crazycooter

I'm new here, so if this is in the wrong place or has already been posted feel free to move or delete. Anyway, I was listening to Dan Patrick a minute ago and he said that Lou is scheduled to be on his show today (1-4 pm ET). I will keep listening to see if he gives a certain time. I just thought some of you might want to listen. EDIT: He is on right now.

We assume Griffey was clean because he never showed a single one of the hallmark signs for steroid use -- extreme muscle increase, bigger head, acne , etc. Further, most "baseball people" tend to agree that Griffey has a textbook perfect swing for hitting HRs, meaning that he didn't rely on sheer muscle to hit the ball. Griffey's uses flexibility and quick reflexes to generate batspeed, not his triceps. One last thing, Griffey was injured all the time. Guys on the juice don't spend much time on the DL with injuries. Part of what steroids do is cause your body to heal at an extremely fast pace (keep in mind that your body healing itself after a workout is what actually builds muscle). Griffey just never fit the mold of a steroid user. i never saw any huge size difference in alex sanchez or rafael palmeiro. Sure, some guys don't show that many outward signs, but how long were they using before they were caught? Sanchez wasn't around long enough for anybody to know and, IIRC, the Palmeiro incident happened the year before it came out. Probably not enough time to make a huge physical difference in either case. Griffey was hitting HRs at a record pace from almost the minute he set foot in the majors as a skinny kid. If you wanna believe that he was juicing then, fine. It is very hard to believe, to put it mildly, that a guy could have been juicing for 17 years with no unnatural change in his appearance. It's not really all that hard to believe. If you're using in moderation, you can build strength without adding too much bulk. A lot of the guys caught at the major and minor league level have been pitchers, some of whom aren't all that bulky. A lot depends on how you're using and how you're working out. I guess my point was that a lot of those guys haven't been in the majors for 17 years. Plus, Griffey has seen a drop in production over the last seven years. Sort of the opposite of Bonds. I'm not saying Griffey never used steroids or that I would be shocked to find out that he did. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that any player over the last 15 years used steroids. I am just saying that Griffey appears to be one of the least likely guys to have used over that time period when you look at all the information that we have -- that's why lots of people assume Griffey was clean. Some people want to say Griffey juiced because he was a power hitter during the steroid era. It's becoming a witch hunt.

We assume Griffey was clean because he never showed a single one of the hallmark signs for steroid use -- extreme muscle increase, bigger head, acne , etc. Further, most "baseball people" tend to agree that Griffey has a textbook perfect swing for hitting HRs, meaning that he didn't rely on sheer muscle to hit the ball. Griffey's uses flexibility and quick reflexes to generate batspeed, not his triceps. One last thing, Griffey was injured all the time. Guys on the juice don't spend much time on the DL with injuries. Part of what steroids do is cause your body to heal at an extremely fast pace (keep in mind that your body healing itself after a workout is what actually builds muscle). Griffey just never fit the mold of a steroid user. i never saw any huge size difference in alex sanchez or rafael palmeiro. Sure, some guys don't show that many outward signs, but how long were they using before they were caught? Sanchez wasn't around long enough for anybody to know and, IIRC, the Palmeiro incident happened the year before it came out. Probably not enough time to make a huge physical difference in either case. Griffey was hitting HRs at a record pace from almost the minute he set foot in the majors as a skinny kid. If you wanna believe that he was juicing then, fine. It is very hard to believe, to put it mildly, that a guy could have been juicing for 17 years with no unnatural change in his appearance.

We assume Griffey was clean because he never showed a single one of the hallmark signs for steroid use -- extreme muscle increase, bigger head, acne , etc. Further, most "baseball people" tend to agree that Griffey has a textbook perfect swing for hitting HRs, meaning that he didn't rely on sheer muscle to hit the ball. Griffey's uses flexibility and quick reflexes to generate batspeed, not his triceps. One last thing, Griffey was injured all the time. Guys on the juice don't spend much time on the DL with injuries. Part of what steroids do is cause your body to heal at an extremely fast pace (keep in mind that your body healing itself after a workout is what actually builds muscle). Griffey just never fit the mold of a steroid user.

I think you hit on what ticks me off about Bonds, though I realize you were trying to point out undue media disdain. You are correct that using steroids doesn't necessarily make one a great ballplayer. However, I firmly believe that the juice can make a player better for longer than he would have been without it. As such, I think steroids can take a guy who is somewhere among the 10 best players of his era and turn him into one of the 10 best players of all time. Of course, that's JMO. As to media disdain for Bonds: it sells. The sports media doesn't talk about Lawton, et al. because consumers don't care about those guys. They bash Bonds because that's what generates the most response right now. Yes, stories about Bonds sell because consumers don't care about the other guys. But I'd like to think the media could make more of an effort to get people to care about the other guys, helping them realize that the steroid problem runs deeper than Barry Bonds. I think it's a combination of lazy journalism and writing what sells. I can somewhat understand not writing about a guy like Palmeiro, since he's not playing anymore. But how about Sheffield? He's probably got another 2-3 years in him. If you looked at his numbers and took them at face value, the guy could be considered a Hall of Famer. Why isn't that a bigger story than it is? Hell, the whole Giambi thing seems like it was all swept under the rug compared to the Bonds stories. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, it's not dubbed the "steroid era" simply because of a handful of power hitters. It's called that because a lot of people were using them, and based on the number of people suspended at the major and minor league levels, more than half were pitchers. I agree with all of that. Its as if the sports media would like for us to believe that punishing Bonds = erasing all the problems from the steroid era. IMO, nothing could be further from the truth. It just ticks me off that Bonds has elevated himself to g.o.a.t. level (statistically) by juicing. The difference between me and the media is that I don't excuse the other guys that did the same thing as Bonds.

