Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

SorceressKnight

Members
  • Content Count

    980
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

604 Excellent

About SorceressKnight

  • Rank
    Worcester Buster

Recent Profile Visitors

1,309 profile views
  1. SorceressKnight

    DECEMBER 2018 WRESTLING DISCUSSION

    The WWE Network is starved for content, will show anything, and even THEY won't give Ziggler a live special. Think about that.
  2. SorceressKnight

    Your HOF! Who's missing and Why?

    I agree that this does it, but I went in depth because we can both agree: Negatives are not all created equal. We can agree that, for example from the recent HOF inductions: Harold Baines's "he had incredibly low WAA and WAR ratings" is different from "Sammy Sosa used steroids", which is different from "Bill Buckner was unfairly blamed for losing the 1986 World Series", which is different from "Barry Bonds wasn't a particularly nice guy".
  3. SorceressKnight

    Your HOF! Who's missing and Why?

    The Keltner List for Hernandez helps with a modern question with these two as a potential modern day new question to add: 16. What are the most relevant "knocks" on this player for why they wouldn't be in the Hall of Fame? Are these knocks statistically-based (one or two particularly weak statistics for their career), narrative-based (say, for example, a player like Bill Buckner being radioactive due to the 1986 World Series goat position), self-inflicted (like, for example, Hernandez's cocaine usage, or perhaps a player who was a notable asshole to the media/other players), or "the game marches on" things (i.e. players who were a closer/DH, players who played for the Colorado Rockies and thus played 81 games in high-altitude Denver, players who used PEDs or played in an era with people who did, etc.)? Have any similar players who have this same "knock" on them made the Hall of Fame? Ultimately, is there any proof to a rumor that the player had received a raw deal during the voting process? This will probably be a benefit to see "What negatives they had, and if they're still HOF-worthy with those", as well as eliminate the "well, Bonds isn't in, so by that argument NO PLAYER should ever make it into the HOF ever again."
  4. SorceressKnight

    MLB HOF 2019 Ballot

    Agreed with @El Dragon 's points on Baines, but that's also partially my point. With the prior examples from earlier in the thread of "There's certain magic numbers that guarantee election if you hit this arbitrary point", Harold Baines getting in should obliterate the argument of "they hit this magic number, they're a Hall of Famer!" forever and move to context. Out of context, Baines hitting magic numbers and coming close to the magic number in hits makes him one on paper- but in practice, if you know the context it's an idiotic decision. This should be Exhibit A for "Context Matters" and be the final nail in the coffin for guys like Palmeiro, who hit the magic numbers but weren't Hall of Fame-level players even independent of the BBWAA having their heads up their asses.
  5. SorceressKnight

    MLB HOF 2019 Ballot

    This is the other reason- it goes back to the same thing from a few pages back of the "magic number stats"- if you have X number, you're probably a Hall of Famer. The 3000 hits, 500 home runs, 300 wins, 1500 RBIs (more than sounds), etc. are a level of importance...and if you put stock in magic numbers, suddenly that hits/RBI number in comparison to other contenders makes it clear "oh shit, Harold Baines is on the short list of best eligible players not in the Hall of Fame!" So, in addition to the "first DH in the Hall" thing, Harold Baines going in has to be seen as a great example of how magic numbers don't mean as much compared to context.
  6. SorceressKnight

    MLB HOF 2019 Ballot

    That's the point though, even if Martinez somehow doesn't get in, the big point is that if Martinez didn't get it, it'd be painfully clear: We're not going to see a DH elected through the votes until that generation of voters dies out and you're left with, by and large, people young enough to accept the DH rule for what it is. It might have been the same for Lee Smith, but at least the voters were dragged kicking and screaming into realizing "maybe 'Closer' is a viable position in the sport", and even THAT is still a question. Look at the discussion about "there's certain guaranteed numbers that make you a Hall of Famer", and yet for pitchers, "300 wins" (a number that is nigh-impossible in the era of 5-man rotations) is still seen as a guaranteed HOF "number"...but for relievers, you HAVE to have been the all-time leader in saves at some point in your career to even be in the discussion (not even "there's a certain amount of saves before consideration- with Smith's HOF induction and since we all kind of know Mariano's a lock, since the save became a bonafide stat, Jeff Reardon is the only person to be all-time leader in saves to NOT be in the Hall of Fame. Not saying he deserved it in the least, but it represents the problem: You have to have been THE BEST closer of all time, at one point, to even get in the discussion.)
  7. SorceressKnight

