Escape from Elba

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Pages: 1 ... 83 84 [85] 86 87 ... 245

Author Topic: Major League Baseball  (Read 94836 times)

bankshot1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3267
    • View Profile
Re: American League
« Reply #1260 on: December 13, 2018, 02:20:40 PM »

Baines selection is going to lead to never-ending "whataboutism".

you are probably right yank. we aee destined for that "Rabbit" hole.
Logged

Yankguy1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2566
    • View Profile
Re: American League
« Reply #1261 on: December 13, 2018, 02:49:02 PM »

Paul O'Neill!!!!
Logged
You must try some of my purple berries.....

kiiidcarter8

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: American League
« Reply #1262 on: December 13, 2018, 03:00:48 PM »

Another guy way short
Logged

UNO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1690
    • View Profile
Re: American League
« Reply #1263 on: December 13, 2018, 03:19:36 PM »

The "election" of Harold Baines to the Hall of Fame spear-headed by by an ex-employer, and former GM who traded for him, and a committee of players he played with, puts a huge magnifying glass on the massive conflict of interest and potential cronyism of  this cherry-picking selection process. While some conflicts exists in the 500+ members/voters of the BBWAA, they are redcuced by the size of the voing base and several elements of diversification and they are relatively conflict-free body, as attested that not more than 6% of the voters thought Baines was a HoF player. There are only a handful of players who have been denied votes, and largely on the grounds they were massive assholes.

and voting for the HoF is not making news per se, again reduced by the fact a minimum of 75% of the 500+ voters are required to share a like opiinion, And its a largely neutral/bias free assessment of a ballplayer's qualifications relative to other ballplayers, and certainly much more neutral and less conflicted than a former owner might be.

Thank you, Joel Sherman. But the writers cannot call themselves journalists, when they create the news.

They're reporters who write about baseball.

They are giving their opinion on the subject they are probably 1) more qualified AND 2) less conflicted

than any other singular population to give an opinion.

And given a the tiny handful of errors, real and imagined, they may have made as a group, its hard to believe any other group would do as good and unbiased a job.

Given that it takes at least 375 like opinions (75% of 500) on the same player, the "make the news" argument is just not very well thought out position.

I adjusted my post above. And clarified my argument, demonstrating how you are indeed, wrong.

We disagree.

Big surprise.

Writers as a diverse population are more objective and less conflicted than owners, managers, past teamamates.

Case in point Jerry Reinsdorf, and Tony LaRussa championed and persuaded Baines-era players to elect Baines.

Only 6% of the BBWAA writers/voters who watched him play thought thought him a good candidate.

There was no Baines conspiracy to kee[ Baines out, No one really thought he was a compelling HoF player.

Listening to most callers/pundits for the past couple of days, Baines election is getting killed.

the consensus: Nice guy, good player but he doesn't belong in the Hof.

And troll the only thing you clarified was you were wrong again.

There you go again, with insults. You do that whenever you know you're either wrong, or have overstated your case. In this case, you've done both.

I've already proved why it's wrong for writers to create the news.

 But here's more. They should not be involved in award giving.

The writers are impacting what players earn., Both on and off the field.

Can you "conflict on interest"?

Don't just take my word for it.

Others recognize this wrong you are too willing to defend: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/heres-a-vote-for-getting-sports-writers-out-of-the-balloting-process/2017/01/04/8cd4a25c-d285-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f5cdd1943d65

Thanks for playing, but you lost another one.

Logged

Yankguy1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2566
    • View Profile
Re: American League
« Reply #1264 on: December 13, 2018, 03:59:31 PM »

Another guy way short
If you say so.   
Logged
You must try some of my purple berries.....

bankshot1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3267
    • View Profile
Re: American League
« Reply #1265 on: December 13, 2018, 04:55:32 PM »

The "election" of Harold Baines to the Hall of Fame spear-headed by by an ex-employer, and former GM who traded for him, and a committee of players he played with, puts a huge magnifying glass on the massive conflict of interest and potential cronyism of  this cherry-picking selection process. While some conflicts exists in the 500+ members/voters of the BBWAA, they are redcuced by the size of the voing base and several elements of diversification and they are relatively conflict-free body, as attested that not more than 6% of the voters thought Baines was a HoF player. There are only a handful of players who have been denied votes, and largely on the grounds they were massive assholes.

and voting for the HoF is not making news per se, again reduced by the fact a minimum of 75% of the 500+ voters are required to share a like opiinion, And its a largely neutral/bias free assessment of a ballplayer's qualifications relative to other ballplayers, and certainly much more neutral and less conflicted than a former owner might be.

