Todd Helton = Sandy Koufax. Discuss.

by RichLangweber

Based largely on the strength of his dominating peak performance from 1962-1966, Sandy Koufax is widely regarded as one of the *small handful* of the greatest pitchers of all time.  Based largely on the strength of his dominating peak performance from 2000-2004, Todd Helton is regarded as…what, exactly? 

Certainly Helton is not generally regarded as one of the handful of greatest hitters of all time.  And yet, Todd Helton is basically the hitting version of Sandy Koufax.  That is, both were excellent players who put up Nintendo type numbers because of the parks and eras in which they played: Koufax pitched in the greatest pitchers’ park during the greatest pitchers’ era of all time, while Helton played in the greatest hitters’ park during the greatest hitters’ era of all time.  Consider, first, the seasonal averages for each player during their respective peaks (I consider only peak seasons here because that’s really the whole case for Koufax as a Hall of Famer, and quite frankly Helton’s non-peak years are much better than Koufax’s):

Helton:

G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS SO BB BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+
158 689 570 129 199 50 3 37 123 4 3 108 80 .349 .450 .643 1.093 160

 

Koufax:

W L W% ERA G GS CG SHO IP H R ER HR BB K ERA+ WHIP K/BB
22 7 0.766 1.95 36 35 20 7 275 192 68 60 18 63 289 167 0.926 4.57

Both stat lines are quite impressive.  You already know how great Koufax was, but to give you some idea about how good Helton’s numbers are consider this: were those Helton’s career rates, he would have the 4th highest batting average of all time, the 5th highest on base percentage of all time, and 2nd highest slugging percentage (trailing only Babe Ruth, and ahead of Ted Williams, Lou Gehrig, Barry Bonds et. al.; as it stands now, Helton is 35th in BA, 12th in OBP, and 15th in SLG, still pretty impressive). 

It is of course hard to compare a hitter’s line to a pitcher’s, but I’m probably more impressed by Koufax’s raw stat line than Helton’s.  An ERA beginning with “1” and a “20” in the complete games column will do that to someone whose fandom has developed in the post-1994 Chicks Dig the Longball Era.  In Koufax’s era, however, pitchers routinely completed 20 games in a season and often, if not routinely, posted ERAs below 2.00.  By contrast, only three hitters cracked .340 during Koufax’s 1962-1966 peak (Tommy Davis hit .346 in 1962, Frank Robinson hit .342 in 1962, and Matty Alou hit .342 in 1966), so to an observer from Koufax’s peak Helton’s numbers likely look more superficially impressive.

Of course, neither Koufax nor Helton are quite as good as their stat lines appear.  If we “neutralize” their stats so as to correspond to an environment where the average team scores 4.42 runs/game (the default “neutralize” number on baseballreference.com), then Koufax’s ERA increases to 2.40 and Helton’s triple slash stats become .320/.419/.589, still very impressive numbers for both. 

But, how can we compare the two?  Notice the OPS+ column for Helton and ERA+ column for Koufax.  During their respective primes, Helton’s OPS+ shows him as being 60% more productive than a league average hitter, while Koufax’s ERA+ has him at 67% better than a league average pitcher.   That’s eerily close in terms of the percentage by which each player is better than league average.  According to VORP (which does adjust for park and league effects), Helton was actually more valuable than Koufax during their respective peaks:

Koufax:                                                                                                                                                                   

Year VORP
1962 49.9
1963 87.9
1964 69.4
1965 86.7
1966 99.7
Total: 393.6

 

Helton:  

Year VORP
2000 89
2001 82.6
2002 64
2003 88.6
2004 89.5
Total: 413.7

 

They’re pretty close; Helton edges Koufax by almost 20 VORP, which over five seasons isn’t very much at all.  Yet even though VORP has Helton as the more valuable player over their respective five year peaks, Koufax won 3 Cy Young Awards and one MVP award while Helton never placed higher than fifth in the MVP voting (outside of his five peak seasons, Helton has gotten MVP votes in only one year, 2009, when he placed 13th). 

Ironically, Helton’s MVP voting record is more reminiscent of Koufax’s contemporary and rival, Juan Marichal.  Marichal famously won 25 games three separate times in the 1960’s while never winning a Cy Young award, largely because he had the misfortune to be the contemporary of Koufax and Bob Gibson.  Todd Helton has hit .330+/.430+/.630+ in three separate seasons without winning an MVP award, largely because he had the misfortune to be the contemporary of Barry Bonds and Albert Pujols (but really mostly Bonds). 

So why is Sandy Koufax regarded as one of the greatest pitchers in baseball history while the perception of Helton seems to be that he’s merely a very good ballplayer who took particular advantage of his era and home ballpark?  Well, there are likely a few explanations. 

First, when Koufax was dominating the National League we were not nearly as cognizant of park and league effects as we are today during Helton’s time.  As we came to understand park and league effects better as time went by, Koufax’s legacy nevertheless remained intact.  Second, Koufax was a pitcher, and fans and writers have a tendency, I think, to romanticize pitchers more than hitters, particularly when it comes to “short but dominating career” type guys (consider that Ralph Kiner, similar to Koufax in that he had a brilliant peak but short career as a hitter, took 20 years after his retirement to make the Hall while Koufax sailed in after only his second year of eligibility). 

Third is dominance compared to their contemporaries.  Despite the fact that Helton’s peak is equal to that of Koufax’s, Koufax really was the best pitcher of his era.  Helton was not the best hitter of his.  That honor would have to go to Barry Bonds, and it’s far from clear that Helton was even the second best hitter of his era: in addition to Helton, Vladimir Guerrero, Manny Ramirez, Carlos Delgado, Albert Pujols, and Alex Rodriguez can all lay a legitimate claim to “best non-Bonds hitter of the first half of this decade” title, not to mention Frank Thomas, Ken Griffey Jr., and Jeff Bagwell immediately prior, as well as David Ortiz and Travis Hafner immediately after. 

None of which fully explains why Koufax is perceived as one of the greatest pitchers of all time while Helton is viewed as something less than one of the best hitters ever, to say the least.  The facts do not lie: Helton and Koufax had great peaks of almost identical value, save for the fact that Helton’s was slightly stronger.  Both put up otherworldly numbers because they were great players playing in parks and eras particularly suited for them.  Yet Koufax is viewed as one of the greatest pitchers of all time while the perception of Helton is something less than that.  Todd Helton is Sandy Koufax.  Discuss.

Tags: ,

306 Responses to “Todd Helton = Sandy Koufax. Discuss.”

  1. Hossrex Says:

    I’m a Dodgers fan. I hate the Rockies.

    Just want to make that clear.

    Todd Helton is a better choice for the hall of fame than is Sandy Koufax.

    Koufax refused to pitch a world series game. I couldn’t give two gnats asses why. One of the arguments against Sammy Sosa’s enshrinement is that he walked away from a game, and his team in a meaningless situation on the last day of a meaningless year.

    Todd Helton on the otherhand has had his late career decline SEVERELY overestimated. He’s basically had two “bad” years (2006, and 2008).

    The following is Todd Helton’s OBP by year:

    1997: .337
    1998: .380
    1999: .395
    2000: .463
    2001: .432
    2002: .429
    2003: .458
    2004: .469
    2005: .445
    2006: .404
    2007: .434
    2008: .391
    2009: .416
    Career: .427 (1st active, 12th ALL TIME)

    I don’t understand the hate for Helton. Sure his power has gone down, but going cold turkey off steroids will do that.

  2. Chuck Says:

    A juice free, Coors Field free Todd Helton is no different than any other run of the mill corner infielder of the last 30 years.

    If he’s not off the ballot after two, three years, I’m suing the BBWAA.

  3. Chuck Says:

    …and one of Helton’s best friends is Jeff Bagwell, whose BFF is Craig Biggio.

    Connect the dots..

  4. Hossrex Says:

    Are steroids, or rarefied air really helping a person to be the most productive player of your generation at getting on base, and hovering near the top 10 most productive players of all time at getting on base?

    For people more inclined to more traditional statistics, he’s also third active in batting, behind two of the greatest hitters to ever play the game (Pujols and Ichiro, and he’s only behind them by .004 points… which means he averages four fewer hits per one thousand at-bats than the all-time greats), and 35th all time (not insignificant).

    Koufax had four good years in the height of the pitchers era. I’d compare him more to… GASP… Mark McGwire… who’s career was basically four or five good years, at the height of the hitters era.

  5. Rick Says:

    When I first read the title of the article I thought, “You’ve got to be kidding.”

    But you know what? Helton’s .294, .395, .489 on the road. Not similar to the numbers he’s put up in Colorado, but still solid. Koufax was great on the road, going 86-46, but his ERA did “balloon” (if you can call it that) to 3.04.

    (Baseball-reference lists Edgar Martinez as the most similiar player to Todd Helton. I have to throw that in there since Martinez was the subject of a recent article followed by a massive thread.)

    A difference between Koufax and Helton is that Koufax does receive recognition based on peak performance. Helton will need to continue to produce, I think, cumulative numbers to overcome bias against Coors. I suppose even then people will say, “Yes, but he played in Colorado…”

    Nice article; never compared the Koufax/Helton

  6. brautigan Says:

    A friend of mine in Tucson has a game used Helton bat. It is easily the lightest bat I have ever held. I was amazed. It was a black Mizuno bat, thin handle, and very thin barrel. Usually a bat, like the Louisville Slugger model C271 has a thin handle but a larger barrel. The bat speed Helton generated with that bat must have been amazing.

    Helton was a good one. But, consider there were some pretty amazing feats going on @ Coors field. In 2000, Jeff Cirillo cracked 53 doubles, Jeff Hammonds OPS was .924. Larry Walker’s 2001 OPS was 1.111 and 2002 it was 1.023. Vinny Castilla hit 43 doubles and 35 homeruns in his age 37 season.

    Helton had one of the greatest seasons ever in 2000. And even though that season was aided by Coors, Helton still hit .353 on the road along with 15 homeruns.

    You all know how I feel about Koufax, so I’ll pass on commenting.

  7. Hossrex Says:

    I’d be curious to see a list of the top ten career road OPB’s. I’d wager a high gravity lager that .395 is pretty high on the list.

    Helton benefited from Colorado, but he wasn’t Ellis Burks, Vinnie Castillo, or Andres Galaraga. Those guys had skill sets which TOOK ADVANTAGE of Coors field. At best Coors field was complimentary for Helton. It bumped up his power (along with steroids), but I really don’t see how it helped his OBP.

  8. DB Says:

    Todd Helton, at his peak, led the league in OPS, probably the most telling stat for a hitter, once. Koufax led the league 5 consecutive years in ERA, the most telling stat for a pitcher. Do you know how many other pitchers led the league for five years in a row in ERA? Zero. I can’t imagine there is a hitter who lead the league for five years in a row in OPS who isn’t hall-worthy.
    Koufax had a .95 postseason ERA. (He begged out of a single game for religious reasons. He performed when it mattered, and he performed well).
    Say what you will about park effects, but during two of the years in his peak, his home ERA was below 1. One guy dominated, the other put up nice slash stats in the most favorable hitting environment in the history of the sport. Helton may have a hall case, but other than Pedro, it is hard to find a pitcher in the last 50 years who was similarly dominant to Koufax.

  9. Hossrex Says:

    No one is going to call me out for comparing Koufax to McGwire?

    Geez… I’m amazed. I’d probably have refuted it myself if someone else had said it.

  10. Chuck Says:

    Comparing a position player to a pitcher is like comparing vanilla to chocolate. The author covered you already, Rex. Sorry, bro.

  11. John Says:

    Helton
    27 years = 42 HR
    28 years = 49 HR
    29 years = 30 HR
    30 years = 33 HR
    31 years = 32 HR
    32 years = 20 HR
    33 years = 15 HR

    Banks
    27 years = 47 HR
    28 years = 45 HR
    29 years = 41 HR
    30 years = 29 HR
    31 years = 37 HR
    32 years = 18 HR
    33 years = 23 HR

    Just Sayin’

  12. John Says:

    Banks, Ernie…in case that wasn’t clear.

  13. Shawn Says:

    I think your being a little harsh Chuck. I will give guys the benefit of the doubt until it’s painfully obvious. Helton has never been talked about at all in roids’ speculation. He peaked in his late 20’s which 99% of athletes do, and had a steady decline. He didn’t drop off entirely, his power numbers went down at a fairly consistent pace. He’s not a power hitter now but he’s a great line drive hitter. Great eye at the plate, hits for average and loved by his teammates. If he has a few more solid years I think he should be in the HoF, but that’s me.

  14. Hossrex Says:

    John: “Just Sayin’

    The comparison is interesting, but Ernie was doing it in the sixties. Much different environment than the late nineties.

    On a separate note, I think it’d be naive to presume that Todd Helton DIDN’T do steroids.

    Todd Helton circa 1993: http://www.homeruncards.com/imagesrc/helton.jpg

    Granted he never got Barry Bonds huge, but he does have the telltale uniform two sizes too big.

  15. Yu-Hsing Chen Says:

    I’m usually very stats oriented but I also believe that this is overstating the case.

    1. VORP (or WAR or similar compile stats like that) should not be viewed with pitchers and hitters put together, they simply do thing too different from each other. also, from a pure # point of view I keep getting the feeling that the stats community is vastly underrating the replacement level of pitchers, it should be lower. every year you see a lot more bad pitchers doing horrifically and they combine for a lot more time on the field relative to guys that completely can’t hit worth a lick.

    2. The case for Koufax is the peak, if we use baseballprojection.com ’s number, Koufax is #61 all time despite only basically 6 season of “Sandy Koufax” (he had basically 5 season before that where he’s just a ok pitcher at best. mostly used as a swingman , but then again he was also very very young.) Todd Helton’s current #121 all time on the WAR list though if he keep going until age 40 he probably end up somewhere along the lines of Koufax’s ranking. however, he’s been a good hitter for 12 years now already, and if he finish at where Koufax is then he probably have 15-16 good years . earning 1 million bucks a year is not the same as earning 1 million bucks over 10 years.

    Context is important, Koufax’s peak was amazing even if you adjust for the context of the era (which WAR usually tries to do ) WAR pins his two best season both worth 10.8 wins above replacement, only other guys I see that have WAR over 10 season are Cy Young, Clemens , Walter Johnson, Kid Nicholas, Bob Gibson, Pedro Martinez. that’s it! so he clearly has a peak that stands along with Legends well (of the bunch of Johnson / Young / Gibson’s peak seem to be a bit better.)

    Meanwhile, Helton’s peak season ranked at 8.8 WAR, that’s obviously impressive but not it’s not really stuff of legends .

    I have no idea if he’s on something or not, though given Coors + the context of the time, I’d probably remain a little dubious on a rate bases . in the sense that I won’t vote for him (if I had one) unless he ends up close to some of the count stats milestones. and he’s not very close right now, 2100 ish hit and 325 HR / 509 doubles doesn’t get it done . he walks a lot of course but he’s also not in the top 50 of walks yet. he’ll probably with somewhere between 1300-1400 walks, thats obviously very good but again, not legendary stuff.

    For me I feel that adjust for all the context and Helton is very much like Eddie Murray. so for me to take his HOF candidatcy seriously , he needs to put up count totals that isn’t too far away from Murrays , effectively, he needs to get close to 3000 hits to get voted in. it’s actually doable if he keeps playing well and play to his early 40s.

    Will he get voted in? who knows really. its pretty clear that he’s not a no-brainer but it’s also clear that he’ll get some consideration. the inbetween area is pretty murky for the BBWAA . let’s just say that what Helton do or don’t do in the next 5-6 year will determine the outcome.

  16. Hossrex Says:

    Yu-Hsing Chen: “given Coors + the context of the time, I’d probably remain a little dubious on a rate bases

    Yeah. You’re right. Koufax playing in Dodger Stadium in the late sixties is completely different from Helton playing in Coors Field in the late 90’s(early 00’s).

    *rolls eyes*

  17. Yu-Hsing Chen Says:

    Oh your right about that, but the degree of difference is still there. Bond’s domination was still the best ever despite his obvious PED use and the context of the era. Ruth was still awesome despite the roaring 20s general crazy context.

    Adjust for park factor, you arrive at 187 and 190 ERA+ for Koufax’s two best season where he also pitched a boatload of innings (basically the upper limit of any pitcher after the deadball era.)

    purely on a ERA+ bases, Koufax’s season is weaker than Maddux or Pedro’s or Clemens’ best. but the innings really make up for it.

    Meanwhile, Helton’s best season OPS+ peg at 165. where what you see is what you get.

    I agree that Koufax isn’t the biggest HOF ever, he had a very HOF worthy peak but his career’s too short, he’s overrated in a sense but is still a solid candidate. Helton’s peak is obviously in the HOF range but it’s not particularly more impressive than most other HOF sluggers . his rate bases up to this point is almost right in line with Eddie Murray in the same age. (though Murray’s ahead of him on hits and HR by a reasonable margin). now, let’s see, if Murray didn’t play for 6 more reasonablly useful season after that and compile up the total #, would he be voted in?

    It wouldn’t shock me if Helton makes it and it wouldn’t be the worst pick ever, but at the same time I could see him easily not make it.

  18. Hossrex Says:

    If Koufax pitched at EXACTLY the same level of worth between the years of 1997 and 2003 instead of 1961 and 1966, he wouldn’t be in the hall of fame either.

    My next example is absurd… but I’ve seen people question Pedro’s hall of fame credentials. Of course I don’t agree, but people actually do. Pedro’s 2000 was in my opinion the greatest single season of any pitcher in the history of the game (and MLBtv agreed, by having him #1 on just such a list).

    Pedro Martinez was likely the best pitcher in baseball for each of at least five or six seasons of the seven year span between ‘97 and ‘03. If he’d somehow managed 200+ innings each of those years it’d be inarguable, and he probably would have deserved seven consecutive Cy Young awards.

    In my opinion Pedro is Sandy Koufax if Koufax had played in an era with modern medicine.

  19. Mike Felber Says:

    Good observations Mr. Chen, though I think we cannot demand greater #s due to MIGHT be using PEDs, & how much one contributes for how long is best measured by your earlier stats, not raw #s. And at 1st you were saying how we cannot compare offense & pitching: but it seems like you are instead arguing that the comparison whould be done differently, pitchers given a greater base value, which sounds fair. What I want to know is why are VORP & WAR SO different in the estimation of these 2 guys? VORP is supposed to adjust for context too.

    I am completely for downgrading the valuation & integrity of performances & bodies that were greatly enhanced through chemistry. But while Helton & the ’stro’s boys could have been using: why conclude that theyw ere or very likely were? We must be very careful about condemning innocents. And I have written many times, absent ANY arguments against this: some, especially top level athletes, have very good genetics. Add the best training & nutrition & financial motivation…They may well arrive where or beyond others do chemically, but naturally.

    Koufax was greater at his peak, but is still over-rated. Good article.

  20. Hossrex Says:

    Mike Felber: “What I want to know is why are VORP & WAR SO different in the estimation of these 2 guys?”

    Because both are the most extreme examples of modern day statistics run amok, and the most complicated you make a statistic (coupled with the more you try to say with a statistic), the most that statistic becomes inherently meaningless/baseless/inaccurate.

    The sheer lunacy that someone might possibly put any weight behind a statistic which supposes to rate both a pitcher from the 60’s, and a batter from the 90’s, simply baffles me.

  21. Hossrex Says:

    Meh. I’m tired. Replace every instance of the word “most” in my previous post with the word “more”.

  22. Patrick Says:

    Koufax basically had 2 short careers, one as a below average fireballer with control issues and one as the most dominant pitcher of his era. Plus, I agree with Hoss, you don’t sit out a World Series game because of pie in the sky beliefs.

    Helton has also had 2 short careers (so far) but one is a HOF career and the other is a borderline HOF career. He’s already had Edgar Martinez’s (the canary in the HOF mine shaft) career so if he adds 3 to 5 good years, I think he’s a HOFer, and don’t forget, Helton owns a baseball glove….oils it and everything.

    Also, don’t mention Helton and steroids in the same sentence unless you want the big man knocking on your door. He doesn’t like that….. ask Don Baylor.

    I appreciate what the author is trying to do, but aside from being apples and oranges, I don’t really see the similarity.

  23. dennis Says:

    Hoss rex and Patrick…..

    Sandy Koufax didnt pitch in a World Series game because he was an observant Jew and the game fell on Yom Kippur….which is the holiest day of the year for Jews, a day when they don t work and they reflect and atone for their sins.

    Walter Alston didnt have a problem with it.

    And are you two guys trying to STRETCH the meaning of narrow minded?

    I saw Koufax pitch in Shea in the mid 60s, a number of times and while the Mets weren t Murderers Row, he was unbeleivable, and Shea wasnt Chavez Ravine. I saw him pirch a game in 65, a 1 hit shutout against the Mets…..Rod Kanehl hit a dying quail bloop single over a jumping Maury Wills glove at short and that was the Mets offense.

    Koufax line was 15 strikeouts, no walks….the Dodgers didn t commit any errors and Koufax never wnt to 3 and 2 on any of the 28 batters she faced.

    Willie Stargell said that hitting Koufax was trying to drink coffee with a fork.

    The only pitchers I have seen that were that dominating were Pedro and Randy Johnson, both guaranteed HOFers…and Dwight Gooden in 84 and 85. Gooden had the same two piches as Koufax …a rising 95 to 88 mph fastball and a straight 12 to 6 drop curve…..

    But Johnson and Martinez as great they are…never made 40 or 41 starts or pitched 311 or 336 innings in any year as did Koufax…with an arthritic arm that was extraordinarily painful …Lets remember that Koufax s career wa scut short and he voluntarily retired.

    What made Koufax so extraordinary was that he was the difference between the Dodgers winning and losing pennants. He missed a considerable number of starts in 62 (and he didnt pitch in trhe 3 game splayoff series against the Giants) and 64 and the Dodgers fell short. When he was pitched a full season 63, 65 and 66, the Dodgers went to the World Series.

    I don think you can put Koufax in the same category as Lefty Grove or Roger Clemens….in my mind the two greatest pitchers of the live ball era….but for six years, he was the best in the game and as great as Martichal and Gibson were……(and Marichal was better then Gibson) Koufax was just better.

    But, but it would have been interesting to see Gibson or Marichal instead of Koufax piching for the Dodgers in Chavez Ravine….Oh my!!

    I dont know enough abot Helton to contribute a comment.

  24. Raul Says:

    Pedro Martinez in his prime owns Sandy Koufax.
    You remember that little midget Pedro had in the Redsox locker room? That’s Sandy Koufax.

    You take that to the bank.

  25. Larry R Says:

    They’re both HOFers. Although Koufax didn’t pitch Game 1 in ‘65 because of his faith, he still started 3 games in the series, including a CG 3-hit shutout with 10 Ks on 2 days rest in Game 7 (on the road). And he had severe arthritis in his pitching elbow, which has no cure, be it in ‘66 or ‘10. He did what he did in the ’60s pretty much in severe pain every time out, if one believes what has been written about him. Portraying him as selfish because he puts his God ahead of anything else isn’t fair; to suggest it based on what he did for his team in the following 10 days or so is absurd.

  26. Patrick Says:

    Dennis wrote; “I saw Koufax pitch in Shea in the mid 60s, a number of times and while the Mets weren t Murderers Row….”

    The mid 60’s Mets weren’t even the Columbus Clippers.

    Anyway, there’s no denying that Koufax was great when he was at the top of his game but he only spent 6 years, at the most, at the top of his game. I was only 7 when I saw him pitch and I was in awe. I think that’s the only thing people remember about Sandy. They remember thinking “this is the best pitcher I’ve ever seen!” and they ignore whatever warts his career had.

    Walter Alston may have had “no problem” with Koufax taking the day off because of Yom Kippur but I don’t see christian baseball players taking Easter off.

    Dennis, you might want to label me “narrow minded” but I feel like a player has a responsibility to his teammates and I think God, being the big baseball fan that he is, would agree. All in all, it doesn’t mean that much where Koufax is concerned, seeing as he is only going to pitch every 4th day. Just saying, I would’ve cleared it with God and shown up for work.

  27. Raul Says:

    Religion is BS.

    So he took a day off for a make-believe joke.
    And I realize this is going to offend some people, but the truth often does.

    So let’s stick to baseball.

  28. dennis Says:

    Patrick….

    Christian players dont take Easter off…… maybe because it s usually in spring training?

    Raul
    Religion is not BS…..it changes lives…and whatever you think, atheletes routinely credit relgion and God as being responsible for success in their lives.
    World history has been changed countless tomes because of religion….

    world history has bever been changed because of baseball.

    Let me suggest that a athelete who os person of faith has responsiblity to their God and ther family ahead of their team.

    QUOTE
    Your three main responsibities in life are to your God, then to your family…and then to the Green Bay Packers.

    Vincent T. Lombardi, head coach and GM of the Green Bay Packers….1959-1968

  29. dennis Says:

    Koufax and Martinez were two great pitchers from two different eras.

    But when Martinez pitches 300 plus innings, then I ll believe he owns Koufax.

    But you know who owns Pedro Martinez?

    Hideki Matsui…………..

  30. Patrick Says:

    Wouldn’t Spring Training be more of a reason to take a religious holliday off than the WS?

    Plus, I bet if Koufax had a 5.20 ERA he wouldn’t have had the balls not to show up for a WS game.

    *Except that Vince Lombardi left the Packers for more money and the Redskins thus voiding any potential significance to his famous quote.

  31. dennis Says:

    Patrick

    If Koufax had a 5.20 ERA he woulds not have three WS games in 65.

    Lombardi won 6 conference championships and 5 world championships and 2 Super Bowls in 9 years with the Packers. After giving up coaching he spent year as the GM of the Packers from 67 to 68 and was miserable because he missed coaching so badly.

    He went to the Redskins for more money…buthis most important reason was to take on the challenge of building a team as a coach. He was 7-5-2 the first winning season for the Redskins in quite a few years and then he died of cancer in 1970.

    Lombardi was a deeply religious Catholic who understood that he had extraordianry strengths and weaknesses as a man.

    The quote is to illustrate trhe priorities in life….and to emphasize that professional loyalty comes after God and family…not that someone owes a loyalty to one team for their entire professional life.

  32. Raul Says:

    I could care less about 300 innings.
    Hideki Matsui? I’m shocked you didn’t go with Enrique Wilson.

    Still doesn’t change the fact that Pedro Martinez is better than Sandy Koufax.

    And Athletes crediting “God” for their achievements? Sure would like to know what Ryan Howard said to “God” for his World Series performance in 2009. An utter disgrace.

    As for Vince Lombardi, he was a fag anyway.

  33. dennis Says:

    Sorry to say it…but you re a boor.

  34. db Says:

    Pedro and Koufax are pretty good comparables. Koufax led his league in era 5 times in a row. Pedro led the league 5 times in his career, and the only thing that kept him from doing it 7 times in a row is an injury and a good year from Roider Clemens. If Pedro’s career ended after 2002, he should have made the HOF on the same basis as Koufax, and arguably he was better. If the only knock on Koufax is that Pedro is better, so what? Pedro, at his peak, may have been the best pitcher ever.

    As for Helton, was he really better than Jeff Bagwell, or Frank Thomas, or Edgar Martinez?

  35. Raul Says:

    Helton and Bags were juicers. Some think Martinez was too.
    Frank Thomas doesn’t know the meaning of juice. The guy probably put 3 snickers bars and a beer in a blender before the game….that’s about the only juicing he’s ever done.

  36. dennis Says:

    db
    Your comment 34

    Just crious…..specifically, why do you think Pedro was better then Koufax?

    Pedro, at his peak may hav ebene the best picher ever….

    Let me suggest other possiiblities……at their peaks…Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove

  37. Patrick Says:

    Dennis wrote “world history hasn’t ever been changed because of baseball”.

    Thank God….well, probably not, but you know what I mean.

    You say that as if changing world history is a feather in religion’s cap. Crusades, Jihads, Holy Wars…holy crap.

    Anyway, I understand your point about prioritizing and Vince Lombardi was a great man and about as far from a “fag” as one can get, but how is Koufax playing a game effecting his relationship with God? If anything, God gave Koufax the gift to provide for his family by playing baseball. So it’s possible Sandy (and Vince) had their priorities backwards, meaning both God and family, not to mention the Dodgers, are better served by Sandy playing on Yom Kippur.

    I think Koufax was more afraid of the wrath of his fellow jews than he was of God’s. But I admit, it matters little in evaluating Koufax’s career but there’s little chance to debate anything that involves both religion and baseball, so I couldn’t resist.

  38. Raul Says:

    Pfft,

    Who knows what Pedro would have done in that National Park they called Dodger Stadium in a pitcher’s era with a 30-inch pitching mound….

  39. steven Says:

    The Dodgers wouldn’t have won three pennants in 1963, 65, and 66 with someone other than Koufax as their top pitcher. He was hurt in the second half of 1962, costing them another pennant. In 1964, he missed most of the last two months of the season. They didn’t win that year, either. He was also a two-time World Series MVP.

  40. Chuck Says:

    Who knows what Koufax would do today, pitching against players with lousy plate approaches and who couldn’t hit an off speed pitch with a boat oar.

  41. Michael Crowe Says:

    Whilst watching PTI last year the subject of Helton being a future HOFer came up briefly (very briefly). Cornheiser, or whatever the ignorant talking head’s name is, simply said, “Who? Never heard of him. Next.” Had Helton played all his career in Yankee stadium Corny would know everything about him including his Social security number and his wife’s ring size. As to the Kofax comparison, I think it’s a fair one if discussing the HOF, but the reality is, Kofax makes almost everybody’s all time rotation. He is one of those mythical figures on par with Ruth, Mantle, Feller, Dizzy, Mays, and Cy Young because in his prime he stood out among the rest. As mentioned above, there are at least a half dozen hitters one thinks of before Helton during his era. Beyond the mumbers there is really no comparison and baseball is as much about the intangibles when camparing eras and the career of legendary figures.

  42. AlvaroEspinoza Says:

    .294 BA
    125 HR
    .885 OPS

    Todd Helton’s #’s in all ballparks less than 1 mile below sea level.

    Total CRAP for a 1st basemen in this era.

    And Sandy Koufax’s home/away splits look nothing like this.

  43. dennis Says:

    Patrick
    Religion has significance, it has changed world history …for good or bad…thats a mater of debate, but religion isn t BS.

    Your point that Koufax was more afraid of the wrath of Jews then he was of God…is so….. dense…..(and I am using the most polite adjective I can) I m almost speechless. A man s private religious beliefs and his relationship with God are his business.

    Koufax didnt pitch on Yom Kippur in 1965 because its Judaism s most holy day and observant Jews dont work on that day….they pray and meditate and try to atone fo rtheir sins.

    Its called a commandment…and its precisely what it means….. its a command from God. Its not up for negotiation or discussion….

    His manager accepted it…his teamates accepted it…

    What part of this arent you getting?

  44. brautigan Says:

    A couple of things:

    Mike Felber: Sandy Koufax overated? How do you figure that? That is plain silly.

    Raul: I did see Sandy pitch, and I did see Pete pitch. While I consider Koufax the best pitcher I have ever seen, I have also thought that Pete was just as good. And I’ve stated that many times.

    And Chuck, I’ve seen Helton in person many times since 1995 and physically, his appearance hasn’t changed that much.

    I’d like to see the correlation between Helton’s power drop off and the use of the humidor at Coors. Just wondering…………..

  45. Raul Says:

    Damn you Chuck. Ok that was a good comeback.

    But keep in mind the first time Koufax pitches inside, he’s getting a warning.

    They don’t let players police themselves like in the old days…

  46. Joseph DelGrippo Says:

    Koufax – 3 World Series rings.

    Helton – None.

    VORP, SCMORP. Win games and World Series titles, not VORP titles or fantasy baseball statistical championships.

    With some exceptions, such as Ernie Banks, the best players in the game’s history are those who dominate during their time playing AND help their teams to World Series appearances and Championships.

  47. Larry R Says:

    Koufax had 4 rings…’55, ‘59, ‘63 and ‘65. Not bad for a non-Yankee. Helton does have none, though.

  48. Raul Says:

    You know who else has 4 rings?

    Ramiro Mendoza.

    Keep bringing up team accomplishments when rating individual players, ass wipes.

  49. dennis Says:

    db
    Regareding your commnent 8 that it would be hard to find another picher other then Pedrow who was as dominating as Koufax….

    Randy Jonson ocmes to mind.

    In a six year period between 97 and 2002, he went 120 and 42, with 3 win pct titles, 3 ERA titles, 4 strikeout crowns and 4 Cy Youngs

    During his 6 glory years of 61 through 66, Koufax was 129 and 47, with 5 ERA consecutive titles 2 Winpct titles, 4 strikeout crowns and 3 Cy Young awards.

    If you take the four years before those 6, Johnson went 55 and 16 for a ten year total of 175 and 63!!!!!!

    But the most dominating picher for any six consecutive yars during the live ball era…Lefty Grove who between 1928 and 1933 went 152 and 41!!!!!! 4 winpct titles….4 consecutive ERA titles and 4 consecutive strikout Crowns.

    And in 10 consecutive years, 1927 through 1936, Grove went 217 and 86.

    And as high a career winning percentage that Martinez has to date in 18 years 219-100 Grove is a bit better. In 17 seasons he won 300 and lost 141.

    As a minor leauger, Martinez was 35 and 20 and won his first major league game at the age of 21.

    Grove didnt win a major league game until he was 25…and his minor league record with the Baltimore Orioles of the International League…was a staggering 111 and 34. So Grove s combined W L between the minors and the majors….411 and 175!!!!!!!

    Martinez is a great pitcher and he will be in the HOF….but Lefty Grove may have been the best picher in the history of MLB.

  50. db Says:

    @ dennis 35.

    Oddly, I thought about adding Grove and Johnson to the top peak discussion. I think an argument can be made that post-integration domination is more important, but convincing cases can be made for the Big Train and Lefty. As to why I think Pedro is better than Koufax, its a combination of things. 1. Koufax clearly did benefit more from his park and playing era than Pedro. 2. Outside of his 5 year peak, Koufax had only one other year that could be considered good. Pedro had a 7 year peak (one of which was shortened by injury) with a cumulative ERA plus of over 200. In addition, Pedro had at least four other seasons that can be considered good.

    Obviously, Koufax retired in the midst of his domination. Pedro’s record from 1997-2003 I just consider more impressive, given the era and circumstances.

  51. Ryan Says:

    I saw the s-word thrown out there a couple of times, and trust me it has occurred to me, but has there been any concrete evidence that Helton juiced? Was he in the Mitchell Report? Or is this another case of “player from the steroid-era has declining power numbers he must have done steroids”? I mean don’t get me wrong, it is very possible, just wondering if we actually KNOW he did.

  52. Raul Says:

    I shot up Helton personally.
    I kept a syringe with his DNA inside a bottle of Olde English malt liquor

  53. David Says:

    Koufax has the rings because he was phenomenal in the World Series like Rivera today. For a four year period, he was quite possibly THE best pitcher of all time. The guys who faced him all say he was the best, from Mays to Stargell. Helton, at his best, was behind at least Bonds, Pujols and A-Rod, all three of whom were better for a longer period of time.

  54. Patrick Says:

    Dennis, I think I was being more irreverent than dense, as I understand the entire situation regarding Koufax, Yom Kippur and his duties and obligations.

    For the record, I’m not a big fan of organized religion but I don’t think it’s BS. I’ve actually studied a couple of them…. religions I mean, not bull shits. I will not knock religion on a baseball site again. Even light-heartedly, as this was intended. Sorry for any offense.

