USSoccer

Not even close. Not in any universe is he a HOF.

I'd give them Pie, Hill, Dopirak, Harvey, Pawalek and Marshall. Seriously.

that is a good freaking answer. Seconded. You cannot fight a war against something that isn't a Nation-State. Having said that, this war kind of looks like several various Occupier vs Partisan conflicts. Just comparing it to Vietnam is a cop out. I don't know. We fought wars against communism and Nazism. Our war against Nazism was WWII, and by definition, you cannot "war" with an ideology. You cannot fight a war with an idea. You fight ideas with better ideas, not bombs and soldiers.

that is a good freaking answer. Seconded. You cannot fight a war against something that isn't a Nation-State. Having said that, this war kind of looks like several various Occupier vs Partisan conflicts. Just comparing it to Vietnam is a cop out.

Then its only fair you get irritated at Lee, too. He does a Hop after he hits a HR to, granted, not as dramatic, but a distinct hop none-the-less. I have no problem with players hopping or doing something of the sort when they homer. Some of the most memorable Homers wouldnt be as memorable if it wasnt for the players reaction. Edmonds crap in the outfield does make me mad though. I dont care if he watches his homers, I care that he dives at a ball that he could just as easily walk to. Anyways, this thread is WAY off topic. A Z-delivered fastball is the preferred method of capitol punishment in 38 states. Being a soccer fan, I do not mind at all a bit of celebration and personality after a HR.

What does growing up have to do with believing that a fast guy on the base paths bugs the pitcher? There are very respected baseball men who would agree with the premise that a fast player on the basepaths can affect a pitcher, especially in the late-and-close type situation. Just because someone hasn't found a metric yet to validate the theory does not mean a believer isn't 'grown up' :roll: Can having a baserunner on first jitterbugging around also distract a right handed hitter?

Ben Gordon may have tanked the Bulls chances with 2 out of control drives late...

Really chippy game vs Detroit. Rip Hamilton got ejected for throwing a cheap elbow at Hinrich and then jawing with Skiles. Bunch of cheap shots off the ball, too. And lots of bad officiating. Pistons lead by 6 late, though.

crap. i've been stuck working all day, and now i'll never get thru to get decent tickets...

I take it your dad coached the baseball team? :D Ouch :)

i was on many a little league all star team before committing full time to soccer....

Doubtful Yeah, barring injury Keller plays vs Poland and Germany. I doubt Howard sees a single minute for the US unless Keller gets hurt, and even then Arena might turn to Hahnneman.

Rosters are set for the March 1st game vs Poland:

You value Aramis more than DLee? You should value Aramis over Lee. His career numbers in less time are much better, and he's 3 years younger.

His ERA plus (the best way to compare pitchers from a given era) is something like 30 points clear of whoever is in 2nd place. He's easily top 5, and the only thing that will keep him from being remembered universally as the best ever was his longevity.

I'll tell my kid about Neifi, but it won't be in a very positive light. More like a cautionary tale :D

Pujols, definetly. ARod, Manny Ramirez...I'll tell my kid about Sosa, too. Johan Santana.

he played in an era with like 5 teams. That's a negative strike in my book. He played in the same era as babe ruth... So shouldnt that strike go against ruth too? exactly, and it was 16 teams not 5 teams. A career .366 average and over 4,000 hits, 900+ steals, and five seasons of .400+ gets you on the top 5 list. He was the best pure hitter in history, plain and simple. He played in an era where the league leading hitters were routinely above .380 because errors were rarely scored, players had teeny little mits, there were very few strikeout pitchers since pitches like sliders hadn't really been introduced yet, etc. A .366 average during that timeframe just isn't as impressive as if he were to do that in today's game. To me, it's a quality of competition issue. Ruth gets a pass because he hit and pitched, and had no equal at all in either respect during his era. However, I think if you put many of the historical greats in the modern game, they'd struggle.

he played in an era with like 5 teams. That's a negative strike in my book.

