Bonds begins HOF campaign

Drip · Aug 13, 2012

outofplace said:

Drip said:

Tom Petty said:

outofplace said:

Tom Petty said:

outofplace said:

Tom Petty said:

outofplace said:

Tom Petty said:

well fuck bobby grich for even turning this into a conversation, then.
Click to expand...

Ha. Nothing wrong with the conversation. I still haven't seen a compelling argument that Carew was as good as Bagwell. I've seen a lot of vague ideas and steroid accusations masked as talk about the era, but that's about it.
Click to expand...

for my money, if i were starting an expansion team and i had to pick between a young bagwell or a young carew, i'd take carew if i'm playing him at second base.
Click to expand...

And I'll take the superior defender and overall hitter, which would be Bagwell.
Click to expand...

and for argument's sake, carew was a better-hitting second baseman than bagwell was a power-hitting first baseman. much, much better. so carew's overall value at the plate far surpasses bagwell.
Click to expand...

You are welcome to your argument, but I don't see the position making up for the lack of power, not when Bagwell brought such a complete game to the field.
Click to expand...

hey, i prefaced this conversation on who i would take if i was picking players if i owned an expansion team ... a young carew or a young bagwell. carew's numbers sure as to shit are a lot better than morgan's who some say was the best second baseman of all time.

your attention span seems to be lagging tonight. you been talking with boom or something? ; P
Click to expand...

Let's put this argument on a different stage. Suppose Rod isn't in the Hall and he and Bagwell were on the ballot at the same time. Who gets in first? I think #29 in a landslide.
Click to expand...

Now? The only way Carew even has a shot at getting in first is guys leaving Bagwell off due to steroid accusations, which is probably why he isn't in already. Otherwise, even Hall of Fame voters have come around enough to stop overly inflating the value of batting average and realize that Bagwell was the far more productive hitter.
Click to expand...

Ok, you hold on to that thought. In the meantime, Bagwell HOPES to get in where Rod is.

outofplace · Aug 13, 2012

Drip said:

outofplace said:

Drip said:

Tom Petty said:

outofplace said:

Tom Petty said:

outofplace said:

Tom Petty said:

outofplace said:

Tom Petty said:

well fuck bobby grich for even turning this into a conversation, then.
Click to expand...

Ha. Nothing wrong with the conversation. I still haven't seen a compelling argument that Carew was as good as Bagwell. I've seen a lot of vague ideas and steroid accusations masked as talk about the era, but that's about it.
Click to expand...

for my money, if i were starting an expansion team and i had to pick between a young bagwell or a young carew, i'd take carew if i'm playing him at second base.
Click to expand...

And I'll take the superior defender and overall hitter, which would be Bagwell.
Click to expand...

and for argument's sake, carew was a better-hitting second baseman than bagwell was a power-hitting first baseman. much, much better. so carew's overall value at the plate far surpasses bagwell.
Click to expand...

You are welcome to your argument, but I don't see the position making up for the lack of power, not when Bagwell brought such a complete game to the field.
Click to expand...

hey, i prefaced this conversation on who i would take if i was picking players if i owned an expansion team ... a young carew or a young bagwell. carew's numbers sure as to shit are a lot better than morgan's who some say was the best second baseman of all time.

your attention span seems to be lagging tonight. you been talking with boom or something? ; P
Click to expand...

Let's put this argument on a different stage. Suppose Rod isn't in the Hall and he and Bagwell were on the ballot at the same time. Who gets in first? I think #29 in a landslide.
Click to expand...

Now? The only way Carew even has a shot at getting in first is guys leaving Bagwell off due to steroid accusations, which is probably why he isn't in already. Otherwise, even Hall of Fame voters have come around enough to stop overly inflating the value of batting average and realize that Bagwell was the far more productive hitter.
Click to expand...

Ok, you hold on to that thought. In the meantime, Bagwell HOPES to get in where Rod is.
Click to expand...

Try to keep up, Drip. Where do you think this came from in the first place? Because the voters are doing something they shouldn't do. They are convicting Bagwell of steroid use without any real evidence. They are holding the cheating of others in his era against him.

Take away the steroid accusations and evaluate both players fairly by today's standards, and Bagwell easily gets in ahead of Carew.

The Big Ragu · Aug 13, 2012

outofplace said:

The Big Ragu said:

buckweaver said:

The Big Ragu said:

I can't take anymore OPS discussion. By that metric, Derrek Lee is higher on the all-time great list than Rod Carew.
Click to expand...

Just one quick note while I'm still reading all the other posts here:

The only person on this thread using straight-up OPS as a means of evaluating players from different eras is you.

No one else here has said Derrek Lee or anyone else you've cited is better than Carew.
Click to expand...

I didn't take it there! I was responding to this:

outofplace said:

Ragu, I actually agree with you regarding OPS+, but I still think you and Tom Petty are letting your hearts get in the way of your heads in saying Carew was better than Bagwell.

I get that Bagwell played in a more hitter friendly era, but the difference between the two is dramatically in Bagwell's favor. You also have to consider that he played most of his prime seasons in an extreme pitcher's park.

Take OPS for example. There is no adjusting (or guesswork) involved. It simply measures on-base percentage combined with slugging, all numbers the player actually compiled. Bagwell had a career OPS of .948, a huge advantage over Carew's .822. Despite Carew's higher batting average, Bagwell actually got on base more (.408 to .393). As you would expect, he has a large advantage in slugging percentage (.540 to .429).

Most of that is due to the huge difference in home runs. Bagwell finished with 449. Carew had 92. That is a lot more than just a difference in the time the two guys played. That is also why he not only drove in more runs than Carew, he scored more runs despite having a shorter career.

