How badly has baseball been tarnished by steriods?

[HomerJSimpson]

I'm asking on a personal level. I know some of you will say "not at all," and give your own reasons for that. That is fine, because that is what I'm asking for. But I do ask you concentrate on how you feel and not what you percieve the public will/should/has/might feel. In other words, this is a verbal poll to see how people's view of baseball has changed/not changed due to steriods.

Personally, it has tarnished it a good bit. Several players I loved to watch play now have a spectre around them that makes them feel unclean. The furthest obviously is Bonds, who I've been a long time defender of and now could care less if I ever see him on the field again. I feel a deeper betrayal from him because of those defenses of his general "a-holeishness," and the fact he didn't really need to juice to be considered one of the best if not the best player of his generation.

The worse thing, though, is the perceptions going forward. My wife was telling me about Andruw Jones' great spring training. I'd heard on the radio he had changed his stance and it had did wonders for his hitting (mostly curbing his strikeouts which has always been his problem). She told me he has hit 8 dingers this spring, including a monster shot this weekend that they say still might not have landed if it hadn't hit a wall. Yet, sadly, instead of excitement at a player who I've always thought should have been a MVP type player (but never had reached his pontential), now finally possibily coming into his own, I couldn't help but think, "He's juicing." I don't think he really is, but the fact the thought now jumps out really stinks.


Anyway, what are your thoughts?

[Blackadar]

Not at all for me.

I've suspected for many years that players were juicing. Baseball allowed it and so everyone had an equal opportunity to do it. Heck, I'm sure a lot of steroids went on when it was legal in the USA back in the 80s. It's not surprising to me at all and I don't think it hurt the competitive balance of the game. Pitchers and batters both participated - the pitchers' fastball got a little faster, the hitters longball got a little longer. The only thing that saddens me is possible long-term health risks to the players.

Of course, I think there's a lot of confusion about 'roids anyway. It's not going to allow a singles' hitter to suddenly start cranking out homers. It will give a small boost in performance (around 5%, I believe). It will take those 3-5 yearly warning track shots and make them home runs.

As for the records, since the playing field was level, I don't view their accomplishments any differently than any other era. I think the HR records are attributable (in large part) to other factors in the game beyond 'roids. The rules are passed...life goes on - and so will baseball.

[HomerJSimpson]

Just want to add that I don't want this to be a debate thread. There are many of those and you can feel free to start your own if you like. This is about how you look at baseball not how others should.

Good post, Blacky (though I'm not of the same opinion).

[Ksyrup]

Play ball!

[Ragone]

Not at all for me.


Of course, I think there's a lot of confusion about 'roids anyway. It's not going to allow a singles' hitter to suddenly start cranking out homers. It will give a small boost in performance (around 5%, I believe). It will take those 3-5 yearly warning track shots and make them home runs.




Not really.. Brady Anderson for instance.. :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm asking on a personal level. ... concentrate on how you feel and not what you percieve the public will/should/has/might feel.

I feel like I'd like to strangle the cheating lazy bastards who have made it neccessary for me to explain to my 6 y/o son what steroids are. My wrath is most specifically directed toward those who made me explain to my son that "yes, some of them may have broken the law and belong in jail. They're nothing more than common criminals."
As "did he use steroids" became the most common question he has while playing MVP Baseball, that's a reminder of how much I'd like to some of these 'roid freaks strung up.

As for the game on the field ... pfft. As the game turned into a home run derby, it had became steadily less interesting to me anyway, so I'm not really sure how much of the "why" effects that anymore.

[Blackadar]

Not really.. Brady Anderson for instance.. :)

Actually, if Brady was juiced, I would think he could have duplicated his efforts the following year. I think he just had one of those extremely rare, statistically abnormal years. Brady's homers: 21, 13, 12, 16, 50, 18, 18, 24. Statistically it's a damn strange thing but it's not unheard of.

Take Davey Johnson for example in the late 60s and early 70s. Davey's HRs: 10, 9, 7, 10, 18, 5, 43, 15.

No real difference....if anything, Davey's increase looks more dramatic. Just a weird statistical abnormality.

[ISiddiqui]

On a personal level? Not at all.

[Raiders Army]

I think that the manner in which the league, Selig, Canseco, McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds have handled the situation tarnishes the name of baseball far more than steroids have. I think that in America's perception of icons, it's okay to make a mistake; you just have to feel sorry about it and admit it. Look at Clinton. He made a huge mistake (in some's eyes) and when he finally admitted to it and said he was sorry, all was forgiven.

Let's face facts. America loves its heroes. When they screw up, all they have to do is say, "I'm sorry, it won't happen again. I learned blah, blah, blah." America will forgive. My two cents.

