anytime someone asks who is better, everyone will has the one who didnt take steroids. Do steroids help that much to the point where a person who cant play baseball automatically becomes a superstar in pitching and homeruns? Do steroids help a lot in how they hit the ball with accuracy? Everyone seems to be picking the player who has a better personality overall (Jeter vs Arod) even though the stats say something else. Even though Roger Clemems has better numbers than Maddux, everyone will pick Maddux because Clemens was a jerk and was a horrible person even though Clemens overall was a better pitcher. Same thing with Mike Tyson vs Muhammed Ali or Marciano debates. Everyone hates Mike Tyson because he was an animal and criminal but realistically he would destroy anyone in the ring.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Has steroids completely destroyed any argument debate over which player is better?
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
yes i think now people dont really know who to say is better because of steroids, the ones with steroids may have better statistics than the ones who dont but i would still personally pick the one who didnt take steroids because they were the honest competitor
you"ll never be able to know who is the best player in baseball, someone mentioned how it just enhanced your natural talent but what if your natural talent is equal to someone below you then your only better because of the steroids
you"ll never be able to know who is the best player in baseball, someone mentioned how it just enhanced your natural talent but what if your natural talent is equal to someone below you then your only better because of the steroids
V
viphockey4
Guest
Yes and no. Guys still have to hit the ball, users dont get better eyesight or timing and really the only benefit is better stamina and a little more distance when they do make contact. The notion that steroids is a stimulant that gives modern players an edge isnt totally accurate. Players have used stimulants for a lot longer (Hank Aaron admitted to using greenies as have a lot of players from the 70's & 80's). That doesnt taint their image nor does it even get media play. The issue is media driven for the most part because everyone in the media has known all along the stories of yesteryear and their methods for gaining advantages. They also knew about guys like Clemens but they focused on the widely hated and resented Barry Bonds and many media members when out of their way to protect Roger until it became incredibly obvious they couldnt any longer. Same with Sosa at first....here is a guy who was long assumed to use and got busted with a corked bat to boot yet the media gave him a free pass for way too long......we know that 106 guys failed the drug test but so far only the most hated by the media have been exposed. Who else does it? What greats from the 70's and 80's used. We know that the Steelers admitted to some pretty serious steroid consumption in the 70's, we know tons of tales of other steroid using football players in the 80's (Mandarich, Alzado, Courson...the last 2 of which died as a result of abuse). Is anyone foolish enough to think this wasnt heavily in the baseball circles back then too? In the 60's we have a lot of stories of pitchers who are currently in the Hall of Fame who admitted to cheating....sandpaper, tacks, spitters, vasoline, razorblades to cut seams....these are stories directly from the perps of the crimes basically. So we have plenty of proof that cheaters happened for at least the past 50 years but the media wasnt interested in those stories. Bottom line to me is the guys still have to hit the ball (because if steroids made contact so easy then someone might want to explain why still there are very few .300 hitters and still not a great deal of mashers in comparision to past era's). And some guys were better at it than others.....and personally I dont care if their own set of balls shrink....they cant handle roid rage or even end up dead over using....the basics of the game still exist and the best players over a length of time have a better skill set regardless of what they pollute their body with. The media lack the balls to ask if Aaron is the best HR hitter in spite of his own admission of using greenies....so why would the casual fan wonder the same? And what about the guy who drinks 2 or 3 soda's or a pot of coffee before a game? He is in fact (and science) using a stimulant and likely to gain that little edge (to this day I drink caffiene before I play hockey or baseball so I have an edge and I am 50ish years old....give or take). I think better players are just that....better players because they have the physical and mental ability (and some supplimental help too I suppose) to be better than the guys around them. Still have to hit a nearly 100 mph round thing with a round bat, still have to put pitches in the right spots (and by the way so far since they started suspending players for failed tests pitchers have been caught at a much higher rate than hitters....and some of the lesser leaked names on that infamous list were also pitchers).
F
Frizzer
Guest
I don't think so. No matter what emphasis is put on the use of drugs it is still subjective with no wright or wrong answers.
I think more specifically it has destroyed any argument someone can make about a "legitimate World Series winner." People talk about the Red Sox having Manny and Ortiz on steroids, or the Yankees having A-Rod on steroids, but you'll never convince me that any recent World Series winning team has been steroid-free. And as far as individual players...it's getting harder and harder to trust them when they say they've never taken steroids.