That is Soooo 2007

by ~ December 29th, 2009 at 9:43 am

As mentioned in the last post, I woke up with baseball, and more specifically, Barry Bonds on the brain, so allow me to get this off my chest.

Bonds did steroids, sure, whatever– but there is one area of attack that has always bugged me.

This one:

The before and after photo.  This is unfair.

If you take a photo of an athlete when he’s ~20 years old and compare to one of him at ~40 years old, there is going to be some major physical differences.

Take our beloved Ken Griffey Jr.  It’s not a perfect example considering Griffey’s conditioning throughout his career.  He wasn’t skinny like Barry was when he started his career, nor was he built at the end of it.  But look at pictures of young Griffey and pictures of current Griffey. Through the natural aging process– some combination of “man muscle” and fat to put it scientifically– Griffey looks significantly bigger.  Arms, legs, face and especially his core, you name it.  Now, imagine if Griffey made an effort to build up his upper body the last few years.  If he had any upper body definition we’re suddenly looking at very similar comparisons.

griffey 1989 2009

griffey 1987 2009

Griffey isn’t the perfect example, but I think you get the point.  Bonds most likely took illegal performance enhancers (I really don’t care anymore either way), but I’ve always been annoyed by the before/after photo argument.  Not that anyone cares about Bonds or steroids anymore, so whatever.  At least we get these cool Grifffey pics out of it.

«
»

  • PrimeTimeG

    My take on the steroids issue as a whole is this. Has anyone been able to prove that taking steroids actually enhances a baseball player’s performance or does it merely help in the conditioning and healing processes? Muscle mass does not equal power. Look at Ted Williams. He was very thin and he hit over 500 HRs. Heck, look at Ichiro. He’s a tiny guy and he can hit balls 500 feet. On the other hand you have a guy like Gabe Kapler who looks like a Greek god but has hit all of 80 HRs in 11 seasons. Steroids or not, Bonds had extraordinary talent. That’s the main reason why he was so good.

    • http://proballnw.com Jon

      Bonds was one of the greatest hitters of all time, no doubt. But the real problem with steroids is the stamina. Take a look at this chart. Griffey (presumably clean) tails off at the end of the year (natural?) while McGwire and Sosa are able to keep up the pace.

      http://www.flipflopflyin.com/flipflopflyball/info-1998hrchase.html

      Every year we have guys who are on pace for 60, 70 even 80 homers about halfway through, but they always seem sputter at the end.

      That’s my quick take, but to be honest I’ve largely ignored the steroid debates over the last few years.

  • dmojr

    LOVE the Bellingham shot! Too bad i was a baby when he played up here!

  • petermag

    The difference with Bonds is you need to do a comparison of 1999 to 2001, its this time period that Canseco argues that he supposedly juiced. The problem with bonds is that his body changed dramatically during those years. Here are some pics:

    http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1640086_1640085,00.html

    Nobody’s body changes that drastically during that period of time. I hate the steroid era. I am so glad it is over. It made for boring baseball. I’d much rather go to a type of game that the Mariners intend to play this year, than watching every guy step up to the plate and try to mash it out of the park.

    Its comical to me when people try to defend the steroid era. Steroids without prescription are illegal. Bottom line. I dont understand how ppl can defend people breaking the law, simply because everyone else is doing it. Yes, I understand the pressure and culture that is developed. But that doesnt excuse it.

    Again, thank God its almost over. Im sure there will be more leaks in the future of other guys that took them. Also, I think pics of Edgar as a comparison rather than Griffey might be a better example. Griffey just looks like a fat old man. Whereas Edgar, well er um…

    • http://proballnw.com Jon

      That’s a good link. You can see him getting bigger every year, but not enough to draw serious suspicion until 2000 when he becomes a hulk at age 35. That kind of before/after is more acceptable, but back when all these arguments were going on it was far too common to see fans point to BS 1980s/2000s comps.

      As far as Edgar, yeah. M’s fans don’t say much about it because it’s painful to think Mr. “the double” would be anything but legit, but he is unfortunately a suspect. ISO peaks in his 30s and then comes to a grinding halt as he approaches 40. No natural developmental curve there.

      I’m with you in that I’m just glad it’s over. If anything, it was just annoying having to hear about it all the time. Now, while I wouldn’t defend steroid use, I think it was probably rampant enough that Steroid Era players shouldn’t be blocked from the Hall. Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were still some of the game’s all time greats, and certainly of the last 20+ years. They should be acknowledged, I think. Fans will be able to discern some of the numbers and chalk it up to the era. We understand the differences that led to a different style of play in the Dead Ball Era. We get that Bob Gibson was amazing, but that he was helped out by tall mounds and an expanded strikezone during his reign. We remember how unnaturally Coors Field payed before the humidor. Etc. etc.

      Fans will remember the conditions of the era, so I would just like to move on without the witchhunt. It’s not like you can only distribute praise among “clean” players, because those players are only perceived as clean. There is no way of knowing who actually was and who wasn’t.

      I’ll cut myself off there, because just thinking about the Steroid Era is putting me in a foul mood. Ha! Good riddance.

  • FelixFanChris420

    The thing about Bonds is that he’s never been PROVEN to be a steroid user, yet everyone has convicted him already, meanwhile guys like Manny and Ortiz actually test positive for a substance, basically admit to nothing (and in Ortiz case he gives the tired BS excuse of a “tainted supplement” and nobosy cares.

    Did Bonds take steroids? Probably. But he also deserves the same “innocent until proven guilty” treatment that everyone else does.