Major league shame
4
|
The Hardball Times found this 6/28/2007 on www.hardballtimes.com [flag] |
Tags:
MLB
Comments (36)
-
smirkypants +1It's an outrage! Of course the wildcard is chosen based primarily on record. You don't think the Dodgers had a little bit of an advantage over the National League east teams last year? Let's just scrap the divisions! Interleague play is fun and gives you the chance to see players you would never otherwise ever ever ever see. It's not inherently fair, but neither is playing in the same division as the Yankees and the Red Sox. -
studes What's the big deal about "seeing players from other teams?" Ever hear of TV?
-
smirkypants And I suppose seeing a music video is the same as seeing a performer live in concert? Haven't you ever been jealous of someone who said something like "you know, I was at the ballpark when..." An old boss of mine used to say "when Willie Mays made that amazing catch." I've seen it on TV a million times. Is that the same?-
studes Actually, no I haven't been jealous of a person saying that. But that's just me. I watch a lot of baseball on TV, and I enjoy watching a game more on TV than at a ballpark, at least when it comes to appreciating play. You get to see what pitches are being thrown, you can see instant replay, etc.
I enjoy the atmosphere of going to a ballgame, no doubt. But to appreciate the nuances of a certain player, I'd rather watch TV. Sounds like you enjoy being at a game so you can say you saw a player do something special. How often does that happen at an interleague game?
-
-
-
SlinkyRedfoot I love THT; I visit the sites daily and get all their publications. But it sounds to me like a whiney kid wrote this article. On this one, Dave's full of S. "It's unfair, waaaaaaaaaa." How do the Royals feel being in the AL Central and having to compete against the Tigers, Indians and Twins? How about the Devil Rays or Orioles who have to compete in the same division as the two top-spending teams in the majors? Wouldn't they rather be in the west, or in the NL Central? Of course. Why don't we move them?
Also, the BS about Interleague play being as much of an outrage as steroids?!? You've got to be effing kidding me. That statement makes me question Mr. Studeman's thought processes. Further, in his comparison he makes three pretty big (as well as shaky) assumptions and we all know what happens when one assumes. I, for one, ain't buying.
Kids have ruined their lives by taking steroids in an effort to emulate their sports heroes. I’d like Dave to give me one example of how Interleague play has ever ruined a life. Dave Studeman, though I usually enjoy his work, should be effing ashamed of himself for writing this crap.
-
studes I'm not ashamed of it at all. I'm proud that I decided to bring up an issue that other people aren't addressing head on.
Comparing interleague play to division play isn't the same thing. All teams in a division play each other the same number of times. It's just as fair as any league, ever, in the history of baseball. Interleague play is completely different.
I have never, ever encouraged my kids to emulate ballplayers. They aren't role models. Why aren't you just as outraged at spitting tobacco, which causes cancer, or greenies? Why do you think steroids have ruined kids' lives more than these things?
-
SlinkyRedfoot Okay, let me get this straight: "comparing interleague play to division play isn't the same thing", and I’m way off base for bringing it up, but comparing interleague play to steroids is fair game? Are you serious?Once again, Dave, you're making some shaky assumptions. You're assuming that 1) I'm outraged about steroid use in baseball; 2) that I'm not as outraged about tobacco or greenies; and 3) that I think steroids have ruined kids' lives more than tobacco or greenies.
The fact is, I'm not that outraged about steroids in professional sports. Do I think it's a good thing? No. Do I think it sets a good example for anyone aspiring to be a pro athlete? No. But am I "outraged"? No again. The fact that your first assumption is incorrect makes your second assumption an impossibility. Your third assumption is false, too. I'd bet tobacco has ruined more lives than steroids and greenies combined -- but I'm not even outraged by tobacco use.
I'm not outraged at anything. I was surprised that an adult (especially one who usually writes such great stuff – I LOVE “10 Things I Learned…”) would publish an article comparing interleague play to steroids -- it’s irresponsible.
-
studes I don't see how my article was irresponsible. First, I made it clear that I was comparing the two issues based on the innate unfairness of them. You may think my assumptions were shaky, and that's fine. But shaky assumptions are not the same thing as being irresponsible.
