|
|
Post by Chewey on Sept 4, 2006 9:13:09 GMT -5
It's September 4th, and yesterday sophomore Ryan Howard hit three home runs to raise his total to 50 for the season. So begs the question, will he be the first player in the "post-steroid era" to reach 60 home runs since Roger Maris?
I think eight home runs in the next month should be a piece of cake for him, personally.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Sept 4, 2006 12:48:06 GMT -5
I think Howard will reach 60. He's on fire right now, and eight is very doable.
The third option you gave is a sad one, but it's unfortunately a part of baseball. Ironically, it probably has very little to do with Barry Bonds(who has never failed a drug test) or the relative few who have been PROVEN to be steroid users.
Baseball's legendary heroes have been glorified and exaggerated more than those of any other sport, and it has always been hard for the average fan to comprehend how a no-name guy like Ryan Howard could possible put up numbers that Mickey Mantle couldn't do.
In reality, it is because of the way these players were portrayed by a media who felt it was their job to make these athletes larger than life. Baseball is a sport built on propaganda, and the belief of that propaganda is the real reason that many Americans cannot watch Ryan Howard or Albert Pujols without at least a little skepticism.
Throw in the fact that the majority of this generation's superstars are something other than white, while most baseball's fans are still something other than an ethnic minority, and the skepticism becomes even more predominant.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephenvegas on Sept 4, 2006 13:07:24 GMT -5
Based on how hot Howard has been at the plate, I voted yes. I heard on Baseball Tonight yesterday that Howard makes less than $400,000 because he only has a couple years of exeperience- what a deal for the Phillies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Breath on Sept 4, 2006 13:26:34 GMT -5
Baseball's legendary heroes have been glorified and exaggerated more than those of any other sport, and it has always been hard for the average fan to comprehend how a no-name guy like Ryan Howard could possible put up numbers that Mickey Mantle couldn't do. In reality, it is because of the way these players were portrayed by a media who felt it was their job to make these athletes larger than life. Baseball is a sport built on propaganda, and the belief of that propaganda is the real reason that many Americans cannot watch Ryan Howard or Albert Pujols without at least a little skepticism. Throw in the fact that the majority of this generation's superstars are something other than white, while most baseball's fans are still something other than an ethnic minority, and the skepticism becomes even more predominant. I think Howard makes it as well. I do not understand where you are coming from when you label Howard as a "no-name" guy. The Phillies considered him a blue chip prospect for years. He was stuck behind Jim Thome at first base for a short while. When Thome went down last season, Howard stepped in and won the Rookie of the Year award. The Phils got rid of Jim Thome because they considered Howard better. and Howard hasn't put up Mantle numbers ......yet. The skepticism regarding the perfromance of todays baseball players has nothing to do with media or propaganda. Its because Major League Baseball (and the Players Union) chose to ignore their "performance enhancement" problem until it was too late. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Sept 4, 2006 14:43:18 GMT -5
Baseball's legendary heroes have been glorified and exaggerated more than those of any other sport, and it has always been hard for the average fan to comprehend how a no-name guy like Ryan Howard could possible put up numbers that Mickey Mantle couldn't do. In reality, it is because of the way these players were portrayed by a media who felt it was their job to make these athletes larger than life. Baseball is a sport built on propaganda, and the belief of that propaganda is the real reason that many Americans cannot watch Ryan Howard or Albert Pujols without at least a little skepticism. Throw in the fact that the majority of this generation's superstars are something other than white, while most baseball's fans are still something other than an ethnic minority, and the skepticism becomes even more predominant. I think Howard makes it as well. I do not understand where you are coming from when you label Howard as a "no-name" guy. The Phillies considered him a blue chip prospect for years. He was stuck behind Jim Thome at first base for a short while. When Thome went down last season, Howard stepped in and won the Rookie of the Year award. The Phils got rid of Jim Thome because they considered Howard better. and Howard hasn't put up Mantle numbers ......yet. The skepticism regarding the perfromance of todays baseball players has nothing to do with media or propaganda. Its because Major League Baseball (and the Players Union) chose to ignore their "performance enhancement" problem until it was too late. When I refer to Howard as a "No-name" guy, I mean it in the sense that he is someone who, to the average person, came out of nowhere to win the Home Run derby and be the lead-in on SportsCenter. A similar situation, if the record was still 61, would have been Benitio Santiago in 1987. It was commonly suggested by media types and talking heads that it would just not be right for someone like Santiago to break Dimaggio's 56-game hitting streak. Lucky for the sanctity of the game, Benny's streak was snapped at 39 (I believe). It was also suggested that Marris was not the "right guy" to break the Babe's single-season record. Major League Baseball also ignored the use of "Greenies" for decades, but no one seems upset about that when talking about all-star hitters who played pretty much any time after the early 1960s. Point taken about Howard and Mantle, until Ryan hits 60 this season. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Breath on Sept 4, 2006 15:26:08 GMT -5
Howard is clearly perorming at a higher level than he has in the past. However, it was expected that he would have a good year. Admittedly, I don't think many were expecting this good of a year.
I don't see how anyone except the extremely casual fan would not be aware of Howard before and during the season.
I don't know exactly where you are going with this. There was nothing but positive media coverage of Jimmy Rollins hit streak last year (and the begginning of this year) and Chase Ultey's streak this year. I don't think there's been a whole lot of "sanctity of the game" crap for a very long time.
Agreed, but once again, this was a different era. Everyone pulled for McGwire, Sosa and Bonds when they had their big years.
I don't have a clue what your point is.
Howard has A LOT more work to do before he's mentioned in the same breath as Mantle. One great year just puts a dent into it........and this is coming from a Phillies fan.
|
|
|
|
Post by JimSteel on Sept 4, 2006 17:04:18 GMT -5
Being a Philly Fan I follow him and the Phillies
He will break 60 homers easily unless he gets hurt and I also think he will be the NL MVP this year
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Sept 4, 2006 18:03:35 GMT -5
Howard is clearly perorming at a higher level than he has in the past. However, it was expected that he would have a good year. Admittedly, I don't think many were expecting this good of a year. I don't see how anyone except the extremely casual fan would not be aware of Howard before and during the season. I don't know exactly where you are going with this. There was nothing but positive media coverage of Jimmy Rollins hit streak last year (and the begginning of this year) and Chase Ultey's streak this year. I don't think there's been a whole lot of "sanctity of the game" crap for a very long time. Agreed, but once again, this was a different era. Everyone pulled for McGwire, Sosa and Bonds when they had their big years. I don't have a clue what your point is. Howard has A LOT more work to do before he's mentioned in the same breath as Mantle. One great year just puts a dent into it........and this is coming from a Phillies fan. I'll respond in points. --Phillies fans expecting Howard to have a good year and his explosion on to the national scene by (possibly) being the first guy since the advent of steroid testing to eclipse 60 home runs is two vastly different things. --Granted there was a lot of positive stuff said about Rollins and Utley. The Santiago thing just sticks out in my mind. As for those chasing home run marks, I don't know what sport you were following. Everyone pulled for McGwire during his big year. Sosa was just sort of along for the ride. I think about 10 people outside San Francisco and Bonds' family members pulled for him to surpass McGwire. The implication that it was Bonds' alleged steroid use cannot hold water,either, as Andro was found in McGwire's locker during the 1998 season. --I mentioned greenies because they are uppers that MLB players have taken for decades to keep them going from day-to-day throughout the course of the season. By definition, they are performance enhancers. --I didn't mean to imply that Howard was in Mantle's league. The reference was solely in regards to 60 homers. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Breath on Sept 4, 2006 18:37:35 GMT -5
EVERYONE was expecting a good year from Howard. Particularly after he had a phenominal spring training. He "exploded" on the national scene before the year even began. Here's an article from Fox Sports, April 3rd, predicting that Howard figures to be an "offensive monster". There's a ton of articles just like this. msn.foxsports.com/fantasy/story/5469386I don't see the vast difference. Every great player has a breakout season. This is Howard's. With continued dedication and a good amount of luck (injuries, etc.) Howard has a chance to become one of the greats. It is rare for a player to play at (what I believe to be) his full potential in his second major league season (although at 25 he is a bit old for a second year player). Dude, everyone loved Sammy in '98. People started doing that stupid hand to the heart and mouth thing in public. Both guys were being pulled for equally, until McGwire pulled away from Sammy at the end of the season. I'll concede the Bonds point. His support was lukewarm at best. I also agree that this had nothing to do with 'roids, for two reasons. 1. We were still in the end stages of MLB ignoring its problem. 2. Barry Bonds may be the biggest jerk to ever compete in any sport. There are many well documented stories about his professional career and collegiate career to support this. In the context of the rules of the game, Andro was perfectly legal. If I recall correctly, McGwire wasn't hiding it. I think your point is fair in principle, but not in practice. Caffiene is a performance enhancer. Sudafed is a performance enhancer (I couldn't take it for a cold when I wrestled in college). "Greenies" were legal until very recently. Its a topic that is interesting to discuss, but I don't see how it has a place in this discussion. Just as I believe neither "propaganda" nor race has anything to do with baseball's current woes. And I believe Howard is clean. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Sept 4, 2006 22:45:32 GMT -5
Let's also keep in mind that Howard plays in an extremely favorable home run environment. Citizen's Bank Park last year carried a Park Factor of 108 (learn about PFs here.) And the bulk of that increased scoring was due to it being a very HR-happy yard. I'm not saying this to denigrate Howard's accomplishments, I'm just bringing it up because it's an indisputable fact. The point I'm really trying to get at is that we tend to think of "great years" as being in a neutral-scoring environment, at least for the modern era. Howard's hitting a ton of homers but I don't know if it's a truly legendary offensive year, because he doubtless would have hit fewer bombs if he were playing for the Dodgers or the Braves. Citizens Bank is still a new park and it can take several years before we have a good grasp on how it affects scoring. All that being said, Howard's home/road splits are nearly identical, so clearly he's hitting the stuffing out of the ball. Two things on Bonds: I was one of the last guys to jump on the anti-Barry bandwagon and I supported him throughout the '90s and early '00s while he was being blasted as a "playoff choker" and all that crap. That said, his head has seemingly grown exponentially since his time in Pittsburgh and he is, plain and simply, a jackass. Not a black or white issue, he just is. I think he's the best player of his generation even with the juice (he was always, *always* better than Ken Griffey, Jr.) but it sure isn't easy to root for him. I have to completely disagree on the notion that people are skeptical about Pujols. Oh, I'm not saying nobody's mentioned the s-word in regards to him, but right now Pujols is *the* face of the sport in the eyes of the media. He's full of Hustle, Desire, he Plays the Game the Right Way, he's a Team Leader...he's the Derek Jeter of the National League. Without meaning to, I've brought up three non-white names in this post who rarely get a second thought from the mainstream media and mainstream fans. Further, Gary Sheffield, who has the reputation of being an a-hole himself, *admitted* to using steroids (albeit not knowingly), and *he* seems to be getting a pass as well. And has anyone ever heard a bad word about David Ortiz? The steroid era is one instance where I'm not buying into the race issue. If today's players are viewed with suspicion...well, baseball (the players, the owners, and the commissioner) have brought that onto themselves. Two final footnotes: - I voted yes in the poll. That *is* what this topic was about, right? - Interesting how half of the Carolina Panthers' defensive line from its Super Bowl team have been linked to steroid use (and their punter, too), yet 99% of the coverage of steroids in the media focuses solely on baseball. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Sept 4, 2006 22:51:10 GMT -5
I also agree that Howard isn't some B-prospect who surprised everybody. The very day the Phillies signed Jim Thome to a 6-year deal, various baseball analysts (the ones who actually pay attention to minor league prospects, not your usual ESPN/talk radio mediots) were wondering what the logic behind that was when they had a premier 1st base prospect in Howard. (At the time, I was stunned because I was an Indians fan who hoped and expected that Thome would spend his entire career in Cleveland.)
Anyway, turns out they were right. Thome's signing got fans' hopes up that the Phillies were serious about being contenders, but he became superfluous less than halfway through his contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by ThePunisher on Sept 4, 2006 23:49:23 GMT -5
Yes
He is going to be the first non-roided player since Maris to hit 60.
And the MLB loves it because it makes the game look much much better in the entire roid controversy.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwffantrav on Sept 5, 2006 23:01:33 GMT -5
There is no doubt most of those guys were on roids, however, a lot of the home runs probably came from quick expansion and a downside of pitchers, plus more hitter friendly ball parks.
While roids are probably to blame on much of it…have you seen the pitching in the last 10 years?!?! Toooo many teams and not enough good pitchers will equal more home runs every time.
|
|
|
|
Post by JimSteel on Sept 9, 2006 10:38:33 GMT -5
The question should be changed to will he hit 70 home rune now
He is on a major roll and after yesterdays two home runs he now has 56 home runs
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Sept 9, 2006 11:59:14 GMT -5
There is no doubt most of those guys were on roids, however, a lot of the home runs probably came from quick expansion and a downside of pitchers, plus more hitter friendly ball parks. While roids are probably to blame on much of it…have you seen the pitching in the last 10 years?!?! Toooo many teams and not enough good pitchers will equal more home runs every time. There is a lot of truth to this, too. One other point I would like to comment on is the notion that position players gave themselves an unfair advantage through the use of perfromance enhancing supplements. With the revelation that a journeyman pitcher like Jason Grimsley was found to be a user of HGH, one has to consider that hitters weren't really gaining that much of an advantage since they were going to the plate against pitchers that were juicing, too. |
|
|
|
Post by Chewey on Sept 9, 2006 15:19:26 GMT -5
Well, after a down season in home runs last year, the home runs seem to have risen again this year, substance abuse testing or not.
One theory I have heard is that baseball, in compensation for its non-roided players, have ordered all of the major league umpires to squeeze the strike zone so that players will hit more home runs again. I haven't noticed that, and I doubt this is true, as it doesn't seem like strikeouts have really gone down this season.
But yeah, four more home runs for Howard? Hell, he may have that before the weekend is over!
|
|
