hey voltron - Page 5

sublime · #41 09-14-2005, 09:23 PM

i know they are different cases, giambi has done steroids in the past. but i dont think theres any evidence at all to show hes on them now, and I don't believe he is at all.

his stats pattern, coupled with his past?

Voltron87 · #42 09-14-2005, 09:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i know they are different cases, giambi has done steroids in the past. but i dont think theres any evidence at all to show hes on them now, and I don't believe he is at all.

his stats pattern, coupled with his past?

[/ QUOTE ]

i think its pretty unfair to go around accusing players of having used steroids because of the patterns of their stats. it makes me go "hmmmmm" but its the definition of circumstantial evidence.

sublime · #43 09-14-2005, 09:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i know they are different cases, giambi has done steroids in the past. but i dont think theres any evidence at all to show hes on them now, and I don't believe he is at all.

his stats pattern, coupled with his past?

[/ QUOTE ]

i think its pretty unfair to go around accusing players of having used steroids because of the patterns of their stats. it makes me go "hmmmmm" but its the definition of circumstantial evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

chris-

when you compile all the circumstantial evidence (age, surge in production) and add it to the solid evidence we have from the past (admittance) i think its pretty hard to to give him the benefit of the doubt.

there is no point in continuing this discussion, you think I'm on a witch hunt and i think you being selectively naive.

Voltron87 · #44 09-14-2005, 10:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i know they are different cases, giambi has done steroids in the past. but i dont think theres any evidence at all to show hes on them now, and I don't believe he is at all.

his stats pattern, coupled with his past?

[/ QUOTE ]

i think its pretty unfair to go around accusing players of having used steroids because of the patterns of their stats. it makes me go "hmmmmm" but its the definition of circumstantial evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

chris-

when you compile all the circumstantial evidence (age, surge in production) and add it to the solid evidence we have from the past (admittance) i think its pretty hard to to give him the benefit of the doubt.

there is no point in continuing this discussion, you think I'm on a witch hunt and i think you being selectively naive.

[/ QUOTE ]

well youre right that its pointless and that I think youre on a witch hunt and biased. in my mind, right now there is no solid evidence against him so that is what im basing my opinion on. i am biased as well for obvious reasons.

Jack of Arcades · #45 09-15-2005, 12:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
#2's the best place for A-Rod.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Giambi seems like a clearly better choice to bat 2nd.

A-Rod and Giambi have been essentially equal in rate stats this year (Giambi: .349 Eqa, A-Rod, .344). The difference is Giambi has been better at getting on base, while A-Rod has hit with more power. Seems pretty clear you want Giambi hitting before A-Rod.

Coincidentally, this also keeps the R-L-R pattern going if Jeter bats first.

[/ QUOTE ]

Giambi can't run for [censored], though.

brettbrettr · #46 09-15-2005, 10:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
hahaha, yeah cuz if a guy like john olerud had a history of steriod abuse and was putting up barry bonds like #'s after sucking for close to two years you would be like "oh well"

[/ QUOTE ]

He was ill.

brettbrettr · #47 09-15-2005, 03:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or perhaps the guys who want him to be cheating are clinging.

[/ QUOTE ]
What does that even mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

It means he refuses to believe that he could just be a great hitter. He's ignoring the fact that Giambi was very sick last year and attributes his current ability to hit with steroids and ignores the fact that he's no longer sick.

He was on steroids and he hit. He was sick and off steroids and didn't hit. Now he's hitting and he isn't sick. Given the fact that he gets tested often I think Sublime just needs to admit that this guy can be a great hitter sans roids.

JayLear · #48 09-15-2005, 03:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or perhaps the guys who want him to be cheating are clinging.

[/ QUOTE ]
What does that even mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

It means he refuses to believe that he could just be a great hitter. He's ignoring the fact that Giambi was very sick last year and attributes his current ability to hit with steroids and ignores the fact that he's no longer sick.

He was on steroids and he hit. He was sick and off steroids and didn't hit. Now he's hitting and he isn't sick. Given the fact that he gets tested often I think Sublime just needs to admit that this guy can be a great hitter sans roids.

[/ QUOTE ]
Very well. You can certainly believe what you want. But I think people are allowed to be skeptical about his performance, based on his admitted history. And frankly since he's earned this skepticism, it's not unfair. I think there's a big difference between somebody raising an eyebrow and "guys that want him to be cheating". Nobody wants him to be cheating. Whether he's cheating right now or not, he cheated before, which makes him a cheater.

brettbrettr · #49 09-15-2005, 03:31 PM

I understand that people are going to be skeptical. I dont' entirely understand the absolute he must be cheating chit.

As for this cheater stuff, sure. But cheating once doesn't mean he's a cheater for life. I stole a pack of baseball cards from a store when I was 8 and I don't at this point in time consider myself a thief.

Also, for my informtation, when were steroids banned in the MLB?

JayLear · #50 09-15-2005, 10:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, for my informtation, when were steroids banned in the MLB?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a bit of a copout, no? If it was illegal in society, it's a no-no in baseball, whether or not it's spelled out specifically in the rules. Otherwise, where's the harm in doing it openly?