Tracer Bullet

Is it a coincidence that some of the worst hitters in the majors or guys that never even made it there have also been busted? No - they weren't good enough to make it alone, so they thought PEDs would help. That makes sense. Some guys want the $ and fame that comes with being considered that best hitters ever, so they took it too. Also makes sense.

You don't see an appreciable difference between taking greenies and taking PEDs today? You don't think one improves performance at a significantly greater clip than the other? Or you just don't care? They may improve it as a significantly greater clip, but if so it's because of a science, not an erosion of players character or anything. If they knew in the 70's what players in the 90's knew, and had access to the same stuff, they would have taken. Hell, it's all but a guarantee some of them at least experimented with the less evolved roids back then. The biggest difference is baseball people are so stupid they were convinved muscles were bad for a long time. But I'm not even sure steroids improve players at a significantly greater clip than greenies. The toll of 162 games over 6 months is real and those guys took all that crap for a reason, they felt they needed it. It's still using chemistry to improve your performance, the only difference is advancements in chemistry. I don't disagree that players thought greenies were effective. How effective they were, I'm not sure. But I don't think they were more effective as more recent PEDs, which not only allow players to add lean bulk, but also allow for faster recovery. The insane production of a handful of players that are known to have taken some pretty advanced stuff suggests that they're pretty effective. I have no way of knowing whether players would have taken the stuff available now if it had been available in their time. I don't doubt that some/many would. But that's a lot of speculation. The whole culture around greenies, and the effect they may have had, is much less concerning to me than the culture and effects of the PEDs in the 90s/00s. Some guys were a little more open about what they were doing, but most tried to keep it private. Some went to pretty great lengths to keep it private. My sense is greenies were never really like that. Those differences are important, at least to me.

Almost no one with any knowledge of baseball statistics thinks OPS is the "be all end all." Many people use it b/c it is pretty useful and it's easy to calculate. Even fans with an average understanding of stats (like me) know it's flawed and that there are much better stats out there. Seems to me that the people who think OPS is the one and only measure are the guys that now, begrudgingly, have accepted that AVG/HR/RBI maybe aren't the best way to evaluate players and espn uses OPS now so this must be as good as it gets. It's really funny to hear the few people who refuse to accept "advanced" stats at all attack "stat-heads" by saying they think OPS is this great tool. No stat-head, not a single one, thinks OPS is the best measure and flawless. Agreed. I remember in the off-season, I saw a few people saying that we should try to move Theriot because he was worthless due to his low OPS. I thought that was completely ridiculous. Not every single player on your team needs to hit for power, especially a middle infielder who typically hits first or second in your lineup :-)) Guys who hit for average, get on base, score runs and steal bases are still good baseball players... Actually, no, we don't necessarily agree.

You don't see an appreciable difference between taking greenies and taking PEDs today? You don't think one improves performance at a significantly greater clip than the other? Or you just don't care?

This is reminding me of last year's "Kerry Wood is a sham closer" nonsense. Let's not repeat that crap again.

Would you rather have him condoning steroid use? At least he is willing to voice an opinion other than "I don't know what to tell my kids dude". It's hard to hear his opinion from way down here. Ryno's opinion of himself and the era in which he played is starting to remind me of Joe Morgan. That's not good.

I think we do. But that's not saying much... being better than Kevin Gregg isn't much to brag about. My little brother closes for his little league team and I think I'd rather send him out there right now. Little league has closers now?? We didn't have closers, but we had innings limits (I think 10 IP a week). We played twice a week, Tuesday and Friday or something. So the starter would throw 5 innings and then another guy would pitch the last 2, at least, that's how most teams did it. Though I don't think anyone thought of it as "closing." As for the thread, Gregg's hanger was probably payback for Zumaya throwing, in Brenley's words, the stupidest pitch I've ever seen. Guy dropped a changeup over the heart of the plate after throwing about a dozen fastballs from 98-104 past everyone who stepped up. If Zumaya throws one more 100 mph fastball, the Tigers probably don't bat in the bottom of the 9th.

Do you disagree? Exclude everyone that's ever been caught cheating? Or just those who were caught with certain PED's in the 90s-00s? Seems like an arbitrary spot for a bright line. I'm getting a little tired of Ryno's "play the game the right way" shtick.

Shut it, Ryno. http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/news/story?id=4281359

this. the blame lies sorely on Boras' shoulders, and Magglio's own greed that he's not playing baseball right now. take a longer contract for lesser annual money guaranteed and you're not in this situation. I don't honestly think they've benched him b/c of his contract. I don't think Leyland cares about who's making what. I think he's old school and wants to win and thinks that Ordonez doesn't give him the best chance. Maybe I'm being naive, but that's what I think. Might be true. But if so, I'd hope that DD would tell Leyland to sit Ordonez in favor of almost any other OF to save the team $18m next year.

The only problem with that is that he was going to have Aaron Miles bat in that situation. So it's more or less giving up an out either way. Miles is still a better hitter than Dempster, and did just have a bloop single on Sat. Also the fact that Miles is the 1st ph off the bench is a completely different discussion. That's exactly right. It's not like Miles is the only guy on the bench who could swing a bat. The fact that Lou was going to PH with Miles instead of any of his several other options doesn't justify the bad decision.

