[quote:2c1d760890="macnole"]One point of order, as I have the opposite sentiment on U2 and The Who...Adam and Edge will switch roles on "40". Although they no longer do that at their live shows, as they no longer finish with that song. A pity. Minor note on the greatest band of the last 2 decades...
:P[/quote:2c1d760890]
The Who used to have The Ox lead on about 25% of songs. U2 much more of a polished machine. Way more from the 80s while the Who are so much more from the 60s.
U2 being the greatest band of the last 2 decades is both hard to argue and mildly depressing to me.
Babe Adams Super Reliever Question
22 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
by PotKettleBlack » Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:38 pm
- PotKettleBlack
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by PotKettleBlack » Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:38 pm
[quote:07f83d4ea5="macnole"]yes a token element on the switch. Who was a great band. Both have great live shows.
Hmmm...so then what about Black Sabbath or Iron Maiden...preference?[/quote:07f83d4ea5]
Sabbath is really 5 great albums, 2 lousy ones with Ozzy, 1 mediocre one with Dio, and a whole lot of time wasting post-Dio.
Maiden is 3 great albums and something like a hundred that rehash the best stuff from two of the three. Maiden with Dickinson is a better live show than Sabbath with Ozzy or "Heaven & Hell". But I'll take the first two Sabbath albums over Maiden's Number of the Beast, so probably Sabbath.
Hmmm...so then what about Black Sabbath or Iron Maiden...preference?[/quote:07f83d4ea5]
Sabbath is really 5 great albums, 2 lousy ones with Ozzy, 1 mediocre one with Dio, and a whole lot of time wasting post-Dio.
Maiden is 3 great albums and something like a hundred that rehash the best stuff from two of the three. Maiden with Dickinson is a better live show than Sabbath with Ozzy or "Heaven & Hell". But I'll take the first two Sabbath albums over Maiden's Number of the Beast, so probably Sabbath.
- PotKettleBlack
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by mykeedee » Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:34 pm
Wait a minute, don't forget Deep Purple, the Ian Gillan/Richie Blackmore Purple, although for one album they did alright without him. Five guys, all of them solo'd and all of them complimented each other (although they didn't always get along). Hence my argument for a balanced staff, fairly even starters (4 or 5), and a balanced pen with a closer, lefty and righty middle guys, loogy and a roogy.
- mykeedee
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by motherscratcher » Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:54 pm
[quote:5e0879afd2="PotKettleBlack"][quote:5e0879afd2="macnole"]One point of order, as I have the opposite sentiment on U2 and The Who...Adam and Edge will switch roles on "40". Although they no longer do that at their live shows, as they no longer finish with that song. A pity. Minor note on the greatest band of the last 2 decades...
:P[/quote:5e0879afd2]
The Who used to have The Ox lead on about 25% of songs. U2 much more of a polished machine. Way more from the 80s while the Who are so much more from the 60s.
U2 being the greatest band of the last 2 decades is both hard to argue and mildly depressing to me.[/quote:5e0879afd2]
It's not too depressing because unless someone hops into a DeLorean, travels to 1992, and assassinates Thom Yorke...U2 is not the greatest band of the last two decades. YMMV .
BTW, Pot...your post was about 7 shades of awesome.
:P[/quote:5e0879afd2]
The Who used to have The Ox lead on about 25% of songs. U2 much more of a polished machine. Way more from the 80s while the Who are so much more from the 60s.
U2 being the greatest band of the last 2 decades is both hard to argue and mildly depressing to me.[/quote:5e0879afd2]
It's not too depressing because unless someone hops into a DeLorean, travels to 1992, and assassinates Thom Yorke...U2 is not the greatest band of the last two decades. YMMV .
BTW, Pot...your post was about 7 shades of awesome.
- motherscratcher
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by PotKettleBlack » Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:14 pm
[quote:be6b9e930d="mykeedee"]Wait a minute, don't forget Deep Purple, the Ian Gillan/Richie Blackmore Purple, although for one album they did alright without him. Five guys, all of them solo'd and all of them complimented each other (although they didn't always get along). Hence my argument for a balanced staff, fairly even starters (4 or 5), and a balanced pen with a closer, lefty and righty middle guys, loogy and a roogy.[/quote:be6b9e930d]
Different discussion. That's a team question about building a rotation/team with most players about equal (like say all starters at the 6M range for $100M) versus a U2 approach where it's one star, an ancillary star and two role players (Mantle, Hornsby, three six mill guys, and 3 3-4 mil guys). Or a Doors approach. One star, 3 fillers. Ruth + 7 five mill guys.
Different discussion. That's a team question about building a rotation/team with most players about equal (like say all starters at the 6M range for $100M) versus a U2 approach where it's one star, an ancillary star and two role players (Mantle, Hornsby, three six mill guys, and 3 3-4 mil guys). Or a Doors approach. One star, 3 fillers. Ruth + 7 five mill guys.
- PotKettleBlack
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by PotKettleBlack » Sun Jul 17, 2011 3:59 pm
[quote:d3216bde0e="macnole"]Holy crap talk about derailing a thread. :lol:
But I agree in the sense there is no analogue between U2 and a super reliever team makeup...they would be more analogous to the Super-Duper reliever strategy
:P[/quote:d3216bde0e]
You're missing it.
U2 would be more like having a Super R who can't start. Because having him guest as a starter would be inefficient, which is not U2. SuperR/Spot Start is more like the Who, where Townshend sings some leads, writes most of everything, lead guitars, rhythm guitars, does some of everything.
Don't get me started on the similarities between Jose Oquendo in 140-200 and "Magic Dick" in the J. Geils Band. Spooky.
But I agree in the sense there is no analogue between U2 and a super reliever team makeup...they would be more analogous to the Super-Duper reliever strategy
:P[/quote:d3216bde0e]
You're missing it.
U2 would be more like having a Super R who can't start. Because having him guest as a starter would be inefficient, which is not U2. SuperR/Spot Start is more like the Who, where Townshend sings some leads, writes most of everything, lead guitars, rhythm guitars, does some of everything.
Don't get me started on the similarities between Jose Oquendo in 140-200 and "Magic Dick" in the J. Geils Band. Spooky.
- PotKettleBlack
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by WeatherNut » Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:05 pm
I've had most of success (such as it is) using a second tier strategy of staying away from the big boys and using a bunch of guys in the 5-9 mil range. I guess that's closer to PKB's strategy.
WN
WN
- WeatherNut
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by macnole » Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:05 pm
[quote:358b93bd36="PotKettleBlack"] Don't get me started on the similarities between Jose Oquendo in 140-200 and "Magic Dick" in the J. Geils Band. Spooky.[/quote:358b93bd36]
that was awesome 8-)
The comment, not the J. Geils Band :wink:
that was awesome 8-)
The comment, not the J. Geils Band :wink:
- macnole
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
22 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Return to Strat-O-Matic Baseball: All-Time Greats
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests