Author Topic: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)  (Read 60798 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37398
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #500 on: June 25, 2010, 12:19:25 pm »
OR citiation nazis could just take away the greater lesson that there are two sides to every story and that Cobb's common reputation is probably blown way out of proportion if not outright inaccurate.

But hey, whatever floats you guys' boats.

It could be a bunch of lies. It's poorly written. I deal in facts. I am willing to accept a hypothesis that he is not a bad guy, but show me the proof.

http://baseballguru.com/bburgess/analysisbburgess02.html

Here's a random guy. He cites some sources and tells some anecdotes. It's not a scholarly paper, that's reasonable. I'll read it when I have time.

But I could write a paper "Tony Armas: World's Greatest Pitcher", make up stories, and someone could read it and believe it. That's the danger of the internet. I don't hate or dismiss out of hand bloggers or freelancers or what have you, but this guy has built no credibility with me and also cites no sources. So while not dismissing his hypothesis, I'm not really interested in his anecdotes. A newspaper like the Washington Post has very strong credibility, so when they don't cite sources, they back their stories with their reputation, and print retractions when they are wrong. Same with the Nats Insider blog. Lots of credibility.

http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00014142.html

Here's ESPN (yes, a credible news agency), with the counterpoint:

http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00014142.html

So do I believe ESPN or Bleacher Report with no sources? ESPN. Will I read the guy who did his homework, yes.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 31838
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #501 on: June 25, 2010, 12:35:37 pm »
It could be a bunch of lies. It's poorly written. I deal in facts. I am willing to accept a hypothesis that he is not a bad guy, but show me the proof.

So could most of what you already know.  Despite how often we like to think we deal in facts, when it comes to history, we mostly deal in hearsay.  "History is written by the victors".

I'm not really interested enough in changing anyone's mind - that's impossible - I merely submitted the article to get people thinking.

PS - I don't see anything in that ESPN article alledging that Cobb was racist.  Just because you get into an altercation with a person of a specific ethnicity or minority doesn't mean you are prejudiced against that group.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37398
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #502 on: June 25, 2010, 12:43:33 pm »
So could most of what you already know.  Despite how often we like to think we deal in facts, when it comes to history, we mostly deal in hearsay.  "History is written by the victors".

I'm not really interested enough in changing anyone's mind - that's impossible - I merely submitted the article to get people thinking.

PS - I don't see anything in that ESPN article alledging that Cobb was racist.  Just because you get into an altercation with a person of a specific ethnicity or minority doesn't mean you are prejudiced against that group.

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-733
Is it ok to cite a professor? :roll:

Sorry, but your post was asinine. I asked for cited sources and you got defensive and threw a temper tantrum.

I read the link that I provided and it uses the "product of his times" argument. The same I heard about Julia Child actually. He was a violent jerk, either way.


Do whatever you want with this.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 31838
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #503 on: June 25, 2010, 12:44:42 pm »
Seem you're more the one throwing a tantrum, imo.  Whether Cobb was actually racist or not is unimportant to me.  I was just trying to open up minds.  But since you've resorted to name-calling, I think I'll just bow out of the discussion.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 35152
  • World Champions!!!
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #504 on: June 25, 2010, 12:45:54 pm »
Speaking of Cobb. Is the movie COBB a good one to rent, or does it not stand the test of time?

Offline JMW IV

  • Posts: 11345
  • Name on the Front > Name on The Back
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #505 on: June 25, 2010, 12:46:30 pm »
Then he should have done it to add validity to the article.

this.

the author of that article just says "I have all the documents to prove it".  but he does not share these so-called documents anywhere in the article.

I don't know if Cobb was a racist or not.

but i am not going to take the word of a blogger who says "I got documents" and doesn't cite any.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 31838
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #506 on: June 25, 2010, 12:46:49 pm »
Speaking of Cobb. Is the movie COBB a good one to rent, or does it not stand the test of time?

If it's the one with Tommy Lee Jones, it's pretty decent.  Worth a watch I'd say.  If not, then I can't say.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 35152
  • World Champions!!!
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #507 on: June 25, 2010, 12:49:08 pm »
If it's the one with Tommy Lee Jones, it's pretty decent.  Worth a watch I'd say.  If not, then I can't say.

Yeah, it's Tommy Lee Jones.

Speaking of Tommy Lee Jones, have you seen the movie with him and Benicio Del Toro "The Hunted"? That's a guilty pleasure of mine. Del Toro does everything but run Jones over with a tank, yet Tommy keeps coming after him, to get his man.

Offline JMW IV

  • Posts: 11345
  • Name on the Front > Name on The Back
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #508 on: June 25, 2010, 12:50:02 pm »
bleacher report basically sucks anyway. SBNation is much better, blog-wise.

just putting that out there.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 31838
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #509 on: June 25, 2010, 12:56:48 pm »
bleacher report basically sucks anyway. SBNation is much better, blog-wise.

just putting that out there.

