imb

Do you mean besides the much higher ops in a much tougher hitters era? Besides all the top 10 MVP finishes and all-star games? The MVP finishes don't really tell me a whole lot other than the fact that the media absolutely loved the guy for his "hustleness". He did hit for a little more power than Pierre, but also didn't have any speed. And it's not like he was a huge powerhouse, either. He was an average defender at multiple positions, but didn't play any of the real skill positions notably well. Basically, he's famous for getting a lot of singles per year (like Pierre), being durable (like Pierre) and for playing a really, really, really long time. Oh yeah, and hustling and playing the game "right". Other than gambling on it, of course. And putting himself into a lineup at the detriment to the team just so he could break a record. But yeah, he did things the "right" way. Besides hitting for more power, he also walked much more. His career on base percentage was .375. I have no idea how to find the league average OBP during his career, but I imagine it was much, much lower. He was on base almost 6,000 times in his career. If Pierre played 24 seasons and had a .375 OBP for career and finished with 4257 hits, I think you would have to put him in the hall.

Do you mean besides the much higher ops in a much tougher hitters era? Besides all the top 10 MVP finishes and all-star games?

by the way, only two teams have more points than me this season, and im like 3-9

Boise St. in a BCS bowl would be a travesty. Outside of an early win against Oregon St, they have played absolutely no one. Just because a team goes undefeated against a high school schedule does not entitle them to a BCS game. Although it would be kind of fun to watch them get massacred. you have to feel bad for them though. That program has done a great job in recruiting and building a good team....not their fault that the rest of the conference is a joke. I think it's elitist to say that only teams from the 6 BCS conferences should be allowed to play in a BCS game. Boise St. has been pretty well punished in both the polls and computer, but staying undefeated has forced them in there. If they lose today, then no problem, they go to the whatever bowl. If ND loses tonight, would you still put them in as an at-large over BSU? Is ND better than Boise St.? I think so, so yes, they should.

Boise St. in a BCS bowl would be a travesty. Outside of an early win against Oregon St, they have played absolutely no one. Just because a team goes undefeated against a high school schedule does not entitle them to a BCS game. Although it would be kind of fun to watch them get massacred.

Better than the Big 12. That may or may not be true, though a healthy OU and Texas would beat any team in the Big East. Of course, no one has been in the football threads hyping the Big 12 as the best conference in america. It's because they'd be wrong. That's not what I'm saying, though. The Big East is a fine conference, but it's nowhere near good enough to deserve all the arguing back and forth. I agree. I just got upset at the lack of respect and it spiraled a bit out of control with some of the responses. Those responses are exactly what have bothered me and the ignorance of the league just astounded me. I know the Big East isn't the best but it isn't the worst either and listening to all the experts omit Louisville from the 1 loss club has bothered me also. I would think that you would feel the same way if OK had one loss and the polls had them at 8 or 9. There are a lot of 1-loss teams, and the ones from the more respected conferences are going to be higher ranked. It's the inherent stupidity of the poll system. The polls work in college basketball because there are so many games and the playoff field is 65 teams. It doesn't work in college football because there are so few games that the teams all just end up beating up on interconference opponents and there is no way to tell, outside of something like Ohio-State/Texas or ND/USC who is the better team. Adding a playoff system would go a long way towards legitimizing the polls.

Better than the Big 12. That may or may not be true, though a healthy OU and Texas would beat any team in the Big East. Of course, no one has been in the football threads hyping the Big 12 as the best conference in america. It's because they'd be wrong. That's not what I'm saying, though. The Big East is a fine conference, but it's nowhere near good enough to deserve all the arguing back and forth.

Better than the Big 12. That may or may not be true, though a healthy OU and Texas would beat any team in the Big East. Of course, no one has been in the football threads hyping the Big 12 as the best conference in america.

cool, so can we stop talking about the big east now?

All you LSU fans pining for Matt Flynn next year might as well stop...he's transferring to OU and under the new rule that lets graduates switch schools without losing a year, he'll be a nice little rental for us.

Ok, I need a shower to wash the stink of rooting for A&M off me.

Poor IMB....that one non loss is going to kill him even more now. They still have to beat Oklahoma State to win the Big 12 South but, assuming Texas loses, I don't think it hurt them that much. Oklahoma with one loss is still behind both Michigan and USC and would likely be behind Florida and potentially Notre Dame as well. I don't think a one loss Oklahoma team would have a chance to make the Title game because the Big 12 is so weak. Agreed. If we beat OSU tomorrow, and then Nebraska in the Big 12 Championship, we'll be in BCS bowl, which is all we can ask for after dropping the game to Texas in October. I'll tell you one thing, There's a big party at my apartment tomorrow, with lots of drinking involved.

A&M still has to get a first down and we still have to beat OSU, which may be easier said than done.

I am a [expletive] for Romo. He has some zip on the ball, thats for sure.

As backloaded as his contract is, it's going to be hard for him to give away that money. He'd have to be very productive over the next few years to think about doing that.

It's a nice thought, but this offseason was Hendry's last shot. He couldnt afford a 65-win retooling season.

More than Ryan Howard would, that's for sure.

I think Jones is a better player than Mathews overall. I as well. Not to mention that Jones is making what, six mil next year? Matthews wants 3/39. JONES

An article just came across the wire where the only thing Coletti says about Pierre is that he's a good character guy. For 45 million bones, you better believe I want a few more positives than that

no such thing as a non-moron astro or cardinal fan.

Not happening with the Cubs. He's played for three big-league managers and none of the three has been fond of him. His most recent manager was in the Cubs system as a coach. I'm sure they still talk. So no, he's not coming here. Bruce, we are going to need stats to understand what you are saying. No, I don't care about Batting Avg, HR's or even RBI's. Please help us understand what your saying with stats. All baseball executives are infallible. I doubt anyone has the stomach for that after 200 pages of it in the Soriano thread. Oh God, here we go. But if all of his managers disliked him, that is a consensus of opinion. And a consensus of opinion, while not statistically quantifiable, does mean something. Still, that production would have been nice. I won't be losing any sleep over this, though. I don't think TT started the smartass remarks, Cheesehead brought it up out of nowhere for the sole purpose of getting a rise out of people. His response was great. Oh, I know. My "Oh God" was in anticipation of the back and forth I thought was forthcoming.

There's trust in his ey...legs.....

see

well raw finally got me

uhhh, i dont know about that one