Skip to content

Andre Dawson: ‘I didn’t play against more than a few Hall of Famers’

Jan 13, 2013, 7:20 PM EDT

Andre Dawson AP

Andre Dawson is pretty much the definition of a borderline Hall of Famer. He led his league in homers once and RBI once, both in 1987. He never led his league in average, on-base percentage or slugging percentage. He finished at .279/.323/.482 with 438 homers and 1,591 RBI in a career divided evenly between center field and right field.

Dawson, though, seems to think he’s inner-circle, though perhaps it doesn’t help that he’s being egged on by Barry Rozner in a Daily Herald interview.

“The thing is, I played a long time in the majors, and a couple more in the minors, and I didn’t play with that many Hall of Fame-caliber ballplayers,” Dawson said. “I didn’t play against more than a few Hall of Famers.”

Of course, any Hall of Fame selective enough to only elect a few of the best players over a 20-year span wouldn’t have Dawson for a member. It also probably wouldn’t be popular enough to draw crowds and stay in business.

But then, this interview is more about PEDs and what they did to poor Andre’s numbers.

“The guys who took steroids disrespected the game, and disrespected the history,” Dawson said. “Our history relies so much on the numbers, and the numbers have been destroyed.”

It’s an ironic argument coming from a guy who wouldn’t have made the Hall of Fame at all if not for the rabbit ball year of 1987. Dawson had his league-leading 49 homers and 137 RBI that year and won a undeserved MVP because of those numbers. He finished just 10th in the league in OPS despite being aided by Wrigley Field, and while Dawson began his career as a top-notch defensive center fielder, he had lost range and moved to right by 1987.

Maybe that’s not entirely fair — Dawson had nothing to do with the conditions of 1987 — but the fact is that Dawson averaged 22 homers and 81 RBI in the four years surrounding that season. Give him another one of those instead of his 49 and 137, and it’s doubtful the writers vote him in.

Still, this is really about drugs. Let’s go back to that.

“I’m mad about what they did to the game. I think of Hank (Aaron) and Willie (Mays) and Mickey (Mantle), it makes me really angry,” Dawson said. “We worked really, really hard to get to a certain level. They did it with drugs.”

Really, those are the three players you bring up? Two amphetamine abusers and a guy in Mantle who would have put pretty much anything into his body?

Maybe you should just crawl back into the ivy, Andre.

  1. American of African Descent - Jan 13, 2013 at 7:31 PM

    Isn’t that a tautology? No one plays against more than a few hall-of-fame caliber players. That’s what makes the Hall of Fame so special.

  2. larryboodry - Jan 13, 2013 at 7:43 PM

    Dawson belongs.

    • alexo0 - Jan 13, 2013 at 8:55 PM

      Methinks the Hawk protest too much.

  3. paperlions - Jan 13, 2013 at 7:50 PM

    Andre might want to brush up on his baseball history…..even the years he played. Here is a list of guys that are already in the HOF that were in the league when Dawson played (1976-1996, yes, I realize that inter-league play didn’t exist yet, but most of these guys played in the NL when Dawson did).

    Hank Aaron
    Frank Robinson
    Brooks Robinson
    Lou Brock
    Willie McCovey
    Catfish Hunter
    Willie Stargell
    Johnny Bench
    Carl Yastrezemski
    Joe Morgan
    Jim Palmer
    Rod Carew
    Ferguson Jenkins
    Gaylord Perry
    Rollie Fingers
    Tom Seaver
    Reggie Jackson
    Steve Carlton
    Mike Schmidt
    Phil Niekro
    Don Sutton
    George Brett
    Robin Yount
    Nolan Ryan
    Carlton Fisk
    Tony Perez
    Dave Winfield
    Kirby Puckett
    Ozzie Smith
    Eddie Murray
    Gary Carter
    Dennis Eckersley
    Paul Molitor
    Wade Boggs
    Ryne Sandberg
    Bruce Sutter
    Tony Gwynn
    Cal Ripken
    Goose Gossage
    Jim Rice
    Rickey Henderson
    Roberto Alomar
    Bert Blyleven
    Bary Larkin

    That is 44 guys ALREADY in the HOF that played when Dawson played, and guys like Raines, Trammel, Whittaker, Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Maddux, Glavine, Thomas, Martinez, and so on and so on also played with or against Dawson.

    Dawson is probably the worst guy on that list (except for the relief pitchers). If he thinks his was a HOF caliber player, he must think 40 of those other guys were over rated.

    • whmiv21 - Jan 13, 2013 at 8:04 PM

      No, he’s right. All those guys were scrubs. Especially that Hank Aaron guy…

      • tfbuckfutter - Jan 13, 2013 at 8:09 PM

        To be fair, Aaron was no longer great by the time Dawson came along.

        He was also in the AL.

      • whmiv21 - Jan 13, 2013 at 8:13 PM

        Good point. All the more reason he was such a scrub.

    • braddavery - Jan 13, 2013 at 9:15 PM

      “If he thinks his was a HOF caliber player…”

      Yeah. You do know that Dawson IS a Hall of Famer, right. No matter what you think about him, he is in the Hall of Fame, so he can certainly “think he is a HOF caliber player”, because, well, he IS. The people with the votes said he is. You can pout about it all day long with the others, but you just sound pathetic.

      • paperlions - Jan 13, 2013 at 9:23 PM

        As usual, logic escapes you.

        Dawson said that he played with few HOF caliber players; therefore, if Dawson thinks he was a HOF caliber player, he MUST think that there were few players in his day as good or better than he was. There were over 50 players that played when Dawson did that were demonstrably better than Dawson was. Therefore, based on Dawson’s logic, there are 2 possible conclusions: 1) Dawson thinks he was better than dozens of players that were clearly better than he was or 2) Dawson thinks most players inducted in the HOF, including himself, were not HOF caliber players.

        My comment obviously had nothing to do with whether or not Dawson should be a HOFer, but to demonstrate that Dawson’s statement was obviously ignorant and ludicrous.

      • braddavery - Jan 13, 2013 at 10:03 PM

        The man said “I didn’t play against more than a few Hall of Famers.” He didn’t say that there were only a few HOF caliber players in the league at the same time he was. You pessimistic Paulys seem to love to twist people’s words around to make them mean what you want them to mean. Is Dawson’s comment a bit overstated, sure. Is it as bad as you and Pouliot have made it out to be. Nope. Not even close. Keep looking for HOFers to smear.

  4. tfbuckfutter - Jan 13, 2013 at 8:05 PM

    I’d say there’s really two ways to look at the Hall….either judging players by their peers or judging them against history.

    It’s pretty much impossible to judge players across eras so you are basically required to judge them against their peers which means the best players of each era are, by default, Hall worthy.

    I didn’t watch baseball as a kid, so I don’t have personal memories of the players of the 80s, but it does seem like there weren’t as many guys who hold up when compared to historically great players, so I see his point.

    He is one of the best of his era, but his era wasn’t very good.

    This poses a problem for the steroid era though because, if you are going to elect the best players of a weak era like the 80s aren’t you duty-bound to also elect the best players of the steroid era?

    • paperlions - Jan 13, 2013 at 8:13 PM

      There were dozens of great players from Dawson’s era. The problem is that fans chose to forget how good they were almost immediately as soon as offense went through the roof. Fans and media also have a problem acknowledging players that were good at offense and defense as great players, and in the 80s there were a lot of guys that were good with both the bat and the glove, making them at least as valuable as guys that were only great with the bat.

      • tfbuckfutter - Jan 13, 2013 at 9:22 PM

        I see your point, and I also saw the list you provided above….I’m too lazy at the moment to do much research on the subject, but it seems fair upon a cursory glance to say the majority of those guys on your list peaked in the 70s or 90s, and very few of them reached their zenith in the 80s when Andre’s career was peaking. I mean, Mike Schmidt lead the league in homers in 5 seasons in the 80s, something Aaron only did 4 times in his career. Now is that a testament to Schmidt, a commentary on his peers, or a combination of both?

        And as for defense, I do agree to some extent….however, no matter how great a wiz Rey Ordonez was with the glove, I don’t think anyone wants to see him in the hall of fame….on the other hand someone like Edgar Martinez at least has a case.

  5. Jack Marshall - Jan 13, 2013 at 8:11 PM

    Calling Mays and Aaron “amphetamine abusers” is a smear. They used amphetamines, which were prescription drugs. There is no evidence that they were addicted. Ridiculous. And alcohol is a performance-impeding drug” putting “anything into his body” didn’t include steroids.

    • Panda Claus - Jan 13, 2013 at 8:53 PM

      Good call on this one Jack. This article had plenty going for it until Matthew took his cheap shot. If we look hard enough we could probably discredit 75% of the Hall’s members. How does that really help the current holier than thou landscape in which we currently live?

      It doesn’t of course, which means maybe the single most obvious standard with which to judge a player’s hall worthiness is by comparing to his peers at that time.

      And calling out a deceased Mantle as the well-documented abuser he was proves what else? If anything playing drunk makes his accomplishments even more extraordinary.

    • Matthew Pouliot - Jan 13, 2013 at 9:09 PM

      No, really, Mickey was down for anything.

      • derklempner - Jan 14, 2013 at 4:14 AM

        From your link:

        The purists’ last argument is that players’ use of performance-enhancing drugs sets a bad example for young athletes. But baseball players aren’t children; they are adults in a very stressful and competitive profession. If they want to use anabolic steroids, or human growth hormone or bull’s testosterone, it should be up to them. As for children, the government can regulate their use of these substances as they do with tobacco, alcohol and prescription medicine.

        The problem I have with this argument is that professional athletes are role models. Plain and simple. So you can use the article as a rationalization that PEDs are part of the game, but this paragraph completely undermines their validity and/or usage.

        Children emulate their heroes. And professional athletes are some of those heroes. For the writer of that article to proclaim that the use of PEDs or ANY other drug is an issue that only the government (or, by proxy, their parents) should regulate is ludicrous at the least. If the players don’t realize they are role models, then perhaps they shouldn’t be in the role they occupy.

      • abaird2012 - Jan 14, 2013 at 11:36 AM

        He went to the doctor. The doctor gave him a shot. That’s how they did it back in the day.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 13, 2013 at 9:21 PM

      Calling Mays and Aaron “amphetamine abusers” is a smear. They used amphetamines, which were prescription drugs. There is no evidence that they were addicted. Ridiculous. And alcohol is a performance-impeding drug” putting “anything into his body” didn’t include steroids.

      Actually, in the case of drugs and alcohol, Matthew is correct in his use of “abuse”. Substance/Drug abuse can be categorized by “consuming the substance in amounts or with methods neither approved nor supervised by medical professionals.” which is clearly what they did. Unless someone has proof that Aaron and Mays had a prescription for the amphetamines, they were, technically, drug abusers.

      • paperlions - Jan 13, 2013 at 9:26 PM

        Exactly. This is why the media can always refer to anyone that fails a test as a being punished for “abuse” and can refer to them as “abusers” with no information other than a single failed test.

      • sabatimus - Jan 13, 2013 at 10:12 PM

        Precisely. Abuse does not equal addiction.

      • blacksables - Jan 14, 2013 at 7:15 AM

        Use does not equal abuse.

        Why would you abuse a drug if you aren’t addicted to it?

      • timmmah10 - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:02 AM

        Obviously, you abuse it for the benefits of the drug, not the addiction. You’re arguing in circles to back peddle off of the fact that you don’t know what the word “abuse” means.

  6. hojo20 - Jan 13, 2013 at 8:51 PM

    This post is written by someone who is from the ESPN/Sportscenter era, with no sense of baseball history.

    • sabatimus - Jan 13, 2013 at 10:13 PM

      Your post, you mean?

  7. weaselpuppy - Jan 13, 2013 at 8:55 PM

    However, in 1987 Andre’s MVP, however iffy, was the more deserving of the two given out.

    Sincerely,

    Alan Trammell

    • kirkvanhouten - Jan 13, 2013 at 9:51 PM

      I have to object. The George Bell one was bad, but Dawson’s was much worse.

      The difference between the leader in WAR (Tony Gwynn) and Dawson 5.6, the difference between Bell and the leader (Wade Boggs) was 3.6.

      Though it was a terrible, inexcusable call, Bell was at least on of the 10 best position players that year.

      Dawson, well…not so much.

  8. vallewho - Jan 13, 2013 at 9:00 PM

    I have read that “greenies” were available in clubhouses in bowls like candy. If true, I don’t think baseball was too concerned about “prescriptions”…so that’s that.

  9. braddavery - Jan 13, 2013 at 9:05 PM

    Don’t you guys ever get tired of trashing Hall of Famers and smearing all-time greats. The endless negativity is getting pathetic. We get it, you don’t think half the players in the BBHOF are deserving and you want every player allowed in because you think every player ever cheated the game. Now write about something that matters and stop doing negative opinion pieces on Andre Dawson.

    • paperlions - Jan 13, 2013 at 9:29 PM

      I don’t know. You don’t see to ever get tired of being wrong. In fact, it bothers you so little, you never seem to take the time to learn anything new.

      MLB players have been using amphetamines and steroids since the 1960s. Why is referring to players from past generations that used PEDs the same way as players from the 1990s and 2000s suddenly “trashing Hall of Famers and smearing all-time greats”? All it is, is using the same terminology for the same actions and applying anachronistic morality equally through time.

      • braddavery - Jan 13, 2013 at 9:41 PM

        What does this have to do with what I said. Oh yeah, nothing. You are fixated on talking about PEDs. Talk to someone else. I’m sick of it. I only mentioned PEDs because most of the same people who want 20 players elected per-year are the same people who relentlessly smear current HOFers with speculative opinion pieces that are negative and needless.

      • paperlions - Jan 13, 2013 at 10:39 PM

        The point was simply that people often don’t tire of repeating themselves, a concept with which you are obviously familiar.

      • braddavery - Jan 13, 2013 at 10:47 PM

        I love it when people resort to personal attacks instead of sticking to the topic at-hand. It makes me look better when you needlessly attack me, so carry on.

      • cktai - Jan 14, 2013 at 4:22 AM

        Didn’t you start your comment with a personal attack? It seems a bit awkward at best to take the moral higher ground on personal attacks when you initiated that mode of argumentation yourself.

  10. tackleberries - Jan 13, 2013 at 9:14 PM

    Don’t you guys ever get tired of trashing Hall of Famers and smearing all-time greats. The endless negativity is getting pathetic. We get it, you don’t think half the players in the BBHOF are deserving and you want every player allowed in because you think every player ever cheated the game. Now write about something that matters and stop doing negative opinion pieces on Andre Dawson.
    ——————————————————
    Well said.

    • zzalapski - Jan 13, 2013 at 9:46 PM

      No, not really. If the writing offends him so, he should stop clicking on the articles to read them.

      • braddavery - Jan 13, 2013 at 10:08 PM

        I hope you are joking. Because it takes a real genius to tell someone who loves baseball not to read about baseball and stop stating their opinions on a comment section meant for opinions.

    • timmmah10 - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:07 AM

      You’re right, we should instead just live with the wool over our bright eyes looking fondly at players of a different era and assume that they were better people than the ones playing today because technology back then didn’t allow everything to be recorded, every story to be read, and outside of clubhouse interviews, we knew little of their lives.

      I will also say: If Ty Cobb’s racist ass is hall of fame worthy, I do not see how Pete Rose’s character keeps him out.

  11. surly1n1nd1anapol1s - Jan 13, 2013 at 9:18 PM

    Good article until the writer pathetically inserted his smear. And a totally inability to differentiate alcohol and anabolic steroids.

  12. drewzducks - Jan 13, 2013 at 9:33 PM

    I’m not sure what you all expected. He’s just getting caught up on all that has gone down since he disappeared into the Wrigley ivy.

  13. mgflolox - Jan 13, 2013 at 9:52 PM

    The one constant in baseball history is that about 99% of old-timers always think they were much better than they really were. And certainly much better than those snot-nosed upstarts playing major league baseball today. Honestly I can’t think of too many things more pathetic about ex-athletes.

    • cktai - Jan 14, 2013 at 4:27 AM

      The one constant in baseball history is that about 99% of old-timers always think they were much better than they really were. And certainly much better than those snot-nosed upstarts playing major league baseball today. Honestly I can’t think of too many things more pathetic about ex-athletes human beings in general.

      Truth be told, I fully expect to hate the mid-twentieth century youth for being useless good-for-nothing hoodlums with a total lack of respect for the elderly.

      • mgflolox - Jan 14, 2013 at 1:59 PM

        cltai, i believe you are (sadly), about 100% correct. I only hope I can avoid falling into the same sad mindset when I’m an (even older) fart.

  14. misterchainbluelightning - Jan 13, 2013 at 9:55 PM

    Another Pouliot hack job that includes his trademark attempts to troll with his opinions being stated as 100% facts. The least you could do Matt get the usage of a and an correct.
    Pouliot is a step below every blogger here

  15. portlandmainefan - Jan 13, 2013 at 10:02 PM

    “crawl back into the ivy”, why? because he doesnt answer an interview question that agrees with you? perhaps you should offer a scripting service for future interviews. what an ego!

  16. theboz55 - Jan 13, 2013 at 10:04 PM

    He was one of my favorite players growing up…I finally got a chance to meet him at the Canadian baseball hall of fame when he was inducted. I looked forward to that day for months after I knew he would be inducted.They had a signing line at the end of the day and when I finally got to meet him I couldn’t believe how rude he was. I told him he was one of my favorite players growing up and the picture he was signing would mean alot more to me after he signed it (It was an 8X10 I had on my wall since I was a kid in a Cubs jersey) and I also said what an honour it was to meet him. He just grunted and gave me a dirty look! Signed the picture and handed it back.

  17. portlandmainefan - Jan 13, 2013 at 10:07 PM

    is pouliot a borderline hall of fame reporter? does he belong up there with peter king, rick rielly, chris berman? lets discuss. perhaps pouliot could be relevant with the use of PEDs.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 13, 2013 at 10:13 PM

      does he belong up there with peter king, rick rielly, chris berman

      Rick Reilly or Chris Berman? Are you f’ing kidding me? Please dear god tell me this is an elaborate troll and you don’t honestly think those are GOOD reporters?

  18. braddavery - Jan 13, 2013 at 10:18 PM

    Hilarious that anyone would use stats like OPS and WAR to explain why players weren’t deserving of awards and HOF induction in the ’80s and back, considering OPS was started in 1984 and wasn’t widely accepted until the ’90s and WAR didn’t come around until MUCH later than that. As if people voting for awards and the BBHOF back then used those stats to come to their conclusions.

    In summation, stating that some player from the ’80s and back is better or more deserving of an award or more deserving of HOF induction than so and so from the ’80s and back because of their OPS and/or WAR is better, is completely absurd.

    • braddavery - Jan 13, 2013 at 10:26 PM

      An dyes, Tony Gwynn should have won the MVP Award in ’87. But don’t sit here and use WAR and OPS as a reason.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 13, 2013 at 10:32 PM

        Ok, how about triple slash line:

        Dawson – .287/.328/.568
        Gwynn – .370/.447/.511

        An 80 pt lead in BA and a 119 pt lead in OBP, which is the better hitter? How about a 56 to 11 SB lead for Gwynn? Or an 82 to 32 BB lead for Gwynn? Dawson was a better power hitter, but almost every other non-context stat has Gwynn > Dawson.

      • braddavery - Jan 13, 2013 at 10:36 PM

        I’m not talking about the fucking slash line. I’m not arguing that Dawson was better than Gwynn that year. Wake up.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 13, 2013 at 10:54 PM

        I’m not talking about the fucking slash line. I’m not arguing that Dawson was better than Gwynn that year. Wake up.

        Gwynn has a better BA, OBP, OPS, adjusted OPS, more steals, more walks, more 2bs, more Hits, more runs, and more triples.

        Dawson has a higher SLG%, more HRs and more RBIs.

        So how do you figure Dawson was better?

      • braddavery - Jan 13, 2013 at 10:57 PM

        Nice troll attempt.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 13, 2013 at 10:27 PM

      So you think we shouldn’t just people on better metrics than we used before? How is that logical?

      • braddavery - Jan 13, 2013 at 10:34 PM

        Because they weren’t widely recognized when those decisions were made. It is completely logical. Why does Tony Gwynn having a 7.6 WAR in 1987 over Andre Dawson’s 3.7 WAR matter when they didn’t have WAR back then to help inform their opinions.

        “Hey guys from the past, why didn’t use WAR to understand that Gwynn was much better than Dawson in 1987?”

        That’s logical?

      • ptfu - Jan 14, 2013 at 12:25 AM

        “Hey guys from the past, why didn’t you use BA, OBP, steals, walks, 2bs, hits, runs, triples, and defense to understand that Gwynn was much better than Dawson in 1987? Dawson’s SLG%, HRs, and RBIs don’t outweigh everything else.”

        Better now?

        Snarky remarks aside, we would be intellectually dishonest NOT to use the best tools available for the job. Arbitrarily restricting our analysis would be illogical.

        The goal isn’t to criticize the 1987 MVP voters, or to replicate their MVP-selecting conditions. The goal is to figure out who were the best players. Why? Because today, Andre Dawson’s comments call that into question. And so we use what we know today to determine if the Hawk’s reason has flown the coop.

  19. lakerluver - Jan 13, 2013 at 10:46 PM

    I am so tired of the HOF and some of these “holier than thou” former players. I don’t care what they did it didn’t take, Bonds, Clemens and Palmero are three of the greatest players baseball has ever seen. Baseball and it’s stats have ALWAYS been tainted. Bonds is the best player I’ve ever seen and Clemens is one of the two greatest pitchers I’ve ever seen. It’s easier to get in heaven than it is to get in the baseball HOF!!!!

  20. yahmule - Jan 13, 2013 at 10:46 PM

    Nobody here realizes when they’re being trolled?

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 13, 2013 at 11:08 PM

      http://xkcd.com/386/

  21. spanksforthememories - Jan 13, 2013 at 11:40 PM

    This bickering is pointless. Every baseball fan knows that when comes to swinging the biggest cock, there’s nobody better than Andre The Hawk.

  22. hardjudge - Jan 14, 2013 at 12:41 AM

    Such arrogance, maybe we should empty the hall and start over without the writers, broadcasters and other whiners(or winers).

  23. Tim's Neighbor - Jan 14, 2013 at 1:28 AM

    What an incredibly miserable post. A complete hack-job. Stick to fantasy analysis.

  24. Tim's Neighbor - Jan 14, 2013 at 1:56 AM

    Also, Hank Aaron only admitted to taking amphetamines once. He said this in his autobiography ‘I Had a Hammer.’ Hardly an indictment that he was a drug abuser.

    If you’re going to accuse someone, you should probably have proof or a source.

    • louhudson23 - Jan 14, 2013 at 7:56 AM

      The fact that Aaron clearly stated he tried them and did not like them is immaterial to someone capable of making the false and inane comparison of PED’s to “greenies”..The desired effect is what you get….greenies made folks jumpy….steroids made baseballs jumpy……see the difference…and Henry Aaron used neither…..well other than those years his head got big and his nuts got small and he hit 70 plus HR’s…..oh sorry,that was that other guy……….Hank is the HR King……a class act and a very nice man……

      • paperlions - Jan 14, 2013 at 8:11 AM

        Steroids didn’t make baseballs jumpy, changes in manufacturing made balls jumpy. Steroids were taken by hitters and pitchers. If you think steroids helped, then you must think that they helped both pitchers and hitters. So….what would help offense but not affect pitching? Changes to the ball which made it both bouncier and lighter due to lower ambient water absorption capacity.

        You also seem to take Aaron at his word, but think anyone from a later era is more likely to be lying about his PED use. There isn’t any factual basis to think that Aaron is any more honest than guys that played the last 20 years.

      • abaird2012 - Jan 14, 2013 at 11:48 AM

        You keep going on about how steroids are essentially useless as a PED and how amphetamines are much more effective. Let me ask you this: if steroids were so limited in their benefits, why did all these guys take tham?

      • cur68 - Jan 14, 2013 at 12:02 PM

        abaird: do Phiten necklaces’s work? Y’know, the trendy “titanium energy necklaces”? The ones every pro-athlete under the sun is wearing? I’m gong to say “no”: the do NOT do anything for you (except make you look like one of the herd). So you answer me this, then: why do players continue to wear them?

      • louhudson23 - Jan 14, 2013 at 12:14 PM

        Pitchers did not develop superhuman abilities. Hitters did.End of story.

      • cur68 - Jan 14, 2013 at 12:19 PM

        Also, the point isn’t that steroids are useless as a PED, the point is that they don’t do as much for hitting a baseball as do amphetamines. PITCHERS appear to benefit from steroids much more than hitters.

        The reasoning is simple, too. It involves a golf comparison (which I love). Hitting involves delivering a bat squarely to a ball, as does golf. But every decent golfer knows its all about contact rather than strength or speed. This is why old fat guys can beat me any day of the week you care to name: I am stronger than they are but they get better contact. They swing slower, without as much power but they square it up much more often than do I. Hence they win.

        Amphetamines and amphetamine-like drugs like adderall & ritalin greatly improve concentration and ability to react. They improve your chances of square contact and the effect is within minutes of taking the drug. Steroids on the other had, coupled with a workout regime, will build your strength and endurance over months of hard work: this is what a pitcher needs. Now of course hitters need strength, too but to a lesser extent; no point in being big and strong if your contact sucks. While the combination of the two is formidable, nevertheless the foremost thing a hitter needs is square contact with the ball.

        Incidentally, if you want to work out longer, harder, and feel full of energy go with speed every time. There’s a reason amphetamine can be found in certain legal “energy” drinks.

  25. aceshigh11 - Jan 14, 2013 at 8:34 AM

    Man, this braddavery guy is the gift that keeps on giving!

    Keep posting, pal…you’re highly entertaining. You bury yourself more with each post.

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Do Royals or A's have the edge tonight?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Jeter (3318)
  2. C. Kershaw (2499)
  3. R. Martin (2415)
  4. A. Rodriguez (2053)
  5. J. Altuve (1926)
  1. D. Gordon (1894)
  2. J. Hamilton (1835)
  3. I. Suzuki (1695)
  4. D. Ortiz (1679)
  5. Y. Cespedes (1619)