The most famous uncommitted recruit in the history of Michigan football is very likely Terrelle Pryor. He is a big, tall, dual-threat QB who likely represents the future of NFL signal-callers. He is the #1-rated recruit at any position according to Rivals which, of course, makes him important. I would continue to address those who haven’t heard of him but I’m not sure any such person exists. So I’ll skip over the “Pryor is the next Vince Young” hyperbole and get to the point. By most accounts, Pryor’s destination of choice will either be Ann Arbor or Columbus making this another Michigan/Ohio St. recruiting showdown. Pryor to Michigan could quickly turn the momentum in the rivalry. Pryor to Ohio St. could be four more years of Buckeye-domination. Clearly, it behooves Michigan to get Pryor to Ann Arbor. From a Michigan-perspective, though, it’s vastly more important for Ohio St. to not get him than it is for Michigan to get him.
Short-term success is likely with or without Pryor
There is no question that the Michigan football program would explode with the combined momentum of Rich Rodriguez’s spread offense and a commitment from a recruit as sought-after as Pryor. However, too many people are tying Michigan’s fate to Pryor’s arrival. Michigan doesn’t need Pryor. He would be a godsend for a coaching staff trying to delicately transition a pro-style football roster into a full-on spread offense. But, not getting Pryor won’t mean years of mediocrity and—contrary to what most seem to believe—likely won’t mean one year of mediocrity. The cavalcade of “doomsday”-predictors for 2008 seem to have forgotten that Michigan has more talent than every team on its schedule sans Ohio St. The defense returns seven starters including All-Big Ten candidates Morgan Trent, Donovan Warren, Terrance Taylor, Brandon Graham, and Tim Jamison. Even if the offense is putrid next season—which is doubtful considering putrid spread offenses are as common as a Wade Phillips playoff-win—Michigan’s defense will be good enough to keep it in every game.
The year-one offense is clearly the big worry among Michigan fans and a favorite point of emphasis for Michigan-haters. However, I don’t think that the question is whether the offense will be bad enough to keep Michigan from a bowl game as many have speculated. I think the question is whether the offense can be good enough for Michigan to win 10+ games. If the offense has any continuity whatsoever, Michigan should be quite good next season. If the offense is in a state of flux for the entire season, the overall talent of the roster should still be good enough to yield Michigan’s status quo of at least eight wins.
Worst Case for 2008
Worst case scenario entering the 2008-season is that Pryor chooses OSU and Rodriguez can’t land a mid-level recruit capable of stepping in as a freshman. That would leave Steven Threet—a top 10 QB recruit coming out of High School—to run the offense. On the surface, there doesn’t seem to be much comfort in that. However, remember the spread Michigan unveiled in the Capital One Bowl? That’s the same spread Rodriguez would’ve used if Ryan Mallett stuck around. It’s not like Rodriguez is going to try to install a run-based spread offense with Threet. He’s not an idiot. He would put Threet in the shotgun and spread the field like Purdue or Texas Tech. Purdue and Texas Tech have formidable offenses whether they have a fifth-year senior or a freshman at QB. Michigan—even in a year in which it loses Chad Henne, Mike Hart, Jake Long, Mario Manningham, and Adrian Arrington—will have more talent on its roster than Purdue or Texas Tech has ever had. Greg Mathews and Carson Butler are very good receiving threats. Among the bevy of capable underclassmen receivers (Toney Clemons, Junior Hemingway, Darryl Stonum, LaTerryal Savoy and Martell Webb) will almost undoubtedly be a break-out performer.
Michigan will have a number of options at running back including Kevin Grady, Carlos Brown, Brandon Minor, Avery Horn, and Sam McGuffie. That’s eight four-star recruits and a five-star recruit at the skill-positions alone that Rodriguez will have to work with. Rodriguez could only dream of that level of talent when he was forced to work with 2 and 3-star recruits exclusively at WVU. In the four recruiting classes from 2003-2006, WVU signed zero four-star recruits who actually contributed meaningful minutes on the field (the three he did sign got booted from the team). The players that Rodriguez inherited at Michigan are extremely talented. Most would be feature players at Texas Tech, Purdue or West Virginia. There is no question in my mind that you can plug Threet into an offense with Michigan’s current crop of running backs and wide receivers and come up with a product that isn’t awful.
A lot will be made of Michigan’s problems on the OL. Fortunately, the spread can mask weaknesses on the OL. The Michigan OL was marginal at best in 2007. That “marginal” line didn’t just magically mold into a fantastic line for the Capital One Bowl. The spread gave Henne more time to throw and forced Florida to dedicate more players to defending the pass. Thus, the OL becomes less of an issue. Even still, Rodriguez will have some very talented players at his disposal. Justin Boren, Steve Schilling, and Dann O’Neil were all Rivals100 recruits. I don’t want to make recruiting seem like the end all. I just want people to realize that year-one isn’t all “doom and gloom” like many have speculated. The defense will be very good and the offense will have a number of talented players to work with.
The schedule
This is going to sound totally revolutionary to some people but winning eight or nine games at Michigan is not a difficult feat. In fact, winning eight games per year is about the worst possible outcome in any given year considering roster talent and relative ease of Michigan’s typical schedule. In most seasons, Michigan plays about five or six “loseable” games. It is the results of those games which determines how successful the season is going to be. Nothing has changed in that regard for the 2008 schedule. Michigan “should” beat Utah, Miami (OH), Toledo, Minnesota, and Northwestern. That’s five wins right there. I have no problem penciling in Ohio St. as a likely loss. That leaves Notre Dame, Illinois, Wisconsin, Penn St., Michigan St., and Purdue. A loss at Notre Dame is possible but not probable. A loss at home to Michigan St. is possible but not probable. And, a loss at Purdue is possible but not probable. I would be surprised if Michigan fared worse than 2-1 in those games. Much has been made of Michigan’s personnel-losses but Michigan St., Purdue, and Notre Dame lose a considerable amount as well. I don’t see how any of those three teams are better off than Michigan for 2008.
It will undoubtedly become chic to predict losses at home to Wisconsin and Illinois and at Penn St. All three could happen but I would be surprised if all three did happen. Wisconsin and Illinois also lose a number of important players. Michigan should be good enough to take one of those games at a minimum. That adds up to eight wins. I would be very surprised if Michigan won fewer than eight games even with a transition-year.
Long Term
There is no question in my mind that Michigan would do just fine in the short term without Pryor. There is even less of a question that Michigan will do just fine in the long term without Pryor. Rodriguez doesn’t need Terrelle Pryor to have an unstoppable offense. He just needs Pat White. White was merely a three-star, wide receiver recruit in high school. He didn’t succeed at WVU because he was a great-passer. He had the athletic-ability to run the spread and was smart enough to make the right reads. One can daydream about the explosiveness of a Pryor-led Michigan offense. But, there is no guessing necessary to understand the explosiveness of Rodriguez’s offense even when it’s led by an unheralded, three-star, wide receiver who can make the right read. Much has been made of the Big East’s reputation for weak defenses but surely Georgia, Georgia Tech, and Oklahoma count as formidable defensive obstacles. With White at the helm, WVU put up 38, 38, and 48 points against the #4, #20, and #9 defenses in its last three bowl games. Rodriguez has success with a system—not with a player. The skills required to run Rodriguez’s offense are so specific that a mid-tier recruit like White can and will flourish at the helm. There are a gazillion more Pat Whites out there than Terrelle Pryors. That certainly bodes well for Michigan but Rodriguez will find out soon enough that he won’t have to “take chances” on guys like White at Michigan. As Rodriguez has stated numerous times, you're dealing with a whole different caliber of player when you’ve got the block “M” on your hat. If it isn't Pryor this year, it'll be his equivalent next year.
So, if—or more likely when—Pryor chooses OSU on signing day, don’t go removing “Michigan” from the top of the “most consecutive bowl appearances” list. Michigan is—and always has been—more than one player.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Monday, January 21, 2008
NCAA Tournament projections look like Tom Coughlin's face
I may be chasing the "White Rabbit" but I wont rest—except when I need to—until I project all 65 teams correctly. Last year, I missed a perfect projection by one spot. Syracuse—my only miss—was no lock but it was the best option as the 65th team. The team that the Selection Committee put in over Syracuse—Arkansas—had no business making the tournament. The Selection Committee has made some terrible decisions over the last two years. So, trying to emulate terrible decision-makers might seem a bit insane. And, I admit that it probably is. Nonetheless, come March, I'll throw out a 65-team projection with hopes that I'll get them all correct. I am not alone in my pursuit of perfection, though. Famed bracketologist, Joe Lunardi, has been projecting the 65-team field since 1998 and has yet to be perfect.
This first week of projections won’t feature the normal extracurriculars (last five out, last five in etc). I moved back the first week of projections as it is because there is just too much clutter after the top 10-15 teams. It was difficult to even find 65 teams that were worthy of being classified as “in the field.” But, that’s one of the reasons why I enjoy the projections so much. With each passing week, the projections mold into a more accurate depiction of the field. The parity in the major conferences thus far (the ACC and Big XII only have two teams in the RPI 25, the Big Ten, SEC, and Big East only have three) and the rise of the mid-majors (eight of the RPI 25 are not from one of the six major conferences) have created too much ambiguity to take these projections seriously. But, we have to start somewhere. Things should look a whole lot better two weeks from now.
Don’t Mess with the A-10
After catapulting itself into semi-major status over the last couple years, the Missouri Valley Conference will struggle to get two bids this year and even if it does continue its streak of at least two bids for the 10th straight year, it will do so in less impressive fashion. That would normally mean more bids up-for-grabs for the major conferences but "not so fast, my friend". Contrary to what we have been led to believe over the last decade, the A-10 still exists and it’s pissed. The A-10s list of non-conference victims is shocking. The conference has 25 wins over the RPI 100 (the Big Ten has 18) despite having the most difficult non-conference schedule of any of the top 10 conferences. Despite its grueling SOS, it has managed a non-conference record of 116-66 (.637 %) which is considerably better than its 98-83 (.515 %) record a year ago. The A-10 has six teams in the RPI 60 including four in the RPI 20. The result will likely be at least four A-10 teams receiving tournament-bids which is the most it has had in 10 years. Even more surprising is that George Washington, Temple, and St. Joe’s aren’t fueling the charge. Rhode Island (hasn’t made the tourney since ’99) and UMASS (hasn’t made the tourney since ’98) along with Xavier and Dayton have done the most damage thus far. Tyson Wheeler and Lari Ketner must be proud. I can’t say I saw this coming but I’m glad it did. College basketball is better off when the A-10 isn’t terrible. On a side note, the A-10 has had 20 basketball members since its inception in 1975. One million pretend dollars to anyone who can name every existing team in the A-10 and pretend ownership of the world to anyone who can name all 20 schools that have participated in the A-10. Answer.
Teen Wolf
The much ballyhooed freshman class of 2007 has yielded a wealth of stars (Derrick Rose, O.J. Mayo, Kevin Love, and Michael Beasley just to name a few) but I haven’t seen a better freshman than Eric Gordon. He reminds me of Teen Wolf. Remember the scene when Scott Howard turns into “The Wolf” and throws down dunk after thunderous dunk in a video montage set to "Way to Go" by Mark Vieha? That’s what Gordon reminds me of. He dunks like Charles Barkley. He is “lights-out” from 3-point range (42%). He can get to the rim on anyone at anytime. He could be a star in the NBA right now. The closest thing to Teen Wolf in the NBA is Baron Davis (the beard is just "icing on the cake") and I think Davis is Gordon’s NBA-equivalent.
The worst comparison I have ever heard in the history of comparisons was when the announcers of the Michigan-Indiana game two weeks ago (don’t quote me on this but I believe Musberger was involved with said comparison) compared him to Jason Kidd. There has never been a player in the history of great point-guards who compares less favorably to Eric Gordon than Jason Kidd. Gordon is a prolific 3-point shooter with freaky athletic ability who shoots first and dunks second. Kidd is a questionable shooter who passes first and second and rarely—if ever—dunks and certainly never dunks in traffic. So, please keep Gordon-comparisons to Teen Wolf, Baron Davis or anyone not named Jason Kidd.
As everyone in the free-world knows, Gordon originally committed to Illinois before Kelvin Sampson politely redirected him to Indiana. Generally, one recruit doesn’t make a team or a season. In this case, that couldn’t be more wrong. If Gordon kept his commitment to Illinois, the Illini would be better than Indiana and would easily be ranked in the top 10. Instead, Gordon went to Indiana and now the Hoosiers are clearly better than Illinois and ranked in the top 10. However, Illinois shouldn’t be too pissed. Gordon will likely take his monster-dunks to the NBA next season. Missing out on four years of Gordon would’ve been unbearable. One season isn’t nearly as bad. Plus, I’m not sure Alex Legion transfers to Illinois if Gordon were around. It’s possible those four years of Legion end up being better than one year of Gordon. It's also possible that Legion transfers to four more schools.
Projections
Here is how I view the field right now (at-large bids are sorted by conference):
1 ACC North Carolina
2 SEC Tennessee
3 Big East Georgetown
4 Big 12 Kansas
5 Big Ten Michigan St.
6 Pac-10 UCLA
7 MVC Drake
8 MWC BYU
9 WAC Nevada
10 A-10 Xavier
11 Colonial George Mason
12 MAC Akron
13 WCC St. Mary’s
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt S. Alabama
16 Horizon Butler
17 MAAC Niagara
18 Big Sky N. Arizona
19 MCC Oral Roberts
20 Big West Cal St. Northridge
21 OVC Austin Peay
22 Ivy Brown
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Holy Cross
25 Southland Sam Houston St.
26 Northeast Wagner
27 AEC MD Baltimore County
28 Big South NC Asheville
29 Atl. Sun Belmont
30 SWAC Southern
31 MEAC Hampton
32 At-Large Gonzaga
33 At-Large Duke
34 At-Large Clemson
35 At-Large NC State
36 At-Large Notre Dame
37 At-Large Marquette
38 At-Large Pittsburgh
39 At-Large West Virginia
40 At-Large Villanova
41 At-Large Providence
42 At-Large Louisville
43 At-Large USC
44 At-Large Arizona St.
45 At-Large Arizona
46 At-Large Washington St.
47 At-Large Stanford
48 At-Large Oregon
49 At-Large Kansas St.
50 At-Large Texas A&M
51 At-Large Texas
52 At-Large Oklahoma
53 At-Large Baylor
54 At-Large Wisconsin
55 At-Large Indiana
56 At-Large Ohio St.
57 At-Large Vanderbilt
58 At-Large Mississippi
59 At-Large Florida
60 At-Large Mississippi St.
61 At-Large Dayton
62 At-Large Massachusetts
63 At-Large Rhode Island
64 At-Large Cleveland St.
65 At-Large Illinois St.
*I don't look at other projections—Lunardi's included—at any point in the season. Everything I do is based on researching each team's resume. My projections are based on who I think will be there based on the results of games played and the difficulty of remaining schedules. This isn’t a “if the season ended today”-deal.
This projected field assumes that there are no upsets in the conference tournaments. There could be anywhere from 5-10 teams that make the tournament who wouldn't have otherwise made it just from the conference tournaments alone. Come conference tournament time, the last two or three teams that I have in the tourney will probably get pushed out by upsets if not more.
Big Games this Week
Monday
Syracuse @ Georgetown
Tuesday
Drake @ Creighton
Wednesday
Massachusetts @ St. Joe’s
Baylor @ Texas A&M
Akron @ Kent St.
San Diego St. @ BYU
Thursday
Dayton @ Xavier
UCLA @ Oregon
Washington St. @ Arizona
Saturday
St. Joe’s @ Temple
Connecticut @ Indiana
Minnesota @ Ohio St.
Wisconsin @ Purdue
Oklahoma @ Baylor
Texas Tech @ Texas
Georgetown @ West Virginia
Notre Dame @ Villanova
Gonzaga @ Memphis
Creighton @ S. Illinois
UNLV @ San Diego St.
New Mexico @ BYU
USC @ Oregon
Washington St. @ Arizona St.
Mississippi @ Mississippi St.
Sunday
Xavier @ Massachusetts
Clemson @ Miami (FL)
Duke @ Maryland
Providence @ Syracuse
Vanderbilt @ Florida
This first week of projections won’t feature the normal extracurriculars (last five out, last five in etc). I moved back the first week of projections as it is because there is just too much clutter after the top 10-15 teams. It was difficult to even find 65 teams that were worthy of being classified as “in the field.” But, that’s one of the reasons why I enjoy the projections so much. With each passing week, the projections mold into a more accurate depiction of the field. The parity in the major conferences thus far (the ACC and Big XII only have two teams in the RPI 25, the Big Ten, SEC, and Big East only have three) and the rise of the mid-majors (eight of the RPI 25 are not from one of the six major conferences) have created too much ambiguity to take these projections seriously. But, we have to start somewhere. Things should look a whole lot better two weeks from now.
Don’t Mess with the A-10
After catapulting itself into semi-major status over the last couple years, the Missouri Valley Conference will struggle to get two bids this year and even if it does continue its streak of at least two bids for the 10th straight year, it will do so in less impressive fashion. That would normally mean more bids up-for-grabs for the major conferences but "not so fast, my friend". Contrary to what we have been led to believe over the last decade, the A-10 still exists and it’s pissed. The A-10s list of non-conference victims is shocking. The conference has 25 wins over the RPI 100 (the Big Ten has 18) despite having the most difficult non-conference schedule of any of the top 10 conferences. Despite its grueling SOS, it has managed a non-conference record of 116-66 (.637 %) which is considerably better than its 98-83 (.515 %) record a year ago. The A-10 has six teams in the RPI 60 including four in the RPI 20. The result will likely be at least four A-10 teams receiving tournament-bids which is the most it has had in 10 years. Even more surprising is that George Washington, Temple, and St. Joe’s aren’t fueling the charge. Rhode Island (hasn’t made the tourney since ’99) and UMASS (hasn’t made the tourney since ’98) along with Xavier and Dayton have done the most damage thus far. Tyson Wheeler and Lari Ketner must be proud. I can’t say I saw this coming but I’m glad it did. College basketball is better off when the A-10 isn’t terrible. On a side note, the A-10 has had 20 basketball members since its inception in 1975. One million pretend dollars to anyone who can name every existing team in the A-10 and pretend ownership of the world to anyone who can name all 20 schools that have participated in the A-10. Answer.
Teen Wolf
The much ballyhooed freshman class of 2007 has yielded a wealth of stars (Derrick Rose, O.J. Mayo, Kevin Love, and Michael Beasley just to name a few) but I haven’t seen a better freshman than Eric Gordon. He reminds me of Teen Wolf. Remember the scene when Scott Howard turns into “The Wolf” and throws down dunk after thunderous dunk in a video montage set to "Way to Go" by Mark Vieha? That’s what Gordon reminds me of. He dunks like Charles Barkley. He is “lights-out” from 3-point range (42%). He can get to the rim on anyone at anytime. He could be a star in the NBA right now. The closest thing to Teen Wolf in the NBA is Baron Davis (the beard is just "icing on the cake") and I think Davis is Gordon’s NBA-equivalent.
The worst comparison I have ever heard in the history of comparisons was when the announcers of the Michigan-Indiana game two weeks ago (don’t quote me on this but I believe Musberger was involved with said comparison) compared him to Jason Kidd. There has never been a player in the history of great point-guards who compares less favorably to Eric Gordon than Jason Kidd. Gordon is a prolific 3-point shooter with freaky athletic ability who shoots first and dunks second. Kidd is a questionable shooter who passes first and second and rarely—if ever—dunks and certainly never dunks in traffic. So, please keep Gordon-comparisons to Teen Wolf, Baron Davis or anyone not named Jason Kidd.
As everyone in the free-world knows, Gordon originally committed to Illinois before Kelvin Sampson politely redirected him to Indiana. Generally, one recruit doesn’t make a team or a season. In this case, that couldn’t be more wrong. If Gordon kept his commitment to Illinois, the Illini would be better than Indiana and would easily be ranked in the top 10. Instead, Gordon went to Indiana and now the Hoosiers are clearly better than Illinois and ranked in the top 10. However, Illinois shouldn’t be too pissed. Gordon will likely take his monster-dunks to the NBA next season. Missing out on four years of Gordon would’ve been unbearable. One season isn’t nearly as bad. Plus, I’m not sure Alex Legion transfers to Illinois if Gordon were around. It’s possible those four years of Legion end up being better than one year of Gordon. It's also possible that Legion transfers to four more schools.
Projections
Here is how I view the field right now (at-large bids are sorted by conference):
1 ACC North Carolina
2 SEC Tennessee
3 Big East Georgetown
4 Big 12 Kansas
5 Big Ten Michigan St.
6 Pac-10 UCLA
7 MVC Drake
8 MWC BYU
9 WAC Nevada
10 A-10 Xavier
11 Colonial George Mason
12 MAC Akron
13 WCC St. Mary’s
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt S. Alabama
16 Horizon Butler
17 MAAC Niagara
18 Big Sky N. Arizona
19 MCC Oral Roberts
20 Big West Cal St. Northridge
21 OVC Austin Peay
22 Ivy Brown
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Holy Cross
25 Southland Sam Houston St.
26 Northeast Wagner
27 AEC MD Baltimore County
28 Big South NC Asheville
29 Atl. Sun Belmont
30 SWAC Southern
31 MEAC Hampton
32 At-Large Gonzaga
33 At-Large Duke
34 At-Large Clemson
35 At-Large NC State
36 At-Large Notre Dame
37 At-Large Marquette
38 At-Large Pittsburgh
39 At-Large West Virginia
40 At-Large Villanova
41 At-Large Providence
42 At-Large Louisville
43 At-Large USC
44 At-Large Arizona St.
45 At-Large Arizona
46 At-Large Washington St.
47 At-Large Stanford
48 At-Large Oregon
49 At-Large Kansas St.
50 At-Large Texas A&M
51 At-Large Texas
52 At-Large Oklahoma
53 At-Large Baylor
54 At-Large Wisconsin
55 At-Large Indiana
56 At-Large Ohio St.
57 At-Large Vanderbilt
58 At-Large Mississippi
59 At-Large Florida
60 At-Large Mississippi St.
61 At-Large Dayton
62 At-Large Massachusetts
63 At-Large Rhode Island
64 At-Large Cleveland St.
65 At-Large Illinois St.
*I don't look at other projections—Lunardi's included—at any point in the season. Everything I do is based on researching each team's resume. My projections are based on who I think will be there based on the results of games played and the difficulty of remaining schedules. This isn’t a “if the season ended today”-deal.
This projected field assumes that there are no upsets in the conference tournaments. There could be anywhere from 5-10 teams that make the tournament who wouldn't have otherwise made it just from the conference tournaments alone. Come conference tournament time, the last two or three teams that I have in the tourney will probably get pushed out by upsets if not more.
Big Games this Week
Monday
Syracuse @ Georgetown
Tuesday
Drake @ Creighton
Wednesday
Massachusetts @ St. Joe’s
Baylor @ Texas A&M
Akron @ Kent St.
San Diego St. @ BYU
Thursday
Dayton @ Xavier
UCLA @ Oregon
Washington St. @ Arizona
Saturday
St. Joe’s @ Temple
Connecticut @ Indiana
Minnesota @ Ohio St.
Wisconsin @ Purdue
Oklahoma @ Baylor
Texas Tech @ Texas
Georgetown @ West Virginia
Notre Dame @ Villanova
Gonzaga @ Memphis
Creighton @ S. Illinois
UNLV @ San Diego St.
New Mexico @ BYU
USC @ Oregon
Washington St. @ Arizona St.
Mississippi @ Mississippi St.
Sunday
Xavier @ Massachusetts
Clemson @ Miami (FL)
Duke @ Maryland
Providence @ Syracuse
Vanderbilt @ Florida
Friday, January 18, 2008
Nothing to see here
Two things on this very bright and cold Friday afternoon: First, heads up to Mgoblog for passing along this beauty of a story by Stewart Mandel. I haven’t commented on the ridiculous West Virginia/"woman scorned"-thing because it really isn’t worth commenting on. However, Mandel commented on it and I’m throwing my support behind his column.
Second, so that’s why the Minnesota Vikings gave up five players and six draft picks for Herschel Walker in 1989. They had to give up fair value for—not one, but—two personalities. The funniest quote that I’ve read in quite a while closes out that story. I didn’t realize Vince Dooley was such a comedian. All jokes aside, Walker is the man. I rushed for over 1,000 yards in many-a-game using Georgia ’80 in Bill Walsh’s College Football for Sega Genesis. The only player in the game who could even compete with him was Bo Jackson on Auburn '84. Hopefully Walker makes life easier for people with multiple personality disorder (dissociative identity disorder) by bringing attention to it. And, hopefully he does more for the disorder than that no-good, lying, Aaron Stampler did in Primal Fear.
Second, so that’s why the Minnesota Vikings gave up five players and six draft picks for Herschel Walker in 1989. They had to give up fair value for—not one, but—two personalities. The funniest quote that I’ve read in quite a while closes out that story. I didn’t realize Vince Dooley was such a comedian. All jokes aside, Walker is the man. I rushed for over 1,000 yards in many-a-game using Georgia ’80 in Bill Walsh’s College Football for Sega Genesis. The only player in the game who could even compete with him was Bo Jackson on Auburn '84. Hopefully Walker makes life easier for people with multiple personality disorder (dissociative identity disorder) by bringing attention to it. And, hopefully he does more for the disorder than that no-good, lying, Aaron Stampler did in Primal Fear.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Detroit is Hockeytown Sportstown
I received an email from a friend the other day. Said friend is a diehard Boston-fan. The list of boy names for his first child was narrowed down to “Boston” and “Beckett”. When a girl popped out, she was promptly given the middle name, “Lynn”. Only he knows if that was purely a coincidence or inspired by the first player in MLB history to win the MVP and Rookie of the Year in the same season. Nonetheless, the email went as follows:
The Red Wings are the best team in hockey. The Pistons are one of the three best teams in the NBA. The Tigers are one of the three best teams in MLB. The Lions are terrible but so are the Bruins (and every team in Chicago). Michigan football was already one of the premier programs in the country and that was before all things stale were removed. Michigan St. basketball is poised for its annual run at the Final Four. No city or state—not even California with its 15 professional sports teams—can match Detroit’s sports “mojo.” There is a decent chance that the best NHL, NBA and MLB teams all play in Detroit. Given that free agents avoid Detroit like the plague—that is remarkable. Clearly, the fact that Detroit’s worst team is in the most popular sport in America and its best team is in the least popular sport in America hurts the profile a bit. Boston has the luxury of claiming the opposite. And, given the choice, who wouldn’t rather have an elite football team over an elite hockey team?
The biggest difference between Detroit and Boston is that Boston has turned regular season success into championships more recently. The Red Sox won the World Series. New England is well on its way to winning the Super Bowl. Until Detroit can get back to winning championships, Boston will get the headlines. But, Detroit doesn’t play “little brother” (not even with Michigan St. football in the house =)) to any city when it comes to sports. Anyone who doubts this may want to check back in June when Detroit is the epicenter of the sports world. It won’t be a surprise to those who have been paying attention because this isn’t a new phenomenon.
Of course, winning never happens by accident. Detroit has the best collection of front office personnel in professional sports. There isn’t a better GM in baseball than Dave Dombrowski. His track-record is near-flawless. Joe Dumars took over an organization in disarray and turned it into a championship-team within three seasons. Ken Holland is the best GM in the NHL and it might not be close. Tom Izzo is easily one of the five best coaches in college basketball and John Beilein, Rich Rodriguez and Mark Dantonio have great reputations as well. Unlike Boston, NY, or Chicago, Detroit never has the luxury of signing high-priced free agents. Nobody wants to come to Detroit. Detroit has had to build its franchises through savvy trades, unheralded free agent signings, and solid drafts. There is no question that there is a much greater degree of difficulty for Detroit to field competitive teams than any other major sports city. While it’s certainly not ideal that the city can’t attract star-power via free agency, the fact that the blue-collar reputation of the city is replicated in its sports teams makes it all the more rewarding as a sports fan.
Interestingly, as successful as Detroit sports has been over the last few years, the failed playoff-runs seem to trump the regular-season success and that is understandable. I know I’m guilty of looking at the narrow picture too often and I think most fans are as well. But, if we step back for a minute I think we’re fortunate to be in the middle of such a motown sports revival if you will (shameless, I know). I’m not sure if sports fans across the country think that Detroit sports fans are obnoxious as my friend suspects is the case with Boston fans. However, if they’re sick of Boston, then they should be sick of Detroit, too. Boston might be getting the pub, but Detroit just keeps trucking along as the best sports city in America.
First, a thought has been bugging me for some time now. How annoying are BostonClearly, my friend isn’t a “jerk” fan. He has perspective and that—in my opinion—is the most important attribute to being a good sports fan. There is no question that Boston is rollin' right now and it very well could be the case that America is growing tired of it. I pondered a response to his questions for all of about five seconds before replying that he had written to the wrong person if he was trying to find someone who is jealous of Boston’s sports success. I reminded him that Detroit is second-to-none when it comes to sports even if most people outside of Michigan don't realize it.
Sports fans right now. Isn't it approaching a ridiculous level? Are people
outside of New England just completely sick and tired of Boston sports? It is
impossible for me to tell since I am such a huge Boston Sports fan, but the fan
of all things sports is screaming to me that Boston Sports must not be playing
well in the rest of the country…Still, if I were an objective witness, I would
loathe the Patriots, and the Sox story would probably be wearing thin. I think
the Celts probably get a pass this year, because they have been down for so long
and they are one of the NBA's great franchises. People seem glad that they are
relevant again. Like I said though, it doesn't really matter to me. I make no
apologies for the success of my teams. I would be crazy to. I only bring it up
because it's something I have been noticing lately in conversation with other
sports fans.
The Red Wings are the best team in hockey. The Pistons are one of the three best teams in the NBA. The Tigers are one of the three best teams in MLB. The Lions are terrible but so are the Bruins (and every team in Chicago). Michigan football was already one of the premier programs in the country and that was before all things stale were removed. Michigan St. basketball is poised for its annual run at the Final Four. No city or state—not even California with its 15 professional sports teams—can match Detroit’s sports “mojo.” There is a decent chance that the best NHL, NBA and MLB teams all play in Detroit. Given that free agents avoid Detroit like the plague—that is remarkable. Clearly, the fact that Detroit’s worst team is in the most popular sport in America and its best team is in the least popular sport in America hurts the profile a bit. Boston has the luxury of claiming the opposite. And, given the choice, who wouldn’t rather have an elite football team over an elite hockey team?
The biggest difference between Detroit and Boston is that Boston has turned regular season success into championships more recently. The Red Sox won the World Series. New England is well on its way to winning the Super Bowl. Until Detroit can get back to winning championships, Boston will get the headlines. But, Detroit doesn’t play “little brother” (not even with Michigan St. football in the house =)) to any city when it comes to sports. Anyone who doubts this may want to check back in June when Detroit is the epicenter of the sports world. It won’t be a surprise to those who have been paying attention because this isn’t a new phenomenon.
Of course, winning never happens by accident. Detroit has the best collection of front office personnel in professional sports. There isn’t a better GM in baseball than Dave Dombrowski. His track-record is near-flawless. Joe Dumars took over an organization in disarray and turned it into a championship-team within three seasons. Ken Holland is the best GM in the NHL and it might not be close. Tom Izzo is easily one of the five best coaches in college basketball and John Beilein, Rich Rodriguez and Mark Dantonio have great reputations as well. Unlike Boston, NY, or Chicago, Detroit never has the luxury of signing high-priced free agents. Nobody wants to come to Detroit. Detroit has had to build its franchises through savvy trades, unheralded free agent signings, and solid drafts. There is no question that there is a much greater degree of difficulty for Detroit to field competitive teams than any other major sports city. While it’s certainly not ideal that the city can’t attract star-power via free agency, the fact that the blue-collar reputation of the city is replicated in its sports teams makes it all the more rewarding as a sports fan.
Interestingly, as successful as Detroit sports has been over the last few years, the failed playoff-runs seem to trump the regular-season success and that is understandable. I know I’m guilty of looking at the narrow picture too often and I think most fans are as well. But, if we step back for a minute I think we’re fortunate to be in the middle of such a motown sports revival if you will (shameless, I know). I’m not sure if sports fans across the country think that Detroit sports fans are obnoxious as my friend suspects is the case with Boston fans. However, if they’re sick of Boston, then they should be sick of Detroit, too. Boston might be getting the pub, but Detroit just keeps trucking along as the best sports city in America.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Clemens, his legacy, and the Hall of Fame
Those of you who are familiar with my blog know that I think Roger Clemens is the greatest pitcher who ever lived based on a number of factors. If it turns out that he did take steroids, then I would certainly emphasize that fact whenever making such a claim in the future. I don’t have a problem acknowledging his numbers. I don’t have a problem calling him the best ever. However, in fairness to every other great pitcher who has played the game who very likely didn’t take steroids (i.e. Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Greg Maddux), the first sentence describing Clemens’ accomplishments should include the phrase, “steroid-use.” That is really the only way I can reconcile his super-human statistics while appropriately acknowledging the players who did it the “right” way.
We may never know for certain whether Clemens took steroids or not. However, based on what there is to go on at this point, I believe that he did. With one notable exception—that being Todd Helton—whenever there has been “smoke”, there has been “fire” when it comes to players accused of taking steroids. That certainly isn’t conclusive but clearly players from the steroid-era have not earned the benefit of the doubt. I believe that Clemens is lying through his teeth to save his legacy. While I don’t condone “lying”, he clearly has a lot to lose if these allegations prove to be legit. He stands to gain a considerable amount of fanfare for the remainder of his life by being billed as “the greatest pitcher who ever lived.” The thought of losing that and losing the legitimacy of his eye-popping-accomplishments are probably too much for Clemens to simply acknowledge steroid-use without putting up a fight. However, he’ll have to factor “jail time” into that equation if he agrees to testify in front of Congress on February 13.
Preponderance of Evidence
Clemens’s former trainer, Brian McNamee, was dead-on about Andy Pettitte’s HGH-use. Clemens and Pettitte are best pals. Clemens denies even knowing that Pettitte took HGH. I find that hard to believe. I also find it hard to believe that McNamee would tell the truth about Pettitte and make up a lie about Clemens—his good friend—just to drag his name through the mud. Without anything to gain, McNamee has stood steadfast behind his allegations and has certainly come off as credible in lieu of Pettitte’s admission to HGH-use.
On the other hand, Clemens’s camp has looked incredibly suspect throughout this whole ordeal. From the multi-day silence following the release of the Mitchell Report to the lame attempts to clear his name by secretly recording a phone-conversation with McNamee, Clemens has been scrambling. He looked desperate when he played the tape of the conversation to the media because it didn’t reveal anything except that McNamee would not relent on his accusations even in a private telephone conversation with Clemens. McNamee even sounded sympathetic to Clemens on the tape and still never wavered. I’m still not sure what Clemens thought he was proving by playing the tape. It actually made him look worse. Clemens then accounted for the injections that McNamee claimed to have administered by saying they were B-12 and Lidocaine. McNamee has said that Clemens sported an abscess (don't click) from the injections which is “far less likely” to come from B-12 and Lidocaine than it is from steroids according to a doctor from the World Anti-Doping Agency. Clemens also claimed that he was unaware that his name would be mentioned in the Mitchell Report. According to Mitchell, that seems highly unlikely.
Considering the above information, I am forced to site Occam’s razor in believing that Clemens is guilty. Either I believe the following; 1). McNamee told the truth about Pettitte and lied about Clemens, 2). Clemens didn’t know that Pettitte—his best pal—was taking steroids, 3). Mitchell lied about notifying Clemens that he was in the report, 4). Clemens just happens to be the only player with a myriad of circumstantial evidence pointing towards steroid-use who turns out to be innocent, 5). Clemens developed an abscess from B-12 or Lidocaine, 6). Clemens—like Bonds as a hitter—is the only elite pitcher who not only peaked after the age of 35 but got better into his mid-40s and beyond or, I can believe that he very likely took steroids. I’m going with option #2.
The “lying” is more annoying than the steroid-use.
I am not going to pretend that taking steroids is akin to murder. In the grand scheme of things, “Joe Roidman” taking steroids at the local gym isn’t that big of a deal. Everyone makes mistakes. However, in the world of athletics, there are a number of additional dynamics in play. Competitive-sports are based on fairness and a level playing-field. If those are compromised, sports like baseball lose legitimacy. Steroid-users in the sports world are often rewarded with larger profiles and bigger paydays. On the flip side, the respective legacies of players like Randy Johnson and Ken Griffey Jr.—players who almost certainly did not take performance-enhancing drugs—are minimized.
I don’t despise the gains achieved by taking steroids as much as I despise the fact that steroid-users take away from people who achieved success the right way. For instance, the worst part of Ben Johnson’s steroid-use prior to the ’88 Seoul Olympics wasn’t that he broke the law. It was that Carl Lewis—who, as far as I know, did things the “right” way—was denied what he had rightfully earned. Lewis was eventually awarded the “gold” three days later but only after first experiencing the initial heartbreak of losing the race. Not everyone is as lucky as Lewis. Marion Jones won five gold medals in the 2000 Sydney Olympics and it wasn’t until seven years later that she was caught.
There is no doubt that “cheating” leaves a path of destruction in the sports world. However, the thing that bothers me most about Clemens, Bonds, Marion Jones and everyone else who has denied use in the face of fairly serious evidence is the “lying.” Let's forget for a moment that nobody ever gets away with a weak-denial. Lying is such a heinous act. It's the ultimate form of insult to the American public especially when it comes in front of a Grand Jury or Congress. Then there's the fact that lying almost always ends up making things much worse than telling the truth would've yielded. Pete Rose isn’t still banned from the HOF because he bet on baseball. He’s still banned because he lied about it for so long. Bonds isn’t facing jail time because he took steroids. He’s facing jail time because he lied about it. The same goes for Marion Jones. However cliché this is to say, America does love to give people second chances. That ceases to be true when the “people” in question refuse to accept responsibility. Bonds, Rose, Palmeiro, and Marion Jones are almost universally viewed with shame in America more so because they lied than because of the “cheating” (or in Rose’s case, “Cardinal sinning”). Clemens will likely follow suit if he steps in front of Congress.
The Hall of Fame-question shouldn't be about statistics.
While my opinion of Clemens—both personally and statistically—has changed, one thing that hasn’t changed for me—and shouldn’t change for anyone else—is his candidacy for the Hall of Fame based on numbers. If you’re going to argue that Clemens shouldn’t be elected to the HOF, you’re better off leaving numbers out of the argument.
Whenever a superstar is accused of taking steroids, everyone asks, “is he still a Hall of Famer?” I think some people interpret this question the wrong way. Many rush to recreate career statistics or simply choose to only acknowledge statistics attained before the alleged steroid-use. Let’s throw aside the fact that recalculating career numbers to account for steroid-use is impossible. Nobody knows how much better steroids make a player. There are number of bad players who were still bad after taking steroids (i.e. Alex Sanchez, Nook Logan, Neifi Perez and more than half the guys in the Mitchell Report). Conversely, Bonds likely took steroids and hit 24 more home runs than he had ever hit in a single-season. The effects obviously differ from person to person so recalculating career numbers isn’t even a reasonable option. The real problem with the question is that it assumes that there actually is a player who became a Hall of Famer because of steroids. I’m not so sure that steroids can make a non-Hall of Famer, a Hall of Famer. There is a lot more to baseball than brute strength. Mechanics, instincts, hand-eye coordination, and work ethic are, by far, the most important factors in determining the caliber of a baseball player. Barry Bonds was a Hall of Fame-player before he took steroids. Roger Clemens was a Hall of Fame-player before he took steroids. Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro would’ve almost certainly reached 500 career home runs without steroids. To suggest that there is a logical way to figure out if steroid-use turned a good player into a Hall of Fame-player is a “pie in the sky” notion. I also don’t care for only looking at statistics achieved before the alleged steroid-use. For instance, even without steroid-use, it is very likely that Bonds would’ve had a good stretch from 2001-2004. It doesn’t make sense to treat those years as a total zero as some choose to do.
