Roger Alexander never made it to the major leagues, maybe because he didn’t use steroids. Hank Aaron, on the other hand, did make it to the major leagues, without using steroids, and he hit 755 home runs – the most distinguished single statistical record in the American sports pantheon. And that, ultimately, is a very important reason why the BALCO/Barry Bonds mess has been, and will be, written and spoken to death. Sure, steroid use is bad for baseball and illegal -- creating an uneven playing field and rampant uncertainty as to who’s clean and who isn’t. However, the DH and interleague play have also created an uneven playing field, and very few pundits are up on their high horse about those inequities.In point of fact, football, weightlifting, bicycling, track and field (everything from sprinters and marathoners to the weight men) and bodybuilding have also undergone their own steroid, or performance-enhancing drug, controversies and have, as near as can be judged at this point in time, survived. And, trust me on this, baseball will survive as well. Of course, it would help if a significant steroid-testing policy with real teeth in it would be instituted sometime before the 2005 season starts, but, baseball will survive, just as those other sports have.Nonetheless, just about everybody has already put in their two cents on this one – soon-to-be Hall of Famers (Peter Gammons), future Hall-of Famers (Jayson Stark – he’ll join Gammons as a Frick Award winner some day), all the rest of ESPN.Com’s columnists, Bud.Com (what did he say, anyway?), the Giambi Brothers, the Coyne Brothers, the Marx Brothers, the Smith Brothers (even cough drops will be illegal if John McCain has his way), Bill Chuck, Bruce Brown, the San Francisco Chronicle (which deserves a Pulitzer) – everybody. Still, one of the most interesting comments came in a book by Dan Gutman, Baseball Babylon, that was published back in 1992. Here’s what he had to say in a chapter subtitled "Bulking Up with a 'Canseco Shake'":"It’s doubtful that steroid use will ever be as popular among baseball players, because monster muscles and body bulk don’t necessarily guarantee success in their game. Muscles might help a slugger power a ball over the fence, but they won’t help him hit it in the first place… But, there is undoubtedly some steroid use in baseball. In 1987, the New York Times quoted an anonymous doctor who said he had been contacted by an American League trainer about obtaining steroids for several of his players."At the time Gutman wrote this, Barry Bonds was in his seventh major league season, and his last with the Pirates. At age 27, he had yet to hit more than 34 home runs in a season. He would hit 46 the next year. He would hit 73 in 2001.At the time Gutman wrote this, Barry Bonds was in his seventh major league season, and his last with the Pirates. At age 27, he had yet to hit more than 34 home runs in a season. He would hit 46 the next year. He would hit 73 in 2001.However, let us neither laugh at Gutman nor totally dismiss what he has to say. Clearly the problem existed as far back as 1987 which was, you’ll recall, the first really big home run season since 1961. What’s more, the essence of his statement about steroids and baseball is one that many 2004 commentators have made – that there’s a question just how much steroids help in hitting, or, at least, how much they help for something other than creating long home runs. No, steroids won’t help you hit the ball, but, the muscle power they provide will help turn those 320 to 360 foot fly ball outs into 340 to 400 foot home runs. As has been noted in several stories, and as originally reported on a Boston radio station, Bonds hit three home runs longer than 450 feet prior to 2000 – when he turned 36 -- and he’s hit 26 such really long blows since then.So, just how much, and in what ways, do steroids help hitting prowess? For purposes of illustration, let’s look at both Bonds and Jason Giambi’s stats, broken down “before” and “after” their hitting went through the roof.Barry BondsAB HR HR% H BA 1986-2001 7456 494 .066 2157 .2892001-2004 1642 209 .127 573 .349Jason GiambiAB HR HR% H BA1995-1998 1793 53 .030 518 .2891999-2003 2700 196 .073 839 .311Look at those home run rates skyrocket! Watch those baseballs fly! But, look at those batting averages. Do steroids actually help improve making contact? Or did both players just improve that skill on their own? Or is it something else? Like… having a lot of fly ball outs turn into home runs, thus turning outs into hits?In 1998, a 27 year-old Jason Giambi hit 27 home runs in 562 at bats at an age that often marks a player’s normal peak performance. That’s an .049 home run percentage. If Giambi had continued to hit home