If you’re a Whatifsports.com Hardball Dynasty (HBD) player, you most certainly have some ideas on how to fix or improve this ever-growing and highly popular internet fantasy baseball game. If you’re never played it or never heard of HBD, read the following anyway, and check HBD out for yourself.
1) Stolen Base Aggressiveness Tweak
The Manager Settings screen allows you to globally set how often or how "aggressive" your players will be in attempting steals. However, the game doesn't take into account for players with poor speed or baserunning skills. If you've got a great leadoff hitter with speed and baserunning ratings in the 90's and set your aggressiveness to a 4, you'll also see your 35-year-old cleanup hitter with multiple knee surgeries and 15 speed attempting stolen bases as well. There should be a threshold setting where a player below a certain speed or baserunning rating will not attempt steals, or the game should allow players to micro manage basestealing on an individual basis. I might want that leadoff man to steal every time he reaches first, but that cleanup guy should stay put 100% of the time. If I set my aggressiveness too low, my leadoff guy won't steal either. That's a problem.
2) Drag and Drop 'Roster Management' Screen
If you play HBD and also play fantasy sports on Yahoo! just think of the possibilities! To demote an ML player down to AAA, just click and drag his name over from the ML roster to the AAA roster on a split screen. The left side shows your ML club with a drop down box showing the other levels (AAA, AA, HiA, LoA, Rookie). The right side shows the AAA roster with another drop down box. To move a guy from AA to HiA, select the drop down box on ML and change to AA. Select the drop down box on AAA and change to HiA. Drag the AA player's name over to HiA, and press 'submit.' VOILA!!! Also, another screen can be added for other moves such as transactions on the 40-man roster, to and from the DL/trade block/playoff roster, and all moves related to the Rule V draft. Once perfected, this simple Drag-and-Drop feature must necessarily be copied over to the lineup and pitching staff screens.
3) Pickoff Rating
I understand that this might be somewhat controversial. A pickoff rating for pitchers would add an extra dimension to the base running game and could also figure in to the stolen base aggressiveness tweak ("Ok, I don't want any player slower than 85 to run on any pitcher with a pickoff rating of 75 or better."). The pickoff rating, the way I see it, should be two dimensional. It should obviously tell you how good a pitcher is at picking off baserunners and how often he'll try to pick a runner off. But it should also tell you how quick a guy is to home plate. Some righthanded pitchers are not going to actually pick guys off first base, but they are so quick in delivering to home plate that their catcher has a better chance to throw a potential theif out once he is on the move. A guy like this might still have a decent pickoff rating.
4) Better Homerun AI
Simply put, a guy who hits .185 vs left handed pitching is not always going to hit the ball over the fence 60% of the time he makes contact just because he can bench press 300 pounds. I'd like to see a lot less players hitting 60+ or even 50+ home runs. Even in the steroid era in baseball, there were only a handful of players hitting 50 HRs each season, and this year, there will be zero. I know there are several factors leading to this including the parks and the pitchers that some GMs will throw out there, but I'd still like to see something done to more accurately reflect real life Major League Baseball in the power department.
5) Specialists that actually see Innings
I had a left handed specialst on my roster at one point that was probably born for the role. He had very low stamina (single digits) and halfway decent control with a rating vs righties in the 30's and a rating vs lefties in the high 70's. Over approximately 50 games, he saw a grand total of 2.1 innings pitched and didn't allow a baserunner. Frustrated, I changed his role to setup B to get him some work. I have no idea how the AI determines how and when a specialist is used but it needs further fixing.
6) Ability to include Future Cash considerations in Trades
Ok, maybe I shouldn't have given that 33-year-old free agent a 5-year contract. Ooops, my bad. But just because I made that mistake doesn't mean I should have to live with it over the life of the contract. In my world, I've seen GMs try desperately--and unsuccessfully--to trade players with years on their contracts. Sometimes, paying the full salary for this season isn't enough, but if I could pay half of the remaining two or three years on his deal I am more likely to be able to find a fool--er, ummm, make that a bargain shopper--to take him off my hands. Everybody wins!
7) Another new rating for pitchers--Command
Command of the strike zone and control are two different things, in my book. While control is a rating that would indicate how likely a pitcher is to issue a walk, command would tell the GM how likely he is to hit his target within the strikezone. For example, the count is 0-2 and my pitcher is about to throw his wipeout pitch: Uncle Charlie, the curveball. A pitcher with a high command rating would put that sucker right in the dirt where it needs to be. BAM! Strike 3. A player with poor command would be more prone to hang that meatball over the middle of the plate.
8) Coach Hiring
Hardly anybody likes the coach hiring process. All that needs to be done is allow us to sign coaches to multi-year deals. Improve the AI a bit so they don't want to get other offers from teams as often, especially when they have a high loyalty rating.
9) Ability to Convert starters to relievers and relievers to starters
John Smoltz: was a starter, then a closer, now a starter. Mariano Rivera: Starter, then closer. Derek Lowe: Starter, then closer, now starter. Jonathan Papelbon: Starter, then closer. Kerry Wood: Starter, now closer. Bobby Jenks: Starter, now closer. Ryan Dempster: Starter, then closer, now starter. It's probably not very often that teams draft college and high school pitchers as relief pitchers. Normally these guys are starters, and sometimes they struggle as such, until a coach with an outside the box mind converts them to the bullpen. To keep things simple (and realistic), you shouldn't be able to convert any pitcher you want from starter to closer or vice versa, but more likely a pitching coach would send you an email in your correspondance box telling you he feels that Joe Schmoe or John Ron would have a better career if he were converted from one to the other. The GM has the option to make the change, and to aid in this decision, the pitching coach (with help from the advanced scouts, of course) would tell me what changes I can expect to see in projected stamina and durability. For example, Joe Schmoe is a starter in Class High A with current/projected stamina of 52/69 and durability of 20/23. The HiA pitching coach thinks he'll be better as a relief pitcher and says that he can change those ratings to 18/25 and 70/85, along with improving his control and pitch 1 and 2 ratings if converted to a reliever. It's up to me to decide if I want to do it. How often and how accurate these projections are depend on: How good is my pitching coach and how high is my advanced scouting budget?
10) Softer Demotion Penalties
I don't like that if I bring up a mediocre or decent prospect to the majors and then later decide I need the roster spot for somebody else, that I am almost obligated to keep him on the ML roster because if I demote him to AAA I know he will take ratings hits accross the board. Just make it so only players with terrible makeup will see this effect. The majority of professional athletes have enough mental fortitude that taking one demotion in their lifetime isn't going to permantly regress their ability to do their job.
11) Allow injured or demoted players to gain back projected ratings
I had a star player on my roster miss 11 games with a forearm cramp. Although just 25 years old, and only sustaining the most minor of all injuries, his projected power rating permantly went from 85 to 83. Absolutely absurd. More realstically, his current power rating, which is 79 should have fallen to 77 for a couple weeks, while still partially recovering from the cramp. His projected power should have stayed at 85. A demoted player might occasionally see current ratings drops, but this should rarely and/or moderately have any affect on his projected ratings.
There are other aesthetic/cosmetic changes I'd like to see made, but these are the major ones that have significant impact on how the player plays the game. Stay tuned for the possibility of Part II. And for those interested, I run the Tampa Bay Angry Dragons in public world Spahn.
Don’t Tell Me how to
Feel I absolutely hate
being told how I should feel after a win or a loss. A feeling is a naturally occurring phenomenon
and if my feelings don’t match the way some clown thinks I should feel, that doesn’t make me an “####.” Following the recent three game sweep that
the White Sox handed the Cubs at U.S. Cellular Field this past weekend, an
associate claiming to be a neutral—that is, he is a fan of both the Sox and the
Cubs—told me I’m an #### for being happier than usual after the three wins.
His reasons? We’ve all heard them
before. Because the Cubs are not in the
White Sox division—they aren’t even in the same league—so I should be happier
if they were to sweep the Twins, Tigers, or Indians. While true that sweeping one of the latter
teams benefits the White Sox in the standings more so than the Cubs, that doesn’t
mean I can’t put something extra into my celebration.
For the record, I didn’t celebrate any more than I would
normally have if it were any other team.
After all, the Cubs swept the Sox last weekend at Wrigley Field. But I was happy today that I didn’t have to
walk around with my head hanging low, trying desperately to avoid the fans of
the other team and their inevitable humiliating comments. You know the feeling. At the office, you walk down five flights of
stairs just because if you take the elevator, you have to walk right past the
desk of that obnoxious fan of your team’s rival. Sure, you’re out of breath when you return
from your smoke break, but at least you didn’t have to hear that annoying guy
rhetorically ask with a big silly grin “Hey, how about them Sox?” Guys like him—I’ll call him Loudmouth—make my
life hell. What’s great is that when the
Sox win I don’t have to say a darned thing to him. My joy is that Loudmouth hangs his head low
and tries to avoid me for a change. I
love that.
Besides that, who are you to tell me who I can root for and
root against, and why the heck can’t I
have both? Why is it “Don’t worry about
what the Cubs do, just worry about what the White Sox do?” That’s absurd. I hate
the Cubs. I love the White Sox. I'm going to be happy when the Sox win, and
I’m going to be happy when the Cubs lose.
If both happen in the same game, double the pleasure! I root for the White Sox when they don’t play
the Cubs, and I root against the Cubs when they don’t play the White Sox. That’s how it has always been, and that’s how
it always will be. That doesn’t make me,
or anybody else who is the same way, an ####.
What’s interesting, is what would happen if the White Sox
and Cubs (who have both dominated their respective divisions and have both been
in first place for several weeks) were to meet in the World Series. If the Sox won, I’d be happy that they won
the World Series. I wouldn’t be even more happy because they beat the Cubs. But if the Sox lost, I’d be disappointed about the loss, and I’d be even more disappointed
that they lost to the Cubs. I'd rather
die than face Loudmouth if that ever happens.
Cub’s Chances of
Landing Sabathia From everything I’ve been hearing, the Cleveland Indians are
on the verge of trading their Ace, left handed pitcher C.C. Sabathia, to the
highest bidder. The Cubs would seem to
be in the mix of possible suitors, and there is no doubt that GM Jim Hendry has
a strong interest and prospects to deal.
But, on second though, does he really have prospects the Indians want?
I’ve heard the names Felix Pie, Eric Patterson, Rich Hill,
Shawn Marshall, and Ronny Cedeno thrown around.
On paper it sounds like an impressive package of talent. But after much thought, I’ve ruled that the
Cubs would have to give up much more if they realistically expect to acquire
the services of Sabathia.
The Cubs better be prepared to meet the Indians' demands.
Pie has been a disappointing prospect up and down between the Cubs and their
Triple-A affiliate. When in the majors,
he is almost exclusively used as a defensive replacement or spot starter. He has similar problems to former Cub Corey
Patterson, such as the big question of whether he is a leadoff hitter with
speed, or a middle of the order power hitter.
Eric Patterson simply looks lost in the field, and lacks plate
discipline. He doesn’t look like an
every day major league hitter to me. Hill,
like Pie, has been up and down, and can’t find a spot in a starting rotation
that features Jason Marquis and his 4.96 ERA.
If Hill can’t supplant Marquis, how good is he really? Same goes for Marshall, who is only pitching
right now in the majors due to an injury to Ace Carlos Zambrano. Ronny Cedeno has “tools” but he is a career
platoon and/or utility player. Ditto another AAAA outfielder named Matt Murton.
So, if I’m GM Mark Shapiro of the Indians, what does interest me on the Cubs? If I'm Shapiro, the next time Hendry calls
me, I tell him, start with your starting SS Ryan Theriot, and build the package
from there. Get back to me when you’re
ready to include an actual major league player instead of five players you can’t
wait to get rid of.
Does Hendry have the sand to agree to such a swap of blockbuster
proportions? That I don’t know, but I’m
anxious to find out.
