|
|
Post by texiban001 on Dec 18, 2007 13:55:34 GMT -5
Clemons has always been an a$$h*le. Now that the "smoking needle" has been found, he is all about covering his own ass. This attitude is why all players will now be under the microscope whenever they are having great seasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach on Dec 18, 2007 14:09:30 GMT -5
Damn, it took his little secret getting out of the closet to get old Raj to shut up.......maybe it was worth it if he stops his annual routine of trying to get people to beg him not to retire. It looks like this McNamee guy was a damn good friend of Clemens if Clemens started paying McNamee out of his own pocket. It's also going to be very awkward having Clemens talk to the minor leaguers about training and conditioning...... |
|
|
|
Post by chandler44 on Dec 18, 2007 14:39:49 GMT -5
Dec 13, 2007, 4:04pm, Ken wrote: Steroid users actually hit for better average in clutch situations too....which means Bagwell never juiced ... Take notes children, for future reference on this board... whenever Ken writes a post its an "off the cuff statement" if it is so deemed by the super grand poohbah of logic and rationale. No, it was deemed off the cuff because what you posted didn't jive with reality. There's obviously no proof nor no reason to believe that steroid users would hit for better average in clutch situations. BUT, I specifically left it alone at first because I remembered in the past you complaining about it being 'no fun' to post if people argue over everything you said, even threatening to leave at one point. So, I didn't want to make things 'no fun' and I certainly don't want you to leave the board, mainly because I thought we were cool. Then I get on today and see that you're calling me out and attacking me anyways. I'd wager that I watch at least as many as, if not more, games as anyone on this forum. This whole idea that the people that are into the statistical analysis side don't actually like watching the game is tired and completely false. |
|
|
|
Post by jbarron on Dec 18, 2007 18:27:29 GMT -5
If it took steroids to be a clutch hitter, that proves that Bagwell had to be squeaky clean.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach on Dec 19, 2007 11:00:02 GMT -5
I thought this was the grand poohbah...  |
|
|
|
Post by texiban001 on Dec 19, 2007 11:00:43 GMT -5
ROF, LMAO! ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Ken on Dec 19, 2007 13:19:48 GMT -5
My point is proven. Thanks. Reality, or one's perception of reality can only be determined by criteria that YOU deem to be valid.
Called you out? WOW! That's a bit strong. That's YOUR perception of my post. It was meant to be a humorous take on YOUR slam of my original statement (calling it an "off the cuff remark" and belittling my post by indicating... "a remark like *THAT*" ... putting "THAT" in between asterisks...as if it had no validity...believe it or not there are more people on here than me who believe Bagwell was a chronic choker...and we are not wrong just because we don't agree with you. But as always YOUR perception of "what is" and "what is not" is the only one that counts, I reckon. Must be nice to be the standard by which all things are judged. How do I get that job?
Methinks thou doth protest too much.
I got to ask you something Chandler, all opinions about Bagwell aside, did you really not see the humor in the original statement?
that : If we're judging whether Bags took roids or not based on his performance on the field, all indications are that he didn't juice.
You really don't see anything funny about that? Whether you agree with it, or not? WOW. I bet you're a riot at parties.
|
|
|
|
Post by chandler44 on Dec 19, 2007 14:06:22 GMT -5
Reality, or one's perception of reality can only be determined by criteria that YOU deem to be valid. Did I say that? In this case, the reality *I'm* referring to are the cold, hard facts which disagree with your perception of his 'clutch' hitting. If you really want to argue the validity of the facts in favor of your personal perceptions, be my guest, Ken. Just don't throw a fit if someone disagrees with your 'perceptions' and they use facts to back up their own, something that seems to bother you for some odd reason. It wasn't meant as a slam. The point was, why should I care what you post about Bagwell, especially since I have taken the 5 seconds it took to look at the Stats. I know what the 'truth' is, or if it makes you happy I know what my perception of the truth is  , so what difference should it make to me if you say otherwise.? I agree with you 100%. You're not wrong because you disagree with me. What am I protesting? Do you honestly think I'm ignorant on the subject of baseball or that I never watch any games? Have I really given you that impression? Who said I didn't see it as funny? I read it, got what you were saying, and moved on. I'm the one with the lampshade on my head. |
|
|
|
Post by Ken on Dec 19, 2007 14:31:09 GMT -5
What is hilarious to me is that you totally missed the whole point of the original post, Chandler. And your desire to point out what was wrong with it, and belittle it, makes an ass of you.
See...there you go again. You just can't help it, can you? You have decided what YOUR benchmark for a great player should be and all the rest of us should fall in line with it, right?
I think that you're ignorant to the point that in your constant quest to be "RIGHT" on this board, you missed the intended humor of what was being said in the original post (which was the entire point, in the first place) whether you agreed with it's validity or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ken on Dec 19, 2007 14:36:08 GMT -5
uhh... not really....Not without putting your little barb in there first.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ken on Dec 19, 2007 14:47:33 GMT -5
Good. It would scare me to think that you were as cold and stolid as you present yourself on these pages. And since I have hearsay evidence to the contrary, I'll chalk this one up to the fact that the internet cannot accurately reflect human motive, mood or intention.
|
|
|
|
Post by chandler44 on Dec 19, 2007 14:54:55 GMT -5
What is hilarious to me is that you totally missed the whole point of the original post, Chandler. And your desire to point out what was wrong with it, and belittle it, makes an ass of you. Where do you get these wild assumptions? I didn't miss the point. I recognized it was meant as humor. I didn't have a 'desire to point out what was wrong with it'. I caught the humor from the get-go, which is why I didn't respond (which pretty much flies in the face of your theory that i think I have to be right all the time). I didn't respond to you until you started in against me. Your insistence on turning this into an argument between the two of us makes an ass of you, my friend. This discussion had *nothing* to do with a benchmark for being a great player. I couldn't care less if you don't think he's a great player. There's no point in arguing that, because you're right, it's all perceptions and opinions so why bother? No, what I argued about AFTER you responded to me was that you initially said that Bagwell couldn't have been on steroids because steroids players do better in the clutch (something that isn't necessarily true) and that Bagwell does much worse in the clutch. Whether or not you think he was 'great' overall, it's pretty easy to look at his splits and see that he did not, in fact, hit any worse in 'clutch' situations than he did in normal ones. That's what I meant by off the cuff - you made a statement meant to be humorous, not necessarily serious, and not one that you had researched or even cared if it was valid or not. So when I'm saying 'why should I care about an off-the-cuff statement like *that*' I'm saying, or at least I'm trying to say "why would I be offended by Ken cracking a joke about a player I like?" Perhaps I'm not a good communicator, but that was my intent. If you think it's my constant quest to be 'right' on this board, then it is you, Ken, that is ignorant. If I had this desire to be right, then I would have argued with you about what you said from the moment you posted it. If it makes you feel better, I'll apologize that my statement came across to you as a barb or a shot, because that wasn't my intent. |
|
|
|
Post by chandler44 on Dec 19, 2007 15:01:00 GMT -5
In case we don't argue (heh heh) again, have a great Christmas. I hope you'll read your last PM from me and take me up on that offer.
|
|
, so what difference should it make to me if you say otherwise.?