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

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

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    no you're not correct, lol.  You can't say "the numbers prove it" because you can't compare the level of competition from today to then.  If all the hitters in the league in 10 years from now were comparable to all the double A hitters today, then in 70 years from now everyone could say that in 2024 that the MLB had the most dominant pitching ever!

    but it's all relative.  In comparision to the rest of the league then YES that stats would show that....but otherwise they are completely meaningless.

    Overall I would say that in most sports, the athletes today are better than they were decades ago.  There is more money, more of a talent pool, better scouting, better coaches, better strength and conditioning etc etc etc.  It is inherently correct that today's level of athlete is more athletic.  We continiously see across all sports that athletes are getting quicker and stronger.  Almost every year the world record for strength, running distance etc etc etc etc are being broken.  That is because over time the human species has become increasingly better at pushing themselves to the limits.   I say baseball is no different.

    A statistic that measures performance can show me that a pitcher in 1970 was better than a pitcher in 2014.  But unless that pitcher in 1970 travels to the future and faces the 2014 batters and vis versa I can't and I don't think ANYONE can say that they were "better" a player playing in single A could travel back to 1890 and might dominate the league.  Did he become a better player? or is the level of competition different? Obviously it is easier to put up better numbers if the competition is different.  Point is, all stats prove, and the only thing they prove here is how good a player is compared to his peers....but we are comparing two completely separate pools of talent decades apart.  I'm not defending David Ortiz here, I actually DON'T think he is the greatest Sox player of all time but I don't think the statement that the pitching 40 years ago was better than it is today.  I just feel that is inherently wrong.    

    again....unless you use the word "better" subjectively, I say you're wrong. 

     
  2. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    In response to Bill-806's comment:

    I heard that show too....   Really, Big PAPI get in line behind  Ted, Carl, Jimmy Rice......  Oh yes, PEDS were not part of baseball bacck then  ........ *********



    Nah.  I mean, Ted and Carl, ok.  Carl debatable, but I wouldn't bother arguing with anyone who says Carl is the better.  But Jimmy Rice?  Look, I love Rice.  My favorite player when I was a youth.  A great, great player.  But, at this point, on every level, performance-wise, leadership-wise, winning-wise, span of time of true greatness, David Ortiz has it all over Jim Rice.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BogieAt12oclock. Show BogieAt12oclock's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    In response to Bill-806's comment:

    I heard that show too....   Really, Big PAPI get in line behind  Ted, Carl, Jimmy Rice......  Oh yes, PEDS were not part of baseball bacck then  ........ *********



    The idiot returns. Morons are part of baseball now; you prove that.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BogieAt12oclock. Show BogieAt12oclock's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    no you're not correct, lol.  You can't say "the numbers prove it" because you can't compare the level of competition from today to then.  If all the hitters in the league in 10 years from now were comparable to all the double A hitters today, then in 70 years from now everyone could say that in 2024 that the MLB had the most dominant pitching ever!

    but it's all relative.  In comparision to the rest of the league then YES that stats would show that....but otherwise they are completely meaningless.

    Overall I would say that in most sports, the athletes today are better than they were decades ago.  There is more money, more of a talent pool, better scouting, better coaches, better strength and conditioning etc etc etc.  It is inherently correct that today's level of athlete is more athletic.  We continiously see across all sports that athletes are getting quicker and stronger.  Almost every year the world record for strength, running distance etc etc etc etc are being broken.  That is because over time the human species has become increasingly better at pushing themselves to the limits.   I say baseball is no different.

    A statistic that measures performance can show me that a pitcher in 1970 was better than a pitcher in 2014.  But unless that pitcher in 1970 travels to the future and faces the 2014 batters and vis versa I can't and I don't think ANYONE can say that they were "better" a player playing in single A could travel back to 1890 and might dominate the league.  Did he become a better player? or is the level of competition different? Obviously it is easier to put up better numbers if the competition is different.  Point is, all stats prove, and the only thing they prove here is how good a player is compared to his peers....but we are comparing two completely separate pools of talent decades apart.  I'm not defending David Ortiz here, I actually DON'T think he is the greatest Sox player of all time but I don't think the statement that the pitching 40 years ago was better than it is today.  I just feel that is inherently wrong.    

    again....unless you use the word "better" subjectively, I say you're wrong. 