Thank you, Joel Sherman. But the writers cannot call themselves journalists, when they create the news.

They're reporters who write about baseball.

They are giving their opinion on the subject they are probably 1) more qualified AND 2) less conflicted

than any other singular population to give an opinion.

And given a the tiny handful of errors, real and imagined, they may have made as a group, its hard to believe any other group would do as good and unbiased a job.

Given that it takes at least 375 like opinions (75% of 500) on the same player, the "make the news" argument is just not very well thought out position.

I adjusted my post above. And clarified my argument, demonstrating how you are indeed, wrong.

We disagree.

Big surprise.

Writers as a diverse population are more objective and less conflicted than owners, managers, past teamamates.

Case in point Jerry Reinsdorf, and Tony LaRussa championed and persuaded Baines-era players to elect Baines.

Only 6% of the BBWAA writers/voters who watched him play thought thought him a good candidate.

There was no Baines conspiracy to kee[ Baines out, No one really thought he was a compelling HoF player.

Listening to most callers/pundits for the past couple of days, Baines election is getting killed.

the consensus: Nice guy, good player but he doesn't belong in the Hof.

And troll the only thing you clarified was you were wrong again.

There you go again, with insults. You do that whenever you know you're either wrong, or have overstated your case. In this case, you've done both.

I've already proved why it's wrong for writers to create the news.

 But here's more. They should not be involved in award giving.

The writers are impacting what players earn., Both on and off the field.

Can you "conflict on interest"?

Don't just take my word for it.

Others recognize this wrong you are too willing to defend: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/heres-a-vote-for-getting-sports-writers-out-of-the-balloting-process/2017/01/04/8cd4a25c-d285-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f5cdd1943d65

Thanks for playing, but you lost another one.

Troll

Pointing out you are wrong is not an insult but rather an amply supported fact.

Objectivy and knowledge about the game are to me the needed criteria for HoF voters. IMO the BBWAA supplies both those better than any other single voter group.

The Baines election was pure cronyism by voters with varying degrees of conflicts of interest and personal interests.

This tainted election process has been mocked the last few days as its obvious flaws exposed for most to see,

A diverse group of 500 reporters and writers voting five (5) plus years from the candidates retirement have no such direct conflicts or biases.

In general they bring knowlwedge gained from years of watching the game and modest side issues which could cloud neutral assessments.

I understand that you do not understand, but trust me when I say your intellectual short-comings and inability to construct a coherent argument supporting your postion should not be a permanent barrier to you learning.

Asking questions might be a good way for you to to start.

And troll if you bothered to read the article you lnked to

here was the most important sentence in the article.

There may not be a more qualified group (BBWAA) to vote on players’ credentials for the Hall or for MVP, Cy Young honors, etc.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2018, 05:02:20 PM by bankshot1 »
Logged

Yankguy1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2566
    • View Profile
Re: American League
« Reply #1266 on: December 13, 2018, 05:08:12 PM »

I don't believe the argument that sportswriters shouldn't be voting (which is more of an argument about journalism) is an argument that a special select committee of the type selecting Baines should be.  I think the silliness of Baines' choice is obvious.  I also think that the large group of sportswriters who believe that that they know who used PEDs and/or can thread the needle in determining how much such PED use enhanced a players' candidacy are, in fact, biased, and ignorant of the games' history where cheaters often prospered.

Logged
You must try some of my purple berries.....

kiiidcarter8

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: American League
« Reply #1267 on: December 13, 2018, 05:33:28 PM »

Another guy way short
If you say so.

Sheffield* and Beltran are the names you are looking for
Logged

Yankguy1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2566
    • View Profile
Re: American League
« Reply #1268 on: December 13, 2018, 05:41:39 PM »

Those guys were obviously better than Baines.  O'Neill's name was tossed out because he's close enough to merit the "whatabout" silliness that a pick like Baines is going to create.   
Logged
You must try some of my purple berries.....

UNO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1690
    • View Profile
Re: American League
« Reply #1269 on: December 13, 2018, 06:08:22 PM »

The "election" of Harold Baines to the Hall of Fame spear-headed by by an ex-employer, and former GM who traded for him, and a committee of players he played with, puts a huge magnifying glass on the massive conflict of interest and potential cronyism of  this cherry-picking selection process. While some conflicts exists in the 500+ members/voters of the BBWAA, they are redcuced by the size of the voing base and several elements of diversification and they are relatively conflict-free body, as attested that not more than 6% of the voters thought Baines was a HoF player. There are only a handful of players who have been denied votes, and largely on the grounds they were massive assholes.

and voting for the HoF is not making news per se, again reduced by the fact a minimum of 75% of the 500+ voters are required to share a like opiinion, And its a largely neutral/bias free assessment of a ballplayer's qualifications relative to other ballplayers, and certainly much more neutral and less conflicted than a former owner might be.

Thank you, Joel Sherman. But the writers cannot call themselves journalists, when they create the news.

They're reporters who write about baseball.

They are giving their opinion on the subject they are probably 1) more qualified AND 2) less conflicted

than any other singular population to give an opinion.

And given a the tiny handful of errors, real and imagined, they may have made as a group, its hard to believe any other group would do as good and unbiased a job.

Given that it takes at least 375 like opinions (75% of 500) on the same player, the "make the news" argument is just not very well thought out position.

I adjusted my post above. And clarified my argument, demonstrating how you are indeed, wrong.

We disagree.

Big surprise.

Writers as a diverse population are more objective and less conflicted than owners, managers, past teamamates.

Case in point Jerry Reinsdorf, and Tony LaRussa championed and persuaded Baines-era players to elect Baines.

Only 6% of the BBWAA writers/voters who watched him play thought thought him a good candidate.

There was no Baines conspiracy to kee[ Baines out, No one really thought he was a compelling HoF player.

Listening to most callers/pundits for the past couple of days, Baines election is getting killed.

the consensus: Nice guy, good player but he doesn't belong in the Hof.

And troll the only thing you clarified was you were wrong again.

There you go again, with insults. You do that whenever you know you're either wrong, or have overstated your case. In this case, you've done both.

I've already proved why it's wrong for writers to create the news.

 But here's more. They should not be involved in award giving.

The writers are impacting what players earn., Both on and off the field.

Can you "conflict on interest"?

Don't just take my word for it.

Others recognize this wrong you are too willing to defend: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/heres-a-vote-for-getting-sports-writers-out-of-the-balloting-process/2017/01/04/8cd4a25c-d285-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f5cdd1943d65

Thanks for playing, but you lost another one.

Troll

Pointing out you are wrong is not an insult but rather an amply supported fact.

Objectivy and knowledge about the game are to me the needed criteria for HoF voters. IMO the BBWAA supplies both those better than any other single voter group.

The Baines election was pure cronyism by voters with varying degrees of conflicts of interest and personal interests.

This tainted election process has been mocked the last few days as its obvious flaws exposed for most to see,

A diverse group of 500 reporters and writers voting five (5) plus years from the candidates retirement have no such direct conflicts or biases.

In general they bring knowlwedge gained from years of watching the game and modest side issues which could cloud neutral assessments.

I understand that you do not understand, but trust me when I say your intellectual short-comings and inability to construct a coherent argument supporting your postion should not be a permanent barrier to you learning.

Asking questions might be a good way for you to to start.

And troll if you bothered to read the article you lnked to

here was the most important sentence in the article.

There may not be a more qualified group (BBWAA) to vote on players’ credentials for the Hall or for MVP, Cy Young honors, etc.

Your feeble attempts to belittle me, as a result of you being schooled once again as to why writers should be disqualified from any voting are as lame as your belief system that you are anyone else's superior.

That said, you've revealed that
you didn't read it completely, or you would have likely comprehended the MAJOR PART OF THE PIECE.

 Likely, though being as dense as you are, you may not fully grasp what has been so well defined.

But here's your last chance to gather in what is so plain for any normally functioning individual to understand:

The Washington Post has a long-running policy preventing its writers from voting on any and all awards. Other organizations — including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Baltimore Sun — have similar policies. So while these decisions were taken out of my hands for me, let’s follow a couple of examples of why we all need to pull ourselves out of these processes.

Hall of Famers, of course, make more money in retirement than really good players do. Speaking engagements, card signings, potential endorsement deals — they’re all impacted by whether a player is in the Hall. “Hall of Famer Johnny Bench” simply earns more than “former Reds catcher Johnny Bench.”

If that doesn’t seem like a direct link between a writer voting and a player’s earning potential, look at current players’ contracts. Carlos Gomez is a veteran major league outfielder who, this offseason, signed a one-year, $11.5 million contract to return to the Texas Rangers, with whom he had revitalized his career. This wasn’t a marquee signing, and it barely made much of a ripple outside of Arlington, Tex.


What also didn’t make a ripple because they’re so mainstream: clauses in Gomez’s contract that would pay him $250,000 for winning the American League MVP award, $200,000 for coming in second, down to $50,000 for placing fifth — in voting performed by two members of the BBWAA in each AL city.

Should Gomez be named the World Series MVP, he would receive $150,000. Should he be the MVP of the American League Championship Series, that’s $100,000. Both of those postseason honors have BBWAA members as part of the voting panel, joining broadcasters. Given he hit .231 and slugged .384 while splitting time between Houston and Texas in 2016, Gomez would be a candidate for comeback player of the year in 2017. That would be worth $150,000, and that, too, would be voted on by baseball writers.

So Gomez could earn $650,000 in awards voted on by the people who cover him. And he is just an example.

In some ways, these kind of pay-for-performance deals should be praised because they reward players for what they accomplish, not what they might do. The problem lies in how those accomplishments are determined. Think about it: Part of a Rangers beat writer’s job is having at least a working relationship with Gomez. What’s to prevent Gomez, at the end of a strong season, from approaching a reporter and saying, “Hey, you thinking about me for MVP?”

...the current setup assigns responsibility where it does not belong.

Part of a sportswriter’s job is to debate the historical merits of Guerrero, Rodriguez, Bagwell and the other candidates up for the Hall or argue whether Daniel Murphy or Kris Bryant should have been the National League MVP last season. Affecting the livelihoods of athletes, either during or after their careers, most certainly is not.


What you excuse, and attempt to paint as competence, is indeed NOT part of a sportswriter's job--an assertion put forth by a professional sportswriter.

You apparently don't even know what the discussion is, or you'd have the sense to shut your pie-hole, dim one.

 Once again, you missed the clearly stated arguments being against writers being involved in the HOF or for any awards for athletes.

I didn't support Baines selection, nor did I oppose it. Don't confuse the two issues.

And admit when you're wrong.

As you were again.

The beatings and your abject humiliation will continue, so best you learn to get used to it, Igor.



 
Logged

bankshot1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3267
    • View Profile
Re: American League
« Reply #1270 on: December 13, 2018, 06:18:01 PM »

I don't believe the argument that sportswriters shouldn't be voting (which is more of an argument about journalism) is an argument that a special select committee of the type selecting Baines should be.  I think the silliness of Baines' choice is obvious.  I also think that the large group of sportswriters who believe that that they know who used PEDs and/or can thread the needle in determining how much such PED use enhanced a players' candidacy are, in fact, biased, and ignorant of the games' history where cheaters often prospered.

As long as people are involved any selection process will have a flaw or two.

But as the saying goes, "don't let perfect be the enemy of the good"

The BBWAA process with all its flaws may not be perfect, but it seems to work reasonably well, and a lot better than the crony committee that recently opened to doors.

Logged

UNO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1690
    • View Profile
Re: American League
« Reply #1271 on: December 13, 2018, 06:24:52 PM »

Nice recovery, Junior. You've revised your opinion.

But it doesn't change the point that writers are peddling influence of cash flowing to athletes during and after their careers, and that is just wrong.
Logged

bankshot1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3267
    • View Profile
Re: American League
« Reply #1272 on: December 13, 2018, 06:28:18 PM »

The "election" of Harold Baines to the Hall of Fame spear-headed by by an ex-employer, and former GM who traded for him, and a committee of players he played with, puts a huge magnifying glass on the massive conflict of interest and potential cronyism of  this cherry-picking selection process. While some conflicts exists in the 500+ members/voters of the BBWAA, they are redcuced by the size of the voing base and several elements of diversification and they are relatively conflict-free body, as attested that not more than 6% of the voters thought Baines was a HoF player. There are only a handful of players who have been denied votes, and largely on the grounds they were massive assholes.

and voting for the HoF is not making news per se, again reduced by the fact a minimum of 75% of the 500+ voters are required to share a like opiinion, And its a largely neutral/bias free assessment of a ballplayer's qualifications relative to other ballplayers, and certainly much more neutral and less conflicted than a former owner might be.

Thank you, Joel Sherman. But the writers cannot call themselves journalists, when they create the news.

They're reporters who write about baseball.

They are giving their opinion on the subject they are probably 1) more qualified AND 2) less conflicted

than any other singular population to give an opinion.

And given a the tiny handful of errors, real and imagined, they may have made as a group, its hard to believe any other group would do as good and unbiased a job.

Given that it takes at least 375 like opinions (75% of 500) on the same player, the "make the news" argument is just not very well thought out position.

I adjusted my post above. And clarified my argument, demonstrating how you are indeed, wrong.

We disagree.

Big surprise.

Writers as a diverse population are more objective and less conflicted than owners, managers, past teamamates.

Case in point Jerry Reinsdorf, and Tony LaRussa championed and persuaded Baines-era players to elect Baines.

Only 6% of the BBWAA writers/voters who watched him play thought thought him a good candidate.

There was no Baines conspiracy to kee[ Baines out, No one really thought he was a compelling HoF player.

Listening to most callers/pundits for the past couple of days, Baines election is getting killed.

the consensus: Nice guy, good player but he doesn't belong in the Hof.

And troll the only thing you clarified was you were wrong again.

There you go again, with insults. You do that whenever you know you're either wrong, or have overstated your case. In this case, you've done both.

I've already proved why it's wrong for writers to create the news.

 But here's more. They should not be involved in award giving.

The writers are impacting what players earn., Both on and off the field.

Can you "conflict on interest"?

Don't just take my word for it.

Others recognize this wrong you are too willing to defend: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/heres-a-vote-for-getting-sports-writers-out-of-the-balloting-process/2017/01/04/8cd4a25c-d285-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f5cdd1943d65

Thanks for playing, but you lost another one.

Troll

Pointing out you are wrong is not an insult but rather an amply supported fact.

Objectivy and knowledge about the game are to me the needed criteria for HoF voters. IMO the BBWAA supplies both those better than any other single voter group.

The Baines election was pure cronyism by voters with varying degrees of conflicts of interest and personal interests.

This tainted election process has been mocked the last few days as its obvious flaws exposed for most to see,

A diverse group of 500 reporters and writers voting five (5) plus years from the candidates retirement have no such direct conflicts or biases.

In general they bring knowlwedge gained from years of watching the game and modest side issues which could cloud neutral assessments.

I understand that you do not understand, but trust me when I say your intellectual short-comings and inability to construct a coherent argument supporting your postion should not be a permanent barrier to you learning.

Asking questions might be a good way for you to to start.

And troll if you bothered to read the article you lnked to

here was the most important sentence in the article.

There may not be a more qualified group (BBWAA) to vote on players’ credentials for the Hall or for MVP, Cy Young honors, etc.

Your feeble attempts to belittle me, as a result of you being schooled once again as to why writers should be disqualified from any voting are as lame as your belief system that you are anyone else's superior.

That said, you've revealed that
you didn't read it completely, or you would have likely comprehended the MAJOR PART OF THE PIECE.

 Likely, though being as dense as you are, you may not fully grasp what has been so well defined.

But here's your last chance to gather in what is so plain for any normally functioning individual to understand:

The Washington Post has a long-running policy preventing its writers from voting on any and all awards. Other organizations — including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Baltimore Sun — have similar policies. So while these decisions were taken out of my hands for me, let’s follow a couple of examples of why we all need to pull ourselves out of these processes.

Hall of Famers, of course, make more money in retirement than really good players do. Speaking engagements, card signings, potential endorsement deals — they’re all impacted by whether a player is in the Hall. “Hall of Famer Johnny Bench” simply earns more than “former Reds catcher Johnny Bench.”

