Mickey Mantle's Liver

San Francisco Giants = TORTURE

 

 

 

Ok, this whole "Giants baseball is torture" thing is getting a bit ridiculous.  Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled that the Giants are in the NLCS, but does every win have to be sooooo nerve-racking?

Bottom line is this: the Dodgers are still at home watching the playoffs.  All is right in the world.

My prediction: Giants win the pennant in 6.

One last thing......congrats to Bobby Cox who managed his last game.  He is 69, and spent the last 51 years of his life in baseball.  A class act and a Hall of Fame manager, to be sure.

 
 

OUCHY!!!!

Ok, this has got to be about the most painful injury one can think of - a fractured testicle.  That's right, you are reading this correctly.  Chris Snyder, catcher for the Arizona Diamondbacks, is on the 15-day DL because of a BROKEN NUT!

Read the Diamondbacks press release here.

Snyder sdfg
by bsap11

Take a look at this video and feel the pain.  I especially like Mark Grace's commentary as the video guys on the Diamondback's broadcast repeatedly show Snyder's nut get hit by a foul ball.

Wanna know how to break a nut?  Check out eMedicine for more information on nutcracking.

My groin is starting to hurt just thinking about this.  Man, that had to kill.  I know if something just grazes my tomatoes I can't talk for an hour, but breaking a nut!  Just shoot me now.

Taking a ball into the nether regions is bad enough, even if you have a cup on.  I can't imagine what breaking a nut feels like.

A moment of silence please for Chris Snyder's balls......

Should Schilling be in baseball's Hall of Fame?

With the recent revelations by Curt Schilling that he is going to need season-ending, and possibly career-ending, surgery, a debate has been raised about whether or not Schilling deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.  I have enjoyed listening to the commentators articulate the reasons why Schilling should -- or should not -- make it into the Hall.

In my humble opinion, whether Schilling gets into the Hall of Fame depends on the fate of  another pitcher - Burt Blyleven.

You will recall this article that appeared last year on The Liver that talked about retired players who deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.  One of those players is, in my opinion, Bert Blyleven.  The article also mentions current players who I think are locks for the Hall of Fame.  Not included in my list was Curt Schilling.

Consider this:  Blyleven has 287 wins to Schilling's 216.  But Schilling's winning percentage is .596, while Blyleven's is .534.  Blyleven's ERA is 3.31, Schilling's is 3.46.  Blyleven has 3701 career strikeouts, while Schilling has 3116.  Schilling appeared in four World Series, Blyleven appeared in two.  Schilling has three World Series Championships (Diamondbacks and Red Sox (twice)), Blyleven has two (Pirates and Twins).

Schilling is a 6-time All-Star, and three times finished second in the Cy Young Voting.  Blyleven, on the other hand, was a two-time All-Star and finished 3rd in Cy Young voting twice.

Blyleven is 5-1 all-time in the post season with a 2.47 ERA.  Schilling is 11-2 in the post season, with a 2.23 ERA.  Schilling was theMVP of the 1993 National League Championship Series and co-MVP of the 2001 World Series.

The point is: if Blyleven isn't a Hall of Famer, then there is no way Schilling is a Hall of Famer.  Blyleven's career numbers are better than Schilling's.  The reason most people think of Schilling as a Hall of Famer before Blyleven is because of Schilling's post season exploits: the two post season MVPs and of course the infamous Bloody Sock.

To the extent baseball is about statistics, then the statistics bear out that Blyleven's  statistics are far more Hall of Fame worthy than Schilling's.  But baseball isn't about just statistics, it is about the lore of the game as well.  How else can one explain Bill Mazeroski's induction into the Hall of Fame except by Mazeroski's home run in the bottom of the 9th in the 1960 World Series.

On that basis I think Schilling will be elected into the Hall of Fame.  He is not a first ballot hall fo famer by any means, but I suspect it will take Schilling less time to get into the Hall of Famer than it has taken (or will take) Blyleven.  What would be a real shame is to have Schilling get into the Hall of Fame before Blyleven.

Jay Bruce: A New Hope

Reds' future looking brighter?

Ever since the days of the 1990 World Champion Reds, composing players like Barry Larkin, Chris Sabo, Paul O'Neil, The Nasty Boys, with Lou Piniella directing, etc. etc., Reds fans haven't had a whole lot to look hopeful about.  I still remember watching that foul ball being caught to win the series when I was six years old.  And then we just steadily declined.  Don't believe me?  After the Reds won the World Series in 1990, the one and only time they won a playoff series again was in 1995 over the Dodgers.  In fact, the Reds have not had a winning season since 2000.  That's right.  Every season since 2000 has been under .500.  The Reds have also hired great players since then.  Griffey, Dunn, Freel, Harang, Kearns, Arroyo, the list goes on.  None of the teams have been able to culminate in a playoff birth or even a winning season.  Yes, they had those couple of seasons where they had a run at the playoffs, but to no avail.

This season will probably be no different.  Trips to the Rock Bottom Brewery after games will still be in order.  Tough losses will still occur.  But what is different is the young talent that the Reds have recruited.  Jay Bruce has been called the next A-Rod/Jeter and he has stats to back it up.  A .342 batting average along with excellent fielding skills put him in the future superstar category.  Along wit Bruce, the Reds are sporting two great new and young pitchers in Volquez and Cueto.  While Volquez is clearly winning the match up with 1.62 ERA and 102 SO on the season, Cueto can still bring fastballs in the upper 90s and a nasty breaking ball.  With some experience and refinement, Cueto looks to be just as good as Volquez in the future.  Younger players like Keppinger, Votto, Bailey, and Phillips also look outstanding on the field.  Combine this young/younger talent with older veterans such as Harang, Griffey, Dunn, Cabrera, and Patterson - and you've got a team of older talent teaching younger potential, a recipe for a World Series Champion in a few years.

Play Ball!!! (or, How is Bud elig Going to Screw Up Baseball This Year?)

Well, it has been some time since the last post here on the Liver.  Sorry about that, but between the Super Bowl and the opening day of the Baseball season (the REAL opening day that happens on American soil), there really isn't a lot of sports to comment on, especially if you are a Beaver basketball fan.

With that being said, with the new baseball season upon us, let me catch you up on some of my thoughts:

• I really think the men's basketball team at Oregon State got screwed by the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee.  A lot of other teams (Arizona State, for instance) complained that the Committee focused too much on one aspect of a team's schedule.  That is what happened to the Beavers, too.  I think the Committee put way too much emphasis on the Beavers 0-19 PAC-10 record, and should have given a lot more weight to the Beavers impressive victory over Tennessee Tech in December of 2007.
• Roger Clemens is in A LOT of trouble.  Remember, it is never the crime that gets you in trouble, it is the cover up.  Just ask Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby.
• The only way Terrelle Pryor was ever going to play in Autzen Stadium is if Ohio State or Michigan came to play.  U of Zero never had a chance with that guy.
• How is it that the TWO TIME DEFENDING NATIONAL CHAMPIONS are not ranked in the top five college baseball programs in the country?
• Pacman Jones should not be allowed to play in the NFL until the guy who was paralyzed in Pacman's shootout can walk again.  If he can't walk, Pacman shouldn't be allowed to play.  After all, fair is fair.
• I have seen Jake Long, Chris Long, Glenn Dorsey and Matt Ryan all play in college.  Adrian McFadden is a freak of nature.  But the best player in college football is Dorsey.  Look at how the Giants won the Super Bowl, with a dominating front four.  Given the most recent prognostications, I am afraid that the Patriots are going to get Dorsey.  Talk about the rich getting richer.
• I know that the A's and the Red Sox played the first games of the 2008 MLB season on March 25th and 26th in Japan, but as far as I am concerned, the opening day of the baseball season is March 30th in Washington D.C.
• By the way, how rude was it when President Bush threw out the first pitch in the  new Nationals stadium and people actually booed.  It isn't President Bush's fault the Nationals suck and those fans were dumb enough to actually spend money on Nationals' tickets.
• I can't wait for the 2008-2009 NBA season.  Why?  Because the Blazers are going to be AWESOME!!!!  Brandon Roy made the All-Star team, and LaMarcus Aldridge turned into one of the young, dominant power forwards in the Game.  The Blazers are a shooting guard away from being a perennial NBA playoff contender.

So now it is time for the baseball season to start.  Here is my prediction: The Red Sox will repeat as the World Series champs.  Jacoby Ellsbury will be the AL rookie of the year.  Kosuke Fukudome will be the NL rookie of the Year, and the Cubs will finally make the World Series.

Remember, you heard it here first......

I am pretty sure one of Clemens' advisors is George Costanza...

I watched today's congressional hearing with Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee with a lot of interest, because it was evident that someone was going to perjure himself today.  As an attorney, I have a hard time believing that lying under oath is ever worth the punishment that comes with perjury.  So I guess in the back of my mind I somewhat expected either McNamee or Clemens to scream "Uncle!" at the last minute and confess they were perpetuating a lie.

And then the hearing started, and the bombshell was dropped on Clemens that his pitching buddy Andy Petitte confirmed that Roger Clemens spoke with him on at least one occasion about using performance enhancing drugs - steroids and HGH.  Then it came out that Chuck Knoblauch had a similar conversation with Clemens.

When asked to explain, Clemens answered affirmatively that he thought Petitte was an honest, upstanding guy, who would never lie about such things.  Then Clemens said Petitte "Misremembered" or "misheard".

Then Congressman Elijah Cummings from Maryland laid out the case against Roger Clemens beautifully - so far everyone that McNamee has said he injected with performance enhancing drugs has admitted so, confirming that McNamee was telling the truth.  Corroborating evidence had been gathered that seems to support McNamee's claims and refutes Clemens' story.  How, Congressman Cummings asked, are we supposed to believe that McNamee was telling the truth when it came to everyone else, but he is not telling the truth when it comes to Clemens.

Clemens' response: McNamee is lying.

Clemens response reminded me of an old episode of Seinfeld.  In the episode, Jerry is dating  a cop, who accuses Jerry of secretly being a fan of Melrose Place.  When Jerry denies the accusation, the cop challenges Jerry to take a lie detector test.  Panicking, Jerry asks George how to beat a lie detector.  George offers the following sage advice to Jerry: "Remember, it is not a lie if you believe it!" (despite the advice, Jerry failed the lie detector test).

I am pretty sure that Costanza also advised Clemens, because it sounded like Clemens had repeated the same lie often enough that he (Clemens) actually believes he never used steroids.  Despite the fact that McNamee's story is far more plausible and reasonable than Clemens', Roger continued the character assault on McNamee.   He repeated the same line over and over that the only conclusion one could reach is that Clemens actually believes what he was saying.  Despite the fact that Clemens' story is just not reasonable.  George would be proud.

Now don't get me wrong, McNamee is not a saint by any means.  But like Canseco when he made steroid allegations nearly four years ago, McNamee's allegations are continuing to be affirmed over and over.  McNamee has his own personal demons, without question, but after today's hearing, unless you are a real Clemens homer, you had to conclude that McNamee was far more believable than Clemens. 

In short, this was a bad day for Clemens.

A couple of other observation about the hearing itself.  Having worked on Capitol Hill, I am familiar with the committee process in addition to committee traditions.  On the positive side, I have to congratulate Chairman Waxman.  I am by no means a fan of Mr. Waxman, but he deserves a lot of credit for the way he has handled this entire affair.  If anyone comes out smelling like a rose, I think it was Chairman Waxman.  He was fair, courteous, yet stern.  Waxman's demeanor was consistent not only with the committee's rules, but also with the longstanding traditions in Congress.

On the flip side, as a Republican, I was embarrassed today by the actions of the minority Republicans on the Committee (with the exception of Mark Souder).  Dan Burton was absolutely idiotic, and Tom Davis wasn't much better.  The Democrats did focus more on Clemens than on McNamee, but by no means were the Democrats easy on McNamee.  But at no point did the Democrats call anyone a liar, the way Congressman Burton did.  While it was clear that someone was lying today, it was impossible for anyone (let alone Burton) to reach a conclusion today.  I understand the Republicans may want to believe Clemens over McNamee, and that is fine, but the committee process in Congress is supposed to have an air of fairness and respect.  Burton and Davis flushed those traditions down the toilet.

Is this an issue Congress should be involved in?  Yes and no.  Yes Congress should be concerned about the proliferation of 'roids and HGH in sports and society.  No, Congress should not be concerned about specific players and accusations against those players.  But it is understandable how Congress may want to make an example of someone who lies about the use of steroids under oath.  Barry Bonds is already being taken care of on the West Coast.  Consider that Clemens was the first - and biggest - name Congress could go after.  And they did.

In my opinion, with the exception of Chairman Waxman, Congressmen Cummings, Shays and Souder, the rest of the actors in today's drama acted in a boorish and inexcusable manner.

However, at the end of the day, I can say without question that George Costanza lost his title as "Lord of the Idiots" to Roger Clemens.

When will ESPN quit making excuses for Steve Phillips?

So I am driving to Dairy Queen tonight to get a chocolate malt for myself and a Blizzard for my wife listening to ESPN Radio on my satellite radio.  Of course, the topic that Ryen Russillo was talking about was the upcoming congressional hearings in which Brian Macnamee and Roger Clemens are both supposed to testify.

Russillo's guest was former Major League General Manager Steve Phillips, who now works as  an analyst for ESPN.  The problem with having Phillips speak in any manner on the issue of steroids in baseball is that he was part of the problem.  Every time I hear Phillips talk about steroids and baseball I want to ask a simple question: Why the hell didn't you clean up your own clubhouse?

Remember, the person identified by the Mitchell Report as the source of all the steroids was Kirk Radomski, who worked for the New York Mets from 1985 through 1995.  According to the Mitchell Report, Radomski began distributing steroids and HGH in 1993 and continued through 2005.

Phillips worked in the Mets' front office beginning in 1990.  Even though Phillips wasn't the GM of the Mets until 1997, the fact is that Phillips was around when Radomski started the use of steroids in Major League Baseball.  That is not to say that Radomski was the only person who was involved in the distribution of steroids in MLB, but the genesis the steroids at issue in the Mitchell Report can be traced back to Radomski, when he began distributing steroids as an employee of the Mets.

Again, every time I hear Phillips on the radio talking about steroids I yell out the same question: why didn't you (Phillips) clean up your own clubhouse?

Well, tonight Ryen Russillo attempted to answer the question by making feeble minded excuses for Phillips.  Russillo began by saying some thing to the effect of "Look, Phillips was the GM of a major league team.  What was he going to do, approach a player he thinks is juicing and tell him to get off the 'roids or he is off the team?"  Russillo continues to make excuses for Phillips by telling the audience that Phillips was under pressure to win in New York, that at the time of the 'roid usage it wasn't against MLB rules (more on that in a moment), and that Phillips was doing what everyone else in MLB was doing.

EXACTLY!!!!!

Phillips should have stood up and done the right thing.  If that means confronting a player and telling him to get off the 'roids or else, then yes, that is what Phillips should have done.  This isn't about hindsight being 20/20, this is about doing the right thing.  Imagine if Phillips had grown a pair and actually stood up to one of his players that was juicing.  Imagine the furor that would have arisen.  Imagine the attention he would have gotten (and the Mets) for actually standing up against these spoiled athletes, and standing up for doing the right thing.  You mean to tell me that would have been a bad thing?

According to ESPN and Russillo, doing the right thing was apparently the wrong thing.

By the way, 'roid usage at the time (and now) was not only illegal but also in violation of the collective bargaining agreement.  The MLB CBA allows a team to cut a player without repercussions if the player is convicted of (or presumably admits to) a crime.  Using steroids (without a doctor's prescription) was and is a crime.  There was something Phillips could have done to at least make a dent in the use of steroids in baseball.  But like everyone else during that era, Phillips chose to look the other way.

ESPN spends a lot of time criticizing Selig, the owners and the players for turning a blind eye to the use of 'roids and other performance enhancing drugs during baseball's Steroid Era.  Of course, when it comes to one of their own - Steve Phillips - who is equally culpable, ESPN cannot make excuses quick enough.

ESPN must put an end to this double standard in order to regain credibility on the issue of steroids in baseball by being as tough on Phillips as ESPN is on the rest of MLB.

FINALLY!!!!!!

Finally, finally, finally!  Congratulations to Goose Gossage for finally making it to the Hall of Fame.

Gossage should have been in the Hall years ago.  Why?

Because Gossage was the most dominant relief pitcher of his era.  Gossage pitched at a time when baseball was just beginning to find out how to use a dominant relief pitcher like Gossage to win a game.

Gossage doesn't have the numbers that other relievers like Lee Smith or Trevor Hoffman.  But he doesn't need the numbers.  For at least a decade, everyone who knew anything knew that Goose Gossage was the best reliever in baseball.

Numbers?  OK, I know, baseball is all about numbers.  Rob Neyer of ESPN has a great article about the numbers that matter when it comes to evaluating Goose's career.

Congratulations Goose.  You are where you belong.

Mike Wallace's upcoming softball interview of Roger Clemens

You have to hand it to Roger Clemens, he is doing an excellent job of controlling his message in order to protect his image.  First was the statement he issued through his agent denying the allegations made by Brian MacNamee - Clemens' personal trainer - in the Mitchell Report.  Clemens' first statement was issued only hours after the release of the Mitchell Report on Thursday, December 13th.

Carefully read Clemens' statement:

"I want to state clearly and without qualification: I did not take steroids, human growth hormone or any other banned substances at any time in my baseball career or, in fact, my entire life," Clemens said Tuesday in a statement issued through his agent, Randy Hendricks. "Those substances represent a dangerous and destructive shortcut that no athlete should ever take.

"I am disappointed that my 25 years in public life have apparently not earned me the benefit of the doubt, but I understand that Senator Mitchell's report has raised many serious questions. I plan to publicly answer all of those questions at the appropriate time in the appropriate way. I only ask that in the meantime people not rush to judgment."

Ten days later, on December 23rd, Clemens posted a video on YouTube in which Clemens said:

Let me be clear, the answer is no, I did not use steroids, human growth hormone and I've never done so.

I did not provide Brian MacNamee with any drugs to inject into my body.  Brian MacNamee did not inject steroids or human growth hormone into my boy either when I played in Toronto for the Blue Jays or the New York Yankees.

This report is simply not true.

Here is Clemens' YouTube video:

Each of these statements, as we are learning, we carefully crafted by Clemens' lawyers (more on that in a minute).

Now, we are learning that in fact Brian MacNamee DID inject drugs into Clemens' body.  According to this report, we are learning that Clemens did have MacNamee inject his body with drugs - B-12 and Lidocaine. 

Significantly, this report also explains why Clemens' response to the Mitchell Report has been proffered in such a piecemeal fashion:  Clemens' lawyers are writing the script for Clemens, which means the public has to be aware that every word out of Clemens' mouth has been carefully chosen by Clemens' lawyers.

As a lawyer myself, I have learned that lawyers will craft responses in order to provide as much wiggle room as possible for their clients.  But why has Clemens' team seemingly backtracked from Clemens' original and unequivocal denial first issued only hours after the release of the Mitchell Report?

Again, consider the first sentence of the statement release by Clemens' handlers on December 13th:

I want to state clearly and without qualification: I did not take steroids, human growth hormone or any other banned substances at any time in my baseball career or, in fact, my entire life

That is a pretty clear denial by Clemens that he never used steroids or human growth hormone.  So why doesn't Clemens continue to say the same thing every time he is asked a question about whether he has used steroids or HGH?

If anything, Clemens' subsequent statements actually backtrack from his original statement issued on December 13th.  Consider the statement from his YouTube video:

I did not provide Brian MacNamee with any drugs to inject into my body.

But based upon his interview with 60 Minutes, we know that MacNamee did inject Clemens with drugs.  The beauty of the Clemens' statement is the wiggle room his lawyers put into the statement: I did not provide.....

OK, so Clemens didn't provide MacNamee with the drugs that Clemens was injected with, but it is clear now (again, from the excerpts of the transcript from 60 Minutes) that MacNamee did inject Clemens with something.  The question is: what was in the syringes that MacNamee stuck into Roger's butt?

We may never know.  It may end up being MacNamee's word versus Roger's.  However, almost from day one Clemens and his team have been working very hard to get their stories straight and provide Clemens with enough wiggle room to be able to say "I've never used 'roids or HGH" without actually saying it.  Some would say the Clemens team is working too hard....

Do you think Mike Wallace is going to ask Clemens about the inconsistencies in his prior statements?  Me neither.

One last point.  Some of you reading this might think that I am hyper-parsing these statements, and therefore you may dismiss my points.  That is exactly what Clemens' team wants you to think, that is why they carefully word each statement, so that when someone like myself provides critical analysis, the average reader thinks "Man that is really nit-picky."

I am convinced now, more than ever, that Clemens 'roided up.

Baseball Death Watch, Day One: The Day After

exhale.......

Here it is, the day after the release of the Mitchell Report, and wouldn't you know it, the world is still turning, the sun is still shining (except here in Oregon) and baseball is still America's Pastime (although football may have something to say about that).

Those of you who follow the Liver know that I started the Liver because of my outright disgust with the use of performance enhancing drugs by Major League Baseball Players, and in particular, Barroid and McSteroid.  The flagrant use of these substances by Barroid and McSteroid, and others, in my opinion, is and was nothing short of a slap in the face to the rest of baseball, the players and most importantly from my perspective, the fans.

Now we have the Mitchell Report.  I have read the report cover-to-cover now -- twice (my wife says I have no life) -- and I have come to the conclusion that the Report isn't exactly the smoking gun so many of us hoped that it would be.  Sure, the Mitchell Report names names.  But many of the big names in the Report are players that the public already had a good idea about.  And the other players mentioned in the Report are marginally talented big leaguers who used performance enhancing drugs just to stay in the majors.

Like I said in this earlier article posted here on the Liver, most (if not all) of the attention on the Mitchell Report is being focused on the 86 or so names found in the Report.  Even I posted the names I found in the Report immediately after the Report was made public.  But the Report itself is short on real substance, and long on innuendo and unsubstantiated conclusions, which is unfortunate, because the Report had the potential to be so much more.

Aside from the players names found in the Mitchell Report, the most curious aspect of the Report is the obvious disdain Senator Mitchell holds for the Players Association.  Don't get me wrong, the MLBPA certainly deserves much of the credit for baseball's current drug problem, but the Report seems to shift much of the blame onto the MLBPA, I think somewhat unfairly.

Why?  Well, the Report points out that players (and therefore MLBPA) made a considerable amount of money during the offensive explosion that has become known as "the Steroids Era".  The Report infers that the MLBPA resisted serious efforts by Major League Baseball to institute comprehensive drug testing -- testing of all illegal drugs -- for reasons such as "due process" and "right to privacy" concerns.  Apparently Major League Baseball bought into these concerns and never pushed harder until the Congress held Major League Baseball's feet to the fire.

But to shift all the blame for a lax drug screening program on the players' union is revisionist in its own right.  The Mitchell Report includes a lengthy discussion (over 20 pages) of the history of drug testing in baseball.  The Report explains that drug testing was a topic of bargaining in 1994, and the two sides (the MLBPA and MLB) were in serious discussions about a comprehensive drug screening system.

Of course, there were other issues the two sides could not agree on in 1994, and the infamous strike occurred in 1994, canceling the rest of the 1994 season, the World Series, and part of the 1995 season.  Only after MLB and the players were losing money did the two sides reach a tentative agreement in order to start the 1995 season.  Drug testing and/or screening was not a part of that agreement.

The Report tries to place the blame for not having any drug screening provisions in the 1995 agreement upon the players and MLBPA.  But let's be serious here, the owners were losing money as well.  Baseball was on life-support, and something needed to be done in order to revive the sport.  Steroids meant the likelihood of more home runs, more scoring and more excitement - which equates to more money in the owners pockets.  The owners knew this in 1995, which is why drug screening fell off the bargaining table.

The point is this:  the Mitchell Report is lacking in any serious review of Major League Baseball and criticism of the baseball clubs.  While there is harsh language in the Report criticizing Major League Baseball as a whole, that criticism is often tempered by the Report by also pointing out the players unions shortcomings on the issue of performance enhancing drugs.

I agree with Commissioner Selig on this point:  the Mitchell Report is "a call to action".  But not a call to action by MLB or the MLBPA.  It is a call to action to the Congress, to institute its own investigation, where players and baseball officials can be subject to subpoena and compelled to testify truthfully about the problem of drugs in baseball.  That is the only way the public - and millions of baseball fans everywhere -- will get a full and fair report on the prevalence of steroids, HGH, amphetamines and other drugs in America's Pastime.