Editor's note: An MSNBC.com column suggested, putting an asterisk on the home run totals of Mark McGwire et. al.
Since You Asked: Asterisking an Era
-----Original Message-----
From: David Larkins [mailto:dlarkins@steelersfan.org]
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 6:03 PM
To: Garasa, Julio: OPS
Subject: Re: Since you asked ...
While it would be foolish to argue legitimacy when talking about the home run record, undoubtedly there are legions of people who will go to their grave fighting the futile fight. I call those people San Francisco Giants fans.
But my feeling on this has always been that you can't just change one record and disregard everything else. If there's one thing we've learned from this debacle of steroids over the past few years it is that people are ignoring all the other juicers because they're so transfixed on the power numbers. Well, pitchers are arguably worse offenders and have slid under the radar. While we lay into McGwire and Palmeiro - and rightfully so - no one even raises a brow towards, say, Roger Clemens. This is a guy who, at 44, has made no only a living, but a dominant one at that, at doing something that is widely known as the most unnatural athletic motion the human body can perform. We talk about what the drugs did for Bonds - improving his ability to return from injury and allowing his body to regenerate strength through the vigors of a long season - but
somehow that same discussion is never brought up for pitchers, namely a guy like Clemens. So here's a guy who is performing at a high level years after what is considered peak for most pitchers, looking like he hasn't lost a stride all the while doing a job that requires you to do things the body isn't even meant to do and we don't think "hmm, how does
he do it?"
If you change one record - just because balls were flying further and more frequent - you have to change them all, because it isn't just home runs that have been affected by the steroid era.
— — —
From: "Garasa, Julio: OPS"
To:
Subject: Since you asked ...
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:55:00 -0400
You know, I remember questioning Clemens' prowess when he came out of retirement and then even more when he went deep into the season with a ridiculous 1.2 ERA and more shutout innings than he may have had his entire career. But I decided to not get too hasty in condemning him, for three main reasons. First, he was playing in the NL which, frankly,
does not have the hitters that strike the fear of God into you (save for Albert Pujols) that the AL has. Sad but true.
Second, he's not an anomaly. He's rare as an over-40 pitcher that still completely dominates his craft. But he's not unique. Nolan Ryan is an obvious example of a fireballer that no one dares suggests took anything untoward to further his career. I'm sure he stocked up on pain medications and a few of the legal uppers and whatnot, but HGH or high-end Stanazolol? Doubtful. So benefit of the doubt has to be given here, unlike with Bonds or McGwire who were doing things completely out
of this world and not commensurate with their obvious natural abilities.
The changes were too drastic. McGwire was always a good hitter and his 49 HRs in his rookie season were the most until the mid-90s (the 'juiced age'?) when he went off the charts. Same goes with Bonds. Always a good hitter but had never hit more than 50 until late in his career when, normally, power and speed decline at the plate. Then he goes off and hits 73? Please. At least with Clemens and Ryan (or even Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux for that matter) their careers demonstrated their mastery of their position. And being able to continue at such a high level and at their age is not too hard to grasp precisely because they are the rare cases. I understand the counterargument that McGwire or Bonds are equally rare cases but a hitter is in a different framework than a pitcher. Pitchers can continue their careers by adjusting so as to save their arms. Randy Johnson has learned only this season that he can no longer over power hitters and is learning how to actually pitch.
Maddux and Glavine never were power pitchers but even they could occasionally call on a fast ball. Today? Not so much. Even Clemens has had to rely much more on sinkers and curves more so than the fastball. He's even fallen in love with his split-fingered fastball that has more movement than speed.
Thirdly, don't get me wrong. I agree that today there are undoubtedly a lot more chemicals going around to try to squeeze out every possible year from your body to stay at the major league level. But let's face it, it still takes an enormous amount of talent to continue to dominate - or at least to be effective -. For every Roger Clemens (and I'm not suggesting he's doing/taking anything illegal or banned) you have about 1000 Jason Grimsley's who HAVE taken banned stuff and who are STILL
average at best. Consider this: I ran a marathon in 3:07 just two years ago. You could make my diet nothing but EPO and I still wouldn't come close to winning any of the major (or minor) marathons. Natural ability still plays a dominant role. That doesn't mean it's condoned. It just means that those players who are, effectively, doing more harm than good
to their bodies are postponing the inevitable and extending average careers even longer.
As for the asterisking of the era, I still don't mind it. The records can stay on the books (just like Roger Maris' 61 was always on the books) but the asterisk is there to remind us that something was amiss those years and should be looked at in that context.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Larkins
Sent: Saturday, September 2, 2006 5:18 PM
To: Garasa, Julio: OPS
Subject: RE: Since you asked ...
I think to me the bottom line in this particular argument is that we're so consumed with the pop in bats as if that's the only thing to be viewed in this discussion of steroids. But because that's not the reality whatsoever, it then becomes misguided to start asterisk-ing what are in fact random stats. Yes, the home runs are the power figure but every other aspect of the game is affected by rampant steroid use.
If we're asterisk-ing one thing, we have to asterisk everything else. And doing it to an entire era is illogical because anything that is fair - and who's really to say what is - is also encompassed in that.
In short, it's much too simplistic to just say "give it an asterisk". It misses every point.
— — —
From: "Garasa, Julio: OPS"
To:
Subject: Since you asked ...
Date: Mon, 9 Sept. 2006 —0900
All very good points. I suppose that's the nature of the steroid beast: it's about power, and HRs are the sexiest demonstration of that. If pitchers all of sudden started consistently throwing in the 100s (not just the random few pitches), then you'd have incontrovertible proof on the non-hitting side of the game. But it doesn't work that way. Such things as better speed or stronger arms (either outfield or infield) don't really have records that would question their legitimacy
(exception: SBs. But when I think of speed I'm not thinking blazing base stealing speed a la Carl Crawford or Joey Gathright but more so becoming the first 50/50 man or shagging balls in the outfield that 2-3 years previous would have harmlessly passed you by.). Asterisking the era is not about taking all manners of records or accomplishments off the books. Rather, it serves as a reminder that there were widespread - and questionable - circumstances that need to be accounted for. It's
akin to acknowledging the 'dead ball' era or the 'live ball' era or when parks were downsized making 400' the exception rather than the shortest part of the park. Ruth and Gehrig were consistently hitting bombs well over 400. How many of our non-juiced guys could do that? On a consistent basis? Of course, pitchers also weren't throwing in the mid-to high 90s and there were no such things as bullpens. These are academic debates and perhaps not fair comparisons but the point is that
these types of circumstances are acknowledged, all the while leaving the records intact. I realize my asterisking idea is harsh to what I think (hope?) is the majority of players but sometimes those "few bad apples" really do ruin it for the rest by calling everything into question.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Since you asked
Posted by WheatCitysFinest at 3:22 p.m.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment