....How did "tits" ever make the list? Carlin had a point. "Tits" doesn't sound profane at all. Was it ever really naughty? I can't imagine it being so, but then I'm a Millenial.

When I was a lad, it was definitely NOT a word said in polite company, and it would CERTAINLY not been allowed on TV. But then, this is back in the day when you couldn't show a woman wearing a bra; bra commercials had to use dummies. So, yeah, things have changed.

It would be pretty funny if this is the only thread where people go crazy with the fucking swearing.
It's like the smoking lounge, but only with people saying "FUCK" instead of having a puff.

Hey, can we stop the needless cursing? Turns out, it actually IS annoying when it's purely gratuitous.

I don't fucking think so.

Belgium.

Aaaand there goes the neighbourhood.

Nothing like being awakened at five by the fucking dogs barking, then turning on the computer to discover all you cunning linguists with your fellatious reasoning...

So, historically speaking, who has gotten the better end of it when a Sock becomes a Yank and a Yank becomes a Sock?

So where were these nanny-avoiding skills when we were trying to have a serious scholarly discussion of Special Instructions to Players? No, y'all save y'all's indecent and infamous inventions of depravity for The Greek God of Walkfucking.

So, historically speaking, who has gotten the better end of it when a Sock becomes a Yank and a Yank becomes a Sock?

Anecdotally the Yankees in a pretty big way. The only Yankee who came to Boston and did well that I can think of is Don Baylor. Well, Alfredo Aceves had a very good year in 2011 then a nightmarish 2012.

Just looking at the top 50 players in WAR for each (seriously, how great is BBRef?) I don't see anyone who was a Yankee then became a Red Sox and cracks the Sox' top 50 hitter or pitcher lists. The Yankee hitters of course are led by such a player and Boggs actually cracks the Yankees' top 50 at number 47. The pitching features Ruffing, Clemens, Mays, Lyle, Pennock and Hoyt.

I eyeballed the list so I may have missed a couple but I think that's a pretty accurate reflection of the split.

Anecdotally the Yankees in a pretty big way. The only Yankee who came to Boston and did well that I can think of is Don Baylor. Well, Alfredo Aceves had a very good year in 2011 then a nightmarish 2012.

Just looking at the top 50 players in WAR for each (seriously, how great is BBRef?) I don't see anyone who was a Yankee then became a Red Sox and cracks the Sox' top 50 hitter or pitcher lists. The Yankee hitters of course are led by such a player and Boggs actually cracks the Yankees' top 50 at number 47. The pitching features Ruffing, Clemens, Mays, Lyle, Pennock and Hoyt.

I eyeballed the list so I may have missed a couple but I think that's a pretty accurate reflection of the split.

You answer that question and don't mention BABE RUTH!?!?

You answer that question and don't mention BABE RUTH!?!?

The Yankee hitters of course are led by such a player

The Yankee hitters of course are led by such a player

Sorry, I don't do subtlety well in the AM ;-)

I think this will be the 6th member of the aught-four Sox that the Yankees have subsequently acquired.

I think this will be the 6th member of the aught-four Sox that the Yankees have subsequently acquired.

He is, though it's generally understood that Ramiro Mendoza never left the Yanks' employ.

Edit: Damn, forgot about Bellhorn's brief visit to the dark side.

I count 7.

Embree
Bellhorn
Lowe
Damon
Youkilis
Myers
Mendoza (one game in 2005. I thought he pitched more than that).

I count 7.

I forgot about Myers.

I forgot about Myers.

How could you forget about Mike Myers on Halloween? That's like, the first rule of horror movies, don't forget about the homicidal maniac.

Prediction: If Youk starts hitting like he did just two years ago, every Yankee fan will suddenly become a Youk fan. And if he ever started hitting like he did three years ago, he'll quickly be (temporarily) anointed a True Yankee. Only morons care about personalities when your player is producing. The Yankees have had a million redasses over the years, and what's the big deal about adding one more?

Oh, and BTW show me a Red Sox fan who says he wouldn't have loved Paulie if he'd wound up in Boston during the 90's, and I'll show you a liar of comic proportions.

Oh, and BTW show me a Red Sox fan who says he wouldn't have loved Paulie if he'd wound up in Boston during the 90's, and I'll show you a liar of comic proportions.

Don't speak for the rest of us. It's unbecoming.

I never liked Beckett, who did more to deliver the 2007 title to Boston than O'Neill ever did for New York. I rooted for Josh to do well because he wore the right laundry, but that doesn't translate into automatic love, or even like, if the gentleman is loathsome enough. And believe me, O'Neill is the Rickey Henderson of loathsome. You can split him in two and have two players worthy of my complete dislike.

How could you forget about Mike Myers on Halloween?

It's not halloween.

Oh, and BTW show me a Red Sox fan who says he wouldn't have loved Paulie if he'd wound up in Boston during the 90's, and I'll show you a liar of comic proportions.

I won't comment on that, but I certainly hated that the Sox got David Wells and I disliked that he was on the team even though he had a productive year.

You can pretend all you want that you enjoy having all these reminders of the 2004 ALCS on the team over the years.

I think I may the only non-White Sox fan in the world who actually likes A.J. Pierzynski. I dunno...I've seen his TV color commentary appearances and he always -- invariably so! -- comes across as smart, thoughtful, articulate, and polite. For whatever reason I've come to believe (without any real evidence) that his whole "most hated man in baseball" rep is really a pro-wrestling-style schtick, him playing the designated heel because he knows it gets inside opposing player's heads.

He kicked his own team's trainer in the crotch on the field during a game. I feel comfortable in believing that he's really as much of an ####### as he seems.

####

edit: I can learn!

With the help of a patient woman? Sure.

He kicked his own team's trainer in the crotch on the field during a game. I feel comfortable in believing that he's really as much of an ####### as he seems.

Well he shouldn't have asked such a dumb question, then. "How does it feel?" HOW DO YOU ####### THINK IT FEELS #######??

(seriously though, you're right -- that's literally the sole incident that I can think of that just can't be glided over.)

Oh, and BTW show me a Red Sox fan who says he wouldn't have loved Paulie if he'd wound up in Boston during the 90's, and I'll show you a liar of comic proportions.

Don't speak for the rest of us. It's unbecoming.

I never liked Beckett, who did more to deliver the 2007 title to Boston than O'Neill ever did for New York. I rooted for Josh to do well because he wore the right laundry, but that doesn't translate into automatic love, or even like, if the gentleman is loathsome enough. And believe me, O'Neill is the Rickey Henderson of loathsome. You can split him in two and have two players worthy of my complete dislike.

Problem is that you're basing your O'Neill hatred on what you saw of him in New York, when he was helping to grind your pets into the ground year after year. I can understand that.

But I find it extremely hard to believe that if O'Neill had come directly from Cinci to Boston in 1993 and had put up the same sort of numbers he did for the Yankees, that you'd be singing the same tune. Beckett was a first class jackass within the Red Sox organization. O'Neill's jackassery was directed against umpires and himself (in the form of water coolers and bats), which translates more to intensity than jackasssery from the POV of a home team fan. And from what I've seen of Youkilis, he fits much more into the O'Neill category than the Beckett category.

You can pretend all you want that you enjoy having all these reminders of the 2004 ALCS on the team over the years.

I'll enjoy any player who produces, and I won't enjoy any player who doesn't. All that then was then, and all that's now is now.

And of course if Youk by some miracle helps sink his former teammates in a big game or two, that won't hurt his cause. Johnny Damon never had much of a problem being accepted in New York, did he?

But I find it extremely hard to believe that if O'Neill had come directly from Cinci to Boston in 1993 and had put up the same sort of numbers he did for the Yankees, that you'd be singing the same tune.

I can say I would have probably loved O'Neill if this had been the case. Part of why I disliked him at the time was that it seemed as if he was a .240/.250 hitter who went to the Yankees and all of a sudden decided to try and could hit .300 (and .360!). Granted, I was underrating his Cin production, but that's how I thought back then as a boy.

I'll enjoy any player who produces, and I won't enjoy any player who doesn't. All that then was then, and all that's now is now.

You are twisting yourself into an RDP-like stance of claiming your liking and enjoyment of a player is directly proportional to his production on the field.

But I find it extremely hard to believe that if O'Neill had come directly from Cinci to Boston in 1993 and had put up the same sort of numbers he did for the Yankees, that you'd be singing the same tune. Beckett was a first class jackass within the Red Sox organization. O'Neill's jackassery was directed against umpires and himself (in the form of water coolers and bats), which translates more to intensity than jackasssery from the POV of a home team fan. And from what I've seen of Youkilis, he fits much more into the O'Neill category than the Beckett category.

This is utter nonsense Andy, a strange attempt to distinguish Paul O'Neill's jackassery from Josh Beckett's when no such reason exists. Great, you can find unconditional love for anyone who wear's Satan's Pajamas, as long as he "produces." Good for you. I'm not that way, no matter how hard that is for you to believe.

Paul O'Neill was an unlikable ######## when he was booting balls to the infield in Cincinnati. He was an unlikable ######## throughout his tenure in New York. And when he rests his head on his pillow tonight long after his last on-field pouting incident or shattered gatorade cooler, he will wake up an unlikable ######## tomorrow.

I don't think Andy's viewpoint is particularly unusual. I think the great majority of fans, no matter what they say, only care how a player performs. There are extreme examples at either end of the spectrum but for the most part fans root for players and if they do well they are beloved and if they do poorly they are not.

I don't think Andy's viewpoint is particularly unusual.

I imagine so. It's his contention that his viewpoint is universal that's full of ####.

But I find it extremely hard to believe that if O'Neill had come directly from Cinci to Boston in 1993 and had put up the same sort of numbers he did for the Yankees, that you'd be singing the same tune.

I can say I would have probably loved O'Neill if this had been the case. Part of why I disliked him at the time was that it seemed as if he was a .240/.250 hitter who went to the Yankees and all of a sudden decided to try and could hit .300 (and .360!).

And I think that made up much of the Boston reaction, the fact that his production was in Satan's Pajamas. Carlton Fisk was a bulging-veined New Hampshire redneck supreme for his entire career, and yet I never noticed any Fenway fans complain about it, since he was also a great player. The idea that Paul O'Neill was somehow uniquely obnoxious in any objective sense is laughable.

I'll enjoy any player who produces, and I won't enjoy any player who doesn't. All that then was then, and all that's now is now.

You are twisting yourself into an RDP-like stance

EASY, Nate! Back down a little and take a deep breath. That's going too far even considering the gravity of the subject under discussion---no matter whose pajamas he previously used to wear.

of claiming your liking and enjoyment of a player is directly proportional to his production on the field.

Not directly proportional, and sure, a "likable" player (which is in itself a subjective concept, as witnessed by the amount of complaining I've seen here about Cal Ripken's "selfishness") gets a little more slack from me when he's down. But as a general rule, I "like" productive Yankees no matter what their baggage may be (Giambi, A-Rod), and when even some of my subjectively favorite Yankees (Granderson, Swisher) start becoming automatic outs in the postseason, I'm screaming at them as if they were wearing Tea Party buttons. IOW my reaction is 90% related to productivity and 10% to everything else, at least in the heat of battle.

------------------------------------------------------

But I find it extremely hard to believe that if O'Neill had come directly from Cinci to Boston in 1993 and had put up the same sort of numbers he did for the Yankees, that you'd be singing the same tune. Beckett was a first class jackass within the Red Sox organization. O'Neill's jackassery was directed against umpires and himself (in the form of water coolers and bats), which translates more to intensity than jackasssery from the POV of a home team fan. And from what I've seen of Youkilis, he fits much more into the O'Neill category than the Beckett category.

This is utter nonsense Andy, a strange attempt to distinguish Paul O'Neill's jackassery from Josh Beckett's when no such reason exists. Great, you can find unconditional love for anyone who wear's Satan's Pajamas, as long as he "produces." Good for you. I'm not that way, no matter how hard that is for you to believe.

Paul O'Neill was an unlikable ######## when he was booting balls to the infield in Cincinnati. He was an unlikable ######## throughout his tenure in New York. And when he rests his head on his pillow tonight long after his last on-field pouting incident or shattered gatorade cooler, he will wake up an unlikable ######## tomorrow.

