Bleed Cubbie Blue: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:





Thursday Morning Headlines

  • Rick Telander explains!
    I made the point that [Andre] Dawson deserves to be in the Hall of Fame -- and he will be by next year, mark my words -- but that my protest needed to encompass even the straight arrows of yore, such as him, because the sown doubt from clown-farmers Bud Selig, Donald Fehr and the say-nothing players themselves had made even the greatest, most trustworthy heroes suspect.

    If no one can be proved guilty of taking performance-enhancing drugs, no one can be proved innocent. It's an equation.

    At any rate, once I read the column to Dawson, he got it.

    "I understand you now," he said. "I know that regardless of what I've accomplished, it doesn't count. Because nobody is trustworthy."

    I guess. I'm not sure I agree with that point -- in effect, what Telander is saying is that because steroids are used now, they make everyone guilty across every era -- but at least he's explained himself. I wish he had put it better the first time. And this was a poor way of making a protest -- if, as he says, Dawson will get in next year (and implying he'll probably vote for him), why is everyone suddenly trustworthy again because a year's time has passed?

    Food for thought.

  • The Brian Roberts deal is going to happen. No, really. Seriously. This time for sure. Phil Rogers has the lineup card all filled out, too:
    If the Cubs get Roberts (.377 on-base percentage and 50 stolen bases last season), Piniella will shuffle the batting order, likely dropping Alfonso Soriano from first to third. It could look like this: Roberts, Ryan Theriot, Soriano, Aramis Ramirez, Kosuke Fukudome, Derrek Lee, Geovany Soto and Felix Pie.

    It could look like that, but probably won't. (And I'm figuring this will start the firestorm of debate that flares up here every time I remind people that Alfonso Soriano's not going to be dropped out of the leadoff spot.)

  • Goose Gossage says that if he were playing today, he'd probably have tried steroids. Nice thing to say the day after you're elected to the Hall of Fame, Goose. And this doesn't make sense, either:
    "I've been in that situation, trying to prolong my career with the money that was out there to be made at this time in baseball. I can't sit here and say that I would not have done it," he said. "But had I done it, I'm going to face the consequences. And the consequences are, that whether they belong in the Hall of Fame or not, the records can't stand."

    "The records can't stand"? How so? The numbers are what they are -- you can't start randomly eliminating numbers from the record books without ripping up the fabric of history. Example: take Barry Bonds' HRs away (or some of them, anyway, say, many of them after 1998, which is the time when he supposedly started doing steroids). What happens to the results of the games where those HR were hit? What if Bonds hit a HR, or several, that won games for the Giants? What if those HR put the Giants into the playoffs some of the years they made them? Do you take those postseason games out of the books?

    You see the problem here, I think.

  • Mike Downey shows that he understands counting stats! He's got 45 Hall of Famers (and says there are a "couple of dozen" more, and that doesn't even include all the pitchers) listed who have fewer hits than Harold Baines, who got "only" 28 votes this year. As if that alone would qualify Baines for the Hall. And then, there's this nonsense:
    Bert Blyleven is not a Hall of Famer. That is a fact as well as an opinion. I have friends and colleagues who all but crusade for Blyleven's candidacy, year after year, citing his very impressive shutout and strikeout counts.

    Yet I cannot bring myself to deem Blyleven any better or more worthy than Jim Kaat, Tommy John, Jack Morris and so many others who have failed to gain admission to the Hall. I can't find the discrepancy in their careers.

    Hmmm. Blyleven's not qualified? That's a "fact"? Let's see; you can't figure out why a man who's fifth all-time in strikeouts and ninth all-time in shutouts isn't more qualified than Jim Kaat (33rd and 103rd in those categories, respectively), John (47th & 26th) oir Morris (31st and 134th)?

    Actually, I think Tommy John ought to be in, for career longevity and the fact that a famous surgery is named for him, and Kaat's a marginal Hall of Famer for longevity and reinventing his career a couple of times; Morris is borderline. But Blyleven's head and shoulders above all three of them -- and likely, rubbed Downey the wrong way during his career, as he did to a lot of writers, which is probably the reason he isn't in yet.

    There. Let me wipe my fingers off (after typing about all of that, they need that!) and you can have at it.

0 recs | Comment 169 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

Why
do we have so many bad sportswriters in Chicago?  
This field, this game: it's a part of our past, Ray. It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again.

by HectorVillanueva on Jan 10, 2008 9:27 AM CST   0 recs

and that's a fact!
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Jan 10, 2008 9:31 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

I was thinking about this, too
It's not that they're bad writers in a literal sense.  If given the space and time, most of them can and do string sentences together far better than most bloggers.  (Rick Telander being an exception.)  

It's just they're confined by a few major factors:

  1.  Word counts
  2.  Writing for a broad audience.  You try writing for casual fans aged 9 to 90 while also appealing to the die hards that spend every free moment thinking about the game.  (And do it in 850 words.)
  3.  When writing an opinion piece, as opposed to simply reporting the news, they have to take a strong stand on one side of an issue.  Straddling the line and presenting both sides evenly doesn't sell papers.
Throw in the fact that they have to cover sports and athletes all day long, they probably don't spend much free time surfing the web for fan opinion and/or enlightening analysis.  They talk to players and people in the game for information.  

There are a few good sports writers in Chicago, and a bunch that are merely adequate.  Only a few are truly bad.

by MikeJ on Jan 10, 2008 10:33 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

King Fraud
I think Downey lacks ideas and that has to be a terrible feeling for a columnist.  Imagine the panic one must feel in a profession where the work entails writing short, substantive arguments a few times a week and yet the well is perpetually dry.  He probably knows he's a fraud and it must be excruciatingly painful to be such a public fraud.  I can't imagine why he doesn't hide in a small town newspaper where his fraudulence would be noticed by fewer readers.

In today's column he employs one of his favorite devices for hiding his dearth of substance:  the ridiculously long list.  He devoured a huge portion of his word count by rattling off names like Johnny Mize and Pie Traynor and George Sisler, names very few of his readers will know.  He could have made the same point in a single sentence.  If he truly believes his point he should have arrived at such a belief after considering the alternatives and discounting them.  Gee, recounting that process would be a good way to fill the space no longer occupied by a list.  Acknowledging what should be an obvious weakness of his point (e.g. "I know hit totals aren't everything and I realize guys like Mantle, Gehrig, and DiMaggio aren't in Cooperstown because their careers looked like Baines' career..").  After that a better writer might reveal his earlier statement as a feint and fall back to a slightly weaker position which should represent the real point he wants to make (e.g. "..I'm just saying that this is one of the ways people can get into the Hall and Baines beats out an awful lot of good players including some of the great hitters..").  Or he could go over the top and make a strong statement that discounts the weakness he's just acknowledged (e.g. "Even though hit totals aren't everything, they represent an indispensible part of the game and I think anyone with the sheer number of hits Baines has should be enshrined automatically even if he contributed nothing else to his teams..").  His arguments are routinely insulting to his readers.  I have to stop or I'll get worked up.

by Copter OBob on Jan 10, 2008 11:21 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Downey
Downey's column today was pure shit, but overall he's not the worst offender in town.  Not by a long shot.  I find myself getting at least mild value from his work occasionally, and that's more than I can say for Rick Telander.  Really, how does that man keep his job?  

What's funny is that I use to like Telander back in the old "Sportswriters on TV" days, when he was the "young, cool one."  He was good in Sports Illustrated, too, and I remember being excited when he moved to the Sun-Times.  I read him fairly religiously for the first few years, but it took that long to fully realize that he had absolutely nothing to offer.

by MikeJ on Jan 10, 2008 1:22 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Agreed.
I used to like Telander's stuff too, and oddly, he's the only one among the Chicago columnists who actually played a sport at a fairly high level (college FB at Northwestern).
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 10, 2008 1:25 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Writing a daily column is a lot different
than writing stories or books.  He's a hell of a writer of longer stuff - His books "Heaven Is A Playground" and "The Hundred Yard Lie" are very good.  And he's had some stuff included in The Best Sports Writing yearly series that is downright wonderful.

by TR on Jan 10, 2008 1:44 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

No doubt
The books he wrote a long time ago were great, as were his longer SI columns.  But his daily columns are completely worthless.  He simply never digs into a subject.  

He just skims the surface.

With one-sentence paragraphs.

Sometimes less.

And if he does dig in, it's always from a pure grumpy-old-man standpoint.  

Things were better and pure in my day.

He is...a curmudgeon.

by MikeJ on Jan 10, 2008 2:05 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Sportswriters on TV
I have a lower opinion of Downey's column than of Telander's but I suppose that's like saying I think arsenic is tastier than strychnine.  Both are poisons.

