Question on baseball, steroids and history

[Arles]

All this talking about steroids and Bonds has brought up an interesting question/discussion item I have. Throughout baseball, people have "cheated" along the way and there have been numerous rule changes to adjust and/or take away these advantages. Here's a series of questions with one final one at the end:

Early in the 1900s, pitchers routinely used "shine balls" and "spit balls" to get an advantage. They were made illegal a few decades in because of the unfair advantage they gave. Should pitchers that used these pitches to get an advantage (not all pitchers did) have asterisks next to their records? While it wasn't against baseball's rules to use these pitches, the pitchers had to know they were getting an unfair advantage.

In the 1940s and 1950s the mound was at a height that gave pitchers a distinct advantage over their later counterparts in the 70s and 80s. Should this be somehow noted in the record books so that people know that later pitchers had a much harder time than ones in that era?

In the 50s to 70s, "greenies" or amphetamines were used by players to stay more alert for games and give them a "boost" during the long season. It's debatable as to what the benefits were from a baseball standpoint, but at a minimum they "sped up" the reflexes of a player that could impact their fielding and/or hitting. Should the records set by guys like Mantle and others that have been shown to have used these drugs be looked into?

In about the same time, players often used high-level cortozone shots to dull pain and play through injuries (including broken bones). This type of treatment is no longer legal and allowed many players to get more ABs, IP when they probably would not have been able in later seasons. Should some of the longevity records and win/hits totals be looked at for people that used these treatments in this timeframe?

In the 70s and 80s, many pitchers heavily doctored the ball using nail files, vasoline and other such substances. Some of the games most distinguished pitchers (Gaylord Perry, Phil Nekro) have admitted as much with second-hand evidence on many other pitchers of the time. Should pitching records from this timeframe have asterisks to reflect this?

In the late 80s to today, there have been many pitchers/hitters tied to steroid use. Now, baseball has since banned steroids in the rulebook since the early 2000s, but it (much like shine balls, greenies and cortizone shots) was not banned when these players may have used it. My main question in all this is what makes steroid use any worse than the aforementioned items (maybe excluding the mound issue as it is more of an era than rules issue)? Now, I am not talking about health or non-baseball related issues. This is simply regarding the "integrity of the game". Because it seems that steroids has involved much more outrage than any of the previous issues that also seemed to skirt the good of the game as well.

So, to summarize, what makes steroids worse than Greenies, spit balls, doctor balls, cortizone shots and the other "advantages" some players have had in the history of the game? And if there is no difference, why are we treating the stuff that Bonds does different than how we treated Perry, Nekro and Mantle?

Again, I am by no means a big Bonds fan, this is simply a question that I really haven't seen a good answer for and hasn't been dealt with in the media to this point.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Don't you have work to do? What's with these long postings?

[Ksyrup]

Steroids is worse these days the same way a politician having an affair is worse now than it was during the 40's. We're a tabloid society, and we have to be morally outraged in order to justify the amount of time we spend discussing/debating/watching/reading stories about it.

[albionmoonlight]

I see asterisks as a cop-out for baseball. If baseball created/creates environments where people can cheat/bend the rules/play all out/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, and records become cartoonish as a result, then let baseball live with having tarnished its history.

If baseball turned a blind eye to the steroid issue in the mid 90's because it did not want to disrupt the good will of the home run chase, then it should live with the consequences of that blind eye: guys like Arron and Ruth replaced at the top of the record books by guys who most people think cheated.

It is up to the sport to protect the integrity of the game. Greenies, steroids, cortozone, etc. All of these things do nothing but hurt the game in the long term at the expense of short term excitement. It is a shame that baseball--the American sport most steeped in history and tradition--seems to be the most visible victim in this case.

[Arles]

I have to agree with both responses to this point. As to this Farrah girl, I say "right back at you"

[Klinglerware]

I really don't have any issue with the use of performance enhancers. How do they really hurt the game? Steroids might hurt the individual who takes them, but I really don't see how it tarnishes the game or how it makes the game worse. As others have said, you still have to work hard even if you do take steroids. Steroids are not going to help that much when it comes to putting a bat to a moving ball.

As for the records, with all the rules changes and changes in philosophy, who knows what they really mean anyway? Ruth and Gehrig played a good bit of their careers during the depression era, when the baseball did all it could to engineer a lot of offense. So when baseball tweaks things (juiced balls, playing with the pitching mound height, the DH), is that any better to the "integrity" of the game and the record books?

[Radii]

All good posts above(except for Farrah's... work? Eh?), and I think Arles' post is a very good way to look at the current state of baseball. its frustrating but is it really anything that new? Didn't the Dodgers cut their infield grass to favor Maury Wills and his great bunting ability? John McGraw's teams were known for cutting from 1st to 3rd when the only umpire's attention was focused elsewhere? Cheating is finding... "unique" ways to gain an advantage is part of the game I guess. Its not ok,but this is a good way to put it in perspective.

[Bomber]

Just for arguments sake, home run totals quadrupled after baseball began to enfore its own rule against illegal pitches. Therefore, Babe Ruth's home run records were set in an era where he had a huge advantage over past players. Additionally, the guy with the most wins in MLB history occasionally used the spitter.

[Joe]

asterisks should be placed by the guys names who set records without cheating. it might be easier to identify them.

[wheels]

What about "Tommy John" surgery: Kerry Wood has even more velocity after his surgury than before. What about players who have had laser surgery to improve eyesight? Surely eyesight is as important, if not more, for power hitting as steroid-induced strength (being able to determine the type of pitch from the ball's rotation is at least as important as bat speed).

Medical advances will always keep pushing this line of ethics away from corrective or rehabilitative and toward elective. We've seen this line move as sports have become much more lucrative, long before steriods came along, and it will keep on moving.

Are asterisks necessary? Not in my opinion, especially considering some of the arguments above. But as with everything else, the era records are achieved in must provide context to evaluate players' ability and performance.

[Desnudo]

Steroids as a performance enhancer in sports has been around for a very long time. Much longer than the past 20-25 years.

[KWhit]

Baseball is a game that celebrates the magical numbers associated with greatness moreso than any other. Every fan knows what you mean by .400, 755, 60 and 61, 3000, etc. 61 is no longer a record, replaced by a 70 and a 73 acheived by cheaters. 755 will soon be gone the same way.

I personally don't have as much a problem with the other examples you cite because I wasn't around to see the great numbers acheived dubiously. They have just "been" ever since I was a fan. So it's hard for me to judge the legitimacy of those performances. However, I do feel very strongly that the accomplishments of Bonds, Giambi, McGwire, Sosa, and many others are tainted, and I would prefer some sort of asterisk or notation by the listing of their numbers.

It is probably a logistical nightmare to actually do that, but the legitimacy of the game has been compromised and because of that MLB has lost me as a fan.

And I know it will never happen, but I'd love for these guys to be snubbed in HOF balloting because of this.

[Young Drachma]

I think the point of the post is that the legitmacy of these "records" have always been debatable and it didn't just happen last night or something when some guy started injected steroids into himself in the 80s.

So, I think trying to discount all the performances of these years, saying older players were more wholesome and thus, better..is way off.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Don't you have work to do? What's with these long postings?

That's funny.

[rkmsuf]

I love how the baseball community is outraged by the asterick and records thing. I mean who freaking cares anyway. It's kind of a shame baseball cares so little about it's players as to ignore this for so many years and it takes the nerds screaming about records and numbers to force them to put any policy in place.

I mean seriously, if Bonds wasn't approaching the HR record this would not come to a head. Who cares that Caminitti died...no big whoop but that record is so important and these numbers must be verified.

[mhass]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I love how the baseball community is outraged by the asterick and records thing. I mean who freaking cares anyway. It's kind of a shame baseball cares so little about it's players as to ignore this for so many years and it takes the nerds screaming about records and numbers to force them to put any policy in place.

I mean seriously, if Bonds wasn't approaching the HR record this would not come to a head. Who cares that Caminitti died...no big whoop but that record is so important and these numbers must be verified.

Excellent point. Steroids weren't a concern of anybody until records got threatened (1998). People keep going to games so it's not the fans either. Look at the response Giambi got when he showed up at Spring Training. This is about baseball as an organization with a moral dillemma that the sports media is chronicling is excrutiating detail.

[Arles]

Yeah, it seems this is a much bigger issue to the sports media than the sports fans. What's amusing to me is how upset media people get when this fairly evident reality is mentioned to them. They get all huffy like they are only doing what the "fans want" when the reality is they are doing it because it makes them feel important. Find me a journalist and I'll point out a person that wants to change the world.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by mhass

Excellent point. Steroids weren't a concern of anybody until records got threatened (1998). People keep going to games so it's not the fans either. Look at the response Giambi got when he showed up at Spring Training. This is about baseball as an organization with a moral dillemma that the sports media is chronicling is excrutiating detail.

Well, tbh, I never really thought of baseball as a steroid sport. It seemed like football was a much likelier suspect (and was). If you look at players from the 80s, not many seemed like probable users. It's hard to picture Cecil Fielder shooting up before he chowed down on 10 Big Macs. It wasn't until people like Sammy "The Chin" Sosa and Barry "Helium Head" Bonds showed up, that players really started looking like freaks.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Arles

Yeah, it seems this is a much bigger issue to the sports media than the sports fans.

Umm ... you might want to let the current SportsNation poll know that then.

6) Bonds also referred to steroids by saying ''a lot of more worse things are happening in the world. We should fix those first.'' How badly do you want to see the steroids problem stamped out?

79.3% Should be priority No. 1 for MLB
18.3% Not the biggest problem facing MLB
2.4% Shouldn't even be an issue. Steroids should be legal.
Total Votes: 26,488

5) Bonds came out on the offensive against the media, which he referred to as ''liars'' and compared the media to watching reruns of Sanford and Son. What is your opinion of the way the media has treated Bonds?

66.4% They're doing their job
17.9% What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
15.7% They've been a little too harsh on Bonds


I know internet polls aren't exactly the most scientific thing in the world, but still, that's an awfully long way from what you're claiming.

I know this much -- it's the only baseball topic I've heard even mentioned since the season ended among my regular weekly breakfast crowd. It's not spring training, it's not the Braves outfield, it's not Smoltz as a starter -- it's "the steroid problem." And it's always "they have to do something about it[/i], never once "who cares".

[mhass]

Take this for it's third-degree-of-separation, but I heard the doctor in charge of Olympic drug testing for the US say the following when asked to guess at steriod use:

NBA - "None. Basketball doesn't require that kind of strength."
NFL - "Less than 10%. The testing is too tough."
NHL - Chuckles.
MLB - "More than 50%. No testing and too rapid growth in small players."
He claimed Garciaparra, Schilling, Sosa and Bonds all were juiced and he could recognize it because of his years with Olympic athletes.

[Desnudo]

Garciaparra, Sosa and Bonds I can see. But does having a beer gut qualify you as a steroid user?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Umm ... you might want to let the current SportsNation poll know that then.

6) Bonds also referred to steroids by saying ''a lot of more worse things are happening in the world. We should fix those first.'' How badly do you want to see the steroids problem stamped out?

79.3% Should be priority No. 1 for MLB
18.3% Not the biggest problem facing MLB
2.4% Shouldn't even be an issue. Steroids should be legal.
Total Votes: 26,488

5) Bonds came out on the offensive against the media, which he referred to as ''liars'' and compared the media to watching reruns of Sanford and Son. What is your opinion of the way the media has treated Bonds?

66.4% They're doing their job
17.9% What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
15.7% They've been a little too harsh on Bonds


I know internet polls aren't exactly the most scientific thing in the world, but still, that's an awfully long way from what you're claiming.

I know this much -- it's the only baseball topic I've heard even mentioned since the season ended among my regular weekly breakfast crowd. It's not spring training, it's not the Braves outfield, it's not Smoltz as a starter -- it's "the steroid problem." And it's always "they have to do something about it[/i], never once "who cares".

But "they have to do something about it" because

a. media outlets say we do. Certainly this isn't MLB's stance.

b. it's an outrage because of faulty records. Forget the well being of players. These numbers HAVE to be legit.

Sad, really sad.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

But "they have to do something about it" because

a. media outlets say we do. Certainly this isn't MLB's stance.

b. it's an outrage because of faulty records. Forget the well being of players. These numbers HAVE to be legit.

Sad, really sad.

The way I look at it, it's about upholding the integrity of the game. That's really what the numbers having to be legit boils down to. The well being of the players is up to them. They are adults and I don't hold any more sympathy for the situation they put themselves in than a cocaine addict.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

The way I look at it, it's about upholding the integrity of the game. That's really what the numbers having to be legit boils down to. The well being of the players is up to them. They are adults and I don't hold any more sympathy for the situation they put themselves in than a cocaine addict.

You seriously believe MLBPA and Owners concern themselves with "the intergrity of the game?"

Ok, but I'll contend that's a media/fan creation. If what you say is true then steroids would have gone the way they did in the NFL.

[Desnudo]

I said the way I look at it. I think if baseball had one of the old school guys running things, this never would have gotten to where it is now. I don't know what Bud Selig cares about, if anything other than never making a strong stand about anything.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

I said the way I look at it. I think if baseball had one of the old school guys running things, this never would have gotten to where it is now. I don't know what Bud Selig cares about, if anything other than never making a strong stand about anything.

It's has very little to do with Bud Selig. It's money. MLBPA gives a crap about it's membership. Owners don't care. What would you have the commish do?

They loved the homer chase with McGwire and Sosa. It brought MLB back.

To quote Rocky IV...if they die, they die but MLB is back.

[Desnudo]

I would have had the commish put his foot down, like almost every commish previous to Bud Selig had done when the shit hit the fan. Before him, the commisioner didn't always sleep with the owners.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

I would have had the commish put his foot down, like almost every commish previous to Bud Selig had done when the shit hit the fan. Before him, the commisioner didn't always sleep with the owners.

I guess but it's clear neither MLB party really cares and that's what is a shame.

I guess it goes back to the point that all the outrage is media created. Fans still go to the ballpark. That doesn't make the user right but how can you expect players to care when their union and league doesn't care and they get paid millions upon millions of dollars to play.

See those Giambi tears? They are short lived my friend when you are collecting 80 million bucks.

[Desnudo]

That's why they desperately needed a true commisioner. Neither side was going to do anything. Situations like this have occurred in the past, the Pete Rose incident, the Black Sox scandal, and it's always been the commish who has to make the tough decisions. Without an independent one, what you get is a weak-ass steroid policy that scares no one and only angers the fans even more.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

That's why they desperately needed a true commisioner. Neither side was going to do anything. Situations like these have occurred in the past, the Pete Rose incident, the Black Sox scandal, and it's always been the commish who has to make the tough decisions. Without an independent one, what you get is a weak-ass steroid policy that scares no one and only angers the fans even more.

I will add one more thing. The media is horribly misguided in focussing their vengance and attention on individual cases. It sells papers I know but the real issue is the lack of vigor in baseball in figuring this out.

That is the real issue in my mind. A total lack of anything in really trying to solve a steroid issue. It's not rocket science folks and if baseball really wanted to this it would be solved.

The whole lot of them are a bunch of losers in my mind. They are doing a terrible disservice to the youth of America and baseball fans all around.

F*ck this he said she said and start saving lives in lieu of your precious gate and marketing deals.

[Desnudo]

Which gets to my point about the commisioner. Not to keep harping on it, but I truly believe if Bart Giamotti [sic] or Fay Vincent were still around, we wouldn't be talking about this issue because a policy similar to the NFL's would have been put in place 5 years ago.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Which gets to my point about the commisioner. Not to keep harping on it, but I truly believe if Bart Giamotti [sic] or Fay Vincent were still around, we wouldn't be talking about this issue because a policy similar to the NFL's would have been put in place 5 years ago.

Doubt it because the MLBPA wouldn't hear of it.

[Desnudo]

With someone strong enough in power, they would have. Especially with public support. Something at least enough to act as a deterrent instead of this pointless policy they have now. No point in crying over spilt milk though I suppose. The fact that Bud Selig is awful is not exactly breaking news.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

The whole lot of them are a bunch of losers in my mind. They are doing a terrible disservice to the youth of America and baseball fans all around. F*ck this he said she said and start saving lives in lieu of your precious gate and marketing deals.

I don't disagree with you, but I don't believe you can tar & feather MLB and the MLBPA without putting the same substance on at least the casual fans. I believe there's a very good case to be made that the outrage belongs to the more diehard fans, while the majority of the rest of the occasional viewers/ ticket buyers really don't give a flying fuck about anything about home run derbies posing as baseball games. And clearly, baseball (like most every other sport) is intent on catering to the casual fans, not the core audience.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I don't disagree with you, but I don't believe you can tar & feather MLB and the MLBPA without putting the same substance on at least the casual fans. I believe there's a very good case to be made that the outrage belongs to the more diehard fans, while the majority of the rest of the occasional viewers/ ticket buyers really don't give a flying fuck about anything about home run derbies posing as baseball games. And clearly, baseball (like most every other sport) is intent on catering to the casual fans, not the core audience.

Sadly, that is where the money is. In other words, what is a better business model. One where you have 15,000 hard core fans showing up every night, or a full stadium of fans that barely know the rules of the game?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Arles

Yeah, it seems this is a much bigger issue to the sports media than the sports fans. What's amusing to me is how upset media people get when this fairly evident reality is mentioned to them. They get all huffy like they are only doing what the "fans want" when the reality is they are doing it because it makes them feel important. Find me a journalist and I'll point out a person that wants to change the world.

Fundementally, the problem lies with sportswriters, who seem to annointed themselves the moral guardians of the game, and lather themselves in their self-righteousness - it bothers me to no end. Im inclined to agree with Lou Gehrig on sportswriters.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

...home run derbies posing as baseball games...

That is another piece of this that is overlooked. The game is not as enjoyable to watch now. The stolen base, sac bunt, squeeze play, etc. are all endangered species now because teams play for the big inning and wait for the 3 run homer instead of playing small-ball (which is much more interesting to watch, IMO).

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Fundementally, the problem lies with sportswriters.....

Huh? Not with the players, who are breaking the law and (debatably) ruining the integrity of the game, or the owners who turned a blind eye to this because HRs sell tickets, or the commish because he never seems to do anything???

But it's the sportswriters. If not for their "moral outrage", the new policy wouldn't even be in place!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by KWhit

That is another piece of this that is overlooked. The game is not as enjoyable to watch now. The stolen base, sac bunt, squeeze play, etc. are all endangered species now because teams play for the big inning and wait for the 3 run homer instead of playing small-ball (which is much more interesting to watch, IMO).

Careful, keep talking like that & somebody will accuse you of not wanting future NHL games to have double-digit scoring.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Arles

Early in the 1900s, pitchers routinely used "shine balls" and "spit balls" to get an advantage. They were made illegal a few decades in because of the unfair advantage they gave.

Just to clarify this one point -- the shine and spit balls were made illegal after the death of Ray Chapman in 1920. That also ushered in the swapping in of new baseballs on a much more frequent basis -- before that the ball would get so dark with tobacco spit, dirt, etc. that the batters occasionally had a hard time seeing the ball (which was one of the prime theories of why Chapman was hit by the pitch that killed him). The unseen benefit of the new rule was that since the baseballs in play weren't so beat up that they were livelier and helped usher in the home run era of the 20's and 30's......

Oh. The question was steroids? Never mind......

[mckerney]

What about Kirk Gibson, taking steriods so he could hit the game winning home run in the world series?

