Another Bonds Debate
by
Tony Aubry and Eric W. Freeman Jr.,
BaseballEvolution.com
April 5, 2006
Tony: Asher, What Were You Thinking?
In
Asher’s recent article, he asks fans to lay off of Barry Bonds. However, he made some points that really didn’t make to much sense to me. Actually they were pretty dumb.
First off, Asher tries to discredit Ruth due to the fact Yankee Stadium had a short porch. Do me a favor Asher – don't do that again. From the time the Stadium was built in 1923 to when Ruth left, he hit 259 homeruns at home and 252 on the road. See an advantage there? Because I certainly don’t. He also hit .338 on the road and .346 at home. Once again, not a big difference at all. Actually, in Ruth’s entire career he hit more HR on the road (367) than at home (347). You can argue that the reason he put up those numbers is because he played in '20s, but if Ruth was born 30 years ago and had the technology, trainers, workout regiments, and supplements we have today, he’d do the same. Either way, that point was simply ludicrous.
 | |
| Gibson: Still gerat without '68? | |
Asher also makes points about Bill Terry having that one big year in 1930 and Gibson having that one big year in 1968. Do you see a trend there? ONE big year. If Terry didn’t hit .400 his career AVG is still an outstanding .335, and if Gibby’s ERA wasn’t 1.12 in 1968
his career ERA is still excellent at 3.06. HOWEVER, according to the allegations, Bonds used steroids from the 1998 off-season until 2004. Bonds was hurt in 1999. So Bonds benefited from the steroids from 2000-2004. If you take those years away from Bonds' resume he has 450 homers out of his current 708, which is Bonds' greatest achievement.
“Barry Bonds is one of the five greatest players of all time.”
Asher, c'mon. Let’s not get too carried away here. First off if Bonds never used steroids I highly doubt he’d still be playing today. You mention that Bonds dominated even before the steroid era. Yeah, he did, but he wasn't head and shoulders over the rest. That actually confuses me – in a time when baseball wasn’t filled with 'roided players, he dominated, but not head and shoulders above the rest. When more and more players used steroids and got better, he
was head and shoulders above the rest. Doesn’t make too much sense to me.
Bonds is nowhere near Ruth’s level, and he isn’t a (expletive) on Williams’ (expletive) (excuse my language) without the performance enhancement drugs. Cobb leaves him in the dust. Go look at Stan Musial’s numbers. They're astonishing. So he isn't on his level either without the 'roids.
You want to compare him to Mantle? Ok, I’ll take that. But wait a second Asher . . .
Mantle is 14th on your list. So go figure that out, Asher, and then come back to me.
Eric W. Freeman Jr. Responds
April 6, 2006
It’s about time I started writing about something other than
why I love Mark Prior, or the fact that Jeromy Burnitz is the “biggest
disappointment in Cub history.” (By the way, Asher, I’m honored that, had I
been a professional sports writer, you would have considered me for the Bonehead
Sportswriter of the Year Award. Thank you for the recognition.) But the biggest
issue in baseball today is, as it has been since 2003, Barry Bonds.
And I was never sure where I stood on Bonds. It’s hard,
because there are three kinds of people. There are people who respect and love
Bonds for everything he has done in his illustrious career. There are also
those who loathe this despicable disgrace of a human being, using illegal
substances to boost his numbers and cheat his way to becoming one of the top
five players of all time. And then there are those who don’t know anything
about baseball, like Zach Braff from “Scrubs” who, when spoken to about the
slugger, said “Still, I love it when Bonds wins at the game that he plays.” As
far as Bonds goes, if I pick a stance, I’ll have to stick with that decision
forever. This is a pivotal moment in my sportswriting
career. People’s lives have been changed based on their views toward Bonds, and
having all of that been said. I have made a decision.
Barry Bonds is one of the top five baseball players of all
time.
Yeah, I said it. I’ll say it again. Barry Bonds is one of
the top five baseball players of all time. A third of you, like Asher, just
said “Well, it’s about time that Bonds is getting a little more respect.” A
different third of you are saying “How could you say something inane and
selfish? A low-life cheater like Bonds doesn’t merit any sort of valor or
dignity.” And another different third of you are still saying “Still, I love it
when Bonds wins at the game that he plays.” But I truly believe that Bonds is
great, and everyone should fill the stands at any of his games, so that in 60
years, when Bonds is gone, enshrined in the Hall of Fame alongside Pete Rose,
we’ll be able to say, “I saw Barry Bonds play. He was the greatest player I’ve
ever seen.”
