Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

AP: Pujols irked about getting left on All-Star bench by La Russa

Albert Pujols was angry about being left on the All-Star bench and the St. Louis slugger took aim at the National League manager—who just happened to be Tony La Russa of his own Cardinals.

“It’s the All-Star game. He can do what he wants,” Pujols said Tuesday night. “He does whatever he wants. If I wasn’t expecting to play, I wouldn’t have come up here.”
...
“If he wants to get upset, he can get upset,” La Russa said. “Whatever he wants to do, he can do. It’s America. That wasn’t the most important thing tonight.”
...
Pujols and Texas shortstop Michael Young—last year’s All-Star game MVP—were the only position players who didn’t get into the game. Ever since the 2002 event ended in an extra-innings tie, managers have tended to hold a hitter back just in case.

La Russa said he indeed was saving his star player in case the game went long. “Once we lost (Miguel) Cabrera and (Freddy) Sanchez, he was the guy we were going to use to protect ourselves in case we kept playing because of Albert’s versatility,” La Russa said

NTNgod Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:04 AM | 250 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: cardinals

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 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. Rich Rifkin I Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:09 AM (#2437188)
On behalf of every American League fan, let me be the first to thank Tony La Russa for being a complete idiot. Nice job.
   2. SouthSideRyan Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:10 AM (#2437189)
You're not the only one Albert.
   3. Old Matt Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:10 AM (#2437190)
The fix was in.
   4. JJ1986 Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:14 AM (#2437193)
We shouldn't blame La Russa that much. It's a smart idea in the All Star game to hold back a good hitter for when you run into a key situation like having the tying and winning runs in scoring position with two out in the bottom of the ninth.
   5. Law Boy Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:15 AM (#2437195)
Clueless Tony.
   6. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:16 AM (#2437196)
What makes anyone in the world think that seeing Albert Pujols bat against F-Rod, down one run with the bases loaded and two outs in the bottom of the ninth would have been interesting? He might've walked!
   7. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:16 AM (#2437197)
OH MY ####### GOD!

FIRE TONY LARUSSA!
   8. Internet Commenter Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:17 AM (#2437198)
Aaron Rowand was due!

How long until LaRussa alienates Carpenter?
   9. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:18 AM (#2437199)
seriously, this is a bigger blunder than leaving Pedro Martinez in in game 7 of the 2003 ALCS. at least there you could have SOME justification and chance of it working out, even if it was wrong. in a context neutral situation, Tony LaRussa is dumber than Grady ####### Little.

#### you, tony. no wonder it took you so ####### long to win a WS with the cardinals, no matter how much talent they had they still had to get past your vortex of SUCK.
   10. EddieA Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:22 AM (#2437200)
#4 - awesome
   11. Northpaw Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:22 AM (#2437201)
Pujols was being held back to pitch extra innings.
   12. Phil Coorey. Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:24 AM (#2437202)
no wonder it took you so ####### long to win a WS with the cardinals, no matter how much talent they had they still had to get past your vortex of SUCK.


He didn't win jack ####. The Padres, Mets and Tigers lost it.

What a wanker. Amazingly sad finish and I was supporting the AL obviously. I feel robbed knowing he didn't give his team the best chance to win, but gave two at bats to Aaron 'highlight reel' Rowand!!!

Get me a bucket.
   13. SouthSideRyan Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:26 AM (#2437204)
Wasn't mention made about how LaRussa liked Sanchez being versatile. Therefore, wouldn't it make some sense to have him be the emergency guy? Since ya know, he sucks?
   14. CraigK Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:29 AM (#2437210)
He wasn't hurt or anything?

That tears it. See ya in Cincinnati, ya old coot.
   15. NTNgod Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:30 AM (#2437211)
I feel robbed knowing he didn't give his team the best chance to win, but gave two at bats to Aaron 'highlight reel' Rowand!!!

There's no need to tear down Rowand to criticize LaRussa's decision to not hit Pujols there... Rowand has a 124 OPS+ (Beltran, for comparison, is at 118).
   16. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:30 AM (#2437212)
Breathalyzers must be installed in all major league dugouts. The time has come!
   17. Dag Nabbit at ExactlyAsOld.com Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:34 AM (#2437217)
seriously, this is a bigger blunder than leaving Pedro Martinez in in game 7 of the 2003 ALCS.

This is on the short list of the most asinine things I've ever read at btf. Leaving in Pedro in Game 7 cost a team a pennant. Not putting in Pujols cost some team (almost certainly not the Cards) a shot at home field advantage in the sport where said advantage matters the least.

He didn't win jack ####. The Padres, Mets and Tigers lost it.

Oh barf. It's the third time he's beaten the Pads in the ALDS, the Mets played a good series, and he had his club performing better than the Tigers.

Leaving Pujols out of the game was a boneheaded move. In plain point of fact, making a boneheaded move in the ASG matters less than in any other game from April to October.
   18. Repoz Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:39 AM (#2437218)
More drowning dogs!...More Dane Cook!...More Zelassko y botoxic lips!...Less Pujols!
   19. Phil Coorey. Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:41 AM (#2437220)

Oh barf. It's the third time he's beaten the Pads in the ALDS, the Mets played a good series, and he had his club performing better than the Tigers.


It's ok, I'm over it now.

Padres left 6 million guys on base from what I recalled.
   20. BeanoCook Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:46 AM (#2437221)
When I saw LaRussa pull Prince Fielder, the leading vote getter in the NL, after the 4th inning, and the 1st starter benched, I figured he was clearing room for his guy Pujols. Wrong!

What happened to this being a showcase of the best players in the world? What a treat to have A Pujols, the best hitter of the past 5 season up in a situation like that, down 1, 2 outs in the 9th, chance for immortality. It is not like Pujols had a great World Series, give the man a chance. This and the broadcast team dwelling on PEDs, once again, for an entire inning, it is amazing baseball continues to grow. They take it for granted.

Seriously, if I had a vote for Hall of Fame and LaRussa came up on July 9th, 2007, I would have voted him in, easy. Now, today, July 11th, I would vote no and I would not change. Ever. It is that bad.

Screw you LaRussa!
   21. jamcadbury Posted: July 11, 2007 at 06:08 AM (#2437225)
I'm an AL fan and I'm probably as pissed as most NL fans about this.

LaRussa is a ####### joke, an idiot and a disgrace. And that goes far beyond what happened tonight, too.
   22. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: July 11, 2007 at 06:36 AM (#2437229)
This is on the short list of the most asinine things I've ever read at btf. Leaving in Pedro in Game 7 cost a team a pennant. Not putting in Pujols cost some team (almost certainly not the Cards) a shot at home field advantage in the sport where said advantage matters the least.

where's the last part of my comment? in a context neutral environment (i.e. if the games were of the same importance) LaRussa's move was even stupider than Littles.

perhaps you should check a little closer before you start saying something is the most asinine thing you've ever heard. i think i've said more asinine things than that quote here within the past two days, myself.
   23. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: July 11, 2007 at 06:49 AM (#2437234)
Eh, Frankie woulda gotten him out, anyway.
   24. Phil Coorey. Posted: July 11, 2007 at 06:57 AM (#2437236)
I don't even know what asinine means. I just know that TLR is an idiot.

