On that basis and because of subsequent media speculation, I’ve seen several indignant blogs, comments and e-mails wondering if the Rangers just opened the steroids wing to their Hall of Fame this week with the announcement that Sierra and Toby Harrah are the club’s newest honorees.
Let me assure you that the 17-person committee that carefully studied the candidates and voted Sierra and Harrah into the Rangers Hall of Fame took the steroids issue into account before considering anyone. The possibility of Sierra using steroids was fully discussed.
Ruben missed being a unanimous choice by one vote, which tells you what our consensus was. Not one of the 18 qualified candidates whose name has been linked to steroids made the final cut to five.
The more I study the situation and talk to people, the more I become convinced that Sierra may be the most wronged player in the entire Major League Baseball steroid controversy, and I say that knowing full well that next week we could learn that he failed a drug test at some point in his career. That’s the baseball world we live in now.
The best evidence in Sierra’s favor is the numbers themselves. In 1989, at the tender age of 24, he was arguably the best player in baseball. He hit .306 with 14 triples, 29 home runs and an American League-leading 119 RBI.
He was the classic five-tool player. He could hit for average, hit for power, run, field and throw. In a voting travesty, he narrowly lost the MVP award to Milwaukee’s Robin Yount, a highway robbery that would change Sierra’s life.
Repoz
Posted: June 18, 2009 at 03:24 AM |
46 comment(s)
|
Login to Bookmark
Related News:
General,
History,
Texas
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
(Yes, I RTFA, and it doesn't get any less randomly illogical. He gained weight and got worse, so therefore he didn't use steroids.)
Incidentally, he was 23 that year, not 24, but I suppose it's too much for a reporter to do research and math.
Will Clark says hi.
(Yes, I RTFA, and it doesn't get any less randomly illogical. He gained weight and got worse, so therefore he didn't use steroids.)
You should know the procedure by now, David.
1. Do I think player used steroids?
2. Use information about player to conclude the answer to #1 is correct.
So would I. I seem to remember a lot of people saying that the reason he'd dropped out of the league for a while was that he had bulked up to such a ridiculous level that he'd lost all flexibility.
He did look ridiculous there for a while. With Arthur Rhodes, one of my least favorite A's. Eric Show, Rhodes and Sierra might be the trinity of guys I wish had never worn the uniform. Canseco's also an embarassment, but he brings the comedy at least, so he misses the cut.
Aristotle won't return my phone calls.
He probably used them like a freakin idiot.
[/Michael Kay]
Yount deserved the award. This is the same kind of "highway robbery" that Rickey Henderson used the following year to rob Cecil Fielder: It was Robin's car in the first place.
Use "information" about player to conclude the answer to #1 is correct.
i thought gaining weight is positive proof of roiding
unless it is losing weight is positive proof that he stopped roiding
unless he is a guy who has been declared as roid free for some reason even if he gained or lost weight.
i know that using roids makes baseball players hit home runs. and if they don't hit home runs it means they stopped using.
i get all confused when the roiders are manny alexander and pablo ozuna and alex sanchez
What kind of lowlife thinks that they can change the rules of Monopoly?
Not only did we pay 500 for free parking, we added any fees or taxes the game imposed on players to the Free Parking pool.
Me too. In fact, I was stunned to find out that this isn't in the official rules.
$#&^% stimulus-spending wealth redistributors. It's MONOPOLY, not THE FREE GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS TO LUCKY DUCKIES GAME.
Had a bad experience in the jailhouse, huh, Mr. Bitter? Tell you what, 15% off your next stay on Ventnor Avenue. I'm generous like that.
the way we played, you don't take the money from the bank, you just take that pile of cash that is growing in the middle of the board
Technically, Ruben DID field and throw the ball. Doesn't say whether he did it well. Ruben's range was ok, but his arm was erratic as all get out.
This was not the 1987 Andre Dawson vote.
Ditto. I remember "STEROIDS" chants directed at Ruben in both Fenway and Yankee Stadium bleachers in his early days with Oakland.
yep same here, nothing from the bank just the stack in the middle of the board.
- Bad Taste In Music & Film Doesn't Prove You're An Idiot
- Hairy Palms Don't Prove Someone Masturbates
- Smelling It Doesn't Prove The Smeller Dealt It
But apparently this government has some sort of guaranteed minimum income, because you do get $200 every time you pass go. Plus, we know it's run by touchy-feely liberals, because you can't stay in jail more than three turns no matter what you did wrong.
Just to pile on . . .
Voting for a shortstop with OPS+ 152 over a RF with OPS+ 146 (in about the same PA) is a travesty? Maybe because Sierra's team was so much better? (83 wins vs 81)
However, though that decreases the positional difference, it doesn't invalidate the point.
I believe that you have to pay $50 to get out of jail after three rolls. If you don't have the cash, you stay.
So, again, class warfare.
Actually, in the endgame, it would be a HUGE advantage. Since there are no more properties to buy, you have no opportunity costs, and you can't provide income to your opponents. Yet your opponents can still land on your properties, providing income to you.
How did I not think of that strategy when I was 8, and monopoly skills were actually valued by the fairer sex?
There must be some rule we are missing. Unless the rule was that you HAVE to pay to get out of jail, if you have rolled three times.
EDIT: I guess it's no different than any other money owed -- say, luxury tax -- that you can't pay. And checking the rules, "You are declared bankrupt if you owe more than you can pay either to another player or to the Bank." So I guess you're simply bankrupt and out of the game. (I just never realized this, because I've never seen it happen that a player goes bankrupt to the bank. It's very hard to do.)
I'm certain it had to do with his supposed leadership on a team that leaped from last (54-107) to 2nd place.
I haven't actually checked to see if it's official, but under the rules we played with, you couldn't make money while you were in jail. Strategy nerfed!
Also, we played with the Free Parking Jackpot Bonanza rules (no bank $500, though).
We always played that way in my neigborhood, and laughed at the dumb kids who didn't get it.
Then we got older and encountered the primitives, and they eagerly acceded to the request to "review the rules."
as noted above, many stunned and embarrassed faces.
Some sociologist could have a field day - why do most sub-cultures play by rules that don't exist?
;)
It's spelled out that you can, though I'm not sure we played that way when I was a kid. But I reread the rules when we bought the kids Monopoly for Christmas.
And if you're playing by those rules, then once the properties are bought (and houses/hotels are in place), then getting sent to jail really is the best outcome on the board.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main