Imagine my Claude Rains Voice...

[Oops - meant to put this at my place - I'll leave it here, no harm done...]

Mark McGwire admits to using steroids. This is shocking news, huh? I have never been a Mark McGwire fan - nothing to do with steroids, really, it's just that - without steroids, he would have been a one dimensional slugger, a new Dave Kingman - with them, he set records and was mistaken for one of the all time greats. A problem in part because it overshadowed people who probably were among the all time greats - and I remain fairly convinced, drove those players to the same expedients that made McGwire seem like more than he really was. And so people act as though Clemens and Bonds, to name names, were just chemical byproducts, instead of two of the best who ever played. And McGwire's part in this goes deep - we shouldn't forget that he and Canseco (and probably a few others, but mostly the bash brothers) were instrumental in moving steroids from a dirty little secret of the game to front and center, the engine of the game in the late 90s and early 00s. I didn't like that style - I like pitching and defense and line drives and walks - I may only be able to play slow pitch softball, but I don't want to watch it.... But that is how the game was built, and it was very popular, and restored the game to new heights after the labor problems that almost ruined it.

But all that aside - this confession would be enough to get me to vote for McGwire to the hall of fame. I don't care if it's cynical and fake-sentimental and years too late for something - the fact is, he's the first major star of the era to state the obvious without being forced to. (Unless you count Canseco, though his was even more cynical and self-serving; and a bit pathetic.) McGwire is catching hell for it - sanctimonious shits like Brian Williams pontificate away, mewling about the "magical stuff" of the summer of 1998 (not magic - science!) - ugh.... Look - it was possible to look at Bonds, know what kind of player he had been all his career, and sort of imagine that maybe, if he gave up trying to run and just bulked up, he could hit those home runs - wishful thinking maybe, but still... But not McGwire, and not Sosa - they were steroids players, playing a steroids game - with the tacit (at least) approval (even encouragement) of the owners and league officials - not to mention the people who played the business up on TV. The only other explanation for all those homers that ever had any validity was that the sport was juicing the balls - it was the baseballs or the players or both, but something was getting juiced...

And people enjoyed it. Why not? they enjoyed it then, and are enjoying it now, cause they get to play the victim - oh, we were fooled! - and huff and puff and bask in their own righteousness and the convenient amnesia about what kind of dope the old timers were using. And McGwire - going first - will get the worst of it. Just like A Rod got it worse than Manny and Manny got it worse than David Ortiz last summer.... every player who admits this will get just a little less crap about it, and by the time Bonds or Clemens gets around to it, they'll be able to brag about it. And - I'd wager - by summer, McGwire will be getting more cheers than boos - and maybe - who knows, in time this will look like what it is - a misguided era in baseball history, creating some odd offensive stats that require some on the fly translation to understand (at least until everyone 'fesses up and the statisticians can start trying to parse out what, exactly, steroids changed) - it will be something like the dead ball era that you just have to count around. No one will ever win 42 games again; probably no one will hit 73 home runs; both are products of how the game was played at the time....

Sports Post and Poll

It's been a tough couple weeks for baseball managers - John McLaren in Seattle, John Gibbons in Toronto, Willie Randolph of the Mets were all fired in the last couple weeks - and the trade rumors are starting: whither CC Sabathia? Matt Holliday? Jason Bay? And so Im putting u another poll, for you baseball fans: which of the dreadful underachievers are most likely to turn things around in the second half?

There have been some dreadful underachievers: The Mets, at least compared to their image of themselves; the Tigers and Indians, by pretty much any standard, have been huge disappointments; The Mariners wanted to think they were contenders, and acted like it,trading prospects for Eric Bedard; both the Rockies and Padres have been awful, after being in the playoffs last year... The Blue Jays, Dodgers, etc., all had dreams of contention, which aren't very likely now.

But - if I had posted this a couple weeks ago - I could have included the Yankees: a winning streak later, they're over .500 and only 5 out; The Brewers were mediocre for a long time - now - 6 1/2 out, but moving up on the Cubs; good lord - even the Orioles are over .500! So - who else can turn it around? I'm going to limit the choice to the teams that both have a shot at the post-season - so no Mariners, they won't come back from 18.5 out, and were supposed to be good, and were good last year, but have been lousy this year. Those teams are:

Detroit and Cleveland - both very good last year, supposed to fight for the top of their division, if not the league, this year - both very bad this year. Though lately the Tigers are hot - and both are still within range of contention, and both have bunches of established players who have not been performing - they are prime candidates to make a run.

Rockies and Padres - playoff teams (sort of) last year, awful this year - but close enough to make a run, and - maybe...

Throw the Dodgers in there too, since they fit the bill pretty well.

And finally - the NYMets - they're the ones getting the attention, of these sad underachievers. The joys and perils of being in one f the big media cities. And of spending a ton of money and playing to the tabloids every offseason - which seems to me to be a big part of their problem. They have been making the big splash almost every year of the Minaya era - signing Beltran, Martinez, trading for Santana and so on - all fine and good, except they haven't bothered to put a team around the stars. Take away Wright, Reyes and Beltran, and that is one sorry lineup. It's interesting to compare them to the Phils - what's the difference? comes down to this - the Phils' stars are playing at or above expectations (except for Rollins), while the Mets stars, while doing okay, have not been up to their standards; and the rest of the Phillies lineup is competent major leaguers who stat on the field - Victorino, Werth and Jenkins, Feliz - nothing special, but they give you something. The Mets? not so much...

Anyway: we'll see how this goes... maybe next we can ask about which of the overachievers (Tampa, Florida, the Pale Hose, those over .500 Orioles, etc.) can keep it up.