Call Strikes you get home faster!! My answer to the pace of play problem in MLB

Sweet!! Gonna try some of these. Mine is most like the Saturday Night Fever with a right-cross chaser. Sends 'em back to the dugout with a smiley face :(  (Maybe not) 

I was looking at this site for another statistical purpose ( max batted ball speed for batters ) when I came across this data. 

from baseballsavant.com

http://baseballsavant.com/apps/umpires.php?sort=percent&year=2015

Standard umpiring wisdom says "You can strike a ball....." which is what this chart clearly shows happening at about the 15% level in MLB.  

....."but you should never ball a strike" which is apparently happening here at an alarmingly high 10% approximate rate. This can be attributed to the "Ted Williams effect" we had discussed in previous blog post. Umpires defer to stars as far as ball / strikes go. 

I agree Vince!!! I was shocked and appalled when I saw the data as well!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V0TYIO6yv4


If you really, really want to speed up the pace of play, there is about a 10% pick up right there. That shaves 21 minutes off your standard 3;30 game and brings it to a more reasonable 3:09 marathon. Back to the average. Now, the average 3:09 game loses about 19 minutes, becoming a 2:50 gig.

I'm OK with this "Width of Strike Zone" outcome, in fact the actual could even be a bit wider. And if it makes the panty-waisted stat geeks shudder, who gives a Flying Walenda? Put on a Nutty Buddy, get behind the dish for three hours of dealing with David Ortiz and Mike Napoli's and see how wide your strike zone gets, 

This wisdom is taught at all umpire clinics at all levels, except perhaps at the MLB level, where they have unions and shit they have to go through, but it's so simple and elegant and gets to the heart of the pace of game issue:

CALL STRIKES, YOU GET HOME FASTER!!! 

PACE OF GAME PROBLEM SOLVED!! YOUR WELCOME!!

Also, you can eject that melon-head Ortiz from more games, which would suit me just fine.

David Ortiz Risks Legacy On PED Article

Even though I think Ortiz brought some of this on himself with his off the cuff "Dominican milkshake" comments, I sympathize with his plight here just a little bit.

from Seamheads.com
http://seamheads.com/2015/04/02/david-ortiz-risks-legacy-on-ped-article/

Boston Red Sox slugger David Ortiz recently penned an article for the website The Players Tribune professing his innocence and annoyance regarding claims of steroid use.

The longtime Sox designated hitter was outed by The New York Times in 2009 as a player failing a drug test during the 2003 season. The paper named seven of at least 100 players failing tests including Ortiz, teammate Manny Ramirez, Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez, San Francisco Giants legend Barry Bonds and two others. The lawyers speaking to the Times did not provide the entire list and would have faced judicial sanctions for releasing information sealed by a court. The document naming Ortiz and all others has been destroyed.

Since the Players Association and Major League Baseball agreed on performance-enhancing drug testing and punishment in 2006, Ortiz has passed every test.  Still, his name is whispered by fans, especially of Boston rivals, every year of his Red Sox career, increasing in volume after his failed test disclosed in 2009. Pointing to a lack of decline in offensive statistics in his mid-to-late 30s and a World Series for the ages, those whispers may have merit.

To Ortiz’s defense, the once portly slugger slimmed down over the last five years and became a smarter hitter at the plate, knowing what pitches to layoff and placing the ball more to the opposite field. Is that the primary reason at 38-years-old Ortiz slugged 35 home runs for the first time since 2007 at 31?

With an understanding that haters will hate, the most perplexing part of what has happened recently is Ortiz himself coming forward to thrust his lack of use into the conversation. He explained himself in 2009 and, according to him, passed every urine and blood test since. Because his career goes against the curve for aging heavyset sluggers have gone through before does not mean he is cheating, no matter how much his name is mentioned in New York.

If he pleads his case, he's criticized. If he says nothing he is criticized. A true no-win situation for the player vs. the media. 

How does that saying go?

"You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion. Do you understand these rights?"

Personally, I'm waiting for someone to use the hat size argument against him, but maybe that was a Bonds exclusive argument?    ~;::::::;( )">  ¯\_( )_/¯

Sandoval Fires Back at Ex-Teammate Huff - Puck the Fanda

AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez

Pablo Sandoval challenged Aubrey Huff's claims following his critical Facebook post this week.

Pablo will fit right in with Ortiz & Company in Boston. It sure looks like self-indulgent assholes of a feather flock together, Did I mention I agree with Aubrey Huff's assessment?


from Bleacher Report:
Sandoval Fires Back at Ex-Teammate Huff:

"Who is Aubrey Huff?" Sandoval asked in response to a post made by the former first baseman on Facebook. "What is important here is to see where the person who made those comments is, and where I am now, that's what counts."

Huff, who played 13 years in the big leagues, ended his career in 2012 after the Giants declined the $10 million option they held on him for the 2013 season. He currently is a assistant varsity baseball coach at Canyon Crest Academy in San Diego.

"I'm pretty sure their (sic) wasn't a tear shed on behalf of all the players, and the coaches when he signed with Boston," Huff's Facebook post from earlier in the week read. "It has always been about Pablo. He had the fans fooled but not the players! One of the biggest reasons he didn't want to come back is because the Giants made him workout on the treadmill every day! Pretty sure that was a driving force for him! Never the less [sic] he could have always been a legend in San Fran but ego always will come in to play when it comes to Pablo! Sorry for the rant just want to take up for the players who are there now holding their tongues, because they don't want to get in the middle of this! If you can't get along with guys like (Buster) Posey, (Madison) Bumgarner, (Matt) Cain, (Jeremy) Affeldt (sic), just to name a few, then maybe it's time to look in the mirror! Rant over!"

Huff was reacting to a Bleacher Report story last week in which Sandoval asserted he left the Giants because they "disrespected" his agent, and that "it is not about money, it is about how you treat the player."

Sandoval also was quoted as saying he missed only Giants manager Bruce Bochy and outfielder Hunter Pence.

'via Blog this'

Recall it was Pablo's agent who created the initial amateurish faux-pas by saying Sandoval wanted (implied: deserved) "Hunter Pence" money. Bringing another teammates name into your individual contract negotiation that your agent is running through the press is a double faux-pas. You bring an amateur to a professional negotiation and bad things are going to happen. This was a  bush league agent trying to compete in the major leagues and he pissed down his leg. That would be bad enough, but to piss on his clients teammates when his client is the one who has to live in the locker room is just plain DUMB!!

Pablo wasn't disrespected. He and his team were disrespecting others and the organization. He'll fit right in with his fellow Mr. Big Heads in Boston. It's not like Hanley Ramirez was a joy in the Dodgers clubhouse either.

Enjoy your Dominican milkshakes fellas. Another big-ass target for David Price this year.

Take a look in the mirror once in a while Pablo. Oh yeah, that's been a problem for you for quite some time it seems, along with the scale.

The question shouldn't be "Who is Aubrey Huff?", it should be "Who is the real Pablo Sandoval?"

Puck the Fanda!!!

Rays' Archer: 'Never saw Hank Aaron flip his bat' - Yahoo News

Invoking Aaron is nice. I'm not sure Archer was around when Aaron played, but OK. Nice.

from Yahoo News:
Rays' Archer: 'Never saw Hank Aaron flip his bat' - Yahoo News:

Rays manager Joe Maddon had a thought on the Ortiz show. "The simple answer is, what if it had happened in the '60s when (Bob) Gibson was pitching, or (Don) Drysdale was pitching?" Maddon said. "That answers the question." The Red Sox and Rays will meet again for the start of a four-game series Aug. 29 at Tampa Bay. "I'm proud that our guys have said what they feel," Maddon said. "I dig that a lot, actually. We'll see how it all plays out."

'via Blog this'

I think what your manager is trying to say discreetly is he never saw Gibson or Drysdale pimp their complaints to the media either. Business was handled between the lines where it belonged, not in front of cameras or microphones. He's heard the war of words between Ortiz and Price and now Ortiz and Archer and like many of us, he's waiting for some action.

All talk and no action. You've heard of that phrase haven't you Mr. Archer? Now take care of business.

David Ortiz says New York Yankees lost 'face of ballclub' in Robinson Cano - ESPN Boston

How can Cano be the "face of the team" when according to this survey to determine the face of baseball:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/photos/gallery/_/id/9663156/image/1/1-alex-rodriguez-yankees-22-percent-face-baseball Cano doesn't even make an appearance, and finishes behind fellow Yankees Derek Jeter and Alex Rdoriguez?

He would probably be in the mix somewhere with Curtis Granderson and Mark Texeira however. And we're not even considering recently retired Mariano Rivera for today's "face of the team" purposes.

from ESPN Boston:
David Ortiz says New York Yankees lost 'face of ballclub' in Robinson Cano - ESPN Boston:

David Ortiz says he thinks his Boston Red Sox will benefit from Robinson Cano joining the Seattle Mariners, calling it "great news for us" but a blow to the rival New York Yankees.

Ortiz, speaking in an interview with WEEI Radio in Boston, said the Yankees lost "the face" of the team when they failed to re-sign the free agent second baseman, who has reportedly agreed to a 10-year, $240 million contract with Seattle.

'via Blog this'

Great player? Yes.
Key asset lost? Yes.
Face of the team? No.

Unless Jeter retires and Rodriguez is somehow dismissed from the ball club, Cano would not be considered for the face of the Yankees. Even then, there would probably have to be some sort of DWTS type competition among the talk-show pundits for about a week or so to determine the "new" face of the Yankees.

Maybe now we know why Cano left the Yankees. He will now become the face of the Mariners and be paid quite handsomely for the burden / privilege. They Yankees certainly lost "a face" of the team, but hardly "the face" of the team.

DAVID ORTIZ AND THE "ABILITY TO DRAW WALKS"

Not surprisingly, ESPN's Steve Phillips made a shockingly bad "defense" of David Ortiz and his legacy in the aftermath of the revelation that Ortiz was a positive test in 2003. Phillips made the case that he "observed" Ortiz' development from his days with the Twins into a player who "learned" how to take walks and become a more patient hitter and that this, more than anything else, was responsible for the staggering numbers he produced with the Red Sox.


From ESPN's You Tube Site: Phillips comments are at about the 1:45 mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqfPkw4uzLU

I could just imagine Joe Morgan throwing something at his TV screen as well, because this is one of the themes that emanated from the "Moneyball" revolution that is wholly erroneous on a macro basis and certainly weak/non-existent in the individual example of David Ortiz.

Many who read "Moneyball" came away with the impression that the A's used statistical analysis to identify high-OPS, high-walk ratio hitters in the college ranks, who had a greater probability for success at the major league level. This was an extension of the strategy employed at the major league level, which was to identify these type of players and acquire those who were not valued as highly as their peers--who were using other metrics to acquire/reward hitters.

The A's were able to acquire productive players economically and compete for a time at the major league level. I still maintain that this ability to compete only lasted as long as the starting staff included Zito, Hudson and Mulder but that's another story.

Anyway, the A's model at the player developmental level was highlighted by their drafting of a catcher by the name of Jeremy Brown, who they identified as being one of these high-OPS, high walk ratio guys. He was drafted by the A's higher than virtually anyone would have projected--meaning they overpaid for him--which seemingly defeated the purpose of acquiring talent economically, but I digress.

Many of the other guys they identified while the author followed the process--guys like Nick Swisher and Khalil Greene--subsequently developed into good major league hitters. But most if not all of these players did not follow the model that the A's suggested they would to succeed.

In the same way, David Ortiz did not follow the "model" as Steve Phillips believes he did.

The model suggest that there is some inherent ability to work the count, exhibit patience as a hitter and draw walks, thus becoming a high-OPS, productive hitter that contributes to more team wins. The productivity flows from this perceived ability that can be somehow identified statistically.

What the model ignores is the human elements that cannot be quantified until after the fact, if at all.

The high-OPS, high walk rate flows from the hitter earning RESPECT from the pitcher. Once the pitcher believes that he can be hurt by throwing pitches in certain zones-- which tightens the window that pitchers can throw to--thereby increasing the hitters walk rate. That does not happen until the hitter "hurts" the pitcher and earns respect.

To extrapolate to the extreme, if you had a hitter with fighter pilots 20/10 vision, who could identify balls/strikes with a 99% success ratio compared to Questec--but couldn't hit a lick--how many walks would that hitter draw at any level above Little League? Probably not many.

As hitters advance from one level to the next, whether it's from HS to college, college to low minors, minors to majors--that RESPECT must be earned again.

That is why you will see virtually all of the A's players identified in college as the prototype, model high-OPS, high walk-rate player not statistically demonstrate that "ability" as they enter the minor league system. Why? They have to earn RESPECT of the pitchers all over again. Pitchers who didn't read the hitters stat sheets or press clippings and are trying to earn their own measure of RESPECT.

Respect is earned, and as the Dominicans say, "You can't walk off the island". Respect is earned with the bat. Ted Williams earned his reputation with the bat first and then the high walk rate followed. Respect was earned from pitchers and umpires and the walks followed.

Look at Ortiz ' career stats from Baseball Reference:

DAVID ORTIZ CAREER STATS FROM BASEBALL REFERENCE.COM
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/ortizda01.shtml

You can clearly see he debuts with the Twins in 1997 as an above average hitter as measured by an OPS of .802 and an OPS+ of 107 (OPS+ of 100 is major league average, it is OPS--On Base Average + Slugging--compared to the league average). His Walk Rate (Walks divided by Plate Appearances) of 4%. FOUR PERCENT!! OK only 51 AB's, but it demonstrates what players do when they advance levels. They try to show their talent.

In 1998, his Walk Rate stabilizes at 12%, which becomes his baseline for the next couple of years. His OPS is .817 and OPS+ is 111.

1999 is a lost year, only 25 Plate Appearances, statistically meaningless.

2000, Walk Rate - 12%. OPS - .810, OPS+ - 101
2001, Walk Rate - 12%, OPS - .799, OPS+ - 106
2002, Walk Rate - 9%, OPS - .839, OPS+ 120

A Bit of a breakout as a hitter, higher OPS with a LOWER walk rate. Hardly the skill or ability that Phillips is articulating. Then the trade to the Red Sox.

2003 OPS rises to .961, OPS+ rises to 144 and yet walk rate only comes back to the original baseline of 12%. Again, hardly what Phillips was articulating. More like Ortiz is finding his wheels as a power hitter, a force--but pitchers still are not convinced.

In 2004 again OPS rises to .983, OPS+ rises to 145 and yet WALK RATE declines to 11%. The OPPOSITE of what Phillips says he observed.

Finally in 2005, OPS cracks 1.001, OPS + rises again to 158 and now pitchers appear to be convinced, elevating Ortiz' walk rate to 14.5%.

Ortiz punished pitchers for 2-3 years before THEY ADJUSTED, by giving Ortiz the RESPECT as a hitter that he EARNED. We're not seeing some inherent ability to draw walks that flows into increased production. We're seeing quite the opposite.

More interesting is the recent history.

In 2006 OPS - 1.049, OPS+ - 161, Walk Rate - 16%
In 2007 OPS - 1.066, OPS+ - 171, Walk Rate - 16%

In 2008 OPS falls to .877, OPS+ to 123 and walk rate follows to 14%.
In 2009 OPS plummets to .720, OPS+ to 82 and walk rate drops to 11%.

What happened? The "ability" to draw walks should be getting better with age, but we see that RESPECT is lost. Scouts whisper, "Ortiz lost bat speed, can't turn on the good FB anymore" and more than whisper, they write this in their advance reports which are read by pitchers and catchers. And the rest is history.

It doesn't even matter WHY Ortiz lost bat speed. Take the PED speculation out of your mind for a moment and it's crystal clear what happens at the cellular level in MLB. And it's been happening like this for generations and will continue to do so. The other issues just muddy the waters a little bit.

We see the same thing with uber-prospects like Colby Rasmus. When they debut in the majors, they have all this advance billing baggage and mega-bonus money to validate.
And that is what they try to do. And pitchers initially exploit that, yes. But the bottom line is this: If this is even a chicken/egg debate, it seems pretty clear which comes first.

The debate remains if plate discipline is a teachable, identifiable skill or an inherent, God-given skill. The old nature vs. nurture argument. Good luck winning one of those.

Are some hitters so "hard-wired" in their approach since their youth days to be either a "hacker" or a "selective" hitter that they cannot be changed after HS-collegiate level?

Does the pressure to perform either to justify money/publicity received or potentially obtained in the future create such "internal noise" that players cannot be changed significantly?

Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between the extremes and includes some measure of all the extrinsic variables. Maybe there are just too many human variables to quantify as efficiently as we would like. Put that in your spreadsheet and smoke it.

NOT BIG PAPI !!!! NOOOOOOO..........

Is it becoming clearer by the day that we may have been better served had we commissioned Mr. Magoo to investigate the steroid issue in baseball than former Senator George Mitchell and his Sawks bias? I mean who else has to fall by the wayside? Can MLB get it's $12 million back for the "investigation"?



Does this development not further "TAINT" and expose as the corporate white-wash job that it was, the door stop that has become the Mitchell Report?

These were the two largest guys in the Red Sox lineup and the clubhouse at the time, both literally and figuratively, and this Barney Fife clone wraps up his investigation and concludes that "Nope, nothing to see here" regarding the Red Sox. The team he had an interest in?

And is it also not becoming clearer when the assorted talking heads wiggle and squirm to protect their favorite, nice-guy players that the biased media cannot be counted on to bring us the facts?

And how it is even a serious question to ask "Does this taint the Red Sox titles?" Of course it taints their titles, morons. Are you kidding me? Their two biggest sluggers are tainted and you have to even posit the question?


What are we waiting for here? Another media nice-guy, favorite to fall from the tree and then they can tell us, "Well it doesn't taint their legacy...It doesn't taint their championships.

I just heard one clown on ESPN say it only should affect how we look at 2003 re: Ortiz and I suppose--using that logic--only recently regarding Manny. Wow, the tone and narrative of the debate has really changed recently.

Just in the last two weeks we learned that Bob Costas had a private dinner with A-Rod and his newest gal pal. Does anyone really think he'll deliver any hard-hitting exposes or diatribes against A-Rod, much less any other pin-striped juicer?

And a Mets reporter--in breaking a story that vilified a team employee (to his credit)--doesn't understand that trying to curry favor from the team when you are supposed to be maintaining an air of impartiality "TAINTS ALL OF YOUR REPORTING". The bad and the good. Try considering the fans best interest when you are trying to move up the corporate ladder.

In this case, of course, the brethren quickly circled the wagons and defended their own. No hint of impropriety here people, move along. Because they know. And they want to reserve the right to themselves to do the exact same thing should the situation arise.

So from the top of the media food chain to the bottom, nothing but a cesspool. No surprise here.

Can't wait to hear the Gammons / ESPN spin on this one. Way past time for old Uncle Bud Selig to unveil that Jason Giambi style apology and hope that there are no more popular stars on that list. We're a Pujols or a Jeter or a Maddux away from this sport REALLY smacking into the side of a mountain. Even after all that it has been through.

I love the old switcheroo, dipsey doo these guys manage to pull off. When folks were leaking sealed court information in the BALCO case to newspapers, it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Now all of a sudden they want to make a federal case out of it. Can't have it both ways. HAHAHAHAHA.

O.K. - WHO'S NEXT???

My wife asked me what I think is the best question not asked since the A-Rod revelations hit the fan. If the remaining names on the list of 104 finds its way out to the public, what name would have to be on it to either shock the sensibilities of the fans or drag the games reputation down any further then it is now?

