I didn't edit anything to save any face, nor edit anything of significance(which is hard for you to understand I know). You are too stupid to understand anything...so I was complimenting you on understanding sarcasm of small sample size..but then in the next post you were too stupid to realize that the reason why Dimaggio was on most of those post season lists was because he simply played more World Series games(thanks to his elite teammates).
So tell me again how many games RIzzuto was worth in 1950? 30 games? You don't understand why I keep asking that? LOL...sorry can't help that...you are just too ignorant and make me laugh.
Dallas is great...I love debating with him...and he has more class than me. The difference between him and I is that I get entertainment out of poking the idiots...he refrains(to a degree).
Good thing the Yanks were sooo good in the World Series so that they could withstand their best hitter being an average hitter and a piss poor hitter with Runners in Scoring Position. Most teams lose World Series when their best player underperforms like that.
But the Yanks were soo good that most years they didn't even need Dimaggio to get to World Series, winning by 17 games etc... We already know that the best baseball players aren't worth 17 games...well, most of us know, unless we run into someone like you who thinks Rizzuto is worth 35....and if RIzzuto is worth 35, then that makes Dimaggio negligible, making your entire stance stupid.
Post that World Series record list again so that Banzi could see it...because the only player that sticks out on that list is Mantle....and the funny thing is you posted that list so proudly too...OMG I still can't stop laughing. You didn't even read to the bottom about Dimaggio holding World Series record for hitting into double plays. Yes, I did another edit there.lol. It is hard to type and laugh at the same time, so I have to do some edits. Sorry.
You made one single point in this whole thread....and that point was that your points aren't very sharp.
Oh, and lastly, if this exchanges causes you to recommend reading Dallasactuary....then my job is complete, because then at least I know one fan(you), will be getting a good education on the game by reading Dallas. Then hopefully your recommendation to other readers to follow him...follow suit.
I will keep my style as is, an understanding and appreciation of the old school approach(because I do know where a lot of old school approaches are coming from, and if delivered properly can make some valid points), then mixed with the advancements of stats...delivered with sarcasm, and a falir for being condescending.
@Skin2 said:
A clown still stands. How many wins was it you said Rizzuto responsible for that year? 25? 30? You missed the point of course. If Rizzuto was responsible for that many wins...that leaves just a small amount of wins that other players would be responsible for...as I pointed out in that thread before...which makes you look foolish.
It doesn't really have anything to do with what Dimaggio had left in the tank(and he had enough to have a great year regardless). The end result is that your math and thoughts simply don't add up. So Dimaggio, Berra, the league leading team in ERA...were just small parts according to you since Rizzuto was responsible for so many of the team wins.
Those post season numbers are pedestrian...not sure why you think a screen shot makes them look better, lol. Heck, a league average MLB hitter in the late 30's were good enough to hit .270.
Where was his 'approach'? You claimed he had an 'approach' and he was a winner. Where was his post season approach with Runners in Scoring position? Isn't that the time to utilize the 'approach' instead of only hitting .255 in that key situation? Slug .291?
I apologize to keep you waiting six days...that must have been frustrating, lol. I got busy man...and kind of forgot about it.
I do appreciate you recognizing my sarcasm with presenting a small sample size as if it was meaningful...maybe not too far apart after all.
Actually, you added those two final parapgraphs 14 minutes after the initial post probably because you went back and realized ‘This guy has made me look very bad here and I need to save face.’
There’s no reason to deny it or create more excuses - you know it and I know it. Don’t add fraud on top of rude at this point, @Skin2
You’re digging a deeper hole and looking more and more foolish at this point, man. I’m not looking to ruin your day and further embarrass you so I am going to stop now.
Part of being a good winner is knowing when the other guy has had enough, even when he doesn’t.
Til we meet again.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
There is a guy who is not only smart, funny and great with sabermetrics and statistics but also has class.
Don't bother with Dallas! He thinks a 34 year old Willie Mays had a better year than Ted Williams in 1941,
the year he hit .406. Apparently, from what I could decipher, Dallas thought their offense was about even
but Mays defense as a 34 year old outfielder (after he had lost a good amount of speed) gave him the nod over Williams.
Dallas has been wrong numerous times, because he's not an impartial observer. He takes the player with
the lowest batting average and sets out to prove his year was better than player X with a higher BA.
But the above was when Dallas officially 'jumped the shark' and lost tremendous credibility.
@Skin2 said:
A clown still stands. How many wins was it you said Rizzuto responsible for that year? 25? 30? You missed the point of course. If Rizzuto was responsible for that many wins...that leaves just a small amount of wins that other players would be responsible for...as I pointed out in that thread before...which makes you look foolish.
It doesn't really have anything to do with what Dimaggio had left in the tank(and he had enough to have a great year regardless). The end result is that your math and thoughts simply don't add up. So Dimaggio, Berra, the league leading team in ERA...were just small parts according to you since Rizzuto was responsible for so many of the team wins.
Those post season numbers are pedestrian...not sure why you think a screen shot makes them look better, lol. Heck, a league average MLB hitter in the late 30's were good enough to hit .270.
Where was his 'approach'? You claimed he had an 'approach' and he was a winner. Where was his post season approach with Runners in Scoring position? Isn't that the time to utilize the 'approach' instead of only hitting .255 in that key situation? Slug .291?
I apologize to keep you waiting six days...that must have been frustrating, lol. I got busy man...and kind of forgot about it.
I do appreciate you recognizing my sarcasm with presenting a small sample size as if it was meaningful...maybe not too far apart after all.
Actually, you added those two final parapgraphs 14 minutes after the initial post probably because you went back and realized ‘This guy has made me look very bad here and I need to save face.’
There’s no reason to deny it or create more excuses - you know it and I know it. Don’t add fraud on top of rude at this point, @Skin2
You’re digging a deeper hole and looking more and more foolish at this point, man. I’m not looking to ruin your day and further embarrass you so I am going to stop now.
Part of being a good winner is knowing when the other guy has had enough, even when he doesn’t.
Til we meet again.
No moron, I added them because I actually went back and re-read what you wrote soo I compplimented you because I thought you understood small sample size. I take the compliment back because you proved unworthy lol.
You don't know anything that I don't already know. There are no surprises. Sorry but thats the case.
The only fool is the one that believes Rizzuto was worth 35 wins in one year...you, LMAO.
Ever see the move Dinner for Schmucks? I'm bringing you to the next dinner as my guest...and I will win hands down!
I apologize to Perkdog because it seems like he likes you and I called you an idiot(and with you thinking you made progress in this debate, it only solidifies my opinion of that).
You know why I like Perkdog? For a few reasons, first, he flat out says he is old school with baseball. I understand why he thinks JD Drew was a bust in Boston, despite what Sabermetrics had to say. He didn't like the fact that Drew didn't drive in enough runs, and I agree with him because Drew never played vs Lefties and he was a wus, hence he had season low RBI totals.
I also understand why Perkdog hails David Ortiz's post season heroics even though I don't put a lot of stock into baseball player post season stats. Ortiz put up enough memorable moments that it is impossible not to be awestruck by it. Hard to ignore it.
Perk admits he is a homer, but has no problem telling it like it is against his hometown. That is rare. He is also the only person that ever convinced me to add more weight to a Quarterback's super bowl rings.
Finally, perkdog runs with some fine chicks... I always remember Perdog's perkies...he has good taste.
As for Dallas, I had epic debates with him in regard to Bird vs Magic(I said bird is better), Brady vs Montana(I said Brady better), Mazeroski's fielding being severely overvalued by sabermetrics(I said it is overvalued), and Mickey Mantle in his prime was better than Babe Ruth(I take the side of Mantle).
Mazeroski should not be in the Hall.
So 1951Wheatiespremiums, I give points where they are warranted. You didn't make a single one in this thread. Sorry.
As for my understanding on baseball, 1951premiums, I got you in every facet possible. You aren't even a blip on the radar. I'll take point when there is one given. You are so stupid you keep thinking I edited that thing to save face. You didn't even say anything to make me ponder...it was all stupid.
Tell me again how many wins Rizzuto was worth? 35? 50? Good lord.
Ever see the move Dinner for Schmucks? I'm bringing you to the next dinner as my guest...and I will win hands down!
PS, you don't even know where I'm coming from. I know all the old school thinking, all the new school thinking. I uderstand the game both physically and mentally. I can argue for hours in the bar over drinks, then go out and bang chicks together. I would never mess with your girl(unless you are into that stuff then I'm happy to oblige, if she makes the grade). In the end it is all fun...so don't get too offended by the names.
PS, you don't even know where I'm coming from. I know all the old school thinking, all the new school thinking. I uderstand the game both physically and mentally. I can argue for hours in the bar over drinks, then go out and bang chicks together. I would never mess with your girl(unless you are into that stuff then I'm happy to oblige if she makes the grade). In the end it is all fun...so don't get too offended by the names.
@Darin said:
But the above was when Dallas officially 'jumped the shark' and lost tremendous credibility.
You make me laugh.
The key phrase in your post, of course, was "from what I could decipher". Fact is, seeing that Mays' 1965 was as great as it was - and a hair better than Williams' 1941 season - requires more insight than you possess, and it would be very difficult to put it in words that you would understand. Maybe that's on me, but I did try.
For those who don't remember, and who might be interested, the key factors were:
Williams hit a little bit better than Mays
Mays fielded much better than Williams
Williams missed 11 games, Mays missed only 5
I don't know which of those three concepts Darin can't grasp, but I don't even consider the conclusion that followed - that Mays was a little better in 1965 than Williams was in 1941 - to be terribly controversial. If anyone smarter than Darin, that is to say, anyone, would like to debate my conclusion I'd be happy to.
(note to skin: see above for the classy way to tell someone they're a freaking idiot)
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Skin2 said:
PS, you don't even know where I'm coming from. I know all the old school thinking, all the new school thinking. I uderstand the game both physically and mentally. I can argue for hours in the bar over drinks, then go out and bang chicks together. I would never mess with your girl(unless you are into that stuff then I'm happy to oblige if she makes the grade). In the end it is all fun...so don't get too offended by the names.
I know exactly where you are coming from because I have dealt with weasels before.
(Forgive me if I chose not to bold the verbal diarrhea.)
This last little bit, ladies and gentleman, is the apology of a weasel, burying the lead and the cowards way out. I did NOT need any stats to predict this outcome.
Now, scurry off, Skinweasel.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@Skin2 said:
PS, you don't even know where I'm coming from. I know all the old school thinking, all the new school thinking. I uderstand the game both physically and mentally. I can argue for hours in the bar over drinks, then go out and bang chicks together. I would never mess with your girl(unless you are into that stuff then I'm happy to oblige if she makes the grade). In the end it is all fun...so don't get too offended by the names.
I know exactly where you are coming from because I have dealt with weasels before.
(Forgive me if I chose not to bold the verbal diarrhea.)
This last little bit, ladies and gentleman, is the apology of a weasel, burying the lead and the cowards way out. I did NOT need any stats to predict this outcome.
Now, scurry off, Skinweasel.
Except you don't...because it is beyond your comprehension. I didn't apologize to you, lol. Your ignorance of the game is the only thing that needs an apology. I could apologize on your behalf.
This weasel would set you down on four pitches....if you even know how to hold a bat, or where to stand. Then you would feel stupid for getting bested by a weasel...again.
Afteral, you claim to have a better approach than Ted Williams did...which shows your level of delusion and why you think you actually made progress in this debate. ...so lets put it to the test. OMG I'm dying here. Yes, I edited it again. Hard to type and laugh. I forget things that way.
How many games again is Rizzuto worth, 35? LMAO. 'Shows your level of ignorance on the game and why you actually think you made progress in this debate.
Can you prrovide that link to the post season record holders again? You were so proud to post it and all it did was show that Mantle was the post season guy, not Dimaggio. Idiot. Again, shows your level of stupidity and why you think you actually made progress in this debate. You were so proud, thats what makes it extra funny.
I have one question for you. Do you know what hitting into a double play is commonly called?
'A pitchers best friend'
I had to answer for you since you don't know things like that...and since that was the post season record list that Dimaggio was most prominently on, LMAO. Just sheer level of stupidity. You were just so proud too, OMG.
No one was narrowing the comparison down to just World Series competition. In which it has already been proven Mantle never really performed well when his team won, with the exception of 1952.
Wow! Look how well he played in 1960 when he crushed the ball in lopsided victories and did NOTHING in close games, yet this series stats (together with another loss in 1964) inflate his overall numbers so that idiots can jump up and down and point to how good he was in the post season, which was NOT what the debate was about AT ALL.
I suppose as a stat worshiper, you would rather do statistically well and lose than the reverse.
What really amazes me is that anyone is fooled by your pomposity. Your rudeness of course knows no bounds. At least you are correct about one thing, you are a jerk.
The fact remains that Mantle and DiMaggio were extremely similar at hitting the ball, DiMaggio was better in the field and Mantle was a better walker.
Why don't you look up how they did on Tuesday afternoon games when the temperature was between 60 and 75 degrees and whoever was better in those games will be declared the winner.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@DIMEMAN said:
I don't think there is any doubt that Mantle was better than Joe D. But Joe D was very good. It's just that Mantle was the best Yankee ever!
And Mays was the GOAT overall player 5 tool guy. Period.
Yes there is doubt about your first comment. I would agree with your second.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Banzi you are too dumb to even know that the record list isn't worth anything... It was his stupidty posting it thinking it helped him and it actually did the opposite.
@Skin2 said:
Banzi you are too dumb to even know that the record list isn't worth anything... It was his stupidty posting it thinking it helped him and it actually did the opposite.
There it is AGAIN. You are so predictable it is AMAZING! I actually just passed gas and what came out had more brain cells than you ever had!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Pedro Martinez is 148th all time in ERA, and Banzi believes there are twenty guys from 1885-1919 who have much better career ERA's that are better. Including Tommy Bond with his 2.13 ERA, Reb Russell at 2.39, George McQuillan at 2.38.
That is why I don't engage banzi anymore because his methods say the above.
I don’t harbor any ill will toward @Skin2. None. He took a shot at me and so I responded but whenever I point out the truth, he changes the subject and lobs insults. However, it seems to make him very happy and I have always tried to help the less fortunate around the holidays. Like everything else, I’m just doing it online, now.
Now he’s harping on the list by trying to make the topic ‘Mickey Mantle is great’ which it never was. The list was actually posted to highlight the fact that Joe D is among the ALL TIME leaders in World Series EVERYTHING. So to call his numbers “pedestrian”, as @Skin2 asserts, is pretty well off the mark. Like aiming for Yankee Stadium and hitting Fenway instead off the mark.
The other simple fact is almost everyone on that list was a bit below their career norms except maybe Babe Ruth. Joe D, like Mickey, certainly did not put up numbers at the same clip as the regular season most of the time in the World Series. This is the logical conclusion a person draws when looking at their numbers. It is really not that hard to twist them, manipulate them and argue about sample size to make them look better OR worse. Or you can just recognize that their numbers helped contribute to many championships and every teammate, opponent and fan of baseball thinks the numbers are pretty impressive.
Oddly enough, you don’t really need stats for that concept, either. Both Mickey Mantle and Joe DiMaggio both publicly and privately said they wished they’d had better postseasons and not out of some sense of false humility. They would each point directly to their regular season numbers and say they felt they should have been better.
And yet, every single other baseball player in the history of the game would leap at the chance to post those exact numbers, save maybe Babe Ruth. So again, pedestrian? Maybe when compared to Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle and himself. Compared to the thousands of other guys to have played baseball?
Not so much.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Pedestrian. .270 avg is....well, average, for his time. Slg .422 slightly better than pedestrian. Knowing he absolutely sucked with Runners in Scoring position in the world series, makes his overall line less valuable. So in a nutshell, pedestrian.
You are still harping on that list to highlight how good Dimaggio was in the post season: If you think it is a skill to rank in top ten in plate appearances, at bats, and grounding into double plays in World Series history...well, good for you. He ranked in a couple offensive categories, but only the counting categories because he simply had more world series at bats than most...not because he didn't anything exceptional.
