MLB 2009 - 2nd half

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 07/18/2009 @ 11:12:14 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=caple_jim&id=4331383 Nice lil article on J-Mau.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 07/19/2009 @ 10:57:38 AM
Melvin had talked to Toronto about Halladay, not revealing much http://www.jsonline.com/sports/brewers/51062337.html		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 07/19/2009 @ 08:20:40 PM
So what's been Joe's average since the SI cover? Somewhere between sucky and the sucks? Do we have some other options??? I think Ichiro now has a higher average than him. Edit: As of the Twin's 4th inning, they were tied.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Sarah messed with this at 07/19/2009 8:27:06 pm

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 07/19/2009 @ 09:24:00 PM
Maybe they should replace him with Delmon Young.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 07/19/2009 @ 09:27:32 PM
Probably be better off.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 07/19/2009 @ 10:57:52 PM
R.A. Dickey sucks.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Matt - Ombudsman 07/20/2009 @ 02:43:57 AM
Touching on something I brought up in our previous baseball thread... I would say that if you have a game that goes 12 innings, and your closer/best pitcher doesn't pitch at all (assuming he was available, of course), then that's bad managing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt messed with this at 07/20/2009 4:57:54 am

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 07/20/2009 @ 11:23:59 AM
Well, obviously second guessing it in hindsight isn't fair. Sure, you could make a case for Nathan in the 12th, but there's no stats I know of that says the 12th is when extra inning games are typically won or lost. Any case you could make for Nathan in the 12th you could have made for the 9th, 10th, and 11th too, and they didn't need him. If Nathan pitched a scoreless 12th Dickey would have had to go from there anyway. Now, I think after Saltalanamewaytoolongia was bunted over to 2nd with only one out Nathan could have gotten some consideration, but then where do you go from there? The choices where: 1) Bring Nathan in now, then let Dickey go as long as it takes or, 2) Let Dickey go as long as it takes, then bring Nathan in when there's a lead on the line. Neither one is obvious. Up until the walk off homer the relievers had been having their way with the Rangers, and even Dickey had only actually coughed up a single. Game Oddities: Kinsler became just the third Major League player since divisional play started in 1969 to hit a lead-off and walk-off homerun in a game. Mauer went 0-for-6 for the first time in his career. The Rangers had a home run taken away due to instant replay. Nick Punto homered for the first time in his previous 371 at-bats and had an unassisted double play.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 07/20/2009 11:33:41 am

	Alex - 3619 Posts 07/20/2009 @ 01:04:32 PM
Brewers get Felipe Lopez http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4339972 I'm assuming that besides being a multiple position fantasy player Felipe can also pitch?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - 584 Posts 07/20/2009 @ 02:05:09 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:23:59 PM Well, obviously second guessing it in hindsight isn't fair. Sure, you could make a case for Nathan in the 12th, but there's no stats I know of that says the 12th is when extra inning games are typically won or lost. Any case you could make for Nathan in the 12th you could have made for the 9th, 10th, and 11th too, and they didn't need him. Your argument doesn't work because its not the inning that matters, but the situation. If you have a runner in scoring position and one out in the bottom of the inning and you're going to make a pitching change, you want your best pitcher in the game. If he retires the next 2, he can easily pitch the 13th and then you can bring in Dickey. As it was, Dickey threw a fabulous 84-mph fastball right over the plate. Its not like Gardenhire hasn't taken a ton of flack in the past for not using Nathan appropriately in high-leverage, non-save situations. This is just another one to add to the list.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Pie Racist 07/20/2009 @ 02:36:09 PM
Oh, well I remembered it as Dickey starting the 12th and giving up the runner, not as coming in with the runner on 2nd already. I retract my comments, Nathan should have come in.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 07/20/2009 @ 06:35:46 PM
Even me, the biggest RA Dickey fan out there bemoaned the fact that Gardy didn't put Nathan in with a guy on 2nd in the 12th. A wild pitch, and that guy is at 3rd, so it'd be even easier to win. Use your street smarts Gardy!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	jthompto - 209 Posts 07/20/2009 @ 06:35:57 PM
Anyone know the rules on the MLB package? For some reason I did not receive last nights game. I miss a lot of saturday day games also, but I think that's because of the FOX game. And why did they play at night and not during the day yesterday. I am confused.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Ombudsman 07/21/2009 @ 12:29:38 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:23:59 AM Well, obviously second guessing it in hindsight isn't fair. Sure, you could make a case for Nathan in the 12th, but there's no stats I know of that says the 12th is when extra inning games are typically won or lost. Any case you could make for Nathan in the 12th you could have made for the 9th, 10th, and 11th too, and they didn't need him. I guess my comment might have been a little vague, but I wasn't talking about just the 12 inning there. I meant that he should have pitched sometime in that game from the 9th inning to the 12th (and using hindsight to say that other pitchers got through innings 9, 10, or 11, doesn't mean that using them instead was a better decision at the time). My view is that once you get to the 9th inning in a situation like that, since you don't know when (or if) you are going to score, you should do what you can to give yourself as many at bats as possible. To me, that means use your best available pitcher first, followed by your next best, and so on. So, Nathan probably should have been brought in to start the 9th and pitch as long as he could. Instead Gardy went with Guerrier, who is a good pitcher so you can maybe give him a pass there. After Guerrier pitched though, I don't see how its better to bring in Duensing (not a good pitcher) before Nathan. If you give up a run, the game is over, if you don't, you play on. Nathan gives you a better chance to get to another at bat. Sure, that means you may have to use Duensing/Dickey/etc. after you score, but then you would have at least a 1-run buffer, and possibly a multiple run lead. Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 02:36:09 PM Oh, well I remembered it as Dickey starting the 12th and giving up the runner, not as coming in with the runner on 2nd already. I retract my comments, Nathan should have come in. Yeah, I think once you get to that situation and Nathan is still in the bullpen, then its a no-brainer to use him there.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt screwed with this 2 times, last at 07/21/2009 12:36:55 am

	Matt - 3941 Posts 07/21/2009 @ 01:12:25 AM
jthompto Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:35:57 PM Anyone know the rules on the MLB package? For some reason I did not receive last nights game. I miss a lot of saturday day games also, but I think that's because of the FOX game. And why did they play at night and not during the day yesterday. I am confused. Fox does have an exclusive deal with baseball so that all other games (except local coverage) are blacked out on Saturday afternoons. As for why you didn't get the Sunday night game, I think ESPN may have a similar deal as well for Sunday nights, but I'm not 100% sure on that.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 07/21/2009 @ 05:25:14 PM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 01:12:25 AM jthompto Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:35:57 PM Anyone know the rules on the MLB package? For some reason I did not receive last nights game. I miss a lot of saturday day games also, but I think that's because of the FOX game. And why did they play at night and not during the day yesterday. I am confused. Fox does have an exclusive deal with baseball so that all other games (except local coverage) are blacked out on Saturday afternoons. As for why you didn't get the Sunday night game, I think ESPN may have a similar deal as well for Sunday nights, but I'm not 100% sure on that. But Sunday's Twins game wasn't an ESPN game if I recall. The Mets and whoever they were playing were, but played earlier in the evening because during the regularly scheduled ESPN Sunday night baseball time, the ESPYs were on. It sucked anyway, so don't feel bad.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Ombudsman 07/21/2009 @ 11:12:49 PM
The way I understand Fox's blackout to work is that they have national broadcast exclusivity. Since Extra Innings and MLB.tv count as national broadcasts under this agreement, Fox blacks them out. The thinking is, I guess, that they will then get a larger audience for the game they broadcast. Again, I'm not sure if ESPN has a similar deal for Sunday nights, but if they do, then it wouldn't matter if it was an ESPN game or not, they would still black it out for similar reasons.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt screwed with this at 07/21/2009 11:13:41 pm

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 07/22/2009 @ 09:15:55 PM
Crain's coming back tomorrow. I am guessing the Twins can't suck anymore than what they do right now, so I guess I can't complain about the move.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 07/27/2009 @ 08:55:58 AM
Sarah Wrote - 07/21/2009 @ 06:25:14 PM Matt Wrote - 07/21/2009 @ 02:12:25 AM jthompto Wrote - 07/20/2009 @ 07:35:57 PM Anyone know the rules on the MLB package? For some reason I did not receive last nights game. I miss a lot of saturday day games also, but I think that's because of the FOX game. And why did they play at night and not during the day yesterday. I am confused. Fox does have an exclusive deal with baseball so that all other games (except local coverage) are blacked out on Saturday afternoons. As for why you didn't get the Sunday night game, I think ESPN may have a similar deal as well for Sunday nights, but I'm not 100% sure on that. But Sunday's Twins game wasn't an ESPN game if I recall. The Mets and whoever they were playing were, but played earlier in the evening because during the regularly scheduled ESPN Sunday night baseball time, the ESPYs were on. It sucked anyway, so don't feel bad. from MLB.TV: Regular Season Weekend U.S. National Live Blackout: Due to Major League Baseball exclusivities, live games occurring each Saturday with a scheduled start time after 1:10 PM ET or before 7:05 PM ET and each Sunday with a scheduled start time after 5:00 PM ET, will be blacked out in the United States (including the territories of Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands). If you are an MLB.TV Premium subscriber outside of the United States, each of these games will be available as an archived game as soon as possible after the conclusion of the applicable game. If you are an MLB.TV Premium Subscriber within the United States or an MLB.TV subscriber in any territory, each of these games will be available as an archived game approximately 90 minutes after the conclusion of the applicable game. Archived games are not available through MLB.com At Bat 2009.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Scott edited this 4 times, last at 07/27/2009 9:06:56 am

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 07/30/2009 @ 03:55:01 PM
Is anyone surprised that David Ortiz was on the list of steriod users from 2003? He's been a walking Shrek monster for the past 5 years. He got so big he was unable to play in the outfield. And he really wasn't much of a power hitter with the Twins. And the list goes on.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 07/31/2009 @ 12:23:32 PM
Twins Acquire Orlando Cabrera		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 07/31/2009 @ 12:33:42 PM
I've always kind of liked him, right he was the guy who got traded to the Red Sox and was a very big part in their World Series win, although I don't think he got enough credit.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 1000000 posts (and counting!) 07/31/2009 @ 12:53:12 PM
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:55:01 PM Is anyone surprised that David Ortiz was on the list of steriod users from 2003? He's been a walking Shrek monster for the past 5 years. He got so big he was unable to play in the outfield. And he really wasn't much of a power hitter with the Twins. And the list goes on. Unable to play in the outfield? Maybe because he is a 1B and DH. Career games in the OF? Zero. Also, he did have 20 hr his last year with the Twins in 125 games so he wasn't a non-power hitter, just not as good. Then again, he could have been on something then too, so you never know. It was just a year before. His size, though, doesn't really seem like that much of an indicator. He seems to fall into the tall, chubby category anyway. He didn't appear to ever be ripped before or after, just big in general, which seemed natural. Also, I'm no expert on it, but if the birthdate on his bio is correct, his offensive explosion at least correlated with a guy coming into his prime years, so it's not like he pulled a Bonds in that regard either. But to answer the main question, no I'm not surprised-surprised. But he did seem genuinely critical of steroids just recently so I'm a bit surprised, though obviously there's a precedent for that type of thing too. But I was willing to believe he did it naturally as well. He showed flashes of talent as a hitter in MN. He had a couple pretty decent hit streaks. So even though he had a jump in stats, it didn't seem as far fetched as some others have had.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 07/31/2009 @ 01:01:55 PM
Jon Wrote - Today @ 12:53:12 PM Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:55:01 PM Is anyone surprised that David Ortiz was on the list of steriod users from 2003? He's been a walking Shrek monster for the past 5 years. He got so big he was unable to play in the outfield. And he really wasn't much of a power hitter with the Twins. And the list goes on. Unable to play in the outfield? Maybe because he is a 1B and DH. Career games in the OF? Zero. I was almost going to say something along these lines too, but then I gave him the benefit of the doubt and figured he just meant it in a generic "play the field"/"play defense" sense. Edit: Not that the comment still holds all that much merit, because DH is just as legit a position as any, and that was all anyone's intention for him was.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 07/31/2009 3:10:00 pm

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 07/31/2009 @ 03:31:11 PM
58 homers in 6 years with the Twins.....245 homeruns in 7 years with Boston (since 2003). Here's more of a breakdown Twins avg: .267 AB/HR: 25; Games/HR: 8 Red Sox avg: .290 AB p HR: 14; Games/HR: 4 His average didn't necessarily jump that much, but the HR totals are staggering. His homerun numbers basically doubled. AND, he failed the drugtest in 2003, so it's possible that it includes 2002, but I wouldn't implicate him on a 20 HR season necessarily. He went from hitting a HR every 25 at bats, or every 8 games, to hitting a HR every 14 at bats and once every 4 games. It's not really a question of "did it help him out", because he obviously now used it and it's been proved. It just should not be a surprise when you look at the breakdown. edit: His years with the Twins were not all complete years, but with the calculations I used, I tried to take the "quantity" out of it and use more of the percents and whatnot.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 07/31/2009 3:41:03 pm

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 07/31/2009 @ 03:40:34 PM
Joe Mauer AB/HR: 2009 - 17 Career - 47 It's not impossible that some guys just change something, or come into their own, but it's not shocking to hear about Papi either.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 07/31/2009 @ 03:42:14 PM
For Mauer, that's one year so far. I stand by my stats. going from 20 HR to 54 HR in a season is not my idea of "coming into your own", at least a natural coming into one's own. It's just hard not assume the worst anymore when I guy's stats jump so dramatically.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 2 times, last at 07/31/2009 3:45:15 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 07/31/2009 @ 03:44:38 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:42:14 PM For Mauer, that's one year so far. I stand by my stats. Well, no one was accusing you of making them up.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 07/31/2009 3:44:59 pm

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 07/31/2009 @ 03:46:40 PM
Besides, I already told Jon I think Mauer is on the juice.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 07/31/2009 @ 03:49:10 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 04:44:38 PM Scott Wrote - Today @ 04:42:14 PM For Mauer, that's one year so far. I stand by my stats. Well, no one was accusing you of making them up. What I meant was, I stand by my conclusions, even if you weren't accusing me of anything of that either.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Pie Racist 07/31/2009 @ 03:54:42 PM
I know, I just felt like busting chops, since you "stood by" something that wasn't a matter of opinion.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 07/31/2009 @ 03:54:53 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 04:40:34 PM Joe Mauer AB/HR: 2009 - 17 Career - 47 It's not impossible that some guys just change something, or come into their own, but it's not shocking to hear about Papi either. Since we know that we was juicing, it's more likely that the jump is explained by that. If it was still speculation about his drug use, then we could have that conversation. It's not really a matter of "well, did the drugs help him get better, or did he just make some adjustments." He may have done both, but the point is he juiced, it's been proved, and in the same period when he failed his test he started hitting the cover off the ball. That's all I'm saying.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 07/31/2009 @ 04:07:37 PM
I can "stand for" facts. I stand by this being NutCan.com. There.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 07/31/2009 @ 05:38:13 PM
Ortiz's big gripe about his time with the Twins was that they tried to make him, like they do with most/all of their prospects, into an all-fields hitter instead of just a straight pull hitter. Ortiz didn't take to this very well, so its quite possible that once Boston let him "be himself", his production went up. This isn't to say that his juicing didn't account for any of his power increase, just that there may be other factors as well.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 07/31/2009 @ 06:11:04 PM
I've always held, that many people at least imply, that steriods and PHD's don't automatically make you a power baseball hitter. But, take a guy who already has the given tools, he may have all the makings of a pretty good hitter, and give him that artificial edge, he may turn that potential into something so much more. Ortiz very well may have been on track to become a better hitter than his first few years suggested, but that clearly was helped along by the drugs. Again, it's like this: we now know he juiced. It is basically impossible now to deny that the drugs are the reason for the dramatic surge. As sad as it is, I think that once a player with some sort of spike in his numbers tests postive for steriods, A) you have to wonder how long has ahe actually been doing, and B) you have to assume that those numbers were a result of the drugs. If Albert Pujols tested postive for steriods today, I would have some of the same thoughts. However, throughout his career, there is no jump in his numbers, so it would make you think that maybe it was just recent and short lived. I only bring that up because until we know all the names on that list, pretty much every player in baseball at that time is in some way implicated. As much as Pujols has always been the guy in my mind that would prove that not everyone was doing it, it's impossible for me to completely rule out the fact that even he could be named.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 07/31/2009 @ 11:15:38 PM
You know what angle doesn't get enough play? Where's the magic line between legal drugs and illegal drugs? If a player has a bad headache and takes 4 aspirin before the game, those drugs could make a huge difference in his performance that night. I guess I'm assuming that's legal, I don't really know the rules. I just think it's kind of messed up that when we here some guy was on roids, there's the "omg! What a cheater!" reaction, meanwhile it's ok for guys to drink custom designed protein shakes all day and take who knows what "legal" drugs.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 07/31/2009 @ 11:51:51 PM
Apparently Alex thinks we are in the "Protein Shake" era. Does that warrant an asterisk?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 08/01/2009 @ 10:45:35 AM
That's kind of the point though. It's not really "natural" to have vitamin supplements and protein shakes and hyperbaric sleeping chambers and tanks of oxygen on the sidelines and sports drinks etc. The point of all those things is to enhance performance, but "performance enhancing drugs" has become a dirty word.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/01/2009 @ 06:00:31 PM
Try explaining that to a nutrienist (I live with a certified personal trainer, so I hear about eating right all the freaking time). Protein shakes and vitamin supplements and these things you speak of are nothing more than you could get by eating certain foods anyway, but people just put these things into concentrated form and mix them up and consume them. Besides, everyone on earth needs protein and carbs and vitamins and whatnot. Human growth hormones and testosterone boosts serve no other purpose than for gaining that artificial edge. When you work out, your muscles NEED protein or your workout is basically worthless. Muscles need protein in order to recover from a workout. Your body NEEDS vitamins to perform any number of basic bodily functions. The only thing HGH and other things that have qualified as PEDs do for you is artificially give you the ability to swing harder, run faster, react quicker, and maybe impress a few more ladies at the beach. I trained for a 20 mile mountain bike race, and out of all the research I did about a diet to undergo in order to prepare, not one source (including my wife, who, if it wasn't clearly stated above, is the personal trainer that I live with; and by the way, is about 9 months away from officially being Dr. Melissa) reminded me to shoot up the juice. Everything pointed me to things like a certain percentage of protein per day based on my body weight, eating properly, and certain types of vitamins that specifically help in this sort of situation. I'm trying to figure out where the blurred line is between a protein shake containing all the stuff your body needs anyway and a drug injected into the who's sole purpose is build muscle in an unnatural way. And I know that not all PED's are injected. One thing that sort of occured to me while I typing this was the use of the term "Performance enhancing drugs". I don't know if this was Alex's intention or not, but the the term PHD as I understand it is simply the set of "things" that have been decided fall under the realm of banned substances. Perhaps they should have just stuck to that: "Banned Substances". Although, that would have led to the use of the term "BS" far too often for network or cable television. Yes, other things have the intention of enhancing your performance, so may they should have used a different term, but I don't think that's really the point of the whole thing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 08/01/2009 @ 06:25:47 PM
Well, your body also needs testosterone and HGH. Maybe not more than it produces on its own (at least normally, some people actually need treatment for hormone deficiencies). So you think that vitamin supplements are 100% natural but hormone supplements aren't? When was the last time you went out to the garden and picked vitamins? Yes, you could get them from eating different things in most cases, but there's potentially unwanted side affects from doing that.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/01/2009 @ 06:37:30 PM
This is getting ridiculous. When have I ever picked vitamins? I really can't compete with that logic. Testosterone: I highly doubt that any athlete using testosterone is doing so to combat osteoporosis, type 2 diabetes, cardio-vascular disease (CVD), or obesity. Again, I'm trying to figure where exactly the line is blurred.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 08/01/2009 @ 07:35:26 PM
Clearly Alex hijacked Wikipedia.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 08/01/2009 @ 07:41:00 PM
I think I'm with Alex on this one. It's really a stupid take that the gen pop and the media have on the issue, really no matter what angle you take on it. (ie Either that it's an unforgivable sin or is ruining the game.) We're talking about people who take every possible edge at every opportunity. Everything is down to a science, and most lockers look like pharmacies. It's really a pretty dumb stance to take to be O.K. with the intent of all that, but then flip your lid when it turns out that one of the 75,000 chemicals they're ingesting is on a, largely arbitrary, list of banned substances. As for the other angle, the "They're ruining the game"/"the stats are meaningless"/"asterisk!!!" crowd, you people are just fooling yourselves. First off, the old timers did everything possible to gain an edge too. Maybe the results and the science hadn't been worked out yet, but their intent was the same. Secondly, even if that weren't true, to pretend that the only thing preventing comparing 2009 to 1930 is the steroids is ridiculous. Players are more refined and are the cream of the crop worldwide, the equipment is better, the training is better, the nutrition is better, and the parks are different. It's an apples and oranges comparison no matter what the case is.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 08/01/2009 7:44:17 pm

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 08/01/2009 @ 08:38:12 PM
It seems like with you people, everything is "arbitrary". So what do we do? Do we ban protein and vitamins (by the way, if we did, pro athletes would all die)? Or do we allow steriods and HGH and testosterone and everything else you can think of across the board? Because what Alex is suggesting is that steriods and HGH and whatnot is no different than taking vitamin supplements and drinking protein shakes. Artificially high testosterone levels can be dangerous, as can abuse of HGH. In baseball's case, you CAN legitimately compare a player's stats today to player's stats in the 1930s. When you add this artificial enhancement that they didn't have back then and isn't known not to be harmful anyway, the only stupid thing is thinking that it is ok to do. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 08:41:00 PM We're talking about people who take every possible edge at every opportunity. Everything is down to a science, and most lockers look like pharmacies. It's really a pretty dumb stance to take to be O.K. with the intent of all that, but then flip your lid when it turns out that one of the 75,000 chemicals they're ingesting is on a, largely arbitrary, list of banned substances. Really? So you're saying that if I do my research, pay doctors, and hire a nutrienist to help me be a better athlete by means of safe(er) scientifically studied substances and whatnot, then I'm the hypocrite if I say that the guy injecting himself with testosterone or HGH or steriods is cheating? That is the dumb thing. At an extreme then, if I simply work out and drink gatorade and maybe mix up an EAS protein shake, some guy who is doing steriods can just say "I'm just trying to get an edge" and not be wrong for what he is doing because the intent is the same? Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 08:41:00 PM We're talking about people who take every possible edge at every opportunity. Everything is down to a science, and most lockers look like pharmacies. It's really a pretty dumb stance to take to be O.K. with the intent of all that, but then flip your lid when it turns out that one of the 75,000 chemicals they're ingesting is on a, largely arbitrary, list of banned substances. So if my intent on taking vitamins and protein supplements and something you can get at GNC is to make me a better athlete, you think that is the exact same thing as me injecting substances into my body that will alter my normal bodily function? East German women literally turned into men because of these beliefs. There are ethical barriers to these things. That his a very dangerous line to cross if you intend to say that the only way you can compete in a sport is to inject. There are very safe ways of supplement and "enhancing" your body that are legal, accepted, performed by everyone from highschool to olympic athletes. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 08:41:00 PM Secondly, even if that weren't true, to pretend that the only thing preventing comparing 2009 to 1930 is the steroids is ridiculous. Players are more refined and are the cream of the crop worldwide, the equipment is better, the training is better, the nutrition is better, and the parks are different. It's an apples and oranges comparison no matter what the case is. I'll use a familiar tactic: this actually strengthens my point. Players ARE more refined. They ARE the cream of the crop. The equipment IS better. Etc. Etc. At the same time though, it is still possible to compare a baseball player from today to one of 50 years ago. Baseball is a little unique in that since, because I've never thought that today's football players are equivalent to players from 50 years ago. Baseball players today are generally the same size as players of the past. The baseball rules haven't really changed over the years, unlike football which has made changes to making the passing game more proficient. As hitters have gotten stronger and better, pitchers have new ways of making the ball move and new pitches have been "discovered". In other words, as the hitters got better, the pitchers got better. And the nature of baseball is different in a sense that football and basketball, because it is the only sport where the offense is 100% at the mercy of the defense, in that the offense never actually posesses the ball. But enough about that, it's just my point that baseball has always been a sport that you can legimitately compare across all eras, at least in many circumstances. I also like how "no matter what angle you take on it" it's a stupid angle. I can do that too. I think no matter what angle you take on it, it's AWESOME. There. This was a long rant of a post, and I went back and added stuff several times. I hope it comes across as at least being coherent.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 08/01/2009 @ 08:43:27 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 08/01/2009 @ 08:41:00 PM but then flip your lid when it turns out that one of the 75,000 chemicals they're ingesting is on a, largely arbitrary, list of banned substances. One more thing: Baseball's list of banned substances I count about 83 chemicals that are pretty clearly listed, 7 of which are things like cocaine, LCD, and heroine. (The same document in Wikipedia form) In other words, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to ingest one of these by accident. Because it has become so much of a science, any athlete that is going to put anything into his body will always look for exactly what he/she is putting into his/her body. And since baseball (et al) are so harsh with their testing now, you would be a moron for NOT checking everything before proceeding. If I do my research when finding supplements, then a multi-million dollar athlete (or least an athlete that is more than an occasional weekend warrior) does too. If they don't, I have no sympathy if they get caught for "not knowing" what they were taking.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 4 times, last at 08/03/2009 8:03:15 am

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 08/01/2009 @ 09:09:24 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:43:27 PM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 07:41:00 PM but then flip your lid when it turns out that one of the 75,000 chemicals they're ingesting is on a, largely arbitrary, list of banned substances. One more thing: Baseball's list of banned substances I count about 83 chemicals that are pretty clearly listed, 7 of which are things like cocaine, LCD, and heroine. And if I made any claims about the number of banned chemicals, you would have a point. Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:38:12 PM It seems like with you people, everything is "arbitrary". So what do we do? Do we ban protein and vitamins (by the way, if we did, pro athletes would all die)? Or do we allow steriods and HGH and testosterone and everything else you can think of across the board? Because what Alex is suggesting is that steriods and HGH and whatnot is no different than taking vitamin supplements and drinking protein shakes. So if my intent on taking vitamins and protein supplements and something you can get at GNC is to make me a better athlete, you think that is the exact same thing as me injecting substances into my body that will alter my normal bodily function? East German women literally turned into men because of these beliefs. There are ethical barriers to these things. That his a very dangerous line to cross if you intend to say that the only way you can compete in a sport is to inject. There are very safe ways of supplement and "enhancing" your body that are legal, accepted, performed by everyone from highschool to olympic athletes. The main crux of the issue is mainly that you're taking extremes and over simplifying. Half the crap in the GNC store IS on the banned list of some sport, and that's largely the point. For every guy that gets caught with a steroid syringe in his keester there are 15 that get swept up in technicalities, who are then more or less treated as if they also got busted with steroids. Also, to act like a guy that's on 75 different supplements is being healthy, and a role model for high school athletes, but one that gets "busted" doing the same thing is 100% different, a terrible person, and someone you don't want to emulate, is pretty silly. It's sort of like the sex offender list. We wanted to know who the really really bad people were, so we made this new distinction. Then some people took that and ran with it and filled it full of so many technicalities and overreactions that a decent chunk of the population makes it on the list. What started as a scarlet letter to get hung on the sickest sickos has been minimalized by roping in lots of people who don't belong.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 08/01/2009 @ 09:44:04 PM
Though, truth be told, and more to what Alex's original point was (I think). I honestly don't see that giant a gulf between the guys who take the HGH and whatnot, and the guys who rely on "legal" pills to do everything else. (For one, I'm not sure how legal many of the legal pills are. There can't be that many football players with ED.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - Nutcan.com's kitten expert 08/02/2009 @ 07:57:44 AM
If there is indeed an over-simplification by the general population and media on illegal vs. non-illegal drugs, I think the opposing view's reaction to it is at least equally flawed. I understand Alex's point that the lines can be a bit fuzzy. (Personally, I think the "next stage" of this debate is even more intriguing. For instance, having lasik, or tommy john-like surgeries to improve your body to beyond what it ever was, etc. That's a whole other can of worms, though along the same lines.) But fuzziness of lines seems to always lead to people throwing their hands up in the air and declaring the lines have no meaning at all and tossing aside any difference between aspirin and nandrolone or carrots and HGH. There's a debate to be had on the issue, but I'm putting my cards on the table and saying I don't think it's there. I'll put a disclaimer right now for the uninformed that I'm not a doctor and I have no expertise in the issue. That said, here's my take on the illegal/legal drugs and their banning and use and all that. I think the banned substance lists need to be taken for what they ARE and not criticized for what they're NOT intended to be. They are NOT a list of any substance that could make you better. Just because a legal drug and illegal drug both make you better and give you an advantage doesn't mean they are on equal ground. I think a lot of factors go into something going on the list or not. Some drugs are just plain illegal for all citizens. That's another debate entirely if you want that to change. Others have also been proven to do a great detriment to the athlete and would have bad social side effects. Roid rage is a real thing, and I imagine is significantly greater than aspirin rage or protein shake rage. The lists aren't made to squelch players from getting better or trying to get better. The rules aren't against performance enhancement in general. It's NOT inconsistent to be fine with players taking a handful of supplements but be against steroids. While the lines can get blurry sometimes, it doesn't make all lines arbitrary. (And even IF they were completely arbitrary, the behaviors connected with breaking or keeping the rule are not left completely to chance. It's not wrong to desire that the players do their best to follow the rules, is it? And for us to be upset when they don't? Especially in the world of sports, where "arbitrary" rules are kind of at the core of the game anyway. While most rules are based on SOME sort of rationale, these games we love the most in America all fall into the "contrived" category of sports anyway. You break it down too much and there's really nothing there. But we go to the games and expect the rules to be followed just the same. They were agreed upon and it's fair. If they're broken, we should be upset.) The lists are also NOT comprehensive of any drug that could make you better and have unhealthy consequences. While there is a "protection" factor to the list, it's not there to keep everyone from ingesting any chemical that could mess them up while making them better. Having a list of banned substances isn't an encouragement to take everything else. So the guy clearing the shelf at GNC and ingesting everything that's technically legal and screwing up his body doesn't have any effect on the legitimacy of banning substances known to do harm and, maybe more to the point, doesn't mean we can't conclude that some steroid user did, in fact, cheat. Are we missing the point if we declare one of those two athletes to be a "saint" and one a "sinner?" Well, yeah, if we extrapolate it and make it THAT black and white. But the one guy at least did follow the rules as clearly written. The steroid user didn't even do that. They might both ruin their bodies and both have all sorts of "foreign" substances in them, and even MIGHT both be going against the spirit of the game, depending on how you look at it, and what standards you personally have for players. So, yeah, we should keep that in mind for when we get judgmental toward some and when we think other guys who aren't caught are "all natural." But I feel like too often this type of argument is instead used to try and justify steroid users' behavior. It's the half-brother of the "everybody's doing it" argument. It's the "everybody's doing something" argument. To which, we should instead reply, yeah, MANY are taking SOMETHING, and there is SOME gray area. But “Player X” is a steroid user. And that IS clearly against the rules. Along the same lines, let's face it: the lists will always be one step behind. Cheaters will always find a new way. And, yes, they always have tried and likely succeeded many times in the past when they tried to get an illegal edge. But again, I don't see that as a knock against making lists, then testing, and then punishing offenders for what they did. Yeah, it sucks that we come down hard on all those caught while the more clever cheaters get away and are actually rewarded for how well they are cheating (by getting admiration and big contracts). And we do a fairly poor job of keeping things in perspective sometimes, so we'll often make one into an ultra-villain and one into a superhero. So we could use a slight tweaking of our perspective. But overall, I don't think the lines are nearly as blurry as they are made out to be. For a great number of the cases, someone just plain broke the rules. And where they are blurry, they are likely to stay that way no matter where you draw the line.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jon screwed with this 3 times, last at 08/02/2009 8:07:33 am

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 08/02/2009 @ 08:26:34 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:09:24 PM And if I made any claims about the number of banned chemicals, you would have a point. After reading your post, I releaize my folly. the 75,000 chemicals were the ones people are injesting, not the ones on the list. But still, at least now we have the source that we are speaking about. Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:09:24 PM For every guy that gets caught with a steroid syringe in his keester there are 15 that get swept up in technicalities, who are then more or less treated as if they also got busted with steroids. First of all, where are you getting this 15-1 ratio? But regarldess, that's just the thing. The list of banned substances is pretty clearly stated, and when you buy a supplement from GNC the containers list exactly what is in each supplement. (and since we're talking about pro athletes, I'm going to act like they have the money to do the research. Some college or olympic athletes might not have the same resources at their disposal). Knowing how strict the testing is, and having the list in front of you, there are just no excuses for getting caught anymore. If someone makes their living because their body is a peak, physical specimen, they should be knowing exactly what they are putting into that body. And like Jon said, if someone breaks the rules and someone doesn't, of course I'm going to be more harsh on the buy breaking the rules. In other words, if a player on your team gets caught with this "technicality", you can compalin all you want about how what they did wasn't that bad or it was a technicality, but the thing is is that they probably just took the easy way out and didn't look into what they were taking. I have no sympathy for the fan or the player in this situation. They know the tests are harsh and random, and they have the exact chemicals that the leagues are testing for.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 2 times, last at 08/02/2009 8:57:54 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/02/2009 @ 08:46:26 AM
Jon Wrote - Today @ 08:57:44 AM Along the same lines, let's face it: the lists will always be one step behind. Cheaters will always find a new way. And, yes, they always have tried and likely succeeded many times in the past when they tried to get an illegal edge. But again, I don't see that as a knock against making lists, then testing, and then punishing offenders for what they did. Yeah, it sucks that we come down hard on all those caught while the more clever cheaters get away and are actually rewarded for how well they are cheating (by getting admiration and big contracts). And we do a fairly poor job of keeping things in perspective sometimes, so we'll often make one into an ultra-villain and one into a superhero. So we could use a slight tweaking of our perspective. In the spirit of this part of Jon's comment, the debate I really wouldn't mind having is not whether or not steriods and HGH are the same as vitamin supplements and other forms of non-listed drugs, but rather how the whole situation of the 2003 tests is being handled. It might need to be a separate thread. So someone has this list of about 100 or so names of players who failed the drug test administered in 2003. Apparently the players implicated have already been notified, and apparently lit was initially understood that there was some degree of confidentiality. Now someone has that list, and about every 3 or 4 months, they leak a name. When the name is leaked, every single sports media person in the nation, from the national pundit to the local talk radio host, rehashes the same talking points about the legitimicy of the list, the legitimicy of everything the player has done before or sense, how bad a human being Bud Selig is. What people don't seem to understand is that all these names we hear is comging from a test that took place 6 years ago. I feel like the source with this list is opening up this wound that is more and more detrimental to baseball. The thing is, baseball now has a very strict drug testing policy, with very harsh consequences for violation. But the people who don't necessarily know that keep hearing about these big name players failing drug tests, not knowing that the test was from 6 years ago, and have no reason to believe that steriods is still a largely prevalent aspect that is still tainting the game. If it were up to me, I would do one of two things. Either burn the list of names and forget it all, or I would gather the remaining players on that list, release all the names at once, and hold a large press conference (or series of press conference) simply to get everything out in the open so we can just get this behind us. At the rate we are going with this so called list, we could be hearing about steriod users from 2003 for another 20 years! I'm sure not everyone on the list is a big name like Ortiz or ARod, but there probably are still some big names left, and I think baseball is being done a huge disservice with the way this is being handled.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3443 Posts 08/02/2009 @ 09:27:15 AM
Scott Wrote - 07/31/2009 @ 03:31:11 PM 58 homers in 6 years with the Twins.....245 homeruns in 7 years with Boston (since 2003). Here's more of a breakdown Twins avg: .267 AB/HR: 25; Games/HR: 8 Red Sox avg: .290 AB p HR: 14; Games/HR: 4 His average didn't necessarily jump that much, but the HR totals are staggering. His homerun numbers basically doubled. AND, he failed the drugtest in 2003, so it's possible that it includes 2002, but I wouldn't implicate him on a 20 HR season necessarily. He went from hitting a HR every 25 at bats, or every 8 games, to hitting a HR every 14 at bats and once every 4 games. It's not really a question of "did it help him out", because he obviously now used it and it's been proved. It just should not be a surprise when you look at the breakdown. edit: His years with the Twins were not all complete years, but with the calculations I used, I tried to take the "quantity" out of it and use more of the percents and whatnot. Since I didn't respond before the subject shifted, I'm going back to the ortiz thing for a second. Just so we're clear, I didn't, and will not argue that Ortiz didn't test positive for steroids or that he didn't improve because of them. (though I don't technically know on either count, there's at least reason to believe that he used and that they helped.) What I WAS questioning, was the idea that his offensive explosion was so overwhelming, that we should have known he used steroids. Which, looking back, you weren't really implying. You were more just saying that after knowing, it's not surprising. But still, I feel like that carries the implication that he clearly changed from then until now. And I see that as true in a sense, but not clear-cut. If you look at his progression, starting in 2000 at age 24 and ending in 2006 at age 30, his HR totals are: 10, 18, 20, 31, 41, 47, 54. So yeah, there's a big total jump. But not an overnight jump. And not in equal ABs. The year he hit 18HR, which was 2001 and his 2nd to last with the twins, he did so in 89 games and 303 ABs. That's a HR every 16.8 at bats from a 25 year old over a half season. A short span, sure, but it's enough of a glimpse to see that he had talent. Plus, over his general years as a Twin, he wasn't always a regular, and was often dinged up. He never played more than 130 games. So, his first "full" year was his second in boston, the year after the alleged failed test, when he was 28 years old and played 150 games and hit 41 HR in 582 ABs. That's a HR for every 14.2 at bats, not that far off of his best (half) season with the Twins. Again, we don't know when he did or didn't use, so they could all be years on the juice or some other combination of on or off. And I'm not making a case for his non-use or non-benefit of it. But I still hold that, while surprising, the "jump" in his career didn't seem to come from absolutely nowhere. Not to the point that it made a nothing into a power hitter. Or to the point where we should have assumed steroids. It seemed more like he went from an inconsistent guy with power to a consistent power hitter. Which, I guess, is probably what happens to a lot of players who use PEDs, but seems like something that could happen naturally also. In his case, it seems the shift may have come from PEDs, but I don't want to assume that's the case anytime it happens. (Plus, again, he could have been on them all along and just gotten better over time and with a new team. Plus, on another note in this whole thing, I wonder if he was clean for 2004-present or if he switched to something untraceable, etc. Because he hit those 41 in the first year of actual testing and followed it up with 47 and 54 the next two years. The only year we know of that he (allegedly) did test positive, was when he hit 31HR in 128 games and 448 ABs. 14.45 at bats per HR, which is about the same as the year after, when real testing started. And he only improved the next two years. All three of those years he was subject to testing, unless I'm mistaken. Again, not making a case for him one way or another. I'm just wondering what happened.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon edited this at 08/02/2009 9:44:07 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/02/2009 @ 09:37:59 AM
Jon Wrote - Today @ 10:27:15 AM What I WAS questioning, was the idea that his offensive explosion was so overwhelming, that we should have known he used steroids. Which, looking back, you weren't really implying. You were more just saying that after knowing, it's not surprising. But still, I feel like that carries the implication that he clearly changed from then until now. And I see that as true in a sense, but not clear-cut. I'm not sure if I suggested that we should have assumed all along, or at least that wasn't my intent. Nor am I sure that you are specifically suggesting that I was suggesting that. He had a jump in power numbers, which in this era of steriods and all that, at the very least it simply should be a surprise to find out that a guy which such a jump was on something. I don't think we should assume that any player that finds a groove is on steriods. I made a joke to Jon about Joe Mauer being on the juice because of his surge this year. Obviously I don't believe that for a number of reasons. But part of what goes along with this era we are in, which is really sad, and that when someone starts doing really well, PEDs almost automatically enters the conversation. In this case, it was true (although I don't know if people were talking about Ortiz and juicing until recently). And I should mention, that if Ortiz was dinged up a lot in Minnesota, that's suspicious too. PEDs can and are used to help prevent certain injuries as well as recover quicker from other injuries. So his lack of injury time could still be a result of the drugs.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 2 times, last at 08/02/2009 9:49:00 am

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 08/02/2009 @ 11:16:36 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:26:34 AM The list of banned substances is pretty clearly stated, and when you buy a supplement from GNC the containers list exactly what is in each supplement. (and since we're talking about pro athletes, I'm going to act like they have the money to do the research. Some college or olympic athletes might not have the same resources at their disposal). Knowing how strict the testing is, and having the list in front of you, there are just no excuses for getting caught anymore. If someone makes their living because their body is a peak, physical specimen, they should be knowing exactly what they are putting into that body. And like Jon said, if someone breaks the rules and someone doesn't, of course I'm going to be more harsh on the buy breaking the rules. In other words, if a player on your team gets caught with this "technicality", you can compalin all you want about how what they did wasn't that bad or it was a technicality, but the thing is is that they probably just took the easy way out and didn't look into what they were taking. I have no sympathy for the fan or the player in this situation. They know the tests are harsh and random, and they have the exact chemicals that the leagues are testing for. The ingredients aren't always all listed. Besides the "they should have adequate resources to avoid the technicalities" argument is sort of non-sequitor anyway. A big portion of the banned substances list, or at least the ones that guys are repeatedly being caught on, are benign (benign and a half) chemicals that just might be present in a person who's trying to cover up the use of something they really want to ban. Not only do they not just use that as a jumping off point to dig deeper and see if they are using steroids, they punish the players exactly the same as if they were caught with steroids. On a separate point, I still don't see some big moral difference between the guys that do everything they can to basically cheat, and just stay one step ahead of "the man" for their entire careers, and one that steps over the line a bit. Yes, there's something to be said for following the rules, even stupid ones, but the intent of these guys are pretty much the same. (And no, Scott, I'm not saying a guy that lays off fast food and jogs is the same as a guy that takes steroids.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 08/02/2009 @ 11:53:49 AM
The chemicals that they ban because they are masking agents are just that. They serve no other purpose than to hide something, so why would you be taking them other than to hide something? Along the point of "intent": just because two people have the same intent doesn't mean the actions aren't distinguishable. I intend to do really really well on a school test, so I study hard and maybe do some weird things to help me study but on the day of the test I take it without cheating. Another guy intends to do really well on a test, so he studies and and then writes the answers on his hand. * Their intent is the same, but clearly one guy is following the rules and one guy isn't. I'm still a little confused as to why the intent in this case makes all attempts to meet that intent equally questionable. I currently have 3 products from a GNC type establishment (and I know of a 4th which I am currently out of), and all three list the ingredients (as did that 4th one). I'll concede just a little bit based on me not having gone to a GNC today and investigating every product that some don't list the ingredients; but again, knowing that they test so strictly, players have no reason or excuse to consume something without knowing what's in it. If they fail out of ignorance, fine, but that has never been an excuse for breaking the rules, regardless of the establishment. But if you feel that this is a minor point, it's probably not worth going into too much detail on. But then again, I think your reason for thinking it to be non-sequitor (that a large portion of the substances on the list are simply the ones that cover up other banned substances, and therefore shouldn't be treated the same) is weak. *I suppose you could make the argument that in this example, the "crib notes" would be more closely associated with something like a corked bat or sandpaper for a pitcher, but I couldn't come up with a straight forward analogy. Maybe this: one guy studies hard, the other guy discovers that smoking weed helps him retain information much better, so that's what he uses when he studies.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 08/02/2009 @ 02:08:17 PM
My point was to get people thinking about it a little and not just accept the prevalent media views. So I think it worked. I also was thinking about bringing up laser eye surgery type things too, but that's probably a different discussion. In a way I don't disagree with the athletes being responsible for knowing what ingredients they are using, but in baseball especially a lot these guys went straight from high school to playing baseball professionally, so they're not exactly the most well educated group of people. They need to rely on other people to not give them banned substances. And to get back to MLB 09 2nd half, the Brewers are pretty much out of it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 08/02/2009 @ 03:32:03 PM
The Brewers just need to stop being terrible. They started the season with solid pitching and a potent offense. Now, it seems like both of those aspects have collapsed at the same time. Is there something wrong with laser eye surgery now?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 08/02/2009 3:33:24 pm

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 08/02/2009 @ 05:00:39 PM
We just got done watching the twins get swept at the dome by the angels. They were getting booed they wer so turrible. It's not like they're out of the running for the division either, sux and tigers continue to lose as well. But I think the season is still a lost cause. Pitchers are falling apart and the deadline is past so now just have to watch the burning ship go down.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/02/2009 @ 07:22:35 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 06:00:39 PM ... and the deadline is past ... What deadline? The waiver-trade deadline isn't until August 31.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - Super Chocolate Bear 08/02/2009 @ 11:31:09 PM
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:53:49 AM The chemicals that they ban because they are masking agents are just that. They serve no other purpose than to hide something, so why would you be taking them other than to hide something? Along the point of "intent": just because two people have the same intent doesn't mean the actions aren't distinguishable. I intend to do really really well on a school test, so I study hard and maybe do some weird things to help me study but on the day of the test I take it without cheating. Another guy intends to do really well on a test, so he studies and and then writes the answers on his hand. * Their intent is the same, but clearly one guy is following the rules and one guy isn't. I'm still a little confused as to why the intent in this case makes all attempts to meet that intent equally questionable. I currently have 3 products from a GNC type establishment (and I know of a 4th which I am currently out of), and all three list the ingredients (as did that 4th one). I'll concede just a little bit based on me not having gone to a GNC today and investigating every product that some don't list the ingredients; but again, knowing that they test so strictly, players have no reason or excuse to consume something without knowing what's in it. If they fail out of ignorance, fine, but that has never been an excuse for breaking the rules, regardless of the establishment. But if you feel that this is a minor point, it's probably not worth going into too much detail on. But then again, I think your reason for thinking it to be non-sequitor (that a large portion of the substances on the list are simply the ones that cover up other banned substances, and therefore shouldn't be treated the same) is weak. *I suppose you could make the argument that in this example, the "crib notes" would be more closely associated with something like a corked bat or sandpaper for a pitcher, but I couldn't come up with a straight forward analogy. Maybe this: one guy studies hard, the other guy discovers that smoking weed helps him retain information much better, so that's what he uses when he studies. The ingredients are not always ALL listed and many of the banned things are not only useful as masking agents. They serve other purposes, and have the side effect that they could mask. I said this is a non-sequitor because whether or not the guys should know better and know how to get around it is beside the point here. Your analogy is way off base, no one is claiming that Guy A who works hard, eats well, and lifts weights every day, and Guy B who just pops some HGH is doing the same thing. All I'm (and perhaps Alex) is saying is it's silly to condemn guy B, and debate whether or not everything he's ever done should be stricken from the record, when Guys C-Z are also taking everything they can find and just staying one step ahead of the game, finding loopholes, and other such things. If I was sticking with your test analogy I'd say it's more like you have one guy that writes the notes/equations/answers on his hand, and when he gets busted and suspended we all talk about how morally reprehensible he was, while meanwhile 60% of the students in the class only did half as well as they did because the teacher reuses the same tests, and they have a friend who just took it who gave them the questions and most of the answers to memorize. Technically they didn't cheat, they memorized everything, but let's just be real and not pretend there's this vast ethical gulf between the guy who wrote notes/equations/answers on his hand, and the guy who memorized the test. If I were to liken it to something I would say it's sort of like the age of consent. It's largely arbitrarily placed at 18. Saying that isn't akin to saying it's worthless. There should be a line somewhere, and 18 is just as good a place as any between say 16 and 21. We have to set some rules, but let's not pretend there's some magic transformation on a person's 18th birthday that makes it not weird for the 45 year old neighbor guy, who has known the girl since she was a toddler, to start banging her. Yes, lines need to be drawn, but just because there's a line that doesn't mean that it's not kind of silly, on some level, to declare the 50 year old who's dating the 17 year old a sexual predator deserving of jail time, and meanwhile have to pretend the 50 year old chasing the 18 year old girls isn't a skeevy jackass, just because he happened to fall, just barely, on the correct side of a fairly arbitrarily placed line. Edit: And to extend my analogy to why I called your point a non-sequitor: I was essentially saying that it was silly to pretend there's a vast ethical difference between the 50 year old and the 17 year old and the 50 year old and the 18 year old, to which you would more or less have said "That's not silly, the first guy knew where the line was and could have carded the girl." That's true, but given the context, beside the point. I wasn't necessarily trying to make the case that the guy who likes the 17 year old shouldn't be in trouble for breaking the rules, or their shouldn't BE rules, etc. Only that we shouldn't pretend the 50 year old surfing the high school parking lot, who does check ID, is vastly ethically superior. We COULD have a discussion, and sort of did, about whether or not the rule itself is good/bad/flawed/etc, and how many people who get caught up in it don't really violate the spirit of the rule, only the letter of the rule, (Like a 19 year old dating the 17 year old, or a guy who inadvertently takes something that's only banned because it could be used to mask something that's "really" banned.) but it would be a different discussion from the original point.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 8 times, last at 08/03/2009 12:37:49 am

