| 0 |
Subject: How to Fix Baseball?
Posted by: KrazyKoalaBears
- Donor [266182910] Mon, Jun 17, 2002, 15:55
blue hen, passed along this link which details some interesting possible solutions for how to fix baseball. My quick thoughts are: - Disagree - Doesn't fix the root problem, just puts it off for a couple of years. Besides, MON and TAM are bad teams. If they were good teams, attendance would likely increase. Again, a root problem to fix that doesn't need contraction.
- Agree - 100%. At least have umpires that have a consistent strike zone. In the same game!
- Agree/Disagree - Agree because they're illegal unless prescribed. Disagree because what should I really care if someone wants to destroy their own body?
- Disagree - You like power and DH? Watch the AL. You like strategy and the pitcher hitting? Watch NL. MLB can have split viewership and survive quite ok.
- Disagree - If we're sending umps back to school (#2), then they should be better and that would be ok with me. Maybe use it for fair/foul calls or unobvious HR calls (like at stadiums with awkward walls like ARI), but that's it for me.
- Agree/Disagree - A rally monkey, by itself, solves nothing. I think teams need a better identity. The Bronx Bombers? Ok, LIVE by that and promote the heck out of it. I saw an ad in my latest issue of SI for PIT tickets. National advertising would go a long way for national fans.
- Agree - 100%. Bud is too tied to the owners to make things work well.
- Agree - BUT, there needs to be more hype of college and minor league baseball. The difference between the NBA, NFL, and MLB is that you've actually heard of the guys being drafted in the first 2.
- Disagree - I like the relaxing pace of baseball. When I went to the stadium to watch college baseball (in college), I enjoyed knowing that I could relax while watching it and didn't have to go animal-mad like in football or basketball. Also, I like scoring baseball and that requires some time in-between AB's and innings.
- Disagree - There's a voting system and they've done a good job, IMO. There are a lot of good/great players that aren't in their respective Hall's, but that's the way things are. As I agreed with blue hen, players in the Hall need to be immortal. Take them away and you've taken a huge chunk out of "the game." Look at the players Santo is most similar to and you see a lot of good players who just weren't good enough for the Hall. Take all of them away and you're not taking a huge chunk away from "the game", IMO
- Disagree - Another "temporary" solution that fixes nothing. Fix the root of the problem and prices will change.
Post your thoughts if you like. |
| 1 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Mon, Jun 17, 2002, 16:34
|
Great Post.
OK here's mine:
1. Somewhat agree. Revenue sharing makes absolutely no sense whatsoever if teams are not held accountable for how they use money that is redistributed for them. I'd prefer to see a situation where he deadbeat owners are forced to sell. Not sure that I see contraction as totally necessary. However, an owner forced to sell his franchise should reserve the right to sell to the highest bidder. If the highest bidder wants to move the franchise, I'm not sure what baseball should be able to do to stop him/her.
2. Totally agree with Wojciechowski and with KKB. I'd add that umps need to be held more accountable by knowing that any slip in their performance should result in some disciplinary action, possibly demotion or retraining or docked salary of some combination.
3. Somewhat agree. Perhaps rather than demanding drug testing now, MLB should just pick a policy and enforce it. If some players can reasonably argue that some substances should be allowed, then allow them and let's not hear anythng more about it. Anything that the league decides is illegal should be tested for regularly and also occasionally by surprise. Perhaps the league should broadly investigate all that is to consider about the matter before endeavoring to agree on their policy.
4. Disagree. I don't have any issue with the different sets of rules and really don't see it as a problem.
5. Unsure. I've grown up being told the humanity (imperfectness) of the perspective of the ump is a part of the game to be cherished. I don't know about that, but I do think umps need to do a better and more consistant job. At the very least they should be judged by the organization that employs them - who should insist that the best and most consistant umps are the ones on the field. The strike zone sensor technology has been developed and works. If we never incorporate it in games it and IR should at least be used to measure effectiveness of our umps.