So how many times was Paul O'Neill referred to as a clubhouse cancer in New York? How many of his teammates slammed him behind his back? How many times did the not-exactly-fanboy New York media slam him for his attitude towards the game, the way Beckett was roasted over the coals in Boston?

I can see, though, why a fan of a certain other team would react the way you do towards O'Neill, as he compounded his offense by putting up a .909 OPS against the Red Sox.

But yes, I'm sure that if he'd put up those kind of numbers against the Yankees for 8 straight years in Boston, your opinion of him would be exactly like it is today.

------------------------------------------------------

I don't think Andy's viewpoint is particularly unusual.

I imagine so. It's his contention that his viewpoint is universal that's full of ####.

It's not universal except among sane people. Of course not every fan is sane, and more power to the lunatics. From what I've observed, there are a lot more of that latter group in Boston than elsewhere where it comes to maintaining rather comical blood feuds long past their expiration date. Which is fine as long as they're not really taking it seriously.

But I'd still like you to name one example---just one---of a consistently productive player whose own team's fan base didn't embrace him as long as he was productive.

But I'd still like you to name one example---just one---of a consistently productive player whose own team's fan base didn't embrace him as long as he was productive.

Alex Rodriguez

Here's a short (but not exhaustive) list of Red Sox players I didn't particularly care for:

Roger Clemens
Josh Beckett
Carl Everett

The first is the best pitcher in club history, constantly productive when he wore the uniform. The second was the biggest contributor to the 2007 WS run. The third doesn't believe in dinosaurs.

I rooted for them to succeed when they wore the right laundry. But I didn't embrace them, for one reason or another. That you insist I did is quite DiPernaesque. And if you don't like being compared to him, then stop ####### acting like him.

I like Youkilis. Liked him before he came over to the Sox from Boston, and certainly preferred him to the fumes wafting off of Orlando Hudson's corpse last season. That said, he seemed pretty toasty by the end of September.

But I'd still like you to name one example---just one---of a consistently productive player whose own team's fan base didn't embrace him as long as he was productive.

Mike Schmidt

Armando Benitez as a Met put up an ERA+ of 159 and was despised.

But I'd still like you to name one example---just one---of a consistently productive player whose own team's fan base didn't embrace him as long as he was productive.

Mickey Mantle, Randy Johnson (Yankees), Ted Williams

Here's a short (but not exhaustive) list of Red Sox players I didn't particularly care for:

Roger Clemens
Josh Beckett
Carl Everett

The first is the best pitcher in club history, constantly productive when he wore the uniform. The second was the biggest contributor to the 2007 WS run. The third doesn't believe in dinosaurs.

I rooted for them to succeed when they wore the right laundry. But I didn't embrace them, for one reason or another. That you insist I did is quite DiPernaesque.

I didn't insist that you "embraced" them in the sense that you found them likable. I said that as long as they were productive, your pajama preferences overrode Miss Manners.

--------------------------------------------

But I'd still like you to name one example---just one---of a consistently productive player whose own team's fan base didn't embrace him as long as he was productive.

Mike Schmidt

Armando Benitez as a Met put up an ERA+ of 159 and was despised.

Benitez had a knack for picking some of the most visible times to blow his saves, and his habit of arguing with the auxiliary scoreboard's speed gun in Baltimore made him a rather unique case. Benitez might be one exception I'd allow, since he managed to combine a hot temper, extreme vanity, and high profile blown saves in a way that made him almost impossible for even the most pajama-hugging fan to embrace. So JJ1986 wins the first annual Armando Benitez Speed Gun Award.

Schmidt was roasted during his slumps and cheered when he produced. Mike Schmidt, meet Alex Rodriguez, Mickey Mantle (pre-1961) and Roger Maris (post-1961). All those examples (and there are countless more where they came from) show is that some players are allowed less slack than others for reasons having to do with perceived personality shortcomings.** I never will deny the existence of fair weather fans.

**On a career basis, Paul O'Neill was far more popular with Yankee Stadium fans during his time in New York than Mickey Mantle. Rose-colored hindsight hides a lot of reality from fawning retroactive eyes.

Mickey Mantle, Randy Johnson (Yankees), Ted Williams

I mentioned Mantle above. Johnson was simply on a short rope**, but he wasn't being booed while he was winning. And Williams was booed by a segment of the fans, at times when he either loafed on the field or openly spat in their direction. But none of that stopped them from going right back to cheering him whenever he came up with a big hit.

**Remember, too, that he was coming off a 176 ERA+ year in Arizona, which promptly plummeted to 112 and 90 in New York, with back-to-back postseason ERAs of 6.14 and 7.94. It wasn't as if he wasn't giving them plenty of reason to get on his case.

I count 7.

8, Dougie Alphabet.

I didn't insist that you "embraced" them in the sense that you found them likable. I said that as long as they were productive, your pajama preferences overrode Miss Manners.

No, you said we'd embrace them in the sense that we would love them. As found here:

Oh, and BTW show me a Red Sox fan who says he wouldn't have loved Paulie if he'd wound up in Boston during the 90's, and I'll show you a liar of comic proportions.

Then you tried to insist that somehow Paul O'Neill's jackassery was appealing while Beckett's was a turnoff, then you said something about sanity and clubhouse cancers, but by this time we were into one of your multi-quote, multi-hued, multi-type face posts that are too damn hard to follow, so I'm not really sure what you were going on about by then. (-:

Now, if you want to insist you misquoted you or that you didn't mean what you wrote, be my guest. But I've been saying the same thing from the start: Paul O'Neill is a destatable turd. If he had been on my team, I'd have rooted him to get hits and catch fly balls and steal bases, but at no point would I have stopped thinking he was a detestable turd. That you can turn off the part of your brain that recognizes that No. 21 was an insufferable brat, more power to you. I don't work that way.

I didn't insist that you "embraced" them in the sense that you found them likable. I said that as long as they were productive, your pajama preferences overrode Miss Manners.

No, you said we'd embrace them in the sense that we would love them. As found here:

Oh, and BTW show me a Red Sox fan who says he wouldn't have loved Paulie if he'd wound up in Boston during the 90's, and I'll show you a liar of comic proportions.

You got me there in my own exaggerated prose.

Then you tried to insist that somehow Paul O'Neill's jackassery was appealing while Beckett's was a turnoff, then you said something about sanity and clubhouse cancers, but by this time we were into one of your multi-quote, multi-hued, multi-type face posts that are too damn hard to follow, so I'm not really sure what you were going on about by then. (-:

Of course you never did answer the question about how those two players (O'Neill and Beckett) were perceived by their own home town fans and media, which might shed a bit of objectivity over the dispute.

Now, if you want to insist you misquoted you or that you didn't mean what you wrote, be my guest.

I plead guilty to the misuse of "loved", since it clearly wouldn't have applied to a minority of holdouts like yourself. But don't kid yourself, most Boston fans would've embraced O'Neill every bit as much as they embraced Fisk. He may still have been acknowledged to be a piece of work, but he would've been their piece of work. Just as Yankee fans embraced the equally redneckky Thurmon Munson, Fisk's ugly separated-at-birth brother.


But I've been saying the same thing from the start: Paul O'Neill is a destatable turd. If he had been on my team, I'd have rooted him to get hits and catch fly balls and steal bases, but at no point would I have stopped thinking he was a detestable turd. That you can turn off the part of your brain that recognizes that No. 21 was an insufferable brat, more power to you. I don't work that way.

I have no reason to doubt that, just as I've never noticed that fans with your take on the O'Neills and the Bondses and the Youkilises and the Variteks of the baseball world have ever constituted anything but a small minority, the minute those players donned the right pajamas and started taking it to the opposition.

Of course you never did answer the question about how those two players (O'Neill and Beckett) were perceived by their own home town fans and media, which might shed a bit of objectivity over the dispute.

I don't know if Beckett was widely despised by either the media or the fans in Boston, at least not until the chicken and beer thing. His off-again, on-again performance was frustrating, of course.

Then again, I don't really read what Shank and co. are saying, nor do I listen to talk radio (not that I could) so he may well have earned the ire of those respective groups and it would have slipped right past me.

How anyone could watch Paul O'Neill act like an ill-behaved toddler whle wearing the home uniform and not feel embarrassed, not just for that person's favorite team, but for the entire species, will remain forever a mystery to me. And apparenly me alone. I'm OK with that.

Fuck Testing