    MLB HOF 2019 Ballot

    For Baines's election- it's a weird one, but again, the bigger point is less the "did Baines deserve it" and more the "it's finally broken the seal" factor. Whether or not Baines is a HOFer isn't as important as finally, a pure DH is now a Hall of Famer, and given the BBWAA bullshit over "I know it's nearly been 50 years, but we can't have Edgar Martinez in because the DH rule still rustles my jimmies!", it's time. There is no excuses anymore to not put a top-tier DH into the Hall of Fame. That'll do.
  8. SorceressKnight

    MLB HOF 2019 Ballot

    This is why I'm a firm believer in adding a BBWAA rule: If you are a BBWAA writer, and you make a ballot this absurd, you must be required to write an article DEFENDING that choice and why you think this guy was a Hall of Famer. Because seriously, Placido Polanco is no HOFer...but tell the truth, who wouldn't love to hear that person's argument? THAT is what the discussion should be about.
  9. SorceressKnight

    DECEMBER 2018 WRESTLING DISCUSSION

    Honestly, this is the problem if AEW does it that way: AEW's one benefit is they have a nucleus of people who'd always be there. A Netflix-style "2-3 seasons a year" style would work better for something like Impact: They could just sign people from season to season, put up one taping spree every couple months and let people binge the whole thing. If someone gets noticed and signs with WWE, then they just get crossed off the list next season as if nothing happened.
  10. SorceressKnight

    2018 INDIE WRESTLING THREAD

    The bigger problem for Japan is how Japanese culture works for a NXT Japan more than anything. Japanese pop culture views going to America as entering the world stage, so it's seen as "okay" if you're leaving your home promotion to try and be a global star. On a Japanese scale, though? Japanese culture is so based on loyalty to one's employer that an NXT Japan would blow up in WWE's face. If WWE opened NXT Japan, no Japanese talent would DARE defect to NXT Japan and risk putting their home promotion at a disadvantage. WWE would instantly cease being able to get any good talent from Japan.
  11. SorceressKnight

    2018 INDIE WRESTLING THREAD

    Even then, the problem with that is simple: They're both allied with each other. WWE can pay more than any other indy promotion can- and judging from what we've seen, FAR, FAR, FAR MORE. They seem opposite, but they're intertwined for this. If you want your favorite indy star to stay loyal to the indies and not go to WWE? Support the local promotions paying the workers more money. Be willing to say "I would rather see the talent get a fair wage, EVEN IF THAT MEANS paying more to see your show" (because protip: You're not going to get to see that show for 10 bucks if they are paying everyone a good wage). And even then, expect that this may not save them from signing because WWE just has too much money. As far as the other stuff, The biggest problem I see is less "you can only work with partner promotions", but the "no working matches against people signed with another major promotion" thing. That basically guarantees that if you're in NXT UK, there's an Indian caste system and someone on the lower end has little to no hope for getting more of an indy buzz to make them more of a star in NXT UK. It guarantees "a lowcarder in NXT UK will probably be a lowcarder in any other promotion in the UK" because they don't get the matches to improve their status.
  12. SorceressKnight

    2018 INDIE WRESTLING THREAD

    Sunday in indy wrestling: "The Aria Blake Tweet and these indy promotions are unreasonable. They should pay all the workers a fair wage!" Monday in indy wrestling: "HOW DARE THEY? How DARE these indy workers sign with WWE, getting paid very good wages and one of the most reliable promoters to pay money in the entire sport? They should be HAPPY to stay on the indy scene and wrestle for a hot dog and a handshake and injure themselves for our amusement!"
  13. SorceressKnight

    NOVEMBER 2018 WRESTLING DISCUSSION.

    Yeah, this is helping my current pet theory, since this went past "discovering a problem against a star" and "this was being held on to for years as a silver bullet against Sullivan" and went straight to "20 bucks says the guy who runs Ringside News was on the Bodybuilding.com forum at the same time and had something against Sullivan."
  14. SorceressKnight

    NOVEMBER 2018 WRESTLING DISCUSSION.

    I'd assume the simplest explanation for Anderson skipping NXT is true: WWE had no expectations of Anderson ever being anything more than a tag team guy in WWE, and Gallows was already ready- so throw Anderson on the main roster immediately.
  15. SorceressKnight

    Raw is Dean's Love Letters To Seth - 11/19/18

    You know, I'm not saying that's an old picture, but if that kid's wearing THAT Zack Ryder merch to Raw this week, there'd be a chance the Zack Ryder merchandise he's wearing is older than he is (all of that stuff was from 2011.)
×