Baseball On Steroids Where To Tell the Story

January 15, 2005 By Dan Sapone Baseball On Steroids — Where To Tell the Story? S ince revelations about the use of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball have moved recently from the Sports page to the Front page, the story has taken on many facets. The most serious issue, of course, is the effect on impressionable young players whose heroes are involved in the scandal. Other issues span the spectrum from the fairness of competition and the legitimacy of our most revered records to the special legal status that baseball enjoys, organized labor issues, and more serious public health concerns about attitudes toward the use of illegal substances in the broader society. New debates have begun to explore whether Major League Baseball has "gone far enough" to mitigate the problem with recent rule changes. The open question, however, is which problem is MLB actually trying to solve? Is it a problem that should be discussed in the News Section of the newspaper or in the Sports Section? In Friday's San Francisco Chronicle, I ran across a quote that got my attention. Setting aside for the moment the most serious issues — the effect on admiring youngsters and society's attitudes toward illegal drugs — it brought into focus a strictly baseball issue that goes to the heart of the way the game is played and watched. In the Chron, the "Two Cents" column asked several people about baseball's new drug rules. They were asked, "Will this clean up baseball?" One woman from Berkeley answered, "Only if people like me are willing to drop 30 bucks a game to watch people like Giambi and Sheffield hit lots of fly balls to the warning track." OK. So here is the issue that belongs in the Sports Section. In my baseball upbringing, I learned to distinguish between the "manufacture-of-runs" approach to baseball, as practiced historically by the Dodgers, and the "big-inning" style of baseball, as practiced historically by my Giants. A typical example of the former features a walk followed by a stolen base followed by a well-placed ground ball to the right side followed by a sacrifice fly. Some version of this pattern repeated in one or two different innings, coupled with great pitching, is a winning recipe that can yield a lot of 2-1 or 1-0 victories. The "big-inning" approach usually features a leadoff hit or walk followed by three sluggers swinging for the fences without any attempt to move the runner over. When one or more of them connects, you get a big inning. When this practice is successful in three or four innings coupled with even a mediocre pitching performance, the possibility exists for a 7-6-ish victory. From the fan perspective, the former requires a lot more patience than the latter, along with a greater appreciation for subtlety. We have heard the over-simplified, over-generalized, but generally true argument that the latter style wins games, but the former style wins championships. Now, it seems to me that the "Two Cents" answer quoted above begs the question: Will 21st-century baseball fans be willing to give long-term support to the "manufacture-ofruns" approach or have we evolved into a nation of fans who really just come to the game to see what we used to call a "Home Run Derby." In recent years, we could conclude that we are more willing to buy expensive tickets to watch Home Run Derbies than to watch 2-1 victories that feature more base running than long ball. While I have spent a lifetime loving the Giants and hating the Dodgers, I am willing to admit that I would continue to enjoy a game that does not include as many home runs as we have seen in these recent steroids-dominated years. Setting aside for the moment the more serious issues that belong in the News Section, the question of performance-enhancing drugs boils down to a marketing problem of demand creation. Can Major League Baseball successfully and profitably reverse the trend of its own marketing and promote the spectacle of baseball as an artful game played with subtlety and nuance. I dunno. But it is possible that we are about to find out; and the bottom line of that outcome will be reported with great interest in the Business Section.