|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 28, 2013 8:54:54 GMT -5
I mentioned Hector Sanchez's mishandling of the Dodgers' two stolen base opportunities in the 6th inning. Apparently Bruce Bochy agreed. Here is how Alex Pavlovic quotes him:
Bochy was pretty blunt about the whole situation.
“We just shot ourselves in the foot there with a couple of stolen bases we couldn’t handle,” he said. “I thought Timmy did a pretty good job on his (times to home). Hector couldn’t get it out of the glove and then the other throw beat (Ethier), it was just in the dirt.”
The other point I wanted to make is regarding this foolish emphasis on won-loss record compared to ERA.
Clayton Kershaw was pretty darn good last night, wasn't he? Yet if the Dodgers hadn't bounced back after scoring just one run in the first five innings, he would have fallen below .500 on the season.
As it is, Clayton is just 6-5 despite a 2.08 ERA. Yes, despite a 2.08 ERA.
Is it surprising that Clayton's run support is only 3.04? Four times in his 17 starts this season Kershaw has yielded only one earned run -- yet received only a no-decision.
I think the decision is in. Run support matters. A lot. As much as the starting pitcher himself.
When a game ends, there are two scores: the home team's and the visiting team's. The home's starter has little to do with the home team's score and only partial (though significant) control over the score of the visiting team. The visitor's starter has little to do with the visiting team's score and only partial control over the score of the home team.
No pitcher has ever had half the control of a game over the average .500 winning percentage. The average pitcher wins half the time. If pitchers had anything close to full control of their destinies, the best ones would win, what, 80-90% of the time, maybe more?
Instead, no pitcher has ever won as much as 70% of his games. Not the very best. Not the very best playing with some of the best teams.
There is just too much that is beyond a starting pitcher's control. Even the very best have controlled less than two-fifth of the difference between winning games and splitting them.
Whitey Ford has the best winning percentage of any pitcher in history -- .690. No question his 2.71 ERA was fabulous. But it was his run support that separated him from the pack (of Hall of Famers).
Whitey had five seasons with run support of over five runs. His record in those seasons was 9-1, 18-6, 25-4, 11-5 and 18-7, a combined record of 81-23, for a winning percentage of .779.
He had 5 ERA's of 2.63 or less. In those seasons he went 14-7, 17-6, 19-6, 11-5 and 18-7. That's a combined record of 79-31, for a winning percentage of .718.
In the five season's in which Whitey received the most run support, his winning percentage was more than 80 points higher than the five season's in which he had his lowest earned run averages.
Want to capulize it into one season? Whitey's best winning season came in 1961 when he went 25-4. Believe it or not, he actually had the second WORST ERA of his career. But he had the third best run support of his career.
So how did Whitey do in the two seasons he had even more run support than his 25-4 season? He went 9-1 and 18-6. In his top three seasons of run support, he went a combined 52-11 -- a winning percentage of .825.
Whitey had the best record of any pitcher in history. And season by season, his record correlated much more closely to his run support than to his own ERA.
The winningest pitcher of all time, and his run support clearly meant more to his record than did his ERA.
For the doubters out there, how many different ways do we have to look at this for you to wake up?
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jun 28, 2013 12:22:09 GMT -5
The question would be, are there any doubters out there? You keep thumping this same tub Rog, proclaiming something everyone already knows.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jun 28, 2013 12:43:42 GMT -5
and what you seem to not understand is that even with a less run support, Ford probably would have won about the same number of games....do some research, how many games did he win by 1, 2 or 3 runs....how many by large margins??? Total run support means little if he his team wins many games by big margins....there aren't too many pitchers around with ERA's less than 3 who lose many games because of bad run support...in his 45 shutouts, Ford could have won every game with a run support of 1.00 per game.....also, pitchers would have a tough time winning 50% of their games if the big portion of their wins are in blow out games and their losses in close, low scoring games...
