Quote:
Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh
That’s “new” math, G1911. The Bonds folks are voting for an asterisk “greatest” player ever. Bonds’ most noteworthy achievements are all tarnished, every single one. It boggles my mind that people have become so jaded as to willingly select someone as their “living representative” as best ever (living) at a sport they enjoy, and which he knowingly tarnished. People can argue all they want for their pick or their favorite, but your guy Bonds will always be ***. This isn’t difficult, and yes I know you aren’t the only one pining for him. Trent King
|
I'm sorry you people are really over the top angry, but the people picking Bonds are all just doing very basic math. He's far and away the mathematical answer, and thus is the prevailing choice by a large margin. You are free to design reasons to exclude him, but this really is not difficult to understand why people follow the math. Your emotions over steroids do not make actual math '"new" math'.
I wouldn't consider a 'no steroids' allowed choice to be unreasonable, but it is pretty unreasonable that we have several people in various stages of incredulity and/or meltdown over people picking the obvious mathematical choice.
Who is the best at X and who I like best are completely different things.