soccer10k

Oh, you were talking about their cockamamie system. Yeah, I guess Mabry would be worse going by that. EDIT: Remember that playing time was part of their criteria. Twice as many AB's for Neifi means twice the opportunity to suck and get points. Don't you think there's a reason Mabry only got 246 AB's last year while Neifi got 572? And don't say because Nomar got hurt because the Cubs could have traded for somebody else if they thought Neifi was so horrible.

Woah, jeez man, we dont even know for sure if this is true. Its second hand questionable information at best. Exactly. It's not like this was reported in Sports Illustrated like Rocker's comments. Ryan didn't say it in an interview. I'm not saying he didn't say it but I'm not saying that he said it. I wouldn't get too worked up over this. Are you saying Sports Illustrated is better than me? How do I say this nicely...YES.

Neifi hit .274 last year and only 47 strikeouts in 572 AB's while Mabry hit .240 with 63 strikeouts in 246 AB's. Let's see Neifi has a higher batting average and less strikeouts even though he had twice the number of at bats as Mabry did. Good enough for you?

I would have to say Barrett is one of the more underrated players in the league.

I think Mabry should have been picked before Neifi i.e. Mabry is worse. Neifi's not great, but he's better than Mabry is.

I enjoy it... I just enjoy it more when someone logical is singing it. Exactly. I think they should have Jack Black sing it a couple times a year. That man is downright hilarious. I just shook my head when I heard Ozzy's rendition. But overall, I think it's a good idea.

Woah, jeez man, we dont even know for sure if this is true. Its second hand questionable information at best. Exactly. It's not like this was reported in Sports Illustrated like Rocker's comments. Ryan didn't say it in an interview. I'm not saying he didn't say it but I'm not saying that he said it. I wouldn't get too worked up over this.

Either he's wearing really big shades, or that hat is an awesome sun-protector. I'm pretty sure that's his hat and the sun is at the perfect angle. I doubt those are shades.

sure, if you're going shopping. I'm gonna have to defend bmkhawk. SBC is a really nice park. The view into the McCovey Cove is unbelievable. Yankee Stadium is also a nice stadium. Plus the aura of Yankee Stadium is unbelievable because of all the great players that have played there.

I'll be happy just to have both of them playing 150 games this year with no major injuries. As long as both of them are in the lineup, I don't think the order matters all that much.

Calling Zambrano a Cy Young favorite isn't really a stretch. Anybody following baseball should have him as a favorite.

I am sure you will be home shortly after they win, because on that day world peace will be declared. Or humanity, as we know it, will end. Either way, it'll be a great day when the cubs win it all. I've said for years that the apocalypse will occur when the Cubs win the World Series. Hopefully your prediction will come true Jehrico.

I agree. I think fans are more worried about what sort of playing condition their favorite players will be in when the season starts.

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060221&content_id=1317559&vkey=spt2006news&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc I definately like this news. It would be devastating to have either Ramirez, Lee, or Zambrano get injured in the WBC before the season even starts. I hope he sits out to prepare for the regular season. On another note, I just can't seem to get excited about the WBC. It just doesn't interest me. Any feelings on this?

I think it's much harder to find a natural leader like Jeter than a power hitter like A-Rod. I would much rather have Jeter on my team than A-Rod.

I don't like either player. They play for the Yankees.

Not to nit pick but I consider Ted Williams the best hitter of all time. even so, he had a good mentor. Cobb actually got mad at Williams often times and thought he swung for the fences too much. Cobb had a serious dislike for home runs, he thought they cheapened the thrill of the game. Wouldn't that make Williams a better hitter because he hit more homeruns? His average didn't suffer and he hit home runs. I think that makes him better than Cobb. That was why I put Gehrig and Ruth ahead of Cobb also.

The last time I checked, we weren't talking about who was the scariest player of all time.

Not to nit pick but I consider Ted Williams the best hitter of all time.