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member 
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Jun 28, 2013 14:32:54 GMT -5
Allen - The question would be, are there any doubters out there? You keep thumping this same tub Rog, proclaiming something everyone already knows.
Dood - Rog beating a dead horse??? The hell you say!
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 28, 2013 16:43:40 GMT -5
Allen -- The question would be, are there any doubters out there? You keep thumping this same tub Rog, proclaiming something everyone already knows Rog -- Well, except for Don and seemingly you. You keep bringing up the old "still isn't a winner" thing without examining run support. Are you telling me that Matt Cain isn't a winner? He's only 8 games over .500 over his career, which is now approaching 8 full years. Matt is a one-game over .500 per year pitcher? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1863&page=1#12098#ixzz2XY84os41 |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 28, 2013 16:45:23 GMT -5
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jun 28, 2013 18:49:06 GMT -5
Don -- and what you seem to not understand is that even with a less run support, Ford probably would have won about the same number of games.... Rog -- This may be the most idiotic statement ever on this board -- although I'll agree it has some competitors. dk..for a stats nerd, you have no concept of how to look at stat...the average runs per game in the AL, in1961 when Ford was 24-5 , was 4.6 and Ford's ERA was 3.21...his team s could average 3.6 runs per game, well below the league average, and he could still put up the same amount of wins, all other things being equal.....get your pointed hat off and use what little brain you have..... to really know the difference on what run support means, you have to go through each game ....I can't do that with my computer....what you really don't realize is when you say Ford's wins were due to run support....you are saying he didn't pitch really well, but his team bailed him out by scoring a lot of runs...Ford didn't need help in too many games when you look at his 2.75 career ERA....but, you can shove it up you ....because you are so void of baseball know how, you will never understand.... |
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jun 28, 2013 20:03:02 GMT -5
my computer finally let me in to the record books...and in 1961 when Ford was 25-4, he lost 3 games by one run...2-1, 2-1, 1-0...ah, if he only had some run support....there were 6 games that Ford won and allowed more runs than his ERA for the season....5-4, 8-7, 6-4, 8-6, 8-5, 11-5.....so in switching things around he probably lost 3 he should have won, and won 6 he should have lost....so his record should have been 22- 7....Ford didn't allow all the runs, but the Yanks lost by those scores....in the 25 games Ford won, the Yanks out scored the opposition by 94 runs...69 more than they needed....
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 29, 2013 0:19:40 GMT -5
do some research, how many games did he win by 1, 2 or 3 runs Rog -- You probably should have done the research yourself, and you wouldn't have made such an assinine post. I looked at only one season, and I don't expect it to be fully representative of his career, but in 1963, Whitey won 10 games by one run, 2 games by two runs, and 2 games by three runs. Over 40% of his 24 wins that season were by only one run, and half were by two or fewer runs. You might want to look further into this topic, Don. Again, I hand-picked 1963 based on total wins and run differential. I'm not saying it is representative of his career, but do you see that FAR more of his wins were close than you expected? My guess as to how many of Whitey's 236 victories were by fewer than four runs would be 100 or so. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1863&page=1#ixzz2XYWJudC2 |
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jun 29, 2013 19:11:43 GMT -5
do some research, how many games did he win by 1, 2 or 3 runs Rog -- You probably should have done the research yourself, and you wouldn't have made such an assinine post. I looked at only one season, and I don't expect it to be fully representative of his career, but in 1963, Whitey won 10 games by one run, 2 games by two runs, and 2 games by three runs. dk..before you insult me, A-Hole, look what I wrote...my computer crashes every time I try to use Baseball-Reference for splits....but today I finally got in and picked 1961 because Ford won 24 games wit a fairy high (for him) ERA...and what I found was that there were very few games that he won when he gave up more runs than his ERA and his team outscfored the opposition for a win for