Lean Left

• home

7 Comments »

1. Kevin T. Keith writes:

   If you’re going to include “streak” records, the one and only is Joe Dimaggio’s 56-game hitting streak. Dimaggio was not the friendliest guy in the world, but he had class and was well-respected.

   And Babe Ruth wasn’t an asshole. Somewhat immature and legendarily self-indulgent, but he didn’t hurt people (except, arguably, his wife, who was left home alone a lot).

   Henderson, from all I can determine, is just weird. He has a habit of saying things that set people off, but mostly not maliciously; he just can’t control his mouth very well. He has a reputation for being self-absorbed, but his teammates all seem to like him; I think the press has just magnified his personality quirks into some kind of manufactured controversy.

   So you’re left with just Rose and Cobb - and Rose, though he can be a real jerk, also wasn’t malicious. Cobb was the asshole of all time, but the others aren’t in his league.

   Anyway, I don’t think this is really the issue. Whatever controversies they may have gotten into, they were all great players and made great contributions to the game. That’s what matters. I think they’re all worthy Hall of Famers (with the below exceptions).

   What bugs me about Rose and Bonds, far more than Cobb or anyone else, is that they broke rules that cut at the heart of the game. They undermined the game itself and the fairness that its rules attempt to establish.

   You can make a case for Rose in that he wasn’t cheating even though he was gambling - but he knowingly connived at baseball’s greatest historical failing and broke one of its strictest rules, then lied about it, then debased himself with mealy-mouthed evasions. For that, in my book, he’s banned from the Hall - not because he wasn’t a great player but because he treated the game shabbily in one of the few areas that matters most.

   Bonds is simply a cheater. He hasn’t earned his records under the standards of competition that prevail. You can argue that others are doing it, too, or that some of the substances he used were technically legal at the time, but it seems obvious that he was deliberately - and successfully - trying to obtain unfair advantage. (If he believes he was entitled to take certain drugs because they were legal at the time, why doesn’t he just say that was what he was doing? His ridiculous claim that he didn’t know there were steroids in the weird preparations he was smearing all over himself is simply an insult.) You can argue the drug rules are intrusive, unrealistic, or unfair, but they are the rules. He was knowingly trying to do something, secretly, that he knew was or would be banned, and he continues to lie about it. No Hall of Fame for you, drug-head.

   I think the standard of respect for the game and its fundamental fairness is a part of being an admirable ballplayer and of qualifying as a Hall of Famer. Rose and Bonds violated that standard. The others above did not, even if they were reprehensible in their personalities or private lives (which, again, most of them were not). You can be a jerk off the field and still be a good ballplayer - I don’t hold athletes up as some sort of “role models” or moral avatars. But you can’t be a cheater, or even condone breaking the rules designed to prevent cheating, and be a good ballplayer. Respect for fair competitive standards, and the rules intended to achieve them, is part of that definition in a way that being a generally good person is not.

   Comment 4/5/2007

   ---

2. tgirsch writes:

   I knew I could bait you with this. Sucker!

   And I didn’t realize you had to hurt people to be an asshole.

   Comment 4/5/2007

   ---

3. Kevin T. Keith writes:

   I suppose you can be an asshole in other ways (tediously trolling other people’s blogs with your religiously-inspired nonsensical opinions, for instance). But maliciously harming others is a primary way to qualify, and I think most of what we object to in the people we call assholes really does come down to being harmful, hateful, or offensive without reason. Merely being stupid or oblivious doesn’t qualify, in my book; it’s being indifferent to how you impact other people that matters to me.

   (Hey! There’s an idea! Respected philosopher Harry Frankfurt recently dusted off an old essay titled “On Bullshit”, republished it as a small monograph, and got an unlikely best-seller out of it. I’m thinking there’s a niche for “On Assholes”. This could make my career! Thanks, Tom. I’ll be sure to credit you.)

   Comment 4/5/2007

   ---

4. tgirsch writes:

   I’m not sure “I inspired a guy to write a book about assholes” is exactly something I’d put near the top of my resume…

   Comment 4/5/2007

   ---

5. torch writes:

   Nice post to kick this off. Here are the points on Bonds I wish someone would at least address. It is meant loosely, almost as loose at the original post on a player’s assholic qualities. I’ll state my bias high up: I think that, steroids or no, Bonds is the greateat baseball player in history. So, while numbers are unambiguous and a record is a record, etc. –you really cannot compare baseball of even 30 years ago to now.

   It is a widely known fact that dramatically fewer complete games are pitched today than in Hank Aaron’s day. And while that may on occasion result in blown leads the starting pitcher would not have blown, I suspect that more often these relief pitchers earn their money and justify the enormous study and investment put into relief pitching as a whole. By contrast, I don’t think we even heard the term “middle reliever” in the 1970s.

   So while Bonds undoubtedly benefitted when steroids helped his former warning track shots became home runs, Aaron benefits more in the comparison because of the era in which he played. Maybe you alert baseball guys can enlighten me: I’m not sure whether experts say that the starting pitching is better or worse now than in Aaron’s time; seems like I’ve heard it both ways.

   Bonds has already more than doubled Aaron’s career intentional walks, 653 to 293. During the closing weeks of his 73 home run season, Bonds scarcely got pithces to hit. Yet he drove the ones he did get out of the park to a phenomenal extent. While no one except possibly Roger Maris could begin to understand the stress Aaron experiened as he neared 714, Bonds has dealt with his share as well — if for no other reason because so many people hated him and pined for him to fail. In sum, people should not begrudge Barry when he breaks the record. Or when he goes into the Hall, which he will on the first ballot.

   Comment 4/14/2007

   ---

6. Lean Left » The Baseball Gods Can Relax writes:

   […] I’ve weighed in on this before, but as of last night, a bit of order was restored to the baseball universe. We just need someone like Sheffield to break Aaron’s RBI record, and everything will be as it should be in the record books. […]

   Pingback 8/8/2007

   ---

7. Graham writes:

   Graham…

   Thanks for the help, this is exactly what I needed…

   Trackback 9/14/2007

   ---

Leave a comment

Name (required)

e-Mail (required - will not be published)

Website

The View From the Sinister Side of Life

     Royalty was like dandelions. No matter how many heads you chopped off, the roots were still there underground, waiting to spring up again.

     It seemed to be a chronic disease. It was as if even the most intelligent person had this little blank spot in their heads where someone had written: "Kings. What a good idea." Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw. It was its tendency to bend at the knees.
            -- Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay

Site info

close to attraction
WordPress adaptation by Tara Aukerman | Original design by Andreas Viklund