Steroids and Players of the Past

[DoubleX]

I'm starting to think, is it really fair to hold steroids against modern players so much while putting the players of the past up on a pedastal because their records were clean? The fact that their records are clean might have more to do with the fact that steroids weren't available to them, then with the weakness of the current generation. Mike Schmidt has recently said that if he played today, he'd probably try steroids, Willie Mays recently said the same thing on the Bob Costas show on HBO. Steroids is part of the game's culture, and given what Schmidt and Mays have said, I think had the players of the past been in today's game, they too would have used. There is a driving mindset in baseball to get an edge, to be the best, to put up big numbers, and to get the big payday (now more than ever). The introduction of steroids fit in perfectly with this mindset, and I think many of the player's of the past, whom we laud for being clean, would not have been if steroids were available.

Thoughts?

[Taco De Muerte]

Steroids were developed in the 1930's, so it's quite possible that anybody since then tried it, or thought about trying it.

http://www.steroidinformation.com/history.htm

We already know tom house admitted to using pretty much every-type of drug known to man-kind. From horse roids, to amphetamines, etc etc. And that was back in the 70's.

I don't know if the players of the past were really " clean ", I mean, amphetamines was pretty rampant for a longtime, and who knows what-else they may have took. Hell, gavin was injecting himself with some animal semen in his day, I don't know how " clean " that is.

[Windy City Fan]

Interesting thought. Certainly some players would've taken advantage of steriods in the past if they were available. However, the fact remains they didn't. Their records were created without the unfair and illegal advantage of steriods. We can argue if they are morally any better than the users of today, but their records were created without chemical enhancement and should not be tarnished.

On steriods and today, I'm amazed at the number of extremists on both sides. Some folks want to toss every suspected roider out of the game for good and wipe their stats from the records. Others claim that steriods offered little to no advantage for the user and should be completely ignored. Frankly, both sides baffle me. Steriods is a serious issue and players that used them should be downgraded accordingly. On the other hand, we can't ban them all if its as widespread as it has been reported. Baseball should start a strict policy with frequent, random testing and lengthy suspensions for violators with chronic offenders (say 3 or 4 offenses) getting a lifetime ban. I don't have a problem with certain players being denied the honor of Hall of Fame for their illegal chemistry experiments, though I personally ask myself, "Would this guy have been a HoFer without roids?" and go from there.

[leecemark]

--I think WCF has it about right. Players of earlier generations were looking for every advantage as much as the current ones and had steroids been available in the 10s or 30s or 50s I think they would have been every bit as rampant as they are today. However, they weren't and juiced players are putting up some numbers that would likely not be possible without steroids. I make adjustments in my rankings for players who I believe to be chemically enhanced, but would be opposed to any official alteration of records (or asterisks or whatever).
--I don't support any sort of witch hunt or official action against past users. MLB has a testing program now (although it could stand both improvement and tougher penalties). The focus should be on eliminating illegal and/or unapproved supplements now and in the future and not trying to prove who did what before MLB got its act together and started trying to deal with the issue.

[DoubleX]

Isn't that something of a reverse-era adjustment, in that the players who played before steroids were prevalent are essentially rewarded for playing in an earlier time. When in truth, because of the nature of the business and the common mentality of ballplayers throughout the generations, previous generations likely would have enhanced their numbers through steroids had they been able to. Those players are rewarded for not having to deal with the temptation, while today's suspected players are punished for being products of their era.

I think my point is that while adjustments are needed to put the numbers of the last 15 years in perspective, the players of today should not be villified so much because chances are, had the players of yesteryear been in an environment where steroids were rampant, they would have done the same thing (as evidenced when Mike Schmidt and Willie Mays attested to this).

[Windy City Fan]

It depends on what you're trying to measure. If we're debating the moral worth of these men, then yeah the old timers could be argued to have an unfair advantage since the temptation wasn't there for them. If we're debating the relative worth (or value) of their careers and using relative stats, we have to take into account the advantage steriods gave certain players. Guys like Schimdt and Mays, regardless of what they would've done, did not have that advantage over their peers.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Computer fraud wasn't around back then. Should we assume every businessman would have done that as well?

I really don't get this line of thinking. Some may have, some may not have. Its on an individual basis and depends on what each person's character. We cannot say they all would have done it, and we cannot say nobody would have done it.


Frankly, both sides baffle me. Steriods is a serious issue and players that used them should be downgraded accordingly. On the other hand, we can't ban them all if its as widespread as it has been reported.

I concur.

[Ubiquitous]

but their records were created without chemical enhancement and should not be tarnished.

Should not be chemically tarnished, but that does not mean their records are not tarnished for other things.

[Windy City Fan]

Should not be chemically tarnished, but that does not mean their records are not tarnished for other things.

OK, I'll bite. How are their records tarnished?

[Ubiquitous]

Computer fraud wasn't around back then. Should we assume every businessman would have done that as well?


Okay who is saying that every player would have used steroids? Nobody is saying it. They are saying that if steroids were around some would have used them. I would bet everything in my life and everything in everyone elses life that I care about on some businessmen committing computer fraud if computers had existed. Of course they would have, they were already committing fraud in all its other forms. Ever hear of a Ponzi scheme? Well Ponzi was an actual american from that era.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Should not be chemically tarnished, but that does not mean their records are not tarnished for other things.

What did they have control over, that should render their records tarnished?

[Ubiquitous]

OK, I'll bite. How are their records tarnished?


Well we got segregation, we got throwing games, we got spitballs, and we got various forms of cheating based on there only being one umpire a game. We got syndicate baseball, we got a reserve clause.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Okay who is saying that every player would have used steroids? Nobody is saying it.

I never said anyone said it. Once again you miss the point I'm making, and pluck one little thing to harp on. My point was that we can't say they all would, and we can't say they all wouldn't have. We simply don't know, so it shouldn't even be an issue.

[Iron Jaw]

Steroids were around and available by prescription for quite some time, though in the beginning, doctors were also careful with the prescriptions. But as time went on, the bodybuilding world got ahold of them in full force, and began the slow progression of popularizing steroids to some degree.

By the 1970's, steroids had taken full hold in the bodybuilding world. Take a look at the size difference between the Mr. Olympia/Mr. Universe types of the 1960's (Larry Scott, Sergio Oliva, Frank Zane, Dave Draper, etc.) and compare them to their successors in the 1970's (Arnold Schwarzneggar, Lou Ferreigno, Robby Robinson, Ken Waller, Franco Colombu, etc.). Scott, Oliva, Zane were cut like crazy and Draper had good size (natural size though - he was a big man before bodybuilding), but not the muscle mass of the 70's kings of the sport (Scott, Oliva and Zane were still around and competing in the 70's - only they were larger:confused: ).

The NFL took advantage of them as well at the time. Guys like Steve Courson, the incredibly strong offensive lineman for the Steelers claims to have begun taking roids in college before he came up with the Steelers in 1978. Courson "only" weighed around 270 at his heaviest, but bench pressed around 650 pounds - with a 270 lb. bodyweight, he was stronger than 99 percent of the 300+ pound linemen who play today. But years later, he was diagnosed with a bad heart which he attributed to heavy steroid use. And he stated he wasn't the only one on the team using them. Remember, every member of the Steeler line at the time boasted a +500 bench press.

I played college football in the Fall of 1973, did a three-year hitch in the Marines, then resumed playing college ball in the Fall of 1977. When I began playing in 1973, nary a word was mentioned of steroids - we didn't even know what the heck to call the things bodybuilders were taking and NFL players were taking to gain weight. We thought they were some type of growth hormones, known only to a select group of scientists or doctors. But when I came back in 1977, during my three years of college ball half of my team was on Dynabol or other types of steroids. By then, everybody knew about them. The bodybuilding world, with dynamic characters like Arnold, grew to unprecedented popularity, and movies such as Stay Hungry and Pumping Iron enhanced the success.

As stated, at least half of my teammates were on the juice - and I played for a D-II school, thus, it was probably worse in D-I. Most of the guys were getting them from two selected local physicians who prescribed it like candy (there was a later crackdown on doctors, but the black market spread like wildfire after that). The black market on roids was not near as big at the time and it wasn't hard to get them legally. Later, the black market far surpassed the legal distribution.

So as far as Mike Schmidt's generation goes, the juice was available at the time if one wanted to venture in that direction. But while football players were taking them for size, baseball players at the time, in general, saw bulking up as a negative. Take a look at the players of the time - they rarely changed in size or shape from their beginning years through their final years - except for the natural increase in size to their rump or abdomen. Some of the baseball players today look like NFL players. The great players, like Willie Mays weighed 175-180 his entire career (and he hit 660 HR's with that bodyweight:) ).