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 08/03/2009 @ 12:21:49 AM
I feel that too many people use car analogies as a crutch, that's why I've moved on to sexual predator analogies.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 08/03/2009 12:35:39 am

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 08/03/2009 @ 07:46:49 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:31:09 AM Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 12:53:49 PM If I was sticking with your test analogy I'd say it's more like you have one guy that writes the notes/equations/answers on his hand, and when he gets busted and suspended we all talk about how morally reprehensible he was, while meanwhile 60% of the students in the class only did half as well as they did because the teacher reuses the same tests, and they have a friend who just took it who gave them the questions and most of the answers to memorize. Technically they didn't cheat, they memorized everything, but let's just be real and not pretend there's this vast ethical gulf between the guy who wrote notes/equations/answers on his hand, and the guy who memorized the test. My analogy is way off base? One guy cheats and another doesn't? At least mine made sense, applicable or not. I would say memorizing the test would be just as much cheating as the guy who wrote the answers. They both are the equivalent of steriods. So your analogy doesn't even have two sides. Cleaerly this analogy is going nowhere, or at least it is being badly distorted. Let's find something else.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 4 times, last at 08/03/2009 8:06:47 am

	Carlos44ec - "If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style." 08/03/2009 @ 07:56:28 AM
with any rule or regulation there needs to be a clear line indicating right and wrong, and an even clearer consequence. I see nothing like this in baseball, and that's the problem.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/03/2009 @ 08:00:45 AM
No clear line? There's a 55 page document with 83 clearly listed banned substances. What more do you want? Baseball's list of banned substances Next!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 08/03/2009 8:03:26 am

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 08/03/2009 @ 10:18:44 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:46:49 AM Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:31:09 PM If I was sticking with your test analogy I'd say it's more like you have one guy that writes the notes/equations/answers on his hand, and when he gets busted and suspended we all talk about how morally reprehensible he was, while meanwhile 60% of the students in the class only did half as well as they did because the teacher reuses the same tests, and they have a friend who just took it who gave them the questions and most of the answers to memorize. Technically they didn't cheat, they memorized everything, but let's just be real and not pretend there's this vast ethical gulf between the guy who wrote notes/equations/answers on his hand, and the guy who memorized the test. My analogy is way off base? One guy cheats and another doesn't? At least mine made sense, applicable or not. I would say memorizing the test would be just as much cheating as the guy who wrote the answers. They both are the equivalent of steriods. So your analogy doesn't even have two sides. Cleaerly this analogy is going nowhere, or at least it is being badly distorted. Let's find something else. I'm really not sure where it is we go from here, because I don't know how else to attempt to bridge the disconnect we're having. I don't keep harping on this because you're disagreeing, I keep harping on it because you still don't even see my point. My analogy must have been pretty good, because you took from it exactly what was intended, you just apparently didn't process it. Yes, both test memorizers and cheat sheet people are both basically doing the same thing. They are both clearly in violation of the spirit of wanting to prevent cheating, but when you get down to brass tacks, one of them is cheating, and one of them just found an ethically shady loophole. That's EXACTLY my point. They both ARE essentially doing the same thing, but one skirts the rules based on a technicality that follows from a rule having to be spelled out in writing somewhere, and one technically violates the rules because he snuck in something. You keep having this conversation like there's 2 groups of students/athletes; the sinners and saints. There's not, there's the "study hard" group, the "sneak some notes in" group, AND the "basically cheat only don't technically violate any written rules about cheating" group. I'm talking about distinguishing between the latter 2 groups. I'm not talking about comparing the guy who studies hard to the guy who breaks into the the teacher's office, makes a copy of the answer key, and writes the answers on his hand. The problem with athletes, certainly in the NFL at least, is that many (if not most) fall into the "basically cheat only don't technically violate any written rules about cheating" group, so the overreaction to the guy who really, in my opinion, takes a couple baby steps into cheatingville, as if he did something MASSIVELY different than what most of his peers are doing, is kind of silly. (Again, not to say he shouldn't get in trouble, I just think we need to have a little perspective.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 08/03/2009 10:32:59 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/03/2009 @ 11:19:04 AM
Ok, I'm all for starting over here a bit. Let me see if I understand this (Tell me which of these statements isn't correct): 1) people do steriods and other PEDs, which is a pretty clearly defined line (see the document again). 2) other people do everything they can to approach that line without blatantly violating the written rules, and with every intention of staying within the rules, but maybe they get caught for something anyway 3) other people do things that don't get them caught for any reason. 4) people in group 1 are just stupid, they should be labeled as such 5) people in group 2 are unfortunate, and while they should still get punished, shouldn't be treated as if they are part of group 1, in fact they maybe made some inadvertent mistake. 6) people in group 3 still shouldn't be grouped in at all with either 1 or 2, but probably are more closely associated with group 2 since both groups are intending to follow the rules. Does this more accurately portray what youa re trying to say?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 08/03/2009 @ 11:47:24 AM
Maybe, kind of...but, no, not really. It's not necessary for the people in 2) to be busted. Getting swept up in technicalities and whether or not it's fair (2&5) is a different discussion. All I'm trying to say is that there isn't, ethically/morally/practically, a world of difference between your group (1) and a group of guys kind of like (2) that make a "mockery" of the rules and also do everything possible to gain a chemical edge, and stay just on the right side of a line that could just as easily include everything they're doing on it, either by just saying one step ahead by always being the first ones on the next thing to be banned, or by finding loopholes in the rules. As such when someone is found to be in group (1) we shouldn't all act like the league is made up of a handful of black sheep (1) and everyone else are people who just work really hard with perfectly clean hands, and ignore the fact that a majority of the league is, more or less, in the same boat.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 3 times, last at 08/03/2009 12:16:19 pm

	Carlos44ec - Since 1980! 08/03/2009 @ 12:27:32 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:00:45 AM No clear line? There's a 55 page document with 83 clearly listed banned substances. What more do you want? Baseball's list of banned substances Next! What about concrete and uniform consequences for breaking the rules? So far it's been a matter of who gets mad about what, and what the fan reaction will be.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/03/2009 @ 01:07:43 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:47:24 PM Maybe, kind of...but, no, not really. It's not necessary for the people in 2) to be busted. Getting swept up in technicalities and whether or not it's fair (2&5) is a different discussion. All I'm trying to say is that there isn't, ethically/morally/practically, a world of difference between your group (1) and a group of guys kind of like (2) that make a "mockery" of the rules and also do everything possible to gain a chemical edge, and stay just on the right side of a line that could just as easily include everything they're doing on it, either by just saying one step ahead by always being the first ones on the next thing to be banned, or by finding loopholes in the rules. As such when someone is found to be in group (1) we shouldn't all act like the league is made up of a handful of black sheep (1) and everyone else are people who just work really hard with perfectly clean hands, and ignore the fact that a majority of the league is, more or less, in the same boat. So in other words, group 2 consists of 2 sub groups: 2a is people who are trying to "cheat the system" by finding loopholes or something, and 2b is people who are pushing the envelope but not being so malicious?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 08/03/2009 @ 01:22:12 PM
Are you just screwing with me at this point?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 08/03/2009 @ 01:36:09 PM
no, I'm either just not understaning what you are saying, or I disagree so much that what you are saying just sounds ridiculous. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:47:24 PM a world of difference between your group (1) and a group of guys kind of like (2) that make a "mockery" of the rules and also do everything possible to gain a chemical edge, and stay just on the right side of a line that could just as easily include everything they're doing on it, either by just saying one step ahead by always being the first ones on the next thing to be banned, or by finding loopholes in the rules. The people who are "making a mockery of the rules that would just as easily be guilty if the rules were different": If they are within the rules, how do you know they wouldn't adjust their behavior if in fact the rules were changed--I don't think this is a relevant point. You're basically saying that they'd be guilty if the rules were changed, but with the rules as they are, they aren't guilty. Technicality or not, they aren't breaking any rules. Where is the distinguish between people are blatantly breaking the rules and those who are pushing the envelope? I know you've attempted to explain that, but so far I don't think you've done a very good job.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 08/03/2009 @ 01:40:45 PM
Maybe part of the confusion is this statement, "Baseball players today are generally the same size as players of the past.", which Scott makes somewhere above. I guess if you really believe this than anyone who cheated by using banned substances cheated and any other modern athlete could be sent back to 1920 and no one back then would blink an eye. My belief is that the average professional athlete of today is in every physical sense 10 steps better than the average professional athlete of 100 years ago. I'd think that for the exceptional athletes the gap is much smaller. So while there obviously has been some cheating in the last couple years, even the guys that aren't cheating are benefiting from modern medicine. I'm not condoning cheating or passing judgment on modern medicine. I just think it's odd that some people get all worked over "the steroids era" when athletes are all juicing on something (legal or otherwise).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Alex edited this at 08/03/2009 1:41:16 pm

	Alex - Who controls the past now controls the future 08/03/2009 @ 01:45:59 PM
Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 05:00:39 PM We just got done watching the twins get swept at the dome by the angels. They were getting booed they wer so turrible. It's not like they're out of the running for the division either, sux and tigers continue to lose as well. But I think the season is still a lost cause. Pitchers are falling apart and the deadline is past so now just have to watch the burning ship go down. This is exactly how I feel about the Brewers. They're 4.5 back in the division, but their pitching is a disaster. The only move they could make was to get a pitcher that they outright released 2 years ago.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 08/03/2009 @ 02:00:36 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 01:36:09 PM no, I'm either just not understaning what you are saying, or I disagree so much that what you are saying just sounds ridiculous. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:47:24 AM a world of difference between your group (1) and a group of guys kind of like (2) that make a "mockery" of the rules and also do everything possible to gain a chemical edge, and stay just on the right side of a line that could just as easily include everything they're doing on it, either by just saying one step ahead by always being the first ones on the next thing to be banned, or by finding loopholes in the rules. The people who are "making a mockery of the rules that would just as easily be guilty if the rules were different": If they are within the rules, how do you know they wouldn't adjust their behavior if in fact the rules were changed--I don't think this is a relevant point. You're basically saying that they'd be guilty if the rules were changed, but with the rules as they are, they aren't guilty. Technicality or not, they aren't breaking any rules. Where is the distinguish between people are blatantly breaking the rules and those who are pushing the envelope? I know you've attempted to explain that, but so far I don't think you've done a very good job. No, they aren't breaking any rules, but WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE in any practical, real world, sense. To you, to me, to kids looking for a role model, etc they are largely indistinguishable. If I took the list of banned substances away from you and told you to go through the locker room and tell me who should be in trouble for trying to illegally boost their performance with drugs, you probably couldn't tell the difference. There is something to be said for following the rules for rules sake. Just don't act like everyone who hasn't violated a rule is playing the way God intended. Alex Wrote - Today @ 01:40:45 PM Maybe part of the confusion is this statement, "Baseball players today are generally the same size as players of the past.", which Scott makes somewhere above. I guess if you really believe this than anyone who cheated by using banned substances cheated and any other modern athlete could be sent back to 1920 and no one back then would blink an eye. My belief is that the average professional athlete of today is in every physical sense 10 steps better than the average professional athlete of 100 years ago. I'd think that for the exceptional athletes the gap is much smaller. So while there obviously has been some cheating in the last couple years, even the guys that aren't cheating are benefiting from modern medicine. I'm not condoning cheating or passing judgment on modern medicine. I just think it's odd that some people get all worked over "the steroids era" when athletes are all juicing on something (legal or otherwise). I think Scott's point was that stats are comparable because any advantage player A has player B has access to as well, so it all comes out in the wash. This is a silly argument on face value, because it's not that simple*, but, ironically, applies just as well as an argument of why steroids shouldn't be considered a black eye for modern baseball. *The fact that players can recover from bumps/ruses/injuries/surgery faster alone makes comparisons between modern ball and 1930's ball meaningless.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 08/03/2009 2:01:10 pm

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 08/03/2009 @ 02:01:09 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 02:45:59 PM Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:00:39 PM We just got done watching the twins get swept at the dome by the angels. They were getting booed they wer so turrible. It's not like they're out of the running for the division either, sux and tigers continue to lose as well. But I think the season is still a lost cause. Pitchers are falling apart and the deadline is past so now just have to watch the burning ship go down. This is exactly how I feel about the Brewers. They're 4.5 back in the division, but their pitching is a disaster. The only move they could make was to get a pitcher that they outright released 2 years ago. I'm ok with the brewers moves this time, or lack of moves. They clearly aren't a player or two away from being a contender for a world series, and they don't have that many prosects left to be spending on temporary help. Let this year be what it is, and hopefully Braun and Fielder continue to mature, and hopefully they can find some pitching in the off season. That being said, Vargas was pitching pretty well with the Dodgers, although I still don't think he's necessarily much of an upgrade.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 08/03/2009 @ 02:38:35 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:00:36 PM *The fact that players can recover from bumps/ruses/injuries/surgury faster alone makes comparisons between modern ball and 1930's ball meaningless. I don't think it's been at all established that comparing baseball players from different eras is meaningless. And I really don't see how that fact could stand alone as the end/all tell/all of that discussion. Maybe the 30s is going back pretty far, but baseball in general is much more comparable over the years than football or even basketball. In Baseball, you can compare players from the 2000s to players in the 1960s, and in fact, we do all the time many of the biggest records came from a long time ago. That would be impossible in football, just looking at the current big records in football, almost all of them have been set within the last 8 years.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 3 times, last at 08/03/2009 2:54:42 pm

	Alex - Who controls the past now controls the future 08/03/2009 @ 03:53:03 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 02:01:09 PM Alex Wrote - Today @ 01:45:59 PM Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 05:00:39 PM We just got done watching the twins get swept at the dome by the angels. They were getting booed they wer so turrible. It's not like they're out of the running for the division either, sux and tigers continue to lose as well. But I think the season is still a lost cause. Pitchers are falling apart and the deadline is past so now just have to watch the burning ship go down. This is exactly how I feel about the Brewers. They're 4.5 back in the division, but their pitching is a disaster. The only move they could make was to get a pitcher that they outright released 2 years ago. I'm ok with the brewers moves this time, or lack of moves. They clearly aren't a player or two away from being a contender for a world series, and they don't have that many prosects left to be spending on temporary help. Let this year be what it is, and hopefully Braun and Fielder continue to mature, and hopefully they can find some pitching in the off season. That being said, Vargas was pitching pretty well with the Dodgers, although I still don't think he's necessarily much of an upgrade. I think it was the right move too, but it means this season won't include the playoffs barring a miracle. And with I think only like 6 players signed past this year (including the ineffective/overpaid Bill Hall and Jeff Suppan if I remember correctly) and a discernible lack of prospects in the minors, it may be another 25 years yet. Although if there's any saving grace to this year, it's that all the guys available for arbitration have played worse than they did last year so it shouldn't cost too much to keep them. Really though, they need J.J. to finish strong so they can trade him in the off season.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 08/03/2009 @ 06:33:59 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:00:36 PM No, they aren't breaking any rules, but WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE in any practical, real world, sense. To you, to me, to kids looking for a role model, etc they are largely indistinguishable. If I took the list of banned substances away from you and told you to go through the locker room and tell me who should be in trouble for trying to illegally boost their performance with drugs, you probably couldn't tell the difference. There is something to be said for following the rules for rules sake. Just don't act like everyone who hasn't violated a rule is playing the way God intended. The difference is that while these rules may be arbitrary, they are there to promote as level playing field as possible where ability is the biggest/only variable. It's not that players aren't "natural" its that you are potentially giving yourself and edge that is unavailable to players who decide to follow the rules.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 08/03/2009 @ 08:37:05 PM
Sure, but I'm not arguing there should be no rules.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 08/03/2009 @ 09:56:59 PM
No, you're just saying that there is no real difference between those that boost there performance legally and those who do so illegally, and therefore, it's stupid to be outraged when someone is caught cheating. I disagree. EDIT: While there is some overlap, when I say legally/illegally, I mean in regard to MLB's rules, not local/state/federal laws.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Matt messed with this at 08/03/2009 10:22:20 pm

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 08/03/2009 @ 11:03:24 PM
Well, to be fair I was mostly arguing there's not a vast difference, not no difference, I just put a sharper and sharper point on it as I had to clarify over and over again what I meant since it wasn't "landing" for some reason, but ok then.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 08/05/2009 @ 07:46:26 PM
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090805&content_id=6263712&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb How do the Brewer fans feel about Fielder and his incident last night? My favorite part of this article is the last sentence: "The drama at Dodger Stadium on Tuesday night came on the one-year anniversary of Fielder's dugout scrap with Parra." Ha, what a tool.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/05/2009 @ 08:20:09 PM
I think fielder was actually more upset about his friend plunking him than he was about the physical act of getting plunked. His feelings were hurt more than his body. And while Ramirez was barely grazed on his elbow, Mota clearly was throwing directly at Fielders crotch. Maybe that's what got him upset too. I don't care about it. If anything, it makes me think that Fielder is just a sensitive guy. And it may be one of those things that lights a fire under the team. But whatever, Fielder's not a tool. edit: After watching the video again, it Fielder's reaction after being hit is that of a dog left wounded by his master. He just looked shocked, and it almost looked as if the umpire was consoling him. Overall, it was just a weird set of events does leave you scratching your head for some meaning, but again I don't think it will lead to anything.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 08/05/2009 8:41:18 pm

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 08/05/2009 @ 08:23:33 PM
Matt Wrote - 08/03/2009 @ 07:33:59 PM Jeremy Wrote - 08/03/2009 @ 03:00:36 PM No, they aren't breaking any rules, but WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE in any practical, real world, sense. To you, to me, to kids looking for a role model, etc they are largely indistinguishable. If I took the list of banned substances away from you and told you to go through the locker room and tell me who should be in trouble for trying to illegally boost their performance with drugs, you probably couldn't tell the difference. There is something to be said for following the rules for rules sake. Just don't act like everyone who hasn't violated a rule is playing the way God intended. The difference is that while these rules may be arbitrary, they are there to promote as level playing field as possible where ability is the biggest/only variable. It's not that players aren't "natural" its that you are potentially giving yourself and edge that is unavailable to players who decide to follow the rules. I'll treat rule breakers as rule breakers. I didn't know we were holding everyone to the standard "did God intend the game of baseball this way". I'll leave what I wrote, but I'll retract it for the sake of us having beat that argument to the ground. I don't have the energy start this up from another angle. Although to simply conclude, which was probably obvious and shouldn't come as a shocker to any of the reguler NutCanners, I disagree with Jeremy.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 2 times, last at 08/05/2009 8:43:43 pm

	Sarah - So's your face 08/05/2009 @ 08:43:11 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:20:09 PM I think fielder was actually more upset about his friend plunking him than he was about the physical act of getting plunked. His feelings were hurt more than his body. And while Ramirez was barely grazed on his elbow, Mota clearly was throwing directly at Fielders crotch. Maybe that's what got him upset too. I don't care about it. If anything, it makes me think that Fielder is just a sensitive guy. And it may be one of those things that lights a fire under the team. But whatever, Fielder's not a tool. edit: After watching the video again, it Fielder's reaction after being hit is that of a dog left wounded by his master. He just looked shocked, and it almost looked as if the umpire was consoling him. Overall, it was just a weird set of events does leave you scratching your head for some meaning, but again I don't think it will lead to anything. Yea, but he went to first, waited until the Dodgers mercifully got the 3rd out to end the game and then decided to get angry. I could see if he charged the mound, but wouldn't your emotions be in check by the time the game was called over and done?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 08/05/2009 @ 08:47:04 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 09:43:11 PM Scott Wrote - Today @ 09:20:09 PM I think fielder was actually more upset about his friend plunking him than he was about the physical act of getting plunked. His feelings were hurt more than his body. And while Ramirez was barely grazed on his elbow, Mota clearly was throwing directly at Fielders crotch. Maybe that's what got him upset too. I don't care about it. If anything, it makes me think that Fielder is just a sensitive guy. And it may be one of those things that lights a fire under the team. But whatever, Fielder's not a tool. edit: After watching the video again, it Fielder's reaction after being hit is that of a dog left wounded by his master. He just looked shocked, and it almost looked as if the umpire was consoling him. Overall, it was just a weird set of events does leave you scratching your head for some meaning, but again I don't think it will lead to anything. Yea, but he went to first, waited until the Dodgers mercifully got the 3rd out to end the game and then decided to get angry. I could see if he charged the mound, but wouldn't your emotions be in check by the time the game was called over and done? If I'm correct in thinking that it was of a "personal" thing, maybe he didn't want to make a scene on the field when confronting a guy he had been friends with when they were teammates. Obviously he didn't put a lot of thought into it, and after the game he acted (and maybe it was so) as if he was in a fog and didn't hardly remember anything that went on. If anything, I think Joe Torre should be suspended, and probably Mota and Fielder, but Torre should get the most. And honestly, it looked like Mota wanted no part of the bounty, and when he threw the pitch he basically put his head down and walked to the bench.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 4 times, last at 08/05/2009 8:59:28 pm

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 08/05/2009 @ 09:01:35 PM
That's even worse. If he's in a fog for that long, he should probably be put on some sort of medication. Why would he wait to not make a scene when by rushing the clubhouse he's making an even more insane scene? All I know is that I'll be watching the first inning of the game.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret 08/05/2009 @ 09:07:11 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 07:46:26 PM "The drama at Dodger Stadium on Tuesday night came on the one-year anniversary of Fielder's dugout scrap with Parra." Interesting. I think when it first happened Fielder was pissed, but also couldn't really believe what had just happened. Or didn't want to. He was so surprised, he didn't know what to do. Given a couple minutes to think about it, he probably just got more and more angry until he was seeing red. I don't buy the "not wanting to make a scene on the field" theory at all. He kind of did make a scene, he just overshadowed it later. Clearly rushing the clubhouse isn't the answer, but that pitch was way uncalled for.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 08/05/2009 @ 09:09:44 PM
Well, I wasn't definitively saying he absolutely wasn't trying to make a scene. It just crossed my mind. But he didn't make any sort of scene on the field. He talked to the umpire a bit, but there was no scene on the field.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 08/05/2009 @ 09:13:24 PM
He stood there and stared down Mota or the dugout or somebody, and walked halfway to first with his bat in his hand talking to himself. Both coaches were out of the dugout and Ed Cedar came over to escort him to first.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 08/05/2009 @ 09:28:39 PM
After being intentionally thrown at for literally no reason (the Brewers were NOT throwing at Manny Ramirez, he hangs over the plate as it is, they grazed his elbow, and the catcher even caught the ball. Everyone on ESPN today was talking about how the Dodgers were retaliating for the Brewers throwing at Ramirez. I don't by that for one second), anythinig short of charging the mound flat out does not qualify as creating a scene. What he did afterwards was a different story. But his reaction between getting hit and going to first was nothing short of normal for a player basically being collateral for something the Dodgers "failed" to do during the playoffs last year (or so a bunch of people have suggested so far). And honestly, I think it probably had something to do with Fielder being betrayed by his former teammate. And not that I condone throwing at someone for retaliation or something, but Manny Ramirez isn't in the lineup tonight, so that's pretty cheap. Anyway, I would suspect Fielder gets maybe a one game suspension (and possibly Mota), but if baseball wants to control this kind of thing (and I'm pretty sure they do), Joe Torre has to get the biggest suspension of any of the players involved. If for no other reason that it was a 17-4 game in the 9th inning. What if Fielder had actually gotten hurt? It did appear that the ball was headed directly for his most sensitive area.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 08/05/2009 9:30:44 pm

