Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
guess whose B-R page isn't sponsored
Collapse
X
-
No biggie. High demand always drives the price up.
Here is the regular price.
Let people know you like this site. Sponsor this page for $10 per year.
Promote your website or business by sponsoring this page for $325 per year on Baseball-Reference.com.
Comment
-
Do you really think Clemens alleged PEDs usage is stopping someone from sponsoring him?? Barry Bonds has a sponsor. Bonds is the poster boy for alleged PEDs usage and is currently under indictment for perjury.Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball
Comment
-
B-R doesn't even need to lower the asking price just desteroid his stats.
1999 - ERA+ of 103
2000 - ERA+ of 95
2001 - ERA+ of 90
2002 - ERA+ of 85 in a partial season
Retires before the 2003 season at the age of 40.1955 1959 1963 1965 1981 1988
1889 1890 1899 1900 1916 1920
1941 1947 1949 1952 1953 1956
1966 1974 1977 1978
1983 1985 1995 2004 2008 2009
2013 2014
1996 2006
Comment
-
Originally posted by BlueBlood View PostB-R doesn't even need to lower the asking price just desteroid his stats.
1999 - ERA+ of 103
2000 - ERA+ of 95
2001 - ERA+ of 90
2002 - ERA+ of 85 in a partial season
Retires before the 2003 season at the age of 40.
Love how fans are so selective in the years a player used PED's based on assumption. PED's don't locate the ball or put movement on the ball which is more important then velocity in which most PED articles say is 0-3mph.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BlueBlood View PostB-R doesn't even need to lower the asking price just desteroid his stats.
1999 - ERA+ of 103
2000 - ERA+ of 95
2001 - ERA+ of 90
2002 - ERA+ of 85 in a partial season
Retires before the 2003 season at the age of 40.
I'm sure some people would just love this, but if there is one thing I can't stand, it's revisionist history, which is what you want to do.46 wins to match last year's total
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gregory Pratt View PostNo, I think his PED usage and the disgusting revelations about him, coupled with the lack of opportunity to cash in on him without hurting your business, is what's doing him in.
33% in that national poll they conducted think that Clemens is innocent so there go's your thinking on that.
Comment
-
Um, first of all, it's goes. Second of all, Clemens doesn't equal Bonds -- Clemens is a nasty man who people suspect of child molestation as a result of an NYDN article that doesn't say they started a relationship when she was fifteen but most have read as such, and Bonds is a steroid user with a bad attitude who is NOT under the type of personal allegations as Clemens. Third, Bonds' sponsor has the good opportunity as his name is very similarly related to the product, so there's some small market there. Unless NASA wants to sponsor a man perceived by and large as a pedophile and a cheat and a bat-throwing lunatic, there's no market out there for "Rocket." Those are the key differences.
Since you obviously believe in Clemens -- with your previous nonsense about McNamee being less credible than Clemens, and your present bull about that national poll and how it go's -- why don't you sponsor the damn page.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Old Sweater View Post33% in that national poll they conducted think that Clemens is innocent so there go's your thinking on that.46 wins to match last year's total
Comment
-
Originally posted by SamtheBravesFan View PostThat doesn't prove anything on its own. We need to know how many people were surveyed and what their general tendencies are to believe such things. That plays a factor too. Besides, I think Jayson Stark put it best yesterday in an article: Clemens isn't acting like an innocent man, or a man who is even sorry for what he did, simply because of the "scorched-earth" tactic he decided to take.
Take Pratt for instance. For every thing that he despises Clemens for Mcnamee is worse and he takes his word at face value.
Until Clemens admits to something I'm in his corner over a rats word.
Comment
Ad Widget
Collapse
Comment