Fighting irrationality with irrationality since 2006.

Thursday, May 11, 2006

Bob has a secret man crush on and is trying to overcompensate due to his love for hates Barry v2.

From today's column:


Sorry for the detour, and yes, I hate basketball as much as everyone else but,


”I have no gripes about Phoenix point guard Steve Nash winning his second straight league MVP award (although I would've had him third, behind LeBron James and Dirk Nowitzki) .”


Due to the overwhelming lack of evidence cited, I can only assume that you are jealous of Steve Nash's hair. Yes, the plug transplant would probably be a good idea for you, and sure, the hippies had a lot more fun than you did back in the day, but that is being sort of petty, don't you think? Let it go, Bob, let it go.


Anyway, an intrepid fan of Mr. Matthews writes in to tout Stan Musial for the “all time greatest/ I have to fill three pages a week” team. Don't get me wrong, I think “The Man,” is a pretty badass nickname, and I would be pretty happy if a certain columnist/radio host got me a Wings Stan Musial throwback jersey for my birthday (happy belated Sky!), but when Mr. Matthews says ”But anyone who would prefer Musial over Bonds or Foxx would get no argument from me, he really means “I am too lazy to look up their actual numbers.”


Sure, Bonds has a better OBP, SLG, and OPS+ than either Musial or Foxx, but that would be too obvious. Here is one that was pretty striking:


Name SB CS %

Bonds 506 141 78

Musial 78 31 72

Foxx 87 72 55


This “would get no argument from me” line is starting to sound like Mr. Matthews version of “I haven't seen [X] this season so I have no opinion.”


5 Comments:

Blogger WD to Evers to Chance said...

Hey Brian (or more likely FireCrochester),

What do we know about Barry's defensive numbers versus those of Foxx and Stan the Man? And no, I don't mean stupid fielding percentage, but I mean all the other new fangled SABR fielding stuff that I can never remember. I mean, Foxx and Stan played in much larger buildings (Forbes field was something like 370 ft DOWN THE LINE), and defense on an all time team might be important. I mean, I know Sky tends to rank offense above defense, but still. Any thoughts?

Oh yeah, and looking up the numbers is really time consuming. Though you could have at least thrown in the OPS+ numbers for all three for fun. And good call on the steals stats.

9:37 AM

 
Blogger FireCrotchester said...

Bonds was a Gold Glove OF in his prime. Now he's a DH. He's also one of the two best hitters ever (maybe Ted Williams belongs in the discussion). Bonds would without a doubt be my starting LF on any moronic all-time team like this. Even if BM i judging Bonds by his current fielding abilities, he should be the DH over Jimmie Fox. Puh-lease.

11:32 AM

 
Blogger WD to Evers to Chance said...

Okay, I take your points, and any realistic all-world, all-time, all Forbes Field team should include Bonds. But how about we go with Bonds from his last year with the Pirates. He still fielded, he still ran, and he could already hit. Just only 35 homeruns. Which is more like what mortals hit in non-expansion years.

And, for the record, Sky, any real all-time team has no place for the DH.

2:41 PM

 
Blogger FireCrotchester said...

I think the International League should play without a catcher. You know, so that quality of the game would be worse. Worse is more fun, because then you get to come up with crazy strategies to hide your hole as much as possible and make Tony LaRussa look like a genius instead of an intense baseball fan with OCD.

3:49 PM

 
Blogger Brian said...

Maybe Sky can clear this up, but I was operating under the assumption that all the super-high tech laser guided defensive ratings don't go back that far, and therefore was just ignoring defense. Otherwise, it is just anecdotal and we would essentially be Joe Morgan except without the two MVPs and two Sports Emmys.

6:27 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home