Hey all, sorry for the absence of a new nerd this morning. The Internet was down at work, prohibiting me from accessing the online nerd database. I was planning on posting when I got home, and then the McGwire “story” happened.
Anyway, I’ve only posted once about the ongoing steroids saga, providing links to what I consider the best available reflections on the steroids era. Nerdicus Finch has also posted once. Basically, for good or bad, I believe that I’m beyond shock in terms of “who did” and “who didn’t.” And after the congressional hearings, only the most hard-core and/or delusional Big Mac fans could have still been shocked by today’s statement. If I had a vote for the Hall-of-Fame, I would have voted for McGwire, as well as the other “no brainers” like Clemens, Bonds (when they become eligible), et al.
So I was interested in what Mr. McGwire had to say, but while reading his statement, one segment stuck out:
“I wish I had never touched steroids. It was foolish and it was a mistake. I truly apologize. Looking back, I wish I had never played during the steroid era.”
Mr. McGwire went on to state that he took these drugs for health reasons–that he believed they were helping him prevent and return from injury. He seemed to suggest that no steroids could help him hit more home runs, that home run hitting comes from genetics. Lets throw out the analysis of the steroid era statistics as a whole and take these claims at face value. If this is true, why would Mr. McGwire wish that he hadn’t played when he did? He made more money than he would have in any other era. If the steroids helped him heal, and nothing else, then he hit more home runs just by staying on the field than he would have in any other era. And while it doesn’t make it cheating right, a LOT of other people were doing it.
Mr. McGwire may be sincerely sorry. Like Tony LaRussa said, “the one thing he did not do is lie,” so he’s got that going for him. Which is nice. But I find myself agreeing with Rob Neyer’s excellent post from this afternoon:
I just wish that players like McGwire didn’t feel compelled to apologize, when we know that many of them would do exactly the same thing again, if they were in the same position. Most of them — and I don’t mean this as an insult — are sorry about getting caught, but not sorry about doing what they had to do (or thought they had to do) to get healthy or gain a competitive edge.
As THE major story of about fifteen years of baseball, the steroid era needs to be mentioned in the Hall of Fame. Maybe it puts some records out of reach…but hitters were on steroids. Pitchers were on steroids. Was your favorite player on steroids? Chances are probably the same as rolling a die… By condemning only the players who have been caught or admitted it, we give countless others a free pass. The only players who should be saying, “Looking back, I wish I had never played during the steroid era” are the ones who remained clean.
I’ve said it before, and Bill Parcells said it before me, but sometimes you are what you are.
The steroids era is what it is.
What do other nerd card appreciators think?
Tags: admission, Barry Bonds, bill parcells, Chuck Klosterman, congressional hearings, Hall of Fame, Mark McGwire, Rob Neyer, roger clemens, steroids era
(4.75 out of 5)
Well said, Nerd York City. And I also think Neyer’s post on the subject was fantastic.
The “Steroid Era” is as much a part of baseball history as any other era, i.e. the “Deadball Era” or the pre-Jackie Robinson era. There are times in baseball history when statistics are skewed, for a variety of factors.
Here are two examples:
There was a period in the 1930s when batting averages were severely inflated. In 1930, Bill Terry led the NL in hitting with a .401 average (Al Simmons led the AL with a .381 average and he hit .390 the next year). That’s amazing, but the league average in the NL in 1930 was .303. Batting .303 now gets you a big contract. When I look back at the batting averages of this era, it’s really impressive, but you have to put it in context and remember that “things were different then.”
In the 1960s, pitchers dominated. In 1968, Carl Yastrzemski led the AL with a .301 average. That same year, Bob Gibson led the NL with a 1.12 ERA and Luis Tiant led the AL with a 1.60 ERA. As a fan, when I look back at the miniscule ERAs of Sandy Koufax and Bob Gibson and others, I am impressed, but I always take them with a grain of salt because “things were different then.” The league average ERA was 2.99 for the NL in 1968. That would win you a Cy Young Award now.
It’s no different with the so-called “Steroid Era.” The home run totals of McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, Luis Gonzalez and others are eye-popping. But you just have to remember that “things were different then” because the players used steroids. The home runs still count, it was just easier to do it then, so it’s not as impressive as, say, Babe Ruth’s home run totals in the early 1920s.