Oh how I miss Jerry Holtzman.

by Copter OBob on Jan 10, 2008 4:37 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Downey
Several writers frustrate me for one reason or another but how Mike Downey collects a pay check is beyond me. He "came out of retirement" to write for the Trib but so far as I can tell, he never actually left retirement. I have yet to find one piece of meaningful writing that this man has come up with during his tenure at the Trib.

DmL

by dmlichte on Jan 10, 2008 10:33 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Good hodgepodge of stuff this morning
A few thoughts:
  • Well at least now I can see some logic in what Telander is trying to do.  Not sure I agree with his approach but I understand.  
  • Brian Roberts?  Are the Cubs trying to get him ;-)  Phil Rogers is a moron.  Even if (which I don't believe) Soriano is moved out of the leadoff spot, Theriot will not be moved up to #2 and Lee down to #6.  Lee as #2 makes more sense than what Rogers is spouting.  Hard to believe he gets paid for that.  I guess under his math that all players are worth +1 so it doesn't matter where anyone hits.  
  • I was a big Baines fan but he is not HOF-worthy.  Rarely if ever was he really considered a feared, top of the league hitter.  Very solid for a long time but not in the Dawson or even Rice category.  I'd put Dale Murphy in before Baines too.  Just counting hits is a stupid way to look at it.  There are lots of players like Fred McGriff who would be in if you just start looking at counting stats.  The one player that I was surprised got so little support was Tim Raines.  I wasn't sure he would get in on his first try but he is far away from it right now.

by rlpete on Jan 10, 2008 9:34 AM CST   0 recs

Baines got only 28 votes for a good reason.
Number of seasons with 100 runs scored: 0
Number of seasons with 30 HR or more: 0
Number of seasons with 100 RBI or more: 3
Number of seasons hitting .300 in 500+ AB: 3
Times appeared in top 10 of MVP voting: 2
Times leading league in major offensive category: 1 (SLG, 1984 AL)

He just wasn't that great. He was a very good player for a very long time. And without the DH, with his injuries, he'd likely have had to retire ten years before he did. Number of games played in the field in last 10 years of his career: 24 (23 of them at age 33, only 1 after that)

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 10, 2008 10:02 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Good synopsis
That's why I mentioned that I would put Murphy in before Baines.  Baines had longevity thanks to the DH but Murphy's peak was much, much better.  

I don't think Murphy had a good enough career for the HOF either but Baines definitely didn't.  I don't think you should get in on just longevity.  There needs to be a pretty good peak period.  I'd even take someone like Albert Belle over Baines.  At least Belle was dominating for a few years.          

by rlpete on Jan 10, 2008 10:17 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

another reason why the DH is an abomination
DH'ing is only a part of the game, not all of it.

That's why I believe big Papi shouldn't be an MVP candidate. There's this thing called defence.

OK, OK, I'm ranting...

Our grandparents used to say, "I hope the Cubs win the Series before I die". Now the teenagers are saying it.

by blackhawk24 on Jan 10, 2008 10:21 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Your point is taken...
... and I don't like the DH either.

But David Ortiz is ten times the hitter Harold Baines was, in virtually every category. If there were no DH, he'd play 1B -- maybe not very well, but well enough, given his bat.

5 straight years in the top 5 of MVP voting. Three straight years of 35+ HR, 110+ runs, 100+ walks, 115+ RBI, and 158 or higher OPS+.

Baines never came close to any of those numbers.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 10, 2008 10:32 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Baines
I agree.  I don't think Baines is getting much support from my fellow Sox fans for a HoF push.

Baines could have gone beyond a very good career to a great career IF he had injuries hampered him.  But that's probably the case with many other players.

Harold, Thanks for a very good career Harold.  I hope you saved and/or invested the 23 million dollars you earned in your career.  

HoF rankings, BAINES/SANTO/MURPHY

BLACK INK: 3/11/31 (AVG HOF 27)
GRAY INK: 40/147/147 (AVG HOF 144)
HOF STANDARDS: 43.6/41/34.3 (AVG HOF 50)
HOF MONITOR: 66.5/88/115.5 (AVG HOF 100)

"...the Sox ... may be even more marginal after the Cubs win the 2007 World Series." - Cubbie fan "Joe Alberti" as posted in the White Sox NG on 9/21/2007.

