Lookout Landing

Actually, I tried to eat the joke and it did not in fact taste like anything

seattlebruin - January 29, 2010 reply

Man you're really not ready for LL if you think that's bad.

Kirk - January 29, 2010 reply

This is probably why he stuck around for another season.

He liked what he sees going on here now, and probably sees a shot at winning it all this year. I hope the M’s can make it happen, although it will be tough.

Also, could the switch from turf to grass have ruined his knees?

Fin - January 28, 2010 reply

It was most likely the turf that ruined his knees.

The switch would have eased the wear on them.

Kirk - January 29, 2010 reply

Probably so

AstroTurf of that era is notoriously hard on the players.

ToddK - January 29, 2010 reply

Why is he a victim of the steroid era specifically?

Because we’re assuming that he did not use any performance enhancing drugs? That’s a specious assumption to make, isn’t it? What evidence do we have? Is he a victim because more pitchers have tested positive for steroids than hitters? And how does that affect our perception of the hitters who were using? Though they were using, they were competing on an uneven playing field compared to hitters in past eras.

Let’s assume that Griffey never touched any performance enhancing drugs, including amphetamines. Would anyone prefer that he did use them and was able to play in 100-300 extra games because of it? Or is he better off not having done it in the eyes of the public?

What if we assume that way back in 1900 everyone realized that any use of performance enhancing drugs with potentially negative side effects was a prisoner’s dilemma, and that the population of players as a whole could benefit more if everyone agreed to abstain until the end of time because the playing field would be level while simultaneously allowing all players to avoid the health risks associated with the use of said drugs? Does he end up as the king because Hank Aron was not able to have such longevity without the use of amphetamines and Griffey himself was able to get more at bats against replacement level pitching?

And what if the drugs that people condemn today are someday allowed to be fully tested due to a relaxation of their controlled substance status and are proven to pose no more of a health risk than a cortisone injections? Then what will the basis for disdain for users be? That they broke the law? What will the basis of our worship of apparently “clean” players be? That they were conservative and were afraid to take a risk that others recklessly took? That doesn’t sound like the stuff of heroes to me. Its prudent to be sure, but heroic?

This may come across as snarky, but that is not my intent. I am just posing some questions I rarely see discussed when this topic comes up. What does everyone here think?

yteimlad - January 28, 2010 reply

Because we’re assuming that he did not use any performance enhancing drugs? That’s a specious assumption to make, isn’t it? What evidence do we have?

What evidence do we have that he DIDN’T use steroids? Maybe the lack of evidence that he DID use steroids? I still haven’t figured out why MLB players are somehow all assumed to be guilty until they can prove they are innocent. How exactly are they to prove they didn’t use them?

“Does he end up as the king because Hank Aron was not able to have such longevity without the use of amphetamines and Griffey himself was able to get more at bats against replacement level pitching?”

Nobody is comparing Griffey to others who played in an era in which he didn’t.

“And what if the drugs that people condemn today are someday allowed to be fully tested due to a relaxation of their controlled substance status and are proven to pose no more of a health risk than a cortisone injections”

I’m, pretty sure that people don’t frown upon steroid use in baseball, because they pose health risks to players. They frown on them, because it gives the players who use them a competitive advantage over the players that don’t.

faceplant_04 - January 28, 2010 reply

Dang it!

My apologies for the epic block quote fail.

faceplant_04 - January 28, 2010 reply

Well

I am not saying that he is guilty until proven innocent, simply pointing out that you can’t have it one way and not the other. Certainty is not justified simply because it is supported by public opinion. And I did not say steroids specifically, I said performance enhancing drugs. (Although out of steroids and HGH, he would be far more likely to have used steroids. You can increase strength without necessarily increasing size with certain steroids, while the opposite is true of HGH.) I say that assuming someone is guilty without proof is as valid as assuming they are not guilty without proof in this instance. This is not a court of law- the concept of innocent until proven guilty exists to protect citizens from the possibility of tyranny. None of us would like our rights taken away unless there is verifiable proof that we have broken the law. However, discussions about public perception are not equivalent, because our personal opinions cannot necessarily take away someone’s rights. Barry Bonds might disagree with that, but I do not think you can argue that anyone has a “right” to play in MLB, no matter how good they are. I do think that the fact that he was forced out of the league despite still being one of the top 20 hitters in baseball, and the public’s acceptance of that, is a far greater tragedy than Griffey’s. But he still cannot claim the right to play.

