We Eye-Em Goode: Part Three
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
We wrapped up our sports wrap-up with talk on little balls (Canseco) and big ones (Costas).
Canseco makes A-Rod look popular
Crucifictorious: So Jose Canseco claims to have some "stuff" on A-Rod. Should we believe this guy?
MrJayTibbs: I honestly don't pay attention to any steroid stuff. It doesn't mean anything to me.
Jimmy Chitwood: No, he put his best "stuff" in his first book. Why would he save his dirt on A-Rod unless he got some scoop in the last 3 years?
Crucifictorious: Unfortunately, that's the only problem--Canseco's first book turned out to be largely true. So we can't totally dismiss him right now (even if we know that the stuff on A-Rod isn't that he's using steroids or greenies--it's that he's into blondies)
Jimmy Chitwood: Yes, it absolutely was true--but now he wants more attention for kickstarting a lot of the steroid scandal. I think he's feeling left out
Jimmy Chitwood: But really, is Canseco known for patience? Why would he wait?
Crucifictorious: That's fair--Jose would swing at anything.
Jimmy Chitwood: And how would he know about A-Rod? They never played together, right?
Crucifictorious: As opposed to McGwire, Palmeiro, etc...
MrJayTibbs: Exactly; it's one thing for Canseco to talk about players he may have dealt with personally, but they never had any association.
MrJayTibbs: Either way, I don't think it matters what he has to say about A-Rod. Even if you believed that A-Rod may have used something, would that necessarily diminish his accomplishments?
Jimmy Chitwood: Yes, in my mind it would diminish A-Rod's accomplishments, because steroids increase home run totals. If he didn't use steroids, he did it more on talent. If steroids --> less talent. I might not view him as the most talented player in the game if he used 'roids .
MrJayTibbs: Well, obviously steroids help
MrJayTibbs: but it seems that with A-Rod, it's a lot of hearsay at this point. And let's say Canseco next week says, also I have dirt on Pujols. He probably feels he can make claims like this because his first ones gave him some cred, but it's too early to jump to any conclusions.
Jimmy Chitwood: I don't believe Jose on this one
MrJayTibbs: Neither do I, at least not yet
Jimmy Chitwood: Plus, has A-Rod's body changed beyond the normal change from ages 20 to 30? Other than his lips getting bluer.
MrJayTibbs: Not that I've seen
Crucifictorious: No, but did Palmeiro's?
MrJayTibbs: But Palmeiro's numbers were vastly different from when he was a rookie
Crucifictorious: That's true. Although, so are A-Rod's...he's gone from doubles to HRs.
Jimmy Chitwood: Some of that is attributed to playing in Seattle (pitcher friendly) to Texas to New York (both hitter friendly)
MrJayTibbs: A-Rod has been touted as a superstar since he was 18, and he hit 36 HRs when he was 20.
He 'came by it naturally'
Crucifictorious: Finally, Bob Costas: Annoying or awesome, Jimmy?
Jimmy Chitwood: I've always liked him. To be honest, I haven’t watched any of his HBO show, so I haven't really seen him in years. But I loved him as a baseball play by play man, at least.
Crucifictorious: Yeah, and anyone who liked him then probably still likes him now just based on assocation.
Jimmy Chitwood: I think he's one of the more thoughtful people in sports, that much is clear
MrJayTibbs: I also dont really watch Costas, but I do like anyone who calls out Barry Bonds rather than dodging the obvious point that Bonds used steroids. Lots of media folks would probably have avoided such a direct accusation.
Crucifictorious: I think you've got to love a guy who not only has the balls to call out Bonds
Crucifictorious: but talked about his own in "BAsEketball"
Crucifictorious: Yet somehow, despite appearing in a Trey Parker/Matt Stone movie, I like that Costas remains fairly classy.
Jimmy Chitwood: Oh, also, Costas is 100x better than Joe Buck, who annoys during every World Series and every Randy Moss fake-mooning incident
MrJayTibbs: Joe Buck is terrible, I honestly cant even remember if he is play by play or color
posted by Crucifictorious @ 17:33,