[Mark Tungston]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:

Didn't Rickey win only once in his 20 year career with the A's in 89'? So he lead for 1 year and forgot how to lead after that? [/url]

good point

having said that, ted williams never won

[Ghoser777]

I really never liked the idea of a home run. From an offensive stand point, it does get you instant run production. But what it can also do is kill a rally/inning. As a hitter, I'd much rather there be a guy on second base that I could knock in than the bases clear because the guy before me hit a home run.

I think it would be "cool" if they errect a huge wall in the out field that would knock down home runs and fields can catch pop outs off the walls. That way you'd want to try to place the ball perfectly instead of just trying to knock it out of the park. But everyone gets so excited about home runs...

I wonder how BB would do as a leadoff hitter. Let's see, he would usually have no one on base in front of him, so his home runs would only score one. He wouldn't intiate the offense in kind of a "big inning" type of way. Same thing for RH in the 4 hole - why would you do that?

What if we were comparing a setup man versus a closer, saying which one was the best relief pitcher? You can't really looke at most of the statistics (saves, etc) because the setup man shouldn't be getting saves, the closer should. ERA and other things would help, but it also depends if the setup man ends up being a fire estinguisher (always is brought on with runners on base) or not.

What about Micahel Jordan versus Steve Kerr? Kerr has a higher shooting percentage, but Jordan scored more points. Which is the better 'player?'

A formula for this is simple: comparing apples and oranges is stupid.

Matt Fahrenbacher

[gorickey]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
Rickey Henderson was the best player on the team that consisted of Mark McGuire and Dennis Eckersley?

It's McGwire, and yes...Rickey was the best hands-down on that team. Hence him being voted the "A's All-Time Franchise Player"...

Rickey = 1989: ALCS Most Valuable Player (hit .400 and led all hitters with 15 total bases, 8 runs scored 5 RBI's and 7 walks...set a new LCS record with 8 steals...belted 2 homers in game #4...kept up the pace in the World Series vs. San Francisco...topped everyone with 9 hits...added 2 walks, 4 runs scored and 3 steals...for the A's entire nine-game post season Rickey hit .441, scored 12 runs, had 15 hits of which 8 were for extra-bases, and walked 9 times...in addition had 8 RBI's and 11 steals.)

Rickey = 1990: MVP of the AL, leading his team to the World Series (swept by the Reds; however, Rickey batted I believe .400 in that series/post-season as well)

Henderson in the post-season is deadly. Hence, the Blue Jay's acquiring him essentially for the October run at the World Series in '93...

[gorickey]

So, if it came down to Rickey or Barry to choose from in starting a franchise...who would you choose if both were available during their prime? Just wondering.

If it was the bottom of the 9th, 2 outs, and you were down by a 1 with nobody on base...who would you place your bet on scoring for your team and wanting up at the plate in that scenario? Rickey or Barry? Just wondering.

[gorickey]

Originally posted by Ghoser777:
A formula for this is simple: comparing apples and oranges is stupid.

Yep, that's what I've said a few times in this thread already. That's why I look at other untangibles, such as World Championships, etc. etc. instead of statistics of players who are trying to accomplish different things up at the plate. Both have, in their respecitve spots in the line-up, been the best.

Mark mentioned earlier that Bonds has dominated the 1986-2004 era; however, Rickey has completely changed the way the lead-off hitter position is supposed to be played (and in term, the game of baseball) and has put fear in the opposing coaches eyes like no other player during his era...one that has lasted from '79-'04 spanning 4 decades. It's the little things like that, that are more important than stats and MVP's...

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by gorickey:
So, if it came down to Rickey or Barry to choose from in starting a franchise...who would you choose if both were available during their prime? Just wondering.

If it was the bottom of the 9th, 2 outs, and you were down by a 1 with nobody on base...who would you place your bet on scoring for your team and wanting up at the plate in that scenario? Rickey or Barry? Just wondering.

I would rather have Barry hit, no question about it. But once BarryInhisPrime gets up to bat, he'll be immediately walked. So I guess I'd rather have Rickey, since they'll actually pitch to him.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by Phanguye:
Trying to say that someone is doing there job as a leadoff hitter is nonsensical as well. There is no difference between the job of a leadoff hitter and any other hitter in the line up. The job of a hitter is to either score themselves (via a home run) or get on base so someone else can drive them in. There job is to not get an out.

Of course there is a difference between the leadoff hitter and every other hitter in the lineup.

- He comes to bat first.
- When he next comes to bat, it's usually immediately after the worst hitters in the lineup, so there is less of a chance that he'll have men on base to drive in
- He usually gets more at-bats over the course of a season, since he gets up to bat first every time the lineup cycles.
- We've already covered the fact that not all players have the same talents, and that certain players have to play certain roles on the team and in the lineup.

Because of all these reasons, It's much more important for a leadoff hitter to get on base than to hit for power. And once he's on base, it's important for him to advance, so the other hitters in the lineup can bring him in.

[gorickey]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
Of course there is a difference between the leadoff hitter and every other hitter in the lineup.

- He comes to bat first.
- When he next comes to bat, it's usually immediately after the worst hitters in the lineup, so there is less of a chance that he'll have men on base to drive in
- He usually gets more at-bats over the course of a season, since he gets up to bat first every time the lineup cycles.
- We've already covered the fact that not all players have the same talents, and that certain players have to play certain roles on the team and in the lineup.

Because of all these reasons, It's much more important for a leadoff hitter to get on base than to hit for power. And once he's on base, it's important for him to advance, so the other hitters in the lineup can bring him in.

Well said.

[gorickey]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
I would rather have Barry hit, no question about it. But once BarryInhisPrime gets up to bat, he'll be immediately walked. So I guess I'd rather have Rickey, since they'll actually pitch to him.

Of course you would want Rickey...even if Barry was intentionally walked, he wouldn't advance around the bases like Rickey could if he walked himself.

And, it's a well-known fact, that finding good lead-off hitters/players is damn near impossible these days. Every team in the majors wants to have a strong lead-off hitter, it just so happens nobody is dominant in that position like Rickey used to be. Rickey has made each team wanting more from their lead-off hitter. However, on the flip side, power hitters are coming out of the woodwork these days. They are a dime a dozen. So in starting a franchise, I would go with somebody like Rickey since finding somebody like that is much harder. I'm not saying it's easy to replace a Barry Bonds; however, I am saying it's much easier to find people who can hit for power and drive in runs is all.

Put it this way...from memory, how many lead-off hitters can you name off the top of your head in the majors right now?

How many clean-up guys/power-hitters can you name from memory?

Big difference.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by gorickey:
I would go with somebody like Rickey since finding somebody like that is much harder. I'm not saying it's easy to replace a Barry Bonds; however, I am saying it's much easier to find people who can hit for power and drive in runs is all.

thats like the worst logic ever!!

in optimal circumstances, you fill the 3-hole first, 4-hole second and then you build from around those 2 hitters

[gorickey]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
thats like the worst logic ever!!

in optimal circumstances, you fill the 3-hole first, 4-hole second and then you build from around those 2 hitters

Says who? You? That's logical.

Of course, it wouldn't surprise me if that is the optimal circumstance as finding a quality lead-off hitter is nearly impossible so you simply move on looking to fill the other holes...

[Ghoser777]

Eh, offense is overrated anyway. I prefer my baseball games like my women, short and fast... I have no idea what that means. I think I'm voting for defense being more important.

[seeing if I can get this thread going in a different direction]

Matt Fahrenbacher

[gorickey]

Originally posted by Ghoser777:
[seeing if I can get this thread going in a different direction]

I'm convinced. Good work...

So what about the All-Star Game?

[Apple Pro Underwear]

i personally liked seeing Roger Clemens get bombed. he fooled the entire baseball world into saying goodbye to his fat ass only to resurface like a bloated whale


� A. Soriano is the real deal. He's going to get bigger like Sosa did but not to that extent probably
� Pudge is just starting to get some of the respect he never got in texas. they said he couldn't work with pitchers �_he seem sto be doing fine in Fla. and Detroit
� Derek Jeter showed a glimpse of why we love him. he's conistant and especially when the stage gets bigger.
� Mark Mulder the best pitcher on the A's? I think he's the Cy Younf front runner while Zito has been struggling
� How quickly we forget about Sosa's corking incident. His bat shattered on that double but nobody said anything.
� "The Fear" that Barry Bonds incites is on a level that only Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa had. (Babe Ruth had Gehrig, but my memory doesn't go back that far )

[Mark Tungston]

Originally posted by gorickey:
Says who? You? That's logical.

Of course, it wouldn't surprise me if that is the optimal circumstance as finding a quality lead-off hitter is nearly impossible so you simply move on looking to fill the other holes...

I agree with Apple Pro.

You want the best hitter possible, (average, power, rbi) first and fill the 3 hole and build everything around your best hitter


if the entire mlb roster was available and every MBL player who every played the game was available and in their primes �

I choose Ted Williams and Lou Gehrig to hit 3 and 4 before i would choose rickey to leadoff

[gorickey]

Originally posted by Mark Tungston:
I choose Ted Williams and Lou Gehrig to hit 3 and 4 before i would choose rickey to leadoff

That's says alot within itself...

Thanks.

[Malt Magics]

remeber before Rickey, there was Bonds, Bobby Bonds who blended together the combination of speed and power never seen before. Rickey may be a great hall of fame player, and one of my favorites, but I'd pick Barry over him right now, when both are in their primes, though is Bonds in his prime? if not, his prime wasn't very good compared to his twilight days. what I wanted to always see was Rckey and Bonds on the same team. The media didn't like both of tose guys. then while we're at it, throw on Kenny Lofton and Albert Belle!

The amount of fear opposing pitchers show Bonds is not comparable to Sosa and Big Mac. It's even greater, just look at his intentional walk totals. right now Jim Thome is garnering the fear showed to Big Mac and Sosa circa 1998. what Bonds is doing right now is downright improbable.

teams are relying too much on the home run, that's why there are so many mediocre teams. Look at the Astros and Phillies. Last season's Marlins didn't rely on that, but this season they need more offense. At some point it wil revert back to pitching and defense. It's just right now, baseball is in a terrible state concerning fundamnetals where a lot of young players do not learn these things.

[Malt Magics]

and by the way, I've never liked comparing modern day players to the likes of Ruth or Cobb.

The level of competiton and specialization nowadays is so much better than it ever was back then. It was probably easy for a guy like cobb to get all those hits when you had the quality of pitching you had back then. it wouldn't be inconceivable to grab some guy off the street to pitch a game if your usual guy was maybe too drunk to show up, or when you had guys blow out their arms after throwing one too many games in a row. Look at Charles "old hoss" Radburn. All-time leader in wins by a pitcher in a season with 59 or 60 depending on how you count. blew his arm out a few seasons later. that was back in the day of the 2 man rotation. Cobb and Ruth were triumphant victims of their eras. They wouldn't survive in MLB today.