Rodriguez Hits 600

In the first inning of today’s game against the Toronto Blue Jays, Alex Rodriguez blasted his 600th career home run to dead center field off of Toronto starter Shaun Marcum. You can watch the video here.

Rodriguez becomes the seventh player to reach this milestone, and he does so at only 35 years old, suggesting that he may be able to chase 700 and the marks put up by Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, and Barry Bonds. If Rodriguez can do anything near what either of these three monoliths put up after their age-34 seasons (Rodriguez turned 35 on July 27th, meaning he spent a majority of the 2010 season as a 34-year-old), even 800 home runs could be a possibility. Ruth had the weakest twilight years of the trio, with 198. Aaron blasted 245 in the eight seasons he played after turning 35, but that doesn’t quite touch Bonds’s 317. Of course, Bonds’s performance is covered by the shadow of the steroids era, but it still far outweighs the performance of any of his peers at that age.

Can Alex Rodriguez keep up his performance? Even though New Yankee Stadium favors left handed hitters more than right handed hitters, StatCorner’s park factors suggest it should still help Rodriguez in his quest for 800 or 762 or 755 or any other number he’s going after. The real question is if he can fend off the effects of aging long enough.

A-Rod’s power from ages 31-34 is trending down and right now it’s hard to imagine him rattling off another 200 home runs in his career to reach 800. It’s possible that 762 will be tough for him to reach, and we always have to account for the possibility of injury. However, Aaron had an even less impressive, albeit more consistent, stretch in that same time of his career, and he went on to be a tremendous slugger through age 40. Ruth’s career was simpler, as he steadily declined from utterly ridiculous to merely really good from age 32 to age 40, but Ruth’s power numbers were driven by a more balanced attack between doubles and home runs, whereas Aaron didn’t hit many doubles in his later career.

Alex Rodriguez has already cemented himself as one of the elite hitters in the game’s history at a relatively young age. Now the question becomes how much does he have left. He certainly has the chance to be the first player to reach 800 home runs stateside – one can never forget the great Sadaharu Oh and his 868 career Japanese home runs – but there’s also no guarantee, given the realities of injury and aging, that he can reach the records of Bonds and Aaron or even become the fourth player to reach 700 home runs. Over the next few years, we will find out if Rodriguez can join this pantheon of greats, but even if he doesn’t, this is an accomplishment to be celebrated.




Print This Post



Jack Moore's work can be seen at VICE Sports and anywhere else you're willing to pay him to write. Buy his e-book.


76 Responses to “Rodriguez Hits 600”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
  1. Sean says:

    I’ve seen people mention Oh’s record in the past…and I’m kind of curious why we’re supposed to care. Oh spent his entire career playing in a far inferior league with very different playing conditions. How is his record at all relevant to anything?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Sean K says:

      I agree, it isn’t relevant. If we’re going to point out Oh’s career numbers then I might as well point out that I hit 1,243 career homeruns in backyard wiffle ball from 1992-1996. You’re almost halfway there A-Rod…

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • TomG says:

        But you were juicing on Hi-C and Five Alive at the time, so your record comes with an asterisk. Little Billy Richards down the street is the true, clean backyard wiffleball HR King with 1,137.

        +5 Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Teej says:

      It’s just good to know. It’s like Josh Gibson’s insane homer numbers in the Negro Leagues — you don’t have to equate them with MLB records, but it’s still worth mentioning. Eight hundred homers is pretty impressive in any league.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • BC says:

      If non-MLB homerun totals do count, then maybe Oh is not the only guy to hit 800+ home runs. Bonds had 20 dingers in the Pacific Coast League & Carolina Leagues, and another 45 in the PAC-10. Just how much better was the talent level in the Japanese Central League in 1960? You have to draw the line somewhere.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Xeifrank says:

      Was Oh’s competition inferior to Ruth’s?

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Anon21 says:

        That’s a good question. I think the real challenge is, as it’s always been, quantifying or measuring the level of Ruth’s competition somehow. We know or think we know that it was considerably lower than at present, and we can point to several factors which suggest that conclusion, but in the end, since the players all played against each other, it’s really difficult to say how good or bad the 1920s and ’30s major leagues were in any real sense…

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • BC says:

        Do you think Hector Espino’s 480 career home runs in the Mexican League was against better competition than when Richard Newland scored 88 wickets against Kent in 1780?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • kardo says:

        I guess Newlands performance was more impressive since he died 2 years before 1780. Also wickets arent scored, they are taken.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • BC says:

        He had been dead for 2 years? Must have been on the roids.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Aaron/YYZ says:

        We can go around and around on this… When Ruth played, balls that hit the foul pole were ground-rule doubles. Balls that went over the wall but hooked foul past the pole were still considered foul balls. Park factors were even more messed up than any modern day stadium.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Year_Babe_Ruth_Hit_104_Home_Runs

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Richard says:

        “He had been dead for 2 years? Must have been on the roids.”

