It's Not that Big a Deal

By the time you read this, the Hall of Fame balloting will likely have already been released. Names like Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez and John Smoltz will likely have led the pack and deservingly so. Some of the biggest questions remain with names like Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds. Don’t let the title of this blog fool you. As most of you know, I am extremely outspoken about my stance that Clemens, Bonds and all heavy steroid users should be kept out of the Hall of Fame. But as I have continued to think over names like Clemens, Bonds and other standouts in the Steroid Era of baseball, I have come to realize that my approach towards this issue has been misguided… The approaches to most people’s arguments have also been misguided or at least the approaches of many have used improper priorities.

My argument for the longest time has been based on the premise that not only did steroids push athletes to a Hall of Fame level, but these users were master cheaters who have compromised the integrity of the game (or at least the integrity of the game’s records). While I still believe that argument holds true, an argument strictly focusing on baseball misses the true impact of the discussion. That may sound counterintuitive, but stick with me.

Since the beginning of the Steroid Era, a consistent message has been sent: Taking steroids is not that big a deal.

I use passive voice in that statement (“has been sent”) because the message has been sent by several different groups and several different people over the years. When steroids made their uprising in baseball through the 90s, Major League Baseball, coaches and players turned blind eyes to the use of illegal drugs. Let me go ahead and put this out there now… The argument that players should not be punished or held accountable because Major League Baseball did nothing about the rampant use of drugs is completely erroneous.

Let’s say I rob a convenience store with two cops inside. While I take the money, the cops see me but turn the other way. The store owner goes to the police chief and tells him what happened. The police chief does not punish the cops who were in the store. Just because those cops (eye witnesses) are not punished does not mean that I should not be held accountable. I still committed a crime. I still broke the law. This is not an “if a tree falls in the forest with no one around” argument. Wrong is wrong, illegal is illegal regardless of punishment.

Okay, back to the message being sent. The MLB, coaches and players by not speaking out about baseball’s problem during the heart of the steroid era sent a clear and concise message: taking steroids is not that big a deal.

As time went on, baseball started to climb its way back onto the sports map in the United States. Commissioner Bud Selig then started to “crack down” on steroids in baseball. While I applaud Commissioner Selig for starting the conversation on steroids and starting a protocol to punish players, MLB’s drug policy is not enough.

Before we get to the second manner in which the same message is sent, let’s discuss some of the basics of baseball’s drug policy. First offense/positive test is a 50-game suspension. Second offense is a 100-game suspension. I’m going to stop right there. A 50-game suspension is an absolute JOKE. For sake of your time, I won’t go through the details of the monetary benefits to taking steroids. If you want a more in depth look go to my previous blog “Staying Clean” and do a control-F for Melky Cabrera.

My main point? The benefits of taking steroids can and have been up to $12 million a year while the risk is being suspended less than one-third of the season. Not to mention, players can play in the minor leagues while they are suspended on the Major League level for drugs. It’s a joke. The risk is far outweighed by the reward, outweighed by millions of dollars. Players test positive and release calloused statements likely written by their agents or PR specialists. Even some apologies which bring tears to the players’ eyes don’t feel genuine. They apologize to fans then go home and count their millions.

So once again, Major League Baseball, due to its “slap on the wrist” approach to punishing steroid users, and players with their insincere apologies, send the same message: taking steroids is not that big a deal.

And here we are today. A day which is unique. Unique because the power to send a message no longer lays in the hands of Major League Baseball or coaches or players. The power of the message lays in the hands of the baseball writers who vote for the Hall of Fame.

If the writers vote in guys like Bonds and Clemens, the message will remain the same. Taking steroids is not that big a deal. But the writers can change that message that has been sent for over 20 years. They can keep users out of the Hall and tell us that taking steroids IS a big deal.

But in order to understand the impact, we have to take a look at who receives that message. Let me be clear, I’m not worried about the message going to players in the MLB or casual fans or even baseball purists. I’m worried about the message that is received by kids.

If the writers vote in the Bonds and Clemens of the world, our kids will hear a loud and clear message across the board: You can lie, cheat, break the rules, put your body at risk and even be caught doing all of that, but still make millions of dollars, gain fame and then enter into the most prestigious of groups despite not doing what’s right. And the kicker, you’ll never truly be held accountable.

What reason would a high school kid trying to go pro have to NOT take steroids? Or a college kid? Or a minor leaguer who is trying to stay afloat in the ultra-competitive world of professional baseball? For over two decades, kids have not been deterred from taking steroids by any message the MLB has sent. In fact, I would argue that kids have been encouraged to use steroids by the lack of a stance against performance enhancing drugs. Or at least any kind of serious stance.

It’s true that if Bonds and Clemens are not inducted, the greatest players during the Steroid Era will not be in the Hall of Fame. But let’s not act like keeping players out of the Hall erases them from history. People will still talk about those players and the unbelievable numbers they totaled. Their stories are not erased. They are still a part of baseball history, but they don’t have to be in the Hall of Fame.

I write this blog as a young adult who is starting to mature. I write this blog as a young adult who one day wants to have a family. One day I hope I can proudly explain to my son why players who have some of the best numbers in history are not in the Hall of Fame. I can explain that it’s not always about the result. I can explain that at some point, we all will be held accountable for our wrongdoings. I can explain to my son why he shouldn’t take steroids. I hope the writers will allow me to teach my future child that lesson.

But if the writers do induct Bonds and Clemens, my kid can counter with this… “But Dad, look at the money they made and all their accomplishments. I mean, they’re in the Hall of Fame! Look at history. Taking steroids… IT’S NOT THAT BIG A DEAL.”

STAYING CLEAN

As many of you know, I have an extremely outspoken and opinionated position on the topic of steroids/performance enhancing drugs and Major League Baseball’s Hall of Fame. Steroids and the Hall of Fame combine to create a controversial (as controversial as sports issues are) issue that strikes close to home with me. Baseball has been one of my biggest passions since I was little and the Hall of Fame is like sacred ground to any baseball-lover… And I would like to keep that ground sacred.

I recently read an article, linked by USA Today, which outlined four reasons steroid users should be included in the Hall of Fame… The article, written by Ted Berg (@ogtedberg), was creatively titled “4 Reasons the Baseball Hall of Fame should include steroid users.” Strike one Ted. Spice up the title. Before Ted goes into describing his four reasons, he tries to quiet the outrage which I’m sure some readers had when reading the title (this is a polarizing issue when it comes to baseball fans).

I have already described that this issues hits close to home, but let me assure you that I have taken emotion out of reasoning for not wanting steroid users in the Hall of Fame.

And as for Ted’s four reasons… Imagine the Oakland Raiders’ defense dropping back in a zone against the Denver Broncos. Peyton drops back and picks it a part. Well sit back and get ready for me to find the soft spots and holes in Ted’s defense.

As mentioned, before Ted gets into his reasons he makes a few statements to try to quiet the rioters. In doing so, he opens up a few opportunities for me to describe fundamental parts of my argument. Ted believes Major League Baseball should eliminate the character clause in Hall of Fame voting. According to the official definition of the requirements, “Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team on which the player played.” Let me say this up front, I AM NOT QUESTIONING OR ATTACKING STEROID USERS CHARACTER. I do not automatically assume that every person who uses steroids is a miserable human being. We’ll get into why later.

Secondly, Ted accuses fans of being angry people who believe “Cooperstown has no room for cheaters.” Another major point in my argument, people who use steroids are not petty cheaters. They’re more than that.

Take two made up people: Anthony and Michael. Now, Anthony steals a Snickers bar from a local convenience store and gets caught. Michael robs a bank and steals a car, also gets caught. Is the punishment for Antony going to be the same as Michael’s punishment? NO!! Of course not! Anthony’s lute totals about $2.14 with tax while Michael is dealing with a felony. Steroid users are MASTER CHEATERS not just cheaters.

Consider those few points, Peyton calling a few audibles to run through that Oakland defense. Not it’s time to pick apart the zone…

Before I get in too deep with this argument, please feel free to read Ted’s article by clicking this link: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/12/baseball-hall-of-fame-steroids-bonds-clemens-piazza-bagwell/#sthash.H6AXi1z2.uxfs

Ted’s first reason: End the Witch Hunt

To be honest, there’s no real concise point Ted makes here. It’s more like an overarching topic, but I’ll highlight a few of his points. Ted says that Hall of Fame voting is a “murky mess of moral judgements, finger-pointing and baseless speculation.” To start I’ll repeat myself, I am not challenging steroid-users’ character (you’ll have to wait until the end for me to fully explain that… TEASER!). As far as “finger-pointing and baseless speculation”… click this link to see my response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Yx0iKKi5xM

Baseless speculation!? Let’s take the Big 3 of steroid users: Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Alex Rodriguez. All three have been PROVEN to have taken steroids. Bonds took the argument that he unknowingly took steroids… Really? I take decent care of myself and I would know if I was taking some kind of illegal substance. A professional athlete who probably has four dietitians with him every time he orders at a restaurant didn’t know he took steroids? Come on, bro (Bryce Harper voice). Keeping steroid users out of the Hall of Fame is hardly a witch hunt.

Ted goes on to say there’s no doubt there are some players who have not been caught using steroids but undoubtedly use performance enhancing drugs. What will we do when these players make it to the Hall of Fame? To fully respond to that, I will have to know what players he is talking about. So Ted, if you read this let me know.

But for sake of argument let’s say there is a player who definitely used but it was never fully proven, what do we do? In most situations, the terms would be guilty until proven innocent. That being said, remember that the Hall of Fame is sacred ground. The burden of proof is not on the voters. It’s on the potential inductee. In other words, if there is reasonable doubt or even substantial doubt that a player used steroids: HE AIN’T GETTIN’ IN! This is sacred ground people! I don’t want someone in sacred ground that “maybe didn’t take steroids.” I want people in there that definitely did not take steroids! It’s not a witch hunt. It’s an effort to keep a sacred place pure.

Looked off the safety, completed a pass for a 30-yard gain… One of Ted’s reasons down.

Reason two, steroid users should get into the HOF (according to Ted): It will save the Hall of Fame

In 2013, there was only one player inducted into the Hall of Fame: Deacon White. Never heard of him? There’s a reason. He played from 1870 to 1891. That was it. If that’s not shocking in itself, listen to some of the names that were left out of the Hall: Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro. Sensing a trend? Steroid users. Now there were also names like Craig Biggio, Fred McGriff and Dale Murphy left out that I don’t agree with. BUT, as far as the users, bravo voting committee!

By the way, if you don’t know who votes for Hall of Fame inductees, it’s mostly sports writers who have been writing for at least ten years (I was wondering why my application kept getting denied).

In the article, Ted articulates that only one man getting voted into the Hall “can’t be good for the town or the museum.” Actually Ted, it’s a great thing! But that’s the fundamental difference in my and Ted’s views. But then Ted goes on in THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE to say, “The Hall of Fame is our greatest shrine to our best thing.” Finally, something we can agree on! Ted says greatest shrine to our best thing; I say sacred ground. So why would we want to allow something that has the potential to tarnish that sacred ground? (Letting users in the Hall).

Ted then says, “As fans who grew up loving the game in the late 1990s and early 2000s mature and start families, how many will rush to bring their kids to see a Hall of Fame that excludes their own childhood heroes?”

Let me break this down… first of all, I am the exact person that Ted is referencing. Grew up and fell in love with the game in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Secondly, Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa are hardly my childhood heroes (Doug Funny can never be dethroned in that category… he’s such a great guy). But even though their not my heroes, I get Ted’s point. And to answer his question, I WILL RUSH TO TAKE MY KIDS TO THE HALL OF FAME because it is still PURE. If roid-heads get in, then I won’t want to visit the Hall of Fame because it would be terrible to see sacred ground without its purity.

Ted’s next point is by far my favorite in his entire article. Hands down! Before I relay it to you, I want you to know that I’m really not a jerk. But if you come at me with some nonsensical ignorance, I’m going to toss back a heavy dose of sarcasm. I’m going to paste in the paragraph with Ted’s point. The capitalization is my doing for emphasis…

People sometimes ask, “How am I supposed to explain to my kid that Barry Bonds made the Hall of Fame even though he took steroids?” But that actually takes, like, 20 seconds: “The Hall of Fame honors great players, son, not great men. Barry Bonds might have been a jerk, and he was WILLING TO BREAK THE LAW TO BE BETTER AT BASEBALL. BUT MAN, COULD THAT GUY HIT.”

Put your sarcasm goggles on please… Ted! You’re absolutely right! I have been flipped on this issue. I don’t know what I was thinking. That’s exactly what I will tell my kid! So then, my kid will go on and think, “hey I’m going to go steal a bunch of money from a bunch of different people! Yeah, I’ll be breaking the law but I’ll be rich! And who knows maybe they’ll make a plaque for me if I get really good at stealing!” Thanks for that piece of philosophical gold Ted!

Okay, sarcasm goggles off… I’m not equating taking steroids to robbing banks but you get my point. Bonds cheated big time! Was he great at launching baseballs? Absolutely. But that doesn’t change the fact that he cheated to get as good as he was.

Quick aside… Barry Bonds is a unique case because I fully believe that without steroids, he still would have put up Hall of Fame numbers. Bonds could do it all as a scrawny kid. I do NOT believe he would have broken Hank Aaron’s record (I still call Hank the Homerun King) or put up the ridiculous numbers without steroids. I’ll get more in depth on that later.

Outside of keeping the Hall of Fame pure, think about the message that baseball (voters) will be sending by voting in PED-users. Do we really want to say that "cheating is wrong but it can still make you great?" That's the message we send if proven steroid users enter into the Hall. Or do we want to say, "You may have accomplished some great feats, but you cheated to the extreme, so you will not be recognized as one of our 'greatest'?" The world is materialistic enough already. Let's not continue the message that the end justifies the means. 

To get back to Ted’s point: saving the Hall of Fame. That’s exactly what I want to do, but by keeping sacred ground sacred and making sure steroids users don’t get in.

Raiders drop back in Cover 3, Peyton hits Welker with a corner out… 25 yard gain.

Ted’s third point: Recognizing Humanity

This is the part where my mind wants to explode because people want to compare two completely different issues.

Ted says that we screw up all the time. “Hall of Famers are no different.” Ted says Gaylord Perry doctored baseballs which is absolutely true. For those of you who don’t know, “doctoring” a baseball is scuffing the ball, spitting on it or putting some foreign substance on the ball. Without getting in a physics explanation (which I am completely underqualified to do), basically a baseball is a rounded surface with small interruptions as the laces. But when you “doctor” the baseball, the surface is no longer flat which makes the ball move in sometimes unexpected directions. Is that “cheating.” Yes. Did the spitball make Perry a Hall of Famer? Heck no! Plus, did he throw a spitball every time? I highly doubt it. But when’s the last time you think Barry Bonds went to the plate and thought to himself, “Hey, I’m NOT going to be on steroids during this at-bat.” Come on Ted!

Many people (including Ted) will make the argument that the use of “greenies” was rampant in Major League Baseball. Again, I’m going to spare you the chemistry and biology behind greenies, but a greenie is an amphetamine. It’s a stimulant that speeds up the heart rate. Many people who have ADHD or narcolepsy use amphetamines. In fact, I have a close friend who takes a medicine (legally of course) similar to what we are talking about. My friend (will call him Craig) and I discussed the steroid topic before and I mentioned greenies. Craig gave me a great insight into what they do.

Craig and I both played baseball at Carson-Newman. A college baseball schedule is comprised of about 50 to 60 games, usually four or five per week. Late in the season when we were playing our third game in two days, we were tired. We had to physically and mentally fight fatigue. According to Craig, if he waited to take his medicine until right before the game, he would feel energized and focused throughout the game. Better than he would have if he did not take his medicine.

Craig was a two-time all conference player for us. I never made all-conference.

Craig took meds like greenies. I did not.

Was he such a great player because of the meds? OF COURSE NOT! Craig made all-conference and I didn’t because he was a way better player than me. I was average at best. Craig was an excellent hitter with or without his medication!

If a Hall of Fame baseball player took greenies at some point in his career, he would have been a Hall of Fame player even if he did not take greenies. A player who took steroids may have put up Hall of Fame numbers but the roids boosted him tremendously. The Hall of Fame-talent was not there initially.

Now, I already know what you’re thinking. “There’s no quantifiable evidence that steroids make you better.” Actually….

In 1980, there were 3,087 home runs hit in Major League Baseball. In 2000, there were 5,693 home runs hit, almost double the number from 20 years ago. It’s true that guys naturally got stronger while parks got smaller, but let’s not bury our heads in the sand. There were almost 3,000 more home runs hit in the heart of the steroid era than there were 20 years prior. You want quantifiability? (I think that’s a word). You got it. Now someone please send me a spike in power numbers when greenies were being used.

Using greenies and using steroids is not the same thing. Just listen to the descriptive and more scientific names of the drugs. Stimulants or HUMAN GROWTH HORMONE. It’s not hard to see that one has a much bigger affect than the other. And by the way, Craig agrees with me on the matter of greenies versus roids.

Let’s go back to our two thieves Anthony and Michael. Anthony steals a Snickers bar, gets caught and gets slapped on the wrist because... well... it's a Snickers bar. The candy theft won't exactly shift the economic landscape of a store. Michael on the other hand robs a bank, gets caught and gets thrown in prison. Later in life, Anthony and Michael run for political office. News comes out that they have thievery in their pasts. 

The public hears about Anthony and the Snickers bar. They laugh. They hear about Michael and the bank. They are furious and he gets no votes.

You get my point. Are Michael and Anthony both thieves? Yes. But Michael’s thievery made much more of an impact, just like players who used greenies and steroids are technically both cheaters. But the steroids make a HUGE impact.

This leads me swiftly into my next point. And I make my point by bringing up an argument of Ted’s. He references Ty Cobb and how he climbed into the stands to beat up a man with no hands. I don’t know if that’s true, but just that there is a rumor or story that Cobb did beat up a handless man, lends itself to say Ty Cobb was as mean as they came. I do know that he used to sharpen his cleats to hurt players sliding into second. This guy was awful… at being a nice person but amazing at baseball. If Cobb was still alive, would I want to hang out with him? Not a chance? I would be scared that he would get mad and punch me or stab me with his sharpened spikes. Would I induct him into the Hall of Fame… again? Yes sir I would!

Again, it goes back to a sliding scale (that I believe the majority would be in agreement with me). Mean and selfish is not on the same level as immoral or unethical. 

Mean = Ty Cobb
Unethical = steroid users

And oh yeah… Peyton up top for another 20-yard gain.

Ted says (his 4^th point) that the Hall is to: Celebrate Great Players

Ted says that everyone was on PEDs in the steroid era. It was roid-head against roid-head. They played in a time where no one did anything about it.

Ted, you’re absolutely right. Earlier I said we shouldn’t stick our heads in the sand but that is exactly what Major League Baseball did during the steroid era. Everyone knew what was going on but no one did anything to stop it. MLB officials, players and coaches all knew it was wrong. But even with that knowledge, the prevalence of turning a blind eye does not make taking steroids right.

Just because no one does anything about it, does not justify the act. Let’s go back in history. There was a time in this country where owning another human being was legal. Did almost everyone own slaves? If you could afford it, yes. Was it right? No.

Just to be clear, I'm not equating using steroids, to owning slaves. Sounds obvious but I know there is someone who would think that.

Every steroid user is not a miserable human being with poor character, but they did make the wrong choice. Before I tell you why I don’t dub PED-users as terrible people, let me finish up the rebuttals of Ted’s article.

Ted says that all of Bonds’ 762 home runs still counts and we still celebrate the championships teams won with steroid-users on the rosters. My response to that and to PED-users… You can have your records. You can have your championships and stats.

BUT STEROID USERS, YOU WILL NOT TOUCH THE HALL OF FAME.

Did a ball go off Bonds’ bat and over the fence 762 times? Yes it did. No arguing that. You can have your record and no astrix needed, but you won’t sniff the Hall of Fame. That’s sacred ground.

We can celebrate players all we want. But the Hall of Fame is a different kind of celebrating. And to the casual baseball fan, this may not make sense.

Think of it this way. Lots of us grew up going to our grandparents houses. And we were allowed to roam all around the house knocking over things and making a mess. I mean they're our grandparents. They would let us get away with anything. But there was always this one room in my grandparents house that I was not allowed to go in. One room that was not allowed to be dirtied or even altered in any way. It was sacred.

That’s the Hall of Fame. You can dirty the rest of the house and have your records. But that one room is Staying Clean.

Peyton to Welker for the touchdown…

*******

Now that I have finished picking apart that defense, a few more explanations...

I promised I would describe why I don’t harshly question the character of steroid users. Let me start by saying, I’m speaking about the average user. Guys like Ryan Braun who constantly lied to the fans, to teammates and to friends will not get my empathy. You can’t combine all those lies and deceits and say, “I made a mistake.” No, a mistake is forgetting to make reservations on your anniversary - the punishment is probably more severe than Braun’s - not taking roids and lying to everyone about it for three years.

Anyway, here is why I can understand why guys take steroids. The reward far outweighs the risk. What’s the reward? Millions of dollars and the chance to set your family and your children for life. What’s the risk? A suspension and your reputation is tarnished. And the kicker, the suspension is only for 50 games! Are you kidding me? And oh yeah, that’s 50 games but you can still play in the minors during the suspension. That’s a joke. Excuse the straight forward language but GROW SOME, MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL! The MLB turned the other way for years about steroids and they say they are getting serious. And to their credit, they’re starting to. But a 50 game suspension for the first offense is not stopping anyone!

Look at Melky Cabrera. He started his career with the Yankees. In four years with New York and one with the Braves, Cabrera hit about .270. Solid but not great. Next year he hits .305 and a career-high 18 home runs with the Royals. Following year with the Giants (the year he was the All Star Game MVP) he hits .346! Then gets busted for steroids. In 2009 (his last year with the Yankees), Cabrera was paid $1.4 million. In 2012, when Cabrera was on roids and putting up MVP-like numbers he was getting paid $6 million. If Melky would have continued on without getting caught and putting up drug-aided numbers, he would have gotten paid like an MVP and cashed in anywhere from 12 to 16 million a year on the low end. I won’t ask what you would do, but all I’m saying is that it would be hard for me to turn down the opportunity to make that kind of glue and the opportunity to make sure that my family did not have to worry about any kind of financial issues when the risk is getting suspended for ONLY 50 GAMES.

Step it up a notch MLB. Get really serious about cracking down on PEDs.

And finally, I end with an idea. One of the best arguments about allowing steroids users into the Hall of Fame was briefly mentioned by Ted in his article. Try to find Mike Greenberg of Mike and Mike in the Morning. His articulation of this argument is phenomenal. The argument is that the Hall of Fame is for the best players of each period, and the Steroid Era, although dark and tarnished, was an era of the game that had dominating players.

Here is my answer to that but the idea is in the beta stages of development. Create a room in the Hall of Fame. A room that is dark, no AC or heat (whichever would be worse in Cooperstown), has a musty smell to it, maybe put a toilet right in the middle of the room but don’t ever clean it. And have plaques but not plaques like the rest of the Hall but plaques made of cheap printer paper and crayon. And that can be the steroid users section of the Hall of Fame.

And I would never go in it. Because I’m all about Staying Clean.

ARGUING WITH THE BEST

Twitter has undoubtedly changed the way news spreads across the world. I first learn about nearly every major sports or world news story through twitter. Many critics of this newer version of social media have learned the value of “tweeting” and have changed their views to now embrace that stupid blue bird. I can’t even remember how I learned about major stories before I started using Twitter! Did I really wait for those single, weekly visits to CNN.com or ESPN.com? Surely, I didn’t wait for the six o’clock news or Sportscenter to learn all the breaking news in the world!

Twitter has revolutionized the way the media spreads information. But the list of Twitter’s capabilities and uses extends much further than uses of the media. You can follow your favorite celebrities with hopes of gaining insight as to what they are like off the field, court, stage, etc. The more “followers” you gain, the easier you can promote a blog like this one or some kind of promotion from work. You can receive inspirational quotes or Bible verses several times a day. With the newest version of Twitter, not only can you use direct links to the latest news story, but you are one click away from looking at what other people have tweeted about that particular story. And yes, if you’re that guy or that girl, you can tweet about what you had for lunch and how stoked you are about the CSI rerun that’s on TV (don’t be ashamed. I’ve done it).

The more I use Twitter, the more I enjoy its nuances from other social media. But the other day I learned by far the most engaging and unique capability that Twitter has the potential to bring to its users.

Twitter can allow you to have a CONVERSATION with celebrities that you admire.

Okay, here’s the situation.

Yesterday morning, I was looking through Twitter on my phone like I normally do countless times throughout the day. I saw a tweet from my favorite baseball writer/reporter, Buster Olney.

Buster Olney’s Original Tweet: Character clause is in MVP voting, too "...general character, disposition, loyalty and effort..." So if HOF voters use it, why not in MVP?

Recently, news stories surfaced that Milwaukee Brewers outfielder and 2011 NL MVP Ryan Braun tested positive for performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). According to some reports, Braun’s testosterone level was twice as high as the HIGHEST test ever recorded since that type of drug testing started in baseball.

I have a strong opinion in regard to PEDs, baseball awards, and the baseball Hall of Fame (HOF) so I decided to tweet back at Buster. I do not tweet at celebrities very often but occasionally I will with no expectation of a response. The following is what I tweeted to Buster Olney:

Me in response to Buster: Awards/Records are already tarnished. HOF is still sacred. No members of HOF have used steroids.

After I sent the tweet, I jumped in the shower in preparation to start my day. When I got out of the shower, I checked my phone and saw I had a message from twitter with the name “Buster” in it. I assumed someone had retweeted what I said or messaged me back and included Buster Olney’s twitter handle in the message. When I looked closer, I realized that the Senior Baseball Writer for ESPN Magazine and my favorite baseball writer, Buster Olney had tweeted me back!

