In 2006, Jhonny Peralta sucked. I say this from first hand experience — all summer I had pretty much daily conversations with a Cleveland friend of mine that typically began, “My God, Jhonny Peralta sucks.” Peralta had been such a masher in 2005 — he hit 35 doubles, 24 homers, slugged .520 — and he was only 23 years old, and while he was not exactly Omar Vizquel with the glove, he seemed OK, at least to my buddy who watched him play every day.
But in 2006, it all came crashing down. Not only did Peralta stop hitting (.257/.323/.385), not only did he become a living and breathing double play, he also seemed to become a human couch at shortstop (this may have only been perception; his range factor was quite good and it was up from 2005, and his zone rating was perhaps just below league average. Still, watching watching him on a daily basis was excruciating — every game, it seemed, a grounder scooted by his — barely — outstretched glove).
All in all, when you have an apparently brutal defensive shortstop with an 83 OPS+ getting 569 at-bats — it’s clear that Jhonny Peralta was one of the five worst players in the American League in 2006 (though he was fortunate to be in the same division as Angel Berroa, meaning he wasn’t even the worst shortstop in the American League Central).
It was strange — seeing Peralta play in 2005, it did not seem possible that this was the same player. On the other hand, seeing Peralta play in 2006, it did not seem possible that this guy would ever be worth playing again.
Then, one day during spring training last year, my Cleveland friend called and said, “Peralta is cured.”
I said, “How’s that?”
He said: “Well, it turns out he just couldn’t see. He said that he couldn’t see breaking balls. He tried using contacts at the end of the year, and started playing better. Then he had LASIK surgery and everybody’s saying he’s back to looking like he did in 2005.”
Sure enough, a day later I read Peralta’s quote on MLB.com: “I could feel it for myself. I didn’t see the ball very good, and when I was playing shortstop, I couldn’t see the signs at home plate. … We’ll see if this [surgery] can help a little bit.”
My first reaction to this was to scoff … but isn’t that always the natural first reaction? Wasn’t that the first reaction of so many people to steroids in baseball (including the reaction of the commissioner of baseball, if I recall our conversations correctly)? I can remember so many people saying, “Come on, what’s the big deal? Steroids can’t help you hit a baseball.” That was very common thinking even five or six years ago. It’s funny, we’ve really spun 180 degrees — now, so many people seem to think that if you gave an anabolic steroid a bat, it would hit 40 homers.
Anyway, I scoffed at the notion that eye surgery would make Peralta a good player again … and then the season began and Peralta started off slow; he was hitting .196 after three weeks. Then he got hot. From April 25-June 2nd — more than a month — he hit .348/.406/.594, and the Indians played .600 ball for those 35 games, and it appeared that my friend was right. Peralta WAS cured.
In the end, Peralta did not have a sensational season. He didn’t break any records or do anything all that special that would draw notice. In fact, his OPS+ for 2007 was 100 — exactly league average. But he was a whole lot better than 2006. He hit .270/.341/.430 with 27 doubles, 21 homers, 87 runs, he even stole four bases (four times his career high — just saying). He had a good postseason. And lots of people wrote nice stories about how Peralta came back — most of them using LASIK as a nice detail in the story.
“Yeah, I feel strong,” he told Michael Vega of The Boston Globe during the playoffs last year. “My legs are strong and I see the ball good. I see everything.”
Indians manager Eric Wedge did not want to give the LASIK surgery too much credit — he wanted to talk about how hard Peralta had worked to come back — but he conceded that it was a part of the story.
“I am smart enough to say that if you can see the ball a little bit better, it’s probably going to help you. So, I’m sure that’s at least a small part of it.”
Now, I don’t really know if LASIK surgery was the difference for Jhonny Peralta. I don’t know how much of a role it played. Maybe he was just due for a bounce back season (and remember he wasn’t nearly as good in 2007 as he was in 2005). Maybe it wasn’t the improved eyesight as much as renewed confidence that turned him around. It’s important to remember that these things are always more complicated and involved than people want to believe. Steroids may have played its role in the offensive explosion of the Bud Era, but it’s possible that new ballparks, smaller strike zones, more baseball played at altitude, harder bats, livelier baseballs, better training, expansion and a hundred other factors may have played a role too.
