Just a tremendous showing over at The Starting Five over the past 24 hours, with regards to the big story - Barry Bonds breaks Hank Aaron's record. I want to highlight some of the excellent writing that has been coming out of there, as it is some of their most outstanding stuff. I actually have very little to add, other than a mix of support for their voice, and awe at their writing.JWeiler started off with a post about Rob Neyer, Jayson Starks, and Jim Caple of ESPN, and their article on Barry Bonds. All three of them tried to discuss Bonds without delving into rhetoric too much. When the discussion of race comes up, Rob Neyer in the ESPN article tries to dismiss it alright by using a subtle logical fallacy:
I'm not saying that race doesn't matter. But I'm tired of people telling me race always matters; the latter is nearly as ridiculous as the former. And I believe that if Barry Bonds was a white, steroids-bloated jerk, he'd be covered essentially the same way that he is being covered now.
JWeiler captures and breaks it down beautifully:
To assert that race doesn't matter - that if Bonds were a white jerk, etc., he'd be treated the same way - is to speculate in a way that is impossible for us to do intelligently. Let's flip this for a moment - what if the press corps covering baseball, instead of being - what is it? - 96% white, were 96% Black? Would our perception of Bonds be exactly the same, if that were true?
What if a mostly Black press corps were pestering white players about stuff the media cared about? For example, imagine persistent questioning for years directed at Cal Ripken with such questions as: don't you think you had it kind of easy growing up, being given such privileged access to the game by your father? Or, don't you think you're being selfish by staying in the lineup for personal records, and not the good of the team? Would Cal have been so gracious all those years? And, if he grew weary, wary and mistrustful,and snapped at times, and told the media he didn't want to talk to them, would we still think of him as a "great guy?" Now, the fair answer to all those questions is "I have no idea." Maybe he would have.
And, maybe Bonds would come across as prickly and aloof to Black writers just as he does to a mostly white media. Maybe Bonds would have been more trusting, opening up to Black reporters. Jack Curry, of the New York Times, acknowledged to Chris Russo yesterday that Bonds can be quite charming around reporters with whom he's more comfortable (and, of course, some of those reporters are white). But, in any event, we don't really know. And, neither does Neyer.
This is absolutely one of the most brilliant deconstructions of yet another cliche in the Bonds discussion - that a white player would be treated exactly the same - I've read. There isn't much for me to add, I just wanted to point it out, because it is impressive.
DWil had this post about 756. He writes about Bud Selig, and his embarrassing performance as commissioner, one that has been soundly criticized by almost everyone. But his writes most impressively about the hatred of Bonds, and how so many people won't even let him have his day:
With Barry Bonds, it seems difficult for many people to let "it" go. Even on the night when Bonds hits number 756, people won't let "it" go. They are, as I am writing this, concocting their sad, hate-filled tales filled with unsubstantiated claims and calling them "facts."
In all honesty, I can't think of of any other who has been subject to so much media criticism. D-Wil sums up my sentiments today, as I opened up the Daily News and had to deal with the front and back covers you can see on the right side of this post. They couldn't even let Bonds have his day; instead they opted to double their normal quantity of Bonds-bashing.
In the comments of that post, there was a link to this brilliant article/report on Bonds versus Babe Ruth, and the real beneficiary of "performance enhancement":
In other words, it is impossible to know whether or not Bonds' home run spree in the years from 1999 to
2003 was due to steroid use, or whether he may have hit the same number even without them. But we do
know one thing for certain: from 1887, when blacks were run out of white-dominated professional
baseball leagues, until 1947, when Jackie Robinson first stepped onto a field for the Brooklyn Dodgers,
every white baseball player for six decades had been protected from black competition. And protection
from competition is the most profound form of artificial performance enhancement imaginable.
Again, it's a great read that really provides a different perspective from anything being reported in the mainstream media. The article breaks down the criticism of Bonds, and those that would call his record "tainted', and compares it to the non-criticism of Babe Ruth, and how his record is quite obviously far more "tainted".
Finally, on the topic of media perspective, here's JWeiler again, in his most recent post:
Ok, I have no problem with villains and heroes in sports on the field. That sports competition is about good guys and bad guys for many people, when it comes to the competition itself - that's part of what's fun about rooting for and against teams and players. I am a Yankee fan - and the Yankees are probably the most hated team in American sports. That's fine - I understand why that is and it's part of what's fun, actually, about being a Yankee fan. But, when you take that two-dimensional, black hat vs. white hat world view off the field - when you actually, in short, purport to make serious judgments about character and morality and society that are based on simplistic views of reality - well, I can't abide that. If Dodgers fans hate the Giants' best player - great. If Red Sox fans hate the Yankees' best players - that's part of the game. If Michigan fans hate the Buckeyes - I am good with all that. Three of my biggest rooting interests - the Yankees, Michigan football and UNC basketball - are arguably part of the three biggest rivalries in North American sports. Bring on the hatred between the lines, I say. But, once you start to believe your own press - as the sports media do - that they aren't just the purveyors of what happens on the field, but the arbiters of character and morality and decency and (God help us) justice off of it - well, then we've got a problem. Because, in far too many cases, theses are folks who's understanding of the world in which we live is arrested at an adolescent stage. That's fine for rooting for your team. It's not fine for serious analysis of the weightier issues of sports as a reflection of larger social realities.
