As a baseball fan, I was disappointed but not surprised by the contents of Senator Mitchell's report on steroids in the game. The scope of baseball's steroid abuse problem has been pretty much an open secret the past couple of years. But, it is still disconcerting to see the names of the sports biggest stars in a document detailing the extent of the cheating.
One of the more interesting debates being addressed in the report's wake is what to do with the numbers posted by doped up athletes. Assuming the allegations hold, do we let Bonds remain the official Home Run King, or should he just be listed as an incredibly gifted 5 tool player? Does Roger Clemens get credit for winning 354 games, or do we freeze him at his pre-steroid total of 192? And most important of all, does Glenallen Hill get to keep all of his 586 RBIs?
Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling says no. He believes that the numbers and awards obtained by those found to be doping should be erased and taken back.1
While I understand Schilling's position, I have to disagree with him. Baseball fans have always been obsessed with numbers, and the exploding popularity of fantasy baseball leagues in the past decade has only served to increase the phenomenon. I think we should use this scandal to question our focus on the numbers and reexamine the reasons for following America's pastime. It is time to recognize that stats have very little relevance across generations. Among other things, baseball has gone through the dead ball era, changes in the height of the mound, pre- Jackie Robinson segregation and now the steroid era. Stats put up by athletes from different times really can never be compared in any meaningful way. The numbers even lie when comparing contemporary players. 40 homers launched in the thin air of Coors field are not nearly as impressive as 40 put up in Atlanta.
Having said that, I think that we should reassess what those stats represent. Roger Clemens pitched his team to 354 victories. Steroids could very well have contributed to his dominating performance, but the arm, shoulder and mind behind those victories belonged to The Rocket.
We cant go back and replay those games. We also cant go back and determine the result of careers, games and entire seasons played without the influence of drugs. So let's just leave the record books the way they are. Players who cheated should be punished to the full extent of the laws of the land and the rules of the game, but we should not try to rewrite the past.
1. I found Schilling's thoughts through the Espn site. Unfortunately, that site did not directly link t o Schilling's blog. I guess professional journalists are too good for that sort of thing.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
First off, it's great to see a post from one of daboys!
But, I disagree with the position you took. How can a record stand when it was achieved through cheating? Would a homerun record stand if it was found a corked bat was used? Would a pitching record stand if it was found the ball had some grease on it? What if someone tried to set the "longest time without sleep" record and was found to have taken caffiene pills or coffee?
As for how much of their stats should be cut, I say their stats should just be null and void. It's too difficult to come up with some cutoff point - all runs count prior to 1997 or whatever.
Thanks Anon!
My main point is that individual statistics in baseball are overemphasized. Do you think we should take away the Yankees' 2000 WS title because lots of players on the team were doped? Should we wipe out the Giant's 2002 NL penant because of the Bonds allegations? I dont see anyone taking those positions.
Post a Comment