# Dope Head!



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_le ... mlb,212896


----------



## orvis1 (Sep 7, 2007)

Next your going to tell me that the sky is blue and grass is green aren't you?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Not that its worth much at this point, but to Big Mac's credit - he never denied sterioid use like Bonds, Clemons, Sosa, Palmero and others. He just never answered the questions. So I guess that is the upside? :roll: :roll:


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm glad he made the point that he had both good and bad years on the roids.... to me that just solidifies what I already thought. I don't care if a guy did or didn't use the roids. It doesn't determine whether he was a good or bad player because if it made you a hall of famer everyone would be doing it and having stellar years. Guy could hit the snot out of the ball before he took them and can still probably make a fastball wince on its way to the plate. Its a bad decision he made and a bad way to go but I'm glad he said his piece finally, hope everyone gets off his friggin case about it and I hope he either comes back to hit well for the Cards or at least has as successful a career as a coach as he did as a player. Atta boy Mark.... true baseball fans still like you!! 8)


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Not that its worth much at this point, but to Big Mac's credit - he never denied sterioid use like Bonds, Clemons, Sosa, Palmero and others. He just never answered the questions. So I guess that is the upside? :roll: :roll:


He may not have denied, but he sure implied, that he was a roid head, which is just as bad or worse. Man up and take a stand one way or the other. He is only coming clean now because he has to, and because he thinks it will get him forgiveness and a ballot to the Hall of Fame. His stats should be thrown out, and Pete Rose better get in the Hall long before any of these dopers!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> I'm glad he made the point that he had both good and bad years on the roids.... to me that just solidifies what I already thought. I don't care if a guy did or didn't use the roids. It doesn't determine whether he was a good or bad player because if it made you a hall of famer everyone would be doing it and having stellar years. Guy could hit the snot out of the ball before he took them and can still probably make a fastball wince on its way to the plate. Its a bad decision he made and a bad way to go but I'm glad he said his piece finally, hope everyone gets off his friggin case about it and I hope he either comes back to hit well for the Cards or at least has as successful a career as a coach as he did as a player. Atta boy Mark.... true baseball fans still like you!! 8)


What a load, if roids didn't help players wouldn't use them. :roll:


----------



## mjschijf (Oct 1, 2007)

McGwire coming clean about steroid use may be news, but it shouldn't be. I don't think anyone had a shred of doubt that he used them. His speech in front of congress a few years ago was a total joke:






To me that was as much of an admission as his "real" admission today. I would respect the guy if he came clean back then, but doing it now is a poor excuse, even for a cop out. 
"I'm not here to talk about the past." Give me a break!


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

Just more the reason that roids shouldn't be a factor in him getting into the hall of fame or not. During the time that he was using them, so was everyone else. So it is kind of a mute point. BTW, pitchers have had the highest percentage of testing positive of roids than anyone else so why should Mac take all the heat? Are we also going to keep Clemens, Palmero, Sosa, A-Rod, Bonds, Petit, etc... out of the HOF as well? As big of a d*** head as Bonds is, how can you possibly argue the guy shouldn't be sent to Cooperstown?


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> What a load, if roids didn't help players wouldn't use them. :roll:


If its such a load then why aren't all the players on roids allstars every year? :roll: Guy is a STUD and probably could have hit 70+ without being on the juice. Story reeks of folks looking to smear a guy who probably did more to help the game with his homer race against Sammy than any of the clowns MLB put out there who sucked during the strike years and would probably have sucked even had they been shooting up. Mark McGwire didn't all of a sudden hit a baseball better because he took steroids... might have hit it further but his mental focus and hand eye coordination that the top players have was there long before the drugs ever even came into play. So the guy made a mistake... he's not allowed to be human? Give me a break.... it certainly shouldn't keep him out of the hall.... to say otherwise just based on an admission of using steroids is ridiculous. The fans who love the game, love the players, the teams and the whole "picture" aren't going to think twice about the guy coming out years later and saying yeah... I used steroids. Was it a bad decision? Sure... but I'm not going to say the guy is a complete loser just because he took em. Glad he's saying something about it but I could care less whether he ever actually admitted it or not.

Great point Flyguy... but its something people are awful quick to overlook just so that they can point a finger at one of the best players in baseball before, during and could have been after the whole steroid debacle. Don't you come in here talking sense like that.... doesn't fly with people trying to tear somebody down. :lol:


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > What a load, if roids didn't help players wouldn't use them. :roll:
> ...


+1 Sosa and McGwire are singe handedly responsible for bringing back baseball in this country from the dark ages of the strike years. That alone should be Hall Of Fame worthy. FAIL Bud Selig, as usual!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> Riverrat77 said:
> 
> 
> > proutdoors said:
> ...


I couldn't disagree more. How is having people doping up "good for the sport"? What kind of message does that send to kids playing sports? Great idea, condone injecting harmful substances into your body for the "good of the sport". :? Hopefully the voters who elect players into the Hall are smart enough to keep ALL admitted/caught roiders out of the Hall, and I mean ALL of them. The damage done by McGuire/Sosa/Clemens/Palmero/Bonds/AROD will take years to undo. I'll take players like Cal Ripken Jr, Paul Molitor, Tony Gwynn, Nolan Ryan, Kirby Puckett, Rod Carew, Hank Aaron, Johnny Bench, Tom Seaver, Jim Palmer over ANY of the roid users. They 'saved' the game by playing within the rules and by playing clean. I'll take a Pete Rose over all of these "saviors" combined every day of the week. If roids is/was 'needed' to save the sport, the sport isn't worth saving. "True" baseball fans are disgusted by such players being not only given a pass by some, but applauded by some as well.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Oh....you mean all the guys who never got caught or played before supposedly enhancing drugs were even thought up? Thats fantastic. :roll: You really think Ripken played all those games on heart alone? Ummm no, there was some funny medicine thrown in there somewhere too. I wish all these guys who are "dope heads" could have played in the days before tests were invented for drugs that supposedly made these guys the superstars they already were. You say playing clean... I say playing using substances that weren't deemed illegal until recently when the supposed geniuses in the commissioners office decided we needed to level the playing field. The things people consider to be performance enhancing is crap too.... I have a buddy here at work who has to voluntarily test for performance enhancing drugs because he's considered a professional athlete and the stuff he's not allowed to touch is just absurd. I think there is a ton of misconception out there about the roids... people hear steroids and they start thinking about all the Hulk Hogan lookalikes they watch on professional wrestling or something. There are a ton of varieties out there and they don't all just add muscle. A lot of the "performance enhancers" are just things to make you recover energy more quickly, make injuries just "go away" or kill some of the painful effects of injuries so that you can still perform at a high level. I guarantee you there were things that have been used for years in baseball that haven't been called out because they're so "old school". 8) If they're going to call out guys for using performance enhancing drugs, then the news flash of the day would be that nobody would be playing professional sports or probably even college sports in this day and age. Everybody is using something looking for an edge and most of it is stuff your average sports fan wouldn't even know about. The sad thing is, the only people getting press time from this are high profile players caught up in this ridiculous witch hunt that probably netted a ton of low level players as well but nobody wants to bring that up. Instead we get left with a bunch of folks trying to convince us all that it was just a few of these bad players trying to get an edge on everybody else.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Rose was one of the two best players I ever got to see play in person. He was always known for his hitting skills and hustle on the basepaths. But his defense was spectactular in his prime when he played 3rd base. I've never seen any athlete in any sport with better lateral movement. He was so quick side to side, it redefined how the Reds played defense. Amazing.

The other best player I ever got to see in person was Griffey Jr. He was so strong and fast when he played in Seattle. He owned the outfield in that cavernous King Dome. I wonder where he'll end up in the whole PED thing when its all said and done? He certainly bulked up quite a bit from his early years in Seattle, through the middle 90s - just like everyone else did. Hmmmmmmm. Sucks to think about it. There is no player in that era that you can't look at and wonder if they juiced or not. Not one. And that really sucks.


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

One thing that really annoys me about this whole thing is everyone fails to mention is steroids are illegal. If it was the average Joe caught doing steroids he could be in all sorts of legal trouble. Here he is admitting he used steroids and nothing happens to him. Drives me crazy. 

Also McGwire was not a great hitter anyway, he was a great homerun hitter. So RR is right, roids didn't make him a better hitter they just added to his homerun total. So without roids he hits .250 with maybe 375 homeruns. Borderline Hall of Fame material at best.

