Poll

Which versus debate is silliest or most obvious?

Manning vs Brady
3 (14.3%)
Wilt vs Russell
3 (14.3%)
1940's French military vs 1940's German military
10 (47.6%)
Babe Ruth vs field
4 (19%)
John Wooden vs field
1 (4.8%)

Total Members Voted: 20

Author Topic: Which versus debate is silliest or most obvious?  (Read 18409 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Which versus debate is silliest or most obvious?
« Reply #30 on: January 11, 2015, 10:36:55 PM »

Offline Granath

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2154
  • Tommy Points: 567
WW2 stuff

Good stuff, though I'd disagree about a couple of points.

Germany almost had the British beaten in the Battle of Britain. A few more weeks of pounding the radar sites and the Brits wouldn't have been able to respond to the Germans because they wouldn't have seen them coming. Spitfires don't help when you can't engage the enemy and the Brits didn't have the oil to run constant air patrol. I'm not saying they could have invaded - the Germans just didn't have the ships - but they could have had the Brits in a far worse position.

The Germans could have easily won Barbarossa if they hadn't been so stupid at Stalingrad. Moscow was unimportant in the grand scheme of things. It's Army Group South that really mattered. If the 4th isn't redeployed back and forth, they either capture Stalingrad intact or (better yet) Grozny. All the Germans had to do was maintain their positions on the Don to prevent the flow of traffic coming up the Don while taking Grozny. That cuts off the Russians from both their best food and oil sources. With another 250,000 troops not slugging it out in Stalingrad, Paulus would dig in along the bends of the Don and let the Russians beat their heads in trying to break through. Their units in key positions would have greatly strengthened the lesser armies of Hungary, Romania and Italy which were all spread too thin. By the end of the winter the Russians would have been starved for oil and food. Instead, Hitler tried to get both Stalingrad and Grozny and ended up getting neither.   

Also, one can only wonder what would have happened if Hitler had used his paratroopers to take Malta. The Brits were beaten in Egypt until they were resupplied by Malta. If the Germans take Malta and reinforce Rommel with 1/3rd the troops they did later trying to save that army, the Brits are done. Egypt is overrun, the Germans have a clear shot to the Middle East oil fields and even a chance for Rommel to come up from the South to flank the Russian armies around Grozny. 
Jaylen Brown will be an All Star in the next 5 years.

Re: Which versus debate is silliest or most obvious?
« Reply #31 on: January 11, 2015, 10:53:52 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
We so clearly need a WW2 thread.

Maybe a hypothetical war thread. Like if you give Alexander the Great tanks and the Luftwaffe and you give Julius Ceasar the RAF and make the US into Genghis Kahn and Russia is being commanded by Shaka Zulu...

Re: Which versus debate is silliest or most obvious?
« Reply #32 on: January 11, 2015, 10:57:13 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
Grozny? The Russians named a major city Grozny? That is....wow. Wow. Don't even know how to feel about that one. HA!

Re: Which versus debate is silliest or most obvious?
« Reply #33 on: January 11, 2015, 10:59:15 PM »

Offline Nerf DPOY

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2509
  • Tommy Points: 377
I would argue Ruth vs the field is the silliest, because I can't really see how anyone could make a convincing argument either way. The differences in all of the eras are just too numerous and overwhelming to really be able to come to many conclusions.
I think the Ruth argument is that the guy was well on his way to being a Hall of Fame pitcher...then switches mid career and becomes the best hitter ever. I think the year he hit 60 (in a season shorter than today) the next closest was Lou Gehrig with like 47 and the next closest was 18. The difference between him and the next best players was one of the biggest difference for any athlete ever. And he did it on a diet of hot dogs and beer (at least that's the legend).

And he even played partially in the dead ball era and shorter seasons, so that skews the numbers against him. But as you said, no black players, no Latin/South American/Japanese players in the pool of competition. Also, it wasn't uncommon for him to be facing guys in the later innings on an absurd pitch count, on three days rest with 240 innings under their belt by mid August. It's even difficult to gauge players' years in the mid eighties vs the mid nineties for obvious reasons, and the best stat off the top of my head is OPS+, but that's not perfect.

Everyone always brings this stuff up but everyone else in that era was facing the same white pitchers on the same pitch counts on the same days rest and none of them did what he did.

