Modest article about the man, the myth, the legend, Albert Pujols. The early adulation of Pujols' character never did sing true to me, and that hunch has been born out over the previous couple of years. Indeed, to hear the man described now, the difference between Pujols and Barry Bonds personality's is one of degree and not type.

Not that I care all that much. Ted Williams was a jerk too, but if he's hitting home runs then hey, whatcha gonna do? I'm most intrigued by Poz's declaration that Pujols is "surprisingly eager to believe the worst about people". Can't help but wonder where that comes from. There must be a worthwhile anecdote behind that conclusion.

Recordings and transcripts of voicemails. This is gonna be a blast. I'm not certain I understand the purpose of this legal action.

Also, they attribute male pattern baldness to steroid use. I guess I also don't know that I'm taking steroids.

So why is it that Aaron Rowand cannot play a different position? I'm continually astounded by this. Look at me; I'm astounded. I have a stound, and it is an active verb.

Stop flappin' yer cheeks.

Or not really. This article is kind of depressing, but still excellent. Reminds me of this quote from The Wire, from the mouth of D'Angelo Barxdale on the subject of McNugget invention:

D'ANGELO: And the ***** that invented them things still working in the basement for a regular wage thinking of a way to make the fries taste better or some sh*t like that. Believe.

Resident analyst, extra-special friend and thoroughly-learned-though-somewhat-lacking-in-the-Latin-department owlcroft recently had the pleasure of chatting with Adam Rubin about Sandy Alderson. That Alderson is one clever bunny, and I think it's a real shame that the Mets swooped him up before the Giants could. Not that the Giants are ever going to replace Sabean after....

Ahem. Distracted. Enjoy the article. Noble restraint, owlcroft. If someone were to conduct an interview with *me* on, well, whatever it is I know about, rest assured that this fact would be thoroughly broadcasted.

And I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that a grammar comment slipped into the interview.

Most interesting thing I learned in this article: In 2010, Roy Halladay had more 3-pitch strikeouts than walks. Sheesh.

Kinda cool. Natto, isn't your family from Taiwan?

Ostler is a pretty good writer. He can be lazy, but that's part of his charm; reporters of his era were expected to write off the cuff. To draw a distant example, Ring Lardner was all about that, and he's probably the best sports writer of all time (perhaps tied with David Halberstam and Roger Kahn. And Bill James.). Those were the glory days of sports journalism, and oh were they full of bullshit.

But I digress. I link to this article because it addresses a concern of mine. Ostler believes that Panda is as Panda does: smack the ball, work hard, be great at baseball. And Panda is great at baseball. He's great at pretty much everything. I have no doubt that Panda would be awesome to have at a party. "Pablo's there? Shit, we're on our way!"

But I found myself sweating during Panda's rounds to score during last night's game. He looked fat and slow. Maybe just fat and tired. But definitely fat. I began to worry in earnest. I want to believe in him. To me, he is the second coming (Barry being the first). He has athleticism, personality, and talent. He could become a god. He should become a god. But there is that belly.

There are a few fat men in the Hall of Fame. Babe Ruth leads the way, to be sure. Things drop off after that. The Panda is no Babe Ruth. Is it possible for him to lose some weight? By all accounts, he works hard. Is it necessary for him to lose some weight? Well, it hasn't hurt him yet. But I have my fears. I'm sure you do too.

An... unusual list, and one that I disagree with (and one that is in fact completely wrong), but the writer is allowed his point of view. There was thought put into its construction, so I'm not going to complain too loudly, though that would be an understandable response. You lot can draw your own conclusions.

Tops in my mind are Bonds swatting #500 and #700. #500 because I was just starting to get into baseball, and because it marked the beginning of what would go on to become a magical regular season (a few other factors also at play). And the call, the call: "HIGH INTO THE SAN FRANCISCO NIGHT! IT'S INTO THE WATER!" Who can forget that? #700 was less dramatic, but I happened to be there, so woohoo.

A few others have stuck: Bonds drilling a long liner off of Schilling; Bonds hitting a key grand slam off Schilling; Bonds v Percival; Snow and the Mets; Gallaraga trying his best to hit the big mitt.

Too bad MLB is such a pig with its highlights, or I'd be reliving this stuff on YouTube right now.

Not exactly news, but it's Giants related, so I thought I'd throw it up there. I'd like to believe that Bonds has a happy home life, but that belief might stretch credulity. Still, best on him, one way or the other. Divorce is awful... And to have been through it twice, sheesh.

So claims the New York Post. Just think, he could be had for a pittance! Let the pointless rosterbation over an impossible deal begin anew!

I don't expect that everyone will be familiar with Simmons' rather arbitrary 'Levels of Losing'. I admit to feeling bizarrely pleased that the Giants made the list at all, having become accustomed to east coasters general lack of awareness when it comes to northern California, well, everything. I guess people care about the Warriors every once in a while. They get angry about Barry Bonds sometimes.

I'll give him the Indians and Cubs as being a more miserable group, and Cleveland only because the last WS victory in Giants franchise history came at their expense, in the wake of one of the great regular seasons, supplemented by anguish of being on the heartbreak side of Willie Mays' spectacular catch. Every time I watch that play, I get chills; every time an Indians fan sees it, they throw up in their mouths a little. That must suck. Don't need to justify the Cubs; Steve Goodman has taken care of that for the rest of eternity.

I don't follow football closely enough to argue with the other teams he ranks 'ahead' of the Giants.

He rates the Giants lowest moment as being Game 6, but Game 7 in 1962 has to rank pretty high up there. Still, that was early in their San Francisco tenure, and there must have been some optimism what with that era's farm system pumping out all stars on a yearly basis. 2002 just hurt.

I'd be shocked if anyone is still reading this, but the Giants have an unusual claim when it comes to misery. Has there been another team that at separate points fielded arguably the two best players in its respective sport's history, for the majority of their careers, yet never got a title out of it? I can't think of one.

I don't believe it, but that spreadsheet, derived from this method, would appear to have come to this conclusion. This data came to my attention by way of this article, authored by BTF's Chris Dial, a guy I generally consider to be reliable. He's wrong about some stuff, and tends to be pretty argumentative, but is never the less a hard worker and a solid thinker. That said, could I have been that wildly wrong about Rent's play at SS? He looked painful out there.

I didn't look at that spreadsheet unprompted. A poster at BTF noticed, and I went in to investigate. Dial's system also has Pablo as the NL's 6th best player in 2009, so it can't be all bad. Hopefully one of you number people can sieve through Dial's crunching and come to a conclusion of some sort.

Have at it.

Tyreke doesn't look quite so good here as he does on the court. There are conflicting opinions on his play. I like him, but am undecided on his upside. What do y'all think about his stats?