BUT let’s say for a moment that it was LASIK surgery that mostly brought Peralta back. That’s not unreasonable. You gotta see to hit and field. And you know hat LASIK surgery (in the right circumstances) can enhance someone’s eyesight beyond what contacts or glasses or nature can do. I’m not sure what happened in the case of Peralta, but it’s not unlikely that after LASIK, he is seeing better than he ever has in his life. It’s not unreasonable to say that LASIK surgery brought back Jhonny Peralta, and Jhonny Peralta was a key factor in Cleveland’s 96-victory season, and so on.
Now we’re getting to my point: In Peralta’s case, nobody’s really going to mind any of this. LASIK is perfectly legal (steroids are also legal when prescribed by a doctor, but this is not my point) and no sport, as far as I know, has banned LASIK. Peralta was able to resuscitate his career, and he didn’t break any hallowed records, he didn’t do anything out of the ordinary, he seems like a good and hard working player, so this whole thing was viewed as a good and uplifting story.
BUT let’s move this thing beyond Peralta for a second. Let’s say that, Albert Pujols gets LASIK — and the next year, he hits .400. What would be the reaction then? There would be a reaction, wouldn’t there? Nobody has hit .400 in 67 years. Many believe that nobody will ever again hit .400. If Pujols hit .400 just after getting eye surgery to improve his vision … yeah, there would be some reaction to that, I would think.
And then let’s say that, based on Pujols hitting .400 (which is not impossible after all), that Joe Mauer gets LASIK, and HE hits ..392. Derek Jeter gets LASIK and hits .394. Batting averages skyrocket around the league. And, who knows, maybe someone like Placido Polanco gets LASIK and hits .400. We’re talking crazy now. I’ve heard that Ted Williams always tried to debunk the notion that he had superhuman eyesight — but it was true that he had 20-10 vision (at least that’s what the guy who gave him his Navy physical said), and who knows? Maybe they had it right all along — maybe Williams’ brilliance as a hitter was due to his work ethic, his natural reflexes AND his eyesight.
Obviously, this is all very hypothetical. But what would happen if LASIK turned out to be a way to become a better average hitter? I suspect there would be some outrage. You can’t have Placido Polanco hitting .400 — even JOE DIMAGGIO never hit .400. Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, George Brett, Rod Carew, Tony Gwynn, Wade Boggs — these people never hit .400. You can’t have Placido Polanco hitting .400.
No, it wouldn’t be the outrage that we’re getting from steroids perhaps because of the legalities and because us average non-athletes, for the most part, don’t use steroids so we can’t relate, (while we all know someone who got LASIK surgery). But there would be a reaction. I would bet that more and more players would start getting LASIK surgery in the minor leagues, and then in high schools, and then people would talk about how players who didn’t get LASIK would be at a disadvantage, and some kid would get LASIK surgery somewhere in the country in order to become a better baseball player and he would be blinded or something (all surgeries have some risk), and 60 Minutes would do a piece on it, and there would be demands for baseball to ban LASIK surgery, but of course by banning it they would only make it more appealing, and so on and so on and so on.
I think about all this stuff a lot because even after all this time, I have not really been able to work through all of the philosophical inconsistencies in thinking about performance enhancing drugs. I’m sure using steroids is wrong, and I think steroid use is bad for competitive sports, and I think that the health risks — assuming they are as extreme as some doctors say — mean that steroid users are setting an awful example for young athletes.
But I also think that few people ever really considered the ethics of Tommy John surgery, which (when successful) gives someone a stronger ligament in their elbow than God intended (and is used almost exclusively for athletes). How far are we away from synthetic ligaments that are impossible to tear? I think people have not wrestled with the dilemma of LASIK which may, as it improves, give batters the superhuman vision that Ted Williams always downplayed (and think how much it could help pitchers too — look what mere glasses did for Charlie Sheen in Major League). And then there are painkillers used to keep players going — these are illegal too except when prescribed by doctors (who are only prescribing them here to keep players in the game).
I think that, honestly, we don’t think about these things until something supernatural happens. It took the home run explosion — it took McGwire hitting 70 homers and then Bonds hitting 73 and then Clemens having a 1.87 ERA at age 42 — for everyone to get angry and Congress to get worked up and all that. LASIK will be OK with people, I think, until someone with new eyes hits .400. As long as it’s just Jhonny Peralta putting his career together, everyone should be fine.
22 Comments, Comment or Ping
Mike
I seem to recall that Greg Maddux had laser eye surgery and credited it with some of his success.
I’m also not convinced that Tommy John makes someone throw harder. Usually you’re talking about someone who has been injured for a while and Tommy John just returns them to their normal level of strength. Will Carroll wrote about this — how some idiot parents and coaches want teenagers to get unnecessary Tommy John surgery thinking it will make them throw harder.
Jan 13th, 2008
David Taylor
Joe,
I think the difference between steroids and Lasik surgery is the risk factor. A player should not have to risk long term health issues (steroids) in order to keep up with other players in baseball. Lasik appears to have relatively low risk of side effects. Now if theoretically everyone started getting Lasik and BAs went up 30-50 points it would impact the records but how is that different than having players 2-3 inches taller and 20-30 pounds heavier than those in the 60’s and 70’s due to better diets and exercise. I always hate hearing these discussions about how players from the past couldn’t compete with players of today. If Hank Aaron had been born 30 years later he would have been bigger and stronger having benefited from the newer training techniques. So the best way to judge players if by their contemporaries and leave the rest alone.
Jan 13th, 2008
Richard Gadsden
Health risks for steroids vary hugely depending on many factors.
Risk factors: high dosages, lack of off-cycles, youth, long-term usage, being female.
I don’t know whether you’ve followed the stories about the East German track-and-field athletes in the 1980s, but there are several women who ended up undergoing gender reassignment surgery because systematic steroid use in pre-pubescent females seriously distorted their experience of puberty. There are many ex-athletes with serious organ damage, particularly liver and pancreas.
Now, very few Westerners used steroids as recklessly as the Stasi (the DDR’s secret police) and modern steroid use - and modern steroids, for that matter - is far less risky, and probably far more effective as well.
Frankly, the risks for a fully mature adult male, using steroids under competent medical supervision for a few years, are pretty modest in comparison. That doesn’t mean they are zero - and the risks for anyone who hasn’t reached full physical maturity, especially if you’ve not completed puberty, are much higher.
Cortisone and other similar painkillers are probably worse as risk factors, in that they enable players to play through injuries and risk aggravating them. This is a much bigger issue for contact sports, especially football, than for baseball.
Jan 13th, 2008
Tanner Boyle
There was an article in the SF Chronicle after Giambi went to the Yankees. An eye doctor said he had the second best eye site he had ever tested, behind Barry Bonds.
Referenced here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/05/15/MNGMOPR2HC1.DTL
Jan 14th, 2008
Paul White
I have a hard time comparing steroid usage by perfectly healthy athletes with having a medical procedure performed due to a known physical problem, even something as routine and benign as poor eyesight. No doctor worth his degree would prescribe steroids without a good reason or perform Tommy John surgery on a healthy elbow, whereas a torn elbow ligament or deteriorating eyesight are perfectly legitimate issues that require some form of treatment. If your physician can be in trouble with his ethics boards, I’m thinking you should probably be considered as having violated baseball ethics, too.
Jan 14th, 2008
John Liotta
In truth LASIK only corrects to the norm. No person whose eyesight is in the good to exceptional range would benefit greatly from LASIK. Two doctors in Europe tried to increase their sight to something like 20/9 from an already exceptional level and after a few months they reverted to their original abilities. Additionally because LASIK destroys tissue it is not something you can replicate over and over again without risking severe damage to the eyes.
Overall, however, your point is taken regarding LASIK and Tommy John surgery. Certainly no one blinks an eye at these medical enhancements, and nor should they. There is no real evidence in fact that either of the procedures make anyone “better” at what they do, save they are “better off” for having had them done.
Anyone who argues against these procedures usually uses the word fair. They suggest that it is not fair that players today have these advantages and that if players of other generations did (Jim Rice anyone?) then those players numbers would be similar. Lots of things aren’t fair about today. Why single out medical procedures? Why not airplane rides over bus or train rides? Why not better equipment? Or salaries? Or competition? Or supplements? Or the four letter word of the moment, PEDS?
Every generation has more than the last. At least in baseball. At least in America.
Jan 14th, 2008
Old Man Duggan
While I don’t know the specifics of what LASIK does, it’s my understanding that it simply corrects someone’s eyesight to 20/20 or so. If it’s essentially like wearing contacts, then I’m really not seeing the point of this hypothetical argument. Are doctors putting in Robocop eyes, and then we can all hone in on things 400 yards away, zooming in and focusing so we can aim our guns at them? My guess is that’s not the case. I think that LASIK probably just corrects near- or far-sightedness.
Jan 14th, 2008
jim willoughby's 'do
fyi, malcolm gladwell has been discussing this topic since the mitchell report was released. in fact, (inspired by one of his readers) he makes the same point about lasik: http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2008/01/war-on-drugs-co.html
this (like most other things) is a very grey area. however (like most other things!), people try to make it black & white, with the two separated by an arbitrary line. my favorite example of this is when writers wail about sabermatricians ruining baseball by relying too much on numbers (read: numbers with which they are not familiar or do not understand) & then use different numbers (read: traditional counting stats) to “prove” their points(!)
the argument SHOULD be about where to draw the line between “good” and “bad” numbers, not whether numbers themselves are inherently good or bad. unfortunately, objectivity & intelligence dont sell papers or get ratings (just as contradiction & irony - or as gladwell puts it, “intellectual sloppiness” - rarely harm them).
Jan 14th, 2008
Chris
Joe -
Excellent points! This is what I brought up in the other post when you briefly mentioned Tommy John surgery in relation to PEDs. I wish I had an answer to this issue, but like you say, it’s a pretty complicated philosphical question. I think we have to ask ourselves the question: What is cheating? Taking steroids or HGH, I think it’s safe to say, is cheating. High-tech surgeries, it seems, are not cheating. But it’s an important thing to think about, and it will continue to be important in the future when more and more technologies, procedures and drugs are developed. I don’t know that a lot of people are prepared to ask that question and think about the issue of Cheating, which scares me because as you touched on, that’s how the steroid situation kind of dovetailed out of control.
John: The real issue here isn’t about fairness in relation to the past. The past is irrelevant. But fairness is incredibly important in relation to the present. The most basic thing about sports (and life?) is that everyone is on a level playing field. Then it comes down to ability and performance. That’s what makes sports so fun - just see today’s fabulous football games for reference. So all we have to do is make sure that no one is tilting the playing field unfairly. Obviously, that’s difficult. And the point of all of this is that we have to really think about what Cheating is, what determines a titling of the playing field, and how we’re going to deal with it now and in the future.
Jan 14th, 2008
Brian Dieffenderfer
Malcolm Gladwell has had some really good posts along the same lines
http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2007/12/free-fernando-v.html
http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2007/12/free-fernando-1.html
http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2008/01/the-war-on-drug.html
http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2008/01/war-on-drugs-co.html
Jan 14th, 2008
Josh L.
seem to recall brian roberts also getting lasik the winter before his breakout campaign … of course there is at least one confounder in his case …
Jan 14th, 2008
Justyo
Joaldo—
I am right with you, brother. Especially in calling this the “Bud Era”. From now on the steroid years will thus be referred.
I couldn’t agree more with your post. Especially the sense of inconsistency in how to feel about the whole thing.
I will say this. The sense that the Hall of Fame is reserved for the best, or at least the extra special does lean toward favoring longevity - because longevity IS special. No way around it. Look at Ripken. We love the guy and rightly so. Yaz. Take any 12 years of Yaz’s career (and Yaz is my guy.) Is he a Hall of Famer? Yaz. You could do that with others. We love longevity. And we should. It takes an extraordinary person to play through pain, fading eyesight, injury and remain relevant and effective. It happens to make us all feel younger as well. Seeing these “old” guys in their 40’s get kids out or hit one into McCovey Cove.
However as Paul states above “whereas a torn elbow ligament or deteriorating eyesight are perfectly legitimate issues that require some form of treatment.”
I ask, what’s legitimate treatment? What’s the difference between deteriorating eyesight and deteriorating reflexes, both resulting in sub par performance. One cured by Lasik, the other by steroids. Both legal when prescribed by a doctor. Shouldn’t a “torn elbow ligament” that requires a wholly NEW and stronger ligament implanted be seen as unnatural and performance enhancing? Is it not?
Also If the final argument is that steroids are harmful where is the definitive study to which we can all refer? What are the absolute facts. It’s a little fuzzy, is it not? Where is the definitive study that says prescribed, controlled and monitored use for x periods of time result in “horns growing out” of Clemens head?
I’m just saying I hear you. It’s frustrating.
