didjman: Okay, this isn't an original idea (I think I heard it on the Jim Rome show, of all places), but why would anyone pitch to Barry Bonds? If he can hit home runs, but he can't run, why not just walk him every time, then let him clog up the base paths--he'll turn doubles into singles.

Bill James showed why this wouldn't work. He created a lineup featuring Babe Ruth's best season, which he even tweaked to make a little better, along with the stats from eight players having terrible offensive years. For example, Willie Wilson, 1988, leading off, with an on-base percentage of .289 and a slugging percentage of .333.

He played 1,000 simulated seasons, twice, the first time walking Ruth every single time, the second walking him only in typical IBB situations. The result? The walk-every-time lineup scored 100 more runs per season on average. That's good for about 10 wins. Here's James, from the "New Bill James Historical Abstract," as quoted on onlybaseballmatters.com:

"Why is this true? Let's assume Ruth came to the plate 726 times per season, which he did in this simulation (when he was being walked). If you pitch to Ruth 726 times, he'll get 210 hits good for 532 Total Bases, a huge number, and Ruth will account for those bases while making only about 330 outs -- a phenomenal bases/outs ratio. But if you just walk him every time, what do you have then? 726 bases, and zero outs. That's far worse."

See: http://tinyurl.com/zk257

sirmarcos: Losing Clemens is certainly a problem, but you forget how many of his games the Astros lost last year, since they couldn't seem to score for him. I think the Astros lost 1-0 in like 10 of his starts.

No, I didn't forget. That doesn't matter. That was just luck. Every team averages around 4 to 5.5 runs a game by scoring 4 or 5 runs a lot of the time, but also by scoring 0 runs sometimes, 11 runs other times, and so on. It was just random that a bunch of those 0s landed on Clemens last year.

That meant that more of the 11s and 8s and big numbers like that landed on other guys, making the Astros' record better than expected in games Clemens didn't pitch. There's no reason to believe that will repeat. It's a pretty crazy argument to say that losing one of the best, if not the best pitcher in the league last year, won't hurt a team.

So, the fact you're picking against the Astros again with a history of getting it wrong I think gives me hope they'll in fact be back it the playoffs. Again.

OK, now you're making sense.

What's up with two letter writers using that phrase within two hours?

Also, for what it's worth, the two reporters who wrote the book weren't baseball writers. Bonds not schmoozing baseball writers in bars for all those years was no skin off their noses.

I agree with pretty much everything Cory B. says, and also I agree race is absolutely part of the Bonds story, the hatred toward him by fans, etc. I have written on many occasions that race is part of EVERYTHING in this country. It's not the whole thing, but it's a big part of it, and pointing out that the people holding the anti-Bonds signs are always white is a good point. (Of course, almost everyone in most baseball crowds is white.)

Official G: I didn't see Bonds act reproachful and indignant with the reporters.

Then you weren't watching. It was there.

Off Topic: Is that Roger Clemens on the front cover of "Book of Shadows"? And why did they pick that photo? Seems a little awkward.

It's Jason Giambi.

Alex R: Quoted/Paraphrased from USA today:

---------

• Before 2002, Major League Baseball had no official policy on steroid use among players.

It's quoted and paraphrased a lot, and every single time, it's wrong.

In 1991, commissioner Fay Vincent issued a memo to the clubs that said, in part, "The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited. Major League players or personnel involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game."

And, a few sentences later, "This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription."

And again a little later, "Baseball will not hesitate to permanently remove from the game those players and personnel who, despite our efforts to treat and rehabilitate, refuse to accept responsibility for the problem and continue to use illegal drugs."

See: http://tinyurl.com/qurz7

Baseball didn't have testing in place until this decade, when it was included in the collective bargaining agreement. It has a long record of not pursuing violators of this rule. But the statement that steroids weren't illegal in baseball in the '90s, no matter how many times it's repeated, is false.

No Name Given: "He's the greatest hitter I've ever seen, but I think it's been shown clearly that he cheated to become such a great hitter." The real problem to me with the Barry Bonds story is that the above does not actually seem to be true.

It is true. He was a great hitter before his apparent steroid use, but I don't think he was the greatest I'd ever seen. In the conversation, but I don't think I would have named him the greatest hitter I'd ever seen in 1999. It was only in this century that he became the greatest hitter I've ever seen.