  55. Ryan Says:

    happy to have ya here, raul…

  56. dennis Says:

    db

    Your points about Koufax vs Martinez are well taken.

    What is interesting is that (if Martinez doesnt pich again—-and he probalby will), they are only three innings apart in innings pitched, and Martinez has 95 more career starts. Its the difference between someone who was expected to start 40 times and piched more then 300 innings and someone who started 30 to 33 times and never pitched more then 241 innings in a year.

    And Martinez commuted by private jet between the Caribbean with his entourage and wherever the Red Sox were playing. Koufax didn t have an entourage and he traveled with his team. It has nothing to do with their greatness as pitchers,

    Its just a values bias on my part.

  57. dennis Says:

    Patrick

    OK…appreciate it.

    My last name is Levy and on Yom Kippur of 1965, my dad said to me…Both Koufax and I think today is important.. and so we re going to shul (synagogue)

  58. dennis Says:

    This is a bit off topic, but Ive got a hankering for some info.

    Does anyone know where on the Internet I can find a breakdown of the rivalry (games started, w-L record, etc) between Sandy Koufax and Juan Marichal.

    I remember reading that when Marichal pitched aginst Drysdale, he beat him like a drum…something like 13 wins and 3 losses. And I recall the strategy was not to (or at least not too often) let the two aces burn up innings agaisnt each other. so Koufax would start against Gaylord Perry or Bob Bolin.

    But if there was a significant rivalry between Koufax and Marichal, I would be interested to know…Can someone point me in the right direction?

    Thank you…

  59. Lefty33 Says:

    “Who knows what Koufax would do today, pitching against players with lousy plate approaches and who couldn’t hit an off speed pitch with a boat oar.”

    I think he would just as dominant if not more so.

    He could go out and keep throwing quality off-speed stuff in the dirt and have guys like Howard spin themselves into the ground like a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

    “Was he in the Mitchell Report?”

    @ Ryan- As of now, other than that dust up with Baylor a few years back, Helton has never been credibly linked to ‘Roids.

    Personally, I don’t think Helton has a prayer. He’s in the fringe category of guys like Martinez, Larkin, Morris, etc. where they were good, but by no means would you rationally say that they were great.

    Helton turns 38 this year. With less than 400 homers, 2500 hits, 1500 RBI’s he’s not getting in as a slugger. And while he has a lifetime average over .300, without the 3000 hits, hell without 2500 hits his chances of being put in as a hitter (aka. Boggs, Gwynn) are infinitesimally small.

  60. Al Dimond Says:

    To all the people obsessed with Koufax missing a WS game for Yom Kippur: if it was a Christian holiday MLB would probably take a day off for it. I have to say probably because there’s no modern Christian analog. Sure, they play basketball on Christmas, but Christmas was never a serious religious holiday to begin with. That it was made a major feast day and stuck in December was basically a business decision — like putting up a McDonald’s across the street from a Wendy’s. Point is, as a believer in a minority faith he had to make a choice that no majority believer will ever have to make.

    I seriously doubt the truth of Koufax’s religion. In my eyes he would have done as well to renounce it. I wouldn’t say Koufax did the right thing, but only because there is no one right thing to do. He chose one of many acceptable ways to reconcile his faith with his profession, and only he can know if he did it for honest reasons.

  61. db Says:

    Dennis,

    Best way to find Koufax v. Marichal is probably just go through the game logs on baseball reference. I just checked 1962, he didn’t face Marichal that year. He did beat Bob Gibson 1-0, with Tommy Davis hitting a game winning homer with one out in the nonth off of Gibson.

  62. dennis Says:

    david@comment 53

    Mays and Stargell thought Koufax was the toughest pitcher they ever faced…

    But, both Henry Aaron and Pete Rose (who between them played every NL season from 1954 to 1986) thought they toughest pitcher they ever faced was Marichal.

    I also saw Marichal pitch numerous times at Shea Stadium….Koufax just blew hitters away….Marichal threw themn off their timing and made them look silly.

    Koufax had two pitches and hitters knew what was coming because he tipped off his curve. But they usually could t catch up to the fastball or the curve.

    Marichal had a much greater variety of stuff then Koufax and impeccable control, not quite like Maddux but very close….. he was a cross between a location, change of speed finesse pitcher and a power pitcher..He had a very good fastball, curve, forkball, screwball and a change of pace. He threw the fastball, curve and change from three different positions creating 11 or so different pitches. As Aaron said…

    First there s his foot in your face (the legendary high kick windup), second he grunts and charges off the mound, which distracts the hell out of you.,….then there are all the pitches… all of which he can put into any 4 inch space he wants up or down, inside and outside all day long….

  63. dennis Says:

    thanks db, I ll do it.

    I was hoping for a short cut.

  64. Ryan Says:

    Thanks Lefty.

    But, how can we ignore 13 seasons (and counting) of these slash stats: .328/.427/.567. Career OPS+ of 140. He has averaged over 100 walks per 162 games.

    Also, he has always been heralded as a great defender.

    Maybe not a shoe in in this era, but he is a very worthy candidate when that day comes.

  65. Chuck Says:

    Didn’t anyone learn anything with McGwire?

    We look at how his physique changed and how his performance spiked and yet some believed he didn’t take steriods?

    I think there’s enough evidence on admitted players now that we can apply the same logic to those whose appearance/performance changed drastically and unaturally.

    Hell, David Ortiz took steriods and he’s a fat slob, why would we not look at guys like Helton and Bagwell the same way we look at Bonds and McGwire?

    Helton used, Galarraga used, Bichette used, Walker used, Castilla used.

    Some of those guys blew up bigger than the Macy’s Thanksgiving Parade balloons.

  66. dennis Says:

    I looked at helton s stats.

    Coors nor not, clearly he is not the same hitter he was 5 eyars ago, I think the next couple of three years will determine his HOF chances. If he can continue to make adjustments and hit well over .300, I think he can be a BBWA candidate for quite a few years, if not make the HOF.

  67. dennis Says:

    lefty33@59
    Regardign your analysis of Helton, less then 400,less then 2500, less then 1500 RBI, I don t think there are magic numbers for a hitter.

    As in Kirby Puckett.

    Granted Puckett had 4 seasons where he lead the league in hits, but he didn t come close to any of those numbers. he got in on the first ballot…because

    1. the writers had sympathy, he had to retire early because of his eyes
    2. He was a key player and leader on two world championship teamsd
    3. or he played the same with such joy and enthusiasm that it set him apart

    or all three…

    Helton has as of now very reasoable HOF credentials and is the symbol of an expansion franchise.
    If he doesnt get in…I think it is because of intangibles….not because he wasnt a great hitter.

  68. Jon Says:

    Dennis,

    The links below are supposedly the only four games where Marichal and Koufax faced each other:

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/LAN/LAN196106030.shtml

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/LAN/LAN196305110.shtml

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SFN/SFN196508220.shtml

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SFN/SFN196305240.shtml

  69. Lefty33 Says:

    Dennis,

    “I don t think there are magic numbers for a hitter.”

    Trust me there are. And for pitchers too.
    And that’s what is going to make future votes contentious. Almost all players, particularly on the pitching side, will be falling short of traditional magic numbers for regular non-V-Committee induction.

    With all due respect, we’re not talking Puckett, we’re talking Helton.
    Different people, different circumstances as you mentioned, and different biases will be applied.

    “is the symbol of an expansion franchise”

    And the problem with his expansion franchise is that besides the potential ‘Roid issue, anyone worth their salt knows that playing in Coors padded his numbers, and both will hurt him.

    “not because he wasn’t a great hitter.”

    People have argued that Edgar is a great hitter. But the same as Helton without the numbers you have no real chance.

    Also same as Edgar, until all of the first ballot guys go through in ‘13-18 and the future first ballot guys yet to retire like Mo’ and probably Hoffman, Helton has a long wait until he will be seriously considered.

  70. MIke Says:

    I agree, too many other great hitters during the time Helton played.

    Everyone has their own standards by which to judge the Hall of Fame, and I just want to throw out my favorite. If it were the 7th game of the World Series, would you want this player on the mound. Forget the stats, forget the years he played, forget everything (it is after all the Hall of Fame, no the Hall of Statistics). Just clear your mind and answer would you want this guy on the mound for the most important game of the season. Use the same scenario if it were a hitter for batting third. I would say definitely yes to Koufax, but I think I would only say maybe to Helton.

  71. Raul Says:

    Game 7 of the World Series?

    You bet the hair on your ass I want Luis Sojo in that batters box.

  72. dennis Says:

    Lefty33

    Helton hasn t ocnfessed or it hasnt been provent hat he has taken roids. As far as I know…Maybed there are no special circumstances as there were with Puckett, but Helton isnt done….and he ll be 37 in August, not 38.

    Just for ducks,give me an idea of what pitchers(starters) retired or currently pitching with numbers you consider short of HOF status. And Im not tlaking guys with 1450-135 records, Im talking about great pitchers.

    The no brainers are Clemens,Mmaddux, Glavine Randy Johnson, and Pedro. 300 wins plus or very high winning poercentages and dominating pitchers or both.

    But or me, Luis Tiant is a HOFer, as is Jim Kaat, obviously Blyleven, I might think aobut Tommy John, Mussina goes in very easily in my book as does John Smoltz

    Tiant, Kaat and John arent going in anytime soon. But I htink each of them deserves indiction.

    But Orel hersheiser and david wells and david Cone and Kevin Brown are not HOFers in my book.

    I am still thinking about Schilling.

    For me….The jury is still out on Jamie Moyer, who knows how much longer he can pitch???? Does he have another 42 wins in him? I doubt it…..but what if he does or ges very close?

    If I a choiced of pitchers, forget the stats for a game 7 , my choices are
    1. Bob Gibson
    2. Sandy Koufax

  73. db Says:

    One game. Gotta go with Christy Mathewson in 1905. Coming off of 338 innings of ERA+ 230 pitching, dude throws three CG shutouts in the World Series. Runner up, Pedro in 1999. Coming off of 213 innings of ERA+243 pitching throws seventeen scoreless innings, including six no-hit innings of relief in game 5 against Cleveland, striking out 23 in the postseason. Gibson, known as a big game pitcher, lost game 7 of the 1968 series 4-1 to Lolich, who won MVP honors going 3-0.

  74. Raul Says:

    Pitchers?

    Nobody’s taking Jack Morris? LOL

  75. Hossrex Says:

    Dennis: “Sandy Koufax didnt pitch in a World Series game because he was an observant Jew and the game fell on Yom Kippur….which is the holiest day of the year for Jews, a day when they don t work and they reflect and atone for their sins.”

    Did you think we didn’t know that?

    Dennis: “And are you two guys trying to STRETCH the meaning of narrow minded?”

    *chuckle*

    I didn’t really feel like quoting every point he made, so allow me to sum up: “Hossrex and Patrick are purposely stretching the meaning of narrow minded, because they think a good pitcher benefited from pitching in one of the most extreme examples of a pitchers park in the history of the game. Hossrex and Patrick are also purposely stretching the meaning of narrow minded, because they think maybe a player who had five or six good years should MAYBE not be in the hall of fame.”

    Jiminy Crickets… Patrick and I are INSANELY IRRATIONAL!

    Larry R: “Portraying him as selfish because he puts his God ahead of anything else isn’t fair”

    Okay. Let’s play a game.

    Todd Helton joins the church of “Heltonius”. This church says “thou shalt not wear a shoe on thine left foot, nor shalt thou let thy nakedst foot touch thee green of thy manicured lawn. Also no baseball on Sunday.”

    Do we give Helton a pass because he can only wear one shoe, can’t step on grass, and refuses to play on Sunday? Would it be “unfair” to call him selfish?

    I’m not even here to get involved in a religious debate. I couldn’t care less why Koufax walked away from his team when they needed him the most.

    Couldn’t. Care. Less. Why.

    Patrick: “I would’ve cleared it with God and shown up for work.

    AMEN!

    Although Yahweh is kind of a dick.

    Raul: “So let’s stick to baseball.

    AMEN!

    Dennis: “Religion is not BS…..it changes lives…and whatever you think, atheletes routinely credit relgion and God as being responsible for success in their lives.

    Why the hell would you even say that? If Raul isn’t allowed to criticize religion, you’re sure as hell not allowed to promote it. That statement could ONLY POSSIBLY have been intended to lead to one of two things.

    1: A fight (which sucks)
    2: A witnessing (which sucks)

    Stop.

    Dennis: “QUOTE
    Your three main responsibities in life are to your God, then to your family…and then to the Green Bay Packers.

    Vincent T. Lombardi, head coach and GM of the Green Bay Packers….1959-1968″

    QUOTE
    And so Jephthah “carried out his vow with her which he had vowed” (Judges 11:39)

    Jephthah killing his only daughter because gold told him to do it.

    Dennis: “Sorry to say it…but you re a boor.

    Because he doesn’t share your particular belief in your particular way with your particular invisible friend.

    Dennis: “world history hasn’t ever been changed because of baseball”

    Martin Luther King Jr REPEATEDLY cited Jackie Robinson as one of his strongest influences to make a difference in the world.

    Dennis: “Religion has significance, it has changed world history …for good or bad…thats a mater of debate, but religion isn t BS.”

    Fine. I’ll go here.

    Name ONE SPECIFIC thing that religion has ever done for the world, which couldn’t also be obtained through secular means.

    Just one.

    Dennis: “Your point that Koufax was more afraid of the wrath of Jews then he was of God…is so….. dense…..(and I am using the most polite adjective I can) I m almost speechless. A man s private religious beliefs and his relationship with God are his business.”

    It’s his business until they start effecting OTHER PEOPLE.

    It’s a persons own business what sort of sexual deviant he is… but when he starts humping a goat in the middle of the street, “it’s my own business” probably isn’t going to keep him out of jail.

    Dennis: “Its called a commandment”

    So is not being jealous/envious of your neighbor for having a cooler car than you. I wonder how serious most Jews are of that commandment.

    Dennis: “What part of this arent you getting?”

    The part where it doesn’t matter *why* he walked out on his teammates in a moment of need?

    Raul: “Ramiro Mendoza.

    lol… I read that Fire Joe Morgan article!

  76. Lefty33 Says:

    Dennis,

    “For me….The jury is still out on Jamie Moyer, who knows how much longer he can pitch????”

    I can tell you that Philly media has said that Moyer, due to his off-season surgical infections could be anywhere from the 5th starter to retiring.

    Moyer has no chance for the same reason as John. He’s a stat compiler who’s pitched way too long. It’s the same thing that’s kept Blyleven out so far.

    “but Helton isn’t done”

    No but he’s on the back side and he’s not going to put up a whole lot more. He’s not getting to 400, 2500, or 1500. His numbers are good. But they are not HOF.

    I’ll believe it when I see it about Clemens. When the first known ‘Roid guy gets inducted (Bonds, Palmiero, McGwire, Sosa, etc.) then I’ll believe he has a chance.

    I agree with you that Glavine, Maddux, and Johnson are all first ballot.

    Schilling has the douche bag factor working against him. He’s shot his mouth off enough that many writers think he’s a douche bag and won’t vote for him at all, or at the very least he’ll wait for several years.
    Also I don’t think 216 for a win total cuts the sauce.
    His only advantage is that he’ll have a large block of New England voters who will vote for him. But then the rest of country probably does not.

    “Mussina goes in very easily in my book as does John Smoltz”

    Mussina is coming in the same year as Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, and Kent.
    The following year will bring Johnson. And then likely Griffey Jr. in ‘16.
    Moose has got no chance before all of those guys.

    Dennis, I’m a small hall guy. If it were up to me, and thank God it’s not, guys would come out of the hall.

    IMHO: Schilling, John, Kaat, Morris, Clemens, and Moyer all have no chance currently.
    Clemens through ‘Roids and his own big mouth. The rest because there numbers are not great, good but certainly not great.

    Now who do I think gets in? Pedro if he retires and doesn’t diminish his legacy by trying to keep pitching. Smoltz should also follow that example. Pettite will get in assuming that he gets to 245-250.
    ‘Mo is in, Moose is in, and as will Hoffman.

  77. Mike Felber Says:

    There are magic #s, but that does not mean others who do not have them will necessarily be denied. Though the glut of greats coming up will likely push back their candidacy, where otherwise some would quickly get in. Schilling, Brown & Mussina are similar & all deserving. Kaat, John, no, the others, likely deserving, maybe on Tiant.

    Chuck, I agree on holding the cheats & frauds to account. But it is irrational to judge just by looking. You have never disputed all my comments re: how many athletes have excellent potential, & w/the best training & nutrition, some will blow up. Yes, that provides cover for the liars, & maybe they most used, but that is far from known, or even overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Heck, if we take Hoss’s comments about his natural strength & bone structure at face value, in a couple of years of dedicated, sensible, clean training, he could approach, say, a Bagwell.

    Others already covered how Koufax was over-rated-length of dominance, peak & park. That does not mean that he was not amongst the best at his peak, & to be admired for his grit. And pitching the about 50% more innings that many did 30-50 years adds greatly to one’s value: imagine comparing someone who played 100 vs. 150 games. It is much harder to be as dominant over more starts, & does more for your team. The one guy who has been omitted from discussion of a streak of consecutive pitching dominance is Maddux. During 7 years,’92-’98: ERA + ranged from 162-271! Innings higher than normal these days, though less than Koufax. Consider that his best, ‘94 & ‘95 were strike shortened. Great GG fielding, excellent in many post seasons, good bat for a pitcher. 5x top ERA +, 4x best WHIP. always near #1.

    Raul, please do not make “fag” comments. It is no better than any racists, say “N’ word slurs. You are not being “censored”: it is just wrong to add to be contempt, fear & hate towards gays, or pretend that the word has no implications for insulting them, even if unintentional. It would be complicit to say nothing. Gays kill themselves & abuse drugs at a much higher rate-think it is due to an intrinsic flaw? No, here & now still, there is much hatred, violence, kids disowned & abused, running away…because of who they love or desire. Condition any group thusly, & self loathing & despair sets in. Sports has often been macho & homophobic, & to perpetuate this is an evil.

    Sandy did superb, Yeoman’s W.S. work. Of course he should be allowed to adjust the day he pitches, 1 (MOST HIGH) holy day of the year. Religion has been extremely abusive & ignorant & caused great war & violence, & also responsible for some of the greatest ethical & intellectual figures, & servers of humanity.

    Where am I coning from? Proud to be Jewish, but an atheist who is very leery about much fundamentalist damage done to people in the NAME of religion. Which dovetails back to homosexuals. And that I would be proud & out if I was gay. And unfortunately get more admiration there than by the ladieieies. ;-)

  78. Ryan Says:

    “…without the numbers you have no real chance.”
    “…too many other great hitters during the time Helton played.”

    I don’t understand the numbers comment. Numbers are a record of how well this man played the game of baseball. Does it capture everything? Probably not. But they show – pretty clearly – that Helton was/is a great baseball player. As for the backside of his career, I agree, but last year at the age of 35, he played in 251 games, produced slash stats of .325/.416/.489 to the tune of a 130 OPS+. I would not expect a huge drop off, barring injuries, this year. Was he better at home? Yes, but he still produced .302/.409/.434 on the road. Not a ton of power, but still got on base at a fantastic rate.

    As for the too many other great hitters…so? A lot of them (and yes I know Helton may very well be one but there is nothing concrete) were juiced. Even if they weren’t, doesn’t that just mean there were a lot of great, potential HOF hitters? Why does that count against another great hitter.

  79. Ryan Says:

    *151…think 251 would be a record though

  80. Chuck Says:

    “I can tell you that Philly media has said that Moyer, due to his off-season surgical infections”

    And who would have thought Moyer had something in common with Tiger Woods.

    ” You have never disputed all my comments re: how many athletes have excellent potential, & w/the best training & nutrition, some will blow up.”

    Doesn’t mean I agree with you. As a practicing nutritionist going on 20 years, I know better.

    Helton isn’t going to all of a sudden look like a middle linebacker and claim it’s all because he stopped eating McDonalds and lifts a few weights now and then.

  81. dennis Says:

    Hoss rex et al

    Hoss rex….Im not going to get an argumnent with you. Youve gotten into so many tiffs with other posters that your cyber personality (and I sincerely hope its not you real personality) is disturbing.

    Im not a religious fanatic nor I do want to promote religion. But I believe that a man has a right to practice his religion and if he wishes it takes precedence over his work. Religion is a matter of individual conscience, its neither right or wrong.

    You asked a question about what reliigon can do….so without witnessing…. I think and its only my opinion that the most important thing that any religion can do…Christianity, Judaism, (a rational version of Islam) Buddhism, Hinduism is persuade man that he is not the most important factor in the universe….And that is something no secular institution can do.

    Koufax had a clause in his contract with the Dodgers that he could observe Rosh Shashana and Yom Kippur and he did not have to pitch. His teamamtes supported him….and when his teamates needed him most, he pitched a CG 2-0 shutout in game 7 of the Wolrd Series on three days rest.

    In previous years, Alston had juggled his rotation so that Koufax did not pitch on Rosh Shashana, so the fact that he wasn t going t pitch on Yom Kiuppur during the series wasnt a surpise to Dodger management or his teamates, it was only a surprise to the general public.

    Morally and legally…he had every right to do what he did.

    Does Koufax belong in the HOF? Yes, he does. Other then the glittering black ink statistics, one standard(not an official one) for a a HOFerf is was he the dominant player at this position in his league, was he the domninant player on his team?

    Koufax was clearly the dominant pitcher in MLB from 1963 to 1966, and his injury curtailed seasons of 1962 and 1964 may have beee biggest reasons why the Dodgers won three pennants and not five in a row.

    He was a part of 6 penannt winners in 12 years, and for six years he was the key ace on a great staff… and the reason that the Dodgers were just a bit betetr then the Giants was that their pitching was generally stronger. In 1965, 4 pitchers started 153 of the 162 games, Koufax, Drysdale, Sutton and Claude Osteen. Two other HOFers and Osteen was a damned good pitcher, but the keystone was Koufax. He was the go to guy on those Dodger teams.

    There have been other pitchers who had longer careers and won and lost more games. But there is a very short list of pitchers in the live ball era who have been close to or as equally dominant as was Koufax and we ve had that discussion.

    Sports Illustrated in naming its all time team listed Koufax a samong the nine man pitching staff. I think its a fair selection, because at this best he weas close to unhittable and I saw him pitch.

    But if someone wanted to replace Koufax with Bob Feller (who lost three years and probably 60 or more wins to the war ) or Tom Seaver who got a lot of no decisions and tough losses pitching for the Mets or possibly, Maddux I could be OK with it.

    Clemens is on that staff…and my argument for the HOF is that he was clearly a HOFer before he took HGT. After his two Cy Young award seasons in Toronto and before he began his five years with the yankees, he was 247-134, that s a HOF line. The same for Bonds who had hit 445 home runs and won 3 MVPs beofre he got pissed off at all the attention that othr players were receiving…and started steroids…

    Assuming that neither of of them gets convicterd of something, they are HOfers

    McGwire was a proven home run hitter before he took andy…and his home runs jumped…I think MCGwire could have hit 50 wihout andy,…with it, he hit 52, 58, 70, and 65. I dont think mcGwire ever was a HOF, he was a decetn first baseman, is there a big difference betwen him and Harmon Killebrew who hit 573….without any foreign substances. i htink there is.

    Sosa went form being a decent hitter to a monster power hitter…
    and so diid Palmeiro. Steroids was the factor that changed their performance figures

    As great a pitcher as Martinez is, I think Johnson and Clemens are the pre eminent examples of the dominant go every 5 starts, pitch 6-7 innings and turn over it bullpen era of baseball.

    Again as of now, although Martinez has 18 seasons of MLB and Koufax only had 12, there is a grand difference of three innings pitched during their career regular seasons separatingthem.

    I could just as easily argue that Martinez wasnt durable, etc, but I won t.

  82. dennis Says:

    db@71
    Gibson lost game 7 of the 1968 WS because Curt Flood (one of the two best centerfielders in the national league) made an error on a catchable ball and two runners scored.-and i beleive it was late inthe game.

    But you re right, Lolich had a brilliant series and he was a damned good pitcher to great pitcher for 17 years. In 71 and 72 he posted back to back seasons of 25-14 and 22-14 and pitched more then 703 innings in those two years!!!! Imagine anyone doing that now!!!!

    The year before Gibson had won three against the Red Sox and he was 7 and 2 in World Series pitching.

  83. dennis Says:

    jon@comment 68

    Jon, thank you for doing the research!!! I appreciate it.

  84. Hossrex Says:

    Dennis: “the most important thing that any religion can do…Christianity, Judaism, (a rational version of Islam) Buddhism, Hinduism is persuade man that he is not the most important factor in the universe….And that is something no secular institution can do.”

    Bullshit.

    I’m a secular humanist (i.e. atheist) who puts the good of the world, the good of humanity, and the good of family ahead of my own. I sacrifice so the people I care about, or when I have the opportunity, the people who have less than me can prosper.

    Then you have people like Ted Haggard, Kent Hovind, and Ray Comfort who insist they’re deeply religious, and yet put their own well being ahead of everyone else.

    Whats the point?

    People without a sense of god don’t necessarily think they ARE god (that’s a scurrilous lie told to you by the slanderous churches), while people WITH a sense of god don’t necessarily think they AREN’T god.

    There isn’t a single thing good thing that religion does which can’t also be attained through secular means. I’d wager to say there also isn’t a single BAD thing that religion does which can’t also be attained through a secular means (reference: Atheist fascist regimes which simply transfer the importance of the supernatural to the importance of the state).

    You’re talking to an ordained minister. I’m a positive fount of information on the subject.

  85. Patrick Says:

    Dennis wrote; “the most important thing that any religion can do…Christianity, Judaism, (a rational version of Islam) Buddhism, Hinduism is persuade man that he is not the most important factor in the universe….And that is something no secular institution can do.”

    It’s an important lesson to learn that man is not the most important factor in the universe but I know for certain that it’s learnable without religion. You can learn that in Astronomy class, for example. You can learn that by observing the circle of life. You can learn that by observing that when man puts himself first, the planet suffers.

    Baseball wise, you’re right. Koufax deserves the HOF but he has the shortest span of HOF worthy seasons of any player in the Hall and that’s noteworthy.

    You’re also correct that if Koufax observes Yom Kippur, he pretty much has to not go to work. Personally, I think the “rule” was written by man and not God and therefore it’s a questionable reason to not be there for your teammates and miss a World Series game but I appreciate that many people don’t agree with my assessment.

    PS; I always thought Lolich was one of the best pitchers of his era. My personal favorite to watch was Sudden Sam McDowell. His teams were so bad I always felt sorry for him. No wonder he had a drinking problem.

  86. Raul Says:

    I was going to post that george carlin video…mostly because it’s funny…but also true…..but I think hossrex knows what i’m referring to.

  87. Patrick Says:

    “It’s all bullshit and it can hurt you?”

  88. Patrick Says:

    or is it “it’s all bullshit and it’s bad for you” …? Whatever, Carlin sums up my thoughts on the subject.

  89. Hossrex Says:

    I’ve seen/heard just about everything Carlin has ever done… so much of it fits the tone of this conversation that I actually have NO CLUE to what Raul might have been referring. :)

    Carlin: “God… he’s all-mighty. Omniscient. Omnipresent. Omnipotent. But he just can’t seem to handle a buck.”

  90. Hossrex Says:

    Or did you mean the “Touched by an Atheist” video? That one is hilarious.

  91. Raul Says:

    you got it with the first guess…can’t handle money. LOL

  92. Hossrex Says:

    lol… that’s my favorite quote of his (I admit to paraphrasing).

  93. Chuck Says:

    What the hell happened to this thread?

  94. Raul Says:

    Shaun’s gonna come in here with a post about how Jesus Christ posted a 4.3 WARG (wins above replacement god) and that christianity should trade for Buddha.

  95. dennis Says:

    Patrick

    I believe that another blazing comet pitcher….Dizzy Dean had even less of a span of HOF worthy seasons then Koufax….Maybe three, possilby four at most and the writers did elect him.

    Hoss rex
    You are an ordained minister of what???? if you believe in being charitable, then it starts with courtesy and respect for other people s opinions.

    You have the

  96. Lefty33 Says:

    “but that does not mean others who do not have them will necessarily be denied.”

    Sure it does. Look at Blyleven, Kaat, John, and Tiant. And there are plenty more.

    All guys who don’t have the magic numbers and all guys who have been passed over.
    And now for Tiant, Kaat, and John it borders on impossible.

    Blyleven’s only there because he’s getting the big media push ala Rice, Gossage, and Dawson. Without that he’s still back in the 20% area like he was his first six years on the ballot.

    “Schilling, Brown & Mussina are similar & all deserving.”

    Please Mike. Mark my words. Brown is off the ballot in three years or less due to lack of votes. His numbers are marginal and he was in Mitchell.
    In the current voting climate that’s a death sentence.
    Brown’s at 211, Mussina’s at 270. Not even close to similar.

    Mussina will get in. Although I think he’s looking at 5-10 year wait.

    And to me Schilling like I said comes down to a regional thing.
    There are plenty of New England guys who will vote for him. And plenty who guys in the rest of the country who will not.

  97. Hossrex Says:

    Dennis: “it starts with courtesy and respect for other people s opinions.”

    I don’t see anything to be courteous, or respectful about when someone comes into a baseball thread and derails it with religion.

    And yes. YOU brought up religion. I simply said “Sandy sat out a world series game, and I don’t care why.”

    You’re the one being disrespectful to EVERYONE else.

    I also love the idea that you’d be so surprised that I’m ordained. Myopia FOR THE WIN!

  98. Lefty33 Says:

    @ Raul

    I’ll trade you two PA Amish Mennonites for three NY Jehovah Witnesses.

    And you’ll get my first round pick in next year’s Quaker draft.

    Deal?

  99. Raul Says:

    Throw in a few yarmulkes and you got a deal.
    …the kids play ultimate frisbee with em.

  100. dennis Says:

    Hoss rex

    In your first comment…you said that Koufax sat out a game and you didnt give a gnat s ass why. It appeared to be an uninformed comment, (uninformed is as polite a word as i can think of), so I explained why he didnt pitch). and then you came back with you didnt think we knew that.

    I havent plugged religion, Ive simply said that Koufax had the moral and legal right to exercise his religion and his relationship with his God was more important then his professional responsibilities…for at least a couple of relgious holidays every year. His teamamtes and Dodger management accepted it and he had a contractual clause to that effect.

    I ve also said that religion was important and played a part in some atheletes lives. I didnt endorse religion I simply said it was a dominant force in world history , I didnt preach, I simply said it was important, I didnt say it was important in my life and I didnt try to ocnvince you of anything. You then asked me to make acomment aobut what religion could offer…I gave you my opinion, specifically told you that I wasnt witnessing, just offering an opinion.

    Patrick made a thoguhtful response..fine Im not going to debate it.

    But, you ve made what I can only describe as unimaginably gross and stupid insensitve comments that Yahweh is kind of a dick and Jews have trouble keepign the commandment of not being envious. And two posters, myself and Mike Felber have talked about our Jewish backgrounds.

    And I still find the analogy of a man practicing his religion and someone humping a goat in the street unexplainable.

    Did you even stop to consider that you might be offending people on this board?

    Last comment..and I ll go back to baseball.

    I though Sandy Koufax was one of the two or three most dominant pitchers I ever saw. I admired him for his pitching mastery…not because he is a Jew.

    I also admired Willie Mays and as far as I know…..he isnt Jewish.

    On the other hand, Art Shamsky of the 69 Mats is Jewish…but he wont be making the Hall of Fame any time…soon.

  101. Raul Says:

    Rod Carew is. LOL

  102. Mike Felber Says:

    Nothing wrong w/mentioning something like his religion impacted the W.S. games (where he was great), & I am a “big tent/talk” guy. If there are religious comments some do not like, skip ‘em. I am curious as to the evolution, no pun intended, of your spiritual beliefs Hoss. What denomination were you ordained in, & how did you change? I saw something interested: Church of the Latter Day Dude. I’ll bet many of you know what “cult” that is referencing.

    Chuck, you must know I will call you on cookin’ the books. Helton both did not claim that not eating unhealthy things would bulk him up, nor say he just lifter weights occasionally. Nor would eating healthier make him bigger & stronger: you need adequate calories, proteins, many meals a day-yes adequate micro-nurients too, but someone bulking up can burn many calories & junk also. And of course nobody is claiming you can just casually lift “occasionally”. I respect your nutritional knowledge, but you must know that a large boned, Frank Thomas build, or the potential to be similar, w/the best training & nutrition, is not a rare potential to achieve for many, certainly including professional athletes. That many HAVE cheated, does not mean that some at least as big did NOT, & you are surprising convicting them on at most no good circumstantial evidence. Though we both condemn the use of these PEDs.

    Lefty, you are confusing what I sadi: please check the difference between “should” what I was arguing, & “what will likely happen”, whhc I did not describe above. 1st, as I & many have showed in great detail, Blyleven was NOT just a “compiler”. He had excellent value for many years, considering things like ERA + & WHIP over many innings. And the campaign HAS gotten him near the threshold for induction. But I hope you see that when someone is worthy, a campaign for him is the only way he will likely be recognized. That is not just politics, but sincere & orrect sentiments.

    Listing a handful of pitchers who have been denied, & most of them will remain out, at least for a while, does not show you need the magic #s. Of course there are so many “exceptions”, that it is silly to say you need them, but more accurate to say if you HAVE them you will rarely ever be denied.

    Recall you switched to whether someone will be elected, not what I discussed, worthiness. But I agree about the former re: Brown: & the steroid issue should give us pause-how long did he use, to what effect. But if you look at how good he was, especially at his peak, wins do not reflect it. Schilling may well be denied for your reasons-though in the anti-steroid climate, & that colorfiul characters can be “rehabilitated” he may get in. He certainly was good enough, even absent the P.S. heroics.

    So is Clapton God, or what if it is Carlin incognito? That would be a mind F***.

  103. Hossrex Says:

    Dennis: “In your first comment…you said that Koufax sat out a game and you didnt give a gnat s ass why. It appeared to be an uninformed comment, (uninformed is as polite a word as i can think of), so I explained why he didnt pitch). and then you came back with you didnt think we knew that.”

    How on Earth could someone possibly be aware that Sandy Koufax had sat out a world series game, and not know why?

    How is that possible?

    Dennis: “I havent plugged religion”

    Yes you have. You don’t realize you’ve done it, because it’s such a legitimately enriching aspect of your life that espousing the benefits of religion is as equally involuntary to you as breathing.

    This is why I don’t get involved in religious discussions with people on secular websites, because the religious people don’t realize what they’re saying, and how outrageously offensive it is to other people (be they atheist, or simply one of the other 99% of religions out there).

    Hossrex: “His teamamtes and Dodger management accepted it and he had a contractual clause to that effect.”

    Whooptie doo.

    Dennis: “I ve also said that religion was important and played a part in some atheletes lives. I didnt endorse religion I simply said it was a dominant force in world history , I didnt preach, I simply said it was important, I didnt say it was important in my life and I didnt try to ocnvince you of anything.”

    I didn’t say it was important. I just said it was important. I didn’t say it was important. I just said it was important. I didn’t say it was important. I just said it was important.

    Dennis: “You then asked me to make acomment aobut what religion could offer…I gave you my opinion, specifically told you that I wasnt witnessing, just offering an opinion.”

    Your opinion was flawed, specifically in that it presupposes on another persons values, and the way they choose to life they’re life. You don’t know anything about the atheist view of the world, and yet you opine on their worth. I’m amazed you don’t realize how remarkably offensive that is.

    Do you have another opinion?