I have never witnessed a 15-year old girl see Justin Bieber for the first time, but I imagine my reaction to Buster Olney tweeting me back was similar to that girl catching her first glimpse of Bieber.

I was so ecstatic that Buster Olney tweeted me back that it took me a few minutes to come back down to earth and get into argue mode. Little did I know that those first two tweets would turn into a discussion with Buster Olney that spanned over an hour and include over 20 tweets.

The following is the actual conversation I had with Buster Olney via Twitter. I have not edited or changed ANY of our tweets in ANY way.

(PEDs = Performance Enhancing Drugs. HOF = Hall of Fame)

Buster: You say no members of the Hall of Fame have used PEDs? Please present your proof.

Me: No HOFer has EVER tested positive for PEDs. Burden of proof is in revealing guilt.

Buster: OK, I'll flip it back to you: Has Roger Clemens tested positive? McGwire? Do you have an MLB positive test for Bonds?

Me: McGwire admitted guilt. Bonds admitted use of PEDs but said he was unaware it was illegal substance. By HOF standards- guilty

Me: jury ruled mistrial with Clemens. The evidence is enough for HOF to rule him guilty.

Buster: You say a mistrial is evidence of guilt? Really? So why hasn't Clemens been sentenced to jail?

Me: HOF vote is similar but not same as court of law. Reasonable doubt makes no difference. ANY doubt- then he's not a HOF.

Buster: So what about the HOFers who've admitted or been shown to use amphetamines throughout their careers?

Me: What HOFer has admitted that? If they have admitted, then take them out of HOF. Like I said HOF is sacred, pure, spotless

Buster: You say the Hall of Fame is spotless, pure? Have you read about Ty Cobb? Tris Speaker? Gaylord Perry breaking rules? Etc.?

Buster: Go back and read books/articles about HOFers from 1950-2000; you will find many references to their use of amphetamines.

Me: "speed" wont make you a HOF. Drugs that make pple bigger-stronger-faster is an issue. Adderall is an amphetamine. Not an issue

Buster: So let me get this straight: You are saying 'speed' is not a performance-enhancer, and is pure, as far as HOF is concerned?

Me: Speed will not make a good player great or a great player a HOFer. Bonds/McGwire type drugs took them to a new/unseen level.

Buster: If speed/ amphetamines ok for hall of famers, in your eyes, why are they now banned in virtually every sport?

Me: what were rules against them AT THE TIME? Can't punish someone for a new rule 20-30 years after the fact.

Buster: You just stepped into it: what were rules during McGwire's career?

Me: Specifically- I would have to research. McGwire admitted to using ILLEGAL steroids according to reports.

Buster: Besides, your premise is HOF is pure, clean; are you sticking with that, despite speed use, Cobb, Perry, etc.?

Me: Yes to my original premise. Speed not going to create a HOFer. Breaking rules like Cobb/Perry not going to create a HOF

Buster: And current HOFers have admitted amphetamine use that was illegal.

Me: To quote...well you: "please present your proof."

Me: amphetamines not banned in baseball until 2005. Players before ban cant be punished for something that was legal at the time.

Me: It was an honor/pleasure discussing this @Buster_ESPN. If you need me for Baseball Tonight or Sportscenter, you know my twitter handle :)

That was the discussion. I have never smiled the entire time I argued with someone until that Twitter, back-and-forth with Buster Olney. I feel like I put him in check-mate when I asked him to provide proof that current Hall of Famers have admitted to using illegal amphetamines that were illegal at the time of their use. I’ll admit, Buster may have more important things to do than argue with some guy on twitter so he couldn’t continue with the discussion.

That being said, I still feel like I won the argument. Because of my victory, I also feel that I am deserving of a “follow” from Buster Olney. I tweeted a message asking everyone to ask Buster to follow me, but my plan has not yet resulted in a celebrity follow.

If you have read the argument and believe I was victorious or at least had the upper hand, do me a favor and tweet @Buster_ESPN and ask him to follow @aaron_vargas.

Here's what I want you to take away from my story: if you don’t have Twitter, you should get an account. If you have Twitter, don’t be shy about tweeting at your favorite celebrities when you have something intelligent to say, because you never know when you’ll end up ARGUING WITH THE BEST.

THE "MAN" IN MANNING

You would be hard pressed to watch a sports talk show or listen to sports talk radio without hearing an NFL topic that is continuing to rise up and spark heated discussion: Peyton Manning. The former University of Tennessee standout had neck surgery prior to the 2011 season and has failed to play a single game for the Colts this year (I know you know this, I’m just setting things up). Subsequently, “struggling” isn’t quite a strong enough adjective to describe the Colts’ winless season thus far. But the painfully terrible 2011 season has the potential to create an incredibly positive outcome in Indianapolis… if the Colts use it correctly.

The Indianapolis Colts and Miami Dolphins are the only two winless teams left in the NFL. Since the Colts and Dolphins do not play each other at any point this season, neither team has shown any signs that they’ll be able to finish the season with a tally in the win column. The good part about being so laughably bad is that the worst team in the NFL will get the first pick in the NFL draft, and this is not one of the years with a watered down draft class especially with the availability of Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck (arguably the best college quarterback prospect in 20 years). ESPN has entitled the Colts and Dolphin’s “lose-win” situation as the “Suck-for-Luck” Sweepstakes.

Let’s just assume the Indianapolis Colts do “suck” enough to draft Andrew Luck. Here’s where the heated debate comes in. What do the Colts do with both Andrew Luck and Peyton Manning? I’m going to save you some time and NOT list every single choice the Colts have in this situation. Today I heard one of the Colts’ possible choices talked about on both Sportsnation and on Sportscenter. Collin Cowherd (Sportsnation) and Herm Edwards (Sportscenter) both said the COLTS SHOULD DRAFT ANDREW LUCK AND TRADE PEYTON MANNING. Now both Cowherd and Edwards are intelligent, credible ESPN personalities so after I thought long and hard about these two’s opinion to trade Peyton Manning, I finally came to the logical conclusion for their statements; Cowherd and Edwards were belligerently drunk and obviously have a drinking problem that can only be solved with extensive rehab and Jesus.

In all seriousness, trading away a lock for the Hall of Fame like Peyton Manning is an unnecessary and desperate risk that the Colts do not need to take. Now let me admit something before I get into the thick of my argument. I do not know the extent of Peyton’s neck injury (for the rest of this blog, I am going to refer to him as “Peyton” because like all 20 plus-year Tennesseans, I believe I am on a first name basis with Peyton Manning). The Colts may know something about Peyton’s neck injury that tells them he is going to have physical limitations that will not allow him to compete at the same level. Peyton has had three neck surgeries in the last 18 months, so the long-term damage his injury and surgeries have done may be more serious than anyone in the public actually knows. For the sake of my argumentative victory, let’s assume that Peyton will not have any extremely negative affects from surgery and he will be the same quarterback that picks apart opposing defenses.

There are two enormously overwhelming reasons the Colts SHOULD NOT trade Peyton if they draft Andrew Luck: 1. Predicting the potential of collegiate players, ESPECIALLY QUARTERBACKS, is an inexact science 2. Peyton has not only proved he is a winner, but he has proved he is one of the top quarterbacks to ever play the game.

I will begin with the inexact science of projecting the professional abilities of a college quarterback. Let’s take a look at the number one overall picks in the NFL draft the last 20 years. I am only choosing to look at the last 20 years because the NFL has evolved so much, especially the past 10 years. More and more teams are moving to the “pass heavy, throw the football 50 or more times a game” plan. Teams like the Patriots, Saints, and Colts (when they have Peyton) use short passes, screens, and draw plays as a running game as apposed to pounding the ball up the middle with a big, physical back. Why is this important? Because a Super Bowl-caliber quarterback can no longer throw the ball 20 times a game, hope for no turnovers, and expect to win a championship. The burden placed on an NFL quarterback in today’s game is ENORMOUS!

So, back to the NFL draft the last 20 years. In the last 20 NFL drafts, there have been 11 quarterbacks taken first overall.

2011 – Cam Newtong

2010 – Sam Bradford

2009 – Matthew Stafford

2007 – MYSTERY MAN (I’ll get to him later)

2005 – Alex Smith

2004 – Eli Manning

2003 – Carson Palmer

2002 – David Carr

2001 – Mike Vick

1998 – Peyton Manning

1993 – Drew Bledsoe

Only two of those 11 have led their teams to a Super Bowl victory. Ironically enough both of those quarterbacks have the last name of “Manning.” Eli Manning (drafted in 2004) led the New York Giants to a championship in Super Bowl XLII (versus Patriots) and Peyton Manning (drafted in 1998) led the Colts to a victory in Super Bowl XLI (versus Bears). Drew Bledsoe (drafted first overall in 1993) won a Super Bowl with the Patriots in 2001, but he was not the starter for the majority of the season due to injury. Some other guy named Brady took over and led the team under center.

Now agreeably, you can’t determine a quarterback’s greatness solely on the number of championships he has won. I believe the number of championships won is a huge factor in that argument but that’s a discussion for another time. I’ll also admit that Newton, Bradford, and Stafford are way too young to determine their impact on the NFL, so let’s dig a little bit deeper into these 11 first overall picks. All the players on the list above, from Cam Newton to Peyton Manning are at an age where they should still be in the NFL barring catastrophic injury (Bledsoe ran out of gas in his playing career, retiring after the 2006 season). Out of the ten “should-be-active” quarterbacks taken first overall the last 20 years, three are not starters (MYSTERY MAN, Carr, and Palmer). I’m not counting Palmer as a starter because the Bengals basically disowned the guy and Palmer threw three interceptions in his first game as a Raider.

Now let’s look at the seven quarterbacks who are starters in the NFL.

I have already mentioned that both Mannings have won a Super Bowl so both the Giants and Colts are happy with their picks.

Newton is looking like he has the tools to become very good and he’s going to run the offense in Charlotte for many years to come (he has been playing for money for years so there’s no added pressure there). Sorry Jimmy Clausen.

Stafford has helped put the Lions back on the map. Nice pick Detroit.

Sam Bradford has been out for a couple weeks with an ankle injury, but I have to say I have not been impressed with his performances. I feel comfortable saying I’m not the only one who is not very optimistic about Bradford becoming a star.

Michael Vick is by far one of the most athletic and exciting players to ever play the game of football. Despite his overwhelming athleticism, the inability to read a defense has proved to be detrimental to his ability to lead a team to the dominance of a Patriots or Colts (with Peyton). Not to mention he was drafted by the Falcons not the Eagles, but it’s not really Atlanta’s fault Vick went to prison. The jury is still out on how great Mike Vick is going to be.

Alex Smith by any old quarterback’s standard is an average to slightly above average quarterback. But let’s be honest, you can’t judge a first overall pick by any old quarterback’s standards. First overall pick’s are expected to lead teams to championships. In Smith’s career, he averages 174.9 yards per game and he has thrown 60 TDs and 55 INTs. By a first overall pick’s standards, Alex Smith is not a very good quarterback.

In review, out of the ten “should-be-active” quarterbacks who were taken first overall in the last 20 years, two have one Super Bowls (Manning and Manning), two are going to be extremely good quarterbacks (Newton and Stafford), two we are not yet sure on (Vick and Bradford), two are bad quarterbacks (Palmer and Carr), and that leaves one: the MYSTERY MAN.

This guy is in a class of his own. He is not on the same level as any of the quarterbacks I have talked about so far. If you know football and the NFL draft you know the guy I’m talking about. I am about to say a name that should TERRIFY the Colts whenever they start thinking about drafting Luck and trading Peyton. I am about to drop a bomb in this argument: JAMARCUS RUSSELL…. BOOM!

I wish I could cue a video montage of Russell’s deplorable NFL career with intense music in the background. I would then show video of his amazing career at LSU with happy music and abruptly switch back to intense music and Russell throwing interceptions and fumbling in the NFL (I do have lots of free time now so stay tuned. I may consider making that video).

I am not going to mention in detail Ryan Leaf, who may be a bigger bust than Russell. Leaf was not a first overall pick. I am going to stick to my guns and only discuss Jamarcus Russell who was picked first overall by the Oakland Raiders in 2007.

First let’s go to the happy times in Russell’s playing career when he was quarterbacking at LSU. He won the starting job as a sophomore in Baton Rouge. His first year as a starter, Russell threw for 2,443 yards, 15 TDs, and completed 60% of his passes. Numbers were solid, but not great, yet Russell’s size (6’5” 265 lbs) and arm strength still had scouts and LSU fans interested. Russell’s junior season he threw for 3,129 yards, 28 TDs, and only 8 INTs. Russell also led the Bayou Bengals to a 41-14 Sugar Bowl whipping of Notre Dame, where Russell took home MVP honors. That December, Russell chose to forgo his last year at LSU and enter into the NFL draft.

Scouts were drooling over this big guy’s size and arm strength. ESPN football analyst John Clayton was quoted as saying that Russell’s size and strength were “hard to pass up on at number one [overall pick in the draft].” The Raiders did not pass up the opportunity to draft Russell and four years later, they probably wish they had passed him up.

In the equivalent of about 2 seasons (31 games), Russell’s numbers as the quarterback for the Oakland Raiders are horrendous. He only completed 52 percent of his passes, threw only 18 TDs while throwing 24 INTs which drops his career passer rating to a 65.2 (those of you who are not familiar with passer ratings, 65 is not good. Scratch that. 65 is terrible!) In 2009, Russell threw only 3 TDs and 11 INTs while putting together a passer rating of 50 (the worst passer rating for an NFL starter in over ten years).

Now, I don’t mention Jamarcus Russell to make fun of him (well, maybe I do a little. Especially because he held out prior to his first year as a Raider and then went on to put together the pitiful numbers I just showed you. I really dislike players who hold out and then can’t show out. Cough, cough… Chris Johnson… cough. But anyway, the point I am trying to make is that no matter how smart a team’s scouts are, no matter how advanced the physical tests and analysis is on a player, you simply cannot predict with all certainty the ability of a collegiate player when he comes to the NFL. The National Football League is a completely different animal than college football.

In 2004, you may remember reading or hearing about a story of a man named Ashley Revell. Mr. Revell was a 32-year-old man who spent all the money he had ($135,300) on a game of roulette. If you are not familiar with roulette, it is a simple game. There is a metal ball that you spin around on a wheel, which is divided by small spaces of red or black with different numbers. You bet on a color or number or both and if the ball lands in the area you bet on, you win money depending on the odds. Mr. Revell bet ALL of his money that the ball would land on a red space. And it did. Mr. Revell walked away with double the money he came into the game with.

Betting all of your money on red or black in a game of roulette is similar to drafting a quarterback first overall. It’s a coin flip. You just do not know how good the quarterback is going to be. You just do not know if you’re going to walk away with double your money or empty pockets and a very awkward conversation with your wife. If the Colts are to draft Andrew Luck and trade Peyton, it would not be like betting all your money on red in roulette. It would be dumber. Why? BECAUSE YOU HAVE PEYTON MANNING!

The Colts drafting Luck and trading Manning would be like a millionaire defense attorney betting all the money he had on a game of roulette to try to double his fortune. YOU’RE ALREADY A MILLIONAIRE! WHY DO YOU WANT MORE MONEY! It would be like a man with a model as a wife, looking over at a SUPER-model and being like “wow, she’s gorgeous. Maybe I should marry her instead.” YOU ALREADY HAVE A GORGEOUS WIFE! THIS SUPER MODEL MAY BE ATTRACTIVE BUT SHE MAY BE IMPOSSIBLE TO LIVE WITH! WHAT ARE YOU THINKING!?

I do not understand why people believe the Colts should trade away a proven champion and risk drafting Luck. Yes, Peyton is on the tail end of his career, BUT he’s still good. Yes, the Colts need help on the defensive side of the ball, BUT not at the expense of Peyton Manning. Defensive coordinators are TERRIFIED of playing Peyton Manning. You may hear them on the interviews the week before where they say some clichéd response like, “Well Peyton’s a great quarterback and we’re excited to face that challenge. We’re gonna work hard this week and see what we can do.” BULL! Defensive coordinators are not excited to face the challenge of Peyton Manning. The entire week leading up to a game against a Peyton-led Indianapolis Colts team, defensive coordinators wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat as the terrifying echo of Peyton barking audibles disappears into the night!

Okay, that’s enough with the emotional outbursts. Allow me to get back to logic. One of the huge arguments in getting rid of or trading Manning is that the Colts need some serious help on defense. This is true. Here is something that is also true, the Colts ALWAYS need help on defense. The Colts have eight of last year’s eleven starters on defense. It’s not exactly a completely new squad. Here’s what the Colts don’t have. They don’t have Peyton Manning using every second of the play clock and controlling the football for 40 minutes a game. On average this season, the Colts opposition has the football for ten more minutes than Indy does (Colts- 24:54, Opposition- 35.05). If you look at previous seasons, the Colts time of possession is actually fairly even, but the point is the Colts defense has to be on the field for five more minutes of game time than usual per game. Not to mention the added pressure the defense has this year the entire time they are on the field because they know the offense is not going to be able to score or comeback and win a football game.

