The Baseball Thread 2007

[Free For All]

YOUR CALLING IT "PSEUDO EVIDENCE" AND "PURE SPECULATION AND CONJECTURE" TELLS EVERYTHING WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR ABILITY TO EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE AT HAND.

chewy? Posting in the baseball thread?

[Tim McG]

Are you saying that steroids don't increase muscle-mass, and only improve vision?

Additional muscle equates to additional power. Additional power seemingly could cause a ball that would "normally" just get to the warning track to go an addition 10-15 feet, and become a home run.

Why doesn't that make sense? I don't buy your argument that steroids only improve vision, not power.

What if 100 of Bonds' 742 homeruns just barely cleared the fence, and you have come to the conclusion that almost everyone outside of the SF Bay Area has come to, that Bonds has used steroids.

In that case, if he had NOT been using steroids, maybe these 100 home runs that just cleared the fence are warning track hits in reality. Then Bonds is NOT close to surpassing Hank Aaron, and probably more where he belongs.

Huh?

I'm saying steroids don't increase vision. Or talent, or skill.

They increase muscle mass. Period.

Steroids do not make you see the ball better.

Sorry dude, you are DEFINITELY on the losing side in this argument.

Bonds's performance has almost surely improved due to steroid use.

Guy

Hm.

Then would we say a ballplayer's performance is enhanced by cortizone treatments/shots? How about pain medications? Asprin? Allergy pills?

Performance is not at all linked to steroids. They only make you bigger.

Any real evidence to the contrary will be greatly appreciated.

Edited April 29, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Matthew]

Dude! This totally proves baseball is out to get Bonds!

MLB Credits Hank Aaron With 50 Lost Home Runs

April 27, 2007 | Onion Sports

MILWAUKEE—In what Major League Baseball officials are calling a "long overdue correction of a gross oversight," Commissioner Bud Selig announced Tuesday the discovery that Hall of Famer Hank Aaron had in fact accumulated 50 previously unaccounted-for home runs during his illustrious 22-year baseball career, bringing his once record total of 755 to an even higher 805 and putting the all-time home-run record perhaps forever out of reach.

"Hank Aaron is a hero, an excellent man, and a great ambassador for the game of baseball," Selig said during a press conference to announce the findings. "We're proud to have finally set things right, hopefully once and for all. And I have to tell you, some of the home runs that we discovered were just monster shots. One was hit off of [Pittsburgh Pirates pitcher] Harvey Haddix that went 576 feet, and Hank wasn't even that big of a guy. Just naturally strong and gifted, I guess."

Haddix was unavailable for comment, as he passed away in 1994.

According to Selig, a committee of sports journalists and baseball historians was set up during the off-season to investigate, with Selig's oversight, whether there was any substance to a rumor that began circulating last summer concerning Aaron having hit more homeruns than those credited to him in the record books. Though Selig said he couldn't recall the date the committee was established, he believes it was in or around the time he approved the San Francisco Giants' highly publicized signing of Barry Zito.

The committee's 30-page report points out several key factors that combined to increase Aaron's home run total. For example, in 1958, home runs hit during both the first week of spring training and those hit in pre-game batting practice during away games in the third week of August were added to a player's career numbers. In addition, home runs hit during the 1971 All-Star Game should have been tallied.

Aaron, coincidentally, did hit a home run in that game.

"We are here today to the right the wrongs," Selig said. "This is America's national pastime, and its players, fans, and all citizens deserve to have a record book in which they can take great pride. So if we didn't count Hank Aarons five-homer outing during 1964's famous 'Empty Stadium' game, I wouldn't be able to live with myself."

Furthermore, the report continued, a third of the home runs hit by players who participated in the television series Home Run Derby, a show on which Aaron appeared several times, should have been counted. In addition, during the second half of the 1962 season, balls that bounced over the outfield fence should have been counted as home runs, and foul balls that were hit behind the batter but cleared the netting intended to protect fans seated behind home plate were also home runs. That being the case, league scorekeepers now say Aaron had his best year in 1962, hitting 65 home runs—20 more than originally thought.

Though there has been some negative reaction towards the announcement of Aaron's new record, mostly from fans in northern California, the news has been received very well nationwide.

"This is the best thing that has happened to baseball in years," said New York resident Tom Plaitano, 63. "I remember watching Hank Aaron as a kid, and even though I don't recall a time when all home runs hit off Sandy Koufax counted for two, I don't really care. This decision just makes sense to me."

"The number 805 will go down as the most prestigious number in sports," said Selig, adding that there is a strong possibility still more of Aaron's home runs could come to the surface during this season, and maybe even the next several seasons to come. "It's not out of the question that Hank could have, say, 900 home runs by the time our investigation is all said and done."

"Either way, the all-time home-run record couldn't be held by a more dignified and honorable man," Selig added.

The committee's report has caused quite a shakeup to the list of baseball's all-time home-run leaders. Aaron, while keeping his record, is not even the biggest benefactor of the findings; as of now Aaron is first with 805, Willie Mays has jumped to second with 800, Frank Robinson is third with 798, Harmon Killebrew is fourth with 797, and Reggie Jackson, Mickey Mantle, Ernie Banks, Ted Williams, and Willie McCovey are tied for fifth at 796.

According to Selig, early results of another investigation may net Babe Ruth as many as 74 additional home runs, Mike Schmidt an estimated 124, and Ken Griffey Jr. a possible 200, while players such as Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, and Barry Bonds will probably be knocked even further down the list.

[J Larsen]

Then would we say a ballplayer's performance is enhanced by cortizone treatments/shots? How about pain medications? Asprin? Allergy pills?

Absolutely. The difference is the health benefits of these medicines is generally believed to outweigh their detriments, and therefore there is no ethical quandry involved in creating an environment where you have to take this things as needed in order to keep up.

As for your other point, if you were offered the choice between a totally scrawny dude and well-built man for your team, are you honestly saying you'd flip a coin? Do you really think that a 12 year old kid with incredible vision and hand eye coordination could hit home runs in a major league park proficiently? Why do you think women don't compete with men in baseball?

[Dan Gould]

Are you saying that steroids don't increase muscle-mass, and only improve vision?

Additional muscle equates to additional power. Additional power seemingly could cause a ball that would "normally" just get to the warning track to go an addition 10-15 feet, and become a home run.

Why doesn't that make sense? I don't buy your argument that steroids only improve vision, not power.

What if 100 of Bonds' 742 homeruns just barely cleared the fence, and you have come to the conclusion that almost everyone outside of the SF Bay Area has come to, that Bonds has used steroids.

In that case, if he had NOT been using steroids, maybe these 100 home runs that just cleared the fence are warning track hits in reality. Then Bonds is NOT close to surpassing Hank Aaron, and probably more where he belongs.

Huh?

I'm saying steroids don't increase vision. Or talent, or skill.

They increase muscle mass. Period.

Steroids do not make you see the ball better.

Sorry dude, you are DEFINITELY on the losing side in this argument.

Bonds's performance has almost surely improved due to steroid use.

Guy

He's on the losing side of every argument here.

That he didn't use steroids.

That they don't effect his ability to hit home runs.

That its all "racism".

He's an f-ing fool. A joke. Just like his idol.

[Dan Gould]

Are you saying that steroids don't increase muscle-mass, and only improve vision?

Additional muscle equates to additional power. Additional power seemingly could cause a ball that would "normally" just get to the warning track to go an addition 10-15 feet, and become a home run.

Why doesn't that make sense? I don't buy your argument that steroids only improve vision, not power.

What if 100 of Bonds' 742 homeruns just barely cleared the fence, and you have come to the conclusion that almost everyone outside of the SF Bay Area has come to, that Bonds has used steroids.

In that case, if he had NOT been using steroids, maybe these 100 home runs that just cleared the fence are warning track hits in reality. Then Bonds is NOT close to surpassing Hank Aaron, and probably more where he belongs.

Huh?

I'm saying steroids don't increase vision. Or talent, or skill.

They increase muscle mass. Period.

Steroids do not make you see the ball better.

Sorry dude, you are DEFINITELY on the losing side in this argument.

Bonds's performance has almost surely improved due to steroid use.

Guy

Hm.

Then would we say a ballplayer's performance is enhanced by cortizone treatments/shots? How about pain medications? Asprin? Allergy pills?

Performance is not at all linked to steroids. They only make you bigger.

Any real evidence to the contrary will be greatly appreciated.

YOU ARE AN ABSOLUTE FOOL.

