Don't Forget the Motor City ...
The lesson with Barry Bonds is clear: Don’t get comfortable. You might recall that about a week ago, I had braced myself for the Bonds chase. I did my Barry calisthenics. I studied some baseball history. I bought some flaxseed oil. And then things began to change. Bonds looked so bad against Los Angeles over the weekend, you wondered if he had been placed under a spell by an evil enchantress or, perhaps, Jeff Kent.
Then he sat out of a couple of games in Chicago, and rumors began flapping that he would go on the disabled list. The Bonds homer chase was at a standstill. Well, hey, this was like a 12th hour reprieve from the governor. I started to think, “Hey, I won’t have to worry about this Bonds thing for at least a couple more weeks.” I relaxed. I made plans. I set up dinner dates with old friends. I was going to finally get to cleaning out that darned garage.
So, Thursday, what happened? Bonds bashed two homers at Wrigley Field. And Thursday night, I kissed my wife and kids good bye. In the morning I begin my chase of Barry Bonds.
Well, not quite immediately. First, I go to Detroit Friday night – please pay attention if you live in Detroit (or live near Detroit, or have relatives who live in Detroit, or have relatives who live near Detroit, or you will be visiting Detroit or you've HEARD of Detroit). I could really use your help.
Book promo: I will be out at Comerica Park, Gate A, from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. signing (and selling) The Soul of Baseball. I agreed to this a long time ago, when it seemed a lot less real, and now I have a frightening image in my mind of being out there alone while people walk by and give me dirty looks, the looks they give to those college kids who shout, “Hey, we’re giving away free Major League Baseball beach towels,” when what they’re really doing is trying to sell you a Major League Baseball Visa card with loan shark interest rates.
If you can make it out there Friday night, buy a book, talk baseball, give me photos of Scott Boras, whatever -- please help me. Oh yeah, proceeds from the sales go to the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum.
Then Saturday I go to Milwaukee to begin the Bond chase. I have to say that this chase is probably the most confusing, divisive, baffling and bizarrely fascinating assignment of my career. Here is Barry Bonds on the brink of setting one of the great records in American sports – shoot, let’s just say it, this is THE record in American sports – and nobody knows exactly how to feel about it. Are we mad? Sad? Titilated? Thrilled? Disgusted? Is it real? Is it fraudulent? Is Severus Snape good? Is he evil?
Writing about the Bonds homer chase is like writing sports in a funhouse. Everything is illusion and distorted mirrors and scary clowns. I have to say that I have read many columns and stories about Bonds, and frankly I think it’s been difficult for even the best writers in the business to get their arms around this thing. For instance, Sally Jenkins (who is excellent) wrote the other day that the only way there could be a happy ending for Barry Bonds is for him to walk away and retire just before he broke the record. I thought that was somewhat interesting and well written, but then it occurred to me that in addition to it being unrealistic, it’s also too simple. Would that really be a happy ending? No. I suspect if he really did that, if he really quit just before breaking the record, then, sure, at first everyone might applaud him and think, “What a noble gesture.”
But I think that would fade very quickly. I suspect people would Bonds gesture as an admission that he was guilty of every steroid, human growth hormone, drug crime imaginable, and that he really hated himself and felt unworthy. All his accomplishments would be suspect -- no, more than suspect. All his numbers would fade from the books. His legacy would be reduced to: “He’s the cheating guy who quit before he broke the home run record.”
Meanwhile up in Chicago, my friend Rick Morrissey (who is one of the best sports writers in America) says he won’t even write about the Bonds chase – he’s just going to treat it like it isn’t real. The other day, though, he wrote a column challenging the comments of Jesse Jackson, who said that Babe Ruth’s statistics were even more artificially enhanced because he did not have to face African Americans or dark-skinned Latin American players. Rick isn’t buying that – his argument (as I understood it) is that blacks never did come to dominate baseball, and so it’s a stretch to think that the great white players before 1947 would have been any less great had their been no color line.
I’m not sure I’m completely with him, but I appreciate the point and understand him defending the good names of Walter Johnson, Babe Ruth and so on. But there’s one thing he writes that I think is off base … Rick writes this paragraph:
“If you use Jackson's logic, the stats of Negro leagues star Josh Gibson are suspect too. Because he wasn't allowed to compete against whites in the big leagues, how many of his reported 962 homers came against substandard talent? Shouldn't we call that number the ultimate enhancement too?”
Here’s the problem with that: People DO follow Jesse Jackson’s logic when it comes to Josh Gibson. EVERYONE considers Gibson's stats suspect. NOBODY treats his 962 homers as real or as any sort of record. In fact, if you went to your 50 friends who know the most about baseball and asked them, “How many home runs did Josh Gibson hit?” I would bet precisely zero of them would have a specific number in mind – none of them would say “Oh, he hit 962.” His statistics are written off BECAUSE he didn’t face white players.
