Asterisks, windbags & fools in high places

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

If any other poster, on any of these boards, had tried to make a convincing article based on emotion and idealistic homily as you have above, you'd have skewered them like tidbits on a kabob, mercilessly.

That's not very bright, nan. You are saying that I would argue with my own argument? I hardly think so. What is the matter with you today? You usually don't fall into these easily seen as dumb arguments.

I have written what I have written and have not written what you are projecting, nor have I any plans to do so. Nor would I characterize my argument as emotional homily. If you wish to do so, it is your responsibility to do it.

Now, do you wish to try and refute the content of what I have written, an argument which says that in the entertainment industry, nothing is more important than the audience reception? Since I won't be doing your job for you, as you seem to think I might, it will be up to you to demonstrate the absense of validity for my position.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

"Ted Williams, whatever else he was, was not Stan Musial."

As Shakespeare would say, "signifying nothing."

You absense of comprehension is not the absense of meaning, merely the absense of your comprehension.

You are in one of your "I'm going to be a jerk today" phases, aren't you? Probably best to just ignore you when you get this way. Other times you are okay. Is it a drinking problem or something?

[nanwynnfan]

bedir:

I'm no lawyer; but I'd put forth the following as possible modifiers of degrees of guilt or innocence with athletes taking supplements of any kind for career enhancement:

1. the sheer number of supplements, which can further be confused by brand names, generic names, and benefit descriptors;

2. the diverse nature of supplements and their derivations: hormones and subsets; proteins and subsets; vitamins and subsets; glandular, with subsets, benefits and delivery mechanisms;

3. delivery systems, topical, liquid, injected ...

AND, add to these considerations, the following:

4. marketing ploys that mask the underlying questionable areas and focus on the benefits;

5. presentation by technical chemical names and classifications which can mask popular names which might otherwise set of warning systems.

Against this, I try to put myself in the position of a young athlete with perhaps a 5-12 year career horizon looking for whatever disciplinary method [workout regimin] or supplement [often easily mixed in as part of a full nutrition package] might give me an edge.

Typical of my age group, I may not have any interest intechnical taxonomies or chemical notations, I may look to what's "best" for me and my career purposes.

In that context, the concept of "evil" yields to that of "competitive edge;" and in a prevailing atmosphere of hard words and soft discipline I find it very hard to be judgmental.

[nanwynnfan]

GS: My comprehension is fine, tahnk you; and you would be absolutely astonished at how sober I can be when I'm in the mood to be less playful.

It could also be said that Ted Williams, for all he is, is no Seymour Fine or Angus MacPhee, which is OK with these fine gentlemen. Ted himself could care less, now.

.... AND RE:

"Now, do you wish to try and refute the content of what I have written, an argument which says that in the entertainment industry, nothing is more important than the audience reception? Since I won't be doing your job for you, as you seem to think I might, it will be up to you to demonstrate the absense of validity for my position."

.... coming up, takes bat and ball; exits, stage right.

[Wiggen]

In agreement with 1Perry. Amazing.

Bonds simply couldn't stand the attention and the publicity that the other two Roid-heads, McGwire and Sosa, were getting in the late 90's. His ego is such that he wasn't satisfied having a Hall of Fame type career - he wanted the adulation that comes with being the "greatest" home run hitter of all time.

Instead he will have the contempt of most baseball fans, including that of the man whose recore he broke. He's an insult to everybody who played the game without getting juiced up first.

[Grandstander]

Nan....as closely as I can tell, you have no argument. You just decided to drop in some unflattering charaterizations of me and what I wrote, but offered zero in the way of reasons which explained your objections. Instead, we get whimsy.

Okay...whatever, I do not have a response to that because I cannot make any sense of it. I can't find an argument, just insults. I will say that among the six words you employed for this thread's title, you apparently have decided to illustrate two of them in action for us today.

I'd say you owe me an apology.

[LongtimeBravesFan]

Originally Posted by djwhokid

treats kids like crap...oh wait...that was Ruth...

Do you have a link to an article that says he was mean to kids? Everything I've always heard said he was very kind towards children.

[ctjayfan]

"ARod will probably hit 900 - clean."

Really? That's NOT what I've heard, lately.

BTW, I bet Russ could hit one out at The Studium in New York...That's how close home plate is to the corners on left and right field.

[nanwynnfan]

On page 1 of this thread, I offered an analysis, in some detail, about the respective career production records of Hank Aaron and Barry Bonds; and then I separately provided a time line for MLB defining a drug policy and its parameters of expectation [with exemption from punishment] laid out as a background of reality against which to check Barry Bonds' HR performance, with references to earlier performances in his career.

GS get on his righteous high horse, calls Bonds a cheater, decries the fan standard of honesty, which is best measured by fannies in the seats and eyeballs on the screen, in an almost evangelical plea for sanctity among MLB's most hallowed records. I called it a homily.***

I, in turn respond that GS himself, would have skewered any poster for such an emotional, unsupported appeal.

Now, my sobriety, reading comprehension, brightness at question, [and being held suspect of having a drinking problem] I am expected to apologize. That apology will come the day after Yadier Molina [clean, steroid-free] clobbers his 881st career HR, leaving no doubt as to baseball's reigning HR king.

***, Merriam Webster:


homily
One entry found.

