User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
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. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6939 seconds
50 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.
Personally, I think we should leave Sam H out of this...
Also, I have no idea who "Me" is, who is writing this (no intention of giving him a page hit to find out), but he seems like a jerk. There is no reason to post this conversation for everyone to read, other than being a humonguous dongue.
You've got what we call GRiPSKy in the business. My particular skill is puppy haters. I can spot them a mile away.
I can only spot a gay rapist serial-killing pedophile if he's also a steroid user. And I wouldn't vote for him for the Hall of Fame unless he'd done all of them in self defense.
I know what you're thinking, but Jose Canseco isn't gay.
It's kind of like when a public figure feels the urge to compare anything to Hitler. The second that word is about to come out of your mouth you should probably just slow down, get up, and go have a cup of tea or something. Here on baseball primer of course that word should be used with impunity.
Really? High school debate teams, most moot court programs and the UN all encourage going to the pedophile argument as early as possible to really establish the high ground. It's irrefutable and throws your opponents off their prepared line of attack.
You know who would be in favr of that? Hitler, that's who! What a publicity whore...
Someone's angling for yet another photoshop.
Nonsense.
This is the one that gets me. I was having this argument with a friend this week about the whole Hank Williams Jr. thing. The comment just made no sense to begin with but why put yourself in a position to have to deal with it like that? There are so many ways to make the point without resorting to something that you know is going to distract from the main point.
Really? High school debate teams, most moot court programs and the UN all encourage going to the pedophile argument as early as possible to really establish the high ground. It's irrefutable and throws your opponents off their prepared line of attack.
I find this hard to go without questioning. I guess a cite for this would be hard to find, but it seems like a tactic of all flash and no breadth or weight.
It's actually a very strong argument, that gets right at the heart of the matter: you can't tell a steroids user by sight any more than you can tell those other categories of people by sight. The person may get confused (or act confused) thinking you're saying that a steroids user is essentially the same as a serial killer, but that's not what the comparison is; the comparison is not "steroids user = serial killer" but is "flawed reasoning = flawed reasoning."
This is less distressing than one alternative option, that someone who thinks he represents Salt Of the Earth Middle America has decided that Benjamin Netanyahu is the most unquestionably admirable leader in the world today.
Steroids = Bad! is dead after what we saw Girardi do.
But steroids are used to help change the body, and these changes are visible. Its not proof, but you do get more information about their steroid likeliness than you do about their likeliness to be one of the other things.
So are the changes from working out naturally.
And the idea that Pedro Gomez can tell a Manny Alexander or Andy Pettitte "by sight" is laughable.
Interesting. In my day, it was "nuclear war". Your plan will cause nuclear war. You will cause nuclear war. Your tie will cause nuclear war.
Whereas it's obviously Gomez's problem for just abandoning the conversation in the face of this argument, something more subtle to catch him verbally twisting in the wind would be far more effective, and less under Gomez's control. While it's a strong argument, it's a debate tactic that didn't work nearly as well as another one would have.
Your tie will cause nuclear war.
I always knew there was a reason I didn't vote for Paul Simon.
Quibble with Ray's response in 23. Steroids do not noticeably change the body. That's the point about Franklin.
Girardi mixed & matched 7 pitchers to produce 7 shutout innings, and had 2 relievers that had pitched well all year lined up after that. Those last two didn't come through, but that's a far, far cry from managing as if throwing the game.
What's coolstandings.com say about it? Is it a lead-pipe lock cinch that it is bad or is there some slim probability that it might be good or have no consequence in anything? Just curious...
Agree. That's where I was trying to go by bringing up players like Manny Alexander. You couldn't tell by looking at him that he had used.
One being that they're a lawyer?
He cycled through relievers like Charlie Sheen cycles through whores. Then Scott Proctor went 56 pitches, as all of Girardi's top relievers sat.
You can't seriously argue that Girardi was putting up a good faith effort to win the game. I didn't expect him to manage it like it was a playoff game, but he made a mockery of the contest and of the idea that there should be some measure of competitive integrity, especially in games that are important for the league. He turned the game into a farce.
It's amusing to me that people have had nothing better to do with their time over the past three weeks than to stew over this, but at some point people are going to have to come to grips with the reality that not expecting a historic collapse was the sane approach.
