jackie hayes

I'm in. I'd run with league 1 again, and I'm sure everyone there wants the wins.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 04:20 PM) And for anyone to think for a second that ARod or Pujols are just going to storm to the record and take it with no one booing or questioning how they got so big, you're wrong. There will always be controversy. It hasn't been brought up yet because they aren't close and nothing has come out yet. I agree with the basic point that all the numbers are tarnished. Sure, there'll be questions. But I'm not so sure there'll be leaked grand jury testimony, dosage instructions, private blood work... -- or sustained career peaks the likes of which have never been seen happening as they approach 40.

Wtf were they doing with Gallardo today? He gives up 8 runs in 2 innings and you run him out there to get his ass kicked some MORE? Holy s***, that's terrible.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan99 @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 12:04 AM) Meh That about covers it. I'm neither angry nor excited. The records are just a lot less meaningful now.

QUOTE(Shadows @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 04:49 PM) Haha, great point there... I remember that when I said that it was purely meant for what it can do to you in baseball and not the way you appear to everyone else. Nice try though. Much like Kap, youre just another clueless person who is talking about something other than what I was. Actually, it was just in your sig like that. There was no other context. But if you want to clarify now, go ahead. Yes, if a ballplayer became as muscle-bound as he possibly could, his performance would probably suffer. But an athlete can use steroids to enhance his strength without aiming for a Schwarzenegger look. Just look at all the sizes of the minor leaguers who've been caught. And saying that muscle development is generally bad for ballplayers, and sluggers in particular, is obviously nonsense. Willie McGee wasn't hitting 50 homers a year.

QUOTE(Shadows @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 02:58 PM) Do you take steroids? Do you know the regimen that people who are currently on steroids take? I doubt it. And I didn't say steroids do no good, I just said that they would be more likely to hinder a performer. You have to have the skills to hit the ball regardless. Steroids will not do that, all you people who have never taken steroids or only know the bad stuff you hear from TV have no clue what you are talking about. The reason they are so widely used is because people think they can take steroids and become a badass, which is not the case. They "hinder a performer"? I thought you said the only side effect of steroids is "excellence"? The idea that so many baseball players are complete idiots, who take something that hurts their play for a benefit that won't arrive, is more than a little far-fetched. By your own logic, since they're taking steroids, they should know what they do, right? I don't really see Alex Sanchez and Deivi Mendez thinking to themselves, Boy, what a badass I'll be. But, wow, I sure wish I could have seen Barry without the roids. He could have hit 80, 90 homers, then.

QUOTE(Shadows @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 01:33 PM) Im willing to bet you know absolutely nothing about steroids except for "they're bad".. Steroids will not help you hit the ball, that is still a skill that you have to be able to do on your own, if anything, the bulk that you put on from steroids would hinder that ability. Steroids make your muscles grow, your tendons and ligaments do not. If they help so much, why is Bonds pretty much the only player who has done anything while "on them". Why isn't Neifi Perez badass? Why did Jason Giambi crumble, yet Bonds has shown no sign of slowing down? What about those 100 or so unnamed players who failed tests in 2003 when they first tested? That's terrible logic. Neifi Perez wasn't even taking steroids. But let's say he was -- noone's saying that Bonds was a crappy player before taking steroids. Perez is a crappy player. 120% (or whatever) of crap is still crap. Not all roiders use the same regimen, nor do they all react in exactly the same way or at the same rate, nor did they all start using at exactly the same time. Bonds isn't the only player who did anything while on them. Raffy had a nice career, McGwire and Sosa had a year you might have heard something about, and Giambi did well enough to get one of those Yankee throw-money-at-it contracts. And you didn't answer Tex's question -- If they do no good or (as you say) hurt performance, why are steroids so widely used in baseball?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 1, 2007 -> 10:08 PM) # of starts per year is down # of innings pitched by starters is down Managers are more likely to go to their bullpens earlier Most players don't stick around as long as they used to, because they can retire earlier Way more injuries, DL trips, surgery's etc for starters It is just getting harder and harders statistically for pitchers to win this many games, and it is happening less and less. Heck if you want to talk about the 80s, look at how far the number of IP and starts have gone down just since then, even with still having 5 man rotations. Looking at Glavine, though, he never did any of those things. He pitched 32-36 starts in a normal year, and never more than 36, and his high for ip was 247, which wouldn't be very strange today. The fact that there are more dl trips and surgeries doesn't mean that the same pitchers would have more injuries, more that guys who would otherwise be forced out of the league get another shot to play. And guys like Clemens and Maddux didn't want to retire, even though they definitely could have. I just don't see anything that isn't reproducible. I think we've just had a string of good luck in seeing so many great pitchers on good-to-great teams in such a short period of time. People look around and don't see anyone like that right now, and jump to the conclusion that we'll never see another one. It may take a while, but there'll be another 300-game winner.

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 3, 2007 -> 03:09 PM) ... you guys were gettin off to them in the past....?? QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 04:24 PM) I want to make love to the neck fuzz

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 02:55 PM) That's funny because Kos is a Cubs fan. Didn't know that. Was that the reason for the boos, or do the bloggers just have exceptional taste?

