A History of Baseball For Those Who've Fogotten, Or Just Never Knew

The "steroids era", as it is so fondly called, encompassing a period of time from, roughly, 1986 until now, is an era marred by cheaters who hated baseball so much that they wanted to ruin all of those great "numbers" for us. "61". "755". Other numbers that mattered, well, because baseball writers are sad to be old.

Similarly, the changes in baseball numbers have been blamed on new ballparks, which are built such that they end up skewing the numbers. This, too, is an abomination.

But in a strange way, the steroids era has done wonders for baseball. It broke has down every important statistical barrier that sports writers had used as a crutch to help them determine who was good enough to be in the Hall of Fame, and who wasn't.

But let's get to the heart of this post: for all of those bullshit baseball writers out there (looking right at you, Gregg Doyle), I contend that it is you who are cheating American baseball fans, and it is you who are slowly breaking down and destroying this game by so manipulating the public perception of baseball history. That's right, you are the cheaters.

How dare I, you ask? Well, it's actually quite easy. Baseball players promise only to play the game within the rules. Contrarily, you "promise" to be objective and accurate, to the best of your abilities, in reporting on the sport. Mark McGwire never cheated. Most baseball writers, on the other hand, have crucified these players for the sake of readership.

But that's for another post, and a proper discussion of how shitty Doyle and like-writers are.

So, here are some things everyone needs to remember when considering the steroids era. First, statistics should never be the determining factor in naming players to the HOF. While this might have worked once upon a time, it has become clear that this doesn't work. Bert Blyleven has been left out of the hall based solely on the fact he never got to 300 wins. Unfortunately, the writers now have to work to make their decisions.

Second, the HOF has never judged character. Ty Cobb and Cap Anson were terrible, horrible racists. Babe Ruth corked his bat. Whitey Ford used to cut the baseball and cover it in a homemade glue substance to get better movement on his off-speed pitches. Bobby Thompson hit "The Shot Heard Round the World" on a stolen sign. Maybe.

In fact, there has only been one inviolable rule. And that's the no betting on the game rule.

Third, stadiums have been altering the game forever. The Polo Grounds was only 240 down the lines. Bobby Thompson's "shot" went about 295 feet. Oh, and Vic Wertz's bomb that Willie Mays tracked down in Game 1 of the 1954 World Series? That was 450 feet from home plate. So what were people saying about stadiums altering the game?

In fact, I'm going to continue, because one stadium out of so many doesn't really prove my point.

• Griffith Stadium in Washington, was originally 408 down the left field line. Most MLB stadiums now aren't that deep to center.
• Contrarily, the LA Coliseum, home of the Dodgers for 4 years after moving to LA, was 250 to left, with a 40 foot high screen to keep it from being way too easy to homer.
  
• Shibe Park in Philly was originally 515 to center.
  

So, it's valid to say that these weird dimensions in old stadiums were the result of necessity. And while this certainly detracts from the fake-classic look in new stadiums, in that the novelty is lost when it is so forced, that doesn't mean that the game is being cheated because of weird wind patterns in some of the stadiums (GAB, Yankee Stadium II), or because of short porches in places like Houston.

Fifth and finally, let's blame expansion to some extent. Pre-1960, there were 16 teams. Now there are 30. That means that to fill all 30 major league rosters, you would have needed every MLB guy from 1959, plus almost 90% of those team's Triple-A-equivalent affiliates. That's just to fill the Major League rosters. What that means is that guys like Bonds and Pujols and Manny are facing 1950's minor league quality talent almost half of the time. There's no way that numbers can avoid being inflated somewhat at that point. But really, guys like Pujols and Bonds still would have been great, even if forced to play better competition. But it also ups the numerical quality of mediocre players. Maybe the overall talent level is better now than it was 50 years ago, but this also means that guys who were 75th percentile talents in 1959 would be more like 85-90th percentile players nowadays.

So my point is this: there's nothing new under the sun in baseball: not trying to take advantage of the rules, not funky stadiums that inflate numbers, not players acting irresponsibly and detestably in their pursuit of success in the sport. As a result, I personally think we're best off enjoying the sport for what it is: America's past-time. A game so full of history and personalities, and one that has continued to produce memories and favorite players over the past 20 years. Just like this country's history, baseball has had its share unpopular characters and poor decisions. But that shouldn't distract us from the beautiful players and moments we've seen in the last 20 years.

Ultimately, it's not that hard to tell Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez from Jim Thome and Fred McGriff and Jose Canseco. Let's stop acting like it is.

Do you really want to hear the horrible truth, or do you want to see me sock a few dingers? - Mark McGwire