CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com

Baseball Prospectus home
  
  

Search Article Archives

Find:   

Author:    Article: 
Search Date (From):    Search Date (To):   
Sort Results by:  Relevance
 Date
Show me  Results

   Show Article Summaries

New! Search comments:      
(NOTE: Relevance, Author, and Article are not applicable for comment searches)

tommybones
289 comments | 38 total rating | 0.13 average rating
Facebook Twitter email a friend
Share comments by 'tommybones' posted at
Baseball Prospectus http://bbp.cx/i/1168
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Am I the only one who thinks <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=47360">Wade Davis</a></span>'s arm is going to fall off very soon?

Apr 01, 2017 8:36 AM on The Top 75 Relievers
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Realmuto getting work at 1B change anything? Seems they want his bat in the lineup.

Mar 14, 2017 7:21 PM on Catchers
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

You don't seem all that confident in a return to form for deGrom, eh?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Assume Giolito would have been #1 if he hadn't been promoted?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Curious, any source on Giolito's heater on the gun? He was in the low 90's earlier this season. Is the velocity back?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

If <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Jose+Reyes">Jose Reyes</a></span> gets dealt and is a starter again, where does he rank?

May 25, 2016 3:28 AM on Shortstops
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Travis in Tier one is an absolute steal.

May 23, 2016 9:07 AM on Second Basemen
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Kind of shocked at how low Travis ownership levels are right now.

May 19, 2016 11:53 PM on Seventh Edition, 2016
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

Giolito, Turner for starters... not on the list?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

Surprised <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=59768">Danny Santana</a></span> isn't getting more attention. Seem committed to him in leadoff spot, eligible at OF and SS

May 06, 2016 8:52 AM on Week Six
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Hector's huge spike in FB velocity is gone. Buyer beware.

May 06, 2016 6:46 AM on Week Six
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

You're not thinking a Super Two call up, then? June?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Not buying Tanaka's spring all that much? Or just think risk too large regardless to pay for upside?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Ugh, <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=45529">Gio Gonzalez</a></span>.... he's beyond frustrating to own.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

How close was Carrasco from making the five star tier? Seems his peripherals put him in that group.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Hearing Kimbrel to Yanks rumors, which would make the yanks a must watch team about an hour and a half into every game. Assume he would take over the 9th with Miller/Betances killing it in the 7th and 8th.

Jul 28, 2015 4:31 AM on Week 18
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

What the heck is the Red Sox plan for <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=105419">Rusney Castillo</a></span>, anyway? He's been crushing it in AAA.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Iwakuma?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Gausman or Velasquez ROS deep mixed?

Jun 11, 2015 6:46 AM on Ninth Edition, 2015
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 2

<span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=54488">Hector Olivera</a></span> had quite the night

Jun 10, 2015 6:56 AM on Games of June 9, 2015
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Any chance Crawford gets a July call-up?

Jun 08, 2015 5:30 AM on Games of June 5-7, 2015
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

ROS: Corbin, Verlander or Moore? Thoughts?

May 30, 2015 10:06 AM on Seventh Edition
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -4

Who's a better stash, Iwakuma or Syndergaard?

May 04, 2015 7:32 AM on Games of May 1-3, 2015
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Buxton's smoking hot, too....

May 04, 2015 5:54 AM on Games of May 1-3, 2015
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Gregg Jeffries would have been a nice addition.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Seriously bullish on Cole and Arrieta, eh?

Mar 24, 2015 8:23 AM on The Top 300
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Any thoughts on taking a late flyer on Cingrani?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 2

The McCutchen drilling reminded me a lot of Benitez dripping Tino Martinez back in the day. Shocked Pirates teammates didn't storm the field for that gutless display

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

Bradley is on an 0-21, with 10 K's streak. He simply can't hit. I know his defense is amazing, but it's odd that the Sox don't see what Betts can do in CF. We know he'll hit way more than Bradley.

Aug 05, 2014 7:09 AM on Week 18
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

What does Mookie Betts have to do to get a spot in that awful Red Sox lineup?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Betances is a righty

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Curious if you think Kendrys Morales is a better candidate than Butler to pick it up in the 2nd half.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Any reason you can think of as to why Bryant hasn't been moved to AAA??? He's making a joke of AA at the moment.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Any chance Bryant gets the call in June???

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Baez HR landed in the parking lot over the upper deck. It was insane.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

Baez hit a HR yesterday, too.... looks like he's waking up just in time.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

I could see him getting the role under the banner of "giving Hunter a breather to get himself right," with Hunter eventually taking it back.

May 15, 2014 7:58 AM on Week Seven
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

I could see that short term, at least.

May 15, 2014 7:08 AM on Week Seven
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

I'd say Sean Doolittle is making quite the case to take the closer role and run with it. 26/0 K/BB? Insane

May 15, 2014 7:08 AM on Week Seven
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

No Alex Cobb yet?

May 13, 2014 8:09 AM on Fifth Edition
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 2

Is it too early to start a "free Billy Burns" campaign?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Of course, the next question is... for fantasy purposes, what's the ranking? Baez an easy #1? Would he rank higher than Bogaerts?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Where is Profar in that mix, too....

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

The next 15 years is looking to be a golden age of SS. Can't wait!

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Love Kelly Johnson signing. Made for that park, insurance in many areas... solid move.

Dec 05, 2013 6:30 AM on Last Call for Paul
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Billy, Taveras AND Bogaerts still in minors... don't forget Bogaerts.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

When does Xander move up to AAA?

Jun 10, 2013 8:56 AM on Games of June 6-June 9
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Is Jean Segura going to enter this conversation at some point? OR is he simply playing way above his talent level?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Speaking of Yelich, another HR last night, among three more hits and a walk. He's making a mockery of AA.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

The "Is Mark Reynolds blind" series is brilliant. We may be heading into Pulitzer territory.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Another HR w/2 hits today for Yelich. He's destroying AA at the moment. Call-up has to be imminent.

May 08, 2013 6:28 PM on Games of Tuesday, May 7
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Ditto

Apr 25, 2013 5:11 AM on Up, Up, Upton and Away
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Oscar Taveras had a huge night, including 1st AAA HR!

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

Dude, #1 on the list was Archibald "Moonlight" Graham becoming a doctor, no?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 3

The call was WORSE than it looks in that still frame, due to the angle of the camera position. Were the camera straight on with the plate, it would appear much further outside the zone. The still shot is misleading in Foster's favor.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Where would Machado rank on this list, if eligible? Thanks.

Mar 07, 2013 5:44 AM on Part One: 1-50
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 3

Yes, that jumped out at me, too....

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Carter/Moss platoon is a great power source, no?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Yup.

Aug 08, 2012 11:54 AM on Relievers for 8/8/12
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

Nobody's buying into Carlos Gomez's BJ Upton impersonation, eh?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Simpler: He was excellent and unlucky to start the year. But since mid May, he's been uninspired. So your statistics, which are for the entire season, don't answer my point at all.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

Well, as someone who actually watches his games, I see a guy who loses focus and makes mistakes in situations where he normally bears down. That's what I have seen. His stuff? Same. But 5 HR's allowed in a span of 11 batters isn't bad luck... he got lazy. I watched it. Could I be projecting? Maybe. But I don't think so. Additionally, the bulk of his great stats came early and over the past 10 starts or so, as the Phils season went into the tank, he got worse.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -3

They'd be wise to deal Lee. He looks completely uninspired right now and could really step up for a contender. No point in keeping him if he's gonna sleepwalk through the season.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Cliff Lee would be a difference-maker to a lot of teams in this division.

Jul 07, 2012 6:18 AM on AL East
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

What kind of stuff does Prior bring to the table nowadays, anyway? I have no idea.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Tampa is VERY susceptible to lefties at the moment and Matusz has them this Sunday. A good streaming option, methinks. Without Longoria and Jennings, they have a very lefty-heavy lineup, and those lefties are NOT good vs. lefty hurlers.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Adams will probably fill in until Craig comes back, then head back to AAA to play every day and probably ends up a full timer next season. Craig is the proven major league ballplayer and needs to be in the lineup every day.

May 21, 2012 2:20 PM on Matt Adams
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 2

Anyone who has watched baseball for long enough knows the ump was teaching the young player a lesson with the ridiculous strike three call and that directly led to the blow up and will also cost that player a good 5-10 games of the season. The umpire should have to explain himself.

May 16, 2012 10:15 AM on Brett Lawrie Was Framed
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Suprised Jesus Montero ranked that low. Seems he'll see more AB's than most catchers and will likely hit 4th or 5th on a regular basis (w/Seattle, I know, but still)

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 3

The Braun thing has to be killing people with fantasy drafts in the next couple of days.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Plugged in my 5x5 parameters into PFM and Mark Reynolds popped up us the most valuable 3B... don't know what to make of that.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 3

I wonder if one could make a similar graph based not on age, but on years in the bigs. Is the biggest jump in the 2nd year in the bigs? 3rd? 4th? And then cross-index both graphs? Age-related and experience related?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

Ah, Bologna.... I remember it well....

Jan 27, 2012 4:45 PM on Marking My Debut
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 4

The public funding of these parks is a travesty. Billionaire owners need us to pay for their stadiums so they can make millions more? Talk about corporate welfare....

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

I'm leaning toward Betemit at this point, too. Like his ability to take a few starts at 3B for Arod. Split DH time with Andruw...

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

Chisox would have to eat a good chunk, especially after his 2011...

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

No Adam Dunn option?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Lifelong Yanks fan here. Never thought Bernie was a great fielder. He rarely got a good jump, took strange routes, rag-arm, but had good hands when he got near a ball, so had some nice highlight catches and his speed saved some of those bad jumps at times. Never thought Jeter was a good fielder. Thought Posada was awful.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 4

I'd have to go with Bull Durham as #1.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 9

Bang the Drum Slowly.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

I'd second this. His defense tortured me for his entire career. Worst pitch framer I've ever seen.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 3

Yanks will sign some vet for DH for one year, then in 2013 move Arod to DH and sign David Wright, who will be reborn in that stadium, while also allowing Yanks to piss off Mets fans everywhere. Genius!

Jan 16, 2012 2:03 PM on Jesus the Mariner
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 2

All I know is I liked very much what I saw watching every AB Montero had with the Yanks. He was made for that Stadium. The guy would hit 30+ dingers every year because of that park. Now? Who knows. Good looking hitter though. I am convinced he was bored at AAA, kind of like Hanley was bored in the minors.

Jan 16, 2012 1:56 PM on Jesus the Mariner
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 6

I remember being a pitcher in little league and high school during the 1980's and always pretended I had the following arsenal: Ryan's heater Stieb's slider Blyleven's curveball

Jan 13, 2012 1:45 PM on Jack Morris in Motion
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 3

Just wait until Heyman's rhetorical hard-ons for the bloody sock game hit the airwaves.... it will be epic.

Jan 13, 2012 1:42 PM on Jack Morris in Motion
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 2

Schilling also benefitted greatly from yet another miracle comeback from his teammates in the 2001 series. Of course, he pitched lights out that series, but if my memory serves me correctly, he gave up a 7th inning HR to Alfonso soriano and left game 7 down 2-1 before his teammates came back in 9th. Without that comeback, he gets the game 7 loss and certainly doesn't share the WS MVP award. Conversely, there are a number of pitchers who pitched lights out in the post, yet their teammates failed and that pitcher never got credit as the "big game" pitcher as a result. Mussina is a great example of this.

Jan 13, 2012 1:04 PM on Jack Morris in Motion
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Fair enough.... never intended it that way.

Jan 13, 2012 12:57 PM on Jack Morris in Motion
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

Of course this is true... never claimed otherwise.

Jan 13, 2012 10:37 AM on Jack Morris in Motion
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

I agree, but the point remains, his final moment on the big stage: a) crying in the dugout, after being shelled Turned into: b) legendary moment in baseball history Why? Because his team gave him a 2nd chance, against the odds. This isn't meant to negate Schilling's accomplishments, only to reiterate the point made in the one game analysis in the above article. Luck plays a big part in reputations.

Jan 13, 2012 10:36 AM on Jack Morris in Motion
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Ah yes, I stand corrected... point remains valid, though...

Jan 13, 2012 7:49 AM on Jack Morris in Motion
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

I've often argued the same thing about Curt Schilling and his bloody sock legend. Had his teammates not won three straight games in miraculous fashion, the last image of Schilling would have been him crying in the dugout after getting thrashed in game one of the ALCS, while Mussina toyed with a perfect game into the 7th inning. He was lucky enough to get a 2nd chance and he took advantage of it. Additionally, the Yanks were in full-on pressing mode by game 7, and I think just about any decent starter would have dominated them at that point.

Jan 13, 2012 7:26 AM on Jack Morris in Motion
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 5

Re: the "pitching to the score" meme... has Heyman ever bothered to explain why any pitcher would ever choose to do this? What would be the point? In effect, he's admitting Morris purposefully let up when he had a big lead. Why would that be considered a positive and not a negative???? Not that I believe Morris did any such thing. But it begs the question... why would any pitcher make that choice????

Jan 11, 2012 6:54 AM on Watching Jack Play
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

Unless Craig really is going to miss a substantial part of the season, I don't really get signing Beltran. I mean, how much better is Beltran than Craig in RF anyway?

Dec 23, 2011 7:20 AM on Trial By Fire
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Did someone whisper in Montero's ear that he could be dealt if he starts to show some effort? Maybe he goes to a team willing to play him right away?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Godfather II IS the best of the series.

Jul 02, 2011 11:01 AM on Staff Picks for 2011
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

RE: Teheran I can keep him in the 22nd round in a keeper league for 2012, but wonder if he'll produce enough early on to make keeping him worthwhile. Any thoughts on his immediate impact?

Jul 01, 2011 10:31 AM on Finding the Next Ace
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

Chris Davis on the Rockies is intriguing, playing 3B, with Wiggington at 2B. Defense would certainly suffer, but offensive potential is pretty high.

Jun 30, 2011 6:37 PM on The Underachievers
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

My take is that the Pads are going to send Rizzo back and bring up Blanks, both to cut down on Rizzo's service time (now that they can safely do so, without having to deal with fan backlash) while also showcasing Blanks for a possible deal. Who knows....

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

I don't see Jeter agreeing to move from SS, in any case......

Jun 22, 2011 8:23 AM on Indian Summer
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

The Reds make the most sense. A need, talent to deal... makes sense.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Is Ian Kinsler a good upside comp for Brett Lawrie? I know he's moved to 3rd this year, but as a hitter?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Looking forward to seeing him in action, after reading all the raves.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Except: Eric Young Jr. 2011 Road Games: .391 AVG, 1.115 OPS

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Teheran gets the start Saturday vs. the Phils.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Over/Under on Harper's first big league AB. September 2012? June 2013?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

No love for Eric Young Jr.? The guy gets two hits a game, walks a bunch and is still buried.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -2

How much longer will Colorado play the cadaver known as Jose Lopez at 3B with Stewart knocking the cover off the ball in AAA? And on a side note, wouldn't it make sense at this point for the Royals to send Kila back to AAA for a bit, have Butler take over 1st, and get both Aviles and Betemit into the lineup full time?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

Gomez in the 2-hole is an abomination.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Looks like Scoscia is committing to Izturis at the leadoff spot full time.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

Today is getting late... ;)

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

You're not alone.

Feb 16, 2011 12:22 PM on
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Montero will be dealt for a starter at some point, no doubt.

Jan 14, 2011 4:25 AM on Soriano in Stripes
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

Fantasy crunch time, was praying for an update on Eric Young getting back into the lineup and what effect the injury may have on his stealing bases. Thanks!

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Glad I have both Youk & Santana on my fantasy team.

Aug 06, 2010 8:37 AM on 28 Hours to Texarkana
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -2

Yeah, what about Zobrist? ;)

Aug 03, 2010 8:46 AM on On Will's Mind
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

It would be great if you folks kept a running list of players who have passed through waivers and therefore can be dealt.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

I remember the Yanks dealing for David Justice mid 2000. Great deal.

Aug 02, 2010 7:48 AM on Deadline Steals?
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Wily Mo Pena, eh? Wow. Totally forgot about that guy.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Great, thanks!

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

that's me!

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

please do... it always frustrates when one reads about the random save the next day in the paper! Thanks!

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

You know what service would be very helpful, for daily leagues? A daily note as to what middle relievers may get the spot closer position for that evening based on the normal closer needing a rest. Sometimes it's tough to keep track of that sort of thing. Thanks!

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 5

Choose Your Own Adventure Books were better, though....

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

"Hey Brown, why don't you make like a tree and split!" Man, I loved those books as a kid.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 3

Totally agree

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

I don't get why the Mets wouldn't have simply DL'd Reyes, knowing the ASB was in the middle of that stretch. He's hampered defensively, can't hit from the left side and most likely isn't going to be stealing too many bases. What's the point?

Jul 12, 2010 9:31 AM on Hitting Pause
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

I wonder if the Pads would deal a starter for Werth....

Jul 12, 2010 5:21 AM on Brown's Day Ends Early
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

Yanks can afford Prince. They need a DH. They have a highly coveted top prospect in Jesus Montero, who also happens to be blocked in New York (assuming he ends up at 1B). Makes the most sense.

Jul 08, 2010 11:09 AM on Trading The Prince
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

I'd love an update on ACab's progress and possible return to the Tribe lineup, if possible. Thanks.

Jul 05, 2010 9:58 AM on Reactivation
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Any chance the Rays deal Upton, call Jennings up and sign Crawford to an extension? That's what I would do.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Re: Lincecum His fastball continues to lose speed. His 4 seamer was down to an average speed of 90.4 yesterday. I know, many say it's a choice, but is it really?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

Where do you see Carlos Santana ranking among catchers offensively from here on out?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Any thoughts on Santana's overall production from here on out?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 3

Apparently, Strasburg needed less pitches to reach 14 k's than any other pitcher in MLB history, with 94. Unreal.

Jun 09, 2010 6:26 AM on Wednesday Update
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 3

Blind squirrel, meet nut.

Jun 09, 2010 5:47 AM on Wednesday Update
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Santana will be the last? No Alvarez? Or is Alvarez going to be called up first?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Frank Tanana went from power arm to finesse pitcher. Could happen.

Jun 07, 2010 6:35 AM on Monday Update
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

Seriously, this move makes Sabean look even dumber than previously thought. We at least gave him the benefit of the doubt, assuming he was paying lip-service to Posey's need to improve in the minors when he was actually managing his service time. But now? He virtually guarantees Posey becomes a super-2, after having him miss two months in the majors anyway. Unreal.

May 30, 2010 8:46 AM on Buster Posey Called Up
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Forgot about him. Yeah, he looks like a call-up soon...

May 29, 2010 12:13 PM on Buster Posey Called Up
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

With Matsui struggling, I could see Napoli splitting time with Mathis at C and Matsui at DH. We know he can produce, we don't know anything for sure as far as to what Posey's gonna do (see: Wieters). I'd go with Napoli myself.

May 29, 2010 12:12 PM on Buster Posey Called Up
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Who's next? Any big prospect come up before Strasburg? Carlos Santana seems like a no-brainer. The excuse that he needs more defensive seasoning makes little sense, since he can work on it with Sandy Alomar at the major league level for a team which isn't going anywhere anyway. Pedro Alvarez has heated up in May, also... maybe he's next.

May 29, 2010 9:43 AM on Buster Posey Called Up
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

I wonder what the Rangers are waiting for with this guy? Could provide a huge boost to the pen right out of the gate, methinks.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Any word on Nelson Cruz's hamstring injury? Was it the same hamstring that landed him on the D.L.?

May 27, 2010 9:18 AM on Thursday Update
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Over/Under on Carlos Santana call-up? June7th, start of a 10 game homestand?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

My own two cents is that Strasburg on the 4th is pretty likely. Other than that, Carlos Santana seems like the most likely to get first call-up among the elite hitting prospects. Not sure about Alvarez, since his troubles against lefties is pretty severe at the moment. Don't see Jennings making a splash until August or so. I've given up trying to read Sabean's mind in regard to Posey, but if he has any brains left at all, Posey would come up mid June at the latest.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

yes please

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Some people haven't seen the final episode yet.

May 24, 2010 11:39 AM on Monday Update
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

Considering I have Strasburg in a keeper league, I have no problem with you repeating yourself in regard to his greatness. ;)

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

Re: Carlos Santana still in minors How much of it is the usual Super-2 nonsense and how much is his communication skills a legitimate concern? In other words, will he suddenly improve enough in the latter by early June to miraculously warrant a call-up? With the way the Tribe is going, why not let him learn on the job for 4 months?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 3

What happened to your chat?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Any word on whether Jesus Montero has shown defensive improvement so far this season?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

By the way, the fact that many of my posts have been voted as being unworthy of viewing by others is a sad commentary on them, not me. I have long studied this particular topic and whether one agrees with my position or not, to insist that my opinions are not worthy of being viewed is an embarrassment in a debate about civil liberties. But it doesn't surprise me.

May 05, 2010 12:47 PM on Excessive Force
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

"You just refuted your own argument." I most certainly didn't. "Was there a chance he was intending to harm someone ? Yes." This is my point. Your logic, which holds that EVERYONE IS A RISK OF VIOLENT BEHAVIOR, necessitates that police use violent force to apprehend anyone, regardless of infraction or obvious violent intent. Why can't you see this???? You are saying, quite clearly, that police are free to violently attack anyone who committed any crime, based on the idea that they "could" be violent, regardless of whether the alleged criminal shows any signs of becoming violent. This is INSANE. "You seem anxious to put other people at risk... " Nonsense. I am anxious to protect the civil rights of citizens from excessive force being used by the state. "How does spanking not qualify as torture under your definition?" You realize that even official commissions on torture don't label every action which results in some pain, "torture," either. The level of pain inflicted is quite different and it's a parent/child relationship over a state/civilian relationship. You understand that there is a legal limit to hitting a child, right? I can guarantee if someone chose to taser their child as punishment for stealing from the cookie jar, they'd be charged with child abuse. In any case, a minor is legally under the care of a parent. The police are servants of the public, charged with upholding the Constitution. The idea that they have the power to inflict severe pain and suffering to a non-violent ALLEGED criminal, prior to due process is a violation of the tenets of our justice system. The problem with your defense is that it completely ignores the slippery slope. Where is the line? When it's okay for an officer to shoot 50,000 volts into a trespasser, who shows no signs of violent intent, nor has any visible weapons, then when is it not okay for an officer to use a taser? The moment we accept violent state responses to non-violent infractions, we open the door to increased abuse. That door has already been opened in regard to tasers, which were sold as a replacement for a gun or club, but are regularly used in situations where neither a club nor a gun would have been appropriate. Once you give the state the power to control your actions with a simple pull of a trigger, hiding behind the "it's not lethal" charade, then you are now in a situation where you must FEAR police officers in circumstances where you shouldn't. I don't know about you, but I've gotten pissed off at a traffic cop for writing a bogus ticket in the past. Now, if he has a taser on his belt, I'll think twice about exercising my 1st Amendment right to object to the ticket. That's how it begins.

May 05, 2010 12:07 PM on Excessive Force
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

From a random googled article: The U.N. Committee Against Torture referred Friday to the use of TaserX26 weapons which Portuguese police has acquired. An expert had testified to the committee that use of the weapons had "proven risks of harm or death." "The use of TaserX26 weapons, provoking extreme pain, constituted a form of torture, and that in certain cases it could also cause death, as shown by several reliable studies and by certain cases that had happened after practical use," the committee said in a statement. "Well, it means that it's a very serious thing," Amnesty International USA Executive Director Larry Cox told CBS Early Show co-anchor Julie Chen. "These are people that have seen torture around the world, all kinds of torture. So they don't use the word lightly." Tasers have become increasingly controversial in the United States, particularly after several notorious cases where their use by police to disable suspects was questioned as being excessive. Especially disturbing is the fact that six adults died after being tased by police in the span of a week. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/25/national/main3537803.shtml

May 05, 2010 9:56 AM on Excessive Force
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -2

" I never said a cop can do anything to an alleged criminal without limits. You are demanding that the cop in this case should have "known" that the person on the field was not dangerous and did not have bad intentions." This is amazing. You say you are not claiming a police officer can do anything in the first sentence, then follow by claiming the officer must ASSUME violent intent, which would inherently REQUIRE and JUSTIFY use of force on numerous levels. If someone had a knife, they certainly would be a threat and an officer would be justified in tasing them. What you are claiming is that everyone should be seen as having a knife, even if there is no indication of one being present. So, alleged petty offenders are to be assumed violent and dealt with violently. That is horrific. "That person has already displayed a reckless disregard for law, and was actively evading arrest." Non-violent offense being dealt with through administering extreme pain and suffering. Again, the officer's job is to arrest and detain, the court decides punishment, if one is warranted. Is extreme pain a punishment? You bet your ass it is. What if the alleged offender is innocent of the alleged crime? Whoops. Sorry about that 50k volts, but you were acting like a clown, so.... Listen, you can parse words by claiming pain is a side-effect all day long, but it is INHERENTLY PAINFUL and to most it's EXTREMELY painful and all too often fatal. A tackle COULD be painful, but it's not inherently painful and hardly ever EXTREMELY painful. If you want to live in a world where state officials hold the power to shoot electricity into you or your family based on alleged petty non-violent offenses, then that's up to you. I find it abhorrent. "By so loosely defining something as repugnant as torture... " You're the one trying to compare a mere spanking with a state official shooting 50k volts of electricity into you... not me.

May 05, 2010 9:48 AM on Excessive Force
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -2

We're having a semantics issue. I am not claiming the officers INTENT was to torture someone. But threatening someone with a massive jolt of electricity, which is extremely painful, in order for them to comply is the essence of what torture is all about. We should be afraid of the law, not law enforcement. When it becomes acceptable for law enforcement to inflict enormous pain on alleged non-violent offenders who have shown no indication of being violent, then we have crossed into very dangerous territory. I know, at this point, I am taking a huge chance if I decide to disagree with a police officer who pulls me over. Is it my Constitutional right to disagree with a police officer? You bet your ass it is. But nowadays, I know that could very easily result in 50k volts being shot into me, as happens way too often. And until we stop treating it as a funny reality show on You-tube, it's only going to get worse. In any case, if you want to avoid looking at shocking people with enormously painful jolts of electricity as a form of torture, that's up to you. Either way, it's using extreme pain and punishment for non-violent alleged offenses, which shouldn't acceptable to anyone. I do not want that power in the hands of the state. Perhaps acknowledging it as being a form of torture would take the humor out of it.

May 05, 2010 9:26 AM on Excessive Force
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

Where to begin. Your answer here terrifies me. "In my worldview a person who has already broken one law (by running on the field) has forfeited the benefit of the doubt as to their intentions." This is essentially saying a police officer can do anything he wants to an alleged criminal without limits. If you are to take this concept seriously and now claim anyone who violates a law can be seen as a violent threat, even when there is no indication of being a violent threat, then police officers would be justified in using brutal force for any alleged offense. Talk about a police state. Are you serious? "A taser's function is not to halt activity through the infliction of pain, it halts it by temporarily paralysis, the pain is a side effect." Wow. I'm stunned... so to speak. A side effect? "In your worldview, parents who spank their children are guilty of torture ?" Strawman alert! Show me where I ever said anything about spanking being torture... I'll wait. Comparing spanking with jolting someone with up to 50,000 volts of electricity is quite a stretch. As an aside, I do think spanking is ridiculous.

