Not to his employer, it isn't. What's important to his employer is Josh Hamilton producing on the baseball field.

Which is, in and of itself, why Hamilton shouldn't give two shits about what the Rangers think about him quitting tobacco.

Once someone says that they don't care whether or not you die, they don't deserve to have any input in the course of your life.

I don't see why the forum, or the speaker, makes much of a difference, on how obnoxious a comment is. That has always struck me as a weak cover.

I'm not really sure how this is an argument. I'm not sure how the forum or speaker doesn't make a difference. There's plenty of things that I feel comfortable saying to a circle of friends that I wouldn't say in a professional setting; plenty of them I'll stand by as correct and reasonable, but inappropriate for certain settings. It's one thing for me to make fun of magic undies to a like minded friend, another altogether to do so while speaking to a mixed crowd. Avoiding offending others is pretty relevant in day to day life.

Which is, in and of itself, why Hamilton shouldn't give two shits about what the Rangers think about him quitting tobacco.

That's a different issue than the childish, fanboy claim that Nolan Ryan was somehow wrong in what he said.

Changing a routine, in a sport known for routine, and subjecting oneself to withdrawl symptoms in the middle of the season on the basis that you think you're making God angry (his words indicate that's his reasoning, I'm not making things up) is pretty damned odd to me. Perhaps you disagree, but surely you can see why some would think this to be odd behavior?

Exactly. And he's had this habit for eleven years. And he's forcing himself to quit, prioritizing multiple things over his short-term ability to hit baseballs, in what most players would view as the home stretch of their contract year, not to mention the whole pennant race thing. This guy is not like other players, whether that's good or bad.

Maybe Hamilton felt like it would be easier for him to quit and not fall back into other bad habits if he did it within the structured environment of the baseball season, with his teammates and coaches around.

Either way, I agree that this is extremely petty by Nolan Ryan.

I'm not really sure how this is an argument. I'm not sure how the forum or speaker doesn't make a difference. There's plenty of things that I feel comfortable saying to a circle of friends that I wouldn't say in a professional setting; plenty of them I'll stand by as correct and reasonable, but inappropriate for certain settings. It's one thing for me to make fun of magic undies to a like minded friend, another altogether to do so while speaking to a mixed crowd. Avoiding offending others is pretty relevant in day to day life.

You do you realize this is a mixed crowd, right?

It's a public forum. The fact that it's not national television, but instead a public forum, and that we're operating under pseudonyms and not our real names doesn't change the fact that the comments here are being put out for public consumption for people who share one main interest but are by no means a homogeneous entity. So no, I don't see any meaningful difference, and the attempts to distinguish have always struck me as lame justifications. YMMV, but since we were talking about what I find obnoxious, your mileage doesn't really matter.

Am I allowed to think that Ryan is being petty and should not have told this to anyone, yet also understand his irritation?

If Ryan honestly believes that Hamilton quiting dip is what causes him to slump, then I can understand the gut reaction to wonder why he chose then, of all times, to quit an 11 year old habit (or however long it was), when waiting a couple of months would probably not have done much to Hamilton's health.

Yet even understanding that, he should also understand that it is a health thing and good for Hamilton, so Ryan should have just shut up about it.

Yet even understanding that, he should also understand that it is a health thing and good for Hamilton, so Ryan should have just shut up about it.

Why? An owner publicly explaining the organization's decision-making criteria to the paying fanbase strikes me as a positive good. I'd venture there are people in DFW who are ripping Ryan, so his public statements aren't cost-free.

Dip doesn't "cause" oral cancer; it increases the odds of incurring oral cancer, which remain very small even for dippers.


By that standard, radiation doesn't "cause" cancer, either,

Nor does sex cause pregnancy.

Ryan's criticism of Hamilton is quite odd when you consider they we supportive of Ron Washington getting help to quit his cocaine habit in 2009 (which also happened in the middle of a season).

You do you realize this is a mixed crowd, right?

