Vote for Franchise Four Topic

The Taint
Posts: 12619 (2)
Hall of Famer
998 3
Hall of Famer
Posted by dahsdebater on 4/10/2015 1:14:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/9/2015 9:22:00 PM (view original):
I assumed you were too stupid to understand so I stuck around so I could explain it to you.

Let me introduce you to a period called 1982 to 1994.     We'll call it "The years the Yanks couldn't make the playoffs."   

As I seek another such period in Yankee history, I find one.   We'll call it "Formation of the Yankees til Mr. Ruth revolutionizes baseball."

The Yanks went from irrelevant to the biggest thing in baseball both times.    That's called "impactful".   However, unlike the end of Ruth's career, it certainly appears that the Yanks will become irrelevant for years to come.   DiMaggio joined the biggest thing going, had a relatively short career(albeit military service interuppted it) and, if not for Marilyn Monroe and Mr. Coffee, would just be considered another great Yankee.   

Jeter is nothing like solely responsible for the success of the Yankees.  When they were winning WS, they were blowing away the rest of the league in team payroll, and when the league caught up, they stopped winning, even with Jeter still there and still hitting.

DiMaggio is tied for 22nd all time in OPS+ in spite of giving up his prime to military service.  Typically the age 27-30 seasons are the best - he lost 3 of those 4.

FWIW, the guys he's tied with are Aaron and Ott.  Mays is one point ahead.  Miggy and Frank Robinson are one point behind.  I'm not sure what you mean by "just another great Yankee," but aside from Ruth, Gehrig, and Mantle, no other Yankee could begin to hit with him.  Another grouped with what pack, exactly?  He's lightyears ahead of Yogi, Reggie, Rizzuto, or Jeter.
That pretty much sums it up. DiMaggio was light years better than Jeter was.
4/10/2015 10:58 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
OK, another on the dumbass juice, I see.

It's "most impactful".    No "better hitter", "prettier eyebrows" or "highest WAR".   "Most impactful".   To make it relevant to your world:    You're the best bartender on earth.   You start working at the best bar on earth with bartenders #2, #3, #4 on earth.    What's your impact?   Virtually none.
4/10/2015 11:07 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I'll try this another way.

The Yanks were **** for years in the 60s/early 70s.   Steinbrenner bought the team from CBS and, bam!!!, the Yanks became relevant again.   The change in ownership made an IMPACT.     I won't argue that Jeter was the best player on the team during his career.  He was always top 5 but seldom the best.   But he had the biggest impact on the Yankees from '96-14.    DiMaggio joined the best thing going and it stayed there.  Yay.  His presence packed a lot of impact.   
4/10/2015 11:14 AM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10036 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 271 18
Pro
Jeter played on otherwise better teams and won far fewer WS.

Impact.

4/10/2015 12:10 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10036 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 271 18
Pro
I can do it too!
4/10/2015 12:10 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/10/2015 11:07:00 AM (view original):
OK, another on the dumbass juice, I see.

It's "most impactful".    No "better hitter", "prettier eyebrows" or "highest WAR".   "Most impactful".   To make it relevant to your world:    You're the best bartender on earth.   You start working at the best bar on earth with bartenders #2, #3, #4 on earth.    What's your impact?   Virtually none.
So, in your analogy, Jeter is the best bartender on earth surrounded by a bunch of other really good bartenders, right?

4/10/2015 12:13 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by dahsdebater on 4/10/2015 12:10:00 PM (view original):
Jeter played on otherwise better teams and won far fewer WS.

Impact.

Really?   Seems to me that the Yanks had been dominating baseball, for years, when Joe D arrived.    Not so much when Jeter arrived.

I'll attempt to be less of a ********, although you don't deserve it, and explain it this way.

Impact on baseball(players only):
1.  Babe Ruth
2.  Jackie Robinson
3.  Jose Canseco

Agree?   Disagree?
4/10/2015 1:05 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10036 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 271 18
Pro
I don't know if I agree with Canseco at #3, but the top 2 seem right.  The pitchers who bent the rules and ultimately led to overhand throwing probably belong somewhere near the top.  Generally, though, I agree with your analysis.  Those guys changed the way baseball was played, changed how the sport looked.

Are you suggesting Jeter changed the look or feel of the sport?  Because I don't buy that.  He was just a good player.  I don't think DiMaggio did anything to change the sport, either.  So you just have to judge them on their relative merits.

4/10/2015 1:10 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Not at all.  I'm suggesting he was the one constant, the face of the franchise that came back from dead to be the biggest thing going in baseball.    I agree that Joe D was the better player.   But that's not the poll.   It's "most impactful".   

As for Canseco, I'm almost positive he introduced 'roids to MLB.   If you don't think they had a huge impact on baseball, I'm not sure where to take this exchange.
4/10/2015 1:13 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
And, when I say "most impactful", it's for individual teams not MLB as a whole.   Jeter's impact on the Yankees was huge.  
4/10/2015 1:14 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Jeter was the guy that the GMs could point to and say "George, give the kid a chance to develop under our coaches.   We know he's kicking balls all over the place in Tampa but he just needs some more work.   We don't have to trade him for Ken Phelps.   He'll be alright."
4/10/2015 1:28 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

If Canseco didn't introduce 'roids to MLB, he was the first to prove they worked and, obviously, was none too shy in telling others.     Which, if nothing else, puts him at Ground Zero. 

4/10/2015 1:49 PM
Got_Worms
Posts: 6723 (0)
Hall of Famer
367 7 58 57
Pro
I noticed Canseco wasn't listed under the A's Top Four...
4/10/2015 1:55 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
This is a stretch, even for mike. If you want to vote for Jeter because you love Jeter more than Dimaggio. Fine. No one would fault you for it. If you want to vote for Jeter because you want to represent the Yankees with a more recent player, fine again.

But arguing that Jeter was more "impactful" is retarded. He was a very good player on a team full of very good players.  Jeter would not have magically made the Yankees great had he debuted in 1990 instead of 1995. And the Yankees were a pretty good team in 1993 and 1994.
4/10/2015 1:55 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by Got_Worms on 4/10/2015 1:55:00 PM (view original):
I noticed Canseco wasn't listed under the A's Top Four...
He probably should have been although I'm not sure his team impact was nearly the impact he had on MLB as a whole.

I saw someone mention that Manny wasn't listed anywhere either.   

Of course, with franchises as old as the A's, Red Sux and Indians, it is easy enough to ignore the PED guys. 
4/10/2015 2:02 PM
◂ Prev 1...3|4|5|6|7|8 Next ▸
Vote for Franchise Four Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.