Bonds Divides Nation Again...Let's Get Ready to Rumble

It's Black vs. White.....Player vs. Fans....Hitters vs. Pitchers in a battle of epic proportions for the heart and minds of baseball fans all-over the world. If he starts dividing us Boy vs. Girl, Oh man!! It's on, then. It's going to be a real throw down at that point. Let's hope cooler heads prevail before that happens people.

By the time Barry breaks the record, there won't be a man woman or child left in the country who hasn't been asked "What do you think....". It's office cooler gossip gone wild.

I don't care anymore that Hank Aaron is too busy folding Bud Selig's laundry to go.

I don't care that Bud Selig is too busy being the most ignorant commissioner of all time to go. At least he doesn't have to fold his own laundry.

I don't care that the more mealy-mouthed, panty-waisted, bed wetting, so called "guardians of the game", who still aren't over the psychological trauma of their mommies throwing out their baseball card collection, keep whining poetic about the sanctity of a baseball record like it's the deity, Get Over It, you little (INSERT COMMON NAME FOR FEMALE DOG HERE).

I don't care if those who don't like it hold their noses, in fact, I don't care if some of them hold their noses too long and have a bit of an accident, if you know what I'm saying. You know what I'm saying?

I don't care what the latest he-said, she-said...did you hear what so and so said garbage in the papers everyday. Who cares what Schilling or Wells or Ortiz or whoever have to say? I guess everyone does.

And even though you didn't ask (that's what blogs are for) I would caution all the haters piling onto the A-Rod as next Home Run King Love Boat that's currently boarding:

First, Alex is more of a Prince Charming type than a King type.

Second, Alex is a sensitive little flower, he senses that like certain high school romances, this one has all the earmarks of one based more on your feelings of revenge against the current king to be, rather than any actual true feelings of love for him. Like, it once was with Derek (giggle, giggle). This has disaster written all over it. You can't toy with the emotions of a future HOF like that.

Third, his manicurist says that the pressure of hitting all those home-runs are going to make those really gross callouses on his hands even worse and then no girl will really want him. Never mind, that won't be an impediment.

Fourth, You know how Alex responds to pressure. You've practically guranteed that he won't get the record now. He like has that thing some men get when they can't pee in a public trough like at Wrigley Field unless there's nobody else in the park and yeah, right what's the chances of that ever happening? THAT'S CRAZY.

So anyway, my point here (if indeed I really have one) is be careful what you wish for. Or whose boat you get on, this one has Gilligan's Island written all over it.

ANYWAY HERE'S THE LATEST:


From one of the best baseball blogs out there:

http://www.baseballmusings.com/

Commenting on today's USA Today Headlines:

http://www.baseballmusings.com/

Boost or No Boost?
Jason Giambi comes down on the side of Barry Bonds,
saying the steroid boost is overrated:

Giambi won't say whether he believes Bonds ever took
steroids or human growth hormone, but he's convinced
that no drug is responsible for Bonds' extraordinary
career.
"Barry is one of the greatest players, if not the
greatest, I'll ever see play," says Giambi, who has
hit 355 career home runs. "I know people have a tough
time accepting it, but what he's doing is
unbelievable. And I don't care what people say --
nothing is going to give you that gift of hitting a
baseball.

"It's the same thing for Barry. If it were that easy,
how come you don't see anyone else doing what he has
done?"


I find two things interesting about this type of
argument. It separates the skill of hitting the ball
from the strength to drive the ball. In other words,
if the eye-hand coordination isn't there, if the body
mechanics aren't there, it doesn't matter how strong
you are.

So, if players believe this is true, why take steroids
in the first place? Giambi didn't answer that.

"Unfortunately, (the rumors) are going to be a part of
it. But that's OK. I'm probably tested more than
anybody else. I'm not hiding anything," said Giambi,
hitting .273 with five homers this season. "That stuff
didn't help me hit home runs. I don't care what people
say, nothing is going to give you that gift of hitting
a baseball."