	Alex - 3619 Posts 08/05/2009 @ 09:43:00 PM
I'm not sure I've ever heard of or seen someone get beaned in the jewels. It's a pretty easy and natural reaction to twist your hip/rear/thigh into the way. So as far as areas to aim for, I think Mota actually went for a "safe" area, if there is such a thing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/05/2009 @ 09:45:44 PM
The deeper issue in my opinion is this: For all the years I've been a Brewers fan, through all the losing and all the adversity, the team has always been unusually cohesive; team chemistry has never been an issue for the Brewers. Within the last 12 months there have been some just unusual things happening in the Brewers clubhouse. From the Fielder/Parra scrap last year, to the firing of Yost before the end of the season, to Braun calling out his teammates, manager, and GM about a month ago, to now Fielder apparently not being able to understand his emotions, things are just getting weird. I don't think that they are anywhere near anything resembling a collapse, and maybe their ability to be a winning ball club tends to put everyone a little more on edge than would be on a team that doesn't have the chance of being competitive. Anyway, I hope this doesn't cause any trouble for an otherwise stable clubhouse. Fielder is a very valuable asset for the Brewers even still this year, and definitely next year (if they don't trade him by next year's trade deadline). In conclusion, I hope a team that has pretty good chemistry doesn't get disrupted by a few unusual occurances.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/06/2009 @ 07:17:26 AM
Ultimately, the Brewers got the last laugh, taking two of three IN Los Angeles. Take that you whiny babies who think you have to drill our best hitter after your guy gets the weakest of brushbacks when he's hanging over the plate as it is.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 08/06/2009 @ 07:58:48 AM
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:43:00 PM I'm not sure I've ever heard of or seen someone get beaned in the jewels. It's a pretty easy and natural reaction to twist your hip/rear/thigh into the way. So as far as areas to aim for, I think Mota actually went for a "safe" area, if there is such a thing. Especially when said hip/rear/thigh area are as fleshy as Prince's. That boy does NOT skip meals!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - 584 Posts 08/06/2009 @ 09:18:43 AM
You want to see some good chemistry get messed up? Put a bunch of loyal Twins fans in a small room and say the words, "Nick Punto." Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:45:44 PM The deeper issue in my opinion is this: For all the years I've been a Brewers fan, through all the losing and all the adversity, the team has always been unusually cohesive; team chemistry has never been an issue for the Brewers. Within the last 12 months there have been some just unusual things happening in the Brewers clubhouse. From the Fielder/Parra scrap last year, to the firing of Yost before the end of the season, to Braun calling out his teammates, manager, and GM about a month ago, to now Fielder apparently not being able to understand his emotions, things are just getting weird. I don't think that they are anywhere near anything resembling a collapse, and maybe their ability to be a winning ball club tends to put everyone a little more on edge than would be on a team that doesn't have the chance of being competitive. Anyway, I hope this doesn't cause any trouble for an otherwise stable clubhouse. Fielder is a very valuable asset for the Brewers even still this year, and definitely next year (if they don't trade him by next year's trade deadline). In conclusion, I hope a team that has pretty good chemistry doesn't get disrupted by a few unusual occurances.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/07/2009 @ 07:22:27 AM
And Joe Torre gets nothing. What a joke.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 08/07/2009 @ 10:36:19 AM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/08/twins-acquire-carl-pavano.html		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 08/07/2009 @ 11:46:45 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:36:19 AM http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/08/twins-acquire-carl-pavano.html Scott Wrote - 08/02/2009 @ 08:22:35 PM Sarah Wrote - 08/02/2009 @ 06:00:39 PM ... and the deadline is past ... What deadline? The waiver-trade deadline isn't until August 31. Can I have the 0 nut removed from my comment? Edit: my comment was cleaerly prophetic.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Scott messed with this at 08/07/2009 3:35:15 pm

	Micah - Bring down the Beast!!! 08/07/2009 @ 01:24:55 PM
Bye bye R.A. Dickey. We shared a lovely spring together but summer romances almost never work out. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:36:19 AM http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/08/twins-acquire-carl-pavano.html		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 08/07/2009 @ 02:30:27 PM
Micah Wrote - Today @ 01:24:55 PM Bye bye R.A. Dickey. We shared a lovely spring together but summer romances almost never work out. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:36:19 AM http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/08/twins-acquire-carl-pavano.html They never put Dickey in the right situations. He can't come in with runners on base. Send Crain back down!!!!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 08/07/2009 @ 05:40:25 PM
A good pitcher shouldn't need to rely on the right situations. Professional pitchers should do the job regardless of whether someone is on base or not.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 08/07/2009 @ 06:37:08 PM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 05:40:25 PM A good pitcher shouldn't need to rely on the right situations. Professional pitchers should do the job regardless of whether someone is on base or not. So do the Twins have any of those?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 08/07/2009 @ 07:06:49 PM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 05:40:25 PM A good pitcher shouldn't need to rely on the right situations. Professional pitchers should do the job regardless of whether someone is on base or not. Well, too be fair, Dickey is a knuckleball specialist, so bringing him in during situations where you're hesitant to call the knuckleball, or avoid calling it altogether, doesn't make a lot of sense.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 08/07/2009 @ 08:00:42 PM
So the Tigers have to be paying off the umps in this game correct? I can't believe what I'm seeing. Unfreaking believable!!!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 08/07/2009 @ 09:58:40 PM
"should" is the operative word		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec screwed with this at 08/07/2009 9:58:56 pm

	Sarah - So's your face 08/08/2009 @ 09:06:14 AM
Just read the recap from last night's game, kind of made me mad all over again. "He got the bottom of my cleat," Granderson said. "I didn't hear anything, so I kept going. If they call me out, they call me out." How come I have to be honest in our league when someone gets me out but the ump doesn't see, but major league player Granderson doesn't have to? Cheating in baseball continues! "We have reviewed everything that is possible, best-case scenario -- the only questionable call of whole night that he might have is whether the fan might have touched the foul ball down the line, which we couldn't see on the tape. Everything else we were 100 percent," Wendelstedt said. "And then when I get my ball-and-strike disk, I'll bet I'm 97-99 percent and we'll look at that tomorrow." Seems pretty confident for a guy whose crew blew a bunch of calls. Does he have to retract this statement and issue an apology? Is Gardenhire going to be suspended for talking bad about an ump? "Tonight was ridiculous, really," Gardenhire said. "A lot of calls [were] no good. [Wendlestedt] had a bad night. He probably didn't think so because he's god as umpires go. But not good, really not good by him." What hurts the most is that the Twins almost came back to win this thing. Another day another game...		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Sarah screwed with this at 08/08/2009 9:07:19 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/08/2009 @ 04:42:20 PM
The way Sarah talks of Gerdenhire you would think he has wings an a halo.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 08/09/2009 @ 02:00:36 AM
Friday was a bad day for umpiring. If you haven't seen it, check out the play from that day's Braves/Dodgers game, which caused Bobby Cox to add to his MLB record for ejections. As a bonus, you get to hear Vin Scully call the action. http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?affiliateId=CommentWidget&affiliateId=facebook_share&content_id=5982611		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 08/09/2009 @ 07:56:19 AM
I don't get that. The ump called a strike and the other guy called out the runner at 2nd. Did they then both black out temporarily and those actions were erased from their memories? Wow.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 08/09/2009 @ 03:18:33 PM
The home plate ump changed his mind and decided that instead of being strike 2, the pitch was actually ball 4. That meant that the runner, who was just thrown out, got to stay at second.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 08/09/2009 @ 05:38:51 PM
But do umps ever change their minds like that?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/10/2009 @ 07:23:17 AM
Apparently all the time (remember Mauer getting plunked against the Brewers?). What Matt is saying, is that the ump at 2nd didn't change his mind. His call was made irrelevant by the change of the strike to a ball, which didn't really seem like a change of call, just a correction of almost a reflex by the ump. It looked like he just inadvertently singled strike without actually intending to call it a strike, because you can see that the batter basically reacts to the walk call almost immediately.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 08/10/2009 @ 04:39:45 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:23:17 AM Apparently all the time (remember Mauer getting plunked against the Brewers?). What Matt is saying, is that the ump at 2nd didn't change his mind. His call was made irrelevant by the change of the strike to a ball, which didn't really seem like a change of call, just a correction of almost a reflex by the ump. It looked like he just inadvertently singled strike without actually intending to call it a strike, because you can see that the batter basically reacts to the walk call almost immediately. I understand that as a result of the home plate umpire calling a walk that the play at second became irrelevant. I'm just saying, why call a strike a strike and then change your mind? That was a great pitch.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/10/2009 @ 08:18:58 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 05:39:45 PM Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:23:17 AM Apparently all the time (remember Mauer getting plunked against the Brewers?). What Matt is saying, is that the ump at 2nd didn't change his mind. His call was made irrelevant by the change of the strike to a ball, which didn't really seem like a change of call, just a correction of almost a reflex by the ump. It looked like he just inadvertently singled strike without actually intending to call it a strike, because you can see that the batter basically reacts to the walk call almost immediately. I understand that as a result of the home plate umpire calling a walk that the play at second became irrelevant. I'm just saying, why call a strike a strike and then change your mind? That was a great pitch. I'm saying that it actually looked like he may have just mistakenly motioned "strike". But judging by the reaction of the batter, who was removing his shin guard and heading for first even before the throw made it to second, the umpire may either said "ball" or had every intention of calling it a ball but simply made the wrong motion (a slip of mind, if you will). Either way, if he did indeed "change his mind", he did so in such a short period of time that it can hardly be considered as such.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 08/12/2009 @ 01:05:25 PM
The Brewers' poo has hit the proverbial fan. Not the type of fan that sits in the stands, although anyone who attended last night's game may beg to differ. They're eating Hall's contract, swapping Hardy and Escobar, and offering up the pitching coach as a sacrifice http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/brewers.html Hall should qualify for the CARS program.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose 08/19/2009 @ 07:19:24 PM
Hall to the Mariners http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090819&content_id=6506738&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - Knuckle Sammich 08/20/2009 @ 07:26:15 AM
Interesting...		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - A Vote for me is a Vote against Terrorism! ...or atleast just wasted. 08/20/2009 @ 08:04:06 AM
Did anyone else see Mijares awesome 2.2 innings? 3 fantastic Ks!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 08/20/2009 @ 09:58:09 AM
Yeah, the pitching hasn't been stellar lately, but it's often been good enough. You can't go 3 weeks batting 5 for 632 with RISP and expect to do great either.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/27/2009 @ 08:56:42 PM
This is apparently a Gatorade commercial, which the subject being that of a play that resulted in a sort of heated NutCan debate of the excitement factor/over kill of a walk-off Grand Slam in a tie game. Well, however any of that goes, this play still sends chills down my spine, and is one the greatest moments in the past couple decades of Brewers history. Anyway, enjoy.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 08/28/2009 @ 12:26:31 PM
Excellent use of O Fortuna!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 08/29/2009 @ 10:19:59 AM
I was just reading some details on the latest trade the Twins made to pick up Rauch and Mahay and got curious about the current contract situations. I noticed that a few of our marquee players have several year contracts, but the bread and butter players are 1-2 years each, max. Since this is the first time I've cared much for the contract details (outside of MLB 2005 Xbox action) I have to ask, are we looking at trouble, or is this normal? I guess I only ever hear of high-priced multi year contracts and thought they were normal. Also, what do we think about these latest moves? Are we swinging in the dark, or are these good moves? I think any extra help in the bullpen is good, but... we all know what I know... little.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - Shaken not stirred gets you cold water with a dash of gin and dry vermouth 08/29/2009 @ 02:50:33 PM
The reason they only have 1-2 year deals is because they are under team control, and the only time you want to give someone a long term deal when he is under team control is if you think he is going to get a lot of money under arbitration. Do a search on arbitration or free agency rules. Basically for the first three years they are in the majors, the team can pay them essentially whatever they want. After 3 years, they can be offered arbitration for the next 3 (except for Super 2's, but just google that). After 6 years, they are eligible to become a free agent and get a big payday. Generally the twins tend to make contract offers to players still under team control when it locks them up for the first year or two of free agency eligibility (see Scott Baker and Morneau's contract). This gives the player some cost certainty over going year to year, and (hopefully) saves the team money by getting the players first year of free agency at a lower cost. The risk is that you give a contract to a pitcher like Baker and he craps the bed coming out of the gates or gets injured, although his second half clearly shows good signs for the future. If you had gone year to year, you could just pay him his arbitration salary. I like the move for Rauch. He's a workhorse, and we have him for next year as well, which takes some pressure off Neshek to come back strong. Mahay is a replacement player. I'm sure he's better than Dickey.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/29/2009 @ 06:21:06 PM
Micah Wrote - Today @ 03:50:33 PM The reason they only have 1-2 year deals is because they are under team control, and the only time you want to give someone a long term deal when he is under team control is if you think he is going to get a lot of money under arbitration. Do a search on arbitration or free agency rules. Basically for the first three years they are in the majors, the team can pay them essentially whatever they want. After 3 years, they can be offered arbitration for the next 3 (except for Super 2's, but just google that). After 6 years, they are eligible to become a free agent and get a big payday. Good summary. A Brewer example is Prince Fielder vs Ryan Braun. Braun signed a 7 year, $45 million contract at the start of his 2nd year, going into effect starting his third year (2009). That's what they mean when they say a team is "buying up" so many years of a players free agency, because Braun would have been eligible to be an unrestricted free agent after about the 5th year of that contract. Prince Fielder, on the other hand, signed a 2 year contract extension that includes the 2009 season and the 2010 season. This contract by-passes two of his arbitration eligible years and he will then be eligible for arbitration again in 2011 (if the team doesn't trade him first), and then he can opt to become a free agent after 2011. Essentially Fielder and Braun chose opposite routes--or the Brewers might be the ones who choose the opposite paths for these two. The way Fielder has performed this year (he can now apparently hit for average AND hit the long ball), and assuming he does at least as good next year, the Brewers will either be forced to trade him or be forced to buck up and give out a huge payday. Braun on the other hand is pretty much locked in until 2015.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - 584 Posts 08/29/2009 @ 08:07:21 PM
Wow that's strangely the exact same situation as Morneau (locked up through 2013) and Mauer (free agent after next year).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 09/07/2009 @ 12:55:18 PM
So nothing from Scott in regards to Brewer's triple play? Or Fielder's walk off in the 12th and the stupid ass choreographed celebration at the end? Someone must not be by a computer...		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/08/2009 @ 07:27:04 AM
I've been camping all weekend and haven't had internet. They had a triple play?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Carlos44ec - A Vote for me is a Vote against Terrorism! ...or atleast just wasted. 09/08/2009 @ 10:46:02 AM
Yeah, I was camping too- but we had a radio with batteries. EDIT: hey wait, you're in FL, nevermind. Hey, on third though, what's with your state today? Nobody seems to be working and I need to talk to your ITS Managers at your Regional DOT offices!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec edited this at 09/08/2009 10:47:13 am

