The Dodgers were off to such a good start too. The division is weak enough that they will likely still be in first once Ramirez is back.

Wow. Wonder how this went down - is he dumb enough to fail a standard steroids test? Or did something else happen?

heh. i wonder if it was a recent thing or if it's been career-long

Reportedly (LA Times) Ramirez will claim the failed test resulted from prescribed medication for a personal medical issue.

The BBWAA is rubbing its hands with glee at the thought of barring another of the era's superstars from the Hall of Fame.

Jeez.

:(

If this is the case I would love to know what he actually tested positive for.

Of course.

These kind of excuses should be completely irrelevant.

Even on the 1% chance that it's true - he's still responsible (or should be responsible) for anything he ingests/injects.

Most of this banter is intended to get a rise out of me rather than actually engage in discussion. They should be bitching at Thome if they have an issue with his characterization, not me.

I've been a Royals fan my whole life as have likely you. Anyone who assumes that any Royals fan doesn't have a built in worry warning system simply isn't playing with a full deck of cards. As you said, it's fun to enjoy it for now with the realization that this MIGHT finally be the year where we can make a run to actually do something other than shooting for a .500 record.

If you're an MLB player and take medication without investigating if it would cause you to fail a steroids test, then you deserve the 50 game suspension for sheer stupidity.

Hey don't shoot the messenger, I just quoted what I read when I Googled up the full Times article. I'm banging my head on the desk at his stupidity but I'm not defending his fuck up.

I didn't mean to imply that you were taking the contrary side, I was just responding to this whole lack of knowledge defense in general, which drives me crazy.

I know you're really enjoying it. I just don't like you screwing with our karma with big boasts and claims. C'mon- you know how this goes, we're all just waiting for the axe to fall and just hoping it doesn't any time soon ;)

SI

Actually, most of us really like Greinke and would prefer it if you didn't PS3jinx him into a season ending injury.

I've gone without boasting over the past 15-20 years. That's gone real well.

Touche ;)

SI

AL East Standings May 7th, 2005


AL East Standings at the end of 2005

Yes, there's never been a situation where a team has lead a division early and lead it late as well. They always falter, right?

Sorry, but this comment is up there with any of the PS3 comments in its absurdity.

Congrats on making the baseball thread this year a parody thread on par with the other train wrecks you've posted in on a regular basis.

Still pissed the Mariners got pasted last night, are you?

The posted case is far more common than yours, however, at least when talking about teams that have been weak of late.

Even the Mets have made it a habit lately of leading all the way up until the last week or so of the season...

This is one reason that Tampa Bay was such a huge story last year.

I tried watching Surviving Suburbia once and it sucked.

Actually he's probably more pissed at the mind bogglingly stupid comment you made.

Is that former President Bush? ;)

SI

I remember being giddy with the Brewers' 24-10 start a few years ago before the implosion occurred and they finished 83-79, on the outside looking in.

On the bright side, it was a sign of good things to come.

So you're of the opinion that Jim Thome is not better equipped than you or I to judge the similarities of two pitchers he's faced with regularity? Interesting. Certainly, it's nothing more than his opinion, but it's a knowledgeable opinion given the subject.

FWIW.....Royals fans don't need examples from other teams to know what can happen to an early lead. The 2003 Royals had a huge division lead at the All-Star Break only to falter down the stretch. With that said, there's far more examples of teams who remain ahead after a good start than those that start slow and rally late. The Royals organization over the past 15 years is a poster child for what a slow April can do to to a team's hope, even if they play well in the other months.

It's so cool to be able to think "hey, we have a winning streak" without doing the math of "does this count as a streak, considering how bad this team is?" (i.e. there were some years where I think 2 in a row might have counted as a winning streak and 3 was for sure)

SI

Days like today make it worth it that I get up at 4:45 AM in the morning. Got up and noticed an article posted in the KC Star that mentioned that the starters are all being pushed back one day due to the off-day on Monday. As a result, Zack Greinke will be pitching a week from today on Buck Night ($1 hot dogs, $1 pop, $1 popcorn). I went right to the site and snapped up 4 tickets before the rest of KC could wake up and know about it. That game will be sold out today or tomorrow.

Is this right? 3 game lead for the Royals with the next three series against 3 sub-.500 teams (LA Angels, Oakland, Baltimore)? Oh, this could get REAL good in a big hurry.

Unbelievable that the Twins lost 2 games to Baltimore. Embarrassing stuff, and this is coming from a guy who's roots for Baltimore when they aren't playing the Royals. Yes, I'm a glutton for punishment.

ls- the Nats finally built a lead large enough the bullpen couldn't blow, try as they might ;)

SI

Hell of a wild game for the Nationals last night. Following the Manny fiasco, rookie pitcher Jordan Zimmermann gives up 6 runs in the first inning to the Dodgers. However, as JIMGA mentioned earlier in the thread, JZim has shown some excellent poise for a rookie. He follows up that first inning with 5 shutout innings. The bats light up, and the Nats go on to win 11-9 (after an attempt or 2 by the bullpen to spoil the comeback).

MBBF, I wish I had your blind loyalty towards my teams. It would definitely give me a lot more to root for.

Yes (at least when it applies to me, not you). Especially when he's doing so subjectively and I have a ream of statistical analysis.

Fair enough. I think it's a bit more than subjective when you've faced both guys. I'd also note that we are comparing performances over a sample (in this case, Thome's at-bats against the two pitchers), not a career. If you're arguing career, no one would question that Pedro is better. Not sure why that would even need to be argued.

But it's not like Greinke is a sudden flash in the pan either. He's been labeled as a can't miss player since he was drafted. He has the potential to be extremely special.

Did anyone else watch the Phillies/Mets game last night on MLB Network?

1. It was fun to listen to Costas. Thought he did a really nice job.

2. I had no idea Jamie Moyer was even alive. Imagine my shock when I saw he was starting the game for the Phillies last night. Cracked me up when the color commentator and Costas had to keep clarifying that the 81 MPH pitch was his fastball and the 74-76 MPH pitch was his changeup. I think they were worried that people would say they didn't know what they were talking about when they called a pitch a 'fastball' and the radar gun showed 81 MPH.

What the Fuck? Do you even know what "subjective" means?


Which pitcher was better at their peak is the implied comparison here, actually.


Never, ever, ever came close to saying that he was. But he's no Pedro. Hell, barely anyone in baseball history is Pedro. He's arguably one of the Top 5 pitchers of all time.

Someone does not watch baseball ;).

So, in other words, you're saying it's inconclusive because we don't have the full body of work. That's fine.

Greinke obviously had the personal issues that robbed him of his early career. That will obviously hurt his comparison numbers in the long term. I think down the road that we'll find that his early years were the fluke when we look at season results.

I do think there's a difference between your argument and Thome's statement. Thome's comparison is obviously in regards to 'stuff'. Your comparison is in regards to stats.

Or someone pays little attention to the Senior league until later in the season when the AL actually starts playing them head to head. :D

I've got a kid now. I remember when I didn't. I'd watch sports ALL the time. Ah, the good old days.

Didn't hear the game in question but having heard him in the past few years I think I'd rather listen to Tim McCarver argue with John Madden and Charles Barkley about the finer points of tiddlywinks than have to suffer another minute of hearing Costas be Costas. At this point he's a parody of himself but the shark was jumped quite a bit back afaic.

He's almost as bad as Joe Buck & Joe Morgan, which would be a combination that is to overbearingly obnoxious what The Hinderburg was to a kid's balloon popping at Chuck E. Cheese.

Wow- that combination just made me ill to my stomach

SI

I used to think Costas was a lot like Jim Nance covering the Masters. Always looking for a fancy way to say things or a catch phrase, which was annoying. He didn't bother me nearly as much last night as he had in previous times when I listened to him announce a game.

Though I'll admit that I may have been too busy laughing at their comments surrounding Jamie Moyer to notice everything. :D

He really wasn't bad at all. And Al Leiter (who was with him) is an excellent analyst.

No. Greinke is going to have to show me he can come close to Pedro's dominant peak before you can even put them in the same sentance. Pedro Martinez is like Walter Johnson, you don't throw around the comparisons that easily.

I'm sure I've said that before, but there has been no other pitcher in history as dominant at his peak as Pedro was in his 7 year span.


Well, I'd say that either Thome is incorrect, or Pedro Martinez had something else (control?) that makes him vastly superior to Greinke.

Dude! He was basically the #2 pitcher for the freaking World Champions of Baseball! If you watch baseball, I'd imagine that is one thing you HAVE to watch!

I don't want to really get involved in any sort of argument, but I think a lot of this just has to do with miscommunication. You hear players making comparisons like this at times, and Thome is speaking of right now (and I'm assuming here, I can't find Thome's quote anywhere). Not the last 3 years of statistical data or where he'll be at the end of the season, but right now, during this ridiculous streak he's running.

Obviously Pedro had a prolonged segment of his career that Greinke can only dream about, but since the start of this season, Greinke has been absolutely ridiculous. Is it crazy to say that right now he's where Pedro was at his peak? Not nearly as crazy as it would be to say that he's going to keep this up for seven years. Yes Greinke is likely to regress and fall back a bit closer to the norm but going just off what he's done so far this season, the comparison isn't all that ridiculous.

It's the same as when a batter is locked in and has a 20 game hitting streak going or hits home runs in 8 straight games, etc. All sorts of comparisons come out during the streak that go away once the streak ends. Doesn't mean that for a brief period of time that those comparisons aren't valid.

Dola, obviously we all have our own opinions on how big of a sample size should be involved before those sorts of comparisons start getting made, but whether it's the interpretation of the time period involved that I'm reading as the biggest issue here and I'd bet Thome is talking about a much smaller sample size (ie: right here, right now) than what you're looking at ISiddiqui.

Nine starts dude, not seven years.

Page not found » Joe Posnanski

Dating back to last year, Greinke has won nine consecutive starts, and in those nine starts he has an 0.69 ERA. How good is that? Well, legendary. There have been 50 pitchers since 1954 who have won nine or more consecutive starts. Greinke’s is the second-best.