Baseball Toaster was unplugged on February 4, 2009.
Jon's other site:
Screen Jam
TV and more ...
1) using profanity or any euphemisms for profanity
2) personally attacking other commenters
3) baiting other commenters
4) arguing for the sake of arguing
5) discussing politics
6) using hyperbole when something less will suffice
7) using sarcasm in a way that can be misinterpreted negatively
8) making the same point over and over again
9) typing "no-hitter" or "perfect game" to describe either in progress
10) being annoyed by the existence of this list
11) commenting under the obvious influence
12) claiming your opinion isn't allowed when it's just being disagreed with
Barry Bonds hit 613 home runs in his career, including 73 in 2001, before baseball prohibited steroids and began testing at the start of 2003. His performance was as permissable, however much some may want to say it was immoral, as stealing signs.
So for this period of his career, as much as I may deplore what he did, Bonds was not a cheater. J.A. Adande of the Times covered this ground this morning, capturing for the most part what I had been thinking.
Baseball let Bonds do what he pleased - failed to nip it in the Bud, so to speak - and baseball has to live with it. Bonds was a joyrider, but baseball is what let him - and others - run amok.
You can't rewrite all the history you want. You can't erase all the bad because it feels wrong. The best you can do is learn.
Barry Bonds is part of history. Baseball is a game with runs, hits and errors, and he represents all three. Let his deserved presence in the Hall of Fame be a lesson to baseball. It wasn't just Bonds. Baseball took steroids.
* * *
On a happier note in the Times, just as I proposed last week - I had nothing else to do with it - Bob Timmermann made Morning Briefing.
Bob Timmerman, a contributor to the DodgerThoughts website, heard an interesting exchange between ESPN basketball announcers Lou Canellis and Bucky Waters on Saturday. It came during the Atlanta Sun Conference tournament championship game between two Nashville, Tenn., schools. Belmont defeated Lipscomb, 74-69, in overtime.
Near the end, Canellis said, "If Belmont wins, they get to buy some new shoes because they are going to the Big Dance."
Said Waters: "Actually, Belmont is a Southern Baptist school that prohibits dancing."
* * *
The history and future of Jerry West as the iconic NBA logo is detailed in a freelance piece by David Davis at FOXSports.com.
"I found the original photograph in the archives of Sport Magazine (where Schaap later worked as editor in chief)," (designer Alan) Siegel said. "It was an action shot of Jerry West dribbling down the court from one of the Lakers' games. I sketched it, cleaned it up a bit and stylized it. I streamlined the tracing I made (and) slimmed it down a little bit so it would work in all applications." ...
Siegel said that he had no ulterior motive for selecting the photograph of West and that his main consideration was the image's aesthetics. Jerry West, however, was no ordinary player. ...
There is talk that the NBA would consider changing the logo.
Does the present logo represent today's brand of the NBA? If not, should the NBA retire it and bring in a sub?
Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban thinks that the logo works fine, but he says the league needs to improve its marketing efforts. "(The logo) represents the NBA, but it's how you enable the brand that matters, not the logo itself," he said. "It's a much more competitive environment (today), and we've got to work harder at it. Unless we have a good marketing program, the logo is irrelevant."
Thanks to L.A. Observed for the story link.
* * *
Finally, I have a new column up at SI.com on the World Baseball Classic. While the WBC seems to be generating interest, it only appears to be doing so in places where baseball is already popular, such as the U.S., the Dominican Republic and Venezuela. Given that the mission of the WBC is to expand baseball's audience around the world beyond its existing hot spots, I've proposed some changes to the format, so that the game has a better chance of growing new roots.
Now, if you could get Fidel Castro to participate as the special-guest drafter I'll bet the ratings would really take off!
I will start the campaign now: Jon Weisman for baseball commissioner!
Second, I think the interest would be much lower if the teams weren't divided by nationality. If the players were just drafted to fill random teams, I think no one would have a rooting interest in any of the games (including the players). And, I'm not sure that the competition would be any better anyway.
Third, even if some countries like China or South Africa are getting thrashed,I still think this may be a necessary step in a country's baseball development. We saw a similar effect in basketball in the '88 Olympics, but just 10 years later, a lot of countries had made great progress.
I think the problem really is that it is very hard to interntionally market a sport from the top down like this. Look at all of the attempts to make Soccer the 4th big sport in the US, it has been miserable because it has been a top down attempt.
I'm not sure Jon is correct either though, when it comes to whether or not getting killed in international competition dampens the potential for growth of the sport in a country. Basketball and soccer are growing tremendously in China, and in both basketball and soccer, China gets crushed in international competition.
The All-Star Game gets a lot of grief, but it's still watched by a national TV audience (not cable) even though no one's "team" is playing in the game.
While I'll watch the Dodgers play anybody, most people outside of Los Angeles won't, and certainly people who have never seen a baseball game won't. Parochial interests serve the already-passionate or the short-interest fan. Baseball seems to want something more.
Also, by opening the rosters up beyond nationality, you can bring in players from more than 16 countries, which I think is important to market the game.
But if baseball wants to turn this into a true World Championship, with national teams and players at peak performance, I'd change my tune.
sigh
I think they should keep the nationality (sort of like the olympics), but just have fewer teams.
Since Baseball is no longer an olympic sport, I guess this is the next best thing.
So as far as baseball goes, the WBC doesn't change that. They're still seeing the best; China not happening to be among them. China's participation is basically irrelevant at this point. My theory is that if a Chinese player were on a championship team, that might jump-start interest more quickly.
Perhaps an example is Hines Ward of the Steelers. Apparently, his performance in the Super Bowl caused a sensation in Korea. I bet that did more for football in Korea than if the Korean national football team had been given a wild card berth.
As for the nationalities, they did so some creative shuffling, but that's a long tradition in international sports I'm afraid. The Irish soccer teams rarely have guys who have lived there. The U.S. soccer team in 1950 had guys who qualified because they were considering thinking about getting U.S. citizenship (and some never did). The English were none too happy about that.
But in one of the early Olympic ice hockey tournaments, the British rounded up a bunch of Canadians called them Brits and they won the gold medal.
I hope Perez enjoys his one day of guaranteed good run support.
Ringers do take some of the enjoyment out of the game. Kind of like private high schools whom recruit all over the city, being in the same league as public schools.
China did make the World Cup final round in 2002, so its soccer team isn't hopeless. And they just missed out on the final round of Asian qualifying this time around.
At least we know South Africa will make it in 2010!
"Ramon II" is acceptable, but the preferred moniker is now "Lucille II".
Personally, I consider it cheating. It may not have been against the rules, but what he did was against the spirit of fair play. If I had a vote, I would NOT vote Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa etc... into the HOF. I'm not exactly the type of person a defense lawyer wants in the jury either.
vr, Xei
So are those old prospects, could Ross be making things difficult? Until 2003 he was a very highly ranked prospect who had a nasty injury and never seemed to regain his skills.
So are those highly touted prospects. In fact this has been a fun spring so far for all types.
Martinez's 1HR.
Cody Ross has 3HR's...
I guess I was wrong about the Dodgers lack of power...
As for the US WBC team - Al Leiter?
Well, if Clemens and the US can't beat South Africa then... why bother?
C
I don't see Bud banning Bonds from the ballot as he did Rose. Bud, as you say, is far too complicit in Bonds' behavior, and it would also be unfair to single him out. But just because he's on the ballot doesn't guarantee him anything.
Is the case for Bonds also the case for Palmeiro? Palmeiro is not as productive as Bonds, but he compares well with other Hall members. But I bet few here think he'll make it, and steroids will be the primary reason why not. If the voters can look at Palmiero's records and say, "Not you, you cheater," what's to stop them from reaching the same conclusion about Bonds? Nothing.
If Bonds wants to make the Hall of Fame, I think his only hope is to:
A) retire now
B) come completely clean with all the facts, including the most pertinent fact, when did he start?
C) completely cooperate with the various investigations, as well as the internal investigation Bud Selig should have launched a long time ago.
D) apologize to fans, teammates and opponents who were affected by his cheating
E) turn over the equivalent of his '99-'05 combined salary to a relevant charity, i.e. to dissaude kids from following his example.
Then, maybe, his pre-'99 records combined with his clear desire to do penance would win over voters I suspect he would not win over now.
Baseball is the only professional sport that prohibits teams from trading draft picks. Do the historians on here have a reason why? I always found this strange.
For the record, I warned people about Al Leiter being on the US team. If he pitches again for the US, the game better be out of hand.
Odalis Perez has given up 3 runs so far in 2 innings and change to Italy.
32 You can trade players for a draft pick, though, right? Or you can't even do that?
Perez is having trouble with Menechino and Catalanatto, but he's handled Piazza.
Believe me, I'm happy to have Bonds go away too.
I think that Bonds could best help his image by coming clean and offering to actively help clean up this mess. Of course, knowing Bonds, this will never happen.
I really hope these latest revelations turn the heat back up on McGwire, Sosa, etc. Bonds deserves to get nailed for this, but so do others who've repeatedly ducked the issue.
Cant do that either. No trading of picks, or selected players until I think 1yr of minor league service time.
Its really an archaec system that hurts the small market bad ball clubs IMO.
The Americans couldn't rally against Scott Mathieson and Steve Green, so I think Gagne's absence wasn't a big deal this time.
Although the U.S. can be eliminated without its last result being important, keep in mind that Canada didn't gain much of an advantage by winning either. They gained a slight advantage, but not huge. If Canada had pitched well against South Africa, they would be in good shape.
But you can't stop Paul Bell, you can only hope to contain them.
And Canada used its ostensibly good pitchers against RSA and then the scrubs agains the USA.
Dewan writes that he "mixed in the subjective evaluations, my own personal evaluations, and all the numbers in this book that I can assimilate in my brain at one time when thinking about a player."
Beltre is first on his three-year rankings for all third basemen.
In 2004, Izturis was his No. 2 SS overall (behind) Everett. Drew is third overall in three-year rankings for RFs.
The book is very good and I expect it to become a staple for baseball fans in years ahead.
Let's not also forget perjury. Mark McGwire's stock as a potential HOF'er declined quickly after he so obviously maneuvered to avoid a perjury trap in testifying before Congress. Bonds might be prosecuted for perjury. That's all still to come. So, yeah, technically maybe he didn't "cheat." But he might be convicted of violating one law to cover up his violations of other laws, all on matters relevant to his performance. I don't see the Hall in Barry's future.
Well ... "P.S. 103" did about as well against Canada as the "Yankees" did. What's sad is that even after scoring more runs against the same two teams that America has played, the South African team still gets trashed. It's still assumed that the US will easily win against RSA by the mercy rule, but where is the evidence to support this? Apparently the only evidence needed is the names on the front of the jerseys.
But absolutely, they deserve credit for their performance. I did leave open the possiblity for a Miracle on Grass, and if that come-uppance comes, I'll certainly cop to it.
I'm not saying you have to like it, but I don't think it helps not to be aware of it.
Italy is hanging tough with the D.R. today mcuh to my surprise. I think the D.R. may have a bit of a hangover after the win over Venezuela.
As far as still being a fan is concerned, well, at least the Dodgers can't be said to have benefitted much from this scandalous period. And even Bonds' misdeeds still haven't resulted in a World Series ring.
But I do think Bud Selig has to be called to account for his misrule of the game, along with many of the team owners. The sooner the better. The game needs to put this story firmly in the past.
Am I right to conclude that the WBC is an attempt by a businessman (Bud Selig) to promote his product (baseball) to a new market (those places that dont already consider baseball a major sport)?
So of the teams that arent baseball hotspots, we got Italy, Holland, South Africa, and China. Im assuming that Japan, Mexico, Panama, Canada and South Korea already get major exposure to baseball.
For Holland and Italy and Europe in general, every sport is compared to soccer. I live in Europe and while there are many fanatics, I was amazed by how many people cannot stand watching soccer. They find it too slow and boring to watch. These are the people who are attracted to the European basketball league and NFL Europe. Baseball is not going to take off in Europe simply because it is too slow.
For South Africa and other commonwealth countries (Australia and India for example), I doubt whether baseball can thrive in countries that already play cricket. Is there enough differentation between the games to create interest while not threating the native game? Cricket has historical roots in the country. So for those South Africans who dont watch cricket, I would assume their distaste, despite the peer pressure to like cricket, is strong enough to rule out other slow bats and balls games. I suppose cricket lovers could also like baseball but the more zealous cricketers(?) might find a game so similar threatening.
