Miscellaneous Sports Stuff

[nuraman00]

Other than your "Thanks" posts, this must be one of your shortest responses to a question that could have a lot of words.

You're forgetting the times I say "Great post."® or "I agree."®, other trademarks of mine.

 

[MHSL82]

Both hitters and pitchers did it, so it's hard to exclude one set without excluding the other set. A hit could have been by a steriods user, a big strikeout by one, or both could have been on it. Hard to tell to what extent every AB was affected by one. But it's not just about the hitters.

Good point. As far as the numbers, we'll never know. I'd still say there'd be a way to ban both the pitchers and the hitters when caught. Yes, that wouldn't change their numbers and of course, that just puts emphasis on not getting caught - but isn't most crimes or rule-breaking the same? You don't catch all speeders, it doesn't mean those caught should be not pulled over. You could say perhaps to instead only pull over the really fast ones, I suppose. I said on the Niners board, that if you think you're Hall worthy without steroids, don't take steroids. If you're not Hall-worthy without steroids, you don't deserve to be in there.

I don't like when people make the only alternative is to cheat or to accept cheating. Yes, you can't catch all of them - but what is wrong with looking for them and punishing those who do? Improve the methods for discovery if it's so rampant. I know players don't want more drug tests, but tough luck. You want the money? Do the damn tests, this ain't the government, no one is forcing you or invading your privacy without consent. If the money is too great to refuse consent, welcome to the negotiating table - this is what happens when you don't have the leverage. Yes, there could be a lockout, but what's going to happen when you aren't paid?

I also think the racists, sexual abusers; people guilty of domestic violence; are more immoral than cheaters, but they've still made it.

True. Well, from now on they shouldn't. If someone wants to instigate a process to remove them, great. But the Hall recognizes historical numbers - if you wouldn't get the numbers without cheating, then you don't deserve to be in there. As far as non-numerical reasons to get in, cheating screwed the pooch there. Again, if you could get in without it, don't take the steroids. If it bugs you when they don't let you in, welcome to the consequences of taking steroids. You got the fame, money, recognition, and admiration - all consequences of taking steroids - and now, you don't want the consequences? The rapists, violent, and racists are worse, why not exclude both cheaters and rapists, racists, etc.?

It would get too complicated trying to say "this would have happened" or "this wouldn't have happened". So, "just pick good players."

I respect your stand on this, I think it's a good stand, too. I would define good players based upon what I think they'd be without steroids, and that's impossible, but I'd do my best. I'd only get one vote and I would respect others' votes. I'd consider you clean until proven guilty - I know that rewards the ones that can hide it, but I can't discount everybody, can I? Now, I wouldn't be stupid either, so subconsciously I may assume some guilt when voting for some that look like it number-wise or body wise (change since early in career).

My thing was the feeling that those who were voting were criticized for how they voted, when they voted against cheaters. If they vote them in, I'm ok with it because they are ok with the cheating - they are closer to baseball than I am. If they don't, I'm ok with it because they are, they're now choosing to do something about it. It was the "how could you vote this way, you're so hypocritical!" There are points on both sides and I just accept how they vote - now, if the wrong people are voting, than that is what should change.

I know what I posted here is convoluted a lot. I guess what I'm trying to say is I wouldn't defend cheaters. What happens, happens. If the current guys don't let them in it doesn't bother me. If they do, then they believe they deserve it.

I would keep the ban on Pete Rose.

Someone suggested voting on inducting him into the Hall five years after he dies. If people dislike it so much, then don't vote him in, but make him eligible. Because historically, his numbers weren't positively affected by the cheating. (You can only throw games or pitches, right? You couldn't manipulate a loss into a win for gambling reasons, could you?) He was a good player. I added the five years because I wouldn't want the Hall to be like a funeral for him. I think you have to wait five years after retiring. If the period is shorter, then shorten my proposal. Of course, they could never tell him before he died, because first, they haven't voted and second, it would defeat the purpose of waiting. It would still ban him, he would still have to face the consequences, but those who love him and had no guilt, could still see their loved one commemorated and the numbers support him being in the Hall. I suppose this could set a precedence, so that's the only reason not to do this other than pounding your fist saying cheaters never should be in the Hall. Hello steroids group? But I doubt someone will bet on baseball thinking, they'll let me in when I die. If what they do is deemed worse than gambling, then forever ban. If not as bad, do they need a ban - maybe just delay?