        That is the funniest thing I’ve seen in awhile. You have made my day much better than it was pre-comment.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  2. Ben says:

    Man, that Babe Ruth guy was really quite good.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  3. Darien says:

    I’m with Sean on this one. While one certainly shouldn’t *forget* Oh’s record, it isn’t really germane to the discussion. Oh played in an entirely different league, in entirely different parks, against entirely different pitching. Comparing direct count-y stats from the Ruthean era to modern players is sketchy enough (and we really only do it because it’s awesome to compare our modern heroes to Babe Emm-Effing Ruth); we don’t need to mix entirely separate leagues in, too.

    Especially not leagues in which the preeminent slugger’s records have a history of being challenged by MLB dropouts, at which point said MLB dropouts stop getting any pitches to hit.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  4. Andrew says:

    Why is it that Bonds “alleged” use of steroids is always a factor for this consideration, but A-ROD seemingly gets a pass? Shouldn’t A-ROD’s substance use be considered?…especially since his power numbers have dropped rather precipitously from a few years ago.

    You say that that the real question is whether A-Rod can :”fend off the effects of aging,” but hasn’t he been doing that???

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Anon21 says:

      Does he really get a pass? The Braves’ announcers were chatting about A-Rod’s 600 chase the other night, and one of them dropped a truly venomous little side remark about how of course it’s entirely meaningless, and he has no idea why anyone is paying the slightest bit of attention, since A-Rod has admitted he’s a fraud.

      Perhaps that’s entirely atypical of the tenor of comments about A-Rod’s latest achievement, but I would be surprised if that were the case.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Andrew says:

        I certainly hope you’re right. Perhaps my feelings are just based on ESPNs coverage and the love A-Rod received at the All-Star game festivities.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • descender says:

      A-Rod didn’t use it to extend his career 10 years past its prime, it’s quite a different situation.

      No one is fending off aging at 34.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Andrew says:

        Wait, a baseball player can’t fend off aging at 34 but Bonds did? I’m not sure I follow your logic. And if that’s a statement aimed at the legitimacy of players achievements now because of testing, please don’t be so naive. Players are still likely using HGH, albeit not at the rate in the early part of decade.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • M says:

        Are you really arguing for the legitimacy of steroid use in a players prime over the later parts of their careers? I don’t think people are going to accept Arod’s use as less of a crime than Bonds’. The difference is one got caught and admitted, the other is just highly suspected of use.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • descender says:

        andrew, bonds hit more home runs per season after 34 than before it. if a-rod comes out next year and starts hitting 50+ home runs again every year then yes, he would be using it in the same manner than bonds did to defy his age. at this point i’d say they used them at 2 different times in their careers. is that justifiable? no, but a-rod came out and admitted his “alleged” use, where bonds continues to defy public perception. people hate bonds for this, and will never let it go. a-rod did himself a world of PR good by coming clean. make no mistake, they will both forever be questioned by (petty) critics, but until bonds comes clean he’s still the villain.

        nowhere did i say i think any player is clean now. they all cheat, and they are held up to and compared to other cheaters from other eras… so what’s the difference?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Jack Moore says:

      My point was that the public perception of Bonds is tainted by steroids but quite honestly I don’t care that much. His performance was still insane even with steroids in the equation.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Anon21 says:

        I think this actually sums up my own views rather well. Yeah, Bonds is a cheater and by all accounts a bit of a scumbag, but good God, those 4 seasons just defy all attempts to diminish them. It’s like a force of nature, a volcano or a hurricane or something. At some point, you have to step back, set aside all moral judgments as irrelevant, and simply marvel at the sheer scale of the thing.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Everett says:

        Additionally, we know all sorts of people used various PEDs in the 70s. Where’s the outrage over that?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Steve says:

      Wait, you think A-Rod, ALEX RODRIGUEZ, is “getting a pass”??? The dude gets probably the shoddiest media treatment of any active player. It is constantly mentioned. On the front page of ESPN, right under his picture today there is a link to a month old column blasting him for steroids. It’s in every article.

      Obviously he deserves the heat from PED’s, but the dude gets sh*t for everything. EVERYTHING.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • BlackOps says:

        ..such a tough life.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Steve says:

        No one said it was a “tough life”. The original post suggested he is “getting a pass” when he clearly isn’t. The statement was flat out wrong and your comment is little more than a red herring.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • hank says:

      To be clear, there is no “alleged” part to Bonds steroid use… he has testified in front of a grand jury that he used steroids (unknowingly).

      Whether or not you choose to believe his (ridiculous?) assertion that he was just a rube who had no idea he was taking steroids is up to you, but there is no question that he did take them.

      So to be clear – he has admitted using steroids, he just alleges he was unaware that they were steroids.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • kokushishin says:

      Winning the World Series has a funny effect on perception.

      With Bonds it’s basically a long-standing hate/hate relationship that would exist regardless of allegations.

      Of course there’s still probably a few people out there still outraged at Roger Maris or Hank Aaron.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  5. Xeifrank says:

    Jimmy cracked corn…

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  6. Dan In Philly says:

    I was going to post a snarky remark, but instead I’ll try to make a serious point. ARod admitted using steriods after denying it. He only admitted doing it when he had no choice. He does not have any credibility for his claims of how, when, how often, and why he used it. He is like the cheating husband who only admitted his cheating when he was sure the wife was about to find out about it and he wanted to spin the revelation as best he could.

    Steriods has a definite effect on athletes, both in performance and in recovery from injury. If ARod had not used, it is unlikely he’d have the number of HRs he currently has, either due to a lower level of performance or due to injury. Therefore comparing him to Bonds is ok, but not to Aaron or Ruth when considering his place in history.

    Of course, some don’t seem to care about history, but I do. And to me, Bonds and ARod will always, always, always have a taint on their records.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Steve says:

      Unless, of course, Aaron used PEDs….which is entirely possible.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Gary York says:

        Well, he did use a performance enhancing stadium. As I recollect, his HR totals were trending downward in a fairly predictable fashion until the Braves moved to Atlanta.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Travis L says:

      I’d like to see some proof that steroids helped hitters. And not anecdotal proof — real analysis. If they have such a HUGE affect as everyone says, we should be able to figure out how much of an effect, right?

      I believe steroids helped keep players on the field. Hitters and pitchers. Maybe more of an effect for pitchers.

      I am agnostic as to whether they enhanced performance.

      I also don’t give a whit for the morality arguments. People who make the steroids argument always seem to be pushing an agenda.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CircleChange11 says:

        More guys hit 60 HRs in a 10 year soan than have occurred in 100 years of baseball, then …

        aw hell, I’m not gonna rehasj everything. You say you want proof, but so much has already been given. To state to be claiming for “proof” that steroids helped hitters, is really stating “I don’t accept any of the proof, or ignore it outright.” … either that or it’s an unrealistic standard of proof.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Kevin S. says:

        Except that’s not proof, it’s circumstantial evidence that ignores all of the other offense-boosting factors of time.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CircleChange11 says:

        I was not, and am not, going to list all of the escalated offensive numbers from the “steroid era”. It’s been done.

        What other offense boosting factors have vanished/decreased since that time period? Different ballparks? Different strike zone? Different hitters?

        This discussion gets tiring, and very quickly. It’s all been said, and re-said, and we’re not going to introduce anything new. Anyone who states that steroids do not help players stay at peak levels, and/or hit home runs, likely does not have experience with steroids .. and they ignore the statements of those that have used them to increase production. Steroids don’t do anything for hitters, as evidenced by the career bests and historical seasons accomplished by those that have since admitted use (or have a very strong case against them).

        Since baseball players are the only athletes that use steroids to enhance production and peak levels, it probably just is something like differences in the baseball, wind changes, global warming, park factors, etc.

        If steroids really worked then sprinters, football players, powerlifters, etc would use them. They’re a waste of time, and as such, no athletes risk their careers or health to use them. If steroids really worked, they’d be rampant in sports that accentuate speed, power, and recovery. The last 2 paragraphs are obviously sarcasm.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Kevin S. says:

        The spike in offensive production that occurs with every expansion has died down as pitching has adjusted, the balls are no longer juiced, emphasis has been placed on calling the official strike zone (though umps still have their own zones) and the ballparks that have come in this decade (Petco, Comerica, Citi) have been larger than usual – only NYS hasn’t been pitcher friendly. Additionally, Colorado got the humidor.