It's June 10th and, against all odds, both of Chicago's baseball teams are in first place. The Chicago Cubs at the beginning of the season seemed like an odds on favorite to take the NL Central crown, but nobody expected them to have the best record in all of baseball. On the southside, the White Sox, just as they were in 2005 when they won the World Series, were predicted by many to be nothing more than 4th place team. They sit atop the AL Central and hold MLB's biggest divisional lead. Here are the top 10 surprises; some for better, some for worse; for both of Chicago's baseball teams. I also predict whether the player(s) is likely to keep up the pace, fall off a bit, or get better as the season wears on:
10) Kerry Wood. Not only has he miraculously managed to stay off the disabled list, but he earned the role of closer in spring training and has gone on to convert on 18 out of 22 save opportunities, all the while striking out 40 and walking only 7. Verdict: I think Woody can keep up his pace as long as he doesn't get injured. It's close, but I'll say he keeps going steadily.
9) Jim Thome. The 38-year-old Sox DH is on pace to have the lowest OPS (.800) in any season in which he has played more than 100 games. Though that's still above league average, he is still striking out more often and walking less often than he normally does. And he was demoted from 3rd to 5th in the batting order. Verdict: Despite an obvious depreciation of talent due to age, Thome will improve at the plate as the season progresses.
8) Scott Linebrink and Octavio Dotel. If the White Sox are leading after the 6th inning you might as well turn off the lights and go home. Dotel, who normally pitches the 7th inning, is averaging 12.4 strikeouts per 9 innings with a 2.86 ERA. Linebrink is the 8th inning guy and has recorded 15 holds with a WHIP of only 0.89. The White Sox as a team, meanwhile, have the second best bullpen ERA in the majors. Verdict: I actually believe Dotel will improve a little bit but Linebrink can't continue to pitch out of this world. As a whole, I'll average them out and say they keep it up.
7) Alexei Ramirez. It took some time and an injury to Juan Uribe, but Ramirez has supplanted Uribe as the everyday secondbasemen and has produced in a big way. He's now hitting .291 with 4 home runs with an OPS of .762. In addition, he flashed ungodly range with a rifle arm in the field. Verdict. It's hard not to imagine Ramirez getting better as he gains experience.
6) Ryan Theriot. Many thought that Theriot could never be an everyday shortstop at the major league level, but all he's done so far in 2008 is hit .323 with a .404 OBP. He's also second on the team with 40 runs scored. Verdict: Though his average and OBP will come back down to Earth, Theriot's run production and stolen bases will remain and/or go up. However, overall, he's due to regress.
5) Gavin Floyd. The White Sox starter leads the team in wins and has a 3.10 ERA with a 1.07 WHIP. Amazingly, he's taken a no hitter into the 5th inning, 8th inning, and 9th inning this season! That's in only 12 starts, folks. Verdict: Though Floyd seems to have found a longterm home with the Sox, he's unlikely to pitch like this forever.
4) Carlos Quentin. Not many people had ever heard of the former 25th overall pick out of Stanford before this season, but Quentin may now be the best player in MLB history with a last name beginning with 'Q." He's near the top of the AL leaderboard in homers (16), RBI (54), OBP (.383), and OPS (.933). Verdict: Because he's young and plays in a hitter's park, Quentin will continue his assault on AL pitchers.
3) Jose Contreras. After last season, it was hard to envision Contreras would ever pitch at an elite level again. But the former All-Star and 30-something Cuban pitcher has regained the forkball, and more importantly the confidence, that made him one of baseball's better pitchers in 2005-06. He has a 2-1 strikeout-to-walk ratio and a 1.13 WHIP. Verdict: Contreras will stay at his current pace for the season.
2) Ryan Dempster. The former starter who turned closer is now a former closer turned starter. If that sentence wasn't confusing enough, try reading this one: In over 80 innings pitched Ryan Dempster is 7-2 with a 1.13 WHIP and a 2.90 ERA. Verdict: Dempster is due to wear down due to the comfort level lowering as he approaches 200 innings on the season. Though he'll still win plenty of games, his runs allowed will increase.
It's early, but Soto has proven to be one of the best catchers in all of baseball.
1) Geovany Soto. Before this season, I predicted that Soto would be a future All-Star. Little did I know that the future is now! Soto is now a lock to make the All-Star team in 2008, and is a front runner for the rookie of the year. Dare I say he makes a run at MVP? He's got an OPS of .898 with 10 longballs. Verdict: The kid is for real. He'll keep it up.
Young/Vazquez Trade a Good One for D-Backs and White Sox CF Chris Young of the Diamondbacks looks to be a stud prospect boasting speed, power, and outstanding defense. Much has been made of the former White Sox farmhand, who, on December 20, 2005 was traded along with Orlando Hernandez and Luis Vizcaino to Arizona for SP Javier Vazquez. I've heard general comments from White Sox fans saying that it was a mistake to trade Young, and recently Foxsports.com's own Ken Rosenthal quipped that this past offseason's acquisition of Carlos Quentin from Arizona would finally help ease the pain of losing out on Young to Arizona. What seems left out in this talk every time is that the White Sox acquired a bona fide #1 or #2 starter in Vazquez, who is MLB's second leading strikeout pitcher since 2001 and went 15-8 with a 3.74 ERA in 2007 while playing his home games in hitter friendly U.S. Cellular Field for a 4th place team that lost 90 games. Sure, the White Sox could use the speedy CFer in their leadoff spot right now, but something tells me that their GM Kenny Williams wouldn't be willing to give up Vazquez to re-acquire him. A potential 30/30 OFer is about the going rate these days for an Ace.
Rays' Seeason a Pleasant Surprise But... This in response to Foxsports.com's Dayn Perry'scolumn that the Tampa Bay [Devil] Rays winning season is great for baseball. It sure is nice to see somebody besides New York and Boston atop the A.L. East, but I greatly fear a Tampa divisional title would give MLB execs a false sense of parity in baseball. (By the way, they will always be the Devil Rays to me, just as the Angels will always be the Anaheim Angels, or occasionally, the California Angels). Before this season, I'd have given the Devil Rays a 0% of ever making the playoffs under MLB's current structure. I now see that they are a legitimate contender for the not only the division, but the pennant. However, these types of seasons are few and far between. MLB is in desperate need of a salary cap that would give other small(er) market teams a more fair chance more often. All top notch free agents have three teams that can afford to sign them: the Red Sox, Yankees, and Mets; once in a while the Cubs, Dodgers, or Angels will join the mix. In a couple seasons when the Devil Rays' players hit free agency, they will let them walk and they'll stink again... that is if they don't head towards Marlin-i-zation and trade them all before it even gets that far. The Red Sox and Yankees will never stink so long as they are allowed to throw money around like it's candy.
Whatifsports (WIS) a Must See for Any Sports Fan Here is a unpaid advertisement for www.whatifsports.com, a subsidiary of Foxsports.com. WIS is just an amazing website, and if you're a sports fan who hasn't heard about it yet, you should check it out immediately. Ever been sitting in a bar with your buddies and argue about who would win a series between the 1927 Yankees and the 1969 Mets? Or how about Grant Hill and Christian Laettner vs Bobby Knight's undefeated Indiana team? '72 Dolphins against the '85 Bears? Jordan's Bulls against Wilt's Lakers? Whatifsports uses a highly complex simulation to match any historical teams in MLB, NFL, NBA, CBB, NHL, and CFB, and then generates a box score with play by play so you can read it as if the game were actually played. I've simmed all these games and hundreds more and I can't get enough. WIS also has SimLeagues where you can mix and match players from any era on any team and form your all time dream team (How about Nolan Ryan throwing pirtches to Ivan Rodriguez behind the plate with Brooks Robinson, Ozzie Smith, Roberto Alomar, and Keith Hernandez as their infield defense?). My favorite though is the Dyansty leagues. I'm in a MLB Hardball Dynasty where I get to play GM of a baseball franchise complete with 5 minor league teams. There's a Rule 5 draft, amatuer draft, international free agents, and full trades and free agent signing. It's just absolutely awesome.
Bears Should Keep Benson Count me in the minority of Bears fans who think that they should not release RB Cedric Benson, even in spite of his most recent run-in with the law. The Bears drafted the back whom they obviously believe will carry the bulk of the load in Matt Forte from Tulane. First, I don't think it's ever a good idea to hand a starting job to a rookie unless the team is in full-blown rebuilding mode, and the Bears think they can compete in the NFC North, especially with the retirement of a certain quarterback famous for a number '4' on his jersey. It is quite obvious at this time that Benson will never pan out to be the back the Bears thought he would be when they drafted him fourth overall in 2005, but that doesn't mean he can't be productive. Benson had a couple of halfway decent seasons as a backup to Thomas Jones before taking the starting reigns last season. He's also the best available insurance policy in case Forte gets hurt or dissapoints.
Announcers have duty to disclose the No-Hitter I was driving home late last night listening to the White Sox-Twins radio broadcast on Chicago's WSCR 670 AM on Tuesday. Late in the game, the Sox had a significant lead, but the Twins, I knew, had one run on the board. The White Sox radio team of Ed Farmer and Steve Stone, declined to announce over the waves that Sox starting pitcher Gavin Floyd had yet to yield a hit to Minnesota. As a White Sox fan, I sure would have appreciated the knowledge of history possibly in the making. I definitely would have listened more intently, as my mind often wonders while listening to baseball games on the radio. Farmer, the play-by-play man, instead said "One run and two errors for the Twins," instead of blurting out "Gavin Floyd has a no-hitter." It never dawned on me, until Justin Morneau doubled to left center field and Farmer finally came clean, that the White Sox had come this close to one of baseball's remarkable feats. While other players should not mess around with their teammate's head by making him aware of the situation, it is the announcer's job to tell the whole story, and Floyd's possible no-no was a big part of the picture.
Chiefs' fans don't expect to win Don't worry, I'm not going to beat a dead horse. This isn't going to be a rant on how much I hate Carl Peterson, or Herm Edwards. This is actually to point out that fans of the Kansas City Chiefs have grown content with losing. In recent blogs (in which I have lambasted Chief's management and called for their heads on sticks outside Arrowhead Stadium) other Chiefs' fans have accused me of over-reacting (among many other things). One Chiefs' fan commented that "13 [draft] picks this year and [next year's draft] should give [the Chiefs] a chance to compete for the AFC West title in 2010." Another posted "Even if they do finish 8-8, I will know that they are on there [sic] to greatness the following year." There was also talk of "getting ready for a championship run," and one guy even said "I don't mind being a .500 team as long as we beat the few teams we need to (you know, division rivals)." Chiefs' fans are pathetic in this manner. They are ok with rebuilding, and then two or three years later making a run at winning the division. They are ok with finishing .500 as long as they beat the stupid Raiders. Frankly, they are ok with mediocrity. Quite simply, any sports fan content with mediocrity for any reason is a loser. Sports isn't about competing for the division, beating your division rivals, or making a run at a championship. Sports are about winning the championship. If that doesn't happen, the season was a failure, but fans of the Chiefs often seem to overlook the biggest, most important part of sports.
I need help. I have a new “disease”. Actually, this sickness has existed for some time now, and I’ve had it my entire adult life, but only in the past few months have I realized and come to accept that I am AAS positive. That is to say, I’m an Adult Autograph Seeker.
That’s right. I’m a grown adult of 27 years of age, and I enjoy meeting professional athletes and asking for their signature on a piece of memorabilia. Since graduating high school I have meet several Chicago area athletes like Mike Singletary, Jon Garland, Neal Cotts, and Brandon McCarthy, and I have their signatures on photos and baseballs to prove it. I have spent my own hard earned money to purchase autographs from other collectors as well. These athletes include (among many others) Tom Brady, Tony Gonzalez, Derrick Johnson, #### Butkus and Frank Thomas.
I couldn’t dream of going to a professional game without bringing Sharpie and something for somebody to scribble their name on. What if I came face to face with one of my favorite players? I couldn’t let myself live that down. Oh yeah, and I still bring my glove to baseball games too. I'm sooooooo bad.