What's more, my main point is that they are directly comparable because, on the part of MLB, they come from the same source: MLB's willingness to overlook fundamental fairness issues in the name of the almighty dollar. I think ignoring the "darkness at the heart of MLB" (if I may be dramatic for a moment) is what's actually irresponsible.
-
-
-
-
diehlce An interesting article. Unfortunately, based on comments like, "How do the Royals feel being in the AL Central," perhaps the main point of the article was lost on some readers...? In fact, my initial reaction was the same, but upon reading the article again, it's important to understand the issue is NOT that teams might end up playing bad (or good) teams, but that they are not playing the *same* bad (or good) teams and also not playing those teams the *same number of times.*
In other words, if all NL East teams had to play the Red Sox for six games (as the Braves did), that would make interleague play more fair, at least within that division. The fact that teams within each division not only play *different opponents* but also a *different number of games* (a la the Cubs) is inherently unfair. Based on this thesis, the "Devil Rays or Orioles compet[ing] in the same division as the two top-spending teams in the majors" argument holds no water for me. It looks like the author stresses this point in one of his comments above.
As for the steroids comparison, while I agree with the article's point that the unfairness of interleague play has had an affect on the standings (similar to steroids), I don't agree fully with the author's line, "The steroid scandal is all about unfairness." Yes, unfairness played (plays?) a role, and a big one, but in my mind, the sense of betrayal on the part of fans is more because of the deceit. In 1998, fans believed the McGwire/Sosa HR chase was on the level, which made it special. When we found out those players (McGwire in particular) seemed to be hiding something (keeping in mind that nothing has been proven, of course), that's when we got angry.
Unfairness in interleague play is something that anyone can see by looking at the schedule, and I think fans have either accepted the unfairness at the expense of the fun of intracity/intrastate rivalries (Mets/Yanks, Cubs/Sox, etc.) or they simply don't care. While still unfair, at least there is no deception as there has been with the steroids era.
As the article rightly points out, fans like to see homeruns and they like to see intracity/state rivalries. What they don't like is being lied to, and that's I think where the interleague-steroid comparison breaks down. Should fans be outraged? Maybe. But at least they have all the information they need to decide whether they should be outraged or not. The same cannot be said of the steroid debate.
-
studes Very well put, diehlce. But I don't think that fan acceptance of interleague play should be the barometer of whether it's good for the game or not (I know you're not really saying it should).
Whenever something is inherently unfair, there are winners and losers. Most fans only care about their team, so, as a group, fans will always feel about the same about the issue. Fans of favored teams will feel better about it, fans of unfavored teams will feel worse.
IMO, it's up to MLB to ensure that competition is inherently fair, because fans, in total, won't care.
Good point about steroids and deception, and the interleague isn't a secret. But it's just as unfair to fans of certain teams as steroids might have been.
-
-
bads85 I know there is sometimes a lag time at THT from when an article is written and when it is published, but the Marlins are no longer a part of a "close race in the NL East." Of course, your point that the Braves were at a disadvantage still stands, but a comparison with the Dartboard between the Braves and the Mets and Phillies would be more telling in regards to a divisional race being disrupted by unfair scheduling.
-
studes I guess I don't consider eight games out at this juncture to be out of the race. Besides, the specific teams involved don't change the argument. If the unfairness issue doesn't happen to impact teams directly competing this year, that's just chance. It could easily happen in any given year.
-
-
eph2k Dave, an interesting article and analysis, but I believe you may have overstated the effect.
You seem to have chosen two extremes on which to base your comparison, i.e., the Braves who "had it worst" and the Marlins. You then base your fairness argument on the current records of their respective interleague opponents. While the comparative strengths of those two interleague schedules does appear at this moment to be unfair, the folks who wrote the schedule probably couldn't have predicted that disparity. In fact, if you look at a rival website's pre-season team-by-team record predictions, you'd see that the Braves' interleague rivals had a predicted .554 win percentage (lower than the .617 that they currently have) while the Marlins' rivals had a predicted .494 win percentage (slightly higher than the .489 that they currently have). If .617 vs. .489 meant two games in the standings, then I'd guess that .554 vs. .494 probably means one game. And to me, that's not really a big deal. The NFL does this, with the better teams playing a stronger predicted schedule than the worse teams, and I think most people had the Braves finishing ahead of the Marlins this year. So if anything, that one game disparity is just a small leveling of the playing field.
That said, the interleague system is definitely in need of repair, given the difference in the number of interleague games that teams play -- as you point out -- plus home-away disparities, etc.
Plus I think the whole "natural rival" thing is annoying. I'm from Boston, and I can tell you that no one in Boston cares that the Braves used to play in Boston way back when. We'd rather play Philadelphia so that two of the more insane groups of fans can square off a couple times a year.
-
studes Great point. I agree that the schedule-makers have a difficult time of it. But there will always be a disparity like the one that occurred this year, and it will probably be unpredictable. That's sort of my point. Interleague play is inherently unfair, even though it's hard to predict just who it will be unfair to.
-
-
bads85 Well, the Marlins are eight games out, and even with the scheduling advantage from IL, they are playing at a .462 clip. Most importantly, they just aren't a good team this year. Their defense is atrocious and their pitching is not very good (4.52 FIP). Sure, they are not "out of it", and stranger things have happened, but at this point I wouldn't call them a contender.
Yes, the specific teams involved don't change the argument, but how often has the IL schedule unfairly affected the playoff picture since its inception (I think it helped the Astros get the Wild Card one year)? I would venture an imbalanced IL schedule doesn't adversely affect really good teams very much-- The Tigers went 14-4 this year in IL, despite having a tougher IL schedule than Cleveland, who went 9-9. As for the Braves, yes, the schedule was unfair, but their atrcocious play in IL probably had more to do with their poor showing (their RS/RA was 48/77 in IL). The Nats didn't exactly have an easy IL schedule, yet still went 9-9. If the Braves narrowly miss the playoffs, the performance in IL play would be the primary culprit, not the schedule.
All this is really a side point -- IL brings more positives to the game than just money in the owner's pockets. IL has allowed rivalries that did not exist to blossom if not explode (e.g. Dodgers/Angels), plus it has brought exciting matchups to cities (the BOS/SD was absolutely electric this past weekend even before the Beckett/Peavy finale). Sure, there are some dud matchups, but we have those every day of the season. Unless certain teams are contracted, bad matchups will always exist in any format.
The cost of this is an imbalanced schedule that could be greatly improved with some tweaking (as you mentioned). Since you didn't publish the data for all teams, I am assuming the Florida/Atlanta example is the extreme (and yes, two wins as a result of scheduling is extreme). However, is an anomaly? Does this happen every year? What has been the range in difference of schedule quality since IL's inception?
Before we condemn IL play as a "travesty" because of the imbalanced schedule (and the imbalanced schedule presents its own set of problems in straight league play in regards to the Wild Card -- I point my finger at the goofy small division format for creating an unlevel playing field), a more extensive study encompassing all years of IL using your methodology should be conducted. I am too lazy to do that though.
-
SlinkyRedfoot Above, diehcle states, "In 1998, fans believed the McGwire/Sosa HR chase was on the level."
Anyone who thought that was "on the level" either didn’t care, ignored the truth for their own reasons, or didn't follow baseball/stats that closely. From 1987 through 1992, Mark McGwire averaged a little over 36 HR per season and was hitting one every 14.2 ABs. From '95 - '99, he smacked 56.8 HR per year and dropped his AB/HR down to 6.9 (note: he only had 219 combined ABs in '93 and '94, that's why I did not include them). From '90-'97 Sosa averaged 30.8 HR per season and 17.6 AB/HR, then for '98 and '99 he jumped to 64.5 HR per season and a HR every 9.8 ABs.
You can’t tell me that anyone who was paying attention to ANY baseball stats back then saw that McGwire and Sosa basically DOUBLED their home run production during one off-season and didn’t think anything was up. Well, I guess you can tell me that, but you’ll lose all credibility.
-
diehlce bads85, a lot of great points here, especially the one about doing a more comprehensive analysis of past seasons. It's amazing sometimes how our eyes or initial perceptions can deceive.
