64 replies to this topic

[You Play to Win the Game]

I believe ESPN knew what it was setting itself up for with Parker. Just like they knew what they were getting into when they put Rush Limbaugh on NFL Countdown. The fact that they now want to sit back and act like an unwitting victim is disgusting, and is just one reason why other than actual sporting events, I never watch ESPN-anything.

Couldn't agree more.

[mweb08]

Sacrilege RE: Cal... but you weren't wrong mweb. BTW, I thought you were a ton more comfortable this week. I didn't get nearly as trashed with Rob's cough this week, barely noticed at all.

Just finished this episode... great job. I really enjoy the high-level discussion on the national topics. We beat to death every Orioles news around these parts, and Bird Talk does a great job of providing an entertaining and insightful show on the O's... so I think this format for you guys is really great.

But Dear God, I guess for this to live up to it's "Wars" name, we're going to have to delve into movies, favorite color, favorite bands, etc. C'mon people! (I'm kidding, seriously... I really am enjoying this)

Haha, thanks man.

We could have went longer on Cal as Pedro suggested, but we had already gone on way longer than we're supposed to so that's why there was kind of an abrupt ending there. Maybe that could have been a skirmish at least, but yeah, we aren't living up to the Wars part of the name.

[SportsGuy]

Sacrilege RE: Cal... but you weren't wrong mweb. BTW, I thought you were a ton more comfortable this week. I didn't get nearly as trashed with Rob's cough this week, barely noticed at all.

Just finished this episode... great job. I really enjoy the high-level discussion on the national topics. We beat to death every Orioles news around these parts, and Bird Talk does a great job of providing an entertaining and insightful show on the O's... so I think this format for you guys is really great.

But Dear God, I guess for this to live up to it's "Wars" name, we're going to have to delve into movies, favorite color, favorite bands, etc. C'mon people! (I'm kidding, seriously... I really am enjoying this)

Tried to drug myself up to keep the cough at a minimum. lol

We will have more Os discussion as the show goes on but right now, there is nothing to really discuss that we didnt discuss last week.

We may have to change the title to message board agreement.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Haha, thanks man.

We could have went longer on Cal as Pedro suggested, but we had already gone on way longer than we're supposed to so that's why there was kind of an abrupt ending there. Maybe that could have been a skirmish at least, but yeah, we aren't living up to the Wars part of the name.

Haha, it's all good. This may be tough, but maybe you could still go on with the topics if there's good conversation, and then Lance could edit out parts that you guys thought maybe dragged on a bit. That may be tough to do without making it obvious, but just a thought.

[SportsGuy]

Haha, thanks man.

We could have went longer on Cal as Pedro suggested, but we had already gone on way longer than we're supposed to so that's why there was kind of an abrupt ending there. Maybe that could have been a skirmish at least, but yeah, we aren't living up to the Wars part of the name.

BTW, didn't get a chance to address it in the podcast but I do think your point about dWAR is valid...but Vaughn also had some high grades, although not as high as Cal. So, that would hurt him as well.

[You Play to Win the Game]

BTW, I thought mweb's line at the end "Come post on BSL if you're intelligent" was pretty great. Not sure how Stoner felt about it though.

[SportsGuy]

BTW, I thought mweb's line at the end "Come post on BSL if you're intelligent" was pretty great. Not sure how Stoner felt about it though.

Are you saying Chris isn't intelligent?

[You Play to Win the Game]

Are you saying Chris isn't intelligent?

I'm saying I think he's more tolerant of dumb people than you or mweb.

[mweb08]

BTW, didn't get a chance to address it in the podcast but I do think your point about dWAR is valid...but Vaughn also had some high grades, although not as high as Cal. So, that would hurt him as well.

Well despite having over 5,000 more plate appearances, Vaughn has almost as much oWAR as does Cal (68.5 to 72.8) so defense is what creates most of the difference in WAR. Vaughn had a 12 dWAR to Cal's 34.5. I just don't think Cal was THAT great defensively. Great, sure, but not top 5 ever great.

Anyway, Arky Vaughn is very underrated as I don't think that many people even know of him.

[SportsGuy]

I'm saying I think he's more tolerant of dumb people than you or mweb.

Well, you don't know Chris.

