IlliniKrush Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Whether or not you like the name calling, you are a moron. Injuries, lineups, and stadiums are totally different than playing EXTRA DAMN GAMES. There is no rule that says you have to get XXX at bats in a season, or be injured XXX games. If you get injured, that's PART OF THE GAME. The RULE says you play 162 games. There's no ifs, and's, or buts about it. It's a controlled variable and is not open to luck. It's something that the league controls and will control. You are comparing apples and oranges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Like i said, let a guy get 30 extra games in...then what are you going to say? Like i said earlier if 30 games is too many, so is 1. What's our response to that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 And don't come back with "30 would never happen". It's principle It's stubborn shallowness, not principle.... The best way to lose an arguement is by overstatement....Afterall if a guy has 162 pinch-hit appearances, one in each game, and hits 69 home runs and another guy hits 70 but has 400 more at bats because he started in each game...who "deserves" the HR title more? And don't say "it will never happen, get off the pipe" either. It's principle, mothafocka. Practical advice: whether you are arguing from formality standpoint or from fairness one....forget about 162 games crap and concentrate on ab-bats. It'll make it a lot easier for you. And you will see why Bonds's 73 HR in 2001 is vastly superior to Sosa's 66 in 1998 despite only 7-homer difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 It's stubborn shallowness, not principle.... The best way to lose an arguement is by overstatement....Afterall if a guy has 162 pinch-hit appearances, one in each game, and hits 69 home runs and another guy hits 70 but has 400 more at bats because he started in each game...who "deserves" the HR title more? And don't say "it will never happen, get off the pipe" either. It's principle, mothafocka. Whether you are arguing from formality standpoint or from fairness one....forget about 162 games crap and concentrate on ab-bats. It'll make it a lot easier for you. No no no, you see you use an overstatement to make a point...when someone can't see it. And you are simply not coming up with a reply to that point because you can't. And i know you can't. Injuries, lineups, and whatever else are variable and are part of the game, and everyone knows this. No one controls them. There's no rule. 162 games is a RULE. If you don't like the word principle, how bout "rule", mothaf***a? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BridgeportHeather Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 I agree wholeheartedly with Koch This. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 No one controls them. There's no rule. 162 games is a RULE. If you don't like the word principle, how bout "rule", mothaf***a? There are MANY conservative rules in sports and outside that make little sense but which, for the sake of convenience or practicality, are still in place, but it doesn't mean that it's all that there is too it, especially when talkintg about "fairness" and other lofty concepts. When you are arguing for formal status quo, you've lost an arguement. Simple as that. Also, who cares about records? 99.9% players don't break anything. Stop worshiping the purity of records, there is more to game than this. Especially when you consider that amount of at bats has more effect on said purity than games played... I am not sure if the 163rd decisive game of the 98 season counted or not, but if it did and Sammy hits 5 homers and breaks Big Mac's 70....you get the idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 There are MANY conservative rules in sports and outside that make little sense but which, for the sake of convenience or practicality, are still in place, but it doesn't mean that it's all that there is too it, especially when talkintg about "fairness" and other lofty concepts. When you are arguing for formal status quo, you've lost an arguement. Simple as that. Also, who cares about records? 99.9% players don't break anything. Stop worshiping the purity of records, there is more to game than this. Especially when you consider that amount of at bats has more effect on said purity than games played... I am not sure if the 163rd decisive game of the 98 season counted or not, but if it did and Sammy hits 5 homers and breaks Big Mac's 70....you get the idea. On your last point, ya i get the idea...IT'D BE BULLs***!!! Thanks for playing right into my hands buddy. That's classic. You fail to see that at bat variation is part of the game, and no rules restrict it. 162 games is a rule, it's a standard of the game. Oh, and arguing a status quo...i didn't know by supporting a RULE you lose an argument. I think you lose the argument based on the fact that you spew out complete bulls***, and more importantly, assume you win somehow...? And i'm not just talking about records, i'm talking about season titles for lots of things...i think i've mentioned a single season home run crown a few times...miss that too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Whether or not you like the name calling, you are a moron. Injuries, lineups, and stadiums are totally different than playing EXTRA DAMN GAMES. There is no rule that says you have to get XXX at bats in a season, or be injured XXX games. If you get injured, that's PART OF THE GAME. The RULE says you play 162 games. There's no ifs, and's, or buts about it. It's a controlled variable and is not open to luck. It's something that the league controls and will control. You are comparing apples and oranges. Just give up already, no need to spew all that "rules" nonsense. In my orignal post I used the word "fairness", you can't think outside the little "rules" box, too bad. Really. I don''t even need to call you a moron, you are doing a great job showcasing yourself as such. And, yes, records, rainouts, injuries, protection and other things in question have everything to do with luck. Think about what the word means, just for a second. I am not against formality/practicality per se, but there is definitely more to it than magical number 162, brotha man. Once more time, only slower...if Clement ends up breaking the ERA record because 11 earned runs that he gave up fair and f***ing square were "disallowed".....you still haven't come up with anything that isn't contradictory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 You fail to see that at bat variation is part of the game, and no rules restrict it ...while you in turn fail to comprehend my original reply to Chisoxfn or whomeever it was who confirmed that the game was indeed wiped out. Re-read if you wish, if not go ahead and throw out some more "set variables" and "rules". Thanks for playing regardless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmr31 Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 ...while you in turn fail to comprehend my original reply to Chisoxfn or whomeever it was who confirmed that the game was indeed wiped out. Re-read if you wish, if not go ahead and throw out some more "set variables" and "rules". Thanks for playing regardless. Brando, chill. It really doesnt matter who is right or wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Just give up already, no need to spew all that "rules" nonsense. In my orignal post I used the word "fairness", you can't think outside the little "rules" box, too bad. Really. I don''t even need to call you a moron, you are doing a great job showcasing yourself as such. And, yes, records, rainouts, injuries, protection and other things in question have everything to do with luck. Think about what the word means, just for a second. I am not against formality/practicality per se, but there is definitely more to it than magical number 162, brotha man. Once more time, only slower...if Clement ends up breaking the ERA record because 11 earned runs that he gave up fair and f***ing square were "disallowed".....you still haven't come up with anything that isn't contradictory. You used the word fairness. Ya, playing more than the 162 games that the rules say isn't fair. Think outside the rule box? Why the f*** do we have rules then "brotha man"??? There is no doubt that at bats, injuries, et al have something to do with luck...tell me when i said they didn't. However games played isn't luck because it's a set number. Therefore it is an unfair advantage if there are more games played for one guy over another, what don't you get about this concept. Do you have the mental aptitude of a 6th grader? And if you could read what the hell i write, you'd realize i already addressed the Clement situation. I already said the game DOESN'T COUNT. No stats count, it doesn't matter, the game was never played. In the same manner that someone could be helped by an extra game by hitting three home runs, they won't be hurt by it either because it DOESN'T COUNT. It's an extra game that doesn't count. Regardless of performance, it's not counted because it'd be the 163rd game of the season. Pretty damn simple. So once again if he wins the ERA title, so be it....i didn't see a 11 run bashing today, did you? If a game is cancelled it never happened, i don't know whether you know that yet or not considering you believed the stats counted for a long time. And about the moron thing...you just keep talking like that and try to stick up for yourself instead of letting your posts do the talking...though i can see why you are doing that cuz your posts are filled with bulls***...you know you've lost the argument when you have to try to convince everyone that you've won instead of just letting your arguments do it for you. "I won, look at me, i won" right buddy, right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 ...while you in turn fail to comprehend my original reply to Chisoxfn or whomeever it was who confirmed that the game was indeed wiped out. Re-read if you wish, if not go ahead and throw out some more "set variables" and "rules". Thanks for playing regardless. Oh and you're also the dumbass that thought the stats actually counted...shows how much you know about baseball...enough said right there...what other rule are you gonna make up now? You tell someone they are blatantly wrong and now you are just gonna keep defending yourself because you think they should count, you have too big an ego to admit you were ever wrong. You clearly said "wrong" to soxfest or whoever that was earlier, not "i'm sorry i believe you are wrong". You called someone out and got burnt like the big b**** you are. Deal with it instead of being a damn crybaby. Thanks for playing? That's cool, where'd you learn that one. I'd say the same to you but it doesn't seem like you are doing much participating, just unintelligent b****ing. I'm sorry if words like "RULE" and "FAIR" are not in your vocabulary. I can't do anything about that. PS thanks for playing right into my hands with the whole mcgwire/sosa scenario you brought up earlier...could you be a bigger idiot than winning the argument for me right there? Highly doubtful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 This all boils down to what is the definition of "a season". Is it 162 games? Is it 162 games plus rainouts? Is it 154 games, as was the case prior to 1961? The invaraibly brings to mind the infamous Roger Maris asterisk, again. As it is now, a season is 162 games and rainouts are not included in stats. It's been that way since 1961 and has worked fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Ah, the famous Maris asterisk...chalk that up on my side Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathew Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 If a guy gets traded to a team that has played less games he could play 163+, do his records not count? How about in the event of a tie at the end of the season, an extra game is played, do you count those stats, I think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 I am not sure if the 163rd decisive game of the 98 season counted or not, but if it did and Sammy hits 5 homers and breaks Big Mac's 70....you get the idea. Yep, that 163rd game counted. And had Sammy hit 5 HR to get 71, there would have been an asterisk in the record book, I'm sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 If a guy gets traded to a team that has played less games he could play 163+, do his records not count? How about in the event of a tie at the end of the season, an extra game is played, do you count those stats, I think so. Yes, it's possible for a player to play 170 games if he gets traded to the right team at the right time of the season. If he were to break a record, there would likely be an asterisk, but it would count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinningUgly2003 Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Gently untwist the panties...grab some valium.....take a deep breath or two....momo. I recall using "I think" before stating my opinion....nice to be wrong for a change. Whoa! Momo? You're from espn too, huh? Stop Thief! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesox247 Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 ...while you in turn fail to comprehend my original reply to Chisoxfn or whomeever it was who confirmed that the game was indeed wiped out. Re-read if you wish, if not go ahead and throw out some more "set variables" and "rules". Thanks for playing regardless. Brando, chill. It really doesnt matter who is right or wrong. BMR trying to STOP a fight? Theres something new everyday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.