I support Bud Selig’s decision to launch a formal inquiry into the steroid matter.  Why?  These guys (all of them—Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Jason Giambi, Gary Sheffield, Jose Canseco, and a host of other guys who probably used steroids but whose brevity marginalizes their importance) were chemical freaks; McGwire and Sosa embarked in their legendary duel of 1998; Bonds had 2001 and then 700, probably 715 and we’re not yet sure about Hank Aaron’s mark). 

My point is this: all these records belong to these chemical freaks.  Therefore, it took these chemicals to break the records and establish new, even greater records.  If we no longer tolerate steroids in baseball, then is there any possible way that new records can be established by younger, natural athletes?  I fully expect that if Bonds is allowed to pass Aaron, his record will still stand 100 years from now.  There are limits on what a natural human being is physically capable of.  The record book becomes meaningless and I no longer care about it.  That’s why the Player’s Union should go along with this inquiry: future players are the future of the union; it hurts the marketability of the players when I stop caring about how their career is progressing.  Why hang on to the reputation of a few guys who are either retired or on their way out when the future credibility of the entire profession is at stake? 

Some have said that steroids don’t “help you hit the ball,” but I don’t really believe that.  The only guys to have touched Maris/Ruth single-season territory are guys that have all been implicated.

Some have also pointed to Alex Rodriguez as a possibility to be a natural guy to break Hank Aaron’s all-time mark, but I don’t believe that either.  He’ll get older and slow down in the natural way.  I remember that Ken Griffey Jr. was a sure-lock to become the all-time HR leader until age and injuries crept up on the Best Player of the 1990’s.  Griffey Jr., by the way, is above any suspicion of steroid use.  I figure A-Rod to hit 600, but probably not 700.      

Some might also say “well, they brought the fences in at most ballparks for the 1990’s.  Wouldn’t that call into question any record set by Bonds or McGwire anyway?”  I don’t pass this argument either.  Everybody in the game played on the same, legal, level playing field (albeit a smaller playing field); there was no ethics involved because it was part of the official rules.  It didn’t involve hooking up with shady characters like Victor Conte or having a guy in Tiajuana who will load a U-HAUL up with horse steroids once a month for you.  The small parks of the 1990’s was an “era.”  Steroids was a “scandal.”       

Today was a big day for former Balco chief Victor Conte.  Not only was he released from prison, but he also came out defending Barry Bonds, trashing the reputation of the intrepid San Francisco reporters in the process.  Finally, somebody credible is willing to stand and deliver for Bonds!  I mean, Mark McGwire had Tony La Russa, right?  I distinctly remember Tony La Russa defending McGwire, only to later be embarrassed as McGwire clammed up in front of the Congress and the entire nation.  Anybody could see that McGwire was obviously ‘roiding, just as Jose Canseco reported, for most of his major league career (it was in-between all the stuff about speeding off in one of his twelve Lamborghinis to visit Madonna).  I mean, I could never imagine Victor Conte doing or saying anything for his own benefit. 

For most of his career, Bonds acted like he’s the only guy in the entire world.  Finally, now he gets to actually feel like he’s the only guy in the world.  It’s probably a lot lonelier then he imagined it would be.    

I was watching Ken Burns’ Baseball last week on DVD, specifically the disc that covers the Big Red Machine and the 1975 World’s Series.  Looking at actual images of the guys that played on those teams, I was struck by the physical contrast between the Reds of the 1970′s and some of our modern-era sluggers.

Johnny Bench, Pete Rose, Joe Morgan; all those guys were cut.  Not "bulky" like McGwire, Giambi, Bonds, Sheffield as well as few others, but "muscular" cut.  Surely somebody had a few ideas of what was going on. 

The Cardinals cut Deivi Cruz.  He was mentioned by one St. Louis sportwriter as being a competitive candidate for the starting job at 2B.  Those heady days are long over…or are they?  Compared to the spring that the othe 2B candidates have had, Cruz was only moderately terrible. 

I hope that Jimmy Rollins has a strong start with the bat.  I’ve always like Rollins…has anybody noticed that the well of premiere shortstops has dried over the past few years?  Nomar is playing 1B now in Los Angeles and Rodriguez is playing third for New York.  Edgar Renteria is trying to have a bounceback season after a miserable campaign in Boston last season.  Maybe Edgar’s agent wasn’t giving him smart advice after all. 

I’ve got some more thoughts, but they’ll have to be posted later today; I’ve got to run to a meeting now. 

Today I read an article on “Slate” from a couple of economists from a school of thought that I greatly admire implicitly embrace the Moneyball philosophy of OBP and the like.  This disappointed me.

Here’s a quote:

Coach Jim Larranaga follows the Moneyball model of recruitment: hunting for the undervalued players—the ones who everyone else thought were too short, too thin, or too fat—and then building them into a team.

You can read the whole article here: http://www.slate.com/id/2138846/?nav=tap3

Why don’t I like Moneyball? It’s a philosophy that embraces just one aspect of the game. It says that it is possible for a hitter to make adjustments so that they can increase the frequency that they reach base. The A’s and the Blue Jays, probably the Red Sox, have all built farm systems around the idea that they can draft guys and then get them to become high OBP guys by making OBP plateaus a requirement of promotion. 

But Moneyball does not allow for the possibility that the pitcher will make adjustments to take advantage of guys that are shy about swinging a bat.  These clowns come around with statistics that say “if his OBP was .XXX, then the A’s will score XX runs in a ball game,” or “If Nick Swisher were to get 27 ABs in a game, then the A’s would score 18 runs.”

These guys don’t care about defense. Rob Neyer, the poster-boy for Moneyballers everywhere, was quoted in Alan Schwarz’s The Numbers Game as saying “defense is the last refuge of the idiots.”  I don’t agree with that.  Is a game of baseball really only about teaching guys when to swing and when not to swing? I wonder what Von Hayek would say about relying on statistics and mathematical calculations to base economic decisions about the potential output of a given team.

Maybe we can take a fresh, analytic look at this philosophy from a dynamic perspective.  When clubs overemphasize one aspect of the game, it leaves huge gaps in the market for baseball wins that are big enough for an enterprising organization (The Chicago White Sox) to drive a truck through.  And that they have. 

While The Red Sox and the Blue Jays have been flocking to build organizations on the Oakland model (The Dodgers attempt already failed), the White Sox saw an opportunity to profit some baseball wins, and they jumped on it.  How did the White Sox do it?  They did it with speed and aggression; they did it with guys that know how to play defense and a manger/general manager team that thirsts for victory. Speed and aggression are the undervalued commodities in the baseball world today. Not guys that “everyone else thought were too short, too thin, or too fat.” 

The Cardinals and the Braves have turned out stellar drafts while Billy Beane and likeminded colleagues have gone looking for guys who are never going to pan out at the major league level.  It’s these teams, the Cardinals, Braves and White Sox that these free-market minded people should be embracing. Their philosophy is the winning philosophy; they found holes in the market for baseball talent, and it wasn’t with guys that everyone thought was “too short, too thin, or too fat.”

I’ve been busy preparing for a trip to my new school in a week, so I haven’t posted in a while.  Also, my wireless card is still on the fritz.  But here is a list of things I feel we are most-likely to see in 2006:

Scott Rolen, having made his way back from 2005 shoulder problems, will go down for the count when he crashes into Ronnie Belliard while trying to break-up a double play when the Cardinals play Cleveland in late June.

Gary Sheffield will change his tune on allegations of using “steroid cream,” instead claiming that he thought it was “icy-hot” because he doesn’t want to be “comfortable” while playing right-field. 

The San Diego Padres will announce that Jake Peavy, since he’s been chewing tobacco since he was nine, will have to have his lower lip cut-off to stop the cancer from spreading.

The Milwaukee Brewers will remain competitive all season long, making a late run at the wild card after picking up Scott Elarton and Elmer Dessens, both key Kansas City Royals acquisitions, at the trade deadline for an 11^th round draft pick and a handshake agreement that Milwaukee will pick up a percentage of the Royals water bill from June.

Rob Neyer’s head will explode when yet another year passes and the A’s don’t do squat against teams that do the little things: like defense, for example.  As time passes, organizations continue to realize the folly of their ways and the importance of the sabermetricians is finally marginalized.

Fantasy GMs everywhere, including Toronto’s J.P. Ricciardi, will kick themselves for jumping on the B.J. Ryan bandwagon.

The St. Louis Cardinals will be no-hit by an unheralded AA call-up in the Pittsburgh organization who deceptively changes speeds.  Why?  Jim Edmonds will provide an insight when, in the post-game, he points out that the Cardinals didn’t “have any video on that guy.” 

When Alex Cora looks more like 2005 Alex Cora instead of 2004 Alex Cora, and since the Red Sox put Graffanino on waivers, Boston GM Theo Epstein will try converting Hee Seop Choi to middle-infielder, making him the largest person ever to attempt a turn of a double-play.  This, of course is the only solution, since Boston will be carrying three first basemen into the season. 

The Atlanta Braves will identify a few needs, promote a couple of guys out of the system, and then go on to win the National League East.  At a fraction of the Mets’ payroll.

Theo Epstein’s problems continue when Keith Foulke’s right leg falls off at the knee.  It becomes clear to Epstein that Mike Timlin is not the answer, when, after Timlin is announced, Boston fans litter the field with debris.  On the plus side, Theo will channel his angst through a new album, filling the void for Boston fans everywhere who clamor for albums from their sports stars.

Hoping to deflect mounting questions about allegations of steroid abuse, Barry Bonds will announce that he’s leaving the Giants to become a competitor on the CBS reality show “Survivor.” He makes it to the finals but eventually loses out to Jeannie, a 38-year-old accountant from Cleveland.  While Bonds’ baseball career is over, he uses his appearance on Survivor to move into more Hollywood-esque roles, like the Gladlock sandwich bags spokesman.

The Chicago White Sox, unlike the 2004 Boston Red Sox, will repeat as World Champions.

My wireless card is still on the blink.  Right now I’m at work, so I have to keep this short.  But I found an example of some modern baseball statistics that I like and I feel are an appropriate application of statistical methodology to the game of baseball.  Check out the following link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/magazine/12DESIGNATED.html?ei=5090&en=3f4dc5f4f3dea39c&ex=1260594000&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&adxnnlx=1143299023-rVx2nIZxWRAgpXoFT0qN3w

This is a link to an article in the New York Times magazine from December of 2004.  Let me explain a little bit of what’s going on in this article: Two professors, one an economist and the other a mathematician look for examples of "moral hazard" in baseball’s DH rule.  Moral hazard is a situation that arrises when those who are insured against certain things are more likely to take on risky behavior.  The classic example of this is in the banking sector.  If a large bank or other financial institution knows that the government will bail them out if they get into trouble, then they have incentive to take on riskier assets.  As it applies to baseball, a pitcher who knows he won’t have to hit can plunk guys all day without fear of being hit themselves.  Check out the link, if you want to know what the statistics revealed.

It’s been a few days since I’ve posted.  My wireless card went on the fritz and I haven’t been able to log into the internet from my personal computer.

I have been watching a lot of Ken Burns’ Baseball this week.  Last night, I watched the "third inning" of the DVD set, the portion that covers 1910-1920.  They spend some time recounting the things that Ty Cobb did, specifically retelling the circumstances that led Cobb to charge into the stands and beat up a guy who didn’t have hands.  The reason he did this, Ken Burns reports, is because somebody in the stands used a racial slur in connection with his name.  You know the slur I’m talking about.  To be sure, Cobb was white.

Cobb was a terrible person.  Some friends and I once rented Tommy Lee Jones in "Cobb," and I found it hard to watch.  Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Wuhl give excellent performances, though. 

But it did get me to thinking: what are some of the heckling incidents from my own time, that I recall?  I have been a party to or observant to several heckling incidents.  Here are the more memorable ones:

1) In 2002 I attended an Astros/Cardinals game with my boss and some other people from my work.  I remember it well; it was Darryl Kile’s next-to-final start before he was tragically taken before his time.  In 2002 I worked for a bank, so you can get the idea on the kind of people these were.  Anyway, so the top of the first starts and Biggio and whoever was batting second come up, get their hacks, and then sit back down.  I have never minded Biggio much, but I’ve never liked Jeff Bagwell.  So, when Bagwell came to the plate batting third, the entire stadium was pretty much hushed.  Except for me.  I started booing at the top of my lungs.  The people I was at the game with were taken aback, and my office reputation never really recovered because of this incident.  Well, this incident and another that involved an exploding bottle of Coke.  But that’s another story.

2)  In April of 1998, the guys on my high school baseball team all sat in the bleachers of a Padres/Cardinals event.  I remember that it was cold and rainy that night.  Somebody in the stands shouted out something regarding Tony Gwynn’s wife, and what she might’ve been doing the previous evening.  So Gwynn makes the final put-out of the inning, and then turns around and gives our section of the bleachers a big smile.  How did Gwynn respond with the stick?  He went something like 6 for 8  that night with 5 RBIs.

3)  A good friend of mine all through high school (who was also called up as a sophmore to pitch on a staff that featured a couple guys who would be first and second rounders) told me this story once.  The Dodgers came to St. Louis sometime in ’93 or more likely 1994 when they featured Darryl Strawberry in their outfield.  This guy was sitting in the bleachers behind Strawberry, and when Strawberry made a put out on a pop-fly, the bat the hitter had been using splintered in to several fragments.  At once, this guy shouted "Hey Strawberry!  You like that crack?!"

Free from the spectre of Cuba’s history with the west, the Japanese are stoically, methodically taking apart the best baseball players that the Cuban nation can offer.  I watched three games featuring the Cubans and I saw poor infield/outfield defense (bobbled balls in the outfield and repeatedly-poor throws from the infield) in all three.  Some of their pitching was all right. 

But there was no trash-talking from the Japanese, no "this is the way Japan brings it" or "look for Japan to bring this one home."  The langauge barrier insulates the Japanese from the trash-talking of the Cuban catcher, and the Japanese starting pitcher wasn’t afraid to claim the inside part of the plate (even as the Cuban shortstop stared back out at him!).

The Cubans aren’t shy about pulling a pitcher, are they?  It strikes me that this might not be the best way to build a guy’s confidence, but then Communism was never about the individual, was it?  It’s always been about taking care of the guy on top.

Some say that there’s no political component to this tournament, that’s it’s all about the "Brotherhood of Baseball."  But consider:

In an AP article that was picked up in Sunday’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Cuban left-fielder Frederich Cepeda is quoted as saying "This is a revolutionary team…baseball is not judged by the price of the athletes, but by the heart of the people. [emphasis added]"  If that’s not a political sentiment, then at the very least it is a competitive sentiment draped in political language. 

I don’t think that a Cuban team that wins an international tournament is all that "revolutionary," they’ve been doing it for years.  Unless…of course.  He meant "revolutionary" in the classical sense, as in a "return."  But this makes little sense (although I’ll give him a pass on account of the Cuban School System) in the terms of the Cuban national team. 

It seems, at least possible, then, that maybe these kids were coached by somebody from Castro’s propoganda machine. 

Of course Castro is going to claim political victory.  And I say let him.  Why?  Nobody cares.  Political victory in terms of sporting events or spacecraft died with the Soviet Union.  Witness the poor ratings of the 2006 Winter Olympics. 

Arroyo-Pena Trade

I saw today that the heralded Bronson Arroyo got dealt to the Reds today.  I was hoping the Cardinals could deal Marquis for Wily Mo.  That’s too bad.  At least the Cardinals will get to face him three or four times next season.  But one commentator said that Wily Mo will get to go to Boston now and learn from David Ortiz.  I hope he wasn’t talking about playing defense like David Ortiz.  That’s like sending an American Idol contestant for voice lessons from Joe Cocker.

In an effort to partake in the hype that is "fantasy baseball," I am going to participate in a league this year.  It’s going to be called "Fantasy Royals GM."  Here’s how I envision player transactions working out:

Fantasy GM1: What do you want for Carlos Beltran?

Royals Fantasy GM: Will you pay his salary?

Fantasy GM1: Yes.

Royals Fantasy GM: Then you can have him.

Fantasy GM2: I’ll give you Mark Redman for…Albert Pujols and Vlad Guererro.

Royals Fantasy GM: Hmmm.  That’s a tough one. 

Fantasy GM2:  We’ll pick up their 2006 salaries.

Royals Fantasy GM: You have a deal!

This is going to be fun.  I really can’t wait  for those heady days as the trade deadline nears. 

Peter Gammons made a comment during the game on the apolitical nature of the WBC that Joe Morgan endorsed from the analyst chair in the booth.

In a certain aspect, I disagree.  I don’t understand how a tournament, which built it’s marketing strategy on being "for the fans" and by dividing teams among the nations of the world can be considered apolitical.  If the fans are to be partaking in the events, and if the fans are to be really "into" the games, there has to be certain element of national pride, right?  How can an event be without politics when it’s very structure is built on the international political landscape?  If the tournament is really about the "brotherhood of the game," as Gammons reported, why aren’t the dividing teams up by hemisphere?  Let the Latin Americans play the North Americans, Europeans and the Asians.  This would be a display of diversity in the game.  But no; the competitive lines were clearly drawn against the political boundaries of the world.  In certain cases, guys who have never spent much time in the country they played for (Mike Piazza) were allowed to play for a national team.   

Maybe they meant that it is apolitical for the players involved, but I don’t really believe that either.  The Korean team gets to skip mandatory military service for making the final four.  Is it a mistake that Fidel Castro’s son is the team doctor?  Is there no political element to this decision?

Didn’t Gammons say that Antonio Castro’s favorite team is the Yankees?  I find it ironic that the son of a the western hemisphere’s most notorious communist dictator/tyrant is a fan of George Steinbrenner’s Yankees.

It’s nice to hear Morgan’s analysis again; but man was it a disappointment.  He seemingly backed off his preference for competitive-aggression style of baseball.  Jon Miller commented on how Joe liked moving guys over and such.  Morgan said that this style is only cool if you "don’t have the home run hitters."