runs at that pace through 2003, he would have hit 132 home runs in those five years, not 196. If indeed that means 64 fly ball outs became 64 home runs, then let’s subtract 64 from his 1999-2003 hit total. That makes him 775 for 2700, or a .287 batting average over that time.Similarly, if Bonds had continued to hit home runs at a .066 clip from 2001 to 2004, he would have hit 108 home runs during that time, not 209. Subtract 101 (209 – 108) home run hits from his totals, and he goes 472 for 1642, or a .287 average. While the similarity of these figures is coincidental, doesn’t it seem logical to say that batting average, as well as home runs, can benefit from steroids?Now, Giambi aside, Bonds has been the lightning rod of this controversy, although some of those who have taken Bonds to the woodshed in print have themselves been raked over the coals for singling (or is it homering) out Bonds. But, let’s look at it this way – he has put himself in a unique category. Barry Bonds is the only potential immortal who has been identified, and who admits to cheating, in this highly unethical and illegal (putting Vaseline on a baseball is not illegal) fashion... at least among people who have been identified with this particular form of abuse. Jason and Jeremy Giambi won’t be in the Hall of Fame. Ken Caminiti won’t. It seems unlikely that Jose Canseco will make it. And, although Gary Sheffield may have a pretty good chance if he doesn’t fall apart like Jason Giambi, he still has only four points on the Black Ink Test, and that’s not the mark of a Hall of Fame corner outfielder.However, the real significance is that Bonds, if he doesn’t turn into Jason Giambi, or retire or is suspended or banned from baseball, seems certain to break the biggest record in sports -- the career home run mark. He's already broken the second biggest record in sports -- single season home runs -- along with three other extremely significant marks that are not always recognized as such -- the season OBA and SLG marks, and the career walk record. He will, if everyone looks the other way (which admittedly may not happen) be a first ballot Hall of Famer... which would cement his now-highly dubious claim as one of the top five players in history. Still, it’s the Aaron record that you have to think is the biggest single issue. And, one part of that issue is the question, how out of line are Bonds’ stats for at least the last four years? For the sake of this argument, let’s look at Hammering Henry’s last few years in terms of both his power and his ability to draw a base on balls.Age AB HR HR% W W%37 495 47 .095 71 .14338 449 34 .076 92 .20539 392 40 .102 68 .17340 340 20 .059 39 .11541 465 12 .026 70 .15142 271 10 .037 35 .129Except for the fact that he played until he was 42, Aaron’s career pattern is not that unusual for a big-time home run hitter… at least, a big-time home run hitter other than Barry Bonds. Basically, it shows a decline in power numbers late in his career, while continuing to get more than his fair share of walks. In fact, while power does indeed decline late in players’ career, the ability to draw a walk hangs on a lot longer. In fact, sluggers at the end of the line sometimes even increase their walk rate. Should you care to total the above categories for the top “old” home run hitters of all time (that’s Aaron down to McGriff… basically the members of the 500 Club who played past their 37th birthday) other than Mr. Bonds, and looking at the numbers for ages 37 (his age during the season wherein Bonds hit 73 home runs) to 40, here’s what you’ll find…Age AB HR HR% W W%37 6185 375 .061 922 .14938 5764 306 .053 812 .14139 4667 269 .058 774 .16640 2659 114 .043 438 .165The ability to get a walk is remarkably age-proof among the elite of the home run… these 13 guys actually got better as they got older. Note also the uptick in home run percentage at age 39. This is due largely to Messrs. Aaron, Mays, Jackson and McCovey. Hank went from .076 at age 38 to .102 at age 39 – a surge that basically gave him free access to Ruth’s record. In fact, Aaron’s .102 rate at 39 is by far the highest non-Bonds home run percentage of any of the 13 sluggers in their dotage. Mays’ figures went from .032 to .059, Reggie from .048 to .059 and Mac from .031 to .059. So, yes, it is possible for a top home run slugger to improve his numbers at age 39, or any other single season. But, what about this improvement, recalling that Bonds’ career home run percentage before 2001 was .066… and his home run percentage at age 36 in 2000 was .102.Age AB HR HR% W W%37 476 73 .153 142 .29838 403 46 .114 130 .32339 390 45 .115 87 .22340 373 45 .121 112 .300Most obviously, the level of Bonds’ home runs are way out of line with everyone