Throughout the 1990s and early-to-mid 2000s, baseball boasted no greater fraud than Sammy Sosa *WHO POOPS HIS PANTS.
If you go back in time, nobody was more beloved by fans than Sammy the Cub. The way he sprinted to the outfield; the way he did that kissie thing after home runs; the way he behaved during the ‘98 home run chase, when he was like a big puppy in a 100-foot bowl of sausage links.
All, garbage.
Sosa was a fraud *WHO POOPED HIS PANTS. An enormous fraud *WHO POOPS HIS PANTS. The fans didn’t know it, but we did. We, the media. We, the community allowed to glimpse behind the curtain. With rare exception, Chicago teammates loathed Sosa. He was selfish, arrogant and dismissive. No matter the desires of others, he blasted his Salsa music throughout the tiny Wrigley Field clubhouse at ear-splitting levels. If you didn’t like it, well, to hell with you. He was Sammy Sosa, you were, oh, Todd Walker. Your opinion didn’t count. If people wanted Sammy’s time, it had to be granted. He wasn’t nearly as bad as Barry Bonds, who reigned over the San Francisco clubhouse like a third-world dictator. But he demanded your respect. And if it wasn’t offered—to hell with you.
And yet, Sosa’s abhorrent behavior isn’t why I was happy to read that he was finally implicated to have used performance-enhancers. No, I was happy because Sosa—more than Bonds, Clemens, Giambi, Manny Ramirez—was (I believe) a product of performance enhancers. The aforementioned players were studs before they began using. Certainly, the PHD provided a huge boost. But they had undeniable skills that reached the highest levels. Sosa, however, was merely … OK. He hit 15 home runs in 532 at-bats with the White Sox in 1990, and another 10 with the club in 1991. He was a tall, skinny kid with a pretty swing but only so-so potential. As much as I’m loathe to credit George W. Bush for anything, his trading Sosa from the Rangers (with Wilson Alvarez and Scott Fletcher) to the White Sox for Harold Baines (and Fred Manrique) on July 29, 1989 wasn’t the brain freeze the president long stated it to be. Hell, Baines—even at age 30—was a significantly better talent than Slammin’ Sammy.
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.
1. Esoteric Posted: June 17, 2009 at 04:31 PM (#3222269)It's been almost a day since the story broke, and I'm dying to hear if there's any new, creative, lawyered up B.S. he can come up with that we haven't heard yet. Inquiring minds want to know.
I was just a teenager at the time, but I remember the opposite. A big, long, ugly swing, but tremendous potential. He had great speed, a cannon arm, and tremendous power. He just had trouble making contact with the ball, laying off pitches in the dirt, and he would make boneheaded plays in the outfield.
He solved the second problem, and that was really all he needed to do.
About what?
Not this, since he has no idea when at least Sosa or Manny started using and Giambi started using as a minor-leaguer, I think.
This is ridiculous. I'm quite certain that Sosa benefitted from his PED use, but he hit 33 home runs as a 24-year-old Cub in 1993. He had a ridiculous amount of potential - a classic, raw 5-tool player. Unless you think he started 'roiding in 1993 - which is certainly possible, but only reinforces my first point - you have no idea how much teh 'roids helped Sosa because you have no idea when he was taking them.
And how does Pearlman know when people started?
EDIT
He hit 15 home runs when he was 21 and 10 when he was 22. That proves he had no power?
Just thought I would quote this part again.
And this.
I also felt that this was very cogent analysis.
Seriously, this is probably the worst article I've read in recent memory. Does he really have no clue about how shrill, hyperbolic and unintelligent he sounds?
Perhaps, just perhaps, that in 1998 McRae remembered that in each of the previous 3 seasons Sosa had received MVP votes while hitting 35+ HRs and at least 100 RBIs - even though he played only 124 games in 1996. Maybe McRae even gave him credit for the strike shortened 1994 when he had 26 HRs in only 105 games. And maybe, just maybe, McRae also considered that in 1993 (Sosa's first full season with the Cubs) when he first start putting up power numbers (33 HRs) he was only 24 years old?
It's easy for us to look back today and say that he was juicing, but the fact is that in 1998 it seemed like he had finally learned to put it all together. The biggest improvement in his game that year wasn't his power - he always had power - it was his willingness to take a walk. Sosa was already an allstar before 1998, and if not for a broken hand in August 1996 he would have already hit 50 homeruns. He also had two 30-30 seasons to his credit and would probably have had a third if not for the strike in '94. He was headed on a career trajectory that would have given him Andre Dawson type power/speed/OBP numbers (although there's not much comparison on defense other than the fact that both played RF). He was headed for a middle of the pack Hall of Very Good career.
There was a reason that first the Sox and then the Cubs traded for Sosa - from a very early age the scouts had marked him as possessing a heck of a lot of potential. Before 1998 there was a feeling that he was already good, but still somewhat disappointing. In 1998 it just seemed like he was finally making it to the next level.
Of course in retrospect, yeah, sure, of course he was juicing. But it just wasn't as obvious then as it seems now.
Compared to the other lip-flapping I've heard (& read) on this oh-so-thrilling topic, Pearlman's a paragon of restraint.
Oh well.
This. I knew all about this, and so did all of my peers, but none of us would actually write the story cause we're gutless/lying about knowing anything.
Of course, for all I know Sosa started juicing in 1990 and it took him years to build up to the monster he became. Or maybe he started in 2000 after slumping to only 50 homers. The 1998 start seems like the best guess absent real information.
*I use "if", since before yesterday it was all speculation
Who was the guy who dared to mention Mark McGwire's andro usage? Didn't he get absolutely lambasted by his peers in the press?
I think many sportswriters at least had strong suspicions, but didn't want to rock the boat - that wasn't the story at the time.
By the way, I happened to see a replay of a Sosa at-bat from 2003 on TV last night. He looks like a freak at that point.
Steve Wilstein. And yes, he was lambasted by not just his peers in the press, but fans as well.
Why is it that Pearlman always writes "PHD" instead of "PED"? What does it even mean?
Steve Wilstein of the Associated Press, and yes.
He's just like Dr. Detroit.
His name was Steve Wilstein, yes, he got absolutely lambasted by his peers in the press, and to the best of my knowledge only one of them has had the courage and decency to admit he was wrong and apologize to Wilstein.
If any reporter back then had come out and directly said "the Sammy Sosa persona and performance you see on TV is a complete fraud; he's actually a 'roiding a-hole in reality", his peers would have torn him to shreds, never mind the BTF peanut gallery.
Yeah, the funny thing is that my recollection of Sosa was that he really bulked up to cartoon proportions AFTER 1998. In 1998, I was always struck by how small Sosa looked compared to McGwire when they stood next to each other or when they hugged after Mac hit #62.
Performance 'hancin Drugs. It's the slang used by all the hep cats.
You're probably right. I'm terribly out of date on my street lingo.
And let's not forget about Jose Canseco while we're at it.
As others have pointed out, this is just factually wrong. Sosa was a highly regarded prospect from a very young age, a 5 tool guy. Bill James in 1988 (or '89?) tagged Sosa as the Rangers' "Star of the 90s".
I don't even see why this is a bad thing. You should treat everybody with respect until they give you a reason otherwise, and if you don't, you shouldn't be surprised if they treat you like #### in return. The fact that Pearlman doesn't understand this is both depressing and illuminating.
If I recall, it didn't require any peeking, since the andro was visible to anyone in the clubhouse.
But as many of us have criticized the media for their failures in reporting on PHDs, the reaction to Wilstein should serve as a reminder that the one guy who did buck the trend in 1998 was not given the hero's treatment.
But as many of us have criticized the media for their failures in reporting on PHDs, the reaction to Wilstein should serve as a reminder that the one guy who did buck the trend in 1998 was not given the hero's treatment.
Yes, it was in plain sight, and you make a good point.
That's what I remember too. I also remember that there was a big stink around the guy who found the andro in Dante Bichette's (at least I think it was Bichette) locker, but that was because it apparently wasn't visible to anyone in the clubhouse.
============================================================================================
The Sosa past used to steal bases; the Sosa present doesn’t. As a Cub fan, would you rather have the Sosa past or the Sosa present? I’ll show you two statistical lines, both of them normalized to 162 games played. The first line is Sammy Sosa, 1993-1995, which happens to include the last two times that he stole 30 bases in a season. The second line is Sosa, 1996-1999. Even that stacks the deck by including 1997, the worst all-around year that Sosa has had recently.
Per 162 games AB H 2B 3B HR R RBI BB SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG
Sosa, 93-95 631 173 23 6 37 95 112 48 143 37 12 .274 .328 .506
Sosa, 96-99 643 180 26 2 55 113 138 61 173 17 9 .280 .343 .582
What kind of player does the first line, Sosa 93-95, represent? This is an impatient hitter (only 48 walks, only a .328 OPB), who steals bases (37-12, which is interesting and mildly useful, but not really a big-time base stealer), and who hits home runs - a LOT of home runs. The strongest of the percentages is the slugging percentage. The very best and most valuable feature of this hitter is the home runs. Think of it as Dave Kingman plus a few stolen bases.
And how did he change from 93-95 to 96-99? He lost much of his stolen base value but that was never large to begin with. He increased his strikeouts from “high“ to “all the damn time.” His batting average increased despite the strikeouts (a home run is a hit, too). He increased his walks from “low” to “near average” - already more than enough value to offset the decrease in stolen bases. And his home runs, already his best feature, went from 37 a year to 55. Notice what that does to his runs scored and his RBI. Why would any sane person managing this player want to turn back the clock?
Pearlman's hatred of Bonds seemed like a weird fixation, but as he's expanded his hatred to include Shawn Chacon, Sosa, etc. it seems clear that he has himself the sort of ego that demands deference... and if it isn't offered, to hell with that person. Every time I read an article from this guy it's revealing that so-and-so is secretly a massive ####### because of things that seem really trivial when actually listed(notice that the biggest ####### move Pearlman can find for Sosa is... PLAYING MUSIC!!! SALSA MUSIC!!!).
Pearlman is also pretty obviously a massive racist, as well.
I don't really disagree (although I haven't criticized the media) but I do think Wilstein's conduct implicated other concerns. Whether those concerns were primary or not in Wilstein's treatment by other media (and fans)- I have no idea.
I also have no idea what this means, because on it's face it seems like it describes everyone in the world. If I want Jeff Pearlman's time, does it not need to be granted? How would that even work?
It's amazing how hack-tastic so many professional writers are.
How long have you been reading this site? Is it really amazing at this point?
But that was a self-selecting response, not some organic state of affairs. Wilstein's savage mistreatment reflects upon the profession, not the long-ago world of 1998.
The sports media has no difficulty pushing its congratulatory, self-vindicating circle jerk NOW, with its "ESPN Sports Reporters"/McGwire 23%/Daily News I-Team/"Game of Shadows"/Jeff Pearlman: The fraud that is Sammy Sosa-style brayings. Their delayed moral fortitude tastes like the 11-year-old milk it is.
And he faults McRae for not speaking out in 1998, yet says the media knew Sosa was a fraud - and they get a pass?
Nothing will ever deaden my sense of wonder!
Agreed. I got to see one of his first Double-A games (I was 14 then). He hit an inside-the-park home run (it might have been scored as a double/triple + error(s)) and just looked N times better than anyone else on the field. (A fun thing to say when Ivan Rodriguez was also in the lineup, and maybe even Juan Gonzalez. Not much plate discipline among them, but my goodness the tools.)
Sosa was the first and only player about whom my mom ever predicted greatness.
I think it's more like Pearlman is upset because Sammy has a girlfriend.
Why?
Why?
I'm sure I've mentioned it in the past, I have a Cuban-born father. I'm pretty sensitive to this and while I don't know that I'd describe Pearlman as a "massive racist" there is at least a small amount of racism in statements like;
At the very least it is incredibly ignorant. My father has been here 50 years and still stumbles over words from time to time and he has a BS and an MS and works in Human Resources. Sosa I suspect has much less education and much less need to be proficient in English. That Sosa was uncomfortable speaking in English to the US Congress with TV cameras bearing down on him that day is entirely reasonable and anyone who doesn't appreciate that is at least ignorant of the situation.
