Players should celebrate Nick Wright and Joy Taylor

I listen to sports talk radio whenever I can. Stories about sports are my escape.and favorite conversation topic.

And I was very, very impressed with the original thoughts from Nick Wright and Joy Thomas, who guest-hosted The Herd for at least the past two days.

Among the gems I heard in a limited amount of time, all paraphrased:

Nick: "I'm not a fan of slippery slope arguments. 'It could lead to something,' is a bad argument."

Nick: "I don't want my kids celebrating after making a play. But I don't want them getting cortisone shots either. Pro athletes and children are different."

Joy: "Just because pro sports can be watched by kids, doesn't mean they should be catered to them. Lots of things can be seen by kids without being for kids."

(I'm open to correction if I misinterpreted their points.)

I was impressed with their on-air compatibility and insights. I hope to see and or hear a lot more of them.


  

   

How to Honor Ali: Abolish the Draft

An Open Letter

To: President Obama and All Members of Congress

I write this in the early morning hours following the news of Muhammad Ali's death.

I have yet to hear or read statements from public figures, but I know most of you will say nice things about his life and legacy. In addition to his greatness in the boxing ring, you will honor his courage in standing up for his convictions.

But I'll know you are sincere if and only if you do one thing: support a bill to abolish Selective Service.

That's right: get rid of the draft once and for all.

Ali risked imprisonment because he refused to serve during the Vietnam War. His case reached the Supreme Court and he won only on a technicality. The draft continued, and many lost their lives because of it.

No one should be forced to die in a war he wouldn't have voluntarily fought. And no one, whether Ali or someone not as rich and famous, should be punished for refusal.

Although America hasn't had a draft since 1973, the Selective Service System still holds American young men hostage. They must sign up for the possibility of getting drafted, or face legal consequences and lose opportunities.

But remember that wrong isn't right just because politicians want it. The Selective Service requirement is involuntary servitude. It is coercion at its worst.

It is unfit for a nation that calls itself the "Land of the Free."

If you really admire Ali, you wouldn't want to force today's young people to go through what he did.

So do the honorable thing, and honor Ali while you do it. Abolish the draft once and for all!

Sincerely,

James Leroy Wilson

There are going to be outliers.

I knew Cleveland has a 50+ year championship drought for its three major league sports teams. What 30 For 30's Believeland made me realize is how rarely they even came close.

I won't detail these heartbreaks, but here's the rundown... 

1980 (NFL season): Red Right 88. The Browns lost a divisional play-off game. If they had won it, they would have had to beat the Chargers in the AFC championship game and then the Eagles in the Super Bowl. There isn't a compelling reason to believe they could have done both.

1986: The Drive. Had the Browns won this AFC title match, they would have had to face the Giants in the Super Bowl, and would have been underdogs.

1987: The Fumble: Had the Browns won this AFC title game, they would have played the Redskins in the Super Bowl and would have had an even chance of winning. This is the most significant football heartbreak.

1989: The Shot. Michael Jordan's Bulls eliminated the third-seeded Cavs in the first round of the NBA play-offs. As opposed to inevitably loosing in a later round to eventual champion Pistons.

1995 & 1997 World Series.  The Indians lost both, could have won both. One would have been great. This is how close Cleveland came.

1995: The Move: If anything, this was a "win" for Cleveland, because unlike other cities that lost a franchise, they got a team in a few years, and it was the Browns.

2010: The Decision: The Cavs couldn't attract free agents to make them better. That's why LeBron left. There aren't any "what ifs."

Of course, there were other disappointing seasons and playoff losses, but these were the gut-wrenching ones.

And the thing is, the Packers have just as many in the past 20 years alone. Five overtime playoff losses. Two others ending on the last play. And the 1997 Super Bowl loss. Without two Super Bowl wins in that span, Packer fans would feel cursed.

And that's because the Packers have had a solid organization (not to mention two long-tenured great quarterbacks) since 1992. No Cleveland franchise has had anything close to that level of stability for more than a few years at a time.

If they had, there would have been a heck of a lot more gut-wrenching disappointments. Plus a championship or three.

But I don't think this general organizational malaise is a reflection on Cleveland itself. I wouldn't find it an any more  or less attractive place to live than any number of cities. It just so happens that its three teams are running a little behind the averages.