by DrCrawdad on Jan 10, 2008 11:16 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Word to your ...
"Baines could have gone beyond a very good career to a great career IF injuries had NOT hampered him."
"...the Sox ... may be even more marginal after the Cubs win the 2007 World Series." - Cubbie fan "Joe Alberti" as posted in the White Sox NG on 9/21/2007.

by DrCrawdad on Jan 10, 2008 12:10 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Rogers' math
It just occurred to me that every team starts the season +13 (8 regulars, 5 in the rotation) under Rogers' brilliant formula.  I suppose it would improve a team's chances dramatically if it eliminated the bullpen and just made all the relief pitchers starters.  With a 12 man rotation your team is +20!  Hooray!  If you can substitute some minor league pitchers for the platoon guys and the bench players then your team could be +25.  Hey, who wouldn't want that?  Opposing teams would tremble with such fear it would make the Earth shake.  "We can't beat them," they'd cry.  "They're +25 and some of their pitchers have been resting for weeks."

by Copter OBob on Jan 10, 2008 12:04 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Telander and Rogers.....
......are really starting to get noticed for the wrong reason.  I explained Rogers theory to my girlfriend who knows baseball but on the surface and she thought is was idiotic.  Telander made an ass out of himself this week in my opinion.

Al, everytime I see people move Sori out of the #1 spot it humors me, it could happen but wont.  Dero could play SS but wont.  Lee will NOT HIT 6th.....he should have coleagues tell him that what he is writing is stupid.  Theriot is the perfect 8 hitter for this team, not 2 hitter.

Thankfully this site only has a few dopes but when I got to some trade rumor sites its hilarious when they post lineups.

"Hey.....Cubs win!!!" ---Harry "I strongly dislike Steve Stone." ---Hammer

by Hammer on Jan 10, 2008 9:35 AM CST   0 recs

Applying Telander logic
Well, that seals it then.  Clearly Ripken was using.  I mean, how else can you explain the consecutive game streak?  And don't forget Tony Gwynn - all this time, I thought those were love handles...

Thanks Rick, for opening my eyes.  I had no idea that the best way to approach this was to just distrust everybody.  No room for individual thought here, just lump 'em all together.  

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go get my pitchfork and torch ready for the next icon...

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Jan 10, 2008 9:48 AM CST   0 recs

LSA
and I'll just add a favorite Rozner line, "I'm going to listen for my brain aneurysm now".
Our grandparents used to say, "I hope the Cubs win the Series before I die". Now the teenagers are saying it.

by blackhawk24 on Jan 10, 2008 9:54 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

FYI To Everyone - New Piniella PodCast Out (1/8/8)
Nothing really new, but it's good to hear him.

He mentioned that there is "one more (offensive) piece" that he needs, and that Hendry is working around the clock to get it for him.

I get the PodCast through a subscription through iTunes.

by initram on Jan 10, 2008 9:52 AM CST   0 recs

Hope there is
one more pitching piece also.

I'll reiterate: Marquis and Dempster in the rotation scares the living shit out of me.

Our grandparents used to say, "I hope the Cubs win the Series before I die". Now the teenagers are saying it.

by blackhawk24 on Jan 10, 2008 9:55 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

I still think...
... one of those two will be traded by Opening Day.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 10, 2008 9:57 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Well if you have some magic formula...
magic ball or anything of the like that can help do this, I for one will be happy.

At this time, I may be more happy with the unknown than with the known.

3/5ths of a good rotation does not a champion make.

Our grandparents used to say, "I hope the Cubs win the Series before I die". Now the teenagers are saying it.

by blackhawk24 on Jan 10, 2008 10:00 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

I Can't Agree More...
... although Piniella said that he thinks he needs one more offensive piece.

We've all heard that Hendry is going after (1) Roberts, (2) a RH who can play all outfield positions (like OF #4, thus pushing Murton), and (3) a veteran SP.

by initram on Jan 10, 2008 10:01 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

You can't say, "I want a pitcher"
when you have 7 candidates already for the rotation.  That'd be like saying in a press conference "Get me someone who can catch the ball," when talking about your catcher.  We won't hear much publicly about pursuit of a pitcher until Marquis is traded.  My prediction for next year's rotation:

Zambrano
Lilly
Lieber
Hill
Dempster

(Yes, I know Hill is a better pitcher than Lieber, but I think that's how they'll stack the rotation up to start the season.)  That's really not a bad rotation and ideally it leaves open some slots, especially in '09, but potentially this year as well for a rookie who proves he's ready.

