Emperor Fuckshit

Oh, right, I see. What does interest you about military elements of history, incidentally? Don't worry, I'm not going to contort any response you give into evidence that you ACTUALLY ARE David Irving. It's just that I'm a History student, am interested in a lot of 20th century political history, but generally stop reading once the wars start because I just don't find it interesting. Is it an appreciation of tactics thing? Like, you begin to appreciate a good counteroffensive in the same way an Art History student would nod approvingly at Picasso's 'Guernica' (or something)? That I could sort of understand. I've never got into HoI, not just because of my disinterest in military aspects of history, but because I have fuck all patience. And because I always think 'cor! I wonder what it was like to be Luxembourg in WW2!' and just get devoured once 1939 rolls around. I should really sit down and do all the tutorials and then start a proper game as a major power. Oh, man, I've been reading French diplomatic communiques all day and would really love a good political sim right now. Time to fire up 'Conflict: Middle East', I reckon. EDIT: (Replied before your edit). I don't think it's immoral to play as a particular side in any game: obviously things that people do in games can never have any sort of effect on anything in the real world. I'm also not saying that playing as, say, the Nazis suggests that someone is a 'personal fan' of Nazism. There are lots of reasons why someone might choose to play as the Nazis. As I've said, some people might just have a strong interest in counter-factual history. But I do think there is an undercurrent of getting a 'giddy thrill' from playing as the Nazis for some people. The very neutralization of actions that occurs when playing a game allows people to do things that they wouldn't normally endorse. I think that, for a certain type of person with an interest in military history, there is a 'verboten' element to playing as the Nazis from which they gain excitement. Fascism as an ideology is extremely alluring aesthetically, and that becomes particularly acute when backed up by the economic and military resources possessed by a nation like Germany. Living out dreams of complete control; continental hegemony; the 'simplification' of politics via the criminalization of opposition; reification of a purified ideology and so on has obvious attraction in a video game world. But it doesn't hold attraction for everyone, and it makes me wonder about people who enjoy that element of HoI. I'm not suggesting that they're all closet Nazis who would take up arms in a Nick Griffin-sponsored coup; it just an interesting and slightly ugly example of their 'Will to Power', I suppose. And the potential applications for that in the real world (if any) are intriguing to me. That last paragraph was a horrible mess. I need more time to think about this, really, but bollocks to it. Basically, I'm suspicious about the fetishisation / kitschification / ironic appropriation of Nazist / Fascist ephemera. Not because I think that people who engage in that sort of thing are necessarily politically unsound (though they might be); more because it's just an ugly sort of quality. (Ugh... still not very well stated). And I don't think that everyone playing HoI as Hitler's Germany is guilty of that fetishisation. I wouldn't prefer games to use fake histories or scenarios, for the record.

:@ ...Sorry, couldn't let that pass. >_> Sorry, Stoke, not sure what you mean. That it's an inaccurate generalisation? I'm sure that's true; it's just an association that I make that extrapolates from a few bad experiences. Though, I do often think there's more to be read into the way people play stuff like 'Hearts of Iron' than is self-evident. Feeling giddy at the prospect of leading the Wehrmacht to victory might not be evidence of actual latent rightism, but I think it at least signifies strains of slightly worrying machismo in a lot of cases. Obviously all generalisations fall down, and I know that some people are just interested in grand-scale counterfactuals or (for some reason I will never understand) hold a genuine and benign interest in... I dunno... what gauge of MP5s the Russians used at Stalingrad. (I fully expect that last sentence to be complete nonsense). EDIT: Dunno how many people will appreciate this reference, but I'm always reminded when discussing this of that 'Peep Show' episode (the 'my Nazi mate' one). Mark enjoys playing as Hitler's Germany in war games on the PC, but then starts to feel a bit uncomfortable at the prospect of a 'real life' WW2 recreation in which he plays a Stormtrooper. But they're both, essentially, just different sorts of performance: one private; one public. I've meandered off the point somewhat now, but oh well...

Why do so many musos dismiss the Clash? I have a feeling that it's partly a result of them supposedly being 'unmelodic' (which might be true of the first album, but certainly doesn't apply to 'London Calling' or 'Sandinista!'). I think a lot of it is an image thing. They're seen as being part of that self-consciously macho/'hard' strain of '77 punk without having the credentials to back it up (Strummer being a doctor's son from Surrey and so on) but, again, they moved away from that presentation of themselves by the second album and certainly by the third. And can anyone be blamed for getting swept up by the aesthetics that went along with punk? I've also heard them get criticised for being too politically 'naive', or as blithely endorsing political violence ('sten guns over Knightsbridge' and what not). But songs like 'Tommy Gun' explicitly moved them away from that stance, and a lot of the political songs on 'London Calling' are just standard Leftist fare ('Clampdown', 'Spanish Bombs') and do betray more maturity. And just because an idea is 'naive', that doesn't mean it's invalid or not worth airing. How can anyone not love 'London Calling' (the album), at least? It has fantastic pop songs like 'Train in Vain' and 'Spanish Bombs', loads of excellent 'post-punk'-type songs that demonstrate just an excellent adeptness for songwriting ('Lost in the Supermarket', 'London Calling', 'Hateful', 'The Card Cheat'), nice little curios like 'Koka Kola' and probably the best attempt to marry punk and reggae that was ever recorded by an English punk band ('Revolution Rock').

MM reminded me of 'When I Come Around', which I think is the only Green Day song I really like. It's pretty much just a perfect guitar-pop track. I quite like 'Basket Case', but I think the annoying-as-hell 'am I just stoooooooooooooned?' lyric/vocal delivery disqualify it.

Haha, my first thought upon seeing this thread title was of 'Lounge Act', which is my favourite song off 'Nevermind' too. It's just a perfect, short little blast that perfectly encapsulates the sound of the album as a whole. And I much prefer Cobain's screamed vocals (which are in full effect here, especially for the last chorus) to his meandering introspections on songs like 'Lithium'. The lyrics are good (although I do like Nirvana lyrics generally; which is often divisive). I think I'm generally a sucker for the 'quiet/LOUD/quiet' style of songwriting of which 'Lounge Act' is a pretty good example. The intro riff is good as well -- not 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' or 'Come as You are' good, obviously -- but it doesn't need to be. I think 'Lounge Act' just works perfectly for what it is, and has none of the stadium-ish excesses of 'Smells...' or lyrical annoyances and dead-weight patches that feature in 'Come as You are' (the two songs generally seen, along with 'Lithium', as the 'class' of the album). From 'London Calling', I much prefer 'Spanish Bombs' to the title track. Then again, there are quite a few better songs than LC on the album ('Hateful', 'Jimmy Jazz', 'Rudie Can't Fail'). I think 'Spanish Bombs' is the best, though, and is one of the songs that belies the 'The Clash had no sense of melody' fallacy. It's just a really nice little song that could work as an acoustic folk number. The two guitar tracks work well together, the vocal melody is really excellent (particularly during the chorus), the lyrics are nice. Just an exceptionally lovely song. I'm struggling now because there aren't many 'classic' bands that I listen to much, really. I'd take 'Several Girls Galore' over a lot of the stuff on 'Isn't Anything', and that song doesn't usually get live airings these days. MBV aren't really a band who trade on 'classic' songs, though. If they're known for any individual track, it might be 'You Made Me Realise', and I could argue that 'Drive it all Over Me' or 'Thorn' are better from that EP. But, really, they're too stylistically different to bother making the comparison. 'YMMR' is the messy, heavy feedback-y track; 'Drive it...' is Bilinda being all ethereal and gorgeous; 'Thorn' is a fairly orthodox 'Indie' track done exceptionally well. The confluence of those three songs is what makes the E.P. great. Kind of a minor one, but I'd take 'Books About UFOs' easily over any of the 'famous' (relatively speaking) songs from 'New Day Rising' (I'm thinking mostly of the title track and '59 Times the Pain'). I prefer Hart's song-writing to Mould's generally, and the awesome little piano counter-melody on 'Books' gives it an almost 60s garage sort of feel, which is remarkable considering they were still pretty much in their 'melodic hardcore' phase at that point. Hart is a much better vocalist than Mould too, which helps. I'd like to argue that 'Hangin' Round' is the best song from 'Transformer' but... it isn't, really. Oooh, that reminds me, though -- 'Chelsea Girls', the title track from the Nico album (sort of), and the song that takes its name from an Andy Warhol film, is the worst song on that album. The lyrics are dreadful, it has a horrible faux-tragedic tone that involves Nico doing some really hammy vocals. The melody isn't memorable. It's the only song I skip when listening to the album. Minor notes: 'The Other Side of Mount Heart Attack' is beautiful, and possibly the best song from 'Drum is not Dead', and never got a single release. And 'Wannabe Gangster' is the BEST SONG Wheatus ever did, and was only released as the third single and in a heavily edited form compared to the album version. Both of those examples are probably cases where songs get singled out as good, but too divergent from a band's overall style to be worth 'pushing'. (That's the only time you'll hear someone make an argument using Liars and Wheatus as the two supporting examples.)

Ah, cheers for the tip. I'll check the album out. I'm not a huge Yankovic fan (I dismissed him due to shit like 'White and Nerdy', 'Eat it', 'My Bologna' and the 'Onion' parody 'Livin' La Vida Mocha' that just seemed too accurate for me to take him seriously again), so I'm no expert. 'Hardware Store' is SO MUCH MORE than a list of things in a hardware store. The list is just incredible for how well delivered it is. It's the kind of thing that seems really obvious and basic, but thinking about it, I don't think I could write something like that myself. The rest of the lyrics are pretty good for Yankovic too (the first verse mostly), and the bass line is nice. I like the way that machinery and tools and... stuff... are incorporated as percussion without it feeling gimmicky. And there's some nice vocal harmony work in there too. It's a pretty simple song in a lot of ways (rhythm section is all pretty basic), there are just a load of nice touches. Oh, and to add another one to the thread generally -- Keane, 'This is the Last Time'. Yeah, I know: ditchwater-dull radio-friendly Dadrock. But it sounds like something Sunny Day Real Estate might've written if they'd gone a bit pop and tried to break into the mainstream. It'd be really good if Tim Whatshisface could sing with a bit more balls and not be so Generic FM. There's also by Eighth Wonder (Patsy Kensit's band), which is a fantastic pop song. They had two actual 'hits', but neither of those are much good. In a similar vein, 'Japanese Boy' by Aneka (won't bother linking, I'm sure most people know it) is ace. Don't think she had any other hits. Oh, and everyone should try to get 'The Supremes' by Bad Dream Fancy Dress. It's the only song of theirs I've ever heard. It's great, but the album ('Choirboy's Gas') is hard to find any info on. EDIT: I have a mate in a band in Nottingham, and they have one song that sounds basically just like a Kooks B-side or something; but I get it in my head for long periods. Fuck. All the rest of their stuff is just awful. This actually converges with another potential thread: "Songs That You Recognise Have Massive, Gaping Flaws, Yet You Find Yourself Struggling to Dislike."

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QEPkPMMM_PI That was by Smashmouth? Mad. They really cornered the market on 'summer movie montage music', ey?

Len have put out about half a dozen albums, I think. I remembered checking their Wiki page in the summer when I was playing 'Steal My Sunshine' about fifty times a day. EDIT: Beaten by Dragsy on this. The only example that immediately springs to mind is 'Weird' Al Yankovic. His parody stuff is just incredibly unimaginative, trite, whimsical toss. But there's an original composition of his from the 'Poodle Hat' album (yes, 'Poodle Hat'. IT'S TEH WACKEEEE RANDUMMMMZ, FOLKS!!!!!!) called 'Hardware Store' that is just fantastic. Incredibly inventive lyrics, all-over-the-place instrumentation, very danceable (in an odd sort of way). It kind of proves that he's actually an incredible songwriter, but is presumably just content to mostly trade in half-arsed gastronomy puns and the joke that, heh heh, he's a white guy performing music that one might expect a black person to make. EDIT AGAIN: I should probably say that it's quite possible that other Yankovic compositions are just as good; I've just never heard any. And there aren't that many of them, as far as I can tell.

Thanks for the tip re: 'Democracy'. I'm checking it out right now (actually, a sequel). I have a feeling I've played it before, but I might be wrong (hopefully I am). I just played a quick game of 'Oval Office' and tried to be a bit right-wing. I was re-elected twice (I know that doesn't make any sense; but that's how the game works) without incident. EDIT: Odd note about that 'Oval Office' game I just played. 52% of socialists voted for me at the end of my first term, despite the fact that I'd reduced education spending to virtually nothing, lowered income tax by about 20%, made no increases in public spending in any area except the police force and introduced a citizenship test. The game is probably a bit more broken than I realised.

