katway

Cubs pitching certainly has not been as durable this year, but it was more durable last year. Cubs have used 11 starters this year and Cards have used 7 starters. But, in 2004, the Cards used 8 different starters and the Cubs used 7 different starters. In both years, they wiped the floor with us, so I'd say it's more than just the starters, but certainly their durability this year has allowed them to absorb injuries to Scott Rollen, et al.

The GM of the Washington Nationals, Jim Bowden, writes a column for the Washington Examiner newspaper. In today's column, Jim Bowden grades himself rather candidly with respect to trades, the draft, etc. It's an interesting and refreshing read because it's rare to see a GM openly critique the job he has done. See http://www.dcexaminer.com/articles/2005/09/29//columns_sports/jim_bowden/001_col_bowden.txt Just wondering if Hendry would ever be so candid and if the Tribune company would ever allow it? The answer, IMO, is clearly no, but it would be interesting to see what he would say.

I think the Cubs traded him two days later. He was actually waived by the Cubs and picked up by the Pirates.

Even if we try to grasp the logic (if it can be found) of Dusty's day game excuse, doesn't our opponent have to show up at the ballpark at the same time we do? I don't get how the club is disadvantaged by day games.

Cox's ability to develop winners from a variety of teams with talent, without talent, young, veteran, etc. is a testiment to the affect that a good manager can have on a team. With respect to striking his wife in 1995 and prior years, he clearly had a problem and, hopefully, consuling has prevented any further domestic abuse in his household. I respect the job he has done as a manager, but I do have trouble respecting him as a person. Domestic abuse is an awful thing and I can understand why people would react negatively to Bobby Cox, no matter what his managerial accomplishments. Personally, I would love the Cubs to get a manager like Bobby Cox, just maybe not Bobby Cox himself.

There was no protected health information disclosed and, as such, no violation of HIPAA. The Cubs saying that they are thinking about asking Corey to see a psych is not protected health information. Now, if they disclosed details such as what went on between Corey and a psych without Corey's permission, then there could be a HIPAA violation.

Exercise Walker's option and trade him to the American League where he has additional value as a DH or to someone like the Mets for Floyd. Walker is one of the worst I've ever seen at turning double plays and his failure to turn them often results in big innings for the other team. I think his defense has been costly at times and I could overlook it if he was a clutch hitter; but, he often fails to produce in the clutch. I'd see if Nomar is willing to play 2B and start Cedeno at SS. If Nomar isn't willing, then I'd see if we can get furcal and put Cedeno at second.

This was his first year at AAA and the Marlins did call him up and use him as a pitch hitter. They are in a playoff race, so that might explain why he hasn't seen a lot of action, but I think he is a part of their future plans especially since Encarcion is in his last year and they will let him walk. What's this about Willingham's toe inujury? I thought he was still on the roster and pitch hit the other day. I don't see the Marlins giving up this guy since he is cheap, under their control for several years, has the potential to be productive and can replace a player that is signing elsewhere in the offseason.

Do you actually think steroids didn't make a difference when Bonds OBP jumped to .500 and then to .600? Trying to compare a non-steroid A rod to a steroid laden Bonds is Apples to Oranges. I guess what your really asking is whether A Rod can achieve a .600 OBP using steroids. I'd venture he could. Currently, A Rod's OBP @ 30 years of age is .418 this year, in 1994 (when Bonds turned 30), his OBP that year was .426. I really don't see much of a difference in the numbers during the year when both players reached 30 years of age.

The point is that pre-1999, there were other players at or near Bonds performance level, but Bonds somehow raised his game to an unimaginable level between 2000 and 2004 in spite of his age. Combine that fact with the fact that he did use steroids and it creates a doubt not only regarding his numbers the last 4 to 5 years, but also whether other players, who didn't use steroids, would have put up similar numbers if they had used them the last 4 to 5 years. Two that immediately came to mind for me where A Rod and Ken Griffey Jr. Is there any doubting that A Rod and Ken Griffey would have put up Bonds like numbers the last 4 to 5 years if they were using steroids? I just don't understand how people can say that even if Bonds was a regular user of steroids, that they didn't help him improve power, bat speed, recovery from injuries, etc. I doubt Bonds would have put the kind of distance between himdelf and A Rod or Jr. the last 4 to 5 years if those players had used steroids. In fact, I tend to believe if they had used steroids, they might be mentioned as the greatest hitters of our era rather than Bonds. If you want to limit the comparison to players with similar AVG OBP SLG OPS to Bonds during the same years in the early to mid 1990s, then imagine Frank Thomas on steroids. Why did all these other great players fail to achieve what Bonds achieved between 2000 and 2004? Isn't it obvious that it wasn't all just Bond's unique baseball skills when he also admits to using steroids?

