Quote:
Originally posted by KSigkid
This is a big bump, but a question I'd thought about. With all the steroid controversy, especially around the premier home run hitters of the era (McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, etc.), does this make Griffey's accomplishments look that much greater? After all, I don't think anyone would accuse Griffey of steroid use. Does it make a difference?
|
Gammons has argued this very point, pretty much saying that it must be pretty great to be Griffey right now, after all the shit he took, because he's one of the only guys on the planet that no one has the slightest suspicion of.
I'm not sure how I think the accomplishments stack up, though . . . honestly, I just don't know. I think this will be one of the great historical issues of our (sporting) times: how does the modern baseball era stack up when viewed in hindsight?
Off the top of my head, I think Griffey gets much more HOF voting respect, but I don't think history will view this any differently than, say, Cy Young's insane W/L numbers.
Threaded Mode