Posted By:
CyI realize that most people on this board have their minds made up on the Bonds situation. But just listen to this one.
I truly don't believe that steroids helps a player all that much hit home runs. If just being bigger makes a difference, why is Hank Aaron the 2nd most prolific home run hitter? He is not that big? Why is Willie Mays, Frank Robinson, heck, Mel Ott for that matter, even in the conversation? None of these players was that big either. So size is not necessarily a contributing factor to hitting home runs.
So here is the conundrum, how can Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, et al hit so many home runs. My thought now is that the BALL was juiced and that had much more of an effect on the home run than steroids. Now listen to my thoughts.
The steroid era followed the strike season. Bud Selig and all of the owners wanted/needed fans to come back in droves. What better way to do it than have more home runs. (Chicks dig the long ball!) It would be much easier to juice the ball to get the desired effect than to juice the players.
OK, many of the skeptics are saying, this doesn't make sense. But no one thought about this. So without any scientific research, everyone assumed steroids did it. But here are some things that trouble me with that reasoning. Why did the explosion of home runs only last a handful of years. Players were probably taking steroids before AND after the big burst. Why didn't anyone else in other years hit more home runs.
Also during these years some not so big guys were pounding out home runs. Palmiero is not a big man and never had that imposing physique. But he nailed a few. And how about that very imposing figure, Brady Anderson. Remember him? Brady Anderson hit FIFTY home runs one year. FIFTY home runs. Does anyone really think that steroids caused that from him?
Prior to this era, 50 home runs was an awesome number. I remember George Foster did it, but I can't remember too many others between 1962 and 1990. So does anyone think that Brady Anderson on steroids alone is in the same class as George Foster. It truly doesn't make sense.
Now I am not saying that these players didn't take the steroids. I am just saying that it makes more sense that the balls were ultra lively, rather than steroids, to account for the home runs. Barry Bonds was actually quoted as saying that balls that he hit that were outs at the warning track, were now clearing the fences. A juiced ball could do that.
I may be wrong with my assertion. But it is just as viable as steroids doing all of the work. Now I can hear the critics saying, "Why did all the players take steroids if it didn't help"? The answer is because they thought it would help. That is all that is needed. Hell, millions of golfers wore a copper bracelet on their wrist to cure ailments in their elbows, arms and wrists. Why? There was no scientific proof. But a lot of other people were doing it.
My main thought on this issue did arise from the fact that non-steroid players, like Brady Anderson, hit too many home runs. And do any of you believe even on Body Building doses of steroids, could that alone justify his outburst and then never again happen?
Just my thoughts guys.
Sincerely,
Cy