The Mitchell Report

The Mitchell Report is now big news, and since this is a baseball blog, I suppose I am compelled to comment on it.

I have not read it. I probably will not read it. I just don't find it that interesting. Why?

Well, what did we know before the report came out?

1. There were guys in MLB using PEDs.
2. There was no discernible pattern to the people who did use PEDs. That is, you cannot tell who a PED user is based on their physique, statistics, career path, etc.
   
3. The effect that PEDs have on baseball performance is hard to quantify. We can say for sure that the players taking them thought that they helped.

So now that the report is out, what do we know?

1. There were guys in MLB using PEDs.
2. There was no discernible pattern to the people who did use PEDs. That is, you cannot tell who a PED user is based on their physique, statistics, career path, etc.
   
3. The effect that PEDs have on baseball performance is hard to quantify. We can say for sure that the players taking them thought that they helped.

And that's the rub for me. The Mitchell Report added a few names, most of whom were already suspected or had already been linked. The list of names contains superstars and it contains scrubs. It looks surprisingly like a list of randomly sampled MLB players. It provides no evidence that PEDs help baseball performance.

Most importantly, it must be recognized that even if all of the players on the list are guilty as charged, the list is far from complete. In fact, because it's based largely on the testimony of a few dodgy witnesses, the players tend to be clumped around certain teams with whose players the witnesses did business. The list hardly convicts anyone, but most importantly it absolves no one. The single biggest mistake one could draw from the report would be to assume that these players are the only abusers of PEDs.

Finally, I hope that the idiocy already springing up around the country about Roger Clemens' involvement will quickly cease. People are using these allegations as a way to explain ex post facto why Clemens was able to succeed so late into his career and why his career surged at the various points that it did. This is nonsense.

First, it bears repeating that if Clemens did take steroids, it would have been meaningless if not for his legendary work ethic. The work ethic is not contradicted by steroids allegations. Indeed, it is corroborated. Use of steroids requires a more intensive workout regimen. It is not a shortcut that allows one to work less hard.

Secondly, the dates that he allegedly took them do not mesh well with his career. He reportedly began taking them in 1998, his second otherworldly Cy Young season with the Toronto Blue Jays. Indeed, his 1998 was worse than his 1997. Furthermore, he was all set to retire in 2003 after two seasons being a slightly better than average pitcher when he resurfaced in the National League Central and was again a dominant pitcher. It would be very hard to separate the effects of moving from the American League East to the National League Central from the effects of alleged PED use.

Indeed, the fact that the list is so populated with marginal players is telling in Clemens' case. Rare as it may be, transcendent players do appear every so often. Given the list of PED users in Senator Mitchell's report, it is hard to make the case that Clemens owes his success to illegal drugs.