2012 MLB Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
A 5 game suspension for a pitcher is ridiculous. There's no point to it. It doesn't actually force them to miss any games. It just causes a slight inconvenience by having to switch places in the rotation.
 
[quote name='pitfallharry219']A 5 game suspension for a pitcher is ridiculous. There's no point to it. It doesn't actually force them to miss any games. It just causes a slight inconvenience by having to switch places in the rotation.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much. It's a slap on the wrist and not a real punishment. He'll appeal until after his next start and then be ready to start after it's over with an extra day of rest.
 
Yeah, the suspension is pretty worthless. The worst part about it is the inside part of the plate is now gone for the next series against the Nationals.
 
[quote name='fatmanforlife99']Hamilton was in beast mode tonight, 4 homers and 8 rbi.[/QUOTE]

Last time he had four shots.... Nevermind.
 
Damn it looks like the rain is going to put an end to the CJ Wilson/Yu Darvish matchup. Rangers were set up for a big inning with the bases loaded and one out.
 
[quote name='MSUHitman']Thank god that start by CJ gets wiped from the books. (fantasy)[/QUOTE]

I wish it was wiped. Now I have to rely on Mat Latos this week to help me hold off my opponent. Up 20 some points, but I needed that start by CJ Wilson. He has three other pitchers yet thanks to them having two starts this week.

Edit: Huh...this is interesting. Didn't see the update, but apparently CJ Wilson will start again tonight. Let's hope his -3 doesn't turn into a -6.

In other pitcher news, Ubaldo Jimenez sucks this year. I was holding out hope he'd turn it around, but it feels I may as well drop him at this point.
 
It was so awesome to see Darvish come out after the near 2 hour rain delay and still pitch decently. CJ didn't come back out so I guess that tells you who is the more conditioned starter. I also hope the Rangers light up CJ today and give him losses on back-to-back days. That sure would be cool.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']That argument was lame the first time someone said it, and it's still lame today. Steroids make you a better athlete. They can drastically alter how you work out, and thus, increase the results of your work outs. Period. They aren't a miracle drug that's gonna make me into Barry Bonds overnight, but it can definitely make an already good player great. As someone else said, if they didn't make you better, why did so many people them? For laughs?[/QUOTE]

why do so many players wear those titanium necklaces? or those hologram bracelets? for laughs?

there is no proof steroids make you better at baseball, sorry. they do not make great players better. they do not make crap players good. there is no proven benefit to any PED except recovering from injury faster. anything else is speculation and finger-pointing
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']
there is no proof steroids make you better at baseball, sorry. they do not make great players better. they do not make crap players good. there is no proven benefit to any PED except recovering from injury faster. anything else is speculation and finger-pointing[/QUOTE]

Even if that is the only benefit, isn't a hypothetical guy who can play 162 games because he recovers from injury faster more valuable to his team than a guy with identical skills who can only play 140 because of nagging injuries?

My opinion lies somewhere in the middle between "steroids are evil" and "so what?" However, it seems obvious enough to me that in a sport where you play 162 games with only about 20 off days and most guys deal with nagging injuries at some point, that "recovering from injury faster" is undoubtedly a competitive advantage over normal players who aren't using.
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']there is no proof steroids make you better at baseball, sorry. they do not make great players better. they do not make crap players good. there is no proven benefit to any PED except recovering from injury faster. anything else is speculation and finger-pointing[/QUOTE]
Which is why power numbers went through the stratosphere during the roid era. I guess it's not really fair to point to that since we don't have tens of thousands of games over a century of game play to figure out if it's a statistical abberation or not. o wait. yes we do. lulz.

So let's just cut to phase 2 of this dumbass debate. I'll take "Hilariously ridiculous nutrition/workout regiment improvements argument" for $200, Alex.

Ken Caminiti's 1996 is all anyone needs to know about what roids do to stats. The King of above average "ehhh" hitters became an MVP in.... 1 year's time.

Trolls gonna troll.
 
Yeah, I'm not even gonna bother responding. He's obviously trolling. At this point, you really can't still believe steroids don't do anything. I also can't have a serious conversation with someone who just compared a potentially extensive drug regiment to wearing a necklace...
 
Chicago Cubs pitcher Kerry Wood will retire on Friday, a source familiar with the situation told ESPNChicago.com's Bruce Levine.
 
[quote name='Fatality']Chicago Cubs pitcher Kerry Wood will retire on Friday, a source familiar with the situation told ESPNChicago.com's Bruce Levine.[/QUOTE]

That sucks. One has to wonder what his career could have been had he not been run into the ground twice.
 
Back-to-back series against the Twins and Mariners are always a good pick-me-up for the Indians. The complete game shutout for Derek Lowe was an especially great game.
 
[quote name='mitch079']Verlander's no hitter broken up with one out in the 9th[/QUOTE]

By a dude who just threw his bat out there. Gotta love the quirkiness of Baseball.
 
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&page=rumblings110520

It's amazing that they've been doing interleague play for so long but the schedules are still uneven and random when it should be uniform like in every other league:
• Because they're stuck with life in Subway Series perpetuity, the Mets get to play the Yankees six times. And how many times will all the other NL East teams play the Yankees this season? That would be none.

• It's supposed to be an NL Central-versus-AL East year. But the only AL East teams the Cubs get to play are (lucky them) the Red Sox and Yankees. Meanwhile, the Cardinals play every AL East team EXCEPT the Red Sox and Yankees.

• And guess which three AL East teams the Brewers get to play? Just the three nobody would want to play -- the Rays, Red Sox and Yankees.

• The Yankees could do some grumbling about the interleague schedule themselves. Their good friends the Red Sox play all the NL Central teams except the two that now have winning records, the Reds and Cardinals. The Yankees, on the other hand, will miss the Pirates and Astros -- two teams that are currently a combined 17 games under .500.

• Meanwhile, unlike the rest of their division, the Red Sox and Yankees both mysteriously play one random NL West team. The Red Sox draw the Padres (currently in last place). The Yankees get to play the Rockies (who just dropped out of first place).

• Over in the AL Central, the Tigers are the one team that has no "rival." So for no reason we can discern, they'll play six games against the Mets and Pirates. But the Indians, because they're "fortunate" enough to have a true rival, are the only team in their division that has to match up with the Reds six times.

• Those rivalry games also could be a huge factor in the AL West. The Rangers get six games against the team with the worst record in baseball, Houston. But the A's get matched up against the first-place Giants six times.

• More NL Central issues: The Reds will play 15 games against AL teams that currently have a winning record. That's nine more than the Cardinals.

• Every year this time, we're moved to ask: Is there a more storied, more impassioned natural "rivalry" than Mariners-Padres? And the answer, every year is: Uh, how about ALL of them? Yet those teams will get matched up for the 15th straight season. None of the other clubs in their respective divisions play any games against the Mariners or Padres.

• Finally, here's a glitch that sums up the problem, even though it doesn't figure to wind up determining the fate of the NL East race. If there's supposed to be some level of division-by-division symmetry to this schedule, how do we explain this: The Mets will play 15 interleague games against teams currently .500 or better (plus three against the Angels, who are just a game under .500). The Nationals could play none. How does THAT happen?
Click to expand...
The lack of symmetry is the only major issue that I have with interleague play, but these oddities should not be happening for a league that has been doing this going on 15 years now.
 
The Indians have done a great job of keeping the Tigers down to take the first two games in the series. I'm hoping the momentum continues so they can overcome the typical Justin Verlander performance.

I'm glad that the fans have responded correctly to the criticism by Chris Perez.
 
Cleveland did a great job of getting their shots in where they could on Verlander, who did incredibly well with an inevitable loss hanging over his head in the eighth. It'll be interesting to see what they do with Jack Hanahan when he's ready to play since Jose Lopez has been hot in his absence.

I have much more confidence in this team to go the distance to stay in the hunt for the division title, as long as the injuries are minimal. They have better depth in the outfield and the starting pitching staff is doing well from top to bottom, as they've been one of the best for innings pitched over the past 30 games. Last year, they just got off to an incredibly hot start and injuries and lack of depth hurt their ability to keep that momentum going.
 
Johan Santana just threw the first no hitter in Mets history.
image.php
 
[quote name='mitch079']Johan Santana just threw the first no hitter in Mets history.
image.php
[/QUOTE]



Seriously put a tear to my eyes when i saw it happen. 51 years and 8020 games later we finally got one. Good luck San Diego.
595x416_santana_nohitter_p4ynq3f1_84ntf4g7.jpg
 
My brother went to the Seattle/Dodgers game decked out in his Dodgers gear. Turns out that didn't go well.

Dodgers signed Ethier to a 5/$85 with $17.5 team option that vests with plate appearances.
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']The lack of symmetry is the only major issue that I have with interleague play, but these oddities should not be happening for a league that has been doing this going on 15 years now.[/QUOTE]

That's a pretty terrible article for something on ESPN. I agree, the lack of symmetry is the only real questionable aspect. But it's a point you have to concede to get these "rivalry games" every year. And it's stupid to argue one team being better than the other team because that's all completely relative. Who the hell thought that someone would be complaining about the Indians being "forced" to play the Reds a few years ago? Or even the A's being "forced" to play the Giants a few years before that?

If they're going to bitch about the match ups, at least show the collective record of those interleague games. Last I knew, MOST of the series were pretty much split right down the middle (even Yankees vs Mets). Pretty pathetic that ESPN can't even present a reasonable argument.
 
Symmetry would solve the problem, as you'd play everybody in the other league an equal amount of times. Right now, teams can play anywhere from four to six interleague series.

At best, they could play the other 15 teams for three games each for true symmetry. At worst, they could have teams face everybody in the opposing division for one series and one of the other divisions for another series in an NFL-style rotation each year.

Actually, with that last idea, they could face their own division foes for 72 games (six series each), 30 games in interleague play (one series each), and 60 games against the other two divisions in their own league (two series each). They haven't announced how next year's schedule will differ with each divisions, so I'm hoping to see more symmetry than we've had in years.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Hooray, the Dodgers won the not-ending-up-with-Youkillis sweepstakes.[/QUOTE]

And neither did the Diamondbacks thank god, the Red Sox wanted Parra.

D-backs would have made that deal in the past. :wall:
 
The Rangers are like the fucking MASH unit lately. At least they have depth in the minors and they signed Oswalt to help out with all the injuries. Plus they are still winning and have started to turn it around after having a fairly average May.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']The Rangers are like the fucking MASH unit lately. At least they have depth in the minors and they signed Oswalt to help out with all the injuries. Plus they are still winning and have started to turn it around after having a fairly average May.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it sucks to see starting pitcher after starting pitcher hit the DL, and tossing Feldman back in the rotation makes me cringe, even if his last two starts were fairly decent. I'm interested in seeing how Perez does at the big league level, and I wouldn't say no to him making a start in the near future, considering Justin Grimm's forgettable last start.

Also, Mike Young needs to be dropped in the line up. Despite the triple yesterday, he's been awful.
 
Haha, I can't believe the Giants are going to have three starters. Offensive numbers wise Melky was the only one I figured would get the nod to start by all the fans, color me surprised to see Sandoval starting at 3rd and Posey starting at Catcher over David Wright, Ruiz, and Molina.
 
[quote name='Beatofficer']Sandoval starting at 3rd over David Wright.[/QUOTE]

I know your a Giants fan, but you didn't vote for this to happen did you?
 
[quote name='Nate Nanjo']I know your a Giants fan, but you didn't vote for this to happen did you?[/QUOTE]


I did not, I voted Wright, but I also only voted once and not 25 times a day haha.
 
All those MLB "experts" at ESPN must feel stupid now after talking about how much better the AL roster was, and how the NL was going to get stomped. Justin Verlander has hopefully been taken down a peg on the cocky meter after how he got spanked in the 1st.
 
[quote name='pitfallharry219']All those MLB "experts" at ESPN must feel stupid now after talking about how much better the AL roster was, and how the NL was going to get stomped. Justin Verlander has hopefully been taken down a peg on the cocky meter after how he got spanked in the 1st.[/QUOTE]

That's "why they play the game", haha. Ask the 2006 Yankees how much "on paper" is worth.
 
[quote name='pitfallharry219']All those MLB "experts" at ESPN must feel stupid now after talking about how much better the AL roster was, and how the NL was going to get stomped. Justin Verlander has hopefully been taken down a peg on the cocky meter after how he got spanked in the 1st.[/QUOTE]

It's an all star game. predictions? lol
 
[quote name='Nate Nanjo']I would have never guessed that the A's would sweep the Yankees in a 4 game series.[/QUOTE]

A's gave the league the blueprint to beat them... Throw strikes.
 
[quote name='Nate Nanjo']I would have never guessed that the A's would sweep the Yankees in a 4 game series.[/QUOTE]

Then you haven't been paying attention to the A's this year.
 
[quote name='pacifickarma']Then you haven't been paying attention to the A's this year.[/QUOTE]

Nope, my team is in their division and only pay attention when they play. We currently have the edge in the season series 7-6.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top