"homily

Main Entry:
hom·i·ly Listen to the pronunciation of homily
Pronunciation:
\ˈhä-mə-lē\

Function:
noun

Inflected Form(s):
plural hom·i·lies

Etymology:

Middle English omelie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin homilia, from Late Greek, from Greek, conversation, discourse, from homilein to consort with, address, from homilos crowd, assembly; akin to Greek homos same — more at same

Date:
14th century

***1: a usually short sermon

***2: a lecture or discourse on or of a moral theme

***3: an inspirational catchphrase; also : platitude"

[1Perry]

Originally Posted by djwhokid

Give me a break. Bonds didn't put the troops in Baghdad.... He didn't raise taxes.... HE IS A ENTERTAINER.... and he is a damn good one. This is suppose to be a celebration yet many of you want to be downers... pathetic.

I mean really, how does Barry breaking Aaron's record affect you?

Seems to have effected you enough to determine the actions of others are pathetic.

Personally I dislike Bonds more for all the armour he wears. IMO that is likely cheating more than or at least as much as the steriods. I'd ban the body armour. Completely takes away the inside pitch.

I'd like to see the return of some of the pitchers who weren't afraid to drill a guy with a pitch. Of course, they would average 3 innings a start today and miss half of them.

[Grandstander]

nan
GS get on his righteous high horse
Perhaps one day you will learn to distinguish disagreement from assault. Until that time, you will continue to make a fool of yourself as you have here today.

[nanwynnfan]

Me? Assault a man on a high horse???? Never!

I see you don't dispute the "homily" reference.

[Nimajneb]

Here comes “the Clear” issue. Did he or didn’t he? But Bond’s breakout season was two whole years ago; and now he’s in the 40s, where he’s been before. Did he cheat? If so, did he come late to the party? Has he now got “religion?”

Now, how about the older guys, some long dead? Did any of them gulp amphetamines or other forms of speed? Who knows? Want to dig ‘em up and go for DNA surveys on their remains? How’s about living legends. Wanna get hair samples and run ‘em through electron microscopes for tell-tale remnants of past sins?

It's the wrong question, at least to my mind. It does not stand in Bonds' favor that we apply greater standards to him out of ignorance or presentism. There's no validation of his accomplishment in seeing that he was a great player and hall-of-famer without taking steroids, and those who criticize him now aren't taking any legitimacy away from older accomplishments. Even given the worst of the accusations, even if Bonds is swimming in juice up to his nose, his career and his numbers are a remarkable achievement for a ballplayer, and if that is the standard you wish to apply as as a baseball fan, that's your prerogative. Giants fans filling the seats are within their rights to enjoy the spectacle and the achievement, though if they choose to let their feelings as fans influence their thoughts as to whether Bonds cheated or not, I might judge them to be a bit silly. It's their choice as fans to apply whatever standards they like to their players. If they choose to enjoy it, they can, and if they want me to confirm he's a great baseball player, he is.

So what other question is there to be asking? Is there an asterisk? Of course there is, and the record books don't need to be putting it there for it to be recognized by public opinion. The public can observe the evidence at hand, and it doesn't need a trial-tested burden of proof... there is no adequate burden on MLB to gather the proof, such that up until quite recently not only could we not know that a given player was cheating, but we had no idea whatsoever as to whether the given player was not cheating, and we have had athletes individually and as part of the MLBPA doing everything in their power to avoid comprehensive testing. Neither Bonds nor any other player gets a pass on this, and if that means, that, over time an entire generation of ballplayers gets asterisks on their names and get excluded by my personal HOF list, so be it. As I see Bonds tie the record I can best describe my response as disinterest in home runs, disinterest in the player and relative disinterest in professional baseball... along with a great deal more interest and esteem for those players who do it cleanly.

[nanwynnfan]

"The public can observe the evidence at hand, and it doesn't need a trial-tested burden of proof..."

... and THERE is the rub. If we are to reserve the right to judge a player and mark indelibly his reputation for future generations, I say we MUST demand a standard FOR OURSELVES, as judges, at least as demanding a burden of proof level at trial. If we don't subject ourselves to such a standard, we are lying hypocrites.

At this point, I would demand NOT a George Mitchell finding or a reem of notarized depositions from trainers and drug-dealing nutrition experts to judge Bonds as guilty. I would demand a smoking gun proof, right from his veins, and in the present, to condemn him.

Why? Because the level of judgement, epithet, condemnation and assumption against him, by the uninformed but offended masses, has become so voluminous and vituperative, that their collective credibility as valid judges has gone to zero, for me.

Is he a nice guy? From what I hear, no. Does he work hard at his craft? From the various articles I've read, his weights, stretching and muscle-group specific routines are grueling sessions, sometimes three hours in the morning followed by a break, then followed by three hours more. I believe that it was Garry Sheffield who lasted less than 10 days trying to adopt the regimin and then abandoning the attempt as just too rigorous and demanding.

Considering the two men who should be the focal point of this thread, I wanted to revisit, for the last time, a comparison of performance between them; but this time I stacked it ALL in favor of Henry Aaron.

1959: Henry Aaron, age 25, a career season:

AB 629; TPA 693; TB 400; OB% .401; RC 161 HR 39; HR/AB 1 every 16.13 AB
Aaron's 161 RC in 693 TPA = 23.23%, a rarefied seasonal level of production that almost matches the career numbers for Ted Williams and Babe Ruth and does match Lou Gehrig, career.

2007: Barry Bonds, age 43 [and presumed to be under such 'roid scrutiny that non-compliance would be suicidal]

AB 261; TPA 377; TB 175; OB% .493; RC 71; HR 21; HR/AB 1 every 12.42 AB
At age 43, Bonds 71 RC in 377 TPA = 18.83%, below his own 21%+ career total, but better than Aaron's career production @ 18.58%.

[DR3AMR]

Andruw Jones agrees with me:

"It doesn't matter," the Atlanta Braves star said Sunday. "There's a lot of people that take steroids, and they don't hit 755 home runs."