Later,
Griff


----------



## mjschijf (Oct 1, 2007)

GRIFF said:


> Later,
> Griff


See ya dude. :wink:


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Roids are not illegal. They are controlled. Big difference.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

I was a huge Mac fun growing up, and when he went before congress and said what he said hurt me alot. I couldn't believe that someone I looked up to could do that. 
I don't expect him to get into the hall and probably wouldn't want him to. I do believe that Pete Rose deserves it more than anyone of these roid users. 
I do believe that Mark didn't come clean 5 years ago was because his attorney told him to keep quiet. But you wonder what would of happenend if he did? Like Pettite who admitted when he was caught, now it seems everyone has forgave him and forgotten.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

Roids don't help you see the ball any better or enhance your stroke- what they do though is help you heal faster- keep you playing when others are on the side lines and give you a mental attitude that's tough to come by other wise. It makes an unfair playing field period. If they were illegal when they were playing then all stats are gone.


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Roids are not illegal. They are controlled. Big difference.


If you are using roids with out a valid prescription it is illegal. Just because a doctor gives you a prescription does not mean it is valid. To have a valid prescription there must be a legitimate medical condition requiring the use of said drug. Performance enhancement does not qualify as a legitimate medical condition making his use of the roids illegal. Methamphetamine is a controlled drug used for ADHD, but shooting up with it is illegal.

Griff


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

mikevanwilder said:


> I was a huge Mac fun growing up, and when he went before congress and said what he said hurt me alot. I couldn't believe that someone I looked up to could do that. I don't expect him to get into the hall and probably wouldn't want him to. I do believe that Pete Rose deserves it more than anyone of these roid users.
> I do believe that Mark didn't come clean 5 years ago was because his attorney told him to keep quiet. But you wonder what would of happenend if he did? Like Pettite who admitted when he was caught, now it seems everyone has forgave him and forgotten.


I hated Mac when I was growing up.... he played for the A's and I was a Giants fan. Thats about as bad as Utah and BYU where I come from. I still thought he was an awesome hitter and do today as well. Roids or not, he and Sammy brought baseball back into the good graces of the fans... period. It wasn't a pitcher or a short stop or anyone else that made people want to watch baseball again after the strikes... it was two guys racing for a home run title. Say what you want about the guy, it won't change my opinon one bit.... I think MLB is at fault as much if not more so than players for not enforcing stricter testing regulations if they really thought this was such a huge problem. They're getting pressure or were and so all of a sudden the witch hunt ensues. :roll: Wasn't a big deal when they were depending on high profile players to come back, play the game at a high level and save baseball's rear end because nobody was interested in watching a bunch of scabs play ball. Mark said his piece, in a few years Cards fans will love him again, and this will be forgotten by most.... if he and the other power hitters of the era aren't in the hall when its all said and done, I'll be really surprised.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Griff - you make an excellent point. Very good.

So here is the thing that just irks me to no end. All the talk and hatred for performance enhancing drugs in sports. Yet, I can't watch a football, basketball, or baseball game without about 1/3 of the commercials being for viagra, enzyte or cialys.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Griff - you make an excellent point. Very good.
> 
> So here is the thing that just irks me to no end. All the talk and hatred for performance enhancing drugs in sports. Yet, I can't watch a football, basketball, or baseball game without about 1/3 of the commercials being for viagra, enzyte or cialys.


 :lol: and honestly... how many of them just make you feel better about things without actually enhancing your performance? Kinda like "steroids" in the major leagues. If they really worked to make you a superstar, everyone and their dog would be performing at a high level right? Sometimes there just isn't any substitute for being born with the "gift" for above average performance but there will always be people trying to tear down those who excel at something. :wink:


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

But then again, if people weren't buying the enhancers, the companies certainly wouldn't be paying for all that advertising either. So somebody's using them!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Packfish said:


> Roids don't help you see the ball any better or enhance your stroke- what they do though is help you heal faster- keep you playing when others are on the side lines and give you a mental attitude that's tough to come by other wise. It makes an unfair playing field period. If they were illegal when they were playing then all stats are gone.


Well stated!

Roids may or may not have helped Cheaters McGuire and Sosa hit the ball better/farther, but Mark admitted his primary motive was to recover faster from injuries which is a HUGE advantage when chasing a record like the home run record. Excuses for using PED's are just that, excuses. Dismissing it and saying their accomplishments should stay in the record books is no different that allowing high fenced elk being allowed in the B&C. What Roger Maris did WITHOUT PED's is far more impressive than what McGuire, Sosa, and Bonds did. How any supposed fan of baseball can say that what these juicers did was good for the sport is inane. Telling kids it's okay to do ILLEGAL activities in order to get fame and money, how the hell is that good for ANYTHING? :?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

So time to put an * next to Marris' 61 again. But this time, as a badge of honor.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> So time to put an * next to Marris' 61 again. But this time, as a badge of honor.


Or, even better, give the juicers their own Hall of Shame, keeping their juiced stats out of the Hall of Fame. Any/all players found guilty of taking PED's after they were banned by baseball in 1992 should be prohibited from any of their accomplishments from being recognized by MLB, IMHO. If players like Ripken Jr are proven to have juiced, he should be kicked out of the hall, and my son will have to change his name since I named him Calvin after the best shortstop to ever play the game.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> But then again, if people weren't buying the enhancers, the companies certainly wouldn't be paying for all that advertising either. So somebody's using them!


Right... its all about making money. If you and I don't buy them or use them to make money for the big company or conglomerate or league or whatever is making money off the users and performers, then they will find somebody else who will. If your livelihood depended on peak performance as often as possible, I'd imagine it wouldn't be real hard to convince you to use them. 8) Would you give them to kids to use... no probably not, just like I doubt that any of the players berated before Congress went right to the neighborhood parks and started pushing steroids on the little leaguers with promises of attainable greatness although thats how its made to sound.

The funny thing is that these guys all performed at a very high level through school, into college and then in the majors before anyone ever even questioned their performance. If MLB hadn't instituted testing in the 2000 decade, then nobody would have even batted an eye over these stats or the performances of these extremely talented athletes. It wasn't like it was an unknown occurrence, MLB just chose to do nothing about it. Is it still breaking the rules if its painfully obvious that the governing body of the game is choosing to ignore the situation? Its painfully close to just condoning the activity if you choose not to act on it.... perhaps it was just too convenient for baseball's front offices to let big name players save baseball before letting them take the fall for their heroics. :?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> Would you give them to kids to use... no probably not, just like I doubt that any of the players berated before Congress went right to the neighborhood parks and started pushing steroids on the little leaguers with promises of attainable greatness although thats how its made to sound. That's what I think you're missing, by these guys using and then been honored for it, it DOES increase the likelihood of youth to be users. If it's okay for Hall of Famers to use, it must be okay for me to use is the EXCUSE I am sure many kids have rationalized/justified in their minds.
> 
> The funny thing is that these guys all performed at a very high level through school, into college and then in the majors before anyone ever even questioned their performance. If MLB hadn't instituted testing in the 2000 decade, then nobody would have even batted an eye over these stats or the performances of these extremely talented athletes. It wasn't like it was an unknown occurrence, MLB just chose to do nothing about it. Is it still breaking the rules if its painfully obvious that the governing body of the game is choosing to ignore the situation? Its painfully close to just condoning the activity if you choose not to act on it.... perhaps it was just too convenient for baseball's front offices to let big name players save baseball before letting them take the fall for their heroics. :? I was watching Outside The Lines on ESPN, and Former Commissioner Vincent said he banned PED's in 1992 and he tried to get mandatory testing, but the MLB players union blocked it. It wasn't until the US Congress stepped in and forced the union ot allow testing that it was implemented. Could have teams done more, of course, but that does NOT exempt the players who juiced up.


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

Not really sure how you can say roids don't help you hit the ball further or better. Look at McGwire's stats before roids and after. Before roids he 1 HR every 14 at bats and while using roids 1 HR every 8 at bats. He hit .250 before roids and .273 after roids.

Roids are not going to take some bum off the street and turn them into a MLB star, there has to be some MLB talent to start with. What they do is they take a good MLB player and make them great.

Griff


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=A ... &type=lgns

Very good article.


----------



## Yonni (Sep 7, 2007)

Either way McGwire's numbers are not hall of fame numbers, he's an average or below average player with a fluke '98 season. 