It's a public forum. The fact that it's not national television, but instead a public forum, and that we're operating under pseudonyms and not our real names doesn't change the fact that the comments here are being put out for public consumption for people who share one main interest but are by no means a homogeneous entity.

Sure, but the milieu of an online discussion forum is such that comments that would offend someone in face to face discussion generally don't on a forum, as they're quite easy to simply ignore. It's a lot easier to read over a comment, think, "that's ignorant and offensive" and ignore it than it is to walk away from an in person conversation.

So no, I don't see any meaningful difference, and the attempts to distinguish have always struck me as lame justifications.

That seems odd to me that you think context and audience are essentially irrelevant. I feel like I must be misreading you.

YMMV, but since we were talking about what I find obnoxious, your mileage doesn't really matter.

That's fine. I think speaking about one's religious tastes, in either direction, in the context of an interviewer that's interested in your career path is quite obnoxious, but that talking about it an online forum where it's topic appropriate is not. Clearly you disagree; such is life.

Why?

Out of self-preservation, if nothing else, since saying what he said makes him look like a petty, unfeeling jackass and presents his organization in a bad light.

An owner publicly explaining the organization's decision-making criteria to the paying fanbase strikes me as a positive good.

If Ryan were doing that, he'd give an interview tomorrow saying that he decided to complain about Hamilton quitting tobacco because it helps insulate the franchise from criticism over greasing the skids for a popular and productive player to leave town, rather than shutting up and paying up to preserve their playoff-caliber roster.

Am I allowed to think that Ryan is being petty and should not have told this to anyone, yet also understand his irritation?

I'm kind of in this camp too. Even if you're irritated, there's no real reason to trash talk the guy for something that's pretty far down the list of objectionable things. It makes me wonder if Hamilton is just a really annoying dude and the tobacco issue was just a small part of a collection of tiny annoying behaviors that added up to a constant annoyance.

On the other hand, people rarely mention having a baby as a potential distraction, even though that's certainly controllable and can could be as much of a distraction as quitting tobacco.

Ryan's being an ass hat, and SBB, your position is bizarre given your PED stance (which I agree with).

No player should be asked to do anything harmful to his health in order to play better.

If Ryan honestly believes that Hamilton quiting dip is what causes him to slump, then I can understand the gut reaction to wonder why he chose then, of all times

I don't understand the "then, of all times" reasoning, or why Ryan says that the timing couldn't have been worse. Hamilton didn't try to quit on the eve of the World Series or something - he quit early-ish in the season with his team holding a huge lead in the standings if I recall correctly. That is isn't as good timing as quitting in December, but otherwise why is that timing so bad?

It makes me wonder if Hamilton is just a really annoying dude and the tobacco issue was just a small part of a collection of tiny annoying behaviors that added up to a constant annoyance.

Don't we already know this is the case? I mean, he might be a wonderful guy to some people, but I'm almost positive he'd grate on my nerves. The "no champagne for the celebration" thing would have really ticked me off. Really, 50 people can't do a fun, traditional thing because one person can't ####### control himself? Even if I understand why it's the case, I'm pretty sure it's still irritating to have someone around that wants the special consideration that Hamilton does.

It's a lot easier to read over a comment, think, "that's ignorant and offensive" and ignore it than it is to walk away from an in person conversation.

None of us were in an in-person conversation with Josh Hamilton.

That seems odd to me that you think context and audience are essentially irrelevant. I feel like I must be misreading you.

No. I just don't think there's much difference in context and audience between a heavily visited public forum and a TV interview, no. And think the attitude that this place is somehow different is merely a flimsy cover when we write the kind of insulting or offensive #### that we criticize others for.

None of us were in an in-person conversation with Josh Hamilton.

You're right, I'm mixing up situations to the point where my argument is incoherent (I'm not being sarcastic, genuine mea culpa).

The "no champagne for the celebration" thing would have really ticked me off. Really, 50 people can't do a fun, traditional thing because one person can't ####### control himself? Even if I understand why it's the case, I'm pretty sure it's still irritating to have someone around that wants the special consideration that Hamilton does.

