Gregory Pratt

QUOTE(knightni @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 10:51 PM) Babe Ruth facing Bob Gibson or Pedro Martinez would have been interesting. Koufax.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 10:42 PM) I've looked it up plenty of times, no need to do it again -- Bonds beats all of them quite easily. That's fine though -- I can't force you to debate if you don't want to. I just called you on your "assertion" and since you haven't really done a whole lot to prove your side, I think I know that nothing more needs to be said from me. I'm not looking to "prove" my side, so no, there is no debate here and therefore there's nothing else to say here on the matter.

QUOTE(Shadows @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 10:37 PM) I seriously doubt that, I am sure that a lot of AAA pitchers in this day of age would have been great back when Ruth played.. Sorry, but Ruth played against all white players back in a time where there is no way players were as athletic or just flat out good as they are today.. The quality of the leagues that Ruth played in are a very interesting topic, especially with regard to the effect that they had on the numbers, but I don't accept any contention that says, Today's leagues are better -- tougher! -- because players are more athletic and racial now! Therefore, players today > past, just because.[/i]

QUOTE(Shadows @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 10:33 PM) Haha yes, Ruth who not only played against inferior talent than Bonds has but also doesn't even have better overall numbers than Bonds is clearly better.. He was fat, too. PS: some would say, Bonds got to play in Coors Field, and Bonds played in the Expansion Era against pitchers that would've been in AAA in Ruth's day.

I have the right to decline a debate, and I am exercising that right. I merely stated my opinion that Bonds isn't the greatest hitter of his time, which is not an invitation to debate. It was a counter to a different assertion, and merely that. If you're so anxious to defend Bonds, then I'll throw these names out and you can busy yourself refuting their cases as better hitters than Bonds: Griffey, Thomas, McGwire, Sosa. Only throwing the clear juicers for kicks.

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 10:26 PM) I'm at a hotel right now, and they don't have ESPN2. I didn't think I could hate extreme sports more than I already did.....but I do now. Aren't you on your honeymoon?

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 10:24 PM) And __________ is *clearly* better? That is a debate for another time that someone else will have. There were plenty of players in his time who were at or around his level, and that have a legit argument as being better than him or less than him.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 10:23 PM) Check out Bonds' 1992-1997 seasons, and consider that Bonds was also an elite defender and baserunner during those years, and you have arguably the greatest six year periods ever. Elite defender -- in left field? Take that for what it's worth.

He isn't either.

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 10:13 PM) Well, ESPN should be ashamed of themselves, as they didn't break into the X-Games telecast to show the AB or a highlight. And Mr. Pratt....Bonds is the greatest hitter of his time, and it's not even close. So many players were on steroids, and he still dominated. A bunch were on steroids. Few as blatantly and defiantly as Bonds, but no -- Bonds isn't a greater hitter than Ruth, Gehrig, Williams, DiMaggio, Mays...you know why? He may be better -- and even that is dubious, in my opinion -- but he isn't greater. You can't be great being a cheat.

I don't think Bonds is the greatest hitter of his time. He's a cheater and an awful man, as well, terrible to fans and at least one woman who loved him, per Book of Shadows.

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 06:48 PM) Nothing like seeing highlights of the Cubs game on captions, and all you see is how it says "close call showed the Cubs got a huge break". I did happen to see the announcers say that if the Cubs won the World Series, it would be one of the three biggest moments in sports history. Cubs win! Red Sox win! and what the f*** would be the other one? Probably something with Tiger Woods.

Thank God he didn't do it off of Maddux. What a shame that this guy now stands alongside Hank Aaron.

it's rigged.

