"Illogic" - I Really Tried...

I know, I know, I'm not going to make it in the business if I keep making enemies, burning bridges is not a good idea. I know my "elitist attitude is not going to get" me far. But when there are errors in baseball writing, I feel the need to point it out - I sure wish someone would do the same for me.

I found myself on SI.com reading one of the cover stories about Manny Ramirez, a perfect time given Ramirez's recent trade to the White Sox and the weekend set of the Whites versus the Reds (socks that is). I typically don't find myself reading SI.com too frequently as I find they mix real life emotions with that of sport. Yes, it is fine to get emotional over sports and to feel some semblance of joy or sorrow based on them, but at the end of the day, they are simply sports and are there for entertainment and nothing more.

In any event, the article mentioned the headaches that Manny will provide to the Chi Sox, as he had to the Red Sox, Indians, and Dodgers. The author mentions a couple highly publicized events which made Manny into some sort of anti-hero.

The purpose of this article isn't to praise Manny Ramirez, I really don't care about him as a person, he's one of the greatest hitters regardless of performance enhancers (which, this just in, ONLY helped hitters, meaning that the stats from the past 20 years have only inflated the numbers of the hitters - great science Mr. Shaughnessy) and that's all that matters to me. The purpose of this article is to question why another author is making assumed claims about a hitter based on illogic (spell check confirms, I just made up a word and am now titling this series "Illogic").

So here goes...

The author writes,

It's harder for Manny to hit now that it's harder to juice.

Testing is not his friend. Some of the power and skill is gone.

Oh! That's the correlation?!? It's harder to hit now that Manny can't use steroids, and that's it? No other reasons it's harder for Manny to hit? Nothing? Okay, I'll give you a second to think about that....

Anything?

No, not yet?

How about now?

Here, I'll give you a couple hints...

#1 "Ballpark Factors" are a "factor" in the performance of a hitter and pitcher. Fenway, for example is consistently improving the numbers of a hitter, especially a right handed power hitter who needs to hit the ball 310 feet instead of over 370. Conversely, Dodger stadium tends to sap this power.

It's not a difficult concept. The numbers are fairly straight forward. Some ballparks help a hitter (Fenway) others hinder a hitter (Dodger Stadium).

Admittedly, Manny's Fenway vs. road OPS doesn't really display this. In fact, Manny managed to hit better (according to OPS) at Dodger stadium then at Fenway. OPS isn't the greatest statistic, but it shouldn't be dismissed.

In any event, ballpark factors ought to be considered, and the fact remains that Dodger stadium i less of a hitter friendly ballpark then Fenway Park. Regardless of "juice".

#2 Manny Ramirez is no longer in his late 20's/early 30's (aka the Prime of a hitters career). It is a well known fact that ball players typically get worse as they leave the prime of their career. I wouldn't expect a baseball writer to know this fact, as it doesn't draw reader interest the same way a headline including "Manny" and "badly" does.

In any event, Manny is simply an older hitter. With or without steroids, Manny would have seen a dip in production, the same way David Eckstein saw it - of course, we could chalk Eckstein's career ISO, which scored below "steroid era" league average up to steroids, after all, who knows what he would have been like without them? Positive test be damned, right Cox?

The point is, Manny's ISO peaked during his age 27 and 28 seasons at an amazing .330 and .348. During five of the next six seasons, Manny hovered around .300 having a low of a still impressive .262 in 2003 (presumably a statistical anomaly). Manny's age 35 season was easily the worst of his career and possibly signaled the end of what was an amazing career (keep in mind, that he still had an excellent season that year).

Then, the trade to LA occurred and Manny's career was, can I go as far as to say resurrected? He did, post a .270 ISO that season, which again, continued the negative trend that one would assume from an individual who is in his late 30s. This was then followed with a .241 season, and then the .188 he is posting this year.

We do see a trend forming here though. If you start at 2004 and run the numbers up to 2010 you see it clear as day - 305, 301, 298, 197, 270, 241, 188. That is Manny's age 32 season running through his age 38 season. It's tough to suggest that this isn't simply the normal aging pattern of a player (possibly to the extreme because Manny's peak was so incredibly high).

#3 Manny's "skills" have hardly diminished.

While Manny's power numbers have tailed off, his wOBA (weighted on base average) has seen only a marginal drop in production and remained well above that of the league average hitter. In fact, he is in the top 20 in all of baseball (among hitters with 200+ plate appearances) despite being clean - baffling, isn't it?

Another little factoid, he is one of only two hitters older then 35 in the top 20. I wonder how much of his career is to be blamed on steroids in the first place. That is, a hitter who is in the twilight of his career and is clean is still among the top 20 hitters in baseball, where does this put him for the prime of his career?


Instead of chalking Manny's decreasing power up to steroids, would it be so difficult to look a little further? Instead of assuming that steroids created Manny into the hitter he is/was, do some research, ask some questions. The fact is, there is very little to link PEDs to Performance Enhancement other then the name.

I really wish that writers who get paid would take some time and do a bit of research. Stop aiming for tabloid-style points and write concrete material that brings something to the discussion. Yes Manny will provide some headaches for this team's management, but he's also going to win the team some games.


The better headline would have been, "Kenny Williams admits letting Jim Thome go a HUGE mistake".

No, You Don't

I won't link you to the article which is the basis for this article, but I will give you a brief summary:

A hockey writer and self proclaimed pot stirrer, decided to take his turn writing about baseball - after all, hockey season is just around the corner and he wouldn't want his readers to forget he exists. Short story even shorter, the writer asks if Jose Bautista is juiced.

Well, that's unfair. He never directly asked the question, simply alluded to the possibility of bringing up said question.

There is so much to cover here I'm having a difficult time figuring out where to start.

First, into the allegation. I'm not going to deny nor confirm that Bautista is juiced. All we can go on is that he hasn't failed a test, so as far as the public knows, Bautista is clean. Is there a chance he is doing something that isn't being detected? Sure. But asking a question to an answer we already have isn't really journalism, is it? That is, over a decade ago the question was asked if players were using something to aid their performance. The question was answered and as such baseball was slagged with this imaginary line of a time when players began using "something to aid their performance".

Which leads to the second point. Cox writes,

For the following unpopular question, blame Major League baseball and all the nonsense it has spewed over the past decade.

Don't blame me.

No, I'm going to blame you. I'm going to blame you for a lack of journalistic integrity. I'm going to blame you for being a lazy journalist. I'm going to blame you for simply being you, a "pot stirrer".

I wouldn't expect Cox to know of a statistic such as isolated power (ISO), which gives a legitimate understanding of a player's power. Similarly, I wouldn't expect Cox to know about Park Factors. However, if one is going to "ask a question", shouldn't they at least know what they are talking about.

Let's do the hard work for Cox.

Yes, Bautista's ISO increased. In fact, it has doubled. Okay, case closed. Evidence in the bag. No no, Cox, wait a minute, maybe there is more.

Park Factors. These are...Well let's have ESPN explain them.

Park Factor compares the rate of stats at home vs. the rate of stats on the road. A rate higher than 1.000 favors the hitter. Below 1.000 favors the pitcher. Teams with home games in multiple stadiums list aggregate Park Factors.

In other words, a park factor can tell us if a park helps or hurts a hitter. Pretty simple. I'm sure even a hockey writer could figure this out.

In 2010 the SkyDome is playing to a park factor of 1.369 for home runs. In other words, the SkyDome is increasing home runs by 37% over the average ballpark.

PNC Park has a park factor of 0.757 for home runs, or it decreases home runs by 24% over the average ballpark.

That's a fairly large difference. One that hasn't existed since the opening of PNC, but on average, SkyDome has favored hitters and PNC has deflated them.

Possibly we have the beginning of an explanation, something to look further into before proclaiming Bautista a 'roid user.

Admittedly, I don't feel like going all the way into it, but briefly we can see that Bautista's career at SkyDome has produced a .312 ISO (close to his current season rate) with his PNC ISO sitting at .153 (close to his previous career average).

This doesn't merely open and close the case that Bautista's improvements have been a result of playing half of his games at the SkyDome. In fact, Bautista has provided a higher then career average ISO on the road this year.


So yes, Cox, you are right to ask a question. You are wrong, however to ask your current question. What would should be doing, as a journalist with some sort of integrity is asking, "what is up with Bautista" and then digging deep. Don't take the easy way out and slap him with the steroid tag. Do some research. Make a real story. Give some information that people can use and learn from.

What Cox did isn't baseball writing. It isn't journalism. It's the same garbage we see on FOXNews. It's a reporter with a bias directing his bias onto a subject with which he has little information. It's like asking a child who will win the World Series in spring, of course the child will answer that his/her favorite team will win.


But, at least it started a conversation and provides us with a jumping off point. That is, "Is Damion Cox a worthless writer?"

Gasp - A Noble Truth

Now I hate to be cynical, but really? This is a story?

I first heard the news that Sammy Sosa had tested positive for taking performance enhancing drugs as I was driving around, taking care of some pre-Korea errands. And I must say, my first reaction was, "this is news?" That is, I was questioning whether or not this was something that had not already been broken.

Alas, the presumed guilt of every player in the Majors.

But wait, that's not the point. The point here is that not every player is presumed guilty of taking steroids during the steroid era (although I certainly would not doubt that a great majority did so), the point is that it has always been obvious that Sammy had been a user throughout his career.

My problem isn't that Sosa's name got leaked, it isn't that some innocent players are presumed guilty, nor is it that a non-story is being covered, it's the fact that there were some, we'll call them noble truths, some no-brainers out there that simply should not surprise anyone.

So I'm sorry Sammy, even without this story, I simply assumed that you had used steroids. It's like assuming that in a few hours it will no longer be dark outside. It's like assuming that Albert Pujols is an outstanding ballplayer. Or like assuming that some baseball writers will use information that legally should not have been leaked and use it as a slight against a player that brought an enormous amount of energy and joy to the ballpark.

It is times like these that I loathe 24 hour media coverage.

New Inadmissable Evidence

The first games of Spring Training are just days away which must excite even the least enthusiastic fan. Here at the Outsiders Look, I am simply beside myself with joy, oh, and the biggest sports trial in recent memory isn't too far off either. Baseball is about to grab center stage and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Via David Pinto's Baseball Musings, an interesting article at CBS Sports which states that much of what seemed to be key evidence against Mr. Bonds has been ruled inadmissible for the upcoming trial.

According to the article,

The decision is a setback for the government in its five-year pursuit of Bonds, who has pleaded not guilty to lying to a grand jury on Dec. 4, 2003, when he denied knowingly using performance-enhancing drugs.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said the test results -- urine samples that are positive for steroids -- are inadmissible because prosecutors can't prove conclusively that they belong to Bonds. The judge also barred prosecutors from showing jurors so-called doping calendars that Bonds' personal trainer, Greg Anderson, allegedly maintained for the slugger.

The judge said for prosecutors to introduce such evidence, they need direct testimony from Anderson. Illston said Feb. 5 she was leaning toward that ruling.

Not being familiar with the in's and out's of the court system, I decided to contact the author(s) of Sports Law Blog for further information. Once I receive a reply I will be certain to discuss this issue further. However, at this point, it is looking as if Mr. Bonds is going to be set free from these charges. If that is the case, the union's collusion case against MLB will gain that much more steam.

I Think I Finally Understand...

So I think I finally get it now. I get, as the video clip says, that "I'll never understand" the steroid issue. Where I associate doing steroids to speeding for a job interview, others see it as stealing answers to a placement exam. I see taking steroids as someone cheating off of your paper, popular perception likens it to bringing in crib notes.

But I get it now. I just don't get it.

Mr. Joe Baseball-Fan

As you all know, Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids back in 2003 when he and the rest of Major League ballplayers agreed to steroid testing under the condition that the results remain private. Of course, to ensure that the "big boss-man fat cat...[can] escape by helicopter" there has to be some promises broken, some goats to be scaped.

In other words Mr. Joe Baseball-Fan, the person (or persons) who have slighted you are not the individuals who have tested positive for a substance that was not banned. Rather, it is the individual(s) who have decided to not step forward for the problem they built.

Via John Brattain's Ground Rule Trouble,

I tend to be more surprised when somebody is completely above reproach or suspicion rather than otherwise--the culture of getting any kind of edge in the sport is as old as the game itself and it’s largely a myth that MLB reflects the best in America; to the contrary, it reflects America as it truly is: winning isn’t everything it’s the only thing, nobody remembers who finished second, if you ain’t cheatin’ you ain’t tryin’...

And like usual, I couldn't have said it better.

Barry Bonds Didn't Sin Afterall

Jonathan Littman at Yahoo! Sports writes the first part of a series which will dive into the 30,000 pages of testimony from the BALCO case. The conclusion of this first article in this series, apparently the perjury case against Barry Bonds does not hold as much water as we have been led to believe.

I am not incredibly knowledgeable in regards to the justice system and perjury charges; however I have found it interesting that congress found 19 cases in which Bonds lied however are only charging him with 4 acts of perjury. While Bonds simply needs to be found guilty of one of these charges, I would think that the more charges against an individual the greater chance of one sticking.

The problem, which Littman discusses, is that it is looking more and more likely that Bond did not knowingly lie to congress. At the time, the Clear, the substance Bonds did not deny taking, was not classified as an illegal steroid. This, according to Littman, could be enough for Bonds’ lawyers to have his charges dropped due to the assumption that an individual may refer to steroids as an illegal substance.

From the Littman article,

Bonds’ attorneys could argue that even if he took the Clear, he wasn’t lying when he responded by saying "Not that I know of."

"It’s reasonable to think that the person answering a question about steroids would think they were asking about an illegal steroid," said Charles La Bella, a former U. S. attorney and chief of the criminal division for the Southern District of California who now practices criminal defense in San Diego.

"[A jury] wants unambiguous terms."

More than two months after Bonds testified, the government dropped clues that it was aware that the Clear was legal – and not a steroid.

While this is not evidence to the Bonds apologists that Bonds did not take steroids, this can be place in the "Bonds did nothing wrong" file.

Furthermore, Littman asserts,

The government believes it has tripped Bonds, but whether he falls will be determined in court. The fact that the key drug he is accused of taking was legal and not recognized as a steroid under federal law could complicate the case, experts say.

"I don’t understand why the government would seek an indictment after obtaining Catlin’s expert testimony that the Clear was not a steroid," Cannon said. "Why come up with an indictment based on an ambiguous definition?"

One needs to keep in mind that no matter the outcome of this trial, Bonds is not being tried based on whether he has or has not taken steroids. Rather, Bonds is being investigated in his part with the BALCO investigation.

According to Littman,

Neither Conte nor Anderson was charged with distributing THG. In fact, nobody in the seven-year BALCO investigation has been charged with possession or trafficking of the drug. Less than $2,000 of drugs was found in the highly publicized raid of the Burlingame, Calif., laboratory in 2003.

With this in mind, I find it interesting that congress is spending as much time and money on such a minor issue. This will certainly go down as an embarrassment to congress if (and when) the charges are subsequently dropped. That the media has fed into this being a larger case then it actually is seems to be more associated with Bonds and pinning him as the bad guy then it does with solving the steroid issue.

ADHD and Baseball

I’m not entirely sure why or how this made headlines, but Major League Baseball is just like the rest of America. That’s correct; according to baseball’s recent ‘Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs)’ eight percent of baseball players have Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). This is on par with the national rate of ADHD; in fact, this is actually lower than the estimated twelve percent among males nationwide.

What caught my attention is that players are being given exemptions to take medication for this disorder, medications that otherwise would have shown up on baseball’s banned substance list. Let’s keep in mind, that baseball upholds a much higher ethical standard then the rest of professional sports and under no circumstance would encourage members of their organization to ‘pretend’ to have ADHD.

Or would they?

It is said that with proper treatment, an individual with ADHD could cut down their need for medication by up to 66%. Treatment, which ranges from simply being more active to coping mechanisms, coupled with a decreased amount of medication, is the best way to fight ADHD. However, do we really think that a Major League Baseball team would lower the prescription dosage for a player if it helped the player on the field?

We aren’t talking a cough syrup which may contain chemicals that raise red flags to the International Olympic Committee. We are talking about players being allowed to take amphetamines and other stimulants that are often provided to those suffering from ADHD.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), medications that treat ADHD increase the level of dopamine in an individual. An increased dopamine level will lead to an increase in libido. An increased libido means the body has more energy.

This sounds an awful lot like a performance enhancer, does it not? While these drugs are prescribed, it isn’t as if the testing for ADHD is necessarily vigorous. In most cases, ADHD will be diagnosed through the observation of patterns and based on a checklist. Search for “ADHD Checklist” and you will get a feel for how vague this checklist is.

While I am not going to immediately suggest that those doing these checklists do not know what they are talking about, I simply would urge baseball to enforce mandatory MRI’s on the players said to have ADHD. It has been found that an individual with ADHD has thinner brain tissue, and a small brain, between three and four percent. While inconsequential, this is a simple way to diagnose the disorder.

With all of this in mind, what is to stop a Major League organization from ‘mis’-diagnosing an extra player or two on their 40-man roster? With national ADHD rates for males around twelve percent, each Major League team could conceivably have up to five players on its 40-man roster with ADHD; five players whom would be eligible to test positive for amphetamines under baseball’s TUE.

ADHD is a relatively new disorder, having only been recognized by the American Psychological Association since 1980. Some believe that ADHD is simply cultural; however there is evidence against this. The research I have studied does assert that the gender deviations with ADHD exist predominantly due to the current structure of education in the west. This is not to say that ADHD is being overdiagnosed; instead, I would argue that if every child were to take an MRI, we would see that far more then eight percent of children would have ADHD.

That aside, we are still talking about a potentially major loophole in baseball’s drug testing policy. One that, despite how “moral” or “ethical” the league claims to be, will be open to abuse until it is closed. As it stands, the league is essentially allowing five players per team to take amphetamines.

Of course, this is only an issue if the ballplayer invariably becomes a star and breaks records.

On Logic and Barry

Well apparently I've gone out and upset someone, quite possibly ticked them off. That's fine, often times during a discussion individuals let their passion and opinion trump logic. Yesterday I reviewed an article over at the Hardball Times. An article which seemed to ruffle a bunch of feathers and even got 'voted down' at Ball Hype (something I have personally never seen from a THT article). That said, there was a very interesting discussion at Ball Hype in regards to this column. About 10 people chimed in with responses to the article, only one of whom was truly agreeing with the author (although I recognize that people are more likely to speak up when they disagree then when they agree).

The author of that piece decided to chime in himself, disregarding many of the comments made and shutting down only those that he can illogically skew - albeit, these were the typical rejections that are met with this discussion.

The discussion at hand is, Why did teams refuse to sign Barry Bonds? The author believes there is a simple ethical explanation, although it doesn't hold much weight when you break it down (something I will do later).

What I am writing about is a few issues I have with the authors rejection of logic.

First, the author ignores the cases in which baseball has turned its eye to 'bad behavior'. Between the message board at Baseball Think Factory (I encourage you to flip through them, it is a great and educated discussion) and at Ball Hype, there are mentions of a parallel between Pacman Jones and Elijah Dukes.

While Pacman Jones is clearly not a model citizen, Elijah Dukes isn't really reeking of parental approval - although truth be told, I imagine Dukes doesn't care. Not being one to typically dive into the personal lives of the sport I love, a post at Ball Hype states,

"Baseball sure likes to pick and choose its ethical battles, then...Drunk driving is a much greater evil than steroid use. And do you really believe that anyone would hesitate picking up Urbina if he weren't in prison?"

Isn't that the sad truth. I think back to a story when Milton Bradley asked a police officer if he knew who Bradley was. This invariably led to Bradley leaving the Indians, but in the midst of baseball's off season, we see Bradley is one of the most sought after free agent outfielders. More so then perfect records of Adam Dunn, Pat Burrell, and Bobby Abreu.

Or how about when baseball's good guy, Albert Pujols, was named in Jason Grimsley's affidavit? How quickly was that brushed aside by baseball? How many reporters jumped on that story discrediting Pujols for his miraculous climb up baseballs ladder?

The author then turns this morality issue on an axis, providing factually defunct examples. One such example, "Basketball refuses to do anything about pot use, because it would decimate the league."

Decimate the league? I know we hear some about marijuana issues in the NBA, but of the 500+ players in the NBA, are there more then 10 arrests a year? I mean, how many NBAers played in the Olympics? How many of them have tested positive for marijuana? Were those not most of the best players the NBA has?

At worst, I'd say marijuana use in the NBA is worth monitoring, but extremely far from being a cause to 'decimate' the league. I'd say STD's have a better shot at doing that.

The next error, "Has any baseball team ever tolerated the number of criminals, or even a small percentage of same, accumulated by the Bengals of recent vintage?"

Answer, no. Bravo! But I would like to further my answer with a question to the authors question: Has any other football team ever tolerated the number of criminals, or even a small percentage of same accumulated by the Bengals of recent vintage?

Answer, no. The Bengals were a special case. A team that went after 'bad seeds' as they were under valued on draft day. A team that had perpetually lost for nearly two decades that was looking for any semblance of progress.

The fact there, however, is it sort of worked for the Bengals. If only for a moment.

This is where logic chimes in loud and clear. The author obviously does not know specifics about what he is talking about. He understands ethics, but cannot argue popular culture to save his life.

The author takes the following stab at me,

"Brandini, on the other hand, adopts the ridiculous argument that because baseball was a little late adopting a wholly unnecessary rule against what was already ILLEGAL under US law, Barry wasn't cheating. Baseball, like the rest of society, is bound by the laws...it doesn't have to specify that every felony is prohibited by baseball too. This may be the lamest of all the Bonds defenses."

First, my assertion that Bonds wasn't cheating is based on him not breaking any of the rules of the game of baseball. In baseball, a pitcher can throw a ball at a hitters head and get a 'warning'. Whereas here in the West, if one were caught throwing a ball at an individuals head, I'm more then certain a restraining order would at least be placed on the thrower.

This is not to say that all laws in the US do not apply to the world of baseball, although that is a questionable assertion in and of itself. For example, if one were to purchase and use steroids in Mexico, would they be breaking a US law? Would this then make it acceptable for one to use steroids, as long as they did them in legal settings?

Second, I did not claim that Bonds was not cheating simply because baseball was 'behind' in making its rules. In fact, I argued that baseball was pushing the use of steroids (and I used a source too! Wow! What a concept!).

That being said, my point was that 'cheating' is breaking the rules of baseball, not society. If Ken Griffey Jr was a negligent parent, would this mean he is 'cheating'? Obviously that is a stretch, as being a poor parent has nothing to do with baseball performance, but I wonder how much the author knows about steroids and baseball performance? On a scale of 10 to -10 do we think he would rate in the positives or the negatives?

He does, however, attempt to know the relationship between performance and steroids (something not even Bill James is able to conclude on). Here the author reasons, "Drunk driving may or may not be worse than illegal steroid use, but unlike steroid use, it doesn't provide a competitive advantage, now, does it?"

First, how many terrible players have taken steroids and still ended up being terrible? All we know is that there are some players who allegedly took steroids that had 'breakout seasons', although it is simply an assumption that the player had this breakout season due to the steroids. If all one needs to do to provide reasonable is to suggest a player who did not improve while taking steroids, how about Alex Sanchez? Breakout seasons happen for all sorts of reasons. To argue that every steroid user had a breakout season is to simply ignore facts.

Second, how do we know that driving drunk does not improve a players ability? Yes, this is a stretch. But think of the pressures a player puts on himself during a baseball season. If the player decides not to go out to the bar, or maybe head home a little early, is it unreasonable to think that a couple drinks wouldn't relieve him of some stress?


The author continues with a lengthy explanation of his justification. But he presents a major error in his first example. One that I need to point out.

The scenario,

"The presumption of innocence has nothing to do with rightly concluding that someone is guilty of misconduct when the evidence is overwhelming. Let us presume your companion, standing right next to you, suddenly ran up to someone on the street and strangled him right before your eyes, in broad daylight, then came back to you and said, "I'm sorry you had to see that, but I just had to kill the guy." Would you later maintain that there was a question whether he had actually committed the murder? In the eyes of the law, your deadly companion would still be technically "innocent," because a jury hadn't pronounced him guilty. But this wouldn't mean that there was the slightest doubt that he committed the act, and it would be unreasonable, indeed absurd, for you to claim otherwise. The huge amount of documentation and testimony gathered in the book "Game of Shadows" places Bonds perilously close to the status of your fictional companion. At a certain point, the presumption of innocence concerns only process, not truth."

Let's put this into some different perspectives.

The first, the 'murderer' has a clean record, is a model citizen, and has a good relationship with the district attorney. The 'witness' has a long record, is a narcotic user, and has little to no references to speak of.

Would a judge find the 'murderer' guilty based on the claim of the 'witness' in this scenario? Probably not.

Let's spin this around. We're got the 'murderer' who has a fine record, but isn't well liked. The 'witness' doesn't report the issue immediately, but has a decent track record and most people like him.

Chances are, that even without raw evidence the judge won't be able to find the murderer guilty, but on an off day, evidence be damned.

Let's put this into baseball perspectives now. In scenario number two, the 'murderer' is Barry Bonds, the 'witness' are those belonging to the media.

Now I'm not going to say that Barry Bonds did not to steroids. What I am going to say is that I'd like to see some more evidence before passing judgment. While there is plenty of quality evidence, I'm still not sold. I won' argue for or against it nor will I tell people they are wrong for going either way, but I won't watch FOX News, those people probably do.


With all of that said, there is no way a person can call Barry Bonds a 'cheater'. If Barry was the only player to use steroids, sure, but he wasn't. In fact, he wasn't the first, nor will he be the last. Did Bonds break some ethical standards? Sure. But how many people wouldn't take the same efforts to be the best they are? This is occurring in academia. It is occurring in medicine.

However, this does not make what Bonds did as 'ethical'. So the author has a marginal point. What Bonds did was unethical. So too were the actions of the majority of baseball. Thus, the question to ask then, 'is it ethical to pick a scapegoat?' While many of us may do so currently, that doesn't make it right.

A Can of Prosthetic Worms

At Baseball Digest Daily, I write and reflect upon an article at ESPN the Mag regarding athletes with prosthetic body parts.

Check it out and feel free to leave a comment at BDD. This is now the third entry I have done on performance enhancing issues. The first was based on a scientific procedure which cleaned the blood in ones body where I questioned whether the issue with steroids was that they provided an unfair advantage over historical achievements, or if it is a social matter. The next entry discussed PED's in academia where I questioned why we as a society would not want our scientists, doctors and/or researchers to utilize these brain drugs in order to possibly create an otherwise unthinkable cure.

Baseball Digest Daily Blog Entry

Over at Baseball Digest Daily I write a blog with a reaction and reflection upon Benedict Carey's March 9th article on Brain Enhancement. Go check it out!

What is Acceptable?

In my first blog entry at Baseball Digest Daily, I briefly examine what the main issue people have with the 'Juiced' era. The question involves whether it is the technology or the morality of taking performance enhancing drugs.

Thus, the moral controversy is an interesting one. As per an earlier article, "Todd McFarlane agrees with this comment when he discusses that when he was in college, if he was offered a pill that would have gotten him into professional baseball, he would have said, “I’ll take two”." This sentiment is shared by Dan LaBatard who states in a March of 2006 article in the Miami Herald,

Let's say you are an accountant, mailman or secretary. And there are two people in your business who aren't as good as you are (let's call them Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa) getting a lot more rewards because of some secret potion, powder, or pill that isn't against the rules of your workplace. You aren't going to go looking for that secret elixir that might make you better and add five years of money to your career? You are going to fall behind your competition by applying ethics? If so, good for you. You are a noble person. And, rather literally, a loser. You are going to be devoured for being less competitive and cruel than your cutthroat surroundings.

Truly, who can disagree? People continually argue how they are willing to do anything for their families. Then why is a man made a goat for doing the same thing any other person would have done? In my opinion, it is because people did not want Barry Bonds to break the all-time home run record.

Read my entry at BDD.

What I Think of Barry Bonds...Or at Least Thought I Thought

The following is a piece I wrote in March of 2006. I wanted to keep the steroid issue ingrained in the minds of the readers...

It’s that time of year again; “buds spreading and jackets unbuttoning.”

Literally, things are beginning to open…and…well…it’s Major League Baseball's OPENING DAY.

The start of a new season; a new beginning. Baseball is unlike the other professional sports in that its beginning means that summer is around the corner, school is almost over, and there are 30 teams all with the possibility to start over.

Each team begins the season with an undefeated record—they are neither a game behind nor a game ahead. The lowly Royals need not remember that last year they lost 100 games, while Chicago’s South Siders pray it won’t be another 80 years before they win the World Series again.

And that is baseball—an annual chance to start over.

In Joe Morgan’s Long Balls, No Strikes: What Baseball Must Do to Keep the Good Times Rolling, he discusses how great the 1998 season was for baseball, stating that the New York Yankees' record setting win total was given “second billing to baseball’s new home run heroes” (9).

Even if you don’t follow baseball, it was difficult to miss the home run race between Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa in the summer of 1998. Joe Morgan—an inductee into baseball’s Hall of Fame—wrote his book in 1999, after baseball had gone through one of its most productive seasons ever. Baseball had failed to find its way back into the hearts and homes of fans after the strike that cancelled the World Series in 1994, and the 1998 season was—according to Morgan—just what the league needed, thanks in large part to the inflation of home run totals.

I’m going to talk about Barry Bonds and the unnecessary criticism he is taking. I feel his records and statistics should not be tarnished by what some have accused him of doing off the field. There are even sports writers who are lobbying for fans to not react when Barry Bonds continues to break records, going as far as stating that they will not be voting for him in the MVP ballots should he perform as the league's most valuable player, and more importantly, will prevent him from being elected into baseball's Hall of Fame.

Barry Bonds—one of the best slugging outfielders of all time—has been looked at as a criminal; in 2003, he was accused of taking steroids. Although he admitted to unknowingly taking steroids, the media did not care and has not forgiven him.

I feel that Barry Bonds the baseball player should have his personal life separate from his baseball career, and that he has Hall of Fame credentials without question. Taking into account the league's executives, the media and fans looking the other way on the steroid issue, and Bonds’ pre-suspicion numbers, he is, without question, worthy of the Hall of Fame.

First I will begin with a brief timeline of Bonds’ career and the suspicion in what some are calling, “the steroid era”.

1986 – Barry breaks into the league as a leadoff hitter, hitting 16 home runs and stealing 36 bases.

1994 – Baseball cancels the World Series; fans are alienated and angry at both the league and its players.

1998 – Baseball's “revival;” the home run race between Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa. They break Roger Maris’ 37 year home run record of 61 by hitting 70 and 64, respectively. During the home run race a bottle of “andro”—a substance that gives steroid-like results—was found in McGwire's locker.

1999 – According to the recently published book Game of Shadows, Bonds is enraged by the recent league-wide home run spike in the league and decides to take matters into his own hands. The owner of BALCO—whom Bonds allegedly took steroids from— argues that most of the information in the book is false, suggesting Bonds did NOT know he was taking steroids.

2001 – Barry Bonds breaks McGwire's home run record after hitting 73 home runs, 24 more than his career-high recorded the previous season.

2003 – Baseball begins testing its players for steroid use. However, there is no penalty handed out. Up to 7 percent of players test positive according to MLB records. Later this year, a company being tried for selling steroids states that Barry Bonds was one of their clients. Bonds admits to taking “the cream” and “the clear,” though he did not know they were steroids.

2005 – Testing with penalties begins. A dozen Major League players test positive a single time and get suspended for 10 days—no player tests positive twice. Bonds is not among the players who test positive, however he spent a majority of the season injured. League home run totals are at a decade-long low.

A new testing policy was recently put in place with a “three strikes and you are out” punishment. No players have tested positive since.

2006 – An investigation is taking place in order to discover how long steroids have, in fact, been in baseball. Barry Bonds enters this season seven home runs shy of breaking Babe Ruth’s record—2^nd all-time—and 48 from surpassing Hank Aaron’s all-time home run record.

(MLB.com Time Line and ESPN.com Time Line)

Now that we have a brief timeline of what has been going on in baseball, I would like to explain how the league and its fans have ignored this timeline up to the last couple of years.

In a Sports Illustrated article in March of 2005, Todd McFarlane—a fan and baseball memorabilia collector—states: “Baseball can’t get pompous about it now. It turned a blind eye to its steroid problem. Fans (who cheered) can’t start being hypocritical now” (44).

Aaron Gleeman of The Hardball Times shares the same sentiment, stating, “It’s a little hypocritical to demand the players be banned for life while the people who created the environment are given a free pass.”

However, Tom Verducci—the baseball beat writer for Sports Illustrated—stated only a month ago that Bonds should be put in baseball purgatory due to the steroids scandal (52).

His point of view has switched sides, however. He stated in 2002 that throughout the home run boom of the late 90's, sluggers were “cheered in every park” (469). Similar thoughts were expressed by Rick Reilly in September of 1998 when he expressed his joy at the increase in home run totals with quotes such as, “the home run race is as American as a corvette,” “the whole nation was brought together by a giant playing a kids game,” and “our games were as pure and shiny as I’d ever seen them.” (143-45).

It is difficult for me to read these comments and think that the media, league, and fans were ignorant enough to think that these home run totals were not artificially inflated.

So if they didn’t have a problem then, why do they have one now?

And that’s my point; in my research I have encountered both sides of the story. The first is the players denying intentional use of steroids and the fans stating that they would not have taken steroids. Dan Le Batard gives a good analogy in an early March issue of The Miami Herald: “Let's say you are an accountant, mailman or secretary. And there are two people in your business who aren't as good as you are (let's call them Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa) getting a lot more rewards because of some secret potion, powder, or pill that isn't against the rules of your workplace. You aren't going to go looking for that secret elixir that might make you better and add five years of money to your career? You are going to fall behind your competition by applying ethics? If so, good for you. You are a noble person. And, rather literally, a loser. You are going to be devoured for being less competitive and cruel than your cutthroat surroundings.”

Todd McFarlane agrees with this comment when he discusses that when he was in college, if he was offered a pill that would have gotten him into professional baseball, he would have said, “I’ll take two”.

So Major League Baseball’s officials ignored the steroid problem, which is discussed in Juiced: Wild Times, Rampant ‘Roids, Smash Hits and How Baseball Got Big, by Jose Canseco. The book asserts that steroids have been a part of baseball since the late 80's, and is simply a part of the game's evolution.

The fans turned a blind eye and cheered for the home run boom of the late 90's, buying t-shirts with slogans such as “chicks dig the long ball.” And the media is the one who continued to put emphasis on home runs by pushing home run contests in the off-season and during the all-star break.

Although there is no hard proof that Bonds did steroids, experts in the field are still stating that his performance in recent years has been aided. There are some who disagree however.

Before the BALCO trial, Tom Verducci stated that “Bonds’ development as a power hitter accelerated when baseball entered this post-Camden Yards age of long-ball worship and he learned how to lift the ball,” continuing with “this transformation (of hitting more fly balls as opposed to ground balls) would not be possible without Bonds putting more arc in his swing—he’s LOOKING to go deep.” (317-8).

So even if Bonds and the rest of the league steps forward and admits that the last decade has been filled with steroid use, Bonds’ pre steroid statistics are still solid enough that he deserves to be inducted into the Hall of Fame and considered as one of the best all-time.

From 1986 to 1998, Bonds hit 411 home runs, or 32 home runs per season. Had he played just another four seasons at that rate, he would have broken the 500 home run threshold and been a surefire Hall of Famer. Added to that, he is the only member of the 400 home run and 400 steal “club” for a career, and is one of only three players to be in this “40-40 club” for a season. These impressive statistics would have put him in the Hall of Fame had he retired after the 1998 season.

So baseball is back—today is day number four of 182. A new beginning.

If Barry Bonds did indeed take steroids or another performance enhancing substance, he is not alone. Yet because of the blind eye that the league, its fans, and the media has shown along with Barry Bonds’ pre-suspicion statistics, he deserves to be elected into baseball's Hall of Fame.

Bonds is simply a product of his environment, a product of a game that went through an era that needed steroids in order to inflate home run totals, which as Joe Morgan explains, is what saved baseball and what continues to keep people going through the turnstiles.

There have been many different eras in baseball which have helped affect statistics. Records are kept to be broken. Bonds has helped keep this sport alive.

Sources

Brattain, John. “My Big Fat Steroids Column.” The Hardball Times. Feb. 2005. Available: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/my-big-fat-steroids-column/.
Canseco, Jose. Juiced: Wild Time, Rampant ‘Roids, Smash Hits, and How Baseball Got Big. New York: Harper Collins, 2005.
Fleder, Rob, ed. Great Baseball Writing. New York: Sports Illustrated Books, 2005.
LeBatard, Dan. “Steroid Story a Case Study of Situational Ethics.” The Miami Herald.com Mar. 2006. Available: http://miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/columnists/dan_le_batard/14043754.htm/.
Morgan, Joe. Long Balls, No Strikes: What Baseball Must Do to Keep the Good Times Rolling. New York: Crown Publishers, 1999.
Verducci, Tom. “The Consequences.” Sports Illustrated March 13, 2006: 52 (April 3, 2006).

Mitchell Report - Steroids in Baseball & Sports

I won't claim to know a whole lot about Senator Mitchell, nor do I have much understanding of the report, however, today is the day that the report is released. David Pinto over at Baseball Musings writes an interesting piece summarizing an article from ESPN.com. It is ideas such as these that worry me as to the credibility or really, the rationale behind this investigation. That is, say I had a personal trainer whom I trusted, however things didn't work out for whatever reason and was forced to fire this trainer. If the Mitchell investigation was satisfied with hearsay, what is to stop a disgruntled ex-employee from 'making up' some facts about me? Now I assume the investigation went a little further then that, but for arguments sake, we really don't know (at least yet).

Essentially, Senator Mitchell is retroactively investigating which players used steroids at a point when steroids were not against the rules of baseball. I'm not certain what relevance I see, or how the naming of names can fix the steroid problem that is(or was) in baseball, but I suppose it was the threat of the investigation that brought upon Bud Selig and the MLBPA's decision to hand out more intense punishments - or a punishment at all. So we are about 10 minutes from the official hearing and Baseball Digest Daily has released names that they have gathered. Names highlighted on this list include:

Jeff Bagwell, Barry Bonds, Aaron Boone, Rafael Bettancourt, Milton Bradley, Albert Belle, Paul Byrd, Ken Caminiti, Mike Cameron, Ramon Castro, Jose Canseco, Roger Clemens, Lenny Dykstra, Johnny Damon, Ryan Franklin, Troy Glaus, Jason Grimsley, Juan Gonzalez, Eric Gagne, Nomar Garciaparra, Jason Giambi, Jeremy Giambi, Jose Guillen, Jay Gibbons, Clay Hensley, Darryl Kile, Matt Lawton, Raul Mondesi, Mark McGwire, Guillermo Mota, Andy Pettitte, Mark Prior, Neifi Perez, Rafael Palmiero, Albert Pujols, Brian Roberts, Juan Rincon, John Rocker, Pudge Rodriguez, Sammy Sosa, Alex Sanchez, Gary Sheffield, Miguel Tejada and Julian Taveras.

Many of the names come as no surprise given some of the players had already received a suspension (Betancourt, Franklin, Guillen, Gibbons, Lawton, Perez, Palmiero). Others were always going about things with a cloud of suspicion over their heads (Bonds, Belle, Sheffield, Tejada, Pettitte, Clemens, Prior). Some had even admitted to taking a substance prior to the substance being banned by the majors (Byrd, Giambi, Grimsley).

In terms of my take on performance enhancing drugs (PED's), I am at a loss. On one hand I recognize that it does cloud this era of what has been record setting baseball - both financially and historically - on the other hand, I agree with Todd McFarlane who states that if he was offered a pill that would have gotten him into professional baseball, he would have said, "I'll take two." I will revisit this issue later, as it is time for the hearing, check out an article by John Brittain over at The Hardball Times here.

Update - 12/13/07 - 5:24PM EST
So the cat (or cats) are officially out of the bag. As expected, the report appears to be full of flaws and lacking meaningful premise. ESPN has had experts (both in baseball and in law) analyze what they can of the report (found here). I can't understand how an investigation headed by a Senator would focus on the opinion and recollections of trainings, strength and conditioning coaches, etc. Possibly I have a skewed opinion and I don't want to see things for what they are, or, maybe the case against the players just don't seem that strong. Why, if it was, would the Senator suggest not retroactively punishing the players for this? Does he too believe the case is not strong enough. It will be interesting to hear how the Players Association reacts to said charges.

One of the most interesting opinions came from John Kruk's mouth. Kruk said that he did not understand why players who were out of baseball were named in the report if the objective of the report was to move forward. Lets see how things pan out over the next couple of days. What do you think is going to happen?

Update - 12/14/07 - 12:29AM EST
With more information becoming available, opinions being posted and ideas of what will happen thrown around, I wanted to figure out: "Who is Kirk Radomski?" Here is a section from USA Today in late May:

"Even with baseball's drug-testing program up and running, selling steroids to major leaguers was still profitable enough for Kirk Radomski to put in a pool behind his Long Island house and a pair of pricey cars on the driveway. Although those expenses barely amounted to more than walking-around money for most of his customers, real cops learned long ago that sometimes the best way to build a big case is to start small.
Neighbors thought Radomski was some kind of athletic trainer, and one of them told The New York Times that grown-ups and children alike referred to him as the Hulk. The feds, though, already suspected Radomski as the supplier of performance-enhancing drugs to dozens of current and former players when they showed up at his door in December 2005 with a search warrant."

So essentially, as the baseball public, we are to trust a drug dealer? I thought this whole investigation was fishy to begin with. I was curious as to why they choose to investigate MLB instead of say, Hollywood. I can understand that there is a steroid issue in North America, but is it more prevalent than other drugs? What about violence? DWI? Whatever happens in the coming days will only occur because of how public this issue has gotten and the names of many of MLB's stars are now tarnished - some, whom would be considered the best all-time. I find it a shame that this is going to occur simply because of what two men who were looking down the barrel of a loaded gun said.

Another concern I have in this situation is why they named the names of the players who purchased (maybe) PED's from Radomski? This would be like the Colombian government searching out Pablo Escobar in search of those who he sold cocaine to in the 70's and 80's. That is to say, since when is the government more concerned with the taking of drugs over the selling of drugs?

Update 12/15/07 - 4:15pm
Finally, a satirical response from the baseball community. Baseball Prospectus writer Jim Baker chimes in with an excellent - albeit "premium" - article summarizing the Mitchell Report. Here are some highlights of his highlights from the report:

"Bolivar Hudson

Bolivar Hudson was signed by the Toronto Blue Jays as a 14-year-old in 1998. He has been in their instructional program since that time.

Radomski produced a check from Hudson dated November 1, 1998 that covered the cost of two human growth hormone kits. It was written in crayon and decorated with Hot Wheels stickers."

"Danny Scaldoy

Danny Scaldoy pitched several innings in the Phillies chain in 2002.

Scaldoy became interested in self-improvement when he met professional bowler Lawrence Terlecky, a.k.a. “Larry the Leaner.” Terlecky is known around the PBA for his pronounced asymmetry--he's so large is his right side that he must carry a 25-pound dumbbell in his left hand for balance. Scaldoy befriended Terlecky and the two trained together in a program that included purchases of equine growth hormone and the consumption of baboon parts. Within a year, Scaldoy’s pitching arm and shoulder were huge, so much so that he was forced to steal a cart from the A.V. department of a nearby high school so that he could rest his arm on it while walking, lest its weight topple him sideways. The desired increase in pitching speed did not coincide with this increase in size, as evidenced by his 9.68 ERA and subsequent release."

There is nothing wrong with a little fun, especially with this issue which seems to be stirring up a flight or fight response. The flight being those who have completed disregarded the report, the fight being those who apparently feel justified in calling the report factual - well done media!