Just out of curiosity: Did Hamilton ever ask the Rangers to not celebrate with champagne/beer? I seem to recall he said he'd wear some goggles and long clothes so it wouldn't get in or on him but I don't think I've ever seen him make any request that the rest of the team shouldn't celebrate the traditional way. Am I mistaken?

Cause I could totally see how he'd be an asshat for the latter, but not for the former.

I'm kind of in this camp too. Even if you're irritated, there's no real reason to trash talk the guy for something that's pretty far down the list of objectionable things. It makes me wonder if Hamilton is just a really annoying dude and the tobacco issue was just a small part of a collection of tiny annoying behaviors that added up to a constant annoyance.

That sounds about right. An executive saying things like this is unnecessary and mean-spirited.

At least it wasn't leaked anonymously.

Sure, but the milieu of an online discussion forum is such that comments that would offend someone in face to face discussion generally don't on a forum, as they're quite easy to simply ignore. It's a lot easier to read over a comment, think, "that's ignorant and offensive" and ignore it than it is to walk away from an in person conversation.

But hearing someone say something on TV is a face to face moment that you can't walk away from? Is Hamilton now going around to people's houses and proselytizing?

Don't we already know this is the case? I mean, he might be a wonderful guy to some people, but I'm almost positive he'd grate on my nerves. The "no champagne for the celebration" thing would have really ticked me off. Really, 50 people can't do a fun, traditional thing because one person can't ####### control himself? Even if I understand why it's the case, I'm pretty sure it's still irritating to have someone around that wants the special consideration that Hamilton does.

Dammit, why are you people forcing me to defend someone I don't like? When did Hamilton ever ask for special consideration? This was from after the 2010 ALDS win:


As soon as the Texas Rangers hugged on the field and headed for the tunnel following a 5-1 ALDS Game 5 win over the Tampa Bay Rays, the clubhouse attendants told Hamilton to get his goggles on.
"I was getting a little worried," Hamilton said. "I didn't know what was going on."
Hamilton, who has battled drug and alcohol addiction, said it's best for him not to be around champagne. So he walked into the clubhouse to find his teammates waiting on him and holding bottles of Canada Dry ginger ale.
"Everybody yelled 'Ginger ale!' and I just jumped in the middle of the pile and they doused me with it," Hamilton said. "It was the coolest thing for my teammates to understand why I can't be a part of the celebration, and for them to adapt it for me to be a part of it says a lot about my teammates."

Boy, his teammates do seem to hate him. Clearly he's annoying to everyone around him.

It's weird that Josh Hamilton was the first guy ever to quit chewing tobacco during the season.

Ryan's being an ass hat, and SBB, your position is bizarre given your PED stance (which I agree with).

There's really no inconsistency. The employers' interests are very often being furthered if players do PEDs. Why do you think Steinbrenner did the famous cross-off of "steroids" in Giambi's contract?

I sort of thought we were all assuming that the Wild West phase of the Steroid Era, the best GMs were totally plugged in on who was doing what. It strikes me that they weren't doing their job if they weren't.

Back to Hamilton, Ryan's and Hamilton's best interests are, to a not insignficant degree, opposed. What's the point in pretending otherwise?

I don't think I've ever seen an atheist athlete make a big deal of having a problem with religion

You don't remember Godless George Geary on the 1980s Giants? After he hit a home run, he would point in no particular direction, and ascribe all the glory of his feat to a random, purposeless universe. When he quit cocaine, he attributed his decision to a rational cost/benefit analysis, and thanked various powers on his own exact height, such as his girlfriend, his brother-in-law, and the Ethical Culture Society.

Is nobody considering that if (in his own mind if nothing else) God told him to quit tobacco and he did not, the defiance of his deity might have caused him mental anguish enough to make him play worse?

It's just an undisciplined and weird thing for Hamilton to do.

This strikes me as a really strange way to describe giving up nicotine.

Rangers beat writer Evan Grant weighs in.

“Quite frankly, he’s not the smartest guy in the world and sometimes, he thinks he is. I think that whether it was the chaw, or the eye issue, or the knee, this guy always has something medically that he has to deal with. He can go forward but he’s not content until he gets a diagnosis. You go back to ‘hey guys, it’s me, it’s Josh, it’s going to be something weird’ so the weirder the diagnosis the easier it is for him to move on. He’s tried chewing tobacco before, and it has impacted him during the season. You never want to say a guy should keep chewing tobacco, but in his case, there is some evidence behind it.”

I don't believe that anyone (and I include both SBB and Nolan Ryan in that) would have said to Josh Hamilton that he should wait until after the season to stop chewing. I am also very skeptical that there is a direct causal relationship between the quitting and the decline in batting. This seems like people are inventing a reason for Hamilton's decline.

(EDIT: Basically what I'm saying is Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.)

Back to Hamilton, Ryan's and Hamilton's best interests are, to a not insignficant degree, opposed. What's the point in pretending otherwise?

Even if their business interests are opposed - and I think the evidence for that is a lot weaker than Ryan implies - their interests as moral actors should be perfectly in line. Hamilton's health is a lot more important. So Ryan, in choosing his (possible) economic interest over his moral interest, is indeed fully deserving of criticism.

I don't believe that anyone (and I include both SBB and Nolan Ryan in that) would have said to Josh Hamilton that he should wait until after the season to stop chewing.

Of course not. I would have wished him well and told him to use the team's doctors, or other normal professionals, and wean himself off it. I also would have said to myself, "Why the #### didn't you do this last offseason," (*) and when he started talking about doing it because of God and Jesus, I would have started wondering if I wanted to commit big money to him.

(*) As I would have if he told me about an injury he could have had treated in the last offseason. That's what offseasons are for -- you deal with these lingering issues when you have the time to deal with the rehab and/or the fallout. A 31 year old should understand this.

So Ryan, in choosing his (possible) economic interest over his moral interest, is indeed fully deserving of criticism.

Ryan has no "moral interest" in Hamilton not waiting a couple months to quit dip.(*) You're simply retching at the realities of American business and financial life, which is certainly understandable, but not really a guide to appropriate action.

(*) And there's no need for the parens around "possible." This isn't the typical workplace situation where you and the 31-year-old forsee a potential several-decade-long business relationship, and so you do have an economic interest in the general health and well-being of the employee. Hamilton was essentially a temp employee of the Rangers this year. That, too, is a harsh reality, but a reality nonetheless.

I would love if the Red Sox signed Hamilton.

On the other hand, people rarely mention having a baby as a potential distraction, even though that's certainly controllable and can could be as much of a distraction as quitting tobacco.

Actually, not nearly as controllable as you might think. At least in so far as you are timing when you want the child born.

I don't understand the "then, of all times" reasoning, or why Ryan says that the timing couldn't have been worse. Hamilton didn't try to quit on the eve of the World Series or something - he quit early-ish in the season with his team holding a huge lead in the standings if I recall correctly. That is isn't as good timing as quitting in December, but otherwise why is that timing so bad?

Becuase it has the potential to effect the season. Again, I am not necessarily agreeing with Ryan, but I can seem him thinking why mess with what is working. Why not just wait until November? Players put other things off until the off-season, so why not this as well?

I do tend to think that if the Rangers hold off the As, this never gets mentioned. Ryan is looking back at all the little (and not so little) things that went wrong and this one is standing out, even if it was not necessarily foreseeable.

Ryan is looking back at all the little (and not so little) things that went wrong and this one is standing out...

But Michael Young doesn't?!?

Becuase it has the potential to effect the season. Again, I am not necessarily agreeing with Ryan, but I can seem him thinking why mess with what is working. Why not just wait until November? Players put other things off until the off-season, so why not this as well?