In general, people use drugs because they work.
Recreational drugs make you feel good. Steroids help
build muscle. If Giambi is suddenly becoming talkative
on the subject, let's hear the whole thing. And I hope
it's better than, "Everyone else was doing it."

My commentary regarding the article and David Pinto's
comments over at Baseball Musings:
Interesting analogy you make to use of PED and use of
recreational drugs.

It's the short-term temporary illusion that
recreational drugs make you feel better when, in most
cases, on a long-term basis, they really don't succeed
in making many people feel better overall.

I believe much the same to be true with steroids/HGH
use in baseball, reflected in Giambi's comments.

Short-term, confidence boost, yes.

Muscle Mass increase, yes. Whether that additional
mass is utilized to faster bat speed has not yet been
proven conclusively for obvious reasons.
And Bonds always had lightning quick bat speed and hit
some monster tape measure home runs even back when he
was built like a Popsicle stick.

You would have to improve bat speed, which is a
combination of strength and speed. Very difficult to
do both. Many believe without being blessed with good
genetics ie: higher proportion of fast-twitch muscle
fibers, that increased mass in most cases is
irrelevant except to make for a better looking squad
coming off the bus.

I thinks that is what the David Ortiz's and Giambi's
are getting at when they acknowledge what Bonds is
doing is admirable on some level.

Either he's the only one who has figured out how to
combine PED use with maintenance of the unique sports
skill of hitting a baseball (hardest thing to do in
sports IMO) while avoiding injury and breakdowns
associated with PED use.

Canseco's career derailed due to injuries. There are
others Jose implicated who you could argue had
potential HOF careers detoured primarily due to PED
use.

I think that's the reason for the apparent disconnect
between fans response to Bonds and players response.
Among players, most of the negative stuff has come
from pitchers (Schilling, Lidle, Wendell) although
Clemens was surprisingly positive except for the love
tap to the elbow guard incident.

Hitters know how difficult it is, with or without PED
use to hit home runs. And unfortunately, for what it's
worth, they have become the human guinea pigs as to
whether the stuff works or doesn't work effectively,
if you temporarily put ethical issues aside. We won't
know the long-term health ramifications for this set
of guys for another 20-30 years.

Ultimately, you're always going to be left with the
ethical dilemma of whether the risk of being caught
and the long-term health issues are worth the
potential reward of being a Major League player, on
whatever level.

Would you take a winning lottery check today, worth
anywhere between $1M and potentially hundreds of
millions, if you were told that if you won you could
lose 10-20 years off your life?

What's the old smokers retort? "Well, it's the last
twenty years, they weren't going to be very good years
anyway"

Posted by Charles Slavik at May 18, 2007 11:33 AM

Devil Rays in Disney & Kruckie No Likey :(

Kruk trashed the idea of D-Rays playing in Orlando in a minor league
park. This shows why Sternberg is who he is (a successful businessman)
and Kruk is who he is (an idiot, hack, talking head). Compare business acumen based on bank accounts and Sterberg wins. I mean, I can criticize Warren Buffet's investment decisions but based on our prior track records (and bank accounts), who's going to look like the fool?

Kruckie analyzed this as a former player, thinking the buffet spread in the locker room was going to be minor-league, the post-game beer was going to be minor-league, and probably that the tail in the stands was going to be decidely minor-league. Sternberg is trying to build a franchise. I give him an A for effort. And from a fans perspective, if you can see major league baseball combined with the charm and proximity of a minor-league park, you've got something. Now, if only the concession prices were the same. Well, there goes that dream.

EXCERPTS FROM THE ARTICLE:

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/05/16/Rays/Sternberg_s_blind_amb.shtml

He is a dreamer, your Devil Rays owner. Where you see apathy, he sees
potential. Where you see empty seats, he sees untapped resources.

The Rays have a hard time getting fans to cross a bridge, and this guy
is envisioning them getting excited halfway across a state.

"I don't mind ambitious, " Sternberg said, standing on a field at
Disney's Wide World Sports complex. "There's no such thing as too
ambitious."

So how could you possibly watch people walking out of a ballpark at the
start of the 10th inning and not deem it a mistake of wild proportions?

By buying into Sternberg's vision.

"We can survive barely and we can do okay if we get the support of St.
Pete and Tampa, " Sternberg said. "We can thrive - which is what
everybody in St. Pete and Tampa wants - if I do my job expanding to become a
regional franchise. From Port Charlotte up, and Orlando in.

"We have to be a regional franchise."

But, really, that was not the purpose of this series. Sternberg's plan
is grander. He sees advertising dollars. He sees demographics. He sees
marketing.

And he sees lots and lots of television sets.

Before the Rays moved into Orlando's ballpark, they invaded Central
Florida's airwaves. The Rays increased their TV package from around 25 to
67 games.

This means a market that was the 27th largest in the United States,
according to the latest census, has Rays games on TV several nights a week
all summer long.

"Would I rather have 30, 000 people in the stadium or 1-million
watching on TV?" Sternberg said. "I think I would probably rather have
1-million people watching on TV. It's more important to know that 1-million
people do care. And, from a money standpoint and the advertising, there's
more revenue derived there.

"The Red Sox draw people on TV in Maine, all over Massachusetts, down
in Connecticut, Hartford and New Haven. People three hours away, for
goodness sakes. I know they're the Red Sox, and I know we're not. It's
going to take us a long time. But you have to start. And here's where I'm
starting. I'm putting my flag in the ground right here, and I get
everything in between."

The Rays are nowhere near 1-million viewers on their television
network, but ratings are up. In Orlando, the Rays say they've actually
doubled. That may be easier when you're basically starting from zero, but it's
still a nice boost.

And team president Matt Silverman said it is a direct correlation from
the exposure of this three-game series in the market.

© Copyright 2002-2007, St. Petersburg Times

10 and Counting

Too bad all the fools like Schilling are learning the difference between ADMISSIONS and ALLEGATIONS.

Too bad some fools will never learn the difference.

I wonder how they'll reconcile the clean player vs. dirty player argument when/if A-Rod hits 800-900.

Great player in the artificial turf era, when speed was at a premium.
Great player in the small park, juiced ball era, when power was at a premium.
Greatest combination of speed an power in baseball history.

Currently leads the league in HR's and OPS at 42. If it was Clemens leading the league in major pitching categories, we would be having a parade, without suspicion and innuendo.

You'd have to be an absolute moron as a player to still be juicing, and I love the argument that HGH is undetectable. YEAH, UNDETECTABLE NOW. What serious player would risk his legacy on the chance that 10 years from now the technology won't be developed to go back and test prior samples for HGH use. You'd have to be a complete idiot.

The countdown is 10. Enjoy the show. HAHAHA

Kentucky Derby Recap

From second to last at the 1/2 mile post to blow past the field on the rail, just phenomenal view and brilliant pickup of the move by the track announcer.

Brilliant ride by the jockey of Street Sense.

Recall our picks to watch were in order:
Street Sense
Scat Daddy
Great Hunter

Of course Street Sense was bet down to the race favorite by the time the horses went to the post, so there would not have been much money in having the favorite win.
I have to admit to thinking about trying to nail the old trifecta with these three but never got around to it. But luckily I did not consult with this fellow before the race. Sounds like he's getting both his gambling and probability and statistics skills from our old friend Charles Barkley.

http://blog.sportscolumn.com/story/2007/5/8/85738/80228/oth_other/How_not_to_bet_the_Kentucky_Derby

We love betting the trifecta. For a buck or two, you can win hundreds if not thousands of dollars on a race. Hell, sometimes we'll even go crazy and go with the trifecta box. However, we also know enough about statistics to know that you can't bet every single permutation in a race and expect to come out on top.

But that's exactly what a man in Rochester, NY did. On the day of the Kentucky Derby, a man walked into an OTB and asked how much it would cost to buy every possible trifecta combination. And now we break for a quick math lesson--

If you have 20 horses in the field, the possible outcomes for the first three horses would be 20! / (20-3)! = 6,840. Likewise, a superfecta (first 4 horses) would be 116,280. And now back to your regularly scheduled programming--

The man was told the answer and came back to place the wagers. It cost him a total of $13,680 for his $2 trifectas and he wound up winning... wait for it... wait for it... $440. If you're gonna make a bet like this, you better know what you're getting yourself into. And since the payout odds are terrible on favorites, you should just eliminate those trifecta combinations. But alas, the man had more cash than math skills so now he's $13,240 poorer for his trouble.

This story would only be better if he does the exact same thing in the Preakness.

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).

KO and DP Comment on Bonds/Race Poll

You just can't make this stuff up. Every day these two mental midgets go on air and act as if they are the final-word, the moral compass of the nation, especially regarding sports stories.

Little Danny Pugh asks Keith Olber-douche his opinion regarding the recently published ESPN/ABC News poll and whether it indicates the racial divide that it seemingly does to most people with a brain.

And the Douche Who Would Save the Democracy dismisses the results by saying in effect "Well, were these sports fans who were polled? Because otherwise the results are meaningless to me". Hey stupid, get a clue or buy a dog and name him Clue then maybe you'll have one.

Do you honestly think the pollsters didn't think of that little detail? You obviously didn't read the story you were commenting on. Much like the Chuck Wagon opining on a story/subject of which he had little to zero knowledge about.

How do these guys continue employment with ESPN? They really need to stop polluting the airwaves with this continued below-mediocre level of research and knowledge.

THESE GUYS ABSOLUTELY STINK!

Here's a limited description of the poll methodology and it clearly indicates they sampled baseball fans, they didn't just stand on a corner in front of the Museum of Art and Science and sample people who were unlikely to have any knowledge of the subject/questions. And even if they did, one of the responses is usually No Opinion/ Don't Know, which explains why the results don't total 100%.


The ESPN/ABC News poll was conducted by telephone March 29-April 22, 2007, among a random national sample of 799 adult baseball fans, including an oversample of 203 African-Americans. The results have a 3.5-point error margin among all respondents, seven points among blacks.

Maybe these two ass-clowns and the Chuck Wagon should, when the subject matter is clearly over their head, have the guts to say No Opinion, No Comment or better yet, Not Knowledgeable Enough about the Subject Matter at hand.

MLB Draft Televised.. Roger's Back...and Linceum Debuts

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2862901

Now we just need the MLB equivalent of Mel Kiper....and a Baseball Combine, televised, and I'll be happy, for now. But, as always, I reserve the right to bitch and complain about something. But this is good.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLEMENS IS BACK WITH THE YANKEES - OMG!!!!


Who saw this coming? Call me gullible but I believed Roger when he said he didn't know if he was coming back this season. And is he telling Houston, YOU GUYS, SUCK!!! by not coming back with them? Now he's jilted the Red Sox and the Astros and at one point the Yankees. This guy really knows how to burn bridges, and repair them.....if the money is right.....and the team is desparate enough. Yeah, this will work.

(Voice of God, Bob Sheppard) Now warming up in the Yankees bullpen, The Ultimate Mercenary, Number 22, Roger Clemens. Oh yeah, Rocket's back and all is right with the world. What I'd really like to know is: Who's' the biz-notch Roger or Andy Pettitte? Aw, heck I'm just glad these fells are back together again. I couldn't stand to see Pettitte in such emotional pain. Pitching through the tears. I can hear the theme song to "Courtship of Eddie's Father" playing softly in the background.

And how will the Andy and Roger clique get along with the already fractured Derek and A-Rod relationship. Could it pull them closer together? And OMG how did Andy not know that Roger was coming back, aren't they like BFFL, I mean OMG, he didn't know, he said so on the bench.

And even Derek didn't know and he was texting and IM'ng him all the time. OMG it was such a big secret and now it's not, like OMG.

The Yankees are now the team that most resembles and acts like a hormonal, 13-year old girls softball team in American League history. Not that theirs anything wrong with that and my apologies in advance to all hormonal, 13-year old girls softball teams across the country. You go girls. NO, NOT YOU, YANKEES.

I'm sorry, I know this is evil and junk, but I'm hoping the Yankees have one more hamstring pull in them real soon. It would be poetic justice. Except some other poor, innocent Yankee underling might get fired. It's the Yankee Way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not since John D'Acquisto's debut for the Giants has a Giants rookie pitcher generated such anticipation and excitement. And although the stat line was not great, the stuff appeared as electric as advertised. His delivery reminds me of Orel Hershiser a bit with the head tilt. Hopefully, he has the same command and mental makeup down the road as The Bulldog. He seems like he was mumbling to himself as he pitched, hopefully batters can't read his lips from that distance. Maybe it was just nerves.

Hard-throwing righthanders under six-feet tall do not have a great track record in the majors, most end their string of domination at the collegiate level (think Richie Lewis from Florida State some years back), but Lincecum seems to have the goods.

A 98 MPH heater, and a back breaking, knee buckling curve ball, that we did not see very much off last night, gives me thoughts of Tim Hudson or Roy Oswalt in the Giants future, along with Matt Cain, and oh yes, the other Barry. This could be a fun half-decade to be a Giants fan. Now find a closer.

Happy 76th Birthday to Willie Mays

Might still be the greatest all around baseball player of all time. ESPN's Peter Gammons interviewed him for last night's Giants-Phillies broadcast and Mays brought up an interesting point. When Gammons asked him if had Willie played in more favorable hitters parks than Candlestick and the Polo Grounds, would he have hit possibly 800 HR's, Mays reminded him that he lost nearly 2 years to a stint in the Army that may have cost him 70-80 HR's. I'll leave it to the SABR crowd to calculate the park-adjustments, but Mays certainly never played in a park that was nicknamed "The Launching Pad".

Absolutely, one of the most awesome packages of speed and power in the history of the game. Along with Barry and Bobby Bonds, Ricky Henderson and even Joe Morgan.



One of the best qualities about Mays was he had an infectious joy for playing the game. In his earlier years in New York, it was one of his more admirable and marketable qualities. It didn't seem like he had as much fun in the game in his later years, for a variety of reasons.



Given the circumstances (1954 World Series), one of the greatest catches of all-time, and the throw afterward to keep the runner from scoring makes this catch an even more remarkable defensive play.



Always seemed poised to deliver a big strike, a big play, whether it be at-bat, on the bases or in the field. I loved watching him play. To me, like Ted Williams, Mays is baseball royalty. As far as RH hitters: Mays, Frank Robinson and Aaron were the best I've ever seen. LH Hitters: I'd rank Bonds, Ruth and Ted Williams in whatever order you'd like. Among switch hitters: Mickey Mantle and Ricky Henderson. All were great all-around players as well.

HAPPY 76TH BIRTHDAY TO THE SAY-HEY KID.

America Divided over Bonds Chase

Divided along racial lines, duh. What have I been saying for years and years. I find it amazing that the poll reports 37% of fans would like to see him pass Aaron's record, that is certainly not the perception you get from the media, a group that is disproportionately white compared to the American population.

Also, interesting is the breakdown by those who feel Bonds is HOF worthy. 85% of blacks compared to 53% whites. In other, words if black America voted, Bonds would receive the necessary 75%, if white America voted he would not. Given that an overwhelming majority of the baseball writers who vote are white, you can see where the numbers will fall using basic mathematical skills (Don't ask Charles Barkley for help).

Clearly, race is a factor in the reporting and the perception of this issue. As the saying goes, White America needs to recognize that "denial is not just a river in Egypt". Just like any other significant life problem, recognition of the problem is ALWAYS the first step in correcting the problem. Anyone that wants to continue to argue against those two basic facts is an utter fool.