Obtaining autographs was something I enjoyed as a kid, and I guess I never grew out of it. I can remember meeting many all-time greats. My first autograph was Hank Aaron, so I was off to a good start. Although I was only seven at the time and I barely knew who this man was, let alone why my dad gave $10 to wait in line at the Villa Park Odium to get his autograph, I remember being honored to meet a man who had so many fans. That same day I got Willie Stargell and Stan Mikita’s autographs too. Mikita signed a game used hockey stick from his playing days in the early 1970’s. Good ol’ Dad broke his stick skating at the ice arena where the Blackhawks used to practice and an attendant let him borrow a stick from Mikita’s personal bag. My dad used the stick for about 5 seconds before taking it out to the car and driving home. That is one heck of a souvenir!
In my childhood I also attended a Blackhawks practice and got to meet and get signatures from Chris Chelios, Jeremy Roenick, Doug Wilson, and Ed Belfour. At a card show once I met a young White Sox rookie named Alex Fernandez, who apparently was not quite popular yet. I knew this because after purchasing a Fernandez rookie card and having him sign it, my friend and I noticed there was nobody else in line behind us, so we went back to the same dealer, bought a dozen more cards and got him to sign all of them for us. At a different show years later I met Tom Waddle and Tom Paciorek. I met Bill Cartwright at a White Sox game once.
The point is this: It was fun for me as a kid, and it’s fun for me now, so why do I get made fun of or get snickers from people just because I’m all grown up?
I guess that’s just the kid in me still, or maybe it’s the sports fan, or possibly a combination of both. I won’t give up my hobby, and I couldn’t dream of giving away or selling any of my autographs. In fact, I’m all about getting more. I don’t mind spending big money to add to my collection, but my preference will always be meeting athletes in person. When I hear radio commercials touting that so-and-so will be signing autographs at this place on this date, my ears perk and my eyes light up. God, I love that feeling.
For now, all my autographs are stored away in boxes until I can finish remodeling my basement. Then, they’ll be on display for all my friends and family to view. It’ll be my favorite room in the whole wide world. I just wish I didn’t have to be embarrassed because of my AAS disease.
As currently constructed, here is how I would lineup the 2008 version of both Chicago's baseball teams.
Cubs
1 - LF Alfonso Soriano 2 - SS Ryan Theriot 3 - 1B Derek Lee 4 - 3B Aramis Ramirez 5 - RF Kosuke Fukudome 6 - 2B Mark DeRosa 7 - CF Felix Pie 8 - C Giovanni Soto 9 - (pitcher)
Analysis: While many Cubs fans clamor for Soriano to be moved down in the order, perhaps to the number six slot, I strongly disagree with this move. The only places I would bat Soriano are leadoff or third. Clearly, Soriano's statistics are much higher leading off because of the pitcher's propensity to deal him plenty of fastballs, which is about the only pitch Soriano can hit out of the park. But hitting him third followed by Lee would accomplish the same thing, while also giving him the freedom to steal bases at will. If the Cubs acquire 2B Brian Roberts from the Orioles, the top of my order would be Roberts, Theriot, Soriano and everybody else would move down a slot. I think Pie is currently the Cub's best option in CF, and I have Soto eighth instead of Pie because of his plate patience. Soto's good batting eye allows Pie to be aggressive on the basepaths ahead of him, while also letting him draw plenty of walks in front of the pitcher.
White Sox
1 - CF Jerry Owens 2 - SS Orlando Cabrera 3 - DH Jim Thome 4 - 1B Paul Konerko 5 - RF Jermaine Dye 6 - LF Nick Swisher 7 - 3B Joe Crede 8 - C A.J. Pierzynski 9 - 2B Juan Uribe
Analysis: This lineup 2-8 is potent, but obviously there are question marks at leadoff and 9 and there are injury questions as well. Without Owens, this team has a terrible problem of having only station-to-station speed, which was a major inhibitor of the Sox's offense last year. Owens stole 32 bases last year, and hit .279 in the second half of the season. Cabrera is the ultimate run producer from the number two hole, so Owens should score plenty of runs. If Crede's back is still hurting, if he can't produce anywhere near his 2005 or 2006 form, or if he is traded (as speculation has), Josh Fields would fill in nicely at number eight, while Pierzynski moves up to seven. The White Sox have deep quantity but little quality at the second base position. At this point in time, I feel Uribe is their best option. Because of all these question marks, this lineup is considered tentative, but if healthy, they could be dominant.
In recent years since steroids have become such a hot topic in sports and especially in baseball I’ve heard many sports writers say or write that they wouldn’t vote for the accused users on the first ballot for the Hall of Fame (HOF) but would vote for them thereafter. Or, some people have predicted that Mark McGuire, who was snubbed in his first year of eligibility in the summer of 2007, will make it.
If you’ve read my blog in the past you may already know that I am firm in my stance that no steroid user should ever make the HOF. I’m going to challenge the seemingly popular public opinion that getting into the HOF after waiting umpteen years is somehow less satisfying than getting in on the first ballot.
Sure, it might be somewhat anguishing waiting all that time, but if you won the lottery at age 45 does it mean any less than if you had won it with the very first ticket you purchased on your 18th birthday? Who cares? You’re still a millionaire.
Using steroids is not on the same moral plane as murder, but what if it was? What if a judge reduced a life sentence down to 5 years because he thought the guy really learned his lesson? That prisoner is saying “hey, that wasn’t so bad, my crimes were well worth it.”
We live in a society that does not reward the bad guys. Baseball should be no exception.
Cheaters don't win, in any sport, or in life.
Using steroids is cheating, and cheaters aren’t supposed to win. Major League Baseball should, by any means necessary, see to it that anybody ever suspected—that’s right, I said suspected, not proven—of using performance enhancing drugs never even sees his name on the ballot.
There is too much left open to subjectivity in this debate, and this is the only way I see that works. You were indicted by a grand jury on charges of perjury, Mr. Bonds? Bye bye Cooperstown. You failed a steroid test, Mr. Palmeiro? No HOF for you. Your name appeared on the now notorious Mitchell Report, Mr. Clemens and Mr. Pettitte? Sorry, no can do.
While in previous posts I have argued that baseball should retroactively pull post-season awards (MVPs, Cy Youngs, etc) from users and erase their stats from the record books, I have now come to the conclusion that even if it did so—a nearly impossible slippery slope to maneuver around in and of itself—not every sports publication would acknowledge such a move. Would ESPN.com actually remove all references to Barry Bonds from its website? No, but the one thing that is constant is that name on a plaque in the halls of baseball glory in Cooperstown, New York.
There are several reasons why I believe that proof of steroid usage is not necessary in enacting this baseball law. The first, and the most obvious, is that baseball law is not synonymous with and is not governed by the court of law. In this regard, users are not “innocent until proven guilty” because they are not being sent to prison. Rare it is that a player actually fails a Major League steroid test for several reasons. First, the Player’s Association has not approved a test involving blood, which would be necessary to detect certain drugs, including Human Growth Hormone (HGH). Other drugs, like erythropoietin (EPO) and insulin, are difficult to detect using any means. Also, many cheaters were able to successfully cover up their usage with other drugs. Norbolethone (aka “The Clear”) is a drug that balances the levels of natural testosterone and epitestosterone, which means, according to Bonds’ currently imprisoned former trainer Greg Anderson in the book Game of Shadows “You can take [the steroids] the day of [a drug test], pee, and it comes up clear.”
Anderson explained how easy it was to beat the steroid tests.
This is all very important because, for most of the past decade, there has either been no steroid testing in baseball, not a strict enough test, or too many subsidiary drugs to conceal drugs that were being tested for.
There is also precedence for banning cheaters in spite of there being no criminal evidence or intent. The first commissioner of baseball, Kennesaw Mountain Landis, banned all 8 members of the Chicago “Black Sox” even after they were all acquitted of charges by the judicial system. Landis was a real commissioner who ruled baseball with tough love. The current commissioner, Bud Selig, is a cowardly pud who apparently feels no action is obligatory to restore the sanctity of the game.
Many have stated that it is hypocritical for voters to keep Roger Clemens and Sammy Sosa out of the HOF when they are same people who voted for these guys to win the Cy Young and MVP. This logic is not valid. Just because they were wrong then doesn’t mean they have to be wrong for the rest of their lives. In the same way, it is asinine to make any argument that says “Player X (Ty Cobb, ####lord Perry) is in the HOF, so Player Y (Bonds, Clemens) should also be.” In hindsight, it was probably a mistake to put Perry, an admitted ball doctor, into the HOF, but that doesn’t mean we have to make the same mistake over and over and over again forever. Times have changed. It’s time to raise the bar. This is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Pretty Darned Good or the Hall of Spectacular, but I Cheated.
In 2005, two Chicago based radio personalities read an all-inclusive list of baseball HOFers. They then spent approximately 45 minutes “kicking guys out” who didn’t deserve to be there, thus reducing the list by at least 40%. Though this was done just for fun, it is something I keep in mind when deciding who should go and who should not. The HOF is too watered down anyway. Phil Rizutto? Bill Mazerowski? Puh-leeze.
(Oh yes, and before you spout off the “Rizutto was a key member of a Yankees dynasty winning many World Series’” argument, you may want to read this July 2006 post stating that Individuals Don't Win Championships, Teams Do).
If baseball has stood firm this long with the decision to ban Pete Rose, there isn’t much in the way of taking it one step further with steroid cheats. What these guys have done; bulking up and hitting jaw-dropping, tale-of-the-tape home runs in awe inspiring quantity, is far worse than gambling. Betting on a game doesn’t affect the outcome.
Just because everyone else was cheating doesn’t mean it was ok for Player X to cheat too. To quote myself when I wrote in August of 2007 in The Difference Between Ruth, Aaron, Maris and Bonds, McGuire, Sosa, “So if 20 guys all get busted robbing a bank does the police let them go because they had strength in numbers? More importantly, and more realistically, if the CEO of a tax firm turns a blind eye to his accountants fudging numbers on purpose would the public brush the incident off its collective shoulders and chock it up to an oversight? Hell no! They’d all be punished, all arrested, all fired. Selig is just as much to blame as the McGuires and Sosas of the world.”
Putting cheats in the HOF is a slap in the face to people who actually deserve to be there. This feeling is equivalent to an injured U.S. soldier going down to the corner Wal-Mart and seeing Purple Hearts on sale for $19.99 plus tax. That act of heroism during battle doesn’t seem all that heroic now that everybody has the medal.
And making a guy wait X number of years before finally letting him in is not punishment enough, either. I wouldn’t let a murderer out of prison early, just as I wouldn’t allow my toddler to have the cookie 10 minutes after saying “no” the first time. Not only should steroid cheats never be voted into the HOF, but their names should never even appear on a ballot.
Every once in a while there is a moment in sports
broadcasting that prompts us to beg the question.
What is with the celebrity appeal in sports broadcasts?
The most recent Monday Night Football telecast on ESPN is the latest
example. The guest in the booth,
comedian Jimmy Kimmel, made a smart
alec retort directed towards former MNF analyst Joe Theismann. Whether or not Kimmel and Theismann have any kind of
adverse history is unclear, but the point is a moot one. Kimmel had no business being on the air in
the first place.
If I want to laugh (or more like contemplate suicide) I'll watch his show. Otherwise, keep him away from my NFL games.
ESPN has had other “guest announcers” in recent Monday Night telecasts,
including NBA Hall of Famer Charles
Barkley and movie star and Chicago
area meatball Jim Belushi. I couldn’t tell you what these folks add to
the presentation or what the clowns who are in charge at ESPN were thinking
when they invited them on, but I could tell you that most football fans could
do without their irrelevant comments and opinions.
Chuck knows his basketball, but there's no reason for him to spew his mouth about the NFL
MNF on ESPN isn’t the only culprit. NBC
had singer Pink doing their
introductory song in 2006, but apparently ratings weren’t high enough, so this
year Faith Hill gets the honor. Anybody who has watched a Super Bowl on any
network knows there is almost as much hoopla made of the commercials and
halftime show than there is about the game.
