...and in the beginning...
I decided to be a dork, that's why I haven't been posting lately. I decided that this MLB season I'm going to write a daily blog on baseball, with an emphasis on Drew's favorite team, the New York Mets. Here is the link, and here is the first article.
Welcome. Let me first just say it's not a great time to be a baseball fan. The steroid problem is running rampant, the economics of baseball are out of wack, the commissioner is viewed as incompetent and/or detrimental to the good of the game, and what was once our nation’s pastime is now the 3rd most popular sport in many polls.
But, at the same time there is reason for hope on each of these fronts. Today I'll discuss the first of these three points: steroids
With George Bush addressing this in the state of the union, this is now a topic beyond sports. The first question to be asked is: "Are steroids bad?" The answer to this question depends on who you ask, but from a fans' perspective this should be a resounding yes. Taking away the health concerns for the users, steroids make the playing field uneven in a number of ways. First of all, there is clearly an advantage to the offensive players. John Smoltz recently came out and said that he wants baseball to be tougher on steroids, and I wouldn't be surprised if more pitchers followed suit.
The reason for this is pretty clear. Pitching takes more than just strength. Velocity has little to do with strength or stature, just see the diminutive Billy Wagner who tops the 100 mph level often. We can see relatively heavy pitchers (David Wells, Sidney Ponson) be extremely effective. On the other side, batters have a great deal to benefit by using steroids, but not in the way you might think. Just adding strength won't make you a better batter; you need to have the prerequisites, bat speed, quick wrists, and the ability to hit the ball. What steroids will do is give you more power all things equal. Steroids will have a minimal effect, if not a beneficial effect, on those three. But steroids will give you more power, increasing your value as a baseball player, both in terms of homeruns and just hits in general.
As I said, the question remains if steroids are bad. I'm sure if you asked the owners of baseball teams secretly, and hooked up to a lie detector, the truth would be no. Fans like the long ball, fans like offense, and fans like records. Fans sit in the seats and buy hot dogs. Hence, the more the fans are interested, the more money goes into the owners' wallets. So, if this is what the fans want, why again is it bad?
It's bad because it has to do with the integrity of the game. Not only do steroids give batters an unfair advantage, it also gives those players who are risking their future health by using steroids an unfair advantage over those unwilling to endanger their health.
So, what should baseball do? They need to take a harder stance on this. Right now, a player must test positive five times before he is suspended for a year. Five times! The first two will result in a slap on the wrist, a fine.
Baseball needs to make this a zero tolerance issues, similar to their stance on gambling (see Pete Rose). Activities that question the integrity of the game should not be permitted, and both gambling and steroids do this. With gambling, there are no strikes, no free passes. This should be the stance with steroids too. You test positive once, bam, 30 day suspension. You test positive again, you're gone for a year. To stop an activity that is running rampant, you need to make the penalties harsh if you want the activity to stop. Plain and simple.
Baseball needs to address this issue now, and Bud Selig needs to show some leadership for once. The current testing system is a joke, and everyone knows it. Bud has shown before that he really doesn't have an idea how to determine the difference between what is best for the game of baseball and what the fans want (see Pete Rose). Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised if absolutely nothing happens, and this problem lasts until the off season next year.
Welcome. Let me first just say it's not a great time to be a baseball fan. The steroid problem is running rampant, the economics of baseball are out of wack, the commissioner is viewed as incompetent and/or detrimental to the good of the game, and what was once our nation’s pastime is now the 3rd most popular sport in many polls.
But, at the same time there is reason for hope on each of these fronts. Today I'll discuss the first of these three points: steroids
With George Bush addressing this in the state of the union, this is now a topic beyond sports. The first question to be asked is: "Are steroids bad?" The answer to this question depends on who you ask, but from a fans' perspective this should be a resounding yes. Taking away the health concerns for the users, steroids make the playing field uneven in a number of ways. First of all, there is clearly an advantage to the offensive players. John Smoltz recently came out and said that he wants baseball to be tougher on steroids, and I wouldn't be surprised if more pitchers followed suit.
The reason for this is pretty clear. Pitching takes more than just strength. Velocity has little to do with strength or stature, just see the diminutive Billy Wagner who tops the 100 mph level often. We can see relatively heavy pitchers (David Wells, Sidney Ponson) be extremely effective. On the other side, batters have a great deal to benefit by using steroids, but not in the way you might think. Just adding strength won't make you a better batter; you need to have the prerequisites, bat speed, quick wrists, and the ability to hit the ball. What steroids will do is give you more power all things equal. Steroids will have a minimal effect, if not a beneficial effect, on those three. But steroids will give you more power, increasing your value as a baseball player, both in terms of homeruns and just hits in general.
As I said, the question remains if steroids are bad. I'm sure if you asked the owners of baseball teams secretly, and hooked up to a lie detector, the truth would be no. Fans like the long ball, fans like offense, and fans like records. Fans sit in the seats and buy hot dogs. Hence, the more the fans are interested, the more money goes into the owners' wallets. So, if this is what the fans want, why again is it bad?
It's bad because it has to do with the integrity of the game. Not only do steroids give batters an unfair advantage, it also gives those players who are risking their future health by using steroids an unfair advantage over those unwilling to endanger their health.
So, what should baseball do? They need to take a harder stance on this. Right now, a player must test positive five times before he is suspended for a year. Five times! The first two will result in a slap on the wrist, a fine.
Baseball needs to make this a zero tolerance issues, similar to their stance on gambling (see Pete Rose). Activities that question the integrity of the game should not be permitted, and both gambling and steroids do this. With gambling, there are no strikes, no free passes. This should be the stance with steroids too. You test positive once, bam, 30 day suspension. You test positive again, you're gone for a year. To stop an activity that is running rampant, you need to make the penalties harsh if you want the activity to stop. Plain and simple.
Baseball needs to address this issue now, and Bud Selig needs to show some leadership for once. The current testing system is a joke, and everyone knows it. Bud has shown before that he really doesn't have an idea how to determine the difference between what is best for the game of baseball and what the fans want (see Pete Rose). Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised if absolutely nothing happens, and this problem lasts until the off season next year.
posted by John at
11:15:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home