Eh, Frankie woulda gotten him out, anyway.


Yeh! It was fun having the little fella on our side for once. Loved the 4 pitch walk for the standard heart attack I didn't really want; though.
   25. Law Boy Posted: July 11, 2007 at 06:57 AM (#2437237)
I think he would have walked.
   26. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: July 11, 2007 at 07:08 AM (#2437238)
Frankie was a bit off -- probably because he didn't really get to warm up as he usually would.

Not that Fox was covering the game, but it did look like he probably struck out Derrek Lee. We were deprived an angle from the side, of course, making it all guess-work, just as we were deprived angles that really showed that fan reaching out to catch Carl Crawford's "home run".
   27. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: July 11, 2007 at 07:10 AM (#2437239)
Loved the 4 pitch walk for the standard heart attack I didn't really want

Wait, you CARED about the game? lolol
   28. Chris L Posted: July 11, 2007 at 07:27 AM (#2437241)
Ordinarily I would have no problem with a manager choosing to hold back oa veteran All Star with many All Star games to come, health permitting, in deference to players who may only have this one chance to live the All Star experience. And it should be more palatable when the player who doesn't get an at bat or an inning with the glove players for the manager in charge; at least you can't accuse anyone of favoritism; moreover, the player and his manager should be able to reach an understanding as to why he was held out.

However, it is absolutely insane for a manager to keep Albert Pujols on the bench with the game on the line in deference to Orlando Cabrera and Aaron Rowland no matter the circumstance. Pujols was the only right call at that juncture. Certainly with two outs. Terrible managing by LaRussa. It won't matter to the Cardinals but the NL Champion can thank LaRussa for playing the opening (and potential concluding) games in hostile territory.
   29. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: July 11, 2007 at 07:43 AM (#2437243)
Orlando Hudson, but point taken.
   30. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: July 11, 2007 at 07:49 AM (#2437244)
It won't matter to the Cardinals but the NL Champion can thank LaRussa for playing the opening (and potential concluding) games in hostile territory.

The notion that Pujols would have won the game ... well, that's just not a fait accompli.
   31. Phil Coorey. Posted: July 11, 2007 at 08:01 AM (#2437245)
Wait, you CARED about the game? lolol


A little yes, and you take the lol directed at me and jam it up your ass. I wasn't on life support like most Red Sox games, however...

I hate seeing Ortiz play at first and like to know that if the Red Sox make the world series they might get home field advantage.
   32. Craig Calcaterra Posted: July 11, 2007 at 09:57 AM (#2437251)
The notion that Pujols would have won the game ... well, that's just not a fait accompli.


And of course thanks to TLR, we'll never know.
   33. Padgett Posted: July 11, 2007 at 11:51 AM (#2437262)
Not that Fox was covering the game, but it did look like he probably struck out Derrek Lee. We were deprived an angle from the side, of course, making it all guess-work
I had the same thought. It's like Fox had a hundred cameras planted in the ground in front of the plate but none capable of showing a side angle.

Maybe it wasn't just Fox, though. I thought the camera work during the Home Run Derby was rather poor as well. For some of those huge bombs by Vlad and Holliday, the best angle they could come up with was underneath and in front of the path of the ball.
   34. salvomania Posted: July 11, 2007 at 11:52 AM (#2437263)
I was having fun noticing the pitches that were missed by FOX because of their inane cutaways and full-screen graphics; it was more than a few.

Some of us fans like to see the part of the sequence that occurs before the instant the ball pops into the catcher's mitt.

Oh, and by the way, Tony sucks. I guarantee you, Tony's thought process was working like this: once it looked like their might be a tie game leading to extra innings, there's no way Pujols was going into the game in the 9th. TLR was relishing the idea that he'd have this giant club coming off the bech to hit in extra innings, and everyone would think, Omigod, BRILLIANT---who would have thought to save a great slugger for extra innings? Tony!!!
   35. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: July 11, 2007 at 12:03 PM (#2437264)
I bow to Jim Leyland in appreciation for not using Okajima.
   36. The Bones McCoy of THT Posted: July 11, 2007 at 12:26 PM (#2437267)
ALL MOD CONS Posted: July 11, 2007 at 04:01 AM (#2437245)

Wait, you CARED about the game? lolol


Don't laugh. Heck, I'm jealous. I sure wish I could have cared about the game like that.

That's the whole problem with the ASG....folks stopped caring.

It's nice to see that not all have stopped having feelings about it. I hope one day there will be a commissioner that will be able to restore some of its luster.

Best Regards

John
   37. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 11, 2007 at 12:28 PM (#2437269)
Not that Fox was covering the game, but it did look like he probably struck out Derrek Lee. We were deprived an angle from the side, of course, making it all guess-work, just as we were deprived angles that really showed that fan reaching out to catch Carl Crawford's "home run".

Since McCarver runs on like a six pack of gonorrhea about every little detail, I was amazed that he didn't notice that Lee obviously didn't check his swing. And IIRC, the correct call would've ended the game right there.
   38. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 11, 2007 at 12:34 PM (#2437270)
It's nice to see that not all have stopped having feelings about it. I hope one day there will be a commissioner that will be able to restore some of its luster.

Pay the manager and the players of the winning team $500,000 each, pay the manager and players of the losing team nothing, and let the managers pick the entire rosters so that they'll have no excuses. And have a drawing at home plate after the game where the winning fan gets a choice of either banging or shooting the Star Spangled Banner or God Bless America singer in all their screeching glory.
   39. Zonk demands an audit of your post Posted: July 11, 2007 at 12:37 PM (#2437273)
That's one good thing that may come from this game -- Pujols outta St. Louis!

Psstt... Albert, Tony hates you! Demand a trade - or at least, get ready to leave town in 3 years.
   40. Howie Menckel Posted: July 11, 2007 at 12:37 PM (#2437274)
Andy,
Many posters here likely would choose BOTH options as the winning fan - some of them even in the same order you suggest.
   41. Starring RMc as Bradley Scotchman Posted: July 11, 2007 at 12:39 PM (#2437275)
Wow, a Jim Leyland-managed team almost blowing a lead in the ninth? I'm shocked.
   42. TerpNats Posted: July 11, 2007 at 12:40 PM (#2437277)
All I know is that if LaRussa had used Pujols as a pinch-hitter instead of Dmitri Young with two out and none on in the ninth, he would have been booed mercilessly when the Cards visit RFK in early August...even if Young was someone else's property by then.
   43. joshtothemaxx Posted: July 11, 2007 at 12:55 PM (#2437284)
Many posters here likely would choose BOTH options as the winning fan - some of them even in the same order you suggest.


Can I choose shoot, THEN bang?
   44. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: July 11, 2007 at 01:06 PM (#2437288)
Was anyone else impressed by the discussion of steroids and bonds in the 3rd or 4th inning? I figured they'd either avoid the topic like the plague or just tear into Bonds as a cheater, jerk, etc. Credit where it's due -- I thought their discussion was reasonably balanced and thoughtful.
   45. Starring RMc as Bradley Scotchman Posted: July 11, 2007 at 01:13 PM (#2437291)
Can I choose shoot, THEN bang?

Ewwwwwwww!
   46. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: July 11, 2007 at 01:13 PM (#2437292)
Post 44:

Agreed. I was rather taken aback by Ken Rosenthal almost "spinning" for Bonds with commentary that seemed to say that BB was just the one of many who happened to get caught. I know the folks in the Game Chatter were rather annoyed, but you had to think if FOX didn't say SOMETHING they would look pretty silly. It is only the biggest ongoing saga in the sport.
   47. Padgett Posted: July 11, 2007 at 01:13 PM (#2437293)
Credit where it's due -- I thought their discussion was reasonably balanced and thoughtful.
Perhaps I should have had the volume high enough to hear something other than crowd noise. What exactly made it thoughtful?
   48. Kyle S Posted: July 11, 2007 at 01:21 PM (#2437297)
If Pujols comes in and ties the game, what does the NL outfield look like at that point? I guess Albert goes to LF and Soriano slides over to CF?
   49. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: July 11, 2007 at 01:22 PM (#2437298)
As to Albert, I have run through that ninth inning in my small cranium several times and get this output:

--I "get" letting JJ bat. There are two outs, he is a home run threat himself, if the game does get tied he is the only legit SS remaining, and Albert has been reduced to hitting singles and doubles for the past four weeks.

--Certainly get letting Derek Lee bat. Lee is a fine hitter in his own right, he's got extra base power if not homer power right now (check his total folks), and he's warm facing a tough pitcher versus a guy coming off the bench.

--Do NOT get letting Hudson bat. All you need now is a single and while Albert is still coming off the bench Pujols versus Orlando Hudson is a colossal mismatch.

Well, the Rowand thing is inexplicable. You know, you KNOW that Frankie is going to throw fastball strikes as his breaking stuff is clearly not cooperating. Albert Pujols on one leg can hit ANYONE'S fastball.

And for those thinking that Leyland might remove Frankie for someone who isn't a step down? He's certainly not brining in a LEFTY to face Albert. And give me Pujols versus Bobby Jenks any day. And Lackey was held in reserve in case the game went extras.

Tony is a really smart guy. He's won a lot of games at the highest level. But I don't "get" this decision-making.
   50. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: July 11, 2007 at 01:23 PM (#2437300)
As HW points out, Rosenthal noted that we'll never know exactly who did what, and that it's possible that Bonds was just one of many players using performance enhancers. And Buck (I think) noted that Bonds deserved to be in the AS game given the tremendous season he's having, and that, whether they love him or hate him, fans want to see Bonds perform. There was very little judgment or moralizing one way or the other -- they mostly just noted the realities of the situation.
   51. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 11, 2007 at 01:25 PM (#2437303)
Can I choose shoot, THEN bang?

Good question, josh.

Overheard in the Brass Rail pool room, East Main Street, Durham, N.C., circa 1970. Lazily sitting on the elevated shoeshine chair behind the snooker table is the house man Murt, a rather disgustingly overweight man in a dirty white T-shirt who is randomly flinging phlegms of chewing tobacco juice towards the general vicinity of a nearby spittoon. The door opens, and in walks a slightly bowed, 40ish man known only as "Cold C*ck". Verbatim dialogue follows, every word guaranteed:

Murt: Cold C*ck! (spits) F*ck*d a dead woman! Sorriest thing I ever saw! (spits again)

Cold C*ck: Murt, you was there. I didn't know she was dead! (shuffles feet)

Murt Cold C*ck! F*ck*d a dead woman! Sorriest thing I ever saw! Didn't even know her name! (spits)

Cold C*ck: Murt, how was I to know she was dead? She didn't never say nothing anyway!

Murt: Sorrier than hell. Sorriest thing I ever saw. (spits)


That was the first and only time I ever saw good old Cold C*ck, and I never got up the nerve to ask Murt for the real deal behind the story.
   52. Greg Maddux School of Reflexive Profanity Posted: July 11, 2007 at 01:31 PM (#2437308)
That's the whole problem with the ASG....folks stopped caring.

I think the problem is that people cared about a silly exhibition in the first place; having become entrenched, it will never go away no matter how little anyone cares about it now, leaving a giant hole in the middle of every season until the end of time.

Ahh, just imagine...three days of actual baseball, with the extra days off interspersed through each team's schedule. Beautiful.
   53. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 11, 2007 at 01:35 PM (#2437310)
As HW points out, Rosenthal noted that we'll never know exactly who did what, and that it's possible that Bonds was just one of many players using performance enhancers. And Buck (I think) noted that Bonds deserved to be in the AS game given the tremendous season he's having, and that, whether they love him or hate him, fans want to see Bonds perform. There was very little judgment or moralizing one way or the other -- they mostly just noted the realities of the situation.

Except that his commentary was based on a wholly unproven assumption that "70%" of the players of that era were juicing. And this in the context of not rushing to judgment before all the facts are known! Since that many players might have been guilty, we shouldn't really be passing judgment on those who we know are guilty.

If Bonds ever needs a new press agent, I know where he can find one.

I know that they had to say something, and that nothing they said could have passed without comment from one side or the other but this was as PC as PC gets, given the setting and the relationship of FOX to baseball. Pure party line crap.
   54. Padgett Posted: July 11, 2007 at 01:42 PM (#2437315)
I know that they had to say something, and that nothing they said could have passed without comment from one side or the other but this was as PC as PC gets, given the setting and the relationship of FOX to baseball. Pure party line crap.
The party line is to take a balanced approach to the PED issue? Fox is known for being "PC" and not moralizing about public figures? Buck and McCarver tend to reserve judgment on professional athletes? Now I know why I never touch the steroids threads.
   55. rr Posted: July 11, 2007 at 01:48 PM (#2437320)
I think the problem is that people cared about a silly exhibition in the first place; having become entrenched, it will never go away no matter how little anyone cares about it now, leaving a giant hole in the middle of every season until the end of time.

"Care" is a tricky term. When I was a kid in 1978, the ASG came to San Diego for the first time, and it was fun. This was of course pre-interleague play and pre-cable, pre-internet baseball, so in a time when MLB was not as overexposed as it (and most things) is now, it was exciting for fans in an NL non-contender city to see guys like Carlton Fisk and Graig Nettles in person. As a way to bring fans and players together and to promote the game, it was cool. We also saw Joe DiMiaggio a couple of feet away at the gate, said hello to him, and my dad, in his early 30s at the time, got really stoked about it.

I think what people are saying is that the fun is out of the ASG, but it is always important to remember the profile here at BTF: hard-core. And to that crowd, interleague play, Selig's "This time it counts" crap, overexposure, FOX and a blunder like TLR's can leech the fun out of an exhibition. OTOH, I am pretty sure that the casual fans I work with here at the college will come in talking about Ichiro's HR and saying it was an exciting game.

As to TLR's 9th inning "non-move", it was questionable at best and given the fact that the game now determines home field in the WS, it was totally inexcusable.
   56. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 11, 2007 at 01:51 PM (#2437322)
The party line is to take a balanced approach to the PED issue?

If your idea of "balance" is to hypothesize without any proof that 70% of Bonds's contemporaries were juicing in order to diminish the seriousness of what Bonds did, I guess so.

Fox is known for being "PC" and not moralizing about public figures? Buck and McCarver tend to reserve judgment on professional athletes?

I addressed my comment towards Rosenthal, not Buck and McCarver.
   57. Hello Rusty Kuntz, Goodbye Rusty Cars Posted: July 11, 2007 at 01:53 PM (#2437324)
Whatever he wants to do, he can do. It’s America.

Too bad for Tony that the game wasn't played in freedom-hating Canada.
   58. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: July 11, 2007 at 01:53 PM (#2437325)
rr:

TLR is a deep thinker. No, not a smart-aleck comment. The guy is a sharp man in the dugout. But I wonder if maybe he could have used a little Leo or Billy Martin at that moment. As in WHO CARES about the 10th? I can win this game RIGHT NOW!

From the Cards/Brewers games I have watched TLR does leave himself "wiggle room" should a game go extras. Maybe cfb, gb06, phredbird, or Sparkles can provide some insight. Granted, managing the ASG is different than regular season or post-season context.
   59. JC in DC Posted: July 11, 2007 at 02:01 PM (#2437333)
The party line is to take a balanced approach to the PED issue?

If your idea of "balance" is to hypothesize without any proof that 70% of Bonds's contemporaries were juicing in order to diminish the seriousness of what Bonds did, I guess so.

Fox is known for being "PC" and not moralizing about public figures? Buck and McCarver tend to reserve judgment on professional athletes?

I addressed my comment towards Rosenthal, not Buck and McCarver.


Predictably, I agree with Andy. And about Fox and PC, what Fox is known for is the same as every other network: pursuing profit. For them, that means being anti-PC on the news. On the ASG production, it means pushing the sport. The comments weren't balanced, they were an apologia for Bonds and MLB and an indictment of the bulk of players, many of whom may have done nothing wrong. We do know Bonds and some others cheated, and we know next to nothing about most of the others. It's odd, cheap, and wrong to defend one man's reputation by impugning his peers; unfortunately, as we see in politics, it's fairly common.
   60. rr Posted: July 11, 2007 at 02:05 PM (#2437338)
TLR is a deep thinker. No, not a smart-aleck comment.

This reminds me of something I heard a Bobby Valentine defender say back when Valentine was with the Mets. Someone was second-guessing some of the stuff Valentine did, and this guy--who was a New Yorker and said he knew some inside stuff about the Mets--said that Valentine was "always two or three innings, or two or three games ahead" of the rest of us, and was so smart, and thinking about so many things at once, and had this "big chess board" in his head, that we could not possibly understand what he was doing and therefore should not ever second-guess Bobby V.

One reason TLR alienates some folks (me included) is that he gives the impression of believing in his intellectual superiority, but like you said, he has had quite a career and is a smart guy. But I think he overthought this. There is no ASG tomorrow, and he owed it to whichever team winds up in the WS to fire all his bullets. WRT Leo Durocher: he said in "Nice Guys Finish Last", explaining why he pinch-hit for his only catcher in the 9th of a tight pennant-race game: "I'd rather be in the 10th without a catcher than in the clubhouse with a loss, even if we'd lost on a passed ball" [and everyone was saying I was an] "idiot."

You'll remember this when your Brewers have to open the 2007 Series at Jacobs Field instead of in Miller Park.
   61. JC in DC Posted: July 11, 2007 at 02:09 PM (#2437339)
One reason TLR alienates some folks (me included) is that he gives the impression of believing in his intellectual superiority, but like you said, he has had quite a career and is a smart guy. But I think he overthought this. There is no ASG tomorrow, and he owed it to whichever team winds up in the WS to fire all his bullets. WRT Leo Durocher: he said in "Nice Guys Finish Last", explaining why he pinch-hit for his only catcher in the 9th of a tight pennant-race game: "I'd rather be in the 10th without a catcher than in the clubhouse with a loss, even if we'd lost on a passed ball" [and everyone was saying I was an] "idiot."


I agree with this. I'm sure most people who watched the game and follow baseball a bit were wondering: when Pujols? why not now? Sometimes the simple, obvious call is the unquestionably right one. It was last night, it seems to me.
   62. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 11, 2007 at 02:17 PM (#2437343)
It's odd, cheap, and wrong to defend one man's reputation by impugning his peers; unfortunately, as we see in politics, it's fairly common.

Not to mention here on BTF, where by the tone of some of the "steroid era" comments you read, you'd think that there wasn't a clean player left in the game. And yet some of these same people also refer to "steroid McCarthyites" without either a trace of self-awareness or a sense of historical irony.
   63. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: July 11, 2007 at 02:22 PM (#2437347)
Not to mention here on BTF, where by the tone of some of the "steroid era" comments you read, you'd think that there wasn't a clean player left in the game. And yet some of these same people also refer to "steroid McCarthyites" without either a trace of self-awareness or a sense of historical irony.

But there's a difference between saying "a significant % of players were on something" and "player X was juicing." The former isn't attacking any single person and diffuses the blame.
   64. base ball chick Posted: July 11, 2007 at 02:30 PM (#2437351)
i was absolutely STUNNED when he didn't send uncle albert up to PH for o-dog. i was almost too shocked to shout what the **** are you doing leaving albert ****ing pujols sitting on his dead ass 2 outs bases loaded bottom of the 9th?????!!!!!

i could hear brad lidge all the way from colorado laughing his butt off

i mean people talk about AL "superiority" all they want but that was bout THE stupidest piece of managing i can remember seeing in the ASG.

as for barry lamar Himself, good to see him playing the good natured host just like roger clemens did here in 04. and roger gave up SIX freaking runs and homers to sori and manny. and fans from other places besides san fran voted him in. looks like he's mellowing in his old age. looks like he's learning that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar like my granma always said.

i went to the ASG here in houston in 2004 back when it was much worse for barry and what i saw watching him was that except for jeff sour kent, the other guys OBVIOUSLY liked him. same thing with this ASG.

and i liked how he said he would CERTAINLY support a-rod

the reporters were trying like heck to find SOMEthing bad to say but barry charmed them so what could they do?

yall watch and see - remember teddy b in 1999? i would bet all the people who didn't show up for his last game would have been SHOCKED how the 1999 allstars treated him

it's like my brother told me - one of the good things about getting older is that sometimes you get to understand that you don't HAVE to be an azzhole to be respected and that other guys don't respect you for being one anyhow
   65. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: July 11, 2007 at 02:30 PM (#2437352)
Also, IMO the announcers basic choices were
(1) Say nothing and avoid the topic;
(2) Strongly defend Bonds by saying he'd never been caught juicing and that steroids aren't that big a deal anyway;
(3) Attack Bonds for being a cheater who did not deserve a place at the AS game; or
(4) Acknowledge the facts -- that Bonds probably juiced, that he's still popular with the fans, that he's still a good player, and that lots of players during Bonds' era have juiced, that we'll never know exactly who did what or how steroids affected the game -- without passing judgment one way or the other.

