Texsox

LCR What a hypocrite. I guess freedom of speech stops when it involves teachers. You supported Larry Flynt slandering Jerry Falwell that reached hundreds of thousands of people, but something that exactly 7 people had access to is a problem?! Seriously You are cracking me up.

I just figured out I am living an album, Rumours. Amazing when a friend comes up with the perfect gifts and you spend a day wrapped in that feeling and emotion.

Wow, great question. McCain. War stories. The past 8 years, especially after getting screwed in 2000.

Ah, the liquoe paradox. The greater the tab, the greater the morning headache.

Congratulations!!

QUOTE(ptatc @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 08:43 PM) How could you fairly adjust stirkeouts and walks which have absolutely nothing to do with the effects of the drugs? I can see a case for many of the categories of hits and SBs but not when the hitter doesn't make contact with the ball. Perhaps then the adjustment is zero on that stuff, bigger on other stats. Bottom line they enhanced performance and it seems unfair to straight up compare the two numbers. And unlike comparing era's, you had players at the same time playing under different circumstances. They knew it was wrong, notice no one came out and said, hey I'm playing better because of these drugs. So people can split hairs all day long but no player thought that doing the drugs was ok. They hid it all along. YAS, I meant in a few cases baseball condoned the drug use, Sosa and Mark come #1 to mind. So I think it is a little unfair, but deserved. It wasn't like the anyone was really after the players to stop, including other players.

Interesting article. Crazy ass argument that will not work, but hey, I love crazy ass people.

I am wondering if they are leaving the US, establishing a new country inside US soil, or what.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 01:47 PM) That elephant will be standing on the dias as they make their acceptance speeches. Deserved but slightly unfair, if that makes sense.

QUOTE(G&T @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 01:41 PM) That's that the only Leinys I can drink, but no, it is not true to any style of beer. I have a close friend who will love it.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 01:35 PM) I agree on one point. Based on the way things stand today, Bonds and Clemens will get in eventually. And I do not have a problem with that, but I would like some mention of them playing in the "steroid era".

After I tried it a second time, I liked it. Once I decided it wasn't beer.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 09:50 AM) http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?...338540894115504 This was a slickdeal Tex, but it went out of stock fast. Maybe you can find a local one that has it in stock...I'm not sure if they'll honor their online price though. EDIT: BACK IN STOCK>>>HURRY IF YOU WANT IT Thank you, got it.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 08:01 AM) I can kind of relate to what Schilling is saying here. I want Giambi to give Frank his MVP award.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 08:01 AM) I can kind of relate to what Schilling is saying here. I want Giambi to give Frank his MVP award.

I wondered why there were so many postings about solicitation-friendly bathroom stalls -- until I realized I was on LarryCraigslist. (Brad Simanek) http://www.slightlyamusing.com

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 01:03 AM) Schilling is that he actually has the balls to call out Clemens. Shilling doesn't have to step into the batter's box against Clemens.

I love stuff like this, both guys know it's b.s. but it's fun copy. Almost like WWF

QUOTE(ptatc @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 09:47 PM) Youv'e got to remember the majority of baseball who use these performance enhancing drugs are using it to maintain performance over the long season. The reason that bonds hits the home runs isn't necessarily that he has increased strength and the ball goes further but that he can maintain the strength over the season and he can hit them more consistently over time. So to expect more strikeouts would be a function of always trying to swing for the fences not necessarily from the drugs. Therefore attempting to "adjust" stats would not be accurate. This concept is why many pitchers have used it. It allows them to stay strong over the season and not have a let down. Especially relief pitchers who can come in more often and pitch at their highest level. And that is why it will be necessary to adjust their stats, at least in the mind of the voters, when electing these guys. They are performance enhancing, they would not have taken them just for the shrunken testicles and pimples.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 08:38 PM) Texsox, I think what you said is absolutely fair. If a guy was borderline, then maybe steroid use is what puts them in the no column. But I dont think that clear HOF players should be kept out. clear? I love the subtle humor I think some people will place that border pretty far up the line.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 08:28 PM) Being a bad person shouldn't keep you out of the HOF. Breaking the rules to a severe enough degree should. Canseco if you deem his number worthy should get in. Steroids weren't against the rules. Someone who has been proven to break the rules Bonds, Palmeiro should have some skeptics. It's in the eye of the voter if they decide to keep them out. My personal opinion stands if you've used them I would keep them out. I would look at what they accomplished with steroids and downgrade their stats based on a little research of their height/weight and go from there. Even if it is decided they didn't break any rules, they used steroids, it enhanced their performance, and to compare them to their non juicing peers, requires some thought and adjustment. So if I now place Palmeiro in the close but no cigar category like McGruff, I think it is defensible. I wouldn't keep them out based on steroids, but I think it is fair to expect better power numbers, more strike outs, etc. then their non juicing peers.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 07:42 PM) I understand the analogy. The problem is that you keep pointing to things that are both illegal. It was legal for the players to use the cream and HGH. It was illegal for the players to doctor balls. The best example I can think of is: Its not a crime to drink alcohol while your pregnant. It is a crime to drink alcohol when your under 21. The govt cant punish you harder for the first when its not even against the law... And thats not to say people cant disagree with the govt or baseball, just they are the ones who make the rules, and we unfortunately have to live by it. I was just commenting on the structure of the debate and answering the why Gaylord Perry and not Bonds question. And I don't even think it matters if they broke the rules or not in the HoF debate. If the Hall voters decide that 700 steroid enhanced home runs are not hall worthy, that perhaps 850 would be a hall worthy number, that would be an interesting debate. Certainly comparing Bonds to other non steroid player would be unfair, a judgment has to be made regarding his stats. I think it would be very wrong to, for example, compare Palmeiro's steroid home run total to Reggie Jackson's non steroid. So just saying Jackson is in with 563 so Palmeiro should be in with 569 doesn't make sense to me. So is Palmeiro's totals to Frank Thomas 513 or Ernie Banks 512? Perhaps Lou Gehrig's 493.

Great chick beer Leinenkugel's Sunset Wheat.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 11:27 AM) Texsox, My scale is this: If some things are explicitly banned (doctoring a baseball), why are they being let off lighter than things that were not banned? How is it cheating, if it wasnt against the rules? I refer back to my post and the speeding analogy. We'll look the other way when someone speeds 5mph over or perhaps steals a couple pens from work. Speed 40mph over or steal $1,000 from the cash register and you have a different reaction. For some people doctoring the ball is slipping just past the speed limit or pocketing a pen and steroids is the 40 mph and $1000

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 04:05 PM) uh oh. I wonder if they'll prosecute. Stupidly written law though. By that law, when they were 18 and 15, it was OK... but now at 19 and 16, its not. It is impossible to write a law that nails the guilty without looking stupid when the couple is "in love".