Well he undoubtedly was the best of his era that played. Also, his OPS+ of 206 would indicate that no one dominated an era like he dominated it (Ted Williams and Barry Bonds are next on the list at 190 and 182 respectively), but as I'm saying, the eras are so vastly different that it's hard for me to put much weight in the statistics. Pitching is superior now. Way back when most pitchers threw fastballs and curves. Cutters and splits I don't think were around, and specialty pitchers like LOOGY's who face 1-2 batters hadn't become common. The competition pool is exponentially bigger now. I just can't say with any confidence what Ruth's numbers would be in today's game.

Re: Which versus debate is silliest or most obvious?
« Reply #34 on: January 11, 2015, 11:04:42 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
I guess I'd say baseball doesn't compare across eras quite as well as basketball.

Football doesn't compare great across eras either. I mean at the time Jim Thorpe was playing the forward pass was hardly thought of.

I guess you can try to compare post WW2 football players.

Re: Which versus debate is silliest or most obvious?
« Reply #35 on: January 11, 2015, 11:11:51 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
I have to admit there's no way the French military could have possibly taken over Germany and almost beat France and Russia simultaneously AND make a good showing in North Africa.

To this day the French military is pretty irrelevant. When you add in their nasty defeats in Vietnam....

http://skreened.com/armycustomtshirts/french-army-what-s-that


Re: Which versus debate is silliest or most obvious?
« Reply #36 on: January 12, 2015, 12:52:56 AM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
Grozny? The Russians named a major city Grozny? That is....wow. Wow. Don't even know how to feel about that one. HA!

Why?  Anyway, did you miss any of the Chechen Wars in the 90s?  The Russians surrounded it and annihilated the place with an endless barrage of artillery, air, and tank fire.

Re: Which versus debate is silliest or most obvious?
« Reply #37 on: January 12, 2015, 01:36:24 AM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
WW2 stuff

Good stuff, though I'd disagree about a couple of points.

Germany almost had the British beaten in the Battle of Britain. A few more weeks of pounding the radar sites and the Brits wouldn't have been able to respond to the Germans because they wouldn't have seen them coming. Spitfires don't help when you can't engage the enemy and the Brits didn't have the oil to run constant air patrol. I'm not saying they could have invaded - the Germans just didn't have the ships - but they could have had the Brits in a far worse position.

The Germans could have easily won Barbarossa if they hadn't been so stupid at Stalingrad. Moscow was unimportant in the grand scheme of things. It's Army Group South that really mattered. If the 4th isn't redeployed back and forth, they either capture Stalingrad intact or (better yet) Grozny. All the Germans had to do was maintain their positions on the Don to prevent the flow of traffic coming up the Don while taking Grozny. That cuts off the Russians from both their best food and oil sources. With another 250,000 troops not slugging it out in Stalingrad, Paulus would dig in along the bends of the Don and let the Russians beat their heads in trying to break through. Their units in key positions would have greatly strengthened the lesser armies of Hungary, Romania and Italy which were all spread too thin. By the end of the winter the Russians would have been starved for oil and food. Instead, Hitler tried to get both Stalingrad and Grozny and ended up getting neither.   

Also, one can only wonder what would have happened if Hitler had used his paratroopers to take Malta. The Brits were beaten in Egypt until they were resupplied by Malta. If the Germans take Malta and reinforce Rommel with 1/3rd the troops they did later trying to save that army, the Brits are done. Egypt is overrun, the Germans have a clear shot to the Middle East oil fields and even a chance for Rommel to come up from the South to flank the Russian armies around Grozny.

Oh I agree that the Germans almost had them beat, but trust me when I say that even the destruction of the radar wouldn't have been enough, and the English would still have been far from blind.  It all came down to the Royal Observer Corps, and there were many more of them around the country than radar stations.  I saw a program on it not too long ago.  Also, to your point about the ships, there was just no comparison when it came to naval strength, so even if the German had won the air war, which would have left them decimated, anyway, how would they have gotten across the channel?  It just wasn't feasible, even if the Luftwaffe could have attacked the Royal Navy, so the war was lost for Germany once they allowed the Allies to escape at Dunkirk.  Apparently, captured german pilots from the battle of britain also felt that if the battle for air supremacy could not be won by the Luftwaffe, then the conflict would ultimately settle into a kind of 30 years war between germany and the uk, which England would have won, imo.  Yes, it would have taken longer, but they could have done it, especially with their techniques of deception.

And now to the eastern front, lol. ;D  Stalingrad wasn't part of Barbarossa, but I still understand what you're saying.  I disagree that Moscow wasn't important, though, because it's capture could have had a devastating impact on the will of the Russian people to fight on, but I realized how foolish that sounds just in typing it, lol. ;D  Still, Moscow was the objective, and Hitler completely blew it when he opted to encircle the Kiev Pocket.  Woo, lol. ::)  As for the food and oil supplies, I completely agree, although it should be pointed out that the germans already had the bread basket (ukraine) of the region in their hands, so the Russians were already at a disadvantage, to say the least.  Securing such a front would have been difficult, though, because if they get cut off in the Caucasus, how would they fight their way out?  The Germans did try to proceed in that direction, but they didn't commit nearly enough guys to get it done, even though they still made excellent progress due to the ability of the Fallschirmjägers, which shouldn't come as a surprise, lol.  Bottom line - Stalingrad was all about ego, but when you go back and look at what happened, more german troops died from frostbite and other diseases than from actual combat, lol.  The cold also stopped their guns from working, but they should have anticipated that before they invaded, but hey, what do I know?  I'm not an invincible and impossibly-arrogant member of the 'master race,' lol. ::)

Finally, North Africa was a complete waste of time that was only made a priority because the only country that Italy ever defeated in the second world war was Ethiopia, lol. ;D  How's that for a sidekick when you're trying to take over the world, lol? ;D  I wonder if Hitler ever pulled Mussolini aside and said, "you're embarrassing me.  Now go wait in the car," ahaha. ;D  The Italians were useless.  The only thing that they ever had as a plus for the germans was their navy.  Well, until the British decimated it Pearl Harbor style with biplanes, lol.  The fact is is that Rommel was always outnumbered and outgunned, which makes his achievements even more impressive, imo, and I did read somewhere that the ultimate plan was for Rommel to link up with the other german forces in the Caucasus, but that is ridiculously far fetched, imo.  Besides, if Rommel is on the eastern front instead of in North Africa from day one of Barbarossa - OH DEAR GOD. :o  I don't even want to think about that, lol.  That's scary. 

I'm not so sure that the germans could have taken Malta, though.  Have you forgotten how decimated the Fallschirmjägers were after Crete? 

Sidebar - as for the eastern front, this is where Turkey plays a huge role, imo, because, had they sided with germany, again, lol ;D, then that completely cuts the Russians off from resupply via the Black Sea, which was one of the biggest reasons for their defeat in world war 1.  Just something to think about.  Sorry I wrote so much, btw.

Re: Which versus debate is silliest or most obvious?
« Reply #38 on: January 12, 2015, 01:40:14 AM »

Offline furball

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 938
  • Tommy Points: 95
I would argue Ruth vs the field is the silliest, because I can't really see how anyone could make a convincing argument either way. The differences in all of the eras are just too numerous and overwhelming to really be able to come to many conclusions.
I think the Ruth argument is that the guy was well on his way to being a Hall of Fame pitcher...then switches mid career and becomes the best hitter ever. I think the year he hit 60 (in a season shorter than today) the next closest was Lou Gehrig with like 47 and the next closest was 18. The difference between him and the next best players was one of the biggest difference for any athlete ever. And he did it on a diet of hot dogs and beer (at least that's the legend).

And he even played partially in the dead ball era and shorter seasons, so that skews the numbers against him. But as you said, no black players, no Latin/South American/Japanese players in the pool of competition. Also, it wasn't uncommon for him to be facing guys in the later innings on an absurd pitch count, on three days rest with 240 innings under their belt by mid August. It's even difficult to gauge players' years in the mid eighties vs the mid nineties for obvious reasons, and the best stat off the top of my head is OPS+, but that's not perfect.

Everyone always brings this stuff up but everyone else in that era was facing the same white pitchers on the same pitch counts on the same days rest and none of them did what he did.

