Quote:
Originally Posted by EMSoccerCoach
Turning 27? Not so much, as he was down to 33 at 28 next year and never hit 30 again. Hard to argue the perfect time to find a power stroke that fades a year later. Right field stayed that short after '61 as well.
|
Either that or the crap Maris went through in 1961 killed his love for the game, affected him mentally, pressure to live up to that monster year hurt him, desire to swing more for average instead of swing for power, etc. Many things could explain why the sudden drop, and allow speculation that had he not gone through the pressure of chasing Ruth's record he was on a career upswing that he would have sustained for at least a few years (ie. he had his breakout year and reached a new level of performance).
Quote:
Originally Posted by EMSoccerCoach
It's ignorant to act as though old numbers are noble and pure and today's are the product of cheating. And to think every career year is the cause of steroids is a brainless leap.
|
I will agree with that. Too many people make it so black and white and say that players in the 90s were cheaters because steroid use was rampant and all of their good years were due to steroids. And how you can't compare their stats to previous eras because of it. The problem is it is not that cut and dried. Just because someone had a jump in numbers that doesn't mean he was juiced. It's pretty much impossible to be able to tell just how much steroids helped certain players. It's possible that steroids hurt players nearly as much as it helped them.
And there's no real factual proof that steroids actually helped a person swing better. Build up muscle mass yes, but swing better? How about the loss of flexibility that the increased muscle mass brings? Not all home run hitters were massive people, in any era. So hitting home runs is more than just being big. Then there is the injury factor. Steroids is proven to hurt a person's body. Professional Wrestling (yes not a sport but they are still athletes) proved that. Wrestlers on steroids build up their bodies to be bigger than they could have ever gotten without drugs but many are too big for their frame and have suffered a lot more torn and pulled muscles, tendons, etc. because of it in other words have become fragile physically. Baseball players, while they didn't go to the extreme builds as wrestlers, still bulked up fast so it stands to reason that their bodies suffered from the steroids makes you more injury prone issue as well.
So one can't say that all of players in the 90s stats are tainted because steroids made everyone ten times better. Now you can say that due to steroids and other performance enhancing drugs it is impossible to tell which stats are legit and which are not. And that doubt casts a shadow over the era making it hard to separate the legit performances from the non-legit ones. But then again you can make that argument for many other eras as well. Not just in terms of drugs but other factors that gave a player an advantage. Like say weaker pitching in a time period, shorter fences, better or worse hitting backgrounds, less use of relievers, starters that went longer so you faced the same pitcher more times in a game not too mention faced a tired pitcher more than in eras where relievers were used. Better mechanics for pitchers (wasn't in the curve ball still thought to be an optical illusion in Ruth's era? Certainly they had less pitches available and the science behind pitching mechanics were much less known). Years where the pitchers had a higher mound compared to years the mound was lowered. Ball conditions. In reality every era has factors that makes it hard to compare eras to eras or casts doubts on who had an unfair advantage over others. Even something as simple as hitting in a ballpark were the power alleys were in your favour could be considered an advantage over others. Or playing in a home ballpark where the wind conditions carried your hits farther, or playing on a team with a bunch of good players and thereby you had better "protection in the lineup" or faced more tired pitchers than players on other teams because your teammates hitting the pitcher hard meant he had to throw more pitches. Tons of stuff that make it hard to directly compare players..
And there's the whole if the hitters being on steroids meant they got an unfair advantage over batters of other eras how about the pitchers they faced? PE Drug use was rampant amongst pitchers as well. Now if both sides were using PEDs doesn't it balance out? Or if hitters got such a huge advantage over pitchers due to steroids then just how great were pitchers in the steroids era then? That they were facing these steroid freak of natures yet were able to put up numbers similar or better than pitchers from other eras?