EVIL~! alkeiper

Reese is a great fielder, but don't delude yourself into thinking he can hit. At all. Jesus. A-Rod wanted to get traded because of endorsements? Not because he wants to play on a decent team? How about the fact that New York City is A-Rod's HOMETOWN?

In that case, what difference does it make which stats they are? Am I missing something? I already listed my preferences. Less catagories, rotisserie format.

I think an established team will win it all. But if any team has a chance to surprise, its definately the Padres. A ton of young pitching, and a solid lineup.

That's hardly a proven fact. A salary cap would did a lot for basketball didn't it? Like the Lakers, guys would sign with the Yankees for the name, and the tradition. Our country largely runs on a free market, and traditionally does quite well for itself. Same for baseball. Let the market dictate itself. As for competitive balance, teams have sucked since the beginning of the game.

And what would make the Ring champion more of a champion than Chris Byrd or John Ruiz? Even by the Ring rankings you cite, Chris Byrd is on the top of those rankings. (Unless the Ring just happens to change the rankings to put Vitali and Corrie Sanders 1 and 2, but we'd expect them to not be like a corrupt alphabet organization). It wouldn't surprise me that part of the reason why Corrie Sanders is getting so high in the rankings is due to corrupt organizations. Something that the Ring might be encouraging by trying to "painlessly" give a title out. And the presumably corrupt WBC too. I believe Vitali is #1 and Sanders is #3. And what makes Ring Magazine more legit is that titles are won and lost in the ring, not because the fighter won't defend against Don King's cronies.

They should do something, because they've been blowing smoke out their asses for two years now about how they can't compete with A-Rod on the books. Now he's gone. Do something, damnit.

In 1983, three teams drew UNDER a million fans. Baseball is more popular now than at any time with the exception of the few years before the strike. And its heading up, as three years of exciting playoffs have rejuvenated interest in the game. Attendance figures are available at baseball-reference.com. I suggest using them instead of personal recollection. It makes things a lot easier to comprehend.

The problem is, that type of fantasy strategy doesn't come from the stats you use. If you want more role players in the game, you have to do one of two things....... 1. Reduce the player pool (some baseball leagues are AL or NL only) 2. Increase the number of teams What good will changing stats do? Why pick up a role player when a star will produce in that category, and several others? Besides, role players don't get as many minutes, and I've learned guys who get minutes are usually worth more. It won't work.

The same WBO that decided that the winner of Francisco Damiani and Johnny DuPloy was a more ideal champion than Mike Tyson?

What's this horrific obsession with the ABC titles? They mean absolutely NOTHING in my book. Chris Byrd is not a champion, and John Ruiz is not a champion. Forget about it. The establishment has proven over the last 25 years that they are not interested in the credibility of boxing. They're in this for money. The independant boxing media are the only ones with credibility. Recognize the Ring champions, and no others. If people stop caring about the ABC organizations, maybe something will change. They've got ESPN largely on board. Of course not. Because they wouldn't be champions.

Capacity isn't the standard of sports attendance. When you run an event 81 times a year, you will rarely sell out every event. You build a stadium that will hold a large number of people adequately for the BIG events (All star game, playoffs, etc.). Besides, your argument is that attendance is decreasing. When have baseball games always been sellouts?

No one will be the linear champion. The best option is to becomepopular champion by acclimation, as Floyd Patterson did. As for Ruiz, I'm not sold. Lets see him fight Byrd, Wladimir, Vitali, Tua again, or Tyson. He beat Johnson. So did Vitali, in more convincing fashion. Besides, I hope we're not arguing in favor of seeing him compete for a championship. He's dull enough. As for Ring, here's their top ten, from the March 2004 issue..... 1. Chris Byrd 2. Corrie Sanders 3. Roy Jones 4. Vitali Klitschko 5. James Toney 6. David Tua 7. Hasim Rahman 8. Wladimir Klitschko 9. Fres Oquendo 10. Mike Tyson These rankings were compiled as of November 6, 2003, before Vitali's destruction of Kirk Johnson. They doubtless dropped Jones slightly in that time as well. I think Ring, in recognizing the winner, is just attempting to crown a new champion as painlessly as possible.

By the way, this kind of talk has been going on since the dawn on the sport.

MLB teams that don't draw fans; Tampa Bay, Toronto, Cleveland, KC, Oakland(until the playoffs), Texas, Anaheim(one year removed from their championship and the stadium was empty after May), Florida(until the Playoffs last year), Montreal(unless they're in the Spanish stadium), Mets, Milwaukee, Pitts, Cinci, San Diego, Colorado, LA Fans don't go because there's no competitive balance with the way money is allowed to talk in the sport right now. I love softballs. Texas drew over 2 million fans last season, an average of over 25,000 a game. Anaheim drew over 3 million. Oakland drew over 2,000,000 fans. The Mets drew over 2 million. The Padres topped two million. Cincinnati drew over 2,000,000. As did Colorado. Los Angeles drew over 3 million. These teams don't draw?

Because wins = fans. And if football is so great, why don't the Arizona Cardinals draw? As a Phillies fan, we won't see the Yankees unless we both make the World Series. Hence, George's spening doesn't worry me. And the team still isn't a lock to win its own division.