Fox is guilty too. Raise your hand if
your baseball intelligence is insulted by Scooter,
the talking baseball who teaches us the physics of different pitches thrown by
the starting pitcher. In football, they
have those ridiculous football playing robots and celebrity analysts giving
predictions on the pre-game show.
Every single network showing college and professional
football games have decided that more people tune into their relay if a
past-her-prime female who knows nothing about football updates us on coaches’
halftime speeches and player’s injuries.
The same occasionally is true for NBA games.
The point of all this complaining is that fans watching the games are more
annoyed by this than “turned on.” I’m
not more likely to watch the upcoming Monday Night game between the Colts and
Jaguars because I’m curious to know who the guest in the booth will be. No, I’m going to watch the game because I
want to see how Peyton Manning will fare
against one of the top three defenses in the NFL and while playing on the
road. I’m going to watch because Maurice Jones-Drew is on my fantasy
team. I’m going to watch because I like
football. Period. End of freakin’ story.
In the absolute best case scenario, many fans are prone to mute the T.V. and/or
listen to the play-by-play on the radio.
In the worst case, sports fans will watch “How I Met Your Mother.”
Getting back to ESPN and their Monday Night debacle, could anybody out there
explain what Tony Kornheiser is
supposed to bring to the table? I enjoy
him on “PTI,” but he knows less about play-by-play than Mike Tirico and knows absolutely nothing about analyzing, so what
are they paying him to do besides annoy listeners?
Here’s hoping that one day networks will wake up and tailor their sports
broadcasts to sports fans and not pray these promotional stunts grab the
attention of people who don’t care anyway.
The one NLDS series that is already set will pit the Chicago Cubs, who emerged from the heap of garbage that is the Central Division, against the Arizona Diamondbacks, the surprising winner of the West. Neither team really deserves to be there.
The Cubs, who finished the season with a .525 winning percentage (85-77) played in statistically one of the worst divisions in Major League history. The five teams that the Cubs beat out to win their division combined to finish 62 games under .500. Playing against these pitiful excuses for baseball teams, they only managed a 45-34 record. They went 8-4 in interleague play (which includes 5-1 against the awful White Sox), which means their record against other National League teams was only 32-39 (In case you’re wondering, they went 2-4 against Arizona in 2007).
Arizona used magic to win the West
The Diamondbacks won 90 games and went 50-31 at home this year. However, they were actually outscored 732 to 712 for the entire season. Using the Pythagorean W-L on baseball-reference.com, they should have finished the year with a 79-83 record, an 11-game swing which would have put them in 4th place.
The Cubs bullied on terrible teams to win the Central
Predictions and Analysis
These are some remarkable statistics against two playoff teams. They’ll play against each other in the first round, and Game 1 starts Wednesday at Chase Field in Arizona. Given the D’backs exceptional home record and their home field advantage for the series, my pick is for Arizona. I believe that the Cub’s decision to leave Jason Marquis off the playoff roster will be a costly mistake. Manager Lou Piniella has stated that he’ll use a 3-man starting rotation of Carlos Zambrano, Ted Lilly, and Rich Hill, which I agree with. However, I am a big proponent of using the end of the rotation starters as long relief men in the playoffs. If Zambrano or Lilly get roughed up and leave the game early, one of the first few games goes into extra innings (say 14 or 15), or if they have an injury to one of those three starters, they are in serious trouble. Instead of taking Marquis as an insurance policy, they’ll put three catchers on the roster. I don’t understand that move. Neither Giavani Soto nor Henry Blanco will able to contain Arizona’s running game and Brandon Webb will shut down the Cub’s offense in Game 1, and Arizona will advance to the NLCS.
The Chicago Cubs are potentially on the verge of adding yet another chapter to the book of historical misery; a book of colossal collapses; a book of terribly bad luck. As of press time (I've always wanted to say that!) the Cubs have lost 3 in a row to the last place Florida Marlins and sit 1.5 games ahead of the Milwaukee Brewers in the N.L. Central Division. No team since 1962 has blown a lead of more than three games with a week to play in the season (Chicago's lead was 3.5 at week's beginning).
For the record, I do believe the Cubs will hold on to the lead and make the playoffs. But if I'm wrong and the Brewers should come back, Cub Nation shouldn't consider this as one of the worst moments in franchise history.
This is the team, after all, that in 1969 led the division by 8.5 games on August 14th and went on to miss the playoffs. In 1984 the Cubs won the first two games of the NLCS and then dropped the next three to the Padres. They eventually lost the Series in 7 and held a lead in games 3-5 prior to losing. In 1998 the Cubs won a one-game, tie-breaking playoff over the Mets only to get demolished by the Giants in the first round of the playoffs. 2003? Anybody ever heard of Steve Bartman? They led the NLCS 3-1 over the Marlins, had arguably the two best pitchers in the National League, Mark Prior and Kerry Wood, pitching in Games 6 and 7, at home, and still lost in 7 games. The next year, they went on a run after acquiring Nomar Garciaparra at the trade deadline, and led the Wild Card race in September before bowing out in heart wrenching fashion. History has not been friendly to the team playing at the "Friendly Confines."
But enough sob stories. Missing the playoffs in 2007 would hurt, there is no denying that. But it's a bruise, not a gunshot wound.
Those Cub's teams in the past had potential. The Cubs circa 2007 are playing in a pathetic division, and can still manage to barely stay alive in the division race. Here's an astonishing statistic: The opponents the Cubs have faced in their own division this year (Milwaukee, Houston, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and St. Louis) are a dismal 73 combined games under .500. Any team worthy of making the playoffs would have clinched 3 weeks ago playing against that (lack of) competition.
At the risk of using politically incorrect analogies, winning the 2007 N.L. Central is akin to being the tallest midget. Heck, might as well be the smartest ####.
That may have crossed the line, but that just goes to tell you how sad this Cubs team is.
Even if they make the playoffs, they'll win no more than 1 game in the Divisional round. They'll be on the road, most likely facing the Diamondbacks who are a league best 50-31 at home.
Had the Cubs played in any other division, not only would they have never stood a chance to make the postseason, but their record would have reflected the below average team they are. Playing against actual Major League teams, a .480 winning percentage would have been likely. If/When the Cubs play their first playoff game, they should be viewed as a below average and underachieving, yet very lucky, team, not a division champion.
They don't stand a chance of making the World Series. Sure, you can point to the 2006 Cardinals and say that anything can happen once you make it to the playoffs. But last year was the exception for the ages. It was the first time in my lifetime that I can legitimately say that the best team didn't win. The odds are severely stacked against them. And the Brewers too, for that matter, if they overtake their southern I-94 rival.
So, Cubs fans. If your team should disappoint you yet again, you can look back at the season and say "Well, they wouldn't have done anything with the opportunity anyway."
There is no doubt in my mind that many of today’s superstars of Major League Baseball took performance enhancing steroids to aid their quests of breaking some of the game’s most cherished records. But this post isn’t about the evidence for steroid usage amongst today’s players, because as far as I’m concerned, it’s a forgone conclusion that Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, and Sammy Sosa did in fact use steroids. Instead this post is a rebuttal to some of the common arguments given to support these players in the wake of their steroid implications.
In recent weeks even some of Bonds’ biggest supporters have admitted to me or in public that they believe Bonds cheated his way past Hank Aaron’s career homerun record. These Bonds cohorts (and other non-believers for that matter) have given a few reasons why an asterisk is unnecessary or even riposte that BabeRuth should have an asterisk next to his 714. Here are some of these arguments and my two fundamental differences between the so called “cheating” from players of the past and the cheating from players of today and the very recent past.
One of the points I’ve heard thrown around is that Ruth never faced black or Latin players, and that the competition of his time was far inferior to what Barry Bonds might face today. I’ve also heard the notion that since a ball that bounced in the outfield and went over the fence in Ruth’s day was ruled a homerun (today that is a ground rule double), that Ruth’s total would have been less if he played today. Some of baseball’s most strict statisticians placed an asterisk next to the 61 homers hit by Roger Maris in 1961. The reason? The season was longer in those days compared to when Ruth hit 60, so Maris had the advantage of playing in more games.
This is asinine. Players of the past cannot have held against them rules of their time. Ruth had no control over the quality of the pitchers he faced. Maris had no control over the number of games the league made his team play. This is Fundamental Difference #1: Barry Bonds made a conscious decision to ingest performance enhancing drugs. Players of the pre-steroid era did not have a say in the number of games they played, the quality of their competition, or the rules governing the difference between a homer and a double. Players of today had every option to not take steroids, but did so at their own peril.
Defenders of Jose Canseco and other juicers claim that since MLB had no steroid policy in place during that time, the bulked up hacks who did drugs did not break any rules. Au contraire. In 1990 the federal government passed legislation that made possession of steroids without a prescription a punishable crime in all 50 states. Therefore, every single one of baseball’s juicers were breaking the law. Fundamental Difference #2: Barry Bonds committed a felony when he used The Cream and The Clear.
I don’t care if Bonds never goes to prison for his acts of selfishness and stupidity. I only submit that all stats from baseball’s most notorious steroid sluggers be marked with an asterisk or erased completely, all of their post-season awards (Most Valuable Players, Rookies of the Year, Silver Sluggers, etc) be stripped and given to the player next in line, and that none of them ever see their busts enshrined in Cooperstown, New York. That’s not asking too much, is it?
Here are two other common arguments I’ve heard in defense of the steroid users and my rebuttals:
There were so many players cheating and Bud Selig knew what was going on, so you can give no punishment to them. So if 20 guys all get busted robbing a bank does the police let them go because they had strength in numbers? More importantly, and more realistically, if the CEO of a tax firm turns a blind eye to his accountants fudging numbers on purpose would the public brush the incident off its collective shoulders and chock it up to an oversight? Hell no! They’d all be punished, all arrested, all fired. Selig is just as much to blame as the McGuires and Sosas of the world.
Barry Bonds never tested positive for steroids so you cannot punish him without proof. Again, I am not asking for Bonds to be imprisoned, just banned from the Hall of Fame. The first commissioner of baseball, Kennesaw Mountain Landis, banned all 8 members of the Chicago “Black Sox” even after they were all acquitted of charges by the judicial system. Selig should do the same to today’s players. Then, the powers that be should fire Bud Selig for not doing something 10 years ago.
Folks, no matter how you try spinning it, cheating is cheating is cheating. Bonds and all the other steroid cheats should never under any circumstances be observed in the same company as Aaron and the rest of baseball’s prized Hall of Famers.
Forget that Barry Bonds somehow managed to get a starting nod in the 2007 All-Star Game. The Fraud Machine has led a life (on and off the field) chock full lies, cheating, and misrepresentations for several years counting.
I don't understand how it is that Bonds gets booed in every park other than his own and still gets enough votes to play in the Mid-Summer classic. I'm surprised, bitter, and disgusted. But what irritates me above all this is how anybody can defend this freak.
Bonds' listed weight in 2007 is 228lbs, a far cry from these photos taken some 20 years ago
You would have to be insane to not lend credence to the strong possibility that Bonds has taken performance enhancing drugs. Former star Ken Caminitti once projected that 50% of MLB players took steroids during his playing career. And Jose Canseco estimated 30-40% in his recent book. Even if both were grossly overwhelmed and maybe, say, 20% juiced during what has become known as the Steroid Era, common observation would say there is a greater than 1-in-5 chance Bonds was one of those players.
Bonds hit a career high 73 home runs in 2001... at age 36! That was nearly double his previous career high, which, not surprisingly, came in 2000. It is almost unheard of for any athlete past his prime to break out with a career season such as Bonds' 2001. And the ones who do accomplish it are the usual suspects in the steroid allegations. Deservedly so, I might add.
Bonds is detested by media because he makes himself unavailable for interviews. He's hated by dozens of players who never took steroids because he gives the sport a blemished image. And he's hated by fans for those reasons and many others.
Bonds is also a known racist. Ron Kittle, another retired Major League player, was once in the Giant's locker room trying to collect autographs from the t
