Oh Barry. What are we going to do with you? As I type this, I am watching the Nats - Giants game to see if Barry will hit number 756. #756! Wow.Too bad I don't really care all that much. The whole thing is a fiasco. But it has been for years anyway and it sure as hell isn't Bonds' fault.
Bud Selig would like to pretend that this whole thing is an affront to his pal Hank Aaron. Aaron, for his part, won't criticize Bonds publicly but refuses to show up to see his record broken either. The whole thing stinks.
I loved Selig's reaction when Bonds tied the record last week. He stood there with a dazed look on his face with his hands planted firmly in his pockets. What an ass. Any commissioner who cared at all about the integrity of the game would have tried to do something a dozen years ago when it became obvious that many players were juicing. He can blame the union all he wants but he couldn't even get steroids banned until three years ago or so. Not to mention, the way they test and what they test for is still a joke.
Back in '98, I was swept up in the whole hysteria. McGwire, Sosa, Gonzalez et al looked like superheroes. In fact, the ad campaign from that era celebrated that fact with comic book drawings. I suspected that something was up but hey, if the powers-that-be didn't seem concerned, I guess I could buy that the players looked the way they did because of good nutrition and weight training.
As a kid, I always hoped that someone would hit 62 homeruns but no one even got close. When two players broke that mark in the same year, something was clearly amiss, right? But as Bonds would say, "Whatever dude." No one cared when Bonds broke the record three years later. 500 career homeruns is the new 400. Without steroids, McGwire is Dave Kingman. He'll never get into the Hall of Fame.
Bonds should though. And on the first ballot. And not just because his pre-steroid years are worthy of the Hall. But for another reason. If I'm not mistaken, the Hall stipulates that a player should be voted in if he is the best of his era. Bonds absolutely dominated his era. A player like Palmeiro did not and should not get in. McGwire didn't even have 2000 career hits.
It's such a shame about Bonds. Without steroids, he probably would have hit somewhere in the neighborhood of Willie Mays' career total of 660. Maybe more. 755, 714, 660, 586. Those numbers used to stand for something. To me, they still do. I believe that Frank Thomas' and Ken Griffey's career totals will stand for something. But McGwire, Palmeiro, Canseco, Gonzalez, Sosa, bleh.
And what to do with Bonds? Watch the games, see what happens. For better or for worse, this is baseball history. I'm also very amused by the Bay Area coverage (as evidenced by the picture above). I love the fact that during commercial breaks, we get to follow Bonds' every move from the field to the bench to the on-deck circle. Truly brilliant.
Homerun numbers used to mean something very important to baseball. They increasingly don't now. People just don't care as much as they used to because it is hard to put these numbers into context. Yes, baseball has had many different eras - some are majorly skewed to offense (1930's) and some to pitching (1960's). But over the course of a career, the numbers balanced out. Aaron, Ruth, Mays, Robinson.
Now there's too much crap mixed in there. Sosa? Come on, that's a joke. If Bonds had fit in nicely between Robinson and Mays, he would have been thought of as one of the best players of all time. Now his numbers say that he is the best of all time, but most people don't agree. But the beauty of Bonds is that he really does not care about that kind of stuff.
As I was finishing this post, Bonds just hit 756. I think the guy who caught it was wearing a Mets jersey. Nice. Selig got his wish - he wasn't there tonight - instead he sent a representative. What a weenie.
Wow, Hank Aaron sent a video message congratulating Bonds that was just played on the scoreboard. I was hoping that he'd give Bonds a big fuck you. Unfortunately, he is too classy for that.
Bonds is a heel, but I've always liked him. He's always made me laugh with his off-the-wall comments.
Alex Rodriguez is going to break the record in a few years anyway so it doesn't really matter, does it? And for me, I don't care about these records all that much anymore anyway. It is all about the game itself and it is still the best sport there is. It is just a shame that the numbers don't mean much anymore and that one of the greatest players of all time is and always will be vilified because of his actions.
