The Real Addiction in Baseball is Home Runs

The long-awaited Mitchell report on steroid use among Major League baseball players will focus a tremendous amount of public attention on the "did he" or "didn't he" issue, which strikes me as exactly the wrong framework for understanding performance-enhancing drugs (let's call them PEDs) in baseball. There is so much to say about this issue that I'll spread it out over several posts, but let's at least get started here. Given baseball's reward structure, the real question is how so many players didn't use PEDs, or at least the ones that Major League Baseball now bans.

Since what fans seem to care most about--fanned by TV, sports pages, ESPN, and MLB itself--is home runs, and since most of the biggest contracts go to the players who hit the most home runs, and since even so-so offensive players are expected to hit 15-20 dingers a year these days, how on earth can we expect hitters not to do everything possible to boost their strength--and home run totals--including taking PEDs?

Look, when you flip on SportsCenter or Baseball Tonight during the season, something I do as often as possible, do you see clips highlighting smart defensive positioning, players working the count for a walk, or savvy baserunning? Ok, every now then, and the defensive webgems at the end are terrific--but most of what you see is hitters going downtown, going yard, playing longball, hitting home run after home run after home run.

For lots of fans, that's the game, right there. And since we fans make up the audiences that the TV networks and stations sell to advertisers, which then provide Major League teams with the cash to offer unimaginably large contracts to home run hitters--well, until we unhook ourselves from our romance with home runs, players (and their chemists) will always be a step ahead of enforcement. We can't both love homeruns as much as we do and expect PEDs to go away.

If we're really disturbed about the influence of PEDs on baseball, I propose the following reforms: eliminate the "home-run derby" before the All-Star Game, raise the pitching mounds a couple of inches, enlarge the strike zone a couple of inches, move all outfield fences back 10-20 feet, and increase the amount of foul territory outside of first and third in all major league parks. That these ideas are all dead on arrival--due to opposition from TV networks, individual teams, fans, the players' union, and MLB itself--shows us that our real addiction is to a kind of baseball that makes PED use inevitable.

Read more news and blog posts on the Mitchell report on steroids in baseball here.

Comments

[eaglecapri]

'...how on earth can we expect hitters not to do everything possible to boost their strength--and home run totals--including taking PEDs?'

Homeruns were hit way before PEDs became popular! Bats have improved and there are other options than doping yourself! What ever happened to serious training, eating well, vitamins (real ones - flax seed, etc.) and weight training? Homeruns should not be blamed for cheating and stupidity!

[eaglecapri]

I'd rather see a triple any given day!....or at least an infield homer!

[Goodjuan]

As much as what you say is true, I'll bet that most of the names on the list are pitchers.

[DatelessNerd]

Terrific post!

Our sports media is more focused on visually-stimulating highlights than on who wins or loses the game. They care more about star players than teams. And it's ruining the quality of American sports.

In the World Baseball Classic, the homer-obsessed USA lost to teams who do a better job of advancing runners and playing fundamentally-sound defense.

It's also why American basketball is no longer dominant. Watch ANY commercial that involves basketball--all you see are individuals driving to the hole and dunking. Ditto for SportsCenter highlights--drive and dunk, drive and dunk, drive and dunk. The result? We lose to nations that play team basketball, moving the ball effectively, and shooting from the outside.

[provgrays]

In 1998, I started a 19th Century style team called the Providence Grays, named for the first world champions of 1884.

In 1884, gloves were not used at all, except for the catcher, and the fundamentals of the game truly held sway. I agree that the emphasis on the long ball has robbed the modern game of much of it's heritage and appeal. Give me a tense pitching battle with great defense any day.

If you want to learn more about the Providence Grays and early baseball, go to www.providencegrays.org.

[TommyMcCarthy]

Mr. Goldstien's post is right on the money. I'm a baseball fan because I grew up watching and playing the game...thus I understand and enjoy it. When I was a kid though, even with a complete understanding of and appreciation for a well executed hit and run...say... or a 1-0 pitching/defense masterpiece...I still wanted to see our guys "hit it out". Deliberately cutting back on HR production to satisfy some moral imperative regarding the use of PED's (handy acronym, btw) would be a step in the wrong direction in my opinion. Alienating the upcoming generation of fans would be bad for the game we love long term.
As far as steroids are concerned it seems to me there are three options, none of them great:

A draconian ban with teeth involving frequent testing, and ruined careers for those found in violation would probably manage to piss off almost everyone.

A continuation of the current unsatisfactory "don't ask don't tell" policy teaches that upcoming generation I mentioned that it's O.K. to cheat...just don't get caught...something I detest in the culture generally these days..

Maybe the lesser of several evils would be to legalize and control the use of PED's...(this is certainly the best option regarding the corrosive, expensive, and ultimately FUTILE war on recreational drugs)

I'm less concerned about steroid use than I am about the unintended consequenses of any hastily or ill-concieved fix that negatively impacts the game at large.

Good thoughtful post....................tm

[westwind]

Turning the smash over the fence from a home run into a second-base hit would make the game much more nuanced, and ultimately, even though it would not be initially popular with the twelve-pack a game spectator, far more interesting.

This would render moot much of the concern with performance-enhancing drugs, because less powerful players could achieve with skill what big hitters now achieve just by being able to put the ball in the river.

I am not implying that anyone hopped up on steroids could do what the home run kings do, just that not many big hitters have the touch to place the ball in the park to best advantage. With the over-the-fence hit so lavishly rewarded, teams would be foolish not to score as many of them as they can, but that only encourages players to cheat, and teams and baseball itself to turn a blind eye until they are forced to deal with obvious cheating.

Tweaking the mound, fences (difficult in most parks) and strike zones, would only encourage more cheating, to overcome what are after all only relatively higher hurdles to getting the ball over the fence.

Rewarding skill over power would make the game richer for all, and even those who watch mainly to see the ball whacked as far as it can go, would eventually see how the game is improved.

[kuulray]

Good post. Two other reasons baseball is a flawed game: Big market teams steal away the best players from small market teams due to lack of a salary cap, and (as a result of the first point) the game is not competitive. Can you tell I'm a Twins fan?