Common blunder in Paul Daugherty/USA Today column

In comparing the steroid era to the segregation era, it doesn't matter that the players weren't to blame for the segregation. The case can be made that both segregation and steroids were outside forces that affected statistics and records of the time in very significant ways. Which one had the greater effect is open to debate, but the fact that the players weren't responsible for the discrimination is irrelevant.

 

I'm willing to bet a few bucks that A-Rod has used roids or (currently undetectable) HGH since 2003. Drug tests mean nothing to guys who have the money needed to know how to beat detection. Guys like that only come "clean" (pun intended) when they get caught. So far, A-Rod has been "caught" only in 2003.

 

Does that make it right?

I understand some people are wired that way.

But to try to "hammer the point home" ...

... that's a little hard to take when the concept is not right.

 

Well, on that we agree.
It's just that "innocent until proven guilty" is a pet peeve of mine. It's like when someone says they can't be fired for what they say because they have First Amendment rights.

 

Link the whole article or quote a passage with more context, please.

Was it wrong? Or do you just disagree with it?

 

I'm not looking to pick a fight, but I'm calling you on this one.

Name ten.

 

By name 10, do you mean Hall of Fame types, or any old 10? Because there many of them.

 

But we're not supposed to be "the court of public opinion."
This drives me crazy. One of the worst things our business ever accepted as axiomatic is that "perception is reality."
No, no, no.
Perception is not reality. Reality is reality, and our job is not to accept perception as reality. It is to pound the reality of the thing until perception conforms to it, not the other way around. And that is what "the court of public opinion" works to obviate.
Also, if you're arguing the "unfair competitive edge" in re: steroids, the pre-1947 argument, especially as regards the HOF, is dead-on.

 

You folks need to define your arguments better. People can be mad at baseball for its fiddling while steroids burned, and they can be mad at baseball for not allowing black players into the game prior to 1947.

But I don't think the majority of fans who are offended and ticked off about steroids use are mad at baseball. I think they're bothered that numbers they came to trust or at least savor no longer can be trusted or savored, and that a tradition linking Babe Ruth to Henry Aaron to, uh, never mind, has been broken.

With all this pre-'47 posturing, what you're saying -- if you're going to be consistent -- is that all the stats posted before then were fraudulent and not reflective of a truly even playing field. Let's see, who was carping about Ruth's HR total or Walter Johnson's strikeout numbers or any of the rest along those lines prior to the "steroids era"? (Never mind that Ruth might have hit a few extra home runs off a black pitcher or that Johnson might have struck out a black batter or two.)

To suggest there's no difference in fan viewpoints regarding these very different issues -- blaming baseball for segregation vs. blaming players for cheating -- isn't intellectually honest. A whole lot of honest, healthy players never succumbed to steroids; it was an individual's choice to use. It wasn't any individual player's choice to play next to a black player when none were employed.

Being fed up with Bud Selig and the lords of baseball is a separate argument for my take on most fans' view of steroids use.

Unfair competitive advantages? Players who played in the daytime had an edge over guys trying to see the ball at night. Guys riding trains halfway across the country were worse off than guys jetting into their next cities. Flannel was hot and heavy in the summertime vs. polyester. Gloves are bigger and almost automatic in snaring balls. The dead ball era got cheated relative to the lively ball era (though at least every batter was swinging at the same ball as his peers on any given day, unlike PED use). C'mon, you can slice and dice however you want. If you want to say that no stats ever could be compared, era to era, you're entirely welcome. But most fans don't see it that way, and didn't -- until the steroids era pissed all over all of them.

 

Hate to interject, but can't help myself :

1. <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/castrlu01.shtml">Luis Castro</a>, 1902
2. <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/almeira01.shtml">Rafael Almeida</a>, 1911-13
3. <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/marsaar01.shtml">Armando Marsans</a>, 1911-18
4. <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/gonzami01.shtml">Miguel "Mike" Gonzalez</a>, 1912-32 (also the first Latino to manage in MLB)
5. <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/l/luquedo01.shtml">Dolf Luque</a>, 1914-35
6. <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/almadme01.shtml">Mel Almada</a>, 1933-39
7. <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/e/estalbo01.shtml">Bobby Estalella</a>, 1935-49
8. <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/guerrmi01.shtml">Mike Guerra</a>, 1937-51
9. <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/carraal01.shtml">Alex Carrasquel</a>, 1939-49
10. <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bithohi01.shtml">Hiram Bithorn</a>, 1942-47 (you may have heard of his stadium)

 

I'm betting Buck did that from memory.

 

Sorry, Joe, but regardless of how many fans may feel, the steroids problem is just as much of an "institutional issue" as the color barrier.

The fact that they're madder about beefed-up players breaking records doesn't change the reality of the situation.

That said, I thought the column in question stunk. Terribly off the mark, but not for those reasons.