I think (4) is the best approach. Of course, our disagreement is about whether they actually passed judgment or not -- i.e., were they defending Bonds? I didn't take it that way, but YMMV (and obviously it does).
   66. JC in DC Posted: July 11, 2007 at 02:33 PM (#2437356)
That's true, Yeargh, I grant. But if the evidence supports the latter conclusion, why not say it? And if the former is given a more specific number (as in 70%) and is not justified by evidence, why say it? There were Communist sympathizers in Congress when McCarthy went after them. But on the assumption you think it's ok to go after them, why would you accuse say the whole Democratic party w/o evidence rather than merely those men for whom evidence exists?

One of the main things that bothers me about the Buck-McCarver approach is that in essence it absolves everyone of culpability, including MLB. If "virtually everyone" was doing it, so "Bonds isn't really to blame or single out" then how do you stop it going forward? How does that not punish the guys who chose to stay clean?
   67. JC in DC Posted: July 11, 2007 at 02:40 PM (#2437366)
Also, IMO the announcers basic choices were
(1) Say nothing and avoid the topic;
(2) Strongly defend Bonds by saying he'd never been caught juicing and that steroids aren't that big a deal anyway;
(3) Attack Bonds for being a cheater who did not deserve a place at the AS game; or
(4) Acknowledge the facts -- that Bonds probably juiced, that he's still popular with the fans, that he's still a good player, and that lots of players during Bonds' era have juiced, that we'll never know exactly who did what or how steroids affected the game -- without passing judgment one way or the other.

I think (4) is the best approach. Of course, our disagreement is about whether they actually passed judgment or not -- i.e., were they defending Bonds? I didn't take it that way, but YMMV (and obviously it does).


Yeah, I take the point. I would have said something like I said before, in another thread: It's fairly clear he used steroids and gained an advantage, it's fairly clear other players did (and I would name a few), but it's also clear that as long as MLB has not sanctioned him, he belongs in the game and he's been more gracious than anyone could have imagined. So, good luck, god speed, and I hope the Mitchell report nails you and your steroid-abusing, needle-loving co-conspirators!
   68. Starring RMc as Bradley Scotchman Posted: July 11, 2007 at 02:42 PM (#2437368)
You'll remember this when your Brewers have to open the 2007 Series at Comerica Park instead of in Miller Park.

Fixed.
   69. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: July 11, 2007 at 02:43 PM (#2437371)
A fair amount of the disagreement here seems to be over Rosenthal's 70% number, and I agree that that was a little unfair. He should have just said that it's likely that a significant # of players were juicing and left it at that.
   70. JC in DC Posted: July 11, 2007 at 02:46 PM (#2437374)
I agree, Y. And if I were Selig, or an MLBPA rep, I'd criticize the hell out of him for it.
   71. SoSH U at work Posted: July 11, 2007 at 02:47 PM (#2437375)
Seriously, what was the worst that would have happened if Pujols bats for Rowand and somehow only knocks in one run? Which seems pretty improbable in itself.


Improbable with a base hit, but a walk was certainly a decent possibility, especially considering Rodriguez's control. I do agree with your overall point that the worst that could have happened wasn't really that bad. It's not like Albert was going to have to catch or play second.
   72. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: July 11, 2007 at 02:55 PM (#2437382)
If Albert pinch-hits AND assuming Leyland sticks with Frankie I think the pitches you saw to Rowand get thrown to Albert. It was F's breaking stuff that wasn't cooperating. He wasn't going to walk in the tying run. He told AR "Here it is, hit it". My guess is he takes the same approach to Albert.

And by pinch-hitting LaRussa forces Leyland's hand. JR had to like a Frankie/Aaron matchup. But with F battling control I doubt Jim Leyland was thrilled about having him face Pujols. But as I list above his options are limited. A tiring Rodriguez is still likely better than Jenks.

So in the end you have F-rod throwing fastballs to Albert Pujols. Who doesn't like that matchup for the NL?
   73. Backlasher Posted: July 11, 2007 at 02:59 PM (#2437384)
Not to mention here on BTF, where by the tone of some of the "steroid era" comments you read, you'd think that there wasn't a clean player left in the game.

Keep in mind Andy, this is the second time that coverage of PEDs in MLB has gotten a "fair and balanced" label. The first was the one that Domino dropped on Dayn Rand's piece. The one that was so far out there even Dayn ran away from it.

And just remember, it will be the same posters tomorrow that will claim the coverage of the issue is sensationalistic.

Acknowledge the facts -- that Bonds probably juiced, that he's still popular with the fans, that he's still a good player, and that lots of players during Bonds' era have juiced, that we'll never know exactly who did what or how steroids affected the game -- without passing judgment one way or the other.

None of those things are FACTS. They are six different conclusions, some tenable, some questionable, and all with an advocacy tone. Thus, its pretty damn close to passing judgement. If its a statement of facts, it wouldn't go like that. Heck, you can state facts and it would look like one of those "slanted" coverages of Bonds.

(1) Bonds has admitted to taking substances that were identified by grand jury testimony as PEDS.

(2) Bonds was voted to the All Star game.

(3) Two individuals have claimed they are responsible for over 1/3 of Bonds votes.

(4) Bonds output ranks him among the __ in Avg, __ in RBI, __ in HR ... (no need to talk about WAPR factor or VORP though).

(5) Between 5 and 7% of the players tested positive for steroids after MLB begin tested. Three other players have admitted to talking steroids.

(and I could list a lot on "we'll never know how they affected the game).

But those are facts. They could have easily said, "We don't know if Barry would have ever hit more than 40 Hrs in a year if he didn't take steroids." or "We don't know how the use of illegal drugs have affected the popularity of the player." or "We don't know if Barry is clean from PEDs at this moment." That's just as much a "fact" but not "judgment" by the standard you set up.

The party line is to take a balanced approach to the PED issue?

Balanced does not mean "how I think." I hate to burst bubbles, but I'm sure that everybody that reads this believes, "I'm moderate and so-and-so is extreme." That is rarely the case.
   74. Backlasher Posted: July 11, 2007 at 03:05 PM (#2437388)
He should have just said that it's likely that a significant # of players were juicing and left it at that.


Why should he say that. On what facts would you possibly base that CONCLUSION. You know some people are juicing. I haven't seen anything that remotely tells us how many were juicing. THe only thing that lists any number is Caminiti's 50% and Canseco's 70%; Cams is dead, Canseco has backed off his number. If his source is Canseco's abandoned number, then he can state that as his FACT.

But significant is not a fact. "Growing" is a conclusion, but one that is unlikely to get much argument.

It's fairly clear he used steroids and gained an advantage, it's fairly clear other players did (and I would name a few), but it's also clear that as long as MLB has not sanctioned him, he belongs in the game and he's been more gracious than anyone could have imagined.

I would not have significant arguments with this recitation; however, I'm not sure where we get he has been more "gracious than anyone could have imagined." How does his actions with regard to Mitchell, the GJ, the press, the fans, Greg Anderson, etc. amount to grace. In fact, where is the grace; the fact that he's going to donate his socks to Cooperstown?

He either has a number or he doesn't. Anything that he does to make a point about the people using is going to be done for advocacy purposes.
   75. Padgett Posted: July 11, 2007 at 03:07 PM (#2437391)
Allusions to Communist sympathizers make my eyes glaze over.

Look, I understand the distinction between agreeing with something merely because it accords with my own views and seeing that a position is, relatively speaking, balanced. But whether you agree with the characterization of the segment as "balanced," it is remarkable to me that someone would call the approach taken by Robo, Buck, and McCarver the "party line."
   76. TribeGuy Posted: July 11, 2007 at 03:09 PM (#2437393)
You'll remember this when your Brewers have to open the 2007 Series at Jacobs Field instead of in Miller Park.


Doesn't MLB consider Miller park home field for the Indians anyway?

If it snows in Cleveland in October let's just play the whole thing in Milwaukee.
   77. JC in DC Posted: July 11, 2007 at 03:10 PM (#2437395)
Why, Padgett? It was and is, as I argued above: it's the line that protects MLB, it protects the players association (but not the players), and it protects Fox's interests. It diverges from the facts in important respects, as BL shows, and is, in essence, ideological.
   78. Padgett Posted: July 11, 2007 at 03:18 PM (#2437398)
I'm perfectly content to disagree over my expectations of Fox as to facts and fairness.
   79. Jorge Luis Bourjos (Walewander) Posted: July 11, 2007 at 03:25 PM (#2437400)
Nice, RMc. Leyland in the dugout in the 9th was priceless. He was like "I might as well have Jason Grilli and Todd Jones out there!" He was actually quite peeved that Putz couldn't get the job done.

So LaRussa - we're going with the theory that he just outsmarted himself? I really can't figure this one out.

What the hell was A-Rod doing trying to score on Pudge's single?

Why did Zelasko announce to the crowd that Ichiro was to be a free agent when his extension was announced during the game? What a time to say something like "and MAriners fans, he's not going anywhere!"

And count me as one hardcore fan who really enjoys the all-star game. Compared to the glorified shinny that is the NHL edition, at least baseball offers up something very close to an actual competition. And I just think it's fun to watch. The announcers suck though - "You've probably never heard of Matt Holliday/Alex Rios/Placido Polanco" ad nauseum. Aside from the fact that there are people watching the game who are *gasp* Rockies/Jays/Tigers fans etc, how many millions of people (casual fans included) play fantasy baseball? Of course they know these guys.
   80. Backlasher Posted: July 11, 2007 at 03:26 PM (#2437402)
But whether you agree with the characterization of the segment as "balanced," it is remarkable to me that someone would call the approach taken by Robo, Buck, and McCarver the "party line."

No mention of:

(1) Health effects;
(2) Coercive pressure;
(3) Individual responsibility;
(4) League responsibility;
(5) Legality of action; and
(6) Cooperation with authorities.

Conclusions on:

(1) Impact of Performance enhancement;
(2) Popularity of the player;
(3) Number of players using;

That's pretty close to the advocacy playbook. They don't include really bad recitations on the conclusions (e.g. C1-It's just like LASIK, and Zack Lowenlacy saw the same level of improvement; C2- I just like to watch him play) except for actually fixing an incredibily high number to the players using. They likewise don't engage in bad sophistry on the omitted points (e.g. A1- steroids are just good vitamins; A2-People would want to take them no matter who used; A3 and A4- Its all Bud Selig's fault for allowing it to happen; and A5- It wasn't against the rules.)

The also don't advocate on political grounds of choice, or misdirect on other unsolved problems.

IOW, they carried the Bonds apologist argument by the playbook. They just did a much, much, much better job than most of the posters out here. They just ignored the bad points and didn't say the really stupid things you usually see on the internets.
   81. base ball chick Posted: July 11, 2007 at 03:29 PM (#2437403)
cmon BL

(1) Bonds has admitted to taking substances that were identified by grand jury testimony as PEDS.

- you KNOW that the testimony didn't do no such thing.
- i read all the stuff here that all the lawyers have said about GJ and testimony and about indicting ham sandwiches for murder
- and how "evidence" might not be genuine evidence like it is in a real trial. i am believeing nieporent and srul here because srul and DMN are to REALLY smart lawyers like barry lamar is to good baseball player. (yeh i am getting good at these analogs)

you don't think it is weird that the GJ transcript got leaked but the "evidence" has not been?

what's that old saying - show me the "evidence"

(3) Two individuals have claimed they are responsible for over 1/3 of Bonds votes.

- oh cmon i was KIDDING
and so was my mother


however, I'm not sure where we get he has been more "gracious than anyone could have imagined." How does his actions with regard to Mitchell, the GJ, the press, the fans, Greg Anderson, etc. amount to grace.

- well we have ALL seen/heard about how he has acted to the press/fans in the past. he spent an incredible amount of time in front of a microphone/camera and was more than pleasant and charming. as for mitchell - puhleeeeze. you know as well as i do that his mission is to prove players all bad, owners good and innocent cuz they had NO idea etc. puke. grand jury? you have GOT to be kidding - he was rude? greg anderson??? IF the belief that he is paying anderson off to rot in jail is true must be a VERY good payoff.

do you really think that bonds won't pay him off? and if he doesn't that anderson won't rat?

what does any of this got to do with "gracious"
   82. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: July 11, 2007 at 03:36 PM (#2437407)
Walewander:

I am compelled to dispute your claim that folks watching "know all these guys". Please reference the All-Star Game Chatter populated by about a hard-core set of fans possible. And they had knowledge gaps about some of the players in the game.

Unless a player is from a MAJOR market it is quite likely that a good many viewers have minimal knowledge, if any, about players UNLESS that player has been around long enough and gained sufficient stature that playing in say a Seattle (Ichiro) or an Anaheim (Vlad) is a non-issue.

I am certain that more than 60% of the viewers had no idea who JJ Hardy was or what he has accomplished so far in the 2007 season. Same with Matt Holliday. And a good many others.
   83. greenback used to say live and let live Posted: July 11, 2007 at 03:38 PM (#2437411)
That's one good thing that may come from this game -- Pujols outta St. Louis!


Heh. Somebody may leave STL if Pujols gets upset with TLR, but it wouldn't be Pujols. It'd be the guy whose contract is up at the end of the year.

Harvey, I agree with your take on TLR's thinking here. He's big on saving powder for later situations, even if those later situations could be avoiding by wheeling out the big gun NOW. That's pretty much how the 9th inning reliever was born.
   84. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 11, 2007 at 03:44 PM (#2437417)
Not to mention here on BTF, where by the tone of some of the "steroid era" comments you read, you'd think that there wasn't a clean player left in the game. And yet some of these same people also refer to "steroid McCarthyites" without either a trace of self-awareness or a sense of historical irony.

But there's a difference between saying "a significant % of players were on something" and "player X was juicing." The former isn't attacking any single person and diffuses the blame.


Yes, there's a difference. And it's worse.

If you unfairly label an individual, you're subject to lots of counterforces, ranging from laughter to a libel suit. And if you're a reporter in Rosenthal's position, you'd better be willing to back up what you say with some concrete evidence or some reasonable inferences.

But if you say what Rosenthal did, and especially if you start throwing out huge numbers like "70%"---a number that neither Buck nor McCarver disputed, much to their shame---then you've effectively tarred just about every player.

And if Player A objects, Rosenthal says, "well, not you." Or "maybe not you." Big whoops apology to a few players who may call him on it. And meanwhile you've left a big fat turd on hundreds of players who did nothing, with no more evidence than a "let's suppose."

Meanwhile the real juicers like Bonds benefit by a curious version of non-guilt by association, while Rosenthal gets to pretend that he's "balanced."

Again, the All-Star game wasn't the place to start bringing up Bonds's steroid use, and I've never said that it was. A "fair and balanced" approach might have acknowledged that use (or at least noted the strong evidence of that use), while pointing out (as I think McCarver may have done) that Bonds had achieved a HOF career before that use began. That's a wholly legitmate point, especially if you're speaking in purely HOM / statistical terms.

But to tar an entire generation of players isn't "fair." And to equate random speculation with the sort of evidence we have against Bonds isn't "balanced." It's just garden variety bullshlt.
   85. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: July 11, 2007 at 03:44 PM (#2437418)
There's got to be an article or blog post on the steroid discussion somewhere, so can someone post it, move that discussion over there, and let this thread return to its proper point: Tony Larussa is an idiot.
   86. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 11, 2007 at 03:54 PM (#2437425)
There's got to be an article or blog post on the steroid discussion somewhere, so can someone post it, move that discussion over there, and let this thread return to its proper point: Tony Larussa is an idiot.

Fine by me, but wasn't that point decided by unanimous vote somewhere around the 17th post?
   87. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 11, 2007 at 03:57 PM (#2437426)
It's hard to care about the ASG when a manager does something so bizarre like not sending Pujols up to bat in that situation. It's hard to care about the ASG when everyone and their mother plays in the game -- except for a (real) star like Pujols.

You can say "this time it counts" all you want, but until both managers show that they care about actually winning the game, it doesn't mean anything. If TLR doesn't care about winning the game, I don't know why we should.
   88. Backlasher Posted: July 11, 2007 at 03:58 PM (#2437427)
- you KNOW that the testimony didn't do no such thing.


No, it did. Nieporent's nitpick that Barry has not admitted to taking PEDS is technically correct. But the testimony identifies the unique properties of certain substances and how they can be identified both by records and by how they are contained. Bonds admits to taking substances from those records and how it was contained.

That is also illustrative of the problem in granting points and not distinguishing facts from conclusions. For instance, I'd have no real problem in granting Yearghh's conclusion that, "We will never know how much the steroids impact performance." That is close to being true, we will never precisely know. But as it is stated, it is implying that the performance impact is small, or that an inability to precisely quantify leads to a conclusion that the performance enhancement should be ignored.

There is ample evidence that would lead to a much more tenable conclusion that the performance impact is non-neglible.

Similarly, I don't know if I can grant "popularity"; however, I know its irrelevant. Bill Clinton was a popular president, perhaps the most popular president in 40 years. I like Bill Clinton. That does not mean that I approve of him having an affair with his intern, or seeking to avoid the question of the affair in deposition testimony. It doesn't mean that I think he should have been removed from the office of president.

In fact, that is one of the main problems in this discourse. Most of the Bonds apologists will split hairs on diction to an absurd level. There is very little feasible way that the substances bonds ingested and applied is not The Cream and The Clear. Yet, people will want to go to the wall on the word "the".

Then, they will want to say, "We don't know the performance impact" in the middle of a number of stringed together conclusions, and expect that no one will call them for the apologetia. Then motives will be ascribed.

The question of whether Bonds took PEDs is all but over. That was two years of hair splitting and posting on that topic. The question of whether MLB should outlaw PEDs is all but over. That covers about three years, and you still see some disguised arguments that MLB should allow 'roids. The question of the impact to honors like the HoF-- that is ongoing. There is not much else I can say--I've stated its up to the BBWAA if they want to honor the on field accomplishments over the illicit drug use. I've also predicted they will punish McGwire (which they did), but Bonds will get in.

Otherwise, I have no real advocacy position on the subject. I am merely responding to the nonsense that Conclusions are Facts, and that a Bonds apologist segment is "fair and balanced."

If one wanted to be fair and balanced, they would point/counter-point each of the relevant topics. Accentuating the "Bonds is cool" argument, and not presenting anything from the "Bonds is not cool" argument will never, ever be fair and balanced.

- oh cmon i was KIDDING
and so was my mother


Not the Texas third. This is the Bay Area third.

what does any of this got to do with "gracious"


I'm not sure what you are arguing. How Bonds acts is the measure of his grace.

This may be more of that HoF type argument.

I expect Bonds to avoid the subject of PEDS with the press. I expect him to dance around the GJ. (I don't expect the snark he leveled at them though). I expect that he will not cooperate with Mitchell.

But his performance of the expected action does not mean that he desires getting praise for acting in that manner.

I'm looking for the graciousness that he has exhibited. You state that "he spent an incredible amount of time in front of a microphone/camera and was more than pleasant and charming." Is this true, and is this the only action regarding his graciousness.

If so, when did he begin the pleasant and charming segment and stop the "how he was in the past" and how much time was spent. You could be right. He may have handled the ASG gracefully and I don't know about it. I'm really asking, b/c his normal behavior and behavior through the steroid crisis is not what I would call gracious.
   89. SouthSideRyan Posted: July 11, 2007 at 04:01 PM (#2437432)
I take issue with the idea that Lee obviously swung on that. They did show a replay, not from a great camera angle, but it certainly looked like he checked it up on the replay. Live for sure I thought he swung, but on the replay it looked pretty obvious that he didn't.
   90. Jorge Luis Bourjos (Walewander) Posted: July 11, 2007 at 04:03 PM (#2437437)
Harvey:

Sure, you are probably right. But there is a better way to introduce these players than "You've probably never heard of these guys...." Video clips. Or comparisons, eg "He's only been in the league a couple years, but Rios's grace and power remind people of Dave Winfield." That approach plays up the skills of the player and speaks to the fan in a non-condescending tone.

BTW, why are you here when you could be posting in the Lounge? I still need to get you back for that tarragon butter remark...
   91. TerpNats Posted: July 11, 2007 at 04:05 PM (#2437438)
You'll remember this when your Brewers have to open the 2007 Series at Jacobs Field instead of in Miller Park.

You'll remember this when your Brewers have to open the 2007 Series at Comerica Park instead of in Miller Park.


Either way, Fox has a fit. Mets/Cubs/Dodgers opening at Red Sox/Angels (well, as long as it's not Dodgers/Angels, since we remember how low ratings were in 2000) -- now that's more like it.
   92. rb's team is hopeful for the new year! Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:01 PM (#2437492)
Not that Fox was covering the game, but it did look like he probably struck out Derrek Lee. We were deprived an angle from the side, of course, making it all guess-work, just as we were deprived angles that really showed that fan reaching out to catch Carl Crawford's "home run".

But there were tons of crowd shots!
   93. Sam M. Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:07 PM (#2437496)
If TLR doesn't care about winning the game, I don't know why we should.

Because I don't take my cues from Tony F'ing LaRussa, that's why. I can scream at the television set that he's a moron (or at least that he plays one on TV), and I'm sure he's thinks he's a perfectly reasonable guy.
   94. Sparkles Peterson Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:12 PM (#2437498)
My guess on what went on:

Tony wanted Pujols to get the day off, as he has been dealing with the hamstring issue. That was the main reason he designated him as the last guy off the bench, the other being that he could smooth it over with him easier if he never got into the game than he could with a competing team's player. In the 9th, he just didn't think that giving the NL a slightly higher win probability was worth changing his mind on this. It was pretty clear long before the bottom of the 9th that the managers still regard this as an exhibition game.
   95. rr Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:25 PM (#2437506)
Tony wanted Pujols to get the day off, as he has been dealing with the hamstring issue. That was the main reason he designated him as the last guy off the bench, the other being that he could smooth it over with him easier if he never got into the game than he could with a competing team's player. In the 9th, he just didn't think that giving the NL a slightly higher win probability was worth changing his mind on this. It was pretty clear long before the bottom of the 9th that the managers still regard this as an exhibition game.

That sounds plausible, but if they wanted to rest Pujols' hamstring, Pujols should have not gone to the game at all, even if TLR or Jocketty had to order him to stay home. Pujols is one of those guys such that we can say with almost absolute certainty will play in more ASGs. The scenario you describe--and the results--are textbook bad personnel management (not in a baseball sense, any business): lack of communication, different agendas, not standing up and being clear, trying to have it both ways and winding up pissing everybody off.
   96. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:32 PM (#2437512)
Sparkles:

If so then TLR placed the interests of the Cardinals above the interests of everyone else involved. While TLR is paid by St. Louis in this particular instance he is league representative versus "just" a Cardinals employee.

I would like to think that Tony is above that type of thinking. Again, pretty sharp guy who understands when other things are at stake that supercede his own team's interests..........
   97. phredbird Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:35 PM (#2437518)
i kept turning over the pujols thing in my head, and i guess the only thing that makes any sense is that TLR didn't think it was right to pinch hit for a legitimate allstar like rowand. and really, its moot because rowand should have gone up there looking for a first pitch strike and taken a big hack at it. i know that's not good sabermetrics or whatever, but darn it ... rodriguez needed to throw a strike after the last two batters. not being a major leaguer, i can't tell if he really smoked it in so fast that even rowand felt like he couldn't pull the trigger, but gosh ... it was right down the pipe.
   98. rb's team is hopeful for the new year! Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:36 PM (#2437519)
He was actually quite peeved that Putz couldn't get the job done.

#### that. Putz did get the job done. That was a ####### error by roberts.
   99. rr Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:42 PM (#2437526)
i kept turning over the pujols thing in my head, and i guess the only thing that makes any sense is that TLR didn't think it was right to pinch hit for a legitimate allstar like rowand.

I might be OK with that, except:

Rowand may be a "legitimate All-Star" but Pujols is, so far, an all-time great in the class of Henry Aaron. What is Rowand going to say about it if he is pulled for Pujols? There are distinct differences even among All-Stars.

Home field advantage in the World Series is not decisive, but it is not meaningless. If you want to look at this ethically, as Harveys did, it raises another ugly question: if the Cardinals were in 1st place, and had a solid chance at winning the NL pennant, is Rowand at the plate in that spot then with Pujols in the dugout?
   100. Captain Joe Bivens, Elderly Northeastern Jew Posted: July 11, 2007 at 05:44 PM (#2437529)
"Putz". Such an unfortunate name.
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
dirk
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogBill James: The Strongest Franchises
(1 - 1:08pm, Oct 26)
Last: Adam Starblind

Newsblog2021 World Series OMNICHATTER!
(9 - 1:08pm, Oct 26)
Last: Astroenteritis

NewsblogSilver Slugger Award finalists announced
(13 - 1:04pm, Oct 26)
Last: DCA

NewsblogOpinion: Atlanta Braves make unfortunate anti-vaccine statement with Travis Tritt as NLCS national anthem singer
(94 - 12:59pm, Oct 26)
Last: Lassus

Newsblog‘Dear Rays, Montreal won’t pay for your new stadium’ billboard up near Trop
(4 - 12:58pm, Oct 26)
Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter)

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - Transfer! Kits! Other Stuff!
(478 - 12:53pm, Oct 26)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale

NewsblogDodgers Albert Pujols Hits the COVID-19 Injured List
(245 - 12:47pm, Oct 26)
Last: 57i66135 is available to babysit, for a price

NewsblogPerth Heat ‘heartbroken’ as Australian Baseball League cancels upcoming season
(14 - 12:42pm, Oct 26)
Last: Rough Carrigan

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2021 Discussion
(18 - 12:18pm, Oct 26)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogHouston vs. Atlanta Is Rob Manfred’s Nightmare World Series
(14 - 12:14pm, Oct 26)
Last: Cris E

NewsblogMLB Just Tried a Bunch of Experimental Rules in the Minors. How Well Did They Work?
(73 - 12:07pm, Oct 26)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogWhy this will be the most Jewish World Series in baseball history
(1 - 11:44am, Oct 26)
Last: reech

NewsblogReport: Yankees' Cole, Gardner had altercation after clubhouse prank
(32 - 11:32am, Oct 26)
Last: Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc

Sox TherapyMeet the 2022 Red Sox
(6 - 10:38am, Oct 26)
Last: Darren

NewsblogMajor League Baseball work stoppage almost certain on Dec. 2
(8 - 10:19am, Oct 26)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

Page rendered in 0.5829 seconds
48 querie(s) executed