MLB - 2006 Season!

[rah]

Just like when the use of greenies was rampant in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

[Arrian]

Which was never addressed until now. Hey, baseball's getting faster about these things (~20 yrs to react to steroids, as opposed to ~40 yrs to react to "greenies"). Yay!



-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well if baseball was really serious about going after violating the rules, every bat used would be xray-ed by the umps before the game.

The problem is that baseball has always had a history of people cheating and an acceptance of such. People laugh and tell stories about the pitcher with a vaseline tube in his glove or when superballs bounced all over the field from that bat, etc. Pitchers hiding spitballs has always been a source of entertainment. In that tradition, is there any surprise that performance enhancers like amphetamines or anabolic steroids would be adopted?

Then again, I guess it isn't only baseball that has the problem. The entire 1970s Steelers defense was taking steroids. And I'm convinced that most NFL players are taking steroids of HGH. You can't be that big and that fast without some aid.

[Arrian]

I agree, Baseball has a tradition of... shall we say "sanctioned" cheating?

From simple stuff like "selling calls" (cheating, IMO, and I've always been somewhat disgusted by it*) and "stealing signs" (not cheating if done by players on the field, IMO, but cheating if it's a guy with a telescope and a radio) to corking bats and doctoring the ball (both clearly cheating).

-Arrian

*if I'm involved in a close play in a softball game and I'm out, but the ump calls me safe, I will tell the ump "no, I was out." The pros? No way! If they did that they'd be criticized.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hell, even if you consider steroid use before 2003 to be 'cheating', Gaylord Perry was a far greater cheater than Barry Bonds... and Perry easily was voted into the Hall.

[Arrian]

Wasn't there a pitcher who was allowed to continue doctoring the ball even after a specific rule was made?

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, but all of them stopped pitching before 1935.

[Sava]

Arrian... I was wrong. Juan Pierre sucks.

He's on pace to become the worst RBI producing player in BASEBALL HISTORY. Not that he is meant to be an RBI producer... but he has 4 so far this season. On pace to finish the season to have the worst percentage of RBI's vs PA in the history of the game... going back to 1876.

As a team, the Cubs can't get on base. I thought Pierre would turn it around after a poor season, but he's fallen into the Cubs team philosophy of not taking walks... while, on the other side of town, Scotty Podz routinely takes 5-6 pitch AB's.

Pierre
Pods


btw, I'll explain this in greater length, but one host on Chicago sports radio mentioned that the Cubs may already be mathematically eliminated from the playoffs. While that may not seem correct, I'm going to figure it out. I think it is... except for the unlikely scenario the Cubs go something like 80-20 in the next 100 games.

The thing is, with the rest of the teams in the division playing so many division games, and 4 of them being ahead of the Cubs, they are playing each other a lot. Somebody is going to win those games, even though someone is going to lose those games. The Cubs can't hope to gain much ground even if they have a dramatic turn around. Even though no team has clinched anything, the Cubs are effectively eliminated from playoff contention.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, Jesus, Juan Pierre is really sucking. I just checked his numbers after that post and I can't believe how bad he is doing. It's like Corey Patterson numbers!

What in the Hell happened? Last year was his worst full year, statistically... he's going to beat that by spades this go around!

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

What in the Hell happened?

He became a Chicago Cub.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh... right.

Apparently Derrick Lee's powers (come on, you'll take a 3 month injury for the stats he put up last year and so far this one) did not rub off on Pierre.

[Sava]

But seriously... the answer is simple. Dusty Baker can't manage. He is a steroid era manager. Plain and simple. Without juiced players knocking the balls out of the yard, he can't manage a team at all. His philosophies turn players into first-pitch swingers... there's no plate discipline whatsoever... no fundamentals. The word isn't even in his vocabulary.

And then you get crap like annointing injured players with Holy Water.

The sky pointy bull****... all that crap...

Ozzy Guillen (best manager in baseball, btw) said the other day, "Pointing at something never helped me win a baseball game."

It's like we have two seperate baseball philosophies at work here in Chicago. Dusty Baker... the 90's era, steroid manager. Bad baseball...

And Ozzie Guillen... a great manager. Uses the numbers as a tool, uses his gut sometimes, observes and puts good baseball players in the right situations to succeed. Stresses fundamentals... getting on base... gets the power when he needs it... in addition to having a GM that has helped build a winning team.

It's like two complete opposite teams and philosophies at work...

Winning baseball... losing baseball.

White Sox... Cubs...

[Arrian]

Ozzie Guillen may be a good manager, but the fact is that he has a good team to work with. Dusty Baker may be a bad manager (I think he is), but he has a bad, injury-depleted team to work with.

I'm sorry you have had to witness the suckitude of Juan Pierre, Sava. He's been even worse than I would've predicted. Wow. And now, just for ****s and giggles, the Cubs have united Pierre and TONY ****ING WOMACK on the same roster! Holy idiocy, Batman! It boggles the mind.

On Pods: this man has some value if he works counts, gets on base at a good clip, and steals bases (at a good rate), whilst playing solid defense (I'm under the impression that he does this). He is, I feel, overrated, but that doesn't mean he's useless. Though I haven't checked the stats, I imagine he's been close to Damon so far this year (who has been somewhat underperforming, although part of that may simply be the change in home ballparks + one more year of age).

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Hmm, my Damon/Pods comparison made me curious, so I looked up the stats.

OBP: Pods wins by a fair amount (371 to 350). 21 pts of OBP is a big deal for a table-setter type.

SLG: Damon wins 431 to 409. This does even out the OBP disparity, but given their roles and abilities (speedy leadoff hitters), I'd rather have the OBP.

Stolen bases/caught stealing:

Pods - 18 for 25
Damon - 11 for 13.

Damon has the better success rate (84.6% to 72%), whereas Pods has more total SBs. I'll take the success rate.

In any event, Damon is also an overrated player. But Yankees and ChiSox fans can thank their lucky stars that they've got Damon/Pods instead of the likes of Pierre.

-Arrian

[Sava]

Pods is not overrated. This is where the statheads are wrong, Arrian... and why numbers need to be thrown out the window. You need to look at the value of the leadoff position and what he means to the team... his value and contribution in each individual game.

Two years ago, the White Sox were around .500 (IIRC)... they had Carlos Lee... a power guy... and by all accounts, a much more productive player than Pods, according to stat-heads.

But his contributions in each game was not as important as Pods' was compared to last year. That's how you have to judge a player's importance to the team.

You can't have a slugger at every position. You need players slotted and you need them to play their roles. That's what baseball is. It's not about every player, 1-9 hitting 60 homers. It would be nice if you could do that, but not every guy is going to do that.

That's why the White Sox won the World Series last year and that's why Ozzie Guillen is the best manager in baseball. He understands how to use the talent that Kenny Williams has given him. They are on the same page about how to assemble a team. And that's a dangerous combination.

That's also why they will win the World Series again this year.