else’s… a home run percentage three times that of the average 500 homer man at age 40? What’s more, even his pattern doesn’t fit… going from .102 at age 36 to .121 at age 40 (with a huge peak at age 37)? As to the part of the argument that steroids don’t help with hand-eye coordination, or plate discipline, the rate of Bonds’ non-intentional walks (that’s what the above figures represent, walks he got on his own) is pretty much like everyone else.So, to review… it certainly appears as if steroids can help both batting average and power, though they don’t have much effect on walking. And that’s not too different from what Dan Gutman wrote in 1992 – the key, for hitters, is the ability to power the ball over the wall. Now, have you ever wondered why there currently seem to be so many pitchers who can throw in the high 90s?Permanent Link | Comments (6) Posted on Dec 23, 2004 at 2:04 PM Pacific Time by Christian December 20, 2004Is There a “There” There Anymore?The Oakland A's got busy over the last few days, trading away two-thirds of the vaunted Big Three, Tim Hudson and Mark Mulder, to the Braves and Cardinals. Take a peek at what the All-Baseball.com columnists think about the deals, as well as the general direction of the A's.----------Mark McClusky: Elephants in Oakland thinks the Mark Mulder deal is "an outstanding move." That's the emerging conventional internet wisdom, but I'm not sure I buy it. I think it smells of panic.Will Carroll: I'm somewhere in between. I'd like to see someone signed as a stop-gap to get Meyer and Blanton some time while keeping Duchscherer in the pen. The pen could be FILTHY, giving Huston Street some time to develop into the closer. Looking at this trade and the Hudson trade, in TWO consecutive deals, Beane got as good a return as Cleveland did a couple seasons ago for Bartolo Colon. That's no mean feat. Dan Meyer might be the weakest prospect in the bunch. Ken Arneson: I just ran BTF's projections (since I don't have PECOTA yet) using my own best guess of playing time for next year. I came up with the offense scoring about 25 more runs than last year (thanks mostly to an improved OBP), and the pitching yielding 10 *fewer* runs.However, I think the ZiPS projections are wildly optimistic about the rookie pitchers. Here are the projected ERAs for the A's potential starters (excluding Etherton, who I couldn't find):Zito 4.23Harden 3.89Blanton 3.89Haren 4.53Meyer 4.27Duchscherer 3.85If Blanton has a better ERA in the majors next year than he did in AAA last year (4.19), I'd be extremely surprised. I think it's more likely that Blanton and Meyer would have ERAs in the high-4's, which would mean that the A's pitching would yield about 15 more runs than last year.Still, that's still a +10-run improvement. Even though I'd take the ZiPS projections with a grain of salt, it's still pretty clear that the A's are perfectly capable of contending in 2005.Mike Carminati: I don't buy it. I think no matter how much we are jaded by baseball's 21st-century pragmatism, the A's traded two great pitchers. Yes, Hudson was a free agent after this season but Mulder had two years left, which is an eternity when you consider that a new CBA will be in place when he starts his next contract. Haren does not impress me one bit -- he couldn't crack the crappy Cardinals rotation. Kiko Calero isn't bad as a role pitcher, but he's not much more. I doubt he could develop into a closer at 30 with just two years of major-league experience. Daric Barton looks like a great hitter, but they are already saying he isn't much defensively. Besides, the A's have a ton of minor-league prospects who are catchers. As for the pickups from the Braves, Charles Thomas looks like a decent fourth outfielder, a neo-Gerald Williams. He took five years to get to the majors, didn't do much of anything until 2004, and only stuck in the lineup because of the failure of the Chipper-in-left experiment. How high are the Braves on the guy if they would trade him while potentially losing J.D. Drew? Juan Cruz got ridden out of town on rail in Chicago. He could fulfill his "potential" tag but two organizations have given up on him. Meyer looks pretty solid but may not be ready yet for the majors. And if you chalk both trades up to shrinking the A's payroll, then why pick up Jason Kendall's bloated contract? Kendall's signed for four years and even though the Pirates ate a good deal of the backend of that contract, he'll be 34 in his final year, which is ancient for a catcher. He also stands in the way of the large stockpile of catching talent they now have. At least he dumped Rhodes. Then there's the Keith Ginter trade. To pick up Mark Ellis insurance and Lehr as a throw-in is fine, but they also gave up Nelson