It's the middle of Fabruary, and you know what that means.  Yep, two weeks from now, Garth Brooks and Billy Crystal get their name in the box score whilst some NRI starts making plans for Rochester.  Since Joaquin Phoenix is "switching careers" (If you're buying into this, you've been had.  This is clearly an emo version of Sasha Baron Cohen.  Plus, hello, it was Letterman.  Andy Kaufman anyone?), why not play some ball?

Hey, it would be worth five good minutes on PTI (Links to pics below):

"I'm here with Joaquin Phoenix.  He claims he is retiring from Hollywood and joining the Washington Nationals as a non-roster invitee. You know of anyone else who flip flops on retirements?"

"Gwyneth paltrow named her kid Apple."

"How about some dap for my Cubs.  They landed Bill Murray today.  You think he can hit your fastball?"

"I don't know.  Playing in fornt of so many people is hard."

"I'm sure you'll agree with me that Isabella Rosellini still gets it done."

"I don't know who that is."

"Is that tobacco?"

"They made me give up the gum."

This week's TMT is a tete-a-tete with another blogger.  Unfortunately, tigervidmar didn't know his tete would be ramming into my tete.  It is great that this forum allows us to show them our tetes.  And with that, I lose all credibility...

In light of the recent news involving middle infielders, some names of the past are popping up as cases for re-evaluation in the court of public opinion.  Case 1AAA is that of Pete Rose.  As tigervidmar points out, Rose is a choir boy, relative to the current crop of cheats. 

The implication here is that we should, perhaps, tolerate a certain level of cheating.  Gaylord Perry cheated.  He's in the Hall of Fame.  Both statements are true, but I would suggest you take that gripe to the BBWAA - not the court of public opinion. 

The funny thing about public opinion, and our perception of it, is that we project our beliefs onto the public.  We are shocked to learn that people may, in fact, frown upon cheating in sports.  After all, we have come to accept that these men are paid handsomely because we pay to see them do something we can't do on a level playing field.  But it has become apparent that this isn't a level playing field.

Some would say that the playing field was level because everyone else was doing it.  Please see my Tuesday entry as to why that high school excuse doesn't hold water.  Basically, 104 out of 1200 (40 man rosters, 30 teams) tested positive.  What is apparent is that some teams seemed to have a drug culture, thus making players believe everyone was doing it.  Furthermore, if you tell the lie enough, perhaps the public will believe you.  

That public relations theory seems to have some effect.  Some people just don't care (and that's fine for you and your dollars).  Just don't project and say that "nobody" cares, or that those who care are moralists. 

This brings me to Pete Rose.  The PED story has given people the ammunition to carry the banner for old Charlie Hustle.  After all, "He always bet ON the Reds."

AHA!

That line of logic is my gotcha moment.  When he bet, he bet on the Reds.  What does that say about Rose's allegiance and competence on the days when he placed no bet on the Reds?  What would go through his head on those nights?  "This is a good situation for Ron Robinson.  We're down a run.  He can hold it here.  Aw heck, I like our odds tomorrow.  I'm sure Ted Power has another inning in him."   

The fact is that we may not know to what degree his rulebreaking benefitted him.  Just the same, an A-Rod 430 foot dirty shot might have been a 415 foot clean shot - both for home runs.  We know there was an effect, we can't quantify it.  But that's why we have rules.  If everyone plays by them, we close the door on these possibilities to doubt what we see. 

Rose broke a rule that is posted in every clubhouse.  Posted, folks!  It's kind of like a no parking sign.  Someone went through the trouble of posting it.  Perhaps they really mean it.  If you don't like the rule, fine.  This isn't a dictatorship.  There are means through which rules can change.  For now, we live with the ones we have.  For now, those operating outside those rules are rightfully branded as cheaters.  It's not a moralistic crusade, it's a statement of fact.

President Obama recently lamented the resistance to his stimulus package by wondering, "What do they think a stimulus is?  It's spending."  I thought it was a concerted effort to stimulate the economy.  The portion of the equation we stress is up for debate.  Do we stabilize the currency by keeping the money supply stagnant and controlling spending?  This would set market interest rates, as opposed to Fed-forced low rates which intend to give more money to bad borrowers.  Or do we print money for short term spending, hoping the next guy takes it on the chin when it's time to pay it back?  I'm still waiting to find someone willing to be "the next guy."

Our Nation has spent.  It is spent.  The spending is designed to show growth.  With growth, comes the desire for more growth.  Eventually, the bill is due.  Now is eventually, but the solutions seem to be tailor-made for 2002.  We must show growth.  If we don't show growth, then our elected officials must not be doing anything.

Sports teams like growth.  They love season ticket waiting lists.  People waiting means that the price can be raised.  Any balkers are pushed aside for those who feel priviledged to pay the higher price.

Most Major League teams, as noted on this blog space, have excercised smarter cost policies.  Payrolls are down.  Some teams have marketed themselves better with creative ticket packages.  Revenue sharing from new revenue streams has teams in an okay position to weather the storm.

As noted on this space before, the NFL got their season in before most of this fit hit the shan.  So the NFL needs to learn a lesson.  The NFL needs to protect its properties.  The shield is no bunker.

One NFL team has stuck to its bi-annual policy of raising ticket prices.  The Ravens cite 15% increases in salaries and benefits as the need to stay with this strategy.  Keeping prices and payroll in the top third are seen as critical to staying relevant.

The modern NFL has a lot of costly extravagance.  New stadiums complete with skyboxes were nice in 2002, when companies were willing to dump tens of thousands of dollars of profits into sports.  Frankly, this fat can be trimmed.  Teams should scale back on their circa 2002 business model to weather this current storm.  2009 will be interesting to see if any franchises wind up learning this lesson.

Is there any topic in sports that breeds more misinformation than steroids?  What's worse is that it's the paid professionals who spread it.  On the radar today is ESPN's Rece Davis, and 980's Kevin Sheehan.

Davis took on the Hall of Fame topic.  He took the let'em all in, or let no one in angle.  Halls of Fame are fickle organizations loosely affiliated with their respective leagues.  I have a feeling that there are athletes not in their HOF with far more trivial transgressions than steroids.  I'm not sure why Davis is demanding a steroids exemption.  If Murray Chass wants to exclude anyone from the HOF, that's his deal.  If John Heyman wants to vote for Jay Bell, also his deal (not saying he did, but someone did)

The rationalization we often hear for the all or none philosophy is that juiced batters were hitting off juiced pitchers.  Everyone was doing it.  Doesn't that sound like loser talk?  It's like these NORMaL folks who are bashing Kelloggs for signing Michael Phelps when they knew a DUI was on his record, and dropping him after THE photo.  "Beer is more dangerous, blah blah."  It's all about picking and choosing what best rationalizes our behavior (or the behavior of those we hero worship).

If 1200 people had Major League contracts in 2003, then 8.6% were deemed in violation of the substance abuse policy.  We don't know the other 103 names on the list.  I am confident that there are HOF worthy players in the group of 1097.  Also doesn't this strike the heart of that rationalization?  There was so much pressure to do it.  Maybe it's like teh sexxorz in college - you assumed everyone was getting three times as much as you were, so you turned into a hound to catch up (or maybe that was just me).  Come to find out, you were in the same boat as the others all along.

****

Mr Sheehan is in a different part of the "I don't care" camp.  Sheehan is one of these folks who thinks misters Bonds and Rodriguez are being treated unfairly.  After all, it wasn't until 2004 that they did anything wrong in the eyes of baseball.

sceechftwwhiskeytangofoxtrot!@!@!@!@@

That's how you type a needle straking across a record.  If you hold the belief that these people did nothing outsie the rules, or the belief that people's outrage is part of some moralistic crusade, listen up.  STEROIDS HAVE BEEN BANNED FROM BASEBALL SINCE 1991.

I'm going to repeat that, because it bears repeating.  STEROIDS HAVE BEEN BANNED FROM BASEBALL SINCE 1991.  Faye Vincent even sent a memo on the matter whilst commissioner.  Steroids have been banned since 1991.  Here, I'm not just being an Internet blowhard:

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2009/02/10/a_rod_admits_steroid_use

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2006/03/steroids_were_b.html

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3153509

Testing didn't begin until recently, because it had never been collectively bargained.  It doesn't mean the rule didn't exist.  Radio rules are broken everyday.  For example, Howard Stern only incurred fines when the FCC responded to complaints.  There are rules set by the SEC for insider trading.  It happens every day without bells and whistles.  Then there's speeding and jaywalking.

So what's the big deal about players using roids?  It's cheating.  It has been cheating since 1991.

For a few years, an occasional aroma of maple syrup has clouded New York City.  At first, there was concern.  Between 9/11, Anthrax, and playing the percentages on loonies, anything is possible.  After a while, it was written off as a nuisance.  People weren't dropping dead.  Now the mystery has been solved.  And before clicking this link, I knew what the answer would be.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090206/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_newyork_odor

Look New York, you got your football teams back.  You already have a NBA team (nominally speaking).  Now you want to take the Nets and put'em in Brooklyn.  I'm sure you'd love to move the Devils to Yonkers if you could.  Isn't that enough pennance for the whole "taking away the Statue of Liberty" thing?  Why this?  What have they done to you, New York?