Justice's Dull Little Brother

[Taras Bulba]

He's alive in Austin (http://www.statesman.com/sports/content/sports/stories/other/05/08/8bohls)

Bohls is a walking, talking exhibit "A" of the lazy sportswriter in a second tier arena.  Usually, he is opining on UT and Big 12 goings on, but he sometimes steps into the big leagues as with his story on Clemens and, Drayton's meddling ways.  I started to just send him an email declaring him a moron and moving on with my day, however, I did take the time to carefully and politely explain to him some things he should know about the Astros if he took the time to actually follow the subject (sports) that he is paid to cover. 

[JimR]

He's alive in Austin (http://www.statesman.com/sports/content/sports/stories/other/05/08/8bohls)

Bohls is a walking, talking exhibit "A" of the lazy sportswriter in a second tier arena.  Usually, he is opining on UT and Big 12 goings on, but he sometimes steps into the big leagues as with his story on Clemens and, Drayton's meddling ways.  I started to just send him an email declaring him a moron and moving on with my day, however, I did take the time to carefully and politely explain to him some things he should know about the Astros if he took the time to actually follow the subject (sports) that he is paid to cover. 

i started to read that drivel this morning but could not continue. it is not even original drivel. it is regurgitated Justice blogs.

[remy]

For those of you who don't feel like registering just to read it:

It's official. Roger Clemens is gone.

Here's wishing he would take Brad Lidge, Jason Lane, Morgan Ensberg and Drayton McLane's meddlesome, controlling ways with him.

The loss of Clemens is huge and should hasten some hard decisions about the future and the direction the Houston Astros take in their development.

The news that arguably the best pitcher in baseball history was taking the money and running to the New York Yankees shouldn't have shocked anyone, least of all the Rocket's accountant.

(It is not allowed to copy and paste copyright material.  Sorry)

[JimR]

i hope this site floods Bohls' inbox.

[Ty in Tampa]

For those of you who don't feel like registering just to read it:

Just so you know, posting full copyrighted material is frowned upon in here.

[Lefty]

"It's difficult to know whom to blame for a 13-17 start, but someone deserves some."

That's just outfuckingstanding, Kirk.  If someone wrote a parody of contemporary sports coverage, you couldn't make up a better line than that.

[JackAstro]

Lidge is mental... should've traded him for Tejada... maybe Tampa Bay... make him a starter...

Seems so familiar. I can't believe he didn't work Pooholes in there somehow.

[Ty in Tampa]

Seems so familiar. I can't believe he didn't work Pooholes in there somehow.

He didn't know there was a Pooholes incident.

[Foghorn]

"It's difficult to know whom to blame for a 13-17 start, but someone deserves some."

That's just outfuckingstanding, Kirk.  If someone wrote a parody of contemporary sports coverage, you couldn't make up a better line than that.

Spot.  On.

Look for Kirk's hard hitting coverage in the coming weeks on these topics...

Barry Bonds chase of Hank Aaron.  "Its difficult to gauge how many of Bonds' home runs are tainted, but probably at least one."

NCAA investigation into OU athletics.  "The NCAA may decide to make an example of OU.  Then again, perhaps they won't."

DIrk Nowitzki and the fall of the Mavs.  "Dirk may win the MVP, but I've just learned he didn't get it done versus the Warriors."

[pravata]

Spot.  On.

Look for Kirk's hard hitting coverage in the coming weeks on these topics...

Barry Bonds chase of Hank Aaron.  "Its difficult to gauge how many of Bonds' home runs are tainted, but probably at least one."

NCAA investigation into OU athletics.  "The NCAA may decide to make an example of OU.  Then again, perhaps they won't."

DIrk Nowitzki and the fall of the Mavs.  "Dirk may win the MVP, but I've just learned he didn't get it done versus the Warriors."

Scoff at my Mystery Men quotes if you like, but if you'd pay attention you'd know that this guy is The Sphinx.

[remy]

Just so you know, posting full copyrighted material is frowned upon in here.

Really?  I thought what was mostly frowned upon was when some fuckwit posts an article written by someone else, making it look like he had written it, without citing the source or a link.  I was just trying to keep people from having to register on that shithole site just to read a lame article.  TB's link was broken anyhow.

In the future, if you want to (god forbid) read one of Kirk Bowel's articles and statesman makes you log in, just go to this site to find some shared login info. 

[Ty in Tampa]

Really?  I thought what was mostly frowned upon was when some fuckwit posts an article written by someone else, making it look like he had written it, without citing the source or a link.  I was just trying to keep people from having to register on that shithole site just to read a lame article.  TB's link was broken anyhow.

In the future, if you want to (god forbid) read one of Kirk Bowel's articles and statesman makes you log in, just go to this site to find some shared login info. 

Good intentions. Portions of an article with a link is OK. The full version, no.

[Noe]

Really? 

Yes.  Copyright material is protected and it is not kosher to just take it without the proper method of attribution, partial quotes and a link.  FUD rules on the internet are pretty well laid out and we protect the material written on this site as much protect others stuff on the internet appearing here as well.

[tophfar]

Good intentions. Portions of an article with a link is OK. The full version, no.

in other words, legit fair use, yes.  outright copyright violations, no.

[Rammer33]

that article is effing awful ... most of his statements are gross oversimplifications or just outright false ...

my favorite point was that the astros are not able to “stay on an even course” because of McLane's over meddling.  I may have been in a hole but I haven’t noticed a rash of over meddling- and  I wonder how has our franchise has been in terms of winning compared to other franchises during McLane's tenure ... that might be a good indicator of how "on course" this franchise is.  This article is a perfect example of forming an opinion based on thin fucking air and re-writing the facts to support it.

[Foghorn]

that article is effing awful ... most of his statements are gross oversimplifications or just outright false ...

my favorite point was that the astros are not able to “stay on an even course” because of McLane's over meddling.  I may have been in a hole but I haven’t noticed a rash of over meddling- and  I wonder how has our franchise has been in terms of winning compared to other franchises during McLane's tenure ... that might be a good indicator of how "on course" this franchise is.  This article is a perfect example of forming an opinion based on thin fucking air and re-writing the facts to support it.

Over-meddling is too strong.  He probably tied the COunt's hands regarding Biggio, and perhaps his voice was heard in the decision to bring up Pence.  But for the most part, Drayton has stayed out of the way.

Its not hard to pinpoint the reasons for the Astros success the past 10 seasons (4 time division champ, 2 wild cards, 1 NL pennant, 3 other 2nd place finishes).

(1)  HOF talent at 1B and 2B
(2)  Key trades for established stars--Alou, Unit, Beltran
(3)  Key trades for nobodies who blossomed--Hampton (coming), C4 (coming), Wheeler, Lima
(4)  Player development--Berkman, Oswalt, Lidge, Wagner, Elarton, Ensberg, Hidalgo, Reynolds, Kile, Wami
(5)  Big Time Free Agent pickups--Kent, Pettitte, Clemens

Where the fuck is the meddling in all this?

[pravata]

Over-meddling is too strong.  He probably tied the COunt's hands regarding Biggio, and perhaps his voice was heard in the decision to bring up Pence.  But for the most part, Drayton has stayed out of the way.

Its not hard to pinpoint the reasons for the Astros success the past 10 seasons (4 time division champ, 2 wild cards, 1 NL pennant, 3 other 2nd place finishes).

(1)  HOF talent at 1B and 2B
(2)  Key trades for established stars--Alou, Unit, Beltran
(3)  Key trades for nobodies who blossomed--Hampton (coming), C4 (coming), Wheeler, Lima
(4)  Player development--Berkman, Oswalt, Lidge, Wagner, Elarton, Ensberg, Hidalgo, Reynolds, Kile, Wami
(5)  Big Time Free Agent pickups--Kent, Pettitte, Clemens

Where the fuck is the meddling in all this?

He was the lead negotiator in the Kent, Clemens, Pettitte, and had a lot to do with trading for Beltran.  He also resigned Biggio after the Kent deal earlier than Hunsicker had wanted to .  Hunsicker wanted to play out the season before giving him another contract.  And by giving too large a contract to Bagwell, which Hunsicker complained tied his hands.  He "meddled" by giving Lima the big contract, again Hunsicker said, "you give contracts for future performance, not past performance", and I'm thinking he also had something to do with PENCE!!!.  And Carlos Lee.  Possibly is also one of the reasons Jay Powell and Mitch Meluskey weren't Astros longer.

