Ryan Howard is an excellent baseball player. Phillies fans should be thrilled that he will be with the club long term. Howard has led the league in RBI in three of the last four years. He plays huge in September, as well as being a fan favorite and one of the top home run hitters in the game.
However, giving a 5-year, $125 million contract to Ryan Howard may not work out for the Phillies.
--
Defense
Howard is average at best with the glove. He works hard at it but by the end of this deal, he will certainly be a below average defensive first baseman.
Many think that a first baseman's defensive performance really does not matter that much. The Phillies must be among that group as Howard's range will be worse each year. On the plus side, Howard is a good receiver with good hands. He makes the plays on balls hit right at him.
--
Strikeouts
Howard strikes out twice as often as he walks. This ratio will get worse. Aside from the double play, a strikeout is the worst possible outcome in a plate appearance.
A guy that can strike out in roughly two of seven plate appearances is not an elite player. As his power numbers decline even more, his huge strikeout numbers will be a liability.
--
Lefties
Howard has always struggled against lefties. Check out his career numbers against left handed pitchers: .225/.308/.442. Ouch.
--
Walks / OBP
Howard's walk rate is going in the wrong direction. He might draw less than 60 walks this year. Howard's OBP two years ago was .339. Last year it was .360. This year it's .308. His huge power numbers help but not for this kind of dough.
--
Age
Howard is 30. Many a power hitter has seen his stats fall off as he gets into his 30s. Check out David Ortiz or Cecil Fielder for reference. Howard could be unique and find a way to keep his production up as he ages but it isn't likely. In the National League, he won't be able to hide at designated hitter either.
--
Value
Good hitting first baseman are not exactly rare. Take a look at the 2009 season where 13 first basemen topped .900 OPS. Furthermore, as these guys become available in the coming years, the Yankees will not likely be in on the bidding. Paying a first baseman $25 million to produce a .900 OPS is unwise, to say the least.
--
Risk
This contract has huge risk written all over it. What did the Phillies gain by committing this much money now? Were they afraid that in 2012 there would be a big demand for a one-dimensional power hitting first baseman in his early 30s? A less risky approach would have been to wait and see what kind of player Howard is going to be at 32 before throwing this kind of money at him.
In taking on this risk, one would think that the Phillies would get a discount, but that does not appear to be the case.
--
Resources
Signing Howard is not an efficient use of the team's resources. They would have been better off keeping Cliff Lee. An ace pitcher has more value than an All-Star first baseman. Every team has a revenue limit. Paying Howard this much money restricts the money they can pay to other players.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Eight Reasons to Dislike the Ryan Howard Contract
Ryan Howard is an excellent baseball player. Phillies fans should be thrilled that he will be with the club long term. Howard has led the league in RBI in three of the last four years. He plays huge in September, as well as being a fan favorite and one of the top home run hitters in the game.
However, giving a 5-year, $125 million contract to Ryan Howard may not work out for the Phillies.
--
Defense
Howard is average at best with the glove. He works hard at it but by the end of this deal, he will certainly be a below average defensive first baseman.
Many think that a first baseman's defensive performance really does not matter that much. The Phillies must be among that group as Howard's range will be worse each year. On the plus side, Howard is a good receiver with good hands. He makes the plays on balls hit right at him.
--
Strikeouts
Howard strikes out twice as often as he walks. This ratio will get worse. Aside from the double play, a strikeout is the worst possible outcome in a plate appearance.
A guy that can strike out in roughly two of seven plate appearances is not an elite player. As his power numbers decline even more, his huge strikeout numbers will be a liability.
--
Lefties
Howard has always struggled against lefties. Check out his career numbers against left handed pitchers: .225/.308/.442. Ouch.
--
Walks / OBP
Howard's walk rate is going in the wrong direction. He might draw less than 60 walks this year. Howard's OBP two years ago was .339. Last year it was .360. This year it's .308. His huge power numbers help but not for this kind of dough.
--
Age
Howard is 30. Many a power hitter has seen his stats fall off as he gets into his 30s. Check out David Ortiz or Cecil Fielder for reference. Howard could be unique and find a way to keep his production up as he ages but it isn't likely. In the National League, he won't be able to hide at designated hitter either.
--
Value
Good hitting first baseman are not exactly rare. Take a look at the 2009 season where 13 first basemen topped .900 OPS. Furthermore, as these guys become available in the coming years, the Yankees will not likely be in on the bidding. Paying a first baseman $25 million to produce a .900 OPS is unwise, to say the least.
--
Risk
This contract has huge risk written all over it. What did the Phillies gain by committing this much money now? Were they afraid that in 2012 there would be a big demand for a one-dimensional power hitting first baseman in his early 30s? A less risky approach would have been to wait and see what kind of player Howard is going to be at 32 before throwing this kind of money at him.
In taking on this risk, one would think that the Phillies would get a discount, but that does not appear to be the case.
--
Resources
Signing Howard is not an efficient use of the team's resources. They would have been better off keeping Cliff Lee. An ace pitcher has more value than an All-Star first baseman. Every team has a revenue limit. Paying Howard this much money restricts the money they can pay to other players.
However, giving a 5-year, $125 million contract to Ryan Howard may not work out for the Phillies.
--
Defense
Howard is average at best with the glove. He works hard at it but by the end of this deal, he will certainly be a below average defensive first baseman.
Many think that a first baseman's defensive performance really does not matter that much. The Phillies must be among that group as Howard's range will be worse each year. On the plus side, Howard is a good receiver with good hands. He makes the plays on balls hit right at him.
--
Strikeouts
Howard strikes out twice as often as he walks. This ratio will get worse. Aside from the double play, a strikeout is the worst possible outcome in a plate appearance.
A guy that can strike out in roughly two of seven plate appearances is not an elite player. As his power numbers decline even more, his huge strikeout numbers will be a liability.
--
Lefties
Howard has always struggled against lefties. Check out his career numbers against left handed pitchers: .225/.308/.442. Ouch.
--
Walks / OBP
Howard's walk rate is going in the wrong direction. He might draw less than 60 walks this year. Howard's OBP two years ago was .339. Last year it was .360. This year it's .308. His huge power numbers help but not for this kind of dough.
--
Age
Howard is 30. Many a power hitter has seen his stats fall off as he gets into his 30s. Check out David Ortiz or Cecil Fielder for reference. Howard could be unique and find a way to keep his production up as he ages but it isn't likely. In the National League, he won't be able to hide at designated hitter either.
--
Value
Good hitting first baseman are not exactly rare. Take a look at the 2009 season where 13 first basemen topped .900 OPS. Furthermore, as these guys become available in the coming years, the Yankees will not likely be in on the bidding. Paying a first baseman $25 million to produce a .900 OPS is unwise, to say the least.
--
Risk
This contract has huge risk written all over it. What did the Phillies gain by committing this much money now? Were they afraid that in 2012 there would be a big demand for a one-dimensional power hitting first baseman in his early 30s? A less risky approach would have been to wait and see what kind of player Howard is going to be at 32 before throwing this kind of money at him.
In taking on this risk, one would think that the Phillies would get a discount, but that does not appear to be the case.
--
Resources
Signing Howard is not an efficient use of the team's resources. They would have been better off keeping Cliff Lee. An ace pitcher has more value than an All-Star first baseman. Every team has a revenue limit. Paying Howard this much money restricts the money they can pay to other players.
Eight Reasons to Dislike the Ryan Howard Contract
Ryan Howard is an excellent baseball player. Phillies fans should be thrilled that he will be with the club long term. Howard has led the league in RBI in three of the last four years. He plays huge in September, as well as being a fan favorite and one of the top home run hitters in the game.
However, giving a 5-year, $125 million contract to Ryan Howard may not work out for the Phillies.
--
Defense
Howard is average at best with the glove. He works hard at it but by the end of this deal, he will certainly be a below average defensive first baseman.
Many think that a first baseman's defensive performance really does not matter that much. The Phillies must be among that group as Howard's range will be worse each year. On the plus side, Howard is a good receiver with good hands. He makes the plays on balls hit right at him.
--
Strikeouts
Howard strikes out twice as often as he walks. This ratio will get worse. Aside from the double play, a strikeout is the worst possible outcome in a plate appearance.
A guy that can strike out in roughly two of seven plate appearances is not an elite player. As his power numbers decline even more, his huge strikeout numbers will be a liability.
--
Lefties
Howard has always struggled against lefties. Check out his career numbers against left handed pitchers: .225/.308/.442. Ouch.
--
Walks / OBP
Howard's walk rate is going in the wrong direction. He might draw less than 60 walks this year. Howard's OBP two years ago was .339. Last year it was .360. This year it's .308. His huge power numbers help but not for this kind of dough.
--
Age
Howard is 30. Many a power hitter has seen his stats fall off as he gets into his 30s. Check out David Ortiz or Cecil Fielder for reference. Howard could be unique and find a way to keep his production up as he ages but it isn't likely. In the National League, he won't be able to hide at designated hitter either.
--
Value
Good hitting first baseman are not exactly rare. Take a look at the 2009 season where 13 first basemen topped .900 OPS. Furthermore, as these guys become available in the coming years, the Yankees will not likely be in on the bidding. Paying a first baseman $25 million to produce a .900 OPS is unwise, to say the least.
--
Risk
This contract has huge risk written all over it. What did the Phillies gain by committing this much money now? Were they afraid that in 2012 there would be a big demand for a one-dimensional power hitting first baseman in his early 30s? A less risky approach would have been to wait and see what kind of player Howard is going to be at 32 before throwing this kind of money at him.
In taking on this risk, one would think that the Phillies would get a discount, but that does not appear to be the case.
--
Resources
Signing Howard is not an efficient use of the team's resources. They would have been better off keeping Cliff Lee. An ace pitcher has more value than an All-Star first baseman. Every team has a revenue limit. Paying Howard this much money restricts the money they can pay to other players.
However, giving a 5-year, $125 million contract to Ryan Howard may not work out for the Phillies.
--
Defense
Howard is average at best with the glove. He works hard at it but by the end of this deal, he will certainly be a below average defensive first baseman.
Many think that a first baseman's defensive performance really does not matter that much. The Phillies must be among that group as Howard's range will be worse each year. On the plus side, Howard is a good receiver with good hands. He makes the plays on balls hit right at him.
--
Strikeouts
Howard strikes out twice as often as he walks. This ratio will get worse. Aside from the double play, a strikeout is the worst possible outcome in a plate appearance.
A guy that can strike out in roughly two of seven plate appearances is not an elite player. As his power numbers decline even more, his huge strikeout numbers will be a liability.
--
Lefties
Howard has always struggled against lefties. Check out his career numbers against left handed pitchers: .225/.308/.442. Ouch.
--
Walks / OBP
Howard's walk rate is going in the wrong direction. He might draw less than 60 walks this year. Howard's OBP two years ago was .339. Last year it was .360. This year it's .308. His huge power numbers help but not for this kind of dough.
--
Age
Howard is 30. Many a power hitter has seen his stats fall off as he gets into his 30s. Check out David Ortiz or Cecil Fielder for reference. Howard could be unique and find a way to keep his production up as he ages but it isn't likely. In the National League, he won't be able to hide at designated hitter either.
--
Value
Good hitting first baseman are not exactly rare. Take a look at the 2009 season where 13 first basemen topped .900 OPS. Furthermore, as these guys become available in the coming years, the Yankees will not likely be in on the bidding. Paying a first baseman $25 million to produce a .900 OPS is unwise, to say the least.
--
Risk
This contract has huge risk written all over it. What did the Phillies gain by committing this much money now? Were they afraid that in 2012 there would be a big demand for a one-dimensional power hitting first baseman in his early 30s? A less risky approach would have been to wait and see what kind of player Howard is going to be at 32 before throwing this kind of money at him.
In taking on this risk, one would think that the Phillies would get a discount, but that does not appear to be the case.
--
Resources
Signing Howard is not an efficient use of the team's resources. They would have been better off keeping Cliff Lee. An ace pitcher has more value than an All-Star first baseman. Every team has a revenue limit. Paying Howard this much money restricts the money they can pay to other players.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Five Reasons Why Orlando Hudson's MLB Racism Claims May Be Wrong
Recently, Orlando Hudson of the Minnesota Twins leveled the claim that Jermaine Dye and Gary Sheffield are not playing for a major league team in 2010 because the owners are racists.
I can't get into the heads of each owner to know if Hudson is right or wrong. However, I have found five reasons why he might be wrong.
Now if in the next couple of years, guys like Carl Crawford, Prince Fielder, Brandon Phillips, and Justin Upton can't find work, Hudson's point may be legitimized.
---
Jermaine Dye
"You see guys like Jermaine Dye without a job," Hudson told Yahoo!.
Here is why Jermaine Dye is not playing in 2010:
1. He had a very bad second half of 2009.
2. Dye no longer hits the ball hard to right field.
3. Dye's line-drive rate in 2009 was the lowest of career.
4. He would be the worst defensive right fielder in the majors.
5. He was offered jobs with (at least) Texas and Washington and turned them down.
---
Gary Sheffield
"A guy like Gary Sheffield, a first-ballot Hall of Famer, can't get a job," Hudson told Yahoo!.
Hudson may be right that Sheffield will be "a first-ballot Hall of Famer." He has the numbers. He is only 311 hits away from 3,000.
Anyway, Sheffield is not in the big leagues now because:
1. He is old—Sheffield just turned 41 this winter.
2. He has often been linked to steroid use.
3. He isn't worth the trouble. The dude can still hit (.276/.372/.451 in 2009), but he sat out a game pouting because the team wouldn't extend his contract.
4. His defense is far from good (-12.7 UZR last year in 500 innings).
---
The times are changing
Most everyone that follows baseball knows that young players generally are cheap while old players are expensive. Well, it seems that the owners have finally caught on.
The contracts given to guys like Alfonso Soriano, Milton Bradley, Gary Matthews Jr., Juan Pierre, and Jose Guillen are a thing of the past. Well, for now at least.
---
The facts don't back it up
Reality bites. Apparently, the whole claim is not backed up by facts. Don't you hate when that happens?
According to this study, "black free agents were given more money ($3.72 million) per projected WAR (by CHONE) than any other race. If any group has a legitimate complaint, it's Hispanic players, who were compensated only $2.96 million per projected WAR."
---
Dye and Sheffield are not alone
These white players have also had the same problems finding work:
1. Braden Looper won 14 games last season and hasn’t found a job yet.
2. Jarrod Washburn, like Dye, had a very good first half in 2009 but has no job now.
3. Jim Thome, like Sheffield, has first-ballot Hall of Famer stats but had to settle for a one-year, $1.5 million deal with the Minnesota Twins.
4. Jim Edmonds, despite punching up .235/.343/.479 in 2007, could not find a team interested in his services in 2008. He had to settle for a minor-league deal this year with the Milwaukee Brewers.
I can't get into the heads of each owner to know if Hudson is right or wrong. However, I have found five reasons why he might be wrong.
Now if in the next couple of years, guys like Carl Crawford, Prince Fielder, Brandon Phillips, and Justin Upton can't find work, Hudson's point may be legitimized.
---
Jermaine Dye
"You see guys like Jermaine Dye without a job," Hudson told Yahoo!.
Here is why Jermaine Dye is not playing in 2010:
1. He had a very bad second half of 2009.
2. Dye no longer hits the ball hard to right field.
3. Dye's line-drive rate in 2009 was the lowest of career.
4. He would be the worst defensive right fielder in the majors.
5. He was offered jobs with (at least) Texas and Washington and turned them down.
---
Gary Sheffield
"A guy like Gary Sheffield, a first-ballot Hall of Famer, can't get a job," Hudson told Yahoo!.
Hudson may be right that Sheffield will be "a first-ballot Hall of Famer." He has the numbers. He is only 311 hits away from 3,000.
Anyway, Sheffield is not in the big leagues now because:
1. He is old—Sheffield just turned 41 this winter.
2. He has often been linked to steroid use.
3. He isn't worth the trouble. The dude can still hit (.276/.372/.451 in 2009), but he sat out a game pouting because the team wouldn't extend his contract.
4. His defense is far from good (-12.7 UZR last year in 500 innings).
---
The times are changing
Most everyone that follows baseball knows that young players generally are cheap while old players are expensive. Well, it seems that the owners have finally caught on.
The contracts given to guys like Alfonso Soriano, Milton Bradley, Gary Matthews Jr., Juan Pierre, and Jose Guillen are a thing of the past. Well, for now at least.
---
The facts don't back it up
Reality bites. Apparently, the whole claim is not backed up by facts. Don't you hate when that happens?
According to this study, "black free agents were given more money ($3.72 million) per projected WAR (by CHONE) than any other race. If any group has a legitimate complaint, it's Hispanic players, who were compensated only $2.96 million per projected WAR."
---
Dye and Sheffield are not alone
These white players have also had the same problems finding work:
1. Braden Looper won 14 games last season and hasn’t found a job yet.
2. Jarrod Washburn, like Dye, had a very good first half in 2009 but has no job now.
3. Jim Thome, like Sheffield, has first-ballot Hall of Famer stats but had to settle for a one-year, $1.5 million deal with the Minnesota Twins.
4. Jim Edmonds, despite punching up .235/.343/.479 in 2007, could not find a team interested in his services in 2008. He had to settle for a minor-league deal this year with the Milwaukee Brewers.
Five Reasons Why Orlando Hudson's MLB Racism Claims May Be Wrong
Recently, Orlando Hudson of the Minnesota Twins leveled the claim that Jermaine Dye and Gary Sheffield are not playing for a major league team in 2010 because the owners are racists.
I can't get into the heads of each owner to know if Hudson is right or wrong. However, I have found five reasons why he might be wrong.
Now if in the next couple of years, guys like Carl Crawford, Prince Fielder, Brandon Phillips, and Justin Upton can't find work, Hudson's point may be legitimized.
---
Jermaine Dye
"You see guys like Jermaine Dye without a job," Hudson told Yahoo!.