I understand offseason versus in-season, but Ryan's quote is "His timing on quitting smokeless tobacco couldn’t have been worse." I contend that it could have been worse: in July, in August, in September, or during the playoffs. Once he missed the chance to quit during the offseason (assuming he even uses during the offseason), it seems like June is a relatively benign time to try it, and not the worst possible timing.

I would love if the Red Sox signed Hamilton.

I've been saying this. Unfortunately, it seems more likely that Ross plays LF for them next year than Hamilton.

I would love if the Red Sox signed Hamilton.

I've been saying this. Unfortunately, it seems more likely that Ross plays LF for them next year than Hamilton.

I'm not keen on Hamilton largely because I think he's going to require 6-7 years. If they can get him for 5 years he or Ross should be able to handle RF. I think he's got 3-4 years of being worth or close to worth his contract. I'd rather not have to have him around for 2-3 years of not being worth it.

I also think that watching Josh Hamilton every day would make him my favorite Red Sox player by Patriots' Day.

I'm not keen on Hamilton largely because I think he's going to require 6-7 years. If they can get him for 5 years he or Ross should be able to handle RF. I think he's got 3-4 years of being worth or close to worth his contract. I'd rather not have to have him around for 2-3 years of not being worth it.

I also think that watching Josh Hamilton every day would make him my favorite Red Sox player by Patriots' Day.

I think Hamilton has 3-4 good years left, but not necessarily concurrently nor over the course of only 3-4 years. If the Sox sign him for longer than 4 years JD Drew will be fondly remembered for his durability.

I think Hamilton has 3-4 good years left, but not necessarily concurrently nor over the course of only 3-4 years.

why only 3-4 good years? Or are you saying only 3-4 'star' level seasons?

If he didn't have durability issues/uncertainties, he would command $30 m a year or a Prince Fielder contract.

#87: "Since AA isn't very effective and is thoroughly God-soaked, I wouldn't be real big on it. I'd wish him the best, but I don't think it's the best way to go about one's business."

Let me state my bias up front by saying that I got sober through a 12-step program, so I come from that background.

1) As far as efficacy goes -- the statistics that I'm aware of show that it's about as effective as any other treatment program at promoting permanent sobriety with no relapses. That is, not very. That said, it depends on how you define "effective". The current model seems to assume (and my anecdotal experience seems to confirm) that addiction is a chronic condition; relapse is common. 12-Step programs do seem to be fairly effective in minimizing the effects of relapse and of prolonging sober time between relapses. And I do know plenty of folks who do have sobriety measured in decades, which they credit to a 12-Step program. As well, 12-Step programs are free, and they're available pretty much everywhere at pretty much any time. One can come and go as one pleases. So I guess I don't see the harm.

2) "Thoroughly God-soaked": There's about as much religion in the program as you want there to be. I'm an agnostic. I dragged my heels on trying AA for a long time for the precise reason that I assumed that Jesus would be foisted upon me the minute I walked in the door. He wasn't. Different groups operate differently, and some are certainly more Jesus-y than others, but there's truly no overarching mandate that members must become religious in order to recover.

3) Even if AA were "God-soaked", so what? If it helps someone to believe that the Sky-Father is walking alongside them and guiding their lives, great. Better God-soaked than booze-soaked.

I don't want to derail the conversation, but every time Hamilton comes up around here, I see a lot of misconceptions about 12-Step programs thrown around. Most of those I shared at one point, so I don't think they're totally unreasonable; I just think they're untrue.

why only 3-4 good years? Or are you saying only 3-4 'star' level seasons?

I think the first 3, maybe 4 years of the contract are the only years he will be capable of providing a reasonable wins to dollars contribution. Without knowing what he will sign for my guess is the AAV will be such that by year 5 (his age 36 season) he will have regressed to a point where he isn't capable of such a season.

why only 3-4 good years? Or are you saying only 3-4 'star' level seasons?

If he didn't have durability issues/uncertainties, he would command $30 m a year or a Prince Fielder contract.

3-4 $20 million+ years left.