Pedro Martinez was hands down, the best pitcher of the 1990's. It's not even close. Look at his numbers in that decade. I don't think that's true. I think Maddux was much better in the 90's. Pedro didn't become a starter until 1994, as well. I don't know, for me, after looking at their stats, it's almost too close to call. Pedro became a starter in 1994, so let's compare the two's ERA+ year-by-year. Year - Maddux - Pedro 1994 - 273 - 123 1995 - 259 - 120 1996 - 162 - 117 1997 - 191 - 221 1998 - 191 - 160 1999 - 122 - 245 Personally, I'd give the edge to Maddux. He was by far the better pitcher two of the six years, a good amount better in two of the four years, and Pedro was by far better one year and marginally better the 6th year. Look at their respective peaks and tell me who was better... Well, we were talking about best pitcher of the 90's, so I only used Maddux's numbers beginning with the time Pedro became a starter. But if you want to look at the whole decade, Maddux was real good in 90 and 91 and great in 92 and 93. I'd say Greg would get the award for pitcher of the decade. But he pitched in the NL, so he got an extra 3 outs per start from the 9 hole. He also pitched most of those years in Turner Field, Shea Stadium, Pro Player, and the Vet. All of those are pitchers park. Pedro pitched in a division with Yankee Stadium and Fenway, which both have short porches, and Camden Yards, which is a launch pad. Tropicana isn't a pitchers park, either, PLUS he had the DH to deal with. And in response to your edit, overall, Maddux and Pedro are porbably 1 and 1a during the 1990s. I lean towards Pedro because of circumstance, and performance during his peak relative to Maddux's, but both were just awfully, awfully good.

Pedro Martinez was hands down, the best pitcher of the 1990's. It's not even close. Look at his numbers in that decade. I don't think that's true. I think Maddux was much better in the 90's. Pedro didn't become a starter until 1994, as well. I don't know, for me, after looking at their stats, it's almost too close to call. Pedro became a starter in 1994, so let's compare the two's ERA+ year-by-year. Year - Maddux - Pedro 1994 - 273 - 123 1995 - 259 - 120 1996 - 162 - 117 1997 - 191 - 221 1998 - 191 - 160 1999 - 122 - 245 Personally, I'd give the edge to Maddux. He was by far the better pitcher two of the six years, a good amount better in two of the four years, and Pedro was by far better one year and marginally better the 6th year. Look at their respective peaks and tell me who was better... EDIT: Maddux ERA+ 1992-98 166 171 273 259 162 191 191 Pedro 1997-2003 221 160 245 285 189 196 212 4 seasons with a 200 or higher ERA+ in a tougher offensive era, in a better hitters league, in a division with 3 hitters parks.

Pedro Martinez was hands down, the best pitcher of the 1990's. It's not even close. Look at his numbers in that decade. I don't think that's true. I think Maddux was much better in the 90's. Pedro didn't become a starter until 1994, as well. Maddux was great, but Pedro was nearly unbeatable. Maddux's best stretch was probably between 1992-98, of which more than half of was not during the same offensive boom as 1997-2003. Pedro's peripherals are a lot better than Maddux's as well. Both were great, but Pedro was simply on another level during his peak, wheras Maddux was "just" great

he definitely deserves consideration for top 5, it shouldn't shock anyone he's in top 5. His seasonal averages are also better than Koufax. And being shocked because he pitched in the 90's should only HELP the argument that he belongs on that list. With the offensive explosion of baseball in the past 15 years, it is even more amazing he has such great pitching stats. He put up a .472 OPS against in 2000. Unreal.

I think it's a point you can debate. He pitched in the most offensively dominant era of baseball (1997-2003), and posted these ERAs: 1.90 2.89 2.07 1.74 2.39 2.26 2.22

Because why? Because it was the 90's? http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/martipe02.shtml Look at his comparables thru age 33. It's a who's who of HOF pitchers. No one dominated like Pedro dominated in the 1990's and that was during an extreme offensive era.