Jan 14th, 2008
Rob
Jow writes > I’m not sure how impossible to tear they may be, but I believe for some time now we have had synthetic knee ligaments (Pavel Bure for the Rangers got one in Canada back then if I recall correctly), but it’s not FDA approved nor allowed in the US. Danny Way, the guy who created the mega-Ramp for skateboarding (And subsequently jumped the Great Wall of China on his board using it) also had it done.
Jan 14th, 2008
roarke
The one that gets me is cortisone shots. Those are completely legal, even though they are a form of steroids, I believe (cortiosteroids is the proper name, maybe?). Players get cortisone shots and the player’s production immediately improves (see Scott Rolen in the 2006 playoffs). Why is that legal and anabolic steroids illegal?
Jan 14th, 2008
Mike Bagnall
If someone is born with a better body than mine (for baseball purposes, anyway) am I being “unfair” to have surgery or take drugs to make mine work better than his? What’s more unfair than nature? Should I be forced to rely on corking my bat or throwing a spitball?
Jan 14th, 2008
Tim
In the words of Ayn Rand, if you see a contradiction, check your premises. I think you are getting there Joe. It is very arbitrary to rule out the use of steroids. The weakest argument is that athletes have to be willing to sacrifice future health to keep up with their peers. This is already true. Though not as pronounced as in football or basketball, there are many players who sacrifice long term health when they take a cortisone shot or painkillers and play through the pain. Most professional athletes realize they are in a unique situation to take advantage of a few years of their lives for future financial security at the risk of bodily harm. Let them be the ones to make the decisions as to what risks they are willing to take.
Jan 14th, 2008
Kevin
I understand the sentiment you’re making with the Polanco comments, but honestly, the guy is a hell of a hitter, if we’re only talking batting average. His ability to get hits with 2 strikes is amazing and it’s not impossible that through a fluky season he could approach the Williams/Cobb side of .370. Now, I understand your point is that he isn’t Williams or Cobb or even Boggs or Brett. However, if you gave me one choice on million to one odds for an AL player to hit .400 this year…well, I’d say Ichiro. But, if you gave me two choices, I’d say Ichiro and Polanco. I feel the guy’s better than what you’re making him out to be in this post. Especially with the lineup he gets to bat in the 2-hole of all year.
Jan 14th, 2008
G Young
Let’s say Albert Pujols gets LASIK, and instead of Jhonny Peralta he turns into Aaron Guiel.
What then?
Any baseball conversation about LASIK seems to always focus in on the success stories. Nobody wants to talk about how it took Aaron Guiel over a year to heal.
Jan 14th, 2008
Snowman
Personally, I believe eyesight had more to do with McGwire’s success than the juice. He used special made contacts (that took something like 3 years and 30 pair to perfect) that improved his eyesight to 20-10, and one pair was specially tinted yeollw or green or something like that to help in day games.
Jan 14th, 2008
Tom
The problem is that there is never a level playing field (although some think there is in sports, Chris mentioned this sentiment in a comment above). That’s what makes the whole steroid/PED issue so hard. If I were on the cusp of making the majors and needed that little boost to train harder and avoid injuries, it would be pretty damn hard to say no to that. This whole situation just isn’t as simple as a lot of reporters (not Joe of course) try to make it appear. Yes, I know that’s a shocker….
Jan 15th, 2008
Matt
I am a little late to this party, but hopefully not too late to contribute.
I have what may be a more controversial example than Tommy John surgery. TJ surgery is (currently) relegated to cases in which a player’s career is over. We are hard pressed to deny some 23 year old kid a shot at his dream, when there is a perfected, proven surgery available.
But what if TJ didn’t cost a player a career? What if rest and rehab could fix the problem instead? Well, then I think many would call for TJ to be banned, to protect the impetuous youth from themselves, especially if the resulting surgery adds 2-4 MPH.
Now, let me ask you, what did Curt Shilling do in the playoffs in 2004? Wasn’t his surgery something like a TJ for the ankle?
Rest and rehab would’ve healed Shilling’s ankle better than the surgery he had, but the surgery allowed him to play in that game. Think about THAT decision, and the precedent it sets. In this day and age, nobody gave it much thought–but I wonder if Landis or Giamatti would’ve had some issues with it.
Jan 15th, 2008
Tom
It seemed to work in Major League for Rick Vaughn.
Jan 24th, 2008
Reply to “LASIK Training”