Originally Posted by KWhit

That is another piece of this that is overlooked. The game is not as enjoyable to watch now. The stolen base, sac bunt, squeeze play, etc. are all endangered species now because teams play for the big inning and wait for the 3 run homer instead of playing small-ball (which is much more interesting to watch, IMO).

Solution: Watch the Twins.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Umm ... you might want to let the current SportsNation poll know that then.

6) Bonds also referred to steroids by saying ''a lot of more worse things are happening in the world. We should fix those first.'' How badly do you want to see the steroids problem stamped out?

79.3% Should be priority No. 1 for MLB
18.3% Not the biggest problem facing MLB
2.4% Shouldn't even be an issue. Steroids should be legal.
Total Votes: 26,488

I would classify myself as part of the vast majority that really doesn't get all worked up about Bonds' past steroid use. I certainly, though, wouldn't have voted to legalize it and it's probably one of the biggest problems facing baseball. So, I would have voted with the majority here as well.

I mark a big difference between making sure the game is clean from here on (this poll) and crying over spilt milk with regards to Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, Canseco... The later seems to be the media's real facination. My guess is for the 26,500 fans following this poll on the internet (ie, watching the press conference), this is probably a bigger deal. But to rank and file baseball fans, I can't see them caring all that much about what should be done to prior "potential" users from the 90s (which was my original point).

5) Bonds came out on the offensive against the media, which he referred to as ''liars'' and compared the media to watching reruns of Sanford and Son. What is your opinion of the way the media has treated Bonds?

66.4% They're doing their job
17.9% What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
15.7% They've been a little too harsh on Bonds

Most people don't like Bonds and, again, these are people that are following this story fairly closely (they voted on a freakin internet poll). I'm sure some people like Bonds facing this level of scrutiny because he is an ass. But I doubt anyone is as interested in all this steroid-backtracking "witch hunt" the media has been doing the last few weeks.

And it's always "they have to do something about it[/i], never once "who cares".

Again, I am not stating that baseball shouldn't fix the steroid problem from here forward - I do think that's important. My point is that the media should just get over the fact that there was some steroid use in the 90s and stop crying over spilt milk. It's over and there's nothing practical anyone can do. So, get a testing program and try to clean it up from 2005 on. But, quit telling us every week how no one should vote for Sheffield, Mac, Sosa, Palmiero or anyone else from the 90s into the Hall of Fame because they may have used steroids.

Most of the media knew many of these guys were juicing, yet they didn't mind when the HR chase made great copy in the mid-90s and fans once again cared about baseball (thereby giving many of them a job). For them to now come out and act all outraged and state how Palmiero, McGwire and Sosa shouldn't get in the Hall for a certain amount of time and ask what can be done in regards to records is disingenious at best and closer to extremely hypocritical.

[Swaggs]

That many people thinking that steroids is MLB's biggest problem reminds me why it continues to slide past other sports on my attention meter. If that is a bigger problem than teams being able to outspend other teams by $100M in payroll, then I think I'll stick with spending my money on minor league baseball.

[clintl]

This "integrity of the game" issue is complete bullshit. In baseball, the real history of the game is that players and teams would do whatever they could to gain an advantage (including outright cheating when they could get away with it) in every era. I fully believe that baseball needs to crack down on steroids, but the fact is that steroids were not against the rules in baseball the last 10 years, and it's time for people to accept that and move on. And I guarantee you that if steroids were available in Ruth's or Aaron's time, and the players thought they would help them, the players would have taken them. It happened in every other sport. The only difference in baseball is that up until about 20 years ago, the prevailing training theory in baseball was that building up upper body muscles would cause a player to become muscle-bound and slow down bat speed. Thus, the perceived advantage to upper body strength training in baseball is a fairly recent development. Baseball is no dirtier than the others have been at one time or another. It has just had its steroids problem 20 years later than most other sports.

Also, I'm not sure exactly what they're taking, but football players are certainly taking something to grow to the size they are now. The growth in size of the average NFL player over the last 25 years far, far, far exceeds the growth in size of the average baseball player.