Here is why Jermaine Dye is not playing in 2010:
1. He had a very bad second half of 2009.
2. Dye no longer hits the ball hard to right field.
3. Dye's line-drive rate in 2009 was the lowest of career.
4. He would be the worst defensive right fielder in the majors.
5. He was offered jobs with (at least) Texas and Washington and turned them down.
---
Gary Sheffield
"A guy like Gary Sheffield, a first-ballot Hall of Famer, can't get a job," Hudson told Yahoo!.
Hudson may be right that Sheffield will be "a first-ballot Hall of Famer." He has the numbers. He is only 311 hits away from 3,000.
Anyway, Sheffield is not in the big leagues now because:
1. He is old—Sheffield just turned 41 this winter.
2. He has often been linked to steroid use.
3. He isn't worth the trouble. The dude can still hit (.276/.372/.451 in 2009), but he sat out a game pouting because the team wouldn't extend his contract.
4. His defense is far from good (-12.7 UZR last year in 500 innings).
---
The times are changing
Most everyone that follows baseball knows that young players generally are cheap while old players are expensive. Well, it seems that the owners have finally caught on.
The contracts given to guys like Alfonso Soriano, Milton Bradley, Gary Matthews Jr., Juan Pierre, and Jose Guillen are a thing of the past. Well, for now at least.
---
The facts don't back it up
Reality bites. Apparently, the whole claim is not backed up by facts. Don't you hate when that happens?
According to this study, "black free agents were given more money ($3.72 million) per projected WAR (by CHONE) than any other race. If any group has a legitimate complaint, it's Hispanic players, who were compensated only $2.96 million per projected WAR."
---
Dye and Sheffield are not alone
These white players have also had the same problems finding work:
1. Braden Looper won 14 games last season and hasn’t found a job yet.
2. Jarrod Washburn, like Dye, had a very good first half in 2009 but has no job now.
3. Jim Thome, like Sheffield, has first-ballot Hall of Famer stats but had to settle for a one-year, $1.5 million deal with the Minnesota Twins.
4. Jim Edmonds, despite punching up .235/.343/.479 in 2007, could not find a team interested in his services in 2008. He had to settle for a minor-league deal this year with the Milwaukee Brewers.
I can't get into the heads of each owner to know if Hudson is right or wrong. However, I have found five reasons why he might be wrong.
Now if in the next couple of years, guys like Carl Crawford, Prince Fielder, Brandon Phillips, and Justin Upton can't find work, Hudson's point may be legitimized.
---
Jermaine Dye
"You see guys like Jermaine Dye without a job," Hudson told Yahoo!.
Here is why Jermaine Dye is not playing in 2010:
1. He had a very bad second half of 2009.
2. Dye no longer hits the ball hard to right field.
3. Dye's line-drive rate in 2009 was the lowest of career.
4. He would be the worst defensive right fielder in the majors.
5. He was offered jobs with (at least) Texas and Washington and turned them down.
---
Gary Sheffield
"A guy like Gary Sheffield, a first-ballot Hall of Famer, can't get a job," Hudson told Yahoo!.
Hudson may be right that Sheffield will be "a first-ballot Hall of Famer." He has the numbers. He is only 311 hits away from 3,000.
Anyway, Sheffield is not in the big leagues now because:
1. He is old—Sheffield just turned 41 this winter.
2. He has often been linked to steroid use.
3. He isn't worth the trouble. The dude can still hit (.276/.372/.451 in 2009), but he sat out a game pouting because the team wouldn't extend his contract.
4. His defense is far from good (-12.7 UZR last year in 500 innings).
---
The times are changing
Most everyone that follows baseball knows that young players generally are cheap while old players are expensive. Well, it seems that the owners have finally caught on.
The contracts given to guys like Alfonso Soriano, Milton Bradley, Gary Matthews Jr., Juan Pierre, and Jose Guillen are a thing of the past. Well, for now at least.
---
The facts don't back it up
Reality bites. Apparently, the whole claim is not backed up by facts. Don't you hate when that happens?
According to this study, "black free agents were given more money ($3.72 million) per projected WAR (by CHONE) than any other race. If any group has a legitimate complaint, it's Hispanic players, who were compensated only $2.96 million per projected WAR."
---
Dye and Sheffield are not alone
These white players have also had the same problems finding work:
1. Braden Looper won 14 games last season and hasn’t found a job yet.
2. Jarrod Washburn, like Dye, had a very good first half in 2009 but has no job now.
3. Jim Thome, like Sheffield, has first-ballot Hall of Famer stats but had to settle for a one-year, $1.5 million deal with the Minnesota Twins.
4. Jim Edmonds, despite punching up .235/.343/.479 in 2007, could not find a team interested in his services in 2008. He had to settle for a minor-league deal this year with the Milwaukee Brewers.
Five Reasons Why Orlando Hudson's MLB Racism Claims May Be Wrong
Recently, Orlando Hudson of the Minnesota Twins leveled the claim that Jermaine Dye and Gary Sheffield are not playing for a major league team in 2010 because the owners are racists.
I can't get into the heads of each owner to know if Hudson is right or wrong. However, I have found five reasons why he might be wrong.
Now if in the next couple of years, guys like Carl Crawford, Prince Fielder, Brandon Phillips, and Justin Upton can't find work, Hudson's point may be legitimized.
---
Jermaine Dye
"You see guys like Jermaine Dye without a job," Hudson told Yahoo!.
Here is why Jermaine Dye is not playing in 2010:
1. He had a very bad second half of 2009.
2. Dye no longer hits the ball hard to right field.
3. Dye's line-drive rate in 2009 was the lowest of career.
4. He would be the worst defensive right fielder in the majors.
5. He was offered jobs with (at least) Texas and Washington and turned them down.
---
Gary Sheffield
"A guy like Gary Sheffield, a first-ballot Hall of Famer, can't get a job," Hudson told Yahoo!.
Hudson may be right that Sheffield will be "a first-ballot Hall of Famer." He has the numbers. He is only 311 hits away from 3,000.
Anyway, Sheffield is not in the big leagues now because:
1. He is old—Sheffield just turned 41 this winter.
2. He has often been linked to steroid use.
3. He isn't worth the trouble. The dude can still hit (.276/.372/.451 in 2009), but he sat out a game pouting because the team wouldn't extend his contract.
4. His defense is far from good (-12.7 UZR last year in 500 innings).
---
The times are changing
Most everyone that follows baseball knows that young players generally are cheap while old players are expensive. Well, it seems that the owners have finally caught on.
The contracts given to guys like Alfonso Soriano, Milton Bradley, Gary Matthews Jr., Juan Pierre, and Jose Guillen are a thing of the past. Well, for now at least.
---
The facts don't back it up
Reality bites. Apparently, the whole claim is not backed up by facts. Don't you hate when that happens?
According to this study, "black free agents were given more money ($3.72 million) per projected WAR (by CHONE) than any other race. If any group has a legitimate complaint, it's Hispanic players, who were compensated only $2.96 million per projected WAR."
---
Dye and Sheffield are not alone
These white players have also had the same problems finding work:
1. Braden Looper won 14 games last season and hasn’t found a job yet.
2. Jarrod Washburn, like Dye, had a very good first half in 2009 but has no job now.
3. Jim Thome, like Sheffield, has first-ballot Hall of Famer stats but had to settle for a one-year, $1.5 million deal with the Minnesota Twins.
4. Jim Edmonds, despite punching up .235/.343/.479 in 2007, could not find a team interested in his services in 2008. He had to settle for a minor-league deal this year with the Milwaukee Brewers.
I can't get into the heads of each owner to know if Hudson is right or wrong. However, I have found five reasons why he might be wrong.
Now if in the next couple of years, guys like Carl Crawford, Prince Fielder, Brandon Phillips, and Justin Upton can't find work, Hudson's point may be legitimized.
---
Jermaine Dye
"You see guys like Jermaine Dye without a job," Hudson told Yahoo!.
Here is why Jermaine Dye is not playing in 2010:
1. He had a very bad second half of 2009.
2. Dye no longer hits the ball hard to right field.
3. Dye's line-drive rate in 2009 was the lowest of career.
4. He would be the worst defensive right fielder in the majors.
5. He was offered jobs with (at least) Texas and Washington and turned them down.
---
Gary Sheffield
"A guy like Gary Sheffield, a first-ballot Hall of Famer, can't get a job," Hudson told Yahoo!.
Hudson may be right that Sheffield will be "a first-ballot Hall of Famer." He has the numbers. He is only 311 hits away from 3,000.
Anyway, Sheffield is not in the big leagues now because:
1. He is old—Sheffield just turned 41 this winter.
2. He has often been linked to steroid use.
3. He isn't worth the trouble. The dude can still hit (.276/.372/.451 in 2009), but he sat out a game pouting because the team wouldn't extend his contract.
4. His defense is far from good (-12.7 UZR last year in 500 innings).
---
The times are changing
Most everyone that follows baseball knows that young players generally are cheap while old players are expensive. Well, it seems that the owners have finally caught on.
The contracts given to guys like Alfonso Soriano, Milton Bradley, Gary Matthews Jr., Juan Pierre, and Jose Guillen are a thing of the past. Well, for now at least.
---
The facts don't back it up
Reality bites. Apparently, the whole claim is not backed up by facts. Don't you hate when that happens?
According to this study, "black free agents were given more money ($3.72 million) per projected WAR (by CHONE) than any other race. If any group has a legitimate complaint, it's Hispanic players, who were compensated only $2.96 million per projected WAR."
---
Dye and Sheffield are not alone
These white players have also had the same problems finding work:
1. Braden Looper won 14 games last season and hasn’t found a job yet.
2. Jarrod Washburn, like Dye, had a very good first half in 2009 but has no job now.
3. Jim Thome, like Sheffield, has first-ballot Hall of Famer stats but had to settle for a one-year, $1.5 million deal with the Minnesota Twins.
4. Jim Edmonds, despite punching up .235/.343/.479 in 2007, could not find a team interested in his services in 2008. He had to settle for a minor-league deal this year with the Milwaukee Brewers.
Friday, April 9, 2010
The Tiger Woods Commercial: What can we learn?
Opinions of the new Tiger Woods Nike commercial are all over the place. Many people are appalled. Many people think it is a breathtaking 30 second film of Tiger Woods today. Then again, many people don't care.
The objective here is to take a pragmatic approach to examining the commercial and answering all the questions. It won't be long before Tiger Woods gets his sponsors back, wins more majors, and resumes life with his family. Also, take a look this article about whether Tiger Woods is better than Jack Nicklaus.
Who should we feel sorry for?
1) Tiger Woods who just used his father's voice to sell Nike merchandise?
2) Tiger's Swedish model wife who has healthy kids and is sitting on half a billion dollars?
3) Tiger's fans who have not seen him play for a while?
Smart money says:
Tiger Woods' image which has taken a beating.
---
When did Earl Woods record this?
1) When Earl Woods was talking about a time on the golf course when a young Tiger chose the wrong club?
2) When Earl Woods was talking to Tiger about blowing a tournament in the final few holes?
3) When Tiger was a youngster and got caught playing ding dong ditch on the neighbors?
4) Does it even matter?
Smart money says:
This clip was probably taken when Earl was explaining how he taught Tiger to play golf at a ridiculously high level.
---
What does this commercial tell us?
1) That Tiger Woods is back?
2) That we need to give more attention to Tiger Woods?
3) That Tiger is a changed man?
4) That Tiger hears ghosts?
Smart money says:
A lot of people cashed in on this already...Tiger and Nike want their piece of the action.
---
Was this commercial a mistake?
1) Yes, it’s a big mistake because people who were disappointed in Tiger Woods will become even more disappointed.
2) No, the visual is so amazing that you can't look away.
3) Maybe, but Tiger made the decision to do it and he knows what he is doing.
Smart money says:
Most people don't care either way.
---
What should we learn from this commercial?
1) That Tiger is willing to profit from his situation?
2) That Tiger wants us to think differently and more kindly of him?
3) That he willingly exploited his dead father’s memory to make a little coin?
4) That Nike and Tiger Woods have made a groundbreaking, powerful commercial?
Smart money says:
We should immediately buy more Nike gear.
The objective here is to take a pragmatic approach to examining the commercial and answering all the questions. It won't be long before Tiger Woods gets his sponsors back, wins more majors, and resumes life with his family. Also, take a look this article about whether Tiger Woods is better than Jack Nicklaus.
Who should we feel sorry for?
1) Tiger Woods who just used his father's voice to sell Nike merchandise?
2) Tiger's Swedish model wife who has healthy kids and is sitting on half a billion dollars?
3) Tiger's fans who have not seen him play for a while?
Smart money says:
Tiger Woods' image which has taken a beating.
---
When did Earl Woods record this?
1) When Earl Woods was talking about a time on the golf course when a young Tiger chose the wrong club?
2) When Earl Woods was talking to Tiger about blowing a tournament in the final few holes?
3) When Tiger was a youngster and got caught playing ding dong ditch on the neighbors?
4) Does it even matter?
Smart money says:
This clip was probably taken when Earl was explaining how he taught Tiger to play golf at a ridiculously high level.
---
What does this commercial tell us?
1) That Tiger Woods is back?
2) That we need to give more attention to Tiger Woods?
3) That Tiger is a changed man?
4) That Tiger hears ghosts?
Smart money says:
A lot of people cashed in on this already...Tiger and Nike want their piece of the action.
---
Was this commercial a mistake?
1) Yes, it’s a big mistake because people who were disappointed in Tiger Woods will become even more disappointed.
2) No, the visual is so amazing that you can't look away.
3) Maybe, but Tiger made the decision to do it and he knows what he is doing.
Smart money says:
Most people don't care either way.
---
What should we learn from this commercial?
1) That Tiger is willing to profit from his situation?
2) That Tiger wants us to think differently and more kindly of him?
3) That he willingly exploited his dead father’s memory to make a little coin?
4) That Nike and Tiger Woods have made a groundbreaking, powerful commercial?
Smart money says:
We should immediately buy more Nike gear.
The Tiger Woods Commercial: What can we learn?
Opinions of the new Tiger Woods Nike commercial are all over the place. Many people are appalled. Many people think it is a breathtaking 30 second film of Tiger Woods today. Then again, many people don't care.
The objective here is to take a pragmatic approach to examining the commercial and answering all the questions. It won't be long before Tiger Woods gets his sponsors back, wins more majors, and resumes life with his family. Also, take a look this article about whether Tiger Woods is better than Jack Nicklaus.
Who should we feel sorry for?
1) Tiger Woods who just used his father's voice to sell Nike merchandise?
2) Tiger's Swedish model wife who has healthy kids and is sitting on half a billion dollars?
3) Tiger's fans who have not seen him play for a while?
Smart money says:
Tiger Woods' image which has taken a beating.
---
When did Earl Woods record this?
1) When Earl Woods was talking about a time on the golf course when a young Tiger chose the wrong club?
2) When Earl Woods was talking to Tiger about blowing a tournament in the final few holes?
3) When Tiger was a youngster and got caught playing ding dong ditch on the neighbors?
4) Does it even matter?
Smart money says:
This clip was probably taken when Earl was explaining how he taught Tiger to play golf at a ridiculously high level.
---
What does this commercial tell us?
1) That Tiger Woods is back?
2) That we need to give more attention to Tiger Woods?
3) That Tiger is a changed man?
4) That Tiger hears ghosts?
Smart money says:
A lot of people cashed in on this already...Tiger and Nike want their piece of the action.
---
Was this commercial a mistake?
1) Yes, it’s a big mistake because people who were disappointed in Tiger Woods will become even more disappointed.
2) No, the visual is so amazing that you can't look away.
3) Maybe, but Tiger made the decision to do it and he knows what he is doing.
Smart money says:
Most people don't care either way.
---
What should we learn from this commercial?
1) That Tiger is willing to profit from his situation?
2) That Tiger wants us to think differently and more kindly of him?
3) That he willingly exploited his dead father’s memory to make a little coin?
4) That Nike and Tiger Woods have made a groundbreaking, powerful commercial?
Smart money says:
We should immediately buy more Nike gear.
The objective here is to take a pragmatic approach to examining the commercial and answering all the questions. It won't be long before Tiger Woods gets his sponsors back, wins more majors, and resumes life with his family. Also, take a look this article about whether Tiger Woods is better than Jack Nicklaus.
Who should we feel sorry for?
1) Tiger Woods who just used his father's voice to sell Nike merchandise?
2) Tiger's Swedish model wife who has healthy kids and is sitting on half a billion dollars?
3) Tiger's fans who have not seen him play for a while?
Smart money says:
Tiger Woods' image which has taken a beating.
---
When did Earl Woods record this?
1) When Earl Woods was talking about a time on the golf course when a young Tiger chose the wrong club?
2) When Earl Woods was talking to Tiger about blowing a tournament in the final few holes?
3) When Tiger was a youngster and got caught playing ding dong ditch on the neighbors?
4) Does it even matter?
Smart money says:
This clip was probably taken when Earl was explaining how he taught Tiger to play golf at a ridiculously high level.
---
What does this commercial tell us?
1) That Tiger Woods is back?
2) That we need to give more attention to Tiger Woods?
3) That Tiger is a changed man?
4) That Tiger hears ghosts?
Smart money says:
A lot of people cashed in on this already...Tiger and Nike want their piece of the action.
---
Was this commercial a mistake?
1) Yes, it’s a big mistake because people who were disappointed in Tiger Woods will become even more disappointed.
2) No, the visual is so amazing that you can't look away.
3) Maybe, but Tiger made the decision to do it and he knows what he is doing.
Smart money says:
Most people don't care either way.
---
What should we learn from this commercial?
1) That Tiger is willing to profit from his situation?
2) That Tiger wants us to think differently and more kindly of him?
3) That he willingly exploited his dead father’s memory to make a little coin?
4) That Nike and Tiger Woods have made a groundbreaking, powerful commercial?
Smart money says:
We should immediately buy more Nike gear.
The Tiger Woods Commercial: What can we learn?
Opinions of the new Tiger Woods Nike commercial are all over the place. Many people are appalled. Many people think it is a breathtaking 30 second film of Tiger Woods today. Then again, many people don't care.
The objective here is to take a pragmatic approach to examining the commercial and answering all the questions. It won't be long before Tiger Woods gets his sponsors back, wins more majors, and resumes life with his family. Also, take a look this article about whether Tiger Woods is better than Jack Nicklaus.
Who should we feel sorry for?
1) Tiger Woods who just used his father's voice to sell Nike merchandise?
2) Tiger's Swedish model wife who has healthy kids and is sitting on half a billion dollars?
3) Tiger's fans who have not seen him play for a while?
Smart money says:
Tiger Woods' image which has taken a beating.
---
When did Earl Woods record this?
1) When Earl Woods was talking about a time on the golf course when a young Tiger chose the wrong club?
2) When Earl Woods was talking to Tiger about blowing a tournament in the final few holes?
3) When Tiger was a youngster and got caught playing ding dong ditch on the neighbors?
4) Does it even matter?
Smart money says:
This clip was probably taken when Earl was explaining how he taught Tiger to play golf at a ridiculously high level.
---
What does this commercial tell us?
1) That Tiger Woods is back?
2) That we need to give more attention to Tiger Woods?
3) That Tiger is a changed man?
4) That Tiger hears ghosts?
Smart money says:
A lot of people cashed in on this already...Tiger and Nike want their piece of the action.
---
Was this commercial a mistake?
1) Yes, it’s a big mistake because people who were disappointed in Tiger Woods will become even more disappointed.
2) No, the visual is so amazing that you can't look away.
3) Maybe, but Tiger made the decision to do it and he knows what he is doing.
Smart money says:
Most people don't care either way.
---
What should we learn from this commercial?
1) That Tiger is willing to profit from his situation?
2) That Tiger wants us to think differently and more kindly of him?
3) That he willingly exploited his dead father’s memory to make a little coin?
4) That Nike and Tiger Woods have made a groundbreaking, powerful commercial?
Smart money says:
We should immediately buy more Nike gear.
The objective here is to take a pragmatic approach to examining the commercial and answering all the questions. It won't be long before Tiger Woods gets his sponsors back, wins more majors, and resumes life with his family. Also, take a look this article about whether Tiger Woods is better than Jack Nicklaus.
Who should we feel sorry for?
1) Tiger Woods who just used his father's voice to sell Nike merchandise?
2) Tiger's Swedish model wife who has healthy kids and is sitting on half a billion dollars?
3) Tiger's fans who have not seen him play for a while?
Smart money says:
Tiger Woods' image which has taken a beating.
---
When did Earl Woods record this?
1) When Earl Woods was talking about a time on the golf course when a young Tiger chose the wrong club?
2) When Earl Woods was talking to Tiger about blowing a tournament in the final few holes?
3) When Tiger was a youngster and got caught playing ding dong ditch on the neighbors?
4) Does it even matter?
Smart money says:
This clip was probably taken when Earl was explaining how he taught Tiger to play golf at a ridiculously high level.
---
What does this commercial tell us?
1) That Tiger Woods is back?
2) That we need to give more attention to Tiger Woods?
3) That Tiger is a changed man?
4) That Tiger hears ghosts?
Smart money says:
A lot of people cashed in on this already...Tiger and Nike want their piece of the action.
---
Was this commercial a mistake?
1) Yes, it’s a big mistake because people who were disappointed in Tiger Woods will become even more disappointed.
2) No, the visual is so amazing that you can't look away.
3) Maybe, but Tiger made the decision to do it and he knows what he is doing.
Smart money says:
Most people don't care either way.
---
What should we learn from this commercial?
1) That Tiger is willing to profit from his situation?
2) That Tiger wants us to think differently and more kindly of him?
3) That he willingly exploited his dead father’s memory to make a little coin?
4) That Nike and Tiger Woods have made a groundbreaking, powerful commercial?
Smart money says:
We should immediately buy more Nike gear.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
MLB 2010: Should The Brewers Complain About Money Troubles?
New York Yankees president Randy Levine thinks that Milwaukee Brewers owner Mark Attanasio should stop complaining about the Brewers' money troubles. Listed below, are the points and counterpoints about whether Mr. Levine has a valid point:
Point: Yes, Randy Levine is right. The Yankees aren't breaking any rules.
Counterpoint: No, the rules are a joke. The players' union has taken over and made a farce of the game.
P: Teams that don't have the money just have to spend more wisely.
CP: That sounds easy enough. However, the Yankees will spend over $120 million more than the Brewers in salaries in 2010. That gives them a gigantic competitive advantage.
P: Perhaps the Brewers should spend all the revenue sharing money to improve the team.
CP: What are you suggesting?
P: They receive hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue sharing.
CP: There was over $400 million paid out in revenue sharing and luxury tax last year. That money is spread out over a lot teams.
P: Some bring in a lot of dough. For example, the Pirates made $40 million from that. Where does it all go? What do they spend it on?
CP: Of course, I don't have access to their accounting records but my guess is that it goes to player salaries and bonuses for draft picks, among other things. In the end, there isn't much impact on signing players. That money is reinvested on the team and they still fall short.
P: Sharing revenue lowers the incentives for each team to increase revenue at its own cost. The owners have transferred a billion dollars to a handful of uncompetitive teams over the years. I have a feeling it goes straight to the owners' pocket.
CP: I doubt that. The salaries and bonuses it pays for both have been driven up by teams like the Yankees.
P: The Yankees don't have any problem with revenue sharing. Through revenue sharing, the Yankees are helping build up the overall product of baseball.
CP: Oh yeah, they are real philanthropist bunch right there.
P: In some ways, yes. Baseball is not perfect and the Yankees benefit from the lack of a salary cap.
CP: They exploit the salary cap.
P: The Yankees provide great entertainment to baseball fans everywhere.
CP: So revenue sharing is simply the price the Yankees pay to maintain a giant competitive advantage?
P: Maybe that is true. Furthermore, by accepting handouts, the small-market teams forfeit their right to complain about the situation they are in.
CP: These complaints won't stop until the game is fixed. Even Yankees' fans don't think the system is fair.
P: The fact is that the small-market teams accept fat checks from other teams. They should focus on using that to help their teams and be grateful.
CP: The Yankees play in a market that is 10 times the size of the Brewers.
P: Cry me a river. The Yankees have a huge advantage in resources. Isn't that good for baseball since it makes it so much fun when the Yankees lose? It is good to have a big team for the little guys to beat. This makes the game so exciting when it happens. Think about the year the Marlins beat the Yankees in the World Series.
CP: Yeah, that was a great series. The Marlins had to get rid of many of their good players after that, though.
P: Another team will emerge to fill in that gap.
CP: Why can't the Yankees just try to compete on a level playing field? The other New York teams do.
P: Yeah, not in your lifetime.
CP: Maybe not but it can't be all that gratifying beating up on the little guys year after year. They would do a great service to the game if they pushed for a salary cap-and-floor system.
P: Even if they did, the players' union would stop it.
CP: It would solve all the problems.
P: I don't think so. A salary floor would cause many teams to suddenly have to overpay for veterans to reach it. A salary floor can raise the price of mediocre players.
CP: Yeah, but a salary cap would level the playing field.
P: A cap would lower the salaries for the big leaguers What about the minor leagues, though? How would minor league salaries and expenses be included in the salary cap?
CP: I'm sure that could be worked out.
P: The beauty of baseball is that a team that wins 81 games in a bad division has as much chance of winning the World Series as the big spenders.
CP: The Yankees are in the playoffs year after year. Mark Attanasio was simply stating how he wished he had it as easy as the Yankees. Is that so wrong?
P: Yeah, I think he should work harder.
CP: It looks like he'll have to.
Point: Yes, Randy Levine is right. The Yankees aren't breaking any rules.
Counterpoint: No, the rules are a joke. The players' union has taken over and made a farce of the game.
P: Teams that don't have the money just have to spend more wisely.
CP: That sounds easy enough. However, the Yankees will spend over $120 million more than the Brewers in salaries in 2010. That gives them a gigantic competitive advantage.
P: Perhaps the Brewers should spend all the revenue sharing money to improve the team.
CP: What are you suggesting?
P: They receive hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue sharing.
CP: There was over $400 million paid out in revenue sharing and luxury tax last year. That money is spread out over a lot teams.
P: Some bring in a lot of dough. For example, the Pirates made $40 million from that. Where does it all go? What do they spend it on?
CP: Of course, I don't have access to their accounting records but my guess is that it goes to player salaries and bonuses for draft picks, among other things. In the end, there isn't much impact on signing players. That money is reinvested on the team and they still fall short.
P: Sharing revenue lowers the incentives for each team to increase revenue at its own cost. The owners have transferred a billion dollars to a handful of uncompetitive teams over the years. I have a feeling it goes straight to the owners' pocket.
CP: I doubt that. The salaries and bonuses it pays for both have been driven up by teams like the Yankees.
P: The Yankees don't have any problem with revenue sharing. Through revenue sharing, the Yankees are helping build up the overall product of baseball.
CP: Oh yeah, they are real philanthropist bunch right there.
P: In some ways, yes. Baseball is not perfect and the Yankees benefit from the lack of a salary cap.
CP: They exploit the salary cap.
P: The Yankees provide great entertainment to baseball fans everywhere.
CP: So revenue sharing is simply the price the Yankees pay to maintain a giant competitive advantage?
P: Maybe that is true. Furthermore, by accepting handouts, the small-market teams forfeit their right to complain about the situation they are in.
CP: These complaints won't stop until the game is fixed. Even Yankees' fans don't think the system is fair.
P: The fact is that the small-market teams accept fat checks from other teams. They should focus on using that to help their teams and be grateful.
CP: The Yankees play in a market that is 10 times the size of the Brewers.
P: Cry me a river. The Yankees have a huge advantage in resources. Isn't that good for baseball since it makes it so much fun when the Yankees lose? It is good to have a big team for the little guys to beat. This makes the game so exciting when it happens. Think about the year the Marlins beat the Yankees in the World Series.
CP: Yeah, that was a great series. The Marlins had to get rid of many of their good players after that, though.
P: Another team will emerge to fill in that gap.
CP: Why can't the Yankees just try to compete on a level playing field? The other New York teams do.
P: Yeah, not in your lifetime.
CP: Maybe not but it can't be all that gratifying beating up on the little guys year after year. They would do a great service to the game if they pushed for a salary cap-and-floor system.
P: Even if they did, the players' union would stop it.
CP: It would solve all the problems.
P: I don't think so. A salary floor would cause many teams to suddenly have to overpay for veterans to reach it. A salary floor can raise the price of mediocre players.
CP: Yeah, but a salary cap would level the playing field.
P: A cap would lower the salaries for the big leaguers What about the minor leagues, though? How would minor league salaries and expenses be included in the salary cap?
CP: I'm sure that could be worked out.
P: The beauty of baseball is that a team that wins 81 games in a bad division has as much chance of winning the World Series as the big spenders.
CP: The Yankees are in the playoffs year after year. Mark Attanasio was simply stating how he wished he had it as easy as the Yankees. Is that so wrong?
P: Yeah, I think he should work harder.
CP: It looks like he'll have to.
MLB 2010: Should The Brewers Complain About Money Troubles?
New York Yankees president Randy Levine thinks that Milwaukee Brewers owner Mark Attanasio should stop complaining about the Brewers' money troubles. Listed below, are the points and counterpoints about whether Mr. Levine has a valid point:
Point: Yes, Randy Levine is right. The Yankees aren't breaking any rules.
Counterpoint: No, the rules are a joke. The players' union has taken over and made a farce of the game.
P: Teams that don't have the money just have to spend more wisely.
CP: That sounds easy enough. However, the Yankees will spend over $120 million more than the Brewers in salaries in 2010. That gives them a gigantic competitive advantage.
P: Perhaps the Brewers should spend all the revenue sharing money to improve the team.
CP: What are you suggesting?
P: They receive hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue sharing.
CP: There was over $400 million paid out in revenue sharing and luxury tax last year. That money is spread out over a lot teams.
P: Some bring in a lot of dough. For example, the Pirates made $40 million from that. Where does it all go? What do they spend it on?
CP: Of course, I don't have access to their accounting records but my guess is that it goes to player salaries and bonuses for draft picks, among other things. In the end, there isn't much impact on signing players. That money is reinvested on the team and they still fall short.
P: Sharing revenue lowers the incentives for each team to increase revenue at its own cost. The owners have transferred a billion dollars to a handful of uncompetitive teams over the years. I have a feeling it goes straight to the owners' pocket.
CP: I doubt that. The salaries and bonuses it pays for both have been driven up by teams like the Yankees.
P: The Yankees don't have any problem with revenue sharing. Through revenue sharing, the Yankees are helping build up the overall product of baseball.
CP: Oh yeah, they are real philanthropist bunch right there.
P: In some ways, yes. Baseball is not perfect and the Yankees benefit from the lack of a salary cap.
CP: They exploit the salary cap.
P: The Yankees provide great entertainment to baseball fans everywhere.
CP: So revenue sharing is simply the price the Yankees pay to maintain a giant competitive advantage?
P: Maybe that is true. Furthermore, by accepting handouts, the small-market teams forfeit their right to complain about the situation they are in.
CP: These complaints won't stop until the game is fixed. Even Yankees' fans don't think the system is fair.
P: The fact is that the small-market teams accept fat checks from other teams. They should focus on using that to help their teams and be grateful.
CP: The Yankees play in a market that is 10 times the size of the Brewers.
P: Cry me a river. The Yankees have a huge advantage in resources. Isn't that good for baseball since it makes it so much fun when the Yankees lose? It is good to have a big team for the little guys to beat. This makes the game so exciting when it happens. Think about the year the Marlins beat the Yankees in the World Series.
CP: Yeah, that was a great series. The Marlins had to get rid of many of their good players after that, though.
P: Another team will emerge to fill in that gap.
CP: Why can't the Yankees just try to compete on a level playing field? The other New York teams do.
P: Yeah, not in your lifetime.
CP: Maybe not but it can't be all that gratifying beating up on the little guys year after year. They would do a great service to the game if they pushed for a salary cap-and-floor system.
P: Even if they did, the players' union would stop it.
CP: It would solve all the problems.
P: I don't think so. A salary floor would cause many teams to suddenly have to overpay for veterans to reach it. A salary floor can raise the price of mediocre players.
CP: Yeah, but a salary cap would level the playing field.
P: A cap would lower the salaries for the big leaguers What about the minor leagues, though? How would minor league salaries and expenses be included in the salary cap?
CP: I'm sure that could be worked out.
P: The beauty of baseball is that a team that wins 81 games in a bad division has as much chance of winning the World Series as the big spenders.
CP: The Yankees are in the playoffs year after year. Mark Attanasio was simply stating how he wished he had it as easy as the Yankees. Is that so wrong?
P: Yeah, I think he should work harder.
CP: It looks like he'll have to.
Point: Yes, Randy Levine is right. The Yankees aren't breaking any rules.
Counterpoint: No, the rules are a joke. The players' union has taken over and made a farce of the game.
P: Teams that don't have the money just have to spend more wisely.
CP: That sounds easy enough. However, the Yankees will spend over $120 million more than the Brewers in salaries in 2010. That gives them a gigantic competitive advantage.
P: Perhaps the Brewers should spend all the revenue sharing money to improve the team.
CP: What are you suggesting?
P: They receive hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue sharing.
CP: There was over $400 million paid out in revenue sharing and luxury tax last year. That money is spread out over a lot teams.
P: Some bring in a lot of dough. For example, the Pirates made $40 million from that. Where does it all go? What do they spend it on?
CP: Of course, I don't have access to their accounting records but my guess is that it goes to player salaries and bonuses for draft picks, among other things. In the end, there isn't much impact on signing players. That money is reinvested on the team and they still fall short.
P: Sharing revenue lowers the incentives for each team to increase revenue at its own cost. The owners have transferred a billion dollars to a handful of uncompetitive teams over the years. I have a feeling it goes straight to the owners' pocket.
CP: I doubt that. The salaries and bonuses it pays for both have been driven up by teams like the Yankees.
P: The Yankees don't have any problem with revenue sharing. Through revenue sharing, the Yankees are helping build up the overall product of baseball.
CP: Oh yeah, they are real philanthropist bunch right there.
P: In some ways, yes. Baseball is not perfect and the Yankees benefit from the lack of a salary cap.
CP: They exploit the salary cap.
P: The Yankees provide great entertainment to baseball fans everywhere.
CP: So revenue sharing is simply the price the Yankees pay to maintain a giant competitive advantage?
P: Maybe that is true. Furthermore, by accepting handouts, the small-market teams forfeit their right to complain about the situation they are in.
CP: These complaints won't stop until the game is fixed. Even Yankees' fans don't think the system is fair.
P: The fact is that the small-market teams accept fat checks from other teams. They should focus on using that to help their teams and be grateful.
CP: The Yankees play in a market that is 10 times the size of the Brewers.
P: Cry me a river. The Yankees have a huge advantage in resources. Isn't that good for baseball since it makes it so much fun when the Yankees lose? It is good to have a big team for the little guys to beat. This makes the game so exciting when it happens. Think about the year the Marlins beat the Yankees in the World Series.
CP: Yeah, that was a great series. The Marlins had to get rid of many of their good players after that, though.
P: Another team will emerge to fill in that gap.
CP: Why can't the Yankees just try to compete on a level playing field? The other New York teams do.
P: Yeah, not in your lifetime.
CP: Maybe not but it can't be all that gratifying beating up on the little guys year after year. They would do a great service to the game if they pushed for a salary cap-and-floor system.
P: Even if they did, the players' union would stop it.
CP: It would solve all the problems.
P: I don't think so. A salary floor would cause many teams to suddenly have to overpay for veterans to reach it. A salary floor can raise the price of mediocre players.
CP: Yeah, but a salary cap would level the playing field.
P: A cap would lower the salaries for the big leaguers What about the minor leagues, though? How would minor league salaries and expenses be included in the salary cap?
CP: I'm sure that could be worked out.
P: The beauty of baseball is that a team that wins 81 games in a bad division has as much chance of winning the World Series as the big spenders.
CP: The Yankees are in the playoffs year after year. Mark Attanasio was simply stating how he wished he had it as easy as the Yankees. Is that so wrong?
P: Yeah, I think he should work harder.
CP: It looks like he'll have to.
MLB 2010: Should The Brewers Complain About Money Troubles?
New York Yankees president Randy Levine thinks that Milwaukee Brewers owner Mark Attanasio should stop complaining about the Brewers' money troubles. Listed below, are the points and counterpoints about whether Mr. Levine has a valid point:
Point: Yes, Randy Levine is right. The Yankees aren't breaking any rules.
Counterpoint: No, the rules are a joke. The players' union has taken over and made a farce of the game.
P: Teams that don't have the money just have to spend more wisely.
CP: That sounds easy enough. However, the Yankees will spend over $120 million more than the Brewers in salaries in 2010. That gives them a gigantic competitive advantage.
P: Perhaps the Brewers should spend all the revenue sharing money to improve the team.
CP: What are you suggesting?
P: They receive hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue sharing.
CP: There was over $400 million paid out in revenue sharing and luxury tax last year. That money is spread out over a lot teams.
P: Some bring in a lot of dough. For example, the Pirates made $40 million from that. Where does it all go? What do they spend it on?
CP: Of course, I don't have access to their accounting records but my guess is that it goes to player salaries and bonuses for draft picks, among other things. In the end, there isn't much impact on signing players. That money is reinvested on the team and they still fall short.
P: Sharing revenue lowers the incentives for each team to increase revenue at its own cost. The owners have transferred a billion dollars to a handful of uncompetitive teams over the years. I have a feeling it goes straight to the owners' pocket.
CP: I doubt that. The salaries and bonuses it pays for both have been driven up by teams like the Yankees.
P: The Yankees don't have any problem with revenue sharing. Through revenue sharing, the Yankees are helping build up the overall product of baseball.
CP: Oh yeah, they are real philanthropist bunch right there.
P: In some ways, yes. Baseball is not perfect and the Yankees benefit from the lack of a salary cap.
CP: They exploit the salary cap.
P: The Yankees provide great entertainment to baseball fans everywhere.
CP: So revenue sharing is simply the price the Yankees pay to maintain a giant competitive advantage?
P: Maybe that is true. Furthermore, by accepting handouts, the small-market teams forfeit their right to complain about the situation they are in.
CP: These complaints won't stop until the game is fixed. Even Yankees' fans don't think the system is fair.
P: The fact is that the small-market teams accept fat checks from other teams. They should focus on using that to help their teams and be grateful.
CP: The Yankees play in a market that is 10 times the size of the Brewers.
P: Cry me a river. The Yankees have a huge advantage in resources. Isn't that good for baseball since it makes it so much fun when the Yankees lose? It is good to have a big team for the little guys to beat. This makes the game so exciting when it happens. Think about the year the Marlins beat the Yankees in the World Series.
CP: Yeah, that was a great series. The Marlins had to get rid of many of their good players after that, though.
P: Another team will emerge to fill in that gap.
CP: Why can't the Yankees just try to compete on a level playing field? The other New York teams do.
P: Yeah, not in your lifetime.
CP: Maybe not but it can't be all that gratifying beating up on the little guys year after year. They would do a great service to the game if they pushed for a salary cap-and-floor system.
P: Even if they did, the players' union would stop it.
CP: It would solve all the problems.
P: I don't think so. A salary floor would cause many teams to suddenly have to overpay for veterans to reach it. A salary floor can raise the price of mediocre players.
CP: Yeah, but a salary cap would level the playing field.
P: A cap would lower the salaries for the big leaguers What about the minor leagues, though? How would minor league salaries and expenses be included in the salary cap?
CP: I'm sure that could be worked out.
P: The beauty of baseball is that a team that wins 81 games in a bad division has as much chance of winning the World Series as the big spenders.
CP: The Yankees are in the playoffs year after year. Mark Attanasio was simply stating how he wished he had it as easy as the Yankees. Is that so wrong?
P: Yeah, I think he should work harder.
CP: It looks like he'll have to.
Point: Yes, Randy Levine is right. The Yankees aren't breaking any rules.
Counterpoint: No, the rules are a joke. The players' union has taken over and made a farce of the game.
P: Teams that don't have the money just have to spend more wisely.
CP: That sounds easy enough. However, the Yankees will spend over $120 million more than the Brewers in salaries in 2010. That gives them a gigantic competitive advantage.
P: Perhaps the Brewers should spend all the revenue sharing money to improve the team.
CP: What are you suggesting?
P: They receive hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue sharing.
CP: There was over $400 million paid out in revenue sharing and luxury tax last year. That money is spread out over a lot teams.
P: Some bring in a lot of dough. For example, the Pirates made $40 million from that. Where does it all go? What do they spend it on?
CP: Of course, I don't have access to their accounting records but my guess is that it goes to player salaries and bonuses for draft picks, among other things. In the end, there isn't much impact on signing players. That money is reinvested on the team and they still fall short.
P: Sharing revenue lowers the incentives for each team to increase revenue at its own cost. The owners have transferred a billion dollars to a handful of uncompetitive teams over the years. I have a feeling it goes straight to the owners' pocket.
CP: I doubt that. The salaries and bonuses it pays for both have been driven up by teams like the Yankees.
P: The Yankees don't have any problem with revenue sharing. Through revenue sharing, the Yankees are helping build up the overall product of baseball.
CP: Oh yeah, they are real philanthropist bunch right there.
P: In some ways, yes. Baseball is not perfect and the Yankees benefit from the lack of a salary cap.
CP: They exploit the salary cap.
P: The Yankees provide great entertainment to baseball fans everywhere.
CP: So revenue sharing is simply the price the Yankees pay to maintain a giant competitive advantage?
P: Maybe that is true. Furthermore, by accepting handouts, the small-market teams forfeit their right to complain about the situation they are in.
CP: These complaints won't stop until the game is fixed. Even Yankees' fans don't think the system is fair.
P: The fact is that the small-market teams accept fat checks from other teams. They should focus on using that to help their teams and be grateful.
CP: The Yankees play in a market that is 10 times the size of the Brewers.
P: Cry me a river. The Yankees have a huge advantage in resources. Isn't that good for baseball since it makes it so much fun when the Yankees lose? It is good to have a big team for the little guys to beat. This makes the game so exciting when it happens. Think about the year the Marlins beat the Yankees in the World Series.
CP: Yeah, that was a great series. The Marlins had to get rid of many of their good players after that, though.
P: Another team will emerge to fill in that gap.
CP: Why can't the Yankees just try to compete on a level playing field? The other New York teams do.
P: Yeah, not in your lifetime.
CP: Maybe not but it can't be all that gratifying beating up on the little guys year after year. They would do a great service to the game if they pushed for a salary cap-and-floor system.
P: Even if they did, the players' union would stop it.
CP: It would solve all the problems.
P: I don't think so. A salary floor would cause many teams to suddenly have to overpay for veterans to reach it. A salary floor can raise the price of mediocre players.
CP: Yeah, but a salary cap would level the playing field.
P: A cap would lower the salaries for the big leaguers What about the minor leagues, though? How would minor league salaries and expenses be included in the salary cap?
CP: I'm sure that could be worked out.
P: The beauty of baseball is that a team that wins 81 games in a bad division has as much chance of winning the World Series as the big spenders.
CP: The Yankees are in the playoffs year after year. Mark Attanasio was simply stating how he wished he had it as easy as the Yankees. Is that so wrong?
P: Yeah, I think he should work harder.
CP: It looks like he'll have to.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
MLB: Should We Be As Outraged About Amphetamines As Steroids?
Listed below, are the points and counterpoints about if we should be as outraged about amphetamines as steroids:
Point: Yes, amphetamines are cheating just like steroids.
Counterpoint: No, steroids enhance performance while amphetamines enable performance. One makes you better while the other gets you on the field to play baseball.
P: Amphetamines do more than just get you on the field.
CP: If the players had never taken greenies, there would be no difference in performance. With steroids, the difference would be huge just like their muscles.
P: Amphetamines help you focus and concentrate. This would allow you to see the pitch better and make better contact. Seeing the ball better would help you drive the ball with authority.
CP: Steroids offer a big advantage over amphetamines. Just look at the record books. Between 1965 and 1990 season, 50 homers were topped only once, by George Foster in 1977. Between 1995 and 2002, 50 homers were topped 17 times, with a few 60 and 70 homer seasons thrown in for good measure.
P: You are just looking at one stat - home runs. You ignore many other factors that may have influenced this one variable. Every era has seen fluctuations in performance. You just take a few broken records and attribute them to steroids.
CP: Amphetamines clearly didn't have the same affect.
P: Well, between 1965 and 1990, Frank Robinson, Harmon Killebrew, Andre Dawson and Mark McGwire all hit 49 home runs. Willie Stargell, Mike Schmidt and Dave Kingman hit 48 home runs. You seem to think 50 is a magic number. Amphetamines have been helping players for years.
CP: Well, we don't have to use 50. Homers were way up across the board. We can use 48-49 homers to see this same thing. Between 1996 and 2002, players hit 48 or 49 homers 10 times. That would be good for more than had been hit between 1965 and 1990. That does not even include include the 17 times players hit 50+ homers over that span. You can't dispute that during those years, power numbers exploded throughout the majors.
P: Pitchers took steroids too. That balanced everything out.
CP: They sure did. that was actually one of the factors for the power surge. The harder the pitchers were able to throw, the further a batted ball will travel.
P: There were many factors for the home run explosion. The pitching was watered down, balls had more bounce, strike zones were increasingly smaller, ballparks were smaller, weight training had more emphasis, they had better bats, and they had better nutrition.
CP: None of those things helped players suddenly morph into muscle-bound mashers able to hit home runs that traveled 500 feet.
P: I admit that steroids helped many fly balls carry into the seats. It does not change the fact that amphetamine users are cheaters, too.
CP: A greenie back then isn't much different than Red Bull or 5 Hour Energy. All pro athletes take those nowadays.
P: There is a huge difference between Red Bull and amphetamines. Red Bull will give you a rush of energy. Greenies cause chemical changes in your brain. Regular use of amphetamines can cause you to get addicted.
CP: You should be careful like with any other drug.
P: If anything, amphetamines users should be looked at more harshly. They do not require any additional work for them to help you out. You pop a greenie and you are ready to go. With steroids, you have to work out to benefit. Taking steroids is the greatest evil ever but taking amphetamines isn’t really that big of a deal.
CP: People just don't care about amphetamines. The players look the same and there is no evidence that greenies improved performance.
P: They help them play more games and possibly steal more bases with the extra energy. If they didn't help with performance, the players would never use them.
CP: Players always will try to get an edge.
P: Let’s not forget that amphetamines are still around today. Barry Bonds failed an amphetamine test and there was very little coverage. Amphetamine users got a pass 40 years ago, and they’re getting a pass today.
CP: They aren't breaking any rules so it is all good.
Point: Yes, amphetamines are cheating just like steroids.
Counterpoint: No, steroids enhance performance while amphetamines enable performance. One makes you better while the other gets you on the field to play baseball.
P: Amphetamines do more than just get you on the field.
CP: If the players had never taken greenies, there would be no difference in performance. With steroids, the difference would be huge just like their muscles.
P: Amphetamines help you focus and concentrate. This would allow you to see the pitch better and make better contact. Seeing the ball better would help you drive the ball with authority.
CP: Steroids offer a big advantage over amphetamines. Just look at the record books. Between 1965 and 1990 season, 50 homers were topped only once, by George Foster in 1977. Between 1995 and 2002, 50 homers were topped 17 times, with a few 60 and 70 homer seasons thrown in for good measure.
P: You are just looking at one stat - home runs. You ignore many other factors that may have influenced this one variable. Every era has seen fluctuations in performance. You just take a few broken records and attribute them to steroids.
CP: Amphetamines clearly didn't have the same affect.
P: Well, between 1965 and 1990, Frank Robinson, Harmon Killebrew, Andre Dawson and Mark McGwire all hit 49 home runs. Willie Stargell, Mike Schmidt and Dave Kingman hit 48 home runs. You seem to think 50 is a magic number. Amphetamines have been helping players for years.
CP: Well, we don't have to use 50. Homers were way up across the board. We can use 48-49 homers to see this same thing. Between 1996 and 2002, players hit 48 or 49 homers 10 times. That would be good for more than had been hit between 1965 and 1990. That does not even include include the 17 times players hit 50+ homers over that span. You can't dispute that during those years, power numbers exploded throughout the majors.
P: Pitchers took steroids too. That balanced everything out.
CP: They sure did. that was actually one of the factors for the power surge. The harder the pitchers were able to throw, the further a batted ball will travel.
P: There were many factors for the home run explosion. The pitching was watered down, balls had more bounce, strike zones were increasingly smaller, ballparks were smaller, weight training had more emphasis, they had better bats, and they had better nutrition.
CP: None of those things helped players suddenly morph into muscle-bound mashers able to hit home runs that traveled 500 feet.
P: I admit that steroids helped many fly balls carry into the seats. It does not change the fact that amphetamine users are cheaters, too.
CP: A greenie back then isn't much different than Red Bull or 5 Hour Energy. All pro athletes take those nowadays.
P: There is a huge difference between Red Bull and amphetamines. Red Bull will give you a rush of energy. Greenies cause chemical changes in your brain. Regular use of amphetamines can cause you to get addicted.
CP: You should be careful like with any other drug.
P: If anything, amphetamines users should be looked at more harshly. They do not require any additional work for them to help you out. You pop a greenie and you are ready to go. With steroids, you have to work out to benefit. Taking steroids is the greatest evil ever but taking amphetamines isn’t really that big of a deal.
CP: People just don't care about amphetamines. The players look the same and there is no evidence that greenies improved performance.
P: They help them play more games and possibly steal more bases with the extra energy. If they didn't help with performance, the players would never use them.
CP: Players always will try to get an edge.
P: Let’s not forget that amphetamines are still around today. Barry Bonds failed an amphetamine test and there was very little coverage. Amphetamine users got a pass 40 years ago, and they’re getting a pass today.
CP: They aren't breaking any rules so it is all good.
MLB: Should We Be As Outraged About Amphetamines As Steroids?
Listed below, are the points and counterpoints about if we should be as outraged about amphetamines as steroids:
Point: Yes, amphetamines are cheating just like steroids.
Counterpoint: No, steroids enhance performance while amphetamines enable performance. One makes you better while the other gets you on the field to play baseball.
P: Amphetamines do more than just get you on the field.
CP: If the players had never taken greenies, there would be no difference in performance. With steroids, the difference would be huge just like their muscles.
P: Amphetamines help you focus and concentrate. This would allow you to see the pitch better and make better contact. Seeing the ball better would help you drive the ball with authority.
CP: Steroids offer a big advantage over amphetamines. Just look at the record books. Between 1965 and 1990 season, 50 homers were topped only once, by George Foster in 1977. Between 1995 and 2002, 50 homers were topped 17 times, with a few 60 and 70 homer seasons thrown in for good measure.
P: You are just looking at one stat - home runs. You ignore many other factors that may have influenced this one variable. Every era has seen fluctuations in performance. You just take a few broken records and attribute them to steroids.
CP: Amphetamines clearly didn't have the same affect.
P: Well, between 1965 and 1990, Frank Robinson, Harmon Killebrew, Andre Dawson and Mark McGwire all hit 49 home runs. Willie Stargell, Mike Schmidt and Dave Kingman hit 48 home runs. You seem to think 50 is a magic number. Amphetamines have been helping players for years.
CP: Well, we don't have to use 50. Homers were way up across the board. We can use 48-49 homers to see this same thing. Between 1996 and 2002, players hit 48 or 49 homers 10 times. That would be good for more than had been hit between 1965 and 1990. That does not even include include the 17 times players hit 50+ homers over that span. You can't dispute that during those years, power numbers exploded throughout the majors.
P: Pitchers took steroids too. That balanced everything out.
CP: They sure did. that was actually one of the factors for the power surge. The harder the pitchers were able to throw, the further a batted ball will travel.
P: There were many factors for the home run explosion. The pitching was watered down, balls had more bounce, strike zones were increasingly smaller, ballparks were smaller, weight training had more emphasis, they had better bats, and they had better nutrition.
CP: None of those things helped players suddenly morph into muscle-bound mashers able to hit home runs that traveled 500 feet.
P: I admit that steroids helped many fly balls carry into the seats. It does not change the fact that amphetamine users are cheaters, too.
CP: A greenie back then isn't much different than Red Bull or 5 Hour Energy. All pro athletes take those nowadays.
P: There is a huge difference between Red Bull and amphetamines. Red Bull will give you a rush of energy. Greenies cause chemical changes in your brain. Regular use of amphetamines can cause you to get addicted.
CP: You should be careful like with any other drug.
P: If anything, amphetamines users should be looked at more harshly. They do not require any additional work for them to help you out. You pop a greenie and you are ready to go. With steroids, you have to work out to benefit. Taking steroids is the greatest evil ever but taking amphetamines isn’t really that big of a deal.
CP: People just don't care about amphetamines. The players look the same and there is no evidence that greenies improved performance.
P: They help them play more games and possibly steal more bases with the extra energy. If they didn't help with performance, the players would never use them.
CP: Players always will try to get an edge.
P: Let’s not forget that amphetamines are still around today. Barry Bonds failed an amphetamine test and there was very little coverage. Amphetamine users got a pass 40 years ago, and they’re getting a pass today.
CP: They aren't breaking any rules so it is all good.
Point: Yes, amphetamines are cheating just like steroids.
Counterpoint: No, steroids enhance performance while amphetamines enable performance. One makes you better while the other gets you on the field to play baseball.
P: Amphetamines do more than just get you on the field.
CP: If the players had never taken greenies, there would be no difference in performance. With steroids, the difference would be huge just like their muscles.
P: Amphetamines help you focus and concentrate. This would allow you to see the pitch better and make better contact. Seeing the ball better would help you drive the ball with authority.
CP: Steroids offer a big advantage over amphetamines. Just look at the record books. Between 1965 and 1990 season, 50 homers were topped only once, by George Foster in 1977. Between 1995 and 2002, 50 homers were topped 17 times, with a few 60 and 70 homer seasons thrown in for good measure.
P: You are just looking at one stat - home runs. You ignore many other factors that may have influenced this one variable. Every era has seen fluctuations in performance. You just take a few broken records and attribute them to steroids.
CP: Amphetamines clearly didn't have the same affect.
P: Well, between 1965 and 1990, Frank Robinson, Harmon Killebrew, Andre Dawson and Mark McGwire all hit 49 home runs. Willie Stargell, Mike Schmidt and Dave Kingman hit 48 home runs. You seem to think 50 is a magic number. Amphetamines have been helping players for years.
CP: Well, we don't have to use 50. Homers were way up across the board. We can use 48-49 homers to see this same thing. Between 1996 and 2002, players hit 48 or 49 homers 10 times. That would be good for more than had been hit between 1965 and 1990. That does not even include include the 17 times players hit 50+ homers over that span. You can't dispute that during those years, power numbers exploded throughout the majors.
P: Pitchers took steroids too. That balanced everything out.
CP: They sure did. that was actually one of the factors for the power surge. The harder the pitchers were able to throw, the further a batted ball will travel.
P: There were many factors for the home run explosion. The pitching was watered down, balls had more bounce, strike zones were increasingly smaller, ballparks were smaller, weight training had more emphasis, they had better bats, and they had better nutrition.
CP: None of those things helped players suddenly morph into muscle-bound mashers able to hit home runs that traveled 500 feet.
P: I admit that steroids helped many fly balls carry into the seats. It does not change the fact that amphetamine users are cheaters, too.
CP: A greenie back then isn't much different than Red Bull or 5 Hour Energy. All pro athletes take those nowadays.
P: There is a huge difference between Red Bull and amphetamines. Red Bull will give you a rush of energy. Greenies cause chemical changes in your brain. Regular use of amphetamines can cause you to get addicted.
CP: You should be careful like with any other drug.
P: If anything, amphetamines users should be looked at more harshly. They do not require any additional work for them to help you out. You pop a greenie and you are ready to go. With steroids, you have to work out to benefit. Taking steroids is the greatest evil ever but taking amphetamines isn’t really that big of a deal.
CP: People just don't care about amphetamines. The players look the same and there is no evidence that greenies improved performance.
P: They help them play more games and possibly steal more bases with the extra energy. If they didn't help with performance, the players would never use them.
CP: Players always will try to get an edge.
P: Let’s not forget that amphetamines are still around today. Barry Bonds failed an amphetamine test and there was very little coverage. Amphetamine users got a pass 40 years ago, and they’re getting a pass today.
CP: They aren't breaking any rules so it is all good.
MLB: Should We Be As Outraged About Amphetamines As Steroids?
Listed below, are the points and counterpoints about if we should be as outraged about amphetamines as steroids:
Point: Yes, amphetamines are cheating just like steroids.
Counterpoint: No, steroids enhance performance while amphetamines enable performance. One makes you better while the other gets you on the field to play baseball.
P: Amphetamines do more than just get you on the field.
CP: If the players had never taken greenies, there would be no difference in performance. With steroids, the difference would be huge just like their muscles.
P: Amphetamines help you focus and concentrate. This would allow you to see the pitch better and make better contact. Seeing the ball better would help you drive the ball with authority.
CP: Steroids offer a big advantage over amphetamines. Just look at the record books. Between 1965 and 1990 season, 50 homers were topped only once, by George Foster in 1977. Between 1995 and 2002, 50 homers were topped 17 times, with a few 60 and 70 homer seasons thrown in for good measure.
P: You are just looking at one stat - home runs. You ignore many other factors that may have influenced this one variable. Every era has seen fluctuations in performance. You just take a few broken records and attribute them to steroids.
CP: Amphetamines clearly didn't have the same affect.
P: Well, between 1965 and 1990, Frank Robinson, Harmon Killebrew, Andre Dawson and Mark McGwire all hit 49 home runs. Willie Stargell, Mike Schmidt and Dave Kingman hit 48 home runs. You seem to think 50 is a magic number. Amphetamines have been helping players for years.
CP: Well, we don't have to use 50. Homers were way up across the board. We can use 48-49 homers to see this same thing. Between 1996 and 2002, players hit 48 or 49 homers 10 times. That would be good for more than had been hit between 1965 and 1990. That does not even include include the 17 times players hit 50+ homers over that span. You can't dispute that during those years, power numbers exploded throughout the majors.
P: Pitchers took steroids too. That balanced everything out.
CP: They sure did. that was actually one of the factors for the power surge. The harder the pitchers were able to throw, the further a batted ball will travel.
P: There were many factors for the home run explosion. The pitching was watered down, balls had more bounce, strike zones were increasingly smaller, ballparks were smaller, weight training had more emphasis, they had better bats, and they had better nutrition.
CP: None of those things helped players suddenly morph into muscle-bound mashers able to hit home runs that traveled 500 feet.
P: I admit that steroids helped many fly balls carry into the seats. It does not change the fact that amphetamine users are cheaters, too.
CP: A greenie back then isn't much different than Red Bull or 5 Hour Energy. All pro athletes take those nowadays.
P: There is a huge difference between Red Bull and amphetamines. Red Bull will give you a rush of energy. Greenies cause chemical changes in your brain. Regular use of amphetamines can cause you to get addicted.
CP: You should be careful like with any other drug.
P: If anything, amphetamines users should be looked at more harshly. They do not require any additional work for them to help you out. You pop a greenie and you are ready to go. With steroids, you have to work out to benefit. Taking steroids is the greatest evil ever but taking amphetamines isn’t really that big of a deal.
CP: People just don't care about amphetamines. The players look the same and there is no evidence that greenies improved performance.
P: They help them play more games and possibly steal more bases with the extra energy. If they didn't help with performance, the players would never use them.
CP: Players always will try to get an edge.
P: Let’s not forget that amphetamines are still around today. Barry Bonds failed an amphetamine test and there was very little coverage. Amphetamine users got a pass 40 years ago, and they’re getting a pass today.
CP: They aren't breaking any rules so it is all good.
Point: Yes, amphetamines are cheating just like steroids.
Counterpoint: No, steroids enhance performance while amphetamines enable performance. One makes you better while the other gets you on the field to play baseball.
P: Amphetamines do more than just get you on the field.
CP: If the players had never taken greenies, there would be no difference in performance. With steroids, the difference would be huge just like their muscles.
P: Amphetamines help you focus and concentrate. This would allow you to see the pitch better and make better contact. Seeing the ball better would help you drive the ball with authority.
CP: Steroids offer a big advantage over amphetamines. Just look at the record books. Between 1965 and 1990 season, 50 homers were topped only once, by George Foster in 1977. Between 1995 and 2002, 50 homers were topped 17 times, with a few 60 and 70 homer seasons thrown in for good measure.
P: You are just looking at one stat - home runs. You ignore many other factors that may have influenced this one variable. Every era has seen fluctuations in performance. You just take a few broken records and attribute them to steroids.
CP: Amphetamines clearly didn't have the same affect.
P: Well, between 1965 and 1990, Frank Robinson, Harmon Killebrew, Andre Dawson and Mark McGwire all hit 49 home runs. Willie Stargell, Mike Schmidt and Dave Kingman hit 48 home runs. You seem to think 50 is a magic number. Amphetamines have been helping players for years.
CP: Well, we don't have to use 50. Homers were way up across the board. We can use 48-49 homers to see this same thing. Between 1996 and 2002, players hit 48 or 49 homers 10 times. That would be good for more than had been hit between 1965 and 1990. That does not even include include the 17 times players hit 50+ homers over that span. You can't dispute that during those years, power numbers exploded throughout the majors.
P: Pitchers took steroids too. That balanced everything out.
CP: They sure did. that was actually one of the factors for the power surge. The harder the pitchers were able to throw, the further a batted ball will travel.
P: There were many factors for the home run explosion. The pitching was watered down, balls had more bounce, strike zones were increasingly smaller, ballparks were smaller, weight training had more emphasis, they had better bats, and they had better nutrition.
CP: None of those things helped players suddenly morph into muscle-bound mashers able to hit home runs that traveled 500 feet.
P: I admit that steroids helped many fly balls carry into the seats. It does not change the fact that amphetamine users are cheaters, too.
CP: A greenie back then isn't much different than Red Bull or 5 Hour Energy. All pro athletes take those nowadays.
P: There is a huge difference between Red Bull and amphetamines. Red Bull will give you a rush of energy. Greenies cause chemical changes in your brain. Regular use of amphetamines can cause you to get addicted.
CP: You should be careful like with any other drug.
P: If anything, amphetamines users should be looked at more harshly. They do not require any additional work for them to help you out. You pop a greenie and you are ready to go. With steroids, you have to work out to benefit. Taking steroids is the greatest evil ever but taking amphetamines isn’t really that big of a deal.
CP: People just don't care about amphetamines. The players look the same and there is no evidence that greenies improved performance.
P: They help them play more games and possibly steal more bases with the extra energy. If they didn't help with performance, the players would never use them.
CP: Players always will try to get an edge.
P: Let’s not forget that amphetamines are still around today. Barry Bonds failed an amphetamine test and there was very little coverage. Amphetamine users got a pass 40 years ago, and they’re getting a pass today.
CP: They aren't breaking any rules so it is all good.
Top Men's Tennis Player of the Open Era
The intention of this is to look at the top men's tennis players of all-time. One can make a great case for more than one player as the greatest of all-time.
The oldest player here is Jimmy Connors. It’s awfully hard to compare tennis players going back to the time of Laver and Emerson and Budge and all those guys.
Grand Slams are important. However, back in the 70s and 80s, the French and Australian Opens were not as important as Wimbledon and the US Open.
Winning is very important but there is a lot to be said for coming in second, too.
------
Rafael Nadal
Points for:
-Has six grand slam titles and two runner-ups
-Nadal is one of only two male tennis players to own three grand slam titles on three different surfaces at the same time
Points against:
-His resume needs work as he only has the six titles
-Has yet to win a reach the finals at the US Open
-Nadal has injury struggles that may prevent him from more wins
------
Boris Becker
Points for:
-Becker has six Grand Slam titles and four runner-ups
-Played in a record seven Wimbledon finals
-Incredible on grass and hard courts
-In 1985, he became the first unseeded player to win a Wimbledon title at 17 years old
-One of the first players to win points with a powerful service game
Points against:
-He never won a single clay court tournament but did make the semis at the French Open three times
------
Stefan Edberg
Points for:
-Edberg has six Grand Slam titles and five runner-ups
-Played in a record 5 Australian Open finals
-Spectacular grass and hard court player
Points against:
-He lost in his only French Open Final to Michael Chang
-Did not dominate the game consistently
------
John McEnroe
Points for:
-McEnroe has seven Grand Slam titles and four runner-ups
-Head to head, he had the edge on Jimmy Connors (31-20) and was even with Bjorn Borg (7-7)
-May go down as the greatest doubles player ever
Points against:
-He had a very short but brilliant peak but doesn't have the stats to match some of the others
-He never won a Grand Slam on clay but did reach the finals where he blew a two set and a break lead against Lendl
-Might have more titles but he rarely played in the Australian Open
------
Mats Wilander
Points for:
-Wilander has seven Grand Slam titles and four runner-ups
-Has won at least two Grand Slams on grass, clay, and hard courts
-The most versatile of clay court players
-He won three Grand Slams in 1988
Points against:
-He never won at Wimbledon
-Banned for three months after testing positive for cocaine at the 1995 French Open
------
Andre Agassi
Points for:
-Agassi has eight Grand Slam titles and seven runner-ups
-The only player ever to win the Career Golden Slam (Wimbledon, US Open,
Australian Open, French Open, and Olympics)
Points against:
-Only won the French and Wimbeldon once each
-Agassi seemed to disappear for times in the late '90s
------
Ivan Lendl
Points for:
-Lendl has eight Grand Slam titles and 11 runner-ups
-He has the second most Grand Slam singles finals (19) in tennis history
-Lendl has eight consecutive US Open singles finals
-In another era, Lendl may have racked up more titles
Points against:
-Lendl never won at Wimbledon and lost in straight sets as runner-up twice
-Played in an era of great players at the top of their game like John McEnroe, Boris Becker, and Stefan Edberg
------
Jimmy Connors
Points for:
-Connors has eight Grand Slam titles and seven runner-ups
-He won the U.S. Open a record five times on three different surfaces
-Jimmy Connors won more tournaments than any player in mens tennis history
-He has 1,241 singles victories which is the most all-time
-Except for one week, he was the No. 1-ranked player from July 1974 to July 1979
Points against:
-He never reached a French Open final
-He won on clay at the U.S Open in 1976 but it was a different clay surface than Paris
------
Pete Sampras
Points for:
-Sampras has a second best 14 Grand Slam titles and four runner-ups
-Dominated at Wimbledon with a record seven wins and a 63-7 record for his career at Wimbledon
-Holds a record eight consecutive wins in Grand Slam finals
-Sampras was ranked No. 1 by the ATP for a record 286 weeks
-Regarded as the greatest grass court player of all-time
Points against:
-He never won a French Open and never reached the final of a French Open
-Besides Andre Agassi, Sampras didn't play against any of the greats, at least not while they were anywhere near their primes
-The least versatile of the tennis greats
------
Bjorn Borg
Points for:
-Borg has 11 Grand Slam titles and five runner-ups
-He was great on all three surfaces—he did not ever win a U.S. Open but he reached four finals
-Won the Wimbledon Open era record of five straight titles
-He is the only player of the Open Era to have won Wimbledon and the French Open in the same season more than once and he did it three straight times
-His all-time leading win percentage in Grand Slams is 41 percent
Points against:
-He never won the U.S. Open
-Borg retired at 25
-Coulda Woulda Shoulda...if Borg had chosen to play in the Australian Open more often and not retired so young, he might have as many titles as Federer
------
Roger Federer
Points for:
-Has 16 grand slam titles and six runner-ups
-One of only two players in tennis’ Open Era who have won the career grand slam
-Consistency-He has an even spread of wins across the 4 Grand Slam tournaments (4-1-5-6)
-Averaged more than one grand slam title per year
-One of only three men with at least five titles at two Grand Slams
Points against:
-He’s been consistently dominated on clay by one of his contemporaries (Nadal)
-The competition is not as good as what other greats faced...men's tennis in America has been practically non-existent during his entire run
The oldest player here is Jimmy Connors. It’s awfully hard to compare tennis players going back to the time of Laver and Emerson and Budge and all those guys.
Grand Slams are important. However, back in the 70s and 80s, the French and Australian Opens were not as important as Wimbledon and the US Open.
Winning is very important but there is a lot to be said for coming in second, too.
------
Rafael Nadal
Points for:
-Has six grand slam titles and two runner-ups
-Nadal is one of only two male tennis players to own three grand slam titles on three different surfaces at the same time
Points against:
-His resume needs work as he only has the six titles
-Has yet to win a reach the finals at the US Open
-Nadal has injury struggles that may prevent him from more wins
------
Boris Becker
Points for:
-Becker has six Grand Slam titles and four runner-ups
-Played in a record seven Wimbledon finals
-Incredible on grass and hard courts
-In 1985, he became the first unseeded player to win a Wimbledon title at 17 years old
-One of the first players to win points with a powerful service game
Points against:
-He never won a single clay court tournament but did make the semis at the French Open three times
------
Stefan Edberg
Points for:
-Edberg has six Grand Slam titles and five runner-ups
-Played in a record 5 Australian Open finals
-Spectacular grass and hard court player
Points against:
-He lost in his only French Open Final to Michael Chang
-Did not dominate the game consistently
------
John McEnroe
Points for:
-McEnroe has seven Grand Slam titles and four runner-ups
-Head to head, he had the edge on Jimmy Connors (31-20) and was even with Bjorn Borg (7-7)
-May go down as the greatest doubles player ever
Points against:
-He had a very short but brilliant peak but doesn't have the stats to match some of the others
-He never won a Grand Slam on clay but did reach the finals where he blew a two set and a break lead against Lendl
-Might have more titles but he rarely played in the Australian Open
------
Mats Wilander
Points for:
-Wilander has seven Grand Slam titles and four runner-ups
-Has won at least two Grand Slams on grass, clay, and hard courts
-The most versatile of clay court players
-He won three Grand Slams in 1988
Points against:
-He never won at Wimbledon
-Banned for three months after testing positive for cocaine at the 1995 French Open
------
Andre Agassi
Points for:
-Agassi has eight Grand Slam titles and seven runner-ups
-The only player ever to win the Career Golden Slam (Wimbledon, US Open,
Australian Open, French Open, and Olympics)
Points against:
-Only won the French and Wimbeldon once each
-Agassi seemed to disappear for times in the late '90s
------
Ivan Lendl
Points for:
-Lendl has eight Grand Slam titles and 11 runner-ups
-He has the second most Grand Slam singles finals (19) in tennis history
-Lendl has eight consecutive US Open singles finals
-In another era, Lendl may have racked up more titles
Points against:
-Lendl never won at Wimbledon and lost in straight sets as runner-up twice
-Played in an era of great players at the top of their game like John McEnroe, Boris Becker, and Stefan Edberg
------
Jimmy Connors
Points for:
-Connors has eight Grand Slam titles and seven runner-ups
-He won the U.S. Open a record five times on three different surfaces
-Jimmy Connors won more tournaments than any player in mens tennis history
-He has 1,241 singles victories which is the most all-time
-Except for one week, he was the No. 1-ranked player from July 1974 to July 1979
Points against:
-He never reached a French Open final
-He won on clay at the U.S Open in 1976 but it was a different clay surface than Paris
------
Pete Sampras
Points for:
-Sampras has a second best 14 Grand Slam titles and four runner-ups
-Dominated at Wimbledon with a record seven wins and a 63-7 record for his career at Wimbledon
-Holds a record eight consecutive wins in Grand Slam finals
-Sampras was ranked No. 1 by the ATP for a record 286 weeks
-Regarded as the greatest grass court player of all-time
Points against:
-He never won a French Open and never reached the final of a French Open
-Besides Andre Agassi, Sampras didn't play against any of the greats, at least not while they were anywhere near their primes
-The least versatile of the tennis greats
------
Bjorn Borg
Points for:
-Borg has 11 Grand Slam titles and five runner-ups
-He was great on all three surfaces—he did not ever win a U.S. Open but he reached four finals
-Won the Wimbledon Open era record of five straight titles
-He is the only player of the Open Era to have won Wimbledon and the French Open in the same season more than once and he did it three straight times
-His all-time leading win percentage in Grand Slams is 41 percent
Points against:
-He never won the U.S. Open
-Borg retired at 25
-Coulda Woulda Shoulda...if Borg had chosen to play in the Australian Open more often and not retired so young, he might have as many titles as Federer
------
Roger Federer
Points for:
-Has 16 grand slam titles and six runner-ups
-One of only two players in tennis’ Open Era who have won the career grand slam
-Consistency-He has an even spread of wins across the 4 Grand Slam tournaments (4-1-5-6)
-Averaged more than one grand slam title per year
-One of only three men with at least five titles at two Grand Slams
Points against:
-He’s been consistently dominated on clay by one of his contemporaries (Nadal)
-The competition is not as good as what other greats faced...men's tennis in America has been practically non-existent during his entire run
Top Men's Tennis Player of the Open Era
The intention of this is to look at the top men's tennis players of all-time. One can make a great case for more than one player as the greatest of all-time.
The oldest player here is Jimmy Connors. It’s awfully hard to compare tennis players going back to the time of Laver and Emerson and Budge and all those guys.
Grand Slams are important. However, back in the 70s and 80s, the French and Australian Opens were not as important as Wimbledon and the US Open.
Winning is very important but there is a lot to be said for coming in second, too.
------
Rafael Nadal
Points for:
-Has six grand slam titles and two runner-ups
-Nadal is one of only two male tennis players to own three grand slam titles on three different surfaces at the same time
Points against:
-His resume needs work as he only has the six titles
-Has yet to win a reach the finals at the US Open
-Nadal has injury struggles that may prevent him from more wins
------
Boris Becker
Points for:
-Becker has six Grand Slam titles and four runner-ups
-Played in a record seven Wimbledon finals
-Incredible on grass and hard courts
-In 1985, he became the first unseeded player to win a Wimbledon title at 17 years old
-One of the first players to win points with a powerful service game
Points against:
-He never won a single clay court tournament but did make the semis at the French Open three times
------
Stefan Edberg
Points for:
-Edberg has six Grand Slam titles and five runner-ups
-Played in a record 5 Australian Open finals
-Spectacular grass and hard court player
Points against:
-He lost in his only French Open Final to Michael Chang
-Did not dominate the game consistently
------
John McEnroe
Points for:
-McEnroe has seven Grand Slam titles and four runner-ups
-Head to head, he had the edge on Jimmy Connors (31-20) and was even with Bjorn Borg (7-7)
-May go down as the greatest doubles player ever
Points against:
-He had a very short but brilliant peak but doesn't have the stats to match some of the others
-He never won a Grand Slam on clay but did reach the finals where he blew a two set and a break lead against Lendl
-Might have more titles but he rarely played in the Australian Open
------
Mats Wilander
Points for:
-Wilander has seven Grand Slam titles and four runner-ups
-Has won at least two Grand Slams on grass, clay, and hard courts
-The most versatile of clay court players
-He won three Grand Slams in 1988
Points against:
-He never won at Wimbledon
-Banned for three months after testing positive for cocaine at the 1995 French Open
------
Andre Agassi
Points for:
-Agassi has eight Grand Slam titles and seven runner-ups
-The only player ever to win the Career Golden Slam (Wimbledon, US Open,
Australian Open, French Open, and Olympics)
Points against:
-Only won the French and Wimbeldon once each
-Agassi seemed to disappear for times in the late '90s
------
Ivan Lendl
Points for:
-Lendl has eight Grand Slam titles and 11 runner-ups
-He has the second most Grand Slam singles finals (19) in tennis history
-Lendl has eight consecutive US Open singles finals
-In another era, Lendl may have racked up more titles
Points against:
-Lendl never won at Wimbledon and lost in straight sets as runner-up twice
-Played in an era of great players at the top of their game like John McEnroe, Boris Becker, and Stefan Edberg
------
Jimmy Connors
Points for:
-Connors has eight Grand Slam titles and seven runner-ups
-He won the U.S. Open a record five times on three different surfaces
-Jimmy Connors won more tournaments than any player in mens tennis history
-He has 1,241 singles victories which is the most all-time
-Except for one week, he was the No. 1-ranked player from July 1974 to July 1979
Points against:
-He never reached a French Open final
-He won on clay at the U.S Open in 1976 but it was a different clay surface than Paris
------
Pete Sampras
Points for:
-Sampras has a second best 14 Grand Slam titles and four runner-ups
-Dominated at Wimbledon with a record seven wins and a 63-7 record for his career at Wimbledon
-Holds a record eight consecutive wins in Grand Slam finals
-Sampras was ranked No. 1 by the ATP for a record 286 weeks
-Regarded as the greatest grass court player of all-time
Points against:
-He never won a French Open and never reached the final of a French Open
-Besides Andre Agassi, Sampras didn't play against any of the greats, at least not while they were anywhere near their primes
-The least versatile of the tennis greats
------
Bjorn Borg
Points for:
-Borg has 11 Grand Slam titles and five runner-ups
-He was great on all three surfaces—he did not ever win a U.S. Open but he reached four finals
-Won the Wimbledon Open era record of five straight titles
-He is the only player of the Open Era to have won Wimbledon and the French Open in the same season more than once and he did it three straight times
-His all-time leading win percentage in Grand Slams is 41 percent
Points against:
-He never won the U.S. Open
-Borg retired at 25
-Coulda Woulda Shoulda...if Borg had chosen to play in the Australian Open more often and not retired so young, he might have as many titles as Federer
------
Roger Federer
Points for:
-Has 16 grand slam titles and six runner-ups
-One of only two players in tennis’ Open Era who have won the career grand slam
-Consistency-He has an even spread of wins across the 4 Grand Slam tournaments (4-1-5-6)
-Averaged more than one grand slam title per year
-One of only three men with at least five titles at two Grand Slams
Points against:
-He’s been consistently dominated on clay by one of his contemporaries (Nadal)
-The competition is not as good as what other greats faced...men's tennis in America has been practically non-existent during his entire run
The oldest player here is Jimmy Connors. It’s awfully hard to compare tennis players going back to the time of Laver and Emerson and Budge and all those guys.
Grand Slams are important. However, back in the 70s and 80s, the French and Australian Opens were not as important as Wimbledon and the US Open.
Winning is very important but there is a lot to be said for coming in second, too.
------
Rafael Nadal
Points for:
-Has six grand slam titles and two runner-ups
-Nadal is one of only two male tennis players to own three grand slam titles on three different surfaces at the same time
Points against:
-His resume needs work as he only has the six titles
-Has yet to win a reach the finals at the US Open
-Nadal has injury struggles that may prevent him from more wins
------
Boris Becker
Points for:
-Becker has six Grand Slam titles and four runner-ups
-Played in a record seven Wimbledon finals
-Incredible on grass and hard courts
-In 1985, he became the first unseeded player to win a Wimbledon title at 17 years old
-One of the first players to win points with a powerful service game
Points against:
-He never won a single clay court tournament but did make the semis at the French Open three times
------
Stefan Edberg
Points for:
-Edberg has six Grand Slam titles and five runner-ups
-Played in a record 5 Australian Open finals
-Spectacular grass and hard court player
Points against:
-He lost in his only French Open Final to Michael Chang
-Did not dominate the game consistently
------
John McEnroe
Points for:
-McEnroe has seven Grand Slam titles and four runner-ups
-Head to head, he had the edge on Jimmy Connors (31-20) and was even with Bjorn Borg (7-7)
-May go down as the greatest doubles player ever
Points against:
-He had a very short but brilliant peak but doesn't have the stats to match some of the others
-He never won a Grand Slam on clay but did reach the finals where he blew a two set and a break lead against Lendl
-Might have more titles but he rarely played in the Australian Open
------
Mats Wilander
Points for:
-Wilander has seven Grand Slam titles and four runner-ups
-Has won at least two Grand Slams on grass, clay, and hard courts
-The most versatile of clay court players
-He won three Grand Slams in 1988
Points against:
-He never won at Wimbledon
-Banned for three months after testing positive for cocaine at the 1995 French Open
------
Andre Agassi
Points for:
-Agassi has eight Grand Slam titles and seven runner-ups
-The only player ever to win the Career Golden Slam (Wimbledon, US Open,
Australian Open, French Open, and Olympics)
Points against:
-Only won the French and Wimbeldon once each
-Agassi seemed to disappear for times in the late '90s
------
Ivan Lendl
Points for:
-Lendl has eight Grand Slam titles and 11 runner-ups
-He has the second most Grand Slam singles finals (19) in tennis history
-Lendl has eight consecutive US Open singles finals
-In another era, Lendl may have racked up more titles
Points against:
-Lendl never won at Wimbledon and lost in straight sets as runner-up twice
-Played in an era of great players at the top of their game like John McEnroe, Boris Becker, and Stefan Edberg
------
Jimmy Connors
Points for:
-Connors has eight Grand Slam titles and seven runner-ups
-He won the U.S. Open a record five times on three different surfaces
-Jimmy Connors won more tournaments than any player in mens tennis history
-He has 1,241 singles victories which is the most all-time
-Except for one week, he was the No. 1-ranked player from July 1974 to July 1979
Points against:
-He never reached a French Open final
-He won on clay at the U.S Open in 1976 but it was a different clay surface than Paris
------
Pete Sampras
Points for:
-Sampras has a second best 14 Grand Slam titles and four runner-ups
-Dominated at Wimbledon with a record seven wins and a 63-7 record for his career at Wimbledon
-Holds a record eight consecutive wins in Grand Slam finals
-Sampras was ranked No. 1 by the ATP for a record 286 weeks
-Regarded as the greatest grass court player of all-time
Points against:
-He never won a French Open and never reached the final of a French Open
-Besides Andre Agassi, Sampras didn't play against any of the greats, at least not while they were anywhere near their primes
-The least versatile of the tennis greats
------
Bjorn Borg
Points for:
-Borg has 11 Grand Slam titles and five runner-ups
-He was great on all three surfaces—he did not ever win a U.S. Open but he reached four finals
-Won the Wimbledon Open era record of five straight titles
-He is the only player of the Open Era to have won Wimbledon and the French Open in the same season more than once and he did it three straight times
-His all-time leading win percentage in Grand Slams is 41 percent
Points against:
-He never won the U.S. Open
-Borg retired at 25
-Coulda Woulda Shoulda...if Borg had chosen to play in the Australian Open more often and not retired so young, he might have as many titles as Federer
------
Roger Federer
Points for:
-Has 16 grand slam titles and six runner-ups
-One of only two players in tennis’ Open Era who have won the career grand slam
-Consistency-He has an even spread of wins across the 4 Grand Slam tournaments (4-1-5-6)
-Averaged more than one grand slam title per year
-One of only three men with at least five titles at two Grand Slams
Points against:
-He’s been consistently dominated on clay by one of his contemporaries (Nadal)
-The competition is not as good as what other greats faced...men's tennis in America has been practically non-existent during his entire run
Top Men's Tennis Player of the Open Era
The intention of this is to look at the top men's tennis players of all-time. One can make a great case for more than one player as the greatest of all-time.
The oldest player here is Jimmy Connors. It’s awfully hard to compare tennis players going back to the time of Laver and Emerson and Budge and all those guys.
Grand Slams are important. However, back in the 70s and 80s, the French and Australian Opens were not as important as Wimbledon and the US Open.
Winning is very important but there is a lot to be said for coming in second, too.
------
Rafael Nadal
Points for:
-Has six grand slam titles and two runner-ups
-Nadal is one of only two male tennis players to own three grand slam titles on three different surfaces at the same time
Points against:
-His resume needs work as he only has the six titles
-Has yet to win a reach the finals at the US Open
-Nadal has injury struggles that may prevent him from more wins
------
Boris Becker
Points for:
-Becker has six Grand Slam titles and four runner-ups
-Played in a record seven Wimbledon finals
-Incredible on grass and hard courts
-In 1985, he became the first unseeded player to win a Wimbledon title at 17 years old
-One of the first players to win points with a powerful service game
Points against:
-He never won a single clay court tournament but did make the semis at the French Open three times
------
Stefan Edberg
Points for:
-Edberg has six Grand Slam titles and five runner-ups
-Played in a record 5 Australian Open finals
-Spectacular grass and hard court player
Points against:
-He lost in his only French Open Final to Michael Chang
-Did not dominate the game consistently
------
John McEnroe
Points for:
-McEnroe has seven Grand Slam titles and four runner-ups
-Head to head, he had the edge on Jimmy Connors (31-20) and was even with Bjorn Borg (7-7)
-May go down as the greatest doubles player ever
Points against:
-He had a very short but brilliant peak but doesn't have the stats to match some of the others
-He never won a Grand Slam on clay but did reach the finals where he blew a two set and a break lead against Lendl
-Might have more titles but he rarely played in the Australian Open
------
Mats Wilander
Points for:
-Wilander has seven Grand Slam titles and four runner-ups
-Has won at least two Grand Slams on grass, clay, and hard courts
-The most versatile of clay court players
-He won three Grand Slams in 1988
Points against:
-He never won at Wimbledon
-Banned for three months after testing positive for cocaine at the 1995 French Open
------
Andre Agassi
Points for:
-Agassi has eight Grand Slam titles and seven runner-ups
-The only player ever to win the Career Golden Slam (Wimbledon, US Open,
Australian Open, French Open, and Olympics)
Points against:
-Only won the French and Wimbeldon once each
-Agassi seemed to disappear for times in the late '90s
------
Ivan Lendl
Points for:
-Lendl has eight Grand Slam titles and 11 runner-ups
-He has the second most Grand Slam singles finals (19) in tennis history
-Lendl has eight consecutive US Open singles finals
-In another era, Lendl may have racked up more titles
Points against:
-Lendl never won at Wimbledon and lost in straight sets as runner-up twice
-Played in an era of great players at the top of their game like John McEnroe, Boris Becker, and Stefan Edberg
------
Jimmy Connors
Points for:
-Connors has eight Grand Slam titles and seven runner-ups
-He won the U.S. Open a record five times on three different surfaces
-Jimmy Connors won more tournaments than any player in mens tennis history
-He has 1,241 singles victories which is the most all-time
-Except for one week, he was the No. 1-ranked player from July 1974 to July 1979
Points against:
-He never reached a French Open final
-He won on clay at the U.S Open in 1976 but it was a different clay surface than Paris
------
Pete Sampras
Points for:
-Sampras has a second best 14 Grand Slam titles and four runner-ups
-Dominated at Wimbledon with a record seven wins and a 63-7 record for his career at Wimbledon
-Holds a record eight consecutive wins in Grand Slam finals
-Sampras was ranked No. 1 by the ATP for a record 286 weeks
-Regarded as the greatest grass court player of all-time
Points against:
-He never won a French Open and never reached the final of a French Open
-Besides Andre Agassi, Sampras didn't play against any of the greats, at least not while they were anywhere near their primes
-The least versatile of the tennis greats
------
Bjorn Borg
Points for:
-Borg has 11 Grand Slam titles and five runner-ups
-He was great on all three surfaces—he did not ever win a U.S. Open but he reached four finals
-Won the Wimbledon Open era record of five straight titles
-He is the only player of the Open Era to have won Wimbledon and the French Open in the same season more than once and he did it three straight times
-His all-time leading win percentage in Grand Slams is 41 percent
Points against:
-He never won the U.S. Open
-Borg retired at 25
-Coulda Woulda Shoulda...if Borg had chosen to play in the Australian Open more often and not retired so young, he might have as many titles as Federer
------
Roger Federer
Points for:
-Has 16 grand slam titles and six runner-ups
-One of only two players in tennis’ Open Era who have won the career grand slam
-Consistency-He has an even spread of wins across the 4 Grand Slam tournaments (4-1-5-6)
-Averaged more than one grand slam title per year
-One of only three men with at least five titles at two Grand Slams
Points against:
-He’s been consistently dominated on clay by one of his contemporaries (Nadal)
-The competition is not as good as what other greats faced...men's tennis in America has been practically non-existent during his entire run
The oldest player here is Jimmy Connors. It’s awfully hard to compare tennis players going back to the time of Laver and Emerson and Budge and all those guys.
Grand Slams are important. However, back in the 70s and 80s, the French and Australian Opens were not as important as Wimbledon and the US Open.
Winning is very important but there is a lot to be said for coming in second, too.
------
Rafael Nadal
Points for:
-Has six grand slam titles and two runner-ups
-Nadal is one of only two male tennis players to own three grand slam titles on three different surfaces at the same time
Points against:
-His resume needs work as he only has the six titles
-Has yet to win a reach the finals at the US Open
-Nadal has injury struggles that may prevent him from more wins
------
Boris Becker
Points for:
-Becker has six Grand Slam titles and four runner-ups
-Played in a record seven Wimbledon finals
-Incredible on grass and hard courts
-In 1985, he became the first unseeded player to win a Wimbledon title at 17 years old
-One of the first players to win points with a powerful service game
Points against:
-He never won a single clay court tournament but did make the semis at the French Open three times
------
Stefan Edberg
Points for:
-Edberg has six Grand Slam titles and five runner-ups
-Played in a record 5 Australian Open finals
-Spectacular grass and hard court player
Points against:
-He lost in his only French Open Final to Michael Chang
-Did not dominate the game consistently
------
John McEnroe
Points for:
-McEnroe has seven Grand Slam titles and four runner-ups
-Head to head, he had the edge on Jimmy Connors (31-20) and was even with Bjorn Borg (7-7)
-May go down as the greatest doubles player ever
Points against:
-He had a very short but brilliant peak but doesn't have the stats to match some of the others
-He never won a Grand Slam on clay but did reach the finals where he blew a two set and a break lead against Lendl
-Might have more titles but he rarely played in the Australian Open
------
Mats Wilander
Points for:
-Wilander has seven Grand Slam titles and four runner-ups
-Has won at least two Grand Slams on grass, clay, and hard courts
-The most versatile of clay court players
-He won three Grand Slams in 1988
Points against:
-He never won at Wimbledon
-Banned for three months after testing positive for cocaine at the 1995 French Open
------
Andre Agassi
Points for:
-Agassi has eight Grand Slam titles and seven runner-ups
-The only player ever to win the Career Golden Slam (Wimbledon, US Open,
Australian Open, French Open, and Olympics)
Points against:
-Only won the French and Wimbeldon once each
-Agassi seemed to disappear for times in the late '90s
------
Ivan Lendl
Points for:
-Lendl has eight Grand Slam titles and 11 runner-ups
-He has the second most Grand Slam singles finals (19) in tennis history
-Lendl has eight consecutive US Open singles finals
-In another era, Lendl may have racked up more titles
Points against:
-Lendl never won at Wimbledon and lost in straight sets as runner-up twice
-Played in an era of great players at the top of their game like John McEnroe, Boris Becker, and Stefan Edberg
------
Jimmy Connors
Points for:
-Connors has eight Grand Slam titles and seven runner-ups
-He won the U.S. Open a record five times on three different surfaces
-Jimmy Connors won more tournaments than any player in mens tennis history
-He has 1,241 singles victories which is the most all-time
-Except for one week, he was the No. 1-ranked player from July 1974 to July 1979
Points against:
-He never reached a French Open final
-He won on clay at the U.S Open in 1976 but it was a different clay surface than Paris
------
Pete Sampras
Points for:
-Sampras has a second best 14 Grand Slam titles and four runner-ups
-Dominated at Wimbledon with a record seven wins and a 63-7 record for his career at Wimbledon
-Holds a record eight consecutive wins in Grand Slam finals
-Sampras was ranked No. 1 by the ATP for a record 286 weeks
-Regarded as the greatest grass court player of all-time
Points against:
-He never won a French Open and never reached the final of a French Open
-Besides Andre Agassi, Sampras didn't play against any of the greats, at least not while they were anywhere near their primes
-The least versatile of the tennis greats
------
Bjorn Borg
Points for:
-Borg has 11 Grand Slam titles and five runner-ups
-He was great on all three surfaces—he did not ever win a U.S. Open but he reached four finals
-Won the Wimbledon Open era record of five straight titles
-He is the only player of the Open Era to have won Wimbledon and the French Open in the same season more than once and he did it three straight times
-His all-time leading win percentage in Grand Slams is 41 percent
Points against:
-He never won the U.S. Open
-Borg retired at 25
-Coulda Woulda Shoulda...if Borg had chosen to play in the Australian Open more often and not retired so young, he might have as many titles as Federer
------
Roger Federer
Points for:
-Has 16 grand slam titles and six runner-ups
-One of only two players in tennis’ Open Era who have won the career grand slam
-Consistency-He has an even spread of wins across the 4 Grand Slam tournaments (4-1-5-6)
-Averaged more than one grand slam title per year
-One of only three men with at least five titles at two Grand Slams
Points against:
-He’s been consistently dominated on clay by one of his contemporaries (Nadal)
-The competition is not as good as what other greats faced...men's tennis in America has been practically non-existent during his entire run
WWE: Is the PG-Era Better Than the Attitude Era?
Point: Yes, the wrestling product in the WWE has improved significantly since the attitude era.
Counterpoint: No, the attitude era was better.
P: So, you agree that the wrestling has improved significantly?
CP: The attitude era was not known for its wrestling matches. That era was full of over-the-top characters talking and doing skits. They didn't wrestle much at all.
P: Exactly. I like to watch wrestling, and there is more pure wrestling now.
CP: But the characters now pale in comparison to the characters then. Guys like Sheamus, Miz, Rey Mysterio, or Hornswoggle just don't measure up to Brett Hart, Mick Foley, Stone Cold Steve Austin, or The Rock.
P: You are cherry-picking the big names from the attitude era. Also, many attitude era characters, like The Undertaker, Kane, Edge, and Shawn Michaels, are still around.
CP: Yeah, but they have toned those guys down. They are not like they were.
P: I don't know about that.
CP: They aren't creative anymore. There is no originality. Back then, the wrestlers would come up with their own promos. They had flexibility with their story lines. Now, the WWE has Hollywood script writers handing them lines.
P: Are you saying it comes off as phony?
CP: Yes, and another thing is the way they're pushing some of the younger guys. They don't have an edge to them anymore. They seem cookie-cutter.
P: Your criticisms are valid, but people still watch to see great wrestling, and that is better now.
CP: It is consistently better, but could you imagine seeing anything like the brutal match between The Undertaker and Mick Foley in their famous Hell in a Cell match in today's WWE?
P: I suppose not. Those thumb tacks had to hurt.
CP: You know it. Those guys took risks back then. Edge talked about this recently on RAW.
P: They did, but how long could that possibly last? Foley is still feeling the pain from that one.
CP: He might be, but there are always more guys that will do it.
P: The business model of having your top guys getting hurt all the time does not work.
CP: It seemed to then.
P: The new era wasn't brought on to irritate fans like you.
CP: It is all about money right?
P: Yes. The shift back to a safer, family-oriented show was out of necessity for the WWE's survival. They had all kinds of problems with drug and alcohol abuse among the wrestlers, steroid use and abuse, government scrutiny, and the media was out to crucify pro wrestling in general and the WWE in particular. Did you forget all that?
CP: Until now I did. I recall there were serious injuries as well.
P: This led to the big-money advertisers pulling out, which leads to closing shop.
CP: I don't buy that it would have had to be shut down.
P: It certainly wouldn't have the mass audience the WWE enjoys today. They rely on these guys to do more shows than ever.
CP: Sounds like you think it was all about money.
P: Duh. Also, having more kids attend shows, buying souvenirs and merchandise doesn't hurt.
CP: Of course.
P: The 1980s wrestling was similar to today. The attitude era was a result of the WWF adapting to the Monday Night Wars with WCW.
CP: So if TNA can pick up their game, perhaps the attitude era will return to the WWE?
P: Yes, when the WWE's ratings are threatened, the product will change. Also, The WWE fans have a very strong loyalty to Vince McMahon and the WWE. It would take a lot for them to consider watching anything but the WWE.
CP: Sounds like a long shot.
P: If you want more violence and blood, you can watch TNA.
CP: Yes, they have the blood but it isn't the as good as the WWE.
P: So you are just like all the other loyal WWE fans who complain but can't turn away?
CP: Yup, pretty much.
P: Do you need blood and head bashing to make it more fun to watch?
CP: Sometimes blood makes it realistic—like when you slam someone's head through a cage or hit them with a weapon. It isn't needed, but it adds intensity.
P: There are amazing wrestling matches without blood.
CP: Nothing gets the crowd excited like some blood.
P: The blood in wrestling matches got so out-of-hand in the 1990's that it lost all meaning. It became cartoonish. Fans came to expect bloodbaths in every match. The wrestlers were getting booed if they didn't bleed enough.
CP: I guess. You know...the girls were hotter in the attitude era also.
P: They lost their credibility too. They were little more than porn extras.
CP: Yeah, that was cool. They would cat-fight for our amusement.
P: They still do. They will have a hard time getting credible ladies' wrestling back. It may never return.
CP: At least we will have that.
P: If the TV networks did not tell you the ratings, there would not be such a huge point of contention among so many fans. Many people equate PG to a family show. The Jerry Springer episode of RAW was not family-friendly at all.
CP: Yeah, that would have been great if it was not so stupid.
P: That it was.
CP: I guess there is always something to complain about.
Counterpoint: No, the attitude era was better.
P: So, you agree that the wrestling has improved significantly?
CP: The attitude era was not known for its wrestling matches. That era was full of over-the-top characters talking and doing skits. They didn't wrestle much at all.
P: Exactly. I like to watch wrestling, and there is more pure wrestling now.
CP: But the characters now pale in comparison to the characters then. Guys like Sheamus, Miz, Rey Mysterio, or Hornswoggle just don't measure up to Brett Hart, Mick Foley, Stone Cold Steve Austin, or The Rock.
P: You are cherry-picking the big names from the attitude era. Also, many attitude era characters, like The Undertaker, Kane, Edge, and Shawn Michaels, are still around.
CP: Yeah, but they have toned those guys down. They are not like they were.
P: I don't know about that.
CP: They aren't creative anymore. There is no originality. Back then, the wrestlers would come up with their own promos. They had flexibility with their story lines. Now, the WWE has Hollywood script writers handing them lines.
P: Are you saying it comes off as phony?
CP: Yes, and another thing is the way they're pushing some of the younger guys. They don't have an edge to them anymore. They seem cookie-cutter.
P: Your criticisms are valid, but people still watch to see great wrestling, and that is better now.
CP: It is consistently better, but could you imagine seeing anything like the brutal match between The Undertaker and Mick Foley in their famous Hell in a Cell match in today's WWE?
P: I suppose not. Those thumb tacks had to hurt.
CP: You know it. Those guys took risks back then. Edge talked about this recently on RAW.
P: They did, but how long could that possibly last? Foley is still feeling the pain from that one.
CP: He might be, but there are always more guys that will do it.
P: The business model of having your top guys getting hurt all the time does not work.
CP: It seemed to then.
P: The new era wasn't brought on to irritate fans like you.
CP: It is all about money right?
P: Yes. The shift back to a safer, family-oriented show was out of necessity for the WWE's survival. They had all kinds of problems with drug and alcohol abuse among the wrestlers, steroid use and abuse, government scrutiny, and the media was out to crucify pro wrestling in general and the WWE in particular. Did you forget all that?
CP: Until now I did. I recall there were serious injuries as well.
P: This led to the big-money advertisers pulling out, which leads to closing shop.
CP: I don't buy that it would have had to be shut down.
P: It certainly wouldn't have the mass audience the WWE enjoys today. They rely on these guys to do more shows than ever.
CP: Sounds like you think it was all about money.
P: Duh. Also, having more kids attend shows, buying souvenirs and merchandise doesn't hurt.
CP: Of course.
P: The 1980s wrestling was similar to today. The attitude era was a result of the WWF adapting to the Monday Night Wars with WCW.
CP: So if TNA can pick up their game, perhaps the attitude era will return to the WWE?
P: Yes, when the WWE's ratings are threatened, the product will change. Also, The WWE fans have a very strong loyalty to Vince McMahon and the WWE. It would take a lot for them to consider watching anything but the WWE.
CP: Sounds like a long shot.
P: If you want more violence and blood, you can watch TNA.
CP: Yes, they have the blood but it isn't the as good as the WWE.
P: So you are just like all the other loyal WWE fans who complain but can't turn away?
CP: Yup, pretty much.
P: Do you need blood and head bashing to make it more fun to watch?
CP: Sometimes blood makes it realistic—like when you slam someone's head through a cage or hit them with a weapon. It isn't needed, but it adds intensity.
P: There are amazing wrestling matches without blood.
CP: Nothing gets the crowd excited like some blood.
P: The blood in wrestling matches got so out-of-hand in the 1990's that it lost all meaning. It became cartoonish. Fans came to expect bloodbaths in every match. The wrestlers were getting booed if they didn't bleed enough.
CP: I guess. You know...the girls were hotter in the attitude era also.
P: They lost their credibility too. They were little more than porn extras.
CP: Yeah, that was cool. They would cat-fight for our amusement.
P: They still do. They will have a hard time getting credible ladies' wrestling back. It may never return.
CP: At least we will have that.
P: If the TV networks did not tell you the ratings, there would not be such a huge point of contention among so many fans. Many people equate PG to a family show. The Jerry Springer episode of RAW was not family-friendly at all.
CP: Yeah, that would have been great if it was not so stupid.
P: That it was.
CP: I guess there is always something to complain about.
WWE: Is the PG-Era Better Than the Attitude Era?
Point: Yes, the wrestling product in the WWE has improved significantly since the attitude era.
Counterpoint: No, the attitude era was better.
P: So, you agree that the wrestling has improved significantly?
CP: The attitude era was not known for its wrestling matches. That era was full of over-the-top characters talking and doing skits. They didn't wrestle much at all.
P: Exactly. I like to watch wrestling, and there is more pure wrestling now.
CP: But the characters now pale in comparison to the characters then. Guys like Sheamus, Miz, Rey Mysterio, or Hornswoggle just don't measure up to Brett Hart, Mick Foley, Stone Cold Steve Austin, or The Rock.
P: You are cherry-picking the big names from the attitude era. Also, many attitude era characters, like The Undertaker, Kane, Edge, and Shawn Michaels, are still around.
CP: Yeah, but they have toned those guys down. They are not like they were.
P: I don't know about that.
CP: They aren't creative anymore. There is no originality. Back then, the wrestlers would come up with their own promos. They had flexibility with their story lines. Now, the WWE has Hollywood script writers handing them lines.
P: Are you saying it comes off as phony?
CP: Yes, and another thing is the way they're pushing some of the younger guys. They don't have an edge to them anymore. They seem cookie-cutter.
P: Your criticisms are valid, but people still watch to see great wrestling, and that is better now.
CP: It is consistently better, but could you imagine seeing anything like the brutal match between The Undertaker and Mick Foley in their famous Hell in a Cell match in today's WWE?
P: I suppose not. Those thumb tacks had to hurt.
CP: You know it. Those guys took risks back then. Edge talked about this recently on RAW.
P: They did, but how long could that possibly last? Foley is still feeling the pain from that one.
CP: He might be, but there are always more guys that will do it.
P: The business model of having your top guys getting hurt all the time does not work.
CP: It seemed to then.
P: The new era wasn't brought on to irritate fans like you.
CP: It is all about money right?
P: Yes. The shift back to a safer, family-oriented show was out of necessity for the WWE's survival. They had all kinds of problems with drug and alcohol abuse among the wrestlers, steroid use and abuse, government scrutiny, and the media was out to crucify pro wrestling in general and the WWE in particular. Did you forget all that?
CP: Until now I did. I recall there were serious injuries as well.
P: This led to the big-money advertisers pulling out, which leads to closing shop.
CP: I don't buy that it would have had to be shut down.
P: It certainly wouldn't have the mass audience the WWE enjoys today. They rely on these guys to do more shows than ever.
CP: Sounds like you think it was all about money.
P: Duh. Also, having more kids attend shows, buying souvenirs and merchandise doesn't hurt.
CP: Of course.
P: The 1980s wrestling was similar to today. The attitude era was a result of the WWF adapting to the Monday Night Wars with WCW.
CP: So if TNA can pick up their game, perhaps the attitude era will return to the WWE?
P: Yes, when the WWE's ratings are threatened, the product will change. Also, The WWE fans have a very strong loyalty to Vince McMahon and the WWE. It would take a lot for them to consider watching anything but the WWE.
CP: Sounds like a long shot.
P: If you want more violence and blood, you can watch TNA.
CP: Yes, they have the blood but it isn't the as good as the WWE.
P: So you are just like all the other loyal WWE fans who complain but can't turn away?
CP: Yup, pretty much.
P: Do you need blood and head bashing to make it more fun to watch?
CP: Sometimes blood makes it realistic—like when you slam someone's head through a cage or hit them with a weapon. It isn't needed, but it adds intensity.
P: There are amazing wrestling matches without blood.
CP: Nothing gets the crowd excited like some blood.
P: The blood in wrestling matches got so out-of-hand in the 1990's that it lost all meaning. It became cartoonish. Fans came to expect bloodbaths in every match. The wrestlers were getting booed if they didn't bleed enough.
CP: I guess. You know...the girls were hotter in the attitude era also.
P: They lost their credibility too. They were little more than porn extras.
CP: Yeah, that was cool. They would cat-fight for our amusement.
P: They still do. They will have a hard time getting credible ladies' wrestling back. It may never return.
CP: At least we will have that.
P: If the TV networks did not tell you the ratings, there would not be such a huge point of contention among so many fans. Many people equate PG to a family show. The Jerry Springer episode of RAW was not family-friendly at all.
CP: Yeah, that would have been great if it was not so stupid.
P: That it was.
CP: I guess there is always something to complain about.
Counterpoint: No, the attitude era was better.
P: So, you agree that the wrestling has improved significantly?
CP: The attitude era was not known for its wrestling matches. That era was full of over-the-top characters talking and doing skits. They didn't wrestle much at all.
P: Exactly. I like to watch wrestling, and there is more pure wrestling now.
CP: But the characters now pale in comparison to the characters then. Guys like Sheamus, Miz, Rey Mysterio, or Hornswoggle just don't measure up to Brett Hart, Mick Foley, Stone Cold Steve Austin, or The Rock.
P: You are cherry-picking the big names from the attitude era. Also, many attitude era characters, like The Undertaker, Kane, Edge, and Shawn Michaels, are still around.
CP: Yeah, but they have toned those guys down. They are not like they were.
P: I don't know about that.
CP: They aren't creative anymore. There is no originality. Back then, the wrestlers would come up with their own promos. They had flexibility with their story lines. Now, the WWE has Hollywood script writers handing them lines.
P: Are you saying it comes off as phony?
CP: Yes, and another thing is the way they're pushing some of the younger guys. They don't have an edge to them anymore. They seem cookie-cutter.
P: Your criticisms are valid, but people still watch to see great wrestling, and that is better now.
CP: It is consistently better, but could you imagine seeing anything like the brutal match between The Undertaker and Mick Foley in their famous Hell in a Cell match in today's WWE?
P: I suppose not. Those thumb tacks had to hurt.
CP: You know it. Those guys took risks back then. Edge talked about this recently on RAW.
P: They did, but how long could that possibly last? Foley is still feeling the pain from that one.
CP: He might be, but there are always more guys that will do it.
P: The business model of having your top guys getting hurt all the time does not work.
CP: It seemed to then.
P: The new era wasn't brought on to irritate fans like you.
CP: It is all about money right?
P: Yes. The shift back to a safer, family-oriented show was out of necessity for the WWE's survival. They had all kinds of problems with drug and alcohol abuse among the wrestlers, steroid use and abuse, government scrutiny, and the media was out to crucify pro wrestling in general and the WWE in particular. Did you forget all that?
CP: Until now I did. I recall there were serious injuries as well.
P: This led to the big-money advertisers pulling out, which leads to closing shop.
CP: I don't buy that it would have had to be shut down.
P: It certainly wouldn't have the mass audience the WWE enjoys today. They rely on these guys to do more shows than ever.
CP: Sounds like you think it was all about money.
P: Duh. Also, having more kids attend shows, buying souvenirs and merchandise doesn't hurt.
CP: Of course.
P: The 1980s wrestling was similar to today. The attitude era was a result of the WWF adapting to the Monday Night Wars with WCW.
CP: So if TNA can pick up their game, perhaps the attitude era will return to the WWE?
P: Yes, when the WWE's ratings are threatened, the product will change. Also, The WWE fans have a very strong loyalty to Vince McMahon and the WWE. It would take a lot for them to consider watching anything but the WWE.
CP: Sounds like a long shot.
P: If you want more violence and blood, you can watch TNA.
CP: Yes, they have the blood but it isn't the as good as the WWE.
P: So you are just like all the other loyal WWE fans who complain but can't turn away?
CP: Yup, pretty much.
P: Do you need blood and head bashing to make it more fun to watch?
CP: Sometimes blood makes it realistic—like when you slam someone's head through a cage or hit them with a weapon. It isn't needed, but it adds intensity.
P: There are amazing wrestling matches without blood.
CP: Nothing gets the crowd excited like some blood.
P: The blood in wrestling matches got so out-of-hand in the 1990's that it lost all meaning. It became cartoonish. Fans came to expect bloodbaths in every match. The wrestlers were getting booed if they didn't bleed enough.
CP: I guess. You know...the girls were hotter in the attitude era also.
P: They lost their credibility too. They were little more than porn extras.
CP: Yeah, that was cool. They would cat-fight for our amusement.
P: They still do. They will have a hard time getting credible ladies' wrestling back. It may never return.
CP: At least we will have that.
P: If the TV networks did not tell you the ratings, there would not be such a huge point of contention among so many fans. Many people equate PG to a family show. The Jerry Springer episode of RAW was not family-friendly at all.
CP: Yeah, that would have been great if it was not so stupid.
P: That it was.
CP: I guess there is always something to complain about.
WWE: Is the PG-Era Better Than the Attitude Era?
Point: Yes, the wrestling product in the WWE has improved significantly since the attitude era.
Counterpoint: No, the attitude era was better.
P: So, you agree that the wrestling has improved significantly?
CP: The attitude era was not known for its wrestling matches. That era was full of over-the-top characters talking and doing skits. They didn't wrestle much at all.
P: Exactly. I like to watch wrestling, and there is more pure wrestling now.
CP: But the characters now pale in comparison to the characters then. Guys like Sheamus, Miz, Rey Mysterio, or Hornswoggle just don't measure up to Brett Hart, Mick Foley, Stone Cold Steve Austin, or The Rock.
P: You are cherry-picking the big names from the attitude era. Also, many attitude era characters, like The Undertaker, Kane, Edge, and Shawn Michaels, are still around.
CP: Yeah, but they have toned those guys down. They are not like they were.
P: I don't know about that.
CP: They aren't creative anymore. There is no originality. Back then, the wrestlers would come up with their own promos. They had flexibility with their story lines. Now, the WWE has Hollywood script writers handing them lines.
P: Are you saying it comes off as phony?
CP: Yes, and another thing is the way they're pushing some of the younger guys. They don't have an edge to them anymore. They seem cookie-cutter.
P: Your criticisms are valid, but people still watch to see great wrestling, and that is better now.
CP: It is consistently better, but could you imagine seeing anything like the brutal match between The Undertaker and Mick Foley in their famous Hell in a Cell match in today's WWE?
P: I suppose not. Those thumb tacks had to hurt.
CP: You know it. Those guys took risks back then. Edge talked about this recently on RAW.
P: They did, but how long could that possibly last? Foley is still feeling the pain from that one.
CP: He might be, but there are always more guys that will do it.
P: The business model of having your top guys getting hurt all the time does not work.
CP: It seemed to then.
P: The new era wasn't brought on to irritate fans like you.
CP: It is all about money right?
P: Yes. The shift back to a safer, family-oriented show was out of necessity for the WWE's survival. They had all kinds of problems with drug and alcohol abuse among the wrestlers, steroid use and abuse, government scrutiny, and the media was out to crucify pro wrestling in general and the WWE in particular. Did you forget all that?
CP: Until now I did. I recall there were serious injuries as well.
P: This led to the big-money advertisers pulling out, which leads to closing shop.
CP: I don't buy that it would have had to be shut down.
P: It certainly wouldn't have the mass audience the WWE enjoys today. They rely on these guys to do more shows than ever.
CP: Sounds like you think it was all about money.
P: Duh. Also, having more kids attend shows, buying souvenirs and merchandise doesn't hurt.
CP: Of course.
P: The 1980s wrestling was similar to today. The attitude era was a result of the WWF adapting to the Monday Night Wars with WCW.
CP: So if TNA can pick up their game, perhaps the attitude era will return to the WWE?
P: Yes, when the WWE's ratings are threatened, the product will change. Also, The WWE fans have a very strong loyalty to Vince McMahon and the WWE. It would take a lot for them to consider watching anything but the WWE.
CP: Sounds like a long shot.
P: If you want more violence and blood, you can watch TNA.
CP: Yes, they have the blood but it isn't the as good as the WWE.
P: So you are just like all the other loyal WWE fans who complain but can't turn away?
CP: Yup, pretty much.
P: Do you need blood and head bashing to make it more fun to watch?
CP: Sometimes blood makes it realistic—like when you slam someone's head through a cage or hit them with a weapon. It isn't needed, but it adds intensity.
P: There are amazing wrestling matches without blood.
CP: Nothing gets the crowd excited like some blood.
P: The blood in wrestling matches got so out-of-hand in the 1990's that it lost all meaning. It became cartoonish. Fans came to expect bloodbaths in every match. The wrestlers were getting booed if they didn't bleed enough.
CP: I guess. You know...the girls were hotter in the attitude era also.
P: They lost their credibility too. They were little more than porn extras.
CP: Yeah, that was cool. They would cat-fight for our amusement.
P: They still do. They will have a hard time getting credible ladies' wrestling back. It may never return.
CP: At least we will have that.
P: If the TV networks did not tell you the ratings, there would not be such a huge point of contention among so many fans. Many people equate PG to a family show. The Jerry Springer episode of RAW was not family-friendly at all.
CP: Yeah, that would have been great if it was not so stupid.
P: That it was.
CP: I guess there is always something to complain about.
Counterpoint: No, the attitude era was better.
P: So, you agree that the wrestling has improved significantly?
CP: The attitude era was not known for its wrestling matches. That era was full of over-the-top characters talking and doing skits. They didn't wrestle much at all.
P: Exactly. I like to watch wrestling, and there is more pure wrestling now.
CP: But the characters now pale in comparison to the characters then. Guys like Sheamus, Miz, Rey Mysterio, or Hornswoggle just don't measure up to Brett Hart, Mick Foley, Stone Cold Steve Austin, or The Rock.
P: You are cherry-picking the big names from the attitude era. Also, many attitude era characters, like The Undertaker, Kane, Edge, and Shawn Michaels, are still around.
CP: Yeah, but they have toned those guys down. They are not like they were.
P: I don't know about that.
CP: They aren't creative anymore. There is no originality. Back then, the wrestlers would come up with their own promos. They had flexibility with their story lines. Now, the WWE has Hollywood script writers handing them lines.
P: Are you saying it comes off as phony?
CP: Yes, and another thing is the way they're pushing some of the younger guys. They don't have an edge to them anymore. They seem cookie-cutter.
P: Your criticisms are valid, but people still watch to see great wrestling, and that is better now.
CP: It is consistently better, but could you imagine seeing anything like the brutal match between The Undertaker and Mick Foley in their famous Hell in a Cell match in today's WWE?
P: I suppose not. Those thumb tacks had to hurt.
CP: You know it. Those guys took risks back then. Edge talked about this recently on RAW.
P: They did, but how long could that possibly last? Foley is still feeling the pain from that one.
CP: He might be, but there are always more guys that will do it.
P: The business model of having your top guys getting hurt all the time does not work.
CP: It seemed to then.
P: The new era wasn't brought on to irritate fans like you.
CP: It is all about money right?
P: Yes. The shift back to a safer, family-oriented show was out of necessity for the WWE's survival. They had all kinds of problems with drug and alcohol abuse among the wrestlers, steroid use and abuse, government scrutiny, and the media was out to crucify pro wrestling in general and the WWE in particular. Did you forget all that?
CP: Until now I did. I recall there were serious injuries as well.
P: This led to the big-money advertisers pulling out, which leads to closing shop.
CP: I don't buy that it would have had to be shut down.
P: It certainly wouldn't have the mass audience the WWE enjoys today. They rely on these guys to do more shows than ever.
CP: Sounds like you think it was all about money.
P: Duh. Also, having more kids attend shows, buying souvenirs and merchandise doesn't hurt.
CP: Of course.
P: The 1980s wrestling was similar to today. The attitude era was a result of the WWF adapting to the Monday Night Wars with WCW.
CP: So if TNA can pick up their game, perhaps the attitude era will return to the WWE?
P: Yes, when the WWE's ratings are threatened, the product will change. Also, The WWE fans have a very strong loyalty to Vince McMahon and the WWE. It would take a lot for them to consider watching anything but the WWE.
CP: Sounds like a long shot.
P: If you want more violence and blood, you can watch TNA.
CP: Yes, they have the blood but it isn't the as good as the WWE.
P: So you are just like all the other loyal WWE fans who complain but can't turn away?
CP: Yup, pretty much.
P: Do you need blood and head bashing to make it more fun to watch?
CP: Sometimes blood makes it realistic—like when you slam someone's head through a cage or hit them with a weapon. It isn't needed, but it adds intensity.
P: There are amazing wrestling matches without blood.
CP: Nothing gets the crowd excited like some blood.
P: The blood in wrestling matches got so out-of-hand in the 1990's that it lost all meaning. It became cartoonish. Fans came to expect bloodbaths in every match. The wrestlers were getting booed if they didn't bleed enough.
CP: I guess. You know...the girls were hotter in the attitude era also.
P: They lost their credibility too. They were little more than porn extras.
CP: Yeah, that was cool. They would cat-fight for our amusement.
P: They still do. They will have a hard time getting credible ladies' wrestling back. It may never return.
CP: At least we will have that.
P: If the TV networks did not tell you the ratings, there would not be such a huge point of contention among so many fans. Many people equate PG to a family show. The Jerry Springer episode of RAW was not family-friendly at all.
CP: Yeah, that would have been great if it was not so stupid.
P: That it was.
CP: I guess there is always something to complain about.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Will Tim Tebow become a successful quarterback in the NFL?
Counterpoint: Steve Young, the Hall Of Fame quarterback? I think his career will more closely resemble that of Rex Grossman.
P: Rex Grossman? Are you kidding me?
CP: He's a great leader. Unfortunately, his physical skill set won't get it done at the next level.
P: You know, scouts and NFL "experts" say that Tebow won't be a great quarterback because of his arm strength. I just don't buy that.
CP: Have you seen him throw?
P: Of course, but there is nothing wrong with his arm strength at all. He just needs to work on his release. This guy works as hard as anyone and will get that part of his game straightened out.
CP: Changing his release point doesn't fix all the issues he has. David Carr also fixed his release point prior to the draft. How did his NFL career work out?
P: Carr was drafted number one by the Texans. In any case, he will be much better than David Carr.
CP: Another number one pick he compares to is Alex Smith. I could see them having similar careers.
P: Smith, like Carr, is an example of a guy who was rushed. Tebow will need a couple years. Nobody is saying he is NFL ready now.
CP: Tebow also has issues reading defenses and tends to lock into his first option.
P: Whatever...teams will regret passing on this Heisman trophy winner.
CP: Heisman Trophy winners, for the most part, don't have exceptional NFL careers.
P: That means nothing. He is a true leader and would put a fire under his team.
CP: That kind of cheerleader stuff won't work in the NFL.
P: His personality will win over any team.
CP: I disagree. Look, it's hard not to like Tebow. The media seems to love him. He might have an average career as a backup.
P: He throws a very accurate deep ball.
CP: I have seen him connect on some long balls.
P: Tebow is also a proven winner. Most successful NFL quarterbacks have college resumes that look like Tebow's.
CP: Colt McCoy holds the record for most wins by a college QB. Does that mean he will be better than Tebow?
P: No, I like McCoy but not as much as Tebow.
CP: Florida's simplistic offense with Tebow was nothing like any NFL offense.
P: Tebow will devote himself to improving every aspect of his game. He will learn the NFL schemes quickly.
CP: So you are saying he is intelligent?
P: I think he's a very smart and athletic quarterback. One of a quarterback's greatest strengths is their ability to read the defense and execute the plays.
CP: Are you aware that Tebow recorded a 22 on his Wonderlic? That isn't good in case you wondered.
P: Other quarterbacks like Dan Marino, Bret Favre, Donavan McNabb, and Michael Vick scored poorly and went on to fine NFL careers. That test has nothing to do with his football skills, determination, and leadership.
CP: It doesn't help. He doesn't compare to any of those guys anyway.
P: Tebow will be great. He is the greatest college football player ever and he will do great in the NFL.
CP: He may be in the conversation for best college football player ever.
P: He has the Heisman Trophy and two national championships. Nobody in this generation has done that.
CP: I'll give you that. He had a spectacular college football career.
P: Face it, the rare combination of leadership and athletic ability that Tebow has will make him an stud NFL quarterback.
CP: Weren't those same things said of Vince Young?
P: Young will put it all together this season.
CP: Tebow has poor accuracy, doesn't read defenses well, has bad footwork, struggles to take the snap from under center, and has poor mechanics. Tebow is years from being NFL ready as a quarterback.
P: I agree that he will struggle if he doesn't become a pocket passer and tighten up a few other areas.
CP: There isn't a long list of guys that have come into the league with so many areas to work on that have become successful. He works hard. He is a great leader. I get all that.
P: He certainly doesn't have the classic throwing motion.
CP: NFL defensive backs will be licking their chops when he drops back.
P: His greatest asset might be that he makes the people around him better.
CP: That is hard to know. He played for one of the best teams around at Flordia.
P: A good coach will take advantage of Tebow's strengths. He's got the intangibles.
CP: Yeah, I just don't see it.
Will Tim Tebow become a successful quarterback in the NFL?
Counterpoint: Steve Young, the Hall Of Fame quarterback? I think his career will more closely resemble that of Rex Grossman.
P: Rex Grossman? Are you kidding me?
CP: He's a great leader. Unfortunately, his physical skill set won't get it done at the next level.
P: You know, scouts and NFL "experts" say that Tebow won't be a great quarterback because of his arm strength. I just don't buy that.
CP: Have you seen him throw?
P: Of course, but there is nothing wrong with his arm strength at all. He just needs to work on his release. This guy works as hard as anyone and will get that part of his game straightened out.
CP: Changing his release point doesn't fix all the issues he has. David Carr also fixed his release point prior to the draft. How did his NFL career work out?
P: Carr was drafted number one by the Texans. In any case, he will be much better than David Carr.
CP: Another number one pick he compares to is Alex Smith. I could see them having similar careers.
P: Smith, like Carr, is an example of a guy who was rushed. Tebow will need a couple years. Nobody is saying he is NFL ready now.
CP: Tebow also has issues reading defenses and tends to lock into his first option.
P: Whatever...teams will regret passing on this Heisman trophy winner.
CP: Heisman Trophy winners, for the most part, don't have exceptional NFL careers.
P: That means nothing. He is a true leader and would put a fire under his team.
CP: That kind of cheerleader stuff won't work in the NFL.
P: His personality will win over any team.
CP: I disagree. Look, it's hard not to like Tebow. The media seems to love him. He might have an average career as a backup.
P: He throws a very accurate deep ball.
CP: I have seen him connect on some long balls.
P: Tebow is also a proven winner. Most successful NFL quarterbacks have college resumes that look like Tebow's.
CP: Colt McCoy holds the record for most wins by a college QB. Does that mean he will be better than Tebow?
P: No, I like McCoy but not as much as Tebow.
CP: Florida's simplistic offense with Tebow was nothing like any NFL offense.
P: Tebow will devote himself to improving every aspect of his game. He will learn the NFL schemes quickly.
CP: So you are saying he is intelligent?
P: I think he's a very smart and athletic quarterback. One of a quarterback's greatest strengths is their ability to read the defense and execute the plays.
CP: Are you aware that Tebow recorded a 22 on his Wonderlic? That isn't good in case you wondered.
P: Other quarterbacks like Dan Marino, Bret Favre, Donavan McNabb, and Michael Vick scored poorly and went on to fine NFL careers. That test has nothing to do with his football skills, determination, and leadership.
CP: It doesn't help. He doesn't compare to any of those guys anyway.
P: Tebow will be great. He is the greatest college football player ever and he will do great in the NFL.
CP: He may be in the conversation for best college football player ever.
P: He has the Heisman Trophy and two national championships. Nobody in this generation has done that.
CP: I'll give you that. He had a spectacular college football career.
P: Face it, the rare combination of leadership and athletic ability that Tebow has will make him an stud NFL quarterback.
CP: Weren't those same things said of Vince Young?
P: Young will put it all together this season.
CP: Tebow has poor accuracy, doesn't read defenses well, has bad footwork, struggles to take the snap from under center, and has poor mechanics. Tebow is years from being NFL ready as a quarterback.
P: I agree that he will struggle if he doesn't become a pocket passer and tighten up a few other areas.
CP: There isn't a long list of guys that have come into the league with so many areas to work on that have become successful. He works hard. He is a great leader. I get all that.
P: He certainly doesn't have the classic throwing motion.
CP: NFL defensive backs will be licking their chops when he drops back.
P: His greatest asset might be that he makes the people around him better.
CP: That is hard to know. He played for one of the best teams around at Flordia.
P: A good coach will take advantage of Tebow's strengths. He's got the intangibles.
CP: Yeah, I just don't see it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