Carew's only real advantage is in stolen bases, and even there the edge isn't as clear as it seems at first glance. Sure, he stole a lot more bases, but he also got caught at a higher rate (34.5% to Bagwell's 27.9%).

Defensively, Carew did play a good bit of his career at the more demanding position, but Bagwell was the better defender.

Put them in the same era and only one can get in, it would be Bagwell. Easily. But Carew was aided by the inflated value put on batting average during his career and Bagwell is hurt by the steroid accusations even though there is no real evidence to back them up.
Click to expand...

I brought Tino Martinez, Derrek Lee, Lance Berkman as examples to explain why comparing a stat like that (or really any slugging stats) across eras from the 2000s to the 1970s essentially makes players from the 1970s into Little Leaguers.
Click to expand...

So Carew earned most of his regard with his batting average, but you want to toss out OPS?

I stand by my point. You are going by feel and others here are actually thinking.
Click to expand...

I am an idiot for responding. But you just put words in my mouth and told me that the words you put in my mouth prove something about what *I* have posted.

I have essentially posted over and over that I look at Rod Carew relative to when he played and I look at Jeff Bagwell relative to when he played. And as a fan, my OPINION was that Rod Carew had more of an impact on baseball in the 60s/70s than Jeff Bagwell did on the 90s/00s. It's that simple.

I didn't make it a stats-based argument, beyond responding to people. If I even mentioned his batting average, it was to demonstrate the obvious -- when he played, nobody hit for average better (or was better at getting on base) than he did. He was the toughest out in baseball, emphasis on the "was," as Buckweaver put it -- even if Buckweaver would put Bagwell higher on the all-time great list. That places him relative to his era for me.

Does that make Buckweaver wrong for arguing for Jeff Bagwell in a comparison? Not in my mind. He somehow manages to make his case and feel secure about his opinion.

What you just did was put words in my mouth and then used what you attributed to me to say, "I stand by my point." Near as I can tell, your point is that you are a thinking man and I am the Lion from the Wizard of Oz, who just found a heart.

Do you even realize how condescending it is when people are discussing opinions, to tell another person that your opinion comes from your "head," while theirs comes from their "heart"? You are either blithely unaware of the fact that that is insulting, or you are actually trying to be insulting. Either one is a miserable personality trait. It's an OPINION. Trust me, I think things through before I post here. You don't hold the market on forming your opinions based on thoughts. Does it really satisfy some need in you to post over and over again that you are the thinking man as opposed to silly me, who just has a Tiger Beat magazine crush on Rod Carew?

My posts are here. I tried to reason out why I have my opinion. Others seemed to get it. Some agreed. Some didn't.

You are so invested in being the rightest guy on the Internet that you can't even enter the discussion without straw men or condescension. You should really think about why that is.

Drip · Aug 13, 2012

outofplace said:

Drip said:

outofplace said:

Drip said:

Tom Petty said:

outofplace said:

Tom Petty said:

outofplace said:

Tom Petty said:

outofplace said:

Tom Petty said:

well fuck bobby grich for even turning this into a conversation, then.
Click to expand...

Ha. Nothing wrong with the conversation. I still haven't seen a compelling argument that Carew was as good as Bagwell. I've seen a lot of vague ideas and steroid accusations masked as talk about the era, but that's about it.
Click to expand...

for my money, if i were starting an expansion team and i had to pick between a young bagwell or a young carew, i'd take carew if i'm playing him at second base.
Click to expand...

And I'll take the superior defender and overall hitter, which would be Bagwell.
Click to expand...

and for argument's sake, carew was a better-hitting second baseman than bagwell was a power-hitting first baseman. much, much better. so carew's overall value at the plate far surpasses bagwell.
Click to expand...

You are welcome to your argument, but I don't see the position making up for the lack of power, not when Bagwell brought such a complete game to the field.
Click to expand...

hey, i prefaced this conversation on who i would take if i was picking players if i owned an expansion team ... a young carew or a young bagwell. carew's numbers sure as to shit are a lot better than morgan's who some say was the best second baseman of all time.

your attention span seems to be lagging tonight. you been talking with boom or something? ; P
Click to expand...

Let's put this argument on a different stage. Suppose Rod isn't in the Hall and he and Bagwell were on the ballot at the same time. Who gets in first? I think #29 in a landslide.
Click to expand...

Now? The only way Carew even has a shot at getting in first is guys leaving Bagwell off due to steroid accusations, which is probably why he isn't in already. Otherwise, even Hall of Fame voters have come around enough to stop overly inflating the value of batting average and realize that Bagwell was the far more productive hitter.
Click to expand...

Ok, you hold on to that thought. In the meantime, Bagwell HOPES to get in where Rod is.
Click to expand...

Try to keep up, Drip. Where do you think this came from in the first place? Because the voters are doing something they shouldn't do. They are convicting Bagwell of steroid use without any real evidence. They are holding the cheating of others in his era against him.

Take away the steroid accusations and evaluate both players fairly by today's standards, and Bagwell easily gets in ahead of Carew.
Click to expand...

I'm ahead of you. I would and will always pick Carew over Bagwell.

Tarheel316 · Aug 13, 2012

The Big Ragu said:

outofplace said:

The Big Ragu said:

buckweaver said:

The Big Ragu said:

I can't take anymore OPS discussion. By that metric, Derrek Lee is higher on the all-time great list than Rod Carew.
Click to expand...

Just one quick note while I'm still reading all the other posts here:

The only person on this thread using straight-up OPS as a means of evaluating players from different eras is you.

No one else here has said Derrek Lee or anyone else you've cited is better than Carew.
Click to expand...

I didn't take it there! I was responding to this:

outofplace said:

Ragu, I actually agree with you regarding OPS+, but I still think you and Tom Petty are letting your hearts get in the way of your heads in saying Carew was better than Bagwell.

I get that Bagwell played in a more hitter friendly era, but the difference between the two is dramatically in Bagwell's favor. You also have to consider that he played most of his prime seasons in an extreme pitcher's park.

Take OPS for example. There is no adjusting (or guesswork) involved. It simply measures on-base percentage combined with slugging, all numbers the player actually compiled. Bagwell had a career OPS of .948, a huge advantage over Carew's .822. Despite Carew's higher batting average, Bagwell actually got on base more (.408 to .393). As you would expect, he has a large advantage in slugging percentage (.540 to .429).

Most of that is due to the huge difference in home runs. Bagwell finished with 449. Carew had 92. That is a lot more than just a difference in the time the two guys played. That is also why he not only drove in more runs than Carew, he scored more runs despite having a shorter career.

Carew's only real advantage is in stolen bases, and even there the edge isn't as clear as it seems at first glance. Sure, he stole a lot more bases, but he also got caught at a higher rate (34.5% to Bagwell's 27.9%).

Defensively, Carew did play a good bit of his career at the more demanding position, but Bagwell was the better defender.

Put them in the same era and only one can get in, it would be Bagwell. Easily. But Carew was aided by the inflated value put on batting average during his career and Bagwell is hurt by the steroid accusations even though there is no real evidence to back them up.
Click to expand...

I brought Tino Martinez, Derrek Lee, Lance Berkman as examples to explain why comparing a stat like that (or really any slugging stats) across eras from the 2000s to the 1970s essentially makes players from the 1970s into Little Leaguers.
Click to expand...

So Carew earned most of his regard with his batting average, but you want to toss out OPS?

I stand by my point. You are going by feel and others here are actually thinking.
Click to expand...

I am an idiot for responding. But you just put words in my mouth and told me that the words you put in my mouth prove something about what *I* have posted.

I have essentially posted over and over that I look at Rod Carew relative to when he played and I look at Jeff Bagwell relative to when he played. And as a fan, my OPINION was that Rod Carew had more of an impact on baseball in the 60s/70s than Jeff Bagwell did on the 90s/00s. It's that simple.

I didn't make it a stats-based argument, beyond responding to people. If I even mentioned his batting average, it was to demonstrate the obvious -- when he played, nobody hit for average better (or was better at getting on base) than he did. He was the toughest out in baseball, emphasis on the "was," as Buckweaver put it -- even if Buckweaver would put Bagwell higher on the all-time great list. That places him relative to his era for me.

Does that make Buckweaver wrong for arguing for Jeff Bagwell in a comparison? Not in my mind. He somehow manages to make his case and feel secure about his opinion.

What you just did was put words in my mouth and then used what you attributed to me to say, "I stand by my point." Near as I can tell, your point is that you are a thinking man and I am the Lion from the Wizard of Oz, who just found a heart.

Do you even realize how condescending it is when people are discussing opinions, to tell another person that your opinion comes from your "head," while theirs comes from their "heart"? You are either blithely unaware of the fact that that is insulting, or you are actually trying to be insulting. Either one is a miserable personality trait. It's an OPINION. Trust me, I think things through before I post here. You don't hold the market on forming your opinions based on thoughts. Does it really satisfy some need in you to post over and over again that you are the thinking man as opposed to silly me, who just has a Tiger Beat magazine crush on Rod Carew?

My posts are here. I tried to reason out why I have my opinion. Others seemed to get it. Some agreed. Some didn't.

You are so invested in being the rightest guy on the Internet that you can't even enter the discussion without straw men or condescension. You should really think about why that is.
Click to expand...

Thank you Ragu. Somebody needed to say that. Glad it was a mod.

Drip · Aug 13, 2012

The Big Ragu said:

outofplace said:

The Big Ragu said:

buckweaver said:

The Big Ragu said:

I can't take anymore OPS discussion. By that metric, Derrek Lee is higher on the all-time great list than Rod Carew.
Click to expand...

Just one quick note while I'm still reading all the other posts here:

The only person on this thread using straight-up OPS as a means of evaluating players from different eras is you.

No one else here has said Derrek Lee or anyone else you've cited is better than Carew.
Click to expand...

I didn't take it there! I was responding to this:

outofplace said:

Ragu, I actually agree with you regarding OPS+, but I still think you and Tom Petty are letting your hearts get in the way of your heads in saying Carew was better than Bagwell.

I get that Bagwell played in a more hitter friendly era, but the difference between the two is dramatically in Bagwell's favor. You also have to consider that he played most of his prime seasons in an extreme pitcher's park.

Take OPS for example. There is no adjusting (or guesswork) involved. It simply measures on-base percentage combined with slugging, all numbers the player actually compiled. Bagwell had a career OPS of .948, a huge advantage over Carew's .822. Despite Carew's higher batting average, Bagwell actually got on base more (.408 to .393). As you would expect, he has a large advantage in slugging percentage (.540 to .429).

Most of that is due to the huge difference in home runs. Bagwell finished with 449. Carew had 92. That is a lot more than just a difference in the time the two guys played. That is also why he not only drove in more runs than Carew, he scored more runs despite having a shorter career.

Carew's only real advantage is in stolen bases, and even there the edge isn't as clear as it seems at first glance. Sure, he stole a lot more bases, but he also got caught at a higher rate (34.5% to Bagwell's 27.9%).

Defensively, Carew did play a good bit of his career at the more demanding position, but Bagwell was the better defender.

Put them in the same era and only one can get in, it would be Bagwell. Easily. But Carew was aided by the inflated value put on batting average during his career and Bagwell is hurt by the steroid accusations even though there is no real evidence to back them up.
Click to expand...

