ConstableRabbit

Agreed. Breaking records isn't enough to have your number retired. You need to be more than just a player...and yeah, it's tough to clarify, but like the saying goes, "I know it when I see it." Right. Robinson arguably is not a hall of famer if he is not the first black player, but his actions clearly did a lot for the game. I would like to see Clemente and Ruth also retired.

Have there been any Japanese pitchers who have been consistently dominant in the MLB? It seems that most have had tricky deliveries that make them tough to hit, but once hitters figure it out, the stuff just isnt good enough to stand alone.

The gyroball is pretty cool. The video shown in that link makes it look absolutely crazy!

That comment may cause me to revoke my backing of Brenly as a possible managerial candidate. Where have you been all year and during Brenly's managerial career? Those 5 original roast beef sandwiches for only $5.99 have gone to your head!

I don't know if it's been mentioned, but after Pagan beat out an infield grounder, Bob Brenly exclaimed "Speed never takes an off day." Awesome.

Please don't mention Arby's. It's another 45min till my lunch, and I'm starving... :P Funny, thinking of Arby's usually makes me lose my appetite.

Quite a few did doubt his ability to succeed, saying, amongst other things, that he only had one pitch and that his FB wasn't good enough. ^That's me! :lol: However, I did dare Rich to prove me wrong. I hope he can continue this success.

Didn't we go 0-7 against the Padres this year? So pathetic.

That's exactly the opposite of me. Good way of thinking about it.

Amazing video! I love the Oakland one off of Bradford. I was so pumped watching the game at the time.

I'm shocked.

I don't think Jones in CF is in any way, shape or form giving up on OF defense. Even if Jones is not a great defender, the drop from RF to CF observed by BP is so miniscule that it's a nonissue. Even if fielding rate is not as good as the Fielding Bible, I have a lot of trouble believing that the qualitative comparison of the difficulties of the two positions is tremendously wrong. Since Jones has to be here next year, he's probably most valuable to the Cobs as a CF. That way they can look into getting another corner OF who, if nothing else, would provide more with the bat than Juan Pierre. When it's all said and done, it's probably the Cobs best move. I'm suggesting Jone is a terrible RF and if they moved him to CF he'd be completely god awful. Just because Jones has a range of X in RF doesn't mean he'd have that range in CF. It's a much more difficult position to play. I'm a Cards fan on a Cubs board so I'll drop his. Admittedly it's become a silly pissing match with cheapseats. I've actually been quite entertained throughout the whole ordeal. I especially liked it when you dissected each others opinions piece-by-piece. Edit: Oh, and the arguments, of course. I'm going to check out the Fielding Bible.

I think you should include Sosa's bottom 9 tying homer in game 1 of the 03 NLCS. Even though we lost the game, that was just an amazing moment. I went absolutely nuts.

What? :lol:

The defensive improvement might not be as dramatic as you'd think. Jones' defense has been declining pretty quickly. That's not to say he'd be a liability, but he's not close to what he was in the late 90's. It's still the type of defensive improvement I'd like, one that comes with good offense. TT had a post a couple weeks ago that showed a metric depicting AJones in the bottom 4(?) I believe of Center Fielders. It said Pierre has been a better CF this year.

They never run out of stuff to make fun of. That's GOLD!

I could list about 50 Beatles songs that don't really "rock," but "Yesterday" is the most commonly known one. Sure, but there are a handful (or more) that do and you were careful to steer clear of them. That's my point. Isn't that what you do in an argument thought, try and prove your point? You surely don't want to give evidence to disprove your point and make your opponent correct do you? If somebody doen't think, on the whole, that the Beatles rock, they are not going to cite the songs that do rock but are going to cite the songs that don't rock (and usually the more famous songs) to prove their point. I respect your opinion that Metallica is a better band....I'm a massive fan myself, in fact, the bands that are pretty much constantly on my ipod are Radiohead, Beatles, Zep, Sigur Ros, Smashing Pumpkins and Metallica. As someone who has played rock drums since I got my first kid trap set at age 5, I'm a huuuge Lars fan and his method has been very influential to my development. Also a huge fan of James' voice as well. Now, to this whole absurd Beatles 'rock music' question, which I think is a massive slap in the face to the men, who, as teenagers were quite literally one of the only 'rock bands' in the world (which is how they got their first gigs in strip clubs in Germany, because they were such a novelty and their music was considered to be somewhat risque at tha time) ...some things to consider. 1) When they first coming up in the late 50's playing those gigs in Germany, they were famous in the underground music scene at the time because they played traditional 50's music (elvis, chuck berry) twice as fast and twice as loud with pumped up electric guitars and electric bass with a constant heavy backbeat from the drummer, thus helping to create the very sound that some of you accuse them of not having. 2) If you aren't going to call the Beatles 'rock', then you may as well say that the Rolling Stones, the Doors, or the Kinks aren't rock. You have to view things in context...when 'Satisfaction', 'You really got me', and the Beatles' 'Day tripper' came out, that was as hard as rock had gotten at that point for the most part. You can't expect those guys to bust out with 'Seek and Destroy' in 1965 do you? I guess someone could make an argument that the Rolling Stones aren't rock because of 'Play with fire' or 'As tears go by'. 3) One would have to be a complete fool to argue that their last 3 albums, White Album, Let it Be, and Abbey Road, aren't rock in the traditional sense of what classic rock is. The fact that some people are stuck in this mindset that the Beatles are just She Loves You, Yesterday, or Love Me Do, really just proves that they haven't listened to the Beatles, but are rather forming their opinion off of the Beatles pop culture and radio play status. I agree -- there should be absolutely no question as to whether or not The Beatles were "rock" when they came out. As you said, they were THE rock band. However, the argument that they, by today's standards are not "rock" is not so easy to dispute. They have had a number of songs that embody what we know as "rock music" today, ("Helter Skelter" is actually a great example) however, as you noted, most associate the band with their softer titles, ("Love me do" etc.). I would like to point out that the reason for that is that those songs were their greatest and most successful hits. Out of their 30 #1 singles, the vast majority more closely resemble the pop music of today, not the rock music of today. That's not necessarily their fault, but it's something to note that their most popular stuff was also some of their softest. The Beatles revolutionized popular music, pop culture, and gave way to many of the bands and styles we listen to today, and that's (rightfully so) a HUGE part of why they could be considered the "Greatest Rock Band Ever." We simply cannot forget that influence. However, being the first or the influence, despite great musical talents, does not necessarily make you the best. I guess you could compare it to different eras in baseball: Could you make the argument that Greg Maddux (or Clemens, etc.) is a better pitcher than Mordecai Brown? Even though Brown's raw stats are better, I think you could.

Either should get trounced by their inevitable matchup with either LedZep or The Beatles. I voted pf. I also am kind of lukewarm about Queen. They've got some great songs, but nothing I've peed my pants over*. *note, I have never peed my pants for Pink Floys either, I was only closer to doing so than when listening to Queen

Maybe sending in a book wouldn't be the greatest idea, but the concept of all of us sending him something could be really effective. Like if we all sent him a a letter every day -- it could be copies of a single letter that we draft -- and we could stagger it so we wouldn't have to pay daily postage. If the letter was coherent and professional (e.g. no Krispy Kreme references), he just might look at it. After all, it worked in The Shawshank Redemption...

I think it's a horrible idea, but it sounds exactly like something JH would try.

Would you rather have AIDS or ebola?

Someone told me that's the #1 known number in Chicagoland behind 911. At first, I thought it was ridiculous, but then I got to thinking... it's probably accurate. Maybe 773-202-LUNA is second?

867-5309. Beat me to it.

I don't know what can more clearly prove the point. Teams that get on base effectively score more runs. Teams that don't get on base, don't score runs. Teams that score more runs are more likely to win games. Good post. Essentially, there are two parts to baseball. The hitting and scoring end, and the pitching and defensive end. OBP only deals with the hitting and scoring end. You still have to score more than the other team to win, and that usually doesn't happen without some decent pitching. OBP doesn't automatically make it ok to have the league's worst staff.