Winning as it Relates to Greatness (Proven Winner/Loser Theory) [Archive]

Old Sweater

12-28-2006, 02:06 PM

By your theory, Cobb and Ted Williams are "proven losers", and Charlie Silvera and Jack Barry are "proven winners" :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

Not theory it's a fact. Forget the years Williams was in the WS but Cobb was 0 for 3 in 1907, 1908 and 1909. Even Ernie Banks has to feel like a loser not making a WS. Thats what it's all about for the players that love the game and not just the money. Great fighters with a 95% winning record feel the same if they didn't win a title. Being a Champ is what it is all about.

RuthMayBond

12-28-2006, 02:09 PM

mwiggins

12-28-2006, 02:27 PM

Not theory it's a fact. Forget the years Williams was in the WS but Cobb was 0 for 3 in 1907, 1908 and 1909. Even Ernie Banks has to feel like a loser not making a WS. Thats what it's all about for the players that love the game and not just the money. Great fighters with a 95% winning record feel the same if they didn't win a title. Being a Champ is what it is all about.

Being a champ IS what it's all about. But baseball's a team game. One player can't win a title for a team, so the fact that a player has or hasn't won a title doens't have a lot to do with how good a player they are or how good their career has been. It isn't basketball where each player can have a huge inpact on a team winning or losing, or football, where one player (QB) can have a huge impact on a team winning or losing.

Pierre won a title, he played very well in the playoffs, and was a good player back then. His quality of play has gone down this 2004, and in 2006 he was a fairly bad player. Overall he's been a below average guy with a couple of good years and a good playoff run in 2003. The fact that he won a title and played very well in the playoffs doesn't completely override his regular season play of over his career, which has been below average, and turn him into a 'stud'. Lofton isn't a 'stud' either, but over his career, he's been a much better player than Pierre. But both have moved from team to team a lot, which usually means they aren't that 'studly'. Top notch players don't play for 4 teams in 8 years or 12 teams in 17 years.

Old Sweater

12-28-2006, 02:28 PM

I can see by that mighty team in your avatar. They've advanced past the first round of the playoffs how many times? Do you think Charlie Silvera got there by himself or in spite of himself, and you'd rather have him than Cobb?

Never judge a man by his avatar. If I put up the team I have followed as long as I remember it would be a Yankee avatar. The Yankees just went to #2 after Colorado got a team in 93 and I have home state pride and all.

As for the anwser to your aother question, no one can play a team sport by themselves. Of course I would rather have a Cobb or Williams then a no name but most of all I would like a bunch of team players like Pierre then a self centered one like Bonds.

Old Sweater

12-28-2006, 02:35 PM

Looked at RMB's avatar.

What does 1954, 1995 and 1997 have in common?:laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

mwiggins

12-28-2006, 02:38 PM

Looked at RMB's avatar.

What does 1954, 1995 and 1997 have in common?:laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

I think the word you're looking for starts with a 'C' and ends with 'HOKE'. :cool:

RuthMayBond

12-28-2006, 02:39 PM

I think the word you're looking for starts with a 'C' and ends with 'HOKE'. :cool:I'm not the one who's touting championships, dude :rolleyes:

Erik Bedard

12-28-2006, 02:40 PM

All start with a one and a nine.

RuthMayBond

12-28-2006, 02:41 PM

As for the anwser to your aother question, no one can play a team sport by themselves. Of course I would rather have a Cobb or Williams then a no name.So you like proven losers?

Erik Bedard

12-28-2006, 02:43 PM

IMO, Lofton getting to the postseason ten times but never winning is far more impressive than Pierre getting to the postseason once and winning.

Elvis

12-28-2006, 03:04 PM

IMO, Lofton getting to the postseason ten times but never winning is far more impressive than Pierre getting to the postseason once and winning.

Pierre wouldn't have turned and started walking back to the dugout while his flyball was still in the air as Loften did in the playoffs against the Mets. I have to agree with old sweater, Loften often plays without heart. The look on Grady Little and eddie Murray's faces as he came back into the dugout was a combination of :ughh :noidea :grouchy :mad: :waving

It's no wonder the dodgers decided to go with a different type of player in Pierre.

iPod

12-28-2006, 03:10 PM

Come on, honestly, how many times have people tried to justify free agent signings with the "proven winner" angle and the guy tanks anyway?

Old Sweater

12-28-2006, 04:33 PM

IMO, Lofton getting to the postseason ten times but never winning is far more impressive than Pierre getting to the postseason once and winning.

So IYO kissing your sister 10 times is worth more then kissing the girl of your dreams? Not me, I want my WS Ring, not a smootch from sis.

Old Sweater

12-28-2006, 04:42 PM

So you like proven losers?

Cobb and Williams sure, with the right teammates they could have been proven winners. Always need a spark of heart like Pierre has to get the cannons firing. Hate the Dodgers but the MVP of the NL in 88 sure went to the right player in 88, the Dodgers were nothing without Kirk Gibson and his leadership that season. The best stats will win you a lot of individual awards but not to many Rings in a team sport.

Old Sweater

12-28-2006, 04:52 PM

Pierre's been on 3 clubs in 7 years. I'd hardly say he stays somewhere for very long.

Probably still be in Colorado if it wasn't for the cheapskate owners Charlie and Dick Monfort and Jerry McMorris at that time. Just the Monforts now, and Loria in Florida, who does he have left off that championship team of 2003.

RuthMayBond

12-28-2006, 09:05 PM

Cobb and Williams sure, with the right teammates they could have been proven winners.
And with the "right" teammates Silvera would have been shown a loser. So what's your "proven" winner/loser point?

<The best stats will win you a lot of individual awards but not to many Rings in a team sport.>

You'd rather have poor stats? :noidea

Old Sweater

12-29-2006, 02:45 AM

And with the "right" teammates Silvera would have been shown a loser. So what's your "proven" winner/loser point?

<The best stats will win you a lot of individual awards but not to many Rings in a team sport.>

You'd rather have poor stats? :noidea

The point is that if you walk away or retire from the game without a WS Ring you are a loser, maybe a great player but a loser in your own mind. Take Willie McCovey for exsample, if that linedrive he hit in the 1962 WS was just a little higher he would had got what he played for all his life, instead he just has a bad memory. Mediocre players can be on the right team at the right time and walk away a winner.

Do you consider any player a winner no matter how great they were if they fail to win a WS? IMO, I don't think any player with a true love of the game would.

<The best stats will win you a lot of individual awards but not to many Rings in a team sport.>

You'd rather have poor stats?

Quit bending words like you do so well. the answer of what I would rather have is right above your silly question.

Old Sweater

12-29-2006, 02:57 AM

You see numbers. I see baseball players on the field. You are so linear in your analysis it's ridiculous.

Indeed, there is a difference between stat dorks and former serious ballplayers.

If that ain't the truth. Some are so busy looking up colors of ink that they look right by the grit and heart of a player. If they had stats for that, we wouldn't be having this debate between Lofton and Pierre.

Old Sweater

12-29-2006, 03:17 AM

No, because Pierre couldn't get a walk to save his life, and when was the last time he won (or deserved) a Gold Glove? He can't throw and he can't hit for power.

Kenny Lofton is the most underrated player of his generation and deserves to go to the Hall of Fame. The man didn't just steal 600 bases, but he won Gold Gloves, championships, and was a fabulous hitter too. Hopefully, Lofton doesn't become like Dale Murphy, who, simply because he never talked, isn't going to the Hall.:mad:

Lofton never won no Championships. Pennants yes. There is only one Championship in baseball that matters to the players, if you don't believe me ask any post 1995 Braves fan.

Fatbill

12-29-2006, 03:24 AM

Lofton never won no Championships. Pennants yes. There is only one Championship in baseball that matters to the players, if you don't believe me ask any post 1995 Braves fan.
Looked it up, you're right.
He should still get in the Hall.
I am a post-1995 Braves fan, and we didn't even win pennants.:noidea

iPod

12-29-2006, 04:33 AM

The point is that if you walk away or retire from the game without a WS Ring you are a loser, maybe a great player but a loser in your own mind. Take Willie McCovey for exsample, if that linedrive he hit in the 1962 WS was just a little higher he would had got what he played for all his life, instead he just has a bad memory. Mediocre players can be on the right team at the right time and walk away a winner.

I don't see what you're getting at. Unless you're implying there is some defect in guys like Williams, Cobb, Banks, and McCovey, which caused them not to win, being a "winner" as opposed to a "loser" is essentially an accident of history. It's interesting you chose McCovey because I think McCovey is the best example of the counter to your argument. What did McCovey do in the Moment of Truth that a "winner" wouldn't have done? Unless you can argue a "winner" would have done something better than hit the ball as hard and square as a person realistically can do, how do I know Juan Pierre himself isn't one of the "Mediocre players" on the right team at the right time who walked away a winner?

Fatbill

12-29-2006, 04:38 AM

I don't see what you're getting at. Unless you're implying there is some defect in guys like Williams, Cobb, Banks, and McCovey, which caused them not to win, being a "winner" as opposed to a "loser" is essentially an accident of history. It's interesting you chose McCovey because I think McCovey is the best example of the counter to your argument. What did McCovey do in the Moment of Truth that a "winner" wouldn't have done? Unless you can argue a "winner" would have done something better than hit the ball as hard and square as a person realistically can do, how do I know Juan Pierre himself isn't one of the "Mediocre players" on the right team at the right time who walked away a winner?
To me, Championships are to random to predicate an entire career on. Cobb, Williams, McCovey, Bonds, and Hornsby (I don't think) ever won a Championship, and we don't think any less of them. A drifter in search of a Championship is pathetic.

tearforamariner

12-29-2006, 05:11 AM

To me, Championships are to random to predicate an entire career on. Cobb, Williams, McCovey, Bonds, and Hornsby (I don't think) ever won a Championship, and we don't think any less of them. A drifter in search of a Championship is pathetic.

Hornsby was a member of the 1926 World Series-Champion St. Louis Cardinals.

Erik Bedard

12-29-2006, 05:34 AM

If you can REACH the playoffs ten times, it means that your team played superbly in the regular season ten times. If you WIN the playoffs once, it means that your team won eleven games, as opposed to (generally) 90+. I'd take the guy who won 90+ ten times over the guy who won 11 once. A team that makes the playoffs, in this day and age of over-expansion, is without a doubt one of the four best teams in their league. Lofton played on one of those teams ten times. Pierre did once. I'll take the guy who played on ten playoff teams, you take the one who won one WS.

Old Sweater

12-29-2006, 05:48 AM

I don't see what you're getting at
-----------------------------------------

You can't walk away from the game as a proven winner without winning the
WS. Bad breaks, bad teams and bad luck included.
---------------------------------------------------

Unless you're implying there is some defect in guys like Williams, Cobb, Banks, and McCovey, which caused them not to win, being a "winner" as opposed to a "loser" is essentially an accident of history.
----------------------------------------------------

No defects, great players, just had the misfortune of being on teams that couldn't get the job done. IMO, Williams was the greatest hitter to walk up to the plate. He was loyal to the Red Sox, which I like but it could have cost him a shot of being on a WS winner.

------------------------------------------------------------

It's interesting you chose McCovey because I think McCovey is the best example of the counter to your argument. What did McCovey do in the Moment of Truth that a "winner" wouldn't have done? Unless you can argue a "winner" would have done something better than hit the ball as hard and square as a person realistically can do

--------------------------------------------------

I chose McCovey because he came so close to winning a WS and to show how cruel baseball can be to keep you from being a WS winner even though you are a great player.

