Athletic correctness

I overheard this statement at an away game at Colgate in the mid-60's - between periods in a walkway leading to the dressing room between and beneath fans' bleachers. Cornell was clobbering Colgate. Colgate coach to Harkness: "Hey, ease up a little." Harkness: "Go **** yourself!" I miss Cornell winning hockey games and the lively spirit [versus dissertations] which accompanied these wins.

It's a cute anecdote, but I sure hope you're not suggesting that Cornell's more recent relative lack of national success is largely or even partly due to Schafer's unwillingness to tell Don Vaughan and his peers to go **** themselves.

Beeeej
It's a cute anecdote, but I sure hope you're not suggesting that Cornell's more recent relative lack of national success is largely or even partly due to Schafer's unwillingness to tell Don Vaughan and his peers to go **** themselves.

We also don't know how many coaches Schafer is or isn't telling to go **** themselves.

osorojo
I overheard this statement at an away game at Colgate in the mid-60's - between periods in a walkway leading to the dressing room between and beneath fans' bleachers. Cornell was clobbering Colgate. Colgate coach to Harkness: "Hey, ease up a little." Harkness: "Go **** yourself!" I miss Cornell winning hockey games and the lively spirit [versus dissertations] which accompanied these wins.

Harkness at a freshman game, “Johnny [Hughes] why the **** don’t you skate!” It obviously had an impact, as he became one of the all-time greats. RIP, Johnny.
.

Intensity, not decorum, is the soul of sports.

osorojo
Intensity, not decorum, is the soul of sports.

"Everyone has an aesthetic until they get punched in the mouth."

Dafatone

Beeeej
It's a cute anecdote, but I sure hope you're not suggesting that Cornell's more recent relative lack of national success is largely or even partly due to Schafer's unwillingness to tell Don Vaughan and his peers to go **** themselves.

We also don't know how many coaches Schafer is or isn't telling to go **** themselves.

Although I wouldn't expect Vaughan to make that list.

I'm not promoting vulgarity - or blasphemy - only a winning spirit.

osorojo
I'm not promoting vulgarity - or blasphemy - only a winning spirit.

What is your proof that the Cornell hockey program is lacking “intensity“ and a “winning spirit”?

"Promoting a winning spirit" is hardly denying such spirit exists. Quite the contrary. I began attending C.U. hockey games when the rink opened, watched C.U. battle Susquehanna, traveled to exotic venues like Princeton and Brown to attend games. Now I live over 1,000 miles from the nearest Cornell hockey game and seldom get to see a live game, That is the pitiful wisp of validity to your critique.

osorojo
What on earth makes you suspect Cornell Hockey lacks a winning spirit? "Promoting a winning spirit" is hardly denying such spirit exists. Quite the contrary.

In your first post you said: “I miss Cornell winning hockey games and the lively spirit [versus dissertations] which accompanied these wins.” Then you said you were “promoting a winning spirit,” which implies a winning spirit is lacking.

So then what is your point exactly?

Had osorojo ever had a point?

I quickly tire of everyman attempts to parse causes for wins and losses - bag the dissertations on and dissections of wins and losses - even if you are/were a science or math major. You sure as hell weren't a student of logic or language... [e.g] Me: "I support free speech." You: "That implies free speech is lacking."

osorojo
I quickly tire

Not every race is for every runner.

Your incapacity isn't binding on others.

osorojo
I quickly tire of everyman attempts to parse causes for wins and losses - bag the dissertations on and dissections of wins and losses - even if you are/were a science or math major. You sure as hell weren't a student of logic or language... [e.g] Me: "I support free speech." You: "That implies free speech is lacking."

You: “I miss free speech.”
Me: “So you think there is an inadequate amount of free speech? If you long for a thing, it logically follows that you believe such thing is lacking.”
You: “Clearly you were not a logic or language major.”

You proclaim "People who mention free speech [me] are against free speech." [See above] I concede the point. Your argument Trumps all objection.












you:

What we have here is a generation gap, a big generation gap! During several years of the 1960's Cornell fans assumed Big Red Men's hockey would win the Ivy league, figured they would go to the D-1 hockey playoffs, and even complained when they did not win the D-1 national hockey championship. It's not like that any more. Today Cornell men's hockey fans are very sensitive to any statement which might possibly be construed as a criticism of the current hockey program. (See Above)

osorojo
What we have here is a generation gap, a big generation gap! During several years of the 1960's Cornell fans assumed Big Red Men's hockey would win the Ivy league, figured they would go to the D-1 hockey playoffs, and even complained when they did not win the D-1 national hockey championship. It's not like that any more. Today Cornell men's hockey fans are very sensitive to any statement which might possibly be construed as a criticism of the current hockey program. (See Above)

Dude, I have been following this team for 43 years and I have no idea what you are on about.

You're the only person here who likes to hear himself talk more than I. That's not a good look, trust me.

Less is more.

Trotsky
Dude, I have been following this team for 43 years and I have no idea what you are on about.

You're the only person here who likes to hear himself talk more than I. That's not a good look, trust me.

Less is more.

It's clear to me: osorojo hates nerds. Nerds who analyze things like sports. Ruining their world.

[www.youtube.com]

Trotsky
[www.youtube.com]

Great movie. The whole concept ruined baseball, but it was a great movie.

I've heard it's an even better book (like The Big Short) but I have not partaken.

Trotsky
I've heard it's an even better book (like The Big Short) but I have not partaken.

I'm not into stats and thought the book was fascinating and a well told tale.

Jeff Hopkins '82

Trotsky
[www.youtube.com]

Great movie. The whole concept ruined baseball, but it was a great movie.

What ruined baseball was the realization by (I think it was) Marlon Byrd that a singles hitter with a .300 avg is worth less than a .240 hitting slugger. He changed his swing angle, started hitting homers, and got bigger contracts. He became the role model for the modern baseball player.

In 1980, 11 players had over 100 strikeouts. Today, over 150 players strike out 100 times in a season.

Now baseball is changing the rules to prevent shifts with 3 infielders on one side of the diamond, or deep on the outfield grass. These shifts are only effective because upper-cutting players have less bat control and cannot adjust their swings to take advantage of the shift.

Basically, the game has gone to hell, but I am a moron who used to love it, but still am addicted, even though I am constantly frustrated by lack of fundamentals, unproductive at-bats, and the near disappearance of 'baseball IQ'

nshapiro
Basically, the game has gone to hell, but I am a moron who used to love it, but still am addicted, even though I am constantly frustrated by lack of fundamentals, unproductive at-bats, and the near disappearance of 'baseball IQ'

I'm just happy Keith Hernandez has time to post here.

marty

Trotsky
I've heard it's an even better book (like The Big Short) but I have not partaken.

I'm not into stats and thought the book was fascinating and a well told tale.

Pretty much anything by Michael Lewis kicks ass. ("Flash Boys" is my personal favorite.)

nshapiro

Jeff Hopkins '82

Trotsky
[www.youtube.com]

Great movie. The whole concept ruined baseball, but it was a great movie.

What ruined baseball was the realization by (I think it was) Marlon Byrd that a singles hitter with a .300 avg is worth less than a .240 hitting slugger. He changed his swing angle, started hitting homers, and got bigger contracts. He became the role model for the modern baseball player.

If you ask me, walk-up music ruined baseball, but that's less fundamental.

nshapiro

Jeff Hopkins '82

Trotsky
[www.youtube.com]

Great movie. The whole concept ruined baseball, but it was a great movie.

What ruined baseball was the realization by (I think it was) Marlon Byrd that a singles hitter with a .300 avg is worth less than a .240 hitting slugger. He changed his swing angle, started hitting homers, and got bigger contracts. He became the role model for the modern baseball player.

In 1980, 11 players had over 100 strikeouts. Today, over 150 players strike out 100 times in a season.

Now baseball is changing the rules to prevent shifts with 3 infielders on one side of the diamond, or deep on the outfield grass. These shifts are only effective because upper-cutting players have less bat control and cannot adjust their swings to take advantage of the shift.

Basically, the game has gone to hell, but I am a moron who used to love it, but still am addicted, even though I am constantly frustrated by lack of fundamentals, unproductive at-bats, and the near disappearance of 'baseball IQ'

Aaron Judge hit his 60th home run last night.
.

jtwcornell91
If you ask me, walk-up music ruined baseball, but that's less fundamental.

All things have gone downhill since the invention of the amplifier.

marty

Trotsky
I've heard it's an even better book (like The Big Short) but I have not partaken.

I'm not into stats and thought the book was fascinating and a well told tale.

Well, that tears it - I've been keeping it shelved for a while, but I'm bringing it with me to Germany for next week.

Baseball is fine. There's probably a combination of tweaks, like moving the mound back just a little (more contact) and making the ball a little more dead (weaker contact) that would result in more action.

But it's fine! Guys throw 95mph sliders. There's only so much you can do to increase balls in play.

Dafatone
Baseball is fine. There's probably a combination of tweaks, like moving the mound back just a little (more contact) and making the ball a little more dead (weaker contact) that would result in more action.

But it's fine! Guys throw 95mph sliders. There's only so much you can do to increase balls in play.

The philosophy of "Homers or strikeouts." That's ruined the game, too.

Jeff Hopkins '82

Dafatone
Baseball is fine. There's probably a combination of tweaks, like moving the mound back just a little (more contact) and making the ball a little more dead (weaker contact) that would result in more action.

But it's fine! Guys throw 95mph sliders. There's only so much you can do to increase balls in play.

The philosophy of "Homers or strikeouts." That's ruined the game, too.

Are homers and strikeouts less exciting than singles and ground outs? Fewer stolen bases is no good, that’s definitely true.

Beeeej

marty

Trotsky
I've heard it's an even better book (like The Big Short) but I have not partaken.

I'm not into stats and thought the book was fascinating and a well told tale.

Well, that tears it - I've been keeping it shelved for a while, but I'm bringing it with me to Germany for next week.

If you've got room in your bag, also throw in "The Premonition - a Pandemic Story", by Michael Lewis. I think it's his best book yet.

BearLover

Jeff Hopkins '82

Dafatone
Baseball is fine. There's probably a combination of tweaks, like moving the mound back just a little (more contact) and making the ball a little more dead (weaker contact) that would result in more action.

But it's fine! Guys throw 95mph sliders. There's only so much you can do to increase balls in play.

The philosophy of "Homers or strikeouts." That's ruined the game, too.

Are homers and strikeouts less exciting than singles and ground outs? Fewer stolen bases is no good, that’s definitely true.

Depends. A bunch of singles strung together can be extremely exciting. Taking the strategy out of the game and making it one-dimensional makes it less interesting to me.

But YMMV

Jeff Hopkins '82

BearLover

Jeff Hopkins '82

Dafatone
Baseball is fine. There's probably a combination of tweaks, like moving the mound back just a little (more contact) and making the ball a little more dead (weaker contact) that would result in more action.

But it's fine! Guys throw 95mph sliders. There's only so much you can do to increase balls in play.

The philosophy of "Homers or strikeouts." That's ruined the game, too.

Are homers and strikeouts less exciting than singles and ground outs? Fewer stolen bases is no good, that’s definitely true.

Depends. A bunch of singles strung together can be extremely exciting. Taking the strategy out of the game and making it one-dimensional makes it less interesting to me.

But YMMV

Baserunning to stretch a hit or getting to third on a single or beating the throw to home is more exciting than jogging around the bases.

Chris H82

Beeeej

marty

Trotsky
I've heard it's an even better book (like The Big Short) but I have not partaken.

I'm not into stats and thought the book was fascinating and a well told tale.

Well, that tears it - I've been keeping it shelved for a while, but I'm bringing it with me to Germany for next week.

If you've got room in your bag, also throw in "The Premonition - a Pandemic Story", by Michael Lewis. I think it's his best book yet.

I wouldn't get a hard copy in time if I ordered it now, but I could always download to Kindle anytime next week anyway. Thanks!

BearLover

Jeff Hopkins '82

Dafatone
Baseball is fine. There's probably a combination of tweaks, like moving the mound back just a little (more contact) and making the ball a little more dead (weaker contact) that would result in more action.

But it's fine! Guys throw 95mph sliders. There's only so much you can do to increase balls in play.

The philosophy of "Homers or strikeouts." That's ruined the game, too.

Are homers and strikeouts less exciting than singles and ground outs? Fewer stolen bases is no good, that’s definitely true.

I'd say homers are exciting. Strikeouts are the big one that isn't exciting. Balls in play are good.

Jeff Hopkins '82

Dafatone
Baseball is fine. There's probably a combination of tweaks, like moving the mound back just a little (more contact) and making the ball a little more dead (weaker contact) that would result in more action.

But it's fine! Guys throw 95mph sliders. There's only so much you can do to increase balls in play.

The philosophy of "Homers or strikeouts." That's ruined the game, too.

It's kind of a chicken and egg thing. Guys throw much harder with better break (and arguably less control). If you're gonna make less contact because stuff is more untouchable, you might as well make that contact count.

Also, umps have decided that the strike zone is shins to thighs for some reason. Low zone = uppercut swings. I'd love for them to call actual letter-high strikes again.

Uh...guys/gals ... hockey???!

If you can't sing good, sing loud. If you can't talk sense, talk lots.

George64
Aaron Judge hit his 60th home run last night.

He's goin to be something when he gets to a major league.

Scersk '97
All things have gone downhill since the invention of the arquebus.

Fixed.

Larry72
Uh...guys/gals ... hockey???!

< Looks at calendar. >

"In a little while, man."

Larry72
Uh...guys/gals ... hockey???!

We should all use TD Bank. It might stand for thread drift.

billhoward
We should all use TD Bank. It might stand for thread drift.

I used to but tired of their website being down so much.

Larry72
Uh...guys/gals ... hockey???!

That was never the subject of this thread; it was always about the OP's self-fellating.

There you have it - from an expert on the subject.
Honi Soit qui Mal y Pense.