Bud Selig Maintains his "Perfect" Record

Two questions: "Will it make us money?" or "Will it increase ticket sales?"

These appear to be the only ones Bud Selig asks of himself in any situation he presides over as Commissioner of Major League Baseball (MLB). Has he ever taken a principled stand? Certainly, the St. Louis Cardinals' recent hiring of Mark McGwire as a hitting coach offered Selig and MLB such an opportunity in regards to its problems with Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs). But taking a principled stand rarely results in improving one's bottom line. And it requires some work too - again, not a popular thing these days.

By blowing this one, Selig keeps his streak intact of doing the wrong thing when it comes to MLB's handling of PEDs. Selig's (and hence, MLB's) acceptance of McGwire back into the Cardinals' organization with open arms sends a curious message. At a minimum, Selig missed a great opportunity to send the right message to the millions of kids who follow pro baseball and aspire to become a "big leaguer" someday.

For me, this is the issue, the principle at hand: the impression made on young ball players, by this and every other situation involving major league baseball's association with PEDs. Selig interprets continuing strong ticket sales as the public's approval of his handling of this issue. Perhaps he is right. But he could not be more wrong in how all of this is perceived by young players. I know, because I talk to them.

This is the bigger issue at hand, which Selig is missing, and may well impact the future of MLB. Baseball is far from the most popular activity amongst youngsters these days. It cannot help MLB if youngsters think they have to take drugs to succeed at it.

As an aside, I wonder why would anyone think that a "reformed" PED user is an appropriate "role model" to speak out against PEDs? Why doesn't MLB trot out star players who haven't abused PEDs? Surely there are a few. Have them speak to youngsters about the dangers of PEDs and how you can succeed without them. But I digress.

By requiring nothing of McGwire in his return to pro coaching, the message appears to be, "Break some rules, refuse to answer questions, and hide for a few years. When you're ready to return to the game (the game you helped tarnish), all will be forgiven!" Is it a stretch to think young ball players would have some questions about this? How about Selig's own MLB players?

So what should Selig have done? At a minimum, the following:

1. Before taking his new job with St. Louis, require McGwire to fully come clean about his use of PEDs - how he got them, what he used, when he used, and the like.
2. Require McGwire to honestly answer questions in a one or two hour presser. Selig reportedly said, "When he comes back, you'll all have a lot of opportunities to talk to him. The fact that he's coming back gives you an opportunity you wouldn't have had."
   

Right. If Congress couldn't get him to talk, does Selig really think a gaggle of reporters can, at least a few of whom will likely be hostile? Selig must require of McGwire a complete, full account of his PED use as a pre-condition for his new job with St. Louis, or we'll see the same kind of pitiful obfuscation previously shown.

Personally, I'd like to see some punitive measure applied to McGwire, say a ban from the game for a few years. When you look at how Pete Rose has been dealt with, it's astonishing to me that McGwire is getting off completely, with no apparent negative outcomes whatsoever. Yes, what Rose did was worse than McGwire's "crime," but not by a huge degree. Betting on games as Rose did does strike at the integrity of the game, and that is a damaging thing.

Yet who would argue that what McGwire and other PED users did did not impact the integrity of the game? How can breaking records while using illegal, banned substances be helpful or positive? But now, because these artificially acquired, PED-generated records will stay on the books (as I suppose they should, only because we don't know who all the cheaters were) baseball may be even more tarnished by PEDs than anything Rose did.

I'm not a Pete Rose fan or sycophant, but I have to wonder, what is the lasting impact of what he did? Have youngsters been affected more by what Rose did, or what McGwire did? I don't think it's even close. If you're not sure about this, spend a few minutes on Tayler Hooton's web site.

Yet Rose is banned from baseball, while McGwire merrily saunters back in.

___________________________________
© 2009 Baseball Fit, LLC. All Rights Reserved. These contents may not be shared, forwarded, copied or transmitted in any form, except for personal use. Intellectual property violations in the form of plagiarism, especially where the plagiarized material is offered for sale, will be met with legal action.

Training With Rubber Tubing & Bands

Tubing made of rubber or similar materials is often used by baseball and softball players for strength work, usually for “smaller” muscles such as those that are associated with the rotator cuff.
While tubing and bands are generally considered to be safe for use by players of any age, they are not without potential problems. The thing people need to remember is that these are tools for resistance training, just like free weights (barbells/dumbbells). Tubing comes in different levels of difficulty or resistance, usually denoted by their color, and develops muscles like any other type of resistance training.

Personally, I prefer free weights to tubing, or anything like tubing, primarily because of the more consistent (but not perfect) force curve produced with weights.

What this means is that the resistance is more uniform throughout the range of motion (start to finish). With tubing, depending on the movement performed, there is little or no resistance at the start of the exercise and considerably more at the end. So, with tubing, certain points in the range of motion will receive more resistance than others.

The thing to keep in mind when training with tubing is this: it is a strength training tool just like free weights. Depending on how it’s used, it can stimulate muscle tissue and produce muscle growth just like weights. It will not make a muscle “longer” or more flexible in the process. So, tubing offers no advantage in terms of muscle development, particularly for younger players, than using free weights.

I mention this because I often hear coaches recommending tubing over free weights for young players, as if it is somehow “safer” or better for youngsters. I suppose if you were to drop a piece of rubber tubing on your foot, it will hurt much less than if you were to drop a 5 lb dumbbell on it!

Yet training with tubing does requires caution. Among the hazards is that old, improperly-cared-for tubing can snap and break during use. While this usually results in a painful snap on some area of the body, there are reports of serious eye injuries resulting from broken tubing. So, I recommend doing what I do: wear a pair of safety goggles while training with tubing. Eyes are hard to replace!

How Does Tubing Work?

Muscles do one thing: they contract. They do not flex – this is what joints do, amongst other actions. So, when a muscle is stimulated by tubing or weights, it will grow. Training with tubing doesn’t somehow produce muscle growth that is preferable over the growth produced by weights.

If you want a muscle to be less “bulky” and “short,” other factors must also come into play. Among these are how the resistance program is designed, and especially, the presence (or lack of) flexibility work. Otherwise, muscle growth stimulated by tubing or weights will be pretty much the same.

Another consideration when using tubing is that it should be used in a manner that is actually beneficial to throwers. For example, a common method of training with tubing is to place the arm at the throwing release point and pulling forward (internal shoulder rotation), as illustrated:

Figure 1, Internal Rotation Work with Tubing

This type of movement is done by some with the thought that training the arm against resistance will somehow “strengthen” it for throwing, thereby enabling a player to throw harder. However, this is not true.

This training movement is exactly the opposite of what an overhand thrower does, and has the potential of slowing down a throwing arm, resulting in decreased throwing velocity. Consider that when a thrower’s arm moves forward in its throwing range of motion to the release point, the only resistance is from the ball in the hand. After ball release, the arm continues to move forward without resistance.

The movement used in Figure 3 is similar to what swimmers do with the crawl stroke, which I also do not recommend for ball players. Among my concerns is that most baseball coaches know little about swimming stroke mechanics or about properly designing a swimming workout for ball players.

An even greater consideration is the potential for throwers to develop an impingement in their shoulders by swimming. Bottom line: ball players should not do any type of serious swimming training. If you want to jump in the water and cool off, great. Just do your conditioning on land!

A simple yet effective way to train the external rotator muscles/decelerators is shown here, using a small weight. Tubing could also be used for this movement in place of the weight:

Keep in mind that an exercise doesn’t have to exactly mimic a sports movement to be of benefit. With strength and conditioning, we are training the muscles and tendons used by a particular movement, not the movement mechanics. Just be sure your exercise doesn’t work in opposition to your sports movement!

Bottom line: training with tubing for ball players is but one part of an overall strength and conditioning program. It is not required for players of a particular age or ability level, but, properly performed, can be a helpful part of a resistance training regimen.


© 2009 Baseball Fit, LLC. All Rights Reserved. These contents may not be shared, forwarded, copied or transmitted in any form, except for personal use. Intellectual property violations in the form of plagiarism, especially where the plagiarized material is offered for sale, will be met with legal action.

Performance Enhancers, Enablers, & Supplements - Part 2

So David Ortiz denies taking anything banned by Major League Baseball (MLB). Surprise, surprise. Even when the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that players are better off owning up to their "indiscretion," guys like Ortiz insist on their innocence.

Yet it appears possible that Ortiz did not test positive for a banned substance. Well and fine - I do not want any player to be vilified for something they did not do.

My problem is with what Ortiz said, and how this matter is being covered by the media. He said he may have been careless in his use of supplements. Such a statement clouds the issue of the use of legitimate supplements. More to the point - it is IMPOSSIBLE to test positive for a banned substance, such as an anabolic steroid, by taking untainted nutritional supplements.

Why does this matter? Because Ortiz's statement suggests that one can test positive merely by taking the wrong kind, or combination, of nutritional supplements. It appears to condemn the use of legitimate products, substances as harmless as whey protein or vitamins.