China is the interesting case and the potential chinese market might be the main target of the internationalization of baseball. If Bud Selig went to China and saw a kid with a BigMac, nike soccer shoes, and a Yao Ming jersey, he probably thought that if all these american things could be accepted, baseball could too. However, a smarter businessman who saw the same things might of thought that with all these american things already here, its going to be tough to push a distinctly american product in a market that could already be saturated with them.
Essentially the problem with internationalizing baseball is twofold:
1) baseball is not particularly distinct or enticing (cricket exists and the game is slow) and 2) in the places that baseball does not yet exist, it is behind in the process of internationalization in comparison to soccer, basketball, football, and even hockey.
I guess I'm just depressed right now about baseball in general because of this. Thank goodness for March Madness. Here's to a rematch of my Nevada Wolf Pack with UCLA in the tourney. You won't get us again.
I agree with Jon on Bonds. Buck O'Neil said something similar, basically that players have been trying to get the upperhand on one another for a long time. Whether it was tobacco, or green meanies, hollowed bats, vaseline balls or whatever. As much as I dislike Bonds, I do see a certain bias against him, sometimes, which seems to just stem from his "F-- You" attitude. I mainly feel sorry for the guy, because I don't see how his body can last if he did that much steroids and that often.
I think the point was that during this time the Dodger weren't that great.
I'd like to get a hardcore libertarian, capitilistic, free-market type person's perspective on steroid use in baseball
Thats hard since the labor agreement precludes a true free-market. Hypothetically though, if I were a players agent, I would demand that the player got financially compensated for taking steriods. 100$ for each balm application, 500 for each pill popped, 1000 for each syringe injection. Oh, wed be raking in the dough, and then his head would explode.
Stanford jumps out to an early lead it will have trouble holding.
I haven't read the entire baseball rule book, but I'm, guessing there's no specific rule banning the threatening of the opposing pitcher's family in order to induce him to give a batter easy pitches. Now lets say that there's a player who for years have been telling pitchers that unless he gives him easy pitches, he will kill his family. Let's say that he's a genuinely crazy ballplayer with a criminal past. We can call him "Albert." Technically, Albert didn't break any baseball rules. But he certainly broke the law. And lets say Albert did this for anm entire season and in that season he hit 75 homeruns. Would his cheating be sufficient to undo his record? I say yes.
Bonds broke the law. Bonds cheated.
what is this "nba" you write about?
anyway, you can't live in minnesota without being constantly (or at least intermittently) reminded that harmon killebrew is the mlb logo.
Well said.
In terms of legal problems not being a barrier to the HOF, that's certainly true. However, very few of these prior problems affected and/or damaged the game... and the one case I can think of which did -- Pete Rose -- has been dealt with harshly.
And that's all I have to say on this matter.
vr, Xei
The WBC reaches the front page of the sports sections here, and it does give exposure to a sport that is not well-known in Africa. Yet, South Africans are a sporty lot, and we even have woman's softball teams competing in amateur leagues. Hand a South African a ball, and they play game!
I'm quite happy that my team is so far doing better than the higher regarded Team Australia insofar as a comparison can be drawn accross pools! I suppose people default to "Australia? Well, have heard of THAT one. So they must be better than ... South Africa? Where is that, anyway?" ;-)
I would think that would violate the spirit of the contract between MLB and individual players.
Also, most of the commentary about Bonds focuses on his individual stats. But what about his "win shares?" Didn't his chemically-altered presence in the lineup affect the standings during the years in question? The Dodgers, D-backs, Rockies and Padres are all victims of this victimless crime, and if not for Scott Spezio, so would the Angels have been.
There is nothing mentioning Gaylord Perry's cheating (or Don Sutton) on their plaques but we still know the guys liked to doctor baseballs.
I am weirdly attracted to side issues during major controversies and my side issue is this: there is no doubt baseball ignored what was going on before 2003 but what about the media during that time? This is ground that has been covered before, I know, but the media doesn't look great here, does it? The argument was always the right one--absent proof, one is innocent 'til proven guilty--but the standard of proof always seemed to be "unless I see the needle going in, it ain't a sin!"
In retrospect, is it not incredible that the outcry over McGwire, Sosa and Bonds wasn't ten times louder than it actually was?
Elaborating on your point, can the Padres be considered "victims" of the Bondsian Giants when the Padres were likewise benefiting from Ken Caminiti's exploits?
Scott Spiezio may have been juicing in the '02 and '03 seasons. They are certainly outliers in compared to the rest of his career.
I don't know if they were much good or not, but various difficulties in being granted work visas have, in part, been keeping them out of baseball in America.
Agreed. Many in the media, including Olney, have said they should have done a better job. You can find examples of steroid queries and speculation dating to the Canseco A's, but they are rare.
I think reporters could have looked at Bonds and McGwire and Sosa's HR runs as shams, but overwhelmingly, baseball insiders and the general public indicated that they were enjoying themselves.
amino acids, and even Andro to Seroids, a bright line has been crossed. That person knows that he is cheating. Of course now that Andro has been banned from baseball it would be cheating to take it now.
The mercantilists would say yes.
Funny story.. I remember a game during the '97 season where McGwire just unloaded on Giambi for not tagging up on a fly ball that McGwire hit. The joke around my buddies was the McGwire was prone to fits of 'roid rage.
IIRC, andro was banned by the IOC and the NCAA at the time Mac's infamous bottle was spotted. Baseball was behind the times, not suprisingly. So does that exempt Big Mac from blame? Was he just being smarter than the poor dope, no pun intended, who was using Dianabol or Stanozol?
Was he just being smarter than the poor dope, no pun intended, who was using Dianabol or Stanozol?
If he didn't use a true steroid and obtain illegal products through underground sources then he didn't cross the bright line where everyone can agree is cheating.
The issue of whether or not they should be considered "wrong" when cortizone shots and other substances shouldn't be is a separate issue.
>>>In the big picture, were steroids good for baseball?
The mercantilists would say yes.<<<
Is that like gaining the world and losing your soul?
I agree with Dratt in saying the HOF voters can vote as they see fit. Unless the voting parameters are changed, it is an individual voters call.
The fact that baseball does not test for HGH is a joke. This BALCO testimony was already known and they still didn't include HGH in the testing. That is incredibly incompetent or incredibly telling.
Baseball, like no other major american sport, is defined by its numbers and it's records.
The fact that you could compare players (realistically) from 1939 to players in 1989 on those numbers is a big part of the charm of baseball. I know your example above was thrown out there as a another way to look at the issue.
IIRC, there is no reliable test for HGH. Supposedly one is in the works.
I brought up Giamatti earlier and tend to think he care more about the sport's soul than Selig (even if I can't spell Giamatti's name right).
Industry revenues have grown fabulously on Selig's watch, a result that carries the day in many reviews of his tenure. But at what cost?
Since what has that been a criterion?
But if it directly related to their play on the field, it should have been against the rules of baseball. The fact that it wasn't against the rules (and that the baseball powers-at-be were negligent in making it against the rules) is an indictment of baseball, not individual players.
As soon as I ask that, I can see that, well, maybe they wouldn't in certain circumstances, in order to protect their "product", but with Bonds, and alot of this cutting edge stuff, I can see thinking "Holy Crap, we couldn't prove this in the 9th District, so we sure as heck can't try make the players association come to the table on it."
Personally, I think it was still wrong and a cop-out, but I can see that side of it. In other words, was it really Baseballs responsibility to develop tests for catching Bonds' behaviour, when even federal authorities either were incapable or were uninterested in doing so?
(I can't believe I am defending Selig or MLB!)
There are diff ways to steal signs. If it is done on the field by a player or coach I have no problem with that. It is part of the game. The way some of the pitchers act when they think a runner on 2nd is stealing signs is just unbelievable. Change signs and move on.
But, if signs are being stolen by someone in the scoreboard or crowd then that is illegal.
That brings up a further question:
Was baseball negligent in its failure to:
a. Have a rule that specifically banned steroids?
or
b. Have and successfully enforce a rule that specifically banned steroids?
In other words, if they had a rule on the books and either didn't enforce it or tried to but weren't very successful in enforcing it, would they be considered less culpable than if they didn't have a rule at all?
In other words, once it was obvious that steroid use would create such a negative reaction - and that was obvious years ago - baseball should have moved more quickly to do something about it.
Bringing up the baseball color line is also a perfect segue to one of the things that has motivated Bonds to do what he's done, his sense of missionary zeal to undo what he sees as an injustice. Babe Ruth set his home run records against only some of the best pitchers of his era, competing with only some of the best hitters. I've heard Bonds say this fact undermines Ruth's legitimacy. He clearly does not share the baseball world's reverence for Ruth, and I assume the whole pre-1947 record books.
That plus his perception that McGwire was getting away with cheating. Bonds has made a tragic error in trying to redress some valid grievances. Who anointed him the redeemer?
I see no reason why we shouldn't close the books on pre-1947 records, have records for the period from 1947 to whenever we think steroids became ubiquitous (1989?), declare those 14 years (til '03) the Steroid Era and keep those records separate, and then start anew with last season on a new era that might be comparable to the '47 - '89 period.
Viewed that way, Aaron's record will not be broken by Bonds or any player who played from '89-'03. Ruth is the champ of the segregated era, and gets a big asterisk. Bonds is the champ of the steroids era, and gets another big asterisk. The one-season records are held by Ruth, Maris and Bonds respectively, with Maris' the target for post-steroid players, not Bonds.
What happened happened, and a record book is just a record book. It records what happened. It is not, by any stretch, an endorser of morality.
To say baseball doesn't acknowledge the lack of black players in baseball pre1947 is not entirely correct. Do they acknowledge it as much as they should or as much as we would want? Not for me but there is acknowledgment. We have no acknowledgment from baseball on steroids. There is time but it seems like baseball is interested in ignoring it, so far.
Again, I don't know how to acknowledge the Steroid Era(although 124 isn't bad) I'm just saying it has to be done.
Maybe this will spur a look at how perceive pre1947 era as well as this chemical era. That wouldn't be a bad result.
I'd settle for an official notation. Like the classification of the Dead Ball Era. Have Racial Exclusion Era and the Steroid Era
108 No reliable test for HGH? That can't be true. I don't know either way but hard for me to believe that the Olympics can't reliably test for HGH.
http://tinyurl.com/ja8t6
theres the boxscore.
broxton pitched horrible, lowe continues to be dominant. guzman strikes out again. drew homers.
I really think you're underestimating the power of common knowledge. People were already adjusting McGwire's and Sosa's accomplishments downward before this week. If anything, my sense is that recent statistics will be devalued as much as you could dream of.
Bonds takes it a bit further, however, into a controversial area. What I've heard Bonds say, and it's hard to argue with, is that the records of that period lack complete legitimacy because Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, W. Johnson etc. didn't play against all the best players of their era. Imagine how many homers Bonds might have had if you removed all Latin-American pitchers from all rosters, forcing teams to fill the gap with inferior pitchers. That's analogous to the advantage Ruth had in his era, as Bonds sees it.
(I realize Bonds has not made that specific argument).
I think Jon's right about common knowledge taking care of Bonds's future evaluation. Pete Rose has more hits than any other player; anybody want to argue that he's the best hitter ever? We understand, intuitively, that there's a contextual problem with taking Barry's numbers as is. Other people will, too. I hope one of them will come up with a useful conversion method.
Barry belongs in the HOF, but he's another guy I'd like see get in posthumously. It should be called the Moses Method. Yes you were important, yes you belong, but you'll never see the day. Enjoy the rest of your non-HOFing life, you miserable blood clot.
Well, to be devil's advocate, you could equally say that none of those pre-Robinson, Doby, and even Satchel Paige players from the Negro Leagues who've been elected to the HOF played against all the best players of their era, either.
Works both ways, I think. Not admirably, but that's the way things played out.
Who is the greatest home run hitter of all time? Hank Aaron has the most, but when he was approaching Babe Ruth's records, many baseball experts, historians, etc., maintained that Ruth remained the greatest. It's easy to make points in favor of each of them: Ruth played in a stadium that suited him, but not for almost the first decade of his career, when he wasn't a full-time hitter and Fenway Park was not designed as well for a left-handed power hitter. Aaron played in Atlanta's launching pad and had 162-game seasons, but he clearly took better care of himself and had to play at night, when it could be argued that it's harder to hit (they used to say that when the Dodgers had their great pitchers in the 1960s, the lights in Dodger Stadium were about as good as the lighting in a cave).
The point here is that to the generation that saw him, Ruth is the greatest. To others, Aaron is the greatest. Bonds has played in a different era--apparently with some "extras" that helped him. But as was noted the other day, if you throw out what he did the last few years, he still has had a Hall of Fame career.
I hate to say this as a Dodger fan, but I will. I think Bonds also gets a bit of a raw deal. I can't help but think of Ted Williams. The Boston writers detested him because he wouldn't kowtow to them and gave him a far worse reputation than he deserved. Tom Lasorda was hardly a great manager, but he got away with a lot because the writers loved him. I'm not saying Bonds didn't make his own bed, hasn't used steroids, and isn't a thoroughly miserable person--I don't know all that--but I also seem to recall something about innocent until proven guilty.
I could have sworn you had but upon a reread all you said was that MLB should acknowledge the steroid era the same as they have the pre1947. crazy how I totally misinterpreted what you wrote, my apologies. I agree with that post and shouldn't have responded to it. I think I mixed 106 and 124 in my mind and it came out all wrong. I think I should have left the record books out of my post and just kept with official acknowledgment.
You do get that Deadball Era isn't an official term, right
No, I did not know that. I guess I always miss the discussion where everyone tells everyone else that the Dead Ball Era is not an official term(LOL). I though it might be on Hall of Fame plaques, exhibits etc. but looks like i'm 0 for 2. I'll go away quietly.
"In fact, the league asserted this authority when the Commissioner unilaterally established a steroids policy in 1991. This policy banned the use, sale, or distribution of any illegal drug, controlled substance, or prescription drug for which the player did not have a valid prescription. It also provided that the league would conduct testing for steroids if a player has admitted to or been "detected" using steroids."
Seems to me that Bonds did in fact explicitly cheat and baseball looked the other way, for what it's worth.
That was 1991. Was there something that made this non-binding?
See this quote from Vincent himself:
http://www.baseballplayamerica.com/page4.html
"The memo I sent was an attempt to be on record that if we controlled the whole thing, this is what we would do," said Vincent. "And we did it, but only for the people that were not covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. ..."
Jon's point in 125 I think is the key:
What happened happened, and a record book is just a record book. It records what happened. It is not, by any stretch, an endorser of morality.
Pete Rose IS still the all-time hits leader, Bonds IS currently #3 all-time in HRs. Argue all you want about different "eras" of the game, feel free to sound like Bob Costas and Billy Crystal, but to build on MG's point in 133 none of the top three played under identical conditions:
Ruth had advantages over Aaron and Bonds (Negro League, no night games) and disadvantages (park factors, Dead Ball era).
Aaron had advantages over Ruth (162 game season, greenies?, expansion) and disadvantages (hate mail, night games, Koufax).
Bonds had advantages over both (1990s ballparks, weight training) and disadvantages (pitcher specialization, Candlestick Park, media jihad).
With all of those taken into account, the numbers currently stand at 755, 714, 708. If Bonds manages to pass one or both, that's all there is to it. Did Aaron or Ruth have to pass tests for steroids, or greenies or alcohol for that matter?
128 - But Jon, at what point do you just go into pure subjectivity? Will a Barry Bonds with 700 HRs miss HOF induction if he "looks" like he juiced, even if there is still no conclusive proof by then? How can you argue that he is less deserving than a "clean" 400 or 500 by someone like Frank Thomas or Fred McGriff, when there were no meaningful (or enforced) anti-steroid rules until 2003, and even when there were both were seemingly competing under the same system but one was pushing the rules farther?
I still think Barry will have a hard time getting into the HOF, especially if he's convicted of perjury. Like someone above said, maybe after he dies.
Isn't that the opposite of what I have been arguing this entire thread?
Also, didn't our good buddy Bud send out a memorandum to all of the teams way back in something like 1992 (and again several years later) clarifying the fact that steroids were illegal?
