As has been pointed out elsewhere, if you think Bud Selig and baseball writers couldn't have reasonably known about the performance-enhancing professional athlete culture, check out this 1969 article from Sports Illustrated.
To sum up: Professional and collegiate athletes were using whatever they could get their hands on back then. Most of it was legal (and provided by team physicians), many drugs which are now illegal or against the rules of the game.
So let's stop with the 'sanctity of the game' rubbish. If Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle had access to the PEDs back in their day, they probably would have lined up behind Bonds, A-Rod and Clemens. Did modern baseball players cheat and break federal law? Yes, some of them. But we have no idea what actual effects the PEDs had on individual performance, and this isn't a problem that started in 1998.
So please, Bud and you sanctimonious sports writers, lets not let a good story get in the way of some good facts.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
'My favorite' Nine: The Red Sox
One of my favorite web sites, Fire Brand of the American League, recently ran an article about one writer's favorite Red Sox of all-time. I've had that conversation in my head many times (yes, I know, it's a little weird that I have conversations in head), but since I have my own blog, I can do things like this.
c-Jason Varitek (97-current). The captain is definitely my favorite catcher, despite that bad year in 2008. He always seemed to get big hits at the right time in 2004 and 2007. And to think we traded Heathcliffe Slocumb to get Tek and Derek Lowe. Thanks Seattle.
1b-Mo Vaughn (91-98). Though Youk is my favorite player right now, Mo was awesome. He declined rapidly during his non-Red Sox years, but he was great in Boston. He slugged better than .550 from 1993 to 98. And I once saw him at Celtics game. He was a big dude.
2b-Jody Reed (87-92). This was a tough one. As much as I wanted to say Pedroia, Reed ended up as my choice because Pedroia's a little too new. Over his three season peak, Reed hit 40+ doubles each season, and had on OBP higher than .349. Of course, he never hit more than 5 HRs in a season, and never slugged above .400 in a full season. But I really liked the doubles machine, so he makes the list.
3b-Bill Mueller (03-05). This gamer had his career season with the Sox in 2003 (326-398-540) and two very good ones. He was solid with the glove (especially in 2003), and got big hits along the way to Boston's big 2004 World Series victory. Honorable Mention: Wade Boggs.
ss-Nomar Garciaparra (97-04). This was the easiest call of the list. From his Rookie of the Year season in 1997 to his last full season with the Sox, he was easily the best shortstop in baseball not named Alex. Don't think so? His peak from 98-00 was the second best statistical run of any shortstop ever (besides the aforementioned A-Rod). Jeter may end of having more career value, but Nomar was the better player (in the box and in the field) at their primes.
lf-Mike Greenwell (85-96). This was one of the toughest calls, as I bypassed Manny because his departure still bothers me. I loved Greenwell when I was a kid -- and he had two awesome seasons for the Sox (87, 88) and a few more good ones. He deteriorated quickly after he turned 30, but I have a lot of fond memories.
cf-Ellis Burks (87-92). He may have had his best years after he left Boston, but Burks was another one of my favorites. He never truly fulfilled his promise, but he was a pretty darned good cf for three seasons (88-90). In case you're wondering: Johnny Damon is dead to me.
rf-Dwight Evans (72-90). RF has been an interesting position for the Sox since I moved to Boston as a kid in 1987. Dewey, Tom Brunansky, Troy O'Leary, Trot Nixon, and now J.D. Drew. No one has been able to replace Dewey, and some of my first memories in Fenway revolve around seeing him patrolling rf from my seat in the bleachers. I also just noticed I picked the starting OF from 1988.
dh-David Ortiz (97-current). This one was easy. Big Papi helped bring in two world championships and is a joy to watch swing the bat. Who'd you think I was going to pick, Jack Clark?
sp-Pedro Martinez (98-04). Another slam dunk. I was recently watching the new MLB Network and they counted down the 9 best pitching seasons of all-time. Pedro's 1999 came out on top, and they said his 2000 was possibly even better. Sox fan's were blessed to see one of the greatest pitchers of all-time at his absolute best.
sp-Roger Clemens (84-96). This one was tough because of the recent revelations about the Rocket, but from his magical 1986 season until he signed as a free agent with Toronto, each of his starts was an event. I remember sitting in the bleachers one game as he warmed up to pitch. My sister and I were completely amazed at his abilities. It was just really cool to watch him up close, and (like Pedro) you knew you were watching baseball greatness.
rp-Jonathan Papelbon (05-current). Most Sox relievers, even the good ones, have postseason heartbreak on their resumes. Not only did Paps deliver one of the greatest seasons ever by a reliever in 2006, he's also pitched 25 scoreless postseason innings in his career, including two wins and seven saves (move over, Mariano). Honorable mention goes to Keith Foulke, who's awesome 2004 season and postseason brought us our first modern World Series title. He probably destroyed his career with that season (he was only 31), so I will forever be grateful.
Coming up next, my favorite all-time baseball team, non-Red Sox version.
c-Jason Varitek (97-current). The captain is definitely my favorite catcher, despite that bad year in 2008. He always seemed to get big hits at the right time in 2004 and 2007. And to think we traded Heathcliffe Slocumb to get Tek and Derek Lowe. Thanks Seattle.
1b-Mo Vaughn (91-98). Though Youk is my favorite player right now, Mo was awesome. He declined rapidly during his non-Red Sox years, but he was great in Boston. He slugged better than .550 from 1993 to 98. And I once saw him at Celtics game. He was a big dude.
2b-Jody Reed (87-92). This was a tough one. As much as I wanted to say Pedroia, Reed ended up as my choice because Pedroia's a little too new. Over his three season peak, Reed hit 40+ doubles each season, and had on OBP higher than .349. Of course, he never hit more than 5 HRs in a season, and never slugged above .400 in a full season. But I really liked the doubles machine, so he makes the list.
3b-Bill Mueller (03-05). This gamer had his career season with the Sox in 2003 (326-398-540) and two very good ones. He was solid with the glove (especially in 2003), and got big hits along the way to Boston's big 2004 World Series victory. Honorable Mention: Wade Boggs.
ss-Nomar Garciaparra (97-04). This was the easiest call of the list. From his Rookie of the Year season in 1997 to his last full season with the Sox, he was easily the best shortstop in baseball not named Alex. Don't think so? His peak from 98-00 was the second best statistical run of any shortstop ever (besides the aforementioned A-Rod). Jeter may end of having more career value, but Nomar was the better player (in the box and in the field) at their primes.
lf-Mike Greenwell (85-96). This was one of the toughest calls, as I bypassed Manny because his departure still bothers me. I loved Greenwell when I was a kid -- and he had two awesome seasons for the Sox (87, 88) and a few more good ones. He deteriorated quickly after he turned 30, but I have a lot of fond memories.
cf-Ellis Burks (87-92). He may have had his best years after he left Boston, but Burks was another one of my favorites. He never truly fulfilled his promise, but he was a pretty darned good cf for three seasons (88-90). In case you're wondering: Johnny Damon is dead to me.
rf-Dwight Evans (72-90). RF has been an interesting position for the Sox since I moved to Boston as a kid in 1987. Dewey, Tom Brunansky, Troy O'Leary, Trot Nixon, and now J.D. Drew. No one has been able to replace Dewey, and some of my first memories in Fenway revolve around seeing him patrolling rf from my seat in the bleachers. I also just noticed I picked the starting OF from 1988.
dh-David Ortiz (97-current). This one was easy. Big Papi helped bring in two world championships and is a joy to watch swing the bat. Who'd you think I was going to pick, Jack Clark?
sp-Pedro Martinez (98-04). Another slam dunk. I was recently watching the new MLB Network and they counted down the 9 best pitching seasons of all-time. Pedro's 1999 came out on top, and they said his 2000 was possibly even better. Sox fan's were blessed to see one of the greatest pitchers of all-time at his absolute best.
sp-Roger Clemens (84-96). This one was tough because of the recent revelations about the Rocket, but from his magical 1986 season until he signed as a free agent with Toronto, each of his starts was an event. I remember sitting in the bleachers one game as he warmed up to pitch. My sister and I were completely amazed at his abilities. It was just really cool to watch him up close, and (like Pedro) you knew you were watching baseball greatness.
rp-Jonathan Papelbon (05-current). Most Sox relievers, even the good ones, have postseason heartbreak on their resumes. Not only did Paps deliver one of the greatest seasons ever by a reliever in 2006, he's also pitched 25 scoreless postseason innings in his career, including two wins and seven saves (move over, Mariano). Honorable mention goes to Keith Foulke, who's awesome 2004 season and postseason brought us our first modern World Series title. He probably destroyed his career with that season (he was only 31), so I will forever be grateful.
Coming up next, my favorite all-time baseball team, non-Red Sox version.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Much ado about nothing
If I see one more headline about performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) or A-Rod I'm really going to puke. Most of the articles are the same: A-Rod is a fraud and doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, woe is baseball, bah, blah, blah.
One of the few intelligent pieces I've read on the issue was by Doug Glanville. Why aren't we talking more about rights and privacy? Imagine you took part in a confidential survey at work that included some potentially sensitive information about you or your co-workers, and you did it because you were promised anonymity and privacy.
But then a few years later, your results are published on the Internet. Wouldn't you be outraged? Oh, you might say, it's different. A-Rod's a cheater who got caught. Why should we have any sympathy for him? I wouldn't recommend sympathy, but I would recommend be worried that information from a governmental or organizational enquiry built around privacy can become public, and no one is being held accountable for that (though at this point we don't know where the leak came from).
Back to the baseball issue, as a Red Sox fan I've made fun of A-Rod so many times I've lost count. I almost bought a framed picture once of Varitek hitting A-Rod in the mouth. But he's one of the best baseball players ever born, and though I detest PEDs and condemn their usage, I would vote for him for the Hall of Fame without a second thought. I would also vote for Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, and anyone else from this era I thought was worthy.
Why? Because the hole era is tainted. We will never know who used and who didn't. Ken Caminiti (and later Jose Canseco) may have been right: half of league might have been juicing at the height of it. Should be just throw out the entire era? No records count, no one gets into the Hall of Fame? Or should we just punish those who've been exposed, and hide our heads in the sand about all the others?
I believe sportswriters are a hypocritical lot. They have blamed the PED situation on greedy, competitive players; on money-loving owners; on a union that only cares about revenues and not the long-term health of its members; and on Bud Selig for not taking a strong stance sooner.
But you know who else is to blame? The media. You can't tell me that some sportswriters, with all their access to the clubhouse and friendships with players and executives, didn't know what was going on. Some of them must have known, or at least had major suspicions, but let it pass, probably for the same reasons everyone else did: it seemed like it was good for the game at the time.
And then the hypocritical Bud Selig comes out and calls A-Rod behavior shameful. Well, yes, he's right. A-Rod lied previously about PEDs and condemned them, so he should be ashamed for all that he's done. But look at the source. Bud was at the head of the ship while PEDs were used for decades in his sport (let's not pretend the 80s were clean). Come of the soapbox, friend. Either Bud was stupid (which I don't believe he is), or he had suspicions and looked the other way like everyone else.
So, like the NFL, when someone gets caught as a cheater (Shawn Merriman, Rodney Harrison), can't we punish them and move on? Does it have to become such a big issue in baseball? I can't wait for the World Baseball Classic, and the start of the season. Then maybe these talking heads can get off their soapboxes and actually cover the sport.
One of the few intelligent pieces I've read on the issue was by Doug Glanville. Why aren't we talking more about rights and privacy? Imagine you took part in a confidential survey at work that included some potentially sensitive information about you or your co-workers, and you did it because you were promised anonymity and privacy.
But then a few years later, your results are published on the Internet. Wouldn't you be outraged? Oh, you might say, it's different. A-Rod's a cheater who got caught. Why should we have any sympathy for him? I wouldn't recommend sympathy, but I would recommend be worried that information from a governmental or organizational enquiry built around privacy can become public, and no one is being held accountable for that (though at this point we don't know where the leak came from).
Back to the baseball issue, as a Red Sox fan I've made fun of A-Rod so many times I've lost count. I almost bought a framed picture once of Varitek hitting A-Rod in the mouth. But he's one of the best baseball players ever born, and though I detest PEDs and condemn their usage, I would vote for him for the Hall of Fame without a second thought. I would also vote for Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, and anyone else from this era I thought was worthy.
Why? Because the hole era is tainted. We will never know who used and who didn't. Ken Caminiti (and later Jose Canseco) may have been right: half of league might have been juicing at the height of it. Should be just throw out the entire era? No records count, no one gets into the Hall of Fame? Or should we just punish those who've been exposed, and hide our heads in the sand about all the others?
I believe sportswriters are a hypocritical lot. They have blamed the PED situation on greedy, competitive players; on money-loving owners; on a union that only cares about revenues and not the long-term health of its members; and on Bud Selig for not taking a strong stance sooner.
But you know who else is to blame? The media. You can't tell me that some sportswriters, with all their access to the clubhouse and friendships with players and executives, didn't know what was going on. Some of them must have known, or at least had major suspicions, but let it pass, probably for the same reasons everyone else did: it seemed like it was good for the game at the time.
And then the hypocritical Bud Selig comes out and calls A-Rod behavior shameful. Well, yes, he's right. A-Rod lied previously about PEDs and condemned them, so he should be ashamed for all that he's done. But look at the source. Bud was at the head of the ship while PEDs were used for decades in his sport (let's not pretend the 80s were clean). Come of the soapbox, friend. Either Bud was stupid (which I don't believe he is), or he had suspicions and looked the other way like everyone else.
So, like the NFL, when someone gets caught as a cheater (Shawn Merriman, Rodney Harrison), can't we punish them and move on? Does it have to become such a big issue in baseball? I can't wait for the World Baseball Classic, and the start of the season. Then maybe these talking heads can get off their soapboxes and actually cover the sport.
Monday, January 26, 2009
MWC trying to get a piece of the BCS pie
Numerous news sources are reporting that the MWC is trying to get an automatic bid into the BCS bowls.
Now they have a compelling case. You could say that, this year, the MWC was a better conference (especially at the top) than the ACC, theBig East, and even possibly the Big Ten. The automatic bids for the ACC and Big East are historical matters -- it's really based on the strength of Miami and Virginia Tech (formally of the Big East) and the historical strength of Florida State (for the ACC). Neither of those conferences 'deserved' their automatic bids this year.
But when the last BCS contract was signed, it would have been stretch to say the MWC deserved a bid. But now Utah has 'earned' its way in twice, and TCU was one of the best 8 teams in the country in my opinion (and should have been given more national respect).
I think this is the right move by the MWC -- the iron is hot in trying to get into the Big Party. But I don't think anything will change. As MWC commissioner Craig Thompson points out, it's not a good time for change because the contracts are all signed and dotted at this point -- but the pressure for the BCS to open up its vaults to the MWC may never be better.
If I were to redesign the system, I would swap the Big East and MWC for automatic bids, or maybe just eliminate the Big East bid and open up another at-large bid. Either way, change is needed. But wouldn't the Big East fight anything like that? You bet, with a $17 million payout on the line. That's why I wouldn't count on any change for the 3-4 years at least. If the MWC can keep crashing the party, then change may be forced.
Now they have a compelling case. You could say that, this year, the MWC was a better conference (especially at the top) than the ACC, theBig East, and even possibly the Big Ten. The automatic bids for the ACC and Big East are historical matters -- it's really based on the strength of Miami and Virginia Tech (formally of the Big East) and the historical strength of Florida State (for the ACC). Neither of those conferences 'deserved' their automatic bids this year.
But when the last BCS contract was signed, it would have been stretch to say the MWC deserved a bid. But now Utah has 'earned' its way in twice, and TCU was one of the best 8 teams in the country in my opinion (and should have been given more national respect).
I think this is the right move by the MWC -- the iron is hot in trying to get into the Big Party. But I don't think anything will change. As MWC commissioner Craig Thompson points out, it's not a good time for change because the contracts are all signed and dotted at this point -- but the pressure for the BCS to open up its vaults to the MWC may never be better.
If I were to redesign the system, I would swap the Big East and MWC for automatic bids, or maybe just eliminate the Big East bid and open up another at-large bid. Either way, change is needed. But wouldn't the Big East fight anything like that? You bet, with a $17 million payout on the line. That's why I wouldn't count on any change for the 3-4 years at least. If the MWC can keep crashing the party, then change may be forced.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Elves and urgals and dragons, oh my!
Brisingr book review
Score: 8/10
For the uninitiated, Brisingr is the third book in the 'Inheritance cycle' by young writer Christopher Paolini. The first two books, Eragon and Eldest, were both big young adult fantasy hits. Brisingr has not disappointed, currently #114 on the Amazon.com book list months after its release. The book sold 550,000 copies on the first day of its release in September.
This is definitely my favorite in the series. The first two books (which I recently reread before reading Brisingr) are decent young adult books, but lack the kind of character depth I prefer in my fiction. In addition, the dialogue difference between the two books is remarkable; Paolini has really matured as a writer since he began his career as a 17 year-old.
The best passage in the book comes in the first half. One of the characters, an elf named Arya, is describing to the lead character Eragon what happened to her during her captivity in the first book. The passage is easily my favorite part of the novel, and the best thing Paolini has written in the three books. Its infused with such emotion and pathos, that it almost left me in tears after I read it, and I went back and read that part again.
If the rest of the book had matched that passage, Paolini would have created one of my favorite books of all time. But unfortunately Brisingr suffers from a couple of flaws. First, it's too long. Like many successful writers, it appears Paolini did not discipline himself and cut where needed. I don't mind long books, but a fantasy young adult fiction novel should not drag in the middle like this one did. Second, as good as that passage was, other major parts of the novel seemed to lack the style and emotion of other parts.
But these are minor criticisms. I loved the novel and would recommend it to anyone who's read the first two or who likes good fiction (especially fantasy). Paolini has created characters I care about, and his plots are interesting. There is little that is truly original in fantasy anymore, but Paolini has created a terrific world that wraps you up and carries into Alagaesia, a place you're not eager to leave.
Score: 8/10
For the uninitiated, Brisingr is the third book in the 'Inheritance cycle' by young writer Christopher Paolini. The first two books, Eragon and Eldest, were both big young adult fantasy hits. Brisingr has not disappointed, currently #114 on the Amazon.com book list months after its release. The book sold 550,000 copies on the first day of its release in September.
This is definitely my favorite in the series. The first two books (which I recently reread before reading Brisingr) are decent young adult books, but lack the kind of character depth I prefer in my fiction. In addition, the dialogue difference between the two books is remarkable; Paolini has really matured as a writer since he began his career as a 17 year-old.
The best passage in the book comes in the first half. One of the characters, an elf named Arya, is describing to the lead character Eragon what happened to her during her captivity in the first book. The passage is easily my favorite part of the novel, and the best thing Paolini has written in the three books. Its infused with such emotion and pathos, that it almost left me in tears after I read it, and I went back and read that part again.
If the rest of the book had matched that passage, Paolini would have created one of my favorite books of all time. But unfortunately Brisingr suffers from a couple of flaws. First, it's too long. Like many successful writers, it appears Paolini did not discipline himself and cut where needed. I don't mind long books, but a fantasy young adult fiction novel should not drag in the middle like this one did. Second, as good as that passage was, other major parts of the novel seemed to lack the style and emotion of other parts.
But these are minor criticisms. I loved the novel and would recommend it to anyone who's read the first two or who likes good fiction (especially fantasy). Paolini has created characters I care about, and his plots are interesting. There is little that is truly original in fantasy anymore, but Paolini has created a terrific world that wraps you up and carries into Alagaesia, a place you're not eager to leave.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Bob Stoops doesn't need your help
Let me throw some Bob Stoops stats at you: 10 seasons. 109-24 won/loss record, including 68-14 in conference and 24-8 overall the last three seasons, and 27-10 over the 10 seasons against ranked opponents. One national title. 7 BCS bowls (tied for most ever with USC and Ohio State). 7 top 10 finishes.
But of course, here are the counter-numbers: Only third all-time among Oklahoma coaches all-time in winning percentage. 5 straight BCS bowl loses. Yeah, he's got a national title, but that was back in 2000; Florida has won it twice since then.
I've been meaning to write about this for weeks, but just got around to it. After Oklahoma's loss, many commentators, including Mark May on ESPN, called for Stoops to make changes to his program (ludicrous) and to his bowl preparations (maybe).
But look at his his 5 straight BCS loses. To Florida. To an underrated West Virginia team. To a very good Boise State team on a fluke play. Pounded by an awesome USC team with 200 NFL players on the roster. And a tough loss to LSU. Both of those last two were for the BCS title.
What school (besides maybe Florida and USC) wouldn't enthusiastically switch records with Oklahoma? (OK, maybe Oklahoma State or Texas fans would rather do anything besides switch with the Sooners, but you get my point.) If this was BYU or Purdue, we'd be building the guy a statue.
Shouldn't it be hard to win a national championship? If you get to that final game, you're going to be playing another great team. I don't want to attribute it to luck, but Oklahoma's consistency should be lauded, not derided.
So Bob Stoops if you're listening: Mark May has not idea what he's talking about. Keep doing exactly what you're doing.
But of course, here are the counter-numbers: Only third all-time among Oklahoma coaches all-time in winning percentage. 5 straight BCS bowl loses. Yeah, he's got a national title, but that was back in 2000; Florida has won it twice since then.
I've been meaning to write about this for weeks, but just got around to it. After Oklahoma's loss, many commentators, including Mark May on ESPN, called for Stoops to make changes to his program (ludicrous) and to his bowl preparations (maybe).
But look at his his 5 straight BCS loses. To Florida. To an underrated West Virginia team. To a very good Boise State team on a fluke play. Pounded by an awesome USC team with 200 NFL players on the roster. And a tough loss to LSU. Both of those last two were for the BCS title.
What school (besides maybe Florida and USC) wouldn't enthusiastically switch records with Oklahoma? (OK, maybe Oklahoma State or Texas fans would rather do anything besides switch with the Sooners, but you get my point.) If this was BYU or Purdue, we'd be building the guy a statue.
Shouldn't it be hard to win a national championship? If you get to that final game, you're going to be playing another great team. I don't want to attribute it to luck, but Oklahoma's consistency should be lauded, not derided.
So Bob Stoops if you're listening: Mark May has not idea what he's talking about. Keep doing exactly what you're doing.
Celtics: The Sky is falling! Wait, the Celtics will repeat
As a former sports writer, I understand the game. In order to find something to write about, it needs to seem important. So what if the NBA regular season is not a direct corollary to post-season success? When the Celtics dropped four straight (including getting killed by LeBron & Co.), the skeptics appeared, saying the Celtics need to sign so-and-so, or Doc Rivers needs to wake up, or whatever.
Now, the Celtics have righted the ship. But was the ship ever really in disarray? No. The Celtics were unlikely to win 70 games. They're just not that deep, and the Eastern Division possibly has the league's best three teams (and then has a steep drop off). The current Celtics are not the '86 Celtics (who also played in a top-heavy conference), or the '96 Bulls. They are not super deep (though some bench players are really starting to improve), and Doc Rivers is not, in my humble opinion, a great coach, only a good one.
So Celtic fans, relax. Are we bound for another title? Well, winning the East is not going to be easy. Cleveland will be very scary. Orlando is solid. Detroit could be dangerous. And does anyone want to face Dwayne Wade and the Heat?
My prediction today: Celtics face San Antonio in the finals, Boston in 6.
Now, the Celtics have righted the ship. But was the ship ever really in disarray? No. The Celtics were unlikely to win 70 games. They're just not that deep, and the Eastern Division possibly has the league's best three teams (and then has a steep drop off). The current Celtics are not the '86 Celtics (who also played in a top-heavy conference), or the '96 Bulls. They are not super deep (though some bench players are really starting to improve), and Doc Rivers is not, in my humble opinion, a great coach, only a good one.
So Celtic fans, relax. Are we bound for another title? Well, winning the East is not going to be easy. Cleveland will be very scary. Orlando is solid. Detroit could be dangerous. And does anyone want to face Dwayne Wade and the Heat?
My prediction today: Celtics face San Antonio in the finals, Boston in 6.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)