FJM has gone dark for the foreseeable future. Sorry folks. We may post once in a while, but it's pretty much over.
You can still e-mail dak,Ken Tremendous,Junior,Matthew Murbles, or Coach.
I was on the internet today and happened to read your Open Letter to Theo Epstein. I'd like to talk about that letter, and I apologize to you and anyone else reading that this is going to be boring and unfunny. I blame you.
As far as points 1-4, 7, 8 and 10: as I said from the beginning, I'm leaving it up to Theo as to whether or not the Sox would be better off spending their resources on Bonds. They probably aren't. Bill James has already made a great case for not signing Bonds on a pure baseball-performance level; I don't need Ken Tremendous running the numbers for me when it's already been done by the pros. (Why does anybody read this website anyway?)
I didn't think this was going to be about numbers or even baseball analysis. I also didn't think you were going to call me an asshole.
5. Barry Bonds hated Boston and thought it was racist, before he had ever been there. That seems like a dude you definitely want on your team, which plays in Boston.
I'm fine with it. I'm fine with a guy saying that he didn't want to play in Boston because he thought it was racist, four years ago. I'd be even more fine if that same guy decided to retract his statement, and play in that very same city if it proved to be his only viable option (which again, it won't; this is all hypothetical and pointless).
As I said before in the comments to the original post, I think it might help repair the racist image of the Boston sports world if the Sox signed one of the most high-profile African-American athletes in the country, especially at a time when no one else wanted him. I don't think it would make a big difference, but I certainly don't see the problem. I mean, if you don't like Bonds for calling Boston racist, wouldn't you want to see him admit that he was wrong, put on the Sox uniform, and (hopefully) find out that he was, in fact, at least kind of wrong?
That might be an unlikely scenario, but, within the universe of scenarios wherein Bonds plays for the Red Sox (I'm so bored right now), I submit that it's more unlikely that he would end up saying something like "Man, this place is even more racist than I thought." To be sure, Boston has its problems, but I like to think that (a) the situation is not nearly as bad as Bonds thought it was and (b) he'd be on his best behavior anyway and therefore pretty careful about what he said about his new team's town.
6...Now, I know a lot of guys in professional sports can proudly claim one or more of (a)-(f). But only one has all of them. And you want to put that guy -- that 43 year-old mini-scrotumed douchebag -- on your team?
There are hundreds of guys who are guilty of (a) and (b) (using PEDs and lying about it). Are you certain that none of them played on the 2004 or 2007 Red Sox? (Again, Gagne.)
I'm going to assume that every single baseball player cheats on his wife until proven otherwise, and I don't really care much if a guy cheats on his taxes or buys a house for his mistress (c). I'm not in favor of these things, and I also don't think it speaks very well for him. But I also don't root for my sports teams based on character. I root for the Boston Red Sox, and so do you. Sure, I'd prefer that they sign nothing but dudes who spend every non-baseball-playing-moment volunteering at the Jimmy Fund, but I tend not to worry about this kind of thing.
As far as calling racism everywhere he went (d), yeah, I'm not fond of that neither. But I'd also be willing to bet that he's been the victim of racism more often than you or I. In fact, I give him a pretty long leash on this one...do you think he would have booed so vehemently if he had been white? Hard to say.
As far as the kids thing (e), well, if you're going to lie about using steroids (which again, dozens of players have), you might as well use your kids, right? I give him points for creativity. And skipping a Home Run Derby (f)...you really care about that?
I can't defend everything Bonds has done. My main point is that many of his transgressions have been unnecessarily vilified, or seem worse relative to other players guilty of the same shit, simply because of how good he was, the stage he played on, and, perhaps, his race. None of those things are his fault.
Some people are jerks. Some of these jerks play baseball. Some of these people will end up playing for the team you root for. Would you root for a guy who was guilty of 1 of these a-f things (and surely you've rooted for at least one player who's taken steroids for years)? How about 3? Where do you draw the line?
I say once you're a fan of a team, you've signed up for the absurdity of the whole thing. You can't control who your team signs. You want to root for people you like, sure. But there's so much about these players we don't know, anyway. How sure can you be that Bonds is more of a douchebag than Mike Timlin? How can you even measure that? Why root for one but not the other, if they were wearing the same uniform? Are we still friends?
9. Let me ask you something -- and you too, dak. Is there any part of you...any part at all...that thinks that this would go well:
"Barry?" "Yeah?" "Hi. Allow me to introduce myself. I'm Dan Shaughnessey."
You want that? You want what follows that in your clubhouse?
Fuck, I don't care. Part of me thinks these two guys deserve each other. My biggest concern would be that Shaughnessy would garner more attention if he gets to cover the Bonds beat.
Do you want to be the guy who makes a case that this clubhouse atmosphere would adversely affect the performance of the other players? Go ahead, dude. Be my guest. I thought I knew you.
11...With (dak')s logic, there is no crime, no matter how heinous, that a player on your favorite team could commit that would sour a positive result on the playing field.
Of course there are crimes that are so heinous. I would not root for a team of convicted murderers, or players who have been proven to fix or throw games. I don't know how I would feel if this guy turned out to be Curtis Leskanic, but it would certainly wouldn't make me feel great about the Sox '04 Most Awesome Thing Ever.
As you know, I don't think Pete Rose belongs in the hall of fame. I think Barry Bonds does. I also don't really care that much, because almost everything about the Hall of Fame (again, the Hall, not the Museum) is poopyshoes.
Every day Pete Rose passed a sign on the wall explaining to him that anyone who engaged in the exact kind of behavior he was engaging in would be banned from baseball for life. Until 2003, MLB didn't even have a penalty in place for steroid users until 2003. (First time violators faced the near unbearable penalty of...counseling.)
But I just can't fault a guy for taking steroids when there wasn't a penalty for it. I'll take it to the extreme: I still think there's a case to be made that it's worth taking steroids today, in certain dire injury circumstances, and risking the first time 50-game suspension. People have broken the rules in every sport since the day they were invented. In the case of steroids, Bill James' travelling analogy seems worth bringing up (remember when he was on your side of the argument?).
Fortunately, sins of the highest magnitude (incest; game fixing; finding SJP more attractive than Trachtenberg) are weeded out by a combination of the law and MLB policy. Of course, those are the easy calls. The real question for both/all of us: where do you draw the line?
So, it's not going to happen, but with the Red Sox short one monster hitter for an indefinite amount of time (Papi), the name Barry Bonds has come up as a possible replacement. It's not even a legitimate rumor (jumbo shrimp / military intelligence, right people?!), but there is an argument to be made that he's one of the best available fits for the situation.
On this issue -- should the Red Sox pursue Barry L. Bonds -- we at FJM are squarely divided. So we're taking a bit of a departure from our usual nonsense to bring you the first of two open letters to Red Sox GM Theo Epstein. Stay tuned for a fiery, illogical, and misguided sequel from KT, a man who hates fun.
===
Dear Theo Epstein,
If you think it will help the Boston Red Sox, you should totally sign Barry Bonds.
I don't know you, but, like 90% of the other human beings I know, I love you. You are good at your job; you seem humble; and yet you had the stones to trade Nomar. Your team won it all, twice. New England likes the cut of your jib, and your form-fitting shirts. You've earned such respect from Sox fans that most people would have faith in you if you traded Ellsbury to Aston Villa for Alan Smith. And on top of that, you don't care about most people. So go ahead. Not because I or anyone says so, but because you in your near-infinite wisdom have decided it's best for the team. Sign Barry Bonds. I like it when you call David Ortiz "David."
You'd know better than I if Barry Bonds can help the team, or if it's worth spending whatever it will take to get Bonds. Of course, there are no outstanding offers for Bonds that anyone knows of, so just how much could it cost, anyway? I mean, how much do you have to pay a dude to give him his only opportunity to pad his stats? Jesus, dude. Sign this guy already. (Assuming that you know he's ready to play, and you think it'll help, etc etc.)
I bet we both like the same kinds of music, and we could talk about that over Kelly's roast beef sandwiches.
Do you know what Barry Bonds' OBP was last year? Of course you do. You're a handsome genius. It was 480. He hit 28 taters in 340 ABs. Oh, also, this is cool: he's Barry Fucking Bonds. You can bat him in front of Manny Ramirez. And then Manny will be batting with at least one dude on base 48% of the time. That's assuming that Bonds will be as good as he was last year. Which of course he won't. But it will still be awesome.
Hey, man. What was your Haftarah parsha? Mine was Korach.
The real issue, of course, is steroids. Or cheating. Or lying about cheating? I don't really know. Let's put it this way: the other night, my friend Junior asked me, "Would you want the Red Sox to win the 2008 World Series if, on the same night they clinched, Red Sox DH Barry Bonds tested positive for steroids and HGH and let's say, for the fun of it, black tar heroin?"
Yes. Yes yes. Yes yes yes. I want the Red Sox to win the World Series. Also, if Bonds is the DH, that means they're winning the WS at Fenway. How can you pass that up? You think Gino from Brockton is going to care if Barry Bonds took some extra special medicine while he's dancing somewhere in short left-center along with 34,000 people who just want to pour beer on Mike Timlin's head and bang a townie? Nope sir.
Sometimes I think about what it would be like just to hug you. Just once.
Remember last year when you traded for Eric Gagne? You knew he was a roid dude. But you did it anyway. The fact that he had "cheated" in the past didn't prevent you from acquiring him. So Barry Bonds did it all on a bigger stage, and maybe benefited from it more. Does that make him any more morally reprehensible than any of the dudes who juiced at any point in their careers? Why does Bonds have to sit on the outside while Andy Pettite gets to toss his Godball under the bright lights? Hey, by the way, that guy sucks, right?
I bet you and I would make a pretty sweet doubles ping-pong team. We have a table in my garage...I'm just saying.
Do you think most Sox fans have cheated in some tiny form or another on their taxes? I do. I bet most of them have. I say these jerks are taking money away from poor people. When they deducted that round at Leo J. Martin as a business expense, they were taking money away from people who really needed it. Which do you think is worse, Theo Epstein/America? Stealing money from poor people, or taking banned substances to try to make yourself better at your job?
Exactly. So who are these assholes to tell you that if you sign Barry Bonds, you'd be somehow tainting the sanctity of Fenway Park? These jerkstores taint it every time they sit their thieving asses down in the bleachers, am I right? I've sort of lost the point of this rhetorical exercise, so I hope you're still on board. I have "Manhattan" on DVD if you ever wanna watch it at our house the next time the Sox are playing in Anaheim. Holds up pretty well.
What are the other possible cons? The media circus? Even if you believe that the scrutiny of the media can actually affect the team, you'll remember that the Red Sox have performed for decades under what is generally considered the largest, most warped magnified glass in all of sports journalism. Hard to imagine Youkilis's OPS taking a nosedive if he has to answer questions about the size of Bonds's clubhouse recliner (which, by the way, should be five of the largest recliners available at Jordan's furniture fused together to form a Voltron-like megarecliner).
I bet our moms would like each other.
It's cool for baseball players to get cortisone injections, but they're not allowed to use other kinds of steroids. Tera Patrick should be more ashamed of what she does than Megan Fox. Most people wouldn't take a virtually harmless pill that would make them better at their jobs, if it were against company policy. What a shame it would be for lovable Bud Selig to have to watch his nemesis, Barry Bonds, finally win a World Series ring. To all of these related-only-in-my-head-statements, I say: BULLPOO. Think outside the bun.
Reader John P. writes in re: Manny batting with runners on >48% of the time:
As I'm sure others have reminded you, when Mr. Bonds (or any other batter, for that matter) hits a home run, he's no longer on base.
True. And he does hit a lot of home runs, due mostly to his awesomeness.
Of course, there's also a decent chance that Manny will have someone on base who Bonds stranded (unlikely!), so the real percentage would probably be higher than 48% (again, assuming a Bonds OBP of 480 which won't happen).
A few e-mails about the race issue. Yes, Bonds has made comments that he would never play in Boston because it's too racist. That was four years ago -- hard to know if his mind has changed now that nobody else wants him. (Reader Ben G. found the quotes in question here.)
Assume for a minute that Bonds would be willing to play in Boston. Let me throw this out there: might signing a high profile African-American baseball player, when nobody else wants him, help combat the racist image of the Boston sports world?
RetroChat! SprungOnSports (Long Island): Joe, can the Yankees be salvaged and play consistently enough to get back into the playoff hunt?
KT: I don't know if I've mentioned this before, but SprungOnSports (Long Island) is always the first one in the pool and the last to leave at these JoeChats. What gives, SprungOnSports (Long Island)? Why so eager to not have your questions answered?
Joe Morgan: If you take the reputations away of all the All-Star players and the big salaries, and you just look at them objectively, you would not be that impressed.
...Wha? What happened to "Well they're still the Yankees...", which is how you always answer this question? Fremp? Is that you, Fremp?
I think they are in trouble. They will be better with A-Rod back, who carried them through the first month last year, so he may be able to do that again. But you have to be concerned about their starting pitching. I just do not think they can win consistently with the pitching they are throwing out there.
Oh brother. Fremp Controversy II? (Except for the use of "consistently.")
Rob (Baltimore): Joe, is a team playing better baseball than the Cubs right now? Are they now a serious threat to win the WS?
Joe Morgan: Any team that gets into the postseason can win it all, if they get on a hot streak. We have seen it happen plenty of times. There are no great teams anymore. Boston is the best team overall. And I think the Cubs will make the playoffs, so I think they have a chance.
Crisis averted. No great teams. Music to my ears. Fremp-proof evidence.
Terrence (NYC): After this weekend's series, I'm hoping Jose Reyes is starting to take off- not only did it look like he was having fun, but he seemed a little angry as he was doign good things- almost like he's playing with a chip on his shoulder about the media and fan criticism. Do you agree?
Joe Morgan: Well I think that too much blame is put on Reyes when the Mets struggle.Yes, Reyes struggled last season down the stretch, but I think too much pressure is put on him.
I don't know, man. He's the SS and leadoff hitter for the Mets. He hit .205/.279/.333 in 117 September AB last year, and was 5-9 in SB after being 23-26 in August. His team collapsed horribly. He certainly wasn't the only one to stink it up, but when you're the leadoff hitter and SS and you stink it up in September and your team collapses horribly, you're going to take that hit. Hell, David Wright took a hit, too, and he OPSed like a billion. (I haven't checked that specifically, but I'm pretty sure it was like a billion.)
So he should be playing with a chip on his shoulder, with everything that has but put on him, especially last season's collpase. I am a big fan of his and I hope that he continues to play well.
Coddler.
Rich (Sun Valley, ID): Joe, have you ever seen a team leave as many men on base as the Cardinals in the last week?
He has no idea what you're talking about, Rich. He hasn't seen the Cardinals play this year. I guarantee you get nothing specific here.
And when is the last time you saw a team get 18 hits (the Rays) and lose? Thanks-
He has never seen that. He doesn't watch baseball. You get no answer here. KT guarantee.
Joe Morgan: Those things happen; where you get a lot of guys on base, and you do not drive them in, the pressure builds and you get tight. It happens, and it happens as a team. Just like hitting in contagious, so is leaving men on base. I have seen plenty of games where teams just cannot seem to drive ina run.
As Nikki Finke would say: toldja!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jon (Mad-town): Will we ever see a a great/dominant team again? I think the D-backs have something in the works for the next decade.
Joe Morgan: Yeah I think we will see dominant teams again. When scientists build a time machine and we can go back to Cincinnati in 1975, assholes.
Just kidding. He didn't write that second part. But how awesome would it have been if he had?
These things happen in cycles. But it has to be a team that has strengths in all areas of the game.
Hang on...this theoretically "dominant" team has to have strengths in all areas of the game? I don't understand.
I think the D-backs, because they are young and can develop, could be great for a very long period of time.
Name three Diamondbacks. (And Randy Johnson doesn't count, because you'd only be naming him because you remember he was on the team in 2001 and don't know that he's been traded like five times since then.)
Kevin STL: Joe, after that fiasco with Delgado's HR being called back, do you think the need for Instant Replay is upon us? Seems as though you and J Miller already knew the ball was fair before they overrode the call because of the replay.
Joe Morgan: Well I knew it was fair before the replay, because I had a good angle. I dfo not think you can have replays, because you would use it too much.
No you wouldn't, if the league regulated how often you could use it. We're very early in this debate, and we already have our "Why does everyone ignore this basic and simple fact?" thing.
There has been talk on using it for HR in the 8th or 9th inning, but that is not fair because often the winning HRs are hit earlier in the game. Replay would slow the game down more, so I think we will just have to live with the decisions of the umpires.
A few intrepid emailers have pointed out: when a controversial HR is hit, here's what happens. One team argues the call. The manager comes out. The hitter and the manager converge on the ump. The up calls the other umps and they talk for 1-3 minutes. The call is either reversed or upheld. The losing side argues. Often, someone is tossed after 1-3 more minutes of arguing. The game continues.
There is no way a red flag-type review situation could take that much longer than it already does.
I did like how they gathered around and talked about the play. But I did not like how the play was overruled by someone who was not the closest to the play. To overturn something like that you need to be 100% sure.
Hey -- here's a way to make it so that you're 100 sure: watch a replay.
Steiny (NYC): Joe, do you think Barry Bonds will be on a major league baseball team before the end of the season?
Joe Morgan: I have no reason to believe he will, so I will say no. But it is too bad, because the guy hit 28 HRs last season and there are plenty of guys with lesser talent playing on teams right now. It is unfortunate that he has become the poster boy for the steroids era, when it is obvious that hundreds of other guys were doing it as well.
Huh. Good point. Why would it be that Bonds became the poster boy for steroids instead of, you know, like Paxton Crawford or something? Can't think of a reason off-hand. I mean, both he and Paxton Crawford used illegal performance-enhancing drugs. Both Bonds and Paxton Crawford broke the all-time HR record for a season. He and Paxton Crawford both also set the all-time career mark in HR. So that can't be it. And it was Paxton Crawford, actually, I think I remember, who set the all-time record for walks in a season, because he was the most famous and feared hitter in the history of baseball...
I don't know. There's gotta be a reason somewhere.
MJ (Edmonton): Joe, how do players regain their consistency coming back from an injury?
You know what's amazing? Joe has been baited one thousand times by people using "consistency" in the question, and he's never once indicated that this is strange or unusual.
Joe Morgan: The toughest thing about coming back is the first few days you are full of energy and running on pure adrenaline, which makes you play well; [...]
I am going to take this as evidence that Joe Morgan wholeheartedly supports the use of adrenaline-based PEDs.
Joe Morgan: That's all the time I have. We'll chat again next Tuesday.
Joe has been baited one thousand times by people using "consistency" in the question, and he's never once indicated that this is strange or unusual.
Not only that, but out of the presumably hundreds of millions of questions he's getting, he's specifically picking all of the ones with "consistency" in them. Maybe he thinks it's like his "mega-dittoes" or something.
Alright, I'll be the guy who defends Joe Morgan. Nobody's happy about this, but, here goes.
Re: Bonds/'roids. Morgan never said that he didn't understand why Bonds became the poster boy. He just said that it's unfortunate.
And I agree with him. As we've discussed many times -- and feel free to bring up Frat House again if you like -- I think it's unfortunate that steroid users get vilified more than the other cheaters in baseball history. And similarly, I agree with Morgan that it's unfortunate that Bonds gets vilified more than other steroid users. In both cases, I understand why...I (We? Ugh. We.) just think it's not cool.
Some of you have emailed me to defend Eric Walker, cited and gently mocked in the post sub as a guy who thinks that steroids didn't increase HR (which he does). I introduced him as "a guy you may have heard of" for precisely this reason -- he is one of the good guys, I think, who recently established this site as a scientific investigation on the true benefits (or lack thereof) of PEDs. It's excellent, and I recommend it, especially this page, which is dedicated to the actual effects (or lack thereof) of steroid use. (He can also be found right here on Blogger, with his excellently-titled "Is It a Blog Yet?", a more general-interest kind of deal, but fun reading.)
I love Eric Walker. Eric Walker is awesome. The problem with that article in my opinion, whether it is due to a lack of context or Walker's own words (or both), are:
(1) The author (not Walker) attributes a "late-30's surge" to Aaron, when his numbers were pretty similar in that period to those from his early 30s (which itself is impressive, I suppose). This is not the same thing as suddenly out of nowhere hitting 73 HR in a season when you've never before hit more than 49 (and that was the year before), and also you are 36/37. It's not the same. Not. Same.
(2) Walker, who is smarter than I am and much more thorough, challenges us to find a counterargument rooted in mathematics, and there is one, and I linked it. [EDIT: Please see comments for a good counter-argument to the study, and a call-to-arms.] Now, obviously, the standard deviation break-down of Bonds's season does not in any way link the HR to steroids -- nor does it attempt to. What it does, is: it shows the extreme improbability of a 37 year-old man hitting 73 HR in a season. Is it possible that Bonds is, actually, just the 1 in 53 million who could do it? I suppose. But he's also, apparently, the #1 abuser of PEDs -- not just steroids, but crazy, never-before-seen-or-analyzed shit -- in baseball history. That is worth looking at, I think.
A large part of Walker's site's argument has to do with the fact that steroids add more muscle mass to the upper body than the lower body, and that power is generated in the lower body. Problem is, I don't think the Cream or the Clear were used in those studies. And I don't know what counts as "steroids." (This could be due to my own careless reading of the site or its many sister sites. There's a lot of stuff there.)
He also seems, when he does his calculations, to use only "lower body" muscle gain, and I am not sure if that includes the torso or not. Because Bonds's torso is massive, and so was Giambi's when he was using, and so was McGwire's. It is unclear to me whether torso muscle mass is being included in Walker's calculations, and I am reasonably certain that Prof. Adair mentions in his writings that power is generated primarily from legs, ass, and torso.
Walker also seeks to disprove the notion that the rejuvenation effects of steroids help guys, really, in terms of HR-hitting, but the way he does it (as far as I can tell) is by arguing that they can't recover that quickly from injuries that would make them miss games, and even if they did, since the best HR hitters only really hit like 2 a week or so, it wouldn't make that much difference. But he doesn't, I don't think, try to quantify the effects of steroids on just minor nagging injuries that might make a guy play who's playing at 80% effectiveness feel good-as-new. Cortisone is a steroid, and guys get cortisone shots all the time to relieve pain, and it helps them play better. [EDIT: please see comments.] Perhaps the true benefit of steroids is in this marginal universe, where a guy who might just be banged-up gets to feel tip-top. (I truthfully don't remember offhand whether Walker deals with that specifically -- I'll have to check again.)
Anyway, I was just responding to the specific things in that article that seemed slapdash. As for the first comment I made, about him ignoring the spike in 50-HR seasons, well, that was probably knee-jerk. He mostly uses the Power Factor thing in his analysis, which, since he is smarter than I am, I am going to assume is worthwhile. I still would like to know why it is that the three guys who have hit 60+ HR since Maris are all hard-core PED users. Small Sample Size? Coincidence? I guess?
Anyway, I digress, a lot. I promise I love Eric Walker. I aspire to be as intellectually rigorous as he is. But I also reserve the right to be lazily critical of New York Times sportswriters for the sake of comedy.
The problem I have with the study showing Bonds' gazillion standard deviations away from the mean stems from the arbitrariness of the data selected: steroids aside, it is ridiculous to assume that a 37-year-old playing in the 1930s has the same relative age as a 37-year-old playing today, or even 10-20 years ago. Babe Ruth once knocked himself unconscious in Spring Training by running into a palm tree; he nor any other player in his time preserved his body like a PED-free player today can and does. Not to mention that the article uses raw numbers from these vastly different eras, a glaring error that you've criticized multiple times in HOF articles. If you would post this it might motivate one your more analytically inclined readers (i.e. anyone that reads FJM) to run the same study with age and/or normalization factored into the equation.
in the 2003 edition of his baseball abstract, bill james points out that hank aaron had the "illusion of consistency" late in his career because he moved from a pitchers park to one suited for hitters, right at the time (non-steroidal) home run hitters usually decline in power.
bonds moved parks as well at about that age, except it was from one pitchers park to another one that was arguably even worse for (non-steroidal) home run hitters. so that probably makes his 73 home runs even more unlikely.
Ken, I'm concerned that your most recent post, while generally thorough and well-reasoned, suffers at one point from the kind of insufficient specificity that tends to plague discussions of PED use nowadays. More specifically, you talk about "steroids" generally and then refer to cortisone -- "a steroid" -- as archetypal evidence that "steroids" can aid day-to-day recovery. As you probably know in the back of your mind, but failed to elucidate here, catabolic steroids and anabolic steroids are, in biological terms, opposites with respect to building muscle. Cortisone is an effective anti-inflammatory but also a corticosteroid; stanazolol (e.g.), is an effective anabolic but you wouldn't want to inject it into a tendon to reduce swelling. This is not to say that there isn't a plausible argument that anabolics and/or HGH and/or insulin and/or equipoise (all of which have probably entered Mr. Bonds' ham-hock gluteals at one point or another) contribute to day-to-day recovery; this is merely to point out that relying on cortisone's classification as a "steroid" does not prove, even a little bit, the day-to-day recovery attributes of anabolic steroids.
Here was my response to him:
I was aware of the difference and did not mean to imply that anyone would inject, like, Winstrol as an anti-inflammatory. (It does read that way, and the mistake is mine.) What I meant to say was that steroids generally -- in different ways -- can be used to accelerate health, whether as "calm down!" or "speed up!" The only point I was trying to make was that Walker accounts for, and seems to disprove, a lot of arguments people have about PED use, and the smaller, day-to-day health benefits of steroids of all kinds seemed not to be accounted for.
I'm late to this party -- Deadspin already picked it up -- but I can't resist. FJM Legend Woody Paige wrote an article about his HOF vote. This should give you doubters out there a lot of confidence in the sanctity of the HOF voting system.
I'm sitting here, looking out the window and pondering the snow, the sun, the creek, the peak and the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot. [...]
Do I vote for suspected steroid users, particularly a couple included in the Mitchell report on Thursday, or do I automatically dismiss their candidacy?
Up to you. There is a "character" clause in the HOF voting rules, but hell, Ty Cobb is in, so go nuts.
Do I vote for guys I personally like, or is that not being objective?
...That's the definition of "not being objective," dummy. Vote for them if they're good enough. This is not the Woody Paige Memorial Day Bar-B-Q Jamboree Invite List.
Do I vote for a creep or a man who committed suicide? Do I check 10 players, the maximum allowed, or keep it to one or two? Do I go with pitcher Tommy John because they named a surgical procedure after him?
These are pretty much up to you, but off the top of my head: (a) if he is good enough to get in, (b) up to you, (c) no.
Here are my thoughts about the votes, although you can influence my final decision:
Gossage — During a visit to Yankee Stadium in the late 1970s, I wanted to talk to Goose but was told he was cruel and gruff to reporters. I sheepishly introduced myself and said I was from Colorado, his home state, and he talked pleasantly for 30 minutes. We've been good friends since. I would vote for him even if he wasn't deserving. [...]
Whoops! You're not supposed to say things like that, Woody. It kind of means you're a terrible journalist.
Let's just look at those voting guidelines one more time:
Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
Let's see...just going to scan it one more time...nope. Don't see anything about talking pleasantly with people, or journalist-player home state connection.
Knoblauch, McGwire and Justice — I won't vote for them because of the swirl of steroid and human growth hormone accusations, and I also won't vote for them because I don't think they're worthy. Justice had a career batting average of .279 (with 305 home runs and 1,017 RBIs). His teams did win two World Series, but I don't feel it.
Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played, and whether Woody Paige "feels it." (Emphasis mine.)
Knoblauch was a very good second baseman, but this is not the Hall of Very Good.
What a classic fucking strawman. "You seem like a nice guy. I hate nice guys!!!!"
McGwire had 583 homers but a career .263 average.
Reggie Jackson had 563 homers but a career .262 average. There are a lot of arguments against Mac in the HOF. This is not one of them.
The drug suspicions, and his appearance at a Washington hearing examining drug use, haunt him.
This is sort of one of them. But the last one was so dumb I can't even give you partial credit.
(Dale) Murphy — Got my vote, but he won't get in. He was two short of 400 home runs and hit only .265, but he won back-to-back MVP awards, made seven all-star teams and earned five Gold Gloves.
Baseball arguments.
He played 26 games for the Rockies in their first season, 1993, before retiring. I vote for Rockies. He was who a ballplayer should be. And he always remembers my name. I'm a sap.
NON-BASEBALL ARGUMENTS.
Holy shit, are those bad arguments. Those aren't even arguments. Those aren't anything. That's not even English. That is a collection of glyphs scrawled on a cave in Lascaux. You will vote for Murphy because he was a Rockie? And he always remembers your name? Are you kidding me?
If this were politics, and you were a congressman, and you were talking about why you would or would not vote on a certain bill, and you were this frank in admitting your (a) lack of qualifications and (b) absurdly low ethical standards, not to mention (c) how easily you can be bought, you might be impeached. I know baseball is just a game, but jeez, man. Have a little self-respect.
Andre Dawson and Tim Raines — I'm voting for them. Both are borderline. But I was amazed by, and wrote columns about, Dawson and Raines when they played for the Denver Bears. Dawson passed through in 1976 on his way to the Montreal Expos, and Raines was the 1980 minor-league player of the year as the Bears' second baseman. (Raines did have a cocaine addiction problem but overcame it.)
Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played, and whether Woody Paige "feels it." Also, you can chuck the "character" thing out the window if the payer in question ever played for a fucking minor league team in Denver, because somehow that makes up for it. In fact, if the dude ever played in or near the Denver-metro area, at any level, just stamp a big ol' "yes" on the form and go about your business. (Emphasis mine.)
Jim Rice — He has been shut out for 13 years, mainly because he primarily was a DH. That doesn't bother me, but his overall numbers are just shy. Yet, he was an MVP, in the top five in the MVP five other times and made eight all-star teams in 16 seasons. Why not? I'll check his name.
Well, his playing career doesn't really warrant it. But on the other hand, his playing career kinda warrants it. So, okay.
Again, I know these aren't exactly world-changing policy decisions, but Jiminy Christmas, friend. Spend a little time. Do some analysis. Think it over. I mean, did you even research whether Jim Rice has ever visited Denver? Or whether he was ever polite to you?
Don Mattingly — Another former player, now a coach, who I became friends with, so I'm prejudiced.
I am getting to like the flatness with which he describes his own corruption.
I like voting for friends, especially when they hit .307 lifetime, won an MVP, made six consecutive all-star teams and won a Gold Glove nine times in 14 seasons. Class act.
Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played, and whether Woody Paige "feels it." Also, you can chuck the "character" thing out the window if the payer in question ever played for a fucking minor league team in Denver, because somehow that makes up for it. In fact, if the dude ever played in or near the Denver-metro area, at any level, just stamp a big ol' "yes" on the form and go about your business.Oh -- also, if Woody Paige is friends with him, and if Paige at anytime describes him as a "class act," then pretty much go ahead and let him in. (Emphasis mine.)
Bert Blyleven (287-250) and Tommy John (288-231) — Also on my list. I will give a vote as a salute to Dave Concepcion, in his final year on the ballot.
A vote for Davey C. Yet another thing you and Joe Morgan have in common.
My nine. Your turn.
Well, I have met and spoken with the following baseball players in my lifetime:
Wade Boggs Kevin Youkilis Bill Mueller Derek Jeter Tino Martinez Jorge Posada David Wells David Cone Johnny Damon Kevin Millar Bronson Arroyo Jeff Weaver
So, I'll be voting for them. Also, I will vote for anyone who has ever visited, mentioned, or some within 100 miles of Partridge, KS. And finally, I will vote for anyone who has a name that is similar to, or an anagram of, my name. Because that is what I have learned from you, Woody. Vote crazy!
Eric points out that congresspeople cannot be impeached, which I did not know. And have not yet verified. But Eric seems like a smart guy, so I'll assume he's correct.
And now Jonathan writes in to say that congresspeople definitely can get impeached.
I am sure you've gotten like 40 e-mails about this already, but congressmen definitely can be impeached. The House of Reps. has the power to impeach any Federal government official (judges, reps, senators, president) and then the Senate tries them. In fact, the first person impeached was Sen. William Blount, a member of Congress. As far as I know no Rep. has ever been impeached (I did one Google search, but I like to think of myself as the Joe Morgan of legal analysis) but either way they definitely can be.
I am stubbornly going to continue to not look this up, in the hopes of being able to print an infinite number of conflicting errata/addenda to this post that no one will ever read. And yes, I know I split an infinitive, but in this case I think it was warranted.
The Constitution limits impeachment to "[t]he President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States. . . ." A dispute exists to this day whether members of Congress are "civil officers of the United States." The dispute remains unresolved and is largely academic because both the House and Senate have their own expulsion procedures if a rep or senator misbehaves.
This comments section is one more post away from becoming its own blog about the Constitution.
We continue now with James, commenting on what historians call "The First Impeachment," that of Tennessee Senator William Blount in the late 170's.
Blount was impeached by the House, but the Senate dismissed the charges, not because they believed Blount was innocent (they expelled him from the Senate), but because they believed the House had erred and they did not have jurisdiction. The Constitution says "civil officers" can be impeached, and commentators generally agree that the term "civil officers" refers only to executive and judicial branch officers. Since then, Representatives and Senators found guilty of malfeasance have been expelled by the house to which they belong rather than impeached in the two-stage process of impeachment by the House and expulsion by the Senate.
This blog is just a long civics lesson at this point.
According to Article XXI of the Colorado State Constitution, if Woody Paige was a state congressman, one would only have to get enough signatures on a petition to equal 25% of the number of people who initially voted for Woody, and you could hold a recall election. Then a simple majority could boot him out.
Colorado is one of only 18 'recall states' in the nation.
Now, before you read this next quote, remember that John Kruk is not just a fat sanctimonious dummy who apparently will do anything to protect the heretofore untarnished legacy of his old teammate Lenny Dykstra (and others). He is also J.D./PhD from Stanford. After graduating law school, Kruk was at Latham Watkins in NY for six years before being poached by Skadden, where he headed up their litigation team for eleven years, rising to Managing Partner in 2003.
So it means something when Kruk dispenses his legal opinions. To wit:
But you can't prove that they took anything! Just because you have 'em doesn't mean you took 'em. Now, common sense tells you if you're purchasing them you're probably going to use 'em also, but -- if there's no drug test, no failed drug test, how can you suspend anyone by hearsay? I mean, that's like arresting someone at 12 o'clock in the afternoon, saying, "About a week ago, you had a couple drinks and you were driving, so we're going to arrest you now." You can't do it unless you prove it.
Alcohol is not illegal. Many steroids are, when obtained the way these dudes often obtained them, I think. Also, in many cases, there is substantial corroborating evidence in the form of eyewitness testimony and credit card receipts and the like. To say nothing of the circumstantial evidence of: the users' injuries' healed quickly and they got better at baseball. But again, I'm no expert.
I also look forward to any of the named players stepping forward and claiming that they purchased, but did not use, steroids. Forgetting the validity of the legal arguments set forth by John D. Kruk, Attorney at Law, I just don't think the "I never injected" arguments would hold up that well in a MLB hearing (which is very different from a like Federal grand jury).
Through All of This, Let's Remember Who the Real Victims Are
I'm talking, of course, about the players who cheated and were caught.
I feel so bad for them. All they were trying to do is cheat and buy and use illegal drugs so that they could make more money and skew the history of baseball. Is that so wrong? Show me how that's wrong. And for cripe's sake, if you have to go ahead and investigate them and catch them cheating and lying and illegally purchasing and whatever, don't actually name them! What purpose does that serve?
But don't take my word for it. Take the word of famed genius and multiple-variation idiot John Kruk, on ESPN a second ago:
John Kruk: You know -- most of this is all hearsay. You heard Roger Cossack say that this stuff wouldn't stand up in a court. The thing I keep hearing from Mitchell and from Bud Selig is this: "Now we move forward. Now we move forward." If you want to move forward, why do you bring up names from the past who have nothing to do with the game of baseball right now? Mo Vaughn, Lenny Dykstra, David Justice -- guys who aren't involved in the game anymore. Why bring up their names? If you want to clean the game up, clean the game up. Those guys aren't dirtying the game anymore. They're out of it. So leave 'em out of it and move forward and get the guys who are. But again -- why do you gotta name the names? What is the purpose of naming the names of these people? Is it to satisfy the public? Is it to satisfy themselves? Why drag 'em all through the mud? Let them go. You got 'em, you call 'em in separately, privately, and you say, "Here's what we got on you, now you talk." If they don't want to talk, then you can do something as far as suspension. But you -- you don't have to get out in the public with this.
Forget for a minute that Krukie seems to lose his argument completely towards the end, where he advocates suspensions for players who are no longer playing the game. And forget for a minute that Mitchell clearly asked each and every player whose name came up in the investigation to come and speak with him on the record, and that they all declined. Instead, focus on this: if you used steroids, which is cheating, you deserve less than zero sympathy from anyone. You certainly don't deserve a get-out-of-jail-free card from Krukie.
Why name the names? Are you fucking kidding me?
No one who used this shit before the MLB testing policy was in place should be punished by the game itself. But their names? Those are ours, now, thank you.
Who enjoys cheap schadenfreude? Hit up this link on Beliefnet (I'm a big, big Beliefnet guy) and read the headline. Then read the byline.
Ah fuck it, I'll just print it here. The headline:
Living a Pure Life
The byline:
By Andy Pettitte and Bob Reccord with Mark Tabb
Can you believe Mark Tabb co-wrote this article?!?! The irony!
As a Christian I also have one goal. I want to fulfill God's purpose for my life. I constantly ask myself "What does God want me to do?"
Then God came to me in the middle of the night. He took the form of a beautiful woman, the most beautiful I'd ever seen. I was nervous, because what happens if seeing God gives you a boner? Is it a sin or does He/She understand and just chuckle to Him/Herself a little bit? But I didn't have to worry. Gorgeous She-God wasn't there to tempt me. He/She whispered in my ear three letters: HGH. Before I could explain to Him/Her that HGH was against the rules of baseball, God Woman was gone.
The next day, I saw God again. This time, God appeared in the form of my teammate, good friend, and hunting buddy, Roger Clemens. "Andy," God said, "I've been doing a lot of steroids. Like a literal buttload. Like a million trillion billion steroids. Unless you do steroids, too, I won't be your good friend and hunting buddy anymore." I nodded. God was so wise. He knew how much I needed a hunting buddy.
Finally, I saw God again the day after that. He took the form of my trainer, Brian McNamee. God said, "Don't worry, you'll love this needle. Roger says it's the softest one." So I let God do what He had to do. That's just one of the sacrifices you have to make when you make pleasing God Job Number One.
Those may sound like odd questions to ask in a book about purity. After all, doesn't purity just mean sexual purity? Hardly.
It also means you can only inject the purest HGH. I always ran my HGH through three Brita filters and then took it to a priest to get it blessed. Holy HGH, or HGodH as I call it, was the only chemical I would allow in my pure veins. I knew God would approve. In fact, a lot of my teammates started calling me HGodH. I beamed with pride whenever this would happen.
The question of God's purpose for my life both today and for the rest of my life makes everything else secondary, even baseball.
See, baseball was always secondary to me. Secondary to my moral code, my religion, my health, my family's respect for me. Secondary to my desire to have Roger think I was "cool," not "an uptight Christ-y dork." Baseball is just a sport, a sport with made-up "rules" written by human beings. America is just a country, a country with made-up "laws" written by other human beings.
God plays by his own rules, folks. And HGH is fucking legal as hell up in heaven. Babe Ruth holds the Heaven Baseball League single season record for homers with 446. And in heaven, the season is one game long.
Don't get me wrong. I know the Lord wants me to play baseball. After all, a man needs to have a job. But my career won't last forever. Eventually my life will take another turn. When that time comes, God's plan for me and my family will come first. With every decision I make I have to think about what the longterm effects will be.
Those effects include liver damage, hypogonadism, depression, enlarged heart, and a legacy forever tarnished. Is it worth it, God?
God (turns into a giant, anthropomorphic smiley-faced syringe): Does this answer your question?
Post-Mitchell Report, it sure is fun to dig up old articles and find damning quotes from steroid users:
Clemens Had a Fountain of Youth in Vioxx
What was Clemens's youth dew of choice? A miracle lotion in the form of a steroid called "the cream"? A droplet of the steroid known as THG? Or an injection of a good old-fashioned steroid in the rumpus?
Actually, it was Vioxx, the prescription pain reliever withdrawn from the market in September because of a study that showed the drug doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke.
Well, actually actually, it was the last thing you said in the previous paragraph. Winstrol. And humorously, Clemens was too scared to inject himself, and that seems to be one of the only reasons his name is in the Mitchell Report today. So yeah: Vioxx, Winstrol, and also some HGH.
"To be honest, my thoughts were: 'O.K., how's my body going to hold up? I can't take Vioxx anymore,' " Clemens said.
It's cool. You can keep having a guy stick you in your back door meat with Winstrol. Remember Winstrol? It turned your arm into magic again.
This was either a candid admission by a renowned pitcher about his fragile age or a kind of masking agent for prior use of steroids. What a clever alibi Clemens would have if his statistics, body and arm break down this year: See, it was the Vioxx vacuum, not steroid withdrawal.
Kudos, New York Times reporter Selena Roberts. Now hold on, big chunk coming:
In his new book, Canseco depicts Clemens as a player with expert knowledge of steroids who was frustrated with 'roid-infused hitters catching up to his fastball.
Clemens didn't respond to the book with a categorical denial of steroid use, but he did have a comeback for Canseco, a habitual lawbreaker.
As Canseco wrote: "One of the benefits of steroids is that they're especially helpful in countering the effects of aging. So in Roger's case, around the time he was leaving the Boston Red Sox - and Dan Duquette, the general manager there, was saying he was 'past his prime' - Roger decided to make some changes. He started working out harder. And whatever else he may have been doing to get stronger, he saw results."
Is such innuendo blasphemy to Clemens's holy legacy of work ethic? "I could care less," Clemens said.
"I've talked to some friends of his," Clemens said. "And I've teased them that when you're under house arrest and have ankle bracelets on, you have a lot of time to write a book."
Clemens added, "After I did all that hilarious teasing, I went home and had a guy inject me with illegal steroids. It felt good. 18, 20, 25 million dollars good. You see, I am not a loser under house arrest who has to write a book like Jose Canseco. The difference between him and me as that I will never, ever get caught using steroids. Ever."
The year he turned 35, Roger Clemens struck out 292 batters in the AL East, more than he had ever struck out in any other season of his illustrious career.
The year he turned 43, he posted an ERA of 1.87 (ERA+ of 226).
Those are numbers almost as comic book-y as Bonds' 73, his 762, his seasons of 293474854.340 OPSes.
The greatest hitter and the greatest pitcher of this era of baseball were both having superpower-juice regularly injected into their bodies.
And we may never know the names of all of the hundreds of other users.
Maybe Nick Cafardo has some inside information on exactly who the 11 free agents named in the Mitchell Report are. But I would be mildly surprised if he did. That's why it's hard to justify saying things like this:
The agents who represent these players know who they are. Teams may have to guess. Signing a player who could subsequently be suspended is a tough sell to your fans. It will be interesting to see which free agents stay on the market a little longer than usual, or at least until the Mitchell report comes out late this year.
But there are no such worries for Lowell.
He used the home ballpark to his advantage last season, hitting .373 with 14 homers and 73 RBIs at Fenway, as opposed to .276 with 7 homers and 47 RBIs away. But that was a 180 from 2006, when he hit .260 with 9 homers and 42 RBIs at Fenway and .310 with 11 homers and 38 RBIs on the road.
No such worries? Because he's a solid dude? Because he doesn't have a size 94 hat? Because he didn't Brady Anderson the ball for one season?
I often have to remind myself that good Christian soldier Paul Byrd took HGH and guys like Matt Lawton and Alex Sanchez took steroids. Basically, literally everyone in the game is a possible user, no matter what their body shape, position, or ostensible character. No one likes this. But the people who have been found guilty so far represent such a random assortment of guys, it's hard to exonerate anyone before we've seen the proof.
Senator Mitchell? You can end your investigation, sir. I'm sure you've been doing a lot of hard work, pounding the pavement, rooting around in dark alleys, wearing trenchcoats, smoking pipes. I'm telling you now you can stop and relax. Our long national roidmare is over thanks to a gutsy young muckraker from north of the border, one Mr. Richard Griffin of the Toronto Star. At the cost of only his own blood, sweat, tears and pancreatic secretions, Mr. Griffin has fingered the culprit behind this whole steroid mess. Yes, there is only one. A lone gunman. A puppeteer behind the scenes. A criminal mastermind. A shadowlord lurking in the spaces our society dares not tread.
Who is it? It's a book. It's called Moneyball. Maybe you've heard of it?
People are always accusing me of misrepresenting what Moneyball was all about,
And it's impossible that you're actually wrong about it, so -- but there are so many facets and interpretations that it's tough to say anyone is really wrong.
I don't believe that's actually true, and certainly in this case, sir, it most undoubtedly is not. What you are about to say about Moneyball is unequivocally, unquestionably, indubitably wrong.
But think about this. One of the Billy Beane precepts was to look for college and, occasionally, high school hitters that were not really the greatest athletes on their team but had the discipline to wait for the right pitch and then smack the hell out of it when they found it. On-base percentage, dude. That's the wave of the future. Forget about how boring those four-hour games get. These were the bargains.
This is wrong, but not the wrongest part. That part we're about to get to. (As a an aside, does Griffin really blame Billy Beane for caring about winning at the expense of game length? We're trying to win games here, people, are we not?)
Take a deep breath, now, and pre-emptively duct tape your jaw so that it does not succumb to gravity, friends:
Now think of a college kid back then in the post-Mark McGwire era who knew he was always going to be on the fringe because he wasn't your most graceful natural athlete, but knew that if only he was a lot stronger, he could learn to play within himself and crush an occasional mistake pitch. As long as he didn't chase bad ones he could make an impact in this century's home run crazy major-league baseball. As for a position in the field, they could teach him to be adequate somewhere. Major league minimum of $319,000 (U.S.) is all that these kids wanted. That's the carrot. He had the stick. The rest was gravy. Before there was steroid testing, who, if they were on the fringe with a clear market for awkward sluggers, wouldn't take that plunge? Moneyball is over.
Wow. Wow. Wow. (The last "wow" was a backwards "wow," I'm so wowed.) It's so clear to me now. Moneyball is the root of all steroids! Bruce Willis is a ghost! Verbal Kint is Keyser Soze! How could we all have been so blind?
This book that Billy Beane wrote -- this devil's tome, those cursed words -- of course it's responsible for the great baseball evil of our time. Everyonewhoevertooksteroidswas anunathleticOBP machine. It's so obvious. "Awkward sluggers," all. "Fringe."
I feel that we're cleansed, now, America. Thank you, Mr. Griffin, or as they say in your native Canada, grazie. Now that you've revealed to us the truth, we can truly say that Moneyball, and therefore all steroid use, is finally dead.
There's an interesting piece at ESPN where their baseball writers weigh in yes/no on Sosa to the HOF. A lot of good arguments. Steve Phillips's is not one of them.
Sammy Sosa is a Hall of Famer. Slam dunk. There is no smoking gun with him. There is just guilt by association. Just because he kept pace with Mark McGwire in home runs in 1998 doesn't mean he should be seen the same way as McGwire. Sosa made a statement in front of the House Committee on Government Reform in which he declared he had never used illegal performance-enhancing substances while McGwire did not.
Okay. Technically true. But Sosa also pretended he didn't speak English and shrank down in his chair and tried to hide in plain sight. It wasn't exactly an inspiring performance.
There are no former teammates pointing fingers at Sosa like there are at McGwire. He has never failed a drug test.
McGwire never tested positive for anything either. In fact, consider that Sosa did get busted for corking a bat during his playing days. Why would a player on steroids cork his bat? He wouldn't.
This is the part that gets me. Why wouldn't a player that cheated in one way also cheat in another way? I mean, if you're going to argue with hypotheticals and hearsay, I think it's perfectly logical that a guy on steroids might also cork his bat -- or vice versa.
When Sammy got caught it was June and he had just 6 HR. And he claimed that it was a bat he used for batting practice. Do a lot of guys use corked bats for bating practice? (Seriously -- I never saw that written about. Do they? It seemed weird.) The whole thing was super fishy, and in my mind marked him as the kind of dude who cheats.
I don't mind people arguing that Sammy should be in the Hall. It's legit. But arguing that he probably never did something illegal by pointing out that he did something else illegal is moronic. If you want to argue "yes," the only things you should hang your hat on are: he hit a buttload of HR, and he never technically tested positive.
Sosa made a statement in front of the House Committee on Government Reform in which he declared he had never used illegal performance-enhancing substances while McGwire did not.
is meaningless, since Raffy Palmeiro also said he had never gotten 'roidy, and he said it a lot more emphatically than Marky McG, and we all know what happened there.
This was just too good to pass up. It comes courtesy of a reader named Mike:
Of Bonds HR No. 747, manager Bruce Bochy said: "We needed a shot in the arm and he gave it to us."
He really ought to have thought that one through.
I imagine Bochy immediately turned beet red and started stammering like Woody Allen in "Sleeper."
EDIT: And now, an hour or so later, I add this from Kevin:
During the post game show of the Giants’ 4-3 win over Toronto on Monday, Mike Krukow and Dave Fleming went on and on about how a squeeze play won it for the Giants.
“That’s what these guys need to do,” said Krukow. “Small ball won it for them tonight. That, and of course the two-run homer from Barry Bonds that tied the game."
Gwen Knapp has a ballot for the Baseball Hall of Fame. Gwen Knapp did not vote for Mark McGwire in the latest Hall of Fame election, but she did vote for Ken Caminiti. Gwen Knapp's latest column is entitled Morals should be a factor in voting for Hall of Fame.
Cobb once slapped a black elevator operator for being "uppity." When a black night watchman intervened, Cobb pulled out a knife and stabbed him.
Let's put them back to back, just for fun. I inserted a few extra words.
Morals should be a factor in voting for Hall of Fame
Hall of Famer Ty Cobb once slapped a black elevator operator for being "uppity." When a black night watchman intervened, Hall of Famer Ty Cobb pulled out a knife and stabbed him.
---
Yes, I know doing steroids has to do with baseball and stabbing a black night watchman maybe doesn't have as much to do with baseball, but still. He stabbed a guy.
I know "Integrity, sportsmanship, and character" are among the supposed criteria for the Hall, but Ty Cobb stabbed a guy.
Can we get some perspective in here? Gwen? People who voted for McGwire have a moral code, too, one that reveres what happens on the field regardless of how it happened, and one that equates not receiving the ultimate professional honor with not being allowed to roam free in the world.
Well, no. I'm not saying that. But as many of your more reasonable colleagues -- including Jayson Stark, who ain't perfect -- have argued, we just don't know who did these PEDs. We can assume that McGwire and Sosa did because they were huge and hit a bunch of taters. But Alex Sanchez also did them. He's 5'10", 180. Ryan Franklin did them.
Gwen, hundreds of players did steroids and some probably still do. Are you going to be your own judge, jury, and executioner and just guess who did them over the next twenty years of Hall voting? My guess is yes, you will do this. You are the kind of person who voted for Ken Caminiti as a "symbolic gesture."
They stretch the principle of "innocent until proven guilty'' to "no felony conviction, no foul.''
Mark McGwire was never suspended from baseball for using steroids. You're using the principle of "I retroactively condemn this guy for doing something not against the rules of the game at the time." I'll stick with "innocent until he is caught actually breaking a rule of the game."
Come to think of it, maybe they should referee in the NBA.
Or publish O.J. Simpson's book.
Gwen Knapp is apparently a pseudonym for Wilmer Valderrama, 'cause she just got me like I was "Yo Mamma."
These same people also like to cite statistics without any context. They talk about McGwire's 583 home runs the way Nigel in "This Is Spinal Tap'' brags about the amp that "goes to 11.'' They can't wrap their brains around the idea that the number just might be bogus.
1. Yes, "goes to 11." Hilarious. A clever new spin on a 23-year-old reference. Original, yet familiar.
2. I can wrap my brain around the idea that McGwire used PEDs. But again, do you want to spend the next decade picking and choosing who else did? When Albert Pujols comes up in fifteen years, are you going to demand old urine samples? You should do this. I hear he keeps a gorgeous mahogany cabinet full of them.
3. Don't ever say I cite statistics without context. Mark McGwire had a career OPS+ of one-fucking-sixty-three and a career EqA of .335. He had 109.5 career WARP3. You voted for Dave Parker, whose comparables are 121, .286 (!), and 86.3.
At the same time, McGwire's most ardent supporters don't appear to like the human element of the process at all.
If the "human element" means establishing "hey, who's the best guy because this is clearly the Hall of Being the Best Guy," then no, I don't like that element.
If 583 home runs make McGwire an automatic inductee, then a computer program can do the job, eliminating all those pesky moral guardians.
These moral guardians welcomed with open arms a man who stabbed a black night watchman.
I can build this computer and have it on your doorstep by nightfall.
Earth People: We Are Officially Through The Looking Glass
(SOMEBODY killed SOMETHING: that's clear, at any rate)
I know we're a little late to this party, but in honor of the Hall of Fame results being announced later today, let's get to know Paul Ladewski. In fact, let's be 100%, 4th-Grade learning disabled clear about what Paul Ladewski did.
He did not vote for any of the candidates on his 2007 Hall of Fame ballot, because he does not have enough information to make value judgments about players from what he calls the "Steroid Era."
Oh no no -- he didn't hold on to his ballot and abstain from voting. He also didn't refuse to vote for certain players. He didn't vote for anybody. That's right: he didn't vote for Steve Garvey; Tommy John; Dave Parker; Jim Rice; Dave Concepcion; or Bert Blyleven; and zero of those dudes played in what he himself defines as the Steroid Era (1993-2004).
(That doesn't include Andre Dawson; Don Mattingly; Goose Gossage; Dale Murphy; Jack Morris; and Alan Trammel, whose careers barely dip in to those murky post-'93 waters.)
The really strange part is, techincally speaking, he didn't vote "No" at all. According to the Baltimore Sun, he submitted a completely blank ballot, "which, in effect, will be counted as a 'No' vote for all candidates." What kind of shit is going on in a dude's brain that leads him to vote "No" for everyone, but only by not voting at all?
NOTE: It would seem to me, judging from the Sun article and other references on Hall voting, that voters are instructed to vote "yes" or "no" on each eligible player. However, other sources refer to a player being "named" on ballots, which sounds more like voters writing in the names of those eligible players who they are voting for inclusion. So I'm not sure what to think exactly, but for now I'm going to conclude that one is asked to vote "yes" or "no" for each player.
Honestly, baseball fans: it is time to stop giving a fuck about the Baseball Hall of Fame. I've been there. I'm sure most of you have. The Museum is fine and everything -- it's got stuff about baseball in it; how bad could it be? -- but the Hall is ugly. And kind of boring. You can read and discover anything written on them boring plaques on the much prettier internet. Unlike the Hall, you can even bring your sons and daughters to the internet for free these days.
And most importantly, inclusion into this ugly, boring Hall is voted on by gentlemen like Mike Celizic and Paul Ladewski.
Just to bring everybody up to speed for those of you who started reading at this paragraph: Paul Ladewski did not vote "Yes" or "No" for players like Bert Blyleven, who finished his career before 1993, on the 2007 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot. This lack of any type of vote at all counts as a "No" vote for Bert Blyleven. The reason that Paul Ladewski did not vote "Yes" or "No" for any player is because he has suspicions about steroid use in Major League Baseball from 1993-2004. ("Give or take a year or two.")
To get your brain parts around what Ladewski says next in his column, you're going to have imagine a scenario wherein a crazy person gets crazier during the course of writing a piece of literature. Either he's writing very slowly, or getting crazier very quickly. Tough to tell. (I'm kidding -- of course he's getting crazier very quickly!)
What makes Gwynn and Ripken so special that they deserve to be unanimous selections?
One thing that would make them so special is if everybody voted for them. That's never happened before.
Walter Johnson, Cy Young and Honus Wagner didn't receive such Hall passes. Neither did Lou Gehrig, Babe Ruth and Ted Williams. In fact, nobody has in the history of the game.
Based on the standards set by the Hall of Fame voters decades ago, is there a neutral observer out there who can honestly say Gwynn and Ripken should be afforded an unprecedented honor?
Of course not. No reasonable voter would say that Ripdog or Gwynnstone deserve to be elected unanimously unless everybody votes for Ripken or Gwynn. Ladewski, you senile, secret retard genius...you've tangled me in some sort of nightmarish logic puzzle.
People don't vote "yes" for dudes because they think they should be unanimous, they vote "yes" because they personally believe that dudes belong in the Hall of Fame.
Let's look at it this way: voter A decides to vote "No" on player Z because he doesn't think player Z should be voted in unanimously. However, voter A really likes player Z, and does think player Z belongs in the Hall of Fame. It turns out later that everyone else voted "Yes" for player Z. Every single person believed that player Z belonged in the Hall of Fame. Now, doesn't that mean that player Z should've been voted in unanimously?
Paul Ladewski doesn't think so. He gets to call the non-unanimous shots around here.
From the Sun article:
"In an attempt to uphold the Hall of Fame standards established by their predecessors, I will not vote for anyone who played in the 1993-2004 period, which I consider to be the Steroids Era." As the 2007 HOF ballots were mailed, it formed in the clouds of upstate New York, over Doubleday field, not unlike Voltron. The legs of Honus Wagner; the torso: half Josh Gibson, half Stan Musial; the right arm of Walter Johnson; the left arm of Sandy Koufax; the heart of Tris Speaker; the scabby, disease-infested genitals of Ty Cobb; the hat of Trot Nixon.
The Ghost of Baseball Past. It descended into our mortal world, and found its way to the headquarters of the Chicago Sun-Times media conglomerate. It swirled its way up the stairwell to the 18th floor, where it finally found one man who could uphold in the real world what the GBE upheld in the baseball heavens and hells. Indeed, the only man:
Paul Ladewski.
Before my brain spins out of control, I'd like to take a different angle on this whole thing. I'm going to list some things, generally about baseball and the Hall of Fame, that I believe to be true in an effort to calm myself. You can start disagreeing with me wherever you see fit.
1. Many players in the Hall of Fame have been suspected of cheating (in such a way as to give them an unfair advantage in either one or many games).
2. Many players in the Hall of Fame did cheat.
3. Many players in the Hall of Fame were caught cheating.
4. Many, if not most of the players in the Hall of Fame, broke the law at some point during their lives.
5. Many players in the Hall of Fame were caught breaking the law at some point during their lives.
6. "Integrity, sportsmanship, and character" are among the supposed criteria listed for Hall voting.
7 . Some types of performance enhancing drugs were, and are, against the law.
8. Some types of performance enhancing drugs have been against the rules of baseball for a very long time; some have more recently become illegal.
9. Steroids can be bad for you.
10. Sometimes Jim Leyland smokes in the dugout.
11. There are many rules in baseball; for each violation of a rule there is a clear penalty.
12. As recently as 2005, the penalty for a first positive steroid test was a suspension of 10 games, or the same number of games Michael Barret was suspended in 2006 for punching A.J. Pierzynski.
13. No one on the 2007 Hall of Fame Ballot has ever tested positive for any type of performance enhancing drug.
14. Were I a Major League Baseball player from 1993-2004 (it may surprise you to learn that I, in fact, was not), and a teammate of mine told me he was taking steroids in an effort to better his performance, I would have said to that teammate: "Thank you for taking steroids. I hope it makes you, and, consequently, our team better. It seems odd that there are no real penalties for taking steroids. I myself would not take these steroids because there seem to be very serious health risks. But seeing as we are not great friends or anything, and you will probably be playing for a different team in a couple of years, and you seem to have made the decision that steroids are right for you, I am really glad that you are taking these steroids because it might help us win a few games. I hope you don't die prematurely."
15. George Steinbrenner was once banned from baseball for life, and was also indicted on 14 counts of illegal campaign contributions to the Nixon campaign. Eventually he was saved by a pardon from President Reagan. One day he will probably be in the Baseball Hall of Fame.
16. Bert Blyleven belongs in the Goddam Hall Of Fame.
17. On at least one occasion, Sammy Sosa played baseball with a corked bat, and that is illegal, and we should not forget that when the time comes to vote on whether he belongs in the Hall of Fame.
I had the same reaction to this news. I did not write about it because I felt that Ladewski was simply doing it to get attention, and I did not want to give him attention. Then I read this post and thought, darn it, I wish I had ripped Ladewski on our blog that we invented in order to rip people.
I would also like to posit a crazy "name" theory that goes like this:
People like the way the name Jim "Ed" Rice sounds, but do not like the name Bert Blyleven because it sounds nerdy and confusing.
Their Hall of Fame cases are being helped and hurt, respectively, because of this.
Let me put it to you this way: which person do you think would be more likely to be elected president of the United States, based solely on their names?
James Edward Rice or Rik Aalbert "Bert" Blyleven
I know, voting for president isn't the same as voting for the Hall of Fame, but as with any type of vote where popularity and beauty pageant subjectiveness start coming in to play -- and think of the sheer number of people voting here -- I think there is at least a subconscious element of "that guy sounds like he does / does not belong in the Hall of Fame based only on his name" which might -- MIGHT -- affect the way one votes. Or maybe the way one talks about a player, which in turn affects the way others view the same player.
In this article, legendary bigot Pat Robertson asserts that as recently as 2003, he legpressed 2000 pounds. Never mind that the Florida State University football team record is only 1335 pounds -- Robertson's people insist the septuagenarian has done it. What's his secret? He's juicing.
The CBN Web site attributes Robertson's energy in part to "his age-defying protein shake." The site offers a recipe for the shake, which contains ingredients such as soy protein isolate, whey protein isolate, flaxseed oil and apple cider vinegar.
Emphasis mine.
