Jump to content

MLB 2008-09 Hot Stove II

Lammycat

By Lammycat,
in Tongue-Tied Lightning

 Share Followers 0

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 992
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

bobbob1313

bobbob1313

Posted
Posted
I think this is a bit what I was getting at when saying there's a certain skill/art to throwing a spitball as opposed to doping to get a leg up on your competitors, which often merely includes other guys playing your position in MLB. It's purely a stats and money based form of cheating (need to keep up with the competition/put up big stats to keep your job, supposedly) whereas throwing a spitball for five innings or whatever is cheating on a game-day scale. I just look at it as a lot less harmless to the sport, overall.

 

I really don't understand what you are trying to say here.

 

Scuffing a baseball is a short cut too. I really, really don't get it how one is so much more different, that we actively encourage the use of it by saying it's a skill. Using steroids is a way to improve your play. Scuffing a ball is a way to improve your play.

 

It's a lot less harmless on the sport, but for no logical reason. You have to do backflips to to justify one over the other. I'm not trying to justify cheating of any sort, but I can't see turning a blind eye to spitballs while crucifying steroid users.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MrRain422

MrRain422

Posted
Posted

A little late on this, but if a player took out a gun and shot another player, he would likely be given a lifetime suspension from the game. That's a much larger penalty than the penalty for steroid use during the period in question, or even now.

 

The only reason the degree of penalty came up in the first place though was because someone (sorry, don't remember who and don't feel like scrolling back so far) said that the spitball was excusable for the purposes of the HoF because the penalty for getting caught was so small that it was obviously a small misdeed in the eyes of the game, to which I replied that, during the years in question, the penalty for steroid use was even smaller (because there was none at all). That's the only reason the topic of penalties even came up, and I still maintain that if a small penalty means something isn't a big deal, then pre-2004 steroid use, following that very argument, can't be a big deal.

 

If you're against steroid use for other reasons, fine, but I'm going to need to hear another explanation for allowing spitball throwers into the HoF before I'm convinced, because the argument that the penalty is small doesn't hold water.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Moss

Moss

Posted
Posted

I really should avoid weighing in on this as I am not even remotely eloquent but what the hell. To me there is a huge difference between steroids and spit balls or scuffing. I kind of like the pitchers doing the old vaseline on the hat or nail file in the pocket thing. It's a technique to get a little more spin, make the ball break a little more, whatever. If they get caught there is consequences. Yes it's cheating but it's to such a minor degree. It's like Manu Ginobili in Basketball always flopping. Annoying yes, unless your a Spurs fan, then it's art. He's trying to give the team that little bit of edge but the referees know and it's a cat and mouse thing. Steroids is a whole other level. It's like the Tour De France riders taking EPO. It has such a huge impact that it's not even competitive at some point. Truth is Subjectivity, there are shades of grey. I don't know where that line is drawn but altering your bodies very chemistry to perform better seems so much more egregious than scuffing a ball that it's hard to compare the 2. I understand zero tolerance but it's a game of inches. Scuffing the ball may give you a 1/4 inch break but taking steroids can make you hit the ball 50 extra feet. Where do you draw the line? I don't know but common sense says one is worse than the other. I think I lost my own train of though on this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
KevinG

KevinG

Posted
Posted
I really should avoid weighing in on this as I am not even remotely eloquent but what the hell. To me there is a huge difference between steroids and spit balls or scuffing. I kind of like the pitchers doing the old vaseline on the hat or nail file in the pocket thing. It's a technique to get a little more spin, make the ball break a little more, whatever. If they get caught there is consequences. Yes it's cheating but it's to such a minor degree. It's like Manu Ginobili in Basketball always flopping. Annoying yes, unless your a Spurs fan, then it's art. He's trying to give the team that little bit of edge but the referees know and it's a cat and mouse thing. Steroids is a whole other level. It's like the Tour De France riders taking EPO. It has such a huge impact that it's not even competitive at some point. Truth is Subjectivity, there are shades of grey. I don't know where that line is drawn but altering your bodies very chemistry to perform better seems so much more egregious than scuffing a ball that it's hard to compare the 2. I understand zero tolerance but it's a game of inches. Scuffing the ball may give you a 1/4 inch break but taking steroids can make you hit the ball 50 extra feet. Where do you draw the line? I don't know but common sense says one is worse than the other. I think I lost my own train of though on this one.

 

I think we have gone around in circles on this argument. There is a segment of the discussion that believes cheating no matter what should be dealt with as cheating, steroids, ball doctoring, corking of a bat, etc. And then others believe that there are varying degrees of cheating. I really think no pounding of the chest and beating of a dead horse will change anyone's mind.

 

What is the unfortunate thing is, that no matter what you think of the different kinds of cheating, it is going on players will find new ways to cheat in the future it will never stop. The game is not pure and probably never was and never will be again. Which is too bad. I think it is a slippery slope, when we say one form of cheating and "art" and the other is wrong. We will see a game where hitters will hit 700 foot home runs, and pitchers will throw a ball that moves like a belly dancer and we will never truly know if this was natural or "enhanced." Does it make for a more enjoyable game? That is up to you to decide.

 

I love baseball, I will continue to watch baseball until my dying day. Cheer when the Cubs hit a home run, or Z strikes out the side, but always in the back of my mind I'll have nagging questions in my mind, did they cheat? Which to me is sad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Moss

Moss

Posted
Posted
I think we have gone around in circles on this argument. There is a segment of the discussion that believes cheating no matter what should be dealt with as cheating, steroids, ball doctoring, corking of a bat, etc. And then others believe that there are varying degrees of cheating. I really think no pounding of the chest and beating of a dead horse will change anyone's mind.

 

What is the unfortunate thing is, that no matter what you think of the different kinds of cheating, it is going on players will find new ways to cheat in the future it will never stop. The game is not pure and probably never was and never will be again. Which is too bad. I think it is a slippery slope, when we say one form of cheating and "art" and the other is wrong. We will see a game where hitters will hit 700 foot home runs, and pitchers will throw a ball that moves like a belly dancer and we will never truly know if this was natural or "enhanced." Does it make for a more enjoyable game? That is up to you to decide.

 

I love baseball, I will continue to watch baseball until my dying day. Cheer when the Cubs hit a home run, or Z strikes out the side, but always in the back of my mind I'll have nagging questions in my mind, did they cheat? Which to me is sad.

 

I don't even disagree, it's really a tough issue. Baseball is a game that has such history and reams of statistics but it's tough to compare modern players to the past. But then again, nutrition, weight training, etc... have all come such a long way that statistics are going to change as well. The nice thing is that as batters get better, so do pitchers. I think you are right, there has always been cheating and everybody disagrees at what point you cross a line.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Followers 0
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...