A Look at Baseball's Steroid Controversy from a Different Perspective

Ten years ago, a player hitting 50 home runs in a single season caught the eyes of the media and fans for all the right reasons, mainly because that is a remarkable accomplishment. Fast forward to baseball's current situation, and that view has completely changed. If a player hits a substantial amount of home runs, or drives in more runs than they ever have before in their career, there is no doubt that the use of steroids will come into question. Look at Mark McGwire, who back in 1998 broke the single season home run record when he reached the mind-blowing total of 70. Nobody thought twice about steroids back then, but now McGwire comes clean. He essentially cheated the game, and by doing so, he voided his ticket to the Baseball Hall of Fame. The same thing can be said for Barry Bonds, who broke McGwire's record when he amassed a total of 73 home runs in 2001. Although he will not admit he used steroids, there is no hiding the fact that his body virtually tripled in size from when he was a rookie, and his head blew up to the size of a watermelon. Bonds also was a sure-fire bet for being inducted into the Hall of Fame, but now, he has no shot because of the steroid controversy that has surrounded him.

Now by no means do I think either of these players should be inducted into the Hall of Fame since they cheated the game, but there is one aspect of this whole situation that many people fail to look at. Yes, they took steroids. Yes, it might have given them a slight edge over the competition. But can these player's amass the extraordinary home run totals they put up in 1998 and 2001 without actually making solid contact with the ball? Simply put, no. Steroids or not, if a player doesn't make solid, direct contact with the ball, they aren't going to be hitting any home runs. Steroids or not, a well hit ball is a well hit ball, and there is no debating that. Mark McGwire hit some towering home runs, but how much distance did steroids add to them? Probably not much, and chances are, they would have been have been home runs anyway. Every player, even contact hitters such as Derek Jeter, is capable of hitting a towering home run if they see the ball well and make solid contact with it.

So if realistically, steroids don't play as big a role in baseball as many people believe it does, then why do the players use them? The answer is because it is all in their head. To a hitter, steroids mean power, and power means production. When McGwire was up at the plate back in 1998, I bet that ball looked like a basketball when it came to him, just because in his head, he knew that all he had to do was make solid contact with it in order to watch it fly. He did just that, but it was the solid contact that led to the home runs, not the steroids. With the thought in your head that all you have to do is make contact with the ball in order to produce, you will actually start to see the ball better than you have before, leading to solid contact.

In a sense, I don't believe steroids actually played that big a role in these players achieving the milestones they did. However, we will never actually know what would have happened without the use of them, or if these players would have had the same levels of production. Do I think the fact that they used steroids should be overlooked? Absolutely not. Cheating is cheating, and these players should not be praised for that. I just believe that raw talent, not steroids, is the reason why these players did what they did.

"Home Run Records in a Single Season." www.baseball-almanac.com