10/5/07: DLD, Friday style....
by gigglingone on Oct 5, 2007 8:35 AM PDT
95 comments
Yay for Fridays!!! Yay for link dumps!!
If you're still looking for a team to root for in the playoffs this year, check out the Rockies. Exciting games, and a nice bunch of guys.
Oh, and Cleveland rocks. :)
Anyone else having troubles figuring out which is the home team in Arizona? For those who have ever tried getting tickets for Cubs spring training games, you know what I mean......I think I heard more cheers last night for the Cubbies than for the D'Backs....
And I'll end this by just saying The Onion is awesome.
Dump linkers, dump.
0 recs |
95 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I'm off work all day.
So I suppose I'll be watching playoff baseball and pondering the A's chances of aquiring a SP and a RH bat during the off season without giving up to much of anything in return. That and wondering where DJ will play next year.
by alox on Oct 5, 2007 9:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
just remembered this article about the Rockies
that was published last year in USA Today:
by OaklandSi on Oct 5, 2007 9:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
"God has definitely had a hand in this."
Praise be to Jeebus!
by franks a lot on Oct 5, 2007 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
THT article on Bonds' future
The teams that couldn’t afford a big salary request, aren’t considered viable 2008 contenders or are in tight with Selig include the Royals, Orioles, Devil Rays, Twins, A’s, White Sox and Rangers, so that puts them out of the picture.
by ArakSOT on Oct 5, 2007 9:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
dude's a Grade A talk-radio idjit
Players like Albert Belle, Dick Allen, Shea Hillenbrand, Gary Sheffield, A.J. Pierzynski, Dave Kingman, Jose Canseco and Bonds have unofficial charts that their given team uses. On that chart is a movable baseline and there are two lines on it: The first one is “talent,” the second “temperament.” The temperament determines where the baseline resides—the more volatile the player, the higher the baseline is set. As long as the talent level is above the baseline, the player’s behavior is allowed. However, when the talent level drops below the baseline, his tenure with his team becomes tenuous.
Bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
Belle's career ended because of his arthritic hip.
Pierzynski was ditched by the Twins because Ryan utterly pantsed Sabean in perhaps the worst trade of all time; and he was ultimately ditched by the Giants not because he kneed their trainer in the nuts, but because he was terrible on the field for the Giants.
Hillenbrand is simply a bad hitter, whose value is entirely dependent on AVG, and keeps getting bought by GMs who think they'll have a lucky season with him.
Canseco lost the ability to hit consistently.
Likewise with Kingman.
Sheffield, there may be a case for his being moved from team to team b/c of his 'tude, but he will have an MLB job so long as he keeps hitting.
Dick Allen ... there may be a case to be made there, as he was essentially blackballed out of MLB; there's also, however, a good case to be made on the other side of the ledger that his blackballing was ultimately racist in motivation.
by monkeyball on Oct 5, 2007 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
THT: Don't you have an editorial policy?
Right, because he did... something when Gary Matthews, who SHOCKINGLY was linked to steroids after exploding in by far the best season of his career, was exposed.
Oh. Wait. He did absolutely nothing whatsoever.
I find it genuinely inexplicable that THT continues to carry articles from this guy. It's like The Nation publishing Christopher Hitchens, except that at least in their case a. he's an entertaining writer, and b. he USED to have a viewpoint that was philosophically consistent with the publication, even if he doesn't anymore.
THT doesn't have that excuse, in that Brattain's articles are not particularly witty, display some truly astonishing leaps of logical fallaciousness, and just generally make statistical analysis look ridiculous by deriving bizarre conclusions from bad data.
by PaulThomas on Oct 5, 2007 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What should Arte have done?
Arte's statements make it clear how he feels, at least publically, on steroid users.
by salb918 on Oct 5, 2007 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't everyone publically hate steroid users?
Actions speak louder than words, and the Angels blew off the stories about GMJ completely.
Anyone who tries to claim the moral high ground in the whole PED debacle instantly makes me deeply suspicious, especially when they proceed to coddle suspected users as if they'd never heard anything.
by PaulThomas on Oct 5, 2007 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was seriously considering trying to void the
contract when that came out. They didn't "blow off" the stories at all.
by mikeA on Oct 5, 2007 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right
Just like the Giants "seriously considered" not resigning Bonds this year. I'm sure the Chargers "seriously considered" suspending Merriman for the rest of last year, too.
I just flat don't believe anything the ownership of a sports team (or any corporation, really) says unless it's either a. backed up by concrete actions, or b. referring to something that's in their clear financial best interests.
by PaulThomas on Oct 5, 2007 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
who is this brattain dude and what has he done
to piss you people off? because the above sentence is 100% correct in every way, so this comment seems like a massive overreaction to me.
(just commenting on the moreno thing, i don't care enough to read the article)
by xbhaskarx on Oct 5, 2007 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
re
THT doesn't have that excuse, in that Brattain's articles are not particularly witty, display some truly astonishing leaps of logical fallaciousness, and just generally make statistical analysis look ridiculous by deriving bizarre conclusions from bad data.
John is a great guy, so I feel like I should stick up for him a little. At THT, we love our stats, but one of the things we try to do is generate insightful and thought provoking analysis and commentary about baseball. We don't always succeed, but in my opinion, John has a great knack for capturing the essence of the way many fans feel about the game.
by sardonic on Oct 5, 2007 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
noise:signal ratio increasing, Cap'n!
In other words, John makes up specious numbers to support the conventional "wisdom" of uninformed fans.
by monkeyball on Oct 5, 2007 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look, I can't speak to his personal qualities,
nor would I particularly wish to since they're not germane here.
But my god, the logic in some of his articles... I mean, he's the kind of guy who would look up how a team hits with runners on second and with runners on third, see that the team hits better with runners on second, and then write an article arguing that the team's baserunners should hold at second on a potential triple because it will help the offense.
I exaggerate only slightly here.
by PaulThomas on Oct 5, 2007 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
re
I'm not going to argue that Brattain is the greatest analyst, because he's not and I assure you he doesn't claim to be at all. All I'm saying (and I can't believe this is coming from me) is that there's more to the game than just numbers, strategy and optimization, and as much as I personally, we at THT and others here at AN appreciate that stuff, over at THT we do try to address the other parts of the game as well, something that I think John does very well.
Put it this way... I don't always agree with John's positions. But I think of him as kind of like Jon Stewart, in that as much as I enjoy watching the Daily Show, I would never use it as my primary source of news or political analysis. And nonetheless it still speaks to something important to my appreciation of the politics... or in John's case the game of baseball.
If that's not your cup of tea, that's absolutely fine. Personally, I also tend to find the GM/strategy/business side of baseball more interesting. Given that, I guess I would just suggest that you check out some of our other writers. John will be the first to admit that he's not for everyone.
by sardonic on Oct 5, 2007 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Flirt
Some notes:
As a frustrated Jays fan this year I decided to see why the offense was sputtering awhile back. When I analyzed the Blue Jays season in 2007 back in early to mid August to see what was going wrong, I went and checked every box score and play by play recap of the year to date. A few things jumped out at me: one the Jays were very adept at the first two men on base or leading off innings with an extra base hit.
In a huge number of cases (not matched by other contending clubs) they weren’t being cashed in. The thing that struck me was this was most common with the middle of the lineup more often than it did for the top of the lineup.
That left a problem: Due to injuries and slumps these situations were left to players who had an aggregate .275/.325 OBP/SLG, a few of whom weren’t exactly fleet of foot (Sal Fasano, Jason Phillips, Curtis Thigpen, Howie Clark).
Here’s the list: <pre> Player OBP SLG Royce Clayton .304 .344 Adam Lind .303 .404 John McDonald .269 .278 Hector Luna .231 .304 Jason Phillips .268 .269 Sal Fasano .229 .311 Jason Smith .269 .278 Ryan Roberts .250 .077 Curtis Thigpen .268 .269 Howie Clark .298 .245 </pre>
Now what these type of numbers told me was that (a) they couldn’t hit (b) they couldn’t for power (c) they didn’t walk much. All totalled they had an aggregate OPS+ of 55. Often times these were the ones being entrusted to drive home those runners. We had nothing on the bench once Matt Stairs was getting regular AB--these were the guys...no other options.
Now, what do you suppose the odds of these players batting back-to-back-to-back are of getting those leadoff guys home? During inter-league games these three would be followed by the pitcher. All of them were hitting(?) well within career norms with predictable results: stranded base runners, double plays and striking out pretty much as often as they would get a hit.
Since they were hitting(?) within career norms, it’s pretty silly to expect them to morph into A-Rod. What do you do? Stick with the status quo, bemoan your lot in life or try to find a way of cashing in runners under the current circumstances? So, off to BBRef to see how the Jays were hitting in 2007 in various situations. Pretty much what you’d expect. Anything there that might he of aid? A few things cropped up that might help--I mentioned these. Certainly, with nobody out and a man on second, getting him to third (with one out) opens up the possibility of getting a much needed run without requiring that the next hitter do something he has shown little aptitude for doing (getting a hit).
The way I saw it from watching the Jays play is that you’ve got close to three almost automatic outs (aggregate OBP of .275) coming up. Since the odds of an out are excellent as well as a GIDP is there any way you can get something constructive from the situation and reduce the odds of a DP?
If that’s bad analysis--so be it. Good analysis got the Blue Jays one of the worst offences in the AL. As for me, I wouldn’t trust guys with an aggregate OPS of .600 to not strike out/pop up/GIDP when my team is desperate for runs. I’ll take the almost automatic out and try to get a man on third w/less than two out or 2 & 3 1 one out where an out possibly gets a run and a base hit gets me two.
It’s not small ball, it’s not sabermetric, it’s understanding what your personnel can and cannot do. The thing is, I know what Run Expectancy is and I know certain numbers regress or progress to the mean. Those numbers do not use a calendar however. They do not automatically start up March 31 and end October 1. Regression and progression might have started the previous year or might end the following year but isn’t much help at a particular moment in time. You have to look at the circumstances as they exist at that particular point in time.
As to other things discussed: Belle's career ended because of his arthritic hip.
I didn't say retirement. This applies to trades or deciding to re-sign a player as well. It encompasses any situation where a team decides to part ways with a player. As to Albert Belle: Jerry Reinsdorf could’ve retained Belle by matching the Orioles offer--he declined to do so. Why? Despite his 171 OPS+, Belle’s temperament and batting skills weren’t worth the money (Baltimore had offered Belle) to the White Sox.
As to A.J. "kneeing the trainer in the nuts" doesn’t counts as "temperament"-issue? Hillenbrand? He called Theo Epstein a "faggot" Remember: "This is a sinking ship" incident while with Toronto? Just this year he talked his way out of playing in the post season by getting released by the Angels for saying: "If I'm not going to play here, give me enough respect to trade me or get rid of me." I didn’t mention Sammy Sosa for the simple reason that it wasn’t an all-encompassing list--just a few examples.
Canseco killed lefties. Do you think any other player who could bat .273/.395/.697 as part of platoon would be unemployed? Suppose Bryan Clark hit southpaws that hard in 2007. Do you think every team in the major leagues would pass on him in 2008? Kingman was second in the AL in HR. When was the last time the No. 2 HR hitter in the league couldn’t find a job? I used Kingman and Canseco as forced-to-retire examples for the reason of Bonds’ age. Were Bonds 38 somebody would likely take a flier on him. However his age, his baggage the works might not offset what he can do with the bat--especially when regression is factored in.
As to Matthews Jr. the revelation came out after he had signed his contract. That money was guaranteed. Would you pay a guy $55 million to play for another team? He has an option with Bonds (sign/don‘t sign) that he didn’t with Matthews. He couldn’t void the contract because Moreno would lose since there’s no proof of actual usage--he simply received HGH. An arbitrator would side with Matthews on that basis alone. His options are pay Matthews that money to play elsewhere or pay him that money to play with the Angels. He is a businessman--not a crusader.
Some final points: I am not an analyst as Dave mentioned nor have I claimed to be one. I gather all the data I can find and I make a judgment call on it. As a Jays fan, I had plenty of observation to go with it from watching X number of games. You disagree with me? Cool ... world is not gonna end, but if the sole criteria whether you judge a writer and his work is whether his views line up with your own--well there’s not much to be said about that. Guess what? Some folks are going to disagree with you as well. Are you O.K. with your reaction being used by people who hold a different POV than your own?
Bottom line: If everybody agrees with everything I write, then quite frankly, I truly do suck at writing since I’d have to take very vanilla, non-controversial stands on very unimportant subjects and write about that.
Not gonna happen. I’ll give a good faith account about what I feel about a baseball subject, give it my best shot and take my lumps. However if you only wish to read things that you know that you agree with, then maybe it’s time to take a few chances in life and see the world through the eyes of someone else. It’s amazing the stuff you can pick up that way.