 

[MHSL82]

Do you mean you're not as knowledgeable, or you're not as big of a fan?

If it's the latter, start liking it more.

Knowledgeable. I suppose I'd be more knowledgeable if I liked baseball more, but there are just too many games, we don't have a major league team here, and they are often mid-day. They're also long and sometimes boring, but I can stand that, knowing the more I learn, the less boring it would get as I could track players and team strategies. To a non-fan, baseball would always be boring - but not for me. I watch games that are at night, I went to one or two every year, alternating from the Angels and Dodgers, sometimes playing each other or playing the Giants, when I lived in Los Angeles. I watch the playoffs and root for the Giants.

So I lack the intricate knowledge of baseball, but I do enjoy baseball games and root for the Giants.

 

[MHSL82]

You're forgetting the times I say "Great post."® or "I agree."®, other trademarks of mine.

But those posts are responding to posts that couldn't have a lot of words in response.

 

[nuraman00]

But those posts are responding to posts that couldn't have a lot of words in response.

I could make many responses lengthy. More than currently so.

 

[nuraman00]

Knowledgeable. I suppose I'd be more knowledgeable if I liked baseball more, but there are just too many games, we don't have a major league team here, and they are often mid-day. They're also long and sometimes boring, but I can stand that, knowing the more I learn, the less boring it would get as I could track players and team strategies. To a non-fan, baseball would always be boring - but not for me. I watch games that are at night, I went to one or two every year, alternating from the Angels and Dodgers, sometimes playing each other or playing the Giants, when I lived in Los Angeles. I watch the playoffs and root for the Giants.

So I lack the intricate knowledge of baseball, but I do enjoy baseball games and root for the Giants.

Yeah, weekday mid-day or morning games (east coast) are missed by me too.

 

[nuraman00]

Someone suggested voting on inducting him into the Hall five years after he dies. If people dislike it so much, then don't vote him in, but make him eligible. Because historically, his numbers weren't positively affected by the cheating. (You can only throw games or pitches, right? You couldn't manipulate a loss into a win for gambling reasons, could you?) He was a good player. I added the five years because I wouldn't want the Hall to be like a funeral for him. I think you have to wait five years after retiring. If the period is shorter, then shorten my proposal. Of course, they could never tell him before he died, because first, they haven't voted and second, it would defeat the purpose of waiting. It would still ban him, he would still have to face the consequences, but those who love him and had no guilt, could still see their loved one commemorated and the numbers support him being in the Hall. I suppose this could set a precedence, so that's the only reason not to do this other than pounding your fist saying cheaters never should be in the Hall. Hello steroids group? But I doubt someone will bet on baseball thinking, they'll let me in when I die. If what they do is deemed worse than gambling, then forever ban. If not as bad, do they need a ban - maybe just delay?

Gambling is worse than cheating. And he bet when he was a player-manager, so he could have turned losses into wins. (Let's say he tried a low percentage play, such as a swinging hit, rather than a sac bunt that advanced runners from 1st/2nd to 2nd/3rd, with no outs, hypothetically, resulting in a likely run scored. Maybe the sac wouldn't have been fielded and he would have gotten a hit, and eventual run scored and SB. Or maybe the sac could have netted him a few RBIs vs. a strikeout ). He could have also turned wins into losses, lowering his numbers.

But it's not the point on how he could have altered games. It's the lack of trust, similar to the players for the White Sox that tanked games in the 1919 WS.

I trust that cheaters were trying to help their team, and it makes it a little easier to judge talent from that.

 

[MHSL82]

Gambling is worse than cheating. And he bet when he was a player-manager, so he could have turned losses into wins. (Let's say he tried a low percentage play, such as a swinging hit, rather than a sac bunt that advanced runners from 1st/2nd to 2nd/3rd, with no outs, hypothetically, resulting in a likely run scored. Maybe the sac wouldn't have been fielded and he would have gotten a hit, and eventual run scored and SB. Or maybe the sac could have netted him a few RBIs vs. a strikeout ). He could have also turned wins into losses, lowering his numbers.

But it's not the point on how he could have altered games. It's the lack of trust, similar to the players for the White Sox that tanked games in the 1919 WS.

