Skip to content

Why do we care if McGwire doesn't think steroids helped him hit?

Jan 12, 2010, 9:47 AM EDT

Leave a comment

In both his statement yesterday and during his interview with Bob Costas last night, McGwire repeatedly said that he took steroids to recover from injuries. When asked if he thought steroids helped him, you know, hit the living crap out of the baseball, he said no. He called them performance “equalizers,” not performance “enhancers,” and that they just got him back to feeling normal instead of turning him into Superman. This tack had no small number of people outraged last night — Ken Rosenthal and Tom Verducci had kittens on MLB Network after the interview — and no doubt still will into today. He’s still not really confessing! the doubters cry. He’s not really coming clean!

Everyone’s entitled to their outrage, of course, but may I ask why we even care what McGwire thought he was accomplishing by taking steroids?

The notion that McGwire was simply using steroids to get back to normal or whatever is silly and disingenuous. Of course they helped him hit home runs. Of course they enhanced his performance. We don’t know how much — even the experts differ on the kind of boosts various PEDs can give a guy — but it’s safe to say that a good number of Mac’s homers would have been warning track flies without the steroids.

But why do McGwire’s thoughts on the subject matter?  He either believes what he said regarding the impact of the steroids he took or he doesn’t.  If he doesn’t, he’s spinning it, and that may place him in Andy Pettitte land, integrity wise, but it’s certainly not the kind of spin or obfuscation that will keep historians from judging McGwire’s career properly. It’s like the kid with the bat and ball standing next to a pile of broken glass claiming he doesn’t know how the window got busted. We don’t need an admission for history to cast its proper judgment on Mark McGwire.

But isn’t it possible that he truly does believe what he’s saying?  Ballplayers believe all sorts of ridiculous things. They believe that stepping on the foul line brings bad luck, that not shaving keeps hitting streaks alive, that stating the obvious about a pending no-hitter jinxes things and that eating chicken before each game leads to batting titles.  We don’t chastise them for their disingenuousness on these counts, do we?

OK, maybe those aren’t apt analogies but here’s something worth thinking about: ballplayers are elite athletes, and one thing almost every elite athlete has in common is the ego-driven belief that they’re different. That they’re special. That everything they accomplish is because of their effort or their determination or that God chose them to do Great Things. To most elite athletes, things like luck, random chance, genetics and accident of birth have nothing to do with it. To admit otherwise is to allow doubt of one’s own abilities to creep in, and with those doubts come the possibility of failure.

We almost always give athletes a free pass on this sort of stuff. We don’t question the wide receiver who thinks God helped him score the touchdown.  We don’t challenge the seven foot tall center who thinks his domination of the key is purely a function of his work ethic. We don’t accuse the Fighting Irish of thinking that thoughts of the Gipper, as opposed to a superior game plan, beat Army in 1928.  Athletes believe this stuff. They spend a lot of time in denial, actually, and it probably has a lot to do with why they’re so successful.

In light of this I find it totally plausible that Mark McGwire is in denial about what steroids did for him. That he truly thought — or over time convinced himself to believe — that they were only helping him “get back to normal,” as opposed to giving him a chemical advantage.  Sure, he’s deluded about this, but it strikes me that he’s no more deluded about it than any other athlete is deluded about his place in the world and how he got there.

To me it doesn’t really matter what he thinks.  With his admission, McGwire is no longer the sole author of his historical legacy. He did what he did and now he’s said what he did. Based on what he has said we can start to place his accomplishments into whatever historical context we think appropriate, be it asterisk-land or barring him from the Hall of Fame or whatever baseball, the sports writers and the historians decide to do.

McGwire is planning on continuing to make the media rounds today with multiple newspaper TV and radio interviews scheduled. Maybe he’ll keep saying that steroids didn’t help him hit the ball. Maybe with a night to sleep on it he’ll admit that, hey, just maybe they did.  I’m not sure I can bring myself to care about it. The whys — be they legitimate or the stuff of fantasy — don’t matter to me.

Skip to Comments
More HardballTalk
Back to Homepage
  1. Phil - Jan 12, 2010 at 9:43 PM

    I’m impressed. You can see into someone’s heart – a complete stranger – and know when that person has made a complete confession. Judge, jury and executioner. I just hope you’re not a cop.

  2. Phil - Jan 12, 2010 at 9:46 PM

    Please read what I said. If you’ll read carefully, you’ll note that i offered up an explanation for how steroids increase HR totals. But as dprat said, you should also consider other factors.

  3. Phil - Jan 12, 2010 at 9:54 PM

    “You can’t ‘prove’ that diet and exercise are healthy for you. You can show that it helps in 99% of the cases, but that’s not proof.”
    So you’re saying that with sufficient sample size that if you show that diet and exercise improve health in 99% of the cases, that’s not proof that diet and exercise are healthy? What constitutes proof for you?
    As for your reading comprehension, please note that I said:
    “As I’ve said before, if you are implying that steroids enabled hitters to hit more HRs because they decreased recovery time and promoted faster healing from some injuries that resulted in more ABs and more years played, I’m on board. That’s the main reason Bonds has the career record.”

  4. Roid Rage - Jan 13, 2010 at 9:11 AM

    It would be interesting to see career stats for a number of modern era home run hitters to compare 1st half vs. 2nd half of career AB per HR. My hypothesis is that for many, their HR rate will decline with age, while others will increase, and that will correlate with known or suspected juicers.

  5. Joey B - Jan 13, 2010 at 9:11 AM

    “So you’re saying that with sufficient sample size that if you show that diet and exercise improve health in 99% of the cases, that’s not proof that diet and exercise are healthy? What constitutes proof for you?”
    99% is fine by me.
    So here’s our bet. I will give you 100-1 odds against anyone that will be 37 this year, hitting 73 HRs or more. Isn’t that 99% certainty?
    Or if you don’t like that one, try this-Bonds hit 1 HR/6.52 ABs. You can have every single ML hitter this year with 300 ABs, and I am willing to bet that not one of them averages 1 HR per 6.52 ABs. That’s got to be at least 200 batters that qualify, so that’s 99.5% certainty.
    Or, if you want to make the point that it was a fluke year, then how about using his 2004 season, when he celebrated his 40th birthday. I am will to bet that not one single batter exceeds his HR/AB. Are you telling me with prodigious HR hitters like Pujols, Fielder, ARod and Howard, one of those guys in their primes should be able to out-hit a 40 year old guy, right?

  6. Roid Rage - Jan 13, 2010 at 9:20 AM

    It’s not just longevity leading to more at bats, it’s more frequent home runs for the juicers. Hank Aaron had 465 at bats at age 41 but only hit 12 dingers.
    I read a post on another blog yesterday from someone at least pruporting to be a doctor explaining that ‘roids increase the density of fast twitch muscle cells and thereby increase quickness as well as overall power. Also, as many have pointed out, with the extra power, fly balls that otherwise would be a routine out become HRs.

  7. Some Random Guy - Jan 13, 2010 at 9:23 AM

    If McGwire using non-banned substances which may or may not have enhanced his performance is reason to keep him out of the hall of fame, then shouldn’t players who are currently there be removed for the same thing?
    We now know that Ralph Kiner, Hank Aaron, and Mickey Mantle ( among many others ) all used performance enhancing drugs and/or steroids. Why should McGwire ( or even Barry Bonds ) be held to a higher standard?

  8. How Would I Know - Jan 13, 2010 at 9:42 AM

    I also doubt we’ll be seeing anybody hitting .400 this year, just like we haven’t seen in over 60 years. So, using your logic, that must give us a 99.9999% chance that Ted Williams was taking something?
    Nobody has come close to matching Babe Ruth’s career OPS, not even Bonds. So clearly, according to your logic, that must prove something about Ruth.
    I’m sure we can apply your faulty logic to virtually any stat and get the same flawed result.
    Ultimately, we have to accept the fact that great players have great stats. And there is no way anybody who has any understanding of the game of baseball can deny the fact that Barry Bonds was one of the greatest ever to play the game. He was far more than just the homeruns.

  9. Joey B - Jan 13, 2010 at 2:25 PM

    “Ultimately, we have to accept the fact that great players have great stats. And there is no way anybody who has any understanding of the game of baseball can deny the fact that Barry Bonds was one of the greatest ever to play the game. He was far more than just the homeruns.”
    You can believe one without belieiving the other. He was a great player, and imho, a 1st ballot HOF. Through the age of 34, he was a consistent 35/35 hitter with 8 GGs. My type of player, a threat on the field, a threat at bat, and a threat on the bases.
    However, it is okay to believe that, and still recognize that he cheated. It’s okay to believe, as I do, that he was a generational type of player in the mold of Bench and Schmidt, and also believe that when Bonds hit 66 HRs per 600 ABs over his final 8 years, that he was cheating.
    Really, it is enough to go 35/35 with a GG for 10+ years. Trying to justify that someone almost doubled their HR/AB at ages 34-42 cheapens his legitimate accomplishments.

  10. edgy1957 - Jan 13, 2010 at 4:03 PM

    The one problem that a lot of people don’t understand is that their logic about Bonds’ early career is flawed. A lot of people assume that Barry was hitting in the 3, 4, 5 or 6 hole when he came into the league, when in fact, he was a LEADOFF hitter for his first four years – which is why he didn’t hit as many home runs or drive in as many runs as he did when he was dropped lower into the batting order. Most of you need to go back and look at some old film of Barry as a leadoff hitter and how much he stroke changed just in the first year that he was moved from leadoff and then later on in his career, when he was upper cutting the ball far more than he did when he got into the majors.
    Now, here’s an interesting tidbit for you guys: during the first half of his career, Hank Aaron’s HR/AB ratio was 1.94 times better than the league’s average while in the second half of his career, it was 2.76 times better (2.31 overall). For the first half of his career (when he spent 4 years at leadoff) Bonds was 2.06 times better than the league while he was 2.34 times better in the second half and 2.16 times better for is career. Aaron was hurt in the first half of his career by being in Milwaukee while Bonds was hurt because he played 4 years at leadoff. Both of these guys were significantly better than the league in the latter half of their careers.

  11. Joey B - Jan 13, 2010 at 4:40 PM

    I’m not sure where your dividing line is on 1st half/2nd half. If you want to make a case for Aaron cheating, it’s possible. I’m just here to make the case that the PEDs helped. I picked the names kind of random, but looked at Aaron, Williams, Mays, Robinson, and Bonds, from inception to age 34, and from 34 to the end of their careers. Here are the pre and post-34 AB/HR ratios-
    Player A 17.4/14.2
    Player B 15.4/13.7
    Player C 15.0/21.2
    Player D 16.9/18.0
    Player E 15.7/ 9.1
    I think we could all agree that the pre-34 ratios look rather consistent. Do you notice any outliers in the post-34 group?
    Again, I’m not making a moral judgement, just a practical one. If I was a player, I’d have probably taken them. If they were handed out in my HS gym, I might have taken them just to see if it would help with my lifting. Heck, when I retire and have less to lose, I might give it a shot.
    But I just don’t see any possibility that one could make the McGwire claim that he doesn’t think they helped.

  12. edgy1957 - Jan 13, 2010 at 6:03 PM

    Half means half. The first 11 years of Bonds’ 22 year career vs the first 12 years of Aaron’s career. Oh and this isn’t about Aaron cheating but the fact that a lot of people try to group guys like him with the rest of their peers and then they make general statements about how they did so great after their peers had retired. Well, their peers retired because they weren’t good enough to stay around and as the years go on, you’re going to find that this line with extend further out as these players take better and better care of themselves. You can point at a lot of guys that are still doing well at 38-42 and say steroids but you should also look at the fact that these guys are taking better care of themselves at a younger age than they did back in the ’70s.
    BTW, I screwed up and the numbers are: Aaron – 2.16 (1st 12) , 3.18 (2nd 11), 2.61 (Career) and Bonds – 2.50 (1st 11), 3.20 (2nd 11) and 2.76 (Career). After age 34, Aaron was 3.19 times better than the league while Bonds was 3.45. One thing to think about with Mays was that he was older than Aaron when he getting screwed by MLB’s stupid decision to widen the strike zone to cut down on home runs (When he hit 34, Aaron was 31. He lost 4 years to that era from 34 on while Aaron only lost 1). Ted Williams would have been much better at both ends of his career if it wasn’t for his service.
    Like it or not, the GREAT players are still doing much better when they’re older than their mere competent teammates. I’m not saying that Bonds didn’t take steroids but I am saying that even without them, he’d have been better than the average player and while his AB/HR ratio would have been higher, it would have been a hell of lot better than many people think.

  13. Joey B - Jan 13, 2010 at 7:40 PM

    “Like it or not, the GREAT players are still doing much better when they’re older than their mere competent teammates.”
    I would accept that, assuming that we are talking about relatively better. But I would expect to see the average player decline as he ages (as would be expected) and then think it is natural to see others going through the roof.
    Just for fun, I went to see who the GREAT players are today that are still doing better than their older teammates. Out of the top 10 in slugging in the NL, -0- were older than 30 last year. Only 2 of the top 10 in the NL were older than 30. Bonds lead the league in slugging at age 36, age 37, age 38, and age 39.
    The discrepancy is astronomical. We’re not talking about degrees. In 2009, only 2 of the top 20 were older than the age of 30. But Bonds, at the age of 39, lead the league in slugging by a humongous margin. The difference between Bonds and Pujols was .155 slugging points. The difference between Pujols at #2, and Dunn at #10, was only 88 points.
    Or thought of another, are there any great hitters today that are old? Derrick Lee had a great year, but it was just one year. ARod had a good year, but he’s an admitted PED user.
    It’s just really difficult to think that Bonds has aged so beautifully, but that the players today basically turn to dust after the age of 30.

  14. edgy1957 - Jan 13, 2010 at 8:13 PM

    Again – GREAT – which would be where Barry ranks. So, if he’s the ONLY one that old that’s in the Top 20 of anything, wouldn’t that make him — wait for it — GREAT.
    At age 39, Hank Aaron was 4th in HRs, 12th in RBI (Would have been 9th in BA and 2nd in SP, 5th in OBP and 1st in OPS – IF he had enough ABs). 12 or 13 years from now, the TRULY GREAT player(s) will be putting up numbers that most of the guys that played with him/them would envy and they’ll be still be among the best players in the league. Greatness shows and as the years go on, the age that GREAT players continue to impress with move further out from what it was when I was younger and today. I wouldn’t be surprised to see guys playing until their late 40s and early 50s by the end of this century.
    Babe Ruth played well into his later years; at a time when others didn’t do as well when they got that old. Lou Gehrig was doing well into his mid 30s until ALS killed his career. Ty Cobb didn’t do that badly when he got older, as well. These are GREAT players and it’s guys like them and Ted Williams that are the TRULY GREAT. These guys don’t come along every year NOR do they come around every 10 years. Albert Pujols is one of those guys (and in my opinion, a user who will get away with it) and years from now, people will be in awe at what he will do at his “advanced” age.

  15. Roid Rage - Jan 14, 2010 at 9:48 AM

    Thx that’s exactly the type of analysis that I was interested to see. Appreciate you taking the time to do it.

  16. Joey B - Jan 14, 2010 at 6:00 PM

    “These are GREAT players and it’s guys like them and Ted Williams that are the TRULY GREAT.”
    And all the truly great players get old. Killebrew went from 13.0 to 21.2 ABs/HR. Schmidt from 14.6 to 17.6. Matthews from 16.3 to 25.7. Bonds went from 15.7 to 9.1.
    You are about at the point where you are literally denying the aging process for Bonds. You are saying that GREAT players age better than mere mortals, but all the comparisons show that the overwhelming majority declined as they aged, that a couple showed a minor improvement, and that one player literally got twice as good.
    And you have none of these older GREAT players doing the same thing. There are no great power hitters today that haven’t declined with age. It seems like the entire league aged, as all of do, but that Bonds did not age, because he is some sort of superman. He’s not. He cheated.
    But I’ll tell you what. There must be at least 100,000 hitters in the history of BB. How about you find me one player with at least 200 HRs, post deadball era, whose HRs ratio increased as dramatically as Bonds as late as Bonds did it.

  17. edgy1957 - Jan 14, 2010 at 7:53 PM

    You need to go back to school to take a class on reading comprehension because I CLEARLY said, “I’m not saying that Bonds didn’t take steroids but I am saying that even without them, he’d have been better than the average player and while his AB/HR ratio would have been higher, it would have been a hell of lot better than many people think.” Just where in the heck do you get “You are about at the point where you are literally denying the aging process for Bonds.” because I sure as hell haven’t said that. I’m saying and I don’t know how I can possibly make this clear to you that GREAT players play better at an advanced age than ORDINARY players. Ok, so these guys showed declines — imagine how much worse it was for their ordinary or less than ordinary teammates who might have actually gotten to play at that age. Also, Killabrew played during that crappy ’60s era that dropped the averages of a lot of players. The funny thing is that I would be willing to bet that if you looked at the AB/HR ratios of guys whose careers started at the beginning of that era, they’d actually have much better totals in the second half of their careers. Much like the guys whose careers started after 1915 and went into the 1920s and 1930s. That’s why I used AB/HR compared to the league’s AB/HR ratio.
    Again – GREAT PLAYERS. Do you honestly believe that these guys were aging worst than their ordinary peers, who were mostly retired 7-8 years before they started to decline? Mike Schmidt was a year younger than Luzinski and yet, Greg was gone by 33 AND that’s only because the AL had the DH. The DH allows guys to stick around longer BUT they’re not gving ABs to the truly putrid players just to keep truly putrid in the lineup. A DH may not be an all-time great but they are usually better than their teammates. If they were still in the NL, they’d be playing RF or 1B like most of the other crappy fielders. 10 years from now, Albert Pujols will still be playing while most of the guys that entered the majors at the same time as him will be long retired. If you look at this critically, you’ll find that the GREAT players hung around a lot longer than the guys that debuted with them and in the end, they weren’t declining as badly as their peers. I’m not saying that Bonds is defying aging; only that even minus steriods, his decline would have been a lot better than his peers.

  18. edgy1957 - Jan 14, 2010 at 9:32 PM

    There’s a year by year analysis here: http://www.boards.edgy-sports.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=2451
    Basically, since 1901, how long careers have spanned:
    Years | Num | % |
    1-5 | 6303 | 55.85 |
    6-10 | 2600 | 23.04 |
    |1-15 | 1663 | 14.74 |
    16-20 | 596 | 5.28 |
    21-25 | 117 | 1.04 |
    26-30 | 6 | 0.05 |
    Fewer than 10% of the players have lasted past 16 years. These people aren’t the ordinary players and the fact that their careers are fading at 37 or later is irrelevant. The fact that they MAKE it until then IS relevant because their peers won’t make it there, no matter how you try to crunch the numbers. More than 75% of major leagues are out of the majors in the first 10 years of their career, which means that they’re gone before they even hit 30.

  19. Bill-Sonora - Jan 15, 2010 at 9:26 AM

    McGwire hit 49 home runs his rookie year.
    So he did have a natural gift. If he took steroids to recover from injuries, does that erase all his previous home run achievements? Its not like Barry Bonds, where he started raising his home run totals near the end of his career (late 30s), he always hit home runs.

  20. MNVikes - Jan 15, 2010 at 7:07 PM

    Fact is the game is totally different from generation to generation so the numbers are really not as sacred as most believe.
    During the era of Ruth, pitchers routinely threw 300 and even 400 innings. Clearly even with technology, PEDs, and training today’s pitchers cannot come close to that. From this fact I am inferring that the pitching was a totally different matter and comparing numbers is ludicrous anyway.
    We want to watch the best athletes performing in their peak condition and we pay huge money to do so. Athletes will continue to push whatever boundaries that are available and we should really just let this steroid issue go (like the NFL has lol).

  21. Joey B - Jan 16, 2010 at 11:43 AM

    “Fewer than 10% of the players have lasted past 16 years. These people aren’t the ordinary players and the fact that their careers are fading at 37 or later is irrelevant. The fact that they MAKE it until then IS relevant because their peers won’t make it there, no matter how you try to crunch the numbers. More than 75% of major leagues are out of the majors in the first 10 years of their career, which means that they’re gone before they even hit 30.”
    Good, we’re finally in agreement. Players’ skills erode as they age, just like we all age, and as a result, almost 95% of all players have retired by their 15th season. Bonds on the other hand, not only didn’t age like the other 95%, his HR output virtually doubled. That’s what I’ve been saying all along, but you said it much more eloquently.

  22. edgy1957 - Jan 16, 2010 at 1:55 PM

    The entire point went right past your head. GREAT PLAYERS — NOT ONLY BONDS — don’t have their skills erode like their ordinary teammates. GREAT PLAYERS like Hank Aaron, actually did pretty damn good in their later years. If you looked at what I put out there, you’d see that there has been a SIGNIFICANT shift in how long careers have lasted and that’s even before the DH was introduced. If a person’s caraer started between 1901 and 1930, 84.5% of them were gone by their 10th year while that number dropped to 79% for those who debuted in 1931-1960 and 73% of the latter 30 years of the study. Most people have been judging EVERYONE by that first 30 years and that’s the standard that that keeps getting shoved down people’s throats. The day will come that many of you who are still sticking by this standard will find yourselves eating a lot of crow because these guys are going to be having longer and longer careers – even if MLB were to drop the DH. The average career from 1901-1930 was 4.9 years (a standard that many people still use when talking about MLB careers) while it was 6.0 by those who debuted in 1931-1960 and it’s 7.3 for 1961-1990 (Overall careers of 5.8 years from 1901-1990) and it will get longer in the next 30 years. Judge Bonds by the greats like Ruth and Aaron not the “I think they’re greats” like Luzinski. What the 95% do is irrelevant because they’re NOT in the same league (no pun intended).
    Oh and these players DON’T age like you and I. The skills that they have to erode, are FAR BETTER than anything you and I ever had and if you don’t believe that then it goes a long ways to explain your position.
    Now, I’m not saying that he didn’t use steroids or that he didn’t benefit BUT I am saying that even if he didn’t, he would have done a hell of a lot better than most of you people claim. Split the difference between what he did in the first half and the second and you’ve got about the right place. Also, let’s not forget that without the steroids, he’d have played another couple of years.
    Like it or not, Bonds was hurt by the investigation and that cost him several years. Hell, I’d be willing to bet that he could probably come back steroid free NOW and do better than some of the guys that the Giants kept around.
    The age of decline is going to continue to extend. As I said before, before this century is out, there were be a lot more guys playing EFFECTIVELY into the late 40s and early 50s. Of those who debuted in 1901-1930, 6.9% played past age 36 while 9.5% of those who debuted in 1931-1960 did and 12.2% of those debuted in 1960-1990 did. The percentage of players who have played past 36 has nearly doubled and it will be more than double by the end of this next 30 year period. No doubt that by the end of these guys careers, their skills will have eroded BUT the end of their careers will be past the magic line that you’ve drawn in the sand. As these guys take better care of themselves and surgical techniques improve, you’re going to find a lot of guys whose second half of their careers are going to be better than their first. Unfortunately, I won’t be around to tell you “I told you so” so I’m going to say it now – I TOLD YOU SO.

  23. edgy1957 - Jan 16, 2010 at 6:14 PM

    I have this question for people: in 2012, they will vote in a couple of people into the HOF (I’m sure of it because of the ones who will be eligible). At the podium, just before he finishes his speech, one of the inductees admits to using steroids. My question(s) to you are: what do you think that the voters do after that and what would YOU do?

  24. Dean Axford - Jan 17, 2010 at 6:15 AM

    Hi buddy, your blog’s design is simple and clean and i like it. Your blog posts are superb. Please keep them coming. Greets!!!

  25. cheaters justice - Jan 17, 2010 at 5:42 PM

    One the ways McGwire and the other steroid users affect alot of athletes or even regular people is that their steroid use detracts from the gains they made through weight lifting/strength training as a whole.
    Because of their steroid use any gains or advancements in physical conditioning is harder to actually gage. I truely beleive strength training can help anyone especially athletes. But now someone might be disuaded to lift weights and take supplements like vitamins because they’ll write off all & any gains these guys made as being from steroids.
    Studies have shown weight lifting can help seniors with bone density or help someone recover from injury. I’m a firm believer in physical fitness your entire life. Who knows perhaps some of these guys statistics were because they were lifting weights period.
    It’s ashame alot of these guys were/are actually students of the game AND physical conditioning-especially Barry Bonds. But they were the ones that voluntarily chose to take supplements that were not only unethical but CRIMINAL in many cases.
    But that’s what all this steroid use does-It brings everything into question. Exactly how far did these guys go? Did they load the bat like Sammy Sosa? Did they take other drugs like speed or ‘greenies’? Was the game rigged for entertainment and not competition as MLB wants to you think.
    And last but not least-many of these steroids were obtained through CRIMINAL means even though it might of only been some possession or distribution charges BUT STILL CRIMINAL. How can you trust someone that was involved in CRIMINAL behavior let alone trust their statistics.

1 … 3 4 5 6
Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

More HardballTalk
Back to Homepage
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. M. Adams (5506)
  2. A. Pujols (5405)
  3. L. Berkman (5010)
  4. Y. Gomes (4294)
  5. R. Howard (4293)
  1. K. Youkilis (4084)
  2. A. Chapman (3873)
  3. A. Craig (3741)
  4. C. Utley (3663)
  5. R. Oswalt (3359)
Search player news