These poll figures clearly show that once again here is what the issue of race boils down to in this country today:

CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION-THE PROBLEM OF "TALKING PAST ONE ANOTHER": "Two persons, carrying on a discussion in the same universe of discourse-corresponding to the same historical-social conditions-can and must do so quite differently from two persons identified with different social positions. These two types of discussion, i.e., between socially and intellectually heterogeneous participants, are to be clearly distinguished.

"Ours is a world in which social groupings, which had hitherto lived more or less isolated from one another, each making itself and its own world of thought absolute, are now, in one form or another, merging into one another. Not only Orient and Occident, not only the various nations of the west, but also the various social strata of these nations, which previously had been more or less self-contained, and, finally, the different occupational groups within these strata and the intellectual groups in this most highly differentiated world-all these are now thrown out of the self-sufficient, complacent state of taking themselves for granted, and are forced to maintain themselves and their ideas in the face of the onslaught of these heterogeneous groups.

"How do they carry on this struggle? They usually do so with but few exceptions by 'talking past one another'; i.e., although they are more or less aware that the person with whom they are discussing the matter represents another group, and that it is likely that his/her mental structure as a whole is often quite different when a concrete thing is being discussed, they speak as if their differences were confined to the specific question at issue around which their present disagreement crystallized. They overlook the fact that their antagonist differs from them in his/her whole outlook, and not merely in the opinion about the point under discussion.

"This indicates that there are types of intellectual intercourse between heterogeneous persons. The differences in the total mental structure remain obscurely in the background in so far as the contact between the participants is concerned. Consciousness for both is crystallized about the concrete issue. For each of the participants the 'object' has a more or less different meaning because it grows out of the whole of their perspective frames of reference, as a result of which the meaning of the object in the perspective of the other person remains, at least in part, obscure. Hence 'talking past one another' is an inevitable phenomenon of the 'age of equalization'."

-Karl Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia


Also, please stop with the argument that there is no racism involved because it's a black man eclipsing another black mans record. There was no love for Aaron as he approached Ruth's record.

As the numbers show, Bonds "personality" as a factor in his acceptance vis-a-vis Aaron is is more of an indictment of white America as it again indicates that there is a certain way blacks have to act in order to be "acceptable" to whites.

Ali was not very popular during the time he was dominating the boxing world, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was not popular while he was the most dominant force in the NBA. Both later became more palatable and acceptable, but both competed and endured intense levels of hatred and vitriol.

I would make the argument that Bonds is currently competing and challenging Aaron's record in a climate that is far filled with more hatred and risk then even Hank Aaron may have endured. If it could possibly be measured, I would bet that the risk of a death threat to Bonds being accomplished before he completes his record chase is far greater the level of risk Aaron may have competed under. And as we've seen with the Seles incident, and the various incidents of fan on player/coach violence on major league baseball fields recently, it cannot be denied that there is a heightened level of risk. Combine the climate with alcohol and you have a very volatile and combustible mix indeed.

The racism is more effectively covered up today than it was in the 1970's due to the politically correct environment in which we live in, but it clearly is in fact, still there.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2861930

Alcohol is a Greater Danger to Youth than Steroids

At the risk of having Tony LaRussa come at me with a fungo bat, I will say I'm not surprised by the results of the Josh Hancock autopsy. Mr. LaRussa had even more insight into Hancock's situation than I did, but upon hearing the initial accounts of the accident, my first thoughts were DWI or DWD. Turns out we had both, with a possible marijuana chaser. The results do not make it any less of a tragedy, in fact maybe more, since the accident was in many ways preventable.

Once again, we continue to ignore a national problem, that according to the data is many times more of a public health problem to American youth than steroids. The issue is underage drinking. Maybe this will be somewhat of a wake-up call to the issue.

