Favorite Baseball Stat sites

I'd rather have the quaint charm of individual stadiums and let the geeks like Bill James interpret the varying statistics, than to have uniform fields with little intepretation needed in the stats. The best part of baseball are the arguments we have about it!

 

Then at least be consistent and stop gripping about the supposed "unfairness" of the 'Plastic Dome'! You don't get to have it both ways, just because your favorite team got beat by another.

Ed

 

Problem is, the Metrodome is neither quaint nor charming. It's ugly, horrible, plastic, gross and evil. :laugh:

 

You're not the only one. I don't think I'm a good enough writer to hold anybody's attention and I'm pretty sure nobody cares what I have to say anyway.

Setting up a strawman here? Or are these just value judgments?

Multiple rings? If multiple rings is part of your defense, I can hardly wait. *rubbing hands with glee* :smilewinkgrin:

 

Is there any truth to the rumor that the design of the Metrodome came from Adolph Hitler? :laugh:

 

"Intangibles" - always the last-ditch effort in trying to convince someone that your favorite player deserves to be in the Hall. Question is, do the Reds still win in '75 and '76 if they have a mediocre SS? I think they still do.

I don't have a blog either. But I might start one just to countdown the demise of the Metrodome in 2010.

 

So is artificial turf! Not to mention that artificial turf is a known cause of leg, ankle and knee injuries, and shortened careers. "Baggies" have not been known to cause many of thjose, to my knowledge.

Tin walls, brick walls, concrete walls, rubber plates are artificial as well. They are just not plastic, and the Tigers, like everyone else, have to play about as often on or in them, as on natural grass, and wooden walls (Oh wait a minute! There are no ball parks left with "wooden walls"!), as well, so I guess you give that a free pass, hunh??

Ed

 

Yes, and I hate artifical turf, too - at least the old kind. The new turf-grass stuff they make now is much better and real looking. A lot fewer injuries, too. It's essentially like playing on real grass.

 

The problem with the Metrodome is that it is poor craftsmanship; it is ugly architecture. Yes, all of the new stadiums use "plastic" parts too, but they are crafted in a way that is superior to the worst sports stadium to ever come down the pike. Hey, we can take this discussion any which way you want (like the true beauty of good architecture) - and I will always have negative things to say about the Stink-a-dome. :laugh:

 

Andy, I know what you can call your blog.

Delenda Este Metrodome


which means, "Metrodome must be destroyed"

 

Maybe the real problem is, was, and has been the Stink-a-Tigers! Or Stinking thinking!! Who am I or who are you to decide whether or not a Stadium is "good architecture" or "bad architecture"? That is a matter of personal preference, I would assume by the team and/or city wherein the facility is located. When the city and/or team tires of the facility, it goes by the wayside, relegated to the pages of history along with Ebbets Field, Tiger Stadium, the Polo Grounds, and Cosmisky Park, and soon to be joined by the Metrodome and Yankee Stadium.

Ya' don't like a field? Don't watch the games played there. That, more than any other thing, will influence the owners because of the bucks not spent. It worked, unfortunately, in Cleveland, causing the premature demise of the "Mistake by the Lake", and it has worked everywhere else. But let's not try and 'legislate' any stadium out of existence from afar, which is what you really want to do, it would seem, with those particular facilities you do not like. I say keep all the old parks. That's real baseball, and the way the game has been played for 150 years, not some artificial "cookie cutter" variety of the game. Oh yeah, while we are at it, do away with the abominable DH!

Ed

 

No, it is not. Architecture can be judged objectively (for the most part)*. Same with music. I know that doesn't go over well in our relativistic culture. Bach is objectively better than Brittney Spears.

I now withdraw this statement, so as to not cause further derailment of this thread.


*"For the most part" - accounting for the fact that things like architecture and music cannot be judged 100% objectively, but neither is their value based solely on personal preference.

 

No, that's not what I want to do. I'm just having fun and being facetious. :wavey:

 

Then why continually speak of it? Sorry, Tom. I will post no more on this, in accordance to the wishes of a moderator.

Ed

 

Don't you mean Delenda Este New York Mets?