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 09/08/2009 @ 05:44:20 PM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 10:46:02 AM Yeah, I was camping too- but we had a radio with batteries. EDIT: hey wait, you're in FL, nevermind. Hey, on third though, what's with your state today? Nobody seems to be working and I need to talk to your ITS Managers at your Regional DOT offices! People in FL hardly ever work. It's very easy for people from WI to get jobs there. Oh hey, you're from WI? That means you're a hard worker and you won't call in sick every other day. You're hired!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 09/08/2009 @ 08:48:02 PM
sweet. I come with a lot of requirements.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Who controls the past now controls the future 09/15/2009 @ 09:59:26 AM
Morneau done for year http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4473567		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 09/15/2009 @ 11:31:34 AM
I found out about that just before a dentist drilled my teeth. I don't know what hurt more.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 09/15/2009 @ 04:55:24 PM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 11:31:34 AM I found out about that just before a dentist drilled my teeth. I don't know what hurt more. I'm guessing the teeth since Morneau has been the sucks since early August at least.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	jthompto 09/17/2009 @ 06:38:45 AM
Stupid Royals had a great chance to beat the Tigers last night, but blew it. Twins still have a prayer, but a sweep is a must against the Tigers this weekend.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 09/17/2009 @ 07:43:25 PM
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090917&content_id=7018116&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb A year too late, but thank you. Detroit loss today, 4 games behind, let's do this thang!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 09/20/2009 @ 03:07:23 PM
Prince set the team single season RBI mark last night. Still a chance to pass the Cubs! Edit: And hit his 40th HR today.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Alex edited this at 09/20/2009 3:10:02 pm

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 09/21/2009 @ 10:01:56 AM
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 04:07:23 PM Prince set the team single season RBI mark last night. Still a chance to pass the Cubs! Edit: And hit his 40th HR today. And the Brewers still aren't eliminated from the playoffs yet. Their elimination number is 3 though. Will prince get traded this offseason, given a contract extension, or traded in July of next season? That's the big story line of this next season.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - 584 Posts 09/21/2009 @ 11:15:30 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:01:56 AM Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 04:07:23 PM Prince set the team single season RBI mark last night. Still a chance to pass the Cubs! Edit: And hit his 40th HR today. And the Brewers still aren't eliminated from the playoffs yet. Their elimination number is 3 though. Will prince get traded this offseason, given a contract extension, or traded in July of next season? That's the big story line of this next season. I'm pretty sure the big story line of the offseason is what kind of contract extension Joe Mauer will be offered from the Twins. But in reality, I guess it will be neither. Probably which east coast team gets Matt Holiday and which one gets Jason Bay. Congrats to Fielder for having more RBI's than Cecil Cooper. And congrats to Derek Jeter for having less hits than Harold Baines.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 09/21/2009 @ 01:34:18 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:01:56 AM Will prince get traded this offseason, given a contract extension, or traded in July of next season? That's the big story line of this next season. I think it was Jayson Stark on ESPN.com that said they should trade him because realistically they're more than a free agent or 2 away from being contenders next year and they don't have much left for well developed prospects to get any help in a trade. And I agree. They bet big when they made the move for C.C., and I'd say it payed off, but they need to at least partially retool because they have a number of players that (I think) are close to running out of arbitration years and there's no way they're keeping them all. Which is why the should have traded Hardy back in July. Actually I don't 100% think they need to trade Fielder. If they can wrap him up for 6 years and give Brewer fans Braun+Fielder through 2015, I know I'd take it. But if they do that, next year probably won't be any better than this year and they'll need to wheel and deal a lot of other players.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - "The tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut by the lawnmower." 09/21/2009 @ 04:29:30 PM
Micah Wrote - Today @ 11:15:30 AM having less hits than Harold Baines. awesome!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec edited this at 09/21/2009 4:29:57 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/28/2009 @ 06:10:50 PM
I wanted to figure this out for myself, so I thought I'd share it, since I have to write it down somewhere to keep track. Twins @ Tigers outcomes (from Twins' perspective) 4-0 - Twins' are ahead, Magic number of 2, with 3 games left for each team. 3-1 - Tied 2-2 - Tigers' magic number is 2. Twins need to sweep Royals and hope Tigers lose two, or go 2-1 and hope Tigers get swept for 1 game playoff. Sweep and Sweep would win the Twins the Division outright. 1-3 - Eliminated 0-4 - Eliminated. Edit: As I was figuring this, FSN put it up, basically.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 3 times, last at 09/28/2009 6:14:52 pm

	Sarah - So's your face 09/28/2009 @ 06:54:48 PM
Nuts to the double header tomorrow, I wanted to watch the game tonight!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 09/28/2009 @ 10:07:09 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 06:10:50 PM I wanted to figure this out for myself, so I thought I'd share it, since I have to write it down somewhere to keep track. Twins @ Tigers outcomes (from Twins' perspective) 4-0 - Twins' are ahead, Magic number of 2, with 3 games left for each team. 3-1 - Tied 2-2 - Tigers' magic number is 2. Twins need to sweep Royals and hope Tigers lose two, or go 2-1 and hope Tigers get swept for 1 game playoff. Sweep and Sweep would win the Twins the Division outright. 1-3 - Eliminated 0-4 - Eliminated. Edit: As I was figuring this, FSN put it up, basically. as did ESPN, star trib, Pioneer Press, et al		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 09/28/2009 @ 10:07:45 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 06:54:48 PM Nuts to the double header tomorrow, I wanted to watch the game tonight! Stats monkeys deploy: find me Twins double header stats, stat!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 09/28/2009 @ 11:33:13 PM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 10:07:09 PM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 06:10:50 PM I wanted to figure this out for myself, so I thought I'd share it, since I have to write it down somewhere to keep track. Twins @ Tigers outcomes (from Twins' perspective) 4-0 - Twins' are ahead, Magic number of 2, with 3 games left for each team. 3-1 - Tied 2-2 - Tigers' magic number is 2. Twins need to sweep Royals and hope Tigers lose two, or go 2-1 and hope Tigers get swept for 1 game playoff. Sweep and Sweep would win the Twins the Division outright. 1-3 - Eliminated 0-4 - Eliminated. Edit: As I was figuring this, FSN put it up, basically. as did ESPN, star trib, Pioneer Press, et al		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Micah - 584 Posts 09/28/2009 @ 11:44:26 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 07:54:48 PM Nuts to the double header tomorrow, I wanted to watch the game tonight! Agreed...I was geared up for the game tonight. Now I just have to work tomorrow.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	jthompto - 209 Posts 09/29/2009 @ 06:55:52 AM
Micah Wrote - 12/31/1969 @ 06:00:00 PM Sarah Wrote - 12/31/1969 @ 06:00:00 PM Nuts to the double header tomorrow, I wanted to watch the game tonight! Agreed...I was geared up for the game tonight. Now I just have to work tomorrow. Yeah now the season may come down to this one day. By the end of the night the Twins could be tied for the lead, right where we started or 4 games back with 5 to play.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 09/29/2009 @ 09:00:55 PM
Well that game was way exciting, and then was a total let down. Why did Guerrier give up that home run in the 8th? Huh? Why?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	jthompto 09/30/2009 @ 06:46:11 AM
Sarah Wrote - 12/31/1969 @ 06:00:00 PM Well that game was way exciting, and then was a total let down. Why did Guerrier give up that home run in the 8th? Huh? Why? Well im sure he didn't do it on purpose. But it would have made mroe sense to see Mirjares in there to face Granderson, he only threw like 5 pitches in the first game.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	coupe faim (Guest) 10/05/2009 @ 04:16:38 AM
Wonderful work! I like your premise: we make a fuss over 1st half stars, so why not the 2nd half stars, as well? And some of the names remain unchanged from the first half to the second. Joe Mauer is having a season for the ages. And he's a CATCHER? Wow, he's a freak of nature! As is Mariano Rivera - what is his arm made of? Love your choices, as always. And I love the snazzy "Campus Voice" banner on all your articles! Sweet! Keep up the great work. [Link removed by Super-Cool Admin. Take that spam!]		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - Tag This 10/05/2009 @ 07:40:34 AM
Mariano "Wish I was Joe Nathan" Rivera?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so! 10/05/2009 @ 11:45:58 AM
Hoffman signed for next year at $8 mill. Glad he is staying, not sure I like giving him that much though. They should have given him 6 again and told Suppan he owes Trevor 2. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4533333		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 10/05/2009 @ 10:20:35 PM
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091005&content_id=7337148&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb Wear your white and bring your lungs!		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.