"Cleared" and "acquitted" are not the same thing...

There was a headline on the New England Cable News morning news this morning - "Clemens Cleared."

But he wasn't.  He was acquitted, which is not at all the same thing.  For him to have been convicted (in his perjury trial), the government would have had to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  One could sit on a jury, believe him to be guilty, and still find enough reasonable doubt to acquit. 

But I doubt that the verdict will change a single person's opinion over whether or not he ever used performance enhancing substances or lied about it.  If you believed it yesterday, you probably believe it today.,,

Another steroid post

Great post from Joe Posnanski:

Yes, players were using steroids, and that use of steroids does indeed — as Bob Costas put it the other day — make their numbers inauthentic. But let’s talk about that for a second. Did illegal amphetamines that were apparently a part of every day baseball in the 1960s, ‘70s, 80s, 90s make those numbers inauthentic? I don’t know. There is pretty good reason to suspect that Babe Ruth corked his bat — does that make those numbers inauthentic? I don’t know. There is every reason to suspect that the Los Angeles Dodgers broke baseball’s rules — in letter and in spirit — by raising the mound above the limits. Does that make those numbers inauthentic? I don’t know.

And beyond cheating: Does playing in an all-white league make every number before 1947 inauthentic? And it’s not like the league was fully integrated the day Jackie Robinson stepped on the field — it took a decade or more, so maybe all numbers before 1961 are inauthentic. And the game did not really open up to Latin players until the 1980s — just look at one country, the Dominican Republic. The only regulars from the Dominican Republic throughout the 1960s were the Alou brothers, Julian Javier, Rico Carty and Manny Jiminez (for one year). Even in 1979, there were only five regulars in the big leagues (Carty, Cesar Cedeno, Pepe Frias, Alfredo Griffin, Frank Taveras).

In 1985 alone, there were 12 regulars — including stars like George Bell, Tony Fernandez, Pedro Guerrero, Tony Pena and my guy Julio Franco. And of course the last 20 years, you have MannyBManny, Papi, Tejada, Vlad Guerrero, Hanley Ramirez, Adrian Beltre, Alfonso Soriano, on and on and on. And these are just the hitters — we’re not even getting into Pedro and Bartolo Colon and so on.

So what is authentic? I am not defending those players who cheated — they knew it was wrong, they knew why they were doing it, they knew — but I don’t even know who were those players and neither does anyone else. Was it 50% of baseball, like Ken Caminiti said long ago before he was bullied into backtracking? Was it MORE than 50%? Were teams complicit? Were people behind the scenes in baseball quietly cheering? Or, worse, were they putting subtle and perhaps even not-so-subtle pressures on players to get stronger, however necessary? And how much of what we saw was steroid induced? Was it 90%? Was it 40% How much?

We don’t know.

He touches a lot of things that I've addressed before, and it's an excellent piece. There's so much noise without context - Joe has a lot of context with almost no noise...

The OUTRAGE! of the day - Manny's rehab

I didn't spend much time listening to the radio yesterday, but I heard enough to know that the latest occasion for high moral dudgeon on the part of sports fans, writers and broadcasters is the Manny Ramirez "rehab" assignment in Albuquerque. People are OUTRAGED! mainly, I think, because they enjoy being OUTRAGED! and so will grasp for any possible reason. And for many, the fact that Manny Ramirez is getting some at-bats for a Dodgers minor league affiliate before the end of his 50-game Major League Baseball suspension qualifies as an OUTRAGE!

Rob Neyer, with whom I agree on many topics, thinks that "allowing suspended major leaguers to play in the minors is a farce, plain and simple." He echoes Tracy Ringolsby, who asked "why should Ramirez be given the privilege of getting to play in minor league games before he has served his full suspension?" He feels so strongly about it that he calls it a "farce" twice.

But why is it a farce? I've heard a couple of different arguments, and none of them is self-evident. Nor is any one of them indisputable. I don't even think that any of them are particularly strong.

• "The minor leagues had a drug policy long before the big leagues." (Ringolsby) So what? He isn't a minor leaguer, and he wasn't suspended under the minor league drug policy. The minor league drug policy is aimed at minor league players, and is irrelevant to this discussion.