If the Sox could get him for 110/4yrs, great. More, or longer, ehhhhh.

Say that wins cost $5M, then the Dumber-than-Marcels say 6/120. Say wins cost $5.5M, then Dumber-than-Marcels say 6/130 or 7/145. Say $6M, then it's 7/160.

I think the Dumber-than-Marcels overrate Hamilton by giving 3/14 weight to his excellent 2010 but 0 weight to his lost 2009. But if the money that appears to be floating around baseball is the real deal, a big contract for Hamilton can be justified by the numbers, I think.

If it were me, I bet that Hamilton's missed time in his 20s with the drug issues helps him stay on the field and be productive through his 30s. So I'm opposite as most people on the notion of signing him long term.

I admit I have zero evidence for my position. I just think that saving the games in his 20s -- which is usually an issue of stunting the player's baseball development and that issue is not present here -- helps Hamilton.

3-4 $20 million+ years left.

If the Sox could get him for 110/4yrs, great. More, or longer, ehhhhh.

Ok, I agree with you, then. But, remember that some of those good years are worth way more than $20m. I.E. if the Sox were guaranteed his 2012 production for 2013, they would pay north of $30 m for a 1-year deal. I was even more optimistic about his price this year, hoping they could get him for 110/5 or 125/6.

I wouldn't have any problem with 5/100 for Hamilton, given my current knowledge of his situation and his talent. The relevant question is, do you go 7/150, which is probably closer to his likely salary.

I do like the idea of telling Josh Hamilton all he needs to do now is jog around in left and play the ball off the Monster. Just don't hurt yourself out there.

I just think that saving the games in his 20s -- which is usually an issue of stunting the player's baseball development and that issue is not present here -- helps Hamilton.

I get what you're saying but I think you're leaving out what he was doing to his body while not playing games. My guess is that whatever physical savings he generated by not playing 150 games a year in his 20s is offset and then some by the damage he did to himself.

Like you I have no evidence for my position either. I think it's one of the more interesting FA situations in many years for just that reason.

I'm afraid that the Yankees will replace Swisher with Hamilton.

I get what you're saying but I think you're leaving out what he was doing to his body while not playing games. My guess is that whatever physical savings he generated by not playing 150 games a year in his 20s is offset and then some by the damage he did to himself.

Your position is reasonable. And I have no evidence to support mine.

But I can tell you that I would bet every time on the saved games doing far less damage to his body than the drugs, from the point of view of his baseball career.

I actually doubt that drugs had any impact at all on his body w/r/t the physical ability to play baseball.

I actually doubt that drugs had any impact at all on his body w/r/t the physical ability to play baseball

Right: if they diminished his ability to play baseball, then Josh was Roy Hobbs's tougher brother in the first place.

Hamilton has clearly lost a step or two in the outfield and on the bases over the past couple of years, and I think that the freakish injury early in 2011, when he broke his (shoulder?) trying to score on a low-percentage claw-and-antlers play, woke him up to the fact that he would have to stop diving headfirst into everything he encountered, if he wanted to play on. As a result, maybe, he stayed pretty healthy in the gross overall sense in '12, although his vision and sinuses and who knows what were reputed to be jittery late in the season. Simply modifying his style of play might win him a few more seasons. He might well prove durable enough if he just plays less aggressively.

I still think he's too old for much of a longterm contract, but part of the fun is watching to see how it turns out.

I wouldn't have any problem with 5/100 for Hamilton, given my current knowledge of his situation and his talent. The relevant question is, do you go 7/150, which is probably closer to his likely salary.

I'd do 5/100 in a heartbeat and I wouldn't touch 7/150. 6/125 is where I start to waffle. I'm not going 7 years unless it's at a price where I feel like years 6&7 are bargains (e.g. 7/120 where I'm paying an effective 2/20 for his age 37&38; seasons).

