Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911
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.
|
If someone feels that the actual math you are talking about is tainted by the use of PEDs, I understand why they would discount Bonds' numbers and not pick him as their choice for greatest living player. It's interesting that Roger Clemens has only received 2 votes when his actual math (as you call it) would seem to make him the greatest living pitcher. I'm not sure I understand why Clemens is being treated differently than Bonds - Clemens has received 2 votes out of 53 that were given to pitchers on the list - but clearly there is a difference in how they are being viewed.