My problem with The Steroids Era: punishment for being competent
Posted by Andy on May 15, 2011
Most folks estimate that at least half of MLB players used steroids and/or other banned substances during The Steroids Era. Hall of Fame voters have clearly had a tough time determining how to handle different such as:
- admitted users
- players who appeared in the Mitchell report
- other suspected users
- players thought to be clean
Beyond even the Hall of Fame, it's not clear what to think of these players. Just about everybody can agree that Barry Bonds is one of the greatest players of all time, regardless of his PED use. Clearly his stats might have been padded to some degree, but even if we subtract 10-20% of his totals, his numbers are astounding. Plus, as many people have pointed out, his numbers and rate stats from the time before his alleged PED use are still really, really good. Is Bonds a disgusting cheater who deserves our derision? Maybe. But what if more than half the other players were doing it, too? Then don't they all deserve it? What if more than half the pitchers Bonds faced were on the juice too? Did he really have any advantage?
Thoughts like this lead many of us to simple say that the entire Era was tainted, and we'll never really know what happened, and therefore we just need to go by the numbers to evaluate the players. I tend to agree with this notion, until I start thinking about some of the details.
The problem with sweeping PED use under the rug is that just one group of people gets punished: those who did the right thing and avoided use of illegal substances.
My wife and I have noted many cases in life where competent people are punished:
- Sure, you showed up 2 hours early for your flight to allow plenty of time to get through security, but one of the big reasons why it takes so long is that they allowed people who didn't arrive early enough to jump ahead in the security line, making you wait even longer.
- You probably need to have uninsured driver's coverage on your own car insurance policy. That's right--you are responsible for insurance yourself against people who are breaking the law by not having car insurance for their car.
- There's probably one person in your family who's a bit more difficult than the others. This person might have certain requirements around family travel, organization of family activities, rules, etc., and in most cases, other family members end up spending a lot of time and energy accommodating this one person. In this case, the inflexible person gets everything they want, while all the flexible people are tied in knots.
There are about a million other examples of competence being punished, and The Steroid Era is another one. Let's say 80% of the players used steroids, HGH, or other stuff. That's so endemic that it's tough to do anything other than assume that everybody was using, i.e. just use the numbers as they are for evaluation. But then the 1 in 5 players who was clean is really being punished--just about every opponent he faced was juiced, and so how much were his own numbers hurt? I certainly feel much worse for a clean pitcher than any dirty pitcher who had to face Barry Bonds and the like.
And the worst part of it is that there's nothing these players can do. If they come out and say they were clean, not only will be not believe them (thanks to previous liars like David Ortiz, who said A-rod should be banned for a year before his own positive test result came out), but they look bad since they are throwing everybody else under the bus. They simply need to grin and bear it, knowing that they deserve better but that nobody will know. As more and more positive tests and admitted users come out, it just makes everybody look more guilty--it certainly doesn't make the isolated clean guys look any better.
May 15th, 2011 at 8:20 am
If less than 80% used PED, 100% of them used "greenies".....
Can anyone tell me what is the difference?
May 15th, 2011 at 8:31 am
Cheating has been a part of baseball since it became the national pastime. Running out of the baseline – cheating? Quick pitch – Cheating? Gaylord Perry throwing a Vaseline soaked baseball that appears to defy gravity? There are probably a 100 more examples of “cheating” in baseball. The thing that has to be remembered is there are consequences to all of those actions, if caught. Running out of the baseline – the batter is out. Quick pitch – the umpire calls no pitch. Gaylord Perry – suspended 10 games in ’82. What makes the Steroid Era stand out is the fact that those who abused were never punished. I think this is the problem that soo many people have. There is a clear hypocrisy. Some of these guys were caught, or even admitted to using PED’s while still playing. The MLB did nothing but create a report and then institute a three-strikes-you-are-out policy, which I consider weak.
Barry Bonds shouldn’t get a pass because he was considered a great player before he started injecting himself with DNA changing drugs. He broke a hallowed record under the influence of a drug that allows him to unnaturally exceed his normal abilities, to win games. (And before anyone starts pushing the semantics alarm with weightlifting and other forms of exercising, remember that this drug is illegal).
And this is where I point out the Pete Rose hypocrisy. Rose bet on games, specifically to win. He was wrong. He gets a lifetime ban - ok. Barry Bonds begins using steroids (Most likely in 1999) and breaks two of the most hallowed records in baseball, helps his team win, get to a World Series, and gets nothing. Whether he was a great player or not doesn’t matter, he got greedy and sold his soul for a legacy. This is my game, not just his. He shouldn’t get a pass. The trial he is in and his unwritten ban from the HOF, isn’t enough. Remove his, and all of the other abusers stats from the record books. The stats allow us to relive the history of this game and it keeps it close to our hearts. If the history is tainted, then it loses credibility. And if it loses credibility, then baseball ceases to be the game that we all want and need.
May 15th, 2011 at 8:44 am
@2 - You're missing something. You say "Remove his, and all of the other abusers stats from the record books."
Who are all these others? And who gets to stay? The fact is, as the article points out, you'll never know. Even if Selig wasn't a milqtoast, hand-wringing incompetent, there is simply no reliable way to identify (or exhonerate) EVERYONE.
I agree 100% with your sentiment. But you can't put it into practice without falsely accusing some players, while at the same time letting some cheaters go.
May 15th, 2011 at 9:13 am
Remove the ones that have admitted, or have been caught. Of course, you can't remove all of them. It's the example that has to be set. Like Rose. What is going to stop a young kid in the future from finding a new way to buck the system if he know's he gets 3-strikes? The continuing advancement of pharmaceuticals is going to make it even harder in the future to detect these type of drugs. Instituting a zero-tolerance policy will make a young kid think twice about taking the chance. Even if there is the possibility that it won't be detected.
Mountain Landis stepped up and saved the game after the 1919 scandal by closing the door with a hard stance. Selig left the door open. How many players over the years thought about betting on the game but saw the posting in their clubhouse that said, "No gambling" and then remembered what happened to Shoeless Joe.
I agree, you can't kick everyone out, but you can kick out some. Set the example now so you lower the chance of it happening again.
May 15th, 2011 at 9:56 am
As I started to take on more leadership, one of the techniques I learned was "honoring people's time". When I would host a meeting, my default was to say, "Let's wait a few minutes until everyone is here." This seemed reasonable. We don't want to start the meeting without everyone so we'll give the latecomers a chance to get there. Wrong. We should show respect for those who arrive on time and start on time. It is not their fault that others will be late and they shouldn't be expected to stay late because of those folks. We start on time and if you are late, you are late, and the onus is on you to figure out what you missed and/or not be late in the future. It really changed my perspective, because I thought I was being "nice" by waiting, but I was really dicking over the people who least deserved it.
May 15th, 2011 at 9:59 am
If you remove, say, Bonds from the record books how do you adjust the records of pitchers who faced them> And the scores of the games. It's a mess. I think we just need to leave records there and continue to talk about what really was going on. And as far as everyone being tainted, it's unfortunate. But he union could have stepped up earlier and protected the players who were clean by allowing testing. Instead, they protected the cheaters on a principle that brought them all down.