In other words, it seems to me by bringing up Josh Gibson, Rick made a rather persuasive argument against his argument.
But, hey, these are confusing times. I don’t have any clearer picture of this crazy home run deal. My own thoughts constantly contradict each other. I tend to believe that steroid use is worse than using amphetamines (or the more law-friendly cheating like corking bats or scuffing baseballs) but I couldn't tell you exactly why. I think that Hank Aaron is more worthy of the home run record though I believe Barry Bonds was the better player (even before steroid suspicions). I think Barry Bonds was, in most ways, just playing the rules and boundaries of his time, and yet I also think he was fully aware of the lines he was crossing.
There are so many different things swirling around this story – race, fair play, history, a paralyzed commissioner, drugs, anger, self-righteousness, ego and perhaps the most gifted and remarkable baseball player who has ever swung a bat. I have no idea what to say, really. I’m just jumping into the water, I guess, and going wherever the tide carries me.
(First, though, the tide takes me to Detroit. Come on by! Please!)
21 comments:
I'll definitely have to bring my camera to the game tomorrow. Luckily, it is Saturday that I'm missing for the WNBA, not Friday.
I don't envy you Milwaukee. Clemens going for 300 at Comerica was bad enough, and that was only one game*. You might be with Barry for a week or two.
*Granted, it was one game that lasted 17 innings, but still.
I disagree with you on the greenies-vs-juice thinking.
On defense, there's really no comparison, so just give whatever portion of the game defense makes up (1/5?) entirely to amphetamines.
For pitchers, it's unclear. Anabolics help you heal, but sheer muscle mass doesn't really help pitchers much. Call it a push. That's, what, another 1/3 of the game? So far, greenies are worse.
So, hitting. Being big and strong helps a lot. But paying very, very close attention to each pitch does, too. I don't know where the dividing line may be, but I doubt any advantage for winstrol pushes far past the defensive push for dexedrine.
Cheating is cheating, and this is Gaylord Perry's sport. I wish The Barry hadn't used, but I just can't get exercised about it, in context. He was good before. He's still good, clean again we assume, at an advanced age. What more can you ask?
Exactly why would you assume he's clean now? Did they invent a test for HGH?
Wish I could be there, good luck!
According to the book "The Physics of Baseball" corking a bat does nothing, except lighten the bat. By the time the impact bounces "back" from the cork, with any effect, the ball has left the bat.
So they might as well just "drill it" empty, and forget the cork.
Oh, and Joe, good luck standing out there, looking misplaced from Macy's sale on aftershave (or, "the complete shaving care supply regimen, $99.50!". You have an excellent product! (insert Joe-Torre-on-Derek-Jeter comment here).
Just so you know I bought a copy of the book when you did a reading at a St. Louis library that I became aware of through this blog. It was a good easy read that made me respect and admire a man I already held in high regard.
We already have a list of people who will be getting it as a gift for birthdays, Christmas, and Arbor Day (to hell with trees).
Go Royals.
I read Rick Morrissey's article that you referenced, and found it to be moronic. He puts forth no logical arguments for rejecting JJ's input. In fact, he ignores the initial comment, and changes it to ones he can more easily reject ('baseball was a big lie', 'Walter Johnson would not be Walter Johnson', etc).
As for 'blacks never dominating baseball', no race has dominated baseball since it finally allowed other races to participate. That is the point of JJ's argument.
Did Rick even do cursory research for this article? A quick look at the active career HR list shows no whites in the top 5, and only 1 of the top 10. There is much more evidence that Ruth's record is enhanced than Bonds', but he rejects it completely. With great black pitchers replacing the worst in the league, Ruth would clearly have hit fewer HRs, and may not have had the most in the game. People like Rick just want to pick and choose which standards they apply to which people without any regard for consistency.
Here is what I don't understand...Barry and the Steroids vs. Rose and the Gambling. I guess I didn't live through the whole Rose thing, with enough memory at least to recall it, but are there parallels here? In both instances, there are pros and cons for the guys. Both attack the integrity of the game, yes, but what did it really come down to with the betting? Some games for the Reds and Rose's managerial record? With Bonds, you said it yourself, this is THE record. The one and only. There's a few calls you can hear in your head at anytime if you are a baseball fan. One is "The Giants win the Pennant," the next? maybe it's "There's a new home run king and it's Henry Aaron." And his attack on the integrity of the game will actually give him this most coveted record. On the other hand, with Rose, no one else was doing it, and with Barry, it is possible that he only did it when he felt his actual skill was being overshadowed by less skilled players who were on the juice. Does that make it right though? I think when you sit down and look at it, they are both very similar stories each with their own nuances that give each one their own argument for who did a worse thing. There are so many more things you can even go into like the personalities of the guys...both kinda bad on the surface. However, when you look at it, one will end up being a disgrace and the other, will end up a first ballot hall of famer and considered one the best of all time even with a stain on his record. I guess my feeling is we need to give Pete a break. I try and try but at some point I can't blame Barry, and I do think he was and is amazing with or without the juice. They both should be in the hall of fame for sure, but to also be frank, I have no clue what I was just talking about and like everyone else, can't get my arms around anything like this.
Joe,
You need to come down to the best minor league park in America (Dell Diamond in Round Rock, Texas) and throw out the first pitch and do a book signing. The Express average about 9,000 per night and around 10,000+ on weekends. We'd be glad to have you. Also, are you ever going to acknowledge some of the folks that post on this board with regularity (Dan Rather, rahodeb, etc)? They've all read your book and do what they can to promote it. How 'bout an ole Charlie Kerfeld "shout out"?
I am sure you will get a lot of visitors at your book signing. I tried to help out by giving it a mention in my blog this morning.
http://blue-collarbaseball.blogspot.com/2007/07/baseballs-ultimate-unsung-hero.html
Hey, I made the front page of today's Wall Street Journal. I'm a bigger news story than Harry Freakin' Potter in some circles! Woohoo!! There is no such thing as bad press, unless it keeps my fellow vegans from paying $23 for a 10 oz bottle of "Canned Vermont Air." Also, I'm pleased to announce that I have signed Mitch "Wild Thing" Williams to help us fight our case with the FTC to buy Wild Oats. Once we win our case I will make him the GM of all Wild Thing Oats stores in America.
Keep in mind that there were far fewer teams in baseball at the time that Ruth played, meaning pitching staffs were less diluted than they are today. Ballparks also tended to be significantly larger (short porch in Yankee Stadium’s left field notwithstanding). My point is not to defend Rick Morrissey’s conclusion and definitively legitimize Babe Ruth’s career homerun totals, but rather to point out that there are too many variables at work here to clearly establish either Babe Ruth’s or Barry Bonds’ as the more legitimate.
JP,
Tim from Chicago (KC transplant). Rick Morrisey has a funny way of ignoring Barry Bonds: Morrisey scored an exclusive interview with Bonds, and it's in today's Chicago Tribune. It's an obtuse interview, but it tells me that Morrisey is following the chase.
- TL
The trick to getting the free towel / tee shirt / blanket but not the credit card is to transpose the last two numbers of your SS but to remember what you wrote when they ask you. They can't send a CC without the right Social Security number.
Good luck with the signing!
I think the big problem with steroids as "cheating" is the tremendous health risks involved with excessive usage ofanabolic steroids and HGH.
Look, riders have always cheated in the Tour de France. Baseball players have always cheated in order to survive a 162 game marathon of a season. These are the two greatest endurance challenges in sports, and it is human nature to try and find an edge.
The biggest issue I have with all the self righteous hating on Barry is, steroids did not make Barry Bonds the massive man he is today. You cannot use steroids or HGH and become muscluar. The only way to "Be Like Barry" is to spend hours in the gym.
Would Barry have 753 HR in his carrer and a 72 HR season under his belt without the roids? Probably not. But would he have dramatically increased his HR totals in the years after he dedicated himself to a ridiculously rigorous workout routine? Yes he would have.
Compare that to the use of "greenies" or to doctoring the ball, which require no extra effort on the part of the player. Compare that also to "doping" by cyclists, which again require no extra effort on the part of the rider.
The reason to be upset, then, is that the drugs he used carry tremendous negative side effects, so the "role model" effect is damaging to society and to the sport. I, though, refuse to discount Bonds' totals based strictly on his usage of steroids.
"There are so many different things swirling around this story – race, fair play, history, a paralyzed commissioner, drugs, anger, self-righteousness, ego and perhaps the most gifted and remarkable baseball player who has ever swung a bat."
Wow! Seriously, it sounds like the synposis for a book I'd definately read! How about it, Joe? I'd say you're the man for the job, being on good terms with Barry and all!
Joe, when are you going to do a book signing in Chicago?
I was thinking about why I don't like Morrissey's columns, and then I read that he covered the Denver Broncos for like 8 years.
Anyone that spends that much time around the color orange in high altitude has got to have deluded sensibilities.
The only thing worse was if Morrissey had been Al Davis' evil stepson.
Free Barry Bonds!!!
"Jeff J said...
Keep in mind that there were far fewer teams in baseball at the time that Ruth played, meaning pitching staffs were less diluted than they are today"
Actually, as Bill James pointed out in one of his books, pitching is 'less diluted' now, because world population (and more so the population baseball players have drawn upon) has grown at a significantly greater curve than the number of baseball pitchers. Also, in Babe's time, the best pitchers in the league would pitch many more innings than now.
There are also many potential causes for Bonds' HR total, even if steroids had no effect: thinner bats; smaller stadiums that you mentioned; and changes in hitting style to name a few.
Remember, nobody has proven that steroids increase HR output - they have only conjecture with a bias. They may be right, but prove it. Every serious attempt I have seen has shown only small or no increase.
Post a Comment