When we weren't looking ...

[zappa1]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

They should be randomly checking EVERY g-d'ed thing! They used to, or my memory is faulty.

I remember umpires coming out to the mound, looking for nail files. I remember pine tar could not extend too far up the bat handle. I remember players being told to tuck their bling inside their jerseys or take it off altogether. And for gosh sakes, you are a first or third-base umpire (the one closest to the guilty dugout), and you don't notice the sound of somebody banging on a trash can?

Old fud dashers seize upon such reminiscing as evidence of irrelevance to current times. Often those people are right.

Yet, how satisfied are you with the way baseball is being played today? Do you like the dramatic swing of home runs and run production to the death valley of batting averages in just a few years?

Do you like seeing Sammy Sosa, he of steroids and corked bat fame, still listed as number 9 for career home runs? Do you like seeing the Houston Astros forever listed as the World Series champions of 2017?

Cheaters will cheat as long as they think they can get away with it, and they do when officials choose to look the other way out of greed or are too lazy and incompetent to do their jobs.

I remember all that stuff, too. But a lot of this stuff is already in the rules. It's the umpires that have stopped enforcing them. Why did they stop? Baseball must have told them to. Now baseball wants to force them to police it again. And no, I hate what they are doing to the game. I've hated it since the DH in 1973. Yes, I'm an old fart. Why don't the players learn to hit instead of swinging for the stars? I know. The big bucks. Money ruins everythig. This is my opinion and last I checked, I'm allowed still. Good day.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by zappa1

Yes, I'm an old fart.

That makes two of us.

In this case, it means remembering when the game seemed more fun, more exciting, more genuine. Younger folks don't want to hear this, of course, because they have FOMO: fear of missing out (or having missed out).

They want to believe that this is the best possible game despite money having taken everything to the extreme: ridiculously large salaries; logos on uniforms; sky-high cable bills, admission tickets, food and merchandise; split-screen ads during game telecasts; betting on results while the game is being played; tinkering with the rules and equipment and ignoring cheating to ensure that enough people patronize the sport to pay for it all.

None of which is ever going to right itself. It's too much money and too far gone. But we old farts will still grouse about it.

So they will dismiss us as misty-eyed fuds who are merely nostalgic about the old days; i.e., our youth. Brace yourself, they will be along soon to do the honors.

[Bobbyraz49]

Originally Posted by pgjocki

I so so want MLB to take every dollar Cole and Trevor Bauer have made over the last 3 years away and fine the owners triple that amount.

I'm so sick of the cheating but sadly you'd have to have super fines or Shoeless Joe Jackson type suspensions to get this to stop.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Agree

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by pgjocki

I so so want MLB to take every dollar Cole and Trevor Bauer have made over the last 3 years away

You want the league to punish these players for something the league has allowed them to do?

[Westheim]

Max Scherzer gets fleeced three times, but the only one ejected is Joe Girardi

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

I wonder if there will be another no-hitter this season or will there be a suspiciously sudden drop-off?

This answered my question:

The 7th MLB no-hitter has been thrown this season, tying the modern era record

The man should have been strip-searched! ()

EDIT: The men should have been strip-searched, that is. It was one of those combined no-hitters, with four pitchers in on the feat.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by dkgo

That view doesnt make a ton of sense to me. You dont get a free pass for cheating just because no one can prove exactly what you gained from it. Everything you did while cheating should be invalidated. If a player commits a holding penalty the refs dont discuss how many yards it resulted in, they call the penalty and everything else is irrelevant.

If a player scores a touchdown and there was holding on the play that was not called, we don’t go back 15 years later and declare the touchdown null and void.

[pgjocki]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

If a player scores a touchdown and there was holding on the play that was not called, we don’t go back 15 years later and declare the touchdown null and void.

The NCAA has absolutely vacated championships and declared that events didn't happen.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

They want to believe that this is the best possible game

I don't think I've heard even one young person say this ever. If anything, I've heard young people say, "This is really boring."

I mean the current surge in the "three true outcomes" only started about 5-6 years ago*. So fans would have to be pretty young to not notice the difference from then to now.

*Yes, the "three true outcomes" have been increasing perpetually since around 1910. But there has been a very recent surge.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by pgjocki

The NCAA has absolutely vacated championships and declared that events didn't happen.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Do you think that's what should be done to all known cheaters, be they individuals or teams? For instance, should Sosa's career be erased since we don't know how many home runs he got while he was juiced?

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

Do you think that's what should be done to all known cheaters, be they individuals or teams? For instance, should Sosa's career be erased since we don't know how many home runs he got while he was juiced?

It's one of the reasons why the asterisk was invented. Erasing history is dangerous, as it is subject to capricious whims that change with the times. But footnoting history preserves it while also qualifying it as it should be; again, according to current mores.

So, for example, should stealing signs by camera and banging on trash cans to signal the batter be deemed legal, advisable, and customary by future generations, then the asterisk could be removed from the Houston Astros' championship of 2017.

Who gets to apply and remove such asterisks? Only the most respected and trusted of institutions, such as the Baseball Hall of Fame. Not foolproof — nothing is — but it would make me feel more comfortable about seeing Sosa and the Astros on the leader/champion boards.

[pgjocki]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

Do you think that's what should be done to all known cheaters, be they individuals or teams? For instance, should Sosa's career be erased since we don't know how many home runs he got while he was juiced?

As a Cardinals fan yes; but of course you have to strip McGwire of his as well. Then you take away Bonds and we're back to the 70's. Unfortunately I have no idea if guys were juicing back then.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by pgjocki

As a Cardinals fan yes; but of course you have to strip McGwire of his as well. Then you take away Bonds and we're back to the 70's. Unfortunately I have no idea if guys were juicing back then.

Nah, McGwire and Sosa are part of baseball history, such as it is. But earmark them, I say.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Nah, McGwire and Sosa are part of baseball history, such as it is. But earmark them, I say.

Fair enough. But what about other known cheaters? What about guys admitting to taking greenies or other substancesin the past? Or guys who corked their bats? Or spitballers? Or sandpaper users? How many times did guys get away with stuff for extended periods of time only to get caught later? And then do it again? If an * is put by the name of every known cheater then I bet there would a ton of record holders and hall of famers with an * by their names. And in every one of those instances no one knows how much effect their cheating had on their end results. Cheating does not equal success. It equals a potentially greater chance of success.

Again, I'm not condoning cheating. I never have been. I'm saying that how cheating is dealt with is way more nuanced than just "vacate" and "*." When it happens it needs to be stopped. But how do people determine what the cheating did for that player or team? How is it measured?

And then on top of that are the star "scapegoat" cheaters vs the regular guy "ignored" cheaters. Why are some players treated worse for cheating than other players? Because they're stars? Because their stats matter more in the long run? But if cheating is cheating shouldn't all players be treated the same? So then those non-star-cheaters should get * as well.

Nuance is the challenge.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

Do you think that's what should be done to all known cheaters, be they individuals or teams? For instance, should Sosa's career be erased since we don't know how many home runs he got while he was juiced?

or with a corked bat, or while juiced and with a corked bat

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by David Watts

or with a corked, or while juiced and with a corked bat

Exactly!

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

Fair enough. But what about other known cheaters? What about guys admitting to taking greenies or other substancesin the past? Or guys who corked their bats? Or spitballers? Or sandpaper users? How many times did guys get away with stuff for extended periods of time only to get caught later? And then do it again? If an * is put by the name of every known cheater then I bet there would a ton of record holders and hall of famers with an * by their names. And in every one of those instances no one knows how much effect their cheating had on their end results. Cheating does not equal success. It equals a potentially greater chance of success.

Again, I'm not condoning cheating. I never have been. I'm saying that how cheating is dealt with is way more nuanced than just "vacate" and "*." When it happens it needs to be stopped. But how do people determine what the cheating did for that player or team? How is it measured?

And then on top of that are the star "scapegoat" cheaters vs the regular guy "ignored" cheaters. Why are some players treated worse for cheating than other players? Because they're stars? Because their stats matter more in the long run? But if cheating is cheating shouldn't all players be treated the same? So then those non-star-cheaters should get * as well.

Nuance is the challenge.

And then there's the whole "If a rule is on the books but no one enforces that rule, is it really even a rule at all?"

We're seeing this with sticky substances now. We saw it with steroids and PEDs. I'm sure there have been other things from the past that have played out similarly.

It was not a secret to MLB that McGwire and Sosa were juiced, just like it hasn't been a secret that Cole and Bauer have been using sticky stuff. But in both instances MLB knowingly let it happen despite it being against the rules. An unenforced rule is not a rule at all.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

Nuance is the challenge.

It would be subjective of course. For that reason alone, I wouldn't want to be serving on a Baseball HOF committee charged with making these "asterisk" decisions.

But generally, I would say it would depend on the following:

• Egregiousness of offense
• Perceived impact on results
• Resulting notoriety
• Public revulsion
• Lack of contrition / repeat offense

When you apply these criteria, then some of what you mentioned becomes less murky and easier to decide upon.

[Jason Moyer]

Put an asterisk in front of everyone's name who has ever played baseball professionally as they all "cheated" or were aware of someone who was cheating and didn't say anything.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Put an asterisk in front of everyone's name who has ever played baseball professionally as they all "cheated" or were aware of someone who was cheating and didn't say anything.

"Seeking competitive advantage" vs. cheating. George Brett had too much pine tar on his bat, and it cost him a home run.

Many players are using mammoth gloves in the outfield, larger than the rules allowed.

Rickey Henderson went into an exaggerated crouch, to reduce his strike zone.

Players from the 1930's all the way to present used, and use, amphetimines to sharpen their vision, and increase their blood flow. Hell..viagara does the same thing.

Mark McGwire never took steroids. He had a huge jar of andro-creatine that he purchased from GNC in his locker. ABSOLUTELY LEGAL. He never hid it at all. His way of getting a competitive advantage.

The fact that creatine is a "precursor" drug, and building block for steroids didn't matter, legally.

[snipped]