UConn stats...in defense of Anna & Carnac...

[CocoHusky]

I didn’t miss it. For the last third of the season, Anna was essentially a point forward. Crystal was looking for her shot, which was her role. I can’t criticize that; UNLESS YOU EXPECT ME TO. It does look childish, doesn’t it?

Yes it does. You did criticize it by pointing out that Crystal's assist number were down by 2 from the previous season.

 

[Buzzyboy]

I want to thank you for redeeming my impressions of Anna, particularly because it shows that though Anna's start was slow, dealing with a variety of issues including adapting to the UConn team and to being away from family, in a completely foreign country to her ... I guess in a post earlier comparing Anna versus Megan, I was more caught up in the Anna that evolved over the latter part of her freshman year .... you could see the numbers suggesting that she has potential to be an amazing player for the Huskies and not someone to be slowly but surely disappearing into an insignificant bench player as some have suggested .... So appreciate your numbers confirming what I saw of her ...

It's pretty obvious you either didn't read in it's entirety the original post because in the last part of last year, Anna was averaging over 13

No, I don't, because if CWill struggles and Geno is limiting Westbrook's minutes, then Makurat becomes the focus on offense and opposing teams will key on her. While being a great shooter and a tremendous passer, Makurat's offensive game is not very multi- dimensional and she is best served in the spot up shooter role ala KLS or KML. She will simply not get the open looks if CWill struggles and Westbrook is injured. Last year Makurat averaged 26.5 mins per game, I don't think an extra couple of minutes per game is going to boost her production enough from the 8pts 4rbs 3ast that she averaged last year to be named an HM AA.

I think that Anna showed herself to be a complete player in the latter part of the season as David in Naples stats show, overcoming her adapting to a new team and a new offense and most importantly a new country ... you throw out her numbers as 8 points a game but in her last 8 games she shot 49% from three, 55% overall and averaged over 13 points a game while distributing the basketball and averaging close to 5 assists per game .... those are some pretty serious numbers and why would it be impossible to assume that coming back with my experience, losing some weight and coming back in better shape, that those numbers might improve??? The fact is this team is going to have more depth and so, even in the event of injuries, there should be a lot of balance to the Huskies .... first and foremost, as a freshman, there's no way Anna would have been taking 25 shots a game or anything approaching that so how would she ever put up any point totals that compare to Megan .... that's ridiculous to compare their points per game and typically UConn has been more about a balanced attack and not one dominant scorer ... she's the perfect Huskie because she distributes the ball, shoots the ball wonderfully and considering her position on the court, gets more than her fair share of rebounds ....

 

[Buzzyboy]

I'm a UCONN WBB fan-I'm not about that life of celebrating an undefeated "regular season". I'll leave that to the ND fans. What I'm arguing is: 1) You consistently and severely underestimate the level of performance it takes to achieve AA or honorable mention AA status. 2) Anna is not likely to get there based on 3Pt accuracy of even 45% because of the current composition of the UCONN roster.
My argument is based on statistics and history. Consider these two blind resumes.
Player Number 1 was from the #1 ranked team and shot 44.4 % from deep and led her team in scoring-that is not a misprint-she was the number 1 scorer on the number one team last year.
Player Number 2 shot 44.1 percent from deep and was the #4 scorer on the #2 ranked team.
Neither player received AA votes. Neither player was even voted among the top 10 best in their respective conferences. Player 1 had 1 teammate that was voted AA and another who received Honorable mention. Player Number 2 had 3 teammates ( maximum allowable) who were voted AA.
So when @soxfan23 says nowhere close those are two examples of what he's talking about. To make HH AA you have to be one of the top 15 best players in the NCAA. That's what I mean when I say some of your (& others) expectations for Anna are not realistic. Quite honestly I would settle for Anna making 1st Team Big East but to do so she would have to play better than ONO, Christyn, Evina & Paige-that is not a realistic expectation. I suppose anything is possible because we already have a few people thinking Anna played better than Megan Walker last year-hopefully you know better.

I guess I'd have to agree that there's a distinct possibility that Anna won't get the attention, based on numbers, that one would need to be an A/A but I do personally think that sometimes a person's value to making their team a great one, is overlooked .... I think that's often a lot more significant than someone averaging 22 points a game .... I think Anna's role in making UConn better was very evident in the latter part of the season, with her ability to shoot, her finding her teammates in optimum scoring position and her toughness .... that's why I thought once she finally found her confidence in the latter part of the year that her contributions as significant as anyone's on the team ...

 

[Buzzyboy]

Let me tell ya somethin. Anna is fundementally sound. From what I saw last season she knows her limitations and has gotten better from early in last season. She will get better this seaosn too. It is my belief that Anna is going to be a star...not a shooting star either. She will become a complete ball player this season and valuable to the team.

I think she has already proven herself as a complete player and valuable to the team .... there's no doubt in my mind she'll only get better and as a result, so will the Huskies

 

[soxfan23]

It's pretty obvious you either didn't read in it's entirety the original post because in the last part of last year, Anna was averaging over 13

I think that Anna showed herself to be a complete player in the latter part of the season as David in Naples stats show, overcoming her adapting to a new team and a new offense and most importantly a new country ... you throw out her numbers as 8 points a game but in her last 8 games she shot 49% from three, 55% overall and averaged over 13 points a game while distributing the basketball and averaging close to 5 assists per game .... those are some pretty serious numbers and why would it be impossible to assume that coming back with my experience, losing some weight and coming back in better shape, that those numbers might improve??? The fact is this team is going to have more depth and so, even in the event of injuries, there should be a lot of balance to the Huskies .... first and foremost, as a freshman, there's no way Anna would have been taking 25 shots a game or anything approaching that so how would she ever put up any point totals that compare to Megan .... that's ridiculous to compare their points per game and typically UConn has been more about a balanced attack and not one dominant scorer ... she's the perfect Huskie because she distributes the ball, shoots the ball wonderfully and considering her position on the court, gets more than her fair share of rebounds ....

NOBODY is comparing Walker to Makurat, Walker was just used as an illustration of what an AA's stats look like.

 

[hoophuskee]

I'm a UCONN WBB fan-I'm not about that life of celebrating an undefeated "regular season". I'll leave that to the ND fans. What I'm arguing is: 1) You consistently and severely underestimate the level of performance it takes to achieve AA or honorable mention AA status. 2) Anna is not likely to get there based on 3Pt accuracy of even 45% because of the current composition of the UCONN roster.
My argument is based on statistics and history. Consider these two blind resumes.
Player Number 1 was from the #1 ranked team and shot 44.4 % from deep and led her team in scoring-that is not a misprint-she was the number 1 scorer on the number one team last year.
Player Number 2 shot 44.1 percent from deep and was the #4 scorer on the #2 ranked team.
Neither player received AA votes. Neither player was even voted among the top 10 best in their respective conferences. Player 1 had 1 teammate that was voted AA and another who received Honorable mention. Player Number 2 had 3 teammates ( maximum allowable) who were voted AA.
So when @soxfan23 says nowhere close those are two examples of what he's talking about. To make HH AA you have to be one of the top 15 best players in the NCAA. That's what I mean when I say some of your (& others) expectations for Anna are not realistic. Quite honestly I would settle for Anna making 1st Team Big East but to do so she would have to play better than ONO, Christyn, Evina & Paige-that is not a realistic expectation. I suppose anything is possible because we already have a few people thinking Anna played better than Megan Walker last year-hopefully you know better.

You're personal "celebrating" has nothing to do with our discussions and has nothing to do with my comments. And we have already discussed in past how we feel as fans. No point bringing that up further.

