Bill Simmons has an interesting column up:
We're going with a one-question mailbag this week, courtesy of Phil D. from Montclair, N.J.: "What was the purest baseball era, from a statistical perspective?"
Honestly, Phil? That's like asking, "Who's the purest actress in an X-rated movie?" Every baseball era has been tainted to some degree. But if there is no era, maybe we can find a window. A four- or five-year stretch will do. Two years, even. Hell, I'll settle for an All-Star break. Okay, let's begin.
He dismisses the 19th century for being too primitive and the dead ball era for much the same reasons. The interwar period and the rest of the 40s are out because of segregation and WWII. The 50s and 60s are also eliminated due to the gradual nature of integration (a point many neglect, but a good one all the same -- the game really wasn't fully integrated until the 60s) and the insanely pitching-friendly environment. The 70s and early 80s start to look better, but AstroTurf, odd pitcher usage and cocaine kill it for him, and of course the 1993-present era is out due to steroids. That causes him to settle on the narrow time frame of 1988-1992 as the most "statistically pure" period in baseball history.
And he may be right, even if the definition of "pure" is a bit unclear and maybe not that useful. What is useful, however, is Simmons' highlighting the fact that, at just about every single point in baseball history, there was something, be it drugs, or rules, or racist policies or whatever, that altered the statistical and competitive landscape. Some of them -- and I'm thinking segregation here -- were borne of even more malice than the cheating of the steroids era.
Simmons' observation puts lie to the notion, so popular in recent years, that the steroids era's greatest evil was that it somehow sullied a heretofore pure record book. There was nothing pure about it, and certainly nothing consistent about it. Lefty Grove would have been a Hall of Famer whenever he played, but there's no escaping the fact that a lot of the guys he got out wouldn't have been able to sniff the big leagues if black players had been allowed in the game. Bob Gibson would likewise be celebrated, but his 1.12 ERA in 1968 would never have happened if he was pitching from a modern mound in a modern retro-park. We talk about baseball's wonderful continuity all of the time, but things have changed in radical ways over the years, and no one has ever presented any evidence to convince me that steroids impacted things any more radically than did high pitchers' mounds, huge strike zones, segregation and dead balls.
So, yes, let us continue to disapprove of and sanction those who break the PED rules, but please, let's put an end to the talk that baseball has been irrevocably tainted, because it quite clearly has not.
Leave a Comment:
Saving...
Beautifully stated Craig. The iconic nature of certain stats in baseball history, like 60 and 61 HR in season, 500 career HR's, 300 Wins etc, has been the crutch of the unanalyitcal fan and writer for far too long. No asterick is needed to qualify Bonds HR records because they carry the qualification of a whole era- do we need an asterick to help us understand how Matt Kilroy stuck out 513 batters in a season? No, the date is qualification enough- 1886 tells us he played at time when that was possible, and we have no trouble qualifying his abilities accordingly. When people look back at the 1985-2005 period they will understand the MANY elements in play to prop up the home run numbers and preform the same type of mental correction we do with pre-1900 pitching stats. People should tone down the defiled records rhetoric. All that has been lost is a cheap short cut to recognizing ability.
I wish he would have mentioned widespread use of amphetamines in the '60s-present. Hank Aaron and Joe Morgan used them.
So the only time baseball was pure was when the Twins were winning World Series?
Okay then.
I think that players in the steroids era should be judged by their accomplishments on and off the field as it is for anybody else. The bashing of these players amount to nothing more than a hipocrytical stance by MLB and reporters. All of them benefitted from the stats of Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, etc. In fact, they saved baseball from the abyss. Baseball owes a lot to these players.
I have to say, Craig, I don't get the segregation argument at all. The statistics are legitimate reflections of the players playing the game at the time. Regardless of how or why other players are left out, how can one argue that the statistics of those who did play are significantly different than they would have been? Unless you are arguing that the black players would have constituted some kind of super race that would have turned the game on its head, presumably a fairly-hired proportion of African American players would have had about the same talent split as the white players (see: Green, Pumpsie) . If in some future century it turns out that women can play major league baseball, are we going to argue that the statistics are tainted now because the women weren't in the league? And in terms of statistical purity, what's the difference between the 50's, when few black players were allowed to play, and now, when fewer black players are choosing to play? Is statistical purity a factor of every possible major league-qualified athlete actually playing, having the opportunity to play, or what? I guess "purity" is so vague that it sustains any definition, but boy, I think using segregation to minimize the statistical corruption of PED's is a logical and historical stretch.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Jack -- there are and were a finite number of roster spots on a Major League team. If you allowed Satchel Paige, Josh Gibson, Cool Papa Bell and any number of other Negro Legaue players into the game during the segretated era, Lou Gehrig and Charlie Gehringer would NOT be the guys who lost their Major League jobs. The marginal players would, and the aggregate talent level of the Major Leagues would have increased. Take away Lou Gehrig's career at bats against the Red Sox' fourth best starter (who wouldn't make the bigs) and replace them with the third best, replace the third with the second and the second with the first, and then pencil in Satchel Paige on top. He's gonna have fewer homers and a lower average, and thus his statistical record will be somewhat diminished.
Same goes for Paige's too, I'll add, but that's neiether here nor there.
The point, as Simmons constructs it, isn't a moral one. It's whether or not we can point to any given era and say that those players were (a) playing at their best; (b) playing against the best; and (c) weren't subject to any significant advantages or disadvantages as compared to other eras.
I'm not suggesting that the stats of the segregation era are illegitimate. I'm simply saying that they were totalled against inferior aggregate competition as compared to other eras.
Great piece overall, but I have to question 1988-1992. In those five seasons, the Bash Brother A's went to the World Series three times, and the Series was won by three different turf teams in that span.
And I agree with Andy; nothing about amphetamines?
Jack - What would be the result if you eliminated all of the black players from the next 10 NFL drafts? Do you think the overall talent in the NFL would be better, worse, or the same? I think it's ridiculous to assume that all of the black players would be replaces by equally talented white players. That is what you seem to be arguing there.
The segregation issue really shouldn't be limited only to black players. The influx of players--and style of play--from Latin America and Asia have changed the game and aggregate level of competition as well.
Good points, scatterbrain, both regarding Latins and Asains and above re: 1988-92.
[I don't think football and baseball are equivilent in this issue.]
Craig: don't you think it's more likely that if there's any statistical change, it would have been from the average players? I'd have to see the stats, but I bet players like Lou and Babe show a lot less drop-off from average to great pitchers than a typical player, and maybe not that much at all. And if you're talking about the Negro league greats...how many players? 10? 15? You think 15 players, even great ones, will have that much impact on over-all stats? if you eliminated segregation, most of the new players would be pretty close to the ones alreday in the league. And even this assumes that all those Negro League greats were as great as their NL stats. After all, they didn't face any of the great white players.
I don't buy the argument that amphetamines are equal to steroids and other strength enhancing drugs as far as it pertains to baseball performance.
This is an insulting understatment that shows your total misunderstanding of the issue, and possibly basic statistics.
And this is just sad and trollish. I weep for humanity.
If hiring Black players meant that Major League baseball got 15 great players and 25 average ones, that meant that 40 below average white guys are not playing. That is one entire team, and I think your numbers are low. If you do not think improving a team's worth of players is going to have a large affect on statistics, I have some games of chance to play with you.