    One thing's for certain, the high and tight fastball has gone the way of the dinosaurs. Bob Gibson and Don Drysdale wouldn't be able to pitch their normal game under the newer conditions set up by MLB.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BogieAt12oclock. Show BogieAt12oclock's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    Seeing as Bill has brought  YAZ into the discussion, I will say that YAZ was a great all-around ballplayer, but he doesn't share the sofa with Williams and Ortiz. As far as Jimmies are concerned, I'd put JIMMY FOXX over JIMMY RICE.

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

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    In response to BogieAt12oclock's comment:

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    no you're not correct, lol.  You can't say "the numbers prove it" because you can't compare the level of competition from today to then.  If all the hitters in the league in 10 years from now were comparable to all the double A hitters today, then in 70 years from now everyone could say that in 2024 that the MLB had the most dominant pitching ever!

    but it's all relative.  In comparision to the rest of the league then YES that stats would show that....but otherwise they are completely meaningless.

    Overall I would say that in most sports, the athletes today are better than they were decades ago.  There is more money, more of a talent pool, better scouting, better coaches, better strength and conditioning etc etc etc.  It is inherently correct that today's level of athlete is more athletic.  We continiously see across all sports that athletes are getting quicker and stronger.  Almost every year the world record for strength, running distance etc etc etc etc are being broken.  That is because over time the human species has become increasingly better at pushing themselves to the limits.   I say baseball is no different.

    A statistic that measures performance can show me that a pitcher in 1970 was better than a pitcher in 2014.  But unless that pitcher in 1970 travels to the future and faces the 2014 batters and vis versa I can't and I don't think ANYONE can say that they were "better" a player playing in single A could travel back to 1890 and might dominate the league.  Did he become a better player? or is the level of competition different? Obviously it is easier to put up better numbers if the competition is different.  Point is, all stats prove, and the only thing they prove here is how good a player is compared to his peers....but we are comparing two completely separate pools of talent decades apart.  I'm not defending David Ortiz here, I actually DON'T think he is the greatest Sox player of all time but I don't think the statement that the pitching 40 years ago was better than it is today.  I just feel that is inherently wrong.    

    again....unless you use the word "better" subjectively, I say you're wrong. 



    One thing's for certain, the high and tight fastball has gone the way of the dinosaurs. Bob Gibson and Don Drysdale wouldn't be able to pitch their normal game under the newer conditions set up by MLB.



    No, and I think the lowering of the mound was more significant in changing stuff than people tend to recognize.  The plane of trajectory used to seriously favor the pitcher. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BogieAt12oclock. Show BogieAt12oclock's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    In response to Bill-806's comment:

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    In response to Bill-806's comment:

    I heard that show too....   Really, Big PAPI get in line behind  Ted, Carl, Jimmy Rice......  Oh yes, PEDS were not part of baseball bacck then  ........ *********



    Nah.  I mean, Ted and Carl, ok.  Carl debatable, but I wouldn't bother arguing with anyone who says Carl is the better.  But Jimmy Rice?  Look, I love Rice.  My favorite player when I was a youth.  A great, great player.  But, at this point, on every level, performance-wise, leadership-wise, winning-wise, span of time of true greatness, David Ortiz has it all over Jim Rice.

    The guy is a bloody  D H ......  No extra baseball greatness there ...... BTW, do I dare to mention "the list" that his name showed up on ???




    You really can't be as stupid as you appear. Are you a plant for the Boston Globe or are you just a plant?

     
  10. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    In response to Endspeed's comment:

    One last  post, Ted Williams was a fighter pilot who came back with bullet holes in his jet. His commanding officer in Korea was none other than John Glenn the astronaut. He was not given cushy coaching assignments in the wars. Being a marine pilot is not for the faint of heart and John Glenn has said Ted was an excellent pilot. If memory serves me correctly I believe the term Glenn used to describe Williams was the best pilot he commanded. Enough about that.



          Did you know that baseball great, Ted Williams, was future astronaut and senator John Glenn's wingman in the Korean War, flying F-9F Panther jets? (62 years ago!!!)

     

          The Boston Red Sox slugger, who wore No. 9 as a major leaguer, flew 39 combat missions as pilot of an F-9 Panther jet. He was selected by his commander John Glenn (later the astronaut, senator, and "septuagenonaut") to fly as Glenn's wingman.

     

    While flying an air strike on a troop encampment near Kyomipo, William's F-9 was hit by hostile ground fire. Ted commented later. "the funny thing was I didn't feel anything. I knew I was hit when the stick started shaking like mad in my hands. Then everything went out, my radio, my landing gear, everything. The red warning lights were on all over the plane."

     

    The F-9 Panther had a centrifugal flow engine and normally caught fire when hit. The tail would literally blow off most stricken aircraft. The standard orders were to eject from any Panther with a fire in the rear of the plane. Ted's aircraft was indeed on fire, and was trailing smoke and flames. Glen and the other pilots on the mission were yelling over their radios for William's to get out. However, with his radio out Williams could not hear their warnings, and he could not see the condition of the rear of his aircraft.

     

    Glenn and another Panther, flown by Larry Hawkins, came up alongside Williams and lead him to the nearest friendly airfield. Fighting to hold the plane together, Ted brought his Panther in at more than 200-MPH for a crash landing on the Marsden-matted strip. With no landing gear, dive brakes, or functioning flaps the flaming Panther jet skidded down the runway for more than 3000 feet.  Williams got out of the aircraft only moments before it was totally engulfed in flames. 

     

    Ted Williams survived his tour of duty in Korea and returned to major league baseball.

     

    - - - - - - - - - -

     

          PS: Ted missed out flying combat missions during WW II  because his flying and gunnery skills were so good that he was kept as an instructor for much of the War.  During advanced training at Pensacola, Florida,Ted would accurately shoot the sleeve targets to shreds while shooting out of wing-overs, zooms, and barrel rolls.  He broke the all-time record for "hits" at the school.  Following Pensacola, Ted was sent to Jacksonville for advanced gunnery training.  This is the payoff test for potential combat pilots.  Ted set all the records for reflexes, coordination, and visual reaction time. 

     

          As a result of his stunning success he was made an instructor at Bronson field to put Marine aviation cadets through their final paces.  By 1945 Ted got his wish and was finally transferred to a combat wing, but weeks later the war was over. He was discharged from the military in December of 1945. Seven years later, in December of 1952, Ted was recalled to active duty as a Marine Corps fighter pilot and saw action in Korea.

     

          When asked to name the greatest team he was ever on, Ted said, "the US Marines".

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BogieAt12oclock. Show BogieAt12oclock's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    In response to BogieAt12oclock's comment:

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    no you're not correct, lol.  You can't say "the numbers prove it" because you can't compare the level of competition from today to then.  If all the hitters in the league in 10 years from now were comparable to all the double A hitters today, then in 70 years from now everyone could say that in 2024 that the MLB had the most dominant pitching ever!

    but it's all relative.  In comparision to the rest of the league then YES that stats would show that....but otherwise they are completely meaningless.

    Overall I would say that in most sports, the athletes today are better than they were decades ago.  There is more money, more of a talent pool, better scouting, better coaches, better strength and conditioning etc etc etc.  It is inherently correct that today's level of athlete is more athletic.  We continiously see across all sports that athletes are getting quicker and stronger.  Almost every year the world record for strength, running distance etc etc etc etc are being broken.  That is because over time the human species has become increasingly better at pushing themselves to the limits.   I say baseball is no different.

    A statistic that measures performance can show me that a pitcher in 1970 was better than a pitcher in 2014.  But unless that pitcher in 1970 travels to the future and faces the 2014 batters and vis versa I can't and I don't think ANYONE can say that they were "better" a player playing in single A could travel back to 1890 and might dominate the league.  Did he become a better player? or is the level of competition different? Obviously it is easier to put up better numbers if the competition is different.  Point is, all stats prove, and the only thing they prove here is how good a player is compared to his peers....but we are comparing two completely separate pools of talent decades apart.  I'm not defending David Ortiz here, I actually DON'T think he is the greatest Sox player of all time but I don't think the statement that the pitching 40 years ago was better than it is today.  I just feel that is inherently wrong.    

    again....unless you use the word "better" subjectively, I say you're wrong. 



    One thing's for certain, the high and tight fastball has gone the way of the dinosaurs. Bob Gibson and Don Drysdale wouldn't be able to pitch their normal game under the newer conditions set up by MLB.



    No, and I think the lowering of the mound was more significant in changing stuff than people tend to recognize.  The plane of trajectory used to seriously favor the pitcher. 



    I agree. Lowering the mound after the 68 season was done to increase offense. Bob Gibson had a lot to do with that. YAZ won the batting title in '68 with a .301 average.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BogieAt12oclock. Show BogieAt12oclock's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    In response to Bill-806's comment:

    In response to BogieAt12oclock's comment:

    Seeing as Bill brought has YAZ into the discussion, I will say that YAZ was a great all-around ballplayer, but he doesn't share the sofa with Williams and Ortiz. As far as Jimmies are concerned, I'd put JIMMY FOXX over JIMMY RICE.

    I hear you....... HOWEVAAAA, Rice gets a bum rap because he never smooooozed the "knights of the key board" !!!  Rice had a good 10-12 years of flat out pounding pitchers !!




    Speaking of snoozing, it must be close to your beddy-bye.

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

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    In response to Bill-806's comment:

    I heard that show too....   Really, Big PAPI get in line behind  Ted, Carl, Jimmy Rice......  Oh yes, PEDS were not part of baseball bacck then  ........ *********



    Nah.  I mean, Ted and Carl, ok.  Carl debatable, but I wouldn't bother arguing with anyone who says Carl is the better.  But Jimmy Rice?  Look, I love Rice.  My favorite player when I was a youth.  A great, great player.  But, at this point, on every level, performance-wise, leadership-wise, winning-wise, span of time of true greatness, David Ortiz has it all over Jim Rice.




    Still a different era.  Jim Rice talks about one pair of cleats, even for a double header.  Sure Ortiz has all the numbers and rings.  But Rice played for a cheap team who let minor league and big league talent escape.  Who knows what would have happened if the sox mailed Fisk's contract on time or paid Lynn what he was worth.

    Is there sox who left in the last ten years who would have given the sox one more ring?

    Plus Rice could never be called a Diva.  Diva ball players  get a five point demotion.

    I wish during Jim's last two years that he had the type of trainers the sox have now.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    In response to Bill-806's comment:

    In response to BogieAt12oclock's comment:

    Seeing as Bill brought has YAZ into the discussion, I will say that YAZ was a great all-around ballplayer, but he doesn't share the sofa with Williams and Ortiz. As far as Jimmies are concerned, I'd put JIMMY FOXX over JIMMY RICE.

    I hear you....... HOWEVAAAA, Rice gets a bum rap because he never smooooozed the "knights of the key board" !!!  Rice had a good 10-12 years of flat out pounding pitchers !!




    I agree Rice was long underrated because of his prickly relationship with the KoKs (though a Hall of Fame jacket should be a bygones be bygones pass).  HOWEVVAAA, put Rice's awesome 11 year run vs. Ortiz 11 year run and you see some clear separation in the numbers.  Rice's '78 was ungodly. David had 3 Rice '78s in a row.  And before you go yeah-but-Manny, let us recall Fred Lynn.  Now, on top of a shere numbers comparison (which David wins), lets factor in the Octobers.  And spare me right-place-at-the-right-time.  That, of all the stupid things you have ever said about Ortiz, is, by far, the stupidest.  David is probably the greatest non-pitching post-season performer in the history of the game.  So, there's that.  Now, on the other side, you can of course factor in DH vs. playing a real position.  Rice wins there by virtue of No Contest.  But Rice faded away like you always love to say is inevitable.  Ortiz is still bangin' and so the numbers are going to be monstrous when all is said and done.

    This is no disrespect to the great Jim Ed.  

    Just respect due to the great David Ortiz.

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

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    In response to steven11's comment:

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    In response to Bill-806's comment:

    I heard that show too....   Really, Big PAPI get in line behind  Ted, Carl, Jimmy Rice......  Oh yes, PEDS were not part of baseball bacck then  ........ *********



    Nah.  I mean, Ted and Carl, ok.  Carl debatable, but I wouldn't bother arguing with anyone who says Carl is the better.  But Jimmy Rice?  Look, I love Rice.  My favorite player when I was a youth.  A great, great player.  But, at this point, on every level, performance-wise, leadership-wise, winning-wise, span of time of true greatness, David Ortiz has it all over Jim Rice.




    Still a different era.  Jim Rice talks about one pair of cleats, even for a double header.  Sure Ortiz has all the numbers and rings.  But Rice played for a cheap team who let minor league and big league talent escape.  Who knows what would have happened if the sox mailed Fisk's contract on time or paid Lynn what he was worth.

    Is there sox who left in the last ten years who would have given the sox one more ring?

    Plus Rice could never be called a Diva.  Diva ball players  get a five point demotion.

    I wish during Jim's last two years that he had the type of trainers the sox have now.



    See, this is very subjective and where a distinct difference of opinion on Ortiz occurs.  Rice was an old school hardnosed ball player, no doubt.  But he certainly was an island to himself.  You call Ortiz a diva because he talks about respect and contracts in public.  I get it.  That is not pretty.  but a diva, a true diva, to me, is someone who's selfish behavior draws from team.  David Ortiz has galvanized and been the heart of the Sox since he came here.  In that respect, he is the opposite of diva.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from trouts. Show trouts's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    Ted Williams was the best pure hitter ever. Wasn't his final year BA .388? Plus his potentially best years were spent in WWII and Korea. But he was something of an egotistical prima donna and never really a team guy. DiMaggio and the Yankees always killed Williams and the Sox. Ortiz on the other hand has led this team to 3 WS Championships and is one of the best clutch hitters to ever play the game. He is a great teammate and helped the city recover from the Patriots Day bombing last year. Williams gets the individual accolades but Ortiz has been the most valuable Red Sox player ever.

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

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    I think the pitchers were better in those days.  I also think that center fielders hardly misjudged balls and few fly balls went over their heads.

    Yes, the media hated Jim and Jim did not care.  I will never forget Bob Lobel's rant to destroy Jim. 

    I also think that umpires did not kiss the rear of veteran players in those days.  It seems these players today get to call time out at the plate any time they wish, even if after the 6th inning and the pitcher has a no hitter going.

    Different era different times. 

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from 2013soxchamps. Show 2013soxchamps's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    There are certain people who will never show Ortiz the respect he has earned.

    You can toss stats and all sorts of numbers up there but in the end they will always find some excuse to toss Ortiz aside, and ignore the facts. The fact is Ortiz is the greatest Red Sox player of all time. It's too bad they won't take the time to admit and enjoy a player that will be a legend and an all time great.

    Come on steven11/jackbu and Bill, DAD and the gang.....get on board and enjoy the ride...this will all be history one day. You don't want to be remembered as those "pink hats," do you?

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

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    In response to ImagydSportsBos' comment:

    heard this on eei yesterday on the dale and holley archive. dale said second or third.. may put yaz ahead of him. holley said he was back and forth, could see both sides. thornton made his case. held williams war years against him and his lack of a ring. also said t-will would have been a DH had their been that option for he wasnt a good defender. in fact Papi plays a better first than wills played left. told story of wills working on his hitting regularly while out in left. felt had wills hit 700 HRS (likely had he not gone to war) or hung around for 715, he may feel differently. but with those 3 rings and style, no way no how can anyone b ahead of the papi! 

    after watching that 3-run blast, who can really not concur? clutch.. the bigger the moment more likely to carry u on ur back. yanks lost to orioes, papi aint lettin that happpen as we prep to smack some some jabrees!




    No one even remotely close to TW; NOT EVEN CLOSE!

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

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    I dont know about pitcher quality over eras, but I think there are more hard throwers now, especially as people get bigger, wheras not sure bat speed may not have increased.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from RSPCB73. Show RSPCB73's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    In response to bosoxmal's comment:

    In response to ImagydSportsBos' comment:

    heard this on eei yesterday on the dale and holley archive. dale said second or third.. may put yaz ahead of him. holley said he was back and forth, could see both sides. thornton made his case. held williams war years against him and his lack of a ring. also said t-will would have been a DH had their been that option for he wasnt a good defender. in fact Papi plays a better first than wills played left. told story of wills working on his hitting regularly while out in left. felt had wills hit 700 HRS (likely had he not gone to war) or hung around for 715, he may feel differently. but with those 3 rings and style, no way no how can anyone b ahead of the papi! 

    after watching that 3-run blast, who can really not concur? clutch.. the bigger the moment more likely to carry u on ur back. yanks lost to orioes, papi aint lettin that happpen as we prep to smack some some jabrees!




    No one even remotely close to TW; NOT EVEN CLOSE!



    Agree.  Add to that the fact that TW played the outfield more than adequately.  Can't say that about Ortiz for any position on the field. He has been principally a DH.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BogieAt12oclock. Show BogieAt12oclock's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    In response to trouts' comment:

    Ted Williams was the best pure hitter ever. Wasn't his final year BA .388? Plus his potentially best years were spent in WWII and Korea. But he was something of an egotistical prima donna and never really a team guy. DiMaggio and the Yankees always killed Williams and the Sox. Ortiz on the other hand has led this team to 3 WS Championships and is one of the best clutch hitters to ever play the game. He is a great teammate and helped the city recover from the Patriots Day bombing last year. Williams gets the individual accolades but Ortiz has been the most valuable Red Sox player ever.



    No; his final year in 1960 he hit .316. However, in 1957 at the age of 39, he did hit .388. As most know, Ted hit a homer his last time at the plate, but he didn't tip his cap to the small crowd that showed up for his final game.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Tomhab. Show Tomhab's posts

    Re: jerry THORNTON:

    In response to RSPCB73's comment:

    In response to bosoxmal's comment:

    In response to ImagydSportsBos' comment:

    heard this on eei yesterday on the dale and holley archive. dale said second or third.. may put yaz ahead of him. holley said he was back and forth, could see both sides. thornton made his case. held williams war years against him and his lack of a ring. also said t-will would have been a DH had their been that option for he wasnt a good defender. in fact Papi plays a better first than wills played left. told story of wills working on his hitting regularly while out in left. felt had wills hit 700 HRS (likely had he not gone to war) or hung around for 715, he may feel differently. but with those 3 rings and style, no way no how can anyone b ahead of the papi! 

    after watching that 3-run blast, who can really not concur? clutch.. the bigger the moment more likely to carry u on ur back. yanks lost to orioes, papi aint lettin that happpen as we prep to smack some some jabrees!




    No one even remotely close to TW; NOT EVEN CLOSE!



    Agree.  Add to that the fact that TW played the outfield more than adequately.  Can't say that about Ortiz for any position on the field. He has been principally a DH.


    If you want to compare eras just look at what players did in comparision with other players of their time.  Babe Ruth, hit more Home Runs per year than some whole Teams hit in his era, he also pitched and played the field when he wasn't pitching.  Oh and Babe was hitting a ball that was rawhide filled with sand and sawdust not superballs...  As for Teddy Baseball, no one has every hit .400 so that is all time no comparison.  I love Papi but he hits on adverage the same as other slugger of his time.  Is he the most Clitch hitter of all time?  No doubt about it and Yes he galvanized the City of Boston last year when we needed it, he was  ralling cry for "This F'N City"  Give them all credit but you can't compare them to each other.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share