Jump to content

Name someone that doesn't get the recognition they deserve.


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, DC Tom said:

Vera Rubin.  Astronomer who discovered dark matter.  Never got the Nobel Prize she deserved.

 

Throw in dark energy, and we have very little clue about what makes up roughly 95% of the universe. We are NOT as smart as we think we are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DC Tom said:

Vera Rubin.  Astronomer who discovered dark matter.  Never got the Nobel Prize she deserved.

Does Kevin Malone get one too for inventing the number keleven?  When he couldn't get a ledger to balance he just added keleven.  It's basically the same thing as dark matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know he's a HOF, but I think the fact Rickey Henderson hung on for an extra five years after his skills were gone took some of the luster off his reputation.

He was a terror in his (long) prime, capable of taking over a game.

 

 

1 hour ago, SinceThe70s said:

Butch Goring's contribution to the Islanders run of 4 straight Stanley Cups is always overshadowed by the likes of Bossy, Trottier, Gillies, Potvin, Smith and even Nystrom.

 

Same with Esa Tikkanen for the Oilers and Rangers.   All he did was win Cups.

Edited by The Plastic Cup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

It can be an athlete, singer, actor, politician (be careful here), writer etc....

 

For me, it's Kirby Puckett.  He was great and I consider him a top 3 right handed hitter of all time. 

  • 10 x All Star
  • ALCS MVP
  • 6 Gold Gloves
  • 6 Silver Slugger Awards

 

His career ended early because of glaucoma so he only played 12 years.  He was hitting .344 in spring training in 1996 and woke up one morning blind in his right eye.

The man had a lifetime batting average of .318 and take a look at this stretch....one of the greatest in MLB history.  Batting averages from 1986-1989

  • .328
  • .332
  • .356
  • .339

 

He hit 207 homeruns and had 1085 RBI's in 12 years.  Just imagine what his numbers would have been if he got to play like 5-7 more years.

He hit .317 and .314 in his last two seasons and 43 homers. If it wasn't for glaucoma, I think he would have retired as a top 25 player of all time.

 

Most baseball fans know who he was but his name never comes up (outside of Minnesota) as one of the greatest.

 

Sorry, the Analytics guys will all tell you that batting average is a worthless, meaningless stat to evaluate someone, gotta use something else with a bunch of letters and alot of math.........

 

J/K, he was a great player who's career was cut short and his name doesn't come up often when people talk about past players

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Augie said:

 

Throw in dark energy, and we have very little clue about what makes up roughly 95% of the universe. We are NOT as smart as we think we are. 

 

"Dark energy" is a horrible kludge of a term masquerading as theory.  It's the most awful thing to grace physics since the "luminiferous aether."  Of course, demonstrating the luminiferous aether was the first great triumph of both modern physics and the American physics community.  So as execrable as "dark energy" is, I'm excited about what it portends for the future.

 

"Dark matter" doesn't bug me nearly as much - we can "see" it, just not in visible light.  To an astronomer, that's really nothing new - visible light is a truly lousy observation medium.  All the good telescopes these days work in near-infrared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

"Dark energy" is a horrible kludge of a term masquerading as theory.  It's the most awful thing to grace physics since the "luminiferous aether."  Of course, demonstrating the luminiferous aether was the first great triumph of both modern physics and the American physics community.  So as execrable as "dark energy" is, I'm excited about what it portends for the future.

 

"Dark matter" doesn't bug me nearly as much - we can "see" it, just not in visible light.  To an astronomer, that's really nothing new - visible light is a truly lousy observation medium.  All the good telescopes these days work in near-infrared.

 

I would have no other type of telescope. That goes without saying. 

 

I mean....I only have so much room in my observatory.....

Edited by Augie
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Mark80 said:

 

I mean, he's great.  He's HOF worthy.  He is not a top 3 right handed hitter of all-time though.  Come on now.

 

Arod, Manny, Pujols, Cabrera are all better hitters and that's just from the last couple decades.  Then you got Mays, Aaron, Foxx, and plenty of other old timers that would be ahead of him.  I'd even put Henderson above him, but he may have a harder argument over just hitting, but offensively as a whole I definitely would with the OBP, Runs, and SBs.

 

That's fair...I do have a Minnesota bias since I grew up there and watched Puckett playing.

 

I wouldn't put ARod or Manny over Kirby has a right handed hitter.  Cabrera and Pujols....I wouldn't argue that.  Trout is another.

 

I think there should be separate arguments between modern baseball players and the old timers.  Kind of like football pre-Super Bowl years....basically a different category.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

That's fair...I do have a Minnesota bias since I grew up there and watched Puckett playing.

 

I wouldn't put ARod or Manny over Kirby has a right handed hitter.  Cabrera and Pujols....I wouldn't argue that.  Trout is another.

 

I think there should be separate arguments between modern baseball players and the old timers.  Kind of like football pre-Super Bowl years....basically a different category.

 

 

Maybe if you are arguing against PEDs, but comparing pure skill and numbers, both these guys have him with their hitting for avg and power combos.  Not to mention Arods running ability especially in the first 1/2 of his career.  Puckett has Manny on D for sure, but Manny's run of numbers from 95 to 08 are mind boggling (not Barry Bonds mind boggling, but he's a lefty and is on a whole separate level from EVERYONE else - if you haven't looked at his stats lately I implore you to do so, its insane).

Edited by Mark80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mark80 said:

 

Maybe if you are arguing against PEDs, but comparing pure skill and numbers, both these guys have him with their hitting for avg and power combos.  Not to mention Arods running ability especially in the first 1/2 of his career.  Puckett has Manny on D for sure, but Manny's run of numbers from 95 to 08 are mind boggling (not Barry Bonds mind boggling, but he's a lefty and is on a whole separate level from EVERYONE else - if you haven't looked at his stats lately I implore you to do so, its insane).

 

I'm very well of Bonds run and it was video game numbers for sure.  I wish I would have seen him play live but never did.

 

I think if Puckett was able to play as long as Manny go to play, I think he passes Manny in all raw numbers except homers.  I don't think Puckett would have been in the 500 homerun club.  But who knows, after 1998, power numbers surged greatly.

 

I also think Puckett didn't have the protection as Manny did.  Manny had Thome (correct me if I'm wrong) hitting behind him in Cleveland and Ortiz in Boston...not to mention other good to great players.  Puckett had the likes of Kent Hrbek and Gary Gaetti?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

That's fair...I do have a Minnesota bias since I grew up there and watched Puckett playing.

 

I wouldn't put ARod or Manny over Kirby has a right handed hitter.  Cabrera and Pujols....I wouldn't argue that.  Trout is another.

 

I think there should be separate arguments between modern baseball players and the old timers.  Kind of like football pre-Super Bowl years....basically a different category.

 

You're a baseball guy Royale so you know better than anyone... The time frames are so different that it's futile to just argue numbers...

 

Guys from the 40s- 75....

 

Then 76-2019

 

I mean probably doenst work either just spitballing

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...