« More articles in Uncategorized | Go Home

Tuesday Notes

posted by Shawn Hoffman, on February 19th, 2008 at 08:29 am, in category Uncategorized

Right to it:

Maury named the Red Sox MLB Organization of the Year for 2007, and really this is a no-brainer. For decades, the only ways an individual team could significantly expand its business were 1) win, 2) build a new stadium, or 3) encourage league-wide growth policies. With Fenway Sports Group, the Red Sox have completely redefined what a sports franchise can be. An old world company if there ever was one, the Sox have become dynamic, creative, and perpetually innovative, led by a management team that is always thinking outside the box. That goes for the baseball side as well, of course, which also had a reasonably successful year.

PECOTA has the Yankees scoring 885 runs this season. I’m betting the under, which I guess is somewhat bold considering they scored 968 last season. But the system expects full time play out of almost all of their regulars, and what I would consider optimistic projections for Jorge Posada, Johnny Damon, Jason Giambi, and Bobby Abreu. All are projected near their recent baselines, but that in itself may be too much to ask for the group as a whole.

I’ll admit, the hearings last week made for some interesting television. If it had any actual significance, or was even regarding something that mattered in the least bit, it would have been off the charts. In a five hour congressional hearing about human growth hormone, there was no mention of whether HGH actually helps performance (it decidedly does not, when taken on its own). Congratulations, Henry Waxman. Your next five terms have truly been earned.

If you’re a compulsive box score reader, you understand that empty feeling of having to finish an Astros-Giants game before you go to sleep (for point’s sake, we’ll assume Barry was sitting it out). There are some teams I look forward to more than others, and the teams I’ll be most interested in early in 2008 are the Rays, A’s, Brewers, Yankees, and Nationals (there’s my Wily Mo fetish acting up again). Expect more on each in the near future. On the other end of the spectrum: the Astros, Giants, Twins, White Sox, and Pirates. But with that said, God help the Orioles if Adam Jones gets hurt.

Feedback? Write a comment, or e-mail the author at shawn(AT)squawkingbaseball.com

6 Existing Comments

Add New Comment

on February 19th at 08:56 am
Tom Stanley said:

I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you.

Tom Stanley
on February 19th at 10:25 am
H.B. Oats said:

I take exception to your critique of Congressman Waxman.

This is a quote from the cbs blog from the hearings:

” Yesterday, at the HGH hearing, the committee members obviously wanted the answer, ‘No, HGH does not help you.’ But the doctors who were witnesses definitely stopped short of that. ” The link: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/richard_deitsch/02/12/blog.clemensmcnamee/5.html

The first day of testimony was almost entirely devoted to determining whether there were any performance benefits to HGH and the answer was inconclusive. It’s shameful that you’ve glossed over that fact to level blame on the congressman.

I think you owe him and apology and you owe your readers to do your homework on a subject you’ve written about several times.
on February 19th at 10:55 am
squawkingbaseball said:

H.B. -

HGH, taken on its own, has “anabolic” properties in the sense that it makes you bigger… but all of the available evidence shows that it does NOT make you stronger. It can enhance the effects of steroids if taken together. But on its own, it creates immature muscle, and has little impact on performance. This is particularly true when you compare it to some arbitrarily more accepted drugs, such as cortisone (which is a PED if there ever was one).

These hearings were all about grandstanding, and they should never have been held (a point which everyone knew a week ago, and Waxman finally admits). I stand by what I wrote, on both HGH and Congressman Waxman.

If you want to read more on the negligent effects of HGH, I suggest you read J.C. Bradbury’s blog, http://www.sabernomics.com. J.C. has been out in front of this for the past year.
on February 19th at 11:19 am
H.B. Oats said:

Personally, I agree with your assessment of HGH’s (falsely) alleged performance enhancements. Even a cursory reading of the Mitchel report appears to bear that out as well.

However my comment is about Waxman, not the findings of the committee. To single out Congressman Waxman for “grandstanding” is entirely unfair. Did you select him because he is the head of the committee?

Did you not hear Congressman Burton’s absurd and obnoxious, “I don’t know what to believe. I know one thing I don’t believe and that’s you!” comment? Is that not grandstanding?

Two important points:

1) Waxman devoted an entire day of hearings to determine whether there were performance benefits to HGH.
2) The committee findings indicated that it was inconclusive, Do you really think that is a justifiable reason to blame specific committee members?

Lastly, can you really stand by the following statement, and not be lying, given the entire first day’s testimony?

“there was no mention of whether HGH actually helps performance”
on February 19th at 11:43 am
squawkingbaseball said:

As chairman, it is Waxman’s responsibility, more than any other, to make sure that the committee does not waste its time on pointless issues. Performance enhancing drugs (and in some cases NON-performance enhancing drugs) in baseball should not merit congressional attention. That was true three years ago and it is true today. The ridiculous Clemens hearing simply proved the committee’s motives even further. And yes, every single member of that committee is at fault. I think we can agree on that.

As for that statement, the first day of hearings makes it even more egregious that the effects (or lack thereof) of HGH were never mentioned during the Clemens hearing. The committee needed something to get them on TV, and they succeeded. Bravo.

I appreciate the discussion, H.B.
on February 19th at 12:06 pm
H.B. Oats said:

If your critique is centered on the ridiculous notion that this steroid issue should be addressed to the congress then I wholeheartedly agree.

It is the height of absurdity to give creedence to an issue so irrelevent to the legislative needs of the nation in the halls of Congress, anti-trust exemptions not withstanding.

However, accepting the circumstances as they are (that the committee is entirely political and acts on behalf of all its members and is representative of the interests of the nation…supposedly) I think Waxman did a fine job of trying to hammer out the truth about this pointless, and petty, exercise and I also think he appeared to be preening for the camera less than others (again, Burton comes to mind.)

Regardless, I’ve enjoyed this debate. Thank you for responding so prompty.

Pittsburgh Florist