May 05, 2010 9:12 AM on Excessive Force
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -2

All I can say is this taser issue isn't new to me. I've been following it very closely for years and in great detail. The problem is real and it's truly frightening.

May 05, 2010 5:49 AM on Excessive Force
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

So, in your worldview, we torture alleged offenders first, assess the threat later? We need not have any indication of a threat in order to use a form of torture to subdue someone? That's a police state, chief. And it is torture. The tackle halts the activity of the offending individual through restraint. Can one get hurt through a tackle? Sure. But the goal of a tackle is to restrain, not injure. The taser's only function is to halt the activity through INFLICTION OF PAIN. Infliction of pain, in order to get another human being to do what you want him to do is textbook torture. Just because the kid is not strapped to a board in a back room somewhere doesn't negate this fact. A police officer's job is to use the least amount of acceptable force in apprehending the alleged offender (and yes, in the officer's mind, this is an alleged offender, because we have things called trials, which determine guilt or innocence). When an officer inflicts enormous pain to an alleged offender, who has shown NO INDICATION OF ANY VIOLENT INTENT, he is using excessive force and in fact PUNISHING an alleged offender with a technique banned in numerous nations as being a form of torture. He is not merely apprehending someone to charge and put on trial in a court of law, he is inflicting severe pain when other techniques of restraint were available to him. I don't see how this is acceptable in a civilized society. Once this door is opened and officers are allowed to use severe pain to subdue non-violent offenders, where does it go next? Where does it lead? You want to wait to find out before being a "good man who does something"?

May 05, 2010 5:26 AM on Excessive Force
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

Strawman, really? Ignoring the official position of the United Nations on the subject, let's simply look at what a taser does compared with a tackle. The tackle halts the activity of the offending individual through restraint. Can one get hurt through a tackle? Sure. But the goal of a tackle is to restrain, not injure. The taser's only function is to halt the activity through INFLICTION OF PAIN. Infliction of pain, in order to get another human being to do what you want him to do is textbook torture. Just because the kid is not strapped to a board in a back room somewhere doesn't negate this fact. "It's quite easy to criticize law enforcement, and not very helpful either." It's your RESPONSIBILITY to criticize law enforcement and all public officials for that matter.

May 05, 2010 4:53 AM on Excessive Force
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 4

The problem is that we were told the tazer would replace bill clubs but see quite often that the tazer is used where no billy club would have ever been used. You think the pregnant woman would have been clubbed for not signing her speeding ticket 10 years ago? Me neither. You think that kid on the field would have been clubbed a few years ago? Don't think so.

May 04, 2010 6:35 PM on Excessive Force
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

"... was unable to definitively ascertain his age or intentions" You are seriously going to publicly state that you weren't able to ascertain his intentions? Okay, you're not very observant, so I'll give you a pass. That is beside the point. Did you see him act aggressively toward anyone? No. Did you see a weapon? No. So he was not acting aggressive nor had a weapon, so you believe he should be electrocuted? Here's where we disagree. "Why don't you explain to everyone again why it is that people have the right to trespass on private property, behave like an idiot, possibly pose a threat to innocent bystanders, and still be treated with kid gloves ?" This is a classic example of a strawman argument. Nowhere in any post of mine will you find these opinions. I've never made any claim that people have the rights you just listed. We are discussing whether the apprehension of this apparent lawbreaker was lawful and appropriate. I believe electrocuting a harmless prankster is an abuse of power. You apparently don't think so. "And please stop with the torture crap, torture is a terrible thing and those who cry wolf about it do a tremendous disservice." The United Nations Rapporteur on Human Rights has declared that use of a taser is an act of torture. I happen to agree. Shooting 10,000 volts of electricity into someone's body sounds like torture to me, but I guess it's all relative, right? After all, the extreme pain only lasts a few seconds and the marks only last a few days. No biggie. That'll teach the prankster a lesson. "what's coming next right, the Hitler comparison" Godwin's Law! I love it! But since you asked... "What one can blame them [German politicians and populace] for, and what shows their terrible collective weakness of character, is that this settled the matter. With sheepish submissiveness the German people accepted that, as a result of the fire, each one of them lost what little personal freedom and dignity was guaranteed by the Constitution; as though it followed as a necessary consequence. If the Communists burned down the Reichstag, it was perfectly in order that the government took "decisive measures." - German Lawyer Sebastian Haffner, lamenting on the restricted civil liberties imposed under Hitler in response to the terrorist bombings of the German Parliament building in Berlin. The reduction of civil liberties after the Reichstag attack is seen by historians as the first in a series of steps taken by Hitler, which eventually led to the destruction of the German democracy.

May 04, 2010 6:26 PM on Excessive Force
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -3

Oh, I don't know, how about tackle him like we've seen for decades in prior examples of stupid people acting like clowns by running onto the field? Then you arrest him, charge him and send him to court. In any case, a tackle is infinitely more humane and safer than electrocution and would satisfy the necessary amount of force needed to apprehend the prankster.

May 04, 2010 5:32 PM on Excessive Force
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

That's brilliant. Talk about unreasonable comparisons. Did you see the video? How can you compare with a break-in of a private residence? An obviously young man, no doubt a teenager, was making a clown of himself, like we have all seen a hundred times before. He had no weapon and was not acting aggressively in any way toward anyone, yet you think that the appropriate remedy is to torture him?

May 04, 2010 5:30 PM on Excessive Force
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 4

"Though, once one unlawfully enters the playing field one has given up his/her liberty" Wrong. His liberty is intact. He is protected against abuse of power by law enforcement. That's the question here. Is electrocution acceptable use of force to subdue a teenager playing a harmless prank? Police officers aren't free to do whatever they want, simply because someone allegedly violated a law. We as a society need to ask ourselves if this is acceptable. But when we ask ourselves this question, we need to make sure we understand that we could be the next one zapped with 10,000 volts for arguing about a traffic ticket.

May 04, 2010 3:00 PM on Excessive Force
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -2

Seriously? We are talking about a teenager who clearly was not threatening anyone being ELECTROCUTED. No, it's not the same, but it IS part of a pattern where police officers use electrocution against non-violent citizens. You may not be aware of it, but even the U.N. has declared Tazer use a form of torture. You call my comparison "ridiculous" yet it is you who seems to think it's okay to torture a citizen who is not a threat and merely involved in a petty prank. If that isn't ridiculous then I don't know what is.

May 04, 2010 2:50 PM on Excessive Force
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

The trend is already underway and is amassing quite a track record at this point. Anybody interested in learning more about the topic should read DIGBY's blog, as she's been all over this topic for years.

May 04, 2010 2:03 PM on Excessive Force
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

For every Monica Seles there are a dozen harmless citizens killed by tazer-happy cops. “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – Benjamin Franklin Taze first, assess threat later is not worthy of a free country.

May 04, 2010 2:02 PM on Excessive Force
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 12

What happened to the citizens of this country? When did we become so overcome with fear that we embrace totalitarian tactics and a police state? The above comments are typical nowadays and it's attitudes like these which inevitably lead to the loss of civil liberties for everyone. How anyone can say, "better to taze 600 goofy teenagers... " in any serious way, is a sad testament to where we are headed. Since when is it okay for teenagers to be electrocuted when they show no indication of being a threat? And this isn't an isolated incident. Police officers have been tazing people as a first resort with regularity, regardless of the ALLEGED offense. A pregnant woman was tazed three times because she refused to sign a speeding ticket, which had her going 32 in a 30mph zone. Where does it end? People die way too often by this lazy approach to law enforcement and it will never stop so long as the population grants them this power by approving of these egregious actions (when done to other people's kids).

May 04, 2010 1:44 PM on Excessive Force
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

Pretty small risk, but yeah a risk. Strong odds the 23rd would be very safe.

Apr 30, 2010 8:58 AM on Friday Update
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

He should be safe from super-2 by mid May. The 23rd should be fine.

Apr 30, 2010 8:44 AM on Friday Update
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

May 23rd should pass the super-2 threshold and a sell-out is a sell-out regardless. They would still lose a ton of money by waiting.

Apr 30, 2010 8:41 AM on Friday Update
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Re: Strasburg I can't believe the Nats are going to miss the chance to start him on Sunday, May 23rd vs. the O's in Washington. It would allow one more AA start, then 3 AAA starts, two of which are at home, before the call-up for the guaranteed Sunday afternoon sell-out. That game may even get bumped to the Sunday night ESPN game. Why wait until a week or two into June???

Apr 30, 2010 7:57 AM on Friday Update
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Will, Any word on Desmond Jennings?

Apr 29, 2010 2:18 PM on Bracing For a Return
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Kevin, Any initial thoughts on Justin Smoak?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Maybe he should look into getting adopted by Mr. Jeter's parents for a few years... ;)

Apr 22, 2010 9:29 AM on Bryce Harper
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

Edinson Volquez is the pitcher drawing the 50 game PED ban.

Apr 20, 2010 12:12 PM on Woe Are The O's
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 3

That's why I like it.

Apr 13, 2010 8:32 AM on Trading Evan Longoria
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

My money is on Rauch. Neshak could steal it by May.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

Oh, and you can feel free to educate them here: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/the_tom_seaver_rule/#comments I'm sure they would appreciate the enlightenment.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 3

ugh. It was a quote from a blog between other stat-head projection-makers at "The Book." Why is everyone's default reaction one of derision? Guess what, even if I didn't know how the system works (many, in fact, don't understand it), this would be an opportunity to explain it, not ridicule the lack of understanding. So many geniuses around here, apparently....

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

From a very interesting Strasburg debate over at "The Book:" "Lincecum’s 90% forecast divided by his 10% forecast: 71% Carpenter: 81% Arroyo: 81% Strasburg: 75% And there ladies and gentlemen is why I say the PECOTA percentile forecasts are irrelevant. 1. How in the world is the range of Strasburg’s forecast the same as established stars? It’s impossible. We know less about him, and so the uncertainty of his forecast must be wider. 2. He has only a 10% chance to post a better than 3.94 ERA? This all goes back to the way Nate does his comparables. What Nate does is that he looks ONLY at rate stats. And so, he would take Strasburg’s MLE rate stats, looks at comparable pitchers based on rate stats, and then looks at those pitcher’s observed ERA, and use that as the range. This is 100% wrong." Care to comment?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota.beta/

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Hi Dave, Can you comment a bit on Strasburg's PECOTA card? How confident are you in PECOTA's ability to project such a once-in-a-generation pitching prospect?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Awesome. Thanks.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Looking at Volquez and previously with Billy Wagner, it appears Nathan has a good shot at being ready for spring training 2011. Is this a realistic timetable?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

I'd be curious as to what effect the won/loss projections would look like if BP used alternative lineups, based on this type of analysis. Would we see any teams win divisions, simply due to a smarter lineup order?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -3

Thanks for the response. Does it make sense that the weighted mean would have every single player in the 2009 top 30 losing AVG in 2010? BTW, I noticed a new PFM update this morning, which seems to have made an upward adjustment on many of those players, so maybe there was a problem after all. I knew I wasn't crazy!

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

But my question is this, why would it expect all 30 players to regress? How is it possible that none of these players will be expected to actually improve upon their previous season's AVG? It's calling itself a Player Forecaster. In other words, what use is it, if one then must bet against the forecast to gain something from it? I'm confused as to why it is based on a 50% line, yet has everyone getting worse. The AVg predictions read like a 25% line across the board.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the PFM would be looking at the 50% line, which shouldn't have the top 30 players in AVG in 2009 all regressing. Surely a certain percentage would be expected to get better, while others worse. In any case, it seems much different than previous PFM forecasts and looks MUCH different than the other projection systems you mentioned.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -3

Some regression? Sure. But what are the odds that the top 30 (I stopped counting at that point) ALL regress??? I'm no stat expert, but that seems extremely unlikely.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

AVG leaders in 2009 compared to PFM 2010 AVG: PLAYER 2009 PFM2010 Mauer .365 .310 Ichiro .352 .314 Hanley .342 .302 Jeter .334 .295 Sandoval.330 .301 Pujols .328 .318 Helton .325 .275 Miggy .324 .291 Votto .322 .283 Young .322 .287 Coghlan .321 .269 Cano .320 .298 Bartlett .320 .281 Braun .320 .292 Tejada .313 .288 Holiday .313 .292 And it goes on like this for a while… with virtually every player near the top in 2009 AVG seeing a drop (mostly pretty big) in AVG in 2010.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 3

Speaking of fantasy... I've noticed the PFM has seen a drastic drop in batting averages among the top players in the league. Last season, over 50 players hit .300 or better and the PFM has a total of 6 this season, with a league high totaling only .318. It seems like players with low averages moved up a bit and higher average players dropped, putting them all closer to the league average. Most seem very strange to me. I think the Rockies team average is gonna be in the 250's, with a team high average of .275 for Helton, followed by only .273 for Tulo. Anyone else think the numbers seem off??? It looks like the highest average player on every team will be lower than the highest average on that team in 2009. This doesn't seem to make sense to me.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Any thoughts on when we can expect to see Beltran in the lineup? Late April? May?

Feb 15, 2010 9:41 AM on New York Mets
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

What would Jason Heyward look like?

Feb 10, 2010 9:54 AM on Atlanta Braves
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

ditto

Jan 30, 2010 11:57 AM on May 30-June 1, 2002
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -9

You've got to be kidding me. Tone? You are imagining things. How could pointing out that Roger Maris may have been a victim be considered unimportant as a rebuttal to someone claiming steroid use was a "victimless crime"? Especially when one considers McGwire himself felt compelled to call the Maris family to apologize? You know what I've noticed? In these steroid debates, the posts which get deleted always seem to be from those who stand against the steroid users. You think that's coincidence? Or perhaps people are being selectively "vigilant"?

Jan 12, 2010 3:53 PM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

Yes, thanks.

Jan 12, 2010 3:44 PM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -4

"... is being dismissive of the reasons that players use." No, they aren't. They are simply saying that the reasons those players used was not sufficient to excuse the behavior. You may feel their reasons justify use... others disagree with that assessment.

Jan 12, 2010 3:29 PM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -4

The umps, having witnessed a federal crime being committed, should have looked the other way? Amazing.

Jan 12, 2010 3:27 PM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -3

By your logic, McGwire could have broken out a needle and shot himself full of prohibited drugs on National TV, right there in the locker room, back in 2002, simply because those illegal drugs were not listed on the MLB CBA. The feds would simply have looked the other way because baseball is a "closed system." Makes no sense.

Jan 12, 2010 2:49 PM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -2

In simplest terms, if players weren't doing anything wrong or against the rules, why is it that not a single player did steroids out in the open? Why must we perform mental gymnastics to excuse this behavior? I find it utterly perplexing. "Would it be "acceptable" if Mark McGwire told us that every time he went through his steroid regime, he did so in a country where such drugs were legal? " Well, no, it wouldn't be okay, because it would be an obvious lie. Look, I get your point, but it's a parlor game more than anything, as steroids would not be very useful if one had to travel to Columbia every time they wanted to fix. I have no doubt many foreign players used in their home countries, but I find it very hard to believe they stopped using at the border, for the entire baseball season.

Jan 12, 2010 2:45 PM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -9

Costas: "The [Maris sons] consider their father's 61 [homers] the authentic single-season record." McGwire: "They have every right to." P.S. - the rate comment abuse at this site is ridiculous.

Jan 12, 2010 1:50 PM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -2

Joe, People are making this "weak" argument merely to correct the false notion that steroid use was not banned by baseball. It was. Inherently. That's the point. When people stop making the false claim that steroid use wasn't prohibited by baseball, then you'll stop reading this "weak" rebuttal.

Jan 12, 2010 1:20 PM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -3

You are missing the point. One cannot rely on the argument that a certain drug was not explicitly banned by baseball, if that drug was illegal. Since it was illegal, it means it WAS banned by baseball, inherently. That's the point. I'm not saying the reason players should be punished for using steroids is because it was illegal, I am merely negating the falsehood that it wasn't banned by baseball. It was. It was an illegal substance. It's simple. Was steroid use allowed in MLB? No. Why? Because it was illegal. Baseball can't overrule the laws of the country. So anyone pointing to the fact that steroids weren't part of the official banned in baseball list as some sort of proof that they were not breaking any rules have it completely wrong. This has nothing to do with "greenies" or anything else. It's simply correcting a false notion as to the legality of using steroids by anyone, including baseball players. The only way one could claim the lack of steroids on a list of banned MLB substances has any relevance is if baseball had an exemption from the controlled substance laws of the country. There was no such exemption. Now, in my opinion, I agree it is a moot point in regard to sport. But being a moot point doesn't mean we can rely on false claims. Steroid use was inherently banned from baseball. That is the fact. People should stop claiming it wasn't. Anyone who makes the claim is doing so to help make a case against punishing users, but this point is based on a falsehood.

Jan 12, 2010 1:04 PM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -11

Victimless crime? Tell that to Roger Maris.

Jan 12, 2010 9:12 AM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

I'd be curious to see Nate throw together PECOTA cards for Bonds, Clemens, McGwire etc. following the last season these players played clean to see how far above their expected level of performance they each played once they started using. I wonder if they all fall into a specific percentile of improvement with any consistency.

Jan 12, 2010 7:42 AM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

Using controlled substances like steroids was AGAINST THE LAW, therefore it was inherently not allowed in baseball or anywhere else.

Jan 12, 2010 7:39 AM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -4

"My points are that I think it's naive to dismiss the temptation and decision to use, particularly when considering the benefits to the player's life (including success, riches, and chasing a dream) and/or pressure to keep up with the competition." Who was dismissing the reasons people used? I think we all know why these players used...it's common sense. Does putting yourself into McGwire's shoes somehow excuse his behavior?

Jan 12, 2010 6:33 AM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

Who said it was a "crime"?

Jan 11, 2010 6:16 PM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -2

"if your career (or hitting the lottery) depended upon taking a pill 6 weeks on, 6 weeks off, for several years, with limited to no side effects, you would also do it." You claim we WOULD do it, and yet admit many players DIDN'T do it. What exactly is your point? I'm confused.

Jan 11, 2010 6:00 PM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -5

Why was this addressed to me? I see no "screechiness" to my post. It's simply pointing out the logical direction in which Saint09 was headed. He makes the case that we would all take steroids under the conditions faced by McGwire, but since all players in the majors faced the exact same parameters as McGwire, logic dictates that Saint09 must believe that ALL players used. Screechiness? Or simply applied logic?

Jan 11, 2010 5:56 PM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 3

Um... what? A serial liar is trying to legitimize his accomplishments by CLAIMING he had good and bad years on steroids, thus implying they weren't the end-all-be-all and you take his word for it hook, line and sinker? Come on, dude.

Jan 11, 2010 5:52 PM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

Post 10 of these 100 web sites. Thanks.

Jan 11, 2010 5:49 PM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -7

So, you are saying every player took steroids? Because that's the logical end game to your position.

Jan 11, 2010 4:55 PM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 4

"That guy like McGwire would have been a career minor-leaguer, or that Palmeiro's success was solely due to steroids. " This is a classic strawman argument. This logic (or lack thereof) drives me nuts. What would Phil Hiatt have batted without steroids? What's that? You have no idea? Nobody is claiming steroids made Bonds good. They are claiming that steroids possibly made a great player superhuman. Who's to say Tim Laker wouldn't have hit 125/176/289 without steroids? As Gibson '88 already pointed out, The reason for this is that it is difficult to construct the needed counterfactual. That is, it is hard to know how Marvin Bernard would have played *without* steroids." I have never seen a single person on this earth ever claim McGwire would have been a "career- minor-leaguer." The argument is always about how much BETTER these players were than their NORMAL level due to steroid use, whatever that normal level was.

Jan 11, 2010 4:54 PM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

I got the reference!

Jan 11, 2010 4:47 PM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

"assuming that the morality of breaking laws is irrelevant to HOF considerations." Well, steroid use kills two birds in this regard. It's a) illegal and b) intended to give the abuser an unfair advantage on the field of play. So, the idea that it was not technically against the CBA, is irrelevant.

Jan 11, 2010 3:30 PM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

While technically true, it’s still debatable in that any intent to unfairly gain an advantage over an opponent is against the spirit of the rules, particularly in regards to sportsmanship and fair play. More importantly, steroid use of the kind we are referring was against the law of the United States. So, they were breaking controlled substance laws of the country, but it’s okay because they weren’t explicitly outlawed in baseball’s collective bargaining agreement? Nonsensical.

Jan 11, 2010 3:05 PM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 3

"The reason for this is that it is difficult to construct the needed counterfactual. That is, it is hard to know how Marvin Bernard would have played *without* steroids." EXACTLY.

Jan 11, 2010 3:02 PM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

His motives are clearly "knowable," if one has even the slightest grasp of common sense, as I detailed above. I don’t think one needs to invoke the theory of Occam’s Razor to find a much more obvious and satisfying answer to the question of why McGwire would have effectively pleaded the 5th when asked under oath in front of Congress as to whether he took steroids or not, but I’ll do it anyway. He was refusing to incriminate himself. Look, if people want to give this guy a pass, at least they should be honest about what he did and why he did it.

Jan 11, 2010 2:41 PM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

The difference between Gaylord Perry and a steroid user, particularly in the late 90’s, with a sham of a drug enforcement policy in MLB, was Perry took a risk every time he cheated. His cheating was limited to the field of play, under the watchful eyes of the umpires, TV cameras, broadcasters, fans and opposing team. Because of this, he had to pick his spots. A steroid user was taking no risk of being caught whatsoever. Again, this is no defense of Perry. It merely points out that Perry’s cheating came with some risk on the field of play. And it was a rare occurrence, by all accounts, including Perry’s, who clearly has no problem indulging us with the details of his crimes. Meanwhile, a steroid user, whose intent was clearly nefarious, was carrying out that intent with every breath he took, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, with no chance to get caught. It’s gutless to say the least. But again, we need not even have to point this out as the very idea of claiming we should allow all cheaters into the HOF based on Perry’s inclusion makes no sense on its face.

Jan 11, 2010 2:21 PM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

The "rules"? I agree with you wholeheartedly that Congress was merely putting up a "dog and pony show" that was embarrassing to watch. But this is irrelevant in determining whether we should continue to give McGwire the benefit of the doubt. All that matters is what McGwire did and why he did it. We know what he did; he clammed up. Next we need to look at the possible reasons why he clammed up in this situation. Perhaps he was concerned for his privacy and felt Congress had no right to ask such questions? The problem with this argument is two-fold. He refused to answer the exact same questions he forcefully and confidently answered many times over the years to reporters. Reporters who were not off the record; they had microphones, TV cameras, notepads and pens. They were going to publish these questions and answers in the public sphere. Secondly, and more notably, he had to know that refusal to answer those very same questions would do irreparable damage to his reputation and HOF eligibility. Is it a reasonable conclusion to assume a noble intent for his sudden refusal to answer the same question he has answered publicly many times over the years under this circumstance? Let's bend over backwards even further to allow for such a noble intent as standing up for some kind of privacy, even in the face of the predictable (and subsequently accurate) HOF ballot retribution. Wouldn't such a stand only make its point if stated openly? In any case I know of where someone was taking such a messianic stand in the past, they made that stand quite clear. Tellingly, McGwire didn't hold a press conference after the hearing expressing noble reasons for his refusal to answer. Instead, he slinked off into the darkness, avoiding comment. In fact, it was pointed out that his refusal came about due to legal advice he had received. What if we take his assertion that he "was not here to talk about the past" in the best, most positive way by allowing for the possibility that he was too concerned about steroid use among children and wanted to stick to the point by avoiding talk about the past. He implies such reasoning with the statement, as pointed out in your article, "I’m not here to talk about the past". Let’s think this idea through. If he had never done steroids and simply answered the question, "No, I have never used steroids", then wouldn’t he be able to move on to the more pressing issue of helping the nations children? Wouldn’t he then be a beacon for children as to what great accomplishments could be achieved while avoiding the dangers of steroid use? Wouldn’t it be obvious to McGwire and everyone else that by refusing to answer the question, he was making "not talking about the past" an impossibility? Isn’t it obvious that the last thing he should do, if his intent was to help the children by keeping focus on present day situations, would be to create an enormous controversy by refusing to answer a single question? Again, does it seem reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt here? I don’t think so. We need to continue our search for the most likely reason for his refusal to answer. The obvious question becomes, what was different about the situation in which McGwire found himself when asked this same question that he had no problem answering so many times in the past? The answer is obvious. He was, for the first time, under oath. This factor cannot be taken lightly. A lie under oath to Congress is a potentially serious crime that carries heavy penalties, far more grave than merely being denied the honor of HOF acceptance. Why so many still feel the need to give this clown credit for his actions is beyond belief.

Jan 11, 2010 2:18 PM on Heading Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 4

Backlash? 1. A segment of the Old School, Flat-Earth Society BBWAA members are digging in their heels on Blyleven, and 2. These same writers are adding votes to Morris to as a poke-in-the-eye to the Blyleven movement and it's stat-based (reality based) community

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Amen! Says the guy with both Myers and Madson on his fantasy team!

Sep 09, 2009 11:59 AM on Getting Serious
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

And while we are at is, an option breaking it down according to lefty/righty splits would be a HUGE help.

Jul 26, 2009 11:57 AM on Players
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Any chance you could send the idea up the flagpole?

Jul 25, 2009 5:46 PM on Players
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Damn. I've asked this question of practically everyone at BP and NOBODY has ever even acknowledged it.

Jul 24, 2009 1:04 PM on Players
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

I love it. It's very helpful. Thanks. One addition to PFM which I have been pining for since its inception is what I call an "all things being equal" option, which allows you to compare players on a per game basis. For example, Marco Scutaro is valued highly in the PFM ($4.92 for my league parameters) due more than anything to his being projected for a ton of plate appearances. But if you have Scutaro and, say Casey Blake ($4.60) on your fantasy team, and you KNOW they are both in that day's lineup, in spite of the higher value attributed to Scutaro, you could do the math and realize Blake is more valuable on a game by game basis and therefore put him into your utility slot for that night over Scutaro. Now, this is not too difficult to formulate on your own, but it does in many cases require finding a common denominator of plate appearances to determine who is better "all things being equal." I find myself doing these little equations all the time. I would LOVE an option which either simply shows a players value on a per game basis, or allows for one to place all players with the same number of plate appearances to see how they would compare on that level. I hope this is clear. Thoughts?

Jul 23, 2009 1:26 PM on Players
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

How's Scott Hairston doing? I can't find anything on him anywhere.

Jun 17, 2009 10:04 AM on Our Better Angels?
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 4

There also seems to be a complete lack of recognition that the constant subtext of "I'm better than you because I'm not sanctimonious and hypocritical" is in itself a form of sanctimony.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

And to be clear, nobody is saying, "... won't someone think of the children." If you actually comprehended my position, you'd see I was merely extrapolating the attitude in a way to expose how silly it is. But instead of seeing this parallel, I get mocked yet again. Tiresome.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

It's truly amazing. Instead of responding to my examples, which was an attempt to extrapolate the excuses being thrown around by steroid apologists, I get hit once again with an ad hominem. Tell me, what argument could someone objecting to the steroid abuse use which would not result in being hit with this label? Looking forward to the guidelines.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 5

Will Carroll previously noted (in regard to McGwire), "Mike Ditka was explaining why Shawne Merriman, the Chargers LB who tested positive for an anabolic steroid this season, should be Defensive Player of the Year. 'What he did was wrong, but the league's punishment is four games for this. He served that. He's getting tested now and hasn't failed again.' Okay, Ditka failed to notice the six to eight week lag in the NFL's testing (that's normal, I’m not faulting them here), but the logic that football guys like Ditka are willing to employ for a knowing, unexcused cheater is amazingly disconnected from the logic that baseball writers are willing to employ for a guy for which there is no proof, who was not subject to testing, and who has admitted to the use and then cessation of a substance (andro) that was available over the counter at the time and was legal for use in baseball until 2005." Joe Sheehan noted, "how can McGwire be so vilified for steroid use that has never come close to being proven, while Shawne Merriman is perhaps the most celebrated defensive player in the NFL during the same season in which he tested positive for steroids? The hypocrisy in the coverage of steroids in sports has never been so evident as it is today, the gulf between the media's handling of MLB and the NFL wide enough to drive the truth through." Another good example often cited is Gaylord Perry’s inclusion in the HOF. I'll limit myself to the main concept behind the idea of "hypocrisy" or double standard among the fans and media. My answer is simple. I agree. The hypocrisy and double standard are evident and silly. My question becomes, what does that have to do with whether we should give McGwire the benefit of the doubt in the face of his performance in front of congress, among other things? Must we use the lowest possible comparable threshold when making such judgements? Or does it make more sense to ask Mike Ditka or the media, who feel the same way, how is it they feel justified in rewarding a cheater like Merriman? Why are we not raising the standard? At the end of the day, we need only look back to the criteria for HOF election, specifically the part referring to integrity, sportsmanship and character. Under those criteria, Merriman would not be elected into any HOF either. Gaylord Perry falls into a somewhat different category. On the surface it should suffice to say that putting one cheater in the HOF shouldn't mean we should open the doors to all cheaters. But I'll take it further. Any steroid user had the intent of gaining an advantage over his opponent; this I can assume you would agree with. Whether a steroid user in fact did receive an advantage by using I'll leave to the medical experts, but for this discussion it's irrelevant. What was the intent; to surreptitiously gain an unfair advantage over the opponent. The difference between Gaylord Perry and a steroid user, particularly in the late 90's, with a sham of a drug enforcement policy in MLB, was Perry took a risk every time he cheated. His cheating was limited to the field of play, under the watchful eyes of the umpires, TV cameras, broadcasters, fans and opposing team. Because of this, he had to pick his spots. A steroid user was taking no risk of being caught whatsoever. Again, this is no defense of Perry. It merely points out that Perry's cheating came with some risk on the field of play. And it was a rare occurrence, by all accounts, including Perry's, who clearly has no problem indulging us with the details of his crimes. Meanwhile, a steroid user, whose intent was clearly nefarious, was carrying out that intent with every breath he took, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, with no chance to get caught. It's gutless to say the least. But again, as I pointed out previously, we need not even have to point this out as the very idea of claiming we should allow all cheaters into the HOF based on Perry’s inclusion makes no sense on its face.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Oh, so your WERE being derogatory. Thanks for clearing it up.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

I can't follow your logic. If the fans "let it go" why wouldn't those making inquiries also "let it go"? Public pressure is what keeps these inquiries going. I prefer to air all the dirty laundry so it doesn't happen again. Pretending it didn't happen or that it won't happen again by our simply choosing to sweep it under the rug makes little sense to me. So, no, I won't "let it go." Sorry.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -3

"... I’m not using the term in a derogatory sense." Could have fooled me, chief. Your "moralist" post was dripping with mockery.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

What does this have to do with the concept of treating those who object to cheating with mockery? Nothing.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -2

I can see it now: Joheimburger gets called into the Principals office. Principal: We caught your child cheating on the SAT's. Jo: So? He obviously did a cost/benefit analysis and thought the risk was worth it. Who are we to judge? Come on son, let's go get some frosty chocolate milkshakes! One could extrapolate your attitude endlessly. "And since a majority of those angry about steroids believe they were in fact PEDs, that's where the "hypocrite", "sanctimony" talk comes in." Actually, most acknowledge that they don't know if steroids are PED's, though they suspect they are. What I and many others object to is the fact that the intent to cheat was there in any case. That's the point.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -2

Objecting to cheating makes one a "moralist" worthy of mockery. Is that the lesson you teach your children? Just checking.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -5

Amen, brother.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

What does "let it go" mean, exactly? End all inquiry? You think that will help prevent something like this from happening again in the future?

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -2

Can I ask you why it is people like you can't accept that people who are angry about steroid use are not sanctimonious? Why must you level such an ad hominem? It's tiresome. I'm simply tired of those who downplay steroids in baseball constantly calling those who have a differing opinion such smears as "hypocrite" and "sanctimonious."

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -2

I believe that robbing a bank would set up my family for life. Maybe I'll do that.... And you can be sure not to judge me for it. Thanks, chief.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 18

This logic drives me absolutely nuts. The fact that any of these players didn't suddenly become all-time greats tells us NOTHING of steroids effects. Why? Because you don't know how much WORSE they would have been absent the drugs. Get it? Who's to say Todd Pratt wouldn't even have even made the majors at all if he hadn't used? Can you tell me that? Or perhaps Gregg Zaun would have been released a few years sooner? Etc. I'll simplify for you: If I take steroids, I can guarantee you that I wouldn't suddenly be in the majors. Why? Because I don't have the natural base level of ability. Bonds? Perhaps the most talented player in the game. Add steroids to HIS BASE LEVEL OF TALENT and what do you get? Seriously, your logic, embarrassingly echoed by Joe Sheehan previously, MAKES NO SENSE. It's insults the intelligence of anyone with at least two brain cells to rub together. Now, I look forward to getting this comment, even though it makes perfect sense, "voted off" by the steroid apologists who seem to be in the majority here at BP for some reason.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Any news on Scott Hairston?

Jun 16, 2009 11:58 AM on Big Names Down
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -2

Ankiel? Looking wonky at the moment.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

I would love a "all things being equal" option, where you can set each player to the exact same number of PA, or AB's, which would allow me to compare a players worth on a game by game level and not merely by projected season totals. That would be a huge help.

Mar 27, 2009 10:45 AM on September 19-25, 2001
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 4

He's deserving, but less so than Moose, who will likely be watching Schilling's induction speech from his couch.

Mar 24, 2009 5:18 PM on Curt Schilling Bows Out
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Hart's underrated going into 2009, methinks.

Mar 08, 2009 6:51 PM on Right Fielders
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Got it. Thanks.

Mar 08, 2009 1:46 PM on Right Fielders
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

Drew over Rios feels like a mistake to me. It doesn't make sense on any level I can think of.

Mar 08, 2009 11:51 AM on Right Fielders
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Will, What\'s you theory on Lopez?!

Mar 05, 2009 4:29 AM on Arizona Diamondbacks
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

You beat me to it! Chris Young killed me with his sudden lack of steals! And Lopez was another mystery. What\'s the theory?

Mar 04, 2009 8:55 AM on Arizona Diamondbacks
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

I\'ve essentially given up on debating the steroid topic at this site.

Feb 20, 2009 5:56 PM on The Men In Black
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

If a drug regiment is illegal under federal law, then it automatically is against the rules of baseball, no? I have trouble with the entire \"it wasn\'t against the rules of baseball\" line of thinking.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 3

I\'ll simplify my point, as I think it\'s getting needlessly muddied. If a person were to point to Clemens 1997 performance as definitive proof that PED\'s enhanced his performance, I would tend to disagree. In the same way, one cannot point at Clemens 1997 as proof that PED\'s DIDN\'T play a role in his performance that year. Logically speaking, one cannot say, \"Clemens had the best season of his career, but it was not out of the realm of possible outcomes, therefore it stands as definitive proof that PED\'s don\'t enhance performance.\" This simply makes no logical sense to me. Again, I am not arguing with anyone as to Clemens guilt or innocence, but merely arguing against the concept that Clemens 1997 performance is somehow proof that PED\'s didn\'t help him on the field. I see nothing in his performance that would serve to back that statement. Now, if Clemens had a poor season in 1997, then one could make that argument. But having the best season of his career? How does that \"prove\" that PED\'s have no positive effect?

Dec 26, 2008 3:31 PM on A Different Perspective
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 2

No, he didn\'t. He stated: \"it\'s fairly easy to see that there was no big jump, if any\" The words \"if any\" rejects a jump of any size.

Dec 26, 2008 3:06 PM on A Different Perspective
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 3

We simply disagree on what constitutes \"any\" jump in performance. I find it bizarre to argue that a player having the best season of his career doesn\'t constitute a \"jump in performance\" of any kind. The argument being made assumes that the only \"jump\" that counts is one which not only outperforms ANY PREVIOUS SEASON OF THEIR ENTIRE CAREER, but significantly so, to the level that one could not have ever expected such a jump. That seems a radical departure from the definition of \"any jump in performance.\"

Dec 26, 2008 3:03 PM on A Different Perspective
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 3

You keep missing the point. I am not saying Clemens used PED\'s in 1997. I am not saying Clemens got a performance bump from PED\'s in 1997. I AM saying that one CANNOT reasonably argue that a player didn\'t get \"any\" jump in 1997 at all, regardless of the reason, as he had his BEST season in 1997. That\'s it. As I said numerous times already, I have no idea whether PED\'s helped Clemens in 1997. My argument is with the idea that one can summarily dismiss the best season of his career as not satisfying the definition of a \"jump\" in performance. I find it absurd.

Dec 26, 2008 2:58 PM on A Different Perspective
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

Wrong on several points. First, I didn\'t bring up Clemens, GHRuth and Will Carroll did. And my use of Clemens only came about in response to the hypotheticals posed by Carroll in regard to Clemens and alleged PED use. Secondly, the implied PED use of Clemens is hardly pulled out of thin air, as even Will admits in his response to me: \"Assuming we know the truth on Clemens and accept the statements of Brian McNamee, Clemens didn\'t begin using until late in his career - his time with the Jays.\" And finally, you are accusing me of specific judgments in regard to Clemens that JUST AREN\'T THERE. Why do I know this? Because I have no solid opinion on Clemens in this regard at this time. None. I was having a theoretical conversation and your criticism is based on your own sensitivities and not what I have actually written. The caveat that you dismiss is important.

Dec 26, 2008 2:51 PM on A Different Perspective
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 2

Well, when you put a qualifier like, \"within the realm of expected possibilities,\" then sure, that\'s an easy argument to make. But, ignoring the fact that the very season he started using PED\'s resulted in possibly the best season of his career and certainly a much better season than any of the previous 4 (and at the age of 34), can\'t be automatically written off as meaningless simply because it satisfies that very low threshold of being \"within the realm of expected possibilities.\" His best VORP season? 1997 His best Stuff season? 1997 & 1988 (1998 was only one point behind these two) Best PRAR season? 1997 Seriously, under your criteria, what would Clemens have had to do in 1997 in order to show \"any\" jump in performance??? The fact that he had the best season of his career inherently means he had a \"jump\" in performance. Merely adding a qualifier that the only \"jump\" that would count is one that requires he outperform ANY expected level of performance is a dubious criteria in my opinion. (though on that note, how would one make that argument in the case of Bonds, McGwire or Sosa?)

Dec 26, 2008 2:31 PM on A Different Perspective
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

\"you have no idea who did and did not take PEDs\" No kidding. You\'re assuming I am judging specific players based on mere rumor. That is not the case, nor can you provide evidence that I ever made any such accusations. I\'ll repeat my main points, which I posted on this thread, quite clearly (or so I thought): 1) Does the use of PED\'s constitute an attempt to cheat? 2) If yes, should a player using PED\'s be rewarded with enshrinement in the HOF or should the intent to cheat prevent them from consideration for such an honor? 3) What constitutes sufficient proof of guilt in this regard? What is the threshold? I am merely asking these questions. This is a theoretical conversation as to what we should do with \"Player X.\" were we to have proof of PED use. If you ask me whether mere rumor is enough to stop a HOF vote, then the answer is no. But I also don\'t believe the standard of evidence needs to reach the level of a criminal trial, as some clearly do.

Dec 26, 2008 2:09 PM on A Different Perspective
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -2

\"So widespread that they sat in candy dishes in the locker room for use?\" This is an important distinction in my opinion.... Look, I appreciate your opinion on this, and truly believe there is no true right or wrong opinion, as it\'s a very cloudy issue all around. I just see the PED use as being more shady and nefarious than these other examples and I find it difficult to justify rewarding these players. Additionally, in spite of Will and others vehement arguments claiming PED\'s have no effect, I am still not convinced... The bottom line? The fact that fans have to have these debates is the biggest shame of it all.

Dec 26, 2008 2:01 PM on A Different Perspective
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -2

If it was against the law of the United States, then it was inherently against the rules of baseball, no? Just because it wasn\'t implicit in the CBA, doesn\'t mitigate the illegality of it. And this argument once again completely ignores the intent of the player; instead it just gives the player a complete pass. As far as a \"cloud of suspicion,\" we haven\'t even begun debating what would actually constitute sufficient proof of guilt in this regard... which is an even more controversial topic. As I see it, there are three questions: 1) Does the use of PED\'s constitute an attempt to cheat? 2) If yes, should a player using PED\'s be rewarded with enshrinement in the HOF or should the intent to cheat prevent them from consideration for such an honor? 3) What constitutes sufficient proof of guilt in this regard? What is the threshold?

Dec 26, 2008 1:10 PM on A Different Perspective
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 3

The point was made that it is \"fairly easy to see that their was no big jump, if any\" in Clemens performance beginning with his time with the Jays. This is factually inaccurate. He arguably had his best CONSECUTIVE two year run beginning with his first year in Toronto, which was also arguably the best individual season of his entire career at the age of 34. Was there a big statistical jump for Clemens from 1996 to 1997? Certainly. Was it due to PED\'s? I have no idea. I\'m just confused as to the assertion that there was no increased performance... Again, to be clear, I\'m not making any claims as to whether Clemens gained any real advantage from PED\'s. I have no idea.

Dec 26, 2008 12:59 PM on A Different Perspective
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -2

Huh?

Dec 26, 2008 12:37 PM on A Different Perspective
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 4

There was no big jump for Clemens with the Jays??? He had the best two year run of his entire career with the Jays, and had a significant jump from the previous 4 seasons in any case. I\'m confused.

Dec 26, 2008 12:29 PM on A Different Perspective
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

You\'re comparing stealing signs (which is not against the rules), to taking PED\'s? Or to \"scuffing a ball,\" which requires action being done on the field, under the watchful eye of the umpires, TV cameras, broadcasters, fans and opposing team? Which carries very real risks of getting caught? And happens rarely, for this very reason? A PED user, whose intent was clearly nefarious, was carrying out that intent with every breath he took, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, with no chance to get caught on the field of play. I think you are bending over backwards way too much in giving these guys a pass.

Dec 26, 2008 12:25 PM on A Different Perspective
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 2

Huh? What would a \"placebo effect\" have to do with anything? I simply believe that a person who fully intended to cheat shouldn\'t be given a free pass merely because they failed in that attempt. Is this unreasonable? I could care less if there was a \"placebo effect,\" or not. It\'s irrelevant. A simple comparison: You find out that your child attempted to cheat on his SAT\'s, but made the mistake of bringing the wrong set of stolen answers to the test site, and therefore gained no actual advantage. Do you laugh it off? Or does he get punished for the intent to cheat? Or do you base your reaction simply on his test results? For me, the intent to cheat is the crime, regardless of outcome, and the kid gets punished. Do you think a player who took PED\'s on the sly intended to cheat when they did so? If the answer is yes, then how can we reward them with a place in the HOF?

Dec 26, 2008 11:56 AM on A Different Perspective
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 1

\"why should Maddux receive less suspicion than anyone else who played during this era?\" I think all players in the era should be viewed with some suspicion, which is the shame of it all. But the idea that every player should be viewed with the \"same\" suspicion makes little sense, as some players have been hit with circumstantial evidence while others, like Maddux, have had none thrown their way. So, unless every player has the same exact set of circumstances, it seems strange to treat them all the exact same way. Why would we treat Maddux with the same suspicion as Barry Bonds? Clearly the evidence of use is MUCH different between the two. Also, you mention Alex Sanchez and his lack of power numbers... this still tells me NOTHING unless you can show me what Sanchez would have done absent the drug program. We know he didn\'t gain power, but did he gain elsewhere? I\'m not saying he did or didn\'t, but merely pointing out that WE DO NOT KNOW, nor will we ever know... the same can be said for Maddux. Would he perhaps pitch later into ballgames later in his career? Have more hop on his heater? I have no idea. Perhaps none of the above. We simply don\'t definitively know the answer to that question. This is why I think the argument as to the effectiveness of PED\'s is pointless. To me, what is much more important is the players INTENT. Sanchez intended to gain an unfair advantage. Period. That\'s the most important factor to me.

Dec 26, 2008 10:15 AM on A Different Perspective
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 2

I think many completely miss the point in regard to PED\'s and the HOF. Whether PED\'s actually enhance production should be irrelevant, as the INTENT of the user was to gain an unfair advantage. They intended to cheat. So it seems beside the point as to whether they actually received any advantage by using. If someone points a gun at you and pulls the trigger, thinking that the gun was loaded, do you laugh it off because the gun happened to be empty? I would find it hard to believe that a parent would let their child go unpunished if they intended to cheat on a school test by bringing what they thought was a stolen answer sheet into class, only to find out the test had been changed at the last minute, rendering the cheat sheet meaningless. The intent was the crime. So, should we simply base the HOF voting on whether PED\'s actually had an effect? And ignore the INTENT to cheat? Or do we look at the effectiveness of PED\'s more incidentally and base our HOF opinions on whether the player in question intended to gain an unfair advantage in violation of the rules?

Dec 26, 2008 10:01 AM on A Different Perspective
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 5

\"... or that Clemens gained no real advantage from what he might have done?\" Can you explain this? I\'ve never logically understood this line of thinking. It makes no sense to me, which leads me to believe that I may be misunderstanding your point. Unless we know what a player WOULD HAVE DONE absent the use of performance enhancing drugs, how can we claim he \"gained no real advantage,\" merely based on comparison with a player who did not take performance enhancing drugs? This logic assumes both players have an equal baseline talent level. Who is to say that Maddux wouldn\'t be MUCH better than Clemens, had he ALSO taken drugs? Or who is to say that Clemens wouldn\'t have retired much earlier, with much worse overall numbers than Maddux had he never taken drugs? I\'m not saying any of these statements are true, but merely exist as possibilities. The simple career comparison between the two literally tells us nothing as to what effect drugs had or didn\'t have on either of them. Am I misunderstanding your point?

Dec 26, 2008 9:52 AM on A Different Perspective
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -4

Um, no... no I don\'t. That\'s why I stated \"I Love Kemp,\" and am endorsing making a deal for him, which I admitted was a pipedream. But thanks for educating me. *sigh*

Dec 25, 2008 6:37 AM on A Holiday Surprise
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

What\'s with the parenthetical numbers under our names?

Dec 24, 2008 11:22 AM on A Holiday Surprise
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

You guys keep trowing reality onto my fantasy! I just love Kemp... and can\'t stand Damon in center. Dare to dream...

Dec 24, 2008 11:19 AM on A Holiday Surprise
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -5

Yeah, it\'s a stretch, I know... but can\'t blame me for hoping. I just can\'t deal with Damon\'s defense in CF. It\'s beyond painful. Jay, when are we gonna get a new article on Mussina\'s HOF chances? JAWS updates and so forth!

Dec 24, 2008 11:17 AM on A Holiday Surprise
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -6

Melky\'s obviously not the main part of the deal, Cano is... Melky\'s a throw-in...

Dec 24, 2008 11:09 AM on A Holiday Surprise
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -1

I\'m getting a bit tired of Pettitte\'s act. I\'d take my chances on Hughes at #5...

Dec 24, 2008 11:03 AM on A Holiday Surprise
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -12

I\'m still thinking the Yanks should move Melky and Cano for Kemp+ to play CF, then sign O-Dog to man 2nd for a couple of years until something better comes along. C -Posada 1B - Teixeira 2B - Hudson 3B - ARod SS - Jeter LF - Damon/Swisher CF - Kemp RF - Swisher/Nady DH - Matsui/Swisher I like playing Nady only against lefties, otherwise keep him on the bench. Swisher plays every day and spells Damon or Matsui vs. lefties.

Dec 24, 2008 11:02 AM on A Holiday Surprise
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

I respectfully disagree with your concept of what the \"respectable\" response should be in the Congressional hearing scenario. To wit: 1) Perjury is a VERY difficult charge to ever prove, especially if it isn\'t true. That worry seems a bit paranoid. This concern also pales in comparison to the damage done by NOT answering, if in fact he had nothing to hide. 2) It\'s quite easy to take a stand against naming names. Nobody would blame McGwire for that. Additionally, they could have asked him in any case. I don\'t see ANYONE criticizing McGwire for \"refusing to name names.\" instead, it\'s simply his refusal to answer the EXACT same questions he had no trouble answering numerous times in the past, only without being under oath. I find the most obvious concept, also the most likely; which was he was simply not going to commit a federal crime by lying under oath to Congress. So he clammed up....

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -6

Mark McGwire has been asked about his rumored steroid use many times over his career, beginning with his days on the A\'s. He never had a problem denying steroid use in those interviews. An example of this was pointed out in a fairly recent SI.com article by Tom Verducci (January 2nd, 2007) in which Verducci lamented about an earlier interview in which he asked McGwire directly about his rumored steroid use; a charge which McGwire forcefully and confidently denied. This begs the obvious question; Why would McGwire be so willing to deny steroid use over the years but suddenly, inexplicably refuse to answer the same exact question when posed by Congress? Joe gave several possible reasons in his article: \"He didn\'t grandstand the way players such as Rafael Palmeiro and Curt Schilling did. He didn\'t admit guilt and beg forgiveness the way many people wish he had. He didn\'t stand defiant of a Congressional committee less interested in public policy than in positive press for threatening people-major-league baseball players-who could cost it few votes and little money and who would be unlikely to publicly point out the cynicism and bullying rampant in the process. In his testimony, McGwire held to a point-\"I\'m not here to talk about the past\"-that was actually in keeping with the theoretical spirit of the hearings.\" Looking closely at Joe\'s statement of defense, the bulk of it describes what he \"didn\'t do\", which should be irrelevant, as it is in any case of determining a person\'s guilt or innocence of a particular charge. This leaves us with what he did do; \"McGwire held to a point=\'I\'m not here to talk about the past\'...\" The obvious problem with McGwires stance is that he was compelled to appear and put under oath to answer the questions posed by Congress. It was not his choice to decide what was on the agenda or what topics were on or off limits. I agree with joe wholeheartedly that Congress was merely putting up a \"dog and pony show\" that was embarrassing to watch. But this is irrelevant in determining whether we should continue to give McGwire the benefit of the doubt. All that matters is what McGwire did and why he did it. We know what he did; he clammed up. Next we need to look at the possible reasons why he clammed up in this situation. Perhaps he was concerned for his privacy and felt Congress had no right to ask such questions? The problem with this argument is two-fold. He refused to answer the exact same questions he forcefully and confidently answered many times over the years to reporters. Reporters who were not off the record; they had microphones, TV cameras, notepads and pens. They were going to publish these questions and answers in the public sphere. Secondly, and more notably, he had to know that refusal to answer those very same questions would do irreparable damage to his reputation and HOF eligibility. Is it a reasonable conclusion to assume a noble intent for his sudden refusal to answer the same question he has answered publicly many times over the years under this circumstance? Let\'s bend over backwards even further to allow for such a noble intent as standing up for some kind of privacy, even in the face of the predictable (and subsequently accurate) HOF ballot retribution. Wouldn\'t such a stand only make its point if stated openly? In any case I know of where someone was taking such a messianic stand in the past, they made that stand quite clear. Tellingly, McGwire didn\'t hold a press conference after the hearing expressing noble reasons for his refusal to answer. Instead, he slinked off into the darkness, avoiding comment. In fact, it was pointed out that his refusal came about due to legal advice he had received. What if we take his assertion that he \"was not here to talk about the past\" in the best, most positive way by allowing for the possibility that he was too concerned about steroid use among children and wanted to stick to the point by avoiding talk about the past. He implies such reasoning with the statement, as pointed out in Joe\'s article, \"I’m not here to talk about the past\". Let\'s think this idea through. If he had never done steroids and simply answered the question, \"No, I have never used steroids\", then wouldn’t he be able to move on to the more pressing issue of helping the nations children? Wouldn\'t he then be a beacon for children as to what great accomplishments could be achieved while avoiding the dangers of steroid use? Wouldn\'t it be obvious to McGwire and everyone else that by refusing to answer the question, he was making \"not talking about the past\" an impossibility? Isn\'t it obvious that the last thing he should do, if his intent was to help the children by keeping focus on present day situations, would be to create an enormous controversy by refusing to answer a single question? Again, does it seem reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt here? I don’t think so. The obvious question becomes, what was different about the situation in which McGwire found himself when asked this same question that he had no problem answering so many times in the past? The answer is obvious. He was, for the first time, under oath. This factor cannot be taken lightly. A lie under oath to Congress is a potentially serious crime that carries heavy penalties, far more grave than merely being denied the honor of HOF acceptance. Is it, therefore, reasonable to still give him the benefit of doubt; to even honor him with a plaque in Cooperstown? I don’t think one needs to invoke the theory of Occam\'s Razor to find a much more obvious and satisfying answer to the question of why McGwire would have effectively pleaded the 5th when asked under oath in front of Congress as to whether he took steroids or not, but I’ll do it anyway. He was refusing to incriminate himself.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

I spoke in length about this in the above post... I think I made a pretty convincing argument.