Ford...the details are all posted...he only won 4 games by 1 run ...6 by 2, 3 by 3, 4 by 4, 4 by 5, 1 by 6, 3 by 8 or more....I eliminated all the wins when he gave up more than his ERA, 6 games in total....I called those wins due to run support...I eliminated 3 of his losses and said that he lost them because of lack of run support...1-0,2-1, 2-1...so after debit and credit...I figured that Ford should have been 22-7 instead of 25-4....so he managed to win almost as many games as his pitching deserved than the mighty difference in run support..... Over 40% of his 24 wins that season were by only one run, and half were by two or fewer runs. You might want to look further into this topic, Don. Again, I hand-picked 1963 based on total wins and run differential. I'm not saying it is representative of his career, but do you see that FAR more of his wins were close than you expected? dk...the closeness of his wins have nothing to do with the effect of run support....as long as you pitch games under your ERA and under the league average runs per game.....you should win a high percent of those games......do you think a 1-0 game should be credited with being due to run support.....I don't..... My guess as to how many of Whitey's 236 victories were by fewer than four runs would be 100 or so. dk...which means that Ford was one of the best clutch pitchers of his generation...because he had such a low ERA that having that many wins is due to his pitching.....love your book keeping math...you pick out a sample and say that in that one year sample, 50% of his wins were by 2 runs or less....now you expand to his career and say that about 40 % of his wins were by FOUR runs or less.....is that Rog regression or what??? and why pick a year near the end of his career...it might be interesting to see what happened in 1958 when he had an ERA of 2.01 and only had a record of 14-7...he sure must have had a big heap of lack of run support...but run support is one of your fancy explanation for guys you don't appreciate or an excuse for one you like who has trouble winning...a 2 edge sword...my post was right on, yours were assinine....or even as high as assiten |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 30, 2013 9:09:26 GMT -5
Rog -- You probably should have done the research yourself, and you wouldn't have made such an assinine post. I looked at only one season, and I don't expect it to be fully representative of his career, but in 1963, Whitey won 10 games by one run, 2 games by two runs, and 2 games by three runs. dk..before you insult me, A-Hole, look what I wrote...my computer crashes every time I try to use Baseball-Reference for splits....but today I finally got in and picked 1961 because Ford won 24 games wit a fairy high (for him) ERA...and what I found was that there were very few games that he won when he gave up more runs than his ERA and his team outscfored the opposition for a win for Ford...the details are all posted...he only won 4 games by 1 run ...6 by 2, 3 by 3, 4 by 4, 4 by 5, 1 by 6, 3 by 8 or more....I eliminated all the wins when he gave up more than his ERA, 6 games in total....I called those wins due to run support...I eliminated 3 of his losses and said that he lost them because of lack of run support...1-0,2-1, 2-1...so after debit and credit...I figured that Ford should have been 22-7 instead of 25-4....so he managed to win almost as many games as his pitching deserved than the mighty difference in run support..... Rog -- Come on, Don. You were the one who said that Whitey would have had nearly as many wins if not for run support. You were the one who asked me to research how many games he won by 1, 2, or 3 runs. I looked at one season and found that over half his wins were by 1, 2, or 3 runs. You looked at a different season and found that over half his wins were by 1, 2 or 3 runs. In other words, both you and I found evidence that you were wrong, wrong, wrong. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1863&page=1#12143#ixzz2Xhyvn8N0 |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 30, 2013 9:10:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 30, 2013 9:19:43 GMT -5
dk..for a stats nerd, you have no concept of how to look at stat...the average runs per game in the AL, in1961 when Ford was 24-5 , was 4.6 and Ford's ERA was 3.21...his team s could average 3.6 runs per game, well below the league average, and he could still put up the same amount of wins, all other things being equal..... Rog -- ROFLMAO. Just take away one Yankee run of support from each of Whitey's starts and see how his record turns out. I'll make it a little easier for you. He would have lost 8 of his 25 wins in the 1961 season you brought up. Four of his wins were by one run, and four came when he actually left the game behind but had the Yankees rally in the bottom half of the inning to win the game. Don, you're dead wrong on this, and if you go game by game, you will see I am correct here. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1863&page=1#ixzz2Xi0BsQpf |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 30, 2013 9:29:12 GMT -5
Don -- there aren't too many pitchers around with ERA's less than 3 who lose many games because of bad run support... Rog -- Matt Cain has a career ERA of 3.34 and is 90-82. Justin Verlander has a career ERA of 3.42 and is 132-70. Any idea which pitcher has the better run support over his career? In 2006 and 2007, Justin put up ERA's of 3.63 and 3.66 and went a combined 35-15. In 2007 and 2008, Matt posted 3.65 and 3.75 ERA's. Justin's run support was 5.70 and 6.24. Matt's was 3.20 and 3.12. Just how obvious IS this stuff? What factor aside from run support can you cite that has Justin winning nearly two-thirds of his games while Matt has won barely more than half? You're not even close on this one, Don. Just admit it so we can move on. You and Allen are the last live horses here, and I'm tired of beating. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1863&page=1#ixzz2Xi2gMQNG |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 30, 2013 9:31:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 30, 2013 9:44:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 30, 2013 10:01:58 GMT -5
dk...the closeness of his wins have nothing to do with the effect of run support Rog -- You have completely contradicted yourself here, Don. First you say "Total run support means little if he his team wins many games by big margins....," then state the above? You also say, "his team s could average 3.6 runs per game, well below the league average, and he could still put up the same amount of wins, all other things being equal," something you and I have BOTH disproven. Don, this perhaps ranks even lower than "Buster Posey isn't really that good," and "You criticize Sandy Koufax by calling him merely 'great' because he is a Jew." Oh, and just how was I to know that Dolph Schayes and Scott Feldman were Jewish? I still don't know that for SURE, although I have no reason to doubt you -- at least on that topic. What creed are/were Josh Adande, his mother Elizabeth Oberstein and his grandparents Gus and Marian Oberstein? I have tears in my eyes right now thinking about what good friends my parents were with Gus and Marian. And as I told my girlfriend just yesterday, my dad was in some ways like an ersatz father to Josh (despite their age differences). Of course, it's probably because the name Speier is German (I'm guessing) that Chris' kids said my dad was more like their grandfather than Chris' dad (who died when they were young) was. We weren't Catholic either, as might be illustrated by my fascination with the first Catholic church I attended (on the way to Wrigley to watch a Giants/Cubs game). I thought it was just great the way they provided foot rests in their pews. But we stopped at the first church we saw in Chicago and still made it to the first pitch. Later when my dad was lay leader of our church, we NEVER left for Candlestick before church was over. Fortunately it was over early enough for us to make the game, although it played havoc when we went to 49ers games on rainy days and had to park in the dirt (muddy) parking lots because we arrived too late to park on the primary asphault lot. Hey, I'm just reminiscing here, but gosh, you have a warped sense of who I am. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1863&page=1#ixzz2Xi9qaK3eRead more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1863&page=1#ixzz2Xi9bgVIZRead more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1863&page=1#ixzz2Xi8jZayz |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 30, 2013 10:11:43 GMT -5
dk...which means that Ford was one of the best clutch pitchers of his generation...because he had such a low ERA that having that many wins is due to his pitching..... Rog -- Of COURSE many of his wins -- more than almost anyone -- were due to his great pitching. But he wouldn't have won nearly as many games had his run support dropped by, let's say, one run -- which still would have given him decent run support. Don -- love your book keeping math...you pick out a sample and say that in that one year sample, 50% of his wins were by 2 runs or less....now you expand to his career and say that about 40 % of his wins were by FOUR runs or less Rog -- I guess one of the reason you disagree with me so often is that you don't understand what I say. I didn't say that about 40% of his career wins were by FOUR RUNS OR LESS (actually, fewer). Here is what I said: "My guess as to how many of Whitey's 236 victories were by fewer than four runs would be 100 or so." In other words I didn't (definitely) SAY anything about the percentage I cited was "MY GUESS." And I didn't say those wins were by FOUR runs or fewer, I said they were by FEWER than four runs. I mentioned previously that you have a warped sense of who I am. Perhaps that is because you have a warped sense of what I say. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1863&page=1#ixzz2XiEf7bl3Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1863&page=1#ixzz2XiDNhNkE |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jun 30, 2013 11:48:07 GMT -5