“Nobody is comparing Griffey to others who played in an era in which he didn’t.”

People often use players from other eras in the PED discussion. It tends to come up. I did not mean to imply that anyone here did specifically, I was simply bringing it up as a thought experiment.

“I’m, pretty sure that people don’t frown upon steroid use in baseball, because they pose health risks to players. They frown on them, because it gives the players who use them a competitive advantage over the players that don’t.”

Why is the line drawn at this particular issue? Why doesn’t it include weight lifting? Why doesn’t it include surgeries? Why doesn’t it include legal supplements? LASIK eye surgery is a good example. It has ample risks associated with it, enough risk that you are not seeing every single player get it despite the fact that in aggregate, it would improve their vision. There is no guarantee that improving a player’s vision in this way would improve their ability (just like HGH!), but it seems likely. Don’t the players that have had LASIK done have a competitive advantage relative to those that have not? It can improve vision to greater than 20/20. There is a dissonance here that makes me think that there is something else at issue in these debates other than the competitive advantage angle. I do not claim to know what it is, but I think the idea that a player would be forced to do something that could have potentially harmful side effects in order to stay employed is one of the stronger arguments against PED use, so I used that one as an example.

Come on man

You’re being willfully obtuse here. Why is the line drawn at this particular issue? Because it’s illegal. Lasik eye surgery isn’t illegal. Weight lifting isn’t illegal. Taking PED’s is illegal. Those who take PED’s force others to choose between breaking the law (and later, the rules) and remaining competitive, or following the law and being at a competitive disadvantage.

This is not a difficult concept.

While I agree with your point

Sometimes I wonder why steroids are illegal at all. Your argument is based on the legality of steroids, but what if they weren’t illegal? In this imaginary world of “what if” would your opinion change? Why are the cream and the clear illegal while supplements designed to build mass, or build strength, or increase stamina legal?

Damn

I was not aware that their decisions were so heavily influenced by the law. How many players were arrested for using PED’s in the heyday of the “steroid era”?

And if the law is such a powerful deterrent, why do so many people use recreational drugs that are illegal? Why do drivers speed? It would seem that we as a society are capable of deciding that some laws do not matter, and that the risk of breaking those laws is dwarfed by the benefits enjoyed by breaking them. And when that idea becomes pervasive enough that a large percentage of the population acts accordingly, it becomes clear that the law will not be able to punish everyone.

It is true that there are people who treat laws as gospel, but they compose an incredibly small percentage of the population. The rest of us recognize that we can think for ourselves and are governed by morality, not the law. And the tricky part is, morality can be relative to the context. So something we might do in one context, we might not do in another.

It is probably hard for the average person to imagine taking certain illegal drugs to excel at their job in the office, or even to survive as an employee. But if that person were thrust into a highly competitive field like major league baseball, where millions of dollars are available, they might change their mind. They might not as well.

Injuries

I think the injuries he’s sustained throughout his career are proof enough that he wasn’t using steroids.

nkandoll - January 29, 2010 reply

Interesting

I don’t think Griffey was taking PEDs at all (his physique is exhibit a, imho), but I know oftentimes injuries are used as evidence that someone WAS taking steroids (Steve Emtman comes to mind).

I think Griffey made it pretty clear throughout his career that he wasn’t serious enough about taking care of his body or working out to ever be someone who took PEDs.

You may be right.

I’ve always thought steroids would help prevent injuries mainly because they allow your muscles to repair themselves rapidly. I haven’t done a ton of research on this so I definitely could be wrong. At the very least wouldn’t they help you come back from injuries faster?

nkandoll - January 29, 2010 reply

Emtman's case

I think exhibits the dangers of cartilage breakdown caused by steroids. I don’t have any facts to back that up, just some fleeting memory of hearing that on the radio once. You are welcome.

Griffey is about the only player that, if I had heard reliably that he took steroids, it would break my heart a little bit.

I would get over it eventually, but I REALLY want to believe that he’s never done them.

Just to be clear-

I do not think he has done them myself. If I had to bet I would put money on amphetamine use, but not steroids or HGH. But I think that in the absence of proof- positive tests, negative tests, admissions- being certain that he has not is as ridiculous as being certain that someone else has. In either case, there are generally less than a handful of people in the world who know for sure, and we are probably not among them.

We are in agreement.

Why would you bet money on amphetamine use?

Because everyone in MLB ate amphetamines like they were Pez until a few years ago

and had done since the 40’s.

He's black?

d0nkey - January 29, 2010 reply

Its not that I want to bet money.

If I had to- If my life were on the line, for example, in some kind of odd scene from a Saw movie. So what I am saying is that I think it is >50% likely that he used amphetamines. I am basing this on the fact that our culture is highly accepting of the use of drugs that allow you to do your job, as well as the fact that almost every account I have ever read has stated that amphetamine use was/is pervasive throughout mlb from the 50’s until today. I also recall an article from a while ago in which a former player said that everyone in the Mariners clubhouse used amphetamines except for Dan Wilson.

Don’t get me wrong, this is not evidence that should pass any reasonable test. But that is all I have. Would I change a Hall of Fame vote based on it? Absolutely not.

I Lick Squirrels - January 29, 2010 reply

While purportedly satirical

the Onion is often more truthful than not:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/nation_to_ken_griffey_jr_we_wish

Andersean - January 28, 2010 reply

I'm sad now...

That is awesome.

It’s not really like the Onion’s style, it’s actually heartfelt and moving more than it is funny.

Still, it feels weird to bitch about the fact he's "only" ending up with 650 HRs.

craig3410 - January 29, 2010 reply

And I suppose there's a nonzero chance he passes Willie Mays, if he plays in 2011.

craig3410 - January 29, 2010 reply

I really hope this doesn't happen

seattlebruin - January 29, 2010 reply

If it does happen though

I hope it includes him hitting .300 with 40 HR’s … of course, each of those homers would be carried over the fence by a unicorn dancing on rainbows.

You're optimistic about this season.

I had the pleasure of going to the Hall of Fame last November.

On the third floor, they have posters for many of baseball’s major records that are updated annually. In the background is the all-time leader in black-and-white photography, and in the foreground is a photo of the current active leader, like the kind of photo you’d see on the video screen in the stadium.

It was a pleasure to see Griffey’s mug, wearing a Mariners hat, on the posters for HR’s (47 more than Rodriguez, entering 2010), RBIs (41 more than Ramirez, entering 2010) and Hits (16 more than Jeter, entering 2010).

The best part, however, about the Hall of Fame

was walking around in an Edgar jersey and seeing another Edgar jersey in a case celebrating Latin-American baseball, and getting my ex to take this picture:

Niehaus and Blower on a broadcast

Niehaus: When you were playing with him, did you expect Jr. to hit 600+ homeruns?
Blower: We all thought he’d hit 800.

vj - January 29, 2010 reply

Maybe we'll hear this.

Niehaus: When you were playing with him, did you expect Jr. to play in 2600+ games?
Blowers: We all thought he’d play in 3000.

two_hands - January 29, 2010 reply

According to Wikipedia

In 1999, he ranked 93rd on The Sporting News’ list of the 100 Greatest Baseball Players. This list was compiled during the 1998 season, counting only statistics through 1997. It was argued by some that, had the voting been done two or three years later, he would have been ranked several places higher: at age 29 (going on 30), he was easily the youngest player on the list. That same year, Griffey was elected to the Major League Baseball All-Century Team. However, when TSN updated their list for a new book in 2005, despite having surpassed 400 and 500 home runs, Griffey remained at Number 93.

That seems a really low (but I mean high as in he should be lower on the list). He’s especially low when you consider the first time they did this, McGwire was number 91, and when they re-ranked it (and Griffey remained at number 93), McGwire was at 84.

SeaKoala - January 29, 2010 reply

Some opposing pitchers used steroids

So to add to Graham’s point, Griffey was not only overshadowed by Bonds, but his production may have been diminished slightly because some opposing pitchers on steroids were just that much better.

Tim B. - January 29, 2010 reply

Whatever. he harder they threw, the farther he hit the ball

Young Griffey didn’t give a shit about roiding pitchers. Old Griffey, on the other hand…

I'm not sure that there are PED's that make you throw harder.

Throwing is about leverage, elasticity, and durability, not necessarily brute strength. For example, I don’t think Clemens was ever able to throw harder in his later years than he did when he came up.

The important effect would probably be taking away PA against replacement level pitchers due to improved recovery times.

Every M's fan should have read this by now,

but this seems an apt time to repost a link to Posnanski’s 600 Word’s for Junior.

Ugh.

There’s so much wrong with this comment… I need to not comment in the morning.

So when I wrote this, I kinda assumed that people would finish reading the damn thing before commenting

Your optimism about human nature is precious

I know, right?

Two more seasons and he might get there

We can but hope

God doesn't hate Seattle sports.