I worry about AJ next season.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 04:39 PM) I understand you've been exposed to Schulerholz before. But you didn't raise him or the Braves organization in EVERY SINGLE POINT YOU TRY TO MAKE in the past. Over the course of the past 2-3 weeks, every post of yours starts out as "John Schulerholz....," or "The Braves organization...." I'm not the only one calling you out on it either. You've been hanging from Schulerholz's balls every day for the past 2-3 weeks. I don't find it coincidental that it happens to occur at the same time as you've just finished his book. I don't fault you for that- I've been excited about a good read and went and told all sorts of people about it as well- but I think it's clearly skewing your judgment and it's also a case of you remember what you saw or thought of or read last. And that was it. As for Kenny and his teams in the AL Central, you aren't going to try and tell me that the NL East was some powerhouse throughout the Braves run, are you? Give me a break. Of course it's not coincidental, but it happened to come at a time in which Kenny Williams damaged the future of our organization by standing pat and as certain convictions about this organization and these scouts came to mind. That aside, I'm going to shrug at your hyperbole about how every post I've made is about Atlanta or Schuerholz -- a good portion of my posts have been that way in trade sections and overall baseball sections. It's not as if I'm popping into Game Threads to remind everybody that Schuerholz is God. As far as the strength of the NL throughout the run -- well, I think it might be better not to respond to such a bulls*** claim, because it's clearly meant to discount what the Braves did and anybody who would ever discount those years and the strength of that franchise in that time is mad. But, hell, just for curiosity's sake, let's look at the teams in the NL from 91-93 91: 94 77 74 65 93 77 78 98 84 75 84 71 92: 98 78 90 81 63 72 70 96 82 72 83 87 93: 104 84 73 67 64 85 81 59 97 75 61 103 87 94 Starting in 94, we had three divisions, but we'll skip 94. 95 was a weak year. 96 was weak, but not as bad: 96 76 81 83 80 82 90 71 67 73 91 68 88 88 97 was up and down in the East, but the Marlins and the Mets were good, and there were other strong teams in the league was well: 101 68 76 83 92 84 88 88 68 79 76 90 73 78 98: Braves were very good, and the East was overall weak, but the NL had strong teams in it: 106 90 77 77 54 102 83 74 88 75 69 98 89 83 65 99: Very strong league, with a very strong Mets team barking at them: 100 103 67 96 72 64 97 77 74 97 77 78 74 86 75 68 00: Once again, a very tough Mets team, and a good league. 85 95 65 85 82 79 72 86 73 94 65 69 76 97 95 67 01: Phillies and Mets were tough, and the League wasn't so bad. 92 88 88 66 73 76 93 86 68 82 86 62 79 90 93 68 02: Weak division, but they had a very good team. 98 101 67 78 73 79 84 92 56 75 80 72 66 95 97 83 03: Very competive division and competitive league. 84 101 88 69 74 91 87 85 68 66 86 75 64 100 85 83 04: Sort of a weak division, although the Phillies weren't bad, but the League wasn't a pushover 51 96 89 76 68 83 92 93 67 71 86 72 87 91 105 67 05: Perhaps the most impressive year due to the number of injuries and the losses to their pitching staff over the years, and the division was very tight and tough: 77 90 79 73 67 83 89 71 81 83 88 67 82 75 100 81 So the league and division changed from powerhouses to very tough to the Braves simply dominating, but I'm finished with the discussion here since this has gone far beyond Jermaine Dye not being traded.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 05:30 AM) I'll watch no matter what language he speaks in. Dude is almost guaranteed to get 2500 hits before he hits 40, and he has a shot at 3000 if he plays till he's 43 - which I have no doubt he'd be able to. If he gets those 3000, he'd have over 4400 hits between Japan and the majors, which is ridiculous to think about. He's the best leadoff hitter and flat out average hitter of this generation, and I don't see anyone changing that any time soon. Hell, he may end up with a .340 career average and I wouldn't be surprised. Definitely. He's amazing.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 11:41 AM) Listen to yourself. You know everything right now! Because you've read a book! You're able to tell us who is a good GM and who is not, and you're only mentioning the ones that have won World Championships! Give me a break, broseph. I find it humourous that you say Jocketty and Stoneman are both great GM's because they compete every year....what the hell has Kenny done? I'll bet his record stacks up fairly similarly to the Angels and the Cardinals over the past 7 years. And Stoneman? Ask some Angel fans what they REALLY think of Stoneman. I have two friends that are both Angels fans, and they run a website similar to this about the Angels, and they tell me how much it sucks to have a timid GM and how they only wish they had a GM with brass balls like Kenny. Now granted, the grass is always greener. But the point is Stoneman could have supplemented several of his "competing" teams EVERY year by trading some spects and instead, he's refused and now many of those prospects have declined dramatically in value. I understand you recognized that fact, but it is a HUGE part of the GM's job- to evaluate his team at the trade deadline and to fortify it for the stretch run- just huge. That is probably more his job and his responsibility than is the drafting of all these great prospects... You're selling Kenny short big time, and it's because you're frustrated with the current situation. We are not as far away right now as many of you would like to suggest, we've just had everything that could go wrong, go terribly wrong this season. But all is not lost... How many times do I have to tell you that Schuerholz book is not my first exposure to the Braves? Field okay teams in the Comedy Central, one World Series team, one really good team that he should've fortified (06), and not much else. Oversee terrible drafts, make some bad trades, stand pat at the two thousand seven deadline, and curse out Frank Thomas.

Why don't people understand that a General Manager's ultimate goal is to win a World Championship but that alone doesn't determine whether or not he is a good or great General Manager? Stoneman's a very good GM. His refusal to make a splash on the trade market isn't to my liking but he is a great GM. Absolutely. By the way, do you think Kenny Williams could build anything resembling a contender with a sub-60 million dollar contender and after having to dump almost all of his big money players? Epstein's fairly good, but I have trouble admiring the work of someone whose financial resources are so much higher than almost everyone else's. Jocketty is a damn good GM. What do Jocketty and Stoneman have in common? They contend every year. You can't have a 200million payroll and be heralded because almost any GM could do a good job with that much money because all you have to do is buy up superstars. And Garagiola was good, but he was essentially a one-hit wonder. Good for him, though, to pick up Johnson and Schilling. Good for him and us. I'll always treasure 2005, but his work before and after is terrible and the organization isn't looking up. What do you mean that team had no holes? The offense was weak and the bullpen overachieved more than we can say. I didn't go into 2005 saying, "Thank God we've got Politte!" No. He did a fair job that year but before and after, he's just not very good.

QUOTE(29andPoplar @ Aug 3, 2007 -> 09:57 PM) Anyone? No, not really. BTW I admire the Braves franchise tremendously, and always have. They know what they're doing, no doubt. It's a figure of speech, and it holds a great deal of truth. You don't have to be a good GM to have a championship come your way. Generally, championship teams are built by men with a good idea, but what happens before and after is more important to judging a GM.

The voiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiices

QUOTE(iamshack @ Aug 3, 2007 -> 07:02 PM) I think you exaggerate Schulerholz's accomplishments because you didn't really know much about them prior to reading the book. The opposite would go for Kenny's. Not comparing the two, but Kenny has done some things as well. I'd love to hear plenty of stories Kenny could tell about moves he tried to make or didn't make.... I knew plenty about Schuerholz' tenure. A few specific things about the clubhouse and his time in Kansas City, no, or Ligtenberg, but the man is simply amazing. Who's exaggerating his accomplishments? I didn't exaggerate s***. Kenny's GM book could be interesting. Any GM's would be interesting, sure. But I'd highly recommend Schuerholz to you, since he's the one who wrote it and was asked to, while I doubt that nobody will ever ask KW to write a book about his time as GM of the Chicago White Sox.

I've always admired Schuerholz. And I finished it quite a bit ago. What would KW write about? "Jon Adkins was supposed to be a stud. Floyd too. Blame Duane! Borchard? Blame Duane!" I don't think KW's book would be half the book that Schuerholz' is because 1. He doesn't have the years 2. He doesn't have the success. Might be worth a good read if he writes about the conversations he's had with Frank Thomas over the years!

I'll be sick if Greg Maddux gives up a homerun or two to Bonds tonight. Fortunately, Bonds hasn't taken him deep since 1999.

The way I see it, a good General Manager is a man who can build or rebuild an organization so that they are genuine contenders and can replenish themselves for several years. He is a man who sets a tone conductive toward success -- read about the Braves clubhouse and operating rules in Schuerholz' book, and you'll know what I mean. He is a man who hires the right scouts, makes the right moves and signs the right free agents. He can deal with great change -- as Schuerholz did when his payroll was lowered by twenty million dollars. He can deal with sudden injuries -- as they did in 2005, particularly. He has built an organization that can deal with all sorts of catastrophies and he can evaluate talent. Billy Beane is a damn good GM. Terry Ryan is a damn good GM. John Schuerholz is a good GM. Anyone can string a championship together, but not a lot of GMs can sustain success. And that's not about Kenny Williams or anyone else. That's just the way it is, and I think, in baseball, I'd prefer fourteen years of great seasons and one championship to what we have or what almost everyone else has. I'd prefer it to what Bankee fans have. Very few people have had to deal with as many challenges in this game as he has as GM of the Braves and he's met all of them. Schuerholz is the one that lured Maddux away from the Yankees at the last minute, by the way, and great starting pitching wasn't all they had from those three. Over the years, he's dealt with them leaving and he's acquired all sorts of players to fill all sorts of voids. Take Kerry Ligtenberg -- Schuerholz picked him up in a shrewd trade with an independent league for a bag of balls and a box of bats. No s***! He was told that this kid had a sharp arm and picked him up. After a year, he closed thirty games out for the Atlanta Braves. They simply know how to coach, draft and scout, and all that can be attributed to Schuerholz. Judging Schuerholz by what they do after Maddux and Glavine left is fine. Maddux left after 04 and Glavine after 02. They survived those departures. They survived when Smoltz HAD to move to the bullpen. Schuerholz is simply a shrewd GM who deserves all the credit in the world for their sustained success, and I'm sure they'll continue to be fine as long as Schuerholz is around.