Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A-Roid

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    A-Roid

    4 sources told Sports Illustrated that Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids in 2003 (the first of his MVP years). Those were, theoretically, the anonymous tests to determine whether there was enough of a steroid problem in baseball to warrant regular testing.

    Normally, I'd be outraged that the government leaked this evidence, but my dislike of A-Rod is so great, that the schadenfreude has obliterated that outrage.

    By the way, it's just shocking that Jose Canseco has easily been the most credible person affiliated with MLB when it comes to steroid use.

    #2
    A-Roid

    busted.

    Comment


      #3
      A-Roid

      Are there any baseball players not on steroids?

      Comment


        #4
        A-Roid

        I have been calling him 'A-Roid' for years, but do I get any credit for it? All sorts of people are coming out of the woodwork claiming it as their own.

        I'm angry and I'm not going to take it.

        Comment


          #5
          A-Roid

          Eggchaser wrote:
          Are there any baseball players not on steroids?
          Yeah, the not very good ones.

          Comment


            #6
            A-Roid

            I'll give you credit, FF.

            Comment


              #7
              A-Roid

              Thanks, Gyuri, much appreciated.

              I think Jose Canseco was the most shocking of the bunch, but ever since Pete Rose's gambling activities were exposed, nothing really shocks me any more. I more often shocked to learn that a professional sports figure is clean and honest. In a good way, but shocked all the same.

              Comment


                #8
                A-Roid

                At least I give him props for his quote that was like Jimmy Swaggart after the televangelist got busted with a hooker for the 4th time: "I ain't sayin a word, and it's no one's gottam bizness."

                The Yanks will certainly miss his awesome ability in grounding out to 2nd base come October.

                Comment


                  #9
                  A-Roid

                  I hate the phenomenon of A-Rod. Not Alex Rodriguez himself--he seems like one of the most boring athletes imaginable in terms of his personality. I hate the media attention around him and being told I need to have an opinion on A-Rod.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    A-Roid

                    Is he the one who's riding Madonna?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      A-Roid

                      Was.

                      She appears to have exchanged him for a newer Brazilian model.

                      Am I a bad person for hoping against hope that Jeter is next?

                      Comment


                        #12
                        A-Roid

                        I don't care who is next.

                        I'm personally looking forward to baseball coming crashing down and having to rebuild itself.

                        I'm really not very interested in major league baseball these days. It seems so pointless to care about a sport in which only a few teams really matter. Unless you're a Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, or Dodgers, there's no point in becoming at all sentimental about your players because all the good ones will be traded to either of those teams sooner or later.

                        I still like the game, though. I'm going to just focus on watching college baseball and minor league baseball this year. At least it's cheap.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          A-Roid

                          UA,

                          I think that hoping that Jeter is next is prima facie evidence that you're a good person.

                          Reed,

                          As a fan of the Phillies, I have to disagree with you (though I may have written something similar a couple of seasons ago).

                          Comment


                            #14
                            A-Roid

                            I am very hurt by this... thank fuck he was playing for the Huns, as we have enough problems of our own (although at least the NYY now have pitching).

                            I am completely unsurprised: not at his taking, or indeed admission, but in how the powers that be (MLB?) have taken such a 'fuck it, it was years ago' stance, on this.

                            So, are we to expect a drug free year?

                            (If there was such a thing as a nostlgiac test, I wonder how many 100mph fast balls there would be?)

                            Can this be the the 2009 baseball thread please?

                            Comment


                              #15
                              A-Roid

                              As a fan of the Phillies, I have to disagree with you (though I may have written something similar a couple of seasons ago).
                              Which part do you disagree with?

                              Comment


                                #16
                                A-Roid

                                Reed,

                                I disagree with these parts (numbering is mine):

                                (1)I'm really not very interested in major league baseball these days. (2)It seems so pointless to care about a sport in which only a few teams really matter. (3)Unless you're a Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, or Dodgers, there's no point in becoming at all sentimental about your players because all the good ones will be traded to either of those teams sooner or later.
                                (1) I'm very interested in baseball these days, partially b/c the Phillies won the World Series last year and have a good chance to compete this coming season.

                                (2) The last World Series was contested by the Phillies and the Rays. 2007 by the Red Sox and Rockies. 2006 by the Cards and Tigers. 2005 by the White Sox and Astros. That's eight different teams competing for the World Series in the last 4 seasons. Given that getting to the World Series is the point of baseball, and different teams have made the WS each of the last 4 years, I think that there are lots of teams that matter.

                                (3) All of the key Phillies players that the team wanted to keep are signed for the next three years, and nearly all of them are home grown. Same with the Rays. The rich teams do get a disproportionate share of the expensive free agents, but (a) they don't get all of them, (b) they often get them when they are passed their prime, and (c)and getting them doesn't mean that they are going to win. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Cubs, Dodgers, Yankees and R. Sox are likely to win the offseason most years, and winning the offseason keeps them competitive in a way that the poorer teams aren't, but winning the offseason isn't the same thing as winning.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  A-Roid

                                  I'm curious to hear more about these Dodgers that are hot-stove wizards. That doesn't sound like the Dodgers I follow.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    A-Roid

                                    Yeah, that should really be Mets rather than Dodgers. Although the Andruw Jones signing last season was thought, mistakenly, to be a big deal.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      A-Roid

                                      You can't really "disagree" with my assurtion that I'm not interested, but I know what you mean.

                                      The Phillies are a "mid-market" team and they've also been the beneficiaries of some spectacular choking by the Mets. But that doesn't really undercut my overall point that teams of different size markets aren't really playing the same game.

                                      1) The "new" division structure and the wildcard offset a lot of the advantages of the rich teams.

                                      For example, a team like the Twins can compete in the AL Central every year. They wouldn't be nearly so successful in the East.

                                      Having six divisions and a wild-card opens up playoff spots for teams that in the past would have been out of it. And once the playoffs start anything can and does happen. But then people bitch that an "undeserving" team like the Cardinals of a few years ago win it all.

                                      That's ok, but I think it's a worse state of affairs then when there was no wildcard, but small market teams still had a chance.

                                      2) The Yankees and Red Sox are competitive EVERY DAMN YEAR. Most other teams have to rebuild and hope to get it right during a very small window before having to rebuild again.

                                      The rich teams margin of error in both the draft and free-agent pool is large. Lesser teams only have a chance if they gamble successfully many times in a row.

                                      The Rays got where they did by sucking for a long time and getting lots of high draft picks and using them well. So in order for the fans to get that one great run, the price was many years of suckitude. Yankees and Red Sox fans never have to pay that price.

                                      Also, it's very unlikely that they'll be able to keep that core group of players in place once they get old enough to become free agents. They'll have to start all over again. That's part of Billy Beane's approach. Despite Scott Boras' efforts, players on their first contract can often be had for far less than their open market value. So the key is to draft smart and then don't get too sentimental about the players and let them go in free agency later if you have to.

                                      The Yankees and Red Sox can afford to be sentimental. I like Jason Varitek as much as the next guy, but he's ridiculously overpaid. Only the Red Sox, Yankees and maybe a couple of other teams could afford that luxury.

                                      3) We haven't really seen the full purchasing power of the Yankees and the Mets. Once their new Death Stars, er, Stadiums are fully operational, they will become even richer (unless the economy never recovers) and nothing will be able to stop them.

                                      4) I agree with Inca. The Dodgers are sort of the anti-A's in terms of their income/smarts ratio.

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        A-Roid

                                        I grant your point about the Red Sox and the Yankees, but it takes intelligence on top of just money to be competitive, and being competitive isn't the same as always winning.

                                        Also, I'm not sure what period you think was better than the current one, though. If we look at the World Series in the '70s, you have:

                                        Reds--4
                                        Orioles--3
                                        A's--3
                                        Dodgers--3
                                        Yankees--3
                                        Pirates--2
                                        Mets--1
                                        Red Sox--1

                                        In other words, as many teams have made the World Series in the past 4 years as did throughout 1970-1979, in the pre-Wild Card era (and if you include 1969, that's another appearance each for the Mets and the Orioles).

                                        If we are talking large market teams dominating, well in the 70's LA, NY and Boston accounted for 8 of the 20 teams (nearly half). In the past 4 years, only 2 of the 8 WS contenders were from the large baseball markets (Red Sox and White Sox).

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          A-Roid

                                          After writing my immediately prior post, it occurs to me that you probably like the dominance of just a few teams in the '70s over the current situation (even if there's been more parity), b/c small market teams could build a dynasty, and that's much tougher to do today. It seemed to be more of a meritocracy than a plutocracy.

                                          However, I'm not sure that's ("that" being equal to the strawman I erected in your name) an entirely fair reading, though (I'd bet that the best teams in the '70s were also among the higher payroll teams), it's just that the drivers for financial success have changed from local fan support/owner wealth (which favors rich owners and a rabid regional fan base) to TV revenue and merchandising (which favors teams with large TV markets).

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            A-Roid

                                            I think that supports my point.

                                            The wild card masks inequalities by giving lesser teams a shot. I agree that once the playoffs start, anything can happen. But over a regular season, the team's "real" talent level will show itself.

                                            Also, you conveniently only compared the last four years to the 1970s. Why not look at the 1995 (first year of wild card, first year post strike) through 1998? Five teams represented, including San Diego who got swept.

                                            Also, if I were to pick a better era, it would be the 1980s, not the 1970s. In the 1980s, there were no repeat champions (I think) and nobody even got there two years in a row except Oakland.

                                            A better comparison for the purposes of explaining what I'm trying to would be to look at diversity of all playoff participants. But I don't have that information available.

                                            Another reason why there's been more diversity in recent years is because the non-Yankees, Red Sox and Mets only have a short time to strike while the iron is hot before having to sell their players (most famous example. Florida. Twice!!) leaving room for another flash in the pan to make it's mark. Meanwhile, the Mets, Yankees and Red Sox don't have to worry about such things.

                                            [Edit: I saw your new post which says some of this same stuff, but I'll say it anyway]

                                            That wasn't the case in the 1970s. One reason why the 1970s lacked diversity in WS participants was because a few of those teams kept their core together and were good for a long time, including the Reds, A's Pirates, and Orioles. Fans were able to really "invest emotionally" in Johnny Bench, Willie Stargell, Jim Palmer, et al.

                                            There is really no chance that any of those four teams could build a dynasty like that now. If they managed to get a good team together, it wouldn't stay together. But the Yankees can and did build a dynasty in this era.

                                            I guess I don't support your premise that World Series are the only measure of what matters or what should matter.

                                            Part of what has always made baseball popular and still makes it popular some places, is that fans think they know a player and that the player cares about them. For example, Yankee fans often say Jeter is a real Yankee while A-Rod is not. Red Sox fans love Papi and Varitek as one of "their own" but Damon is a "traitor." Can you imagine Pirates fans, such as they are, booing anybody as a "traitor" or debating who is a "real Pirate?" For that matter, even fans of the Twins, who are pretty successful, don't think like that. They can't afford to. Few if any Minnesotans booed Tori Hunter when he came back. Why bother? They were resigned to him leaving as soon as he became a star.

                                            Pennant races used to mean something and it was cool to have something significant decided by a table instead of a knock-out. This was fairly unique in US sports.

                                            Now they do sometimes - the AL Central has been good the last few years - but overall, not so much. But if we went back to just two tables and no wildcard, we'd see a lot fewer teams making it to the world series.

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              A-Roid

                                              I used the last 4 seasons b/c you said you weren't interested in baseball "these days", which I interpreted to mean, well, the recent past. Further, if we use 1995-1998, that's 4 seasons with 5 teams making up the 8 total WS entrants, which is over 50% which is better than the '70s.

                                              You also said that it's really the diversity of all playoff participants. You can find this here. It's hard to compare the '70s to the last 4 years for several reasons, but:

                                              In the '70s, there were 40 total playoff spots and 14 teams made the playoffs.

                                              In the last 4 years, there were 36 total playoff spots and 20 teams made the playoffs. If you want to compare only the League Championship Series, then there were 16 spots and 11 teams filled them (nearly as many teams as in over 2x as many games in the '70s). And if you want to stretch it out for the last decade, you'll still find a much greater variety of teams.

                                              As for teams not staying together, or fans only liking teams b/c they stay together, well, let's take the 1980 Phillies (one of my favorite teams of all time). 4 of their 8 starters in the field were imports, as well as their best pitcher and their closer. Further, nearly all of their starters were gone from the team within 3 years of the '80 championship. So it wasn't exactly like I was watching the same players year in and year out while I was growing up. Also, take a look at those A's teams in the '70s, and you'll notice that most of their players were only there for a few seasons, and none of them spent their whole careers there. To a lesser extent this is true of the Pirates as well.

                                              Also, you said that there aren't pennant races anymore, and while that's technically true (as the pennant is now decided by the 2nd round of the playoffs), 3 of the last 4 seasons have had two divisions and the wildcard in the NL come down to the last week of the season.

                                              Anyway, despite my many words to the contrary, it's not really worth arguing much more about this, as I'm pretty sure I'm not going to convince you that baseball is good now and we're arguing on so many different points that I'm having trouble keeping it straight.

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                A-Roid

                                                Thanks for crunching the numbers on the playoff spots. That is not what I expected. Of course, it's slightly offset by expansion. More teams means there's likely to be more teams going to the playoffs.

                                                And what I said about the "flash in the pan" phenomena. See the advantage of arguing both sides of a question as I have? I can't lose!! Hah.

                                                I'm more frustrated with what I perceive to be the game's direction more than where it's been in the last few years (although obviously where it has been indicates where it is going).

                                                I'm mainly bitter about the ticket prices and the publicly funded stadiums that are built mainly to satisfy corporate box holders. I've also noticed that most of the games top players are either arrogant pricks or have no personality at all. That's probably always been true, however.

                                                I'm less concerned about what's happening at the top, then the fact that the league and it's "corporate partners," i.e. ESPN, are satisfied to just hype up a half dozen teams and don't care at all that there are about a half dozen teams that are completely hopeless.

                                                I also hate this shit about the all-star game determining home field advantage in the series. It's not a huge deal, but it's symbolic of how Bud runs things.

                                                Instead of comparing eras, the better comparison would be to compare how things are now versus how they would be if baseball had a salary cap. And we don't know what that would be like.

                                                My guess is that it would be a bit like the NFL. That wouldn't necessarily mean we'd see more diversity of champions. The NFL experience suggests that some teams build good organizations that no how to stay competitive within the cap and some teams do not. But it would be a different set of teams at the top than we have now.

                                                In a salary capped MLB, I think the Yankees would really suck for a while. They had some of their worst years in the 1960s right after the draft was instituted because they didn't know how to function when they couldn't just outbid everyone for the best prospects. If every team had the same resources, why would a talented GM chose to work for Hank Steinbrenner? I suspect the A's and the Twins would be very good.

                                                I don't know how much better the Reds, Pirates and Royals would do. They aren't very well run now, but maybe in a salary cap situation they could attract better front office and scouting talent.

                                                You watched some of the same players year in and out in the 1980s. Mike Schmidt, Mike Schmidt's Mustache, Steve Carlton, hmmm, I think Von Hayes was there for about 30 years.

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  A-Roid

                                                  I think the perception about things not being competitive could also come down to who finishes first and second in divisions--it always seems like it's just two teams going for first and second in some of the divisions (Tampa of course changing things last season, but really...can you predict any situation in which Toronto or Baltimore ever finish first or second in the AL East again?). In the AL West, it's Oakland and Anaheim. In the NL West, Arizona and now the Dodgers. The Central divisions always seem unpredictable, but now it seems like Chicago is good for at least second, and now without Sabathia, Milwaukee might fall back down again. In the East, well, I already mentioned the AL, and in the NL East, it's NY and Atlanta.

                                                  Comment

                                                  Working...
                                                  X