Baseball’s Steroid Era Was No Surprise, So Hall of Fame Voters Should Accept It
David Ezra, an attorney with the California-based firm Bergen Kahn, is a uthor of Asterisk: Home Runs, Steroids, and the Rush to Judgment.
Playoffs, 1988—A's and Red Sox at Fenway. The Boston faithful started chanting. "Steroids! Steroids!" A playful Jose Canseco flexed a bicep for the crowd. They cheered.
We knew about steroids all along. In 1995, then San Diego Padres General Manager Randy Smith was widely quoted as estimating steroid use among 10 to 20 percent of major league players.
We knew. And we had no problem with it. Sammy Sosa; Mark McGwire; 1998; THE BEST SEASON EVER! When McGwire was "caught" using "Andro" as he chased Roger Maris, the same media that now wants suspected steroid users inducted to prison defended him. After all, how could we criticize McGwire for trying to be healthier and stronger?
We knew about steroids. But we also knew modern players had discovered a fundamental truth prior generations never knew—lifting weights (with or without steroids) makes you stronger, and it doesn't ruin your swing or your arm. Back then, we seemed to realize steroids couldn't help players refine their batting eye or hit Randy Johnson's slider.
As soon as 37-year-old Carlton Fisk bought a Nautilus machine and changed his diet, then went out and hit 37 home runs in 1985 (11 more than he ever hit in his "prime"), Maris's record was doomed. Born bigger and faster, modern players were avoiding alcohol and tobacco, watching their diets, and hiring strength coaches. Of course they were going to break records. Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Jim Rice—they never lifted weights. Barry Bonds trained four hours a day in a sweaty weight room and we're shocked when he hits a lot of home runs. Please!
Like it or not, baseball changes. Smaller strike zones, livelier baseballs, smaller stadiums, harder and lighter maple bats, "body armor" allowing hitters to fearlessly attack the ball, and so on. That's why stat guru Bill James has said steroids may have had minimal impact on home run totals.
Let's face it: When baseball's hierarchy wants offense, offense happens. It requires only minor tinkering. Look at 1930. With the stock market crash heralding the Great Depression, a shot in the arm might boost attendance. Presto! A tighter baseball with less prominent seams went farther when hit and was less apt to curve when pitched. The entire National League hit an astounding .303. Hack Wilson of the Cubs, standing all of 5-foot-6, hit 56 home runs and drove in an unbelievable 191 runs. Ten players had averages above .366, and countless hitters had career years (including Chuck Klein, .386, 40 HR, 170 RBI, and Al Simmons, .381, 36 HR, 165 RBI).
Baseball had to tone it down. Home runs dropped from 1,565 in 1930 to just 1,088 in 1931, a whopping 30 percent decline. There were no steroids to blame for 1930s excess; no steroid testing or perjury trials to blame for 1931's precipitous decline. Despite the absurdity of the numbers, we would never argue for wiping 1930 out of the record books or removing Wilson, Klein, or Simmons from Cooperstown.
After the 1994 strike, baseball wanted offense. We got the home runs we wanted. But today, the media elite and some vocal bashers say they hate it. Taking oversimplification to new heights, they blame steroids for everything. A pitcher has a good year; must be HGH. An infielder hits 35 home runs; must be steroids. They believe in magic potions that turn Clark Kent into Superman.
For every alleged steroid user who thrived, another was awful. They say Randy Velarde took "the Clear" in 2002. Velarde was no Bonds. He hit .226 with two home runs and 32 strikeouts in 133 at bats. We're told that Jason and Jeremy Giambi were both BALCO steroid/HGH users in 2003. Jason hit 41 home runs. Jeremy, the younger brother, hit a pathetic .197 with five home runs, and one strikeout every three at-bats. Jose Canseco hit 462 home runs. His twin brother Ozzie hit zero home runs. Maybe that's why the Mitchell Report quietly revealed that "studies have shown that [HGH] does not increase muscle strength in healthy subjects or well trained athletes."
- 1
- 2
- Next Page >
Reader Comments
Important Omissions in the Article
The writer will have you believe that "we knew, and we had no problem with it", but this is simply false. We did have a problem with it. If we had no problem with it we wouldn't have rules set for Olympic events which forbid athletes to take a litany of drugs which are deemed performance enhancing. Babe Ruth's drinking and hitting or a pitcher wiping grease on a ball is the stuff of legends, because they add color and describe eras and personalities. Allowing the rampant use of a drug which adds 10 better years to an elite's player's already noteworthy career when he should be in his decline skews records and discredits the game significantly. It is simply a false representation of a player's natural, "God-given" abilities and merely a testament to how.
The writer and his supporters will have you believe that this is comparable to one season in the majors when the ball was given more bounce and less curve. The league has always been tinkering with the equipment to provide spectators with an evolving game as the players evolve. Changes to the game by the league have always been in favor of going against trends being displayed by offense or the defense. Too many hits, expand the strike zone. Too few? Change the ball, shrink the zone. But to suggest that these changes are equivalent to 20% of your entire league changing his entire genetic makeup to produce better numbers, and shatter records? It is a fallacy of logic.
The last major contention of this writer is to have you believe that the steroids did not modify performance on the mere contention that some athletes' statistics were not enhanced at all by their taking of HGH's. Two of his examples are brothers of all-stars, who received chances in the majors merely because of the name of the sibling. Who is to say that they had any talent for the majors whatsoever without using steroids to begin with? His example of Randy Velarde taking "the clear" in 2002 is ridiculous, given that Randy was 39 years old and playing in his final season. That being said, Velarde still managed to increase his statistics across the board from his previous miserable season when all he could muster was 15 games played. There are a number of factors which can be parlayed from the use of enhancers, such as concentration, muscle stamina, injury recovery, power and speed.
The suggestion that steroids, or HGH does not increase an athletes ability to produce bigger numbers than they are otherwise capable of is not only deceiving, but laughable. The concept that these players are equivalent to old-school mentality players whose worst crime is behaving badly a night before game-time and playing drunk, which is not exactly a performance enhancing drug, is ridiculous Further still, the notion that those who are arguing against the inclusion of these players in baseball's eternal shrine are doing so from the platitude of being judgmental or overly moral are missing the point. The game must be measured equally.
Extraordinary Players
A. Lee,
If the Hall of Fame is reserved for players who can match Babe Ruth, it'd be virtually empty. And if you don't think Bonds was an extraordinary, hall-of-fame-worthy player for a good 10 years BEFORE touching performance enhancing drugs, you don't know baseball.
The author has it right. In the 1990s we fans were willfully ignorant and happy. Now we're embarrassed by our earlier enthusiasm, and so we're ready to crucify any player involved.
Excellent article, David. (I'll have to read your book.)
hall of ---
when it gets right down to it , who gives a #$%@ . Most pro athletes are spoilt talented overpaid brats who never "worked " a day in their lives for anything . There is enough money spent on pro sports in one weekend (plus beer) to solve some of the real issues on the planet , but all we want to do is play or watch the play, while kids work in the sneaker shops 16 hrs and 7 days a week or get bombed tortured starved to death . Who really cares about the pro athletes and their fans? The other half isn't listening
advertisement
