8 comments MMQB Review: Peter Talks about the NFL Teams that "Control" the Draft Again Edition

Peter King interviewed Roger Goodell in last week's MMQB. Goodell, who is ALWAYS available to be interviewed tried as hard as he could to say nothing of substance. Peter also detailed the rule changes that will be introduced as a response to the Ravens-Patriots playoff game where the Patriots confused Baltimore about who was and was not an eligible receiver. Peter also talked briefly about an underrated U2 song, which is an oxymoron like calling a Bruce Springsteen album underrated. This week Peter talks about how the extra point could change (and the NFL isn't even changing it based on something the Patriots did that pissed off an opposing team, which is a shock to me), provides interesting (to him) quotes from head coaches at the league meetings, and doesn't seem to understand athletes don't write what appears on The Players' Tribune. That changed my opinion of the site and perhaps Peter should stop referring to essays on this site "written" by a certain player, as he does several times in this MMQB.

We’re exactly one month out from round one of the NFL draft. There’s a lot to cover this week, including:

Suddenly, the Saints—who are not finished making over their team—own the 2015 draft

The Browns have plenty of draft ammo—that is, unless the NFL takes some of it to smite GM Ray Farmer

Just what parity needs: the Patriots with three prime selections in a six-pick span

Peter does this shit every year. Every year he writes about what team "owns" the draft or "controls" the draft because of all the picks they have. A few years ago it was the 49ers, it was the Patriots before that, and then the Browns controlled the draft one year. I understand it's fun to talk about, but just because a team has a bunch of selections doesn't mean that team "controls" the draft or is going to make smart picks/moves with those picks. The Saints OWN the draft, you know? Sure, they have no cap room, but they have a bunch of picks, which means they don't even have to worry about those being smart picks. The Patriots have "prime" selections in the draft, like they had in the past when they missed on players they drafted in prime spots, while hitting on 7th rounders like Julian Edelman or a 3rd round pick like Logan Ryan. It annoys me because these teams still have to smart in making decisions with these picks. But yet, every year Peter talks about which team "owns" the draft and then forgets about it a year later. At some point I want Peter to realize having a bunch of picks doesn't mean a team "owns" or "controls" the draft.

But first, the biggest change to NFL scoring in the 95-year history of the league is coming. If you don’t like it, get out of the way.

Peter King obviously likes the change to the PAT. He's been advocating for the PAT to be eliminated or changed for a while now.

Last year, in a general session at an NFL meeting, the league’s 32 teams agreed—almost unanimously—that the point after touchdown was passé. Had to go. Too automatic. And so eight days ago, when the competition committee gathered in Phoenix to go over potential rule changes for the 2015 season, the committee was stuck on the PAT fix.

These are NFL problems. How do they fix the PAT, which isn't really broken, but just isn't as exciting as the NFL wants it to be?

There was nothing the group thought it could sell that would get the required 24 votes from the teams. (A rule change needs a three-quarter vote to pass.)

Thirty of 32 teams said they wanted the PAT to change, as teams, one by one, had a chance to advance their own solutions. But the opinions on what the new rule should be “were all over the map,” one competition committee member told me in Phoenix. “That’s the problem now. No one can agree, and now we have to come up with a compromise that’ll get 24 votes in May.”

All 32 NFL teams can agree that they do like money, then they would decide it would be fun to have 10 preseason games and would increase the regular season to 20 games and ask the union if it was fine if the NFL players all played under one year contracts.

This is the most likely compromise to be advanced, and the most likely way the league will amend how teams can score after a touchdown:

Teams will have a choice whether to go for one or two points after a touchdown, from different distances.

If the offensive team chooses to kick for one point, the scrimmage line will move from the 2-yard-line to the 15-yard line, making it a 32- or 33-yard attempt.

If the offensive team chooses to go for two points, the scrimmage line will be either the 1-and-a half- or 2-yard line. There was much debate about making it the 1, the 1-and-a-half or the 2. The feeling about putting it on the 1 was that it could turn into too much of a scrum/push-the-pile play, or a fluky puncture-the-goal-line-with-the-ball-and-bring-it-back play by the quarterback. Putting it at the 1-and-a-half or leaving it at the 2 would increase the chances of a real football play with some drama.

What I wrote in MMQB last week when discussing this same issue:

c. Moving the extra point back to the 15-yard line. (At least.)
 
d. Narrowing the goal posts.
 
e. Making the line of scrimmage for the extra point or two-point conversion the one-yard line.

Obviously "c" and "e" can't both happen,

Well, apparently both "c" and "e" can happen. I can't believe I underestimated the NFL like this. Here is what else I said on this topic:

Also, moving the extra point back to the 15-yard line essentially takes the two-point conversion out of play, unless the NFL wants a rule which says if a team is going for two then they get the ball on the 2-yard line and if a team is trying an extra point then they have to try it from the 15-yard line. That seems dumb to me.

My feelings on the dumbness of this rule still stands. Perhaps it makes sense and I'm just not used to it. The 32 or 33 yard field goal is still fairly automatic, as NFL kickers still make this fairly regularly. Since NFL kickers do miss these then the intended effect the NFL wants will occur. The PAT isn't automatic, but it is kind of dumb to me that a 33 yard field is worth 3 points and a 33 yard extra point is worth 1 point.

Maybe I'll get used to it. I think it's funny that I said both "c" and "e" could not happen at the same time and that seems to be the option the NFL owners have chosen.

The defensive team would be able to score two points by either blocking the PAT and returning it downfield to the end zone, or by intercepting the two-point attempt and running it back, or recovering a fumble on the two-point play and returning it all the way.

Maybe these plays should be worth 1.557 points to the defense, just to drive Gregg Easterbrook crazy with the choice to use over-hyperspecificity. 

Again, that’s not certain. Anytime you ask 24 teams to agree on anything, there’s a chance it won’t happen.

Which means zero new rules would ever be passed. Congress thinks this is a great idea.

There always will be those who don’t want the scoring system to change, because of tradition, or the attitude that football’s not broken, so why fix it? But the PAT is broken. The current system of scoring was invented by the lords of college football in 1912—six points for a touchdown, one for an extra point, two for a safety, three for a field goal—with the two-point conversion added by the NFL in 1994. Now the PAT cries out to be fixed. It’s simply not a competitive play anymore.

This is as opposed to the kickoff, which is now a more competitive play as kick returners now more and more watch the ball sail over their head and trot off the field as another commercial break begins.

Fifteen teams have not missed a PAT this decade. Tennessee hasn’t missed one since 2005, Kansas City and San Francisco since 2006. The Patriots and Broncos, combined, are 436 for 436 since 2011. Doing nothing would be the mistake.

The extra point should probably be changed. Maybe this will fix the problem the NFL has with the extra point being a competitive play and encourage teams to go for a two-point conversion more often.

The Saints will be a headline act. I don’t believe it involves Drew Brees, because I think the Saints are committed to at least one more season of Brees at quarterback. But I hear New Orleans wants to be even more active before the draft, and that could mean dealing stalwart guard Jahri Evans for a third- or fourth-round pick. Or it could mean signing or dealing defensive end Cam Jordan. As of today, the Saints are the biggest power players in the draft. They’re the only team with five picks in the first three rounds. They have 13, 31, 44, 75 and 78. So actually they have five picks in the first two-and-a-half rounds. That gives aggressive GM Mickey Loomis the ammo to start to remake his team.

THE SAINTS ARE GOING TO "OWN" THE DRAFT THIS YEAR!

You want to pick in the top nine. Here’s what a few football people at the league meetings are thinking about the breakdown of this draft: Nine prime picks, then eight or 10 really good prospects, then maybe 30 or so of the same player.

And when has group-think about how many good players are in the draft and where the best place to draft the difference makers for a team ever been wrong? It's why Tavon Austin is the difference maker he is and how Dion Jordan is racking up sacks in Miami.

The top nine: quarterbacks Jameis Winston and Marcus Mariota, defensive tackle Leonard Williams, wideouts Kevin White and Amari Cooper, pass-rushers Dante Fowler and Vic Beasley, offensive tackle Brandon Scherff and cornerback Trae Waynes. After that, beauty starts to be in the eye of the beholder. I had one GM tell me: “The 17^th pick on our board might be the 53^rd pick on another team’s board—and that could be a team we really respect.”

So what's the point, Peter? Every single year NFL teams value players differently from other NFL teams. Some players aren't even on a team's draft board, while another team values that player as a first round pick. I don't think it's news that different teams have varying values for different players. It's how Mike Mitchell goes in the 2nd round of the draft.

Todd Gurley is the draft’s fascinating player. Every year, draft prospects injured the previous college football season go back to Indianapolis, site of the combine, to have their surgeries re-checked before the draft. This year, the re-checks will be April 17 and 18 in Indy, two weeks before the draft. Gurley tore his ACL on Nov. 15 and had knee reconstruction by Dr. James Andrews on Nov. 25. So he’ll be drafted five months after surgery. The book on Gurley is he’ll be good in 2015 and tremendous in 2016. It’ll be interesting, particularly with the devaluation of running backs in recent drafts, to see who picks Gurley, and how high. I think he’ll be gone by the 25^th pick.

One (Me) would think if running backs are being devalued then some enterprising team might not mind selecting a player who can highly contribute in another year. After all, teams select wide receivers and other position players while expecting to put a year or two into that player's development and aren't bothered by doing this. So accordingly, what's the issue with waiting a year for a guy who shown potential to be a franchise running back? If a team can draft a wide receiver and hope he contributes in a year or two, what's wrong with doing that with a running back...even if the position is being devalued?

New England could be a big power player late on day two. The Patriots have their own picks in rounds one and two, 32^nd and 64^th overall. Then they have their own at the end of the third round, a third-round compensatory pick, and a pick at the top of the fourth round from the Logan Mankins trade last August. They have the 96^th, 97^th and 101^st overall picks. Don’t be surprised to see Bill Belichick/Nick Caserio flip one of those for, say, a prime 2016 pick.

Okay, Peter. Thanks for the breaking news. The Patriots may trade some picks for a pick in the 2016 draft. Would that mean the Patriots will "own" the 2016 draft? If so, consider me to be really impressed.

The Browns and Falcons could lose mid-round picks this week. Cleveland GM Ray Farmer has admitted texting coaches during games, a violation of league rules, and the Falcons have admitted piping in extra crowd noise at the Georgia Dome. Doubt either rises to the level or a first- or second-round pick for a penalty, but I believe both teams will be docked a pick or picks for the violations. The league still has a while to go on the Jets-Patriots tampering case.

With how long it takes the NFL to investigate some things, I was surprised the punishment came down prior to the 2017 NFL Draft.

Ten Questions. Ten [Occasionally Insightful] Answers by Coaches.
Some of the most interesting stuff I heard from coaches at the league meetings in Phoenix:

SEATTLE’S PETE CARROLL

Q: Maybe a torturous one—If you have Jimmy Graham on second-and-goal at the end of the Super Bowl, is your call different?

What kind of question is this? The Seahawks have one of the best running backs in the NFL and that little fact didn't change the call, why would hypothetically having Jimmy Graham get Pete Carroll admit this would change the call?

Carroll: That’s not a torturous question. We didn’t have him! So it’s no big deal. Now, if we were in the situation again, he presents an extraordinary dimension to your offense, and we’ll see how it will unfold for us. We’re looking forward to his factor down there. It’s obvious. Forty-something touchdowns the last three years or whatever it is. [It’s 35.] There’s only a couple of guys who have scored more touchdowns than he has, and one of them is Marshawn Lynch.

So................yes, having Jimmy Graham would have changed the call?

Q: You’ve explained why you called what you called rationally several times. Is your fan base okay with it now?

Yes, the entire Seahawks fan base is okay with it now. Every single Seahawks fan has been polled and they are all perfectly fine with the play call.

Carroll: I might have mentioned it—I don’t know if it was captured or not—we knew we were going to throw the ball down there. If it was gonna take all four plays to score, we knew we were gonna throw the ball down there. That was because of the clock situation. We had prepared for that for years. So it was not a difficult situation. The fact that all the focus goes to it—yeah, that’s what it is. I gotta live with that and with our fans and all that. What I’m feeling from our fans? They’re ready to get going.

Every single one of them. Even Macklemore.

CINCINNATI’S MARVIN LEWIS

Q: Are you worried about Andy Dalton’s play in the playoffs?

It's not entirely certain who is asking these questions, as these are things that Peter King "heard" at the league meetings, but this sounds like a question that Peter would ask. The only way this could be a more obvious Peter King question is if there were a reference to Brett Favre in the question or if he managed to bash Josh Freeman in the question by comparing Dalton's play in the playoffs to Freeman's play with the Vikings.

Lewis: What worries me is our poor performance on defense in the playoffs.

The Bengals have given up 31, 19, 27, and 26 points in the playoffs with Andy Dalton as their quarterback. Obviously the defense hasn't been great, but this could have something to do with the six interceptions Dalton has thrown in these playoff games and the overall poor performance of the offense.

We do know, in order for us to be successful, which we can’t even talk about the playoffs because we haven’t gotten there, but the first thing we do, we have to take care of the ball and play better on defense. … We feel Andy’s our quarterback, and we signed him long-term, and we feel good about him … and we will continue to get better with the pieces around Andy. Andy has done a lot of things so far as a pro that not a lot of people have done. We need to keep playing better around Andy, and that will be helpful to Andy.

Can you say "Andy" a few more times? I'm not entirely sure who you are talking about.

CHICAGO’S JOHN FOX

Q: What do you do to fix Jay Cutler?

More draw plays, take the ball out of his hands with a chance to win the game because there is a 15% chance he will commit a turnover, and of course, more punting on fourth-and-short.

Fox: I think he got to the point that he lacked confidence a year ago. To build that back up is going to take time, daily. It takes trust like any relationship. I think he and [offensive coordinator] Adam Gase having a relationship from back in Denver [is helpful] so I think it starts there. Footballwise, there are things you can do in coaching to minimize some of the exposure.

See, I wasn't kidding. Run the ball, run the ball, draw plays on third down and don't take any chances because SOMETHING NEGATIVE MAY OCCUR and that would be terrible. 

TENNESSEE’S KEN WHISENHUNT

Q: What do you think of Marcus Mariota’s football IQ and his ability to transition to the NFL game?

Whisenhunt: Very high. I think he has very good spatial memory. You say, what’s spatial memory?

Hell fucking no, Peter King isn't asking what spatial memory is! Peter is the one who asks the questions around here! Peter is the one who will use big words and then condescend to his audience by telling them to look the word up. Of course Peter knows what spatial memory is and the next time you ask him a question it will be "Can I at least have the shards of my teeth back?" after Peter curb stomps you for condescending to him. Peter condescends, he is NOT the condescendee.

Like, Oh yeah, that was in this game at this time. Those are the kind of things, to me, that are important for that position. You have to have a memory that can see everything and remember it, because when it happens in a game, then you have to come over and communicate that on the sideline, then you have to have a plan of how you’re gonna adjust to it. That’s what the really successful ones do. So he exhibits that type of quality. We still have a little bit more classroom time with him, but he’s been impressive. He does a lot of things that, no matter what offense you run, transition well to the NFL game.

What's it matter that Whisenhunt thinks highly of Marcus Mariota? Chip Kelly is obviously trading up and selecting Mariota according to the sports media, so Whisenhunt shouldn't even waste his time trying to evaluate Mariota's skill set.

GREEN BAY’S MIKE McCARTHY 
Q: Anything you’d do differently at the end of the NFC championship game?
 
McCarthy: [Pause] That’s part of your scheme evaluation.

Not sure the "pause" notation is necessary since McCarthy had not started speaking yet. Everyone pauses before they start speaking so they can hear the entire question. Or at least, most people pause before speaking.

Personally I’ve gone back and watched the TV copies a few weeks back, just one more time. So as a coaching staff we’ve kind of moved past that. We’re actually starting to put in our installation for 2015.

I take that as a no.

Your spatial memory has not done you wrong, Peter.

“It’s NFL free agency … That’s not a big story.”
—New England coach Bill Belichick, on losing cornerback Darrelle Revis to the Jets in free agency.
Riiiight.

Let Peter tell you about the time he interviewed Bill Belichick and saw "The Art of War" on Belichick's bookshelf...

“I don’t trust the lady on GPS. They don’t send you the right way. I hit the button, I go like this, ‘Park Ridge, New Jersey.’ She comes back on, she’s giving me directions. Now I figure out where I am. I say, ‘Thank you very much, I know exactly where I am now.’ She comes back and says, ‘You don’t have to thank me.’ I swear to God, that’s what she said. Then I couldn’t get her to shut up.”
—Giants coach Tom Coughlin, doing battle with Siri recently as he tried to find the site of one of his grandson’s roller-hockey games in New Jersey.

If I were a Giants fan then these comments would concern me more than any personnel moves the Giants make in the offseason or whatever career trajectory Eli Manning's career seems to be taking. Tom Coughlin sounds like an old man when it comes to using technology and talking about "the lady on GPS." It's the little things like this that worry me the most, hearing a quote like this and thinking there's a 5% chance Tom Coughlin may be going senile in some way.

“In theory, freedom sounds great. We all want more freedom. But when I retired and I had all the freedom in the world, the only thing I craved was that structure. It was all I knew. Adjusting to the lack of structure and schedule is one of the biggest challenges of retirement because the real world moves much slower than the football world. Football is week-to-week, and everyone in the real world is working on the fiscal year. You have to slow yourself down because it’s not a sprint. You can’t attack every day like you do in football. You have to pace yourself and find balance. That’s a new concept for me.”
—Former Chargers center Nick Hardwick, who retired at 33 in February after an 11-year career, all in San Diego, in an essay for The Players’ Tribune.

This is the first of a few times that Peter will mention The Players' Tribune in this MMQB. It's disappointing, though I shouldn't be surprised, that many of the players don't actually write those essays found on the site for The Players' Tribune. The "essay" in many cases is really just a summation of an interview the player did with an editor of The Players' Tribune. Now that I know this, I won't say a player "wrote" something on The Players' Tribune, because I'll assume an editor actually wrote it and the essay is more of an interview.

According to cap site Spotrac, here are the most and least active teams in the first three weeks of free agency (the market essentially is dried up now):

The five biggest spenders in total contract value of signed players:

1. Jacksonville: $172.5 million
2. New York Jets: $172.0M
3. Miami: $139.8M
4. Philadelphia: $117.3M
5. Tennessee: $110.2M

What else do the majority of these teams have in common? They haven't made the playoffs over the last three seasons. Philadelphia is the exception of course. These teams have 1 playoff appearance over the last 3 seasons to their credit. I'm guessing the reason these teams haven't made the playoffs isn't because they didn't spend enough money in free agency.

The thrifty five in total contract value of signed players:

28. Minnesota: $9.3M
29. Carolina: $8.8M
30. Detroit: $8.6M
31. Pittsburgh: $6.6M
32. Green Bay: Zero

What else do all five of these teams have in common? They have all appeared in the playoffs over the last three seasons. They have 9 playoff appearances over the last three seasons. Weird how they do that without spending a lot of money in free agency.

Obviously only broad conclusions can be drawn from a list showing five teams spending money in free agency and five teams who didn't spend money in free agency, but I still can't help but notice that free agent spending doesn't seem efficient when viewed from the perspective of teams who have spent in free agency. Drafting players and developing them is still the best way to win games.

“We obviously have a philosophy,” coach Mike McCarthy said. “It’s kind of like Groundhog Day. I feel like I answer this every year, so I’ll try to be creative and answer it differently this year. But it’s just the way we operate. We do the evaluations. We just stick to our plan. Our number one priority always has been to sign our own free agents. We go into every offseason—if we have 10 conversations, nine-and-a-half of them are about our own guys.”

Free agency is a market where the highest bidder almost always wins. It's not the best place for a team to go looking to plug holes in the roster caused by ineffective drafting or personnel choices. Free agency can absolutely work for a team, but I don't think it's a coincidence the best teams don't spend big in free agency.

Bill Madden of the New York Daily News wrote Sunday that the Tigers owe Miguel Cabrera, Justin Verlander, Victor Martinez, Ian Kinsler and Anibel Sanchez $639 million in guaranteed money between now and the end of their contracts.
Costanza voice: “Is that wrong?”

Coming from a Red Sox fan, really? The Red Sox haven't spent huge lately, but they have certainly spent their share of money on contracts. Come on, it's not like Peter's favorite team doesn't spend a lot of money on contracts for their players. They aren't the Yankees, but the Red Sox also aren't a mid-market team either.

Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think I can now say with certainty that The Other Team in the chase for Sam Bradford—as many have inferred—was Cleveland. The Browns would have been willing to part with a first-round pick in either 2015 or 2016 (I do not know which year) for Bradford, but there were two problems: One, the Browns didn’t have a quarterback to give in return, and Philadelphia was willing to fork over Nick Foles.

The Rams didn't want Thad Lewis? No way. 

Two, Bradford would not have been willing to sign a new contract this off-season if he were traded to Cleveland, and he is willing to consider an extension in Philadelphia. So the Philly deal was really the only one that made sense for the Rams and for Bradford, in the end.

I'm not sure how I feel about the Browns having interest in Sam Bradford. It seems like giving up on Johnny Manziel after one season, while also feeling like not a bad move for the team. I don't see why the Browns would give up a first round pick for a quarterback like Bradford, but there are so many things I don't understand in life. Like, didn't the Browns just sign Josh McCown before they tried to acquire Bradford?

2. I think the Vikings can say a hundred times they’re not trading Adrian Peterson, and I believe they believe they will not. But the Vikings also have to understand Peterson and agent Ben Dogra could be serious about making it very hot for them this summer if they don’t trade him on draft weekend. How could Peterson make it hot? By not reporting to camp. By being a huge distraction that would drive Mike Zimmer crazy. If I were Minnesota GM Rick Spielman, I’d trade Peterson for a second-round pick if I could get it. He’s 30. He is owed $45 million over the next three years.

A second round pick for Adrian Peterson when he is owed $45 million over the next three years? I'm sure there is a team that would take this dive, but best of luck with that turning out well. And I love how Peterson threatens to hold out. How is he going to be a distraction that drives Mike Zimmer crazy? Is Peterson going to show up and photobomb Zimmer's press conferences or interrupt practice by running on the field naked? Sure, Peterson could be a distraction, but the Vikings can simply hold on to him and wait until he realizes he's 30 and the only leverage he has is that he can make life difficult for the Vikings. Plus, acting like an asshole and intentionally becoming a distraction doesn't seem like the best way for Peterson to drum up a trade market for himself.

3. I think the 2014 trades with 2015 draft implications that look the worst are, in order:
a. Buffalo sending a 2015 fourth-round pick to Philadelphia for running back Bryce Brown (2014: 36 carries, 126 yards), now buried behind LeSean McCoy on the Bills’ depth chart.

Except Bryce Brown somehow managed to fetch a fourth round pick for his services when he was buried behind LeSean McCoy on the Eagles' depth chart, so it's not necessarily a status that means Brown can't/won't contribute to the Bills team.

b. Seattle getting only a sixth-round pick, from the Jets, for Percy Harvin.

Seems like it was addition by subtraction to me.

6. I think, after his ignominious performance in 2014, it hasn’t surprised me that the market for Michael Vick is somewhere between grim and nonexistent.

Ouch. Peter King going hard at Mike Vick for being grim and nonexistent. I wonder if Peter has some harsh words for Matt Schaub or Matt Flynn for being grim and nonexistent? My guess is he does not. After all, he justified the Josh McCown signing by explaining what a great teacher McCown is.

7. I think the more I think of New Orleans signing C.J. Spiller—27 years old, making $9.5 million over the next two seasons, 5.3 yards per rush combined in 2012 and ’13 before his lost season in Buffalo last fall—the more I think the Saints made a great deal. I love Spiller.

Especially since the Saints have zero salary cap issues and certainly didn't just re-sign another running back named Mark Ingram this past offseason, so spending $9.5 million over two years on a running back in a draft where there seem to be a variety of quality running backs does seem like a great deal.

9. I think Indianapolis coach Chuck Pagano coaching out the last season of his contract—regardless of whatever Pagano or any team official would say—means that something, either major or minor, is amiss. You do not let a coach with 36 wins in three years coach out his contract, particularly if you are intent on him staying and coaching your team beyond this season. 

This is some major inside information. So teams that want their head coach to continue coaching for them DO NOT fail to re-sign that head coach to a new contract prior to his contract running out? Are you sure about that, Peter? It seems counter intuitive to learn that an NFL team might offer a coach they wanted to keep a new contract prior to his old one running out, but this is just another example of the great information MMQB provides.

Ian Rapoport reported a new deal won’t get done, and longtime Colts beat man Mike Chappelle reported Pagano turned down a one-year extension. Something just doesn’t feel right about it.

It could be the Colts don't want to pay Pagano the money that he wants to coach the team. Maybe the Colts think Pep Hamilton is a better coach or perhaps Pagano is a bit frustrated he was saddled with Trent Richardson for most of the season.

10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:

b. College Basketball Fever Dept.: New Jersey Institute of Technology travels to Flagstaff, Ariz., to play Northern Arizona for the semifinals of the CollegeInsider.com Tournament.
c. When NJIT and Northern Arizona meet, I mean, you can throw the records out the window.

Yes, let's mock college basketball tournaments because they aren't as relevant as the NCAA Tournament. That's the mature thing to do.

d. I also agree with Dan Shaughnessy: The more David Ortiz talks and writes about not being a PED user (which Ortiz did last week for The Players’ Tribune),

Except Ortiz didn't really write what appeared in The Players' Tribune, but I guess Peter is okay with a fellow journalist not getting credit for what he has written. I'm sure the editors of The Players' Tribune are just the CollegeInsider.com Tournament to THE MMQB's NCAA Tournament, so who cares if they get credit for what they have written?

e. Best piece on The Players’ Tribune, of all of them that I’ve read, was that Nick Hardwick adjusting-to-retirement essay. What a fantastic job of explaining so much about retirement that those of us who never played anything professionally would be able to feel.

Except, again, Nick Hardwick probably didn't even really write this essay. He spoke it and someone else edited and wrote the essay.

f. I like those pieces by the new Jeter site. But (he said, sticking his chest out with some pride) The Players’ Tribune didn’t invent the first-person athlete column. Nor did The MMQB. But our site did a score of them when Jeter was still a shortstop and not a publisher—by Richard Sherman, on multiple topics; by Russell Wilson, on race in the NFL; by journeyman defensive end Austen Lane, a gut-puncher of a piece on what it’s like be cut; by Lydon Murtha, a teammate of Richie Incognito and Jonathan Martin, on life on the inside of the bullying in Miami. And others. Just to set the record straight.

Were these essays all ghost written by someone else too? If so, I can see why Peter has no issue with an athlete getting credit for something another person has actually edited and written.

g. I really like the Yanks’ top two, Tanaka and Pineda. But is C.C. Sabathia even going to be in the rotation by June?

(Bengoodfella uses his psychic skills) Yes, he will be in the rotation in June.

h. Big, big blow if the Red Sox have lost catcher Christian Vasquez, who I keep reading is a Molina-type defender and arm. 

Peter King thinks this was a huge blow to the Red Sox based on something that Peter King has read about this player, and while he has no firsthand knowledge of this player's abilities, based on what others say it was a huge blow, so Peter is just going to adopt that as the truth based on information he doesn't really know.

I can't believe the Braves traded Andy Marte a few years ago, a guy who I kept reading was just like Aramis Ramirez. 

Not that Boston’s going to have enough pitching to win this year, but catchers can make pitchers better.

#analysis

l. Is baseball serious? Opening night next Sunday at Wrigley … and game two, another night game two nights later in Chicago? Why torture fans—and, presumably, frozen-fingered pitchers? Luckily for MLB, the long-range forecast is for temperatures in the 40s both nights.

Nope Peter, it is all a joke that is being played on you. Opening night is actually in Bermuda at an undisclosed location between two teams who were last seen playing in the CollegeInsider.com tournament.

p. Tom Brady cliff-diving one day, playing pickup basketball with Michael Jordan the next. How’s your off-season going?

I have a full-time job that doesn't have an offseason and I have to work year around. So my offseason is going terribly because it doesn't exist. #alwaysriseandgrind

r. Coffeenerdness: Why’d you take away the hazelnut macchiato, Starbucks? That was my occasional guilty pleasure. No more.

Starbucks should continue to make the hazelnut macchiato in every Starbucks in the United States, just for Peter King, because who knows when Peter is liable to wander into any Starbucks in the United States. In fact, baristas at Starbucks should only be trained on how to make coffee-flavored drinks that Peter King likes. Everyone else can just get used to it.

v. Just when you think you’ve seen every possible horrendous thing done by human beings, a pilot crashes a jetliner into a mountain on purpose, and 150 die.

He was actually the co-pilot, but point taken.

The Adieu Haiku

Yo! Trade Adrian.  
Forty-five mill’s too much for
a back who’s thirty.

These haikus are the sportswriting equivalent of a turd sundae as dessert after a four-course meal of expired lettuce, rancid meat, and squirrel testicles for an appetizer.

0 comments Scott Miller Isn't Sure a Designated Hitter Should Win the MVP

Scott Miller isn't so sure that a designed hitter should ever win the MVP. This is an interesting problem because designated hitters already have a barrier entering the Hall of Fame because they don't play the field and now there are baseball writers like Scott Miller who think a DH shouldn't be the MVP. Tradition-minded voters (those same ones who possibly don't like the DH and wouldn't vote for a DH as MVP) like using a player's achievements like top-5 MVP finishes as a reason a player should or should not be elected into baseball's Hall of Fame. So what's a DH to do when he doesn't get enough MVP votes because he doesn't play a fielding position, yet otherwise his statistics show that he deserves election into the Hall of Fame? A DH is already behind because some MVP voters won't give him an MVP vote because he's a DH, which then affects his Hall of Fame candidacy. It appears that Scott Miller is one of those voters.

What's interesting, and I will show this in some more depth in a minute, is that Scott Miller is one of those baseball writers who thinks great defense should not be thought of as being on par with a great offensive season when it comes to voting for the MVP. Yet Miller holds the fact a player doesn't play defense at all against a player when he is only a DH. Fielding your position is only important in the MVP balloting when it needs to be important I guess. It's better to be a bad fielder who puts up great offensive numbers than a DH who doesn't field at all and puts up great offensive numbers.

1. Should a DH ever win an MVP Award?

No. Heck no. Hail no.

So if Miguel Cabrera won the Triple Crown as a DH in 2012 and Mike Trout played centerfield that season, then Trout should have won the MVP? But of course not! I do not believe Scott Miller would have then voted for Trout.

Unless…

Ah yes, a caveat. There's always a caveat.

There is one avenue toward the MVP award if you are a DH, and one avenue only: A slugger must stack up offensive numbers so massive that they dwarf everything else in his path, from whomever is the runner-up in slugging percentage and homers to that year’s Super Bowl’s television ratings.

OK, so that last part is an exaggeration. But not by much.

If it's not an exaggeration by much then it's not really an exaggeration. So to win the MVP award in either the National or American League a DH has to be the most valuable player in either the National League or the American League? To be the MVP a player has to be the MVP.

Unless...

What if Player A is a league average fielder at his position? He provides no positive differential to his team and no negative differential. If Player B is a DH and out-hits and out-MVP's Player A, but not by a whole lot, then why in the hell would Player A receive the MVP award simply because he played defense? His defense had no positive impact for his team (and this goes doubly for a player who actually had a negative impact for his team on defense), so he essentially had the same impact as a player who is primarily a DH.

It's weird how Scott Miller says, "Yeah, but a DH doesn't play defense at all" and then doesn't seem to care that much about defense in any other regard when it comes to voting for the MVP. Yeah, he considers defense, but overwhelmingly considers offense and other factors when it comes to voting for an MVP. Here is an example of this when it comes to the Miguel Cabrera-Mike Trout 2012 AL MVP debate. 

Far as I'm concerned there is no wrong answer here, they each deserve an MVP award. But you've gotta pick one, and based on the most dangerous bat in the game and season-long production, Cabrera is the choice here. 

His Triple Crown chances in these final days notwithstanding, Cabrera keeps opposing managers awake nights and rival pitchers on high alert. Nobody -- including Trout -- has carried his club all season like Cabrera, who, into Sunday, was hitting .342 with 36 homers, 36 doubles and 114 RBI over 127 games since May 10. 

When you read Scott Miller mention defense with any sort of indication that defense had a real impact on his hypothetical MVP vote, just tell me.

Trout was not with the Angels in April, and Torii Hunter has been their best player in September. Trout has had his worst overall month in September, batting .255/369/.436 with five steals...If it's a Player of the Year award, I go Trout. But if you include both April and September, it is Cabrera -- barely -- who encompasses the word valuable in its totality for all six months.

Miller's logic doesn't make a ton of sense here. I mean, Player of the Year goes to Trout, but MVP goes to Cabrera. I try not to be distracted by this logic and reasoning, but it seems like the same thing to me. Notice that Scott Miller says the MVP race was very close, there was no wrong answer and he uses mostly batting statistics to advocate for Cabrera as the AL MVP. Let's say that Cabrera was a full-time DH. Using the reasoning earlier where Miller said a player who was a DH would have to stack up numbers "so massive they dwarf everything in his path" then he would NOT have voted for Cabrera if he were a DH and had won the Triple Crown, right? Cabrera didn't dwarf Trout's numbers. How come I don't believe Miller would have not voted for Cabrera if he were a primary DH in 2012 though? Especially since he used mostly batting statistics to justify his choice of Cabrera as the AL MVP? So I think Miller is talking out of both sides of his mouth in this situation.

Here is another article about Cabrera after he was named AL MVP in 2012. Notice Miller mentions defense in this column, but mostly discusses hitting. Can I really believe that Miller would have suggested Cabrera was not the 2012 AL MVP as a full-time DH if he had won the Triple Crown because he didn't "dwarf everything in his path"? I can not.

The award is not Player of the Year. It is not Most Awesome Overall Skills.

It's not Most Awesome Overall Skills (well, yes it is) according to Scott Miller, but when it comes to a DH all of a sudden those Most Awesome Overall Skills are really factored into his MVP vote.

In the end, in a nutshell, here it is: Nobody combined overall statistics, badass lineup presence and value to his team more than Triple Crown winner Miguel Cabrera.

Trout came close. Very, very close. Close enough that if he were to have won, well, then, that's the way it would go and we all should accept that because he absolutely is deserving, too.

Cabrera did not dwarf Trout's numbers, so therefore if Cabrera were a full-time DH then Trout would have gotten Miller's hypothetical vote (Miller didn't have a vote during the 2012 season), right?

But set aside, for just a moment, the fact that Cabrera this year became the first player to win baseball's Triple Crown since Carl Yastrzemski in 1967. Because a player should no more be automatically awarded an MVP for a Triple Crown than he should for posting an historic WAR number.

It is about many different things, and how they all fit together into the overall package.

Which is totally different from a player who should win Most Awesome Overall Skills. The "Overall Package" is completely different from "Most Awesome Overall Skills" in Scott Miller's head.

Cabrera posted his Big Boy numbers in the midst of a position change, and yet many of those supporting Trout, in citing his extraordinary defense (and oh man, is it ever), have gone overboard bashing Cabrera's defense while failing to acknowledge the whole position change thing.

Plus, despite their narrative, Cabrera is not the butcher at third base they'd have you believe. He not going to win any Gold Gloves anytime soon, but he did make a couple of plays down the stretch that helped the Tigers win the AL Central.

See? Defense is important to Scott Miller until he decides defense isn't important. A DH needs to play defense in order to be considered the MVP, but as long as a position player makes "a couple of plays down the stretch" then there's no need to consider defense for a position player. Defense counts until it doesn't.

But you can also stack arguments for Cabrera as high as the green-eyed Tiger prowling atop the Comerica Park scoreboard. And while I enjoy the new frontiers Sabermetrics have opened and while I am not anti-math … the batting title, the ERA race, those statistical departments are about the math and nothing but.

The MVP award? That factors in other variables as well, some of which simply are not quantifiable. Sorry.

And of course there is no way a DH can have other variables that aren't quantifiable which would lead Scott Miller to vote for him as the MVP. I fail to believe Miller would have not voted for Cabrera in 2012 simply because Cabrera hypothetically could have been a full-time DH. I don't believe it.

So there is proof Miller uses defense as important to the MVP race until he decides not to anymore and my speculation that Miller probably wouldn't heed his own words in voting for Cabrera (were he a DH) in the 2012 AL MVP race. Back to the article about why a DH shouldn't be MVP...

Which brings us to Detroit’s Victor Martinez, who is doing everything so far this season except fly the Tigers’ broken charter from Boston to Cleveland.

After May 18's games, Martinez ranked fifth in the majors with a .331 batting average, fifth in slugging percentage at .595, tied for ninth with 10 home runs and seventh in OPS at .973. As the Tigers roll in the AL Central, he’s popping up on television so often you’d think he had changed his name to V. Martinez and was hanging out with Donald Sterling.

Weak joke.

Now despite Martinez’s early momentum, he leads the AL in only one department (batting average) and is tied for the lead with the White Sox’s Jose Abreu in another (slugging percentage). His 25 RBI are well behind teammate Miguel Cabrera’s 39.

How dare Victor Martinez come up to the plate and not drive in runners because Miguel Cabrera has already driven in all the base runners! If Martinez had any decency he would bash Cabrera in the head with a baseball bat prior to the game just to jump ahead of Cabrera into the #3 hole and drive in more runs. That would make him the MVP, but alas, he doesn't do that and settles for driving in fewer runs than Cabrera partially because Cabrera has already driven in the runs that Martinez would have had an opportunity to drive in.

See how RBI's work? A player can't run up insane RBI totals if there are no players on-base to drive in.

And being that Martinez bats directly behind Miggy in the Tigers lineup, most of his RBI chances are going to continue to vanish just before he comes to the plate the way those delicious works of art disappear from the plates at Lafayette Coney Island in Detroit.

And this is absolutely something that should not be held against him when it comes to Martinez's MVP candidacy.

So while he’s absolutely in the early-season MVP discussion, he’s got some work to do. Much work to do, being that he’s a DH.

Martinez has to obliterate all other MVP candidates with his numbers, because he doesn't play defense, but of course a player who plays great defense doesn't get credit for this great defense if he doesn't have exactly comparable numbers (during cherry-picked months as well) to another position player. Defense is really important, unless it's not important. Crappy defense is okay, not playing defense at all is not okay.

There have been years in which a full-time DH has made a case to win an MVP award, and most of those bids recently have been made by Boston’s David Ortiz. Big Papi’s 2004-2006 period was a masterpiece, a time in which his successive RBI numbers were 139/148/137 and his homer numbers were 41/47/54.

Yeah, but Ortiz may have only been the most valuable player in the AL that year which doesn't mean he was the Most Valuable Player in the AL, because he didn't lay waste to his competitors for the MVP award.

In ’06, Ortiz out-homered Morneau 54-34, out-RBI’d him 137-130, out-OBP’d him .413-.375 and out-WAR’d him 5.7-4.3. But Morneau had a significantly higher batting average than Ortiz (.321-.287) and in two key departments contributed defensively because he played first base in 153 games (and DH’d in only four) and his Twins won the AL Central, while Ortiz’s Red Sox finished third in the AL East.

Boy, playing defense and being on a winning team certainly does hold a lot of sway for an individual award in Scott Miller's mind. Notice how Ortiz was the better hitter, but Morneau played defense and his team won their division. If only Ortiz had played the field he would have had a better shot at being MVP for the 2006 season. And really, who cares if Morneau contributed positively to his team on defense? That doesn't matter, does it?

And over the past couple of decades, award voters (members of the Baseball Writers’ Assn. of America, of which, full disclosure, I am) have increasingly appeared to value contributions toward a contending team.

Because it does make sense to weigh the achievement of a team overall heavily when determining an individual player's performance. In baseball, one player doesn't have the ability to pitch and hit at all nine spots in the order, so it makes sense to judge one player on the talents of his teammates.

Given those parameters, the deck remains badly stacked against a DH winning the MVP award.

Which means a DH won't be able to accumulate those important top-5 MVP finishes or win one of those MVP awards that Hall of Fame voters care about so greatly. So the idea a DH can't win the MVP could affect that player's candidacy for the Hall of Fame, which seems a little unfair.

And these parameters by the way, are all very silly and arbitrary...

Because by definition, if the pool of candidates is going to be narrowed to those playing for playoff teams, that will nearly automatically eliminate the MVP outliers from bottom-division teams (see: Andre Dawson for the 1987 Cubs).

The pool of candidates should not be narrowed to only those who play for playoff teams. A player could be the most valuable player on any team in the AL/NL and his team still not make the playoffs. The playoffs are a team achievement, I can't emphasize this enough.

And once the pool is whittled to players with contending teams, odds are astronomically against a DH given that he is not contributing defensively.

So a player who doesn't play defense can not be the most valuable player on his team. Someone should tell that to David Ortiz and the Red Sox, because they may disagree. I would also like an explanation how David Ortiz could win the MVP award in the World Series, but not for the regular season. Is it because he played a few games at first base during the World Series and therefore this made him more valuable (regardless of whether he played first base well or not)?

Is this right? I think it is. Yes, DH is a legitimate position and unquestionably should be considered in the MVP debate. But all things being equal, it’s not a fair fight.

A DH should be considered in the MVP debate, but he just shouldn't get any votes for being the MVP. Sure, makes sense. I would bet if Miguel Cabrera were a full-time DH then he would still win the MVP on a year where he won the Triple Crown. It also pisses me off that playing defense very well or very poorly has the same impact on Scott Miller. Defense is important and is a reason why a DH should not be the MVP, but defense isn't so important two player's defensive contributions should be factored in over hitting in any way.

Given that the past three AL MVPs have come from Detroit (Cabrera in ’13 and ’12, Justin Verlander in ’11)

Verlander only plays once every fifth day, which apparently is perfectly fine when it comes to him winning the MVP. Maybe a DH like Ortiz should field a position every fifth day and then he would get more MVP votes too. Victor Martinez better start stealing some time in the field now. Who cares if Martinez plays well or not in the field, that doesn't matter. He just has to be on defense, because it's an important part of the game of baseball, but not important enough to be used to differentiate between two MVP candidates like Mike Trout and Miguel Cabrera.

well, if any DH is going to win an MVP award anytime soon, you’d figure he would be tiger-striped.

So basically a DH should not win the MVP award because that DH would have to play for a contending team, and even if he plays for a contending team, he still isn't contributing enough to the team by not playing defense. A player has to contribute on defense to win the MVP. Of course, even though defense is really important and it can lose the MVP award for a player it isn't important enough to help a player win the MVP.

2 comments Sure David Ortiz Won the World Series MVP, But What About Steroids?

Bill Plaschke sees that David Ortiz won the World Series MVP and says that this is all well and good for Ortiz, but what about the questions that will linger over whether David Ortiz used steroids to win the World Series MVP? Plaschke says this question will linger over Ortiz's World Series performance. Of course, this question will linger because writers like Plaschke are asking the question out of nowhere and not because it's a real question that too many other people are asking right now. Plaschke ignores the fact the one who is creating the lingering questions about steroids is him, but I'm sure that's not relevant in his mind. Sure, Plaschke is creating the questions by writing this column, and then writing a column about the lingering questions about steroids that Plaschke himself has brought up and discussed. It doesn't matter if Plaschke is creating a story under the guise of "lingering questions." The key point is he wrote a column in time to meet his deadline. 

In Boston this week, a patchwork collection of athletes with grimy beards and dirt-caked knees had the remarkable strength to elevate a city torn by tragedy.

Yeah, the Boston Marathon bombing doesn't matter anymore because the Red Sox won the World Series. All injured are healed and all dead are now alive again. Everything has been fixed because the Red Sox won the title in a sporting event. Stick to the narrative.

When the Red Sox beat the St. Louis Cardinals and clinched a title at swaggering, swooning Fenway Park for the first time in 95 years, you really wanted to believe this was another example of Boston Strong.

You ready for this play on the idea of "Boston Strong"? I don't think you are, but here goes...

But, sadly, it is completely fair to wonder if the biggest part of this strength is real.

Yes, it is completely fair to wonder if David Ortiz, who has not failed a drug test in the past decade, cheated during the World Series. It's completely fair to speculate on Ortiz's use of PED's despite the fact there is no evidence he actually used PED's during the World Series. Someone get the #BostonStrongBecauseOrtizCheated hashtag going on Twitter.

His name is David Ortiz, and for the last week he has been an enigmatic mixture of beauty and baggage.

Baggage because Ortiz had to travel to St. Louis for three games, right?

At age 37, five years after his power seemingly began declining, four years after he finished a full season hitting .238, Ortiz became the World Series MVP after putting on an October hitting show for the ages.

The sign of any good argument, the cherry-picking of data. Ortiz hit .238 four years ago and since then he has hit .270, .309, .318, and .309. Ortiz's home runs have been between 23-32 since 2008, so it's not unforeseen that he can hit a few home runs and he has a history of hitting the ball well in the playoffs. 

If he's been using steroids then he certainly is doing a great job of not getting caught. But yeah, a season where Ortiz had 416 at-bats and "only" hit 23 home runs is evidence Ortiz's power has been dropping off. Pay no attention to the at-bats for it will ruin what Plaschke wants to prove. 416 at-bats or 600 at-bats, what's the difference?

the ball appearing to shoot off his bat like a Roman candle, his .688 batting average and .760 on-base percentage the second-highest numbers in World Series history.

Ortiz was absolutely on fire in the World Series. Clearly, he started using steroids immediately before the ALDS where he hit .385/.556/.923 with 2 home runs, quit using steroids during the ALCS where he hit .091/.200/.227 with 1 home run, and then used steroids again during the World Series where he hit .688/.790/1.118 with 2 home runs. I'm sure that's how it worked.

After a throwback regular season in which he had his most RBIs in six years and second-most home runs during that time, Ortiz became the third-oldest player to win the series MVP award.

The oldest player to win the World Series MVP? Willie Stargell who won the MVP award at age 39. I'm sure he was using steroids as well.

In the end, it became clear there was really only one thing his 2013 bat could not obliterate, that being the question of whether he was doing this cleanly.

The only reason this question is being asked is because Bill Plaschke is taking the time to ask the question, not because there is any evidence Ortiz used PED's during the 2013 season. So when Plaschke says "the question of whether he was doing this cleanly" what Plaschke really means is "I'm the one asking this question, but I'll pretend I'm not for the sake of this column."

It is the lingering curse of baseball's steroid era that every aging player who suddenly puts up superhuman numbers is worthy of a closer look, but Ortiz is under an even stronger microscope because he has acknowledged association with the scandal.

I like how Bill Plaschke doesn't tell us which scandal, he just gives us a link and refers to Biogenesis as "the scandal." I'm confused because as far as I can tell, David Ortiz has no connection to Biogenesis unless Plaschke counts commenting on Biogeneis as having an association. Otherwise, Plaschke is just speculating on Ortiz's use and for some reason tying him into Biogenesis when Ortiz seemingly has no tie to it.

According to a 2009 New York Times report, Ortiz was on a list of more than 100 major league players who tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs during baseball's initial survey test in 2003, three years before the establishment of baseball's drug policy.

Let's all remember this report was a violation of the agreement that all results from this initial survey test would remain anonymous. Otherwise, yes, Ortiz was on the list from a decade ago and admitted he did used a supplement that caused him to show up on the list. As of now, MLB has a strict testing policy and I feel confident if Ortiz had been using then he would have been caught over the last 6-7 years. Maybe not. Maybe he's so good at cheating he has stayed ahead of the testing curve. Either way, there's no proof of this no matter how much Plaschke wants to make it sound like there is proof.

In his many tests since then, Ortiz has never tested positive. Baseball has since become the first major sports league to even test for human growth hormone, and Ortiz has never flunked.

The fact Ortiz hasn't failed a drug test since that time is completely irrelevant to Bill Plaschke. The questions about whether Ortiz is clean or not still remain, mostly because Bill Plaschke won't allow the questions to be dropped in the form of writing this column.

Yet this summer's Biogenesis scandal, in which 13 players were suspended without a positive test, showed that players are still one syringe ahead of the drug enforcers. And if one can't imagine Ortiz leading a team to a big series win while playing dirty, well, it wouldn't even be the first time in the last three years.

So because Ryan Braun played in the playoffs while using PED's this means David Ortiz did as well. Great logic. Why doesn't Bill Plaschke suspect A.J. Ellis of using PED's? He hit .333/.467/.500 during the NLDS and .316/.350/.684 in the NLCS. Not to mention, Hanley Ramirez hit an outrageous .500/.556/1.063 in the NLDS. Of course the Dodgers didn't win the World Series so there's no way either player could have been steroids. Only players swinging a hot bat from the team that wins the World Series have used steroids.

In 2011, Ryan Braun led the Milwaukee Brewers to a thrilling National League division series win over the Arizona Diamondbacks with a .500 batting average, .571 on-base percentage and .889 slugging percentage.
Also during this series he involuntarily peed in a cup, his urine tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs, and many lies later, he was given a 65-game suspension.

Ryan Braun cheated so obviously David Ortiz did as well. This is some air-tight logic being used by Plaschke.

Here's hoping this doesn't happen here. Here's hoping the wonderful 2013 Ortiz saga does not end up in the ruins of the 1998 home run chase.

Look at Plaschke pretending he doesn't want Ortiz to get busted for using PED's. I don't believe him. I think Plaschke would love it if Ortiz got busted so he could write another of those easy morally outraged and indignant steroids columns that sportswriters love to churn out. 

Here's hoping it sticks. Here's hoping Boston Strong stays strong. Here's wishing the baseball owners and players could have agreed to keep it strong.

Considering there is absolutely zero evidence that David Ortiz has used PED's then I don't even know why this topic is being brought up.

Because of baseball's sordid drug history, the game should treat its world champions like the officials at the Olympics treat their medalists. All are immediately tested for drugs, and the results of those tests are often known before the end of the Games.

Oh sure, this is a great idea. I'm sure the player's union won't mind only a specific sub-set of players be drug tested in violation of the latest collective bargaining agreement. I don't know how the union would have a problem with random drug testing no longer being random and specifically aimed towards certain players, as if to give the perception that any batter who hits the baseball well over a short period of time has to be using steroids. I can't imagine how the union would not like this.

The Red Sox should not have been allowed to touch a drop of champagne until they had each been tested.

And again, why are we working under the assumption only players from the winning team should be suspected of PED use? Bill Plaschke does realize a player on the team that loses the World Series could also be using PED's, right? Simply because he didn't win the World Series MVP doesn't mean he is clean or his use of PED's should be overlooked.

The timing stinks, but it would be one way to rid baseball of the remaining stench of drug cynicism. If nothing else, baseball needs to be able to say its champions are clean.

That's why there is random drug testing, so baseball can say it's players are clean. Not to mention, if the Red Sox got drug tested after winning the World Series then the results wouldn't be back in five minutes. There is a process required for the sample to be tested, so it still wouldn't be known for sure that baseball's championship team is clean until after that team had celebrated.

But it can't, so it won't, so we'll continue to wonder about the wonder that is David Ortiz. It's not fair, 

Then how about you stop doing it? It's perfectly in your control to stop speculating that a baseball player has used PED's. Just stop doing it.

This makes me laugh because Bill Plaschke is acting like he is obligated to assume David Ortiz is using PED's until he receives proof Ortiz has not used PED's when it should work the other way around.

0 comments Terence Moore Hates This New Designated Hitter Rule

Long-time readers of this blog know I prefer the National League version of baseball without the designated hitter. Still, if MLB decided tomorrow that they would no longer use the designated hitter I would be happy Evan Gattis finally has a position, hope the Braves try to re-sign Brian McCann this offseason, and would probably be a happy kid. I prefer the National League version of baseball without the designated hitter, but I'm fine with both leagues having different rules and wouldn't lose sleep if the designated hitter rule was implemented in both leagues. Terence Moore feels differently. He's a baseball "traditionalist," or so he believes himself to be. I think a traditionalist is a person who is generally opposed to change in baseball, but is open to changes that help the game. Terence is opposed to everything new in baseball, even things like the designated hitter that aren't new. He hates expanded replay, baseball celebrations, and how the designated hitter is ruining baseball followed by bizarre reasoning on why he won't vote for DH to enter the Hall of Fame all while stating he has voted for a DH to enter the Hall of Fame.

Did you hear the news? When David Ortiz ripped a double into left-center field for the Red Sox in the second inning on Wednesday night at Safeco Field against the Mariners, he broke the Major League record for most hits by a designated hitter.

You may yawn now.

I'm reading an article that you have written, Terence, I was well prepared to yawn anyway.

We're in the midst of (ahem) celebrating the 40th anniversary of the DH,

The DH has been used for 40 years now and Terence Moore still isn't used to it. I guess it takes time.

and Ortiz just provided the latest reason why this thing needs to go the way of flannel uniforms, long train rides for teams on road trips and hitters swinging without helmets.

These are all things Terence Moore either (a) misses being a part of baseball or (b) should miss since he is such a traditionalist who hates change and all.

The DH isn't going anywhere. There are too many folks who cherish the thing, and they do so with gusto.

This is as opposed to Terence, who opposes the DH rule through well-reasoned thinking that basically involves him saying "I don't like change and I'm a traditionalist, the Braves and the Big Red Machine, baseball was better back when Joe Morgan played and no good teams ever lost two games in a row." 

My friend, Milton, for instance, who is a diehard Yankees fan, said, "I love offense, and who wants to see the dang pitcher hitting up there wearing a jacket, just trying not to get hurt?"

Then there are the ongoing whispers that both leagues either will have the DH or just play real baseball. The Miltons of the world will be smiling at the end. I'm frowning over the thought.

It's a sad Terence Moore we are hearing from now. Terence would have normally included a sad emoticon to show his extreme unhappiness at the thought of both leagues adopting the DH, but emoticons are part of technology and technology brings change and change is bad.

As the Last Great Traditionalist, all I can do is hope for the impossible -- you know, that we'll all rise one morning and discover the DH has just gone away.

And yet Terence doesn't realize the irony of this sentence in that calling himself the Last Great Traditionalist it will actually be that one day he doesn't wake up and we will find the dislike for the DH has gone away. Maybe that's not irony. Terence is like the last dinosaur wondering why it is so cold and where all his friends have gone, hoping maybe tomorrow all this cold weather will just go away...hey look, a meteor!

Baseball's professional roots go back to 1869, which means there is nothing traditional about a rule change that only has been around since 1973.

As I seemingly always write, using this logic there is nothing traditional about African-American players playing in MLB and not the Negro Leagues. I'm fairly sure Terence Moore suddenly becomes a non-traditionalist if it turns out African Americans can't play in the majors anymore and have their own separate professional baseball league. I understand though. Terence is a diehard traditionalist except when he likes the change that is being made. When Terence doesn't like the change being made to professional baseball he hides his fear of progress and change in sports behind being a traditionalist. Calling himself a traditionalist is just a lazy way of making excuses for his poor use of reasoning and logic.

Consider, too, that even though the concept of a designated hitter was mentioned for decades before its actual implementation, it wasn't approved until 40 years ago, because American League owners were searching for something to help their overall attendance that regularly lagged behind their National League counterparts.

And now the player's union has 15 DH jobs that the union is not going to allow MLB to get rid of. So that's where we are. The DH was used to make the game more exciting (and really, why would anyone want the game to be more exciting...it's madness!) and now it has become a staple of the American League.

The DH was a gimmick, and the gimmick became more than that. It became a way of life in the AL, and now that gimmick-turned-staple is affecting the game in so many ways.

The DH is a cancer that forces itself into the game of baseball only to slowly eat the game away until the sport has become more exciting to watch. There are quite a few changes in sports that started out as gimmicks and now have become staples of the sport. The three-point line in college basketball is one example and now I can't imagine the sport without it. That's one example of a change in sports that was seen as a gimmick that eventually became an important part of the sport. Another example is the change in the NBA to where dunking was allowed. It made the game more exciting and now I can't fathom basketball without the athletes having a chance to dunk the ball.

Just two examples ...

After months of recovering from a damaged ankle, Derek Jeter returned to the Yankees' lineup on Thursday -- as a DH. Team officials thought it was the best way to ease the 39-year-old "shortstop" back into action, which means so many guys who otherwise wouldn't have played in the past for whatever reason are playing now.

How terrible. A Hall of Fame shortstop is allowed to play baseball because he can be the DH. It's always horrible when fans get to see a Hall of Fame player on the field rather than sitting injured on the bench.

Mickey Mantle. I keep thinking about the Mick. He spent the majority of his career with the Yankees maneuvering on notoriously bad knees. You know where I'm going. If the DH was around for Mantle during the 1950s and '60s, his 18-year career would have been significantly longer -- along with his list of accomplishments.

Terence tends to use reasoning in his columns that he believes is helping to prove his point, but this reasoning usually only serves to help prove the point he is arguing against. This is a situation where the reasoning Terence is using isn't exactly helping to further his argument against the use of the DH. Having the DH around would have allowed Mantle to have played longer and given baseball fans more of a chance to see him play. I don't see that as a bad thing, yet Terence is framing this as a negative for some reason.

You also could apply that to other aching players of yore.

Again, why is this bad?

Switching gears, let this sink in: Ortiz is the all-time DH hits leader after his 1,689th career hit this week while playing that position. That doesn't exactly have the same feel as, say, Hank Aaron and Cal Ripken Jr. surpassing 714 home runs and 2,130 consecutive games played,

Let this sink in, why does every MLB record that gets broken have to have the same feel as a historical long-time record being broken? The DH isn't new, but it is still new relative to baseball, so why does this record being broken require a mid-game ceremony and a lap around the field for David Ortiz?

Aaron topped Babe Ruth's old mark, and Ripken soared passed that of Lou Gehrig.

Lou Gehrig passed Everett Scott for the MLB record for consecutive games played. Passing Everett Scott just doesn't have an historic feel to it, does it?

Whose record did Ortiz surpass?

Harold Baines.

Baines is a nobody! Look at his Baseball Reference comparables and you find more no-names. Tony Perez, Al Kaline, Dave Parker, Billy Williams, Andre Dawson, and Jim Rice. I'm sorry I've never heard of any of those guys, have you? Who is this "Harold Baines" guy? He's definitely not Hank Aaron. If any player breaks a record that wasn't previously held by one of the top 10 baseball players of all-time then Terence finds that broken record to be boring.

See what I mean?

Not at all. Do YOU see what you mean? You mean a record isn't worthy of mention if it isn't held by a player you deem to be one of the best players of all-time.

That said, nobody ever would confuse Baines with Ruth or Gehrig.

No one is trying to confuse Baines with Ruth or Gehrig. Baines not being on the level of Gehrig or Ruth doesn't mean Ortiz passing Baines' hits record is not impressive.

The same goes for Ortiz, and that's despite the fact that historians could say he is the greatest DH of all-time -- whatever that means.

I don't know who these unnamed "historians" are (I always love it when a writer introduces an opposing opinion based on a generic group of people who hold this opinion), but I think Edgar Martinez is probably the greatest DH of all-time. Regardless "the greatest DH of all-time" means exactly that, the greatest player to be a DH for most of his career.

I'm not sure how it is possible to be confused by this phrase. If these generic historians said "he is the greatest pitcher of all-time" or "he is the greatest second baseman of all-time" I doubt Terence would be confused.

Who was considered the best DH before Ortiz?

Edgar Martinez.

I still consider Martinez to be the best DH of all-time, but of course I am not a "historian."

As was the case with Barnes, Martinez was pretty good...but he'll likely never make the one in Cooperstown, because some Hall of Fame voters (like myself) don't believe players who primarily were DHs deserve such an honor.

I don't believe left-handed starters deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. I don't believe Hispanic third basemen deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. I don't believe a player who played less than 10 seasons deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. I don't believe Mariano Rivera should be in the Hall of Fame because he's a reliever.

It sounds pretty stupid to cherry-pick certain players who shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, doesn't it? It's just silly to draw a line in the sand and say, "DH's don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame" without at least going over Martinez's batting statistics to see if they are superior enough to merit induction into the Hall of Fame.

Would Terence Moore not vote for Chipper Jones to enter the Hall of Fame simply because (or if) he wasn't a great fielder? If you aren't going to keep a player out of the Hall of Fame because he isn't a good fielder then why not vote for a player because he didn't field at all for the majority of his career?

To vote DHs into Cooperstown would be unfair to those who had to perform with a bat and a glove more often than not.

Not entirely. Relief pitchers like Mariano Rivera don't always pitch more than 1-2 innings per game and I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to suggest Rivera doesn't deserve Hall of Fame induction. I'm fine with keeping DH's out of the Hall of Fame as long as hitters who otherwise would make the Hall of Fame for their batting statistics are kept out of the Hall of Fame due to their fielding ineptitude. If a player was a below-average fielder then keep him out of the Hall of Fame. If that happened, fine, keep DH's out. Don't pretend fielding is part of the game and then completely ignore it as a criteria for the Hall of Fame if a player hits the baseball well enough to merit induction.

Still, this gets a little messy, because of Paul Molitor and Frank Thomas. While Molitor did enough DH-ing to rank sixth on the all-time DH hits list, he spent a slew of his 21 years with the Brewers in the infield and the outfield. He already is in the Hall of Fame, and he got my vote.

Why did Molitor receive your vote, Terence? Surely since you have written an article about why the DH needs to go away and you won't vote for a DH to enter the Hall of Fame, yet you voted for the player who is sixth on the all-time DH hits list, you will explain how Molitor isn't too DH-y for you? So what say you?

As for Thomas,

I guess Terence just wants to skip over the explanation for why he contradicts himself and voted for Molitor to enter the Hall of Fame. It's better that way because I am betting Terence has no good reason for why he voted for Molitor but would not vote for Ortiz.

during much of his 19 years with the White Sox, he alternated between first base and DH. To be exact, he had 968 starts at first, compared to 1,308 as the DH. He even spent his last six seasons just as a DH. Anyways, he is eligible for the baseball Hall of Fame for the first time in December, and he'll make it with ease.

What terrible writing. So even though Frank Thomas played more games as a DH than he did at first base Terence Moore will vote for Thomas to enter the Hall of Fame? I guess Thomas has the luxury of not having gotten too many hits as a DH because otherwise Terence would see that kind of excellence at the DH spot like he sees in David Ortiz and proclaim Thomas as too DH-y to deserve Hall of Fame induction.

The lesson is that Terence Moore will vote for a player if he was a great DH, but if a player was too good at being a DH then he won't get Terence's vote. Don't excel at your job or else you don't deserve induction into the Hall of Fame. Above-averageness at being a DH is all that can be accepted when it comes to being considered for the Hall of Fame.

You can't ignore Thomas' 521 homers and lifetime .301 batting average. He also has a great nickname (The Big Hurt), and he did spend a bunch of games on defense.

Edgar Martinez has a .312 career average along with 309 home runs. Ortiz hit .286 and has hit 420+ home runs. They didn't have snappy nicknames, which apparently is now a part of the Hall of Fame criteria a player must meet.

Sorry, fellow traditionalists.

Didn't Terence say he was the Last of the Great Traditionalists? If so, he is apologizing to himself when he should really be apologizing to all of his readers. If anyone wants an example of Hall of Fame voters with their head up their butt, then look no further than this column. 

6 comments I Should Have Just Called This Blog "Information On Steroids and Brett Favre's Latest Retirement"

I can't even recall how many times we have discussed steroids on this site. The effects or non-effects they have on players, who is on steroids, who is definitely not on steroids, who may be on steroids, and if guys accused of using steroids or PEDs should be in the Hall of Fame. We have discussed all of these topics in the comments and on posts on this site. For those that have read before know I use the words "steroids" and "PEDs" pretty interchangeably, so hang with me.

I have repeatedly stated that I don't think the 2003 "anonymous and private" steroids results should be made public because they are an invasion of privacy. I would actually like for the release to happen to prevent the bi-monthly "news" another star tested positive for PEDs. I understand this can't occur. Baseball needs to get on top of this issue because every single month when there is a lull in any steroid action in baseball another steroid user name is going to be released to the public. It is happening and it is going to continue to happen until there are no more big names on the list.

It has been revealed David Ortiz tested positive for steroids in 2003, as anyone with a radio or television has heard. Just another brick in the wall at this point.

An anonymous commenter named Evan in the Bill Simmons comments from Wednesday linked the article I was thinking about when I heard the news about David Ortiz. You can find it here. I am sure there are going to be a ton of articles about steroids and David Ortiz, probably even a horrible egregious excuse for an article from Bill Simmons, but it has pretty much all been said at this point for me.

I wrote about the Simmons article, the one where he was trying to figure out Ortiz's slump, here.
Let's review his comments, my comments and our commenter comments about this (Bill's comments are in bold black, mine are in black italics, my new comments are in black and commenter's comments are in red):

We braced for Ortiz to be linked to a bombshell headline that began with the words "Former Sox Clubhouse Attendant … " But one thing nagged at me: He wasn't belting bombs that were dying at the warning track like so many other former 'roiders.

I would not use this as proof that Ortiz was not a former 'roider. How about the fact he has never been linked or caught with them? That sounds better.

I guess we can mark this off the list. If the New York Times report is to be believed Ortiz was on steroids in 2003. Does that mean he was using since then? I have no idea. Does this taint the 2004 and 2007 World Series title? I have no idea. I say no though, since I am going to treat him the same way I treat A-Rod and acknowledge he has never failed a drug test that was administered to him since then.

There has already been an article published with a similar point of view.

How many Latin players have been exposed for lying about their ages in the past few years? Hell, one of Papi's best friends -- Tejada -- was found to have cut two years off his birth certificate when he was 17, er, 19 … you get the point.

What else did one of Papi's best friends, Tejada, also lie about and get caught doing? Here's a hint, it begins with steroids. I find it interesting that Bill is willing to accept that Ortiz lied about his age like other Latin players, but is not willing to accept Ortiz lied about using steroids like other Latin players, and he bases this belief purely on the fact the balls he hits are not dying at the warning track.

I hate it when I am right...but I am tired of giving players the benefit of doubt honestly. At this point many players are guilty by association, and they should be, especially if that association is with known steroid providers or users.

Here are some of the comments on my posting of Simmons' Ortiz column...

(The Casey) "don't forget Ken Caminiti. He was just terrible his last few years. As a matter of fact, his career arc looks kind like someone else's.CaminitiOrtizI didn't realize that until I looked at it."

(Jeremy Conlin) "I never like Simmons' mag columns to begin with, so I don't have too much to say other than I'm 99% sure Ortiz was on steroids, but it had never even occurred to me that Ortiz may have just lied about his age all along. That at least made me go "huh, that's not a bad argument."

(Bengoodfella) "I can't believe I am a holdout on Ortiz using steroids. It is hard to ignore those numbers that AJ put up, but I think maybe he just found his hitting stroke, but that just sounds so naive. If everyone keeps beating me down and giving me proof I am just being naive, I may change my mind at some point."

Here are those numbers...

(AJ) Ya I'm not 100% sure Ortiz used steroids. I mean its not like his best buds Manny and Tajada were caught using them, or his trainer is a known steroids pusher, or that the height of his numbers happened to be the height of the steroid era, or etc etc etc.

Let me just throw this out there (HRs per AB):
1997 - 51
1998 - 36
1999 - he only played 10 games
2000 - 47
2001 - 19 (here comes a pattern)
2002 - 23
2003 - 14
2004 - 14
2005 - 13
2006 - 10
2007 - 16
2008 - 18
2009 - 178

I don't know, maybe he just somehow found his power stroke at the exact same time as steroids started becoming the norm and that it went away at the exact same time as testing came out. It could happen, I mean its not like he just blow up in size once he got to Boston or anything...oh wait, nevermind.

I think AJ's numbers speak for themselves but Ortiz has also not failed a drug test since 2003...at least one that has been made public. Ortiz has been busted now for failing a drug test in 2003. It just means another slugger of the past 10 years has used steroids, it's pretty old news now. We get the same reactions, just different names thrown into the discussion. I don't focus on Manny being on the list of 104 "anonymous" positives in 2003, because after his positive steroid test this past year, I sort of assumed he was on the 104 person list.

Of course to add some joy and hypocrisy to the discussion, Ortiz also made this comment that steroid users should be banned for an entire year. What was he thinking when he said that I wonder? I don't know if he didn't know he had failed the drug test at that point, but if he did know, damn that's ballsy to say.

This brings me back to the list of 104 names. What should baseball do about the list and the fact the names are being released at a slow drip pace...if they should do anything at all? What should MLB do about the fact many of the power hitters of the past 10 years have been proven to cheat...again, or should they do anything? I find it hard to believe only the great power hitters of the past 10 years are on the list, there have to be marginal or average major leaguers on that list and even a few pitchers. Guys who would not have even made the majors if they had not used PEDs or even guys who used just enough to get a huge contract and then quit their use again.

I don't know what kind of action Major League Baseball needs to take on this issue and I don't know if MLB should take any action. I don't know if steroids have hurt baseball or have contributed to the popularity of baseball. A lot of great and memorable moments have been ruined by the revelation that the players involved were on some sort of PED at the time. Like the 1998 Home run chase, Barry Bonds' assault on McGwire's home run record, Roger Clemens throwing a broken bat at Mike Piazza, and now maybe the 2004 Red Sox 3-0 comeback over the Yankees. We possibly would never have even had those moments had it not been for the PEDs. Or would we? It doesn't seem likely. I can't believe it is coincidence the 3 baseball players responsible for assaulting Roger Maris' home run record and Hank Aaron's all-time home run record are also linked to PEDs.

That's the thing that irritates me the most, I have no idea the effect steroids have on players and their talent.

Is it a marginal increase in talent, meaning moving a Barry Bonds who was one of the best outfielders in the game before his alleged use to a Barry Bonds who is the greatest hitter of All-Time? Is it moving a guy like David Ortiz to an incredibly valuable hitter who was platooned in Minnesota to one of the best hitters in the American League in Boston? What about Fernando Vina, how come was still just an average baseball player for most of his career? Check out this list. Is it possible the marginal major league players on the list would never have made the major leagues if they had not used PEDs?

Scientists can't even agree on whether steroids are completely bad for you or acceptable if you used in moderation like many other drugs. If you don't believe me, just do an Internet search for "harmful effects of steroids" and "steroids aren't harmful" and read some of the articles that follow.

Those are my two major questions: What should MLB do about steroids and what effect does it have on players? I have no answers, just questions and me ruminating on my own questions. If someone has answers, feel free to give an opinion.

I am not going into a panic now and making steroids the preminent issue in the history of the world but I can't help but think the slow reveal of names on the list of 104 names can't be good for baseball. I only want things that are good for the game I love. Here are the options I see for MLB:

1. Do nothing and hopes it goes away.

This seems to be the way Bud Selig and the owners have gone so far. It is smart because it basically tries to quiet down the steroid talk by not commenting on it and creating fodder for their to be a discussion upon. Basically silence is golden here. It becomes a bunch of bloggers and columnists talking an issue to death until they have said everything and the arguments are debated to a draw. That's where we are now.

Sure, there have been comments on the issue of steroids by the Commissioner and his office but there doesn't seem to be directive to take any type of action one way or another concerning preventing more steroid users from being named from the 2003 report nor trying to limit the impact of every new revelation on the fans. Major League Baseball's focus is on today and preventing players from using today. Really, that is what MLB SHOULD be worried about, but the problem lies in the situation when a 2003 list name is still playing today.

The problem with this plan is obvious to me. The steroid leaks are not going to stop and it ends up being an interminable issue that pops back up every couple of months when a new famous name pops up as having tested positive in 2003. This 2003 "anonymous and private" test results are a monkey on the back of MLB that is going to continue to be there until the big names on the list run out.

We go through the whole surprise, anger, excuse and forgiveness cycle over and over again when a new name is revealed. I find it to be incredibly tedious. Regardless of any other fact, the slow reveal of these steroid users going to continue to happen whether MLB likes it or not. They can get on top of the issue or do nothing. Doing nothing just ensures the steroid issue and suspicions of yesterday's and today's players continue.

2. Do nothing and beg the players on the list who have been revealed to sue for invasion of privacy.

This is not happening. I just don't see it happening. Really though, guilty or not guilty of having a positive test, I believe these players would have a case for invasion of privacy. The players union only agreed to steroid testing in 2003 as long as it stayed anonymous and private. Well neither of those stipulations ended up happening. Sure, the players on the list are guilty of testing positive for steroids but they are also victims in that the information was supposed to stay private. Their privacy has been violated because the agreement to get steroid testing started was contingent on the results staying anonymous and private.

The drawback to this idea is that if players haven't started suing by now, they aren't going to at any point. They have better things to do than run up legal bills in effort to prevent an invasion of privacy that has already occurred. Much less spend more money to sue whoever is leaking these names for invasion of privacy when it will just put that player's name back in the public spotlight as a steroid user.

3. Major League Baseball should release the list of 104 names.

I want to call this the most attractive option but I don't know if it is. As I said in #2, if MLB did this the union would have an absolute fit and THEN the players would probably start suing. This would be a complete and utter invasion of privacy like baseball has never seen before. It sounds counter-intuitive to release the list of 104 names in an effort to stop there being constant talk of steroid use by players but it may make sense to have full disclosure. I don't even know who has the list of 104 names so I am not sure if MLB is even capable of releasing the names. I can't imagine this would ever happen because baseball would be opening themselves up to lawsuits and criticism.

The good thing about releasing the list of 104 names is that all of the names are out there in the public eye right now. The past is the past, we know the names on the list and there is no need to speculate on who was caught in the past, we have the names. Sure, we don't have the list of those players who did not test positive but were still using PEDs. We are never going to have those names of the players who did not test positive but were using PEDs. It would stop the monthly/bi-monthly release of new names and we can clear those players who we have suspected but did not show up on the list...or at least try to clear them. The steroid questions aren't going away but when there are still names being released from the 2003 report in 2011, this option will have looked very attractive. Unfortunately, it is also a potentially unethical, if not illegal, option.

4. Step in and try to prevent any more names from the 2003 list from being released.

I have no idea how to stop this from happening. Not a clue. The good thing about this is it would prevent the slow release of the names but the drawback is that this would be expensive and legally complicated for MLB to do...especially to defend players who were knowingly cheating. In essence MLB would be preventing the release of information on exactly which players were using PEDs and this would make baseball look like it was trying to cover up the steroid issues in baseball even more.

Ignoring the question of the effect of steroids, I still don't think the slow release of names on the 2003 list is a good thing for baseball. I personally feel like I want to move on but then another name gets released and we are all transported back to "the Steroid Era" and have the same shitty articles written by the same shitty writers and the same shitty questions keep popping up. I am mostly just annoyed by this.

I want to move on. Whatever it takes to move on is what MLB should do. I just don't think right now we are moving on. Steroid questions are like chum in the water for the 24/7 news cycle and it's columnists. The sharks will continue to circle as long as MLB is willing to continue to make headlines with new steroid revelations when it should be making headlines for pennant races.

Here are two sharks that feed off steroid news and unsurprisingly look at what they wrote about today. Here and here. Plaschke and Mariotti making the same arguments and having the same discussions over and over, just with new names.

I think it is the questions of what effect steroids have that irritate me the most. The health benefits or effects are fairly well known but there is even a question about whether steroids are harmful for you or even how much they affect a player's ability to play baseball better. PEDs help you recover from injury at a quicker pace but could some of the increase in a player's numbers also be part of the Placebo Effect? The human mind plays tricks on us sometimes. I am just brainstorming here, but could a player not hit better because he knows he is using one of the various PEDs and SHOULD be hitting the ball better? Unfortunately, there is no way of directly knowing how steroids affect each player, other than looking at the player's statistics and even those can be misleading at times.

If everyone was on steroids then it was a pretty even playing field in the majors during "the Steroid Era." We all know the list of 104 names is not an all-encompassing list. Does it even matter that players have used steroids or that these player's names have been released? As always, I am helpful in saying I have no idea.

My second question is what effect does steroids have on the game and the players? I will start first with the game of baseball.

1. Not to get scientific, but what exactly do steroids do for a player?

I don't think the effects have been completely proven. Like most other drugs there are dozens of different types of steroids and PEDs available. Some are on the MLB banned list while others are not. I don't know the difference honestly, but I do know MLB has banned certain substances for a reason and that reason is they believe they cause an uneven playing field when a player is using them. That's really the big question I have. How uneven does the playing field become? What about cortisone injections to numb pain or any of the other drugs given to a player to get them on the field? They increase performance in some fashion if a player is injured but these are not currently banned? Isn't this some sort of PED?

Jim Parque recently admitted he tried some PEDs in an attempt to make a comeback. Obviously the use of these PEDs did not turn him in to Nolan Ryan so I would say they did not exactly work. I talked earlier about between the old Barry Bonds and the PED Barry Bonds, is that a situation where a great player becomes even better because of the steroids? It seemed that way. Like most other drugs, steroids effect everyone differently and help some more than others.

Basically I am wondering if all the worry about steroids and their effect on the game is overdone by an eager media and blogging community who want to jump on any chance they get to see a player knocked down a notch or two? In the end, it doesn't matter. Much like not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign, it doesn't matter if it makes sense or not because it is against the rules.

2. What are the health effects of using steroids?

Really, it doesn't matter in the context of my long discussion here. Lyle Alzado attributes steroids to his death, even though he died of brain cancer and his physicians said there is no way steroids caused the cancer. While many of other people have used PEDs for a long period of time and have shown no ill effects.

3. What effect does steroids have on the game of baseball?

Is steroid use in baseball even bad? As I said earlier, we have no way of saying, "here is where steroids helped out baseball and here is where steroid and PED use hurt baseball." It's impossible to know. We have a player's statistics available to us which can show a jump in offensive or pitching statistics that seem to inflate that person's ability, but that's all the evidence we really have of PED use and their direct effect on baseball.

Really, the only reason steroids are illegal is because everyone doesn't use them and it contributes to an uneven playing field. Players have used "greenies" for ages and many of the same guys who used "greenies" have come out strong against PED users now. I don't know how I feel about that. There are guys in the Hall of Fame who used "greenies" their entire or most of their career.

Ron Darling thinks he is clean of steroid use but what would his career record be if he didn't have guys on his team who were PED users like Jose Canseco to score runs for him? That's a residual effect of the steroid era, players having their numbers inflated/deflated by other players on their team/not on their team using PEDs. The "Steroid Era" affected the statistics of more players than just those that were using PEDs. It all gives me a headache.

Is the 1998 Home run chase by Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa really tainted because of their use of PEDs? What if that had not happened? No one can deny a little excitement for the game of baseball is not a bad thing, regardless of what substances the individuals involved were on. I remember Barry Bonds for being a steroid user but I also remember him for being a guy who was absolutely unpitchable for a 3 year period during the early 2000's. You couldn't pitch to him.

Which memory permeates in my mind at the end of the day about Barry Bonds? The fact he was unpitchable. Does that mean my memory is tainted or I don't care about steroids? I don't think so, it just means the way he could hit a baseball at one point in his career stands out in my mind. He was cheating by using PEDs and I recognize that, but a part of me can't help but wonder if it did not provide a little excitement to baseball that was much needed.

I am not advocating the use of PEDs by players or excusing their behavior. I am glad steroids are not legal in baseball because it causes there to be an even playing field when all players have to play the game based on their skill. I feel almost like the Steroid Era was a 5 year bender that the fans and the players were on and now we are all hungover and tired trying to figure out whether it was all worth it.

I think the effect steroids had on baseball was to deceive the public, but we certainly enjoyed the deception while it lasted though didn't we? No, I am not blaming the fans for the "Steroid Era" either. I have blamed the media, baseball and the players many times in the past. I am looking now from a fan's point of view on the period of 1998-2003 and all of the excitement that occurred. At the end of the day we have a re-written record book and a clusterfuck of players who were the greatest of their generation who may or may not be honored that way in the Hall of Fame.

4. What effect did the Steroid Era have on baseball players today?

I say it had a huge impact. I am sorry, but I can't look at Albert Pujols and not have suspicions he is on steroids. I am not saying he is, but how can you not be suspicious? I even look at players like Jim Thome and Frank Thomas and think the same thing. It could be completely untrue but combining the fact many of the great sluggers of the past era were caught using PEDs, with the fact a new slugger comes out as being a PED user a couple of times a year leads the fans to be very suspicious of anyone who hits the ball well.

I normally would think that full disclosure by baseball would help alleviate any fan concerns but in this case there is normal steroid testing in place for today's players and we have already had the discussion about what would happen if the 104 names from 2003 were released.

At the end of the day, we are going to get the exact same discussions today about steroids we have had for a couple years now, followed by the same arguments of what punishment David Ortiz should get and what a bad person he and Manny Ramirez are. Bill Plaschke and Jay Mariotti have already piled on this story. Then there will be the inevitable Hall of Fame question for Manny and whether this precludes him from that honor. It is a script the media has.

I am not near a television while I am writing this but I would bet ESPN has a reporter with Ramirez begging and hoping Manny will make another statement and a reporter with Ortiz hoping for the same. In fact, they did make statements last night and the words were all over the bottom of the screen on ESPN last night. It was pretty similar to what we had heard before. Chipper Jones will be asked about the new revelations and he will say something firm and tough about the use of steroids, which will only serve to make me think he is probably guilty of using PEDs at one time as well.

I personally just want to be able to move on from the Steroid Era but it seems like I am never going to be able to when there is a constant source of slow leaks from prior anonymous steroid testing results. I am not in panic mode and I am not going to write a column like the "blame sharks" Jay Mariotti or Bill Plaschke will write...circling the water hoping for another name to be leaked so they have more fodder for a column. Baseball's PED legacy has yet to be completely decided and it feels like to me MLB needs to start taking steps to remind it's audience, the fans who pay for games and memorabilia, the game and the players have been able to move on from the Steroid Era.

I just want the cleanest game possible, that's all I really want. Baseball is trying to put the era of PED use in the past but every new revelation creates a new group of jaded and suspicious fans who find every denial of guilt by a current player to be a lie and every admission or finding of guilt from 2003 to be another big story that takes away from the games of baseball currently being played by players who are "clean."