6. I don't understand the point. Is he calling for the game to be marketed more or on a broader scale?
7. Agree, but we must remember that the way MLB is structured does not really allow for the commissioner's office to weild that much power. Obviously, puting an owner in that chair only serves to undermine the legitimacy of whatever authority it does have.
8. I guess I agree, but like KKB indicates, too few people follow college baseball for enough people to know about most people in the draft halfway through the first round. A problem that doesn't occur to many people is identified well here, but his solution skips it's obvious first step. In order to market the draft, people need to know who's getting drafted. Let's see more college baseball on TV!!
9. Mostly disagree. It's a slow paced game. If you take a real issue with that then maybe you should be watching tennis, bullfighting or Greco-Roman wrestling. I do take some exception to hitters waiting for their theme music to end before steping into the batter's box, however.
10. Man, that's really stupid.
11. Uh, sure, that's great for 2003, but when franchises count up how much money they've lost in not raising ticket prices, they're just going to have to adjust them even more for 2004.
|
| 2 | Eustacio
ID: 51729258
Mon, Jun 17, 2002, 16:46
|
My thoughts:
1) Disagree. As KKB said, this just puts it off another couple of years. Besides, someone else will just see those markets as "untapped potential" in a few years and fight to get a team in there. Move Montreal to D.C. maybe, but that's about it.
2) Agree. Umpires need to be consistent and let the players play the game. When it's feasible to bet on a game based on who the umpires are, something is wrong.
3) Agree. I don't care that you're an athlete. I don't care if you make 5 million or 25 million a year. You take an illegal substance, you suffer the legal consequences. You don't get immunity to the law because you're an athlete.
4) Neutral. I really don't care about this one. Some people like it, some don't.
5) Disagree. I can't see how coming up with something that will probably slow the action down is a good thing. And, as KKB said, if we're going to be improving the Umps, then we don't need this.
6) Neutral. No real feelings on this.
7) Agree. Selig is an owner's puppet. He's either afraid to get tough with the owners or he just plain refuses to do so.
8) Agree. I could see this being done either during the winter or possibly at the ASB and playing it up. While it isn't MLB's responsibility to promote college baseball, I do wish college baseball would promote itself a bit better.
9) Disagree. I'm sorry, but he offers absolutely no suggestions on how to do any of this. This sounds like a personal gripe to me and doesn't hold any water. Just because people aren't in constant motion like in football doesn't mean the game is too slow, even though an average game isn't much longer than a football game.
10) Disagree. Yet another stupid arguement without any proof.
11) Disagree. Oh yes, let's ignore inflation, ignore a potential revenue source, and ignore rising salaries "because it's the right thing to do". Financial stupidity, I'm sorry. Yes, owners need to stop with the huge salaries for players. Yes, expensive tickets bother me as a consumer. However, a freeze on prices is just plain stupid in reality. You institute a freeze on ticket prices, they just start charging vendors more to sell inside the stadium. Vendors charge more for their wares. People sneak food into the game even more often. More people get caught and kicked out. Result: One angry fan who doesn't get to enjoy a game.
|
| 3 | JeffG
Sustainer
ID: 40451227
Mon, Jun 17, 2002, 16:51
|
Speed of the game. I too like the pace, but if you watch ESPN classic and any game 1980's or earlier, you will see that the batter not stepping out of the box between pitches and the time it takes each batter to stroll up to the plate to start his at bat has greatly increased since then. Little things should be done which will to noticible affect the pase but keep average games around 2:45.
Instant Replay: I am against it in any sport until I can see a system that really works.
New leadership: I volunteer.
DH/No DH: I am an AL fan who would like to see the DH go away. Go back to pure baseball. But I would prefer seeing one set of rules prevail.
Contraction/ticket prices: I agree with KKB that there are alot of issues that can be added to the mix here which are band aid notions and not get at the root problem that will eventually lead to baseballs continued popularity decline if not addressed. Mostly getting a competitive balance solution figured out.
Steroids: Without really knowing all the harms and benefits of performance enhancers, I'll take the stance that there should be some set of basic list of banned substances, but mostly geared towards illegal drugs. Keep in mind that unprescribed steroids I would imagine are illegal.
Umpires back to school: Not really, just have one uniform and consistent league wide interpretation of the strike zone with umpires being judged, rewarded and punished internally (like in football) for following it. Also think that there should be a way of quietly eliminating bad umpires.
|
| 4 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Mon, Jun 17, 2002, 16:58
|
1. The author misses the whole issue in #1. Contraction is mostly a bargaining chip for Bud in a sense --but the issue is a serious one and could be a big Fish or Cut Bait issue. (The upcoming arbitrators' decision -- whether contraction must be bargained -- is the most important labour relations event by far since the decision holding the reserve clause only bound for one year.) If Fehr and his minions stick by the position that there will be no luxury tax or serious revenue sharing -- and can make it stick, strike-wise, then baseball should -- will have to contract by 6 to 8 teams within a few years. If the union agrees to both of the above -- in a modified form, of course -- then there need be no contraction at all.
2. Disagree 100%. The umpiring is fine now. Sandy Alderson took care of the problem with the assistance of boneheaded leadership by umpire union head Ricihe Phillips. MLB umpiring is probably now better than it has ever been. Some of the older umpires have had problems adjusting to calling the high strike -- but they have tried, and there are disciplinary procedures in place for those who don't. Umpires, if anything, take too much crap from players, and need to have authority in dealing with players paid 10x they are.. When was the last time that an umpire cleared (ejected) the entire bench, like was done in the good old days?
3. Steroid testing if it can be done in a non-punitive manner, and cover all health-endangering substances. KKB: "what should I really care if someone wants to destroy their own body?" Well, 1. You are a human being, aren't you? 2. 40 years from now, do you want to see the stars of the present attending old-timers games and swapping tall tales, or dying of performance-enhancing-substance-caused afflictions?
4. I'm strongly against the DH, but opinion is so divided that it's probably best to keep it the way it is now. Nothing wrong with different rules for different leagues. Some people like faux DH "baseball" and I accept that.
5. No instant replay. I don't think I have ever heard a player support IR in baseball -- OK, I am sure there must be some, so don't throw exceptions at me. It's a game of human judgment and should stay that way.
6....
7. Can't stand Bud, but he may turn out to be have served a purpose as the only person who could hold the owners together enough to make a concerted (last?) stand. Were it not for union encroachment in powers for the last few decades, he should never be let within 10 miles of anything approaching a commissioner's authority, of course.
9. I was looking through a Sporting News Baseball Annual from the 70s last week. Lee McPhail, when appointed President of the American League, said that one of his two major objectives was to speed up the game by requiring batters to stay in the batters' box between pitches....Anyone remember the rule of the 60s that a pitcher had to pitch within a certain number of seconds or a ball would be called? Charlie Finley installed a scoreboard clock to time this...the umpires thought they were being shown up, and IIRC the only time the rule was ever enforced was against KC pitchers (Diego Segui, I believe...)
I'm of two minds about this. Bill James, in his new edition of the Historical Baseball Abstract, rails about long games to an absurd degree. I attribute that to his growing old. As a fan at a game, I've never thought one was too long.
I guess I would require batters to stay in the batters box and not be allowed to step out after every pitch. That would have the (minor) collateral effect of hurting offence, and I am in agreement with the view that this massive offence era has gone on too long; time to swing back.
10. Ron Santo clearly deserves to be in the HOF; James has him rated as the 6th best 3Bman of all time. He was a better player than Brooks Robinson, Pie Traynor, and George Kell. I'd just as soon see him get it while he's alive.
11. Geez is this author a phony. Hey, Gene -- the day all baseball fans (not to mention players) agree to stop asking for salary increases, is the day MLB should institute a price freeze.
Great thread, KKB.
Toral
|
| 5 | WiddleAvi
ID: 464462917
Mon, Jun 17, 2002, 17:54
|
Baseball can easily be fixed with a salary cap. The players can cry and bitch all they want but it would it would create a more level playing field. In turn the owners should lower ticket prices. Between lower ticket prices and a more level playing field I would bet that attendace would jump up ALOT.
And whats this crap about the players union not agreeing to steriod testing ?? Does any NFL player have a choice ?? If baseball decides to ban it then the players should not have a choice in the matter in regards to testing. I know if my employer decided to start testing for drugs they wouldn't ask me if I was ok with it !!!
I don't really like that ballparks are different sizes and that the AL has a DH and the NL doesn't but I don't think it really matters that much.
Bottom line is if more teams are competititve them more people will go to games.
|
| 6 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Mon, Jun 17, 2002, 18:24
|
Toral, re: #3. All I'm saying is that it's someones personal choice to take, or not take, steroids. If someone is going to take steroids, then I would assume they have done all the research necessary to make an informed decision. If, upon that, they decide to use steroids, then so be it. And if they didn't do any research before taking steroids, then they're just dumb. Either way, they will have to deal with the consequences of their choice, just like you or I deal with the consequences of the choices we make each and every day. Personally, I think baseball has MUCH larger issues to deal with and focusing on steroids is just avoiding the real problems with the game. Have you noticed how a large majority of the talk about a strike or lockout has fallen by the wayside since all the steroid talk came up? Besides, look at Ken Caminiti. He flat out said that if he had to do it all over again, he would. Even after he's experienced a number of side effects from steroids, he says he would do it again. So you really need to talk to the players about your choice between old-timer games and the grave because some of them obviously don't care much.
|
| 7 | blue hen, almighty
ID: 473133021
Mon, Jun 17, 2002, 18:31
|
1. Disagree. Contraction is bad, especially when it's just a tool to make expansion money in 2 or 3 years. Remember when people wanted to contract the Mariners?
2. Agree. The best umpires are the ones you don't notice.
3. Disagree. I disagree on steroids. I don't think it's as much of a problem. If they want to risk health later in life, I don't have THAT much of a problem with it. Are we ever going to prohibit lifting weights?
4. Disagree. I like the split DH; it separates the leagues.
5. Agree, sort of. I think that, yes, instant replay COULD be good, but will NOT help speed up the game (see 9).
6. Ambivalent. I'm not sure why he put Rally Monkeys in there. Probably similar to why pro wrestlers say the name of the city they're in.
7. Agree. Bud Selig isn't very popular these days. Costas would make a fine commisioner
8. Agree. BUT it's not exactly exciting seeing your team draft some 18 year old high schooler who won't be in the Majors for 5 years. What I don't like is that it seems like the draft is downplayed just for leverage in paying out signing bonuses.
9. Agree. I don't have a solution for this. A 1-0 game goes much faster than a 10-8 game, but for some reason baseball is embracing the offensive explosion (at least it's not soccer). Baseball games aren't that much longer than football games.
10. Disagree. That's why we have a voting system. And while it's flawed, I can't think of a better way short of "Let Dave Lipman decide." Santo's a great player, but so are a lot of other players. It should never be the task of a commisioner or any small group of individuals to decide things like this.
11. Disagree wholeheartedly. If it's too expensive, then don't go. Of course, that'll just make them want to contract your team.
------------
I also told KKB about my other idea. 16 teams in the NL? Why not go with four divisions of four teams each, and get rid of the Wild Card? Make the Wild Card "an AL thing" like the DH? Further separation of the leagues. And after that get rid of interleague play.
|
| 8 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Mon, Jun 17, 2002, 19:06
|
1 – I disagree. Move the Expos to Portland or DC. Leave TB or KC or whoever alone. I don’t believe we have a dilution of talent. I think it is more likely a lack of GM talent.
2 – There have been a couple of incidents, the ump making Dan Wilson sweep the plate for him, and though I didn’t see it, the Arod incident, that bother me a bit, Overall though, there are bigger fish to fry.
3 – I don’t like that players may be forced to take performance enhancing drugs just to maintain a even playing field, but I’m not certain drug testing is the answer. First of all, it won’t work. You might catch those using steroids, but they will just move on to something you can’t test for. Second, it isn’t at all clear to me what the real health risks are. If someone could point me to some studies that show there are health risks, please do. Anecdotes are not evidence. Many players get hurt, regardless of ‘roid use. Thirdly, even if there are health risks, it’s their bodies, not mine. Beyond the affect on the game and the pressure it puts on other players to follow suit, I could care less what they inject into themselves. Maybe voluntary testing to create a “clean list” to stigmatize hormone use and at least hold the line with regard to the % of players using.
4 – This one’s easy. Wait for Edgar to retire, than get rid of the DH. Specialization sucks.
5 – Sure. Use instant replay if you like. I figure it all balances out in the long run though, and couldn’t care less. Put a camera on every cap if it makes you happy.
6 – I prefer mascot death matches.
7 – A rotating commissioner. Who ever won the previous year’s spelling bee would be fine. Do a better job the combud. That would be true test of home schooling benefits.
8 – Agree. Great. Put ‘em in clown suits, and make sure they understand they are entertainers.
9- Agree. That would be commercial’s fault, no? All goes back to fiscal restraint when signing those durn contracts.
10 - Bah. Get some better, less biased voters.
11 – Better yet, a 20% rollback. This is actually happening here in Seattle. The scalpers got overzealous, and now they are taking a bath. Sweet seats for under face for all but the most hyped of Yankee spankings.
Y'all make some good points. Particularly Toral's revenue comments. Fix it all at the same time in a way that works long term and allows every fan to have hope that they may see there team in the WS before they die. Great thread.
|
| 9 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Mon, Jun 17, 2002, 19:09
|
KKB: I guess we're just not on the same wavelength at all here -- and that's not a criticism -- maybe I'm the guy marching to a different drummer here.
But re your point: "Besides, look at Ken Caminiti. He flat out said that if he had to do it all over again, he would. Even after he's experienced a number of side effects from steroids, he says he would do it again. So you really need to talk to the players about your choice between old-timer games and the grave because some of them obviously don't care much."
That makes exactly my point about steroids. If a player has to use them to be a star/get in the MLs for a period of years and get a $x million dollar contract, he will. Some player -- I think it was Gwynn -- said online somewhere recently that when discussion when he was a player came up about steroids he spoke out against them, but when the hypothetical of a marginal player, who might or might not make the bigs and make the big money, but who could juice up and thereby make the MLs and get a couple-million-dollar contract came up, the discussion went silent -- i.e., the anti-steroid players couldn't argue with that. That's why steroids need to be banned. Because a Ken Caminiti would use them even if it gives him lifetime health problems and his testicles retract. Because a Joe Blow will be use them to get that 3-year, $2.7 million contract that will take care of his family for his whole life, if he preserves his money, even if he goes the Lyle Alzado route.
Now here, I could make the obvious point, that allowing steroid use is not fair to the Joe Blows who want to compete using just their God-given abiltiies. And that is clearly true, and that one point should really be enough to decide the issue without any doubt. But that point is not really the one that resonates emotionally with me.
I follow a sport. I don't really make, nowadays, great emotional attachments to players. But I have enough attachment not to want them to be in a position where they are induced to take known life-harming substances in able to be able to compete.
Ironically, (per my political stance), I guess this makes me a bleeding-heart liberal.
I think the pro-steroid crowd is very reminiscent of the crowd in Roman gladiator days; that these attitudes survive in civilized society surprises me, a bit. But then, we're talking about the United States.
Toral
|
| 10 | Seattle Zen
Donor
ID: 554192913
Mon, Jun 17, 2002, 19:31
|
You are just a skinny, pasty-skined Canuck, Toral.
The whole, "if you took the steroids, you'ld make the big leagues," hypo is CRAP, pure CRAP! Everyone has there own workout regimine. Some players avoid weights altogether. I laugh at Tony Gwynn coming out against steroids when Mr. Tubby never lifted anything heavier than a fork.
You guys can root root root for the Dwyane Kuipers of the world, but I'll thank a pharamist for allowing Lenny Dykstra become "Nails", thank you very much.
|
| 11 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Mon, Jun 17, 2002, 19:53
|
Toral, I'm not a pro-steroid person in the least bit. Don't confuse my stance of, "It's your body, so do with it as you please" with being someone who thinks players SHOULD take steroids. As far as the guy who feels he's forced to take steroids to make more money to set up his family, I have no sympathy for him. Try working in the real world where $500k/year is still a LOT of money and would set up someone's family for quite a while. Someone making $33k/year would have to work 15 years to make that kind of money. Even if you work from age 20-60 at a job for an average of $33k/year, that's a total of $1.32M. It would take all of 3 years for that "poor" steroid-less player to make that money. Sorry, but I don't feel any sympathy for their "tough" situation of trying to decide whether or not to use steroids to make $2-4M instead of "only" $500k-1M. Maybe making $500k/year and NOT buying the HUGE house with all the cars that he doesn't drive would be a better decision. But that's for him to decide.
|
| 12 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Mon, Jun 17, 2002, 20:07
|
KKB: maybe I didn't describe the Gwynn hypothetical (and I have seen the same choice described elsewhere) right...the choice isn't between $2M a year and $500K. The hypothetical choice is between the majors (let's say $1M a year guarnatted for 3 years), and the minors -- maybe right around your figure of $33K, or lower, with no future guarantees....
Toral
|
| 13 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Mon, Jun 17, 2002, 20:25
|
To me, it's still a personal choice. There are a lot of people in this country that make a living off of $33k/year or less.
|
| 14 | Stuck in the Sixties
Leader
ID: 12451279
Mon, Jun 17, 2002, 21:59
|
I think what baseball needs most is an independent commissioner. Maybe, since baseball has its anti-trust exemption, Congress should pay the commissioner!!
Anyway, consider how the '97 Marlins were broken up because Huizenga wanted to sell the franchise and put the money in his pocket.
Back in the '70s, the Oakland A's tried to sell Joe Rudi to the Red Sox (just a straight cash deal) and the commissioner rejected it as "not in the best interest of the game." I think history has shown that was the correct decision. Imagine if that Marlin team was still together. Kevin Brown, Gary Sheffield, Al Leiter, Moises Alou, Edgar Renteria, etc, etc. Maybe the Marlins would have a much larger fan base and a tradition to be proud of if that team was still together.
The A's of the '70s belonged to Charlie Finley every bit as much as the Marlins belonged to Wayne Huizenga in '97. But with a weak commissioner, Huizenga was allowed to ruin his franchise while with a strong commissioner, Finley wasn't.
Selig's position that the owners have the right to "run" their own businesses is not only crap, it's inaccurate. Owners have historically had their hands slapped on any number of occasions. More of that needs to happen.
|
| 15 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 484582817
Mon, Jun 17, 2002, 22:37
|
Gotta agree with Toral on this one. I don't believe that any player would really make any "informed" choices when faced with keeping up with guys who are juiced. The pressure to make it to the Bigs is too great for people not to take the stuff.
Left to their own devises, players would opt to make the short-term gain, even those who have the talent, physique, and drive to have succeeded without it. So making it a "personal choice" issue is a red herring. Allowing it would be bringing it in full force.
And we the fans would be left with guys looking like Mo Vaughn trying to run the bases. Ugh.
pd
|
| 16 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 58735170
Mon, Jun 17, 2002, 23:41
|
I always found the best way to fix baseball is payoff the pitcher? j/k
|
| 17 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Tue, Jun 18, 2002, 16:41
|
So, PD, how are you going to test? What are you going to test? Is there even a test for HGH or testosterone, which I suspect is what most players are now using, not anabolics?
Where is the line drawn? I imagine there are hundreds drugs that could be considered to aid in training and rehab, to a greater or lesser degree. I imagine that thousand more new drugs will continue to be produced in the future. Which ones do you test for? By the time you decide to test, will the players have just moved on the the latest and greatest?
I think even if you had mandatory testing 365 days per year, which no player would put up with (would you?), you would still see players who use some chemical to enhance their chances of major league success.
I think openness, education and encouraging clean players to stay clean and holding these players in a different light, while stigmatizing the drugs that provide most extreme benefits is the best you can do.
|
| 18 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 3948815
Tue, Jun 18, 2002, 17:33
|
Just like all sports that test for performance enhancing drugs, the athletes and their handlers are always steps ahead of the testing. Likely Baseball would be even worse because changing anything about the agreed upon testing would likely have to wait until the next renegotiations and thus would be outdated in months. Any testing that does occur will likely only result in a positive PR move and not cause any of the players who want to use these drugs to stop using them. The players will just get smarter about using them. Just like the NFL they may catch a player or two a year and if you look at the NFL guys that get caught most of the time it is because they were using some OTC supplement that did not list an ingredient. Don't tell me only 1 or 2 NFL players use performance enhancing drugs.
I think they should test just for the PR benefit but anyone who believes that will have any effect on the problem is naive. Steroids/Performance Enhancing Drugs and modern sports are unfortunately a fact of life. There is little to nothing realistic they can do to stop athletes from using them.
|
| 19 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 484582817
Tue, Jun 18, 2002, 18:32
|
Hmmm. You guys are posting as though there is no current system anywhere else!
While the details of who, when, and how often to test are to be worked out, the ability to test reliably seems to be a problem unencountered by the other three sports.
And I certainly don't buy the argument that because it appears difficult that we should just throw in the towel, put out some pamphlets, and hope these guys stay clean. They won't. So (like the other sports) we test, knowing that a small percentage of athletes will, indeed, risk expulsion from The Show by taking banned substances. Just as some gamble on baseball, that doesn't mean we should remove the ban on such gambling.
The sport will be better for having taken some strong measures against these particular set of drugs, even though it's not 100% effective. It's the right thing.
pd
|
| 20 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Tue, Jun 18, 2002, 18:42
|
"The right thing?"!??! What are you Nancy Reagan now, PD? I'm writing the Democratic Party to get your affiliation revoked. ;)
No, I won't agree that infringing on personal liberties to dubious or negative affect is "the right thing".
I think CTRS compared it directly to other testing programs and other leagues. I agree with him that is likely not working there, just as I can't foresee it working in MLB.
|
| 21 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 58735170
Tue, Jun 18, 2002, 22:50
|
I agree they should test but just because they do does not mean the sport is any cleaner. The problem will still be there...My point is I believe testing will have little impact on how many players use performance enhancing drugs. It is a nice thought to test and the right PR move but it does little to nothing to solve the problem.
|
| 22 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 20:30
|
This is old thread and the article is not how to 'fix baseball'. But it made me think of the start of every season when I'm not sure which 'teams' are playing if you just listened to the starting lineups. I can still give you the 'basic' lineups of some teams from the 60's [especially the Phillies and other NL teams] but not from the 90's.
Fans love baseball — but does it still love them back?
It happened again not long before their season ended Sunday: I turned the radio dial to my beloved Los Angeles Dodgers — and couldn't tell which team was up.
In this era of corporate baseball, high-priced players come and go too quickly for me to remember their names. Like too much of the world, baseball has lost its personal touch. For fans, it's sad.
......... Today's teams are no longer made up of minor leaguers who played together in a farm system long before coming up to the majors. Instead, they are cobbled-together groups of free agents who often only stay long enough to get a better offer. Team loyalty has gone the way of job security in the rest of the world.
... There was a day when I knew all of the Dodger players: histories, batting averages, sometimes even the names of their wives and kids. I say only half in jest that I was raised by Vin Scully.
..... My love affair with the Dodgers went on for decades. ........ I was just a fan in those days, same as now — one of millions. But I mattered. ........ Somewhere along the line, though, we became customers instead.
|
| 23 | Khahan
ID: 10701318
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 22:13
|
1. Agree: However that is just the start. Along with contraction, they need to do things like re-work revenue sharing, change roster size (down a little to get rid of the 8th inning-i-only-throw-to-lefties-and-its-a-1-pitch-slider specialists), and salary cap..for starters.
2. Agree 100%. Not that I think the umps are that terrible (as he paints them), but because its simply on job training and is good for everybody.
3. Big yes.
4. Leave it like it is. That is 1 of the quaint oddities that helps make baseball what it is.
5. I'm torn, but I'm going to say leave instant replay out. The human equation has always been a part of the game. Moreso in baseball than any other sport.
6. Whatever floats your boat.
7. Bud must go and a neutral party should be in. There should never be an (ex) owner or player as commish.
8. YES. I'm agreeing with the HYPE part. The draft should be on TV and the season/games should be hyped more. Get a better promotions department and SELL THE GAME AND THE PLAYERS.
9. While I wouldn't mind seeing it happen, it can't be done without hurting the game itself.
10. No.
11. See the comments above about salary cap. Stop offering these guys $15mil a year and having $100 mil payrolls and you won't have to raise ticket prices.
|
| 24 | Razor
Donor
ID: 411149818
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 22:27
|
Does no one believe in the integrity of the game? Jeez, there's more at stake here than players' health. Condoning steroid use is analogous to condoning the use of an aluminum bat. As PD said, there are systems in place in other sports that do catch offenders. Just because they aren't perfect doesn't mean they shouldn't be implemented. Maybe the other pro sports aren't great, but the Olympics are pretty cutting edge. I don't see why anyone would willingly choose to watch a steroid-filled game over a clean game.
|
| 25 | Two words
ID: 5295120
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 22:28
|
Duct tape.
|
| 26 | Ejector
ID: 19336170
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 00:36
|
#24 Razor - well said. As a outsider not from the US, and a newcomer to following MLB since 2000, but a huge sports fan of many sports from around the globe, I am amazed at the attitude to the drugs issue in MLB. I find it almost unbelievable that there is no testing. The number of valid arguments for the testing and banning of certain substances, ranging from the prevention of inevitable juvenile drug use to the long term effect on athletes who take them, are significant, and I won't go through them all here. However I will comment on one notion being expressed here, I guess what can be expressed as the freedom to abuse oneself (don't snigger) if one so wishes. The suggestion is that if a player wants to take steroids, or some other performance enhancing drug, then that is their decision and any negative health consequences which emerge down the track are their concern. This attitude overlooks some important issues, one of which I will address. Example - Player A is a better baseballer than Player B, but loses out to Player B for a spot on the team/roster/in the majors because Player B is prepared to take banned substances and Player A is not.
I am sure some people will argue that so be it, Player A is not prepared to make the sacrifices that Player B is for his career, so he deserves to miss out. And why should we, as neutral observers, be concerned, as this is professional sport and you do whatever is needed to win? Well consider this. You, not some ballplayer you will never meet, but you, have an opportunity to get the job of your dreams. The job you have wanted since you were a child. You and one other person are in line for the position. It is evident to you that you are more qualified for the position. However, the choice comes down to this - which of you is perpared to inject heroin on a regular basis? If you want the job, here you go, shoot up. You lose the job because you don't want to do that.
It's not so easily dismissed as "what should I really care if someone wants to destroy their own body", is it?. You will care then because it is affecting YOU.
I'm not in anyway trying to compare the relative health implications of steroid and heroin abuse. I am stating that the effects of illegal drug abuse do not stop with the individual taking those drugs. People often don't consider this. I'm sure there would be some athletes who don't reach the rewards they deserve based on their natural ability, hard training, etc., because they lose out to athletes who take the necessary banned drugs to raise their performance above those that don't. This is wrong. And if you don't think it is, I trust you find nothing wrong when someone who is prepared to break the law, cheat, etc., gets the better of you.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|