[Arles]

I think baseball is about at the same fork in the road the NFL was back in the early to mid 80s. To most people, steroids in baseball could be as prevalent as 50% to as rare as 10%. Until fans get the "warm and fuzzies" on steroids being removed from baseball, I think there will be a lot of frustration with the current players. Football dealt with this by instituting a draconian (at the time) policy on punishing drug use and developing a wide net on substances deemed illegal. Now, this has produced the occassional "Jim Miller" case where a guy just happened to take a banned substance by accident, but I don't think NFL fans have a problem with these cases and would rather err on 1-2 rare "oops" suspensions than massive loopholes that could exist.

To me, the steroids situation doesn't bother the legitimacy of records and/or achievements, it's more the effect it has on kids. Jon put it the best, so I won't re-hash that issue but I think there should be a concerted effort put into ridding the game of drugs like steroids for the example it would set for kids. But, to the issue of the past, I couldn't really care less. If baseball felt it didn't need to setup a valid policy like the NFL to "protect" records, I certainly see no reason to minimize what players in the 90s did no more than I would try to minimize the acheivements of other dopers in the past like Kofax, Mays and Mantle.

Now, if someone fails a drug test in the next few seasons, I would be much harder on that player as they (per the MLBPA) agreed not to use steroids and play clean from that regard.

[McSweeny]

not at all

i'll still watch nearly every Red Sox game this year and i'll still love every minute of it

[andy m]

its been more tarnished by the people who keep banging on about it all the time.

[Ksyrup]

I think baseball is about at the same fork in the road the NFL was back in the early to mid 80s. To most people, steroids in baseball could be as prevalent as 50% to as rare as 10%. Until fans get the "warm and fuzzies" on steroids being removed from baseball, I think there will be a lot of frustration with the current players. A couple of comments here:

1. Really, at this point, no one should be claiming that anywhere near 50%, or maybe even 10%, are using steroids. The testing that was done last year confirmed that only a handful of players were stupid enough to get caught. I did the math in another thread, but it comes out to about 25 players having tested positively last year, when all 40-man rosters were required to be tested (that's taking 2%, and I think the number was actually 1.something). So, even if you double that number to account for those who could have cycled off of it in time for the non-random test they took, that's still only about 50 players total. The huge numbers being thrown around are Canseco/Caminiti-type numbers that date back 5-15 years ago. That is clearly not the case now.

2. To the extent there is a problem with undetectable steroids, baseball needs to do a better job of making Congress, the media, and everyone understand that this not a baseball-only issue. If there are drugs for which no test has been developed to detect its presence, they can be in football, track and field, etc., just as easily as in baseball, and baseball shouldn't bear the brunt of the criticism in that regard.

In my mind, if steroids were really such a huge thing in the 80's as Canseco says, and the HR totals didn't really explode until the mid-90's, I tend to believe that steroids was only part of the reason, along with a juiced ball and small parks. If that many players were using in the 80's/early 90's, we wouldn't have seen Fred McGriff-types leading the league with 35-38 HRs nearly every year.

On a separate but related note, one guy I thought of who hasn't gotten, to my knowledge, even a hint of "maybe he was on steroids" is Matt Williams. Remember, he could have been McGwire in 1994 had the strike not happened. And he had a slew of injuries late in his career that kept him from putting together some huge numbers (and he was in the Bay area...). I know he's one of those guys considered a gentleman of baseball, so perhaps there's too much respect from the media to openly throw his name out. Still, he's one of those you gotta wonder about during that period...if things were really that bad pre-strike.

[Blackadar]

1. I think the 50% has always been assumed to be the "at its peak" number. Probably the more interesting stat is when baseball started testing minor leaguers about 3 years ago. The first year - 10% of the players were using. And they're not even testing for all 'roids.

2. Of course, steriods got better over that time frame too. So they're much better designed than they once were. But I agree...there are a lot of other factors at work here to increase the homer totals.

3. Most people forgot about Matt Williams because he hit 40 homers only once in his career. What a year he was having in '94 before the strike. 43 homers in 112 games - on pace for 62 (assuming 162 games). Even if he was dosing, it's be a non-story because he's not nearly as famous like Mac, Barry and Sosa.

[Ksyrup]

Yes and no. A lot of people are going back and trying to figure out who was on what back then. Even the lesser names. One name that comes up again and again is Brian Downing, who (as I now recall with a little bit of wonder) was "ripped" before I can recall anyone being ripped in baseball.

[gstelmack]

Baseball has sucked for so long, this is just another nail in the coffin for me. I might watch a few playoff games and check the standings occasionally, but that's about it.

[KWhit]

Baseball is extremely tarnished right now in my eyes. The game is so different now than it has ever been before and I don't like the way the game is played now. I much prefer the Ichiro style of baseball to the Big Mac style of ball.

I intentionally said the Big Mac style as opposed to the Bonds style, because the way opposing managers treat Barry is ridiculous. Pitch to him! Putting him on base so often does much more harm than letting him get a HR every now and then!

But I digress. I like the stolen base. I like the hit and run, sac bunt, suicide squeeze, taking an extra base, etc. All of these have been devalued because of the prevalence of the HR.

Many argue that steroids aren't the only reason for all the HRs. That may be true, but it's definitely part of the problem and I think it has changed the game for the worse.

And those "Chicks dig the long ball" commercials really pissed me off too. :)

[Ksyrup]

KWhit, if you take steroids and the long ball out of the equation, isn't the OPS/Billy Beane theory still a reason for you to hate baseball? It's basically like a league full of Earl Weaver's - wait for the 3-run HR, despise the SB, etc. Sabermetrics is still killing the style of baseball you love, regardless of how many HRs are being hit. I don't think that is entirely the fault of steroids and the prevalence of HRs.

[panerd]

its been more tarnished by the people who keep banging on about it all the time.

Bingo. I remember a few months ago somebody at work asked me my opinion on the Scott Peterson mistress and I said I had no idea who they were talking about. (I had heard of Peterson, just not the mistress) They wanted to know how I could not be following the case and I just said you don't have to follow everything the media thinks is important.

I look at this issue the same way. I was very suspicious years ago about steriods and knew long before Canseco's book that it was prevalent in baseball. I didn't need McGwire's testimony to confirm that stars were actually jucied during baseball's run. Now the Vince McMahon steriods scandal, that one shocked me!

[Arles]

1. Really, at this point, no one should be claiming that anywhere near 50%, or maybe even 10%, are using steroids. The testing that was done last year confirmed that only a handful of players were stupid enough to get caught. I did the math in another thread, but it comes out to about 25 players having tested positively last year, when all 40-man rosters were required to be tested (that's taking 2%, and I think the number was actually 1.something). So, even if you double that number to account for those who could have cycled off of it in time for the non-random test they took, that's still only about 50 players total. The huge numbers being thrown around are Canseco/Caminiti-type numbers that date back 5-15 years ago. That is clearly not the case now.
I agree with this. My comment was more in reference to how some fans feel. I would bet if you polled most casual fans they would think around 40-50% of baseball players have been juicing giving the coverage steroids has been getting.

2. To the extent there is a problem with undetectable steroids, baseball needs to do a better job of making Congress, the media, and everyone understand that this not a baseball-only issue. If there are drugs for which no test has been developed to detect its presence, they can be in football, track and field, etc., just as easily as in baseball, and baseball shouldn't bear the brunt of the criticism in that regard.
Baseball, IMO, has always been significantly worse than the NFL and NBA at marketing the game and spinning negative stories. The fact that they've failed again on this front is not surprising. Just another reason for a more independent commish (a la Stern in the NBA) that will worry more about the game.

In my mind, if steroids were really such a huge thing in the 80's as Canseco says, and the HR totals didn't really explode until the mid-90's, I tend to believe that steroids was only part of the reason, along with a juiced ball and small parks. If that many players were using in the 80's/early 90's, we wouldn't have seen Fred McGriff-types leading the league with 35-38 HRs nearly every year.
I made this point a while back as well. If you believe Canseco and the FBI records involving McGwire and others (the closest thing to "hard evidence" we have), you would say that steroid use started to pick up around 1990. Yet, the big kick in HR totals came from 96-01, before sliding back in 02 and 03. So, if this was steroid based, you would have to assume that players didn't know how to properly use steroids from 90-95, then figured it out from 96-01 before forgetting again in 02 :p

Of course, a more plausible reason to me is the change of the strikezone. After the strike, there was an effort made to shrink the strikezone and get fans back (around 96-01). In the NL, HR's per game increased from 0.98 in 1995 to 1.15 in 2001. In 2002, the league (after seeing cartoonish HR numbers) decided to direct umpires to once again call the high strike and increase the overall zone. Amazingly, 2002 saw the HRs per game in the NL decrease from 1.15 to 1.01.

On a separate but related note, one guy I thought of who hasn't gotten, to my knowledge, even a hint of "maybe he was on steroids" is Matt Williams.
I could see that. Honestly, I don't think I can really be "surprised" by any player from the 90s using steroids. Although, I would be hesitant to assign a big season solely to steroids. There were so many other factors in the mid to late 90s that has large effects across the board (expansion, Colorado park, bringing in the fences, strike zone, ball density, switch in hitting philosophy,...)

Most people forgot about Matt Williams because he hit 40 homers only once in his career. What a year he was having in '94 before the strike. 43 homers in 112 games - on pace for 62 (assuming 162 games). Even if he was dosing, it's be a non-story because he's not nearly as famous like Mac, Barry and Sosa.
This is another great point. If people looked far enough, I would think everyone from Brett Boone to Luis Gonzalez to Matt Williams to Tony Batista could be implicated in using steroids. I just don't see what any of this gains us, other than making for some interesting (albeit a little tired) copy. The NFL could have done the same in the late 70s and early 80s with regards to steroid use but instead put it's efforts into solving the problem with an aggressive policy. IMO, baseball could take a lot of the pressure off its stars of the 90s if it simply admitted there could have been widespread use and setup an aggressive (borderline draconian) policy to deal with it. That would take the air out of a lot of these witch hunts. But, instead, Selig seems to spend more time telling us how no one used steroids and how it has never been widespread. :rolleyes:

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Baseball has sucked for so long, this is just another nail in the coffin for me. I might watch a few playoff games and check the standings occasionally, but that's about it.

ditto.. It's hard to sink lower at this point.

[Bubba Wheels]

Baseball will take it in stride like they have everything else over their history. There will become kind of an unofficial 'asterisk' for the years right after the strike of 1994 through 2004 and some designation like juiced player/juiced ball era. The greater scrutiny given steroid use today will put some balance back into the game (which will actually enhance it in the long run) and make the little band-box stadiums now being built seem a bit more "realistic' to the game.

Barry Bonds did everyone including baseball a big favor by getting lost. I think he's done for good. Not only does he save baseball the embarrassment of breaking the home run total record, he also single-handedly eliminated the most disliked personality in baseball. Quite a two-fer to accomplish just when baseball needs it most.

[moriarty]

Baseball has sucked for so long, this is just another nail in the coffin for me. I might watch a few playoff games and check the standings occasionally, but that's about it.

Pretty much the way I feel. It's sad when you've moved on to soccer as a more 'exiting' sport. The games just seem to drag on nowadays, with the pitchers taking forever, and all the situational pitching changes (and delays) in the later innings.

Regarding steroids, it sort of just reinforces my general perceptions that the people running the league (on both the players and owners side) are patheticaly inept. Other than that, it's just another black eye. Don't think it kills the game for me completely though, just basically kills my perception of a lot of the players who were home run stars in the 90's.

Maybe the new team in DC will rekindle my interest.

[Bad-example]

Barry Bonds did everyone including baseball a big favor by getting lost. I think he's done for good. Not only does he save baseball the embarrassment of breaking the home run total record, he also single-handedly eliminated the most disliked personality in baseball. Quite a two-fer to accomplish just when baseball needs it most.


Not for the first time, I find myself wondering what color the sky is in your world. Of course Bonds will play again this season.

[Ksyrup]

This is from Jayson Stark's newest column:

According to baseball's own figures, there were eight times more positive steroid tests (96) in 2003 than there were last year (12). Even if you doubt those numbers, most everyone still agrees that steroid use dropped dramatically.


I was guesstimating 24-25 based on2% of the 30-man rosters. Looks like it was half of that.

[Ksyrup]

Another interesting comment, this from Steve Hirdt at Elias:


"And even if you totally remove steroids from the game, everyone isn't going to shrink back to pre-Brian Downing levels. There will still be a musculature on players that you didn't see 20 years ago."

[VPI97]

Baseball as a whole? Not at all. Since steroids weren't banned in baseball, I think the use of them was fair game...my only disappointment is that more Reds didn't juice. Maybe we'd have been back to the playoffs if we had more players willing to go the chemical route.

[Bubba Wheels]

Not for the first time, I find myself wondering what color the sky is in your world. Of course Bonds will play again this season.

Well, being near Lansing, MI with the second greatest amount of cloud cover per year after Tacoma, Wash., chances are your skies are a little bluer out theres in LaLa land. Having said that, its not that I don't think Bonds will play again but seriously wonder if at 40yrs old with half a year off he can really come back in a meaningful way. Especially if they test for steroids now.

[Ksyrup]

Baseball as a whole? Not at all. Since steroids weren't banned in baseball, I think the use of them was fair game...my only disappointment is that more Reds didn't juice. Maybe we'd have been back to the playoffs if we had more players willing to go the chemical route.
...or at least held on to Bret Boone. :)