[Tabe]

Originally Posted by BobC

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?

Nope.

Originally Posted by BobC

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.

If somebody does something 714 times - in the case of Ruth, it's actually more than that, as he had some wiped out by rain, etc - it's not a fluke. What's the line? There's no objective standard, unfortunately. Heck, even doing something 714 times could be a fluke if it's out of 50,000,000,000 tries.

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!!!


[QUOTE=BobC;2149466]
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."

Originally Posted by BobC

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?

Tom Stanton is a highly-regarded baseball author. I'm surprised you're not familiar with him.

Cobb hit 5 homers in 2 consecutive games. Doing that feat is ALWAYS a fluke. In Cobb's case, it happened because there were high winds that day. Yes, both things can be true - that it's always a fluke and that it only happened in Cobb's case because of the wind.

No, I don't have the meteorological reports from St. Louis 1925 in front of me. I'm relying on the research of Tom Stanton.

Originally Posted by BobC

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.

It's weird that you're now claiming I made contradictory statements yet understood perfectly what I was talking about the first time I mentioned Cameron. You were put off by the era in which he accomplished his fluke feat.

Now who's making contradictory statements? You understood perfectly the first time but now you're claiming confusion because I made contradictory statements (even though I didn't)?

Originally Posted by BobC

Was not asking a question and then complaining in the same post about not yet getting an answer.

Actually, that's exactly what you did - which is why I quoted you when I said that.

Originally Posted by BobC

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.

Yep, the irony continues.