>>> Part 1 of 2...
-=> Quoting Ed Grinnell to Stephen Frazier <=-
 EG> Stephen Frazier gave up a long homer to Otis Nixon and said:
 SF> If you're going to name everyone who DH'ed for a World Series team, tehn
 SF> you left off about a couple dozen, including Natioinal Leaguers.
 EG> Look, you're the one who said:
 SF>> many of your DHs have led THEIR teams to a World Series as has the
 EG>
 EG> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 SF>> crime dog.
 EG> ^^^^^^^^^^
 EG> I merely followed your criteria.
But you simply named everyone who DH'ed, whether they actually were 
instrumental or not.
 SF> the series with the Braves, Phillies or both, but I don't see anything
 SF> that tells me he was the driving force behind his team getting there.
 EG> You're right, Stephen. All he did was hit .332, score 121 runs, drive
 EG> in 111 and steal 22 bases. All he did was hit .391 in the ALCS against
 EG> the White Sox and .500 in the World Series against the Phillies. Oh,
Albert Belle did a lot more than that in 1996 but didn't lead HIS team to the 
Series. Sure, Paul had great stats, but I seem to recall some guys named 
Carter, Cone, Alomar, Jack Morris, David Wells, Jimmy Key, Maldonado, etc who 
played during that stretch as well.
 EG> he wasn't in Toronto when the Jays won their first - Winfield was.
Yeah. That was against the illustrious Bravos as well. Nothing special about 
the year he had. I know Molitor and Winnie did well once they got to the 
Series. That wasn't an issue.
 SF> Same thing with Winfield and Murray. Their teams may have gone to the
 SF> show without them, but there is NO WAY the Braves get to the series
 SF> without the Crime Dog the past two years.
 EG> Pssst, Stephen, they did it TWICE when he was in San Diego.
Pssst, Eddie, that wasn't during the past two years.
 SF> Sure, but they need their gloves too, you know? Yo mean that Atlanta
 SF> reject Berroa hit 34 homers? Incredible! The guy hit TWO in a hundred
 EG> What a load. Berrora hit 2 in 136 at bats and saw limited duty for
 EG> several years after that. He's improved steadily since he's become a
 EG> REGULAR player.
Hmmm. That's one homer per 68 at bats. Move over, Babe.
 SF> You may be right, but the book I have shows the Babe did all this in his
 SF> first five years, which is the same time he was pitching.
 EG> Your book doesn't show the fact that he was being used more and more
 EG> as an outfielder when he got most of his home runs and RBI.
Irrelevant. The books called him a pitcher, and that's was his primary 
occupation.
 SF> They are all over the place, aren't they? All you have to do is look for
 SF> them.
 EG> No, you usually find a few but not a lot. As I said before, most of
 EG> the *better* ones are around .160-.210. Quite a few are WELL below
 EG> that.
There are quite a few ABOVE that as well. Besides, anything over a buck fifty 
is GREAT for a guy who takes no practice, and only works every five days.
 SF> EXPECT relatively lowered batting stats. I thought you would concede
 SF> that. You're a tough one, Mr Grinch:)
 EG> Really? So by your logic, Terry Forster should have been the greatest
 EG> hitter in all of MLB because he hit so well with his *limited* at
 EG> bats. Puh-leeze.
Please indeed. I don't get that analogy at all. I would imagine there are 
others who did even better than Terry on a limited basis.
 SF> I don't get the point. We were talking about pictchers hitting grand
 SF> slams, not pitchers NOT hitting them.
 EG> (Eyes rolling).
(A natural reflex when trying to fixate on one going over one's head)
 >>> Continued to next message...
---
---------------