In parsing Lou's words, I would focus on that "one...offensive piece" part, that they aren't looking for two.  Maybe Lou thinks the RH-OF is not so necessary.  I do think there is something to say for letting Pie hit LHP regularly and not committing to platooning him.  But it's going to be ugly for a while.

All I am saying is give Pie a chance!

by DGU on Jan 10, 2008 1:25 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Don't Be Surprised If...
... Dempster is given a chance at the starting rotation and does not make it.  He may very well end up back in the bullpen.

The last I heard is that the Mets were interested in Marquis -- this goes back to an MLBTR note some weeks back.

Also, Hart has a legitimate shot at the starting role.

by initram on Jan 11, 2008 12:00 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Sure we can
but of course not the GM; at this time.

If the current staff isn't believed to be strong enough to win (even if there's 10 candidates), it has to be improved. What's implied in "wanting a pitcher" is wanting one that is a notable improvement to one of the current 5 starting staff.

Of course Jim won't say this publicly, he's being respectful. Just like he didn't come out about a RF need until after Jones was dealt and Floyd was not picked up for the option.

From our standpoint, I think its safe to say we all believe the current rotation possibilities (with known commodities, not a minor leaguer that will come out of nowhere and pitch lights out through the end of October) will likely not cut it if we want to be celebrating at the end of October.

On press conferences, well I guess that would be the wrong platform to make that announcement. Though Lou will have one of his top 10 comments last year being the 35'-40' curveball comment about Ohman, he was ranting.

Our grandparents used to say, "I hope the Cubs win the Series before I die". Now the teenagers are saying it.

by blackhawk24 on Jan 14, 2008 6:37 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Anyone...
... who thinks that Derrek Lee will hit 6th next year doesn't deserve to write a sports column in a high school newspaper, and especially doesn't deserve to write a column in any major newspaper.

by big_lowitzki on Jan 10, 2008 10:19 AM CST   0 recs

Agreed
And, regardless of how many times Al says it, I just can't see Soriano leading off if we get Roberts.  It just doesn't make any sense to me to waste that kind of power.

You don't trade the farm for a leadoff hitter and then have him bat anything other than leadoff.

Then again, Al is waaaay more "in the loop" than I am.

by Kornchex on Jan 10, 2008 10:27 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

The lineup
I'm also in the Soriano will remain in leadoff camp.  To me, it's also a matter of no other lineup makes sense.  Piniella is very concerned about breaking up lefties and righties.  That's why he stuck Floyd at #2 sometimes last season.  Any lineup with Roberts in leadoff has either a long string of RH batters or has someone like Lee or Soriano down in the 6th position which I just don't buy.  

Yes, Roberts has been a leadoff hitter in the past but his skills also would be very good in the #2 spot.  In fact, he might be the Cubs best #2 hitter.    

by rlpete on Jan 10, 2008 10:38 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Technically...
Derek Lee is your best #2 hitter.  His all around numbers suggest that is where he belongs, and Aramis should be a number 3 hitter.  I think the main thing the cubs have lacked in the past few years is a defiant number 4 hitter.  

Dont get me wrong, i am not complaining or bashing the current players, i am just describing their at the plate performance and how it really translated into different spots in the line-up.

"I love this world. I hope hell is as much fun!"

by HIGGY on Jan 10, 2008 2:24 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

I'd say Ramirez is a pretty solid #4 hitter...
he's averaged over 30 HR and over 100 RBI per year for years, so I don't see how he's not suited to be a #4 hitter.

Also, Lee was a pretty solid #3 hitter in the second half of last year, and in 2005 and 2006 prior to the injury.  If his second half is any indication, he's ideal for the #3 spot again as his power returned.

What wey've lacked is a true leadoff hitter and a #5 hitter.  

Ignoring the debate surrounding whether or not Soriano freaks out in the #5 spot, that's the spot he's best suited for.  It'd take advantage of his power and his speed (he can run in front of the #6-8 hitters).

However, I don't think Piniella/Hendry are going to move him down.  I think they see Fukudome (who SHOULD be a #2 hitter) as a #5 hitter.  Thus, they think they'll have the following lineup:
Soriano/Roberts/Lee/Ramirez/Fukudome/Soto/Pie/Theriot

It's not necessarily the most sensible lineup, but it's what I think Lou will do.  He likes splitting up his lefties and he likes speed at the top of the order.

by SouthernCub on Jan 10, 2008 2:36 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

This may be
this first time I have seen someone write the exact lineup I would like to see (pending whether or not we get Roberts)
"Hey.....Cubs win!!!" ---Harry "I strongly dislike Steve Stone." ---Hammer

by Hammer on Jan 10, 2008 2:47 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Leadoff
I understand Al's and everyone else's reasoning as to why Lou won't switch the lineup to let Brian Roberts lead off if he is acquired by the Cubs. But if Lou doesn't let Roberts bat first in the lineup he will just confirm the impression he left me with in 2007: He's a mediocre strategist and yet a great manager in other aspects.

by Fraggin Judge on Jan 10, 2008 7:52 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Flip Ramirez/Dome and Pie/Theriot...
... and you have my preferred lineup.

A-Ram has admitted he feels more comfortable in the #5 spot.  Fukudome likely bats second, unless we land Roberts.  

By the AM radio reports in the last couple of days, it is looking less and less likely (30% chance)...

by initram on Jan 11, 2008 12:03 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

My bad...
I didnt mean to stay that i felt they were not strong #3 and #4 hitters respectively.  What i was saying is there batting style (Lee is a very good contact hitter - and Aramis never strikes out), i think they are more suited for a #2 and #3 role respectively.  And you stated Aramis' stats over the past few years, think of how more productive he would have been if he was supported by a guy behind him (whether it is a 4 in my case, or a 5 in your case)

The misconception that the #2 hitter needs to be quick on the bases (allbeit Lee has good speed) isnt technically true.  You need a guy in the 2 hole that will produce and get on base consistently to allow for your #3 to knock him around.

Now addressing what you said about the line-up.  You are exactly right about Fukudome, with the addition of him we now have a true #2 hitter (but he will most likely not be used as such.  He is not a number 5.  We have a number 5, but he leads off.  So, yes i would agree with you that in the current situation we need a lead-off guy and a number 5.

"I love this world. I hope hell is as much fun!"

by HIGGY on Jan 11, 2008 7:31 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

hall of shame
the hall of fame vote is just a chance for every writer to try to make themselves a story.  telander has already got two days of material out of it...so downey obviously had to counter with something just as "shocking".

by bernok on Jan 10, 2008 10:22 AM CST   0 recs

Shockingly stupid...
... is what it was.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 10, 2008 10:29 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

The real crazy thing
is that all these guys/gals are automatically called "experts".

I would ask; experts at what?

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Jan 10, 2008 10:58 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Experts at...
... talking someone into giving them a high-paid, public-figure job and keeping it.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 10, 2008 10:59 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

I don't get it.
If you're looking for a free column out of this, couldn't you, I dunno, write a bit about how the guy fifth in career stolen bases somehow got left out of the Hall of Fame?

Yeah, I'm going to keep banging this drum for a while.

I would suggest you learn to truly interrupt all stats before using any selective stats. -- cubswin

by cwyers on Jan 10, 2008 10:38 AM CST   0 recs

Raines will get in eventually...
... maybe even as soon as next year.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 10, 2008 10:47 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

I think you might be right
though maybe not next year.  I think Raines got the "Not on the first ballot" shaft.  I'd be willing to bet that his support will double and maybe even triple next year.  Other than this being his first year on the ballot his other problem is that he is a statheads candidate and that surely rubs some of the old guard the wrong way, especially when a "feared" slugger like Jim Rice can't seem to get in.  Maybe next year when they elect Rice they'll wise up and elect Raines as well, then the old and the new can shake hands and call a truce for a day.
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Robert McCloskey

by pageian on Jan 10, 2008 2:43 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

It's an odd state of affairs...
...when a guy mostly known for his basestealing is the "stathead" choice.

You're absolutely right. It's just... odd.

I would suggest you learn to truly interrupt all stats before using any selective stats. -- cubswin

by cwyers on Jan 10, 2008 3:28 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

You're right
That's the kind of thing that usually gets overvalued by the uninformed, not undervalued.  It is odd when you look at it that way.  Obviously 800 isn't one of the round numbers that count towards election.
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Robert McCloskey

by pageian on Jan 10, 2008 4:27 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Al...I pointed this out yesterday elsewhere, but
I'll put it here as well.  

Steroids have been around athletics for a long time.  Long before Dawson's career began and even before the great Nolan Ryan's career began.  Lyle Alzado began taking them in 1967 and said they were easy to acquire at numerous gyms across the country.  

I mean no disrespect by this, but it's absolutely foolish to think that players that began their careers in the mid to late 60s through the late 70s are all innocent.  It was these players that sat and watched the proliferation of steroids into the sport you and I both love.  It was these guys who kept their mouths shut that you now blame the likes of Palmeiro, Sosa, and Bonds for.  

The use of steroids prior to 1967 by athletes was also probably more than we'll ever know or want to know, but the fact of the matter is that by 1975 they were prevalent in all sports and used by as many athletes as use them today (actually, there are probably fewer who use them today because of testing).  HGH was readily available at this time as well.

The point of this is that any and all players who began their careers after 1967 are due speculation about whether or not they used performance enhancing drugs.  Every single one of them.  

Did Dawson use?  I have no clue.  If the measure of whether or not someone used is if they didn't decline as you would typically expect then the answer is probably no, but that also means that former and current greats have taken them.  It's a stupid way to measure whether or not someone has used steroids because baseball has proven that each and every generation brings with it a handful of stars, or more, that simply aren't your typical ballplayers in any way, shape or form.  

Just because you like Dawson and haven't heard speculation doesn't mean he didn't use.  It simply means the media is too stupid to realize that PEDs were prevalent in sports while Dawson played...while Dawson was still in high school or junior high for that matter.  

The author you've been complaining about for two days has it right in my opinion.  They all deserve to be treated on an equal platform and that means that they're all either guilty or not guilty since we sure as hell are never going to know the overwhelming majority of the players who have used these substances.  I would prefer the author treat them as if they were all not guilty, but at least he's got it half right, which is 50% more right than any of these other members have it.

And before anyone tries to tell me I'm insane for saying Dawson may have used...read this again.  I never said he did.  I simply said it's foolish and irresponsible of anyone to assume that he didn't when we know for an absolute fact that steroids were prevalent in sports when he played AND that if you want to blame any players for how steroids became so popular in sports, blame these guys (Dawson, Rice, Gossage, etc) because they were the ones who closed their eyes and allowed it to take over the sport.  Their errors were already completed by the time the likes of Bonds, McGwire and Sosa ever came around.  

by Maddog on Jan 10, 2008 10:38 AM CST   0 recs

Where's your evidence?
You state that PED's, specifically steroids and HGH, were prevalent in sports in the 1960's and 1970's.

If you have specific evidence to cite, I'd like to see it.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 10, 2008 10:48 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

PEDS in the Olympics
It was not unusual in the 60s and 70s.

A survey was taken of Olympians in 1972 when steroids were banned.  68% of them admitted to using steroids in some capacity.

Of course, it was in the late 70s that the East Germans had a state sponsored doping program for olympians.  It has been argued whether or not the athletes knew what they were getting as they were told that they were getting "vitamins".  achem....maybe B12!

For that matter, in 776 BC Ancient Greeks were known to eat sheep testicles as a way to intake testosterone!!!   If you put it that way, having a trainer inject you in the butt doesn't seem so bad!

by Ghost of Fred Merkle on Jan 10, 2008 11:51 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Olympics, OK.
So you're tarring all baseball players from that era because some Olympians did steroids?

That's a stretch.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 10, 2008 12:01 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

an athlete is an athlete
how many athletes dont want to have an edge over their competition?  if steroids were available, and not illegal or banned by baseball, why would players NOT use them?
Bill James Felix Pie 2008 Projection: .283/.333/.456 16 HR 21 SB

by kylejo on Jan 10, 2008 12:23 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

"you're"
I wasn't making a statement on baseball players any which way.  

I'm simply stating that steroids were a problem in the 60s and 70s for the Olympics.  Athletes used them to enhance their performance.

That said, it certainly is conceivable for a baseball player to try them.  The opposing argument would be what was alluded to below in that baseball players preached flexiblity more than muscle up until the recent years.

by Ghost of Fred Merkle on Jan 10, 2008 12:36 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Ben Johnson
This is off-topic, but interesting.   Most of us remember 1988 when Ben Johnson was stripped of his gold medal for steroid use.  By default, Lewis was given the gold medal.

During the US TRIALS for those same olympics, Carl Lewis was busted for using stimulants.  The letter was all but issued to ban him from the Olympics.  But the US decided to bury it and allow him to compete.

It was shortly after that when the Olympic committee itself control of the testing for each country's trials.

