JoeHova

Speaking of numbers, I don't think the Brewers have given out Gantner's #17 since he retired. I could be wrong, but I don't remember ever seeing it.

Sounds cool, but aren't some of the NES titles still among the best selling video games of all time? I think Mario, Mario 2 and Mario 3 are 3 of the top 10 selling home console video games of all-time with Mario being far and away the all-time champ (and Mario 3 being the title holder among non-bundled games). Anyway, I would collect old video games too (there's a store by my house that has thousands of NES games for pretty reasonable prices (most seem to be .50 to $2, though that's judging from a cursory glance)), but my wife would kill me as she thinks I already have too many collections of things. Also, I always hated blowing into the stupid cartridge to try to get it to work. My hope is that Nintendo starts releasing more of the old classics on the Wii Vrtual Console.

If you are going to use it, I strongly suggest buying a new one. I know with motorcycle and bicycle helmets, they say that they lose effectiveness every time they hit the ground (actually, you're supposed to replace them if they ever hit the ground, but that's mostly because of the polystyrene foam) and your helmet sounds like it's hit the ground quite a bit. I would guess batting helmets are allowed to hit the ground a bit more, but still, I'm not sure they're meant to be used indefinitely. A new helmet might cost more than refinishing the old one, but the upgrade in safety would be worth it, imo.

Umm, if we are judging which sports athletes should be playing by the highest paid player in that sport, why aren't baseball players playing golf instead? I guess they had to settle for baseball because golf was just too hard for them, it involves too much walking around. Seriously, I don't get that attitude. Nothing that doesn't pay millions is worth much? It would be better to be a Joe Dillon or Craig Counsell than to be Carl Lewis or Michael Phelps or Hicham El Guerrouj? There's no inherent satisfaction to be had in being the best in the world (possibly the best in the world, ever) at something? And why did all those idiots play baseball or football or basketball back in the day before salaries became astronomical? Why didn't they box instead, that's where the money was. It's so much harder to make an Olympic track and field team than it is to make a baseball team that it's laughable to even compare the two. There are 750+ (because of callups and injuries) jobs available every year in baseball, compared to 70 spots every 4 years in U.S. Olympic track and field. In addition, the field of possible track athletes includes basically anyone who ever played any sport. If a guy was especially fast or strong but mainly played football or basketball or soccer or wrestled, I guarantee the coaches had him go out for track as well. And one more point, Michael Bennett was the fastest player in the NFL for years, yet he barely even made the Olympic Trials, much less the team itself. You can just as easily make the case that pro baseball, football and basketball players aren't good enough to make the track team as you can the opposite point.

?? Bonifacio is two years older but also two levels above. What does Green's realtive youth matter in that context? It's not like Bonifacio is in A+ or even AA where a criticism of his age could be warranted. That said, there's no question Green looks more advanced as a hitter than Bonifacio did at the same age (Bonifacio has better A+ numbers but he was playing in the notorious Cal league), but Bonifacio is a middle infielder whereas Green has moved to the corners.

If they were going to sign a steroid-tainted guy, this isn't the one they should have signed.

fair enough, but I have to imagine most (if not all) baseball writers have been to the HOF at some point and seen that there is not a writer's (or broadcaster's) wing. The actual award winners are certainly aware that they didn't get a plaque. also, about that headline for Whiteside, nowhere in the article itself is he called a hall of famer or mentioned as being inducted into the HOF. I think the headline writer was using that phrase rhetorically, not literally.

possibly, or possibly to make Tracy Ringolsby (a Star alum) or any of various other colleagues look good.

I should clarify that this isn't a criticism of Holtzman, I was just disappointed in ESPN and their relentless campaign of misinformation.

how is it semantics? You're either a hall of famer or you're not. Craig Counsell (1997 World Series) has a bigger display at the HOF than all those award winners combined, is he a hall of famer? To be a Hall of Famer is to be elected to the Hall of Fame, spink (and frick) award winners were not, ergo they are not hall of famers. and I don't think it's unfair to single out any news organization for reporting gross inaccuracies. How can we trust anything they say if they willfully lie in order to make their colleagues look better?

Nope. From the link you posted: "Each award recipient (not to be confused with an inductee) is presented with a certificate during the Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony and is recognized in the "Scribes & Mikemen" exhibit in the Library of the National Baseball Hall of Fame."

they said Holtzman was a hall of famer. Ever since Gammons won one of those awards for media, ESPN has been obsessive about referring to him as a hall of famer and referring to the "writer's wing" of the hall of fame when there is no such thing. There is a little display with black and white photos of the award recipients tucked away near the library.

I just read this article. It's interesting, but I have to wonder what it is about Gillespie that makes him a better bet than Salome, when Angel is 2 years younger and has basically identical career numbers. Gillespie is faster, but that is more than balanced out by Angel being a catcher. overall, a good article but a few nit-picks (for example, I question how ready Gamel is to hit ML pitching right now. I think he could use some time in AAA. He brought up Salome's very high BABIP, but not Gamel's astronomical one).

Long story short, no one is going to get him for cheap. I would have said the same thing about Harden, but that turned out to be wrong. Obviously Harden's injury concerns are much more worrisome than Street's, but still, Beane is inscrutable.

It's a shame that ESPN now even uses obituaries to peddle misinformation. Nothing is off limits to them. Also, the save stat has contributed mightily to the stupidity of current roster construction, but that can't really be blamed on Holtzman, it was an unintended consequence. And trying to give relief pitchers credit was a worthy goal.

Harden seems kind of like Sheets to me, in the sense that if he's healthy, you might as well use him as much as possible (within reason, of course, no 150 pitch outings). Rich is even more injury prone than Ben, so maybe it's different, but if a guy is extremely likely to get hurt, you might as well use him hard and get what you can out of him when he isn't.

Nas sampled "Africa" on "New World" from his 1999 album "Nastradamus". I've never been able to decide if its a good song or an extremely corny attempt at positivity. That said, it could have been sampled by other people too, so that may not be the song you heard. On the wikipedia page for "Africa (Toto song)", they have a list of other hip-hop songs that have sampled the song. If it's not Nas, maybe it's one of those guys.

I remember reading that Baseball America (I think it was) article about that too. I don't remember many specific examples of other people who had wrist injuries besides Nomar Garciaparra, who came back and had two excellent seasons right after his injury, and Adrian Gonzalez who didn't miss much time but did have a bad year in 2003. My point, I guess, is that I was somewhat skeptical of that article. Most of the examples used were prospects, many of whom would have never panned out anyway. I know Dustin Pedroia had a broken hamate last year during the end of the season and the playoffs and he kept playing and is back this year doing well too. David Ortiz had his removed in 2001 and has had 7 straight very good-excellent seasons. Here's a summary of an article from a medical journal that lists the average recovery time until a person is at full-strength again from the removal of a hamate bone as 8 weeks.

Could you elaborate? I can't decide if I should get 09 because I don't play the college games that much.

I hadn't heard of these, I may have to give them a shot. I love nice sheets, after sleeping on some nice, high-thread count sheets, it's impossible to go back to the standard (150-180 or so) crap that most places sell. It's like sleeping on burlap. That said, thread count isn't everything.

I disagree with you. There's no question (imo) that Branyan has been average or better so far this year. Who knows if it will continue, but he's been fine.

Actually, I don't think that's why teams don't use "computerized drafting" (what would that even mean?). The consensus seems to be that HS stats are basically meaningless because of the small samples and varying levels of competition. College stats are little better. If teams could come up with a formula that predicted success somewhat accurately based on HS or college numbers, I guarantee you they would use it. It hasn't been possible to do so though because of inherent limitations in the data.

The problem with Durham being a bench player is that he has no versatility. He's 36 and has played 1 inning in his career at a position other than 2B. I don't see him learning 3B or OF on the fly. Then again, Yost did use Cirillo at SS a little, so who knows? I doubt they keep Durham around though. They seem more likely to try to get a Counsell or Graffanino type who can at least pretend to play all 4 infield positions. Even Dillon and Branyan can play 4-5 spots.

It seems a given from everyone's perspective, with no need to consider his health into the equation... I disagre.. But is it really fair to blame 4 bad years on that same injury? Maybe it is, but I have some doubts about that. I mean, pitchers come back from getting ligaments replaced much quicker than that, why would it take so long for a broken bone to heal? I know wrist injuries are problematic, but still, 4 years? I really think much of it was just poor performance. If you look at his numbers, the only time he was good before this year was the first 3/4 of 2002. He wasn't especially good in rookie ball the year before (small sample though) and he struggled when he was moved up to the Cal League (small sample again though). Brad could, I guess, be picking up where he left off in 2002. I just think it's unlikely. I think he's having a nice year in AAA, but I'm not convinced it means he's reclaimed his prospect status. I think it's more likely he's just having a nice first half or he's becoming an AAA slugger. I realize a lot of people like Brad personally, and so do I. People seem to think that I (and other detractors) are hoping he'll fail. That's not the case, I'd love it if he broke out and became a good MLer. I just don't think this half season is evidence he's done that.

But how can you say that? God is in the details. Seriously, the details are everything.