|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: THE HOLY SPIRIT COMES FROM | |||
| THE HOLY FATHER AND THE HOLY SON |
   
|
17 | 48.57% |
| THE HOLY FATHER |
  
|
18 | 51.43% |
| Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#801
08-08-2007, 11:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Official Barry Bonds Countdown Thread
[ QUOTE ]
the home run surge coincides with expansion (precisely), not an undemonstrated increase in steroid use. as far as i know, no one has found solid evidence that steroid use improves hitter performance. sorry. i was once like you! reading cured me of my ignorance. [/ QUOTE ] Oooh, expansion, didn't even think of that. That ought to push up the extreme ends at the very least, if not increase overall totals. Although it might increase overall totals too if finding a good pitcher is tougher than finding a good hitter. 
|
|
#802
08-08-2007, 11:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Official Barry Bonds Countdown Thread
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I never said anything remotely like #1, but since there is overwhelming evidence that steroids help home run hitters hit more home runs, [/ QUOTE ] Did you provide any proof and/or evidence that this is true? [/ QUOTE ] Do you disagree with my assertion that steroids help home run hitters hit more home runs? If you say you actually disagree, then I will (a) marvel at how any person could hold such a ridiculous opinion and then (b) provide the overwhelming evidence. Otherwise, you're just trying to bait me into another semantical/burden of proof argument, and I decline to engage. I think it's beyond obvious to any sensible person that steroids help home run hitters hit more home runs. [/ QUOTE ] Actually it's not. Just because you think it seems intuitive that it would be doesn't make it so. There are many counterintuitive things that happen to be facts. What evidence is there suggesting that "home run hitters," whatever the hell that means, benefit more from steroids? Why wouldn't line drive hitters? Or fringe fourth outfielders? Or catchers recovering from the daily grind? [/ QUOTE ] I said it's "obvious," not "intuitive." It's obvious from the massive offensive explosion in MLB that precisely coincided with the rise of steroids usage, and the words of Canseco, Caminiti et all who saw their strength/bat speed/home run total all skyrocket after they took steroids. I'm sure roids help all other hitters and pitchers too, but the results may not be as easy to see. I mean really, do you dispute any of this? This is seriously like explaining how bread becomes toast. [/ QUOTE ] LOL at "precisely." Btw, the more often you repeat how silly and obvious it is and how any idiot should know it without actually EXPLAINING it or making any cogent arguments, the weaker your position gets. Not stronger, as you appear to think. This is obvious. [/ QUOTE ] I'm just waiting for someone to disagree with any assertion I've made. The only disagreements I get are on semantics, whether I've met the burden of proof, offered enough evidence, etc. [/ QUOTE ] You've made a lot of assertions. You assert that steroids help hitters more than they hurt them. I don't agree. Care you support that assertion?
|
|
#803
08-08-2007, 11:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Official Barry Bonds Countdown Thread
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I never said anything remotely like #1, but since there is overwhelming evidence that steroids help home run hitters hit more home runs, [/ QUOTE ] Did you provide any proof and/or evidence that this is true? [/ QUOTE ] Do you disagree with my assertion that steroids help home run hitters hit more home runs? If you say you actually disagree, then I will (a) marvel at how any person could hold such a ridiculous opinion and then (b) provide the overwhelming evidence. Otherwise, you're just trying to bait me into another semantical/burden of proof argument, and I decline to engage. I think it's beyond obvious to any sensible person that steroids help home run hitters hit more home runs. [/ QUOTE ] Actually it's not. Just because you think it seems intuitive that it would be doesn't make it so. There are many counterintuitive things that happen to be facts. What evidence is there suggesting that "home run hitters," whatever the hell that means, benefit more from steroids? Why wouldn't line drive hitters? Or fringe fourth outfielders? Or catchers recovering from the daily grind? [/ QUOTE ] I said it's "obvious," not "intuitive." It's obvious from the massive offensive explosion in MLB that precisely coincided with the rise of steroids usage, and the words of Canseco, Caminiti et all who saw their strength/bat speed/home run total all skyrocket after they took steroids. I'm sure roids help all other hitters and pitchers too, but the results may not be as easy to see. I mean really, do you dispute any of this? This is seriously like explaining how bread becomes toast. [/ QUOTE ] LOL at "precisely." Btw, the more often you repeat how silly and obvious it is and how any idiot should know it without actually EXPLAINING it or making any cogent arguments, the weaker your position gets. Not stronger, as you appear to think. This is obvious. [/ QUOTE ] I'm just waiting for someone to disagree with any assertion I've made. The only disagreements I get are on semantics, whether I've met the burden of proof, offered enough evidence, etc. [/ QUOTE ] You've made a lot of assertions. You assert that steroids help hitters more than they hurt them. I don't agree. Care you support that assertion? [/ QUOTE ] I think the direct statements of Caminiti and Canseco about how they took steroids, got much stronger, and then started hitting a lot more home runs is pretty strong support for my assertion, as is the overall offensive explosion during the "steroid era." Yes, expansion etc. may have ALSO contributed, but that doesn't mean that steroids had no effect. What is your support for the assertion that steroids hurt hitters more than they help? Edit: I have to go to bed and I think I actually have to work tomorrow. I know you're all disappointed to hear that I may not be posting as much in this thread for a while.
