UK1679666180

Heh, I didn't even look to be honest. I just assumed.

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. Actually I said Pujols was likely one of the clean ones, but of those 3-4 (Griffey, Thome, Jones, Pujols) he would be the least surprising among that 4 given those reasons. Strasburg wasn't the same pitcher, it's easy why he was passed up coming out of HS given that he was topping at 88 and it's much common with pitchers adding velo than hitters going from marginal draft picks (rds. 10-25) to the best in baseball in that same timeframe.

I apologize to whomever is in Tim's division. I haven't had much time with Roadkill recently with scouting in full bloom.

I really didn't watch or follow as much of the Bulls and it wasn't the same only being able to watch them on WGN, TBS & TNT in Lexington compared to watching every game in Chicago. Sure, I wanted them to win but it wasn't the same as the 1st 3.

Bears in '85. The 1st 3 Bulls titles. UK '96 & '98. And plenty of bad in-between.

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.

There's no doubt about that.

Currently playing future HOF hitters that likely never used steroids IMO are Griffey, Thome, and possibly Pujols (Chipper Jones would likely be next on the list and maybe Ichiro if he keeps going). That's a disappointing statement for MLB. I have some reservations about Pujols being clean but, if he was one of the 104 names, it would've been leaked. As far as Sosa, everyone should've suspected it.

Minus the arm strength, I really do love watching Mitchell of LSU.

Either method of offense requires 2 things: 1)Men on base 2)Execution once they're on-base. With the decline of slugging % of this year compared to the late 90s and early part of this decade, it is more likely even as far as run expectancy with 1 out and a man on 3rd and a runner on second with no outs. If you're looking for just one run instead of the big inning, you're probably now more likely to get that runner in from 3rd with one out than the runner from 2nd with no outs. The reason for that is... run expectancy overall is hurt by that forced out/sac. bunt becuase it limits the chances the multiple runs in an inning which likely gives the reason run expectancy might still be higher for no outs/runner on 2nd, despite the increased odds of run being scored with the runner on 3rd.

I don't know how you can say a team that won 97 games last year has had its window closed. They're a worse team, but they're still a team capable of winning the world series without adding anything. This team ain't going to win. They don't have the bullpen to compete, even with the better play as of late. They certainly don't have the bench to maintain any similar level of production when a guy goes down on an extremely fragile team and they can't handle any regression from offensive players, given last year was likely based on maximium value from guys like Soriano and Soto and expecting Fontenot to up respectable numbers from 2B. This team right now won't get past LA or Philly, it would make last year look like a close series.

If they did become sellers, I would hope that they use that as an opportunity to cont. to improve the farm and increase assets towards improving the Latin American crop of prospects. Most importantly, use it as a chance to decide on an organizational philosophy and stick with it. Right now, they're trying to patchwork a team that's window that has likely closed with parts that are worth more than they provide and no direction towards the long-term. Every year, they try something new and it gets more expensive everytime they try and fail. Of course, if they sell and then try and rebuild via FA to make up those pieces they traded; they'll likely be in worse shape than they are now.

Something had to be done, if for whatever reason Perry wasn't getting thru to them, a move had to be made. Hopefully, Joshua can convey a sense of trust and a style of teaching that will work with these hitters. Like most coaches at that level, the difference in intelligence about pitching/hitting from one coach to another is often overrated as Pentland knows likely knows as much about hitting as Perry. Meanwhile, the ability to present that knowledge is often underrated as far as why one coach is better than the other. Salesmanship is key, regardless if it is a coach or a manager.

They were probably grasping it, certain guys are starting to get healthy (Lee/Soto), certain guys are streaky (Soriano), some are exposed (Fontenot), and some might need to learn to adjust b/c pitchers are pitching them differently (Fukudome and Soto). Soto is starting to go to RF more recently.

Theriot was getting beat on the inside and Lou mentioned to Theriot about getting out in front and driving that ball. Of course when you do that, you now increase the chances of rolling over pitches on the outer 3rd.

That's the biggest confusion for me - both Perry and Joshua (from what I understand) have similar philosophies, so is anything really going to be different from a teaching perspective? Not that I dislike the patience approach or want it changed (I'm glad we're teaching it), I just don't see the likely positive coming from it. What most hitting coaches teach are basically same absolutes as far as hitting, they'll make similar suggestion at the cage and analyze the same flaws, but how they differ is how they present it and whether or not that player will grasp what is being presented. There are likely two reasons for that: one reason is he understands more clearly thru that explanation compared to how it was previously taught, and the other is that he respects the hitting knowledge of this instructor and will take to heart what is being taught, instead of in one ear and out the other.

I'm generally not a fan of Sickels, but that's a fair analysis.

I loved Seth Blair in HS. In fact, he had the best performance as a Junior in HS that I've seen in the last 5 years.

Based on reports, Raley was the best pick of the draft, especially where he was taken as I'm sure the Cubs will have to go above slot to sign him. From what I've seen, with his deceptive FB, good breaking ball, and solid control Rusin is the closest to the majors. I'm there are other possibilities like Rohan and other seniors as well, but it's less likely they'll make it than someone like Rusin.

Fact: I want all my posts from now on "to" always be just like this.

The Cubs a LH'ed hitting OF'er capable of playing RF in spot roles. They need a 2B, regardless of which side he hits from. As far as the quoted statement, they have the starting pitching to go far into the playoffs but have no bullpen at all.

It's like they were all drinking in that draft room and said "f it", let's throw everything out we did before and go for as many high ceiling/possible high risk kids as possible. I thought it was an outstanding draft, which is the opposite I've come to expect from the Cards.

Hopefully, he either has to adjust b/c pitchers have started to figure and has to be mentally tough enough to work through it or is just slumping and one of the rare times in his baseball life has to work through the slump.

where's he headed to college? Hawkeyes.

SCOUTING PROFILE: Jones has been a starting catcher at The Citadel since he stepped foot on campus as a freshman and hit a resounding .335-15-61. With 11 homers as a sophomore and 17 more this season, Jones has 43 for his career. Power is without question his best tool and he is so strong and powerful physically in his compact frame that he doesn't always have to square up a ball for it to leave the yard, or even reach the gaps. He could run into trouble against higher-level pitching, however, as consistent contact has been an issue. He struck out 60 times as a freshman, 58 times as a sophomore and 52 more times this spring in 59 games. Jones split his 2008 summer season between the Cape Cod and Coastal Plain leagues. Though he got only 90 at-bats in the CPL after re-joining Thomasville, where he played in 2007, and became part of a three-catcher platoon, Jones made the most of his limited opportunity, hitting .300-8-24 and playing a pivotal role as the H-Toms ran away with their third straight league title. His best defensive tool is the power in his raw arm strength; his receiving skills are still developing.-JEFF SIMPSON