The Return of The INCREDIBLE BONDS!

Out in the barren valleys of San Francisco, a lone, hulking figure roams the waste lands. He is forever searching for the cure to his disorder. Unfortunately for him, his dual personality refuses his cries for change and continues to feed off of that which made him: steroids. His name? THE INCREDIBLE BONDS!


Inside San Francisco's Happy Rainbow Liberachi Memorial Hospital:

Doctor: Alright, how are you feeling today?

Cancer patient: I'm fuckin' dyin', man!

Doctor: That probably sucks. Here, this steroids should help treat your whatever...canker sores, right?

Patient: Cancer, asshat!

Doctor: Right, right.

Suddenly, a rumbling is heard and the hot pink hospital shakes.

Doctor: Oh my, is that another one of California's famous hurricane's?

Patient: You mean earthquake. God, you're horrible.

Through the wall bursts a giant mass of 40-some odd years of steroids in the making named the Incredible Bonds!



Incredible Bonds: BONDS SMASH! WANT MUSCLE JUICE! STAB INTO BONDS POOP MACHINE!

Doctor: It appears this beast wishes to rape us!

Patient: No wonder I'm dying. I bet I have a treatable form of cancer too...

Female Voice: BARRY! PLEASE SNAP OUT OF IT!

The door opens as the former mistress of the Incredible Bonds enters the room.



Kimberly Bell: Please don't do it, Barry! I know you can fight this horrible monster known as Bonds and cure yourself of this burden.

Incredible Bonds: BOOBIES?

Kim: Damn, I knew he wouldn't be able to listen to me. That's why I brought in a few friends who have gone through the same inflictions.



Mark McGwire: Hello, Barry. Look, I'm not here to talk about the past. I won't say I know where you're coming from or what you're going through because that's in the past. I can't tell you I understand the unquenchable thirst for Winstrol or Deca Durbin. That's the past. I can't explain the awkwardness I experienced when teammates shot my butt up with steroids. This isn't about the past.

Kim: Okay, you're useless. Maybe this guy can help.




Sammy Sosa: Yo no puedo pretender hablar Inglés.

Kim: Looks like I have no choice but to call in the abomination...



Jose Canseco: CANSECO SMASH! NEED SMASH JUICE TO GROW MORE MULLET!

Kim: I don't understand, I thought he stopped taking steroids.

Sosa: He did, m'lady. However, his intellect was never what one would call "stellar".

Kim: Wait, I thought you spoke only Spanish?

Sosa: Que?

Derek Jeter: worst fielding SS?

If you don't know the story, a group decided to do a study on defense in baseball and came to the conclusion that Derek Jeter was the worst fielding short stop in the major leagues.

Disclaimer: there aren't many Jeter fans out there that can compete with how great I think he is overall (does that sentence even make sense? fuck it). As a kid, Don Mattingly was my favorite player and since he retired Jeter has been #1. THAT SAID...I think as a fielder he's middle of the pack and anyone who points to his Gold Gloves needs to seriously rethink about whether or not they actually know anything about the sport. It's a joke. If you make a name for yourself as being good at that position you can live off that for years. I think it was 2005 when A-Rod probably was the best defensive 3rd baseman in the game and Eric Chavez still won based on rep. Now, on the flip side, as big as I am into stats and discovering new ways to evaluate players, equations trying to value defense is usually a very inexact science. From what I've read, most "stat nerds" agree that you can get a general idea of how well a defensive player someone is, but it's tough to get any type of exact value. It's so tough to take into issue all of the variables (range, ground ball ratio, type of turf/grass/field, fly balls, defensive alignment, etc) that to try and rank players is kinda foolish. And to say you're a nerd if you like deep stats and never watch the game, well...that's what old scouts said when giving Kevin Youkilis the thumbs down. Hey, I'm no fan of the guy, but he can flat out play. These are the same people who believe in clutch, sacrifice bunts, manufacturing runs, and "clogging the basepaths" (as if getting on base is bad, no matter how fat you are). Anyway, back on tangent for my thoughts: Derek Jeter was overrated when he won the Gold Gloves, but probably unfairly bashed in the study.

