Ortiz is absolutely a star, or was at the time, and is/was among the most popular players in the sport. The positive test was from 2003, in a report in 2009. Not really sure what you're going on about the DH rule or whatever, that's irrelevant.
Because I bet with out the DH existing that he wouldnt still be in the game or have lasted near as long as he has.
Pettite was never overly popular. He was alright but popular is a stretch, especially considering the other players on that team.
Clemens did it to himself, I don't recall them ever being involved with A-Rod but they were/are with Barry. IMO Clemens basically set himself up for when/if he screwed up that he'd get owned because eventhough he was an enormous talent like Bonds he came off as a **** of an individual. What kinda guy throws hardball fastballs at his wife to "practice"?
You're dead wrong on Pettitte, he was one of the most popular Yankees of my lifetime (and he still is, despite the HGH admission.)
Yankees fans (and the national media) love players who save their best work for the postseason.
You're dead wrong on Pettitte, he was one of the most popular Yankees of my lifetime (and he still is, despite the HGH admission.)
Yankees fans (and the national media) love players who save their best work for the postseason.
I was talking about his popularity on a national level amongst baseball MLB fans. He was quite popular in NY but i'm not sure around the MLB.
It's ironic that eventhough for some reason he was good in the postseason he was really an average pitcher overall and is really nowhere near being a hall of fame nominee.
My point was, the league backed Ortiz, in a way, while guys like Pettitte and Arod had no choice but to confess since they were caught red-handed. So his case was different.
But yeah, his head doesn't look different than it used to, unlike Bonds who grew freakishly.
Average? Bull. He was a rock whether it was April or October.
Not impressed with either ERA really. It is an AL ERA basically though. More the less the impressive part about his Postseason nonsense was the stopper role he faced of winning game 2's down 1-0 in series.
To call him a rock is an insult to those who are elite or great but not quite on elite status.
Not impressed with either ERA really. It is an AL ERA basically though. More the less the impressive part about his Postseason nonsense was the stopper role he faced of winning game 2's down 1-0 in series.
To call him a rock is an insult to those who are elite or great but not quite on elite status.
Man, I swear your posts almost always make no sense whatsoever. Andy Pettitte was not average. He wasn't in the super elite but Sabres 57 is dead on. He was a rock. Dependable. Consistent. Always showed up and battled. You knew what you were gonna get from him each start. I used to really like the Yankees. Then they started winning a lot and buying players. Then I started hating them, but I always liked Pettitte. He was about as solid and dependable as pitchers get.
Not impressed with either ERA really. It is an AL ERA basically though.
To call him a rock is an insult to those who are elite or great but not quite on elite status.
The AL average ERA over his career span is about 4.5. His ERA is significantly lower than that.
He's definitely not great or a HOFer (unless they let him in for the Dopey sports talk radio Win % argument) but he was a 'rock' in that he was consistently very good and even great on occasion. That's basically what a rock is no? Or are we really going to argue what a rock is?
The AL average ERA over his career span is about 4.5. His ERA is significantly lower than that.
He's definitely not great or a HOFer (unless they let him in for the Dopey sports talk radio Win % argument) but he was a 'rock' in that he was consistently very good and even great on occasion. That's basically what a rock is no? Or are we really going to argue what a rock is?
We aren't going to argue about what a rock is because it's not a baseball player. He was alright but nothing special, which was all I was getting at. Nothing worth making a case or anything about.
Milwaukee Brewers' star outfielder Ryan Braun's original test for performance-enhancing drugs as the playoffs were winding down in October was "insanely high, the highest ever for anyone who has ever taken a test, twice the level of the highest test ever taken," said a source familiar with the developing case.
Milwaukee Brewers' star outfielder Ryan Braun's original test for performance-enhancing drugs as the playoffs were winding down in October was "insanely high, the highest ever for anyone who has ever taken a test, twice the level of the highest test ever taken," said a source familiar with the developing case.
Lot of talk about re-voting for MVP. Like it or not, whether you wanted Kemp or not, you can't re-vote for NL MVP because of this.
If the writers are going to piss away both MVP votes in a single year it may be time to re-think the system.
Don't think anybody is actually pushing for a re-vote but this Braun incident is just a good time to bring the horse back from the dead for another final beating.
Listening to someone on the radio about how they actually take two samples, and the second sample could be from outside the body if he clears, or something like that. Made it sound really bad for Braun.
Listening to someone on the radio about how they actually take two samples, and the second sample could be from outside the body if he clears, or something like that. Made it sound really bad for Braun.
Waving 5 magic wands around I don't see how he can come out of this without any bad knocks.
The verbage in the rules is beyond clear, if they find a banned substance you get the 50 games. Neither ignorance or accident is a valid excuse.
You could be injected with PED's against your will on YouTube and you'd still be up for a 50 game suspension.
so while the ball goes an extra 2 feet, maybe, you still have this:
I'm curious though, how did they determine the 2 - 4 additional feet attributable to steroids?? Did they take the combined length of all the homeruns hit prior to the steroid era in a given year - say in the 70s or 80s - and divide that by the total number of homeruns and compare it with the numbers calculated in any given year during the steroird era?? Did they compare this amongst all players or only those who were suspected or even known to have taken steroids??
I'm curious though, how did they determine the 2 - 4 additional feet attributable to steroids?? Did they take the combined length of all the homeruns hit prior to the steroid era in a given year - say in the 70s or 80s - and divide that by the total number of homeruns and compare it with the numbers calculated in any given year during the steroird era?? Did they compare this amongst all players or only those who were suspected or even known to have taken steroids??
The 2-4ft was arbitrary, as were the rest of the 'facts' on that site.
Suggesting Manny got caught derailing a HOF career TWICE over a substance that provides no tangible benefits is beyond ridiculous.
The 2-4ft was arbitrary, as were the rest of the 'facts' on that site.
Suggesting Manny got caught derailing a HOF career TWICE over a substance that provides no tangible benefits is beyond ridiculous.
players aren't exactly known for being the smartest guys. some still believe that corking a bat makes them hit the ball farther, when it's been proven to not help, in fact it has been shown to hurt them in some studies.
<-- Credit goes to The Nemesis.