15 comments:
The Sosa/McGwire battle of 98 was the beginning of the end for me. I could've cared less about those two guys, Sosa with that ridiculous forced hop after hitting any sort of fly ball and McGwire with the most awkward thick neck's handshake at home plate, yet people, not only fans, went nuts. All that saving baseball crap makes me want to barf. I hope McGwire and Sosa NEVER come close to getting into the Hall of Fame.
"But the beauty of Bonds is that he really does not care about that kind of stuff."
I completely agree with you except for the above line - the undeniable fact that Bonds is an egomaniac who is prone to jealousy, rage, isolationism and unsympathetic behavior is one of the reasons all this has happened in the way that it's happened.
He does care - about himself and his so-called "place in history" - and the beautiful irony is that in the process of working to cement it (legally or otherwise), he's also trivialized it.
What a dick.
nice work on bringing all of the weird feelings and awkwardness of this whole situation together. i'm glad that it's over with and i expressed a similar sentiment in a quick tossed-off entry:
http://www.balgavy.com/apes/archives/2007/08/756.html
mitch, good point. i like his comments about the ball though. i should really read game of shadows.
i think a better wording would have been to say bonds is not sentimental. as cool as i am to bonds, i do love his take on the balls and his indifference to them, which is the complete opposite of a-rod and the yuckees. seriously, a signed clemens jersey in exchanged for a-rod's 500th? what a joke! a-rod has deep pockets, he should just buy the damn thing off the (soon to be not)poor schlub.
truly great post, LM. Except I agree w/ Mitch as well.
What did Bonds say about the ball?
dn
Agreed- great post. Bonds doesn't need the ball anyway, as he has been taking his jersey and gloves after every home run, signing them and vacuum packing them for later sale. 40 shirts might fetch more than 1 ball, especially as the one with real value will be the last home run ball he hits before he retires.
I really enjoyed this post, and truth be told have been enjoying this baseball season. Although I dont give a fig about any of this Bonds stuff...
BUT F baseball. They get what they deserve with all there BS records and hollier than thou crap I am glad to see them get draged threw the mud like the pompus windbags they have collectively been since like 1913...I actually think all this crap is why baseball is popular again BECAUSE they have been knocked off their high horse and a are a fucked up embarrising mutt like the rest of us, I know it makes me enjoy it more....
And baseball the best sport PULEEZE!!!! Maybe top 10 though....
I was inspired to buy Game of Shadows prior to getting on the train last night. It's totally gripping so far--I almost can't put it down. LM--I'll pass it on to you when I'm done.
dn
Is anyone else loving Bronx is Burning?!?! I know I am....its also fun to play count the character actors....every single actor is recognizable!
My fave is the reporter who was the sad sack friend in Ferris Bueller!
chris,
i'm digging it. each episode gets better. i knew that reportet looked familiar but i couldn't quite place it.
jamie sent a few of us this link --
http://www.minorleagueball.com/story/2007/8/8/19132/17335
to which dave wrote this - reprinted with permission, of course.
"1. Ruth and Gehrig's failure to play against black players was not the result of any cheating on their part. I assume that's not his point, but his first paragraph is so muddled I make that assumption with hesitation. To the extent his point is simply that the game has been played, and player performance necessarily must be measured, differently in different eras (for a whole variety of reasons), who among us can argue. That is why, on the rare occasions on which I have thought about the "greatest player of all time" debate, I don't think it's close between Bonds and Ruth. The only way you can engage in that debate under Sickels' premise is to consider the performance of a player versus his contemporaries in a given era (in which all the limitations applied equally to all players). No one can touch Ruth in the 20s. He dwarfed Cobb, for fuck's sake. We'll leave out the 4+ seasons as an ace starter and the 0.87 WS ERA for the sake of convenience. (According to my dad, my grandfather, who watched almost 70 years of baseball in Boston, starting at the Huntington Avenue Grounds, always maintained that Ruth was the most dominating pitcher he ever saw.) And Bonds, is he really that much better than A. Rodriguez? Pujols? Or at least was he prior to the juice?
2. The point about amphetimines is a good one, I think, and not just because I have heard Jaime make it before. The point about other forms of cheating (such as Perry scuffing the ball) not so much for me. Anyone can scuff the ball and if you get caught, you get tossed out of the game. You come back in five days and pitch again. You take steroids and you are doing serious physical damage to your body--a player should not have to run the risk of his heart exploding (a la Flo Jo) or his balls shrinking to the size of hazelnuts (see Canseco, J.) just to compete w/ others who put present athletic performance ahead of future health concerns.
3. "I don't understand why everyone picks on Bonds." Really. The guy is one of the purest assholes ever to involve himself in professional sports--and moreover, a very, very bad guy off the field. People who are assholes have nothing to complain about when other people call them assholes. People who are assholes who don't get called assholes are just lucky (or boring). Maybe I'm just hyped up b/c I'm reading Game of Shadows finally.
4. "it did not improve his strike zone judgment, or his hand-eye coordination, and those were the things that have made him such an exceptional hitter. And it helped the guys he was hitting against just as much as it helped him." I think the medical and scientific jury is far, far from in on the first point. As for the second point, what drug has ever had exactly the same effect on two different people? Moreover, even accepting Sickels' math, Bonds only had to face juiced pitchers 50% of the time, whereas pitchers had to face a juiced Bonds 100% of the time. I'm afraid I must put this line of thinking in the same category as John Kruk's, "Well, *somebody* hit all those home runs."
Of course I understand what Sickels is getting at, but his writing is so slapdash and reckless that it's hard for me to engage with it on any serious level."
Another point to mention about Bonds solitary status is his self-imposed exile from the MLB Players Association. Since the 2004 season, Bonds has not participated in the licensing agreement that all other major league players are part of - meaning that he's not in certain baseball card sets, video games, etc. And it means that the stupid hat he was wearing the other night was not "officially licensed" by MLB or the MLBPA.
Granted, the licensing dept. has gotten out of control (especially with all those silly holograms everywhere) but my feeling is that you're a part of the team (or in this case, 30 of them) or you're not.
Bonds is the epitome of selfishness. From his semi-private suite in the Giants locker room to his all-for-me stance on merchandising, he thinks he's bigger than the game, bigger than the sport and bigger than everyone else in it. When is enough enough?
Not that anyone in an industry where the minimum salary was $380,000 last year needs more money automatically, but it bothers me that guys like Damian Miller and Brendan Donnelly (forever branded as replacement players) are left out of merchandising opportunities that come along with being part of the World Series while Bonds again and again writes his own rules and gets away with it.
What a dick.
in response to Dave:
You say "And Bonds, is he really that much better than A. Rodriguez? Pujols? Or at least was he prior to the juice?" With the help of baseball-reference.com, I took a look at Bonds' adjusted OPS+, which is a crude but not worthless measure of Bonds output relative to the league (with adjustments for ballpark, etc.).
From 1990-1993, Bonds led the NL in OPS+ every year including numbers of 205 in 1993 and 206 in 1993 (100 means an average player). The next closest players in those years? Sheffield in '92 with a 168 and Piazza in '93 with a 150(!). And I think most people would agree that this is pre-juice (reasonable doubt, no positive tests, etc.). Then from '94-'98 he was either 2nd or 3rd each year - in '94 he was behind Bagwell and a resurgent Kevin Mitchell. In '95 he was behind only Piazza. then in '99 he would have been 4th, but he didn't qualify because (i'm assuming) of injuries. then he was first again every year from 2000-2004 and again in 2007 so far (not qualifying again in '05 and '06). if anything, you might look at that and think "gee, maybe he started 'roiding in
'99 to help recover from his injury and then went through the roof after that. there's some circumstantial evidence there.
as for A-Rod and Pujols, A-Rod has led the league in adjusted OPS+ exactly never (he is first this year so far). and last year was the first Pujols led the league (he finished right behind Bonds in '03 and '04 and behind Derrek Lee in '05). so i would argue, that yes, there is a case that Bonds was that much better than those guys. he's been better than them in the recent "'roid" years and by this measuring stick, his accomplishments in the early '90s are significantly more dominating than either of those guys.
taking all that together, i think you could reasonably say that Bonds was better than Ruth. given the quality of competition that he has had to face, the fact that he has still put himself far above the rest of his peers is pretty remarkable. and his numbers from the early '90s are more impressive
when you take into account that this was before the big offensive explosion that has occurred (with some fluctuations) since. also, when you look again at Hank Aaron, some of his best years occurred in his late 30s (his best year being 1971 when he hit 47 Home Runs (his career high) and led the league with an adjusted OPS+ of 194), so it's not unheard of that good players have some peak-type years later in their careers - though certainly Bonds continued dominance is unprecedented.
and just to play devil's advocate on another point: what if someone introduced a steroid that was not detrimental to health? or if they were administered by a licensed physician as part of a training regimen shown to mitigate potential
hazards? like most things, i would say that it's likely that there are
relatively safe ways to use steroids (or anything else for that matter) to maximize benefits while minimizing risk. if there were no longer the "health concerns" associated with these, would you feel better about their use? and, anyway, isn't it a person's/player's right to make their own decisions regarding the prioritization of health vs. career (i.e. income)? perhaps this is mixing metaphors, but i'm sure coal miners could find other jobs that might allay some health concerns, but might not be as lucrative.
more from dave --
"I have seen OPS+ on baseballreference.com for years, but never taken the time to read exactly how it is calculated. Isn't your description of it as a measure of a player's "output relative to the league (with adjustments for ballpark, etc.)" somewhat at odds with your reliance on it to demonstrate Bond's dominance "given the quality of competition that he has had to face" and that "his numbers from the early '90s are more impressive when you take into account that this was before the big offensive explosion that has occurred (with some fluctuations) since"?
It should come as no surprise to you that I am not prepared to credit Bond's 1999-2006 statistics for the simple fact that he took illegal PED during those years and there is simply no way to know the extent to which those numbers are inflated. I will accept your representation that Bonds was 1st in OPS+ for four years on the trot in the early 90s, but you haven't presented any similar analysis on the Ruth side of the argument. I tried to look at that on baseballreference.com, but I don't know how to get yearly league-wide stats on there. If you have time sometime, I'd love to see those data. (Also, I might mention that it is likely that the best years of both Pujols and Rodriguez may lay ahead of them.)
As for your second point, how can there be any serious disagreement? If I understand you correctly, you postulate a drug with no negative effects (although that probably would be the first time in pharmacalogical history) and I presume that you meant to include the abolition (either via the courts or the legislature) of the raft of federal and state statutes criminalizing anabolic steroids. In that world, banning such a drug in baseball would make as much sense as banning apples, or Gatorade, or sunflower seeds. The fact in the real world, however, is that while there may be something like "safe ways to use steroids," there is no legal way to use anabolic steroids. (Incidentally, I should mention that I have been a steroid user--I take certain drugs for Crohn's Disease that are classed as steroids.) And anabolic steroids carry great helth risks, and would continue to do so even if they were legal and adminsitered by doctors. As I mentioned, they can literally make your heart explode (see my prior Florence Griffith-Joyner example, dead at age 38).
Of course I agree that it is "a person's/player's right to make their own decisions regarding the prioritization of health vs. career (i.e. income)." Therefore, if a guy wants to play football and get weekly concussions, resulting in him not being able to feed himself or change his own underwear by age 45, god bless him. Of course, he should be made aware of those risks in some responsible way, but that's a different episode of HBO Real Sports. For me, that is the coal miner analogy. But I don't think the analogy works for anabolic steroids. At a minimum, the danger involved in mining isn't directly connected to any competitive advantage in the profession--taking those risks doesn't make a miner better than any other miner. I believe that making athletes choose between very serious health risks and the ability to compete effectively does tremendous damage to the integrity of the game. And I think I'm far from alone in that belief, given recent espn polls in which the majority of respondents still believe that Maris is the "real" single-season, and Aaron the overall, HR king."
Post a Comment