HERE IS ONE MAN'S TAKE. YOU TRY AND DISPUTE HIS CONCLUSIONS.

http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2005/01...ball_yes_st.php

January 4, 2005

BASEBALL: Yes, Steroids Help

Unless you take the strong libertarian position - that there should be no restrictions on what ballplayers can ingest regardless of the impact on themselves or the game - the debate about what to do about steroids in baseball really revolves around three questions:

1. Does taking steroids help make you a better baseball player? (If not, there's no point in banning them).

2. Is taking steroids harmful to your health? (Again, if not, there's no reason to ban them)

3. Is there a feasible way to test for steroid use or otherwise enforce a ban?

I recognize that there are serious people who disagree about the second and third questions. But I submit that, if you think about it honestly, what we do know about the first point is quite clear: steroids* can and do help performance in baseball, and specifically help in hitting for power.

* - I refer here colloquially to "steroids" to include other hormone-altering performance-enhancers like human growth hormone. As often happens in debates about drugs, precise definition of the substances involved is itself a whole sub-field of debate.

The Available Types of Evidence

Part of the confusion over the link between steroids and performance derives from the different types of evidence we use to answer these types of questions. To illustrate, let's compare this question to one with a settled answer: whether throwing the ball faster will help a pitcher strike out more batters.

Direct Evidence

One sometimes hears the argument made that we can't and don't have direct evidence of how steroids help performance. This is true enough, as far as it goes. For example, we can show directly how velocity helps a pitcher get strikeouts: you can measure batters' reaction times and show how increasing velocity makes it harder to make contact. Or, you can simply watch a guy who throws 95+ blow pitches even past guys who are looking for them. That kind of "see the causation with your own eyes" evidence doesn't exist for steroids and performance in baseball.

Statistical Proof

Where direct evidence of causation isn't available, of course, statistical proof of correlation can be good enough. A classic example of this from the intersection of law and medicine is the fact that we still don't have direct evidence that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer (i.e., scientists can't show how it happens), but the statistical evidence shows a fairly overwhelming connection between smoking and increased likelihood of getting lung cancer.

Statistical proofs of correlation are pervasive in baseball - to use our example above, it would be easy to do a study showing that pitchers who regularly throw above 95 mph get a lot more strikeouts, and are much more likely to generate large numbers of strikeouts, than pitchers who rarely or never crack 90+ mph. That correlation is so powerful that it will show up in almost any study.

Other correlations are trickier, which is why a reliable study has to use a large enough sample size to be able to generalize, and has to ensure that truly comparable players are being compared, so that different outcomes can't be explained away by some other factor.

Here, there are two problems with studying steroid use. One is finding large and otherwise truly comparable sets of players (comparing the same player before and after isn't useful because of the interfering factor of age, which ordinarily is, of course, very powerfully correlated with declining performance after about age 28 or so). But the bigger problem is that steroid use, by virtue of being illegal, is done in secret; we have so little reliable information about who uses what, when and in what amounts that for the foreseeable future, it will be impossible to do statistical comparisons with any degree of confidence.

Circumstantial/Inferential Evidence

The fallacy in many arguments over steroids in baseball is to note the lack of direct or reliable statistical evidence and declare the question unresolved. But this is not consistent with how human beings make decisions in everyday life, in law, medicine, politics or in baseball. When the best forms of evidence are unavailable, we look at what remains: at circumstantial evidence, and logical connections to be drawn therefrom. For example, even if we couldn't see fast pitches going by hitters and read the evidence of the same in box scores, what we do know about hitting a baseball - you have to time your swing to make contact - is itself strongly suggestive of the fact that a faster pitch will be harder to hit.

I would submit that that evidence is more than sufficient to persuade us that steroids help performance in baseball. Let's once again break this down to a few questions:

A. Do Steroids Help Build Strength?

This much is not seriously disputed, which is one reason why steroids are banned in the NFL and the Olympics, where physical strength and speed can be shown to connect directly to performance. There are certainly debates about precisely how and to what extent steroids help, but few serious people would debate that taking them helps build stronger muscles.

B. Does Strength Help In Hitting A Baseball?

This is really the crux of the argument. It is often said that you can't take a drug to help you hit a curveball, which is true but totally beside the point. The issue isn't whether steroids will help you or me become a major league ballplayer; the issue is whether guys with the pre-existing skills to play professional baseball will have those skills enhanced. To deny that, among other things, you have to argue that strength has no impact on the ability to hit for power. Of course, this is ridiculous. Since the introduction of the home run as a regular part of the game in the 1920s, it has always been the case that big, strong guys with powerful chests and arms have tended to be home run hitters, and skinny little guys have not. To deny that steroids have an impact on hitting for power in particular, you have to look at all the home runs hit by the Gehrigs and Foxxes and Mantles and Kluzewskis and Killebrews and all the singles hit by the Willie McGees and Vince Colemans and Nellie Foxes of the world, and argue that it is just a coincidence that physical strength has always been so strongly correlated with home run power. You have to not only look at Bonds and Giambi and all the other guys who have been placed under one sort of cloud or other and say that whatever they took or were given didn't matter; you actually have to say that all the muscle Barry Bonds has added has had nothing to do with his power surge, that Jason Giambi's increased power production as he gained muscle was just a coincidence. Sorry, I'm not buying that.

Basic physics: force equals mass times velocity acceleration. The force you hit a baseball with is affected by the weight and speed of the bat. Stronger players can generate greater bat speed, or generate the same bat speed with a heavier bat. Yes, bat speed is a variable affected by other factors - the arc of your swing, reflexes/reaction times . . . and yes, it's true that muscle mass sometimes gets in the way of greater bat speed. But again: if strength has nothing to do with power, why have stronger players always, as a class, hit for more power?

C. Do Steroids Help In Conditioning?

Strength is the core of the debate. But correct me if I'm wrong here - I believe most of the analyses I've seen have similarly shown that steroids can assist more broadly in conditioning - beyond pure muscle mass - by assisting in the ability to train at greater length without injury, at least in the short run.

D. Does Superior Conditioning Help In Baseball?

The question, again, essentially answers itself, and doubly so for aging players seeking to stave off declining bat speed (or declining velocity, for pitchers, but pitchers and steroids are another day's debate). Honus Wagner lifted weights; Ty Cobb was a conditioning fanatic. It could be a coincidence that they lasted into their 40s in a day when few others did.

The Bonds Issue

I would stress, again, that I don't have anything but the sketchy information in the public record on what Barry Bonds took and when, and how it helped him. And it's true: Bonds' late career surge has had other causes, from better bats to a greater uppercut in his swing. But I've been disappointed at some of the efforts from otherwise reasonable people to obscure the fact that Bonds' increased strength has had an impact on his unprecedented late-30s power surge.

I meant to get to this when it ran in mid-December: the New York Times editorial by Will Carroll of the Baseball Prospectus (discussed here on his blog). I like and respect Carroll from his work at BP, but the Times piece has some serious issues. One is the point I make above: Carroll essentially implies that he is agnostic on whether strength helps with power hitting, contrary to 85 years' experience:

[W]e have little or no idea what these drugs accomplish. Do stronger players hit the ball farther, swing the bat quicker or throw the ball harder? Does using steroids reduce fatigue so that they can do any of those things more effectively than "clean" players?

While there is no doubt that these chemicals are effective at their stated goal, albeit with significant complications, the question of how their effects manifest themselves in a baseball game has not been answered. There are no credible studies that connect drug use to improved performance, nor any that determine what cost these athletes may be paying.

Much more problematically, Carroll uses some seriously misguided examples to imply to the Times' readers that Bonds' power surge is not so unprecedented:

It is true that Bonds's performance over what many would expect to be the twilight of his career has been incredible. Instead of a slow decline as he approached 40, Bonds has done what can only now be described as superhuman. . . . The raw numbers, however, only reflect his increased home-run production; they do not say whether he hits more homers that fly significantly farther.

What of this late-career surge? Certainly we can point to that with an accusing finger, sure that Bonds's numbers in the record books have been written with some "cream" or "clear" substance. It's much easier to point than to find facts.

According to Clay Davenport, a researcher at Baseball Prospectus, Hank Aaron's best year for home runs - when he had the most homers per at bat - was 1973, when he was 39. His second best was in 1971, at age 37. Willie Stargell had his best seasons after age 37. Carlton Fisk put his best rate in the books when he was 40. Even Ty Cobb had his best home run rate at age 38, though the end of the dead-ball era helped that. It is not uncommon, according to Mr. Davenport, for a slugger to change his mechanics as he ages, swinging for the fences as his ability to run the bases declines.

These are terribly bad examples. First of all, Aaron in 1973, Stargell in 1978 and 1979 and Fisk in 1988 all had one thing in common: none of them were full-time, 500+ at bat players any longer, as they'd been in their primes. It's a lot easier for an older player to improve his production if he has a third to half of the season to rest as opposed to the years when he was playing every day, a fact that has absolutely zero to do with Barry Bonds.

Let's take Stargell first, as he's the most egregious example. Willie Stargell's career best slugging percentages, both absolutely and relative to the league, came at the ages of 26, 31, and 33, well within the normal range. Stargell's home run rate improved slightly in 1978-79, at age 38 and 39, but his doubles - also a key power stat - dropped off sharply from 43 in 1973 to 18 and 19 in 1978 and 1979. Was he really hitting for more power? Also, Stargell had another thing going for him: while he wasn't, strictly speaking, platooned (his backup, John Milner, was also lefthanded), the decline in his playing time allowed him to see a much more favorable mix of pitchers: Stargell had 30.5% of his at bats against lefties in 1978 and 30.7% in 1979, as opposed to 39.5% in 1971 and 33.1% in 1973. For a guy with Stargell's big platoon splits, that's a significant advantage.

Then there's Aaron. If you know the game's history, you already know that Aaron's late-career power surge was an illusion created by the improved offensive conditions of the 1970s as opposed to the 1960s, combined with his move in 1966 into homer-friendly Fulton County Stadium and out of pitcher-friendly Milwaukee County. Aaron hit 52 homers on the road and 37 at home in 1962-63; in 1971 and 1973, those figures were more than reversed to 55 at home and 32 on the road. But it doesn't stop there; with just 392 at bats in 1973 at age 39, the right-handed Aaron saw 44.4% of his at bats against left-handed pitching, up from 30.9% in 1971 and 26.5% as a full-time player in 1969.

Then there's Fisk, whose "best" home run season was 253 at bats in 1988. Do I really need to explain why a catcher might hit better playing half the time? And yes, the right-handed Fisk faced lefties 36.5% of the time in 1988, compared to 22.9% in his actual best season, 1977.

(Ty Cobb, whose career high in home runs was 12 but whose career high in slugging average was at age 24, is not even worthy of discussing at length).

None of these guys - indeed, no other player in baseball history - compares remotely to what Barry Bonds has done, and it does no service to the debate to pretend otherwise. Prior to 2000, Bonds was 34 years old and had a career slugging percentage of .559, with his two best slugging percentages (.677 and .647) coming at age 28 and 29. Since then, he has slugged .781, a 40% improvement on his career average and a 15% improvement over a five-year stretch compared to his career best season. Neither Carroll nor Davenport could find an example anywhere, certainly not outside of guys who straddled the arrival of the lively ball in the 1920s, of an established player who had anything like a 40% improvement in his power numbers from age 35 to 39. (Bonds has also batted .358 over the past three years, compared to batting above .320 just once through age 35, also nothing like a normal aging pattern).

Carroll's argument would have been better served by recognizing the fact that what Bonds has done is totally unprecedented and clearly not unrelated to his dramatic improvement in physical strength in his late 30s. Pretending otherwise does no one any good.

HERE IS SOME MORE EVIDENCE:

Even More Bonds Data

I love baseball-reference.com. In the comments to my post on Bonds, I suggested that it would be interesting to look at a bunch of players and see how they performed after the age of 34 (the age when Bonds began his relationship with trainer Greg Anderson). Sure enough, poking around on baseball-reference.com, I found what I was looking for. In the section on each player card regarding "similarity scores" there is a link for "Compare Stats" that gives you this page, which compares Bonds to the most similar players to him for his career. You can then compare them for any particular age, such as 34.

Let's take a look at the percentage increase or decrease between these players' OPS+ (OBP plus SLG adjusted for league and park) in the years before age 34 and after, sorted by their pre-34 OPS+ (I need SuperNoVa's table creating skills) [sNV - You got 'em]:

Player Pre-34 OPS+ Post-34 OPS+ % Change

Babe Ruth

212

194

-8%

Ted Williams

192

191

-1%

Lou Gehrig

184

151

-18%

Mickey Mantle

175

152

-13%

Stan Musial

170

137

-19%

Jimmie Foxx

164

96

-41%

Barry Bonds

163

233

+43%

Willie Mays

163

146

-10%

Frank Robinson

157

145

-8%

Hank Aaron

157

151

-4%

Mel Ott

156

143

-8%

Rafael Palmeiro

134

134

0%

It's more revealing as a bar graph, but I don't have time to put one together, and you get the picture. As I suspected, Bonds' dramatic improvement is unmatched by any of the great players with close similarity scores. Indeed, it's not even like Bonds' increase is more than others -- it is diametrically opposed to what the other greats did in their later years. All but one show decreases, where Bonds shows a dramatic increase. Even Aaron, who was very productive in his later years, decreased.

http://thenats.blogspot.com/2004/12/even-m...bonds-data.html

EVERY PROFESSIONAL ATHLETE IN BASEBALL HISTORY SHOWS A DECLINE IN THOSE YEARS.

BONDS STARTS "TRAINING" WITH GREGG ANDERSON AND DOES WHAT NO ONE ELSE HAS EVER ACCOMPLISHED.

OH, BUT THAT'S JUST "HEARSAY" RIGHT, NITWIT?

[Dan Gould]

This certainly is an amazing, surprising game, isn't it?

Karstens starts because Igawa was so awful. Karstens gets drilled on the knee off the very first pitch ... and Igawa comes in and throws six innings of 2 hit ball. Unfucking believable. And it simply amazed me that Torre said when he announced that Igawa was going to the pen that he was "missing his spots by a foot or more" ....

and Igawa continued to miss his spots by a foot or more!. How many times did Posada put the glove one place and then reach a foot or more to catch it? And yet we couldn't do shit against him.

And what absolutely sucks about this isn't just that Tavarez pitches tomorrow against Wang. Its the fact that this could have been a season-changer for the Yankees. Not that 7 1/2 games is insurmountable - but it would have put them perhaps one game or less closer to a Steinbrenner eruption. We could have gotten Torre off of that team and put them into utter chaos.

Now we're left hoping that somehow Tavarez can turn the baseball world upside down like Igawa did and beat the Yankees.

I'm not even going to listen on MLB radio.

I don't think one win is a season changer the yankees have DEEP problems with pitching and one game doesn't change that .....i guess Torre doesn't like Igawa but he really doesn't have any choice . What ever happened to Pavano ?

"tightness" in his elbow. He's still just playing catch, no timetable to throw a bullpen session. One of the NY papers reported that Guidry was seen talking to him "sternly" about the "difference between pain and injury".

Can anyone explain to me how Igawa was allowed to take as many warmups as he wanted? Karstens got hit, Karstens threw a few warmups and said he could continue. At the moment that Torre relieved him, he was relieving a bad pitcher, not an injured one. Doesn't the removal have to come immediately following the injury in order for the new pitcher to get as much time as he needs to warm up? If you can change your mind and remove him and still give the reliever extra time, is there a limit as to when you can make the change? After the next batter only? It seemed like total BS to me.

[Matthew]

Looks like Pavano will win that Pavano vs JD Drew DL race after all....

[Dan Gould]

Looks like Pavano will win that Pavano vs JD Drew DL race after all....

Given that when he made his opening day start, it was on 643 days rest, this shouldn't be that surprising.

[alocispepraluger102]

an ironic article:

Hancock shows up late

By Rick Hummel

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

04/27/2007

Reliever Josh Hancock, after pitching three innings on Tuesday, probably wasn't going to appear in Thursday's game, but he almost didn't make it, anyway.

Hancock admitted he had overslept on his new comfortable bed, and thinking the game was starting later than it was (12:10 p.m.), didn't get up until the "20th call" he received from anxious teammates.

With righthander Darryl Kile dying before a game in Chicago five years ago, the Cardinals don't take it lightly when a player doesn't show up at the park on time.

Reliever Jason Isringhausen, the only pitcher still on the club who played with Kile here, said, "(Hancock's) phone always shuts off. Everybody was trying to reach him. That's why it's so different here because of what happened with Darryl. So everybody worries. That's got more to do with it than oversleeping.

"We were all a little nervous. We don't care if you're late. That happens. We want to know that you're OK."

Manager Tony La Russa said only, "It's not worth discussing. It's personal and not baseball-related."

But Hancock said he expected to be fined.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sports > Cardinals > Story

Cardinals reliever Hancock killed in car crash; tonight's game postponed

POST-DISPATCH STAFF

04/29/2007

Josh Hancock

St. Louis Cardinals' Josh Hancock

(Chris Lee/P-D)

St. Louis Cardinals relief pitcher Josh Hancock was killed early Sunday in an accident on Highway 40 (Interstate 64), just west of Compton Avenue, authorities said.

Hancock's Ford Explorer slammed into the rear of a tow truck that was parked in the far left westbound lane shortly after 12:30 a.m. The tow truck driver, who was seated in the vehicle at the time, was unhurt.

He told police that his emergency lights were on, and that he honked his horn when he saw the Explorer approaching in his rear view mirror, but that the Exploer didn't slow down or swerve to avoid the collision.

At the time of the accident, the tow truck driver was assisting a motorist from an earlier accident.

Hancock, 29, was pronounced dead at the scene.

The Cardinals were expected to release a statement later today. Their game this evening with the Chicago Cubs has been postponed. A new game time has not been set.

Edited April 29, 2007 by alocispepraluger102

[Dan Gould]

What a terrible story about that pitcher.

**************************

And the game continues to shock and amaze. First Igawa tames the Red Sox bats, and the next day, Tavarez outpitches Wang for his first win of the season. I never thought it could happen, but I'm glad it did.

If its any consolation for Yankee fans, the schedule-makers may have done them a favor. Their next four series are home and home against Texas and Seattle. You may wonder if they can beat anyone right now, but that has to look better than the remainder of May, when they get, in order, the White Sox, Mets, Red Sox, Angels and Toronto.

I wonder if Steinbrenner gives Torre an ultimatum: Get above .500 by the time they play the White Sox, or else "thanks for the memories".

[zen archer]

Eck just said on the post game that it was embarrassing that Abreu tried to bunt in the #3

spot 3 days in a row !!

I don't think the yanks could beat Texas or Seattle right now.

The other thing about Torre which i never gave much thought ( and this is from Eck) is that he

burns out his Bullpens even in the past when he had Gordon.

[Dan Gould]

The other thing about Torre which i never gave much thought ( and this is from Eck) is that he

burns out his Bullpens even in the past when he had Gordon.

No question, ever since the championship years ended, Torre has taken the early season to figure out which relievers he "trusts" to get to Mo, and then inevitably overuses them, to bad results from August to October. Gordon, Tanyon Sturtze, Proctor and Villone last year. The problem now is that he hasn't found anyone to "trust" yet - not even Mo (even if Torre won't admit that) and with the starting pitching as it is, he can't get away from abusing most of the pen.

We had so many starts by bad pitchers last year, and then Wakefield went down, putting more pressure on the pen, and it all fell apart in August/September. The way its going for the Yanks, it could fall apart in May/June if they don't start to get some decent performances by the starters so that the pen can get some time to right itself.

But there are big problems there, because Farnsworth can't pitch on back to back days and hasn't looked very good all year; Vizcaino looks less and less like someone who can handle the eighth inning in the AL; Proctor continues to show the ill effects of his abuse by Torre last year. Bruney might be the best choice as the main option to get to Mo, but who knows? So long as the starters can't pitch deep into games, they aren't going to get things straightened out.

What I have to hope for is that Wang continues to pitch like this, which I think is possible due to the way he outperformed his peripherals last year, and that Mussina doesn't do much to help when he returns. The fact that he pitched horribly in the spring and seems to have lost 5 mph off his fastball gives me hope that Mussina will regress significantly this year. Most people seem to agree that a Mussina who can't throw 90 on the heat can't set up the other pitches. I'm certain they'd really prefer to give him a rehab start, which would really give some assurance on his leg, but the rain and the state of the rotation is forcing their hands. Hopefully the Ranger bats come to life against him.

[Tim McG]

Are you saying that steroids don't increase muscle-mass, and only improve vision?

Additional muscle equates to additional power. Additional power seemingly could cause a ball that would "normally" just get to the warning track to go an addition 10-15 feet, and become a home run.

Why doesn't that make sense? I don't buy your argument that steroids only improve vision, not power.

What if 100 of Bonds' 742 homeruns just barely cleared the fence, and you have come to the conclusion that almost everyone outside of the SF Bay Area has come to, that Bonds has used steroids.

In that case, if he had NOT been using steroids, maybe these 100 home runs that just cleared the fence are warning track hits in reality. Then Bonds is NOT close to surpassing Hank Aaron, and probably more where he belongs.

Huh?

I'm saying steroids don't increase vision. Or talent, or skill.

They increase muscle mass. Period.

Steroids do not make you see the ball better.

Sorry dude, you are DEFINITELY on the losing side in this argument.

Bonds's performance has almost surely improved due to steroid use.

Guy

I see.

So the only plausible explaination is Bonds is successful because he's on the juice. Nice.

Has it never occurred to you that he is just plain that good...or isn't that a possibility anymore in sports?

Edited April 29, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

OK, moving on....

I swear, if I live to be a thousand, I will never understnd why the Giants can't get pitching and hitting on the same team and at the same time.

Looks like it's going to be yet another lost season by the Bay.

Grrrrr

[Aggie87]

I see.

So the only plausible explaination is Bonds is successful because he's on the juice. Nice.

Has it never occurred to you that he is just plain that good...or isn't that a possibility anymore in sports?

I don't think anyone has ever said he wasn't good. That's not the argument anyone is putting forth.

[Tim McG]

I see.

So the only plausible explaination is Bonds is successful because he's on the juice. Nice.

Has it never occurred to you that he is just plain that good...or isn't that a possibility anymore in sports?

I don't think anyone has ever said he wasn't good. That's not the argument anyone is putting forth.

Then why all the hugga-mugga regarding the alleged use of steroids?

Again, steroids increase muscle mass not vision or timing.

[J Larsen]

And muscle mass has absolutely nothing to do with one's ability to hit homeruns, which is why the scrawniest MLB players have historically hit them just as proficiently as the most well-built players.

[Aggie87]

And muscle mass has absolutely nothing to do with one's ability to hit homeruns, which is why the scrawniest MLB players have historically hit them just as proficiently as the most well-built players.

I think your sarcasm will fly over his head.

[Dan Gould]

And muscle mass has absolutely nothing to do with one's ability to hit homeruns, which is why the scrawniest MLB players have historically hit them just as proficiently as the most well-built players.

And players hitting their mid-30s always increase their slugging percentage/home run rates.

Oh wait - that isn't true either. EVERY great player has seen his performance decline, or at the very best, stay constant, from age 35 on, EXCEPT one Barry Bonds, who is the victim of a racist media, lying ex-girlfriends, "hearsay", and is demonstrably the only client of BALCO who did not pay for, receive and use steroids.

[Dan Gould]

OK, moving on....

I swear, if I live to be a thousand, I will never understnd why the Giants can't get pitching and hitting on the same team and at the same time.

Looks like it's going to be yet another lost season by the Bay.

Grrrrr

I'll go you one better:

YOU WILL NEVER WIN WITH BARRY BONDS.

Write it down. Remember it.

[Dan Gould]

Are you saying that steroids don't increase muscle-mass, and only improve vision?

Additional muscle equates to additional power. Additional power seemingly could cause a ball that would "normally" just get to the warning track to go an addition 10-15 feet, and become a home run.

Why doesn't that make sense? I don't buy your argument that steroids only improve vision, not power.

What if 100 of Bonds' 742 homeruns just barely cleared the fence, and you have come to the conclusion that almost everyone outside of the SF Bay Area has come to, that Bonds has used steroids.

In that case, if he had NOT been using steroids, maybe these 100 home runs that just cleared the fence are warning track hits in reality. Then Bonds is NOT close to surpassing Hank Aaron, and probably more where he belongs.

Huh?

I'm saying steroids don't increase vision. Or talent, or skill.

They increase muscle mass. Period.

Steroids do not make you see the ball better.

Sorry dude, you are DEFINITELY on the losing side in this argument.

Bonds's performance has almost surely improved due to steroid use.

Guy

I see.

So the only plausible explaination is Bonds is successful because he's on the juice. Nice.

Has it never occurred to you that he is just plain that good...or isn't that a possibility anymore in sports?

NO. Because never in the history of the game has anyone IMPROVED from the age of 34 on. EVERY great ballplayer's skills DECLINED.

Barry Bonds hooked up with BALCO and Gregg Anderson at the age of 34, and you expect people to believe that its a coincidence?

How stupid do you think the population of non-Giants fans are?

[Guy Berger]

I'll go you one better:

YOU WILL NEVER WIN WITH BARRY BONDS.

Write it down. Remember it.

Hopefully they can find some younger talented players who will use steroids.

Guy

[Tim McG]

And muscle mass has absolutely nothing to do with one's ability to hit homeruns, which is why the scrawniest MLB players have historically hit them just as proficiently as the most well-built players.

Babe Ruth was fat, not muscular.

The all time hit leader in Cal Ripken isn't a hulking mass, either.

You seriously cannot mean that muscle mass makes you good, now...do you?

Apply that logic to any aspect of the game and they will need to haul you in with a butterfly net. You can get as big as a semi-truck but if you can't hit a curve or make that diving catch or score from first on a double....you aren't going to be playing in the majors anytime soon, my friend. And I don't give a tinker's damn how big you are.

Ability and talent doesn't come from a syringe, Guys.

Edited April 30, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

I'll go you one better:

YOU WILL NEVER WIN WITH BARRY BONDS.

Write it down. Remember it.

Hopefully they can find some younger talented players who will use steroids.

Guy

Please.

Like nobody else uses steroids.

You're missing the point, Guy. They all use some type of performance enhancing substance...allegedly with or without it, Bonds is the best we will ever see play the game.

If you want to remain over focused on Bonds....have a blast.

I prefer to enjoy the game, instead.

Who's not getting it now....?