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=1631598514243330618&postID=4238916075352904655
May 15th, 2011 at 10:45 am
I've come to the conclusion that the whole steroids era warrants a collective yawn. Yes, some of the numbers were ridiculous. And yes, Barry Bond's hat size and feet grew by non-trivial, multiple integer sizes.
But so what? As Andy says, weren't the 'roided-up batters facing 'roided-up pitchers? During the 1970's and 1930's and 1880's weren't players hopped-up on cocaine, or No-Doz, or spiked chewing tobacco, or whatever-it-was they used during the days of the horse and buggy?
Hell, look at the batting average of the entire *National League* during 1930.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/1930.shtml
The *entire league* batted .303 during the juiced-ball era!
So do we throw out the records and accomplishments of Mel Ott? Pie Traynor and the Waner brothers?
How about the records of the 15-inch pitching mound days from the 1960's? I've read articles that said some groundskeepers even bumped it up to 16 and 17-inches to give pitchers even a greater advantage.
Some ballparks also had ridiculous dimensions during the old days, as well. Short porches at the Polo Grounds and the L.A. Coliseum. 454-foot center field fences.
I know we try and adjust for all of that jazz, but in the long run I think we of forget it over time and focus on the big picture. And for good reason.
Don't elect Bonds and Rose to the Hall of Fame because they were churlish a**holes who lied, if you want to. But as far as the records, I think we all need to take a chill pill.
May 15th, 2011 at 10:46 am
By the way, when I saw the title of this post, I thought you would go in a very different direction. If we assume that 50% of guys used (I don't know if that is a fair assumption, but let's go with it because we know more guys were using than were publicly outed), than there were a lot of guys who used and still pretty much sucked. The fact is that is that PEDs of one kind or another were allowed in baseball, either formally or tacitly, for a number of years (and some could argue are still allowed in the form of enhanced medical procedures, e.g., Tommy John surgery, cortisone shots, or Colon's stem cell therapy). During this time, a number of players used. Some excelled while using. Others didn't. The point of the game is to be the best and some were while others weren't. Some managed to be the best without the use of now-banned substances and others managed to be the best with the use of now-banned substances.
We get up in arms about Bonds not only because he used, but because he used so well! No one cares about the 4th outfield speedster who got suspended. But we do care about Bonds. We are punishing Bonds because he was better at using than others. I don't mean that he cheated more or better (some could argue that, but I'm not interested in that conversation here and now, which may simply be me making a convenient argument); I mean that, upon using, Bonds did more with the advantages of using than other guys did. Does he deserve more outrage because of that? I'm not sure.
For me personally, I am not one for the moral argument about PEDs. The players' jobs are to be the best at baseball possible. They are given a litany of methods of gaining an advantage that fall outside of typical preparation or what their predecessors might have had. That's life. Why are we okay with cortisone but not the clear? Why are stem cells acceptable but not HGH? We make a lot of artificial distinctions or, more precisely, a lot of artificial distinctions are made for us by 'the powers that be' that we generally end up accepting. As far as I see it, short of violating the rules of the sport itself (doctoring the ball; sabotaging the other team; changing the scoreboard when no one is looking), players should be free to improve themselves as ballplayers as they see fit. If some are willing to use certain drugs or procedures and others aren't, so be it. We all have our limits. I'm a teacher. The person next door may "out teach" me because she is willing to work longer hours or subscribes to professional organizations or drinks coffee and I won't do any of those things. That's life.
May 15th, 2011 at 10:48 am
By the way, my rant wasn't meant as an attack on Andy's angle with this article. As noted previously, I think it is a really interesting taking on the situation. I just thought something different when I saw the title and wanted to share where I thought he'd go. But where he went was a very valid, and really much needed, look at how we respond to the era.
May 15th, 2011 at 10:57 am
Remember all the heated debate around how to treat baseball numbers in the PED-era that followed Andy's April 8th blog after Manny's "retirement"?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10642
To be honest, I'm a little fatigued by discussions around the issue, although I realize it has to be faced by the statistical baseball community now and into the future.
Your point about there being policies and protocols in place in society that are punitive to the, for lack of a better word, competent, is true and not debatable.
The problem with PED-assisted numbers vs. non-enhanced numbers discussions is that there are very few new insights to be had and we all tend to spin our old tapes without reaching definitive conclusions.
May 15th, 2011 at 10:57 am
I agree with Dan Berman4. It is impossible to remove Bonds' or any other juicer's stats from the record books without affecting pretty much every single that played in that 22 year period. Every fielding record of any player that played on an opposing team, every batter that batted before or after him in a lineup, anyone that drove him in or was driven in by him, catchers that picked him off etc would have their entire career altered by it. It would affect the entire game. You would have remove the Giant's and Pirates' NLCS and World Series titles as well. It would take a decade of number crunching to accurately pull this off.
May 15th, 2011 at 11:01 am
This is such a tough issue, but it's something the HOF voters are going to have to figure out in the next few years, because looking at the ballots through 2015, it's concievable that we could have a significant number of hangers on (above 5% of the votes) for a number of years to come because of their involvement or alleged involvement with PED.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2015.shtml
I thinik a lot of these players could do more to help themselves and the game, by attempting to address the issue in a meaningful way. It seems many are content either dummy up about it or exploit it.
May 15th, 2011 at 11:03 am
Here's my take on it.
1. First and foremost we must blame baseball for this. Baseball knew it was going on. They turned a blind eye to it and even encouraged it, because the game was in the crapper after the stupid 1994 lockout/strike. They used the home run to save the game, just like it did after the "Black Sox" scandal. The home run is baseball's great panacea.
2. Nobody, even the media seemed to care one bit until the most hated man in baseball (Barry Bonds) was poised to own both the single season and career record. It became a "let's hate Barry" crusade. All of a sudden the purists began to come out of the wood work and the media jumped on it even though they had been asleep at the wheel for over a decade.
3. Baseball became reactionary and put together the Mitchell report and all the other investigations and over the course of the past 5 years has given the appearance that all is now clean. Certainly the players look less like weight lifters and more normal sized, but you never know.
Now why do people hate Barry, when everyone loved Mac vs Sosa ? Well, the media has done a fine job of making us hate him. Most of us have never had a chance to interact with him, so we take the media's word for it on how mean, nasty and surly he is. They (media) hate him because he didn't kiss up to them and play nice and give him a story night in and night out. When interviewed his teammates have never put him down. His godfather (Mr. William Howard Mays) says, "Barry's a nice guy...a great kid...you just don't know Barry".
The media goes after Barry and attacks him for being divorced and "abandoning" his family. McGwire is divorced and had extra-marital issues, but the media never harped on that ? Is it racism ? Is it just that Barry's a target ? I don't want to think that it's racism since we are in the year 2011 and not 1961, so I'm pinning this on the fact that they (media) hate him and their opinion has clouded us on him.
In any case Bonds was a sure fire HOF'er prior to the late 90's, when he saw these two "roided-out jokers" (Mac/Sosa) getting all the limelight. His competitiveness got the best of him and he joined in to compete. I'm not making an excuse here for him doing it, but I'm saying that the climate was right and he was becoming an afterthought.