In a nutshell, he was a disspointment in the World Series, and most neanderthals on here put all their stock into WS performance...so they have to knock Dimaggio down for that too.
The yankees still won because they were great...so great that they didn't even need dimaggio to get to half of those world series. No baseball player is worth 17 wins in a season. If that were the case, then teams with those players, and players similar to them, would be winning 150 games a year.
So to use championships as any form of barometer for Joe D....is useless. He was great no doubt, but that isn't the reason why.
Banzi believes all those pre war pitchers were better than Pedro because they blew him away in ERA...he still doesn't understand that parallel.
Banzi also believes walks have no value, and that making outs is a good thing. He absolutely loves when his hitters hit into dobule plays.
You guys both believe that it is advisible for a batter to swing at pitches out of the strike zone...which is the exact opposite of what you should be doing as a hitter. Check out the difference in batting average on swings inside the strike zone as opposed to outside. Again, would love to coach and pitch against you guys because then I know you will chase.
Using your guys same flawed criteria to rank Harmon Killebrew, here is where he ranks in the stats you guys are putting value in:
Batting Average of .256.....I can't count how far down that ranks him career wise, 1,200th??
Home Runs 12th
RBI 42nd....good.
Strikeouts 1,699....35th most all time.
Total hits 2,086.....242nd all-time.
Grounded into double plays 42nd all time.
If you want to go pure neanderthal and rank him in the traditional slash line of home runs, RBI, and batting average, then his average all time rank is 418th best hitter. Add that he struck the 35th most times in history, that knocks that 418 into the 500's somewhere. SO according to Banzi's own methods, his hero is somewhere near the 500th best hitter in history.
According to that list he much closer to Dave Kingman than he is to Babe Ruth.
Killebrew only had 374 more RBI than dave kingman, but it took Killebrew 2,400 more trips to the plate to knock in 374 more runs than Kingman.
**Simple math shows Dave Kingman knocked in a run once every 6.1 trips to the plate, and Killebrew knocked in a run once every 6.2 trips to the plate!!
THERE WE HAVE IT....KINGMAN WAS BETTER AT DRIVING IN RUNS THAN KILLEBREW. BANZI, THAT IS YOUR EVALUATION METHOD MAKING KINGMAN A BETTER RUN PRODUCER THAN KILLEWBREW!!! LMAO. YOU DID SAY IT WAS THEIR JOB TO DRIVE IN RUNS. THERE YOU HAVE IT, KINGMAN DID IT BETTER.
However, Run Expectancy in all the possible 24 base/out situations as recorded in every single play by play event MLB, spanning millions of plays, giving proper value to walk, single, double, triple, home run, out made, etc...
Millions of plays of actual MLB play by play data puts Killebrew as the 33rd best all time. Traditional methods puts Killebrew s the 500th best all time. Kingman is so far down the run expectancy list that I don't care to count that far.
So, if we go by Banzi's rules, then Harmon Killebrew is in the company of Dave Kingman. I guess that is where we sit when we ignore some very important stuff, and make invalid assumptions on the value of each offensive event.
Congrats joebanzi, you just made Kingman better than Killebrew by using your severely flawed method of analysis
@Skin2 said:
Pedro Martinez is 148th all time in ERA, and Banzi believes there are twenty guys from 1885-1919 who have much better career ERA's that are better. Including Tommy Bond with his 2.13 ERA, Reb Russell at 2.39, George McQuillan at 2.38.
That is why I don't engage banzi anymore because his methods say the above.
You continue to keep making things up. This is about Joe D and Mickey M.
I don't recall EVER posting about Pedro.
But don't let reality get in the way!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Skin2 said:
Using your guys same flawed criteria to rank Harmon Killebrew, here is where he ranks in the stats you guys are putting value in:
Batting Average of .256.....I can't count how far down that ranks him career wise, 1,200th??
Home Runs 12th
RBI 42nd....good.
Strikeouts 1,699....35th most all time.
Total hits 2,086.....242nd all-time.
Grounded into double plays 42nd all time.
If you want to go pure neanderthal and rank him in the traditional slash line of home runs, RBI, and batting average, then his average all time rank is 418th best hitter. Add that he struck the 35th most times in history, that knocks that 418 into the 500's somewhere. SO according to Banzi's own methods, his hero is somewhere near the 500th best hitter in history.
According to that list he much closer to Dave Kingman than he is to Babe Ruth.
Killebrew only had 374 more RBI than dave kingman, but it took Killebrew 2,400 more trips to the plate to knock in 374 more runs than Kingman.
**Simple math shows Dave Kingman knocked in a run once every 6.1 trips to the plate, and Killebrew knocked in a run once every 6.2 trips to the plate!!
THERE WE HAVE IT....KINGMAN WAS BETTER AT DRIVING IN RUNS THAN KILLEBREW. BANZI, THAT IS YOUR EVALUATION METHOD MAKING KINGMAN A BETTER RUN PRODUCER THAN KILLEWBREW!!! LMAO. YOU DID SAY IT WAS THEIR JOB TO DRIVE IN RUNS. THERE YOU HAVE IT, KINGMAN DID IT BETTER.
However, Run Expectancy in all the possible 24 base/out situations as recorded in every single play by play event MLB, spanning millions of plays, giving proper value to walk, single, double, triple, home run, out made, etc...
Millions of plays of actual MLB play by play data puts Killebrew as the 33rd best all time. Traditional methods puts Killebrew s the 500th best all time. Kingman is so far down the run expectancy list that I don't care to count that far.
