BigJermaineFromQnz Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 Your logic is flawed. You are saying throw out the record book because African American players were not allowed to play. Unto itself, that is a valid point if there were only Black and WHite players, but you missed my point. Using your logic, the Negroe League records also need to be expunged. They did not have the best White, Latin or Asian players. Do you see my point? your point is flawed. you act like anyone has EVER given a damn about the "NEGRO" (ITS NOT SPELLED NEGROE...) Leagues records. Satchel Paige probably pitched 2500 games and won 2000 of them, but no one gives a damn about it. Likewise, no one should give a damn about a record set 100 years ago when only whites were allowed to play. And you are still failing to grasp the point. Back then the records were set under a circumstance in which very good, even better, players were not allowed TO CONTRIBUTE. Today, anyone who is talented will be most likely petitioned to play for a big league team. Is this so hard for you to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 your point is flawed. you act like anyone has EVER given a damn about the "NEGRO" (ITS NOT SPELLED NEGROE...) Leagues records. Satchel Paige probably pitched 2500 games and won 2000 of them, but no one gives a damn about it. Likewise, no one should give a damn about a record set 100 years ago when only whites were allowed to play. And you are still failing to grasp the point. Back then the records were set under a circumstance in which very good, even better, players were not allowed TO CONTRIBUTE. Today, anyone who is talented will be most likely petitioned to play for a big league team. Is this so hard for you to understand? Here Jermaine-Define cheat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 I am just upset that prior to the 1960's my ancestors werent allowed to be railroad porters. So does that mean that Amos Jackson's world record from 1938 of carrying 23 suitcases at one time is flawed because whites werent allowed to be porters?? Jermaine, you see where I am going? Lets bask in the enlightment of where we are today as a society. lets not waste time on the ills of people long since dead. dont forget we have a long ways to go, but lets not waste time on things that were out of the control for the common man back then. Ruth owns a legit record, as Josh owns his legit record, as a sports fan bask in both and rejoice as a black man that there is one record now to follow and argue about. Now lets all join forces and make sure we grow as a society,,, just no damn irish (stolen from blazing saddles) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJermaineFromQnz Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 Here Jermaine-Define cheat I will rescind my comment about "Cheating" now all you super-sensitive Babe Ruth Dickriders can calm down and come out off the ledge. however, you should realize I was insinuating that his record was illegitimate. If you want to talk about who can hit the most home runs out of like 8 teams in an only-white competition, babe ruth is your man. However, that record comes nowhere close to relating to today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 I will rescind my comment about "Cheating" now all you super-sensitive Babe Ruth Dickriders can calm down and come out off the ledge. however, you should realize I was insinuating that his record was illegitimate. If you want to talk about who can hit the most home runs out of like 8 teams in an only-white competition, babe ruth is your man. However, that record comes nowhere close to relating to today. There are not many people that will argue that today's stats are the same as 80 years ago. jermaine-Where you been on that-that is pretty common knowledge. If you want to take the slant that they are not comparable at all, fair enough. You can have an extreme opinion. Just don't purport it as fact. Especially when your premise it is based on is so far flung. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJermaineFromQnz Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 There are not many people that will argue that today's stats are the same as 80 years ago. jermaine-Where you been on that-that is pretty common knowledge. If you want to take the slant that they are not comparable at all, fair enough. You can have an extreme opinion. Just don't purport it as fact. Especially when your premise it is based on is so far flung. it is fact. Negro League teams won 3 out 4 times they played the white teams. Therefore, Ruth was hardly playing against the great competition. I dont care who hit the best ball in a farm league 50 years ago... I dont care how Ruth his in his "farm leagues" 100 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 it is fact. Negro League teams won 3 out 4 times they played the white teams. Therefore, Ruth was hardly playing against the great competition. I dont care who hit the best ball in a farm league 50 years ago... I dont care how Ruth his in his "farm leagues" 100 years ago. Would you care to support your "facts" with some substantiation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJermaineFromQnz Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 Would you care to support your "facts" with some substantiation? here's your substantiation: 438 offical games, White teams only won 129. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 here's your substantiation: 438 offical games, White teams only won 129. Jermaine-How about a link? Also-Were these teams "all-star" teams or barnstormers? Were these true MLB teams, or teams thrown together bey some tour? There is a big difference. I can show you Olympics where the US basketball team lost to World competition. Does that mean that American basketball, as a whole is not teh best in teh world? Certainly not. Be careful how you report stats and what you conclude form them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Jermaine-How about a link? Also-Were these teams "all-star" teams or barnstormers? Were these true MLB teams, or teams thrown together bey some tour? There is a big difference. I can show you Olympics where the US basketball team lost to World competition. Does that mean that American basketball, as a whole is not teh best in teh world? Certainly not. Be careful how you report stats and what you conclude form them Jermaine and SD,, start here: http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=39148 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Jermaine and SD,, start here: http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=39148 Thank you SJ-Pretty much what I would have thought. When teams are slapped together, they tend to lose more. When teams are a more cohesive unit, they win more, and that is what the MLers did to the Negro League. Not to take anything away, but it shows that when an intact TEAM is playing, the results are better. Woudl stats have changed if MLB was integrated earlier-ABSOLUTELY. No one argues that. Was there this HUGE disparity, not from evidence shown here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJermaineFromQnz Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 I can show you Olympics where the US basketball team lost to World competition. Does that mean that American basketball, as a whole is not teh best in teh world? Certainly not. yeah, do you know why not? because the best basketball players from all over the world come to play in the NBA... the best baseball players were locked out out baseball back then. you continue to try the same wrong examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Jermaine, I think a comment on the link to the real stats is more relevant than a US Olympic discussion http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=39148 but me? i am outta here,, i think this link shows they were both very good, no one league was far superior though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJermaineFromQnz Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 Jermaine and SD,, start here: http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=39148 thank you SJ... what does this prove? that the Black teams were at least as good as the white teams. If they were as good as the white teams than already it's unfair. The fact that they seem to be at least marginally better makes it extremely unfair. You understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJermaineFromQnz Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 Jermaine, I think a comment on the link to the real stats is more relevant than a US Olympic discussion http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=39148 sorry. Lots of "in" on this thread. I address them in the order they come in to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 thank you SJ... what does this prove? that the Black teams were at least as good as the white teams. If they were as good as the white teams than already it's unfair. The fact that they seem to be at least marginally better makes it extremely unfair. You understand? yup, both leagues very good and would records have been different? hell ya,, would babe still hit 714, maybe,, would josh have hit more? maybe, maybe not? bottom line is ,, it is what it is........ move on, dont forget, but move on and have fun with todays multi-cultural game.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJermaineFromQnz Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 yup, both leagues very good and would records have been different? hell ya,, would babe still hit 714, maybe,, would josh have hit more? maybe, maybe not? bottom line is ,, it is what it is........ move on, dont forget, but move on and have fun with todays multi-cultural game.. well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 yeah, do you know why not? because the best basketball players from all over the world come to play in the NBA... the best baseball players were locked out out baseball back then. you continue to try the same wrong examples. Jermaine-The Olympics is DIFFERENT than the NBA. It is about nationalities and country of origin. My point was about the US. I am glad that you have at least seen the point in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 There were certainly black players who could've played in the major leagues in Ruth's time-Gibson, Paige, Charleston, Buck O'Neill and many others(that O'Neill hasn't been enshrined in Cooperstown while he's still alive is a CRIME-there's something to be genuinely mad and outraged about). But that doesn't mean the quality of overall baseball in the negro leagues approached or surpassed the big leagues in Ruth's time. And I'm still missing were the baseball color line in Ruth's era, something he didn't institute or control, equates with willful and intentional cheating by Bonds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJermaineFromQnz Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 Jermaine-The Olympics is DIFFERENT than the NBA. It is about nationalities and country of origin. My point was about the US. I am glad that you have at least seen the point in this thread. dont try to flip this... I owned you... your point was "Just because the US didnt win the olympics basketball does not mean that the NBA has a worse brand of basketball than the rest of the world" but that was a completely flawed example, because no players are locked out of the NBA, and the best players from across the world come to play here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJermaineFromQnz Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 There were certainly black players who could've played in the major leagues in Ruth's time-Gibson, Paige, Charleston, Buck O'Neill and many others(that O'Neill hasn't been enshrined in Cooperstown while he's still alive is a CRIME-there's something to be genuinely mad and outraged about). But that doesn't mean the quality of overall baseball in the negro leagues approached or surpassed the big leagues in Ruth's time. And I'm still missing were the baseball color line in Ruth's era, something he didn't institute or control, equates with willful and intentional cheating by Bonds. Go read the link that SJ posted. you need some edumacation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIGHT STALKER Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 BJFQ...I have a question for you. I was a gunner on a chopper gunship way back when. If I went back in time and was able to take my gunship with me and help out George Armstrong Custer, would I be cheating? I know that's a bit off the wall, but I still don't understand your explanation as to "cheating"...especially when it concerns Bonds. Let me as you this also, do you think Babe would have hit more home runs if he used roids? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 dont try to flip this... I owned you... your point was "Just because the US didnt win the olympics basketball does not mean that the NBA has a worse brand of basketball than the rest of the world" but that was a completely flawed example, because no players are locked out of the NBA, and the best players from across the world come to play here. If by owned you mean not comprehending a point and reporting it incorrectly, well then maybe. Where did I ever mention the NBA? Jermaine? Jermaine? Jermaine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 oh and Jermaine-Wasn't it YOU that said the Negro Leagues won 75% of the games against the MLB? Then you want to use SJs numbers which claim nothing of the sort. You should have quit when you said you backed off your ridiculous "cheat" comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJermaineFromQnz Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 BJFQ...I have a question for you. I was a gunner on a chopper gunship way back when. If I went back in time and was able to take my gunship with me and help out George Armstrong Custer, would I be cheating? I know that's a bit off the wall, but I still don't understand your explanation as to "cheating"...especially when it concerns Bonds. Let me as you this also, do you think Babe would have hit more home runs if he used roids? I dont really understand what you are talking about but GOD DAMN that girl in your signiture who is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJermaineFromQnz Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 oh and Jermaine-Wasn't it YOU that said the Negro Leagues won 75% of the games against the MLB? Then you want to use SJs numbers which claim nothing of the sort. You should have quit when you said you backed off your ridiculous "cheat" comment. awww now your "reaching" hard because i completely owned you. Go read/listen/watch Ken burns "Baseball". He reports that out of 438 offical games, White teams only won 129. 129 / 438 = .29 owned again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 awww now your "reaching" hard because i completely owned you. Go read/listen/watch Ken burns "Baseball". He reports that out of 438 offical games, White teams only won 129. 129 / 438 = .29 owned again. How does that prove what Ruth did was irrelevant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 awww now your "reaching" hard because i completely owned you. Go read/listen/watch Ken burns "Baseball". He reports that out of 438 offical games, White teams only won 129. 129 / 438 = .29 owned again. Jermaine-You should talk to your drug dealer. The weed he is supplying you has hampered your ability to have a coherent dialogue. Thanks for playing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 This thread went 6 pages too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJermaineFromQnz Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 Jermaine-You should talk to your drug dealer. The weed he is supplying you has hampered your ability to have a coherent dialogue. Thanks for playing you continue to try to take the easy way out. I proved to you while every one of your examples was wrong, backed up my comments with factual knowledge, and so I guess this is your attempt to back out of an argument in which you were thoroughly beaten. very nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 you continue to try to take the easy way out. I proved to you while every one of your examples was wrong, backed up my comments with factual knowledge, and so I guess this is your attempt to back out of an argument in which you were thoroughly beaten. very nice. Name ONE of my examples that was wrong. Name ONE Jermaine, ONE and quote me directly this time, and not in "Jermaine interpretation" ONE Jermaine, ONE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 I will say this. And I swear I mean it. If I ever read Jermaine "owning" Scoot Dierking I will shut this site down. Just unplug the server. Jermaine owning Scott would mean that this site has no chance of survival. It would be a sign that bad things were about to happen. I would just walk away. That being said, Jermaine will never "own" SD. Never. Can't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Name ONE of my examples that was wrong. Name ONE Jermaine, ONE and quote me directly this time, and not in "Jermaine interpretation" ONE Jermaine, ONE This thread is getting pretty silly, Jermaine.Your passion may commendable but your logic is beyond faulty. Also note that as enjoyable as Ken Burns' "Baseball" might have been it was shot full of errors, so when you cite that as some authority your logic gets no better . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireJet38 Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 ken burns went to oneonta...he smoked more than cheech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.