Peyton Manning is by far the most important piece to any team in the NFL. Want me to prove it? The best three quarterbacks in the game are commonly said to be Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Drew Brees. In 2008, Tom Brady was lost at the start of the Patriots season with a knee injury. Matt Cassell stepped in and won eleven games with the Pats, narrowly missing out on the playoffs (New England finished 11-4). Granted, Matt Cassell is better than Curtis Painter and an aged Kerry Collins but the Patriots won ELEVEN games. The Colts will be lucky to win ONE game without Peyton Manning. I would argue that Brees is close to as important to the Saints as Peyton is to the Colts. If Brees got hurt, the Saints would struggle with as much as that game plan is built to throw the ball and not play defense.

So what am I proposing? The Colts should pass up one of the best quarterback prospects the last 20 years? Absolutely not. Draft Andrew Luck, because he will have one of the best quarterback coaches, maybe in the history of the NFL. Draft Luck. Keep Peyton. Peyton doesn’t even have to go far out of his way to help teach Luck. As long as the kid stays attached to the hip of Peyton, and watches what he does, looks at the film that Peyton studies, he is going to become a much better quarterback and learn aspects and techniques of the game that no one else could teach him.

If this type of scenario sounds familiar, you are probably thinking of 2005 when the Green Bay Packers drafted Aaron Rodgers in the first round despite still having the iron man Brett Favre. Three seasons after Rodgers was drafted, Favre left Green Bay and started his saga. Despite my dislike for the way that Favre went back and forth with several teams, he could still play into his forties and he’s an amazing athlete and football player. Although Favre was slinging the football around the field for other teams, Rodgers and the Packers won a Super Bowl last year.

Some people believe Peyton would not take kindly to the Colts drafting Luck. Some people believe Peyton would demand a trade if the Colts draft the stud out of Stanford. Here’s what some people do not understand. Peyton Manning is not like you or me. If the company that you or I work for, hired a younger person as a back up for us, we would quickly feel uncomfortable and request a transfer if possible. Peyton is one of the best quarterbacks to ever play. He’s not going to run out of Indianapolis with his tail between his legs because some young superstar comes riding into town. If I had to guess, if the Colts do draft Andrew Luck, this will be Peyton’s mindset, “Wow. Guys in the front office are spending a lot of money on a SECOND STRING quarterback.” Peyton is the Colts quarterback. That will not have an immediate change if they draft Luck.

Here’s something we can all agree on. No player likes to leave his team or leave the game before he is ready. That is going to happen to Peyton Manning. His neck injury, while I do not believe will take huge affect in the next two or three years, I do believe the surgeries and neck problems will shorten his career. Around the time when Peyton slows to the point where he cannot compete at the same level or it is too dangerous to compete at the same level, will be the same time when Andrew Luck will be ready to take the wheel and steer his own ship.

Here’s what I want you to take away from this blog. Don’t try to double your money in a game of roulette when you already have enough to live comfortably. Don’t go looking for a more beautiful wife when you already have a gorgeous one that you love. And don’t trade away one of the best quarterbacks to ever play the game in hopes that a 22-year-old kid can lead your team to a Super Bowl.

Draft Luck. Keep Peyton. Because Peyton puts THE “MAN” IN MANNING.

IN DEFENSE OF JETER

            Defense wins championships. Sports fans, coaches, and players use this phrase, cliché, or mantra in almost every sport. Whether there is universal truth in the statement “defense wins championships” or not, baseball seems to be a sport where pitching and defense is inarguably the most important piece to a championship puzzle. The New York Yankees have won an unprecedented 27 World Series Championships in the organization’s existence… excuse me, I just threw up in my mouth…

            Ok I’m better. Despite my extreme hatred for the New York Yankees, their dominance as a franchise is undeniable. Baseball fans across the country either hate them or love them. In the last fifteen years, the Yankees have been to the World Series 7 times and won the title 5 times. One of the common elements for the Pinstripers these past 15 years has been Derek Jeter. I think a quote from Will Ferrell’s movie, “Anchorman,” accurately describes my feelings for Jeter. Remember at the end of Anchorman when Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) is climbing up the ladder out of the bear pit? Wes Mantooth (Vince Vaughn) grabs the ladder in what seems to be an internal battle as to whether he should push Burgundy, his biggest news rival, back down into the bear pit or let him live. Mantooth looks Burgundy in the eyes and says, “Deep down in my stomach, with every inch of me, I pure, straight hate you! But, damn it do I respect you.” I know where Wes Mantooth is coming from. I have felt his pain. I have had to control myself from drop kicking my TV on several occasions when Derek Jeter has come up with a game-winning RBI but damn it do I respect him.

The Yankee captain and shortstop is going to be enshrined in the walls of the Hall of Fame when his career is all said and done. He has an uncanny ability to come up with the huge hit late in the game that makes all Yankee-haters like myself want to ram our heads through the nearest wall. Jeter’s defense seems to be just as glamorous. Baseball players across the nation (I think across the nation. I know every team I have played on) have coined the term “Jeter-it” when an infielder backhands a baseball, jumps to his feet, and twists his body in the air to make the throw to the necessary base. The Gold Gloves, the unreal defensive plays like the jump throws, and many more of Jeter’s defensive abilities are why I was bewildered at one of my friend’s statements to me a few months ago.

Lucas Harry and Lance Rorex, two of my former teammates, were arguing about something when I walked into our locker room. Rorex saw me walk in (recognized the fact that I am always up for verbal battle) and said, “Vargie come listen to what Harry thinks!” Lucas Harry, straight faced and serious, looked me in the eye and said, “Derek Jeter is a TERRIBLE defensive shortstop.”

My first thought was we have to get Harry to the nearest hospital because he was clearly overdosing on some kind of drug. Once I realized his statement was not a result of severe substance abuse, I went into argue mode. Lots of my friends refer to me as Skip Bayless (the elderly analyst on ESPN’s show “1st and 10”) because, on occasion, I will take the outlandish side to an argument purely for the chance to argue with someone. In this argument, I wasn’t going to take the eccentric side. I was actually going to defend Derek Jeter’s defense (no pun intended, seriously I didn’t mean to say it like that). I heard the arguments about Jeter’s defense before but arguing against the fact that the 7-time Gold Glover is a “terrible” defensive shortstop was not going to be difficult. I threw out the number of Gold Gloves Jeter has won, the highlight real plays, and the fact that a five-time World Series champion team could not have won that many championships and been that dominant with a “terrible” defensive shortstop (Shortstop is often seen as the most important position on the field). Harry rebutted by referring to an article that analyzed Jeter’s defensive ability. In typical nerd fashion, I went home and read the article.

The article entitled “Jeter vs. Everett” by Bill James can be found in a book called The Fielding Bible. James’ writing is filled with stats and numbers that make it slightly monotonous to read so I will try to simplify his arguments. If you want to read the actual article, go to this URL: http://www.billjamesonline.net/fieldingbible/jeter.asp

Most of the article is based around the comparison between Derek Jeter and former Houston Astro’s shortstop Adam Everett. According to the observational study referred to in the article, Everett was one of the best defensive shortstops in 2005. I still find that hard to believe especially since in the ten years Everett has been in the big leagues, he has only played in over 110 games four times and has never even come close to being considered for a Gold Glove. Despite my first skeptical thought, the article revealed some extremely interesting ideas and maybe even FACTS about Derek Jeter’s defense in 4 major arguments.

The first point in the article was based on Baseball Info Solutions observational analysis of shortstops’ defensive play in the 2005 season. It is important for you to realize that this analysis has almost nothing to do with typical fielding percentages or error counts. In 2005 Jeter and Everett’s defensive stats were almost identical. Jeter had 15 errors with a .979 fielding percentage and Everett had 14 errors with a .978 fielding percentage. Here’s how the process worked. Baseball Info Solutions analysts (AKA Super-nerds who have nothing better to do than micro-analyze stuff like this. These analysts would make Buster Olney and Peter Kurkjian both look like a modern day Fonzie) broke the baseball diamond down into 263 vectors and defined every GROUNDBALL as either softly hit, medium hit, or hard hit depending on the velocity of the groundball towards the infielders. For example (I completely made this example up), a medium hit groundball in vector 17 (directly at a shortstop) was converted to an out 95% of the time. Baseball Info Solutions looked at every groundball that was hit in the 30 MLB teams’ 162 game seasons. Yeah. Told you. They are super-nerds. If a groundball was converted into an out 50% of the time but Jeter or Everett missed this type of groundball, that is considered a missed play. If Jeter or Everett gets an out on a groundball that was fielded by a shortstop under 50% of the time, it is considered a “plus play.”

The study showed that Jeter had 19 “plus plays” and 93 “missed plays” while Everett had 59 “plus plays” and 41 “missed plays.” The analysts covered a few of their holes as all super-nerds should be able to do. Just because Jeter or Everett had a “missed play” doesn’t mean that type of groundball was fielded cleanly 100% of the time by other shortstops. Some of their “missed plays” could have only been fielded 52% of the time. Remember, this is an OBSERVATIONAL study. These guys actually watched every groundball and FLYBALL. After making adjustments for plays that were close to 50% and balls hit in the air, analysts determined there was a 40-play separation in favor of Everett. In other words, Jeter allowed 40 more base runners than Adam Everett in 2005.

The next point in the article is not a sound argument and is completely unusable in this discussion. Basically, the next study counts the number of hits that land or go through the shortstop’s area. The number of hits that get through the shortstop position is not solely dependent on the shortstop. A rocket through the six-hole (between the third baseman and shortstop) goes through the shortstop’s area but has nothing to do with any kind of defensive deficiency. It has more to do with a pitcher leaving a fastball over the heart of the plate for the hitter to crush. This particular study does not consider whether or not an average shortstop would make a specific play, therefore the article’s second argument gets the Vargas stamp of DISAPPROVAL. 

            The third point in the article is not fully explained but seems to have some grounds for making a solid point. Another company, not Baseball Info Solutions, used “Relative Range Factor” to analyze shortstops. Basically the study considers, plays made per 9 innings, pitching staff tendencies to hit their spots, surrounding defenders, and makes adjustments for the strikeout and groundball tendencies of each team. I have no idea what the opposition’s strikeouts have to do with the defensive ability of a shortstop. Like I said, this study is not fully explained. The conclusion in the study was that although Jeter was considered close to average in the 2005 season, he was almost always found near the bottom of the league when it came to Relative Range.

            John Dewan, author of The Fielding Bible, conducted the last study. The study is very similar to the Baseball Info Solutions analysis. Dewan used the same 262 vector system and velocity grade (soft, medium, hard) to analyze groundballs. If a groundball was fielded by a shortstop 50% of the time, that particular groundball was in shortstops “responsibility zone.” Jeter fielded groundballs in his responsibility zone 79% of the time and made 26 plays outside of that zone. Everett made plays in the responsibility zone 86% of the time and made 78 plays outside of that zone.

            Congratulations you made it through the super-nerd but simplified jargon to analyze Jeter’s defense. Please take a break and towel off from the mental sweat that you’re going through right now. I now my brain hurt after reading the article.

            After reading the article, I decided to do a little further research myself. There is a defensive stat in baseball that uses similar methods to analyze a player's defensive value. Forgive the lack of creativity for the name used by Major League Baseball: Total Zone- Total Fielding Runs Above Average per 1,200 innings. The stat shows how many runs a defensive player is worth. If the player has Total Zone of 10, then that player saves 10 runs from scoring in 1,200 innings compared to the average shortstop. A Total Zone of negative 10 means that player allows 10 more runs to score than the average shortstop because of his deficiencies on defense. A Total Zone of zero is the average score for a Major League shortstop. In Jeter’s fifteen-year career, he has only had a positive Total Zone rating 4 times. If you throw out Jeter’s first year in the big leagues where he only played in 15 games and made two errors, Jeter’s worst Total Zone rating is negative 21. His career Total Zone rating is negative 8. Although none of these stats fully make an argument that Jeter is a TERRIBLE defensive shortstop, they do make labeling Jeter a BELOW AVERAGE defensive shortstop pretty tough to argue against.

Here is my response. One big problem with these studies, especially the studies in the “Jeter vs. Everett” article, is that they do not consider defensive positioning. The article admits that Jeter shifts his positioning on the field much more than Everett does, but fails to admit the importance of this fact. Jeter is by far one of the most baseball savvy players in the Major Leagues. His experience and knowledge of the game are the reasons he is able to strategically position himself on the part of the infield where he believes he is most likely to field a groundball. Sometimes he is incorrect. Sometimes a pitcher misses his spot or a hitter inside-outs a pitch (hits a pitch inside to the opposite field) and crosses up the defense which does not allow Jeter to reach a ground ball the other shortstops could field because they did not shift their initial position.

My biggest issue with Total Zone and the article on Jeter is that Total Zone and the studies in the article are only analyzing Jeter’s RANGE. There is so much more to a shortstops defensive value than his left to right range. Footwork, hands, double-play turn speed, and positioning are some of the physical traits that affect a shortstop’s ability. Maybe more importantly, good instincts, leadership, communication with other fielders, and composure are intangibles that are all essential parts to having a good shortstop. Jeter’s intangibles are almost unmatched at the shortstop position or at any other position.

Let me give you an example of Jeter’s extraordinary instincts and composure. Think back to October 2001. The Yankees are playing on the road against the Oakland Athletics in game 3 of the American League Division Series. Mike Mussina and Barry Zito are in an epic pitchers’ duel. The score is 1-0 Yankees in the bottom of the 7th inning with 2 outs. Jeremy Giambi is on first with Terrence Long at the plate. Long hits a line drive down the first base line that gets all the way to the right field corner.

Pause from envisioning this moment so I can explain something. When a ball is hit down the right field corner with a runner or runners on base, the infielders lineup for a “double-cut.” In this case, the second baseman and the first baseman are aligned with home plate so they can receive the throw from the outfielder and to try throw out the runner attempting to score from first. The shortstop is generally nowhere near this relay throw.

Okay let’s flashback to October 2001. The ball is in the right field corner; Giambi is chugging around third with hopes of scoring the tying run. The relay throw comes from right fielder Shane Spencer but he severely overthrows the double-cut. It sails over the heads of Alfonso Soriano (second baseman) and Tino Martinez (first baseman). Then like Superman swooping into to save Louis Lane, Jeter comes flying towards the ball, catches it on a hop and flips it to Jorge Posada who applies the tag to Giambi who foolishly did not slide. Yankees still lead 1-0.

Come back to present day to analyze the play. If you want to see the play for yourself go to the following URLs: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=3134880

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mq_kcKHBCcA (skip ahead to around 1 minute)

INSTINCTS. In the second video, the youtube clip, I want you to see how far Jeter comes to cut that ball off. Watch where he starts running from: the infield dirt! In that situation, 99% of the shortstops would be hanging out around second base as spectators of the tying run scoring. Jeter is not like 99% of shortstops. He realized the throw was not only going to be over the heads of the double-cut but he realized it didn’t have enough velocity to get to the plate. He took off to cut the throw and make the flip to the plate even though it wasn’t the textbook play to make. INSTINCTS.

COMPOSURE. In the first link, the mlb.com video, there are a few key components. I want you to focus on the ball after it hits the ground before Jeter catches it. Many people may argue that Jeter’s back-hand flip was completely unnecessary. I say, watch the video. The ball was obviously not going to make it to the plate. The second component is the accuracy of the flip. The ball goes directly to Posada’s glove hand side which enables the catcher to quickly make a tag on the runner. By the way, bravo Jorge Posada for holding on to the ball: not an easy tag to make. Imagine the magnitude of the situation! Game 3 of a one run game in the ALDS, thousands of people in attendance watching, maybe millions watching on TV, and Jeter makes a perfect flip. COMPOSURE.

            So after the super-nerd analysis of vectors and range factors, flashbacks to an amazing play, and sarcastic babble, what is my overall rating of Derek Jeter’s defensive abilities? Here is how I break it down. Jeter’s PHYSICAL abilities as a defensive shortstop are below average. His range is severely limited and his arm strength is nothing to brag about. However, his intangibles as a defensive shortstop are off the charts. You will be hard pressed to find another shortstop as savvy as Derek Jeter. He is a composed, instinctive, and hard-nosed field general.

HARD-NOSED: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZsO4dOddaQ

            Overall, his unmatchable intangibles make up for his lack of range and arm strength. I give Derek Jeter a defensive rating of SLIGHTLY ABOVE AVERAGE.

            That being said, Derek Jeter is one of the greatest all-around shortstops to ever play the game. The championships he has brought to New York (gag-gag), the plays he has made, the clutch hits, and career stats will add to nothing short of a Hall of Fame career. For those reasons and the fact that I secretly have a huge amount of respect for Jeter, I decided to let him climb out of the bear’s pit and not push him back down to his death just like Wes Mantooth did for Ron Burgundy. For all you people who label Derek Jeter a “terrible” defensive shortstop, I wrote this blog for you. I wrote this blog IN DEFENSE OF JETER.

For those of you who just took that argumentative beat down, here is a video that might make you feel better. Actually, everyone should watch it because it’s pretty funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI-0JKX_E9I

Do it for Him

Yesterday, I played in my last meaningful college baseball game. We have four more games on the schedule but they don’t mean anything for our season. We lost two straight games in the conference tournament; including a double-digit beating we took from Catawba to essentially end our season. I’ve still yet to shed a tear and I don’t really know why I haven’t cried. Last year I balled my eyes out when we lost at conference tournament. I was completely distraught to see some of my best friends finish out their playing careers one year ago. I guess I am refusing to let reality sink in, or maybe I know I still have a few more times to put on a jersey and walk onto that grassy diamond. I am sure the last game I play; there will be no chance to hold in the emotion.

