1234

I'm not stepping foot in that place until . . . (Read 915 times)

     

    I wish I cared.  I used to looooove baseball and the stats and stuff.  But even though cheating has always been a part of the game, I completely stopped caring when people like Brady Anderson went from being chumps to knocking 50+ homers a year and a dead Roger Clemens suddenly renanimated in Toronto because of a (wink wink) amazing work out regimen.  Eh.  And Sammy cried.

     

    Well, there was also the last big strike.

     

    And the idea that a game of baseball is perhaps the longest 12 hours of my life, being spent in the pursuit of "fun".  Do you have to step out of the box and adjust your shit after every single pitch???

     

    +1.001.   I couldn't care less about this whole issue - I'm surprised I could even muster the lukewarm enthusiasm to post this ( I guess that's whey I could only give SRL's post a "+1.0001" and not a +1000).

       

      I'm sure I'm not the only one lost with your response.

      43.5 x 6 = 261

      ???

       

      just saying I'm by definition a relic old man when it comes to baseball.  I prefer baseball as it was played in the 1970's but attendance figures clearly say I'm a loon.

      In an infinite universe, the one thing sentient life cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion

      http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white&fb_source=message

       

       

       


      Menace to Sobriety

        From the BBWAA Hall of Fame Election Rules:

         

        5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

         

        6. Automatic Elections: No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.

         

        Link to site: http://baseballhall.org/hall-famers/rules-election/bbwaa

         

        So, with no objective criteria for entry (or denial) it's basically an opinion poll for the writers. No reason to get mad if their opinion is different than yours.

        Janie, today I quit my job. And then I told my boss to go f*** himself, and then I blackmailed him for almost sixty thousand dollars. Pass the asparagus.
        Chantilly75


        It's always something..

          I am not in favour of going back into the past and taking away people's records based on what they know or think they know today.

          You cannot judge someone from the 1930's, for example, according to the way things are done today.

          And anyone in any sport that they don't catch this year should not be disqualified 10 years from now, just because the rules changed or there is better testing.

           

           

           

           

            I am not in favour of going back into the past and taking away people's records based on what they know or think they know today.

            You cannot judge someone from the 1930's, for example, according to the way things are done today.

            And anyone in any sport that they don't catch this year should not be disqualified 10 years from now, just because the rules changed or there is better testing.

             

            But, if the coveted "200 wins" or "3000 hits" based on a recent career that is tainted is compared to those same numbers from others careers from previous decades, the magic number for voter approval might need to be shifted.  For example, the magic # for HR's might go from "500" to "900" (obviously, way too high).  The magic # for hits might be "3,500", not "3,000".


            Right now, the voters are trying to figure out how to select the new waive of superstars since things have changed.

            (And that sucks).

            But, I'm guessing time will fix some of this stuff and the greats will be recognized as greats.

            Maybe, someday, Pete Rose will be added to the hall too.  I can only hope it'll happen sooner rather than later.

            Cheers,

            2014 Goals:

            #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

            #2: 365 Hours training <NOPE, INJURED>

             

            Chantilly75


            It's always something..

              Yeah, I never really understood his (Pete Rose)  ban, because it wasn't  like he was betting against his own team and then throwing the game.  He was a good player.

               

              I just don't feel there is any point to saying "this is the WR" if it is going to be taken away 10 yrs. from now, according to gossip/accusations or better testing or a substance being banned in the future.

               

              One drug example:  Many people don't know that methamphetamines were legal in the 1950's-1970's, and the doctor would prescribe them for you to lose weight or tp be able to study/work, etc.

               

               

               

               

                Pete Rose signed onto the deal that banned him for life.  Why do fans think he got a raw deal?  He agreed to it.

                 

                Everyone in pro sports knows that gambling on the games you are involved in is beyond bad for the game.  It can ruin the game.  Here is a brief summary of fact...

                 

                Records of phone call after phone call made to bookies, sometimes just minutes
                before the national anthem. Records of bets, one after another, day after day,
                on virtually every team, including the team he managed, along with the amount of
                the bet. Nearly $20,000 a day being waged on bets.

                 

                Do YOU want a manager calling a bookie 5 minutes before the anthem because he knows his pitcher has good stuff in the pen?  If he has 10 grand on the game maybe he brings in an overworked closer and risks an injury because he HAS to win this game with so much dough on it.

                 

                His gambling got out of control and risked staining the game.

                In an infinite universe, the one thing sentient life cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion

                http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white&fb_source=message

                 

                 

                 

                  Pete Rose signed onto the deal that banned him for life.  Why do fans think he got a raw deal?  He agreed to it.

                   

                  Everyone in pro sports knows that gambling on the games you are involved in is beyond bad for the game.  It can ruin the game.  Here is a brief summary of fact...

                   

                  Records of phone call after phone call made to bookies, sometimes just minutes
                  before the national anthem. Records of bets, one after another, day after day,
                  on virtually every team, including the team he managed, along with the amount of
                  the bet. Nearly $20,000 a day being waged on bets.

                   

                  Do YOU want a manager calling a bookie 5 minutes before the anthem because he knows his pitcher has good stuff in the pen?  If he has 10 grand on the game maybe he brings in an overworked closer and risks an injury because he HAS to win this game with so much dough on it.

                   

                  His gambling got out of control and risked staining the game.

                  I know.  It's a sad story.  For a guy who "hustled" throughout his career, he spiraled out of control at some point and became what he became.  But, there aren't many people that stretched singles into doubles like him or went from 2nd to home on a single like him.  He was special, and an All Star, and he should have been a HOF'er.

                   

                  It's sad to see a guy who was arguably the best baseball player to ever play live like he's living.  I know he deserves (or deserved) punishment.  I do think that a healing process for him (during his life) should occur even if it means he's still banned from the HOF.  It's been 25 years (+/- a couple), which is equally amazing to me as I typed that.

                  2014 Goals:

                  #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

                  #2: 365 Hours training <NOPE, INJURED>

                   

                  RSX


                    I saw Pedro pitch as an Expo in Montreal along with 9,000 people that day which still amazes me that they couldn't support a team like that. As dominant as he was, he only weighed 165 which is probably 1 reason he doesn't get accused of steroids.

                     

                    Roger didn't get the fan support that Pedro did, and was 40-39 his last 4 years so fans weren't terribly disappointed when he left, plus didn't do well in the playoffs during the 90's. He was 41-13 in Toronto the next 2 years without a question by fans, maybe because we only heard about Olympians using steroids in that era. I saw him go for 299 in NY against the Sox, and wouldn't have minded seeing the Sox lose that day. Weird how he threw his wife under the bus in court. Fans welcomed McGuire back when he confessed, but his stats are HOF shy. Roger probably needs an Oprah confession before he gets in.

                    1234