Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Tommy Lasorda: ‘I don’t like cheaters. They don’t belong in the game’

The ten dogs begin to bark all over my neighborhood…

So it’s no surprise to hear the 86-year-old blast Alex Rodriguez and other PED users.

“I’m telling you I don’t like cheaters. They don’t belong in the game,” Lasorda told reporters Tuesday. The former Los Angeles Dodgers manager was appearing at a New York fundraiser for the Baseball Assistance Team, which assists ex-players who have fallen on hard times.

...ON A-ROD: “I always had great admiration for him. I knew him even before he graduated high school. When he was hitting those home runs, I thought, ‘At least this guy’s doing it legitimately.’ And then of course we find out he wasn’t ... so it really turned my opinion of him.”

ON PED USERS: “I’m disappointed in this game of ours, which is so great, that somebody has to do things to cheat. And that’s not right. How about those pitchers that they hit all those home runs off? Nobody thinks about those guys.”

“If I’m pitching and I know that guy up there is using that stuff, I’m going to hit him right in the mouth.”

ON THE USE OF AMPHETAMINES BY PLAYERS OF EARLIER GENERATIONS: “Amphetemines? What did amphetamines do? This is a different type ... Even my wife said, ‘Well, they have to hit the ball.’ I said, ‘Sure, they hit the ball.’ But those balls that were caught on the warning track are now in the seats, and that’s the thing that makes the difference.

Repoz Posted: January 22, 2014 at 08:11 AM | 141 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hof

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.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. vivaelpujols Posted: January 22, 2014 at 09:20 AM (#4643925)
You know what.. he's right. Steroids are really the only form of cheating that actually improves baseball ability. Amps, spitballs, "puffballs" (which I just learned about and sound awesome) were just done for show.

And yeah no one ever thinks about the poor pitchers, like Andy Pettitte, who allowed home runs to roided up freaks.
   2. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 09:38 AM (#4643935)
Was it Jay Howell pitching in the playoffs for Lasorda's Dodgers who had a foreign substance on his hat and was thus accused of cheating?
   3. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 22, 2014 at 09:44 AM (#4643942)
I don't like Tommy Lasorda and he doesn't belong in the game.

(Too easy, but there ya go)
   4. JE (Jason Epstein) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 09:57 AM (#4643951)
Tommy wants everyone to know he's available if Clark the Cub dies on the way back to his home planet.
   5. JE (Jason Epstein) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 09:59 AM (#4643954)
“I’m telling you I don’t like cheaters. They don’t belong in the game,” Lasorda told reporters Tuesday.

This is being bookmarked for the next time someone in the Dodgers organization tests positive for PEDs. (And just checking, is Mark McGwire still the hitting coach?)
   6. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 10:04 AM (#4643957)
Fish meet barrel.
   7. Hal Chase School of Professionalism Posted: January 22, 2014 at 10:09 AM (#4643963)
Gosh, and this is the guy who sent Don Sutton to the mound all those times in the late 70's and early 80's... you know, the guy that once had a note to the umpires in his glove that said, "You're getting warmer, but it's not here."

Tommy is a tool. I found after an early life of hating the Dodgers that it wasn't the Bums I hated, it was just Tommy Lasorda.
   8. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: January 22, 2014 at 10:13 AM (#4643970)
(And just checking, is Mark McGwire still the hitting coach?)


And Rick Honeycutt is the pitching coach.
   9. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 10:35 AM (#4644005)
I wish people would stop trying so hard to make me like Alex Rodriguez.

Who's going to be the next one to denounce him? Steve Garvey? Carlos Perez? Luis Polonia?
   10. Anonymous Observer Posted: January 22, 2014 at 10:48 AM (#4644026)
Who's going to be the next one to denounce him? Steve Garvey? Carlos Perez? Luis Polonia?


The fact that they're dead won't stop Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and Joseph Stalin from denouncing Alex Rodriguez.
   11. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 11:06 AM (#4644046)
Remember when the Dodgers illegally signed Adrian Beltre underage? Fun times.
   12. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 22, 2014 at 11:12 AM (#4644054)
I don't like Tommy Lasorda and he doesn't belong in the game.


I'm willing to expand this to all fat, pasta-reeking Italians.
   13. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 11:17 AM (#4644062)
Tommy Lasorda is dumber than ten cheating dogs.
   14. Captain Supporter Posted: January 22, 2014 at 11:50 AM (#4644109)
Again, we have someone who is actually involved in the game of baseball who does not want players to have to compete with cheaters. Unlike the apologists posting here.

The good news is that baseball players have decided they do not want to compete with cheats.
   15. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 11:53 AM (#4644121)
Again, we have someone who is actually involved in the game of baseball who does not want players to have to compete with cheaters. Unlike the apologists posting here.


Except that he brushes aside all forms of cheating that he was involved with and deems those forms that he wasn't involved with Real Cheating.

Not very convincing.
   16. Rough Carrigan Posted: January 22, 2014 at 12:00 PM (#4644133)
So . . Tommy hated notorious spitballer Don Drysdale? And he loathed notorious ball scuffer Don Sutton, too, right?
   17. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 12:05 PM (#4644143)
So . . Tommy hated notorious spitballer Don Drysdale? And he loathed notorious ball scuffer Don Sutton, too, right?


Apparently, cheating wasn't invented before steroids.

(Of course, since apparently steroids weren't invented before the Steroids Era the above "logic" is not all that surprising.)
   18. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 22, 2014 at 12:07 PM (#4644145)
The good news is that baseball players have decided they do not want to compete with cheats.

But what do they know, as compared with a smattering of internet lawyers and sophists?
   19. Random Transaction Generator Posted: January 22, 2014 at 12:20 PM (#4644161)
The good news is that baseball players have decided they do not want to compete with cheats.

But what do they know, as compared with a smattering of internet lawyers and sophists?


Well, given Lasorda's/players looking the other way regarding tampering with baseballs and bats, and what they seemed to think about amps, it seems that they don't know what the definition of "cheating" is...
   20. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 22, 2014 at 12:25 PM (#4644168)
The greatest moment in the last 50 years of Dodgers history only happened as a result of a cortisone shot.
   21. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 12:29 PM (#4644173)
But what do they know, as compared with a smattering of internet lawyers and sophists?


Well, you're an internet lawyer and a sophist. Why don't you tell us?
   22. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 22, 2014 at 12:49 PM (#4644204)
Well, you're an internet lawyer and a sophist. Why don't you tell us?

OK -- players and former players are far better sources of insight than a smattering of internet lawyers and sophists.
   23. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 12:52 PM (#4644214)
OK -- players and former players are far better sources of insight than a smattering of internet lawyers and sophists.


And your evidence for this statement is...
   24. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 22, 2014 at 01:01 PM (#4644233)
And your evidence for this statement is...

Primarily their experience with the sport and its players, which bestows upon them greater knowledge (*) of the sport's mores and should-be mores.

It's their game and their sport; it's not internet lawyers' and sophists' game.

(*) And access to the raw materials from which knowledge and insight are derived.
   25. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 01:08 PM (#4644238)
Primarily their experience with the sport and its players, which bestows upon them greater knowledge (*) of the sport's mores and should-be mores.

It's their game and their sport; it's not internet lawyers' and sophists' game.

(*) And access to the raw materials from which knowledge and insight are derived.


That's an opinion. Do you have any actual evidence to support it?
   26. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 22, 2014 at 01:14 PM (#4644249)
That's an opinion. Do you have any actual evidence to support it?

Baseball players being closer to baseball and other baseball players and having closer experience with the sport's mores is not an opinion. It's a self-evident fact.

Nor is the conclusion that players are the ultimate arbiters of the way the sport should be played an "opinion." That's also a statement of reality.

If the players and ex-players believe that roids traduce the proper mores of the sport more than amps -- as they obviously do (*) -- that's simply far more insightful and meaningful than the assorted ramblings of internet lawyers and sophists on the matter. If that disturbs you, there really isn't a lot that can be done. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're looking for.

(*) The underpinnings of that conclusion have, of course, been discussed ad nauseum.
   27. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 22, 2014 at 01:27 PM (#4644267)
“I’m disappointed in this game of ours, which is so great, that somebody has to do things to cheat. And that’s not right. How about those pitchers that they hit all those home runs off? Nobody thinks about those guys.”

Lasorda's anti-steroid absolutism? She i-i-is... GONE!
   28. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 01:28 PM (#4644271)
Baseball players being closer to baseball and other baseball players and having closer experience with the sport's mores is not an opinion. It's a self-evident fact.


The idea that being closer to the game gives you a better perspective on it is an opinion, not a fact. It would be just as easy to argue that players are too close to the situation to examine it objectively, in the same way that police officers aren't allowed to run investigations that involve their friends or members of their family, even though they're more familiar with the dynamics at work than an outside party would be.

Nor is the conclusion that players are the ultimate arbiters of the way the sport should be played an "opinion." That's also a statement of reality.


No, that's an opinion. Should priests always be the supreme arbiter of moral questions facing society, purely because they work closely with those on a regular basis?

For a long time, the majority of players believed that playing games against teams that included black players was wrong. Were they axiomatically correct to do so, simply due to their status as players?
   29. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 22, 2014 at 01:38 PM (#4644281)
The idea that being closer to the game gives you a better perspective on it is an opinion, not a fact.

The proposition was that players have a better perspective on the game, such that their insights are better. You asked for evidence, and I provided some -- they're closer to the sport's mores and experience them firsthand, and experience the reaction of other players firsthand -- whereas internet lawyers and sophists don't.

You disagree that the evidence supports the proposition. Fine. But evidence was provided.

For a long time, the majority of players believed that playing games against teams that included black players was wrong. Were they axiomatically correct to do so, simply due to their status as players?


No, but then again the identity of the participants in the game have nothing to do with the mores of how the game is played, or fair play and competition within the playing of the game.
   30. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 01:54 PM (#4644306)
You disagree that the evidence supports the proposition. Fine. But evidence was provided.


It's evidence of a sort, but it's inherently subjective. As such, you can't necessarily expect anyone else to find it persuasive.

No, but then again the identity of the participants in the game have nothing to do with the mores of how the game is played, or fair play and competition within the playing of the game.


This is incorrect. The discrimination against black players was in some cases connected to concerns about social mores (in that MLB players believed that black players had different - i.e. inferior - inherent qualities, including moral ones), and in other cases with concerns about fair play and competition (in that teams using black players would have a competitive advantage against teams that did not).
   31. dejarouehg Posted: January 22, 2014 at 01:58 PM (#4644311)
Why is it so odd that not all crimes are equal and within the confines of baseball. There have been virtually unanimously agreed upon distinctions of gamesmanship (spitballs/corked bats/pine tar on pitchers fingers) vs. flat out cheating, though I confess I'm not sure why amps have historically been given a pass.

Were it not for all those who have turned a blind-eye towards Piazza on this board, this would have really been enjoyable, having to hear Lasorda explain away the misdeeds of his God-son, or whatever his relationship to Piazza is. Where is Reggie Jefferson when you need him?
   32. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 22, 2014 at 01:58 PM (#4644314)
It's evidence of a sort, but it's inherently subjective.

There's nothing remotely subjective about the observation that players are closer to the sport and its mores, and experience them more immediately, than outsiders.
   33. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 02:03 PM (#4644318)
There's nothing remotely subjective about the observation that players are closer to the sport and its mores, and experience them more immediately, than outsiders.


No, but your unsupported assertion that this closer proximity is inherently a positive thing is, by nature, subjective.
   34. cmd600 Posted: January 22, 2014 at 02:11 PM (#4644326)
Why is it so odd that not all crimes are equal and within the confines of baseball.


What's "odd" is the response to the crimes. Almost across the board it's "the crimes that I know my teammates and I performed are acceptable, the ones everyone else performed, especially these kids on my lawn, are not". If someone provided a rational explanation for why PED use is worse than scuffing balls besides the constant aping of "home run go far", I think there would be quite less of a commotion among this community.
   35. Flack42 Posted: January 22, 2014 at 02:30 PM (#4644343)
Re: #13 -- I'm still trying to figure out just how dumb 10 cheating dogs are. Twice as dumb as five cheating dogs or half as dumb?
   36. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: January 22, 2014 at 02:43 PM (#4644355)
If someone provided a rational explanation for why PED use is worse than scuffing balls besides the constant aping of "home run go far", I think there would be quite less of a commotion among this community.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree but it seems like the idea that steroids made a mockery of HR records is more offensive to fans and players who have a romantic notion of the history of the game than individuals using spitballs, corked bats, scuffed balls or whatever to gain an edge. Don Sutton and Gaylord Perry looked like human beings when pitching -- albeit somewhat shady human beings, while Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds looked superhuman. The "unfairness" of a superhuman dominating mere humans seemed more wrong than a shady human "bending" the rules. It would be like the difference between scuffing a ball and going into the future to get a magic pill that turned you into Superman and coming back to the present to dominate baseball. One is a bit shady. The other is flat out unfair and shouldn't count.
   37. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 02:46 PM (#4644359)
while Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds looked superhuman.


So did Frank Thomas.
   38. ThickieDon Posted: January 22, 2014 at 02:53 PM (#4644366)
He was the biggest of them all; that's why he hit 800 home runs.
   39. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 22, 2014 at 02:56 PM (#4644367)
So did Frank Thomas.

No, he didn't. He looked flabbier than either McGwire or Bonds.

And even if you're right and Thomas roided, so what? You've just shown the wisdom of Ivan's insight that people respond more adversely to the superhuman than the human -- which is obviously part of the obvious and widespread cultural aversion to steroids. If you actually cared about the issue, as opposed to simply being a rote advocate for your heroes, you might grasp this.
   40. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 22, 2014 at 02:57 PM (#4644368)
Re: #13 -- I'm still trying to figure out just how dumb 10 cheating dogs are. Twice as dumb as five cheating dogs or half as dumb?


Correct. You are on the right track.
   41. ThickieDon Posted: January 22, 2014 at 03:03 PM (#4644375)
Lasorda also wanted gays out of the game.

http://www.cantstopthebleeding.com/tommy-lasorda-not-only-homophobic-but-cheap-too
   42. ThickieDon Posted: January 22, 2014 at 03:04 PM (#4644377)
Frank Thomas should have hit the most home runs because he was the biggest.
   43. cmd600 Posted: January 22, 2014 at 05:25 PM (#4644544)
I'm not saying I agree or disagree but it seems like the idea that steroids made a mockery of HR records is more offensive to fans and players who have a romantic notion of the history of the game than individuals using spitballs, corked bats, scuffed balls or whatever to gain an edge. Don Sutton and Gaylord Perry looked like human beings when pitching -- albeit somewhat shady human beings, while Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds looked superhuman. The "unfairness" of a superhuman dominating mere humans seemed more wrong than a shady human "bending" the rules. It would be like the difference between scuffing a ball and going into the future to get a magic pill that turned you into Superman and coming back to the present to dominate baseball. One is a bit shady. The other is flat out unfair and shouldn't count.


I totally get that, and have emailed back and forth with some writers who have said things similar enough. The next step is getting them to recognize that guys like Alex Sanchez and late-career Colon were dopers too, and as Ray is so quick to point out in each thread, Frank Thomas was a huge man. If they still don't buy it, then we've added a step before seeing their flawed logic, but it's still incredibly flawed logic.
   44. Lars6788 Posted: January 22, 2014 at 05:32 PM (#4644552)
Compared to Thomas, the other guys were scrawny little shits when they came into professional baseball.

Thomas was already a large man who got progressively fat in his 30's while maybe a McGwire or Bonds actually got thicker and bulked up.
   45. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 05:35 PM (#4644558)
Compared to Thomas, the other guys were scrawny little shits when they came into professional baseball.


Well, they didn't have the advantage of coming up through Auburn's steroids-fueled football program, granted.

But the idea that McGwire wasn't huge when he came up is odd.
   46. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 22, 2014 at 05:38 PM (#4644565)
The next step is getting them to recognize that guys like Alex Sanchez and late-career Colon were dopers too, and as Ray is so quick to point out in each thread, Frank Thomas was a huge man. If they still don't buy it, then we've added a step before seeing their flawed logic, but it's still incredibly flawed logic.

Actually, the next step is for the "community" to comprehend that if they have deficiencies in seeing things like the superhuman/human dichotomy that the rest of the world sees rather easily, the problem lies not with the rest of the world, but with them.

   47. cmd600 Posted: January 22, 2014 at 05:42 PM (#4644574)
Actually, the next step is for the "community" to comprehend that if they have deficiencies in seeing things like the superhuman/human dichotomy that the rest of the world sees rather easily, the problem lies not with the rest of the world, but with them.


This is quite possibly the dumbest thing you have ever said, and we all know not to take that too lightly. People, as a whole, are dumb creatures, looking for simple answers rather than studying for deeper truths. The rest of the world sees the superhuman/human dichotomy because the rest of the world can't be bothered to rub two brain cells together to figure out what steroids actually do or don't do. They read what idiots like Jeff Pearlman have to say on the topic, without ever questioning what kind of credentials that Pearlman actually has to discuss the topic, and assume that the 30 seconds they've put in is more than good enough to qualify them as well.
   48. Ron J2 Posted: January 22, 2014 at 05:51 PM (#4644586)
#45. Looks like he added about 40 pounds -- almost all of it muscle -- from the time he was in university until the end of his career. In small chunks for the most part, but somewhere around 25 pounds in one off-season. All of this is by listed weight, but as I've noted before Stats made a serious effort to keep their listed weights up to date. And that 25 pound gain correlates perfectly with McGwire's revised story.

Started big (As I've noted before, his college scouting report starts out BIG, STRONG. Got bigger.
   49. vivaelpujols Posted: January 22, 2014 at 05:51 PM (#4644587)

But what do they know, as compared with a smattering of internet lawyers and sophists?


/end thread
   50. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 22, 2014 at 05:55 PM (#4644590)
People, as a whole, are dumb creatures, looking for simple answers rather than studying for deeper truths.

Wherein the deficiencies exhibited regularly by one faction ("Amps and roids both enhance performance, what's the difference, where's the LOGIC???") are projected onto a different faction ....

   51. cmd600 Posted: January 22, 2014 at 06:02 PM (#4644596)
Wherein the deficiencies exhibited regularly by one faction ("Amps and roids both enhance performance, what's the difference?") are projected onto a different faction


Sure, if people here are doing the equivalent of what Lasorda did in the article when asked about amphetamines, say to just trust him on this one, even his wife gets it, then they're just as wrong. We both know that's rarely the case here. Most primates flesh out their thoughts well beyond that, usually on their own, but some are forced to by the community. And those that don't are recognized as the trolls that they are.
   52. Hank G. Posted: January 22, 2014 at 06:10 PM (#4644607)
Who's going to be the next one to denounce him? Steve Garvey? Carlos Perez? Luis Polonia?


They are going to dig up the moldy corpses of Shoeless Joe Jackson and Hal Chase to denounce ARod for being a cheater.
   53. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 22, 2014 at 07:11 PM (#4644673)
Somebody please remind me if anyone who ever played for Tommy's beloved Dodgers ever got busted for PEDs, and whether that cheating cheater was immediately given his unconditional release or simply added back to the active roster as soon as he was eligible.
   54. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 07:28 PM (#4644684)
Somebody please remind me if anyone who ever played for Tommy's beloved Dodgers ever got busted for PEDs, and whether that cheating cheater was immediately given his unconditional release or simply added back to the active roster as soon as he was eligible.


I mean, Steve Howe was a habitual drug user including coke and had meth in his system at the time of his death.
   55. I Helped Patrick McGoohan Escape Posted: January 22, 2014 at 08:00 PM (#4644693)
I mean, Steve Howe was a habitual drug user including coke and had meth in his system at the time of his death


Well, based on this photo, drug use allegations are not entirely untoward; though I must admit I'm pretty sure he's touring with Yes right now.
   56. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 08:04 PM (#4644696)

I helped Patrick McGoohan Escape


Does McGoohan ever manage to escape from the prison?
   57. I Helped Patrick McGoohan Escape Posted: January 22, 2014 at 08:08 PM (#4644698)
Does McGoohan ever manage to escape from the prison?


According to Ed Ball and Dan Treacy, yes, he's living next to the man in suitcase.
   58. ThickieDon Posted: January 22, 2014 at 08:44 PM (#4644712)
Who cares if Thomas started or finished big?

The point is he was the largest man in the game, before and after your "Sillyball" era (whatever that means), and, as such, he should have hit the most home runs.

He also had a much larger head than Barry Bonds, which according to Pearlman, makes you hit more home runs.
   59. Cooper Nielson Posted: January 22, 2014 at 11:45 PM (#4644820)
It's clear to me, and demonstrated here by Tommy LaSorda, that all this steroid outrage is purely and simply (OK, 98%) about players hitting more home runs than they "should." When you look at the list of steroid villains, with one lone exception (Clemens), they are all power hitters who generated "unacceptably" high career or season HR totals: Bonds, A-Rod, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, Canseco, Sheffield, (Piazza), (Bagwell), (Brady Anderson), (Luis Gonzalez), etc. Ryan Braun is a slightly different case -- he's hated more for his behavior after being caught -- but he was on his way to a 500 HR career. These are the guys people are angry about, and any explanation besides "they hit too many home runs" seems disingenuous to me.

It's not about the difference between humans and superhumans. People didn't hate Frank Thomas, Bo Jackson, Frank Howard, or Ted Kluszewski for having big/muscular physiques.

It's not about the health risks. People don't care if players smoke, drink, drive fast, eat fast food, have risky surgeries, or dive face-first into the stands.

It's not about cheating. Gaylord Perry and Don Sutton are in the Hall of Fame, the 1951 Giants are revered, and corked bats are still viewed as "funny."

It's not about the illegality. There are dozens of other things, and other drugs, that players (and the rest of us) do/use on a regular basis that are "illegal" but don't provoke nearly the same sense of indignation.

It's not about the unfair advantages on the field -- other than home run hitting. No one cares about the speedsters (Alex Sanchez, Everth Cabrera), and with the lone exception of Clemens (who people already didn't like for various reasons), no one makes a fuss about any of the pitchers who use(d) steroids -- even though about half of the positive tests have been pitchers.

It's not about the pressures for non-users to try to "keep up." No one cares much about the PED users on the fringes of the majors, the Francisco Cervellis and Jordany Valdespins. The hate is directed toward the superstars who were already at the top of the pyramid and obviously weren't taking away jobs from anyone. OK, the success of guys like McGwire and Sosa theoretically forced Bonds to start using, and put pressure on "clean" guys like Griffey and Thomas, but that simply gets back to the problem of Bonds (or Griffey/Thomas) hitting more home runs than they were supposed to.

I don't like steroid use in baseball. In fact, I'm pretty anti-drug use in general. I wish the game was "clean," but I know it isn't, won't be, and probably never was. I wish Hank Aaron still had the career HR record -- I think he was a fitting champion, as a good, consistent home run hitter who lasted a long time. But I'm actually happy that Maris's single-season record was broken, because I think McGwire, Bonds, and Sosa (or Ruth, Foxx, and Greenberg) were all legitimately better HR hitters than him, and I personally would rather see "big" records in the hands of all-time greats than short-time flukes.

If the Steroid Era had led to a vast increase in double and triples, with no effect on home runs, I honestly think none of these professional outrage-ists would care.
   60. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 22, 2014 at 11:49 PM (#4644821)
Why is it so odd that not all crimes are equal and within the confines of baseball. There have been virtually unanimously agreed upon distinctions of gamesmanship (spitballs/corked bats/pine tar on pitchers fingers) vs. flat out cheating, though I confess I'm not sure why amps have historically been given a pass.

Barry Bonds
   61. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: January 23, 2014 at 01:49 AM (#4644869)
I totally get that, and have emailed back and forth with some writers who have said things similar enough. The next step is getting them to recognize that guys like Alex Sanchez and late-career Colon were dopers too, and as Ray is so quick to point out in each thread, Frank Thomas was a huge man. If they still don't buy it, then we've added a step before seeing their flawed logic, but it's still incredibly flawed logic.

