O/T - Why is Barry Larkin exempt from Roid talk?

[bigtruck260]

You know, in 1996, he had a huge year - 33 HR and 89 RBI. His next biggest year was 1990 - and he hit a whopping 20 HR. He never came close after 1996.

With all of the critcizm of players in that era (which Larkin was a part of) has he never been associated with them? Not knocking Barry, he was a great player - and likely did not juice, I'm just wondering why nobody has ever lumped him in with other guys who had 'incredible' breakout seasons from 1996 on...

Not trying to be controversial, just asking a question.

[suave1477]

Hello Dave,

Not sure I follow you on this one. Your asking why isn't Larkin being questioned because of one above average season with home runs in baseball?

Most players in baseball or for that fact in any sport have one great season. It's just natural ability.

Something just clicks for you in one season, your feeling good, seeing the ball better, more relaxed, under a different manager or coach which you feel more comfortable with.

I don't think having just one above average season woulf strike a red flag of using PED's

I repeat saying above average because during the 90's it was getting more common for players to hit over 20 Home Runs a season and possibly hitting over 30.
If he hit 50 maybe 40. I would have a concern. But 33 really doesn't draw attention for me.

[earlywynnfan]

I agree, and I'm a big fan of Larkin's. This, to me, is the biggest problem with all the steroids: Nobody is immune to questions.

I'll give you another one: Last spring, I believe, some major magazine wrote how we all should root for Albert Pujols, because he's 1) a really nice guy, 2) an incredible player, and 3) CLEAN!! Now, no way am I sitting here saying Pujols is on anything. But I'm supposed to go to games and root him on like a diehard fan because I "know" he's clean? How do I know that??? I've never seen a Dominican this big before, have you? Not to be stereotypical, but aren't they supposed to be little guys? Heck, how many baseball players in general were this big before 1980? (I'll spot you Howard, Radatz, Conley, and Greenberg. Heck, Jimmie Foxx was known as the Beast and he wasn't close!)

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

[2000mvpfan]

Suave-
I don't know about that..I'm sure sometimes a guy can be locked in.But when a guy like Brady Anderson,who never hit more than 24 in a season,suddenly hits 50...there's more than just being in the zone at work.


Joe

[suave1477]

Earlywynn in from New York City and we have a few Dominican communities here and I have a some Dominican friends. They are not at all small. There are big ones and small ones just like any other culture.

Just an FYI Pujols is not all that big. He is 6'3 210 lbs.

In comparison

I am 6'2 225lbs
David Ortiz 6'4 230lbs
Vladimir Guerrero 6'3 235lbs

[suave1477]

Suave-
I don't know about that..I'm sure sometimes a guy can be locked in.But when a guy like Brady Anderson,who never hit more than 24 in a season,suddenly hits 50...there's more than just being in the zone at work.


Joe

Joe ok but I said that

[cjclong]

But if the whole thing with Brady Anderson was steroids the year he hit 50 home runs why would he have taken them only for his max home run year and then stopped. Why wouldn't he have taken them the next year and hit 40 or 50 again. That would not make much sense to stop after his big year. And the same thing could be said of Roger Maris who hit 61 home runs in 1961 and never hit as many as 40 before or after that. And I don't hear Maris being accused of being a steroid user in 1961.

[bigtruck260]

Correction Suave...

Albert is more like 6' 2"" and 230-240. EVERYONE who played in the era will be questioned...my point of the thread is that after A-Rod got popped, everyone in my mind will make me wonder. Sure there are guys that I have 100% confidence never juiced - Tony Gwynn comes to mind...but almost everyone.

Did you ever see the size of Ron Gant up close? Glenn Braggs was also ripped like Mr. Universe - Dante Bichette had forearms like a colossus...and Bagwell could have spilt at the seams.

I mean, even a smaller guy like Larkin might have tried them out just to see what they could do for him. I know that sometimes guys get locked in, but hitting 33 homers in a season is a power hitting shortstop...something Larkin was certainly not.

Maybe he didn't like them, maybe he thought someone would catch him....all purely speculative and really stuff that I thought of when I saw him in the dugout for the American WBC team.

I am totally being a devil's advocate here - but for me, seeing a guy like Barry, who was pretty consistent as an average line drive hitter with 10-20 homers yearly become a power hitter the same year Caminiti won the MVP on dope makes me wonder a little bit.

Brady Anderson too - I would love to believe that his diet was great and his performance peaked that season...and the endorsement from all of his teammates helps - BUT...

[AWA85]

Coming from a major Larkin fan, my thoughts will probably be a little bias.

Larkin was never healthy at all. The season he hit 33, he played 152 games (very good for him). I believe in his prime years before this he only played in about a 100 games to a 130, followed by missing half a season after the 33 home run year.

Not exactly great ways to draw comparisons when a player misses that much time due to injury.

This just might be me, but if he was on the juice I think he would have been a lot healthier. In a 19 year career, only playing more than a 140 games 7 times stands out. (Off topic, but think this may be the one thing that hurts him in getting in the HOF, if he played a little more the numbers would have been automatic)

My final review, Larkin is clean.... time to review Mr. Pujols

[corsairs22]

On Larkin's 33 homers in 96: it's possible that the hitters who used steroids worked over pitching staffs so badly that even those hitters who were not on the juice had an easier time hitting.