Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, July 29, 2011

Joe Posnanski: Saving Bonds

Pos, Bonds and the transfixed rate of Bob Costas.

My friend Bob Costas left a message for me yesterday. It was a very nice message—Bob is a great guy—but he also had a slight disagreement. Bob and I are very often on the same page when it comes to baseball, but he was reading a small essay I wrote in the magazine this week and he noticed this line:

”(Barry) Bonds and (Roger) Clemens are two of the best who ever played the game. If not for the steroid noise that surrounds them, you could make a viable argument that they are simply the two best ever.”

I should say that my thinking, when I wrote the line, was simply that if you took their numbers and performances at face value, you could make the viable argument that they are the two best ever. Bob, though, read it differently. He thought that I was actually saying without steroids Bonds and Clemens are two of the best ever, perhaps even THE two best ever. This did not bother him so much for Clemens, but it did bother him for for Bonds. He strongly disagrees.

We’ve had similar discussions before, and if I could summarize his thought, I think it goes something like this (and I am reworking this a little bit to get Bob’s opinion more precisely): Barry Bonds in 1998 was a great player. Truly great. But there was no argument to make for him as the best ever. In Bob’s words: He certainly wasn’t Ruth; he didn’t hit like Williams or Musial; as great an all-around player as he was he was not Mays and his career did not have the totality of Aaron. Bob thinks Bonds of 1998 could certainly be in the discussion as one of the 10 or 12 best non-pitchers of all time. But there was no argument for him as the very best. And there is no argument that can be made for him as the very best NOW either without steroids.

Repoz Posted: July 29, 2011 at 11:32 AM | 572 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: announcers, hall of fame, history, media, sabermetrics, television

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.

Page 6 of 6 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6
   501. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 06, 2011 at 01:52 AM (#3893985)
I think that steroids were one "key" out of many.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
   502. rr Posted: August 06, 2011 at 03:58 AM (#3894085)
Norm Cash? Roger Maris?,


Cash and Maris were both 26 when they had the big years in 1961. Also, there really wasn't all that much difference between Maris in 1960 and Maris in 1961:

Maris '60
283/371/583/952
Maris '61
269/372/620/983

He was MVP in 1960 as well as in 1961.

One thing about 61 and 62 in the AL: the Angels moved from WrigleyLA to Dodger Stadium. Sure, only nine games each for Cash and Maris, but it still affected the league.

Cash's 1961 is bizarre, and makes the point better, but Andy's big thing is Bonds' four-year run at ages 36-39, not a one-year or two-year jump at 26. Like I said, Andy snapper et al will never prove that steroids were the #1 factor in those seasons. But their opponents will never prove the opposite, either.
   503. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 06, 2011 at 05:05 AM (#3894093)
Like I said, Andy snapper et al will never prove that steroids were the #1 factor in those seasons.


Isn't it funny that just about everyone here understands that Andy's position is that steroids were "the #1 factor" in Bonds's late career surge -- everyone except for Andy, who keeps trying to claim that his position is that steroids were just one factor, of no more importance than the other factors?

But their opponents will never prove the opposite, either.


No problem there. I require evidence before I accept a conclusion as valid. And the evidence isn't there to support Andy's claim. I've never tried to "prove the opposite."
   504. rr Posted: August 06, 2011 at 05:24 AM (#3894098)
Well, Andy's and snapper's positions are somewhat different.
   505. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 06, 2011 at 01:03 PM (#3894155)
Well, Andy's and snapper's positions are somewhat different.

You have to realize, Robin, that David and Ray also think that I'm a "socialist". They like their targets to be as big as possible for their myopic eyes to focus on.

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

Isn't it funny that just about everyone here understands that Andy's position is that steroids were "the #1 factor" in Bonds's late career surge -- everyone except for Andy, who keeps trying to claim that his position is that steroids were just one factor, of no more importance than the other factors?

What's truly funny is that after 500+ posts, you're still misrepresenting my position, and doing it with such cheerful pride. "One of many" does not mean "# 1 factor". And it doesn't necessarily mean "of no more importance than the other factors", at least outside the DiPerna Kindergarten of Logic.

It means that it's somewhere among the many factors, period. It means that without steroids, Bonds's late career power surge would have fallen short of where it actually was. This is the part of my position that you've equated with "intelligent design".**

Of course I've also said exactly the same thing about all of those other factors, but for some reason that part of my position doesn't seem to have penetrated your thick skull, or aroused your indignation.

But by all means keep on hitting your head against the same stone wall. "Just about everyone here" is counting on you. You're their champion.

**I notice with even greater amusement that you stick to "intelligent design" rather than "climate change denial". I can only guess the reason for that. (smile)
   506. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 06, 2011 at 01:34 PM (#3894171)
there really wasn't all that much difference between Maris in 1960 and Maris in 1961

And the difference between Maris in 1961 and Maris in 1962 is that 28 HR and 3 triples turned into 22 doubles and 8 outs.
   507. CrosbyBird Posted: August 06, 2011 at 01:49 PM (#3894183)
Like I said, Andy snapper et al will never prove that steroids were the #1 factor in those seasons. But their opponents will never prove the opposite, either.

I don't think anyone can prove that steroids were at all a factor. Like most people, I speculate that they do provide some baseball enhancement, but unlike most people, I refuse to translate my speculation into certainty of guilt. Nobody can possibly prove that steroids have no effect at all, either. At best, we can show that there's no evidence of steroid enhancement (recognizing that we might have missed something, mischaracterizing some actual effect as noise in the data).

Both positions are impossible to get much good data on because we're not permitted to have transparent, replicated experiments. That's why "show me the tests" is a ridiculous demand because the asker knows no such tests even can exist.

Although you'll notice a very consistent theme among pretty much all of the people who are falsely labeled "pro-steroid." We agree with some variation of "there's not enough evidence to make a positive conclusion that steroids provide statistically significant baseball performance-enhancement." That's not because we're a bunch of robots with the same programming, but because it is the only reasonable position to take. And that's not very subjective, because "statistically significant" is conventionally 95% confidence and the positive evidence isn't even close to that number.
   508. BDC Posted: August 06, 2011 at 02:00 PM (#3894186)
Speaking of performance-enhancing treatments, why is BBTF showing me ads for Fleet Natural Enemas? I realize I'm full of shit, but this is ridiculous.
   509. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 06, 2011 at 02:44 PM (#3894205)
Speaking of performance-enhancing treatments, why is BBTF showing me ads for Fleet Natural Enemas? I realize I'm full of shit, but this is ridiculous.

Since I haven't seen any of those ads on my screen, I have to assume that Fleet is using its marketing research and targeting only the pro-steroid crowd. (/ducks)
   510. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 06, 2011 at 03:36 PM (#3894233)
My ads are for garmin gps units and soft-core porn screen savers. Not seeing the connection.
   511. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 06, 2011 at 04:14 PM (#3894244)
What's truly funny is that after 500+ posts, you're still misrepresenting my position, and doing it with such cheerful pride.


Is Robinred doing that too? When I said "#1 factor" I was quoting him, just above.

"One of many" does not mean "# 1 factor". And it doesn't necessarily mean "of no more importance than the other factors", at least outside the DiPerna Kindergarten of Logic.

It means that it's somewhere among the many factors, period. It means that without steroids, Bonds's late career power surge would have fallen short of where it actually was. This is the part of my position that you've equated with "intelligent design".**

...

**I notice with even greater amusement that you stick to "intelligent design" rather than "climate change denial". I can only guess the reason for that. (smile)


? I haven't said a word about intelligent design. You're confusing me with others.
   512. Fanshawe Posted: August 06, 2011 at 04:34 PM (#3894253)
What's truly funny is that after 500+ posts, you're still misrepresenting my position, and doing it with such cheerful pride. "One of many" does not mean "# 1 factor". And it doesn't necessarily mean "of no more importance than the other factors", at least outside the DiPerna Kindergarten of Logic.

It means that it's somewhere among the many factors, period. It means that without steroids, Bonds's late career power surge would have fallen short of where it actually was.


So is it fair to say that your position is that without steroids Bonds might have hit 650 homeruns (or less) or might have hit 761, but definitely wouldn't have hit 762?
   513. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 06, 2011 at 05:00 PM (#3894268)
What's truly funny is that after 500+ posts, you're still misrepresenting my position, and doing it with such cheerful pride.

Is Robinred doing that too? When I said "#1 factor" I was quoting him, just above.


Robinred blew it, too, but you wrote "Isn't it funny that just about everyone here understands that Andy's position is that steroids were "the #1 factor" in Bonds's late career surge -- everyone except for Andy". That doesn't sound as if you were disagreeing here.

? I haven't said a word about intelligent design. You're confusing me with others.

If you've never used "intelligent design", "creationism", or some other such code word to describe my position, then I apologize.

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

It means that it's somewhere among the many factors, period. It means that without steroids, Bonds's late career power surge would have fallen short of where it actually was.

So is it fair to say that your position is that without steroids Bonds might have hit 650 homeruns (or less) or might have hit 761, but definitely wouldn't have hit 762?


It's not only fair, but accurate, though I seriously doubt that it would have been anywhere near as low as 650, or that close to 761. In spite of Ray's verbiage, I really do understand and appreciate the many other factors that went into those numbers, including Bonds's already existing level of phenomenal talent. With those other factors in play, even without the steroids, I think he might well have had a good chance at 62 or 715, if not 73 or 762. All I find totally unbelievable is the position that steroids could have played NO part at all. AFAIC that's a mixture of Perry Mason and a faith in the Tooth Fairy.
   514. rr Posted: August 06, 2011 at 05:40 PM (#3894285)
Robinred blew it, too,


Nah. One of the reasons this has dragged out is that you cheerfully poke people and use certain kinds of tones/jabs at Bonds/have certain goals (like the stuff about the Ecko ball, when you wouldn't admit, "I just dig this" and instead tried to spin it into "fairness" and "analysis").

You are saying you think steroids were A FACTOR; I get that. But the bigger factor they are, or that people think they are, the better shot you have to keep Bonds out of Cooperstown. If people conclude he hits 68 and 750 instead of 73 and 762 without them, that weakens the case. So, you focus on them when you argue about it, instead of on maple bats and small ballparks and weightlifting and plate-crowding.

And of course, in post 513 right above this, you did take your shot at quantifying it. Most of the BondsHawks, including snapper, have played some variation of the "Here is what I think Bonds does without steroids" riff at some point. That is why your position is only "somewhat different."

I don't think anyone can prove that steroids were at all a factor. Like most people, I speculate that they do provide some baseball enhancement, but unlike most people, I refuse to translate my speculation into certainty of guilt. Nobody can possibly prove that steroids have no effect at all, either. At best, we can show that there's no evidence of steroid enhancement (recognizing that we might have missed something, mischaracterizing some actual effect as noise in the data).


I get that, too, and as Andy has been saying since 2005 and as I said again 300 posts ago, fine. You are approaching this legalistically: "We cannot prove Bonds is guilty; therefore, he must be treated as if he innocent", which in this context means:

1. Recognize him unequivocally as the HR champion.
2. Put him in the Hall of Fame on the first ballot with about 97% of the vote.

Andy has said, literally about 100 times, that he never thought Bonds should have been prosecuted by the gubmint, but he (Andy) does not think a legal standard of proof should be needed to keep Bonds from the game's highest honor. You disagree. Andy drags this out himself with the "Good luck with the BBWAA" taunts, the demands for amps testing, and the HOM bullshitt, but his position has been the same all along.

And your "no evidence" assertion is shaky. What we have is Bonds' late career surge, with a lot of mystery, a lot of accusations, a lot of blank spaces, and a lot of noise. But looking at that and saying there is "no evidence" is a reach. As noted, these drugs are going to affect different guys in different ways, depending on natural ability, work ethic, drug cycles, trainers, and a 100 other factors. The fact that PEDs did not appear to help Alex Sanchez much does not mean they did not give Barry Bonds a massive boost. Looking at Bonds' numbers and concluding that they probably did is not unreasonable. You may think it's unfair, and you may be right, but it is not illogical.

As to the double standards/fairness/amps issue, I am more on your side there, rather than in the middle. A lot of this is driven by the fact that people don't like Barry Bonds and don't like that he has the HR record, and as I said in 493, I think amps may have really helped some guys, like Pete Rose, even if, like steroids, they didn't help everybody.
   515. rr Posted: August 06, 2011 at 08:55 PM (#3894385)
You hope the murmuring and arguing that has already restarted now that Oscar Pistorius has done the remarkable, the extraordinary, the heretofore unfathomable will not drag him down between now and the 2012 London Olympics. Because what Pistorius, a double-amputee sprinter, was able to do on a muggy night in Lignano, Italy, on July 19 is the sort of mind-blowing achievement that shouldn't be unfairly derailed by this unsettled debate. He thought he had already navigated it once, but now it's likely to trail the 24-year-old South African all the way to next year's Olympic Summer Games.

The preposterous-sounding question that continues to chase Pistorius with each step he takes has to be the most counter-intuitive argument ever made in sports: Could it possibly be true that a double-amputee is able to run faster than world-class able-bodied sprinters because of -- and not in spite of -- his carbon-fiber prosthetic legs that attach just below his knees?


But Britain's best active 400-meter man, Martyn Rooney, who finished sixth in Beijing, told England's Observer newspaper that if he were beaten by Pistorius in London, "I wouldn't be too bothered. I'd be a lot angrier if, say, someone who had failed a drugs test beat me. Oscar has not gone out of his way to cheat. This is his situation: He needs to run with those blades. He can modify things in ways that we can't, but there's things we can do that he can't. So it balances out quite well.


http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/howard-110804/oscar-pistorius-meets-olympic-qualifying-standard-400-meter-time-renews-controversy-prosthetic-legs
   516. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 06, 2011 at 09:17 PM (#3894398)
Is Robinred doing that too? When I said "#1 factor" I was quoting him, just above.

Robinred blew it, too, but you wrote "Isn't it funny that just about everyone here understands that Andy's position is that steroids were "the #1 factor" in Bonds's late career surge -- everyone except for Andy". That doesn't sound as if you were disagreeing here.


I wasn't disagreeing. I think Robinred has your position exactly correct with "#1 factor."

? I haven't said a word about intelligent design. You're confusing me with others.

If you've never used "intelligent design", "creationism", or some other such code word to describe my position, then I apologize.


I have not.

Not that I don't agree with those arguments, but I haven't used them myself.

Since the whole of the evidence doesn't point towards steroids being all that enhancing as far as baseball performance goes, one does have to take it on faith, or use irrational reasoning, to honestly arrive at the conclusion that steroids are performance enhancing but amps are not.
   517. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 06, 2011 at 09:27 PM (#3894405)
What we have is Bonds' late career surge, with a lot of mystery, a lot of accusations, a lot of blank spaces, and a lot of noise.


Robinred, no serious person would put any weight in a conclusion that is built on a single data point (Bonds).

In fact, if one were truly serious about showing that steroids significantly enhance baseball performance, one would start by *throwing out* Bonds and performing an analysis that never considers him.
   518. smileyy Posted: August 06, 2011 at 09:30 PM (#3894408)
Martyn Rooney might be pissed the first time a healthy competitor cuts his legs off to get TurboBlades attached.
   519. CrosbyBird Posted: August 06, 2011 at 10:09 PM (#3894445)
Andy has said, literally about 100 times, that he never thought Bonds should have been prosecuted by the gubmint, but he (Andy) does not think a legal standard of proof should be needed to keep Bonds from the game's highest honor. You disagree. Andy drags this out himself with the "Good luck with the BBWAA" taunts, the demands for amps testing, and the HOM bullshitt, but his position has been the same all along.

It's not about a legal standard of proof; that the criminal defense standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not the source of my position. It's about a moral standard of proof. The reason we don't find people guilty with a reasonable doubt is because it is immoral to punish people (and besmirch their reputation) for something that we think they probably did.

And your "no evidence" assertion is shaky. What we have is Bonds' late career surge, with a lot of mystery, a lot of accusations, a lot of blank spaces, and a lot of noise. But looking at that and saying there is "no evidence" is a reach.

If I said "no evidence," that was hyperbole. I was pretty carefully to say "no statistically significant evidence" in my most recent post. That said, the late career surge is not evidence at all, because you cannot show that steroids enhance performance by pointing to performance that you assume is steroid-aided. That's entirely circular.

As noted, these drugs are going to affect different guys in different ways, depending on natural ability, work ethic, drug cycles, trainers, and a 100 other factors. The fact that PEDs did not appear to help Alex Sanchez much does not mean they did not give Barry Bonds a massive boost. Looking at Bonds' numbers and concluding that they probably did is not unreasonable. You may think it's unfair, and you may be right, but it is not illogical.

Lots of things happen at the same time without being causally related. You can't jump directly from correlation to cause; that is absolutely illogical. Assuming that steroids gave Bonds a "massive" boost is particularly unreasonable; there's not good evidence that it gave him any boost at all, let alone a very large one.

If you're going to go so far as to say that Bonds can be special and get a monstrously special boost from steroids, then you can make the same argument that Bonds can be special and get a monstrously special boost from being awesomely talented and changing his workout regiment, or that Bonds can be special and get such a boost from increased nutrition, or better equipment, or pretty much anything. Once you start down the road of "Bonds is in a position, by nature of his incredibly talent, to get an unprecedented large benefit from X," you must accept that he could get a similarly unprecedented benefit from A, B, or C.

Otherwise you're still assuming what you're trying to prove: steroids caused significant baseball-enhancement. And as Ray says above, you need a lot more than one data point.

As to the double standards/fairness/amps issue, I am more on your side there, rather than in the middle. A lot of this is driven by the fact that people don't like Barry Bonds and don't like that he has the HR record, and as I said in 493, I think amps may have really helped some guys, like Pete Rose, even if, like steroids, they didn't help everybody.

I don't care much about the motives, because frankly, they're irrelevant. It's a terrible argument no matter who makes it. People make bad arguments for all sorts of reasons, but I suspect that it is just human nature not to demand a level of proof appropriate to pass down judgment on people. I think this is one of the most repulsive aspects of the human condition, and consider it everyone's moral responsibility to speak up for those unfairly judged.

I don't really know Andy or snapper very well, but I suspect that if I spent time either of them that we'd get along just fine. That said, I find their comfort in passing judgment with such scant evidence to be morally reprehensible, and I feel some obligation not to simply sit back and ignore that. That a large number of people in the public similarly pass judgment is troubling, but this is a much more tightly-knit community and I am comfortable directly addressing people within such a community.
   520. AJMcCringleberry Posted: August 06, 2011 at 10:16 PM (#3894449)
And your "no evidence" assertion is shaky. What we have is Bonds' late career surge, with a lot of mystery, a lot of accusations, a lot of blank spaces, and a lot of noise.

Well, your honor, we have plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.
   521. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 07, 2011 at 12:48 AM (#3894493)
It's not about a legal standard of proof; that the criminal defense standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not the source of my position.
Exactly; this is a complete strawman on Andy's part, repeated ad nauseam. (Note that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the criminal standard, not the "legal standard," although it's what Andy seems to mean. Courts use other standards -- e.g., "clear and convincing" or "preponderance of the evidence" -- in contexts other than the criminal.) The issue is not whether we use a criminal standard, but whether we use any standard of proof -- whether those making allegations are required to prove them by proffering actual evidence, or whether innuendo, rumor, guesswork and circular reasoning are sufficient.
   522. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 07, 2011 at 01:21 AM (#3894496)
It's not about a legal standard of proof; that the criminal defense standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not the source of my position.


Yes. I tried to explain this to Robinred a few hundred posts ago, but he continues not to understand it since he keeps repeating it.

That said, the late career surge is not evidence at all, because you cannot show that steroids enhance performance by pointing to performance that you assume is steroid-aided. That's entirely circular.


Yes.

If you're going to go so far as to say that Bonds can be special and get a monstrously special boost from steroids, then you can make the same argument that Bonds can be special and get a monstrously special boost from being awesomely talented and changing his workout regiment, or that Bonds can be special and get such a boost from increased nutrition, or better equipment, or pretty much anything. Once you start down the road of "Bonds is in a position, by nature of his incredibly talent, to get an unprecedented large benefit from X," you must accept that he could get a similarly unprecedented benefit from A, B, or C.


Yes.

I don't care much about the motives, because frankly, they're irrelevant. It's a terrible argument no matter who makes it. People make bad arguments for all sorts of reasons, but I suspect that it is just human nature not to demand a level of proof appropriate to pass down judgment on people. I think this is one of the most repulsive aspects of the human condition, and consider it everyone's moral responsibility to speak up for those unfairly judged.

I don't really know Andy or snapper very well, but I suspect that if I spent time either of them that we'd get along just fine. That said, I find their comfort in passing judgment with such scant evidence to be morally reprehensible, and I feel some obligation not to simply sit back and ignore that. That a large number of people in the public similarly pass judgment is troubling, but this is a much more tightly-knit community and I am comfortable directly addressing people within such a community.


And yes.

I, too, find it repulsive that people pass judgment in this way.
   523. rr Posted: August 07, 2011 at 02:04 AM (#3894501)
Yes. I tried to explain this to Robinred a few hundred posts ago, but he continues not to understand it since he keeps repeating it.


I don't buy that distinction in this context, but even if I did, I don't think it is a distinction that matters in this context. Bonds is not on trial for a crime. He was of course, but that was a different thing than this issue. One problem here is that you guys see the HOF very differently than Andy does.

That said, the late career surge is not evidence at all, because you cannot show that steroids enhance performance by pointing to performance that you assume is steroid-aided. That's entirely circular.


You just don't get it.

Andy may be right, snapper may be right; they may be wrong, and since we are not, as you have just suggested, in court, that is pretty much where the issue should be left.

That said, I find their comfort in passing judgment with such scant evidence to be morally reprehensible, and I feel some obligation not to simply sit back and ignore that.


They see the evidence about the issue of Barry Bonds apparent use of PEDs in an attempt to improve his baseball performance, such as it is, differently than you do and have a reached different conclusions. The fact that you find this "morally reprehensible" is sort of interesting, but I would suggest, as I would suggest to guys like Costas and Lupica and snapper who go on and on about Bonds' supposed transgressions, that you are framing the issue in a hyperbolic manner, at least rhetorically, and that doing so says as much about you as it does about the issue at hand.
   524. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 07, 2011 at 02:05 AM (#3894502)
In fact, if one were truly serious about showing that steroids significantly enhance baseball performance, one would start by *throwing out* Bonds and performing an analysis that never considers him.

Well, it's certainly true that the surest way to conclude that Bonds wasn't aided by steroids is to "*throw out*" Bonds's numbers. Allen Ruby couldn't have put it any better.

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

I don't really know Andy or snapper very well, but I suspect that if I spent time either of them that we'd get along just fine. That said, I find their comfort in passing judgment with such scant evidence to be morally reprehensible,

I'll bear that in mind.

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

And yes.

I, too, find it repulsive that people pass judgment in this way.


Ah, the tears---those crocodile tears.
   525. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 07, 2011 at 02:15 AM (#3894505)
One problem here is that you guys see the HOF very differently than Andy does.

Gee, ya reckon?

Andy may be right, snapper may be right; they may be wrong, and since we are not, as you have just suggested, in court, that is pretty much where the issue should be left.

That sure works for me, but I think these guys are holding out for lowering Barry Bonds's tax rate.

They see the evidence about the issue of Barry Bonds apparent use of PEDs in an attempt to improve his baseball performance, such as it is, differently than you do and have a reached different conclusions. The fact that you find this "morally reprehensible" is sort of interesting, but I would suggest, as I would suggest to guys like Costas and Lupica and snapper who go on and on about Bonds' supposed transgressions, that you are framing the issue in a hyperbolic manner, at least rhetorically, and that doing so says as much about you as it does about the issue at hand.

What, you don't think that being denied a plaque in the Hall of Fame is the equivalent of being stripped of your liberty, your property, and your penis? Where's your Niemoller quote book when you need it?
   526. rr Posted: August 07, 2011 at 02:16 AM (#3894506)
not to demand a level of proof appropriate to pass down judgment on people.


And how do you determine, and who determines, and what is, exactly, the "appropriate level of proof" to decide that a guy used PEDs for purposes of evaluating his baseball career? If you say "multiple positive drug tests" or something else that is not subjective and vague, fine.
   527. SM Posted: August 07, 2011 at 02:23 AM (#3894507)
If you're going to go so far as to say that Bonds can be special and get a monstrously special boost from steroids, then you can make the same argument that Bonds can be special and get a monstrously special boost from being awesomely talented and changing his workout regiment, or that Bonds can be special and get such a boost from increased nutrition, or better equipment, or pretty much anything.


In fact, since the one performance-enhancing drug we actually know Bonds was taking was amphetamines, it would make more sense to claim that that's the drug that's the cause of his late-career surge. He just got more of a surge from amphetamines than everyone else got (for the same mysterious reason that only he got that from steroids).

The only difference between the arguments "Bonds' homers are clearly the product of steroid use" and "Bonds' homers are clearly the product of amphetamine use" is that we actually know he did take amphetamines.

(Ignoring the possibility of false positives of course.)
   528. rr Posted: August 07, 2011 at 02:30 AM (#3894509)
that is absolutely illogical.


Like I said, you don't get it.

For the record, I don't really know, any more than you do, or ever will, whether steroids helped Bonds. I can see why people would conclude they probably did, and I can see why people would conclude that we don't know.

And having thought it over, I would vote for him for the HOF.
   529. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 07, 2011 at 02:48 AM (#3894516)
You just don't get it.

Andy may be right, snapper may be right; they may be wrong, and since we are not, as you have just suggested, in court, that is pretty much where the issue should be left.


What in the world does this have to do with "court"? This is just logic. Someone claimed X and we're saying there's no support for X. If the claim was that eating too much pizza causes Lyme disease, we'd ask what the evidence is to support it. The fact that someone may have eaten a lot of pizza and then later came down with Lyme disease is completely insufficient to support the claim.

That's all that's happening here. It has nothing to do with "the legal standard."
   530. Brian C Posted: August 07, 2011 at 02:51 AM (#3894517)
What, you don't think that being denied a plaque in the Hall of Fame is the equivalent of being stripped of your liberty, your property, and your penis?

This is a giant strawman, because of course no one is saying that this is just like a court and those you are alluding to have even explicitly said otherwise.

In fact, it's kind of ridiculous - having been unable to put together any sort of coherent argument for your position, you're now taking a stance that your argument is too trivial to argue with in a serious way. That's just completely dishonest, because you're allowing yourself the privilege of making an argument while casting anyone in disagreement with you as overreacting just because they bothered to object. It's the Rush Limbaught defense, basically - hey, I'm just an entertainer, if you think what I said is abhorrent it's just because you're taking this stuff too seriously.

We've been seeing hints of this in your repeated attempts to avoid addressing specific points because you've been doing so for six years, you say. Of course, your frustration with repitition hasn't stopped you from repeating your arguments constantly. It just stops you from responding to objections. Again, allowing yourself a privilege you deny to others.

There seems to be no end to your bs. Like I've said before, you're fairly skilled as a sophist, which I hope serves you well because sophistry seems to be all you've got.
   531. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 07, 2011 at 03:26 AM (#3894528)
In fact, if one were truly serious about showing that steroids significantly enhance baseball performance, one would start by *throwing out* Bonds and performing an analysis that never considers him.


Well, it's certainly true that the surest way to conclude that Bonds wasn't aided by steroids is to "*throw out*" Bonds's numbers. Allen Ruby couldn't have put it any better.


I was talking about the general issue of whether steroids significantly enhance baseball performance.

Say you're studying whether smoking can cause cancer and you have a large sample of smokers. Do you think throwing out one of those data points would change the conclusion?

You're relying on one data point - Bonds - to show that steroids significantly impact baseball performance. You bring up Bonds at every turn; on the previous page you do it when talking about spike seasons from the amp era, essentially saying "show me anything like Bonds's late career surge in the amps era." For example you wrote in Post 484:

I stress the lack of tests for amps because that would be the only possible way of demonstrating the PED qualities, since the "spike season" examples for amphetamines are either nonexistent or so insignificant as to be virtually random. There's nothing remotely comparable to those Bonds late career numbers, no matter how many times you try to grasp at comparative straws.

To you, Bonds proves that steroids significantly enhance baseball performance all by himself.
   532. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 07, 2011 at 03:27 AM (#3894529)
What, you don't think that being denied a plaque in the Hall of Fame is the equivalent of being stripped of your liberty, your property, and your penis?

This is a giant strawman, because of course no one is saying that this is just like a court and those you are alluding to have even explicitly said otherwise.


Then why the "morally reprehensible" rhetoric, which in one form or other has been the dominant theme directed against anyone who doesn't buy into their interpretation? Why not just a simple "I disagree, but YMMV"? There's no point in either this thread or any other steroids thread that I wouldn't have cheerfully accepted that as an answer.

In fact, it's kind of ridiculous - having been unable to put together any sort of coherent argument for your position, you're now taking a stance that your argument is too trivial to argue with in a serious way. That's just completely dishonest, because you're allowing yourself the privilege of making an argument while casting anyone in disagreement with you as overreacting just because they bothered to object. It's the Rush Limbaught defense, basically - hey, I'm just an entertainer, if you think what I said is abhorrent it's just because you're taking this stuff too seriously.

It's evidently beyond your comprehension that one can take an issue (steroids in baseball / steroid users in the Hall of Fame) seriously, while at the same time recognizing that there is more than one legitimate conclusion that one can draw from that starting point. To the extent that I wax flippant and sarcastic, 99% of the time it's simply in reaction to those of you who won't make this simple concession.

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

For the record, I don't really know, any more than you do, or ever will, whether steroids helped Bonds. I can see why people would conclude they probably did, and I can see why people would conclude that we don't know.

And having thought it over, I would vote for him for the HOF.


Robin can write this and leave it at that. Why can't you? I realize that Ray's merely trying to accumulate merit points towards his Barry Bonds Boy Scout badge, but what's your excuse?
   533. Brian C Posted: August 07, 2011 at 03:45 AM (#3894540)
Then why the "morally reprehensible" rhetoric, which in one form or other has been the dominant theme directed against anyone who doesn't buy into their interpretation? Why not just a simple "I disagree, but YMMV"? There's no point in either this thread or any other steroids thread that I wouldn't have cheerfully accepted that as an answer.

You're making a moral judgment! You're saying that Bonds doesn't deserve to be in the HoF because he doesn't satisfy the "character" requirement. And then you object when someone thinks that your moral reasoning is screwed up!

What a blazing hypocrite. You want to judge Bonds's morality, you ought to be prepared to have your own put under the microscope as well. You're not immune from criticism just because you think your judgment is subjective, and it's not like you haven't been willing to dish out as much as you take in the personal insult department.

It's evidently beyond your comprehension that one can take an issue (steroids in baseball / steroid users in the Hall of Fame) seriously, while at the same time recognizing that there is more than one legitimate conclusion that one can draw from that starting point.

Robin can write this and leave it at that. Why can't you? I realize that Ray's merely trying to accumulate merit points towards his Barry Bonds Boy Scout badge, but what's your excuse?

It's just sophist turtles, all the way down.
   534. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 07, 2011 at 05:06 AM (#3894557)
It's evidently beyond your comprehension that one can take an issue (steroids in baseball / steroid users in the Hall of Fame) seriously, while at the same time recognizing that there is more than one legitimate conclusion that one can draw from that starting point. To the extent that I wax flippant and sarcastic, 99% of the time it's simply in reaction to those of you who won't make this simple concession.
The fact that there may be "more than one legitimate conclusion" -- if it is indeed a fact -- does not therefore mean that all conclusions are legitimate. "YMMV" is not an argument.
   535. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 07, 2011 at 05:06 AM (#3894558)
[Double post]
   536. Jay Z Posted: August 07, 2011 at 05:20 AM (#3894562)
I don't really know Andy or snapper very well, but I suspect that if I spent time either of them that we'd get along just fine. That said, I find their comfort in passing judgment with such scant evidence to be morally reprehensible, and I feel some obligation not to simply sit back and ignore that. That a large number of people in the public similarly pass judgment is troubling, but this is a much more tightly-knit community and I am comfortable directly addressing people within such a community.


You need to understand that this is not a question of Bonds being in a criminal or civil trial. This is a case of Bonds being elected to the baseball equivilant of sainthood. Something that will likely never be undone. The votes are not really Yes or No for the real life HOF, they are Yes or Pass. If a voter isn't sure if a player belongs in the HOF or not, IMO they should not vote for the player. This is why in the real life HOF a player's vote total can and should go up over a period of years. Over time, more people become less unsure and vote for him when they didn't previously. In the black and white world of the Hall Of Merit, this tended to be looked down upon.

I am not sure what to do with Bonds et al. As a guy sitting on a couch, I guess I take the common views that Bonds (and others) took performance-enhancing drugs, it helped them some, the baseball establishment blew it by not enforcing testing early enough, etc. All of which is contrary to the almost mainstream, for BBTF, views that performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed, they don't do anything anyway, and even if they did you can't prove Bonds and others actually did anything, so it should all be ignored. Yes (gasp), I believe drugs can enhance performance, contrary to the orthodoxy here. For Bonds and the others right now, I'd probably give the Pass vote since there's too much doubt for me where they rank. Ask me again in a few years. Or throw your stones if you must, that's life.
   537. Jay Z Posted: August 07, 2011 at 05:47 AM (#3894563)
The fact that there may be "more than one legitimate conclusion" -- if it is indeed a fact -- does not therefore mean that all conclusions are legitimate. "YMMV" is not an argument.


This is not a factual argument, it's a moral argument. Or whether there should be a moral argument, if you prefer. Moral arguments are always more gray area, to me anyway. For some people it doesn't matter, because moral arguments are as black and white to them as physical arguments.
   538. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 07, 2011 at 01:09 PM (#3894591)
You need to understand that this is not a question of Bonds being in a criminal or civil trial. This is a case of Bonds being elected to the baseball equivalent of sainthood. Something that will likely never be undone. The votes are not really Yes or No for the real life HOF, they are Yes or Pass. If a voter isn't sure if a player belongs in the HOF or not, IMO they should not vote for the player. This is why in the real life HOF a player's vote total can and should go up over a period of years. Over time, more people become less unsure and vote for him when they didn't previously. In the black and white world of the Hall Of Merit, this tended to be looked down upon.

I am not sure what to do with Bonds et al. As a guy sitting on a couch, I guess I take the common views that Bonds (and others) took performance-enhancing drugs, it helped them some, the baseball establishment blew it by not enforcing testing early enough, etc. All of which is contrary to the almost mainstream, for BBTF, views that performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed, they don't do anything anyway, and even if they did you can't prove Bonds and others actually did anything, so it should all be ignored. Yes (gasp), I believe drugs can enhance performance, contrary to the orthodoxy here. For Bonds and the others right now, I'd probably give the Pass vote since there's too much doubt for me where they rank. Ask me again in a few years. Or throw your stones if you must, that's life.


Well put, Jay, though it's not going to win you any fans around here. They want you down on your knees confessing to the Error of your ways, and they want it now. Gray areas and conflicting thoughts are for sissies.

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

The fact that there may be "more than one legitimate conclusion" -- if it is indeed a fact -- does not therefore mean that all conclusions are legitimate. "YMMV" is not an argument.


This is not a factual argument, it's a moral argument. Or whether there should be a moral argument, if you prefer.

Or whether you're allowed to sift through BALCO, sift through the statistics, sift through history, and conclude that there can be more than one honest and legitimate answer to the question of "Does Barry Bonds belong in the Hall of Fame"? This is a PoV that these characters simply can't comprehend, and it seems to drive some of them (poor Brian C. in particular) to near apoplexy whenever it's expressed. At this point I feel more like an anthropologist than a participant, more motivated by the opportunity to observe the neo-PC mindset in action than anything else. It's not quite as fascinating as observing the Tea Party, but fortunately the stakes are a hell of a lot less lethal.
   539. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 07, 2011 at 03:36 PM (#3894647)
Yes (gasp), I believe drugs can enhance performance, contrary to the orthodoxy here. For Bonds and the others right now, I'd probably give the Pass vote since there's too much doubt for me where they rank. Ask me again in a few years. Or throw your stones if you must, that's life.


The problem for Andy is that he holds one view for steroids users and another view for amps users, while insisting on an impossible standard of evidence (lab tests replicated under MLB conditions) to show that amps are performance enhancing, and accepting no standard of evidence (circular reasoning, guesswork, one data point) to conclude that steroids are performance enhancing.

If you were to engage in the kind of illogical and intellectually dishonest arguments that Andy has on the subject, I trust you wouln't expect people to accept "YMMV" as an argument. "YMMV" is a way for Andy to try to pretend that his position is rational and legitimate.
   540. Brian C Posted: August 07, 2011 at 04:24 PM (#3894660)
Or whether you're allowed to sift through BALCO, sift through the statistics, sift through history, and conclude that there can be more than one honest and legitimate answer to the question of "Does Barry Bonds belong in the Hall of Fame"? This is a PoV that these characters simply can't comprehend, and it seems to drive some of them (poor Brian C. in particular) to near apoplexy whenever it's expressed. - Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot

And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults. - Sarah Palin

Go play your victim card somewhere else, Andy.
   541. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 07, 2011 at 05:17 PM (#3894672)
Go play your victim card somewhere else, Andy.

Sorry to see that your apoplexy seems to be getting the better of you, Brian, but coming from someone who's been weeping for several days over the cosmic injustice being done to a multi-million dollar roider, that "victim card" line is rather amusing.
   542. Juilin Sandar to Conkling Speedwell (Arjun) Posted: August 07, 2011 at 05:29 PM (#3894676)
Moderately unrelated, but "YMMV" has to be one of my least favorite acronyms. Every time I see it, I have to re-remind myself of what it means.
   543. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 07, 2011 at 05:44 PM (#3894683)
Moderately unrelated, but "YMMV" has to be one of my least favorite acronyms. Every time I see it, I have to re-remind myself of what it means.

I agree, and I only use it for "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" reasons. Something like "TEHO" (to each his own) would express it better.
   544. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 07, 2011 at 05:52 PM (#3894693)
Sorry to see that your apoplexy seems to be getting the better of you, Brian, but coming from someone who's been weeping for several days over the cosmic injustice being done to a multi-million dollar roider, that "victim card" line is rather amusing.


This is another reason why it feels like there's something beneath your comments. It doesn't matter how much money Bonds made.
   545. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 07, 2011 at 05:54 PM (#3894695)
Moderately unrelated, but "YMMV" has to be one of my least favorite acronyms. Every time I see it, I have to re-remind myself of what it means.


It's even less of a favorite when Andy invokes it to try to cloak his position in an aura of legitimacy.
   546. BDC Posted: August 07, 2011 at 05:58 PM (#3894703)
I'm fond of YMMV, though I admit I sometimes use it as a synonym for FOAD :)
   547. CrosbyBird Posted: August 07, 2011 at 07:31 PM (#3894757)
I don't buy that distinction in this context, but even if I did, I don't think it is a distinction that matters in this context. Bonds is not on trial for a crime. He was of course, but that was a different thing than this issue. One problem here is that you guys see the HOF very differently than Andy does.

This is not even a HOF argument (although that's the context). It is a "passing judgment" argument. It's not about "how you see the HOF" or "we're not in court"; those obscure the issue. It's about it being morally objectionable to pass judgment on someone without reasonable evidence.

You just don't get it.

No, I get it just fine. A circular argument is a broken argument and that is not something reasonable to disagree about. It's not a matter of opinion. Either you accept that or you're wrong. Objectively wrong.

You can argue that it's not immoral to pass judgment on someone without sound evidence in support, if that's your position. Reasonable people can disagree over matters of morality. You can't reasonably represent unsound evidence as sound evidence and say "it's just my opinion." Just like you can't reasonably say "the earth is flat, and you can't say I'm wrong because it's just my interpretation of the evidence."

Andy may be right, snapper may be right; they may be wrong, and since we are not, as you have just suggested, in court, that is pretty much where the issue should be left.

Let's say that you think black people are inferior. We're not in court. Should we just "leave the issue there"? Or should we insist that since passing such a judgment is harmful, that we have compelling evidence before taking that position and that any arguments made in support must be sound?

I am responding on two prongs: this position is morally repugnant (responses to which shouldn't ever be limited to a courtroom), and the arguments made to support this position are unsound. Obviously, the two are connected. A person can make a sound argument that I disagree with, and I'll accept that. A person can't make an unsound argument that is damaging to another human being and have me just sit back and ignore it as a difference of opinion. (I recognize that Andy and snapper are not actually damaging Bonds, but the argument and others of its type are damaging, and I feel a responsibility as a member of a community to address such arguments.)

They see the evidence about the issue of Barry Bonds apparent use of PEDs in an attempt to improve his baseball performance, such as it is, differently than you do and have a reached different conclusions. The fact that you find this "morally reprehensible" is sort of interesting, but I would suggest, as I would suggest to guys like Costas and Lupica and snapper who go on and on about Bonds' supposed transgressions, that you are framing the issue in a hyperbolic manner, at least rhetorically, and that doing so says as much about you as it does about the issue at hand.

There's nothing hyperbolic about it at all. Willfully accepting evidence of this quality as sufficient to pass harmful judgment on another human being is morally repugnant. It isn't as morally repugnant as rape or murder, of course, but it is absolutely worthy of censure.

I have no logical problem (although I will have a moral problem) with someone saying "my standard of evidence is this low, and I'd rather punish more guilty with weak evidence at the cost of punishing some innocents." But then you damn well better apply that standard consistently.
   548. CrosbyBird Posted: August 07, 2011 at 07:44 PM (#3894769)
For the record, I don't really know, any more than you do, or ever will, whether steroids helped Bonds. I can see why people would conclude they probably did, and I can see why people would conclude that we don't know.

I think you're the one not getting it. I have no problem with either of these conclusions; I hold them both (they probably helped and we don't know).

I have a logical problem with people concluding that Bonds definitely used steroids, or that steroids definitely helped Bonds, or that steroids definitely and massively helped Bonds.

I have a moral problem with people concluding that Bonds should not be in the HOF because steroids probably helped him. That's a significant punishment (and failing to provide someone with a rightfully deserved honor is no different than a punishment) for a lot of uncertainty. It also creates a false sense of accuracy; we now expect that everyone else in the HOF probably did not use steroids and/or was not massively aided by steroids, and that's another thing we can't possibly be certain about.
   549. CrosbyBird Posted: August 07, 2011 at 08:32 PM (#3894790)
You need to understand that this is not a question of Bonds being in a criminal or civil trial. This is a case of Bonds being elected to the baseball equivilant of sainthood.

I'm fine with that. Come up with a reasonable standard and apply it consistently, and we may disagree but I'll completely respect your position. There are people that give war credit for the HOF; I don't, but I don't reject the legitimacy of the position. I'd respect anyone who took the position that any failed test is an automatic ban for the HOF while disagreeing. I'd respect anyone who said Jack Morris belongs in the HOF if they would also vote for every other player that was similarly statistically qualified even though we have a remarkably different idea of the appropriate size of the HOF. I'd respect someone who wouldn't put Keith Hernandez in because they don't value his defense highly enough to merit induction even though I would and I do.

Hopefully, it's clear from the above that I'm not a "my way or the highway" kind of guy. There aren't two opinions on everything in the world, mine and the wrong one. That said, there are bad opinions and bad arguments, and I'm not going to suddenly respect bad opinions and bad arguments because YMMV.

All of which is contrary to the almost mainstream, for BBTF, views that performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed, they don't do anything anyway, and even if they did you can't prove Bonds and others actually did anything, so it should all be ignored.

You either don't have any idea what the "almost mainstream" position is, or you're deliberately mischaracterizing it.

I don't think baseball should allow performance-enhancing drugs (although they should be legal, as should all drugs). I think they do enhance baseball performance (although I think the amount of enhancement is grossly overstated). I don't think they should be ignored (although the government should absolutely ignore them). I favor the current testing program and I think the penalties are acceptable.

I think that if you can't prove that players took them then you shouldn't punish them. That's a very different proposition.

Yes (gasp), I believe drugs can enhance performance, contrary to the orthodoxy here.

I challenge you to find a single person taking the position that it is impossible for drugs to enhance performance, or that drugs most certainly do not enhance performance. (Except Andy. He seems to be convinced that amphetamines most certainly do not enhance performance.)

For Bonds and the others right now, I'd probably give the Pass vote since there's too much doubt for me where they rank. Ask me again in a few years. Or throw your stones if you must, that's life.

Do you share similar doubt about players who used amphetamines? Pick any player that you DO support for the HOF. Are you certain that they didn't use steroids?
   550. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 07, 2011 at 09:15 PM (#3894797)
I challenge you to find a single person taking the position that it is impossible for drugs to enhance performance, or that drugs most certainly do not enhance performance. (Except Andy. He seems to be convinced that amphetamines most certainly do not enhance performance.)

