By now I'm sure everyone has heard of Sammy Sosa's corked bat. His explanation that he didn't realize he was using a bat that he normally uses just for practice has been met with some skepticism by other players, on the grounds that all players always know their own bats. I'm still leaning towards accepting Sosa's explanation, but I can understand how people like Eric McErlain might be leaning the other way.
I'm pleased to see that there's at least been some mention in the mainstream media of the fact that corking a bat doesn't actually help a batter. Usually, they're the worst offenders when it comes to uncritically accepting conventional wisdom. Good explanations about why corking doesn't help can be found here and here.
There's already been a fair amount of sanctimony about Sosa, even to the absurd point of suggesting that he be kept out of the Hall of Fame. It's amazing how much more offended some people seem to be by sluggers using corked bats than by pitchers throwing scuffed or lubricated baseballs. As Rob Neyer and King Kaufman have noted, if this one corked bat - and none of Sosa's other bats were found to be corked - is reason to bar him from Cooperstown, then why are Gaylord Perry and Whitey Ford still enshrined?
(What? You didn't know that Whitey Ford was a master of illegal pitches? Go find a copy of his joint biography with Mickey Mantle, called Whitey and Mickey, and be sure to read the chapter entitled "Confessions".)
Whatever the reasons were, I expect Sosa to serve a suspension and a loss of public esteem. In the end, I think he'll overcome this and when he is elected to the Hall of Fame, this incident will be a footnote.
UPDATE: Via David Pinto, another study which claims that corking could have a small beneficial effect for power hitters. I'll leave it to the physicists to sort it out amongst themselves.
Posted by Charles Kuffner on June 05, 2003 to Baseball | TrackBackThe issue isn't so much a corked bat, it's more that this is someone that has hit for more than 60 home runs in a season three times, is admired as one of baseball's "good guys", is adored both here and throughout Latin America, and is now caught with said bat.
Look, all sports have their cheats, and baseball is no exception. The difference here is that Gaylord Perry and Whitey Ford were never caught, and they told their stories after they retired, which makes them "charming" in retrospect. Sosa got caught during a game, which hurts his reputation as well as the sport itself.
The incident will not stop Sosa from being inducted into the Hall of Fame, however, people will always wonder about the legitimacy of his career.
Posted by: William Hughes on June 5, 2003 9:16 AMThe issue isn't so much a corked bat, it's more that this is someone that has hit for more than 60 home runs in a season three times, is admired as one of baseball's "good guys", is adored both here and throughout Latin America, and is now caught with said bat.
True, but there's no evidence he used a corked bat before. Bats break all the time, and none of his other bats were found to have cork. Whether he meant to use it this time or not, I think it's pretty clear this was a one-time case.
The difference here is that Gaylord Perry and Whitey Ford were never caught, and they told their stories after they retired, which makes them "charming" in retrospect.
Perry's cheating was well known throughout his career. He wasn't caught in the sense that no umpire bothered to frisk him and locate his stash of KY jelly, but it was an open secret.
Ford, who said he didn't start scuffing the ball until later in his career, was often accused by other teams and did come close to getting caught once. He had a ring made with a hasp on it, which he used for defacing the ball, and an ump did once ask him what it was - he claimed it was his wedding ring, and got away with it. One opponent was collecting foul balls that went into their dugout to give to the league, but apparently never got around to it. Again, it was well known.
All I'm saying is that there's a double standard at work. Spitballers are charming rogues, bat corkers are threats to the game's integrity. That ain't right.
Posted by: Charles Kuffner on June 5, 2003 9:26 AMI have no argument with what you're saying about a double standard. Sosa made a mistake with using the wrong bat, and that should not tarnish his career as a whole. What I'm saying is that he is held to such a high standard (I would almost say "Ruthian", however, let's not discuss his foibles here), that for him to be caught with such a bat (even if it is the only one he had) does harm his reputation somewhat. On the other hand, George Brett's pine tar bat incident is now considered to be one of the funniest moments in the history of baseball (and is available for viewing at mlb.com). His reputation was not harmed at all. In fact, he may have grown in stature since then.
The difference between the situation with pitchers and batters may be that the spitball (and its variants) were once legal in baseball. That doesn't excuse today's pitchers that get caught, or yesterday's that admit to doctoring the ball at a later date, but it may explain why there is a double standard.
Posted by: William Hughes on June 5, 2003 10:48 AMWhat I'm saying is that he is held to such a high standard (I would almost say "Ruthian", however, let's not discuss his foibles here), that for him to be caught with such a bat (even if it is the only one he had) does harm his reputation somewhat.
Agreed. How much remains to be seen, but I expect him to be very penitent, and that will help.
The difference between the situation with pitchers and batters may be that the spitball (and its variants) were once legal in baseball. That doesn't excuse today's pitchers that get caught, or yesterday's that admit to doctoring the ball at a later date, but it may explain why there is a double standard.
Maybe, but the spitter has been illegal since 1920. They grandfathered the rule, but it's still been nearly 70 years since the last approved spitballer (Burleigh Grimes) loaded one up. That kind of nostalgia is usually limited to 40 or 50 years max, so you'd think it'd have worn off by now. But you may be right.
Posted by: Charles Kuffner on June 5, 2003 11:03 AM