Greenies are gone, young players are here and still no replay

Since last December, Miguel Tejada has been named in the Mitchell Report, traded, outed for his age and still put up All-Star numbers in Houston. Aaron M. Sprecher/Icon SMI

Regarding the decline in older free-agent players' productivity and the upsurge in young players across both leagues, is it just a coincidence that drug testing has some real teeth for the first time in MLB, or am I just paranoid?
-- Jim Atkins, Twentynine Palms, Calif.

A: Jim, I think the crackdown and change in the culture definitely is a factor, but I'm afraid it's getting too much emphasis in media reports. I mean, was it just AL players who were juicing? Did the Mitchell Report get people to stop when testing the past couple of years didn't? We have to be careful that we just don't use the PED crackdown as the be-all and end-all to explain any drop in scoring or late-career meltdowns.

I'm sure in certain cases it is a factor, just not all of them. Funny, I had this same conversation with one clubhouse source recently who claims the veterans miss greenies as much as the steroids. The greenies enabled them to play, gave some life to aging, sore bodies during the grind of the season. Now, don't think they haven't looked for other ways to get that jolt, but in general usage has gone down, especially with hard core amphetamines.

Another well-connected clubhouse source gave me this interpretation of what's going on: the climate has definitely calmed down, but in two years or so you'll see bodies begin to blow up again as the watchdog atmosphere wanes and as new advances in performance enhancers, including gene therapy, are discovered by early adapters.

Despite your assertion that the top young pitchers today have less seasoning than in the past, isn't it premature to assign "top" status to young pitchers without knowing their future contributions? After all, some minor leaguer putting in more innings in AAA might be the next Big Unit while a less minor league-seasoned pitcher could go on to wipe out in a couple years.
-- Peter Chen, Naperville, Ill.

A: Very good point. I agree that the next big starter might still be in the minors right now. You never know. I wasn't implying that these were the 10 best young starters in all of organized ball, but to me they are among the 10 most advanced young starters and certainly among the 10 most talked about.

Are more of the really high draft choices coming from college rather than high school in recent years? This year's first round only included nine high school players. Also, only 3-of-11 were pitchers, and that's counting Casey Kelly and Aaron Hicks who also play positions. Do you think the fact that more college players being drafted contributes to less time in the minors? It seems like it would be easier to bring up a player quickly if they had a couple of years to mature physically in college.
-- David Rieger, Grand Forks

A: Good observation about the draft this year, but I tend to think such "trends" depend on the class of draft-eligible players. Sometimes it's college-heavy, sometimes it's high school-heavy. Clearly high-school picks present more risk than college picks. I think high-school first-rounders are half as likely to get to the big leagues as college first-rounders. But history tells you some of the absolute studs of the draft were so good at an early age they didn't need college seasoning. I remember Scott Boras once saying the odds were so great for late high-school picks that clubs shouldn't even be allowed to draft high school kids after the first round or two. But I still would allow for those highly motivated ballplayers who really are not college-oriented and want to pursue their dream, even against the odds. (Hopefully they get some college funding as insurance.) Your instinct on college picks, I believe, is correct: they are further developed and therefore more of a "known" quantity to clubs and can get to the big leagues quicker. You may sacrifice the higher ceiling of a high school kid for less risk.

Tom, you say you want replay restricted to "one narrowly defined usage," but that raises a serious problem. Any good argument for using replay to review home runs would also be a good argument for extending it to any other scoring situation or even to any other game-changing situation. Once you've said that it's acceptable to use replay at all, you have to say that it would be acceptable to use it a lot, if you're going to be consistent. A missed call in a play at the plate can obviously decide games (and stats and futures), a missed strike call can do the same and so can many other calls.
--T.A. Sandberg, Manchester, Iowa

A: I would respectfully disagree. I think what you're saying makes some sense, but clearly it starts to put you on that slippery slope toward robots calling balls and strikes. What convinces me are the voices of umpires saying they need help on these boundary calls. These are very proud, skilled people who get an amazing percentage of calls right. But it is the difficulty of the boundary call that makes those calls so different from calls on the bases and calls from behind the plate. They are trained for those calls throughout their lives. But you can't train for major-league ballparks and their unique challenges. So I guess I'm looking at it more from an umpiring perspective than I am from a philosophical one.

I totally see the benefit of replay for those who have been frustrated by blown calls. However, couldn't that also be alleviated by hiring more umps and posting one near the left-field and right-field lines? Yes, it would likely cost more in the long run but at least then the "human element" that purists cry for will be taken care of and there will be a closer set of eyes on the long ball for those concerned with getting the calls right.
-- Elijah, Detroit Lakes, Minn.

A: It might help, but it would remain a very difficult call in real time. (Remember Derek Jeter's faux home run in the 1996 playoffs with an umpire stationed in right field?) One thing that really stuck me when I spent a week with umpires and umpired a spring-training game last year was what one of the umpires said about why they're right more often than other officials: They get themselves in position so that their head (and eyes) become a fixed camera. Other officials have to make calls on the move. Well, the outfield call often requires an umpire to make a call on the move, with his head and eyes moving and looking into weird signage and sprawling fans. Umpires on the foul lines would still have to run to see those balls not near the lines. And I don't think the umpire on the outfield line has the best view of fair or foul calls on long flyballs; they can be too close to the play. Again, I know we all have our ideas and theories on what's best, but I really defer to the expertise of umpires to explain what's happening and how technology can help.