Baseball '09

I haven't made a post about baseball all year, and the evening of the All-Star Game is as good a time as any to chime in. I'm far less focused on baseball as I used to be. There was a time, especially when I was playing fantasy baseball, that I knew all the players on all the teams, but no longer. I watched the Home Run Derby last night and had to admit I had never heard of Nelson Cruz of the Texas Rangers, who almost won the thing. I know that I will watch the player introductions for the game tonight and see more such players who are unknown to me.

Part of this stems from the fact that I'm interested in other things, and also that I follow an out-of-town team (the Detroit Tigers) so I don't watch much baseball on a regular basis, instead following it from a distance. I'm not one who can just plunk myself down in front of a regular season game between teams that I don't have a rooting interest for or against.

The other problem with baseball these days is the stain of steroids. I'm not one of those types, like many sportswriters, who is in a high dudgeon about this sort of thing. I would vote Mark McGwire into the Hall of Fame--nothing has been proven about him, and anyway they weren't banned at that time. If steroids are as prevalent as it said they are, then the playing field was fairly level--pitchers taking steroids were throwing to batters taking steroids who were hitting to fielders taking steroids. And fans don't seem to be concerned too much about his, either, judging by the reception that Manny Ramirez received from the home-town fans in L.A., who are once again buying dreadlock wigs.

But it's undeniable that the abuse of steroids has resulted in something lost in the game. In twenty years time half of the top ten home run hitters may be kept out of the Hall of Fame, judging by the reception McGwire has received. He and Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Alex Rodriguez, and Rafael Palmeiro, as well as Roger Clemens, may be kept out by a rigorous standard established by the baseball writers. I can't disagree with the sentiment of that stance, but it's damaging to the sport. It already seems wrong that the all-time hit gatherer, Pete Rose, is kept out of the Hall.

There are signs of hope, though, mainly in the person of Albert Pujols of the St. Louis Cardinals. He came out with a strong statement this week declaring he's not a steroid-user, and one has to believe him. He is clearly the best hitter in the game, putting up awesome numbers: he is the only player in the history of the game to collect as many as thirty homers in his first nine seasons, and has never hit lower than .314 or had fewer that 103 RBI. This season he is a legitimate triple-crown threat, a sure bet to get his second consecutive MVP and third over-all. I'm not a Cardinals fan, but it's hard to root against this guy, as he's the best hope for the game.

As for the Tigers, they sit in first place at the break, winning with a combination of good starting pitching and timely hitting, plus some precarious but effective bullpen work. All this even after it seems like Dontrelle Willis will be a bust and Magglio Ordonez is done. But I don't want to say too much about it because I'm sure to jinx things.

Comments

  1. He came out with a strong statement this week declaring he's not a steroid-user, and one has to believe him.

    Why, exactly? I know this is sort of the conventional wisdom, but why does one believe him?

    Mind you, I have no real interest either way in whether he's a user or not. But the standards for who to believe and who not to believe seem awfully arbitrary to me.

    (Not picking on you in particular, JS, but the sports pundit world in general.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. When I say one has to believe him, I mean that one has to believe him or risk sinking so far into cynicism that one might as well abandon an interest in the sport. A-Rod and Ramirez's crimes were no surprise, but Pujols seems like such a good citizen that I choose to believe him, though I have no personal knowledge of his innocence.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pujols seems like such a good citizen that I choose to believe him..

    Well, I guess this is what I mean. At various points of their careers, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, and Rafael Palmeiro were also thought to be "good guys" in some sense or another. At one point, it was conventional wisdom that A-Rod would hopefully break Bonds' record, so that it would finally be clean. And switching sports for a moment, Lance Armstrong is constantly given the benefit of the doubt despite circumstantial evidence at least as strong as what Roger Clemens faces.

    Now, I'm all in favor of giving Pujols the benefit of the doubt. Everyone deserves that until they test positive or their use is otherwise conclusively demonstrated. But the bottom line is that neither of us have the slightest idea whether Pujols is a "good citizen" or not; we know nothing about him that isn't part of a narrative pre-packaged by a media with an agenda. That you think he seems like a good dude probably means nothing except that he's nice to the media guys.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts