PDA

View Full Version : Bill Simmons suggests Millar may have been juicing



Mark19
11-22-05, 03:07 PM
Part of an unsufferable Page 2 article in which he messes his pants talking about Cy Beckett and Babe Lowell.


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/051122


Speaking of Lowell, I'm excited for this aspect of the trade -- has there ever been a Red Sox player making nine million a year who carried no expectations whatsover? If he stinks, well, he's supposed to stink -- he's the lemon we had to take to get Josh Beckett. If he shows any rejuvenation at all, it's a bonus. Worst-case scenario, he replaces Kevin Millar as the team's "right-handed slugger who used to hit for power right up to the year they started testing for steroids, I'm sure it's just a crazy coincidence" guy. Every team needs one of those guys -- it's always fun to compare before/after photos on the Internet, make those "wow, in 2003, that's out of there!" jokes after every warning track flyball, and so on. Then, if the guy starts hitting again, you can make the "uh-oh, looks like someone's getting B-12 shots from Miggy Tejada again!" jokes. Really, it's a no-lose all the way around. I'm already enjoying the Mike Lowell Era.

BronxByTheBay
11-22-05, 03:09 PM
Heeheehee...that Simmons is a card I tell ya.

(I actually do like the guy.)

wwjdd
11-22-05, 03:14 PM
Part of an unsufferable Page 2 article in which he messes his pants talking about Cy Beckett and Babe Lowell.[/i]

You do realize that Simmons is writing to entertain?

Mark19
11-22-05, 03:23 PM
You do realize that Simmons is writing to entertain?

If everyone at Page 2 rooted for a different team, I might enjoy the cutesy Boston love but every single writer is always ripping the Yankees. That being said, until they start appealing to the other 98% of baseball fans, I'll stick to my distaste.

Snatch Catch
11-22-05, 03:23 PM
You do realize that Simmons is writing to entertain?


Yes, but he has always tried to pass off his writing as sports truth laced with pop culture humor.

His idiocy regarding the whole A-Rod/Ortiz MVP debate was hilarious, as you could actually read him getting worked up in his writing.

JeffWeaverFan
11-22-05, 03:26 PM
Simmons is actually a really funny writer. He's a complete homer but he's hilarious. As for Millar, Simmons is just stating a fact. When they started testing for steroids, Millar's power dissapeared. (As did Lowell's).

wwjdd
11-22-05, 03:26 PM
Yes, but he has always tried to pass off his writing as sports truth laced with pop culture humor.

His idiocy regarding the whole A-Rod/Ortiz MVP debate was hilarious, as you could actually read him getting worked up in his writing.

I don't know. Maybe because I am a Boston fan I find him to be fun to read, but I never take him seriously. If I were a NY fan I guess he could get irritating. I still wouldn't take him seriously though.

JeffWeaverFan
11-22-05, 03:29 PM
I don't know. Maybe because I am a Boston fan I find him to be fun to read, but I never take him seriously. If I were a NY fan I guess he could get irritating. I still wouldn't take him seriously though.
I just don't read most his Red Sox vs. Yankee stuff. Or, when I do, I realize exactly what he is, and that's fine.

Mark19
11-22-05, 03:31 PM
Compared to Jim Caple, Simmons can be tolerated in small doses. It just struck me as a bit irresponsible to joke about steroid use at a time when innuendo dominates the discussion.

wwjdd
11-22-05, 03:32 PM
Compared to Jim Caple, Simmons can be tolerated in small doses. It just struck me as a bit irresponsible to joke about steroid use at a time when innuendo dominates the discussion.

No argument from me there.

Workhorse
11-22-05, 03:32 PM
Simmons is actually a really funny writer. He's a complete homer but he's hilarious. As for Millar, Simmons is just stating a fact. When they started testing for steroids, Millar's power dissapeared. (As did Lowell's).

As did Bernie Williams'.

But is it causal?

gold23
11-22-05, 03:33 PM
The thing about Simmons is that he is completely open and honest about his love of all things Boston. I don't mind that- he is biased, tells you he is biased, and then writes columns slanted with a Bostonian mindset. Absolutely no issue with that.

He doesn't pretend he's a real journalist- he uses his column as a way to entertain with usually funny jokes and express his opinion. He is a fan first- and his writing expresses the emotions of a fan and not a journalist who tries to hide his or her allegiances.

gold23
11-22-05, 03:35 PM
As did Bernie Williams'.

But is it causal?


Bernie's power dissipated slightly with age and two shoulders that were torn apart. Millar's power dissapeared overnight, it seemed. Difference.

Little Big Sheff
11-22-05, 03:51 PM
Yes, but he has always tried to pass off his writing as sports truth laced with pop culture humor.

His idiocy regarding the whole A-Rod/Ortiz MVP debate was hilarious, as you could actually read him getting worked up in his writing.

He admitted later on that his position wasn't consistent with his complete demolition of the Nash-for-MVP case a few months ago.

(And guess who e-mailed him about that?)

nyyterp
11-22-05, 03:55 PM
Bernie's power dissipated slightly with age and two shoulders that were torn apart. Millar's power dissapeared overnight, it seemed. Difference.

bernie had two major SLG drop at 33 and last season at 36. (major drop is 70+ points)

millar had his one big drop last season at 33.

it's too early to draw conclusions that it was steroids.

Jace
11-22-05, 04:23 PM
Bill Simmons is a good writer. I don't mind anything he says, as he is A) funny and insightful and B) not just being vitriolic and hateful (or just taking an anti-Yankee stance cause it sells) like half the writers that don't like the Yankees- he actually loves the Red Sox. He also always gives the Yankees credit when he feels it is due (which is pretty regularly). He's just a fan with a talent for finding things in common with his readers.

In this case about Millar, I think you just need to read Simmons more often. Its just one of his half-serious hunches that he throws out there ALL THE TIME (i mean, this is about a Red Sox player) just for emphasis of his point, because you can usually see in your mind's eye these hunches being true.

Jace
11-22-05, 04:27 PM
Yes, but he has always tried to pass off his writing as sports truth laced with pop culture humor.

His idiocy regarding the whole A-Rod/Ortiz MVP debate was hilarious, as you could actually read him getting worked up in his writing.

But he's not really a baseball aficionado and doesn't claim to be, he just loves the Red Sox. He is basically saying "If it were up to me, Ortiz would be MVP because I think he's awesome, but its not up to me for a good reason- I don't know enough about this"

gold23
11-22-05, 04:37 PM
Bill Simmons is a good writer. I don't mind anything he says, as he is A) funny and insightful and B) not just being vitriolic and hateful (or just taking an anti-Yankee stance cause it sells) like half the writers that don't like the Yankees- he actually loves the Red Sox. He also always gives the Yankees credit when he feels it is due (which is pretty regularly). He's just a fan with a talent for finding things in common with his readers.

In this case about Millar, I think you just need to read Simmons more often. Its just one of his half-serious hunches that he throws out there ALL THE TIME (i mean, this is about a Red Sox player) just for emphasis of his point, because you can usually see in your mind's eye these hunches being true.


He wrote a great piece on Torre a few years back, basically saying that the man was Midas and he was jealous as a Red Sox fan.

His "Paradise Lost" column the day after Game 7 in '03 is a classic, from the heart, piece of writing. Anyone who has not read that piece would do well to pull it up.

He's funny, he's topical, and he writes from the perspective of a mid-30's sports nut.

highheat2014
11-22-05, 04:53 PM
Simmons is actually a really funny writer. He's a complete homer but he's hilarious. As for Millar, Simmons is just stating a fact. When they started testing for steroids, Millar's power dissapeared. (As did Lowell's).

Millar - maybe.

Lowell - I doubt it---reports are his problems last year might have been due to vision. I would also highly doubt a cancer survivor would juice.



DISAPPOINTMENT: Traditionally a fast starter, 3B Mike Lowell slumped from the beginning of the year, with a major dip in his average and power statistics. Though he played Gold Glove-caliber defense, Lowell said he at times had trouble seeing the ball. He repeatedly missed pitches he used to smack. Expected to hit fifth behind 1B Carlos Delgado, Lowell ended up batting seventh much of the season. He worked to refine his swing but did not improve.--Joe Frisaro

Jdkush10
11-22-05, 05:15 PM
The thing about Simmons is that he is completely open and honest about his love of all things Boston. I don't mind that- he is biased, tells you he is biased, and then writes columns slanted with a Bostonian mindset. Absolutely no issue with that.

He doesn't pretend he's a real journalist- he uses his column as a way to entertain with usually funny jokes and express his opinion. He is a fan first- and his writing expresses the emotions of a fan and not a journalist who tries to hide his or her allegiances.

Very well put. He doesn't expect or want to be taken seriously, and he tells the reader to never take him seriously. Remember, he's always saying "The lesson, as always...I'm an idiot." He knows his writing is slanted, he doesn't try to hide it, yet he tries to entertain all fans. He does consistently give the Yankees their due, and he doesn't seem to have nearly as hard of a time doing it as some writers do (see: Caple, Jim). I don't know why some people get all worked up about the things he writes. It's the Howard Stern theorem: if you don't like the guy, don't read it/listen to it.

I understand how he might be annoying to some, but he has some great and creative "conspiracy theories", points of view, and comparisons. I look forward to every article he writes, even though I know that in almost all of them he'll take a shot at the Yankees or their players. But the key is to never take him seriously - he knows that he would take A-Rod in a second on the Sox, but since A-Rod is popular media fodder and is hated by many, he writes about him. The only thing that really bugs me about him is his severe man-crush on Tom Brady.

hobokenfish
11-22-05, 05:21 PM
Yes, but he has always tried to pass off his writing as sports truth laced with pop culture humor.

His idiocy regarding the whole A-Rod/Ortiz MVP debate was hilarious, as you could actually read him getting worked up in his writing.

I don't think Simmons claims to write the "truth." He pretty much writes from the point of view of the everyday fan. He doesn't pretend to be neutral and unbiased, and I like him for that. He's a Red Sox, Pats, and Celts fan and writes his column from that perspective. So it is not surprising he hates the Yankees and would advocate Ortiz for MVP (and there was not a bad argument to make, even from someone non-biased, but I won't get into that). I think he's funny as hell and I enjoy his column. I actually laughed out loud in my office when I saw that line about Millar and Lowell.

Kulish29
11-22-05, 05:40 PM
You do realize that Simmons is writing to entertain?

He should try to do a better job.

Kulish29
11-22-05, 05:42 PM
Lowell is a testicular cancer survivor. It's possible that he could've done steroids, but I think with all that he's been through, he wouldnt touch the stuff.

StaceyRosie
11-22-05, 05:44 PM
Worst-case scenario, he replaces Kevin Millar as the team's "right-handed slugger who used to hit for power right up to the year they started testing for steroids, I'm sure it's just a crazy coincidence" guy.

:roflmao:

SoCal Pinstriper
11-22-05, 05:54 PM
Simmons is a very talented writer who happens to be from New England, a geographic fact that he has chosen to embrace by writing from the standpoint of a fan rather than posing as an unbiased "journalist." He doesn't make any attempt to disguise his fandom behind a cloak of objectivity (a weakness of many who write on sports).

When I read his stuff I know what I'm getting before I click on the link to open the page, and, for the most part, I get an entertaining column. As pointed out above, he is not above occasionally praising the Yankees, his NFL columns offer a combination of gambler's insight and off beat humor that I don't get anywhere else, and, most amazingly, when I finish one of his NBA pieces, I feel like I might be missing somthing by not following the "association" (then I watch part of a game and realize that Simmons writing on the subject is far more entertaining than the action on the court).

To me, Simmons is a welcome part of the sports landscape (who happens to root for the wrong baseball team).

Dooley Womack
11-24-05, 03:00 AM
You do realize that Simmons is writing to entertain?

The Lowell taking steroids rumor isn't new. I think Simmons took it from there and added some of his humor to it.

YankeePride1967
11-24-05, 08:30 AM
Millar - maybe.

Lowell - I doubt it---reports are his problems last year might have been due to vision. I would also highly doubt a cancer survivor would juice.

I want to preface it by saying I do not think he juiced, but your last sentence could be used as an argument in the opposite to give him a reason to juice. Coming back from cancer, not yet in full shape, why not shoot up a bit to expedite the process? Use roids to recover faster. Again I don't think he did but the fact that he is a cancer survivor could be used in both arguments.

Jasbro
11-24-05, 08:50 PM
As did Bernie Williams'.

But is it causal?

Wow, nice bait.

I Love Wang
11-24-05, 09:23 PM
Wow, nice bait.

Yep, thats pretty much all he does here.

dabomb2045
11-24-05, 09:46 PM
I like Simmons alot....he is very entertaining. Yes he hates the Yankees...but he is a die-hard Sox fan, so I respect that.

Jim Caple is a bad writer, and is just a Yankee hater because its the "cool thing" to do....thats why I hate Caple

NYYBombshell
11-25-05, 01:17 AM
As did Bernie Williams'.

But is it causal?



Hmmmmmmmmmmm, nice subtle but not so subtle way of implying that Bernie juiced.


That was like, mature.

Workhorse
11-25-05, 02:24 PM
Wow, nice bait.

That's bait but the Lowell comments AREN'T bait?

Okay.

I Love Wang
11-25-05, 02:32 PM
That's bait but the Lowell comments AREN'T bait?

Okay.

Bait for who? First of all, it was in an article already, second of all, Mike Lowell has been a Marlin for the past several years, and MOST of all, this is a Yankee forum. If I want to say the Red Sox are a team of dirty-juicing cheaters who bang underage hookers, I'm saying it for the amusement of my fellow Yankee fan forumers. A Red Sox fan who comes in and implies that Bernie Williams, a beloved lifetime Yankee, was a steroid user is a troll, and should be banned. What you're doing here in the first place is beyond me, but if you don't like it when we have mean things to say about your beloved precious team, then go to a site that is less likely to have anti-Red Sox posts. Perhaps a Red Sox fan forum would be a good place to start.

Dooley Womack
11-26-05, 12:27 AM
Bait for who? First of all, it was in an article already, second of all, Mike Lowell has been a Marlin for the past several years, and MOST of all, this is a Yankee forum. If I want to say the Red Sox are a team of dirty-juicing cheaters who bang underage hookers, I'm saying it for the amusement of my fellow Yankee fan forumers. A Red Sox fan who comes in and implies that Bernie Williams, a beloved lifetime Yankee, was a steroid user is a troll, and should be banned. What you're doing here in the first place is beyond me, but if you don't like it when we have mean things to say about your beloved precious team, then go to a site that is less likely to have anti-Red Sox posts. Perhaps a Red Sox fan forum would be a good place to start.
Click

NYYBombshell
11-26-05, 12:31 AM
Click


What a cute little animation!

BronxByTheBay
11-26-05, 12:37 AM
I don't think Simmons claims to write the "truth." He pretty much writes from the point of view of the everyday fan. He doesn't pretend to be neutral and unbiased, and I like him for that. He's a Red Sox, Pats, and Celts fan and writes his column from that perspective. So it is not surprising he hates the Yankees and would advocate Ortiz for MVP (and there was not a bad argument to make, even from someone non-biased, but I won't get into that). I think he's funny as hell and I enjoy his column. I actually laughed out loud in my office when I saw that line about Millar and Lowell.

Agreed on all of it. Simmons is about the only writer I enjoy reading over at ESPN.com. It's one thing to not think the guy's funny - that's subjective. But to claim he presents himself as anything other than a fan babbling about sports is wildly off the mark.

Stupid Flanders
11-28-05, 01:58 PM
I have no beef with Simmons.

I do have beef with pretty much everyone else on Page 2, because it's really BostonDirtDogsLite, no matter how they spin it.

Workhorse
11-28-05, 02:09 PM
Bait for who? First of all, it was in an article already, second of all, Mike Lowell has been a Marlin for the past several years, and MOST of all, this is a Yankee forum. If I want to say the Red Sox are a team of dirty-juicing cheaters who bang underage hookers, I'm saying it for the amusement of my fellow Yankee fan forumers. A Red Sox fan who comes in and implies that Bernie Williams, a beloved lifetime Yankee, was a steroid user is a troll, and should be banned. What you're doing here in the first place is beyond me, but if you don't like it when we have mean things to say about your beloved precious team, then go to a site that is less likely to have anti-Red Sox posts. Perhaps a Red Sox fan forum would be a good place to start.


I'm just looking for intelligent baseball conversation. And you've more than made my point for me with your response, which is simply this: A 2005 drop in production for a non-Yankee brings suggestions of steroids. A similar 2005 drop in production for a Yankee mentioned in the same breath and you're suggesting that I should be banned from the site. Personally, I don't think steroids has anything to do with either case.

As for the "anti-Red Sox fan on a Yankee Board" rant, it's tired. You might want to find some new schtick.

I Love Wang
11-28-05, 02:28 PM
I'm just looking for intelligent baseball conversation. And you've more than made my point for me with your response, which is simply this: A 2005 drop in production for a non-Yankee brings suggestions of steroids. A similar 2005 drop in production for a Yankee mentioned in the same breath and you're suggesting that I should be banned from the site. Personally, I don't think steroids has anything to do with either case.

As for the "anti-Red Sox fan on a Yankee Board" rant, it's tired. You might want to find some new schtick.

What is this thread? Is it "Bill Simmons suggest Millar may have been juicing?" I think so. In the article Simmons wrote, does he not also suggest that Lowell may have been juicing? So wouldn't it seem logical for us to be discussing THAT? But, because you're a troll, you came in here and dropped Bernie Williams name. That's baiting. Lowell's name was brought up BY SIMMONS. You responded to JWF acknowledging this fact by implying that Bernie Williams was a steroid user. And foolishly, I might add. He hasn't been the same hitter since he hurt himself in 2003. And, he's 36, and has been in a noticeable decline for quite some time.

Regarding my point about you being a Sox fan on a Yankee board, you accused JWF of baiting with the Lowell comment, which, in the first place, is nonsense, since he was only acknowledging that it was in the article, which was, incidentally, written by a Red Sox fan. But, that isn't the point. The point is, an anti-Red Sox comment on a Yankee board isn't baiting, because Yankee fans aren't going to get pissed off about them. When you go onto another teams' fansite and accuse one of their best players of the last decade of being a steroid user, you're a troll, and you're baiting.

Sam18
11-28-05, 02:58 PM
I'm just looking for intelligent baseball conversation

:roflmao: :roflmao:

MiamiKat
11-28-05, 03:09 PM
I'm just looking for intelligent baseball conversation.
In a thread discussing a Bill Simmons article.

Where Bernie Williams' name wasn't even mentioned until you brought it up.

Yeah. Right.

:roflmao:

YankyDave
11-28-05, 03:10 PM
Bill Simmons is a schill for the Sox. Why a national outlet like ESPN employs him baffles me.

Steph19
11-28-05, 03:17 PM
I read Workhorse's comment as "assumedly, Bernie didn't take steroids and he declined too so it could be the same for Lowell."

Maybe he did mean to say that Bernie might've been on steroids... I don't know... Perhaps it was a bit out of place but we don't have to kill every Red Sox fan. I personally like having the other side comment once in a while.

I Love Wang
11-28-05, 03:22 PM
I read Workhorse's comment as "assumedly, Bernie didn't take steroids and he declined too so it could be the same for Lowell."

Maybe he did mean to say that Bernie might've been on steroids... I don't know... Perhaps it was a bit out of place but we don't have to kill every Red Sox fan. I personally like having the other side comment once in a while.

Gosh, you're an upbeat lady!

MiamiKat
11-28-05, 03:27 PM
I read Workhorse's comment as "assumedly, Bernie didn't take steroids and he declined too so it could be the same for Lowell."

Maybe he did mean to say that Bernie might've been on steroids... I don't know... Perhaps it was a bit out of place but we don't have to kill every Red Sox fan. I personally like having the other side comment once in a while.
Once in a while? There is no shortage on this board of comments made by Red Sox fans. http://www.nyyfans.com/forums/images/smilies/icon8.gif

Furthermore, why bring Bernie into the discussion at all? He wasn't mentioned in the article.

This board has an upfront "Bronx Bias", which means there are different rules here for fans of other teams. For a Red Sox fan to, out of the blue, cast aspersions on a Yankee, particularly one as beloved as Bernie, is baiting. Plain & simple.

NYYBombshell
11-28-05, 04:59 PM
I'm just looking for intelligent baseball conversation.


Oh, is that so? Then why did you mention Bernie Williams in a thread that had nothing to do with Bernie Williams?


Care to answer?

Jasbro
11-28-05, 05:53 PM
That's bait but the Lowell comments AREN'T bait?

Okay.

Lowell was mentioned in the actual article by Simmons that is the very basis of this thread!!!! :lol:

Please stop embarrassing yourself with your transparent trolling under the guise of searching for "intelligent conversation".

Archer1979
11-28-05, 07:06 PM
Once in a while? There is no shortage on this board of comments made by Red Sox fans. http://www.nyyfans.com/forums/images/smilies/icon8.gif

Furthermore, why bring Bernie into the discussion at all? He wasn't mentioned in the article.

This board has an upfront "Bronx Bias", which means there are different rules here for fans of other teams. For a Red Sox fan to, out of the blue, cast aspersions on a Yankee, particularly one as beloved as Bernie, is baiting. Plain & simple.

Kat, FWIW, I don't think he was trying to knock Bernie down. I may be wrong, but if he was accusing Bernie of "juicing", it would nullify his argument. That argument being that if someone has a legit reason for a dropoff (ie Bernie and age), why can't Millar and Lowell have a dropoff as well.

I'm thinking Workhorse's problem was that he was too brief.

Back on-topic...

I don't think either Lowell nor Millar's dropoff had anything to do with steroids.

Millar sucked for a good portion of last year too. He changed his stance to a more open stance and was light's out for about three weeks. This year, with the exception of a couple key hits, he didn't have much.

As far as Mike Lowell, I don't follow the Marlins too close, but if you replaced one of my "boys" with a marble, my OPS wouldn't be the only thing falling.

MiamiKat
11-28-05, 08:03 PM
Kat, FWIW, I don't think he was trying to knock Bernie down. I may be wrong, but if he was accusing Bernie of "juicing", it would nullify his argument. That argument being that if someone has a legit reason for a dropoff (ie Bernie and age), why can't Millar and Lowell have a dropoff as well.

I'm thinking Workhorse's problem was that he was too brief.
Sorry, Arch...I'm standing by what I said before.

If Workhorse simply wanted to prove a point, he would have brought up a different player from another team who's had a similar, rapid dropoff in performance to Millar's and Lowell's. I'm sure there are players like that who, unlike Millar and Lowell, have never been rumored to use steroids.

Given that, why did he bring up Bernie instead? A player whose decline (sadly) has taken place over a far longer period of time? And who has specific injuries (both shoulders) that can be pointed to as a contributing cause of his decline, along with age?

