February 10, 2012

Who is Shyster?


Roll mouse over dates
Daily Posts
February 2009
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Monthly Archives



Or you can search by:


Gear up for baseball season with Chicago White Sox tickets and New York Yankees tickets. LA Angels tickets, Houston Astros tickets, and Atlanta Braves tickets are hot sellers! You can get Boston Red Sox tickets, San Diego Padres tickets or Chicago Cubs tickets for your favorite baseball fan. Coast to Coast Tickets has the best MLB tickets like Minnesota Twins tickets, LA Dodgers tickets, Milwaukee Brewers tickets, New York Met tickets and St. Louis Cardinals tickets.




Most Recent Comments

Shyster's Daily Circuit


Baseball. Blogging. Whenever.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Nice sport jackets


I'm really spacing out this afternoon. I need something interesting to happen.

dingdingdingdingdingding!

OK, that was interesting.

Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 4:45pm (6) Comments

And That Happened


OK, that's a bit premature. But we do have game action!

Alex Rodriguez was booed, then homered in his first game since admitting he used a banned substance.

The New York Yankees slugger started the spring training season with a two-run home run and two walks Wednesday at the Toronto Blue Jays' ballpark. The third baseman left the exhibition opener in the fifth inning.

There were a lot of cheers, a smattering of boos and occasional cat calls from hecklers. Earlier this month, Rodriguez said he used the banned substances from 2001-03 while with the Texas Rangers.

Rodriguez walked on five pitches in the first inning. Many in the crowd at mostly filled Dunedin Stadium stood and cheered as he circled the bases after homering off Ricky Romero in the fourth.

Since this was against the Jays, it's just as possible that the boos were for the nearly two year-old "I've got it"-gate than they were for the PED stuff. At least I hope so, because irrational, long-held grudges make me smile.

But hey, baseball, babies!


Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 3:40pm (4) Comments

New Kauffman


Lost in all of the hype over Yankee Stadium and Citi Field is the fact that, for all practical purposes, we have a new Kauffman Stadium this year as well:

In the end, it was decided that there was no need for a new baseball stadium in Kansas City. Instead, Kauffman Stadium would be renovated.
Still, the scope of this project defies that term.

"It's amazing," said Royals president Dan Glass, who regularly tours the site. "I know a lot of people have seen the outside of the building, the exterior, and it's as much a drastic change on the inside, the interior, as it is on the exterior."

Glass paused and smiled as he mentally paged through the $250 million undertaking.

"We used to call it a renovation, but it really is a brand new facility," he said.

The article itself doesn't have a ton of details, but there are links to renderings and webcams of the actual renovations.

Kauffman was always a great park -- one of my favorites, actually -- and now it looks like it's even better. Let's hope that the Royals one day have a team worthy of the place.

Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 2:33pm (3) Comments

Research


Murray Chass misses the books:

If this is too much inside baseball, I apologize, but I am too devastated and outraged to write anything else at the moment. Major League Baseball, which can’t kill steroids, has killed the Red Book and the Green Book.

Baseball officials would say the books died of atrophy. No one was using them any more. But I used them, often on a daily basis. They sit on a shelf an arm’s length away from my desk. I can get them that quickly when I need information from them . . .

. . . What are the Red Book and Green Book? They are league reference guides for club executives and the news media, Red for the American League, Green for the National. They have more information than we need to know, but they have what we need when we need it.

Each book has five pages on every team, each team’s won-lost record and place in the standings for every year of its existence, each team’s managers for every year of its existence, all sorts of hitting and pitching statistical lists, year-by-year list of 20-game winners, club leaders each year in hitting and pitching categories, teams’ top marks since their beginning, individual league champions, award winners, comprehensive statistics from the previous season, the previous year’s player transactions, relevant rules and that season’s schedule.

The release announcing this development is shrewdly written. It doesn’t say the books won’t exist any more - that would be negative - but it says the books will be available exclusively online for the first time, as if that’s a good thing.

It would be easy to make fun of Chass as an out-of-touch old coot -- and I may do that when he holds forth on another subject -- but it wouldn't be fair to do that here.

No, there is nothing in any book that outclasses Baseball-Reference.com, Retrosheet, and any number of other online resources, and I will always, always, always, go to those resources first because I'm an online guy in an online age. But that doesn't mean that the books Chass refers to -- or any other book, really -- don't have their value. This is not some nostalgic point on my part. I don't fetishize the look, feel, smell, and culture of books like so many people seem to (see, every critical article about the Kindle). I simply believe that my brain works differently when I'm browsing books than when I'm using online resources, and because of that, book browsing almost always complements what I'm doing online.

My primary experience with this is in the legal world. The online legal research services LEXIS and Westlaw are great, I use them all the time, and I'm not sure what I'd do if they weren't around. That said, rare is the case when I don't spend at least a little time in a legal book. Why? Because while LEXIS can grab a case quickly and efficiently when I need something that says "x, y, z" is the law, any case of any complexity is going to present issues and be amenable to arguments that fall outside of that which is said in an on-point case. The books, by virtue of their organization, allow you to browse related subjects more easily and that in turn helps you make connections and analogies you might not otherwise have thought of. If I had to give up one or the other I'd give up the books in a heartbeat, but I always feel like I'm missing a little something if I don't make it to the library, even if only for a few brief minutes. For what it's worth, LEXIS and Westlaw have tacitly acknowledged this inasmuch as they are continually refining their products in order to better replicate the book-browsing experience. They've gotten pretty good at it too, but it's still not the same.

I suppose this is less relevant when it comes to baseball research tools. I mean really, it's not often that you're truly flailing with baseball like you can with the law. But there is a certain value in flipping through pages that will never truly go away, and in light of that, I have a bit of sympathy for Chass in this instance.

(link via BTF)

Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 1:05pm (9) Comments

The way to San Jose


Neyer's off-the-cuff comment about the A's heading to Portland has spurred an interesting conversation over at BTF this morning mostly challenging Portland as a viable market. And I'll admit: my personal preference for the A's moving to Portland has nothing to do with a reasoned economic analysis of the situation and everything to do with aesthetics and other mushy considerations. I simply think it would be neat to have a team in Portland. I know a handful of baseball nuts who live there who would really appreciate it! If I flew there for a weekend, they could get me tickets!

But back on planet Earth, one has to think about the coporate base for a team, the size of the media market, whether the fans would actually support it, and all of that jazz. Enter San Jose, which Mark Purdy of the Merc thinks is owed serious consideration:

Well, after Tuesday, no more straddling is allowed. Fremont is dead. Do the MLB owners now want to give San Jose a fair shot? Or not? Earlier this month, Wolff met with San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed to discuss the soccer stadium that Wolff wants to build for the San Jose Earthquakes. At that meeting, Wolff also briefed Reed on the A's situation. Reed simply listened.

Tuesday, the mayor said he would eagerly meet with Wolff about a ballpark proposal whenever and wherever. Yet the first place for MLB to begin, in fairness to the Giants, is with an independent and impartial study by economists and marketing experts. The study would determine precisely what an A's move to San Jose would mean to the attendance, sponsorship and corporate support of both franchises.

My strong hunch is that such a study would prove that the Giants' fears of losing fan loyalty to the San Jose A's are largely groundless. But the sports policy wonks can scientifically back me up.

And then the negotiations could proceed. In his talks with Fremont, Wolff was not asking the city to pay a dime toward building the ballpark. His talks with San Jose need to start with that premise, as well. Would local residents go for a ballpark deal? Depends on the deal. But they deserve the chance to consider a deal instead of being treated as baseball non-persons.

Because let me pound the drum once more: The people of San Jose, not the Giants, should decide whether the A's can move to San Jose. It is way past time for Major League Baseball and Selig to acknowledge that basic principle.

Purdy's best point is that the tail has been wagging the dog too long here. The issue of the Giants' territorial rights -- which has long been cited as an obstacle to the A's going to Santa Clara County -- is not some inherent liberty interest for the Giants to assert or for the A's to work around. It's a fiction created by Major League Baseball, Major League Baseball has the complete power to deal with it, and Major League Baseball should do so swiftly and decisively if it truly wishes to maintain two viable franchises in the Bay Area.

Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 10:10am (10) Comments

The Bonds Prosecution


I've been beating this horse for some time now, but I link to Dave Zirn's takedown of the Bonds prosecution because (a) it's good; and (b) no one likes to feel alone:

Novitzky was given the green light by President Bush and Ashcroft to go for the jugular. In 2004, accompanied by eleven agents, he marched into Comprehensive Drug Testing, the nation's largest sports-drug testing company. Armed with a warrant to see the confidential drug tests of ten baseball players, he walked out with 4,000 supposedly sealed medical files, including every baseball player in the major leagues. As Jon Pessah wrote in ESPN magazine, "Three federal judges reviewed the raid. One asked, incredulously, if the Fourth Amendment had been repealed. Another, Susan Illston, who has presided over the BALCO trials, called Novitzky's actions a 'callous disregard' for constitutional rights. All three instructed him to return the records. Instead, Novitzky kept the evidence...."

It was a frightening abuse of power, all aimed at imprisoning a prominent African-American athlete. Yet despite the landfills of trash, the government's case always rested on a flimsy premise. Bonds's contention under oath was that anything illegal he may have ingested was without prior knowledge. The only person who could contradict Bonds was his trainer and longtime friend Greg Anderson. The government pressed Anderson to give testimony. He refused, citing a promise made by the feds that he wouldn't have to testify after pleading guilty to steroid distribution and money laundering in 2005. The feds stuck him in jail for thirteen months to soften him up, but he didn't crack.

My only quibble with the article? Zirin goes with an Old Man and the Sea analogy. I prefer Moby Dick.

In any event, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Anderson's testimony was the prosecution's only hope. They've known that for years, and they've known that he won't provide it for almost as long. In its absence, this case should have been dropped a long time ago.



(link via BTF)




Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 9:30am (14) Comments

No shortcuts


While he's not as over-the-top as Rick Reilly about it, SI's Tom Verducci likewise pretends to know who has and who hasn't done steroids. My favorite part:

He is right about the guessing game. It is laughable how people want to draw simplistic conclusions about steroids and home runs. Take Rodriguez, for instance. People want to explain his home runs in Texas via steroids, ignoring the ballpark effects and the youthful prime of his career. Similarly, it is naïve to put those three years in their own lockbox, which would be, for one, to believe a highly suspect person at face value that somehow he did not use before or since, and secondly, to ignore the physiological benefits even from those three years.

This after Veducci himself has (1) played the guessing game by assuming that Carlos Delgado has never done steroids;* (2) drawn simplistic conclusions about steroids and home runs by assuming home run totals say something instructive about steroid use; and (3) put the years 1996-2003 in a lockbox, calling them the height of the steroid era and assuming that there was not substantial and significant use before or since.

Look, I appreciate what Veducci is trying to do here. He, like so many of us, wants to bring some kind of certainty to bear on steroids' impact on baseball. He wants to draw a line around certain players and statistics so we can at least have some kind of a foothold for assessing the era in which we find ourselves. The fact of the matter, however, is that no analysis, such as it is, like this one going to achieve that certainty or allow us to separate the wheat from the chaff. Rather, it's going to take a lot of time and a lot of reporting and scholarship. In the meantime, we're just going to have to live with our vague senses about this stuff and have some faith that the enduring nature of the game -- and the work of history -- will sort all of this stuff out for us.

*I'll grant that it's very possible -- likely even -- that Delgado didn't use steroids. His denials sound impassioned and genuine. But if we've learned anything in recent years, it's that we cannot rely on a player's word about this subject. Perhaps that's unfair to Delgado, but if it is, he should take the matter up with Messers. Palmiero, Clemens, Rodriguez, and others.

Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 8:49am (12) Comments

Are all lies created equal?


Is the government guilty of entrapment, or something akin to it anyway, in the Miguel Tejada case? One law professor thinks so:

The criminal prosecution of athletes who use steroids may or may not be a worthy enterprise. Notably, however, Miguel Tejada was not prosecuted and has not pleaded guilty to using performance-enhancing drugs. In fact, the government acknowledges that it lacks sufficient evidence to disprove Tejada's claim that he spent $6300 on human growth hormone, only to change his mind and throw it all out. The U.S. government has instead prosecuted Miguel Tejada for lying about drug use -- more specifically, for saying falsely that he had neither discussed nor known about the use of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball . . .

. . . It may be that the most disturbing aspect of the prosecution of dopers for lying, rather than for doping, is the hypocrisy inherent in the government's effectively lying to the courts about what it is really prosecuting while relying on a law that criminalizes lying. If the government cannot honestly and forthrightly gather evidence to prosecute the use of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball, then it has no business expecting players to provide honest answers to questions about such use.

We're all on board with the idea that it's not a good thing to lie to law enforcement, at least I hope so anyway. But it is instructive to remember why that's a bad thing: because to do so interferes with law enforcement's mission to protect the public and punish wrongdoers. Does the rationale against lying still hold, however, if law enforcement is truly not interested in the underlying crimes it claims to be investigating?

(Thanks to Daniel F. for the heads up)

Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 8:15am (3) Comments

Ch-ch-ch-changes


Neyer agrees that with Fremont dead, the A's need to look at Portland. Or maybe he's not that serious about it. Hard to tell. What is clear, however, is that Neyer has a new headshot running with his columns. And let's be honest about this, people: we are now two generations removed from the flannel, so I think it's about time we all gave up hope of it returning.

Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 7:30am (9) Comments

Today at THT


Things to read as you sit back and feel all smug about how you've put together quite a nice little catching platoon in one of your fantasy leagues:

  • Why does John Walsh hate George Scott? That question -- and everything you ever wanted to know about double plays -- is answered here.


  • Chase Utley is injured, but he's still worth drafting right? Hey, if you change your mind, he's the first in line. Honey he's still free, take a chance on Ut-ley.


  • Finally, advice is given to those lost at sea in the form of a Fantasy Mailbag. You'll certainly want to bookmark this one, as it's a very rare Fantasy Mailbag in which the authors advise a friend to commit suicide.


  • Well, I suppose it could be a nice catching platoon, assuming the right handed side of it actually plays in the big leagues this year.

    Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 5:39am (1) Comments