Sure, but logic typically has nothing to do with what offends people. Frank Thomas was huge, but it isn't just the size that made Bonds and McGwire seem superhuman -- Frank Howard and Ted Kluszewski were big and strong too. It was the artificially enhanced performance. Whether true or not, it seemed like they took a pill and became unbeatable.
It's clear to me, and demonstrated here by Tommy LaSorda, that all this steroid outrage is purely and simply (OK, 98%) about players hitting more home runs than they "should."

Absolutely. Nobody really cares about Dan Naulty making the majors rather than stalling in A ball, or Alex Sanchez or Mario Encarnacion dying while playing in Taiwan or anything other than the idea that the Home Run record books were being made a mockery of.
If the Steroid Era had led to a vast increase in double and triples, with no effect on home runs, I honestly think none of these professional outrage-ists would care.

Agreed
   62. Wahoo Sam Posted: January 23, 2014 at 02:14 AM (#4644881)
No, but your unsupported assertion that this closer proximity is inherently a positive thing is, by nature, subjective.


This. This quote right here is why many of the people who post on this site are seen as inflexible, completely void of nuance. Like vampires you suck the blood out of the sport, you remove anything that is ENJOYABLE about the game of baseball. You reduce many of these threads to a "lesson" in semantics. A lesson many of us tire of.

Tommy Lasorda has been GREAT for the game of baseball. He's an 86-year old man telling us how he actually feels. He's forgotten more about baseball than all of us combined know about the game. Do I want to listen to what he says about PEDs? You bet. Do I have to agree completely, no. But you'd think he was a moron based on what most people say here. The perfect vision most of you have regarding these complex issues is stunning.
   63. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 23, 2014 at 02:57 AM (#4644888)
This. This quote right here is why many of the people who post on this site are seen as inflexible, completely void of nuance. Like vampires you suck the blood out of the sport, you remove anything that is ENJOYABLE about the game of baseball. You reduce many of these threads to a "lesson" in semantics. A lesson many of us tire of.


Yes, yes, I'm sure that I've had a much worse effect on the quality of the discourse on the site than the guy who entered the thread in order to rail about "internet lawyers and sophists". Duly noted.

But you'd think he was a moron based on what most people say here.


Well, he's the guy who said that Pedro Martinez would never make it as a starter, and who traded away Paul Konerko for half a season of Jeff Shaw. If the shoe fits...

He's also got an appalling lack of moral perspective. Lasorda is the man who, while he was GM of the Dodgers, happily traded for Carlos Perez, even though Perez was under investigation at the time for rape. Perez subsequently was accused of two additional rapes during his time with the Dodgers, assaulted a team employee and threatened her with a gun on a team flight, and skipped the country to avoid paying a $15M civil judgment to one of his victims. So, y'know, good work there, Tommy.

As such, I don't think a person like him has much insight to offer as far as the ethics of baseball are concerned.
   64. Wahoo Sam Posted: January 23, 2014 at 03:06 AM (#4644891)
Yeah, and if you had a 60+ year career in baseball, you'd never do one thing that in hindsight couldn't be seen as incorrect or lacking in moral perspective?

So easy to just toss stones at the people DOING SOMETHING. Come on, this is way too harsh. Lasorda is correct - steroid use is different than scuffing a baseball. So you burn him because he had guys on his teams over the course of three decades who may have tossed a spitter or use amphetamines? Cyclists "cheated" for decades too, (some of them), but then in the 1970s and especially in the 1980s they started using drugs that absolutely destroyed the competitive balance of the sport. You'd think, based on the apologists here, that most of the posters on this site were part of the Barry Bonds Posse - sycophants who protect drug users because Hank Aaron popped a greenie.

It's called perspective. Nuance. For folks who accept without much skepticism the validity of WAR and other stats that require the bending of numbers and calculations that might have puzzled NASA scientists in 1964, you seem to think steroids are a simple little issue. No complexity required. Oh to be so certain of things.
   65. Cooper Nielson Posted: January 23, 2014 at 03:15 AM (#4644892)
It's called perspective. Nuance. For folks who accept without much skepticism the validity of WAR and other stats that require the bending of numbers and calculations that might have puzzled NASA scientists in 1964, you seem to think steroids are a simple little issue. No complexity required. Oh to be so certain of things.

Maybe I'm not following the argument, but it seems to me that, in general, the anti-steroids zealots are the ones viewing PEDs as a black-and-white "simple little issue," while the steroids apologists are the ones saying, "No, it's more complex than that."
   66. Rob_Wood Posted: January 23, 2014 at 03:24 AM (#4644893)
Well stated Cooper.
   67. Wahoo Sam Posted: January 23, 2014 at 03:30 AM (#4644894)
That may be the intent of many apologists, Cooper. If so, I would welcome that. But on this site, too often I see posts that are essentially, "Players have cheated since the game was invented, so all cheaters are the same. Anyone who criticizes PED users is a hypocrite." It's more of a "let's just call it a wash" argument.

It puzzles me that the (general) MO from many here is to simply apologize for anything players did with regards to putting illegal drugs into their bodies and making a mockery of the record books.
   68. vivaelpujols Posted: January 23, 2014 at 05:38 AM (#4644899)
It's called perspective. Nuance. For folks who accept without much skepticism the validity of WAR and other stats that require the bending of numbers and calculations that might have puzzled NASA scientists in 1964, you seem to think steroids are a simple little issue.


What in the #### are you talking about?

I'm sure Tommy Lasorda knows way more about certain aspects of the game than most people on this site. That doesn't mean he knows anything about whether or not steroids are morally worse than amps. This is his rational for why amps are not as bad as steroids:

Amphetemines? What did amphetamines do?


You're allowed to criticize people dude, this is ####### America. That doesn't mean that Tommy Lasorda's opinion is worthless.
   69. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 23, 2014 at 05:40 AM (#4644900)
So you burn him because he had guys on his teams over the course of three decades who may have tossed a spitter or use amphetamines?


I burn him because he voiced an opinion that steroids are much, much worse for the game than amphetamines without (by his own admission) bothering to familiarize himself with the effects of amphetamines within a baseball context.

No matter how often you say, "Lasorda is correct - steroid use is different than scuffing a baseball," it'll still be an opinion, rather than a fact.

Cyclists "cheated" for decades too, (some of them), but then in the 1970s and especially in the 1980s they started using drugs that absolutely destroyed the competitive balance of the sport.


Oh, horseshit. In 1904, nearly half of the cyclists who completed the tour (including the top four finishers, and the winners of literally every stage) were disqualified for such things as riding in cars or on trains for part of the course, throwing down nails and broken glass to puncture the tires of the riders behind them, blocking sections of the course with barricades, accepting illegal food and drink, and inducing gangs of spectators to accost and assault competing riders. But it's modern PEDs and their effects on the competitive balance of the sport that are totally beyond the pale?

It puzzles me that the (general) MO from many here is to simply apologize for anything players did with regards to putting illegal drugs into their bodies and making a mockery of the record books.


I don't "apologize" for them, because players who took drugs have nothing to apologize for. If they get caught, they should pay whatever penalty is described in the CBA, and that should be the end of it. Just like players caught scuffing a ball or using a corked bat.
   70. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: January 23, 2014 at 05:51 AM (#4644902)
In 1904, nearly half of the cyclists who completed the tour (including the top four finishers, and the winners of literally every stage) were disqualified for such things as riding in cars or on trains for part of the course, throwing down nails and broken glass to puncture the tires of the riders behind them, blocking sections of the course with barricades, accepting illegal food and drink, and inducing gangs of spectators to accost and assault competing riders.


That sounds amazing and I want to know more!
   71. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 23, 2014 at 06:14 AM (#4644906)
It really was a pretty spectacular ###########, which nearly killed the race for good, and it's definitely worth looking into if you'd like to know more. I mean, look at this guy! That's Hippolyte Aucouturier, one of the disqualified riders from 1904, who finished second in 1905. At one point, he was caught receiving a clandestine tow from a car - he tied one end of a strong wire to the bumper, and the other to a cork he held between his teeth. You can't make this #### up.

As another historical aside, the 1923 Tour winner, Henri Pélissier, was quite open about using drugs like cocaine and chloroform to enhance his performance during races - he even gave newspaper interviews about it. So Sam's crocodile tears over the poor lost chemical purity of competitive cycling are probably a hundred years too late.
   72. vivaelpujols Posted: January 23, 2014 at 06:48 AM (#4644907)
If they get caught, they should pay whatever penalty is described in the CBA, and that should be the end of it.


This. I have no problem with testing and penalties. I have problems with prescribing additional punishments after that.
   73. bachslunch Posted: January 23, 2014 at 07:46 AM (#4644912)
with regards to putting illegal drugs into their bodies and making a mockery of the record books.

Is it the HR record that's the issue then?
   74. Cooper Nielson Posted: January 23, 2014 at 08:18 AM (#4644918)
Is it the HR record that's the issue then?

Yep, as far as I can tell, that's really the only issue. (See my post 59, and also Ivan Grushenko's posts above.)

Amphetamines don't increase home runs. Spitballs don't increase home runs. Betting on your team to win doesn't increase home runs. Corked bats might increase home runs, but probably not. Steroids taken before Jose Canseco's debut don't increase home runs (apparently). And there are no home runs in football.

That's why steroid use in baseball is so much worse than everything else, I guess.

Paradoxically, everyone loves home runs (when their team hits them).
   75. JE (Jason Epstein) Posted: January 23, 2014 at 10:52 AM (#4644957)
Lasorda also wanted gays out of the game.

That reminds me: What was Tommy's position on bacne?
   76. Moeball Posted: January 23, 2014 at 04:31 PM (#4645239)
OK -- players and former players are far better sources of insight than a smattering of internet lawyers and sophists.


Unless the former player is Tom House in which case he should just shut up and go away.
   77. ThickieDon Posted: January 23, 2014 at 05:16 PM (#4645281)
PEDs led to people being on PEDs and getting suspended.
   78. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 23, 2014 at 10:18 PM (#4645426)
Is it the HR record that's the issue then?


That's what it's always been.
   79. Rob_Wood Posted: January 23, 2014 at 10:41 PM (#4645433)
People have been shading the rules ever since day one. Recall the 19th century players who would cut across the diamond rather than touching the intervening base(s) when there was only one umpire. Recall that players would literally grab a base runner on any batted ball so as to impede his progress, etc.

I personally have witnessed a high-level college tennis match (where the players call their own lines) in which one player was repeatedly calling balls out that were well inside the lines. After it got to a ridiculous point of outright cheating, the two respective coaches came over and called all the lines fairly. And this was a player who went on to have a decent pro career and, to all accounts, is a great guy. Sometimes the temptation is just too great.

Anyway, like other posters said, this does not excuse the behavior but serves to help us understand it better.
   80. doc dynamo Posted: January 24, 2014 at 12:39 AM (#4645463)
I really think this board should avoid all discussion of PEDs. For more than a decade this board has been dominated by PED denialists who will advance any argument, no matter how bogus to support the PED users. Nobody really cares what you guys "think" about this issue.
   81. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 24, 2014 at 12:52 AM (#4645465)
I really think this board should avoid all discussion of PEDs. For more than a decade this board has been dominated by PED denialists who will advance any argument, no matter how bogus to support the PED users. Nobody really cares what you guys "think" about this issue.


MLB, the media, most fans, and now many players have, for a decade, forced us to choose sides. The media and most fans by and large have been irrational and intellectually dishonest in excusing amps use but not steroids use, in excusing one form of cheating but not another form. The writers have kept players with a steroids taint (whether evidence based or not) out of the Hall. MLB has conducted an insane, quasi mob-style vendetta against one player for doing what countless other players have done. Some players have advocated throwing at ARod because he had the temerity, the unmitigated gall, to challenge his wildly unprecedented discipline. One player actually did throw at him for this.

