4merper4mer

Agreed except TB would have gone on the power play.

All of the above is true. I’d say “no idea” is a bit of a stretch because inferences can be drawn from things that have been said and similarities and differences with other proceedings in the past. I’d replace “no idea” with “don’t know”. What you said previously about Watson offering less money to these four being the likely reason they haven’t settled has a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010000000000000000004% chance of being the actual reason.

Which proves nothing.

He faced pitchers and dominated them but all his contemporaries faced the same pitchers……every guy from the 2nd best player at the time to the worst player at the time pale in comparison. Even so, many of his contemporaries are still considered all time greats to this day. This is also true of players that came before Ruth or overlapped him. Are you going to contend that Ty Cobb was a crappy hitter because 1915 was a long time ago or that Luis Arraez, today’s leading hitter would be superior to Cobb?

This is the case you’re making that Ruth was not really all that dominant? Because 54 home runs needs context due to baseball brightness and uppercut swings? George Sisler finished 2nd in the HR standings in 1920. He hit 19. Adding Sisler’s total to the totals of the 3rd and 4th place finishers results in a sum of 51. I believe that even back in 1920, 54 was a higher number than 51. Sisler is still seen on all time top 100 lists 102 years later. In 1919 Ruth in fact hit 29. 2nd place was 12. Almost 2.5 times his nearest competitor one year and just over 2.5 the next. This = not dominant? The live ball era started in 1920 it is true. Before anyone else hit 50, Hack Wilson in 1930, Ruth had done it four times. To this day only three players have done this 4 times. The other two are McGwire and Sosa. I can’t remember anything notable about those two and their HR prowess…..oh wait, yes I can. Your contention that Ruth only faced substandard opponents and seeming need for him to invent a time machine to prove himself because he was fat is a crutch you can use to convince yourself that you have an argument, but it just doesn’t hold up.

It makes zeeeeeeeeeeeeeeero sense that Watson would be happy to settle 20 cases but let 4 linger due to weakness. If Walmart was trying to buy a city block to build a Superstore would they haggle with the last homeowner because they don’t like the flooring in his kitchen? Watson’s team would 100% want all 24 and never be the obstacle on a few cases while settling the others. If he got all 24 he’d have some plausible….if unlikely…deniability. Leaving 4….even if it goes to trial and he wins and the judge laughs all 4 out of court…..Watson has now admitted that the other 20 had a case at some level and he didn’t want to fight. Settling all 24 leaves no such admission, otherwise he would have fought them all. What is possible is that the 20 got let’s say 500k each and the remaining 4 are demanding 5M each. Nooooooooooooo way on Earth is Watson’s team saying well yeah the other 20 got 500 but our formula says you get 250. That’s as possible as the Easter Bunny being real and leading the Vancouver Canucks to a game seven World Series victory in a game played on Jupiter. 💯

Correct but he has also had three years of practice for the same team/system under which he’d be playing. Poyer had a transition to make when he came in. These things may offset. All I’m really saying is that a first round safety may never end up being necessary for the Bills.

Jaquan has at least similar experience to what Poyer had before arriving.

Shirley

Lol

The title of this thread again? It has been clear for a long time that you are a huge Brady/Pats fan and have fun trolling a Bills board and that is all well and good. But if Brady isn’t more dominant than Ruth then why are you diminishing Ruth in this particular thread?

I was not alive at the same time as Ruth but am aware sports did not play nearly the same role in the culture before Ruth than it has since. It’s something called history and people are able to read about it. He is not the entire reason for the role sports plays today but denying he was a major contributor is simply silly. The original topic of this thread was dominance. One way to measure that is by using statistics of a player compared to his contemporaries. You assert Brady has been more dominant than Ruth but the statistics disagree. From a team standpoint it is certainly arguable despite the Yankees never having been caught cheating, but hardly cut and dried and would invite Bill Russell to join. Arguing that Brady has been more dominant than Ruth by some measures can be seen as close, by other measures is inarguably silly. Choose your measure and you either tie or get stomped. In the aggregate you must lose. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1508392-major-league-baseball-the-case-for-babe-ruth-as-the-best-ever

They literally changed the playing field because of Gibson. Good call.

For $200 Alex….what is a……

For some reason this post makes me want to add Jesse Owens and Jim Thorpe to the mix.

If sports had died before TV was invented would TV have saved sports? Even if much of it is legend, there has been much written about Ruth’s impact on baseball and sports in general. Are you denying that? One example: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/how-babe-ruth-changed-baseball-51810018/ Care to link to an article from the Smithsonian or another equally credible source about how Brady changed the sport of football? One? Choppy films notwithstanding, Ruth’s statistics can be compared to his contemporaries. They dwarf them in a manner unmatched to this day. Are you denying that? I won’t deny that a part of Ruth’s legacy is allegory and legend a la Paul Bunyan and that those days are over. Yes, he was in the right place at the right time to have the societal impact that he had. But he had it. To deny this out of some weird loyalty to Tom Brady is awkward at best. Yes era to era comparisons are tough because things change. Was Jimmy Carter a more significant president than George Washington because the economy was larger under Carter?

Lol

You may not be aware but freedom of movement from the Philippines or Thailand is vastly different than freedom of movement from China. Geez dude. Do you consider Watson innocent of crimes or the DA that tried to bring charges against him incompetent? Do you see how the standards you’re applying to these two sets of circumstances are inconsistent?

And his era is one that literally put sports on the map. His numbers are factually dominant. His impact is undeniable. Yet somehow all pales in comparison to Brady and only Brady. Up next: A comparison of water into wine versus hitting Gronk down the seam.

Numbers are numbers and the concept of standard deviation exists. Ruth’s performance versus his contemporaries spits in the face of any assertion that he was somehow not phenomenal. Call him fat all you want but numbers don’t lie. The intangibles are also undeniably in favor of Ruth IMO although it can be argued, and should be, that this is because he came along at the right time and being first to anything also builds the legend. If Ruth never came along it can be argued, and has been, that sports themselves would have died on the vine. That cannot be argued of Brady for Pete’s friggin sake.

Well you still haven’t answered so infinity or until I give up I guess. Any thoughts on the case against Watson falling apart and why it is different than the trafficking aspect of the case in Florida falling apart?

So do you believe that the woman in this case were: 1. Trafficked? 2. Found their way past the CCP to Florida on their own but that their resourcefulness ran out and they got stuck living in a massage parlor? There are many ways for criminal cases to “fall apart” but they don’t all reflect on whether the asserted crime actually happened. Would you agree? Heck, Watson’s criminal case “fell apart” so you are arguing with yourself here. IMO if you believe number 2 above you’ll need to run to get back on

Because lungs are more important than brain cells?

Very different sports. Ruth transformed baseball and in a way all of sports. Sports position in society pre-Ruth was not the same as it was once he came along. In that way he will never have a peer no matter how much the Pats fans regulars and others would like to say it. I’d say Ruth benefits from being “the first”, but he also was a major outlier from everyone else. The fact that his anomalous nature holds up after a century is telling. I’m not sure anyone modern sports can ever reach that. Candidates are easier to find in sports outside of football and I feel Gretzky is by far the closest. The hoops arguments are tougher due to the different positions, I could see Russell, Jordan and some others making a case but all are debatable. In football you’d have to consider Brown, Brady, LT and Rice IMO but the singular nature of their roles makes it tough to compare them to Ruth. Others: Joe Louis, Don Bradman, Bobby Jones, Mark Spitz. Pele could be considered if soccer qualifies as a sport as could and Glenn Howard if curling is a sport.

I made no assertion that Kraft was human trafficking. Stop saying that. And calling me racist….I’m not sure I even understand that but don’t need you to elaborate with whatever ridiculous equation was going on in your mind on that. Are you aware of how easy or difficult it is to simply pick up and move from China to the United States? Do you think an average Chinese person just does that with the intent of living in a massage parlor in Florida? And there are no obstacles from the CCP? And they don’t speak English? And they do that all on their own? And I’m the one ignorant about the realities of the world? Really? And this means human trafficking doesn’t exist or didn’t happen in the case of Kraft’s hangout? And it is not equally obvious that you have your mind made up? Shirley