1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Clayton Kershaw: Hall of Famer?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Dick Whitman, Jul 27, 2014.

  1. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    What are you even talking about now?

    Doesn't matter. You can't answer my point, so you are attacking me instead. THAT is predictable.
  2. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    You really don't let it stop you that you never know what you are talking about. It would almost be admirable if it wasn't so sad.
  3. BB Bobcat

    BB Bobcat Active Member

    This reminds me of why I usually abandon this board after a week or so each time I come back and dip my toe in the water.
  4. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member


    At least offer something original while you try to cover for your idiotic post with personal attacks.
  5. Meatie Pie

    Meatie Pie Member

    As long as the Hall of Fame is the subject, here's the L.A. Times with some linkbait:


    And the in-house rebuttal:

  6. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Verlander's career right now is pretty comparable to Jack Morris at the same age.

    It's got a HOF foundation but still needs a lot of brickwork. And finishing with 6-8 seasons as a .500 pitcher won't get it done.
  7. Fly

    Fly Well-Known Member

  8. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    That was original, but you're not the one who has an idiotic post to cover up. Dickie is.
  9. NDJournalist

    NDJournalist Active Member

    Pitcher W/L record is irrelevant.
  10. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Over the long run, it's indicative of other things like ERA, WHIP, etc.
  11. NDJournalist

    NDJournalist Active Member

    No it isn't.
  12. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Oh fuck off. WL is not 'irrelevant,' it's only much less relevant than has always been believed for 100 years. Let me know when guys with 3-15 records start placing high in CY voting. It's a data point.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page