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.

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.

Has The Time Come For A MLB Combine?

Imagine you’re a baseball GM. Albert Pujols and Babe Ruth are available. Which of these two do you pick to build your team around?

It is interesting to me how the various professional leagues go about evaluating prospects for their draft days. Perhaps there is something for baseball, and MLB in particular, to learn from the NFL and their scouting combine approach.

Given the expense associated with the high “washout” rate for baseball draftees (above 50%) you’d think MLB would be interested in improving what is essentially a "crap shoot" of a system.

The NFL scouting combine has grown in scope and significance from its early days, allowing personnel directors to evaluate upcoming prospects in a standardized setting. Its origins have evolved from the National, Blesto and Quadra Scouting services in 1977, to the media frenzy it has become today.

In 1985 all 28 NFL teams decided they would participate in future National Invitational Camps with the goal of sharing costs for the medical examinations of draft eligible players. They also use this setting to evaluate prospects in a variety of tests, which include the following:

• 40 yard dash

• Bench press

• Vertical jump

• Broad jump (standing long jump)

• 20-yard shuttle

• three-cone drill

• 60-yard shuttle

• Position-specific drills

• Interviews

• Physical measurements

• Injury evaluation

• Drug screen

• The Cybex test

• The Wonderlic Test

Approximately 335 total athletes are selected to attend each year, by invitation only. Participants are determined annually by a Selection Committee. The directors of both National and BLESTO scouting services are joined by members of various NFL player personnel departments to form the committee.

The participating NFL executives can rotate on a yearly basis, and remain anonymous. ALL eligible players are reviewed and voted on by the committee members. Each athlete receiving the necessary number of votes, by position, is then extended an invitation.

The closest MLB has come to this "combine" concept occurred almost 100 years ago. In 1921, Popular Science Monthly published the results of a study they performed on Babe Ruth.

According to Marcus Elliot, MD of the Peak Performance Project in Santa Barbara, CA:

“… the Babe Ruth testing was more appropriate and more intensive than anything any professional team is doing now.”

As reported in the September 2006 issue of GQ, these experiments were replicated on the St. Louis Cardinals’ Albert Pujols. The results are very interesting.

These are the original tests the Babe went through, which Pujols performed at Washington University in St. Louis in the spring of 2006:

· Bat speed: Swinging a 54 oz bat, the Babe clocked in at 75 mph. Pujols, swinging a 31.5 oz bat, was at 86.99 mph.

· Letter cross-out: Pujols was given a sheet of jumbled text and told to cross out all the A’s as rapidly as possible. According to the author, the test was not “well normed” in Ruth’s day, making comparison’s with Pujols impossible. Pujols’ results indicated he possessed “extraordinary binocularity,” a key visual attribute for hitters.

· Pegboard: This test assesses fine motor control and speed. It involves inserting as quickly as possible 25 steel pegs into holes punched in a plain metal box. Ruth’s score was off the charts; Pujols’ was considered high average.

· Digit/symbol substitution: Involves converting weird symbols into numbers, as many as possible in one minute. Both Ruth & Pujols made average scores. On a separate part of the test, in which one simply copies the symbols, Pujols score was off the charts.

· Finger tapping: with your dominant index finger, you depress a tapper as many times as possible in 10 seconds. Both Ruth and Pujols scored in the 99th percentile.

There is a lot of valuable testing being done by various experts that is largely ignored by MLB. Still, might we someday see a MLB combine, similar to the NFL’s, which measures attributes such as the above? Surely it would benefit pro and college baseball to have a standardized setting in which medical and performance evaluations can be made.

Why might this not happen? Well, for one thing, it would take a good pile of $$. Yet to me, this concept appears to be a business waiting to happen. Top players could be invited, as with the NFL combine. They could choose to participate or not. When a particular player declines to participate, another can be selected. This would likely give players an opportunity to be "discovered" that they might not otherwise have.

Regardless, the structure would be fairly easy to develop. MLB and maybe the NCAA could assume the costs of the operation; participants could pay a modest fee. Or, the creators of the combine would collect their data and charge MLB and college teams for access to it.

Medical and relevant performance tests for ball players would be administered, just like the NFL combine. The baseball combine could continue to monitor the careers of participants, which would help determine the reliability and predictive value of the data collected.

Here’s my suggested list of what a MLB Combine might use in their player evaluations. I’m sure there are other useful tests that could be included:

• Most/all of the above Ruth/Pujols tests

• A test that measures emotional maturity

• Running speed, straight-line and on the base paths

• Throwing velocity, all positions

• Bat speed for all hitters

• Agility and quickness tests for IF and OF

• Visual acuity/depth perception

• Tests to measure body-core strength

• A drug screen

Can a greater number of prospects be identified this way, with more objective testing? Of course. This doesn’t mean that scouts are no longer needed. With the above information, scouts could have more objective tools at their disposal for player evaluation.

Developing a data base of norms for these tests could usher in Money Ball, Part 2. Each team would define the attributes most important to them, much as they do now, and select prospects accordingly

In any case, it would appear that you would do well in choosing either Pujols or Ruth!

________________________________________________________________________________________________

(C) 2007 Baseball Fit, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Steve Zawrotny's BASEBALL FIT Hitting & Pitching Conditioning - www.BaseballFit.com

The information contained herein is the opinion of the author based on his personal observations and years of experience. Neither Steve Zawrotny or Baseball Fit assume any liability whatsoever for the use of or inability to use any or all of the information presented on this website.

Why MLB Is Reluctant To Change

A question I occasionally hear is “If weighted baseball training is such a good idea, why aren’t more players and teams using this type of training? Why isn't professional baseball?” Well, I hear from pro ball players all the time that more players and teams ARE using weighted baseballs as part of their training. The process is slow, but progress is being made. At the NCAA D-1and other college divisions, they are more widely used.

Of the four major league sports, baseball is the slowest to adopt new methods in any aspect of the game. For evidence, read “Money Ball,” a book that has been largely ignored by MLB. This aversion to change is widely acknowledged. But why is this so? Here's my theory.

I’ll start by saying it has little to do with tradition. MLB will change its policies/procedures in a NY minute if it can make more money in the process.

It has everything to do with the people who run the system. MLB is the ultimate “good ol’ boys” club. While this may seem obvious, there are some deeper issues at work. To illustrate, let’s compare MLB with the NBA and the NFL.

Every player that enters the NBA and NFL has anywhere from 2-4 years of college education. In recent years, the NBA has been drafting more high school players, but these are a distinct minority. How diligent athletes are in becoming educated is perhaps debatable, but recent NCAA D-1 statistics indicate a graduation rate of 62% for all athletes vs. a 60% rate for non-athletes. The NFL, of course, does not draft high school players.

In the early years of the MLB draft, more high school than college players were selected. In recent decades, opportunities to attend college have greatly expanded, with more players going the college route. Therefore, more college players are being drafted (for several reasons). The number of high school players drafted now comprises about 30-35% of the total.

Question: Where do the coaches, managers, and executives who run professional sports come from? Overwhelmingly, from the ranks of former players. Money Ball notwithstanding, few decision makers in MLB are outsiders.

So what might we learn from all of this?

That the pool from which the future leaders and decision makers in MLB are coming from is not particularly well educated! These guys have not been much exposed to “higher order” thinking or the scientific process (as opposed to most every NBA and NFL player and coach).

If you want to be a head coach at most any level of college sports, a degree is required, often an advanced degree. It is not unusual for college head coaches to hold Master's and Doctoral degrees. You occasionally hear the TV talking heads discuss a college coach's educational background. When was the last time you heard a discussion on some MLB manager's academic achievements?

So, like all of us, baseball coaches and managers teach what they know. And, like most of us, they are slow to change their ways. Perhaps this will change as the trend of drafting more college baseball players continues.

Don’t misinterpret what I am saying. This is not about educational elitism. I’ve encountered enough “degreed” dimwits over the years to know that formal education has its limitations.

But you can’t teach what you don’t know. So, if

• Your educational background is limited, and

• You’re not really into SELF-education, and

• You don’t have the background to properly interpret scientific
  data,

and

• You have poor communication skills

Then you’re more likely to be suspicious of new ideas and techniques, and reluctant to adopt them, regardless of all the positive evidence that may exist for an idea. Such a person may also have limited teaching skills as well, further hampering the process of transferring new concepts.

So what we have with MLB is an entrenched, self-perpetuating mindset that is not particularly open to new ideas, unless there is obvious financial benefit.

Keep all of this in mind the next time you hear the question, “If (insert new idea here) is such a good idea, why isn’t professional baseball doing it?” Most certainly, DO NOT judge the value of an idea based on MLB’s view of it. Do your own independent research instead. You’ll be better served.

IMPORTANT DEFINITION:

Arm STRENGTH: A euphemism that denotes how hard a player throws, or how good his/her arm is. For baseball and softball skill evaluation purposes, it has nothing to do with muscle strength.

---

(C) 2006 Baseball Fit, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Steve Zawrotny's BASEBALL FIT Hitting & Pitching Conditioning - www.BaseballFit.com

The information contained herein is the opinion of the author based on his personal observations and years of experience. Neither Steve Zawrotny or Baseball Fit assume any liability whatsoever for the use of or inability to use any or all of the information presented on this website.