Sammy Sofa

"There's a sucker born every minute" - P.T. Barnum Agree, all those people who think "the steroid era" is encompassed in the mid 90's to 2005-ish are clearly suckers. I'd be curious to see the Voice of Reason explain how I'm being a "sucker." I fully recognize that PED use did and does exist in baseball. At the same time I recognize that people didn't really have a problem with "steroid baseball" at the time of its peak: in fact, it was the opposite and it arguably brought the game back from the brink. I also recognize that the "steroid era" extends well beyond the relatively small window of time and small group of players that those who decry it the most want to relegate it to.

You mean like where it is, or what it would look like when done? Both, so thanks for the drawing and link. That thing looks amazing.

When he's healthy, he generally works 93-94. But I imagine the odds that we see that guy again are low. How reliant was he on being able to hit those speeds when he was able to do so? Generally he throws about 2/3 fastballs and 1/3 curveballs, with a rare changeup tossed in here and there. But it appears the fastball has been his out pitch more than the curveball. Thanks.

I can't picture what they're talking about in regards to the "triangle building." I'm not opposed to it at all, but I can't really tell what they're describing.

When he's healthy, he generally works 93-94. But I imagine the odds that we see that guy again are low. How reliant was he on being able to hit those speeds when he was able to do so?

I didn't pay enough attention to Sheets to know this, but what would he typically top out at when he's been healthy?

Harden is gone and Lilly will be out and Wells will be going into his second year. Those all open up question marks. If the Cubs had nothing but Silvas available to fill the gap, yes, then they've got massive holes in the lineup. Fortunately, they don't. I'm not saying it's a lock people are going to step in and be amazing, but it's likely that they end up with a very average rotation. Is that ideal or what I want? Do I want them to do nothing if reasonable options are out there to help bolster the rotation? Of course not; but someone declaring that the Cubs need to approach Sheets like they have a "massive holes" in the rotation is implying that they need to go into it with a desperate mentality that leads to bad contracts for the wrong people. No thanks.

Maybe he's bitter because he did use PED's and he still didn't end up with HOF numbers.

I'll wait until the holes actually exist to declare them holes. I'd love it if the Cubs would pick up Sheets, and I wish they had held onto Harden, but as it stands right now the rotation is questionable and not riddled with "massive holes."

an enlarged heart should leave some kind of evidence on a simple ekg, and can be confirmed on an echo. Not true. For something so potentially serious it's something that's often very easily missed even with an EKG. i have an enlarged heart, and i had a funky rythm that was picked up on an ekg. my doctor knew what to look for, so, i guess it may have to do with the physician or with my individual situation, but if doctors are looking for these types of things, they'll probably find them more times than not--even without super-expensive prcedures. Again, not necessarily, and like you said it had more to do wth your particular situation. Even if a doctor is looking for something specific with an EKG it can still easily go undetected. Enlarged hearts are relatively very common and go missed all the time. I'm not arguing against people being able to be tested along these lines; just that it's far from a surefire bet to be caught.

an enlarged heart should leave some kind of evidence on a simple ekg, and can be confirmed on an echo. Not true. For something so potentially serious it's something that's often very easily missed even with an EKG.

I'm sorry, you're trying to blame the end of the 2004 season on "distractions?" And you're actually saying that the Cubs blew the 2003 season because of Bartman? Suddenly your perspective in this debate makes a LOT more sense.

Indeed.

Sounds like ADD as opposed to "chemistry."

I never said he did. I've made it clear I think Bradley's effect on the team's overall record outside of his own performance is negligible at best. I also don't think one guy has the ability to effect people as much as you're describing unless he was going out of his way to make people's lives miserable. It's simply not realistic to assume that a single player has the ability to motivate or drag down an entire team in terms of onfield performances through "chemistry" or the lack thereof.

It's just as valid a theory as suggesting that it is detrimental to their on-field performance given the evidence (or more accurately, the lack thereof). For all we know clubhouse conflict motitvates players to play harder/better in a "I'll show those [expletive]" kind of way. Why is that any less realistic than suggesting that it causes them to play worse? It worked for the A's in the 1970s. They had a saying, "25 guys, 25 cabs". Wasn't the Big Red Machine a little rocky, too?

It's just as valid a theory as suggesting that it is detrimental to their on-field performance given the evidence (or more accurately, the lack thereof). For all we know clubhouse conflict motitvates players to play harder/better in a "I'll show those motherfuckers" kind of way. Why is that any less realistic than suggesting that it causes them to play worse?

What massive hole in the rotation? It definitely could use another quality starter if one can be had, but it's not like the Cubs are short of options of guys who are likely to be capable starters (Silva aside).

If there had been an effort by the organization to paint Grace as a villain as they did with Sosa at the end then I'm sure he would have been happy to be out of there, too.

Something like an enlarged heart is likely to not show up in a physical unless a bodyscan is done, and even then it's no sure bet to be detected.

Right. And it makes sense that guys can have their performances impacted by off-field happenings. Guys like Dempster and Lee delaing with serious health issues with their children, of course that's going to weigh heavily on them. Lower down on the scale I can see things in the clubhouse potentially playing over onto the field if they escalate to a serious degree. Again, along the lines of guys constantly at each others' throats (literally or metaphorically) or serious rifts amongst different players or groups of players or situations where it's essentially the players vs. the coaches or the manager could easily have a serious impact on how the season goes. That said, we've seen zero indication that this was the case here. In fact, in the few players who have spoken on the issue, particuarly Theriot, have gone out of their way to emphasized hoe everyone except one person get along great, so it's not like an issue of one guy somehow fracturing the team and making everyone fight with each other. The reason I dismiss the idea that "chemistry" had any serious impact last season is because from the insiders themselves it sounds nothing more than one guy not liking anyone else and basically everyone else not liking that guy. That's not a lack of chemistry. That's one guy as the odd man out. That still leaves the entire rest of the team to get along great, which supposedly they do and act as a team. Trying to imply that one sulky guy can destroy all of that to the point that guys are playing poorly and games are being lost is ridiculous.

http://www.lancescomicworld.com/ http://www.avclub.com/chicago/articles/chicago-bears-linebacker-lance-briggs-on-comic-boo,37070/

One guy does not equal a "negative clubhouse," especially when all things seem to indicate that his "negativity" amounted to him not wanting to talk to his teammates. How does that destroy all of the chemistry that EVERYONE ELSE has with each other? And how does a negative clubhouse impact performance? Do you really think they're distracted by Milton Bradley not wanting to talk to them when it comes time for them to hit or make a play? Is a positive clubhouse environment ideal? Of course. My issue is with the idea that one guy not hanging out with everyone else has the ability to shatter everyone's confidence and attitude and cause the team to do poorly to the point they're losing games, especially when there are multiple other glaring (and much more realistic) reasons as to why the team did poorly.

So to make your point work you have to use a completely irrelevant analogy? We're not talking about a boss or someone with authority here. No, I say that because letting one person bother everyone else to the point where everyone else's onfield performances suffer despite the fact they all get along and it's only one person who is not buddy-buddy with everyone else isn't "chemistry." That's codependency on a crippling scale. Because it's a total copout. One guy not getting along with everyone else doesn't destroy a team: that just makes it a team sans one guy. Everyone else gets along? Boom, there's your team. EVERYONE ELSE IS WORKING GREAT TOGETHER AS A GROUP. Milton Bradley not being friends with everyone else shouldn't be a crippling thing. If it is, the problem extends well beyond just Milton Bradley. Besides, if chemistry has such impact, negative or positive, why didn't they turn into worldbeaters after he was gone? Why did they stay the same underwhelming, mediocre team they had been all year?

It's meaingless in the context of these guys playing. How does Milton Bradley being a jerk have ANY bearing of another player stepping into the batter's box and trying to get a hit or throwing a pitch or making a play in the field? Here, I'll answer for you: NONE AT ALL. My point is that the issue of Bradley liking everyone else or everyone liking Bradley is meaningless when it comes time to play. Milton Bradley isn't going to run up and yell nasty things at them or punch them in the throat when it's time to make a play or hit. In the grand scheme of things it IS meaningless if only one guy out of a large group is a jerk and everyone else gets along. Explain to me how ONE guy is sabotaging EVERYONE else and causing them to lose games with his "lack of chemistry." Spare me the nonsense of "pity" because I'm practical and wouldn't try to explain away bad work performance by me and the people around me because we didn't like one guy in the entire workspace and everyone else got along great.