Neither of them has been as good as Barry was pre-1999. Junior was at least equal or better than Barry pre-1999, check the stats. Griffey's plate discipline was not as good as Bonds, but his eye was far better than Bonds at a similar age. A Rod was just getting started, but was far better than Bonds his first few years in the league. Stats 1996 through 1998 Bonds: 42, 40, & 37 HRs; 129, 101, & 102 RBIs; .308, .291, .303 AVG Griffey : 49, 56, & 56 HRs; 140, 147, & 146 RBIs; .303, .304, & .284 AVG I really don't care about RBI - that's a team measure based upon who is on base in front of that player and how often they are given the opportunities to drive in the runs. What I do care about is a player's overall performance, of which walks are a big part. Limiting the discussion to the years you picked to make things look as equal for Griffey as possible, here are the numbers they put up: Avg OBP SLG Barry 1996 .308 .461 .615 1997 .291 .446 .585 1998 .303 .438 .609 Junior 1996 .303 .392 .628 1997 .304 .382 .646 1998 .284 .365 .611 Junior has an edge in SLG, but Barry just dominates in making fewer outs than KGJ. To put that in perspective, let's look at more advanced metrics for those seasons: EqA BRAA VORP Barry 1996 .362 82 98.1 1997 .349 73 95.8 1998 .348 74 92.7 Junior 1996 .318 72 87.8 1997 .324 65 99.8 1998 .310 53 85.8 I have to admit that it is closer than I would have thought. Junior actually beats Barry in one stat in one year. However, this is the sampling of years that makes Juniors case most strongly. Looking at VORP, for example, Griffey only tops Barry twice in the 90's. I think Barry is in the top 10 in every single season during that time frame. Not only was his peak higher than anyone else's, he was also astonishingly consistent from season to season. Let's not forget Junior is 7 years younger as was putting up much better numbers than Barry did at a similar age. But, just imagine what Griffey could have done if he used steroids to remain healthy, heal quicker, add 30 lbs of muscle without a reduction in bat speed or maybe even an improvement of bat speed. Further imagine what numbers Williams would have put up if he could have used steroids for 4 to 5 years of his playing career...

Illegal or not, Bonds voluntarily gave everyone a reason to doubt his accomplishments. I'll take him up on that offer.

Neither of them has been as good as Barry was pre-1999. Junior was at least equal or better than Barry pre-1999, check the stats. Griffey's plate discipline was not as good as Bonds, but his eye was far better than Bonds at a similar age. A Rod was just getting started, but was far better than Bonds his first few years in the league. Stats 1996 through 1998 Bonds: 42, 40, & 37 HRs; 129, 101, & 102 RBIs; .308, .291, .303 AVG Griffey : 49, 56, & 56 HRs; 140, 147, & 146 RBIs; .303, .304, & .284 AVG

There's been a lot of mention that Bonds is the greatest hitter of the modern era or of our time regardless if he used steroids between 2000 and 2004. But, does anyone wonder what kind of stats A Rod or Ken Griffey Junior would have put up on steroids over the same period? Imagine a healthy Ken Griffey Jr. without all the injuries because of steroid injections keeping him healthy. Imagine A Rod with 30 pounds of extra muscle that doesn't take away from his bat speed. :shock:

No one's indicting him, this isn't a court of law. It seems that people are noting that we shouldn't walk around with blinders on pretending that Barry is clean when he admitted "unintentionally" or "unknowingly" using steroids in sworn testimony. With respect to the tesimony being intended for public consumption, it really doesn't matter in the equation of whether or not Bonds did, in fact, take steroids as he admitted to doing so under oath (why should it matter if he didn't think the press would get ahold of his admission?)... [Note, if the Balco case actually went to trial, then the testimony had the potential to become part of that public forum if Bond's had been called to testify and testified inconsistent with his grand jury testimony. So, when Bond's testified, he knew he was sworn to tell the truth and such testimony had the potential to become public in a trial.]

According to Bond's mistress of 9 years, Kimberly Bell (who also testified to this in grand jury testimony), Bonds told her about his steroid use between the 1999 and 2000 offseason. He apparently told her that he was using the steroids to help him recover quicker from his injuries. She also described some of the changes in Bonds' physique. "Some of the changes included everything from acne on his back to a great deal of bloating, that he was very concerned about that other people would notice." Just so happens, from 2000 to 2004 he hits 49, 73, 46, 45, and 45 HRs...

So what illegal supplements do you think Nolan Ryan was on? No way his body holds up for an average of 200+ innings/year for 6 years age 40-45, right? Julio Franco must just drink steroids. Apparantly with every meal. The fact that he's still playing at that age (and playing well) amazes me. His reported age is 47, yet there are still a few people who think he may be a little older. Even if he is "only" 47, what he's accomplished is impressive. He doesn't show any signs of slowing down either. Certainly some people will be physically blessed (ignoring the fact the comparison is flawed since Franco is not a better player today than when he was 26), but we know Bonds "unknowingly" used steroids from his grand jury testimony. And we know this because it was written in the newspaper. And newspapers never lie. Since I haven't followed this very closely, has anyone in a position of authority confirmed on the record the accuracy of the grand jury testimony? What would be a position of authority? Perhaps Bonds could deny that he ever took steroids provided by Balco... still haven't heard him say that. Instead, his lawers were angry that the testimony was leaked. Doesn't seem to me they could be angry that the testimony being leaked if it wasn't in fact leaked.

Torre has become a better manager than he used to be earlier in his career. Similarly, Frank Robinson is a far better manager than he was with the Orioles. People can and do change as persons and it shouldn't shock anyone that Torre has the same capability to grow as a person. He's had some events that do change your outlook on life and how you interact with others in stressful situations (i.e., prostate cancer, Frank Torre's heart transplant, etc.). He is not a great game manager (Billy Martin was probably the best game manager I've ever seen), but where Torre excels is in managing a season, handling the press, developing players, demonstrating leadership, and creating a clubhouse atmoshpere with expectations and a winning attitude.

Joe Torre still doesn't crack my top five. If he can't win with the talent he has this year, I'm not sure why we would want him other than the "name" factor. Other than managing the Yankees, has Torre ever won? Torre has won a heck of a lot more games for the Yankees the past decade than the Cubs have. And the fact that that team is in first place despite long term injuries to Pavano, Wright, Mussina, Brown, and to a lesser extent, Johnson. That's incredible. Given those injuries, the Cubs would be a 4th place team. Oh wait.... Exactly...What Torre has done this year by dealing with the New York press, Steinbrenner, a beleaguered pitching staff, and relying on a rookie (Canu) is certainly something that many managers couldn't have handled. For instance, Baker would have already blamed the New York press for losing the season in April and he never would have allowed Canu to see the light of day in the major leagues. Salary doesn't always equal talent/results (See Kerry Wood, Nomar, et al...). Even though the Yankees have the biggest budget, they have drastically overpaid many players and do not have the best talent in the league. They have a lot of older players whose bodies are falling apart and a pitching staff consisting of a middle-rated triple AAA player from last year (Wang), a journeyman veteran (Small), and a player that was practically being given away at the deadline (Chacon). Torre has done a great job handling the criticism, handeling his players, getting the most out of his team, and putting his team in a position to win. I'm not at all a Yankee fan, but I gotta respect the terrific job Torre has done this year.

So what illegal supplements do you think Nolan Ryan was on? No way his body holds up for an average of 200+ innings/year for 6 years age 40-45, right? Julio Franco must just drink steroids. Apparantly with every meal. The fact that he's still playing at that age (and playing well) amazes me. His reported age is 47, yet there are still a few people who think he may be a little older. Even if he is "only" 47, what he's accomplished is impressive. He doesn't show any signs of slowing down either. Certainly some people will be physically blessed (ignoring the fact the comparison is flawed since Franco is not a better player today than when he was 26), but we know Bonds "unknowingly" used steroids from his grand jury testimony.

Bonds has the experience to handle a good pitch; so does Tony Gwynn @ 40+ years of age. The difference is that Bonds can turn on the pitch because the steroids helped his body heal and keep going so that at 42, he has younger man's body and bat speed. There is no doubt that steroids have contributed to his success.

Bat speed and running speed are completely separate. .... Let's just call it muscle speed. The fact is steroids just don't add muscle mass, they can and do add muscle speed. Inject in the legs and it's running speed, inject the correct arm muscles and it's bat speed. The longer you can wait on a pitch because of your bat speed, the more you can hit like Ted Williams.

The key is to add flexability to your program which Bonds did. Steroids do help you improve speed (ask Ben Johnson if it can make you quicker), it's not just simply muscle mass. There are different types of steroids. By improving bat speed, Bonds had the luxury to wait on the pitches in the zone. In addition, if Bonds doesn't take steroids for the last 5 years, there is no way his body continues to hold up beyond 40 years of age. The fact is all hitters get smarter with experience, but often the body begans to fail. IMO, his body didn't fail as quickly because of the steroids. As such, he has had an advantage over Hank Aaron and other hall of famers who became smarter hitters, but their body wasn't as willing in their later years.

"Truly, you have a dizzying intellect." Pricess Bride... great movie. Anyway, Dusty is partialy right. You don't rollover at the end of the year, but you also want to see what the kids bring to the table and give them a start here and there to reward their good play in the minors. It's a delicate balance that Dusty has had trouble grasping during his managerial career.

Interesting opinions... http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/askthewriter/cs-050920cubscorgan,1,3024108.story?coll=cs-home-headlines I agree with his take on Dusty and the Cubs... =D>