MLB '08 - After the Mitchell Report

Most of my posting lately has been concerned with politics, which I think is understandable considering the importance of primary season and the off seasons of baseball and football, my two favorite sports. I'd thus like to take this opportunity, on the night the MLB season kicks off (last week's games in Japan excepted) to discuss some interesting points to keep an eye out for over the next six months.

This blog is a focus on the competitive issues regarding sports and politics, so I'm not going to get too much into individual stats or games, but rather a larger view of the sport as a whole. If you're interested in more specific information, especially regarding fantasy baseball, check out Bfadds Blog for some great baseball info. Just open him in a new window so you won't lose me ;).

A few things to look out for this year:

1) The fallout of the Mitchell Report - Andy Pettitte seems to have survived his steroid-report inclusion, while buddy Roger Clemens might still be facing prosecution for it. While Clemens' return is a major question mark every year, I think it's fairly safe to say he's pitched his last game, especially when you consider he didn't exactly set the league on fire last year. Now we'll see if the games can take the focus off the steroid issue for a while, or if this year's home run leaders will simply be the subject of more suspicion.


2) Where will Barry Bonds wind up? - His agents have suggested there might be collusion involved in Bonds' failure to get a contract, but I think that's a bit of a stretch. I know chicks dig the long ball, but there can't be much of a market for over-aged, surly, uncooperative hitters who are slowing in the field and are subject to prosecution in the near future. Yeah, Barry, it's a big plot to keep you off the field - it has nothing to do with owners not wanting to pay millions just to get a headache. As per rumors from a few months ago, I think seeing him play for the Rays would be hilarious for a number of reasons.

3) AL Dominance - Will we see any NL teams start to catch up to the AL in terms of playing quality? I'd say, without knowing too much about each team specifically, the Mets, Dodgers, and Diamondbacks have a chance to make some noise this year, and I'm also hearing good things about the Braves (possible) and Cubs (I'll believe it when I see it). I still think the ever-competing Yankees and Red Sox (will this rivalry ever cool again?) and teams like Cleveland and Detroit make the AL much more dangerous.

4) The last year in play for the New York Stadiums. I think most Met fans have a soft spot for Shea, but are happy to let it go. Yankee Stadium will be sorely missed - it's one of the few great, old ballparks. I can't wait to see how much tickets go for for the last game in these places. I only wish the NFL's Jets could have found a way to get something done near the Mets new stadium and come back home to New York ::sigh::

Play Ball!!

A Month of Motion and We're in the Same Place

Hey all,

Obviously it's been a long time since I've last posted, and as I started to prepare to write this entry, I was wondering about all of the things that have happened over the last month in both politics and sports - countless primaries, the Roger Clemens hearing, more NFL Spygate stories, John McCain clinching the Republican nomination - and then it occurred to me that in the grand scheme of things, we're largely in the same place we were a month ago!

This isn't to discount the importance of what has happened over the last month; especially concerning the upcoming election, but let's look at things in a broad sense - Obama and Hillary are still virtually tied and the momentum is swinging back and forth like a pendulum, we STILL don't have proof over whether Clemens did steroids (but we saw how partisanship can even be an issue when sports and Congress collide) or whether the Patriots are worthy of their Super Bowl titles, and McCain was the front runner after Super Tuesday anyway. A huge amount of pomp and circumstance (and money spent) just to tread water, wouldn't you say?

I think, in fact, that this stagnation might be part of the problem with our political election process. With campaigns starting earlier and earlier each cycle, it feels like there is a lot of dead time with nothing going on but the candidates spitting on each other. It's obviously beneficial to have more time to learn about each candidate, but really, how much name calling do we need? How many times can I hear Hillary question Obama's experience, and listen to Obama call for change? I GET IT - now let's get on with the show. Now, we have SIX WEEKS before another meaningful primary - I know Pennsylvania wasn't supposed to have an impact, but you think maybe someone should have planned for a close race. Now we are all going to be subject to the same droning on about the issues we've already beaten to death, and frankly, who wouldn't be sick of the whole thing by the time we hit the convention?


On the other hand, while I might be less disgusted with John McCain by the time the general election starts, I do think that his clinching the nomination while the other two continue to fight will actually hurt him, if only because he will be out of the public eye. I think he could ask Rudy about how important public awareness and momentum are in these types of things. So maybe this whole thing is a vicious cycle - the more intrusive your campaign, the more people get aggravated with you, but the less intrusive, the more people forget about you. Which is the lesser of two evils?

I'm about to dive into "Why Americans Hate Politics" by EJ Dionne; a subject I've always been interested in myself. I think the items mentioned above might have something to do with it, but I'll keep you posted on anything interesting from the book. However, the idea that we've spent a month dealing with all of this to no real end certainly makes me aggravated.

Or maybe I'm just trying to run away from my guilt of not posting in a month by blaming the political system. You can be the judge.