I think you hit on what ticks me off about Bonds, though I realize you were trying to point out undue media disdain. You are correct that using steroids doesn't necessarily make one a great ballplayer. However, I firmly believe that the juice can make a player better for longer than he would have been without it. As such, I think steroids can take a guy who is somewhere among the 10 best players of his era and turn him into one of the 10 best players of all time. Of course, that's JMO. As to media disdain for Bonds: it sells. The sports media doesn't talk about Lawton, et al. because consumers don't care about those guys. They bash Bonds because that's what generates the most response right now.

From the link in wade's post: That's hilarious... :lol: Why do the Reds feel the need to lie like that? That's true for mid-season games. However, the Reds always sell out opening day and they usually do it very quickly.

Which hat are you talking about? According to the article the new version of the 5950 won't be available until the end of March.

Looks like that 11 game package would actually get you a fourth Cubs game in late June as it includes all the promotional fireworks nights. I am about an hour and a half from Cincy. So, I am thinking about picking up a pair of those and actually going to all the games. Any idea how much they will cost. I couldn't find pricing info.

There's more of us than I thought. :P Let us unite, brother. =D> BTW, karenmac it is comforting to know that some ladies appreciate a large melon. I completely agree with the poster who said that this forum needs more serious hat discussion. Uniforms in general are of crucial importance.

The park must be really close to the airport. The sky is streaked with trails in every picture.

This guy begs to disagree. http://www.flatbiller.com/uploaded_images/brian-eastcounty.jpg

Same thing for me. Now I just wear them lower on my head and break them in differently. I can compare pictures from, say, 1993 to pictures from now where I am wearing 5950s. They look like two totally different hats. To each his own.

Technically, you are correct. However, most don't even bother to make a distinction between low-profile and unstructured (usually unstructured is considered a subset of low profile). I didn't see the need to make that distinction in this thread because we are really talking more about the change to the high profile ones more than what they might someday become. That said, my high profile hats get much closer to a low profile structured hat after they are broken in. I don't really like the way they look brand new.

The low-profile ones do look better on some of us who have big heads. I'm not one of those guys. My last girlfriend told me I should always stick with the high profile ones. To be fair, the high profile jobs look excessively goofy in those pictures. They look a lot better when they have been broken in a bit. Fairly early in the break-in process: http://www.fantasybaseballupdate.com/files/images/Prior.jpg

Basically, low-profile hugs your head, even in the front. Its the style you see a lot of kids wearing. They usually look beat-up and faded. If you see a kid wearing an Abercrombie and Fitch hat, its low-profile. That's all they sell. High-profile has a structured crown that normally rises above the head in the front. That's the kind the major league-ers wear. I will see if I can post pictures of a couple of examples. LOW PROFILE http://images.hatworld.com/product/5/04387/1_640.jpg HIGH PROFILE http://images.hatworld.com/product/5/20062909/1_640.jpg

Uh... what? If you read the article referenced or any other piece on the new hats, you'll notice they say that the hats are structurally identical to the current authentic hats, and the only difference is that they're made of the synthetic material instead of wool, and they have black underbills. They'll still be New Era 59FIFTY hats (a fine hat, I might add; I have 2) and so they'll still have the structure and headspace you like. I'm not positive, but I do believe this is the first major change to the on-field game hat since they changed the forehead bands inside the hats from leather to cloth back in the 1970s. If they only change the hats once every 30 years, you should be covered until 2037 or so. Like I said, I view this as a first step toward change in structure. They are keeping the high-profile design for now, but don't let that fool you. MLB has clearly shown a preference for change over the last few years with vented helmets, "cool base" jerseys, and myriad changes to the BP gear. They didn't even think about making changes for marketing purposes until the late '90s because up until then what the players wore was largely irrelevant to the business side of things. In the last 10 - 15 years merchandising dollars have skyrocketed. Its now a big enough source of cash that it is significant to MLB. As such, they are starting to exploit it as a marketing/revenue tool rather than simply viewing it as equipment. Since the fashion trend on the street clearly favors the low-profile design, I see it as merely a matter of time until MLB moves in that direction to capitalize on the trend. I don't blame them, but it sucks for those of us that like the hats the way they are.

I have been lurking on here for a while, but this subject has moved me to post. Here goes: I have a big head. I am a 7 5/8 or 7 3/4 depending on the hat. Furthermore, those low-profile pieces of crap don't look right on me no matter the size. Thus, the classic MLB Authentic 5950 is virtually the only hat that I can wear consistently that looks and feels right on my giant melon. I love baseball caps. So, I have purchased several 5950s over the years. Today is the beginning of the realization of the nameless fear that has haunted my dreams lo these many years: the MLB Authentic caps are changing. I see this as the first step toward MLB making the on-field head covers the same low-profile style that you see every "normal" headed college kid sporting these days. Us large-gorded individuals (can you hear me Lou?) will be forced to retreat into the world of throwbacks. Excuse me while I go puke.