More brilliant insight from Tim McCarver

[DrungoHazewood]

Watching a little of the All Star game last night, and I was surprised by a conversation that had about PEDs. Very balanced, very non-confrontational, non-speculative, non-inflammatory. I think it was Ken Rosenthal who was talking about how we'll just never know how many guys were on something, how Bonds may have been one of 50% or 70% of players operating outside the limits, how it's impossible to quantify the effects, that kind of stuff.

Then McCarver pipes up at the end and says something like "well, in the last 15 years there've been more 50 home run hitters than in the rest of baseball history. That proves something to me. Steroids obviously caused this."

Ugh. Of course he fails to bring up the dozens of other reasons home runs exploded, or the many reasons why steroids might not have had the effect he "knows" they did:

1. Ballparks were replaced at an unprecedented rate, mostly parks with smaller/quirkier dimensions replacing large cookie cutters.

2. Bats have quickly evolved into extremely light, thin-handled, rock-hard home run hitting machines.

3. Aluminum bats in college and high school have taught hitters to crowd the plate and hit anything they can reach as hard as they can. Opposite-field homers tripled between '85 and 2000. Before that it was considered a fool's errand to drive the outside pitch.

4. Aluminum bats have taught pitchers to try to jam hitters much less.

5. With or without PEDs, weight training was shunned until the 1990s. One year in the 80s Lance Parrish showed up in the spring with 10 lbs. of new muscle, and Sparky asked if he wanted to be a ballplayer or a Soviet weightlifter.

6. More pitchers than hitters have been caught doping. It's possible 'roids benefit pitchers more than hitters.

7. Coors Field

8. The ball may have been juiced after the strike to spike offense and bring fans back.

If more homers automatically equals steroids then baseball had a huge PED problem in 1920.

[Bosibus]

I need to take a mental note of this and then spew this back to people that get on Barry constantly and do not even follow baseball. Thank you Drungo.

[The Wedge]

I need to take a mental note of this and then spew this back to people that get on Barry constantly and do not even follow baseball. Thank you Drungo.

It's a bit different with Bonds, though. Even someone who doesn't follow baseball can see pictures of his head from 20 odd years ago to what it looks like today.

But I have to agree, McCarver's blanket statement is one of the myriad of reasons why he's probably the single worst national sports commentators in history.

[Bosibus]

It's a bit different with Bonds, though. Even someone who doesn't follow baseball can see pictures of his head from 20 odd years ago to what it looks like today.

But I have to agree, McCarver's blanket statement is one of the myriad of reasons why he's probably the single worst national sports commentators in history.

Until he is caught doping, he is not doping in my eyes. No matter what anyone says, he might have the quickest hands and best eyes in baseball, ever. He is not doping now (well, maybe), almost 43 years of age, and is still hitting more HRs than most of the league, explain that?

[The Wedge]

No sane person has ever argued that he isn't a great hitter.

But no sane person would look at the way his head grew and not think he took some sort of PED. Not to mention all the "circumstantial" evidence over the years. I mean, it's not really cool that the grand jury testimony leaked, but it did, and he did admit (albeit he said it was without his knowledge) to taking PED's.

That's why it's a different beast with Barry. Who knows how it'll eventually shake out in time once all the investigations get done, if they ever get done. Perhaps nobody will care about Bonds because we'll have found out that Canseco's percentage estimation of users was close to correct. But to blindly suggest that steroids alone has caused the offensive boom, when as Drungo easily points out, has plenty of evidence to the contrary, that's going too far.

[Bosibus]

No sane person has ever argued that he isn't a great hitter.

But no sane person would look at the way his head grew and not think he took some sort of PED. Not to mention all the "circumstantial" evidence over the years. I mean, it's not really cool that the grand jury testimony leaked, but it did, and he did admit (albeit he said it was without his knowledge) to taking PED's.

That's why it's a different beast with Barry. Who knows how it'll eventually shake out in time once all the investigations get done, if they ever get done. Perhaps nobody will care about Bonds because we'll have found out that Canseco's percentage estimation of users was close to correct. But to blindly suggest that steroids alone has caused the offensive boom, when as Drungo easily points out, has plenty of evidence to the contrary, that's going too far.

I concur, I am not a Barry fan, but I still have respect for him. I think he is just a media fad and a media scapegate for baseball. As always, one person needs to be the poster-boy for something.

Just a quick thought, imagine if this was Griffey we were talking about, not Bonds, do you think the media would be giving this "poster-boy" the same reaction?

I think it would be much more toned down.

[The Wedge]

It certainitely doesn't help Bonds that he's not a friendly guy with the media. Look at Roger Maris, for crying out loud.

You make a good point, but if everything (GJ admissions, obvious physical signs of some sort of enhancement, etc) was the same, sans the attitude with the media and public, it's really hard to say what people would say about Griffey.

[Bosibus]

It certainitely doesn't help Bonds that he's not a friendly guy with the media. Look at Roger Maris, for crying out loud.

You make a good point, but if everything (GJ admissions, obvious physical signs of some sort of enhancement, etc) was the same, sans the attitude with the media and public, it's really hard to say what people would say about Griffey.

Yeah, I agree with you and I am not sure either, I think it may be toned down but it would be an interesting situation.

[Chollie Eckman]

Drungo, I can't listen to McCarver over long periods of time. However, he does have a point about PEDs and I for one believe that PEDs were the main reason. Next would be the ball dynamics(ie. tighter, bigger, etc.). Then 1-7 on your list.

[KLINE]

McCarver didn't mention either that baseball has expanded to the point that a lot of pitchers on rosters shouldn't be in the Majors. That's another HUGE reason for the spike.

[DrungoHazewood]

Drungo, I can't listen to McCarver over long periods of time. However, he does have a point about PEDs and I for one believe that PEDs were the main reason. Next would be the ball dynamics(ie. tighter, bigger, etc.). Then 1-7 on your list.

See, I disagree. PEDs probably had some effect, but we have no idea how much, who, what, or when. We don't have the slightest idea if pitchers using pretty much negated overall effect of the hitters using. PEDs might be first, but there's just as much chance they're #10.

I'd rank parks first, then bats (or maybe even vice-versa), then the others in some jumble.

I think that if they made a minimum weight for bats that was a few ounces lower than average for 1960 there would be an immediate and dramatic decrease in both offense and home runs.

[The Wedge]

About the pitcher thing...

I seem to remember it being a relatively big deal when a pitcher got 95 plus, let alone to 100.

Now, we see that much more often.

[DrungoHazewood]

About the pitcher thing...

I seem to remember it being a relatively big deal when a pitcher got 95 plus, let alone to 100.

Now, we see that much more often.

There's no shortage of pitching, there's an excess of slots for unnecessary relievers, and a shortage of PETCO Parks.

[Chollie Eckman]

There's no shortage of pitching, there's an excess of slots for unnecessary relievers, and a shortage of PETCO Parks.

Yes, Yes, Yes. I totally agree.

[The Wedge]

There's no shortage of pitching, there's an excess of slots for unnecessary relievers, and a shortage of PETCO Parks.

I'm not sure how the first and last points back up an overall increase in top velocities. The second point, however, might, as the deluge of relievers might not have to worry about saving their arm as older eras of pitchers would.