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -2

Hi Joe, I\'m a huge fan of your work. Though I often agree with your assessments, there are times when I disagree, vehemently in some cases. One such case is Mark McGwire and the alleged conspiracy to “scapegoat” him as the poster child of the steroid era. There are two camps with regard to McGwire’s HOF candidacy. Those who believe he should be inducted to the HOF and those who think there is enough doubt about his legitimacy to warrant a delay in induction at the least and outright denial at the most. You have made it clear that you fall in the former category and have made your irritation with those in the latter category quite clear. I fall into the latter category and I’d like to tell you why. In your January 5th, 2007 article title \"My Hall of Fame Ballot\", you make the obvious and appropriate case for McGwire’s entry based on his numbers. It would be very hard to argue, in fact bordering on Dick Cheney-esque delusion, to argue against McGwire’s inclusion to the Hall based on those criteria. My disagreement stems from several of your assertions, which I believe are shared by some of your fellow BP writers, namely: McGwire the Scapegoat: The idea that McGwire falls into the category of a \"scapegoat\" at all is highly suspect. The definition of \"scapegoat\" is as follows: a person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, especially for reasons of expediency. For McGwire to fall safely into this category, he will have to inherently be innocent of any personal responsibility for the position in which he has been put. The moment it is proven that he bears some personal responsibility, the idea of \"scapegoatism\" falls apart. But I\'ll get back to this later. \"No evidence\" (Will Carroll Chat 1/30/07), \"denied election for one reason only…his appearance in front of congress\", (your above mentioned article, repeated allusion in the current article): Will\'s assertion that there is \"no evidence\" falls apart immediately, even with just a cursory inspection. Your own assertion that there is only one reason for his HOF denial seems false also. I believe it\'s safe to say that his congressional appearance is the largest factor, but I think it\'s more accurate to describe it as the \"deciding\" factor in many people\'s determination that McGwire used steroids. I\'m not sure that McGwire would be denied entry to the HOF if there was never a Jose Canseco book or there weren’t the Caminiti statements, the numerous public statements from other former players about \"rampant steroid use\", a remarkable late career HR surge by McGwire, the Andro discovery, the well publicized Barry Bonds expose \"Game of Shadows,” which cast enormous doubt among fans and media on the legitimacy of the enormous HR splurge of the late 90\'s. Whether you find these other reasons compelling or reliable is beside the point; they are still reasons that have led many to come to the conclusion that Mark McGwire should no longer be given the benefit of the doubt. Admittedly, the only factor from the aforementioned list that can be legitimately called “evidence” would be Jose Canseco’s book. To your credit, you point this out yourself in your article. You also make it quite clear that Canseco’s reputation as a buffoon makes his assertions highly suspect. I agree. My gut feeling is that he’s telling the truth about the steroid use itself, but it wouldn’t surprise me if their were, let’s say, embellishments to a large degree. So, I am willing to bend a bit to give McGwire the benefit of the doubt with regards to Canseco’s book. However, I’m not willing to erase its existence from my brain entirely. Would Canseco’s book be enough for me to advocate denial of a HOF vote. No. Moving on, I will address the most compelling evidence (at least it’s compelling to me and those who fall into my camp), which you termed \"the only reason\" he was denied entry to the HOF. Mark McGwire has been asked about his rumored steroid use many times over his career, beginning with his days on the A\'s. He never had a problem denying steroid use in those interviews. An example of this was pointed out in a fairly recent SI.com article by Tom Verducci (January 2nd, 2007) in which Verducci lamented about an earlier interview in which he asked McGwire directly about his rumored steroid use; a charge which McGwire forcefully and confidently denied. This begs the obvious question; Why would McGwire be so willing to deny steroid use over the years but suddenly, inexplicably refuse to answer the same exact question when posed by Congress? You gave several possible reasons in your article: \"He didn’t grandstand the way players such as Rafael Palmeiro and Curt Schilling did. He didn’t admit guilt and beg forgiveness the way many people wish he had. He didn’t stand defiant of a Congressional committee less interested in public policy than in positive press for threatening people—major-league baseball players—who could cost it few votes and little money and who would be unlikely to publicly point out the cynicism and bullying rampant in the process. In his testimony, McGwire held to a point—“I’m not here to talk about the past”—that was actually in keeping with the theoretical spirit of the hearings.\" Looking closely at your statement of defense, the bulk of it describes what he \"didn\'t do\", which should be irrelevant, as it is in any case of determining a person’s guilt or innocence of a particular charge. This leaves us with what he did do; “McGwire held to a point—‘I’m not here to talk about the past’....” The obvious problem with McGwires stance is that he was compelled to appear and put under oath to answer the questions posed by Congress. It was not his choice to decide what was on the agenda or what topics were on or off limits. I agree with you wholeheartedly that Congress was merely putting up a \"dog and pony show\" that was embarrassing to watch. But this is irrelevant in determining whether we should continue to give McGwire the benefit of the doubt. All that matters is what McGwire did and why he did it. We know what he did; he clammed up. Next we need to look at the possible reasons why he clammed up in this situation. Perhaps he was concerned for his privacy and felt Congress had no right to ask such questions? The problem with this argument is two-fold. He refused to answer the exact same questions he forcefully and confidently answered many times over the years to reporters. Reporters who were not off the record; they had microphones, TV cameras, notepads and pens. They were going to publish these questions and answers in the public sphere. Secondly, and more notably, he had to know that refusal to answer those very same questions would do irreparable damage to his reputation and HOF eligibility. Is it a reasonable conclusion to assume a noble intent for his sudden refusal to answer the same question he has answered publicly many times over the years under this circumstance? Let\'s bend over backwards even further to allow for such a noble intent as standing up for some kind of privacy, even in the face of the predictable (and subsequently accurate) HOF ballot retribution. Wouldn\'t such a stand only make its point if stated openly? In any case I know of where someone was taking such a messianic stand in the past, they made that stand quite clear. Tellingly, McGwire didn\'t hold a press conference after the hearing expressing noble reasons for his refusal to answer. Instead, he slinked off into the darkness, avoiding comment. In fact, it was pointed out that his refusal came about due to legal advice he had received. What if we take his assertion that he “was not here to talk about the past” in the best, most positive way by allowing for the possibility that he was too concerned about steroid use among children and wanted to stick to the point by avoiding talk about the past. He implies such reasoning with the statement, as pointed out in your article, “I’m not here to talk about the past”. Let’s think this idea through. If he had never done steroids and simply answered the question, “No, I have never used steroids”, then wouldn’t he be able to move on to the more pressing issue of helping the nations children? Wouldn’t he then be a beacon for children as to what great accomplishments could be achieved while avoiding the dangers of steroid use? Wouldn’t it be obvious to McGwire and everyone else that by refusing to answer the question, he was making “not talking about the past” an impossibility? Isn’t it obvious that the last thing he should do, if his intent was to help the children by keeping focus on present day situations, would be to create an enormous controversy by refusing to answer a single question? Again, does it seem reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt here? I don’t think so. We need to continue our search for the most likely reason for his refusal to answer. The obvious question becomes, what was different about the situation in which McGwire found himself when asked this same question that he had no problem answering so many times in the past? The answer is obvious. He was, for the first time, under oath. This factor cannot be taken lightly. A lie under oath to Congress is a potentially serious crime that carries heavy penalties, far more grave than merely being denied the honor of HOF acceptance. Is it, therefore, reasonable to still give him the benefit of doubt; to even honor him with a plaque in Cooperstown? I don’t think one needs to invoke the theory of Occam’s Razor to find a much more obvious and satisfying answer to the question of why McGwire would have effectively pleaded the 5th when asked under oath in front of Congress as to whether he took steroids or not, but I’ll do it anyway. He was refusing to incriminate himself. The question this raises for me, and the heart of my case against McGwire, is what other reason can we come up with that is even close to a believable alternative? The assertion of noble intent is flimsier than any doubt about Canseco’s “facts”. In any case, McGwire’s choice to duck the question was clearly his own and therefore voids any thought of placing the “scapegoat” tag on him. He’s no martyr. Would I go to war based on this “evidence”? No. But it’s more than enough doubt to remove an endorsement for placement among the greats in Cooperstown, where part of the criteria for induction, clearly stated in the BBWAA “Rules for Election”, is integrity, sportsmanship and character. This is enough reason for me. I respect your differing opinion on this matter, but find it hard to understand the underlying venom you feel toward those who fall into the other camp. Is our position so unreasonable? In addition, there are other points that have been brought forward by many of those who feel he should be elected, which I’d like to address. The Two-Wrongs-Make-a-Right Defense: Will Carroll notes, “Mike Ditka was explaining why Shawne Merriman, the Chargers LB who tested positive for an anabolic steroid this season, should be Defensive Player of the Year. ‘What he did was wrong, but the league’s punishment is four games for this. He served that. He’s getting tested now and hasn’t failed again.’ Okay, Ditka failed to notice the six to eight week lag in the NFL’s testing (that’s normal, I’m not faulting them here), but the logic that football guys like Ditka are willing to employ for a knowing, unexcused cheater is amazingly disconnected from the logic that baseball writers are willing to employ for a guy for which there is no proof, who was not subject to testing, and who has admitted to the use and then cessation of a substance (andro) that was available over the counter at the time and was legal for use in baseball until 2005.” Your own response notes, “how can McGwire be so vilified for steroid use that has never come close to being proven, while Shawne Merriman is perhaps the most celebrated defensive player in the NFL during the same season in which he tested positive for steroids? The hypocrisy in the coverage of steroids in sports has never been so evident as it is today, the gulf between the media’s handling of MLB and the NFL wide enough to drive the truth through.” Another good example often cited is Gaylord Perry’s inclusion in the HOF. I’ve already spoken to Will’s assertion that there is “no proof”, so I’ll limit myself to the main concept behind the idea of “hypocrisy” or double standard among the fans and media. My answer is simple. I agree. The hypocrisy and double standard are evident and silly. My question becomes, what does that have to do with whether we should give McGwire the benefit of the doubt in the face of his performance in front of congress, among other things? Must we use the lowest possible comparable threshold when making such judgements? Or does it make more sense to ask Mike Ditka or the media, who feel the same way, how is it they feel justified in rewarding a cheater like Merriman? Why are we not raising the standard? At the end of the day, we need only look back to the criteria for election, specifically the part referring to integrity, sportsmanship and character. Under those criteria, Merriman would not be elected into any HOF either. Gaylord Perry falls into a somewhat different category. On the surface it should suffice to say that putting one cheater in the HOF shouldn’t mean we should open the doors to all cheaters. But I’ll take it further. Any steroid user had the intent of gaining an advantage over his opponent; this I can assume you would agree with. Whether a steroid user in fact did receive an advantage by using I’ll leave to the medical experts, but for this discussion it’s irrelevant. What was the intent; to surreptitiously gain an unfair advantage over the opponent. The difference between Gaylord Perry and a steroid user, particularly in the late 90’s, with a sham of a drug enforcement policy in MLB, was Perry took a risk every time he cheated. His cheating was limited to the field of play, under the watchful eyes of the umpires, TV cameras, broadcasters, fans and opposing team. Because of this, he had to pick his spots. A steroid user was taking no risk of being caught whatsoever. Again, this is no defense of Perry. It merely points out that Perry’s cheating came with some risk on the field of play. And it was a rare occurrence, by all accounts, including Perry’s, who clearly has no problem indulging us with the details of his crimes. Meanwhile, a steroid user, whose intent was clearly nefarious, was carrying out that intent with every breath he took, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, with no chance to get caught. It’s gutless to say the least. But again, as I pointed out previously, we need not even have to point this out as the very idea of claiming we should allow all cheaters into the HOF based on Perry’s inclusion makes no sense on its face. This leads to the next argument. Steroid use wasn’t even against the rules in baseball at the time: While technically true, it’s still debatable in that any intent to unfairly gain an advantage over an opponent is against the spirit of the rules, particularly in regard to sportsmanship and fair play. More importantly, steroid use of the kind we are referring was against the law of the United States. So, they were breaking controlled substance laws of the country, but it’s okay because they weren’t explicitly outlawed in baseball’s collective bargaining agreement? Nonsensical. He was a HOF caliber player prior to the alleged steroid use: This applies more to Bonds than McGwire but it needs to be addressed. Jayson Stark constantly refers to this concept in his articles about Barry Bonds. Let’s look at what this really means. In effect, we should ignore a player’s intent to cheat with every breath he took for years and years of his career because he was already a great player prior to his cheating ways? Is this the logic? Need I explain the problem with this logic? The most obvious strike against this logic is, again, the HOF ballot criteria pointed out several times already, namely integrity, sportsmanship and character. A good parallel to this argument is the idea of making a child-molesting priest into a Bishop because he was a really holy dude prior to becoming an active molester. Obviously an extreme example, but the logic is similar. Moving on… There are probably many other players who used Steroids, so how can we justify punishing McGwire and co. and not these other players: Again, this argument falls apart when the tiniest dose of logic is applied. Do we avoid sending the criminals to jail in our society because there are many other criminals that we haven’t caught yet? It’s beyond ludicrous. The same logic applies here. I believe I have addressed all of the arguments that I’ve read over the years in defense of the McGwire’s and Bonds of the world. Thanks for listening! Keep up the good work!

 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

I was a Mike Mussina guy. Would have been more of a Maddux guy if only I was able to see him pitch more often.

Dec 09, 2008 9:34 AM on Rolling into Town
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Seems my cut and paste had some problems... but you get the idea. I actually put that analysis together a couple of weeks before Sheehan, in a debate with a fantasy baseball friend.

Dec 01, 2008 4:07 PM on Moose Tracks
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: 0

Some Statistics: Jack Morris 18 Yr WL% .577 W-254 L-186 GS-527 CG-175 SHO-28 IP-3824.0 H-3567 ER-1657 HR-389 BB-1390 K-2478 ERA-3.90 *lgERA4.08 *ERA+-105 WHIP-1.296 Mike Mussina 18 Yr WL% .638 W270 L-153 GS-536 CG-57 SHO-23 IP-3562.7 H-3460 ER-1458 HR-376 BB-785 K-2813 ERA-3.68 *lgERA4.51 *ERA+-122 WHIP-1.192 Initial comparison gives Morris the edge in innings pitched and complete games, both clearly effected by the era in which the two players performed. Morris played during an era where starters generally pitched more innings and had more complete games, while Mussina pitched the bulk of his career during the era of specialty relievers and shortened innings by starters. Mussina gets the edge in Wins, winning pct., K’s, ERA, and WHIP. Additionally, his edge in ERA is even larger when one looks at the league adjusted ERA columns. Ultimately, the numbers tell us that Morris was more of a workhorse than Moose, but Moose was the better overall performer. Postseason Of course, Jack Morris is most famous for his performances in the post season, as they have rightly achieved legendary status. This begs the age-old question as to how much weight do we put into post season numbers when discussing a players career worth? Morris pitched a total of 92 1/3 innings in the post, compared to 3824 IP in the regular season. Mussina has pitched 139 and 2/3 innings in the post. The difference in innings again falls back to the era in which both played, as Moose has played during the expanded playoff era, while Morris did not. Before deciding how much weight to put into the playoff performances of these two ace pitchers, we should study their playoff performances. Morris’ first postseason came in 1984, his 8th season, and he didn’t disappoint, posting a 3-0 record with a 1.80 ERA, including two complete games in the World Series. Truly dominant and noteworthy. If not for Alan Trammel’s awesome performance, Morris would have surely won the WS MVP. His next post appearance came in 1987, and he started and lost his only game of the ALCS, getting knocked around to the tune of 6 ER’s in an 8 inning game. He had to wait until 1991 to make up for that poor performance, which he did with a vengeance. Morris won the World Series MVP that year as he made 3 WS starts, going 2-0, with a miniscule 1.17 ERA. His game 7 performance, in which he out-dueled John Smoltz, by pitching 10 shutout innings, will live forever as one of the great achievements in modern World Series play. His ALCS included winning both of his starts, though more due to his team’s offense than anything he did on the mound as he gave up 17 hits in 13 innings, while allowing 6 earned runs, for a 4.05 ERA. Morris’ final postseason appearance came in the following season. His team won yet another title, but Morris could hardly claim much credit for the achievement, as he lost both of his World Series starts, posting an horrific 8.44 ERA in the process. His ALCS was almost as bad, as he posted a 6.57 ERA and lost his only start in that series. Overall Post season statistics: 4 Lg Champ Series G-6 ERA-4.87 W-3 L-2 CG-2 IP-40.2 H-39 ER-22 BB-14 K-24 3 World Series G-7 ERA-2.96 W-4 L-2 CG-3 IP-51.2 H-44 ER-17 BB-18 K-40 7 Postseason Ser G-13 ERA-3.80 W-7 L-4 CG-5 IP-92.1 H-83 ER-39 BB-32 K-64 3 World Series Rings and one World Series MVP award Mussina’s first postseason appearance came in 1996, his 6th season, and was a disappointing performance in two starts, one each in the division and championship series. Combined, he was 0-1, with a 5.27 ERA. He didn’t have to wait long for a chance to make up for that sub par performance, as his team made the post again the following year. Moose’s dominance in the 1997 postseason cannot be overstated. Moose began the 1997 postseason with two ALDS starts against the M’s, going 7 innings in each start, while allowing a total of 3 runs and posting 16 k’s. He was 2-0. In the ALCS, he stepped into unhittable territory. In his two starts, he went 15 innings, allowing only 4 hits, 1 earned run, while punching out 25 of the very dangerous Cleveland lineup. His teammates failed to score a single run for him in either game, eventually losing both in extra innings. His next foray into the post season came with the Yanks in 2001. His first start in the post as a Yankee came in game three of the ALDS, with the Yanks already in an 0-2 hole and facing elimination. Moose rescued his new team by throwing 7 shutout innings and winning a 1-0 nail biter. Moose had a disappointing game 1 start in the ALCS, lasting only 5 2/3 innings, while giving up 4 ER in the loss. He pitched much better in his next start, going 6 2/3 IP, with 10 K’s, but allowed 3 ER’s and was once again out-dueled by Tim Wakefield, who was making his own case for an ALCS MVP award. Moose had a final chance to contribute in the ’01 ALCS, and he didn’t disappoint. The now famous game 7 match-up between Roger Clemens and Pedro Martinez quickly fell apart for the yanks, as the Sox knocked Clemens around for 4 runs before placing runners on 1st and 3rd with nobody out in the top of the 4th inning. With the Yanks already down by 4 runs, and facing a red hot Pedro Martinez, Moose had to stem the bleeding. He made quick work of Jason Varitek, via strike out, then followed it up by getting Johnny Damon to ground into an inning ending double play. It is safe to say that Moose’s performance once again saved the entire Yankee season. The late inning heroics may never have been enough had he not stopped the Sox from tacking on what appeared to be an easy run in that situation. Moose’s clutch performance helped his team advance to the World Series, where he dominated in his only start, out-dueling fireballer Josh Becket, in route to a 6 to 1 yankee win. Moose went 7 innings, allowed a single run, while striking out 9. His teammates failed to carry their weight and he never got another start in the series. In the 2004 ALDS, Moose battled with Johann Santana, who shut the yanks out, which wasted a very good start by Mussina, who went 7 innings, while allowing 2 ER with 7 K’s. He went on to start game 1 of the rematch in the ALCS with Boston, facing off against Curt Schilling. Moose’s final numbers for that game don’t tell the story at all. Moose dominated. He pitched 7 perfect innings to start the game, staking his team to an 8-0 lead, before tiring (or having a let-down, following the yanks offensive explosion in the bottom of the 7th) with 2 outs and one on in the 8th. He gave up 3 runs before leaving the game in the hands of Tanyon Sturtze, who promptly gave up a HR, giving Moose 4 ER on the game, which was hardly indicative of his overall dominance. His next start was game 5 against Pedro Martinez and he out-dueled the greatest pitcher of his generation through 6 innings, allowing 2 runs with 7 k’s. He would have won the series clinching game if not for the Red Sox 9th inning comeback. His postseason performances in the subsequent years were consistently mediocre. From 2005 through 2007, he made 4 appearances, pitching a total of 20 innings, allowing 23 hits with a 1-2 record and a 4.95 ERA. Overall Postseason statistics: 9 Lg Div Series GS-10 ERA-3.60 W-4 L-4 0 IP-65 H-61 ER-26 BB-15 K-56 5 Lg Champ Series GS-8 ERA-3.34 W-2 L-3 0 IP-56.2 H-42 ER-21 BB-13 K-66 2 World Series GS-3 ERA-3.00 W-1 L-1 0 IP-18 H-18 ER-6 BB-5 K-23 16 Postseason Ser GS-21 ERA-3.42 W-7 L-8 0 IP-139.2 H-121 ER-53 BB-33 K-145 So, while Mussina doesn’t have the hardware that Morris has in the post, his overall performance has been more dominant, if not quite as legendary as Morris, in particular during the 1991 World Series. Does the 1991 World Series performance outweigh Mussina’s overall edge with the numbers? Depends on who you ask, but one thing is clear, one cannot make any claim that Mussina has not performed well in the post. His overall numbers are fantastic and suffer only from the lack of run support throughout his postseason career. Mussina’s teammates scored one run or less in 10 of his 21 postseason starts, which means he would have to throw a shutout in nearly half his games, in order for a chance to win or tie. In any case, one could make a case that but for the performance of his teammates, Mussina could also be carrying a bit of hardware himself. However, a strong case can be made in favor of Morris’s ability to control his own destiny much longer into the night, therefore taking the bullpen out of the equation. Both players have much to be proud of. Awards and Leader board Comparisons Gold Gloves – Mussina 7, Morris 0 big edge = Mussina Top 10 MVP - Mussina 0, Morris 0 draw Top 10 Cy Young – Mussina 8, Morris 7 small edge = Mussina Top 10 ERA - Mussina 11, Morris 5 big edge = Mussina Top 10 Adj. ERA – Mussina 11, Morris 4 big edge = Mussina Top 10 Wins – Mussina 9, Morris 12 moderate edge = Morris Top 10 WHIP – Mussina 12, Morris 5 big edge = Mussina Top 10 Hits/IP – Mussina 9, Morris 6 moderate edge = Mussina Top 10 K’s/IP – Mussina 10, Morris 5 big edge = Mussina Top 10 IP – Mussina 8, Morris 9 small edge = Morris Top 10 CG – Mussina 7, Morris 10 big edge = Morris Top 10 Shutouts – Mussina 11, Morris 8 moderate edge = Mussina Top 10 K/BB Ratio – Mussina 15, Morris 3 big edge = Mussina Most comparable player YTD career statistics: Mike Mussina – Juan Marichal Jack Morris – Dennis Martinez Edge = Mussina HOF Metrics Jack Morris: Black Ink: Pitching - 20 (89) (Average HOFer ≈ 40) 
 Gray Ink: Pitching - 193 (47) (Average HOFer ≈ 185) 
 HOF Standards: Pitching - 39.0 (73) (Average HOFer ≈ 50) 
 HOF Monitor: Pitching - 122.5 (64) (Likely HOFer > 100) Overall Rank in parentheses. Morris is HOF worthy in 2 of the 4 metrics. Mike Mussina: Black Ink: Pitching - 15 (141) (Average HOFer ≈ 40) 
 Gray Ink: Pitching - 244 (23) (Average HOFer ≈ 185) 
 HOF Standards: Pitching - 54.0 (28) (Average HOFer ≈ 50) 
 HOF Monitor: Pitching - 120.0 (70) (Likely HOFer > 100) 
 Overall Rank in parentheses. Mussina is HOF worthy in 3 of the 4 metrics. Edge = Mussina JAWS analysis by BP’s Jay Jaffe Jack Morris: “Jack Morris continues to poll better than Tommy John, but the merits of his candidacy just as surely eroded with the DH-era adjustments. Like fellow candidate Alan Trammell, Morris was part of the homegrown nucleus that anchored the Tigers\' fine 1984 title team, and the gritty ace on World Champions for two other clubs. He racked up some high win totals over the course of his 18 seasons and put up some stellar performances in the postseason (7-4, 3.80 ERA), most notably an unforgettable 10-inning 1-0 shutout in Game Seven of the 1991 Series. Morris acquired a larger-than-life reputation based primarily on that performance, and for a while it seemed like it might carry him to the Hall of Fame. But his career ERA--which would be the highest of any enshrined pitcher--and subsequently his WARP-based totals are nothing to write home about. In fact, his PRAA total is actually in the red; aside from 1991 and 1992, he was at least 10 runs below average in each of his last seven seasons. To borrow one of Bill James\' more dubiously applied phrases, if that\'s a Hall of Famer, I\'m a lug nut. Supporters have dismissed Morris\' high ERAs with claims that he \"pitched to the score.\" Research by Greg Spira and Joe Sheehan put the lie to this claim. Poring over Morris\' career inning-by-inning via Retrosheet, Sheehan concluded: \"I can find no pattern in when Jack Morris allowed runs. If he pitched to the score--and I don\'t doubt that he changed his approach--the practice didn\'t show up in his performance record.\" Morris\' record is more a product of strong run support (107 SUP) than it is special strategy. For all of his extra wins and post-season success, his case rests on a distortion of the value of one shining moment rather than a well-rounded career.” *Mike Mussina: “At 39 and now reduced to employing a fastball that wouldn\'t get ticketed in a school zone, it\'s a safe bet that the Moose isn\'t going to become a member of the 300 win club. Which isn\'t to say that he doesn\'t have Hall-worthy numbers, at least from a JAWS standpoint. As with Smoltz but to a lesser extent on both scales, Mussina\'s ahead on career and short on peak numbers, with PRAR and PRAA numbers (284 and 1221, respectively) that also surpass the benchmarks. What Mussina doesn\'t have going for him, particularly relative to Smoltz, is the hardware which will augment his much more traditional case: no World Series ring, no Cy Young, no 20-win season (he\'s had 18 or 19 five times) and \"only\" five All-Star appearances. His post-season record is \"just\" 7-8, albeit with a 3.42 ERA and 145 strikeouts in 139 2/3 innings; the fact that his teams have scored just 3.2 runs per game for him is a big reason, and certainly hasn\'t helped his quest for a ring. In Mussina\'s favor is a long stretch in which he could lay claim to being one of the league\'s best pitchers; he finished in the top five of the Cy voting six times from 1992 to 2001, with two sixth-place finishes as well, and has eight top five finishes in ERA, and eight top 10 finishes in strikeouts. While not the equal of Clemens, Johnson, or Martinez, he was one of the league\'s top-shelf hurlers for a good long time. He\'s probably facing a tooth-and-nail fight, but it ought to turn out in his favor.” • latest Mussina analysis was made prior to his 20 win 2008 season. Conclusion Neither Mike Mussina nor Jack Morris can be considered all time great pitchers, but both have had excellent careers. One pitcher, however, has earned a place in the Hall of Fame, and that player is Mike Mussina. His career numbers clearly outshine Morris by most measures, and it’s not very close. Morris will forever be famous for his magical 1991 WS game 7, but that performance should remain in the Hall of Great Achievements, not the HOF. It’s safe to say that Morris will be forever remembered for that great performance, and that should be enough. Mussina had already earned a place in the hall prior to his 20-win 2008 campaign, which should hopefully seal the deal in the minds of most voters.

Dec 01, 2008 4:04 PM on Moose Tracks
 
tommybones
(1168)
Comment rating: -2

I\'m wondering if there is any word on Jerry Hairston....

Sep 08, 2008 10:33 AM on Bunches, and a Brady?