So read the article PA posted.  It's mostly the same stuff, now with citations

http://baseballguru.com/bburgess/analysisbburgess02.html

Or don't, either way is fine.  Not everyone is interested in taking the time to challenge their preconceived notions about things.  I find it edifying to do so, but I can hardly expect everyone to agree with me.

Offline Potomac Cannons

  • Posts: 3279
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #510 on: June 25, 2010, 01:06:23 pm »
Seem you're more the one throwing a tantrum, imo.  Whether Cobb was actually racist or not is unimportant to me.  I was just trying to open up minds.  But since you've resorted to name-calling, I think I'll just bow out of the discussion.

LOL.  YOU'RE the one who threw out the citation nazi comment and then YOU will bow out due to name-calling. 

The only thing you're the chief of is being a pathetic piece of trash.

Offline PatsNats28

  • Posts: 8522
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #511 on: June 25, 2010, 01:07:31 pm »
LOL.  YOU'RE the one who threw out the citation nazi comment and then YOU will bow out due to name-calling. 

The only thing you're the chief of is being a pathetic piece of trash.

...

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 31838
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #512 on: June 25, 2010, 01:10:26 pm »
LOL.  YOU'RE the one who threw out the citation nazi comment and then YOU will bow out due to name-calling. 

The only thing you're the chief of is being a pathetic piece of trash.

Well that definitely lets PA and I both off the hook for tantrumiest poster in this thread :hammer:

Offline soxfan59

  • Posts: 1208
  • Gough, Gough White Sox!!!
    • John R. Russell, Ltd.
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #513 on: June 25, 2010, 01:26:00 pm »
Bill Burgess of baseball guru defends Ty Cobb:  http://baseballguru.com/bburgess/analysisbburgess02.html

Racist or not, Cobb was NOT a nice guy.  http://baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/ty_cobbs_ugliest_scandal

Another article with anecdotes relating to Cobb's racism http://wso.williams.edu/~jkossuth/cobb/race.htm


Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37398
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #514 on: June 25, 2010, 01:47:28 pm »
Bill Burgess of baseball guru defends Ty Cobb:  http://baseballguru.com/bburgess/analysisbburgess02.html

Racist or not, Cobb was NOT a nice guy.  http://baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/ty_cobbs_ugliest_scandal

Another article with anecdotes relating to Cobb's racism http://wso.williams.edu/~jkossuth/cobb/race.htm



Nice summary. Burgess DOES cite sources, and it's a pretty good piece. Somehow I think Julia Child was a bit more lovable than Ty Cobb, though.

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 18070
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #515 on: June 25, 2010, 03:07:14 pm »
lol @ bleacherreport

Offline PatsNats28

  • Posts: 8522
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #516 on: June 25, 2010, 03:29:16 pm »
"Accordingly, on May 18th, Navin told his manager Hughie Jennings to round up whatever players he could so the Tigers could field a team for that afternoon's game against the Philadelphia Athletics. Jennings recruited eight young kids from a local North Philadelphia neighborhood, and those boys (and two of the team's coaches) suited up as the Detroit Tigers for that day's contest at Shibe Park."

Haha imagine if that happened today

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37398
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #517 on: June 26, 2010, 11:16:49 pm »
Clint Everts traded for Jorge Padilla. Omar Minaya is a strange man.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/06/mets-acquire-jorge-padilla-.html

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15551
  • Future
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #518 on: June 27, 2010, 01:14:49 am »
White Sox are on a tear.

Offline soxfan59

  • Posts: 1208
  • Gough, Gough White Sox!!!
    • John R. Russell, Ltd.
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #519 on: June 27, 2010, 11:19:28 am »

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33885
  • Hell yes!
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #520 on: June 27, 2010, 05:14:49 pm »
White Sox are on a tear.

Yeah.  Sweeping us didn't mean anything, I thought they'd come back to earth their next series, but their pitching has held up.  Good for them.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37398
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #521 on: June 27, 2010, 09:14:00 pm »
Yeah.  Sweeping us didn't mean anything, I thought they'd come back to earth their next series, but their pitching has held up.  Good for them.

I saw Peavy pitch a gem with my own eyes. Everyone else was focused on the ERA on the scoreboard. He's Jake Peavy, not Mike Bacsik.

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15551
  • Future
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #522 on: June 27, 2010, 09:54:19 pm »
Sucks the sox lost. Was cool to see them rise in the AL Central.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37398
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #523 on: June 27, 2010, 10:06:58 pm »
Sucks the sox lost. Was cool to see them rise in the AL Central.

Take it to the MLB thread. This here thread is for talking about Clint Everts and D'Angelo Jimenez.

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15551
  • Future
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #524 on: June 27, 2010, 10:08:45 pm »
wtf. I'm dumb. For some reason I posted both of those in here. :shrug: My b. I guess I thought it was MLB watch since this was the top topic.

Well in former nat news: Guillen is on a 21 game hit streak.