However, one sentence jumped out at me: "If the Braves narrowly miss the playoffs, the performance in IL play would be the primary culprit, not the schedule." But isn't performance in IL play contingent on what teams you play?
In other words, the Braves had a poor IL run differential because they played the Boston Red Sox, at the time, arguably the best team in the AL, if not all of baseball. They were outscored 38-29 in both series. Had they been able to play the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, we would assume that their run differential would have been much improved.
In the end, the result of what the Marlins did in Tampa is irrelevant to me in terms of this discussion. While I agree with your hypothesis that IL play probably doesn't affect good teams very much, it still has an effect, and any effect presents unfairness. Even if Atlanta had swept Boston 6-0 and Tampa had swept Florida 6-0, that still doesn't change the fact that two teams within the same division (in this example, both NL and AL East) had to play different opponents.
I also totally agree with the fact that IL has brought a lot of excitement to the game for fans. I live in Chicago and Cubs/White Sox has always been loads of fun, no matter where the teams are in the standings. It's become a series I look forward to watching. But it is good or bad for the game **from a competitive balance standpoint**? I don't think there is any question that it's bad--this year the White Sox aren't playing well, so there are probably a lot of fans up in Wisconsin who are a little peeved they didn't get to play them 6 times the way the Cubs did.
In the end, I agree with you that bad matchups will always occur. But I believe this article is trying to make the distinction between a "bad" matchup and an "unfair" matchup. A lot of times bad matchups occur because the teams just aren't playing well--there isn't much we can do about that. But the schedule isn't something that just happens--people create it. Since someone has power over who plays whom, let's try to get it right for all teams involved. Again, I would endorse Dave's call to keep the one regional matchup per year and then fitting together the rest of IL play as best can be done.
This entire article really strikes at the heart what defines fairness when it comes to scheduling. The only leagues that have probably ever been "truly" fair are the American and National Leagues pre-divisional play and the current English Premiership (and for that matter, most of European football), where everyone plays everyone else in the league an exact same number of times.
Outside of that sort of scenario, some teams are going to gain a competitive advantage. I would agree with the author that it's up to MLB to reduce those advantages to the extent they can.
-
bads85 diehlce,
I might have overstated my case about the Braves; however, I would say it was a combination of the Braves' schedule and their play that resulted in their poor performace in IL. For the most part they just stunk -- and not just in the six games with Boston -- their run differential was worse against the Twins and the Tigers (5/16;1/12). As Studes noted, they underperformed what a team with their record would be expected to do, so if they narrowly miss the post season, there will be more to it than the schedule imbalance; their performance below what was expected counts also.
As for IL being bad for competitive balance; it certainly appears bad, but how bad should be better quantified before IL is labeled a travesty. Competitive imbalance alone should not be used to judge if IL is successful. The Cubs received a "soft" IL schedule, but a byproduct of that is more games outside their awful division than the Brewers. I don't want to take the time to wade through the Cubs' schedule, but if they have to play the top teams of the NL East or West, any IL schedule advantage could be a wash.
Yes, there is an unfairness with the IL schedule. Yes, MLB should try to correct that, but with the current division format, there will always be scheduling injustices. I agree that MLB should tweak the current IL system. MLB isn't going to axe the home/away natural rival scenarios, but perhaps they could reduce them to four consecutive games, two at each park. Since these are mostly regional rivalries, travel time will be minimal. MLB should also not force natural rivalries on teams (Boston/Atlanta) and use some common with other games (Toronto playing LA six times was ridiculous).
I agree that Studes' article gets to the meat of IL scheduling unfairness. However, unless that unfairness is consistently altering the playoff picture, I think that unfairness is outweighed by the positives of IL play.
-
studes Great posts. There is also a good discussion at John's blog, with some interesting ideas (such as actually increasing the number of interleague games, so that the number of other-league teams is more likely to be even-handed).
One point: very few things consistently alter the playoff picture. To me, that's a very high barrier. If that is the ultimate criterion for fairness, than just about anything goes.
-
bads85 I wasn't trying to establish an "ultimate criterion" for fairness, nor was I implying that any unfairness that doesn't alter the playoff picture should be ignored with a fix not attempted. However, in modern baseball, the point of the 162 game season is to determine who gets to play in the post season. A two game indifference in the scheduling is a big deal, but if it is not happening often, I don't think the villagers need to head to the edge of town with torches to slay Frankenstein -- maybe just beat his knees with a hammer, especially since baseball is rife with other competitive imbalances.
-
SlinkyRedfoot Rife. And that's what I love.
BRING ON A INDIANS BREWERS World Series!!!
-
-
SlinkyRedfoot Now we're talking. Just about anything goes. That's it. That's how to sum it up. That's what I love. This game, baseball, that's earned the moniker "American Pastime”, should be just that. It's America, in sport form. There's no salary cap, there's no fairness; it's a dog eat dog world, my friend, and it's based on the, as you put it, Dave, the "almighty dollar." Baseball is the only sport that is a microcosm of the American economy; and though I admit, I love the tension of a 3-2 count, bases loaded, pitching team leads by one and the teams slugger up to bat against a flame-throwing pitcher... the game hangs in the balance, what I really love is the competition. This world isn't fair. This country isn't fair, its economics aren't fair. That's what I want in a sport. I want to see my Tribe KICK ASS on a so-called shoestring budget, with owners that will shell out to pay a man like Shapiro to do his great work in Cleveland.
I went to school in Boston, and that's where I learned to love baseball, so I am a Red Sox fan as well as an Indians fan, but I take SO much more pride in what the Tribe has done since the free-spending (and winning) days of Hart's tenure or what the Henry group has done in Boston. I'm sure, to a lifetime Sox fan, they'd see me as a Jhonny (in honor of Peralta) come lately because my family didn't spend generations "bleeding" over the RSox, but I was in Boston during the early '90's, and it didn't cost me a quarter of what it does now to see a game at Fenway and I could buy tickets at the gate.
I want this shit to be unfair, just like America. I don’t want a salary cap, and I don’t want an even schedule. I want to root for the underdog, just like me. I want the wrench, because FU. I want to overcome the wrench, and I want my team to do the same. I want the Indians to have a schedule full of Angels, Red Sox, Yankees, Cardinals and Braves every year; and they may lose 99 out of 100 years, but that one year… that one day… when your team overcomes the seemingly most insurmountable obstacle to win it all…
Nothing in baseball has ever been fair. All the records are tainted. Not just by steroids, but by changing the balls, the bats, the lengths of seasons, et al. This is America, and this is our sport. If you want fairness, go for the NFL, or NASCAR, or what the F ever.
It’s a beautiful sport. I, personally, watch no other. It’s not fair and I think that’s what I love the most.
-
-
diehlce I understand your clarification for factoring performance in as well, as the RD with the Tigers and Twins shows. Thanks for posting it.
In the end, I think we are both in agreement--using the eyeball test, I would say that the positives do outweigh the negatives when it comes to IL play. My posts aside, before reading this article, I was definitely in the pro-IL camp. I'm not as much now because of this article, but I absolutely agree that we are just scratching the surface of this issue and that more work would need to be done before reaching a conclusion either way.
As for the Cubs, a *very* quick perusal of their schedule reveals that their schedule hiccup appeared to be a third series against San Diego. They had a two-game series at Wrigley in April, a three-game series at Petco in May and then a three-game series at Wrigley in June. As I recall, the Cubs/Padres series that weekend was the only non-IL series, considering the two extra teams in the NL. So while the Cubs got out of some IL games, they got some extra games against a solid team from the NL West. But then, they got two of those series at home--an unfair schedule imbalance for San Diego? With 30 teams, the variables for scheduling can make one dizzy...
-
-
-
diehlce Sorry this is off the point of the article, but I do feel compelled to respond:
OK, maybe not everyone truly, deep down in their heart of hearts believed that the 1998 HR chase was completely, totally, unquestionably on the level. With Sosa especially, where did all that power come from? Certainly, it was odd.
But did you watch when McGwire hit #61? Did you go to any of the games during the chase? I watched McGwire and Sosa embrace at Busch Stadium, and I went to several of the games in which McGwire and Sosa played. Those moments were treated as something special (in a good way) by the media and every baseball fan I knew.
Did you attend any of the games late that season in which Sosa and McGwire played? If so, I assume you saw the crowds literally stop everything they were doing when those guys came to the plate, tens of thousands of people waiting with baited breath to see if they would hit one out, and when they did, nothing but joy erupting. If you were in the stands, I would be willing to bet you were one of them.
I saw McGwire hit one out in Milwaukee in September that year (after he had already surpassed Maris) and the Milwaukee crowd gave him a standing ovation. I still have the program from that game, and McGwire, Sosa and Maris are on the cover--think about that: A Brewers program featuring a Cub, Cardinal and Yankee on the cover.
So I suppose I would fall into your category of "ignored the truth for my own reasons" in your list, but the reason was that, with really no hard evidence (or even circumstantial evidence) to the contrary, I chose to believe I was witnessing history, one of those literal once-in-a-lifetime moments you tell your grandkids about. I don't think I was alone in that assessment.
When you break down the numbers, especially in today's atmosphere, it's much easier to say, "Well, it's clear they were juiced." If you were in fact one of the few people who didn't buy the HR chase at all, or sat by and shook your head at the poor fools oohing and ahhhing at the sham homers, then I salute you: You ignored the overwhelming hype and weren't fooled. Obviously, I can't speak for all baseball fans who were around in 1998, but from my perspective, steroids were the last thing on anyone's mind back then--and looking back, maybe foolishly so.
-
diehlce One note--I guess that one reporter discovered andro in McGwire's locker during that season, but it was a substance not banned by MLB at the time (?), as I recall, and I think it was something you could buy at GNC. A few people got on the "he's on drugs" bandwagon at that point, but not too many.It was nothing compared to the mountain of circumstantial evidence and leaked testimony that has piled up for Bonds. -
studes I have to admit that I'm with SlinkyRedfoot on this one. I have a brother who's in track and field, where steroids are a big issue (as they are in most sports) and he sensitized me to the issue. So I didn't necessarily "know" McGwire and Sosa were on steroids, but I certainly wasn't surprised when the steroids implications came out.
Maybe that's part of the reason my reaction to the whole thing is more muted. I don't feel that I was deceived.
-
diehlce No, I wasn't surprised either. I don't think many people were. My point was, think back to how you felt while it was going on.
Maybe my memory is failing me, but the atmosphere in 1998 among members of the media and among the people I knew was overwhelmingly positive. At that game in Milwaukee I mentioned in my previous post, there was one guy who kept saying McGwire was on illegal drugs for most of the game and everyone in our entire section told him to stuff it.
Contrast that with today--Bonds's chase of Aaron is being treated mostly as an embarrassment. I certainly don't remember the Sosa/McGwire chase being treated that way. Does anyone else?
-
studes Agreed. But your original statement was that the steroids scandal wasn't really the best comparison to the interleague schedule because of the deception involved.
If most people weren't surprised that McGwire and Sosa took steroids, then where's the deception?
If the real issue is that most fans and media chose to ignore the taint of steroids, then I think the comparison is stronger. Most fans and media are choosing to ignore the interleague schedule inequity, too.
-
bads85 Taking steroids is a blatant act of cheating --- cheating beyond what is normally accepted in baseball. Unless the schedule makers were bribed/cajoled to help the Marlins receive a two game advantage, cheating wasn't involved. Most people would probably consider the inequities of the schedule a product that is out of a teams' control -- like the Indians getting a week of baseball snowed out, having to play three games in Milwaukee, losing two off days, and having to make up a home game on the road late in the season. No, it is not an apt analogy, but the masses don't usually concern themselves with inaccuracies.
On another note, the steroids backlash has very little to do with a team gaining an unfair advantage -- it is the pursuit of individual records that has people up in arms. I suppose that is some sort of condemnation of fans, but that is the mindset.
-
studes We come from different angles on this issue. Yes, players cheated when they took steroids, but, in my book, the far bigger moral crime was done by MLB, by implicitly condoning steroid use.
Imagine if you were an accountant, and only one firm hired accountants. Imagine, too, that your level of training rendered you unable to do anything else. You have a chance to make millions with the one accounting firm, or work at McDonalds.
Finally, let's say this accounting firm doesn't have a clearly enforced rule saying you shouldn't take a certain prescription drug without a prescription. And you see others in the firm making millions by taking this drug when you don't. For many of them, taking drugs without a prescription isn't a crime in their home countries.
In my book, it is up to the accounting firm to make a clear and enforced employee rule about this. Anything less is inviting rampant drug use.
I'm not saying that players didn't cheat, but I am saying that what they did is understandable. Given the way MLB turned the other way, I don't think their level of "cheating" (taking a drug without a prescription, which isn't even illegal in many countries outside the US) is anything close to a moral crime like cheating on one's wife or driving when drunk or even corking a bat.
Don't you think, in that situation, the accounting firm has an extra moral obligation to make sure it is explicitly clear about what is okay and what isn't? I find MLB's silence on the issue (and hence, their implicit approval) to be the much bigger crime, and that is what outrages me about the steroid scandal.
Finally, I am saying, in this article, that the interleague schedule is the result of the same moral dynamic, from MLB's point of view. They see fans in the stands, they look the other way. It isn't individual cheating, it's worse. It's organizational moral malaise within an institution that holds a public trust. That's why I think it's a major league shame.
-
bads85 First of all, ballplayers have many more alternative job routes than working at McDonalds, Juffy Lube, or the Big O. Sure, the job opportunities aren't going to make them millionaires quickly, but it is not an issue of cheat or be at the bottom of the job chain. Yes, some (many?) of them would be, especially those from poverty, but you are painting with too broad of strokes. The legality of taking drugs without a prescription in a player's home country is a red herring --- MLB is played primarily in the U.S., and workers are supposed to follow the laws of the country in which they are working.
The hyperbolic analogies don't strengthen your case; in fact, they seem to be creating resistance to your main point -- that the IL schedule can and does present scheduling inequitie -- but let's follow your analogy for a bit.
I assume the accountants' prescription drug increases their performance, but has some sort of long term ill effect -- in forty years, their brian might turn to mush. If that is the case, then yes, The Firm has a moral obligation to police the drug use. However, this country was built on Captains of Industry exploiting workers for profit (which doesn't make it right, but is an ugly side of capitalsim that can't be ignored), which led to labor unions, which were formed through the spilling of blood to protect the workers.
Unlike your accountants, baseball players have a union, a very strong union. However, that union did nothing to protect its workers in regards to regulating steroids -- or even education about steroids. If we are going to pass moral judgment on baseball's steroids problem, it goes well beyond MLB.
As for a moral malaise with scheduling, I don't think the Marlins' two game advantage proves that. Since you only presented that and the Cubs (whose IL advantaged appears to be negated by having to play more teams outside its divisions). Until someone does a more complete study, we don't know if this was just an anomaly. Sure, we'd like to see this type of stuff prevented in the future, but making a balanced schedule is an arduous task in the current division format. It was the 2007 White Sox that played a large part in the imbalancing (both the Marlins and the Cubs played them), and I don't think the schedule makers should be faulted for not predicting and adjusting to the Sox sorry performance.
Unless baseball scraps the current division format and returns to a balanced schedule (something I am all for), there will always be scheduling inequities. Baseball isn't going back to the old format, and there are some strong arguments as to why it should not. If the Marlins case is an isolated incident (it so far is the only case presented that holds water), then baseball has done a pretty damn good job balancing the IL schedule. I doubt if the Marlins' case is the only such case, which is why I'd like to see a more detailed study including all years of IL. Still, I think it is premature to the label IL schedule a moral malaise on par with the steroids infestation based on the evidence presented.
-
studes Well, we've talked this one out, but I don't see your points directly addressing mine. If you want to lump the union in with MLB, that's fine with me. And if you want to say that MLB's moral actions are on a par with the trusts of the end of the 19th century, that's fine with me too.
I don't get the comparison with unbalanced schedules. If you put aside the IL, every team in each individual division plays roughly the same schedule. I'm not wild about it either, but I can see some rationale for having different schedules between divisions, not unlike leagues. I can't see a rationale for the IL inequity. I know it impacts the wildcard, but I don't see how some schedule inequity justifies more schedule inequity.
With the current IL schedule, you can find one to two examples every year of a two-game impact, usually in the NL East. Last year, it was the Marlins and Mets. I know you feel that the situation calls for a consistent impact on pennant races, but, as I said, that's much too high a standard for me.
Finally, I don't understand this statement, "workers are supposed to follow the laws of the country in which they are working." If a player only took steroids in the Dominican Republic, he can be arrested in the US because he works there? I don't think so.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
bads85 I don't want to embark on a moral/politcal debate, but the ugly aspects of capitalism did not end with the 20th Century. In fact, it can be argued that Labor is a shell of its former self in this country. While the Lords' actions are often despicable, they are consistent with capitalistic nature. That doesn't absolve the actions of MLB, but it is the onus of the Union to protect its workers. They chose not to, instead focusing on privacy.
The unbalanced schedule affects the Wild Card races, which affects who can go to the World Series. I never said it excused other scheduling inequities. However, under the current format, baseball is going to have scheduling inequities over a 162 game schedule, even if IL is abolished. You say the teams in the division play roughly the same schedule, but I don't think roughly cuts your standards either.
It just isn't IL that is screwing things up. In 1996 (the first full season of the new division format and before IL), the Padres and Dodgers finished a game apart, but played five different NL teams (with W% ranging from .593 to .414) an unequal amount of times. That was just the first season I looked at.
As for last year, the Mets and the Marlins played an unequal amount of games against six NL opponents, including one in their own division (Braves). The Mets had two extra games against the Pirates and one against the Diamondbacks while the Marlins had to play an extra game against Houston. The NLCentral was even more of a mess (in fact, it might have cost Houston the division), which brings me more towards your line of thinking, but the root of this problem is the 16 team/three division format. Unfortunately, baseball is never going back, but I am unconvinced it is a national shame.
Point taken on the laws of the country thing.
-
bads85 BTW, when I say scheduling inequalities aren't a national shame, I am not implying they aren' t a serious issue. I just think that national shame should reserved for things forbidding people of a certain skin color to play, treating players like endentured servants, canceling a World Series, etc. -
studes Good points on the schedule. Thanks.
As a former senior executive of a 6,000 employee company, and a member of its ethics committee, I very strongly disagree with your assessment of responsibility for workers and fair practices. If everyone allowed capitalists to cop out on their ethical responsibilities, it would be a sad day. And I can confidently say that many capitalists don't believe it.
But, as I said, we've talked this out, and we're no longer really talking about the points in my article. For instance, I didn't call IL scheduling a "national shame" either.
-
bads85 I never advocated letting capitalists "cop out on their ethical responsibilities." As a former union officer for one of the largest school districts in California (over 5000 teachers), I can assure you that management often needs to be kept in check by someone other than itself.
-
-
Links (4)
Braves and interleague play
Published 6/28/2007 by John Beamer at Chop-n-Change
... Dave Studeman of THT exposes the egregious nature of interleague play. Dave reckons that the Braves will have lost 2 games versus the Marlins based on strength of schedule. It doesn’t sound like much but in the context of the wild card it is potentially a huge deal. To give you a sense of the magnitude of this Dave equates it to 30% of the offensive players being on steroids! ...
Not Much to Add But… This Is Just Rad
Published 6/29/2007 by TheHype at NBA Basketball and Other Unrelatedness
Friday Links on 6/29
Published 6/29/2007 by Dan Agonistes at Dan Agonistes
... The Imbalance of Interleague - Dave Studeman calls for the demise of interleague play..well, almost with a recommendation for paring it down similar to what ...
Interleague sucks... for the Braves
Published 7/2/2007 by Ken Dynamo at GO METS DIE BRAVES
... This year, The RedSox are one of the best teams in baseball who the Braves had to play 6 times and only now is interleague all the sudden considered a national travesty. ...