    Dennis: “you ve made what I can only describe as unimaginably gross and stupid insensitve comments that Yahweh is kind of a dick”

    Hey. It’s your bible. Not mine. Ever read it? I have.

    Yahweh is kind of a dick.

    Want to get into scripture?

    Dennis: “and Jews have trouble keepign the commandment of not being envious. And two posters, myself and Mike Felber have talked about our Jewish backgrounds.

    You said was Koufax did was unquestionable because it was a commandment. So I provided an example of a commandment (which is even in the first ten!) which NO HUMAN BEING ON EARTH COULD POSSIBLY COMMIT TO. I’d call that a fair comment.

    And I couldn’t care less whether you or Mike are Jewish. I haven’t said a THING against the Jewish people. I said the god of the old testament is a dick (he is), and that it’s impossible not to covet things (it is).

    Dennis: “And I still find the analogy of a man practicing his religion and someone humping a goat in the street unexplainable.

    At least I can *see* a man humping a goat in the middle of the street.

    Dennis: “Did you even stop to consider that you might be offending people on this board?”

    Do you?

    Offensive to atheists? Who cares? It’s not like they’re human.

    Offensive to theists? WHAT! HOW DARE YOU!

    Take a look in the mirror: http://montaraventures.com/pix/atheistcartoon.jpg

  104. Mike Felber Says:

    Dennis, you have some great & well considered comments, & from whatever Provenance, an evolved morality. Hoss sometimes goes berserker intemperately, & sometimes for fun: I certainly hope he is not being conventionally anti-Semitic by the sad elision of greed & Jews. But when he talked about God being “bad”, I think he & others mean the irrational, wrathful, punitive & sometimes biased way the Old Testament especially assigns the nature of God, & what Christian Fundamentalists ascribe to him, often taking the Bible literally, Of course this can be taken as man’s projections & obsessions ascribed to God, as I do.

  105. Hossrex Says:

    Mike: “I certainly hope he is not being conventionally anti-Semitic by the sad elision of greed & Jews.”

    Oh jeez… crap. Okay. Of course that’s how that would have been taken.

    I 100%, wholeheartedly apologize for how the covetous thing MUST have sounded. I swear I didn’t even make the connection as I was saying it. I simply picked the silliest commandment, and ran with it.

    The disgusting stereotype was the furthest thing from my mind while I was making the comment, but since… and honestly I agree… there WAS NO OTHER WAY TO TAKE WHAT I SAID… I’ll just apologize as fervently as possible.

    I apologize for what I said.

    Mike: “when he talked about God being “bad”, I think he & others mean the irrational, wrathful, punitive & sometimes biased way the Old Testament especially assigns the nature of God”

    Yup. That’s exactly what I meant.

    I think the Jewish people are a fine upstanding people (although I’m loathe to make that comment, since I consider THAT to be racist), and you’re all… to the one… better than the character of the god portrayed in the old testament.

  106. Lefty33 Says:

    “but more accurate to say if you HAVE them you will rarely ever be denied.”

    No Mike. That would be never denied.

    Now the “Roid” stuff obviously will change this, but until McGwire how many 500+ homers guys were kept out? Zero.

    How many 300+ win pitchers are not in the hall that are eligible? Zero.

    How many guys with 3000+ not named Rose are not in the hall? Zero.

    Until McGwire the magic numbers guaranteed admission.

    “But I hope you see that when someone is worthy, a campaign for him is the only way he will likely be recognized.”

    It can also be used in a bad way. In the case Jim Rice, Tony Perez, Bruce Sutter.

    “Recall you switched to whether someone will be elected, not what I discussed, worthiness.”

    I only deal in reality Mike.

    It’s like presidential politics. Why waste your time talking about Christopher Dodd and Ron Paul when they may be worthy but are clearly unelectable.

    Same as guys like Brown, Martinez, Schilling, John, etc. They may be worthy but they do not have real chances with the voters and are not electable.

    I choose to only look at guys with real chances like: Bagwell, Biggio, Johnson, Thomas, Kent, Piazza, Glavine, Maddux. Those are the guys going in.

  107. dennis Says:

    OK. Im going to make this comment and hopefully we re done.

    Hoss rex
    Koufax contract that stated he did not have to pitch on the 2 holiest days of the Jewish calendar.

    He did not walk away from his team or leave his teamates in the lurch The organization and his teamamtes knew Koufax s beliefs and the contractual clause. And let remind you again that Koufax started three games during the 65 series, won games 5 and 7 with shutouts and was named the Series MVP.

    So you dont get away with your weak whoop de doo.

    Up to commeent 27 by Raul, the conversation had been confined to Koufax and his not pitching Game 1 becuae it fell on Yom Kippur.

    In Comment 27, Raul said that religion was bullshit…HE INTRODUCED RELIGION and i responded that it wasn t and that it had importance. When someone says something is bullshit or they make offensive comments it tells me that they havent put any thought into it..or worse still, they re not capable of thought.

    You assumed and made assumptions that I was trying to impose my morality on you and that religion had enriched my life…. I saids religion has value for some people..and that is all I said. You went off and contrasted it as a theist-athiest clash.

    Now here s a news flash….

    Im 56 years old, I havent been in a synagogue in 43 years and Im also an athiest. But I like to skewér people when they grab their balls, scratch and go woof woof on the Internet and they think they re using their brain.

    So if you want to talk baseball, come armed with a fact or two before you vent and if you want to talk about something weightier, get your foot out of your mouth and………………THINK!!!!!

  108. brautigan Says:

    Trust me, I was alive then; Koufax took a ton of shit for his actions. And he did so with dignity. Very much like Ali when he refused the draft board with the eloquent “no vietcong called me a nigger” (my paraphrase). There were a lot of rednecks that took exception to Koufax’s actions. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

  109. Hossrex Says:

    Dennis: “So you dont get away with your weak whoop de doo.”

    Sure I do. He didn’t pitch when the team needed him. As I’ve said at every step of the way, I don’t care why… hence… WHOPTIE DOO!

    Dennis: “let remind you again that Koufax started three games during the 65 series, won games 5 and 7 with shutouts and was named the Series MVP.”

    Hindsight, and monday morning quarterbacking.

    I wonder how different history would remember it if the Dodgers had lost that year.

    Which of course they didn’t (which was going to be your next comment), which just illustrates the point that what happened after doesn’t matter… he didn’t pitch when his team needed him. I don’t care that he had a note from mommy. I don’t care that the team didn’t mind.

    They needed their best pitcher on game 1, and he didn’t pitch.

    Imagine if an atheist considered his family and loved ones to be as important as god.

    Should he be allowed to have his mothers birthday off? Would it be understandable for him to miss the first game of the world series because it’s his mothers birthday?

    What’s the difference?

    I’ll help explain the difference.

    One is a person desiring to respect the person who (demonstrably) gave him life, who nurtured his talent and ability, and who (demonstrably) gave him the opportunities he needed to be successful in his life.

    The other is a person who lives their life by the morals/values of a nomadic six thousand year old desert dwelling iron age society.

    In that context… which is more reasonable?

    Yet… how would *YOU* feel if CC Sabathia didn’t pitch game 1 of the world series because it was his mothers birthday?

    Interesting, eh?

  110. Hossrex Says:

    Sorry. Hit send prematurely.

    Dennis: “Up to commeent 27 by Raul, the conversation had been confined to Koufax and his not pitching Game 1 becuae it fell on Yom Kippur.

    If it weren’t for your comment #23, that would be true. Yes.

    Dennis: “Raul said that religion was bullshit”

    I was also surprised he said that. But when *you* bring up something like religion, while not necessarily appropriate, you shouldn’t necessarily be surprised.

    Imagine if instead of defending Judaism… which is generally “American Values Friendly” (generally), you’d said something equally as reasonable like “I’m a muslim, and I think it’s excusable for a man to own a woman.”

    This is why you don’t bring up the topic of faith. Because things that seem PERFECTLY normal to you, seem perfectly abhorrent to different people.

    Dennis: “You assumed and made assumptions that I was trying to impose my morality on you

    You said atheists feel like they’re the most important thing in the world.

    You said that.

    You think you didn’t say anything offensive.

    Dennis: “Im 56 years old, I havent been in a synagogue in 43 years and Im also an athiest. But I like to skewér people when they grab their balls, scratch and go woof woof on the Internet and they think they re using their brain.”

    You might want to try to do a better job of it next time, because… and I feel ZERO compunction in saying this if that was your motive… you did a piss poor job, made yourself look like an absolute moron, and espoused the value of something which has for the entire written history of mankind been used to divide humanity.

    Good job!

    Dennis: “So if you want to talk baseball, come armed with a fact or two before you vent and if you want to talk about something weightier, get your foot out of your mouth and………………THINK!!!!!”

    I had a problem with Sandy Koufax taking a day off during the world series.

    THAT’S BASEBALL.

    You came in with holier than thou bullshit, and defended something which… within the context of baseball… is indefensible.

    You MUST get into theology for what he did to be defensible. When you get into theology, you open yourself up for this. You started it.

    I said I didn’t care why.

    You explained why.

    I explained why that isn’t valid.

    You got butthurt.

  111. Hossrex Says:

    Braut: “Very much like Ali when he refused the draft board with the eloquent “no vietcong called me a nigger””

    Muhammad Ali had a religious problem with murdering people.

    Sandy Koufax had a religious problem with working a couple days per year.

    One of those I got no problem with.

  112. dennis Says:

    You re claiming that I said athiests think they are the most important people in the world.

    Where? SHOW ME!!!!!

    Abba Eban (who was the foreign minister of Israel) once said about the Arabs….Their ignorance is encyclopedic.

    I dont know what your ethnic background is…but don t worry, you ve got A to Z more then covered.

    When someone just says I don t care why….as a response to a disucssion of fact and logic, it reminds me of the braying of a jackass.

    And the only difference between you and a braying jackass….is two legs….

  113. Hossrex Says:

    Dennis: “I think and its only my opinion that the most important thing that any religion can do…Christianity, Judaism, (a rational version of Islam) Buddhism, Hinduism is persuade man that he is not the most important factor in the universe….And that is something no secular institution can do.”

    Apparently this braying jackass’ problem is that he has the nasty little ability to read what you write, and remember what you’ve said.

    Dennis: “You re claiming that I said athiests think they are the most important people in the world.

    Where? SHOW ME!!!!!”

    Dennis: “And that (persuading “man that he is not the most important factor in the universe”) is something no secular institution can do”

    Wanna see it again?

    Dennis: “You re claiming that I said athiests think they are the most important people in the world.

    Where? SHOW ME!!!!!”

    Dennis: “And that (persuading “man that he is not the most important factor in the universe”) is something no secular institution can do”

    Again?

    No?

    You see it now?

    Okay.

    Braying jackass… lol… awesome.

  114. Mike Felber Says:

    Lefty, you responded like you were debunking what I said re: who I felt worthy. If you only delat in “reality”, no need to address my statements of opinion. But calling what you assess as reality is tenuously true at best. It is opinion-though I more agree w/it than not-it is more accurate to say you only deal w/predictions, not opinions of worth. But the point of engaging in the latter is many fold, & is a kind of reality-sharing thoughts & feelings, sharpening wits, learning new things, expressing passion & priorities…You are an exceedingly unusual fan & human being if you never venture what SHOULD be, or what if, loosing some wonderful hybrid of analysis & creative thinking.

    You may vote for a candidate that will not make it for many reasons. Finding the principle more urgent than a supporting a deeply compromised or ideologically unfavored candidate, Wanting to move the mean/general paradigm to one side. As a protest vote & to build a movement. Much of the greatest humanitarian reforms have come from 3rd parties that were reviled.

    I do agree with you about campaigns being used in bad ways often. I only do not know why you list Martinez as unelectable.

  115. dennis Says:

    How in the hell did you logically infer that I said anthing anthing about athiests.

    I never even mentioned the word athiests!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The point that I made was that religion at its best, can persuade man (meaning mankind) that he is not the central factor in the universe, in other words that he needs to be charitable, that he has to think of other things then his comfort and selfish desires.

    And although I don t practice organized religion and I doubt the existece of God, I beleive that man has a better nature inside him…..and religion can touche that in a way that a secular institution cannot.

    And I now relaize that you dont do subtle nuanced thinking, its either black or white and you cant accept the validity of any well constructed argument that doesnt agree with your very rigid and narrow belief system.

    You re as intolerant as any religious fanatic.

    And you re still a jackass.

    What I fugured out

  116. Hossrex Says:

    lol… okay.

    Let’s break this down.

    Let’s examine an Athest. We’ll call him Fred (because he wears an ascot). This atheist obviously doesn’t utilize theistic institutions. He’s an atheist, why would he? But he does participate in many secular activities. He’s active at his local homeless shelter, and he’s a huge supporter of the woman’s shelter. He’s a little league coach, and unfortunately, former boyscout troop leader (sorry, no atheists allowed anymore).

    This atheist lives a completely secular life (as do all atheists).

    So.

    Let’s look at your quote: “And that (persuading “man that he is not the most important factor in the universe”) is something no secular institution can do.”

    So. You think this, entirely typical atheist thinks he’s the most important factor in the universe, since no secular institution can possibly convince him otherwise. It doesn’t matter that he’s helped feed children who haven’t had a meal in a week. It doesn’t matter that he’s helped place battered women in safe homes while they get back on their feet. It doesn’t matter that he’s helped countless kids to catch a flyball.

    It’s “something no secular institution can do.”

    You’re getting angry now, because you know I’m correct. You’re getting angry because you’re starting to realize you’ve been offensive. You’re getting angry because you realize that the things you were taught aren’t necessarily true.

    All understandable reasons to be angry.

    I forgive you.

  117. Mike Felber Says:

    I absolutely see how you did not intend to be anti-Semitic Hoss, & clearly your comment only accidentally seemed to suggest that. That is fine, you meant nothing bad there. Though these types of potential misunderstandings show how it is best to be humble, restrained in personal attacks, & respectful. Yes, I am alluding to you falling off the wagon directly above!

    The statement you repeated does not establish Dennis was making such claims about atheists. There are a few other things that you did not deconstruct w/your (often enough) pithy elegance. Perhaps because you were triggered, but I would be given pause by your mistaken presumption that Dennis was religious. he can deconstruct anything else if interested. I wish Dennis had continued his very civil tone, instead his pique made you ratchet up to shrill neo-ballistic.

    May we see again the kinder, gentler (& less unhinged) Hossrex, please?

    O.K., calmly: Amongst all the massive folly, ignorance & abuse of religion, there is also tons of wisdom, comfort, charity, deep thinking about ethics & metaphysics. For a human to have a strong group identity & take a very few, most sacred days off-we should accommodate that. Your mother-point was clever, yet it is not something that a group uses for great spiritual communion, & folks do not seek that. That it was a bit better to have your ace in game 1: I think it is holding SPORTS to much like a religion to never have the slightest concession to any outside commitments & or deepening experiences. Work allows many “holy” & secular days off, Gov’ts to: & if you happen to not be amongst the most common ones, generally work, schools…do allow people to celebrate or pray by taking the day. Baseball should not be so divorced from the ebb & flow of life: heck, even many schools & work places legendarily took unoffical breaks during great sports events!

    Oh, & because it is nearly impossible to have any greed whatsoever, does not mean that this is part of the insane, oppressive superstitions of religions. Wholeheartedly fighting jealous desire is a very good thing. I would be interested though the story of a Minister gone off the religious map, as in que pasa? Unless it is too personal.

  118. Hossrex Says:

    Mike: “The statement you repeated does not establish Dennis was making such claims about atheists.”

    The only way his statement isn’t relevant to atheists is if a person doesn’t know what the word “secular” means.

    A secular person is a person who doesn’t support any theology.

    The biggest difference is that, not only was my offensive statement accidental, I PROFUSELY APOLOGIZED for it, regardless of the fact that it was accidental.

    Dennis however persists in thinking that calling all atheists full of themselves is just fine.

    Mike: “May we see again the kinder, gentler (& less unhinged) Hossrex, please?”

    If I were a Christian, and someone insulted my beliefs, no one would be saying “hey, can you just get over it man?”

    Mike: “Your mother-point was clever, yet it is not something that a group uses for great spiritual communion, & folks do not seek that.”

    So atheists who don’t share a sense of spirituality are allowed to take off government sanctioned holidays, while being unable to celebrate holidays which actually mean something to them?

    I realize that’s the world we live in (and I say that, because the ONLY reply to that is “HEY! That’s the world we live in!”), but… that’s entirely unfair to people who happen to have decided, or have been born into a religion which actually celebrates those respites.

    Mike: “Baseball should not be so divorced from the ebb & flow of life

    I disagree.

    It’s baseball.

    To someone who loves baseball, that should be all they need.

    Mike: “I would be interested though the story of a Minister gone off the religious map, as in que pasa? Unless it is too personal.

    The only thing I’ll say is you’re using minister in too direct of a sense.

  119. Jeff Says:

    Mike Felber: “You are an exceedingly unusual fan & human being if you never venture what SHOULD be, or what if, loosing some wonderful hybrid of analysis & creative thinking.”

    Right. It’s infinitely more interesting and enlightening to praise, criticize and debate baseball based on factors that are important to each of us, rather than limiting our discussion to some rubric that’s been constructed by of a bunch of idiots who just happen to have a credential to vote someone into a museum because they write articles in newspapers.

    Hossrex: “And yes. YOU brought up religion. I simply said “Sandy sat out a world series game, and I don’t care why.””

    Just because you didn’t explicitly mention religion doesn’t mean you didn’t bring it up, when you and everyone else knew what point you were trying to make.

    “Koufax refused to pitch a world series game.”

    What is your evidence that he “refused to pitch”?

    “I couldn’t care less why Koufax walked away from his team when they needed him the most.”

    Even if we were to pretend that he “refused to pitch,” is there any scenario that’s acceptable to you for a non-incapacitated person to skip a day of work?

  120. Hossrex Says:

    Jeff: “Just because you didn’t explicitly mention religion doesn’t mean you didn’t bring it up, when you and everyone else knew what point you were trying to make.”

    Than Rich Langweber is to blame by writing an article about Sandy Koufax, since just because he didn’t explicitly mention religion, doesn’t mean he didn’t bring it up, and when he and everyone else knew what point he was trying to make.

    See how silly that sounds?

    Someone else brought up Koufax, I said “I got a problem with his walking away at a critical time”, and that’s a major problem? It’s a major problem TO ME that it’s a major problem to question his walk-out.

    Jeff: “What is your evidence that he “refused to pitch”?”

    Los Angeles Dodgers IP H R ER BB SO HR ERA BF Pit-Str Ct·Sw·Lk GB·FB·LD· ? GmSc IR-IS LevI WPA
    D Drysdale, L (0-1) 2.2 7 7 3 1 4 2 10.12 17 – · · 5· 1· 0· 6 27 – 0.81 -0.43

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/MIN/MIN196510060.shtml

    I couldn’t care less how poorly that’s formatted. It’s pretty irrefutable proof.

    Jeff: “Even if we were to pretend that he “refused to pitch,” is there any scenario that’s acceptable to you for a non-incapacitated person to skip a day of work?”

    A “day of work”? Sure. Game one of the WORLD FREAKING SERIES? Is there a scenario which is acceptable for me to accept a non-incapacitated person to skip GAME ONE OF THE WORLD FREAKING SERIES?

    Hmmmmmmm…

    Murder charges?

    Otherwise… I’ve got nothing.

  121. Jeff Says:

    “Than Rich Langweber is to blame by writing an article about Sandy Koufax, since just because he didn’t explicitly mention religion, doesn’t mean he didn’t bring it up, and when he and everyone else knew what point he was trying to make.”

    Good analogy, because there is no difference between bringing up a topic through implication and not bringing it up at all.

    “I couldn’t care less how poorly that’s formatted. It’s pretty irrefutable proof.”

    The fact that Drysdale pitched and lost is evidence that Koufax “refused to pitch?” Again, where is the evidence?

    “A “day of work”? Sure. Game one of the WORLD FREAKING SERIES? Is there a scenario which is acceptable for me to accept a non-incapacitated person to skip GAME ONE OF THE WORLD FREAKING SERIES?”

    No, I meant for any job. Like, would it be ok to miss work for any reason on the day TPS reports are due?

  122. Mike Felber Says:

    His statement that no secular Institution can provide that perspective & humility I disagree with, but would tweak it to say religion MAY do this very well. It is relevant to atheists, but your repeated claims re: atheists think they are the most important…are not supported by his statement. His showing your assumptions were wrong when you learned he was an atheist, (like the 3 of us, man!) should have made you more humble, ironically, re: your reactions.

    You think closely & well about many things, but sometimes get unnecessarily upset & lash out. You would not defend a religious zealot going medieval when he felt insulted, I am sure you can be gracious enough to say that you need not get so…reactive. Your insults were worse than what you even THOUGHT he was insulting.

    No, we should be able to celebrate authentically urgent Holidays for us. but if they do not exist (& atheists are much less likely to hold a secular occasion as “effectively “sacred” in importance; you & I & Dennis are not being screwed if we just get the day off for whatever, even though we do not NEED it off. Not a bad dealio actually.

    I am surprised you are such a “fundamentalist” about baseball! Really, it cannot be all we need, & would not be Psychologically healthy to allow nothing in life to intrude, or make it the be all & end all, the Alpha & Omega, of course you know I will claim: the Godhead. Maybe we can give fanatics like you equivalent days off, if you give discretionary (say, religious days back), & call them your “World Serious” Holidaaaze. ;-)

    Sometimes I am more literal than context necessitates. Though with your ordained Minister comment, I do not think that it seemed anything but.

  123. Hossrex Says:

    Jeff: “Good analogy, because there is no difference between bringing up a topic through implication and not bringing it up at all.”

    I’ve written half a dozen examples here… but deleted them all because I honestly don’t have a clue what you mean.

    Jeff: “The fact that Drysdale pitched and lost is evidence that Koufax “refused to pitch?” Again, where is the evidence?”

    Previously, I honestly didn’t think you were serious with that question. I didn’t think it was POSSIBLE that your point in replying was “hey, who knows if that’s really why he didn’t play?”

    But considering you persist in asking?

    Wow.

    Just… read a book.

    Jeff: “No, I meant for any job. Like, would it be ok to miss work for any reason on the day TPS reports are due?”

    Yup. The day Peter Gibbon’s TPS reports are due is the same thing as the day Sandy Koufax was supposed to pitch game one of the world series.

    Unless you’re remarkably dense, you can’t possibly see an ACTUAL correlation there.

    It’s. Game. One. Of. The. World. Series.

    What’s bigger?

    Maybe the Superbowl. Sure. I wouldn’t raise a fuss about that.

    What if the Superbowl (somehow, by some weird happenstance) fell on Yom Kippur? What if the quarterback was Jewish?

    What if he didn’t play in the Superbowl?

    Would that be different?

    Would that be understandable?

    Why?

    Why not?

  124. Hossrex Says:

    Mike: “His statement that no secular Institution can provide that perspective & humility I disagree with”

    Because you’re not a bigoted idiot… yes, yes… go on.

    Mike: “but would tweak it to say religion MAY do this very well”

    That wasn’t the question.

    The question was “what can a theistic organization do, which is impossible for a secular group?”

    You can twist the words however you want, but if it doesn’t answer that question, it’s irrelevant to the discussion.

    Mike: “It is relevant to atheists, but your repeated claims re: atheists think they are the most important…are not supported by his statement”

    My “claims” that… what… atheists DON’T view themselves as “the most important factor in the universe” is unrelated to his statement that (paraphrased, but ENTIRELY WITHIN CONTEXT) “people with secular beliefs consider themselves to be the most important factor in the universe”?

    I disagree.

    He said something stupid.

    Mike: “His showing your assumptions were wrong when you learned he was an atheist, (like the 3 of us, man!) should have made you more humble, ironically, re: your reactions.”

    This isn’t a game where a person can hop out of their wolf costume to reveal they’re actually a lamb. I don’t CARE what he is. Atheists don’t identify with one another like that (which I understand is probably difficult for a theist to understand). We don’t say “oh, he’s an atheist, so whatever he says is fine.”

    No.

    He said something stupid, and I don’t care what he believes.

    Mike: “You think closely & well about many things, but sometimes get unnecessarily upset & lash out.

    When a theist get’s upset at me for being an atheist, and lashes out at me… and then I get up shits creek for lashing back?

    Yeah.

    I got a problem with that.

    I got a major problem with that.

    I didn’t raise the specter of religion.

    He did.

    I didn’t start this.

    He did.

    And he’s infallible, simple because his beliefs are six thousand years old… I mean… errr… he’s an atheist… sorry. I forget for a minute.

    *continues to pretend Dennis is an atheist*

    Mike: “You would not defend a religious zealot going medieval when he felt insulted, I am sure you can be gracious enough to say that you need not get so…reactive. Your insults were worse than what you even THOUGHT he was insulting.

    Yet the time I was wrong (accidentally), I apologized whole hog (*giggle*). He’s been wrong this entire time, and he’s sitting there calling me a “braying ass”.

    If he didn’t have a religion we’ve been taught to feel sorry for, would you be defending his behavior?

    Mike: “No, we should be able to celebrate authentically urgent Holidays for us.”

    So long as they’re the state recognized holidays of the ancient religions of iron age nomadic desert dwellers.

    The rest of us who think their beliefs/morals might be a tad bit out of date are screwed.

    You don’t see how that could be a touchy subject?

    Mike: “you & I & Dennis are not being screwed if we just get the day off for whatever, even though we do not NEED it off. Not a bad dealio actually.

    YEAH! We get pointless holidays off which don’t mean anything to us, which aren’t part of our belief sets, and which aren’t anything meaningful to us.

    However, other days? Stuff that might have legitimate meaning?

    Screw that! You’ve already had your religious days off!

    Mike: “I am surprised you are such a “fundamentalist” about baseball!

    Guh? Why?

    Mike: “Really, it cannot be all we need, & would not be Psychologically healthy to allow nothing in life to intrude, or make it the be all & end all, the Alpha & Omega, of course you know I will claim: the Godhead. Maybe we can give fanatics like you equivalent days off, if you give discretionary (say, religious days back), & call them your “World Serious” Holidaaaze.”

    I get the light hearted tone. I do.

    But you’re excusing… bah… screw it… you know what you’re excusing. You just think it’s easier to excuse it.

    That’s fine.

    The rest of the world will march on without you.

  125. Jeff Says:

    I said: “Just because you didn’t explicitly mention religion doesn’t mean you didn’t bring it up, when you and everyone else knew what point you were trying to make.””

    You said: “Than Rich Langweber is to blame by writing an article about Sandy Koufax, since just because he didn’t explicitly mention religion, doesn’t mean he didn’t bring it up, and when he and everyone else knew what point he was trying to make.”

    You implied that you had a problem with Koufax not pitching and that Yom Kippur wasn’t a sufficient reason. Rich Langweber implied nothing on this topic. So your analogy doesn’t make sense.

    “Previously, I honestly didn’t think you were serious with that question. I didn’t think it was POSSIBLE that your point in replying was “hey, who knows if that’s really why he didn’t play?”

    No, my point wasn’t that Yom Kippur might not’ve been the reason, but that he didn’t “refuse.” From what I’ve read, he was never even asked to pitch, that it was routine throughout his career not to pitch, and that all his teammates and management knew this. Now, you might say, come on, he could’ve pitched if he’d wanted to. But I think there’s a difference between “walking out on your teammates” and not playing when everyone knew the deal ahead of time.

    “Unless you’re remarkably dense, you can’t possibly see an ACTUAL correlation there.”

    Why? It’s a game and a job. TO me, there’s probably thousands of things bigger than the World Series. To many people who have jobs, there’s plenty of days that are as/more important to them and the company than that game was to the Dodgers. Why should Koufax necessarily give a shit about the Dodgers winning any more than Michael Bolton wanting Initech to meet its quarterly earnings estimates?

    “What if the Superbowl (somehow, by some weird happenstance) fell on Yom Kippur? What if the quarterback was Jewish?”

    I wouldn’t care either way, same with Koufax.

  126. Hossrex Says:

    Jeff: “You implied that you had a problem with Koufax not pitching and that Yom Kippur wasn’t a sufficient reason. Rich Langweber implied nothing on this topic. So your analogy doesn’t make sense.”

    Rich implied that Sandy Koufax was an overrated pitcher.

    I expressed a similar belief, and implied his walking out on game one of the ‘65 world series was a major part of that.

    *I DON’T CARE WHY HE DID IT*

    Saying “I don’t care why” isn’t the same thing as saying “he’s a filthy jew, and his holidays shouldn’t matter.”

    It disturbs me that several of you are conflating those two ideas.

    Jeff: “No, my point wasn’t that Yom Kippur might not’ve been the reason, but that he didn’t “refuse.” From what I’ve read, he was never even asked to pitch, that it was routine throughout his career not to pitch, and that all his teammates and management knew this. Now, you might say, come on, he could’ve pitched if he’d wanted to. But I think there’s a difference between “walking out on your teammates” and not playing when everyone knew the deal ahead of time.

    Jeff: “TO me, there’s probably thousands of things bigger than the World Series.”

    You’re not a professional baseball player who’s team has made it to the world series. That’s fine.

    Jeff: “To many people who have jobs, there’s plenty of days that are as/more important to them and the company than that game was to the Dodgers.”

    That doesn’t mean I need to accept their excuses.

    Jeff: “Why should Koufax necessarily give a shit about the Dodgers winning any more than Michael Bolton wanting Initech to meet its quarterly earnings estimates?”

    Which would you prefer. You have two choices.

    1: I could call you an idiot and explain the difference…

    or…

    2: I could look at you funny, and you’ll shrug your shoulders because you know what you said was stupid.

    Your choice.

    Jeff: “I wouldn’t care either way, same with Koufax.

    Not answering the question.

    The hallmark of the theist.

  127. Rick Says:

    Wow. I leave a discussion for a day and look what happened to the thread.

    Koufax didn’t pitch Game 1 in order to observe a religious holiday. Whether anyone agrees with his faith or not, how well would he have performed if forced to act against his conscience? No one knows, but a safe bet is probably not well. Maybe he doesn’t pitch well the entire Series. Not worth the risk… let him take the day off and come back with a clear head, ready to go.

    Now a baseball question. How many hits and homers will a Rockie player need to hit to be a HOF “lock.” I think only three hitters (Pujols, Ichiro, Gwynn) have a higher average in the expansion era, plus Helton brings OBP and power. But he’s a Rockie. Does a guy have to hit .350? 600 homers? It’ll be interesting to see how Helton’s candidacy works out 10 years from now.

  128. Hossrex Says:

    I think it’s correct… the the singular form of a player for the “Rockies” looks so strange.

    Like the twin “Sox” teams… how do you spell the singular?

    Is it like “fish”? Is he a “Red Sock”, or is he a “Red Sox”?

    P.S. If Koufax was that fragile, he’d have had an eleven year career, and been done.

  129. Jeff Says:

    “*I DON’T CARE WHY HE DID IT*

    Saying “I don’t care why” isn’t the same thing as saying “he’s a filthy jew, and his holidays shouldn’t matter.”

    It disturbs me that several of you are conflating those two ideas.”

    I know you don’t care why. I said nothing as to what you care. It doesn’t negate the fact that you impliedly raised the issue. And why would you say “I couldn’t give two gnats asses why,” if you knew why, and everyone else knew why, for any reason other than to make the point that his reason (Yom Kippur) wasn’t a sufficient reason?

    “That doesn’t mean I need to accept their excuses.”

    That’s fine, which is why I asked under what circumstances a person should be able to miss work, but you didn’t answer.

    “Which would you prefer. You have two choices.

    1: I could call you an idiot and explain the difference…

    or…

    2: I could look at you funny, and you’ll shrug your shoulders because you know what you said was stupid.

    Your choice.”

    There are probably plenty of pro athletes that don’t get all that worked up about winning and losing championships. And there are plenty of people who take their jobs as seriously and are as committed as pro athletes. I don’t know why it’s absurd to hold people to the same standards as far as missing work if there’s a comparable situation. Of course, if you think the World Series is one of the biggest things in life, I guess it would be absurd.

    “Not answering the question.

    The hallmark of the theist.”

    What are you asking? If it would be understandable for a QB to miss the Super Bowl for Yom Kippur? Sure. Would it be different than game 1 of the WS? Yes, somewhat, but I wouldn’t have a problem if his team didn’t have a problem.

  130. Hossrex Says:

    Jeff: “if you knew why, and everyone else knew why, for any reason other than to make the point that his reason (Yom Kippur) wasn’t a sufficient reason?”

    ?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!

    OMGWTFBBQ!

    For what reason might I have brought up Sandy Koufax sitting out a world series game, if not to criticize his faith?

    Erm…

    Hmmm…

    Lemmie think…

    Oh wait…

    I don’t gotta think…

    Maybe…

    BECAUSE HE SAT OUT A WORLD SERIES GAME, AND I DON’T CARE WHY!

    He sat out a world series game.

    Every single person who’s said “derrr… what’s the problem with that?” would have a problem with it if it wasn’t a theological issue.

    That’s despicable.

    Jeff: “There are probably plenty of pro athletes that don’t get all that worked up about winning and losing championships.”

    *deep breath*

    *deep breath*

    *deep breath*

    *don’t call someone stupid*

    *deep breath*

    *sigh*

    They call those pro athletes “losers”.

    Jeff: “I don’t know why it’s absurd to hold people to the same standards as far as missing work if there’s a comparable situation.”

    Yet your example was to compare:

    A: The World Series, the pinnacle of what a major league baseball player is trying to achieve…

    to…

    B: The day the TPS reports are due. The day every employee dreads.

    See why I said it was MIND BOGGLINGLY stupid?

    See why I TRIED to give you a pass on the question?

    See why you should REALLY just quit while you’re ahead, because you REALLY are just WRONG, and you KNOW it?

    Jeff: “What are you asking? If it would be understandable for a QB to miss the Super Bowl for Yom Kippur? Sure. Would it be different than game 1 of the WS? Yes, somewhat, but I wouldn’t have a problem if his team didn’t have a problem.”

    lol…

    Just…

    lol…

    lol…

    lol…

    lol…

    lol…

    lol…

    I wish I could remember the previous “stupidest thing ever said on the Dugout Central”.

  131. Jeff Says:

    “For what reason might I have brought up Sandy Koufax sitting out a world series game, if not to criticize his faith?”

    I didn’t say you brought it up to criticize his faith. Did I? Where? Please, tell me where. No, I said you brought up religion.

    “Every single person who’s said “derrr… what’s the problem with that?” would have a problem with it if it wasn’t a theological issue.”

    I don’t have a problem with players doing whatever the fuck they want, generally. Maybe somewhat if they screw their teammates over, like just not showing up for a game without notice. I think it’s hilarious when the media holds guys who play a game to some ridiculous standard re: character/work ethic.

    “They call those pro athletes “losers”.”

    Sure. There’s also guys who don’t play with a minor injury for fear of aggravating it, or to attend a funeral, or all kinds of other reasons that everyday people also skip work for without facing the wrath of people who think sports are bigger than life.

    “See why I said it was MIND BOGGLINGLY stupid?”

    YEah, the TPS was for comedic effect. I don’t really think the day TPS reports are due equates to the World Series. But the point has been said a few other times without rebuttal. There are certainly comparable situations for plenty of other people. Would it be the same standard?

    “I wish I could remember the previous “stupidest thing ever said on the Dugout Central”.”

    Which part is stupid, that it’s understandable to miss the Super Bowl for Yom Kippur? By the way, I’m pretty sure that they can’t do anything on that day, so I don’t see how one example could be different from another.

