Isn't that cheating too?

[flota89]

Came across some interesting bats lately, and it got me thinking...

While HOF voters almost entirely deny steroid users, what about other forms of cheating? Corked bats, for example, seem to be fairly common.

Here are a couple examples from Jim Rice.

https://www.digitalfm.com/gameusedbats/itemDetail.cfm?sku=5308

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Jim-Rice-H-B-Game-Used-Bat-Boston-Red-Sox-Corked-HOF-/190670679643?pt=Vintage_Sports_Memorabilia&hash=item2c64dbae5b

To me, that's direct evidence that Rice used corked bats to at least some degree.

I'm curious to hear thoughts on this from everyone.

-Tyler Flota

[rdeversole]

Re: Isn't that cheating too?

The corked bat thing always comes up for me when I hear steroid talk. I know players used them in BP but how do we judge the players that used them during gameplay?

[David]

Re: Isn't that cheating too?

In baseball circles, and for many years, corked or similar bats has been considered significant cheating. Probably on the order of throwing a spit ball.

[emann]

Re: Isn't that cheating too?

Good post...

I've never bought the "I only used corked bats in BP" argument. I think if you have them on-hand in your bat bag, made to look like they've never been tampered with, they're probably getting used in a game.

For pitcher alterations to their equipment, I submit this Whitey Ford glove with the thumb tack secretly hidden inside:

http://sports.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=717&lotIdNo=157007

I don't think the corked bats, tacked gloves, sandpaper, etc are really the same as steroids. If a player gets caught with a corked bat, you take it away from him and the playing field is immediately even again, not so with a drug that over time alters your body type.

[That said, I still feel the steroid users should be allowed in... If they're not banning anyone who tested positive and crossing them out of the record books (which probably should have happened at the start), they should just let them in the HOF.]

[flota89]

Re: Isn't that cheating too?

Good post...

I've never bought the "I only used corked bats in BP" argument. I think if you have them on-hand in your bat bag, made to look like they've never been tampered with, they're probably getting used in a game.

For pitcher alterations to their equipment, I submit this Whitey Ford glove with the thumb tack secretly hidden inside:

http://sports.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=717&lotIdNo=157007

I don't think the corked bats, tacked gloves, sandpaper, etc are really the same as steroids. If a player gets caught with a corked bat, you take it away from him and the playing field is immediately even again, not so with a drug that over time alters your body type.

[That said, I still feel the steroid users should be allowed in... If they're not banning anyone who tested positive and crossing them out of the record books (which probably should have happened at the start), they should just let them in the HOF.]

That's a neat glove. Hadn't noticed that yet. I agree that steroids are more of a "baseball sin" that something like a corked bat, but cheating is still cheating.

It's probably safe to assume every generation of baseball players has found some way to cheat. That's likely to not change, especially with players fighting over $200 million contracts.

It gets to the point where you need to let them all in, or don't let any in at all.






On another note, I do find it funny that many baseball romantics absolutely trash players like Bonds, Sosa, and Clemens while worshiping the vintage guys like Aaron, Ruth, Hornsby, etc. In all reality, both groups likely cheated (the generation as a whole). But that's just me.

[yanks12025]

Re: Isn't that cheating too?

Because with 99% of the corked bats, you can't prove that the player used it or they put the cork there. They could say it was added later by someone else. But with steriods it's a clean case of cheating.

[CampWest]

Re: Isn't that cheating too?

When the umpires were examining George Brett's bat, at the beginning of the Pine Tar Incident, Brett thought they were checking the bat for cork. He knew he never corked his bats, so he knew it was a futile examination of his bat. So when they called him out, he protested, uhh vehemently.

Anyhow, the relevancy is that Brett says that corking bats was a pretty regular occurence in the late 70s - early 80s. Brett says players thought that it created a trampoline effect with the bat.

The Mythbusters tested corking of bats several years ago and found that corked bats transferred less energy to the ball, because of the reduced mass, increase in bat speed was less than the decrease in weight. So the real benefits would potentially be psychological/confidence and better bat control due to the reduced weight.

I would argue that steroid abuse is illegal in our society, putting cork in a bat is not a felony. Therefore illegal drug cheating is worse than corking, spitballs, stealing signs or any of the other "legal" forms of cheating. I've never understood the arguments of some backers of illegal steroid users, if its illegal, then there need not be a rule in the rulebook.

[Dach0sen0ne]

Re: Isn't that cheating too?

Here are youtube links to the Mythbusters baseball special. Cool Stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2vxPpNaLxE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsCdW95LYtE&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IY4s3H_zv4&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmW5aO2qY1Q&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idLJIVlciHY&feature=relmfu

[joelsabi]

Re: Isn't that cheating too?

Here are youtube links to the Mythbusters baseball special. Cool Stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2vxPpNaLxE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsCdW95LYtE&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IY4s3H_zv4&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmW5aO2qY1Q&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idLJI...feature=relmfu

thanks for the links.

[emann]

Re: Isn't that cheating too?

I've never understood the arguments of some backers of illegal steroid users, if its illegal, then there need not be a rule in the rulebook.

I wouldn't consider myself a backer of steroid users, but I do think MLB is responsible for letting this mess go on and not acting soon enough. Now it seems lame to me that they're just going to take a wait & see attitude toward these players in the HOF. So, what you'll get is the more popular players like A-Rod eventually getting in and the lesser ones being left out. Where is the lesson or repercussions in that? Either they're all out and banned or they're all allowed in. At this point, Selig has let it drag out and we're talking about a majority of key players over a decade or more. I think they may as well let them in.

Also, you're talking two different things here in regards to legal/illegal usage:

The whole illegal aspect of steroids in the late 90's/early 2000's is somewhat blurry and a number of these players were actually using them legally in terms of US law. If steroids were prescribed to you by a doctor, then you were in possession of them legally. Anabolic steroids became illegal around 1990, but you can still be prescribed them (same with HGH). Some of the alleged users, like Ken Caminiti for example, were getting these illegally from drug dealers (not legal), others like Paul Byrd were prescribed them by their physician (legal, but still not allowed by MLB). Bonds and Clemens are not being prosecuted for using steroids, they're being prosecuted for lying under oath...

MLB however, banned steroids in 1991, but did not really enforce this ban until the 2000's (and possibly even decided not to act when it was aware). So, it was and still is possible for a player to legally use steroids in the US, but it would not allowed by MLB.

Sort of like it is legal to drink shots of vodka, but your employer would probably frown upon it being done at work...

[Tim+Jeff]

Re: Isn't that cheating too?

How much additional distance does a player get with a corked bat?

[flota89]

Re: Isn't that cheating too?

How much additional distance does a player get with a corked bat?

Studies have shown it doesn't help distance much if at all. It does improve bat speed/control and adds a boost of confidence.

[Tim+Jeff]

Re: Isn't that cheating too?

Studies have shown it doesn't help distance much if at all. It does improve bat speed/control and adds a boost of confidence.

Thanks...I didn't think it would make a difference w/distance.

[Chris78]

Re: Isn't that cheating too?

I wouldn't consider myself a backer of steroid users, but I do think MLB is responsible for letting this mess go on and not acting soon enough. Now it seems lame to me that they're just going to take a wait & see attitude toward these players in the HOF. So, what you'll get is the more popular players like A-Rod eventually getting in and the lesser ones being left out. Where is the lesson or repercussions in that? Either they're all out and banned or they're all allowed in. At this point, Selig has let it drag out and we're talking about a majority of key players over a decade or more. I think they may as well let them in.

Also, you're talking two different things here in regards to legal/illegal usage:

The whole illegal aspect of steroids in the late 90's/early 2000's is somewhat blurry and a number of these players were actually using them legally in terms of US law. If steroids were prescribed to you by a doctor, then you were in possession of them legally. Anabolic steroids became illegal around 1990, but you can still be prescribed them (same with HGH). Some of the alleged users, like Ken Caminiti for example, were getting these illegally from drug dealers (not legal), others like Paul Byrd were prescribed them by their physician (legal, but still not allowed by MLB). Bonds and Clemens are not being prosecuted for using steroids, they're being prosecuted for lying under oath...

MLB however, banned steroids in 1991, but did not really enforce this ban until the 2000's (and possibly even decided not to act when it was aware). So, it was and still is possible for a player to legally use steroids in the US, but it would not allowed by MLB.

Sort of like it is legal to drink shots of vodka, but your employer would probably frown upon it being done at work...

The way you put your perspective on the steroids issue is the way I feel as well including the legal aspect as well. MLB (Bud Selig) did not do enough about the steroids issue. If they would have attacked it right away, the players using the steroids would have been caught right away. You can't wait 10 years and then try to blame everyone that might have used steroids.

As far as with the Hall of Fame, some guys were HOF'ers anyway. Both Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens clearly had HOF careers based on statistics. Keep in mind that they had to have the skills and expertise to play at that level (you can give anyone steroids, that does not mean that they will have HOF stats). I personally feel that Clemens would have had 300+ wins and Bonds would have had 600+ home runs with their skills whether they used steroids or not, and these would be HOF careers.

Some guys like Palmeiro and McGwire probably would not have had HOF stats without steroid use (assuming they used steroids), but the problem is Bud Selig did not enforce the steroid use issue.

Yes, it would be "morally" wrong to cheat, but if no one does anything about it, how can you blame them 10 years later?

Chris

[10thMan]

Re: Isn't that cheating too?

Personally, All I had know is PITCHERS use PEDS also! I get sick of Hearing People go on & on about Batters with Huge Muscles using Drugs, Cranking Balls into the Parking Lot. BFD! Is it Cheating, yes. Does it bother me, NO. If I knew I could (potentially) "earn" a several hundred Million Contract, would I have done it? Maybe...Let`s get Honest here. Ok, do the best you can, I`ll be Honest.
Cork Bat? I`d like to own one...
Sean