What we see next was the perfect storm for bad. You take the most gifted/coordinated player of his era and juice him up to the point where he goes from being a 1st ballot HOF'er to becoming a immortal...mentioned in the same breath as Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb... Same could be said about Clemens, but for some reason Roger hasn't been as villified as Barry. Probably because Roger didn't break Cy Young's record or Jack Chesbro's. Barry now owns it all and nobody can do a "blank'in" thing about it other than prosecute him in court and in the media to the point where the records are tarnished and so is the game.
I say that you need to use judgement when evaluating these guys for the HOF. In Barry or Roger's case, they were sure fire HOF'ers before PED's. While we can't tell exactly when they started using, we can pretty much evaluate around when it came. Look at their numbers prior to and evaluate. Guys like Mac/Sosa are jokes. They were one dimensional / flawed players who caught lighting in a vile.
Sorry for the rant...
May 15th, 2011 at 11:03 am
What I have never seen on this site, or any other, is an intelligent response to Jose Canseco's argument.
Read that book.
Jose makes the case that if done intelligently, PED's can actually Enhance health, and are simply the next step in our science-assisted evolution. Now, I am not in a position to agree with or refute that, but I gotta admit he wrote that book with more intelligence than the average sportswriter's daily diharreha.
Jose says that in 30 years we will look back and consider this a silly argument, because steroids will have become an accepted part of the athlete's health regimen.
Again, I have no idea if he is right or not, just find it interesting that through this whole "scandal" in which we have crucified our heroes, there's been No public discourse examining the claims of the Only athlete with the balls/brains to come out and not only admit what he did, but offer an intelligent argument.
May 15th, 2011 at 11:12 am
Here in lies my question. Bonds noggin two sizes to big, McGwire biceps to bulging, A Rod, Sosa, Clemens ET AL all cheaters banished them from the game, take away their records, their accomplishments. Really?? 10 years ago fans, owners, executives, and yes even Bud Selig cheered as home runs, taters, 4 baggers, all left the yard at record setting rates. Clemens, Johnson, Maddux, Glavine all dominated on the mound. Fast forward 2011, a Hung Jury, some fans like myself think that the steroid era is way over blown, something put together by the media and government to sell news papers and magazines, while other fans think they have been cheated and feel that these mega stars should pay the ultimate price and be all but forgotten. Here is the thing for every Bonds there is a Marvin Benard, for every Clemens there is a Bart Miadich. I think i make a point here by saying not everyone that took steroids was an immediate success or ever was successful. Bart is well known not to be successful at all and frequently suffered from roid rage. Once again this leaves us with the question, how did steroids make Bonds, Clemens, A Rod so successful and left out the Benards and Miadich to be well mediocre. Here is my theory on this, steroids do not make you that much better, this much bigger, if anything it depletes the body of much needed strength and vital immunity the body so desperately needs, if you question this just ask Ken Caminiti and Lyle Alzado. Steroids do not help you turn on a 100 mile per hour fast ball and send it 450 feet the other way, steroids do not help you see a 100 mile per hour fastball. Bonds, Clemens et al are all singled out because they were the best of the best, while the other steroids users named on the Mitchell Report (approximately 90 percent) are already forgotten because they were mediocre. If the Hall and the baseball writers choose not to elect these men into the Hall, then it will be a travesty and the Hall will never be complete with out the names of Bonds or Clemens on their own respectable bronze plaques.
Honestly while not a popular belief I believe that steroid users are already represented in the Hall of Fame. If you do not believe me look at Tony Gwynn home run out put after the age of 34 and Ricky Henderson Home Run out put after the age of 39? They both found the fountain of youth (in southern California none the less). This final reference is for those that believe that the records of Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa etc need to be erased and sent to purgatory.
May 15th, 2011 at 11:26 am
When Maris broke the Babe's record, people said, you really can't compare Maris to Ruth, because when Ruth hit 60, teams weren't hitting 60, and when Maris hit 61, teams were hitting over 200 Home runs a year. Same is to be said of McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds. Can't compare them to either Ruth or Maris, or for that matter the group that hit 500 Home Runs before 1990. The guys who really lose out in the long run, are guys like Griffey who we look at as having an amazing record, but future generations will look at as playing when guys were hitting 50 to 73 home runs. As far as records are concerned, Baseball records have lost all creditibility since the steroid era. Unfortunately this is already being reflected in the declining popularity of the game as a whole. MLB ignored steroids to satisfy a short term need to fill the dtands after the strike. In so doing, they created a long term problem from which they may never recover. The Hall of Fame is being deminished in stature as we speak. No matter how they handle the Steroid Era, the integrity of the Hall of Fame will be questioned for many years to come. Bud Selig, anyone involed with the administrative part of MLB, the Team Owners, or any of the team administrators, and the Union heads are the ones who should be banned from the Hall of Fame, and even from Baseball. They let this happen to a once great American Tradition.
May 15th, 2011 at 11:38 am
Rudy-
And when Ruth hit 60, black people weren't allowed to play the game. That is a far bigger issue than steroids, as far as I'm concerned.
May 15th, 2011 at 11:45 am
Good stuff BSK. And I certainly didn't take it as a counter-response to my original post.
May 15th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
I think blackballing the "steroid" players is ridiculous. Erasing records would be just plain silly. You don't rewrite history as you see fit. What happened happened.
MLB wasn't testing until 2004. Everyone assumes Ken Griffey Jr, Fred McGriff, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Cal Ripken Jr. etc or for that matter Hank Aaron, Willie Ways, and Mickey Mantle (yes steroids were around back then) never used steroids. But how do we really know? If they did, don't expect them to step up and talk about it.
Most of the greats from recent times appear to be roiders. That includes Arod, Irod, Bonds, Clemens, Ramirez, Palmeiro, Sosa, Pettite, Giambi, and McGwire. That's probably 10 of the best 25 players of the last 25 years and I didn't even put any effort into that sentence. Many of those players were "good guys" and "class acts" outside of their steroid use.
Many people, myself partially included, would argue that there is nothing specifically wrong with taking steroids. Arnold Schwarzenegger took them and he's been a beloved movie star, he's been a governor, and nobody tries to erase his bodybuilding acheivements. I'm sure many of our hollywood stars use them. Hulk Hogan probably used them for 30+ years.
I'm not sure where people get off thinking that steroid use or HGH use instantly makes someone a bad person or a cheater. If sports choose to test for them, then players that still use them and using masking agents are cheaters, but when there is no testing going on, it's competition between young men that have alot of drive, ambition, pride, etc. They got to the top by doing what it took to get there. For the most part, steroid use is a personal issue. The only part that isn't personal is that players who choose not to might lose their jobs to players that use them. But in that same way, players who don't train 5 hours a day, and instead choose to be family men will lose their jobs to players that put their career first.
The only shame is that MLB capitalized on the steroid era, and then after alll those roiders HELPED the game's popularity, MLB is now trying to backstab them.
There should be no penalty for roid use pre 2004. The only penalty should be that when we look at record by players, we say to ourselves, yes Bonds hit 762/73 home runs, but in my view, Aaron/Maris is the legitimate home run king." We are all welcome to think that way. I think putting an asterisk next to any record set by a player known to be a roid user is also reasonable, though I wouldn't recommend it.