Selig is the one everyone needs to be ticked with, he allowed this crap to happen to give baseball popularity after the strike. Look at the home run #'s now, funny how they have come back down since steroids has been an issue. The commish needs to grow a pair and actually do some real enforcement of the steroid issue and to make a stand as to what is acceptable for the hall of fame or not.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

GRIFF said:


> Not really sure how you can say roids don't help you hit the ball further or better. Look at McGwire's stats before roids and after. Before roids he 1 HR every 14 at bats and while using roids 1 HR every 8 at bats. He hit .250 before roids and .273 after roids.
> 
> Roids are not going to take some bum off the street and turn them into a MLB star, there has to be some MLB talent to start with. I don't believe a single person would disagree with you on this statement, or the next one. What they do is they take a good MLB player and make them great.
> 
> Griff


Then why in the hell do they use them if they don't help? It makes you stronger, if you are stronger you can hit harder, hence the ball goes farther. Look at every player that used steroids you can look at their stats and tell which year they started and which year they ended. Another way to tell is look at there year to year pictures, McGwire, Sosa, Canseco, and Bonds are the extreme examples.


----------



## mjschijf (Oct 1, 2007)

Yonni said:


> Either way McGwire's numbers are not hall of fame numbers, he's an average or below average player with a fluke '98 season.


I think I know what you are getting at, but saying that he was below average and that 1998 was a fluke is just not accurate. I'm definitely no huge McGwire fan, but the guy was a **** good power hitter throughout most of his career. He hit over 50 home runs 4 times in his career, 40 to 49 home runs twice, and between 30 and 39 homers 5 other times. What about the 1999 season where he hit 65 homers and drove in 147 runs? He had over 100 RBI's 7 times in his career and 3 more with over 90 (over 1400 in his career). That doesn't sound like the body of work for a "below average player with a fluke '98 season".

All of that doesn't mean that I don't think the guy cheated, because he did. For that reason, I don't have a ton of respect for the guy. That being said, I think eventually (15 or 20 years down the road) they will look back on his era and put McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, Clemens, etc. in the hall of fame for the belief that they were on an even playing field with other steroid users (I'm sure many more names will eventually be released). I guess only time will tell.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

GRIFF said:


> Not really sure how you can say roids don't help you hit the ball further or better. Look at McGwire's stats before roids and after. Before roids he 1 HR every 14 at bats and while using roids 1 HR every 8 at bats. He hit .250 before roids and .273 after roids.
> 
> I was close to those who used in the 70's. What I saw was 1. You had to have talent to begin with. 2. It let them heal quicker . 3. The muscle it built gave them the attitude or what ever you want to call it to push themseleves harder and feel like they were pretty close to invincible. It didn't make them any more of an athlete than there already were - just gave them drive.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

Mac couldn't admit to using steroids until now. He had to wait for the statute of limitations to expire before admitting usage of an illegal substance. In no way do I defend steroid use. I had a friend in high school who wound up doing years of counseling because he had a problem with roid rage. I do believe Mark McGwire did the only thing he could do under the circumstances when it came time to fess up. He never denied using and thus told everyone that he was guilty without actually coming out to say it. Now he's free to tell the story because he no longer has to worry about a legal entailment.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I think that any of the greats that played in the 90s should at whatever time, be allowed in the Hall if voted. I also believe that it should be noted on their plaques, that they played in the steroid era. The hall hasn't ignored strike shortened seasons. It hasn't ignored inflated home run numbers when the mound was lowered, the fences brought in, and shrinking strike zone. It didn't care that Babe Ruth was allowed to leave the game if he reached base, but then return to the line-up next time up – a special rule no one else got, or that the right field fence at Yankee Stadium was only 30 feet deeper than a regulation little league field so Ruth would get more homers and inflate is numbers. Roids are part of the history of baseball and need to be included in context. 

And personally, I don't feel that roids were the greatest contributor to the inflated home run numbers of the 90s. In my book, I'd put them about 5th.

1. Laser eye surgery - prior to the 90s, players with any kind of vision issues either wore contacts or glasses - both with associated problems like the ball "jumping" or sliding more, fogging, dust, etc.... Laser eye surgery allowed hitters to get perfect, or better than perfect vision, without the negatives of contacts or glasses, making it easier to clearly see the ball. A HUGE difference. 

2. Expansion - MLB expanded twice in the 90s - adding 4 teams. Historically, every time the league expanded by two teams, pitching talent got diluted and there were blips for four or five years of inflated home run numbers. Both Ruth and Aarron played during expansion – as did Marris in his record setting year.

3. Newer ball parks - The cavernous ball parks with 390 foot foul poles that were common in the 70s gave way to places like Camden Yards, Jacob's Field, The Ballpark at Arlington and Pac Bell park. All of these brought the fences in considerably, and in the case of Pac Bell (the house that Bonds built) were in actual violation of MLB rules because they were too close.

