Friday, August 31, 2007

Beemer Update - One Year Later

These two are the day after surgery at the vet hospital:




Here's Beemer shortly after surgery last year with his wheelchair:

He did not like the wheels very much at all. I think it inspired him to get better. They did help him get the feeling of his legs back underneath him, supporting his weight, until he got his strength back. They were kind of like crutches to him.

And here he is almost a year later, and virtually a full recovery.


He still has some problems with bladder control, he's not 100% back in that regard and likely never will be. He still walks a bit stiff and awkward at times, but he can run pretty good and can and does climb the stairs and jump off the couch, even though he's not supposed to. We've Beemer-proofed the house somewhat, so he can't hurt himself with his over-exuberance.

I know I said right after the surgery, that he was a tough, feisty little dog and if it was possible to fight through the initial prognosis and get better, I thought he would be able to. Well, I'm happy to say that HE DID IT!! It's good to have my little, floppy-eared dynamo greeting me at the door when I get home.

Friday, August 24, 2007

LLWS and Pitch Counts: Some Questions??



Really, I hate always coming off like an old-man on the porch shooing kids off the front yard, but it's hard for me to watch the Little League World Series with this issue as a major backdrop. And Erin Andrews sniffing an overly ripe parent in the right-field bleachers, while interesting, doesn't make for entertaining television.

It's the new Pitch Count Rule and it's effect on arm injuries juxtaposed with how the new rule effects the viewing product. Early returns are the effect is somewhat akin to peeing in your gas tank. Watching the aluminum bat swing mechanics (close to horrible) that produce 245 foot home runs just tosses me into a twisted rage. Anyway, here it goes.

FROM THE ST.PETE. TIMES: Little League pitchers: How young is too young?

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/08/01/Sports/Little_League_pitcher.shtml


Little League and the University of North Carolina are in the second year of a five-year study that examines the effect of breaking pitches. Eaton said developing ulnar collateral ligaments typically can withstand about 35 pounds of pressure and throwing a fastball "with a goodly amount of speed" exerts around 65 pounds of pressure. Eaton said twisting the elbow to throw a curveball weakens the muscles' stability that surround the UCL.


Little League recommends pitchers under the age of 14 not throw breaking balls, but that advice has fallen mostly on deaf ears. At the Section 7, 9-10 All-Star tournament last month, breaking balls weren't an uncommon sight.

"I watched a 9-year-old kid throw two curveballs for every five pitches," Southwest coach Ron Rhoads said. "Then I look in the dugout and see the (opposing) coach is calling them. Absolutely crazy."


This goes back to my rant about the answer rarely comes from the source of the problem. Rarely, if ever.

All of the following questions (derived just from watching a couple of un-watchable games) have the potential to pollute the numbers obtained from the "pitch-count during games only" survey. I wonder how each of these conditions are accounted for in the survey. In reality, most of them are beyond the control of the researchers.

Unless, you survey the parents/coaches and they are willing to verbally account for every pitch or throw their child/player makes in "chasing the dream", I'm not sure you have the proper environment to make reasonable conclusions regardless of what the data shows.

And not many parents/coaches are going to openly admit to the lengths they go to in order to get the perceived "exposure" their child/player needs to succeed. Most are borderline delusional or incompetent in these matters. Notice I'm not sure where you can separate the parents and coaches complicity, and in some cases, parent and coach are one and the same. Anyway, the answers would get massaged in order to avoid the perception that they are knowingly putting their child at additional risk of injury.

MY QUESTIONS:

SIDE GAMES OR THROWING:
1) The announcers talked about some of the side games between the teams in the tournament that were played in between the "regular" games where the pitches were being counted. Presumably there are pitches thrown during these games that don't count against the total. If coaches are involved, the top pitchers are likely throwing, hey you might face these teams down the road, you need to establish dominance and all.

PITCHING COACHES AND THROWING DURING TRAINING:
2) Players from one team mentioned how all the pitchers had "personal pitching coaches" who work on their mechanics. You have to throw to work on your mechanics and some of the tosses are under stress and duress levels comparable to games.

TRAVEL TEAMS/MULTIPLE TEAMS AND YEAR ROUND THROWING:
3) Much was made last year of one of the teams participation in travel baseball. The cameras actually showed the Mom of one of the prominent pitchers, in the stands, keeping score, and wearing the pullover of the TRAVEL TEAM. How are these pitches accounted for in the pitch count survey.

KIDS WHO PLAY MULTIPLE SPORTS:
4) This year, one the teams feature stories revolved around the fact that their football team was waiting for most of the members of the baseball teams season to conclude so they could get some of their players back on the field. I actually think this is a positive. But I wonder if the researchers are accounting for the multi-sport athlete vs. the specialist athlete. Are they parsing the data to account for these sub-groups? It would be interesting to see how the data fell among these two groups.

TV INFLUENCE ON THE RULE:
5) Gary Thorne was quick to bemoan the constant pitching changes extending the time of the games. The pitching changes are an unintended change to the game resulting from the rule. The other one is the prevalence of 10-run rule games resulting from the 7th or 8th pitcher on the roster pitching so coaches can navigate the #1 and# 2 pitchers through the constraints of the pitch count rules. How much of an influence will TV have on further changes to the rule, the result of the apparent changes
in the quality of the product as a made for TV event?

I hate to always sound like a skeptic, but until they can bring all these factors under the umbrella of the research, I'm not sure the results of the study will have much value in stemming the rising tide of arm injuries among youth baseball pitchers.

And I worry that the result will be unduly influenced by how the future product is received by Big Daddy Warbucks (ESPN) and his bag of corporate sponsors. Stay tuned.

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

VICK PLEADS TO CHARGES



There are no winners in this situation unfortunately. Oh I'm sure in some ways PETA and the ASPCA will have some measure of victory for a cause they've been fighting to bring to light for many years.

But if some real good is to come from this, my hope is that young players on the collegiate and high school level realize that behavior is important regardless of who you are, that character counts. However, the coaches and administrators at those levels have to show the same desire to do the right thing as the federal prosecutors showed by swooping in before the Surrey County prosecutors had the chance to allow this crime to be washed away by using their "favorite-son" home court advantage with Michael Vick.

Now it's Roger Goodell's turn to show that his newly-minted conduct policy applies to star players as well as the 53rd man on the roster. If his policy is to have any teeth and any hope of modifying behavior, he has to show the same type of discipline he showed Pac-Man, Tank and Chris Henry. Because to my knowledge, other than Tank, nobody else went to jail yet for what they did to bring the NFL wrath down on them. And like Tank's time-out, the Vick punishment has to run consecutively with the federal sentence, not concurrently. If it runs concurrently, it will send the message that they aren't really serious, that there are two tiers of rules, one for the marquee players and one for the replacement parts. Watch what they do, not what they say. It's was easy to say they wanted to be tough on bad behavior when the player was easily replaceable. Let's see how easy it is now.

Finally, on a side note, it's my opinion that unless Vick gets some serious psychological counseling and maybe some spiritual counseling, that there is no chance that he comes back, never mind as a player, but as a person. I see all the talking heads speculating on "How soon will he be back?" instead of focusing on what kind of person will he be when he does get back? How are we going to go about changing the heart and mind of a person who would do the type of things that were done without conscience and remorse? It's always easy to be sorry after you got caught. Something is wrong in the heart and the soul of a person who would do the things he would do when he thought nobody was looking. When he thought he wouldn't get caught.

But he has taken the first step on the road to rehabilitation and gaining back the respect of the fans. Some are focused on what he's lost. A lot of money, endorsement, prestige and fame. And yet when I heard he had taken that first step, I heard the words from Tony Dungy's book "Quiet Strength: Principles, Practices & Priorities of a Winning Life" running through my mind.

"And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?"
--Matthew 16:26

Michael Vick needs to focus not on the world he just lost, but instead on finding his own soul. I hope at sometime during his rehabilitation that Michael hears those words and understands those words. Because at that point he will have taken the most important step back. Peace.

Are Baseball Umpires Racist?




I suppose we should have seen this one coming a mile away after the NBA officials racism study, by the same authors, I believe. Here goes. I have the entire study, but I'm going to wait until after I relax a little before going over it in depth.

What I read on the first run through indicated that Questec had an effect on reducing the number of "bad" or "biased" calls. That's kind of a "No, duh" conclusion. Questec was intended to get umpires, who years ago had strike zone's as unique as their personalities, back to the rule-book definition. So it's not unusual to report that the device is doing what it was supposed to do.

Secondly, they report that higher attendance tends to reduce errors. Well, who'd have thought that? You mean during a big game, your adrenaline wouldn't pump, your focus wouldn't increase versus a poorly attended game? I would not have guessed that researchers. I guess that's why you fellas get the big bucks. Excellent Stuff.

Third, from the Time article:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1652338,00.html


Hamermesh, who has studied discrimination at all levels, says that bias is instilled in infancy — much like enduring personality traits such as shyness or high self-esteem — as an essential part of human behavior. "We all have these subconscious preferences for our own group," he says.

Does this remind you of the phrase "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Selection Bias on Line Three.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fannation.com/blogs/post/51336

Are Baseball Umpires Racist?
1 day ago :: 1344 Views
Time magazine is reporting that, "According to a new
study led by Daniel Hamermesh, a professor of
economics at the University of Texas at Austin, Major
League Baseball umpires tend to call more strikes when
the pitcher is of their same race. When they're not,
umps call more balls. It doesn't happen all the time -
in about 1% of pitches thrown - but that's still one
pitch per game, and it could be the one that makes the
difference."

The magazine goes on to say that Hamermesh reached
this conclusion after he and his team of researchers
"analyzed the calls on 2.1 million pitches thrown in
the Major League between the 2004 and 2006 seasons."

What's your initial reaction to the report?

------------------------------------------------------------
One call per game? And that shows bias? The only way
they could be less "Biased" is if they were perfect.
So does this show anything other than they are
somewhere between human and total F-ups, but closer to
perfect than anything. What am I missing here?

And even Questec has a margin of error on what it
considers a "bad" call and a "right" call, because by
definition the calls have some bit of subjectivity
involved.

I umpire games and I've played before with umpires I
thought were biased against me (because I'm short) and
you'd have to mess up 1 call per at bat to take the
bat out of a teams hands, that would be a ratio of
around one bad call per 6-7 pitches on average.
Otherwise, even if you were trying to hose a team, the
batter still has the bat in his hand and can
reasonably insure that the ball doesn't even get back
to the home plate umpire. No calls in that situation.

I'd have to see more than this or more than 1% before
I'm convinced
----------------------------------------------------------
1% of 75 calls is actually less than 1 call per game. Seems like we're really splitting hairs here and imaging a Bogey-man in that one call. The only way you can do better than one call in error per game, it seems to me, is to call a perfect game. Laudable goal. But a goal nonetheless.

When I umpire, my goal is to have only one ball/strike call per game per team that I would like to have back. That I think I missed for reasons that never have to do with race. Catcher moves and blocks your sight, pitch fools you (it happens), check swings, etc.

SI did a story where one of it's reporters umpired MLB pre-season games, he reported Questec showed a 5% error rate among umpires vs. the computers subjective opinion. Seems high but I suppose it's possible.

Zambrano got the benefit of two ?? calls vs. Pujols last night. Either the ump was clearly off-center with his positioning, or he was delivering a message to Pujols re: complaining about calls.

Sometimes academic studies don't include a good grasp of what happens "down in the trenches".

Sunday, August 19, 2007

WHAT ARE THE ODDS?



From the Baseball Prospectus Website, an interesting display of the odds of each MLB team making the playoffs from August 15th to the end of the season.

Unfortunately, most teams are clearly out of it. Only 6 AL teams have better than a 3% chance of making the playoffs. In the NL, 10 teams are left with hope. So in total, 16 of 30 teams are still alive.

We are at approximately the comparable equivalent of week twelve in the NFL season. In most seasons, by week twelve, virtually no teams have been eliminated. So much for competitive balance.

I still think this is the #1 issue for both the owners and the players to solve before fans in the "no-chance" league get tired of watching the "modern day St. Louis Browns" and really do have to fold the tent due to lack of interest.


http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/ps_odds.php


Average wins by position in AL East: 98.6 90.9 82.7 76.7 61.8
AL East W L Pct3 Avg W Avg L Champions Wild Card Playoffs
Red Sox 72 47 .619 98.4 63.6 91.68000 7.59686 99.27686
Yankees 67 52 .579 90.9 71.1 8.24590 60.59689 68.84280
Blue Jays 60 58 .539 82.2 79.8 .07305 2.25895 2.33200
Orioles 55 63 .530 77.3 84.7 .00105 .06524 .06629
Devil Rays 45 74 .439 61.8 100.2 .00000 .00000 .00000

Average wins by position in AL Central: 90.6 86.5 80.9 74.3 69.3
AL Central W L Pct3 Avg W Avg L Champions Wild Card Playoffs
Tigers 66 53 .527 88.9 73.1 56.24541 4.29476 60.54016
Indians 65 54 .518 87.8 74.2 41.18094 5.75573 46.93667
Twins 59 60 .503 81.0 81.0 2.55227 .40866 2.96093
White Sox 54 64 .436 73.4 88.6 .01961 .00176 .02137
Royals 52 66 .420 70.4 91.6 .00177 .00011 .00187

Average wins by position in AL west: 93.1 87.4 80.3 71.9
AL West W L Pct3 Avg W Avg L Champions Wild Card Playoffs
Angels 69 48 .532 92.4 69.6 78.60670 5.63387 84.24057
Mariners 66 51 .493 87.9 74.1 20.86130 13.01564 33.87694
Athletics 58 62 .529 80.3 81.7 .53115 .37144 .90259
Rangers 52 66 .458 72.1 89.9 .00085 .00010 .00095

Average wins by AL Wild Card: 91.6

Average wins by position in NL East: 92.5 88.1 84.4 76.8 71.3
NL East W L Pct3 Avg W Avg L Champions Wild Card Playoffs
Mets 66 52 .568 91.6 70.4 70.72263 16.16317 86.88580
Phillies 63 55 .525 86.2 75.8 12.55288 22.10151 34.65439
Braves 63 56 .548 87.1 74.9 16.67778 27.65551 44.33329
Marlins 56 63 .478 76.4 85.6 .04530 .13982 .18512
Nationals 54 65 .434 71.9 90.1 .00140 .00204 .00344

Average wins by position in NL Central: 86.7 83.0 78.6 74.2 70.9 66.9
NL Central W L Pct3 Avg W Avg L Champions Wild Card Playoffs
Brewers 62 57 .502 84.8 77.2 52.19562 1.62170 53.81733
Cubs 60 58 .511 84.1 77.9 41.36327 1.81828 43.18155
Cardinals 56 60 .466 78.6 83.4 6.02625 .21537 6.24162
Astros 54 65 .433 73.3 88.7 .28139 .00214 .28353
Reds 51 67 .456 71.5 90.5 .12698 .00020 .12718
Pirates 49 68 .417 68.1 93.9 .00649 .00003 .00653

Average wins by position in NL West: 89.7 86.6 84.0 80.7 70.6
NL West W L Pct3 Avg W Avg L Champions Wild Card Playoffs
Diamondbacks 67 53 .470 86.6 75.4 32.97483 10.17778 43.15261
Padres 64 54 .526 87.3 74.7 42.99795 9.54745 52.54540
Rockies 61 57 .526 84.5 77.5 16.47985 6.75708 23.23693
Dodgers 60 59 .533 82.7 79.3 7.54648 3.79743 11.34391
Giants 50 69 .479 70.6 91.4 .00089 .00049 .00138

Average wins by NL Wild Card: 88.8

© 2007 Prospectus Entertainment Ventures

Thursday, August 16, 2007

BASEBALL AMERICA TODAY


If you heard the following description for a new sports supplement:

- POWERFUL NEW FORMULA
- HIGH ANABOLIC CAPACITY
- THREE TIMES MORE POWERFUL THAN STEROIDS
- INCREASES MUSCLE MASS (7-10% in only 10-20 days)
- DECREASES BODY FAT (4-6% in only 10-20 days)
- FAST ACTING STRENGTH AND ENDURANCE FORMULA
- PLAY DOUBLE HEADER AFTER DOUBLE HEADER AT PEAK MENTAL AND PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE
WITHOUT EVER GETTING TIRED


Would you guess that you had just learned about:

A) BALCO's newest product to help Barry Bonds crush HR's and test clean?
B) a perfectly legal product tested as safe and steroid free by MLB, the NFL and the International Olympic Committee?

Now be honest, 95% of sports fans would choose A), and of course would be wrong.

The claims listed above come from a full page ad appearing in the August 26,2007 edition of "Baseball America".

The product is marketed by Larry Mayol of Star Care Inc. Sports Training in St. Petersburg, FL. I met Larry around 1990, when he did an arm-care clinic for Little League Baseball at the Southern Regional Headquarters in Gulfport FL. So I know he cares for kids and their long-term health.

It turns out the product is a natural sports supplement, and it's perfectly legal. It does not contain any substance listed in MLB's Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program. And it has been tested and approved by Major League Baseball. Sound too good to be true? It's even been used to improve the performance in astronauts. I would think NASA scientists would know a thing or two about what is good for their most precious cargo.

Whenever strength coaches, who are concerned about getting results but also doing things the right way, get together and discuss the state of training and sports performance, the conclusion you hear mentioned most often, that makes the most sense, is that we won't be able to remove steroids from the sports landscape until we are able to replicate the results one would expect to obtain from steroids, without the risky side effects. And I don't think you have to even beat the results steroids could deliver, given that they carry the baggage of the known side effects.

This is true whether you're talking about nutritional supplements or developing training protocols. In the real world, you're talking about combining improved methods and knowledge in both areas to get the best results for athletes.

The early returns for substances like this product, which contains ecdysterone, or other past product hopefuls like creatine, is that you are able to closely approximate the results of anabolic (muscle-building) agents like steroids, without the negative side effects.

I know most people do not want to believe that advances in legal nutrition and supplementation could possibly have taken us this far. but if you believe the numbers quoted:

A 200 pound athlete - with 15% Body Fat - would begin with:
170 lbs. of lean muscle mass and
30 lbs. of Body Fat

After 10-20 days, 10-20 days now, not an entire off-season, 10-20 days, he would end up with:

187 lbs. of lean muscle mass (170 lbs + 10% increase = 187.7 lbs.)
28 lbs. of Body Fat ( 30 lbs. to start less 6% = 28.2 lbs. )
which equals
215 lbs. Total Body Weight - 28 lbs. Body Fat (13.5% BF) and 187 lbs. of Muscle Mass

So our hypothetical athlete would have gained 15 pounds and improved his body composition overall in 10-20 days. And we hear all the time how impossible it is to put on 20 pounds in one off-season ( 3 months off-season equals approximately 90 days).

Again, I'll say in conclusion, I think the people that pontificate the most about the issue of performance enhancement in sports, know the least about the issues and the realities that are out there in the real world today. They are stuck in the disco era or prior, rubbing rosary beads and praying for a return the way things were and will never be again.

Ecdysterone


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More about Ecdysterone from Athletes.com


http://www.athletes.com/store/ecdy.html


Studies conducted in the Soviet Union in 1988 showed ecdysterone helps "increase hepatic protein synthesis and subsequently promote positive nitrogen balance!" How does this lead to more muscle mass? Simply: "the more nitrogen your body maintains and the greater rate of protein synthesis, the more mass, period." How, exactly, does ecdysterone do this? V. Smetanin, researcher of the Smolenk State Medical Institute in Russia speculates that ecdysterone decreases urea concentration in the body and increases hemoglobin levels by increasing a process called erythropoiesis. Erythropoiesis is the development of mature red blood cells. This leads to a stimulation of the anabolic process in protein metabolism, which in turn leads to a positive nitrogen balance in the body.


Increase Lean Muscle Mass While Reducing Body Fat
The most often quoted ecdysterone scientific study was published in Scientific Sports Bulletin by S. Simakin in 1988. The objective of Simakin's famous study was to determine the effect of ecdysterone on muscle tissue mass and fat mass, while testing for hormonal changes in the subjects. For the study, three control factors were used: a placebo, protein, and ecdysterone with protein. The results were significantly in favor of the third factor. Of the 78 highly trained male and female athletes who consumed just protein, they showed only a slight increase in muscle mass for the 10 day period of time. Those who used a placebo lost a slight amount of lean muscle, while those who used protein plus ecdysterone showed a 6-7% increase in lean muscle tissue with nearly a 10% reduction in fat! Let me say that again: A 10% reduction in fat and a 7% increase in lean muscle tissue in just 10 days! Safety testing was conducted during the same time period which showed no difference in hormonal balance. Wow, if ecdysterone plus protein can do this for highly trained athletes, just think what it can do for the average person!

It's interesting to note the amount of Ecdysterone these Soviet Studies used. According to Derek Cornelius, "Most of the experiments used 5 mg per kilogram of body mass per day as the dosage." To find out how much you would need to take to supply this same amount of ecdysterone, use this equation:

MG/KG X Your Weight = Dosage:
In Kilograms: 5 mg X 78 kg = 386
In Pounds: 5 mg X 170lbs / 2.2lbs = 386


So, the average person should consume 300-600 mg of ecdysterone per day to meet this dosage. This compound is so non-toxic that this is a perfectly safe amount to consume. Syntrax Syntrabol is currently the only product that supplies enough mg of ecdysterone (200 mg per capsule) to effectively supplement at the 600 mg level.


Increase Stamina, Endurance, and Energy
Ecdysterone was tested in another study performed in 1986 by B.Ya Smetanin. For this research, 117 highly trained speed skaters between the ages of 18 and 28 were tested for work capacity, body weight, lung capacity and VO2 max. The results speak for themselves: all of the said parameters increased as well as an increase in the O2 pulse max and an increase in the exhalation of CO2. Basically, they received more oxygen to their cells! This equates to decreasing recovery time, maximizing performance, permitting optimal muscle anabolism and maximum fat reduction. It also means the athletes using ecdysterone compared to those on a placebo experienced increased stamina, endurance and energy.

That's not all! A study conducted using 112 athletes performed by B.G. Fadeev in Russia showed some very impressive overall results. However, by this time, the results should come as no surprise. 89% of those who supplemented with ecdysterone versus a placebo reported less fatigue, greater performance, more motivation, greater speed, and improved strength. How long did it take before these athletes reported these effects? Months? Weeks? No, five days. To make matters even better, no adverse side effects were reported.


Who needs it and what are some symptoms of deficiency?

Bodybuilders, athletes and fitness enthusiasts will find the extra gains in lean muscle mass and reduction in body fat very beneficial. Based on all the research, Ecdysterone looks to be not only incredibly effective as a performance enhancer on all facets, but also very safe. Since it is not a required nutrient, there are no symptoms of deficiency. However, if you would like to experience more energy and strength gains in less time than you've probably ever experienced, grab some ecdysterone and protein because you are the perfect candidate! Check out the section below to learn more on side effects and recommended dosages.

How much should be taken? Are there any side effects?

What about side effects? That's the best part! As you already know by now, research studies show no negative side effects, no hormonal interactions, and a very low toxicity level for ecdysterone. When tested by ICN Biochemicals on December 31, 1998, a complete safety test was performed to determine the toxicity. The data showed the amount of ecdysterone one would have to take in order to reach toxicity. The amount? 6400 mg/kg! In other words, an average 170lb person would have to take 494,528 mg of the compound to reach this point! This is 4,121 times as much as the recommended dose.
So, as you can see, it's very safe with an incredibly low toxicity. Furthermore, endocrine testing showed that ecdysterone caused no effect whatsoever on the mammalian hormonal system. Testing was measured on testosterone, cortisol, insulin, ACTH, growth hormone, and leutinizing hormone. The data not only shows ecdysterone to be extremely safe, but effective as well! The recommended dose of ecdysterone is 80-120 mg per day and upwards of 400-600 mg per day. We've even heard reports of people receiving amazing results working up to using as much as 1200 mg safely per day. Bodybuilding.com recommends Syntrax Syntrabol for higher doses of ecdysterone because each capsule contains ecdysterone standardized for 200 mg, the highest potency on the market. Remember, ecdysterone should be taken with protein-rich meals for best results!

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

MLB DRAFT PICKS TURN INTO PUMPKINS AT MIDNIGHT TONIGHT




According to MLB.com the Devil Rays have signed first overall pick David Price.


http://tampabay.devilrays.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070815&content_id=2150900&vkey=news_tb&fext=.jsp&c_id=tb


BOSTON -- With an 11:59 p.m. ET signing deadline approaching, the Devil Rays brought David Price into the fold around 5 p.m. on Wednesday, signing the top pick of Major League Baseball's June 2007 First-Year Player Draft to an $11.25 million deal.

Price, whom the Rays selected with the top pick in this year's Draft, signed a big league deal that covers six years (2007-12).

Price's signing bonus is $5.6 million. Within the contract is Minor League salaries that add up to $2.9 million and Major League salaries adding up to $5.65 million. A total of $8.5 million -- the bonus, plus the Minor League salaries -- is guaranteed.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of local interest, the Tigers signed their First Round pick Rick Porcello and a flurry of other players of note, including local product, Kaneland High School left handed pitcher Casey Crosby.


http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070815&content_id=2150111&vkey=news_det&fext=.jsp&c_id=det


CLEVELAND -- As the days whittled down for teams to sign their picks from the First-Year Player Draft, Tigers vice president of amateur scouting David Chadd summed up his club's stance succinctly last week.

"We took these players," he said, "to sign them."

It took a lot, and it sent ripples through the rest of the baseball, but they are signed.

The Tigers' four-year, $7.28 million Major League contract for Seton Hall [N.J.] Prep right-hander Rick Porcello was still generating talk around clubs on Wednesday while the club formally introduced its newest pitching prospect. Yet while the merits and effectiveness of Major League Baseball's unwritten slotting system continue to be debated, the talent that the Tigers just added to their farm system is more tangible.

Detroit put at least three players' worth of talent into its system with deals finalized this week. In addition to Porcello's big-league contract, the Tigers finalized agreements with high school lefty Casey Crosby and infielder Cale Iorg, taken in the fifth and sixth rounds, respectively.

All three players were projected to be taken higher than they actually were, but fell due in no small part to signability concerns. All three signed for money that well exceeded MLB's recommendations for their pick.

Wednesday's conference call to introduce Porcello became the Tigers' stage to make their case when the topic arose. Their argument was that while they understand the slotting system, they also believe in the idea of different cases for different players.

Crosby, a lanky southpaw out of Kaneland High School in Illinois, has pitched this summer and is expected to be ready sooner. Chadd said he could end up pitching in the Gulf Coast League by season's end.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congratulations, to Casey. It's great to see this type of success come to this type of youngster who is as good a person as he is an athlete, and that's saying something.


http://www.pgcrosschecker.com/draft/2007/statebystate/states/illinois_leadin.aspx



Rank Player Pos. Yr B-T HT WT School Hometown Drafted/(Commit) B’date
1. Casey Crosby LHP Sr. L-L 6-5 200 Kaneland HS Elburn (Illinois ) 9-17-88
SCOUTING REPORT: Crosby grew four inches and gained 10 mph on his fastball during his junior year, which quickly put him on the prospect charts. He’s still fairly raw as a pitcher but throws up to 94 mph consistently and fairly easily, which gives scouts plenty of opportunity to dream. Crosby’s arm action is long and flowing from a high three-quarters release point, and he is still working on his off-speed pitches. He throws both a curveball and slider, and his slider shows the most potential with mid-80s velocity and some two-plane bite. Crosby also throws a couple of types of changeups that are works in progress. He is regarded as an above-average athlete and was a star football wide receiver who caught 76 passes for 19 touchdowns his senior year. That, in combination with his height, easy velocity and improved curve should get him drafted in the top two rounds.




The early returns showed most teams following the slot strategy, but the Tigers aggressively went after the talent they targeted and, as we discussed in our "draft day coverage", ended up with two guys, in Porcello and Crosby, who fell to them as "value picks" in the first and fifth round, despite being ranked higher by most prognosticators than where they were drafted.

Crosby in effect, is paid at approximately the slot money for a 40th pick overall, which is where Baseball America had him ranked, rather than slot money for a fifth rounder. The Crosby's stuck by their guns and found a team that was willing to pay market value for his talent rather than stick to major league's slot system.

Any time you can thumb thumb your nose at Bud Selig, your having a good day in my book. This de-facto collusion that the MLB owners practice, in attempting to implement that which they cannot negotiate at the bargaining table with the players (as the NBA does with it's rookie salary slot system or the NFL with it's rookie salary cap) is so transparent and comedic that it's a wonder any team continues to hamstring itself by going along. It renders the whole purpose of the draft, which is to allow the teams that finish last to draft first and in theory get the best talent to attempt to compete in the future. Savvy players and agents are able to dictate what teams they go to and circumvent the original and main purpose of the draft.

UPDATE: AFTER THE SMOKE FOR THE LAST-MINUTE SIGNING FLURRY CLEARED, 14 OF THE TOP 30 PICKS (1ST ROUNDERS) SIGNED FOR OVER THE RECOMMENDED SLOT MONEY. I REST MY CASE.


http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/sports/510518,2_2_AU15_CROSBY_S1.article


Crosby signs with Tigers
Kaneland star pitcher gets $748,500 contract, plus college money

August 15, 2007
BY RICK ARMSTRONG Staff Writer

Now that the money games have been played, Casey Crosby can get about the business of playing baseball games. His patience paid off.

The touted 6-foot-4, 200-pound left-handed pitching prospect out of Kaneland High School agreed to terms Tuesday with the Detroit Tigers, who in the process again thumbed their nose at Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig.


Crosby was taken in the fifth round but has been described as having first-round talent. If that proves true, his $748,500 signing bonus along with funding for his college education to the tune of $21,000 per-semester for eight semesters and additional bonus incentives could be a steal for the Tigers.

However, that package is a significant step up from the maximum $126,000 Selig's office had slotted for the University of Illinois recruit's draft spot. He had until Wednesday to sign or would have headed to school in Champaign.



BONUSES FOR FIRST TEN ROUNDS: FROM PERFECT GAME WEBSITE (PRIOR TO TONIGHT'S ACTION)


http://www.pgcrosschecker.com/draft/2007/signing_bonuses/sb2007.aspx

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

WITH LOVE TO STEROID NATION - THE SLAV









Just so you don't think that I only notice the negative things that go on in this world, I want to note a great article that seems to mirror what I've been saying for years and years. Now that the Great Satan, Barry Bonds, is removed from our daily news and sports broadcasts, we may have time to reflect on some other pressing issues that effect both the world of sports and our nations youth.


http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2007/08/steroids-arent-.html


Steroids aren't the only problem in public health

08/14/2007
Steroids aren't the only problem in public health
We blog about steroids as a public health problem here. However, there is far more wrong in the USA public health domain than just steroids. Recent reports show that health care in the US is #42 (by one measure) and falling. The New York Times editorial is found here:

Here's a wrenching fact: If the U.S. had an infant mortality rate as good as Cuba's, we would save an additional 2,212 American babies a year.

Yes, Cuba's. Babies are less likely to survive in America, with a health care system that we think is the best in the world, than in impoverished and autocratic Cuba. According to the latest C.I.A. World Factbook, Cuba is one of 41 countries that have better infant mortality rates than the U.S.


The author cited many health issues that deserve our attention on a national level. Some that I really haven't thought about much, I have to admit. I've often said that when it comes to our nation's health, especially the health of our kids, the following topics rank as high or higher than steroids:

1. Concussions in football - really in almost any sport
2. Alcohol and tobacco use and abuse - I don't give it a pass because it's legal)
3. Other recreational drug use - amphetamines, cocaine, crack, inhalants, etc. have not gone away. Just because they aren't abused by sports stars, doesn't mean they don't deserve our attention and vigilance
4. Youth Obesity - again, just because it doesn't strike the athletic population as hard, doesn't mean it's not worthy of attention. You go, Shaq!!

Just in these areas, we could be facing a veritable tsunami of health issues in our future that will overwhelm an already rickety national health system. In a sense, the best thing to happen, the night Bonds hit #756 (other than Aaron's message) is we may finally be able to focus more attention on these issues.

OH LORDY!! Barry Bonds is going to go all Lance Armstrong on a MF'er!!











And it looks like the first MF'er is going to be that noted Wizard of Words, the current President of the "Why Didn't Barry Sue? - Why Didn't Barry Sue?" Club, none other than Curt Schilling.

These folks have the same simplistic logic and magpie-like talking points as the late Johnnie Cochran used to sway a jury in favor of Orenthal James (O.J.) Simpson, many years back.

"If glove doesn't fit, you must acquit." becomes "If Barry didn't sue, it must be true." Both quotes succeed in creating a diversion in the minds and the ears of the listening audience. And we like our logic to be simple don't we now? Otherwise, we might have to go to Bob Costas and Mike Lupica to explain stuff to us, and we don't want that.

In the Simpson case, it was the "mountain of evidence" pointing to his guilt. In the Bonds case, it is ANY PIECE of evidence or logical train of thought that would explain a scenario different than that which the listener would be inclined to believe about Bonds.

And now it appears that very shortly, the "Why Didn't he Sue?" crowd will go to wherever the "Hank Aaron doesn't approve" crowd is hanging out these days.

The good folks at Steroid Nation are breaking details of this story (along with a more restrained tone then they've exhibited in the past against one Barry Lamar Bonds):

http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2007/08/barry-bonds-to-.html


08/14/2007
Barry Bonds wants to sue you, but settles on targeting Curt Schilling
Alleged (note 'alleged') roid-monger Barry Bonds, the recent career home run king, announced that he contracted with two Bay-area lawyers to track down miscreants who would besmirch his good name. The accused juicer threatens to sue Curt Schilling or anyone making false statements about him or his large head.

A local Bay-area TV station(CBS5) first carried the story:

Now that Barry Bonds has passed Henry Aaron to become baseball's all-time home run king, he's threatening to sue anyone who makes false or misleading statements about him, two Bay Area attorneys said Monday.

Attorneys John Burris of Oakland and Todd Schneider of San Francisco said Bonds has retained them "in connection with legal issues arising from the myriad of false statements attributed to him by players, the media and others."

The attorneys, who are veteran civil rights litigators, said they believe "such statements are defamatory and have legal consequences."


I GUESS THIS MUST BE WHAT BONDS MEANT WHEN HE SAID, MY DAY WILL COME. These lawyers are going to busy for quite some time, I hope they're getting paid by the hour. But now that Bonds has the all-time HR record, I guess he can spend his money however he wants to.

Interesting to note that in the Steroid Nation commentary was this paragraph:
"According to The San Jose News, Bonds' old attorney, -- Michael Rains (maybe feeling some jealousy?) Note: words in parenthesis added by Steroid Nation


I posted this comment on their site, If they respond I'll let you know:
Explain to me why Rains would feel any jealousy that Bonds retained civil rights lawyers. Rains is a criminal defense lawyer, whose plate is rather full I'm sure.

The others are civil rights attorneys.

Attorneys specialize in narrow areas of the law. Rains may feel he has little or no competence in this arena.

Are you sure it's not some jealousy or envy or bias that you are showing?

I'M GUESSING THE ANSWER IS YES, BUT THE ANSWER (IF ANY) POSTED WILL BE SOME SORT OF J.K. LINE OF BULL. A TACTIC DISGUISED AS A J.K. IS A TACTIC NONETHELESS.

Monday, August 13, 2007

Barry Bonds 756 Entire at-bat, Message from Hank Aaron

Barry Bonds 756 Part 2/ Hank Aaron Speech



HANK AARON'S MESSAGE:

“I would like to offer my congratulations to Barry Bonds on becoming baseball’s career home run leader. It is a great accomplishment which required skill, longevity and determination.”

“Throughout the past century, the home run has held a special place in baseball, and I have been privileged to hold this record for 33 of those years. I move over now and offer my best wishes to Barry and his family on this historic achievement.

“My hope today, as it was on that April evening in 1974, is that the achievement of this record will inspire others to chase their own dreams.”

Good for Hank and good for baseball. It's too bad that all those erroneous reports documenting and interpreting Aaron's feelings regarding Bonds and the record turned out to be so close to the mark.

It just goes to show that you can't read what is inside a man's head or his heart merely by what he says. I'm sorry for the way these jokers made me feel about Aaron given the way the reports of his "feelings" were broadcast as fact. It was totally irresponsible to speak for the man by many who portrayed themselves as "insiders" and people who "knew" exactly how he felt, even when his spoken word conflicted with what they were reporting.

It seems like in hindsight as if many "responsible journalists" felt free to throw in liberal doses of their own personal animosities toward Bonds when speaking on behalf of Aaron. Yet you won't see any step up and offer any apologies. You won't see any retractions, you won't see any shame. But in fact, they all should be ashamed of themselves.

And it won't be too difficult to go back and find out who spoke out of turn and when. That's the fun part of the modern world, it's hard to run away from your record. That would be a fine research project to indulge in, wouldn't it?

Sunday, August 12, 2007

For the times they are a-changin'



Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.
- Bob Dylan

Times change; nothing stays the same. That's a given. Sometimes thing change with the passage of time that make you stand up, look back and wonder; "How in the heck did we get here?"




Johnny Weissmuller
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Johnny Weissmuller (June 2, 1904 – January 20, 1984) was an American swimmer and actor who was one of the world's best swimmers in the 1920s, winning five Olympic gold medals and one bronze medal. He won fifty-two US National Championships and set sixty-seven world records. After his swimming career, he became the sixth actor to portray Tarzan in films, a role he played in twelve motion pictures. Other actors also played Tarzan, but Weissmuller was the best-known. His character's distinctive, ululating Tarzan yell is still often used in films.

On July 9, 1922, Weissmuller broke Duke Kahanamoku's world record on the 100-meters freestyle, swimming it in 58.6 seconds.


Today, according to USA Swimming:
3 girls in the 11-12 year old category swam better times.
88 girls in the 13-14 year old category swam better times.
over 100 girls in the 15-16 year old category swam better times.
over 100 girls in the 17-18 year old category swam better times.

Now, Weismuller along with maybe Jim Thorpe, was considered to be one of the top athletes of the 1920's and 30's. He was Tarzan, the King of the Jungle. The embodiment of masculinity at the time. Babe Ruth's time. Lou Gehrig's time.

And now his times would not impress many high school womens swim coaches.

And yet the composition of water hasn't changed since the 20's such that athletes of today would have any material advantage. And the distance, 100 meters, has not changed from the 1920's to today, such that the comparison would be materially different.

In fact, it hasn't changed at all. So this would appear to be as much an apples to apples comparison of the athletes of one era when compared to another. So as much as we may want to remain romantically attached to the idea that what was great when we were young will continue to be great generations down the road, I would just respectfully say, I certainly hope not!!

I would hope that cars of today are better and safer and more efficient today then those made back in the days of the Model T. Even though it is still fascinating to look at the models of yesteryear and recognize that in their day, they reigned supreme.

It's called progress, or evolution if you will. Things change, times change. Not always for the better, but in most cases we advance forward.



Mark Spitz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mark Andrew Spitz (born February 10, 1950, in Modesto, California) is an American swimmer.

He holds the record for most gold medals won in a single Olympic Games (seven), which he set at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, Germany.

Between 1965 and 1972, Spitz won 9 Olympic gold medals, 1 silver, and 1 bronze; 5 Pan American golds; 31 National U.S. Amateur Athletic Union titles; and 8 U.S. National Collegiate Athletic Association Championships. During those years, he set 33 world records.

At the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, Germany Spitz swam the 100 meter freestyle in 51.22 seconds:

The current records are:

World: 47.84 Pieter van den Hoogenband, NED Sydney, AUS 09-19-00
American: 48.17 Jason Lezak, Irvine Long Beach, Calif. 07-10-04


So, even a more modern "Superman", which Spitz was when he won the seven gold medals in Munich, is forced to endure seeing his world records, not only broken but shattered over the years. Does it detract from the magnificence of what he accomplished? I don't think so, not in any way at all.

It's just the nature of things.

That's the way it's always been is sports, and it's even more pronounced now in baseball since the demise of the Reserve Clause and the explosive escalation of salaries.

This take on the situation from Johnny Bench illustrates the point very clearly:

Bench elaborates on what many vintage MLB players
think: their achievements are clearly undermined by
many factors in favor of younger hitters.

"We're second-class citizens now, our era. Our
records are bygone", he said.

"They're making $15 million or $20 million a year.
I made $11,000 my first year. I was rookie of the year
and made $20,000, was MVP and made $40,000, was MVP
again and made $80,000. So I'm only like $19,920,000
behind."

"There are guys out there who make two All-Star
games and they've got their own planes flying back
East. I'm trying to drive to Reno to get the 6:45 a.m.
Delta so I can change planes and go to Orlando", he
said.


The old-timers feel disrespected and unappreciated compared to the modern ballplayers. That, I guess, may never change.

Miscellaneous Weekly Notes:



A-ROD: MORE HR'S BY AGE 32 THAT ANYONE EVER!!!

Lost in A-Rod's ascension to the throne as the white knight in shining armor, who has been anointed to remove the stain on baseball's record book left by the dragon that is Barry Bonds, is this simple fact:

A-Rod has hit approximately 25% more home runs, vis-a-vis during a comparable period of time in both career stage and chronological age as Henry Aaron himself.

Which begs the question: If it was such an insult to the sensibilities of baseball purists that Bonds passed Aaron all-time by 1 HR, why doesn't anybody bat an eyelash when the graphic is displayed showing A-Rod 25% ahead of Aaron career-wise from age 20 to 32?

On a comparable basis, Bonds would have to finish with approximately 930 career home runs to assault the record book in a similar fashion.

And doesn't this show conclusively how the OVERALL environment in which to hit home-runs has changed for the better again by a value that approaches 25-30% better across the board? (smaller parks, less foul territory, harder baseballs, harder bats, softer pitching, better strength training and legal nutritional methods)


Jayson Stark wrote an article about A-Rod and listed the top HR hitters and their production before and after 32:

Alex Rodriguez 500 ???
Hank Aaron 398 357
Barry Bonds 332 421
Babe Ruth 356 358
Willie Mays 373 282
Sammy Sosa 386 218
Ken Griffey Jr. 460 129
Frank Robinson 399 187
Mark McGwire 277 306
H. Killebrew 393 180
R. Palmeiro 232 337

Is A-Rod really a 25% better home-run hitter than Aaron? I'm not sure, but he is hitting in an era that allows him and others to appear to be. And in a sense he and the HR hitters to follow benefit from playing their ENTIRE careers within this environment whereas, the Bonds, Sosa, McGwire era players, for the most part, played half their careers in the Astroturf era where speed and the stolen base was emphasized vs. those who came along from the mid 1990's. By that time, Astroturf became a relic and the long-ball replaced the stolen base and the hit and run as the offensive weapon of choice.

SMALL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES IN BASEBALL MAKE FOR BIG DIFFERENCES IN THE GAME.

When the mound was lowered by a few inches after 1969, in my opinion it ushered out the short right handed pitcher (under 6-0 tall) at the major league level. Pitchers, especially rightys, had to get taller to compensate.

When you combine many small changes, all of which benefit the hitters, why is it such a surprise that the 500 HR and 600 HR club is going to increase it's membership by leaps and bounds in this generation?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THANK GOD LITTLE LEAGUE'S PITCH COUNT RULE HAS NOT TOTALLY DONE AWAY WITH "COACH TROPHYCOLLECTORS" ABILITY TO PLAY TO WIN AND RUIN KIDS ARMS

Yesterday's LLWS Western Regional final between Arizona and California featured an incident that demonstrates why the newly minted pitch count rule may not work as well as intended and may in fact have some unintended consequences.

California had just replaced their starting pitcher with a reliever who began to noticeably poke, prod and otherwise manipulate pain that appeared on the inside of his elbow. This is the tell-tale trouble spot for "Little League" elbow. The announcers commented on it, but the coaches were either oblivious to it or since the kid had not come anywhere near the pitch count limit that would REQUIRE they take him out, were stubbornly going to let him "pitch until his arm fell off" with a trip to Williamsport on the line.

It won't be long before the pitch count is listed on the scoreboard as the way it looks and sounds, it is going to change the hitting strategy for teams when they face the other teams top pitcher. "Take some pitches Johnny, he's at 57" and "What's his pitch count" are going to be common phrases around the old ball yard. It's going to rise to as important a level as knowing what the game score is, the inning and the count on the batter which have traditionally been the important "game situation" stats. Going forward, add the pitchers pitch count.

I guess I rail on this topic every year around this time, but here we go again.

Listen clearly, I'll only say this once for you corporate sponsors and telecasters (ESPN & ABC) who along with your exposure and money and nationally televised pressure have created and perpetuate and profit from the conditions under which this epidemic of arm injuries emanates and continues. Because you know, or should know that what I am saying on this subject is true:

Stop saying this rule is what is going to initiate a downtrend in the amount of injuries to young pitching arms. The only thing that is going to stop it is if you either ban national broadcasts of these events or ban the tournaments themselves outright. The pressure to get EXPOSURE for their kids led to the Almonte incident and leads to borderline child abuse across the country year after year. And a rule change that the parrots behind the mike will laud, while at the same time calling the sliders that pitchers throw along with the curve balls, "breaking balls" and "off speed pitches" in a lame attempt to divert attention from the abuse is disingenuous at best and criminally fraudulent reporting at worst. PLEASE STOP IT.

The parents sell their collective souls and potentially their children's future in baseball in this insane chase for "exposure". Who's watching these kids for future reference anyway? College scouts? Pro scouts? I doubt it. How'd the added exposure work out for the Almonte kid? Not very well.

REMEMBER THE WORD THAT I THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD ASSOCIATE WITH "EXPOSURE" IF WE WERE PLAYING A WORD ASSOCIATION GAME. THAT'S RIGHT "INDECENT". IT APPLIES HERE.

If you don't know that what I am saying is true and correct regarding the problem and the conditions that brought us to this place, you are either woefully ignorant regarding the topic or criminally and shamefully negligent by putting profits and ratings over kids LONG-TERM health.

YOU CANNOT CONTINUE TO PUT LIPSTICK ON THIS PIG AND SELL IT AS PRETTY. Time and another generation of ruined arms will be the legacy you have created and continue to perpetuate. And you will divert attention or blame someone/something else. SHAMEFUL.


The best part of the game I watched was when the California team coach yelled to his batter from the 1st base coaching box to move up in the box in order to "get the curve ball". Hit it before it breaks, I suppose (pure youth coaching genius since a curve ball breaks from virtually the moment it's released by the pitcher). You could hear the Arizona coach retort (he was miked also) from his dugout, "Yeah, move him up so he can't catch up to the fastball". Sure enough, they called for the FB and one weak swing later, the result of looking CB with two strikes and getting FB, is you have a strike out to the batter, with an assist given to the hitting coach. That's if you're scoring at home.

Priceless. And we wonder why Johnny can't hit the curve ball. If he stays back, he doesn't telegraph to the opposition what he's looking for, he has a longer look at the curve if he gets it, so you have less swings at CB's in the dirt, and you can still attack the FB. The Arizona coach was ex-major leaguer Clay Bellinger, so what does he know, right? The Cali approach has been a pet peeve of mine for years and years, it was great to see it's weakness exposed so conclusively. Thanks, Clay.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, August 09, 2007

MIKE LUPICA IS AN INQUISITIVE LITTLE MOUSE




From today's New York Post Online Edition, Mike's confused again.
No, Doctor Freud, it's not about his identity, it's sports related, I'll take this one, you have a cigar.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/col/lupica/
Thursday, August 9th 2007, 4:00 AM

If this is only about Barry Bonds, as the flacks tell us, Mc-Gwire must wonder what happened to him on his way to being a first-ballot guy in Cooperstown.

If you don't like Bonds, it's race. So what was the problem with McGwire, who is real white?



A: Hey watch who your calling a flack there Sparky. The problem with McGwire is he retired before Bonds. I know you and other BBWAA members think the people you write down to our really stupid, not privy to your outer-worldy form of intelligence. So I'll lay it out so even you can understand it Mikey.

The guys who vote say "Damn I can't very well vote McGwire in on the first ballot and then 6-7 or however many years down the road when Bonds comes up for election, do the one thing I've been dying to do since he flipped me off that one time and that is not vote for Barry Bonds when his turn comes up for Hall of Fame election".

So see Mikey it's really not that hard, most children have figured it out already. They (you media honks) are not going to vote for Barry for the Hall of Fame as a parting F-you shot for his career. But you can't very well do that and leave standing the charade of fairness and impartiality at the same time. You follow? Good boy. Next Question.

Now that Bonds has passed Aaron, we hear, louder than ever, that steroids don't help you swing a bat or stand in there against the curve, that Bonds got here because of talent and determination and longevity and sheer stubbornness. But if all that is true, here is one more question on the Barry Bonds All-Time Home Run King Quiz:

If steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs don't matter, then why do athletes in all sports take them in the first place?


A: Oh dear Lord Michael, you are a slow child. Did your Momma say that to you a lot? Or was it "Michael, stay out of my underwear drawer?" Probably both. Anyway, you remember a fellow named Turk Wendell, pitched for the Mets, Cubs, Rockies among others. Crazy guy used to jump over the foul lines on his way to the mound and back to the dugout, eat licorice and brush his teeth between innings. SOB if he didn't think it helped him pitch better. Now I'll be damned, I've been around baseball a lot of years, near as I can figure it out, IT'S PSYCHOLOGICAL.

If you believe it helps, it helps.

Another little cliche we use around the dugout is "It helps if you can hit". Another thing you will never understand because you spent too many of your youthful days playing with dolls. Next Question, Tinker-Bell.

If Bonds needed no help to hit 73 home runs in a season and hit nearly 350 home runs after the age of 35, if his body grew this way because of all the real hard work he did in the gym with Anderson - why would Anderson even bother to give him steroids in the first place?

A: Read "Faust's Gold", the book about how the East German trainers would give their athletes "vitamins" with their breakfast, so they would swim faster and win gold medals. Maybe he just wanted to enhance his reputation as a trainer with his marquee client. Do you know how hard it would be to get improvement out of a person who drops into your lap as a HOF'er, who had trained with some other trainers in the past who may or may not have given him the results he was looking for, and IMPROVE THAT PERSON ABILITY TO PERFORM IN HIS SPORT BETTER THAN HE EVER HAD IN THE PAST WITHOUT SCREWING THINGS UP???!!! It is difficult, near impossible to improve an elite athlete in the prime of his career or thereafter, without screwing things up, let alone getting continued improvement. But if a lottery ticket fell in your lap and you were a small potatoes trainer, training average Joe's, and an elite athlete knocked on your door, what might you do?

Now I'm not saying that's what Mr. Anderson did. Because he's a big guy and he might hurt me if I make things up and say bad things about him like those Game of Shadows writers did. You know a lot about big guys hurting you, don't you Mike? There, there. I didn't mean to bring up childhood trauma's.

Always remember what a baseball executive told me not long ago:
"They take it because it works."


A: Real scientific.

The idea that steroids don't work is another lie of all this. Keep telling it, though.

A: Actually, I don't say that. Prove to me that it does, without screwing up your career like it has for a lot of players at the major league level and countless others who never get there and are never heard from again. Seems to have worked out well for the kids whose parents testified in front of Congress. I guess we'll see Barry exhibit some sort of late stage 'roid rage or commit murder-suicide.

Keep saying that this is about race, which is the worst lie of all, huckstered by people who ought to be ashamed of themselves.

A: No it isn't. Go back into your FBI files, stupid, around 1992, Operation Equine, Mark McGwire. In fact, do a Google search, which is likely how you found out most of what you know about performance enhancements. Then show me the scathing articles you wrote from 1992 to about the time before McGwire retired. And you show me if you wrote anything with the hatred and vitriol you write about Bonds. Don't make me do the research for you, Skippy. Because you and your kind know I'll find glowing, poetic articles about Paul Bunyan-esque figures and Norman Rockwell moments, and making kissy-kissy with the Maris family under your byline, now won't I?

That's why it's racial. And you and your ilk want a pass on this? Oh, sorry we made a mistake, we had our eyes closed too. They fooled us, too. But we know better this time and we'll take care of it right this time. Save it, bitch.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

You think anybody will ever look at the Tour de France the same way ever again, no matter how many people are on the side of the road? You really think that smart people still believe Lance Armstrong was the only pure one in the race?

A: I'll bet your a little late to the hate Lance Armstrong party, too. Or should I look at your record on that one as well?

Bonds hugs his son and points to the sky and weeps at the sight of Henry Aaron on the huge video screen in the outfield, and everything is supposed to be all right. Not only is the carnival supposed to move on, so are we. Only it doesn't work that way, even with a moment as big as this.

A: Sorry, I thought this was a question. If you don't enjoy it Mike, don't watch it or don't keep making writing articles on the the subject. Write about some other things that will deflect peoples attention away from this. You're a talented writer and gosh darn it people like you.

I guess the powers that be don't agree with you. The Commissioner could have suspended him, the players union be damned. The Feds could have indicted him.

Hey, I got a question for you Mr. Yappy Lap Dog. If this is so obvious to you, how come no suspension, no indictment?

I'll let you think on that one for a bit, Alice. Don't break a nail.

For a guy that acts like he's smarter than everyone who ever appears on that there Sports Reporters show, this boy sure asks a lot of questions.

BOB COSTAS IS A SIMPLE MINDED IDIOT





Regarding the issues brought up by the factually challenged Curt Schilling (ie: Why Didn't Barry Sue?) on the vertically challenged Bob Costas HBO show recently. I have to believe Costas himself accepts the sentiments expressed by Schilling and the legal logic expressed therein, since he certainly didn't challenge the statements and they appeared on the show that bears his name.



As counter evidence I would cite the position of Howard Wasserman, whose credentials are as follows:



Howard Wasserman is Associate Professor of Law, having joined the College of Law faculty in 2003. He graduated magna cum laude from the Northwestern University School of Law, where he was an associate articles editor of the Law Review and was named to the Order of the Coif. Following law school, he clerked for Chief Judge James T. Giles of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and Judge Jane R. Roth of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Prior to coming to FIU, he spent two years as a Visiting Assistant Professor at Florida State University College of Law. Professor Wasserman teaches civil procedure, evidence, federal courts, civil rights, and First Amendment; his scholarship focuses on the freedom of speech and procedure in public-law civil litigation. His recent work has examined the conflation and distinctions between judicial jurisdiction and substantive rights in federal litigation. He also is writing on the intersection between sports and free expression; he has presented on this subject at the Cooperstown Symposium on Baseball and American Culture at the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Professor Wasserman is a loyal Chicago Cubs fan.



Mr. Wasserman appears to have a strong background in both law and baseball.



I summarize the key points noted by Mr. Wasserman at the end of the page.

However, I would like to note special emphasis on the following quotes because they speak to one of the few remaining arguments the sanctimonious media "mental midgets" like Mr. Costas have left. We still hear the media bird-brains continue to chirp on incessantly "Why Didn't Barry Sue the Authors?- Why Didn't Barry Sue the Authors?".



A separate question is why Bonds has not sued the authors and publisher for defamation. Some have claimed that this failure is tantamount to an admission that the book is accurate. But this is too simplistic.



This is an extremely difficult standard for a plaintiff to satisfy. But the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment demands it--to allow "breathing space" for discussion of public issues in which some error is inevitable and to avoid the risk of media self-censorship. Thus, even if he could prove falsity, Bonds would have a difficult time prevailing on a defamation claim, such that the lawsuit may not be worth the cost and effort.



So let's review. First off, he did sue. In the only manner he and his attorney felt they were best likely to prevail. And apparently Wasserman agrees.



Second, Wasserman states that the nexus of the argument on the surface is "too simplistic". I find this ironic because Mr. Costas chastised Rob Parker, a Detroit reporter who dared to suggest to Bob that he was making too big a deal of the steroids issue on the surface given that fans are voting with their wallets and telling MLB that they really don't care (at least not as much as Bob Costa does about the issue).



Costas diverted the argument by making a ridiculous comparison to baseball's "growth" in popularity after WWII but prior to integration by Jackie Robinson and the Dodgers. In other words, baseball was popular then, but still flawed due to the stain of segregation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://thestartingfive.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/sports-journalism-and-perspective/

Sports Journalism and Perspective

Posted by jweiler on August 9th, 2007



Costas strongly challenged the premise of Parker’s claim with the following history lesson:



After World War II, baseball had a tremendous surge in attendance. Baseball was essentially segregated then. A few teams had a few Black players but no one in their right mind would say, ‘well, baseball remained popular so we don’t have to move with greater speed toward justice when it comes to integration of the game.’ I loved baseball in the fifties and sixties growing up; that doesn’t mean that Curt Flood and Marvin Miller weren’t on the side of justice and didn’t have principle on their side because something in the game needed to be corrected and I was able to separate those two things. Baseball was flawed and it was unjust and it needed to be reformed in terms of players rights, but at the same time I loved the game
.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What little Bobby failed to mention is, any increase in attendance at the point he references was measured against deflated numbers in prior years due to the troops being overseas fighting the actual war. Even those that remained on the mainland had to have their attentions somewhat diverted by more pressing issues than baseball.



Second, the integration train had clearly already left the station. Baseball owners knew at that point that they had to integrate to expand their audience and they did it. Some parts social justice, some parts economic reality and survival. It may be a rewriting of history, but I understand the Negro Leagues were actually outdrawing the Major Leagues during the war, so it may have been more of an economic decision than anything else. MONEY TALKS.



To compare this current made-up "social issue" (steroids) to segregation would be laughable if it weren't so demeaning. Maybe Mr. Moral Compass needs a check-up from the neck up. Shouldn't take too long.



YEAR GAMES TOT ATT AVG

MLB 1930 1,234 10,132,262 8,211

MLB 1931 1,236 8,467,107 6,850

MLB 1932 1,233 6,974,566 5,657

MLB 1933 1,226 6,089,031 4,967

MLB 1934 1,223 6,963,711 5,694

MLB 1935 1,228 7,345,316 5,982

MLB 1936 1,238 8,082,613 6,529

MLB 1937 1,239 8,940,063 7,216

MLB 1938 1,223 9,006,511 7,364

MLB 1939 1,231 8,977,779 7,293



MLB 1940 1,236 9,823,484 7,948

MLB 1941 1,244 9,689,603 7,789

MLB 1942 1,224 8,553,569 6,988

MLB 1943 1,238 7,465,911 6,031

MLB 1944 1,242 8,772,746 7,063

MLB 1945 1,230 10,841,123 8,814

MLB 1946 1,242 18,523,289 14,914

MLB 1947 1,243 19,874,539 15,989

MLB 1948 1,237 20,920,842 16,913

MLB 1949 1,240 20,215,365 16,303

http://bss.sfsu.edu/tygiel/hist490/mlbattendance.htm



Let's see 1942, we enter WWII and attendance goes down 10%. By comparison,after the 1994 World Series cancellation, attendance fell almost 30%. So baseball did three times the self-inflicted damage as a major World War.



In 1945, the war ends and in 1946 attendance does jump, however most historians would attribute this jump in attendance to the return of the troops, the euphoria of the ending of the war and increased leisure time and purchasing power. Also, 1946 is the year the Dodgers signed Jackie Robinson.



So in reality, baseball jumps back to almost pre-war attendance levels and then segregates. It was hardly "popular" on a relative basis if the Negro Leagues were outdrawing them from a smaller population base.



Again, HISTORY REPEATS. FOLLOW THE MONEY. In spite of occasional bouts or moral indignation and selective recall/faulty reciting of history.



