Greenies = Steroids = Pine Tar

[hiddengem]

So many rules have been stretched during baseball history, we would not even recognize a baseball record book if we saw a 100% "clean" version.

Absolutely. The game has NEVER been clean. Its just now you people know whats going on and before you had no clue and the players had you snowed. Just go back to being fans of the game enjoying us do what we do, like you did 20yrs ago when players were juicing up, taking greenies and whatever else they could.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Putting "no offense" in front of an insult to my intelligence is really not necessary- just go ahead and say it, I can handle it.

Yes, of course I realize that steroids help you to lift more, I was just saying that roids effects, in my opinion, are just slightly overrated.

I wasn't trying to insult you, just pointing something out.

You could bring up corked bats, but they do nothing for a HR hitter. Honestly , you'd have a better case with the pine tar on that one

[Pghfan987]

Anyway, the main point of my post, and perhaps it was missed or poorly stated, is that if you ban the juicers from the record books, you need to ban everyone who cheated at some point in their career on a basis of principle. Let's say that greenies caused Maris (hypothetically) to hit 10 more homers, and roids caused Bonds to hit 50 more homers. Can you really say that Bonds should be banned and Maris not simply because steroids effects were greater? (Again, this is a hypothetical, as it is not known whether Maris used them. There are some, however, that we know for sure used them).

So many rules have been stretched during baseball history, we would not even recognize a baseball record book if we saw a 100% "clean" version.

[Pghfan987]

No offense, but I stopped reading right here. You do realize that they're able to spend so much time in the weight room BECAUSE of steroids.

Putting "no offense" in front of an insult to my intelligence is really not necessary- just go ahead and say it, I can handle it.

Yes, of course I realize that steroids help you to lift more, I was just saying that roids effects, in my opinion, are just slightly overrated.

[Pghfan987]

I suppose I could use corked bats as an example. How many did Sosa hit with a corked bat? We'll never know.

I have always thought that pine tar gives a slight advantage. I don't know the physics behind it, but that's is what I always thought- am I wrong in that assumption?

Again, assuming there is a SLIGHT advantage in a bat with pine tar, then my argument is that arguing over the DEGREE of advantage is not really a good argument. If it pleases you, however, you can replace the pine tar example with a corked bat example. Or, you can go back and look at video of a suspect spitballer after it was made illegal and discredit all of those strikeouts. Certainly some practical problems arise.

Mark

[Sultan_1895-1948]

What type of enhancement does pine tar on a bat give a player? Seriously that rule, to my knowladge, is on the books because its an antiquated rule that was instituted to keep the balls clean. Bretts homerun was reinstated and the Royals won that game under protest. The Commisioner rewrote that rule to make it clear that the only recourse for the umpire was removal of the bat.

Bad example.

The theory is, that if you have pine tar on the barrel of a wood bat, that the ball will not slide at all when it hits. That instead of sliding for a split second, the ball hits the pine tar, and bounces directly off, producing a harder hit ball. Physics would tell us that this is bogus, because the actual time the ball spends on the bat, isn't enough for any "sliding" to occur.

Not sure why he brings up George Brett. The pine tar wasn't up high enough on the bat for it to matter. Where the pine tar was, if he hits the ball right there, it's gonna break. Don't see the point. It's a stupid rule. I think it came about because players used to rub tobacco juice on their bats for whatever reason. Maybe they thought it would give them an egde or maybe they just were just bored chewers. Who knows.

Pgh, there's no excuse for anyone to use steroids, but you really can't compare hitters and pitchers. Pitchers want to remain flexible and strong. The main advantage steroids give them is stamina and recovery time. Hitters can lift for days and become strong, which equates to better timing and reflexes at the plate. On top of this, the game is already stacked so steeply against pitchers, you just can't compare the two. The edge hitters get over pitchers is ten fold. Having said that, steroid use is steroid use, I'll agree there.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

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?

No offense, but I stopped reading right here. You do realize that they're able to spend so much time in the weight room BECAUSE of steroids.

[ESPNFan]

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?

What type of enhancement does pine tar on a bat give a player? Seriously that rule, to my knowladge, is on the books because its an antiquated rule that was instituted to keep the balls clean. Bretts homerun was reinstated and the Royals won that game under protest. The Commisioner rewrote that rule to make it clear that the only recourse for the umpire was removal of the bat.

Bad example.

[Pghfan987]

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.