The question about whether a player should be a Hall of Famer in lieu of steroid-use really should be about whether any player who took steroids should be admitted into the Hall of Fame. Baseball writers across America are racking their brains trying to figure out whether various players who took steroids are Hall of Famers statistically. They should be discussing whether or not steroid-users should even be eligible for the Hall of Fame. Since there is no way to know just how many more home runs a player hit because of steroids and there is no way of knowing how much healthier a player was because of steroids, statistics should be taken at face value. Some have adopted the “if it’s even close, just say no” philosophy and others have chosen to teach steroid-users a lesson by refusing to vote for borderline steroid-users. If people want to adopt the “teach a lesson” stance, then it should be across the board. Steroid-use should either be a total deal-breaker, or eliminated from the discussion of Hall of Fame-status all together. I can respect either side. I just don’t think it’s reasonable to pick and choose. Voters who fashion themselves as someone who is smart enough to be able to decipher whether steroid-use made someone a Hall of Famer or not are claiming mathematical abilities that as far as I know aren’t even possible. The only acceptable caveat I see with “picking and choosing” is if someone wants to punish the players who lied.
There is no “right” answer but there are “better” answers.
There are a lot of reasonable opinions out there and I don’t envy anyone trying to sort all of this out. If I had to pick a side, I would choose to eliminate “steroids” or “HGH” from Hall of Fame discussions. I don’t have a problem putting an asterisk next to the names of Hall of Fame steroid-users. The future baseball fan has a right to know which players cheated and which players didn’t and the “cheaters” deserve to have their indiscretions acknowledged. Some have argued that it wouldn’t be fair to label a player with an asterisk when we don’t know everyone who took steroids. I don’t understand that logic. The players who got caught shouldn’t be spared because everyone didn’t get caught. That doesn't even make sense. I think that—unless you lie to a Grand Jury—the proper punishment for using steroids should be the permanent-tarnishing of one’s career and legacy.
Some may argue that steroids weren’t against the rules in baseball so taking a hard stance is unfair. I don’t by that for a second. Steroids were very much against the rules in baseball and in every other facet of American life. They were illegal for everyone regardless of affiliation or stature. Those players broke the law to get an advantage and that should not be lost on anyone. Too many people want to place all of the blame on baseball for allowing an environment where drug-use went unchecked. If people want to rail baseball for not being vigilant enough, I have no qualms with that. However, the responsibility ultimately lies with the players who used. They are to blame and they should pay a price. Whether that’s banishment from the “Hall” or just a permanent tarnishing of their legacy is up to you to decide. Keep in mind, other players have cheated. Gaylord Perry "doctored" the ball as did many other pitchers. There is proof of this and there is admission of this. Teams have stolen signs. There is proof of this and admission of this. I’m not suggesting those forms of cheating are better or worse than steroids. I’m just saying there has been a precedent set in the past for “cheating.” That’s something worth considering as well.
We may never know for certain whether Clemens took steroids or not. However, based on what there is to go on at this point, I believe that he did. With one notable exception—that being Todd Helton—whenever there has been “smoke”, there has been “fire” when it comes to players accused of taking steroids. That certainly isn’t conclusive but clearly players from the steroid-era have not earned the benefit of the doubt. I believe that Clemens is lying through his teeth to save his legacy. While I don’t condone “lying”, he clearly has a lot to lose if these allegations prove to be legit. He stands to gain a considerable amount of fanfare for the remainder of his life by being billed as “the greatest pitcher who ever lived.” The thought of losing that and losing the legitimacy of his eye-popping-accomplishments are probably too much for Clemens to simply acknowledge steroid-use without putting up a fight. However, he’ll have to factor “jail time” into that equation if he agrees to testify in front of Congress on February 13.
Preponderance of Evidence
Clemens’s former trainer, Brian McNamee, was dead-on about Andy Pettitte’s HGH-use. Clemens and Pettitte are best pals. Clemens denies even knowing that Pettitte took HGH. I find that hard to believe. I also find it hard to believe that McNamee would tell the truth about Pettitte and make up a lie about Clemens—his good friend—just to drag his name through the mud. Without anything to gain, McNamee has stood steadfast behind his allegations and has certainly come off as credible in lieu of Pettitte’s admission to HGH-use.
On the other hand, Clemens’s camp has looked incredibly suspect throughout this whole ordeal. From the multi-day silence following the release of the Mitchell Report to the lame attempts to clear his name by secretly recording a phone-conversation with McNamee, Clemens has been scrambling. He looked desperate when he played the tape of the conversation to the media because it didn’t reveal anything except that McNamee would not relent on his accusations even in a private telephone conversation with Clemens. McNamee even sounded sympathetic to Clemens on the tape and still never wavered. I’m still not sure what Clemens thought he was proving by playing the tape. It actually made him look worse. Clemens then accounted for the injections that McNamee claimed to have administered by saying they were B-12 and Lidocaine. McNamee has said that Clemens sported an abscess (don't click) from the injections which is “far less likely” to come from B-12 and Lidocaine than it is from steroids according to a doctor from the World Anti-Doping Agency. Clemens also claimed that he was unaware that his name would be mentioned in the Mitchell Report. According to Mitchell, that seems highly unlikely.
Considering the above information, I am forced to site Occam’s razor in believing that Clemens is guilty. Either I believe the following; 1). McNamee told the truth about Pettitte and lied about Clemens, 2). Clemens didn’t know that Pettitte—his best pal—was taking steroids, 3). Mitchell lied about notifying Clemens that he was in the report, 4). Clemens just happens to be the only player with a myriad of circumstantial evidence pointing towards steroid-use who turns out to be innocent, 5). Clemens developed an abscess from B-12 or Lidocaine, 6). Clemens—like Bonds as a hitter—is the only elite pitcher who not only peaked after the age of 35 but got better into his mid-40s and beyond or, I can believe that he very likely took steroids. I’m going with option #2.
The “lying” is more annoying than the steroid-use.
