Congratulations go out to Alex Rodriguez who hit his 600th home run yesterday, becoming just the seventh player in Major League history to reach that plateau. Now many sports commentators are playing down the significance of this because it is unknown how many home runs were assisted by means of "performance enhancing drugs." If you've been reading this blog for any period of time you already know my thoughts on this, which is that it is bogus.
First, as my beautiful bride said last night, how come all they ever talk about is hitters, why don't they talk about pitchers? Half of all the people who have tested positive have been pitchers, so does that effect how we look at the debate?
Second, the steroid area extends from at least 1986, which is the year pegged by Peter Gammons, although I think you need to go back to 1983 or 1984, up through maybe 2004 or later if you think everyone just moved to untraceable drugs like HGH. As much as I can't stand Jose Canseco, so far he has been right about almost everything he said, which includes the fact that at least 85% of all players were using during this time period.
This was an issue for at least 20 years, so let's stop talking about who is clean and who isn't, because there is absolutely no way of knowing. Frank Thomas and Ken Griffie, Jr., are routinely said to have no indications that they ever used, and I hope they didn't, but there is simply no way of knowing. I am no longer surprised by any one's name I hear being mentioned. There are certainly some that disappoint me, but none are surprising. Unless you are going to discount all numbers for all players during that decade let's just deal with it and move on.
Finally, as one person said, Babe Ruth never had to face Satchel Page, so wasn't that an advantage? A-Rod has the advantage of having better supplements and work out routines that are legal, as well as the fact that he can go into the locker room immediately after each at bat and watch what just happened so that he can make real-time adjustments to a pitcher, as well as having scouting reports that were just simply unimaginable forty years ago. Imagine what Ted Williams could have done had he had this technology? Do we discount his home runs because of that advantage.
Here is my solution. If we don't want Bonds or A-Rod to be the home run champion then let's put the title where it rightfully belongs, which is with Josh Gibson, who is arguably the greatest home run hitter of all time. It is estimated that he hit 800-1000 home runs in his very short career (he died of a brain tumor at age 35). The "official" records for the negro leagues credit him with 115 home runs in 1855 at bats over 510 games (although these are known not to be fully accurate), and the full total will simply never be known. The "official" numbers do not include all the games he played in when his teams were just barnstorming and not playing other negro league teams.
Based on the "official" numbers, Gibson hit one home run every 16.1 at bats. A-Rod has hit a home run every 14.5 at bats, Hank Aaron hit one every 16.4, Ruth every 11.8, Willie Mays every 16.5, and Ken Griffey, Jr. every 15.6.
Let's put Josh Gibson's name where it belongs since the only reason he was never given a chance to prove how good he was was because he was not white. That certainly seems to me as egregious a crime as someone taking steroids was, if not worse.
So how do we deal with those numbers and the numbers of the white pitchers who never had to face him in a line-up? Baseball is all about numbers, but they've also always been somewhat artificial and not really comparable across decades and generations. We've put an asterisk on a home run record in the past, and we all know now what a terrible mistake that was, so why do we want to do it again? Haven't we learned anything?
So congratulations A-Rod. You might not get the credit you deserve from some, but no one can truly take those numbers away from you.
No comments:
Post a Comment