Warning!! Danger!! Annual Off-topic Baseball Thread '07!! Beware!!

[bgtg19]

Originally Posted by tomegun

The media doesn't jump on Clemens because they like him, but they have been jumping on Bonds for years because they don't like him.

I agree with JR here. You just aren't reading or watching the same things I am if you think Clemens is getting a free (or free-ish) pass. In fact, Jon Heyman of SI.com has a column today in which he describes Bonds as a "winner" in the Mitchell aftermath since nothing new really came out on him and now everyone gets to see a portion of the players all around him who were cheating, too. (Clemens, by the way, was labelled a "loser" in the column.)

I think the evidence is rather compelling that both Bonds and Clemens cheated. I think the evidence is rather compelling that both of them were great (Bonds, to a more obvious degree than Clemens) BEFORE they started cheating. So, they didn't cheat to keep their MLB jobs (like others surely did); instead, they cheated for glory or records or "domination" that they could not or would not earn honestly.

I do feel some sympathy towards players like Pettitte and Roberts who dabbled and now have admitted. I do not feel any sympathy toward players like Bonds and Clemens who enhanced themselves regularly and now continue to lie about it.

[tomegun]

Of course you don't feel sympathy for Bonds - you probably don't like him either (an opinion many share that has been formed by the media). Pointing out a few articles doesn't compare to the years devoted to hunting down evidence on Bonds.

Here is part of what Heyman says about Bonds being a winner: "The point is drilled home again that he was far from the only user."
Meanwhile, this is part of what is said about Clemens, the loser: "He is a superstar who's used to folks fawning at his feet, and 2) As an all-time great..."

On the surface it may seem as though he is getting the same treatment, or worse, as Bonds, but I think you should review the last 5 years or so; Clemens has a lot of catching up to do!

Any talk of putting an asterick on any of Clemens' Cy Young awards?

[bgtg19]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Of course you don't feel sympathy for Bonds - you probably don't like him either (an opinion many share that has been formed by the media). . . .

On the surface it may seem as though he is getting the same treatment, or worse, as Bonds, but I think you should review the last 5 years or so; Clemens has a lot of catching up to do!

Yes, tomegun, when it comes to Bonds, I'm just a lemming. Whatever the media feeds me, I accept without thinking or evaluation. I must not like Bonds only because the media tells me not to like him, not because I have seen him interviewed and found him to be a self-absorbed prick. I wish I had the courage and insight to like, and feel sympathy for, Bonds.

Fortunately, when it comes to Clemens, I have wisdom and fortitude. Apparently, the media has been telling me all my life to like him and fawn over him and think he's just swell. But I have found Clemens to be a self-absorbed prick and I don't like him or feel sympathy for him. Strange.

Tomegun, are you serious about "review[ing] the last 5 years"? The evidence, such as it is, about Bonds came out a long time ago. The evidence, such as it is, about Clemens just came out. Should the media have criticized Clemens as much as Bonds based on an assumption that someday some evidence would materialize? Frankly, I think Bonds has a lot of catching up to do. Pete Rose (yet another self-absorbed prick whom I do not like and for whom I have no sympathy) has been vilified since way back in 1989, whereas through much of the 1990s Bonds was praised as one of the best players, if not THE best player, in baseball.

And while we're at it, Larry Craig is getting a free pass from the media, too! I mean, they only started getting all over Craig this year when poor old Bill Clinton has been criticized for dropping his pants for many, many years.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Any talk of putting an asterick on any of Clemens' Cy Young awards?

Um, yeah, as a matter of fact......

http://www.boston.com/sports/basebal...g_on_th_1.html

And that's from one of his fellow players too, not a sportswriter.

I'm with bgtg19. Bonds, Clemens and Rose were and are azzholes. They all deserve everything they get.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Of course you don't feel sympathy for Bonds - you probably don't like him either (an opinion many share that has been formed by the media).

Could you enlighten me as to what exactly has shaped your obvious sympathy of Bonds?

[Jimgolf]

Clemens has been soundly lambasted by the NY media, while Petitte has been lionized ("I only tried them twice", sort of like the old Clinton defense, "I didn't inhale.")

The media have harped upon Clemens' "banned substances" phrase, since steroid use was not banned by MLB until 2003 and HGH not until 2005.

Michael Kay, the Yankee broadcaster who appears on the local ESPN radio outlet, claimed that taking steroids or HGH was as bad as what Pete Rose did, since both things jeopardized the integrity of the game.

I don't think I need to go into how ridiculous that is, but how bad is what Clemens and Bonds have been vilified for?

I think too many people think steroids and HGH are a magic formula for throwing a fastball or hitting home runs. The only thing they do is allow an athlete to lift weights more frequently. They don't need to take off for recovery like a typical weight lift regimen requires. The player still has to do the work to improve.

The number of players on the list that made you ask "Who?" shows how little effect steroids really have. The player with talent can work to get significantly better, but the scrub or the lazy athlete is still a bush leaguer.

The real impact of this is that all these former or current players have been named by 2 or 3 sources. This is just the tip of the iceberg. There is no doubt in my mind that this period of baseball history will long be referred to as the "Steroid Era" and that all accomplishments from this era will be viewed with an invisible asterisk, and that all players will be under suspicion for some time to come.

ARod is sure to become ARoid at some near point of time.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

Clemens has been soundly lambasted by the NY media, while Petitte has been lionized ("I only tried them twice", sort of like the old Clinton defense, "I didn't inhale.")

You need to get out more too. Maybe read Mike Lupica's column at the NY Daily News, for example. He went after Pettitte big time. And he sureasheck wasn't the only one.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...crocodile.html

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You need to get out more too. Maybe read Mike Lupica's column at the NY Daily News, for example. He went after Pettitte big time. And he sureasheck wasn't the only one.

I try to avoid Loopy since he moved to the front of the paper. Maybe I'm putting too much stock in what I hear on Sports Radio.

BTW, an interesting (or at least one that agrees with me) take on steroids not working - in the North Lake Tahoe Bonanza - http://www.tahoebonanza.com/article/...03031/-1/rss03

[ChuckElias]

From ESPN. com:

Mark Prior, cut loose by the Cubs earlier this month, has agreed to terms with the San Diego Padres.

In 2003, Mark Prior went 18-6 with a 2.43 ERA, was selected to the All-Star Game and finished third in the Cy Young voting. He has won just 18 games in 57 starts since.

Prior receives a one-year major league deal with a $1 million base salary. The contract, which doesn't include an option, contains incentive clauses that could take the total value of the deal to over $3 million. Prior, however, is not anticipating his season debut with the Padres until mid-to-late May.

"Mark Prior is a competitor and is working hard to regain the form that made him one of the great young pitchers in the game," general manager Kevin Towers told The Associated Press. "We are confident he is going to help us in our rotation this season. It's exciting that Mark is coming home to San Diego to pitch for the Padres."

Prior, 27, last pitched in the big leagues in 2006, and had shoulder surgery in April of 2007.

Prior figures he still has much of his career ahead of him if he can avoid injuries.

The last sentence is, of course, the biggest problem for him.

Does this mean that JR will stop mocking the Cubbies and start in on the Pads?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

From ESPN. com:

The last sentence is, of course, the biggest problem for him.

Does this mean that JR will stop mocking the Cubbies and start in on the Pads?

Of course not - the Cubbies still have Kerry Wood.

A couple of Prior's injuries were not actually pitching-related. One time he injured his shoulder trying to leap-frog a second baseman while running the bases, and another time his elbow was hit by a line drive. Wood's injuries have all been pitching-related.

Now, if there's any way we can ship that damn goat out to San Diego....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

The last sentence is, of course, the biggest problem for him.

Does this mean that JR will stop mocking the Cubbies and start in on the Pads?

No, it means Prior's career is on the up-swing.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

Clemens has been soundly lambasted by the NY media, while Petitte has been lionized ("I only tried them twice", sort of like the old Clinton defense, "I didn't inhale.")

The media have harped upon Clemens' "banned substances" phrase, since steroid use was not banned by MLB until 2003 and HGH not until 2005.

