Did the steroid era ruin the 50 home run mark?

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Did the steroid era ruin the 50 home run mark?

It's still pretty damn impressive just to hit a 3-inch ball going 100 mph with a bat that's only 3 inches thick. Then you bring in the fact that you get lucky enough to meet those parameters with enough power to send that ball 400 feet in the opposite direction. THEN you happen to do it 50 times.

So no, steroids didn't ruin the 50 home run mark. Because steroids or not, it's still really damn hard.

Well your post came across in a kinda condescending way but all good. What I'm saying is (and I don't know how old you are) that 50 home runs seemed A LOT more difficult to reach pre-1993 or so. Then all of a sudden 20 guys did it in like a 15 year span, or so it seemed (I don't have exact numbers).

The thread just seems like a sneaky way of expressing an opinion on steroids.

My answer to the question is not only "no" but "of course not". Brady Anderson hit 50+ before steroids became a big deal to the masses. People looked at it as more of a joke even when he did it, and blamed it on steroids and didn't blink an eye. Anderson is actually a great trainer for hitters and pitchers to this day and was a damn good player, but he will never be known as one of the 50 HR guys... that didn't change when the reports came out, it was always like that.

Also, I believe it was Rawlings that began making the balls wound tighter. Whether it was a conscious effort to make them go farther or not, it was clear that was a result... and that was talked about widely, along with new, smaller ball parks, before anyone cared about steroids.

As for steroids themselves, players have been taking PEDs since the beginning of time. They've just gotten better, and I'm not just talking about steroids or HGH. Approved substances are also much better than back in the day, along with training, practice facilities, etc, etc. Evolution may have tainted the 50 home run mark... singling out steroids wouldn't be fair.

Wow. Shock and awe after reading that, really. There are so many things wrong with the post above I don't have the time or the energy to list them. ESPECIALLY the paranoid accusation to start things off (if someone wanted to start a thread about steroids, why wouldn't they just do exactly that?) But I digress.

By the way, is it just me or does someone else think this post is just a sneaky way to stick up for Brady Anderson?

I really don't know what this is or what is going on here, but I didn't see any condescencion in the first post, nor did I read any "paranoia" in the later posts that you reacted so strongly to. I don't see the point in asking for opinions on a topic you created only to go off-the-wall aggressive with how you respond to them.

[BlueJayPower]

Re: Did the steroid era ruin the 50 home run mark?

Context? You accused me of "sneakily" making a thread to give my opinion on steroids. It's in your first sentence!

I see nowhere in any of your previous posts where you called Brady Anderson out on steroid use. Instead you went on to call him a great player. So I don't get it. Was it implied? It's hard I tell.

I'll gladly continue discussing the topic if you can manage to stay away from making unfounded accusations and stick to facts. Thanks

[BlueJayPower]

Re: Did the steroid era ruin the 50 home run mark?

I really don't know what this is or what is going on here, but I didn't see any condescencion in the first post, nor did I read any "paranoia" in the later posts that you reacted so strongly to. I don't see the point in asking for opinions on a topic you created only to go off-the-wall aggressive with how you respond to them.

Off the wall aggressive? Come on bud. Let's reel it in a bit here huh?

[TripleCrown9]

Re: Did the steroid era ruin the 50 home run mark?

Now you're being pretty condescending. I changed my mind about reporting it, and you already edited it, but there is absolutely NO reason to call people stupid. You asked a question, and of the 6 people that answered you've insulted half of them.

[BlueJayPower]

Re: Did the steroid era ruin the 50 home run mark?

Now you're being pretty condescending. I changed my mind about reporting it, and you already edited it, but there is absolutely NO reason to call people stupid. You asked a question, and of the 6 people that answered you've insulted half of them.

Condescending? Insulted people? Where??? The pack mentality around here is obvious. It's ok to stand out.

[TripleCrown9]

Re: Did the steroid era ruin the 50 home run mark?

Without a doubt it was ruined, but it has returned. A 40 HR season is impressive once again.

Anyone who claims "well, pitchers were using as well" does not take into account the fact that hitters are every day players, where as a pitcher has 5 days to rest. There is far greater incentive for every day players to use PEDs for recovery than there is for a guy who plays once a week. Did pitchers use? Of course, we know of several, but there is no doubt in my mind that the scales of every day players using vs. pitchers was fairly unbalanced during the steroid era.

And saying "well, it's still hard to hit a ball going 95" is absolutely meaningless in this discussion. Not sure why anyone brings this argument up.

Why is it meaningless? If it was easy, more people would do it.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Did the steroid era ruin the 50 home run mark?

Condescending? Insulted people? Where??? The pack mentality around here is obvious. It's ok to stand out.

I'd rather not stand out in the way that you have been standing out, thanks.

On topic...I actually agree with what Jr. said. I think the fact that hitting 50 homers has become so rare once again has elevated the accomplishment back up to nearly where it was before. I also agree with the poster who says it's not an easy thing to do, but I am glad there aren't several guys doing it each year. I remember when 30 HRs used to mean a star hitter--and it looks like we're headed back there after a 20-year detour.

[BlueJayPower]

Re: Did the steroid era ruin the 50 home run mark?

I'd rather not stand out in the way that you have been standing out, thanks.