I brought Tino Martinez, Derrek Lee, Lance Berkman as examples to explain why comparing a stat like that (or really any slugging stats) across eras from the 2000s to the 1970s essentially makes players from the 1970s into Little Leaguers.
Click to expand...

So Carew earned most of his regard with his batting average, but you want to toss out OPS?

I stand by my point. You are going by feel and others here are actually thinking.
Click to expand...

I am an idiot for responding. But you just put words in my mouth and told me that the words you put in my mouth prove something about what *I* have posted.

I have essentially posted over and over that I look at Rod Carew relative to when he played and I look at Jeff Bagwell relative to when he played. And as a fan, my OPINION was that Rod Carew had more of an impact on baseball in the 60s/70s than Jeff Bagwell did on the 90s/00s. It's that simple.

I didn't make it a stats-based argument, beyond responding to people. If I even mentioned his batting average, it was to demonstrate the obvious -- when he played, nobody hit for average better (or was better at getting on base) than he did. He was the toughest out in baseball, emphasis on the "was," as Buckweaver put it -- even if Buckweaver would put Bagwell higher on the all-time great list. That places him relative to his era for me.

Does that make Buckweaver wrong for arguing for Jeff Bagwell in a comparison? Not in my mind. He somehow manages to make his case and feel secure about his opinion.

What you just did was put words in my mouth and then used what you attributed to me to say, "I stand by my point." Near as I can tell, your point is that you are a thinking man and I am the Lion from the Wizard of Oz, who just found a heart.

Do you even realize how condescending it is when people are discussing opinions, to tell another person that your opinion comes from your "head," while theirs comes from their "heart"? You are either blithely unaware of the fact that that is insulting, or you are actually trying to be insulting. Either one is a miserable personality trait. It's an OPINION. Trust me, I think things through before I post here. You don't hold the market on forming your opinions based on thoughts. Does it really satisfy some need in you to post over and over again that you are the thinking man as opposed to silly me, who just has a Tiger Beat magazine crush on Rod Carew?

My posts are here. I tried to reason out why I have my opinion. Others seemed to get it. Some agreed. Some didn't.

You are so invested in being the rightest guy on the Internet that you can't even enter the discussion without straw men or condescension. You should really think about why that is.
Click to expand...

We've butted heads many times Ragu but I applaud you and your post.

outofplace · Aug 13, 2012

The Big Ragu said:

outofplace said:

The Big Ragu said:

buckweaver said:

The Big Ragu said:

I can't take anymore OPS discussion. By that metric, Derrek Lee is higher on the all-time great list than Rod Carew.
Click to expand...

Just one quick note while I'm still reading all the other posts here:

The only person on this thread using straight-up OPS as a means of evaluating players from different eras is you.

No one else here has said Derrek Lee or anyone else you've cited is better than Carew.
Click to expand...

I didn't take it there! I was responding to this:

outofplace said:

Ragu, I actually agree with you regarding OPS+, but I still think you and Tom Petty are letting your hearts get in the way of your heads in saying Carew was better than Bagwell.

I get that Bagwell played in a more hitter friendly era, but the difference between the two is dramatically in Bagwell's favor. You also have to consider that he played most of his prime seasons in an extreme pitcher's park.

Take OPS for example. There is no adjusting (or guesswork) involved. It simply measures on-base percentage combined with slugging, all numbers the player actually compiled. Bagwell had a career OPS of .948, a huge advantage over Carew's .822. Despite Carew's higher batting average, Bagwell actually got on base more (.408 to .393). As you would expect, he has a large advantage in slugging percentage (.540 to .429).

Most of that is due to the huge difference in home runs. Bagwell finished with 449. Carew had 92. That is a lot more than just a difference in the time the two guys played. That is also why he not only drove in more runs than Carew, he scored more runs despite having a shorter career.

Carew's only real advantage is in stolen bases, and even there the edge isn't as clear as it seems at first glance. Sure, he stole a lot more bases, but he also got caught at a higher rate (34.5% to Bagwell's 27.9%).

Defensively, Carew did play a good bit of his career at the more demanding position, but Bagwell was the better defender.

Put them in the same era and only one can get in, it would be Bagwell. Easily. But Carew was aided by the inflated value put on batting average during his career and Bagwell is hurt by the steroid accusations even though there is no real evidence to back them up.
Click to expand...

I brought Tino Martinez, Derrek Lee, Lance Berkman as examples to explain why comparing a stat like that (or really any slugging stats) across eras from the 2000s to the 1970s essentially makes players from the 1970s into Little Leaguers.
Click to expand...

So Carew earned most of his regard with his batting average, but you want to toss out OPS?

I stand by my point. You are going by feel and others here are actually thinking.
Click to expand...

I am an idiot for responding. But you just put words in my mouth and told me that the words you put in my mouth prove something about what *I* have posted.

I have essentially posted over and over that I look at Rod Carew relative to when he played and I look at Jeff Bagwell relative to when he played. And as a fan, my OPINION was that Rod Carew had more of an impact on baseball in the 60s/70s than Jeff Bagwell did on the 90s/00s. It's that simple.

I didn't make it a stats-based argument, beyond responding to people. If I even mentioned his batting average, it was to demonstrate the obvious -- when he played, nobody hit for average better (or was better at getting on base) than he did. He was the toughest out in baseball, emphasis on the "was," as Buckweaver put it -- even if Buckweaver would put Bagwell higher on the all-time great list. That places him relative to his era for me.

Does that make Buckweaver wrong for arguing for Jeff Bagwell in a comparison? Not in my mind. He somehow manages to make his case and feel secure about his opinion.

What you just did was put words in my mouth and then used what you attributed to me to say, "I stand by my point." Near as I can tell, your point is that you are a thinking man and I am the Lion from the Wizard of Oz, who just found a heart.

Do you even realize how condescending it is when people are discussing opinions, to tell another person that your opinion comes from your "head," while theirs comes from their "heart"? You are either blithely unaware of the fact that that is insulting, or you are actually trying to be insulting. Either one is a miserable personality trait. It's an OPINION. Trust me, I think things through before I post here. You don't hold the market on forming your opinions based on thoughts. Does it really satisfy some need in you to post over and over again that you are the thinking man as opposed to silly me, who just has a Tiger Beat magazine crush on Rod Carew?

My posts are here. I tried to reason out why I have my opinion. Others seemed to get it. Some agreed. Some didn't.

You are so invested in being the rightest guy on the Internet that you can't even enter the discussion without straw men or condescension. You should really think about why that is.
Click to expand...

Wait, you are shocked at being called out for letting your heart get in the way of your head in an argument. You think that is terrible? I look forward to you jumping to my defense the next time I get into a debate that involves the Steelers. People can't dig up the word "fanboi" and throw it at me soon enough if I dare disagree with anything they post about Pittsburgh.

Point being, what you are complaining about happens constantly on this board. I would think that as a moderator, you might realize that.

I'll give you an example. When Roger Goodell set a new precedent by suspending Ben Roethlisberger for four games after the incident in Georgia, I pointed it out. The NFL had never dealt out such a punishment to a player in a situation where no charges were even filed. I didn't say that Roethlisberger did not deserve the punishment. He did. Hell, he deserved worse. I did say that Goodell was using the situation to grab power for himself and questioned if that was a good thing for the league.

The result? I got hammered for being a fanboy. I was treated with the exact same condescending attitude that you are complaining about now. Where were you to point out how wrong it was then? People just assumed that because he was a member of the Steelers, I was speaking from my heart and not my head.

The really funny part is that now you constantly see posts on SportsJournalists.com talking about "Emperor Goodell" and the power he wields. They are saying the same things I was pointing out years ago. The things I got hammered for.

Do I understand it? Absolutely. I have my biases. We all do. That doesn't mean our opinion is meaningless, but it isn't unfair to bring them up, either.

That stuff happens here all the time. As a moderator, you should realize that, and perhaps try holding everybody to the same standard you are trying to dump on me.

I'm sorry if it ruffles your feathers, but I do think your heart is getting in the way on this one. That is MY OPINION. The fact that you are avoiding a statistical argument is one reason I hold that opinion. I don't think you have supported your point about Carew well at all. I get that you don't like me saying so, but I don't like some of the things people say about me here, either.

So spare me the lectures, Ragu. I've faced exactly the situation you did on this thread many times on this board. We all do. Perhaps you should think about why that is.

Drip · Aug 13, 2012

outofplace said:

The Big Ragu said:

outofplace said:

The Big Ragu said:

buckweaver said:

The Big Ragu said:

I can't take anymore OPS discussion. By that metric, Derrek Lee is higher on the all-time great list than Rod Carew.
Click to expand...

Just one quick note while I'm still reading all the other posts here:

The only person on this thread using straight-up OPS as a means of evaluating players from different eras is you.

No one else here has said Derrek Lee or anyone else you've cited is better than Carew.
Click to expand...

I didn't take it there! I was responding to this:

outofplace said:

Ragu, I actually agree with you regarding OPS+, but I still think you and Tom Petty are letting your hearts get in the way of your heads in saying Carew was better than Bagwell.

I get that Bagwell played in a more hitter friendly era, but the difference between the two is dramatically in Bagwell's favor. You also have to consider that he played most of his prime seasons in an extreme pitcher's park.

Take OPS for example. There is no adjusting (or guesswork) involved. It simply measures on-base percentage combined with slugging, all numbers the player actually compiled. Bagwell had a career OPS of .948, a huge advantage over Carew's .822. Despite Carew's higher batting average, Bagwell actually got on base more (.408 to .393). As you would expect, he has a large advantage in slugging percentage (.540 to .429).

Most of that is due to the huge difference in home runs. Bagwell finished with 449. Carew had 92. That is a lot more than just a difference in the time the two guys played. That is also why he not only drove in more runs than Carew, he scored more runs despite having a shorter career.

Carew's only real advantage is in stolen bases, and even there the edge isn't as clear as it seems at first glance. Sure, he stole a lot more bases, but he also got caught at a higher rate (34.5% to Bagwell's 27.9%).

Defensively, Carew did play a good bit of his career at the more demanding position, but Bagwell was the better defender.

Put them in the same era and only one can get in, it would be Bagwell. Easily. But Carew was aided by the inflated value put on batting average during his career and Bagwell is hurt by the steroid accusations even though there is no real evidence to back them up.
Click to expand...

I brought Tino Martinez, Derrek Lee, Lance Berkman as examples to explain why comparing a stat like that (or really any slugging stats) across eras from the 2000s to the 1970s essentially makes players from the 1970s into Little Leaguers.
Click to expand...

So Carew earned most of his regard with his batting average, but you want to toss out OPS?

I stand by my point. You are going by feel and others here are actually thinking.
Click to expand...

I am an idiot for responding. But you just put words in my mouth and told me that the words you put in my mouth prove something about what *I* have posted.

I have essentially posted over and over that I look at Rod Carew relative to when he played and I look at Jeff Bagwell relative to when he played. And as a fan, my OPINION was that Rod Carew had more of an impact on baseball in the 60s/70s than Jeff Bagwell did on the 90s/00s. It's that simple.

I didn't make it a stats-based argument, beyond responding to people. If I even mentioned his batting average, it was to demonstrate the obvious -- when he played, nobody hit for average better (or was better at getting on base) than he did. He was the toughest out in baseball, emphasis on the "was," as Buckweaver put it -- even if Buckweaver would put Bagwell higher on the all-time great list. That places him relative to his era for me.

Does that make Buckweaver wrong for arguing for Jeff Bagwell in a comparison? Not in my mind. He somehow manages to make his case and feel secure about his opinion.

What you just did was put words in my mouth and then used what you attributed to me to say, "I stand by my point." Near as I can tell, your point is that you are a thinking man and I am the Lion from the Wizard of Oz, who just found a heart.

Do you even realize how condescending it is when people are discussing opinions, to tell another person that your opinion comes from your "head," while theirs comes from their "heart"? You are either blithely unaware of the fact that that is insulting, or you are actually trying to be insulting. Either one is a miserable personality trait. It's an OPINION. Trust me, I think things through before I post here. You don't hold the market on forming your opinions based on thoughts. Does it really satisfy some need in you to post over and over again that you are the thinking man as opposed to silly me, who just has a Tiger Beat magazine crush on Rod Carew?

My posts are here. I tried to reason out why I have my opinion. Others seemed to get it. Some agreed. Some didn't.

You are so invested in being the rightest guy on the Internet that you can't even enter the discussion without straw men or condescension. You should really think about why that is.
Click to expand...

Wait, you are shocked at being called out for letting your heart get in the way of your head in an argument. You think that is terrible? I look forward to you jumping to my defense the next time I get into a debate that involves the Steelers. People can't dig up the word "fanboi" and throw it at me soon enough if I dare disagree with anything they post about Pittsburgh.

Point being, what you are complaining about happens constantly on this board. I would think that as a moderator, you might realize that.

I'll give you an example. When Roger Goodell set a new precedent by suspending Ben Roethlisberger for four games after the incident in Georgia, I pointed it out. The NFL had never dealt out such a punishment to a player in a situation where no charges were even filed. I didn't say that Roethlisberger did not deserve the punishment. He did. Hell, he deserved worse. I did say that Goodell was using the situation to grab power for himself and questioned if that was a good thing for the league.

The result? I got hammered for being a fanboy. I was treated with the exact same condescending attitude that you are complaining about now. Where were you to point out how wrong it was then? People just assumed that because he was a member of the Steelers, I was speaking from my heart and not my head.

The really funny part is that now you constantly see posts on SportsJournalists.com talking about "Emperor Goodell" and the power he wields. They are saying the same things I was pointing out years ago. The things I got hammered for.

Do I understand it? Absolutely. I have my biases. We all do. That doesn't mean our opinion is meaningless, but it isn't unfair to bring them up, either.

That stuff happens here all the time. As a moderator, you should realize that, and perhaps try holding everybody to the same standard you are trying to dump on me.

I'm sorry if it ruffles your feathers, but I do think your heart is getting in the way on this one. That is MY OPINION. The fact that you are avoiding a statistical argument is one reason I hold that opinion. I don't think you have supported your point about Carew well at all. I get that you don't like me saying so, but I don't like some of the things people say about me here, either.

So spare me the lectures, Ragu. I've faced exactly the situation you did on this thread many times on this board. We all do. Perhaps you should think about why that is.
Click to expand...

Dude, this REALLY is not that serious. Get a grip.

outofplace · Aug 13, 2012

Drip said:

outofplace said:

The Big Ragu said:

outofplace said:

The Big Ragu said:

buckweaver said:

The Big Ragu said:

I can't take anymore OPS discussion. By that metric, Derrek Lee is higher on the all-time great list than Rod Carew.
Click to expand...

Just one quick note while I'm still reading all the other posts here:

The only person on this thread using straight-up OPS as a means of evaluating players from different eras is you.

No one else here has said Derrek Lee or anyone else you've cited is better than Carew.
Click to expand...

I didn't take it there! I was responding to this:

outofplace said:

Ragu, I actually agree with you regarding OPS+, but I still think you and Tom Petty are letting your hearts get in the way of your heads in saying Carew was better than Bagwell.

I get that Bagwell played in a more hitter friendly era, but the difference between the two is dramatically in Bagwell's favor. You also have to consider that he played most of his prime seasons in an extreme pitcher's park.

Take OPS for example. There is no adjusting (or guesswork) involved. It simply measures on-base percentage combined with slugging, all numbers the player actually compiled. Bagwell had a career OPS of .948, a huge advantage over Carew's .822. Despite Carew's higher batting average, Bagwell actually got on base more (.408 to .393). As you would expect, he has a large advantage in slugging percentage (.540 to .429).

Most of that is due to the huge difference in home runs. Bagwell finished with 449. Carew had 92. That is a lot more than just a difference in the time the two guys played. That is also why he not only drove in more runs than Carew, he scored more runs despite having a shorter career.

Carew's only real advantage is in stolen bases, and even there the edge isn't as clear as it seems at first glance. Sure, he stole a lot more bases, but he also got caught at a higher rate (34.5% to Bagwell's 27.9%).

Defensively, Carew did play a good bit of his career at the more demanding position, but Bagwell was the better defender.

Put them in the same era and only one can get in, it would be Bagwell. Easily. But Carew was aided by the inflated value put on batting average during his career and Bagwell is hurt by the steroid accusations even though there is no real evidence to back them up.
Click to expand...

I brought Tino Martinez, Derrek Lee, Lance Berkman as examples to explain why comparing a stat like that (or really any slugging stats) across eras from the 2000s to the 1970s essentially makes players from the 1970s into Little Leaguers.
Click to expand...

So Carew earned most of his regard with his batting average, but you want to toss out OPS?

I stand by my point. You are going by feel and others here are actually thinking.
Click to expand...

I am an idiot for responding. But you just put words in my mouth and told me that the words you put in my mouth prove something about what *I* have posted.

I have essentially posted over and over that I look at Rod Carew relative to when he played and I look at Jeff Bagwell relative to when he played. And as a fan, my OPINION was that Rod Carew had more of an impact on baseball in the 60s/70s than Jeff Bagwell did on the 90s/00s. It's that simple.

I didn't make it a stats-based argument, beyond responding to people. If I even mentioned his batting average, it was to demonstrate the obvious -- when he played, nobody hit for average better (or was better at getting on base) than he did. He was the toughest out in baseball, emphasis on the "was," as Buckweaver put it -- even if Buckweaver would put Bagwell higher on the all-time great list. That places him relative to his era for me.

Does that make Buckweaver wrong for arguing for Jeff Bagwell in a comparison? Not in my mind. He somehow manages to make his case and feel secure about his opinion.

What you just did was put words in my mouth and then used what you attributed to me to say, "I stand by my point." Near as I can tell, your point is that you are a thinking man and I am the Lion from the Wizard of Oz, who just found a heart.

Do you even realize how condescending it is when people are discussing opinions, to tell another person that your opinion comes from your "head," while theirs comes from their "heart"? You are either blithely unaware of the fact that that is insulting, or you are actually trying to be insulting. Either one is a miserable personality trait. It's an OPINION. Trust me, I think things through before I post here. You don't hold the market on forming your opinions based on thoughts. Does it really satisfy some need in you to post over and over again that you are the thinking man as opposed to silly me, who just has a Tiger Beat magazine crush on Rod Carew?

My posts are here. I tried to reason out why I have my opinion. Others seemed to get it. Some agreed. Some didn't.

You are so invested in being the rightest guy on the Internet that you can't even enter the discussion without straw men or condescension. You should really think about why that is.
Click to expand...

Wait, you are shocked at being called out for letting your heart get in the way of your head in an argument. You think that is terrible? I look forward to you jumping to my defense the next time I get into a debate that involves the Steelers. People can't dig up the word "fanboi" and throw it at me soon enough if I dare disagree with anything they post about Pittsburgh.

Point being, what you are complaining about happens constantly on this board. I would think that as a moderator, you might realize that.

I'll give you an example. When Roger Goodell set a new precedent by suspending Ben Roethlisberger for four games after the incident in Georgia, I pointed it out. The NFL had never dealt out such a punishment to a player in a situation where no charges were even filed. I didn't say that Roethlisberger did not deserve the punishment. He did. Hell, he deserved worse. I did say that Goodell was using the situation to grab power for himself and questioned if that was a good thing for the league.

The result? I got hammered for being a fanboy. I was treated with the exact same condescending attitude that you are complaining about now. Where were you to point out how wrong it was then? People just assumed that because he was a member of the Steelers, I was speaking from my heart and not my head.

The really funny part is that now you constantly see posts on SportsJournalists.com talking about "Emperor Goodell" and the power he wields. They are saying the same things I was pointing out years ago. The things I got hammered for.

Do I understand it? Absolutely. I have my biases. We all do. That doesn't mean our opinion is meaningless, but it isn't unfair to bring them up, either.

That stuff happens here all the time. As a moderator, you should realize that, and perhaps try holding everybody to the same standard you are trying to dump on me.

I'm sorry if it ruffles your feathers, but I do think your heart is getting in the way on this one. That is MY OPINION. The fact that you are avoiding a statistical argument is one reason I hold that opinion. I don't think you have supported your point about Carew well at all. I get that you don't like me saying so, but I don't like some of the things people say about me here, either.

So spare me the lectures, Ragu. I've faced exactly the situation you did on this thread many times on this board. We all do. Perhaps you should think about why that is.
Click to expand...

Dude, this REALLY is not that serious. Get a grip.
Click to expand...

My post was inexactly the same tone as Ragu's, yet you applaud him and mock me. Can you spot hypocrisy when you see it? I sure can.

Versatile · Aug 13, 2012

You guys, it's a message board. We're supposed to hate each other.

BTExpress · Aug 13, 2012

It is possible to reply to someone without repeating the 42-responses-in-quote-function history that preceded it.

Makes the board a much easier read. Thank you.

Drip · Aug 13, 2012

outofplace said:

Drip said:

outofplace said:

The Big Ragu said:

outofplace said:

The Big Ragu said:

buckweaver said:

The Big Ragu said:

I can't take anymore OPS discussion. By that metric, Derrek Lee is higher on the all-time great list than Rod Carew.
Click to expand...

Just one quick note while I'm still reading all the other posts here:

The only person on this thread using straight-up OPS as a means of evaluating players from different eras is you.

No one else here has said Derrek Lee or anyone else you've cited is better than Carew.
Click to expand...

I didn't take it there! I was responding to this:

outofplace said:

Ragu, I actually agree with you regarding OPS+, but I still think you and Tom Petty are letting your hearts get in the way of your heads in saying Carew was better than Bagwell.

I get that Bagwell played in a more hitter friendly era, but the difference between the two is dramatically in Bagwell's favor. You also have to consider that he played most of his prime seasons in an extreme pitcher's park.

Take OPS for example. There is no adjusting (or guesswork) involved. It simply measures on-base percentage combined with slugging, all numbers the player actually compiled. Bagwell had a career OPS of .948, a huge advantage over Carew's .822. Despite Carew's higher batting average, Bagwell actually got on base more (.408 to .393). As you would expect, he has a large advantage in slugging percentage (.540 to .429).

Most of that is due to the huge difference in home runs. Bagwell finished with 449. Carew had 92. That is a lot more than just a difference in the time the two guys played. That is also why he not only drove in more runs than Carew, he scored more runs despite having a shorter career.

Carew's only real advantage is in stolen bases, and even there the edge isn't as clear as it seems at first glance. Sure, he stole a lot more bases, but he also got caught at a higher rate (34.5% to Bagwell's 27.9%).

Defensively, Carew did play a good bit of his career at the more demanding position, but Bagwell was the better defender.

Put them in the same era and only one can get in, it would be Bagwell. Easily. But Carew was aided by the inflated value put on batting average during his career and Bagwell is hurt by the steroid accusations even though there is no real evidence to back them up.
Click to expand...

I brought Tino Martinez, Derrek Lee, Lance Berkman as examples to explain why comparing a stat like that (or really any slugging stats) across eras from the 2000s to the 1970s essentially makes players from the 1970s into Little Leaguers.
Click to expand...

So Carew earned most of his regard with his batting average, but you want to toss out OPS?

I stand by my point. You are going by feel and others here are actually thinking.
Click to expand...

I am an idiot for responding. But you just put words in my mouth and told me that the words you put in my mouth prove something about what *I* have posted.

I have essentially posted over and over that I look at Rod Carew relative to when he played and I look at Jeff Bagwell relative to when he played. And as a fan, my OPINION was that Rod Carew had more of an impact on baseball in the 60s/70s than Jeff Bagwell did on the 90s/00s. It's that simple.

I didn't make it a stats-based argument, beyond responding to people. If I even mentioned his batting average, it was to demonstrate the obvious -- when he played, nobody hit for average better (or was better at getting on base) than he did. He was the toughest out in baseball, emphasis on the "was," as Buckweaver put it -- even if Buckweaver would put Bagwell higher on the all-time great list. That places him relative to his era for me.

Does that make Buckweaver wrong for arguing for Jeff Bagwell in a comparison? Not in my mind. He somehow manages to make his case and feel secure about his opinion.

What you just did was put words in my mouth and then used what you attributed to me to say, "I stand by my point." Near as I can tell, your point is that you are a thinking man and I am the Lion from the Wizard of Oz, who just found a heart.

Do you even realize how condescending it is when people are discussing opinions, to tell another person that your opinion comes from your "head," while theirs comes from their "heart"? You are either blithely unaware of the fact that that is insulting, or you are actually trying to be insulting. Either one is a miserable personality trait. It's an OPINION. Trust me, I think things through before I post here. You don't hold the market on forming your opinions based on thoughts. Does it really satisfy some need in you to post over and over again that you are the thinking man as opposed to silly me, who just has a Tiger Beat magazine crush on Rod Carew?

My posts are here. I tried to reason out why I have my opinion. Others seemed to get it. Some agreed. Some didn't.

You are so invested in being the rightest guy on the Internet that you can't even enter the discussion without straw men or condescension. You should really think about why that is.
Click to expand...

Wait, you are shocked at being called out for letting your heart get in the way of your head in an argument. You think that is terrible? I look forward to you jumping to my defense the next time I get into a debate that involves the Steelers. People can't dig up the word "fanboi" and throw it at me soon enough if I dare disagree with anything they post about Pittsburgh.

Point being, what you are complaining about happens constantly on this board. I would think that as a moderator, you might realize that.

I'll give you an example. When Roger Goodell set a new precedent by suspending Ben Roethlisberger for four games after the incident in Georgia, I pointed it out. The NFL had never dealt out such a punishment to a player in a situation where no charges were even filed. I didn't say that Roethlisberger did not deserve the punishment. He did. Hell, he deserved worse. I did say that Goodell was using the situation to grab power for himself and questioned if that was a good thing for the league.

The result? I got hammered for being a fanboy. I was treated with the exact same condescending attitude that you are complaining about now. Where were you to point out how wrong it was then? People just assumed that because he was a member of the Steelers, I was speaking from my heart and not my head.

The really funny part is that now you constantly see posts on SportsJournalists.com talking about "Emperor Goodell" and the power he wields. They are saying the same things I was pointing out years ago. The things I got hammered for.

Do I understand it? Absolutely. I have my biases. We all do. That doesn't mean our opinion is meaningless, but it isn't unfair to bring them up, either.

That stuff happens here all the time. As a moderator, you should realize that, and perhaps try holding everybody to the same standard you are trying to dump on me.

I'm sorry if it ruffles your feathers, but I do think your heart is getting in the way on this one. That is MY OPINION. The fact that you are avoiding a statistical argument is one reason I hold that opinion. I don't think you have supported your point about Carew well at all. I get that you don't like me saying so, but I don't like some of the things people say about me here, either.

So spare me the lectures, Ragu. I've faced exactly the situation you did on this thread many times on this board. We all do. Perhaps you should think about why that is.
Click to expand...

Dude, this REALLY is not that serious. Get a grip.
Click to expand...

My post was inexactly the same tone as Ragu's, yet you applaud him and mock me. Can you spot hypocrisy when you see it? I sure can.
Click to expand...

Both of you guys took this whole conversation to a crazy level. Again, it's really not that serious.

Log in or Sign up

Bonds begins HOF campaign

Drip Active Member

outofplace Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

Drip Active Member

Tarheel316 Well-Known Member

Drip Active Member

outofplace Well-Known Member

Drip Active Member

outofplace Well-Known Member

Versatile Active Member

BTExpress Well-Known Member

Drip Active Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Bonds begins HOF campaign

Drip Active Member

outofplace Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

Drip Active Member

Tarheel316 Well-Known Member

Drip Active Member

outofplace Well-Known Member

Drip Active Member

outofplace Well-Known Member

Versatile Active Member

BTExpress Well-Known Member

Drip Active Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches