If you rank best DH/1B from 1980 – 2009 and the best CF from 1980 – 2009, I suspect Cameron ranks higher than Martinez.

On philosophy — if I put on rose colored grasses and SEE the grass as brown, that doesn’t change the fact that the grass is green.

To the real topic at hand. Gutierrez is terrific defensively. With rare exception, other than shortstops, terrific defensive players don’t get much recognition. “We” notice players who make flashy plays or great plays but not those who consistently make an above average number of plays.

I… uhh. Umm.

Seriously?

Really?

I give up. Enjoy your philosophy classes. Let me know when you regain your sanity, and we’ll work you through the basics of life – you know, gravity exists, the world is round, and yes, grass is green.

Thanks for stating the obvious. There have been centerfielders since 1800-something. There have been DHs since 1973. Of course there have been more great centerfielders, there have been way more centerfielders than DHs, period.

Um, if that were true, science as we know it would not exist.

What is the mean of players in this era? Wait-a-minnit. I’ll bet FanGraphs has it.

Maybe I should look at my wording on that post again. I do loves me that “Click to edit” button….

Truth is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

If I were partially colorblind, and grass was red to me…just because it’s green to you doesn’t make it green for me. To me, it’d be red, even if the whole world’s telling me that that’s what they consider green.

My values aren’t correct to you. Just because you own a set of numbers that directly contradict what my own numbers say does not make them right, automatically. They are by definition debatable standards, not carved-in-stone fact that I’m smacking face-first into.

My numbers presented thus far say you’re a bit more wrong than right. Your numbers say I’m wrong, period. End of discussion, period again.

And the wheels of the bus go ’round and ’round. Isn’t baseball great that way?

Put it this way – Mike Cameron has had a better career than Edgar Martinez. If you consider Martinez “a hell of a player”, then you have to consider Cameron the same.

A few unsolicited words about what I think of Edgar Martinez :

I consider Martinez the best to do what he did in baseball’s framework of his era, which was- be a DH. As such, I think he should be inducted in the Hall Of Fame at the earliest opportunity.

If sportswriters and umpires have a place in Cooperstown for what they contributed to the game in their era, then so does a DH. And, therefore, so does Martinez. And after 35-plus years of a DH being part of baseball, “small sample size!” or “it’s not pure baseball!” doesn’t cut it for an exclusionary case.

And now, back to the discussion:

You’re using Edgar Martinez on a pure offensive numbers format, comparing him to Cameron- the same format that purists would use to vote to keep him out. It can generally be agreed that Edgar’s pure numbers don’t really add up to a HoF career, except in the context of how and where he compiled them.

Cameron was/is a centerfielder, a position with historically offensive expectations higher (in order to be considered great) than what would reasonably be expected from a DH, even Edgar.

Look, Dave, how about this: I promise to re-examine my opinion of Mike Cameron (after a thorough dissection of how wOBA and some other metrics you use work), and if I come to the conclusion that I am wrong with all the data I deem relevant, I will be more than glad to say “Hey, Dave’s so right on that thing, and I’m so wrong!”

It doesn’t cost me anything in ego if it happens. You’ve no doubt had it happen before, as well as the converse.

So let me lie in my red grass and enjoy my orange pie in the meantime!

(Orange pie, yuck….doesn’t even sound appetizing…I like that analogy, JMHawkins.)