  132. Hossrex Says:

    Jeff: “I didn’t say you brought it up to criticize his faith. Did I? Where? Please, tell me where. No, I said you brought up religion.”

    Taking that at face value… whats the problem? See? The problem is only if you’re a douche.

    Jeff: “I don’t have a problem with players doing whatever the fuck they want, generally. Maybe somewhat if they screw their teammates over, like just not showing up for a game without notice. I think it’s hilarious when the media holds guys who play a game to some ridiculous standard re: character/work ethic.”

    Yeah! That ridiculous standard of… ummm… showing up for a championship game!

    HOW RIDICULOUS!

    Jeff: “Sure. There’s also guys who don’t play with a minor injury for fear of aggravating it, or to attend a funeral, or all kinds of other reasons that everyday people also skip work for without facing the wrath of people who think sports are bigger than life.”

    You wouldn’t say that if the reason the person didn’t play wasn’t theistic.

    Jeff: “YEah, the TPS was for comedic effect. I don’t really think the day TPS reports are due equates to the World Series.”

    Well… last time I asked you if you were serious, because what you were saying was mind bogglingly stupid… you really WERE serious… so… yeah.

    Jeff: “But the point has been said a few other times without rebuttal. There are certainly comparable situations for plenty of other people. Would it be the same standard?”

    You haven’t been able to name one yet, so why should I take the question seriously?

    Jeff: “Which part is stupid, that it’s understandable to miss the Super Bowl for Yom Kippur?”

    Luckily for me… you answered your own question!

    Jeff: “By the way, I’m pretty sure that they can’t do anything on that day, so I don’t see how one example could be different from another.”

    You’re saying that if a quarterback played 16 weeks to get to the Superbowl, and Yom Kippur happened to fall on Superbowl Sunday, it’d be fine if that hall of fame quarterback didn’t play.

    Right?

    That’s what you’re saying?

    You’re saying that his teams ENTIRE YEAR… 40 something guys (I don’t know, or care how big football rosters are)… depended on him showing up to that one game… and it was on Yom Kippur… you’d think: “Golly gee! What a great guy! Who cares that he’s ROYALLY SCREWING all the little people! Who cares that his teammates are SCREWED because of his desert dwelling, iron age beliefs… who cares that all the other people from the town are screwed. Who cares? Who cares that attendance will be down next year because they didn’t win? Who cares?

    He had a pact with Yahweh.

    Who… most certainly… ISN’T a dick.

    AMIRITE!

  133. Hossrex Says:

    Okay.

    I’m done now.

    Theism wins.

    Anyone should be allowed to do anything because their theism says to do it. Any refutation of that should be dealt with harshly.

    It doesn’t matter what atheists think, because without god, they aren’t whole people. This is a matter wholly endorsed by the Dugout Central, so… man… I’d be a dick to dispute it.

    You all win.

    I don’t care.

    I never cared.

    I’m tired of telling people how much I don’t care.

    I’m tired of saying “my opinion of his actions isn’t related to his faith, but instead to his actions”, and having the reply be “NU UH! YOU THINK HE’S A COVETOUS JEW!”

    If perhaps people here were better educated on the issue, it wouldn’t feel (to me) as if I were shooting fish in a barrel (which is fun, but…), while the rest of you assume that simply because a belief is theological, that it should be granted a reprieve from reprisal, or common sense.

    NEWS FLASH!: Tom Brady didn’t play in the superbowl, because… and we quote… “he just didn’t feel like it.”

    As opposed to… what…?

    “Someone told him not to play?”

    “Who Tom?”

    “This guy. He lives in the sky.”

    “Huh?”

    “No, seriously. He’s invisible, and you can’t see him… but it’s okay that I’m not playing today, because he told me not to.”

    “What exactly did he tell you?”

    “Not to play today!”

    “And who is he?”

    “The invisible man who lives in the sky, dur. Don’t you know anything?”

    “Invisible… man? And… that’s why you wont play in the superbowl?”

    “Of course! Invisible man! He goes around doing all sorts of nutty things! He’s a good guy! He *TOLD* Abraham to kill his son… but he didn’t mean it!”

    “WTF? Uhhh… what? Are you really not playing?”

    “Of COURSE not! It’s my holy day!”

    “Seriously? Why would god give you this ability, and tell you not to play on the day where your ability will most matter?”

    “Dude… you aren’t allowed to ask QUESTIONS! He’s my invisible friend, and he get’s upset if you ask ANYTHING of him.”

    “WHAT?!?”

    “You heard me. He’s great!”

  134. Jeff Says:

    “Taking that at face value… whats the problem? See? The problem is only if you’re a douche.”

    Not much of a problem, other than that you said the other guy brought up religion when it was you. So I corrected you. If you want to pretend that my statements were some hidden way of condemning you for “criticizing his faith” but that I was afraid to actually say that or something, go ahead.

    “You wouldn’t say that if the reason the person didn’t play wasn’t theistic.”

    Huh? My point is that there are all kinds of reasons people don’t play, theistic and non. I gave examples of non-theistic ones, precisely to make the point that it doesn’t matter.

    “You haven’t been able to name one yet, so why should I take the question seriously?”

    A lawyer in a big trial? A banker on the day of a big deal closing? Or is the World Series more important than those things?

    “You’re saying that if a quarterback played 16 weeks to get to the Superbowl, and Yom Kippur happened to fall on Superbowl Sunday, it’d be fine if that hall of fame quarterback didn’t play.”

    From the perspective of a fan? Sure. I wouldn’t judge him if he went to a funeral, or if he went to his wife who was giving birth. If I was the owner I might have a problem, but we’re not talking from the owner’s perspective.

  135. Jeff Says:

    If that rant was directed towards me, go back and read all my posts. Tell me where I’ve said anything to suggest preference for theism vs. atheism, Yom Kippur vs. secular reasons for sitting out. All I’ve said is that people have all kinds of other reasons for missing work, and we have no problem with them. If Koufax wants to not play in the World Series, because some guy in the sky told him not to, or if he wants to stay home and jerk off in accordance with some other life philosophy, treat them the same.

    So my opinion on the preference for religion is probably the same as yours. Only it looks the opposite because I don’t think guys playing a game that’s not that important should be held to much of a different standard.

  136. Mike Felber Says:

    O.K. boys, calm down, eaeaeasy does it. Put your Egos & Uber-offended at everything equally stances down, & back away from the keyboards. Nice ‘n slow, no-one gets hurt (feelings).

    Alright, 1st let me apologize for my mistakes. Hossrex, I did not notice that braying jackass-gate came from Dennis. My apologies. I saw you quoting it, & you know how posts (his original) often do not come through/are not seen before you right something. So Dennis, this was really out of line, & inconsistent with your original calm or restraint.

    And I did not see how his statement was related to the original question, re: what religion does better. But I hope you see that you have again assumed something cynical, like I was twisting your words, a modern disease you have caught (assuming the negative absent good evidence). Given the many twists & turns, it makes much more sense to think someone just has a different perspective than you, does not know something, did not notice what you said, or correctly, etc…It is also not bigoted to believe that no secularity can do something AS effectively…Though I disagree with him, there are a host of things religion or secular things tend to do better. believing the only way to reach humility is religion? That is way off & not remotely logical.

    You have defined your argument re: atheists thinking they are the most important thing in the universe as a tautology, since you at best paraphrase things incorrectly. Wrong that atheists cannot in innumerable ways learn love & prioritizing others. And saying religion does it much better, implies that atheists would be more narcissistic. But it does not follow that “atheists consider themselves the most important thing in the Universe”, if we accepted those false premises. Your general case was right, you just overstated what it indicated about his beliefs.

    I was not asking you to give him a pass because we 3 are atheists. And need not be told how “we” roll logically. I was merely saying that given that he has the same sympathies, you might rethink the specific allegations, like above, about his intent. You do not because you are essentially calling him a liar, which again, I see no cause for. A later statement might indicate he is agnostic: but IF so, you understand that this imprecision would not mean he was lying either, right? I just wonder when he was reviewing the religions if he was comparing Moslems unfavorably to the Jews & other faiths, so I ASK him now.

    Recall how you inadvertently made a statement that SOUNDED anti-Jewish, but was not? I asked even there. You have assumed that a man who respects & is brought up with a faith that informs his values must be lying about who he is. No, people are often more complex, thankfully, than religion bad, none good, binary thinking. That is a reactionary & immature view. Though people can disagree how much & what forms of something are + or not.

    Nothing wrong w/anyone “raising” religion, it is how we conduct ourselves, logically & respectfully I hope. Do you really see me as someone who is “taught: to “feel sorry” for religion? An atheist who is deeply critical of some religious practices & ideologies, like fundamentalism? And if you do not see me as a quite discerning independent thinker, you are seeing a preconceived image of me triggered by saying things you do not agree with, not the particulars of who I am.

    We are not “screwed” because we see some artifacts of religion are out of date & do not HAVE holidays where we have the same emotional & spiritual investment, let alone tradition. Though we have personal days. I think you are far too touchy about this Hoss. Understand a society is a collective of sorts, & sometimes for functionality & fairness we have to make some imperfect arrangements, like the tax structure. If a big enough slice of folks have a sacred day occasionally, & would not come in, or not want to attend, say, work: it is reasonable then to give the day off. Whatever tradition, when a critical mass has certain powerful traditions, it is not endorsing, say, X-Mas to give that day off. And I like the feeling & spirit attached to the Holiday. No, it is not all ruined by commercialism, & no, you do not need to believe in Christ’s divinity to absorb the loving & familial feeling in the season.

    It is terribly reductive & unfair to JUST slams religion for superstition & intolerance. There is plenty of that, but many of our highest tendencies are carried through faiths too. I do not see what I am possibly excusing, & how the rest of the world is marching away from me…Makes no sense. I am ahead of the curve re: being critical of much religion, an atheist for decades. But there is a religious like fanaticism re: your canonization of baseball & the World Series. This is also indicated because you do not comprehend how an athlete can work as hard & be as good as anyone, but not be torn up if he loses. That is not being a LOSER, that is being evolved enough to not conflate great effort w/a personal defeat/horror/death of the Ego.

  137. BCK Says:

    The reason that it was OK for Koufax to sit out G1 is that he had another HOF pitcher on his roster capable of pitching that day, and he was perfectly able to pitch the next day and 2 other times in the 7 game series.

    The Super Bowl analogy doesn’t work in that there is no G2. But even if it were a decent analogy, wouldn’t it be OK for Johnny Unitas to miss the Super Bowl if Joe Montana is available to play in his place?

    The fact that Koufax pitched in 3 games is not just hindsight. It’s a reasonable proof for why missing G1 wasn’t such a big deal, given his personal beliefs and his team’s willingness to accept those beliefs as legitimate.

  138. John Says:

    I don’t like to mix religion and baseball (or really, anything secular) because perfectly reasonable people (myself included) tend to become irrational when religion is involved.

    I’ll say the following in defense of Koufax though:

    1) The Dodgers understood this possibility could happen with Koufax.

    2) Koufax pitched 3 games in the series, giving up 1 earned run in 24 innings and winning games 5 and 7. Does it really matter whether he pitches games 1,4 and 7 or games 2, 5, and 7? Only if the Dodgers are down 3-0, but regardless, the Dodgers have to pull off at least 1 win with someone else on the mound.

    3) Last I checked, Don Drysdale is a HOFer. You’re not letting your team down if you let another stud pitcher of that caliber start game 1. It’s not Koufax’s fault Drysdale sucked in game 1.

    4) Religion undoubtedly helped Koufax perform in the series; whether or not God was making it happen is a topic of discussion for another website. But if you’re a religious person with a very set-in-stone belief like not working on Yom Kippur, it’s gonna mess with your head if you compromise that belief. Psychologically, Koufax needed to rest on Yom Kippur; that way, he approached his three games of the series with the confidence that something totally divine was on his side, rather than pitching three games convinced that the Big Guy Upstairs was pissed off at him. Hoss, you’ve read the old testament, right? Is Yahweigh (sic?) the kind of guy you really wanna be dicking with (if you believe in Him…which Koufax did)?

  139. Mike Felber Says:

    I am not 1 to use much space copying quotes, but this is instructive: HOSS:

    “It doesn’t matter what atheists think, because without god, they aren’t whole people. This is a matter wholly endorsed by the Dugout Central, so… man… I’d be a dick to dispute it.”

    “Anyone should be allowed to do anything because their theism says to do it. Any refutation of that should be dealt with harshly”.

    ” I’m tired of saying “my opinion of his actions isn’t related to his faith, but instead to his actions”, and having the reply be “NU UH! YOU THINK HE’S A COVETOUS JEW!”

    Mr. Ennobled & Martyred Soul, Sole defender of the presumed Secular Orthodoxy: (so to speak): your assessments of what folks here believe, & how you have been treated, are wholly (unholy?) ;-) divorced from reality. It would take a lot of fortitude for you to admit as much. But please consider:

    That we feel a man who should be able to rearrange a schedule, as previously agreed w/all relevant parties, to pitch on different days of the W.S., does NOT mean that anyone has remotely said that everyone, or you, need God! I do not think 1 person even implied that atheists are sad & incomplete people. And no, 1 comment that religion does 1 thing much better, or even that atheism does not, is not saying that atheists are sick, injured lost souls.

    Though again, Sandy did NOT “sit out” the game when it was prearranged. I think it would be hard to find anyone here who would not approve what was done, but that does not mean that implies intolerance for atheism.

    Nobody indicated that ANYTHING can be done due to belief. We are talking about approving a rare big game that is missed due to beliefs, made up later (3 games pitched’ for me it is a balance between how much the request effects performance, & what is discussed before hand. And yes, there are other crucial circumstances that a game SHOULD be allowed to pass unplayed. Your kid dies, wife is murdered, games put off after 911: well they all COULD have played. Just because I just found out my Mom is an a coma, or Dad died-eh, can’t change that, buck up & play? Nobody should be given a chance to deal with any extraodinary emotional event absent playing?

    The whole “covetous Jew” thing. I do not know who you could be talking about but me. But I ASKED if you were bigoted essentially, politely. You apologized & admitted that the way you constructed the text sounded just like that, accidentally. I fully accepted that you never meant anything Ant-Jewish, nor suspected you harbored any bad feelings for Jews. HOW exactly are you being slandered on this site vis a vis Antisemitism?

    You have been mostly arguing with a couple of atheists Jews! You are nowhere getting a religion is always good, how dare you question it/us attitude. This is in your head Hoss. You also insist that one of us is lying about being an atheist. More because you do not see the nuances of beliefs here, than paranoia: it is common for discerning folks to not find something they do not believe in as all, even cartoonishly bad.

  140. Lefty33 Says:

    “I only do not know why you list Martinez as unelectable.”

    I am referring to Edgar and that has been covered ad nauseum.
    No magic numbers. He’s good not great.

    I actually think, although I personally don’t agree, that Pedro has a good chance.

    “You are an exceedingly unusual fan & human being”

    You got me, Mike.

  141. Lefty33 Says:

    “How many hits and homers will a Rockie player need to hit to be a HOF “lock.” I think only three hitters (Pujols, Ichiro, Gwynn) have a higher average in the expansion era, plus Helton brings OBP and power. But he’s a Rockie. Does a guy have to hit .350? 600 homers? It’ll be interesting to see how Helton’s candidacy works out 10 years from now.”

    In ten years Helton will be where he is now. Not in the HOF.

    He won’t have 3000 hits, likely won’t have 2500 hits.
    Won’t have 400 homers. Won’t have 1500 rbi.

    Gwynn has 3000, the sky is the limit for what Albert will have, and there certainly is an outside chance the Ichiro will get to 3000.

    Those players are just on a different plane.

  142. John Says:

    Has there been hard evidence on Helton with regards to steroids? Just curious, I doubt that his HR totals just magically dropped off so substantially the year they started testing.

  143. Lefty33 Says:

    @ John-

    http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2018289

    That dust up in ‘05 put Helton’s name on the radar along with his drop off in numbers.
    He was not listed in Mitchell.

    And most people, I don’t disagree with this, use the seeing is believing method.

    Helton suddenly bulked up and hit with tons of power. Now he’s not so bulky and the power has mysteriously vanished.

    Nothing hard yet. But where there’s smoke…there’s a smoke machine.

  144. Patrick Says:

    Wow….OMG said the atheist.

    I think anyone who has a problem with what Hoss wrote isn’t seeing his point of view properly, except for maybe the goat humping passage. :-)

    It’s so easy to offend people by just speaking from the heart on religious matters but if there is a God, he appreciates Hoss’ honesty.

    People don’t like it when modern religion gets distilled down to following the beliefs of a 6000 yr old nomadic tribe whose leader made a deal with God when God spoke to him and told him circumsize his first born son in exchange for a land of their own.

    Christianity, Judaism and Islam all start at that point but God forbid anyone question it.

    Anyway, it seems strange to 2% of the people (me and Hoss) for anyone to miss a WS game based on that.

  145. Raul Says:

    The only excuse I condone for missing a game, is if you’re banging some fan in the clubhouse.
    Because let’s be honest…that’s understandable.

  146. Chuck Says:

    Here’s a unique idea.

    Since this is a baseball site, let’s leave the religious talk for a more appropriate place, OK?

    I don’t care about someone’s beliefs anymore than they care about mine.

    I’d rather deal with Shaun’s moronic ramblings than have people get all worked up about a sensitive topic which has no relevance, and Sandy Koufax’ name included doesn’t change that.

    This is what Facebook is for (or so my wife tells me)

  147. Mike Felber Says:

    Mostly Hoss saw problems that did not exists Patrick, not that he was torn a new one by his 2 main, atheist mind you, interlocutors. One is me, & specifically question everything, inc. explicitly skeptical here about even the means of much religion. Yet almost all defend a man’s right of conscience in that situation, & not be condemned, even absent his heroics. Chuck, baseball is the topic which has at least less real world relevance. Though it would be best to limit such digressions here, even though I care about your beliefs, grand curmudgeon. :-)

    Lefty, ah, you meant the Edgar, whose bat & worthiness you underrate. But you really do not find Pedro HOF worthy? That is wild. Clearly best ERA + ever & in a season, amongst most dominant stretches ever-no way he has not done enough.

    That is not convincing evidence on Helton. Guys also bulk up & lose weight due to weight training that coincided w/the steroid era, & the possibly implicating statement is from 1 guy & denied.

  148. Hossrex Says:

    Jeff: “If Koufax wants to not play in the World Series, because some guy in the sky told him not to, or if he wants to stay home and jerk off in accordance with some other life philosophy, treat them the same.”

    Yom Kippur: The same as staying home and jerking off.

    Couldn’t have said it better myself.

  149. dennis Says:

    I have to say that Im astounded at what came of this thread.

    Baseball is a profession for some, its the national pastime, and its an esxape from reality from others.

    I never intended for htis to becoe a debate aobut religion vs. secularism or atheists vs. athiests anythign like that.
    Once again, what Koufax did was a matter of conscience, and it was a settled agreement with his emplyer. End of story.

    what I cant believe is that this has been such a vociferous argument about something that happened more thne 44 eyars ago!!!! It has no relevance or meaning in our everu day lives, at least I hope it doesnt.

    I m usually calm and reasoned unless someone goes over the top. Hoss rex, I have to say this, the braying jackass quote wasn yquite accurate, I honestly think, based on your intrasigence, your stule of dealing with argument, your propensity to twist everything…so that you win any discussion…at all costs…

    I honestly think that you have a serious personality disorder.

    See someone…you need help.

  150. Hossrex Says:

    Dennis: “Hoss rex, I have to say this, the braying jackass quote wasn yquite accurate, I honestly think, based on your intrasigence, your stule of dealing with argument, your propensity to twist everything…so that you win any discussion…at all costs…”

    “Twisting everything” = “Quoting you directly”

  151. brautigan Says:

    Am I the only one that remembers Danny Thomas, the “Sundown Kid”? If I recall correctly, he refused to play from sundown on Friday to sunset on Sunday, all because of religion. The guy was a serious talent, but a major league head case. I remember Milwaukee getting a ton of crap about “forcing” him back to the minors even though he was hitting .270, but what is the point if the guy is willing to miss two games a week? IN any event, Thomas was arrested in 1980 and hung himself in jail. Religion and baseball don’t mix.

    I guess my attitude is like this: I don’t like religion, but I am not going to force my beliefs onto someone else about their religion. It is “theirs” to choose, so good luck with that. Unfortunately, religion doesn’t always feel the same way I do. I did not understand Danny Thomas, nor Sandy Koufax. They did what they felt they had to do, and that choice came with the blessing of their manager, so who are we to say that is right or wrong.

    NOW, back to baseball!!!!

  152. Chuck Says:

    “IN any event, Thomas was arrested in 1980 and hung himself in jail”

    For raping a child.

    Some religion…

  153. Hossrex Says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Thomas

    His wikipedia page is fascinating (didn’t mention the child rape). It’s short, and definitely a recommended read.

    He found god during the offseason after a year where he was the East Coast League player of the year, winning that leagues triple crown. Then because of his religious beliefs, his career was basically over.

  154. Chuck Says:

    “His wikipedia page is fascinating (didn’t mention the child rape).”

    Did you really expect it to?

    C’mon..

  155. Lefty33 Says:

    “I can tell you that Philly media has said that Moyer, due to his off-season surgical infections could be anywhere from the 5th starter to retiring.”

    Local Allentown newspaper had an article with Moyer saying that after three off-season surgeries he is finally feeling good and has just started throwing.
    (Not off of a mound yet.)

    And good-time Charlie said that it’s likely Moyer or Kendrick for the 5th spot.
    Although Contreras will get starts in the spring and is a possibility if Moyer and Kendrick look bad.

  156. Mike Felber Says:

    Because some else goes over the top does not give another license to go nuts. Doing so makes 1 seem as “cuckoo for cocoa puffs” as anyone else, tends to equalize the impression of “jackassness” while everyone is covered w/mud, & erodes the clarity of solid arguments. If you do not do so & someone, say, compares the validity & spiritual succor & personal effect of a prayerful & contemplative day to masturbation, the unfair & foolish quality of a statement like this will be more lost in the general angst & resentment. Reason loses.

  157. brautigan Says:

    I do think I remember a blurb about Thomas and his incarceration having to do with charges of child molestation.

    That truly was a weird annual of baseball.

  158. Chuck Says:

    His Wikipedia page, putting in mildly, was edited for content.

    I did alot of research on him a few years ago for an article, needless to say, his story is both fascinating and disturbing.

  159. Hossrex Says:

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not doubting Chucks word here… at all… but I am surprised Wikipedia didn’t mention it.

    Short of political, or otherwise controversially charged topics, Wikipedia actually is far more accurate than it gets credit for. For every asshat who goes to screw with a page, there are ten nerds waiting for someone to do something they don’t approve of.

    The problem (naturally), is that too much is pruned from the topics as “irrelevant”. It’s why I stopped editing. Getting anything added to an article is like pulling teeth, and the bizarre policies requiring unanimous consensus before any substantive edit can be made. Try to get ten people to agree on literally ANYthing, then get back to me about whether that’s a good policy.

  160. Chuck Says:

    On June 2nd, 1980, Thomas was arrested and charged with raping and sodomizing his children’s 12 year old babysitter. On June 12th, he fashioned a noose out of his prison clothes and hung himself in his jail cell.

    Still surpised?

  161. Jeff Says:

    “Short of political, or otherwise controversially charged topics, Wikipedia actually is far more accurate than it gets credit for. For every asshat who goes to screw with a page, there are ten nerds waiting for someone to do something they don’t approve of.”

    I have a question for you: why do some statements require citations and some don’t? To me, any piece of legitimate writing must source all its factual statements, whether it’s a newspaper column, academic journal article, or reference authority like Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia, but it’s frustrating to not be able to verify the veracity of statements. For example, Koufax’s page says “Koufax garnered headlines by declining to pitch Game 1 of the World Series due to his observance of Yom Kippur.” There’s no cite for this.

  162. Hossrex Says:

    Chuck… I REALLY REALLY REALLY did believe you the whole time. Never a doubt in my mind.

    Wikipedia isn’t the sort of place where… that sort of thing… would be taboo. Makes me think no one gives a shit about Danny Thomas’ wikipedia page, and after a family member sanitized it a little, no one bothered to fix it.

    I really really don’t want to make a “Make Room for Daddy” joke… that would be remarkably insensitive, and highly inappropriate… right? I mean… given the… “circumstances”?

    Make Room for Daddy.

    Get it?

  163. Hossrex Says:

    Jeff: “I have a question for you: why do some statements require citations and some don’t? To me, any piece of legitimate writing must source all its factual statements, whether it’s a newspaper column, academic journal article, or reference authority like Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia, but it’s frustrating to not be able to verify the veracity of statements. For example, Koufax’s page says “Koufax garnered headlines by declining to pitch Game 1 of the World Series due to his observance of Yom Kippur.” There’s no cite for this.”

    The answer is nonsense, and I apologize in advance… but it’s true.

    Wikipedia is stupid. Generally accurate, but it’s literally the inmates running the asylum. Some people get particularly defensive over certain articles, or certain general topics, and police the articles like the brown shirts. Those articles require first hand account, written in stone, notarized by no less than three priests, and shellacked in Lucite. Other articles that people don’t care about? You can go in and pretty much write whatever you want, and if it passes the cursory skim test of the nerds who obsess over every recent update (hundreds and hundreds per hour), it’ll likely stay for a while.

    I one time tried to get it slipped past that “Doc” Ellis got his name for his love of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (I DID IT FOR THE LULZ!), and it was removed every time within five minutes. But now the article at least has information about why he IS called “Doc”… all because of my poor attempt at levity. People REALLY didn’t think it was funny.

  164. BCK Says:

    I really really don’t want to make a “Make Room for Daddy” joke… that would be remarkably insensitive, and highly inappropriate… right? I mean… given the… “circumstances”?

    This is insensitive, but equating Yom Kippur with staying home and jerking off isn’t?

    And don’t blame that one on the original poster, who you know full-well didn’t intend that. It was all yours, and I must say, one of the most offensive things I’ve ever read. I have no issue with you denying the existence of God, debating the topic respectfully, or even gently mocking those who do believe in Him. But you have crossed over the line from mockery into out-and-out denigration of the beliefs of others, showing no respect whatsoever.

  165. Hossrex Says:

    Jeff: “If Koufax wants to not play in the World Series, because some guy in the sky told him not to, or if he wants to stay home and jerk off in accordance with some other life philosophy, treat them the same.”

    Notice: “if he wants to stay home and jerk off in accordance with some other life philosophy, treat them the same.”

    Notice (again): “treat them the same

    Notice (for the third time): “the same

    Jeff said staying home and jerking off was the same as respecting Yom Kippur. I didn’t “equate” it. He did. I simply acknowledged it.

    You’re basically doing this:

    Person 1: “The government is terrible!”
    Person 2: “Yeah!”
    Person 3: “Hey… person 2… HOW DARE you call the government terrible!”

    See?

    Person 2 AGREED the government was terrible, but he most certainly didn’t say it first, and (regarding the existing example) picking on the atheist for agreeing with the theist (sorry… he’s an atheist also… I keep forgetting) guy for picking on Judaism make no sense.

    I never said anything except: “I couldn’t have said it better myself.

    Read the thread again. If you can manage to stow your theism, you’ll see who actually said what when.

  166. Chuck Says:

    Rex,

    I know you believed me, but there are some here, like with steriod accusations, that would, or will, write 500 word comments using terms like “proof”, “links”, “unsubstantiated”, blah, blah, blah.

    Take it for what it’s worth. You actually took the time to check his page after I made the statement, and Brautigan vaguely remembers the incident. What I said was for you guys, if anyone else cares, there it is.

  167. dodgerdave Says:

    Todd Helton is very similar to Will Clark (check career OPS+ and similarity scores). And Will Clark is not in the Hall of Fame. In fact Clark was booted off the ballot after his first year of eligibility.

  168. Hossrex Says:

    Chuck: “Take it for what it’s worth. You actually took the time to check his page after I made the statement”

    Honestly, I checked his page before you said that, and by the time I finished, and came back I saw that you’d made the statement. I was far more interested in WHEN he began his faith, since it doesn’t seem like a person could possibly have gotten as far as a baseball player refusing to play Friday or Saturday games.

    What you said make the fact that he killed himself in prison make more sense.

  169. Chuck Says:

    By all accounts, Thomas had a breakdown sometime early in 1975. He was suspended for the second half of the EL season for punching an umpire during an argument. (His EL Triple Crown was in 1976.)

    He had one suicide attempt shortly thereafter, his “finding” religion came even later. He made the Brewers in, I think 1978, as a Sunday through Thursday DH, but the Brewers sent him down when he would do other things he claimed not to be able to do.

    Both the Brewers and his wife made attempts to have him committed, but he either refused or just walked away from mental health facilities with the claim he was OK.

    His wife said when she saw him in the casket it was the first time she had seen him at peace.

  170. Hossrex Says:

    Sad story. Shame that such talent usually comes at the cost of “normalcy”.

  171. Patrick Says:

    I didn’t know any of that about Danny Thomas. I barely remember him.

    From wiki; “Thomas won the 4th Eastern League Triple Crown, doing so in 1976. He followed Joe Munson (1925), Bob Chance (1963) and George Scott (1965). It would be 32 years until Luis Montanez was the 5th player to perform the feat.”

    Other than George Scott, the EL Triple crown winners didn’t fare too well.

  172. jimmy vac Says:

    Koufax won the CYA three times when there was only one given out per year and won the pitching triple crown three times . He also pitched over 300 innings three times. Helton did not dominate close to that. I agree that Koufax may ot
    be the best ever but for a shourt time he was as good as there ever was.
    By the way Koufax was not a devout jew but he felt he needed to be a role model. Koufax was and is to many Jews as Joe Di Maggio was to Italians of an erlier era: was to an earlier erA; culuraL Icon. Koufax gave up one run in 24 innings so his day of observance did not hurt …
    As far as rings go, if they are so important in judging and individual player, let’s nominate Don Gullett (4 straight WS rings) and the great Lonnie Smith who won three rings with three different teams..

  173. Hossrex Says:

    Jimmy Vac: “By the way Koufax was not a devout jew but he felt he needed to be a role model

    That’s an even SILLIER reason.

    Remember when America was the melting pot, not the mixed salad?

    Remember when America was a successful country, not a failing superpower?

    Notice when both those shifts occurred.

  174. Mike Felber Says:

    America has not declined due to not recognizing & emasculating cultural identities. In many ways it was MORE of a “mixed salad” back in the day, & many generations have become assimilated. Loving & honoring a heritage does not conflict w/being a good citizen, & provides much spiritual fortitude, comfort, color & beauty. Thinking 1 identity needs to be sacrificed for another, or presuming to tell folks what they need to identify with, how much, or in what order (unless they are being, say, treasonous) is presumptuous & misguided. identity also need not be held so tightly, as in not only cosseted or thrown out in an “approved” hierarchy, but some may choose to have limited or fluid group ID.

    But best we be careful to tell others how they “should” identify.

  175. Heuj Ackmann Says:

    To whomever (I don’t feel like scrolling back up to find out): The Drysdale’s-a-HoFer and Johnny Unitas-could-take-the-day-off-if-Joe-Montana-was-his-back-up thing – lame. First and fully factual: Don Drysdale wasn’t a HoFer until 1984. The Dodgers didn’t have a Hall of Famer as their #2; they had a very successful and skilled pitcher behind Koufax. But he was not their go-to guy – Sandy Koufax was. (If Phil Neikro were the #2 pitcher for the Brewers in 2010, THEY would have a HoFer as their #2 starter. A first, I believe)

    Johnny U/Joe Montana: Any professional team will go out there with whoever is taking snaps; it’s what they do. But if Johnny U were hurt, mourning or prayin’ up a storm on Super Sunday and let’s say Montana-fresh-outta-ND was the option, the team would take the field. They WOULD rather have Johnny. And, FYI, anyone who questioned his refusal to play wouldn’t be a jerk. I mean, unless, of course, he didn’t play for religious purposes. If you questioned his decision then, you’d just be some kind of callous asshalf.

    But whether or not he didn’t play because of his ‘true beliefs’, because he wanted to be a ‘role-model’ (“Hey, kids, lemme show ya how it’s done. When the game’s on the line, feel free to step aside and not play because of ancient, mystical shit.” Wow. My hero.), or because he didn’t want to miss an episode of “Get Smart”, it’s questionable for a professional athlete to say “No thanks” on possibly THE most important day of the season. Any team, ANY TEAM IN ANY SPORT, wants their best players on the mound, field, court, ice, etc at championship time.

    And, finally: since many athletes (most likely 80-90%, like the rest of the ‘god-fearing’ world) are ‘believers’ themselves, they ‘forgive’ other ‘believers’ when they use their ‘beliefs’ to excuse their actions. So Koufax’s teammates acquiescence to his ‘faith-based’ day off IS understandable – when viewed in the context of a society that accepts ancient superstitions that dictate how people behave and conduct themselves. But, in a sane, rational world you would think “This is suspect behavior.”

  176. Hossrex Says:

    Mike: “America has not declined due to not recognizing & emasculating cultural identities. In many ways it was MORE of a “mixed salad” back in the day, & many generations have become assimilated. Loving & honoring a heritage does not conflict w/being a good citizen, & provides much spiritual fortitude, comfort, color & beauty. Thinking 1 identity needs to be sacrificed for another, or presuming to tell folks what they need to identify with, how much, or in what order (unless they are being, say, treasonous) is presumptuous & misguided. identity also need not be held so tightly, as in not only cosseted or thrown out in an “approved” hierarchy, but some may choose to have limited or fluid group ID.

    And yet here we are.

  177. Chuck Says:

    The thing about this whole thing is really nothing.

    Drysdale made his final 1965 start on Sept 30th, he pitched a nine inning complete game shutout.

    Koufax’ final start was two days later, he too, pitched a complete game.

    Game 1 of the World Series was on Wednesday, October 6th, meaning Koufax would have started on three days rest, and what was actually Drysdale’s regular rotation day.

    The whole situation could have been avoided if Alston had just stuck to his rotation.

    Drysdale eventually gave up seven runs on seven hits in two and two thirds innings in Game 1.

    When Alston came out to get him, Drysdale said, “I bet you wish I was Jewish too.”

  178. Patrick Says:

    What Drysdale said…. :-)

    It’s a fun debate, it’s the kind of stuff you would get into in a Philosophy of Religion/Ethics class.

    I partly agree with Chuck that because it all worked out it’s a moot point, but what if it didn’t? How would Koufax be remembered then? Probably as the guy who lost the WS under extremely questionable circumstances.

    One thing is for certain. There is no way our society would put up with any Super Bowl player, QB or otherwise, missing the game because of religious beliefs. I mean, Brett Favre even played a Monday Night Football game right after his dad died.

  179. jimmy vac Says:

    Hossrex,
    45 years ago, athletes were considered role models. His decision to be a role model for young Jews was important to him .. We complain when these guys act like a**holes and here is a guy with a conscious and was well aware of his influence..and you rip him…that is SILLIER….

  180. John Says:

    Patrick: “One thing is for certain. There is no way our society would put up with any Super Bowl player, QB or otherwise, missing the game because of religious beliefs. I mean, Brett Favre even played a Monday Night Football game right after his dad died.”

    He not only played but put up the best individual game of his HOF career (which ended in 2007, as a Packer, and was never resumed, for any reason). That game was the single most heart-stopping moment I’ve ever had watching sports – the comparison though, doesn’t work as well. Favre played in that game for his dad. He knew that that’s what his dad – the first coach he ever had, and the man who shaped Favre into the QB he became – would’ve wanted him to do. It was a tribute to his father.

    Patrick: “I partly agree with Chuck that because it all worked out it’s a moot point, but what if it didn’t? How would Koufax be remembered then? Probably as the guy who lost the WS under extremely questionable circumstances.”

    You might be right about how he would be remembered, but I think we can all agree he wouldn’t have deserved that. It’s like the people who blame Steve Bartlett for the 2003 Cubs NLCS collapse instead of acknowledging a) the fact that the ball was uncatchable and b) The fact that Dusty Baker, Mark Prior and Alex Gonzalez were the ones really to blame for that debacle.

    There’s really no way to claim that Sandy Koufax hurt his team in any way. He pitched 3 games in the series. If he had started game 1, he still would’ve made 3 starts. The Dodgers still would’ve had to win at least 1 game where he didn’t start (and as it turns out, they had to win 2).

  181. Heuj Ackmann Says:

    jimmy: I would counter that we seem to be holding athlete’s to a conflicting standard of how they should act (nice, pleasant, clean, pure)and how they should perform (to almost superhuman levels, with an intense level of competitiveness under an unprecedented level of scrutiny) today. Koufax’s decision made him a ‘role model’ for 7-10% of the national population – the Jewish community. And every group should have it’s standard bearers. But the weird thing about religion and Koufax’s decision is that while he is so often championed for what he did for his ‘community’, little is said (okay, its being said here for sure) about his actions and responsibilities to his team, the organization that he played for and the millions of fans of that team. IF – if – the Dodgers had not won that series, it is certainly likely that the choice not to play would be viewed in a much different way. They didn’t, he pitched great in his other starts and we have history. But the discussion that has come out on this page is telling and ultimately positive (even with some of the derisive, but highly entertaining and humourous, content).

    There are those who would and do have questions about Koufax’s choice (and at least a few right here on DC). Koufax had the obvious personal right to choose to sit out for his religious beliefs (even a heathen and an atheist like myself doesn’t deny that) but as a public figure, professional athlete and thereby an entertainer paid by an organization to perform, to be their primary pitcher, it is fair to look back, take pause and consider the ramifications of decisions like Koufax’s. Sandy didn’t lose the series for his team, he largely contributed to the victory. But if the logic applied to the choice to sit out were to be applied by athletes across the sports world, as has been hypothesized further up the thread, then the discussion has interesting, speculative ramifications. (and if we look at the spectrum of world beliefs, there are an awful lot of reasons to take a day of for ‘God(s)’)

    Koufax’s day of no-play is much less an issue than the current Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad debacle but it still draws into question issues that are broader than the sports-world. Issues of faith, belief, (or in the case of Hoss and myself: non-belief), race and racism, homophobia and understanding DO sometimes come out in the arena of sport. And talking about them (and not talking VORP or WAR for 30-40 posts is actually refreshing, sometimes) will hopefully get people thinking (even through the rough patches and back-and-forth terseness).

    As always, DC provides an interesting topic and the discussion that follows is well met on all sides by a long and heated debate. This one just happens to cut much closer to most people’s bones than an “Is Edgar Martinez a Hall of Famer” thread; not that the author or his article had any intent of THIS line of dialogue following. But, I’ve never seen this kind of response to an ESPN article. Hell, they’d probably shut it down. So as usual good chat gents.

  182. Ottoman Says:

    I’m going to divert a bit here and get back to original concept. Koufax is a lot like Ralph Kiner or Kirby Puckett. Short & sweet, yes, they belong. I understand all the arguments of pro & con with Sandy (almost exclusively pro). Helton is who I want to focus on here. BTW, their similarities are intriguing.
    Helton: 2nd to Kerry Wood in the ROY voting in 1998. Wood was selected on what the voters saw as his raw potential. Helton had the better over-all season. Nothing unusual there I suppose. Happens often enough.
    Baseball-Reference has a very telling stat line on each players page. How each and every player did based upon a 162 game schedule. This really levels the playing field a bit, albeit without the accounting for era, etc. Helton’s numbers look quite nice compared to many HOFers:
    G AB R H 2b 3b HR RBI AV BB OPS
    Helton 162 582 109 191 46 3 29 107 .328 101 .994
    Banks 162 604 84 166 26 6 33 105 .274 49 .830
    Gehrig 162 599 141 204 40 12 37 149 .340 113 1.080
    F. Robinson 162 577 106 170 30 4 34 105 .294 82 .926

    O.K., he’s no Gehrig, but who is? He compares very well to many HOFers. Sure, he plays in Denver, in a hitters era, and his career isn’t over yet so these #s will slip a bit. All the HOF monitors show this player to be worthy. And let’s not forget the fact that he has won a few Golden Gloves and is one of a small handful of players to have 400+ TBs twice or more in their career. And I’m not really on his bandwagon. I just think his stats need to be examined by the HOF voters very, very closely. I think his only really bad season was his injury-plagued 2008. If Helton can have 2 or 3 more years of 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 production, he should be in. 3,000 hits is not important. The doubles will be there, the walks, the OPS, the BA, etc. Helton just got lost in the whole Manny-Being-Manny, Barry, A-Rod, Rocket era. His best comp is Edgar Martinez? And at 888. This sort of defines a unique player!

  183. Hossrex Says:

    Heuj: “I would counter that we seem to be holding athlete’s to a conflicting standard of how they should act (nice, pleasant, clean, pure)and how they should perform (to almost superhuman levels, with an intense level of competitiveness under an unprecedented level of scrutiny) today.”

    I would counter that while a million different people may want a million different things from a professional athlete, the only thing I ask of them, and the only thing I ever will ask of them is that they participate in their sport of choice.

    That seems the most reasonable standard.

  184. Chuck Says:

    I believe part of the issue with Koufax is he had pitched previously on the holiday.

    So it seems he was maybe taking the day off because he didn’t want to pitch on three days rest?

    Whatever his reasoning, people were well within their rights to question his faith because he himself had questioned it by his actions in the past.

  185. Chuck Says:

    A big part of the argument for Jim Rice not being a worthy HOF candidate was the perceived advantage gained by playing his home games in Fenway Park, a notoriously favorable enviornment for a righthanded hitter.

    You would be hard pressed to find a hitter EVER who had more of a homefield advantage than Todd Helton.

    Unless it was Dante Bichette and Larry Walker and Vinny Castilla and Andres Galarraga and….

  186. Heuj Ackmann Says:

    Chuck: Mel Ott?

    Hoss: Guess I didn’t use the proper phrasing as that is essentially my point. Although I would add that I expect athlete’s to strive to achieve the utmost in their selected sport, whether you’re Albert Pujols of Nick Punto. I realize that many will coast by on pure athleticism but if you’re getting paid more than 80-90% of the populace to play a game – you should bust your ass to produce. Every day, every game. No excuses.

  187. Chuck Says:

    There was actually a rather spirted debate on one of the SABR forums a while back regarding Helton’s home park advantage, with someone bringing up, intially, Chuck Klein.

    Ott was mentioned later in the “debate.”

    Admittedly, I’ve never checked Ott’s home/road splits, might be a good time killer tomorrow while waiting for the inevitable Saints’ victory.

  188. Heuj Ackmann Says:

    Chuck: None of those other guys hits above .280 away from Coors. I know that Helton’s a .295 hitter away but that’s not really chicken-feed hitting. His slugging drops off some to but look at Kirby Puckett’s splits and you see a virtual mirror for this. And Puckett was a first-ballot guy. Is Helton a likely slam-dunk Hall guy? Maybe not. I’m sure there will be many who argue the same case as you. But we will never know how good or mediocre Helton would have been playing anywhere else. And we have to accept players for their careers as they were, right? I believe that was the argument in the past, so Helton’s career is as it is.

    Koufax DID benefit from the move to left coast and that fantastically high mound. On average over his 5 years of greatness his home ERA is roughly 1.5-1.25 higher on the road with only his last year seeing equalization between Home/Road splits. Hence that correlation proposed in the article above.

  189. Heuj Ackmann Says:

    “Inevitable” Saints victory? I’m a fan but ‘inevitable’ seems very far away. Lucas galaxies far, far away. Would be nice, though.

  190. Heuj Ackmann Says:

    And I should have typed “his road ERA is . . . higher” Ah, Saturday afternoons in the storm. Sorry.

  191. Hossrex Says:

    I like Kirby… and I don’t have a problem with his induction… but if Kirby had played another five years, and then retired without notable incident, he certainly wouldn’t have been a first ballot hall of famer.

    Again… not a knock against Kirby, but other than the two rings, the fact that he was a nice guy, and that ONE catch you always see over and over again… there really isn’t anything there.

    207 home runs (which would have turned into about 280), 134 stolen bases (which would have turned into about 135), and a .318 batting average which might very well have dipped below .300.

    Nice guy though, and he sure as hell made one sweet ass catch.

  192. Heuj Ackmann Says:

    Chuck: Billy Williams and Ernie Banks? Don Drysdale?

  193. Hossrex Says:

    Are you implying Ernie benefited from Chicago? The idea that Wrigley is a hitters park is mostly myth (perpetuated by that nonsense that Chicago is the “windy city”, by people who don’t know the actual origin of the phrase).

    The year Ernie his his career high in home runs, baseball reference has the one-year park factor (yuck… I know) at a perfectly neutral 100, while the multi-year park factor (yuck) is actually below one hundred, and thus favorable to pitchers.

  194. Raul Says:

    Not sure about Kirby Puckett being a nice guy.

    I’m pretty sure he tried to rape a chic in a bathroom.

  195. Hossrex Says:

    That’s news to me. I was simply going by his reputation. That’s a pretty serious accusation.

  196. Chuck Says:

    It’s true.

  197. dennis Says:

    Puckett was acquitted of all charges associated witht he incident. But Grank Deofre wrote an article in while he detaield the change in personlaity after Pucjett retired from baseball…and it was different then on his on the field imnage. I beleive Puckett deserved enshriment and more then 80 percent of the writers thought so…even though he had a relatively short career. he wa sna impact player and a leader of this teans and two world championships ar ento to be taken lightly. The Twins would not have won them without Pickett.

    Going back to the Koufax fandango, respectfully, Patrick s contention that no football team woudl tolerate a star player missing the Super Bowk is probalby correct…but its not an accurate analogy. The super Bowl is the final fam eof the NFL championship playoffs…the World Series is a torunament that stretches a minimum of four and a maximun of seven gamess.

    I beluieve someone asserted that Koufax had pitched (I assume) in aprevious Yom Kippur. I would like to see the proof.

    Someone also wrote that the whole probelm could have been avoided if Alston juggled his rotation. Let me suggest that he couldnt.

    The Dodgers tied the Giants for the pennant lead on Game 156 and finally clinched ont he 3rd of October, in game 161. Koufax piched a shutout. Betwwen the 25th of September and the 3rd of October, Koufax started three games, won all three and 2 were shutouts. This was a white hot pennant race to coin a cliche …and Koufax more then anyone was responsible for the Didgers surging to the penant. So the allegation that Koufax wasn there when his team needed him is billshit. Becasue no Koufax, no Dodger pennant in 1965. it helped that after the Marichal Roseboro incient and his 10 day suspension, Marichal went from 19-9 and finished at 22-13, so he wasnt that effective in the last couple of weeks.

    But again, no Koufax no pennant.

    Houfax was a very private man (and still is, but in his 1966 ghost written autobiography, he took a very dignified shot. Obviously, he took emormous heat for not pitching game 1, but probably not a as much as Hank Greenberg s did when he made hos decision not to play during the Jewish holidays of 1934.

    Koufax wrote …the club knew I didnt pich on the holidays.

    Koufax had a provision in his contact that he didnt pitch on the Jewish holdays. The Dodger owner Walter O Malley was notorioulsy tight,,,and didnt not want any of dealings with players made public. Remember this was not the era of free agency, this was before Andy Messersmith and Marvin Miller. And remmember O Malley s reaction when Koufax and Drysdale held out together for more money.

    As great as Koufax was, he didnt have the same rights as any journeyman 5 and 10 player in today s game.. he was bound by the reserve clause and another clause int he contract stated that he could not make public any part of the contract.

    And so he wrote…the club knew that I didnt pitch on holidays…

    he didnt write the players knew….

    It was his way of jabbing back at O Malley…for letting him take all the criticism.

    let me also make one last point. some where in this thread I think it was Hoosrex who wrote that he didnt have a problemn with Muhammed Ali refusing the draft because …no Viet ocng ever killed….the n word. But he he did ahve a problem with Koufax not piching on Yom Kippur.

    I asmired Ali as a great fighter and his fights and all the hype were a central part of my adolescence. But no one ever accused him of being a deep thinker …as a young man.

    Ali was a member of the Blacl Muslim (religion, cult, movmeent) and he was used as a spokseman by the movement lead by Elijah Mujammed. David Remnick, his most scolarly biographer sugested that Ali was intimidated and literally scared to death when another Black Muslim leader, Malcolm X (who had attempted to befriend ALI) was asassinated by a group of black gunmen in a Harlem ballroom before a public meeting…..Ali believed that Malcolm had been killed by the order of Elijah Muhammed…to silent his dissent froma nd xriticism of the Black Mislim movement and alter…..when Ali was oredered to refuste the draft, he obeyed…because he was terrified of the ocnsequences.

    There is always some back story behind any thing that becomes a legend in American culture… Or as is expressed in the tag line of John Ford s 1962 western…..The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (John Wayne, James Stewart, Vera Miles) ….when the legend becomes fact then print the legend.

    Both f these decisions of coscience became legendary moments in the culture of the 1960s (Ali s decision, much more and rightly so), bu the back sotry is always to know to put it in perspective.

    And finally Hossrz suggested that Im a sheep on wolf s clothing….that Im really not an athiest, just a theist pretending to be an athiest. I find it ludicrous that an atheist would use a quote from the Bible to make an allegation that I actally am a religious peron!!!

  198. dennis Says:

    Let me also suggest that the argument that the Dodgers loswt a lot when Koufax didnt pitch fame 1 is also nonsense.

    In 1965, Koufax was 26 and 8, and had an extraorcinary year….but Drysdale had the second bst season of his carrer, he weas 23-12 with a 2.77 ERA , and that s not too shabby for a Game 1 pitcher in the World Series, as amatter of fact he also had an extraoridnary year. Both pitchers had pitched a kot if innings drysdale 309 and Koufax, 335, its a stretch to say it,,,but maybe Drusdale was abit fresher…..

    Frysdale got kicked around by the Twins for 2 innings,,,,but not because he was such a markedlky inferior choice to Koufax….he just had a bad outing and that happens toe very pitcher…..

    Im not sayign this an an excuse for Koufax, he had every moral and legal right not to pitch on Yom Kippur. And he had an obligation to his teamates (who accetped the sitaition) and he had his contract. but he had no obligation to the general public.

  199. Raul Says:

    LOL

    Yeah Kirby was “acquitted”.

    So was OJ Simpson.

  200. Chuck Says:

    Dennis,

    Two words for you, bud.

    Spell check.

  201. Hossrex Says:

    I’m done being trolled into angrily spewing common sense, so congratulations Dennis. I hope you enjoyed the time you spent writing something no one will read.

  202. Mike Felber Says:

    Ah, c’mon Hoss: those were very cogent comments. Dennis just lost his sh8t before, as, ahem, you have been prone to (more before, as will be evident when the archives return). he should never have called you names & flipped, I was surprised by the draconian turnabout, but you tend to assume facts based upon general suspicion, not facts in evidence: I do not think he was just trying to rile you, & is no more lying about being an atheist than me. As for societal conditions, they are in some ways better, but wherever we ‘are’, even if we agreed how good or even what are the conditions, very iffy is assigning blame for conditions.

    Now ballplayers far exceed 80-90% of the population in salary, not in the ’60’s. Jews are only 2% of the population-& more here than elsewhere, including Israel. That is fascinating info Dennis: but are you sure that Ali’s stance was just due to fear?

    Puckett was no more than a borderline choice. Circumstances, & his playing reputation, got him disproportionate sympathy. Championships add LITTLE to HOF qualifications in my mind: they are mostly a result of a player being in a team that is good enough to get there. Hoss is right that he is questionable: the only way it can be justified is if his peak was good enough.

    Helton is a better candidate I think. Comparing him to folks like F. Robinson & Banks is not fair above without adjusting for park & era. But even doing so, I feel he will be justifiable as a lower tier HOFer. Compare him to Belle: close to the same OPS +, about 2 more seasons of P.A. already, & perhaps the clincher, a demerit in the field, vs. someone very good, albeit at an un-crucial 1B position.

    Unless he was a juicer-& there is no decent evidence of such now-I say put him in. Though he will likely wait a while…

  203. Mike Felber Says:

    So let us review: Koufax was superb that year, almost inhuman in the work & success he did in the stretch, his team & Management knew & agreed about him not pitching on 1 day at the start of the W.S., where he was not nearly fresh anyway. Then he totally dominated & still pitched as much as one could expect in the remainder of the W.S., & essentially won it for the Dodgers (more than anyone else).

    Yes, even if it had not worked out so great, it was a justified action. As a confirmed atheist who decries much senseless & intolerant beliefs in (esp. Fundamentalist) Religion, I am still dismayed by the facile dismissal of Religion as wholly, merely “superstition”. It contains also some of the highest & most beautiful values & calls to conscience anywhere.

    It IS fair to weigh all this, as Mr. Ackmann so eloquently puts it. Which also means consider how much a player is missing, or how his decisions effect the team & sport. But this was nothing like a 1 game sudden death where there was no adequate substitute, & that it was all pre-arranged, at least that he could make the choice, is the real clincher. Koufax chose not to continue after ‘66 because he wanted the use of his arm. Can a man, even if not a sports hero, not even have conduct approved when he gets an agreement to switch schedule for a single day on the one most Holy in his eyes, tradition & conscience?

  204. Hossrex Says:

    Mike: “Ah, c’mon Hoss: those were very cogent comments.”

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying what he said was invalid, I literally didn’t read it.

    He previously baited me into a theological debate (which he brought up, despite his claims otherwise), and beautifully maneuvered the situation as to appear as if I were making an ass of myself. Not because I really was, but simply because religion is that one great “I’m rational except” that so many people have.

    So.

    No.

    I’m done.

    Anything anyone does because of religion is understandable, and should be respected.

    It doesn’t matter what 19 guys with a shared belief might do, it’s religion, so its exempt.

    I apologize for trying to share my beliefs in ‘physical evidence and reasoned logic’ with people ill-prepared for the information.

  205. Mike Felber Says:

    There was a legitimate difference of opinion re: who brought up what, interpretations: I do not think anyone would be/was wrong to bring it up. He went irrational when name calling, though as I pointed out in a # of comments you made, you interpreted what was being said incorrectly, almost as if, errrr-being martyred! Irony of ironies…

    Just 2 examples: you claimed you were called anti-Semitic, when I merely asked, you graciously apologized by noting how the words accidentally SEEMED so, & I absolutely believed you fully. And besides not believing he is an atheist (though reasonable enough to believe I am), you interpret the very moderate position of most all, including this atheist, of not excoriating Sandy for a pre-approved most Holy day break, & subsequent clinching of the entire Worls Series, as US being wholly illogical.

    Even though most all carefully qualified what circumstances would be acceptable, & would not find doing so, say, for the Super Bowl, O.K.

    Ever read Skeptics magazine, or the Skeptical Inquirer? That is the mind set that I, & it seems most arguing here, have overwhelmingly towards untested beliefs & woo-woo/crackpot Philosophy masquerading as science. Those who spoke out are more Monty Python’s take on religion cynics.

    You have it like we are all stoning the heretics/condemning Galilieo here man!

  206. Hossrex Says:

    Mike: “Just 2 examples: you claimed you were called anti-Semitic, when I merely asked, you graciously apologized by noting how the words accidentally SEEMED so,”

    I never “claimed I was called anti-semitic”. By the time I realized he was accusing me of being anti-semitic, I realized why, and apologized. There’s a difference between complaining about something, and realizing someone (understandably) took what you said incorrectly.

    Mike: “And besides not believing he is an atheist (though reasonable enough to believe I am), you interpret the very moderate position of most all, including this atheist, of not excoriating Sandy for a pre-approved most Holy day break, & subsequent clinching of the entire Worls Series, as US being wholly illogical.”

    I don’t care what people claim. I care how people act.

    I could say “I’m nice, and you’re a poop eating penis monger.”

    Well. Simply because I CLAIMED to be nice, doesn’t excuse the proceeding comment.

    As such, beginning every sentence with “I’m an atheist”, doesn’t mitigate the fact that a person defends faith, scripture, and general irrationality at every turn.

    At that point, I couldn’t care less if he IS an atheist, he’s still calling me “a poop eating penis monger”, so whats the difference?

    Mike: “Ever read Skeptics magazine, or the Skeptical Inquirer? That is the mind set that I, & it seems most arguing here, have overwhelmingly towards untested beliefs & woo-woo/crackpot Philosophy masquerading as science. Those who spoke out are more Monty Python’s take on religion cynics.”

    Or…

    George Carlin: “Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?

    About right? Pretty much sum up your point?

    Defending a person who goes out of their way to defend a different person who not only puts his own livelihood at risk, but the livelihood of other people… NOT ONLY because he believes in a magic man who lives in the sky… but because HE SHARES SLIGHTLY MORE SIMILAR DNA to people who REALLY believe in a magic man in the sky, and wants to become a role model to those people… is madness.

    It’s lunacy.

    It’s moronography.

    And now… don’t get me wrong Mike, I still like you, and I’m merely referring to THIS debate, in THIS thread… I wont respond to any theistic claims made by you either. I wont even read them. So. Write if you want, but they will go ignored.

    There is literally no rational defense of theism other than “gosh I hope this is true”, and for an atheist to spend 10 posts proclaiming some other use is tantamount to hypocrisy.

    It’d be like if I’d started this debate by saying: “I’m an orthodox Jew, and my opinion means more than yours because of this!”

    Well. No. An intelligent person would immediately recognize that as an argument from authority, and dismiss it out of hand.

    Yet the less intelligent person continues to make the claim.

    Idiot, or Maniac?

    Your call.

  207. Patrick Says:

    Dennis, I feel like the Super Bowl is a good analogy because it doesn’t matter if it’s a one game, winner take all scenario or not. Yom Kippur and God’s commandment would still trump the worldly event.

    One thing in your defense; I believe that it’s legitimate to argue one’s right to religious beliefs even if you, as an atheist, don’t share said beliefs. It does seem a little strange to do so fervently, but so be it.

    I had a friend of a friend (I know, not exactly firsthand knowledge, but a reliable source) who roomed with Puckett for a short while in Toledo and I heard some stories about Kirby that are too racey, and probably slanderous, to repeat on this forum. Suffice it to say, you wouldn’t want him dating your daughter.

    Interesting note about his stats; He only hit 4 HR’s in his first 1,327 PA and then in his 3rd year, 1986, he hit 31! A little magic juice? From what I heard, Puck partied hard and I doubt he was above a little chemical helper.

  208. Michael Crowe Says:

    I’ve not read so much ignorant religious judgemental crap in one place in all my life … well, I have but it’s been a while. Look, every human being on this planet is religious in some form or other – it’s part of being a human. Even If you’re an atheist you hold a system of belief and that is religion because you put faith in something. Every decision and every critisism you make is from the beliefs you hold, be you atheist, Christian, Hindu or Kofax. Let it alone.

  209. Raul Says:

    Some criticism isn’t based on belief. It’s based on fact.

    So no, we don’t all put “faith” in something.

  210. Michael Crowe Says:

    Hossrex: “Pedro’s 2000 was in my opinion the greatest single season of any pitcher in the history of the game.”

    A great one for sure but I would go with Maddux in 95 over the last 20 years.

  211. Michael Crowe Says:

    Raul: “Some criticism isn’t based of belief. It’s based on fact.”

    Which is often your perception of the facts.

    “So no, we don’t all put “faith” in something.”

    Think about that the next time you get on a plane.

  212. John Says:

    Hossrex: “Pedro’s 2000 was in my opinion the greatest single season of any pitcher in the history of the game.”

    Certainly the most dominant. ERA+ of 291! His ERA was not only about 1/3 the league average but also about 2.00 better than the 2ND BEST guy in the league.

    Incredible, no doubt – but I will note that he only had 29 starts, which I think bumps down the season a little. I’d give it to Gibson’s ‘68 campaign. Yes, it was the year of the pitcher, but his ERA+ was still 258 and he made 34 starts, 28 of which he completed.

    However, Hoss, MLBtv agreed with you when they did their little countdown.

  213. John Says:

    Also, fun fact, completely unrelated to anything else (I was just researching top seasons by pitchers): Walter Johnson has the all-time record for HBP. I thought he had this reputation for being a really nice guy who didn’t ever throw at people.

  214. Chuck Says:

    Pitching inside used to be a job requirement. Nice guy or a**hole, didn’t matter.

  215. dennis Says:

    I have my glasses on.so I think this wll be a clearer post. Thanks Churck!

    What I defend is the right for a person to practice their own belief system, their own religion, their own atheism…as long as they don t physically hurt or threaten others go beyond the bounds of demeaning other people.

    The Constitution of the United States provides for free speech. And although the Constitution proves for separation of Church and State it does not prohibit invoking the help of any God that someone might chooose to believe in…Indeed, lawmakers on every level in America from the US Senate and House of Representatives to a town council meeting begin with a prayer.

    To deny the presence of religion as an extraordinary factor in our society seems to me to be tilting at windmills…I dont practice a religion, I don t believe in a God…but I comletley respect the right of anyone to believe in their God and got their church or their synagogue or mosque…and to preach. I can always say politely…thank you, but…. I am not interested.

    And what I think you did Hossrex…is you went over the line…not with the Jewisn comments[, but with your general tone. In your last comment…..You used the word moronography and I think that your general tone is that anyone who doesnt agree with you and your view of the world is a moron. At least that s my take.

    And because people are able to make reasoned and respectful arguments, you don t want to read any more?

    How typioal of someone with so little empathy…..someone I believe has serious personality issues.

    So take your toys, climb out of the sandbox and go home….no one is going to mourne or grieve.

  216. Hossrex Says:

    Michael Crowe: “Even If you’re an atheist you hold a system of belief and that is religion because you put faith in something.

    No. We don’t. I believe literally nothing on “faith”. I might hold incorrect beliefs, but I hold them because I have reason to. It isn’t “faith” to believe that we live in a heliocentric solar system containing eight planets, even though I’ve not done any research personally. It’s scientifically demonstrable, and if I ever chose to, I could personally verify that belief with nothing more than a pad of paper, and a telescope.

    That’s literally as different from faith as possible. Literally on the opposite ends of the belief spectrum.

    Michael Crowe: “A great one for sure but I would go with Maddux in 95 over the last 20 years.”

    Also a great choice.

    Michael Crowe: “Think about that the next time you get on a plane.

    I actually understand the basics of aerodynamics, which means I don’t need faith to believe a 450 ton hunk of steel will stay in the air.

    It’s amazing how once you have a little knowledge, you have the need for a little less faith.

  217. dennis Says:

    Mike….

    Your comment about Ali anti war and refusing the stance…being due to fear…I think I suggested that it was David Remnick s assertion in his scholarly biography of Ali.

    Personally, I think it may have been both.

    Ali had probably experienced racism growing up in Louisville Kentucky in a segregated society, he wrote about throwning his gold medal for boxing from the 1960 Rome Olympics into the river (but we have only his word, Im not suggesting its true or false, just that no one else saw it) because he was ashamed….

    And with his ego and genius for self promotion, he saw himself as a symol of black pride rebelling agaisnt a white establishment that was young men to their death in a far away country for immnoral reasons.

    But the Black Muslims were also a very tight, almost military society with an infallible leader personality cult and when Malcolm X was asassinated for making public the knowledge that Elijah Muhammed was having sexual relations with very young Black Muslim girls (while married) he was assasinated, probably by order of Elijah through intermediaries.

    And Ali was scared…..

    Read Remnicks biograhy of Ali and there is one decent scholarly biography of Elijah Muhammed out there.

    And the passage of time has made Ali a venerated figure, indeed he lit the torch at the Altanta Games, etc…..there is sympathy for his illness…..and his decision to refuse the draft (for whatever reasons) has been validated.

    And he has continued to practice and never waver from his religion although he and that pariccular sect have modified and changed many of their views.

  218. dennis Says:

    I might throw out the years

    that Steve Carlton had in 1972 for the Phillies, he was 27-10 and won 45% of the team s games….

    Ron Guidry in 1978…he was 25 and 3, and his extraordianry year was a major factor in the Yankees coming back from 14 1/2 games back

    Walter Johnson in 1913, he won the triple crown and had a 36 and 7 win loss record on 346 innings of work.

    Granted, 1913 was the dead ball era. but Johnson is gnerally considered one of the two or three greatest pitchers in the history of the MLB (Grove and Clemens…), if not the greatest…and he did pitch successfully intot her live ball era. At the ages of 36 and 37, he was still the ace for the Senators and he was 23 and 7 and 20 and 7 for the pennant winners of 1924 and 1925.

    And admittedly I do have a bias for the go every 4 day, finish ball games from baseball{s past. Both Maddux and Martinez were great, great pitchers and I think maddux could have pitched in the 40s or 50 s or 60s baseball s eras, But t don t think that Martinez had the physical durability to pitch 250 to 300 innings for 10 years.

  219. Hossrex Says:

    Dennis: “Both Maddux and Martinez were great, great pitchers and I think maddux could have pitched in the 40s or 50 s or 60s baseball s eras, But t don t think that Martinez had the physical durability to pitch 250 to 300 innings for 10 years.

    With that, I agree completely.

    I’m surprised to see someone else put Clemens on the top three all time pitchers. I’d probably have Big Train #1 all time… then Clemens on the top 3 at least… it’d be a tough choice for me to pick the other guy, and that choice might change from day to day.

  220. Mike Felber Says:

    I agree that it is an unfortunate irony that anyone would be so closed minded to skip polite, sincere approaches. But Dennis, I apologized to Hoss for accusing HIM of making the screamin’ donkey insult, & explained how I confused it. To not only disagree, but wish someone away…erodes your authority, the High Road, & acceptance of good arguments. So I will answer what Hoss said, & not unkindly:

    I think you responding to MY question as to whether the comment was Ant-Semitic. You handled that w/perfect grace Hoss, as I have said before: that was not the issue. I was referring to what you later wrote in self-pitying mode, feeling persecuted, though what you believed people have said or though is divorced from what they actually did! As I defined, in part, in post #139. The 3rd quote of yours I dissected referred to you being smeared as calling Koufax a “covetous Jew.” How is this remotely so, & by whom?

    See how I critiqued Dennis above: I am not mindlessly taking sides. I still ask about if he was putting down Muslims, which is charitable, when calling Judaism a rational version of that religion! maybe he does not realize that only at this particular time is fanatical Islam disproportionately common, &, say Christianity has had its extraordinarily destructive, oh, centuries. And Judaism predates Islam by over 2 Millennium. But he NEVER defended the bible, & irrational faith-I do not see anyone here who did, let alone “at every turn”. Us explaining why a man should be able to have 1 pre-approved (holiest for him) day a year is NOTHING like that. It is tolerant, open minded & rational. Defending the right to this is not defending the TRUTH of it all, & i defy you to show how we have done the latter. Instead you had a # of folks negative about religion in general, actually.

    So your “Carlin” rebuttal bears no resemblance to what I was saying. And sorry, it is totally overboard & senseless to say that Koufax put his or anybodies “livelihood” at risk. Makes no sense whatsoever. And you seem not to get the point: it is not due to sharing DNA, but a deeply felt belief & sense of obligation to his community. We do not need to share his beliefs to respect his principle & not condemn his choice.

  221. Mike Felber Says:

    You are correct Hoss that in the sense you are (appropriately) using it, you are not having what amounts to blind faith in these things. Absolutely.

    But you are as narrow minded as SOME religious folks when you actually believe that defending some beauty or ethical lessons/cultural good of faith is somehow hypocritical. That is what others are saying is your black & white view of the world. It is also diametrically opposed to asking anyone to accept an argument on authority. We can show many organizing principles & social movements supporting freedom, the community, family, personal rights, children, woman…) coming out of religious Institutions, just as we can find the opposite, oppression & irrationality & celebration of the material over the spiritual (“prosperity” Churches, I believe).

    Let us say I defend someone more Conservative tham me overall-say you! That in no way shows i am hypocritical. It more shows I can understand & appreciate complexity, not dismissing you, or even all your idea(l)s, as having no “use”

  222. Hossrex Says:

    Mike Felber: “your “Carlin” rebuttal bears no resemblance to what I was saying

    Barlow: Sideshow Bob, councilman Les Whinen says that you’re not experienced enough to be mayor. Sir, what do you have to say about that?

    Bob: I’d say that Les Whinen ought to do more thinking, and less whining! (audience laughs and claps)

    Lisa: There’s no councilman Les Whinen.

    Bart: (chuckling) Good line, though.

  223. Mike Felber Says:

    Those pitching assessments sound pretty good. Clemens? depending on how much he got from ‘roids, would be just how high I put him. I love Johnson, his Grandson’s Biography is great: but if we are rating these guys in Absolute terms, not just relative to their ers, & “adjusting” the stats accordingly, he would not be as high. Not because he still could not have been the fastest ever-but the general quality of play has improved enough that I do not think he could be quite AS dominant relying almost entirely on a fastball. With an occasional change of pace, & a curve that was only occasionally very good. He hit so many batters due to pitching the 3rd most innings ever, some crowding the plate to gain an advantage (Cobb did this in ‘15 & totally changed his success against him, since he new “Sir Walter” would take off some speed, terrified of hurting anyone).

    That may b mostly true re: Ali Dennis, thanks. But I just cannot ascribe it to mostly “ego & self promotion” rather than principle absent evidence. Though I can see why he would also have fear motivating him re: the assassination.

  224. Mike Felber Says:

    True, Carlin’s line was good. Also true that it said nothing about any points of mine.

  225. dennis Says:

    Mike

    Regarding your comment about putting down Muslims, I made a comment aobut the nature (in the 1960s) only of the Black Muslim movement in the United States…. presumably started in 1934 or so by the mysterious prophet W.D Fard and then led by Elijah Poole Muhammed, today by Louis Farrakan.

    And I frankly dont think the Black Muslim movement of the 30s through 70s had very much to do with the teachings of traditional Islam, Sunni or Shiite.

    Im not a perfect guy. I know a bit about a lot of things, I ll express my opinion based on what I believe I know, but I usually express it as an an opinion…

    or I ll make a neutral statement…such as religion is important in the US, which to me neither conotes agreement or disagreement and which I think is perfectly obvious.

    And………it was taken in a much different context.

    But awhere Im not perfect….I lose my patience with people who display intrasigence and disrepect for whatever variety of reasons.

    If someone expresses their opinion and they do it in a sincere and hopefully an informed manner, even if I think its bullshit, I ll always be courteous and respectful. But when their opinion smacks of intolerance and intransigence, and a closed mind and there is no logic or research or fact to back up their opinion ……I lose my patience.

    And again with respect there is no moral authority on an Internet chat board!

    You made a comment about another religion being a cult in your comment 102 (I respectfully disagree) and landsman…..if this is something you would like to hash out with me…..Im at dennisianlevy@yahoo.com

    Hope to hear from you…..Take care….

  226. Hossrex Says:

    Dennis: “or I ll make a neutral statement…such as religion is important in the US, which to me neither conotes agreement or disagreement and which I think is perfectly obvious.”

    No.

    The neutral statement would be “religion is predominate in the US”.

    Saying it’s “important” is putting a value judgment on it.

    I think perhaps we don’t disagree as much as it seems, you’re simply using the wrong words.

  227. dennis Says:

    Why do I evaluate Clemens so highly?

    I judge a starting pitcher by.
    His won loss % (compared to games started and innings spitched

    His ERA (which is affected by some other factors such as the home stadium) , admittedly) but still its a reflection of his abilty to get men out and to limit runs.

    His durability.

    And of course, black ink, grey ink and awards.

    Clemesn won 7 ERA titles, five strikeout crowns, led the league in wins 4 times, had an incredible 354-184 W L record for a percentage of .658, is number three in career strikouts….and in parts of or all of 24 seasons won 7 Cy Young awards for four different franchises!!!!!

    The only pitchers who pitched entirely in the live ball era….that are his peers are Grove (because he won 9 ERA titles, and who knows how many Cy Young awards if the award has existed!)

    Others are Maddux and Spahn and possibly Randy Johnson.

    Maddux won one more game and lost 40 more then Clemens! Spahn who has more black ink and pitched 337 more innings, won 9 more and lost 61 then Clemens!!!!!!

    Clemens won 51 more then Johnson and lost only 18 more!!!!!

    When and if Clemens started HGT is not clear….I think he was clean through through his years with the Red Sox and the two years through the Blue jays. He was 83 adn 42 witht he Yankees and 38 and 18 with the Astros that s 121 and 60 and two Cy Youngs after the age of 35!!!!!

    So in my mind…The Big train, Lefty and the Rocket are the top three.

  228. dennis Says:

    Eating three nutritious meals a day is important….

    Is that obvious or am I putting a value judgment on….. eating?

  229. Hossrex Says:

    The two points are incomparable, and if you’re going to insist your analogy if valid, it’s equally fair for me to extend it and say “eating is important because we’ll die if we don’t. Are you saying faith is important because we’ll die if we don’t have it?”

    You can’t have it both ways.

    It’s like saying “life had to have a designer, because things don’t just come from nowhere. If you walked along the beach and found a watch, would you assume it created itself, or would you assume it had a designer? If you found the Mona Lisa, would you assume it came from nothing, or that it had a painter?”

    The difference is one is talking about a biological entity, the other is an inorganic tool.

    The analogy doesn’t extend, because life is so unique it’s difficult to create an example that applies to both the model of living things, and non-living things.

    I’ve seen fascinating model programmed into a computer where the basic parts of a clock are present, and the clock is allowed to reproduce in as life does. The clocks which are most accurate have the best “survivability”, and inside a surprisingly few number of generations, starting from a single clock piece reproducing and mutating, super accurate clocks begin to appear.

    Reproduction with diversity.

    It’s a shame religious nuts are SO insane, because I have no particular PROBLEM with the idea that “evolution is the how, not the why.” I disagree, but at least you’re not arguing against one of the most fundamental aspects of life.

  230. Mike Felber Says:

    Dennis: you or anyone is welcome to correspond w/me. michaelmfelber@aol.com. But you are mistaken about several things, including what you wanted to discuss. Please do read w/a bit more care.

    The comment #102 you reference is clearly not defining religion in general as a cult-this would be the opposite of everything that I have cautioned here. If I merely mentioned a cult, that would nowhere be ascibing it to all religions. But I was not even doing that:

    “…Church of the Latter Day Dude. I’ll bet many of you know what “cult” that is referencing”.

    Even if you knew nothing of my cultural reference, which is to the “cult” film of “The Big Lebowski”, (not like an actual cult), the info I provided clearly was only referring to a single group. Which FYI, is a affectionate parody of religion, but w/their own Uber-laid back Philosophy. In fact, just got “ordained”. By going to Dudeism.com. Takes about 1 minute.

    Now then. I was clearly NOT referring to your statements about the Black Muslim tradition. They have huge problems w/racist, fundy beliefs-not unlike the “black Israelites: who preach around Midtown NYC. I mentioned your comparing the Muslim religion (unqualified by sect) unfavorably to Judaism, & puzzlingly Judaism as a version of Islam (though it is over 2,00o years older.

    You are also, with respect, being far to unaccountable as to your reaction. We all often think the other is intransigent, irrational, etc…And sometimes people can be rude too. But there is no excuse for calling names & going all anger management & personally denigrating, whether someone is stubborn, or is being unkind. I called Hoss, erroneously, for your statement-he quoted it, but you were the one repeatedly calling him a B.A. No reason to stoop to another’s level, but though i found Hoss incorrect, YOU were the bigger ad hominem instigator. And it was an almost schizo difference (I do not mean that literally) to your just previous intelligent equanimity.

    Now, there is no absolute moral authority, but there is manifestly some: if anyone goes too far, they may be banned. SHOULD we call each other on things? Perhaps I am biased/ bit of a scold, ;-) but if ANYONE of us were questioned deeply, there would be things we would agree others should call people on, or they would call it O.K. to do so. Where we would do that would differ. This is so self evident I do not think you will ask for examples.

    You have done so repeatedly with Hoss. And anyone showing hate for a whole group, like racial insults, anti-gay or sexist words-what we should not use OUR free speech to oppose that? Silence is complicity.

    Lastly, I do not think the definition of “important” need be a value judgment. Important may mean just prominent, though it often has a judgment attached, it could just be synonymous with significant, & so often is. In fact, something could be important & not be at all “predominant”.

    Though separately, I disagree that anyone should be critiqued FOR placing a value judgment about religion’s importance. That is an atheism that is tending towards the hyper-aggressive & intolerant.

  231. Mike Felber Says:

    Something can be important for innumerable reasons, not just survival. i do not see the atchmaker analogy “like” Raul’s example, but a good point to debunk Creationism, or that there even NEEDS to be an unmoved mover. I agree completely, but have seen nobody here argue with the idea that evolution is sufficient to create & develop life. Signed, my Major was Anthropology.

    Dennis: by his record, Clemens is quite arguably the best ever. If you demand unbroken years of dominance, much less likely. But adding up # of great years, absolute peak & longevity, more likely. Though he is suspected of using PEDs earlier than you believe he did, & adding greatness w/them, cheating, erodes his DEGREE of greatness in my mind.

    Hoss, I & almost all here will tell you how you are using, in part, un-scien-terrific measures of quality. ERA + is better than unadjusted, but mainly, W-L is SO dependent on other things. Clemens likely should have won the Cy Young a year when he did not, but when he was 18-3: Randy Johnson, at 16-14 had a better year, rate & innings-wise. Yesss, his greatness helped him win many games, but how many anyone wins is dependent upon many factors out of their control.

  232. Hossrex Says:

    Meh. While I stand by my statement that important is generally used to imply a value judgment, there are a few definitions out there which simply imply of great significance (“an important moment in history”, etc). So I’ll back off the point.

    Mike Felber: “We all often think the other is intransigent, irrational, etc…”

    Bob: (on the radio) But it would be terribly myopic of me to blame all my current woes on one spiky-haired little simpleton.

    Barlow: Mm hm, myopic. Or to say the least, intransigent.

    Same episode. Weird.

  233. Hossrex Says:

    Mike: “I agree completely, but have seen nobody here argue with the idea that evolution is sufficient to create & develop life. Signed, my Major was Anthropology.”

    Of course not, because evolution says nothing about the creation of life. It simply explains the diversity of life.

    Anyone who tried to say evolution explained anything about the origin of life would be misstating evolution.

  234. Mike Felber Says:

    Yes, evolution says things about the creation of life from inorganic matter. It is just more theoretical, since obviously we cannot have fossil imprints. One early example is Miller’s ‘53 experiment w/what was supposed to replicate a rough prehistoric “organic soup”, & before too long you had amino acids being built. Throw in things that replicate the charge of, say, electricity, that is one way to approximate the countless chemical stimulations & interactions over Billions of years. Self replicating (of their electrical charges) clay layers have been postulated. And just earlier I only 1/2 heard an NPR radio report about something else that has been kicked around for years: heating vents from the ocean floor, bubbling up a big mess ‘o chemicals of increasing complexity.

    It is not hard to see how adding enough time & random chance could produce things much simpler than a single cell animal, & then reproduce & specialize over time. Starting the process is part of what evolution talks about.

    Though again, nobody even disagreed w/evolution as explaining the development & diversity of life either. And to nitpick: you have changed what you said. I think important is clearly commonly used both ways, but you clearly said important necessitated a value judgment. And that thus Dennis was using the word incorrectly. That was an absolute statement, not a “usually”.

  235. Raul Says:

    Been on many planes.

    I don’t put any faith or prayer in some imaginary douchebag in the sky.

  236. Hossrex Says:

    Yeah, after I re-read what you wrote, I realize I’d misunderstood what you said.

    I’m still dubious of the concept of “evolution” regarding inorganic compounds… but I’m certainly not going to raise a fuss.

  237. Michael Crowe Says:

    Hossrex: “I believe literally nothing on “faith.”

    Then you know beyond all possible reason that your mechanic didn’t forget to reconnect your break lines before you pulled up to that intersection. Did you get out and inspect your mechanic’s work before proceeding? Did you inspect that flu shot before the nurse jabbed you in the arm with the needle? If not then you took it on faith that they knew what they were doing.

    “Hossrex:”It’s amazing how once you get a little knowledge, you have the need for a little less faith.”

    Knowledge is the basis of at least one kind of faith. You can’t always believe beyond actual knowledge, which is why Bible faith, at least, is soley based on the knowledge of scripture. You obviously have faith in the law of aerodynamics superceeding the law of gravity, based on knowledge, as well as blind faith that the pilot, mechanics, fuel operator, air traffic controller and weather man – all of whom you’ve never met nor have you checked their credintials – will get you to your destination saftly. You have just used two kinds of faith.

  238. Hossrex Says:

    Michael Crowe: “Then you know beyond all possible reason that your mechanic didn’t forget to reconnect your break lines before you pulled up to that intersection. Did you get out and inspect your mechanic’s work before proceeding? Did you inspect that flu shot before the nurse jabbed you in the arm with the needle? If not then you took it on faith that they knew what they were doing.”

    You’re using the word faith wrong.

    Faith (in any sense that matters for the context of this discussion) is the belief in thing indemonstrable. In a literal sense, I’m ABLE to inspect the break lines on my car. In a literal sense, I’m ABLE to put the contents of my flu shot under a microscope, and with the proper education know that it’s the proper compound, and that it’s being administered correctly.

    These are demonstrable, and hence not an article of faith.

    Articles of faith include such concepts of the divine, the supernatural, and probably a few other abstract concepts which I’m forgetting.

    Michael Crowe: “You can’t always believe beyond actual knowledge

    Of course not, but knowledge is demonstrable.

    Michael Crowe: “which is why Bible faith, at least, is soley based on the knowledge of scripture.

    Which is indemonstrable.

    Michael Crowe: “You obviously have faith in the law of aerodynamics superceeding the law of gravity”

    It’s physics (which is in a sense mathematics). I have no more “faith” in aerodynamics than I have faith that a basket of ten apples dumped into a barrel of ninety apples gives me a total of one hundred apples. Mathematics requires no faith, because it’s demonstrable. The fact that I currently lack the knowledge of how to build an airplane is no more an indication of faith than it would be for a young child, who can’t add or count, to claim it’s a matter of faith to say there are one hundred apples in the basket.

    Both are demonstrable, and simply because I lack the ability to demonstrate it, doesn’t mean it isn’t so. Were I so inclined, I could spend years studying aerodynamics and build an airplane in exactly the same sense that a young child will eventually understand how many apples he has if his barrel of ninety is joined with a basket of ten.

    No amount of studying will ever, or can ever tell me anything substantial about the Abrahamic Yahweh. By the very tenets of that dogma, it’s inherently impossible, thus indemonstrable, and hence an article of faith.

    You’re in my wheel house on this subject, probably more so than even baseball.

    If you want to keep tossing me softballs, I’ll keep hitting beer league dingers all night.

    The only way this could be easier would be if someone threw out ‘Pascals Wager’.

  239. Michael Crowe Says:

    Hossrex: “Also a great choice.”

    Maddux going 19-2 with 209 innings in a strike shortened season is pretty amazing, with the rest of his numbers comparing well with Pedro’s 2000 season. Your comment on pedro inspired a little research on the matter and I found that a lot of experts agree with you, whilst most tend to go back to prehistoric times. Shouldn’t there come a time when we finally say that all stats before 1920 don’t count (just a suggestion). I think it was Steven Wright who said that all stats before 1900 were made up anyway. It’s hard enough to compare the era just thirty years ago. And where does the modern era supposidly begin?

  240. Hossrex Says:

    Personally, and this is JUST me (and I’m not suggesting anyone else listen), I divide the history into at least five categories.

    Pre-modern baseball: 18xx-1900
    Deadball baseball: 1901-1919
    Liveball baseball: 1920-1946
    Post-integration baseball: 1947-1989
    Steroid baseball: 1990-20xx

    Obviously delineated by (in order of each era):

    The introduction of baseball.
    The introduction of the American League.
    Babe Freaking Ruth.
    Jackie Robinson.
    Cecil Fielder.

    I’d say we’re (probably) into what I would personally consider a sixth era… probably since around, say, somewhere between 2004-2008 (although I realize home runs in GENERAL aren’t down, so perhaps it aint over yet)… but it’s really too early to make a clean line for when it started.

    You’ve AT LEAST got to make three distinctions:

    Pre-modern (18xx-1900)
    Post-pre-modern (1901-1946)
    Post-integration (1947-today)

    But it also seems like the expansion era should fit in there somewhere.

    Complicated issue.

    I do entirely agree that it’s impossible to REALLY put Walter Johnson into a context any of us understand (era adjusted stats be damned)… at which point we’re at the behest of the general opinion of the player from the time.

    Unscientific… an article of faith (sure!)… but probably the best way to go about it.

  241. Hossrex Says:

    p.s. baseball gods exist

  242. Lefty33 Says:

    “It’s hard enough to compare the era just thirty years ago.”

    Well said.

    For my money, Carlton in ‘72 was miles better than both Pedro and Maddux.

    More wins, innings, K’s, and also a sub-2.00 era.

    And unlike Pedro and Maddux who both played on good to very good teams in their years being measured.

    The ‘72 Phils were a 97 loss train wreck.

    The rest of that team’s staff posted W/L records of: 2-15, 4-14, 4-10.
    And only 3 guys on the whole team hit over .260.

    To me, it’s much easier to pitch when you know you don’t have to almost pitch a shutout to win every start.

  243. Michael Crowe Says:

    Well, you haven’t hit a dinger yet. One with the expirence is never at the mercy of the one with an argument when it comes to what their faith in God has done for them. No, I am not using the word faith wrong, as there are differnt usages of faith. Faith, as it matters for the context of this discussion is applical to the senario I put forth. Faith is also demonstratable. Your refusal to believe such is due to either ignorance on subject or the refusal to acknowledge a tangible expirence some 95% or so of the world’s population claim to have. You may be able to inspect the breaks, but you didn’t, you went on what one would call faith regardless of how you reason it. Faith in your mechanic or faith in God, it’s the same act of will originating from the same place. If you wish to know “anything substantial about Abrahamic Yahweh” then observe the nation of Isreal’s existance, the one billion or so Christians, western civiliation, and why the areas of the world that profess the Judao-Christian faiths is called the free world.

  244. Hossrex Says:

    Lefty33: “To me, it’s much easier to pitch when you know you don’t have to almost pitch a shutout to win every start.

    This is going to sound snotty, and that’s not how I mean it.

    To me it’s easier to perform… regardless of the performance… when it doesn’t matter. Zero pressure. Almost no antagonism. Just doing it.

    In my opinion Maddux and Pedro both had it harder because every start MATTERED (granted the Sox finished second in Pedro’s year, but it was close… and the Bravos finished 21 games over the Met’s in ‘95, but winning is always stressful). Each of those two guys had to go out and win when it the game meant something, and they did (19-2 is a silly w/l record).

    However I absolutely think Carlton’s year in ‘72 is also just stupid good. No argument. I don’t have a particular problem with anyone who would put that year as their top pick.

    I guess what I’m trying to say is it comes down to your mentality.

    Some people perform better under pressure.

    Some people perform better when they can just relax and do their job.

    Carlton in ‘72, and Pedro in ‘00 are probably the POLAR opposites of those mentalities.

    Of course maybe Pedro would have been just as good as Carlton on the ‘72 Philies, and maybe Carlton would have been just as good as Pedro on the ‘00 Sox.

    (note: Pedro couldn’t pitch 346 innings worth of BATTING practice in a single season)

    All three are good choices. Which do you prefer? A banana split, or a chocolate sundae?

    ONE OF EACH PLEASE!

  245. Hossrex Says:

    Michael Crowe: “Faith is also demonstratable.”

    Please. Do so.

    Michael Crowe: “the refusal to acknowledge a tangible expirence some 95% or so of the world’s population claim to have.”

    Two thousand years ago more than 99% of the worlds population believed the Earth to be flat, and the sun to orbit the Earth.

    Should I lend credence to those ideas, simply because of a majority belief?

    Michael Crowe: “You may be able to inspect the breaks, but you didn’t”

    Yet it’s demonstrable, so thus not faith.

    Michael Crowe: “you went on what one would call faith regardless of how you reason it.”

    You’re using the word faith in two difference contexts, and interweaving them as if they have the same meaning.

    The rules of conversation don’t allow that.

    Michael Crowe: “Faith in your mechanic or faith in God, it’s the same act of will originating from the same place.”

    One is demonstrable, the other isn’t.

    Why ignore my “child with the barrel of apples” analogy?

    Michael Crowe: “If you wish to know “anything substantial about Abrahamic Yahweh” then observe the nation of Isreal’s existance, the one billion or so Christians, western civiliation, and why the areas of the world that profess the Judao-Christian faiths is called the free world.”

    Argument from authority. It’s a logical fallacy.

    When they present something demonstrable, we’ll talk.

    *SWING, AND A HIT! IT’S… IT’S… IT’S GONE!*

    Trust me.

    I’m winning.

  246. Michael Crowe Says:

    “Please do so.”

    I already have. re-read the last sentence of my last post.

    The Earth being believed flat is a physical observation based on only what was visably available at the time. Belief in God is not a matter of physics.

    “Yet it’s demonstratable, thus not faith.”

    Again, faith is demonstratable. The fact that one’s life is changed for the better is at least one demonstration. If one’s faith makes one a better person or citizen then that is a demonstration of their faith.

    “You’re using faith in two different context.”

    Faith applies to both.

    “Why ignore my … apples analogy?”

    Simple, I’m on dail up with a three second delay on everything I write at the moment so the Cliffs Notes version is the best I can do for now. Hopefully I will revisit the analogy.

    “Argument from authority. It’s a logical fallacy.”

    That makes no sense at all. The truth of my statement is self evident.

    “If they present something demonstratable, we’ll talk.”

    Given the rules of atheism it’s becoming obvious that you wouldn’t recognize a demonstration.

    “I’m winning.”

    Redundant. It’s not about winning, it’s about discussion.

  247. Mike Felber Says:

    *heh* Mr. Crowe, Hoss is immodest at least, but he is wholly (unholy?) correct in this matter. I think you also meant that what faith has achieved shows its validity (at the end), but even if this is not strictly “from authority”, it lends no credence to the truth or usefulness of God. There have been great civilizations built from all different “faiths”, like the Middle East a millennium or so ago, India, & the largely atheist, successful Western European nations. He also clearly was using faith, & now has made it Uber-explicit, as something that is only based upon belief. A, say, plane ride being safe is based upon reasoning what is likely true, given physics, our skills, & systems in place. Also, he/we never believe that a plane could not crash at any time. Totally different than the blind, or if you like absolute, faith of so many theists.

    I also must agree that the best seasons are close, & the psychological factors he laid out are pretty sound for the different pitchers. I would need to pick a pitcher who goes so many more innings than Pedro, just because it is so much harder, & mainly, contributes more to the team, even absent as efficient a record. Which can be pretty well seen w/ERA +, so I would not take Carlton quite #1. Johnson? It is a matter of degrees, not that there is a bright line saying we can no nothing at a certain point. There are connections between eras-he pitched superbly late in his career in the live era/mid ’20’s, some batted against him & later pitchers, like Feller, & of course Grove…

    The break down between eras seems very good overall, considering it is also not cut & dry. Though why is Fielder a steroid guy? Did I miss something? Must read his Wiki…Also, ‘roids came in around, & largely right WITH, Canseco, whose 1st full year was ‘86. Though the major jump in power was from the strike years/mid ’90’s (‘87 was an aberration, temporarily).

  248. Hossrex Says:

    Michael Crowe: “I already have. re-read the last sentence of my last post.”

    Which was…

    Michael Crowe: “If you wish to know “anything substantial about Abrahamic Yahweh” then observe the nation of Isreal’s existance, the one billion or so Christians, western civiliation, and why the areas of the world that profess the Judao-Christian faiths is called the free world.

    “Freedom” isn’t synonymous with “demonstrable”.

    The crux of the Abrahamic faiths are that they’re supernatural. To them, that’s the point. It’s impossible to apply demonstrable traits to a property which resists the notion of demonstration.

    Michael Crowe: “The Earth being believed flat is a physical observation based on only what was visably available at the time.

    Herodotus demonstrated circa 430 BCE that the Earth was round. The rest of the world didn’t accept it until… well… certainly after Columbus which means at least 1492. Almost 2,000 years later.

    The belief that the Earth was flat was based on complete ignorance perpetuated by faith. Galileo was murdered because of his insistence of heliocentrism.

    Michael Crowe: Belief in God is not a matter of physics.”

    Which is why it’s supernatural, which is why it’s indemonstrable, which is why it’s faith.

    Michael Crowe: “Again, faith is demonstratable. The fact that one’s life is changed for the better is at least one demonstration.”

    For that sentence to have merit, a person MUST THEN accept that “the fact that one’s life is changed for the worse is at least one demonstration for the nonexistence of god.”

    Michael Crowe: “Faith applies to both.”

    Not in the way you’re supposing.

    Michael Crowe: “Simple, I’m on dail up with a three second delay on everything I write at the moment so the Cliffs Notes version is the best I can do for now. Hopefully I will revisit the analogy.”

    I.E.:

    Me: How about this?
    You: Wow, that’s good.
    Me: Well? You going to address it?
    You: I don’t know. Maybe later.

    Michael Crowe: “That makes no sense at all. The truth of my statement is self evident.”

    You’re saying “good people believe it, so it must be true.”

    That’s an argument from authority, and it’s a logical fallacy. It’s as fallacious as saying “Hitler had a mustache, so mustaches must be bad.”

    Michael Crowe: “Given the rules of atheism it’s becoming obvious that you wouldn’t recognize a demonstration.”

    THERE! RIGHT THERE! That is an actual, honest to goodness, cogent response (the first so far).

    You’re correct.

    The rules of atheism are (to pick one of many good choices), “physical evidence, and reasoned logic.”

    Things which demonstrate themselves in nature, which are testable and reproducible.

    Anything which falls into that category can be called science, and anything which doesn’t can be called faith.

    You can’t however accuse atheism of stacking the deck in favor of itself anywhere NEAR as bad as theism does. Atheism doesn’t say “my beliefs are true because they’re true, because a 6,000 year old(-ish) book tells me so.” Science (not atheism) demands that a person present a logical (reproducible) model.

    I’d almost… ALMOST… be tempted to allow that Quantum mechanics are a faith… just because they’re so damn goofy (yet unarguably true).

    Michael Crowe: “Redundant. It’s not about winning, it’s about discussion.”

    Yes… I am!

    *IT’S DEEP! DEEP! IT’S… GONE! ANOTHER 250 FOOT BEER LEAGUE HOMERUN FOR HOSSREX! TAKE A BOW, AND TAP THAT KEG HOSSREX! YOU DESERVE IT!*

  249. Hossrex Says:

    Mike Felber: “but he is wholly (unholy?)”

    You earn a literal “laugh out loud” from Hossrex on that one.

    Thanks for that! :)

    Mike Felber: “Though why is Fielder a steroid guy?”

    Don’t worry, I also have mental reservation with the “label”.

    I choose 1990, and cite Fielder as the impetus because his was the first 50 home run season in 23 years, and MOST of the seasons which followed at least one other batter his at last 50 home runs (albeit, not in the four seasons which followed, so I absolutely accept a flaw in my interpretation).

    When I say the “steroid era”, I ALMOST use it as more of a euphemism for how the game was played. It was of course a combination of smaller stadiums, a different approach from batter, a different approach from pitchers, better nutrition, weight training becoming the standard (for the first time ever), tighter wound baseballs, further expansion (FOUR new teams in the 90’s), and of course steroids.

    It’d be quite the tongue twister to call it the “smallerstadium-differentoffensivedefensiveapproach-bettermedicine-weighttraining-steroid era”.

    So… to give it what I myself consider a slight (SLIGHT) misnomer… I just say “steroid era”.

    Regardless of what he was doing… Cecil was there first, so he gets to be (in my opinion) the catalyst for the era shift.

  250. Hossrex Says:

    Me: “tighter wound baseballs”

    Sorry… it just bothers me how I phrased that. I should have said:

    Me: “More tightly wound baseballs”

  251. Michael Crowe Says:

    Hossrex: “Which was?”

    Your line of “debate’ is of such redundantcy that you would have me to repeat already clear rebuttal. Your responses are making no sense at all, so it is clear that either you just don’t get it or you would argue with a post. Being admittitedly atheist you actually remove yourself from any rational conversation outside the box, the possibility of spiritual matters, existance beyond the five senses and intelligent discourse with some 97% of the world’s population. Whereas I might want to trade ideas, you hold that no discourse is possible unless it meets your criteria. How closed minded. It would indeed seem that your atheism is perhaps more in common with some medieval religious ideas than I had preciously thought, interesting. As to the matter of faith, if you hold strongly to an idea, or are loyal to said idea, then that is a Webster definition of faith. Atheism cannot be proven either as there is no evidence there isn’t a God (if all knowledge came through the five senses where did the idea of God come from), nor the theory of evolution for that matter, both of which take a faith to believe, which means you are no different than any other religious human in that respect. To believe what you believe you would have to discount the millons of testimonies from millions of reputable people over thousands of years who have had spiritual experiences, that no one without exception has ever had an answer to prayer or an experience beyond the five senses, and no rational discussion can be had on matters concerning these things simply because you’ve yet to experience them, or that they don’t fit your belief system (your religion). So, I guess you have just disqualified yourself from any further rational converse. When you have something to offer on the discussion beyond redundant “repeat what you already said” ignorance then consider the case closed.

  252. Michael Crowe Says:

    I appreciate your trying to help out the Hoss Mike, especially if you happen to agree with him – he obviously needs it. It would appear we have different concepts of faith and I can leave it at that as not to further hijack this thread.

    When looking at the Pedro 2000 and Maddux 95 seaons, I read one writer, who agreed with me, who said that Maddux had stiffer competition from other pitchers than pedro did which would make his ERA against the league more sigmificant. Not sure I agree with that but it’s something to consider.

    I actually like Hoss’s breakdown of eras pretty well mike, which at least would give some basis for establishing a logic on the matter. I think all it would take is for some media clown like boomer on ESPN to start using something along those lines, as an official designation isn’t too likely I guess.

  253. dennis Says:

    Mike, never saw the Big Lebowski, so I intepreted your comment 102, as a reference to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints (the Mormons). Sorry, about the misunderstanding.

    Im not sure what your point is about my reference to Islam and Judiasim.
    Rgarding Hossrex s point about the use of the word important….for me importnat is a word that denotes some significance, but its not the same as the meaning of vital or crucial.

    When I said religion is important in American life, I was implying that a lot of folks go to their various houses of worship during g the week, a lot of scripture is quoted (Bible, Book of Mormon, Koran, you name it), and a lot of people wrangle about it…. as has happened on this thread. i didnt place a value on it.

    Faith is the belief of things unseen….I m paraphrasing from somone, the apostle Paul, I think. Its a concept that I don t pretend to understand, but I dont dismiss it.

    As Ive said before, I m an atheist, but my ex wife is a devout Christian and our son was raised in her religion. My father in law (an apparently healthy man of 62) a deeply religious man, collapsed into a coma when my son was 8.

    For 9 days, the two people I loved most in the world prayed on their knees to their God constantly that grandad would wake up.

    On the ninth day, he did, he awoke …as if nothing had happened. The doctors couldn t explain it, I couldn t, but I asmit I cried…I had enormous respect for my father in law, although we disagreed about almost everything in life worth talking about.

    My wife and son had no trouble expaining it…for them it was the miracle of faith, and God had heard their prayers, epsecially the prayers of a little 8 year old boy.

    And I was smart enough never to contradict or even discuss it with them. I just said that I was so happy that grandad had come back.

    Lefty Grove, 1931…with a won loss of 31 and 4 is worth looking at. Triple Crown Year…also led in complete games and shutouts. In 1930, he was also triple Crown 28-5….For the two years he was 59 and 9!!!!! I think the most dominating two ocnsecutive eyars of any pitcher int he post 1920 live ball sra.

    Admittedly he pitched for a great team of hitters, Foxx, Cochrane, Simmons…….

  254. Raul Says:

    Dennis isn’t allowed to respond to any article on this website until he watches The Big Lebowski.

    Because he’s “out of his f*cking element.”

  255. dennis Says:

    And thise two teams were pennat winners which segues back to Mike{s comment 202. Mike you said that in evaluaitng a player, championships don t matter, its their peak that counts.

    I could not diagree more strenously, but respectfully.

    Great players make championships happen. DiMaggio won 10 pennants in 13 years and 9 word series. Did the Yankees have enough to win without him? No, Starting in 1939, DiMggio was the unquestioned leader of the Yankees led by example on the field and at the plate. But the DiMaggo of 1950, (penant number 9) was not the same player of 1936 to 1941.

    In 1967 Carl Yaztrensski did everthing but drive the Red Sox team bus, Triple crown Year and the Red Sox won the pennant on the last day. The Red Sox could nto have won the pennant without him.

    In 1971, the San Francisco Giants won 90 games and the NL West Crown. No one hit .300 or won 20 games, their best hiiter was Bobby Bonds at .288 with 33 HRs and 102 RBIs , but three declining players made key conntribtions.

    Wille Mays att he age of 40 hit 18 HRS and .271, struck out 123 times (the most in his career) but also gneerated 112 walks the most in his career.

    Wille McCovey who had an injury plagued off year after his great years of 68 to 70, hit 18 HRs

    Juan Marichal, went 18-11 (His last good year) in 279 innings, his strikeouts were way down fromn his peak years and a far cry from his six 20 games seasons in the 1960s. Marichal had received an injection in his back during the 1970 season and steadily declined, but he pitched the 71 season on guts and guile..

    Gaylord Perry was 16 11 that year in 280 innings.

    The Pirates eliminated the Giants in the playoffs, but the Giants are an example of a team that got to the playoffs with four future HOFers having non peak or sub par years.

  256. Chuck Says:

    “…but the Giants are an example of a team that got to the playoffs with four future HOFers having non peak or sub par years.”

    And all four would be HOFers if they had never played a postseason game.

  257. dennis Says:

    OK, Mike I see your confusion in comment 102.

    And I apologize, I didnt mean to put brackets around a rational version of Islam, implying that Judaism is a rational version of Islam. That was my fault, my typo and ocmpletely changed the context.

    what I menat to say was that religions…Christinaity, Hinduism, Judasim, a rational version fo Islam

    And by rational version of Islam, I was eliminating the fanatical, Wahabbi based, Jihad/Al Quaeda driven version of Islam.

    sorry for the misunderstanding.

  258. dennis Says:

    As one of the culprits for extending this thread, and hopefully beleiving that we have exhausing the topics of religion, faith, Helton and Koufax

    I would like to try and return it to baseball with the kind permission of the other posters.

    I am asking for your best 25 player teams, all nine positions, no DH, nine pitchers, 7 starters and two relievers…but with some provisions. They must ahve played MLB for ten eyars or more, be retired or inactive, not considered to be HOFers, previoulsy eliminated from the HOF, (current consideration by the VC is fine) and not in the Hall of Fame.

    Here s my list

    c Elston Howard
    1b Keith Hernandez
    2b Bobby Grich
    ss Vern Stephens
    3b Ron Santo
    r Dwght Evans
    of Dale Murphy
    lf Carl Furillo

    p Carl Mays
    p Luis Tiant
    p Fernando Valenzuela
    p Ron Guidry
    p Mike Cuellar
    p Dave McNally
    p Orel Hersheiser

    relief Dick Radatz
    relief Dan Quisenberry

  259. Hossrex Says:

    Michael Crowe: “Your line of “debate’ is of such redundantcy that you would have me to repeat already clear rebuttal.

    Yes! It is redundant. It’s redundant because I keep asking you for some demonstrable proof of anything supernatural, and you simply maintain your insistence that it is in fact demonstrable.

    I touched on this before, but you ignored it. It’s an important point. Please address it.

    If good things happening to people is proof of god, what is it proof of when bad things happen? The answer is of course “that’s not proof of anything, that’s just bad things happening.” How can the manifestation of positive results for “believers” be a demonstration of the divine, if the manifestation of negative results for “believers” isn’t a demonstration of anything?

    It’s frustrating to be called an idiot because the person you’re debating with ignores all your points, and pretends you didn’t say anything clever. I’ve addressed every single point you’ve made (because I would LOVE it if you said something I’ve never heard an apologist say before), and you refuse to give me the same respect, and then you boisterously proclaim your own superiority and my inability to understand simple concepts.

    If you believe that god exists because god exists, and you like believing in god…

    That’s fine.

    Honestly.

    But don’t go around saying there’s demonstrable proof for a set of beliefs which IMPLICITLY (explicitly?) require faith without knowledge. It’s the cornerstone of the Abrahamic faiths that a person worship Yahweh (in whichever manifestation you prefer), and have a personal relationship with him out of pure faith. If you knew for a fact it was true, it literally wouldn’t count (the Bible literally says this). That’s why god manifested to a few nomadic iron-age desert dwellers, told them to spread his word, and then stopped appearing in times of better recorded data. He did this because he NEEDS people to believe without evidence. This is in the bible.

    That’s why it’s remarkably silly when people who don’t even understand their own religion run around saying how easy it is to prove god (according to Ray Comfort, all you have to do to prove god is to accept that god is real… seriously… slap your knees… seriously… and he’ll show himself in your heart… seriously).

    In the Abrahamic faiths… if… you… could… prove… it… it… wouldn’t… count.

  260. Mike Felber Says:

    I appreciate that Dennis, & what you shared w/me about your Father in Law. I would not have argued with them either, let them have their comfort of faith. Though unusual recoveries, & unexpected illness & death happen all the time. There is no evidence (in one big study not so long ago negative evidence) that people prayed for do better. And people look at things selectively, never blaming God for the tragedies, always crediting God for the good things. But that does not mean that prayer cannot have useful psychological or even meditative aspects, & what it is even has many definitions.

    But you do not see what I am saying about contributing to Champions. Yes, a Dimaggio added greatly to getting the Yankees there-some years they would have been good enough without 1 great player too. But I again say: whatever contribution someone makes can be measured, whether for a 1st or last place team. it is not fair to give extra credit for a man being lucky enough to be on a team good enough, w/his help, to keep winning. We already will credit him w/Post Season excellence: but should Dimaggio get much more credit than Williams just due to being on great teams? If you switched Williams & Dimaggio, the picture re: championships & pennants would be roughly reversed; & you would be giving Williams unfair double credit!

  261. dennis Says:

    Hoss Rex
    The theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormon religion and an Ab rahamic religion…call it a fusion of Judaism and christianity) contradicts your point. again, im not promoting it, Im simply stating some specific facts….just as I did when I explained why Koufax didnt pitch Game 1 of the 1965 World Series.

    The cornerstone of the Mormon religion is The First Vision, in which the religion founder Jospeph Smith, Jr. claimed to have and wrote an account that he had a physical manifestation and visit from God the Eternal Father and his son Jesus Christ…in the spring of 1820….as a fourteen year old.

    That s fairly recent history. and although there were no witnesses to that purported event, an associat of Smith, Oliver Cowdery was present when they were purpotedly visited by the resurrected apostles, Peter James and John in Mayof 1829. Finally 15 men, associates and relatives of Jospeh Smith signed a document that they had seen and held the gold plates in ancient Hebraic and Egyptian writing that were translated by Smith into the Book of Mormon (whioh was published in 1830). And the only rational non faith based explanation is that Smith had extraordinary powers of persuasion or hynopis or both.

    Once agian, im not saying that these thing objectively happened. Other people beleived him and stated that they were there….Undoubtedly, he is one on the most interesting and enigmatic personalities in American history. Although uneducated and not well schooled, he authored scripture and founded a society that today totals 16 or 17 million people aroudn the world. He was a religious genius and I rank him with enigmas of history like Leoinardo de Vinci and Shakespeare (you cant explain them by their ancestry or the environment)

  262. Michael Crowe Says:

    Now hoss you’re getting somewhere (thanks for canning the arrogant rim shots and shooting off of boastful flares for every point you tried to make for a moment, that was very tiring). All I originally wanted to put forth was that we each have a system of beliefs and a faith we put into it because it is part of the human equation, which stemmed form the kofax remarks. The culture we live in here in the west is largely because of Yehweh, or by your preception I would guess, the faith of the Jewish people, from whence came Jesus and the missionary journies of Paul that spread the religion into the Roman Empire and thus to western Europe and the Americas. As to demonstration of faith beyond that, any answer to prayer is just that, but because you don’t, or can’t, by your faith, justify that as a reasonalble answer, then this whole converse is nil to begin with, which is a point I was trying to make also that we bassically just have to stop and say, we agree to disagree, as I can’t go any deeper with you than that, even if some of these answers to prayer have proof in the natural and scientific realms which many of them do, at least im my experieces. I mean I could send you the xrays, testimonials and such, but what is the point. Also I disagree with your “proof wouldn’t count” theory. Quite the opposite. In chrisianity at least, the purpose of faith is to produce manifestation. Now, if you want to get into that fine, ask for my email. Fact is, believe it or not, I haven’t gone into my usual detail simply because this site has played havoc with my computer for the last three days, so I apologize, I’m honestly not trying to ignore some of your points. I don’t know but I suspect a new program that I installed last week. I threw my hat into the ring before it surfaced and so far it’s only this site.

  263. Mike Felber Says:

    Mr. Crowe, Hoss unfortunately mixes his great humor w/a sometimes disparaging edge & some cynicism. There is no reason to assume, say, that you did not have a technical issue in responding. But I think he is right, & there is some confusion of terms & what is being debated. The existence of faith: that is not in doubt. But though 97% is too high, we need not agree if there is a spiritual realm to productively dispute things. Hoss is claiming that there are certain logical rules that apply, & if they cannot be met, a matter of fact, or a good argument as to how likely a certain proposition is, cannot be established. Then it stays in the realm of faith. And I will add that tons of things that religion believed were facts have been disproven & they retreated from, sensibly. They were wrong.

    Also: The Jewish religion is not 6,000 years old, that is the Fundy estimate of the age of the earth. Our “dating” is more a fancy, or rough trace of memories of times past. Abraham & the Jewish faith came into existence a little over 1800 B.C., the Exodus 1350 or so. The Old Testament was written, in parts, sometime slater, & the New obviously after Christ.

    It is possible to believe that every single person who claims a literal experience w/the spiritual realm is mistaken. Just like with ghosts, succubi, or U.F.O.s I think Hoss was trying to find someone like you to set up ‘n then express his opinion, said neutrally, but consider this: most all who have those experiences are sure it came from Christ, or Mohammed, or A Hindu god, a Buddha…somewhere specific. What are the chances that these (overwhelmingly defined by people as) mutually exclusive figures as Gods & arbiters like Angels…All actually “exist” immaterially?

    Or is it more likely that there are many powerful forces that train & reinforce the belief in Gods, afterlife, an ordering force against terror, justice, etc…Conditioned very early, thus effectively? And that these good folks may be having profound & useful experiences, which may make them more mature & loving, but not necessarily have any real occurrence outside their heads?

  264. dennis Says:

    Mike, gotta respectfully disagree wiht you.

    The drive and will and ability of a key player makes the difference that leads to championships, And its called leadership….by inspiraiton, by accomplishment on the field or court, by will.

    DiMaggio was often asked in later years (after both had left the game) what he thought of Williams. And DiMaggio s answer was invariably…..He was the ggeatest left handed hiiter I ever saw.

    Considering that DiMaggio played on the 1936 to 1938 yankees that had a left handed first baseman named Gehrig…that was a hell of an assessment.

    And when someone would follow up with a but…Dimaggio would coldly look at his questioner and say…how many rings does Williams have? And his point was that he (DiMaggio) had 9 in 10 world series and Williams had 0 in one WS appearance.

    Williams may have been a better hitter, but I beleive that DiMaggio was a much better all around player, better fielder, and better runner. Both were not humble men, but Dimaggio managed his personality issues well in public, Williams did not.

    And as great as Williams was….I htink if you had put him in the Yankee lineup in 1939 (His first year with the Sed Sox), and Gehrig had left the line up as he did after a month, williams issues would have asserted themselves, especially in New York, and Boston (where he got raked over the coals by the press) was the minor leagues compared to New York! And remmeber that Williams in his earlier eyars was the equivalent of Albert belle!

    Did the Yankees have a juggernaut every year. No they didn t. Check the standings between 1939 to 1942, and 1946 and 1951 (the years that Williams and DiMaggio competed against each other.

    Let me give you two more examples, the other greatest winner in the history of American pro sports. Bill Russell of the Celtics. The Celtics competed in 12 NBA finals in 13 eyars (he was injured and didint play in the 1956 57 playoffs) and Chamberlain and the 76ers were clearly better in 1966-67. Russell won 11 championships in 13 years some literally by one basket in the 7th game but he won them.

    He made every one around him better. As great as Cousy, Havlicek, Sharman, Ramsey, Sam Jones KC Jones (all are in the NBA hall of Fame) no Russell,no 11 championships, that simple.

    In baseball, Joe Morgan was the player who made the Cinciannati Reds the Big Red Machine, fromn 74 to 78, maybe the best all around player in baseball…and the Reds had Bench, and Rose and Morgan and Perez and Concepcion and Griffey Sr., and Gullett. You could argue that that team isnt the same without any of them, but for me, Morgan was the key,

    And the Dodgers of 47, 49, 52, 53 and 55, they had Hodges, Reese, Snider, Furillo, Newcombe, Roe, but the one indispensible player was Jackie Robinson. Without Robinson they werent the same team.

  265. Hossrex Says:

    Dennis: “The theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormon religion and an Ab rahamic religion…call it a fusion of Judaism and christianity) contradicts your point. again, im not promoting it, Im simply stating some specific facts….just as I did when I explained why Koufax didnt pitch Game 1 of the 1965 World Series.”

    I freely admit I’m less familiar with the Moron faith. However pointing out the exception, in this case, does in fact prove the rule. You have to point to the Abrahamic faith that the rest of the Abrahamic faiths look over their shoulder at to find a refutation.

    I could start a new branch of Christianity today and say “God is a tasty root beer float”, and that doesn’t mean I’d be justified in saying “the Abrahamic faiths consider god to be a root beer float.”

    Dennis: “That s fairly recent history. and although there were no witnesses to that purported event, an associat of Smith, Oliver Cowdery was present when they were purpotedly visited by the resurrected apostles, Peter James and John in Mayof 1829. Finally 15 men, associates and relatives of Jospeh Smith signed a document that they had seen and held the gold plates in ancient Hebraic and Egyptian writing that were translated by Smith into the Book of Mormon (whioh was published in 1830). And the only rational non faith based explanation is that Smith had extraordinary powers of persuasion or hynopis or both.”

    You left out the part where the wife of the first man to transcribe the plates (upset that her husband was being bamboozled by a KNOWN HUCKSTER) hid the transcriptions, and told her husband that if what he’s saying is true, he’ll be able to read you the translated text again, and the two documents will be identical.

    Smith was unable to do this.

    Dennis: “He was a religious genius and I rank him with enigmas of history like Leoinardo de Vinci and Shakespeare (you cant explain them by their ancestry or the environment)”

    Really?

    I’d have gone with L. Ron Hubbard.

    Michael Crowe: “thanks for canning the arrogant rim shots and shooting off of boastful flares for every point you tried to make for a moment, that was very tiring”

    Gosh. Sorry for having a little fun with the discussion to diffuse the inevitable notion that I think “the internetz are serious biznez!”. It was one or two sentences at the end of each post, and nothing more.

    Get over yourself.

    Michael Crowe: “All I originally wanted to put forth was that we each have a system of beliefs and a faith we put into it because it is part of the human equation”

    Even if I were to accept that as true… let’s examine what you’re really saying.

    The belief that Schrodinger’s cat is alive is the same as the belief that a supernatural deity exists.

    And if that doesn’t make sense to you… I don’t know why I’m bothering.

    Also… the rest of what you said was nonsense, and I don’t have a clue how to respond (“America is because of the Jews” etc etc etc… alright. I can understand what your trying to say, and I don’t even necessarily disagree, but it’s irrelevant).

    Mike Felber: “97% is too high”

    I know you weren’t disagreeing with me by making that comment Mike… but I do feel compelled to say that if every human being on Earth other than myself believed something without any evidence, I still wouldn’t be justified in believing it. I probably WOULD believe it… but I wouldn’t be JUSTIFIED.

    It’s an argument from authority, and I think the problem is Michael Crowe doesn’t know what that means.

    Michael Crowe: “I think Hoss was trying to find someone like you to set up ‘n then express his opinion

    I DO enjoy it, but that was not my intention. My initial point was that I don’t care why Koufax didn’t play, I simply care that he didn’t play. Everything that followed was a refutation of the points made by other people. Other than once mentioning that I was an atheist (maybe twice), I have expressed a single belief. I haven’t used this soap box as an opportunity to proselytize. I defy anyone here to tell me anything about my beliefs, except that I’m an atheist (and no, contrary to popular belief, atheism not only isn’t a religion, it isn’t even a set of beliefs. It’s one single disbelief, which can be coupled with any myriad of other beliefs, so long as those other beliefs don’t include a belief in a supernatural creator).

    I’m not giving my opinions.

    I’m refuting other peoples opinions.

    In closing:

    Michael Crowe: “I disagree with your “proof wouldn’t count” theory.”

    Hey. It’s your book. Not mine. Maybe you should crack the spine now and then.

  266. Hossrex Says:

    “I have expressed a single belief.”

    Should read:

    “I haven’t expressed a single belief.”

    Edit feature?

  267. Mike Felber Says:

    Those are some good explanations for Smith’s followers supporting him, charisma & hynosis. There are others, & they may vary much by individual. Lying for advantage or due to social pressure, persuading self largely, due to Psychological factors…Many have “seen” things like E.T.s in a very pliant state before sleep. Why do tons of folks swear to see things at certain times: poltergeists, aliens, ectoplasm, the dead, succubi…Many West African men actually believe in a hex that shrinks there genitals & that it happens, when demonstrably they do not (well, can shrivel when frightened temporarily) ;-)

    Far more folks may testify about things that are errant nonsense: recall Jonestown, 900 + dead? Much more recently than 1820, when much of the bedrock of modern science (germ theory, evolution, atomic theory, quantum theory) was unknown. Witches were “proven” through mass hysteria, & there is nothing remarkable about a group imagining or inventing visions, or supposedly divinely inscribed gold heavy objects…Which are, sorry to say of course, not available for inspection.

    Fact is, folks ’see’ & feel things, whether angels or demons, ie good proportion to the dominant or recently popularized cultural myths. Then they project their fears, desires, & biases onto what they either imagine, or interpret wildly. UFOs have been shown time & again to be explainable phenomna in various levels of the atmosphere. Now, either there WERE many flying sucers starting from & after Roswell, or people THOUGHT they saw them then, when the idea was planted. Which is at all likely? What does evidence show? Why would aliens need to frequently do rectal probes? Is this not almost certainly people’s psychosexual mishagos (yiddish for craziness).

    As for evidence of prayer working: I feel that it does not exists. Not that folks are not honest about what they believe. but why do we have double blind studies w/controls? people get better or sick all the time, & we often have no good idea why, or how fast…So if you are prone to believe, the selection bias can give you TONS of ways to say: Praise God! He healed me! Here is something that should offend nobody. The Gerson Therapy.

    One of so many “quack” cures you can read about (whatstheharm.com, & quackwatch.com). A close friend of mine got bladder cancer, & eschewed the surgery he was afriad of. Demonized all of modern medicine, at least any that was mediated through, or approved by, the A.M.A. Now, Gerason claimed tons of “evidence” that his cures worked. banned from practicing here, exiled to Mexico: & they cam pretty close to getting funding on a large scale, but were denied in the ’70’s. of course, they view that as a Judas like betrayal, but no Gov’t body is obliged to pour people’s tax $ into something unestablished. And IF it worked, do you think that they could never show this trhough good studies anyway?

    There therapy involves, in part, certain vitamins, & a severely delimited diet, consisting of 13 shakes a day, of specific green veggies & apples…And constant coffee enemas. And they SAY it is normal to feel really weak on it, that is the body “detoxifying”…Well, those who took radiation even subjectively said, convinced themselves they FELT great-until they died of radiation poisoning. so their diet is several deficient in many things: solid food, protein, complex carbs IO think, fats…spoke to the East coast rep. of Gerson said it is normal to be too weak to do this yourself, you have to eat (or drink) “like an elephant”…Now, SHE likely believes it.

    So they say that it is so tough to do, you should just go to Mexico to visit the clinic of the late, martyred (my words) Dr. Gerson. Where before airfare, it costs $6,000 a week (maybe more now), for a minimum of 3 weeks, not counting air fare. yet my friend was not skeptical re: the intentions & efficacy of this program, though is willing to believe that the medical establishment is, en masse, hiding cures for cancer en masse! If so, why do they treat themselves & loved ones w/the same imperfect methods?

    I am NOT saying organized religion has not done many great things (& many evil ones), & has great ethics & learniing behind it often enough. As I said at leangth above. But that is very very different from there being a reason to believe, objectively, that there is good evidence that God is literally true, or there have been divine interventions, really anytime.

    Anyone recall Andy Kaufman being portrayed at the end of “Man on the Moon”? he discovered that the cure for his cancer he desperately went abroad for, was an utter sham/scam. But not everything that is not true is a lie, & people have complex ways of holding beliefs-some lie, some deceive themselves, many are true Believers. I just see so many ways we need to justify belief, & no decent evidence a spiritual realm exists, or that we have any cause to think it LIKELY does.

    This in no way implies I think believers cannot be highly mature, decent or intelligent, & atheists may be nasty or fascists…I am merely speaking about what is at all likely to be so.

  268. dennis Says:

    Hoss rex

    Your point aobut Martin Harris the first transcriber of the plates is partly correct. And, what you left out was that he never changed or recanted his testimony about Joseph Smith and years later…he asked for and was re baptized as a member of the Mormon Church.

    And that Joseph Smith had a controversial and very mixed reputation during his 38 years of life…of that, there is no doubt.

    Again, no promotion, just facts.

    With your example of Koufax, essentially you re saying you only care about something happening or not happening, but you re not concerned with why or why it didnt happen…and explanations for why or why not?

    The level of your intellectual curiosity ….staggers me….

  269. Hossrex Says:

    Mike: “Hoss unfortunately mixes his great humor w/a sometimes disparaging edge & some cynicism.”

    Hmmmm… it just struck me why I disagreed with that notion.

    The problem is humorless people don’t realize that comedy IS disparaging and cynical. That’s literally the entire point.

  270. dennis Says:

    Comedy doesnt have to be disparaging or cynical.

    But I will admit that I loved the ocmedy of Richard Pryor and it was disparaging nad cynical…and honest.

    Hossrex, my take on you is that you re a Johnny one note….and not respecting the beliefs of others is emotionally a lot safer then actually taking the risk of you believing in something.

    So straight out, what do you believe (other then baseball)…that is positive in nature?

  271. Mike Felber Says:

    Dennis, the morale effect & leadership thing is way over-rated. It MAY have some effect in baseball. And it may not. But overwhelmingly the most important thing is how one produces. From early century Tigers & Sox, & more modern feuds you must be aware of, whole teams, or infieds/or outfields, have hated each other & won. Dimaggio was speaking from pride: Williams would have contributed a great deal & it would have led to championships. And MAYBE the adulation would have brought out something better in him, who knows. Though Dimaggio was better overall, the importance of hitting means that Williams was likely more valuable still. At least when you account for longevity he certainly was, & lost more War years. In basketball? Since you directly work w/your teammates sooo much more, then a better case can be made. Since what you do or do not do may not be reflected in stats, & sometimes just not so apparantly.

    But still, overall ability goes most of the way for explaining something. Chamberlain tended to beat Russell in performance: you point to 1 year when L.A. was better, but anything can happen in a short series, & Boston was usually clearly better overall. Morgan was “the key” only that he was the best player in baseball in the mid ’70’s. Robinson was as good as his excellent performance. Cobb, Williams, Hornsby, Mays, Aaron, endless others…them rarely getting to the W.S., & rarely winning it, does not show that they are deficient. Put any of the Gerhig & Dimaggio “winner” types on their teams: roughly the same historical records would result.

  272. Hossrex Says:

    Mike Felber: “Many have “seen” things like E.T.s”

    I’ve seen an honest to goodness UFO before.

    Seriously.

    Yet I still don’t believe aliens are visiting Earth.

    Mike Felber: “those who took radiation even subjectively said, convinced themselves they FELT great-until they died of radiation poisoning.”

    Watched a documentary about that once. Charlatans used to sell… I’m not making this up… radioactive suppositories. Yes, it’s what it sounds like, and yes the results were typical.

    Mike Felber: “yet my friend was not skeptical re: the intentions & efficacy of this program, though is willing to believe that the medical establishment is, en masse, hiding cures for cancer en masse! If so, why do they treat themselves & loved ones w/the same imperfect methods?”

    I love this, because I actually have (and here’s Hossrex giving his FIRST “opinion” of the thread) serious doubts about the American Medical Association. Far less research is put into cures, or preventatives, as there is in TREATMENTS. I love that you brought that up, because it exemplifies something I was trying to say earlier. Atheism isn’t a religion. It isn’t a faith.

    Mike holds the (far more rational belief) that doctors and medical companies care about helping people, while Hossrex holds the (nutball in a tinfoil hat belief) that people are dying because curing them isn’t profitable.

    Dennis: “Your point aobut Martin Harris the first transcriber of the plates is partly correct. And, what you left out was that he never changed or recanted his testimony about Joseph Smith and years later…he asked for and was re baptized as a member of the Mormon Church.”

    Yup. Sadly, stupid people are often difficult to assuage.

    Dennis: “With your example of Koufax, essentially you re saying you only care about something happening or not happening, but you re not concerned with why or why it didnt happen…and explanations for why or why not?

    The level of your intellectual curiosity ….staggers me….”

    1: We’re talking about sports.
    2: I AM aware of why, I just don’t care.
    3: You’re inferring that because I don’t care about Sandy Koufax I’m lacking intellectual curiosity.
    4: WE’RE TALKING ABOUT SPORTS.

    Me: “I like pumpkin pie!”
    You: “Wow, why do you eat such an unhealthy diet?”
    Me: “What are you talking about?”
    You: “You only ever eat orange food. I mean, what does that leave you with outside of the squash family?”
    Me: “Huh? I just said I like pumpkin pie.”
    You: “I know. Since you like pumpkin pie, you clearly only eat orange food.”
    Me: “How could you POSSIBLY make that inference?”
    You: “Aren’t you even CURIOUS about foods of other colors? I find yellow to be delightful.”
    Me: “…”
    You: “Why do you hate Mariano Rivera?”

  273. Hossrex Says:

    Dennis: “Hossrex, my take on you is that you re a Johnny one note”

    An ignorant person who bases their opinions of another person on one conversation will inevitably feel that way, yes.

    I don’t want you to answer (because you’ll just lie), but think to yourself. You think a LOT of people are “Johnny One Note”, eh? Lots of ignorant people out there who are just too stupid to see the world as you do?

    Again, don’t answer the rhetorical question.

    Dennis: “I will admit that I loved the ocmedy of Richard Pryor and it was disparaging nad cynical…and honest.”

    My favorite part about that comment is that I almost gave Pryor as an EXCEPTION to what I said, since Richard was so deft at weaving his stories into self-deprecation, where inevitably the subject of the cynical edge always came back squarely on himself.

    Pryor was a genius that way. Remarkably offensive on the surface, but he never actually offended anyone (except for his use of a certain taboo word, which offends people for no reason).

    Dennis: “So straight out, what do you believe (other then baseball)…that is positive in nature?”

    OH! I do like that question though.

    There is nothing positive in nature.

    Nature is neutral in the most strict sense possible. Nature simply is. We may ascribe personified traits to the occurrences (earthquake kills thousands… a baby deer is orphaned when a bear eats it’s mother, etc), but nature JUST IS.

    The same is also true of human nature. We may ascribe levels of morality to the actions of people (and I don’t have a particular problem with the idea), but that morality is never constant.

    Hakuna Matata™.

    It means no worries.

  274. Mike Felber Says:

    Humor often is disparaging & cynical, & funny. But it need not be personally directed against someone you are debating with, especially when tone & intent are unclear. Something like “trust me, I’m winning”: in itself may be cool: but it depends partially on someone knowing you mean it, but are being lighthearted & mildly outrageous…If you had no name calling before, & no explicit distrust of someone’s honesty (particularly whether they really are an atheist) makes it even more likely that you are not joking when you deny that their computer is not working…

    To make others like the humor more, & not feel personally insulted, it would be useful to trust more, & do not call names when really angry (whoever stated it). Also, I made the (2nd to last) comment you attributed to Mr. Crowe above. Because it seemed that a comment like 229 was gratuitous, as not really “like” what it purported to be, TRUE, but not relevant to the discussion at hand. Not that this is so bad, but these theological issues were broached after you started them.

    Though y’know I overwhelmingly agree with the substance of what you claim.

  275. Hossrex Says:

    Mike Felber: “trust me, I’m winning”

    lol… that’s not even funny, it’s just snotty!

    *whisper whisper whisper*

    Oh… I’M the one who said it?

    Errr… yeah.*

    (*to clarify the humor… yes, of course I recognized that the quote was mine. I however wasn’t using that particular passage as an indication of any specific point, or an attempt at levity. It was simply a intransigent comment, left in a pithy manner. The comment that this clarification is regarding however was made with a humorous intent. No guarantee of lulz implied, offer not valid in Tennessee)

    Mike Felber: “no explicit distrust of someone’s honesty”

    AronRa has a fascinating serious of videos on youtube, with one of his main overarching themes being the inherent intellectual dishonesty inherent in theism. It’s one of those situations where I don’t actually agree with him (I have no problem believing that the vast majority of the world has been duped), but I can’t refute a single of the many points he makes.

    Mike Felber: “when you deny that their computer is not working”

    When you post comment after comment… wall of text after wall of text… and someone says “why didn’t you address what I said”, it’s hard to accept the reply of “my computer is having trouble, so I might get back to that later, but here’s another hundred words on MY talking points.”

    I didn’t deny it wasn’t working. I simply alluded to the fact that he doesn’t have a problem saying all that other stuff he said.

    Mike Felber: “To make others like the humor more”

    Andy: “Uh-huh! See, with all these articles, people think they’re insiders. They see Tony Clifton, and they say, “Ah, that’s really Andy Kaufman.” But that spoils it. So NOW, Tony denying being me is the truth! Tony’s not me! But maybe he is! The audience will never know… (giddy) They’ll think they’re laughin’ at me — but actually I’ll be laughin’ at them, because they’re wrong and I’m right!

    George: “So you’ve got this big elaborate joke, which is really only funny to two people in the universe. (dry) You… and you.”

    Zmuda: “Sure! But WE think it’s kickass! Now I get to be Tony. I get to dump the glass of water on someone else’s head!”

    Mike Felber: “Though y’know I overwhelmingly agree with the substance of what you claim.”

    Yeah. You seem pretty on the ball.

  276. dennis Says:

    Hoss rex

    We werent talking about just sports, we were talking about the intersection of a World series game, and the peronal beliefs of a superstar pitcher and the reactions of all the supposed stakeholders….(his teamates, the club management and the public.

    That s an discussion with several strands….and you dont do that mult istrands….

    As for judging you based on just this one theme, no I ve read your posts form other threads, you re a johnny one note. You rush to absolute opinions about things you don t research, which you dont see more then one side …and your literalism is indicative of your personality. Examples….Religion is moronography, Martin Harris was a stupid man, Koufax walke dout on his teamates when he needed them most….the overwhelming majority of your judgments are negative ones…..

    Hakuna Matuta…this is a song from the Lion King animated Disney movie, correct?

    Man, you re deep!!!!!!!!!!!!

  277. Michael Crowe Says:

    Hoss, I’m not opposed to a little fun – I’ve had a little with you over the years – but I think there is only one person here who really needs to get over themselves, don’t you? like I suggest, is there some way to trade emails, or perhaps another forum where I could lead you through this one step at a time. Your lack of insight into the core of this discussion is so off it isn’t even calibratable, and isn’t worth the time and space on a baseball forum. You’re not giving your opinion then, Okay, whose, dawkins? How absurd. If this subject is your “wheel house” then your out house must need a good flush. There is a reason, one that you fail to see obviously, why some 80 to 90 pecent of your post here are confrontational. I don’t know, I realize you are a youngster, but you are just not one to sit and have a rational give and take with. If this is all you have to offer then I don’t wonder why you twist things around in such a way as to make it personal or confontational to attempt to cover your flawed logic. Yeah I’ve crossed this personality trait before, but you are really quite emotional aren’t you. But in a proper forum (away from baseball, and the good folks here) I will gladly hash out this or any other subject you wish, as time permits. And you will learn that I have ‘cracked the spine’ on this before, and have publically debated subjects of faith on more than a few occasions, and with people more learned (obviously) on these matters and more civil than you, not that I would expect any revelations to come forth on your part. But this isn’t the place. Now, at least appreciate the fact that it took almost 30 min. to type this little paragraph under current condtions.

  278. Michael Crowe Says:

    Mike: “I think Hoss was trying to find someone like you to set up n then express his opoinion.”

    LOL, No, he hasn’t any opinion you know. I appreciate your response and helping to interpret Hoss’s nonsense Mike but I must pass on point to point response at the moment. What you say has it’s logic from an atheistic point of view but to say I disagree isn’t fair without cause which I won’t go into now due to circumstances beyond my control. thanks.

  279. Hossrex Says:

    Dennis: “we were talking about the intersection of a World series game, and the peronal beliefs of a superstar pitcher and the reactions of all the supposed stakeholders….(his teamates, the club management and the public.”

    I.E. Sports.

    Dennis: “you dont do that mult istrands”

    And your reasoning for thinking that is because I don’t allow religion as an excuse to do something which would otherwise be objectionable.

    Alright.

    Dennis: “You rush to absolute opinions about things you don t research”

    Oh goodness.

    Dennis: “Religion is moronography”

    That makes me chuckle, because even though it’s probably not true, part of me believes that you said “moronography” because you thought I was using a real word earlier.

    Dennis: “Martin Harris was a stupid man”

    Yes, he most certainly was.

    Dennis: “Koufax walke dout on his teamates when he needed them most”

    Yup.

    Dennis: “the overwhelming majority of your judgments are negative ones”

    I like bunnies!

    Dennis: “Man, you re deep!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    lol… I wasn’t even disagreeing with you in that part of my comment! You asked me a question that I thought was at least partially relevant, and definitely interesting. I gave an honest response, to which you make a snide comment.

    Isn’t that the sort of thing you’re accusing me of?

    And the clever part was the little “™” (Timon and Pumba plush dolls sold a fine retailer near you)

    Michael Crowe: “where I could lead you through this one step at a time.”

    Even ignoring the condescension, you haven’t been able to do that in dozens of posts… what makes me think you’re going to start now?

    You still haven’t addressed my apple metaphor.

    Michael Crowe: “Your lack of insight into the core of this discussion is so off it isn’t even calibratable”

    Oh goodness.

    Michael Crowe: “isn’t worth the time and space on a baseball forum.”

    1: I didn’t start the religious discussion.
    2: I haven’t ever pressed you to continue the discussion.
    3: The handful of time the topic has changed, I’ve rolled with the change, only to have either you or Dennis make another reply.

    Michael Crowe: “Okay, whose, dawkins?”

    Are you asking me? Is that a facetious question?

    I’ve read Harris, Dennett, Dawkins, and Hitchens.

    have you?

    Michael Crowe: “There is a reason, one that you fail to see obviously, why some 80 to 90 pecent of your post here are confrontational. I don’t know, I realize you are a youngster”

    Questioning my confrontational nature, and following it up with a confrontational statement.

    Starting to see why some of my comments come off as confrontational?

    Michael Crowe: “you are just not one to sit and have a rational give and take with.

    An ironic statement considering all I’m asking of you is to rationally explain the nature of your beliefs.

    Michael Crowe: “you twist things around”

    By quoting you directly every time I comment on what you said.

    Yes.

    How dare I.

    Michael Crowe: “you are really quite emotional aren’t you”

    I wouldn’t say “quite emotional”, but I have no problem with accepting the nature of my emotions.

    Michael Crowe: “not that I would expect any revelations to come forth on your part”

    I wouldn’t expect it either, since I’m not in the position of making any claims. Atheism doesn’t make a statement, it’s the rejection of a statement.

    You’re not going to get much revelation from someone insisting that Bigfoot isn’t real, but that doesn’t mean what they’re saying lacks veracity.

    Michael Crowe: “Now, at least appreciate the fact that it took almost 30 min. to type this little paragraph under current condtions.

    I’ll pitch in for an “enter” key, if it’ll help you structure your comments with multiple paragraphs.

  280. dennis Says:

    Mike….

    Again, with respect, im complely on the other side of this from you.

    Morale and leadership on abaseblal team cannot be over emphasized.

    Both Cobb and Hornsby, extraordinary players and hitters were not positive leaders or role models, they were profoundly vituperative men, a splayers and managers.

    Williams wasnt as negative, and he got along with his managers and almost all of his teamates who respected him for his dedication, and he was always willing to help someone to hit better….but on his own terms. Read Richard Beb Cremer s biograpy of Williams.

    DiMaggio was aloof, he rarely had friends on the Yankee teams, but he played hurt and considered himself so responsbile for the Uankees winning and losing that he was respected by hos teamates.

    Mays was very vocal a bundle of energy, Aarton was a quiet man who gave his friendship to a few players.

    A club house can be filled with great players with individual accomplsihments, but if an atmosphere isnt created by a leader or leaders and all the players arent willing to recognize that their job is to contribute to the team s success, that team wont consistently win.

    And yes enough talent is important….

    but it isnt enough. A great leader ball player or manager imposes his well and his expectations on a team…in a positive and fair way…

  281. dennis Says:

    Hossrex

    Ok, your opinions are concrete…..they can t be changed by facts or logic or reason, or proof or evidence. My personality issues hunch about you holds up.

    I wont try and reason with you anymore its wasted effort.

  282. Michael Crowe Says:

    Hossrex:

    “Even ignoring the condescension,”

    See, how you take things the wrong way.

    “you haven’t been able to do that in dozens of post, … what makes me think you are going to start now?”

    I don’t know what makes you think.

    “You still haven’t addressed my apple metaphor.”

    I decided it was silly.

    1. “I didn’t start the religious discussion.”

    You did with me. I was addressing Raul at the time.

    2. “I haven’t ever pressed you to continue the discussion.”

    Let’s review shall we. Hossrex: “please do so.” and “Please, address it.”

    3. “The handful of times the subject has changed I’ve rolled with the change, either to have you or Dennis make another reply.”

    And a nice roll it was too.

    “Are you asking me?”

    (Nodding head).

    “I’ve read Harris dennett, Dawkins, and Hitchens. Have you?”

    I read Dawkins to prepare for a debate on evolution some years ago. Bad fiction really, I thought Alice In Wonderland much better, even with the obvious similarities.

    “By quoting you directly everytime I comment on what you said.”

    No, you haven’t.

    “I have no problem with accepting the nature of my emotions.”

    You are quite the understatesman as well.

    “I’m not in the position of making any claims.”

    You claim to be an atheist, which is more of a claim than I’ve made.

    “Atheism isn’t a statement, it’s the rejection of a statement.”

    Sort of like caffine free coke I presume. right, whatever, it’s your faith.

    “Your’re not going to get much revelation from someone insisting that bigfoot isn’t real, but that doesn’t mean what they’re saying lacks verascity.”

    Wait, I should be using this statement for my cause, if I can remember what that is. Read this back to yourself and pretend I said it.

    “I’ll pitch in for an “enter” key if it’ll help you structure your comments with multiple paragraphs.”

    Thanks for the offer, I have one, I just can’t see what I’m writing, so I use the “enter’ seldom as possible. but what I need is a 45 to blow this infernal machine back to (pardon the insult) Hell, from which it came..

  283. Mike Felber Says:

    Alrighty, this has gotten a bit personal, somewhat Egos on parade: from parties who all have more than a measure of intelligence! Hoss did say many amusing things to me. He sometimes is inattentive to the spirit of what he says, either its impression, or some animating arrogance. But there is plenty of substance there, & above not a disconnect to the subject. Mr. Crowe, realize that you are inadvertently providing an impression of being patronizing when you essentially offer to school someone offline-instead of just discuss it. But feelings are frayed on most sides. Though I wonder why you find the curmudgeon Dawkins so dubious, I’ll wait ’till you can type well: i have been in those bad computer situations! Seems you have some familiarity w/these issues! I’ve read some of these guys stuff, but not too much: it would be like preachin’ to the unconverted! ;-) & to The Choir Invisible. (Sorry, M.P. Not as clever a disclaimer as the ‘lil T.M. tagline, admittedly).

    Dennis, i do not know just how much credit to give such leaders. But I do feel that in a sport where the performances are overwhelmingly individual, nor interactive with teammates, morale & leadership are very easily overstated. While not machines, pro athletes are overwhelmingly Professional, most of them, & will do their best regardless. Rather like how clutch performance holds little water over enough time observed that random variations get ironed down. I agree with your descriptions of the players, but even a man like Cobb was respected & provided a great example in regards to his fanatical efforts & attention to detail.

    Sometimes players should not play hurt. If you are likely to be even worse than your replacement, certainly not. (Willis for 2 baskets, then ineffective, was an exception due to inspiration). And if you also delay your full recovery, it may be even worse. Though anyway we can admire the grit…

  284. Hossrex Says:

    Dennis: “Ok, your opinions are concrete…..they can t be changed by facts or logic or reason, or proof or evidence.”

    What proof? I’m constantly asking for some, and the best you can do is to say 97% of the world is religious.

    Michael Crowe: “See, how you take things the wrong way.

    It fascinates me how insulting both of you are, while at the same time getting upset with me for being insulting.

    Michael Crowe: “I decided it was silly.”

    And I’m the one being obstinate? You refuse to even ADDRESS the points I’m making, and yet I’ve responded to EVERY point you’ve made.

    Michael Crowe: “You did with me. I was addressing Raul at the time.”

    I apologize. I didn’t realize you were using this public forum as a private messaging service.

    Michael Crowe: “Let’s review shall we. Hossrex: “please do so.” and “Please, address it.””

    And yet strangely, when I request that you actually address what I’m saying, you refuse.

    Michael Crowe: “And a nice roll it was too.

    Yup. Nothing rude, or confrontational coming from your side.

    Michael Crowe: “I read Dawkins to prepare for a debate on evolution some years ago. Bad fiction really, I thought Alice In Wonderland much better, even with the obvious similarities.”

    I don’t agree with everything Dawkins says (I prefer Hitchens, and I actually don’t like Harris), but I’m curious if you could list even a single example of what Dawkins said which you have a rational reason for calling “bad fiction.”

    Michael Crowe: “You are quite the understatesman as well.

    When I was trying to lighten the mood by making jokes, you had a problem with that as well. So take your pick. Either I’m taking it too serious because I have emotional problems, or I’m not taking it serious enough, but you can’t have it both ways.

    Michael Crowe: “You claim to be an atheist, which is more of a claim than I’ve made.

    You know that isn’t true.

    Michael Crowe: “Sort of like caffine free coke I presume. right, whatever, it’s your faith.”

    How offended would you be if I said your faith is “Abigfootism”, or “Aleprechaunism”?

    Those are (hopefully) true descriptions of you, and yet it doesn’t say anything about your character except that you don’t believe in bigfoot, or leprechauns. Would you call your disbelief in those figures a “faith”?

    How about we start over.

    How about inside one post, without any comments on my character, succinctly provide a single example of the “proof” for theism which has led you to hold the rational belief that a god exists.

    Please.

    Just one.

  285. Hossrex Says:

    Mike Felber: “He sometimes is inattentive to the spirit of what he says, either its impression, or some animating arrogance.

    If I’m being honest with you Mike, there have been times (in different discussions) where I’ve completely backed off a thread because you completely put me in my place. I’ve literally had the conscious thought that “it isn’t fun to debate with him (you) because he’s more intelligent (or at least more well informed) than I am.”

    That doesn’t happen often.

    So rest assured, if it’s seemed like in the past I’ve avoided the points you’ve made, it’s because you were more correct than I was.

    I can’t stress how different that is from what’s happening in this thread.

    You’re a smart guy Mike. I expect if you knew the offline me (still boisterously outspoken, but with the ability to deliver, through spoken tone, the good nature of my opinions), we’d probably get along well.

  286. Mike Felber Says:

    Well that is very gracious of you Hoss. Even when you are outrageous, you tend to write effective jabs, & often trenchant comments. When you combine satire w/relevancy, like “orange fruit” sketch above, it is very effective & funny. No doubt that you are usually good spirited.

    My Brother called me from L.A. tonight, lives by La Brea tar pits. Squeezing in some family time between work (a recent video for a pilot he produced, now back writing for Maher, who is a brilliant misanthrope. It is beautiful out there, but if you ever come to NYC, look me up. artistsinthekitchen.org. You are more than bright, & I may be mainly be somewhat of an Idiot Savant when it comes to arguing! ;-) But you may have a bit of a fish-shoot-barrel dynamic going on above.

  287. dennis Says:

    Hossrex

    I never ever offered or wanted to show you proof about the existence of God or theism. But I have a healthy respect for religion…and remember Im not a beleiver….But mankind (not thesits or atheists…MANKIND) has always used stories of gods and or a God to explain his existence and what and why things happen in the world. The ability of man to imagine to feel another reality, and the appearance and influence of religious leaders who influence history (examples like Mohammed, Buddha, Jesus of Nazareth, Martin Luther, Joseph Smith) is of enormous interest to me.

    The Koufax Yom Kippur argument is another more tangible, very specific issue. Remember that you said you didnt care why he didnt pitch, i assumed maybe you didnt know and I explained why he didnt pitch. if you call that bringing up religion and derailing the thread….I suppose that s your nterpretation of what happened.

    But 280 plus posts later, you re still unwilling to accept any of the back story of why he didn t pitch (his own conscience, the acceptance of his teamamtes, his contract with Dodger management, the white hot pennant race up to the last two days when he pitched three complewte games each going on 2 days rest) the substitution of Drysdale (who had a great year in 1965) as valid reasons for not pitching on Yom Kippur.

    You are still saying I don t care why he didnt do it…..I just care that he didn t. (no matter what factual evidence has been offered to you) and when a man closes his mind….Ive found that its absolutely futile to try and open it.

    Mike
    At its best, baseball is a series of interrelated performances, not all of whicvh happen on the field and that s the beauthy of the game. It degenerates when players are only concerned with their individual on field performances. A pitcher pitches and makes great pitches (1 performance), but that is dependent on how good a game the catcher calls (second performance) …and many of the outs will be based on how well the players are positioned, how well they have studied (multiple performances) the hititng tendeniues of their opponents…which come from the scouting reports (another set of performances).

    And if a manager, a catcher, the pitcher and say the team captain meet on thr mound and they all decide that in order to get someone out in a men on base situation , they are going to set him up with some off speed stuff away….and then bust one in on his fists, expecting a pop up, that s an example of all the related performances meshing together into a team effort. and a great player leader will know what has to be done….for example a Mays, a Ripken, its about much more then their slashes were .323/.387/.520

    Now of course, everyone has to do their part.

    Dennis

  288. Michael Crowe Says:

    Mike, I am surprised that you find the lighthearted jousting between Hoss and I interesting, as nothing much of any revelance has been said by either of us. Too much work to get through the personality clash on my part so I suppose I got frustrated and got silly too. But no, I wasn’t by any means trying to patronize when I offered to dicuss this offline (and not to “school” Hossrex). I was however patronizing in a jestful way at times because Hoss was also – just some fun fair play, fine. But as long as Hoss has an audience, I feel, he isn’t going to let down his shield and enter discuss mode in a real give and take way. As I’ve done before, I tried to go along and wear him down until he dropped all the flares and fireworks, and did so, but he then gets defensive so … well, what’s the use. Also, and I tell you this as a volunteer referee (ha), I haven’t the time nor constitution to first clear up Hoss’s misunderstandings of my post before I then proceed to try and answer his statements. Once in a while sure, but I have a job.

    Thanks for understanding my computer plight at the moment – still a mystery .. So without going into detail, Dawkins I found to be a little crazy, for lack of a better word. Some of his stances were too easy to dismantle (good for me at the time) and he goes about his work with a ‘religious” agenda rather than a scientific one, in my opinon. But then I consider the foundational basis of his work a falacy to begin with, and before anyone ask, no, I will not get into a dicussion of that because any explination of “scientific” matters, plus philosophical ones (and in the case of Dawkins – both, plus pure fiction, tragedy and comedy), would be too long and deep, and this is a baseball forum after all. Except to say that Dawkins reaches, to the point that he attempts to justify some of his previous nonsense that has already been debunked. Reading him is also what put me on to the idea that atheism is, to me, a religion after all. Also, I appreciate your commentary along side the text of our discussion with Hossrex (lol), and I’ve come to appreciate your insights and fairness (if not wholly bypartisan), especially in light of the fact that philosophically you are in Hoss’s camp. Thanks. And if I offended anyone with my take on Dawkins, or in any other way, well, my apologies, I’m only an entertainer.

  289. Hossrex Says:

    He didn’t provide me with a single bit of the proof he insists he’s been providing this whole time.

  290. Michael Crowe Says:

    Oh ….. alright, once more then.

    Hossrex: “You refuse to even address the points that I’m makeing, and yet I’ve responded to every point you’ve make.”

    I was trying, but got waylaid. I just tried then to hit the high points thereafter, sorry.

    “I didn’t realize that you were using this public forum as a private message service.”

    I didn’t say that and you well know it. You said you didn’t start this, but I said “you did with me, I was talking to Raul.” You are of course most welcome in a public forum, I was just putting you straight. Now, pay attention – you see, this is just the sort of thing I was talking to mike about. I haven’t the time to go back and re-explain every point, okay? Call it patronizing if you want to and I’m sorry to be offensive, but dang, grow up man – geez!

    “When I request that you actually address what I’m saying, you refuse.”

    You’re changing the subject. This was my response to your saying that you didn’t press me to reply, which you did. And once again I’m forced to repeat myself.

    “I’m curious if you could even list a single example of what Dawkins said for which you have a rational reason for calling it bad fiction.”

    No, I cannot, specifically, at the moment. It has been … twelve years ago I think. I do still have my notes somewhere, probably.

    “but you can’t have it both ways.”

    Okay.

    “You know that isn’t true.”

    It was true, and still is. Please, go back and read it again if you’re still interested, I haven’t the spit to repeat myself yet again.

    “How offended would you be if I said your faith …”

    Let’s stop there a moment. My faith? Are you drawing a parallel between atheism and faith? Just wondering if perhaps you’ve changed your mind on the matter.

    “How offended would you be if I said your faith is a Bigfootism or a Leprechaunism?”

    After I finished laughing? Not at all. I don’t take offense too easily, dreadful waste of time. Life’s too short. The “caffine free, it’s your faith” remark was perhaps tasteless, but it wasn’t a slap at your belief as much as a play on a remark you made to me – a play on “it’s your book,” or ‘your religion” or whatever it was. Anyway, a joke. Sorry.

    “How about we start over.”

    A graceful offer but it is late and I’m only getting a word out every three of four seconds presently. Perhaps next time.

    “How about inside one post, without any comments on my charactor, succinctly provide a single example of the ‘proof’ for theism which has led you to hold the rational belief that a God exist. Please. Just one.”

    I guess being atheist you are preoccupied with the prove God thing to such an extent that you’ve lost the way. The point of my original intent was that we are all religious, specifically: that atheism is a form of religion or a faith. YOu disagreed and that is as it should be I suppose. But, now, you are asking of me personally how I came to believe in God, assuming that I do, and that’s different. Fine, I do believe in God. The why is simple. My mother was stricken all her life with severe hypoclacemia, or low blood sugar, for which there was no treatment in the early 60s. This manifested itself in phobias, blackouts, and periods, days, of no recollection, a hellish thing really, that hospitalized her on many occasions. Now bedridden, my mother recieved a visitor, a traveling minister, that a friend brought by. He was an associate of Joel Olsteen’s father, John, in Houston. He prayed for my mother that afternoon while she was unconscious. The next morning she got up. Just under two week later she was totally recovered from the whole of it and remained so until she died twenty-eight years later. After that I “cracked the spine’ as you called it. Now remember, you asked me how “you” (I) came to hold a rational belief. Well, that was the beginning of the reality of it and it grew form there. So to me “faith” is the assurance of hope, not hope. I think your perception of religious faith is as one who is hoping there is a God. There’s a big difference the way I see it.

    “He didn’t provide me with a single bit of the proof he insist he’s been providing the whole time.”

    This wasn’t about proof, but faith. But I gave you some examples which I believe came about because of deity. You don’t buy it, fine. If God is spirit then He has to be understood from that perspective (believing is seeing, which is faith’s result, “the substance of things hoped for”) . Neither can you prove a natural cause for our existance. Ultimately we both have to see natural particles coming into existance where there were none before. Something came from nothing, ultimatley. If not, then “something” has always been, and that something would be both physical and eternal in that case, which would be impossible by one line of reasoning because this is a temporal universe. In that light, I’ll take creation over the mathematical impossibility of natural selection, as to believe either, to quote Sagan, requires faith.

  291. Mike Felber Says:

    Very good summary of the value of much religion Dennis, & the case why nobody whould be on S.K.’s case about rejiggering his schedule. if anyone had a reason to do so on the holiest day for them, it was him.”Leadership & attitude may add something, but it is both unknoewn how much, & almost certainly most all value is added not by a few stats, but a careful measure of many stats & factors. Even many ‘intangibles’ can be measured or estimated-but not just attitude. Most things in baseball are directly caused by what you do-even things that depend upon cooperation are part of a player’s job description. Even battery mates can & do work together towards goals for the team, whether friends or leaders. Scouting reports etc…need not be done lovingly & altruistically to be just as effective (though ethically, & in terms of what we like, warmtH 7 maturity is preferable).

  292. Mike Felber Says:

    Mr. Crowe, it is interesting psychologically, & also in terms of good humor, occasionally in both senses! Trouble is, in this forum form & intent is difficult to read. We can misinterpret, someone can seem otherwise 9it did seem that you were trying to “school” hoss), opinions can be skewed by other times when someone pitched a fit, & when one reacts badly to that, the next time a light or appeasing tone may be understandably seen as unkind, etc…Something like Hoss did challenge you to explain-you are right But for example, you both have said the other ‘knows’ something is true or not. but not usually; there are varying opinions on the same thing, & even what you both MEAN by a phrase, & what you think the other does, varies.

    Another big reason i caution all not to assume lies & manipulation by the other-there is usually another explanation, which usually involves confusion of terms & interpretations. But you are being open & gracious above, certainly.

    I do not presume toknow the cause of such a remarkable recovery Mr. Crowe, & would be loathe to deconstruct it even if I knew all variables. I just know that studies, done at all well, do not show an effect in petitionary prayer. some puzzlingly get better or die w/or absent religion-I am so glad it woorked out that way for your family.

    We cannot “prove” matter coming into existance before anything in the universe, though quantum physics purports to report those events within our matrix, & things can make sense theoretically. ultimately god adds a hige unexplained layer, violatiing Occam”S razor-the least tortured explanation-briefest that is at all plausible-is more likely to be correct. But when you mention natural selection, you seem to be mixing up a concept of how life evolved with how it started. Though there is no reason to believe that the latter is even improbable, given enough worlds, certain preconditions, including time.

    Sagan was referring to faith in the broad sense of not knowing for sure-but we can breed flies, cause mutations, see how things evolve, like w/dogs/selective & greatly accelerated (& often environmentally irrelvant or dysfunctional) adaptations/breeding. Atomic & evolutionary theory are still overwhelmingly likely to be true, in general & in the particulars. Also, I think the most likely scenario is that there are innumerable separate ‘universes’ that have different preconditions & characteristics, paralleling distinct planets. it is only from the persepctive ng from a ‘live’ planet that it seems so imlausible.

    Like any individual blade of grass in a field would say ‘what are the oddS’ if a golf ball landed exactly on it, or a child picked it. but statistically, these events will happen. and the ‘multiverse’ is so fecund that there are effectively many golfers & children to act. though it need not be a conscious force; indeed, no reason to believe nature is.

  293. Hossrex Says:

    I shall bow out of this entire thread now, as I feel entirely confident that Crowe has added as much to my point as I ever could (as I’m sure he feels I’ve added as much to his as he ever could).

    One side cherishes belief.

    The other side cherishes knowledge.

    I have no problem falling into the category for which my comments have pigeonholed me.

  294. Michael Crowe Says:

    Mike, as to “such a remarkable recovery,” I really didn’t expect any commentary from you on that one, lol, that’s fine, I know your posistion, but you did anyway, very good. I have no idea who the people were who did a study on petitionary prayer (it wasn’t those who know anything about the subject obviously), but in my mother’s case it wasn’t that complicated. The minister did what Jesus did, the way Jesus said to do it, and my mother got the results those recipients in the Bible got, that simple, why complicate it.

    No, evolutionay theory is not overwelmingly likely to be true, by it’s own rules, and is at present, unlikely to be true. There is of now no possible mathmatical formulation beyond pure theory that supports evolution in general as a sound science regardless of how one crunches the numbers, and numbers can be crunched to underline an agenda for grants of course, which is why evolution has to be classified a theory, even by it’s handlers. The usual cause for the ongoing perpatration is that “there can be no other possible alternative,” and any assumption that a missing part of the theory, plug ins, missing links, fossils, “is likely,” contridicts the fundamental rules of scientific method. Natural selection is matematically improbable to the point of an impossible logical conclusion (in relation to what we know is fact) and this is an equation you can work out yourself with a high school education regardless of how many galaxies the Hubble Telescope continues to discover; neither does time itself work in the theory’s favor. In some experiments it even seems to be proving the opposite. It’s all theory, the record is incomplete, and whatever “is likely” so far isn’t, and no conclusions are forseeable. That is the present state of the matter, even in light of so called conclusive evidenses within unfounded links, such as mutations etc. There is no evidence for a beginning of evolution, an incomplete middle, and an unresolved end.

    As to my mixiing up natural selection with how it all started, I see your point -I was just jumping ahead to our eventual arrival at present (forgive the short hand). The problem ultimatiely lies at the foundation, as you said, “we cannot prove matter coming into existance before the universe.” As to the quantum world, there was a paper published a few years ago where the author went so far as to call a phenominon “quantum faith” after team observations. If memory serves (and at my age in sometimes doesn’t) they discovered that the electron orbiting the nucleus is not always there in particle form but in a wave, or cloud, everywhere at once, until someone looks at it. A theory was put forth that it reacted to the observer’s intent, thus coining the phrase quantum faith, faith producing results – strange indeed. If indeed the quantum world gives evidence of will producing results then who knows what is possible between dimensions – we just don’t know.

    “It is only from the perspective of a ‘live’ planet that it seems so implausable.”

    Yes, of course, but that’s in the realm of fact, it is a live planet and this is what we know. You are still formulating a theory, and that’s fine.

    “Like any individual blade of grass would say, ‘What are the odds,’ if a golf ball landed exactly on it. But statisically these events will happen.”

    I don’t think so. They could happen. Will the blade still be there when the ball arrives, if it arrives? Is there enough time to make the event possible? Is the baloon effect in motion causing us to date the universe as being too old to begin with? I don’t think the numbers support that idea given present knowedge. Even if numbers say it can, the odds against natural selection being history are presently higher than that given for anything currently in existance, according to a recent paper.

    “Though it need not be a consious force; Indeed, no reason to believe nature is.”

    I don’t believe nature is consious in that respect, but it is alive and supports a consious force. Nature is set in motion however in seed form and carries out will and purpose and means to an end in a rather uniformed and ordered way, continuing to support life age after age. Like they say in the war room, “Looks like a plan to me.”

    Otherwise, your commentary on the pros and cons of using this forum is useful. Intent is difficult at times and very limiting as to actually getting a point across, at least for me. Thanks for your time. And like Hossrex I think I shall bow out of this thread as well. Stick a fork in it, it’s done. Thanks mike.

  295. Mike Felber Says:

    I just lost my long comment in cyberspace, I will rewrite it roughly.

    I appreciate the good will & honest expressions. For the record I want to oppose certain notions of science & what is believed & accepted. I still welcome all interactions herein.

    The absolutely overwhelming majority of scientists believe in Evolution. It is only a “theory” in the sense that we cannot observe all of its history & effects directly. I know of none who doubt it operates who are not informed by a strong religiously Fundamentalist bias-or preconception, if you like. But we have developed medicines like antibiotics & inoculations & concepts of hygiene that would be mostly impossible absent the understanding of the theory. There are many whole branches of science that support Evolution-Geology, Biology, genetics/DNA evidence, Paleontology…Something like just dating? Many sources, from Atomic 1/2 life, carbon, mitochondrial descent, strata/ positioning in the ground, etc…all dovetail within a very reasonable margin of error. There is really little doubt that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, & we can look “backwards”/more distance = the past, & see cosmology developed at various stages. Even if we somehow were off by, say, 15-20%, say about 2 BILLION years, we would have plenty of time for the development & diversification of life.

    I know of no vaguery re “balloon effect in motion” that would make all are time & distance measurements highly speculative. And I challenge anyone to show how a simple formulation shows any of evolution or its major dynamics are impossible, or at all unlikely. There is tons of “evidence” “proving” any crackpot theories-or just as dubious debunking of good theories. Alchemy, astrology, innumerable “quack” medical cures, most psychic claims, past life regression, alien visitation, channeling-I could go on for paragraphs. But such beliefs do not stand up to any decent testing.

    In contrast, we have sent something like Voyager spinning out of the Solar System, & have a good idea that other stars are 9in terms of human intuitive grasp) basically unimaginably distant. We observe the development of species not only in mutations, but characteristics like wing or tail form & length in the lab, as we observe closely & accelerate what normally takes a great deal of time-like we have “selected” for massively diverse pets, especially dogs. We provide electrical & chemical stimulation to inorganic compounds that clearly can assemble themselves into much more complex forms: & something like passing on an electrical charge is so much simpler than 1 celled animals, bacteria intermediate.

    There is a massive ignorance re: the “missing link” argument that some hold since the 19th century. No even proven system, let alone just very well established theory, can either claim to a)know all of what occurred in history, nor b)say there is nothing unknown about how all of its mechanisms might operate. Fossils & DNA evidence, though they can be used to trace ancestors & convict criminals, is fragile & rarely preserved by nature for long. It is amazing what we DO have. And if evolution was fanciful nonsense, we would have massive contradictions in timing, dates, lines of succession-instead, evidence discovered shows well how things developed, died out, or adapted to environmental conditions. Similar to how we identify & date iron & bronze age cultures & migrations, much better than through just reading parables from the sacred texts.

    There are innumerable metaphorical “blades of grass”. Billions of energetic catalysts can fail to produce anything, or make incremental change, & still given time & massive, continual chemical interactions, that things will develop from certain preconditions, becomes very likely, regardless of whether we can predict the form. The point of the golfer & child analogy is that only from the perspective the one who is “in” a certain condition that it might seem miraculous-it is an amazing thing to observe, but quite probable TO occur somewhere. This is just the nature of the science of statistics, broadly.

    I cannot fathom how something like mutations, so easily shown to exist in morphology & the associated chromosomal changes, are “unfounded”. And that 99% or so are harmful under present conditions fits in perfectly w/theory & observation in the field. There is much good ideas of how things could begin, but we will never show the exact place or almost certainly places that life 1st arose, it is not preserved anywhere, no science is “complete” in knowing all about it, & the end is, by nature, unknown. None of this speaks to a “strike” against evolution operating, its liklihood or mechanisms.

    Many scientists believe in God-many do not. But few do not realize that yyou can accept them both, when conceptions of God do not contradict good evidence & well supported theories about the natural world. The need to den the truth of evolution being as sound a science as so many, like Geology, & also supported by them in turn, is OVERWHELMINGLY a religious impulse: most of the rest of the developed, educated world is appalled by the level of scientific ignorance we have, & what % of folks are mindlessly or erroneously conditioned to believe evolution is far out or unlikely. Or that “creationism” or “intelligent design”-religious fanaticism in sheep’s clothing-qualifies remotely as a science. testable, repeatable, & falsifiable experiments & theories, it is not laden or “blessed” with.

    Quantum Mechanics DOES account for experimental results, & the theories explain phenomena, or allow us to understand theories, that otherwise are not as elegant, or outright, insoluble, on the level of convention physics. To go much further I would need to do research or get support (Kerry, where are you!) But I can say that it is not considered the “intent” behind an observer that alters something like a position, speed, direction-potentiates something that may otherwise have none of these “fixed” characteristics like these-including whether a wave or particle. No, it is just the very FACT of an observer that determines something. Maybe quantum “faith” is supposed to refer to that the intuitively irrational is believed, but will does not enter into resolving how things are-& unlike blind faith, it accounts for what we observe in not only theory, but what we observe on a microcosmic level.

    Nature having a dynamic that supports life SEEMS like a plan if you do not know how logically forces & forms will automatically develop from preceding conditions & forces. It acts AS IF there is a purpose, like a machine carries out certain functions. But we know enough to show how a tree, baby, or whole ecosystem automatically unfolds, & the general mechanisms that caused that to be.

    Lastly, if you admittedly know nothing about the petitionary prayer study I refer to, you have no cause at all to conclude they do not know about prayer. And one need not even be expert in a whole field to set proper & rigorous testing conditions. And a pediatrician or gynecologist need not be a child or woman. Familiarity w/subjective states is distinct from correct observation of causes & effects. I am not complicating your Mom’s amazing recovery when I say that what you describe must have occurred, but there is no scientific way to isolate causes from coincidence. That is why looking carefully at many subjects, & carefully controlling for who they are & all conditions, & testing for the 1 variable in question is so important. Something that can be carefully documented, a repeatable & falsifiable experiment.

    If someone says “a paper’ or “a study” & cites no sources, when the almost unanimous scien-terrific consensus is otherwise, then the conservative & rational thing to believe is that their evidence is likely as valid as that of pseudo-sciences like phrenology, Atlantis, Aryan superiority, etc…Thanks for listening all.

  296. Hossrex Says:

    When I first began reading about Quantum, my first thought was “oh my… this could be proof of a god!”

    I find it curious theist groups haven’t latched onto it yet.

    The double slit experiment is FASCINATING.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

  297. Mike Felber Says:

    Thank you Hoss, that is 1 great primer. Here is something that mirrors your God sentiment, & another that is a good basic review of current thoughts on the field:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqJOIQWkfWA&feature=related

    The “what the BLEEP do we know” excerpts: I recall thinking that there was some ironic inflexible militancy that nothing can be real or fixed on the conventional plane. There are amazing seeming contradictions & differing realities on the Quantum level, but also there are some far out & dubious conclusions reached about how intentions can effect things on the macro plane-using thoughts to change things “magically”, a la the secret. If we follow many videos, we get into new agey & unlikely theories-I think we need to be careful about what we accept as true, including whether there is infinite flexibility, like go back mentally & reverse a disease having even started…

    So though we should be conservative about accepting stuff like total plasticity of time & mind infinitely affecting reality, there is evidence that on the Planck scale, it does some that some spiritual traditions like Buddhism that talk about things like the unit of being, & tremendously potent potentiality of “emptyness”, the state preceding form, has much resonance w/this branch of modern science. Like latent energy, & how the universe is overwhelmingly open space on every level, & possibly that this open space related to a base luminosity that is both nothing & the potential for all from which wave/indeterminate states, & then actual/particles arise, is actually pure consciousness. If not that-I am a skeptic-then the energy that the machine of mind accesses is akin to, &/or coming from, the “emptyness”.

    What does anyone listening think? At any rate, 2 incisive quotes that were posted in response to Hoss’s video on the double slit:

    The experiment needs to be examined in a new way. Check out Nassim Haramein’s take on this in his latest coast to coast interview. Rather than supposing the balls are flying through empty space, or a vacuum of some kind, imagine instead that there is a sea of energy. The sea of energy defines the particle, the particle does not define the space. In this view the observers thoughts & intentions are rippling through the energy causing waves of their own, thus complexifying the results.

    the wave nature and particle nature of the electron are said to be complementary properties, the more you know about one, the less you know about the other. there is obviously a limit to the fineness of the humans’ powers of observation, regardless of technology, and therefore is inherent in the nature of all things. this understanding of the electron will be forever unknown.

  298. Michael Crowe Says:

    I thought we killed this thread.

    Mike: “I just lost my long comment in cyberspace.”

    Which I maintain is proof of fairies. Happens to me all the time.

    “It (evolution)is only a theory in that we can’t observe all it’s history and effects directly.”

    It remains a theory because it is not proven fact. There are facts within the theory but the fundamental ideas are unproven, in particular, that man has evolved from lower primates. One can believe the theory to be fact, But that isn’t science.

    “Even if we are off by … two billion years we would have plenty of time for the development and diversification of life.”

    How do you know? Again, theory, you’re assuming the theory is true. You don’t know that so therefore this is no more than science fiction at this point, as there is no scientic basis for that statement. Also the “baloon theory” were it to be true would make time and distance highly speculative – how could it not.

    “And I challenge anyone to show how a simple formulation shows any of evolution or it’s major dynamics are impossible, or at all unlikely.”

    Prove the theory first then we will see. Otherwise the challenge has no merit. What would this theory do if this theory were correct. There isn’t enough evidence for either to draw any calibrations.

    “If eveolution was fanciful nonsense we would have massive contridictions in timing, dates, …”

    That’s exactly what we have, massive contridictions in timing and dates. Scientist are not all in agreement with these findings. Quite the contrary in fact.

    “Nature having a dynamic that supports life seems like a plan … it acts as if there is a purpose ….but we know enough about a tree, baby, or whole ecosystem automaticly unfolds, & the general mechanisms that cause that to be.”

    Right, you just substanciated my point.

    “Lastly, if you admittedly know nothing about the petitionary prayer study I refer to, you have no cause at all to conclude that they do not know about prayer.”

    No offense intended, but if it’s Biblical prayer I can, as any scriptural prayer is always answered (1John 5: 14,15). That’s just one of the spiritual laws of Christianity. Other wise, point taken.

    “I am not complicationg your mom’s amazing recovery …”

    No, of course not. This is one of those examples you mentioned earlier where intent is lost in print. “Why complicate it,” was a rhetorical question. My fault.

    “If someone says a “paper” or “study” and cites no sourses, when the almost uninamous scien-terrific consensus is otherwise, then the conservative and rational thing to believe is that their evidence is likely as valid as that of pseudo-sciences like phrenology, Atlantis, Aryan superiority, ….”

    … and the evolution of man from lower primates. I agree, but it has been several years since I looked at all this, other than recieving the odd paper on the subject, and I haven’t the energy nor whim to be bothered to footnote my ramblings on a subject that I don’t particularly like. But I do find it interesting, and I must say that your last post was just that, fascinating. Irritating for me because I cannot currently downlwad Youtube. The Mess Faries you know.

  299. Hossrex Says:

    You don’t understand the word “theory” in a scientific sense.

    Evolution is a fact. The “Theory of Evolution” is how science explains the process. This “theory” is mutable (as is all of science) as new evidence presents itself, but every alteration of the theory since Darwin first made the idea famous have been to better define the process, not completely overhaul what was previously believed.

    Gravity is a “theory”.

  300. Chuck Says:

    So much for “I’m done”, huh, guys?

    You guys already exchanged personal email addresses.

    Here’s a tip.

    Use ‘em.

    Dugout Central’s chances at an Emmy went out the window with this crap.

    Thanks.

  301. Lefty33 Says:

    Maybe Joel Osteen could come by and mediate? Or how about Claude Osteen?

    The results would probably be the same.

  302. Michael Crowe Says:

    LOL! Chuck, you always seem to know how to sum up a fit and logical ending when the time comes. BTW I still support you for baseball commish. I’m outta here ..

  303. Mike Felber Says:

    Now Chuck (& Mr. Crowe) I did not agree to terminate the discussion. If only a few are discussing anything on this thread of substance, then how can it even be an inconvenience, let alone derail the otherwise abandoned thread? But I will be brief, & yes, can be contacted elsewhere as above.

    Thank you Hoss. That is a superbly pithy explanation of theory. I would say “essentially” fact, though as gravity & other basic force theory shows, extraordinary likely to be true.

    Mr. Crowe, I do not think you have a good grasp of the arguments for or against evolution, no disrespect intended. I knew a guy working for Hair Club For Men-he had done some “research” & was continually quoting on the phone to prospective clients that minoxidil only worked 2% of the time. But when I asked, he could recall no detail of sources. He clearly had cherry picked the results he was predisposed to like, & convinced himself it was true.

    There is nothing that makes Geological & Cosmological time likely to be mistaken more than a modest %. There are so many ways that time scales reinforce each other in not only the fossil record, but in terms of distance/red shifts. You are reporting a premise absent any support when you cast doubt here. Just knowing the speed of light & being able to track differences between very distant & a few light years away bodies, shows that space, thus age of the universe, is immense.

    It is strange how Fundamentalists actually make God’s creation so reduced to fit their bias. Grandiosity is highly circumscribed, ironically. My point about programed things unfolding supports not a master planner, but that systems fueled by “programs” like genes need no “clock winder’ to unfurl. That would add a wholly magical level to things where we have plenty enough indications, such as Quantum mechanics, how stuff begins to grow.

    It is amazingly circular to know nada re: authors of petitionary prayer studies, yet claim you do because a source tells you it is always answered. Hoss would also have a proverbial Field Day here… So if someone studies a subject, even theologically for years, yet do not believe every word of the Bible literally, they are ignorant of the subject?! So Dr.s doubting, say, 900 + year old people: they are ignorant of life span issues. Also, it is extremely self evident that tons of folks pray for ‘lil things like recovery & life, to absolutely no effect. Otherwise we WOULD have Noah/Methuselah aged dudes around everywhere!

    Lastly, hear the recent reports of DNA from a 4,000 year old Greenland man? He was from an extinct line that came over from Siberia. We know lots about even his appearance, due to gene sequencing work we would not even have had the capacity to do last year! Is it at all likely that big parts of what supports evolution, like DNA evidence & dating techniques are false, when it helps us track & solve so many problems? From familial time lines to human migration patterns to Forensic Anthropology to disease tendencies/control by group…The physical evidence supports what the high tech investigation shows. It is not like we are all deluded about solving real world problems & expanding knowledge. Out tools are imperfect, but very impressive.

  304. Hossrex Says:

    I think the part which confuses me most is that I don’t understand how the idea of evolution is at odds with any but the most devout fundamentalist.

    I have several good friends who are very religious (Baptists), who believe what the bible says is true (although allegorical, and metaphorical), and think that evolution is the method god designed into our genetic code to get life from point “A”, to point “B” without having to interfere with his “free will” mandate.

    In other words… evolution is the “how”, not the “why”.

    I disagree with that, but I certainly don’t take an issue with the concept.

    The universe simply isn’t 6,000 years old. That’s a fact, and the only argument against it demands that god created mountains of evidence just to trick people into thinking he doesn’t exist. He created the grand canyon 99.9% carved out. He created examples of transitionary forms for no reason. He created every star in the universe, and placed the light waves from each, mid-journey, exactly as far away as we’d expect to see if the stars had actually been billions of years old.

    He created an intricately and irrefutable system of physics, which is perfectly consistent in just about every way (and every day we’re finding reasons for why examples that seem inconsistent actually aren’t)… why?

    So the people who’s love he so desires might be tricked into not loving him?

    That would be like a husband writing series of meticulously crafted love letters from another woman… having random women call the house asking for him at all hours of the night… spraying himself with women’s perfume before he gets home from work… all for what… so his wife will have doubts about whether or not he loves her, because he doesn’t want her to love him because he’s actually faithful, he wants her to love him unquestionably, regardless of how contrary that might be to common sense? Her love doesn’t count, unless she’s able to put all doubts aside, and love him simply because he’s her husband?

    Regardless of how loving the husband might be once the wife does accept him despite the evidence, regardless of how he might shower her with treasures and happiness, regardless of how perfect her life will be if she’s just able to deny rational thinking… is that a healthy relationship?

    That’s not how I want to live my life.

  305. Chuck Says:

    This stopped being a relevant baseball discussion 250 comments ago.

    On the corner of Baseball Drive and Dugout Central Avenue, that’s the topic to preach.

    If you want to take a thread or article and turn it into something else, there’s plenty of street corners for you and your soapbox.

    Just not on mine.

  306. Mike Felber Says:

    Elegant & pithy post Hoss. Well wrought & thought.

    I was all set to apologize for cluttering up the author’s thread, then checked to confirm my ignorance that I missed that you wrote this article Chuck. But if any other author or organizer of the Web Site complains about irrelevant posts, that is different from the general public who can just skip what they do not like & should not be censoring content. So sorry if anyone who runs the site, or composed an article, does not like far afield comments. Those parties do have a right to ask us to find another forum.

    I have seen long digressions about work, hobbies, & cultural topics before, & tend to feel just letting folks go if they are not abusive is best. Openness to all, freedom of expression if it harms nobody, etc…But it is fair to accept that those who run things, or created the product, make that choice.

Leave a Reply


RSS
Categories
Fan Duel
FanDuel - Daily Fantasy Baseball
YardBarker
Advertisement