Next we're going to hear that Robertson has not been drinking his age-defying protein shake, but rather administering three drops of it under his tongue every other day with an eye dropper.
"You know, Howard Bryant wrote a book called 'Juicing the Game.' Jose Canseco made a -- wrote a book about it. And I'm trying to figure out why this latest book is so much more important than anything else that we've already known about the steroid era. That's -- that bothers me right there."
1. Why does it bother you? 2. Do you really not know why this book, written by the two investigative journalists who have been covering the BALCO scandal and the leaked grand jury testimony for months and months, is more important than the ramblings of a guy who later appeared on a reality TV show about washed-up celebrities? 3. I'll answer for you. It is more important because it contains like a thousand pieces of until-now unseen evidence linking the greatest hitter of all time to a massive illegal steroid operation, including schedules of drug use, eyewitness accounts, and financial records. 4. Why do you insist on trying to protect Barry Bonds?
It's March 29. Opening Day is hours away. And that means it's time for unthinking, pointless drivel to come pouring out of the laptops of the BBWAA. Even from normally semi-reliable people like Ken Rosenthal, who wrote this little number, entitled: Small Ball is Yielding Big Results.
Excited just by the title? Me too!
I suggest reading the article on the FoxSports site -- it has lots of cute photos of people bunting!
Time to play ball. Real ball, not the mutant, pharmaceutically enhanced monstrosity that supposedly saved the sport.
Some call it small ball. Others call it a return to fundamentals. Still others call it a pitching-and-defense revival.
Whatever the catchphrase, it translates to winning baseball.
Oh, the rhetoric! I imagine Ken Rosenthal standing at a podium, lips tightly pursed politician-style, imagining himself a Leader of Men, addressing thousands of hearty non-computer-owning salt-of-the-earth American baseball fans, clutching American Flags that display not 50 stars, but rather small pictures of Scott Podsednik bunting. And he's staring down his constituency, and telling them in no uncertain terms that by God these home run-happy stat nerds will take away his love of sac bunts and stolen bases and Darin Erstad's football-playing mentality only by prying them out of his cold, dead hands.
Shortstop Derek Jeter talks wistfully about the Yankees' four championship teams under manager Joe Torre, recalling that they did all of the little things right. The World Baseball Classic drove the point home once more, with the Asian teams, in particular, demonstrating the value of execution over physical talent, of brains over brawn.
Chalk up another vaguely racist "compliment" for those brainy Asians. Who, by the way, had the most HR of any team in the WBC, the 3rd most walks, and the second highest OPS. Brawn, anyone?
Play ball. Play it right. The fans won't go away.
Write stuff. Write it in overblown self-important rhetoric. I will make fun of you.
Chicks dig the long ball, always will, and so does everyone else. But the notion that fans are power junkies, too simple to grasp the game's subtleties — it's an insult. Major League Baseball isn't alone in dumbing down its product; virtually every sports, entertainment and media company does. But what baseball fans want most is to see their favorite team win.
Right. Which is why smart teams don't try to steal bases and play "small ball." You're conflating good pitching, "doing the little things," "fundamentals," and "execution," and calling it all "small ball." Good pitching is not "small ball." Good pitching is good pitching, and every team needs it. "Fundamentals" are important, too. But most of that other stuff -- bunting, stealing bases if you're not really good at it, etc. -- hurts your team. It causes your team to score fewer runs. Smart teams do not eschew such self-mutilating strategies because they believe their fans are too dumb to appreciate it. They do it because embracing them makes it harder to win.
I like that it was not enough for people to misinterpret "Moneyball" as "strike out a lot and try always to hit home runs." Now, it seems, being a "power junky" (read: "Moneyball") team, and thus not doing things like bunt runners over, also means you don't care about "fundamentals." As if part of the Moneyball philosophy (not explicitly cited here, but come on -- that's what he's talking about) is specifically not caring about hitting cutoff men or something.
Teams like the Braves, Cardinals and Angels are successful year after year not because they score the most runs, though their offenses usually are strong. No, they succeed because they play the game properly, rarely beating themselves. In an age of increased parity, the little things become even more important. As any statistical analyst will tell you, the big things matter most. But a game, even a pennant race, can turn on a well-timed bunt or well-executed relay.
Any game can turn on anything. A lot of games turn on HR, for example. I'm thinking in particular of an Astros-Cardinals playoff game -- a few playoff games, actually -- last year. Baseball games are crazy explosions of random chances and impossible-to-predict scenarios. The surest way to maximize your winning percentage is by stressing OBP and SLG offensively, and fundamentals defensively, which, despite the message of this article, are not mutually exclusive. One way to minimize your chance to win, offensively, is by bunting a lot.
Also, I like referring to the Cardinals' recent NL offensive juggernauts as "pretty strong."
Jim Tracy, the new Pirates' manager, has spent much of the spring talking to his hitters about taking smarter approaches, adjusting to situations. The Cubs, by acquiring players like center fielder Juan Pierre and right fielder Jacque Jones, mimicked the White Sox, improving their athleticism and speed. A's general manager Billy Beane, a leading proponent of offensive efficiency, has built a contender, once again, around starting pitching.
1. Shouldn't every manager always spend Spring Training "talking to his hitters about taking smarter approaches, adjusting to situations?" You can't tell people to hit more home runs. You can tell people to "take smart approaches," like taking pitches at the right times and so forth. 2. Juan Pierre and Jacque Jones had OBPs of .326 and .319 last year, respectively, so, yes, the Cubbies are mimicking the White Sox, but not by improving anything. 3. I don't know what you mean to imply by the last comment about Billy Beane. He has always been a leading proponent of offensive efficiency, yes, and he has always built his team around starting pitching, so you have told me nothing.
The season begins with yet another steroid uproar, but the game — by every quantifiable measure — has never been healthier. It is widely accepted that the home-run race between Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa in 1998 fueled the sport's comeback from the strike of '94 and '95. That notion, too, gives fans too little credit. People love this sport, can't get enough of it. In time, the fans would have come back, anyway.
And so a new season begins, a season of baseball, not powerball. MLB is returning to its roots not because of more stringent drug testing — some players still will use performance enhancers — but because teams are going back to the time-honored methods of success.
Can you hear it? "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" is fading in behind Rosenthal...the Podsednik flags wave in the breeze...a trained hawk circles above and starts to dive...the crowd buzzes in anticipation of the big finish...
To small ball. To smart ball. To playing the game right.
Weirdly, it was written by legendary composer Franz Liszt. I'm sorry -- CNNSI columnist Franz Lidz. (Take that, critics of our sense of humor!!!!!!!)
It's called "My Sportsman Choice: Jason Giambi." I got tingly and excited just reading that much.
In 2005, no sports figure was more vilified than Jason Giambi.
Yeah. That's because he cheated and lied and we only found out he had cheated and lied because someone leaked some testimony that he gave when he was being honest and then he apologized for something but wouldn't say what he was apologizing for and he generally kind of besmirched the game of baseball. Please continue.
Because Giambi failed to meet his exacting standard of moral rectitude, a wag at the New York Post barked: "He has disgraced the Yankee pinstripes and made a mockery of everything that is wonderful and good and pure about the game of baseball." To restore the Pride of the Yankees, a Post columnist even suggested that the Yanks embroider a scarlet "S" for steroids on the back of his jersey.
Okay, that's a little much. But quoting the Post and then complaining about it? What's the point? It's the Post.
To his credit, Giambi never engaged his critics. He neither pointed fingers (Rafael Palmiero, anyone?) nor attempted to downplay the enormity of his actions. At a preseason press conference, he apologized to the public and said he had told the truth to the grand jury. Of all the players called to testify, he may have been the only one who was entirely honest and forthcoming.
I have a problem with this. First of all, he never "engaged his critics" in part because had he admitted publicly that he used steroids, the Yankees could theoretically have voided the rest of the like $300 million they owed him. So he didn't. He had a lawyer advise him, and then he just said "I'm sorry." Now, it was good that he did that, but let's not get carried away. He did not exactly "come clean." He did not apologize and eat crow the way everyone seems to think he did. He never said, in public, once, ever, "I'm sorry I used steroids." He had his cake and ate it too. Had he risked having his contract voided -- had he just said, screw it, I made a mistake and I'm coming clean and damn the torpedoes -- we could celebrate him as a genuinely honest and forthcoming guy. But that is simply not what he did.
The most remarkable thing about Giambi was the way he excelled under withering pressure. In 2004, under treatment for a pituitary tumor--
-- and after not taking steroids anymore, presumably --
-- he had the worst season of his career. After an horrendous start in '05, he reinvented himself in July by hitting a major league-best 14 home runs. Giambi wound up with 32 homers and 87 RBIs, and led the American League with a .440 on-base percentage. Then he hit .421 in the ALCS.
His comeback did not silence his detractors in the sporting press, for whom forgiveness has no place. They're more interested in drawing blood than allowing a fallen athlete the possibility of a second chance. But aren't second chances what make sports so inspiring in the first place?
Sure. By all means, give the guy a second chance. But Sportsman of the Year??????????????
