"Modern Baseball Era" Players for Hall of Fame - A Hypothetical Ballot

I followed the Hall of Fame voting in Baseball's Hall of Fame for many years and wrote various essays on different topics related to that over the last ... well ... since I started writing essays for fun online back in 2011.

Tim Raines - The Legend

I used to do every year at this time a "Tim Raines for the Hall of Fame" essay .... it was like a winter tradition.

Now Tim Raines is in the Hall of Fame, so, I guess that tradition can be laid to rest. Which is good because I ran out of material at one point and wrote about all kinds of Rocks once.

I had other ones too. I did a hypothetical hall of fame ballot one year, as if I had a vote, how I'd vote. Which was fun. Hall of Fame votin' time is a magical time, indeed.

Baseball's legend Al Oliver tweeted something the other day that helps explain why this season, Hall of Fame votin' season, is so magical ... he said:

"...THIS IS AMERICA.RIGHT-WRONG OR INDIFFERENT. EVERYONE HAS THEIR THOUGHTS."
- AL OLIVER (BASEBALL ICON)

(Source: https://twitter.com/Alscoop16/status/934593747412836352)

Baseball History is pretty rich if you ask me ... and that is the reason why Hall of Fame votin' Time is so wondrous and full of glee. Right, Wrong, or, Indifferent, everyone has the right to state their opinions. You don't need a Baseball Writers Association of America seat on some committee or some position of authority to have a voice. All baseball fans have their thoughts, their memories, their opinions ... and that's great.

If you grew up in one city you might have a very different view on who's a Hall of Famer than that of someone who grew up in another city. Everyone's seen different things, heard different things, felt different things, over the course of their lives ... and it's when all those voices meet that we begin to paint a very vivid picture of consensus.

Democracy may not be easy, democracy may not be fun all the time ... democracy might be a winding road of thorns n' brambles when you least want it to be .... but it's what we got ... and even if you're right, or even if you're wrong, what's important is that you participated and let your opinions, thoughts, and feelings be known.

Al Oliver is right. I may not be a big time guru of baseball, or the crowned prince of analytics, or the grand daddy of what's right .... but that doesn't matter ... if I feel like writing a Hypothetical Ballot of my thoughts on the Modern Baseball Era players under consideration for the hall of fame then that's what I'm gonna do ... and if you wanna read it ... then, hey, that's great too.


The "Modern Baseball" List

Baseball in 2016, divided up History in a manner I find interesting. They cut up baseball history into Four chunks. They are:

"Early Baseball" (colloquially oft referred to as the "Dead Ball" era)
Ranges from: 1871 to 1949

"Golden Days" (I like this term it's very Bruce Srpingtseeny)
Ranges from: 1950 to 1969

"Modern Baseball" (I'm guessing the period following was the Post-Modern period)
Ranges from: 1970 to 1987

"Today's Game" (The Game played Today)
Ranges from: 1988 to a time called Right Now

I think it's an interesting sectioning-off of chronology ... some of the cutoffs seem sort of arbitrary but that's okay. They have to keep it professional, obviously, being the official arbitrator of Baseball History, but I think a completely colloquial categorization would be something more like this:

"Dead Ball Era"
0 (beginning of baseball is debated so I'll call the beginning "Zero") to 1919.

This era is before they had real gloves even. Stats from this era are never counted as official because the records are sketchy and not defined. For example a "stolen base" could have been anything from advancing on an error to legging out an extra base on a ball hit into the gap. Stats mean very little from this era due to inconsistencies.


"Glory Days"
From 1920 to 1959

I like the Springsteenian denotation of "Golden Days" but I'm gonna Springsteen it up a notch to Glory Days. This is the Babe Ruth era you'd call it ... where baseball had its first mega like superstar of behemoth proportions. Babe Ruth was more than just the "face" of the game ... he basically was the game for a brief portion of time.

People have to look at some of the parks from this era when considering the stats. Like Ebbets Field for example was 297 feet out in right field corner. Like, some parks didn't even require 300 feet for a home run which explains a lot of the offensive stats from this era.


"The Big Time"
From 1960 to 1994.

The game became very popular after the Glory Days, everyone wanted a piece of the pie. The fiscal and money parts of the game expanded. Revenue, expenditures, wages, etc. all went up big time. The game was no longer a beautiful little pass time but a Super Popular Mega Attraction. Stadiums went from 15,000 seats to some as large as 50,000 seats.

In 1981 Wrigley bubble gum sold the Cubs to Tribune (WGN, etc.) and thus the first media conglomerate owned a baseball team. To under score this in history is a great miscalculation. Radio, TV, and advertising all became intertwined with the game. Baseball went from penauts and cracker jacks to Mass Media. One 15 second Coca Cola commercial could net a team more money than selling out a stadium.


"Steroid Era"
From 1995 to 2010

Coming out of the strike which hurt relations with the fans ... efforts were made to make baseball the Big Thing again and homeruns was where they wanted to go with it. Whether it was the balls being altered, the weird concoction of chemicals players were altering themselves with, or a combination of both ... people hit a lot of homers in this era.

The average fans love this era and see it as like the most exciting era of baseball ever but a lot of historians aren't fond of this era at all. They believe it turned baseball into a freak show and damaged the reputation of the game. Records didn't mean anything anymore they felt.

A lot of players from this era, some of them HUGE NAMES, are having trouble making the baseball Hall of Fame due to the negative stigma this era carries.


"Present Era"
From 2011 to Now.

Self explanatory. Offense is back up now after being down for about 5 years. People suggest the balls are being whacked up again or something. Either way baseball now is pretty A-Okay.




That's how'd I'd section up baseball history. But, that's not really here or nor there, really. Just a bonus opinion.

The Hall of Fame committee will vote on players who missed entry to the Hall from various eras in upcoming years. Early Baseball will be perused over in 2020, Golden Days will perused in 2020 and 2025, while Modern Baseball will get perused often in 2017, 2019, 2020, and 2025.

So guys like Dick Allen, Mike Marshall, Jim Kaat,  Al Oliver and others will get a chance again in 2020 ... that's a ways off. The "Modern Era Ballot" is being debated early and often it looks like. The names on said list are the following:

Steve Garvey
Tommy John 
Luis Tiant
Don Mattingly
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
Dave Parker
Ted Simmons
Alan Trammell

There's two names on that list that seem more oriented for the "Golden Days" list ... I mean Tiant and Tommy John were bigger in the 60s and 70s than they were in the 80s ... hmmm .... this leads me to believe people I thought would be on the Glory Days ballot probably won't be (i.e. Kaat, Marshall, Allen, Oliver, etc.).  

Oh well, that's how it was sliced so we gotta work in the confines of that. The following is my OPINION/THOUGHTS on the above names from my experience pool of baseball thinking ... I confess before hand that many of my opinions on these players are biased ... and I don't care ... because I'm writing this article for fun so .... you know.



YES? .... or No?

This rating of these great baseball players will be divided into Pros, Cons, and Miscellaneous.  It is in no specific order.


Steve Garvey


Pros: Good Hitter, Work Horse who often played every game per season, Gold Gloves

Cons: Gold Gloves were First Baseman Gold Gloves, Wasn't a A+ Hitter.

Garvey is like Mattingly, when I get to Mattingly I'll probably save time by writing "See: Garvey, Above".

First Base is an easy position because every player in the infield is making an effort to make your life easy. The infielders are trained to get to ground balls fast and relay it to you in the most efficient and easy to execute means. After Designated Hitter, your first baseman, is usually your worst fielder. So a first base gold glove is more like the award for "Best Worst Fielder on the Diamond" which is not a great award ... it usually winds up in the hands of a first baseman in a large market like L.A. or New York ... and that's why Steve Garvey and Don Mattingly have a wall of them at their houses ... because they were the first basemen for the L.A. Dodgers and N.Y. Yankees respectively.

Therefore Garvey needs some pretty good offensive stats to be a Hall of Famer ... and his career .775 OPS isn't sky scraping or earth shattering.

If he was a gold glove thirdbaseman with a .775 OPS and all those meaty RBIs then fine ... but as it stands .... I'm gonna go with a big NO on Garvey.

Stance: No.