Michael Kay, the Yankee broadcaster who appears on the local ESPN radio outlet, claimed that taking steroids or HGH was as bad as what Pete Rose did, since both things jeopardized the integrity of the game.

I don't think I need to go into how ridiculous that is, but how bad is what Clemens and Bonds have been vilified for?

I think too many people think steroids and HGH are a magic formula for throwing a fastball or hitting home runs. The only thing they do is allow an athlete to lift weights more frequently. They don't need to take off for recovery like a typical weight lift regimen requires. The player still has to do the work to improve.

The number of players on the list that made you ask "Who?" shows how little effect steroids really have. The player with talent can work to get significantly better, but the scrub or the lazy athlete is still a bush leaguer.

The real impact of this is that all these former or current players have been named by 2 or 3 sources. This is just the tip of the iceberg. There is no doubt in my mind that this period of baseball history will long be referred to as the "Steroid Era" and that all accomplishments from this era will be viewed with an invisible asterisk, and that all players will be under suspicion for some time to come.

ARod is sure to become ARoid at some near point of time.

I can agree with some of this. Getting stronger will allow someone to pitch more and longer. On the other hand, if someone is just a brute they will either whiff a the ball or hit 400ft popups. Bonds is very talented with or without steroids - that is probably why they still pitch around him with bad wheels and all. Bonds is probably the greatest player to ever play the game, but people will forever look at him because of what they saw in interviews.

JR, I feel the way I do about Bonds because I have actually met him and made my opinion based on how he treated me. I can't recall what, but his attitude with the media started because of something that either happened with his father or Willie Mays. I'm not going to have my opinion shaped by some interview when I met the man for myself. Also, I'm from the Charles Barkley school of thought on this one. An athlete is an athlete. I don't have to feel all warm and fuzzy about them, I'm just looking to see how they perform.

Picking one, two, ten or twenty media sources to compare to all the media out to get Bonds isn't accurate. I also don't have the time to scour so many papers, sites etc. The witch hunt has been on for some time and unfortunately one of the fan-favorites got caught with his pants down. When talking about Clemens, if you are from houston, boston or new york your opinion could be biased.

What is a good estimate of home runs Bonds would have had if he saw pitches like ARod or Pujols? 850? 900?

[Adam]

Without the juice? 600. His career was undoubtedly prolonged, just as Clemens' was.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Without the juice? 600. His career was undoubtedly prolonged, just as Clemens' was.

I would say closer to 650. But you didn't say anything about how many he would have if they pitched to him.

[bgtg19]

Originally Posted by tomegun

JR, I feel the way I do about Bonds because I have actually met him and made my opinion based on how he treated me.

Yes, how Bonds treats people is an excellent source upon which to base your opinion. But perhaps you might consider that there are other people in the world in addition to you. I'm glad he treated you well. I'm confident that there are other people who have been treated well by Bonds. Bonds, like all humans, is no doubt a complex person with good and bad traits, good and bad days, etc.

If I met Phil Spector and he treated me well should I think well of him despite the large mountain of evidence that he treated many, many women incredibly poorly (even if you don't think he killed Ms. Clarkson)? If I met Curtis Granderson and he was short with me should I think ill of him despite the large mountain of evidence that he treats people with generosity, respect and dignity?

O.K., forget how Bonds treats people in the media. (Although, to be fair, if you are going to think of athletes as mere humans shouldn't you also think of journalists as humans? If someone in the media treated his father poorly, should Bonds stereotype ALL journalists and treat them all ill? Or is it an acceptable standard of decency to treat people as individuals? If Mike Winters treated me nicely when I met him at a baseball camp, should I whine at the media criticism of his out-of-line conduct? Or when he makes a mistake should I dislike all umpires? But I digress....) Yes, forget how Bonds treats the media. How does he treat his fellow players? How did he treat Gary Sheffield? What would prompt Sheffield to state: "I never wished anything bad on [Bonds]. I want him to achieve what he wants to achieve, but what I want more is that his life gets right. That he can have compassion for other people. And that's what I want the most."?