Options
Jaxxr, this is a post for Rice and Murray, just for you....
Saberman
Posts: 677
in Sports Talk
Jaxxr,
We have debated these two players for a couple of years now. I have cited all sorts of evidence to come to the conclusion that Murray had a better 3yr, 4yr, 5yr, 10yr peak, and was the better player overall for the career. Also, that Rice had at least an equal One Year peak.
You have claimed that you only defend Rice because I and others constantly berate his accomplishments. You have claimed that you never said he was as good as Murray, but rather, "comparable." Yet, you have gone well out of your way to use selective measurements(and ignoring key measurements and data in the process) to attempted to show they were equals, or Rice even better...despite you using wish/washy terms to say that he was not. In a nutshell, you have been very ambiguous on the matter.
This has nothing to do with HOF merit, or anything in relation to the Hall of Fame.
Lets lay it out right here, in very simple terms. No wishy/washy statements, no "perhaps,", no "there isn't just one one way to measure a player."
There are three possible conclusions for both their peak measurements and career measurements...
1) Rice was better than Murray
2)Rice and Murray were equals, a toss up, or way too close to call
3)Murray was better than Rice
I am not looking for degrees of betterness or worseness. I am not looking to see if Rice merits the HOF induction he received. I am looking for YOU to finally make a claim, and to stop the ambiguous methods you have used.
So, based on all the available evidence in the baseball world from which to draw a conclusion from, which of those three conclusions do you feel is the most accurate appraisal of the comparison of Rice and Murray?
We have debated these two players for a couple of years now. I have cited all sorts of evidence to come to the conclusion that Murray had a better 3yr, 4yr, 5yr, 10yr peak, and was the better player overall for the career. Also, that Rice had at least an equal One Year peak.
You have claimed that you only defend Rice because I and others constantly berate his accomplishments. You have claimed that you never said he was as good as Murray, but rather, "comparable." Yet, you have gone well out of your way to use selective measurements(and ignoring key measurements and data in the process) to attempted to show they were equals, or Rice even better...despite you using wish/washy terms to say that he was not. In a nutshell, you have been very ambiguous on the matter.
This has nothing to do with HOF merit, or anything in relation to the Hall of Fame.
Lets lay it out right here, in very simple terms. No wishy/washy statements, no "perhaps,", no "there isn't just one one way to measure a player."
There are three possible conclusions for both their peak measurements and career measurements...
1) Rice was better than Murray
2)Rice and Murray were equals, a toss up, or way too close to call
3)Murray was better than Rice
I am not looking for degrees of betterness or worseness. I am not looking to see if Rice merits the HOF induction he received. I am looking for YOU to finally make a claim, and to stop the ambiguous methods you have used.
So, based on all the available evidence in the baseball world from which to draw a conclusion from, which of those three conclusions do you feel is the most accurate appraisal of the comparison of Rice and Murray?
Are you sure about that five minutes!?
0