Mike Cameron has been suspended for 25 games for testing positive a second time for a banned stimulant. He’s not appealing, but blames it on a tainted “nutritional supplement” he may have taken. He further emphasizes the distinction that he never did steroids “or nothing like that” in his life.

It’s interesting to consider the difference in MLB policy (and public opinion) toward stimulant versus steroid use.

First of all, there is no argument that stimulants are not performance enhancing drugs. Anyone who has taken an upper stronger than caffeine, whether prescribed or recreational, has experienced heightened focus and response time that is particularly well-suited to, say, recognizing the spin of a baseball pitch or reacting to a batted ball in play. The intent behind taking stimulants is to gain a competitive edge in a game situation, same as steroids or hormones. The disparity between punishments for these offenses stems from the relative threats that they pose to society. While regular, extended stimulant use can lead to serious problems down the line, steroid use poses a more immediate threat to young athletes hoping to duplicate the success of the pros. Stimulants are habit-forming, but steroids demand a level of commitment and intrigue that can have a greater impact on the lives of their users.

Due to the relative availability and ease of stimulant use, I think it is likely that nearly all professional baseball players have at least casually tried an MLB-banned stimulant during their amateur or professional baseball careers. Most probably didn’t like the effects, or didn’t think it was fair or worth the trouble. Those that have continued to use, however, do so for the same reasons that steroid users do so: to gain a competitive edge. The simple word is “cheating.”

I am no purist when it comes to pitchers doctoring balls or baserunners stealing signs. I appreciate ingenious ways that players have found to evade and subvert the rules. The ability for a catcher to frame the ball, for example, wins a Varitek some strike calls that a Victor Martinez might not get. MLB could conceivably require the catcher to keep the glove still at the moment he catches the pitch to make the umpire’s job easier, and eliminate a subtle human element from the game. Even applying foreign substances to the ball rewards a pitcher for his human capacities for ingenuity and sneakiness. Of course it is banned, but if a pitcher develops the skill to pull it off without detection, hats off to him.

Using banned stimulants, however, is no better from an ethical perspective than injecting steroids, although it shows less desperation. Stims and steroids make a mockery of the game by rewarding the players who are willing to sacrifice their health and long lives for a benefit on the field. What is most insidious about these substances is the fact that any player can use them for a boost. For the same reason we applaud hard work and conditioning in the offseason, we should condemn the use of performance enhancing drugs. Any player can make the choice to take extra grounders in practice and squeeze the most out of his fielding ability. We as fans (especially those of us who think Ryan Braun has a future at third base) expect players to do so, in the name of dedication to the sport. If we don’t speak out against the use of stimulants as well as steroids, we implicitly legitimize the physical benefits reaped by those who make the required health sacrifices.

A great ballplayer is defined by success on the field, and a true athlete is defined by striving to be great. Therefore, if we accept the physical sacrifice demanded by steroids or stimulants as a legitimate substitute for hard work and ingenuity, a player who does not abuse drugs can never be a truly great athlete. To ignore or downplay the problem of drugs in baseball is to demand that all players who love the game and love to win be willing to risk their long lives and reputations to squeeze the extra performance out of their physical frames. Even though he says he condemns steroids, Mike Cameron’s behavior (if his “supplement” excuse is as bogus as it sounds) endorses the cost-benefit calculation that motivates the use of all performance enhancing drugs in baseball and dampens the success of truly great baseball players that constitute the heart and soul of the game.

If I had told you two years ago that when Andruw Jones became a free agent coming off his age-30 season, he would be less sought after than Torii Hunter and Aaron Rowand, you probably would have looked at me like I looked at the Wendy’s employee the first time I was asked if I wanted a vanilla or chocolate Frosty. Well, it seems exactly that has come to pass, as the Braves have announced they won’t be bringing back Jones, who was first introduced to the world in the 1996 World Series as a fresh-faced 19 year old preternaturally patrolling center field in Yankee Stadium. Eleven seasons and exactly zero Braves World Series rings later, the increasingly ample Jones heads to the open market. His struggles this season are no secret. He hit a miserable .222/.311/.413 despite hitting 26 home runs and driving in 94 runs. Although his performance this season likely helped Braves’ fans collective reactions to his departure (which are somewhere between “so long and thanks for all the cupcakes” and “don’t hit your fat ass on the way out”), they probably didn’t have a measurable impact on the Braves decision to let him go. Even with a down year, Jones will command a sizable salary as a free agent, which the corporate-owned Braves were certain to avoid. Nevertheless, Jones will sign and Jones will play. Let’s see if we can figure out how well he’ll play to get a better indication of how valuable the Curacao-native will be to potential suitors.

Below are Jones’ splits over his career, the last three years and last year.

The rest after the jump…
(more…)

According to Baseball Digest Daily, the Braves have just dealt shortstop Edgar Renteria to the Tigers for Jair Jurrjens and Gorkys Hernandez. The Braves now lead the league in guys with weird names.

Three games into the World Series, and the polish has faded on the story of the Rockies and their winning team supposedly driven by airtight ethical and defensive prowess. Both of these attributes have been trumpeted in the media, but the positive effect of either has been overstated. Yes, the Rockies boast an excellent defense; BP has them at 70 runs above average (meaning they won 7 games on the weight of their defense, alone). The Red Sox, however, have a very good defense as well, with 43 runs prevented above average performance over the regular season (10 runs = 1 win, 43 runs = 4.3 wins above average). What the trumpeters of a new era of team construction fail to realize is that, while 7 games is a lot to win on defense alone, the marginal difference that separates the Rockies’ record-setting glovework from Red Sox’ merely good defense is less than three wins. That is not a difference that should encourage a team to sacrifice a useful bat with reasonable defense for a Pokey Reese type. The moral of the story: a good defense with good hitting and good pitching will consistently outperform an amazing defense with good hitting and Josh Fogg.

As for the moral fiber of the Rockies, I have been impressed with their ability to avoid bonehead remarks to the media over the course of their streak into the postseason. Even though the religious content of the message may not appeal to me, I can appreciate a company wanting its employees to represent strong character and humility that paints the brand in a good light. That said, the best way to build your brand’s name in baseball is to win baseball games, and the correlation between piety in the clubhouse and winning percentage remains unclear, this year’s Rox notwithstanding. My other concern is that, whatever the intent, the Rockies’ ownership’s emphasis on “character” has corresponded with some of the most homogeneous baseball teams fielded in the integration era. I am not trying to make any accusations. I am impressed with the front office’s ability to integrate international players this year, in particular. However, consistent with the overall decline in African American baseball players, the Rockies haven’t fielded a black starting position player since they traded Charles Johnson in 2004, and their rotation hasn’t included an African American since Darren Oliver was released in 2003. I’m certainly not calling this deliberate discrimination, and they are not as bad as the Astros, who haven’t made a commitment to developing an African American player (by drafting him in the high rounds) for at least ten years. I just think it is unfortunate that, even if the Rockies were to pull off the greatest comeback in World Series history, they could only be America’s team as far as this is America’s truck.

I must admit that I was expecting a pitchers’ duel for last night’s Game 1, but it was not to be. The Red Sox bats were crackin’, and the Rockies seemed to show some rust from their much vaunted 8-day layoff. Jeff Francis struggled to establish his fastball, missing away for most of the outing, and then over-compensating by pitching to the inner half of the plate (notably on the 2-run double by Varitek). His curveball started out up in the zone, but settled into a solid offering after the first inning. Overall, he didn’t actually look as bad as his line would suggest. The Red Sox hitters did an excellent job of punishing his mistakes, driving the ball to all fields and beating the Rockies defense with a number of nearly fielded hits up the middle.

As with any situational challenge, an extended layoff is likely to affect players in different ways. In analysis, we have a tendency to boil game conditions down to trends that either confirm or deny a statistically significant effect on a player’s performance. While I am quick to defend analysis from its ignorant detractors, I am willing to acknowledge the haziness of any attempt to quantify an effect like an extended break between games. In retrospect, it is easy to say the team was hurt by its vacation week, but the overall effect is more complicated than that. Maybe we should say that Troy Tulowitzki (2/3, 2 doubles) benefited from the rest, while Brad Hawpe (0/4, 4 K) suffered. Maybe Ryan Speier felt a bit rusty (no outs, 3 BB with the bases loaded), while LaTroy Hawkins couldn’t care less (1 IP, 2 K, 0 baserunners). Ultimately, some guys adjusted, and others failed to do so. That’s how you win or lose ballgames.

Regardless of the back story, Game 1 has set the stage for Clint Hurdle’s pitching strategy here on out. He now knows what not to expect from Franklin Morales in a bullpen role. He also knows that Speier will not be able to scare the team into submission by impersonating top draft bust Daniel Bard. On the bright side, he got his better relievers into a game situation, and they responded well. Hawkins looked particularly strong to me, although he was facing the worst hitters on the team in Crisp and Hinske. Herges and Affeldt both looked sharp, with the former facing the heart of the Red Sox order (albeit in a low leverage situation). Tonight’s Game 2 will depend on Baldy’s ability to rely on his stuff, while avoiding the walk yips that have plagued his teammates so far. He certainly has the stuff to do it if he’s on.

After a Franklin Morales balk:

Tim McCarver: Does America get a taco for a balk?
Joe Buck: Nope. Just a steal.
Tim McCarver: Chips? Guacamole? Anything?

I have had many people ask me who is favored to win the World Series. Vegas books have Boston as nearly 2-1 favorites, while Baseball Prospectus’ nifty (and essential) Postseason Odds Report gives the Rockies a 56% chance of taking the cake. This seems like a bit of a discrepancy coming from two authoritative sources.

I am not an authoritative source, however, so I won’t even try to give the odds. I just want to make some observations about this year’s Classic (and specifically its pitchers), to whet our appetites.

One thing that immediately jumps out at me is how the Rockies starters have been playing out of their minds over the past month. While the Rox have won 21 of 22, their starters have pitched like aces across the board. Even Josh Fogg has an ERA of 3.42 over the past 5 weeks. Jeff Francis, above, has been the Babyface Assassin and struck out more than a man per inning over that stretch, while Franklin Morales surrendered three runs over 22 IP to finish the season.

The rookie Morales struggled a little bit in his two postseason starts, so Clint Hurdle has replaced him with an unknown quantity in Aaron Cook, who has been out for over two months. This is a bit of an odd choice, but it has benefits as well as flaws. Morales has been extremely wild in his professional career, although he has been able to keep it bottled up for most of his brief big league stint. Sticking with the Venezuelan would play to the Red Sox biggest strength, namely patience and discipline at the plate. The Rockies have the best defense in the league, however, so a switch to the contact pitcher Cook should work to their benefit. On the other hand, removing the youngster eliminates a left-hander that would give Francona a headache with his lineup card (in the NL park) and force the removal of a newly competent J.D. Drew (and possibly Jacoby Ellsbury) from the order. Clint Hurdle’s alignment ultimately gives the Rockies a weak 3-4 duo that will provide Red Sox hitters a lot of pitches to hit, but Cook/Fogg could enjoy success a la Westbrook/Byrd if they are given a little bit of help from a wide strike zone. Otherwise, it could be a rude awakening for Colorado after the ease of dispatching the inferior offenses of the D-Backs and the slumping Phillies.

The Red Sox, for their part, are replacing an injured Tim Wakefield in the rotation with 23 year-old Jon Lester, the lefty Comeback Kid who hopes to capitalize on a slight team platoon split in his favor. His season stats are quite comparable to Ubaldo’s, with slightly worse peripherals (H, K, BB, HR) across the board and slightly better run prevention (Baldy had the good grace to charge seven unearned runs to his fielders’ tab, polishing his ERA from 5.05 down to 4.28). Both pitchers walk too many, and neither has yet grown into himself as a Major League power pitcher. Born two weeks and 3500 miles apart, it is a shame that these two young men will not face off in a game in this series.

The Baldy-Lester non-matchup is just a little blip, as this is set to be a great World Series, with two strong teams that play in contrasting styles at two of the most distinctive ballfields in the game. As the drama unfolds, I can’t help but drool over the richness of detail and endlessly elaborate plotlines of this pastime that dominates our (or at least my) waking hours.

Bad news for those of you who have been ghostriding the Volvo down I-880 in protest of the Oakland Athletics moving to Fremont (the so-called “parking lot with a mayor”). One of the team’s co-owners, Lew Wolff, spoke out Monday, declaring that it is “out of the question we’ll stay in Oakland.” The Athletics can no longer share McAfee Coliseum with the Oakland Raiders, and so have apparently definitely decided to leave Oakland. Whether Fremont will be the final destination is unknown, but their proposed stadium is to be called Cisco Field and it looks amazing. Sure, if I lived in Oakland I’d be angry about the 27-mile commute and the fact that the Athletics were targeting Silicon Valley millionaires. Then again, if I lived in Oakland I would probably feel ashamed for not supporting the team better (I kid). As this ESPN article describes, Fremont is more White, more Asian, less Black, and less Hispanic than Oakland, with a 91% higher median household income. Assumedly, the team hopes to market to a demographic with more disposable income and achieve greater access to a larger geographic area, as Fremont is less than 20 miles from San Jose.

The developments and tribulations of the Athletics’ new stadium are chronicled well here. The team has purchased 168 acres in Fremont for the project but has yet to submit filing papers. The Athletics had originally planned on building the stadium just across the street in Oakland, but the plans fell through when many of the landowners expressed their desire not to sell. The new stadium is projected to open for the 2012 MLB season, which, coincidentally, is when the A’s expect Rich Harden to be healthy again (zing!). The Athletics claim they’ll have between 32,000 and 35,000 seats in the new stadium, continuing a trend artificially reduced capacity, which started when the team closed the third deck prior to the 2006 season, reducing McAfee’s capacity from 48,219 to 34,077.

He is like a Zen master: an expert at relaxing the mind. Just read this.

The Red Sox put together quite the comeback in the ALCS, capping it all off with a drubbing of Cleveland at home last night. Commentators have inevitably turned to some of the turning points for the Red Sox, both in the series and in last night’s game. Many have pointed to Kenny Lofton getting tagged out at second with no outs in the top of the seventh. There’s a tendency to cherry pick these sorts of moments.

Had the Indians pulled off a comeback last night and put the Red Sox to bed, I think we would all have looked at the incredible at-bat Ryan Garko had off Daisuke Matsuzaka in the fourth inning, which drove in Travis Hafner (improbably in scoring position after breaking an 0-16 skid in the ALCS) with two outs.

Matsuzaka started Garko off with two good pitches: a slider for a called strike and a fastball fouled off, both high and away. In an 0-2 hole, Garko battled off two pitches in the strike zone (a shuuto and a curveball, both low and and away), then fouled off a 95 MPH fastball at the letters. Staying alive, Garko took a slow slider off the outside of the plate for ball one. On the seventh pitch of the at-bat, Garko fouled off yet another pitch, this one a cutter low and outside. He took one more 96 MPH fastball off the plate for a ball before ripping a hanging slider in the wheelhouse deep into centerfield, bouncing off the wall and making it a two run ball game.

Garko’s at bat not only drew the Indians’ first blood, it tired out Matsuzaka (who, if you believe FOX announcers, is more fragile than a Faberge egg) and showed excellent discipline batting in an 0-2 count. It makes one wonder what the Indians would do with Garko if they go ahead with their plan to use Victor Martinez at first more often, simultaneously giving more at-bats to the underrated (and overqualified) Kelly Shoppach. Not that this is a pressing concern, the Indians lost, and Cleveland is making its case to unseat Philadelphia as the City of Losers. Eric Wedge and Mark Shapiro have dozens of holes of golf before they have to start worrying about position battles.