The aftermath of the Mitchell Report
The schedule suggests I should post the next part of the look back at the community projections today - specifically, covering the outfielders. However, I think it's probably best to leave this day entirely to the Mitchell report and its aftermath, and return to our regularly scheduled ranting tomorrow. So, instead, here are a few thoughts on what it contained.
Though a number of Diamondbacks were listed in the report, most of them were minor bit players, such as Ron Villone, who made fifteen relief appearances for the Tucson Sidewinders in 2003. But it certainly puts Alex Cabrera's rapid departure for Japan in an interesting light. We were there at the BOB [on the balcony at Friday's Front Row Grill, actually] when he homered in his first major-league at bat, though that now takes on more of a bitter taste than a celebratory one. Stephen Randolph's presence was definitely a surprise: in 2004 he walked 76 hitters faster (81.2 innings) than any pitcher in baseball history, bar Ken Wright (82 BB, 80.2 IP, 1973), which goes to show that PEDs won't help if you can't pitch worth a damn
Matt Williams is probably the biggest D-backs name mentioned, but there isn't anything significantly new in the allegations. Ditto Troy Glaus, where the report largely recounts the Sports Illustrated piece on him, without adding much new to report. Looking at the names, it's clear that steroid use was as much for those at the bottom of the heap, seeking to break into or stay in the major-leagues as at the top. Despite having more than half a roster's worth mentioned by name, the team's response to the report was, inevitably, bland:
Outside of Arizona, the apparently utterly damning evidence against Roger Clemens leaves us with the sad situation that the best hitter and, arguably, best pitcher of this era are both frauds and cheats. The parallels between the two are obvious: both were immensely talented athletes, who would probably have made it to the Hall of Fame on their own merits. But that wasn't enough for them. They chose to consider themselves above the rules and opted to prolong their careers, instead of accepting the inevitable decline of age.
I did look in to seeing who came out on top when the Ultimate PED Hitter faced the Ultimate PED Pitcher. But I was surprised to find Bonds came to the plate a mere eight times against Clemens in their 21 seasons together in the majors. That seems freakishly low - to put it into context, it's the same number as Doug Davis. But in case you were wondering, Bonds never put the ball in play off the Rocket: two K's, five walks and an HBP. To paraphrase a baseball cliche, it looks like juiced pitching can probably beat juiced hitting.
It's important to note that this is likely not a full accounting. Mitchell never requested the names of players implicated in the ongoing investigation of the illegal distribution of steroids by Signature Pharmacy down in Florida. And that's also excluding all the players who, in the words of Yahoo's Jeff Passan, "happened to choose dealers who weren't stupid enough to get caught by the government." So this will continue to rumble on, but this is about the first time that any official source has named names, so it's a start to the cleansing process at least. Mitchell does come up with some recommendations, but I can't say I'm impressed. I mean. "Prominently Display Posters About Performance Enhancing Substance Use Prevention"? The demand for independent, transparent, year-round, unannounced testing is good...but then it appears Barry Bonds was warned of drug tests in advance.
Where do we go from here? We'll see. Is the game cleaner now? Hard to say. But I notice that this year, there were on 4,957 homers hit during the regular season, a drop of 10% from six seasons ago, when Bonds hit 71 and there were 5,458 all told. This year, only six men hit more than 35 homers; in 2001, there were twenty-three - including Rich Aurilia (37 - next best season, 23), Luis Gonzalez (57/31) and Barry Bonds (73/46). I guess this suggests that whatever drugs are being taken, they do not appear to be increasing home-run totals in quite the same way. On a day like today, I'll take my comfort wherever I can find it, thank you very much.
0 recs |
17 comments
Comments
Depressed.....
http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-spmitch1213,0,7080212.story?coll=ny_news_local_xpromo
Can't you imagine How surpriced I am! Now Clemens' Hall of Fame status has to be in serious doubt. I can't help flashing back his outstanding records. His career is from his high school days, and in Boston, Toronto, New York, and Houston, even in his near quarter century of major-league service, his illustrious performance build up his great success step by step. Without a doubt, he is one of the biggest in recent history baseball player. In November, I got a book - The Rocket: Baseball Legend Roger Clemens from http://www.dealstudio.com/searchdeals.php?deal_id=72946 It makes me more familiar with him. He is not only a great player, but also a dedicated family man. He is a good example of devoted work ethic and responsibility to team and fan and family. But, just see what happens now. It's a sharp contrast. Maybe a man who has succesful career doesn't mean he has a perfect personality. We folks may reflect what we should idolize of superstars.
by ppuukkcute on Dec 14, 2007 7:07 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Never
by johngordonma on Dec 14, 2007 9:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Is this just a plug?
by seton hall snake pit on Dec 14, 2007 10:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I don't doubt it. :-)
It's actually a very interesting point. While Nonds is, by most reports, an arrogant toe-rag with few redeeming features, Clemens is perhaps closer to Shakesperean tragedy; a hero with a fatal flaw, whose pride, ambition or whatever leads to his downfall. Of course, no-one can take away the wins and K's, but his reputation is toast.
by Jim McLennan on Dec 14, 2007 11:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A large body
But to distance Roger from Barry by painting Clemens as a "hero with a fatal flaw" vs Barry as more predictably driven to PEDs by a darker soul, is off base, I think. Both superlative players, making very similar decisions about PEDs, seeking similar grails. Money, perhaps. Certainly athletic pre-eminence. The similarities here seem quite evident, and more relevant to PED use and motivation, than are moral distinctions loosely based on the generally accepted notion that Barry happens to be more disagreeable.
Of course, no-one can take away the wins and K's
Then, to be consistent, do you feel no one can take away Bonds' stats either? Unless his shittier personality is one's motivating force for doing so?
by Diamondhacks on Dec 14, 2007 1:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OT: Callaspo Traded
"Buckner, a labrum surgery survivor, has a plus curveball according to Baseball Prospectus' Kevin Goldstein. Goldstein adds that he's able to get groundballs and projects as a fourth starter. Throw him in the NL, maybe he could even become a #3."
I like the move, but maybe thats because I dont like Callaspo. Good riddance.
by pepperdinedevil on Dec 14, 2007 3:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
commence with inevitable Billl Buckner jokes....
I thought we had a "logjam" at first?
by Diamondhacks on Dec 14, 2007 6:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
trades
by trevjohnson on Dec 14, 2007 6:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
The Mitchell report...
Is anyone sure that many other players were not using as well or even certain that the players named are guilty?
Just shameful.
by foulpole on Dec 15, 2007 4:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
totally disagree
I think what we have in the Mitchell report is a very good start. Not a panacea, obviously, but a very good start.
by johngordonma on Dec 16, 2007 1:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"From the response of those named it...
In America, we have a criminal justices system that assumes innocence until proven guilty in a court of law and we still get convictions wrong under those circumstances.
This is just a witch hunt against the players that is being played out in the press.
How many articles have you read that breaks down the FOs, GMs, and Owners that had the suspected users on their clubs?
Sounds to me that The A's, Rangers, Giants, Mets, Bluejays, Marlins, etc. etc. FOs should be under scrutiny. No?
by foulpole on Dec 17, 2007 6:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
huh?
by johngordonma on Dec 18, 2007 10:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What I said was...
And if there is truly an interest in exposing this issue then why shouldn't the FOs and the commissioner be scrutinized?
Do you think that Billy Beane or Bud et. al. didn't know what was going on in the clubhouse for all those years?
by foulpole on Dec 20, 2007 7:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The obvious implication
An analogy might be when two kids in a class fail a test, you basically blame the kids, but if 10 or 12 or 14 kids fail, blame naturally gravitates towards the teacher,administration,etc.
I also would've liked to see more explicit scrutiny of the comissioner and FOs (there was some, to be fair), but by dramatically widening the perceived scope of use, the Mitchell Report is implicitly indicting the system and lack of controls even more than the players, IMO, and I think that's a healthy development.
by Diamondhacks on Dec 20, 2007 8:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Penalize teams when players use steroids
"Why don't teams get penalized when their players test positive?" the GM asked."
"This is too much," one AL executive said about the proposed penalties. "You're talking largely about (the past). Why have a radical reaction now?"
by foulpole on Dec 20, 2007 8:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

by 



