Because he was baiting.

Archer1979
11-28-05, 08:36 PM
Sorry, Arch...I'm standing by what I said before.

If Workhorse simply wanted to prove a point, he would have brought up a different player from another team who's had a similar, rapid dropoff in performance to Millar's and Lowell's. I'm sure there are players like that who, unlike Millar and Lowell, have never been rumored to use steroids.

Given that, why did he bring up Bernie instead? A player whose decline (sadly) has taken place over a far longer period of time? And who has specific injuries (both shoulders) that can be pointed to as a contributing cause of his decline, along with age?

Because he was baiting.

Believe me when I say that I see where you're coming from, and I can't profess to know why Workhorse chose the words or the manner that he did, I just don't see where he implied Bernie of steroid abuse. To me, the implication is exactly the opposite if he was trying to make the point that I think he was trying to make.

Personally, I, myself, would have taken a different route.

Just my :-2cents-:.

Jasbro
11-28-05, 08:45 PM
Believe me when I say that I see where you're coming from, and I can't profess to know why Workhorse chose the words or the manner that he did, I just don't see where he implied Bernie of steroid abuse. To me, the implication is exactly the opposite if he was trying to make the point that I think he was trying to make.

Personally, I, myself, would have taken a different route.

Just my :-2cents-:.

Why do you feel the need to defend what was undeniably a bait?

Workhorse as much as admitted that it was a counter-bait to a perceived attack against Lowell that his imagination somehow conjured up:


That's bait but the Lowell comments AREN'T bait?


He obviously did not read any part of this thread other than the discussion about whether folks here think Lowell might be a juicer -- which was implied by Simmons, not by any fan here. He then lamely tried to prove some strange point and teach us some sort of weird lesson by throwing Bernie Williams into the mix.

When a Red Sox fan does that on a Yankees fan board, it is baiting, plain and simple. You usually are a fairly reasonable person here -- it is a shame to see you lose credibility as a fair-minded Red Sox fan by defending the indefensible.

MiamiKat
11-28-05, 09:00 PM
Believe me when I say that I see where you're coming from, and I can't profess to know why Workhorse chose the words or the manner that he did, I just don't see where he implied Bernie of steroid abuse. To me, the implication is exactly the opposite if he was trying to make the point that I think he was trying to make.

Personally, I, myself, would have taken a different route.

Just my http://www.nyyfans.com/forums/images/smilies/new/1/2cents.gif.
You're overthinking this, Arch. There wasn't any logic involved or any argument being put forth.

He threw Bernie's name out there just to piss off Yankee fans because Red Sox players were being discussed as possible steroid users.

It was baiting, pure & simple.

Archer1979
11-28-05, 09:40 PM
Why do you feel the need to defend what was undeniably a bait?

First, let's be real clear on this... I am in no way suggesting Bernie Williams is on steroids. If I thought that is what he meant, I would be sitting in the Sports Bar making up dirty thread titles right now and letting you guys have your way with him. I didn't read what he wrote as saying Bernie was on steroids. I can see how Yankee fans would hear the terms "Bernie Williams", "steroids", and "bad year" come from a Sox fan and just go off. If the same thing had been said about Dwight Evans, I'd probably have done the same.

Maybe as Kat said, I'm over-thinking this, but not having a lot of experience with Workhorse, I'm taking this one post on its own merit.


Workhorse as much as admitted that it was a counter-bait to a perceived attack against Lowell that his imagination somehow conjured up:

I saw that too. It doesn't help my argument at all, but by that time, I'm guessing he started stepping on the land-mines.


When a Red Sox fan does that on a Yankees fan board, it is baiting, plain and simple. You usually are a fairly reasonable person here -- it is a shame to see you lose credibility as a fair-minded Red Sox fan by defending the indefensible.

This last piece is probably the reason I'm involving myself where I probably should have kept my mouth shut. I couldn't tell you if Workhorse is baiting or trolling or whatever. There's enough doubt in my mind based solely on his first post that says maybe there was an overreaction. Subsequent posts after that are his defense mechanism and he's got to defend that.

But when folks start dealing in absolutes like "When a Red Sox fan does this" or "Why else would a Red Sox fan be here?" when I know that there are a good number of Sox fans here who are here for the right reasons, that I get a tad defensive.

If I lose credibility because of that, then so be it.

I Love Wang
11-28-05, 09:43 PM
First, let's be real clear on this... I am in no way suggesting Bernie Williams is on steroids. If I thought that is what he meant, I would be sitting in the Sports Bar making up dirty thread titles right now and letting you guys have your way with him. I didn't read what he wrote as saying Bernie was on steroids. I can see how Yankee fans would hear the terms "Bernie Williams", "steroids", and "bad year" come from a Sox fan and just go off. If the same thing had been said about Dwight Evans, I'd probably have done the same.

Maybe as Kat said, I'm over-thinking this, but not having a lot of experience with Workhorse, I'm taking this one post on its own merit.



I saw that too. It doesn't help my argument at all, but by that time, I'm guessing he started stepping on the land-mines.



This last piece is probably the reason I'm involving myself where I probably should have kept my mouth shut. I couldn't tell you if Workhorse is baiting or trolling or whatever. There's enough doubt in my mind based solely on his first post that says maybe there was an overreaction. Subsequent posts after that are his defense mechanism and he's got to defend that.

But when folks start dealing in absolutes like "When a Red Sox fan does this" or "Why else would a Red Sox fan be here?" when I know that there are a good number of Sox fans here who are here for the right reasons, that I get a tad defensive.

If I lose credibility because of that, then so be it.

Get lost, troll.

scull567
11-28-05, 10:01 PM
Get lost, troll.

You've been here for less than 2 months. You should really get to know the people here before you make silly accusations like that.

I Love Wang
11-28-05, 10:03 PM
You've been here for less than 2 months. You should really get to know the people here before you make silly accusations like that.

It was a joke.

Archer1979
11-28-05, 10:04 PM
Get lost, troll.

http://www.nndb.com/people/839/000023770/uecker-sized.jpg

Great drop in, Monty!

NYYBombshell
11-28-05, 10:06 PM
Get lost, troll.


Archer is a troll?


:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

I Love Wang
11-28-05, 10:06 PM
http://www.nndb.com/people/839/000023770/uecker-sized.jpg

Great drop in, Monty!

Seriously: Best sports movie, ever.

Archer1979
11-28-05, 10:07 PM
Archer is a troll?


:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:


What's so funny? I could have been. I just couldn't pass the damned physical.

Sam18
11-28-05, 10:11 PM
What's so funny? I could have been. I just couldn't pass the damned physical.

Was it blisters?

Archer1979
11-28-05, 10:12 PM
Was it blisters?

I refuse to pee on my hands.

Sam18
11-28-05, 10:15 PM
I refuse to pee on my hands.

You could always ask someone to do it for you.

Archer1979
11-28-05, 10:17 PM
By the way, just to underline a point, I'm not sure if I Love Wang was calling me a troll or not. For those who have defended me, I thank you.

But if I'm going to sit here and give Workhorse the benefit of the doubt, it would be hypocritical of me to not do the same to ILW.

See how easy that works.

Sam18
11-28-05, 10:22 PM
By the way, just to underline a point, I'm not sure if I Love Wang was calling me a troll or not. For those who have defended me, I thank you.

But if I'm going to sit here and give Workhorse the benefit of the doubt, it would be hypocritical of me to not do the same to ILW.

See how easy that works.

ILW said he was joking. Workhorse said something along the lines of "its ok to bait about Bernie but not about Lowell?".

Archer1979
11-28-05, 10:26 PM
ILW said he was joking. Workhorse said something along the lines of "its ok to bait about Bernie but not about Lowell?".


Like I said before Sam, I can't defend that statement.

Sam18
11-28-05, 10:28 PM
Like I said before Sam, I can't defend that statement.

But you're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt?

Archer1979
11-28-05, 10:36 PM
But you're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt?

Yup. If I'm to assume that he was trying to make a point like so many here do, his implying that Bernie is on steroids torpedoes his own argument.

Any statements he made after that, I can't defend as he got hopelessly off his point.

I could be wrong as I have absolutely no concept of why people troll. I just can see why this one went the way it did... from both sides.

Sam18
11-28-05, 10:45 PM
Yup. If I'm to assume that he was trying to make a point like so many here do, his implying that Bernie is on steroids torpedoes his own argument.

Any statements he made after that, I can't defend as he got hopelessly off his point.

I could be wrong as I have absolutely no concept of why people troll. I just can see why this one went the way it did... from both sides.

I have no idea why he would mention Bernie's name if he wasn't baiting.

I Love Wang
11-28-05, 10:50 PM
More importantly, does this matter?

Archer, you're an honorable man and I respect your opinion. I simply disagree with it. This thread has gone so far beyond off topic that... well... its way off topic.

And yes, I was joking about the troll comment.

Archer1979
11-28-05, 10:58 PM
I have no idea why he would mention Bernie's name if he wasn't baiting.

To me the obvious reason is that as a Red Sox fan, he simply underestimated the reaction of the example.

Jasbro
11-28-05, 11:13 PM
To me the obvious reason is that as a Red Sox fan, he simply underestimated the reaction of the example.

A reasonable conclusion. Perhaps even to a fault.

But I find it far more likely, given the context and subsequent verbal flailings by Workhorse, that he knew EXACTLY what the reaction to his example would be.

Archer1979
11-28-05, 11:33 PM
A reasonable conclusion. Perhaps even to a fault.

But I find it far more likely, given the context and subsequent verbal flailings by Workhorse, that he knew EXACTLY what the reaction to his example would be.

I just noticed something that I hadn't before while I was looking back to see if I was missing something... there were three full days before his first post and his second post. I couldn't tell you why I wrote something two hours ago, forget last Friday.

There's no way I'd hang my hat on what he was saying on the 25th, when he was defending himself, had anything to do with what he was saying on the 22nd, when he was making a point.

I don't know Workhorse all that well other than the few times we've posted about the same subject (for some reason Sox fans don't argue with each other much here), so I couldn't tell you from experience what his motivations are.

I just don't think he was baiting with the initial post. Just to humor me, read his initial post again, but try to put out of your mind that a Sox fan wrote it. See if it changes anything.

LuckyLopez
11-28-05, 11:43 PM
A reasonable conclusion. Perhaps even to a fault.

But I find it far more likely, given the context and subsequent verbal flailings by Workhorse, that he knew EXACTLY what the reaction to his example would be.

It strikes me that he COULD have been looking for a response but in the opposite direction as everyone took it. He could have invoked Bernie's name because he figured Yankee fans would think him not a steroid user and then see the point that Archer's trying to make. If I wanted to make a point about players declining naturally I'd probably include a player who my audience could relate to and whom they would support. I would also then throw in someone else entirely so that I didn't look like I was trying to make it an "us vs them", but I think that's where Workhorse screwed up (if he was in fact innocent of baiting, as Archer is saying).

I don't know if Workhorse has some backstory that helps to contribute to this reaction but it did strike me as well as being excessive and a bit rough. I read it as innocent (if perhaps foolish) as Archer and others have. But there did seem to be a fairly impassioned response by some folks who appear to be unwilling to even consider the alternative.

But I'm going to offer the same disclosure. I have no real idea what Workhorse intended. I'm just guessing and trying to toss a little support to the idea that there might have been another side to this.

Runan
11-29-05, 03:07 AM
I think Workhorse chose a poor example and maybe should have known he'd be jumped on, but I don't know if it was trolling, exactly. The "I'm just here for intelligent baseball conversation" line seemed a bit...awkward, though.

As for Simmons, I think he's usually pretty funny, although I don't really like steroid accusations in general, of ANY player. Mostly because it's kind of depressing, I guess.

Workhorse
11-29-05, 01:37 PM
It strikes me that he COULD have been looking for a response but in the opposite direction as everyone took it. He could have invoked Bernie's name because he figured Yankee fans would think him not a steroid user and then see the point that Archer's trying to make. If I wanted to make a point about players declining naturally I'd probably include a player who my audience could relate to and whom they would support. I would also then throw in someone else entirely so that I didn't look like I was trying to make it an "us vs them", but I think that's where Workhorse screwed up (if he was in fact innocent of baiting, as Archer is saying).

I don't know if Workhorse has some backstory that helps to contribute to this reaction but it did strike me as well as being excessive and a bit rough. I read it as innocent (if perhaps foolish) as Archer and others have. But there did seem to be a fairly impassioned response by some folks who appear to be unwilling to even consider the alternative.

But I'm going to offer the same disclosure. I have no real idea what Workhorse intended. I'm just guessing and trying to toss a little support to the idea that there might have been another side to this.

I haven't had much time to respond to much of the comment about my post, but this was along the lines of my thinking:

Purely by looking at OPS and SLG dropoffs from the 2004 to the 2005 season, Bernie Williams had almost the exact same decline in production as Kevin Millar. Lowell's decline was much steeper of course, but the point is still the same:

You can take drastic production declines from 2004 (pre-testing) to 2005 (current testing) any way you choose. When it's one of your guys, you tend to see legitimate reasons for the decline. When it's the decline of a guy on your hated rival, you might see it another way.

The point of this whole exercise was to throw cold water on the notion that "this guy"'s decline was based on lack of juice while "that guy" just had a bad year. Fact is, we don't know.

For the second time, I don't think that Bernie is a juicer. My point was that just to look at a 2005 drastic decline in production as prima fasciae evidence that a guy was on steroids is crazy. Prior to the steroid era, we used to call those dips one of two things: Bad years, or career in decline. I still think that both conditions exist post-steroid era. And Guys like Bernie, Millar and Lowell are most likely the prime examples of either case.

Rant over.