[mweb08]

I'm saying I think he's more tolerant of dumb people than you or mweb.

Hey, we have come to tolerate you.

[SportsGuy]

Well despite having over 5,000 more plate appearances, Vaughn has almost as much oWAR as does Cal (68.5 to 72.8) so defense is what creates most of the difference in WAR. Vaughn had a 12 dWAR to Cal's 34.5. I just don't think Cal was THAT great defensively. Great, sure, but not top 5 ever great.

Anyway, Arky Vaughn is very underrated as I don't think that many people even know of him.

Don't disagree he is underrated...but I think the era has a lot to do with it.

Personally, I give a lot less credence to those guys as well.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Well, you don't know Chris.

True - I just meant from a not wanting to turn anyone away in terms of growing the board. But my comment was really just tongue in cheak anyway, I thought it was funny and I agreed with it!

Hey, we come to tolerate you.

Haha, I definitely deserved that.

*Dick

[mweb08]

Don't disagree he is underrated...but I think the era has a lot to do with it.

Personally, I give a lot less credence to those guys as well.

I don't think it's fair to knock guys much based on the era they played in unless the game was totally different then like 1800's baseball or the beginning of the NBA. We have numbers that adjust for era and that's mostly good enough for me.

More modern players have had tons of advantages that those older guys didn't have as well.

[mweb08]

True - I just meant from a not wanting to turn anyone away in terms of growing the board. But my comment was really just tongue in cheak anyway, I thought it was funny and I agreed with it!



Haha, I definitely deserved that.

*Dick

Haha, well my put down had a typo that didn't make me seem intelligent. I guess it serves me right.

[SportsGuy]

I don't think it's fair to knock guys much based on the era they played in unless the game was totally different then like 1800's baseball or the beginning of the NBA. We have numbers that adjust for era and that's mostly good enough for me.

More modern players have had tons of advantages that those older guys didn't have as well.

Yea but it goes back to the idea of what you don't know is, how would player X be in this era vs their own or vice versa.

You cant adjust for that.

[mweb08]

Yea but it goes back to the idea of what you don't know is, how would player X be in this era vs their own or vice versa.

You cant adjust for that.

That's basically irrelevant to me.

If you want to strongly consider that, then you may not have any real old timers high on an all-time list. Athletes get better as time goes on so it's only fair to compare them to their peers.

[SportsGuy]

That's basically irrelevant to me.

If you want to strongly consider that, then you may not have any real old timers high on an all-time list. Athletes get better as time goes on so it's only fair to compare them to their peers.

I actually don't disagree...but if their peers sucked and they didn't face top competition, how much validity do you put into that?

Jim Brown was bigger than most Dlineman. Would he have been as great in this era? If you placed Jamal Lewis or Earl Campbell in that era, would they be looked at as the greatest?

What about Wilt. He was facing many guys 5-8 inches shorter than him. Would he have been as dominant a force in this era as he was then?

Its not that i don't think these guys would be great...To me, the best of the best will always be great no matter the era...But its to what level of greatness would they be at?

[LanceRinker]

Haha, yeah I was going to mention that.

Not many people call me Mike to begin with, but you truly are unique in calling me Mike Web.

Nice, I love being unique. Now if only my mother did..oh never mind that.

Ha. Would you prefer to be introduced as Mr. Web? I can do that.

[mweb08]

I actually don't disagree...but if their peers sucked and they didn't face top competition, how much validity do you put into that?

Jim Brown was bigger than most Dlineman. Would he have been as great in this era? If you placed Jamal Lewis or Earl Campbell in that era, would they be looked at as the greatest?

What about Wilt. He was facing many guys 5-8 inches shorter than him. Would he have been as dominant a force in this era as he was then?

Its not that i don't think these guys would be great...To me, the best of the best will always be great no matter the era...But its to what level of greatness would they be at?

Their peers didn't suck, though. That was just the level of competition at the time. That would be like saying 40 years from now that the peers of MJ, Montana, and Ripken sucked. I don't think it matters how Jim Brown or Wilt would play today. It's interesting to think about, but it has no bearing on how great they were or where they rank all-time. If you want to rank players with that in mind, then you should just rank within eras because otherwise, the old-timers don't quite measure up.