There are 1 3/4 pages of documented items from grand jury testimony and depositions which purport to show Bonds as a user. There's also a full-page essay from Verducci essentially telling all Bonds supporters to get over it; their guy's a cheat.
Bonds fails on multiple counts. First, he is clearly a law breaker and, depending on how seriously the Fed takes these thingsand there is some heat now on the US Attorney in SF about his casual treatment of the whole Balco dealhe is vulnerable to drug charges (if he's lucky, he'll get the Rush Limbaugh treatment), but then there are evasion of tax charges. IRS is like a dog after a bone. And Bonds is caught up in these.
Bonds is also a racist. A surly, nasty racist. He hates white people, even though he's been a child of privilege his entire life and has never been subjected to discrimination. In fact, he really hates all people. He is a despicable person. The closest parallel to Bonds in baseball history is Ty Cobb: great player, but with an incredibly flawed and skewed outlook on life, resulting in a terrible person. Difference between the two is that Cobb was not a law breakereither of baseball rules or of US lawthat we know of. Bonds is. Cobb also did not demean his sport and hold it up to ridicule. Bonds has.
Thumbs-down on Bonds for the HOF. Ditto for McGwire and Sosa. Why should cheaters be rewarded? Joe Jackson, one of the greatest players everfar better than any of these juiced sweetheartsis not in the HOF, even though he was found not guilty in court.
Ruth stands alone as the greatest player ever. Also consider that, had it not been for five years of wartime service, Aaron would have been striving to break Williams's HR record. Bonds is no Ruth, Aaron or Williams. No Mays, either. Bonds is great, admittedly, and would have made the hall without chemical help. But he did it and he should pay.
From ESPN:
In truth, steroids have been banned in baseball since 1991 -- in a policy baseball officials made little effort to publicize. A source provided a copy of the seven-page document to ESPN The Magazine on the condition of anonymity. Titled "Baseball's Drug Policy and Prevention Program," the memo was sent to all major-league clubs on June 7 of that year by then-commissioner Fay Vincent. He spelled out components of the program, and ordered, "This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids."
On May 15, 1997, acting commissioner Bud Selig distributed a nearly identical version of the drug memo, again citing steroids and directing clubs to post the policy in clubhouses and distribute copies to players.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=steroidsExc&num=19
I know some will say, well, nobody took that seriously, the GMs looked the other way, it was encouraged, whatever. The reality is we were talking about steroids even before Mac's big season, the accusations were flying and EVERYBODY knew it was wrong and that it was cheating. It's why people like Mac were so sensitive even to relevations that he took Andro. Everybody understood, way back then, that if you were found out to be a steroid abuser you be viewed as a liar and a cheat and all of your records would be called into question.
Clearly, the fact that players were reluctant to admit to legal supplementation, let alone no players ever openly stating they were juicing, shows everyone was aware it was cheating.
If people want to make the argument that Bonds was a hall of famer before he ever started juicing, I'm more open to that debate. But the argument that he shouldn't be punished, ridiculed, ostracized, and stripped of his records because it wasn't against the rules anymore than sign stealing is way off base.
Bonds knew he was cheating, which is why he expressly denied taking steroids. Everyone knew it was cheating, and cheating in a big way, not like stealing signs, not even like corking a bat or cutting a ball. It was a prolonged attack on the integrity of baseball, he knew it, he knew it was illegal, he knew it was against the rules, and he did it anyway despite being arguably the best player in the game without them.
You're right, too, about McGwire's reaction to the Andro disclosure. Now I recall, he was indeed embarrassed and angry. He knew that revelations of that he'd ingested any performance assisting chemicals would be viewed as diminishing his accomplishments. He was also likely afraid that it would open the door for more probing, perhaps getting too close to the steroid use, in which I think most of us now agree he was engaging.
The fact of a policy since 1991 also has to make one wonder just why Selig and the baseball hierarchy did absolutely nothing for all those years. Nothing, even though there would not have been a union issue. And of course, there are the good old SF Giants. Lots of management integrity there, eh? MacGowan, Sabean, Baker, Alou, et al, scumbags, all of 'em. Got their new park, though.
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.