The Chicago Tribune caught up with Carlton Fisk this week amid the new steroid drama circling Mark McGwire. Our old fireplug catcher responded as we would have expected, lambasting McGwire and the other confessers who continue to try and downplay the effects steroids had on them.
Like most people, I think I’m slowly getting more sick of steroids as each new poster-boy for “not talking about the past” comes forward. Between the fake tears, the finger pointing, and uncanny ability to forget the English language, the fans of baseball have been treated to a fiasco much like dirty politics. Baseball “saviors” come up dirty, and players continue to abuse the system without any remorse or regret.
Fisk’s outburst, however, is refreshing.
“That’s a crock,” Fisk said. “There’s a reason they call it performance-enhancing drugs. That’s what it does — performance enhancement. You can be good, but it’s going to make you better. You can be average, but it is going to make you good. If you are below average, it is going to make you average.
Criticisms of players who have abused the system have cropped up before, but his honesty is something we should take to heart. The old cop out of “steroids don’t help you hit a baseball” has deflected criticisms from some players for years. With more former players like Sandberg and Fisk speaking out, it’s possible other players can be convinced to pony up their guilt.
There’s something about the whole steroid saga that’s beginning to trouble me, though. I’m not entirely sure blame and public reaction is quite evenly spread from player to player.
Mark McGwire and Alex Rodriguez have basically been given a free pass in the media, after making sure to do their public penance filled with apparent remorse. It’s become fairly obvious that McGwire is doing this purely for sympathy with his dwindling Hall of Fame votes.
Barry Bonds, probably the biggest jerk on the planet, never officially failed a test and was basically forced to walk the gangplank, almost systemically exiled from the sport. Now, I will never be a Barry Bonds apologist, but why such the disparity between his treatment versus Manny Ramirez? Manny continued to abuse the system even after testing was mandated, and was caught because of the steps he took to mask his usage. Manny goes on a 50 day vacation, and fans welcome him back with open arms?
If anything, the steroid saga needs to be put to rest like an aging Blackmouth Cur. These new damage control tactics by players in Mark’s camp (and there will be more, I can imagine) will continue to creep out, possibly around the time their Hall of Fame votes begin to dwindle.
Fisk has the right idea. Stop trying to pretend steroids were anything but an extra edge you tried to use, and move on. The sport is still struggling under the weight of some of its biggest stars being caught or linked to steroids in some way. Trying to rationalize what you did, or how “it really didn’t help”, only makes it worse.
Figures the guy who flips the bird at an ALCS game would be so blunt.
Loading ...
I have no problem with Fisk being angry, but I do have serious problems with someone either lying or using inaccurate statistics to make his argument. In Fisk's argument, he claims that Bonds did things at age 39 (hitting 73 home runs) that no 39 year old had done. He used the performance of Aaron, Mays, and Ruth at age 39 to make this point. His claims that not only did Bonds hit 73 home runs at 39, but the three aforementioned baseball legends averaged 18 home runs in their age-39 season. This is not only misleading, but it's flat out untrue. First of all, Bonds hit 73 home runs in his age-36 season, and hit 45 in his age-39 season. It is true that he did something that no player had ever done at those ages, but there is at least one player that hit 40 HRs in his age-39 season. Secondly, Aaron, Mays, and Ruth averaged 30 home runs in their age-39 season–Aaron with 40, Mays with 28, and Ruth with 22. I will give you that Bonds was using steroids, but it's not like it's completely unheard of that a 39 y/o hitter goes for 40.
My second issue with his argument is how he conveniently forgets to mention his own accomplishments that are inconsistent with that of a catcher at a certain age. After never hitting more than 26 home runs in a single season, Carlton Fisk hit 37 HRs in his age-37 season–AS A CATCHER! You want to talk about unheard of statistics for a catcher at an advanced age, that's a great one. I'm not saying that Fisk did steroids–amphetamines on the other hand, who knows. In fact, I'm reasonably sure that he did not. My point is that he's making an argument using poor, incorrect examples, and he's getting away with it.
So far, the only person that's written an article questioning the accuracy of some of his statements is Joe Posnanski, and I'm wondering why.
That seems to be the problem with this whole steroid witch hunt. Most of the reactions from former players the media is capturing are spur of the moment and seemingly conversational. I doubt that Fisk was trying to build a case against certain players, outside of just reacting to the rumors.
I think what I took away from his comments was simply an overall message: that players coming out saying they took steroids, and expecting everything to just be washed away is shortsighted and almost insulting to the average fan.
However, I also think it's unfair that all of the players targeted in this mess, there are a myriad of reactions that are not consistent. Some players are getting more criticism, and others seem to just fly under the radar without any real consequences.
It's still a mess, and Big Mac didn't do the game or anyone a favor by asserting what he used didn't enhance his game. He just added another layer to the argument.
The only way I can see these truly great players with P.E.D. enhanced #'s get their due, and great players who were NOT using get theirs, is to formalize some sort of asterisk or bracket system, breaking out stats of the entire so-called steroid era.
In terms of long term baseball PR and respect for the players of this era, these enhanced players can either be treated like the Black Sox, which would be inaccurate, bad for the game, and just plain wrong, or be treated as a large group of players who used a variety of supplements which were not, at first, illegal and became so … so much so that many of these supplements were sold over the counter in so called 'health food' stores, and that testing wasn't deemed necessary or expedient until the league and a generation of players were well down this road … and accordingly, the broken out stats should neither accuse nor condemn, but rather explain. In this way the accomplishments of those from this era with lesser #'s can be compared to those of other eras, instead of their enhanced colleagues. It is what it is. I think it's as good a way as any to get beyond this.
I think Bonds gets a lot of criticism for the steroids and for being an incredibly unlikeable human being and it's important to separate the two when criticizing him. Maybe it's unfair to come to conclusions about a person's personality based on media reports but from his college teammates voting to kick him off the team to being a jerk about autographs this guy would have a bad reputation even without the roids.