The best players of the “Steroid Era” should be in the Hall of Fame, same as with any other era. That’s what the Hall of Fame is; it’s not the Hall of the Best Players that Didn’t Use Steroids or Bet on Baseball. There should be an exhibit in the Hall about the use of steroids and its effect on the game and its records. And there could even be a reference to steroids on a player’s plaque, if the steroid use has been admitted or proven.
But there should never be an asterisk next to a number in a record book. Rob Neyer recently wrote that the purpose of record books is to record what happened on the field. I know that Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs in 2001. So that’s the single-season home run record.
I guess the difference between the steroids era and things like the dead ball era, the pre-integration era, the higher mound era, etc. is that in those eras every player had their stats skewed equally. Pre-integration, its not like some players had to face Negro-league opponents and some did not. In the ’60s its not like some pitchers got to use a higher mound than others. In the steroids era, unfortunately, a lot of guys used steroids. But not everybody. That’s a problem for a game so defined by landmark numbers and history and debating players across eras. That’s why I think we just have to take the numbers for what they are, and like Nerdicus said, in the case of the HOF, just keep the knowledge and discusskon of what went on as part of the commentary.
Nicely put, guys. Of course steroids helped McGwire hit more home runs. Same for Bonds, Sosa, L-Gonz, Bret Boone…. But they were still the best of the best for their time, so put them in the damn hall of fame (except for L-gonz and Boone). So many self-righteous people are concerned about protecting other peoples’ legacies only because they fret that other people are stupider than they are and will forget the appropriate context for the legacies. Well, they’re partly right, but what are you gonna do? If there was a secret to preventing lesser-informed people from taking things out of context, they would have figured it out by now. Especially in the fantasy-world of sports, there’s a lot of margin for error in losing sight of the context. But when they appoint themselves kings of the sports legacies, I guess it’s easy to lose sight of that.
Two sort of unrelated thoughts:
1) I watch baseball to be entertained, which means the absolute top performances possible. To me, the only thing that separates steroids from better nutrition and exercise is the health consequences of steroids. If there were a guaranteed way to safely administer ‘roids then I would want every single professional athlete in line. If the health concern is gone, steroids don’t strike me as any different than Lasik or Tommy John surgery (what’s natural about moving ligaments all around the body just because we can?).
2) In a world without steroids, McGwire would be an interesting case for the HOF. He is nowhere close to the best 1B, but the two narratives of the HR chase and the steroids story put him in for me. Steroids are/were a part of baseball; there’s no need to ignore them.
2.5) Nerdicus, I think the HOF is for the best players who didn’t bet on baseball. Betting on baseball is another category of bad. Steroids is players trying harder to win a competition. Betting on the game has to potential to remove the whole idea of competition all together.
Prof. – I agree with you about the severity of the “badness” of betting on baseball and I think doing so should result in a lifetime ban from Major League Baseball. I disagree about the Hall of Fame, though. MLB and the HOF are separate entities with separate rules and being banned from MLB did not always mean that you were ineligible for the HOF. It’s my understanding that that is a more recent HOF rule. I think Joe Jackson was eligible for a long time after his retirement but was never voted in; Pete Rose never went up for a vote because when he would have been eligible, the ineligibility rule had been adopted by the HOF.
So I think Pete Rose should be banned from MLB for life, but not from the HOF. The MLB ban ensures that a gambler won’t meddle with the integrity of the competition again and is also punitive in that it takes away employment in baseball as a means of earning income. The fact that Rose bet on baseball has nothing to do with the HOF, though. He still has the most hits ever. His personal shortcomings have no impact on that.
Last time I was in the HOF, there was a display that showed career achievements for various things, and Pete Rose was listed as the leader in hits. He’s not purged from the HOF.
The HOF has decided that those banned from baseball are not eligible for recognition via a plaque. It withholds a high honor and recognizes that MLB and the HOF are symbiotic. On one hand, I wish that Rose were eligible and the writers just ignored him. That punishment would be worse; it would go from banishment to not being worthy. On the other hand, it’s pretty cool that the sport has a black list and some good players are on it– it makes the history more colorful.
(I’m not sure that impugning the integrity of the game falls under the category of personal shortcomings. I looked up Shoeless Joe’s vote totals, he received 2 votes –0.8%– in 1936, the first year of balloting and none thereafter. Hal Chase, also involved in the scandal, received his last vote in ‘37. So the HOF following MLB’s banishment was organic, which makes it more powerful to me.)