The inevitable September Collapse of the Texas Rangers

Oh jeebus. I do love the ignore list.

I apologize to everyone for bringing up Beltre's name.

 

Do you think it's possibly, perhaps, maybe, a tad bit, suspect that a player's best seasons are after the age 30 ?

I'm laughing at the fact nobody can acknowledge that.

Is it possible Beltre is NOT doing anything "extra" ? Sure. But my first post left room for that possibility.

 

I’m going to admit that I only read the last page of posts before I asked you what you are upset about so I’m flying by the seat of my pants here. To answer you question, who knows without some type of evidence? Maybe it’s superior genetics, maybe it’s his diet/excercise routine, maybe he’s an alien like in that one Xfiles episode. I’d argue for less nefarious reasons first without strong evidence - I know how it feels when people throw shade Bagwells way.

 

Good Luck.

 

So you're admittedly biased due to Bagwell. Respectable

Jeff is easily my favorite baseball player ever. Do I think it's ludicrous for someone to suggest/think he was on steroids? Nope. I just can't be blindly loyal like that. Should mere suspicion keep someone from the HOF? Nope

It's cool though, man. Thanks for the talk

 

No problem!

I meant I’ve argued this same thing with people claiming Bagwell was on steroids. I don’t agree you can claim people are on steroids without evidence. Could you explain how you feel? I think everyone wants to know more!

Do you listen to Ice Cube?

 

Not sure if you caught the edit, but...

Mere suspicion should NOT keep someone from the HOF.

However, the inability to think any player whose best career years happened after age 30 might, perhaps, maybe be a tad bit suspect us just being silly.

Does that mean any/every player in that situation is definitely on PEDs? Of course not

If anyone has a problem with those statements, I would NOT care what they wanted to hear.

Westside !!!

 

Demanding evidence when something is posed dogmatically doesn't equate "the inability to think that" some player may have cheated. That's the genesis of most arguments: mischaracterizing the positions of others.

 

@Joshfast I just noticed your quote, love it.

 

You didn't say maybe or possible. You said likely despite having been tested for that whole period of dominance. He was pretty good in Seattle until that final year. Nobody was hitting in Safeco back then. His OPS on the road in those years was substantially higher than his home one. Given that most players hit better at home than on the road, the evidence was there that he would be a really good player if you got him out of Seattle.

 

Good point regarding the ballpark.

I lessened my "likely" standard to see if anyone would AT LEAST admit anything remotely close to his being "suspect". Nobody could.

Beltre and Dallas appreciates you guys' support.

 

In other words, you shifted targets midstream because your original premise was indefensible, then when folks continued calling your original premise for the rubbish it is, you mischaracterize others' points as an inability to admit to your newly shifted target. That strategy is how one wins at the internets. Well played, sir. Well played.

 

Not at all

I always shift arguments when I think there's dishonesty, especially in real life.

My mentality is, if someone can't admit B after not admitted A, then their A stance has no credibility.

This same mentality happens everyday in courtrooms.

You should try it sometime. It's truly amusing/amazing the lengths people go through to be difficult/dishonest.

 

Fight dishonesty with dishonesty! Cool bro. Keep fighting the good fight.

Or obtuse. Irony is so ironic.

 

Can we just all go back to hating on the Rangers and relishing the fact that they suck donkey right now?

 

Where exactly was I dishonest ?

If you answer, be careful not falling into the A-B hole.

 

The only hole I've fallen into is the "derail a thread with petty argument" hole.

The Rangers suck. (It's not so fun when our team is busy losing three out of four and coughing up late leads in two of the last three.) But that's the point of this thread: originally, a flawed prediction of Ranger failure in 2016, and now, evidently, to kick them while they're down.

 

We are all still homies even through your dishonesty

 

Arlington has finally done us a solid. That is, beating up on the Yankees (6-4 and 12-10) taking the series 2-1.

The Rangers have my absolute support in beating up the Yankees or Red Sox whenever possible.

Go Rangers!