While watching the A-Rod story for the 10th time today on ESPN (kidding) I noticed they kept flashing his statistics from 2001 to 2003 and how he was near the top in every statistical category during his years on roids. Funny thing is his numbers since being off roids haven’t been drastically different, plus he’s won two MVP’s since then.
From 2001 to 2003 he averaged the following numbers: .305 AVG, 52 HR’s, 131 RBI’s while averaging 162 games a season.
From 2004 to 2008 he averaged the following numbers: .303 AVG, 42 HR’s, 123 RBI’s while averaging 153 games a season.
Yes he denied using steroids in the past, but who hasn’t done that (see Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, Rafael Palmeiro, etc.) At least he’s still not lying about it and fessing up to it once accused unlike others who haven’t done such a thing. Steroids aren’t a new issue in baseball so why does the media over-react over this? It’s not like he’s the first player to do such a thing, aren’t their 104 players on the report he was listed in?
It’s sad how some of the greatest players of all-time are being linked to using roids but should this keep A-Rod and guys like Roger Clemens out of the hall of fame? Wouldn’t both of these players and others still been first ballot hall of famers even without using roids for that short span?
The truth is I think the people casting the votes for the hall will take roids into account as they would be setting a bad example by not doing so. There reasoning may be Pete Rose had to pay for gambling so why shouldn’t these guys pay for cheating the game?