I'd urge anybody who thinks the eyeball test works to hunt down the documentary "High Performance". It's about a double blind study of testosterone (and other PEDs -- though the people using the others knew it. The thing that very clearly made the doctor running the study most nervous was pseudo-ephedrine), with everybody in the study getting the same (world class) coaching.
Incidentally, if anybody does happen across it, let me know. The CBC showed it twice but now won't even respond to questions about it and I haven't found it online any place.
Girardi put out very close to his A lineup.
He refused to use any pitcher who would be a key guy in the postseason (and think of how he would have felt giving Robertson and Mo 20 pitches, only to discover--surprise!--FOUR CONSECUTIVE DAYS of postseason baseball delivered by the rain gods).
And he, presumably, ignores how the Sox had gotten their own free Proctology session only days before.
EDIT--34: Ray, you took a stance where you KNEW there was a very small chance it would lead to merciless justified mockery. You wanted to bank the easy profit of being "sane". You got it wrong. You know this; we know you know this. I'm amused!
I since edited it to 'help change' the body.
Also, is the 'backne' thing real or myth?
Yeah, Girardi threw the game by taking a 7 to 0 lead into the 8th inning. Some dump.
He then threw it further by putting in three of the Yankees' best middle relievers into the game in order to protect the lead.
He then had the audacity to let Scott Proctor come in for 2/3 of an inning to give up the winning home run. Which might be a legitimate cause for complaint, if only Girardi hadn't thrown another game just three days earlier in a similar situation by letting that same Scott Proctor go out there and give up 3 runs in 2/3 of an inning to another team that was fighting for its life. Hell, if you're talking about integrity, if anything he was almost obliged to return the favor to the Rays after he'd let Proctor pitch against the Red Sox.
EDIT: cokes all around
It's amusing to me that people have had nothing better to do with their time over the past three weeks than to stew over this, but at some point people are going to have to come to grips with the reality that not expecting a historic collapse was the sane approach.
"Are the Dodgers still in the league?"
---Bill Terry, 1934
"It's over. It's always been over."
---Ray DiPerna, 2011
And AG#1F must be in his forties because the 'nuclear war' thing was very big in the '80's. Very big.
Yes. That's entirely my point.
I don't ignore it; it in fact furthers my point. Girardi wasn't interested in competing.
What actually happened was that Red Sox fanboys began whining that it was a sure thing the Red Sox were going to lose, and I commented that such a view was insane. The "easy profit" stuff you refer to is just you projecting your behavior onto me.
Real, but not universal.
Hint: Look at the manager decisions, not the results.
Oh, "three of the Yankees' best middle relievers"? What high praise!
? Proctor went 2 2/3.
Because you're a fanboy you're incapable of understanding the point. My complaint has nothing to do with the Red Sox per se, but with the duty Girardi owed to the league. And if you don't think he owed such a duty, that's fine -- I can even agree -- but then your arguments about "juicers" ruining the integrity of the game are nonsense.
That people can look at that boxscore and believe that Girardi was putting forth a good faith effort is laughable.
Of course if that's all you'd really said, then nobody would be mocking you. But when you started throwing out those idiotic coolstandings.com projections without acknowledging their self-admitted limitations,** and when you started repeating "It's over. It's always been over.", then what in the hell do you expect?
**which are easily viewable by simply going to their website, where they are stated right up front
I believe it can be a side effect of steroids.
The problem is that it's not uncommon among men in their 20s or 30s who aren't using steroids.
Ray, you wrote, on numerous occasions just what Andy quoted. If you don't understand why people are going to take great joy in mocking you for such a statement, you're dumber than the smartest big league skipper.
I too was certain the Red Sox were going to take the wild card, and posted as much on numerous occasions. When the comeback/collapse was complete, I opted to say I was wrong. I gotta admit I never thought about doubling down on my previous position. Kudos.
I expect that people will read what I actually wrote before making stupid comments. Actually, I don't expect that.
I always acknowledged the chance that they could lose. So you presenting "It's over" without noting that is sheer dishonesty on your part.
really? I assumed it was uncommon
Ayala had a 1.64 ERA going into that game. Pitching Ayala wasn't giving up, and was probably the best option once it was decided that Rivera, Soriano & Robertson were unavailable.
Why Ray thinks Rivera, Soriano & Robertson should have been available with only 1 off day before the ALDS is a mystery. That doesn't happen if a team has clinched. IT WAS OVER.
First, I've never even mentioned steroids in this thread, since that's an entirely separate subject that has nothing to do with lineup strategy. I'm not sure why you saw fit to bring this particular topic in a response to me.
Look, I completely agree that Girardi could have "played to win" more decisively in both of those games, though with the playoffs approaching there's a legitimate argument to be made about resting his key players, many of whom are greybeards.
But the problem is that when you raised the "integrity" question the first time, you only mentioned it in reference to the Tampa Bay game, rather than making the generic point that would have also applied to the Red Sox game. If you'd included the Sunday use of Proctor, your point would've been a lot more consistent.
Personally, I'm torn between the obligation that Girardi had to his own team and the obligation he had to go all out to win against teams fighting for the wild card, even if the Yankees had already clinched everything. But it's pretty obvious that once the HFA had been clinched, at that point he let down rather equally against both teams, as can be seen by the results of the games.
Yeah, I now realize that it was your doppelganger who wrote "It's over. It's always been over." How cruel and dishonest of me not to have noted that.
You have it backwards: I'm engaging them. It's others here who keep bringing this silly thing up, not me. I'm happy to let it drop, and perhaps I should.
Steroids make you grow really stupid goatees? I guess Bagwell's out.
That you can completely dismiss the reasonging of all the many, many intelligent people of differing, even opposite loyalties on the site who think otherwise is of greater note.
Is there an alternate universe where Greg Golson, Chris Dickerson, Brandon Laird, Ramiro Pena, Eric Chavez, Austin Romine, and Eduardo Nunez didn't combine for 20 PA?
Where Dellin Betances, George Kontos, Aaron Laffey, Raul Valdes, Andrew Brackman, and Scott Proctor didn't combine for 8 innings?
Where Joe Girardi didn't use 11 pitchers?
Where Joe Girardi didn't use 16 position players?
Are people out of their minds?
Girardi didn't care in the least whether he won this game, and arguing otherwise is pure lunacy.
8 innings, 1 run.
Where Joe Girardi didn't use 11 pitchers?
WTF does it matter how many pitchers he used? When is a number important there? Is LaRussa not trying to win?
Are people out of their minds? Girardi didn't care in the least whether he won this game, and arguing otherwise is pure lunacy.
Well, as long as you're willing to reasonably disagree with others, that's a big step.
So THIS is the tack you are going to take to try to shake loose of your prognosticative poopery, Ray? Yes, you had as much bad luck as the Sox...under just about every other circumstance you'd have been vindicated by the results. But they won five fewer games in September than their RS/RA projected, three if you adjust for their blowout wins during the nightmare stretch, any one of which would have clinched the WC for them--but even if Girardi did what you claimed, the Sox still had a chance to force a playoff game by beating the Orioles. If we extrapolate your "logic" far enough, we get a conspiracy that the Sox themselves were in on!
Robertson, Soriano and Rivera all pitched in the game before this one (game 161, 9/27). Soriano blew that game. (Tanking it, perhaps, for his former teammates? You wanna try that approach??)
Everyone knew that Mo was not going to pitch in game 162.
So your "argument" boils down to the fact that Girardi didn't use Robertson. In the immortal words of Chief Nokahoma..."Big whoop."
Give us all a break and just STFU about this, OK? The gods, not Joe Girardi, rained down a large vat of brown stuff all over you. Go take a shower--make it an extra long one--and get over it!
And who knows flawed reasoning better than Rayray.
What actually happened was that Red Sox fanboys began whining that it was a sure thing the Red Sox were going to lose, and I commented that such a view was insane.
The Red Sox did lose. But it's those other people who are insane. Got it.
You can't seriously argue that Girardi was putting up a good faith effort to win the game. I didn't expect him to manage it like it was a playoff game, but he made a mockery of the contest and of the idea that there should be some measure of competitive integrity, especially in games that are important for the league. He turned the game into a farce.
Being oblivious to the way the world works, you have never noticed that no team tries 100% to win every game unless it's an elimination game. There are always other goals in mind.
Robertson and Rivera pitched on Tuesday. The postseason began Friday. If they pitched Wednesday, there exists the chance they will be pitching on Saturday for the 4th time in 5 days. Two of those games wouldn't have mattered in the slightest to the Yankees World Series chances, but because Rayray was on his high horse about "integrity," now they can't pitch as effectively over multiple innings. THAT would have been the managerial incompetence you seem to think Girardi has been performing. Thank god he didn't.
OF COURSE GIRARDI DIDN'T CARE about winning that ballgame.
The point is whether his behavior was equivalent to throwing it. His behavior was far from equivalent to doing so. Simply looking at the starting lineup comprehensively proves your claim false.
Haven't you been reading Diperna's imbecilic blatherings for years? The results never matter. It's only the process!
Jeter, Granderson, Tex, Cano, Swisher, Jones, and Montero have 4 PA each. On a day past when they've clinched everything, you think it's somehow immoral to not have your star players reach 5+ AB each? The integrity of the game is threatened here, you truly, actually believe that with your SIXTEEN POSITION PLAYERS argument?
EDIT: Granderson seems to have 3, not 4.
Yeah, you can quibble about no Bastardo I guess, but that's it. Manuel managed to win the game the way he would have except for the handling of Hamels (and it's interesting to note that Hamels was the least effective pitcher on the day)
Still, Manuel is the exception. And Girardi did have the excuse of the big lead in any case. It's far from unusual to get veteran players out of there with a 7 run lead in a July game. The difference being that in a July game if the Rays had somehow started to mount a comeback a good pitcher would have been out there in the 9th. (and with only a 4 man bench, there's a limit to how much you can weaken the team by substitutions anyhow)
It's pretty clear to me that Ray's correct -- Girardi's actions had a material impact on the season. Thing is that he'd been up front before the game. His elite relief pitchers were not going to appear. Period.
As a neutral I'd have been happier to see (say) Soriano in the 9th. But all of Wade, Soriano, Robertson and Rivera had appeared the day before and it's perfectly reasonable (in the abstract) to give them the day off -- though they all could have pitched if the game had meant anything to the Yankees. And would have in a random game in July.
It's not separate. We're talking about the integrity of the game. If steroids is relevant to that, then this is.
Dellin Betances, George Kontos, Aaron Laffey, Raul Valdes, Andrew Brackman, and Scott Proctor.
Because it indicates that he's not competing.
Strawman. I never asked for 100% from him, just that he compete. And I don't even really care that he didn't compete; my point was that the people who whine about steroids and "integrity" should be up in arms about what Girardi did.
Because it indicates that he's not competing.
Could you walk this through for me, from A to B? Not which pitchers, but the number being the indication of non-competitiveness?
Why are you divorcing the two?
Can you seriously not see that Girardi wasn't competing? I find that hard to believe.
He used 27 players, including 12 or 13 scrubs.
Following your repeating the names of the pitchers who gave up one run total, you specifically said the number he used indicated non-competitiveness. I'm asking for qualification. If you didn't mean that, then correct what you wrote.
Can you seriously not see that Girardi wasn't competing? I find that hard to believe.
No, I cannot. And I'm not the only one.
Can you seriously say that Girardi wasn't honoring the spirit of the game when he had his A lineup in for at least 27 PA? (See #64) To you, that's not competing, correct?
He used 27 players
To use one of your favorite phrases, this is a dishonest argument, as it ignores PA.
including 12 or 13 scrubs.
In which I assume you include Derek Jeter.
Of course he was competing. He was competing for the World Series, though, and not the meaningless (for Girardi) game at hand.
By your logic, the fact that Girardi didn't start his best pitcher, Sabathia, should be taken as evidence that he wasn't trying to compete.
Civility goes a long way. I guess it's not everyone's cup of tea, but if you engage in discussions with a condescending tone you forfeit your right to be surprised when people jump at chances to mock you.
In my day ('90s) it was a bit of a joke. You'd write up a brief that ended in global thermonuclear war just to tease your friends.
It actually relates to the reason I stopped debating. Lots of debaters got it into their head that they could "spread" the opposition by making a blizzard of arguments and insisting that any point which was not directly rebutted had to be scored to them. In a lot of debates, the winning strategy was to speed read incredibly weak arguments. I always preferred the clueless neighbors that debaters ended up recruiting to fill out the judging pool, because they at least wouldn't put up with that nonsense.