Tommy John

Pros: Great Pitcher, Longevity

Cons: Lost time to injuries, wasn't best pitcher of his era, No Cy Youngs.

Miscellaneous: Has surgery named after him!


Tommy John pitched his ass off, then his arm basically tore and broke, so he took ligaments from his knee and replaced his broken arm stuff with knee stuff ... and then pitched until he was 46 years old.

This is a folk lore style story, something you'd see in a movie ... but it's real life, that's true. His stats and story warrant him entry, I do indeed believe.

Stance: Yes.




Luis Tiant

Pros: Great Pitcher, Could Smoke Cigars whilst Showering

Cons: Stretch of 3 Bad Seasons, No Cy Youngs.

Miscellaneous: Was a Cuban Defector before that was common.

Tiant has a slew of great seasons mixed in with a slew of rough seasons on his stat card. He's not a shoe-in that's for sure. I'm 50/50 on him from his stats. He's got a back story which is interesting though.

Tiant left Cuba to pursue his dreams and has remained outspoken about the Castro regime to this very day. A lot of young people who wear those communist T-Shirts with Castro's face on it, or even the Prime Minister of Canada who's a big Castro fan should listen to people who defected that regime to understand how dangerous it was there.

Since my vote really has no bearing on the future, and since I'm 50/50 on it, I'm gonna just go with Yes for the sake of it.

Stance: Yes.




Donny "Baseball" Mattingly

Pros: Great Hitter, Lots of Ribbies, Gold Gloves

Cons: Short Career by HOF standards

Miscellaneous: Side Burns heat on Simpsons with Mr. Burns very memorable


See: Steve Garvey Above. (See told you). Goldies are all gimmick because he was a first baseman in a large city ... he has 9 of them ... probably has like a closet full of goldoes. He has less longevity than Garvey but was a much better hitter than Garvey ... so they even out at about the same overall caliber.

Stance: No.




Jack Morris

 
Pros: Good Pitcher, with seven wins in the post season.

Cons: ERA tended to balloon up to over 4 quite often.

He pitched in a lot of post seasons and was the World Series MVP with the Twins ... so his credentials are pretty good.

He's still got the mustache too ... which is commendable. It's getting to Honky Tonk Man territory though. I mean if your 80s gimmick is still your 2017 gimmick that's cool but I mean the cut off point I think is seeing the Honky Tonk Man wrestler with his Elvis hair (not a wig) in 2017 ... I think that is like a demarcation point in the sand when a 80s gimmick went on too long.

Morris's iconic 'stache isn't of Honky Tonk Man level over-done yet though as far as 80s gimmicks go. As for Hall of Fame, a close but regretful No, here. His ERA is 3.90 for his career which is just too close to 4 I find. The World Series MVP and cool mustache pack some punch but not enough to swing him into the solid Yes column.

Stance: No.




Dale Murphy 



Pros: Power.

Cons: Missed any "Sure-Thang" Stats like 3000 hits or 400 homers.
  

Dale missed that 400 homer plateau by 2 homers ... which is one of those big numbers the writers like to see. If he hit two more homers he'd probably have gotten a lot more consideration. Similarly with Fred McGriff who missed a plateau by inches I think the adherence to these "sure thing" numbers shouldn't be written in stone.

What is the discernible difference of a person who hit 398 homers and a guy who hit 400 homers? I don't know. Or with McGriff who sat at 493 homers instead of a hitting a nice round number like 500?


Murphy had "5-tool" seasons as well of running well, defending well, judging the strike zone well, hitting well, and power alleying well.

Mouphy

The year he got 90 walks and 30 steals he scored over 130 times ... in addition to hitting 36 homers. So he wasn't a one dimensional power hitter in any sense ... he had some 5 tool years.

Murph has some big name backers too ... recently the popular cartoon site Homestar Runner gave homage to Murph's iconic "Power Alley" poster whereas Mr. Murphy stood in a damp yet cool alley way with a baseball bat light saber ... which anyone with a brain can admit looks cool.

I'm a pretty solid Yes on Dale Murphy.

Stance: Yes.




Dave Parker

Pros: Stacked Statistical Resume

Cons: No "Milestone Numbers" again .... no 3000 hits or 400 homers.


