FIRE JOE MORGAN links a terrific piece flaying Morgan by Phil Mushnick in today's New York Post. Mushnick ably tackles Joe's various crimes against sports fans and mostly I agree with him. However, there's a curious paragraph about Barry Bonds that deserves another look:
Whoa there, Phil. We're straying into dangerous territory here. Nobody can really explain this. I agree that Joe Morgan is batshit crazy and unworthy of the mantle of baseball "analyst." I agree that Barry Bonds probably exposed himself to massive doses of the same gamma radiation that turned Dr. Bruce Banner into the Hulk. Whatever, I don't care. The point is it's lazy and irresponsible to say that "Bonds hit 25 HR at age 26, and 73 at age 36, ergo...steroids!" C'mon.
Here are a few other historical perspectives. The game changed immensely in the 10 year period in which Bonds' HR totals nearly tripled. Expansion introduced four more pitching staffs into the game - that's roughly 46 pitchers who might otherwise be toiling in the minor leagues. Plus there was a major shift in the way ballparks were conceived and constructed; I don't know that the new parks are objectively easier on hitters than the older ones, but who knows. In 1991 the NL league OPS was .705; by 2001 it had jumped to .749. Clearly the game had changed in those ten years.
Here are still more historical perspectives: Paul Molitor had his career high in HR - 22 - at age 36. Frank Howard hit 91 HR in his ages 26-29 seasons but 172 HR in his ages 30-33 seasons. Luis Gonzalez's HR totals from 1999-2003 go 26, 31, 57, 28, 26. How do we explain all this?
The thing is, we really can't. This is a problem of epistemology. We can take the easy way out and just say "steroids" and go have a beer, or we can concede that reality is far too complex to be explained by conjecture and tenuous links.
For a man given to detailed expert explanations and historical perspectives (few of which make sense or are supported by facts), Morgan has been disinclined to explain how Bonds hit 25 homers at the age of 26 but 73 at the age of 36, 34 at 27 but 46 at 37. At least give it a guess, Joe.
Whoa there, Phil. We're straying into dangerous territory here. Nobody can really explain this. I agree that Joe Morgan is batshit crazy and unworthy of the mantle of baseball "analyst." I agree that Barry Bonds probably exposed himself to massive doses of the same gamma radiation that turned Dr. Bruce Banner into the Hulk. Whatever, I don't care. The point is it's lazy and irresponsible to say that "Bonds hit 25 HR at age 26, and 73 at age 36, ergo...steroids!" C'mon.
Here are a few other historical perspectives. The game changed immensely in the 10 year period in which Bonds' HR totals nearly tripled. Expansion introduced four more pitching staffs into the game - that's roughly 46 pitchers who might otherwise be toiling in the minor leagues. Plus there was a major shift in the way ballparks were conceived and constructed; I don't know that the new parks are objectively easier on hitters than the older ones, but who knows. In 1991 the NL league OPS was .705; by 2001 it had jumped to .749. Clearly the game had changed in those ten years.
Here are still more historical perspectives: Paul Molitor had his career high in HR - 22 - at age 36. Frank Howard hit 91 HR in his ages 26-29 seasons but 172 HR in his ages 30-33 seasons. Luis Gonzalez's HR totals from 1999-2003 go 26, 31, 57, 28, 26. How do we explain all this?
The thing is, we really can't. This is a problem of epistemology. We can take the easy way out and just say "steroids" and go have a beer, or we can concede that reality is far too complex to be explained by conjecture and tenuous links.