Is this probably the best global political simulator out there, though? Most of the ones I've played up to now (Shadow President most notably) have just been... shit. Awful. No sense that you're inhabiting a believable facsimile of the real world at all. Most of the best political games I've played have only attempted to recreate a much smaller scale. I still play 'Conflict: Middle East' a bit when I just want to kill half an hour or so. Even though it basically amounts to pressing a few buttons and seeing your decisions cause events in a somewhat random (yet still quite logical) way, it's quite immersive in a sense. And it's difficult enough that 'beating' it for the first time feels like an achievement. In that vein, 'PeaceMaker' seems like a worthy graphical update. I played a demo when it first came out (last year, I think) and it seemed nice, but difficult and perhaps not worth the money. Still, it's one I might look into. There's also 'Oval Office', which is a pretty nice simulator of domestic American politics. It's a little focused on the balancing of budgets, though, but it does give you a real sense of tension between structure and agency -- you feel like a President, rather than an all-powerful representative of The State. There's no foreign policy element, though, and the games become a bit predictable after a while. (Especially if you're like me, and just want to create a socialist democracy and nothing else. My political scruples are such that I can't even pretend to be a Conservative or Liberal in a video game, it seems.) And I'd prefer something that simulated world politics; or at least British politics with a world dimension. The old 'Yes, Minister' tie-in game seems like it would be good fun if I could get it to run properly on my Windows machine (it's a DOS game; the pointer flickers in and out on XP, if memory serves). 'Balance of Power' is alright in a dry-as-sandpaper, clicking-on-standard-Visual-Basic-buttons sort of way. I also like the fact that, if you trigger nuclear war, you get a very sanctimonious "Hmmm. I could give you a nice image of a mushroom cloud to illustrate the consequences of your actions. But there are NO PRIZES for FAILING!!!!"-type message. Can't hate a game that takes itself that seriously. Apparently, there's a sequel to 'Tropico' in the making, which is a bit exciting. It verges a bit on the God Game-y, but Latin America during the Cold War is a political area I have a lot of interest in, so I found the original quite fun once I got going. It seems odd that there aren't more games that cater to this market. Most seem to either be explicitly war-driven (stuff like 'Hearts of Iron' and that stable of games), which is not what I'm after. I don't find war terribly interesting (I always associate an interest in military history with Young Conservatives and/or slavering Nazi fetishists), and if I did I'd just play 'Command and Conquer' or something. And then there's stuff like 'Civilization' which I do quite enjoy, but is obviously very broad-brush and not very political. There seems to be a dearth of games that place you as a head of state and simulate world politics. Maybe it's perceived as too niche of a market to justify the expenditure (of time and intellectual energy as much as anything) that would be required to create a really cock-on game of that sort. I've always thought it might be interesting to play a game which starts you as, say, a grunt in your political party of choice's local branch, and have you attempt to gain various offices (council seat, Commons seat, Ministry etc). Sort of a political career game that could combine the electioneering elements of stuff like 'President Forever' (which always seem a bit pointless to me, as you get into office, and then... the game ends) with a more advanced version of something like 'Oval Office' (or GPS, which I haven't played). Hmm.

Awesome. The CusFac is a really good venue, too: saw the Fall there a couple of years ago. Digbeth reprazent.

I just did track three on Easy mode. It was a bit... easy, but I forgot that I have actually played this game before. Super Monkey Storm-ing a track completely filled with balloons is very pleasing.

I wish my s/n were 'Emperor Fuckishit'. Emperor Fuckshit actually was the pseudonym of the guitarist for not-very-good goth/punk band Tales of Terror. I think it just about gets a pass on the basis of being too ridiculous to be taken seriously. Although, yeah, I was 16 when I signed up for EWB and would probably like a do-over on the username front.

Haha. Why, though?

But they're funny and catch the attention. And that's all that really matters. I don't agree. Someone who names their band 'Unexplained Bacon' has no more proved an ability to come up with a great band name than someone who can reel off the 'Pet Shop' sketch has proven his ability as a comedy writer. And if 'catching attention' is the/a major consideration, then that leads to the conclusion that stuff like '!!!' and 'Selfish Cunt' are 'great' names, when they're just lazy, cynical attempts at generating publicity (moreso in the latter case than the former).