BASEBALL BECAME MORE POPULAR AFTER WWII BECAUSE OF INTEGRATION. THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE LIKED THE BLACK SO MUCH AT THE TIME, THEY MAY HAVE HAD TO BE DRAGGED KICKING AND SCREAMING INTO INTEGRATION (Not so much leading, as baseball historians would romantically like you to believe, but following the military) BUT THEY SURE LOVED THE GREEN.



I would think that someone who was as knowledgeable as Costas tries to make himself appear wouldn't be aware of the confluence of all these events and not distort history to support his current point of view. Or would he?



I don't know, my take on the thing was he was upset almost to the point of whining and crying that Parker would dare challenge his pearly wisdom. I thought he made a poor response and I was surprised Mr. Parker didn't jump right down his throat.



And this guy wanted to be Commissioner? Don't let your hatred get in the way of the facts, Bobby-boy. Maybe everyone else's heroes should be as flawless as the Mick. Yeah, right.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060407_wasserman.html

Baseball, the Law, and the Rules, Part III: Barry Bonds Takes on the First Amendment,

Attempting to Use Grand Jury Secrecy Rules to Attack the New, Controversial Book Alleging His Steroid Use

By HOWARD WASSERMAN



Bonds has responded with a legal assault against Game of Shadows. But the First Amendment is likely to prove a more-than-worthy adversary for the baseball star.



Bonds launched his legal offensive on two fronts. First, he filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court against Fainaru-Wada, Williams, and their publisher, Gotham Books. He also named as defendants the San Francisco Chronicle, which published Fainaru-Wada and Williams' stories on Bonds' grand jury testimony, and Sports Illustrated. which published excerpts of Game of Shadows prior to publication. Bonds sued under California's Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professional Code § 17200), which prohibits "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice."



Second, he sent a letter to United States District Judge Susan Illston, who is presiding over the BALCO grand jury proceedings. The letter requests that she initiate contempt-of-court proceedings against the authors and publishers violating rules requiring secrecy in grand jury proceedings. Judge Illston already has conducted one hearing regarding leaks in this case.



In both cases, Bonds claims that Game of Shadows is based on sealed and secret grand-jury testimony and evidence. He argues that, as a witness before the grand jury, he received guarantees that his testimony and all other evidence would be confidential. And he says that Fainaru-Wada and Williams' use of this information as the basis for their book deprived him of these guarantees, and deprived the public of its faith and confidence in the confidentiality and integrity of the grand jury system. As a result, the book is both an unfair or unlawful business act under state law and contemptuous of the federal court overseeing the grand jury proceedings.



Going After Profits Alone Does Not Obviate the First Amendment Problem Here



Bonds and his attorneys, seeking to avoid First Amendment problems, focus not on publication of the book, but on the profits that the authors and publisher stand to earn from sales of the book.



The letter to Judge Illston requests a narrow contempt order requiring disgorgement of profits derived from the use of the sealed and leaked grand jury evidence (as opposed to, for example, an order jailing the journalists for their misconduct). Bonds and his lawyers insist that "we do not wish to stifle public debate about steroid use by professional and amateur athletes."



Similarly, the Unfair Competition lawsuit seeks an injunction preventing the defendants from retaining any profits from the book, but does not in any way seek to restrain publication or sale. As one lawyer told the California Superior Court, "They can speak as much as they like on this topic. They just can't make a profit."



Courts recognize that placing a financial burden on a speaker functions as a disincentive to speak--or, in this case, to write or agree to publish a book--that would, if permitted, threaten to reduce the sum total of available reporting on what even Bonds concedes is a matter of great public concern worthy of discussion and debate.

The First Amendment thus subjects laws that financially burden speech to the same rigorous scrutiny as laws that directly prohibit or restrain speech.



Morever, even if Fainaru-Wadu and Williams did not break the law in obtaining the grand jury evidence, the First Amendment does not automatically protect publication. The Supreme Court has explicitly refused to hold that the publication of truthful, lawfully obtained information on a matter of public import never can be punished. Of course, the Court never has found any interest of a sufficiently high order to outweigh free-expression interests, meaning Game of Shadows likely will be protected, as well.



The Legal Path Not Taken: Defamation



A separate question is why Bonds has not sued the authors and publisher for defamation. Some have claimed that this failure is tantamount to an admission that the book is accurate. But this is too simplistic.






In order to prevail on a defamation claim, Bonds must do more than prove the statements in the book were false (a substantial burden in itself). Under the First Amendment, a public figure (which Bonds surely is) also must prove (by the elevated standard of "clear and convincing evidence") that the false statements in question were published with actual malice--that is, with knowledge that they were false, or with reckless disregard for whether they were true or false.



This is an extremely difficult standard for a plaintiff to satisfy. But the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment demands it--to allow "breathing space" for discussion of public issues in which some error is inevitable and to avoid the risk of media self-censorship. Thus, even if he could prove falsity, Bonds would have a difficult time prevailing on a defamation claim, such that the lawsuit may not be worth the cost and effort.



Ultimately, Bonds likely will find, in both the lawsuits and legal challenges he has brought and those he has chosen not to bring, that the First Amendment is a tougher opponent than most major league pitchers.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Giants Top Minor League Prospects

  • 1. Joey Bart 6-2, 215 C Power arm and a power bat, playing a premium defensive position. Good catch and throw skills.
  • 2. Heliot Ramos 6-2, 185 OF Potential high-ceiling player the Giants have been looking for. Great bat speed, early returns were impressive.
  • 3. Chris Shaw 6-3. 230 1B Lefty power bat, limited defensively to 1B, Matt Adams comp?
  • 4. Tyler Beede 6-4, 215 RHP from Vanderbilt projects as top of the rotation starter when he works out his command/control issues. When he misses, he misses by a bunch.
  • 5. Stephen Duggar 6-1, 170 CF Another toolsy, under-achieving OF in the Gary Brown mold, hoping for better results.
  • 6. Sandro Fabian 6-0, 180 OF Dominican signee from 2014, shows some pop in his bat. Below average arm and lack of speed should push him towards LF.
  • 7. Aramis Garcia 6-2, 220 C from Florida INTL projects as a good bat behind the dish with enough defensive skill to play there long-term
  • 8. Heath Quinn 6-2, 190 OF Strong hitter, makes contact with improving approach at the plate. Returns from hamate bone injury.
  • 9. Garrett Williams 6-1, 205 LHP Former Oklahoma standout, Giants prototype, low-ceiling, high-floor prospect.
  • 10. Shaun Anderson 6-4, 225 RHP Large frame, 3.36 K/BB rate. Can start or relieve
  • 11. Jacob Gonzalez 6-3, 190 3B Good pedigree, impressive bat for HS prospect.
  • 12. Seth Corry 6-2 195 LHP Highly regard HS pick. Was mentioned as possible chip in high profile trades.
  • 13. C.J. Hinojosa 5-10, 175 SS Scrappy IF prospect in the mold of Kelby Tomlinson, just gets it done.
  • 14. Garett Cave 6-4, 200 RHP He misses a lot of bats and at times, the plate. 13 K/9 an 5 B/9. Wild thing.

2019 MLB Draft - Top HS Draft Prospects

  • 1. Bobby Witt, Jr. 6-1,185 SS Colleyville Heritage HS (TX) Oklahoma commit. Outstanding defensive SS who can hit. 6.4 speed in 60 yd. Touched 97 on mound. Son of former major leaguer. Five tool potential.
  • 2. Riley Greene 6-2, 190 OF Haggerty HS (FL) Florida commit.Best HS hitting prospect. LH bat with good eye, plate discipline and developing power.
  • 3. C.J. Abrams 6-2, 180 SS Blessed Trinity HS (GA) High-ceiling athlete. 70 speed with plus arm. Hitting needs to develop as he matures. Alabama commit.
  • 4. Reece Hinds 6-4, 210 SS Niceville HS (FL) Power bat, committed to LSU. Plus arm, solid enough bat to move to 3B down the road. 98MPH arm.
  • 5. Daniel Espino 6-3, 200 RHP Georgia Premier Academy (GA) LSU commit. Touches 98 on FB with wipe out SL.

2019 MLB Draft - Top College Draft Prospects

  • 1. Adley Rutschman C Oregon State Plus defender with great arm. Excellent receiver plus a switch hitter with some pop in the bat.
  • 2. Shea Langliers C Baylor Excelent throw and catch skills with good pop time. Quick bat, uses all fields approach with some pop.
  • 3. Zack Thompson 6-2 LHP Kentucky Missed time with an elbow issue. FB up to 95 with plenty of secondary stuff.
  • 4. Matt Wallner 6-5 OF Southern Miss Run producing bat plus mid to upper 90's FB closer. Power bat from the left side, athletic for size.
  • 5. Nick Lodolo LHP TCU Tall LHP, 95MPH FB and solid breaking stuff.