• "It isn't like Ramirez was injured. He was suspended for his own actions. So he should have to pay the full price." (Ringolsby). Right. And what is the full price? As determined by Major League Baseball, and collectively bargained with the players' association, the "full price" is that he has to miss, and forfeit his paycheck for, 50 of his team's games. His team is the LA Dodgers. When he returns next week, he will, in fact, have missed 50 Dodgers games, and 50/162s of his salary. That sounds an awful lot like "full price" to me.



• "Teams should be held accountable for the transgressions of their players. If teams suffer enough they might be more vigilant in dealing with potential violations." (Ringolsby) I'm sorry, but this is just silly. The Dodgers will have played 50 games, 30.8% of the schedule, without their highest paid and most valuable player. If that's not enough to make them "vigilant," would 58 games be enough? 67 games? Would they have been less vigilant if the suspension were only 40 games? Where's the line?



• (This is a paraphrase, not a direct quote, but it accurately represents what was said:) "It's not fair to some AAA player, who has to go down to make room on the Albuquerque roster for Manny to rehab." There may have been stupider comments made yesterday - in fact, I'd bet on it - but I didn't hear them. This gem was from WEEI midday host Dale Arnold, who apparently didn't realize that that would also have been the case if he'd had to wait ten more days.

Major League Baseball has rules for drug use. Manny Ramirez violated them, which brought on a pre-determined punishment. Manny has served, and is continuing to serve, that punishment, as pre-agreed upon by all interested parties. This outcry would have been a lot more effective the first time it actually happened, when JC Romero pitched in minor league game(s) while still suspended from the Phillies earlier this year, because "Major League Baseball rules allow him to pitch in the minors for 16 days before the suspension ends." Where were Tracy Ringolsby and Rob Neyer and Dale Arnold and all of the outraged WEEI callers then? I heard them, and it sounded a lot like ... [crickets] ...

Here's the bottom line: if people are offended by the current policy, then what they are actually saying is that the 50 game suspension is not enough - it should be longer. It's fine to take that position, but be intellectually honest and take it. Admit that that's your position. Say, "50 games without pay isn't long enough - it should be 60. Or 80. Or public flogging." Or whatever, but say it. Don't try to argue that Manny is or the Dodgers are somehow getting away with something because he's going to try to be ready to play at the end of his 50 game suspension. This isn't something that was done to accommodate Manny and it isn't a prize or reward or bonus (ask the typical Major League player how much he'd enjoy forfeiting 6% of his salary for the privilege of going back to the minors). It is part of the established policy, which recognizes that with that much time off, a Major League player needs to see some game action to get ready to return. The policy is 50 games, and is designed to be, in fact, 50 games. Not 50 official and 8 unofficial.

Again, if you think that it is an insufficient penalty for either the player or the team, then make the case that it's an insufficient penalty. But don't pretend that somehow Manny and/or the Dodgers aren't paying the full price for his actions, because he is and they are. The rules were agreed upon beforehand, and they're being followed.


UPDATE: David Pinto disagrees. He thinks that there's no problem with being outraged over a rule (with which I agree) or with this rule in particular (with which I strongly disagree).

...we should have been outraged when the rule was first written. That doesn’t mean, however, that now that we are aware of the rule that we shouldn’t be outraged. A suspension to me means you don’t play ball for 50 days. Major League players can afford to hire batting practice pitchers or batting practice batter to help keep them sharp while they’re not on the team.

Wouldn't taking batting practice qualify as "play[ing] ball?" Manny (and JC Romero before him, and whoever comes next) weren't suspended from "play[ing] ball" - they were suspended from playing Major League Baseball. I can understand being outraged about a rule, I just don't understand the source of the outrage over this one. Unless, as I said, you think that the 50 games isn't long enough.

But the fact that he's getting minor league at-bats, and Romero got minor league inning(s) before the Major League suspension was officially over, well, I don't see any "farce" or cause for outrage there. Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't just disagree with the outrage - I cannot even understand the reason for it. As near as I can tell, people seem to think that the rehab makes the punishment only a nominal 50 games as opposed to a real 50 games, that this makes the MLB claim of a 50 game suspension a lie. I just don't see it.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool...

Worst. Defense. Ever.

Common sense…our family has a history of heart conditions. My brother had a heart attack in his late 40’s, my step-dad died of a heart attack. I mean it would be suicidal for me to think about even taking any of these dangerous drugs.

- Roger Clemens on Mike & Mike, Tuesday, 5/12/09

Roger's never been mistaken for a rocket scientist, but this, citing his step-father's heart attack as an example of family history of heart problems to try to convince people that he'd never use steroids, is special...

"General welfare," baseball, PEDs and Clemens

Over at Baseball Prospectus' Unfiltered Blog, Steven Goldman has the justification for Congress' steroid involvement resting in the "general welfare" clause of section 8 of the Constitution, "Powers of Congress." I'm sure that, if asked, that's what someone would say. I don't see a "general welfare" issue here, of course, though recognize that others may differ. But Goldman makes a point that I've seen elsewhere, and think needs to be addressed.

First, if PEDs do really affect the outcome of games and seasons (a debatable proposition at the least), and that is tolerated by Baseball, then baseball isn’t a sport, but verges on being a gigantic interstate confidence game perpetrated on the public. Second, the national health outlook is obviously a component of the general welfare.

As to the second point, I don't think that professional athletes use of performance-enhancing drugs has enough of an impact on the "national health impact" to justify Congressional action in a country where cigarettes are still legally sold, but that's just me. It's the first point which really concerns me, because I've seen other people make it, and I think that it's nonsense.

So let's consider if for a moment.

Thesis: If PEDs do really affect the outcome of games and seasons ... and that is tolerated by Baseball, then baseball isn’t a sport, but verges on being a gigantic interstate confidence game perpetrated on the public.

The Black Sox went to trial on that theory. Because they were involved in throwing games, the games were no longer "fair," as in, there was no longer the competitive athletic competition which was being advertised. Ticket purchasers had the assumption, and a reasonable expectation, of two teams doing their best to win. As that was not the case, the Series was, in fact, "a gigantic interstate confidence game perpetrated on the public."

In the case of PEDs, however, that is not the case. The "then" clause does not logically follow the "if" clause. "If PEDs do really affect the outcome of games and seasons ... and that is tolerated by Baseball," does not in any way call into question the game on the field as a competitive athletic contest which is what the public expects and is entitled to in exchange for its financial support. The "enhancement" of some players may have an impact on their performance, and may have some impact on the result, but the fundamental nature of the contest has not changed. The only way that this becomes an issue is if Baseball institutes rules or procedures preventing players on some teams from "enhancing" while allowing players on different teams to "enhance" with impunity. In an environment with no enforcement, as has largely been the case in baseball, there is no sytemic advantage to any team, and no affect on competitive balance. And, therefore, no case to be made that Major League Baseball "verges on being a gigantic interstate confidence game perpetrated on the public."

And no "general welfare" issues for Congress to address.


(Goldman's larger point, that there's no point whatsoever to Congress hectoring Mcnamee and Clemens, I agree with in toto.)

I would, again, like to express my contempt for this Congress

A committee of the United States Congress is meeting today with a baseball player and an athletic trainer to determine whether or not, when that trainer performed injections on the player that both acknowledge, those injections contained substances which may or may not have been explicitly illegal and against the explicit rules of the game at the time that the injections occurred. Substances which may or may not have any affect on the performance of said athlete and any other athletes he may have competed with. Because, you know, that really is one of the top issues facing the United States. I can't actually find any Constitutional support for this hearing in the enumerated powers of the Congress, but apparently they think that such support exists, and that this should be one of their priorities.

But they don't want to look foolish:

"I think we've got to resolve it. Otherwise, the whole committee and the entire Congressional hearing process is made a mockery of."

- Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-MA

Good heavens, we can't have that!

This is where better writers than I would come up with a few excellent cutting remarks. A little snark, a little sarcasm, a little biting satire, a pin stuck into the whole pompous "we know better and must protect you from yourselves" attitude of Washingtonitis. I find the task to be beyond me, because every time I start, the humor doesn't come, just the anger. The whole process is virtually self-mocking, isn't it? Isn't this the sort of thing you'd produce as satire? Seriously, if one wanted to mock a Congress for overstepping its bounds, wouldn't one produce a satirical look at something so beyond the pale as to be funny, like, say, hearings over whether a professional athlete used performance-enhancing drugs? But when they actually do that, how the hell do you satirize it?

Who is making a mockery of the Congressional hearing process, Congressman Lynch? How about the Congress that decided to use the process on such a ridiculously frivolous topic as private use of steroids among adult athletes? Is this really what the framers meant, and what the ratifiers accepted, when they gave Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States?"

Let me just say that I don't think so...

Mitchell reported expected probability

Today at 2:00, the "Mitchell Report" will be released, dealing with Major League Baseball's "performance-enhancing drug" issues.