4. Lower mound – This has happened about 4 times throughout the history of MLB. Teams look to gain an advantage and start raising the mound. This doesn’t sound like much, but it allows a greater angle on the pitch, making the contact zone much smaller and more difficult. Conversely, lowering the mound has the opposite effect – it lends greater advantage to the hitters. By the late 80s, some teams had mounds as high as 20-22 inches. In the early 90s, MLB brought the level down to 14 inches and strictly enforced it. 

5. Roids – I put roids in 5th. And actually, I think that it was the combination of pitchers using roids, as much as the hitters. Prior to the roid era, each team might have one, and if they were really lucky, two pitchers that could throw over 90. Roids allowed the pitchers to significantly increase their velocity – 12-15 percent in some cases. So now the guy that threw 80 was throwing mid 90s. And the guy throwing 90 was throwing 100. Nearly every MLB pitcher can break 90 mph now, and most minor leaguers as well. Basic physics will tell you that the harder the pitch, the farther it will go when hit squarely. And roided hitters were hitting the ball another 10% farther than without roids, so the combination of the two was effectively, another 30-45 feet to a ball hit deep. 

So the combination – better vision, stronger hitters, stronger pitchers, shorter fences, and lower mounds all made for a perfect storm of crazy hitting numbers. Numbers have come down with testing, but are still higher than prior to the other changes. In the 70s, it was a HUGE deal when the Dodgers had four guys each hit 30 HRs. It had never been done before. Now most teams have 2-3 guys hitting 40, and another 1-2 hitting 30 – even with testing. 

But love it or hate it, roids are part of the story and should not be ignored by the Hall. Baseball has usually reflected much about America. Roids represent a level of indulgence, feel good now – screw the consequences (anyone else remember all the dot.coms that made some people very rich and created an incredibly unstable stock market based on nothing but fluff?), lying about personal “associations” when caught (ala. Clinton/Lewinsky) and chemicals can fix anything, that was prevalent in much of America in that time. We should remember the roid era. And learn from it.


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

Gary,

How can you put Roids as #5, when 1-4 still exist and last years highest home run total was at least 20 home runs lower than Bonds and McGwire?

Griff


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

GRIFF said:


> Gary,
> 
> How can you put Roids as #5, when 1-4 still exist and last years highest home run total was at least 20 home runs lower than Bonds and McGwire?
> 
> Griff


Because its still 15-20 higher than the totals were before the roid era. Bond's and McGwire were 30-35 higher than most guys were hitting in the 70s-80s. So are things as they were in the 90s, with 7 60+ seasons? Nope. But they are still significantly (30-40%) higher than before all the changes I outlined.


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

In the 70's the average for the HR leader in the AL was 38 and in the NL 43. In the 80's the average was 42 for the AL and 40 for the NL. Last year Teixera and Pena led the AL with 39 HRs and Pujols led the NL with 47 HRs. 

I'd say that is pretty close to the average of the 70-80's.

Griff


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Interesting. I'd wonder what the total HR/team average was in the 70s, compared to now.


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

Good question. I would bet it is lower than now. Back then if your SS hit 10 HR you were lucky. Now 20 HR is pretty much standard.

Griff


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

It wasn't uncommon for each team back then to have one 30+ guy. And like you pointed out, the league leaders then were about where things are now. But I remember one year George Foster led MLB with like 54 and people were freaking out about how many that was. And like I said, when the Dodgers had 4 guys hit 30+ in one year, (Garvey, Baker, Cey and Smith) that was completely unheard of. Seems like about everyone in the Phillys lineup last year had that many.


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

As exciting as a HR is, I really liked watching small ball. When the Cards had Willie McGee and Vince Coleman and could manufacture runs out of a walk, two stolen bases, and an infield hit. Now that was pretty exciting. I don't think things will ever get back to that, but I think things are going to normalize again.

Griff


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

Riverrat77 said:


> mikevanwilder said:
> 
> 
> > I was a huge Mac fun growing up, and when he went before congress and said what he said hurt me alot. I couldn't believe that someone I looked up to could do that. I don't expect him to get into the hall and probably wouldn't want him to. I do believe that Pete Rose deserves it more than anyone of these roid users.
> ...


I'm not saying I hate the guy, I still think he was a great baseball player. I also believe that it was him and Sammy that brought back baseball, roids or not. And as a huge Cards fan still love the guy even though he did roids.


----------

