PDA

View Full Version : Worst Team in WS History?



GOOCH
10-20-2006, 07:40 PM
Hey, RedZone folks. Really enjoyed your game threads. Alot of folks expressed disappointment at an 83-win team going to the Series. But let me suggest that perhaps doing so suggests win-loss record is a better measure of team quality than it really is. Luck can factor strongly in the difference between an 83 win team and a 90 win team. Consider that the Cardinals were 19-27 in one run games in 2006....and that the outcome of one-run games is very much a matter of luck. Consider, also that the 2004 Cardinal team went 29 - 20 in one run games. Flip those results and the 2006 Cardinals are a 92 win team... and the 2004 Cardinals are a 94 win team. I'm not suggesting that these teams were equal (if they had been .500 in one-run games, the 06 Cards would have been an 88 win team and the 04 Cards would have been a 99 win team)...but I would suggest the 06 Cards aren't quite as bad as their 83 win season might indicate. D.GOOCH

Patrick Bateman
10-20-2006, 08:04 PM
781 RS
762 RA

I don't think the Cards were especially unlucky. Based on RS-RA, they basically got what they deserved.

westofyou
10-21-2006, 12:47 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5638


The bigger problem, frankly, is that this year’s iteration of the Cardinals just isn’t very good. The team finished the regular season with an Elo Rating of 1484, which is below the average of 1500. Although that rating has since risen to 1507 as a result of the Cardinals’ postseason success, this nevertheless represents the lowest Elo Rating for a team entering the World Series in my database, which goes back to 1960. In fact, you can make a good case that the 2006 Cardinals are the worst team to ever play in a World Series, since the two-league, one-winner structure of elder days would have prevented an 83-78 entity from ever playing in October.

Nevertheless, Cardinals fans can find some hope in the fact that the second-worst team ever to play in the World Series, the 1987 Twins (1514 Elo Rating after the LCS), went on to win the damned thing, beating none other than the Cardinals. And for a team that played so flatly for much of the year, the Cardinals have genuinely sparkled in the postseason, as four of their seven October victories have been by at least three runs.

LINEDRIVER
10-21-2006, 01:24 PM
The 1973 Mets, who were in last place in the NL East on August 17, got hot and eventually won the divison title with a record of 82-79.

The Mets stayed hot and won the NL pennant by defeating the NL West leading Reds who racked up a regurlar season record of 99-63!!!

As a longtime devoted Reds' fan, I was happy to see Oakland win the World Series by beating the Mets in 7 games.

OnBaseMachine
10-21-2006, 01:47 PM
Gooch, you are one of the very few Cards fan who I actually like, but I have to disagree with you on this post. The Cardinals really are a bad baseball team. Their record says so, and their run differential says so. Their rotation is horrible, and the offense isn't anything special. The Cardinals would have finished 10 games below .500 if the NL hadn't been so bad this year.

Falls City Beer
10-21-2006, 04:11 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5638

But the team as it stands right now is greatly improved by the emergence/growth of their bullpen arms. In other words, this "iteration" of the Cards is much better in the bullpen department since the removal of Izzy (just as the Reds were better when they removed Griffey and Clayton from the lineup); this isn't the same Cards lineup as it was in June.

westofyou
10-21-2006, 06:44 PM
First-order winning percentage is computed using actual runs scored and allowed. Second-order winning percentage uses equivalent runs scored and allowed, based on run elements (hits, walks, total bases, etc.) and the scoring environment (park and league adjustments). Third-order winning percentage adjusts for the quality of the opponent's hitting and pitching via EqA allowed and opponents' EqA.


Of the 204 teams to advance to the World Series, this year's Cardinals go right to the top--or bottom--of this list, the Fall Classic participants with the worst third-order winning percentage:


2006 St. Louis Cardinals: .471
1987 Minnesota Twins: .488
1973 New York Mets: .511
1959 Los Angeles Dodgers: .522
1997 Cleveland Indians: .525
1984 San Diego Padres: .528
1985 Kansas City Royals: .528
2000 New York Yankees: .530
1961 Cincinnati Reds: .532
2000 New York Mets .535
1964 St. Louis Cardinals .535


Only one of these teams was unfortunate to turn up on the larger mismatchup list we're discussing today, the 1961 Reds. Half of these clubs became World Champions. Technically, it's more than half, since only one winner was going to come out of the 2000 World Series. (It is no wonder that nobody paid much attention to the first Subway Series in over four decades--it wasn't just that it was New York-centric, it was also arguably the worst World Series matchup in history.)

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5639&PHPSESSID=9431d4262c07b82300925c0de1297802

Falls City Beer
10-21-2006, 08:55 PM
First-order winning percentage is computed using actual runs scored and allowed. Second-order winning percentage uses equivalent runs scored and allowed, based on run elements (hits, walks, total bases, etc.) and the scoring environment (park and league adjustments). Third-order winning percentage adjusts for the quality of the opponent's hitting and pitching via EqA allowed and opponents' EqA.




2006 St. Louis Cardinals: .471
1987 Minnesota Twins: .488
1973 New York Mets: .511
1959 Los Angeles Dodgers: .522
1997 Cleveland Indians: .525
1984 San Diego Padres: .528
1985 Kansas City Royals: .528
2000 New York Yankees: .530
1961 Cincinnati Reds: .532
2000 New York Mets .535
1964 St. Louis Cardinals .535



http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5639&PHPSESSID=9431d4262c07b82300925c0de1297802



Hey, someone agrees with me about the 2000 World Series being the worst in my lifetime!

GAC
10-22-2006, 08:09 AM
What is also interesting is that these two teams, over the last 50 regular season games of the '06 season, were the worst (#1 and #2) as far as won-loss records in MLB.

GOOCH
10-22-2006, 04:13 PM
Folks,

Here is what I would argue. For *alot* of the regular season, the Cardinals were a bad team. They were, in fact, a worse team than an 83 win regular season would indicate. For the bulk of the Summer, this was a sub .500 team. However, as Don Rumsfeld has noted, you go to war with the army you have...not the army you want. And that's what the Cardinals did. Why were they so bad? They had injured players that spent *waaay* too many games starting for the Cards. Izzy blew save after save because he was trying to pitch on an arthritic hip. Mulder blew game after game trying to pitch with a bumb shoulder. We spent two months without Jim Edmonds. We spent two months without David Eckstein (and about 4 weeks of him trying to play through post-concussion syndrome...he played horribly). And Rolen cost us down the stretch by playing with a fatigued shoulder. And, oh yes, we kept trotting out Jason Marquis day after day...despite the fact that he sucks. Oh....he sucks bad.

Well, those aren't the Cardinals you are seeing in the playoffs. You are looking at a Cardinals team with a now-tested and *dominant* closer in Adam Wainwright. You are seeing a team with a solid set-up man (who spent most of the regular season closing for the Memphis Redbirds) who pitches well against lefties and righties in Josh Kinney. And you see two lefty setup men who pitched like rookies for most of the regular season but have pitched like established veterans since the post-season started. As for offense, Jim Edmonds has returned to form and is contributing. Eck has yet to contribute, but he's taking tough at-bats and is playing a good short. Rolen seems to have recovered. And Chris Duncan, another guy we only had for half a season, is contributing with his bat.

This is not the team that stumbled to 83 games. Had we had this team intact for most of the season, we wouldn't have only won 83 games. This team has more akin to the 100 win teams of 04' and 05' than it does to the regular season 06' Cards. D.GOOCH

OnBaseMachine
10-22-2006, 04:18 PM
Well, if the Reds players hadn't gotten injured too then we would have won 101 games, beating the Cardinals out by one game. :cool:

Falls City Beer
10-22-2006, 04:23 PM
Folks,

Here is what I would argue. For *alot* of the regular season, the Cardinals were a bad team. They were, in fact, a worse team than an 83 win regular season would indicate. For the bulk of the Summer, this was a sub .500 team. However, as Don Rumsfeld has noted, you go to war with the army you have...not the army you want. And that's what the Cardinals did. Why were they so bad? They had injured players that spent *waaay* too many games starting for the Cards. Izzy blew save after save because he was trying to pitch on an arthritic hip. Mulder blew game after game trying to pitch with a bumb shoulder. We spent two months without Jim Edmonds. We spent two months without David Eckstein (and about 4 weeks of him trying to play through post-concussion syndrome...he played horribly). And Rolen cost us down the stretch by playing with a fatigued shoulder. And, oh yes, we kept trotting out Jason Marquis day after day...despite the fact that he sucks. Oh....he sucks bad.

Well, those aren't the Cardinals you are seeing in the playoffs. You are looking at a Cardinals team with a now-tested and *dominant* closer in Adam Wainwright. You are seeing a team with a solid set-up man (who spent most of the regular season closing for the Memphis Redbirds) who pitches well against lefties and righties in Josh Kinney. And you see two lefty setup men who pitched like rookies for most of the regular season but have pitched like established veterans since the post-season started. As for offense, Jim Edmonds has returned to form and is contributing. Eck has yet to contribute, but he's taking tough at-bats and is playing a good short. Rolen seems to have recovered. And Chris Duncan, another guy we only had for half a season, is contributing with his bat.

This is not the team that stumbled to 83 games. Had we had this team intact for most of the season, we wouldn't have only won 83 games. This team has more akin to the 100 win teams of 04' and 05' than it does to the regular season 06' Cards. D.GOOCH

Exactly.

Teams, like hominids, evolve. In June the Cardinals were Java Man. In October Homo sapiens. It's that simple. Dumping Izzy meant they stood upright and mastered the use of the opposable thumb.

(I think the Reds will see a similar evolutionary moment when Griffey--the vestigial tail--is removed).

OnBaseMachine
10-22-2006, 04:30 PM
The Cardinals would probably have been 20 games below .500 if their was such a thing as HGH testing.

Falls City Beer
10-22-2006, 04:34 PM
The Cardinals would probably have been 20 games below .500 if their was such a thing as HGH testing.

Outside of Pujols who do you think is using HGH?

OnBaseMachine
10-22-2006, 04:39 PM
Chris Duncan comes to mind. Here is a guy with a career .749 OPS minor league OPS who just came out out of no where to post a .950+ OPS with the Cardinals? Not often you see a bad minor leaguer come up and post an OPS 200 points higher than his minor league average.

Falls City Beer
10-22-2006, 04:42 PM
Chris Duncan comes to mind. Here is a guy with a career .749 OPS minor league OPS who just came out out of no where to post a .950+ OPS with the Cardinals? Not often you a bad minor leaguer come up and post an OPS 200 points higher than his minor league average.

I won't argue with that. He looks REALLY roided out. Plus, with his old man being such a visible and powerful figure, no one's going to make Chris tinkle into a cup.

That's a fair observation, OBM. I think he's a roidhead much more than I think Pujols is.

OnBaseMachine
10-22-2006, 04:47 PM
Also, LaRussa's teams have always been full of juicers dating back to his Oakland days. Coincidence? I think not.

GOOCH
10-22-2006, 04:56 PM
Chris Duncan is 6'5". He looks more like Adam Dunn than Mark McGwire. Not that appearance tells you much about steroid use. Look, if it makes you feel better maligning good and great players with the steriod charge, with not one iota of evidence to back it up, fine. But it is not even close to 'fair' and it doesn't strike me as a good way to spend your time. D.GOOCH

OnBaseMachine
10-22-2006, 04:57 PM
I think Scott Speizio's chin is on steroirds. Or crack. One of the two.

My evidence is his manager has a history of managing juicers (not a coincidence), and Duncan's 200+ point boost in OPS raises a red flag for me.

westofyou
10-22-2006, 05:01 PM
with his old man being such a visible and powerful figure, no one's going to make Chris tinkle into a cup.

Really?

If Barry has done it you can bet Chris Duncan will.

MWM
10-22-2006, 05:14 PM
Gooch, are you arguing that this isn't a bad team, or that it's not worse relative to most past world series teams? Those are two different arguments. I don't think they're really a bad team in the sense that the Royals are a bad team. This Cards team has some talent and is most definitely not a bad team. But when I think of World Series caliber teams, sorry but this years Cards do not seem to be in that category. They were in the right place at the right time in the NL. Nothing wrong with that and if I were a Cards fan, I wouldn't care one iota if that were the case if it meant another world series.

But if you're trying to convince me that this Cardinals team is on par with most of the teams that go to the World Series, I dn't think you're going to get very far. Bad team? Nah. Typical World Series caliber? No either. The 2006 Cardinals are not very high on the list when you're talking about quality of teams in the World Series. As a matter of fact, I'm looking over the list of teams, in both leagues, that made the World Series over the last 25 years, and the only team I think is in the same category is the 87 Twins. I can't look at a single other team and say, "yeah, this year's Cardinals team is as good or better."

If I were you, I'd be sitting back and saying, "I don't give a damn." But I would be trying to convinve us that they're at the same level as most of the teams that go to the series.

vaticanplum
10-22-2006, 05:19 PM
MWM! how was the game?

Falls City Beer
10-22-2006, 05:21 PM
Really?

If Barry has done it you can bet Chris Duncan will.

Hello, skin color.

Plus Bobby Bonds is so far out of the game that he doesn't have the current weight to throw around in MLB that a politically connected guy like Duncan has.

You can bet your arse if Dave Duncan says "There's nothing to see here, move along," that that's exactly what MLB will do.

And Duncan will never draw the attention that Bonds does anyway, so the point is moot.

If there's a juicer on the Cardinals, it's Chris Duncan: he's all kinds of puffy, and has those "log" arms that you can't achieve by lifting weights alone. Plus, he's pretty pimply, and has a faint moonface. I'd bet a case of kosher dogs the guy's getting chemical assistance.

westofyou
10-22-2006, 05:23 PM
Assumptions are fun.. but in the end they're just that.

Me?

I like data.

Falls City Beer
10-22-2006, 05:28 PM
Assumptions are fun.. but in the end they're just that.

Me?

I like data.

I do too. But occasionally assumptions are interesting. And let's face it: it was assumptions that lead to the whole steroids witchhunt in the first place. It sure as hell wasn't hard evidence.

I think some Reds have used steroids. I think a lot of players use steroids. So it's not sour grapes on my part. (And like I said, I have no reason to suspect Pujols is a user).

And with the data provided by OBM that revealed such a freaky statistical jump in Duncan's numbers, coupled with his physique, well, I don't feel so bad about throwing around harmless conjecture on a message board.

mth123
10-22-2006, 05:32 PM
Plus Bobby Bonds is so far out of the game that he doesn't have the current weight to throw around in MLB that a politically connected guy like Duncan has.

Bobby Bonds is no longer with us.

I would think that Barry's status in the record book would give him plenty of weight in the game regardless of who his dad is.

It would certainly have more weight than Dave Duncan.

westofyou
10-22-2006, 05:37 PM
FWIW Chris Duncan 6'5 210, Willie McCovey 6'4" 195

Falls City Beer
10-22-2006, 05:40 PM
Bobby Bonds is no longer with us.

I would think that Barry's status in the record book would give him plenty of weight in the game regardless of who his dad is.

It would certainly have more weight than Dave Duncan.

First of all, Barry Bonds, by his nature as the top player in his sport performing at the level he performed at his age, was a lightning rod. He was bound to attract scrutiny.

And if you don't think that a living breathing member of the Baseball Brotherhood can't deflect suspicion away from one of its member's sons, then I don't know what to say. A guy like Dave Duncan, and by extension Tony Larussa, is among the top 20 or so most powerful people in all of baseball--the only people more powerful than two guys like that are team owners. Players--even superstars like Barry Bonds--don't possess the clout that guys like Larussa, Duncan, Torre possess--not in the exceedingly conservative and white ivory tower of MLB.

Falls City Beer
10-22-2006, 05:42 PM
FWIW Chris Duncan 6'5 210, Willie McCovey 6'4" 195

I'm 6'6" 230, and I possess the physique of a china doll by comparison to Chris Duncan.

If Chris Duncan is a pound under 250, then I'm Lancelot Link.

mth123
10-22-2006, 05:54 PM
First of all, Barry Bonds, by his nature as the top player in his sport performing at the level he performed at his age, was a lightning rod. He was bound to attract scrutiny.

And if you don't think that a living breathing member of the Baseball Brotherhood can't deflect suspicion away from one of its member's sons, then I don't know what to say. A guy like Dave Duncan, and by extension Tony Larussa, is among the top 20 or so most powerful people in all of baseball--the only people more powerful than two guys like that are team owners. Players--even superstars like Barry Bonds--don't possess the clout that guys like Larussa, Duncan, Torre possess--not in the exceedingly conservative and white ivory tower of MLB.

I would think that Barry's run at the records and to a lesser extent the race issue, is the very reason why Baseball would turn the other way for Barry and go hard after guys like Duncan. Above all else baseball wants to have the appearance of a "clean" record, a good record with minorities, and an effective steroid testing program.

They don't want evidence against Bonds. But catching a guy like Duncan would say that baseball is:

- effectively testing
- impartial toward players with baseball heritage ("brotherhood" as you say)
- blind to race

If Duncan was guilty, they would be announcing it with fanfare IMO. They wouldn't be covering it up.

GOOCH
10-22-2006, 08:00 PM
I think Scott Speizio's chin is on steroirds. Or crack. One of the two.

My evidence is his manager has a history of managing juicers (not a coincidence), and Duncan's 200+ point boost in OPS raises a red flag for me.

He's a young player. Young players 'turn it on' all the time. It isn't really that surprising. Nor is a half of a season a big sample size, which means that 'boosts' like this happen all the time. It remains very much to be seen if Duncan can produce like that over a full season. And I don't see what good it does to speculate about steroids. D.GOOCH

Falls City Beer
10-22-2006, 08:03 PM
And I don't see what good it does to speculate about steroids. D.GOOCH

I didn't realize we were here to "change the world."

Speculation is fun, IMO.

You don't have to like it, but some do.

GOOCH
10-22-2006, 08:05 PM
MWM, I'd argue this is a very good team. I think all the talk of 'worst WS team in history' is ridiculous. Just in recent memory (say the oughts), we have WS victors (Angels, Marlins) that didn't feature the kind of talent that is on this Cardinals team. Injuries are the key explanation as to why this Cardinals team dropped 20 extra games this season in comparison to the last two. But the fact is, the foundation of those two 100-win teams is still the foundation of this team. This is a good team. In my opinion, the team we're fielding right now matches up with the Tigers team everyone was ready to crown, Denny Green style. They have (had) the edge in pitching, we have an edge in hitting. But it is a close matchup...no matter what the so-called 'experts' say. D.GOOCH

GOOCH
10-22-2006, 08:09 PM
I didn't realize we were here to "change the world."

Speculation is fun, IMO.

You don't have to like it, but some do.

If I speculated that you were cheating on your wife, would you consider it fun? I'm no fan of witch hunts. D.GOOCH

Falls City Beer
10-22-2006, 08:14 PM
If I speculated that you were cheating on your wife, would you consider it fun? I'm no fan of witch hunts. D.GOOCH

Go ahead. Then supply evidence.

At least I can point to CLEAR physical signs of usage, plus point to his wildly incommensurate jump in numbers between the minors and MLB. I'm not saying go get the guy. It's just idle speculation based upon strong circumstantial evidence. I understand the limitations of that approach, but, seriously, what the hell difference does my speculation on a message board make?

These guys are public figures. What I say about them doesn't matter a bit one way or another. You making up stuff about my fidelity could be considered, under certain rubrics, libelous, as I am not a public figure.

Something tells me that if I were speculating about a Mariner or a Padre, you wouldn't be chastising me.

Swampturkey
10-22-2006, 08:16 PM
As I said before, the best team doesn't always win the WS. The best team doesn't even always get there, but if my Cardinals win the WS, should I be embarressed or say they didn't deserve it? Hell no.

The Cardinals have played some unbelievable ball this October. The team I'm watching now is not the team I saw play 161 (one rainout that wasn't made up) games this season. They've gotten hot at the right time and I'm hoping to see my first World Series Championshiph by my favorite team.

How many of you would love to see the Reds in the position that the Cards are in?

MWM
10-22-2006, 09:19 PM
MWM, I'd argue this is a very good team. I think all the talk of 'worst WS team in history' is ridiculous. Just in recent memory (say the oughts), we have WS victors (Angels, Marlins) that didn't feature the kind of talent that is on this Cardinals team. Injuries are the key explanation as to why this Cardinals team dropped 20 extra games this season in comparison to the last two. But the fact is, the foundation of those two 100-win teams is still the foundation of this team. This is a good team. In my opinion, the team we're fielding right now matches up with the Tigers team everyone was ready to crown, Denny Green style. They have (had) the edge in pitching, we have an edge in hitting. But it is a close matchup...no matter what the so-called 'experts' say. D.GOOCH

Sure it's a good team. I said as much. But I think the next 4 teams in the AL who didn't make the playoffs were better than any team made the playoffs in the NL.

It's not a bad team. But someone has to be the weaker teams to go to the World Series. And I looked at every team that made the World Series the past 25 years team by team, and I can't think of one that I look at and say, "the 2006 Cards are definitely better than that team." And the 2003 Marlins were a very good team. They had the best record in baseball the second half of the season. That's the year Willis came up and lit the world on fire down the stretch. Beckett was healthy in the second half and playoffs and so was Pavano and Brad Penny. They had Pudge, Derek Lee, Luis Castillo, and a very good Mike Lowell that year. They weren't one of the best teams to be World Series, but they were a very good team in the second half and playoffs. Sorry, but Carpenter is the only starter on the staff who would have cracked that playoff rotation.

And I'm not sure why you'd mention the Angels. You can't seriously think this year's Cards are anywhere near that team that won 99 games and had the best record in baseball a lot of the year and beat a Yankee team that won 103 games (as opposed to a putrid Padre team and banged up Met team). They had the 3rd best ERA in the game and the best in the AL. They were 4th in the majors in runs scored and had an almost unhittable bullpen. I think the 2002 Angels were one of the better teams we've seen in the past decade.

Look, it's not Cards hate. Whatever team that came out of the NL this year was going to wear that title. It's one of those years. You shouldn't make apologies, the team earned there way to where they are. But part of the beauty of baseball discussion, especially from fans of other teams, is evaluating where certain teams in the Series rank among the other teams in the past that have made it there. And I honestly believe this year's Cards don't stack up to just about all of those teams over the past 25 years. The two you mentioned, the Marlins were a good deal better, but the Angels were superior in every way.

Sure they have some good talent, but I'm looking top to bottom. If there were weaker teams over that stretch I'd like to see them. They were the best team in baseball two years ago. One of the top 3 last year, and the best team in the NL. But this year is different. In my lifetime I've never seen a league like the 2006 NL. It's an anomaly of biblical proportions. The Cards took advantage. Nothing wrong with it, but as baseball fans we're still going to try to objectively put the team in its rightful place when discussing the history of the World Series.

MWM
10-22-2006, 09:20 PM
How many of you would love to see the Reds in the position that the Cards are in?

I sure as hell would love to see it. That has nothing to do with the conversation. Had the 2006 Reds made the World Seires ( and considering they only lost out of the playoffs by a couple of game, it's not that off-the-wall a concept), they would have been the worst team in the histroy of the series by a large margin.

GOOCH
10-23-2006, 01:25 AM
Go ahead. Then supply evidence.


Speculation is evidence-less. That's why it is called speculation. And that's exactly what you're doing when you start spouting about steroids for every player that has some success.



At least I can point to CLEAR physical signs of usage,


There are no clear signs of usage, nor have you pointed to any such that could be authoritatively relied upon.



plus point to his wildly incommensurate jump in numbers between the minors and MLB.


When you can show me that the average baseball player enters the minor leagues, performs at a certain level, and maintains that level through out his career, I'll be ready to listen to what you suggest is an "incommesurate" jump. Alot of players get better. It's called *development*. And anyone who tells you that baseball players develop linearly and incrementally is selling you snake oil.



I'm not saying go get the guy. It's just idle speculation based upon strong circumstantial evidence.


LOL. Strong circumstantial evidence? He's hitting better for half a season. And he's big. That's your 'strong circumstantial evidence.' Wow.



I understand the limitations of that approach, but, seriously, what the hell difference does my speculation on a message board make?


This is such a nonsense response. Do you think where you engage in ridiculous, unjustified, baseless, and defamatory speculation matters?

"Bob is sleeping with your wife."

"Really? What proof do you have?"

"Hey, I'm just speculating. And we're just shooting the breeze over the water cooler, so what does it matter."

Give me a break. D.GOOCH

Falls City Beer
10-23-2006, 09:39 AM
Speculation is evidence-less. That's why it is called speculation. And that's exactly what you're doing when you start spouting about steroids for every player that has some success.



There are no clear signs of usage, nor have you pointed to any such that could be authoritatively relied upon.



When you can show me that the average baseball player enters the minor leagues, performs at a certain level, and maintains that level through out his career, I'll be ready to listen to what you suggest is an "incommesurate" jump. Alot of players get better. It's called *development*. And anyone who tells you that baseball players develop linearly and incrementally is selling you snake oil.



LOL. Strong circumstantial evidence? He's hitting better for half a season. And he's big. That's your 'strong circumstantial evidence.' Wow.



This is such a nonsense response. Do you think where you engage in ridiculous, unjustified, baseless, and defamatory speculation matters?

"Bob is sleeping with your wife."

"Really? What proof do you have?"

"Hey, I'm just speculating. And we're just shooting the breeze over the water cooler, so what does it matter."

Give me a break. D.GOOCH

He's a public figure. I can speculate all I want about him or any other public figure I wish.

No. Speculation is based on a continuum of evidence. Not all speculation is totally baseless. Sometimes it's well-informed speculation; sometimes it's wild. To say that Chris Duncan, who has many of the external features of a steroid user (my brother's a physician who treats people with Crohn's disease--he can pick out a steroid user in a crowd of 50 jocks)--and there are VERY telltale signs of roid usage, very, very telltale--is an understatement. Is it verifiable? No, of course not. But I really think you need to rethink your definition of defamation.

To step away from your precious Cardinals for a bit: I believe Vinny Castilla was a roid user. I believed Canseco was for years. I believed Giambi was. And guess what? They all exhibited the same external signifiers of steroid usage: moonface, log arms, pimpling, slight skin discoloration. Add those factors to the admission on the part of many athletes to the usage of performance-enhancing chemicals, and the speculation ain't so wild. And like I said, Pujols exhibits NONE of those steroidal traits, so the speculation about him is TOTALLY unfounded, IMO.

GOOCH
10-24-2006, 01:43 AM
You cannot identify a steroid user from a non-steroid user by looking at them. That is simply a myth. You have no basis for your speculation that Chris Duncan takes steroids. And you can go off on a tangent about how you have a 'right' to speculate about him all you want, but no one is questioning your right to say anything. You can say it all you like. That you have the right to do so doesn't make it any less baseless, any less irresponsible, or any less reprehensible. D.GOOCH

Cedric
10-24-2006, 01:52 AM
He's a public figure. I can speculate all I want about him or any other public figure I wish.

No. Speculation is based on a continuum of evidence. Not all speculation is totally baseless. Sometimes it's well-informed speculation; sometimes it's wild. To say that Chris Duncan, who has many of the external features of a steroid user (my brother's a physician who treats people with Crohn's disease--he can pick out a steroid user in a crowd of 50 jocks)--and there are VERY telltale signs of roid usage, very, very telltale--is an understatement. Is it verifiable? No, of course not. But I really think you need to rethink your definition of defamation.

To step away from your precious Cardinals for a bit: I believe Vinny Castilla was a roid user. I believed Canseco was for years. I believed Giambi was. And guess what? They all exhibited the same external signifiers of steroid usage: moonface, log arms, pimpling, slight skin discoloration. Add those factors to the admission on the part of many athletes to the usage of performance-enhancing chemicals, and the speculation ain't so wild. And like I said, Pujols exhibits NONE of those steroidal traits, so the speculation about him is TOTALLY unfounded, IMO.

In your opinion. Of course he might be clean, but with the issues with his trainer, his obvious acne, and his baldness I question him like I do every other Dominican player.

He has acne on his cheeks, either that or some serious scars.

His stats are also grounds for questioning during this era. It's today's game. He's putting up Jimmie Foxx numbers and with that is going to come skepticism in today's game. Not too mention he's doing things that just don't look natural. He's hitting totally underneath balls and somehow they are going 420 feet the other way. Some of my opinions on Pujols are just strictly based on that. He is either the strongest player in the history of the game or getting help with his bat speed and overall power. I've never seen another player like Bonds or Pujols in the time they can wait for pitches. They have all day to decide to swing or not.

GAC
10-24-2006, 08:17 AM
You cannot identify a steroid user from a non-steroid user by looking at them. That is simply a myth. You have no basis for your speculation that Chris Duncan takes steroids. And you can go off on a tangent about how you have a 'right' to speculate about him all you want, but no one is questioning your right to say anything. You can say it all you like. That you have the right to do so doesn't make it any less baseless, any less irresponsible, or any less reprehensible. D.GOOCH

I agree, and I'm downright embarassed over anyone on this forum who, because they are upset that the Cards aren't "deserving" to be in the WS, now have to resort to childish and petty jealousy over steroid accusations and assumptions.

If you look at the Cards "on paper", sure, anyone would wonder how in the world did they get in? But games/series are won on the playing field.

And you brought up some good points earlier Gooch. The Cards struggled with some injuries to very key players throughout the season.

But regardless, this team put it together and did what they had to do to get where they are. They beat at SD team 3 games to 1 when many predicted that SD, who was playing good ball, would advance. They then beat the best team in the NL (Mets) in 7 games to make it to the WS.

And as far as I'm concerned, regardless of their regular season record, they EARNED the right to be where they are right now.

As for Pujols using HGH. Simple poo-poo until it is proven.

I've read the Grimsley affidavit. Alot of assumptions made. Grimsley stated he "suspects" several ballplayers are using steroids and other substances. Wow! What a revelation! Thanks Jason!

I know that he and Albert used the same trainer (Chris Mihlfeld). But he is not named as a supplier, but as the "referrer". And just because he helped Grimsley does not mean that every ballplayer he trained is/was on steroids. Where is that shown?

I just simply want to see the evidence. People have a right to their assumptions, but I still want to see the evidence. I just think there would be a "trail" that some investigative reporter would have found and broke the story by now.

And I really don't see the physical signs and/or indicators of steroid use in Pujols. I read an article this morning where it stated that since he was 19 he has put on 20 pounds and added some muscle. What 19 yr old kid wouldn't, through the maturing process add on weight, and then, through training and hard work, turn some of that into muscle? And everyone who has known Pujols says he has always had a fire and very intense work ethic. They say the guy is watching TV constantly - game films and hitting. His work ethic reminds me alot of Tony Gwynn. It's intense and above average in comparison to alot of ML players.

And Pujols has said.... "They can test me every day if they want. ... You're not going to find anything out about me," he says. "I work hard for it. I don't need any types of things like that to help me out in my game. I just take the blessing the good Lord has given me to perform."

Until it is shown otherwise, I believe that.

And another reason why I respect and like Pujols (which doesn't get much attention) is the Pujols Family Foundation he and his wife founded. Anyone ever see the interview a couple years back on how he met his wife, who had a child with Downs Syndrome? Quite touching and says alot about this young man as far as ethics and character as far as I'm concerned.

http://www.pujolsfamilyfoundation.org/index2.html

I wish he was our 1Bman. ;)

westofyou
10-24-2006, 11:08 AM
His stats are also grounds for questioning during this era. It's today's game. He's putting up Jimmie Foxx numbers

1928 - 1938 MLB - .280/.343/.401/.744 - Foxx - .335/.439/.639/1.077

2001-2005 - MLB - .264/.332/.422/.755 Albert - .332/.416/.621/1.037

So matching Foxx's numbers makes him suspicious, I guess then Mantle would have been drawn and quartered too.

Mantle 52-58

.319/.437/.589/1.026 - MLB in the same time .259/.330/.391/.720

Falls City Beer
10-24-2006, 11:20 AM
You cannot identify a steroid user from a non-steroid user by looking at them. That is simply a myth.


Yep. I'll take the Gooch's (all caps) opinion over the opinion of my brother, a doctor who's had three article credits in the JAMA.

There are irrefutable external signs of a roid abuser.

GAC
10-24-2006, 11:26 AM
What are those obvious outward physical signs on Pujols?

Cedric
10-24-2006, 11:26 AM
1928 - 1938 MLB - .280/.343/.401/.744 - Foxx - .335/.439/.639/1.077

2001-2005 - MLB - .264/.332/.422/.755 Albert - .332/.416/.621/1.037

So matching Foxx's numbers makes him suspicious, I guess then Mantle would have been drawn and quartered too.

Mantle 52-58

.319/.437/.589/1.026 - MLB in the same time .259/.330/.391/.720

If he was Domincan with acne he would be questioned in this era. I'm nowhere near sure the guy is cheating. I'm just saying it's a valid talking point.

Cedric
10-24-2006, 11:27 AM
What are those obvious outward physical signs on Pujols?

FCB is talking about Chris Duncan, not Pujols.

Falls City Beer
10-24-2006, 11:27 AM
What are those obvious outward physical signs on Pujols?

Read my post--two posts back. I said, plainly and clearly, that Albert Pujols exhibits NONE of the external signs of a roid user. Just Chris Duncan--virtually all of them.

westofyou
10-24-2006, 11:28 AM
If he was Domincan with acne he would be questioned in this era. I'm nowhere near sure the guy is cheating. I'm just saying it's a valid talking point.

Acne is a valid talking point?

In the world of sports with buckets of sweat and grime it's a red herring.

Roy Tucker
10-24-2006, 12:26 PM
I think the 2006 Cardinals are the poster child for the "just make the playoffs and see what happens" school of thought.

You get in, the team gets hot, and wacky things can happen.

I would be gloriously ecstatic to accept the mantle of "worst team ever to win the WS" for the Reds. For in the MLB record book under 2006 World Champion, it would say "Cincinnati Reds" and that is all most people will remember.

GAC
10-24-2006, 02:20 PM
I think the 2006 Cardinals are the poster child for the "just make the playoffs and see what happens" school of thought.

You get in, the team gets hot, and wacky things can happen.

I would be gloriously ecstatic to accept the mantle of "worst team ever to win the WS" for the Reds. For in the MLB record book under 2006 World Champion, it would say "Cincinnati Reds" and that is all most people will remember.

Exactly. And if the Cards win, they will remember the the same.

GAC
10-24-2006, 02:22 PM
Read my post--two posts back. I said, plainly and clearly, that Albert Pujols exhibits NONE of the external signs of a roid user. Just Chris Duncan--virtually all of them.

I know, and I saw that. I am not inferring that you are the one making accusations about the Cards/Pujols. In fact, you are the one who started the thread "Is This The Cardinals 1975?".

I was simply throwing out/asking the question. ;)

GOOCH
10-24-2006, 07:07 PM
If you could really tell if someone was taking steroids from looking at them, then we wouldn't need drug testing, would we? While steroids can and do produce physical changes, the fact remains that all of these physical changes can be and are often produced naturally. You can increase your lean muscle mass through diet and exercise. Genetics and natural physiological occurrences can result in adult acne and premature baldness (I for example, began loosing my hair at the age of 25). Some people naturally have puffy cheeks and big heads. Your accusition of steroid use aimed at Chris Duncan would be no different than observing someone who has lost 20 pounds and saying the've got cancer. Yes, weight-loss is a physical indicator of cancer...but not all weight-loss is cancer driven.

Hence, there is no 'circumstantial' evidence that Chris Duncan has ever used steroids. You haven't even documented any physical changes in his appearance. All that can be noted about Chris from his appearance is that he is big and strong. Yeah, never seen a 6'5" 25 year old who was big and strong before. Engaging in these kind of evidence-less witch trials is a cancer on good discussion. D.GOOCH

Cedric
10-24-2006, 07:38 PM
If you could really tell if someone was taking steroids from looking at them, then we wouldn't need drug testing, would we? While steroids can and do produce physical changes, the fact remains that all of these physical changes can be and are often produced naturally. You can increase your lean muscle mass through diet and exercise. Genetics and natural physiological occurrences can result in adult acne and premature baldness (I for example, began loosing my hair at the age of 25). Some people naturally have puffy cheeks and big heads. Your accusition of steroid use aimed at Chris Duncan would be no different than observing someone who has lost 20 pounds and saying the've got cancer. Yes, weight-loss is a physical indicator of cancer...but not all weight-loss is cancer driven.

Hence, there is no 'circumstantial' evidence that Chris Duncan has ever used steroids. You haven't even documented any physical changes in his appearance. All that can be noted about Chris from his appearance is that he is big and strong. Yeah, never seen a 6'5" 25 year old who was big and strong before. Engaging in these kind of evidence-less witch trials is a cancer on good discussion. D.GOOCH

Testing doesn't work. Conjecture and questioning is the fault of MLB.

GOOCH
10-24-2006, 07:47 PM
Testing does work with anabolic steroids. And blaming MLB for an unjustified and unsupported smear that someone directs at a ballplayer doesn't sit well with me. D.GOOCH