Rosenthal is trying to portray himself as conflicted and I have no reason to doubt him really. But apparently he's so conflicted that all he can come up with is a set of conflicting arguments that aren't even particularly coherent on their own, much less as a set.
I just feel that steroids created a far greater imbalance.
I'm not sure what this means. For now I'll assume imbalance in terms of performance relative to non-users.
How would we know? Presumably you would see more dominance in the steroid era.
Even if we assume this is true, one explanation for this is that (damn near) everybody was using greenies.
But I don't see why it would be true. Other than Bonds and Pujols, McGwire, Bagwell, and Manny haven't dominated this era any more than Aaron, Robinson and Mays (or Musial, Mantle and Williams).
Some people like to point to records but let me (again) remind everyone that the "greenie" era saw records for career hits, season and career HRs, season and career SBs (several times) and career games played (a few times). The 60s and 70s saw an unprecedented number of 500-HR hitters, the first rash of power/speed combo hitters, a ton of 300-game winners and a ton of 3000-K pitchers along with, as we've been discussing, the only rise in pitcher CGs and CG rates in MLB history. Carew and Brett challenged 400, Rose (kinda) challenged DiMaggio. And Davey Johnson hit 43 HR. And a 30-game winner, can you ####### believe it?
We love that era precisely because of that imbalance (at the inividual level), the great achievements, the level of power and speed, the insanely low ERAs, the blazing fastballs, Oscar Gamble's enormous 'fro. Hell, Mario Mendoza is forever emblazoned in the MLB lexicon for his ineptitude!
What we have seen is a collective jump up the offensive scale such that, e.g., OPS totals of today, especially ISO of today, is much higher. Even if we ascribe this all to steroids (which is hard to do), it suggests very widespread usage and, therefore, a "balanced" playing field. I'd also say the dominance we've seen on the pitcher's side is in line with the dominance we've seen on the hitter's side. Maddux and Clemens have legit claims to the greatest pitchers of all-time (certainly since W Johnson), R Johnson has a claim on the greatest LHP of all-time and Pedro can rival Koufax for sheer awesomeness.
Within the context of each era, I don't see how either appears more dominant than the other. In the context of MLB history, the "greenie era" is the one that seems more dominant on an individual level (and therefore imbalanced) while the silly ball era seems dominant on a collective level (like the 1930s AL or the deadball era and therefore balanced).
Now maybe he means "moral imbalance" of some sort -- PEDs worse than speed. If so, he remembers the scare stories of the 60s and 70s and "speed freaks" much differently than I do. And look at the huge dust-up over cocaine use which didn't even seem to be performance-enhancing. Not to mention that amphetamines were on Schedule III (is that the right one?) long before steroids.
The media could have made amphetamine use the bete noire of baseball but they chose not to -- just as they chose to ignore PEDs until Canseco's book and the BALCO bust (and still tend to ignore their role in football).
The sports media collectively decided not to get sanctimonious about amphetamines and so, of course, the fans didn't. During the 90s, the sports media collectively decided not to get sanctimonious about PED usage and so, of course, the fans didn't. Then the sports media and Congress decided to get sanctimonious about PED usage and so, of course, at least some set of vocal fans did.
I'm sorry but I will not accept that the level of sportswriter sanctimony defines what is cheating and what is not, what is fair and what is not or what is legitimate and what is not.
If you view (pre-testing) PED usage as cheating but greenie usage as "just part of the game" then you are a hypocrite.*
* If you take the view that both were cheating but the past induction of drug-using cheats doesn't justify the future induction of drug-using cheats, at least you have a leg to stand on.
PS Andy, I know I just called you a hypocrite. You seem like a nice guy and you generally try to argue things fairly and squarely and you at least demand some reasonable level of evidence. But on this aspect of the issue, I'm sorry, you're a hypocrite.
Or possibly a moron, your choice. :-)
I just feel that steroids created a far greater imbalance.
I'm not sure what this means. For now I'll assume imbalance in terms of performance relative to non-users.
How would we know? Presumably you would see more dominance in the steroid era.
Even if we assume this is true, one explanation for this is that (damn near) everybody was using greenies.
But I don't see why it would be true. Other than Bonds and Pujols, McGwire, Bagwell, and Manny haven't dominated this era any more than Aaron, Robinson and Mays (or Musial, Mantle and Williams).
Some people like to point to records but let me (again) remind everyone that the "greenie" era saw records for career hits, season and career HRs, season and career SBs (several times) and career games played (a few times). The 60s and 70s saw an unprecedented number of 500-HR hitters, the first rash of power/speed combo hitters, a ton of 300-game winners and a ton of 3000-K pitchers along with, as we've been discussing, the only rise in pitcher CGs and CG rates in MLB history. Carew and Brett challenged 400, Rose (kinda) challenged DiMaggio. And Davey Johnson hit 43 HR. And a 30-game winner, can you ####### believe it?
We love that era precisely because of that imbalance (at the inividual level), the great achievements, the level of power and speed, the insanely low ERAs, the blazing fastballs, Oscar Gamble's enormous 'fro. Hell, Mario Mendoza is forever emblazoned in the MLB lexicon for his ineptitude!
What we have seen is a collective jump up the offensive scale such that, e.g., OPS totals of today, especially ISO of today, is much higher. Even if we ascribe this all to steroids (which is hard to do), it suggests very widespread usage and, therefore, a "balanced" playing field. I'd also say the dominance we've seen on the pitcher's side is in line with the dominance we've seen on the hitter's side. Maddux and Clemens have legit claims to the greatest pitchers of all-time (certainly since W Johnson), R Johnson has a claim on the greatest LHP of all-time and Pedro can rival Koufax for sheer awesomeness.
Within the context of each era, I don't see how either appears more dominant than the other. In the context of MLB history, the "greenie era" is the one that seems more dominant on an individual level (and therefore imbalanced) while the silly ball era seems dominant on a collective level (like the 1930s AL or the deadball era and therefore balanced).
Now maybe he means "moral imbalance" of some sort -- PEDs worse than speed. If so, he remembers the scare stories of the 60s and 70s and "speed freaks" much differently than I do. And look at the huge dust-up over cocaine use which didn't even seem to be performance-enhancing. Not to mention that amphetamines were on Schedule III (is that the right one?) long before steroids.
The media could have made amphetamine use the bete noire of baseball but they chose not to -- just as they chose to ignore PEDs until Canseco's book and the BALCO bust (and still tend to ignore their role in football).
The sports media collectively decided not to get sanctimonious about amphetamines and so, of course, the fans didn't. During the 90s, the sports media collectively decided not to get sanctimonious about PED usage and so, of course, the fans didn't. Then the sports media and Congress decided to get sanctimonious about PED usage and so, of course, at least some set of vocal fans did.
I'm sorry but I will not accept that the level of sportswriter sanctimony defines what is cheating and what is not, what is fair and what is not or what is legitimate and what is not.
If you view (pre-testing) PED usage as cheating but greenie usage as "just part of the game" then you are a hypocrite.*
* If you take the view that both were cheating but the past induction of drug-using cheats doesn't justify the future induction of drug-using cheats, at least you have a leg to stand on.
PS Andy, I know I just called you a hypocrite. You seem like a nice guy and you generally try to argue things fairly and squarely and you at least demand some reasonable level of evidence. But on this aspect of the issue, I'm sorry, you're a hypocrite.
Or possibly a moron, your choice. :-)
