tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post4953084682698098460..comments2023-11-03T09:40:51.697-04:00Comments on The Outsiders Look at the Insides of Baseball: Barry Bonds is Unethical?Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-65012180212239861222009-01-06T16:09:00.000-05:002009-01-06T16:09:00.000-05:00While the average fan probably has no clue who Don...While the average fan probably has no clue who Donnelly is, he was still hired despite a known user. In fact, Donnelly, not Bonds, is the face of steroids. Donnelly is the prototypical ballplayer who would be working at a grocery store if not for PEDs. Donnelly, not Bonds, showed other players, 'if I do this, I can make some money'.<BR/><BR/>RE: Dukes<BR/><BR/>Really? According to what? And he's being traded around like a baseball card? You mean the fact that he has been on two teams throughout his big league career?<BR/><BR/>I'm not suggesting that baseball employs the same number of criminals, but when was the last time I criminal got booted out of baseball for a year? The number lies between never and it hasn't happened.<BR/><BR/>RE: Buchholz<BR/><BR/>I don't think anyone would tab him as a player that is a 'bad guy'. I don't know enough about him, nor do I really care in a players personal conduct. That being said, his reputation as a highschooler probably had less to do with him being drafted with the 21st pick in the draft then did a $1M signing bonus demand. I'd have to check back, but unless he was one of the top 4 or 5 prospects entering the draft, he wasn't really deserving of it for that time and was asking for above slot money. It is no surprise that many small market teams would pass on him.<BR/><BR/>RE: Cognitive Dissonance<BR/><BR/>Can you explain why the Giants were one of the best drawing teams in baseball while having Bonds post Game of Shadows? If you are correct with CD, then the attendance figures when Bonds was playing, say the Rockies, would be the same as when the Nationals were playing the Rockies.<BR/><BR/>But the facts show you are incorrect. You have a nice theory, and CD may be relevant at times (ie the steroid issue altogether), but there is nothing to support your theory that Bonds would be bad for a teams PR. NOTHING!Brandon Heikoophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-65259693250147121422008-12-26T21:26:00.000-05:002008-12-26T21:26:00.000-05:00How is any of that relevant to the discussion at h...How is any of that relevant to the discussion at hand? I have no idea, frankly, if every one of the players who resurfaced after the Mitchell report apologized or admitted their use. Neither do you: some may have done so privately, to the teams involved. The degree of steroid use described in the report is very variable, with lots of qualifiers. Baseball had union issues: it couldn't just dump players under contract. I'll concede that the section you quote, not from the article, was an over-statement, and careless on my part. But it doesn't change Bonds' situation one bit. Signing Brendan Donnelly to try to hang on for another season in no way glamorizes,justifies, or embraces steroid use. Hiring Bonds does. Why is that so hard for you?<BR/><BR/>Comparing Elijah Dukes---whose baseball career is one arrest away from ending and who is being traded around like a baseball card, to Pacman Jones is absurd. Are you really, really contending that baseball has employed anything like the number of crimminals, thugs and crooks that the NFL does routinely? So the details of my Clay Buchholtz example were off...so what? If he's what baseball regards as a "bad guy," it's pretty impressive. That offense would probably not stop him from getting a law license.<BR/><BR/>Barry Bonds is U-N-I-Q-U-E in the steroid era, get it? Here's what I did NOT say: I did not say that if Bonds was still in his prime, with all the same PED baggage, some team wouldn't hire him, as bad as it would be for baseball. Sad to say, I'm pretty sure some team would...I'm also sure some teams would be revolted at the thought, just as some teams won't offer Manny Ramirez a contract now. And I'm pretty sure that a 44-tear-old Bonds without the steroid issues would have been hired by someone last season, though many teams would have still found him to be a bad gamble. If there had been no Mitchell Report and all else was the same, would some team have hired Bonds last season? Again, probably, I'm sorry to say.<BR/><BR/>But that's not what I was writing about! The cultural, ethical issues were the tipping point in Bonds' ACTUAL situation, symbolized by the Mitchell Report. I predicted it when the report came out, I heard ESPN and XM types all season swear that some team would hire Bonds, I told them they were wrong and why---and---surprise!---nobody hired Bonds! The best you can come up as the explanation is a conspiracy theory. Cognitive Dissonance, which I described fairly and clearly, accurately described what happened and provides a tool for analysis. You and others read a discussion of baseball culture and took it to mean "a good club house." <BR/><BR/>Wow.<BR/><BR/>If you are typical, I wildly over-estimated the sophistication of the audience. For that, I am sorry.Jack Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12129607755816264057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-25040076459165983392008-12-26T20:32:00.000-05:002008-12-26T20:32:00.000-05:00"...because the Report, unfair and incomplete as i..."...because the Report, unfair and incomplete as it was, had made an official statement that PED use was taboo, and users who wouldn't admit their sins, apologize, pronounce themselves repentent cheaters and accept full responsibility were outcasts."<BR/><BR/>Jack, would you feel interested in entertaining me with a list of ballplayers from the Report that were eliminated from baseball who did not apologize for their 'wrong doings'?<BR/><BR/>My guess is that you were either too lazy, or discovered that there was not a relationship between 'apologizing' (or otherwise) for doing 'roids and being shunned from the game. Otherwise, why not use that in your article?<BR/><BR/>I mean, think about it, you used the Pacman argument (shot down - see Elijah Dukes) as well as the Buccholz argument (shot down - see he was <I>still</I> drafted), but why didn't you use other names of players who refused to admit doing roids and were eventually removed from the game? Seems a little fishy to me, if it is not as obvious as you claim.<BR/><BR/>That is, one could claim that the best hitters in baseball are those who hit the most home runs. However, when listing off the players they ignore Ryan Howard and Adam Dunn, you know, because they don't fit the argument. Or the opposite claim, 'because of Howard and Dunn, the best hitters are slap hitters'. You would again run into all the Juan Pierre's and Luis Castillo's of baseball. <BR/><BR/>By refraining to mention those 'outliers', your point is made, although wrongfully.<BR/><BR/>The same can be said about your argument about the ethics of baseball front offices. I bet if you polled general managers league wide, 'what is more important, a good club house, or winning?' there would be very few that choose the earlier over the later.<BR/><BR/>Or do you not agree?Brandon Heikoophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-86330380776527990112008-12-26T20:24:00.000-05:002008-12-26T20:24:00.000-05:00Myk,Thanks. Spot on!Marshall is a baseball 'fan' n...Myk,<BR/><BR/>Thanks. Spot on!<BR/><BR/>Marshall is a baseball 'fan' not an analyst.<BR/><BR/>The reason why this article struck a chord with me was because it was found on a site dedicated to the analysis of baseball. As an individual commented over at BBTF, the only good part of this article was that it is bound to spark a response from John Brattain, one of baseball's most intelligent writers.<BR/><BR/>Had this article showed up at FOXSports or ESPN or some other 'fan boy' website, I wouldn't have cared-in fact, I hardly would have noticed as those site are predominantly filled with this sort of biased garbage.<BR/><BR/>However, apparently (and I apologize to ethicist's the world over) in ethics you don't ask questions. Apparently in ethics everything is black and white and obvious. What is wrong in this immediate moment is wrong today, yesterday, and forever. No questions asked, no analysis needed.Brandon Heikoophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-7566256731509552962008-12-26T20:16:00.000-05:002008-12-26T20:16:00.000-05:00"I predicted in point and elsewhere that nobody wo..."I predicted in point and elsewhere that nobody would sign him..."<BR/><BR/>There are hundreds of people that predicted that. In fact, the majority of people predicted said outcome. Congratulations! Here's your cookie!<BR/><BR/>Take a poll of the smartest minds in baseball and each one of them will be left scratching their heads how NO TEAM offered Bonds a contract based on what he did in 2006 and 2007. Had baseball not decided to make Barry a scapegoat, he certainly would have played for a number of teams in 2008.<BR/><BR/>But you predicted it. However, I ascertain that your baseball predictions are as off as your idea that Bonds would not have helped a team in 2008. Making a comment like that makes you look as though you are judging the issue with a bias. Not good!Brandon Heikoophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-35954553441872962272008-12-26T18:34:00.000-05:002008-12-26T18:34:00.000-05:00This is funny..." I don't believe for a second tha...This is funny...<BR/><BR/>" I don't believe for a second that your insinuations that I was a fake ethicist were a joke...you began belittling my analysis by making the argument personal---dirty pool."<BR/><BR/>- Ya Brandon...its almost as if you started your column by saying something like this:<BR/><BR/><I>I had been gleefully anticipating the 2008 baseball season for one additional reason than the usual ones: no more Barry Bonds. For an ethicist, the astounding volume of invalid rationalizations put forth to excuse, tolerate, or lionize Bonds during his last few years was a constant irritant, too often requiring website essays and calls to blathering idiots (“Hello, Rob Dibble!”) to try to keep the ethical rot from becoming too entrenched. With Barry finally gone, I foolishly assumed that I would be annoyed no more.</I><BR/><BR/>Or:<BR/><BR/><I>Teams regularly do not bring back players who did well enough the previous season, because of advancing age and the assumption of decline.</I><BR/><BR/>- Ummm, as pointed out Bonds was the 6th best player (if qualified) in the league at 43. This is a wee bit better than "good enough"<BR/><BR/>Or:<BR/><BR/>"The bottom line is that once the Mitchell Report came out, I predicted in point and elsewhere that nobody would sign him, regradless of cost or need, in 2008, because the Report, unfair and incomplete as it was, had made an official statement that PED use was taboo, and users who wouldn't admit their sins, apologize, pronounce themselves repentent cheaters and accept full responsibility were outcasts, because baseball needed to re-assert its integrity. And that's what happened. The only alternative explanations those who resist attributing baseball decisions to ethical and cultural factors can muster is 1) the teams were stupid or 2) it was a conspiracy."<BR/><BR/>- I'm still not understanding from an ethics stand point why Barry Bonds is the only player that was to be black balled by industry trying to prove their integrity. You tried to use Roger Clemens, but its pointless cause he never tried or made an attempt to come back. <BR/><BR/>However, you do admit that EVERY other steroid abuser has been welcomed back to the MLB after a suspension. The only ones who didn't come back were ones that weren't good enough to play in the MLB anymore. <BR/><BR/>How do you prove your ethical integrity by only holding these standards towards one player? Wouldn't that be like only putting OJ in prison for life...but letting every other murder go??<BR/><BR/>Basically, I think everyone who found your article laughable would agree that if you didn't come out looking like such a Barry Bonds hater you'd have at least looked somewhat credible...unfortnately you didn't.Mike Lyonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04122703137437676297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-12897786218745652872008-12-26T14:12:00.000-05:002008-12-26T14:12:00.000-05:00Well, I could have written that response down in a...Well, I could have written that response down in advance, Carnak-style, and would have had it almost exactly right. You see, these are standard arguments of the ethically, and, in some cases, baseball-clueless. I don't believe for a second that your insinuations that I was a fake ethicist were a joke...you began belittling my analysis by making the argument personal---dirty pool. Indeed, unethical. The argument that Bonds was historically good at 42 and 43 and this is certain (if it isn't certain, then you can't argue with "dubious" as you did) to continue at 44 assumes away the aging process. Teams regularly do not bring back players who did well enough the previous season, because of advancing age and the assumption of decline.<BR/><BR/>Your record at hitting every ethics analysis fallacy in the book is superb, however: "who am I to judge?" is a classic, and essentially assumes away all ethical standards. Anyone and everyone should be able and willing to recognize cheating and judge it wrong. Those who can't and don't let the Barry Bondses of the world run amuck.<BR/><BR/>The bottom line is that once the Mitchell Report came out, I predicted in point and elsewhere that nobody would sign him, regradless of cost or need, in 2008, because the Report, unfair and incomplete as it was, had made an official statement that PED use was taboo, and users who wouldn't admit their sins, apologize, pronounce themselves repentent cheaters and accept full responsibility were outcasts, because baseball needed to re-assert its integrity. And that's what happened. The only alternative explanations those who resist attributing baseball decisions to ethical and cultural factors can muster is 1) the teams were stupid or 2) it was a conspiracy.<BR/><BR/>Neither are logical, reasonable or compelling.Jack Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12129607755816264057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-91509631020377440622008-12-25T21:42:00.000-05:002008-12-25T21:42:00.000-05:00Jack, Really?First of all my jab at your professio...Jack, Really?<BR/><BR/>First of all my jab at your profession was clearly a joke, ie the reference to 'pro' snowboarders. It's like an oxy-moron. Settle down.<BR/><BR/>Second, 'logicist' was again, another jab and a joke. Although I find it funny that an esthetician is one who simply makes things 'look' better.<BR/><BR/>Third, how many 42 year olds on bad knees came back to improve on their age 42 season for their age 43 season? Can you count them on one hand? So to assume that Bonds would have sucked in 2008 (as you did) is to assume that what happened in 2007 and 2006 were flukes. It would assume that he suddenly would lose his amazing pitch recognition skills. It is to assume that the wear and tear of standing on a bad knee for an hour or so a night would have no affect on him.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, in regards to Bonds' guilty or not guilty I really don't care. I simply like to see due process take it's course. It is sad that one who teaches ethics (the study of right and wrong) has decided he is above the law of the land and can proclaim who is innocent and guilty based on the word of others.<BR/><BR/>Let's just throw the whole 'who am I to judge' out the window, right?<BR/><BR/>By the way, many qualified individuals do not know what they are talking about when they stray from their profession to another. Your 'opinions' on Bonds are more based on what you have heard then what you KNOW.Brandon Heikoophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-38768809112737067162008-12-25T16:22:00.000-05:002008-12-25T16:22:00.000-05:00Silly argument #2: the old, "innocent until proven...Silly argument #2: the old, "innocent until proven guilty" misconception. As a lawyer and an ethicist, I know the difference between legal standards, ethics and common sense...you've got them mixed up. O.J. Simpson not only wasn't proven guily in a court--he was declared NOT guilty. Does that mean Hertz is conspiring against him by not hiring him for aother set of commercials? That I would be unreasonable to caution my daughter not to date him? NO! Why? Because we, quite reasonably, know he's a killer---just like we know Barry's a cheat, a liar and a felon. Bonds has to be proven guilty in a court to send him to jail. But it is completely reasonable and fair for employers, acquaintances and the public to make conclusions and act on those conclusions based on common sense anlayis of the facts as we know them...just as it is with O.J. And the facts as we know them make it extremely unlikely that Bonds isn't a steroid abuser.<BR/><BR/> You are welcome to conclude otherwise, though it makes you look naive and dim. But the fact that he hasn't been "found guilty" in court simply states the burden of proof IN COURT, before teh state can put him behind bars. Out of court, the burden is with Bonds' defender who ia arguing against the obvious implications of the facts...Greg Anderson, Anderson's contempt of court, Balco, the physicial transformation, the amazing late career improvement, "Game of Shadows," the leaked grand jury testimony, and so on. And mouthing an inapplicable legal standard doesn't do the job.Jack Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12129607755816264057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-30670604857889163622008-12-25T15:15:00.000-05:002008-12-25T15:15:00.000-05:00And here's the first rebuttal, and an easy one it...And here's the first rebuttal, and an easy one it is: How many 44-year old players can even play the next season, much less play as well as the year before? OK, how about 44 year old players who have bad knees and who haven't seen live pitching in 9 months or more? You really think that it isn't highly speculative to assume Bonds could do what virtually no other player has ever done: play at a high level, in a new league, in a new role, at 44, having missed half a season? That's hilarious. It would have been remarkable, to say the least. One cannot assume the remarkable. Even a non-"logicist" should be able to figure that out.Jack Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12129607755816264057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-41918627532270012062008-12-25T15:06:00.000-05:002008-12-25T15:06:00.000-05:00Wow...it's always fun to watch someone shout his i...Wow...it's always fun to watch someone shout his ignorance to the heavens. <BR/><BR/>OK---here's what makes me an ethicist 1)It's my fulltime profession, and has been for 9 years...and my family is not starving to death 2) 26 bar associations, 18 other professional associations, 12 Fortune 500 companies, several national and local non-profits and charities, 9 major national law firms, the U.S. government, USAID and the Government of Mongolia pay me to run ethics trainings for their employees, develop materials, and consult on how to build an ethical culture. How did I end up in this profession? Oh, a major in leadership and character studies at Harvard, a JD at Georgetown law with a concentration in criminal law, work as a local prosecutor, then an executive of numerous organizations where I developed ethics standards. Then I developed an experise in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the Law profession's rules of professional conduct, a reputation for actually fostering better ethical conduct, an an audience for my ethics commentary on my website, "The Ethics Scoreboard." This led to regular appearances on ethics topics for National Public Radio, and local and national news channels. And I co-authored a book covering ethical issues with Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Ed Larson. Oh---did I fail to mention that I'm an adjunct professor of ethics at American University? See, normally I don't trot out my credentials. Credential don't make one right. But anyone who knew squat about ethics would have been able to tell that I was applying basic ethical principles. Not you!<BR/><BR/>Oh...and it's "logician," not "logicist."<BR/><BR/>Now that that's cleared up, I'll come back later and discuss the rest of the weak and invalid arguments in your post. There are even some good ones buried in there too.Jack Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12129607755816264057noreply@blogger.com