And I don't agree there is any racism in your quote at all. People are far too quick to lable others as racists nowadays, IMHO.
Agreed. I can't stand that line of reasoning. I used to speak French pretty fluently, but even then there wouldn't have been a chance in ####### hell I would try it in that situation, where accidentally bumbling a sentence can get you in a lot of trouble. It is perfectly understandable that he'd want to communicate in his native tongue in that situation.
For those who don't know, my countrywoman Pasek came in second in the 2002 Miss Universe contest (and eventually became Miss Universe once the winner was disqualified).
Well, Ms. Pasek spoke pretty good English, but since Spanish is her native tongue, she was smart to have a translator next to her who translated questions into Spanish.
Ms. Pasek answered questions in English, but surely her answers were the better for (a) Having had an extra few seconds to think about an answer; (b) Being extra sure she understood what was being asked of her.
Except he's not the boss's son, he's the most profitable employee in the company.
Trying to work in an office atmosphere, and getting ready for a game in the hustle and bustle of a major league clubhouse, are two different things. The guys that need to be "alone with their thoughts" tend to head for the trainers room or somewhere else that is not crowded with reporters, hangers-on, and whoever else is wandering through.
Sosa had a translator there with him at Congress the entire time. The rationalizing is pathetic, as is the continued playing of the race card, which in this case is nothing but a tool being used in a futile effort to try and stifle honest debate and discussion on this entire subject.
Aaaaand isn't that exactly why he was being slammed? And if there's ever been honest debate and discussion about ZomgRoids on this site I haven't seen it.
Yes, how dare Sosa bring a translator instead of using a language he knows only somewhat in a place where slight variance in the wording of his sentences is going to determine how Congress and the public will react.
What does that even mean? Are there actually sides of the steroids debate that haven't been explored and aired here? Have these honest positions been shot down by Szym?
It's called Time Rape. Pearlman's into it.
Hey Now! Don't be making fun of the Giants with your sarcastic remarks!
That's my job.
In addition to what #s 59 & 60 said, what sort of important things are guys doing in the clubhouse anyway? Putting on socks? Applying eye black? Snapping towels at some guy's ass? ML ballplayers do their job on the field, and Sosa had no more impact there than any other player unless you're suggesting he had control of the organist's playlist.
Damned hitters should just stay in the box.
The news media, who is responsible in large part for creating the images of athletes, created a picture of Sammy that was very flattering, even though he was a jerk.
And now they are mad that the image of Sosa is not one of a jerk.
It's also not one of the 96 links on FoxNews.com. (Apparently it's lesser news than "Teen Agrees to 3 Tattoos, Wakes Up With 56 on Face" and "40 Hottest Over-40 Hotties.")
Sixty links on the Drudge Report, but no Slammin' Sammy. ABC News: nothing.
Reuters News is ignoring it, too, though the story is listed as one of the "most viewed" on Reuters' sports page. It ranks 7th. The 2nd-most viewed sports story on Reuters is about the possibility of rain at this weekend's U.S. Open. Google News has also placed Sosa underneath the PGA weather report.
MSNBC, which has ten sports links on its main page, does not refer to Sosa. He's the fifth story on SportsIllustrated.cnn.com. The Sosa story is not posted on ESPN.go.com at all; the site's MLB page has an Olney column and an article about Paul Konerko's reaction to the news.
I know it's a rough economy out there. But who knew that THE OUTRAGE could sell so poorly?
It's on the espn.com frontpage. The default main story is something about Obama and basketball, but the third selection is about Sosa (Some US Open story is the second one).
I'd even go so far as to argue that it would be legal malpractice for Sosa's lawyer not to insist on an interpreter. If I was his lawyer and he wanted to wing it in English, I'd demand some sort of waiver or something.
Not sure I see the need to go as far as a waiver. I'd just send him a letter in advance of the hearing laying out what was discussed over the phone or in person, including my advice about recommending an interpreter and the risks of not having one. That should do the trick. At a minimum a memo to the file memorializing the discussions with him would probably suffice. You're right to have something in writing, though.
Anyway, you're exactly correct about the bizarre criticism of him for using an interpreter.
Good luck, Jose. You'll need it.
He really will.
Incidentally, didn't he also accuse baseball of blackballing him even before the book came out?
1) That he mentioned it was salsa music is a little bit of an indicator. That the player he mentions as asking to turn it down was white is another. He writes very much like a racist person would.
2) The constant career long harping on arrogance by professional athletes(nearly all of them black) is another pretty good indicator. Uppity negroes don't know their place, etc.
3) In his Barry Bonds smear from a few years back Pearlman's primary source for "Bonds was a jackass in college" was a guy who Pearlman quoted as using the word "colored". To a reasonable person, if a guy who uses the word 'colored' to refer to black people tells you that a given black person is an #######, you're taking that with a grain of salt. Pearlman quoted this guy with approval.
Lots of people like to freak out when someone plays the "race card" based on innuendo like this, but Pearlman isn't dumb enough to say "you know who I hate? Black people". He's still almost certainly racist.
Reminds me of poker when someone calls and the other guy flips over his winning hand and the guy says "I knew you had that".
I think he did. The other problem is that this chronology doesn't work, since his last season was 2001 and the book didn't come out until 2005:
"Because I used steroids and I came out with a book, I was kicked out of the game,
He couldn't have been kicked out of the game for writing the book.
As to other problems:
"Class action" lawsuit? On what planet? The "class" couldn't possibly be large enough here, even if I could figure out what causes of action he'd be suing under and what facts these hypothetical plaintiffs (Canseco; Palmeiro; Sosa) have in common. Defamation? How was Canseco defamed? He admitted using steroids.
To recover lost wages he'd have to show that he was colluded against while a member of the union. But why would he have been colluded against for using steroids when nobody cared who was using in 2001 and it was assumed that he'd been using for over a decade anyway while he was still getting jobs?
Lost wages for not being inducted into the Hall of Fame? Absurd. He has no right to be inducted into the Hall, and the Hall wouldn't pay him for being inducted, anyway.
Lost wages for not being offered a job by MLB after he retires? He has no right to be offered a job by MLB after he retires.
As I said, just a mess. It sounds like something vomited from the mouth of a radio talk show host.
Maybe he's referring to "Strength Training For Baseball", which came out in 1990. I would love to get a hold of a free copy of that (no way I pay 5 cents for it), just to look for things that, 19 years later, would appear hilarious.
In general, or specifically with respect to Canseco's claims? If it's the latter, then I think the lesser evil has to be whichever side Canseco isn't on. The guy has been responsible for so many of his problems (playing his way off of seven teams due to his ####### behaviour, writing a book glorifying his steroid use, getting into all sorts of legal issues, running up big debts), but he's always willing to blame his problems on someone else.
EDIT: And my only point is that Pearlman was right in the general sense that Sosa, as a steroid user, was, is, and forever shall be a fraud. Whether or not he poops his pants is a question best left for the ages. But PED cheats are frauds, and this hardly seems like the sort of thing that can be reasonably disputed (especially not via a tu quoque defense -- that would merely mean that there are many more frauds out there as well).
I can't for the life of me understand why Sosa is criticized for using an interpreter before Congress. To the extent there was going to be any trouble coming out of that experience for him it was going to be a perjury charge, and if you know this going in (as you can bet Sammy did) you'd be insane not to make double damn sure that you're words are being chosen with precision.
I'd even go so far as to argue that it would be legal malpractice for Sosa's lawyer not to insist on an interpreter. If I was his lawyer and he wanted to wing it in English, I'd demand some sort of waiver or something.
- patiently
only guilty people use lawyers. we all know that innocent people are never ever convicted of anything and a guy with sosa's intelligence, education and superb command of english and lawyerese should have been perfectly comfortable marching up there without either a lawyer or interpreter
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main