C'mon . . . It's Just Baseball

I love baseball, always have. I love the no-hitter and the 23-16 hit fest. I enjoy watching a pitcher go all 9 innings, which is kind of a rarity these days. But unlike my friend Nelson, I could care less "who made the fewest errors" or "who had the lowest ERA" or "which team leads the league in double-plays". I love the drama, the excitement, the comeback, and the late inning struhteejury. I am a purist. For this reason, I'm not a big fan of the DH. When that 9th spot shows up late in the game, it adds an element of tension and puts the manager to the test. At that instant, he IS the 10th man. Sometimes, i believe that a sixth grader could manage an American League team full of overpaid superstars.

Now about the Mitchell Report, I think that the US Government could spend their time on problems other than "the use of performance enhancing substances". OK fine, test the players, fine the players, suspend the players, I don't care. I'm positive that the current MLB policy can be strengthened and enforced. Heck, if you paid me a million dollars, I'd pee in a cup twice a day and donate blood once a week. Furthermore, if a player has surgery or a significant ailment, let him inject for a short period of time, but under doctor's supervision and official league documentation. I wanna watch these guys play, not sit on the DL. And because recent medical breakthroughs have "enhanced" and prolonged careers that would have previously ended prematurely, I wanna see even more breakthroughs and even more amazing recoveries.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, "it's a kid's game". Like movie stars, we pay these guys a lot of money to entertain us. Some actors will always stand the test of time. Some players will always be our favorites. But just like every great Disney classic, there has to be a quality villain, someone bigger than life who plays by his own rules. After all, the bad guys are what makes the good guys so good.
but . . . ya gotta appreciate the role of evil nemesis.

That being said, here is a great article:
Jim Caple - ESPN Page 2 Columnist

Hall of Fame ballots with Mark McGwire's name arrive in the mail this week and already baseball writers are squirming with the biggest dilemma we've faced since trying to get a $25 receipt for an $8.99 all-you-can-eat meal at Sizzler:

How are we to vote on Mark McGwire and all the other steroid suspects who will follow in coming years?

The question seems frustratingly problematic at first but the answer is actually quite easy. All you have to do is refer to The Hypocrite's Guide to Voting on Mark McGwire.

You knew McGwire was taking andro in 1998's home run chase and suspected he was taking something much stronger but nonetheless repeatedly wrote stories glorifying his deeds and crediting him with "saving baseball." You now have no additional evidence other than those same old suspicions, but you are nonetheless repeatedly writing stories condemning his actions and blaming him for ruining baseball. Therefore you clearly must not vote for McGwire, because that was then and this is now.

You constantly ridicule grandstanding politicians and bureaucratic government committees in your columns but when you saw grandstanding politicians drag McGwire before a bureaucratic government committee, you were appalled that he did not show the proper respect by fully answering their questions. You feel that he greatly damaged his reputation, effectively admitted his guilt and gave the sport a black eye by saying, "I am not here to talk about the past." You also write stories claiming that the government has no right to force reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams to testify before a grand jury, and that it will cripple the First Amendment if they so much as state their names. Therefore you must not vote for McGwire because everyone knows he should have testified when he was subpoenaed while reporters should never have to do so under the well-established legal principle of "that was him, and this is us."

You firmly believe McGwire never would have gotten anywhere close to his home run marks without cheating by taking steroids. You also nod and laugh when you hear stories about how Hall of Famers Gaylord Perry and Whitey Ford cheated their way to 314 and 236 wins, respectively, by loading up their pitches with Vaseline or scuffing the baseballs with sharpened belt buckles and wedding rings. You therefore must not vote for McGwire because cheating with steroids is evil, while cheating with doctored baseballs is nothing more than good, old-school baseball.

You have known since reading "Ball Four" that a vast number of players since at least the 1960s have been taking amphetamines. You also look at the players of the '60s, '70s and '80s as representative of when the game was clean and level. Therefore you must not vote for McGwire, because steroids gave him a grossly unfair advantage while amphetamines are nothing more than a harmless pick-me-up.

You have gained 78 pounds since leaving college and 11 pounds just since Thanksgiving. You are certain McGwire was on steroids (and Barry Bonds as well) because they are so much bigger now than they were as rookies. You therefore must not vote for McGwire because no one gets that big without taking steroids.

You disregard McGwire's home run totals, because he reached them with the help of steroids in an era in which offensive stats were greatly inflated. You also hold as sacred the offensive statistics compiled by Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Rogers Hornsby and others during an era when black and Latino competitors were banned from the game. You therefore must not vote for McGwire, because his numbers are suspect unlike those of the players from the clean golden age.

You feel that letting steroid users into the Hall of Fame will cheapen the institution and insult the legacy of the players already enshrined. You therefore must not vote for McGwire because you must preserve the integrity of Cooperstown for such Hall of Famers/cheapskates/bigots as Cap Anson, Ty Cobb, Charles Comiskey and Tom Yawkey.

You constantly write that baseball must strengthen its steroid testing but you yourself are able to tell whether a player was on steroids just by looking at him in the clubhouse. Therefore you must not vote for McGwire because he obviously took steroids, and you must give Cal Ripken Jr. a pass – and everyone else for whom you will eventually vote – because, duh, obviously they did not.

Is all that clear? Good. Now fill out your ballot and we'll get back to you with another guide when Barry Bonds comes up for a vote in six or so years.

But seriously, folks …

Before you write in – no, I am not saying Ripken took steroids. I don't believe either he or Tony Gwynn took any performance enhancers and I will vote for them without hesitation and eagerly await their acceptance speeches for the honor both so richly deserve. But I never suspected Ryan Franklin or Alex Sanchez took steroids, either. The point is, we just don't know who did and who did not take performance enhancers, other than the players who have tested positive. To withhold votes on some players we suspect because they fit a certain profile is no more valid than arresting and convicting someone of a crime because they fit a profile. Fitting a profile is not proof of guilt, just as NOT fitting a profile is not proof of innocence.

We can and should, however, legitimately view the home run totals of the steroid era as inflated, just as we raise our eyebrows at the ERA figures from the dead-ball era. All baseball statistics should be viewed within the context of when they were achieved. If offensive numbers were high in a certain era – as they were in the early 1930s and much of the 1990s – we must take that into consideration. If offensive numbers were down in a certain era, we must take that into consideration as well. We do this all the time, not just with the steroid era.

So how will I vote on McGwire? I already made it clear in a World Series column that I will vote for him, mostly because of the point I made in the first argument of The Hypocrite's Guide. We (media, fans, baseball officials) all had our suspicions regarding McGwire when he was delighting us with his performance in the mid- and late '90s. We didn't have a problem with those suspicions then, so why should we care so damn much now? If we had such an enormous problem with his possible steroid use, the time to express our disgust was then, not now.

And we writers aren't alone on this – remember, fans voted McGwire onto the All-Century team in 1999, giving him nearly five times as many votes at first base as Willie McCovey

Mawage Is Wot Bwings Us Togeder . . .

This picture typifies the "deer-in-the-headlights" moment when my lovely bride first realized that she would be stuck with me forever.

In my day (makes me sound kinda old, don't it?), people got hitched a little younger. But now, people wait until they're in their late 20's and 30's. What's the deal?!! People are having fewer kids later in life, and divorce rates are at an all time high. I appreciate that people want to wait for that special someone. They're looking for that perfect fit and that 1950's sit-com marriage. But like most things in life, anything worth having, is worth working for. ALL relationships take some effort and a little work, but it's definitely worth it.

My friend Mims recently wrote in her blog about people and their fruity bottoms, or something like that.

http://meandererstable.blogspot.com/2007/12/fruit-on-bottom.html

I read this and I think about the people in my life, past, present and future. Take my son for example, on the surface, he is that bitter, sour, slimy ooze that Mims eluded to. But underneath, there is some great stuff. And my wife, I love her dearly, is a little shy and sometimes hard to know. But I tell you, she has nice fruits and a sweet bottom. Hey, don't yell at me!! It's Mims' metaphor, not mine!!

Seriously, my bride has a gazillion great qualities. Unfortunately, I'm usually the only one who gets to witness her help out a charitable organization, offer a kind word, help out a friend or invest her time into things that really matter. And my son, inside that tough exterior is a delightfully gooey surprise.

In bible times ( I was much younger then), finding a bride was a little different:

1.) Find an attractive prisoner of war and bring her home (Deut 21:11-13)
2.) Find a prostitute and marry her (Hosea 1:1-3)
3.) Find a man with 7 daughters and impress him (Ex 2:16-21)
4.) Buy a piece of property and get a bride in the deal (Ruth 4:5-10)

5.) Go to a party and hide. When the women show up, kidnap one (Judges 21:19-25)
6.) Cut off foreskins from your future father-in-law's enemies (I Sam 18:27) - OUCH!!
7.) When you see someone you like, have your parents hook you up (Judges 14:1-3)
8.) Work 14 years for a woman's hand in marriage (Gen 29:15-30) - by the way, stalking is not the same as working.
9.) Just wander around. Eventually, you'll find someone (Gen 4:12-17)
10.) Become an emperor and hold a beauty contest (Ester 2:3-4) - all the ladies like bling
11.) Have GOD create a special woman just for you (Gen 2:19-24) - except for the movie "Weird Science", this only happened once.

There are other ways listed in the bible, but not all of us are willing to "off" some one's husband (2 Sam 11), make up quality with quantity (I Kings 11:1-3) or wait for our brother to die (Deut & Lev).

These days, most people don't want to invest the time. It's all about instant gratification. Ask any parent over the age of 35. Ask anyone who grew up before microwaves, movie rentals and the Internet. Parents always want a better life for their kids, but at what cost? What will the next generation be like? Ask your parents how they met, and how they were raised. It's pretty eye opening. Young people today want fulfillment right now, and with minimal effort. They're sometimes too quick to call it quits when it comes to relationships, even a realtionship with Jesus.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is . . .

Make the investment, look deeper, be patient, and don't give up too soon. All relationships take work, but it's worth it. And as I mentioned in a earlier blog, are you more focused on finding the right person or being the right person.

Just like the next person, I go nuts for Wrangler butts, but sometimes ya gotta look a little further. And as The Mims says, "sometimes we must stir each other's souls".

(ya gotta love The Mims)