Just for the record, and for the 103rd time:

453. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot Posted: August 04, 2011 at 03:06 PM (#3892834)

I have to admit that it's kind of fun to watch you Talmudic scholars interpret what I've said, but since I don't want to see be the cause of a secondary catfight, I'll speak for myself and let you resume directing your barbs against me. So here it is from the horse's mouth:

---Amphetamines do enhance performance, but not past the point of any previously demonstrated well-rested talent level. There is not even a hint of statistical evidence that would suggest otherwise, and no tests that even begin to replicate the conditions of a Major League batter-pitcher matchup, with two pound clubs required to make perfect contact with baseballs thrown at constantly changing speeds and directions.

That this troublesome point is either dismissed or not acknowledged at all, but simply blown off as evidence of my scientific illiteracy, tells me a lot about the self-professed "openmindedness" of the people who constantly cite such tests as evidence of amphetamines' enhancement qualities.

---Amphetamines might well add to certain counting stats, and though that's making the assumption that repeated use of them has no counterbalancing negative effects, it's still an arguable case that I wouldn't rule out. If a player gets hooked on amps his overall production level might slip at some point, but it's also possible that for counting stats, the extra games might make up for it. I've acknowledged this sub-point for years, and have no problem with repeating that acknowledgment, but it's in an entirely different realm.


C-Bird, I realize that you vehemently dispute the highlighted words, and that you find my assertion impossible to prove one way or the other. Fair enough, and I'm not going to go through that again. And by this point I don't even care if you call my argument dishonest, hypocritical, morally reprehensible, or whatever. That's your choice of rhetoric and you're sticking to it. So be it. All I ask is that in the future you make sure that you indicate that I'm making the distinction, even if you object to my conclusion. Is that really asking too much?
   551. Foghorn Leghorn Posted: August 07, 2011 at 09:34 PM (#3894803)
---Amphetamines do enhance performance, but not past the point of any previously demonstrated well-rested talent level. There is not even a hint of statistical evidence that would suggest otherwise,
This is simply untrue. You are scientifically illiterate. At least you acknowledge that. Your absurd test on a specific baseball setting also applies to steroids, but you don't claim that as "beyond normal performance".

At least you are starting to recognize the assault on the record books by amps.
   552. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 07, 2011 at 09:37 PM (#3894805)
Andy, Crosbybird was talking about whether amps could possibly "enhance performance" past the rested state (or natural ability level). You think no, as you say above. So Crosbybird is correct about what your view is. Please read "enhance performance" in context.

Once again, your answer (highlighted above) is "yes but no," which means no. You did this earlier, too. Do you not understand the English language?
   553. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 07, 2011 at 09:43 PM (#3894807)
Dial, you were actually the first person to whom I made that comment, nearly four years ago to be exact, so I'm not sure where you get that "at least you are starting" bit. That keen scientific mind of yours seems to lack a certain amount of retentive qualities.

As for the rest of your rhetoric, I'll let you and Brian get a room together, since you're a match made in PED heaven. Ray can make the DVDs and peddle them at the next SABR meeting.
   554. rr Posted: August 07, 2011 at 11:02 PM (#3894837)
reasonable evidence.



And, this, mostly, IMO is why you don't get it. In a previous post, you called it the "appropriate level" of evidence. But whatever you want to call it, what that level is, is a subjective thing--again, because we are not in court, nor are we functioning as part of any organized body with written rules and standards. There is not even any precedent to which we can refer--Bonds is a unique case. There is no database to which we can refer or any metric through which we can run players' numbers to settle the issue. You can assert, if you like, that Andy's take on the evidence is morally reprehensible, illegitimate, unfair, silly, illogical, hypocritical, and any number of other things, but in the end, you are just making assertions about it based on your personal subjective preferences.

I think that if you can't prove that players took them then you shouldn't punish them.


That's a significant punishment (and failing to provide someone with a rightfully deserved honor is no different than a punishment) for a lot of uncertainty.


This is the other thing you are not seeing, as I said earlier. Andy sees the HOF as a very high honor, based on many criteria, and he does not think Bonds' overall conduct warrants admission because he has been connected in the ways that he has to steroids. You, OTOH, based on that statement, appear to think that unless you can "prove" (not legally, I assume, but I assume you have some personal idea of what constitutes non-legal but appropriate proof, other than the obvious--a confession) the guy used, you give him a plaque if he's got the numbers and isn't Pete Rose.

In this case, of course, there IS a body with written guidelines that is germane to the situation: the HOF. But as we all know, the HOF has not, although a few media guys have suggested it, created a policy on PEDs to guide the BBWAA voters. All there is, as I said a few hundred posts ago, is the vague and open-ended character clause, which puts us back in the realm of subjectivity.

I like you and this is getting a little testy, and neither of us is going to change his mind. So, you can have the last word. I am ready to move on.
   555. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 07, 2011 at 11:11 PM (#3894843)
--again, because we are not in court,


--again, please stop saying this. It has nothing to do with anything.

Andy sees the HOF as a very high honor, based on many criteria, and he does not think Bonds' overall conduct warrants admission because he has been connected in the ways that he has to steroids.


I think we all see the HOF as a very high honor, so that, too, has nothing to do with anything.

The point, as I've tried to tell you, is that Andy applies inconsistent standards for drugs that are performance enhancing.
   556. Brian C Posted: August 07, 2011 at 11:55 PM (#3894860)
Sorry to see that your apoplexy seems to be getting the better of you, Brian, but coming from someone who's been weeping for several days over the cosmic injustice being done to a multi-million dollar roider, that "victim card" line is rather amusing.

Two things here:

1) That word, "apoplexy" - you're really flattering yourself if you think that you're making me angry. You're just not intelligent enough to make me angry, because it's just too easy to see through your various forms of bullsh#t. This is fun for me. Someday I'll get into a political argument with Ray or Nieporent and they'll piss me off, because they're smart enough to understand how logical arguments are constructed and thus their dubious arguments will probably be much more difficult to address.

That said, I don't really know who you think you're impressing here with your obvious bad faith. You clearly understand that you've lost this battle on anything approaching logical grounds, and since you've stopped posting anything substantial whatsoever, you have decided that the best way to save face on some level is to poke some sticks in eyes. Actually, that's a bad metaphor ... make it "bite at some ankles." Like I said earlier, this is basically annoying little brother behavior, and I guess I hope it makes you feel better. I'm not a big fan of throwing my dignity down the shitter like that, but YMMV.

2) That's not really what the victim card is.
   557. AROM Posted: August 08, 2011 at 12:01 AM (#3894862)
It means that it's somewhere among the many factors, period. It means that without steroids, Bonds's late career power surge would have fallen short of where it actually was. This is the part of my position that you've equated with "intelligent design".**


I'm the one who first mentioned intelligent design in this thread, post #436. It was not in reference to any steroid position. It was in reference to giving respect for the non-statistical merits of the Jim Rice HOF case. As for steroids I'm not saying your arguments are stupid, just that I strongly disagree with them.

As for non-statistical HOF arguments, there are valid ones and there are stupid ones. Just as there are valid and stupid statistical arguments. Larry Doby has a valid argument for inclusion beyond the stats he put up and the value he had to winning baseball games. Jim Rice does not. First of all, there is no reason why "most feared slugger" should mean jack to a case when he's certainly not the best slugger of his time, and even if it were I strongly disagree that he was more feared, or even as feared, as some of his contemporaries.
   558. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 08, 2011 at 12:34 AM (#3894885)
And, this, mostly, IMO is why you don't get it. In a previous post, you called it the "appropriate level" of evidence. But whatever you want to call it, what that level is, is a subjective thing--again, because we are not in court, nor are we functioning as part of any organized body with written rules and standards. There is not even any precedent to which we can refer--Bonds is a unique case. There is no database to which we can refer or any metric through which we can run players' numbers to settle the issue. You can assert, if you like, that Andy's take on the evidence is morally reprehensible, illegitimate, unfair, silly, illogical, hypocritical, and any number of other things, but in the end, you are just making assertions about it based on your personal subjective preferences.
No. Logic is not "subjective" or based on "preferences," nor is it limited to "court."

What the appropriate punishment for a particular action should be is subjective. What the required standard of proof should be (as I cited earlier, beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing, preponderance of the evidence are the three standards usually used in court for the outcome of a case; probable cause is a much lower standard used only to initiate a case, not conclude it) is a matter of opinion. Whether to believe a particular witness is personal. But whether something is logical or not, whether two positions are consistent or not, is not subjective. Facts -- such as whether amphetamines can enhance performance -- are not.
   559. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 08, 2011 at 01:07 AM (#3894919)
Robinred, do you try to use logic when you post on BBTF -- whether you are in a baseball discussion, a basketball one, or a political one? Yes? Are you "in court" when you post on BBTF?

Are you "in court" when you use logic in your daily life? In your discussions with people on the phone? In your interactions with your students at work?

The observation that we are not "in court" when we discuss things here is nonsensical. Again, it's designed to provide cover for irrational views.
   560. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 08, 2011 at 01:13 AM (#3894934)
---Amphetamines do enhance performance, but not past the point of any previously demonstrated well-rested talent level. There is not even a hint of statistical evidence that would suggest otherwise, and no tests that even begin to replicate the conditions of a Major League batter-pitcher matchup, with two pound clubs required to make perfect contact with baseballs thrown at constantly changing speeds and directions.
Catching up out of sheer boredom. The above phrase has to be the most pulled-out-of-one's-arsehole invention ever written about anything, ever.
   561. rr Posted: August 08, 2011 at 01:29 AM (#3894952)
The observation that we are not "in court" when we discuss things here is nonsensical. Again, it's designed to provide cover for irrational views.


This really seems to have a struck a nerve. You don't really get what I was saying anyway, so you can drop it now.

On the limited issue of amps/roids, as Andy noted, I am more on your side, and that is one reason that I, unlike Andy, would vote for Bonds for HOF.

What the appropriate punishment for a particular action should be is subjective. What the required standard of proof should be (as I cited earlier, beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing, preponderance of the evidence are the three standards usually used in court for the outcome of a case; probable cause is a much lower standard used only to initiate a case, not conclude it) is a matter of opinion. Whether to believe a particular witness is personal.


Thanks for the backup.

Catching up out of sheer boredom.


David Stern can bite me. Go to the NBA Thread and biatch about Jim Buss or something so I'll have something nice to read.
   562. The District Attorney Posted: August 08, 2011 at 01:30 AM (#3894953)
What does it even matter? Even if it were true that amphetamines merely restore you to base level, these guys were below base level, and then they took something that enhanced their performance... correct? You would be required to further claim that, if there weren't amphetamines, the players wouldn't have gone out and partied to begin with. Which would be crazy.
   563. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 08, 2011 at 02:19 AM (#3894996)
The above phrase has to be the most pulled-out-of-one's-arsehole invention ever written about anything, ever.


Yes. To get tests that replicate the conditions of a major league pitcher-batter matchup, we'd have to amp half the pitchers and batters up mid-season and measure them against their previous levels (with the proper fielding installed), after a night of partying, while rested, etc. Basically, they'd have to be playing real games, under real conditions (or we'd have to stop the MLB season and pull a sample of players into a study for testing). Then Andy might believe that amps are performance enhancing (past the rested state, blah blah).

I say "might." I suspect even if the data from these tests showed it, he'd find a way to handwave it away in the span of one post. Regardless, this is the standard of evidence he is requiring to show that amps are performance enhancing -- basically, a standard of evidence that is impossible to meet. And you see the standard he accepts for steroids.
   564. Jay Z Posted: August 08, 2011 at 02:28 AM (#3895008)
You need to understand that this is not a question of Bonds being in a criminal or civil trial. This is a case of Bonds being elected to the baseball equivilant of sainthood.

I'm fine with that. Come up with a reasonable standard and apply it consistently, and we may disagree but I'll completely respect your position. There are people that give war credit for the HOF; I don't, but I don't reject the legitimacy of the position. I'd respect anyone who took the position that any failed test is an automatic ban for the HOF while disagreeing. I'd respect anyone who said Jack Morris belongs in the HOF if they would also vote for every other player that was similarly statistically qualified even though we have a remarkably different idea of the appropriate size of the HOF. I'd respect someone who wouldn't put Keith Hernandez in because they don't value his defense highly enough to merit induction even though I would and I do.

Hopefully, it's clear from the above that I'm not a "my way or the highway" kind of guy. There aren't two opinions on everything in the world, mine and the wrong one. That said, there are bad opinions and bad arguments, and I'm not going to suddenly respect bad opinions and bad arguments because YMMV.


That's fair, thank you.

All of which is contrary to the almost mainstream, for BBTF, views that performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed, they don't do anything anyway, and even if they did you can't prove Bonds and others actually did anything, so it should all be ignored.You either don't have any idea what the "almost mainstream" position is, or you're deliberately mischaracterizing it.


There are people here who have all of those opinions, and there is a contingent who sees Bonds as a rebel or something and cheers him on consequently. The above is not all that well stated by myself though, so I'll just retract it.

I don't think baseball should allow performance-enhancing drugs (although they should be legal, as should all drugs). I think they do enhance baseball performance (although I think the amount of enhancement is grossly overstated). I don't think they should be ignored (although the government should absolutely ignore them). I favor the current testing program and I think the penalties are acceptable.


Agree with you on testing. Unsure on effects of the enhancement of performance. We're never going to agree on legalization of all drugs.

I think that if you can't prove that players took them then you shouldn't punish them. That's a very different proposition.

I don't consider withholding bestowal of an honor a punishment in that you are taking something away from somebody. You are just not giving it to them, and not at that particular time.
Yes (gasp), I believe drugs can enhance performance, contrary to the orthodoxy here.

I challenge you to find a single person taking the position that it is impossible for drugs to enhance performance, or that drugs most certainly do not enhance performance. (Except Andy. He seems to be convinced that amphetamines most certainly do not enhance performance.)

For Bonds and the others right now, I'd probably give the Pass vote since there's too much doubt for me where they rank. Ask me again in a few years. Or throw your stones if you must, that's life.

Do you share similar doubt about players who used amphetamines? Pick any player that you DO support for the HOF. Are you certain that they didn't use steroids?


I wouldn't call myself an expert on either. Just an average fan. Amphetamines always had more social acceptance than steroids, what with the jars of them in the locker room. Maybe management looked the other way with steroids a lot, but there's a difference. Steroids et al have always been more furtive.

Example: Tony Mandarich, the football player. Mandarich looked like a god, impossibly good in college. Drafted 2nd in the draft by the Packers, ahead of Barry Sanders. When he reported to the Packers, he looked like a different person. A shadow of himself. Never played well with the Packers, eventually was released and retired, came back with the Colts for a couple of decent years.

Mandarich always denied taking steroids, consistently. Until he changed his story and admitted he'd used them heavily at Michigan State, and stopped once he joined the Packers.

We're all familiar with the story and rumors about Bonds, so I won't repeat it. Bonds is not Mandarich. But there's often this denial, denial, denial with steroids, then the admission years later like they're Charles Van Doren. Steroids have always had this falseness, this fraud associated with them that amphetamines never had. People can relate to amphetamines as a more extreme version of caffeine. This is not to say that they shouldn't be tested for and banned today, I'm fine with that. Some sports do the same with caffeine. I can't relate to the steroids drugs in the same way. You're free to try and convince me otherwise.
   565. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 08, 2011 at 03:53 AM (#3895148)
But there's often this denial, denial, denial with steroids, then the admission years later like they're Charles Van Doren. Steroids have always had this falseness, this fraud associated with them that amphetamines never had.


I disagree. The "fraud" and "hiding" with steroids came years later, after the issue suddenly swelled into a hysteria and players were being scorned and asked to pee in cups and dragged in front of Congress to testify with the father who had the dead son. At the time players started using them -- mostly the 90s -- it was completely unremarkable. They were illegal so the teams didn't supply them, but the teams also didn't care whether their players were using them, and the players were fairly open with each other, sharing needles and dealers, etc.

If you did something completely unremarkable at the time -- something similar to what past generations of drug users engaged in without repercussion -- and then later you were scorned and defamed and called a fraud and had your career accomplishments called into question, you might "deny, deny, deny" also.
   566. Brian C Posted: August 08, 2011 at 04:34 AM (#3895232)
I don't consider withholding bestowal of an honor a punishment in that you are taking something away from somebody. You are just not giving it to them, and not at that particular time.

I meant to say earlier, when you first brought it up, that I think this is a completely reasonable approach. I don't have a problem with anyone who says they don't have the information they need to make a decision and prefers to wait for more facts to become known.

That's not to say that I agree - I'd vote Bonds in right now if it were up to me. But I respect the approach.

At the time players started using them -- mostly the 90s...

How do you mean this? Tom House has said that steroid use was widespread in the early 70s.
   567. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 08, 2011 at 04:46 AM (#3895244)
#566, I also meant to say that I also don't consider withhholding bestowal of an honor a punishment. But I do consider treating similar situations inconsistently -- withholding bestowal of an honor for one but not the other -- to be unfair. I do consider withholding bestowal of the honor based on illogical or dishonest arguments to be wrong.

How do you mean this? Tom House has said that steroid use was widespread in the early 70s.


Yes, steroids have been available to ballplayers since Maris's time, and I have little doubt that players at least dabbled in them going back to that era. But the late 80s or early 90s is when baseball players started weight training more, and then it follows that steroids are used more in connection with that. IIRC the first time McGwire admits to experimenting with them, they weren't even illegal. Soon they became so, but nobody in management cared. When players were using them in the 90s, they had no reason to believe that just a few years later the public would erupt in rage over the issue, with people like Mike Lupica and Henry Waxman and Joey B. and Andy carrying pitchforks and leading a witch hunt over the issue.
   568. Brian C Posted: August 08, 2011 at 05:05 AM (#3895251)
But the late 80s or early 90s is when baseball players started weight training more, and then it follows that steroids are used more in connection with that. IIRC the first time McGwire admits to experimenting with them, they weren't even illegal. Soon they became so, but nobody in management cared. When players were using them in the 90s, they had no reason to believe that just a few years later the public would erupt in rage over the issue, with people like Mike Lupica and Henry Waxman and Joey B. and Andy carrying pitchforks and leading a witch hunt over the issue.

If you're talking late 80s/early 90s, though, this is hard to square with the pariah status given to Ben Johnson in the 1988 Seoul games. I was still a kid at the time, but it seems to me that steroids were considered a huge boogeyman by the time period you're talking about - besides Johnson, I certainly remember lots of East German swimmer jokes and stuff like that. Lyle Alzado was already dead by 1992.

Now you're probably right that there was no public angst that was specifically centered on baseball, but it seems pretty obvious that the public wasn't cool with steroids in the way you're suggesting.
   569. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 08, 2011 at 05:30 AM (#3895254)
If you're talking late 80s/early 90s, though, this is hard to square with the pariah status given to Ben Johnson in the 1988 Seoul games. I was still a kid at the time, but it seems to me that steroids were considered a huge boogeyman by the time period you're talking about - besides Johnson, I certainly remember lots of East German swimmer jokes and stuff like that. Lyle Alzado was already dead by 1992.
When Tom Boswell claimed that Jose Canseco used steroids, it was 1988. He said it offhandedly, and nobody cared. Oh, fans chanted "steroids" at Canseco in the playoffs, but they were taunting him, not attacking him. There was no anger in those chants, no hint of "He's a cheater and should be banned." And there was no followup. The issue disappeared. Nobody cared.

Steroids were legal at the time, and not banned by baseball; they were banned by the Olympics.
   570. CrosbyBird Posted: August 08, 2011 at 05:35 AM (#3895256)
All I ask is that in the future you make sure that you indicate that I'm making the distinction, even if you object to my conclusion. Is that really asking too much?

Every single time I respond to you, I have to acknowledge a ridiculous distinction that you've made? Even when that particular distinction isn't at all relevant to my point? Yes, that is too much to ask. I haven't misrepresented your argument and I resent the implication.

I thought it was very clear that I was using "enhance performance" in the context of "beyond one's otherwise attainable potential."
   571. CrosbyBird Posted: August 08, 2011 at 05:56 AM (#3895260)
You can assert, if you like, that Andy's take on the evidence is morally reprehensible, illegitimate, unfair, silly, illogical, hypocritical, and any number of other things, but in the end, you are just making assertions about it based on your personal subjective preferences.

If I disagree with him in a moral sense (and I most certainly do), it is entirely subjective, as are all moral distinctions. I've never once suggested otherwise.

If I disagree with him in a logical sense (as I do when I discuss his inconsistent standards and his circular logic), that is objective. Saying "you can't say that steroids enhance performance by pointing to performance that you assume is enhanced as evidence" isn't a difference of opinion. It is entirely objective. The reasoning is circular, and that makes the argument poor. Saying "you're demanding a level of precision for steroids than you don't demand for amphetamines" is not a matter of opinion. It's what he's doing.

There are two issues: Andy is making a terrible argument (objectively bad), and Andy is making a morally repulsive argument (subjectively bad).

This is the other thing you are not seeing, as I said earlier. Andy sees the HOF as a very high honor, based on many criteria, and he does not think Bonds' overall conduct warrants admission because he has been connected in the ways that he has to steroids. You, OTOH, based on that statement, appear to think that unless you can "prove" (not legally, I assume, but I assume you have some personal idea of what constitutes non-legal but appropriate proof, other than the obvious--a confession) the guy used, you give him a plaque if he's got the numbers and isn't Pete Rose.

Not at all. I think if Andy can come up with a set of consistent and logical principles, he can make a reasonable argument for Bonds being out. But those principles must all be consistent and logical, and not be a result of obvious bias. Demanding greater experimental proof for amphetamines than steroids is unprincipled, not because they are steroids and amphetamines, but because having two different sets of rules for standard of proof is unprincipled.

In this case, of course, there IS a body with written guidelines that is germane to the situation: the HOF. But as we all know, the HOF has not, although a few media guys have suggested it, created a policy on PEDs to guide the BBWAA voters. All there is, as I said a few hundred posts ago, is the vague and open-ended character clause, which puts us back in the realm of subjectivity.

I have no problem with the character clause, but when making individual decisions, it cannot be personally vague and open-ended. For example, I would not vote for any player found guilty of gambling or taking money to affect the outcome of a game. The consistently applied principle is "players who engage in acts that, obviously by their nature, or through official representation by the rules of MLB, create the risk of the contest on the field being something other than a contest." This means I'd also reject any player who threw a game, even if it were not gambling related, or any player convicted of bribing an umpire. You can very easily see what new sort of situation will be a ban-worthy offense, because I have clear and consistent principles.

With Andy, if there were a new substance that players started taking, I could not know whether he'd classify it as amphetamine-level enhancement or steroid-level enhancement. He has no clear distinction except the ones he creates arbitrarily.

I like you and this is getting a little testy, and neither of us is going to change his mind. So, you can have the last word. I am ready to move on.

No worries. I think you recognize where I'm coming from, and that I'm not making anything personal.
   572. Juilin Sandar to Conkling Speedwell (Arjun) Posted: August 08, 2011 at 06:05 AM (#3895261)
I agree, and I only use it for "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" reasons. Something like "TEHO" (to each his own) would express it better.

Exactly. Anyone know the genesis of "YMMV" (I'm guessing it's from some pop culture thing from before I was born)?
   573. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 08, 2011 at 06:13 AM (#3895263)
When Tom Boswell claimed that Jose Canseco used steroids, it was 1988. He said it offhandedly, and nobody cared. Oh, fans chanted "steroids" at Canseco in the playoffs, but they were taunting him, not attacking him. There was no anger in those chants, no hint of "He's a cheater and should be banned." And there was no followup. The issue disappeared. Nobody cared.
Boswell's article on Canseco actually came out in 1989, I believe, but yeah, nobody cared. When Steve Wilstein started writing about McGwire's use of andro in 1998, fans and other sportswriters were actively hostile about Wilstein's observations. It really wasn't until Bonds and his assault on 755 that steroids became considered a real problem. Until Bonds, no one apparently had developed any principles with regard to steroids, and they've been overcompensating ever since.
   574. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 08, 2011 at 06:32 AM (#3895266)
Boswell's article on Canseco actually came out in 1989, I believe, but yeah, nobody cared.
It wasn't an article; it was an interview on Charlie Rose, (*) and it was before the 1988 postseason. The chants took place in Boston during the ALCS, IIRC.
When Steve Wilstein started writing about McGwire's use of andro in 1998, fans and other sportswriters were actively hostile about Wilstein's observations.
Yeah; the attitude was that Wilstein had done something wrong.


(*) EDIT: Google tells me that while he did say it to Charlie Rose, it was not "on Charlie Rose," which didn't exist back then, but on CBS News, where he was at the time.
   575. AJMcCringleberry Posted: August 08, 2011 at 08:33 AM (#3895275)
This thread is funny.

"Do you have evidence for your claims?"
"We're not in court!"
Page 6 of 6 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BarrysLazyBoy
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogFraley: Millions in lost revenue from ticket sales will impact Rangers payroll | Dallas Morning News
(58 - 7:27am, Sep 16)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(2510 - 7:16am, Sep 16)
Last: Misirlou's been working for the drug squad

NewsblogNed Yost Is The Worst Manager, Except For All The Other Managers
(1 - 7:15am, Sep 16)
Last: Bug Selig

NewsblogA’s lose Triple-A Sacramento affiliate
(20 - 7:13am, Sep 16)
Last: Boileryard

NewsblogBowman: A year’s worth of struggles leads reason to wonder what changes are in store for the Braves
(17 - 6:26am, Sep 16)
Last: Dr. Vaux

NewsblogDave Kreiger: New Baseball Hall of Fame voting rules
(36 - 3:16am, Sep 16)
Last: MelOtt4

NewsblogSteven Matz, other top minor league Mets to be honored at Citi Field on Monday
(5 - 2:28am, Sep 16)
Last: Win Big Stein's Money

NewsblogPapelbon blows lead, gets ejected for crotch-grabbing at fans
(61 - 1:32am, Sep 16)
Last: Dog on the sidewalk

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(813 - 12:15am, Sep 16)
Last: Win Big Stein's Money

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-15-2014
(78 - 11:46pm, Sep 15)
Last: RollingWave

NewsblogHeyman: Mariners have decided not to retain the ice-cream buying scout
(4 - 11:45pm, Sep 15)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogSports Bog: Fans Switch From Skins to Nats
(62 - 11:41pm, Sep 15)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogCalcaterra: Derek Jeter got a bucket of crabs and a captain’s hat from the Orioles
(12 - 11:41pm, Sep 15)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(219 - 10:43pm, Sep 15)
Last: frannyzoo

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(161 - 10:11pm, Sep 15)
Last: NJ in DC (Now with temporary employment!)

Page rendered in 1.2199 seconds
54 querie(s) executed