There are two reasons why Bonds is so hated and so despised.
The first is his record 73 home runs in 2001. Many people think that Barry
Bonds is just the latest of many players to receive an instant power boost
practically overnight. But he did go berserk that year. His home run frequency
was so magnificent that, at the All-Star Break in 2001, Bonds had 39 home runs,
and it prompted Asher to say “I hope Chris Berman introduces him as Barry ‘Why The Hell Don’t I Have 40 Yet’ Bonds.”
 | |
| Aaron: A similar situation to Bonds? | |
The second is that Bonds is just so freaking unbelievable,
and he draws comparisons to Babe Ruth. Anyone who has ever taken on the Sultan
of Swat (with the exception of Mickey Mantle) has had to deal with a negative
depiction by the media. Ted Williams was loathed by the media, and he’s
considered, by many, one of the two best hitters of all time. Hank Aaron dealt
with security issues, including numerous death threats, in his pursuit of the
magical 714. Roger Maris was criticized for every thing he did, and it wasn’t
good enough that he won the MVP award and the 1961 World Series. For some
reason, I believe that the reason why sports writers are dogging one of the top
five baseball players of all time is because he is that good, and some are
calling him the best baseball player ever. Do I think he’s the best ever? Of
course not. I mean, my top three will always be Ruth, Ty Cobb, and Walter
Johnson. Bonds will never be any higher than fourth, but his image is directly
controlled by the media. If all the fans liked Bonds, and the media hated him
(as they do now), his image will always be tarnished by speculations.
Asher stated in his article
that one of the main arguments attacking Bonds is that “Bonds is on ‘roids, and his
career stats should be stricken from the record books along with everyone else
who is on steroids.” Well, if Bonds was found to be on steroids, then I agree.
But the only argument to support this fact comes from the book Game of Shadows,
and from a grand jury investigation which proclaimed Bonds’s unknowing use of
the “cream” and the “clear.” But he has never tested positive for steroids. And
if everyone’s records should be taken away because of steroids, then we have to
ask ourselves the question of what might have been. Because we have no idea who
took steroids in their careers prior to 1980, and we never will. No one will
step forward and say that Ted Williams was on steroids. No one will ever step
forward and say that Babe Ruth was on steroids. And there’s no way to tell. You
never know. They probably weren’t, but there is still a significant amount of
speculation.
But the fact of the
matter is that Bonds plays within the biggest media coverage ever recorded, and
he’s not a mythic figure whose name will last forever. Yet. And the jealous
media will do anything they can to taint his public opinion. Media coverage
today is disgusting, by the way. We don’t know many details about Babe Ruth’s
private life. Because of programs and reality TV, we know what Bonds eats for
breakfast, and we can see him eat his Wheaties. It’s bad enough that we have
four different ESPNs, but the all recycle the same
people with different opinions on the same tired topics because baseball fans
are apparently too lazy to come up with an opinion for themselves. Everyone now
has an opinion about Barry Bonds, but they were given help by your Jayson
Starks and your Gene Wojciechowskis. No one cared about what Ruth did or didn’t
do. They admired the presence of greatness in their ballparks. So, why can’t we
do the same for Bonds?
Next issue: as I’m writing this, a response to Asher’s
article was submitted by Tony Aubry, basically chastising Asher’s view
about Bonds. Tony said that there were
allegations pointing to 1998 when Bonds first started using steroids, and later
that he “benefited from steroids from 2000-2004.” I don’t get it. He benefited
from allegations? Don’t believe everything that the media tells you, Tony.
Remember, these are the same people that told you George W. Bush won the
election in 2000, even though Al Gore had better numbers.
 | |
| A recent photo of Ruth | |
Speaking of numbers, bringing up Stan Musial’s and Ted
Williams’ numbers does not make them better than Bonds. As Asher will likely school
you later, we both believe that Bonds ranks higher than the two of them on the
list of “Greatest Baseball Players Ever.” It is because of Bonds’ overall play.
I think that 7 MVPs and 8 Gold Gloves, not to mention his exclusive membership
in the 500-500 Club, puts him into the top five of all time. Obviously he’s in
no league with Ruth (whom everyone describes as “Mark McGwire and Roger Clemens
put together.), and in no league with Cobb, but Tony, you only gave information
about two stats: home runs and batting average. Lay off of the overrated stats.
I just want you to sit back, relax, and enjoy what you are witnessing right
now. Because in 20 years, you’re going to think back about this schooling
delivered straight from a Red Sox fan, and you’re going to say to yourself, “I
can’t believe I ever hated that guy.” And you can try to email me at ESPN.com,
but I don’t know if I’ll respond. Nice try, though.
Tony:
Okay Eric. You mention the eight Gold Gloves. Well, there weren’t Gold Gloves awarded in each league until 1958. Both Musial and Williams were at the tail end of their careers at the time, so neither of them had a chance to win any Gold Gloves.
Bonds does have seven MVPs. Now I don’t know you very well, so I don’t know whether or not you believe Bonds did in fact use steroids. However I
do believe that Bonds used the juice. I believe Bonds starting using drugs from 1999 until 2004. In that period, Bonds won four out of seven MVP awards, which I can only take with a grain of salt. Ted Williams does only have 2 MVPs, but he should easily have four. He won Triple Crown twice and didn’t win the MVP in either of those years. Williams did, however, win Player of the Year in 1941, 1942, 1947, 1949 and 1957. Not bad.
You’re telling me to lay off the overrated stats. Since Ruth has only one MVP, zero Gold Gloves, and only 123 stolen bases, why is he number 1? I’m guessing it is because of those "overrated stats." As for Asher schooling me, he actually agrees with me, so I don’t know if that will happen.
By the way, in my article when did I say that I hated Bonds? Never. And - I really don’t think it was necessary for you to mention that you’re a Sox fan. It is irrelevant.
Eric again:
When it comes to Barry Bonds and steroid allegations, I’m a fan of the “innocent until proven guilty” policy. If I think a player might be on steroids, I don’t take away from what seasons they had just because of my opinion of them. If I’m right (and I sort of always had a feeling about Rafael Palmeiro), then by all means, take whatever said player has done and toss it, for all I care. But the only thing said about Bonds is that he “unknowingly took steroids,” or that he got steroids from Victor Conte, or whatever. I don’t care. He’s never tested positive for a drug test, and until he does, or he says that he took steroids, then he will be one of the top five players in history.
Regarding Stan Musial and Ted Williams not playing in the Gold Glove era, you are completely off of the mark. Williams was never, EVER, been a good fielder. He was never horrible, but he was also never Barry Bonds when it comes to playing left field. Musial, on the other hand, probably had a decent shot at a good number of Gold Gloves until Roberto Clemente and Willie Mays came around, and the fact that he played a lot at first base says something about his versatility at different positions. Now, that having been said, Musial was never, EVER, a threat on the base paths. Bonds is the only man in the history of the National League to go 40/40, not to mention the only person ever in the 500/500 club. So don’t go telling me that Musial and Williams were better than Bonds. Williams could merely hit. Musial could merely hit and field. Bonds can hit, field, throw, and run. He’s one of the most complete baseball players in history.
But he will never be better than Babe Ruth. I mean, I don’t look at “overrated statistics” when I look at The Bambino. I don’t even look at his home runs or slugging percentage. I look at stats like ERA, innings, and games started. Lo and behold, the point emerges. Ruth couldn’t run or field, BUT HE COULD PITCH!!! If it wasn’t for his intrinsic ability to hit home runs, he would be up on list alongside Walter Johnson as one of the best pitchers of all time. I mean, why else would I say “he’s Mark McGwire and Roger Clemens put together”? Ruth is number one because he excelled at pitching, and he hit home runs with the same frequency as Fox News mentions a new “terror alert.” (Mentioning Fox News, aside from coming up with an analogy of any kind, was only in there because I just watched The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.) Ruth will always be number one, but Bonds is in the top five.
In all due fairness, I don’t know why exactly I mentioned that I’m a Red Sox fan. I really didn’t see the point. I guess it was just a bit of Ruth envy. But it was irrelevant. And, Asher really doesn’t school anybody, with the exception of me, Scott, and anyone nominated for “Bonehead Sportswriter of the Year.”
Disagree with something? Got something to add? Wanna bring up something totally new? Continue the debate at The Sports Farm Forums.
