Today I plan on arguing against a long accepted premise that until now, I simply could not form a solid enough argument against. I am going to argue against steroids. I know, "way to go out on a limb." It's not quite that simple though - I am going to argue that steroids did not "save baseball" like the vast majority of commentators assume. Rather, I feel this was the lazy conclusion and does not consider all factors.
10 years ago, the home run boom led by Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, was said to save baseball, by bringing the fans back after the 1994 strike. The way it's told, you'd think that it if wasn't for Mac and Sammy, baseball would now be played in empty stadiums everywhere, on the verge of extinction - or perhaps already extinct. But let's take a look back at 1998. Ken Griffey Jr. also hit 56 home runs that year, and for much of the season, he too was on pace to break Roger Maris's record of 61. Are we to assume that Griffey by himself chasing Maris, would not bring any extra attention to baseball? In 1998, Ken Griffey Jr. had the sweetest swing in the game, and before injuries slowed him down, he played center field with great range and grace. In my opinion, he was more likable and embraceable than McGwire and Sosa could ever be. (Even then I hated Sosa - what was the deal with that stupid home run hop of his anyway? Had he played during a different era, there would have been pitchers that would have put a stop to that type of showboating pretty quick, with the next fastball landing squarely in Sosa's back - like this guy. Or this guy.)
But let's put aside home runs altogether, since steroids or not, the long ball (and not the 'roids themselves) was allegedly the real draw. That year the Yankees, perhaps the best team ever, were working on the 2nd championship of a remarkable run during which they would win 4 titles in 5 years. They would win a record 125 games including the postseason. Incidentally, would you like to know who led the 1998 Yankees in home runs? That would be Tino Martinez - with 28. Bernie Williams was second with 26. Boy, with such a lack of home run power, it's amazing I even cared about them at all, eh?
Also in 1998, Cal Ripken Jr. continued his consecutive games played record. Truth be told, he brought more fans back to baseball long before 1998 anyway. The game he broke Lou Gehrig's record with consecutive game #2,131, on September 6, 1995, still ranks as one of the ESPN's most watched baseball games (that's according to Wikipedia - so it might be true).
Yet, we have this notion that home runs are all people cared about. I can't call it a romantic notion, because now we know the damage steroids have done to the credibility of baseball. So why do people cling so tightly to this idea? I can't figure it out. It seems like some ploy by ESPN, but the motive to do so just isn't there. But, for those who still believe it, can't we try a little revisionist history? It's no different than "That girl at the bar was ugly anyway..." Can't we try a little sour grapes? Especially in this case, where the excuse is actually true!
Looking back, who cares if Luis Gonzalez hit 57 homers in 2001? (He never hit over 31 in any other season - I'm just sayin'...) Had he only hit 31 that season, would Diamondbacks fans have said, "You know, Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling are dominating like we've never seen before, and are leading us to the World Series. But we don't see enough home runs. Let's watch Arena Football instead."
Wait a minute, you say - So it's not all about home runs, and more of them? How did baseball ever survive without cartoonish offensive numbers? For 100 years, the Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson, and Mike Schmidt offensive numbers just weren't enough? We needed McGwire and Sosa to come along?
They'll have us believe that while the fans only care about gawdy home run numbers, now that the truth about steroids are out there, the fans really don't care about steroids. Well this one does. And always will. Join me, won't you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You mention that baseball survived for a long time without the mass amount of homeruns and you are correct. I think that the "demand" for the long ball is actually a reflection upon society itself. We live in a microwave society in which we expect instant gratification and if we aren't getting it in one place there are alternatives. Look at old television shows that were huge hits at the time. They are terrible but they were the only option. The homerun entertains the simpleton and that is the name of the game despite what you and I may think of it.
Steroids, no steroids... doesn't matter. Either way, the game is pretty damn boring.
Considering that 2007 -- a year that may ultimately be defined as the prime of the "steroid backlash" era -- was a record attendance year for MLB, I agree that steroids did not save baseball. Carl Pavano saved baseball.
Post a Comment