Drug Pushers

I have a “bone” to pick. MLB, ESPN, and WFAN call all kiss my ass! I am sorry that it took me this long to realize it and I apologize to our readers for not addressing this sooner. It has been 15 months since the release of the Mitchell Report. In that time we have seen the games biggest stars fall from grace. They have either been caught or accused of abusing illegal drugs in hope of enhancing their performance on the field. They have been disgraced as well as their families, teams, fans and countries. We have shamed them for it. We have listened to beat writers, talk show hosts and “analysts” talk about their influence on children and the negative effects they have on children.

Why is it then that all three of these major sports media outlets allow Pfizer to advertise Viagra during baseball games? Viagra is a performance enhancing drug is it not? Who is responsible for this? This is an outrage. How do I explain what erectile dysfunction is to my five year old daughter during the 5th inning of USA vs Canada? Which by the way was not a prime time telecast. Even tonight in the wake of The Netherlands upset over La Republica Domincana, ESPN is still firing away at Roger Clemens and the fabricated evidence against him in an attempt to tear him down yet after the story aired the next block of commercials included an add for Viagra. Give me a break!

Advertising during prime time when the kids should be in bed is one thing. Yet, Baseball is sacred. Is it not? I do not care what time it is, drugs should not be pushed on us during sporting events. It sends a terrible message. The wrong message. How can you take your kids to a baseball game when there are signs up all over the place with old ugly pediphiles on them trying to keep an erection?

You would think they would have pulled the adds considering the poster child for abusing performance enhancing drugs and lying about it was also peddling Viagra. Has anyone seen Rafael Palmeiro lately?

HOF: Mike Mussina?

Is Mike Mussina a Hall of Famer? Perhaps, but if I may, to paraphrase Mussina himself if what he did before this year was not enough to make him a HOFer why then should a 20 win season on an underachieving team with the highest payroll in baseball, make or break that decision?

As we enter the post steroid era the players that become eligible for the Hall of Fame will clearly be judged by a new standard although perhaps the same criteria. Many that were eligible before this era may be “automatic” in hindsight. Mike Mussina’s numbers are unique yet bare comparison to a few former players that have not yet made the HOF. The bench mark for which the comparison will be made is 300 career victories. However it will not be the only factor for which Mussina is judged by the voters.

Mussina’s consistency is perhaps his best asset. He has won at least 10 games in 17 seasons. Something only five other pitchers have ever done. Four of whom are HOFers and the fifth is Greg Maddux (all are 300 game winners). Only five other pitchers (all 300 game winners) have won as many or more games than Mussina and have a higher winning percentage including Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson.

There are 31 pitchers with more career starts than Mike Mussina. Ten of which are not Hall of Famers. That number drops to 6 if you consider Clemens, Glavine, Johnson and Maddux again all 300 game winners. Of the other six, four have more wins than Mussina. Including Bobby Mathews who in 15 seasons had 297 career wins. The other 3 Jim Kaat 283, Bert Blyleven 287 and Tommy John 288.

I will leave you with this. Three of the top ten pitchers with the most post season wins do not have 300 career victories, are not hall of famers and played in the same era roughly over the same time period. Is Mike Mussina clearly better than all of these men? John Smoltz, Andy Pettitte and Curt Schilling.  So much so that he deserves a spot in the Hall of Fame and they do not?