Originally posted by whalewang
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
2k24: St. Louis Cardinals
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by madducks View PostAlbert Pujols, since July 1, is batting .370 with 9 HR & 20 RBI in 81 AB. This kid may have a future in this league.“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by madducks View PostAlbert Pujols, since July 1, is batting .370 with 9 HR & 20 RBI in 81 AB. This kid may have a future in this league."Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)
"Your shitty future continues to offend me."
-Warren Ellis
Comment
-
Originally posted by revo View PostIf he comes up a couple short, is there a possibility he returns next year?
Comment
-
Originally posted by revo View PostThat would suck to get stuck at like 699. But the way he's been hitting over the last few weeks, I think he clears it.
It reminds me of a story that came out a couple weeks ago about a free dive record that was set. The news stories here stated that Arnaud Jerald dove to 393 feet. Some of the comments in the story were funny - they asked if he could make it 393, why not just go all the way to 400? And the answer is simple, he's from France and they use the metric system. He dove 120 meters and the fact that it is 393 feet meant absolutely nothing.
700 homers really shouldn't be more significant than 699 or 701. (But granted, I understand it is because we are all hard wired into liking "round" numbers)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ken View PostIt's funny how arbitrary "round" numbers are.
It reminds me of a story that came out a couple weeks ago about a free dive record that was set. The news stories here stated that Arnaud Jerald dove to 393 feet. Some of the comments in the story were funny - they asked if he could make it 393, why not just go all the way to 400? And the answer is simple, he's from France and they use the metric system. He dove 120 meters and the fact that it is 393 feet meant absolutely nothing.
700 homers really shouldn't be more significant than 699 or 701. (But granted, I understand it is because we are all hard wired into liking "round" numbers)
Players have even been judged, harshly or not, on these round numbers: 3,000 hits, surefire Hall of Famer. 2,877 hits, not a Hall of Famer (sorry Omar Vizquel). 300 wins, surefire Hall of Famer. 297 wins, or 288 modern-day wins, not a Hall of Famer (sorry Bobby Mathews & Tommy John).
Now, 698 HRs won't make a difference like 288 wins apparently does, as he's already crossed into the legendary stratosphere, but it would be nice if he did get there.
Comment
-
Originally posted by revo View PostBaseball history has always been about the 'round number club': .300 BA, 3,000 Hits or Ks, 300 Wins, 500 HRs in a career. 200 hits, 20 wins, 50 HRs, 100 RBIs in a season. Round numbers is what gives baseball its traditions and history. 3,000 hits, you're in the club. 2900 hits, just another guy lol.
You are definitely correct that round numbers are a big deal in baseball, but I don't agree that's specifically what gives baseball it's history and traditions. There are many other numbers that are important that are not round.
Anyway that's just an aside and I'd applaud Pujols if he retires without going for the arbitrary number.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ken View PostIt's funny how arbitrary "round" numbers are.
It reminds me of a story that came out a couple weeks ago about a free dive record that was set. The news stories here stated that Arnaud Jerald dove to 393 feet. Some of the comments in the story were funny - they asked if he could make it 393, why not just go all the way to 400? And the answer is simple, he's from France and they use the metric system. He dove 120 meters and the fact that it is 393 feet meant absolutely nothing.
700 homers really shouldn't be more significant than 699 or 701. (But granted, I understand it is because we are all hard wired into liking "round" numbers)
The most doesn't have to be round to be most important.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gregg View PostMore is more significant than round.
The most doesn't have to be round to be most important.---------------------------------------------
Champagne for breakfast and a Sherman in my hand !
---------------------------------------------
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
George Orwell, 1984
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Feral Slasher View PostThough it is less significant than more, round is more significant then less. More round is more significant than more not round. Less round but more, is more significant than less round, but less.I'm not expecting to grow flowers in the desert...
Comment
Comment