Buy or Sell: Sports Edition

[BooCocky]

Alright, I stole this game from around the horn but i think it could create some discussion.

How this works is i will give a topic and you can either buy it or sell.

The first one is

Buy or Sell: Mike Mussina making it into the HOF?

Mike Mussina made his MLB debut in 1991, so 17 years ago.

Over that stretch he has 265 wins over 2600 Strikeouts. He is a five time all star and a 6x gold glove winner.

Mike Mussina has been consistent throughout his career. Winning 18 games three times, 19 games twice, and 17 games several times.

Mussina never had a 20 win season nor does he have 300 wins.

But in an era of the five man pitching rotation 300 wins seems like a reach.

Randy Johnson is the closest but he is a sure fire hall of famer.

So Buy or Sell?

I say buy. Like what i said previously, in an era of the 5 man pitching rotation 300 wins are uncommon.He has more wins than Bob Feller, Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal, and even Jim Palmer.All those pitchers were dominant in their prime, and are Hall of Famers.His career strikeouts rank him 21 all time and has a 63% career winning percentage. Mussina might not be a first ballot hall of famer but he'll get their eventually.


edit I will take topics via PM, so if you would like a person feel free to PM me.

 

[X]

I personally believe Mussina belongs in the HOF. I mean, has anyone else noticed that the standards by which the HOF goes by seem to get tougher and tougher every year? 20 years ago you were a lock for the HOF if you won just 200 games, now some of the all time greats like Jim Rice and others can't make it into the HOF because they don't have 500 HRs, or 300 wins or 3000 strikeouts. Mussina was one of the toughest pitchers of his era, and that to me makes me a HOF'er.

So while I'd like to buy him as a HOF, and I believe he deserves to be, I'm selling that he will make it unless he plays a few more years and is able to rack up either 3000 K's or 300 wins (the K's obviously being the easier milestone to approach).

Great thread idea man.

 

[klunderbunker]

I'm very unsure on this one. Mussina is a very good pitcher, no doubt about that. His stats are impressive, but are they worthy of being in the hall of fame? He is definitely one of the better pitchers of this era, but I wouldn't say he's one of the best. This era is full of HOF pitchers with Johnson, Maddux, Clemens, Smoltz and Glavine and the list goes on. The problem is that in baseball as in all other sports you can only be compared to the people in the same era that you are in. By comparison to those pitchers, Mussina is last, but still better than the majority of the pitchers he competed against. The Hall of Fame is designed for the elite of the elite. While I don't think Mussina is in that company just yet, he could get there someday, as just by looking at his numbers this year he's not done yet. If he wins 20 games in a year or 300 career, he's a lock. Until then, he's boarderline. At this point, I have to say sell, but it wouldn't take much to shift me over.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Baseball has the easiest Hall of Fame to get ito. When Andre Dawson is the best player not in, there is a problem. Look at football...it took Art Monk, who retired as the All-Time leader in catches and yards (since passed by Jerry Rice) and it took him eight tries.

I say that so I can say this. There is no way Mike Mussina does not get in. His numbers alone should merit great consideration. He is the guy who will be the new standard bearer for what is Hall worthy. Players for the next 25 years will be compared to Mike Mussina. Better numbers in, worse numbers out.

 

[BooCocky]

Baseball has the easiest Hall of Fame to get ito. When Andre Dawson is the best player not in, there is a problem. Look at football...it took Art Monk, who retired as the All-Time leader in catches and yards (since passed by Jerry Rice) and it took him eight tries.

I say that so I can say this. There is no way Mike Mussina does not get in. His numbers alone should merit great consideration. He is the guy who will be the new standard bearer for what is Hall worthy. Players for the next 25 years will be compared to Mike Mussina. Better numbers in, worse numbers out.

in all seriousness. The NFL has a hard time inducting possession receivers.

Now onto this weeks buy or Sell:

The Tampa Bay Rays are a top of their respective by 4.5 games. But over the last two or three weeks they have been struck by injuries, and they are injuries to big named players for them. Rookie 3rd Baseman Evan Longoria, LF Carl Crawford and Closer Troy Percival.

So this week.

Buy or Sell: Tampa Bay Rays winning the AL East while Longoria, Crawford, and Percival injured?

I say buy. Their manager is ruthless, they have timely hitting, and solid pitching. I believe they have a big enough lead, and i believe Boston is falling apart. Losing Manny was huge for the Rays because he is arguably the best player in baseball. Bay is a good player but noway comparable to Manny.

I say the Rays win the division, and by a bigger margin

 

[Davi323]

Buy. Tampa looks like the real deal this year. It helps that they also have a 4.5 game lead over Boston as of today, with only 36 games left to play. While they do play 20 away games and only 16 home games for the rest of the season, I just don't see them collapsing. If they weren't as good as their record indicated, they would have collapsed already. I don't know if they will the division by more or less than 4.5 games, but I do think they will find a way to hold on.

 

[Jack's_smirking_revenge]

Have to buy the Rays winning the AL East. Carlos Pena is absolutely killing the ball right now, and I believe Evan Longoria will be back in about 2 weeks. Crawford was a tough break for them, but I believe that if BJ Upton gets his head in the game and stops dogging out plays the Rays outfield is fine. The 4.5 game lead will stick for them especially after winning a series against the Angels, but don't look for the Rays in the World Series until next year...

 

[klunderbunker]

Making it 4-0, I'll buy this also. There's 5 and a half weeks left in the season and the Yankees are out of it. Boston is good, but Tampa is just on fire right now. The lead has been at 4.5 or so for weeks now. That's almost an entire week's worth of a lead. With a mini losing streak of two games Boston can fall so far out of it that it'll almost be completely over. Tampa may be a fluke this season, but I think they've realized they have absolutely nothing to lose here so why not run with it? I don't think they'll make much of a playoff run, but this is an amazing story to watch unfold.

 

[BooCocky]

Alright, i got some time to unravel the newest edition of buy or sell.

Lance Armstrong, yeah you know the cyclist who dominated the Tour De France for like 30 years in a row is said to be coming out of retirement so he could race in the 2009 Tour De Lance.

So do you Buy or Sell Lance Armstrong winning the 09 Tour De France?

I say Buy:

I'll tell you why. The man dominated that sport for many years I believe 7 to be exact. That is a great accomplishment in its own right. The man is 36 years old but by 2009 he'll be 37. Armstrong retired several years ago but he still seems to be in tip top shape, and he still has several months before the Tour De France, so with his healthy legs, his long rest, and his past dominance of the Tour De France, i believe Armstrong can make this Tour De France his 8th win ( i believe he is at 7. I should have checked my facts )

 

[klunderbunker]

I say buy as well. Simply put: Who is going to beat him? Someone name one guy that came in second to Lance. No one knows and no one cares. He was so far ahead of the field that even a year later he will still dominate, and yet again no one will really give a damn. He is the sport of cycling, plain and simple. You don't lose that much ability after two years off. Didn't he do mountain biking and marathons? Its not like he's sitting around doing nothing. He'll win, and he'll dominate.

 

[Davi323]

I am gonna buy as well, if only for the fact that when he is on top of his game, who can beat him? It really comes down to answering a few easy questions:

1. Is Lance Armstrong, when healthy, the best cyclist in the world? Yes. I don't think anyone can realistically come up with an argument otherwise. With a few years off to rest his body, I actually think there is a chance, even with his age, that he could be actually better now than he was his last Tour.

2. Can Lance Armstrong get back into tip-top racing shape by the time the Tour De' France starts? Again, I believe so, yes. I don't think there is going to be any trouble whatsoever with Lance Armstrong getting back in racing shape, he knows exactly what he has to do to get in shape, and wouldn't be returning if he wasn't reasonably sure he could come back at the same level he left at.

So, satisfied with those two questions, I feel perfectly comfortable buying Lance Armstrong's return.

 

[BooCocky]

alright, i was scrolling through the ESPN mainsite and i discovered a link. It was ranking NFL franchises 1-32 with Dallas being one and Arizona Ranked number 32.

1-5 goes
1.Dallas
2.Steelers
3.San Fran
4.Dolphins
5 Broncos.

So my Buy or Sell: Do you buy that as the top five franchises in the NFL? Do you agree with this list 1-5?

I am going to sell this and i'll tell you why. I believe the Steelers should be number 1, they have a higher winning percentage, they are 2-1 against the cryboys in the SB. They have more all pro first teamers, and a better winning percentage in the SB. The top five is right on but I'd switch Dallas to number two and the Steelers to number 1.

The ranking formula was ridiculous, you were able to accumulate points by losses, which is ridiculous because no one likes to finish second, even though they are SB appearances but you still finished 2nd.

 

[klunderbunker]

I would disagree. If the Dolphins or Broncos can be in there, Oakland belongs as well. They've won more Super Bowls than either, and if your argument is that they've been bad recently, so have the Dolphins. The top three, as much as it pains me to say as a die hard Dallas fan, I have to go with the 49ers at 1. They have a tie for the most titles and have never lost. The main argument against them however is they were huge in the 80s and have done little since. Dallas or Pitt. This is tough for me. Pitt has also won 5 titles, but they also have losses in the title games. I think though, that I'd have to take Dallas. I have to disagree on Superbowl losses not meaning anything. While you finish the same as all but one team, you were one game away from the world title. So, I have to go SF at 1, Dallas at 2, Pitt in an insanely close 3rd, then a great distance away, Oakland 4 and Miami 5.

 

[BooCocky]

^^^ Thats ridiculous IMO. When the Steelers were on top for their decade of dominance they had a tougher division, and the AFC was tougher as a whole. In the 70's when the Cowboys were on top it was because there conference was pathetic, and when there conference rose, the Cowboys began too fall.

In an Era when the AFC was dominant the Steelers still rose to the occasion winning four superbowls in 10 yrs, while both came back to back, and moniker of America's team is a joke.

 

[AMERICANFIRE]

can somebody tell me why green bay is not on this list hey have won more nfl tittles and 3 super bowls what the hell is that crap. heres how it should go
1 steelers no doubt the best franchiase of all time.
2 sanfrinsisco 49ers have won 5 supe bowls and ruled he 80s
3 green bay so much history with this team and 3 super bowles 2 being the first 2 ever
4 dallas team of the 90s and 70s no doubt a great francihiase thats being rebult now well
5 broncos they make the cut because they beat the packers and won back to back tittles
6 miami only because of the undefeated season.

 

[klunderbunker]

^^^ Thats ridiculous IMO. When the Steelers were on top for their decade of dominance they had a tougher division, and the AFC was tougher as a whole. In the 70's when the Cowboys were on top it was because there conference was pathetic, and when there conference rose, the Cowboys began too fall.

In an Era when the AFC was dominant the Steelers still rose to the occasion winning four superbowls in 10 yrs, while both came back to back, and moniker of America's team is a joke.

While its true that the conferences were either weak or tough, the fact of the matter is that they both were the best teams in those conferences and each won their titles. In the 70s, yes the AFC was dominant and the Steelers won the 4 SBs. SInce they were in the more dominant conference, isnt that what they should do? Dallas was certainly inferior in the 70s, but were easily #2 in that decade. In the 80s, Dallas dueled with SF but never could quite beat them, but in the 90s no one came close to Dallas. During that decade Pitt made one SB appearance and got beaten soundly. Overall, I would say that Dallas was more consistent that Pitt, albeit not by much.

 

[BooCocky]

Define consistency when our winning percentage is higher than the Cowboys? Its not by much but its higher than the Cowboys. The Cowboys have had bad seasons, they havent been out of the first round of the playoffs since the Aikmen ERA. Five good years doesnt take away from multiple years of inconsistency.

The Steelers dominated in a tougher ERA.Finally when the NFC became tough again, the Cowboys went to the bottom half, like years previous.

Even when the Cowboys were winning titles the Steelers were still competitive, reaching the playoffs in 10 of 15 cowher coached years, and they had the one Superbowl with several AFC title games.

 

[BooCocky]

alright i am going to break this down little by little since 1971

From 1971-1980: From those ten superbowls, the AFC won 8, while the Steelers won 4 of those 8. Beating the Cwoboys twice.

1981-1990- It was the dominance of the NFC. Winning 8-10. Where were the Dallas Cowboys? Non existent, when the NFC became dominant the Cowboys fell off the ladder. But this is the time where the Broncos began to prove their AFC dominance. But in those time periods the Steelers went to the divisional round, and the AFC championship game. Yes the Cowboys did lose in consecutive NFC title games, then they hit years of bad luck with records of (from 10–6 in 1985 to 7–9 in 1986, 7–8 in 1987, and 3–13 in 1988, and they had a 1-15 season in 1989.

Now its the 1990's: the Cowboys won three superbowls in the 1990's before falling off the charts, not advancing past the first round of the playoffs since 1996. So after there five years of dominance they have fallen off the charts and havent been to the NFC championship game in roughly 12 years, so there 5 years of dominance is nothing when it compares to multiple years of losing.

then in the 2000's: The Pats Era, the Steelers were competitive reaching the AFC championship game several times, and coming close several others before finally winning a SB in 2005. And where were the Cowboys? Having a SB hangover since 1996

 

[BooCocky]

it's triple posting but I'm gonna bump this. Also I am going to modify it a little bit. It's now a take your pick kind of game.

Alright, you're an All American High School QB, the highest rated QB in the nation, you have a chance to play in a spread offense or, you have a chance to play in a pro style offense, what do you pick, Spread or Pro Style?

A little bit about the offenses.

Most of College Football runs a spread offense, the majority of QB's line up in shotgun. Lining up in Shotgun give you the opportunity to make quick reads; gives you the opportunity for one on one matchups and it reduces blitzing but, it slows down your progression. I read a statistic that Tim Tebow has thrown from under center only 46 times in his college career. Which isn't a lot. Also, as a QB it's harder making the jump from College to the Pro's. Ask Alex Smith, and every other QB that came from a system like this.

A Pro Style offense is a lost art in College Sports. Not many teams run it anymore. Pitt for example still runs a Pro Style offense. Which means their QB's take most of the snaps under center. Playing in this offense makes you NFL ready, but in this offense it's hard racking up the 400 yd passing days.

So my question, You're an All American High School QB, you're about 6'5, you weigh 230 pounds, and you have the opportunity to pick your offense. Which one do you pick? The Shotgun happy Spread or the Pro Style?

I'm taking the Pro Style. It helps you progress along the way, it gives you the opportunity to read defenses at an NFL level, it gives you the chance to learn a playbook, and it's easier to adjust when you make the jump from College to the Pro's. Some of the best College QB's in recent memory sucked in the NFL because they couldn't adapt to the game, and the games speed. NFL defenses do not fall for the 5 wide, and they're a lot faster than a College Defenses. Taking the Pro Style offense is a safe bet, you might not rack up a lot of passing yds in College compared to a Spread Offense Quarterback, but it gives you an opportunity to make quick adjustments in the NFL because you're used to throwing from under center.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I choose the Pro Style for most of the reasons you stated....Throwing under center makes you quicker in reading the defenses and getting the ball out quicker when the defense blitzes...Bradford has been so successful because he operates out of shotgun so when he gets to the NFL he is going to make a transition and it's going to be tough for him...Most college offense have gone to the spread and it will hurt the quarterbacks if they get to the next level.

 

[agentmichaelscarn]

Id choose the Pro-style as well. Take Michigan for example they ran a pro-style for years and no team produced more QBs the past decade and half in the NFL and none of them were 5 star recruits coming out of high school. EVERY QB that has started more than a couple games for them since the early 90s has played in the NFL. Not all of them have succeeded but they all made it but none of them were top recruits either with the exception of Henne and Henson(He would have been great if he didnt go to baseball) so if they were maybe they would have done better in the NFL. But the fact you started off as a 3 star recruit before college and ended up making the pros says something. You had Elvis Grbac, Todd Collins, Brian Griese, Tom Brady, Drew Henson, John Navarre, Chad Henne in fact 4 of those guys started atleast 1 game last year.

Couple other schools are Miami and USC. I believe for the most part they run pro style offenses now they may incorporate a little spread but its not like they are running the option or lining up 5 wide every play. And both of those schools have produced there fair share of QBs over the years.

Drew Brees is one of the rare exceptions of a guy that came from a true spread offense and put up mind boggling numbers in college and is exceeding in the pros. Guys like Colt Brennan of Hawaii, Alex Smith of Utah, BJ Symons, Kirk Klingsbury or any other Texas Tech QB you can think of put up crazy stats but have done nothing. And I dont think I even need to explain what option QBs have done in the NFL. Just think about Tommy Frazier and Eric Crouch.