Bonds, Clemens, Arod, Irod, Sosa, McGwire, etc do belong in the hall. It would be reasonable for roid users to be held to a higher standard, but to keep some of the best of all time out for doing something most of their peers seem to have been doing is silly.
And, slightly off topic, a player like Mike Mussina, whose numbers don't quite look HOF to some people, should be a HOF'er for sure. It should be noted he pitched almost his entire career against roided up hitters in small ball parks, and to my knowledge there has never been any rumours about him. "clean" pitchers success during that era is worthy of extra accollades.
May 15th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
@15
Good point about Henderson and Gwynn. Paul Molitor could be another. Cal Ripken had some shocking numbers in a partial season late in his career. Nolan Ryan strikes me as being very similar to Clemens in many ways. The list goes on and on. Andre Dawson, Dave Winfield, Jim Rice, who knows?
The competitiveness of guys like Ryan and Henderson is undeniably. It's hard to imagine them not taking steroids if they were competing against guys that did. Both kept up their level of performance into the late ages, something that many of the roid users seem to have done.
May 15th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
There are some great points made in these posts. Andy points out the common experience we all have when, "competent people are punished" for the actions of lazy people. This point is right on. Bonds was upset because Sosa and McGwire were using a short cut to "jump to the head of the line at the airport." He felt his overall superior skills were getting ignored (which he is probably right about). Too bad he could not have read blogs like this, where I am sure he would have found a chorus of smart baseball minds who would have been pointing out that a team of pre-PED Barry Bond's would annihilate a team of 'roided Sosas or juiced McGwires.
I think that this argument is going to take an interesting turn when the first "good guy" is outed. What if a guy like Ripken, Molitor, Winfield, or Gwynn admits in a candid interview that he dabbled in PED use to extend their career? Heaven forbid it is a player like Jeter or Maddux - players we just seem to KNOW are clean.
On another side note:
I never get tired of listening to: Baseball on the radio.
I never get tired of reading: The Historical Baseball Abstract or Moneyball (that Billy Beane is SOME writer!).
I never get tired of watching: 10 innings of Baseball (by Ken Burns that is)
I never get tired of feeling: A glove in my hand
I never get tired of smelling: Hotdogs at the ballpark
May 15th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
I'm still waiting for someone to flip the script and criticize one of the "clean guys" for not doing enough to help his team win.
May 15th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
@Andy - I do my best guesstimating of how much to knock off for steroids. Bonds? HOFer without. Raffy Palmeiro? Borderline HOFer with, definitely not without. Big Mac? (And I'm a Cards fan.) Not a HOFer, even with.
@Tony Pavon 1 ... I think the difference in level of effect is big.
@DaveKingman 7 ... true that a stat like OPS+ takes the worst of the sting off that era, and off the roiding era, too.
May 15th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
people focus on the HOF'ers, but miss that most of the people who have been caught and suspended have been marginal players, guys who probably wouldn't have had a career without PED's.
And that's pretty much always going to be the case - people will generally cheat to get an advantage if the cost of cheating is less than the rewards. In the case of, say, Neifi Perez (who made $20M - who knows what he would have made without PED's), it was clearly worth it.
May 15th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
I have to agree with Thomas Court that as much as steroids have made a hypocrisy of the game, I will always love it for what it is.
May 15th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Baseball messed up big time, but what's done is done and we just have to live with tarnished records.
One other thing, whoever said we should induct McGwire, Sosa, and others is ridiculous. It would be an insult to the true sluggers of the past, such as Ruth, Aaron, Foxx, Gehrig and Mays.
May 15th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
I have to disagree with you.
May 15th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
As for Bonds, Clemens, Pudge and A-Rod, who all had the talent before taking performance enhancing drugs, in my opinion they should not be inducted because Hall of Famers are voted in on "Honesty, integrity, and playing ability", and these players excluding Pudge (who was borderline without) lied about taking HGH or other drugs.
May 15th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
@4
Mountain Landis also wouldn't allow any blacks in the game despite a majority of players saying they were in favor of it by the 1930s and 1940s, and it took his DEATH to finally get some movement on that issue. Do those numbers get swiped away as well? Those players basically cheated by not having blacks, hispanics, etc in the game.
May 15th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Also, as Tony pointed out in #1, all players used to take greenies. Is Hank Aaron's HR total less meaningful if say Ryan Braun comes close to reaching it? (He likely won't but that's not the point) Greenies have been banned for the entirety of Braun's career but players like Aaron, Mays, etc took them.
May 15th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
@30
Rich, how do we know Hank Aaron took greenies? That's the whole point of Andy's post. The innocent are punished because of the guilty!
If reports are true that Aaron refused information from his own bullpen about stolen catcher's signs when facing Harvey Haddix in Haddix's famous game, why would he take greenies?
May 15th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
@31
Hank Aaron has admitted to taking greenies . . . once I believe. The amount is often disputed among fans.
May 15th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Yes but steroids were illegal by federal law during the steroid era! Greenies weren't! Yes, baseball didn't have any separate laws regarding PEDs but the players who took them were breaking the law anyway! They don't need a separate ban in baseball, a federal law should be enough!
May 15th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
This is probably way of target, but who is Jose Bautista fooling? He's like 33, his career high in home runs is 18, and suddenly, out of nowhere, he goes and hits 54.
May 15th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Neil @ 31 hit my point home. When it comes to greenies, SO MANY people say...oh everybody was doing it. I guarantee you that not "everybody" was doing it. Most everybody perhaps. But I promise you that there were at least a select few players who felt it was inappropriate, or were concerned that it was considered cheating, or for some other reason chose not to take them. Any yet everyone just assumes today that "everyone did it". That means that there are at least a few players from that era being unfairly penalized, just as at least a select few players from 1993-2000whatever would also be penalized for simply assuming that "everyone did it", And these guys getting penalized are the ones who, at least to some degree, thought about it and actively decided NOT to cheat.
May 15th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Sigh, what an idiot.
May 15th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
#34, He's (allegedly at least) younger than 33, and I happen to have a post about this going up tomorrow, namely guys who hit a lot of homers at his age after never doing it previously.
May 15th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
Not Andy, Bautista. Great post by the way Andy
May 15th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
Malcolm @36 and elsewhere, if you're gonna slam people, at least tell us which comment (or part of my original post) you're disagreeing with. Otherwise nobody knows what you're referring to.
May 15th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
What's the post called?
May 15th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
I just said I was calling Bautista an idiot
May 15th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Andy-
I think many people make the "everyone takes greenies" argument to point out the hypocrisy of all the current sanctimony rather than to discredit the accomplishments of those players. At least, that is how I use it. I don't think anyone should be stripped of any records, but it should be noted what the context of the numbers were. Knowing that steroids were rampant during an era, or that certain players failed test or admitted use, allows us to apply some context. Knowing that "greenies" were common allows us to add context, even if we don't know exactly how pervasive they were. Knowing that the color barrier existed is important, even if individual players had no role in its creation or actively resisted it.
