The aftermath of McGwire's admission
Ever since McGwire admitted his steroid use, I have been reconsidering my whole outlook on performance enhancing substances, records, and the hall of fame. First of all, I am among the vast, vast majority who was not in the least bit surprised that Mac used illegal steroids. What does surprise me is the length of time he took them. I always assumed that he was clean during the early to mid 90s and bulked up with them from 96-00 when he had his home run explosion. I don't buy for a second that his home run totals were not substantially aided by the drugs, nor do I think McGwire should be in the hall of fame. McGwires hall of fame case is built on his massive home run, walk, and slugging totals, all of which were blown up with steroids. He has no chance without them and was barely an all star level player. My take is as it has always been: the old standards do not apply to players from the steroid era. You'd better have crazy off the charts numbers, or 10-15 very good years to get in in my book. So guys like Sheffield, Thome, Delgado, Guerrero, Kent, Sosa, Palmeiro, and a few others who would have been locks in the past just don't quite make it for me.
All that being said, the thing that pisses me off about the whole thing the most is how guys like Ken Griffey Jr. get painted as saints. Look, I don't know if Griffey used steroids. He has never been linked to it, or tested positive, or had a season where he just blew up or anything. But to totally dismiss it as impossible and treat the guy like the golden boy of the era doesn't make sense. I think it's very likely that playing in the era he did, Griffey used some sort of performance enhancing substance. That substance could have been a steroid, HGH, amphetamine, or supplement, but in any case, its not entirely natural. And thats ok. In this day an age athletes do anything they can to get an edge as in can be the difference in hundreds of millions of dollars. Anyone who says that they would not have taken drugs that were not banned at the time in order to stay in the majors or make themselves a star is either lying or very stupid. Look at McGwire: he was a good first baseman and a good hitter when he came into the league (emphasis on good) but he could not stay healthy and his career would probably have come to an end much sooner had it not been saved by drugs. Once he started taking the drugs, he probably felt much better and began to see more and more success. Without the possibility of consequences looming, why would he not continue? Ok, it was probably quite bad for his health, we'll find out later on that, but seriously, ask yourself or anyone you know if they would take 50-100 million dollars today in exchange for 10-20 years of your life later. Just about everyone, at least the younger people would say yes even if they won't admit it.
Now, maybe Griffey was a rare breed who was so talented that he could dominate a league full of juiced players based on talent alone. I like to think that Griffey and Bonds were both like this until about 1999. At this point, the paths diverge. Hands down, Griffey and Bonds were the two best position players of the 1990s and its not particularly close. Most people would put Griffey slightly ahead of Bonds, a position I do not share, but for this purpose, it's not important. Here's how I see the situation and where I make my point: Griffey and Bonds were hands down the two most talented players in the league, and along with Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, and Alex Rodriguez, two of the top 5 most talented players of all time. The difference is Griffey was amazing from day 1 whereas Bonds had to work his way up to stardom. Bonds' workout regime was well documented and it was intense. It was said that he was the only one who could handle what he did. Griffey on the other hand was never know as a workoutaholic. Sure, he'd work on his game: take batting and fielding practice, baserunning drills ect. but as far as I know, he was never much of a weight room or physical conditioning guy the way Bonds was. I think this is a large reason for his injuries in his early 30s. I could be wrong, but I have a lot of experience with athletics and I can tell you that the guys who kept themselves in great shape were much less likely to get injured than those who didn't.
Let's zoom to 2000: Griffey was dealt to Cincinnati and had his last really good full season at the age of 30. 30! Bonds has yet another monster season setting a career high in homers as well as leading the league in OPS+ and walks at the age of 35. Bonds goes on to blow up the next 4 seasons, putting together the greatest 4 year run in the history of baseball. Griffey basically falls off a cliff as he cannot stay healthy, and even when he's on the field, he's not the player he was in his 20s. So my question is which is the greater tragedy? They had essetially equal careers after the year 2000, when Bonds, by any means necessary sought to make himself the most dominant force in the history of the game. And he succeeded. Griffey, after years of getting by on pure talent could not keep himself healthy and in shape to stay successful as he aged. In 2000 if you had asked me which current player has the best chance to break Hank Aarons home run record, my answers would have been Griffey and Sosa. Bonds would not have crossed my mind. Bonds of course was the one who broke the record.
Let's stop making Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Clemens and the rest out to be monsters. They took illegal drugs. It was bad. We get it. But the drugs alone did not make them great players. Steroids really only help you get strong and stay healthy when supplemented with physical fitness. These guys were all workout gurus. Ken Griffey was not. He was a great talent. He wasted some of it. He was not the player he could have been. Not all of this can be blamed on steroids.
If you want to make a player out to be the golden boy of the era, for god sakes, pick Greg Maddux. He is probably the one player who got the most out of his talent in the history of baseball. He was a stand up guy. He was great for 20 years. He may have been the best pitcher ever to live. And he, not Ken Griffey, should be the first unanamous HOF inductee. He won't be, but how can you possibly construct an argument against him?
All that being said, the thing that pisses me off about the whole thing the most is how guys like Ken Griffey Jr. get painted as saints. Look, I don't know if Griffey used steroids. He has never been linked to it, or tested positive, or had a season where he just blew up or anything. But to totally dismiss it as impossible and treat the guy like the golden boy of the era doesn't make sense. I think it's very likely that playing in the era he did, Griffey used some sort of performance enhancing substance. That substance could have been a steroid, HGH, amphetamine, or supplement, but in any case, its not entirely natural. And thats ok. In this day an age athletes do anything they can to get an edge as in can be the difference in hundreds of millions of dollars. Anyone who says that they would not have taken drugs that were not banned at the time in order to stay in the majors or make themselves a star is either lying or very stupid. Look at McGwire: he was a good first baseman and a good hitter when he came into the league (emphasis on good) but he could not stay healthy and his career would probably have come to an end much sooner had it not been saved by drugs. Once he started taking the drugs, he probably felt much better and began to see more and more success. Without the possibility of consequences looming, why would he not continue? Ok, it was probably quite bad for his health, we'll find out later on that, but seriously, ask yourself or anyone you know if they would take 50-100 million dollars today in exchange for 10-20 years of your life later. Just about everyone, at least the younger people would say yes even if they won't admit it.
Now, maybe Griffey was a rare breed who was so talented that he could dominate a league full of juiced players based on talent alone. I like to think that Griffey and Bonds were both like this until about 1999. At this point, the paths diverge. Hands down, Griffey and Bonds were the two best position players of the 1990s and its not particularly close. Most people would put Griffey slightly ahead of Bonds, a position I do not share, but for this purpose, it's not important. Here's how I see the situation and where I make my point: Griffey and Bonds were hands down the two most talented players in the league, and along with Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, and Alex Rodriguez, two of the top 5 most talented players of all time. The difference is Griffey was amazing from day 1 whereas Bonds had to work his way up to stardom. Bonds' workout regime was well documented and it was intense. It was said that he was the only one who could handle what he did. Griffey on the other hand was never know as a workoutaholic. Sure, he'd work on his game: take batting and fielding practice, baserunning drills ect. but as far as I know, he was never much of a weight room or physical conditioning guy the way Bonds was. I think this is a large reason for his injuries in his early 30s. I could be wrong, but I have a lot of experience with athletics and I can tell you that the guys who kept themselves in great shape were much less likely to get injured than those who didn't.
Let's zoom to 2000: Griffey was dealt to Cincinnati and had his last really good full season at the age of 30. 30! Bonds has yet another monster season setting a career high in homers as well as leading the league in OPS+ and walks at the age of 35. Bonds goes on to blow up the next 4 seasons, putting together the greatest 4 year run in the history of baseball. Griffey basically falls off a cliff as he cannot stay healthy, and even when he's on the field, he's not the player he was in his 20s. So my question is which is the greater tragedy? They had essetially equal careers after the year 2000, when Bonds, by any means necessary sought to make himself the most dominant force in the history of the game. And he succeeded. Griffey, after years of getting by on pure talent could not keep himself healthy and in shape to stay successful as he aged. In 2000 if you had asked me which current player has the best chance to break Hank Aarons home run record, my answers would have been Griffey and Sosa. Bonds would not have crossed my mind. Bonds of course was the one who broke the record.
Let's stop making Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Clemens and the rest out to be monsters. They took illegal drugs. It was bad. We get it. But the drugs alone did not make them great players. Steroids really only help you get strong and stay healthy when supplemented with physical fitness. These guys were all workout gurus. Ken Griffey was not. He was a great talent. He wasted some of it. He was not the player he could have been. Not all of this can be blamed on steroids.
If you want to make a player out to be the golden boy of the era, for god sakes, pick Greg Maddux. He is probably the one player who got the most out of his talent in the history of baseball. He was a stand up guy. He was great for 20 years. He may have been the best pitcher ever to live. And he, not Ken Griffey, should be the first unanamous HOF inductee. He won't be, but how can you possibly construct an argument against him?
Labels: Barry bonds, greg maddux, Hall of Fame, ken griffey, Steroids
posted by Andrew Manning at
3:24 PM
0 Comments
