Pitcher-Turned-Law Student On Cheating In Baseball 276
An anonymous reader writes "As a 27-year old minor league pitcher who had never made it to "The Show" (ballplayers' slang for the big leagues), Garrett Broshius was advised by a coach to develop an 'out pitch' by cheating (doctoring or scuffing the baseball while standing on the mound). It was an ethical crossroads faced by many players past and present, and Broshius ultimately decided to give up the game. While a student at the St. Louis University School of Law, he wrote a paper that attempted to apply the tenets of legal theorists to the rampant cheating in baseball and other sports (click the 'download' button, no registration required). While Broshius' paper isn't brilliant or novel, it tours the techniques and issues surrounding cheating in baseball better than most. Broshius concludes with recommendations for how baseball should handle two classes of cheating: 'traditional' cheating of the type he was advised to do by the coach, which has achieved acceptance in some quarters as part of the game; and 'new era' cheating involving performance-enhancing drugs such as steroids, which has become prominent in the last 25 years. Oh, and Brosius remarks that in almost every baseball game he watches these days, he notices something suspicious — usually from the pitcher."
Money (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care what sport it is - when contracts worth millions of dollars are on the line, there will always be talented people willing to do whatever they have to in order to stay competitive and even excel.
Re:Money (Score:5, Insightful)
Like international finance. My favourite sport.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most people will do what it takes to get what they want in life...period.
Lying to women to get laid...check
Speeding to get a delivery made quicker and have low turnaround time....check
Checking your answer on a test with your neighbors'....check
When competition is up for ANYTHING....people that are really driven to succeed, will often do what it takes to win. Sure, I'd say most people prefer to do everything honest and aboveboard (I'm an optimist), but I a
Re:Money (Score:4, Informative)
>Maybe if we changed the system so that we didn't reward the win at all cost mentality,
Nature is a system that favors the win at all costs.The winners (in wars) are the ones that write the history books. The winners in games are the ones the viewers. The winners in finance are the ones that make the most money. You are going to have a hard time changing the system because being the winner is what most people want.
Nature does not favor winning at all cost and usually is just the opposite. It is the cooperative or symbiotic relationship that prospers.
The writers of history have nothing to do with nature. Nor do the winners in games or finance. As for that being what people want, well what happened to Enron? What happened to Lance Armstrong? What happened to the Romans? All those embraced winning at all cost and all were toppled.
Society tolerates winning at all cost only to a point, then like bullying, they rise up against it. That is where anti-trust laws came from in business and anti-doping laws in sports and even the Geneva convention in war. Eventually, civilized people settle on rules of fair play.
So does nature. The giant redwood does take all of the nutrients in the forest, just those it needs. Same for the fox or a bear. In our own bodies, we call cells that take too much cancer and cut them out. Why? because even those those cells are the fittest, they destroy the body. In nature, if the animal at the top of the food chain eats all the food, the animal dies, too. So, in nature, a proper balance is maintained (unless man does something to upset it, like introduce a non native species or change the habitat or environment).
Not even Darwin believed in survival of the fittest. He used that expression only twice in the entire On the Origen of the Species. He actually proposed cooperation as the better model using human beings as the example since we were not the fastest or strongest nor did we posses the sharpest claws or teeth. Instead in cooperating we were successful in dominating the planet.
So, even in nature, the win at all cost model does not win.
Re: (Score:3)
>Maybe if we changed the system so that we didn't reward the win at all cost mentality,
Nature is a system that favors the win at all costs.The winners (in wars) are the ones that write the history books. The winners in games are the ones the viewers. The winners in finance are the ones that make the most money. You are going to have a hard time changing the system because being the winner is what most people want.
Nature does not favor winning at all cost and usually is just the opposite. It is the cooperative or symbiotic relationship that prospers.
The writers of history have nothing to do with nature. Nor do the winners in games or finance. As for that being what people want, well what happened to Enron? What happened to Lance Armstrong? What happened to the Romans? All those embraced winning at all cost and all were toppled.
Society tolerates winning at all cost only to a point, then like bullying, they rise up against it. That is where anti-trust laws came from in business and anti-doping laws in sports and even the Geneva convention in war. Eventually, civilized people settle on rules of fair play.
So does nature. The giant redwood does take all of the nutrients in the forest, just those it needs. Same for the fox or a bear. In our own bodies, we call cells that take too much cancer and cut them out. Why? because even those those cells are the fittest, they destroy the body. In nature, if the animal at the top of the food chain eats all the food, the animal dies, too. So, in nature, a proper balance is maintained (unless man does something to upset it, like introduce a non native species or change the habitat or environment).
Not even Darwin believed in survival of the fittest. He used that expression only twice in the entire On the Origen of the Species. He actually proposed cooperation as the better model using human beings as the example since we were not the fastest or strongest nor did we posses the sharpest claws or teeth. Instead in cooperating we were successful in dominating the planet.
So, even in nature, the win at all cost model does not win.
Almost, but not quite. Nature is not about competing organisms or communities of organisms. It is about competing strategies. Nature indeed rewards winning strategies and punishes losing strategies, but the organism or community of organisms that employ them are just along for the ride. But nature is mutable; it is just the current context in which a given strategy or strategies are evaluated. If the context is allowed to change, then there is a new set of criteria against which strategies are evaluate
Re: (Score:2)
If they're using Excel to play baseball, then they're doing something wrong.
Then again, I wouldn't be surprised to see someone abusing Access in that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
there will always be talented people willing to do whatever they have to in order to stay competitive and even excel.
Cheating isn't competition or excellence.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't care what sport it is - when contracts worth millions of dollars are on the line, there will always be talented people willing to do whatever they have to in order to stay competitive and even excel.
Stay competitive, maybe, but if one is cheating then technically, they aren't excelling, they are, well, cheating.
Re:Money (Score:5, Interesting)
The Russians were known to bring a dozen backup grandmasters to sit in a backroom and examine unlikely move combinations in depth. Kind of like a Beowulf cluster of grandmasters.
Re: (Score:2)
the poor boy only has 1 testicle... what do you expect
of course he only lasts 'half' as long now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it's true he wanted to be faster. However, if he hadn't done it, he would not just have been "as fast", he would have been laughed out of cycling as a loser. It happened to a lot of Dutch cyclists in the 80s, when they consistently got run off the road by the Italians and Spanish cyclists who, until then, had been good but not *all* of them *that* good. In the press the non-using cyclists caught flak for years for being "soft" and "lazy". Well, after 10 years or so that changed and the press turned ar
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Money (Score:5, Insightful)
Baseball is a negligible burden on the taxpayers. Modern baseball stadiums come quite close to breaking even to the city -- some profit slightly, some at a modest loss. A baseball stadium is used 80something times per year, so financial solvency is not so difficult.
The real villains are the football stadiums. Professional football teams used their stadium all of ~9-10 times per year. The stadiums are much bigger and more expensive. They are less comfortable and practical for any use other than football. A football team is a loss to the city/county to the tune of a few hundred million dollars, and the football team will come back for another handout every 20 or so years, whenever they decide their stadium is shabby.
As baseball teams transition to attractive baseball-only stadiums -- a delight to both fans (and perhaps taxpayers), the absolute absurdity of "welfare queen" football teams is more and more obvious.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, they are taking a risk. If they are caught cheating they might end up with nothing.
It is referees and the tournament organizations job to make sure that the risk of getting caught and the punishment for it outweighs the benefit of cheating.
False, it is coaches and owners job to make sure that getting caught and the punishment for cheating outweighs the benefit. The referees and tournament organization sets and enforces the rules, but it is the coaches and owners that set the culture that tolerates cheating or not.
baseball needs more replay (Score:3)
baseball needs more replay
Re: (Score:3)
Re:baseball needs more replay (Score:5, Funny)
baseball needs more cowbell
FTFY
But thats OK! (Score:3)
Just as long it is about sports, we don't care about right and wrong or morals. But if a Scholastic student who wasn't good at sports did it. They will be locked up in jail for the rest of their life.
Re:But thats OK! (Score:4, Insightful)
Just as long it is about sports, we don't care about right and wrong or morals.
IMO our society has a ridiculous fixation on sports.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
LoL. More than somewhat relevant!
Re:But thats OK! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:But thats OK! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're not interested in stuff other than engineering, you're going to be a terrible, terrible, terrible engineer.
What you call "distraction from your studies" is what makes you good at your job.
Re: (Score:2)
Were Einstein, Feynman, or Hawking in college on athletic scholarships?
Re:But thats OK! (Score:5, Interesting)
Einstein loved sailing and music (was a great violinist), both of which he was avidly involved with in college and said helped him take a break, relax, and focus later on his studies.
Feynman... well, here's one of his most famous quotes: "Fall in love with some activity, and do it! Nobody ever figures out what life is all about, and it doesn't matter. Explore the world. Nearly everything is really interesting if you go into it deeply enough. Work as hard and as much as you want to on the things you like to do the best. Don't think about what you want to be, but what you want to do. Keep up some kind of a minimum with other things so that society doesn't stop you from doing anything at all.”
And Hawking was a coxswain at Oxford. In fact, he has admitted he was somewhat of an academic slacker there, but his extracurricular activities helped him socialize and avoid boredom/depression given he was younger (and smarter) than most of his peers.
I'm pretty sure for almost every brilliant person you could find multiple examples of them having strong interests outside of their academic field. What you call "distractions" most others consider essential to the creative process.
I have a lot of friends who were involved in collegiate athletics - some on scholarship, some not, some actually played professionally later, but most went on to become doctors, lawyers, engineers, bankers, even a couple of PhDs. I know my experience probably wasn't typical these days, but it is still common at many highly selective successful private universities. Athletics, music, and other non-academic activities have been a integral part of advanced education from ancient Greece and Rome through the Renaissance in Europe and the Enlightenment extending to America. This isn't some recent modern development.
Re:But thats OK! (Score:4, Interesting)
On the one hand, it is unfortunate that these kids are being ripped off.
On the other hand, why are they pursuing athletic careers at academic institutions?
Because despite what you seem to think, 95%+ of college athletes do not go on to play professional sports, but go into the working world like everyone else. It's not a career for the vast majority, it's an extracurricular activity they love and have been doing since they were little kids. And if they studied and committed themselves in college (as many do, again despite what you think), they come out with a bachelor's degree.
My objection is that athletes that have no interest in higher education are forced into academic pursuits (necessarily displacing others, assuming full enrollment) as a part of their career track. This makes about as much sense as forcing software developers through MLB in order to be employable. In my eyes it's idiotic, but it's possible that I'm just not seeing the logic. I've been asking repeatedly for someone to state in clear and understandable terms why this seemingly absurd system is in society's best interest. I haven't gotten a satisfactory response yet.
Your basic problem here (and the reason no one has given you a "satisfactory response") is that your assumptions are just wrong to start, so there is no response that would make sense to you. You are making an incorrect and stereotypical assumption that all college athletes are on some professional sports career track and don't study or benefit from a college education (or could even be as smart or smarter than non-athletes).
As a personal example (maybe not *typical*, but also far from *unique*), my freshman roommate was on full scholarship for football and actually was one of the lucky few who drafted into the NFL, playing for a few years. He also had a 1300 SAT, an BA in economics, and is now very successful in a completely non-football related business. He's a smart guy, who has used and enjoyed both his athletic and academic abilities. What's wrong with that?
Or if you want the purely numerical reason why it's in the *schools'* best interest (and to some extent students and taxpayers funding the school) - well, I already went over this in detail in another post, but here's the short summary of an example: UTexas football made $133M last year and paid their players $5M in scholarships; after all expenses they made over $90M for the school. An average NFL team makes about $250M a year and pays their players about $125M in salary. The equivalent (~50% revenue to players) for UT would then be about $500K per player, or an extra $60M over what they pay in scholarships. Instead that $60M is part of the $90M going to other school programs and expenses. Even paying the players salaries commensurate with professional programs (which won't happen, though paying something more might) nets the school $30M. The schools in the NCAA just aren't going to walk away from that. Sure, it's largely about money, but what in education, government, business, etc isn't these days? That answer may not be satisfactory to you, but it's the truth...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, why do sports and higher education have anything to do with each other?
They don't, at least not in my country. I got my Master's and Ph.D. in the US and was and still am baffled by this. What really bugged me though is that I had to support people's sports hobby with a financial contribution. I thought it would have been better for other students to pay for my scifi-book-reading hobby instead. The bogus argument was that the sports teams were making my university money. If that would have actually been true, why did I have to financially support it then? Also, I never
Re: (Score:2)
People like sports...
Re: (Score:2)
If you ask them, they'll tell you that the sports programs pay for themselves by attracting donations from alumni with fond memories of school spirit at games.
Studies do not actually back that up, and in fact contradict it. However, if you try to abolish the sports programs, you will hear it from enraged alumni.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, a kid with a genuine passion for engineering, who wouldn't have been distracted from his studies by throwing, catching, and hitting a small ball, was denied a spot. I hope your wife's oldest brother is okay with that.
How do you conclude that? The baseball player may have denied some guy who wanted to get a degree in underwater basket-weaving instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
IMO our society has a ridiculous fixation on sports.
The good news is, once you figure out that sports == crap, and ignore it? It frees up a metric ton of time and money for the stuff that's actually fun to do.
OTOH, I think it's not the fact that we have made-up conflicts as entertainment, but the fact that the conflicts themselves *are* the entertainment. Dress it up all you like, but people love to see conflict (and more importantly, love to see the realization of victory from that conflict, even if by proxy). That's what drives movies, books, TV shows (not
Re: (Score:2)
Many people have hobbies, be they sports, software, computers, or other electronics. Our hobbies just tend to be a little rarer than sports fans.
Re: (Score:2)
The point isn't as much that these people like sports, but the Double Standard that applies to People who are in sports and not.
A teen is caught smoking pot. If they are an A student, the school will have them expelled from school, this person is obviously a bad influence.
A teen is caught smoking pot. If they are a Sports star (even if they signed some stay clean pledge), public outcry, you need to keep this kid in school, he has a gift, and expelling him is so horrible, he is a good kid... On and on.
Shocked, shocked! (Score:2)
Cheating in sports? Who'd of thought it!
Re: (Score:3)
Here's the actual cheat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitball [wikipedia.org]
Pretty disgusting stuff.
To quote Homer Simpson. . . (Score:5, Funny)
after he gave up drinking for a time to please Marge:
I never realized how boring this game is.
Re: (Score:3)
Annnd... there's a beach ball on the field.......
one of my favorite scenes.
Isn't that the point? (Score:3, Funny)
Isn't that kinda the point of baseball? It's only cheating if they catch you? Is a scuffed ball any different from stealing a base?
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't that kinda the point of baseball? It's only cheating if they catch you? Is a scuffed ball any different from stealing a base?
Stealing a base is a legally allowed move in the game, so yes it is very different.
Re:Isn't that the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Stealing a base is more like taking your time when your opponent forgots to stop their clock in a game of speed chess. It's not cheating so much as taking advantage of inattentiveness.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
MLB has much bigger problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Slow play and umps that can't find the strike zone with a telescope
Coaches should get red flag just like football so replay could be used. Replays should be done at MLB HQ like the NHL does it.
MLB should institute an automated strike zone and a pitch clock when no one is on base.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had points I'd mod you up. Make the game faster. Use electronic scoring for pitches, so all things are equal. Not 1 ref has this strike zone, this ref has that one, etc.
Baseball is quickly becoming the last sport in America and the oldest (in the fans that watch). I can't watch it. They start the World Series like after 9PM EST, games are 3.5-4hrs long. Yeah I have to be up for work, so yeah not staying up for that. SO I haven't watched world series in many years.
Re:MLB has much bigger problems (Score:4, Insightful)
The World Series starts after 9PM because much earlier than that and you leave out the west coast TV market. 9PM EST = 6 PM Pacific.
Perhaps I am an oddity, but I find basketball much more annoying to watch than baseball, and football really isn't any better. In terms of continuous action, I would put forth that the NHL is actually the most "gameplay" for the length of a game.
I'm not saying Football and baseball are "equal" in downtime, but if you start adding up the time between a play being declared dead and the actual start of the next play (not men lining up, but when the ball is snapped), I think that the amount of time that is spent not "playing" the game becomes more comparable. Yeah, there's a clock counting down, but what is the actual run-time of a typical football game at this point? 3.5, 4 hours?
Re: (Score:2)
football usually right around 3. I usually start a game at 1 and it's over by 4, sometimes 4:15.
I get your point about west coast, but 5pm is late enough and you're not leaving out cause game would still be getting over at 5pm start 9pm. I don't care about watching first few innings. Plus the majority of Baseball fans are northeast/East Coast compared to other area's, you're cutting out you're biggest supporters. Also, the metric shows you're loosing young people. And I know my sports interest stem fro
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that NFL Football is played mostly on Sunday. Monday and Thursday games are played at night, starting at 8:30pm Eastern. Baseball is played 7 days a week.
Re: (Score:2)
The World Series starts after 9PM because much earlier than that and you leave out the west coast TV market. 9PM EST = 6 PM Pacific.
Perhaps I am an oddity, but I find basketball much more annoying to watch than baseball, and football really isn't any better. In terms of continuous action, I would put forth that the NHL is actually the most "gameplay" for the length of a game.
I'm not saying Football and baseball are "equal" in downtime, but if you start adding up the time between a play being declared dead and the actual start of the next play (not men lining up, but when the ball is snapped), I think that the amount of time that is spent not "playing" the game becomes more comparable. Yeah, there's a clock counting down, but what is the actual run-time of a typical football game at this point? 3.5, 4 hours?
Though I gave up watching any sports years ago, football actually has things going on before the ball is snapped: man in motion actually does change play. But Aussie rules football kicks ass on all other sports.
Re: (Score:2)
Man in motion does change play, yes, but to me it's in the same category as a pitcher shaking off signs from the catcher. They both can be important to the outcome, but they aren't "exciting" the way a long fly ball is, or watching a running back shake off a couple of tacklers. Most of the complaints I hear or read about the pace of baseball are based on the time between the pitcher throwing the ball and then the ball coming back to the pitcher, which leaves out the arts of shortening the lead of a base-r
Re: (Score:3)
I must be doing a bad job of trying to say this.
I'm not saying that stuff doesn't count as gameplay- but I'm saying that by virtue of THAT counting as gameplay, the same courtesy should be applied to the pick-off throw to first to shorten a baserunner's lead, or the second baseman moving slightly behind the baserunner to encourage a pick-off throw, or a batter calling for time right after a pitcher gets set, just because they made the batter wait earlier, or any of the other myriad things that aren't direct
Re: (Score:2)
true, but in hockey and soccer it seems like all they do is pass the puck/ball around for 2 hours with one or two points scored in a game
Re: (Score:3)
Hockey for me was an acquired taste, probably from exposure to the Redwings growing up in Michigan, and then moving to Grand Rapids where their AHL farm team is. The Griffins are even in the AHL playoffs this year, so I get bonus hockey after the Redwings bowed out against Chicago last night.
The best hockey games are really the low-scoring ones where both teams are very evenly matched and playing all-out, which happens more often now that their is a cap system. If it is a low-scoring game because both tea
Re: (Score:2)
The episodic nature of football can be an advantage. The ball is only in play for a few seconds at a time, but an awful lot happens in those few seconds. 22 players are each doing something very specific and highly coordinated. The play is worth watching from several different angles to appreciate all that's going on.
TV timeouts and other things have dragged that out much further than is interesting: commercials are never fun. But that's the thing with continuous play sports like soccer: you can cut away fr
Re: (Score:2)
I would liken it more to skydiving - the goal is pretty much to avoid dying while looking awesome.
Re: (Score:2)
I like Niado's answer below, but if you want to bring MMA in, there seems to be an awful lot of posturing around the cage, and "commentary" that pads the length of the pay-per-views. There are some epically long bouts, but there are also those done in 30 seconds in the first round by submission, followed by another 10 minutes of broadcast before the next fight.
Re: (Score:3)
s/below/above/
I can't brain today, I have the dumb.
Re: (Score:3)
MMA would be far more interesting if they flooded the arena and had mock naval battles.
bazinga!
Re: (Score:2)
they do replays for some plays, but i've read the equipment they use is 90's era TV's
no money for new equipment
Re: (Score:3)
I don't claim to know anything about baseball, so that could be an idiotic idea. If it is... well I'm still an idiot, but that suggestion isn't a reflection of that fact.
Walk Away (Score:5, Insightful)
There's only one solution to a completely corrupt system. Walk away from it. Broshius made the correct decision by leaving the game behind him.
You cannot change a corrupted institution from within. I'll repeat that. You cannot change a corrupted institution from within. There are too many people inside who have spent their lives justifying and profiting from their misdeeds, who are not about to turn over a new leaf or air their dirty laundry because you've made an appeal to their conscience. They killed theirs long ago.
The best thing to do is leave the rotten ship to sink all by itself. Every honest person who stands by a rotten game, or bankrupted bank, or broken political party is just propping up an at best amoral system, and usually an immoral and even illegal one. There is no obligation to stay loyal or remain in solidarity with a disloyal and dishonest organisation.
Broshius has done more for baseball as a law student that he ever could have as a player or a fan.
Re: (Score:2)
There's only one solution to a completely corrupt system. Walk away from it. Broshius made the correct decision by leaving the game behind him.
