XZero771679666304

I'm just hoping for a walk.

Hesa perenial gold glover and possibly the best in the game. Have you seen a Ryan Therit throw to 1st? Lee deservers a medel. He's not what he was 3-4 years ago, which was easily the best defensive 1b in the game. But he is still above average overall, and still great at picking throws.

Let's go white Slice.

But somehow seeing Kerry blow it doesn't make me feel all that great.

LEE!!!

Wood will either stink or blow us away.

Testing is a joke across sports. It's better than not trying at all, but if you are a multi-millionaire athlete and you can't beat the league's drug testing, you aren't trying. This. If at least 2/3 the guys in the NFL aren't totally juiced, I'd be utterly shocked, and no one seems to test positive (and even when someone does, no one cares). Players are gaining their advantages where they can, because it's the nature of sport, like it or not. The question is that even if we as fans could stop it, would we? People can feign indignation all they want, but as sports have evolved, the competition has gotten better, the players bigger, quicker and faster, and the games more exciting. For right or wrong, I don't think most sports fans would.

Well, he only out homered entire teams in 1921 when the small ballers still hadn't adapted to the new live ball, but aside from him being an amazing talent, he was on a plain by himself because among other things: a) he developed a power swing because as a pitcher for all those years he wasn't expected to do too much with the bat, so he was able to swing for the fences as he pleased. b) they switched to a livelier ball in 1920, so a guy with an uber-power swing was naturally going to hit more HR's and the guys who were small ball hitters (the entire rest of the league) also saw enormous success in their own way, including more homers for them too. Check out the AL league numbers from 1919-1922 1919: .268 avg, 240 total HR in the league 1920 (first year of new ball): .283 avg, 369 HR 1921: .292 avg, 477 HR 1922: .285 avg, 525 HR c) Even though the live ball was causing more homers for everyone, most players in the early 20's were still playing in a small-ball mentality, so they weren't even trying to swing for the fences yet. But you did start to see more guys hit the long ball once Ruth started doing it: In 1919, your top 5 individual HR totals were 29 (Ruth), 10, 10, 10, 9 1920: 54, 19, 17, 14, 12 1921: 59, 24, 24, 23, 19 1922: 39, 37, 35, 21, 21 We've debated this before, but there was far less parity in the game pre-1950's, and that is largely because the compared to the modern era, the talent pool was as shallow as the kiddie pool. Those great talents were great, but they only stood so much taller than the competition because the competition wasn't all that great. No blacks, no Asians, no Latin players = less parity among individual players. Can you even imagine how much less exciting today's game would be with only whites? We can romanticize all we want, but if anyone thinks borderline hedonist Ruth would hit 700+ homers in today's game (at least in the condition he was in then), they're crazy. Players then didn't have the facilities/nutrition/sports medicine they have today, but that hardly evens out the advantage of being big fish in a small pond. And when you can eat, drink smoke, gamble and screw all night and still be easily the best player in the game, it demonstrates how relatively little you had to work to be the best. Great players today require enormous dedication to maintain their superstar status, and average players require even more just to stay in the game. If we are going to argue the legitimacy of the records of players who may or may not have used PEDs, you can argue the legitimacy of numbers posted by guys who didn't compete against players of nearly the same average talent level. Wondering if a guy who posted certain numbers could post them against a much higher level of competition is not too far removed from wonder what kind of numbers a guy would have put up w/o PED's. Ultimately I think that arguments trying to categorize one era or another as being more "legitimate" are only sophistries, since the variables are always changing. The advantages, the nature of the advantages, the degree of the advantages, etc. are always in a state of flux. All I am trying to say is that people who want to demonize guys like Bonds, Clemens and Sosa and toss out names like Ruth, Cobb and Walter Johnson (or Aaron, Mays and Josh Gibson) as paragons need to take a closer look at things.

I came to terms with this years ago. It sucks, but if you were a fan of any team with a superstar not named Ken Griffey Jr. in the 90's or early 2000's, you had to deal with issue this on some level. I was/am a huge Sosa fan, and this "revelation" does little to change that. It amazes me how quick some are to hate who was practically the only reason to tune into a Cubs game for several seasons. I am disappointed, but I hardly feel betrayed in any way. If people want to get really angry about this, they should direct their angst more towards the institutions (MLB, MLBPA, etc.) that facilitated and even encouraged the problem for years. Sure, the players are/were guilty, but the problem was institutional. We can get hurt over every new name that comes out, or we can come to terms with the fact that PED use was an almost ubiquitous part of the baseball culture for a long time, like greenies but with more prolific results. And FTR, while Sammy's 60-HR power may not have been legit, it was his change in approach that allowed him to showcase it. The difference between Sosa circa 1993 and Sosa circa 2001 wasn't all steroids. The sad thing about this is that like Bonds (but to a lesser extent), Sosa would have had a great career had he not taken, but now that is what he will be remembered for. The price that players of the steroid era have to pay for the advantages they may have gained will be that their achievements will likely be disregarded instead of assessed critically. Ultimately, I think that is more than enough.

If you demolished all of the ballpark save the bleacher area and field and rebuilt it with much nicer amenities (which I think should be done), I don't think it would detract from the experience at all. I have been to Wrigley more times than I can count, but aside from the view of the field/bleachers/scoreboard (which is uniquely fantastic), the place really does suck.

Whew. I was sure that was going to end badly.

WTF was that?

I don't think Lou's aware of what day it is.

Much like Pence, the very sight of Aaron Miles fills me with a terrible rage.

Yup. Now we can see a walk off.

haha good one

A first inning sac fly, no less. And held down by a completely mediocre pitcher.

bah

Moehler is probably crying in the dugout over the fact he lost to this team.

Just looking at Pence makes me angry. Even when he makes out you have to see his monkey run.

Getting closed out by Hawkins will be the ultimate indignity.

bradley and scales are both better options. lou apparently hasn't watched any baseball this season. I bet Lou is just expecting Miles to start hitting any time now.

yeah i have no idea what lou is doing, he seems incapable of sending up a PH until the 9th inning. Not PHing for Kosuke was bad. He's been our best hitter, but how long has it been since he had an AB against a LHP?

Hoff clubbed one about 420 ft to cf and Bourne fell on his can going up the hill and still caught it.