Like Murphy and McGriff, the old voters never voted for people who missed the milestone numbers. The voters who skipped out on voting for Parker were those types who really looked at the milestone numbers and not the complete package.

The old school voters wanted Iron Men who didn't miss games.

I think the "Iron Man" gimmick is pretty over rated. I mean watching a old Pete Rose or an old Cal Ripken rack up stats while some young go-getter kids were sitting on the bench waiting for their chance to crack the lineup doesn't really impress me as much as it does others. Cal Ripken at 40 years old with a .600 OPS just in the lineup to pad his stats really doesn't impress me at all.

Parker, statistically, is similar to Dick Allen and others who aren't in. He's got monster stats but no real milestone/longevity stats. I mean some of these Dave Parker seasons are Monster Seasons, man. Let's see, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1985 ... he had some Monster Years.

Ripken, as I was using as an "Iron Man" example ... had a career .447 slugging percentage. Dave Parker had a career .471 career slugging percentage. I mean are we supposed to think because a "Iron Man" had more at-bats and larger sample sizes that he was better? I don't think so ... 24 career SLG points is a wide margin. No one can say with a straight face that Cal Ripken was a better hitter than Dave Parker.

Stance: Yes.




Ted Simmons

Pros: Great offensive numbers posted at a rarely offensive position

Cons: Very Little Publicity Ever About this Person


This is a name I am least familiar with on this list, he's not a player you ever hear talked about or written about in baseball circles. Little if ever.

Stats wise, he's like a secret superstar ... only behind Johnny Bench and Gary Carter as the best catcher of his era. Is third best catcher of the era warrant him entry? Possibly, yes.

I don't think he was as good defensively as Bench and Carter ... but he needs some sort of recognition of some sort, no? Being the third best catcher of that era must mean something, Catching is friggin' hard, man.

I've read so many baseball biographies over the years and never seen this name come up. It's rare you hear about him ever. I don't know he's like ... I dunno ... this man needs a publicist I think. He needs a promo guy or something.

If hypothetically I was voting on this and there was a vote maximum ... Simmons would be the first to switch from the Yes to the No column. I'm gonna file him down as a Yes, but like weird Yes ... like a Who Is This Forgotten Man sort of a weird Yes.

Stance: a Weird Yes.



Alan Trammell

Pros: Gold Glover Shortstop with above average hitting prowess.

Cons: Sub par offense numbers, no milestone numbers. 

I wrote about his case already in 2014 I think, so here's that one (with Mike Marshall and Dick Allen):

https://writingsonsubjects.blogspot.ca/2014/01/the-greatest-of-people-who-are-not.html


I was a Yes back then, so I guess I'm still a Yes, now. So, yeah.

Out of this current pool he's a soft Yes ... but I'm on record as being a Trammell Yesser so I can't change that plea in this article out-of-the-blue and all willy-nilly, y'know?

Stance: Yes.



Post-Writing Assessment

Okay dokay. What were the binary entries here ...

Solid YES: Dale Murphy and Dave Parker  
Soft YES: Tommy John, Luis Tiant, Ted Simmons, Alan Trammell

NO: Steve Garvey, Don Mattingly, and Jack Morris

I think Dale Murphy and Dave Parker are guys who should have got in 100% ... four of them are guys who aren't sure things but could go either way ... and three of them, I think, don't have solid enough credentials.

Dear Expos Fans, Don't Boo

I was reading articles like this one below the other day about an owner who was part of the collusion scandal is being elected into the Hall the same day a player effected by it is being elected,

https://nypost.com/2017/01/21/the-elephant-in-the-room-in-inducting-tim-raines-and-selig/


I've also noticed a lot of articles about Selig along the lines in regards to "How can you not put Bonds/Clemens in the Hall of Fame due to steroids/HGH but will put the man who turned a blind eye and let the players use them into the Hall of Fame?" I notice Jose Canseco for instance is very livid about this on Twitter lately amongst others.

I remember when Dawson got in the Hall in 2010 there were people in Expos gear at the induction who booed Selig because they feel he was responsible for the End of the Expos and hold a grudge.

All these three points about Selig are somewhat valid, even I wrote a negative piece about Bud coupled in with a tribute article to Bill Veeck a while back (This one). But, it's time to forgive and forget now. It really is.