Ok, I agree with you, then. But, remember that some of those good years are worth way more than $20m. I.E. if the Sox were guaranteed his 2012 production for 2013, they would pay north of $30 m for a 1-year deal. I was even more optimistic about his price this year, hoping they could get him for 110/5 or 125/6.

Sure, but I don't think he will be a star all 4 of the hypothetical years the Sox sign him for. One of his star years will come after that 4 year period in a bounce year.

I don't really think the drugs are the reason he will not end his career on a healthy note, I just think he is an injury prone player. He has averaged 122 games a year for his career (Drew averaged 119), he will always have a few minor, seemingly random, things happen to him that cause him to miss time.

I suppose the thread's moved on, but I wanted to say thanks for the info on the champagne thing, and my mistake for misrepresenting it. I was under the impression it was something Hamilton had asked for.

Not sure if this has been mentioned, I don't feel like reading all the replies in this thread to find out, but quitting tobacco isn't easy. I quit smoking four months ago after 15 years. I'd wanted to quit for about 13 of those 15 years I smoked. The thing that only tobacco, drug, and alcohol users know, that many people don't understand is that you can't just decide to quit and quit. Willpower to quit something like this ebbs and flows. It's like a rollercoaster. And just because you 'want to quit' doesn't make it an easy thing to do. You really need to be in the right frame of mind to quit. Those times are few and far between, and sometimes go a year or two between cycles. So it's not as easy as saying he could've waited for the offseason. If he felt he had the strength and willpower to quit when he did, then good for him.

I don't want the Red Sox to sign Josh Hamilton for any amount greater than what half a dozen other teams should be willing to spend. I guess that's a way of saying I don't want Josh Hamilton that badly, but it also doesn't seem to be that far off from what the Sox fans who want Hamilton are saying.

I want to add that it is curious that one of the strongest anti-PED advocates around here is saying that a player should have continued to use a dangerous drug to help his team. That seems inconsistent but I'm willing to be convinced that it's not.

What's "curious" about the fact that the site's biggest troll is trolling?

[154] For me, quitting was hard, until it became easy. Once something became more important to me than smoking, it just stopped.

[154] I was a 10 year smoker and did quit in the first serious try. Funny thing was that I was building to it and ready to pull the trigger when my Mom visited N.C. and brought me back 2 cartons. So my frugal German side couldn't let me waste them. You'd think that would kill the urge to quit (the rollercoaster thing) but somehow it made me more determined. I couldn't have chosen a better time as:
1. I had no social life. No girl friend, no potential gf even. It was a year + out of college, all my local friends were scattered and I was working 2nd shift. We couldn't get to the bar for more than 45 minutes before closing time and I didn't much like the guys on my shift anyway.
2. It was May and the weather was gorgeous. During the day, I would go for long walks when I felt the urge.
3. I lived on the 9th floor. When I felt the urge and a walk wasn't feasible, I'd walk up and down the steps. At first, I couldn't do more than 2-3 floors but was able to do the entire 9 in a week or so.

The downside was that those were the days when you could smoke everywhere but an oxygen tent. (1976) Heck I was a computer operator and could smoke while changing tapes. But I was usually busy enough physically that I didn't feel the urge too badly.

After a month, the urges slowed down and after a year, I was sure that I was cured. I've had an occasional cigar since but since one doesn't inhale, it wasn't the same as cigarette smoking.

I don't know when I would have stopped if I didn't have my perfect storm of opportunity. I'm sure at some time but it would have been very, very hard.

What's "curious" about the fact that the site's biggest troll is trolling?

The "curiosity" and "inconsistency" was quickly and neatly disposed of in 123.

Hamilton played in 148 games and hit .285/.354/.577 with a 139 OPS+. He had 43 HRs, 128 RBI, 103 runs, and 60 BB. Apart from 2010, which was likely his career year at age 29, his season was perfectly in line with the rest of his career. He may have slumped in the middle of the summer, but there was no reason to expect him to maintain an 1.100 OPS.

IOW, I see no evidence that the tobacco affected his performance. He did exactly what the Rangers should have expected him to do.