Mlb 2009

[JustinHolt]

Ok, I'm really sick of all things premised or including the word(s) steroids and/or performance enhancing drugs.

Shut the f**k up already!

Let me enjoy my sport in peace.

Why is it that baseball, time and time again, gets lambasted, and other sports, namely the NFL, gets a pass? Two seasons ago one of their bright young stars, Shawn Merriman, he tests positive for a banned substance. Aka steroids/performance enhancing drugs. What happens to him? He gets suspended for 4 games, and then goes on to win Defensive Player of the Year. Life goes on, nobody cares.

Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Alex Rodriguez, Sammy Sosa...they must have had one major gang-bang orgy with every single sportswriter's girlfriend/wives/mistress/third-grade crush. These damn sportswriters are relentless. Ignoring court sealed documents to leak what were supposed to be confidential names to the world--ok, more sportswriters--to attack like sharks. Shouldn't we hire these worthless f**ks to investigate something that really matters, like Ponzi schemes, the government misuse of power, and why a man in Rochester, NY can't get a Chipotle restaurant within 240 of his house? The baseball press is like a bunch of Nostradamuses. Everything is right after the fact. I hate it.

I don't care about steroids. Surveys show the general baseball fan public doesn't care about steroids. It's over. Done. There are policies in place. Stronger than those in other sports like the NFL. Let me enjoy my game in peace!

Enough venting.

Red Sux still suck monkey balls!

Go A Rod!

[JasonKane]

I think it's because baseball is more of a sport of individual performances-- one batter at a time-- whereas football tends to be more of a scrum. Baseball also has the pretense of being an "important" sport in the fabric of the nation, whereas football is more of a party. At least, that's the perpetuated myth. It's a mass confusion. I used to find the duplicity of it all interesting; now it's just irritating.

There was a funny Onion article though that ran a few weeks ago: "A-Rod: Dead at 33."

[JustinHolt]

I think a big part of the "problem" stems from the fact that a lot of baseball's lore is rooted in their numbers.

714
56
130
61
26
755
500
73

Those are just a few, and the first that come to mind. Even the non-baseball fan probably can decipher what a few of them mean without me saying so.

That part of the argument I understand. I don't agree with it exactly, but I understand it. If you're going to promote your numbers--or the numbers are going to promote themselves--then to be credible, there should be a certain credibility to them. There's always going to be a flipside to the "clean numbers" argument. Babe Ruth didn't have to play against black or Hispanic players. They used to count a one-hopper that went over the wall as a home run. "Greenies" or speed was in widespread use all the way back to pre-Mickey Mantle. They raised the pitching mound because Bob Gibson and others were too dominant, and they wanted to give the batter an extra-advantage; make the games more entertaining with more runs scored. Whatever. That's why, for me, the whole steroid arguement loses some steam. Every generation had their way of cheating, or had rules built in that fair or unfair, gave certain players more of an advantage.

But the whole scale of this thing is ridiculous. I think a big part of that is because the media of baseball, moreso than any other sport, holds so much power over these players. Their legacy is controlled by the reporter. If they don't like you--for whatever reason--they can vote against you getting into the Hall of Fame. They are empowered, factual, speculation, or personal taste even, to be a player's judge and jury. Taking steroids out of the equation for a minute, how is that any self-respecting "fan"/reporter of a sport they get paid to cover could vote against Cal Ripken Jr.'s induction into the HOF? Or Rickey Henderson? Ripken received just over 98%, Henderson received just under 95%. Sure, it's close to a majority. But close doesn't cut it. These two are LEGENDS in a sport that spans over a century and a half. Babe Ruth only received 95%, Joe DiMaggio 88%, Jackie Robinson 77%. These are the sort of players that should not be up for debate. But these scum make it that way.

If the players of this "Steroid era" are going to be held in such contempt I think the same should be said for the reporters. They too are eligible to be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Keep every single of those fu*kers out. If they can criticize a player for not telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth as to what they did or didn't do--see the past two weeks with all of this ARod garbage as the only example neccesary--then the same should be done to all of these writers who failed at their job. Isn't their job to expose what's really going on when it's going on, not after the fact? Isn't their job based on their responsibility to report what they see as honest as possible? I think if these reporters can stake out these players and hound them incessantly then the public should have the right to do the same to them. Camp out on their front porch. Sift through their garbage. Call them "liars" and "cheats" and whatever else.

It's a shame too. If writing about baseball only involved writing about baseball, and you got paid for that, to me that's about the greatest job I can think of. Too bad these f*ckers that we're left with forgot how to do that a long, long time ago.

As for the whole baseball versus football being held to a higher standard thing, I think it's pretty simple.

Football is built on violence. The players are freakishly big. They knock the piss out of each other. We like to see them knock the piss out of each other. It's like pro-wrestling, or boxing, or mixed martial arts. If they have to use a little something extra to get them ready, so be it. Two years ago a player does the football equivalent of curb-stomping someone right in the middle of a game and two years later that same player is about to become the highest paid defensive player in the history of that sport.

But that's not the main reason why baseball and football are held to different standards.

The first major reason is the media coverage. The second major reason is tied into media coverage, and the fact that they're all whores to the cause. Gambling. So many people like football because so many people in some fashion or another bet on the game. These football coverage shows are driven by gambling. Giving the Vegas point spreads. Giving weather conditions. Telling you about injuries. Watch the beginning of Casino when Pesci is talking about the genius of DeNiro's character, and how he knew way back when nobody else did about these sort of things. And Christ, with the fantasy football scrolls. Not saying that I'm not as guilty as the next guy; I won money off of fantasy football last year, play it almost every year, but in the overall scheme of things could give two craps about the sport itself. But yeah, football winks its eye at the gambling aspect of things as does the media and life goes on. Pete Rose bets on his team winning and he gets banned for life. That shit ain't right.

But yeah, I could go on forever.

I just want my game back. It, or the players I'm watching play it don't have to be pure. They never have been. But it's always been beautiful, and I'm sick of being force fed how beautiful its not anymore.