In case you missed it over the weekend, the feds have agreed not to appeal the ruling that investigators illegally seized a list of baseball players who allegedly tested positive for steroids back in 2004. Welcome news, even if it’s too late for Alex Rodriguez, David Ortiz, Sammy Sosa and the other 101 players who still stand the risk of having their putatively anonymous employee drug tests released by whoever it was who leaked the other names. Because that person still has the list, of course.
Throughout this entire drama, a large number of baseball fans have demanded that all of the names of those who tested positive be released. “Release the names!” “Get it all out there!” “Clear the air!” they’ve cried, ignoring the fact that their “right” to know the drug test results of baseball players does not supersede the rights conferred by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. It has long been clear to me that such an approach is madness, because to do so would be to validate an illegal government search and would constitute a violation of players’ privacy rights. Now even the government agrees with this, and there is no one who matters in the relevant litigation who believes that the search was anything other than a gross abuse of governmental power.
So, given that even the feds now agree that the search was unconstitutional, is there anyone out there who still thinks the names should simply come out? If so, I’d love to hear the rationale. If you have one, be sure to explain how that rationale outweighs the Constitution. It would also help if you could explain why your employer shouldn’t release your employee drug tests to the media and the general public as well.
Craig covered the bulk of Rob Manfred’s quotes from earlier. The commissioner was asked about robot umpires and he’s not a fan. Via Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports:
Manfred was wrong to blame the player’s union’s “lack of cooperation” on proposed rule changes, but he’s right about robot umps and the strike zone. The obvious point is that robot umps cannot yet call balls and strikes with greater accuracy than umpires. Those strike zone Twitter accounts, such as this, are sometimes hilariously wrong. Even the strike zone graphics used on television are incorrect and unfortunate percentage of the time.
The first issue to consider about robot umps is taking jobs away from people. There are 99 umps and more in the minors. If robot umpiring was adopted in collegiate baseball, as well as the independent leagues, that’s even more umpires out of work. Is it worth it for an extra one or two percent improvement in accuracy?
Personally, the fallibility of the umpires adds more intrigue to baseball games. There’s strategy involved, as each umpire has tendencies which teams can strategize against. For instance, an umpire with a more generous-than-average strike zone on the outer portion of the plate might entice a pitcher to pepper that area with more sliders than he would otherwise throw. Hitters, knowing an umpire with a smaller strike zone is behind the dish, may take more pitches in an attempt to draw a walk. Or, knowing that information, a hitter may swing for the fences on a 3-0 pitch knowing the pitcher has to throw in a very specific area to guarantee a strike call or else give up a walk.
The umpires make their mistakes in random fashion, so it adds a chaotic, unpredictable element to the game as well. It feels bad when one of those calls goes against your team, but fans often forget the myriad calls that previously went in their teams’ favor. The mistakes will mostly even out in the end.
I haven’t had the opportunity to say this often, but Rob Manfred is right in this instance.
ESPN’s Howard Bryant is reporting that Major League Baseball has approved a rule allowing for a dugout signal for an intentional walk. In other words, baseball is allowing automatic intentional walks. Bryant adds that this rule will be effective for the 2017 season.
MLB has been trying, particularly this month, to improve the pace of play. Getting rid of the formality of throwing four pitches wide of the strike zone will save a minute or two for each intentional walk. There were 932 of them across 2,428 games last season, an average of one intentional walk every 2.6 games. It’s not the biggest improvement, but it’s something at least.
Earlier, Commissioner Rob Manfred was upset with the players’ union’s “lack of cooperation.” Perhaps his public criticism was the catalyst for getting this rule passed.
Unfortunately, getting rid of the intentional walk formality will eradicate the chance of seeing any more moments like this: