sweet work zhi setting this up. Im fired and hope that we all use this forum.
Anyway the fodder today is the Mitchell report. Woot R-Maine represent. What do you guys think about this whole thing? including Roger Clemens.
This is my core concern: The MLB stance is that as a result of this report is that the continuity of Major League baseball's historical records and statistical validity is in no way at risk due to steroid use and other non-detectable drug use (read HGH) during the "steroid era" because the MLB has now addressed the issues of performance enhancing drugs.
I heard Bob Costas on the radio this morning talking about how the historical continuity of the records was intact (which I disagree with) but he said that instead of putting asterisks next to the offending players records that there should be a page in the front of the record book that talks about changes in the game over time including mound height, relief pitchers, and of course steroids. I dont know how that solves the problem, because there cant be a page of disclaimer every time a stat is shown on a television screen or a newspaper. (But I think this is a better alternative to the asterisk.)
I think there is an issue with the asterisk that is brought up too. You cannot asterisk every run driven in by a Bonds homer or an ERA affected by his hitting, or asterisk every series batting average from the Mets Yankees 2000 series because Clemens pitched 17 scoreless innings in back to back starts.
What is the solution? Is the MLB in the free and clear? IMO, there is still a long way to go. And the "steroid era" will always cast a shadow of doubt over players who broke records (including bonds and clemens) as a result of playing in this era, especially given allegations about their direct steroid use, however clear on unclear their ties may be.
As many of you know I have come from being a baseball dissenter and become if not an enthusiast, definitely an appreciator of the value of the sport, especially statistically speaking (credit where credit is due). No other sport offers so thorough a record of the game's progression and comparison of players and teams. This quantitative model (from a finance guy's point of view) to sport is fascinating and fun to think, discuss, and prattle on about.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
My thoughts on the matter are summed up pretty well by my boy Jason Stark's piece on ESPN: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3154116
In addition to his sentiments, I agree with Alex's point about prefacing the entire era with a caveat about the numbers and records of this era.
However, one point to make is about the 'timelessness' of baseball records. Yes, it's fun and possible to compare Babe Ruth and the '27 Yankees against the best teams of today and yesterday. It's fun to argue about who was a better pitcher, Koufax, Ryan, Clemens or any number of old-timers, new-timers, and up-and-comers. A lot of baseball fans cite this as a reason the sport has so much continuity and ageless value. To some extent, I agree. Baseball is perhaps the only major sport where someone from 50 or even 100 years ago could go to a modern game and recognize the game being played. But, to think there were no clear differences in eras is delusional. There was a time in baseball when you had to pitch without snapping your wrist (think about it), when it was 4 strikes to an out, when the ball was made out of inferior yarn (softer), when the ball was used until it was softer than jello and darker than tar, when the mound was 6 inches higher than today, when you had a rotation of 3 or maybe 4 pitches instead of a full complement of 11 or 12, when the outfield fences commonly passed the 450 mark, and now definitively when players used PEDs. No, 500 HRs isn't what it used to be. At the same time 300 Wins is more than it used to be. Baseball changes with the times. Yes, it changes slower than the rest of the world, but it does change to reflect the society it entertains. Yes, for right now, the steroid era is looked upon as an abomination to the game, but who is to say in 20 years we won't look at it the same way as we look at the dead ball era, or pre/post 1968? Baseball will survive because it links the fans with their childhood, but each generation grows up differently, and so does baseball.
I pretty much am a baseball dissenter. However, Zhi you made a good point about baseball changing with the times. I think the reason that steroids have become so prevalent is because high-flying, fast-pitching baseball is what sells tickets. The fans appreciate excitement and this following is what gains endorsements. Many players are willing to go to any means to attain this level.
If you look at the UFC (which I have become quite the enthusiast) you'll see that the up-and-coming stars aren't necessarily the ones who keep winning. Dana White does a great job of picking fights that will be intense and making sure the fighters with the most heart and drive continue to prosper. Steroids are definitely a part in this sport, but simply training hard and never giving up during a fight will earn you respect and continued success regardless of W-L.
Post a Comment