Then you must have changed your view, because two pages ago you were agreeing with Tree that Cobb would have "done nothing" today and that not a single player before 1940 could play in the bigs today. I said that if you took the old players as they were and didn't give them any of the amenities the players have now that they would be unlikely to succeed. My last point was that if you gave Cobb or Ruth the amenities that players have now, that they would still be All Stars. The same goes for taking everything away from the best players of today, that they would be All Stars back in the 1920's if they didn't have everything they do have. Again, I don't buy that. If you plucked Mr. Cobb from 1909 playing the World Series against the Cubs and gave him a bat and threw him up to the plate in a 2006 MLB game, you think he wouldn't be able to hit the pitcher? Do you think he'd just sit there and shake and pee his pants and say, OH MY GOD!!!! The speed of the game has not evolved that much. Humans throw just as hard now as they did then, and ran just as fast. I said that they "wouldn't be likely to succeed" not that they for sure would not succeed. Of course the great players would succeed in any era but without the amenities, I don't think that a majority of the old time players would succeed in today's game.

Tree said that if the old players DID NOT HAVE the same benefits that they wouldn't be playing. He never mentioned what he thought if the old players did have those same benefits. Read his statement correctly.

Then you must have changed your view, because two pages ago you were agreeing with Tree that Cobb would have "done nothing" today and that not a single player before 1940 could play in the bigs today. I said that if you took the old players as they were and didn't give them any of the amenities the players have now that they would be unlikely to succeed. My last point was that if you gave Cobb or Ruth the amenities that players have now, that they would still be All Stars. The same goes for taking everything away from the best players of today, that they would be All Stars back in the 1920's if they didn't have everything they do have.

I don't need to give any specific reasons to show that some modern players might not do so hot back in the day. The whole argument about "they wouldn't do well in modern times because conditioning and technology is better" doesn't work at all if you are trying to make the argument that classic players wouldn't do well in today's world. Because what we have in modern times are more BENEFITS. Exposing these legends to the benefits that modern baseball has would only serve to make them better, not worse. On the contrary, it's a much easier argument to make that players now would do worse back then because of the DETRIMENTS and the loss of these benefits that they would have to endure to have played back then. Added benefits can only serve to make one better, case in point the latinos who grow up playing with milk carton gloves. At the same time, the players today have gotten used to having all of the amenities that are available to them and adjusted accordingly. I'm saying that because there are players that didn't have those amenities available to them and they still made the majors that the players that did get used to them would have adjusted without them. They wouldn't have gotten used to all of the amenities because they wouldn't have had them at all. The same goes for the old time players. They would have adjusted to having the amenties. For the most part, I think that an All Star now would be an All Star then and vice versa. Obviously there are some exceptions, but I think a player is what he is.

Not every great player right now grew up playing with crap for equipment. That isn't a requirement for greatness. It just so happens that there are some players now that didn't have good equipment available to them. I don't see how I helped your point one bit. You haven't given me a reason to believe that some of the current players wouldn't excel if they played in the 1920's.

That point actually works against his argument, in my opinion. Because you can easily flip that and say that the pampered players today, with their post and pre-game massages, sauna's, advanced medical treatment, proper equipment, manicured fields, couldn't be able to hack it back in the day when those types of things were unheard of. We as people tend to think that our time is the best, our generation is the best, brightest, strongest, fastest. Every generation feels that way, but when you boil it all down, people are people. My meaning is that the human body is the human body. A person could run just as fast back then as they can now, a person could throw a ball just as far or just as fast back then as they can now. The human body is limited. It is of course true that our athletes are better conditioned, but the majority of baseball is NOT conditioning, so much of it is mental and just inherent ability. How many awesomely conditioned players are ALWAYS going to be second-tier players? What separates the top tier from the second tier? It's natural ability and mental knowledge. All the strength conditioning in the world won't help you hit .380 if you don't have the inherent knowledge and skill. There are always going to be players with "inherent knowledge and skill." That's never going to change. The difference is all of the amenities that the players now have available to them. Treeman was saying that if you brought those old time players to the league now that they wouldn't be as good as the old time players. Also, you say that the pampered players today wouldn't be able to hack it back in the old days because they are so pampered. How about all of the Latino players that grow up using broomsticks as bats and don't have any formal training? You think that they have more available to them growing up than the players in the early part of the century? I think not.