jerry THORNTON:"Papi is easily the GREATEST red sox ever!"

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    Ortiz is the greatest hitter I have ever seen but I only go back to the days of Rice and Brett.


    Ortiz is perhaps the MOST IMPORTANT Red Sox player ever.


    He is one of the best Red Sox, but not the best.  I mean, statistically speaking Williams was the best hitter of all time so right there you'd have to go w/ TW. 

    I would say bottom line he is not the best Sox ever but he is a Hall of Famer and again, the best hitter I have ever seen and perhaps the "MOST IMPORTANT" Red Sox player ever.




    This is a good way of distinguishing the matter, I think. In terms of statistics and pure talent, I don't think you can beat Williams...but with Ortiz's three rings and postseason heroics, I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that he's not the most consequential player in Red Sox history (certainly post-1918).

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    In response to Flapjack07's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ortiz is the greatest hitter I have ever seen but I only go back to the days of Rice and Brett.


    Ortiz is perhaps the MOST IMPORTANT Red Sox player ever.


    He is one of the best Red Sox, but not the best.  I mean, statistically speaking Williams was the best hitter of all time so right there you'd have to go w/ TW. 

    I would say bottom line he is not the best Sox ever but he is a Hall of Famer and again, the best hitter I have ever seen and perhaps the "MOST IMPORTANT" Red Sox player ever.[/QUOTE]


    This is a good way of distinguishing the matter, I think. In terms of statistics and pure talent, I don't think you can beat Williams...but with Ortiz's three rings and postseason heroics, I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that he's not the most consequential player Red Sox history (certainly post-1918).

    [/QUOTE]

    thanks

     

    and I like your new avatar.  That kid is one good looking ballplayer.  I don't know about his D or where he will field but at the dish he is going to be great.  The future is bright w/ this team.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from jete02fan. Show jete02fan's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    while it's safe to say that covers a lot of ground, a case could probably be made, Williams was leaving the game as i grew up so i only have film to lean on which i have no doubt is a true representation, but over the years i've seen Sox players who i'd say were great as a whole, i have no basis to qualify "greatest" but based on the 10 seasons seeing for myself, no doubt he gets a seat at that table..

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    One thing that gets lost in the lauding of Papi and his heroics is just how great a hitter he is.  Not his clutch prowess or his towering homeruns, his pure hitting acumen.  His slash line over 12 years in a sox uniform is .292/.389/.571.  Thats pretty insane sustained greatness.  And, he is arguable a much better pure hitter in these past three 'twilight' years of his career than he ever was.

    A sports radio personality making a bold statement like Papi-better-than-Teddy-Ballgame-Hands-Down is to be expected.  They get paid to stir the pot.  

    I don't think that comnparison is really fair to either fellow.  Teddy is Teddy.  Papi is Papi.  No need to ranke them.

    To me, the fact that this is even a debate is a testament to Papi's ascension though.  Wouldn't be having it without the heroics of October 2013.  But the heroics are what puts him in the same rarified air as Ted Williams, a man in the Mount Rushmore of baseball greats.  

    In any case, I like the debate even if I don't think it is fair - mainly because I think it is just missing the forest for the trees when people are whining about Papi's offhand contract remarks in the pre-season or whatever.  Actions always speak louder than words.  Show the man some R-E-S-P-E-C-T (Bill, you hear me talkin'?).

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    I want to mention that if you check out Ortiz's stats in the minors he was already a very good hitter w/ power.  The Twins didn't utilize him properly and actually prefered Minky over him.  Ortiz "all of a sudden going great after he met Manny", etc comments do not cut it if you look deep into his stats when he was in the minors.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jete02fan. Show jete02fan's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I want to mention that if you check out Ortiz's stats in the minors he was already a very good hitter w/ power.  The Twins didn't utilize him properly and actually prefered Minky over him.  Ortiz "all of a sudden going great after he met Manny", etc comments do not cut it if you look deep into his stats when he was in the minors.

    [/QUOTE] would be a bit unfair because i would think you'd want someone like Manny to aspire to(as a hitter) i know that kind of hitter would make me be better...while i'm sure Manny helped...it's clear Ortiz put the work in..


     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    The pitching was much better when Williams and Yaz played.

    A player like Mark Reynolds , who should be no higher than AAA , finds a roster spot every year. He has trouble hitting above .200 and can't field a lick. He survives by swinging for the fences and feasting on the most pitiful era for pitching in recent memory. 

    Red Sox won 3 championships in ten years, yet likely will not have a pitcher inducted in the HOF. Schilling might make it Pedro should ( only played on 1 of those teams) , Beckett won't, Lester is unlikely, Lackey won't, Buchholz is unlikely. Timlin won't, Wakefield won't. 

    This speaks volumes about how horrible pitching is in MLB since the 80s when you can count on one hand how many pitchers are HOF worthy. 

    Papi feasts on sub-par pitching and poor decsion making by managers. If that is Yastrzemski at bat , they do not pitch to him, they walk him. 

    Ortiz is a legend, no doubt. To compare him with Red Sox HOF players of another era based on their lack of rings is beyond ridiculous.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The pitching was much better when Williams and Yaz played.

    A player like Mark Reynolds , who should be no higher than AAA , finds a roster spot every year. He has trouble hitting above .200 and can't field a lick. He survives by swinging for the fences and feasting on the most pitiful era for pitching in recent memory. 

    Red Sox won 3 championships in ten years, yet likely will not have a pitcher inducted in the HOF. Schilling might make it Pedro should ( only played on 1 of those teams) , Beckett won't, Lester is unlikely, Lackey won't, Buchholz is unlikely. Timlin won't, Wakefield won't. 

    This speaks volumes about how horrible pitching is in MLB since the 80s when you can count on one hand how many pitchers are HOF worthy. 

    Papi feasts on sub-par pitching and poor decsion making by managers. If that is Yastrzemski at bat , they do not pitch to him, they walk him. 

    Ortiz is a legend, no doubt. To compare him with Red Sox HOF players of another era based on their lack of rings is beyond ridiculous.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree that comparing players from different eras is ridiculous...but isn't saying something like "the pitching back then was better"

    I what evidence, or analysis do we have to make such a claim???

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The pitching was much better when Williams and Yaz played.

    A player like Mark Reynolds , who should be no higher than AAA , finds a roster spot every year. He has trouble hitting above .200 and can't field a lick. He survives by swinging for the fences and feasting on the most pitiful era for pitching in recent memory. 

    Red Sox won 3 championships in ten years, yet likely will not have a pitcher inducted in the HOF. Schilling might make it Pedro should ( only played on 1 of those teams) , Beckett won't, Lester is unlikely, Lackey won't, Buchholz is unlikely. Timlin won't, Wakefield won't. 

    This speaks volumes about how horrible pitching is in MLB since the 80s when you can count on one hand how many pitchers are HOF worthy. 

    Papi feasts on sub-par pitching and poor decsion making by managers. If that is Yastrzemski at bat , they do not pitch to him, they walk him. 

    Ortiz is a legend, no doubt. To compare him with Red Sox HOF players of another era based on their lack of rings is beyond ridiculous.



    I agree that comparing players from different eras is ridiculous...but isn't saying something like "the pitching back then was better"

    I what evidence, or analysis do we have to make such a claim???

    [/QUOTE]

    Check the stats and the names of the Hall Of Famers and when they played ( if you don't know ).

    Hell, our main nemisis during the late 60s , early 70s ( WHEN YAZ WAS IN HIS HEYDAY) the Baltimore Orioles had a starting rotation that was like an All Star rotation.....McNally, Cueller, Palmer, Dobson...it doesn't get much better than that. Then you play Detroit with Lolich and McLain. No playing inter league games , more games against your own Eastern division....means Yaz was facing Hall Of Fame Pitchers and All Stars more frequently. If Yaz played today he would have finished with over 700 homers, I have no doubts. He would face AAA call ups and no names , not to mention no-stuff middle relievers.

    In short the era Yaz played was the era of pitcher. Ortiz plays in the era of the slugger. I would guess tha 75 % of todays pitchers would not have lasted half a season in the early 70s....or would have sported ERAs over 6.00 in a time when anything over 3.00 was considered bad.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from steven11. Show steven11's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    It is tough to compare the two.  If John Henry did not buy the team and Frank McCourt got his hands on it, The Sox may still be without a WS championship.

     

    The pitching mound was higher all thru Ted's career and for most of his career he had to go longer for a homer in right.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The pitching was much better when Williams and Yaz played.

    A player like Mark Reynolds , who should be no higher than AAA , finds a roster spot every year. He has trouble hitting above .200 and can't field a lick. He survives by swinging for the fences and feasting on the most pitiful era for pitching in recent memory. 

    Red Sox won 3 championships in ten years, yet likely will not have a pitcher inducted in the HOF. Schilling might make it Pedro should ( only played on 1 of those teams) , Beckett won't, Lester is unlikely, Lackey won't, Buchholz is unlikely. Timlin won't, Wakefield won't. 

    This speaks volumes about how horrible pitching is in MLB since the 80s when you can count on one hand how many pitchers are HOF worthy. 

    Papi feasts on sub-par pitching and poor decsion making by managers. If that is Yastrzemski at bat , they do not pitch to him, they walk him. 

    Ortiz is a legend, no doubt. To compare him with Red Sox HOF players of another era based on their lack of rings is beyond ridiculous.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree that comparing players from different eras is ridiculous...but isn't saying something like "the pitching back then was better"

     

    I what evidence, or analysis do we have to make such a claim???

    [/QUOTE]

    Check the stats and the names of the Hall Of Famers and when they played ( if you don't know ).

    Hell, our main nemisis during the late 60s , early 70s ( WHEN YAZ WAS IN HIS HEYDAY) the Baltimore Orioles had a starting rotation that was like an All Star rotation.....McNally, Cueller, Palmer, Dobson...it doesn't get much better than that. Then you play Detroit with Lolich and McLain. No playing inter league games , more games against your own Eastern division....means Yaz was facing Hall Of Fame Pitchers and All Stars more frequently. If Yaz played today he would have finished with over 700 homers, I have no doubts. He would face AAA call ups and no names , not to mention no-stuff middle relievers.

    In short the era Yaz played was the era of pitcher. Ortiz plays in the era of the slugger. I would guess tha 75 % of todays pitchers would not have lasted half a season in the early 70s....or would have sported ERAs over 6.00 in a time when anything over 3.00 was considered bad.

    [/QUOTE]

    Thats my point, those stats prove nothing.  The level of competition was different on every level.  If the hitters from today were better from the hitters back then, then all of a sudden the pitchers wouldn't have such greater stats.

    No one will ever know unless they invent a time machine, so to me the stats are completely meaningless in comparisons between multiple decades. 

    inherently to me it makes sense that the talent is better across all levels from hitting to pitching now a days.  We know more about player development, humans are growing more, more efficient training methods, players are stronger....and they develop them from a young age.  There is so much more money in the game to go towards development and scouting, and that has also led to a much much much larger pool of talent to pick from as well. 

    I do think it's ridiculous to say either way, but If I had to choose....I'd say the competition is better today.  On the pitching and the hitting side. 

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    In response to billge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Actually, Ted greatest Red Sox baseball player. Papi greatest Red Sox team player Make any sense?

    [/QUOTE]

    i get what your saying Bilge, but tough to say for a guy who doesnt take the field.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    If the pitching was so much better back then then maybe Babe Ruth would have 1,256 home runs today.  

    Like I said, unless someone can invent a time machine and send Clayton Kershaw back to the 40's no one can really say one way or the other.  If the hitters weren't as good back then, then that makes the pitching look better.  

    If there was less of a pool of elite pitching and elite hitting, then the top top top hitters AND pitchers are at an advantage.

    I don't know how Ted Williams would perform today, or how Derek Jeter would perform back then, but inherently I feel like the talent pool is much more spread out.  There is less of a distance between the worse and top player today than there was back then....of course I feel this is subjective as well. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    saying the pitching was better 60 70 years ago because of the stats is like saying Alexander the great could totally wipe out the united states armed forces today. 

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from steven11. Show steven11's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    In response to BogieAt12oclock's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to kelvana33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to billge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Actually, Ted greatest Red Sox baseball player. Papi greatest Red Sox team player Make any sense?

    [/QUOTE]

    i get what your saying Bilge, but tough to say for a guy who doesnt take the field.

    [/QUOTE]

    If the DH rule had been in place when Teddy Ballgame played, Ted would have been a DH.

    [/QUOTE]


    It would have been nice to have seen him stick around for a few more years.  Even if the dh rule was around, I get the feeling that fishing was more important to him.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    Babe Ruth, no question.  After him Ted Williams.  Then Yaz.  I like Ortiz a ton, but he has two big strikes--the PED thing and the fact that he is a DH. 

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from steven11. Show steven11's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Babe Ruth, no question.  After him Ted Williams.  Then Yaz.  I like Ortiz a ton, but he has two big strikes--the PED thing and the fact that he is a DH. 

    [/QUOTE]


    When he hits like last night, just being a DH is more than enough.  He still has hit fine since the ped scandal.  Not 46 homers well but well enough.  His years of experience really takes the toll on pitchers as we saw last night.  Ortiz was 0-5 going in at that at bat and that homer is still flying.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The pitching was much better when Williams and Yaz played.

    A player like Mark Reynolds , who should be no higher than AAA , finds a roster spot every year. He has trouble hitting above .200 and can't field a lick. He survives by swinging for the fences and feasting on the most pitiful era for pitching in recent memory. 

    Red Sox won 3 championships in ten years, yet likely will not have a pitcher inducted in the HOF. Schilling might make it Pedro should ( only played on 1 of those teams) , Beckett won't, Lester is unlikely, Lackey won't, Buchholz is unlikely. Timlin won't, Wakefield won't. 

    This speaks volumes about how horrible pitching is in MLB since the 80s when you can count on one hand how many pitchers are HOF worthy. 

    Papi feasts on sub-par pitching and poor decsion making by managers. If that is Yastrzemski at bat , they do not pitch to him, they walk him. 

    Ortiz is a legend, no doubt. To compare him with Red Sox HOF players of another era based on their lack of rings is beyond ridiculous.

    [/QUOTE]


    1.  no minorities (see:  talent pool)

    II. specialized pitching.  closers, setup man.  cannot feast on SP with 167 pitches thrown.

    C.  international (see:  talent pool)

    Four.  microscope.  you think ted had it bad with reporters back in the 40's & 50's?  tweet, instagram, .com, scroll, video phones, a billion reporters.

    fiVe.  if you cannot see that david ortiz is not the most prolific, prestigious, important Red Sox player of all time....so be it.  October 2004 my "sports" life changed forever.  ted could have had 17 .400+ seasons in a row and it would not have changed anyones "sports" life.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share