Good Kos!, good Kos!!! From the Washington Post, on Hil-dog's reception at Yearly Kos: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7080401324.html

QUOTE(whitesoxfan99 @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 01:01 PM) He has the most hits because he was a very good hitter for a long time but that still doesn't mean he belongs in the top 3. Loo at his numbers next to guys like Gehrig, Musial, Hornsby, Aaron and they pale in comparison. He hit for a good average and did a good job getting on base. But he didn't hit for power, and his average and OBP is actually significantly lower than guys like Gehrig and Musial. Exactly. Aaron's a good comp. Almost exactly the same in career avg and obp, but a huge difference in slugging pct, homers. Rose's only advantage is 500 more hits, many of which came during a mediocre twilight when he was just trying to get the record. I don't think you reasonably put Rose above Aaron. Mantle and Bonds should be higher than both. And Mantle's got to be in the top ten, at least.

QUOTE(briguy27 @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 01:15 AM) Now you've taken it too far. Steroids and HGH, whether or not he took them, don't improve hitting ability and hand-eye coordination. He still had to amazing hand-eye and hitting ability to hit those homers, steroids or not. Here's my top 10. 1. Bonds 2. Ruth 3. Cobb 4. Gwynn 5. Rose 6. H Wagner 7. DiMaggio 8. A-Rod 9. Hammerin' Hank 10. Ichiro 10. Mantle That's awful. Any 'best hitters' list without Williams deserves to be tossed without a second look. Gehrig too.

QUOTE(Shadows @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 12:17 AM) I think going to federal prison is prolly a much, much bigger concern than any of that For him, yes. For me, no, not at all.

QUOTE(Shadows @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 11:45 PM) Ok, Ruth was clearly the best player of his ERA.. congratulations, he was better than all white players in the early 1900's. Yeah, he was a phenomenon, again congratulations (AGAIN) that he was the best white player out of a league of white players. Satchel Paige is regarded as one of the greatest pitchers ever and he was considered, what, the 9th best pitcher in the Negro Leagues? All they needed to do was let black guys play and it would have been game over for the white guys. He was the best player in his era... but in this era, he wouldn't have been s***.. this isn't beer league softball.. Paige's MLB career was pretty inconsequential (I mean, obviously, in terms of actual production). His real legacy depends almost entirely on his Negro League career. It's not easy to compare black players to white players. The very first guys were, unsurprisingly, among the best (like Robinson). Others (like Paige) were past their prime. But to claim that all white players were just inferior is completely baseless. When Robinson showed up, he was a GREAT player. But he wasn't in a different league. Ruth was. If you want to argue that Josh Gibson is better than Ruth, fine. They were both great, and I can't really compare the two. But Bonds is still well behind Ruth in terms of his career, when compared to his peers. That's with the roid-dependent numbers, and I don't think anyone could credibly argue that the big gap could be made up just because of discrimination. Take away the roids and the comparison is laughable.

QUOTE(Shadows @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 11:33 PM) Haha yes, Ruth who not only played against inferior talent than Bonds has but also doesn't even have better overall numbers than Bonds is clearly better.. Please. It's convenient but absurd to ignore the era in which they played. Bonds was an excellent player, often the best in the league. Ruth was a phenomenon. When Bonds outhomers every other team in his league, let me know. And if he could do it without steroids, I might even consider your argument.

QUOTE(Shadows @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 11:21 PM) Hes still the greatest of all time regardless No, no, he's not. Even with his absurdly roid-reliant golden years, he's nowhere close to Ruth. Not even ballpark.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 11:16 PM) A bunch were on steroids. Few as blatantly and defiantly as Bonds, but no -- Bonds isn't a greater hitter than Ruth, Gehrig, Williams, DiMaggio, Mays...you know why? He may be better -- and even that is dubious, in my opinion -- but he isn't greater. You can't be great being a cheat. You're replying to, "Bonds is the greatest hitter of his time".

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 11:13 PM) Well, ESPN should be ashamed of themselves, as they didn't break into the X-Games telecast to show the AB or a highlight. And Mr. Pratt....Bonds is the greatest hitter of his time, and it's not even close. So many players were on steroids, and he still dominated. Were they allowed to broadcast it? "So many players" does not mean all of them. He may have been the best natural hitter, but we'll never know.

QUOTE(Shadows @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 11:13 PM) Hes not just the greatest hitter of his time, hes the greatest hitter of all time..

He's the youngest ever to 500, right? That is more impressive than the arbitrary milestone, imho.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 10:49 PM) Steroids or not, he's the greatest hitter of my lifetime. I'm not a big historical guy, but this is still very neat to see. And I still love his homerun 'trot'. Everybody else was wondering whether he got enough of it, he knew it the whole way. Except we can throw out the "or not" part.

QUOTE(maggsmaggs @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 06:14 PM) With training camp starting, I figured I would ask the question. Pretty eager. It wouldn't have anything to do with you winning last year, would it? What is the deal? Will there be Soxtalk football leagues this year, or will they all be run through Talkbears?

Even the Tigers broadcaster was excited watching that ball go out. Something like, "...way out into the night. Josh Fields with a majestic home run." I enjoyed listening to that.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 3, 2007 -> 01:49 PM) Thats really the beauty of the cover-2. We arent totally f***ed until Urlacher leaves. Or until the other team can gash the middle of our d-line. Both Urlacher and Harris are essential. Maybe Walker will be a sufficient backup -- hopefully we won't have to find out.