This provides an excellent opportunity for playing with binomial probability distributions. There are 30 Major League teams, and reportedly as many as 70-80 players named. The binomial probability formula says

P(k out of n) = (n! / k!(n-k)!) * (p^k)*(q^(n-k))

where n is the number of trials, k is the number of successes, p is the probability of success and q is the probability of failure. In the simplistic case, assuming random distribution of named players, and 80 players named, we can construct a probability table using n = 75, p = (1/30), and q = (1-p) as follows:

Probability and the Mitchell Report

Players named	Probability of that many players	Expected number of teams
0	7.87%	2
1	20.34%	6
2	25.96%	8
3	21.78%	7
4	13.52%	4
5	6.62%	2
6	2.66%	1
7	.91%	0
8	.27%	0
9	.07%	0
10	.02%	0

We'd expect to see 2 teams with no named players and 1 team with 6, just as a matter of simple probability.

Now, it isn't, of course, that simple. Most players have player for more than one team. If Roger Clemens (to take one name that has been alleged) is in the list, he played for the Red Sox, Blue Jays, Yankees and Astros. If we assume that the average named player has played for two teams, than p changes from 1/30 to 2/30. And the table changes to:

Probability and the Mitchell Report

Players named	Probability of that many players	Expected number of teams
1	3.03%	1
2	8.01%	2
3	13.93%	4
4	17.91%	5
5	18.16%	5
6	15.13%	5
7	10.66%	3
8	6.47%	2
9	3.44%	1
10	1.62%	0
11	.68%	0
12	.26%	0

Now we don't expect any teams to have no players named. The odds are that every team will have a player named who either is, or has been, affiliated with the team.

The plumbers did their work well

I must confess to being surprised. Here we are, less than 6 hours from the official release of the Mitchell Report on performance-enhancing drug use in baseball, and there have not yet been any leaks of names. The report was turned over to baseball two days ago, and no names have yet been named.


Obviously, that all changes this afternoon.

Update: The first name is out. Roger Clemens. The dopes on WEEI are acting as if that's shocking. I'd have been more surprised, frankly, if his name weren't in it.

And I still don't care...

WEEI lies about Schilling

WEEI's The Big Show, primarily Glenn Ordway, hammered Curt Schilling yesterday. They hammered him for apologizing for his Barry Bonds comments, because WEEI is basically an all-steroids, Barry-Bonds-is-the-devil, all-the-time station right now. And they hammered on him for commenting that the 8:30 AM interview with Dennis and Callahan might not be the greatest format for him to be making inflammatory comments. All of which is fine, I suppose, if you're into that sort of thing. But they took a piece of his Tuesday appearance absolutely out of context, and validated the opinions of every athlete who ever hated the media.

Yesterday he mentioned the interview in his apology.

I’d love to tell you I was ambushed, misquoted, misinterpreted, something other than what it was, but I wasn’t. I’m thinking that waking up at 8:30 am to do the weekly interview we do with WEEI is probably not the greatest format and if you heard the interview it’s not hard to realize that I’m usually awake about 30-45 seconds before it begins.

During his Tuesday appearance, Schilling was asked about, and talked about, his blog, and how it enabled him to correct mis-impressions that press coverage created. In the process of doing so, he said:

This blog has allowed me to just about disappear from having to do anything other than my post-game media and this radio show, which is, this is absolute heaven for me.

Ordway played that clip, and hammered Schilling for inconsistency, basically saying that Schilling was talking about the radio appearance being heaven on Tuesday, and then deriding it on Wednesday. The problem is, that was clearly not what he did. Even in the clip that they played on the Big Show, it sounded like they were mis-representing it. If you listen to the whole thing, there's just no question whatsoever about it. He didn't say or imply that the radio show was heaven, but that the blog allowing him not to do any media was heaven. If you listen to the whole thing, there is no other interpretation to put on it.

I didn't listen long, and don't know whether anyone tried to set Ordway straight or not. I suspect not, and I suspect that even if someone had, it wouldn't have worked. But the Big Show is a noise machine, and they generated lots of it yesterday. A little bit goes a long, long way, but that was exceptionally dishonest yesterday afternoon, even for them...

(You can listen to Schilling's Tuesday appearance here. The relevant quote comes about 10:35 in. As I say, if you hear it in context, it really bears only one interpretation, and it isn't the one that Ordway used...)