Take the Chicago Cubs. It hasn't won a world series since 1907. Mathematically there almost has to be an outlier like that. One team (the Yankees) wins a bunch. Several others win more than the mean, some win an average number, some less than average, and some much less than average.

With the major leagues having 30-32 teams, an average franchise would win their conference about once every 15 years and the championship once every 30 years. It so happens that each Cleveland team is behind on championships in the last few decades. But in terms of its overall history, the Browns have won their "share" of NFL titles. Just not recently.

And any of it can change quickly. The Seattle Seahawks, which began play in 1976, didn't win their conference until 2005. Now, it has three titles conference titles and a Super Bowl win in its 40 seasons. It went from outlier to average in ten seasons.

Just as it's not surprising for a team to go over 100 years without a winning a World Series, so it's not surprising for a city to have three teams not win a title since 1964. It's random . It's like saying the Islanders, Mets, and Nets haven't won a title since 1986. That doesn't mean New York is cursed.

The All-NBA of What?

Here is an all-time NBA starting line-up from the past 30 years:

Point Guard: Isiah Thomas.
Shooting Guard: Dwayne Wade
Small Forward: Scottie Pippen
Power Forward: Chris Webber
Center: Patrick Ewing

You may think, yes these are great players, but what are you talking about?

After all, Magic Johnson won three MVPs during this period. Thomas never won one.

Shooting guard? Michael. Enough said. Kobe. More than enough said.

Small forward? Bird's peak years were before this, but there is, you know, LeBron.

Power forward? What about Duncan, Malone, Barkley, and Garnett?

And center? Hakeem. Shaq. Robinson. HELLO???

But if I told you all those players are disqualified. As well as Curry and Durant.

What disqualifies them?

They've all won NBA MVP at least once. No one in my lineup ever did.

And I think they're the best at their position in the last 30 years that never won MVP.

Thomas was the best player on a 3-time East and 2-time NBA champion.

Wade was the best player of the '06 Heat championship team, and 2nd-best player on two other title teams, and still going.

Pippen was  the 2nd best player on six championship teams, and 7-time 1st, 2nd, or 3rd-team all-NBA.

Webber was also a 7-time 1st, 2nd, or 3rd team all-NBA.

Ewing was 1st-team all-NBA once and 2nd team six times and on two teams that made the Finals.

Is there someone else  more deserving of being on this team than any I've listed?

Predicting NFL Quarterback Success

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer.

The italicized disclaimer may say it best:

Author's Note: This column is in the process of a transition away from a primary focus on politics and policy, which I write about in other venues. In this space I will tend to write about anything that interests me and inspires me to write.

The "other venues" include DownsizeDC.org and the DownsizeDCFoundation.org. I am NOT necessarily putting a stop to writing about politics at the PO, just that they will appear less frequently.

Bill James, Yao Ming, Casey Anthony, War, Famine, and More

Just to get you all caught up on my day . . .

• I ask you to tell Congress to get the U.S. out of Iraq ASAP
• I reflect on the wisdom of baseball historian Bill James when it comes to things that are arguably even more important than baseball stats
• And I reflect on the retirement of Yao Ming, the 3,000th hit of Derek Jeter, the death of John Mackey, and the Casey Anthony trial
  

Defending Scottie Pippen

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Last Friday, ex-Bulls star and former teammate of Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, suggested that LeBron James may be the greatest basketball player of all time.

This provoked a media frenzy, in which Pippen was criticized relentlessly. He subsequently backtracked and clarified that James has the potential to be as great as Jordan.

I don't know enough about basketball to agree or disagree with what Pippen initially said.

I did listen to it live and was surprised to hear Pippen's remarks. But even at the time I appreciated what Pippen meant, even if he now regrets his phraseology.

Max Schmeling, James Harrison, and Me

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

[I was reminded] of a dream a friend told me about years ago, when George W. Bush was still President.

In the dream, Bush would keep showing up in various places and would try to be polite and friendly. But, my friend just wanted to avoid him.

I certainly feel that way with just about any past President, as well as the current one.

I don't want to be photographed with war criminals.

College Football Scandals

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

And such scandals are inevitable. The NCAA may have many faults, but there is a reason it makes and enforces the rules.If it is important to the colleges that their athletes be viewed as amateurs, and apparently it is, a process must be in place to ensure accountability.

