Originally Posted by
Shugadaddi
Here were his closing remarks. I thought they were pretty OK:
So what's the big deal about the steroid era in baseball? All performances are to some extent a product of prevailing conditions. After all, if Tony Gwynn, Rod Carew, or George Brett had played around the turn of the century, they surely would have had seasons where they hit .400. Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux can't get anywhere near Cy Young's 511 career wins not because they aren't as good, but because no modern pitcher gets the ball as often. Changes in ballparks, travel, scheduling, strategy, rules - comparing era to era is not always a case of apples to apples. But here's a key distinction: As the game evolved, those variations affected all competitors equally, and in their time, all those performances were authentic. The steroid era is not a mere variation. It's a gross and unnatural distortion, both of the game's history and of contemporary competition, since many used and many did not.
There are three seismic shifts in post-1900 baseball history. Two - the advent of the lively ball and the breaking of the color line - helped the game tremendously. The third, the steroid era, now haunts the game. Only segregation represents a greater blot on the game's history and integrity. The Black Sox scandal of 1919 involved one team, one year. Pete Rose - one guy. The steroid era, still ongoing, likely involved every team, and more players than we can count. Baseball can't have it both ways: It can't celebrate its history and revere its records, and then turn a blind eye when its history and its record book are poisoned.
Bookmarks