Just as you keep bringing up "top 5 players." - You mention top 15 players- thus including top 5 players as A/A in the discussion - this was not my argument. It's irrelevant to me - but yet you replied to me to start these discussions. So you can';t change what I'm saying to fit your narrative. My comments of AMAk have nothing to do with top 5 or even top 10 players so why you keep bringing them up imo is irrelevant to me. If you want o obring it up - great. But to reply to me as if top 5 or even top 10 matters - it has nothing to do with my comments. I never suggested she was top 5 or top 10. And this year with COVID - I have no idea nor do you or anyone else know what many players will accumulate. All I'm suggesting is "the possibility."

As far as South Carolina and Harrigan -- you are right. I agree with you-- if if if if AMAk is 2nd in scoring while only averaging 13 ppg while other players are near her scoring average just as SC has- she will not get Honorable Mention A/A status. She would need to build up other stats for that.

However these stats are accumulated by South Carolina in the manner they play. And we know UCONN is different than SC (UCONN's 16-17 and 17-18 teams averaged more ppg than SC 19-20 as an example). So if I were to look back at the history of UCONN undefeated teams using historical stats as you say then I don't think there is one player that didn't make at least HM AA in the last 10 years or so that wound up being the 2nd leading scorer on an undefeated team. To further this, I don't believe there is a steadfast formula rule that you might be implying for HM A/A.

I am going to take a two day break on AMak discussions (other than my next post to soxfan123) - let others have their crack. You and I are going down a path of being "accusatory" - I don't want that so I'll re-discuss on Wednesday if you or anyone else wants.

***********And just to be clear I did Amak has the possibility of becoming HM AA. I did not say she undoubtedly will be. Thus you finding a stat from another school that is not UCONN - doesn't mean she will have the exact same stat you pull up for that other player. Which is why I countered with past undefeated UCONN teams.

 

[hoophuskee]

NOBODY is comparing Walker to Makurat, Walker was just used as an illustration of what an AA's stats look like.

And it's wrong.

You said NOWHERE NEAR being an A/A. Walker was a 1st team A/A. Many of us are NOT suggesting AMak will be a 1st team A/A.

I don't understand why you can't see the difference.

Well I am done with this a few days.

 

[soxfan23]

And it's wrong.

You said NOWHERE NEAR being an A/A. Walker was a 1st team A/A. Many of us are NOT suggesting AMak will be a 1st team A/A.

I don't understand why you can't see the difference.

Well I am done with this a few days.

As am I, let's see at the end of the year who was right.

 

[CocoHusky]

those are some pretty serious numbers and why would it be impossible to assume that coming back with my experience, losing some weight and coming back in better shape, that those numbers might improve???

It is very reasonable to believe Anna will come back an improved player. What is not reasonable is to expect Anna to sustain the pace of her last 8 games , 49% from deep, 55% overall, 13 PPG, 5 APG over an entire season. To recap those reason 1) Those games were against AAC opponents 2) Anna will face increased competition for playing time this season from Aliyah Edwards, Evina Westbrok and Aubrey Griffin. Anna will also likely not be placed in her role of Point Forward because UCONN has got to establish Paige as the PG of the future & besides Paige UCONN has two point guards Evina and Nika that appear to be capable options at PG. Lastly that pace of deep shooting would pass or equal Sue Bird's UCONN all time record. Even at the lower mark of 45% from deep that some are proposing, Anna would be 10 all time in UCONN WBB history.

 

[CocoHusky]

You're personal "celebrating" has nothing to do with our discussions and has nothing to do with my comments. And we have already discussed in past how we feel as fans. No point bringing that up further.

Just as you keep bringing up "top 5 players." - You mention top 15 players- thus including top 5 players as A/A in the discussion - this was not my argument. It's irrelevant to me - but yet you replied to me to start these discussions. So you can';t change what I'm saying to fit your narrative. My comments of AMAk have nothing to do with top 5 or even top 10 players so why you keep bringing them up imo is irrelevant to me. If you want o obring it up - great. But to reply to me as if top 5 or even top 10 matters - it has nothing to do with my comments. I never suggested she was top 5 or top 10. And this year with COVID - I have no idea nor do you or anyone else know what many players will accumulate. All I'm suggesting is "the possibility."

As far as South Carolina and Harrigan -- you are right. I agree with you-- if if if if AMAk is 2nd in scoring while only averaging 13 ppg while other players are near her scoring average just as SC has- she will not get Honorable Mention A/A status. She would need to build up other stats for that.

However these stats are accumulated by South Carolina in the manner they play. And we know UCONN is different than SC (UCONN's 16-17 and 17-18 teams averaged more ppg than SC 19-20 as an example). So if I were to look back at the history of UCONN undefeated teams using historical stats as you say then I don't think there is one player that didn't make at least HM AA in the last 10 years or so that wound up being the 2nd leading scorer on an undefeated team. To further this, I don't believe there is a steadfast formula rule that you might be implying for HM A/A.

I am going to take a two day break on AMak discussions (other than my next post to soxfan123) - let others have their crack. You and I are going down a path of being "accusatory" - I don't want that so I'll re-discuss on Wednesday if you or anyone else wants.

***********And just to be clear I did Amak has the possibility of becoming HM AA. I did not say she undoubtedly will be. Thus you finding a stat from another school that is not UCONN - doesn't mean she will have the exact same stat you pull up for that other player. Which is why I countered with past undefeated UCONN teams.

My personal celebration has everything to do with your post and will happen once I get you on the correct path. Enjoy your two day break. We can pick up with your course correction towards enlightenment upon your return.

 

[JonathanXIV]

As am I, let's see at the end of the year who was right.

Sure. As soon as you can tell me what "NOWHERE near" to AA looks like.

 

[soxfan23]

Sure. As soon as you can tell me what "NOWHERE near" to AA looks like.

A player that averaged pedestrian stats like 8pts 4rbs and 3asts, has NEVER even made All conference while playing in a dismal conference, and a player that is arguably only the 5th or 6th player on their own team is my definition of "NOWHERE near" an AA, does that clarify things for you?

 

[JonathanXIV]

A player that averaged pedestrian stats like 8pts 4rbs and 3asts, has NEVER even made All conference while playing in a dismal conference, and a player that is arguably only the 5th or 6th player on their own team is my definition of "NOWHERE near" an AA, does that clarify things for you?

Yes, but I understood your post as predicting what will happen this year. And if that is what Anna is at the end of March, then you will have been right. Abrasive, but right.

 

[soxfan23]

Yes, but I understood your post as predicting what will happen this year. And if that is what Anna is at the end of March, then you will have been right. Abrasive, but right.

Sorry you feel that way, I am just trying to be objective and honest.

 

[JonathanXIV]

Sorry you feel that way, I am just trying to be objective and honest.

I’m sorry too, but there really wasn’t a need to put “nowhere near” in all caps when discussing Anna and her chances at being an AA this year. For the record, I don’t think Anna is going to be AA this season, but I do think she will be incredibly valuable to the team and could make All Conference.

 

[Buzzyboy]

By all indication IF those so called main culprits did pass to Anna, chances are/were Anna was just going to pass it off to someone else.

Well, the likelihood would then be that she might have gotten herself more assists because she is a very good passer .... I do think that, particularly as the season progressed, she was starting to put up shots when she was open .... she actually has really good instincts about what to do with the ball, whether to pass, penetrate, shoot .... namely to do what's necessary to get a bucket for her or a teammate and that's why it's so easy to like her

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

I am a stat guy! But stats don't tell the whole story of every athlete!
For example, the late Thurman Munson cannot get enough Hall of Fame votes because "they" say he didn't play long enough or his stats don't measure up to Catchers in the Hall of Fame! Which is false!
But IMHO the MOST IMPORTANT credential any player needs to gain entry into the HofF is, was he considered one of the elite players of his ERA? Which obviously Thurman was! He was a peer of Johnny Bench and Pudge Fisk that gained entrance into the HofF! Jim Rice was one of those players who finally got in! Mike Mussina was also an example of that bias but eventually got in!
So using that reasoning to be an All-American in WCBB, was the player one of the Elite in Division I?
Kia Nurse was an elite player but too many teammates of hers ALSO was among the elite and the unwritten rule is only 2 or 3 from any team can be selected an AA! So Kia wasn't named! Jamelle Elliott was in the same boat. Every one of the WBB people that voted for AA couldn't vote her AA because Lobo, Woltors, & Rizzotti were chosen ahead of Jamelle!
If Anna has a truly GREAT season for UCONN, she should be a worthy of consideration for the AA team! A star on one of the best teams in WCBB should be eligible for AA!

 

[cbraarj]

I am a stat guy! But stats don't tell the whole story of every athlete!
For example, the late Thurman Munson cannot get enough Hall of Fame votes because "they" say he didn't play long enough or his stats don't measure up to Catchers in the Hall of Fame! Which is false!
But IMHO the MOST IMPORTANT credential any player needs to gain entry into the HofF is, was he considered one of the elite players of his ERA? Which obviously Thurman was! He was a peer of Johnny Bench and Pudge Fisk that gained entrance into the HofF! Jim Rice was one of those players who finally got in! Mike Mussina was also an example of that bias but eventually got in!
So using that reasoning to be an All-American in WCBB, was the player one of the Elite in Division I?
Kia Nurse was an elite player but too many teammates of hers ALSO was among the elite and the unwritten rule is only 2 or 3 from any team can be selected an AA! So Kia wasn't named! Jamelle Elliott was in the same boat. Every one of the WBB people that voted for AA couldn't vote her AA because Lobo, Woltors, & Rizzotti were chosen ahead of Jamelle!
If Anna has a truly GREAT season for UCONN, she should be a worthy of consideration for the AA team! A star on one of the best teams in WCBB should be eligible for AA!

Don Mattingly should be in the HOF too!

 

[Littlemin]

I am a stat guy! But stats don't tell the whole story of every athlete!
For example, the late Thurman Munson cannot get enough Hall of Fame votes because "they" say he didn't play long enough or his stats don't measure up to Catchers in the Hall of Fame! Which is false!
But IMHO the MOST IMPORTANT credential any player needs to gain entry into the HofF is, was he considered one of the elite players of his ERA? Which obviously Thurman was! He was a peer of Johnny Bench and Pudge Fisk that gained entrance into the HofF! Jim Rice was one of those players who finally got in! Mike Mussina was also an example of that bias but eventually got in!
So using that reasoning to be an All-American in WCBB, was the player one of the Elite in Division I?
Kia Nurse was an elite player but too many teammates of hers ALSO was among the elite and the unwritten rule is only 2 or 3 from any team can be selected an AA! So Kia wasn't named! Jamelle Elliott was in the same boat. Every one of the WBB people that voted for AA couldn't vote her AA because Lobo, Woltors, & Rizzotti were chosen ahead of Jamelle!
If Anna has a truly GREAT season for UCONN, she should be a worthy of consideration for the AA team! A star on one of the best teams in WCBB should be eligible for AA!

The odd thing about Munson and the HOF and the ridiculous “didn’t play long enough” argument is that the same criteria was not applied to Sandy Koufax or Dizzy Dean, both of whom without a doubt belong. But so does Munson, beyond that same doubt.

 

[HopJim]

No she will not. Kia nurse did all that and more DPOY and was not named as such. Likewise for Senior Saniya Chong.

Kia had issues being named to All American teams since there was so much talent her Jr. and Sr years, 3 UConn players were perceived as more valuable. Tough to have 4 starters on any team receive AA status. Chong just had too many players from other teams perceived to have higher skill level.

 

[JonathanXIV]

The odd thing about Munson and the HOF and the ridiculous “didn’t play long enough” argument is that the same criteria was not applied to Sandy Koufax or Dizzy Dean, both of whom without a doubt belong. But so does Munson, beyond that same doubt.