Allen -- The question would be, are there any doubters out there? You keep thumping this same tub Rog, proclaiming something everyone already knows Rog -- Well, except for Don and seemingly you. You keep bringing up the old "still isn't a winner" thing without examining run support. Allen- No, it's just that you act as if it's the be all and end all for a pitcher. The only diffeence between Justin Verlander and Jonathan Sanchez is run support. |
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jun 30, 2013 11:53:48 GMT -5
Rog -- You probably should have done the research yourself, and you wouldn't have made such an assinine post. I looked at only one season, and I don't expect it to be fully representative of his career, but in 1963, Whitey won 10 games by one run, 2 games by two runs, and 2 games by three runs. dk..before you insult me, A-Hole, look what I wrote...my computer crashes every time I try to use Baseball-Reference for splits....but today I finally got in and picked 1961 because Ford won 24 games wit a fairy high (for him) ERA...and what I found was that there were very few games that he won when he gave up more runs than his ERA and his team outscfored the opposition for a win for Ford...the details are all posted...he only won 4 games by 1 run ...6 by 2, 3 by 3, 4 by 4, 4 by 5, 1 by 6, 3 by 8 or more....I eliminated all the wins when he gave up more than his ERA, 6 games in total....I called those wins due to run support...I eliminated 3 of his losses and said that he lost them because of lack of run support...1-0,2-1, 2-1...so after debit and credit...I figured that Ford should have been 22-7 instead of 25-4....so he managed to win almost as many games as his pitching deserved than the mighty difference in run support..... Rog -- Come on, Don. You were the one who said that Whitey would have had nearly as many wins if not for run support. You were the one who asked me to research how many games he won by 1, 2, or 3 runs. I looked at one season and found that over half his wins were by 1, 2, or 3 runs. You looked at a different season and found that over half his wins were by 1, 2 or 3 runs. In other words, both you and I found evidence that you were wrong, wrong, wrong. dk..pardon me Rog, you are so full of dog crap I can smell you down here......what you are saying is so wrong it really doesn't need answering...but I'm mad enough to answer...in your twisted little world of stats, if a pitcher won 20 games by 1-0, he was not a good pitcher but one that owes his success to run support...what the heck does it matter how many close games he wins...it is how he wins....if a pitcher pitches better than his low ERA and his team scores enough runs, even below the league average, than I would say the ptcher is doing a good job, better than could be expected...it is when a pitcher gives up more than his ERA and his team scores more runs than the opposition, I would credit run support for the win...in your crazy screwed up world, a pitcher never could get credit for a win as long as his team out scores the other....so we throw out won-lost record and measure pitchers only by what ever the latest code word is in the nerd world of numbers...you are so mixed into the world of stats, you haven't the slightest understanding what the game is about.....in your world, if a pitcher throws a no-hitter and wins 11-0 it is not a great job by the pitcher but a win that he owes the team for their run support.....sick, sick, sick... |
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jun 30, 2013 12:02:47 GMT -5
