Godzilla is real, he destroyed Pedro!

I try my best not to be a hater but….......... LaRussa, Big Mac and Canseco will always rank high on my list of “people I’d like to see maimed by 19th century mining implements”
If you watched Yankees games from 88-93 you would know why I feel this deep hatred. No cure for it, and I really don’t want one. I farnsin’ hate those 3 youkbags.
SG, nice find. Thanks. Wow I spelled hatered rawng.

Youkbags…classic.

/freak show

“even as he spat out the usual clichéd excuses many players have used: injuries and recovery, desperation and peer pressure, ignorance and breadwinning, culture and society.”

This is of course sophistry.

“I really do, because I was there too, just like everyone else in the major leagues then who was trying to stay there.”

You had a lot of resources other players didn’t have, and faced different pressures than McGwire.

“But the problem is, too many players made a different choice than McGwire did in the face of similar situations. I can’t claim to know exactly what he was going through during the time he decided to take steroids, but I am confident that there were other players who dealt with the same challenges and played clean. There really isn’t any excuse.”

Translated: “I believe at least three players were clean, therefore McGwire was a cheat without any excuse.”

“Too bad that McGwire’s achievement, as it turned out, wasn’t too far from the toy-cars-and-fake-explosions world of his on-screen equivalent. Entertaining, but contrived.”

Translated: “I’m going to pretend I don’t know that McGwire wasn’t a four-plus-sigma HR hitter before steroids and ascribe everything to the drugs.”

The stuff about fielding was good.

O/T because I don’t care about steroids either:  Any of the gear guys here know if it’s OK to use an HDMI splitter?  My cheap TV only has one input but I’d like to do HDMI from the DVD and the cable box both.  Will there be signal loss?

I don’t understand, [5].  Is there some thrill in demonstrating yourself to be smarter than Doug Glanville?  I always get some enjoyment out of reading a literate former player, even if his posts are always a bit of pap and 2x as long as they should be.

For as little as it matters to me, I wouldn’t be bowled over to learn that Mark M. was Lyle Alzado from day 1.  In the same way that I feel personally like A-Rod’s selective confession is nonsensical and disingenuous.  Doug may not feel much incentive to be 100% forthright in this medium, but it also wouldn’t surprise me if a guy like him genuinely was surprised.  And if the result of that is a holier-than-thou attitude, or a bit of media-ready sanctimony, who cares?  It might be natural for a guy who was clean (for all I know) with a career 78 OPS+ to think he might have had a career more like, say, Willie McGee’s if he’d succumbed to the obvious temptation.

Tell us how you really feel about the article, rilke.

I don’t think Doug G. is claiming that McGuire’s entire career could be ascribed to drugs.  He clearly states that the tape measure shots and the seemingly impossible feats McGuire accomplished seemed so unnatural to him at the time. 
Rather than claim that McGuire was a nobody who built his name off of PEDs, he seems to focus just on the period during which McGuire himself admitted to be using steroids.  He even seems to take some blame as a player who should have really known what was going on but “didn’t know how to deal with it.”

Any of the gear guys here know if it’s OK to use an HDMI splitter?

What you are looking for is actually an HDMI selector box. From what I know, as long as you buy a decent one, you shouldn’t experience signal loss. (The biggest potential signal loss with HDMI is distance) I have read some reviews on some of the “automatic” switchers that are made to switch to the device they detect as being on (which would allow you to not have to use a remote to select which device to view), but those can have problems since more devices are constantly using power when plugged in and this can fool the switcher. So, I would just try to get one that wasn’t dirt cheap and didn’t have the automatic selection deal.

[7] “I don’t understand, [5].  Is there some thrill in demonstrating yourself to be smarter than Doug Glanville?  I always get some enjoyment out of reading a literate former player, even if his posts are always a bit of pap and 2x as long as they should be.”

What, I’m supposed to patronize him because he’s a ballplayer?  He’s apparently a smart guy, I respected him by publicly treating his argument the way I privately treat any poor argument.  Plus SG recommended it.  And I do in fact enjoy his writing, and even this piece.  But I’m anti-pap and pro-concision, and this article struck me as in part very unfortunate - see below.

[8] Probably you’re correct that that’s what he thinks, but it’s not what he writes, as I read anyway.

Maybe in fact McGwire started heavy use in the MiL, or maybe he wasn’t hitting balls way out of the park as a rookie, and maybe most of the pitchers and position players back in the day were clean, but to say that before the world that there are no excuses for what McGwire did, that his achievements were fake, he has to make a coherent logical and moral argument, not one built on question-begging, insinuation, and self-praise.

“Any of the gear guys here know if it’s OK to use an HDMI splitter?”

It’s an uncompressed digital protocol, right?  I would think that it would be tolerant, esp. if you have a good short cable relative to what the standard allows.  But [9] sounds more informed than me.

but to say that before the world that there are no excuses for what McGwire did, that his achievements were fake, he has to make a coherent logical and moral argument, not one built on question-begging, insinuation, and self-praise.

I think he is properly assuming that the steroid issue is something the reader isn’t just hearing about from this article. To find fault with the guy for not starting at square one and describing what steroids are, why they are illegal and why he(and most) believe them to be cheating and inexcusable is nitpicking on an entirely uncalled for level. Just because maybe your opinion differs and the article wasn’t about what you personally wanted it to be about doesn’t make “pap.”

Replacement Level Helpdesk Weblog.

Would you prefer to know the dark truth ... OR SEE ME HIT SOME DINGERS!?

The Angels finally found a <strike>sucker</strike> taker for Gary Matthews…the NY Mets.

link

[6] Shouldn’t be an issue, like ted said, a selector box should do the job. Any surround sound receiver made now can accept multiple HDMI inputs and change them to one output, the selector box shouldn’t be any different.

I miss surround sound.

[6] Agh, just make sure you check the product to make sure that it has the HD output your looking for. Some of those things can degrade the signal down to 1080i to 720p. But most beyond the really cheap ones should have 1080p pass-through.

I really liked the piece, particularly where he talks about developing the knowledge to play CF, how he is differentiating a flyball from Todd Zeile to a flyball from Manny Ramirez.

One thing I don’t get is: he presumably has no data before he met up with Mark McGwire in 1998. Glanville came up in 1996, McGwire started playing in the NL from 1997, the same year interleague play was introduced, and McGwire did not play against his Chicago Cubs in 1997. So he did not have any data to compare against trajectory of McGwire’s shots from say 1992-93, when his steroid usage was very limited, to 1998, when his steroid usage was admittedly at a higher frequency to “keep him on the field.” So Glanville is probably in no position to separate real from “unreal”, as he calls it. He nevertheless tries to do so, but ends up making an argument that is somewhat weakly supported.

From all accounts, no one disputes the incredible power McGwire had, from his rookie season onwards. But it would have been helpful to have somebody who played regular CF against McGwire throughout to point out how the trajectory in McGwire’s flyball changed. As McGwire points out, his swing changed (as did Kirby Puckett’s as he aged), so that could explain part of things as to how he was able to hit for more power as he aged, but it can also give some anecdotal accounts of the qualitative difference between the batted ball type from a steroid-using and non-using self of a player.

But Glanville is a really talented writer. We are fortunate to have someone who combines good writing skills with intricate knowledge of the game.

I must ask this question: Am I the only one here who does not think that Glanville is a “really talented” or “very good” writer?  Sure he’s a good writer for someone who has had to devote much of his time to athletic training. I am not disputing that and I don’t mean to disrespect his ability.  I find his prose overblown.  Note that I am not comparing Glanville with Mark Twain; I do not believe SG, who is a truly gifted writer, would have composed some of the sentences in this article, or those I have come across otherwise in Glanville.

The stuff about fielding was good.

That was my favorite part actually.  I find it interesting when the big fish from the small ponds all of a sudden get thrown together and go from being the very best player on the field to one of many, and realizing that there are people they’re competing against who have a lot more talent than them.  Glanville’s description about Manny’s drive in the minors conveyed that pretty well.

I must ask this question: Am I the only one here who does not think that Glanville is a “really talented” or “very good” writer?  Sure he’s a good writer for someone who has had to devote much of his time to athletic training. I am not disputing that and I don’t mean to disrespect his ability.  I find his prose overblown.

I personally think Glanville’s a good writer, but I understand his style may not appeal to everyone.  He is almost certainly not concise, something I am generally not a fan of. I tend to give him a long leash, because one of my former co-workers was a teammate of his at U Penn and always spoke very highly of him, which I’m sure influences my perception of him..

I find his prose overblown.

I find that many people start to tend toward overblown prose once it occurs to them that they’re a “real writer” now.  It’s nothing a good editor couldn’t fix if so inclined.  Same goes for the lack of concision.

I find it interesting when the big fish from the small ponds all of a sudden get thrown together and go from being the very best player on the field to one of many, and realizing that there are people they’re competing against who have a lot more talent than them.

<blockquote>“You make me sick, Homer.  You’re the one who told me I could do anything if I just put my mind to it!”

“Well, now that you’re a little bit older, I can tell you that’s a crock!  No matter how good you are at something, there’s always about a million people better than you.”<blockquote>

So where’s that edit function, dammit.

[14] I can’t be the only one who got that reference, can I?

I was actually thinking of that episode today, and the irony of it…

“I do not believe SG, who is a truly gifted writer, would have composed some of the sentences in this article, or those I have come across otherwise in Glanville.”

I think it’s fair to note that SG has the advantage of writing in his personal forum to an unusually smart audience.  I bet if I wrote op-eds for the NYT I’d sound stilted on occasion - at best.

I think Glanville does write good sentences along with the ones I’d hack up or kill as an editor, and he’s obviously thoughtful and insightful, which by themselves make him worth reading in context.

The Angels finally found a sucker taker for Gary Matthews…the NY Mets.

I don’t care how much of GMJ’s salary the Angels were willing to pay and how desperately in need of an OF the team was, I still wouldn’t want him. What were the Mets thinking? Does this end the Angels pursuit of a 25 man roster comprised entirely of outfielders?

[26] You would think the Mets have SOME CF in AA/AAA that it would make more sense to through that player out there for a month and see what they do.  Best case they excel and either become a 4th OF/corner-OF candidate, or very attractive trade piece.  Worst case they play like…Gary Matthews?

And to your last question, probably not.  I foresee an announcement soon that the $$ they freed up by trading Matthews allows them to sign Damon.

[27]

Such as Angel Pagan?  If their OF is going to be Bay-CF-Francoeur, why not have Pagan in CF while Beltran’s out, rather than have Matthews as 4th OF?

When you get the chance to land a below replacement level 35 year old OF whose best season (which took place in an extreme hitters park) was immediately followed by him being caught receiving HGH, and who OPS’d .675 and .697 the last two years, you HAVE to do it.

was immediately followed by him being caught receiving HGH, and who OPS’d .675 and .697 the last two years, you HAVE to do it.

HGH does NOT improve athletic performance. Why does this misinformation persist? Even the World Anti-Doping Agency doesn’t insist that it does. I am so tired of this BS being taken as fact.

http://www.annals.org/content/148/10/747.abstract

Yeah, GMJ is pretty much below replacement level offensively, and projects below average at all three OF spots.  Other than that, seems like a solid pickup for the Mets.

...projects below average defensively at all three OF spots…

[30] not sure how you can read that abstract and come to the definitive conclusion that HGH does “NOT” improve athletic performance… I see a lot of “may” this and “might” that.

as usual, the only thing we conclusively know is that we don’t know.

I wasn’t trying to say GMJ only had a great season in 2006 because of HGH. I was just saying that in 2006 he played in an extreme hitters park and after that season he was caught for receiving illegal HGH shipments.

HGH may have contributed to his performance, it may have kept him healthy enough to produce all season, or it may have had nothing at all to do with it and his performance was entirely due to the ballpark he was playing in/contract year/his last prime season before decline. We will probably never know for sure.

But what we do know is the Mets just traded for an OF (who projects, and is very unlikely to exceed his projections at his age playing in a pitchers park) below replacement level. That’s a fine organization they are running there.

But what we do know is the Mets just traded for an OF (who projects, and is very unlikely to exceed his projections at his age playing in a pitchers park) below replacement level. That’s a fine organization they are running there.

They certainly have a type.

Equally applicable, him?

“That’s a fine organization they are running there.”

Would be a shame if something happened to it.

The Mets are pretty amazing, but Minaya was playing catchup.

not sure how you can read that abstract and come to the definitive conclusion that HGH does “NOT” improve athletic performance… I see a lot of “may” this and “might” that.

I wasn’t basing my opinion on that abstract. I have read a lot about it. I was just linking to that for convenience sake. There are dozens of studies and articles about it, and a friend of mine researched an article about it and has spoken to a dozen scientists about it:
http://www.slate.com/id/2162473/

Seriously, HGH doesn’t do jack for a an adult athlete.

OTOH, being caught receiving shipments of hGH might be viewed by some as indirect evidence of past or present use of things that actually are PEDs.

Let’s move on to something less controversial…

From a LoHud guest blog:

“Mattingly was unquestionably the most popular Yankee of his era, New York’s answer to Larry Bird in Boston, only with a better mustache.”

Now I’m not saying anything about the guy who wrote this, or of course about Mattingly, but isn’t there a bit of an unfortunate subtext to this?  Or am I oversensitive?  After all this was also partly the Rickey Henderson era, during which, I’m informed, fans in the stands regularly called him a “nigger”.

Mustachioed hard-playing quiet team leaders of the era in NY or Boston says Mattingly or Bird to me.  You think Parrish is a better equivalent to Mattingly?  Was Henderson, third-person and all, beloved or just appreciated?

If we’re talking LA and not Magic, then I’d see your point, but I’m not seeing it here.

Oops, looks like that’s Robert Parish.

[41]

I would never discount race, but a homegrown player will always trump an imported superstar in popularity.  (This is in itself based on questionable notions, I believe.)

Moreover, Henderson, with so much of his value based on his excellent OBP, was generally underappreciated throughout his career, and certainly in New York. He was thought of as the game’s best leadoff hitter when he should have been thought of as one of the 2 or 3 best player’s in the game.  As I recall, the year that Mattingly won the MVP he had about 145 RBI and Henderson had about 145 RS, and the big debate was: who is more important, the guy who drives in the runs or the guy who scores the runs? with the consensus being the former.  This completely ignored that Henderson’s on base skills dwarfed Mattingly’s (as did his baserunning of course), that Henderson had comparable power, and that Henderson, though not a stellar fielder (pooma), was playing a premium defensive position for the Yankees. 

Undoubtedly race played a part in this, as many think it did when the fans mostly got behind Mattingly in 1984 as he and Winfield were battling for the batting title.  But it’s also simply a function of Mattingly coming up through the system.  Plus Henderson was in NY all of, what, 4 years?

Ack.  Where’s the edit function?

More like, why pick Larry Bird as a comparable?  A guy who played a different sport, in a town we all know sucks, a guy who was the Great White Hope for basketball, in a time when the black players on the Yankees were, umm, not exactly made to feel welcome?  If this were politics it would sound like a dog whistle.

[44] Thanks Frog, I was thinking of Winfield too.

“More like, why pick Larry Bird as a comparable?”

List the high-profile geographically-significant locally-adulated guys from back then, with a simple joke attached, and I suspect there won’t be an evident problem.  Henderson for example wasn’t any team’s Jeter as far as I can recall, even Oakland’s, and I don’t think of anywhere in California but LA as a rival to NYC.

You’ve missed my point about Henderson.  I’m not saying he was adulated nor that he should have been.  I’m saying his treatment & that of Winfield (a pretty adulable guy, actually, if that’s a word) says something unfortunate about a slice of NY fandom in those days. 

In that context comparing Mattingly to Larry Bird, a white guy on a team that was notoriously whiter than the rest of the league, make me wonder.

My point was that Henderson’s not comparable for non-racial reasons.  I think you have to show that the sentence “Mattingly was unquestionably the most popular Yankee of his era, New York’s answer to X in Y, only Z” can be sensibly solved by (X, Y, Z) where X is a comparably popular figure, Y is somewhere relevant, and Z is funnyish, and the average x in X isn’t white or the best solution is for an x who’s not white.  I’ll drop Z for that matter.

There’s no question that race played a role in fan reaction then (and now) - I just don’t see the case that e.g. (Magic, LA, had a short career due to health problems) or (Willie Stargell, Pittsburgh, worse mustache) would be more natural above in a race-blind world.

How about Kirby Puckett?  He even had bad facial hair.

Good comp in terms of status, but not in terms of being the strong silent type (maybe part of why I thought of Parish), in coming from a rival town, or having a clear post-career.  But ok, say being in the sport makes this as good as Bird, that still doesn’t satisfy my criteria above.

How about Keith Hernandez?  Very natural comp I think, but Bird says more to me even though I’m not a basketball fan.

This probably has Bren discussed or answered before, but Montero, Geez-us or Hey-Zeus?

I’ve been assuming G.

It’s the latter.

The only epithet that I can recall being directed at Henderson was used by Lou Piniella, who reportedly accused him of “jaking it” when he didn’t recover fast enough from a hamstring injury to accommodate Piniella’s self-imposed timetable; not that I disbelieve that fans would use the the “n” word, because too many fans everywhere are idiots. Actually, Piniella’s alleged comments may have fanned the flames of intolerance and bigotry.

I have always thought that the Winfield/Mattingly batting title competition had a racial component.

I attended 25 to 30 games a year during the 85 to 89 era and I never heard anyone throw the n word around re Rickey. Seriously, rednecks seem to feel comfortable around me,I’m big and white, I did hear lazy and overpaid prima donna. Seemed to me most fans liked him. I know I did.
Eric Plunk…...............
Rich, I too recall the hammy heard round the world.
The 23 vs 31 batting title race did get ugly.
Slurs were flying.

[53] I will be pronouncing it as the former, as in “You don’t F—- with the Jesus.”

52- Bren.. nice weapon.
As a former believer I’m stickin’ wit da hard G.

Sorry I meant [53].

I guess the same fans who embraced Reggie Jackson in the ‘70s turned into racists when it came to Winfield in the ‘80s.  Losing and being openly mocked by the owner couldn’t have had anything to do with it.

Fans are a pretty diverse group.

that stuff about fielding is really eye opening.