        But yeah, let’s shut our brains down, ignore all these factors, and waive about the steroids boogieman.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CircleChange11 says:

        But yeah, let’s shut our brains down, ignore all these factors, and waive about the steroids boogieman.

        Yeah, lets.

        I don’t wave the steroids boogyman. I played college sports, I am rabid about exercise physiology , and I have a medical background. A lot of my buddies do the strongman/powerlifting thing with football backgrounds. I have seen a lot of “steroids” and “not steroids”. Their effect is dramatic.

        Could it be “other factors”? Sure. Could the offensive explosion during the “steroid era” be due to steroids. Sure. IMO, it’s the most dramatic effect.

        The players with some of the greatest performances ever … Canseco, McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, Palmeiro, Caminiti, ARod, Ortiz, have all admitted to steroid use, tested positive, or have overwhelming evidence against them.

        It can be as complicated or as simple as one wants to make it. Why do I at age 37 at 6’3 215 hit the ball A LOT furhthr than I did in HS at 6’3 135 or college 6’3 155? The answer is not “more skill” (I probably have less now than I did then), my reflexes are probably a little slower now.

        I am not over-zealous toward steroids. I think they do exactly what they were designed to do, greatly enhance recovery leading to better athletic performance (speed, power, etc). I think they work VERY well, and I’ve seen it first-hand in buddies and teammates. From a medical standpoint, steroids are damn near magic, both in terms of enhancing athletic performances and their treatment of certain disorders. What I don’t engage in are scare tactics on how a steroid user will go and start raping every girl he sees or smashing down every door.

        But, in terms of athletic performance, steroids work as intended … at this point one has to wonder if there is a “drug free world record” anywhere.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Kevin S. says:

        Every piece of medical literature I’ve read is agnostic on how well taking steroids translates to improved performance on the field – and I think that’s the main problem I have with people writing the offensive explosion off to steroids. The post-strike, pre- (serious) testing era was marked by five things – two waves of expansion, smaller ballparks, juiced balls, shrinking strike zones and PEDs. Thing is, offense is now down, but one could argue that PEDs are the factor that’s been least negated, since the drugs are always ahead of the testing. It’s still virtually impossible to catch somebody using HGH, and players can cycle in the offseason with drugs the tests can get. The other factors, however, have been reversed to varying degrees. Furthermore, doping became widespread in the 80s… well before offense spiked. The doping window has been the least-correlated to the offense window.

        I at times overstate the case for the other factors because people tend to ignore them. The truth is, we don’t know how much impact each had. I just have issues with people automatically assuming the spike came entirely from a chem lab, especially when we have evidence that MLB tried to manipulate offense up after the strike and down when the PED backlash peaked (via the balls, at least). I’m no more inclined to try and siphon out how many homers A-Rod hit because of the juice (and if the way he described his usage was in any way accurate, the answer is almost certainly ‘not many’) than I am to figure out how many fewer runs Whitey and Gaylord allowed by doctoring the balls. What happened, happened – all we can do is determine whether we want that behavior to continue, and if not seek to eliminate it going forward.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CircleChange11 says:

        Kevin,

        If steroids allow you to recover faster, gain muscle, add strength, etc … then it is impossible for them NOT to help your production.

        Steroids do all of those things.

        I don’t what % is steroids, and what % is lively ball, and what % is expansion. They work so well, that I seroiusly contemplated taking them as a 6’3 155 pound 84mph throwing lefty trying like hell to get drafted. I chose not to, so that one day I could tell my kids that you don’t “need” to take steroids to make it. Given that he knows ARod, Ortiz, McGwire, Bonds, ahve both shattered the record books and taken steroids, I’m not sure he’s getting that message.

        I think Canseco is damn meathead, but when it comes to steroids effect on recovery and being able to perform at peak levels for longer, I take his opinion as meaningful.

        One can take each piece of evidence and discuss the alternatives. But, when you take 20 pieces of evidence pointing in the same direction, it much more difficult to consider other strong alternatives.

        To me, it is obvious, based on what I know of steroids, and what I’ve seen athletes do when on them, and what friends tell me about their recovery during their “on” cycles and “off” cycles. I don’t purposely go around trying to convince everyone that steroids were the culprit. IMO, people know “down deep” how effective steroids are. They know this because even the most talented athletes risk everything to use them.

        But, I did want to defend the idea just I, as an uneducated or naive person, just threw the “steroids arguement” out there as if Book of Shadows was the only thing I had read on the matter.

        Like some of my buddies say about steroids and baseball, “It’s about time you pussies got serious about it.” (i.e., got serious about taking steroids and being REALLY good at it, not got serious about steroid testing).

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • sfy says:

      you do realize aaron used greenies, right?

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Kevin S. says:

      I’d like to know what active player simply fessed up to taking PEDs without being confronted with at least passingly strong evidence first. What, you think people take them and then pray that nobody questions them because they won’t be able to lie about it? Of course he lied! At the time of the Katie Couric interview, there was absolutely no dirt on him at all.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • descender says:

      what kind of idealist nonsense is this? no one admits to doing something wrong until they get caught. when you get caught, how you act is a testament to your maturity and respect for the public.

      bonds – denies everything, everyone hates him.
      a-rod – caught, comes clean… people hated him regardless of the drugs so i wouldn’t say his situation deteriorated at all, but in the public eye compared to others that were caught he may get a “pass”.
      ortiz – caught, denies it, media shuffles the story under the proverbial rug.

      still trying to figure out that last bit…

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Steve says:

        Ortiz is fat and jolly and a “teddy bear”. The media loved him before he got caught, so they swept it under the rug. Also, they had too much riding on the narrative of 2004 to have it tainted. From a journalistic POV, it was just too good of a story.

        A-Rod was a egomaniac meaniehead with purple lips who once said something slightly unflattering about Derek Jeter.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  7. Buck Foston says:

    Dan,

    How is Bonds and A-Rod tainted but not Ruth or Aaron? Ruth didn’t play against the best African-American players of the time and Aaron has admitted to using greenies. Bonds hit 176 homers in his six years with the Pirates from the age of 21-27. In the prime years for a baseball player, age 28-34, he hit 269 homers. From age 36-42 he hit 317 homers with one of those seasons having only 42 at bats. No one has ever hit more HRs in their age 36-42 seasons than in their prime. A-Rod, on the other hand, hit 345 homers from age 18-27. In his prime he has hit 254 from age 28 to current day. Quite a difference and I would think most would agree A-Rod has not been doing steroids since H.S., but some dopes probably do. Bonds, A-Rod, Ruth, Aaron, Gehrig, Mantle, Williams, Foxx, Hornsby, et al. are the greatest talents the game had produced, with or without supposed enhancement.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Kevin S. says:

      Brian Cartwright did a similar article on this site.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Buck Foston says:

        Nice. Dan some how can quantify how many homers the steroids helped A-Rod hit as he says if A-Rod had not used he would most likely not have as many HRs as he does…? But yet he doesn’t quantify exactly how many he would have. We must also remember pitchers also used steroids so wouldn’t it be an even playing field?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Buck Foston says:

        What was his conclusion?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Kevin S. says:

        Cartwright looked at typical aging patterns and ballpark factors to show that there wasn’t an appreciable jump in A-Rod’s HR output when he went to Texas, but that such a jump did occur between ’98 and ’99. The conclusion was that if A-Rod started taking roids in ’01 they probably didn’t help him, and if roids did help A-Rod hit homers, he probably started doping in ’99. I’ll try to dig up his post on it.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • DanaT says:

      Only if EVERY pitcher used steroids, would it even it up.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  8. kid says:

    “A-Rod’s power from ages 31-34 is trending down”… Stupid argument. Not even based on fact.

    2004: .286/.375/.512 (36 HR)
    2005: .321/.421/.610 (45 HR)
    2006: .290/.392/.523 (35 HR)
    2007: .314/.442/.645 (54 HR)
    2008: .302/.394/.573 (35 HR in 138 games, 41 HR pace over 162 games)
    2009: .286/.402/.532 (30 HR in 124 games, 39 HR pace over 162 games)

    If there’s a power regression in there, I’d love for you to point it out to me. His average 162-game season has him hitting 43 HR, so he’s posting paces identical to his career numbers.

    There will be “down” years, there will be “up” years. Hell, even Albert Pujols “only” hits 32 HR every once in a while.

    But to say that his power is “trending down” is laughable. Do your research.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  9. Spunky says:

    In response to Andrew, A-Rod has received lots of negative journalism on espn.com about his 600 milestone. Rob Neyer explained in his article why fans don’t care as much about 600 anymore, one of his reasons being A-Rod’s admitted steroid use. Ian O’Connor had an article on espn entitled “A-Rod can’t inject meaning into 600.” And there have been a million other “600, who cares, he used steroids!” articles along the way.

    Today, people celebrate his accomplishment. But before today, everyone was complaining that this all meant nothing.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  10. pft says:

    I think it is quite clear that the HR jump, and offense in general, started almost overnight from 1994, so could not only be due to steroids. The ball and the strike zone likely played a role as well. Guys who used to hit 10 HR were hitting 15 and 20.

    As to comments about Babe Ruths eras quality of competition. Look at todays game. Imagine if you eliminated all players of color, including Latinos and Japanese (that would be quite a reduction in the talent pool). Ban the slider which did not exist when he played. Require that all pitchers pitch a CG regardless of pitch count, and pitch every 4 games. If A-Rod were allowed to play in this hypothetical league (despite his dark complexion), he might have 1200 HR, even without steroids.

    Consider also that today pitchers have been enhanced, via drugs (PED’s) and TJ surgery that provides a 2 mph boost to the FB. Weight training by pitchers, as well as bigger pitchers, mean higher average FB’s. Also, more night games and earlier starts to seasons mean colder temperatures, and balls do not travel as far.

    I don’t really know if steroids directly contribute to a players performance as much as the motivation that underlies them taking steroids. What I mean is I am sure not all players use steroids all the time, but only when they are motivated to perform better (contract year, making the team, etc), and this motivation also translates into more gym time and conditioning. Hard to say which was more important to the contract year.

    Yaz was motivated after 1966 and spent the off season with a strength coach improving his conditioning, and won a triple crown in 1967 with a HR jump from 20 to 44. Landed a nice contract and many endorsements as a result.
    I doubt steroids were involved.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  11. MV says:

    ”Players in 60’s and 70’s, including Hank Aaron, used greenies” must be the dumbest argument ever. There is no way to compare greenies with steroids … last time I checked greenies didn’t help you build your muscle strength and hit 73 HRs at the age of 36.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Kevin S. says:

      Barry tested positive for amphetamines too, big guy. And somehow, I get the feeling that a drug that allows you to stay on the field, be more alert on the field and speed up your reactions (including bat speed) might, just might, have something to do with home run totals.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  12. SamC says:

    Who cares

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  13. Dan In Philly says:

    Note that I get tired to hearing the same arguments and uttering the same defenses as I get here. So, here are a few responses to what I’m seeing:

    1) There’s no evidence steriods helps performance in baseball – two words: Bull and Shit. Steriods absolutely has an effect on muscle growth, which absolutely has an effect on how far you can hit the ball. It might have different levels of effects on different people, but it has an effect on everybody. I’m into natural weightlifting, and I know a little of what I speak.
    2) Well, since pitchers are doing them too, doesn’t it all equal out? – No, what instead you get is a greater separation between the best and the worst. Clemens can get more strikeouts against poor hitters, and Bonds can hit more HRs against poor pitchers. The bell curve gets more spread out due to steriods, not bunched together.
    3) You don’t know how many HRs ARod would have hit without steriods! – That kind of proves my point, I thought. We’ll never know.
    4) Well, Ruth didn’t play against blacks! – Funny how no one mentions how he didn’t play against hispanics or asians, either. I suspect this argument is used to confuse the question and imply racism. But to the argument about minorities, true he didn’t. But then again neither did anyone else. He wasn’t breaking any baseball rules or ethics. Also, there were fewer teams and therefore fewer poor players despite the lack of minority players. I also suspect that because there was no NFL and NBA, more kids played baseball back then, which also evened out the player pool.
    5) I don’t care! – I’m glad it doesn’t bother you, but it bothers me. I have extremely good reasons for it to bother me, integrity of the game, the whole idea that cheating isn’t a good thing, the fact that by taking these steriods, ARod and Bonds were in fact breaking the law, the negeative effects steriods have on the body, etc etc. I am not sure why these things don’t bother everyone, but it’s clear they don’t. Please don’t hold the fact that they bother me against me.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Raf says:

      “I have extremely good reasons for it to bother me, integrity of the game, the whole idea that cheating isn’t a good thing, the fact that by taking these steriods, ARod and Bonds were in fact breaking the law, the negeative effects steriods have on the body, etc etc.”

      Why limit it to just Rodriguez and Bonds? Steroids have been around baseball for much longer than the past 10-15 years

      Vote -1 Vote +1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>