PDA

View Full Version : For lack of actual baseball, some interesting articles to read



vaticanplum
02-07-2006, 11:25 AM
A nice sampling in the NYTimes over the last couple of days. You have to register to read them, but it's free.

Musings on baseball's new amphetamines policy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/magazine/05controversy_24_25_.html

Brief look at Moneyball three years on (interesting in light of Reds' GM search):
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/07/sports/baseball/07chass.ready.html

Great article on the multiple personalities of Bob Costas:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/sports/playmagazine/05costaspm.html

And if you love Bode Miller like I do:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/magazine/05bode_72_77_.html
(Word to the wise: at first glance, the stunning photo of Bode accompanying the article appears to be an ideal desktop picture. However, if you have a Mac, the computer will, of its own accord and rather hilariously, cut the top and bottom off the photo so that it becomes a picture solely of Bode's torso from his shoulders down to his, um, snow. It will really get you into the Olympic spirit and all, but you want to keep this in mind if your mother is visiting.)

Anyway, I'm particularly interested in hearing people's thoughts on the first article. I'm kind of in the dark about the general use of amphetamines in baseball but it sounds like it's pretty widespread. How do people view their being cut out? Do you consider them on the caffeine side of the line or the steroid side? Will it upset you if it has a noticeable effect on the game?

westofyou
02-07-2006, 11:49 AM
From the Greenie article:


The use of greenies, passed down through the generations from veterans to rookies, has been the kind of open secret that becomes problematic only when it breaks into public view. In a 1979 interview in Playboy, Pete Rose, whose hitting was always more consistent than his truth telling, was asked if he used greenies. "Yeah. I'd do it," he said. "I've done it." Two years later, Rose gave testimony in the case of a doctor in Pennsylvania who was accused of illegally prescribing amphetamines to Rose and other members of the 1980 World Series-winning Philadelphia Phillies. Professing ignorance of baseball's drug culture, Rose said, "What's a greenie?"

traderumor
02-07-2006, 12:13 PM
How the mob never got a hold of Pete I'll never know.

westofyou
02-07-2006, 12:14 PM
How the mob never got a hold of Pete I'll never know.
Who says they didn't?

Chip R
02-07-2006, 12:20 PM
Anyway, I'm particularly interested in hearing people's thoughts on the first article. I'm kind of in the dark about the general use of amphetamines in baseball but it sounds like it's pretty widespread. How do people view their being cut out? Do you consider them on the caffeine side of the line or the steroid side? Will it upset you if it has a noticeable effect on the game?

I think you have to view greenies the same way you would view pot or coke or heroin or even steroids. If it's illegal and against the drug policy of MLB, why should one be tolerated and not the other?

vaticanplum
02-07-2006, 12:31 PM
I think you have to view greenies the same way you would view pot or coke or heroin or even steroids. If it's illegal and against the drug policy of MLB, why should one be tolerated and not the other?

Well, purely to play devil's advocate (because I think my intial opinion on this does veer towards yours), pot and coke and heroin are all illegal. Prescribed amphetamines are not. Although I guess it's pretty clear that most of the ones floating around MLB are not prescribed.

I'm just curious about this because this article seems to present it as such a common and accepted practice in the major leagues. I would imagine that steroids in a clubhouse still carry a certain stigma of evil and oh-you-could-get-in-trouble-for-that aura no matter how many athletes use them. But the attitude towards greenies seems to be very different, and if they have become something they athletes actually rely on, their banning could result in a real difference in the level of the game played -- or a large amount of high-profile athletes suffering punishment if they choose to ignore the rules.

Like I said, I don't really know that much about it, so this is mostly speculation on my part so far.

westofyou
02-07-2006, 12:38 PM
Although I guess it's pretty clear that most of the ones floating around MLB are not prescribed.Until the 80's it was the trainers who dug em up too.

The next big wave will be to get ADD approval from a doctor to get Ritalin, that's a big thing in the NHL from what I've heard.

Plus it's a cleaner and less potent upper compared to the black beauties of the world.

jmcclain19
02-07-2006, 01:00 PM
I think I lost braincells reading that Moneyball article.

I know it's brief, but it amazes me, that such a book can be so misconstrued and misunderstood repeatedly by so many people.

gonelong
02-07-2006, 04:40 PM
I think I lost braincells reading that Moneyball article.

I know it's brief, but it amazes me, that such a book can be so misconstrued and misunderstood repeatedly by so many people.

No kidding. Maybe there should have been a forward in the book that said, "Billy Beane is a bargain shopper".

GL

Reds Nd2
02-07-2006, 05:12 PM
A nice sampling in the NYTimes over the last couple of days. You have to register to read them, but it's free.

Try this password and login to read the articles listed, 72cutlass.

For those averse or just too lazy to register for such things, try http://www.bugmenot.com/.