Thurston Fluff

Now that's my kind of sport. Let's all knock for the day and go bowling! As a left hander I find bowling to be very discriminatory. Ever try to find a left handed bowling ball? They never have a lefty section of balls and trying to bowl with a right handed ball nearly tears your thumb off at the knuckle. At least in kindergarten they labeled scissors to help us. Bowling is worse than kindergarten scissors by far.

I'm not doubting your interpretation logan3825 I'm just wondering what the net benefit is to the offense if the crappy hitting pitcher is replaced with a crappy hitting fielder. If they want great fielding and great hitting then just have a separate offense and defense and be done with it. Personally I think having to deal with players weaknesses is all part of what makes the game so fun.

Going back tot he autograph thing I just don't think any minor league player should ever pass up a request to sign something. If it's a fan they have a duty to the team to help the stadium draw fans. If it's for chairty it helps the team ingratiate itself to the community. Minor league baseball is all about the fan experience and part of that experience is getting closer to the players than you can at the big league level. It helps the local team draw more fans when they have a connection with players who will only be there a year or so. If it's a good player many times less. The draw is the intimate atmosphere and the accessibility to the players. They have a responsibility to the team and the city they are currently playing in to make it economically viable. The two best ways to do that is to play well and be personable on a one to one basis.

So what you're saying is the DH allows a team to have a crappy hitting shortstop or catcher on the team instead of just having a crappy hitting pitcher? What's the point in that?

How do they keep from spilling their beer? To me that shows even more athleticism.

If you can't remember where those three years went you are getting the most out of your college experience.

It's not like soccer's a real sport anyway. It's not a spectator sport but it certainly takes more of an athlete to play than baseball. Any sport that can be played while drinking beer or smoking a cigarette can hardly be called a sport. If a soccer player smoked he would barf up a lung.

It sure can because there is no advantage in the NL parks because the AL and NL pitchers are equally crappy, while in the AL parks, the advantage is significant. That doesn't mean the AL is better because of the DH. It only means the AL has an advantage in AL games vs the NL because they have to pay for a DH while NL teams don't because they only play a handful of games in the AL each year. Which goes back to the fact that there is no financial advantage to a DH.

There's also a reason that the AL has dominated the NL in interleague play over the last 10 years: The DH. Since half the games are played in the NL with no DH this cannot be true.

This is not meant to be all that sicentific but if there is a true danger of pitchers getting injured then there should be more injuires to NL pitchers than AL. I will continue to look for better stats that help us further but thought the current DL in each league would be a useful starting point until more informative ones can be found. I looked at starting pitchers since relievers have so few ab's. The AL currently has 23 starting pitchers o the DL. The NL has 19. Of those 19 only two of them are related to hitting. I think we could argue there is as much danger in having to pitch to better batters 1-9 than there is in standing at the plate 3 times every five days.

Is there some place we can go to find out if there are more pitching injuries in the NL than the AL? It is just something people are going to disagree on though so no real use arguing it. Eventually the financial side of baseball will probably force the DH on the NL whether they like it or not. I'm not sure there is a financial benefit to having one more starter on every team. Seems like the players union wouldn't be so adamant about keeping the DH if it was cheaper for teams to have a DH. In all of sports a typical pitcher hitting is the biggest mismatch I've seen. It wouldn't be if you had to watch David Ortiz field every day.

Why is that hard to believe? People wouldn't pay for personal trainers if they could just read a page of how to work out and get the maximum benefit. To get the most out of a steroid, a player would need to work with someone that knew the athletes body, knew what the steroid was supposed to do, and implement a program that aimed to give maximum performance to the athlete. I guess I just don't get your logic here. If he had steroids and he used them while working out the way he always did he would see some benefit from said usage. It's not some sort of secret formula that has no effect at all unless used only is certain dosages according to body fat % and weight with only a certain diet. If he didn't get maximum benefit because he used the wrong dosage or something that doesn't automatically mean he wouldn't get any benefit at all. If he did get steroids from someone he used them. If he used them he got some sort of benefit from them. If he got some sort of benefit it really is irrelevant that he didn't get maximum benefit from it does it? You didn't. You didn't understand what I wrote, and so I clarified what I wrote. I wrote that Alex wanted to limit his exposure. You read that and thought I wrote that Alex didn't want "anybody" to know that he had steroids. Even if he wanted to limit his exposure he would still want to get some sort of benefit from using them wouldn't he? I mean what's the point of taking the risk at all if he didn't plan on getting some sort of benefit from them? Which leads me back to the idea of him getting enough information on how to properly use them to get some sort of benefit out of them. Granted he would want to limit his exposure but to limit it so much that he essentially took them for no benefit at all defies common sense. If he was willing to risk exposure enough to get them then it seems logical he would risk further exposure to make sure he knew how to use them to get some sort of benefit from them. Other wise it makes no sense at all to even try to obtain them.

I sure hope so, I will never understand why people think watching a pitcher other than a Gallardo type hit is entertaining and while it 'adds more strategy', it really doesn't add very much. Is it any less entertaining than watching Prince field a ball or Braun try to play third? If you want the best of the best doing only what they do best why not have all DH's and let the top defensive players field? Then we could watch only perfect baseball being played without having to worry at all about certain players limitations or hiding their weaknesses in 50% of the game. To me baseball is supposed to be played by the same players offensively and defensively until the manager takes them out. If the pitcher is playing on the field he is one of nine, and only nine, until he is taken out of the game. Then the team has to be built around player's strengths and weaknesses. A GM has to take all aspects of a player into account while assembling his team. The manager has to make choices based on all aspects of the game not just how well someone hits or fields.

What's the thought process on moving Hall? Pardon my ignorance Doug but lets take a look at the time line. He was the team MVP three years ago while playing primarily one position. So you moved him to the outfield. He sucked in the field and at the plate. So you moved him once again to third. He still sucks but with no better options in 09 you let him stay at third and see if some stability helps. It does. He plays good, sometimes spectacular, defense at third and regains his offense to the tune of an .853 OPS and a 360 OBP. So you move to a spot he never played him again? It's beyond stupid. The thing both Nelson and Duffy need some playing time to get sorted out and so we can see if they have any value long term. Why make the team worse by hurting two positions instead of one. It makes no sense.

Please show me anywhere that I made such a reference. That is just an insulting sentence with no basis and no value. Lighten up it was obviously a poor attempt at humor. I'm not sure why this comment from you is so much better a comment or adds anything more to the conversation than my comment did. Does he go to the local Golds Gym and say "Hi, I'm Alex Rodriguez and I want to know how to use these steroids to make me better"? The whole point is you seemed to insinuate he could somehow get hold of steroids without anyone knowing (which pretty much means he had to make them BTW). I think that it is far from likely. He had to know someone, cousin perhaps, who got them for him. Obviously the person who got them for A-Rod knew he was getting them for A-rod. If he was taking them to improve his performance and managed to find some it is hard to believe he somehow couldn't get the ancillary information to get the most out of using them. Perhaps from the same source as he got the actual product from. Actually, the other way that he could get them without a stranger knowing that he had them is that he had his cousin buy them. He presumably has undeniable trust in his cousin. Unfortunately, his cousin doesn't happen to be an atheltic trainer. Where did I ever say he got them from a stranger? If his cousin can get them it seems likely his cousin would also get some info on how to use them correctly. You don't need an athletic trainer to use steroids. I would feel much better about it being true if it wasn't being doen for a book. Book editors are much more lax about fact checking then are news outlets and book publishers have an incentive to throw out anything that might goose sales I just heard on the radio that the person who wrote the book also had a lot of bad info on the Duke Lacrosse rape incident a few years ago as well. Something she has yet to admit or retract. So this is far from a reliable author. Certainly someone who needs to have more than unnamed sources we are supposed to just trust on her say.

I wonder if Harden's injuries are starting to catch up with him. 14 walks in 20 some innings and a 5.11 ERA. Still lots of k's but I don't know if this is the same guy that pitched in Oakland. Really that staff as a whole is not as good as it should be so far. I always liked Marshal and Lilly is worth what he's being paid but Zambrano has been pretty middle of the road so far. As far as the Brewers not facing Zambrano given their history against him and their history with no name spot starters I'd almost rather they faced Zambrano.

Why would you assume that? How does a player do this? Does he go to the local Golds Gym and say "Hi, I'm Alex Rodriguez and I want to know how to use these steroids to make me better"? Alex was using a controlled substance. It's understandable that he might be concerned about privacy and not want to reach out and put himself in danger of getting exposed. You don't really think A-Rod went street corner to street corner in disguise until he found someone selling them, bought them, locked himself in his basement and just experimented with them on his own with out any help what so ever do you? Or are you suggesting he made them in his bedroom lab on his own? Those seem to be the only two ways he could have done so without anyone knowing he had them. It seems to me far more likely he had help learning how to use them than he didn't have anyone at all. There was someone who at least sold him the steroids. So yes he did have to go somewhere and ask about them or have someone suggest them to him. The local gym is one possibility, personal trainers another, coaches yet another. I would imagine the same person who sold it to him would at least tell him how to use them. At the very least tell him how much to use. After that all he had to do was his normal routine. Steroid users don't have their own secret training routine known only to steroid users. They use the same training programs but get better results.

Is it really the league´s job to follow up on any rumor that they hear about any given player? These accusations seem to be more of the rumor variety rather than the solid proof with witnesses variety. Yes it is. Isn't that why they set up, or are setting up, an branch within the commissioner's office to investigate steroid use? Why is that so hard to believe? There have been plenty of baseball players who have tested positive for steroid use without us being able to see where the performance difference is. If you are a crappy fringe player who uses the difference isn't going to be as huge as if you are an already talented player. steroids can help you hit the ball further or throw it faster but it isn't going to help the hand eye coordination needed. Maybe someone goes from 5 HR to 15 and gets his Slugging up 25 points to 300 to 325. Is that really going to be noticed like Bonds was noticed? A great player like A-rod was when he claimed to have been clean certainly had the other skills needed to make a major boost to his abilities with supplements. That he seems to have got no boost at all from it seems hard to believe.

Steroids aren't a magic pill. They won't have the same effect on everybody. Bonds was using a lab and a trainer that was working with the lab to get the best results. For Alex, we don't have a very good idea of how he used it, but it sounds like he had his cousin get some stuff from some random dealer. I don't find it that hard to believe that Alex wasn't getting maximum performance from whatever he was doing. Maximum is one thing no discernible difference is quite another. It's also hard to believe he didn't have some sort of idea about weight training and such that would have helped his chemical diet. I would also assume a player who says he was doing steroids as a professional ballplayer because he felt he needed to perform to the level of his contract was in fact doing all the things he needed to in order to get maximum effect from his steroid use. If he didn't get the bump we know comes with usage then it stands to reason he must have help before his admitted usage point. Steroids work plain and simple. If there is no difference between the player at a point in time where we know he was doing it and when he says he wasn't it is hard to believe he was telling the truth about how often and when he was doing it. What is easier to believe, an admitted cheater who only admitted it when he was caught was the only person to somehow defy all the odds and didn't get any boost from his usage or he was using all along?

Should anybody be surprised he was using before and after Texas? It didn't add up that he only took steroids in Texas yet his overall level of play wasn't any different before or after Texas. When Bonds took it it was obvious in his performance. He went from a 40 HR guy to a 70 hr guy. A-Rod supposedly took steroids but didn't boost his performance accordingly? Just doesn't add up.

I really think Macha has to use his bench more or risk not having one regardless of who is on it. There just aren't very many guys who can hit without semi regular ab's. If pinch hitting really is the hardest thing to do then it stands to reason the best hitters are going to be best able to pinch hit effectively without regular PA's. If they are the best hitters they are starters not bench players. That means most bench players have to get enough AB's to be useful when they are needed. I don't have many complaints about Macha but his limited use of the bench players so far is one. It will come back to haunt him.

Part of keeping a good bench is having them play enough to be useful when they are called upon. Until very recently that has not really been the case. Macha has to learn to use his bench players enough to keep them sharp or he will end up with a week bench regardless of who is on it.

I think the whole team has been pretty good in the field. Weeks looks a lot better and even Prince has scooped a few balls out of the dirt. It might be the most improved area on the team so far. With Hall I think playing one spot for a whole year has to be helpful. The only other time he looked decent in the field was when he played short all year.

I hope the best for him partially because of him partially because it would help Jack Z. but he had always been a streaky hitter. This is a good start but it will be followed by an equally bad stretch where he strikes out in half his ab's. That's just how the muscle rolls.

He had a bad habit of using 5-6 pitchers to get the job done where 2-3 would have sufficed. Perhaps i have selective memory but I didn't think he did that without cause al that often. Even in lopsided games a team with the power the Brewers have it makes some amount of sense not to throw in the towel too early. So if he pinch hit more than you thought necessary it might just be because eh didn't give up on games as soon as some thought he should. I'm not gonna criticize any manager for not giving up on a game too soon. I think the dynamic you speak of is a backhanded compliment to Macha. The fact he was getiing kudos even during the slow start is a testament to two things imo. One, he wasn't doing anything so egregious as to have blame for losses pinned on him. And two, his positive manuevers have been impactful enough that the "new guy" isn't the target of insults and blame after a slow start. I think that should point to the level of importance managerial strategy has on a game. Macha has had very little effect on the outcome of games because the manager has very little effect on it either way. Which was always why I thought Ned was a good manager even though I thought he was lacking as a game strategist.