If that doesn’t seem like a direct link between a writer voting and a player’s earning potential, look at current players’ contracts. Carlos Gomez is a veteran major league outfielder who, this offseason, signed a one-year, $11.5 million contract to return to the Texas Rangers, with whom he had revitalized his career. This wasn’t a marquee signing, and it barely made much of a ripple outside of Arlington, Tex.


What also didn’t make a ripple because they’re so mainstream: clauses in Gomez’s contract that would pay him $250,000 for winning the American League MVP award, $200,000 for coming in second, down to $50,000 for placing fifth — in voting performed by two members of the BBWAA in each AL city.

Should Gomez be named the World Series MVP, he would receive $150,000. Should he be the MVP of the American League Championship Series, that’s $100,000. Both of those postseason honors have BBWAA members as part of the voting panel, joining broadcasters. Given he hit .231 and slugged .384 while splitting time between Houston and Texas in 2016, Gomez would be a candidate for comeback player of the year in 2017. That would be worth $150,000, and that, too, would be voted on by baseball writers.

So Gomez could earn $650,000 in awards voted on by the people who cover him. And he is just an example.

In some ways, these kind of pay-for-performance deals should be praised because they reward players for what they accomplish, not what they might do. The problem lies in how those accomplishments are determined. Think about it: Part of a Rangers beat writer’s job is having at least a working relationship with Gomez. What’s to prevent Gomez, at the end of a strong season, from approaching a reporter and saying, “Hey, you thinking about me for MVP?”

...the current setup assigns responsibility where it does not belong.

Part of a sportswriter’s job is to debate the historical merits of Guerrero, Rodriguez, Bagwell and the other candidates up for the Hall or argue whether Daniel Murphy or Kris Bryant should have been the National League MVP last season. Affecting the livelihoods of athletes, either during or after their careers, most certainly is not.


What you excuse, and attempt to paint as competence, is indeed NOT part of a sportswriter's job--an assertion put forth by a professional sportswriter.

You apparently don't even know what the discussion is, or you'd have the sense to shut your pie-hole, dim one.

 Once again, you missed the clearly stated arguments being against writers being involved in the HOF or for any awards for athletes.

I didn't support Baines selection, nor did I oppose it. Don't confuse the two issues.

And admit when you're wrong.

As you were again.

The beatings and your abject humiliation will continue, so best you learn to get used to it, Igor.

You're a moron.

The article you cited as proof positive of something said of the BBWAA's involvement in HoF anf award voting:

There may not be a more qualified group (BBWAA) to vote on players’ credentials for the Hall or for MVP, Cy Young honors, etc.

No more qualified group to do this task.

Yet you continue to argue against it for some imagined and overblown fear of writers corrupting the process.

If your pea-brain could manage to balance and assess the variables of history, knowledge, diversity, realtive levels of bias, journalistic integrity, versus the risks you fear, you might also conclude the BBWAA is the best suited institution to conduct a fair HoF balloting.

Sadly troll, pour pea-brain is not up to the task.

SSDD
Logged

bankshot1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3267
    • View Profile
Re: American League
« Reply #1273 on: December 13, 2018, 06:31:29 PM »

Nice recovery, Junior. You've revised your opinion.

But it doesn't change the point that writers are peddling influence of cash flowing to athletes during and after their careers, and that is just wrong.

there is no revison whatsoever.

Some bias is inherant in any human endeavor.

That you do not understand basic human psychology just adds to the list of stuff you don't have a clue about.

SSDD

Logged

Yankguy1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2566
    • View Profile
Re: American League
« Reply #1274 on: December 13, 2018, 06:41:20 PM »

Nice recovery, Junior. You've revised your opinion.

But it doesn't change the point that writers are peddling influence of cash flowing to athletes during and after their careers, and that is just wrong.

there is no revison whatsoever.

Some bias is inherant in any human endeavor.

That you do not understand basic human psychology just adds to the list of stuff you don't have a clue about.

SSDD
My view is that the bias among the writers has become more pronounced.  I think it will ease over the years.  Which is certainly not an argument for special committees.  At the same time any discussion inevitably leading to a discussion about the issue of PEDs is probably not worth having.
Logged
You must try some of my purple berries.....
Pages: 1 ... 83 84 [85] 86 87 ... 245