The obvious first response to me would be Derek Jeter. Other than Cal Ripken (who had retired by 2003), I'm not sure if anyone else in this era has a more squeaky clean image and the superstar stats.

My Top Ten List went like this:
1. Derek Jeter
2. Greg Maddux
3. Curt Schilling
4. Frank Thomas
5. Jeff Kent
6. Albert Pujols
7. Manny Ramirez
8. David Ortiz
9. Jim Thome
10. Ichiro Suzuki

Did I leave anyone out? Rememeber, Ripken, Tony Gwynn, Dale Murphy, Rickey Henderson and others who would make fine additions to the list, were not around in 2003.

Some have had "whispers" attached to their name, some are part of the "finger-wagging", Rafael Palmeiro wing and would set the crusader movement back a bit.

But all would be surprising and earth-shaking names.

The list almost has to come out at this point because it has been compromised enough as it is. Too many eyeballs have seen it that it is no longer "confidential".

The drip-drip water torture like release of names attached to the list will plague the game for a decade if it does not come out. The collateral damage to other "innocent" players may be the greater good to be protected over the "confidentiality" of the agreement. That horse has long since left the barn.

It just seems like every time we think that the final shoe has dropped and the fans can't get slapped in the face any worse, another shot comes from out of nowhere.

This could get very interesting.

It's all right here in black and white

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2863623


DAVID ORTIZ COMMENTS:


Ortiz believes Bonds needs to be cheered. Loudly.

“He deserves respect,” Ortiz said Sunday in Minneapolis. “People are not going to give it to him because of all the bad things running around, this and that, but people need to realize. I’ve heard a lot of different things about Barry Bonds, but people should just admit it - this guy’s a bad (expletive).”

Whether or not Bonds will be on the verge of breaking Hank Aaron’s career mark of 755 home runs - he’s at 744 with 34 games to play before he arrives here on June 15 - Ortiz expects Fenway Park fans will be making a mistake by focusing on the performance-enhancing drug allegations against Bonds rather than his home run totals.



Ortiz has an almost willful naivete about both Bonds and steroids. He still does not believe in his heart or his head that Bonds took steroids. And even if it were proven to him, Ortiz still would not link it to what Bonds does with a baseball bat.

“To hit the frickin’ ball, the guy makes it look easy, but it ain’t. I don’t know how you can have that swing, consistently. I don’t know how steroids can do that,” Ortiz said. “There are supposed to be guys using steroids in the game, and there’s nobody close to Barry Bonds. What’s that mean? He was using the best (expletive)? Know what I’m saying?”

Ortiz is not sure how he would feel if someone ever were to prove to him that Bonds took steroids. It sounds as if it would not matter.

“I don’t look at it like that. I look at it hitting-wise, because I don’t know what steroids can do to you as a baseball player. You’ve still got to swing the bat, man,” Ortiz said. “If I ever use steroids, and then I know what the difference can be and I’m using them, I’ll tell you, ‘Yeah, whatever,’ but I don’t know what the feelings are when you use the steroids. But I can tell you how it feels to pull yourself together to swing the bat.”

No matter where Bonds breaks Aaron’s mark, Ortiz wants commissioner Bud Selig to be there.

“He’s just making things worse,” Ortiz said of Selig’s inconclusive remarks about attending. “He’s the commissioner, there’s nothing you can do about it. You can’t be saying that. What are people going to think about the game? They’ll be like, ‘This game is a joke.’ He should come, even if he doesn’t want to.”

Despite revelations in “Game of Shadows,” the book by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams that offers a damning chain of evidence linking BALCO and a number of baseball players, including Bonds, Ortiz said he is unaware of any evidence that Bonds used steroids.

“Have they proved he used steroids?” Ortiz asked. “But it was a cream or something he was using. He wasn’t injecting anything, right?”

Ortiz said he just cannot be sure so he doesn’t want to think about it.