So, if we go by Banzi's rules, then Harmon Killebrew is in the company of Dave Kingman. I guess that is where we sit when we ignore some very important stuff, and make invalid assumptions on the value of each offensive event.
Congrats joebanzi, you just made Kingman better than Killebrew by using your severely flawed method of analysis
AGAIN a new batch of players to discuss. Yawn, OK I'll play.
Never said Killebrew was as good as Mantle or DiMaggio, the subject of this particular discussion. I know, it IS tough for you, but please try to focus.
It does look like Dave was pretty good at driving in runs (when he was in the lineup). Probably a teeny tiny bit better than Killebrew per 162 games. Killebrew IS closer to Kingman than Ruth in SOME areas.
Of course Dave was never really a full time player, and he played 6 less years than Harmon. Harm played in 150+ games 8 times Dave once at the end of his career. That must be why Dave only drove in 100+ runs twice in his career and has an over 100 RBI avg per 162 GP. "Killer" accomplished it 9 times.
Kingman was pretty similar to Killebrew in some ways.
Harmon hit for a higher SLG and BA and he was a MUCH better walker too! Harmon's big advantage was the base on balls and as I have said, that wasn't what the Twins were paying him to do. Since Kingman had more AB per 162 and Killebrew hit more HR my buddy Harmon hit more HR per AB than Dave and almost anyone else.
If you exclude the juicers. Killebrew is number 3 all time in players with over 500 HR in HR per AB. Closer to Ruth here than Davey!
Also rate Killebrew at #8 in HR without the cheaters, not 12th.
So while in your ridiculous attempt to prove something, anything, you cherrypicked RBI's (something I do consider, but not a primary consideration) and found that Kingman drove them in at a comparable rate as Killebrew. WOW YOU ARE SOOOOOO SMAAT! THEN you said that this PROVES that the way I rate players blah blah blah. I certainly hope that anyone still reading this can see through your sad lump of bs.
Bottom line, and back on topic AGAIN. Mantle and DiMaggio very close as overall ballplayers. Joltin' Joe BETTER, but not "by far".
Finally, you are not intelligent enough to understand my "rules" or methods because they bring common sense and independent thinking into consideration instead of just blindly following a number some guy comes up with using a flawed method.
To respond to your earlier incorrect statement about what I believe (my God you are an IDIOT) I do not believe a walk has no value, and have never said so, but it doesn't have a CONSTANT value throughout the lineup. You are not only stupid but you are a LAIR!
Don't know where you came up with any DP opinions on my part. Oh yeah, like about half of what you write......you made it up!
Good night.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I think when it comes down to Joe D./Mantle debate....it come down to personal preference. If you were a manager who would you rather have playing CF? Who do you think could do the most for your team. They both are very good hitters and both would give you very good defense in CF. I personally would take Mantle because of his power and a switch hitter.
Comments
I didn't edit anything to save any face, nor edit anything of significance(which is hard for you to understand I know). You are too stupid to understand anything...so I was complimenting you on understanding sarcasm of small sample size..but then in the next post you were too stupid to realize that the reason why Dimaggio was on most of those post season lists was because he simply played more World Series games(thanks to his elite teammates).
So tell me again how many games RIzzuto was worth in 1950? 30 games? You don't understand why I keep asking that? LOL...sorry can't help that...you are just too ignorant and make me laugh.
Dallas is great...I love debating with him...and he has more class than me. The difference between him and I is that I get entertainment out of poking the idiots...he refrains(to a degree).
Good thing the Yanks were sooo good in the World Series so that they could withstand their best hitter being an average hitter and a piss poor hitter with Runners in Scoring Position. Most teams lose World Series when their best player underperforms like that.
But the Yanks were soo good that most years they didn't even need Dimaggio to get to World Series, winning by 17 games etc... We already know that the best baseball players aren't worth 17 games...well, most of us know, unless we run into someone like you who thinks Rizzuto is worth 35....and if RIzzuto is worth 35, then that makes Dimaggio negligible, making your entire stance stupid.
Post that World Series record list again so that Banzi could see it...because the only player that sticks out on that list is Mantle....and the funny thing is you posted that list so proudly too...OMG I still can't stop laughing. You didn't even read to the bottom about Dimaggio holding World Series record for hitting into double plays. Yes, I did another edit there.lol. It is hard to type and laugh at the same time, so I have to do some edits. Sorry.
You made one single point in this whole thread....and that point was that your points aren't very sharp.
Oh, and lastly, if this exchanges causes you to recommend reading Dallasactuary....then my job is complete, because then at least I know one fan(you), will be getting a good education on the game by reading Dallas. Then hopefully your recommendation to other readers to follow him...follow suit.
I will keep my style as is, an understanding and appreciation of the old school approach(because I do know where a lot of old school approaches are coming from, and if delivered properly can make some valid points), then mixed with the advancements of stats...delivered with sarcasm, and a falir for being condescending.
Actually, you added those two final parapgraphs 14 minutes after the initial post probably because you went back and realized ‘This guy has made me look very bad here and I need to save face.’
There’s no reason to deny it or create more excuses - you know it and I know it. Don’t add fraud on top of rude at this point, @Skin2
You’re digging a deeper hole and looking more and more foolish at this point, man. I’m not looking to ruin your day and further embarrass you so I am going to stop now.
Part of being a good winner is knowing when the other guy has had enough, even when he doesn’t.
Til we meet again.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I don't think there is any doubt that Mantle was better than Joe D. But Joe D was very good. It's just that Mantle was the best Yankee ever!