He was just waiting for the perfect timing.

Scruffy Lefty - January 29, 2010 reply

Yep, this is really what we need--another pity party for Griffey.

Let’s just admit he’s been a Hall of Famer from the neck down from the day he was born…but also remember that he stabbed us in the back the same way A-Rod did when he left town—on terms he dictated—looking for a place where he thought he could hit more home runs.
And he didn’t.
Karmic payback sometimes is a beautiful thing.

diderot - January 29, 2010 reply

Actually what I think we all really need is some fucking reading comprehension

Yeah, this was like a performance art piece

I have actually become so used to arguing against people who react without thought in the steroid debate that I have become like them myself. I thought it was odd to see what I had perceived on LL- I should have listened to my doubts and paid more attention to the chart.

Bravo.

He didn't stab anyone in the back

He had a no trade clause. He earned that no trade clause. He used that no trade clause.

Good for him.

The M’s didn’t have to trade him.

And we actually lucked into a very good return for him.

Bitterness sucks. As do people who don’t know how to reply.

You know what else we need?

Knee jerk reactions that have no basis in fact or reality.

I almost think you're being sarcastic, pdb!

seattlebruin - January 29, 2010 reply

That never happens, I don't know what you're talking about

Meaning?

diderot - January 29, 2010 reply

Read the whole writeup.

BrianL - January 29, 2010 reply

I think like 10% of readers got this post

Fett42 - January 29, 2010 reply

Too high.

abender20 - January 29, 2010 reply

This is what Matthew feels like all the time

Hmmm ... I'll just copy the large, bold font and maybe that will help.

The Record That Wasn’t

Most Games Played with no World Series Appearances

Jed MC - January 29, 2010 reply

Did you know that Johnathan Swift was a cannibal?

Is there a better way to solve a starvation and overpopulation problem at the same time?

Because if there is, I haven’t heard of it.

Jed MC - January 29, 2010 reply

And babies are so tender

just be careful not to overcook them because then they get all tough and stringy

Like jerky?

But less salty

Like a teriyaki?

or like kettle corn?

Teriyaki

Aaaahahahah, NOW I get it

I don't get it

Poochie - January 29, 2010 reply

.

Graham, by far you are an idiot. I have kept up with you on this site for a year or so and I am very familiar with your “work” or lack there of on LookoutLanding.com. You are self absorbed and extremely dry. Could you please stop regurgitating other sabermetrics geeks information and actually go with an original thought. This article on it’s on is insulting to Royals fan. I am sickened by the fact that we both root for the Mariners. Or are you just using the Mariners website as a platform to get yourself someplace else? I hope you move on soon so that myself, and many like me never have to be subject to your dry and pathetic words. I hope that you can come up with an original reply, but you will probably bow and and let some other “yahoo” fight your fight.

R.J. Anderson - January 29, 2010 reply

I assume I'm missing something

Yes,

he doesn’t root for the Mariners.

It was written to RJ by some butthole at Fangraphs.

CapSea - January 29, 2010 reply

Burn!

OlSalty - January 29, 2010 reply

Sounds not unlike Mr. Mickey Mantle

Though he was more a victim of alchohol and his ‘family curse’ thananytging else. Baseball is littered with might have been stories. That’s part of why I love it.

Smegmalicious - January 29, 2010 via mobile reply

I could be wrong, but

didn’t Mickey Mantle play in a few World Series and have a pretty good career?

I thought he meant that Mickey Mantle was on steroids but then I'm easily confused

But hey – Mickey Mantle was on steroids! I read it somewhere on the internet!

I thought he meant Maris beat him to 61 homers because Maris cheated.

Sec 108 - January 29, 2010 reply

MY GOD MARIS WAS ON STEROIDS TOO

this is an amazing revelation!

oh wait

No no no

Obviously I meant Mantle was traded from the Yankees and was never the same after that.

Smegmalicious - January 29, 2010 via mobile reply

This still makes me sad.

CapSea - January 29, 2010 reply

GRIFFEY!

Robert - January 29, 2010 reply

I was just in Vegas

and I contemplated putting $100 on the Mariners to win the World Series. Sure it’s a lot of money to basically throw away, but it would make the season more fun for me. I guess I could still do it online if I wanted to, but having a ticket from a Vegas sports book stuck up on my wall all summer would have been cool.

What were the odds?

Scruffy Lefty - January 29, 2010 reply

I didn't check then

But looking around the tubes, I think it’s about 18-1