Interesting stuff.

by Ghost of Fred Merkle on Jan 10, 2008 12:42 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

What was Lewis taking?
Estrogen? LOL.
Ed Lynch is STILL on the Cubs payroll, as our D-Backs scout in Phoenix. Lynch attends all 81 D-Back home games with a notepad in hand. Really paid off for us!

by SackMan on Jan 10, 2008 1:35 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Hilarious
"You rub snot on the ball?" Ricky Vaughn

by McRipper on Jan 10, 2008 1:55 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

I think Lyle Alzado's claims
represent factual information, Al.  He regularly bought his steroids at local gyms where they were readily available.  HGH too.  

As someone else said, the Olympics banned them in 1972.  Do you think they banned them because they didn't think athletes were using them?  Of course they were.  If Olympians were using them, so were professional athletes.  Remember, these guys have more money than amateurs.

The point is that they've been readily available for decades and athletes have taken them on a regular basis for that long as well.  It's foolish to think that baseball players of that era weren't taking them.  Were they all?  No, but some certainly were yet that generation gets a pass and in my opinion, it was that generation that is far more responsible for the damage than this one.  They're the lazy fucks who kept their mouths shut and turned a blind eye that allowed it to overtake the sport.  

I'm not saying Dawson did steroids.  I'm only pointing out that it's silly to assume he didn't when we know they were as readily available then as they are now.  

by Maddog on Jan 10, 2008 12:38 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Yes... those Raider teams he played for
Were labeled with the reputation of being a bunch of crazy hot head maniacs... virtually creating the whole intimidation factor that the old Raiders became known for.

You think steroids played a factor into that?

There's absolutely no question that professional athletes have been taking PED's for decades. Just a matter of who they were, and how their use of them effected the outcome on the field, and the sporting league they played for.

Athletes are competitive individuals... they want to win... and sometimes will try new things to get an edge.

None of this is new in the large scheme of things.    

Ed Lynch is STILL on the Cubs payroll, as our D-Backs scout in Phoenix. Lynch attends all 81 D-Back home games with a notepad in hand. Really paid off for us!

by SackMan on Jan 10, 2008 1:41 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

The problem with that is...
...is the rank hypocrisy that comes from taking that sort of view if you're a BBWAA member. I know you're no such thing, so this doesn't directly apply to you.

Remember, these guys were travelling with teams and spending time in clubhouses all throughout the steroids era. They had frontrow seats for the entire thing, and they absolutely refused to confront what was going on, even after Canseco got busted and it was obvious something was going on here.

It's all well and good, and even true, to say that we'll never know what happened for certain in the steroids era. But that's at least partly the fault of the sportwriters who ignored the whole thing, and for them to play the sanctimony card at this late stage of the game?

This isn't honesty and this isn't good judgement. This is refusing to take account and pay for one's own sins - since you didn't do your job as the "fourth estate watchdog" like they taught you in J-school, you can't fairly sit there and lecture us on right and wrong. This really comes off like trying to get the players to take everybody's share of the blame for this. And it comes from people who have a share of the blame.

Before any of these guys feed us any more sanctimonious bullcrap, they need to write a piece entitled "How I Screwed Up Covering Up The Steroids Era, And Why." Each and every one of them.

I would suggest you learn to truly interrupt all stats before using any selective stats. -- cubswin

by cwyers on Jan 10, 2008 10:53 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

But do do we!
Writers aren't the only ones who need to write that piece, the fans do, too. Maybe not each and everyone one but the fact of the matter is that this entire tangled web is also in part the fault of the fans. I could go at length into the generation of fans who needs visual stimulation to no end, cannot enjoy a 2-1 pitchers dual, "digs the long ball", etc. The thing is that writers, players, managers have a role in this all, but so do the fans.

That, however, does not allow me to not have and express outrage.

Rick Telander has come out and say that no player from the 1980's and 1990s is beyond suspicion. That could be Dawson or Rice, Maddux or Schilling. Saying that no one is beyond suspicion and even specifically say names does equal a belief of use. Every player is a part of a larger era and what Telander is saying is that:
 a.) the actions of the players during his era who used along with
b.) Dawson's and other player's inaction in dealing with the situation that was in their own clubhouse
has led to a situation where no one is beyond suspicion.

DmL

by dmlichte on Jan 10, 2008 11:20 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Point B, however...
... presumes that:
  1. it WAS going on in clubhouses that Dawson (to use your example) was in during his career, AND THAT
  2. he ignored it.
That's a REAL stretch. I'm not denying that things like this happened, because we know they did.

But tarring ALL players with that brush isn't fair.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx