I've made it clear in previous entries on this blog that I am not a Barry Bonds fan. In fact, I've made it pretty clear that I don't like the guy. And yet, there's something I like even less right now, and that is members of the media who, from where I sit, are basically gloating about the fact that Bonds can't find anyone who wants to sign him this off-season.
Before I continue, let me first be clear about something. It is neither surprising nor at all disheartening to me that Bonds is as yet unemployed. Bonds is 43 years, and the combination of his age and his bloated body have left him with a range in the outfield roughly equivalent to that of the statue of his godfather Willie Mays that graces the grounds of AT&T Park in San Francisco. Okay, that might not be totally fair, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the real-life, almost 77 year old version of Mays could probably get to more balls in the outfield than Bonds these days. Additionally, his body has become fragile enough that he likely can't be more than a part-time player, if he has to play the field. That's just what happens over time, no matter how long you try to put it off with steroids. So, realistically, there's only 14 major league teams who have a position he can play, those being the 14 AL teams and their designated hitter. Several of those teams already have younger players who are comparable hitters to man said position. On top of that, Bonds is noted as a questionable (at best) clubhouse presence, is exceeding polarizing among fans, and, having made 17 million dollars last year, isn't likely looking to play for the minimum this year. Oh, and there's also that slight issue of the pending perjury trial. So, if Bonds doesn't find a team to play for this year, it won't be because he's been blacklisted, or the result of some other conspiracy theory, it will simply be because not one of the 30 MLB teams felt he was worth devoting a roster spot to, at least not under terms Bonds would accept.
And yet, over the the last day, as word broke that the Tampa Bay Rays, one of the laughing stock franchises in the majors since their existence began back in '97, had at least engaged in some internal discussion about bringing Bonds in, I couldn't help but detect an air of victory amongst some of the media as they reported it. It was like "hah, look, even they don't want him." That, of course, isn't even necessarily accurate. The Rays said the talk hadn't gone anywhere, not that they didn't have interest.
I don't generally have a ton of sympathy for Bonds in terms of the how the media portrays him. He's made his bed in this area to a large degree, with his attitude, and the fact that he chased down the venerable Hank Aaron's record while being the most notorious (and probably best documented) steroid cheat in the game. I don't expect the media to like the guy, and I don't expect them to go out of their way to be nice to him. What I would like to see is them stop short of finding some sort of glory or vindication in the guy's downfall.
The sports media, in general, treats Barry Bonds (and Roger Clemens has recently moved into this territory) as if he has somehow personally and individually wronged them by his cheating. This, of course, would be the same sports media that, along with everyone else, turned a totally blind eye to drug use in baseball for years. It's as if Bonds, by being the "biggest" cheater in an era that we now believe to have been full of cheaters, has singlehandedly damaged baseball forever. The media, as "defenders of the game", now feel obliged to make sure this guy gets everything that's coming to him, in the name of baseball fans everywhere. Those same fans whom Bonds has apparently robbed, by the way, have continued through the gates in record numbers long after the steroids bubble burst. Could it be that they don't care about this nearly as much as the media does, and as much as the media believes they do?
Look, steroids are bad. They are illegal, and they are potentially dangerous, and they should have no place in the game. I support all appropriate efforts to clean up the game. And yet I'm completely tired of the media's passion for punishing offenders over and over again (well, at least the offenders they don't like, that is) after the fact. Barry Bonds (at least for the moment) and Roger Clemens are no longer major league baseball players. It may just be time for the media to start devoting more time to guys who are.
9 months ago
11 comments:
Barry Bonds (at least for the moment) and Roger Clemens are no longer major league baseball players. It may just be time for the media to start devoting more time to guys who are.
Yeah.
Wow, are you misjuding Bonds's ability as a hitter. In 2007, Bonds was the 6th ranked player in the NL in OPS. He was also 6th in 2006 and 1st from 2001 to 2004. There are very few teams in the AL which have younger players who are comparable hitters at DH. Last season there were only two DHes that you could even make a decent argument for being better hitters (Jim Thome and David Ortiz). He may or may not be asking for too much money, but there is still ample evidence that Bonds remains a great hitter. He is only a poor hitter if you compare him to his own past. That he's now not an everyday player is true and certainly nobody's going to defend his defense, but he's been putting in 126-130 games these last couple of seasons. Make him a DH and you might get 150 out of him.
As for steroid players with better documentation, there are those guys who actually failed drug tests and/or admitted steroids like Rafael Palmeiro and Jose Canseco. Bonds only has the best documented evidence if we ignore those cases where there is incontrovertible evidence.
Whether there's a conspiracy I don't know, but I do know that Bonds can still undoubtedly help a team. He is very, very far from being below replacement level.
I'm not exactly sure where I said that Bonds was a poor hitter, especially below replacement level. I never really mentinoed his offensive abilities at all, because those are being questioned. If the only issue in the discussion was his continued ability to hit the ball, of course he would have teams falling all over him with contract offers.
Several teams with younger guys who are comparable hitters may have been an overstatement, depending on how many you need for "several" given that we're only talking about 14 teams, but not that much of one. You listed two. Travis Hafner of the Indians had an uncharacteristically poor season last season, and the Indians would be retarded to dump him to bring in Bonds. I think he will be comparable to present day Bonds this year. Then, you've have some other spots where Bonds would certainly be an offensive upgrade, but a team already has a ton of money tied up in a DH, like is the case in Toronto and Chicago.
Bottom line, however you come to it, is that I think there's only 7 or 8 roster spots in baseball that are even sort of open for the guy. No one is going to bring him in to play the field, and no one is going to bring him in (and deal with that circus) on their bench, not that Bonds would sign to be a bench player anyhow.
The only situation where bringing Bonds in makes sense is where he can be a legit difference maker for contender/borderline contender. Otherwise, he's just a headache that might net you a couple extra meaningless wins. All things considered, I think he might make sense in Seattle or Anaheim, but that's about it. Were the Rays not in the AL East, it might make sense for them.
As for the issue of him being the best documented steroid cheat, he is a confessed user, the only thing he's got anything resembling deniability on is whether he knew he was taking it or not, which puts him on same plane as Palmerio, who used the same basic defense to his positive test. Now, we shouldn't know about that statement because it came in what was supposed to be confidential grand jury testiomny, but we do, and the validity of it has never been challenged. On top of that, there's a credible, if not incontrovertable, book that is largely devoted to the when/what/why/how of Bonds' drug use, which seperates him from everyone except Canseco, and again, has never been challenged.
I have not read Canseco's book, so it's possible he gave as many details about his use as Game of Shadows had on Bonds, so his use might be as well/better documented.
All of that being said, I expect that if Bonds really wants to play this year, he'll eventually find a spot. I'm just not surprised he's still unemployed with only a month to go to the season.
Bonds has suggested the Yankees (he wants a World Series) and I don't see their having any better option either. They're also one of the only teams that could afford him. (I'm not saying, by the way, that I'd pay him $17 million.) It could also make sense for Detroit or Toronto. Basically, I think he makes sense for every contender except Boston, Cleveland, and maybe the Angels.
I did assume that we're talking about knowingly taking steroids. Since I'm skeptical of both the efficacy and the danger of steroids (though I don't flat-out deny either one), I think the only real problem with steroids is that they're illegal and against the rules and therefore cheating. But if you're taking them unknowingly, you're not even doing that. (Don't get me wrong; I don't actually believe that Bonds was taking them unknowingly.)
He makes sense purely from a production standpoint in Toronto and Detroit, certainly. The problem, as I said, is that Toronto and Detriot are both already shelling out 10 million plus to a guy who is can only DH, in Frank Thomas and Gary Sheffield.
The Yankees are in a similar situation in terms of already having a number of big contracts of limited defensive skills. They could certainly pay Bonds and eat someone else's salary, as they've done before, but that's a mold they've been trying to break out of. Bonds would be a differnt animal, since he'd likely only be a one year signing, but I still think they'd feel the need to unload a contract before bringing him in. And, while I'm not the biggest believer in the great team chemistry in baseball, I'm not sure I like introducing Bonds into that clubhouse.
As for your comments about steroids, I do share some of your skepticism about the dangers of steroids (at least presuming they are used properly, and not abused). And while I support cleaning up the game now, I do find it somewhat comical the way steroid use is demonized, while something like a cortisone shot (which clearly has performance enhancing qualities for an injured player) is seen as perfectly harmless. People tell me it's because steroids are illegal/dangerous, but I don't totally buy that, because I don't really think people care that much if athletes are doing cocaine or marijuana.
I should say, by the way, that when I say I am "skeptical of the efficacy of steroids," I do not deny their ability to build muscle mass. However, I am skeptical that this is all that helpful to a baseball player. I do not doubt the efficacy of steroids in football (for sure) or basketball, both of which put more of a premium on size and strength than baseball does. In baseball, I'm not nearly so sure; they probably improve ability by improving confidence more than any other way.