Thanks to studes and sardonic for their input. Yup, sometimes they disagree with me and I them. It hasn’t destroyed THT or the web yet and I strongly suspect that it won’t.
Peace out.
Best Regards
John
by John Brattain on Oct 8, 2007 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't this happen to EVERY player in EVERY
sport
However, when the talent level drops below the baseline, his tenure with his team becomes tenuous.
When you no longer have the talent, you no longer get to play the game, on a professional level. If Albert Belle, or Jose Canseco, could hit 50HR, and pass every drug test, they would still be playing, somewhere.
by theblackpearl on Oct 5, 2007 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
in theory, sure, but neifi perez?
by xbhaskarx on Oct 5, 2007 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no, no, no -- read his context
He explicitly states not that the "baseline" is performance, but assholeishness.
by monkeyball on Oct 5, 2007 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
whoops ... ok, not that bad
His assertion is that assholes have a higher replacement-level baseline than other players, which not quite the same thing.
But -- it's still bullshit. Nice guys finish last ... and get a cup of coffee (if they're lucky) and end up as managers or bench coaches or base coaches.
He has the causality precisely reversed: players get to be assholes because they produce well enough to feel impervious. (They also get to be bigger targets for being accused of being assholes by pseudo-populist pseudo-moralists such as Brattain and Jeff Pearlman.)
What's more, he presents zero evidence to support his assertion that teams keep two different sets of stat books for the devils and the angels on the roster.
by monkeyball on Oct 5, 2007 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd like to see more Devil (Rays)
on the Angels roster.
by salb918 on Oct 5, 2007 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
cute response, but ...
... I thought consensus wisdom was that the Rays have a lot of really good young players after whom other teams are lusting.
by monkeyball on Oct 5, 2007 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What causality?
The point at the beginning of the article is that there is a double standard - or more precisely, a sliding scale - for behavior and talent. Barry Bonds c. 2001 could have raped nuns and the Giants would respond by feting him with a ceremony at home plate; at the next tier, Milton Bradley keeps getting shipped out when GMs deem him a tired act, but he'll also keep getting chances as long as his health allows; at the bottom, Jeremy Giambi or Terrence Long are given much less latitude. As players' skills decline, teams are willing to put up with a lot less - and this can be particularly difficult for the former stars whose behavior, as you say, has previously been enabled by the team. Sammy Sosa, who he doesn't mention, might be the best example of this. I don't see what exactly you're disagreeing with in that part, or how you're seeing it as moralizing, since what's at issue here is largely perception.
As for the specific examples here, he definitely overstates his case, but so do you in your response:
Pierzynski fell off a lot from 2003 to 2004, but merely to the same level as a lot of other catchers - more Jason Kendall in 2006 or Damian Miller in 2004 than Kendall in 2007. Teams just don't non-tender everyday catchers with his track record under team control for another year, even coming off a bad year, and the fact that the Giants did so surely had something to do with his other issues - not just the incident with Conte, but also the fact that his teammates in general couldn't stand him.
Kingman had a very strange last year: 35 homers, along with a .210 batting average and .255 OBP. But generally finishing second in the league in home runs will get you at least one contract offer.
Belle is indeed a bad example, as he was still raking in money several years after he was physically incapable of playing.
The main problem I have with the article is that he somewhat conflates off-field issues - steroids, personality, PR - with the other issues that also reduce Bonds' value - his inability to play defense any more, and the fact that his knees could explode at any moment. But he's still correct that the former will help to scare off several teams. Were Bonds' image different, I think the Angels, Mariners, and Twins would all have strong interest as would, for that matter, the Giants.
by andeux on Oct 5, 2007 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
again, I refer you to the selected passage
Players like Albert Belle, Dick Allen, Shea Hillenbrand, Gary Sheffield, A.J. Pierzynski, Dave Kingman, Jose Canseco and Bonds have unofficial charts that their given team uses. On that chart is a movable baseline and there are two lines on it: The first one is “talent,” the second “temperament.” The temperament determines where the baseline resides—the more volatile the player, the higher the baseline is set.
First, there's his unsubstantiated (and, likely, utterly specious) claim:
- Certain ill-tempered players "have unofficial charts that their given team uses"
Do these "charts" exist? Is this poetic license? He builds his entire argument and essay on this metaphor, and expresses it not metaphorically, but literally.
Yes, his overall point -- that there are different behavioral standards -- may well be valid, but if he lies and misleads to make his point (especially since his point is banal at best), then how is his argument valid?
Second, right there in his statement is his causality:
- "The temperament determines where the baseline resides—the more volatile the player, the higher the baseline is set"
You can feel free to dispute my assertion that in the real world, things work the other way. From my direct and indirect observations, people who are really successful at what they do (whether by dint of luck or effort) generate the cultural capital to act as they please (within certain societal limits) that "losers" in life's variety of ludic adventures don't enjoy.
Brattain, however, is clearly stating in that sentence that assholes are judged by higher standards than the rest of us nice people. Again, you can agree or not with that sentiment, but you can't say that he's not making that assertion.
As for the specific examples, sure, yes, absolutely, I overstated my case in a couple instances -- Asshat's personality was a big determining factor in his being dropped by the Giants, and I'm not really familiar enough with the circumstances of Kong's demise. Middle-ground point granted.
As for your examples ... are you now taking the position that Beane dropped Bradley solely because of his personality issues? I thought you were in the it-was-only-because-of-injuries-and-besides-Bradley's-only-a-career-.780-OPS-player camp. And I really don't think Mini-G and T-Long belong in the same category as Bonds/Belle/Pierzynski, do you? Beside which, both of their performances were marginal -- which, I think, proves my point that it's the performance that comes first in the consideration, not that they had extra hurdles to overcome because of their (shall we say) AAAA-level assholeishness. If either had put up a .900 OPS, they would have been retained.
And the precise reason that Brattain doesn't include Sosa is because Sosa's never had a perception as an asshole - quite the contrary, he strove to develop the image of the lovable, fan-friendly, English-mangling counterpoint to Mac's stoicism/recalcitrance, and that rep I'd argue carried him through his performance in front of the media and Congress in the 'roids flapdoodle.
by monkeyball on Oct 5, 2007 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think you have this right at all
(not sure why this article warrants all the discussion anyway.)
First, the "unofficial chart" thing is pretty clearly a metaphor, and I don't think the reader is supposed to think otherwise. And I really think you misunderstand the metaphor. Little G and Long are relevant because their performance did not reach the performance "baseline" established by their assholeishness, and so were cut loose. Big G would not have been cut loose with the same assholeishness score as his brother, because his performance would have been such that the assholishness was worth putting up with.
Second:
Second,
right there in his statement is his causality:
* "The temperament determines where the baseline resides—the more volatile the player, the higher the baseline is set"
You can feel free to dispute my assertion that in the real world, things work the other way. From my direct and indirect observations, people who are really successful at what they do (whether by dint of luck or effort) generate the cultural capital to act as they please (within certain societal limits) that "losers" in life's variety of ludic adventures don't enjoy.
Brattain, however, is clearly stating in that sentence that assholes are judged by higher standards than the rest of us nice people. Again, you can agree or not with that sentiment, but you can't say that he's not making that assertion.
All he's saying here is that volatile players need to perform better than non-volatile players in order to make their contribution worth it to the team. Your first paragraph that I quoted doesn't contradict his point at all, and is really sort of a non sequitur. Really good players do develop the capital to act as they please. But only so long as their really good. His point is that bad players can't afford to be assholes, medium players can afford to be medium assholes, and great players can afford to be big assholes. That is just a handy metaphor that is generally true (and I think applies to Bonds). It won't apply in every case, like some of the ones he mentions, but it's pretty hard to argue with. If Bonds wasn't perceived as an asshole, he'd get much better offers than he's going to get.
Third, I'd be pretty shocked if andeux was in the MB camp that you think, both out of my memory of what he said about it and because he has intelligent opinions.
by mikeA on Oct 5, 2007 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm still reading this differently
I think what he's saying (or trying to say) is this: imagine a (strictly metaphorical) graph
On the X-axis is what a player contributes on the field - production, or in some cases potential production in the form of raw talent.
On the Y-axis is his baggage - actual assholishness, or sometimes merely perceived assholishness or bad PR.
Those players below a diagonal line (X > Y) will be kept, and those above (Y > X) will be dumped. One way of looking at this (yours) is "players with great talent are allowed a wider range of behavior." Another way (his) is that "more talent is demanded from players who exhibit bad behavior." And I'm contending that these statements are logically equivalent, although I agree that the former phrasing is a lot less awkward. None of this is particularly profound, but it also isn't particularly controversial.
Bonds is by most accounts a major asshole, but he has also been an even more major talent. Players like Long and little-G may have been only minor PsITA, but they were even more minor talents, so both were shown the door. And of course both variables for a particular player will change with time.
(As for Bradley, I think you're misremembering my position. I always thought he was a special (in a good way) player, and I was extremely disappointed in the way things ended for him in Oakland, whatever the exact causes were.)
by andeux on Oct 5, 2007 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking about using your graph example
and doing something like this:
/
/
/
/
and then trying to explain it, but it wasn't worth the trouble...
by mikeA on Oct 5, 2007 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're giving him ...
... far more analytic cred than he's due.
If he'd phrased it like you did, I wouldn't have disagreed with it.
But he didn't.
And your logical equivalence is somewhat deficient in its real-world application. There are very few people who act like assholes at baseline without the literal or figurative firepower to ensure their own survival.
by monkeyball on Oct 5, 2007 6:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's the point?
I have to say that I think you guys are being silly. All John is saying is that some players are more disruptive and a cancer in the clubhouse, and GM's are less likely to keep them at a certain level of performance than they are the "good guys."
Conversely, good clubhouse presences are sometimes kept on a team at a lower standard of performance.
This statement doesn't require any analysis. It's obviously true. Maybe you don't agree with some of his examples, but so what? It's an opinion and observation piece, not an analytic piece.
Asking for the actual "charts" is silliest of all.
As for THT's "editorial policy," I own THT, and I wish we had more writers like John.
by studes on Oct 6, 2007 5:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Makes sense to me.
If you consider talent and on field production to be one of the same. Obviously a player's talent in going to vary over his career. It seems that an arthritic hip would limit ones talent as would losing the ability to hit consistently.
by methodrampage on Oct 5, 2007 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For the true seamhead
by skigurl on Oct 5, 2007 10:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Per Leah Garchick
...from whence this link came, "the company promises to have final resting places available for both Giants and A's fans in 2008."
by skigurl on Oct 5, 2007 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the Onion,
that made my day.
by sslinger on Oct 5, 2007 10:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Seeing "Onion"
In the links, I said to my co-worker, "Let's see what the Onion's big story is today." Then I saw it was a story that only a sports fan would really get, and so I hesitated ... until I saw this story: High School Basketball Star Announces He Will Skip College, Go Straight To Embittered Alcoholism
by rubin sierra on Oct 5, 2007 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
drug smuggling
bugs officials in Amsterdam. Meanwhile, in Australia, Mr. Potato Head submits to a full cavity search.
by ArakSOT on Oct 5, 2007 10:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not saying I didn't do it, I'm saying I won't
let you run another test to prove it, without my expert, Pookie from around the way, and my 9 baby's momma's who want my check, to all verify the results.
Sources: NFL's leading rusher Henry faces suspension for violating drug policy
But in a battle that has reached the federal court system, Henry is attempting to block the league from testing the so-called "B-sample" necessary to confirm the positive test, claiming that NFL officials would not allow his expert to be present for the testing of his specimen.
by theblackpearl on Oct 5, 2007 10:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I have that a-hole on my fantasy team
I think I am going to just start skipping the first round every year.
My first round pick last year...Shaun Alexander.
by easyraider on Oct 5, 2007 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You'd never have this problem with a pet unicorn
by monkeyball on Oct 5, 2007 10:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
how is that relevant?
The incident proves the bird is gay, according to Sir Benjamin
by ArakSOT on Oct 5, 2007 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not gay, just mean
Doesn't it seem more likely that the peacock was aggressively (not sexually) attacking the car because it thought the car was a rival male or something?
Actually, that theory sounds dumb too. Seriously, how could a bird mistake a Lexus for another peacock?
by colin on Oct 5, 2007 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have you ever met a peacock?
They are incredibly, incredibly stupid. Big body, teeny tiny head means (proportionately) teeny tiny brain.
by Poppy on Oct 5, 2007 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and what about
the "bizarre declaration of kinship from a convict in a Delhi prison"?
by xbhaskarx on Oct 5, 2007 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was hoping the link within the article
would elaborate on that, but it also simply said "one bizarre declaration of kinship from a convict in a Delhi prison."
Was the declaration itself bizarre? Was a bizarre kinship being alleged? Did they mean "bazaar"? We'll never know...
by Poppy on Oct 5, 2007 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
pirates fire jim tracy
return of ken macha?
by xbhaskarx on Oct 5, 2007 10:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He will first need to...
ponder this job opportunity within his Shed Shop shed while gnawing on a Nation's hamburger.
by franks a lot on Oct 5, 2007 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He could always go work for the Primanti Brothers
by theblackpearl on Oct 5, 2007 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
mmmm Primanti Brothers
Love those sandwiches, man...
by LoveDemAs on Oct 5, 2007 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't want to work today.
by Jennifer on Oct 5, 2007 12:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't want to do anything
by ArakSOT on Oct 5, 2007 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Me three.
Well, not true. I want to watch baseball.
by baseballgirl on Oct 5, 2007 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not even post at AN?
by monkeyball on Oct 5, 2007 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not on opposite day
by ArakSOT on Oct 5, 2007 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I want to teleport home.
I snap my fingers and my shoes are off and my jeans morph to a pair of shorts... old sweatpants with the legs cut out. Then I'd be outside swinging. There is a nice breeze. The sun is setting. CCR is playing... I don't have on headphones. No radio. It's just playing. My dogs are out... the yellow bitch isn't licking my arm. Chocolate ass isn't shedding. No one is drooling.
by Jennifer on Oct 5, 2007 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I forgot about Robert Patrick...
In between CCR breaks, T-1000 is reading the phonebook and feeding me grapes.
by Jennifer on Oct 5, 2007 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can totally relate to the dog piece
except mine would be -
Fat, lazy beagle is not stinking.
Skittish little white terrier isn't peeing every time I look at him the wrong way...
by easyraider on Oct 5, 2007 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no one is drooling?
Why would you wish for a world wherein you're not thinking of Huston Street?
by monkeyball on Oct 5, 2007 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My drooler is out of order.
by Jennifer on Oct 5, 2007 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
An astonishing feat in sporting history
our analysis here at the Burro Hall Institute for Human Performance indicates that he would have been running faster than any athlete in the history of sports, with the possible exception of Secretariat.
and from a politician of all people.
by green star oakland on Oct 5, 2007 12:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That's great
by andeux on Oct 5, 2007 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tracy gets the axe
Coaches Jim Lett, Jim Colborn, Jeff Manto, Jeff Cox, John Shelby and Bobby Cuellar were not fired but encouraged to seek other jobs.
by ArakSOT on Oct 5, 2007 1:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
"their cubicles were moved to the new office"
by monkeyball on Oct 5, 2007 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm having computer & phone issues
at our new office space... and there are two I.T. guys (one from each of the two groups I'm attached to) here right now fighting over fixing my phone. One is getting all territorial with the other. It's pretty entertaining.
They just left for the network switch room. I think one of them is going to come back all covered in the other's blood.
by Poppy on Oct 5, 2007 2:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Are they cute?
by Jennifer on Oct 5, 2007 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The territory-invading one is gorgeous.
Alas, I fear he will perish in the switch room.
by Poppy on Oct 5, 2007 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Go see if he needs backup.
by Jennifer on Oct 5, 2007 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pizza Anyone? That will be 1 grand, and thank you
for visiting NY.
New York on a Million a Day
Take Nino's Bellissima Pizza, where a cool thousand can get you a 12-inch, thin-crusted pie layered with crème fraiche and topped with lobster tail and four different types of caviar. As with the omelet, it's the fish eggs that turn a ten dollar pizza into a wallet-busting event. Nino's owner, Nino Selimaj, said that after spreading $750 worth of caviar, he's left with a measly $250 profit.
by theblackpearl on Oct 5, 2007 2:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Caviar.
Yet another thing that I don't "get". Blech.
by Poppy on Oct 5, 2007 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In small doses
it can be nice, but slathered on a pizza - that's disgusting.
by sslinger on Oct 5, 2007 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought u liked Texas toast Poppy?
by TarJ89 on Oct 5, 2007 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do, but...
what does that have to do with caviar? :P
by Poppy on Oct 5, 2007 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Happy birthday to FHS!
And to Kelly tomorrow!
by Jennifer on Oct 5, 2007 2:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
File this under the...
I probably do not want... but as example #615 of why I hate trade speculation from those in the supposed know... it has been suggested that the As trade for Pat Burrell as our right handed bat and inquire about Mark Prior.
First of all, Mark Prior probably will be expendable by the Cubs and he might be had for a prospect deal but he is the highest of risks. He could be a #3/4 or he could be on the DL all year.
As for Pat Burrell, I know that the Phils do have Bourn/Vic but my guess is he is going to be a) rather expensive b) probably has a no trade clause of some sort and c) the Phils would ask for Chavez and I can't see BB getting over his man crush.
Anyways, just thought I'd throw that out there for anyone as at least it's someone different than A-Rod and Bonds. Personally, unless they were interested in someone who was truly expendable, I wouldn't even ponder it. Certainly, they aren't someone you trade a Blanton or Street for IMO.
by AsWin on Oct 5, 2007 2:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What does Rich need company on the DL? Mark
is one of the only pitchers in the majors with less innings pitched than Rich, why would we want him too?
by theblackpearl on Oct 5, 2007 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe Rich and Mark..
are planning to go on the Amazing Race as a team during the season.. They aren't going to be pitching on the mound.
by AsWin on Oct 5, 2007 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
combined they can make 30-35 starts and be a good pitcher.
by Helloooo 1st on Oct 5, 2007 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'll take 5-10
by xbhaskarx on Oct 5, 2007 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The reason why Burrell keeps getting talked about
is that he has an albatross contract. It's generally thought that the Phillies won't ask for much in return to avoid having to pay his salary.
I doubt they'd want another albatross in Chavez, though. And after his great 2nd half this year, it seems less likely that he'll be ridden out of town on a rail before his contract expires.
Unfortunately Burrell is another one of those guys who just cannot play a competent position. He's a dismal left fielder, with the result that he's basically Jack Cust at 28 times the cost. (And right-handed, I guess.)
by PaulThomas on Oct 5, 2007 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
daily violence dump
MLS: Ricardo Clark kicks Carlos Ruiz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKL8L...
reality tv awards show (??) fight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9wK2...
by xbhaskarx on Oct 5, 2007 3:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Jerry Blevins makes the 2007 World Cup team for
the USA.
Team USA also has thrived with power relievers, and this year’s staff has several possible closers, led by Lee Gronkiewicz, a crafty veteran (as is Phillips) of last summer’s team that beat host Cuba to win the qualifying tournament. He’s joined in the ‘pen by veteran Chris Booker (Nationals), curveball specialist Jeff Stevens (Indians) and former Miami star Chris Perez (Cardinals). Neil Musser (Royals) and hard-throwing Jerry Blevins (Athletics) lend quality lefties to the bullpen mix for pitching coach Marcel Lachemann, like Johnson a veteran of USA Baseball pro teams.
by theblackpearl on Oct 5, 2007 3:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Oooops, wrong sport....
I thought you meant he made the soccer world cup team....I thought that was so cool, he has an off season sport to keep him in shape.....
by gigglingone on Oct 5, 2007 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of players from the A's organization
playing in fall baseball, I'd like to point out that we have three representatives on the Waikiki Beach Boys: Jared Lansford, Jermaine Mitchell and Justin Sellers.
In fact, Lansford was the Beach Boys' starting pitcher in Thursday's game.
by Soaker on Oct 5, 2007 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All those who think my DLD sucks, raise your hand
I can't even get 100 comments.... <sigh>
by gigglingone on Oct 5, 2007 10:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
it's been open for almost 14 hours
and only 88 comments. that's 6.28 comments per hour. that sucks.
by gigglingone on Oct 5, 2007 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is only like my second post
but I've been a "lurker" on here since the beginning of this season. I really enjoy all the great discussion here. It's the first website I go to every day and my main source for A's news. Although this hasn't been the best year for the A's it's been for me the most fun because of this site. I've been a little hesitant to post here, but I finally decided to do it. Anyways I found this today and thought that this would be perfect for the DLD and that many people here would enjoy it! It's this really funny video someone made about Royals
by keebree89 on Oct 6, 2007 12:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That was good! Thanks for posting!
by Ice Cream on Oct 6, 2007 7:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was really good!
I LOL'd at least thrice -- thanks for putting it up here and coming out of lurk mode. And if anyone creates a weekend link dump I suggest re-posting it there :-)
by oblique on Oct 6, 2007 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Athletics Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