----------------------------------------------------

, how do I know Juan Pierre himself isn't one of the "Mediocre players" on the right team at the right time who walked away a winner?

---------------------------------------------------------------

He walked away a winner, thats all that matters in the game. Luck has always been a big part of baseball. Pierre was on a hot team at the right time and had one heck of a WS.

--------------------------------------

Would any of you on this board consider yourself a winner if you made the Majors and retired or walked away from the game without a WS Ring? That is the goal or should be the goal of every player that plays in the Majors.

RuthMayBond

12-29-2006, 07:29 AM

RuthMayBond

12-29-2006, 07:31 AM

Quit bending words like you do so well. the answer of what I would rather have is right above your silly question.You mean like you talking about proven losers but then saying you'd like them?

RuthMayBond

12-29-2006, 07:37 AM

No defects, great players, just had the misfortune of being on teams that couldn't get the job done. IMO, Williams was the greatest hitter to walk up to the plate.Thank you. So why with all the "proven loser" stuff?

<Luck has always been a big part of baseball. Pierre was on a hot team at the right time>

Thank you. So much for the "proven winner" theory

<Would any of you on this board consider yourself a winner if you made the Majors and retired or walked away from the game without a WS Ring?>

If I made it to the majors, I would consider myself a winner if I was allowed in the dugout with those guys :clapping

Old Sweater

12-29-2006, 07:07 PM

<Thank you. So why with all the "proven loser" stuff?>

Said Williams was a great hitter, still left the game a loser.

<Luck has always been a big part of baseball. Pierre was on a hot team at the right time>

<Thank you. So much for the "proven winner" theory>

You left off "and he walked away a winner" like Pierre did. Luck is all part of being a winner. Wish you would quit posting half of my replys.

<Would any of you on this board consider yourself a winner if you made the Majors and retired or walked away from the game without a WS Ring?>

<If I made it to the majors, I would consider myself a winner if I was allowed in the dugout with those guys.>

Yeah, until the thrill wore off and you got tired of mixing grey inks and red inks that mean nothing to a player and remembered why you worked your tail off to make the majors. Then you would want to be remembered as a winner and not as a great or average player and go for that ring probably. There is enough fans in the stands for the players.

Old Sweater

12-29-2006, 07:11 PM

Denial ain't just a river

Hello Mr. Pot, this is Mr. Kettle calling.

RuthMayBond

12-29-2006, 08:39 PM

Luck is all part of being a winner. So why are you making such a big deal of being a "winner"?

<Yeah, until the thrill wore off and you got tired of mixing grey inks and red inks>

Whatever

RuthMayBond

12-29-2006, 08:42 PM

Hello Mr. Pot, this is Mr. Kettle calling.Someone might actually know the game and understand how to use stats.

EvanAparra

12-29-2006, 09:39 PM

Would any of you on this board consider yourself a winner if you made the Majors and retired or walked away from the game without a WS Ring? That is the goal or should be the goal of every player that plays in the Majors.

Sure. Its real eazy to say stuff like that from your lazy boy, but those guys are out there making a living. Championships should and usually do come second, the money they make for their families should come first.

iPod

12-29-2006, 10:01 PM

You can't walk away from the game as a proven winner without winning the
WS. Bad breaks, bad teams and bad luck included.

I still don't see what you're getting at. You're implying, it seems anyway, like Pierre has intrinsic value because he is a winner. And at the same time, you're admitting the process of becoming a winner is, in large part, not intrinsic. I'm saying those two thoughts seem irreconcilable.

He walked away a winner, thats all that matters in the game. Luck has always been a big part of baseball. Pierre was on a hot team at the right time and had one heck of a WS.

Say the Yankees won that WS, though. Juan Pierre did everything the same, but the Marlins lost. Does that affect his inherent value? Do the Dodgers not sign him, because he's not a "winner"?

Fatbill

12-29-2006, 10:04 PM

Say the Yankees won that WS, though. Juan Pierre did everything the same, but the Marlins lost. Does that affect his inherent value? Do the Dodgers not sign him, because he's not a "winner"?[/QUOTE]
Pierre was probably the MVP of that series (after Beckett), his bunting killed the Yankees (who didn't have a capable 3B at the time), and he played good defense. There is no such thing as a "loser" & a "winner", they're myths.

Old Sweater

12-30-2006, 12:53 AM

Someone might actually know the game and understand how to use stats.

Who's that?

Old Sweater

12-30-2006, 12:58 AM

Sure. Its real eazy to say stuff like that from your lazy boy, but those guys are out there making a living. Championships should and usually do come second, the money they make for their families should come first.

What your saying doesn't make sence. Money and Championships go hand in hand. Don't think a player would be making any less money for winning a WS.

EvanAparra

12-30-2006, 01:00 AM

What your saying doesn't make sence. Money and Championships go hand in hand. Don't think a player would be making any less money for winning a WS.

Never implied that -- But that championships aren't the entire point of a player's career. He's doing his job. If a man's company doesn't become Fortune 500, but he still makes a good amount of money to support his family, is he still a failure?

Fatbill

12-30-2006, 01:21 AM

Never implied that -- But that championships aren't the entire point of a player's career. He's doing his job. If a man's company doesn't become Fortune 500, but he still makes a good amount of money to support his family, is he still a failure?
Winning shouldn't define any player's career. Does anyone say Ty Cobb sucks because he didn't win a championship? No.

tearforamariner

12-30-2006, 01:25 AM

Does anyone say Ty Cobb sucks because he didn't win a championship? No.

Actually, I've heard that argument before.

EvanAparra

12-30-2006, 01:27 AM

Actually, I've heard that argument before.

As have I --- Same for Williams. Talk to Dan Marino. It's a pretty unfair statement to make, but it is made.

Fatbill

12-30-2006, 01:28 AM

Actually, I've heard that argument before.
Terrible argument. If wins are what players are measured by than here's a list.
1) Joe DiMaggio
2) Yogi Berra
3) Mickey Mantle
4) Derek Jeter
5) Babe Ruth

Is that a good list of all-time greats?

Old Sweater

12-30-2006, 01:28 AM

I still don't see what you're getting at. You're implying, it seems anyway, like Pierre has intrinsic value because he is a winner. And at the same time, you're admitting the process of becoming a winner is, in large part, not intrinsic. I'm saying those two thoughts seem irreconcilable.

Say the Yankees won that WS, though. Juan Pierre did everything the same, but the Marlins lost. Does that affect his inherent value? Do the Dodgers not sign him, because he's not a "winner"?

A/ If you win a WS you can walk away from the game or retire as a winner.

B/ If you never win a WS you walk away from the game or retire as a loser.

Just because it is a team sport the rule of being a winner is no different then a individual sport like boxing. A boxer can retire with a 44 and 2 record and be considered a great boxer but would be labled as a loser if those 2 losses came in 2 Title Fights. In baseball a player could be on a team that finishes 169 and 4 but if those 4 losses came in the WS the player would be labled a loser that played on a great team. This could happen 15 years in a row and the player would still be considered a loser, IMO.

The rest of you can fill out C-Z, we seem to have a different opinion of what a winner in baseball is. To me it's a WS Ring.

tearforamariner

12-30-2006, 01:29 AM

Terrible argument. If wins are what players are measured by than here's a list.
1) Joe DiMaggio
2) Yogi Berra
3) Mickey Mantle
4) Derek Jeter
5) Babe Ruth

Is that a good list of all-time greats?

Berra has 10 wins, Dimaggio has 9.

Fatbill

12-30-2006, 01:33 AM

Berra has 10 wins, Dimaggio has 9.
DiMaggio was the main reason the Yankees won those Championships though. Berra was a secondary player for most of his.

tearforamariner

12-30-2006, 01:35 AM

DiMaggio was the main reason the Yankees won those Championships though. Berra was a secondary player for most of his.

Yeah, but if you are just going off of championships, than Berra should be first (helps your argument, as Berra isn't as good as Dimaggio).

Fatbill

12-30-2006, 01:36 AM

Just because it is a team sport the rule of being a winner is no different then a individual sport like boxing. A boxer can retire with a 44 and 2 record and be considered a great boxer but would be labled as a loser if those 2 losses came in 2 Title Fights. In baseball a player could be on a team that finishes 169 and 4 but if those 4 losses came in the WS the player would be labled a loser that played on a great team. This could happen 15 years in a row and the player would still be considered a loser, IMO.

Why? There are 8 other players on the field besides him and he's a loser because the other 8 players sucked? Does that make since? No.

Old Sweater

12-30-2006, 02:01 AM

Why? There are 8 other players on the field besides him and he's a loser because the other 8 players sucked? Does that make since? No.

What else could you call a player that lost 15 WS's in a row?

EvanAparra

12-30-2006, 02:08 AM

What else could you call a player that lost 15 WS's in a row?

The baseball equivalent of Jim Kelly. I still dont think Kelly is a loser. Its a team sport - Unless the player hit .150 in every one of those WS, when he's a HOFer, it doesnt make him a loser

Fatbill

12-30-2006, 02:12 AM

If it was that important, we would see countless veterans drifting around the baseball world, trying to win that elusive World Series. Tell me that wouldn't be pathetic & sad.

tearforamariner

12-30-2006, 02:17 AM

The baseball equivalent of Jim Kelly. I still dont think Kelly is a loser. Its a team sport - Unless the player hit .150 in every one of those WS, when he's a HOFer, it doesnt make him a loser

Seriously. Kelly led his team to FOUR straight super bowls. If they had a decent Kicker, they would have won one (at least). Not a loser. I think some tend to overrate winning. Sometimes a player does everything he can possibly do, and it's not enough.

Fatbill

12-30-2006, 02:23 AM

Seriously. Kelly led his team to FOUR straight super bowls. If they had a decent Kicker, they would have won one (at least). Not a loser. I think some tend to overrate winning. Sometimes a player does everything he can possibly do, and it's not enough.
Blame it on the kicker...
;)

Old Sweater

12-30-2006, 02:32 AM

Never implied that -- But that championships aren't the entire point of a player's career. He's doing his job. If a man's company doesn't become Fortune 500, but he still makes a good amount of money to support his family, is he still a failure?

What you mean championships aren't a players entire point of a players career? Sure as heck should be or he isn't going to be liked by the other 24 teammates if there gamers. Now this man's company....is it a major league company that has a shot at the fortune 500 or is it some kool-aid stand on the side of the road. If it's the Major League variety he should at least be trying to make it a Fortune 500 company. Now if it's the kool-aid stand and the man feeds his family he sure is not a failure or a loser because that is the most you can make out of a kool-aid stand. The most you can make out of a Major League career is a WS Championship, if you don't succeed you are a loser and a failure at doing so.

If you saw Ernie Banks on the street and walked up to him and said "how is it going Champ" what do you think his reply would be?

Fatbill

12-30-2006, 02:35 AM

100% of a player's thoughts aren't on winning a championship. These are people too, they aim to be successful for themselves. It's always been that way, just not as obvious as it is today.

EvanAparra

12-30-2006, 02:36 AM

If you saw Ernie Banks on the street and walked up to him and said "how is it going Champ" what do you think his reply would be?

I wouldnt, because he wasnt a champ. But i'd ask him to address his signature to Evan and make sure to write HOFer on it. Of course he would like to have won a WS -- but not winning one doesnt make him a failure. He's a HOFer, probably had a great, fun career, and has done well for his family.

tearforamariner

12-30-2006, 02:41 AM

I wouldnt, because he wasnt a champ. But i'd ask him to address his signature to Evan and make sure to write HOFer on it. Of course he would like to have won a WS -- but not winning one doesnt make him a failure. He's a HOFer, probably had a great, fun career, and has done well for his family.

Ernie is even the best case here. Ernie never had a shot to win a world series. Nothing he did stopped his team from winning. It's not like Ty Cobb where he under-performed in the big games (which is the argument, not from me but from others). Banks never had a team that could win. Had Banks played in this day of free-agency, he might have a ring.

Old Sweater

12-30-2006, 02:52 AM

The baseball equivalent of Jim Kelly. I still dont think Kelly is a loser. Its a team sport - Unless the player hit .150 in every one of those WS, when he's a HOFer, it doesnt make him a loser

Now your getting it, it is a team sport, you win as a team or you lose as a team. Kelly was on a losing team 4 times in the SB which makes Kelly and his teammate losers.

Now that player that hit .150 in the WS and his team won, that allows him to be on the winning team which makes the player and his teammates winners.

Now what would you call a great player that was always on a losing team his entire career? Remember now, it's a team sport. Guess you could be polite and call him a great player that never won the big one and make it sound nice even tho it means the same thing.

Old Sweater

12-30-2006, 03:06 AM

Fatbill

12-30-2006, 03:07 AM

Now your getting it, it is a team sport, you win as a team or you lose as a team. Kelly was on a losing team 4 times in the SB which makes Kelly and his teammate losers.

NO. That makes the early 1990's Buffalo Bills losers, as a whole.

Fatbill

12-30-2006, 03:11 AM

What is your goal in playing High School ball Billy? Hope it's a State Championship for you and your teammates and a schlorship.
But when it's a job, it's completely different. You have a family to support, and bills to pay. 99% of players refuse to take pay cuts so they can win a championship, it's not even like it's guaranteed. If the playoffs weren't such a tossup, it wouldn't be that bad, but the playoffs are very random.

ChrisLDuncan

12-30-2006, 03:14 AM

Winning shouldn't define any player's career. Does anyone say Ty Cobb sucks because he didn't win a championship? No.

Well a great player doesn't "suck" because he never won a championship. It just leaves their careers incomplete. I will never bring myself to rank Dan Marino as my top QB because he never got it done in the Super Bowl...he was good enough to rack up those yards I would hope that he should be able to lead his team to a championship.

Terrible argument. If wins are what players are measured by than here's a list.
1) Joe DiMaggio
2) Yogi Berra
3) Mickey Mantle
4) Derek Jeter
5) Babe Ruth
Is that a good list of all-time greats?

Those are all time great players I would say that they are all undoubtly (will end up as when all their careers are over ;)) top five players all time at their positions...possibly even top twenty-five players of all time.

Baseball is still a TEAM sport no matter what anyone here says, anyone who disagrees has never played baseball on an organized basis seriously, so if you win you have succeded in one of the aspects of the game. Now if you leave with out a ring you aren't a "looser" persay unless you are a Jim Kelly or a modern example a Donovan McNabb. If you are a great player in the regular season and a horrible player in the post season through out your career you may be a choke artist Joe Morgan, Willie Mays, and modernly. and unfortunately, (HE STILL HAS TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!) Alex Rodriguez.

I can not bring myself to rank a player with an incomplete career as the greatest ever. I rank Ty Cobb extremely high, 2nd all time, but he was good enough everywhere else to be that high. If he had won a championship and was a big reason I may rank him as the best of all time. I guess as to how it pertains to Juan Pierre's studliness or lack there of, Juan Pierre did win a ring but to be on your list of greats he will have to do other things in his career. 3000 hits will help, as well as getting a higher OBP, maybe I can call him a "stud"

Old Sweater

12-30-2006, 03:16 AM

ChrisLDuncan

12-30-2006, 03:18 AM

100% of a player's thoughts aren't on winning a championship. These are people too, they aim to be successful for themselves. It's always been that way, just not as obvious as it is today.

Tell that to Alex Rodriguez or Peyton Manning, I have met both of them and their drive to win and competitiveness is unparalleled. They would give years off of their lives to win a ring. Also talk to Derek Jeter, Johnny Damon,David Eckstein, or Tim Duncan all selfless players who play the game the right way. There are other guys out there who haven't won a championship who are superstars who are also selfless, in basketball there is Steve Nash, WHOM DALLAS SHOULD HAVE KEPT, I would say that baseball's equivelant would be either Trevor Hoffman or Craig Biggio...Jeff Bagwell would have been on this list a while back too.

ChrisLDuncan

12-30-2006, 03:19 AM

No way does being a loser in baseball make you a loser in life.

Well I don't think anyone is quite suggesting that.

Fatbill

12-30-2006, 03:22 AM

I haven't exactly had an excellent record of wins-losses in my athletic career, but I don't think I'm a loser because of it, we just haven't put it together. I never blew it in the vital games, I just didn't score 100 points, score 8 TD's, or hit 3 Grand Slams.
Hopefully that will change this year:gt

Old Sweater

12-30-2006, 03:28 AM

Well I don't think anyone is quite suggesting that.

I was replying to this that was said about Banks and his family.

He's a HOFer, probably had a great, fun career, and has done well for his family.

ChrisLDuncan

12-30-2006, 03:35 AM

People who say stuff like that are usually douche bags. That's the cleanest, no pun intended, way to explain it.

Fatbill

12-30-2006, 03:39 AM

People who say what?

Old Sweater

12-30-2006, 03:43 AM

Originally Posted by Old Sweater
If you saw Ernie Banks on the street and walked up to him and said "how is it going Champ" what do you think his reply would be?
--------------------------

I wouldnt, because he wasnt a champ. But i'd ask him to address his signature to Evan and make sure to write HOFer on it. Of course he would like to have won a WS -- but not winning one doesnt make him a failure. He's a HOFer, probably had a great, fun career, and has done well for his family.

-------------------------

No, here is the whole post of what Evan said. He was just sticking up for Banks and I made the reply that a loser in baseball don't make you a loser in life about the family part.

People on this board just seem to take "loser at the game" the same as "loser in life" as the same thing.

RuthMayBond

12-30-2006, 08:33 AM

Who's that?You can't even conceive that would be possible, could you?

EvanAparra

12-30-2006, 11:40 AM

No, here is the whole post of what Evan said. He was just sticking up for Banks and I made the reply that a loser in baseball don't make you a loser in life about the family part.

People on this board just seem to take "loser at the game" the same as "loser in life" as the same thing.

I dont think never getting a ring makes you a loser in baseball either. Do you call Marino a loser? Kelly? These are great players, they dont deserve that.

Elvis

12-30-2006, 12:05 PM

It has been said in this thread that a player playes firstly for a world championship. Then it was countered that his first priority is providing money for his family.

I think those are both wrong. I think most players are motivated by a love of their job. Whenever you ask an aging player how nmuch longer they intend to play, which of these responses is the most often heard:

a) I'll play until I win the world series.

b) I'll play untill I've made [x number] of millions.

c) I'll play until it isn't fun anymore.

There is a great life lesson in this. Don't do what you do because it will win you praise or to be "#1"; Don't do what you do because it will make you rich - do what you do because you LOVE and are PASSIONATE about what you do! :dance

Old Sweater

12-30-2006, 12:06 PM

I dont think never getting a ring makes you a loser in baseball either. Do you call Marino a loser? Kelly? These are great players, they dont deserve that.

Well you can't call Marino and Kelly a winner or a Champ. Elway had to wear the loser jacket (0-3) until they put a team around him (2-0).

If you don't think winning a WS don't make you a loser, fine. I would just care to know what you would call yourself if you never win a championship.

W_Marone

12-30-2006, 12:22 PM

For me, I think the first thing I would want to do if I made it to the majors, after I knowingly got a steady position as starter, would be to make some money, I can't say that wouldnt be a big thing, of course I want to get paid, and with the money pro sports organizations are trowing around who wouldnt? After getting paid then I would want that ring, if not a ring, good enough stats to ensure my enshrinment in the HOF, becuase to me at least, both of them are comprable in regards to making me happy and knowing I did good. After that, I'd say I'd play until it wasnt fun anymore, becuase if you hate your job, what's the point of doing it, and anyway, after I'd retire I could go to ESPN and spue useless vomit that casual fans will eat up......like I do on here.....hahahahaha:laugh :) :dance

Have a good one guys

Ken

SamtheBravesFan

12-30-2006, 12:32 PM

Edgartohof

12-30-2006, 01:31 PM

Juan Pierre's career OPS+ is 86 which is way below average. Kenny Lofton's career OPS+ is 107 which is somewhat above average. Lofton is the better defender. Pierre is a guy whose speed has a way of making some people think he has more value to a baseball team than he does.

Pierre's career HIGH in OPS+ is 107, exactly Lofton's career total. Lofton had a career high of 143!!! Quite a bit better wouldn't you say?

And you may mention Pierre's running and his SB's, well Lofton was no slouch their either, having 599 SB's for his career, topping 70 twice, leading in SB's 5 straight years, and having 50+ SB's 6 out of 7 years in a row, and wasn't too shabby on the bases last year at the age of 39, going 32-5 (86%) on the bases, all the while posting a 95 OPS+ (still better than Pierre). His decline is nearly as good as Pierre's peak.

Pierre may haved averaged 12 more hits/season (all singles pretty much), but Lofton averaged 31 more walks/season!!! Now THAT's a bit of a difference. Even if a walk was only HALF as good as a single, he still comes out ahead, and as a leadoff hitter with incredible speed, Lofton was able to do something with those walks.

ChrisLDuncan

12-30-2006, 02:07 PM

Do you call Marino a loser? Kelly? These are great players, they dont deserve that.

Yes, and yes. I am sure that they would trade each of their careers for Aikman's or Brady's...although Marino not so much...but Kelly for sure.

SamtheBravesFan

12-30-2006, 02:16 PM

Yes, and yes. I am sure that they would trade each of their careers for Aikman's or Brady's...although Marino not so much...but Kelly for sure.

I don't think Marino would trade for Aikman's career. Isn't Troy only a borderline HoF candidate?

EvanAparra

12-30-2006, 02:28 PM

I don't think Marino would trade for Aikman's career. Isn't Troy only a borderline HoF candidate?

Lol. No. Troy is a HOFer, no doubt about that.

EvanAparra

12-30-2006, 02:29 PM

Yes, and yes. I am sure that they would trade each of their careers for Aikman's or Brady's...although Marino not so much...but Kelly for sure.

Who wouldn't? Doesn't make them losers. They were two of the best quarterbacks to ever play the game.

SamtheBravesFan

12-30-2006, 03:11 PM

Lol. No. Troy is a HOFer, no doubt about that.

I thought he was borderline because of a short career or something. Twelve seasons. But there is three Super Bowls in there. Don't know where that first thought came from. ;)

EvanAparra

12-30-2006, 03:14 PM

I thought he was borderline because of a short career or something. Twelve seasons. But there is three Super Bowls in there. Don't know where that first thought came from. ;)

Well, I think 12 seasons is average in football now, isn't it? I believe he's been the most accurate passer in NFL history. I saw him knock a can off Michael Irvin's head from 35 yards away -- that was ridiculous.

tearforamariner

12-30-2006, 03:37 PM

Well, I think 12 seasons is average in football now, isn't it? I believe he's been the most accurate passer in NFL history. I saw him knock a can off Michael Irvin's head from 35 yards away -- that was ridiculous.