I trust that cheaters were trying to help their team, and it makes it a little easier to judge talent from that.

As far as gambling being worse than cheating, I won't touch that because that's a personal, perhaps moral (?), opinion. I won't argue over that.

I presume though, if you could win by switching to a low-percentage play, people should just do that. I trust that every game in which he won by a maximum wasn't thrown, it was effort to win, same as if you didn't bet. You can, however, switch from a win to a loss, throw a game or a few pitches. Obviously, if he bet to win by fewer than 4 runs, he could win by 3 and mess it up. But how could he, prior to the game, bet he was going to win by more than the spread, and then, cheatingly go and do that? You could run up the score I suppose, but this, to me, is far fetched. Key point is that the other team is trying to beat you and a would be loss is harder to turn into a win, even when being honest. If only he were to only bet on wins and abstain from losses.

Pete Rose would get into the HOF with his numbers and winning perhaps. My point is you can only make your numbers worse or your record worse. You cannot artificially win a game or hit a homerun irrespective of your talent, unless the other team is not trying or in on the bet. So I don't see gambling as being something that ruins numbers or produces more wins. If with all the throwing of games and at bats, he still has the numbers and wins to get in, then he's good enough to make it to the HOF.

But if after taking steroids one is good enough to get in, we don't know if he'd have been good enough to make it without the steroids. If the goal is to put good players in, Pete Rose should be in there because he'd have been even better had he not bet.

If he turns losses into wins, when the opponent is trying to beat him, that just adds to his ability as a baseball player. I'd be pissed at all the losses that I thought he lost on purpose, though.

I don't support Rose for the HOF, I'm just saying if it's only good players and cheating doesn't matter and the HOF is just a museum, as I've heard some people say, Rose should be there if others are.

 

[MHSL82]

I have to add to the discussion that if a player is getting into the HOF because of a talent not benefitted by steroids (let's say stealing a base, where the steroid taken was for arm strength), than he still deserves to get in on that talent. I know, that's a bad example because you won't get in for that alone, but there are fielders who get in for defense. I don't know if one steroid can help with one aspect of the game and not the other, but if so, if they are in for the non-helped skill, they deserve to still be in. I know though that the writers can consider a lot of different factors, including cheating and including the steroid-affected production.

 

[MHSL82]

Nuraman, I know you're not BIG on football, but if you're free, you should watch the Packers at 49ers game at 5 PM so we can talk about our impressions afterwards. I always try to be fair when I report how the game's go, but it's always difficult to remove bias and tell both sides of the game or aspects of the game fairly. For example, if Kaep struggles, I'd be obligated to also tell you what he did well - something I'd say anyway, but when you didn't see the game, it sounds fake.

You too, Sackataters, but I assume you are already watching.

 

[nuraman00]

Nuraman, I know you're not BIG on football, but if you're free, you should watch the Packers at 49ers game at 5 PM so we can talk about our impressions afterwards. I always try to be fair when I report how the game's go, but it's always difficult to remove bias and tell both sides of the game or aspects of the game fairly. For example, if Kaep struggles, I'd be obligated to also tell you what he did well - something I'd say anyway, but when you didn't see the game, it sounds fake.

You too, Sackataters, but I assume you are already watching.

It won't sound fake because I trust the source.

Or, for example, I've gotten a feel for what one's perspective on various issues are, over the years.

So if I know Person X likes an uptempo game, and his team A lost while looking like they were stuck in mud, and Person X then says after the game that he wishes Team A could have played faster, I'm not surprised because I know that's what he likes.

 

[MHSL82]

It won't sound fake because I trust the source.

Or, for example, I've gotten a feel for what one's perspective on various issues are, over the years.

So if I know Person X likes an uptempo game, and his team A lost while looking like they were stuck in mud, and Person X then says after the game that he wishes Team A could have played faster, I'm not surprised because I know that's what he likes.

Kaep played great. I think Alex would have won in a different style, but no doubt this was harder for the Packers than Smith would have been. It's part trust in Harbaugh, trust in Smith, but also, the Packers seem to not be in it - so I feel we would have won a different style game with Alex. Smith would not have the runs, but he'd also not have the interception returned for a TD. He'd likely have a better completion percentage but fewer yards and a lot more runningback yards. Time of possession I think oddly would be around the same.

