he was in the league) disqualify him? I say he was underrated as a fielder and people shoot back saying Tony Fernandez was better? That is not even relevant.

Yet my question was about Vaughn.

Because you type the words end of story does not make it true. When using Vaughn, by what objective measurement did you arrive at your decision?

No reason to shoot you but that guy is deranged. It is a lame excuse because there is no indication whatsoever that either ever used. It would be exactly like refusing to vote for any player that played baseball in 1919.

Ripken played 14 consecutive seasons without playing a position other than shortstop. Why on earth would he be considered a third baseman for Hall of Fame purposes?

In a time that all Shortstops sucked hitting? I asked about the entire history of baseball before Ripken arrived. So all shortstops in baseball history sucked at hitting until Ripken but he didn't have a hall of fame impact on baseball? Are you saying both of those things? Let's get this clear. I'm not even a Ripken fan but I'm a baseball fan. My favortie all time player is Tony Gwynn. There are 8 people out there who did not think Ripken should be in the Hall. There are 13 out there that think Gwynn doesn't pass muster. These people all report on baseball for a living and they all used poor judgement.

Are you guys serious? I ask for two better offensive Shortstops than Ripken and you collectively come up with a second baseman (who wasn't even better) and then turn Ripken into a third baseman? Come on. He hit for as much or more power than any SS that preceded him. Teams think differently about what they need from that position ever since he played it. He was vastly underrated defensively and yes he had that streak thing. He is not on my personal list of 100 favorite baseball players but I know a Hall of Famer when I see one.

Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't.

And 5 more than that thought Gwynn wasn't quite good enough for the hall. He only won eight batting titles.

The family will owe tax based on the estimated value of the asset, but not necessarily based on the "highest bidder". There would have to be an objective measure of value which may or may not assume the Bills stay in Buffalo. The State of New York would certainly have some incentive to keep the value low whereas the feds would not care. In either case the measure is established already I'm sure. I highly doubt it assumes a move.

Reverse Coach of year awards

The topic of whether Spikes belongs on the Bills moving forward is entirely different than cutting him Monday morning. The Bills gain zippo by doing that. If they retain him they keep options open at the very least. When was the last time you purposely did something that you knew could hurt you but could not help you?

What could possibly be the purpose for cutting him Monday morning? To make fun of him?

I won't say that all of TD's picks were bad or even below average. He did make some good and bad moves on draft day. Above average? Below average? That's hard to say really. You can't knock him for Mike Williams; many teams would have taken him at 4. The lack of other high OL picks is a valid criticism IMO. He should get credit for Nate, McGee, etc. The Bledsoe trade turned out poorly. The problem I have is that the locker room tone set during his tenure was a disaster. The team was completely out of control in 2005 and was a wreck by the end of the season. What Marv and Jauron did this year was remarkable. They turned that disaster into a team. BTW, some of their picks fared quite well for rookies. Mort basically implies that TD built the Bills and they will be great if Ralph doesn't screw it up. Nothing could be further from the truth. I can't see any way 2006 would have turned out this way with TD still here.

The comment on the kick should indicate the stupidity level of Mort. Should Tiger Woods try to drive the 575 yard par 5 with a lake in front because he is 3 shots down and needs to double eagle? That kick was impossible in the literal sense of the word. I do love the set up for taking more shots at Wilson this winter. "If the owner re-signs the right guys." Of course Mort can define which guys are the "right ones" later after seeing who stays and who goes. Mort is a loser.