I realize I used OPS (though I did put a little disclaimer in there) but having a bright line rule there would be dumb. You can't play a younger player over a veteran b/c the veteran's crappy OPS is better than the young guy's crappy OPS? You can't play a guy with a slightly worse OPS but is a better overall offensive player or much better defender? Even if we don't use OPS, how can you clearly know that one player will be better than the other? How do you know one decision is better, overall, for the team? No one had a gun to Magglio's head and made him sign a deal that included those vesting clauses. He took a risk that he'd keep playing well enough to reach them.

We know what he's saying. But it assumes a lot of things when we really don't know what would have happened had a PH been used.

Almost no one with any knowledge of baseball statistics thinks OPS is the "be all end all." Many people use it b/c it is pretty useful and it's easy to calculate. Even fans with an average understanding of stats (like me) know it's flawed and that there are much better stats out there. Seems to me that the people who think OPS is the one and only measure are the guys that now, begrudgingly, have accepted that AVG/HR/RBI maybe aren't the best way to evaluate players and espn uses OPS now so this must be as good as it gets. It's really funny to hear the few people who refuse to accept "advanced" stats at all attack "stat-heads" by saying they think OPS is this great tool. No stat-head, not a single one, thinks OPS is the best measure and flawless.

If a guy is OPS'ing 1.000 and the vesting clause would pay him something insane for the next year or two, so his team benched him - he'd file a grievance and win. If an OF sucks both in the field and the plate, the team is perfectly within its rights to bench him. It's not just financial, it's b/c he sucks. Sure, if his production dropped to say .800 OPS (I'm using OPS b/c it's easy, you get the drift, I hope) and they bench him for a .750 guy b/c that's all they have and they want to save some money, then maybe there's an argument. But I still think/hope the team wins there. To me, clauses like this are protection from injury/decline. If you suck this bad and the team benches you, tough luck. BTW - mlbtraderumors actually posted an interesting question. If every MLB team could rid itself on 1 contract and the player became a FA, who would each team cut. I was trying to think of the teams with the toughest decisions. Then a Tiger fan posted this: I used to think DD was a good GM. But holy crap. Some of those are just indefensible.

I don't like him and he shouldn't be an analyst. Everybody is great in his mind, but the best are the guys that are like him, not good. I guess. He seems like a nice enough guy and a lot of people in the industry seem to think he's nice. I obviously don't know him. But listening to him doesn't make my skin crawl like Morgan, McCarver, and some others. He clearly has no idea what he's talking about, but that seems to be true of almost all baseball analysts.

I like Harold Reynolds, but he shouldn't be an analyst.

I lot can happen in 3-4 months, including trades and a meteoric rise

I don't care what the numbers say for the last few weeks, those last 4 guys scare the crap out of me right now.

/posted on Indians board before this weekend's series

Why? And why? Why do I think they never used steroids? Their progression and body type never really changed, especially with Griffey and Thome, they both gained more mass throughout the years, but it was never muscle. Also, they never had jump in HRs after they established themselves. As far as Pujols, there's still part of me that wonders how can he be so overlooked despite having played in front of all those scouts that they could misevaluate a bat that in 3 years would become the great rookie season bat of the greatest hitter since probably Ted Williams. His body isn't the same as it was JUCO as well. I'm not going to be a homer, but Pujols was passed on because scouts thought he wasn't athletic enough and that his body was soft. Much like Strasburg between HS and college. Scouts miss all the time. His body isn't the same as when he was a JUCO player for obvious reasons. That was 11 years ago. Pujols easily could have been a juicer, nobody knows. But he's putting up numbers better than ever now, and is being tested. Now that testing is in place, it's seems pretty foolish to accuse guys who haven't tested positive as juicers. Do you think the tests would find everything? Is it possible (or likely) that the drugs are a step ahead of the tests? I have no idea whether Pujols has taken anything, but it seems a bit naive to think that the fact that he hasn't been caught is conclusive evidence that he is clean. Guys have been accused based on nothing more than what seems like unusual performance or body shapes in the past. I'm not sure why that should change now.

Bears - 1 Bulls - 6 ND football - 1 UNC hoops - 3 (I was alive for Jordan's, but wasn't a fan, since I was 4)

If team trainers injected steroids into many players in the clubhouse (on the training table, at the player's locker, whatever) and no one was trying to hide it at all, I'd probably have less of an issue with roids, HGH, etc, than I do now. Part of it is effectiveness, part of it is how open people were with greenies v steroids and HGH (esp the more heavy duty stuff). They just have a much different feel for me. You don't have to agree with me, I don't care. That's just how it is for me.

And that's your call. I don't view all PED's the same and you do. Part of my rationale as it relates to greenies is the way they were introduced to the game. I remember an old article I read, which I found: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/content/sports/epaper/2006/04/02/PBP_AMPHET_0402.html. Who knows how accurate all that information is, but if team trainers were handing guys greenies between double-headers that doesn't seem as underhanded as having your personal trainer or buddy put a needle in your ass in the bathroom. I'm not sure I can articulate all the reasons I view them differently. But not all PEDs are equal, imo.

There's no doubt about that. As long as you believe Maris wasn't popping the greenies.... I'm far less bothered by greenies than the cream and the clear.