He knew he wasn’t taking tic-tacs.
Like a child being scolded by his parents, Alex Rodriguez’s bottom lip trembled as he addressed the baseball media on Tuesday and admitted and apologized for using performance enhancing substances from 2001-2003. The question that is circulating sports minds all over America is whether or not the three-time MVP was lying.
With his hair gelled back and his cheeks rosy, the red-eyed Rodriguez would have looked more natural in a low-budget porno. He constantly referred to himself as “ignorant” and “immature” when describing his past steroid use. He said that if had went to college he would have gained the maturity necessary to be a professional athlete.
He is right; he did enter the league when he was a ripe 18 years-old. But his alleged steroid years were 2001-2003 when Rodriguez was in his mid-twenties, and had already been in the Major Leagues for six seasons. He was still “immature” and “ignorant” after six seasons as a pro?
No longer is A-Rod focused on breaking Barry Bonds’ (tarnished) home run record – his goal is to eventually restore his image in the minds of baseball fans. He agreed to become a spokesman for the Taylor Hooton Foundation and will educate young people in America about the dangers of using steroids. That’s great, but it doesn’t change the fact that his career statistics, like Barry Bond’s and Mark McGwire’s, are tainted.
A quick glance at three, three-year spans of his career reveals a clear increase in his home run total in the years 2001-2003. In Rodriguez’s final three seasons with Seattle, 1998-2000, he averaged 41.67 home runs. He became a free-agent after the season and a signed a then record $252 million deal with the Texas Rangers. Once in Texas, and once he began using steroids, A-Rod’s all-star numbers became legendary: he was the first player since 1932 with 50 home runs and 200 hits in a season, and led the American League with 52 home runs, 133 runs scored, and 393 total bases.
In his three seasons with Texas, his steroid years (2001-2003), A-Rod averaged 52 home runs per season. He had secured his place as the greatest hitting shortstop ever and was on the verge of signing the most lucrative deal in major league history, again.
Before the 2004 season Rodriguez was traded to the New York Yankees for second baseman Alfonso Soriano. The wealthiest player in the league came to the wealthiest team. (Check out my article about A-Rod and the Yankees from April, 2008)
In his next three seasons, 2004-2006, Rodriguez averaged 43.7 home runs per season, a sharp decline from his three years in Texas. It is clear that Rodriguez’s home run numbers reflect his admitted steroid use from 2001-2003, yet A-Rod refused to acknowledge getting any edge from the drugs. “I’m not sure what the benefit was…” he said.
The truth will set you free, Alex.
4 Comments
Jimbo
He took steroids, great, sure he’s a cheat. Bottom Line, he’s still going to break the all time home record even if you exclude the 100+ homers he had between 01′ 03. It’s kinda tight that you left out some important points, namely that he wasn’t on steroids in ’05, and ’07 in which he had superhuman seasons receiving two mvp’s. And as for his decline to a 43.7 homerun average being indicative of him using steroids…You can attribute the contrasting averages to the fact that arlington is one of the best hitters ball parks in the league and that Yankee stadium is notoriously crappy for right handed hitters. Not to mention that averaging 43 homers a year is freaking diesel. So in conclusion get your facts straight.
ps.
Ten bux says your a Red Sox fan. COugh Bias COugh
Wesley
This article about Alex Rodriguez’s steroid use is typical of the reactions that many people had when they heard that Alex Rodriguez had admitted using steroids from 2001 to 2003 with the Texas Rangers. It is also typical in its biased approach and lack of baseball sophistication.
First, everything in baseball can be measured. Second, every hitter’s career stats follow a natural parabola, with the highest production normally occurring near a hitter’s prime (26 to 28). So if a player were getting an unfair advantage by using steroids or through any other means, it would follow that it would appear in the stats, unexplained by the natural career path. We must now ask ourselves, is there anything in Alex Rodriguez’s career, such as a jump in homeruns, that cannot be explained in the larger context of Alex’s career numbers? The answer is no.
You are right in pointing out that his homerun production in Texas (avg. 52 per season) was greater than it was in the previous three years in Seattle (avg. 41.67 per season) and the three years afterwards in New York (avg. 43.7 per season). While many are quick to point to steroids as the reason, a look at the difference in parks and his production away from home while in Seattle, Texas, and New York shows that in away games, Alex Rodriguez was the same player with Texas that he was with Seattle and even with New York. Because Texas and Seattle are in the same division, and are playing the same teams on the road, an analysis of his road production is the perfect control in an experiment to see whether or not his increase in homeruns can be entirely attributed to a difference in home parks.
During away games, Rodriguez averaged 24.7 homeruns a season from 1998 to 2000. During the “steroid years,” Alex averaged 23.3 homeruns a season during away games, fewer than he did with Seattle. From 2004 to 2006, Alex averaged 18.7 homeruns a season during away games. If steroids were the reason for his increased homerun total then his road homerun total would have increased as well. It didn’t.
Alex’s increased home run total in Texas was clearly caused by nothing other than playing in a hitter’s park, as opposed to Seattle and New York, which are notorious pitcher’s parks. So perhaps Alex was right in saying he was “not sure what the benefit was.”
zman
I am a baseball fan, not a statistician. I am a red sox fan, the yankees and their fans are all money grubbing bitches. Beyond that, you don’t have to be a fan of baseball to see that the fascination with steroid use has become a bigger problem than it is worth. Baseball is a past time. With all things traditional there are sentiments that the game has changed and become a completely different animal. Baseball lost a lot of its purity with the infusion of funds and free agency; therefore, its no longer the same past time. Players have to compete to be the best and very few become icons for certain teams because there are few career players (I would be devastated to see Jeter in anything but pinstripes). Why should players feel obligated to follow the purist approach when hitting a few homeruns means more millions to the best of the best. Arod was never going to be the center of any team because he is too talented. When Arod peaked he did so at the top of the game, from there its one way. No talented person would willingly slip away into greatness when legendary status is achievable. So why did Arod do steroids, to help him hit more homers. His comment about athletic maturity is bull, hindsight allows him to claim uncertainty when the choice was clear to him then. But now his enhancement seems not to have altered his career at all and the use of steriods has to mean something more to him, possible a good book (coloring book)deal after he retires. In summation the truth doesn’t fit into baseball because baseball is more about the intangible. Baseball heros are the stuff of legend and to be legendary in this era means doing whatever it takes. Arod doesn’t know the benefit because he doesnt know if he is a legend. Also he just might be fooling us all and trying to undermine damon role as the leadoff hitter with his controversy laden comments and this could all just be one be plan to undermine the entire yankees organization… in other words, the yankees need to pick up Ramirez next year and this steroid stuff will be child’s play
Thank God I'm Not Zman!
What is this kid saying, I hope that Zac Carman does not attend Wesleyan or hope on passing the third grade anytime soon. This is the most convoluted, loosely connected stream of ideas that has ever been written or typed.