Um, overstating things a bit?

Bill Madden writes for the New York Daily News. Like most columnists there, he says stupid things. His latest headline killed more of my brain cells than a life time of drinking ever will.

For Mets, Brian Schneider might be biggest catch of the offseason

It's funny too, because he even writes later on in the piece (of crap):

...it was no secret Schneider had actually been Minaya's third choice - behind free agents Jorge Posada and Yorvit Torrealba - to replace Paul Lo Duca...

So, the third best option for a replacement catcher might be a bigger acquisition than JOHAN FUCKIN' SANTANA?!?

In revisiting the Schneider deal (which also brought outfielder Ryan Church to the Mets), Minaya noted the other day: "We're a team that is going to win with pitching, speed and defense. That's our formula and, as such, we felt going into the offseason we had to address catching from a defensive standpoint rather than on offense. Paulie gave us more on offense than Schneider's gonna give us, but Schneider has a reputation for working really well with pitchers and with so much emphasis on our pitching that's going to be important for us."

I have no beef with Scheider, even though he apparently (judging by his 77 OPS+ and .326 OBP) can't hit the ball out of the infield during batting practice. I'm sure he's a swell handler of pitchers (even though you heard jack shit about this guy until he came to NY). However...HE DOES NOT COMPARE TO THE BEST PITCHER IN MAJOR LEAGUE BUTT FUDGIN' BASEBALL!!! OMFGLMAOBBQSAUCEDRAGONFART!

Talk about trying to turn a frown upside down.

Sleeper Pick Part 2

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....Whahuhfuck? Oh, sorry for just now getting to this. And no, that wasn't a pun on the subject title; it's a stab at my tardiness in getting this second parter out there. Either way I'm very lame. Let's get to the AL predictions. First up: why the Red Sox won't repeat. A somewhat bold prediction I came up with before Curt Schilling formed linguine in his right shoulder, but that's neither here nor there. While I'm sold on the fact that Josh Beckett eats his Wheaties for the playoffs, I need to see him string together consecutive successful seasons before I give him the "cock ring of unquestioned ace" that everyone else seems to be bestowing upon him. Some may say that's unfair because before 2006 he had a tendency to come down with injuries (finger blisters). Sorry, but you can't be the uber-ace of the galaxy if you're constantly on the bench. In 2006 he had an ERA+ of 95 (if you don't know, an ERA+ of 100 is considered average, meaning Mista Blista was 5% worse than league average). HOWEVER, last year he posted a robust 145 ERA+ with a 1.141 WHIP and averaged nearly 5Ks (4.85) for every walk. He credits it to figuring out better ways to pitch instead of just "throwing". I think he'll be much more in line with his 2007 stats than his 2006, but we'll see. What he'll really need is for the rest of the rotation to step up and for Dice-K to improve on his rookie season (108 ERA+ with a 1.324 WHIP and 2.5Ks for every walk). Clay Buchholz won't be giving you 200 innings this year, neither will Jon Lester, and Wakefield is just a league average pitcher. They're potentially losing for a whole season a 122 ERA+, 1.245 WHIP, and 4.4K's per walk in Schilling (not to mention between 150-200 innings). If he doesn't get surgery and comes back after the All-Star break, I expect mediocrity out of him in the same vein of 2005. The bullpen should be fine with Paps in the back end and Okajima setting up for him. The lineup features a Manny and Ortiz combo that is approaching their decline due to age and injuries, a Mike Lowell who figures to come back down to Earth, BUT should be fine nonetheless with improved play from Dustin Pedroia and the inclusion of Jacoby Ellsbury. This team is one more prolonged injury to the starting rotation away from going back to 2006 form (though I doubt it will happen).

