Joe Carter
Scott Farkas
>dpe...@qualcomm.com (Scott Farkas) writes:
[deletia...]
>>* The Jays made it to their two recent World Series despite having Joe Carter
>>bat cleanup, and not because of it. The same could be said for having Cito
>>Gaston coaching, but that's another thread.
>
>This is a completely groundless assertion, impossible to prove. And typical
>of the pollution being made to this group by those who have no conception
>whatsoever of sport.
Sure it's possible to prove.
There were several hitters in the AL who were better than Carter the last two
years. Now, if I understand your "conception whatsoever of sport", you seem
to think that what makes Carter such a great player is that he has a thespian's
(huh huh huh thespians are cool, Beavis) sense of the dramatic. Now if this is
what you think "sport" is, then you should quit reading right now, because I
don't want you to get offended.
Joe Carter's fine sense of drama was a hinderance to the Blue Jays, when compared
to the "boring" steady production of a Fred McGriff or a Frank Thomas. To say
otherwise is to prove yourself completely incompetent as far as "sport" is
concerned.
>>* If Carter is such a great "clutch hitter", why does he routinely strand the
>>most runners of all batters in the league?
>
>Who cares about the routine situations? Only nerds like yourself. Carter's
>hit will be remembered by sport fans long after any "excitement" about
>Frank Thomas' numbers have died down.
Hmmm... 'nerd'? Look at my grades, pal: you can call me lots of things, but I
am not properly equipped academically to be a 'nerd'. Your ministrations on the
subject indicate you are a cafe hopper, but you don't see me throwing mean
statements around, do you? :)
Carter's hit was fine. A better player probably would have not swung at that
UGLY pitch that Carter struck out on earlier in the game, and the result would
have been the same.
Oh, wait, it would have been less dramatic. NOW I understand "sport".
>>>Toronto, and we wouldn't be World Champs without Joe Carter!!!!
>
>>Now see, there you go, making like the folks on rsbb hate Canadians and that's
>>why we're so hard on Carter. I could care less who he plays for, and I'll show
>>you my impartiality thusly:
>
>Well if you could care less about who he plays for then why the hell are you
>reading a sport group devoted to fans of baseball?
I'm not going to bother answering this one Rog since I think every other single
solitary soul on this newsgroup understood what I was saying.
>> - Joe Carter was not a great hitter when he played for the Cubs
>> - Joe Carter was not a great hitter when he played for the Indians
>> - Joe Carter was not a great hitter when he played for the Padres
>> - aanndd, Joe Carter is still not a great hitter now that he plays for the Jays.
>
>_EVERY_ player in major league baseball is a great hitter. And I don't need
>a spreadsheet to tell me so. Carter hit the magic shot. You can't see it.
>You're a philistine. Go away. Stop bothering sport fans.
Compared to me, I am sure every player in MLB is a great hitter.
Compared to philosophy majors, I am the best damn mechanical engineer the world
has ever seen. This comparison makes about as much sense as yours does.
Compared to each other, it is rare to find someone who fits the bill of "great"
as a hitter in MLB. Joe Carter does not even come close.
So Joe hit the "magic shot". The sun shines on a dog's ass every once in a
while...
>>And please don't tell me that the Jays would have done any worse with one of
>>about twenty OF's in the majors who are more valuable than Carter playing RF.
>
>Still don't get it, do you? The Jays wouldn't have been the Jays without
>Carter in the lineup. Or without any other player on that team. Sport fans
>don't give a damn about silly and pointless comparisons that are impossible
>to assess because the _only_ proof in baseball is on the field, through
>the season, into the post-season and the WS.
You are right, to a point. The Jays would not have been THE SAME if they had
a different player in their lineup. However, if they had Ken Griffey Jr.
playing RF instead of Joe Carter, they almost certainly would have been
*better*. To contend otherwise is to misunderstand the dynamics of run
scoring in baseball.
>But none of that matters, does it? In fact for nerds like yourself the
>strike doesn't really mean much other than you don't have any fresh data.
>But your arguments all work just as well on last year's data, anyway, don't
>they? In fact, if baseball folds it's tent because of people like yourself
>don't crave the glory then you could be comparing stats 20 years after the
>game died without no perceptible difference in either the quality or
>substance of your arguments.
*yawn*
Lashing out against the thinking man is always a habit of people who do not
understand what he is thinking about.
Ex: "Uhhh, you can't quantify his *leadership* ability..."
Ex2: "Are you crazy? Of course there's *protection* in baseball..."
Ex3: "I sure wish that guy didn't *play for himself* so much..."
Ex4: "Why in the hell is the Big Hurt taking all those *balls*?"
Ex5: "Yeah well you have not taken into account that he *knows how to win*..."
Ex6: "*Matt Williams* was the MVP of the National League bar none..."
or, the great
Ex7: "Yeah well I don't *care* what the numbers say. I don't *care* if Joe
Carter has had a great supporting cast in Toronto. I don't give a damn
that all the evidence in existance points to the fact that Joe Carter
is an overrated outmaking machine who hurts his team almost as much as
he helps it. And I *refuse to acknowledge* that there are many players
*playing today* who help their team win more than Joe Carter helps the
Blue Jays.
"Joe Carter is good because I understand 'sport', and I say so.
"Heathen."
>>Thank you for your time.
>
>cordially, as always,
Take it to alt.drama.poor.player.who.happens.to.end.lots.of.World.Series, Rog.
Have a good one
Scott
---
Happiness is contagious. Scatter the seed.
Roger Maynard
>In article 3...@gold.interlog.com, r...@interlog.com (Roger Maynard) writes:
>>dpe...@qualcomm.com (Scott Farkas) writes:
>[deletia...]
>>>* The Jays made it to their two recent World Series despite having Joe Carter
>>>bat cleanup, and not because of it. The same could be said for having Cito
>>>Gaston coaching, but that's another thread.
>>
>>This is a completely groundless assertion, impossible to prove. And typical
>>of the pollution being made to this group by those who have no conception
>>whatsoever of sport.
>Sure it's possible to prove.
Oh boy...
>There were several hitters in the AL who were better than Carter the last two
>years. Now, if I understand your "conception whatsoever of sport", you seem
>to think that what makes Carter such a great player is that he has a thespian's
>(huh huh huh thespians are cool, Beavis) sense of the dramatic. Now if this is
>what you think "sport" is, then you should quit reading right now, because I
>don't want you to get offended.
Missed the point completely, didn't you? Carter will be remembered because
he hit the home run.
>Joe Carter's fine sense of drama was a hinderance to the Blue Jays, when compared
>to the "boring" steady production of a Fred McGriff or a Frank Thomas. To say
>otherwise is to prove yourself completely incompetent as far as "sport" is
>concerned.
There doesn't seem to be much point in reading any further, is there?
less cordially than usual,
rm
Scott Farkas
>dpe...@qualcomm.com (Scott Farkas) writes:
>
>>In article 3...@gold.interlog.com, r...@interlog.com (Roger Maynard) writes:
>>>dpe...@qualcomm.com (Scott Farkas) writes:
>
>>[deletia...]
>
>>>>* The Jays made it to their two recent World Series despite having Joe Carter
>>>>bat cleanup, and not because of it. The same could be said for having Cito
>>>>Gaston coaching, but that's another thread.
>>>
>>>This is a completely groundless assertion, impossible to prove. And typical
>>>of the pollution being made to this group by those who have no conception
>>>whatsoever of sport.
>
>>Sure it's possible to prove.
>
>Oh boy...
Oh boy is right, Roger.
Now, since you seem to dispute this proof, let me give you a few other similar
posits, and you tell me how ridiculous those are.
- It is almost certain that, if you are involved in a traffic incident, you are
better off in a car than on a motorcycle. Why? Because a car is better at keeping
you safe in an accident than a motorcycle is.
- It is almost certain that, if you are attempting to win a cycle road race,
you are better off on a racing bike than a tricycle. Why? Because a racing
bike is better at going fast than a tricycle is.
- It is almost certain that, if you are attempting to cross the Atlantic ocean,
you are better off in a cruise ship than in a rowboat. Why? Because that
cruise ship is better at crossing large bodies of water than a rowboat is.
- It is almost certain that, if you are attempting to convince people of your
correctness on an issue, you are better off using logic than rambling on about
'sport'. Why? Because logic is more convincing than such ramblings are.
..aanndd, I think you know what I'm getting at here...
- It is almost certain that, if you are attempting to win a World Series, you
are better off with Ken Griffey Jr. playing RF rather than Joe Carter. Why?
BECAUSE KEN GRIFFEY JR IS A BETTER BASEBALL PLAYER THAN JOE CARTER IS.
End of story.
>>There were several hitters in the AL who were better than Carter the last two
>>years. Now, if I understand your "conception whatsoever of sport", you seem
>>to think that what makes Carter such a great player is that he has a thespian's
>>(huh huh huh thespians are cool, Beavis) sense of the dramatic. Now if this is
>>what you think "sport" is, then you should quit reading right now, because I
>>don't want you to get offended.
>
>Missed the point completely, didn't you? Carter will be remembered because
>he hit the home run.
Carter will be remembered for that home run for a few years. Ultimately, the
thing that Carter will be remembered for is what people can see: his production
on the field, as measured by statistics. Joe's are not that good, although they
will probably fool some folks like you.
>>Joe Carter's fine sense of drama was a hinderance to the Blue Jays, when compared
>>to the "boring" steady production of a Fred McGriff or a Frank Thomas. To say
>>otherwise is to prove yourself completely incompetent as far as "sport" is
>>concerned.
>
>There doesn't seem to be much point in reading any further, is there?
Nope. Glad you agree with me on that last point--you're in fine form today Rog,
showing more sense than usual.
>less cordially than usual,
Gee. I'm sorry about that.
Thank you for your time.
Scott
Cordial Boy
>Now, since you seem to dispute this proof, let me give you a few other similar
>posits, and you tell me how ridiculous those are.
>- It is almost certain that, if you are involved in a traffic incident, you are
>better off in a car than on a motorcycle. Why? Because a car is better at keeping
>you safe in an accident than a motorcycle is.
>- It is almost certain that, if you are attempting to win a cycle road race,
>you are better off on a racing bike than a tricycle. Why? Because a racing
>bike is better at going fast than a tricycle is.
>- It is almost certain that, if you are attempting to cross the Atlantic ocean,
>you are better off in a cruise ship than in a rowboat. Why? Because that
>cruise ship is better at crossing large bodies of water than a rowboat is.
>- It is almost certain that, if you are attempting to convince people of your
>correctness on an issue, you are better off using logic than rambling on about
>'sport'. Why? Because logic is more convincing than such ramblings are.
>..aanndd, I think you know what I'm getting at here...
>- It is almost certain that, if you are attempting to win a World Series, you
>are better off with Ken Griffey Jr. playing RF rather than Joe Carter. Why?
>BECAUSE KEN GRIFFEY JR IS A BETTER BASEBALL PLAYER THAN JOE CARTER IS.
>End of story.
I would say "almost" the end of story. Of course since each one of your
examples are qualified with "almost" you have merely conceded my point.
But you're too dumb to see that, aren't ya?
Remember, chump, the dog almost caught the rabbit. Almost ain't good
enough.
cordially, as always,
rm
Scott Farkas
>dpe...@qualcomm.com (Scott Farkas) writes:
[deletia...]
>>- It is almost certain that, if you are attempting to win a World Series, you
>>are better off with Ken Griffey Jr. playing RF rather than Joe Carter. Why?
>>BECAUSE KEN GRIFFEY JR IS A BETTER BASEBALL PLAYER THAN JOE CARTER IS.
>
>>End of story.
>
>I would say "almost" the end of story. Of course since each one of your
>examples are qualified with "almost" you have merely conceded my point.
>But you're too dumb to see that, aren't ya?
Right, Rog.
I'll give you the possibility that, through divine intervention, a horrible
injury on Junior's part, or Joe Carter suddenly learning how to get on base,
Carter could outperform Junior one year.
There are serious odds against it, though. Almost as serious as the odds
against you ever convincing anyone of anything with your mindless verbal
diahhrea, except possibly of your incompetence.
>Remember, chump, the dog almost caught the rabbit. Almost ain't good
>enough.
And the sun shines on a dog's ass every once in a while.
Not too often, though. I certainly would not want to stake my chances on
such an occurance.