Whoa! Did any of you read Murray Chass's *previous* article to the one referenced? He read baseball-reference.com about Jeff Bagwell and changed his vote based on what he read! He was, of course, more interested in, sigh, runs and RBIs, but he indicated a clear interest in WAR and some of the other advanced statistics. He actually emailed questions about WAR and took the time to copy a whole pile of the statistics into the article. I sense a grudging respect forming.
There are, of course, the usual snarky comments about the stats and those who analyze them more deeply and the references to "scouts vs. statheads" type logic, but there are signs of walls coming down. He pointed out that "scouts confirm what their eyes see with stats", implying that people who uses stats don't listen to experts who use their eyes, which is, of course, untrue.
It kind of reminds me of members of political parties saying how they're willing to be bipartisan but those idiots on the other side aren't.
Um…one of my best friends has back acne. Let's just say that if he's using steroids, he's doing something wrong. He doesn't have an ounce of muscle on his body.
To claim that someone is using steroids because he happens to have problem with skin breakouts on his back is completely reckless and unethical. There are a lot of reasons that he could have that problem, most of which don't involve recreational steroid use.
Maybe Piazza did do steroids, but that doesn't make Chass right. It only means that he used circumstantial evidence and intuition (i.e. bullshit) to formulate a hypothesis to based on paranoia and innuendo.
Enter text right here!italian american bashing once again falsly acusing piazza . whats next hes part of organized crime. thats what happens when you have writers who have no talent or strength to play this game nor any other competive sport. write your articles about your fellow best friends who play chess.