Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabe
You asked "Where in my post did I say one was better than the other? " My reply was "You implied it with your "Cobb did this thing that even Ruth couldn't do". " I'm not sure how much more clear I can than that.
And yet I'm not the only to interpret your words that way. Perhaps you're the one being unclear or saying things you don't intend as opposed other being unable to comprehend?
Yes, they are all flukes.
LOTS of people hit 5 home runs over the course of two games during their careers. The fluke is doing that over back-to-back games.
Ask Tom Stanton, author of a book on Cobb & Ruth's friendship.
The wind has no part in it being a fluke as I stated above.
You complained about my use of Mike Cameron because he played in a different era than Ruth or Cobb. I was pointing out that his era didn't matter because his feat was a fluke just like Cobb's.
I specifically named the fluke but I'll name it again for you:
Mike Cameron hitting 4 home runs in a single game with a 5th fly ball in the same game being caught right up against the fence.
Asking a question and then, in the exact same post, complaining you haven't gotten an answer to your question makes no sense.
See answer above and then ponder your ironic criticism of my comprehension skills since I specifically gave the fluke in my earlier post AND you commented on it.
|
I've stated multiple times now that I never said or implied that Cobb was better than Ruth, and explained the references to Cobb's HR record and Triple Crown season were in response to TedZ's comments about Cobb's HR hitting abilities, not who was better. Did I also state that Ruth didn't equal Cobbs home run record or win a Triple Crown, yes, because it was TedZ who originally referenced Cobb against Ruth as a HR hitter, not me. So I merely noted those items that Ruth hadn't done as added evidence for Cobb possibly being better at hittinbg HRs than was being implied. But you keep on just saying that it was me implying something else, and assume and believe whatever you want. Apparently no matter how many times I tell you the sky is blue, you'll keep saying it is green because that's what you want to believe.
And you're right, there oddly are more than one of you thinking that my response to TedZ was somehow implying what I've said multiple times is not the case. Just shows how people often fail to read or comprehend things, and/or jump to conclusions and then stubbornly refuse to ever admit they could be wrong. In this instance it is pro-Ruth people only that seem to be jumping to conclusions. Hmmm, wonder what that could mean?
Okay, so you feel anyone hitting 5 homers in consecutive games is a fluke. So does that mean you also agree with the thinking that everyone hitting even 1 home run then is also a fluke? Because if so, then all 714 of Ruth's HRs are flukes and he's not good, just lucky, and he's not necessarily the best pre-war player then. And if hitting just 1 home run isn't a fluke, but hitting 5 in consecutive games is, where's the line between a fluke or non-fluke? Is it 2 homers, 3 homers, what? And please explain your answer.
And why would I ask Tom Stanton anything? Have no idea who he is or how to contact him, nor do i want to. YOU brought up high winds in regards to Cobb's consecutive games home run record, so I asked YOU very specific questions in that regard to hopefully be able to get answers and information that everyone could then use to determine for themselves whether or not Cobb hit the home runs on his own or if they were a fluke and only happened because of these so-called high winds. I tried to be very specific and clear with the questions so we wouldn't get a lame-ass or non-responsive answer back, and look what we got!!!
So if the wind is no part of the "fluke", why did you ever bring it up? Or is this how you're going to get around not answering my questions in regards to the high winds now in case your "Ask Tom Stanton.", ploy doesn't work? And then you wonder how someone cannot comprehend what you're trying to say when you throw in this high wind reference for no apparent reason. You specifically wrote "The wind has no part in it being a fluke as I stated above.", and then elsewhere wrote, "That "thing", of course, was a fluke brought on by exceptionally strong winds.". Well, the "thing" is a reference to Cobb having matched a record by hitting 5 HRs over 2 consecutive games, which is the same event being referred to as "it" in your other statement I quoted. Those two statements of yours I quoted above are clearly contradicting one another, so forgive me if I seem confused and can't understand what you're talking about. Or are you going to try and say that both quotes aren't referring to Cobb's consecutive game HR record now?
Okay, I now get what you meant by the Mike Cameron reference in regards to the different eras, thank you for finally answering at least one of my questions. But that wasn't what was causing my initial confusion. I didn't realize the "fluke" you were referring to was that Mike Cameron statement because of the other references you were making to the fluke being brought on by exceptionally high winds. As stated and pointed out above, you were making contradicting statements which don't make sense and created the confusion.
Yes, I now understand what this "fluke" is you were referring to. And again point to the confusion being caused not by miscomprehension, but by contradictory and misleading statements by you, as pointed out above.
Was not asking a question and then complaining in the same post about not yet getting an answer. Was using that as a sort of strategic reinforcement reminder to emphasize to you that I was asking specific questions in regards to the high winds you had originally referred to. And look how well that worked out. You made a point to question me about that statement, but still failed to answer any of those questions I had asked about the high winds, and instead blew me off by telling me to call someone I don't know or have any contact info for. Let me try this strategic reinforcement reminder technique again. Hey, I asked you those questions about the high winds, not some guy named Tom Stanton. You going to bother answerng or just blow it off because now you're saying it doesn't matter?
And as for my ironic criticism and alleged inability to comprehend, go back up to where I previously discussed the contradictory and confusing statements you were making in regards to the "fluke", the high winds, and so on.
Aside from having addressed each of your responses, I guess we'll see if there is anything coming back finally answering all my current and earlier questions that remain unaddressed. And if you're just going to say nothing matters because everything is a fluke and not address any of my questions with facts or even the semblance of well thought out and logical arguments, don't even bother responding. I've seen and had enough of the "because I'm right and you're wrong" stuff to last for a while.