Records from the Steroid Era Must Stand

Some baseball fans want to argue that the numbers that steroid and PED users have put up ought to be erased.  That argument is not valid.  First, baseball statistics are interelated and cannot be arbitrarily removed because, by definition, that will mean that others remain arbitrarily in place.  If we remove Rafael Palmerio's homeruns from the record books for example, do we also remove those same homeruns from the records of the pitchers who surrendered them?  Do we still credit a run scored to any of his teammates who were on base at the time?  Assuming Palmeiro did not always use PEDs, which of his home runs count and which don't?  Do we count them if he were juiced, but so was the pitcher against whom he hit them?

Second, there have always been statistical anomalies for one reason or another throughout baseball most notably in 1930 and 1968.  During the 1930 season, the batting average of the entire National League was .303!  Hack Wilson knocked in an incredible 190 runs, a record that still stands, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and all the other PED abusers notwithstanding.  To put that in perspective, Wilson knocked in 1,062 runs in a 12 year career meaning that 18% of his Hall of Fame career RBI total came in just that one season.  Indeed, the last place Phillies outhit the pennant winning Cubs .315 to .314.  It would seem that while the players weren't juiced, the balls must have been.

Thirty-eight years later Carl Yazstremski was the only American League batter to top .300 and Bob Gibson led the NL with a 1.12 ERA.  (Yet, somehow, Gibson managed to lose 9 games that year!)  Were the balls deadened?

Third, if cheating invalidates a player's records, then why is there no outrage about Gaylord Perry's Hall of Fame status, much less his records?  Perry wrote a book about how he cheated using the spitball.

How about the corked bats?  Slanting the baselines to favor a team that likes to bunt?  Letting the infield grass grow long and thick to compensate for infielders with poor range?

Records reflect the era in which the game was played, one might even say quite accurately.  The records must stand.  We don't have a choice.  Besides, there are other events that have taken place that have affected baseball and its records far more than steroid use.  We'll examine those tomorrow.

Comments

[NickW]

Statistics are definitely a big deal with baseball. Who hit what against whom, how far did they hit it, where did they hit it, who caught it, where did they throw it, how did the play develop, etc.,etc.,etc.
I remember sitting in front of the TV watching the Saturday Game of the Week with commentators Pee Wee Reese and Dizzy Dean (listening to Dizzy Dean could be an article in itself). I would have my score sheet so I could keep track of everything happening.
In the grand scheme of things, it didn't mean much, but did keep me involved in the game.

[Hack Man]

Yes, those steroid records must stand. And if you want a look back at the great Lewis Robert "Hack" Wilson, please go to my new site: Hack191.com

I've written the movie "Hack" and now I'm trying to get it to the "right" people. Please check it out--lots of fabulous photos of the man and the era.

[Austin]

Thanks for commenting, Hack Man; please do so in the future! I've checked out Hack Man's site and it is definitely worth the visit.

[Melissa Dodge]

Though I can see your point....I think that as long as Pete Rose is banned from being inducted into the Hall of Fame then baseball obviously has exercised a choice about what it deems noteworthy and what it will brand as not worthy. Yes, those skewed records are reflective of the era of the game but I do believe that for historical accuracy the contributory enhancements should be noted in the same breath.
So, bring on the **Asterisk Hall of Fame**!!!