For me, I just can't get that up in arms about steroid use. I don't think it was "cheating" any more than guys staying for extra workouts is cheating. I don't think it is a huge moral issue. I do agree that the secrecy surrounding it has unfortunate side-effects, but that is as much, if not more, a result of baseball's polices and the media and fan reactions as it is the players themselves. If we viewed steroids the way we view Tommy John surgery, we'd likely know everyone who took it and who didn't and could make our own assessments.
May 15th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Why is Ty Cobb the guy that they choose to be the profile picture? They should have chosen someone like Aaron.
May 15th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
BSK at 42-
I disagree personally but you do have a good point.
May 15th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
I#43 It's Honus Wagner actually.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/wagneho01.shtml
Sean set that to the default. You can change yours by registering for free with gravatar.com
May 15th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Anyway, players who took steroids and couldn't play without them shouldn't get inducted to hall of fame because they did not have the biggest principle on which the Hall was founded: natural playing ability.
May 15th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
@45
Really? I always thought that picture was Cobb.
May 15th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Malcolm-
I'm all for hearing an opposing position. Please flesh out a counter-argument. It'd be helpful to the discourse.
I can always recognize Cobb because he sort of looked like a baby skeleton.
May 15th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Okay.
May 15th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
@34
I think this type of viewpoint is ignorant. You can't just assume someone is on steroids every time a player makes something of their career.
First of all, Jose Bautista is only 30 years old, not 33 as you suggest. Secondly, he revamped his swing and stance in late 2009.
Third, he hasn't really been a regular every day player until recently. In 2007, he got 614 PA in 142 games, but in his other seasons he's gotten 88, 28, 400, 370, and 336 AB. That's not a whole lot.
May 15th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
BSK @48-
At number 33.
May 15th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Also BSK @48-
Cobb certainly was skinny wasn't he?
May 15th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
I also agree with BSK that people exaggerate the effects of steroids. Should players be punished for taking them? Absolutely.
But do they make a player with no natural playing ability able to play as Malcolm has suggested? Absolutely not.
Hell, just look at all the steroid violations by players that stink. Steroids do not make you a good baseball player. They can help to make already good players better by helping them recover from injuries, and the strength you gain from working out can help you hit a ball farther, but it's certainly not helping you hit a ball period.
May 15th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Andy @45-
Thank you. Anyway, who is Sean?
May 15th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Look at McGwire! He couldn't hit before he started juicing!
May 15th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
When do you think he started juicing?
May 15th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
@34
Malcolm, who are you fooling?
Where were you last season, when whispers of Jose Bautista being juiced were floated..... and shot down!
As I posted numerous times last year, his body type has not changed over the last two seasons. Same wiry frame, no increase in muscle mass, no increase in uniform size, no increase in neck or cap size.
Have you looked at the violence of his swing in video highlights?
And pitchers are still throwing him pitches to hit. Two opposite-field HR this weekend at Target Field. And one upper-deck blast to LF estimated at 430 feet by mlb.com into an estimated 20 mph head wind.
You are uniformed if you call Jose Bautista an idiot!
May 15th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
@57
In the last paragraph, make that uninformed! Sorry, gotta take a pill and calm down.
May 15th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Neil, I think your outrage is justified. Here is a man who has rejuvenated his career, and all some people want to do is randomly accuse him of taking steroids when there is zero evidence to suggest it.
May 15th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Well, I just can't resist getting into this 'juicy' discussion.
From a personal standpoint, I played in HS, College, and several years in local sem-pro leagues. As I got older, I did lean on over-the-counter pain killers.
Of my two childhood heroes, Mickey Mantle and Sandy Koufax- Mickey was hung over a lot...like the Babe...and probably drank a lot of coffee...at least...before games...keep in mind, he was in pain ALL the time anyway. Sandy, in his retirement speech, admitted that there had become times on the mound when he felt high from the pain killers he was taking.
Pain killers, legal or not, were the pre-cursor of any PEDs. So, then, the argument should focus on what is ILEGALLY used.
Yes, there are laws against anabolic steroids...for good reason...the Lyle Alzados of the world showed us what can happen after the cheering stops.
As far as the Baseball steroid issue is concerned: I am very conservative by nature and wish for 'old time Baseball'...after Jackie was allowed in, of course.
Baseball's approach to handling individual players is the ultimate in hypocracy : If the player is popular, like McGwire or Sosa, the hammer doesn't come down as hard. However, if the player is a jerk, like Bonds or Clemens, look out. Now, I believe that they all deserve any punishment they receive...they know the rules, decided volutarily to break them, and at least had some idea what the backlash would be. But, they still did it...for what reason...MONEY...it is all about that.
When McGwire missed big pieces of several seasons, I believe he started taking in order to recover from his injuries quicker. Remember, this is a guy who hit 49 homers as a rookie....and I believe those were legit. He had the perfect home run swing, even then. The reason for his starting, however, does not change the fact that he did start. And I will never forgive him for lying to the Maris family!
I have heard talk about a mysterious dinner where Bonds met with Jr. Griffey, stated his disgust that McGwire and Sosa where getting not only more attention then them (who were the two best position players of the generation), but also were being paid more. Supposedly, that was the start of Bonds juicing...who knows.
I do not believe Griffey made the same decision...I believe all of his homers were legit. Maybe the constant injuries tell me that or maybe Sr. Griffey raised his son better than Bobby raised his?
Sosa was caught with a corked bat which he said was for batting practice...for the fans...ridiculous!
Maybe I am old fashioned, but the beauty of Baseball is that the individual fan can 'visualize' himself doing at least some of the things he sees being done on the field. By that, I mean, he doesn't have to be 6-8 like Basketball or 300 pounds like Football. While today's baseball players are finely tuned true athletes for the most part, the connection is still there for most of us. So, if someone hits a baseball 600 feet with a corked bat instead of a regular game bat, he doen't make that connection. I hope that makes sense.
I admit to being part of the hypocracy, I enjoyed the HR race in '98 and made sure I got to a Cardinal game when they came to town, but I still yearn for the early 70's when gentlemen like Hank Aaron and Harmon Killebrew (God bless him) took their stances like real men.
May 15th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
@14
Actually, someone did address those issues raised in Canseco's book - though not by name. I believe his name was Bill James. He also was of the opinion that in a few decades, advanced PED's would be commonplace, and today's "cheaters" would be seen as pioneers. His point is that the main effect of properly used PED's is a reversal of the effects of aging; a veritable "fountain of youth." Really, how on earth are wealthy, competitive athletes going to resist that temptation for long?
These aren't the Olympics - these men are paid a huge amount of money to be the best players they can be. Spectacular (especially offense) sells tickets. I've often had the ironic thought that rather than ban PED's, they should be required (under medically supervised conditions, of course). Put everyone on an even footing. The cream (so to speak) will still rise to the top, but perhaps we'll see a more entertaining game. (All the 1-0 games are already starting to get old, and will have a drag on attendance eventually)
James' other point about the HOF is that eventually, someone will put most of these guys in the Hall, and I tend to agree. Look at all the guys from the '30's who are in and who kept getting "veteran-ed" in 50 years after they stopped playing. When the kids who were 10 years old in 1998 are on whatever Veterans Committee exists in 2055 looks back at Sammy, Barry and Raffy and their numbers, they will get in (unless we officially "say it ain't so" which so far hasn't happened). This generation can make their statement, but don't have a seizure about the HOF.
May 15th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
According to the payer accounts in "Ball Four" about 90% of players were on greenies in 1969. Don't know how much more accurate of testimony we could get than the FIRST behind-the-scenes baseball book. So, that's basically an equal playing field. And we can assume that 90% of players today have found the alternative stimulant that gets them where they want to be.
It is this sort of tangential discussion - - greenies, et al - - that brings me back to the question What Is Really The Issue Here?
Is it the stats? If so, then every game should be played in the same dome with every player eating the same omelet beforehand. Otherwise we've gotta throw out Gibson's 1.12. Bu-bye Hack's 191. Etc.
Why I think we are still having this discussion is that we, collectively, as a nation, have handled the issue like complete retards thus far.
And Jose Canseco deserves a very big apology.
May 15th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
@62
"And Jose Canseco deserves a very big apology."
Seconded, Voomo.
Remember the derision that greeted the release of Jose Canseco's book. He wasn't even given the time of day becasue he dared blow the whistle on MLB.
May 15th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
I couldn't agree more with most these opinions. I am a firm believer that by ignoring the 'steroid era' then baseball and the fans are trying to, as the author said, sweep this era under the rug. I peronsally find it one of the greatest eras in baseball. I'm fairly young and grew up during this era and it's what I know. Cheating? Yeah, I guess so. Even though baseball didn't have a strict policy on PEDs, I look back and see a 'moral code' broken and I truely believe that's where the dislike for these players comes from. It has to come from that because we were ALL loving every minute of Bond's home runs and Clemens' pitching. Keeping this 'era' out of the record books would keep the future baseball fans without an understanding of this great game. Plus, Ken Burns wouldn't have been able to make a great 10th inning!!
May 15th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Mike R-
Great points. I wouldn't go so far as mandating steroids (I just think it is too much of an intrusion into the bodies and lives of players), but I do think the league should allow PEDs with proper oversight.
Generally speaking, I have a much lower (or higher?) threshold for what constitutes "fair play". For instance, I have no issue with sign stealing if it is done without technological aid. If a catcher can't keep his signs hidden, I've got no problem with a guy peaking in. I don't have much issue with players selling a non-existent HBP, as Jeter famously did last year. I think it's a punk move, but shouldn't be illegal or warrant discipline. I think players should be allowed to use any bat that meets certain standards for safety (outlawing metal because of the speed of the ball coming off the bat or anything overly prone to splintering or producing shards; allowing corking, even though it doesn't work). I'd stop short of doctoring the ball or even the home field, because I think at that point you are manipulating the shared tools of the game. I'd allow PEDs, ideally monitored for safety, but really think players should be allowed to do whatever they see fit with their bodies. I would limit (and actually cut down on) the "mechanical devices" players can use during the game. Let's do away with some of the body armor. Anything beyond prescription glasses and sunglasses or protective guards that do significantly augment the profile of the batter would be outlawed. Use titanium if you want protection, but it can't hang 4 inches off your body. I'm sure there are other areas I'd have to draw a line in, but those are the primary ones I think of off the top of my head.
May 15th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
@BSK ... agreed with the body armor. It's not like umps allow Gibson and Drysdale type pitching today anyway.
Other changes I would like? More use of replay, strict enforcement of the time between pitches.
@Giovanni ... having watched many a game of Whiteyball in action, I regret a lot about post-1994 baseball: roiding, maple bats, bandbox ballparks and more. Double steals, run and hit plays as well as hit and run, even Ken Dayley in RF while Todd Worrell was pitching.
May 15th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
@SocraticGadfly....I'm too young for Whiteyball..but..I'm guessing you are referring to the Cardinals Coach in the 80's??? Don't think I'm ignorant if I am wrong. I am working on developing my historical baseball knowledge. Anyway, I am sure you do regret alot about baseball post-1994 but I think that's what is great about baseball and the split in generations; in other words, now I get to witness the 'post steroid' era and see the difference in offensive numbers, pitching numbers and how the game is played overall.
May 15th, 2011 at 10:43 pm
Socratic-
There are certainly other issues I'd address. I was focusing primarily on issues relating to "cheating".
May 15th, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Giovanni, yes!
And, I'm not joking. On occasion, to deal with left-right successions in batters, Herzog would bring in lefty reliever Dayley against a lefty batter, keep him in the game, bring in Worrell for a righty while putting Dayley in the OF, then have Dayley pitch to a lefty next while putting Worrell in the OF.
As I noted on another blog post here, one other highlight was watching the Cards plate two runs on a sacrifice, Game 3, 1982 WS. And, no, the fielding outfielder didn't fall. Now Gorman Thomas did make the catch running away from the plate, but he didn't fall.
It's rare enough, especially without the fielding outfielder falling or having a collision.
May 15th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
Socratic-
I checked up on the double-switches you indicated because I was curious if that ever really happened. Worrell's player page indicates a handful of visits to the OF, though Dayley shows no such appearances. Personally, I think the strategy risks over or micromanaging a team or game BUT it is interesting to see that such strategies have at least been tried.
May 15th, 2011 at 11:33 pm
I love sifting thru baseball stats and read everything I can get my hands on about the game. However, no amount of evidence is going to make me change my opinion about one thing. I do not feel sorry for any of the "innocent" players who were not using during the "steroid era" (whatever that is). If I was a player and I knew someone was using to get an advantage over me, I would have screamed foul. Hitters used to ask umpires to check Gaylord Perry or the ball regularly. I have yet to hear of a player asking for another player to be tested. My guess is that would not sit well with the users on his team. As we all know, the players union would frown on anything that might make on of its own look bad. So the players are just as guilty as the owners, executives, and, yes, too many of the fans.
Finally, even before their steroid use became an issue, ego maniacs like Bonds and Clemens were not beloved like the Gwynns, Ripkens and Glavines. Regardless of what ultimately is or is not in the record books, I know which players I will remember.
May 16th, 2011 at 12:00 am
BSK ... I may be misremembering on Dayley ... that said, it shows a level of adventuresomeness, yes.
It's also why, after being a Cards fan, I'm an NL fan. Do. Not. Like. The. DH.
On cheating pitchers, besides Perry, don't forget Don Sutton. Don't forget that Doug Harvey finally caught him.
May 16th, 2011 at 12:26 am
No substance should be made illegal to use or ingest by the government. If baseball, as a private institution, wanted to outlaw the use of some then that's their business. They can start with that right after they stop taking public money for stadiums. How "fair" is it to taxpayers to have to pay for things they've voted against? Typocritical morons that run baseball are invited to go pack sand. This Barry Bonds fan isn't interested in everyone's puritannical compulsion to control the behavior of others. The fact that everyone went wild over McGwire and Sosa indicated that Baseball condoned the practice. End of story.
And, as others have pointed out, where do you draw the line? Look at all the surgeries and improved medical procedures today's players can take advantage of. What kinds of careers could guys like Gayle Sayers and Larry Brown have had with the medical technology available today? What about Mickey Mantle? Look at all the information about nutrition and training. What about video? Should guys be able to do eye exercises or use advanced contact lenses that didn't used to be available? How many homers did Ruth hit in the 8th and 9th against some skinny starter with a tired arm before the era of mega-specialization? Would Aaron have use more greenies if they hadn't disgreed with him, like Mays did by the fistful?
