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.
Advil can ruin your liver in as little as a year with overuse.
Just to be clear, your position is that aspirin is also a performance-enhancing drug?
Does this mean I should not be popping 3-4 advil a day to help the hangover from excessive intake of alcohol?
Toradol may be a perfectly safe drug when used in proper moderation but who believes that teams are actually exercising proper moderation in its use?
Let's start with the usual arguments against paying big bucks for closers. They have a limited impact on the game, throwing one-third or even one-quarter as many innings as top starters; they have a high attrition rate, whether due to injuries, diminished performance, or both; and good closers usually come from humble beginnings and can thus be had cheap. Eric Gagne was an amateur free agent and a failed starter before he became an elite closer, while Fernando Rodney looked washed up before the Rays signed him for next to nothing and turned him into the 2012 version of Mariano Rivera. Still, with Rivera's season-ending injury last season, Papelbon owns the longest uninterrupted track record of health and success for any closer in baseball, with a seven-year run that includes a 2.32 ERA, a best-in-baseball 2.52 FIP, and a strikeout-to-walk rate of about 5-to-1. If you're a team with money to spend, and you've got a dominant relief pitcher in your sights, giving him a lucrative long-term deal isn't the end of the world.
So what's the problem with the three years and $39 million left on Papelbon's contract (four years, $52 million assuming he hits some very reachable performance markers and sees his 2016 salary vest)? It's the rigid way that managers use closers, with Charlie Manuel one of the game's worst offenders. Whether due to fear of being second-guessed, fear of using pitchers in anything but the most predictable circumstances, or simple inertia, closers get used far more often in easy-to-manage, up-two, bases-empty, ninth-inning situations than they do in tie games with runners on and the game actually on the line. Crashburn Alley ran an excellent post documenting the times Manuel could have and should have used Papelbon in high-leverage situations, only to see the manager save his closer for a save situation and have the Phillies go on to lose instead. This happened seven times. Publication date of that post? June 10.
Until the Phillies start using him in situations where he's actually needed, rather than almost exclusively in spots that nearly any pitcher with a pulse can handle successfully 85–90 percent of the time, Papelbon will remain the $200,000 Aston Martin that never leaves the garage. The reason Papelbon merits only honorable mention is because someone, somewhere, might use him properly if the Phillies ever traded him. In a way, this is more of a tragic waste of resources than an untradeable contract.
'd just like to point out the obvious flaw with that line of thinking, which is that the phillies didn't have anyone else to put in the games. for the first 2/3 of the last season, the bullpen was in shambles and if they tried to use papelbon every time there was a high-leverage situation late in games, he'd have had to come in from the bullpen 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 times per game because everyone else who was out there was a ####### gascan.
To challenge the argument that it's one of the worst deals, however,
Doctors are supposed to be there to keep patients healthy, not keep them available.
'Teams' aren't using it at all. Players are. Even if the teams are encouraging their use to get more value out of their player contracts, a crackdown on that would simply lead to lots of contracts with playing time incentives and then the players wouldn't need any encouragement to take them.
edit: And as for the 'If he were used properly' argument. I absolutely believe that some players cannot handle being used outside the role they've been told they will have. You have to weigh the immediate benefits vs. problems down the line.
I'm guessing your doctorate is not a medical one, dr. scott? If that is your real name....
Isn't Toradol controversial because it ends in -ol?
Asked a doctor... Toradol, despite the scary sounding name, is really nothing more than IV ibuprofen. If that is a "ped", then everything is a ped.
But do you think Papelbon (or any closer) considers pitching in tie games in the 9th at home as a different role than pitching in tie games in the 9th on the road?
(I get migraines. Sometimes the doctors give me Toradol, but it hardly does a thing. They hate prescribing good painkillers because this country has ###### up priorities and the government would rather people be in pain than take life-PEDs to manage it.)
Gluten is apparently the devil, but I love it so.
Maybe. It's not a save situation, and some pinheads might start carping about with "Why is he using me now?? 3/4ths of the managers in the league wouldn't do this, so they must be onto something."
doesn't Papelbon get migraines, too?
And my doctors realize this, but still won't help.
I'm assuming you've had an MRI? If you have actual holes in your brain to show them, I'd like to hope that would help getting them to sign off on it.
And as for the 'If he were used properly' argument. I absolutely believe that some players cannot handle being used outside the role they
Part of what I would like - not ideally, but practically - is an equivalent of the athlete's cortisone shot.
But really acceptability is determined by the same screwed up human process we decide whether much of anything is acceptable -- i.e. irrationally. One minute polygamy is the thing to do, next thing it's a sin, then next thing folks are studying whether primates are wired to be polygamous
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 0.5500 seconds, 74 querie(s) executed