Murderers, rapists and other criminals bring embarrassment to themselves, not their sport. Historically, racism has existed in organizations (including sports) during times when it was, frankly, not considered that big a deal. So in retrospect, yes racism in sports is very embarrassing.
Steroid use, if you remember, besides bringing “record ratings,” forced some of the game’s biggest stars to give embarrassing testimony in front of Congress. The effects greatly damaged the integrity of the game for a lot of fans and non-fans.
The nfl seems to think off the field antics are a pretty big black eye upon their sport. Personally I’d much rather root for steroid users than say wife beaters, but the latter tends to get little attention. Certainly there are plenty of other bigger concerns in the history of sports than players getting a little extra help. Unless you rather your favorite player hire a hitman to stab an opponent.
I’d say those hearings were more embarrassing for congress than for baseball.
Because they thought they might help. Same reason players took greenies, or take up yoga, or wear lucky socks. Doesn’t mean they actually helped all that much. Athletes will make countless sacrifices to their bodies to be the best player they can be. I would suspect taking steroids wouldn’t be near the top of the list.
[QUOTE=Barkis is Willin’]
If steroid use had such a minimal effect, why did Bonds and others use them?
[/QUOTE]
Wade Boggs would only eat chicken for dinner during the season, but eating chicken doesn’t make you a .330 hitter. I’ve tried.
I don’t think we will ever, or can ever, know for sure the true effect of steroids. My suspicion is that the effects of steroids are a bell curve; it helps most people a little, helps a few people a lot, and hurts a few people a lot. I think it’s entirely plausible that it had a lot to do with Mark McGwire’s success, as heis career really was in danger of ending due to injury and the steroids might have been what gave him a new lease on life; same with Bonds, whose amazing performance late in his career is just so weird. But the list of marginal players who used roids and remained marginal players is pretty long.
Then you shoudn’t have claimed it was proven to a legal standard. If you think Speaker and Cobb fixed a game, say so. Don’t say it’s been “proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” because it has not.
I think you’re right, RickJay, when you say that it probably didn’t do much for most guys.
The effect on McGwire with regards to injuries is a little shaky for me, because during what would presumably be the time he was doing them to start (the Bash Brothers era with Canseco), he was playing 150+ games a year. It wasn’t until Canseco left Oakland that he started breaking down so badly.
I’m willing to entertain the idea that he was cycling on and off during his last few years in Oakland trying to get healthy, but it almost looks to me like once Canseco left, he got off them and started falling apart (27 games in 1993, right after Canseco leaves, 47 the next year.) Probably didn’t start back until he got to St. Louis (and it kills me to say that) and then goes on the 70 HR tear the next season.
Regarding steroids and their statistical effect on baseball, you all may find the following site interesting: http://steroids-and-baseball.com/ I am not wholly convinced by his arguments—I think, but can’t show, that steroids had a greater effect on power than he does—but I think he makes some interesting points. Elsewhere on the site is an article about the power and runs/game increase in 1993, where he pretty much blames the increase on a juiced ball.
In addition to anabolic steroids, I wonder how much the increased longevity of elite players is due these days to HgH and its equivalents? It’s one thing to have amazing peak performance in one’s traditional prime, but another entirely to have it at age 42. (Roger Clemens’s 2005 season with a 1.87 ERA, 226 ERA+, a 6.4 H/9, WHIP 1.008, etc…) Is it a good thing for stars to be able to play longer at the same high level than they otherwise would be able to?
The answer is an obvious yes right? I mean, all else being equal, we want to be able to watch stars for as long as we can. The problem with steroids isn’t that they enhance performance, but rather that they are dangerous, and we don’t want to force people to use them to keep up. Noticeably absent from the steroids discussion is talk about what the actual dangers are. Outside of Ken Caminiti, there haven’t really been any retired players who have come out and talked about subsequent health problems. Now it is possible the health effects will occur later, or are just not talked about, but it certainly appears that the risks might be overblown. If players could take steroids under doctor’s supervision, without much additional risk to their system, why wouldn’t we want that?
It would be convenient if this was the case. It would let us pin his success purely on steroids and his failures on lack on them. I doubt reality is anywhere as neat. I bet he had success and failure while taking steroids, and success and failure without. You simply can’t look at a players numbers and pick when they were juicing. There is no evidence to support it, and a significant amount going the other way.
My theory on steroids is that just popping some pills had little effect. The guys who got a lot out of it were the ones who were obsessively competitive like Arod, Clemens, and Bonds. The main thing steroids did was allow players to recover
faster. This is one of the reasons that steroid users being rewarded doesn’t really bother me. Bonds didn’t become one of the greatest player ever because he took some pills. He became that player by working harder than humans naturally can work.
I’m one of those folks that thinks that you either are a HOF’er or not. So, there would be one chance. The induction wouldn’t be limited to any number, so if there were 14 people that were worthy one year, so be it. But if there aren’t, then off the ballot they go.
Two marginals that might get the votes
Lee Smith
Bernie Williams
I actually think the best position player on that list not in the hall is Tim Raines, and he’s not even sniffing the vote total. His numbers are pretty good. 2600 hits, 808 steals.
I’m surprised Larkin’s numbers aren’t higher, considering he played for 19 years and I always thought he was a better hitter.
I wonder if anyone will get in this year? I don’t understand those voters that don’t vote for someone one year and turn around and vote for them the next year.
Right. What’s wrong with drugs that make you heal faster & keep you younger longer? Now possibly the long term health risks are too large. Now. But would steroids still be the Great Evil if the risks could be minimized?