And Mays was the GOAT overall player 5 tool guy. Period.
Don't bother with Dallas! He thinks a 34 year old Willie Mays had a better year than Ted Williams in 1941,
the year he hit .406. Apparently, from what I could decipher, Dallas thought their offense was about even
but Mays defense as a 34 year old outfielder (after he had lost a good amount of speed) gave him the nod over Williams.
Dallas has been wrong numerous times, because he's not an impartial observer. He takes the player with
the lowest batting average and sets out to prove his year was better than player X with a higher BA.
But the above was when Dallas officially 'jumped the shark' and lost tremendous credibility.
No moron, I added them because I actually went back and re-read what you wrote soo I compplimented you because I thought you understood small sample size. I take the compliment back because you proved unworthy lol.
You don't know anything that I don't already know. There are no surprises. Sorry but thats the case.
The only fool is the one that believes Rizzuto was worth 35 wins in one year...you, LMAO.
Ever see the move Dinner for Schmucks? I'm bringing you to the next dinner as my guest...and I will win hands down!
I apologize to Perkdog because it seems like he likes you and I called you an idiot(and with you thinking you made progress in this debate, it only solidifies my opinion of that).
You know why I like Perkdog? For a few reasons, first, he flat out says he is old school with baseball. I understand why he thinks JD Drew was a bust in Boston, despite what Sabermetrics had to say. He didn't like the fact that Drew didn't drive in enough runs, and I agree with him because Drew never played vs Lefties and he was a wus, hence he had season low RBI totals.
I also understand why Perkdog hails David Ortiz's post season heroics even though I don't put a lot of stock into baseball player post season stats. Ortiz put up enough memorable moments that it is impossible not to be awestruck by it. Hard to ignore it.
Perk admits he is a homer, but has no problem telling it like it is against his hometown. That is rare. He is also the only person that ever convinced me to add more weight to a Quarterback's super bowl rings.
Finally, perkdog runs with some fine chicks... I always remember Perdog's perkies...he has good taste.
As for Dallas, I had epic debates with him in regard to Bird vs Magic(I said bird is better), Brady vs Montana(I said Brady better), Mazeroski's fielding being severely overvalued by sabermetrics(I said it is overvalued), and Mickey Mantle in his prime was better than Babe Ruth(I take the side of Mantle).
Mazeroski should not be in the Hall.
So 1951Wheatiespremiums, I give points where they are warranted. You didn't make a single one in this thread. Sorry.
As for my understanding on baseball, 1951premiums, I got you in every facet possible. You aren't even a blip on the radar. I'll take point when there is one given. You are so stupid you keep thinking I edited that thing to save face. You didn't even say anything to make me ponder...it was all stupid.
Tell me again how many wins Rizzuto was worth? 35? 50? Good lord.
Ever see the move Dinner for Schmucks? I'm bringing you to the next dinner as my guest...and I will win hands down!
PS, you don't even know where I'm coming from. I know all the old school thinking, all the new school thinking. I uderstand the game both physically and mentally. I can argue for hours in the bar over drinks, then go out and bang chicks together. I would never mess with your girl(unless you are into that stuff then I'm happy to oblige, if she makes the grade). In the end it is all fun...so don't get too offended by the names.
PS, you don't even know where I'm coming from. I know all the old school thinking, all the new school thinking. I uderstand the game both physically and mentally. I can argue for hours in the bar over drinks, then go out and bang chicks together. I would never mess with your girl(unless you are into that stuff then I'm happy to oblige if she makes the grade). In the end it is all fun...so don't get too offended by the names.
You make me laugh.
The key phrase in your post, of course, was "from what I could decipher". Fact is, seeing that Mays' 1965 was as great as it was - and a hair better than Williams' 1941 season - requires more insight than you possess, and it would be very difficult to put it in words that you would understand. Maybe that's on me, but I did try.
For those who don't remember, and who might be interested, the key factors were:
Williams hit a little bit better than Mays
Mays fielded much better than Williams
Williams missed 11 games, Mays missed only 5
I don't know which of those three concepts Darin can't grasp, but I don't even consider the conclusion that followed - that Mays was a little better in 1965 than Williams was in 1941 - to be terribly controversial. If anyone smarter than Darin, that is to say, anyone, would like to debate my conclusion I'd be happy to.
(note to skin: see above for the classy way to tell someone they're a freaking idiot)
I know exactly where you are coming from because I have dealt with weasels before.
(Forgive me if I chose not to bold the verbal diarrhea.)
This last little bit, ladies and gentleman, is the apology of a weasel, burying the lead and the cowards way out. I did NOT need any stats to predict this outcome.
Now, scurry off, Skinweasel.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
@Skin2, Thanks buddy 🍻
Except you don't...because it is beyond your comprehension. I didn't apologize to you, lol. Your ignorance of the game is the only thing that needs an apology. I could apologize on your behalf.
This weasel would set you down on four pitches....if you even know how to hold a bat, or where to stand. Then you would feel stupid for getting bested by a weasel...again.
Afteral, you claim to have a better approach than Ted Williams did...which shows your level of delusion and why you think you actually made progress in this debate. ...so lets put it to the test. OMG I'm dying here. Yes, I edited it again. Hard to type and laugh. I forget things that way.
How many games again is Rizzuto worth, 35? LMAO. 'Shows your level of ignorance on the game and why you actually think you made progress in this debate.
Can you prrovide that link to the post season record holders again? You were so proud to post it and all it did was show that Mantle was the post season guy, not Dimaggio. Idiot. Again, shows your level of stupidity and why you think you actually made progress in this debate. You were so proud, thats what makes it extra funny.
I have one question for you. Do you know what hitting into a double play is commonly called?
'A pitchers best friend'
I had to answer for you since you don't know things like that...and since that was the post season record list that Dimaggio was most prominently on, LMAO. Just sheer level of stupidity. You were just so proud too, OMG.
Thanks for proving my point Skin2.
No one was narrowing the comparison down to just World Series competition. In which it has already been proven Mantle never really performed well when his team won, with the exception of 1952.
Wow! Look how well he played in 1960 when he crushed the ball in lopsided victories and did NOTHING in close games, yet this series stats (together with another loss in 1964) inflate his overall numbers so that idiots can jump up and down and point to how good he was in the post season, which was NOT what the debate was about AT ALL.
I suppose as a stat worshiper, you would rather do statistically well and lose than the reverse.
What really amazes me is that anyone is fooled by your pomposity. Your rudeness of course knows no bounds. At least you are correct about one thing, you are a jerk.
The fact remains that Mantle and DiMaggio were extremely similar at hitting the ball, DiMaggio was better in the field and Mantle was a better walker.
Why don't you look up how they did on Tuesday afternoon games when the temperature was between 60 and 75 degrees and whoever was better in those games will be declared the winner.
You forgot to add; justify your rudeness because you are so VASTLY superior to anyone who dares to have a different opinion.
>
Cmon, man! Mix it up a little!
@JoeBanzai
Expect to see this formula in your direction shortly.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
You were so proud.
Yes there is doubt about your first comment. I would agree with your second.
Banzi, welcome...clown 2.
Post that record list again, lmao.
I just found out the hard way that you cannot Like, Agree and LOL A post but that you must pick one.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Banzi you are too dumb to even know that the record list isn't worth anything... It was his stupidty posting it thinking it helped him and it actually did the opposite.
I have went around and around with this fool on a few occasions. It is refreshing to see that I am not the only one who sees how he operates.
There it is AGAIN. You are so predictable it is AMAZING! I actually just passed gas and what came out had more brain cells than you ever had!
Insulting people CAN be kind of fun!
I was always taught sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Without ‘the formula’, we’re now getting 4 word posts.
The Skin is dead! Long live the Skin!
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
This has been fun. Almost as fun as watching the Vikings play last night. Gotta go to work. Play nice kiddies!!!!!!!!!
had not looked at this thread for a week or so. I am just so glad that everyone here gets along so well around Christmas time!
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
entertainment
Pedro Martinez is 148th all time in ERA, and Banzi believes there are twenty guys from 1885-1919 who have much better career ERA's that are better. Including Tommy Bond with his 2.13 ERA, Reb Russell at 2.39, George McQuillan at 2.38.
That is why I don't engage banzi anymore because his methods say the above.
@craig44
I don’t harbor any ill will toward @Skin2. None. He took a shot at me and so I responded but whenever I point out the truth, he changes the subject and lobs insults. However, it seems to make him very happy and I have always tried to help the less fortunate around the holidays. Like everything else, I’m just doing it online, now.
Now he’s harping on the list by trying to make the topic ‘Mickey Mantle is great’ which it never was. The list was actually posted to highlight the fact that Joe D is among the ALL TIME leaders in World Series EVERYTHING. So to call his numbers “pedestrian”, as @Skin2 asserts, is pretty well off the mark. Like aiming for Yankee Stadium and hitting Fenway instead off the mark.
The other simple fact is almost everyone on that list was a bit below their career norms except maybe Babe Ruth. Joe D, like Mickey, certainly did not put up numbers at the same clip as the regular season most of the time in the World Series. This is the logical conclusion a person draws when looking at their numbers. It is really not that hard to twist them, manipulate them and argue about sample size to make them look better OR worse. Or you can just recognize that their numbers helped contribute to many championships and every teammate, opponent and fan of baseball thinks the numbers are pretty impressive.
Oddly enough, you don’t really need stats for that concept, either. Both Mickey Mantle and Joe DiMaggio both publicly and privately said they wished they’d had better postseasons and not out of some sense of false humility. They would each point directly to their regular season numbers and say they felt they should have been better.
And yet, every single other baseball player in the history of the game would leap at the chance to post those exact numbers, save maybe Babe Ruth. So again, pedestrian? Maybe when compared to Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle and himself. Compared to the thousands of other guys to have played baseball?
Not so much.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Pedestrian. .270 avg is....well, average, for his time. Slg .422 slightly better than pedestrian. Knowing he absolutely sucked with Runners in Scoring position in the world series, makes his overall line less valuable. So in a nutshell, pedestrian.
You are still harping on that list to highlight how good Dimaggio was in the post season: If you think it is a skill to rank in top ten in plate appearances, at bats, and grounding into double plays in World Series history...well, good for you. He ranked in a couple offensive categories, but only the counting categories because he simply had more world series at bats than most...not because he didn't anything exceptional.
In a nutshell, he was a disspointment in the World Series, and most neanderthals on here put all their stock into WS performance...so they have to knock Dimaggio down for that too.
The yankees still won because they were great...so great that they didn't even need dimaggio to get to half of those world series. No baseball player is worth 17 wins in a season. If that were the case, then teams with those players, and players similar to them, would be winning 150 games a year.
So to use championships as any form of barometer for Joe D....is useless. He was great no doubt, but that isn't the reason why.
Banzi believes all those pre war pitchers were better than Pedro because they blew him away in ERA...he still doesn't understand that parallel.
Banzi also believes walks have no value, and that making outs is a good thing. He absolutely loves when his hitters hit into dobule plays.
You guys both believe that it is advisible for a batter to swing at pitches out of the strike zone...which is the exact opposite of what you should be doing as a hitter. Check out the difference in batting average on swings inside the strike zone as opposed to outside. Again, would love to coach and pitch against you guys because then I know you will chase.
Using your guys same flawed criteria to rank Harmon Killebrew, here is where he ranks in the stats you guys are putting value in:
Batting Average of .256.....I can't count how far down that ranks him career wise, 1,200th??
Home Runs 12th
RBI 42nd....good.
Strikeouts 1,699....35th most all time.
Total hits 2,086.....242nd all-time.
Grounded into double plays 42nd all time.
If you want to go pure neanderthal and rank him in the traditional slash line of home runs, RBI, and batting average, then his average all time rank is 418th best hitter. Add that he struck the 35th most times in history, that knocks that 418 into the 500's somewhere. SO according to Banzi's own methods, his hero is somewhere near the 500th best hitter in history.
According to that list he much closer to Dave Kingman than he is to Babe Ruth.
Killebrew only had 374 more RBI than dave kingman, but it took Killebrew 2,400 more trips to the plate to knock in 374 more runs than Kingman.
**Simple math shows Dave Kingman knocked in a run once every 6.1 trips to the plate, and Killebrew knocked in a run once every 6.2 trips to the plate!!
THERE WE HAVE IT....KINGMAN WAS BETTER AT DRIVING IN RUNS THAN KILLEBREW. BANZI, THAT IS YOUR EVALUATION METHOD MAKING KINGMAN A BETTER RUN PRODUCER THAN KILLEWBREW!!! LMAO. YOU DID SAY IT WAS THEIR JOB TO DRIVE IN RUNS. THERE YOU HAVE IT, KINGMAN DID IT BETTER.
However, Run Expectancy in all the possible 24 base/out situations as recorded in every single play by play event MLB, spanning millions of plays, giving proper value to walk, single, double, triple, home run, out made, etc...
Millions of plays of actual MLB play by play data puts Killebrew as the 33rd best all time. Traditional methods puts Killebrew s the 500th best all time. Kingman is so far down the run expectancy list that I don't care to count that far.
So, if we go by Banzi's rules, then Harmon Killebrew is in the company of Dave Kingman. I guess that is where we sit when we ignore some very important stuff, and make invalid assumptions on the value of each offensive event.
Congrats joebanzi, you just made Kingman better than Killebrew by using your severely flawed method of analysis
You continue to keep making things up. This is about Joe D and Mickey M.
I don't recall EVER posting about Pedro.
But don't let reality get in the way!
I go with alphabetical.
AGAIN a new batch of players to discuss. Yawn, OK I'll play.
Never said Killebrew was as good as Mantle or DiMaggio, the subject of this particular discussion. I know, it IS tough for you, but please try to focus.
It does look like Dave was pretty good at driving in runs (when he was in the lineup). Probably a teeny tiny bit better than Killebrew per 162 games. Killebrew IS closer to Kingman than Ruth in SOME areas.
Of course Dave was never really a full time player, and he played 6 less years than Harmon. Harm played in 150+ games 8 times Dave once at the end of his career. That must be why Dave only drove in 100+ runs twice in his career and has an over 100 RBI avg per 162 GP. "Killer" accomplished it 9 times.
Kingman was pretty similar to Killebrew in some ways.
Harmon hit for a higher SLG and BA and he was a MUCH better walker too! Harmon's big advantage was the base on balls and as I have said, that wasn't what the Twins were paying him to do. Since Kingman had more AB per 162 and Killebrew hit more HR my buddy Harmon hit more HR per AB than Dave and almost anyone else.
If you exclude the juicers. Killebrew is number 3 all time in players with over 500 HR in HR per AB. Closer to Ruth here than Davey!
Also rate Killebrew at #8 in HR without the cheaters, not 12th.
So while in your ridiculous attempt to prove something, anything, you cherrypicked RBI's (something I do consider, but not a primary consideration) and found that Kingman drove them in at a comparable rate as Killebrew. WOW YOU ARE SOOOOOO SMAAT! THEN you said that this PROVES that the way I rate players blah blah blah. I certainly hope that anyone still reading this can see through your sad lump of bs.
Bottom line, and back on topic AGAIN. Mantle and DiMaggio very close as overall ballplayers. Joltin' Joe BETTER, but not "by far".
Finally, you are not intelligent enough to understand my "rules" or methods because they bring common sense and independent thinking into consideration instead of just blindly following a number some guy comes up with using a flawed method.
To respond to your earlier incorrect statement about what I believe (my God you are an IDIOT) I do not believe a walk has no value, and have never said so, but it doesn't have a CONSTANT value throughout the lineup. You are not only stupid but you are a LAIR!
Don't know where you came up with any DP opinions on my part. Oh yeah, like about half of what you write......you made it up!
Good night.
I get it. I love debating also, and have gotten into my fair share of "tiffs"
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I think when it comes down to Joe D./Mantle debate....it come down to personal preference. If you were a manager who would you rather have playing CF? Who do you think could do the most for your team. They both are very good hitters and both would give you very good defense in CF. I personally would take Mantle because of his power and a switch hitter.