Ah, yeah, 'Casiotone for the Painfully Alone' is one I was going to mention. For me, stuff like 'CunningLynguists' and 'Unexplained Bacon' are no good because they're not original. The former is a well-established pun and the latter is just a Simpsons reference. It really shouldn't be hard to think of a great band name. Me and my mate had an MSN conversation, the intention of which was to fill our Facebook 'Favourite Music' section with ridiculous band names. 'Diagnosis: Girder!', 'Hand Shandy Behind Tandy', 'The quietLOUDquiets', 'Ernie Earnest and the Stiff Upper Lips'... those are all great.

'Twat Appetizer' and 'Andrew Jackson Jihad' are both excellent names. I shall check out AJJ. Thanks for the tip. 'Streetlight Manifesto' is a bit cringe to me; just for the use of 'manifesto' in a band name. I would put 'The Libertines' with the 'simple but effective' band names. (Which is what I think they were going for, given their obvious debts owed to The Clash and The Jam). 'House of Large Sizes' is a name I've always liked. 'Doctor and the Crippens' falls somewhere between 'fantastic' and 'shit whimsy' (in that category, see also: '? and the Mysterians', 'Mark Lansing and his Board of Water and Light', 'The Flaming Sideburns' and 'Sick Terrific Nosebleeds'). Also, '?...' are cool because everyone bangs on about '!!!' being a kerazy and subversive band-name, but the Mysterians did exactly the same thing, basically, in 1962. I quite like 'The Future of the Left'. Better than 'Mclusky' anyway.

That's pretty good. I was once in a band called 'Daddy or Chips?' And I've always liked 'Danananananakroyd'. It's incredibly hard to think of a well-known band with a genuinely good name. I can think of some 'simple but effective' ones (The Fall, Slint, Big Black, The Smiths), but none that are really creative. 'The Beatles' is a (quite probably self-aware) shit pun. 'Half Man, Half Biscuit', a band that 'should' have a great name, have... a shit one. EDIT: I will defend 'till the day I die 'I Love You But I've Chosen Darkness' as a great band name. It usually divides people quite a bit, but I think it's just about on the right side of ridiculousness and is likely somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

'Squirt in My Gape' 'That Bitch Ate Our Witch' 'Slit-Eyed Sluts' ['Asians' comp] 'All Ditz and Jumbo Tits' EDIT: There isn't, but should be, a porn film called 'Entirely a Splatter for You'.

Seeing Mussina go pleases me. He's not too much of a weapon at this stage, but his long-time association with the Yanks and general personal disposition just generally make me vomit. It's a little surprising, but I think CQI is exactly right -- as soon as you decide to make that run at 300 (and HOF certainty) you can be hanging around forever and ever indefinitely. He was pretty strong at the end of last year, but maybe that helps him make this decision in a 'go out on top'-type way. Glad to see the back of him. I'll look into his Cooperstown worthiness when I get more of a chance, but my instincts say 'no' at this point.

But it's not like Pedroia was the only consistently good thing about the Sox this year. Aren't we arguing in this thread that Youkilis himself is an MVP candidate? Why was Youks any less sparky? There were also a few sparks emitted by J.D. Drew (137 OPS+ in 109 games) or Jason Bay (128 OPS+ down the stretch). Sure, those guys played fewer games (in Bay's case many fewer), but that's no reason to dismiss their contributions -- you just have to temper them somewhat. Besides, how can one explain the Sox' success this year without reference to Jon Lester's 210 IP of 144 ERA+ work; or Daisuke Matsuzaka 168 innings of 159 ERA+ pitching? Both really valuable. If you replace any of these players with a replacement-level guy, then the Sox are unlikely to make the playoffs. To single out Pedroia in this regard is weird. I don't think this should be a relevant consideration, but just for the record: Pedroia in May: .260/.295/.374 for a .669 OPS. Mauer in April (his worst month): .295/.357/.387 for a .744 OPS. Why so? Because of Arlington? That's fair enough; but even context-neutral stats love Hamilton. 6th in the league in VORP, 136 OPS+. The only Ranger to put up anything like Hamilton's numbers was Milton Bradley, and he missed a ton of games and was a DH. I'm agreed that he's not the MVP, but more for reasons of defense. PMLV, a stat designed to measure just this very thing, has Hamilton as #6 in the AL. He's tied with Pedroia and not too far behind Mauer. A team's goal is to score as many and to give up as few runs as possible, by any means. Just because Hamilton's contributions are largely offensive, and the Rangers have a strong line-up, that doesn't make his value any less. Besides which, Hamilton did this whilst playing centerfield; it's incredibly hard to replace his production from that position, unless you have Grady Sizmore hanging around on your bench. So, you're saying that you'd be convinced about Mauer if the Twins had won their one-game playoff against Chicago? That if John Danks had had a slightly worse outing, Jim Thome's fly in the 7th had been a little less deep, or Cuddyer had run down the paths a little quicker in the 5th; Joe Mauer would be the MVP? And how are you defining 'leader'? Just 'best player'? OK, but why bother making that distinction? Players just contribute value by helping to score or prevent runs. Anything else is irrelevant. Anyway, Pedroia isn't a bad choice. I just don't think he's the best. Enough little things about Mauer add up that I'm certain he should take the award, and I'm yet to be convinced otherwise. Youks played significant games at 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th, and also some at 3rd and one at 1st. Is this really a major thing to consider, though? It's interesting and kind of cool, but does it make him any more valuable? No doubt Youkilis is a great defensive 1B; one of the best in the AL. He gets credit for that, but you also have to consider that playing first i) limits his value defensively and ii) makes it easier to find a replacement for his bat. Incidentally, 3rd is definitely Youks' natural position. He played 272 minor league games there, compared to 58 at 1B. It's close: Youkilis does have a better OPS+, 143 to 122. However, the difference in positions bridges that gap and maybe more, I'd say. Youkilis also has a better OBP, which is valuable. VORP has Pedroia as 6 runs better, which shows you how difficult it is to get great offense from 2B as compared to 1B. PMLV also prefers Pedroia for the same reason. Pedroia was better by WPA, ranking #6 in the AL compared with Youkilis' 13th. Not definitive, but something to consider. Basically, Youks has the better raw numbers, but Pedroia plays a more difficult position (and does so respectably). I'd maybe give the edge to Pedey, but it's essentially a wash. Anyway, I'm bored of looking through these numbers now. Mikel, HttK and LD are right in that it was a very close race. I favour Mauer for a lot of reasons I've already outlined. If you don't, and prefer Pedroia, then that's great. I'm a Sox fan so I'm not going to get too mad about it, and the race is really tight. I just think it's sad that Mauer gets overlooked because his raw numbers aren't as good as some of the bad-glove 1Bs that people love talking about, and because he plays for the Twins.

Any of us here are voters? Sadly not. But we're 'people having a discussion about the 2008 AL MVP Award', and no-one other than me (as far as I can see) has made a strong case for Mauer, which is pretty ludicrous. No. Are you lamenting this, using it as evidence that Mauer is a bad choice, or just saying it? In case you're arguing that Morneau was better than Mauer: Mauer and Morneau had exactly the same OPS+; but Mauer played catcher and Morneau is a first baseman. Mauer had a much better OBP than Morneau, which OPS undervalues. Morneau was 16th in the AL in OBP; not quite Howard-ian, but not great either. Mauer was ten runs more valuable by VORP; they are basically equal by MLV. Whether or not you want to give Mauer some extra credit when dealing with counting stats because he plays C, which requires more days off and so creates less playing time, is up to you. (I'd say not, actually, considering that there are guys like Russell Martin and Jason Kendall out there showing some serious durability. Then again, if I'm a Brewers fan, Kendall's durability might not be something to celebrate too vigorously.) Mauer led the AL (by a considerable margin) in WPA, Morneau was 3rd. Mauer was an above-average player at the hardest defensive position; Morneau is a bad defensive 1B (2nd worst in the league behind Giambi by PMR). EDIT to note: David Pinto, who compiles PMR, express some surprise about Morneau's ranking. Maybe there are gremlins in the system there -- God knows you can never rule that out when dealing with defensive metrics -- but the analysis would have to be very, very wrong to give Morneau an edge defensively considering the positions the guys play. (In fact, I'm not even sure how possible it is for a 1B to provide more defensive value than an above-average C). WARP favours Mauer, but I don't know by how much because I don't have Morneau's value to hand. Existing FRAA disclaimers apply again. Sorry if this seems defensive, and if you weren't arguing for Morneau's superiority then disregard. But Morneau really shouldn't have even been a serious contender (off the top of my head, MAUER, A-Rod, Sizemore and Pedroia are all better choices. So, probably, are Youkilis, Kinsler, Hamilton and Quentin. Maybe even Bradley, but I'm never sure how to handle DHs as regards defense).