Not to get this thread too off-topic, but Steve Young was more accurate than Aikman. That's probably it though. Aikman didn't have a short career, as Evan said. For the NFL, 12 seasons is pretty solid. Jim Kelly was only a QB for 11 and Young was just a starter for 9.

Back to the point of this thread, (as a Mod I'm obligated to keep this thread topic-oriented), Juan Pierre is not "studly" because he won a ring.

EvanAparra

12-30-2006, 03:41 PM

Not to get this thread too off-topic, but Steve Young was more accurate than Aikman.

Maybe i'm thinking of post-season, because I know i've heard that statement more than once.

As for Pierre being a stud --- I dont know, I like women.

RuthMayBond

12-30-2006, 04:06 PM

What you mean championships aren't a players entire point of a players career? Sure as heck should be or he isn't going to be liked by the other 24 teammates if there gamers. Now this man's company....is it a major league company that has a shot at the fortune 500 or is it some kool-aid stand on the side of the road. If it's the Major League variety he should at least be trying to make it a Fortune 500 company. Now if it's the kool-aid stand and the man feeds his family he sure is not a failure or a loser because that is the most you can make out of a kool-aid stand. The most you can make out of a Major League career is a WS Championship, if you don't succeed you are a loser and a failure at doing so.You're a union carpenter but I assume you actually have your own business. You wouldn't be working for someone else and be a loser, right?

RuthMayBond

12-30-2006, 04:09 PM

People on this board just seem to take "loser at the game" the same as "loser in life" as the same thing.And you equate some HOFers as losers

ChrisLDuncan

12-30-2006, 04:12 PM

And you equate some HOFers as losers

Well a "loser" can still be a great player...Jim Kelly is an example of this. He was great, however when it comes to great QBs I don't want on the field durring the SB he probably tops the list.

EvanAparra

12-30-2006, 04:20 PM

Well a "loser" can still be a great player...Jim Kelly is an example of this. He was great, however when it comes to great QBs I don't want on the field durring the SB he probably tops the list.

Out of the 3 Super Bowls he actually played in (he threw 7 passes in one of em), he had one bad game. Give the Bills a good kicker or a defense that doesnt give up 52 points and its a different story. Put Aikman on those teams and they probably still dont win.

Edgartohof

12-30-2006, 04:21 PM

Well you can't call Marino and Kelly a winner or a Champ. Elway had to wear the loser jacket (0-3) until they put a team around him (2-0).

If you don't think winning a WS don't make you a loser, fine. I would just care to know what you would call yourself if you never win a championship.

Well, only one team can win the World Series each year, so that would make every other team out there a loser according to your standard. That makes their effort pointless, like they should have stayed home. And that you seem to root for a team full of losers...so what does that make you?

I am not trying to say anything demeaning, but there is more to the game than winning the championship, though yes, that is what you are going for, but for most players, they won't even get a chance to play in the WS, let alone win a ring. Because if the only point of the game was to win the WS, the entire rosters of the Devil Rays, Royals, etc... should just give up, because chances are, they aren't going to win one (at least not any time soon).

So if your view of the game is just for the WS, you are going to miss out on a lot.

ChrisLDuncan

12-30-2006, 04:30 PM

Out of the 3 Super Bowls he actually played in (he threw 7 passes in one of em), he had one bad game. Give the Bills a good kicker or a defense that doesnt give up 52 points and its a different story. Put Aikman on those teams and they probably still dont win.

Didn't Thurman Thomas have the game of his life in a Super Bowl and the Bills STILL lost, or was that the wide right game?

EvanAparra

12-30-2006, 04:34 PM

Didn't Thurman Thomas have the game of his life in a Super Bowl and the Bills STILL lost, or was that the wide right game?

That was the game they lost by a point on the missed field goal. The other 3 super bowls they had an absolutely pathetic running game.

We should get back on topic, or switch this convo over to pigskin-fever. :)

ChrisLDuncan

12-30-2006, 04:34 PM

Well, only one team can win the World Series each year, so that would make every other team out there a loser according to your standard. That makes their effort pointless, like they should have stayed home. And that you seem to root for a team full of losers...so what does that make you?

I am not trying to say anything demeaning, but there is more to the game than winning the championship, though yes, that is what you are going for, but for most players, they won't even get a chance to play in the WS, let alone win a ring. Because if the only point of the game was to win the WS, the entire rosters of the Devil Rays, Royals, etc... should just give up, because chances are, they aren't going to win one (at least not any time soon).

So if your view of the game is just for the WS, you are going to miss out on a lot.

Well a guy is a looser if he consistently gets to the big stage and does nothing, see Donovan McNabb, if a guy never got there or only got there once, e.g. Ted Williams, but lost I can't call them a looser. It's context. Some players are loosers some aren't...depends on the context of their careers.

As for the D-Rays and Royals, I don't think that there are many all-star players on those teams maybe three legit ones between the two of them. So I think that point is a bit moot.

I know you can't soley focus on the WS, but if you completely disregard it in ranking a player, or being a player, than you'll miss out on a lot more.

ChrisLDuncan

12-30-2006, 04:37 PM

We should get back on topic, or switch this convo over to pigskin-fever. :)

Ehh Pigskin-Fever is allright, but it doesn't hold a candle to BBF, no offense to PF. But in football I find that most people, not just PF, conform to the norms of the football media; e.g. Donovan McNabb is great, TO sucks, celebrations suck, etc. I get sick of that sometimes. Here there's a lot of people with very diverse, however bad they may be ;), views. So you actually get a broader perspective here rather than just watching ESPN allday.

tearforamariner

12-30-2006, 04:38 PM

Didn't Thurman Thomas have the game of his life in a Super Bowl and the Bills STILL lost, or was that the wide right game?

That was the wide-right game.

Edgartohof

12-30-2006, 04:45 PM

Well a guy is a looser if he consistently gets to the big stage and does nothing, see Donovan McNabb, if a guy never got there or only got there once, e.g. Ted Williams, but lost I can't call them a looser. It's context. Some players are loosers some aren't...depends on the context of their careers.

As for the D-Rays and Royals, I don't think that there are many all-star players on those teams maybe three legit ones between the two of them. So I think that point is a bit moot.

I know you can't soley focus on the WS, but if you completely disregard it in ranking a player, or being a player, than you'll miss out on a lot more.

So, you are saying that Derek Jeter is a better player by being with the Yankees than with the Royals? He is the same person, and player, and assuming he put up the same numbers, what would be the difference? The fact that he wouldn't have made it to the WS. So is he less of a player? No!!!

It is a TEAM effort getting to the WS, not just an INDIVIDUAL effort. No ONE player can take their team there and win it all (though I'm sure there are those out there that would disagree). So why penalize a player for not playing for a better team? That is just wrong. You can't penalize a player for something outside of their control, which is exactly what you are doing. That's like me not hiring someone because his father is going bald. Something that is not in his control, yet he is getting penalized for it. Make sense?

If the player does get to the WS, and does well, then sure, give them credit where credit is due, but you can't say that someone is less of a player - a loser - because his team couldn't get it together.

ChrisLDuncan

12-30-2006, 04:55 PM

So, you are saying that Derek Jeter is a better player by being with the Yankees than with the Royals? He is the same person, and player, and assuming he put up the same numbers, what would be the difference? The fact that he wouldn't have made it to the WS. So is he less of a player? No!!!

It is a TEAM effort getting to the WS, not just an INDIVIDUAL effort. No ONE player can take their team there and win it all (though I'm sure there are those out there that would disagree). So why penalize a player for not playing for a better team? That is just wrong. You can't penalize a player for something outside of their control, which is exactly what you are doing. That's like me not hiring someone because his father is going bald. Something that is not in his control, yet he is getting penalized for it. Make sense?

If the player does get to the WS, and does well, then sure, give them credit where credit is due, but you can't say that someone is less of a player - a loser - because his team couldn't get it together.

To the Jeter point Jeter excelled in the post season and proved his greatness. There are a large number of great players who were not able to perform in the clutch or in New York. So he gets points in my book for that. I only penalize those who have met my "looser" defninitons which are in a player's control. Those who never got there just don't get the bump.

Elvis

12-30-2006, 04:57 PM

All this talk of being labeled by "us" as either a "loser";"winner";"stud"... reminds me of Mark Twain's quote:

"What other people think of me is none of my business."

If I call someone a loser, does that make them a loser? Or does that make me someone who feels he has to put labels on other people?

tearforamariner

12-30-2006, 05:04 PM

I have seperated posts involved in the debate on "proven winner/losers" and started a thread here. Please post on this topic here, and not in the Juan Pierre thread. Thank you.

Erik Bedard

12-30-2006, 07:45 PM

Ehh Pigskin-Fever is allright, but it doesn't hold a candle to BBF, no offense to PF. But in football I find that most people, not just PF, conform to the norms of the football media; e.g. Donovan McNabb is great, TO sucks, celebrations suck, etc. I get sick of that sometimes. Here there's a lot of people with very diverse, however bad they may be ;), views. So you actually get a broader perspective here rather than just watching ESPN allday.

Oh, right, you were that guy.... the one who made no sense :laugh . BTW, I payed attention to the "Copyrighted Telecast" commercial. It's LaDainian Tomlinson, Brian Urlacher, and Peyton Manning. No McNabb to be seen.

Anyway, I've given the topic at hand some thought, and IMO, in this day and age, of wild cards, three divisions, etc., the postseason means far less than it did fifty years ago. When eight teams make the playoffs, it makes the regular season far less meaningful, in that a team can do barely enough all season, and then suddenly get hot and win eleven of nineteen and be crowned the "best team in baseball" and the "champions of the world". If you want proof of my theory, how about this: Since 2002, a wild card team has made the WS EVERY YEAR. NONE of those teams did well enough to win their division in the regular season. The playoffs are not an accurate microcosm for "winning" and "losing". A "loser" is someone who plays on a team that doesn't make the playoffs (like every team Pierre has played on except the 2003 Marlins, who got lucky and won the WS). A "winner" is someone who plays on a team that makes the playoffs, or puts up an outstanding individual season on a losing team (which Lofton did practically every year of his career). The playoffs are irrelevant, and players should not be judged based on how well they do there.

Old Sweater

12-31-2006, 12:22 AM

Whatever you want to call yourself. Not winning a World Series didn't stop Ted Williams from calling himself The Greatest ******* Hitter Alive.

Yeah, he had a passion for being called the greatest hitter ever. Williams even stated that when he passed people on the street he wanted them to say " There go's the greatest hitter to ever play the game."

If he would have had a better WS in 1946 maybe the people could have said "There go's a World Champ and the greatest hitter to ever play the game."

EvanAparra

12-31-2006, 12:25 AM

Yeah, he had a passion for being called the greatest hitter ever. Williams even stated that when he passed people on the street he wanted them to say " There go's the greatest hitter to ever play the game."

If he would have had a better WS in 1946 maybe the people could have said "There go's a World Champ and the greatest hitter to ever play the game."

I'm sure it killed him that people that he didnt know or care about didnt call him a world champ.

Elvis

12-31-2006, 12:32 AM

I'm sure it killed him that people that he didnt know or care about didnt call him a world champ.

Exactly.

---------------

EvanAparra

12-31-2006, 12:32 AM

This has to be the first thread ive seen with more replies than views. Good one Russel, you messed up the flow of the universe. Its all unbalanced now. :)

tearforamariner

12-31-2006, 12:40 AM

This has to be the first thread ive seen with more replies than views. Good one Russel, you messed up the flow of the universe. Its all unbalanced now. :)

Hey, I try. This conversation is a good one, but it was off-topic. something had to be done.

Old Sweater

12-31-2006, 12:51 AM

You're a union carpenter but I assume you actually have your own business. You wouldn't be working for someone else and be a loser, right?

Yeah, I'm a loser. I work for someone else and have lost in "Nail Benders Championship" every year since 1976 when I joined the Union. Did manage to get my name on the Workers Wall at Coors Field though. Guess that makes me a great carpenter that never could win the big one.

What championships have you won? Typing contest somewhere? #1 boarder? World Champ Word Bender? Copy and Paste ?

Old Sweater

12-31-2006, 12:56 AM

I'm sure it killed him that people that he didnt know or care about didnt call him a world champ.

What about the people that knew him?

tearforamariner

12-31-2006, 12:57 AM

Yeah, I'm a loser. I work for someone else and have lost in "Nail Benders Championship" every year since 1976 when I joined the Union. Did manage to get my name on the Workers Wall at Coors Field though. Guess that makes me a great carpenter that never could win the big one.

What championships have you won? Typing contest somewhere? #1 boarder? World Champ Word Bender? Copy and Paste ?

Okay, let's not get in to personal attacks. Let's stick to baseball, please.

EvanAparra

12-31-2006, 01:02 AM

What about the people that knew him?

Then they know that he was a great player and they hopefully know that one player doesn't lose a championship, just like one player doesnt win one.

Old Sweater

12-31-2006, 01:10 AM

And you equate some HOFers as losers

Yes I do. I don't know how many times I've posted my definition of a loser in baseball is some one that walks away or retires from the game without a WS Championship, HOF'er or not.

Old Sweater

12-31-2006, 01:21 AM

Then they know that he was a great player and they hopefully know that one player doesn't lose a championship, just like one player doesnt win one.

True on all counts. It's a team sport, and your team has to win or you are a loser like the rest of them. Works the other way around to in team sports. I believe someone like Alex Rodriguez would agree with what I'm saying, probably the main reason he went to the Yankees and 250,000,000 other reasons. You can't retire or quit any sport, team or individual, as a winner without a championship. There not losers in life, they can be great players or average players or borderline players.

EvanAparra

12-31-2006, 01:23 AM

True on all counts. It's a team sport, and your team has to win or you are a loser like the rest of them. Works the other way around to in team sports. I believe someone like Alex Rodriguez would agree with what I'm saying, probably the main reason he went to the Yankees and 250,000,000 other reasons. You can't retire or quit any sport, team or individual, as a winner without a championship. There not losers in life, they can be great players or average players or borderline players.

I cant tell whether we are in agreement or not. Oh well, i'm off to bed. :waving

Old Sweater

12-31-2006, 01:59 AM

Okay, let's not get in to personal attacks. Let's stick to baseball, please.

http://img.timeinc.net/time/2003/worldseries/moments/images/main_7.jpg

tearforamariner

12-31-2006, 02:04 AM

http://members.tripod.com/~protherj/bblimages/thecatch.gif

Well, let's stick to the topic. :D Unless you want to make a statment about the proven winner/loser status of that man.

Old Sweater

12-31-2006, 02:23 AM

Well, let's stick to the topic. :D Unless you want to make a statment about the proven winner/loser status of that man.

Well "The Catch" not only helped the Giants beat the Indians in the 1954 WS, it also let Mays retire as a Champ and a winner. Didn't do much for Vic Wertz chances of retiring as a Champ.

ChrisLDuncan

12-31-2006, 04:09 AM

Oh, right, you were that guy.... the one who made no sense :laugh . BTW, I payed attention to the "Copyrighted Telecast" commercial. It's LaDainian Tomlinson, Brian Urlacher, and Peyton Manning. No McNabb to be seen.

Ahh young padawan, you probably don't remember the one after Emmitt Smith retired...it used to be Emmitt Smith, also my statement stands. The people there are no better than the jerkoffs on ESPN, who used tired old rhetoric, put no thought whatsoever into their opinions just agree with whatever the majority seems to be saying. Now in all fairness sometimes the majority is right here are a few examples:

Billy B in New England is a genious
Tom Brady is amazing
Peyton Manning is a machine
and so on

Here are some places where they are wrong:
Mike Vick will NEVER develop, there's a chance but it's much too soon
McNabb is a top five QB
Andy Ried is a top five coach

Sorry to get off on my tangent.

ChrisLDuncan

12-31-2006, 04:12 AM

The playoffs are irrelevant, and players should not be judged based on how well they do there.

Okay I can see the O's fan in you comming out ;)

I think they matter, I mean that is why they play right? THEY PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!!! (Herm Edwards) And if you are contributing to the lack of winning in the playoffs...than you are part of the problem and receive a dock. How can a player be the best ever if they never perform on the biggest stage?

Erik Bedard

12-31-2006, 06:06 AM

Quite easily, in fact. Babe Ruth is the greatest player ever. He did not perform in his first couple postseasons with the Yankees. His team lost.

RuthMayBond

12-31-2006, 06:12 AM

Yeah, I'm a loser. I work for someone else and have lost in "Nail Benders Championship" every year since 1976 when I joined the Union. Did manage to get my name on the Workers Wall at Coors Field though. Guess that makes me a great carpenter that never could win the big one.That's right, it doesn't apply to you :rolleyes:

<What championships have you won? Typing contest somewhere? #1 boarder? World Champ Word Bender? Copy and Paste ?>

For starters, Most insulted by you. It's my most prized trophy

RuthMayBond

12-31-2006, 11:00 AM

If he would have had a better WS in 1946 maybe the people could have said "There go's a World Champ and the greatest hitter to ever play the game."If Elway had died one day before 1/25/98 he would have been a "loser". He lives and now he's a winner. But at least you'll be able to think up an insult for this

ChrisLDuncan

12-31-2006, 01:36 PM

Quite easily, in fact. Babe Ruth is the greatest player ever. He did not perform in his first couple postseasons with the Yankees. His team lost.

Ahh, but he did eventually perform. He got the monkey off his back. So he ended up a winner.

If Elway had died one day before 1/25/98 he would have been a "loser". He lives and now he's a winner. But at least you'll be able to think up an insult for this

Yeah he got the monkey off his back...went out the way EVERYONE wants to go out. So he's a winner now.

RuthMayBond

12-31-2006, 01:57 PM

Yeah he got the monkey off his back...went out the way EVERYONE wants to go out.At least you and Sweater continue to completely miss the point

SamtheBravesFan

12-31-2006, 02:28 PM

Yeah, he had a passion for being called the greatest hitter ever. Williams even stated that when he passed people on the street he wanted them to say " There go's the greatest hitter to ever play the game."

If he would have had a better WS in 1946 maybe the people could have said "There go's a World Champ and the greatest hitter to ever play the game."

Oh, sure, blame it on HIM. Care to support that, smart guy?

Elvis

12-31-2006, 02:45 PM

This thread is getting too hard to read with all the personal insults and demeaning language flying back and forth. :(

iPod

12-31-2006, 02:47 PM

I guess one thing that bothers me about this logic is the idea that if someone can arbitrarily change one's status from loser to winner through his membership on some team regardless of his performance, it's irrelevant to us. In evaluating players, the things that are relevant are intrinsic, and intrinsic things aren't awarded to you. Babe Ruth's power is relevant to his value as a player, but he was a great power hitter before he won championships. In one sense, people speak of "winners" as if they are born the day they win. And yet people also speak of "winners" as if they are somehow different from "losers," in... what, attitude, disposition, desire? If there is a premium on being a "winner" in terms of how a player is evaluated, it's got to be something inside him that makes him a winner, and if that's the case, there have to have been some people, out of the 16,000-ish players in baseball history, that had these traits and never were on a championship roster.

My point here is this: You clearly want to split the historical body of major league players into two groups, "winners" and "losers." If you want to divide players up into these groups based on whether they were on at least one championship roster, that's fine I guess, you can do that, but it doesn't really contribute anything to this board. You might as well split up the historical body of major league players according to last name or birthplace or shoe size. But if you want the list to mean something, you've got to broaden your definition of what makes a "winner" a "winner."

Erik Bedard

12-31-2006, 03:40 PM

ChrisLDuncan

12-31-2006, 03:48 PM

iPod

12-31-2006, 04:23 PM

Alright you guys go ahead and think that. I hope you will be satisfied with your teams barely missing the playoffs and first round losses, or otherwise poor performances by stars; because afterall you're teams will be winners in your book right?

No. That's not even close to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, if you're going to bring the "winner effect" into how you evaluate players, the way you determine who is a "winner" and who is not cannot be as simple as whether they were on at least one championship roster. We're claiming to look for something intrinsic, but that method looks for something extrinsic.

At least I assume we're looking for something intrinsic. I'm assuming we're talking about something a little more deep than who was on what championship team. If all Old Sweater is saying is "Ernie Banks wasn't a winner, because winners win the World Series and he didn't, so therefore he isn't a winner," I can't argue against that logic, but it also seems kind of pointless. Basically it says that nobody who never won the World Series ever won the World Series. Yeah... we know that. It seems the implication is that there is some significance, some order to the fact that certain players, "winners" win because of characteristics in them, and "losers" lose because they lack those characteristics. I don't know how much I agree with that, but if you want to make that argument, you've got to dig a little deeper than just looking at who won and who didn't.

Old Sweater

12-31-2006, 11:19 PM

At least you and Sweater continue to completely miss the point

Hello Mr. Pot, it's me Mr. Kettle again.

Old Sweater

12-31-2006, 11:26 PM

Oh, sure, blame it on HIM. Care to support that, smart guy?

Well Ted Williams didn't exactly tear it up in his one chance to shine in the WS.

Year Round Tm G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG SB CS SH SF HBP
1946 WS BOS STL L 7 25 2 5 0 0 0 1 5 5 .200 .333 .200 0 0 0 0 0

ChrisLDuncan

01-01-2007, 03:27 AM

Well he only had one chance, a guy isn't a looser after one shot.

ChrisLDuncan

01-01-2007, 03:28 AM

No. That's not even close to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, if you're going to bring the "winner effect" into how you evaluate players, the way you determine who is a "winner" and who is not cannot be as simple as whether they were on at least one championship roster. We're claiming to look for something intrinsic, but that method looks for something extrinsic.

Ahh but players are winners for getting to the playoffs right? And if all the team's players got to the playoffs, than the team would be full of winners! ;):eek:

iPod

01-01-2007, 03:40 AM

Ahh but players are winners for getting to the playoffs right? And if all the team's players got to the playoffs, than the team would be full of winners! ;):eek:

No, I didn't say that either. You're confusing me with Erik Bedard. Clearly, presence on at least one postseason roster as a distinguishing tool has all the same problems as presence on at least one championship roster.

ChrisLDuncan

01-01-2007, 03:52 AM

No, I didn't say that either. You're confusing me with Erik Bedard. Clearly, presence on at least one postseason roster as a distinguishing tool has all the same problems as presence on at least one championship roster.

Well I was half way kidding too.

Erik Bedard

01-01-2007, 07:45 AM

Old Sweater

01-01-2007, 11:50 AM

Well he only had one chance, a guy isn't a looser after one shot.