You cannot change a corrupted institution from within. I'll repeat that. You cannot change a corrupted institution from within. There are too many people inside who have spent their lives justifying and profiting from their misdeeds, who are not about to turn over a new leaf or air their dirty laundry because you've made an appeal to their conscience. They killed theirs long ago.
The best thing to do is leave the rotten ship to sink all by itself. Every honest person who stands by a rotten game, or bankrupted bank, or broken political party is just propping up an at best amoral system, and usually an immoral and even illegal one. There is no obligation to stay loyal or remain in solidarity with a disloyal and dishonest organisation.
Broshius has done more for baseball as a law student that he ever could have as a player or a fan.
I've quoted the above comment in full because it deserves repeating.
Well said. I came here to post pretty much the same thing, but I won't bother, since you said it so well.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of hardware do I need to play this? (Score:5, Funny)
I've been trying to download this "baseball" game all morning and all every website I visit just shows me a bunch of sweaty dudes in pajamas.
They're using wooden controllers (!) and even worse, they're outside. Is this a beta? wtf
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
OUTSIDE?? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been trying to download this "baseball" game all morning and all every website I visit just shows me a bunch of sweaty dudes in pajamas.
They're using wooden controllers (!) and even worse, they're outside. Is this a beta? wtf
Be careful, adult videos/websites are *really* going to confuse you... Similar wooden controllers though.
everybody does it (Score:2)
batters kick dirt onto the batters box to make it harder to call a strike
catchers call the pitch and jump in or outward just before its thrown. or move their glove after its caught to increase the amount of strikes
pitchers are always rubbing their sweaty heads right before throwing the ball
in the end it doesn't really help. a good pitcher is good for 100 some pitches. but these tough guys are always telling the manager they are OK in the 6th inning right before they give up a bunch of runs. or a few pitcher
Wait..LOL WUT? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I have actually met some ethical lawyers. They aren't Johnny Cochrane, they also aren't Atticus Finch, but many of them do very ordinary things like draw up contracts that accurately describe the agreements their bosses came to. There are also guys like Lawrence Lessig and Ray Beckermann (NewYorkCountryLawyer) who try to put their skills to use for what they see as the greater good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I also don't doubt there are lawyers who do not use said tactics but their numbers are statistically insignificant.
I'm pretty sure a large portion of lawyers basically spend their careers drawing up contracts and filing bankruptcy's and other mundane things, with little opportunity to employ shady tactics.
But I'm being pedantic here - everyone gets your point.
Re: (Score:2)
control of the ball trumps foreign substances (Score:2)
having the ball fly crazy won't make the batter try to hit it. a good pitcher like Justin verlander has control of the ball. he can aim a pitch onto the outside of the strike zone to trick the batter. a good pitcher will know the batter's habits and style of swing and adjust his pitches for that.
a good batter will avoid swinging at a bad pitch
sounds like this guy did a study on a few pitchers who had no chance to make it to the majors and tried to cheat their way in which would not have worked anyway since
Re: (Score:3)
a good pitcher will know the batter's habits and style of swing and adjust his pitches for that. a good batter will avoid swinging at a bad pitch
Yogi Berra said it better: "Good pitching beats good hitting, and vice versa."
Re: (Score:2)
Lets not forget, most batters have decided to swing before the ball is released. .5 seconds.
For most swings, their is no conscious decision to swing once the pitcher finished the wind up. Not enough time. less then
Anything you can do to the ball that hides the pitchers intent hurt the batters odds of a hit.
Says the guy who didn't make it to the show (Score:2, Insightful)
So a minor leaguer who didn't cut the mustard decides that everyone in the Majors is cheating? Color me surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
check out his stats on fangraphs.com
he wasn't good enough to make it to the big leagues. he started in AA where he did OK. in Triple-A his numbers dropped and that was it.
chances are a lot of guys cheat, but which ones? are the best ones who make it to the pro's cheat? most likely not since your average MLB hitter won't swing at most pitches that fly erratically. sure he'll get a few who do, but most average hitters will blow him out of the game
They need to adopt the NACSAR rule (Score:2)
How to fix the drug enhancement issue (Score:2)
Everyone gets tested after a game, any single person come sup positive, then game is considered a loss. Happens twice, they give up 25% of merchandising for a year.
Make it an incentive for the owners to fix it, and the owners will fix it.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone gets tested after a game, any single person come sup positive, then game is considered a loss. Happens twice, they give up 25% of merchandising for a year.
Make it an incentive for the owners to fix it, and the owners will fix it.
End result: Every single team purposely throws a "cheater" into the drug testing mix, resulting in losses for every single team. Happens twice, and the entire franchise is dinged 25% on merchandising, causing the merchandisers to be punished, creating a 30% markup to account for losses. Fans are the ones ultimately punished.
C'mon man, you gotta do better than that. I promise you that is what would happen when billions are at stake. They would band together quicker than oil companies fixing gas prices j
False positives (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone gets tested after a game, any single person come sup [sic] positive, then game is considered a loss. Happens twice, they give up 25% of merchandising for a year.
Fine, except that the tests are not perfect, and false positives exist. Think about it -- suppose the test was 99% accurate, but produced 1% false positives. There are 25 people on an MLB team, and the team plays an average of 6.3 games per week. That's an average of 25 * 6.3 = 157.5 tests per team per week, which will produce an average of 1.575 false positives per team per week, or 1.575 * 26 = almost 41 false positives in a 26-week season. Per team.
There are 30 teams in MLB, so under your proposal one is looking at (157.5 tests per team per week) * (30 teams) * (26 weeks per season) = 122,850 drug tests every season. The false positive rate would have to get down into the parts per million range to do anything other than punish random team owners for the finite quality of drug tests. The effect could, in fact, be counterproductive; with so many false positives, the actual drug users could be emboldened to hide among them.
I know people who think all pro-sports are fixed (Score:2)
Third type of cheating (Score:3)
Background explanations for Europeans & others (Score:2)
Note that there is no question at all that MLB is the best professional baseball league. This is not like soccer/football where fans night argue that the EPL or Bundesliga or La Liga or some other league is the best. MLB to every other baseball league is like the EPL to MLS or worse.
The fact that Broshuis (his name is misspelled on the original post) was asked to cheat is a good indicator that on talent
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that Broshuis (his name is misspelled on the original post) was asked to cheat is a good indicator that on talent alone he wasn't good enough for MLB.
Hmmm, well that assumes that everyone else is playing honestly.
If his assertion of rampant cheating is accurate then no, it doesn't indicate anything.
People still watch baseball? (Score:2)
Who knew?
I have an idea (Score:2)
Doctoring the ball .... (Score:3)
While I think the performance-enhancing drugs take things way too far, I don't know how much of an ethical dilemma I see with such tactics as figuring out a way to scuff up the baseball before throwing it, to try to achieve some unpredictability?
I'd tend to side more with the "it's just part of the game" camp on that, because when it comes right down to it? It's all about making it as difficult as you can for the batter to hit what you throw at him. A regulation baseball has certain parameters to it that can't be changed without substituting it for a modified ball, and to me THAT'S where you'd want to draw the line on what's allowed. I mean, if the weight of the ball is drastically altered or you use a smaller or larger ball, that's just as much a change as, say, scooting the bases closer together on the field.
As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather see the rest of it just be out in the open. Say "No, we simply don't CARE if you think you have some secret tactic to gouge up the ball a little bit or scuff up its surface before pitching it. Go for it if you think it helps you!" You're always going to have small changes that potentially give small advantages to those who take advantage of them. I'm pretty sure there are certain types of shoes with certain cleat patterns which wind up giving some slight advantage over others too. Are we going to get so anal, we require only shoes with soles matching a precise pattern and dimensions, or else it's "cheating"?
(And honestly, even on the whole drugs issue? The biggest reason I have any problem with that is because it wasn't widely in use or even available in previous generations -- yet part of the game involves tracking records and seeing who is talented enough to break them over time. It's not a fair "A to B" comparison anymore between the "old time greats" and today's players, if the modern players are all juiced up. If the sport actually came out and said, "We consider performance enhancing drugs to be fair play." and ALSO said a line would be drawn where old statistics were "frozen in time" and everything effectively started over? Then I'd be hard pressed to find a reason to call it "cheating" anymore. (I might not like the fact it encourages people to treat their own bodies as disposable for the purpose of getting a little more of an edge in the game ... but that's each individual's own decision to make.)
Re: (Score:2)
You and me both. It was pretty obvious, if you didn't hail from St Louis. Sosa too...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And yet the original wasn't called humanball, and whatever drugs are involved, the game still definitely involves bases.