A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Few on this board own up to what you do, Tom . That's why I read UR stuff. It's honest.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    I agree and wish he posted more often.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Sports Illustrated didn't see much difference, and he hit over 40 HR 3 times back then also. You just made the same mistake Tom made. Care to own up on that one?  This is the kind of hypocricy we've grown used to. Guys who act like the arbitors of reason around here who flat out ignore their own advice, on the same freaking page no less. When do you admit an error Harness? When do you apologize for a mess up? Less sanctimony would be well advised.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    Your reading comprehension blows.
    Look back at the article from TOM's link.

    Tom's admission stemmed from that piece.
    More attention to what's being presented is advised.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Exactly Tom. A lot of people suspected it and for good reason. One could say that a lot of players should be suspected but we don't do that unless it is clear that a given player is under a lot of suspicion for the point of discussion. For example, Bautista and Ortiz, in the context of the MVP vote, whether they should be resigned...etc. Whether they have associations with trainers known for PED involvement...etc. It is up to each of us, and each sportswriter, to use their best judgement. In the case of Bonds and some others it was pretty "clear" what was happening, long before it became public. In the case of an all star vote, or mvp vote writers should use their best judgement. If the indicators are extremely compelling, they can discuss both sides of the issue. It is a subject which a lot of people consider controversial, and is basically a no win situation even mentioning it no matter how minimally, but it is an important issue in the sport of baseball and needs to be discussed in order to clean up the sport and sort out the truth as best we can.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    Dancing again.
    Try making up your scatter-brained mind.
    My statement alluded to it.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]That's why I don't put much attention towards votes by guys with varying "opinions". I mean, they gave the GG to Jete...for the love of God! They gave the Gg award to a guy who hardly even played the position one year! Many voters left Pedro off the MVP ballots, because they have a warped view of what MVP means. I could care less anymore who they vote for and who wins. It's all a mess.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    This is precisely why I call them 'hacks'. If these clowns disguised as writers actually have proof that Jeter was the best, or that this player or that one took steroids, then it's not just a matter of opinion.

    How reputable a source is depends on their criteria and their proof.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Their "proof" was they saw Jete make more plays on the highlight reels.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]To TOM : If you compare Aroid in his Seattle days to his NY ones, I think you'll see quite a difference.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    What part of this post does your reading comprehension problem cause you not to understand?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : What part of this post does your reading comprehension problem cause you not to understand?
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    I'll try it again: This is from the 791 piece:

    Won’t vote for any “users” “@Hunt1Brian:@pedrogomezESPN One more question, I know U followed Bonds career closely, would you vote him HOF.”

    MeAre we talking suspected users or those we have proof used steroids (i.e. a very small number of people)

    Pedro GomezProof for several of them. Otherwise, I’ll trust my eyes.



    I then stated:



    Gomez said he'd trust his eyes beyond proof (when it came to voting), meaning seeing a player absolutely balloon, as Bonds or Aroid did).

    Tom questioned it, and then followed it up with this:

    The article below shows I was wrong H, ARod was suspected on appearance alone by at least this reporter.  My apologies.

    "Surprised? Well, we all did make a fuss about him hitting 500 home runs because he was the "clean" guy. And many opined that he couldn't break Barry Bonds' record soon enough, so that a "respectable" slugger would once again sit atop the records. But didn't it seem like it was just a matter of time until the other cleat dropped? I remember seeing him in the clubhouse at Yankee Stadium two years ago and being shocked by his raw physical size. On TV, he never looked that big, at least not next to lumbering baseball mastodons like Jason Giambi, but in person he is almost frighteningly muscular, a Soloflex ad come to life. Certainly, people suspected it; I remember talking to one American League front office executive two years ago who scoffed as Bonds drew all the scrutiny, for didn't everyone in the game figure Rodriguez was up next?

    Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/chris_ballard/02/07/arod.steroids/index.html#ixzz1aH22gAsk



    Then you posted this:

    Sports Illustrated didn't see much difference, and he hit over 40 HR 3 times back then also. You just made the same mistake Tom made. Care to own up on that one? 


    S.I. didn't see much difference?

    "I remember seeing him in the clubhouse at Yankee Stadium two years ago and being shocked by his raw physical size".



    That's what I mean by poor reading comprehension.
    Prolonged steroid injections will affect the human body to this extent.
    That's why it's a long-term health risk.

    Aroid is an admitted user. Is Bautista? Was Bautista's physique shocking?
    Don't try and come off less dirty by connecting me with your facts of suspicion crapola that hacks use to create controversy and blacken players.

    That's your baggage.


     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Harness. Here is what TOM said he was wrong about:

    "The article below shows I was wrong H, ARod was suspected on appearance alone by at least this reporter.  My apologies."

    Here is what you were wrong about but don't feel the need to correct:

    "To TOM: If you compare Aroid in his Seattle days to his NY ones, I think you'll see quite a difference."


    You both thought Arod wasn't suspected of PED use before Texas/New York. Some reports are that Arod has been suspected of PED use since high school. Arod was suspected of PED use in Seattle by knowledgeable observers.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Nobody denies this, nobody wants the Sox to lose... but from afar you would have to give the nod to others.  The order of likelihood which team wins the WS in 2011: 

    Philly 
    Milwaukee 
    Texas 
    New York 
    Boston 
    Detroit 
    Atlanta 
    Arizona 

    If it comes down to a slugging match I think Detroit lacks the punch, I am being bold with Milwaukee, and I want to throw up even putting New York ahead of Boston. However I think if the New Yorks starters turn it around they are technically better than the Sox starters at this point.   The Red Sox pitching is what it is, and with Youk struggling and AGon not mashing consistently enough our great offense is not gona get it done. Still see even in Tampa Crawford can't get it going and continues to be burried in the line-up.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    Boy I was off a bit here... two of the teams didn't even make it in ... 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Harness. Here is what TOM said he was wrong about: "The article below shows I was wrong H, ARod was suspected on appearance alone by at least this reporter.  My apologies." Here is what you were wrong about but don't feel the need to correct: "To  TOM : If you compare Aroid in his Seattle days to his NY ones, I think you'll see quite a difference."

    And Tom showed this to be true. Show me where I was wrong.




    You both thought Arod wasn't suspected of PED use before Texas/New York.Some reports are that Arod has been suspected of PED use since high school. Arod was suspected of PED use in Seattle by knowledgeable observers.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    How do you know what we thought? This is an assumption.
    My position is not to take a position until the proof is there.

    I don't want to see any steroid user in the game or in the HOF.
    In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. Once proven guilty, one must deal with the consequences.

    I take a hard stance with offenders...and just as harsh on those pointing fingers of suspicion w/o proof.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share