Williams and his teammates lost didn't they? He had one more shot then a lot of players.

Old Sweater

01-01-2007, 11:56 AM

I'm still trying to interpret this as Lofton vs. Pierre.

There is no statistical interpretation for a winner. I think we can all agree on that. What I'm saying is that by being on postseason rosters with many different teams, Kenny Lofton is more of a winner than Juan Pierre.

IMO, 0&10 isn't better then 1&0. Lofton could have better stats and may be a better player but all he has really proven is his inability to win a Championship so far.

There is no statistical interpretation for a winner.

Sure there is. Take a look at Loftons playoff record and the best he can do is going to the 7th game.

Erik Bedard

01-01-2007, 02:14 PM

IMO, 0&10 isn't better then 1&0. Lofton could have better stats and may be a better player but all he has really proven is his inability to win a Championship so far.

He's also proven his ability to reach the playoffs, if you want to look at it that way. Also, it's not HIS inability to win a championship. Baseball is not golf or tennis. TEAMS win championships, not individuals. It is not Lofton's fault his team lost each time they reached the playoffs. I've heard a lot of things that make no sense in this thread, but this easily tops the list.

Sure there is. Take a look at Loftons playoff record and the best he can do is going to the 7th game.

Again, the game of baseball is not played by eighteen individuals. It is played by two teams.

EvanAparra

01-01-2007, 02:35 PM

Williams and his teammates lost didn't they? He had one more shot then a lot of players.
So I guess Luis Sojo is better than Ted Williams? If you see Sojo and Williams walking down the street, you would say "Man, that Sojo is a winner and Williams is just a loser."

Edgartohof

01-01-2007, 02:38 PM

Part of what makes Babe Ruth so great is that he won the WS right? Well, what if we take him and put him on some loser team that doesn't ever make the WS, what does that make Babe Ruth?

We all know that he was a great player, the greatest even, so is he less of a player? He did nothing less himself, so how does he get punished for this? Really, this argument it just plain stupid. None of you have answered how you can just arbitrarily fault one player for not doing something that is entirely team dependant like winning a championship.

That's because there is no actual reasoning for it.

Say you are in a group, for work, or school or whatever, and you do everything you need to and then some, but no one else in your group does, why should you get blamed, you did your part. In order to succeed you need everyone to work together, not just the work of one person, but you keep turning it around to placing it all on an individual instead of the team, which again is just stupid.

Edgartohof

01-01-2007, 02:39 PM

The state of Colorado is pathetic because the Rockies haven't won a World Series.

Because they haven't won, what does that make them? By your standards, this statement is correct.

Edgartohof

01-01-2007, 02:41 PM

See what we are getting at - you can't just ignore the fact that winning is a whole team effort, not just the job of one individual.

plask_stirlac

01-01-2007, 03:04 PM

The most important and reliable part of the postseason is entertainment. 162 games is much more indicative of performance, postseason play is just too short.
It's not that useful to judge a month of play on a 3 or 4 game series. If the Red Sox lost 5 straight to the Yankees after going 21-2 or whatever in interleague, that wouldn't have been as ugly.

If a player gets enough PAs or IP in the postseason, he'll probably regress to his mean career numbers, especially position players. Jeter has, A-Rod is doing it, Reggie, Mantle and Dimaggio had trouble really (though competition matters).

Old Sweater

01-01-2007, 06:14 PM

So I guess Luis Sojo is better than Ted Williams? If you see Sojo and Williams walking down the street, you would say "Man, that Sojo is a winner and Williams is just a loser."

No I would say, Louie, how in the heck did you manage this? J/K

No fan in their right mind would think Luis Sojo was a better player then Ted Williams, silly to even ask that question. On the other hand, Sojo left the game as a Champ and a winner and Williams left the game as a great player and a HOF'er and loser at the game of baseball. How can you leave the game as a winner without a championship? I'm pretty sure that a lot of HOF'ers would trade their enshrinement to the HOF for just one WS Ring if it was at all possible.

EvanAparra

01-01-2007, 06:21 PM

Williams left the game as a great player and a HOF'er and loser at the game of baseball.

This is what I dont get --

How are you a HOFer but a loser in baseball?

Old Sweater

01-01-2007, 06:31 PM

The state of Colorado is pathetic because the Rockies haven't won a World Series.

Because they haven't won, what does that make them? By your standards, this statement is correct.

For my answer to your first statement, Colorado isn't pathetic, same as a player isn't pathetic if he leaves the game without a championship.

For my answer to your 2nd statement, it makes the state of Colorado a loser at the game of baseball for not having a championship team. Same go's for the Nuggets and basketball which don't bother me near as much as the Rockies. Hope the Rockies can win a WS before I pass away or I will leave this world a loser as a Rockie fan. Grew up a Yankee fan in Colorado but it's just not the same as having your native state win a WS compared to a team in another state that you like because of your Grandpa. At least for me that is, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Old Sweater

01-01-2007, 06:46 PM

See what we are getting at - you can't just ignore the fact that winning is a whole team effort, not just the job of one individual.

I agree once again. Baseball is a team sport and has been for the player most his life. Anyone that can count to 8 should realize this in their 1st game or until they learn how to count that high. Team sports work the same as individual sports as far as championships go, you go as your teammates go and win when your teammates win, if your team loses in the WS anyone that is a member of the team loses. A lot of you seem to think that a great player should be exempt from being a loser at the game of baseball and point to their teammates. A great player can bat .500 with 3 HR's and 8 RBI's in the WS and if his team loses he loses.

Old Sweater

01-01-2007, 06:56 PM

This is what I dont get --

How are you a HOFer but a loser in baseball?

The top achievement in baseball doesn't make you a Champ. A WS win does.

How can any player consider himself a winner without at least one championship? Can't go around the rest of your live pointing at your teammates if your a team player, guess a individual team member can but not a team player. Not that it would change my opinion of them but I would love to hear players opinions on this matter.

ChrisLDuncan

01-01-2007, 07:44 PM

So I guess Luis Sojo is better than Ted Williams? If you see Sojo and Williams walking down the street, you would say "Man, that Sojo is a winner and Williams is just a loser."

Well I might ;)

EvanAparra

01-01-2007, 07:47 PM

iPod

01-01-2007, 07:51 PM

The top achievement in baseball doesn't make you a Champ. A WS win does.

How can any player consider himself a winner without at least one championship? Can't go around the rest of your live pointing at your teammates if your a team player, guess a individual team member can but not a team player. Not that it would change my opinion of them but I would love to hear players opinions on this matter.

To retire having been on a World Series champion, you need to have been on a World Series champion.

That's what you're saying. Without explicitly telling us what significance the act of becoming a World Series champion has on your value as a player... no offense, but that's kind of a pointless statement. If you define "winner" as having been on a World Series champ, of course you're going to find a link, by definition, with "winners" and World Series champions. That's not a great revelation. Essentially, you have been asked to prove X = Y, and your proof goes like this:

Assume X = Y.
Therefore, X = Y.

Old Sweater

01-01-2007, 08:09 PM

To retire having been on a World Series champion, you need to have been on a World Series champion.

That's what you're saying. Without explicitly telling us what significance the act of becoming a World Series champion has on your value as a player... no offense, but that's kind of a pointless statement. If you define "winner" as having been on a World Series champ, of course you're going to find a link, by definition, with "winners" and World Series champions. That's not a great revelation. Essentially, you have been asked to prove X = Y, and your proof goes like this:

Assume X = Y.
Therefore, X = Y.

Thanks for telling me what I said. I think it just your opinion of my opinion though.

X = Player that retires with a WS Championship and a winner at the game of baseball.

Y = Player that retires without a WS Championship and a loser at the game of baseball.

This is my opinion, I don't think there is any way of proving a opinion.

Sliding Billy

01-01-2007, 08:41 PM

Thanks for telling me what I said. I think it just your opinion of my opinion though.

X = Player that retires with a WS Championship and a winner at the game of baseball.

Y = Player that retires without a WS Championship and a loser at the game of baseball.

This is my opinion, I don't think there is any way of proving a opinion.
You define a winner as someone who's been on a winning series team, and a loser as someone who has not. Even I can follow it this far.

But then there's something else, maybe a residue from the discussion when this was part of another thread, whose connection is unclear to me. I'm guessing, but it sounds as if in addition there is some further quality, an aura, or additional value, that adheres to players who are winners. It's the relationship between the definition of winner and that fuller importance that is not clear to me.

I'm sure if you took a couple of minutes just to spell that out exactly, it would clear everything up. Are you saying, for example, other things being equal, a player who is a winner is more likely to help a team than a player who is not? Or even if all things aren't equal, being a winner can compensate for another player's superior talent to a degree? Or that having been a winner gives a player confidence that will support him and that he can share with his mates, or something like that? Is it something you can measure, or show somehow? Is it bigger than a breadbox? Animal, vegetable, or mineral? (Sorry, I'm just making fun of my own questions. I really would like to know how this whole thing works.)

iPod

01-01-2007, 09:04 PM

Thanks for telling me what I said. I think it just your opinion of my opinion though.

X = Player that retires with a WS Championship and a winner at the game of baseball.

Y = Player that retires without a WS Championship and a loser at the game of baseball.

This is my opinion, I don't think there is any way of proving a opinion.

I'd love to have an opinion on your opinion, if only I knew what your opinion was. It's not opinion to say that in order to retire having won a championship, at some point you need to have won a championship. You misunderstood the X = Y thing, I think.

X = a "proven winner" (your words about Juan Pierre)
Y = a player who won at least one World Series championship

You've stated that X = Y, and are being challenged to offer your logic to link the two together. But all you've done is define "proven winner" as someone who has won a World Series, without any intermediate steps linking the two. Therefore, your logic goes like this:

Assume X = Y.
Therefore, X = Y.

The problem ultimately is in your definition of "proven winner." If "proven winner" really just means they were on a World Series champ, the proof is pointless, because if you assume the conclusion, of course the conclusion will follow (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html). But if "proven winner" is defined in some other form, some form that relates to player evaluation (in other words, a form that is relevant to us), then we're back to where we started, because there's been no logical path provided linking X to Y.

Elvis

01-01-2007, 09:19 PM

RuthMayBond

01-01-2007, 09:21 PM

Old Sweater

01-01-2007, 09:24 PM

You define a winner as someone who's been on a winning series team, and a loser as someone who has not. Even I can follow it this far.

But then there's something else, maybe a residue from the discussion when this was part of another thread, whose connection is unclear to me. I'm guessing, but it sounds as if in addition there is some further quality, an aura, or additional value, that adheres to players who are winners. It's the relationship between the definition of winner and that fuller importance that is not clear to me.

I'm sure if you took a couple of minutes just to spell that out exactly, it would clear everything up. Are you saying, for example, other things being equal, a player who is a winner is more likely to help a team than a player who is not? Or even if all things aren't equal, being a winner can compensate for another player's superior talent to a degree? Or that having been a winner gives a player confidence that will support him and that he can share with his mates, or something like that? Is it something you can measure, or show somehow? Is it bigger than a breadbox? Animal, vegetable, or mineral? (Sorry, I'm just making fun of my own questions. I really would like to know how this whole thing works.)

It's just my opinion. I've tried spelling it out quite a few times. There is no aura, fuller importance or additional value of the player. You just have to be lucky to be on a good enough team to win the WS. Others think that just because it's a team sport you can retire as a winner without a WS championship, to me that is the same as a boxer retiring as a winner without no title.

Others that keep stating, it's a team sport, it's not so & so's fault is just a oxymoron to me. That's why it is called a team sport. Me if I was a ballplayer and retired without a WS win would consider myself a loser at the game or unlucky. Name one sport that involves more luck then baseball. Others think different, they think you can retire from the game as a winner without a WS championship.

This thread would have been shorter if I just called Pierre a Champ and Lofton a player that was 0 & 10 in the playoffs. Means the same thing to me but that is just me.

Now someone explain to me the reason how you can leave any game as a proven winner without a championship.

Old Sweater

01-01-2007, 09:31 PM

We've heard your opinion
Players become "proven winners" on the basis of fairly random incidents.
Players become "proven losers" on the basis of fairly random incidents.
Polar distinction:laugh

Bingo, you finally got it. You have to have luck in baseball.

Old Sweater

01-01-2007, 09:38 PM

Mike Deveraux, a member of the 1988 Dodgers - he played in 30 games and hit .116. So he's a winner at the game of baseball, while Tony Gwynn is a loser at the game of baseball. :noidea

Bingo again. Except Mike Derveraux won his ring with the 1995 Braves.

Was Dereraux on the 88 Dodgers WS roster?

Old Sweater

01-01-2007, 09:44 PM

I'd love to have an opinion on your opinion, if only I knew what your opinion was. It's not opinion to say that in order to retire having won a championship, at some point you need to have won a championship. You misunderstood the X = Y thing, I think.

X = a "proven winner" (your words about Juan Pierre)
Y = a player who won at least one World Series championship

You've stated that X = Y, and are being challenged to offer your logic to link the two together. But all you've done is define "proven winner" as someone who has won a World Series, without any intermediate steps linking the two. Therefore, your logic goes like this:

Assume X = Y.
Therefore, X = Y.

The problem ultimately is in your definition of "proven winner." If "proven winner" really just means they were on a World Series champ, the proof is pointless, because if you assume the conclusion, of course the conclusion will follow (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html). But if "proven winner" is defined in some other form, some form that relates to player evaluation (in other words, a form that is relevant to us), then we're back to where we started, because there's been no logical path provided linking X to Y.

Your the smart one not me. Prove to me your theory how you can be a proven winner in the game of baseball without a WS win. Then I will read it and tell you what you said if you don't use a bunch of those 10c words.

Sliding Billy

01-01-2007, 09:49 PM

It's just my opinion. I've tried spelling it out quite a few times. There is no aura, fuller importance or additional value of the player. You just have to be lucky to be on a good enough team to win the WS. Others think that just because it's a team sport you can retire as a winner without a WS championship, to me that is the same as a boxer retiring as a winner without no title.

Others that keep stating, it's a team sport, it's not so & so's fault is just a oxymoron to me. That's why it is called a team sport. Me if I was a ballplayer and retired without a WS win would consider myself a loser at the game or unlucky. Name one sport that involves more luck then baseball. Others think different, they think you can retire from the game as a winner without a WS championship.

This thread would have been shorter if I just called Pierre a Champ and Lofton a player that was 0 & 10 in the playoffs. Means the same thing to me but that is just me.

Now someone explain to me the reason how you can leave any game as a proven winner without a championship.
Oh, OK.

Obviously by your definition, that would be a contradiction. Others I guess are as free to stipulate their own definitions that may differ from yours.

It reminds me of the story about the hunter who kept walking around a tree trying to shoot a squirrel, who kept the tree between him and the hunter, and the ensuing debate about whether the hunter also walked around the squirrel (because he had completed a 360 degree circuit with the squirrel inside) or not (because he never got behind the squirrel).

iPod

01-01-2007, 09:59 PM

Your the smart one not me. Prove to me your theory how you can be a proven winner in the game of baseball without a WS win. Then I will read it and tell you what you said if you don't use a bunch of those 10c words.

If all you need to do in order to be a proven winner is win a World Series, it shouldn't, at all, affect how we evaluate that player's value. The "winner effect" premium is zero. So the answer to the thread's title "Winning as it Relates to Greatness" is that it doesn't relate to it.

If that's all you're saying, OK, I'll accept the connection between X and Y. But I also don't understand why you keep insisting upon it. You seem to have a fervor about this subject that suggests being a "winner" means more than nothing to a player's value. If you are saying there is more to it than this, that it should affect how we rank players against each other, you need to expand on your argument.

Old Sweater

01-01-2007, 10:00 PM

Oh, OK.

Obviously by your definition, that would be a contradiction. Others I guess are as free to stipulate their own definitions that may differ from yours.

It reminds me of the story about the hunter who kept walking around a tree trying to shoot a squirrel, who kept the tree between him and the hunter, and the ensuing debate about whether the hunter also walked around the squirrel (because he had completed a 360 degree circuit with the squirrel inside) or not (because he never got behind the squirrel).

Reminds me of the Bear that taped the Hunter on the shoulder and said "Your not in this for the hunt are You."

Now someone explain the reason you can leave the game a proven winner without a WS championship. Anybody please!

Old Sweater

01-01-2007, 10:05 PM

If all you need to do in order to be a proven winner is win a World Series, it shouldn't, at all, affect how we evaluate that player's value. The "winner effect" premium is zero. So the answer to the thread's title "Winning as it Relates to Greatness" is that it doesn't relate to it.

If that's all you're saying, OK, I'll accept the connection between X and Y. But I also don't understand why you keep insisting upon it. You seem to have a fervor about this subject that suggests being a "winner" means more than nothing to a player's value. If you are saying there is more to it than this, that it should affect how we rank players against each other, you need to expand on your argument.

Enough of the song and dance. Keep it short and simple how a player can leave the game as a proven winner without a WS win. Don't care about his value. Do a X & Y.

ChrisLDuncan

01-02-2007, 03:15 AM

Well I guess just that if a player garnishes a lot of win shares in the regular season, but does squat in the post season, than he really has nothing to show for it. If winning is the goal I HAVE to give credit to those who were key in winning the biggest prize of them all. To me not looking at playoff performances is like aiming for sixth place. For example every Red Sox fan there is went on and on about how Ortiz should have been the MVP this season citing walk-offs, well that would have held water had kept comming after the month of July. He had all these walk-offs in June, which is good and all, but they needed him to do it in September. I feel the same about post-season and World Series performances. A great player HAS to perform on the biggest stage of them all, when given the oppurtunity, if they are as great as everyone says they are.

EvanAparra

01-02-2007, 03:18 AM

Now someone explain the reason you can leave the game a proven winner without a WS championship. Anybody please!

We have all explained it, you just refuse to listen.

iPod

01-02-2007, 05:26 AM

Enough of the song and dance. Keep it short and simple how a player can leave the game as a proven winner without a WS win. Don't care about his value. Do a X & Y.

How can I not care about his value? His value is what he contributes to the team, which is ultimately what is of interest. Presumably, any discussion about proven winners or losers are meant to offer evidence regarding a player's value. Otherwise, they're irrelevant; at least, irrelevant in the same way as any other discussion not about value is irrelevant.

I'm not sure if you're reading my posts. If you absolutely insist on defining "proven winner" as a player who has won the World Series, I cannot argue against that. I can't argue A is unequal to A. But I still think if that's what you insist on, this has been a pointless discussion, since you are refusing to talk about the things which make a winner win, in the process helping the team, and hence improving his value.

I would have hoped that with your obvious reverence for those you consider "proven winners" you would have been able at some point to offer some similarities between them other than the fact that they all won. It's like if I kept asking you how Italians were culturally different from Americans, and all you kept volunteering were that Italians were born in Italy and Americans in America. Yes, that is a defining characteristic that differentiates the two groups, but it's not really what I was looking for.

Erik Bedard

01-02-2007, 05:45 AM

Now someone explain the reason you can leave the game a proven winner without a WS championship. Anybody please!

Sure, no problem.

Last year, the Oregon State Beavers won the NCAA championship. They have a number of players on their roster who will most likely not continue to the major leagues. They can say they walked away from the game as a "winner".

RuthMayBond

01-02-2007, 07:11 AM

Enough of the song and dance. Keep it short and simple how a player can leave the game as a proven winner without a WS win. Don't care about his value. Do a X & Y.I thought you were asking for something tough.
Ty Cobb was on the winning side in maybe around 1700 ML games, and was probably the single biggest reason amongst all his teammates that they won those 1700 games.
Tell me what a scrub who tags along on a team that wins a World Series has "proven". Nothing

cardsfanatic

01-02-2007, 09:33 AM

This is perhaps one of the most boneheaded stances in all of sports and it drives me crazy. It's stupid when people use championships to judge QB's and it's equally as stupid when they use rings to judge baseball players. It's real simple:

Teams win championships -- not players.

When you find me a QB that does everything. Stuff the run, makes every interception, kick return, tackle, block, run, catch so on and so forth, I'll agree with you that _HE_ won a Superbowl. Otherwise, it was his _team_.

Likewise, when you find me a baseball player that throws every single inning or every single game, runs down every grounder and pop up, robs every homer, turns every double play, hits every homeruns and gets every hit, walk and so forth, then I'll agree with you that _HE_ won a World Series. Otherwise, it was his _team_.

It's funny how we're all force fed in league ball, high school and college ball (at least, I was) that it's all about the team. I can't tell you how many damn times my coaches would use that phrase: "it's about the team." Everything was designed to work as a unit. Everyone relied on everyone else. Yet how quickly the beer drinking couch slugs most former athletes become forget all of those lessons once they become just spectators. It's no longer a team sports -- they're all (major sports), tantamount to arm wrestling championships or something where just one man matters.

Erik Bedard

01-02-2007, 11:16 AM

The closest to one man winning is Jim Brown in the Cotton Bowl with Syracuse in '56 or '57. And his team lost.

Captain Cold Nose

01-02-2007, 11:43 AM

The closest to one man winning is Jim Brown in the Cotton Bowl with Syracuse in '56 or '57. And his team lost.
Patrick Roy in the 1993 Stanley Cup finals. Dominic Hasek almost did it a few years later for Buffalo. A hockey goaltender very well could settle it for themselves. As long as his teammates score.
No baseball player can do it on his own, because no matter how well they perform at the plate, the performance of the pitchers is the key. You can't pin the failure of others on an individual who did they best they could.

tearforamariner

01-02-2007, 11:47 AM

Patrick Roy in the 1993 Stanley Cup finals. Dominic Hasek almost did it a few years later for Buffalo. A hockey goaltender very well could settle it for themselves. As long as his teammates score.
No baseball player can do it on his own, because no matter how well they perform at the plate, the performance of the pitchers is the key. You can't pin the failure of others on an individual who did they best they could.

I'd add Vince Young in last year's National Championship to your list.

As to baseball, what if a pitcher threw a complete game shut-out and hit a home run, winning the game 1-0. Did he just win the game by himself?

RuthMayBond

01-02-2007, 11:47 AM

RuthMayBond

01-02-2007, 11:51 AM

Dave McNally 1970 WS game 3

Ubiquitous

01-02-2007, 11:52 AM

I'd add Vince Young in last year's National Championship to your list.

As to baseball, what if a pitcher threw a complete game shut-out and hit a home run, winning the game 1-0. Did he just win the game by himself?

Only if he threw 27 straight strikeouts or 27 pop ups or 27 groundballs to himself or some sort of combination of those 3 things.