But the underlying problem is conceptual. It never made sense to integrate Sport and School in the first place.

Adam Carolla Economics

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

It seems ironic that someone could do something only for the hefty paycheck, and yet not be greedy. But if Carolla or Favre HAD been greedy, they would have lost their leverage. They were willing to walk away from their jobs and receive no money at all.

The same logic applies to the tax considerations of the wealthy.

Imagine someone earning supposedly $1,000/hour, but because of a 36% tax rate, nets $640/hour. Because the new tax rate will be 40%, his net income is $600/hour.

How To Baffle People

The weekend before last, I encountered an NFL Network show on the "Ten Best Quarterbacks of the 1980's."

I knew, or thought I knew, who the top 3 would be. I was mistaken. When John Elway came in at #4, I spent the segment devoted to him trying to think who #3 (or #2) would be: I KNEW that Dan Marino would be #3 or #2, and that Joe Montana would be #1. So who was the missing guy?

I started to go team-by-team, and I had it figured out by the end of the next commercial break. The mystery man turned out to be #3.

But I thought it was an intriguing mystery, and offered it to friends and family. I asked them, "Here are the NFL Network's Top Ten quarterbacks of the 1980's. Who's #3?"

10. Jim McMahon
9. Bernie Kosar
8. Dave Krieg
7. Joe Theismann
6. Boomer Esiason
5. Phil Simms
4. John Elway
3. ???
2. Dan Marino
1. Joe Montana

Someone eventually got it, as a second guess. But everyone initially gave the wrong answer.

I think the reason is that I gave out too many names. It threw them for a loop. When a list has several good-but-not-Hall-of-Fame quarterbacks on it (#10 through #5), one starts to be thinking in that category of player, and forgets the Hall of Famer.

That's why I asked the question; I thought it would "fool" people into not thinking of the obvious answer. I was right.

I think with a blank slate, if each person would have been asked who they thought were the ten best quarterbacks of the 1980's, they would have gone team-by-team and compiled their list, and this guy would have appeared on EVERYONE'S list.

But because they were bombarded with these other names, some who may have a dubious claim to being on the Top Ten, it got their minds on the wrong track and they forgot a Hall of Famer.

Not exactly a scientific psychological experiment - the sample size was too small - but to me it was a fascinating insight into how the mind works.

A Wooden Personality

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer, a tribute to the late basketball coach John Wooden. Excerpt:

Following the 1947 season, Indiana State was invited to the (small school) NAIA basketball tournament. But the tournament barred the participation of black players. Wooden, who had a player, Clarence Walker, who was black, refused the invitation. The next year, the NAIA reversed this policy and Indiana St. accepted. Walker became the first African-American to play in the tournament.

Social Morality, Political Immorality

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer: http://partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=3396

"Why is the governmental use of force less offensive than bad manners?"

Ethics in Sports: P.R., Profits, and Wins

About a year ago, Manny Ramirez was traded from the Red Sox to the Dodgers. He lifted that then-mediocre club to the division title and NLCS. Before then, however, he was accused of some awful things by the Red Sox, particularly quitting on the team.

Bill Simmons, a Red Sox and Manny fan, cast some doubt on this. What I couldn't get over about Manny is that he shoved a traveling secretary to the ground after he was told his unreasonable request might not be fulfilled.

That seemed to be an underrated story, whereas the fact that Manny didn't run out ground balls seemed overrated to me. If Manny is a jerk, or "bad guy," it is demonstrated in how he treats the support staff.

And then Manny gets caught with a banned substance after MLB had instituted drug testing, demonstrating that he's a cheater, and is suspended for 50 games.

Yet he's cheered by Dodger fans.

Meanwhile, ESPN radio has reported that Henry Aaron is urging Pete Rose's reinstatement to baseball. Even though as a manager Rose would bet his own team, which compromised his judgment. After all, what is a manager, really, but a manager of relief pitchers? Betting on games could have clouded Rose's judgment to the detriment of the best long-term interests of the team. (The only thing more compromising, of course, would have been betting on the other team.)

Then again, he has been banished for twenty years. Perhaps reinstating him now would be a gracious act.

Meanwhile, Michael Vick has been conditionally reinstated by the NFL. Two years ago, the nation was horrified by revelations of dogfighting. Now, plenty are saying "What he did was horrible. He served his time and paid his debt, let him play!" Others are saying, "If I were convicted of a felony, I wouldn't be hired back. Why should Vick?" Team owners, however, fear the public relations and ticket implications of signing this guy, not sure if he's still a pariah.

Daunte Stallworth killed a man while driving drunk and got less than a month in jail. The New York District Attorney, meanwhile, is demanding prison time for Plaxico Burress, who accidentally shot himself in the leg. Should Stallworth ever play again? Will anyone sign Burress?

Terrell Owens was kicked off one team and released by another even though he could still play. Quarterback Jeff George was out of the NFL before the age of 35, even though he could still throw a beautiful long pass. As late as last year, at 41, he thought he could still play. Neither of them had scrapes with the law.

What do these stories have to do with each other? To me, they just go to show that a commissioner's decision to suspend or reinstate an athlete, or a GM's decision to sign or release an athlete, has little to do with judging the content of the player's character. One player may be embraced despite a conviction; another released solely because of personality clashes. It's not about the interests of any particular individual or what anyone "deserves," it's about the interests of the organization. For the League, suspending and reinstating players is about public relations and profits. For individual teams, it's about public relations, profits, and winning games.

This may seem cynical, but I actually believe that p.r., profits, and wins really are the only impartial, ethical assessments to determine a player's eligibility. If I'm a team owner and Michael Vick is available, I'd be asking my marketing and p.r. guys what they thought were the implications of signing him. Backlash and protest? Public embrace? Only then would I ask my GM and coaches what they thought about Vick as a player and teammate.

What if I say, "No, I can't stand what Vick did. He doesn't deserve a chance?" Or what if I say, "Vick got screwed; the dogs were his own property. I'm signing him as a way of giving the finger to the prohibitionists of the world?" Either way, I would be putting my own narrow perspective above the interests of the club. This is unethical because it is willfully stupid - foolish.

Sometimes there are no right or wrong answers. Sometimes there are just business decisions, all of which are calculated risks, and they can be judged only by the results.

Ten Things

Ten things, July 18, 2009:

10. Tiger Misses the Cut at the British Open. Tiger is still relatively young. Every year he gets by with winning one major tournament, I think it's possible he'll surpass Jack Nicklaus's record of 18 major championships. Each year he wins two, I think it's probable. Each year he fails to win even one, we're reminded of how difficult this really is. This year, he has the PGA Championship left. Tiger is 33 and has to win five more majors to surpass Nicklaus. We can no longer take it for granted.

9. The best news about 59 year-old Tom Watson leading after three rounds of the British Open is that it suggests Tiger Woods could be in the mix in the majors for another 26 years at least.

8. Did you know: Aaron Burr saved Alexander Hamilton's life before he ended it.

7. Is it just me, or is Coldplay just bubblegum pop music for adults? There is absolutely nothing wrong with it; I really like this. It's just that I don't love music by today's 30- or 40-somethings as much as I do music performed by 20-somethings before I was born.

6. Did you know? The last story on November 22, 1963 CBS Morning News was a human-interest story about this group called The Beatles that had captivated Britain. Then, JFK was shot. After days of constant JFK Assassination coverage and to lighten the mood of the country, Walter Cronkite suggested re-airing the Beatles piece as the first non-JFK story on the CBS Evening News. So, The Beatles were the last story before the Assassination and the first story after it. Chicago DJ legend Dick Biondi had actually played the Beatles earlier in 1963, thinking they were the best thing since Elvis, but they never caught on on the merits of the music, they needed massive national propaganda that the likes of Walter Cronkite could provide. I'd provide links to this information, but I learned it all by listening to the radio many years ago.

5. When I was six years old and our family was on a long road trip, we played 20 Questions. I stumped the tribe, who was thinking I'd choose Bugs Bunny or Batman. The person I was thinking of was Walter Cronkite.

4. Third-best non-fiction movie of all time: Fog of War starring Robert McNamara; Second best: The Wizard of Oz; Best: The Matrix. I suppose the latter two are subjective: does "non-fiction" mean relation to historical "facts," or does "non-fiction" mean ultimate truth and reality?

3. Second-best non-fiction music video: The White Stripes, "Seven Nation Army" It's not what the lyrics say, it's how the song is constructed and how the video is made. You know, hypnotizing.

2. Best non-fiction music video: Elliot Smith, "Son of Sam" I just fear that all of us are as controlled as the protagonist that Smith portrays, whether we're conscious of it or not.

1. 30 Rock gets a record 22 Emmy nominations. Bring the head writer (Tina Fey) of a live comedy program (Saturday Night Live, in one of its better periods) to create, write, and star in a single-camera sitcom and what do you get? A sitcom that goes for the laugh in every single scene, regardless if it's toilet humor, farce, or satire. There have been many single-camera, non-laugh-track sitcoms. Some of them are brilliantly plotted (Arrested Development), some clever (Corner Gas), some charming (Everybody Hates Chris) but none are as energetic and relentless as 30 Rock. A sample of episodes is found here and the Kidney Now! finale is here. Frankly, I think the stunningly adorable Norah Jones - I say "adorable" because she has short hair; I'd says "gorgeous" if she still had long hair - deserves an Emmy just by the way she says "And only three of us are drunk."

Athletes of the Decade

If I had one, here is my proposed ballot for Athlete of the Decade so far. Feel free to comment or suggest others. Again, the list can't be final until the calendar year is done:

1. Roger Federer - perhaps the younger, more gifted Rafael Nadal has his number and may eventually surpass him, but Nadal has yet to equal Federer's heart, health, and consistency. Federer's won 15 of the last 25 Grand Slam tennis tournaments. Not even Steffi Graf in the weaker women's division of the late 1980's-early 90's was that dominant. And it's not as if Federer is a biological freak, like the #2 and #3 on this list. That's why I put him on the top: I believe he went beyond his potential and over-achieved the most.
2. Michael Phelps - what is it, 14 gold medals, plus a silver or bronze (or more) at the Olympics? His amazing flippers and long body made him a natural swimmer, but you don't achieve what he has without determination, poise, and dedication.
3. Lance Armstrong - his heart is bigger than most people's - and I mean that literally, and by "literally" I mean biologically. That said, aside from his six Tour de France wins this decade (and seven consecutive overall), I can't tell you if he's ever won any other bicycle race.
4. Albert Pujols - Reminds me of another Cardinal, Stan Musial, who played great baseball year after year while the media (and baseball's history/legend writers) focused on Joe Dimaggio and Ted Williams; today, they focus on A-Rod and Manny. In any case, Pujols has the best combination of batting average and power numbers in generations, with multiple MVP titles and a World Series Championship. No evidence that I know of that he's used performance-enhancing drugs, but if he does then everybody does and he's still better than everyone else.
5. Tiger Woods - 12 major golf championships this decade and 14 overall. With two more majors to go before the "00"'s are gone, he can potentially shoot to #1 on this list.
6. Peyton Manning - Like Brett Favre, started every game this decade. Unlike Favre this decade, Manning won three MVP's and was a Super Bowl winner/MVP, went to the play-offs eight seasons including six straight seasons going 12-4 or better with what everyone acknowledged was a seriously-flawed defense.
7. Serena Williams - The Open Era of tennis that began forty years ago, along with the beginning of the women's professional tour, first saw dominance by Margaret Court and Billie Jean King. Then, there was the Evert-Navratilova rivaly that is probably the greatest in the history of sports, then Steffi Graf, whose chief rival, Monica Seles, saw her career de-railed by a mad-man. Since Graf's retirement in 1999, no woman has dominated women's tennis, because the women's tour has more athletic, well-trained, and tougher women than ever before. Even so, Serena has been clearly the greatest, winning ten majors this decade, with her sister Venus the clear second-best, and a lot of names battling for #3 - Davenport, Hingis, Henin, Sharapova - that come and go. The Williams sisters remain, and Serena is the better of the two.
8. Tom Brady - He won three Super Bowls without a Hall of Fame receiver, and without a Hall of Fame player even on defense. When given a Hall of Fame-caliber receiver in Randy Moss, he shattered the NFL record book.
9. Tim Duncan - six all-NBA First Teams (seven if you include the 99-00 season), plus three second-teams, and three NBA Championships this decade, without an obvious Hall of Fame co-star.
10. Kobe Bryant - Won NBA titles with Shaq, won without Shaq. Won with Jerry West as GM, won without West calling the shots. Granted, never did win titles without Phil Jackson as coach, but neither did Michael Jordan.

Defending LeBron

Several posts the past few months have been sports-related, and tend to defend heavily-criticized athletes who, in my view, haven't done anything wrong.

There is a larger purpose to such posts. It gets to the question of why we get angry about the choices other people make, even when those choices have no bearing on our lives. This longing to be angry contributes to an ill-mannered, irrational society. This spiritual dumbing-down, in turn, has dire political consequences.

I'm not suggesting anyone thinks there ought to be a law requiring LeBron James to shake the hands of opponents and show up at post-game press conferences. But the habit of pointing fingers at others and yelling "classless!" or "naughty!" is a dangerous one. A polite society would give people a lot of leeway. It would be more tolerant, following the Golden Rule or "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." Ultimately, it would be more free.

Anyhow, here's my latest defense. Basketball star LeBron James led the Cleveland Cavaliers to a league-best 66 wins in the regular season and two early play-off round sweeps, but the Cavs lost to the Orlando Magic in the conference finals, 4 games to 2. After the Magic's clinching victory, James ran off the court without shaking hands in congratulations to any Magic player. Then, he didn't show up for the post-game press conference.

Some of the sports pundits seem bothered by the alleged poor sportsmanship of not shaking hands. Others were more bothered by James's absence at the press conference, indicative of poor leadership.

As to the sportsmanship: Yesterday, I heard Mike Tirico, who called the game on television, say what he witnessed. Normally at the end of games like that the victor dribbles out the clock and it is considered unsportsmanlike to make a final, pointless shot at the NBA level. The Magic's Dwight Howard, unthinkingly and in celebration, did throw up such a shot. Tirico said he saw James flash a look of disgust at Howard, and this may have explained why James, already disappointed, was not in the mood to shake Howard's hand.

As to the press conference: this incident reminds me of Peyton Manning over three years ago after his Colts lost the AFC Championship game to the Steelers. The Colts had come back from three scores down to almost win the game until they missed the winning field goal. Obviously crushed from losing in the play-offs once again, in the post-game press conference Manning was asked why it took so long for the Colts offense to begin to move. Manning said this (from memory, but paraphrased): "I know it's not right to be critical of anyone but . . . there were some protection problems."

The next day, Manning was criticized in the media for, well, telling the truth about his teammates (and/or coaching staff). I agree that it's best not to say something like that, but the level of disappointment and frustration can get the best of any player.

James was in an even dicier situation than Manning. He's a free agent next year. This series proved that he was the best player in the league, but that he was essentially a one-man team. More than one analyst said that throughout the series, the Cavs had the best player, but that Magic players would hold slots 2 through 5.

It seems to me that James acted in the best interests of his teammates. He wasn't going to risk saying something akin to what Manning said, and thereby provoke speculation about his leadership ability and future with the team. Perhaps he had a giant lump in his throat and was too emotional to say anything at all. In any case, no good could come from showing up at the press conference. Not for himself, not for the morale of his teammates, and not for the Cavalier organization.

Unless more inside dirt is revealed, it appears to me that James's "immature" behavior actually revealed character. He stole the spotlight that would have been focused on the inadequacy of his teammates and took the heat and criticism himself. Even in defeat and with the season over, he took one for the team.

What a vote for Manny means

Sometimes policies are instituted only after the unexpected happens. That's understandable; no one can foresee everything. I won't fault Major League Baseball, then, for not having a policy prohibiting players who have been suspended for much of the season from being eligible for the All-Star game.

Out of respect for the game's rules, there should be a policy preventing suspended players from being All-Stars. At the same time, it's great for the game that the policy wasn't in place this year. In fact, this omission is probably the greatest thing to happen to Baseball in the entire Steroid Era, and should be the final statement about it.

That's because the player in question, Manny Ramirez, is very close to winning a spot on the All-Star team, even though he was in violation of MLB's performance-enhancing drug policy.

Before MLB instituted drug testing, several of the game's biggest stars had been suspected of using drugs that were banned by the government, but not banned by Baseball. The level of evidence varies from case to case, but the reputations of every one is tarnished considerably.

Yet, during the Steroid Era, from the early 90's until recently:

• the Player's Union shielded players and stonewalled any proposed drug policy
• the owners and Commissioner looked the other way
• the media marveled at the unprecedented feats, told the fans that steroids wouldn't be helpful for baseball players, and if anything speculated that it was the ball that was juiced.

This was before there was a steroid policy. Then revelations dropped that steroids were actually commonplace and that big stars were probably using. At the news of this, the media became angry, and began to wonder if such stars do not belong in the Hall of Fame.

But what was the opinion of the typical fan, whether casual or die-hard?

During the era, it appeared they had the same view as the Union, management, and media. At the same time, one may sympathize with fans who thought the game was on the up-and-up. I, for one, followed the 1998 home run chase with some interest. I believed what I was told about workout regimens and nutritional supplements as the source of weight gain and muscle mass. I believed it when the media said that greatly-improved strength through steroieds would hurt a pitcher's control and a hitter's swing. Steroids disrupt one's body rhythm.

Then the revelations came forth that steroid use was probably true, and my thought was, "Oh, so it was steroids. Huh. What will I have for supper today?" I couldn't work myself up to have felt cheated. I couldn't work up much disappointment in the accused players.

Also, I found it hard to even get worked up about the integrity of the record book. Rare feats, and the athletes who perform them, can only be judged relative to the era in which they were performed. Everyone knows that 1950's-60's NFL running back Jim Brown wouldn't be as dominant today, as he would have rivals just as big and fast, and the defenses he would face are much larger and more athletic. 1960's NBA Giant Wilt Chamberlain would face more big men today and better athletes overall. Wayne Gretzky's passing would be disrupted by more athletic defenders, and his shots by better goalies today than in his 1980's heyday. Their accomplishments only demonstrate how much better they were than the rest in their respective eras. But their stats, taken alone, prove nothing. That goes for baseball stats as well.

Finally, I grew disgusted by Congressional investigations. I have even defended the Steroid Era, even as I'm glad MLB is taking steps to end it.

And I think the votes Manny is getting is the final statement, the coda on the Steroid Era. The media vilifies ex-players who may have used when there wasn't even a policy. Manny admits to violating the policy that is in place, yet many fans still want him in the All-Star game.

That settles it. Perhaps the Steroid Era could have been thought of as total failure by the Union, Owners, and Media, with the fans the only victims because they were deceived by the "cheating." The votes for Manny have become the response of the fans: "It's okay. We were in on it too. Perhaps we didn't know then, perhaps we were naive, perhaps we looked the other way, but today, we don't care. The users didn't do anything we wouldn't have done in the same situation."

The fan is saying, "Let's forgive and forget. By putting Manny in the All-Star game, what we are really saying is, put the best players of the era in the Hall of Fame."

And I agree. More importantly, I insist on this:

• If you are a baseball writer with a Hall of Fame vote, and
  
• if you are are outraged about the "cheating" in the Steroid Era, and
  
• if you are convinced the superstars of the era with Hall of Fame numbers were users, and
  
• you refuse to elect them to the Hall of Fame, yet
  
• during the Steroid Era, you never raised a peep of suspicion or mounted an investigation, then

Do the honorable thing and resign your vote!

Those who are guilty of stupidity and negligence - i.e., incompetence - do not deserve a position that decides if another person is worthy of an honor. That is, an honorable baseball writer with a Hall of Fame vote and righteous anger against Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod, or Manny, should think to himself: "Wait a minute. I suck as a baseball writer because I couldn't even see what was going on. Regardless of whether they deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, I don't deserve to have a vote!"

Instead of morally judging others, we are better off just moving on, with lessons learned but no regrets.

Maybe as a result of all this, baseball fans will learn to appreciate baseball statistics, and appreciate the great athletic feats, in the context of the era and stop comparing them to history. The Steroid Era will teach them to wake up and remember to judge a player not by history, but by his own era.

Hooray for James Harrison!

Contrary to this blogger, I see lots of reasons why an American citizen would have no interest in appearing in a photo-op with the President of the United States, and the lamer the excuse, the better!

So my hats off to Defensive Player of the Year and Super Bowl hero James Harrison. And he's bi-partisan in his disdain; he skipped the ceremony in 2006 when the Steelers were champs and W. was President.

Our country - and all countries - would actually be better off if governments and heads of state never sought these photo-ops, and never congratulated, honored, or recognized cultural, athletic, or technological achievements. It is out of the government's appropriate sphere, and such recognition implies that the achievement was in some way connected to - and implicitly subordinate to - the interests of the State.

If I ever did anything that would inspire a Rose Garden ceremony, the only reason I'd accept the invitation is if I thought I could exploit the brief noteriety for financial gain. Mr. Harrison is wealthy enough that he doesn't have to bother.

But by snubbing the President, he is a real role model for today's youth.

An Unbelievable Allegation

According to Jason Whitlock, Selena Roberts, then of The New York Times, helped lead the lynch mob against the Duke lacrosse team. (She turned out to be just as credible as The Times' Judith Miller was on Saddam Hussein's WMD's.) Whitlock concludes "I’m not going to trust her, not without some on-the-record reporting, not after what she wrote about the Duke lacrosse players."

I agree. Without on-the-record sources, allegations made in the book can be doubted because, as far as anyone knows, the messenger made up the message. I haven't read the book myself. That said, there is reportedly one allegation in the book that is particularly interesting. In blow-out games, A-Rod supposedly tipped off opposing batters on what the pitch would be, so that they would do the same for him and everyone could inflate their stats (except, of course, the poor pitchers). If this is true - and I don't believe it is - it is the worst thing A-Rod would have done. Not only for betraying teammates and compromising the integrity of the "game" (or at least the statistics and records), but most of all for punishing the fans.

If I were a baseball player with Hall of Fame hitting skills, I would commit myself to giving 90, maybe 95% effort. There would be situations where I'd just call it a day.

Of course, I wouldn't admit it publicly. I'd want the other team to think I'm trying. But I definitely wouldn't give full effort in blow-out games - whether I'm on the winning or the losing team.

If it's the 8th inning in a near-freezing day in April and my team is down by 7, I'm unlikely to run out every ground ball at full speed. Frankly, I would probably intentionally do less-than-my-best at the plate, in order to give the pitcher a false sense of confidence for the next time he faces me.

My feeling will be, sure, because there have been over a million Major League games played, the numbers tell us it's possible to rally from this deficit because it's been done before. But it's still unlikely. Everyone wants to go home - the opposing team, my team, the fans. Let's get out of here and make sure were not in the same situation the next day.

I would feel the same if my team is up by a huge lead. I would remain vigilant while on the field, in order to get the outs to put the game away. But I'd also be somewhat inclined to take it easy on the mediocre relief pitchers I'd face. Especially in inter-league games, or games in which my opponent is not a rival for a play-off spot. If we lose, it will be because of our own blown pitching, not because I didn't "give 110%" while at the plate or running the bases.

If my team leads the division by one game and is creaming the last-place team by 8, 12, 15 runs, they'll run out of pitchers. And what if the next day, they'll face the #2 team in the division? Instead of piling on to inflate stats, it's better to ease up on offense, do our job on defense, and allow this last-place team to be in a stronger position, pitching-wise, to face the #2 team the next day. Get the outs on defense and win the game. By the later innings, the game has to be close for the fans to even care. Give them a break - give the young adults the chance to hit the bars sooner, allow the families with bored kids to escape to the parking lot. Especially on cold or drab days.

If a game has not been competitive, my impulse in the later innings is not to pour it on to assure a victory, nor would it be to try to trigger a rally. It would, instead, be to just get it over with. Save my strength for when it counts.

I don't know what margin, at what inning, would prompt me to pull back on my offensive effort. If I played, I would find out, controlling also for home-away, relevance of opponent, time of year, the weather.

This is what I'd do as a manager. Pete Rose was banned from baseball because, as a manager betting on his own team, his choice of pitching in certain games might have affected the team's season for the long haul. So managers aren't expected to bring forth their best possible personnel every game. Just as no marathon winner is expected to be the faster runner in every 285-yard increment for 162 increments. I would argue that, for the same reason, it is wise for players to not bring forth their best possible effort every time at the plate.

A-Rod's alleged strategy was the exact opposite: if the game is out of hand anyway, let's prolong it. And betray my own pitchers in the process.

Even if I believed A-Rod was such a vain person to do this, I find it nearly impossible to believe that members of opposing teams would get in on the quid pro quo. Heck, I would publicly snitch on A-Rod just to add another distraction to the Yankee clubhouse and perhaps get him booted out of the league, so as to advance my own team's competitive chances.

So with this allegation even more so than others, I'm definitely with Whitlock. Roberts needs an on-the-record source (and in this case, more than one) for me to believe this.