OGTEleven

Neither Marsika H or Sara E holds a candle to Martina. and she's exactly 40

I agree to an extent but I think you leave out an important factor. The owners that are willing to pay out huge bonuses are from the larger market teams with more cash flow from operations. While in theory the cap would put limits on this, in practice it has not because the salary cap has increased at a rapid rate over the years due to the success of the NFL. I paid a huge bonus to player A this year and he takes up 8% of my cap, but next year that same dollar figure becomes 5% due to the increased cap. If these revenue increases go on forever I'll be able to pay big bonuses to players B,C and D over the next few years so I'll build it into my set of assumptions. The raw dollars I paid in the bonus came from my skyboxes, seat licenses, etc. I may have got these fees even after extorting my community into paying for a large portion of my brand new stadium. Teams like Buffalo, New Orleans, Jacksonville, KC and Cincy can't do this. The revenue stream will never stop growing at this rate in the eyes of these owners. They have delusions of grandeur and are kidding themselves. In real life, no business can sustain these high rates of revenue growth. One way these self-centered blowhards (in case you're wondering who I mean Bob Kraft, Jones, Snyder, Huizenga and to some extent the jerk in Houston) delude themselves into concluding that the growth rate will continue, is to lust after large markets like LA that are currently "untapped". They think they can just move teams around and that their customer base (fans) will grow. Maybe they're right but I seriously doubt it. There is a concept in accounting called goodwill. Based on goodwill, if you're selling your dry cleaning business that has been running well for 50 years, you'd get more than you would if you had opened it 2 years ago with identical assets and location. Goodwill is what makes that difference. It is hard to quantify but real. In the case of the NFL; particularly Buffalo, KC, and Cincy it is very real but fat Bob Kraft doesn't care because he needs to continue his dream induced perpetual rapid growth rate. It also seems to me that these owners like to plant crap into the brown nosing media types like Chris Motenson to continually write articles playing off guys like Ralph as old and senile.

You had to do that didn't you? Work has been busy but I get on at night sometimes and gave Amorost 2 a shot last night. I got through Chpater 1 and it wanted me to buy the rest. Did you buy it? If so, how many chapters are there and is it worth it? Didn't try #1. Is that the same deal? 1 Chapter then buy?

The name of our country is The United States of America. Does this not imply that the conecept of a State is important and should carry some weight? Might not each individual State have interests that vary? The system is set up to give that bit of extra power (if you will) to each State. What is the compelling reason to change?

The Pats owner is part of a group which is basically trying to run the Bills out of business so he can get one more dollar. He is a fat load blowhard. He complains to refs that Rodney Harrison is the VICTIM of dirty plays. I think I'll root for the Colts.

I personally saw the impact Ripken had on the game. That impact is not (completely) measured in any of your methods but is directly related to offense. Teams now look for shortstops in the "Ripken mode". That is primarily based on offense. How do you measure that? How can one deny it should be counted among his offensive traits? I did look at (and know) some statistics when making my assertion. I did not write a book or get a phD. Sorry. With that said, some significant factors are difficult or impossible to measure. The rule change based on Gibson is very similar. I'm sure Wee Willie Keeler stacks up quite well with your methods, but I'm also sure he got no bonus points for being so good at bunting that baseball had to change the rules. Regarding Pudge, I'm not sure how something can be important but not significant, but I'm not sure I want to learn. I have watched more than enough baseball to know that not everything offensive, defensive or otherwise is measured even if a book says it is. We've probably both have enough of this. I'm sure I have at this point.

Having a great catcher is not important enough that it shows up on a pitchers performance? Do you actually believe that? You cannot create an alternate universe in which I was the Tiger's catcher this year but I can assure you that the results would have been different. And they would have manifested themselves in ERA's, wins and losses. I never once denigrated sabermetrics or any of the other methods. I don't care about them, but that doesn't mean I think they are without merit. I do know that I saw the game of baseball change to a degree based on the offensive attributes of Cal Ripken. Personally, I think that has to count for something. How much it counts is up for debate. You say it counts zero and that is your opinion. You're entitled to your opinion, saying your opinion is a fact does not make it a fact. My "You can't" statement may have been a bit strong or brash but you have trumped me there. Similarly, I have heard anecdotes that pitching mounds were lowered based on the dominance of Bob Gibson. For me that would likely bump him up a few spots in some ranking of stats. I doubt it would be pulled into the mathematical equation they used. The height of the mound yes, but the fact he was the cause? How would they measure that? Would you think it was important when deciding where you think Gibson stacks up? I have to admit that your level of loyalty to these stats is perplexing. You must like baseball to some extent or else it is unlikely you would have ever heard of the existence of the statistical systems or developed an interest. But if I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly, you would never need to have seen a game of baseball to determine the top 100 players of all time in order and there could never be any debate. If it were that cut and dried, why would you like baseball to begin with?

I never said your numbers were worthless. I never "threw them away". I never said they could not be used to compare players. I never said that Ripken was definitely better than Vaughn but I do say the point can be argued. It appears that to you, a number is a number and if something can't be measured with a number, it does not exist. What I do say is that you cannot rely entirely on any set of numbers to rank players. You can't set up a database that ranks all the players from 1-99,000. Why, because you simply cannot measure all the variables. You throw out things that cannot be measured with a number. You've done it in this thread. I cannot prove with a number that Pudge's trip to the mounds or his talks after games or his set up on each pitch in each game helps a young staff through a 162 game season. Maybe if he went to the mound after every time Verlander threw a bad pitch and kicked him in the balls it would be a better method. Who's to say? It can't be proven. That must mean it is unimportant.

Does holding down the 3rd slot in the batting order from a position traditionally slotted as 7th or 8th (or maybe 1st) have an offensive impact? Is it part of the "offensive" equation? Does having the expectation level of every shortstop in the league being increased have an offensive impact? Is that measured? Not being able to prove that Pudge working with the pitching staff has any impact does not render it moot. You can't measure but you can see it. Your comment on that topic to me was strange. You seemed to say that since you can't measure it with a number it doesn't exist. Is that really what you meant? Statistics are an important and fun part of baseball but they are not its entirety. If we take your claims in this thread at face value, we could rank every player in baseball history on their offensive ability from 1 to 99,000 and there is no point in ever arguing anything. Why not just do that?

It can for fantasy baseball. How does it measure Ripken's impact on baseball? What number does it assign to holding down the #3 spot in the order for 15+ years? What number does it assign to having SS seen as a production position throughout the major league after decades of Punch and Judies?? Can you argue that Vaughn was a better offensive player? Sure. Can you state that he was? No.

My point (using Pudge) is that not everything can be measured even in a sport so intrinsically tied to stats as baseball. Because I do not care, I do not know the ins and outs of VORP. I would be shocked if it could somehow manage to take into account how well the Detroit pitching staff was handled despite their makeup which included several talented but young arms and an ornery veteran. I give Pudge a lot of credit for that and don't care if it garnered him 3.2 extra VORPs or not. I know what I'm looking at when I'm watching a baseball game/season. Ripken changed the way SS is viewed, particularly with regard to offensive production, thoughout baseball. I watched that too. Parts of that can be measured and parts cannot. To say emphatically that Vaughn was a better offensive player than Ripken based entirely on pro-rated statistics is silly. To use it as part of a more holistic argument would certainly be reasonable but you have not done that. Ripken caused teams to go look for different types of Shortstops than they had in the past. The makeup of baseball, to a degree, was changed by Ripken's offense. I doubt the changes to the scouting philosophy of the Phillies earned him a VORP.

Horrible "luck" picking head coaches? That's not a lottery system you know.

How many VORPs did Pudge get this year? There is no way for the whole "sabermetrics world" to measure what he did for the Tigers. I play fantasy baseball. I like it. I never confuse it with real baseball. It is a fun diversion and a way to "argue" whether Johann Santana is better than Carlos Beltran. I like actual baseball a whole lot more. It is full of things that just can't be measured. How many VORPs does Ripken get for allowing the O's to carry an extra reliever because they knew they'd never have to pinch hit late in games for an anemic shortstop? How many VORPs did Tony Gwynn get for inside outing one of the nastiest sliders Randy Johnson ever threw for a double and turning around a playoff game? I don't like Ripken. I never really did. I do recognize what he did, particularly at the plate, had a huge impact on the sport of baseball. My opinon on the first ballot thing with Ripken vs Ruth vs Aaron, etc is that 2 wrongs don't make a right. Lots of writers vote. They are asked whether a player (in this case Ripken & Gwynn) belong in the hall. They are not asked anything else such as does he deserve to be in the hall someday but not yet. Ripken and Gwynn are in. As far as I'm concerned that locks in the votes of the 8 & 13 as forever saying they don't deserve it. They are wrong.

.270 20-80 for 20+ years equals 450 home runs from the shortstop position. That's not too common is it? For the record, I am VERY pro Eddie Murray and was pro Palmeiro pre juice revelation, but those guys both played a position where more production is expected. Ripken in some ways created SS production. That's important. Your origianl quote certainly casts doubt as to whether you think he should be in the hall.

Your condescending tone notwithstanding, simply using OPS does not take away from the fact that Ripken's production from the SS position was a major anamoly at the time he played and had a huge impact on the game. You can make an argument but to say Vaughn was definitively better when they were different types of players is silly. If he was, I guess that makes Ripken 3rd all time. Should that keep him from the hall on the first ballot?

This is a quote from your first post in the thread:

LOL? Vaughn hit for better average and ran far better than Ripken. Ripken had 4x the HRs, almost 2x doubles, and half again as many RBI. You can make an argument about what is most important but it is impossible to say one set of stats somehow is clearly better. Ripken brought power to the position that had not been there. You might not like that or like him but it is a fact. P.S. I don't like Ripken. I don't know why but I don't. The reason I'm pissed is about Gwynn. With that said, denying that Ripken is HOF material makes no sense. Even if Vaughn is deemed better offensively would being the third best SS hitter of all time (by the time he was in the league) disqualify him? I say he was underrated as a fielder and people shoot back saying Tony Fernandez was better? That is not even relevant.

Yet my question was about Vaughn.

Because you type the words end of story does not make it true. When using Vaughn, by what objective measurement did you arrive at your decision?

No reason to shoot you but that guy is deranged. It is a lame excuse because there is no indication whatsoever that either ever used. It would be exactly like refusing to vote for any player that played baseball in 1919.

Ripken played 14 consecutive seasons without playing a position other than shortstop. Why on earth would he be considered a third baseman for Hall of Fame purposes?

In a time that all Shortstops sucked hitting? I asked about the entire history of baseball before Ripken arrived. So all shortstops in baseball history sucked at hitting until Ripken but he didn't have a hall of fame impact on baseball? Are you saying both of those things? Let's get this clear. I'm not even a Ripken fan but I'm a baseball fan. My favortie all time player is Tony Gwynn. There are 8 people out there who did not think Ripken should be in the Hall. There are 13 out there that think Gwynn doesn't pass muster. These people all report on baseball for a living and they all used poor judgement.

Are you guys serious? I ask for two better offensive Shortstops than Ripken and you collectively come up with a second baseman (who wasn't even better) and then turn Ripken into a third baseman? Come on. He hit for as much or more power than any SS that preceded him. Teams think differently about what they need from that position ever since he played it. He was vastly underrated defensively and yes he had that streak thing. He is not on my personal list of 100 favorite baseball players but I know a Hall of Famer when I see one.

Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't.

And 5 more than that thought Gwynn wasn't quite good enough for the hall. He only won eight batting titles.