In his column today, Baltimore Sun sports writer David Steele argues that we need to worry less about the impact that steroids are having on the record books and more with the damage that they are doing to people’s lives.

Steele says we need to concern ourselves less with Bonds and more with Benoit, the testosterone-fueled wrestler who recently killed his wife and son, before hanging himself. Steele says we’ve lost touch with what’s important and he ends his piece with this damning sentiment:

Let’s reset our priorities. Let’s argue about whether Selig should be at Chris Benoit’s son’s funeral.

Oh snap! He went there!

It’s great that Steele is so concerned with the kids, especially considering the fact that steroids are so popular with young folk these days.But I think Steele is in desperate need of a refresher course. Maybe we should send him back to Steroids 101.

You see, David, we don’t have any real reason to suspect that Barry Bonds, Gary Sheffield, or any other player is currently using steroids, because MLB tests for steroids. We do have reason to suspect that they are on HGH, because that’s the stuff they’ve been linked to in the past, and because MLB doesn’t test for HGH.

Now, there’s still a lot of uncertainty about the risks associated with HGH, but we have no reason to believe that it causes violent outbursts. There’s no reason to think that baseball will ever experience something like what happened with Benoit. If baseball’s testing program works, then steroids and roid rage should be a thing of the past.

But HGH fueled home run mashers are still very much a thing of the present. And as long as there is no testing for that drug, the sanctity of MLB’s records will be under attack.

That’s why we boo Barry. And we’re right to do it. Because– at least in the MLB — we’ve won the war on steroids. Now we’re fighting the war against HGH, and it’s the future of the game that’s at stake.

Mr. Steele, you can argue that caring about baseball records at a time when wrestlers are killing their families is trivial if you want, but coming from a guy who writes about sports for a living, that rings a little hollow.

Those daredevils over at ESPN tested out a new statistic during this weekend’s College World Series — win probability.

It’s actually not a new stat. It’s just new to baseball. Usually, you’ll see the win probability stat used in poker.

How does win probability work? In poker, it’s easy. There are 52 cards in a deck, so after the players receive their first two cards a computer (or a really smart MIT grad) calculates the odds of each player winning the hand.

In baseball, it’s a little more complicated. Or, at least, it must be. Actually, I’m not entirely sure how win probability works in baseball. Apparently, Orel Hersheiser explained it the other night, but I missed his explanation. I’m told it has something to do with how each team has fared against opponents with similar records in similar spots. Or something like that.

My problem with win probability, as applied to baseball, is that it doesn’t really tell me anything. In poker, win probability is an exact science. There are only so many cards in the deck and only so many combinations of cards will allow me to beat my opponents.

But in baseball, it’s a lot more wishy washy. There’s no way to say exactly how likely or unlikely it is that a team will come from behind to win. No way to factor in the blister that Josh Beckett has on his finger. No way to calculate that Ryan Howard is in the zone, or that Derek Jeter has got a case of the dropsies.

As a result, all the win probably stat does is assign a number to the notion that it’s unlikely that a team trailing 5-2 in the seventh inning will come back to win the game.

But we already knew that, didn’t we? We didn’t need the number.