[Foghorn]

He was the lead negotiator in the Kent, Clemens, Pettitte, and had a lot to do with trading for Beltran.  He also resigned Biggio after the Kent deal earlier than Hunsicker had wanted to .  Hunsicker wanted to play out the season before giving him another contract.  And by giving too large a contract to Bagwell, which Hunsicker complained tied his hands.  He "meddled" by giving Lima the big contract, again Hunsicker said, "you give contracts for future performance, not past performance", and I'm thinking he also had something to do with PENCE!!!.  And Carlos Lee.  Possibly is also one of the reasons Jay Powell and Mitch Meluskey weren't Astros longer.

Ahhh, good ol' Bleach.  There are probably 50 reasons why Bleach is long gone, with 49 of them being "because he was an asshole".

Still, I wonder what goes through Bleach's mind these days.  Recall he went hunting or something over the All Star Break so when one of the catchers backed out and the manager tried to reach Bleach to invite him to the game, he wasn't there to catch the call.  He coulda been an All Star.  WOnder if that keeps him up at night.  Hope so, the fucker.

[ValpoCory]

Bohls is so anti-Houston.  He gave the Texans 2006 NFL draft an F-. I emailed back all the national ratings at the time and a year removed that gave the Texans high marks (usually As), and he started to backpedal a little, blahblahblahing.

[ValpoCory]

Ahhh, good ol' Bleach.  There are probably 50 reasons why Bleach is long gone, with 49 of them being "because he was an asshole".

Still, I wonder what goes through Bleach's mind these days.  Recall he went hunting or something over the All Star Break so when one of the catchers backed out and the manager tried to reach Bleach to invite him to the game, he wasn't there to catch the call.  He coulda been an All Star.  WOnder if that keeps him up at night.  Hope so, the fucker.

Hilarious trivia question: Which Astros teammate did Mitch Meluskey finish ahead of in the 2000 NL RoY voting?

[matadorph]

Twinkie.

[JackAstro]

Twinkie.

Damn. Beat me to it.

[WulawHorn]

Bohls is awful.

Justice is generally awful. I didn't have too much problem with his clemens blog, however, the main point being that Roger was bored with the whole H-town thing and needed a bigger stage to feed his massive ego.  It must be really noticiable (Clemens Ego) for Justice to get it.

[JaneDoe]

Hilarious trivia question: Which Astros teammate did Mitch Meluskey finish ahead of in the 2000 NL RoY voting?

The little puma

Edited: oops--got to the party a little late!

[JackAstro]

It must be really noticiable (Clemens Ego) for Justice to get it.

You can see it from space.

[Trey]

Twinkie.

Wasn't that a case where Berkman wasn't technically a rookie (he had exceeded eligibility reqs in 99), but he got a couple of votes anyway?

ETA: According the the rules, once you have 45 days on a ML roster, you aren't a rookie anymore.  The 1999 game log (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6279/gamelog?year=1999), shows him in the bigs from mid-July to the end of Sept, which is definitely more than 45 days.

[Noe]

Wasn't that a case where Berkman wasn't technically a rookie (he had exceeded eligibility reqs in 99), but he got a couple of votes anyway?

Correct.  Berkman was not a rookie in 2000.  He was in 1999.

[JaneDoe]

Correct.  Berkman was not a rookie in 2000.  He was in 1999.

And that is why it is an obscure trivia question. 

[Noe]

And that is why it is an obscure trivia question. 

I was confused by it.

[ValpoCory]

Wasn't that a case where Berkman wasn't technically a rookie (he had exceeded eligibility reqs in 99), but he got a couple of votes anyway?

ETA: According the the rules, once you have 45 days on a ML roster, you aren't a rookie anymore.  The 1999 game log (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6279/gamelog?year=1999), shows him in the bigs from mid-July to the end of Sept, which is definitely more than 45 days.

It does say "or",

"Additional eligibility requirements were set forth in 1971 with a rookie formally defined as a player with less than 130 at-bats, a pitcher with less than 50 innings pitched, or anyone with less than 45 days on any Major League roster."

So Berkman had less than 130 at-bats in 1999.

[Trey]

It does say "or",

"Additional eligibility requirements were set forth in 1971 with a rookie formally defined as a player with less than 130 at-bats, a pitcher with less than 50 innings pitched, or anyone with less than 45 days on any Major League roster."

So Berkman had less than 130 at-bats in 1999.

I'm pretty sure that means if you meet any one of those requirements, you're ineligible.  But I am neither a lawyer nor a master of the English language.

[JackAstro]

It does say "or",

"Additional eligibility requirements were set forth in 1971 with a rookie formally defined as a player with less than 130 at-bats, a pitcher with less than 50 innings pitched, or anyone with less than 45 days on any Major League roster."

So Berkman had less than 130 at-bats in 1999.

I'm pretty sure that means if you meet any one of those requirements, you're ineligible.  But I am neither a lawyer nor a master of the English language.

That would be "and", not "or". That is, if you have to meet all of the requirements, it would be less than 130 at-bats and less than 45 days on an MLB roster. As it's written, Lance was still technically a rookie in 2000, as he only had 93 ABs in 1999.

[Trey]

That would be "and", not "or". That is, if you have to meet all of the requirements, it would be less than 130 at-bats and less than 45 days on an MLB roster. As it's written, Lance was still technically a rookie in 2000, as he only had 93 ABs in 1999.

Great, now we're going to debate semantics.  If it said "and" then Berkman would still be a rookie b/c he hasn't pitched 50 innings yet.

He was on the roster more than 45 days in '99, so that was his rookie year.  I refuse to let facts or grammar get in the way of my beliefs.

[matadorph]

Semantics aside, it's fairly obvious Berkman didn't qualify or he would've won the award since his numbers blew away 2000 NL RoY Rafael Furcal.

[JackAstro]

Great, now we're going to debate semantics.  If it said "and" then Berkman would still be a rookie b/c he hasn't pitched 50 innings yet.

He was on the roster more than 45 days in '99, so that was his rookie year.  I refuse to let facts or grammar get in the way of my beliefs.

I applaud your tenacity in the face of grammar, honestly. You've got it backwards, though. If it said "and", he would have ceased being a rookie as soon as he crested any of the 3 limits. Being that it says "or", you could make the argument that he's still technically a rookie, because he hasn't pitched 50 innings - but for the fact that it also says "a pitcher", which he isn't. These are, of course, the same criteria that allow 30 year old Japanese professionals to be eligible as rookies, so I'm certainly not arguing that any of this make any sense - to you, me or the voters.

[Duke]

that article is effing awful ... most of his statements are gross oversimplifications or just outright false ...

my favorite point was that the astros are not able to “stay on an even course” because of McLane's over meddling.  I may have been in a hole but I haven’t noticed a rash of over meddling- and  I wonder how has our franchise has been in terms of winning compared to other franchises during McLane's tenure ... that might be a good indicator of how "on course" this franchise is.  This article is a perfect example of forming an opinion based on thin fucking air and re-writing the facts to support it.

After reading this drivel, I had to hear it regurgitated almost word for word by Erin Hogan on 1300.  Media folks in this town could fuck up a train wreck.

[JimR]

After reading this drivel, I had to hear it regurgitated almost word for word by Erin Hogan on 1300.  Media folks in this town could fuck up a train wreck.

send him an email too. he is too smart to say that shit.

[Trey]

I applaud your tenacity in the face of grammar, honestly. You've got it backwards, though. If it said "and", he would have ceased being a rookie as soon as he crested any of the 3 limits. Being that it says "or", you could make the argument that he's still technically a rookie, because he hasn't pitched 50 innings - but for the fact that it also says "a pitcher", which he isn't. These are, of course, the same criteria that allow 30 year old Japanese professionals to be eligible as rookies, so I'm certainly not arguing that any of this make any sense - to you, me or the voters.

well, this probably makes me wrong, but the great wikipedia agrees with me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MLB_Rookie_of_the_Year_Award

In order to qualify for the award a player must not exceed either of the following, prior to the season under consideration:

• 130 at bats or 50 innings pitched in the major leagues
  
• 45 days on the active rosters of major league clubs (excluding time on the disabled list or any time after rosters are expanded on September 1)

Of course, there is nothing on mlb.com about it that I can find, just baseball-reference and baseball-almanac, which contain the infamous "or" quote that I refuse to recognize.

[MRaup]

send him an email too. he is too smart to say that shit.

There must be something in the booth of 1300's broadcast room that makes everyone but Craig Way revert to a 10 year old's mindset...

[Noe]

It does say "or",

"Additional eligibility requirements were set forth in 1971 with a rookie formally defined as a player with less than 130 at-bats, a pitcher with less than 50 innings pitched, or anyone with less than 45 days on any Major League roster."

So Berkman had less than 130 at-bats in 1999.

The votes Berkman recieved in 2000 were a protest vote, not because he was eligible.  He had, as my recollection, 51 days in the majors in 1999 and thus met the requirements to be voted ROY that season.  Them's the breaks.  He had his breakout season in 2000, when he was not techinically a rookie any more... so some writers gave him a sympathy vote.

[Lefty]

I applaud your tenacity in the face of grammar, honestly. You've got it backwards, though. If it said "and", he would have ceased being a rookie as soon as he crested any of the 3 limits. Being that it says "or", you could make the argument that he's still technically a rookie, because he hasn't pitched 50 innings - but for the fact that it also says "a pitcher", which he isn't. These are, of course, the same criteria that allow 30 year old Japanese professionals to be eligible as rookies, so I'm certainly not arguing that any of this make any sense - to you, me or the voters.

My eyes glazed over when yall started the semantic argument, but I remember clearly that Berkman burned his rookie status in '99.  There was some snafu, or unusual circumstance, where he would have been sent down 10 or so days before, but he wasn't.  Or something.  Like I said, I remember it clearly.

[Noe]

well, this probably makes me wrong, but the great wikipedia agrees with me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MLB_Rookie_of_the_Year_Award

Of course, there is nothing on mlb.com about it that I can find, just baseball-reference and baseball-almanac, which contain the infamous "or" quote that I refuse to recognize.

The requirements were met by Berkman in 1999 because he definitely had more than 45 days in the majors.  He was no longer considered a rookie in 2000.  The reason Berkman had so many days in the majors in 1999 was because Carl Everett spent almost a month on the DL with hamstring problems.  Then when he came off the DL, he went right back on it for another two weeks or so because he reinjured himself the same night.  Berkman was at the airport ready to fly to New Orleans when he got the call to return to the clubhouse in Houston.  He wasn't going back until C4's hammy healed properly.

[Noe]

My eyes glazed over when yall started the semantic argument, but I remember clearly that Berkman burned his rookie status in '99.  There was some snafu, or unusual circumstance, where he would have been sent down 10 or so days before, but he wasn't.  Or something.  Like I said, I remember it clearly.

Carl Everett injured his hamstring the very night he came off the DL and Berkman was called back and thus his tenure in the majors increased.

[matadorph]

The votes Berkman recieved in 2000 were a protest vote, not because he was eligible.  He had, as my recollection, 51 days in the majors in 1999 and thus met the requirements to be voted ROY that season.  Them's the breaks.  He had his breakout season in 2000, when he was not techinically a rookie any more... so some writers gave him a sympathy vote.

And not much of a protest at that, considering he only garnered one sympathy vote.

[JackAstro]

And, to hopefully put a tidy bow on it, I want to make clear that I was only talking about the meaning of "or" versus "and" in a particular sentence, not whether or not the sentence was even correct. Which makes mine the most useless of all the opinions here, since it really has nothing to do with Lance, rookies, or the years 1999 and 2000. That's it, thanks.

[Lefty]

Carl Everett injured his hamstring the very night he came off the DL and Berkman was called back and thus his tenure in the majors increased.

Thanks, Noe.

[ValpoCory]

In order to qualify for the award a player must not exceed either of the following, prior to the season under consideration:

    * 130 at bats or 50 innings pitched in the major leagues
    * 45 days on the active rosters of major league clubs (excluding time on the disabled list or any time after rosters are expanded on September 1)

Ignoring days starting with September 1st, 1999, Berkman spent July 16th-August 31st in the bigs.  That's 47 calendar days, and you have to add to that any days he was on the roster before his 7/16 debut.

[Noe]

Ignoring days starting with September 1st, 1999, Berkman spent July 16th-August 31st in the bigs.  That's 47 calendar days, and you have to add to that any days he was on the roster before his 7/16 debut.

The total count I heard was 51 days.  What is the point?