<marquee>near and far</marquee>
followed tags: 0
followed domains: 9
badges given: 140 of 140
member for: 2126 days
been meaning to go to that, saw something similar in houston a few years ago. sargent is pretty underrated. is it mostly portraits, or does it include his later stuff? i can't really get into portraits.
why can't i get into portraits? someone send me a cool portrait, not counting veen's d&d character
there was also this really odd piece recently https://www.si.com/mlb/2018/06/27/sammy-sosa-cubs-dubai-steroids-mark-mcgwire
this is dumb. john olerud hit 255 career home runs and had a marked decline after his age 33 season, just like every player ever who was not on steroids
and for a player like olerud, "forgetting" isn't sufficient...
- All that adds up, according to Baseball Reference, to 53.7 career wins above replacement and 27.4 wins above average. Those are borderline Hall of Fame numbers, and probably slightly on the wrong side of the border. But keep in mind, WAR is an adjusted-for-league-average stat. And Olerud was playing in a league full of cheaters, like McGwire and Palmeiro and Sosa and Bonds. They make his adjusted numbers, which are already on the borderline for Hall consideration, look worse than they should be. And he was playing in a league full of cheaters like Roger Clemens, who he faced 107 times, more than any other pitcher, and against whom he hit just .205/.335/.373. So, first, Olerud's numbers are worsened because a good chunk of the pitchers he faced were cheating, and second his numbers get worsened again in the adjustment process because he gets compared to other hitters who were cheating. What that means, I think, is that if you want to try to pretend the steroid thing never happened, i.e. to imagine that all the cheating players just hadn't been there, John Olerud has a pretty strong Hall of Fame case.
- After the Mitchell Report, after Bonds fatigue, this brand of skepticism and anger was the mainstream position when it came to performance-enhancing drugs. If it isn’t the current default stance of the typical baseball fan, it’s mighty close.
i spend an hour or two a week browsing r/baseball and this is completely, dead, 180-degree wrong, at least when describing that demographic.
i don't know what the 'average' baseball fan thinks, i don't even know who that is anymore. as far as i can tell from going to games, the average baseball fan is a fat family of four who like the loud music all the stadiums play and don't actually know what's going on down on the field. my best approximation of what that "baseball fan" believes is: i'm a brewers fan, so i forgive ryan braun, but i hate david ortiz for taking steroids. etc
- It’s not natural for a human being to ingest substantially more calories than they need for the purposes of bulking up. Forcing 8,000 calories into your system every day to build muscle mass isn’t good for you.
that's interesting, because when lance armstrong was doing this at his peak (and yes, of course, he was also on steroids), he was perhaps the fittest man on the planet.
and on top of all that brisbee throws in some hilarious alarmism about creatine. great.
ultimately at least this article isn't complete apologetics and makes the correct and obvious point that all baseball records for the rest of time are cheapened. steroids didn't save baseball, they did their best to ruin it for those of us who love baseball and numbers equally.
- Just know that it’s far, far too reductive to look back at McGwire and Sosa with disgust. At the time, they were the absolute best.
no. here's wins above replacement, 1998:
1. Kevin Brown 9.1
2. Alex Rodriguez 8.5
3. Roger Clemens 8.1
4. Barry Bonds 8.1
5. John Olerud 7.6
steroids, steroids, steroids, steroids, olerud. be honest, what do you know about john olerud? maybe you'd know more if it weren't for bonds, rodriguez, clemens, mcgwire...
pretending sammy sosa doesn't exist is exactly the right move and brisbee should too