Erik Bedard

01-02-2007, 11:52 AM

And Ilya Bryzgalov against the Flames and whoever the Ducks played next last year. :grouchy

Brown is still the best example. Scoring every touchdown, kicking every field goal and extra point... can't get much closer to winning a game by yourself. Another example is that high school girl who scored more than 100 points against a team that scored way less than 100.

Erik Bedard

01-02-2007, 11:53 AM

Only if he threw 27 straight strikeouts or 27 pop ups or 27 groundballs to himself or some sort of combination of those 3 things.

If Ron Necciai had hit a HR....

RuthMayBond

01-02-2007, 11:53 AM

Bucky Walters 1940 WS game 6

Ubiquitous

01-02-2007, 11:55 AM

Bucky Walters 1940 WS game 6

aRe you going to list every single CG shutout in which the pitcher hits a homer?

RuthMayBond

01-02-2007, 11:56 AM

Christy Mathewson 1913 WS game 2

RuthMayBond

01-02-2007, 11:57 AM

Only if he threw 27 straight strikeouts or 27 pop ups or 27 groundballs to himself or some sort of combination of those 3 things.Strikeouts usually require a catcher

RuthMayBond

01-02-2007, 11:58 AM

aRe you going to list every single CG shutout in which the pitcher hits a homer?If you really want me to ;)

Captain Cold Nose

01-02-2007, 12:02 PM

Hershiser did everything for 1988 WS game 2
A single game does not a championship win.

RuthMayBond

01-02-2007, 12:06 PM

A single game does not a championship win.Not in good sports ;) Which reminds me, I wonder if Lou Groza ever scored all his team's points in a championship game. My boss lives around the corner from his house

Captain Cold Nose

01-02-2007, 12:08 PM

Not in good sports ;) Which reminds me, I wonder if Lou Groza ever scored all his team's points in a championship game. My boss lives around the corner from his house
Ouch.
I doubt it about the Toe. Those Browns teams were great.

Old Sweater

01-02-2007, 01:01 PM

We have all explained it, you just refuse to listen.

Not as simple as my explanation though.

A/ Proven winner is a player with a WS win.

B/ Proven loser is a player without a WS win.

Evan, I would like to see you do a simple A & B. It will be interesting to see.

Old Sweater

01-02-2007, 01:04 PM

Sure, no problem.

Last year, the Oregon State Beavers won the NCAA championship. They have a number of players on their roster who will most likely not continue to the major leagues. They can say they walked away from the game as a "winner".

You are right and this pertains to every level of ball.

RuthMayBond

01-02-2007, 01:08 PM

Evan, I would like to see you do a simple A & B. It will be interesting to see.After you answer all the questions asked of you?

Old Sweater

01-02-2007, 01:35 PM

I thought you were asking for something tough.
Ty Cobb was on the winning side in maybe around 1700 ML games, and was probably the single biggest reason amongst all his teammates that they won those 1700 games.
Tell me what a scrub who tags along on a team that wins a World Series has "proven". Nothing

Excellent choice. Ty Cobb was one of, if not the greatest players ever in the game. Cobb probably was the biggest reasons that the Tigers won so many games. Fate just had it that his team went 0 & 3 in the WS and Cobb just scored 7 runs, 9rbi's, .262 avg, .314 obp in 17 games with 65 ab's in the 3 WS he played in. Honus Wagner though made the most of his last WS to be able to come away with baseballs top prize and as a winner.

It's not to fair to call any player a scrub that has made any level of pro ball IMO. The team must have had a good reason to put the player on the WS roster and if this players team wins along with it he can leave the game aa proven winner with a WS championship.

Championship = Winner

Loser = No Championship

Old Sweater

01-02-2007, 01:37 PM

After you answer all the questions asked of you?

Your not Evan but I would like to see your A & B.

RuthMayBond

01-02-2007, 01:40 PM

Excellent choice. Ty Cobb was one of, if not the greatest players ever in the game. Cobb probably was the biggest reasons that the Tigers won so many games. Fate just had it that his team went 0 & 3 in the WS and Cobb just scored 7 runs, 9rbi's, .262 avg, .314 obp in 17 games with 65 ab's in the 3 WS he played in. Honus Wagner though made the most of his last WS to be able to come away with baseballs top prize and as a winner.So you still can't distinguish between team and individual.

<It's not to fair to call any player a scrub that has made any level of pro ball IMO.>

I'm talking in relative terms compared with the rest of the ML and you know it. But it's fair to call Cobb a "proven loser"? :confused:

<The team must have had a good reason to put the player on the WS roster>

Now you can read minds

<Championship = Winner

Loser = No Championship>

Proven that one won't answer the question = proven loser
I'm unsubscribing from this thread :waving

Old Sweater

01-02-2007, 01:44 PM

I'm unsubscribing from this thread.

Without doing the A & B?

Old Sweater

01-02-2007, 01:45 PM

*Proven that one won't answer the question = proven loser*

Ditto.

EvanAparra

01-02-2007, 01:48 PM

I'd add Vince Young in last year's National Championship to your list.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Two of the biggest plays of the game came on defense, which Vince, as you know, doesn't play. Michael Griffin had an interception where he took away a sure touchdown by snatching a ball out of the air while putting one foot in bounce -- and, what I always say when people tell me this -- Did Vince stop them on 4th and 2 with less than 2 minutes left? Without that play, there is not even a chance at the national championship. Same goes for David Thomas, he played the best game of his life that night, not to mention Michael Huff's 13 or so tackles...

As you can see Russel, you've touch a bit of a nerve here with me... :p

EvanAparra

01-02-2007, 01:51 PM

Not as simple as my explanation though.

A/ Proven winner is a player with a WS win.

B/ Proven loser is a player without a WS win.

Evan, I would like to see you do a simple A & B. It will be interesting to see.

A = Proven Winner - helps his team win games throughout his career

B = Proven Loser - Its hard to call anyone that makes it to major league baseball a 'proven loser' -- But I'd guess someone that is constantly below league average in every aspect of the game.

Old Sweater

01-02-2007, 02:14 PM

A = Proven Winner - helps his team win games throughout his career

B = Proven Loser - Its hard to call anyone that makes it to major league baseball a 'proven loser' -- But I'd guess someone that is constantly below league average in every aspect of the game.

Hey thanks for the reply. I can even understand it. (curse Pueblo County High)

I can see your opinion on A and I knew that B would be tough to answer for anyone that didn't have my opinion of my B.

A/ The Ultimate Win

B/ The Ultimate Loss

Heck Yeah, that sounds better without the er's on the end.

EvanAparra

01-02-2007, 02:16 PM

Hey thanks for the reply. I can even understand it. (curse Pueblo County High)

I can see your opinion on A and I knew that B would be tough to answer for anyone that didn't have my opinion of my B.

A/ The Ultimate Win

B/ The Ultimate Loss

Heck Yeah, that sounds better without the er's on the end.

You're right, it does sound a lot better without the er's. I just really do have a problem with calling someone a loser who has excelled in the highest level of the game. If you don't win a championship, there is a void in a career, I can definately understand that.

cardsfanatic

01-02-2007, 03:05 PM

I'd add Vince Young in last year's National Championship to your list.

As to baseball, what if a pitcher threw a complete game shut-out and hit a home run, winning the game 1-0. Did he just win the game by himself?

Unless all 27 outs he recorded were strikeouts or they were all bunts to the pitcher he could field entirely by himself with no throw at all, no. He still needed teammates.

iPod

01-02-2007, 03:39 PM

How can I not care about his value? His value is what he contributes to the team, which is ultimately what is of interest. Presumably, any discussion about proven winners or losers are meant to offer evidence regarding a player's value. Otherwise, they're irrelevant; at least, irrelevant in the same way as any other discussion not about value is irrelevant.

I'm not sure if you're reading my posts. If you absolutely insist on defining "proven winner" as a player who has won the World Series, I cannot argue against that. I can't argue A is unequal to A. But I still think if that's what you insist on, this has been a pointless discussion, since you are refusing to talk about the things which make a winner win, in the process helping the team, and hence improving his value.

I would have hoped that with your obvious reverence for those you consider "proven winners" you would have been able at some point to offer some similarities between them other than the fact that they all won. It's like if I kept asking you how Italians were culturally different from Americans, and all you kept volunteering were that Italians were born in Italy and Americans in America. Yes, that is a defining characteristic that differentiates the two groups, but it's not really what I was looking for.

Old Sweater,

What is it that's unclear about this post? You never responded to it.

Old Sweater

01-02-2007, 03:55 PM

Old Sweater,

What is it that's unclear about this post? You never responded to it.

Oh, I'm sure I have answered the same questions in this thread somewhere, they look vaguely familiar.

Give me your A & B opinion. 20 or less words please.

Erik Bedard

01-02-2007, 05:25 PM

What? You obviously didn't read his post at all.

Old Sweater

01-02-2007, 11:48 PM

What? You obviously didn't read his post at all.

Sure I did. iPod wants me to bring players value into my opinion of a winner. Can't be done, at least with me keeping my own opinion which I'm entitled to.

At least I have listed my A & B of my opinions. Not to many others want to list theirs. It's to hard to dodge around how you can leave the game of baseball a winner without a championship. Can't be done IMO. Maybe Cobb, Williams, Gwynn, Banks, and others would agree with me, maybe not. I guess even the great are entitled to their own opinion.

iPod

01-03-2007, 04:42 AM

Sure I did. iPod wants me to bring players value into my opinion of a winner. Can't be done, at least with me keeping my own opinion which I'm entitled to.

At least I have listed my A & B of my opinions. Not to many others want to list theirs. It's to hard to dodge around how you can leave the game of baseball a winner without a championship. Can't be done IMO. Maybe Cobb, Williams, Gwynn, Banks, and others would agree with me, maybe not. I guess even the great are entitled to their own opinion.

Forgive me for thinking that since you brought up the fact that Juan Pierre was a "proven winner" in a thread discussing Juan Pierre's value, you thought being a "proven winner" had some sort of effect on a player's value. What were you trying to do by bringing that up, if you weren't trying to make some statement about his value?

I'll do the "A & B" I wanted to talk about, and that I thought you wanted to talk about.

A: has certain characteristic X that makes him a "winner"
B: does not have X

The discussion I had imagined would be trying to find out what X is, and how you could wedge X into how we perceive value. My ultimate point is that the internal trait is what matters, not the external result. The latter is used as a very poor proxy for the former because it's easier to calculate. It seems reasonable to me to say that there is randomness in terms of how the two, the internal trait and external result, correlate, so just by simple probability out of the thousands and thousands of players in history, there had to have been players with X who never won a World Series.

Admittedly that's a method that frames everything entirely in terms of value, and tries to put the aura of "winners" into an evaluation model right from the start. But given your very assertive, declarative statements in the Juan Pierre thread, this method pretty clearly seems like the one you are interested in as well. As it stands now, you seem to have backed off, implying that the connection is merely a factual one; "To have won, you need to have won. Obviously." You're not implying any judgment needs to be made about players in terms of whether they are "winners" or "losers," the classification is one that simply needs to be made. Mickey Mantle was a winner in the same way he was a Yankee or a center fielder, in other words. But that's NOT how you came into this thread. You were making judgments about players. You were saying things like "Yeah, Barry Bonds has all these great numbers compared to Pierre, but what did they get him? Pierre won." Those are partisan statements, they're value statements. That Pierre had a bargaining chip Bonds didn't have. If you really thought that chip had no worth, why did you bring it up?