Friends,
I posted this same question in the St. Louis Cardinals discussion board a couple days ago, hoping to stir some conversation, and it devolved into some good old fashioned petty bickering between posters who don't like each other. If you've never been in or around those kind of discussion boards, it's interesting to see the social dynamic that goes on in there sometimes. Anyway, here's my question:
Should the records of managers who benefitted from the Steroid Era have their numbers doubted, just like players who used steroids?
A case in point is Tony LaRussa. If Tony does not have have his roided up team of Canseco and (supposedly) McGwire, then does he win that World Champsionship? And how many of the wins credited to his total came on the back of steroid users? Since he was a clear beneficiary of the drugs, doesn't that make his records just as suspect as say, Barry Bonds?
This argument goes for any number of managers during this era, not just LaRussa because there were steroid abusers on every team. But what does that do for the argument? Doesn't that level the playing field some, and make his achievements credible since every team had steroid users. But if that's the case, then doesn't that also legitimize Barry Bonds records?
True, managers had no control over who took roids and who didn't, so they weren't directly responsible for those who used, plus not every player used...but that doesn't mean managers didn't ultimately benefit from the roids. And also, it doesn't mean that managers didn't turn a blind eye in these scenarios either.
Personally, I don't know what I think about any of this. All eras have potential to have their own asterisk or whatever (note The Ghost of Nostradamustache's comment), so I don't think you can label this era any worse than previous ones. I just hope that when it comes to Hall of Fame voting, that it is done consistently and fairly.
What do you think?
viva el mustache
February 17, 2008
Of Managers and Steroids
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I don't think it should have any affect on players or managers. The only reason people care now is because they want to appear morally superior. The fact is, the sport of baseball didn't really give a damn about steriods until it became public and thus uncomfortable. I also think the business of going back and fining/suspending players who used HGH before it was banned is bush league.
No one talks about the cocaine era. Would Rickey Henderson have stolen all those bases if he hadn't been taking greenies before every game?
Should records of the live ball era be counted against records of the dead ball era? How many home runs would Barry Bonds have hit if the ball was practically unravelling?
Or one could question whether records broken now that were set during a shorter baseball season should hold--including career records.
Bottom line, in my book, let em all stand. Fuck it.
I don't think it's really a question of "should," or not. The label of Steroid Era is already being used to describe baseball during the '90s-'00s, so if you managed then, you're a Steroids Era manager. If you hit, pitched, coached or raked the infield between the '90s and the '00s, you did so in the Steroids Era. Like the ghost said, every era is labeled. Historians have and will view them through that filter.
Post a Comment