So, Ortiz's positive test may have been the result of a tainted supplement. But, because the MLB Player's Association hasn't released information that would help clear up this important detail, we are left to wonder just what Ortiz might have taken to trigger his positive result.

Among the lessons for ball players is to use only products from reputable companies. Assuming proper manufacturing procedures, it is rare for supplements to be tainted by something, even accidentally. For this to happen, the manufaturer has to go out of their way to procure and intentionally add the banned substance.

Bottom line? Not only can ball players dispense with any fear regarding the use of nutritional supplements, such products can even improve their on-field performance.

Performance Enhancers, Enablers, and Supplements: What You Need to Know

So Boston’s David Ortiz is the latest drug cheat outed by Major League Baseball (MLB). Is anybody truly surprised with this latest revelation? The big names just keep falling, with another 97 or so yet to be revealed on the list of those testing positive for something banned by MLB.

My guess for the next big name to come out?

Ken Griffey Jr. &/or Albert Pujols. I offer these names not because I have any proof of their cheating, but simply because too many of the players who have been putting up big hitting numbers in recent years have also tested positive for a banned substance. This, coupled with their injury history and some unsubstantiated rumors I’ve heard over the years, places them under suspicion in my mind. Flimsy evidence, I will admit, and I do hope I’m wrong.

What’s interesting to me is that of the three MLB entities culpable for the steroid mess, it is still only the players who continue to pay the price. Management and labor? Not so much. Perhaps this is just, as it is the players who actually broke the rules. But when you consider that the testing conducted in 2003, from which the names of Ortiz, et al, are being revealed, was supposed to be confidential, something is very wrong about all of this.

At a minimum, the union which was supposed to maintain the confidentiality of the names testing positive is coming across as incompetent bozos. They had a chance to destroy the list of names and didn’t do so. I wonder when/if a player will finally get tired of this dog and pony show and sue someone (the union? the commissioner?) for allowing these names to get out. All of this would seem to make any future “anonymous/confidential” testing more problematic. I don’t know about you, but I wouldn't trust either the union or commissioner’s office to properly handle my sample for testing purposes. Oh well. MLB continues to sell tickets at a record pace, giving the appearance that not many fans care about any of this.

In this report I’ll provide some basic information on the differences between a few of the types of drugs banned by MLB as well as substances that are, as of this writing, considered to be safe, legal, and beneficial.

Let’s start with this basic concept:

Anything an athlete does to improve his on-field play
can be considered “performance enhancing”

However, I don’t care for the term, “performance enhancing drugs.” While it is an accurate description for what these substances do for players, it also seems to have the effect, in some minds, of casting a shadow of suspicion over legitimate performance enhancing activities and substances such as strength, conditioning, and nutritional supplements.

I routinely get questions and see things written on other baseball web sites that indicate to me a widespread lack of understanding regarding these matters. So I think it’s time to define a few terms to help anyone involved with the game - coaches, parents and players of all ages and ability levels – to be more informed on the issue of drugs and supplements, both legal and illegal.

Please be aware, this in not intended to be a guide for the use of any drug or substance mentioned herein. If you have questions or require additional information on anything contained in this report, contact competent medical authority.

First, there are 4 basic and accepted areas in which a player can enhance their on-field performance:

• Skills and Drills
• Strength & Conditioning
• Mental Training
• Nutrition & Recovery

Most players utilize one or more of these components in developing their game. The more of these a player employs, the better he likely will perform. Likewise, neglecting any of these elements can keep a player from maximizing their potential.

Performance ENHANCERS

Generally, these are drugs banned by MLB that are widely accepted as improving athletic performance. These include anabolic steroids, growth hormone, and agents that mask these substances. I also include amphetamines (aka speed, greenies, or beans) in this category. I do this because a player using speed during, say, a day game after a late night game will likely perform better than a player who is not. This is even more true late in the season. However, greenies would not add 5 mph to a pitcher’s fastball, or 40 feet of distance for a hitter.

What’s interesting about this is that as far as I’m aware, there are no clinical studies that demonstrate that steroids improve on-field performance. Yet is widely accepted by medical science that they do enhance athletic performance, such as hitting power, running speed, and throwing velocity.

Performance ENABLERS

These are drugs, either prescription or over-the counter, that allow a player to play but do not improve their normal abilities. All of the items that fall in this category are legal for use by anyone, including MLB players.

A good example of this is a class of drugs known as corticosteroids. A well known drug in this category is cortisone. Cortisone reduces pain and inflammation, such as is felt in an elbow or shoulder with tendonitis. This pain reduction may allow a player to stay in the lineup, but it does nothing for their resulting performance. A pitcher who throws, say, 88 mph, will not suddenly throw 95 mph because of a cortisone shot. Cortisone will only get this player on the field due to feeling less pain in their arm. It’s analogous to taking an aspirin for a headache.

Note that there are two types of steroids – anabolic (growth promoting, banned by MLB) and corticosteroids, allowed by MLB under a doctor’s supervision.

Other things that fall in this category are items such as contacts or eye glasses that allow a player to see better. While improving a ball player’s vision might improve their hitting ability, this type of “enhancement” is allowed by MLB rules and is also legal and safe.

Nutritional Supplements

This category includes the well known micro-nutrients – vitamins and minerals as well as macro-nutrients – protein, carbohydrates, and fats. All of these are components of a well balanced diet and can also be taken in pill or powder form as supplements.

It is widely accepted that eating properly can enhance athletic performance, while eating poorly can detract from it. Supplements can be an important adjunct to even a well balanced diet. However, players need to carefully choose the source of their supplements. In recent years, some nutritional companies have supplied products that were tainted by various banned substances. Any athlete who is subject to testing for performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) should use only products from reputable companies.

It's important to know that it is impossible for untainted nutritional supplements to cause one to test positive for banned substances such as anabolic steroids or speed.

Back in 2004, Experimental & Applied Sciences (EAS) entered into an agreement with MLB to be their official supplier for various supplements. Put another way, EAS paid a fee rumored to be in the millions of dollars for the exclusive right for this designation as the only supplement company approved by MLB. Presumably, their products could be used by ball players and they would never test positive for any substance banned by MLB. I don’t know if this exclusive arrangement is still in force.

To sum up, drugs of all kinds have been an integral part of all sports, including MLB. Most are legal and safe, some are not. My message to ball players at all levels of the game is this:

Not everyone is using PEDs and cheating! Appropriate strength, conditioning and nutrition can safely and effectively enhance your game.

-------------------------------------
(C) 2009 Baseball Fit, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Short quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Steve Zawrotny's BASEBALL FIT Hitting & Pitching Academy
www.BaseballFit.com

Clemens or Maddux: Who’s the Best?

There’s something that’s been buggin’ me over the last few years, and that is the constant reference by many to Roger Clemens as the best pitcher of his generation. Some have gone so far as to anoint Clemens as the best pitcher of any era. Then, the unfortunate and bothersome issue of Clemens and PEDs arose, casting a shadow on his achievements. More on that particular issue later.

In recent decades we have been fortunate to witness a number of all-time great baseball performances and careers, not the least of which is that of pitcher Greg Maddux. Maddux has officially retired, and for all practical purposes, Clemens is retired too. He just hasn’t formally announced it yet.

So, for kicks, I thought I’d take a few minutes to examine and compare their career accomplishments. In this process, I’m just looking at the raw numbers and not extrapolating anything beyond that – nothing as to their ability in the “clutch,” or how they may have influenced their teams and teammates.

While I looked at all the statistics that I could find (from various Internet sources), I’ve limited my comparisons here primarily to those by which pitchers are typically ranked – wins, losses, ERA and the like:

Clemens: 6’ 4”, 220. Drafted by Boston, 1^st round, 1983. 24 years played. Record of 354-184; ERA 3.12; Winning Percentage .658; Innings Pitched, 4916; WHIP, 1.17; Batting Average Against, .206.

Maddux: 6’ 0”, 170. Drafted by the Chicago Cubs, 2^nd round, 1984, 23 years played. Record of 355-227; ERA, 3.16; Winning Percentage, .610; Innings Pitched, 5008; WHIP, 1.14; Batting Average Against, .231.

First, some general discussion. As can be seen, their statistics are remarkably similar. You’ll note that I didn’t include strikeouts, because this stat, in my mind, doesn’t really speak to the overall greatness of a pitcher. It does say something about their ability to dominate hitters, and for this and a few other reasons, Nolan Ryan gets my vote as the greatest pitcher ever. But that’s a discussion for another day.

The only substantive difference between Clemens and Maddux is in Clemens’ lower amount of losses (and hence, a higher winning percentage) and Clemens’ very low “batting average against” number. It’s as if he faced a career’s worth of hitters the caliber of Bob Uecker! Maddux’s .231 average against is also very good, but Clemens has a clear edge here.

Both Clemens’ and Maddux’s career winning percentage is over .600, impressive on its own. Hall of Fame great Tom Seaver (311-205 win/loss record) once said that among his many career achievements, perhaps the one he was most proud of was that he could go on a 100 game losing streak and still be a winning pitcher. Clemens and Maddux can both make that claim, but in Clemens’ case, he could go on a 150 game losing streak and still be a winning pitcher! So, in win/loss totals, the edge goes to Clemens.

Clemens played one more year than Maddux, but Maddux pitched in 44 more games than Clemens. Their innings pitched totals are essentially the same, as are their results for ERA and WHIP (Walks+Hits per Innings Pitched). I like using the WHIP stat in pitcher evaluation because it quickly tells the story of a pitcher’s success, or potential for same. The fewer base runners a pitcher allows, the fewer can score, and therefore, the better his chances of winning. Low WHIP usually leads to a low ERA. They are essentially even in these key areas. But, since Clemens pitched primarily in the American League (and thereby faced DHs) I give him the edge here as well.

As for major awards, both Clemens and Maddux are high achievers:

Clemens – 7 Cy Young Awards, 1 MVP

Maddux – 4 Cy Youngs, 0 MVPs (highest finish, 3^rd in 1995)

Seven Cy Youngs is crazy, like Barry Bonds’ 7 MVPs. These may be two records to never be broken. Yet, when Maddux won his 4 straight CYs (1992 – 1995) I remember thinking that this particular record would never be broken. To break it would require 5 straight CYs, which probably will never happen. But then we have to consider that Randy Johnson also won 4 straight CYs, so, I think 5 straight CYs could happen. If a pitcher gets hot during a 5 year part of his career while at the same time, no one else distinguishes themselves, it could happen. I see this as a greater possibility than someone breaking Johnny Vandermeer’s record of two straight no-hitters. To break this record, it would take 3 straight no-hitters, which will never happen at the big-league level!

Add to Clemens’ 7 CYs an MVP and he clearly has the edge here as well. Maddux did win 18 Gold Gloves, which speaks to his standing as a well-rounded performer. But I’d trade the 18 Gold Gloves for an MVP, and perhaps Maddux would as well.

So, looking strictly at the numbers, Clemens appears to have had the superior career over Maddux. But we can’t just look at the numbers, because of Clemens’ apparent use of PEDs. Do I know Clemens used PEDs? No. But I watched every minute I could of Clemens’ various TV appearances, and I read everything I could get my hands on regarding this issue. Bottom line for me? Clemens did not conduct himself as an innocent man. I’d bet a LOT of money that he used PEDs.

So this sheds a whole different light on each of their careers. Maddux and Clemens are contemporaries. Maddux is a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame. At one time, Clemens was too. I used to wonder if Clemens would be the first unanimous inductee, but now I doubt he’ll ever get in. Perhaps Maddux will be the first unanimous inductee. I think he should be, but there’s no accounting for the goofy thinking processes of the voters. If Cal Ripken couldn’t get 100% of the vote, probably no one ever will - yet another discussion for another day!

Here’s how I look at Clemens and his PED use: he is believed to have begun using prior to the 1998 season. His win/loss record (the only stat I want to look at here) from 1984 through 1997 was 202 – 121, a percentage of .625. These are not Hall of Fame numbers. If they are, then a lot of voters owe Bert Blyleven an apology, regardless of the number of CYs Clemens had won to this point.

From 1998 through 2007 (Clemens last competitive year) he’s 141 – 66, a percentage of .681. So, the last 10 years of his career were more successful than his first (read: younger) 14 years. Knowing what we do about the human body, this is simply not possible. Unless, of course, there is some significant outside source of help, such as PEDs.

So let’s look at Clemens’ numbers another way. Let’s say he doesn’t use PEDs during his last 10 years. How many games does he win (if he even is capable of making a team) as a viable pitcher? Who knows? Lets say he continues with the same winning percentage of his first 14 years (an impossibility, to be sure). His win total drops to
331, still HOF worthy.

How about if he wins only 50% of his games over the last 10 years, a not unreasonable guess. His win total is now down to 306, again, still HOF worthy. The problem with both of my guesses about the latter part of Clemens career is that we’ll never know how it would have turned out without his use of PEDs.

To take my guessing game one step further, what would Greg Maddux have accomplished with the use of PEDs? Can we safely conclude he would have won more than 355 games? Clearly, yes. Maddux has never been associated in any way with PEDs, and he sure doesn’t look like a user. Clemens, by contrast, does.

To wrap this up, Maddux won one more game than Clemens WITHOUT the use of PEDs! So, raw numbers aside, Maddux’s accomplishments are much more impressive than Clemens, and for this reason, I think he had the more impressive career.