Cruz who looks like a better prospect than Thomas: more power and a year younger.So what's the net result of what the A's have done? They have traded three-fifths of their rotation for a single-A catcher, one unproven starter, one proven to be not that great, an overpriced 30-year-old catcher who's good but not great, a swingman, and a backup infielder. Thomas for Cruz is a push. Calero's a decent upgrade over Lehr. Rhodes for Cruz may even be an even-up trade.I think Beane is just getting a free ride from the sabermetrically minded. I think, of the four postseason transactions he's made, each is worse than the last. I see no justification for the Mulder one when he has two years left. The only question I have is if it's worse than the one the two teams made to bring McGwire to the Cards. It's all especially bad when you consider how close they were to contending in 2005. I guess he could turn it all around with a few more key pickups but it seems that he is still strapped for cash, so he'll have to get creative.My verdict is that Beane has jumped the shark, at least that's how it looks so far.Ken: You're not helping me feel any better, Mike.The only question I have is if it's worse than the one the two teams made to bring McGwire to the Cards.That's not possible.There are two different questions here, and I think they're getting a bit jumbled up when people talk about this:1. Was the decision to trade Hudson and Mulder now a good one?2. Did they get good value for the trades?To answer the first question, you have to go back and ask if there is any way Beane could have gotten to this offseason without being $12M over budget. Answer: probably. Don't sign Redman, don't sign Rhodes, and (hence) don't trade for Dotel. Backload Chavez's new contract some more. Who would have been the A's closer in 2004? No idea.But if you start with the given that Beane made those mistakes last year and here he is now, $12M over budget, what's the best way to get back to budget?Well, first I'll assume that Beane can't find anyone to take the Rhodes or Redman contracts without an exchange of bad contracts, and Beane is not trading Chavez no matter what. Then the A's have six major 2005 salaries they can move: Hudson, Mulder, Zito, Kotsay, Durazo, and Dotel. To shed $12M in salaries, you pretty much have to get rid of at least two of those six guys. The easiest choices would be Durazo and Dotel, because if you can't find someone to take them in a trade, you can just non-tender them.On the other hand, I think it's pretty safe to say that of those six, Hudson and Mulder are the least likely to stay healthy all year. And of the six, they also have the two most expensive contracts.And of the six, they will also get you the most in return in a trade.At this point in his career, Mulder is a very risky player. He could revert to his pre-broken-hip form, or he could stay a pumpkin forever. If it's the former, you have a great player. If it's the latter, you've made a very expensive mistake. I can see why Beane decided to get while the gettin' was good, and chose Mulderas one of the two players to dump.Hudson is less risky, but he's only got one year left on his deal, and then he's gone. So I can see why he chose Hudson, too. So while I would have much preferred that Beane had never gotten to this point where he had to shed those salaries, once he got there, I can understand why he chose to trade the guys he did.But it still sucks that it happened.As for the second question, whether they got a good value for the trades, I'm not even gonna try to answer that one. Obviously, Mike thinks not. I think Meyer and Barton have enough upside that the trades can work out well in the long run. But we'll just have to wait and see if that turns out to be the case.Will: Billy Beane did not suddenly get stupid. Ken: I'm sure he thinks his team is better for the long haul. You think he thinks it's better for 2005, too? Will: Yes. He's got a decent staff with a power back end. The rotation goes six and then they get smashed with Bradford, Cruz, Dotel, Street, and Rincon. It limits the exposure of a very young staff and limits the exposure of a defense that could be spotty. Add in one more hitter and this thing looks really nice, especially compared to the competition. Remember, the A's just have to beat the Angels to make the playoffs, and they didn't get better. Mike: Yeah, Custer had a plan, too (to quote Russell Zisky). I just think the linchpin in all this was the Kendall trade. They traded bad contracts but Kendall's has 4 years left on his and he dwarfs the other two. Besides what now happens to all the young catchers they continue to amass? And Kendall is not that good. He was one of the best catchers in the game about five years ago, then he stunk, and now he's above average. But he has no pop and could quickly turn into a one-dimensional player.They get Kendall's contract with just $1M paid by the Pirates this year. Then they have to trade both pitchers and their contracts. So they're left with Zito and a bunch of unproven pitchers. And let me tell you, I lived it this past season. A staff with no proven ace is worse than the sum of its parts. Maybe he'll get lucky and all of the pitchers will reach their potential this season, but I would say that's remote. Maybe I'm wrong.I could see the argument that he had to cut payroll and got some good prospects (Meyer and Barton) and some projects (Cruz, Haren, and Barton, after they move him from behind the plate). But the reaction from Beane and the Elephants is, as a friend of mine said, like Kevin Bacon telling the stampeding crowd at the end of Animal House, "All is well." I think the A's have sealed up third in 2005, and may have to start worrying of the M's ever get their act and a young staff together.Ken: Kendall only has three years left on his contract, not four. If you count Rhodes and Redman as sunk costs, then the A's are paying Kendall $3.25M, $3.5M, and $5.5M for 2005-07.I don't think that's so bad for a good catcher. The trouble didn't start with Kendall, it started with signing Rhodes and Redman to those three-year deals.Mike: Those aren't the numbers that ESPN published. They have $19M paid by the A's over 4 years, with the Pirates paying $5 of $13M in 2008. Either way, you have to believe that Kendall will be worth the money in three or four years. I don't.Richard Lederer: Why the fascination with Mulder? Are we looking at the back of his baseball card stats like an unsophisticated fan who can't see past his 17-8 record? Did you see him pitch in the second half last year? He was awful (6.13 ERA, .294 BAA, 48 K/42 BB in 94 IP). His strike out rate is way down, his walk rate is way up. I'm amazed that Beane got as much as he did for Mulder. Besides, it's better to follow Branch Rickey's advice and trade a player one year too early than one year too late. In other words, if Mulder doesn't return to pre-2004 form this coming year, not only would Beane be unable to get such an outstanding group of prospects but he would be stuck with his contract for 2006.Ken Arneson: Actually, 2006 is a team option.Richard: With respect to the possibility of finishing in third place in 2005, I am continually astounded that the A's can ever do better given their miniscule payroll. The fact that they have finished first or second every year since 1999 (with five seasons of 91+ wins and two > 100) is a testament to Beane's outstanding ability to manage a team within a limited payroll. Unlike the Yankees, you gotta stay ahead of the crowd and make changes to your roster before the value of a player is generally recognized. Otherwise, you will have to pay up for a player in an acquisition and/or you will lose your own to free agency because you can no longer afford them.The A's bullpen has the potential of being better than the Angels' in 2002. I would argue that it could end up being one of the deepest ever. As far as the rest of the team goes, check out the A's vs. that Angels team player-for-player and let me know who you like better. Right now, the only obvious shortcoming is that Oakland doesn't have a Garret Anderson (circa 2002) in its starting lineup. Otherwise, they match up just fine -- from the starting pitching to the bullpen to the starting lineup to the bench -- with that World Championship team.Mike: "Why the fascination with Mulder?" Because he has been a good-to-very-good pitcher for four years, usually pitches 200 innings, and is just 27. Yeah, he had a crappy second half. His K numbers actually dropped in 2003 and he had a great year. The problem in 2004 was that he lost the plate altogether: his walks, wild pitches, and attendant hits went up. I guess you have to look at his future and determine if it will be closer to the second half of 2004 or to 2001-03 and the first half of 2004. Beane decided he was done, I guess. I'm not so sure.As for third place, though it sounds not so bad, it is the second division after all and there's a pretty poor team in that division.As for their bullpen being as good as the '02 Angels: 1) I did a study on all the value of major-league pens throughout history and I believe the Angels were the best so that's setting the bar awfully high. 2) I just can't see how that can be. They don't have a closer unless they think Garcia is ready, and I'm not sold on him yet, or are willing to try Dotel again. Cruz was very good last year in a different league and with Leo Mazzone babysitting him. Tell me the last Brave reliever who's gone on to success elsewhere. He was horrific as a starter in 2003 and may end up being a starter in Oakland. Calero's good. Bradford's good but probably gone. Rincon is OK for a situational lefty. But that's about it. That's a far cry from the '02 Angels.Richard: You forgot about Huston Street. His record at Texas (2002-2004) and in the minor leagues last year was nothing short of phenomenal. He could be an 8th or 9th inning guy as early as this year.As to the others, I'll take my chances with Dotel despite his higher than normal ERA last year. 122 strikeouts in 85 innings? Are you kidding me? His HR allowed went up last year. If they return to a more normalized rate, he becomes one of the most effective relievers in the game.Mike: OK, but is Street ready? He had just 2 appearances in Triple-A and 25 pro innings altogether. I didn't know they were ready to promote him. His numbers look great, but does he fit into '05 or '06. They are putting a lot of pressure on a lot of young arms.Permanent Link | Comments (19) Posted on Dec 20, 2004 at 10:22 AM Pacific Time by Christian December 13, 2004All Roads Lead to AnaheimAll-Baseball.com is well-represented at the MLB Winter Meetings going on in Anaheim. Unfortunately, this reporter was unable to get away from home and work responsibilities to make the drive, but after talking to the people there, and reading their reports, I feel like I was there. You will, too, after you read:* Rich Lederer's daily reports: Day One, in which he insinuates himself into an impromptu Scott Boras press conference, Day Two, in which he talks Blyleven with Tom Verducci, and Day Three, in which he puts his own stamp on a holiday classic. * Peter White's daily reports: Day One finds him soaking in all that the hotel lobby (and the Starbucks) has to offer, while on Day Two he talks about the swirl of rumors and the irony of having to head back to the hotel and get online to find out what actually happened.* Jon Weisman doesn't let his existential crisis get in the way of a brief chat with former Dodgers GM Fred Claire, while Alex Ciepley doesn't let his chest cold get in the way of a brief chat with the Cubs' Director of Baseball Operations.Meanwhile, no one is letting anything get in the way of having a great time, meeting new people, hanging out, talking baseball, and soaking up what sounds like a great, somewhat surreal, and totally entertaining scene. They're having a great time; I wish I was there.[uPDATE 12/16:] Ken Arneson blows the lid off the Winter Meetings with an exposé of what it was really like:Click here for the shocking video.Permanent Link | Comments (0) Posted on Dec 13, 2004 at 9:39 AM Pacific Time by Christian December 10, 200419 to 21John Shiffert checks in with a special off-season edition of 19 to 21, in which he talks about...wait for it...Barry Bonds, leaked grand jury testimony, and steroids.----------19 to 21No, that’s not the number of clean home runs Barry Bonds hit in 2001, it’s, Baseball...Then and Now#1, December 6, 2004News Item: December 7, 1941 – The Imperial Japanese Air Force drops a bomb on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.Remember when the term "'roids' referred to George Brett’s memorable ailment and comment after he underwent surgery during the 1980 World Series? "All my problems are behind me now…"Were that that was true for baseball now. Sixty-three years after Pearl Harbor, the leaked grand jury testimony of Jason Giambi and Barry Bonds (such a leak, as Lee Sinins, among others, have pointed out, is illegal in itself) has dropped just as big a bomb on baseball. A bomb called “steroids” or “anabolic steroids” or “’roids” or “juice” for short. This one blew away the late Ken Caminiti’s recent confession…this was BIG news…two of the game’s biggest (in more ways than one) stars admitting they had used steroids. Just like George Brett’s 1980 problem…a true pain in the…well, you get the idea.It’s a problem that will be hashed over for months and years before the dust settles, if it ever will. However, let’s say it right up front -- baseball, and anyone who knows anything about the game and the widespread use of performance-enhancing substances, should NOT be shocked by these revelations… because it’s been going on for a lonnnnng time. How long? Well before Caminiti’s and Jose Canseco’s steroid confessions. Since at least the mid-1960s, and that’s by the testimony, given at the time, of someone who was there – pitcher Jim Bouton. One of the more controversial topics Bouton touched upon in Ball Four was the use among the players of dextroamphetamine sulfate, or pep pills, or “greenies,” as they were euphemistically known, mainly because the pills the players took tended to be colored green. While Bouton’s Seattle Pilots were still in Spring Training in 1969, he described greenies as “fabulous” and said that “a lot of baseball players couldn’t function without them.” It was a subject he visited several times during the book, although greenies were far from the only performance-enhancing substance Bouton – whose major league career started back in 1962 -- mentioned.For instance, on June 10 in Detroit, Bouton tells about going out to dinner with Don Mincher and Marty Pattin. The topic of discussion at the dinner table wasn’t the Pilots’ 5-0 loss that day to the Tigers, it was greenies, mainly because, according to Bouton, Seattle pitcher John O’Donoghue had just received a supply of 500 of them. Not the Pilots’ trainer, not the team doctor… a journeyman pitcher got them, maybe from his personal trainer, certainly from a private supplier. Bouton comments, only somewhat facetiously, that O’Donoghue’s 500 tabs would last about a month. That’s because, according to Mincher (as quoted by Bouton), “most of the guys on this club” took greenies. And, that’s not all. Mincher is also quoted as saying that more than half of the major leaguers in 1969 took greenies, including most of the Tigers (the 1968 World Series champs) and just about all of the Orioles (who would go to the 1969 World Series), “and that’s just what I know for sure.”Probably the weirdest “drug” baseball players used in the 60s was something called dimethylsulfoxide, or DMSO. Bouton noted that Hall of Famer Whitey Ford, who had retired in 1967, used DMSO, and that you put it on with a plastic glove… an interesting precaution, since users were putting it directly on their skin in the first place. DMSO, which is supposed to be used to clean floors, was so strong that you could taste it in your mouth as soon as you put it on (I know from personal experience… it also gave you garlic breath) Maybe that was why, when Bouton wrote about it on March 11, 1969, it was no longer available. Or maybe it was because there were rumors at the time that it could blind you. However, DMSO made a pretty good comeback in the 1980s – you could get it in health food stores, for goodness sakes, in a roll-on bottle that was popular, among others, with distance runners. The idea behind the use of the stuff was that it could take just about anything right through your skin, and at least one well-known New York coach had his runners mixing the stuff with aspirin, and then applying the paste to their knees, etc., to deliver the analgesic directly to the source of their discomfort.While baseball players may not have been the only athletes to try out weird science, they certainly embraced it in the 60s, at least according to Bouton. “Baseball players will take anything. If you had a pill that would guarantee a pitcher 20 wins but might take five years off his life, he’d take it.” A chilling thought, in light of Caminiti’s fate.So, baseball players have been looking for the magic bullet in everything from industrial solvents (which is what DMSO is) to human growth hormone since at least the time when Barry Bonds was born on July 24, 1964. And, even if one result of these revelations is tougher enforcement policies, that’s not likely to change anytime soon. So, instead of butting our heads against that brick wall, let’s look at another aspect of this particular scandal… what are we to make of Barry Bonds and his records?There would seem to be two long-term questions that can be asked… How does this revelation affect Bonds’ statistical records (anyone believe the 2003 season was the only one “altered?”), and how does it affect his status in regard to the Hall of Fame? While the ability to actually answer these questions lies elsewhere, it’s highly tempting to suggest a couple of remedies that will not require a plastic glove to apply.Let’s get something straight right up front. As tempting as it may be, there is no way on heaven or earth that Bonds’ records (or Giambi’s or Caminiti’s or Canseco’s, for that matter) can be expunged from the record book. It just won’t happen. Because, baseball is a two-sided game. For every offensive result, there is a defensive result. Delete Bonds’ 73 home runs in 2001, and that means that the pitchers who threw the pitches… didn’t. And, in point of fact, they did. You start creating holes in the statistical records, and, well, you open the biggest Pandora’s Box of all time. Like a nuclear chain reaction, it’ll never stop. You can delete Ben Johnson’s tainted Olympic 100 meter record, because no one else was affected. But, you can’t throw out Bonds’ home runs. Now, what you can do is to discard his tainted non-statistical awards, in just the same fashion that Johnson’s gold medal went bye-bye. So, let’s strip Bonds of his last four (2001 to 2004) MVP Awards, and bestow same on the worthy runners-up; Sammy Sosa, Albert Pujols (2002 and 2003) and Adrian Beltre.While Bonds’ statistical records must stand in the record book, that really doesn’t seem right, either. By weight of his own grand jury testimony, he was juiced… whether or not he bothered to inquire what was in that cream he was putting on. Fortunately, there is something that can be done, and it involves stopping Bonds’ record-making right here and now, and putting a serious roadblock on his election to the Hall of Fame. For the first remedy, it’s real simple… Bonds should be punished for breaking the rules. And, in a perfect world (oh, should such a place exist), the crime would fit the punishment. In this case, if the Players Association would ever permit it (and it won’t), just suspend Bonds… for four years. (A lifetime ban would be unprecedented for baseball for anything other than gambling, and would never fly with the Players Association anyway.) That’s the number of seasons since he hit the 73 home runs. And, you know what else would be appropriate about such a sentence? It would effectively end his quest to pass Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron for the all-time home run title. Let’s see if Bonds can come back… clean… at the age of almost 45 at hit another 53 home runs to pass Aaron’s 755.Then there’s the Hall of Fame. Let’s review Bonds’ yearly records since 1997 to get a handle on a proposal to deal with his status for that august institution… G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI W BA OBP SLG IP1997 159 532 123 155 26 5 40 101 145 .291 .446 .585 .2941998 156 552 120 167 44 7 37 122 130 .303 .438 .609 .3061999 102 355 91 93 20 2 34 83 73 .262 .389 .617 .3552000 143 480 129 147 28 4 49 106 117 .306 .440 .688 .3822001 153 476 129 156 32 2 73 137 177 .328 .515 .863 .535Bonds missed a good part of the 1999 season with wrist and elbow injuries. And while it is purely speculation as to why he got hurt that year, there should now be much less reason for speculation in the jump in his Isolated Power (IP) figure for 1999. The fact is, his limited playing time and his somewhat lower batting average disguised the fact that Bonds’ power output took its first significant jump in 1999, not 2001. Starting with the 1995 season, when Bonds turned 31, his Isolated Power figures consecutively were; .283, .307, .294, .306, .355. And they just went up from there. To use another measure, look at his home run percentage for the years in question…1997 - .0751998 - .0671999 - .0962000 - .1022001 - .153Pretty much the same story – the first big jump in 1999, followed by an even bigger one in 2001.So, let’s look at Bonds’ career record, prior to the 1999 season. For his first 13 seasons, it looks like this…G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI W BA OBP SLG OPS1898 6621 1364 1917 403 63 411 1216 1357 .290 .412 .556 .968That’s a good record, but would a record like that get a player into the Hall of Fame if his name was Joe Blow? Maybe, but it’s no sure thing. Sure, Bonds’ 10 closest comps at age 34 (that’s how old he was at the conclusion of the 1998 season) include Frank Robinson, the Mick, the Duke, Reggie and Willie Mays. But, none of them were voted into the Hall for their accomplishments just by the age of 34. Bonds’ statistic at age 34 that would be most likely to draw the HOF voters’ attention is his home runs – 411. There certainly have been some good players, including a two-time MVP (Bonds had three by age 34) – Dale Murphy (398) – who are still on the outside looking in with similar or greater home run totals, notably Dave Kingman (442), Andre Dawson (438), Darrell Evans (414), Joe Carter (396) and Graig Nettles (390). And Dawson, Evans, Murphy and Nettles were all fine fielders as well. It can also be argued that Jim Rice, who, unless the Red Sox’ World Series win has longer coattails than expected, isn’t going into the Hall anytime soon, had a better career as a hitter than Bonds had had through age 34. G H HR RBI BA OBP SLG OPSBonds 1898 1917 411 1216 .290 .412 .556 .968Rice 2089 2452 382 1451 .298 .352 .502 .854Bonds’ record has six years of the Rocketball Era thrown in to boost his totals. Rice
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
I'll take Lou "Biscuit Pants" Gerhig (aka Ludwig Heinrich Gehrig), esteemed alumnus of Columbia University. I mean, only a disease could slow this guy down.. and then they named it after him.Love the .340 career average, .447 OBP, .632 SLG. 2130 consecutive games doesn't mean much in this game, but he's truly the Iron Horse in my mind. RBI machine with a peak of 184 in 1931.HOF in 1939 and not a moment too soon.
N
