Bad Baseball

[Dave Devotee is holding up a sign outside Shea Stadium, "Just Say No to the Major Leagues. " Ken Fan is on his way inside with tickets in hand, but the game doesn't start for an hour.]

Ken Fan: What are you doing out here?

Dave Devotee: Doing my duty to protest free agency.

Ken: Why?

Dave: Because I want to help save baseball.

Ken: Oh yeah, you extremists who think there is really something wrong with the game....

Dave: No, I don't think there is anything wrong with the game of baseball, it's the greatest game there is. I don't even think there anything wrong with the major leagues per se. I do, however, think there is something horribly wrong with what free agency has done to Major League Baseball.

Ken: Oh come on, be serious. Look at how many people coming are to the game today....

Dave: Is that an indication of how good the game is today?

Ken: How good?

Dave: Yeah, what makes it good.

Ken: Well, yes, all these people supporting it does make it good!

Dave: You're taking a utilitarian point of view -- something is good because it brings the greatest pleasure to the greatest number of people.

Ken: I don't know, I don't want to get into that -- too philosophical right now.

Dave: But it is a simple philosophical track, don't you think?

Ken: Look, I just want to see a ballgame.

Dave: But you were asking about me and my sign out here. Do you want to stop now? The game doesn't start for another hour.

Ken: Yes, I am curious, and I would like to tell you crazies who think the game is bad why it isn't.

Dave: Marvelous, then let's get back to your point. Again, are you saying that baseball is good because lots of people like it?

Ken: Yes, that's what I'm saying.

Dave: Then what do you say about prostitution? Is it a good thing simply because there is a large market for it? Or illicit drugs? Or even gambling and drinking? Or how about even driving five miles over the speed limit? Are they good because lots of people like them?

Ken: Well, I don't think they're totally good, and I don't really know what comprises "a lot." I mean, we'd really have to look at each of those items, prostitution, drugs, and so forth, to find that out. But we're really not talking about them. We're just talking about baseball.

Dave: Okay, so let's look at baseball, but I don't want my point about the prostitution and drugs to be dismissed so easily. Let me ask it another way. Is something good just because people will pay for it?

Ken: I see what you're saying. The answer is "not necessarily." People constantly pay for things that are not good. But baseball? It is good. But you say it isn't. Why?

Dave: How's this: I say free agency has made the major league game bad, and you say it is no big deal. Is that correct?

Ken: Well, not that it is no big deal, but that it is less of a big deal you make it out to be. I also do believe that without a good argument for why baseball in the majors -- with free agency -- is bad, then the fact that people do pay to come to see it does make it in some measure good. They must know something. Free agency has a significant impact, but I pretty much tolerate it. So give me an argument as to why it shouldn't be tolerated.

Dave: You've put forth -- correct me if I have this wrong -- that free agency is perfectly fine, to be tolerated, as you say. Indeed it may be an annoyance, but we all still just go out to the park, and that the game is better than it has ever been.

Ken: I'd say that, yeah.

Dave: Over here on the other side, I ask, "Why? Why is it 'better'?" Now what is the answer that is almost always given?

Ken: Because people are still coming to the ballpark.

Dave: Would you then say that the Colosseum was a sort of "ballpark" in Roman times? People went to the Colosseum to see men kill each other, to watch people get eaten by animals. Did that make it good?

Ken: But that was a long time ago when people were barbarians.

Dave: So? I'm just disputing the utilitarian viewpoint as it applies to baseball. It doesn't matter when it happened.

Ken: Wait, wait, wait. Come on, the major leagues is not doing anything like killing people out there. This is baseball -- don't you remember, we're talking about baseball?

Dave: And I ask you, is everything in baseball that is not killing good? Could a pitcher throw a ball at a batter's head, and just as long as it merely knocks him out, it's okay? Could I steal your watch and justify that as long as I don't kill you? Furthermore, what if lots of people pay to come see me do just that? Ever watch some of that reality television? There are lots of things that are pretty bad that have nothing to do with killing.

Ken: Okay, okay, so let's get to the crux of this baby: what makes baseball bad then?

Dave: May I first offer that we both agree, though, that what is good about baseball the game? We could go on about the crack of the bat and the sound of the cheers and on and on. But let's look at what has corrupted the game. Let's look at some of the things people are saying about the game in more of a critical fashion, and then we'll examine those things together.

Ken: Sounds good.

Dave: You're being surprisingly open-minded about this.

Ken: Hey, I'm just that kind of guy.

Dave: Okay, what would you like to address first.

Ken: I've got a good one. It's said all the time, and I hate it. They say, "Players' salaries are ruining the game." That steams me.

Dave: Yes, I hear that one too.

Ken: I'll bet you really believe that one.

Dave: No I don't, actually.

Ken: You don't? Wow. Why?

Dave: First, can we examine the full breadth of the assertion and how you feel about it? Can you elaborate on it?

Ken: Okay, here's the deal. Players only make what the market bears. If people would stop paying to come to the park those salaries would not be so high. A player's worth is determined by a brilliantly efficient market, with well-funded competitors who all require and value the same or similar assets and totally public, well-distributed information about the desired commodity. With this in mind, how on earth could Alex Rodriguez's salary be unjustified?

Dave: Wow, that's a lot of stuff.

Ken: There you go. Chew on that.

Dave: I'd love to. It may take some time, though.

Ken: Hey, I'm going into the game in a little bit, but give me your best.

Dave: You seem to feel there is a wonderful equity in the way the majors works -- every team equally desires the same players, all information is equally available, the market is brilliantly efficient, as you say. Is this correct?

Ken: Right there in black and white.

Dave: So the objective of Major League Baseball is for its teams to gather up the best players "on the market."

Ken: I see nothing wrong with that.

Dave: Each team then has the same amount of money to use to gather those players.

Ken: No, of course not.

Dave: No? But you were making a bold case for the wonderfully equitable system the major leagues has.

Ken: Obviously, some teams have an advantage in the money area.

Dave: And those teams then are unequally favored then to get the best ballplayers.

Ken: Well, so what?

Dave: That inequality is a major part of my case.

Ken: Again: so what?

Dave: Let's get back to a question I had a bit earlier. What is the real objective for Major League Baseball? I mean, after you've got all your teams there, do we all check the sports page in the newspaper to see which team gets what players, give a whoop and holler, and then never do anything else?

Ken: I don't follow you.

Dave: What else happens besides ballclubs putting players on a team?

Ken: Um, they go out and play games?

Dave: Exactly. We all go to the park, watch the pennant races and see who will win the World Series. That is our objective as fans. And certainly each team's objective is to get into that World Series. But what is the objective of the major leagues? What should its purest, most noble goal be?

Ken: To have some measure of competitive balance?

Dave: Even better: The majors' number-one goal should be competitive integrity. That is, it should be about making the chances for each and every team as viable as possible. The Royals should have just as good a chance to win as the Mets do.

Ken: I agree, but should the majors manipulate that balance to achieve it? They've done that in the past when the commissioner blocked trades that he thought were "not in the best interest of baseball." That stinks.

Dave: I'm 100% with you on that. But I believe the system in place today, dominated by free agency, is one in which the balance in the majors is de facto manipulated to the detriment of the teams that can't generate enough revenue. You just said that the majors provides for the most equitable system there is -- you even used the words "well-funded." Let me ask it this way, are all teams equally funded?

Ken: We talked about that: no, they're not. But should they be?

Dave: Of course, they don't necessarily have to be. I'm just saying the advantages given to the better-funded teams are far too significant. The competitive balance of the major leagues has been distorted -- deliberately so -- in order to favor the teams that will bring in the most revenue. What's worse is that they're essentially lying about it. All of the teams are. The Powers-That-Be spew the mantra about how competitive it all is, and Royals fans plunk down their fifty clams for a couple of tickets to watch a team play that will win nothing from day one.

Ken: But what about those teams that just suck, have lousy owners, management -- make lousy front office decisions. What about them?

Dave: What about them? Let them suck. If they finish season after season with a 20-142 record, so what? I'm just saying the disadvantages wrought by free agency shouldn't be the reason they finish there. If they have lousy management, that's one thing. If they have brilliant management but don't have the money to buy the players to be truly competitive, that's a whole other sack of potatoes, and a rotten one at that. You know as well as I do that year after year, twenty teams will never have a shot at winning big. You could name those twenty teams. You, me, him, her, we all could. You know the Royals are one of them and the Mets are not. And that is simply because the Mets generate more revenue for the major leagues than the Royals do. It's in the major leagues' best interest for the Mets to have that edge every year -- along with those nine or ten other teams.

Ken: Okay, but hey, I got you there. The Mets suck this year. What about that?

Dave: The fact that one of those ten teams is doing poorly doesn't hurt my argument. That is because baseball is a zero-sum game. Only one team will end up winning. Flat-out, the Powers-That-Be -- consisting of not just of owners but players and media types and so forth -- manipulate the game to increase the chances that a Yankees or Dodgers or Mets or Red Sox will win the World Series.

Ken: That is baloney. Look at the teams this year at the top of their divisions. Some are big market teams and some aren't! Look at the Twins, the Mariners, the Reds!

Dave: It is the middle of June [2002]. Where those teams are now will mean nothing in October. What really counts is final results at the end of the season. Sure, all teams are competitive, but that only means they'll win at least a few games. Big whoop. The biggest advantage is still given to the big money generators. Let's say at the end of the year the teams that went into the playoffs were, oh, the Padres, Brewers, Pirates, the Royals, and Expos. You know the Powers-That-Be would have a meltdown. So that will never happen because the biggest-salaried players are on the other money-generating teams, those "big market" teams if you will.

Ken: That's another thing that's overblown -- the "big market" factor.

Dave: Not really. If you looked through history you'd find the larger-market teams have always been much more successful than smaller-market teams. To say that Kansas City won once or Pittsburgh and Cincinnati were really good a while ago does not make the case for the insignificance of big market advantage.

Ken: But I think you'd find great competitive balance even today. No team really dominates.

Dave: Competitive balance is not what I'm after. I want to see competitive integrity. To manipulate the game for parity is just as bad a crime; this is what competitive balance is all about. What should happen is simple: Whichever team is the very best at playing baseball, that team should be rewarded. This is competitive integrity. If a team goes 142-20 every year for ten years -- great -- as long as they did it fairly, with no undue financial or utilitarian advantage, or any other advantage other than having built and fielded the best team through their baseball building skill and wisdom. Want to prove me wrong? Don't show me what great competitive balance there is -- everyone at or near .500. That says nothing. Show me an Expos, Pirates, Royals, or Devil Rays team with a middle-of-the-road payroll that is a powerhouse dynasty, for years and years. And at the same time, show me the Yankees, Dodgers, and Mets in or near the cellar, for years. Know what?

Ken: It won't happen.

Dave: It won't happen. It won't. And why is that?

Ken: This is why it's bad, I can see it coming....

Dave: It won't happen because advertisers will pay much less for an Expos-Devil Rays World Series. And the 21 million fans that make up the New York market and the 16 million in the Los Angeles market will take their money -- not just for tickets to games but for all the additional revenue-generating items, like television and merchandising and all the rest -- and they will take a hike. Bye-bye money -- for both owners and players.

Ken: Well, why, really, couldn't that happen? You know, a small-market team World Series?

Dave: You know why. Because of free agency. There is no way those teams could pay the players to win big. The key is that it is not just the players who like free agency but the owners and all the Powers-That-Be like it too.

Ken: Wait, you said the owners like it? I don't think so.

Dave: Think so. They like it because they know that if they can't get their particular team to win the World Series, then they want the Yankees or Dodgers to win because they keep big league baseball afloat. With revenue sharing now in full swing it's obvious: The higher-revenue-generating clubs can subsidize teams that may not do as well, both financially and competitively.

Ken: Okay okay. My ballgame is about to start here, so let's get back to the ultimate question. You say that what has happened to baseball is bad, and I say it is no big deal. Take one more shot: exactly how is it "bad"? I still just can't see how there is that much unfairness going on when I watch a game. The Mets are just not guaranteed to win this game I'm going to here.

Dave: It's bad because we're all being told that everything is honest and on the level when I've just demonstrated that isn't. You're about to go in to that stadium and watch a World Wrestling Federation type event -- it just isn't as blatant as WWF.

Ken: You mean like it's all fake?

Dave: Yes.

Ken: Oh come on. Now you've gone too far.

Dave: Let me ask you a question. Is WWF wrestling fake?

Ken: Yeah.

Dave: It is? I don't think so. It looks so real to me.

Ken: I know you're being facetious.

Dave: Okay, but humor me: convince me it's fake.

Ken: Can't you tell the way they hit each other? They really don't hit each other.

Dave: But they make it look like they do.

Ken: Exactly.

Dave: How do you know it's fake, though? Have you talked personally to the promoters? Have they told you it's fake?

Ken: It just is! I mean, look at the way they make it a show. Most of it is just theatrics. And you know who's going to win and how they work it all out to the fans' pleasure.

Dave: Bingo. Exactly what is going is going on with Major League Baseball. It is fake in the same sense WWF is.

Ken: How can you say that?

Dave: Because of all that I just told you. I see it as plainly as you see the wrestlers aren't really hitting each other.

Ken: But baseball is different.

Dave: Only in degree and manner. But it's still manipulating the outcome of the contest. With WWF it involves telling the wrestlers who's going to win what and how. With MLB it involves entitling the larger-market teams to buy up all the best players. Both are evil.

Ken: I don't know....

Dave: Let me put it this way. Would it be okay if, in a regular collegiate wrestling match, the Powers-That-Be told one of the competitors to lay down a little bit in one part of one match so the other guy can get some points? He doesn't have to lose, just let the other guy dominate a bit, for that one part. Is that okay?

Ken: No.

Dave: So a little teeny tiny exploitation is just as bad as a big one like in WWF?

Ken: Yeah, in this case, sure.

Dave: And let's say that in Major League Baseball one team, for one inning, was given an extra strike. They got four strikes instead of three. Just for that one inning, that one game. Just so they could have a little teeny tiny advantage. Let's even say they were horrible and it was late in the season in a game with no playoff implications. What would you say to that?

Ken: I know where you're going with this. I agree, it would be bad -- the competitive integrity would be compromised immensely.

Dave: And that is all I'm saying about free agency. I'm just saying the competitive integrity has been compromised and not just a teeny tiny bit, but, as you say, immensely. It's just that it's done in the back boardrooms regarding economic issues that most fans don't give a rip about. They see four balls and three strikes and three outs there on the field but they don't see or they don't even care that one team is stacked with the better ballplayers only because of the money. And it is done so deliberately because those teams bring more money to Major League Baseball. That is no better than adding a strike for the batter.

Ken: But you know, the better players have gone to the better paying teams all the time! What about in the 1800s, when the Reds were the first team to start paying their players? And rolled to title after title? I know a little something about baseball. Got you there.

Dave: Okay, to be honest, I don't know the details about that situation. But let me ask you this. If there was competitive duplicity then, does that make it okay? Does the time period when the crime occurred change the nature of the crime? And let's take the Reds example. Let's assume -- and safely so -- that the Reds won a lot because they paid their players. Does this not help make my case? Of course, people may think that is wonderfully fine. They may pay to see the Reds roll. That's not my beef. I've never objected to people paying to see baseball, or a dominant team winning, or a ballplayer making a mint for his services. My contention is that people are being fooled into thinking there is competitive integrity when there isn't. If they want to go see WWF baseball they can. More power to them. But I believe they should know that what they are seeing is WWF baseball, and I am certain many don't know that. They are being lied to. And Ken Fan, you are being lied to, even though it is your own Mets that have been given the advantage. That is what is bad.

Ken: But baseball is so good!

Dave: Yes! Baseball is so good. Indeed that's what makes the bad stuff I've just told you about so bad! May I give you another illustration to make this a bit easier to understand?

Ken: Well....

Dave: Baseball is like a girl you really like.

Ken: My Mets game's starting, but now you've got me interested.

Dave: You really like this girl, she's pretty and smart and bright and witty and you just connect with her. And she likes you. Wow. Sparks and fireworks and the rest. But may I ask you, what do you need to know to make this new friendship flourish?

Ken: Well, I guess treat her nice and respectfully and so forth.

Dave: Good. Which means there are things you are not going to do. Now certainly there are some things that may be okay and some that may not be, depending on who she is and what she likes. But I can guarantee you that something she will not like is for you to go to a brothel and show her how things work.

Ken: Yeah, but who knows, she may like that kind of thing.

Dave: Um, we're talking about something good, like baseball, remember?

Ken: Oh yeah.

Dave: Remember, the girl is like baseball, something really good -- so the brothel is way out. Now let's say you get to know her a bit more, spend some time with her, and find out that you may want to consider spending the rest of your life together. Does that mean it is okay to just jump right into bed together?

Ken: I don't know, maybe that's okay. We live in an enlightened progressive era.

Dave: To avoid the longer discourse on sexual morality, let's just just agree, for the sake of argument, that the best course of action would be to wait until marriage.

Ken: But that's getting into disputable morality issues!

Dave: I understand that, but my point is that marriage, as well as social mores that keep us from making the first date a brothel visit, are constraints that are necessary for us to really enjoy things as they should be enjoyed. An intimate relationship with a wonderful girl can only be fully enjoyed with boundaries placed against us and our behavior. If we violate those boundaries then we must face the consequences. If I were to violate the boundaries with my new girlfriend, I may get her prematurely pregnant or acquire a sexually transmitted disease or wreck the intimacy we could have had.

Ken: Look, I'm not sure I'm with you on the girl-relationship illustration. Lots of people may disagree with you about the morality here.

Dave: I know that, and I emphasize that I'm just making an argument. Whether one thinks it's good or bad, you can't deny that certain behaviors produce very bad things.

Ken: But you know we make mistakes all the time.

Dave: Oh, of course we do. But we know what the mistakes are, and we work to avoid them, make amends for them, seek forgiveness for making them -- you know, those kinds of things that are acknowledgments that there are right and wrong things.

Ken: Okay, so what does this have to do with baseball?

Dave: Well, remember the girl is like baseball. There are just certain things you do to treasure it. What has happened with free agency and the duplicitous activity surrounding it is the same as taking her to the brothel. The "evening ladies" are the same as all the money in the game, the lust is the greed of the Powers-That-Be, and free agency acts like an aphrodisiac or Viagra or --

Ken: Okay, okay, I got the idea.

Dave: In other words, baseball has been treated like a whore.

Ken: That's pretty strong.

Dave: It is. And it would be one thing for us all to say, well, it's not good, yeah, but it's what we got. This goes against our instincts to do something about it, say it's wrong, even refuse to do business with it. Instead we join right along, and are like the young man who fornicates with his new girl and is resigned to just having sex for a night. He could have had something much greater! A gloriously intimate and genuine relationship with a wonderful girl!

Ken: Well, yeah, but what's the big deal with baseball?

Dave: Do you really, in your heart, believe that free agency has nothing to do with manipulating the game so the big money teams have an advantage to win? Do you really believe that?

Ken: No, but I just don't think it is any big deal.

Dave: But again that's like saying it's no big deal if a baseball team has an extra strike for an inning, or if just once you do the nasty with this wonderful girl you met. Free-agency-dominated baseball is like going to the brothel. Let me put it to you this way: what do think would happen if the Powers-That-Be decided to have complete competitive integrity? That means they got rid of free agency, stopped the duplicity, fully allowed teams to draft and build and develop and keep all the key players they wanted to for as long as they wanted to, giving each team a real shot at the World Series title, all the time?

Ken: Okay....

Dave: What do you think would then happen when the Expos and Devil Rays keep getting into the World Series? What do you think the Powers-That-Be would do?

Ken: They wouldn't like it.

Dave: Here's my point -- in the illustration: They would be like the young man in the brothel with a dozen "ladies" ready and willing, and you put a steel codpiece on the guy. That's what it would be like.

Ken: Ouch.

Dave: The Powers-That-Be would do anything to get that codpiece off -- because there is just too damn much money at stake. They want the money, not competitive integrity, though to get it they've got to make it look like it's there.

Ken: Brothels can look like nice places.

Dave: Great point. Too many people see the nice landscaped Victorian house. What in the world are we doing in there though? In fact, don't you think it is interesting how the sexual revolution and free agency in baseball sort of came about at the same time? During the 1960s and '70s? The sexual revolution says, "Let it go. Be free to 'express' yourself." We have all bought the lie that we can't get anything better. The message is, "You can't get real love, so settle for cheap sex." In baseball it has been, "You can't get pure competitive integrity, so every year settle for Yankees-Dodgers -- or some comparable match-up." Just like the sexual revolution pulled down useful and reliable sexual constraints, free agency pulls down the things that allowed competitive integrity to make the game great.

Ken: You mean like the reserve clause, that evil in baseball used by the owners to keep their players in poverty?

Dave: Oh, the players were never in poverty.

Ken: At least kept them from getting what they were worth.

Dave: I know the reserve clause was universally reviled, and to some extent the owners used it against the players. I don't argue with you there. But it was a constraint in favor of competitive integrity.

Ken: So you want the reserve clause back?

Dave: No, that genie's out of the bottle. What I'm asking is: does there have to be free agency to ensure the players get their fair share of the financial pie? I don't think so. I think the majors could be a natural monopsony with a common player salary pool. But as long as they're all in the brothel, they won't do this.

Ken: And why is that?

Dave: Because again -- and I'll emphasize it here -- if you have a resulting Expos-Devil Rays World Series dual year after year, the money will dry up. As it is, the Powers-That-Be don't want competitive integrity because it is too unprofitable. They're getting their jollies in the brothel!

Ken: So what is the solution then?

Dave: Hate to tell you --

Ken: What, what? What is it?

Dave: Let me ask you this. We've talked about constraints, and I concede that the reserve clause was not the best one, for obvious reasons. What do you think is the greatest constraint against the Powers-That-Be in this case?

Ken: The greatest constraint against the guy in the brothel is people who care about him letting him know that they disapprove of his actions.

Dave: Which people, specifically?

Ken: His mother, father, family and friends that have a genuine interest in his well-being.

Dave: Excellent. And in the case of baseball, who are those who care most about its well-being?

Ken: I'm afraid I know where you're going with this....

Dave: You were about to go into the ballpark?

In the role of Fyedka in Fiddler on the Roof, EEEEEE! Contributing Editor David Beck once juggled oranges onstage.

Copyright ©2002 by David Beck

Gregg Pearlman, EEEEEEgp@EEEEEEgp.com

Back to the EEEEEE! Home Page