Damn it, Barry Bonds is Great. That's right! He is GREAT!
>> Wednesday
August 7th, 2007 is a day that no one wanted to see...at least according to ESPN (most actual polls show that less than 50% of fans did not want to see Barry break the record). Well let me quote Bonds himself: "This record is not tainted...at all. Period."
FUCKING PERIOD! You're damn right, Barry.
Okay, let's get this out of the way right now (I'm drunk...wait, that's beside the point) I was originally against Barry Bonds, as recently as a year ago, and probably more recently than that. So if you want to go through the trouble of digging up my old posts that bashed Bonds and call me a hypocrite, you're too late. I'm admitting to every word of my previous protests.
But I can admit when I was wrong, and pure logic and reason has proven all of my previous opinions wrong.
Am I saying that Bonds is innocent of steroid use? Hell no. I'm just as convinced as the next guy that Barry Bonds used steroids and that it most definitely aided him in hitting 756.
But let's get one thing straight, right here and right now. Barry Bonds is a great
hitter. He is a great home run hitter. He is certainly the best home run hitter of our time, and can easily be argued to be the greatest home run hitter of all time.
So here are a few simple reasons why you cannot put an asterisk on Barry's record (not to mention Vinnie's post, seen below, which is hilarious and makes a great point).
Different Eras. Different stars.
You could argue that Babe Ruth's home runs were harder to come by, since he played in an era where pitchers threw from higher mounds, and hitters like Babe Ruth spent their "off-season" getting hammered. On the other hand, you could just as easily argue that Hank Aaron's home runs were even more impressive since he played against a more diversified (and thus more talented) field than Babe Ruth. Imagine taking Pedro, Zambrano and Mo Rivera out of the picture, just to mention a few, and see how that would affect the game?
The same goes for this new era. Whether players use illegal performance enhancers or not (and I'm betting that most of them do) they certainly are using legal performance enhancers and training routines that were not available to players in Aaron's era. Not to mention the addition of specialty pitching and body armor.
The point is that in any given era has its advantages for pitchers and advantages for hitters, so if you want to use selective changes (like steroids) you can "prove" that one era was tougher to hit home runs in than another.
Since comparing eras is impossible and a complete waste of time, we can only accurately compare superstars to other superstars in their era. This leads me to the second reason why no asterisk is needed for 756.
Respect how long the record was held
This argument has been made many times, and ignored just as often. So here it is once more.
Barry Bonds took the record from Hank Aaron, who has been holding on to 755 for 31 years. Hank Aaron took it from Babe Ruth, who held 714 for 39 years. Babe Ruth took it from Roger Conner, who held 138 for 24 years.
Alex Rodriguez will likely (though it is most certainly not as definite as people like to think it is) take the home run record in about a decade.
The stance a lot of people have taken is, "Don't worry, A-Rod will take the record back soon."
But why aren't we questioning A-Rod's ascent to the hallowed mark? I'm not accusing him of drug use, but he certainly has advantages that Hank Aaron did not, and yet...no protest.
This is the new era, for better or worse (I personally think better), where drugs, illegal and legal, play a huge role in our sports. Medicine and health in general play a much larger role in our athletes' lives. There are no more players who drink a bottle of Yukon Jack on a Tuesday night and hit two home runs in the Wednesday day game. Those days are gone, so quit trying to hang on to them.
We are in the days of 24-7 training, and yes performance enhancers, and for the time being, Barry Bonds has proved himself to be the best player of this era. And that deserves some respect.
So get off your fucking high horse and appluad the man for breaking a great record.
Posts
9 comments:
Okay, I can't figure out why my post is below Vinnie's post, but it's pissing me off and I'm going to bed.
Sorry... I accidentally deleted the date, and then I re-entered it as August 8 when, in fact, I posted it just before midnight while it was still the 7th. And you all cared very much to know that.
Anyway, I'm actually kind of excited for this next Canseco book to come out, which supposedly has the goods on A-Rod (which I assume means 'roids or HGH). It'll hopefully quiet this notion that all multi-dimensional players who seem clean (meaning we like them and want to delude ourselves into believing that), e.g. Pujols, A-Rod, Manny actually are clean.
Someday we'll look back on this at laugh at our reactionary attitude toward to sports science/medicine when HGH will be accepted as proper athlete maintenance and good medical practice.
Manny may not be clean, but I wouldn't start the tests with a screen for steroids, if you get my meaning.
What I mean is that he's a pothead.
I'm going to start this debate right now: best Home Run hitter ever (if they're evaluated in a 'vacuum'): Willie Mays. 660, minus two years in which he was off fightin' for Uncle Sam during his prime.
Well, either Willie Mays or Clue Haywood, the Yankees triple crown winner from Major League.
Yeah, I think you have a point there. Consider that he hit 47 and 52 homers in back-to-back years where the league ERA was 3.53 and 3.54.
Ruth's record is the most impressive. His career achievements were several orders of magnitude greater than MLB had ever seen. He had seasons where he hit more HR than entire teams did. Consider that Roger Connor held the career HR record before Ruth......and Connor had 138 career HR. Ruth remains without peer as a power hitter.
Willie Mays...that's not a bad argument (1.75 seasons lost to military)
Of course Ted Williams lost three FULL seasons in his absolute prime ('43-'45) and all but 43 combined games from the '52 and '53 seasons. Keep in mind, Williams first won the triple crown in 1942 - - and then had to walk away from the game. A reasonable projection with Williams puts him at 700.
"But why aren't we questioning A-Rod's ascent to the hallowed mark?"
Here's why. Bonds is the only player in MLB history to hit more homers after the age of 35 than he had hit between the ages of 26 and 34, when players are tradiitionally (and statistically per SABR) in their primes. That's probable cause in baseball's precinct...especially when said hitter is breaking these records in an historically bad power hitters' park, particularly for left-handed hitters.
Still Bonds is a great player. Thing is, he was before he juiced too - perhaps the greatest left fielder of all time BEFORE juice. But he tarnished what was already an exceptional career.
I won't argue too much about Ruth, because recent trips to Baseball Reference leave me baffled at how awesome his career numbers are (206 career OPS+), BUT...
The fact that he only played against fellow cracka ass crackas leaves a lot of questions in my mind. Bob Costas (or maybe Chris Rock on Costas' show) brought up a great point: look at the first handful of guys from the Negro leagues that came into MLB as pitchers. They were all awesome. Seriously, they dominated. You HAVE to at least wonder a little about the effect that "would have" had on Ruth's career.
Sure, it's not fair to question something he had no control over, but I still think it needs to be part of this discussion, and it raises enough doubt to put Willie over the Babe.
Post a Comment