We've been talking about baseball a lot at work lately. Mostly we discuss which Nationals games we all want to see. Poor Nationals: no one wants to be a Nationals fan—we all just want to go see our teams play when they come to town. I guess that’s one of the problems in having a team in a city where no one seems to stay for long.
We’ve also spent plenty of time discussing steroids and Barry Bonds (and when we talk about steroids, it's a health issue and totally relevant to our jobs) I have two points I like to bring up in our discussions (both get good reactions) that I thought I’d share here:
1. Babe Ruth wasn’t using steroids, but he was playing in a segregated league, and therefore not competing against everyone he ought to have been competing against. Shouldn't that be accounted for when discussing his place in the Hall of Fame?
2. Maybe more players should use steroids. Wouldn’t the game be more interesting if more players were hitting all those homeruns?
2 comments:
Split the league in two, one for 'pure bodies' and another for 'roid rage' types with shrunken testes, giant biceps, and truly massive endorsement contracts.
Unfortunately, I expect people would rather watch the steroid-charged types. Oh well.
Ok, Brian... let's say we split the league up. One for 'pures' and one for 'roids.' Now we are back to Elizabeth's question #1. How do we assess Hall of Fame status -- or any type of success -- if not everyone is represented in a league?
Post a Comment