So I think it's clear we're being forced to choose sides. And the choice is clear for me. I choose the steroids users.
   82. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: January 24, 2014 at 01:17 AM (#4645468)
But I'm actually happy that Maris's single-season record was broken, because I think McGwire, Bonds, and Sosa (or Ruth, Foxx, and Greenberg) were all legitimately better HR hitters than him, and I personally would rather see "big" records in the hands of all-time greats than short-time flukes.


I had a similar but opposite thought in 1986 when Clemens first struck out 20 in a game. I thought it was so cool that the record for strikeouts in a game was jointly held by 3 all time greats, and now here's this upstart overshadowing them all. I don't quite remember what I thought when Kerry Wood matched Clemens. Probably something like "OK, here's another all time great in the making."
   83. Cooper Nielson Posted: January 24, 2014 at 04:51 AM (#4645482)
I really think this board should avoid all discussion of PEDs. For more than a decade this board has been dominated by PED denialists who will advance any argument, no matter how bogus to support the PED users. Nobody really cares what you guys "think" about this issue.

While I heartily agree with your first sentence, I swear there is some Fox News-style revisionism going on in this thread (like when Republicans all of a sudden started caring about "racism" (against Caucasians) in 2008). Now the so-called "PED denialists" are being accused of blindly supporting and even glorifying PED users because they simply haven't thought deeply about the subject?

It really seems to me that, historically, the more strident, emotional, "it's black-and-white, no shades of gray" side in the Great Steroid Debate has been the anti-steroid zealots, not the apologists. I mean, if you want to assign "captains" from the two extremes, compare Kevin to Ray -- who's been the more logical, reasonable, and intellectually consistent one?
   84. Jim Kaat on a hot Gene Roof Posted: January 24, 2014 at 06:35 AM (#4645485)
It really seems to me that, historically, the more strident, emotional, "it's black-and-white, no shades of gray" side in the Great Steroid Debate has been the anti-steroid zealots, not the apologists.


You're either a newbie or a liar.
   85. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: January 24, 2014 at 07:49 AM (#4645490)
No, the debate shifted over time. First, the "apologists" claimed "no proof". Then, when proved, they claimed "no benefit". Then, when benefit was proved, or, admitted, the argument became "but what about amps?"

Carry on.
   86. bachslunch Posted: January 24, 2014 at 07:55 AM (#4645491)
denialists who will advance any argument, no matter how bogus to support the PED users.

Would be interested to hear what's "bogus" about the arguments in detail.

Nobody really cares what you guys "think" about this issue.

Nobody? As in not one single solitary human being?

What was Tommy's position on bacne?

Question -- if bad acne is a supposed indicator of PED use, why hasn't someone like Murray Chass questioned whether Randy Johnson used? Johnson's about as crater-faced as they come. Or does only the back matter?
   87. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: January 24, 2014 at 07:55 AM (#4645492)
who's been the more logical, reasonable, and intellectually consistent one?

That's not entirely fair. Anybody would win that comparison against Kevin, with the possible exception of Julius Streicher.
   88. Jim Kaat on a hot Gene Roof Posted: January 24, 2014 at 07:57 AM (#4645493)
(took too long to edit previous post)

Adding: I suspect you're a newbie since you think Ray has been here for the whole Great Steroid Debate when he has not, and indeed everything he's ever said about it was said previously (albeit in a much more emotional way) by Nieporent, Szymborski, Burley, Treder, Mark Field, and others in the bizarre coalition of Randroids and Squishy Liberal Giants Fans and Mental 12-Year-Old-Boys Who Will Do Anything To Defend Their Heroes Against Mean Reporters.

But if you're not a n00b, then this is the oldest trick in the Primate meta-book:

1) The bald, extreme, self-serving assertion framed to look like a rational, moderate statement, which begets the

2) Reaction, usually conveying surprise and injury and disgust that such a verbal fart as it were has been allowed to linger, with rapid counter assertion referring to actual historical fact.

3) Counter-reaction, in which initial ####-disturber says, basically, link or it didn't happen. Vlad, in the other thread, has taken this to typical extreme. Far more often than not, this shuts the argument down, and you get your masturbatory backslappy. Since your silly assertion above flatters Primate groupthink as these things usually do, it becomes fake history, reinforces said groupthink. This happened so much and so often, especially to Backlasher, who had the most energy of all of the anti-Cheater Primates, that I made an effort to save steroids threads, to prove that, for instance, "you" ####### bloody well DID call everyone who merely voiced suspicion that Barry Bonds did steroids "horrible character assassins"; or that, yes, Steve Treder DID seriously argue that what Barry Bonds accomplished at such a late age was no big deal by highlighting the definitive, slam-dunk example of Lee Lacy's career; and so on. I put those threads or had them put on the Primer Wiki, but now that it's apparently gone people like you can go right back to saying (or begin to say, as it may be in the case of n00bs) oh so straight-faced and "rationally" that the steroids-lovers have been the epitome of dispassionate reason and of course get no pushback to your delusions because what you say flatters groupthink.

Edit: coke to Joe Bivens
   89. bachslunch Posted: January 24, 2014 at 08:01 AM (#4645494)
No, the debate shifted over time. First, the "apologists" claimed "no proof". Then, when proved, they claimed "no benefit". Then, when benefit was proved, or, admitted, the argument became "but what about amps?"

Could you show that the position necessarily "shifted" rather than being several concurrent points?

I'm also interested to see the argument that benefit was conclusively proved -- and if it indeed happened was due only to steroids.
   90. Jim Kaat on a hot Gene Roof Posted: January 24, 2014 at 08:12 AM (#4645495)
Link with charts and graphs, sworn affidavits, blood tests, IP addresses, diagrams of chemical reactions of steroids in the human body, etc, plz, Joe, or none of it happened.
   91. Chip Posted: January 24, 2014 at 09:19 AM (#4645502)
Link with charts and graphs, sworn affidavits, blood tests, IP addresses, diagrams of chemical reactions of steroids in the human body, etc, plz, Joe, or none of it happened.


Hey, it works for the amps apologists.
   92. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 24, 2014 at 10:14 AM (#4645522)
No, the debate shifted over time. First, the "apologists" claimed "no proof". Then, when proved, they claimed "no benefit". Then, when benefit was proved, or, admitted, the argument became "but what about amps?"


And then when it wasn't remotely proven, and barely hinted, the argument became "He had an unfair advantage because he was so big, so it was OK for everyone else to roid to vitiate the unfair advantage." (An argument truly beyond satire.)

   93. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 24, 2014 at 10:20 AM (#4645528)
I put those threads or had them put on the Primer Wiki, but now that it's apparently gone people like you can go right back to saying (or begin to say, as it may be in the case of n00bs) oh so straight-faced and "rationally" that the steroids-lovers have been the epitome of dispassionate reason and of course get no pushback to your delusions because what you say flatters groupthink.

"Amps and roids are both performance enhancing and thus exactly the same, and you're dishonest if you think otherwise" -- the very zenith of the human yearning for rationalism.
   94. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 24, 2014 at 10:23 AM (#4645532)
to prove that, for instance, "you" ####### bloody well DID call everyone who merely voiced suspicion that Barry Bonds did steroids "horrible character assassins"; or that, yes, Steve Treder DID seriously argue that what Barry Bonds accomplished at such a late age was no big deal by highlighting the definitive, slam-dunk example of Lee Lacy's career

Barry Bonds has put on 40 pounds of muscle, his head has grown, his power numbers have exploded to unprecedented levels in his late 30s, and he hangs around known roid labs -- "CHARACTER ASSASSIN!!!!"

Frank Thomas played football at Auburn and doth protest too much -- "HIGH FIVE!!!!"
   95. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 24, 2014 at 10:25 AM (#4645533)
It really seems to me that, historically, the more strident, emotional, "it's black-and-white, no shades of gray" side in the Great Steroid Debate has been the anti-steroid zealots, not the apologists.


Well, of course. But accusing your opponent of your own failings is one of the oldest shyster tricks in the book. So what else would you expect them to say?
   96. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: January 24, 2014 at 10:41 AM (#4645540)
Bachslunch...can I show it?
If I had the time and desire, maybe.
I'm going on memory here.
And my memory isn't that the argument was
A+B+C. It was as I stated above.
I have no dog on this fight, other than to be
concerned that guys are coerced into risking their
health *in this particular manner* in order to
secure a job.

I don't equate that risk with the more accepted risks
athletes endure without the question of having to
use drugs to level the playing field.


(Don't hit me with the amps argument here please)
   97. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 24, 2014 at 10:46 AM (#4645546)
Well, of course. But accusing your opponent of your own failings is one of the oldest shyster tricks in the book. So what else would you expect them to say?


The "shades of gray" side is driven by ideology and politics (*) and is, therefore, definitionally more strident and emotional.

Not only is the faction a small niche within baseball, it's an even smaller niche within sports generally. Though roids have been banned from serious athletic competition for decades, gold medals taken away from users, star soccer, tennis, and tracksters banned for a year, two years, four years, no such rejectionist faction has grown up around those sports. Only in baseball.

The idea that this sub-sub-sub faction arose organically to coalesce around a unique devotion to "rationality," shared by no one but them, virtually defines the term "batshit insane."

(*) Which is why, as noted above, their arguments shift regularly and are entirely situational.

   98. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 24, 2014 at 11:14 AM (#4645572)
Though roids have been banned from serious athletic competition for decades, gold medals taken away from users, star soccer, tennis, and tracksters banned for a year, two years, four years, no such rejectionist faction has grown up around those sports. Only in baseball.


That's not actually true. Try and find me a single NFL fan who gives a pope #### about steroids.
   99. Ron J2 Posted: January 24, 2014 at 11:21 AM (#4645579)
I think it's also worth noting that Tour officials have in a sense implicitly accepted that riders were doping by setting more demanding courses.
   100. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 24, 2014 at 11:23 AM (#4645583)
No, the debate shifted over time. First, the "apologists" claimed "no proof". Then, when proved, they claimed "no benefit". Then, when benefit was proved, or, admitted, the argument became "but what about amps?"


And then when it wasn't remotely proven, and barely hinted, the argument became "He had an unfair advantage because he was so big, so it was OK for everyone else to roid to vitiate the unfair advantage." (An argument truly beyond satire.)

A cynic might just say it's all about their boyhood sabermetric heroes.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
HowardMegdal
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3958 - 7:40pm, Jul 31)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogMinnesota Twins sign Kurt Suzuki to two-year contract extension
(1 - 7:40pm, Jul 31)
Last: Jim (jimmuscomp)

NewsblogYankees land infielders Stephen Drew, Martin Prado at Deadline
(7 - 7:39pm, Jul 31)
Last: bigglou115

NewsblogHardball Talk: Calcaterra: Nationals-Orioles TV Money Dispute about to Explode
(24 - 7:39pm, Jul 31)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(549 - 7:32pm, Jul 31)
Last: J. Sosa

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-31-2014
(19 - 7:30pm, Jul 31)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogBrewers acquire outfielder Gerardo Parra from D-backs
(3 - 7:27pm, Jul 31)
Last: Gold Star - just Gold Star

NewsblogTigers To Acquire David Price
(59 - 7:25pm, Jul 31)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(1057 - 7:25pm, Jul 31)
Last: Jimmy P

NewsblogMarlins acquire Jarred Cosart from Astros in six-player deal
(1 - 7:13pm, Jul 31)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogRuben Amaro Jr., on standing pat at deadline
(4 - 7:11pm, Jul 31)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogJim Bowden Caught Stealing From Fake Twitter Account, Deletes Everything
(17 - 7:07pm, Jul 31)
Last: Joe Bivens, Minor Genius

NewsblogCardinals Acquire John Lackey
(89 - 7:03pm, Jul 31)
Last: greenback calls it soccer

NewsblogWhy the Mets Are Right to Save the New York State Pavilion
(16 - 7:03pm, Jul 31)
Last: Srul Itza

NewsblogJULY 31 2014 OMNICHATTER/TRADE DEADLINE CHATTER
(334 - 7:00pm, Jul 31)
Last: Dock Ellis on Acid

Page rendered in 0.9573 seconds
54 querie(s) executed