Does the Matching Round suck or is it just me?

[TLEARY]

Originally Posted by fasteddie900

As if the matching round isn't bad enough----Buzztime decided to give a wrong answer in the games matching question.

Question: Match the career hits leader with the MLB team they played for.

BT said that a guy named Sam Rice is the career hits leader for the Twins...... WHAT?????

This cannot be more wrong!!! The ONLY Sam Rice that even comes up on Baseball Reference.com is a guy who played his last game in 1934!!! How in the **** could he have played on the Twins???

Pathetic has now become unforgiveable Buzztime!!

Maybe they got this from a Twins website which happens to include records established when the franchise was still playing as the Washington Senators (they moved to MN in 1960). If the question was worded exactly as you say, then it was clearly BS, since Rice obviously never played for the then non-existent Twins.

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by Ron Cross

Eddie--

Two things,
First, the other 3 choices (I, at least thought) were pretty obvious...

Although I can't remember the others right now,
Robin Yount for the Brewers was a gimme

And I suspect (repeat, suspect) that Sam Rice played for the
Washington Senators which is where the Twins franchise originated
is the clever little loophole that BT would be citing.

Cap Anson from Cubs was one...

[scannon]

Originally Posted by fasteddie900

Let's pretend that he did play for the Senators (which I cannot find anything to substantiate that). He still did NOT play for the Twins.

IF he played for the Senators, the question should have stated Senators.

IF? Can't find anything to substantiate it? Sam Rice is a Hall of Famer, for crying out loud!

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...ricesa01.shtml

Of note is that he retired with 2987 hits ... back then, nobody payed much attention to career hits.

Needless to say, he spent almost his entire career with the Senators. So he holds the hits record for the Twins franchise, which began play in 1901 as the Washington Senators. It's technically not correct that he has the most hits AS a Twin, but he does hold the franchise record.

[TSMACK]

Originally Posted by Yankee

Cap Anson from Cubs was one...

Ty Cobb for the Tigers was the other.

[spotes]

Originally Posted by scannon

IF? Can't find anything to substantiate it? Sam Rice is a Hall of Famer, for crying out loud!

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...ricesa01.shtml

Of note is that he retired with 2987 hits ... back then, nobody payed much attention to career hits.

Needless to say, he spent almost his entire career with the Senators. So he holds the hits record for the Twins franchise, which began play in 1901 as the Washington Senators. It's technically not correct that he has the most hits AS a Twin, but he does hold the franchise record.

That should read "Senators/Twins franchise".
Since I could have told you that he had 2987 hits without the help of your post, (sadly, I'm not kidding) would you be willing to take my word on the correction?
That correct usage of terminology by BT would have eliminated all issues with this question. Or they could have simply used "Senators".
Sure, the other answers were easily determined, but that doesn't absolve the quizmaster from still being as accurate as possible across the board.

[kaufman]

Actually, it's the fault of the Twins for trading Rod Carew. If they didn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And I have no problem with the question as written. It specifically said "franchise". And the '61 Twins were no expansion team.

[TSMACK]

Originally Posted by spotes

Or they could have simply used "Senators".

The issue with this is that the Texas Rangers were previously the Washington Senators, an expansion team in 1961. (Remembered that from my baseball card collecting childhood days.)

[Pink Pig]

Originally Posted by kaufman

Actually, it's the fault of the Twins for trading Rod Carew. If they didn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And I have no problem with the question as written. It specifically said "franchise". And the '61 Twins were no expansion team.

Sounds good to me, though we would probably be arguing about some other equally useless topic.

There's a lot of murkiness in this area. I tried to work it out by checking which teams/franchises have retired which uniform numbers, but that just makes the whole subject murkier. The Twins, for example, have never retired a number for a player who didn't play in Minnesota, so Sam Rice is not on the list. OTOH, he may never have had a uniform number, because that evolved slowly over a few decades, so in that case, it would be difficult to say what number should be retired. Wikipedia credits Cleveland as the first team to use uniform numbers, but it didn't really take off until the Yankees started using them in the 20s (the number generally corresponded to the player's position in the batting order).

However, the Braves have retired Warren Spahn's number, but Spahn never played in Atlanta. So maybe the rules are different from franchise to franchise.

AFAICS, the first official recognition by MLB that players have uniform numbers occurred several years ago when they retired Jackie Robinson's number 42 on behalf of all teams. I foresee a problem coming up, though. Mariano Rivera has always worn the number 42, and is allowed to continue because of a grandfather clause that apparently wasn't fully thought through. In a few years, the Yankees will almost certainly want to retire his number, but the number has already been retired for them by MLB on behalf of Jackie Robinson. So, who's going to win this pending slugfest?

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by Pink Pig

Sounds good to me, though we would probably be arguing about some other equally useless topic.

There's a lot of murkiness in this area. I tried to work it out by checking which teams/franchises have retired which uniform numbers, but that just makes the whole subject murkier. The Twins, for example, have never retired a number for a player who didn't play in Minnesota, so Sam Rice is not on the list. OTOH, he may never have had a uniform number, because that evolved slowly over a few decades, so in that case, it would be difficult to say what number should be retired. Wikipedia credits Cleveland as the first team to use uniform numbers, but it didn't really take off until the Yankees started using them in the 20s (the number generally corresponded to the player's position in the batting order).

However, the Braves have retired Warren Spahn's number, but Spahn never played in Atlanta. So maybe the rules are different from franchise to franchise.

AFAICS, the first official recognition by MLB that players have uniform numbers occurred several years ago when they retired Jackie Robinson's number 42 on behalf of all teams. I foresee a problem coming up, though. Mariano Rivera has always worn the number 42, and is allowed to continue because of a grandfather clause that apparently wasn't fully thought through. In a few years, the Yankees will almost certainly want to retire his number, but the number has already been retired for them by MLB on behalf of Jackie Robinson. So, who's going to win this pending slugfest?

Dickey and Berra #8...number retired for both...same team too...sounds like precedent....

[Wildcat71]

Remembered vividly a feature out of the old Sport magazine in the late 50s which recounted the Rice saga.

In any event, even if you DIDN'T know the Rice/Senators/Twins lineage, it could be deduced by elimination -- provided you knew that Anson was the correct choice for the Chicago National League entry.