2013 MLB Hall of Fame Screechfest

Oh, now you want to just focus on runs produced? Fine. Let's do that.

The accepted statistical measure of runs produced is RBI plus runs scored minus home runs. That way, the player isn't given credit for the same run scored twice.

Let's even accept your approach and go with average per 162 games, which unfairly slants things in Martinez's favor because he did not play as long as Molior.

Runs produced per 162 games by Martinez: 99 RBI plus 96 runs minus 24 home runs = 171
Runs produced per 162 games by Molitor: 79 RBI plus 108 runs minus 14 home runs = 173

So, Molitor actually produced more runs per 162 games than Martinez did.

Of course that doesn't even take into account the advantage Martinez had playing more of his career in a more hitter-friendly era. It also relies too heavily on RBI and runs scored, which depend heavily on the teams around those players, but hey, you wanted to talk about runs produced. But instead of letting you pick and choose which stats you care to play with, I used the ones generally accepted to judge that particular statistic.

Molitor was also vastly superior on the bases and he played nearly 1,000 more games in the field. He also contributed for a longer period of time.

Actually, I think your initial point was an attempt to say Martinez was the the better player, but you used what is at best an incomplete set of statistics to do so. Intentional or not, the choices you made slanted things heavily in Martinez's favor while ignoring areas where Molitor was clearly superior.

That was MY point all along, and your lame insults don't change the fact that I was right. If you want to argue that Martinez was better just as a hitter, but not as an overall player, I think that is a reasonable point. Even to say he was better player entirely, you can make the argument. But even without adjusting for when they played, it was very easy to make a much better statistical comparison than the one you initially presented, one that is far more fair to Molitor.

 

god, you're a dumbass. martinez produced more runs on average per year and had much better splits.

it's really not that hard to figure out, champ.

 

Again, lame insults don't change the facts. The facts prove you wrong.

The splits tell an incomplete story, which I now believe is intentional on your part. You are picking and choosing which statistics you want to use based on which ones fit your argument instead of trying to get at the truth.

Intellectual dishonesty does not become you.

 

the fucking facts are: martinez produced more runs per year on average. i'm guessing a fucking 8-year-old could have looked at the stats and figured that out. also, the splits are what the players owned at the end of their careers. again, there's no changing that.

tell me, are you fucking stupid?

 

Better question. Can you read?

The accepted measure for runs produced is RBI plus runs minus home runs. That's not me picking and choosing what statistics work for me the way you do. That's what it is. And by that measure, Molitor produced more runs per 162 games over the course of his career than Martinez did. That is a fact. You can ignore it or insult me until your fingers bleed, but it won't change that fact.

The splits offer an incomplete picture of the players. There is no arguing that among the intellectually honest. Of course, we now see that doesn't include you.

 

and obviously you can't read a final stat line. you can't change a guy's career stat's, tool bag.

i also find it humorous that you talk about incomplete pictures of the players. i'm going to bet you watched martinez play less than five times. ... much less have a coherent conversation of why they chose to move him from third to DH. but keep banging the "incomplete picture" drum, tiger ... because it certainly doesn't make you look like an idiot at all.

 

Do you ever get tired of trying to cover up being wrong by being rude? It fails every time.

My statistics are correct, and more complete than what you offered.

And you lose that bet on Martinez, but that is no surprise. Once again, you rely on making shit up when the facts prove you wrong.

You tried to cheat on the facts and got busted. Deal with it.

 

yes, because actual run production is meaningless (dumbass). i don't give a fuck what you add and subtract or what you choose to shove up your ass at night. those are the numbers martinez pushed across the fucking plate at the end of the day, dolt.

take your fucking math, turn it into grease and jerk off with it ... do whatever the fuck you want, cuz i could give two fucking shits. but those are the numbers behind martinez's name. nothing your ignorant ass does takes away from that.

 

Profanity-laced rants don't change the facts, bubba. I didn't make up the formula. I just applied it to show you how wrong you are.

I leave making things up to you.

 

yeah, a guy's career stats is making shit up ... idiot.

 

Wrong again, TP. One would think that eventually even you would be tired of it.

In this case, I was pointing to your willingness to make things up about me for daring to question your bullshit. You think just because I call you out on the manipulative, fraudulent statistical comparison you made between Molitor and Martinez that I just didn't see Martinez enough. One, you were wrong. And two, it's irrelevant to the points I've been making.

You didn't make any statistics up that I can see. What you did was pick-and-choose only statistics that fit your point, intentionally leaving out those that represent the areas where Molitor was superior to Martinez. You go on about how many more runs Martinez produced even though the actual statistic proves you wrong.

You dismiss facts that you don't like and cover it up with lame insults, hoping that enough people are too annoyed with me in general to see how badly you are getting beaten on the facts.

 

i dismissed your stupidity, as usual. but then again, you should be used to that.