Unfortunately, I doubt it. Alcohol is legal and widely accepted across the nation. However, at one time so was tobacco. And it was an issue of choice and personal responsibility. Then came the results that showed the danger of second hand smoke on others and it was no longer you killing yourself slowly, but you affecting the health, safety and welfare of others. And that's where your rights end and mine and those of society as a whole, begin. So we enacted restrictions on tobacco advertising , sales and when and where smokers could light up, much to the chagrin of tobacco users. And this occurred even tough the tobacco industry lobby was once as strong in Washington as the alcohol lobby is today.

You may be asking, hey Slav have you gone MADD? No, but I am mad, because the parallels between alcohol and the health and safety risks are eerily close to those of tobacco back in the 70's. Do I think there may be a day when advertising rules for alcohol products and companies will be the same as those in place for the tobacco industry? Maybe.

In the Hancock case, fortunately, he did not kill anyone else, but that often is not the case. Will Congress hold hearings on this public health issue? I doubt it. Too many campaign contributions are at stake, too many Washington parties fueled by alcohol, too many mistresses swayed by the effects of alcohol too take that one on.

IT'S A CRAZY WORLD WE LIVE IN.


http://www.centurycouncil.org/underage/65_data.html

Underage Drinking Fact Sheet

* Underage drinking remains a persistent problem among youth, though there are signs progress is being made. According to the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, about 10.8 million Americans between ages 12-20 report current alcohol consumption; this represents nearly 28% of this age group for whom alcohol use is illegal. Although there have been some declines in underage drinking from 2004 to 2005, since 2002, past month alcohol consumption has remained relatively unchanged among 12-20 year olds.
o Of these youth, nearly 7.2 million (19%) reported having engaged in binge drinking and 2.3 million (6%) in heavy drinking. More males than females aged 12 to 20 reported current alcohol consumption (29% v. 28%), binge drinking (21% v. 16%) and heavy drinking (8% v. 4%) in 2005.
o These rates of consumption reported in the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health are similar to estimates reported in the 2002, 2003 and 2004. However, there were slight declines in past month consumption and binge drinking among 12- to 17-year olds between 2004 and 2005.
o Among older age groups, the prevalence of current alcohol consumption decreased with increasing age, however, among America's youth the rate of current alcohol consumption increases with increasing age according to the 2005 survey, from 3% at age 12 to 6% at age 13, 11% at age 14, 20% at age 15, 27% at age 16, 33% at age 17, 44% at age 18, 52% at age 19, and 58% at age 20. The rate reaches a peak at 69% among persons 21 years old.
o In 2005, more male than female 12- to 20-year olds reported current alcohol consumption (29% v. 28%, respectively), binge drinking (21% v. 16%), and heavy drinking (8% v. 4%). Unfortunately, among youths 12- to 17- years old, the percentage of females who report drinking in the past 30 days remains slightly, although not significantly, higher compared to their male peers (17% for females compared with 16% for males). However, the 2005 rate of current alcohol consumption among 12- to 17-year old males and females represents a decline from the 2004 rates — the one year decline among males was significant.
* According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), first use of alcohol is typically reported to begin around age 12.
* According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), children who begin drinking before the age of 15 have a four times greater chance of becoming alcoholic as an adult than those who begin at 21, the legal drinking age.
* Progress continues to be made in the fight against underage drinking according to the 2004-05 Pride Survey. The National Summary of the Pride Survey, again recorded an all time low level, and a statistically significant decrease, in the number of students who reported they drank alcohol in the past year.
* According to the 19th Annual Pride Survey, among all students in grades 6 to 12, reported annual and monthly consumption of any alcohol product decreased significantly from the previous school year. Annual consumption rates decreased from 47.2 percent in the 2004-05 school year to 45.4 in 2005-06 — a statistically significant decrease and record low level. Monthly consumption decreased from 22.5 percent in 2004-05 to 21.4 in the current survey school year — a statistically significant one year decrease.
* The 2006 Monitoring the Future study also showed declining alcohol consumption among American youth, although, alcohol consumption continues to be widespread among today's youth. The prevalence measures (lifetime and annual) for alcohol consumption showed significant decline among 12th graders.
* Four out of ten students have consumed alcohol at least once by the end of eighth grade and slightly more than seven out of ten students have done so by the end of high school. That is, 41% of eighth grade students, 62% of tenth graders, and 73% of twelfth graders report they have tried alcohol. The figures represent a lifetime alcohol consumption decline of nearly one percentage point among 8th graders, declines of nearly two percent among 10th graders and two percentage points among 12th graders, a statistically significant one-year decline over the past year for high school seniors.
* Additionally, the 2006 Monitoring the Future survey revealed a statistically significant decline in the annual rate of alcohol consumption 12th graders from 2005 to 2006, with all three grade levels reaching record low levels over the past decade. Annual consumption among 8th grade and 10th grade students declined only slight from 2005 to 2006, while 12th grade students' annual prevalence declined two percentage points from 68.6 to 66.5. Annual consumption rates among 8th and 10th graders for 2006 were 34% and 56%, respectively.
* Thirty-day alcohol consumption remained relatively unchanged among 8th and 10th graders with prevalence rates of 17% and 34%, respectively. Although not statistically significant, past 30-day alcohol consumption rates declined nearly two percent among high school seniors from 47% in 2005 to 45.3% in 2006, a new record low. Additionally, binge drinking (having five or more drinks in a row) decreased nearly two percent among 12th graders in 2006, marking another historical low level at 27%.
* The one-year one percentage point declines noted in the 2006 Monitoring the Future Study, while not always statistically significant, are notable because they reflect a longer-term gradual decline in underage drinking.
* A qualitative research study conducted by Amica Insurance confirmed that teenagers whose parents talk with them versus talk at them might be less at risk to engage in harmful behavior involving alcohol. What's more, teens said they would be more apt not to drink and drive if they had heard directly from their parents how important they are to them.
* Only one in four teens in America (27 percent, about 6.5 million) lives with "hands-on" parents — parents who have established a household culture of rules and expectations for their teen's behavior and monitor what their teens do: such as the TV shows they watch, the CD's they buy, what they access on the Internet, and where they are spending evenings and weekends. These teens are at one quarter the risk of smoking, drinking and using drugs when compared with teens who have "hands-off" parents, according to a new survey of 1,000 American teens ages 12-17 conducted by The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA).
* According to the most recent wave of The TRU Study (Fall 2005) from Teenage Research Unlimited, drinking and driving continues to be an issue of great importance to teens. Three-fourths of teens (75%) cite drunk driving as an issue they care about, making it one of teens' top life-and-death issues and ranking it third overall, following education and child abuse and ahead of such issues as war, terrorism, economy, environment, drug abuse, cigarette smoking, racism, and abortion.
* Young drivers are over represented in both alcohol- and non-alcohol-related fatality rates. Alcohol-related fatality rates are nearly twice as high for 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds as for the population over 21. More than 40 percent of 18-, 19-, and 20- year-old crash fatalities are alcohol-related.
* In 2005 approximately 31.7 million people aged 12 and older drove under the influence of alcohol at least once during the past year. These data reflect a decrease of more than five percent from the 33.5 million persons reporting drinking in driving in the 2002 National Survey of Drug Use and Health. Driving under the influence of alcohol continues to be associated with age, with a peak among 21- to 25-year olds (28%).
o Eight percent of 16- and 17-year olds reported driving under the influence, and 20% of 18- to 20-year olds reported engaging in this behavior at least once in the past year.
* In 2004, among 15- to 20-year-old drivers, 29 percent of the drivers who were killed in motor vehicle crashes had been drinking. Additionally, for the same year and age group, 24 percent of these young drivers had BAC levels of .08 or higher.
* For young drivers age 15 to 20, alcohol involvement is higher among males than females. In 2004, 26 percent of young male drivers involved in fatal crashes had been drinking at the time of the crash, compared with 12 percent of young female drivers involved in fatal crashes.