|
|
#804
08-08-2007, 11:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Official Barry Bonds Countdown Thread
[ QUOTE ]
I think the direct statements of Caminiti and Canseco about how they took steroids, got much stronger, and then started hitting a lot more home runs is pretty strong support for my assertion, [/ QUOTE ] I don't think this is necessarily good evidence at all. After all, Lyle Alzado claimed he died from using steroids when in fact he did not.
|
|
#806
08-08-2007, 11:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Official Barry Bonds Countdown Thread
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I never said anything remotely like #1, but since there is overwhelming evidence that steroids help home run hitters hit more home runs, [/ QUOTE ] Did you provide any proof and/or evidence that this is true? [/ QUOTE ] Do you disagree with my assertion that steroids help home run hitters hit more home runs? If you say you actually disagree, then I will (a) marvel at how any person could hold such a ridiculous opinion and then (b) provide the overwhelming evidence. Otherwise, you're just trying to bait me into another semantical/burden of proof argument, and I decline to engage. I think it's beyond obvious to any sensible person that steroids help home run hitters hit more home runs. [/ QUOTE ] Actually it's not. Just because you think it seems intuitive that it would be doesn't make it so. There are many counterintuitive things that happen to be facts. What evidence is there suggesting that "home run hitters," whatever the hell that means, benefit more from steroids? Why wouldn't line drive hitters? Or fringe fourth outfielders? Or catchers recovering from the daily grind? [/ QUOTE ] I said it's "obvious," not "intuitive." It's obvious from the massive offensive explosion in MLB that precisely coincided with the rise of steroids usage, and the words of Canseco, Caminiti et all who saw their strength/bat speed/home run total all skyrocket after they took steroids. I'm sure roids help all other hitters and pitchers too, but the results may not be as easy to see. I mean really, do you dispute any of this? This is seriously like explaining how bread becomes toast. [/ QUOTE ] LOL at "precisely." Btw, the more often you repeat how silly and obvious it is and how any idiot should know it without actually EXPLAINING it or making any cogent arguments, the weaker your position gets. Not stronger, as you appear to think. This is obvious. [/ QUOTE ] I'm just waiting for someone to disagree with any assertion I've made. The only disagreements I get are on semantics, whether I've met the burden of proof, offered enough evidence, etc. [/ QUOTE ] You've made a lot of assertions. You assert that steroids help hitters more than they hurt them. I don't agree. Care you support that assertion? [/ QUOTE ] I think the direct statements of Caminiti and Canseco about how they took steroids, got much stronger, and then started hitting a lot more home runs is pretty strong support for my assertion, as is the overall offensive explosion during the "steroid era." Yes, expansion etc. may have ALSO contributed, but that doesn't mean that steroids had no effect. What is your support for the assertion that steroids hurt hitters more than they help? Edit: I have to go to bed and I think I actually have to work tomorrow. I know you're all disappointed to hear that I may not be posting as much in this thread for a while. [/ QUOTE ] I said help MORE than it hurts. This is absolutely no evidence for that at all. All Canseco and Caminiti are capable of attesting to is whether it helps them or not. I do not dispute that. But they would have absolutely no idea how much steroids HURT them, because they have no idea what kind of effect it is having on pithers. Sure, the steroids helped them, and made them stronger and so on, but maybe that only got them back up to speed, where they would have been if steroids had never been discovered. So, from THEIR perspective it helps, but in reality it was entirely neutral, or worse. Also, Canseco and Caminiti are cheaters so I don't listen to what they have to say. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
|
#808
08-09-2007, 01:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Official Barry Bonds Countdown Thread
[ QUOTE ]
As for #3, I think there is a mountain of substantial credible evidence that Bonds used steroids and I am pretty sure I could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Obviously this is speculation on my part, but the fact that the feds have not YET indicted Bonds does not really mean anything conclusive either way. [/ QUOTE ] If you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bonds used steroids (what state did you pass the BAR exam in btw?), then you might want to contact someone that works for the government. They've been unsuccessfully trying to get him for years, and I'm sure your help would be appreciated. I think you're looking for a reason why I, or others, can possibly believe that Bonds didn't use steroids correct? Your main argument seems to be that Bonds hit an extraordinary amount of home runs at a late age. That wasn't the only number of his that increased. Let's look at his batting averages. Bonds has a career average of .298. The numbers from 2001-2004: .328, .370, .341, .362. He only has 1 year higher than any of these 4 and that came in 1993 at .336. Barry won the MVP award in 1993. How could steroids have possibly helped him raise his batting average this much? Perhaps Barry realized that he was aging, would be slower, and compensated by working out and working at his batting. If Barry Bonds is the scumbag, a liar, and a cheater as you and the media make him out to be, then I only want one answer. Why would he wait until 2000 to begin taking steroids? If he wanted to cheat before then I'm sure he could've.
|
|
#809
08-09-2007, 02:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Official Barry Bonds Countdown Thread
Why does everyone always view Bonds as selfish?
One could easily make the point that he is the ultimate team player. Risking testicle shrinkage, going the extra mile for his team, trying to be the best player he could possibly be.
|
|
#810
08-09-2007, 03:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Official Barry Bonds Countdown Thread
[ QUOTE ]
The only "evidence" anyone is offered is that Barry hasn't flunked a MLB test since the testing went into effect. Whee. [/ QUOTE ] Considering that is the crucial determination on whether or not a player has violated the MLB steroid policy, it's kind of a key point. [ QUOTE ] the fact that the feds have not YET indicted Bonds does not really mean anything conclusive either way. [/ QUOTE ] Considering that they are on their 3rd try, it means that the first 2 convened without finding sufficient evidence to even go to trial.
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