Suspicious players began to emerge in the 80's. Guys like Lance Parrish of the Tigers, an incredibly strong catcher, seemed to be unusually bulked up for baseball. But Lance didn't really change much from day-one to the end of his career.

Players of yesteryear did try different things. Some did enter into strict weight-training programs, though they avoided the bench press which players have always said affects the swing in a negative way. Carl Yastrezmski began a weight training program prior to the 1967 season and his power increased for the most part - but Carl didn't gain a significant amount of weight. Stan the Man Musial always had a calisthenic/weight training program that more than likely allowed him to play well at an advanced age. But Stan never changed much either.

Nothing like Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa changed. They went through a complete body-size change.

I'm glad I avoided the temptation when I was playing college football. I was also a member of the college wrestling team and didn't need the extra weight. Plus, I did a little research on them which also wasn't as widely available at the time (we couldn't just pop the internet up then). And at 50 today, I have the physical health of a person in his 30's. And I noticed that my teammates who were on the juice had constant problems with nagging injuries to their tendons and joints. Along with the "attitude" that goes along with juicing.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I'm starting to think, is it really fair to hold steroids against modern players so much while putting the players of the past up on a pedastal because their records were clean? The fact that their records are clean might have more to do with the fact that steroids weren't available to them, then with the weakness of the current generation. Mike Schmidt has recently said that if he played today, he'd probably try steroids, Willie Mays recently said the same thing on the Bob Costas show on HBO. Steroids is part of the game's culture, and given what Schmidt and Mays have said, I think had the players of the past been in today's game, they too would have used. There is a driving mindset in baseball to get an edge, to be the best, to put up big numbers, and to get the big payday (now more than ever). The introduction of steroids fit in perfectly with this mindset, and I think many of the player's of the past, whom we laud for being clean, would not have been if steroids were available.

Thoughts?

I'm sure if steroids were as readily available back then some would use them. With that said that fact in no way takes those off the hook that used them after the ban in todays game. We have no way to know who might have used them in that time peroid.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Should not be chemically tarnished, but that does not mean their records are not tarnished for other things.
We've been down this road many times and I would assume most agree there were other forms of rule breaking in the past and they were all wrong.

The starting post of this theme asks if steroids were available back then, would there be some using, I say yes. The issue he brought up was steroids.

[KCGHOST]

There simply is no point in this discussion. The players in bygone eras didn't use steroids and to argue they would have if they were available is moot. And then to argue that since they would have we should accept its usage today is simply sublime.

[Victory Faust]

You actually could make the argument that the old-time players would have been more likely to use steroids than modern players, because most of the old players were worried they would be in the poorhouse if they lost their jobs.

Conversely, modern major leaguers -- even the mediocre ones -- are set for life financially. So feeding their families is not a consideration.

I don't think the question is whether the old-timers would have done steroids; of course many of them would have.

But, as pointed out before, they didn't do them. And, because they didn't, their stats aren't inflated.

[DoubleX]

As stated, at least half of my teammates were on the juice - and I played for a D-II school, thus, it was probably worse in D-I. Most of the guys were getting them from two selected local physicians who prescribed it like candy (there was a later crackdown on doctors, but the black market spread like wildfire after that). The black market on roids was not near as big at the time and it wasn't hard to get them legally. Later, the black market far surpassed the legal distribution.

Wow. If that was the case on the D-II level, the NFL was likely rampant.

[digglahhh]

From a moral standpoint, you can speculate anything about anything you want. The fact though is that players of yesteryear didn't really take steroids. Why the didn't makes for interesting discussion, and sure, some would have taken them if available, but they didn't. That doesn't make them better people, it just makes their records cleaner.

So the previous generation took amphetamines what does that have to do with the comparative legitimacy of their records? Today's players take them too.

I don't think that using steroids is ethical but the truth is that in the future there will be even more advanced forms of doping. Four years from now, when somebody hits 90 homers, we will be sitting here and saying, "Well at least Barry only used HGH, not X." One day steroids will be a relatively benign form of cheating.

That's the problem with the "worse forms of cheating argument," it is valid today, but it is relative and one day there will be even "worse" forms. I don't like the "disgrace" the record books argument because it gives a pass to the mediocre players, who don't rewrite anything by being marginal Major Leaguers except their mortgage.

If you want to denounce steroid use you have to do it in accordance to your own moral/ethical principles that you apply across the board. I reject steroids because I reject all artificial/chemical (presumed) enhancements used primarily for selfish and/or cosmetic reasons with little or no health benefits to speak of. That goes for steroids, breast implants and anything else designed to alter one's natural state. But in terms of baseball, steroids are just the natural progression of attempts to get one up on the competition, and they're far from the last stop.

I can dislike them, but it would have been foolhardy of me not to expect this.

[Brownie31]

Of course players, not all of course, would have used steroids
circa 1918 had they been availble. Of course, some businessmen
from that era would have used computer fraud.

Anyone who has done any reading into that era knows that
there were baseball scandals and most assuredly there were
business scandals! It boggles the mind to think what Ponzi
or Joe Kennedy might have done with a computer.

However, the fact that people would have done these
things nine decades ago doesn't justify them today nor
does it mean they should go unpunished today.

Brownie31

[Bench 5]

Great summary Iron Jaw!!

I don't think many baseball players took steroids prior to the 80s. I remember when weightlifting became the hot thing to do in the late 70s. Guys like Brian Downing, Richie Zisk, Robin Yount and Lance Parrish come to mind.

I recall reading an article about Parrish circa 1982 when he reported to camp with 19 inch biceps. Downing got huge pretty quick as well so who knows.

Whenever I recall reading about how much some of these guys could bench that tends to raise my eyebrows. Joe Charboneau could bench 400, Pete Incaviglia could bench 550, and even Lance Johnson could bench 400....... Looking back I tend to think they were on something. Steroids were pretty common when I was in college in the mid-80s but people act like its a new problem.

[julusnc]

This is stirring the pot.....I am sure if given the chance 40 years ago some of yesteryears greatest players would have taken enhancement medications.I am also sure that if I lived in the 1880's I would have tried my hand at being a gunfighter.

Speculation is a bitch.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

There simply is no point in this discussion. The players in bygone eras didn't use steroids and to argue they would have if they were available is moot. And then to argue that since they would have we should accept its usage today is simply sublime.


I think that says it all. Whats the point. Whether some of the old timers would have used steroids if available is silly to even debate. Would some, sure but we can only go by what did and is taking place.

Why not go easy on some pitchers who threw shine balls, emory balls, spit balls when others who came before them would have done the same had these pitches been developed in their times. Whats the big deal about hitters using laminated bats, corked bats when we could bet that those that came before them would have used them in their time.

Get the point. What does this make the players of the game today who resist this great temptation of using steroids "just because" they are available, they must be saints.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

This is stirring the pot.....I am sure if given the chance 40 years ago some of yesteryears greatest players would have taken enhancement medications.I am also sure that if I lived in the 1880's I would have tried my hand at being a gunfighter.

Speculation is a bitch.

Your telling me, you hit the nail on the head. whats all this, what might have been stuff. Some that say players like Ruth and Hack Wilson broke a law many times, illegal drinking. They don't think if some of todays players were living in that time may have been law breakers. Again I say, whats the point.

[leecemark]

--That depends on what you are looking at. If performance level is your only concern then sure it doesn't matter what old timers might have done given the opportunity. However, for many steroids are more of an emotional issue and players who have given way to the temptation are demonized. I think pointing out the likelyhood that players of any generation would have been juicing in the same environment is a valid counterpont to that.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

--That depends on what you are looking at. If performance level is your only concern then sure it doesn't matter what old timers might have done given the opportunity. However, for many steroids are more of an emotional issue and players who have given way to the temptation are demonized. I think pointing out the likelyhood that players of any generation would have been juicing in the same environment is a valid counterpont to that.

Thats what I'm looking at. Given away to temptation, let me say it again. Then those in todays game who chose not to are saints looking at it that way.

I don't see it as a counterpoint because in the end it means nothing. Sounds like the old ghetto defense, I'm living in a bad neighborhood, give me a break.

[leecemark]

--Not exactly a surprising response Shoeless, given that you have a long track record of worshipping the old timers at the expense of modern players. Is Barry Bonds a worse person than Ty Cobb? Was Babe Ruth a better man than Jason Giambi? I don't think there are any saints in the game now nor were there at any time.
--Major league baseball players are no better or worse than anybody else in any respect other than their skill at playing the game. Idolizing them is just setting yourself up for disappointment. I love the game and enjoy watching those who play it best. I have no illusions as to them having great character to match their talent though. Which is not to say there are not some admirable citizens in MLB, but if they happen to be heros on and off the field it is strictly a coincidence.

[AG2004]

Interesting thought. Certainly some players would've taken advantage of steriods in the past if they were available. However, the fact remains they didn't. Their records were created without the unfair and illegal advantage of steriods. We can argue if they are morally any better than the users of today, but their records were created without chemical enhancement and should not be tarnished.

Ralph Kiner's record was created with chemical enhancement. We know this because he admitted to taking amphetamines. Granted, the chemicals were legal at the time, and baseball didn't get around to banning them until the 21st century, but they were still chemical aids.

Kiner also stated that it he didn't know what amphetamines were before a Pirates team trainer introduced him to them. It might be that many players of the 1950s created their records with chemical enhancement.


As far as I can tell, the amphetamine era in baseball started just after WWII. The military would give soldiers the pills in order to combat fatigue from long missions. Then, when they played baseball and football on bases, they would notice the improvements that amphetamines gave them. So, while the steroid era might be recent, the chemical enhancement era has lasted for about the past sixty years.

One more note: The use of amphetamines and steroids is a prisoner's dilemma situation. It makes "sense" for any individual player to use them to improve performance as long as very few others are using them; he can argue that the short-term gain is worth the long-term risks. However, if everybody uses them, nobody gains an advantage. In fact, everyone loses; not only are their performances the same as if nobody used them (since baseball is a zero-sum game), but they have the health problems from using the drugs as well.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Idolizing them is just setting yourself up for disappointment.

Not when you go into it knowing that they're human. In learning about a player, the goal should be to peel back the layers on and off the field. To take nothing at face value. More often than not, someone wasn't as angelic a person as they're made out to be, and they're not as demonic as they're made out to be. Discovering the truth is not disappointing, its enlightening.

[leecemark]

--Randy, I am very interested in learning more about the men who play(ed) the game. I am just not interested in idolizing any of them. You obviously feel differently, at least about one particular player (who was that again:D ?). They are just human beings and in most cases as flawed or more so than the guy next door or Uncle Bob.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

--Not exactly a surprising response Shoeless, given that you have a long track record of worshipping the old timers at the expense of modern players. Is Barry Bonds a worse person than Ty Cobb? Was Babe Ruth a better man than Jason Giambi? I don't think there are any saints in the game now nor were there at any time.
--Major league baseball players are no better or worse than anybody else in any respect other than their skill at playing the game. Idolizing them is just setting yourself up for disappointment. I love the game and enjoy watching those who play it best. I have no illusions as to them having great character to match their talent though. Which is not to say there are not some admirable citizens in MLB, but if they happen to be heros on and off the field it is strictly a coincidence.
Lets face it all on this board lean one way or another. I don't worship old timers I just counter often the notion that some have, some hint at that some of the great and very good players of the past would be also rans and would not be able to compete with modern day players.

If one would go back to some of my posts, impossible too many to sift through they would see that I've said a number of times, overall the quality of the game is higher although not sure in the area of overall pitching, speaking of the lower rung, some that would not be in the game if not for expansion. Again, thats pitching only, integration, Hispanics and as of late Asian Americans bring loads of talent into the game.

Many times I've said send Barry, Gwynn, Carew, Brett back in time and they are stars, could hit in any time period. I guess, I know it's evident that I don't see anyone, well maybe one hitter that combined slugging and hitting over a whole career than Babe Ruth, thats Ted Williams. I don't see that as worship, amazed at the hitting for average and slugging over whole careers.

I can't say that Ruth or Cobb are better than any particular player if your talking personality or Charactar, all have faults.

There may be some who demonize those that some believe used steroids but there are also a number who tend to put the blame every where but on the users, thats the part I don't buy. Some even blame the fans for putting the pressure on the players to excel, where does it all end. MLB may have dropped the ball, should have had a testing program long ago, steroids and amphetimines, behind the times compared to some other sports but in the end the blame falls on those that made the choice.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--Randy, I am very interested in learning more about the men who play(ed) the game. I am just not interested in idolizing any of them. You obviously feel differently, at least about one particular player (who was that again:D ?). They are just human beings and in most cases as flawed or more so than the guy next door or Uncle Bob.

Right. The same can be said about Martin Luther King, or Abraham Lincoln, or anyone who's ever had a heart, a brain, and free will.

I don't think we should expect these guys to be perfect just because they possess unique skills on a baseball diamond. When you don't have that expectation going in, then its hard to be disappointed and easy to be intrigued by the "person." Doesn't matter who you choose to study, you're going to find that he made mistakes and had flaws. Historical importance does matter though, as we've seen with Ruth. It doesn't matter that Hack was much more of a drunk, or that Satchel was also unfaithful in relationships. That doesn't get brought up. Ruth gets brought up. A prisoner of his own impact in a sense. He matters, and his flaws still matter to this day.

As to your idolize comment. I'm not totally disagreeing with you, but I'm not sure you could call it that in its extreme definition, although I can understand why it appears that way. If the definition of idolize is to blindly admire someone, or have a blind devotion to them, then I'm not so sure. My eyes are wide open to him as player and person. In fact, as open as possible. My admiration for him did not shoot up to the sky and stay there, never to waver. As I've learned more and more about him, there have been things that I didn't like to hear and learn about.

I don't like the fact that he was irresponsible by driving while intoxicated, but I'd be lying if I said I haven't done the same thing. I don't like the fact that he could be so crude. I don't like the fact that he cheated. While I don't like all that, in digging deeper, I've discovered whats behind it all. In no way does it excuse it. Then I ask myself if other positive aspects of his life would have remained without those negatives. In other words, you need to take the good with the bad. They feed off eachother.

Classic example is Cobb. Remove his incredible will to compete and his chip on shoulder attitude, and he'd probably be a better person off the field. But would he be the same player on it? Doubtful. Remove Ruth's insatiable appetite for booze, women, food and fun, and remove his uninhibited care free personality, and what kind of ballplayer would he be. Would he handle pressure the same way. Would he react to fans/media the same way? Would he have the same impact? I say doubtful. So I'm not blind to anything, and not above learning things that change my perception of him to a degree. My standards of "digging depth" and accuracy are very high when it comes to him, so like I said, no doubt the idolize thing comes off as extreme.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Lets face it all on this board lean one way or another. .

For what its worth; knowing how you feel about Babe, I admire how neutral you are able to stay at times, when it really doesn't call for it ;)

I'm right with ya. Send the elites today back, and even stripped of everything, I think they'd still be elites. And the same courtesy should be extended to former players coming forward. Give them everything, and I think they'd be elite, but that they would not dominate the way they did, mostly because of offensive factors.

[ESPNFan]

My two cents.

Any speculation on what players would hae done in the past is basicly the same character assassination that is going on today with Steroids. How does anyone here know what someone will do given the opportunity. If steroids were known to be cheating then it becomes a moral issue and again we have no idea what various players would have done from a moral standpoint.

And again to echo what Iron Jaw stated, weightlifting was veiwed very negatively in baseballs past and only recently did it become accepted. Tom House the admitted Steroid user from the 70's clamed that if a coach caught him lifting he would have been demoted to the minors. Players were not going to do something that assisted what was already looked at negatively.

[DoubleX]

Right. The same can be said about Martin Luther King, or Abraham Lincoln, or anyone who's ever had a heart, a brain, and free will.

That's true, but I'm having difficulty understanding this analogy. Are you saying that we shouldn't idolize people like Martin Luther King Jr and Abraham Lincoln, because like everyone else, they have flaws? The difference between King and Lincoln and baseball players is that King and Lincoln impacted society for the better with their character. Baseball players play a game, character is an afterthought. Sure, character will show up in how they play the game, but how much difference does that make outside the context of baseball? Admire their skills on the diamond and if they're good people then that's a bonus; but they are in no way role models consummate to people who make real societal differences on account of their character.

[west coast orange and black]

to believe that a great percentage of players from the 50s and 60s would have used steroids if they were widespreadly available is not character assassination. it is merely the belief that a large percentage of players would have used steroids had they been widespreadly available.

believing that upwards of 50% of today's players used at one time or another is not character assassination, either.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

That's true, but I'm having difficulty understanding this analogy. Are you saying that we shouldn't idolize people like Martin Luther King Jr and Abraham Lincoln, because like everyone else, they have flaws?


No, quite the contrary. I'm saying we should understand that we are all human and all have flaws, just like our neighbor or Uncle Bob, as Mark put it. That their flaws should in no way diminish or restrict our capacity to admire their accomplishments. I think If you want learn about someone, no matter who it is (hence the extreme examples of MLK and Abe), you should be prepared to acknowledge various temptations, faults, vices, downfalls, and negativity that comes with being human. They are not clay.



The difference between King and Lincoln and baseball players is that King and Lincoln impacted society for the better with their character. Baseball players play a game, character is an afterthought. Sure, character will show up in how they play the game, but how much difference does that make outside the context of baseball? Admire their skills on the diamond and if they're good people then that's a bonus; but they are in no way role models consummate to people who make real societal differences on account of their character.

I agree except in rare cases like Ruth, where his impact spread well beyond the foul lines. To the point where it inspired enemy soldiers to use his name as an insult. To the point where interest in baseball rose dramitically. To the point where his barnstorming helped break down the ridiculous notion that black players were infererior. To the point where endorsing products by an athlete exploded onto the scene. To the point where 100 years from now, his life and times will still be studied and talked about. Character with Ruth was at the very forefront of everything he did, and without that, what would he have been? I believe his personality off the field, is what allowed him to do what he did on the field, or vice versa, depending on how you look at it. At the same time, I think without his onfield accomplishments, there wouldn't be such a desire to delve into him as a person.

In no way is he on the same level in terms of historical importance as Abe or MLK, but in the context of a baseball player, and in pushing the limits of popularity and impact, he was as large as it gets.

Most ballplayer though, I think fall right into what you're saying. What matters is what they do between the lines. Their impact cannot and does not have the same effect as Ruth's. Our society is not the same.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

to believe that a great percentage of players from the 50s and 60s would have used steroids if they were widespreadly available is not character assassination. it is merely the belief that a large percentage of players would have used steroids had they been widespreadly available.


If we're speculating, then I would tend to agree. Although we can't say for sure who, or how many, so where does that take us.

If I'm black, you could say "if Sultan lived in LA during the riots," he would most likely have looted and committed acts of violence.

I think the danger is in painting every past era with the same broad negative stroke, and holding that thought in our minds, based on what THIS era DID do.

[west coast orange and black]

enough with posts such as this, sultan; you are starting to appear, uh, human to me. ;)

ok, seriously, who are you and what did you do with the real sultan? :eek:

[west coast orange and black]

speculating, yes, based on human nature.
there is nothing that makes people of yesteryear *more holy* than today's population.
no one generation's got a fix on that.

that's all i was sayin'.

[west coast orange and black]

sultan: If I'm black, you could say "if Sultan lived in LA during the riots," he would most likely have looted and committed acts of violence.

if it could be shown that a majority of blacks did in fact loot, than yes, that statement would be correct in a certain general regard.
to make that same claim on a specific person, though, would be an entirely different set of circumstances for me, though.

generalization v personalization

[Sultan_1895-1948]

enough with posts such as this, sultan; you are starting to appear, uh, human to me. ;)

ok, seriously, who are you and what did you do with the real sultan? :eek:

The one who is rational and tells it like it is? I have him tied up in the bedroom. This is a 5'9" , 34 C blonde typing right now. Gotta go !! :D

[west coast orange and black]

5'9" 34C: The one who is rational and tells it like it is? I have him tied up in the bedroom.

how much did sultan pay you to say this?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

5'9" 34C: The one who is rational and tells it like it is? I have him tied up in the bedroom.

how much did sultan pay you to say this?

I'm supposed to be busy, remember :D

[west coast orange and black]

whoops. i missed the necktie on the doorknob the first time thru.:eek:

[Sultan_1895-1948]

lol..

alright, here's a reverse scenario for ya WC..

Today's horse trainers/riders/rodeo dudes would all be robbing stagecoaches if they existed today.. lol knew you'd love that :crazy

[west coast orange and black]

ceci n'est pas une stagecoach
(that's all i got for this one, man)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

And you know I just had to do something with this.....all in good fun :D

[baseballPAP]

This is stirring the pot.....I am sure if given the chance 40 years ago some of yesteryears greatest players would have taken enhancement medications.I am also sure that if I lived in the 1880's I would have tried my hand at being a gunfighter.

Speculation is a bitch.
Amen brother!

And on that note, I'll pretend this thread isn't here. I have given my view, I have heard most everyone else's, and I have no more interest in this topic.

[west coast orange and black]

at least you did not put buck all the way in the back.

too funny, sultan!