The Latest A-Fraud

Not to beat a dead horse at all, but I do want to bring up the latest issue that people seem to have come up with to attack A-Rod, the idea that he was tipping pitches to opposing players. 

Now, many people out there seem to have it in for Alex Rodriguez at this point (if they didn't before the steroids issue), and this is definitely an iffy topic for A-Rod at best. But once again, this delves into the famous issue of A-Rod padding his stats in "non-clutch" situations, which I just am so tired of. The numbers have been crunched, and A-Rod actually performs slightly better in close games, though he basically is an excellent hitter in every situation. So, he obviously wasn't benefiting from this supposed scenario, and, as Econ 101 will tell you, there is no free lunch. Basically, why would A-Rod help out friends on other teams at the expense of his teammates, if he wasn't getting a bonus from it? 

There are those who have spoken out on both sides of the story, but there is ultimately no way to know what actually happened, since it is in the past, and the numbers can't tell you anything (http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/05/02/tip-sheet/). You either have to believe him, hate him, or just dismiss the issue. I personally will not take a side, as there is no way to prove this happened, and either way, A-Rod is a pretty darned good ballplayer, and in my mind nothing will change that. His talent will always be there, no matter how many smear campaigns are run against him. 

To slightly ramble about something I would like to mention, this whole situation all depends on your take on "cheating" in baseball (and I suppose for sports in general as well). Personally, having played competitive baseball since I was eight, and having watched countless hours of other sports, I feel like I can give a pretty fair assessment of cheating in sports (I'll focus on baseball specifically for simplicity). First of, cheating is a part of baseball, get used to it. I don't care how goody-two-shoes you want to pretend the game is, if you're not taking an edge whenever you can, you're not trying (that's the gist of some famous quote, but I can't place it). Catchers disguise signs because they know runners on second are trying to tell the hitter what's coming, hitters try to steal a look at the catchers signals, any close call that goes your way was absolutely right, even if you know it was the wrong call, players pop painkillers and greenies to keep playing every day, etc. I really don't have a problem with "cheating" in baseball morally, because I think it's as much a part of the game as balls and strikes. Now, there is a level beyond this that is definitely cheating (Danny Almonte, anyone?), and not to say that baseball should be a free-for-all, but getting all worked up about most "cheating" is absurd. 

This is something for everyone to form their own opinion on, but that's mine, plain and simple. I don't want to get myself wrapped up in the discussions about the asterisk years, but I would like to bring up the importance of those years for the sport. Many argue that the McGwire-Sosa race, as well as the offensive explosion, helped save baseball from the strike aftermath, and so I say, is that so bad in retrospect? I wouldn't want to be the person who took the steroids, and caused who knows what damage to myself, but the era was crucial for the sport, and I know that I enjoyed the heck out of watching those two duke it out in '98. Historical records are important to everyone, but with the amount of statistical power that we have now, we can compare years better than ever before. I want to ask, is the stigma that has already been placed on the "steroid era" necessary?

 

I think not