Jump to content

What O's HOF (provided they were in their prime) would you add to the current roster?


ChaosLex

What O's HOF would you add to the current roster?  

134 members have voted

  1. 1. What O's HOF would you add to the current roster?



Recommended Posts

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Maybe they just weren't smart enough to realize that baseball is a sport of advanced metrics and that watching the games doesn't matter.

Do you have anything productive to add, or are you just trying to show your ignorance?

This is especially stupid because Cal epitomizes intangibles. Good grief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if he could hit homeruns at will, why didn't he hit a couple hundred a season? Or was he like a mini-hulk and could only tap into this power when peeved at the pitcher?

Frank was plenty good enough to not need all the extra hype being thrown at him this thread.

Well, I'll just say we enjoy baseball for different reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those platitudes could be made about most players.

Actually, they couldn't - if they're being accurate.

When people make complimentary posts about players in this thread, they're not trying to make a complete list of everything that made them great. They're pointing out the things they particularly liked about those players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no way to predict how "intangibles" would affect THIS team.

Buck already taught them how to win.

Kangaroo court? Irrelevant. Duquette is cold blooded...ask Kevin Gregg.

Streak? This team lives on depth.

You take your intangibles I'll take Jim Palmer striking everyone out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading back through this thread is cringe-worthy. Misconceptions and strawman arguments all over the place. Really infuriating.

I made an argument in post #19. I used statistics to conclusively prove that Cal had a higher peak. No one even attempted to combat it.

There seems to be a common agreement though.

In terms of actually playing baseball, Cal at his best > Frank at his best.

In terms of holding kangaroo courts and scaring the guys wearing other jerseys, Frank > Cal.

Do we agree on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading back through this thread is cringe-worthy. Misconceptions and strawman arguments all over the place. Really infuriating.

I made an argument in post #19. I used statistics to conclusively prove that Cal had a higher peak. No one even attempted to combat it.

There seems to be a common agreement though.

In terms of actually playing baseball, Cal at his best > Frank at his best.

In terms of holding kangaroo courts and scaring the guys wearing other jerseys, Frank > Cal.

Do we agree on that?

No, but it's not worth discussing with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because we didn't see him play right?

Because people on both sides have made their points, no one is about to change anyone else's opinion, and he's getting insulting. I come here to have fun talking about baseball, not to engage in personal attacks. I expressed my opinion, and whether others think I'm right or wrong is not that important to me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Sometimes I learn stuff here. Sometimes, people get personal. That's when it's not worth it to me keeping up the conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because people on both sides have made their points

No, not really.

Examining the facts =/= reminiscing about how awesome it was to watch Frank Robinson play. And how cool he was hitting monster HRs and joking around with the guys in the clubhouse. I wouldn't really call that a counterargument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...