The preeminent baseball thinker of his generation, the voluble Bill James, has never been known for his rapidity. He concocts his arguments, seeds through data, massaging the numbers until he can articulate the who-what-whys of the game of baseball. He is methodical, almost prudish, unwilling to compromise until he’s waited and tested and seen just how his argument holds up.
Thus, leave it to James to wait out the decade to opine on steroids, letting all the barking dogs settle before entering the discussion on the greatest scandal in nearly a century. Almost a decade after Sports Illustrated first aired the game’s dirty laundry, James has finally made his opinion known.
Surely, one would assume, James would renounce the needle-pricked players who turned a once-clean game into Dr. Frankenstein’s laboratory. Surely, as the harbinger of baseball’s numbers, James would swat down the insolence with which Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa bludgeoned the record books. Surely, these were cheats, and they deserved every ounce of scorn James deigned to heap upon them.
Surely.
Right?
In his recent essay, “Cooperstown and the ‘Roids,” James delineates his thoughts on the staginess of these drug users. More precisely, he informs the readers why, and how, every tainted member of the Steroid Era will soon find themselves cakewalking through the halls of Cooperstown. Not Jim Parque, mind you, but those whose numbers were enough to merit consideration.
James lays out his case in a simple format, with five points on his Pentagon of Perfidy. All of these points, which are easily (and necessarily) rebutted, stem from James’s haunting, all-too-true claim that “steroids keep you young.”
Granted, you’d be hard-pressed to find an argument otherwise: With muscled bodies lasting well past their expiration dates, primes are extended. Youth is the golden calf of life – everyone is trying to reverse the steady brunt of time. It’s a natural human condition, and people will go to all ends to replenish the empty cup of their youth.
Even, James claims, if your tendons shred and muscles wither. And especially if it can be accomplished with drugs.
In a turn that would make H.G. Wells proud, James’s essay describes a sci-fi future, one we can “reliably” anticipate. Soon “everybody is going to be using steroids” (his italics), a fact that could turn Manny into Methuselah: once everyone is on steroids, “people will start living to age 200 or 300 or 1,000, and doctors will begin routinely prescribing drugs to help you live to 200 or 300 or 1,000.” All farcical science aside — and forgetting the fact that James seems to overlook anyone who would want to live an alternative, “normal” lifestyle — James’s utopia heralds the current crop of baseball cheats not as abjured scum, but as “pioneers.”
Article comments
1 - pronk
There was no rule!
2 - Michael
This is really well-written. Unfortunately it boils down to the same argument all the sports-talk radio hosts use every day: "cheater, cheater, that's all I need to know."
For one, the whole premise argued (by you and James) - that steroids have a consistent, controllable effect - is far from accurate. Quite the opposite. No one - NO ONE - can say how much, or even IF, steroids affected any player's results.
Second, there's the "level playing field" effect. If we are in fact in a "Steroid Era," and both the Bondses and Clemenses were juicing, it was a zero-sum game. And contrary to your school metaphor, steroids were NOT officially considered "cheating." There are rules in your school that say cheating is not allowed, and have for many, many years. There was no such rule in MLB until a few years ago.
Last I checked, Gaylord Perry was still in the Hall of Fame. And to a man, the very sportswriters who voted him in will tell you he threw a spitball. A spitball was forbidden by MLB rules for Perry's entire career - yet those sportswriters had no problem electing him.
Your beef with James misses the point: sportswriters are human, and they elect players to the hall for a variety of reasons. They never liked Bonds or Clemens, which is why those players are unlikely to be first balloteers.
But when the players they LIKE are nominated, their enshrinement will no doubt be rationalized.
Bottom line, the vast majority of fans aren't jaded and bitter (have you BEEN to a baseball game lately?). Sportswriters will give up their bitterness (or retire and give way to less bitter new writers) and start opening the Hall to those deserving.
3 - Rick Bumpus
It was against the law. The rules say anything against the law is against the rules.
4 - Brian J.
Once-clean game? Sorry but baseball has been the dirtiest sport in the history of competitive events. From spit balls to spiking to amphetamines to nail files to sandpaper to vasoline to gambling... it's been crooked forever. Let's stop kidding ourselves now that baseball was ever or will ever be "clean".
5 - Dave P.
So many problems with this post. Baseball has never been a clean game and offensive numbers had a greater drop off after amphetemines were banned than after steroids. Plus, its entirely naive to think steroids havent been around baseball as long as they've been around all other major sports. Sure the quantities jumped, but athletes always look for an edge.
To get an idea of the general fan response to steroids, look no further than Manny Ramirez. Fans of other teams really didnt care. Fans of the Dodgers welcomed him back with open arms. People are finally treating baseball users just like football users - no moral outrage, just disappointment that the team will be short a player.
And to think the people that grew up watching baseball in the '90s and '00s is going to look back with disdain seems far fetched. I grew up with the coked up '80s Mets, and I look back at that time with rose colored glasses. I somehow doubt a look back at the 98 HR chase will be viewed with the vitriol you seem to have.
6 - watercott
“But, sir, you left the classroom, and since there was no way you could see if I had snuck notes for the test or not, well, it’s not really cheating, is it?”
This analogy is dangerously close to a straw man argument. A more fitting analogy would be, "Sir, you are paying all of the students based on their test scores, and even though you surely know 80% of us are cheating, you gleefully hire those that live up to the standard set by those cheaters and, without remorse, fire those that have chosen not to cheat and cannot keep up. The people writing the questions are also cheating, the dean knows we're cheating, the trustees know we're cheating, and you all do everything you can to keep that knowledge from our parents."
7 - Frank
It seems those most interested in discussing the topic are the apologists for the cheaters. Unfortunately for them, the silent majority will never be swayed by acrobatic feats of logic to accept that steroid abusing cheats deserve the fruits of their crimes. They may be forgiven, but that doesn't mean they get rewarded. If you're not ready to accept that, that's fine, but the future is not going to go your way. Bonds will never be inducted to the Hall of Fame.