A few months ago, I spoke with former Braves slugger Dale Murphy, who was so bothered by steroid use in baseball that he started an educational program for kids and coaches called the I Won't Cheat Foundation. It's admirable that Murphy is willing to focus his time, money and energy on keeping steroids out of baseball in the future -- especially because he has every reason to be bitter about the impact steroids has had on him as a star of the game's recent past. It's those players who are among the biggest victims of the Steroid Era. "It bothers me," Murphy said. "The accomplishments of my generation of players are completely overshadowed by what guys were doing five, 10 years later. And not all of those guys were legitimate."
All four deserve Hall entry. But all four are greatly underappreciated because of the Steroid Era that came immediately after their careers were over. They were impressive players during their time on the field, but the problem is, by the time they came up for the Hall of Fame, baseball numbers everywhere were swelling -- thanks in large part to steroids. That made numbers put up earlier look paltry.
Gossage chimed in on the subject after his election became official. "It needs to be dealt with," he said. "There's too much at stake with the history of the game. You can't say this is a level playing field. ... What we have at stake is the greatest part of the game -- the history of it."
The '80s was a decade light on hitting, one in which 30 home runs was considered top-notch slugging. Consider that Rice led the league with 39 home runs in 1983. Murphy was second in the NL that year, with 36, and Dawson was fourth, with 32 -- one of just 10 players to reach that figure that year. A decade later, 17 hit at least 32 home runs. Two decades later, there were 23. When you're voting for 30-home run hitters at a time when everyone's a 30-home run hitter, the voting is going to be skewed.
There was some hope that, after the release of the Mitchell report confirmed the suspicions most had already had -- that steroids were prevalent among every level of player in the last 15-plus years -- voters might reconsider their views on the hitters of the '80s, might be more willing to put their numbers into the right context. Didn't happen.
No doubt, the gaudy numbers put up in the '90s has caused many to shrug off the accomplishments of those toiling in the previous decade. But keep those guys within the context of their decade and you realize that, yes, they did not wind up with enormous home run numbers. That's not because the players weren't any good. It's because home runs were harder to hit.
Dawson was an All-Star eight times. Rice, Raines and Murphy were All-Stars seven times. These guys were clearly among the best of their time and should be recognized as such. Think of one of our top sluggers from this era. Say, Jim Thome (which is certainly not to imply that Thome is a steroid user). He has 500 home runs, a number that will make him a near lock for the Hall of Fame. Is he better than Dawson, Rice, Raines or Murphy, though? Eh, not really. He has only been an All-Star five times.
Consider this, too. There are, by my count, 14 offensive players from the 1980s in the Hall of Fame. Look at, say, the 1960s. There are 15. Remember that for most of the 1960s, baseball was made up of 20 teams. In the '80s there were 26 teams. There was a much wider pool of players in the '80s, but there are fewer represented in the Hall of Fame.
Why? Well, just look at today's voting. With baseball infected by swollen stats from the last 15 years, the stars of the 1980s are easily overlooked.
Sean Deveney is a writer for Sporting News. E-mail him at sdeveney@Sportingnews.com.
read more | digg story
No comments:
Post a Comment