When Warren Cromartie started his ambitious and many thought impossible goal to bring back the Expos to Montreal he made it clear that Montreal needs to forget the past, stay positive, and focus on the future. He made it clear 6 years ago when this movement started that Expos fans should stay positive.

The Exhibition games over the last few years have really proved that. We showed up 50,000+ strong and cheered for the game of baseball itself as well as past heroes in the pre-game ceremonies (Pedro et al. last year, Vlad et. al, the 1994 team reunion previously, and Rogers/Cro/Rock/Carter's family in the first year). We are a positive fan base, there's no doubt about that. We are a classy and positive group of people who comprise Expos fans.

We know there's gonna be a boat load of Expos fans going to Cooperstown, Expos Nation says they've got busloads already booked, so we know that day is going to be loaded with people in Expos gear ...

.... and I have a feeling like in 2010 these people are inclined to Boo if they see a certain person. Personally, I think it's a mistake to do that. Cromartie is right that Expos fans need to forgive and forget and remain positive. These bus loads of Expos Fans are going to cheer Raines because he was a Hero to this city.... and that should be the only reason they have for going.

Booing certain people while they are there is not classy and this Expos fanbase prides itself on being classy and positive.

Congratulation to Tim Raines, my childhood Hero, for finally being elected to the Hall of Fame ... and also Congrats to Bud Selig for making the Hall of Fame because despite many scandals during the tenure of Selig as MLB commish his tenure did lead to record profits and fiscal health of the league.

As for the Return of the Expos movement? It seems stronger than ever at this point and as Cromartie has said, it started as a positive movement and should remain that way. Booing people in Cooperstown, I don't think, is what this whole thing is about.

So, please don't Boo nobody.

Expos, Baby.

Rock for Hall of Fame (For the Umpteenth Time!)

It's a personal human tradition for me to write in this blog one month prior to Baseball Hall of Fame voting time to launch an impassioned plea for sports super star and icon, Mr. Rock Raines, to be accepted into baseball's most hallowed of shrines.

Previous Ones:

2011: http://writtting-d.blogspot.ca/2011/12/baseball-hall-of-fame-is-incomplete.html

2012: http://writtting-d.blogspot.ca/2012/12/last-year-prior-to-hall-of-fame-voting.html

2013: http://writtting-d.blogspot.ca/2013/11/rock-hall-3.html

2014: http://writtting-d.blogspot.ca/2014/10/the-greatest-lead-off-guys-evar.html
(this one I wrote whilst watching the world series and went on really looong and I wroted A LOT).


In all seriousness, I'm out of things to say......I really am.

So.....This year we will be comparing the Rock to other people and things who share the monicker of "Rock" and attempt to decide via a scientific ranking method....which is the greatest Rock of All Time.

The entries are the following:

1) Tim "Rock" Raines
2) Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
3) Rock and Roll (the musical genre)
4) Charles "Roc" Dutton
5) Actual Rocks (like you see in mountains and in nature and whatnot)


Which of these five Rocks shall be crowned the King Rock? You'll have to read to find out (or scroll to the bottom...I guess that would work too).


The Rocks 


1) Tim "Rock" Raines

Tim Raines is the greatest. Tim Raines is an icon. Tim Raines is by far one of baseball's champions of the 80s and 90s.

This man could really play well. He could really knock it out. He was number one in the mix. He was the greatest baseball player. He could really rock it out. He could literally Rock the Place Apart.

Rock over London.
Rock on Chicago.
Wheaties.....Breakfast of Champions!

Tim Raines can Rock...he can Roll....he can Rock 'til the age of 101 years old and therefore his final rating on a scale of 100 will be 101. Wow.


Final Overall Classification: 101/100




2) Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson

Dwayne Johnson is in this contest? Oh crap. That's some stern competition for Greatest Rock of All Time. This Rock is a Legend too.

The Rock Says, The Rock Says....

This man was at one time the self proclaimed Most Electrifying Man in Sports Entertainment. He is possibly the most quoted man of all time. People think like Einstein or someone is the most quoted man of all time....but they are very wrong.

If the Rock said anything back in the day....800 million people would start saying it the next day at work and at school. Like one time he said...."know your role".....and the day after he said that EVERYONE started saying that. Like, one time he called someone a Jabroni and then EVERYONE started to say that.

Now, as a person who oft uses the term Jabroni, it must be noted that the Rock did not invent that term but merely propelled it into stardom and into the Webster's Dictionary.

In the Documentary film, "The Sheik", by the Magen Brothers....The Rock has this to say about where he came across the term "Jabroni"....

"[Sheik took me under his wing to share his insight and wisdom]....and I'll never forget, I'll never ever forget...it was a very long flight and he said....'Bubba, let me tell ya, you go into the locker room, you sit down, you keep your mouth shut, you open your ears and you listen to everybody, ok? Don't be the Jabroni'...."

        (The Rock, from The Sheik Movie, 2014)


It is an undisputed fact that he learned the word from the Iron Sheik....but even then...it was the Rock who propelled that term into being the greatest word of the modern era.

It is. It's AWESOME.

It is a pretty great feat to have introduced the greatest word of all time into our lexicon. Damn, this greatest Rock of All Time is going to be harder to declare then I previously thought it was going to be.

All in All, Dwayne Johnson may have coined the best word of our times but since the Iron Sheik originated it....unfortunately......this Rock must be given a negative 10 deduction to his otherwise perfect score.

Final Overall Classification: 90/100



3. Rock and(/or) Roll, The Musical Genre

Everyone always tells me that Rock and Roll is Dead. That it died in about 1991. We know music sucks now and no one makes good music anymore....but is Rock n' Roll really Dead?

I don't think so. I think Rock and Roll has been jettisoned from the music scene these days but I know for A FACT that Rock and Roll cannot die. Rock and Roll is more powerful than a mere human like you or I can grasp. Even if we cannot see Rock and Roll anymore in today's music it doesn't mean it's gone forever.

Yes, as of right now Rock and Roll is dormant....yet.....we all know that no one can kill Rock and Roll. You might think Rock and Roll is dead...but one day, you're gonna walk into a MacDonald's and out of nowhere....Rock and Roll is gonna Rise Above like a Phoenix of the Night and Rock your fucking ass OFF.

Ya!

Rock n' Roll is not dead....it's just harder to find it these days.

Final Overall Classification: 67/100

4. Charles "Roc" Dutton

Now, I've read that he Don Kinged some dude(s) back in the day and I don't know anything about that. It's neither here nor there....I only know Charles "Roc" Dutton from the characters he's portrayed in Movies and Tv Shows.

It's not so much his portrayal of the Roc character that wins him a spot on the list of greatest Rocks of All Time (and yes I understand that his name is missing the K and it's more like Roc the mythical bird but whatever). It is his portrayal of the maintenance man in "Rudy" that wins him a spot on this list.

Man, in that movie Rudy...that friggin' Rudy was being a little weiner at one point being all whiny and shit....and then Roc tells him...."Rudy, you're a spoiled brat...you think that getting a college grade education is a "waste"? You're a fool, Rudy." (or something to that extent...I'll see if there's a clip on youtubes).

Oh shit....there's a REGIS VERSION!? WHAT THE HECK!? This is cool.....

Haha. This is cool.

I saw that movie Rudy when I was a youngster and that scene really taught me to "Count my Blessings as Such" and that's a pretty powerful lesson for a youngster to learn, bubba, and I learned that very valuable life lesson from the Roc....so yeah...he really does deserve a spot on the greatest Rocks list even if he is missing the K in his name.

Final Overall Classification: 74/100


5. Actual Literal Rocks like in Nature and Mountains and Whatnot

There's three types of geologically classified Rocks and that's...

1. Igneous
2. Sedimentary

and,

3. Meta-Morphic

People flip over Meta-Morphic because it sounds like some Voltron or Power Rangers type rock but it's not. Meta-Morphic mostly has to do with lava and volcanoes.....which is kind lame.

Whatever, Actual Rocks. Who Cares?

Igneous sounds like a sturdy sorta Rock you can really hang your hat on. I respect Igneous Rocks, yes. Sedimentary is cool because it's all layer on layer and it looks nice when you see like a mountain that has all these layers of different colors. It's very appealing to the eye.

I mean lava, and layers, and sturdiness is ok and everything....but I'm not really all that a big huge fan of regular rocks. Like, you can be in snowball fight and a stupid kid'll throw a snowball that has a rock, or stone, or pebble in it...and that's it man....you get that in the face and it's lights out and someone's mom makes you stop playing snow ball fight and everyone has to go home.

Never really liked Literal Rocks all that much, really.

Final Overall Classification: 42/100



Final Assessment on Rocks

From worst to most Greatest Ever.....

5. Literal Actual Rocks like in Nature and Mountains and Whatnot
4. Rock and Roll The Musical Genre
3. Charles "Roc" Dutton
2. Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson


and.......The Greatest Rock of All Time........is......

1. Tim "Rock" Raines !!!!  

 

Unfathomable Anabolic Cheating in the 100th Degree

Observing humans swing bats in the effort to hit leather balls effectively and having swung a few bats myself with the intention of launching leather spheres great distances, I have to agree with the notion that the Art of Hittin' is a skill more than a display of strength.

I see arguments on the internet that due to Hittin' being more of an art than a display of strength that players who used steroids should be allowed in the Hall of Fame. This is taking that argument to an extreme and that statement is not correct. To say that steroids do not improve the performance of a player is not correct by any stretch of that argument.

Mechanics of Hittin'

These are the skills a human needs in order to employ the Art of Hittin' effectively:

1. Hand-eye coordination
2. Bat Speed
3. Strength

The following factors are what determines how far the ball will go:

1. Location on bat the ball makes contact with ("sweet-zone" preferably)
2. Speed of swing (how fast the human swung the bat)
3. Weight of the bat  (all results show that heavier is not better)

With math, the factors can be synthesized to find the ideal conditions for hitting (relative to the hitting style of the individual player).

Weight of the bat can be thrown out as being important. The velocity of a batted ball will be increased off of a heavier bat, yet the loss of bat speed seems to be too high a price to pay in return. Every test from articles online seems to show that getting the bat to be lighter is to the advantage of the hitter. That's why "corked" bats have come under scrutiny over the years, it's considered cheating to make a bat super light but it's not considered cheating to use a 60+ ounce bat. Lighter is better, 100%. Being a muscular dude on steroids does not help you at all because swinging heavier bats is not very important overall.

Hand-eye coordination and the location the ball makes contact with on the bat go hand-in-hand. The hitter wants the ball to hit the "sweet-zone" of the barrel for optimum contact. This has nothing to do with muscles and strength but has everything to do with vision and coordination of the self.

So far it's looking like steroids wouldn't help a hitter at all, like people seem to be saying, but let's move on to bat-speed.

Bat Speed

Bat Speed is how fast the individual gets the bat through the box. This is really where physics comes into play. As mentioned above, getting a nice light bat to zip through the box lightning fast at an incoming pitch is where you generate the real velocity.

There's a lot of research online but I'm going to be mostly using this source for bat-speed physics: http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/bats/batw8.html (to avoid citing like a million sources every five seconds)

Players in the majors these days are clocking bat speeds of over 100 miles per hour. Once a player has the fundamentals of hittin' under his belt (hand-eye, judging the strike zone, patience, etc.) it all boils down to bat speed. Players with fast swings can wait a split-second longer to judge whether it's a pitch they want to hit and when they apply the fast swing unto the ball at the sweet-zone ...the velocity of the ball will be determined mainly by the speed of the swing.

This is where your physique comes into play. Bat Speed is generated by a well-grounded and powerful lower body. You ever see Jeff Bagwell for instance? He kinda looked like he was taking a dump while sitting on a toilet while he batted. He was just focusing the power of his body into his legs to build up a tremendous center of gravity into his oncoming swing. Look at his hands in the clip I linked to ("taking a dump") they are mobile and loose, his hands and arms are meant to swiftly get through the box, all the power is generated from his legs, feet, and stomach.

That being said, do players with muscular builds focused on their lower half, generate faster swings? Yes. The question being brought up here is, would steroids increase bat speed? Yes!

From twigs to tree trunks. Thanks steroids!

Most people take steroids to get big arms and flex for chicks. We're used to associating steroids with big arms, and since people know that arms don't play a major role in a players swing, they conclude that steroids don't aid a hitter. You can't rush to conclusions though. Look at Barry Bonds' legs...they almost doubled in mass in 15 years. It's not his arms you should be thinking about...it's his legs!

More leg and lower body mass will generate faster swings. That's a proven fact, steroids without a doubt effects the physical aspects of a human's lower body.

Wait There's More

Humans have a natural cycle. They are born, they grow into adults, they hit their prime-time peaks, then they wither and die. That's life, bro.

In baseball, most players lose their shit at some point, all humans do. When you hit your mid-thirties you naturally lose your physical stature. Your hair starts to turn grey, your body starts feeling like lead, you have trouble getting out of bed after a long day's work. That's normal.

Well, unless you are on steroids. You can counter the effects of aging by juicing yourself up with artificial hormone tonics and anabolic elixirs. Let's look at Bonds' career stats now...

Remember I told you that ALL players decline in ability when they hit their mid-thirties? I guess Barry didn't feel like declining like a regular human. Barry instead felt like pumping so many chemicals into his body to bring him into overdrive and turn his decline years into....oh come on. If anyone on earth believes that chemicals didn't enhance this person's level of play, they are nuts. Who hits their prime-time peak at 36-37-38-39? No one.

Bonds was already a Hall of Famer thanks to his natural peak (when he still looked human at the ages of 27 to 32). When he pumped himself full of hazardous chemicals to get a second prime-peak when he should have been declining is absurd, those stats from 2000 to 2004 are absurd.

Are They really even Bad for You though?

The only thing possible to argue now in favor of steroids is an argument such as...

"So what if they made themselves into over-sized hitting machines. Steroids aren't even that bad for you. Good for them for taking them, I think they are good role models for every aspiring athlete who wants to win at all costs."

I don't agree with that at all. All drugs which alter the physiological balances of your body must be used with caution. Drugs can save lives and cure many ailments, but they are not danger-free...and they are by no means things you should use recreationally or to alter your body.

Here are some side-effects associated with steroid abuse:

1. Horrible acne
2. Reduced sperm production
3. Raisin balls/Raisin dick (your testicles or weiner start to look like dried up raisins)
4. Man breasts (altered hormone levels throw everything out of whack)
5. High blood pressure (your heart goes into overdrive to deal with your body)
6. Liver damage (like any other chemical that goes into your body, the liver has to clean it up)
7. Enlarged prostates (even in teenagers which no one ever thought they'd see)
8. Chicks can start looking and talking like dudes (again hormones go out of whack)
9. Aggression (roid rage, again due to hormones being out of whack)
10. Stunted growth in kids (let your body have it's growth cycle, don't interfere with it)

If you argue that it was a good idea for these guys to take steroids for the good of the game, you're not on the right path. Baseball players were my role models as kids and I feel that they probably play a similar role today. What kind of message is it to send kids that steroids are ok?

I don't know how many kids are messing with steroids, but honestly, you'd much rather have your kids messing with weed and beer than you would want them messing with these chems. Steroids will alter their normal growth patterns, throw their hormones out of whack, and cause a myriad of issues with teens.

Conclusion

I do not believe that anyone confirmed to be a steroid abuser should be in the baseball Hall of Fame.

If you think that steroids does not enhance a hitter's performance...you are incorrect. Steroids enhance a hitter's performance and postpone the natural cycle of aging.

If you think that steroids are good for you and think anyone who wants to should use them, then I do not agree with you at all. There's too many risks involved, and it sends a terrible message to young people. It really is not a good idea for young people (or anyone) to abuse these chemicals.

Steroids is not a miracle drug that makes you all-powerful and immortal...steroid abuse will ultimately catch up to you. The overdrive your putting on your heart to keep up with your roided-up physique will take a good 20 years off of your life. The overall mass of the body and heart problems are correlated. It's a curse more than a blessing to be a huge hunk of meat...your heart will not be able to sustain your body into the ages of 50, 60, and over.

The most important and vital tools in the human body are the brain and the heart...not the biceps and the cavs.

'Roids