Quote:
Originally Posted by Smarti5051
There is one thing I don't understand about the logic in ranking players with the steroids asterisk. If I try to compare a player like Cap Anson against a player like Mike Trout, there are all sorts of responses of how you can't compare eras, because the fields were different, competition was different, training was different, etc. So, it could be argued that a player that was the best of his generation is the GOAT because you can only really compare him in the context of the era in which he played.
But, in the steroids era, any player connected to steroids is automatically disqualified in the eyes of most folks that debate whether a player is in the running for GOAT at a position. But, it ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of players the steroid guy was competing against were on a level playing field, because they were all also taking steroids. In the case of Roger Clemens, he has no positive test or physical evidence that he took steroids, but let's take it as gospel he was a regular steroids user. When he was on the mound and throwing to the greats of his day, Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, Canseco etc., he was playing against competition the likes of which never existed in every other era of baseball - do, in large part, to the fact these players and most of their teammates were also on steroids.
When we talk about home run records today and the Judge v Maris (or Ruth in 154 games) comparison, we gloss over the guys above them on the list (there are 6 seasons better than Maris' 61 - all of them during the stretch in which Clemens was a dominant pitcher), because the steroid era HR's don't count. But, to every pitcher during that era, those earned runs had the same impact on their stats as they did before and after the steroid era. Are steroids really an unfair advantage when all of the best hitters you are facing have the exact same advantage? If it was determined that every race Usain Bolt ran in the Olympics was on a 45 degree decline, would he be any less dominant relative to his competition during his reign?
|
The huge difference is that, while things change over time, those changes are generally honest and a result of natural change and progress. Every era has had players stretching it, usually on a ‘boys will be boys’ type of momentary basis, trying to get away with an illegal pitch, stealing signs, etc. I can think of no other point where so many of the top players broke the rules and cheated every single pitch and plate appearance in way that allowed rewriting the record book ( or anything even remotely close). I do not agree with some of the anti-steroid extremes, like ignoring their accomplishments completely, but it is also not at all the same thing as the game changing between Cap Anson being the best and Mike Trout being the best. Anson’s stat line is honest in accord with the rules of his times, as is Trout’s. Clemens stat line is not honest, it is nowhere near honest and in direct violation of the rules.
If Clemens was on trial for drug possession charges and I was on the jury, I might not vote to convict. But I think it is hard to argue that it is more reasonable to behave as if he was innocent than as if he was guilty. The evidence and testimony he used is compelling, if not absolute. The other great pitchers of his time don’t have such evidence and appear to have done it honestly.
I have a hard time seeing that the best answer is to write off and ignore steroid use. It’s unfair to those who didn’t cheat for almost half their career, like Maddux.
Disclaimer: I loved Clemens as a kid and thought he was the greatest of his time. Still do.