A great deal has been argued that people who set records by using steroids should be banned from the record books while players who used greenies do not deserve to be banned. The argument has mostly been that the effect of steroids is way stronger than greenies.
First of all, I would like to mention that the effect of steroids is just a bit overrated. Sure, Bonds and McGwire got huge, but how much of that can we attribute to spending 30 hours a day in the weight room, and how much to the juice?
But that is besides the point. The fact that steroids have a greater effect that greenies do is really irrelevant to me. You could say that cheating is cheating, but then you would have to declare probably half of major league ballplayers cheaters. As much as we would like to think of Roger Maris as "pure" and Barry Bonds is "dirty", the truth is, since baseball was invented, players have done whatever they could to get an edge, whether it be roids, greenies, spitballs, sandpaper ...
I think about some players who may have put pine tar on the barrel of the bat (George Brett, for instance.) I GUARANTEE you that Brett hit another home run at some point in his career with too much tar on his bat besides his famous homer against the Yankees. Should we watch all the tapes and discredit all of the homers that he hit with those technically illegal bats?
I am not saying that steroids are good or not a problem. I hope they are eradicated from baseball (the drugs, not the users). But to single out Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire is unfair. MLB did not have a concrete steroids policy during the 1990s, and who knows how many players took something (my bet is more than half of the home run sluggers, although I can't prove it.)
And what about pitchers using roids? Let's say Bonds struck out 200 times to juiced up pitchers. Assuming he normally hits a home run every 10 at bats, should he be credited with 20 extra homers? Of course not. The fact is, we will never be able to put all of the stats across baseball history on a level playing field- comparing the steroids era to the dead ball era is of course difficult. But that does not mean that you can just eliminate Bonds from the record books because he tooks steroids, or because he is a racist, or because he is a jerk. Those may be reasons not to like him, but not to illegitimize (is that a word?) his career.
You can argue over which accomplishment is more impressive, Maris' 61 or Bonds' 73, but I can't see the validity of erasing Bonds from the record books.
First of all, I would like to mention that the effect of steroids is just a bit overrated. Sure, Bonds and McGwire got huge, but how much of that can we attribute to spending 30 hours a day in the weight room, and how much to the juice?
But that is besides the point. The fact that steroids have a greater effect that greenies do is really irrelevant to me. You could say that cheating is cheating, but then you would have to declare probably half of major league ballplayers cheaters. As much as we would like to think of Roger Maris as "pure" and Barry Bonds is "dirty", the truth is, since baseball was invented, players have done whatever they could to get an edge, whether it be roids, greenies, spitballs, sandpaper ...
I think about some players who may have put pine tar on the barrel of the bat (George Brett, for instance.) I GUARANTEE you that Brett hit another home run at some point in his career with too much tar on his bat besides his famous homer against the Yankees. Should we watch all the tapes and discredit all of the homers that he hit with those technically illegal bats?
I am not saying that steroids are good or not a problem. I hope they are eradicated from baseball (the drugs, not the users). But to single out Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire is unfair. MLB did not have a concrete steroids policy during the 1990s, and who knows how many players took something (my bet is more than half of the home run sluggers, although I can't prove it.)
And what about pitchers using roids? Let's say Bonds struck out 200 times to juiced up pitchers. Assuming he normally hits a home run every 10 at bats, should he be credited with 20 extra homers? Of course not. The fact is, we will never be able to put all of the stats across baseball history on a level playing field- comparing the steroids era to the dead ball era is of course difficult. But that does not mean that you can just eliminate Bonds from the record books because he tooks steroids, or because he is a racist, or because he is a jerk. Those may be reasons not to like him, but not to illegitimize (is that a word?) his career.
You can argue over which accomplishment is more impressive, Maris' 61 or Bonds' 73, but I can't see the validity of erasing Bonds from the record books.
Comment