I am not going to pretend that taking steroids is akin to murder. In the grand scheme of things, “Joe Roidman” taking steroids at the local gym isn’t that big of a deal. Everyone makes mistakes. However, in the world of athletics, there are a number of additional dynamics in play. Competitive-sports are based on fairness and a level playing-field. If those are compromised, sports like baseball lose legitimacy. Steroid-users in the sports world are often rewarded with larger profiles and bigger paydays. On the flip side, the respective legacies of players like Randy Johnson and Ken Griffey Jr.—players who almost certainly did not take performance-enhancing drugs—are minimized.
I don’t despise the gains achieved by taking steroids as much as I despise the fact that steroid-users take away from people who achieved success the right way. For instance, the worst part of Ben Johnson’s steroid-use prior to the ’88 Seoul Olympics wasn’t that he broke the law. It was that Carl Lewis—who, as far as I know, did things the “right” way—was denied what he had rightfully earned. Lewis was eventually awarded the “gold” three days later but only after first experiencing the initial heartbreak of losing the race. Not everyone is as lucky as Lewis. Marion Jones won five gold medals in the 2000 Sydney Olympics and it wasn’t until seven years later that she was caught.
There is no doubt that “cheating” leaves a path of destruction in the sports world. However, the thing that bothers me most about Clemens, Bonds, Marion Jones and everyone else who has denied use in the face of fairly serious evidence is the “lying.” Let's forget for a moment that nobody ever gets away with a weak-denial. Lying is such a heinous act. It's the ultimate form of insult to the American public especially when it comes in front of a Grand Jury or Congress. Then there's the fact that lying almost always ends up making things much worse than telling the truth would've yielded. Pete Rose isn’t still banned from the HOF because he bet on baseball. He’s still banned because he lied about it for so long. Bonds isn’t facing jail time because he took steroids. He’s facing jail time because he lied about it. The same goes for Marion Jones. However cliché this is to say, America does love to give people second chances. That ceases to be true when the “people” in question refuse to accept responsibility. Bonds, Rose, Palmeiro, and Marion Jones are almost universally viewed with shame in America more so because they lied than because of the “cheating” (or in Rose’s case, “Cardinal sinning”). Clemens will likely follow suit if he steps in front of Congress.
The Hall of Fame-question shouldn't be about statistics.
While my opinion of Clemens—both personally and statistically—has changed, one thing that hasn’t changed for me—and shouldn’t change for anyone else—is his candidacy for the Hall of Fame based on numbers. If you’re going to argue that Clemens shouldn’t be elected to the HOF, you’re better off leaving numbers out of the argument.
Whenever a superstar is accused of taking steroids, everyone asks, “is he still a Hall of Famer?” I think some people interpret this question the wrong way. Many rush to recreate career statistics or simply choose to only acknowledge statistics attained before the alleged steroid-use. Let’s throw aside the fact that recalculating career numbers to account for steroid-use is impossible. Nobody knows how much better steroids make a player. There are number of bad players who were still bad after taking steroids (i.e. Alex Sanchez, Nook Logan, Neifi Perez and more than half the guys in the Mitchell Report). Conversely, Bonds likely took steroids and hit 24 more home runs than he had ever hit in a single-season. The effects obviously differ from person to person so recalculating career numbers isn’t even a reasonable option. The real problem with the question is that it assumes that there actually is a player who became a Hall of Famer because of steroids. I’m not so sure that steroids can make a non-Hall of Famer, a Hall of Famer. There is a lot more to baseball than brute strength. Mechanics, instincts, hand-eye coordination, and work ethic are, by far, the most important factors in determining the caliber of a baseball player. Barry Bonds was a Hall of Fame-player before he took steroids. Roger Clemens was a Hall of Fame-player before he took steroids. Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro would’ve almost certainly reached 500 career home runs without steroids. To suggest that there is a logical way to figure out if steroid-use turned a good player into a Hall of Fame-player is a “pie in the sky” notion. I also don’t care for only looking at statistics achieved before the alleged steroid-use. For instance, even without steroid-use, it is very likely that Bonds would’ve had a good stretch from 2001-2004. It doesn’t make sense to treat those years as a total zero as some choose to do.
The question about whether a player should be a Hall of Famer in lieu of steroid-use really should be about whether any player who took steroids should be admitted into the Hall of Fame. Baseball writers across America are racking their brains trying to figure out whether various players who took steroids are Hall of Famers statistically. They should be discussing whether or not steroid-users should even be eligible for the Hall of Fame. Since there is no way to know just how many more home runs a player hit because of steroids and there is no way of knowing how much healthier a player was because of steroids, statistics should be taken at face value. Some have adopted the “if it’s even close, just say no” philosophy and others have chosen to teach steroid-users a lesson by refusing to vote for borderline steroid-users. If people want to adopt the “teach a lesson” stance, then it should be across the board. Steroid-use should either be a total deal-breaker, or eliminated from the discussion of Hall of Fame-status all together. I can respect either side. I just don’t think it’s reasonable to pick and choose. Voters who fashion themselves as someone who is smart enough to be able to decipher whether steroid-use made someone a Hall of Famer or not are claiming mathematical abilities that as far as I know aren’t even possible. The only acceptable caveat I see with “picking and choosing” is if someone wants to punish the players who lied.
There is no “right” answer but there are “better” answers.
There are a lot of reasonable opinions out there and I don’t envy anyone trying to sort all of this out. If I had to pick a side, I would choose to eliminate “steroids” or “HGH” from Hall of Fame discussions. I don’t have a problem putting an asterisk next to the names of Hall of Fame steroid-users. The future baseball fan has a right to know which players cheated and which players didn’t and the “cheaters” deserve to have their indiscretions acknowledged. Some have argued that it wouldn’t be fair to label a player with an asterisk when we don’t know everyone who took steroids. I don’t understand that logic. The players who got caught shouldn’t be spared because everyone didn’t get caught. That doesn't even make sense. I think that—unless you lie to a Grand Jury—the proper punishment for using steroids should be the permanent-tarnishing of one’s career and legacy.
Some may argue that steroids weren’t against the rules in baseball so taking a hard stance is unfair. I don’t by that for a second. Steroids were very much against the rules in baseball and in every other facet of American life. They were illegal for everyone regardless of affiliation or stature. Those players broke the law to get an advantage and that should not be lost on anyone. Too many people want to place all of the blame on baseball for allowing an environment where drug-use went unchecked. If people want to rail baseball for not being vigilant enough, I have no qualms with that. However, the responsibility ultimately lies with the players who used. They are to blame and they should pay a price. Whether that’s banishment from the “Hall” or just a permanent tarnishing of their legacy is up to you to decide. Keep in mind, other players have cheated. Gaylord Perry "doctored" the ball as did many other pitchers. There is proof of this and there is admission of this. Teams have stolen signs. There is proof of this and admission of this. I’m not suggesting those forms of cheating are better or worse than steroids. I’m just saying there has been a precedent set in the past for “cheating.” That’s something worth considering as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
