Milestone Players Should Be in the Hall of Fame.

Beat articles, power rankings, statistical analysis, etc. goes here.
User avatar
aaronweiner
GB: Vice Commissioner
Posts: 10514
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 301 times

Milestone Players Should Be in the Hall of Fame.

Post by aaronweiner » Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:02 pm

There are 26 retired MLB hitters who have 500 homers, and eight of them are not in the Hall of Fame; all of them took steroids. There are 29 retired, eligible players who have 3000 hits, and only Pete "Gamblin' Man" Rose and steroid users are not in the Hall of Fame. In fact, other than Omar Vizquel, who should damn well be in the Hall, no non-steroid player with at least 2775 hits isn't in.

Yet we're about to disqualify three of the top 20 BBA home run hitters of any era because of WAR: Jon Mick, William Moreland, and Rupert Grant, and also #23 (Carlos Gonzales). We've also got people working hard to disqualify the #7 all-time hits leader (Dusty Rhodes), haven't put in #19 yet (Cisco Guerrero; what does the guy have to do?), and #22 and 25 (Dempsey and Leonard).

This is certifiably nuts.

First of all, let's remember what we're voting for here. This is not the Hall of WAR. It's not the Hall of Base Runs. It's the Hall of Fame.

Counting stats matter. The reason why people become famous isn't because they were secretly way more valuable than their numbers suggested. It's because they were doing something at a prolific rate, near or on top of leaderboards, over the course of many seasons that would have made them extremely famous if this was real life. Things like getting 200 hits or 50 homers or 150 RBI.

We are too selective based on the wrong things: hitting 500 homers with the same team, for example, or hitting .330 for a career does matter and would make you very, very famous. I'm going to list things that would have made each of these men famous, starting with the scorned HR hitters and then doing the base hitters. I'm going to simply blow off Cisco Guerrero, who really should just be there already; vote for Cisco Guerrero.

I do have some nos on the above list!

==============================================================

William Moreland: Moreland made headlines by being one of two top three picks for Des Moines before he ever played a game (the other one was Elwood Blues, who never did much). The first baseman sprung onto the scene as a rookie with 29 home runs in 110 games before leading the league with 48 homers in his second year. He was an overwhelmingly dominant hitter for the next two seasons. From 2028 to 2041 he missed 30 homers in a season once, and had seven 40-homer seasons. Finished with a 141 OPS+, 13th all time, and a .929 OPS, 16th all time. Cornerstone of many bad Des Moines teams. A complete lock in my mind.


Jon Mick: Mick was famous from the moment he was drafted, as it was uncertain as to whether he would be a slugging first baseman or a fireballing pitcher, so lots of buzz. Among right handed batters, only Morris Pennebaker and Emilio Morales had more career home runs. Hit 549 homers in just 14 major league seasons, an average of almost 40 per year, and is also fourteenth all time on the RBI list in just 14 seasons. His RBI total is amazingly prolific: he had an RBI every 5.5 at bats, a higher rate than anyone higher than him on the all time list. You can say those things don't matter, and I'll be happy to tell you that a bases-empty HR gets a lot more WAR than a bases-full double, but one of those things scores three runs. One of just three right handed hitters with multiple 50 homer seasons. Has five of the ten all-time best home run seasons in Madison history, a team that had Bopper and Cricket.


Carlos Gonzales: The hallmark of Gonzales' career was consistency, and while Long Beach briefly lost him in free agency, Gonzales had twelve virtually uninterrupted years with the same franchise. Had one of the truly prolific seasons in BBA history, his .339/65/166 monster in 2031. Other than that, you could absolutely count on Gonzales for 30-40 HR, 90 RBI, and a .300+ batting average virtually every year of his career; he had just five seasons below 30 homers. Held on a bit too long chasing 500 homers, but got the mark. This is a close yes for me, but it's a yes.


Now for the base hitters.

Dusty Rhodes: Dusty Rhodes would have been undeniably famous. When he was drafted, I recall some draft analyst saying that he had a chance to be the best player in baseball. He never was, but there's some buzz. As a 22 year old rookie, led the league in batting average, then followed it up by leading the league in hits, average, and RBI in his second season. Had at least 190 hits in each of his first *sixteen* seasons. Hit .410 at age 35 in 100 games in 2039 while qualifying in the FL, but listed at a "meager" .388 that year because he was traded midseason. He's seventh all time in hits, ninth in career batting average, gave instant credibility to any offense, even if he ended up on first base a lot, and was 26th all time in runs scored.


Steve Dempsey: Dempsey: hits, doubles, and stolen bases. Most people know Dempsey is 22nd among BBA players in hits and might even know he's 9th in stolen bases, but did you know he's also 8th in career doubles? He's 31st in batting average, too; ten seasons hitting .317 or better. Dempsey stole bases at a 77% clip, pretty darn good for a guy that prolific. He was also remarkable at making contact; Dempsey struck out less than every 10 at bats for his career. He had to be: Dempsey didn't walk, so he had to be spectacular at getting hits, which he was. Seven 200-hit seasons, two of the top eleven single-season steals numbers (#2 and #5 in the non-Mons Raider category). Also, in real life I think there's virtually no chance that Dempsey doesn't stick around for one more season to get his last 78 hits for 3000, playing for a crappy Portland team that would have let him, so in my head he's hit the mark.


And there are some No's on this list for me.


Dan Leonard: To me, Leonard has the weakest case on this list purely because he spent the entirety of his productive career in the friendly confines of Calgary, despite having the highest WAR total of this list (other than Moreland and Gonzales). Leonard's WAR totals are heavily padded by sparking first base defense. His best counting total other than hits is triples, and he had more than 35 doubles in a season just once and just two seasons with double digit homers. He stole more than 400 bases but only at a 69% clip. Just three 200-hit seasons, and if he didn't play forever he'd have been virtually unnoticed other than a few seasons where he was near the top of the leaderboard in batting average - and you know there's a ton of people out there who would have said "whatever, he plays in Calgary."


Rupert Grant: The writeup for this isn't as much like Jon Mick as you might think. Grant is 4th on the all-time righty homer list, though his RBI are way behind, in part because Grant had almost a thousand less at bats than Mick; he's behind just seven players as the lowest number of career at bats to hit 500 homers. Grant is also little easier to make a case against, though, because he was so very one-dimensional: Grant was maybe the easiest player to strike out in BBA history long term if he didn't make contact; he also had nine seasons with at least 190 strikeouts and struck out almost one out of every three at bats. Grant also benefitted greatly from the old Calgary ballpark, and had six seasons with more than 40 homers and seven with less than 30.

=============================================

To me the difference between Leonard and Grant and the others is the lack of enduring consistency. Leonard spent too many seasons hovering around a regular .300 (and hit just .311 for his career, an okay 70th). The story on Grant would have been one of disappointment; fans would have been looking for the guy who hit 62 homers and watched him hit 25 while striking out 200 times. Both players got too much help from Calgary and simultaneously not enough. As it turns out I'm okay if you vote in either guy, but I wouldn't.

==============================================

A player who has one great season is remembered, but one who has one almost every year for some reason is FAMOUS. Remember, people, it's a Hall of FAME. That's for the fans, not for the numbercrunching GMs. The fans remember the people who did amazing things every year and admire them. I have my biases here, but I'm okay if you put every single one of them in the Hall.


======

User avatar
recte44
GB: Commissioner
Posts: 33935
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:14 pm
Location: Oconomowoc, WI
Has thanked: 89 times
Been thanked: 761 times
Contact:

Re: Milestone Players Should Be in the Hall of Fame.

Post by recte44 » Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:47 pm

Off Topic
Counting stats matter.
Exactly.
Matt Rectenwald
Commissioner, GM: Las Vegas Hustlers

User avatar
usnspecialist
GB: League Advisor
Posts: 5351
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:39 am
Location: Manama, Bahrain
Has thanked: 168 times
Been thanked: 524 times

Re: Milestone Players Should Be in the Hall of Fame.

Post by usnspecialist » Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:03 pm

That's great but what milestones does steve Dempsey have?
Randy Weigand
Havana Sugar Kings/San Fernando Bears: 2032-
1052-893

Landis Champion- 34
Johnson Champion- 34
Frick Champion- 36, 37
Johnson League Southern- 34
Frick League Pacific- 37, 39
,Wild Card- 33, 35, 36, 40, 43

Image

User avatar
Ted
BBA GM
Posts: 5609
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 366 times
Been thanked: 369 times

Re: Milestone Players Should Be in the Hall of Fame.

Post by Ted » Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:04 pm

The entire premise of this article is flawed. MLB milestones are what they are because decades of playing in the MLB established those thresholds. Your assumption is that our thresholds are the same. They are not. Not for homers. Players get famous because people think they are good. If they think they are good for the wrong reasons, that's stupid. We should try to do better.

MLB milestones exists because it accepted that no one can get to them without being among the best of the best players. This is actually CONFIRMED by WAR and base runs.

You argument that Base Runs and WAR should not be used to evaluate the significant of milestones is nonsense.

Yes, counting stats matter, but you have to set the right thresholds. 500 homers in the BBA is not special. It is decidedly not special from 2030 on. This has been established by numerous people. I just did a big data driven review of how often things happened in the BBA compared to MLB. We accrue 400 and 500 home run hitters at nearly TWICE the rate of ML.

Your arguments is like using instruments calibrated for earth to make statements about the environment of Mars. It is factually and objectively incorrect.

No one is calling it the Hall of WAR or Hall of Base Runs. We are trying to use additional data like WAR or Base Runs to show that traditional milestone marks don't make sense here. Every time someone gets all worked up about counting stats in this league, they accuse people of being slaves to WAR or Base Runs or ignoring traditional stats.

This is wrong. People who are slaves to single individual milestones are the ones who are slaves to a statistic. I am using multiple statistics to evaluate a player. WAR and homers and average, and OBP and all kinds of stuff. You are the one asserting a single stat matters. I also do consider one team status, and awards, and postseason performance. I will put a less "valuable" player in because of those achievements. Do not reverse the picture.

But to say a guy like Mick, who achieved literally no milestones (if you use the BBA version of 500 homers, which is probably around 560 or 570) and wasn't a good OBP guy, and wasn't a good average hitter, and wasn't good at defense, and doesn't have much WAR, simply because he played on one team and we know is name, cheapens the crap out of the Hall.

If you want to create real BBA milestones that make sense. I'd be all for them.
Last edited by Ted on Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:16 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

User avatar
Ted
BBA GM
Posts: 5609
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 366 times
Been thanked: 369 times

Re: Milestone Players Should Be in the Hall of Fame.

Post by Ted » Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:08 pm

recte44 wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:47 pm
Off Topic
Counting stats matter.
Exactly.
Sure they do. And you need to set appropriate milestones for them. Assuming that the MLB ones are significant in the BBA is an incorrect assumption. MLB counting stats assume you can't get to them without being elite. They MLB player got to the milestone because he is elite. He is not elite because of the milestone.

500 homers shouldn't be automatic here. It's 1.5 times as common as MLB. 500 BBA homers does not mean you are an elite player. It doesn't even mean you are very good.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

User avatar
aaronweiner
GB: Vice Commissioner
Posts: 10514
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 301 times

Re: Milestone Players Should Be in the Hall of Fame.

Post by aaronweiner » Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:11 pm

usnspecialist wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:03 pm
That's great but what milestones does steve Dempsey have?
As I said, in my head I'm giving him 3000 hits because no player who was invited back to get them would have said no.

Other than that, he's got huge doubles numbers, huge steal numbers and is top 25 in hits. That's three counting categories.

User avatar
aaronweiner
GB: Vice Commissioner
Posts: 10514
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 301 times

Re: Milestone Players Should Be in the Hall of Fame.

Post by aaronweiner » Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:14 pm

Ted wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:04 pm
The entire premise of this article is flawed. MLB milestones are what they are because decades of playing in the MLB established those thresholds. Your assumption is that our thresholds are the same. They are not. Not for homers.

MLB milestones exists because it accepted that no one can get to them without being among the best of the best players. This is actually CONFIRMED by WAR and base runs.

You argument that Base Runs and WAR should not be used to evaluate the significant of milestones is nonsense.
That really is nonsense.

Of course WAR and Base Runs are notable, useful, counting stats on their own. For example, they make a phenomenal argument for Lewis Stephens (I didn't write about ALL of them, geez) a career .240 hitter who we couldn't put into perspective any other reasonable way.

The point is that they are not the only counting stat, nor the only metric, that we should consider for Hall of FAME worthiness. I suggest that you create your own Hall of Efficiency and keep those guys the hell out - don't even sell them a ticket. But is Jon Mick famous? Like, really, really famous? Damn right he is. And he has 500 homers and a solid 14th place all time in RBI.

User avatar
aaronweiner
GB: Vice Commissioner
Posts: 10514
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 301 times

Re: Milestone Players Should Be in the Hall of Fame.

Post by aaronweiner » Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:16 pm

Ted wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:08 pm
recte44 wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:47 pm
Off Topic
Counting stats matter.
Exactly.
Sure they do. And you need to set appropriate milestones for them. Assuming that the MLB ones are significant in the BBA is an incorrect assumption. MLB counting stats assume you can't get to them without being elite. They MLB player got to the milestone because he is elite. He is not elite because of the milestone.

500 homers shouldn't be automatic here. It's 1.5 times as common as MLB. 500 BBA homers does not mean you are an elite player. It doesn't even mean you are very good.
Uh, what? 27 MLB players with 500 homers. 26 BBA players. I guess if you cut the people with steroids it's 1.5 times as common. I also suppose if you prorate. It's really hard to do man.

User avatar
Ted
BBA GM
Posts: 5609
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 366 times
Been thanked: 369 times

Re: Milestone Players Should Be in the Hall of Fame.

Post by Ted » Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:19 pm

500 HOMERS ISNT A BIG DEAL IN THE BBA

STOP SAYING THAT IT IS

IT IS NOT

THERE IS MATH TO PROVE IT


IF THIS WAS THE MLB YOU WOULD BE SAYING "THIS GUY HAS 450 HOME RUNS!!!!! HOW CAN YOU NOT BE VOTING FOR HIM"


I mean seriously. How hard is this concept? When there are more than twice as many guys getting to 400 and 500 home runs, we have to think differently about what those numbers mean.

This is literally the equivalent of bragging about how you can dunk on an 8 foot rim.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

User avatar
Ted
BBA GM
Posts: 5609
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 366 times
Been thanked: 369 times

Re: Milestone Players Should Be in the Hall of Fame.

Post by Ted » Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:19 pm

aaronweiner wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:16 pm
Ted wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:08 pm
recte44 wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:47 pm
Off Topic
Counting stats matter.
Exactly.
Sure they do. And you need to set appropriate milestones for them. Assuming that the MLB ones are significant in the BBA is an incorrect assumption. MLB counting stats assume you can't get to them without being elite. They MLB player got to the milestone because he is elite. He is not elite because of the milestone.

500 homers shouldn't be automatic here. It's 1.5 times as common as MLB. 500 BBA homers does not mean you are an elite player. It doesn't even mean you are very good.
Uh, what? 27 MLB players with 500 homers. 26 BBA players. I guess if you cut the people with steroids it's 1.5 times as common. I also suppose if you prorate. It's really hard to do man.
The BBA has been around for 75 years. MLB 120. There should only be around 15 to 17 BBA players.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

User avatar
aaronweiner
GB: Vice Commissioner
Posts: 10514
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 301 times

Re: Milestone Players Should Be in the Hall of Fame.

Post by aaronweiner » Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:23 pm

I think we have to cut a minimum of 20 years out of MLB (probably closer to 30) for dead ball eras, WWII, etc., but it's still greater, yes, if not quite 1.5 times as great.

If it's so easy to do, how come we've had no more than 26 players do it? That's because it's a longevity stat, not a meteoric stat - you have to have had a lot of those years, be startworthy, and do it well into your 30s.

User avatar
JimBob2232
BBA GM
Posts: 3209
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 12:54 pm
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Milestone Players Should Be in the Hall of Fame.

Post by JimBob2232 » Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:25 pm

I look at it slightly differently - perhaps a blend of both points here. I look to see where a player ranks relative to others in a stat category. If I look and he is the highest player on a list NOT in the HOF - that means something to me.

Moreland is #13 all time in HRs. Everyone above him is in the HOF. Makes me more strongly consider him.
Check out sureveymonkey for my trade block (Last updated 12/7/2018)

User avatar
aaronweiner
GB: Vice Commissioner
Posts: 10514
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 301 times

Re: Milestone Players Should Be in the Hall of Fame.

Post by aaronweiner » Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:26 pm

I checked the numbers and I might be willing to buy the twice as many 400 home run hitters, though.

400 homers still puts people in the 98.5% of all BBA players ever.

User avatar
Ted
BBA GM
Posts: 5609
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 366 times
Been thanked: 369 times

Re: Milestone Players Should Be in the Hall of Fame.

Post by Ted » Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:29 pm

aaronweiner wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:23 pm
I think we have to cut a minimum of 20 years out of MLB (probably closer to 30) for dead ball eras, WWII, etc., but it's still greater, yes, if not quite 1.5 times as great.

If it's so easy to do, how come we've had no more than 26 players do it? That's because it's a longevity stat, not a meteoric stat - you have to have had a lot of those years, be startworthy, and do it well into your 30s.
I didn't say it was easy. I said it's easier. There's a big difference. And the thing you've never addressed at all is the fact that our players are very different from real life ones. There are ZERO MLB players with 500 home runs and 25 WAR. Again, its not that the WAR matters. It's what its telling us about how good the player is. Jon Mick shouldn't have become super famous. People are looking at the wrong things. They see all those homers and think "That's a great player" based on a lifetime of experience where EVERY MLB guy that got to 500 home runs is a great player. So Jon Mick got famous. But he shouldn't have, because he was never a great player. Because this is a video game, we can make players who excel to a degree at one skill while being very poor at others in a way that just doesn't exist in real life.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

User avatar
Ted
BBA GM
Posts: 5609
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 366 times
Been thanked: 369 times

Re: Milestone Players Should Be in the Hall of Fame.

Post by Ted » Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:34 pm

There are 57 MLB players with 400+ homers. One, Adam Dunn, has sub 30 WAR. One. Again, it's not the WAR that's the issue. It's what it's telling us about Jon Mick. We should wonder how is it possible a guy with 500+ homers has only 25 or so WAR. And what its telling us is that his home runs aren't that uncommon, and that he somehow did them while being a mediocre hitter. That he shouldn't have been as famous as he was, if we're largely basing fame on how good players are.

And this is my whole point when people tell me I should care about counting stats. Something very different is happening here in the way counting stats are accrued. And we should be thinking about that. Not just having knee jerk reactions based on MLB counting stats.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree. Thanks for bickering with me Aaron.
Last edited by Ted on Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

User avatar
aaronweiner
GB: Vice Commissioner
Posts: 10514
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 301 times

Re: Milestone Players Should Be in the Hall of Fame.

Post by aaronweiner » Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:35 pm

Ted wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:29 pm
aaronweiner wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:23 pm
I think we have to cut a minimum of 20 years out of MLB (probably closer to 30) for dead ball eras, WWII, etc., but it's still greater, yes, if not quite 1.5 times as great.

If it's so easy to do, how come we've had no more than 26 players do it? That's because it's a longevity stat, not a meteoric stat - you have to have had a lot of those years, be startworthy, and do it well into your 30s.
I didn't say it was easy. I said it's easier. There's a big difference. And the thing you've never addressed at all is the fact that our players are very different from real life ones. There are ZERO MLB players with 500 home runs and 25 WAR. Again, its not that the WAR matters. It's what its telling us about how good the player is. Jon Mick shouldn't have become super famous. People are looking at the wrong things. They see all those homers and think "That's a great player" based on a lifetime of experience where EVERY MLB guy that got to 500 home runs is a great player. So Jon Mick got famous. But he shouldn't have, because he was never a great player. Because this is a video game, we can make players who excel to a degree at one skill while being very poor at others in a way that just doesn't exist in real life.
Neither should Kim Kardashian. Yet here we are.

User avatar
Ted
BBA GM
Posts: 5609
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 366 times
Been thanked: 369 times

Re: Milestone Players Should Be in the Hall of Fame.

Post by Ted » Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:36 pm

aaronweiner wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:35 pm
Ted wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:29 pm
aaronweiner wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:23 pm
I think we have to cut a minimum of 20 years out of MLB (probably closer to 30) for dead ball eras, WWII, etc., but it's still greater, yes, if not quite 1.5 times as great.

If it's so easy to do, how come we've had no more than 26 players do it? That's because it's a longevity stat, not a meteoric stat - you have to have had a lot of those years, be startworthy, and do it well into your 30s.
I didn't say it was easy. I said it's easier. There's a big difference. And the thing you've never addressed at all is the fact that our players are very different from real life ones. There are ZERO MLB players with 500 home runs and 25 WAR. Again, its not that the WAR matters. It's what its telling us about how good the player is. Jon Mick shouldn't have become super famous. People are looking at the wrong things. They see all those homers and think "That's a great player" based on a lifetime of experience where EVERY MLB guy that got to 500 home runs is a great player. So Jon Mick got famous. But he shouldn't have, because he was never a great player. Because this is a video game, we can make players who excel to a degree at one skill while being very poor at others in a way that just doesn't exist in real life.
Neither should Kim Kardashian. Yet here we are.
LOL. WINNER.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

User avatar
Ted
BBA GM
Posts: 5609
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 366 times
Been thanked: 369 times

Re: Milestone Players Should Be in the Hall of Fame.

Post by Ted » Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:37 pm

Anyway, I wish we could have had this debate without me getting so fired up, and confrontational. I'm sorry for that @aaronweiner
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

User avatar
aaronweiner
GB: Vice Commissioner
Posts: 10514
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 301 times

Re: Milestone Players Should Be in the Hall of Fame.

Post by aaronweiner » Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:40 pm

This is why it's nice to have you back. I can have ordinary arguments with anyone. With you I need a 1500 word essay and you're still not buying it.

User avatar
shoeless.db
BBA GM
Posts: 1606
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 10:25 pm
Has thanked: 1194 times
Been thanked: 726 times

Re: Milestone Players Should Be in the Hall of Fame.

Post by shoeless.db » Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:43 pm

What the hell, guys? Save this stuff for the podcast. Most of us are too damn lazy to read all that.
Sacramento Mad Popes
-- Pacific Champs 2040, 2042, 2043
Life is a bit more beautiful when time is measured by the half inning rather than the half hour.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “League Features”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests