[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
THE BOOK cover
The Unwritten Book
is Finally Written!

Read Excerpts & Reviews
E-Book available
as Amazon Kindle or
at iTunes for $9.99.

Hardcopy available at Amazon
SABR101 required reading if you enter this site. Check out the Sabermetric Wiki. And interesting baseball books.
Shop Amazon & Support This Blog
RECENT FORUM TOPICS
Jul 12 15:22 Marcels
Apr 16 14:31 Pitch Count Estimators
Mar 12 16:30 Appendix to THE BOOK - THE GORY DETAILS
Jan 29 09:41 NFL Overtime Idea
Jan 22 14:48 Weighting Years for NFL Player Projections
Jan 21 09:18 positional runs in pythagenpat
Oct 20 15:57 DRS: FG vs. BB-Ref

Advanced

Tangotiger Blog

A blog about baseball, hockey, life, and whatever else there is.

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Cheating v Unsportsmanlike Conduct

Taken literally, the conduct of cheating is performing an action that is against the written rules. Unsportsmanlike conduct is performing an action that is tolerated by the rules, but not tolerated by the participants.  (Though in some sports, unsportsmanlike conduct is spelled out as a rule.)

For a long time, there were no rules against PED, even though there were rules against scuffing balls and corking bats.  PED tolerance went through a phase, with various drugs classified and treated differently, both by whatever sport or athletic body, and by whatever government in whatever country.  Things like androstenedione is probably a good example of something that was sold over the counter at the same time that it was banned by WADA, to eventually be no longer accessible OTC.

In terms of cheating, it's whatever is in the written rules.  Presumably, if it wasn't written, it would at least rise to the level of unsportsmanlike conduct.  Corking the bat and scuffing the ball for example, if they weren't spelled out as cheating, would at least be considered unsportsmanlike conduct.

So, we have the use of pinetar.  Pinetar is tolerated by the participants, but is clearly spelled out as a rule that if you break is cheating.  But if it were NOT spelled out, no one would care.  It would NOT be unsportsmanlike conduct.

It is an interesting rule, much like the curved hockey stick.  Hockey used to be played with fairly flat blades until someone figured out that if you curve your stick excessively, it adds speed to your shot.  (The more you curve though, the harder to control passing.)  So, they came out with rules to limit the curvature.  But if they never had the rule, no player would think you were behaving in conduct unbecoming a sporting player.  This is why late in Game 2 of the 1993 Stanley Cup playoffs, a coach asking for a stick measurement that led to a penalty which led to a goal which led to Montreal winning that game and eventually the Stanley Cup was more about the unsportsmanlike conduct of the COACH in asking for the measurement than about the player playing with an excessively curved stick.  Why?  Because apparently, all the players do it.  They all tolerate it.  And if not for the rule already there, they'd be more open about it, and no one would clamor to bring it in.

The pine tar with George Brett was like that too.  In reversing the rule, it was about giving the batter a better grip, rather than increasing the performance of the batted ball, though naturally, getting a better grip will give you a greater frequenecy of positive results.  That is, if let's say normally Brett would hit a ball 50% of the time 300 feet and 50% of the time 200 feet, giving a better grip would keep the same distances for each bucket, but alter the frequency to say 60/40.  Overall, you get better results.

The same is true for using a foreign substance to improve the grip.  It may not help the pitch have better action, but it will increase the frequency in which those positive results will occur. 

So, we have a rule that fits under the cheating category, but would otherwise not be considered unsportsmanlike if the rule would be removed.  Virtually all other rules, if removed, would at least be considered unsportsmanlike conduct, and would be quickly brought back into the rulebook as cheating.

If you think in terms of how the participants actually behave, you will find that some actions are tolerated to the point that they don't think it's unsportsmanlike conduct.  And if the participants are fine with it, then maybe we should listen to them.

And the only reason that PED is not tolerated is not because of the enhanced performance, but rather, the perceived negative health e?ffects, as well as it being illegal in some cases.  And a player cannot be put in a position to choose a certain conduct to increase his chance of success if it negatively affects his health, and more importantly, breaks the law.  PED is a workplace safety issue that goes beyond cheating and goes beyond unsportsmanlike conduct.

(10) Comments • 2014/04/25 • MLB_Management Steroids

Latest...

COMMENTS

Nov 23 14:15
Layered wOBAcon

Nov 22 22:15
Cy Young Predictor 2024

Oct 28 17:25
Layered Hit Probability breakdown

Oct 15 13:42
Binomial fun: Best-of-3-all-home is equivalent to traditional Best-of-X where X is

Oct 14 14:31
NaiveWAR and VictoryShares

Oct 02 21:23
Component Run Values: TTO and BIP

Oct 02 11:06
FRV v DRS

Sep 28 22:34
Runs Above Average

Sep 16 16:46
Skenes v Webb: Illustrating Replacement Level in WAR

Sep 16 16:43
Sacrifice Steal Attempt

Sep 09 14:47
Can Wheeler win the Cy Young in 2024?

Sep 08 13:39
Small choices, big implications, in WAR

Sep 07 09:00
Why does Baseball Reference love Erick Fedde?

Sep 03 19:42
Re-Leveraging Aaron Judge

Aug 24 14:10
Science of baseball in 1957

THREADS

April 24, 2014
Cheating v Unsportsmanlike Conduct