tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13718554.post116163697362875776..comments2023-10-10T03:21:23.580-04:00Comments on Motown Sports Revival: Rogers Fiasco Overblown for RatingsJakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16208921021297172480noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13718554.post-1161721622516186132006-10-24T16:27:00.000-04:002006-10-24T16:27:00.000-04:00Todd, I agree. Once La Russa and the umpires dropp...Todd, I agree. Once La Russa and the umpires dropped the ball, the issue ceases to be a Kenny Rogers issue. Either lambast those guys and every other manager or ump that didn't undress a pitcher, or let it be. It seems to me like it's an accepted practice unless it's blatant. I can't imagine a more blatant situation than this but La Russa didn't act on it.<BR/><BR/>Anon #2, thanks for the link. I got a chance to read that yesterday. It sounds like that is where Anon #1 got his info since it speaks of the same substances he/she mentioned. I didn't think Anon #1 ever was an idiot. The unidentified "bullpen" coach that gave up all that inside information pretty much indicts every pitcher in baseball. I have no problems believing that pitchers use whatever they can get away with. The problem I have is saying that Rogers wasn't brilliant after the first inning because he went to alternate cheating methods. If every pitcher does it, then when is a pitcher ever brilliant?<BR/><BR/>I guarantee that ratings will be up for game #3. Buck and McCarver should probably count on a hefty Christmas bonus. I am almost certain that McCarver did not come up with that whole thing on his own. Read his wikipedia profile under "criticism" and you'll see why that's probably not a guy that's going to come up with something like that in the first inning. Remember, two other telecasts aired with Rogers having the same substance and nobody ever mentioned it on air. La Russa said he had seen the substance on Rogers' hand before which might be how Buck and McCarver were hip to the whole thing. It's important to remember that McCarver said that Cardinals players had reported that the ball was doing funny things. La Russa said that wasn't true. Why would McCarver make that claim up? To help his cause? I definitely think so.<BR/><BR/>Enjoy the Series!Jakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16208921021297172480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13718554.post-1161712577910837872006-10-24T13:56:00.000-04:002006-10-24T13:56:00.000-04:00The fact that the umpires became aware of the subs...The fact that the umpires became aware of the substance but didn't do more is the most disappointing aspect of the situation. Unfortunately there will always be cheaters, but the umpire should be aggressive when he realizes there is potentially a cheater in the midst.Todd Nikkelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05744271985621870891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13718554.post-1161711607749070612006-10-24T13:40:00.000-04:002006-10-24T13:40:00.000-04:00Maybe the first poster isn't an idiot.http://sport...Maybe the first poster isn't an idiot.<BR/><BR/>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/jon_heyman/10/23/scoop.rogers/index.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13718554.post-1161663703098618612006-10-24T00:21:00.000-04:002006-10-24T00:21:00.000-04:00I wish I knew as much as you did about the situati...I wish I knew as much as you did about the situation. In fact, I bet the umpires and Tony La Russa wish they knew as much as you did too. <BR/><BR/>The announcers are there to comment on the events of the game. They are not their to be the umpires. They created an event.<BR/><BR/>What are the odds that within the first inning of the game, two pro-St. Louis announcers just happened to see the smudge and already had all of their ducks in a row in terms of slow-mo replays AND on-field quotes from the few St. Louis players that had just faced Rogers. <BR/><BR/>McCarver stated that the Cardinals hitters had reported to La Russa after facing Rogers in the first inning that the ball seemed to move funny. That is a claim that La Russa refutes happening. So where did McCarver get that information from? If Rogers is going to be criticized for saying that the umpire never told him to remove the substance, shouldn't McCarver get criticized for making up something that didn't happen? <BR/><BR/>You think McCarver saw that himself? McCarver doesn't even know Rogers' first name. <BR/><BR/>So yes, I can imagine watching a game where the announcers don't involve themselves on the field.<BR/><BR/>As far as your contention that I need to get off my high horse (a horse in which I had no idea I was sitting on in the first place) because Rogers likely kept cheating anyways, that is just not a sound argument. Let's say you are correct and "LOTS of MLB pitchers" help themselves during games. Well, then isn't the playing field just level then? If everyone cheats, then nobody cheats, right? You can't have it both ways. If you're going to call out Rogers for doing something that "LOTS of MLB pitchers" do, without any evidence, then why not call out every pitcher? Even the Cardinals think Rogers pitched brilliant, cheat-free baseball after the first inning.<BR/><BR/>And, if what you say is true and Rogers did continue cheating, why ON EARTH would his backup cheating substance be the clear undetectable version and his first cheating substance be a giant brown mark recognizable from hundreds of feet away on a video camera? <BR/><BR/>If you think the smudge was an illegal substance meant to help Rogers, then that's fine. There is nothing wrong with that viewpoint. There is no proof of that, and there certainly isn't proof that he used ANOTHER substance to continue cheating. That claim makes me want to tell you to get off your high horse.<BR/><BR/>Differing viewpoints aside, I appreciate the comments. Enjoy the Series.Jakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16208921021297172480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13718554.post-1161644759322743632006-10-23T19:05:00.000-04:002006-10-23T19:05:00.000-04:00can you imagine watching that game and seeing the ...can you imagine watching that game and seeing the smudge on roger's hand and the announcers NOT saying anything? it is their job to announce the game and point out things the fan might not see or know.<BR/><BR/>secondly, people who think that rogers washed his hands and that was it don't know that pitchers use lots of substances to affect the ball and thei rgrip. suntan lotion, vasaline, shaving cream, etc. i think he switched substances after the inning. so, let's get off our high horse with the talk that after the substance was removed, rogers pitched a great game. he may have been helped, like LOTS of MLB pitchers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com