Good day to be a New York sports fan!

Is doing som thing with performance enhancing drugs the same as doing it :better?" I don't think so. Just doing it "more" is not the same as doing it "better" IMHO.

Ty Cobb.  And I knew that one off the top of my head.   I had to look up Steve Garvey to make a point


oops.  didn't turn the page to see KY beat me to it

In the really old days, pole vaulters used bamboo poles. The heights they achieved were miniscule compared to when fiberglass poles came into use. Not sure what they use now but an analogous situation. Anyone know what the record height was for a bamboo pole? Probably not. 

Thank goodness I'm not a baseball fan anymore. 

KY makes a great point and I will say that he's reiterating what I said: you always look at the competitors against their peers, in their era. Bamboo pole vaulting was mentioned-- look at golf today. 3 piece balls, huge drivers... the average length with every club save for the putter is tens of yards farther. My first set of clubs was a hand-me-down of a hand-me-down. The woods were actually wood, with a metal plate across a small part of the face. The driver was barely bigger than the ball.

I understand it's not quite the same as this baseball argument, since we're not saying that Tiger Woods juiced and Arnold Palmer didn't. What I am saying is that the general conditions of the sport-- much more emphasis on physical fitness, weightlifting, supplements (both legal and "illegal"), were widespread in the late 90s and 00s versus the 60s. That, and to introduce another wrinkle: all the steroids in the world won't help me hit a ball better. Mac and Bonds and Manny and Arod could always hit.

yeah, but they don't throw much in the WING T

1 or 2 (depending who you ask) former posters used to throw lasik into the steroids discussion.   Jim Rice would have easily had 300 HR's if lasik surgery was available in his day

Alas, he had to settle for 382.

Not necessarily the best plan when people are throwing things at you at 90 MPH - and he had issues with contacts. 

The point this former poster(s) was going for was that the great eyesight is an asset to hitting.   Surgically enhanced eyesight is changing your body and gaining an advantage in the game.  The person/people basically contended that lasik surgery was no different than PED's

Was Brady Anderson ever actually tied to steroid use in any way other than statistical speculation? I know he comes up as an example a lot because he hit 50 in 1996 out of nowhere. However, Anderson didn't maintain that level of power after that season, going back to hitting 20-something a year for the rest of his prime. If he hasn't been directly connected via some kind of evidence or admission, I think I'd have to go with the innocent until proven guilty angle with regards to him. Legit could've been a fluke season. 

Wade Boggs was a guy who typically hit less than 5 home runs a year and one season somewhat early in his great career hit 24. He admitted that he was able to change his swing a little bit that year to generate more power while continuing to be Wade Boggs as far as hitting for high average However, the following spring training, he was unable to replicate that same swing without falling into a slump. As a result, Boggs went back to his old swing and once again went back to being the slap hitting leadoff hitter we all knew and loved in Boston and then The Bronx. 

And generally I think you're right that the argument about the pitchers juicing doesn't hold water. I DO think it gave those pitchers a competitive advantage that they otherwise wouldn't have had -- higher velo, better recovery between starts, better stamina, etc. But I don't believe home run totals were counter balanced. A ball being thrown 2mph faster can still leave the park just as easily if solid contact made. I also do think it's unfair to give steroid using pitchers a "pass" if you're someone whose opposed to steroid-using sluggers getting recognized for records. 

For years and years the Sox fans thought Jeter was nothing special. (He got 99.7 of his first ballot Hall of Fame vote.)

Imagine they think the same of Judge and his ‘record’.

The only thing I’m talking about is whether a non-steroid HR record should be put in the same category as a steroid HR record. Hitters got a massive HR hitting benefit from steroids in the same way that they would if they used some of today’s non-wood bats. If baseball allowed those bats for a season and someone hit 90 home runs, I think everyone would agree there’s at least an asterisk if not an entirely separate record in the books for the composite bat guy. I think some say that 73 HRs with steroids can be compared to 62 HRs without steroids because the 73 HR guy was facing pitchers who were also juicing. I don’t buy that.

It is a separate issue whether pitchers who juiced should be considered for things like HOF. I would treat hitters and pitchers the same for this purpose. If you’re not letting in the hitters who juiced, you can’t let in the pitchers who did either. That’s the way the voters seem to have treated it so far, at least with Clemens.