Eric Gagne and the Lessons of Cheating
By mike volpe Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Eric Gagne was a struggling marginal pitcher when he burst on the scene in 2002 in his new role as closer for the Dodgers. For the next three years, he dominated in ways never seen before. He still holds the all time record for consecutive saves with the herculean total of 84. In 2003, he won the Cy Young award with 55 saves and a 1.20 ERA. I happened to catch Gagne pitch once in 2003. He finished the ninth against then Cub, Eric Karros. He started Karros off with a fastball that the stadium gun clocked at 99 MPH. His next two pitches were both change ups. One change up was clocked at 74 and the next at 72 MPH respectively. I still remember the ridiculous amount of drop that his last change up had. He made Karros look silly and it redefined the term "pull the string" normally associated with change ups. Karros career sputtered through a series of injuries and lack of production following the 2004 season and he continues to be a struggling, if not well paid, closer today.
As it turns out, it is very likely that any success that Gagne has had was most likely manufactured. Eric Gagne was one of the hundreds of names mentioned in the Mitchell Report. While there is certainly no proof, I have the strong suspicion that his success coincided with his meteoric rise. His fall also coincided with the time period that baseball finally began to test for steroids seriously.
The implications of the story of Eric Gagne and hundreds of others like him are huge and they aren't talked about nearly enough. Gagne most likely cheated his way into millions of dollars. It is of course unclear when (or even for sure if) he cheated, however it certainly appears to me that his best years were also years he cheated in. He no longer throws the fastball in the high nineties. Thus, the difference in velocity between that and his change up is no longer the obscene 25 miles that I used to see. It appears that the un hittable closer that we witnessed in 2002-2004 was created chemically.
Again, the implications of this are massive. Gagne was a marginal player that struggled to make a major league roster prior to 2002. Then, out of the blue, he became one of the most dominant pitchers in baseball. This year he is being paid 10 million dollars. Without performance enhancing drugs, he likely would have long been out of the league. Instead, he is being paid 8 figures to struggle and rehabilitate.
If my suspicions are accurate, he not only cheated his way into fame, fortune, and baseball immortality, but worse than that, he took the spot of someone who didn't fall to the same urges. Because Gagne did not resist those urges, he is now rewarded with a Cy Young, a place in baseball's record books, and ten's of millions of dollars. He didn't just cheat to gain an edge, but he cheated to manufacture a life. Meanwhile, this life that he created took the place of someone else who didn't fall to those same urges. Not only is that unfair, but frankly it is tragic. How do we teach the lessons of cheating to our youth when clearly they paid off so well for Eric Gagne?
cross posted @ The Provocateur
That is just nonsense
by mike volpe
First, it is well known fact that roids help you recover and thus can make you less injury prone. I don't think it is mere coincidence that Gagne suddenly became injury prone at the exact same time testing became popular. Second of all, who cares how many strike outs he had in a given year. Strike outs are the most over rated statistic in baseball.
There are lots of folks that dominate the minors. That means absolutely nothing. He was a marginal pitcher that would struggle to make the major league roster right up to the point that the Mitchell report has him cheating. That means he artificially created a career. He never would have made ten million dollars, never would have won a Cy Young, and never would have broken the all time consecutive saves record, without cheating, period. He turned himself from a nobody to the most dominating pitcher in baseball by cheating. That is how he stole someone else's career. He had no business being a Cy Young so he cheated his way to being one, and his reward is a lucrative contract and a comfortable life. That is not right.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
Whoa now
by Alberta
several things, but this first, because this absolutely blew me away: Strikeouts are overrated.
Huh? Excuse me? Who told you this? Why did you believe them?
Bill James, for one, would not agree. Strikeouts are in fact the most telling stat about a pitcher, as it relates to whether or not they can get people out. Not to get to into it, but if I remember correctly, a pitchers job was to get people out. The most overrated stat is wins. The ability to strike people out and not get hit (Ks, and Hits Againts) are actually the most important stats.
Again, not trying to be a douche, but numbers have huge importance in baseball. They allow us to actually see what is happening. For instance, Gagnes numbers allow us to see he had the ability to get people out (those overrated strikeouts you refer to). Their are plenty of people who start out as bad starters and then get switched to relievers and get good, and vice versa. Gagne, as a starter, would not have been able to get by on two pitches. As a reliever, he could. A 'bad' starter (again, his whip as a starter is a shade over 1, so he wasnt terrible) being a good closer is actually a pretty common occurance.
Heres one for yah: Gagne was pitching against people who were on steriods. Does this make his accomplishment more hardcore to you, or less?
no one needs to tell me that
by mike volpe
strike outs is an overrated statistic. If you understand baseball at all you will know that. All a lot of strike outs means is that more of your outs are of the strike out variety. Most sluggers amass a lot of strike outs, and that doesn't mean they are bad hitters. all it means is that their big swings make them more susceptible. I have seen pitchers strike out the side and give up six runs in between the three outs they recorded as strike outs. The fact that all you could muster in defense of Gagne's early years is his propensity to strike people out only means that he got the majority of his outs as strike outs. It doesn't mean he got the majority of his hitters out, just that most of the outs he got were strike outs.
This is not about a pitcher that struggled as a starter and then became a reliever. This is about a pitcher that struggled, cheated, and suddenly dominated, and then as soon as he stopped cheating struggled again.
The everybody else was doing it defense is ludicrous. Just because others were cheating didn't give Gagne the moral authority to cheat himself. I notice that you never refer to what he did as cheating. I have a feeling that you don't consider taking steroids cheating but it is.
The simple fact of the matter is this. Gagne was a marginal pitcher that struggled to make a major league roster. Then, he cheated and become a cy young winner. Then, he stopped cheating and became a marginal pitcher again, not before he won a Cy Young, made the record books, and amassed millions in earnings. That isn't right and all the wrong lessons are learned.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
strikeouts are relevant because they're outs and accumulating outs is what pitchers are supposed to do.
The greatest relevance of strikeouts is this: to record the out, all the pitcher needs is a catcher who catches strike three. No one has to field a ball & make a throw to a base; no one has to track down a fly ball & get the ball back in.
Pitchers who pile up strikeouts ask less of their defense than the guys who don't; pitchers who 'pitch to contact' are dependent upon their defense to record outs, pitchers who strike guys out, less so.
Strikeouts aren't everything, but they're not irrelevant either.
Adding some data to the argument
by BD57
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2617
your wrong on your simple facts
by Alberta
Gagne was not a marginal pitcher. A marginal starter for the Dodgers, that can be argued. But a guy who can get it up at 95+ with his change plus the other breaking pitches that he had would never be described as marginal. If you look at his minor league numbers you will easily see that he was going to be called up. When he was called up he struggled as a starter. This is not new for pitchers. When he was switched to relief, he dominated. Again, this chain of events is not new in baseball.
The crux of your argument is the timing of his cheating. You maintain that he struggled as a starter, cheated, then became dominate. I would disagree because Gagne has had his plus fastball throughout his career (including his minor league career). It would appear to me that he was always cheating, or at least was cheating when he made the roster. A change in how he was used allowed him to be dominate (SP vs RP), although I will acknowledge that some of his 'stuff' may be attributable to his use of steriods (which we all know are not magic pills that make you bigger, rather they allow one to work out for longer periods as they mask the muscle fatigue one feels, also they can accelerate muscle growth, ect.).
Now why is he struggling now? His injuries have caused him to lose some of his 'stuff'. His inability to do steroids has affected his confidence, along with the fact that being injured didnt help (doesnt trust his body, ect.). I would suggest his use of steriods probably accelerated his getting injured. He didnt struggle until he got injured. He stopped using after he got hurt.
I just dont know how much steroids help pitchers. Roger Clemens took steriods to maintian what he already had. He used them as a way to elongate his career. I do not tend to agree with your assertion that steriods gave Gagne magical talent. He already had talent, which he then used steriods to maximize.
Ill be quick with this. The game of baseball revolves around ABs. For a hitter, the best he can possibly do in an AB is hit a homerun. For a pitcher, the best he can possibly do is record a strikeout. Why is a homerun the best outcome for a hitter? Because the point of baseball is to score runs. A pitch hit out of the ballpark has no chance of being caught. Anything hit inside the park has the possibility of being caught. Follow? Good. Now lets switch angles and look at the AB from a pitchers perspective. Any time a pitcher throws a pitch it has a certian probability it will get hit, and on top of that a certain probability it will get caught by the defence, or it will get through the defence. Any ball put in play is thus a risk. I will repeat, because you seem to be a little confused on this point. ANY BALL PUT INTO PLAY BY THE BATTER HAS A CHANCE TO LAND FAIR, OR LEAVE THE PARK FOR A HOMERUN. This is exactly why strikeouts are so desired. A strikeout means that the batter was not able to put the ball into play. A ball not put into play has a 0% chance of landing fair, or leaving the park for a homerun.
Again, I repeat: A BALL NOT PUT INTO PLAY HAS A ZERO PERCENT CHANCE OF LANDING FAIR OR LEAVING THE PARK FOR A HOMERUN. This is the very simple, and I thought obvious, reason why strikeouts are not overrated. A pitcher who can get all 27 outs via strikeouts is worth much more than a pitcher who attempts to get all 27 outs via groundballs, because every groundball has a chance of being a hit for the batter.
This is going round and round
by mike volpe
and so this will be my last post. First, the best a pitcher can do in any at bat is a double play or even a triple play and thus claiming a strike out is the best out is false regardless. Again, if the only stat that a pitcher has that's good is strike outs, then he isn't much of a pitcher. That was the only stat you used to back up your assertion that Gagne was good prior to cheating. That means he wasn't very good at all. You somehow overlooked his 5 ERA or the fact that he gave 20 plus homers in each of the two years he started even though he barely broke 150 Innings pitche. The simple fact of the matter was that he wasn't a very good pitcher prior to cheating. There is no denying this. Your only defense to this is that he struck out a lot of batters. He didn't. Most of his outs were strike outs, but in fact he gave up lots of hits walks and especially homeruns in the middle of the strike outs.
He had a good fastball, not a fastball that reached near 100. Again, when I saw Gagne, in the middle of his cheating and dominance, he went from a 99 MPH fastball, to a 74 MPH chage up, to a 72 MPH change up. That is NOT merely good stuff, but stuff that is unhittable, and if you don't think that was done chemically you are naive.
If steroids don't make you better, why were so many people taking them? Give me a break. The guy was a marginal pitcher and become dominant, and is now marginal again, and the time line just happens to coincide with his cheating. He just happens to become totally injury prone right when he stops cheating. It is all a mere coincidence. I don't think so.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
Gagne is a roider and all that. Cool.
I think you have misdiagnosed the guys career a little. Specifically I would argue these points:
Gagne was a starter prior to 2002. Although not a Cy Young caliber starter, he did have 239 ks in 283 innings. Not great, but not terrible either. His minor leaque numbers are sick. He was no AAA schlub. He was a major leaguer.
Now onto your point about roiding up. Of course roids will make you physically stronger, but I dont think his success wasa based on his physic. I do agree with you that his success is somewhat roid related. I think the roids gave the francophone a huge boost of confidence. This confidence is what allowed Gagne to dominate. We all know Gagne is a head case, his recent comments about closing being an example. His mental fragility is what I would blame most in his decline.
Aha you say, you ignore his lost velocity. Let me address it. As you pointed out, Gagne was hit with a string of injuries. I am fairly certian these injuries are what caused the loss in velocity, not stopping taking roids. However, not being able to take roids, which really messed with his confidence, coupled with his decline in ability has certianly made Gagne a mere mortal.
Your last point, in all honesty, is what irked me. I think the claim the Gagne stole someone elses money is a little bit of a stretch. If there had been no Gagne in the universe, his contract would not have been awarded. A person of less abilities would have received a contract worth less. A person with more ability...
Dont get me wrong, I dislike roiders. Gagne was not the only one doing roids, however. My own personal feelings is that at least half the league was on the juice, and under a truth test Id put it at 80%. It does send the wrong message to the youth when these people are rewarded. Agree totally on that. Next time, just use a yankee to make your point, us Canucks stick together (even for a quebecor, yah I know).