[JasonC23]

Arles, I'd say you've been reading my mind and posting my exact thoughts on this issue, but you're doing it in a much more eloquent way than I ever could, so thanks and keep it up.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by clintl

This "integrity of the game" issue is complete bullshit. In baseball, the real history of the game is that players and teams would do whatever they could to gain an advantage (including outright cheating when they could get away with it) in every era. I fully believe that baseball needs to crack down on steroids, but the fact is that steroids were not against the rules in baseball the last 10 years, and it's time for people to accept that and move on. And I guarantee you that if steroids were available in Ruth's or Aaron's time, and the players thought they would help them, the players would have taken them. It happened in every other sport. The only difference in baseball is that up until about 20 years ago, the prevailing training theory in baseball was that building up upper body muscles would cause a player to become muscle-bound and slow down bat speed. Thus, the perceived advantage to upper body strength training in baseball is a fairly recent development. Baseball is no dirtier than the others have been at one time or another. It has just had its steroids problem 20 years later than most other sports.

Extremely well said. I only disagree with you in that I don't believe baseball needs to crack down on steroids. Steroids may be a danger, but only to the person taking it. Even if the user is aware of the long-term physical side-effects, many would take it anyway if it means a chance to play major league baseball. This is no different from a football player or even a ballerina who knows he or she is wrecking his or her body, but does it anyway for the chance of a few years of glory.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by clintl

This "integrity of the game" issue is complete bullshit. In baseball, the real history of the game is that players and teams would do whatever they could to gain an advantage (including outright cheating when they could get away with it) in every era. I fully believe that baseball needs to crack down on steroids, but the fact is that steroids were not against the rules in baseball the last 10 years, and it's time for people to accept that and move on. And I guarantee you that if steroids were available in Ruth's or Aaron's time, and the players thought they would help them, the players would have taken them. It happened in every other sport. The only difference in baseball is that up until about 20 years ago, the prevailing training theory in baseball was that building up upper body muscles would cause a player to become muscle-bound and slow down bat speed. Thus, the perceived advantage to upper body strength training in baseball is a fairly recent development. Baseball is no dirtier than the others have been at one time or another. It has just had its steroids problem 20 years later than most other sports.

Also, I'm not sure exactly what they're taking, but football players are certainly taking something to grow to the size they are now. The growth in size of the average NFL player over the last 25 years far, far, far exceeds the growth in size of the average baseball player.

That's a nice cynical view of things. So I guess we all throw up our hands and say, "well, all of them have always cheated and always will, nothing we can do." I think that's bullshit. First off, a lot players don't cheat. There is a duty to level the playing field for them. And you can make assumptions about what would have happened in the past all you like, but that doesn't form the basis for an argument when the reality is different.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by KWhit

That is another piece of this that is overlooked. The game is not as enjoyable to watch now. The stolen base, sac bunt, squeeze play, etc. are all endangered species now because teams play for the big inning and wait for the 3 run homer instead of playing small-ball (which is much more interesting to watch, IMO).

But that can't be totally blamed on steroids and HRs. That's the Billy Beane way of playing, and that's got an entirely different justification for its use in tpday's game - it's not predicated on steroids and chicks dig the long ball.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

That's the Billy Beane way of playing

And Earl Weaver...

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

That's a nice cynical view of things. So I guess we all throw up our hands and say, "well, all of them have always cheated and always will, nothing we can do." I think that's bullshit. First off, a lot players don't cheat. There is a duty to level the playing field for them. And you can make assumptions about what would have happened in the past all you like, but that doesn't form the basis for an argument when the reality is different.

I'm not completely sure using steroids is cheating. I can see how throwing a spitball, using a corked bat, paying off an ump can be considered cheating--in those instances you are directly manipulating the rules of how the game is played. With steroid use, I'm not sure you are really doing that.

As for the duty to level the playing field, everybody has different natural testosterone levels and the ability to build muscle efficiently differs from player to player anyway. Some players work out harder than others. When you say level the playing field how far do you go? Do we ban weight training so the players who have high metabolisms and can't put on muscle have a fighting chance?