User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.4506 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless LeaderBecause we love Big Brother?
You be the judge.
And MLB is in the business of selling nostalgia and "remember when" moments. Few people feel nostalgic for Barry Bonds or Sammy Sosa, in part because those #600 events were fairly recent.
No, they haven't been. But where is it written that they have to be celebrated to the same degree as the numbers of players about whom there's no suspicion of steroid use? During the height of the Bonds furor, when the prospect of striking numbers from the record book was being debated most heatedly, his defenders magnanimously offered that while erasing history was impossible and asterisking it an unmanageable mess, fans and historians were free to keep the debate alive by continuing to remind themselves and others that the achievements of certain players were likely not obtained honestly. Now that an example of such history-with-commentary has cropped up (at least implicitly), it's meet with howls of outraged indignation by the PED amen corner? Please.
I don't have any problem in being selective about who is ahead in homers.
There are just too many names to choose from.
In the picture they show of Babe Ruth, it does look like he has a Hitler mustache.
Hmmm ....
No, they haven't been. But where is it written that they have to be celebrated to the same degree as the numbers of players about whom there's no suspicion of steroid use? During the height of the Bonds furor, when the prospect of striking numbers from the record book was being debated most heatedly, his defenders magnanimously offered that while erasing history was impossible and asterisking it an unmanageable mess, fans and historians were free to keep the debate alive by continuing to remind themselves and others that the achievements of certain players were likely not obtained honestly. Now that an example of such history-with-commentary has cropped up (at least implicitly), it's meet with howls of outraged indignation by the PED amen corner? Please.
Several things to be said about this. First, there's absolutely no evidence that Sosa juiced, beyond conjecture that's based on extrapolation and a corked bat. That's not exactly like having your trainer rot in jail for several years rather than testify under oath about whether or not you used steroids. Lumping Sosa with Bonds is neither fair nor accurate.
That said, leaving either Sosa or Bonds out of the commericial really does strike me as the sort of airbrushing of history associated with certain unmentionable comrades.
This isn't a separate organzation like the HOF, where character issues surrounding steroids are entirely legitmate. This is MLB itself, where neither Sosa nor Bonds has failed a steroids test.
This isn't the asterisk ball, where you get the asterisk but you also get the ball itself and Bonds's name along with it. That ball spurs and enlivens debate; it doesn't pretend that the debate doesn't exist, or that home run #756 itself never happened.
This is in a completely different category. And I hate to say it, but
there's no way to avoid the obvious analogy.
I don't understand your reference. Steve Garvey finished his career with nowhere near 600 HR.
How different? 100.
Total rubbish. The only people I know who wake up every morning wondering if/hoping that Bonds has been signed are a handful of hardcore sycophants here on this site, and a few writers who get paid to stir up trouble.
The overwhelming majority of normal baseball fans that I know have moved on, and are just enjyoing the game. And I can't wait to see "The Kid" hit #600.
I think the steroids hysteria is silly and therefore the commercial is dumb, but do I meet the commercial with "howls of outraged indignation"? Hardly. I meet it with a yawn. The commercial is just retarded. If you view it as some sort of a victory, knock yourself out.
Steroids were responsible for 160+ home runs? Really?
Well, I do stir up trouble for free too y'know ;-).
I do agree though--I can't wait for No. 600, steroids or not only five other guys in baseball history have done that. Before the "silly-ball" era 12 guys had hit 500 HR. 600 is most assuredly not the new 500.
Best Regards
John
Fark. The great mystery comes to an end.
#21: And the thread comes to a screeching halt.
Ruth had Hitler lips?
Wow....and all this time I thought that I didn't do anything wrong. Bummer.
Keep in mind that without his increased performance level (i.e., his change in approach), he also doesn't get walked as much, particularly intentional walks. Even assuming a boost from steroids, that blunts the effect on raw HR totals somewhat.
Right, and you can add "creating" to that job list as well. This reminds me of the "Call Your Shot" promotion they keep plugging, with David Ortiz et al. apparently attempting to recreate a famous "remember when" moment in baseball history that never happened.
I figured as much, Kevin. You're not going to make the 6:00 BTF News with that statement. :-)
I thought so as well, but my hand held calculator says that if you take 500, add 100 to reach 600, then subtract 500, you get "99.9999999e"...
I wouldn't worry until he starts mentioning quartering.
Best Regards
John
Know who else wasn't in the commercial? Trotsky!
Dumb question: How do you access the "lounge"? I may be the only person on this site who doesn't know the answer to that, but there are only so many hours in the day.
Or better yet, can someone just either e-mail me the picture or post it here?
I tried to navigate its treacherous waters today in order to find the picture after reading the above. I was really out of my depth in there and had to abort mission and evacuate.
Once I realized we were in danger of losing every game to him, I plotted to steal his glaucoma drops, but, thankfully, that ignominious act became unnecessary when he stumbled and gave up a game.
Anyway, it was a good baseball game at Camden Yards and it was nice to meet everyone. Even Kevin :-)
Posting a link here would be cool as well if anyone has time.
thanks...
Total rubbish. The only people I know who wake up every morning wondering if/hoping that Bonds has been signed are a handful of hardcore sycophants here on this site, and a few writers who get paid to stir up trouble. The overwhelming majority of normal baseball fans that I know have moved on, and are just enjyoing the game. And I can't wait to see "The Kid" hit #600.
If you honestly think there's been more coverage and discussion of Griffey's ascent to 600 than there's been coverage and discussion of Where's Barry?/No Barry, you must have invented an "ignore" feature for real life.
Repeating a point, Bonds could have been taking his 350 at-bats as the DH in Seattle or Texas, or even in LF for San Francisco-- with even fewer at-bats if the annual "exploding knee" prediction finally came true-- and Bonds' status would have been a blip. Instead, he's Banquo's ghost. It's another tactical bungle from Kenesaw Molehill Selig & co.
Awesome. I am still bummed about Phil Hartman.
Once I realized we were in danger of losing every game to him, I plotted to steal his glaucoma drops, but, thankfully, that ignominious act became unnecessary when he stumbled and gave up a game.
Yeah, and now that I think of it, since under the terms of the bet you now have to vote for Obama, I wish I'd added a stipulation that the loser had to move to a swing state in time to register for November. I hadn't realized you lived in New York.
----------------------
Kenesaw Molehill Selig
Love it! Never saw that one before.
Casual fans in SD that I deal with--maybe 20 people--have not mentioned Bonds at all. 1 or 2 have brought up Griffey and 600, but that is not a big story, either.
I do agree with Gonafalon that the MEDIA is more focused on Bonds than on Griffey, but I also agree with Joey that only a certain segment of hardcore fans is concerned about Bonds not playing.
Yeah, about 1% is steamed that he's being "blackballed," and about 1% is gloating about it. But for most people, they think of Chazz Palminteri's great line in A Bronx Tale: "Nobody cares." If nobody signs him by the end of July, he's going to be largely forgotten until his first HOF vote.
I hope the link works.
Andy, you're going to think I'm welching, and you'll have every right to think so based on the exchange I'm going to quote below. But I will say with 100% honesty that I didn't realize those were the stakes until this very moment.
After reading your above comment I went back to review our discussion of pool in the Pete Rose thread. I see this exchange between you and me:
The meaning of the underlined portion totally went over my head when I read it the first time. I couldn't figure out what you were talking about with "race to the 5" and so I tuned out the entire sentence. When I replied "Sounds fine to me" I really was just talking about the plan to meet at Edgar's.
I realize none of this sounds believable in the slightest. Nevertheless, I wish to plead ignorance and appeal to your sense of fair play with this bet. Ask yourself why I would agree to a bet that I knew I would be sure to lose...
I believe you.
Hilarious.
So who is who?
It did:
I have never seen any of these guys in person--saw a pic of kev once. So
kevin-green button down shirt?
andy-blue polo shirt?
David--head behind Andy, Orioles hat, orange shirt?
Retro-guy with goatee whose head is visible over kev's shoulder?
Ray-glasses, black shirt visible over Andy's shoulder?
Guy in Orioles jersey?
Guy in Nats' hat?
All of the above are correct except Retro. He's the guy in the back behind me.
The guy with the goatee whose head is visible over Kevin's right shoulder is Hanging Chad Ogea.
The guy in the front with the red shirt is Larry Mahnken.
I realize none of this sounds believable in the slightest. Nevertheless, I wish to plead ignorance and appeal to your sense of fair play with this bet. Ask yourself why I would agree to a bet that I knew I would be sure to lose...
Well, what else would a "race to 5" mean in the context of a pool room? Perhaps a race to 5 beers, I guess.
Of course it's also possible that you thought I was bluffing. And as you found out, I really do have a bad case of glaucoma, even if it doesn't hurt my pool game.
But that's OK, Ray, you're excused---as long as you don't move to a swing state. We'll call it a Mulligan a la Clinton.
robin,
You got em all right as far as you went. Larry's in the Nats' hat. I forgot who was the one in the Orioles' shirt, and also the guy in the white shirt behind Ray and David. They were sitting several seats away, we only got introduced once, and the crowd was very loud.
EDIT: Oops. I thought Retro and Chad were the same person.
Thanks. I promise not to move to a swing state between now and November.
Andy described who was sitting where in an email (I sent him a quick line asking how the ballgame was; this was after he talked smack about the pool game) so I already had info. I know Andy's age, your age when you mentioned it in a political thread (34, IIRC) and I figured David would have to be in O's gear. I knew Retro, HCO and Mahnken are pretty young dudes from other threads, and had seen a shot of kev before from another meetup and know his age. Andy said it was good times, and (sadly or happily--YMMV) no one talked politics.
Oh, and the Braves hall of famers are having a rough night.
A common mistake. And understandable; after all, until Saturday, the two of us had never been spotted in the same place at the same time.
Anyway--nice meeting the east coast folk on Saturday; seeing Ramirez's 500th was icing on the cake. My only disappointment lay in sleepover girl's failure to show.
And the game I saw at Citizens Bank Park the next day was just as exciting, with the Phils rallying from 4 down.
Saturday Sept. 23rd will work. Yanks at O's, 7:05. Ten dollar ring game at Edgar's beginning at 4:00.
I appreciate the compliment, as I'm guessing Mahnken and Ogea are both a fair piece younger than I am. Hell, I think Ray probably is, too.
EDIT: Duh--didn't read far enough. If Ray's 34, I was correct.
Well, if you are really contacting us from the first Bush administration, you shouldn't worry too much about affecting the current election, unless you step on a butterfly or something.
But, uh, if you happen to ask me in 2014, 30 is upgraded to "young" and 40 to downgraded to "old" (No change at 50 which remains "ancient" and 60 which "older than dirt").
That reminds me of one of my favoritest songs back when I was in my 20's. I always did need something to aspire to.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main