EVIL~! alkeiper

1967. They had an amazing two week run just to GET to the World Series, after finishing 9th the year before. And losing to Bob F'n Gibson in the World Series is not choking. Just ask the '64 Yankees.

The Nolan Ryan comparisons are too optimistic for any pitcher. But I look at Kerry Wood's stats, and I see a few things. 1. He's 26. Most baseball players take a big step forward when they hit 27. 2. His ERAs have been remarkably consistant for three years now. 3. He strikes out well over a batter an inning. These factors usually bode well for future success. Mark Prior is certainly better, but Kerry Wood is almost certainly going to get better.

Babe Ruth's career as a pitcher is so engrained in history that it really goes without saying. Ruth's 1916 season (23-12, 1.75 ERA) is quite amazing when you consider that he was only 21 years of age.

Kerry Wood's last 3 ERAs have been 3.36, 3.66, and 3.56. That might not live up to potential, but for any starter that's pretty damn good.

Babe Ruth was known to pitch a game here or there. Well, he did actually start 4 games for the Yankees after becoming a full time outfielder. He pitched his last game in 1933, earning the win in a complete game, giving up five runs. Jimmie Foxx pitched 9 games as a 37 year old for the Philadelphia A's. Lefty O'Doul, 4th all time in career batting average, actually pitched 53 innings for the 1923 Boston Red Sox. Tris Speaker pitched 1 inning in 1914. Hall of Famer George Sisler pitched 70 innings his rookie year, and pitched well. Like Ruth, however, his manager felt he was more valuable playing every day. Sam Rice pitched 39 1/3 innings over two years for the Washington Senators. Tomas Perez of the Phillies pitched last year. Scott Sheldon, Bert Campaneris, and Jose Oquendo have taken the mound as part of "play all 9 positions" stunts.

I concur. Estes hasn't been better than league average since that '97 season. His 3:2 K/BB ratio doesn't bode well for future success either.

I've debated many times on this board that Alex Rodriguez deserves the MVP. A few posters have responded that the Hank Aaron award was set aside for the best player, and that the MVP is all about "winning." Well mlb.com is running voting for the Hank Aaron award, and its about time we dismiss this nonsense. 1. The Hank Aaron award is for the best OFFENSIVE player. It does not take defense into account. The MVP takes into account a player's defensive ability, and his position. 2. Alex Rodriguez is not even listed on the ballot, despite winning the "award" the last two years and leading the league in home runs. 3. The award is being voted on NOW, a month before the season ends. The Hank Aaron award is a verbal blowjob, and nothing more.

It's a separate AL/NL award. There's two winners.

Clemens pitched years every bit as good in Boston. Check out his 1990 season. 21-6, with a 1.93 ERA.

That's a good point. Why even have caps in the Hall of Fame? Is it monumentally important to identify a player with a team? The Hall is going to have a bitch of a time if and when Fredd McGriff and Roberto Alomar are elected.

The team record does have meaning when the team has 100 years of history. You use common sense to separate the expansion teams from the argument. I disagree with the rings argument. Look at Darren Daulton. He's not a HOF candidate, but lets say he was inducted into the hall. He played 13 1/2 years with the Phillies. Would you put him in as a Marlin because he won the World Series there?

Conine has played 1 game at third the last two years.

And as long as we're taking cheap shots, I'm just waiting for the Marlins to sell their entire team again.

The Phillies have choked exactly once in their lives, in 1964. The rest of their history they haven't even had the chance to choke.

Why should Clemens worry about the Red Sox management? Since '96 they have new ownership, and new management. The guys who run the Red Sox now are not the same ones who let him go.

It really wouldn't have made a difference. At least the Marlins have an excuse now when they lose.

We had the real thing. Complete with the MULLET~!

A reporter asked him a question, and he gave an answer. Its not like he's running to every newspaper outlet begging for a trade. I disagree with Barry Bonds as well. Most people who know him say he's a good guy. Its just idiot reporters who get on his case because he's not their kind of guy. Bonds plays as good as anyone in baseball, and he's never gotten in trouble with the law. For baseball, the ultimate sports heel was always Albert Belle.

I'm confused. Is it because the Boston hat guy is jovial? Because there's a kid in a Yankees hat up front? Or the disinterested guy on the left? I don't get what the story is.

On interleague play, the flip side of the argument is how we might see an oh so exciting Brewers/Devil Rays game. Good and bad matchups exist no matter how you set it up.

Having too many teams cheapens the playoffs, and the championship. It makes it easier for a mediocre team to win it all. Put too many teams in, and it becomes like the NBA, where the regular season means squat.

If four teams are tied for the wild card, this is indeed a mini tournament, one game apiece. Having the division winners complicates things to an extent I really can't figure out at this point.

In all seriousness, I expect SOMEONE to put a winning streak together. An eight game tie is highly unlikely in any case.

From my copy of Total Baseball, the Mets lost 7 straight games right before the regular season, and the Reds lost 2 games to Milwaukee before winning the final game (notable for a nearly six hour rain delay).

First off, its really debateable whether the wild card and interleague play are good for baseball. The near-strike was partly Selig's fault. And the only reason more teams are playoff contenders is that there are more playoff spots. Good for individual teams, but debateable if it really helps baseball.