Not looking for a fight, but there is no comparison between the careers of Koufax and Munson, other than the relative brevity of their careers. Koufax won an MVP and 3 CY Youngs, and received 23 separate individual awards. Munson won an MVP, Rookie of the Year and that's it. Koufax is arguably the greatest player ever at his position (peak value). Munson, while very good, was not. When comparing his career to catchers who are the most similar to him, the top 10 are all very good players, but none of them HOFers.

One can make a reasonable argument that Munson belongs in the HOF (not an argument that I agree with), but the argument for Munson in the HOF is not strengthened or enhanced by comparing him to Koufax.

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

A committee of some sports writers, fans, ex-players, put statistics together that showed Thurman Munson in seasons and/or career has stats EQUAL TO OR BETTER than Carlton Fiske, Johnny Bench (considered by many as the greatest catcher of all time), and other catchers in the Hall of Fame!
You can't compare pitcher's to catcher's, or infielders to outfielders etc. But in the comparison of catchers to catchers Thurman holds his own or passes the others!
I can't find the article that stated the above but they listed Thurman, Fiske, Bench, and 2 other catchers (that at 73 I can't recall)! If I find the article I will post it here.
And mentioned above Don Mattingly is in the same boat as Thurman!
Harold Baines made the Hall of Fame through the Veterans Committee and Baines compared to HofF outfielders comes up short! A good but not great player!

 

[Littlemin]

Not looking for a beat, but there is no comparison between the careers of Koufax and Munson, other than the relative brevity of their careers. Koufax won an MVP and 3 CY Youngs, and received 23 separate individual awards. Munson won an MVP, Rookie of the Year and that's it. Koufax is arguably the greatest player ever at his position (peak value). Munson, while very good, was not. When comparing his career to catchers who are the most similar to him, the top 10 are all very good players, but none of them HOFers.

One can make a reasonable argument that Munson belongs in the HOF (not an argument that I agree with), but the argument for Munson in the HOF is not strengthened or enhanced by comparing him to Koufax.

No one compared him to Koufax, period end of story. My point was that Koufax also had a very short time of success, albeit, legendary. The primary reason given for Munson not getting by voters has been length of career. You want to argue record, fine, but I did not mention that at all. And no, not many “top 10“ catchers had three 100 RBI seasons, three Gold Gloves, were ROY, and won an MVP award. Outside of Bench, Munson was the best catcher of his era. Tremendous clutch player, great post season stats.
Further, Sandy Koufax had four of the greatest seasons a pitcher ever had, no question. But In the five preceding seasons his record was 59-50 with an ERA of 3.65. Should Koufax be in the HOF, of course, but one can’t argue that he didn’t have a short burst of greatness with an actual longer period of mediocrity relative to a “normal” HOF career.

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

I found an article that states Thurman should be in the HofF ( not the one I had read before).
It is too long to copy but here is the URL to the article!

The Baseball Hall of Fame continues to miss out on Thurman Munson

Now that we know who'll be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, we ponder why New York Yankees catcher Thurman Munson never made the cut.

elitesportsny.com

and another article:

Home - Thurman Munson Hall of Fame

“Thurman Munson was the glue that held the Yankees pitching staff together during those championship years. He was a fierce competitor who was beloved by everyone on those teams. His greatness cannot be measured by batting average and home runs alone. Without him, the Yankees do not win those...

munsonhof.com

 

[JonathanXIV]

A committee of some sports writers, fans, ex-players, put statistics together that showed Thurman Munson in seasons and/or career has stats EQUAL TO OR BETTER than Carlton Fiske, Johnny Bench (considered by many as the greatest catcher of all time), and other catchers in the Hall of Fame!
You can't compare pitcher's to catcher's, or infielders to outfielders etc. But in the comparison of catchers to catchers Thurman holds his own or passes the others!
I can't find the article that stated the above but they listed Thurman, Fiske, Bench, and 2 other catchers (that at 73 I can't recall)! If I find the article I will post it here.
And mentioned above Don Mattingly is in the same boat as Thurman!
Harold Baines made the Hall of Fame through the Veterans Committee and Baines compared to HofF outfielders comes up short! A good but not great player!

First, I think Thurman Munson was a helluva baseball player. Period.

Second, I agree with you about Harold Baines. Very good player. Head scratching decision to put him in the HOF. (note: almost all questionable HOF decisions are by Veterans Committees).

Third, using lots of exclamations points does not bolster your argument. The simple fact is that Munson's stats were not "equal to or better" than the records of either Bench or Fisk. While all three catchers had similar OBPs, both Bench and Fisk hit for considerably more power and had much higher SLG averages. Munson only slugged .410 for his career and was under .375 the last two years of his career (during his age 31 season he hit 6 HRs). He had 1 season of 20 or more HRs, Bench had 11 and Fisk had 8. Lifetime Munson had 113 HRs and 701 RBIs. Bench was 389/1376 and Fisk was 376/1330. Those are in no way comparable. Munson had 55.1 WAR lifetime. Impressive. Bench had 85.4 and Fisk 83.3. Again, a world of difference. Again, very good player. Not a HOFer. But not offended that you passionately make an argument for Munson. And you shouldn't be offended that I respectively disagree.

 

[JonathanXIV]

No one compared him to Koufax, period end of story. My point was that Koufax also had a very short time of success, albeit, legendary. The primary reason given for Munson not getting by voters has been length of career. You want to argue record, fine, but I did not mention that at all. And no, not many “top 10“ catchers had three 100 RBI seasons, three Gold Gloves, were ROY, and won an MVP award. Outside of Bench, Munson was the best catcher of his era. Tremendous clutch player, great post season stats.
Further, Sandy Koufax had four of the greatest seasons a pitcher ever had, no question. But In the five preceding seasons his record was 59-50 with an ERA of 3.65. Should Koufax be in the HOF, of course, but one can’t argue that he didn’t have a short burst of greatness with an actual longer period of mediocrity relative to a “normal” HOF career.

Actually, you did when you noted that "the same criteria was not applied to Sandy Koufax or Dizzy Dean, both of whom without a doubt belong. But so does Munson, beyond that same doubt." When you argue that the same criteria used for Koufax should be used for Munson, that's a comparison.

 

[MSGRET]

I thought this a UConn Women's basketball thread not a baseball HOF thread.

 

[Littlemin]

Actually, you did when you noted that "the same criteria was not applied to Sandy Koufax or Dizzy Dean, both of whom without a doubt belong. But so does Munson, beyond that same doubt." When you argue that the same criteria used for Koufax should be used for Munson, that's a comparison.

You must be a lawyer, my comparison was length of effectiveness, you obviously felt that gave you license to compare whatever took your fancy. The criteria I stated was just as obviously not applied to Koufax and Dean which you slyly sidestepped to present an entirely different argument.

 

[JonathanXIV]

You must be a lawyer, my comparison was length of effectiveness, you obviously felt that gave you license to compare whatever took your fancy. The criteria I stated was just as obviously not applied to Koufax and Dean which you slyly sidestepped to present an entirely different argument.

And my point is that while their careers may have been similar in length, they were not similarly effective. Be that as it may, we are free to respectfully disagree. Back to basketball.

 

[Littlemin]

And my point is that while their careers may have been similar in length, they were not similarly effective. Be that as it may, we are free to respectfully disagree. Back to basketball.

I understand your argument, it is just one I hadn’t brought up; you can’t have a debate when one party changes the topic. We don’t disagree at all, virtually any span of 4 year success in any sport pales compared to Koufax’ run but that was not my point. It was a short run, so was Dizzy Dean’s. Those are facts and that was my only point. So back to basketball.