It's just as well I got out when I did. I'd make a terrible lawyer.
This is Ray's Dave Cameron moment. Just like the Robinson Cano and "sixth best organization" comments are always brought up to stain Dave's credibility, Ray will be subjected to "It's over" comments until the end of his time here. Which is how it should be.
So, you're saying it's over?
We have discovered that Ray is actually Pedro Gomez
Also, Ray, I made a good faith argument in #64 that you've refused to address twice now.
I addressed it. The fact that he started several of his regulars got washed away when he gave the Greg Golsons of the world 20 PAs, and pitched scrub pitchers for 8 innings, and ended the game with Scott Proctor Or Die.
I don't know why people are hung up on "8 innings, 1 run." Would he approach a game he cared about winning in this way? No. That's the point.
He took out the regulars in the 6th and 7th inning with the Yankees up 7-0. The scrubs only got 20 PA's because the game went 12 innings.
Wow, it's too bad this thread has steroids in the title and as such many people will avoid it. They are missing an awesome show of Ray making a total ass of himself.
I will admit I didn't expect Girardi to just completely mail it in, such that one looking at the boxscore without being informed of Girardi's comments would conclude that Girardi had to be throwing the game. I will admit that I didn't expect Girardi to suddenly become bizarrely obsessed with giving his core relievers that specific pattern of rest.
Have at it. I'm sure this will make up for whatever shortcomings you have in your life.
This one I completely missed. Maybe Ray wanted him to put the starters back in the 10th inning.
Ray, was Girardi trying to win Sunday night's game against the Red Sox, with
Nunez playing all 14 innings at short,
Jeter and A-Rod sitting on the bench for the entire game,
Dickerson starting in left instead of Gardner**,
Romine starting behind the plate and staying there for the entire 14 innings,
Robertson left in the bullpen,
and Scott Proctor brought into a tie game?
You tell me.
Again, if you were actually trying to make a serious point about integrity, you would have mentioned this game as another example of the lack of it, but of course you didn't.
**to be replaced by a combination of Laird, Posada and Pena
Over, I tell you.
besides, he closed the final game against the third-place Rays and the wild-card winning Sox with the same pitcher.
This one I completely missed. Maybe Ray wanted him to put the starters back in the 10th inning.
Ray likely considers it to be a black mark on the game's integrity that baseball doesn't allow free substitutions a la the NFL / NBA / NHL.
And why wouldn't it be after the bang-up use Jimmy Carter made of it in the 1980 Prez debates? ...
"ASK AMY!!" "ASK AMY!!"
It is. It's just Ray being Ray again, insisting things are one way when everyone else knows their just the opposite.
I also like the claim you can achieve the same results by natural weighlifting than you can by taking steroids. It takes pure genius to make a conjecture with that magnitude of incorrectitude.
LOL.
It's not uncommon. It doesn't describe most men, but that's not the same thing.
Are homosexuals "uncommon"? Just because a person is in a minority does not mean there are not plenty of like people.
"I insisted something had a zero probablity when it had something like a 2 or 3% probability, so shoot me. What's the difference between that and saying something 50% possible was only 46% possible?"
It was during your time in the wilderness (welcome back), but we had this discussion on the morning of Magic Wednesday, and virtually all the Sox fans agreed that Girardi had no higher duty than not doing stuff like playing Teix at catcher or Posada in RF, and not actively trying to lose. It was actually quite an honorable -- and plainly accurate -- position. The board was effectively unanimous on the point.
Your beef really isn't with the Yankees or Girardi, it's with baseball's playoff structure. (**)
(**) Shared by every other North American team sport. Each of them affirmatively accepts a scenario where a team who's already clinched will play games that impact who wins divisions and playoffs. It's unavoidable. The understanding in each of them is that the clinching team's only obligation is to their playoff chances.
So all well muscled players are using steroids? Because that's the claim you're making.
Ron, look up photos of bodybuilders who enter drug-free contests and then look at some of guys who juice up.
I can assure you Ron has done his research on this topic.
Yes, but there are also plenty of people who are muscle-bound without having taken any sort of drugs. A person's body shape alone is not enough to make a judgement on PED use. Nor is change in body type (guys could begin working out much harder).
Being muscle-bound can indicate steroid use, but it no way is it proof.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main