Well he undoubtedly was the best of his era that played. Also, his OPS+ of 206 would indicate that no one dominated an era like he dominated it (Ted Williams and Barry Bonds are next on the list at 190 and 182 respectively), but as I'm saying, the eras are so vastly different that it's hard for me to put much weight in the statistics. Pitching is superior now. Way back when most pitchers threw fastballs and curves. Cutters and splits I don't think were around, and specialty pitchers like LOOGY's who face 1-2 batters hadn't become common. The competition pool is exponentially bigger now. I just can't say with any confidence what Ruth's numbers would be in today's game.

The point is that if it was so much easier back then then everyone would have done it.  There were a lot of factors that made it harder back then as well.  Playing in huge ball parks for one (you know, aside from Fenway which was the same as now).  Also, there are 30 teams in the league now and 5 man rotations..  Back then, only 16 teams (in 1927) with 4 man rotations.  Assuming no one gets hurt, there are now 150 starting pitchers in baseball.  Back then only 64.  Think about the concentration of talent. 

Re: Which versus debate is silliest or most obvious?
« Reply #39 on: January 12, 2015, 06:27:10 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
I would argue Ruth vs the field is the silliest, because I can't really see how anyone could make a convincing argument either way. The differences in all of the eras are just too numerous and overwhelming to really be able to come to many conclusions.
I think the Ruth argument is that the guy was well on his way to being a Hall of Fame pitcher...then switches mid career and becomes the best hitter ever. I think the year he hit 60 (in a season shorter than today) the next closest was Lou Gehrig with like 47 and the next closest was 18. The difference between him and the next best players was one of the biggest difference for any athlete ever. And he did it on a diet of hot dogs and beer (at least that's the legend).

  Ruth had multiple seasons where he had more home runs than most of the teams in the league did.

Re: Which versus debate is silliest or most obvious?
« Reply #40 on: January 12, 2015, 07:12:10 AM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
Grozny? The Russians named a major city Grozny? That is....wow. Wow. Don't even know how to feel about that one. HA!

Why?  Anyway, did you miss any of the Chechen Wars in the 90s?  The Russians surrounded it and annihilated the place with an endless barrage of artillery, air, and tank fire.
they basically named the town Badass.  Or Nasty

Re: Which versus debate is silliest or most obvious?
« Reply #41 on: January 12, 2015, 07:01:43 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
Grozny? The Russians named a major city Grozny? That is....wow. Wow. Don't even know how to feel about that one. HA!

Why?  Anyway, did you miss any of the Chechen Wars in the 90s?  The Russians surrounded it and annihilated the place with an endless barrage of artillery, air, and tank fire.
they basically named the town Badass.  Or Nasty

Oh, haha. ;D  Sorry, I never took Russian.  Did you?  I couldn't even manage spanish, lol (languages and I don't get along, lol.). ;D

Re: Which versus debate is silliest or most obvious?
« Reply #42 on: January 12, 2015, 07:03:21 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
We so clearly need a WW2 thread.

Maybe a hypothetical war thread. Like if you give Alexander the Great tanks and the Luftwaffe and you give Julius Ceasar the RAF and make the US into Genghis Kahn and Russia is being commanded by Shaka Zulu...

I'm down for a WW2 thread, but the hypothetical scenarios that you've outlined there are just too much for me, lol. ;D  That stuff is out there, man, out there. ;D

Re: Which versus debate is silliest or most obvious?
« Reply #43 on: January 12, 2015, 07:13:29 PM »

Offline Mazingerz

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1257
  • Tommy Points: 99
Silliest all time debate ever? Which came first - the chicken or the egg.
Peavey Bass Player - relearning to play after 10 years sucks;

Re: Which versus debate is silliest or most obvious?
« Reply #44 on: February 01, 2015, 11:34:08 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
Grozny? The Russians named a major city Grozny? That is....wow. Wow. Don't even know how to feel about that one. HA!

Why?  Anyway, did you miss any of the Chechen Wars in the 90s?  The Russians surrounded it and annihilated the place with an endless barrage of artillery, air, and tank fire.
they basically named the town Badass.  Or Nasty

Oh, haha. ;D  Sorry, I never took Russian.  Did you?  I couldn't even manage spanish, lol (languages and I don't get along, lol.). ;D
No. I just know stuff