So who will win the AL? I've fought over this decision, and while I'm not entirely sold on it I'm going with the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim with Sacramento and special guest appearance from San Diego. I think their rotation is deep enough to go the distance with a cast featuring John Lackey (151 ERA+, 1.21 WHIP, 3.4K per walk), Kelvim Escobar (134/1.267/2.42), Jered Weaver (117/1.385/2.5), Jon Garland (112/1.325/1.7), and Joe Saunders (103/1.529/2). I see Weaver doing better than last year, three guys who can potentially give you 200+ innings (Lackey, Escobar, and Garland), and a back end of a rotation that gives you above league average pitching. Joe Saunders doesn't have a long enough track record in the majors to make predictions, and Garland has to do something about his K/BB ratio, but they give you a good enough chance to win. With their always solid-to-great bullpen (anchored by K-Rod), they probably have the most pitching depth. Most of these guys have good track records with their health, with the worst case scenario being the once promising Ervin Santana having to step in for injury relief (note: he's 24, young enough to turn things around). I have issues with their hack away approach at the plate, but last year they were a more patient team with Chone Figgins posting a career best OBP (.393) and Reggie Willits bursting onto the scene. Signing Torii Hunter will give you some pop, but he has a total lack of patience at the plate (never had an OBP over .337...blech!). Their offense is well-balanced and deep enough, especially in the outfield, to withstand a few injuries. So, with that said, I felt they were arguably the best team in the AL. Take your ace cock ring and shove it, Beckett.

..."cock ring of unquestioned ace"...wtf? Cocaine's a helluva drug.

Sleeper Teams Part 1

Alright, in this series I'm going to expand on my very first post for this blog. In said post, I explained why I didn't think the Tigers (the sexy pick for champs in 07') wouldn't even make it back to the World Series. Hey, turns out I was right. Lets see if I really have some sort of amazing foresight or used up what little luck I had (most definitely the latter). That said, I'll start off with dissecting why the early favorites WON'T make it and which teams I think WILL be in the World Series this year:

In the NL, it's really a wide open race, and while the Mets may be the early favorite to come out on top because of the Santana steal, I'm not sold on the rest of their starting rotation. John Maine should be solid, and maybe Oliver Perez can continue to salvage his young career. But with El Duque and Pedro you have two huge health risks followed by little depth if they get injured. I even find their offense questionable, with the only sure things being Jose Reyes, David Wright, and Carlos Beltran (when he isn't being a head case). Delgado looked done last year, Luis Castillo often has a on-base percentage higher than his slugging (though obp is more valuable than slugging, having 24 career homers in 5479 career at bats is putrid), and Moises Alou can't seem to pick up a backpack without injuring himself. In the NL, this might be able to carry you if you have the pitching to back it up. Other than Billy, I'm not a fan of their bullpen.

No, I'm gonna go ahead and select the team I predicted was on the rise last year, the Arizona Diamondbacks. Except this year, instead of picking them to be a contender in the NL, I'm picking them to make the WS. Why? Pitching, my friends. These guys have it in spades. They probably have a few more believers now that they added Dan Haren in a trade with the A's to anchor the top of the rotation with Brandon Webb. They have a 1-2 punch to match a Padres team that did pretty much nothing to improve themselves. With the reliable Doug Davis, Micah Owings (who makes up for his pitching inefficiencies with his surprising offensive prowess), and a possibly healthy Randy Johnson, this team has a rotation good enough for the top of the NL. NO ONE has their pitching depth, but the Padres and Dodgers (their division rivals) can come close. They play in such a tough division that the NL champion Rockies aren't even my 3rd favorite team in their standings. The funny thing is two seasons ago this division was a joke. The D-Backs may've lost their closer, but they're overrated anyway. You can throw any above-average pitcher into a 9th innings with a lead and no one on base and they'll close enough games out for your team to be in fine shape. No, the problem is their offense not getting on base enough. Chris Young hit a bunch of dingers last year. Great. How about some doubles, guy? He had 3 more homers than doubles last year and a horrible OBP. It's not so much he doesn't walk enough is that it doesn't make up for his lack of hitting. When you're batting .237 for the year you better walk more than 43 times. Stop laughing, Stephen Drew; you're no better. They have some light in the dark in that Justin Upton will be an absolute monster once he puts everything together at the plate. However, he's still very young and may not be ready to break out this year. He has the tools and the sky is the limit. Eric Byrnes and Orlando Hudson also make up two very solid parts of the offense that contributed good OBPs last year. This is still a young offense that SHOULD improve this year and get on base more often. There's a reason their run differential was weak last year: if you can't get on base, YOU CAN'T SCORE! It's that simple. Reduce your number of outs any way you can: hit the ball, walk, get beaned in the head (maybe not the last thing), whatever you can do to get on base. If they learn how to do this better than they did last year, the D-Backs are a lock in the wide open NL.

Next time I'll delve into who I think in the AL will make it to the World Series. Here's a hint: It's not a team from the AL East.

EDIT: Steve Phillips just said on ESPN the Mets were the team to beat, thus proving my point that they're not as good as people think. How does he still have a job?

Dr. Z is alright in my book...

From his column on Sports Illustrated's website:

One word on Phil (Simms)'s behalf, though. I don't like to see him get cheap-shotted. First week of the season, he's doing Jets-Patriots, Chad Pennington goes down with a sprained ankle on a sack by Jarvis Green. Next day, N.Y. Daily News columnist Bob Raissman, who's always loudest when he's the most wrong, takes a rip at Simms for not mentioning that the departure of guard Pete Kendall caused an inferior guy to man his spot, thereby causing the Pennington injury. Except that Green beat a different guy, LT D'Brickashaw Ferguson, not the guard. But why be right when you can be loud?

Wow...

Somewhere, Bill Simmons is crying in his Natty Ice. I've never cheered so hard for a team to lose in my life. Pretty much all you have going for you when you're a Jets fan...

Bob Raissman's Moustache is Out of Control!

Seriously, I hope that thing isn't real. It could terrorize NYC worse than that Cloverfield monster thing. Anyway, for those of you who may not know, Bob Raissman pretty much hates sports teams. At least, all of the ones he talks about (especially the Yankees). If you give a soft interview to Tom Brady, watch out! You should be grilling pretty boy about all of the shady shit he does, like baby shaking and heroin dealing. Honestly, other than asking about his bastard child, there are no hardball questions you can throw his way. "Hey, how come you didn't complete 100% of your passes last week? What's wrong with you, pussy?" I'm not even a Patriots fan (in fact I pray they lose) and I have no objection with giving Brady his 80th weakling interview of the day. But really, that doesn't bother me that much.

That's not what bothers me, so much as the holy war he has against the Yankees and their YES network. He takes extreme offense that the YANKEES ENTERTAINMENT AND SPORTS network won't offer hard hitting criticism against their own team, pretty much calling it a propaganda network. Um...no shit, sherlock. When was the last time you saw ANY network take a shot at their team. Do you see NESN taking a dump on the Dice-K deal and how he didn't live up to the lofty expectations of his first season? Or how about SNY denouncing the Mets after their historic collapse last season? No, because THAT'S BAD BUSINESS, DICK! Why would you talk bad about your own product? Here, I'll dissect some of his recent garbage:

After watching YES' "Hot Stove" feature on Phil Hughes, it appears, according to YES, certain allegations made about Roger Clemens don't really exist. They are imaginary - just like the Tooth Fairy.

Much of the Hughes piece shows the pitcher going through his daily offseason workout regimen (lifting weights, etc.) at the Yankees' Tampa facility.

At one point in the story, Hughes says: "God-given ability can only get you so far, then it's up to you to maximize that. Even if I can just take a little bit of what Roger did for us last year, (to) see the way he works out ... see the way he goes about his business, it kind of gives you an idea of what you need to do to stay in this game as long as he did."

Okay, everyone knows the Roger Clemens business. Former trainer Brian NcNamee said he did it, Clemens said he didn't and is fighting the case head on. I kinda think he did the 'roids, but without proof or a more detailed description of his regime I give him some benefit of the doubt. Plus, Clemens did have a brutal work out routine, that's true. He just might have had a little "boost" during those sessions. There's nothing wrong with Phil Hughes looking at Clemens working out and taking something from it. As long as it doesn't mean him taking steroids.

It seems the "idea" of what Clemens needed to do "to stay in this game as long as he did" is contained in Mitchell's report. Or, at least, allegations of what Clemens did. In the report, Clemens' former trainer, Brian McNamee, alleges that the seven-time Cy Young Award winner had been juicing since 1998.

If the Hughes feature was shot before the Mitchell Report came out, it would have been a good idea for YES - perhaps through "Hot Stove" host Bob Lorenz - to mention that fact. And if the Hughes interview was shot after the report was released, well, YES made the young pitcher look like a fool.

I like how Raissman treats the words "allegations" and "alleged" like they're these annoying little legal details he has to abide by. What they really mean are nothing has been proven by a court of law nor has their been an admission of guilt by the accused party, so it really is speculation without hard evidence. And no, the same can't be said of Barry Bonds because he admitted under oath to using steroids (although he claimed to not knowing what it was). Whether or not Bonds used more than he admitted to is alleged.

Someone should have edited the Clemens line out of the story. Unless, of course, it was left in on purpose to further discredit Mitchell's report.

Also, 9/11 was an inside job, we really didn't land on the moon, and the 1985 NBA Draft was rigged so the Knicks could get Patrick Ewing with the first pick.


After all, when David Justice, a YES analyst, was named in Mitchell's report - Justice denied allegations he paid Kirk Radomski, the Mets' former clubhouse attendant, for "two or three kits" of human growth hormone - Ray Hopkins, YES' chief operating officer, said he had no reason to doubt Justice's claim that he had not taken performance-enhancing drugs.

Well, Justice gave a pretty convincing rebuttal, and since there is no proof he took HGH, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt. And God forbid an employer sticks behind his employee. Whatta dick.

Curiously, a few weeks after Hopkins' vote of confidence, Justice was out as YES' studio analyst. His departure was accompanied by some typically lame Al Yankzeera spin about Justice having to supervise the "rebuilding" of his house.

His house burned down in the California fires. You're saying if it was you, Bob Raissman, you would have said to your wife and kids "Hey, good luck cleaning this shit up. I'm off to the other side of the country to call baseball games!" Honestly, it's called being a responsible father and husband. Sorry if he doesn't have a sweet mustache like you. Besides, he's still contributing to the company's website.

Now that's creative.

Almost as creative as Hughes' take on Clemens' longevity.

Not nearly as creative as some of the nicknames you give out in this article:

Al Yankzeera - I wish this nickname meant they plan on beheading Michael Kay
Suzyn (Georgie Girl) Waldman - Okay...
Fred (Skill Sets) Wilpon - Wtf does this mean?
Adam (Nabob of Nugget) Schein - Ditto
Mike (Sports Pope) Francesa - Does he wear a big hat?
Chris (Mad Dog) Russo - No, wait, that's his actual nickname

That's just from his recent column. Off the top of my head, I know he calls Hank Steinbrenner Hankenstein for some reason. He kinda looks like the monster, I guess. It's all unfair, because no one ever gives Bob a taste of his own medicine. Until now. I give you: Bob (Iron Sheik) Raissman!

C.C. Sabathia comments on the recent Johan Santana deal

"Cha-Ching!"

Unseen David Eckstein tv show

Wish it lasted long enough for the Darin Erstad crossover