Baseball Toaster was unplugged on February 4, 2009.
With so much of the recent baseball conversation delving into the solemn and sober issues of steroid use and how the game should react to the problem, I thought it would be nice to throw a lighthearted change-of-pace. Along those lines, this week’s Card Corner presents something a little bit different.
Yes, I admit it. I used to think that former California Angels outfielder Ken Berry (Topps 1972, No. 379)was the same Ken Berry who starred in the 1960s television series, "F-Troop." After all, the actor who portrayed Captain Wilton Parmenter, the shy and not-so-fearless leader of Fort Courage, seemed young enough to be a ballplayer. The show also aired during the fall and winter months, resulting in little conflict with the baseball season, which ran for most of the spring and summer. (As a seven-year-old in 1972, I had no idea that TV series started filming during the summer months, which would have made it difficult for Berry the baseball player to honor his major league schedule with the Angels. To make matters worse, I didn’t realize that "F-Troop" had aired live from 1965 to 1967, and was simply being featured in reruns by 1972. So in theory, Berry the ballplayer would have been filming "F-Troop" in the mid-1960s while still with the Chicago White Sox. All of these revelations are rather embarrassing.)
Captain Parmenter would have made a good outfielder, just like baseball’s version of Ken Berry. (Baseball’s Berry won two Gold Gloves for his defensive play in center field and earned selection to the 1967 All-Star Game. Back in the day, he was referred to as an excellent flychaser.) As the overmatched commander of "F-Troop," Parmenter looked lean and fit, and appeared to have enough speed to play center field. Some of the other characters on "F-Troop" also fit the stereotypes of ballplayers. Sergeant Morgan O’Rourke, played so smoothly by veteran actor Forrest Tucker, would have made a strapping, left-handed hitting first baseman. Corporal Randolph Agarn, as played by the mawkish Larry Storch, would have fit right in as a goofy, wisecracking utility infielder. And then there was Hannibal Dobbs, portrayed by character actor James Hampton of The Longest Yard fame, who would have seemed just right as a slightly daffy relief pitcher.
With or without baseball, "F-Troop" was a solidly good, funny show that was sometimes hilarious. It never would have flown in today’s world of politically correct speech (the portrayal of the Native Americans on the show is considered offensive by many critics). In some ways, it was a latter day "Little Rascals" (another riotous program that is never shown anymore because of over sensitivity and political correctness), but it was still funny, with likeable and sympathetic characters. It just would have been that much better if the Ken Berry who played center field so skillfully for the Angels, White Sox, Cleveland Indians, and Milwaukee Brewers had been the same guy who so cleverly played Captain Parmenter on TV.
Bruce Markusen writes "Cooperstown Confidential" for MLB.com and is the author of the upcoming book, Out of Left Field: Unusual Characters in Baseball History.
Great show. Loved Wrangler Jane. I'm pretty sure she was my first TV crush.
http://tinyurl.com/2c4uq3
That the name of the tribe was taken from an old joke (The where in the / heck are we? = hakawi tribe) is also kinda cool. Of course heck is in the G rated version of the joke.
"Where Indian fights are colorful sights
And nobody takes a lickin',
Where paleface and redskin
Both turn chicken."
Or: IT IS BALLOOOOOOON!
Who are you?
We're the Hakawi (= Where the heck are we?)
I miss the Little Rascals. Oh WPIX of my youth, where are you?
That's why in the first season's episodes, you never see Wilton Parmenter make the "first move" on Jane, or return a kiss. Since Patterson was underage, the F-Troop people didn't want any kind of "scandal" associated with the show.
Also, it's hard to believe that only 42 episodes were filmed. Much like The Munsters, F-Troop was given the axe too soon.
And, as much as I liked the POV of the artice, I don't want to leave the subject of juice. I am having as much trouble with the subject as I have ever had with any of the problems of baseball. I am questioning my comittment to the game, just as reliving though the piece on F Troop the genocide of native americans by our government. Who knew about this and didn't tell me about it? How many of the pundits hid their knowlege to keep their sources open?. How many people in management, the union, the clubhouse, allowed it to go on? Can I still trust any of them/
Thanks for the reminder to check out the database. Frank De Kova was in the Mechanic. Damn. That was a long time ago.
Bear in mind that this issue is being blown way out of proportion. We live in a country where the 2 worst drugs, alcohol and tabacco, are legal and consumed in mass quantities. So to show how righteous we all are, all other drugs and those that do them are criminals and the scum of the earth.
After all, the way we humans deal with our own inadequacies is to focus on other people's inadequacies.
Steroids are HGH should be banned. Not for moral reasons but for 'fairness' in playing the game. We don't know what the real effect of these drugs are. The only service MLB could do provide that would have real value would be to compile a study on the real effects on both performance and health, so players and fans can make there own decisions on how the game has been effected.
What if it turned out that Steroids and especially HGH had little effect on enhancing a players career, especially considering their negative effects?
Sensationalism and proselytizing sells newspapers, insights blog activity and diverts attention from the real issue. The real issue here is that the people IN CHARGE, the people whose job it is NOT to play the game, but to manage MLB, chose to look the other way for fear of upsetting the financial applecart.
Selig and Fehr, public enemies #1 and #2, as well as the owners and trainers, knew what what going on. But business as usual is far more important then ethical issues.
And just like with Abu Ghraib, the people at the top who are responsible for what goes on 'beneigth' them, it is instead the 'soldiers' who get the public scorn, while the generals maintain their position.
Listen to Bud. He STILL denies culpability. Listen to Fehr. He says MAYBE he should have acted differently. HA!
Is it news that human beings sometimes do drugs? Make poor decisions? Struggle to compete and make a living? Did we really learn anything new from this report? Are we proud of the recommendations that, aside from being common sense, were debated and rejected years ago by Selig and Fehr.
So now we have a list of 'cheaters' and 'bad people'. So what that baseball has always had a culture of alcohol, 'greenies' and womanizing. We now have some new guys we can say 'on my gosh' about, and divert our attention from discussing any of the real issues that MLB should be addressing.
Is there anyone here who doesn't believe that Selig and Fehr could have dealt with this issue 15 years ago and put it to bed?
Andy Pettitte took a shit this morning that had more moral and ethical fiber then 100 Seligs and Fehrs. This report, and the reasons for it, are pure propaganda. Please don't buy into it. Don't let your attention be diverted.
First Selig and Fehr, and now (Director of the Red Sox) Mitchell for playing along with this game. They are the ones who deserve our scorn.
I had forgotton that the infamous 'Medicine Man Roaring Chicken', was played by Edward Everett Horton, who aside from being a very famous actor, was also the unforgettable voice of the 'Fractured Fairy Tales' of The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show.
(Is there a reason that show is not on everyday?)
One does not have to make Andy Pettitte (a career-long favorite of mine) a hero in this to make points about the game's management. In fact, I'd say it trivializes the players, it makes them idiot children, if we just point to and blame the 'bosses'. (I am aware there is a real argument that when you get to impoverished young teens seeking a way out of that poverty, that the steroid culture needs to be altered. I'd say Mitchell is all over that, myself.)
None of this suggests (I've said this before, too) that we can expect drug testing to be successful, or that cheaters won't go ahead and cheat. I do feel a need to ask you, since you're sticking with Pettitte: why couldn't he have talked to a doctor about medicine to speed recovery? Sought a formal dispensation for the use of a prescribed treatment? This is what Byrd says he did - and he's being refuted flat-out. (And using a disqualified dentist for massive shipments kind of doesn't help his case.)
Incidentally, on hgh, my morning reading suggests it does NOT boost performance to any known degree, it MAY speed healing, and so may well qualify as a legitimate prescription medicine route.
17 William, I'd say it would be silly in December to have a 'fixed' position on something like Santana. The market changes, we respond to it. It IS winter. And snowing a ton here. Haren's gone, Bedard is unlikely to stay in the AL East, Santana's value and desirability are affected by these things. I prefer Hank to keep quiet, myself, and let Cash, who is NOT talking much, take his time, evaluate, respond in due course. Hank's quote today becomes silly: he sets a firm deadline then says it wasn't firm.
As to Nathan ... I can't imagine it happening. He's worth 12-13 million, surely, if Gagne's 10 and Mo is 15 (and Nathan could easily get 4-5 years, you know). Not coming to set-up here.
1) Just tell me, aside from individual player names, what did you learn from that report that you didn't already know?
2) What recommendations were made that hadn't been thought of already?
3) Do you disagree with "Selig and Fehr could have dealt with this issue 15 years ago and put it to bed"
"assailing Selig + Fehr + ownership also requires exonerating grown men"
The players named will all suffer to some degree. How much suffering have Selig and Fehr really experienced? The guy who is the MOST guilty is now in charge of handing out 'punishments' to those named players. You are OK with that?????
Brian Roberts is on the list because some other player said "Brian told me he did Steroids 2 or 3 times". That is the very definition of hearsay. How much should Brian 'suffer' for that?
"Mitchell doesn't remotely exculpate the villains you identify"
Again, a man of his 'supposed stature' should know that a report that is so limited, which relied 90%+ on 2 informants who were 'criminals', who were both from NY teams, was NOT WORTH RELEASING. He also should have recused himself in the first place. Maybe I don't have as much respect for Mitchell as you do. To me, anyone who represented the Tabacco Industy Lobby is not a saint in my book.
Pettitte took HGH for 7 weeks, in one period of his career, solely for the purpose of healing faster. Bad judgment considering the circumstances? Yes. Criminal? Cheating? Why is getting a cortizone shot (steroid) 'legal' but what Andy did wrong?
I agree about Pettitte and Byrd seeing a Doc. I agree it was bad judgment. But if "Incidentally, on hgh, my morning reading suggests it does NOT boost performance to any known degree, it MAY speed healing, and so may well qualify as a legitimate prescription medicine route.", what is the issue?
SAVE PHIL HUGHES!
http://www.toursdirectory.com/baseball/ParkFactors.asp
I have created a table with FOUR Park Factors. HRs, OBP, SLG and RS. The HR and RS Factors exactly match ESPNs, so I fell my processing is correct.
The 'Diff' column is the difference between my calculated 'OPS' Park Factor and the 'standard' (RS)Park Factor, used in calcing OPS+ and other stats.
I think I see some serious problems with using a RS Park Factor in calcing OPS+.
1. Well, you can't argue both that we learned nothing new AND that players have been shockingly identified, right? Well, maybe you can, but logic's a good thing! (Add a smiley, I'm trying to lighten the tone!) My point all along has been (last try, to see if I can get it out better) that the game and fans have long known the culture's toxic, and have ALL (including us, OYF) looked away as long as we could. My argument (and not mine alone) has been that Mitchell by naming names, compelling attention and debate, makes it VERY hard to look away.
2. Leads to #2 ... I'm unsure why suggestions need to be new, they need to be made in a context that MIGHT compel following them. I repeat, a LOT turns on Fehr and co. and my sense is that Bud knows it and will NOT punish backwards (following Mitchell's very specific urging - Mitchell has made it really hard for Bud to punish anyone, you know) - and this will make it very hard for the union to stay off-side.
3. Honestly, based on what we're seeing from the players, and the owners' attitudes, I'm not sure Selig could have done it, and I'm not sure Fehr would have kept his job (as he understood it - wrongly I believe) had he not stonewalled as long as he could. Add the owners, enjoying homers and dollars, and we're back to my point: nothing WAS done, we can assign blame variously, but surely (surely?) you'd accept that if something now IS done, then the Mitchell Report deserves praise not rants.
4. "The players will suffer to some degree" ... the degrees will vary. Roger apparently is losing or may lose a gig speaking to high school students. Barry has been excoriated beyond belief for years, booed every time he came to bat, and with no conviction then, no charges even: any thought that maybe it is GOOD that the net is now cast wider for many casual fans? (Remember this is a fairly sophisticated group. Hell, very sophisticated.)
If what you're saying is that Selig and Fehr should both also 'suffer' or, more specifically, resign or be fired ... as I said before: where do I sign the petition?
As to Pettitte and the issue, OYF that's easy: if he could have sought an exemption, he should have. He might not have gotten it, he went subculture, illicit and ABSENT the exemption it was cheating as set out by the game. Jeepers, cocaine isn't a performance booster but you can be punished for using it in baseball (now!). The issue is actions that break known rules, not whether they MIGHT have been done by complying with the rules. Ask me a hard one!
And I am entirely of the view that Pettitte's 'sin' is minor as measured by the other incidents in the report, and my guess is it'll play out that way. As for Brian Roberts, hearsay is NOT as often assumed that you can't say what someone told you if the someone is the person IN QUESTION. In other words, the evidence would be admitted even in court. I don't LIKE that Roberts is linked this 'easily' but I am aware he, too, was invited to reply (not under oath, not in court) to the allegation. All named players were notified, none of them are surprised by this, you know.
One sentence to summarize: the game MIGHT have been able to solve this (though never perfectly) years ago if everyone cooperated, the Mitchell Report may be what causes cooperation, and it might have needed to name names, make waves, to push people TO that.
If Bud is smart enough to take Mitchell's admonition against pursuing punishment against the players named to heart I think your observation concerning the report acting as a catalyst for action may have some merit. If MLB goes after any of these guys there will be a blood letting that may make 1994 look childlike.
In reading the Clemens section of the Mitchell Report, McNamee gives a pretty clear time line as to when Roger started using steroids. It was after a series at Miami. Clemens pitched in that series on 6/8/1998.
Here are his stats through that series:
6-6, 3.27 ERA, 9.2 K per 9, 4.3 BB per 9, 0.32 HR/9.
From that date through the end of the season:
14-0, 2.29 ERA, 11.1 K per 9, 2.8 BB per 9, 0.48 HR per 9.
Update: McNamee also talks about injecting Clemens in the second half of 2000 and late in 2001. Clemens through 6/30/2000:
4-6, 4.76 ERA, 9.0 K per 9, 4.1 BB per 9, 1.44 HR per 9.
July through the end of the season:
9-2, 3.00 ERA, 7.8 K per 9, 3.4 BB per 9, 0.95 HR per 9.
Let me note, however, that Clemens suffered an injury that knocked him out for the last two games of June, and his two starts before he left the game with an injury were poor.
I think it would be hugely against his interests - and the game's - at this point, would result in (appropriate) union grievances and legal actions and get this hugely tangled in the past.
Selig did say 'case by case' in his first comments, which suggests he's at least looking at actions against named players, and presumably evaluating details of information given to Mitchell. I'd still say he should stay way out of those waters. This is not the same as condoning, it recognizes the situational nature of the 2 sources, that people like Pudge and Sammy were by luck outside the range of information given.
http://www.toursdirectory.com/baseball/ParkFactors.asp
Bogus Park Factors in calcing OPS+?
2001: .250 / .339 / .351
Truly Womackian. I guess it doesn't always work. But again, HGH is NOT steroids.
It appears that the report agrees that HGH doesn't do much, and probably does more harm than good (pages 9 and 10).
A number of studies have shown that use of human growth hormone does not increase muscle strength in healthy subjects or well-trained athletes.31 Athletes who have tried human growth hormone as a training aid have reached the same conclusion. The author of one book targeted at steroid abusers observed that "[t]he most curious aspect of the whole situation is that I've never encountered any athlete using HGH to benefit from it, and all the athletes who admit to having used it will usually agree: it didn't/doesn't work for them.
The primary attraction of human growth hormone for athletes seeking performance enhancing effects appears to be that it is not detectable in any currently available drug test.33 In addition, because human growth hormone stimulates growth in most body tissues, athletes use it to promote tissue repair and to recover from injury.
When talking about 'enhancing performance', it seems nuts to put steroids and HGH in the same category.
And if HGH does NOT improve performance, but simply 'promotes tissue repair to recover from injury'... what's wrong with that? Antibiotics and most medicines do just that. They help you heal faster.
…. The commission's failure to do anything of note on its own makes the tone of both the report and George Mitchell's press conference yesterday shameful. Given a bully pulpit with which to change the conversation about performance-enhancing drugs in baseball, Mitchell instead elected to blame the MLBPA and its members for being obstructionist; put little to no blame on upper management of teams or the game itself; proffer unoriginal solutions that, while difficult to argue against, could have been generated by a Google search of Dick Pound quotes; and offered legitimacy to such tired refrains as the connection between PED use by MLB players and usage by young athletes and Don Hooton's claims that steroids drove his son to his suicide.
…. there is no examination of how owners, presidents, general managers, and managers integrated their knowledge of PED use, such as it was, into their processes. The evidence we have from the market—that it simply doesn't matter—is completely absent from the report.
1) In 1997, the year before Clemens is alleged to have started using steroids, Rocket's ERA was 2.05, which is better then the second half numbers he posted under the influence.
2) McNamee alleges that Clemens resumed taking steroids in August 2001. Neither his August nor September numbers were out of line with his June and July stats (in fact, they were worse).
3) Many have cited Clemens strong ALCS and WS in 2000 and 2001, but ignore that he pitched poorly in both ALDS.
So, while Clemens may have used steroids over approximately 7 months of his career, I don't think that represents a large enough sample to taint his entire career. If you want to knock him for his dishonesty (the integrity clause), that's one thing, but to suggest that his success was fueled by steroid is a much bigger stretch.
1) In 1997, the year before Clemens is alleged to have started using steroids, Rocket's ERA was 2.05, which is better then the second half numbers he posted under the influence.
2) McNamee alleges that Clemens resumed taking steroids in August 2001. Neither his August nor September numbers were out of line with his June and July stats (in fact, they were worse).
3) Many have cited Clemens strong ALCS and WS in 2000 and 2001, but ignore that he pitched poorly in both ALDS.
So, while Clemens may have used steroids over approximately 7 months of his career, I don't think that represents a large enough sample to taint his entire career. If you want to knock him for his dishonesty (the integrity clause), that's one thing, but to suggest that his success was fueled by steroid is a much bigger stretch.
I also think the Yankees purposely scheduled the press conference to bury the signing, as opposed to trying to distract from the Mitchell Report. At this point, the less scrutiny of anything Arod, the better.
There was a large difference factor in many cases. When comparing 2 players (on different teams with different PFs), there was a 10% and larger difference often.
Comparing Player A to B OPS+ using:
RS:: (A)= 120 (B)= 115
OPS: (A)= 108 (B)= 123
Isn't that a HUGE difference when evaluating those 2 players???
Which do you think is more accurate?
34 pete has andy's full statement up.
i think it was wise for him to say something too. i know he did what he did, but i actually feel pretty bad for him. he knows that no matter what he says he and his accomplishments will be in someway tarnished by many.
I think that hardly compromises any oif his numbers.
I'm sure he will be scorned by people who know no facts other then his name was on 'the list'. I hope somebody qualifies the list with the frequency and reason of usage by each player.
I think it a real failure of the report to lump together players who habitually used in order to increase performance vs. players who used for one short period specifically to heal from injury.
Even Murder has different 'degrees'.
Not sensationalized at all.
Andy handled this right. It will blow over shortly.
http://www.artsnow.com/img/4-13374878-0-0-1
"In the 70's and 80's baseball was rife with cocaine abusers.
In the 90's and currently it's steroids and HGH.
And amphetamines have been a constant throughout.
And yet nearly all of the players refuse to run hard to 1st base.
No wonder I loathe this sport."
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.