And in one line, JWeiler summed up what SML is all about. I could do without the press' rhetoric, without their moralizing. We all could... we're smart enough to form our own opinions, right? Stop force feeding the same thing over and over down my throat.
Say what you want about TSF, but they are providing one of the freshest voice and perspective in sports writing right now.
Update:
If you need a good laugh, read Mike Lupica's column today on Bond's record. Given one last opportunity to bash Bonds before having to give it up (until the grand jury indicts him, or he retires), Lupica proves how out of touch he is:
It is not just the carnival that moves away from Bonds now. So does the Bonds propaganda machine, the hype machine, all those who tell you that because Bonds has made it to No. 756, how he got there no longer matters, nothing else matters besides a Big Moment like this, which is supposed to trump everything in the end.
It does not, even if there are enough people out there, ballplayers and journalists and amateur journalists and professional Bonds flacks, the ones who think they are doing something brave and noble by defending Bonds, the ones who think that if they say Bonds is innocent of all drug charges often enough, they can somehow make it true.
I apologize for losing my "impartial voice", but... holy cow, this mo-fo is f*cking tripping. Seriously, "the hype machine"? "There are enough people out there... amateur journalists... who think they are doing something brave and noble by defending Bonds"?Check the DSM-IV: Diagnostic criteria for "Delusional Disorder": Nonbizarre delusions (i.e., involving situations that occur in real life, such as being followed, poisoned, infected, loved at a distance, or deceived by spouse or lover, or having a disease) of at least 1 month's duration.
Say what you want about "the Bonds hype machine", but please... Lupica's own paper, the Daily News, has all of zero columns dedicated to "defending" Bonds. Ever. The closest thing I've seen is Filip Bondy, who wrote that Bonds' breaking of the record "Grow up and stop trying to make obsessive, numerical comparisons between eras." That's hardly a "hype machine".
Yo Mike, where is the hype machine, man? Seriously, I want to know where to find these "defenders of Bonds"? Is it on ESPN? No. SI? Hell no! In the blogsphere? Nope, unless you mean at a few places like here, TSF, Cosellout, etc. You know, that 5% that is minority. The other 95% - AOL, Deadspin, Foxsports, Cbssportsline (with the notable exception of Doyle's columns) have all been as anti-Bonds as you.
Wow. Not only does Lupica suck, and not only is he a baby raper, but he's suffering from Delusional Disorder, too.
Oh, hell... one more thing. Lupica writes:
But if all that is true, here is one more question on the Barry Bonds All-Time Home Run King Quiz:
If steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs don't matter, then why do athletes in all sports take them in the first place?
Okay, fine. And why do athletes like Aaron take greenies? Seriously, if they don't work, why did more than half the league take greenies? Why did half the league do coke in the 80's? That must have worked, too, right? Why did players in Ruth's era allow segregation to go on? Because it sure is easier to hit homers when you're not facing Satchel Paige. And it's easier to be the face of baseball, the guy getting paid more than the President, when you are the one hitting all the homers, not Josh Gibson.None of which, I should mention, takes away from Ruth's and Aaron's accomplishments. So leave Bonds' accomplishments alone, and stop trying to "taint" them, okay?
But you know where this is going, right? Raise your hand if you didn't see this coming months ago:
Once, 33 years ago, the home run record, off the bat of Aaron, was the greatest and most glamorous record in baseball. Not anymore. Now it is Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak. That's it and that's all.
Joe DiMaggio! The last great hope! It's the record that matters... at least until Gary Sheffield breaks it. If there's any justice at all, Gary Sheffield will be the one to break it.
Leave a comment
|
9 Comments
Comments
Although I generally agree with the idea that Bonds has put up with much more b.s. than he should have regarding this whole situation, there are a few comments I'd like to share.
First off, I realize that this blog is more about hypocrisy in the media than anything else, and I totally agree that the mainstream sports media is a totally unreliable source of analysis and information.
However, let's turn away from the media and toward your attitude toward Barry Bonds. You have to admit it is VERY likely that Bonds used steroids. It is also very likely that dozens (if not hundreds) of other major leaguers used steroids as well. The individuals who used steroids did so knowing that not only was it "cheating", but it was against the laws of the United States of America. As a result, if any of them get caught (like Rafael Palmeiro, for instance) they have to be willing to deal with the consequences. Maybe Barry has never tested positive for steroids, but there's definitely a pretty good chance that he used them. As a result, he's gotta live with that decision. And part of that is dealing with bullshit from the media and from fans.
If he used steroids and was not willing to deal with criticism and suspicion, then he should have made some different choices back in 2000 or whenever it was that he allegedly used steroids.
Secondly, I wanted to point out something about Babe Ruth. Yes, Babe Ruth played while baseball excluded minority athletes. And that was a terrible injustice on the part of major league baseball. But, that was not Ruth's doing. It was the actions of the ignorant heads of baseball that "enhanced" Ruth's performance. In fact, there were some individuals who suspected that Babe Ruth had some black blood in him, and sought to have him expelled from baseball, probably out of jealousy for his talent.
So yes, segregation was a "performance enhancer" for white baseball players prior to 1947, but it was through no fault of their own. Ruth's numbers may be "tainted", but I really don't think you can blame him for it.
Steroid users, however, enhanced their performances willingly, through their own actions, and thus the blame should lie with them.
I just wanted to clarify that, because if the "Ruth's numbers are tainted" argument gains some traction, it's possible that people will misdirect their negative feelings toward Babe Ruth, instead of the individuals who really played a role in excluding black and Latino players.
Anyway, I enjoy the blog, and keep up the good work.
Hey Tom, thanks for the comments.
Yes, I think it's not a big deal if Bonds and half the league took steroids. Hank Aaron admittedly used greenies, which is just "the steroids" of his time. Babe Ruth, as Tim Wise wrote in that paper, tried to inject himself with sheep hormones to get an edge. To be fair, the legend was that Babe Ruth injected himself with ground sheep testicles in order to increase his power.
Point being, players have, and always will, do pretty much anything to get an edge. That's been the case forever, and will never change.
My problem has always been with the media for making up a hysteria surrounding steroids (which are harmful for you if overly abused, but it is a debateable topic - scientist still haven't determined if they are truly bad for you, and are definitely okay in controlled dosages), then made Bonds the poster boy for steroids, all out of sheer revenge for his surly attitude.
I do agree that Bonds did nothing to help himself - one, his surly attitude as always been the reason the media has been out to get him, long before the steroids issue (MODI did a good post on how SI covered his early years in Pittsburgh, and how even then there was a clear anti-Bonds sentiment). Two, he might have known, given the media's agenda to get him, that doing steroids, even when the media looked the other way when McGwire and Sosa broke records with steroid use and discussion going on right in front of the media, that in doing steroids the media would lynch him for steroid use if they got wind of it.
But the point is, why should Bonds be held to impossibly higher standard than everyone else who has played the game, simply because he refuses to cooperate with second-rate journalists?
As for the Ruth argument, I understand that blaming the owners who kept the league segregated might seem logical. But the players did their part, too. As Tim Wise points out, they failed to stand up and demand or even ask for the inclusion of blacks in the league. Babe Ruth had more power than anyone in terms of clout; he could have protested the exclusion of black players if he was so inclined, and probablyt made a difference. And the reason segregation began in MLB (blacks used to be able to play MLB in the the 1800's) is because Cap Anson (a player-coach) demanded that baseball ban blacks.
It's not to say Babe Ruth's record isn't impressive, or tainted. It's just to say, like ESPN's Peter Gammons said, that comparing players from different eras is impossible, anyway. Babe Ruth dominated his era; his era was far different from Hank Aaron's era; Hank's era is different from Bonds; and Bonds' era will surely be different from the person who ends up breaking his record, whenever that might be.
what a horrible cover by the Daily News. And thanks for showing the daily news latest absurdity and highlighting the starting Five's work. I have been meaning to dedicate a column specifically to TSF's work on Bonds and will still do so in an elaborate fashion. It really can't be stressed enough given how few sources actually try to balance out the coverage. Lupica MUST be on crack these days....
Tom's point about segregation not being an enhancer has SOME merit, but I am glad, SML. that you echoed Tim Wise's point about Babe Ruth's neglected responsibility. michael jordan tends to take some heat (some deservedly so IMO) for not wielding his unique power, but babe Ruth had unique power in the 1920's. I truly wonder what would happen if he said: "I want to play against the very best competition! Let's desegregate baseball and truly see who is the best." i wonder what kind of stir that this would have caused or what national efeect it could have had?
Lupica is no different from the host of other white sportswriters for major newspapers... he regurgitates what is popular, doesn't think for himself and writes what sells newspapers.
Good for you, SML, for pointing out what everyone in the media ignores.... PLAYERS HAVE BEEN CHEATING EVER SINCE THE GAME WAS INVENTED.
Or as Hall of Famer and cheater Gaylord Perry said... "If you ain't cheatin', you ain't competin'. "
But why doesn't anyone get upset when Perry admits to cheating and doctoring baseballs? Perry's in the Hall of Fame, yet authors books on how he got away with cheating!
And why aren't folks upset when Aaron admits to taking greenies?
I knew a guy who played AA ball in the '70's.... he took speed, and admitted that several teammates took them too, although no one talked about it and the coaches just looked the other way. Amphetamines improve your hand/eye coordination and focus. Isn't that cheating?
I'm curious to see how many players have gotten an ADD diagnosis and take
Ritalin/Concerta/Stratera/
Adderall or Dexedrine, all of which are stimulants. Does anyone know if there is data on those sort of diagnoses among active players? Isn't a drug that improves coordination and focus providing an unfair advantage?
By that token isn't Aaron's record tainted and isn't anyone taking any unnatural substance a cheater, Ruth included? (Ruth supposedly did a lot of cocaine too... there's more performance enhancing products taken by an idol from baseball's golden era).
Looking at right here and now, steroid tainted pitchers are pitching to Bonds, and Bonds is still hitting them out of the park. He's also leading the league in walks... that's a BIG plus for San Fran, if they only had some half decent hitters following Bonds.
Here's a thought...
How many HRs would Bonds have hit if he was a DH and didn't have to field his position? He'd reduce his chance of injury to his gimpy knees, and maybe could hit 800 HRs.
Already the steroid rhetoric is starting with A-Rod. Canseco says he has info. on A-Rod and steroids. Chipper Jones raised questions about A-Rod and steroids usage. The cheater talk is starting early for the man who may dethrone Bonds. When Bonds retires, all that hate can be unleashed on A-Rod. He's another easy target to sell newspapers. But if your team had a legitimate chance of signing him, wouldn't you welcome him with open arms onto the field and into your lineup?
Hmm, I admittedly never considered the fact that Ruth could have used his clout to sway the owners. Excellent point. So, even though he wasn't the one who was literally holding back minority players, he chose not to do something about it. Obviously, it's not as bad as what the owners did, but it was certainly a missed opportunity to do something great for the game, and society in general.
But anyway, like you guys say, it's extremely difficult to compare players of different eras. We'll just have to look at Bonds as the best power hitter of our generation, with the understanding that the era was not exactly "pure".
If there's one thing I hope MLB learns from this it is to be proactive about potential problems in the future. The current steroid scandal won't stop players from doing other things they shouldn't do. The next time a situation like this arises, it would be wise of MLB to try to nip it in the bud as quickly as possible, instead of ignoring it and hoping nobody finds out.
Excellent point Tom, about MLB and how it addresses a crisis. From the owners to the managers, they looked the other way and hoped no one would find out.
And you're right... they'll just find another angle to use as an advantage. Hopefully MLB recognize the problem before it becomes a monster next time.
SML,
I writing a piece on this as we speak, but who designates a "hallowed" number? Explain that to me. Old white guy BS, if you ask me. My hallowed numbers: 27 and 120; the Anthony Young losing streak and the Mets losses in '62. Both my favorite records. Oh yeah, don't forget about 316 and 48. Cy Young's career losses and John Coleman's losses in a season. Hallowed.
i know it's a bit late, but i'll throw in my 2cents...
another thing with the media and bonds. Sure he's guilty of roiding, as are many players. Selig should be just as responsible for turning a blind eye to PEDs. He's been a commissioner since 94 i beleive, and he's had a monetary stake in the major leagues since 1965 when he first owned part of the brewers. The most the media ever says about him is..."he's an asshole for not being there during the record breaking homer."
Nothing about him turning a blind eye, no fury whatsoever from the media. All you get is them criticizing him for not being there for a record they are completely ignoring (which is funny enough in it's own right).
When Bonds hit 755, Selig's male companion at the game had to nudge him to wake him up and get to his feet.
He looked like a senile old man who had fallen asleep and his nurse was waking him to tell him it was time to show some respect (or check his adult diaper, not sure of which). He couldn't have looked less interested.
I do think race is somewhat of a factor here. Mark McGwire's 73 HR ball went for 3 mil. on the auction block. They're now saying that Barry Bond's 756 HR ball is tainted and worth only around 350,000. McGwire was tainted by steroids, and the single season HR record is nowhere near as important as the all-time HR record. So what is the difference in the scenarios?
I don't hate many people, but I'm starting to hate some of these ANALysts and press guys. They're mostly a bunch of weasly little white men who probably got the shit kicked out of them by the jocks in their High Schools. Now they're getting their revenge.... Revenge of the Nerds in literary form?