EVIL~! alkeiper

Here's a question to ponder. Javy Lopez hit 42 home runs last year, out of NOWHERE. He's continued hitting this year. He's an aging catcher. Why hasn't anyone levied the dreaded steroid acquisation? If anyone is on roids in MLB, based on stats alone, its this guy. Defensive Independant Pitching Statistics. Or Dips. Join the sabermetric revolution. Defensive Independant Pitching Statistics. Or Dips. Join the sabermetric revolution. As per Maddux, I wouldn't worry just yet. When its an 11-10 game, its likely more a matter of the ballpark than the pitcher. I'm getting excited again about this season. Sweep by the Phillies, and the Marlins get swept. A big series this week against the Marlins gives us a good chance to gain some ground.

The problem was that companies spent way more than they took in, and that is why they went out of business. No major league team is spending itself into oblivion. You've got the wrong view of economics. The talent pool does not dictate the market by their asking price. It is the other way around. Most wrestling talent ends up working for far less than they desire, or more often, not at all. So let it be. The Yankees and Sox can only take one player per position. Besides, the Yankees and Sox spend EXTREMELY inefficiently. The A's win nearly as many games while spending $150 Million less. Which company will perform better in the long run? The team which efficiently spends resources. As for the stars, most stars hit free agency at 30 or past. The teams get their prime years, and let them go. Meanwhile, they get compensation draft picks, which they use to cultivate new stars. It won't happen, because teams retain the rights to their players for the first six to seven years of their major league careers. As long as this system is in place, small market teams will always compete. And they'll win, because their home-grown players are in their PRIME. I have always disagreed. It amounts to little more than a Yankee-tax, which is extremely unfair, as they have always spent within budget. Let the other teams adapt or falter, and the overall quality of the game improves. Besides, I haven't seen the Yankees make a mockery of the game quite yet.

As cute as K-Rod sounds, I thought we had brought up Francisco Rodriguez.

I agree with the previous poster. John Ruiz is the absolute worst. At least other bums get knocked flat and disappear. Ruiz has been shoved down our throats for eight years now, with exactly one win (Hasim Rahman) that can be considered praiseable.

Interesting games today....... Florida @ Atlanta Penny vs. Hampton 1pm NY Yankees @ Boston Contreras vs. Lowe 2pm Oakland @ Anaheim Zito vs. Escobar 8pm ESPN From ESPN.com's preview...... When will this idiocy stop? Surprisingly?

Untrue. After the Moneyball revolution, teams are wising up. Players get what they are worth. And how does the price of players rising do damage to the game?

That was the greatest recap of a boxing fight I have ever read. As for the fighters, no one wants to see Fres Oquendo or John Ruiz at this point. Chris Byrd has looked bad his last two fights. I honestly don't get why Roy Jones is waiting at light heavyweight. Apart from maybe Vitali Klitschko, there's NO ONE in the heavyweight ranks on his level.

Where does San Antonio rank on that list?

Even those two. I maintain the sacrifice bunt is a bad play for ANY hitter, excluding pitchers. And if your hitting is that bad, there should be a pinch hitter.

And to further ruin the baseball experience, they can play Day-O, about every eight minutes, throughout the entire game! You mean, they what?

The problem is that pitchers can't control what happens when a ball is put in play. So obviously intentionally limiting strikeouts would probably hurt the pitcher. Moreover, the only real way to intentionally limit strikeouts is to pitch worse. So I don't see how it helps. The best way to hold pitch counts down is to throw strikes and collect outs. Not getting outs does more to raise your pitch count than strikeouts.

The problem is that pitchers can't control what happens when a ball is put in play. So obviously intentionally limiting strikeouts would probably hurt the pitcher. Moreover, the only real way to intentionally limit strikeouts is to pitch worse. So I don't see how it helps. The best way to hold pitch counts down is to throw strikes and collect outs. Not getting outs does more to raise your pitch count than strikeouts.

Its close, but from an objective look at the numbers, James edges Anthony.

And Monument Park would be converted into restroom facilities!

Well, Abreu finished sixth in the NL in Win Shares last year, so maybe it worked.

Fielding percentage is a red herring.

I ask again. How? Because we've been playing baseball for 135 years, and so far no one has come up with a proven method of motivating players.

How exactly is he going to take care of the problem? A voodoo curse perhaps?

And NAMES on the back of the shirt!

Jesus Christ man. Don't you remember the 80s? Don't you remember how George Steinbrenner did everything he could to bring a championship to New York, and nearly killed the Yankee legacy in the process? The only thing that got the Yankees back where they are was Steinbrenner NOT messing with the team for a few years, allowing new stars to cultivate. Making roster moves based on 12 games and 40-50 at bats is the worst possible way to run a team. Its a road to certain disaster.

If anything, it might've looked like the Cards' uniforms. Same basic design.

John Kruk's Debut Page 2 Column...... http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=kruk/040416 My favorite part...... Yes John. You have three chances to score the runner with a hit. Your obvious best move is to give the team the first out in order to add a marginally better situation for the next hitter. Of course, if he strikes or pops out, you've wasted TWO opportunities to score the runner. But hey, bully for small ball. And who has ever cared about the league leader in RBIs? Seriously, Pete Palmer's The Hidden Game of Baseball was published twenty years ago. The sacrifice bunt is an disadvantageus manuever. Why does it still exist as a viable strategy?

Way ahead of you. I mentioned that tidbit on page 7.

You aren't just now finding this out, are you? That was one trade I was ecstatic to see happen because it got Wags the hell out of the Central. I've known. Go back in the archives of posts and you'll find my praise of the deal. But its one thing to read up on a pitcher, and another to see it in person. In Philly we're used to seeing Jose Mesa. He'd come in. Throw the ball. Maybe its a strike, maybe not. If we were lucky, he wouldn't blow it and the Phillies would win. Wagner comes in, no nonsense. 100 fucking MPH. And STRIKES. The fans aren't watching Wagner. They're watching the scoreboard to see if its 100 MPH, or merely 99. The opposing batters don't have a damn chance. I love it.

It is important, because more wins = more fans = higher payroll.