If the the guy in the next cubicle stays at work longer and drinks more coffee and gets fat because he sits in front of a computer longer than you do how much do you begrudge him getting ahead of you in his career becaue you decided you wanted to go home and see your girlfriend or your kids? You may bemoan that the Olympics and professional cycling are all but meaningless, or you can enjoy what they are? How much of the improvement in times in sprint events is due to better atheletes and how much to better shoes and springier tracks?
Things change. People made choices. The guardians of the game are as venal, myopic, and crooked as anyone. Charley Comiskey, anyone? Marge Schott? Frank McCourt? Kennesaw Mountain Landis? The Anti-trust examption?
Any of you cheat on your taxes? Make payments under the table? Get your parking tickets fixed? Fool around on your significant other? You can all stow it. Guys want to get better and with the rewards available they will. And isn't it the point to get the best possible product on the field? You can't stop it and I'm not interested in anyone's bleating about it.
May 16th, 2011 at 12:30 am
You are thinking of Ricky Horton - just looked it up.
I hadnt heard about Whitey doing that.
Thought it was something original that I came up with when imagining that Im a manager - like having a closer who pitches the first inning.
May 16th, 2011 at 12:42 am
... and Horton only did it once.
Jose Deleon (a righty) spent 4 innings in the OF once...
Dont see anyone else from that era.
The double-double switch might have only happened once.
Worrell does have 4 OF credits. The other three might have been the single-double switch
May 16th, 2011 at 12:48 am
If I remember correctly, Ryne Sandberg gave his HOF speech and talks about doing it clean, and how Andre Dawson did it clean. The very next day Rafael Palmiero get's busted for PED's Talk about poetic justice.
I think the big name steriod users being left out of the HOF is a fitting punishment. And no, you can't erase all the stats of PED users, but I would like to see a web-site keep a list on non-PED stats, sort of an unofficial list of clean stats.
May 16th, 2011 at 12:49 am
Socratic, drink your hemlock. Dayley never played in the outfield. As you could have found out with a quick search at this great website I'd like to introduce to you. It is called baseball-reference.com. Todd Worrell did play parts of 4 games in RF.
May 16th, 2011 at 1:00 am
@69 Tommy Lasorda did that a few times also. If I remember correctly he did it with Jesse Orosco in the world series one time. I think he might have done it with Fernando also??
May 16th, 2011 at 3:48 am
Here's a strategy I think I invented, or at least I never hear of it otherwise. This strategy is specifically for when you have a hitter of the Ruth/Bonds/Williams calibre. A player that is clearly far and away better than any other hitter on your team. This strategy would actually apply to the current Blue Jays lineup with Jose Bautista.
The idea is that you don't want this player to have their first at bat in the game with the bases empty. It's unnecessary. This monster should start every game on the bench, knowing he will be inserted into the game early, at the first opportunity to get him up with multiple men on base.
As soon as you get 2 men on base or more, he pinch hits and enters the game, and you make the substitutions necessary to facilitate this. Whichever player he replaces gets a surprise day off. That's the only reason this wouldn't work I think, the ego's involved. Especially in the AL, the substitution would be very easy for any player except the catcher.
Another idea involves the intentional walk. It seems to throw pitchers off their rhythm. So why not have the pitcher switch with a position player (who has been specifically taught how to pitch an intentional walk without balking etc), and then have him switch back to pitcher as soon as the walk has been thrown.
I guess it's not clear whether an intentional walk does actually throw a pitcher off his rhythm. It would be interesting to know whether batters hitting after an intentianl walk perform better or worse than their typical performance.
May 16th, 2011 at 3:57 am
Changing official records is an impractical mess, nut it is childish to jettison all consideration of what is legal or fair because there are some gray areas. Just as it is to tell those who disagree politely to stow it & express disinterest in "bleatings": while doing so yourself at length.
Improvements that come through legal means & training, or procedures & legal substances that allow you to fix deficiencies are completely distinct from enhancing natural abilities through means illegal in society & baseball. Greenied were not illegal until /73, & even they do not have the radical effect that 'roids sometimes do, though I am very against there use.
Let's say 60% used. Even there, tons are hurt through NOT cheating. And some who were marginal with would have never made it to or stayed in the bigs without Also, that % includes many who used rarely or once, with some who dosed for years.
That baseball turned a blind eye does not let cheaters & liars off the hook. but few-certainly not the average fan-thought that Macliar & say it ain't Sosa used in '98. Some racism is involved in the reaction to Bonds: but mostly it is that he was bad to teammates & surly in public, not just unaccommodating to reporters.
It is exceedingly sloppy thinking to conflate working hard through training with taking unnatural & illegal advantage. And that some cheat in society does not mean we say OK to it, or excuse it in another industry.
The sad part is those who lose jobs, a lifetime dream, money & glory due to not being willing to violate basic decency, lie & cheat. And those that make great improvements & are assumed to be sleaze balls.
May 16th, 2011 at 5:57 am
on #8 BSK states"players job is to the best possible at baseball" .Do also support ruthless CEO who cut corners selling tainted products that can kill? After all his job is run the most efficient corporation. Morality does matter in all things even baseball.
May 16th, 2011 at 10:58 am
Silence is complicity.
May 16th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
In "Ball 4" Bouton talks about the widespread usage of Greenies as if they were Fred Flintstone chewables. He even joked about how they could note when someone's greenie "kicked in".
The problem with the HOF is where do you draw the line on ethics and behavior ? Do we throw Cobb and Landis out for being racists ? Do we chuck Fergie Jenkins for being convicted of using coke and transporting it across the border ?
One thing I'm sure of. Selig should never set foot in Cooperstown unless he buys a ticket just like I do. Under his watch a blind eye was turned while all of this happened. He deserves no credit for cleaning it up. He reminds me of the guy who pushes you into the pool and then saves you when you are drowning and wants credit. Shame on him !
May 16th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
As far as the question of how we interpret the stats compiled by players during the "steroids era" goes, the answer is that we should interpret them the same as we should interpret the stats compiled by players in any other era--by putting them in context. If a pitcher's prime years came in the Deadball era, or in the 1960s, we know that playing conditions at the time greatly favored pitchers, and we should adjust for that when looking at their stats (and of course, when looking at the hitter's stats, as well). On the other hand, we know that the the 1920s and the late 1990s/early 21st Century were big hitting eras, and we can adjust our evaluation of the stats accordingly. The question of exactly why those particular eras favored pitchers or hitters isn't really the point.
Now beyond that, if you want to additionally punish those who broke the rules, well, I can see why you might want too, but I think we lack good enough knowledge of just who did and who didn't break the rules, and we even more lack knowledge of the extent to which individuals broke the rules.
May 16th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
@79 - like the intentional walk strategy, maybe. unless the pitcher would be equally thrown off by standing at shortstop for 45 seconds. definitely worth a try.
As for the 'monster' strategy, makes some sense in September, with the roster flexibility. Probably come back to haunt you with only 4 men on the bench.
May 16th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
I feel like most AL teams don't use their bench at all, maybe 1 substitution per game or even less, so I don't see why they couldn't do it. Guarantee that Bautista gets his first AB with 2 men on? Seems totally worth it.
May 16th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
It's too bad that things had to turn out this way, but I think the only thing we can do that makes sense is to grin and bear it. Throughout baseball history, stats have been compromised in some way or other. Racial division and gambling certainly affected the early days. Amphetamines and steroids certainly affected the latter days. The degrees of effect for each of these will never really be known.
So the only thing we can do is pretty much what we do now, which is to look at the stats while keeping in mind the context in which they were accumulated. You can't just remove them and act like they didn't exist, nor can you treat them as if they were attained during some other era.
It's unfortunate, but I think wiping it out of the record book is as bad a move as putting an asterisk next to Maris's homerun total or some other way of de-legitimizing major league stats. I wish it hadn't been allowed to go on as it did, but it was, and nothing can undo it.
May 16th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
You could also regularly start a weak hitter in the #4 slot.. Because any game where 2 of the first 3 batters reach safely, Bautista would sub in and take his usual spot.
May 16th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
I'm still waiting for someone to flip the script and criticize one of the "clean guys" for not doing enough to help his team win.
Heh, I think you and I have done that in here before. As for players? Well, we may have to wait a while....
===========================
Bautista he revamped his swing and stance in late 2009.
Hmm, kind of like McGwire claimed he did in his interview last year?
This is what drives me crazy about the whole situation. In mass media, no one is capable of having a rational conversation about steroids. It's just STERIODS IZ BAD. McGwire said he didn't think steroids helped him hit homers, and talked about how he had changed his swing. So all the talking heads mock him for being in denial. None of them actually bother to analyze his claim. Christ, we have an entire network devoted to baseball now, and rather than Barry Larkin or someone breaking down his swing at various times to see what changed and if his statements have merit, we get Bob Costas bloviating that it's "impossible" to hit more than 61 HR without steroids.
=========================
Morality does matter in all things even baseball.
Let us know when that 62nd home run kills somebody.
And let us know which baseball "cheating" is immoral by your code, and which you don't really care about because it was a long time ago, or no one's favorite record got broken.
=============================
Re the relief pitcher/outfielder switches, Davey Johnson did it a couple times with Jesse Orosco and Doug Sisk.
May 16th, 2011 at 11:00 pm
@89 - Steroids do help, they help a lot, Ken Caminiti swore they made him a monster at the plate. As far as morality, what are you talking about? Since some guy 50 years ago broke a rule we should look the other way? I don't get what your point is. Morality does matter in every decision one makes. Bob Costas is not a person I agree with often, but he was right on top of this from the start, and my only gripe with him is not bloviating louder. I think the blog author talks about Gaylord Perry and Neikro being punished when caught cheating, and Pete Rose, and part of the steriod issue is these guys not getting punished.
May 16th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
@83 and others, what is the obsession with greenies? Is there any evidence greenies turned a 30 y/o 258 hitter with 13 HR into 326 hitter with 40 homers, 130 RBI's and an MVP at the age of 33 (Caminiti)? No, greenies probably were a little like drinking 4 cups of coffee without getting the sick feeling of drinking 4 cups of coffee. Because steroids are a controlled substance, a lot of the anti-drug war crowd want to weigh in about how drugs are OK and it's not that big of a deal, and this is a victim-less crime. That's not it at all the guy writing the BLOG is only talking about baseball and the real impact steriods has on it. Don't poo-poo steriod use because you like to smoke the reefer on weekends, the 2 have nothing to do with each other.
May 16th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
As far as morality, what are you talking about?
Bob Sohm #81 compared using steroids to murder. Ask him what's he's talking about.
May 17th, 2011 at 7:37 am
Rich at 50-
But Bautista's HR/AB ratio doubled in 2010! Even with a new swing that's a little shady.
May 17th, 2011 at 7:38 am
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/bautijo02-bat.shtml
May 18th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Bonds before he juiced...had hit 445 home runs, perennial GG in left field was in the Frank Robinson, possibly Willie Mays Henry and henry Aaron class. If he had not let his overhelming arrogance and deisre to dominate make the decision to juice, there s no doubt that he woulkd have hit well over 600 home runs..
There is no evidence to suggest that Roger Clemens used HGH before his first Yanklee stint. So in the 15 years BEFORE he was traded to the Yankees from the Blue Jays,,,he went 233.-124, he won 20 or more,FIVE tomes, he lead the AL SIX times in ERA and he won FIVE Cy Youngs..
We dont have to like them......but they were both clear cut HOFers before the steriods era, the very best at their positions BEFORE STEROIDS
whether they should be denied entrance because of what they may have done during the steriod era to prolong their careers and enhance their records.....is a question for debate.
It will never happen but I would like to see MNB mount an exhibit near the HOF buy or buidl a small building in Cooperstown about players who should be int he HOF based oneir accomplshments and mount plaques...
no BBWA election but smaller plaques anodized in red...red the color of shame...... and those plaques could include Shoeless Joe and Eddie Cicotte, Pete Rose and those of the steriods era
And one ofhose plaques could be of Bud Selig for his lack of leadership.. .
Nah.....never happen...
May 18th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Dennis @ 95-
I completely agree. Guys like Rose, Jackson, Cicotte, Bonds, A-Rod, Rose, Clemens and possibly Pudge all deserve recognition, but the certainly don't deserve to share the Hall with Ruth, Gehrig, Wagner, Aaron and Mays. Another idea is to build an exhibit for players who showed honesty, integrity and contributed stuff to the game.
But yeah, it won't happen.
May 20th, 2011 at 5:03 am
But JT, some have & do analyze the credibility of beliefs & claims re: steroid use enhancing performance for individual players. renowned baseball historian Bill Jenkinson did. One finding was that MacLiar had a very large & highly unusual-unprecedented before PEDs-increase in distance he hit the ball at an advanced baseball age, in his 30's. he went from not top 30 to #6 all time. And he is the only real distance hitting expert, researching such things through elaborate investigations. Here is his take on Big Mac:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=steroidsExc&num=17
There are other good articles on this Web Site about the warping of the game & denial of proper accolades & sometimes jobs, let alone team records, that were caused by steroids. one does not need to murder to cause tons of disruptions that not only are dishonest & illegal, but hard the prospects & dreams of many others, & the integrity & reputation of a hallowed game.
Many of us do NOT excuse the cheating of the past, but look at intent, degree of effect, & the law to judge how bad something was.
May 20th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Here's the problem with making judgements: was Mike Mussina (see comment 19) a great pitcher and his ERA+ was suppressed by the steroid era? Or was he a slightly above average pitcher who gained needed power and muscle recovery from juice, stamina from greenies?
Everyone cites Greg Maddux as the great pitcher of steroid era who didn't juice. He threw mostly fastballs that topped out at 88mph. What if use of PEDs allowed him to surpass his usual 85mph. How do we know? On Earth2 where Commissioner John Scott instituted testing in 1984, would Maddux be Bob Tewksbury?
May 22nd, 2011 at 6:38 pm
Who knows?