On topic...I actually agree with what Jr. said. I think the fact that hitting 50 homers has become so rare once again has elevated the accomplishment back up to nearly where it was before. I also agree with the poster who says it's not an easy thing to do, but I am glad there aren't several guys doing it each year. I remember when 30 HRs used to mean a star hitter--and it looks like we're headed back there after a 20-year detour.

No worries! Thanks for replying to a message that was sent to someone else.

You've had beef with me just because I proved you wrong in a previous thread. It's ok to let things go.

I don't think people are understanding the question here. Well a couple guys did but one of them deleted his response. I wonder why .

[canes21]

Re: Did the steroid era ruin the 50 home run mark?

No it did not. If anyone hits 50 HR's again with the current trend in baseball, I will be in complete awe of their accomplishment. Like Matrix said, the 40 mark is really impressive too.

*Please do not take this post in any condescending, paranoid, out of context way.*

By the way

Spoiler

I think everyone here has understood your question quite clearly, you're just being a bit "strange" in the way you are replying.

[CBoller1331]

Re: Did the steroid era ruin the 50 home run mark?

I'm kinda afraid to post here cause I might get viciously attacked for my opinion (calm down I'm joking, it's kinda fun to read people angry w/ each other!). But I don't think that steroids 'ruined' the 50 HR mark. I'd say it made it less impressive for a while, but now that the steroid era is over (is it?.?.?.?.) I think 50 HRs is very impressive

[BlueJayPower]

Re: Did the steroid era ruin the 50 home run mark?

No it did not. If anyone hits 50 HR's again with the current trend in baseball, I will be in complete awe of their accomplishment. Like Matrix said, the 40 mark is really impressive too.

*Please do not take this post in any condescending, paranoid, out of context way.*

By the way

Spoiler

I think everyone here has understood your question quite clearly, you're just being a bit "strange" in the way you are replying.

Actually I'm not replying "strange" at all; why that's in quotes is another question altogether. This thread went downhill when I was accused of creating it as a "sneaky way to give my opinion on steroids". I stuck up for myself against that accusation. Then another guy who already had some prior beef with me came here to chime in, and then the typical sheep following the herd thing occurred.

Regardless, I think I make a fair point. 90% of posters here are misconstruing the topic completely. It's not about how difficult hitting a home run is. The point is does hitting 50 garner the same reaction. From media coverage alone I think we generally don't.

When Griffey and McGwire were chasing 60 in 1997 and ended up with 56 and 58 respectively, it got way more attention than when Howard hit 58 or when Bautista hit 54. Heck, the chase for 50 in 1990 got way more hype if I remember correctly.

I think this is an age thing. Seems like everyone's too young to remember pre-steroid era. Anyway, I don't like what the era did to the milestone (or 40 and 30 either for that matter, not to mention 400, 500 and 600 career HRs). Guys like Griffey, Vlad Guerrero, Jim Thome to name a few really get under appreciated for their accomplishments.

[Jr.]

Re: Did the steroid era ruin the 50 home run mark?

If you're talking about media coverage and attention, I agree that the 50 HR season has been tainted to some degree. I hate the fact that steroids comes into the discussion whenever someone approaches those power numbers, but I understand it. I think the media is hesitant to build up someone because of the steroid era.

I don't agree with the thought that Griffey is under appreciated.. maybe Thome and Vlad to the common fan. But Griffey is widely considered a sure-fire 1st ballot HOFer and one of the 20 greatest position players of all-time. If anything, I think the steroid era made him even more appreciated because his name has managed to stay clean.

[canes21]

Re: Did the steroid era ruin the 50 home run mark?

Actually I'm not replying "strange" at all; why that's in quotes is another question altogether. This thread went downhill when I was accused of creating it as a "sneaky way to give my opinion on steroids". I stuck up for myself against that accusation. Then another guy who already had some prior beef with me came here to chime in, and then the typical sheep following the herd thing occurred.

Regardless, I think I make a fair point. 90% of posters here are misconstruing the topic completely. It's not about how difficult hitting a home run is. The point is does hitting 50 garner the same reaction. From media coverage alone I think we generally don't.

When Griffey and McGwire were chasing 60 in 1997 and ended up with 56 and 58 respectively, it got way more attention than when Howard hit 58 or when Bautista hit 54. Heck, the chase for 50 in 1990 got way more hype if I remember correctly.

I think this is an age thing. Seems like everyone's too young to remember pre-steroid era. Anyway, I don't like what the era did to the milestone (or 40 and 30 either for that matter, not to mention 400, 500 and 600 career HRs). Guys like Griffey, Vlad Guerrero, Jim Thome to name a few really get under appreciated for their accomplishments.

You're just getting super defensive. To be on topic though, I don't know where you were when Bautista go 54, but the media was absolutely going crazy about it. I don't know if anything else was ever talked about in sports media when baseball was the topic then. I remember it very clearly.

Everyone in here has practically come in here and said no, we all agree that it is still a huge accomplishment in our eyes and the media's. Stop acting like we're destroying the thread.

[kehlis]

Re: Did the steroid era ruin the 50 home run mark?

I'm going to close this now that the OP is no longer with us and it doesn't seem like a discussion that anyone else is in disagreement with.