Recently, the MLB made another controversial, somewhat confusing policy: testing minor-leaguers for human growth hormone and other steroids instead of major-leaguers. To many, this seems idiotic: test the league with the most prevalent cases of steroid usage. It doesn't make sense to some why the big guys (figuratively and literally) get more of a pass than the more talented, less drug-addled kids. However, I think this is a good idea. This is rooting out the problem before it even truly becomes one. According to most admitted juicers, their experiences started not when they were first drafted, but after a season or so in the big leagues. Therefore, if you incite the fear of God (or at least of George Mitchell) into these young men, they hopefully learn to be smarter about this kind of thing once they're called up. Of course, you have to consider the fact that people, especially well-paid athletes, are ultimately going to do whatever they think will help them become better players and/or help their team go further every season, so it's irrational to think that this alone will make the future waves of major-league players completely abstain from steroids or other banned/frowned-upon substances, but it's a start. This could possibly start the new era of players with natural, raw talent who perform at a similar or potentially better level than their contemporaries who are doping.
On the flip side of this coin, you have to think about what the game and the players would or will be like without steroids. Now, in no way do I condone drug usage by anyone, especially players who are still seen as role models, but the stats show that hitters have become much more powerful since the full-blown introduction of growth hormones into the game. Steroids basically fueled the intense, exciting race between Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa a few years ago to see which player would break the single-season home run record first. Steroids led Barry Bonds to break the all-time home run record (which, as much as I dislike him, he probably could have gotten close without drugs as it was). In an indirect way, steroids are actually responsible for the resurgence in baseball's popularity. There's no denying what fans, casual or hardcore, really want to see in a game: good plays are fun, pitching achievements have their moments, and a stolen base is exciting...but nothing gets the crowd going like a smashed home run. However, this season has already begun to show the effects of banned substances actually being just that: a pale shade of the 60- to 70-run seasons some players had just a few years ago, only one player in the MLB has 30 home runs (Jose Bautista of the Toronto Blue Jays, and he's leading every other player by at least 4 dingers). Hopefully, this will convince minor-leaguers that, even though it's a sign of the times, that they could hit just 45 homers and be a Silver Slugger in this day and age. I suppose it'll just be a few years before we really start to see the true effects of steroids being used or not, and how it will affect the next generation.
Another surprising thing that could happen in the next few years (bear with me here) is a Series championship for Chicago. No, I don't mean the White Sox (I think they'd revoke Ozzie Guillen's managerial benefits if he's allowed on national television again), although they currently have a very tenuous hold on the AL Central (that is, if you discount the very likely chance that either Minnesota or Detroit will make a late-season resurgence, as they have most of the past decade). Believe it or not, I mean the Chicago Cubs. Now, this may be a bold statement, considering we're going into the 103rd year of a drought that's become the thing the Cubbies are best known for inside and outside of baseball, but I don't think it's impossible. If you look at their roster, they have a genuinely good team: infielders Starlin Castro, Derrek Lee, Mike Fontenot, Ryan Theriot and Aramis Ramirez are not only good defenders, their bats have been getting really hot lately. The same can be said for the outfielders Marlon Byrd, Alfonso Soriano, Tyler Colvin and even Kosuke Fukudome (even though his numbers have dropped since he came from Japan's major league, he's only been here for 3 seasons and therefore has plenty of time to get used to the way things go in the US). So, with a lineup that's stronger than ever, why aren't they making the playoffs? One reason that mainly focuses on one player: the pitching, and Carlos Zambrano. When Big Z is your ace, IT'S TIME TO TRADE. Ted Lilly, Carlos Silva, and Tom Gorzelanny (who also moved to the rotation after Zambrano's suspension after his childish argument with Lee after giving up 4 runs in 1 inning) aren't very good as it is, but at least all of them (aside from Lilly, with a 3-8 record) have more wins than losses. Zambrano has a 3-6 record, and that's after he was misguidedly moved from the bullpen to the starting rotation; he had no saves in his relief stint before that. In all fairness, he hasn't always been this awful: he pitched a no-hitter in September '08, he's famous for being one of the few pitchers in the National League that can actually hit (20 career homers, nearing the top of the all-time list for pitchers who bat), and even led the NL in wins in 2006. However, this just makes it that much more confusing as to why he shines when his team is worthless, yet he can't deliver when he actually has a strong team, defensively and offensively, behind him. The solution, while difficult to execute, is simple: get Zambrano out of Chicago. There are plenty of options as far as who could replace him, just get any free-agent pitcher and send a couple of minor-league prospects out with Carlos. It's astounding how almost any other pitcher could perform incredibly well with a team like the Boys in Blue, and yet this jerk manages to fail spectacularly in the year he should be doing the best. So, if the Cubs want a chance to finally go deep into the playoffs, they have to send Zambrano out.
One team that should keep a certain player for as long as they can, though, is the St. Louis Cardinals. I wonder if you can guess which player I'm talking about...if you can't, you should probably go read something other than this blog. Albert Pujols is one of the best things to happen to the Cardinals since Roger Hornsby and Stan Musial (props to my father for reminding me of him), and he only gets better every season. It's really surprising that he's only won a single World Series in his time there (2006, against the Tigers), but under the coaching of both Tony LaRussa (whose abysmal career as a player seems to make his incredibly successful managing career that much more ironic) and the new hitting coach, one Mark McGwire, it seems like Pujols and the Redbirds could finally make it back to The Show. They're true contenders every season, but this year, their lineup finally has more depth: the addition of star outfielder Matt Holliday, and teammates Colby Rasmus and Skip Schumaker (although both have been in simultaneous slumps lately) having seasons better than their previous ones takes some of the pressure off of Albert and allow him to do what he has always done without having to worry about getting more run support, and the rotation of Carpenter, Wainwright and surprisingly good Hawksworth who just came up from the minors, and the bullpen, a short time ago help him immensely as well. Still, the question is still in the air: could Albert Pujols ever play for another team? It seems as unlikely as Derek Jeter ever playing in a uniform without pinstripes...which brings me to a point that I still catch a lot of hell for: am I the only one who thinks that Pujols could stand to gain a whole lot in the Bronx? I mean, it's not likely that he could split time with Mark Teixeira (who, if Pujols came in, would most likely be headed elsewhere, which also seems unlikely), but considering how incredibly Pujols plays in what's known as the weaker league, it stands to reason that he would be mindblowingly good in any American League team. Even if he had to move to a designated hitter position (something I and millions of other people would never want to see...Pujols in the lineup but not on the field? Blasphemy!), he could be hitting homers well into his later years when he's no longer in shape to normally play the field, like Jim Thome and Ken Griffey, Jr. Like I said, it's not something I want to see (him in a DH position, not him joining the AL), but it may not be the worst thing in the world. But he's simply far too important to the Cards for them to let him go, especially without a fight. He's become more than their best or most important player: he's the symbol of hope and pride for St. Louis. The comparison to Jeter wasn't just to satisfy my Yankees reference quota for each post I write; Albert, like Derek, has played for one team his entire career up to this point, and it's hard to imagine either of them anywhere else. Albert Pujols is the face of the Cardinals franchise, as he well should be. They need him. Should he decide to leave for another team, he'd become as hated in St. Louis as Johnny Damon was when he left Boston. As interesting as I think it'd be if Pujols played in New York, he needs to stay in St. Louis, and he needs another championship so his already larger-than-life legacy (and personality) all but guarantees he'll be voted into the Hall of Fame whenever he's first eligible.
In my next post, I'll discuss why the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry has not only cooled since 2007, but has tipped heavily in one's favor, how home-field advantage doesn't always guarantee a win, and how Miguel Cabrera can turn his shockingly good season into the first Triple Crown since the '70s.
No comments:
Post a Comment