PDA

View Full Version : Jim Kaat Cheating Article.


Paulwny
01-22-2008, 12:15 PM
I'm kinda surprised he feels this way. Steroids are no different than previous forms of cheating in MLB.

From the YES Net:
My reason to point out these examples of "performance enhancements" or cheating is that it has been going on as long as the game itself. Steroids that help you perform better are no different, except that they can affect your health.

http://web.yesnetwork.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080117&content_id=1436150&vkey=8

D. TODD
01-22-2008, 01:03 PM
I'm kinda surprised he feels this way. Steroids are no different than previous forms of cheating in MLB.

From the YES Net:
My reason to point out these examples of "performance enhancements" or cheating is that it has been going on as long as the game itself. Steroids that help you perform better are no different, except that they can affect your health.

http://web.yesnetwork.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080117&content_id=1436150&vkey=8
I agree with him totally. They may not have worked as well, but "greenies" and everything else that could be had were used as performance enhancers. The 'roids and such just work better. Poppin' amphetamines and other illegal drugs useage is nothing new to baseball.

Oblong
01-22-2008, 01:04 PM
Well... his exception is the main reason for me why it's a different kind of cheating, and more serious. I don't care so much about the games themselves, whether it lets guys hit more HR or itch longer, I think that stuff evens out if many of them are using it. What I don't like about them is the undue pressure it puts on players who are fighting for roster spots. I'd hate to be faced with a choice of taking something that's harmful to me but if I take it then it improves my chances at providing for my family. A couple of decent seasons from guy in his 4th or 5th year can be parlayed into a $15-20 million deal. Suddenly you go from being well off to being very rich. That's a hell of a temptation but carries the risk. So one guy did something wrong and got pretty rich out of it while his competitor for that spot did the honorable thing but now is either playing in Japan or coaching his HS team.

D. TODD
01-22-2008, 01:19 PM
Well... his exception is the main reason for me why it's a different kind of cheating, and more serious. I don't care so much about the games themselves, whether it lets guys hit more HR or itch longer, I think that stuff evens out if many of them are using it. What I don't like about them is the undue pressure it puts on players who are fighting for roster spots. I'd hate to be faced with a choice of taking something that's harmful to me but if I take it then it improves my chances at providing for my family. A couple of decent seasons from guy in his 4th or 5th year can be parlayed into a $15-20 million deal. Suddenly you go from being well off to being very rich. That's a hell of a temptation but carries the risk. So one guy did something wrong and got pretty rich out of it while his competitor for that spot did the honorable thing but now is either playing in Japan or coaching his HS team. That's true, but I think what he is saying is that it is nothing new to the game. Every era used what was available, with no regard to laws or possible health problems down the road. The stuff is stronger and more hazardous now, so that is the only difference he and I see. I believe the focus should be on policing it from now and into the future. I don't give a **** if Bonds, Clemens, etc. used. It was part of the game for that era, unfortunately.

Oblong
01-22-2008, 01:34 PM
That's true, but I think what he is saying is that it is nothing new to the game. Every era used what was available, with no regard to laws or possible health problems down the road. The stuff is stronger and more hazardous now, so that is the only difference he and I see. I believe the focus should be on policing it from now and into the future. I don't give a **** if Bonds, Clemens, etc. used. It was part of the game for that era, unfortunately.

Ok, I didn't read the article, just what was quoted. If that was his point then I think it sort of fits into my first point about ambivalence to the effect of the game. I don't really compare players from different eras anyway so Bonds vs Aaron vs Ruth and Clemens vs. Johnson, etc. don't really matter to me.

Players push the limit, that fierce competitive level is what got them there. Ownership and the media look the other way. Fans don't seem concerned about it.

D. TODD
01-22-2008, 02:01 PM
Ok, I didn't read the article, just what was quoted. If that was his point then I think it sort of fits into my first point about ambivalence to the effect of the game. I don't really compare players from different eras anyway so Bonds vs Aaron vs Ruth and Clemens vs. Johnson, etc. don't really matter to me.

Players push the limit, that fierce competitive level is what got them there. Ownership and the media look the other way. Fans don't seem concerned about it.Well , he focused on scuffing the balls & corking the bats as ways to cheat or enhance their performances. I added the use of drugs that was ramant and encouraged for most of baseballs history also. His point was don't blame the players for doing what baseball has encouraged throughout it's history, that is do whatever you can to get an advantage to win.

FarWestChicago
01-22-2008, 05:19 PM
I agree with him totally. They may not have worked as well, but "greenies" and everything else that could be had were used as performance enhancers. The 'roids and such just work better. Poppin' amphetamines and other illegal drugs useage is nothing new to baseball.Nobody hit 50 homers in the "greenie" era, much less Brady Anderson. Keep trying to make a molehill into a mountain.

Lip Man 1
01-22-2008, 05:33 PM
Jim spoke about this and other topics in his interview with WSI:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=11&id=3341

Lip

Oblong
01-22-2008, 08:15 PM
Nobody hit 50 homers in the "greenie" era, much less Brady Anderson. Keep trying to make a molehill into a mountain, 'roid lover.

The point is that the players back then were not immune to cheating to get an edge. It wasn't until the early 80s that baseball players fully realized how helpful it was to be strong and in very good shape. Then they figured out that steroids could make them even stronger or give them a big advantage in what they needed, so they took them. If the guys in the 60s and 70s believed in working out to that extent they'd have taken them too.

FarWestChicago
01-22-2008, 08:33 PM
The point is that the players back then were not immune to cheating to get an edge. It wasn't until the early 80s that baseball players fully realized how helpful it was to be strong and in very good shape. Then they figured out that steroids could make them even stronger or give them a big advantage in what they needed, so they took them. If the guys in the 60s and 70s believed in working out to that extent they'd have taken them too.That doesn't make 'roids insignificant or OK. I know some of you are confused on this issue; but it is as simple as two wrongs don't make a right.

Daver
01-22-2008, 08:41 PM
That doesn't make 'roids insignificant or OK. I know some of you are confused on this issue; but it is as simple as two wrongs don't make a right.

Three rights, however, do make a left.

FarWestChicago
01-22-2008, 08:55 PM
Three rights, however, do make a left.This is true. :cool:

Oblong
01-22-2008, 09:01 PM
That doesn't make 'roids insignificant or OK. I know some of you are confused on this issue; but it is as simple as two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm not saying it does. But I'm not going to understate the cheating that went on with greenies just because guys didn't hit a lot of homers. It wasn't for lack of trying. That's the point Kaat appears to be trying to make. The two things are obviously different, he said that, but the game or players were no more pure back then. They just weren't as productive cheaters.

FarWestChicago
01-22-2008, 09:42 PM
I'm not saying it does. But I'm not going to understate the cheating that went on with greenies just because guys didn't hit a lot of homers. It wasn't for lack of trying. That's the point Kaat appears to be trying to make. The two things are obviously different, he said that, but the game or players were no more pure back then. They just weren't as productive cheaters.Think of it this way. Sentences for attempted murder are usually much less severe than those for first degree murder. Perhaps that analogy will help.

ode to veeck
01-22-2008, 11:34 PM
Three rights, however, do make a left.

LOL

In Chicago yes, in Boston or Tokyo or Ireland (among other places) not really, in fact, you're totally lost at that point in most circumstances

Back to the regularly scheduled degrees of cheating thread

Oblong
01-23-2008, 06:21 AM
Think of it this way. Sentences for attempted murder are usually much less severe than those for first degree murder. Perhaps that analogy will help.

Do you still not see the part where everyone appears to acknowledge that there's a difference? What's so hard about that?

Nevertheless, I think no less of an attempted murderer than I do of a convicted murderer.

People here are acting like greenies is akin to jaywalking or fudging on charitable donations come tax time and steroids is capital murder.

D. TODD
01-23-2008, 09:18 AM
Nobody hit 50 homers in the "greenie" era, much less Brady Anderson. Keep trying to make a molehill into a mountain. Yes you are right, it did not work as well, but it was used for the same purpose. The newer forms are just more effective, hence the outrage.

MISoxfan
01-23-2008, 09:26 AM
Do you still not see the part where everyone appears to acknowledge that there's a difference? What's so hard about that?

Do you not see the part where he said two wrongs don't make a right? Everyone knows the greenies were wrong as well. What's so hard about that?

Oblong
01-23-2008, 10:03 AM
Obviously... but it was an argument against a point that was never made. I've yet to see anyone here suggest that steroids were "right". Greenies were called a "molehill". I don't think that's correct. Players were cheating in an attempt to increase their production. If they thought steroids could do it they would have done that.

FarWestChicago
01-23-2008, 04:30 PM
Yes you are right, it did not work as well, but it was used for the same purpose. The newer forms are just more effective, hence the outrage.You are correct, sir. Nobody condones what old timers did. It just didn't work well. That doesn't excuse what they did. But, it didn't make the record book worthless. The 'roiders did in many cases. And it's not the first time. Look up the world records for women in the 400 and 800 meter runs. The times are over 20 years old and still unapproachable (and I guarantee Marita Koch or Jarmila Kratochvilova from back then could beat the crap out of you unless you're a really big guy). You basically just have to ignore that part of the record book. It's a shame the same thing happened to baseball. That doesn't make greenies a good thing. It's just pathetic the baseball record book got partially destroyed decades after other sports caught on to the 'roiders.