Will on Bonds
Chron.com | Will: The best place to stand on record of baseball's Bonds
I'm with George Will on this one ...
In any case, Bonds' records must remain part of baseball's history. His hits happened. Erase them and there will be discrepancies in baseball's bookkeeping about the records of the pitchers who gave them up. George Orwell said that in totalitarian societies, yesterday's weather could be changed by decree. Baseball, indeed America, is not like that.Besides, the people who care about the record book - serious fans - will know how to read it. That may be Bonds' biggest worry.
Maybe it's because I'm a bit older than the average blogger, but the Barry Bonds I know isn't defined by the numbers 73 or his quest for 755. It's defined by the fact that he was truly the greatest player of the '90s ... that he is the only player to hit over 400 home runs and 400 stolen bases in the sport's history. It's defined by Bonds (at least pre-steroids) being the best combination of speed and power in the sport.
Will makes the case that Bonds' numbers pre-1999 warrant his membership in the Hall of Fame. I agree. It's up to Bonds to see if he's up for a comeback and making the final push for Hank Aaron's record. I don't begrudge him the opportunity to reach that mark. He's earned it. He'll likely go down as the best baseball player I'll have the opportunity to witness. And should he surpass Aaron's home run mark, I share the faith that serious fans will know how to read the records intelligently, much like they compare pitching stats from different eras, much like they compare hitting stats from different eras.
SI's excerpt is available in the recent issue, or online here. It's an interesting read, no doubt. How much of it stands up to scrutiny, we'll see. That Bonds has experimented with steroids isn't much of an issue anymore. But Bonds' stats up to 1999 shouldn't be up for debate, either. And once you realize what those numbers represent, it's hard to write off the entirety of his career due to the recent nonsense that he's put himself through.
I think Bonds should be in the record books also... with a nice little asterisk beside his name that said "I cheated."
I remember that Bonds, too. And he is cast into doubt, too, because the 90s were days of heavy steriod use. We don't know that he didn't use them, especially if he used them more judiciously.
Why not argue that Pete Rose deserves HoF for numbers prior to the specific date of the proof of his betting? Wait, some already do . . . . Bonds deserves and needs to be thrown out with no less vigor than Rose or the Black Sox. Bonds took steroids and lied about it.
Bonds cheapened his history. MLB cheapened theirs. They cheapened their history to recover from fan loss. They found excuses to tolerate cheating. (And it seems possible, even likely, that MLB knew the evidence brought out by the book about Bonds.) To allow a pre-1999 Bonds a spot in the HoF is still a toleration of cheating. Unfortunately, I think it's unlikely MLB will do anything to affect Bonds's entry. And that's when I'll certainly throw out MLB as something to spend my money or time on, which truth be told, it's practically there already.
I nearly always agree with George Will when he writes about baseball, just like I nearly always disagree with him about everything else. Yeah, I think Barry will go into the Hall of Fame, and I think deservedly so. The 400/400 is undisputably one of the most amazing marks of all time. Don't get me wrong; I'm really pissed at him. But there's really no way to adjust for steroid use, this has been the steroid era, pure and simple, and serious baseball fans will take that into consideration when looking at the records.
I have a bone to pick with you about the best player thing, though. It has to be Ken Griffey, Jr. He's been hurt the last several years, but prior to 1999 or so, almost everbody put Jr ahead of Barry, me included. Had he not been hurt, we'd be talking about he and Barry chasing Aaron and Ruth together. Even missing huge chunks of the last several seasons with injury, he's an absolute mortal lock for the Hall of Fame.
CD,
So who's a better hockey player - Gretzky, or Lemeiux? (we'll leave Gordie out of it for the time being) It's a similar debate, and I remember that Ken Griffey, Jr era as well. But injuries are a part of the game and record books and lifetime accomplishments don't get compensated for such. Not for Griffey. Not for Joe Charbaneau. Griffey's definitely worth debating about as one of the best of the 90s and the jump start he had on his career (debuting two years younger than Bonds) ought to have helped him in the comparison for lifetime achievement (to date). They're both similar in many regards (minus the steroids, apparently) but I'll stake my claim on Bonds being the better in his prime and over the course of his career. For what speed Griffey has, his peak stolen base total is 24?
"minus the steroids, apparently"?
"Other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln"?
I can't agree with you on this one. Bonds cheated. Junior didn't. In my book, Bonds' pharmaceutical antics tarnish his legacy. Hell, without the 'roids, he's still a first-ballot Hall of Famer (as is Griffey), so it makes his use all the more frustrating.
I already have a problem when I look at the home run chart and see his name above Mays, Williams, etc.
I say ban him before he gets to Hank Aaron's record.
Is the idea of performance enhancers anything out of the ordinary for Major League Baseball? Hardly. Especially if it wasn't illegal at the time. Do you realize that pitchers sneaked vasoline and threw spitters? That umps called balls and strikes for the catcher and rewarded the catchers with favored calls? That coaches and managers steal signals? That players hit many homers with rubber in their bats? That players like George Brett used pine tar to high on the bat? This idea of gaining an advantage is not only the norm in baseball, it is almost as traditional to baseball as hotdogs, peanuts and beer.