Editorial: The Tainted Hall of Famer?

Today, The New York Times reported that its sources have confirmed that star sluggers Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz were among the list of 104 players that tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs back in 2003. The test--which was supposed to be anonymous--was conducted as a survey in order to determine whether an official drug testing policy would be implemented (which it was). Other famous names reportedly on the list include Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, and Alex Rodriguez. The leaks themselves are controversial enough, especially from a legal perspective, but amongst the rampant questions surrounding Ortiz today, much more significant news may have been overlooked.

In an article by ESPN's Pedro Gomez, former MLB slugger (and self-admitted steroid user) Jose Canseco says that he was not at all shocked by today's news and that he had already known about both Manny's and Ortiz's places on "The List". He goes on to say that "Major League Baseball is going to have a big, big problem on their hands when they find out they have a Hall of Famer who's used." Canseco declined to elaborate on who that Hall of Famer might be but does allude that the player in question was on that 2003 list as well; Pedro Gomez, however, quickly moves on from the subject to discuss Canseco's warning of a potential class-action lawsuit. But it is in fact the prospect that a steroid user may have already gotten into the Hall that resonantes most, especially when fierce debate surrounds other Hall of Fame-caliber players that have been alleged to use the drugs, such as Mark McGwire.

So who is this mystery man? Well, a quick run-through of Hall of Fame members yields only four players that even played during the "Steroid Era" (1990s or later): Rich Gossage, Cal Ripken Jr., Tony Gwynn, and Rickey Henderson. Of those four players, Henderson is the only one to have been active in 2003 when the survey testing was conducted. In addition, the timing of Canseco's revelation is important as well, since he has clearly liked getting attention on the issue yet only now decides to share that there is a Hall of Famer that used these drugs--perhaps not at all coincidental when considering that it was only this past weekend that Henderson was inducted. When you also consider that the end of his career was characterized by trying to desperately hang on to a place in the big leagues, its not a stretch to suggest he might have given himself some help in order to compete with younger talent--many of whom were allegedly using PEDs themselves. While its entirely possible either Ripken or Gwynn is the alleged user (or no Hall member at all), signs definitely seem to be pointing toward Rickey Henderson.

Should it later be revealed Henderson in fact used performance-enhancing drugs, Major League Baseball and the National Baseball Hall of Fame sure have an enormous mess on their hands. Would they consider ejecting someone from the Hall? What about all the players coming up on the ballots in future years that were also tied to steroid use? Do they go ahead and implement the dreaded Asterisk? If nothing else, the future should be interesting. It is worth noting that Canseco has a pretty good track record with his accusations thusfar, so let's put the official question out there for the better educated to ponder: did Rickey Henderson use performance-enhancing drugs?

Editorial: Football--the kind we call 'Soccer'--in the United States

Soccer is such a divisive subject among the American sporting public. Outside of its establishment as a common childhood sporting activity and the heralded American "soccer mom", the sport is often seen as the black sheep in the field of much more popular sports such as baseball, basketball, and our own American football (just plain "football" to most folk). Despite its miniscule albeit growing popularity, outside of our country (and our neighbors to the north that prefer competitions on ice), it is the sport of choice for the citizens in world. On ESPN this morning, Kenny Maine proclaimed that the sport had 2 billion fans worldwide, an amazing figure when weighed against the roughly 6.7 billion people in the world (that's roughly 30% of every person on the face of the earth, including rural and indigineous peoples). But why is the story so different in America?

Many American sports fans complain about the low scores and the extreme difficulty of scoring hindering the excitement of the game. In fact, similar complaints forced the National Hockey League to adopt some rule changes designed to facilitate slightly higher-scoring games. To latch onto this idea dilutes much of the appeal the sport has to offer. See--brace yourselves for this people--scoring isn't the only thing thats important in the game of soccer (sorry footy devotees, but I'm sticking to the American name for the duration of this article). It's the ongoing struggle that leads up to every goal where much of the excitement really is, which further infuses inevitable goals with an explosive energy that finally boils over and blows its lid, Mt. Saint Helens-style. And unlike other sports, the action is almost completely uninterrupted during its two halves, raising tensions much higher, similar to intentionally long shots in some movies. In addition, we as a culture have been bread and weaned on things that provide us instant gratification, so the long battle for those precious goals is something that has some built-in sociological barriers to get over. And to those who claim that soccer is not a contact sport, I urge you to go play against some people who actually know what they are doing; soccer, even at the sub-professional level, features a level of physicality that can be likened to--if not even more so than--a hard-nosed game of hoops.

Perhaps the physicality takes a bad rap in America for the abundance of players that seem to intetionally flop (socceroos call it "diving") in order to try to draw a foul call, laying on the ground in supposed "agony" and then gingerly running about moments later. For those who get a bad taste from this common action in the European game, I urge you to look closer and benefit our fellow Americans at the same time; by that I mean, go watch a game of MLS soccer. While the competition of the game itself is a much lower level than the best that Europe has to offer, the league is growing very quickly and watching it one can note that players--particularly American-born ones-- seem very much less bothered by intense physical contact. Sure people get hit and fall all the time, but instead of pouting on the ground they spring up and fight back into the play. My theory on this is that the trait is attributable to the encouragement of toughness in other sports and in our culture overall, so it would be a sign of weakness to lay there. Major League Soccer is growing very fast and has a lot to offer, but I digress as to what makes the game and our league so different when compared to the rest of the world.

One very interesting theory is that the game constitutes a lot of cultural undertones that are perhaps underappreciated in any debate regarding the popularity of the game in America. I first heard this theory whilst waiting in the drive-thru line at In N' Out Burger listening to ESPN Radio. I unfortunately do not remember the specific show or host, but he was discussing his own theories and taking calls on the importance of culture in the acceptance of culture. He started by pointing out that soccer has never been popular in our country, and perhaps its at its highest point now than ever before. Why is this when the entire rest of the world embraced it so much? Well for one, its very cheap, necessitating only a ball, flat ground, and any random materials to concoct make-shift goals out of. Compare this to basketball where at least a ball, reasonably hard ground, and a specially-designed metal hoop are needed; baseball where a myriad of equipment are required, from leather gloves for every single person to bats, hats, bases, etc.; and football where pads, helmets, many players, and much planning are required. The low cost is an understated benefit to attracting players in all classes, races, and regions of the world, including the Third World.

In regards to its lack of popularity in America specifically, the same radio host pointed out many other interesting facts in history. Soccer really developed and emerged into its modern form in the late 1800s and early 1900s, particularly in Europe and its colonies. Now, at this point in history, the United States is still a growing young nation and a far cry from its future superpower status, trying to establish its own identity. At the same time, many Europeans were immigrating to America in hopes of starting an entirely new life. A combination of these Europeans wanting to leaving everything in their old lives behind--including the decidedly European game of soccer--and Americans wanting something that was decidedly their own and not foreigh, which they found in baseball and boxing. These factors have from the beginning have disposed soccer in the awkward position of being somewhat un-American.

However, discussion regarding soccer has grown ever louder in recent years, and many are often debating how long--or if at all--soccer will be able to reach a popularity level in our country that compares to its attention in the rest of the world, or at least enough to be considered one of our "major" sports (right now generally considered to be football (NFL), baseball (MLB), basketball (NBA), and hockey (NHL)). The U.S. men's national team sparked much of the most recent discussion when they toppled world #1 Spain in the Confederation's Cup semifinal and jumping to a 2-0 lead over perennial power Brazil in the following final match, albeit eventually conceding three scores in the second half to lose.

I argue, however, that the recent climb of soccer actually started much sooner--in 1994 to be exact. You see, in 1994, the United States played host to the grandest sporting competition in the entire world, the FIFA World Cup. Part of the US Soccer Federation's deal with FIFA in getting the bid to host the cup was a promise to establish a major league in the country for the sport. The following year, Major League Soccer kicked off its inaugural season, and after a few problems early on, the league is now growing astronomically, adding expansion teams on an annual basis (and two new franchises next year!) and attracting more and more world-class players. In 1999, the United States women's national team won the whole shebang in the FIFA Women's World Cup, for the first time giving the United States a title as best in the world in soccer--a distinction that some sports analysts claim the men's team needs in order to really establish any mass-market interest. In the 2002 World Cup in Korea/Japan, the U.S. men's team achieved their best World Cup finish in the nation's history, not only making it out of the group stage but also winning in the Round of 16 to reach the quarterfinal, losing to eventual runners-up Germany. The 2006 outing was very flat, but after the 2009 Confedertaion's Cup performance, the United States has established itself as a team on the rise. The future looks particularly bright when you consider how young the national team is right now, anchored by the 24 year-old Landon Donovan and budding young potential superstars like Jozy Altidore and Michael Bradley. The U.S. is pushing to host another World Cup in either 2018 or 2022, which would likely boost the sport's profile even higher. As for myself, I first truly got hooked on the sport during Germany's 2006 World Cup.

So, I urge you sports fans of America, give soccer a look despite all your predjudices against it. We already watch the World Cup every four years and when our national team does well. Yes, it's hard to follow the best club teams when they play all the way across the Atlantic Ocean, but go watch your local MLS team and get a vibe for the high fan energy at those games. 2 billion people can't be wrong. The MLS is on the rise and truthfully, its only a matter of time before the league is one of the best in the world. It might take twenty years, but America has shown just how willing it is to slavishly follow sports, and multiple ones at that.

All-Time Starting Lineup

On ESPN's Mike & Mike in the Morning today, Tim Kurkjian and Keith Law put together their all-time baseball team by position. So, it got me thinking: why not take my own stab at it? Here's my picks:

C- Ivan Rodriguez

1B- Lou Gherig

2B- Jackie Robinson

SS- Cal Ripken Jr.

3B- Mike Schmidt

LF- Ted Williams

CF- Willy Mays

RF- Babe Ruth

DH- Barry Bonds

RHP- Roger Clemens

LHP- Randy Johnson

RP- Mariano Rivera

What do you think?

EA Sports' Madden, NCAA covers revealed

This year's cover athletes have been revealed for the 2010 editions of NCAA Football and Madden NFL. Both sport the new cover art style first unvieled with Fight Night Round 4 and Tiger Woods PGA Tour 10, featuring an artsy, bubbly dissolution of color surrounding the athletes. Just like last year, EA Sports has divided up the NCAA covers with one athlete per system. 

In the image above from left to right: Texas Tech's standout wideout Michael Crabtree, now a member of the San Francisco 49ers covering the Xbox 360 version; Brian Johnson from the undefeated (and should have been No. 1) Utah Utes repping PlayStation 3; former USC star and current NY Jet Mark Sanchez for PSP; and the first defensive end taken in the draft, Texas' Brian Orakpo on last-gen's PS2 version.

Also revealed over the weekend was the first Madden cover to feature two athletes: Pittsburg's Troy Polamalu and Arizona's Larry Fitzgerald [pictured right]. The curse has been very active on this generation of systems ever since Ray Lewis appeared to have broken it in 2005, so we'll have to see what troubles lie ahead of Polamalu and Fitz.

Quick Reactions to 2009 NFL Draft

As many of you know, the NFL held its annual rookie draft this past weekend. Below is not a detailed analysis, merely some quick reactions from a fan of the sport:

• As a 49ers fan, I have to start off by saying MICHAEL CRABTREE, HELL YES! For those of you that don't know, the Texas Tech alum is arguably the best WR in the draft and one of the best skill players overall, and was notably passed on by the Oakland Raiders (but more on that later). Overall a very solid draft for San Francisco that addressed many holes, and I believe we can contend this year and are only a year or two (or a couple good trades) removed from being an all-out title contender. Other highlights from the draft included RB Glenn Coffee (Alabama) who will provide a nice compliment in the backfield to Frank Gore.
• LOL at the Oakland Raider's passing of several key players, most notable the aforementioned Crabtree, for Maryland's WR Darrius Heyward-Bey. Not a bad player at all, but the fact of the matter is they could have traded down and still picked him up. At their position, even though Al Davis covets speed above all else, I still can't see why they chose Darrius over Jeremy Maclin (Missouri). That old geezer continues to bring down what was once the most feared franchise in the game. But at least with the botched 1st round pick they still got a good prospect; their 2nd round stunner was picking up a Saftey in Michael Mitchell (Ohio) that was projected to go undrafted. At least pick him up on Day 2 instead of completely wasting this pick! Alas, Raiders fans are too blinded by their unconditional love that they cannot see how far this ship is sinking. I still predict that they will at least sign Michael Vick out of prison next year to give them a tad more credibility after JaMarcus Russell further proves his ineptitude at the QB postion this year.
• The Philadelphia Eagles had a very strong showing. LeSean McCoy (Pitt) and Jeremy Maclin are both playmakers that fit the Eagle's system perfectly and will have immediate impacts complimenting Brian Westbrook and DeSean Jackson, respectively.
• Graham Harrell (Texas Tech) and Chase Daniel (Mizzou) both went undrafted? Really? Two Heisman finalists that hold a bevy of records? Granted, there is a distinction sometimes between college talent and pro talent, but surely these guys are better than some of the other QBs drafted, especially in the later rounds.
• Matthew Stafford (Georgia) went No. 1, as predicted. Yawn. Brandon Pettigrew (Oklahoma St.) at #20 further bolsters the Lion's offense... but they have so many holes on both sides its hard to see them really doing that much. They are young though, so maybe in a few years we will really see how dominant this offense can be with these guys being added to last year's core talent duo of RB Kevin Smith and WR Calvin Johnson.
• I don't really understand the Jets moving up to grab Mark Sanchez. Granted, he is a phenomenal college QB with the tools to be a great NFL QB, but I don't think it really fits a Jets organization that hasn't even given its supposed future QB (now former) Kellen Clemens a chance. Objectively speaking, they gave up a lot to get Sanchez and would probably have been better seeing how Clemens does and even draft somebody out of next year's outstanding QB class that inlcudes Tim Tebow, Sam Bradford, and Colt McCoy. Stupid.
• Back to the Niners, the one thing we seem to be lacking is a true franchise QB to carry us like the legendary Joe Montana and Steve Young, and a role that even Jeff Garcia did a pretty good job filling for awhile. Alex Smith has that potential if he can stay healthy. Shaun Hill is solid but not great. Nate Davis (Ball State) is pretty overrated in my opinion, but maybe he'll turn out to be something we arn't anticipating. I still wish the 49ers stepped up and got Matt Cassell...

Nationals bench player for charity

[Response to an article originally posted on Yahoo! that can be found here: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Nationals-bench-Dukes-after-Little-League-relate?urn=mlb,157410]

What has become of the Washington Nationals? Yes, they have the worst record in the entire league and are trying to "change the attitude" in the clubhouse (even going so far as to replace a good chunk of the bullpen following today's debacle) but management seriously needs to consider having their heads examined after yesterday's news relating outfielder Elijah Dukes--one of the few players that was actually playing well for the struggling ballclub. 

Dukes was not only benched on Saturday, but reportedly also fined $500 and threatened with demotion to the minor leagues. His offense? Being five minutes late to the ballpark because he was doing charity work. Not only that, but aforementioned charity work was for local Little League and through a program sponsored by the Nationals themselves! Ludicrous indeed in every sense of the word. The Yahoo! story cited above lists further, unrelated recent screw-ups by the team, but this Dukes situation takes the cake. Maybe MLB should have just moved them to Puerto Rico after all?

Now Entering Round 2

The 2009 edition of the World Baseball Classic has concluded its preliminary round, and god damn is there a lot to say about it. Below (following the amazing highlight reel of arguably the best game in the first Round) you'll find (1) Power Rankings of the 8 remaining teams in the tournament, (2) a quick word on those who have already been shown the door, (3) a critique of the tournament thus far, and (4) predictions for how the rest of it will play out!

POWER RANKINGS

1) Cuba- They lost the 2006 final to Japan, but that has only seemed to further motivate this squad that plays together year round. The Cubans look like they're on a mission, and while Puerto Rico is among them as the only unbeaten teams from the first round, the Cubans have never even really looked vulnerable. That includes their come back win against the Aussies, because they had the look and drive of a champion and you knew watching it that it was only a matter of time. They also made very short work of powerhouse Mexico, a feat that the Puerto Ricans cannot even remotely claim to have a comparison to. This is the team to beat. And they have red pants.

2) Japan- Until its one-run loss to Korea in the meaningless final game of Round 1 play, Japan looked pretty much unbeatable. Mind you, they were in a bracket with China and Taiwan, but they also smacked around Korea to the tune of 14-2 when it did count. Superstars Ichiro Suzuki and Daisuke Matsusaka havn't even looked too sharp but this team is still playing at an exceptional level. The long break between rounds may be their most damaging factor, but expect this team to be ready to play. And by play, that means pure, fundamental baseball, from pitching to defense to manufacturing runs. Throw in the fact that they are still defending champions and you really have a team to watch out for.

3) United States- The Americans move into home-nation advantage from here on out, and expect them to use it. The team is solid from top to bottom, and what it lacks in pure firepower it makes up good a will to win, good team chemistry, and the best pitching staff before the Netherlands rolled around. Don't be mistaken either because the power bats are there when they need to be, and ultimately there's not too much bad you can say about this squad. The fact that Cuba and Japan are in the same Round 2 Pool doesn't hurt them either.

4) Mexico- The Mexicans have really been a Jekyll and Hyde sort of team so far; they either lose by a lot or win by a lot. If not for these incosistencies, they may just be the strongest team in the tournament. Led by the power bat of Adrian Gonzalez, it sometimes seems impossible to get these hitters out. Ultimately, inconsistency and lackluster pitching will mean the downfall of this powerful team when faced the much more well-rounded competition of Round 2.

5) Puerto Rico- This team has been most noteworthy because of the incredible resurgence of Pudge Rodriguez. He has arguably carried his team thusfar, and though the rest of the lineup has been pretty strong as well, he is consistently a highlight among them. Puerto Rico is definitely capable of winning the whole dance, and I'd say the only thing really going against them is they havn't really seen an offense that can smack the ball yet.

6) Netherlands- The Dutch are unquestionably the story of the tournament so far, beating the all-tournament favorites Republica Domincana--twice-- and barely losing to another powerhouse, Puerto Rico, in the first of their two meetings (and the only one that really mattered). Their pitching staff has been absolutely phenomenal and definitely has potential to carry them to the semi-finals in LA. Unfortunately for the Dutch, winning games also requires scoring, and their offense thusfar has been pretty lackluster and aided by plenty of luck. If they can put together a good small-ball attack an manufacture a few runs a game, then their pitching should be able to carry them on.

7) Venezuela- Venezuela is an interesting bunch because they are playing without the support of their namesake. They have also shown flashes of brilliance and have potential to make a run. However, given the company they are now in, I find that to be less likely than more so. Also, even though they avenged a drubbing against the United States, it was in the meaningless final game of the pool and the US was not at full strength.

8) Korea- Despite being the gold medal-winning country in Beijing in 2008, the Koreans are arguably the weakest link. This is a completely different tournament featuring much stronger line-ups, and I honestly don't think the Koreans have the firepower to compete as they did in 2006. Their 1-0 win over Japan for Pool A, while showcasing an impressive pitching performance, also happened in a meanigless game and they still only managed to score 1 run.

THE REST

-What the HELL happened to the Dominican Republic? Yeah, sure, the Netherlands turned out to be a pretty solid team, but there's no excuse for a team with a $83.4 million payroll to lose to a team with a $0.4 million payroll...TWICE. That being said, the onus falls completely on the Dominican's supposedly powerhouse offense--namely, where the hell were they? Despite the embarassing early exit, Republica Dominicana is still one of the better teams in the tournament and would have been ranked high in the Power Rankings. Look for them to play with a chip on their shoulder in 2013, a la the USA basketball team in the Beijing Olympics.

-Tough luck for Australia, Canada, and Italy. All 3 are pretty solid clubs with a lot of positives to take out of this tournament to build on for the next one. Canada lost a heartbreaker of a game to its souther rivals in what was the best game so far not involving the Dutch. Italy knocked off said Canucks, only to get spanked by Venezuela for a second time--but still, they looked impressive against Canada and for about 3 innings against Venezuela. Australia is a whole nother story. This is a country which won gold in Sydney and had all the promise in the world to be one of the top tier producers of players. Then their professional league went down under (pun intended), and well... things never really looked up from there. That is until they 10-runned supposed powerhouse Mexico, only to give up a gut-wrenching bottom-of-the-8th homer that cost them the game against Cuba, before finally getting 15-runned by an angry Mexico...ouch.

-As for China, Chinese Taipei, South Africa, and Panama... thanks for coming out, we'll see you in 2013. None of these countries even for a moment looked like they belonged. But that's because they don't.

CRITIQUE

-The Format: The first tournament was criticized for the way Korea had to play Japan three times, so what do they do? Make it possible to play each other even more. Maybe theres no way around it with the new--and much-improved--double-elimination format (as opposed to the previous Round Robin one), but the WBC organizers definitely need to look into this. Also, the final game of each pool is competely meaningless, and it shows with the way teams came out. Simple solution here: put the winner and runner-up of each pool in different Round 2 brackets. There's absolutely no reason the Round 2 pools can't mix and match, and in fact they should. This would also help to remedy the aforementioned problem of the same teams playing each other too many times. Seriously, I have no clue how this already hasn't been fixed.

-ESPN coverage: What. The. Fuck. That is my reaction to what has transpired over the opening round. This is a preeminent international showcase tournament with ambitions to be the next World Cup in a sport that Americans actually care about and pay attention to. The 2006 edition was a resounding success even by the wildest estimates, so why isn't every single game on a widely-available channel? More importantly, why does such a sports-focused company neglect these games during primetime only to showcase meaningless college basketball games that nobody gives a damn about (North Dakota St.? REALLY?!). Even ESPN's website gives little to no coverage of these games. At least stick Baseball Tonight on the air to analyze them post-mortem. Here is a message to you, ESPN: get your act straight and realize that nobody cares about college basketball until the NCAA tournament starts, especially not for mid-major conferences. Hopefully WBC negotiates a better contract with them for 2013 or otherwise moves to a different network altogether. And no, MLB Network does not count.

-English country names on jerseys: This seemed like a bigger issue in the beginning than it eventually turned out to be, but what's with the team's jerseys displaying English names of their countries? The teams from Spanish-speaking countries get to wear their "real" names, as did "Nederland" and "Italia" (granted these are all pretty close to their English counterparts). But why can't South African players wear jerseys with their proper Afrikaans name? Why can't the Asian countries properly display their names? Not even "Nippon" for Japan? This tournament is about countries coming together from all over the world for an international showcase, and even though its being presented by an English-speaking host, I don't think it's very appropriate to subdue the patriotism of these teams by mandating English-language jerseys. Just some food for thought.

PREDICTIONS!

I don't wanna make this too long or specific because I'll only be setting myself up for embarassment, so let's keep this nice and brief and with some wiggle room, shall we?:

Pool 1 winners: Cuba and Japan

Pool 2 winners: USA and Puerto Rico (as much as I love the Netherlands' run and how they've continually proven me wrong, they seem to be lacking the offense to really contend in Round 2)

Semi-finals: Puerto Rico over Cuba, USA over Japan

Finals: USA over Puerto Rico

Alright, so maybe nationalism slides the scale on those predictions a little bit. But this young US team is solid and driven, following an amazing run by the national basketball team, and setting up the national soccer team for a good run in South Africa 2010. This isn't just wishful thinking; this is actually how I think it'll go down. U-S-A!! U-S-A!! U-S-A!!

A New Journey Begins...

The 2009 World Baseball Classic kicked off today with a 4-0 shutout of China, courtesy of defending champion Japan. That game kicks off a tournament entering only its sophomore outing, but also a tournament with the potential to grow into an international competition peered only by the FIFA World Cup. Already, country's are banging on Major League Baseball's (the tournament organizer) door, trying to secure a spot in the tournament or otherwise expand the field or include a World Cup-style qualifying process. As of this second tournament, the format stays the same as the first, but MLB Commissioner Bud Selig has said he's open to ideas regarding the future of the tournament (the next one will be played in 2013). 

The competition is sure to get only more interesting from here, and it'll be a very interesting 3 weeks to find out who comes out on top. Will it be the United States, arguably the motherland of the sport? Will it be Japan, the 2006 defending champs? How about Korea, gold medal winners from the Beijing Olympics? Or maybe 2006 runner-up Cuba, or the slugger-stacked Dominican Republic... or perhaps someone completely unexpected? In any case, this tournament is sure to further cement the international popularity of baseball, and things will only get more interesting from here on out. GO USA!