But some people will say that since Kaep won the way he did, Alex would have lost and that since he "couldn't" do some of the things Kaep did that he couldn't have brought about the same result (win). People will now praise Harbaugh because he reached the same spot that Alex did last year, though Smith should have been in the SB last year. Now, if Kaep gets there, people will again say Smith couldn't. But that's sports. I'm a Niners fan so I win either way, and if Smith later gets there with another team, that'll make it sweeter for him.

If Kaep had lost today, people would note the injuries and say that Smith would have done the same or worse, even with a different gameplan (yes, they do gameplan differently, even if they say they don't - same playbook, but just like a soft taco has much of the same things as an enchilada or burrito, they're not the same).

If Smith had won, they'd say it was all the defense and running game - which is a big part, because that's what plan they do with him - so some truth, but it's meant as an insult. Smith when playing did what it took to win, HE changed some pass plays to runs. If Smith lost, oh boy, the ultimate, "see, he never could win a SB ever!" The worst would be if the Niners were down two TDs and Kaep gets hurt, Smith comes in and doesn't win. It would be unfair, but that'd be on Alex, too.

I prefer to praise Kaep without reference or comparison to Smith. I'd feel the same if I didn't like Smith. I just think that time is over a few weeks ago. Kaep is a new, different QB, let him grow as Kaep.

When the season is over, the Niners can release Smith, he can go somewhere, I'll root for the Niners and still be able to root for Smith to play well when he doesn't play the Niners. I know I should want to keep him as a backup because that makes my team stronger, but what can I say? I want Smith to do well, too. Sue me. Constant comparisons by a hyped crowd is worse than starting somewhere else. This year's ring will mean something because he started it and helped Kaep. Next year, it's David Carr (a famous backup who used to start for Houston).

Did I show you this? I liked the city's sendoff to Smith in the last regular season game:

49ers vs Cardinals 2012 Away - Alex Smith Drive on Vimeo

They gave him a standing ovation (start of video), chanting "Let's go Alex" (throughout), and his throw and reaction to the chants (1:05).

 

[nuraman00]

I'll watch the video later.

I think Smith was better at finding Vernon Davis, and Kaepernick better at Crabtree. Kaepernick ran a lot, seemed like 1 out of 6 or 7 times, and the Packers defense seemed really bad at preventing that. They didn't make adjustments after halftime either. Since the Packers were also blown out last year, and didn't rank that well defensively (regular season last year and this year), then maybe it was more about their defensive schemes or defensive coach, then the way Kaepernick ran that often. Maybe he went against a bad defensive that had a favorable matchup for his style.

 

[MHSL82]

Haven't We All Done Steroids, In A Way?

 

[MHSL82]

Manti Te'o's Dead Girlfriend, The Most Heartbreaking And Inspirational Story Of The College Football Season, Is A Hoax

Notre Dame, Te'o say linebacker was victim of hoax - CBSSports.com

Story of Manti Te'o girlfriend and her death apparently a hoax - ESPN

 

[nuraman00]

Sharapova vs. Li SemiFinals Wednesday, ESPN 2, 6:30 PM PST.

Li's the better mover and can exchange ground strokes with the best, but Sharapova is mentally tougher (more proven champion and less double faults in tight moments).

 

[MHSL82]

What's the point of having the "Games Played" column? All it does is make me mis-take that as the win column and the win column as the loss column. Virtually every league has teams with different numbers of games at any given point (with it equaling out by the end of the season), except football, where it's all the same for most teams, except for bye weeks and temporary Thursday or Monday night gaps.

2012-13 NHL Regular Season Conference Standings

 

[nuraman00]

What's the point of having the "Games Played" column? All it does is make me mis-take that as the win column and the win column as the loss column. Virtually every league has teams with different numbers of games at any given point (with it equaling out by the end of the season), except football, where it's all the same for most teams, except for bye weeks and temporary Thursday or Monday night gaps.

2012-13 NHL Regular Season Conference Standings

I noticed it the other day too.

It's weird but I got used to it.

 

[MHSL82]

I noticed it the other day too.

It's weird but I got used to it.

I hate it. I was going to try to be a hockey fan, but that's it, I can't take it! First, they never score and ties are allowed, and now this?

 

[MHSL82]

I don't like the ending or Smith crying, cause he handled it better, but the rest is good.