I think you have to make them illegal in football. While I believe they probably are safe if used to responsibly build muscle mass, football is begging for people to abuse them. In fact, I think it is football and the Olympics that has infected the debate about steroids in baseball. If those sports didn't exist, people probably wouldn't take steroids in baseball too seriously.
I also note that the media and public never went bonkers over amphetamines which were, I would guess, much more common in baseball during the '80s than steroids were in baseball during the '90s. However, I have to disagree somewhat. I lived through the early '80s and the scandals that afflicted the Royals and the Pirates when it came to cocaine. People were pretty hysterical about that too (but not amphetamines, which were also illegal/dangerous - go figure).
You make good points about wasting money re: Thomas, Sheffield, and the Yankees.
I think people overestimate what steroids do for a baseball player, but I don't have a ton of doubt that they can have an extremely significant impact, and I think it goes beyond a psychological one. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a historical precedent for the kind of leap Bonds' game took in his late 30s. Some scrub isn't going to juice and become an all-star, but other, significant jumps are available. A guy who is now out of baseball and was never more than a journeyman reliever was on the Jim Rome show a month or ago talking about how he had gone from about 88 on the radar gun to the mid-90s while he was juicing.
The other thing is that steroids aren't just useful in building muscle, they aid your muscular recovery time, which has significant value in and of itself, without even adding bulk. Someone who is on steroids is going to be better able to deal with the natural wear and tear of a long baseball season than a similiar player who isn't.
I do totally agree with your point about steroids aiding rehabilitation, though I would also add that "juicers" seem to be more injury-prone. (Packing too much muscle mass onto one's frame has its own problems.)
Also, I actually totally believe that steroids help a pitcher. Size and strength matter more to a pitcher than to a hitter (who needs hand-eye coordination, reflexes, and quick wrists more than strength). For the same reason, while sabermetricians have found no evidence of "clutch hitters," people who hit better in pressure situations, it's easy to find "clutch pitchers." Very simply, adrenaline can make a bigger difference for a pitcher than for a hitter who needs Zen-like concentration at the plate.
As for Bonds's jump in ability, I'm not convinced, though I concede the possibility. If you believe (and it is plausible) that the power explosion from 1994 on was principally driven by steroids, then I have to concede that Bonds's jump also was. (I do think steroids probably played a role, though I also think the balls had more unintentional bounce as they had in 1987, the harbinger of the 1994 explosion.)
But I do have an argument against steroids. For one thing, Barry was one of the top three hitters in the league every single season from 1990-2004. After 1993, the MVP voters kind of forgot about him (understandably, they had given him three MVPs already), but he was always there. In the meantime, the game started changing around him in 1994. Everybody else took a big step forward, but Barry didn't (even though he was still among the top two or three hitters, but unlike everyone else his stats weren't getting any better - everybody else's were catching up to him). According to the timeline, he starts taking steroids in 1998 or 1999. However, 1999 is just a normal year like he'd been having. Arguably he got worse. (He dropped from 8th to 24th in the MVP voting.) It was in 2000 when he took a big step up, followed by a huge step in 2001. In 2000, he had started using maple bats and that ridiculous body armor they let him wear. This allowed Bonds to hang right over the plate and ignore every pitch that he couldn't crush. Due to this major advantage, Bonds was able to finally perfect the Babe Ruth philosophy as espoused by Ted Williams: "Wait for a pitch you can hit and uppercut it." Now, of course, it's also possible that it took a bit for the steroids to kick in and they just didn't give him an advantage until 2000. I certainly concede that possibility. But Barry wasn't hitting the ball any further than he ever did - he never became known for McGwire-esque moon shots; he was just doing it more often. To the extent that he was driving it further, it seemed to be due to those whip-crack maple bats he was using.
Anyway, this is purely my speculation. Certainly, lots of baseball hitters seem to believe that steroids help (though I've heard lots of other hitters who doubt it). There is difficulty getting good data to analyze on an illegal thing like steroids, so we may never know the answer.
I don't doubt that Bonds gained a lot of help from that ridiculous armor. In fact, I think I've mentioned before a study that suggested that in addition to allowing him to hang out over the plate, he may gain some actual mechanical advantages from that thing.
However, it's hard to say much about his 1999 season, because he only played 102 games due to injuries (which, according to Game of Shadows were a result of initally going overboard on the bodybuilding). He did hit 34 HRs in those 102 games. If you take his HRs/PA in 1999 and take that out over a typical full season of PA, he was looking at more than 50 HRs.
Scott, he had pretty much the exact same number of home runs per PA in 1994 when nobody alleges he was on steroids in approximately the same amount of playing time. It is true, however, that the decline in '99 was due to a decline in BA, not in power.
Post a Comment