dk..for a stats nerd, you have no concept of how to look at stat...the average runs per game in the AL, in1961 when Ford was 24-5 , was 4.6 and Ford's ERA was 3.21...his team s could average 3.6 runs per game, well below the league average, and he could still put up the same amount of wins, all other things being equal..... Rog -- ROFLMAO. Just take away one Yankee run of support from each of Whitey's starts and see how his record turns out. I'll make it a little easier for you. He would have lost 8 of his 25 wins in the 1961 season you brought up. Four of his wins were by one run, and four came when he actually left the game behind but had the Yankees rally in the bottom half of the inning to win the game. Don, you're dead wrong on this, and if you go game by game, you will see I am correct here. dk...the sad part is that you are so full of crap and don't realize it......take away one run from any pitcher means he doesn't win any games that he actually won by one run...wow, great math....but then what your saying that any game a pitcher wins 1-0, 2-1, 3-2 should be credited to the team for run support and not to the pitcher for pitching a good game....how, can you say that all the times you blamed lack of run support for Cains record when you should have been praissing the other teasm's run support, not good pitching... |
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jun 30, 2013 12:12:23 GMT -5
Don -- there aren't too many pitchers around with ERA's less than 3 who lose many games because of bad run support... Rog -- Matt Cain has a career ERA of 3.34 and is 90-82. Justin Verlander has a career ERA of 3.42 and is 132-70. Any idea which pitcher has the better run support over his career? In 2006 and 2007, Justin put up ERA's of 3.63 and 3.66 and went a combined 35-15. In 2007 and 2008, Matt posted 3.65 and 3.75 ERA's. Justin's run support was 5.70 and 6.24. Matt's was 3.20 and 3.12. Just how obvious IS this stuff? What factor aside from run support can you cite that has Justin winning nearly two-thirds of his games while Matt has won barely more than half? You're not even close on this one, Don. Just admit it so we can move on. You and Allen are the last live horses here, and I'm tired of beating. dk..you stupid little man, I said under 3.00, why do you give me examples of pitchers over 3,00 ERA.....you are a sick man....and again I saw, wins when you give the opposing team more than the league average you can attribute to run support...winning a game 1-0 is good pitching, not run support.....and I think I showed that in the years that you claim his losing record was due to lack of run support, that almost every game that Cain pitched well, he won...most of the games he lost was when he gave up more than the league average...and when you, in your twisted ways looked only in year totals of runs scored versus rins allowed you get a wrong impression because of the few games he lost big time versusthe games that were close...but sick little stats nerds never understand what they are saying.... |
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jun 30, 2013 12:22:39 GMT -5
dk...the closeness of his wins have nothing to do with the effect of run support Rog -- You have completely contradicted yourself here, Don. First you say "Total run support means little if he his team wins many games by big margins....," then state the above? You also say, "his team s could average 3.6 runs per game, well below the league average, and he could still put up the same amount of wins, all other things being equal," something you and I have BOTH disproven. dk..no we didn't, you proved you were full of crap....in your twisted world any win is due to run support..... Don, this perhaps ranks even lower than "Buster Posey isn't really that good," and "You criticize Sandy Koufax by calling him merely 'great' because he is a Jew." Oh, and just how was I to know that Dolph Schayes and Scott Feldman were Jewish? I still don't know that for SURE, although I have no reason to doubt you -- at least on that topic. dk...I don't think it was ever a secrete that Dolph was Jewish...and I never met a Feldman who wasn't Jewish on his Father's side....Jason Marquis is different..I never met anyone with that name, but if you look in reference, he was more of a practicing Jew than any of the others... What creed are/were Josh Adande, his mother Elizabeth Oberstein and his grandparents Gus and Marian Oberstein? I have tears in my eyes right now thinking about what good friends my parents were with Gus and Marian. And as I told my girlfriend just yesterday, my dad was in some ways like an ersatz father to Josh (despite their age differences). Of course, it's probably because the name Speier is German (I'm guessing) that Chris' kids said my dad was more like their grandfather than Chris' dad (who died when they were young) was. We weren't Catholic either, as might be illustrated by my fascination with the first Catholic church I attended (on the way to Wrigley to watch a Giants/Cubs game). I thought it was just great the way they provided foot rests in their pews. But we stopped at the first church we saw in Chicago and still made it to the first pitch. Later when my dad was lay leader of our church, we NEVER left for Candlestick before church was over. Fortunately it was over early enough for us to make the game, although it played havoc when we went to 49ers games on rainy days and had to park in the dirt (muddy) parking lots because we arrived too late to park on the primary asphault lot. Hey, I'm just reminiscing here, but gosh, you have a warped sense of who I am. dk..I never met a bigot in deniel who didn't mention one Jewish friend...and for someone with Indiana roots you really go overboard with a Black Jew..... |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jun 30, 2013 13:25:34 GMT -5
It would seem that you are bigoted against people from Indiana, Don. Not to mention Republicans, conservatives and white people who don't share your white guilt.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jun 30, 2013 13:57:01 GMT -5
It would seem that you are bigoted against people from Indiana, Don. Not to mention Republicans, conservatives and white people who don't share your white guilt dk..hey, one of my best friends was a white, Republican from Indiana....lack of white guilt?  does that mean looking the other way when a bunch of right wing nuts are trying to steal the country in order to make sure the 1% get all they want? |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jun 30, 2013 16:37:13 GMT -5
How exactly, are they doing that Don? Which part of Obama's Scandalabra are the Republicans responsible for?
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jun 30, 2013 18:37:14 GMT -5
well, IRS-Key supervisor, conservative republican, hired by Bush...spying...started by Bush....and all the other things that lightweights like you bring up...no scandle at all....and you nut cases that tried to blame Bush's recession on Obama, and chuckled that my retirement money was decreasing...well,my retirement money had doubled since Obama has been in office....and at 87 I have to make substantial withdrawals every year...and every year it grows back plus more...
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jun 30, 2013 21:48:09 GMT -5
Actually the IRS guy wasn't a consevative Republican, or even a Republican. It was Bush working to reach across the aisle, something Obama has never done, though he promised to do it. Just one of hundreds of promises he broke.
Spying, under control under Bush. Run amok under Obama. Even to the point of using drones domestically to spy on American citizens living in the US. The problem isn't the spying per se, it's that this administration is so dishonest that it will use it for nefarious means, like spying on their political enemies, which they have already done, as well as using the IRS to harass their political enemies and their supporters. They have no credibility and they can't be trusted.
The list goes on. We have an Attorney General who perjures himself at will. A former Secretary of State who lied to Congress. Clapper, who lied to Congress about the spying. Lois Lerner who's on vacation at taxpayer expense because she wouldn't rat out Obama. The former IRS head who lied about the IRS harassing conservatives. Susan Rice, who was promoted to a position where she could claim executive privledge so she couldn't be questioned about Benghazi. And Obama himself who consistently feigns outrage over these scandals and promises to hold people accountable. Well, we've seen what his promises are worth.
Oh and how's that Obama sponsored Muslim Brotherhood working out in Egypt? Looks like they're a big hit. Then Obama stumbles over himself on Syria. Truth is, he has no idea what to do. As Bill Clinton said, he's an amateur, in hopelessly over his head.
As for your retirement, sounds like another case of the rich getting richer. Isn't that what Obama's always railing against? As I've told you, pay no attention to what Obama says, it doesn't mean squat. Watch what he does.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 1, 2013 1:53:50 GMT -5
Don -- in your twisted little world of stats, if a pitcher won 20 games by 1-0, he was not a good pitcher but one that owes his success to run support... Rog -- Where in the world did you get THAT idea? It is certainly way off base. In your example, the run support was very poor, but the pitching was so great that the pitcher somehow won 20 games anyway. Don't know how the pitcher did in his losses, but in his wins he was the greatest pitcher ever. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1863&page=1#12170#ixzz2Xm40vvH8 |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 1, 2013 1:55:37 GMT -5
|
|
does that mean looking the other way when a bunch of right wing nuts are trying to steal the country in order to make sure the 1% get all they want?