“People come to me, talking about Barry Bonds using steroids and I’m like, ‘He’s the only one, or are people focused on him because of what he’s doing?’ So I don’t go there, I don’t even think about it,” Ortiz said. “I think about how he can be that perfect at the plate because I don’t think that steroids mentally get you perfect.”

Ortiz believes people who have a problem with Bonds either never played the game or are pitchers.

“If you go to the hitters, and ask them, ‘A), What do you think about 744 home runs?’ and b), ‘You know how hard it is to hit a baseball. What do you think about that?’ The bottom line is, I don’t care what people say.”


CURT SCHILLING'S COMMENTS:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18557376/


Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling suggested that it's a travesty to the national pastime that Barry Bonds is about to break Henry Aaron's home run record, the Boston Globe reported Tuesday.

On the WEEI’s "Dennis and Callahan" radio show, Schilling was asked if fans should "hold their noses" while watching Bonds’s pursuit of the all-time record. Bonds is 11 from tying the all-time record of 755.

“Oh yeah. I would think so. I mean, he admitted that he used steroids,” said Schilling, according to the Globe. “I mean, there’s no gray area. He admitted to cheating on his wife, cheating on his taxes, and cheating on the game, so I think the reaction around the league, the game, being what it is, in the case of what people think. Hank Aaron not being there. The commissioner [Bud Selig] trying to figure out where to be. It’s sad.

“And I don’t care that he’s black, or green, or purple, or yellow, or whatever. It’s unfortunate . . . there’s good people and bad people. It’s unfortunate that it’s happening the way it’s happening.”

Despite Schilling's remarks, Bonds has never admitted to knowingly using steroids. On Dec. 4, 2003, Bonds was one of several athletes forced to testify as part of the BALCO case, which centered around the San Francisco-area lab, its founder Victor Conte, and Greg Anderson — Bonds’ personal trainer and longtime friend.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it's apparent again to anyone with a brain that not only is there a divide in America regarding this issue, there is a divide in the Red Sox clubhouse.

I'm sure IRS Agent Novitsky would love to have an admission from Bonds that he cheated on his taxes. It would make his tax evasion case easier to prove. It seems Mr. Schiling doesn't mind if the facts get in the way of his fancy story, but I missed the part where Bonds admitted cheating on his taxes. Hey Schil, get a clue, you fucking dope, Bonds hasn't admitted cheating on his taxes and the government, as yet, has not prosecuted a tax evasion case againt him. Read the papers once in while.

Also, I wonder if the fat blowhard (among others) intends to give his teammate Ortiz the same lack of benefit of the doubt about his admission of a possible "unknowing" use of steroids. I'm sure ther will be some perceptible difference between the two stories (Ortiz and Bonds).

AS I'VE SAID MANY TIMES. YOU SIMPLY CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP, BUT APPARENTLY THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SCHILLING DOES IN HIS OWN MIND. JUST MAKE UP "FACTS" OUT OF THIN AIR. MAKES YOU WONDER IF HE HAS EVEN READ "GAME OF SHADOWS". AND THIS IS THE GUY THAT CONGRESS WANTS TO HELP LEAD THE FIGHT AGAINST STEROID ABUSE. A GUY THAT JUST MAKES SHIT UP. COME ON, THIS IS TOO EASY.

Very interesting unsolicited comments from Ortiz about the "protein shakes". Makes you wonder what may or may not have been going on in or around those "Baseball Academies" that major league teams have scattered around the Dominican Republic. Makes you wonder if there may or may be be an eerie parallel between the aforementioned "protein shakes" and the "vitamins" of the German Democratic Republic that were given to the German women's swim team and other athletes without their knowledge. Makes you wonder sometimes, if that's why a disproportionate number of players and prospects are making it to The Show from that small island over recent years. God help everyone involved if that turns out to be the case.

Additional Note: The next day analysis by the talking heads focused primarily, almost exclusively, on Schilling's comments (which reinforces the negative evidence against Bonds) rather than Ortiz's comments (which tends to provide exculpatory evidence that Bonds story might be possible or reasonable).