Sanders beat Purrity. He also beat Al Cole, Bobby Czyz, and Bert Cooper. Yes. Ring Magazine's rankings have been in existance nearly 80 years, and are the most reliable in the sport. They rank Sanders #3. Also, USA Today publishes monthly rankings. They state they're dropping Lewis and Jones next month, so Sanders is ranked fourth among the rest. We'll come back to Ruiz. True, but Sanders KO'd a ranked fighter. Tyson beat up a journeyman. Why should we? Sanders made Wlad his bitch. The fight wasn't anything near close. It was a slaughter. Controversial because most ringside observers thought Rahman won the fight. And McCline lost to Wlad, while Sanders beat him. And McCline hasn't fought anyone of note since. By YOUR ratings, which are based on records only, and don't take most recent bouts in consideration. Also, because they only use records, they can be distorted by a fighter facing guys with inflated records. They aren't bad, but they aren't true champions. Besides, looking at the ABC rankings from a few months ago, Lennox Lewis is the WBC champion. Yet he is unranked by the WBA and IBF. You're telling me that the undisputed, linear champion isn't in your top 10? Its idiocy. Besides, the IBF has already been CONVICTED in various scandals regarding ratings and operations, and the WBA and WBC escape because they operate outside the U.S. Ratings are bought and sold. Its a corrupt, disgusting system, and any recognition of their champions only propogates this. The problem is, Ruiz never beat anyone to become champion in the first place. The WBA stripped Lewis for failing to fight Ruiz, their #1 contender (and co-incidently, promoted by Don King). At that time, the ONLY top 10 fighter Ruiz faced was David Tua, and he was knocked out in 19 seconds. He beat a 40 year old Tony Tucker. Beyond that, Jimmy Thunder is the only guy I have ever HEARD of. And based on that record, he fights Holyfield for the WBA title. Holyfield, co-incidently, had not fought since the Lewis fight, where he LOST a fight for the undisputed championship. And Holyfield beat Ruiz. But practice makes perfect. Holyfield got older, and John Ruiz got a re-match for no conceiveable reason. And Ruiz won. Finally. Then we got a third fight, which was a draw. Most people thought Holyfield had won. So Ruiz couldn't beat a 39 year old Holyfield. But yet he remained WBA "champion." Next we come to Kirk Johnson, who Ruiz beat by disqualification. I guess spurred on by FINALLY beating someone who didn't suck ass, Ruiz tried his hand at 193 lb. Roy Jones. And lost. And it wasn't close. So Ruiz moves on to Hasim Rahman, and for the first time in his freakin' life, beats a decent fighter. And based on that he's once again a "champion." Fuck that. Ruiz has done SHIT in his career. No doubt, because in the eyes of the public, he's the uncrowned champion. If Sanders wins, it'll be less clear-cut, but he'll have conquered both Klitschkos, making him a worthy champion (and no worse than Leon Spinks or Jim Braddock). As for the WBC (as if that matters) Klitschko and Sanders are ranked 1/2. If they fight, I have no question the WBC will crown the winner. Sanders is the more obvious opponent. As for rankings, check out Ring Magazine. Seriously. They're far and away the best.

Of those fighters, Toney, Gomez and Mesi have yet to FACE a ranked heavyweight, let alone beat one. Those rankings are extremely flawed. Ruiz is a joke of a fighter. Tyson hasn't fought in a year. Sanders KO'd Wladimir. Tua's coming off an unimpressive draw with Hasim Rahman, and McCline hasn't faced anyone noteworthy since he lost to Wladimir two years ago. Sanders is considered worthy because he KO'd Wladimir, and Wlad was considered the best heavyweight contender in the world at that time. As for the linear title, it has NOTHING to do with the alphabet titles. Forget them. Those organizations are corrupt. There's no way in hell John Ruiz is a champion. It has to do with public opinion. If Vitali wins, there's no doubt. Hopefully he faces Byrd next.

Not set the post season record for strike outs in like th division series? Not that I'm bitter. That's in reference to marchandise only. Of course, A-Rod is a great player, probably the best on the team. I just wonder if he's so much better than Soriano that he's worth the extra money.

I'm sure the merchandise will console Anglesault. Seriously, what good can A-Rod do? He's a marketable name, but the Yankees themselves have built a brand every bit as marketable. Rodriguez's contribution in that department is marginable at best.

Shit. I completely forgot about Johansson. Make that 1960 then. Chris Byrd is black. John Ruiz has as much claim to having been world heavyweight champion as I do. Lewis beat the linear champion, and unified the titles. There are no other champions from that point forward. For the record, here's the list of legitimate champions from Ali onward........ Muhammad Ali Leon Spinks Ali again Larry Holmes Michael Spinks Mike Tyson Buster Douglas Evander Holyfield Riddick Bowe Holyfield Michael Moorer George Foreman Shannon Briggs Lennox Lewis Hasim Rahman Lewis

Now that they've ditched A-Rod, there's NO REASON the Rangers shouldn't persue Maddux. As for the Pirates, so far their strategy netted them Freddy Sanchez and Bobby Hill. Not bad.

One interesting thing about the Klitschko/Sanders fight, if it indeed happens. We would see the first white undisputed heavyweight champion since 1956, when Marciano vacated the title.

I don't even think its a good trade for the Yankees. They're paying about $15 million MORE to gain about two wins in the standings. That's just bad business sense. Sure, the Yankees pay out the ass for players, but at the end of the day, baseball is a business. You can't sustain an optimum business if your payroll is skyrocketing like this.

I think it needs to be noted that Range Factor has its limitations. For example, a lot of it depends on balls in play, the pitcher's style, where the ball is hit, and so on. There's no single solid statistic to judge fielders.

Those ratings are terrible. Take a look at Juan Carlos Gomez's record. He's never fought a top 10 fighter. Ditto for Joe Mesi. And as much love as Toney gets, he's only fought one heavyweight, who was 40 at the time.