            My senior season did not turn out the way I envisioned it. In fact, my last season to play baseball has been by far the most frustrating baseball year of my life. After our first loss in conference tournament I tweeted the question “What do you do when hard work refuses to pay off?” I didn’t know the answer until today. But before I get to the answer to that question, let me give you a glimpse of how my senior season has gone. I’m usually not this negative or this concerned about telling people about my problems. After all, people have their own problems. They don’t want to hear about mine. But I believe and hope that by telling people about the last 10 months of my life, they will learn a thing or two.

            The drama began last August, right before I came back to school. I was having shoulder pain that traced all the way back to the previous season at Carson-Newman. I thought time off from throwing would make the pain go away, but I was completely wrong. An MRI revealed a torn labrum in my throwing shoulder. The labrum is similar to the meniscus in the knee except it’s in your shoulder. The tear makes throwing extremely painful and almost always requires surgery to fix. In my case, I needed surgery to repair the damage. The problem was the recovery time for surgery would have me ready to play dangerously close to the start of the season IF everything with rehab went according to plan. One minor set back during rehab and I could miss my senior season of baseball. Here were my options: 1. Have the surgery and risk getting set back and missing my last year to play baseball. 2. Postpone surgery. Rehab my shoulder and play my senior year with the tear in my arm. Now for those of you who don’t know, I play second base. You don’t need a Rafael Furcal-like arm to play second. Plus, the idea of missing my senior season terrified me so much that I chose to rehab my shoulder and play the season with the tear.

            I rehabbed and received treatment for the injury almost every day from the time I got back to school to the day our season ended (special thanks to my athletic trainer Misty Hudgins for dealing with me the entire year!). The strengthening exercises allowed me to get through the fall and play in the spring. I had to sit out more games that I would have liked during the season to give my shoulder the necessary rest, but I was able to play in the majority of the games. I often compared myself to a man in a gunfight with limited ammo. I learned certain tricks to conserve my limited ammunition (throws). When fielding a groundball, I would shuffle my feet several times before throwing. The shuffles would allow me to get closer to my target and the momentum allowed me to use my body weight to throw which in turn, took pressure off of my shoulder. Double-play turns were by far the most painful throws I had to make. I have never been stabbed before but I imagine being stabbed in the shoulder would have a similar feel to the double-play throws I had to make during season. Luckily my shortstop Troy Zawadski either touched second base himself whenever possible or booted the groundball so I didn’t have to throw (just kidding Troy. I love you man!). The point is, I had to make all kinds of adjustments throughout the season so I could play.

            The good part about the season despite my injury was that I was able to play. That’s what I wanted. However, a huge negative of the season was the success I had… or lack there of. I am embarrassed to even put this out in the public. I spent most of the year hoping people wouldn’t look at the stat sheet online. I usually don’t really care about stats or what people think about my abilities as a player, but my average was so devastatingly low that I couldn’t help but worry. I hit under 150 my senior year in college. I’m not going to make excuses for my poor offensive performance. I’ll say it was as simple as slumps, bad luck, and at times shaky confidence combining to make this the statistically worst offensive year of my life… literally. I envisioned myself riding off into the sunset at the end of my college career. After hitting below 150, it was more like an ugly stumble into a grayish evening. I wish I could say the team had great success despite my struggles, but the team finished under 500 for the first time since I have been at Carson-Newman. To our credit, despite one of the worst starts imaginable, the team rallied back and made it to the conference tournament. We all showed true character and resilience in the way we battled around the adversity we faced early in the year. Our team truly was made up of guys with amazing amounts of heart, character, perseverance, and intestinal fortitude. I love all my guys I played with for that.

            But enough with the “warm fuzzies” (as my coach Tom Griffin would put it). In summary, I played my last year hurt and had LITERALLY the worst offensive season of my life. I even hit better my freshman year of high school when I weighed about as much as a Beanie Baby. Needless to say, the last 6 months or so have been extremely tough for me. Baseball has been an enormous chunk of my life for about 18 years now. It’s been incredibly tough to see the final chapter of my playing career fizzle out the way it did. So what did I learn? I know the anticipation is rising to read what I learned but hold on a little bit longer. Before I reveal the lesson my last year taught me, I have to make another confession about one of my flaws as a person. My entire life I have been the guy that 99% of the time, people watching or not, I make the right decision. Hard work, honesty, dedication, and the right choices have been staples of my life. I’m not saying I haven’t made mistakes or bad choices. I have made lots of bad choices. I wish I could take some of those bad decisions back. But for the most part, 99% of the time, I do the right thing. The flaw?... I believed I deserved something for it. I have never verbally told anybody that belief which makes it weird that I am choosing to make that revelation on an Internet blog! (I confuse myself sometimes). I don’t think I ever actually admitted it to myself. But I believed because I work hard and do the right thing, I deserve something special.

            Here is what I learned: you are not owed anything in life. Neither God, nor the World owes you anything for your hard work or right choices. Now let me pause, because right now you’re probably thinking what a pessimistic, cynical, evil person for making me read two pages to try to teach me such a depressing lesson. The lesson for me would have stopped there if I had not made by far the best decision of my life. Two and a half years ago I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. If I had not made that decision, the lesson I learned this year would have stopped with the statement I made earlier. I would have started to believe there is no reason to work hard or to make good choices because you do not receive anything in return for doing so. I may have completely changed the type of person I was for the worse. But with Christ in my heart, I know and realize that I may not receive the earthly rewards I want and desire. BUT I will receive the best reward ever: the eternal reward of Heaven. By working hard and doing the right thing, I am giving God the glory with my life. Now, don’t misconstrue what I am saying. I am not saying that good choices and acting the right way will get you to Heaven. Good works alone will not grant you eternal life. Faith in Christ is what counts.

            I want to be successful in life and it’s completely okay to have lofty goals for yourself. I am simply saying and pleading you to realize, no matter how amazing the accomplishment, no matter how much money, fame, or popularity you gain by achieving your goals, the rewards are not worth as much as the reward for giving God the glory with your life. I may have told you about that idea before this past year, but I don’t think I truly believed it until now. I wanted to hit 300 this year. I wanted to have the best year of my life on the field. Did I deserve to have that kind of year? Who knows. I man much wiser than me once said, “God doesn’t treat us the way we DESERVE to be treated. God treats us the way we NEED to be treated.” I NEEDED to learn this lesson. Whether I deserved it or not, it really doesn’t matter. Because the truth of the matter is, we don’t want what we deserve. As human beings, we don’t deserve very much. One of the lyrics in Lecrae’s song entitled Boasting says, “God has never been obligated to give us life/ If we fought for our rights, we’d be in hell tonight.” Lecrae is absolutely right.

            Again I want to make sure my message is clear. I am not saying that working hard won’t get you what you want. Hard work and good choices can ABSOLUTELY allow you to achieve great things in life. I have achieved some amazing things already in life because of the choices I have made and the work I have put in. But don’t be discouraged when you don’t receive the earthly rewards that you were expecting because the eternal reward will be so much sweeter than anything you could obtain in this life (my translation of 2 Corinthians 4:17-18).

            We are all blessed. Whether you believe in Him or not, God has given out so many blessings to us. Cherish all the good things in your life, because they are blessings. I have so many reasons to be thankful. I have two parents that would literally do ANYTHING for me. I have a brother who will support me in whatever I do. I have made countless friends that I know will always have my back. And those are just the relationships I am blessed with. The list would go on forever if I told you every way I am blessed. I may have hit far below the average I wanted to achieve my last year of playing baseball, but that’s okay.

I don’t know what Heaven is going to be like but I can dream. In my dream when I’m in heaven, there’s going to be a baseball season. In that season, I’m going to hit around 456 with 12 triples. I know God isn’t big on greed so I’m only going to hit two homeruns (I always thought taking 4 bases at one time is SO GREEDY!). And I know God isn’t big on stealing but I think he’ll forgive me for the 137 bases I steal when I’m in Heaven!

            So thank you God, for teaching me this lesson about earthly rewards. I used to think I was owed a reward for making good decisions. Now I have learned otherwise. I’m going to continue making the right choice not for the earthly reward and not for a reward that is OWED to me. God will undeservingly reward us because of his love, grace, and mercy. He works in mysterious ways. He works in ways that we don’t want. But in the end, He works in ways to make us stronger. So to answer my question, what do you do when hard work refuses to pay off? You keep working hard. You keep doing the right thing. It WILL pay off and probably already has. If you don’t get the worldly rewards you were expecting, stay the course. Because the reward for giving God the glory with your life will be so much sweeter than anything in this life. Keep working hard. Keep making the right decisions. If not for you, then do it for Him.