The Baseball Gods Can Relax
Posted by
tgirsch
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.
On a more serious note, I don’t think there’s much doubt that Bonds juiced, but I question whether there’s anything realistic anyone can do about it. Even assuming Bonds juiced, he almost certainly played against pitchers who were also juicing (not that it justifies either one). And 755 was just a number. Hank Aaron will continued to be beloved not only as the true home run king, but also as a class act both on and off the field, by virtually all baseball fans from my generation and older generations.
In a way, Bonds even serves as a cautionary tale for the kids who might otherwise look up to him: All that talent, all that money, and all that fame hasn’t bought him a lick of happiness, and he’s widely reviled. Steroids or not, he’s a poster boy for how not to conduct yourself.
So all that’s left to say, really, is “Congratulations, Barry, but you’re still an asshole.”
Yeah, Congrats, but you’re a jerk.
That sounds about right.
I often find myself defending Bonds because it long ago got to the point where the antics of the Bonds-bashers became more bothersome than Bonds himself.
Two other quick points. One, the anger surrounding this sort of reinforces that people are sheep. They can’t look beyond the all-time homer total and reach their own conclusions about who the best homerun hitter of all time is? Hint, it wasn’t Aaron either. Two, Bonds is very much of a tragic figure, in the classical Greek, sense of the word. His ego was a motivating force in his drive to be the best. His ego turned many sour on him in the process. His ego was bruised when others stole his spotlight disingenuously. His ego wouldn’t allow him to wait for time to absolve him, and grant him his rightful place amongst the immortals of the game. The same drive is very much responsible for his rise and fall.
I’ll go deeper into some of the semantic issues I have with all the throwing around of “ethics,” “morals,” “cheating,” and “legitimacy” this weekend over in my weekly entry on Meta’s blog.
Comment 8/8/2007
digglahhh:
They can’t look beyond the all-time homer total and reach their own conclusions about who the best homerun hitter of all time is? Hint, it wasn’t Aaron either.
OK, I’ll bite. Who is it, and why?
Comment 8/8/2007
Would need to define the word “best” to choose the “best” homerun hitter. Most all time? Highest homerun per plate appearance? Most homeruns per official at bat? Most in a year? Fastest to 500? Most “clutch” home runs? Prettiest swing? Longest average drive?
I honestly could care less about how many HRs Bonds hits. I care about teams. Wins and loses. Being an AL fan, his team is irrelevant to me. If he were on a good NL team and had a chance at making the playoffs, then I would have a modest interest. Not claiming mine is a superior position, just stating what it is.
Comment 8/8/2007
Speaking of winning and losing, Soriano’s injury might give your Brewers a chance at the Division after all.
Also, I’ll go on record predicting the Yankees win the AL East by at least 5 games and end up with the best record in baseball, by at least the same margin. I read some of the NYC press on the Yankees just to see what they are thinking, and as recently as two weeks ago one of the sports writers used the phrase “with the Yankees season circling the drain…”. Amazing.
Comment 8/8/2007
Well, before the Brewers can do anything, they’re going to have to remember how to pitch. As I type this, the Rockies are up by two touchdowns…
Comment 8/8/2007
Tgirsch,
Why not allow MLB to allow anyone who wants to pull a Barry Bonds and juice up to go ahead and be done with it?
128 MPH fast balls and 700 foot home run blasts might be fun to watch, no?
Is it cheating if everyone gets equal access?
Comment 8/8/2007
Might not be cheating, but it is still illegal. And a lot of baseball is historical context, which would be significantly lessened by institutionalizing performance enhancing drugs.
The sport that is really in trouble is bike racing, and the Tour de France in particular.
Comment 8/8/2007
Jeff:
Oh, there’s no way in the world I’m ever going to defend juicing. My point wasn’t that Bonds’ alleged use was “no big deal,” only that many records in baseball are similarly tainted — if not by performance-enhancing substances, then by things like racial segregation, etc.
Of course, if Bonds did in fact use, which it seems he did, then this is different in kind, insofar as it would be a violation of the rules while he was playing (if, in fact, steroids were officially illegal while he was using them — I’m not sure on this).
The problem is that such things are often very difficult to detect. But if Bonds is proven to have been cheating, he should get at least what Pete Rose got.
Comment 8/8/2007
I’m not sure how I feel about this whole business. IF it’s actually proved that Bonds used steroids - yes, we all know it but I’m talking about proof that would stand up in a court - I would favor blocking him from the Hall of Fame because, bluntly, he cheated: He broke the rules to get an advantage over other players who relied on mettle rather than medication for their results.
However, the record has to stand without any of the asterisk crap. He did it, we can’t pretend he didn’t.
The real tragedy of this in my mind is that Barry Bonds was such a damn good player, a Hall of Fame shoo-in, before he started juicing. I still wonder why he felt it necessary to start.
Sidebar: I think Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame because what he was guilty of was, unlike Bonds, unrelated to his performance on the field. If admission to the Hall is going to be a moral judgment, then I want that vicious racist Ty Cobb booted out. If Cobb can stay, Rose should be in.
Comment 8/9/2007
I wasn’t setting anything up, TG. To me, it is clear that Ruth is still the best homerun hitter who ever lived. I think that is the clear consensus among serious baseball historians. 714, after not becoming a full time position player until the sixth season of his career… The Navin Field blast, routinely hitting tobacco soaked balls off of trick deliveries into parts of Yankee stadium that current players almost never reach, Ruth was the best homerun hitter of all. There were also some rule changes that cost him a few. One, and I know of only one dinger this cost him, was the rule when the home team hits in the last inning, the batter who knocks in the winning run is only credited with as many bases as the runner needs to score. So, in a tie game, with a runner on first, a “walk-off” homer was credited only as a triple. That was changed in 1920, I think, so Ruth didn’t suffer from it for most of his career. The other rule was, I believe, that balls landed in foul territory were foul even if they left the park fair. I don’t know how many Ruth lost to that.
Bill Jenkinson has written that, plotted against modern stadium dimensions, Ruth would have hit 1,000 homers in his career. I have not read his book, though I know people who have collaborated with Jenkinson on research and have I have respect for his work.
Comment 8/9/2007
Re: Rose
I’ll never get any reasoning that doesn’t conclude that gambling on the game is not unequivocally, orders of magnitude worse than taking steroids. That’s like saying that counterfitting money is worse than armed robbery…
Not betting on the game is the First Commandment of the game. It is what is supposed to separate Pete Rose from Vince McMahon. And, don’t even give me anything about Rose only betting on his team - that doesn’t mitigate anything, “the best interest of your team” is too complex for that excuse to fly.
Rose could have saved his best relievers for games he bet. He could have left pitchers in, or made players play hurt. He could have blocked young prospects and stunted their development to win meaningless games. Basically, betting on the game makes that day’s game the only priority for Rose. Any day he didn’t bet at all, was like he was betting against his team.
Comment 8/9/2007
I’m not going to get into the Rose debate again, other than to say that I agree with digglahhh on that. And I don’t buy the Ty Cobb argument, because Cobb is already in the Hall. I don’t think that every time we elevate the standards of who should be added to the Hall, this somehow compels us to go back and redact the Hall’s membership.
If Cobb were up for Hall of Fame induction today, I’d oppose his entry. But he’s already in.
As for Babe Ruth, I dunno. How many pitchers did he have to face who threw heaters in the high-90’s? How many minority players did he have to compete against? Against modern pitching and modern competition, Babe Ruth is at best Rob Deer.
Babe Ruth was the best home run hitter of his era, no question. But of all time? I’m not so sure.
Comment 8/9/2007
Walter Johnson was clocked by a military device at over 90 mph, while wearing a suit in 90+ degree weather, having to throw the ball through a box smaller than the size of a sheet of looseleaf paper in order to register the reading…
Feller, slightly after Ruth’s era, was clocked at over 98. Johnson went to his grave certain that he threw harder than Feller.
didn’t expect this from you, TG, but here we go. Here’s a short list of reasons why it may well have been harder in the days of Ruth. BTW, throwing distance records haven’t changed much over the last century, why should we believe that velocity changed? Was there some sort of important, evolutionary, bio-mechanical shift in the human arm that I’m not aware of over the last eighty years?
Trick pitches and deliveries
Spitballs legal, and even after outlawed, pitchers who threw spitters before we grandfathered in and could still throw them
480 foot CF fences
no modern medicine or trainers
no advanced video scouting on opposing pitchers
no private jets - rickety trains.
No minorities is somewhat mitigated by fewer teams
No protective armor
No helmets!!
Higher mound
Larger strike zone
No warnings, beanball a credible threat
No DH to extend careers
Fewer games per season to amass counting stats
Having to hold other job in offseason, not year round occupation
Inferior field condidtions
Didn’t change balls as freely, ball stayed in play longer
Let’s see Rob Deer catch a liner with a 1920s glove
No strength and conditioning coaches.
No batting gloves
None of this tripled dipped maple or composite wood stuff, bats were made from one piece of wood
…
Keep in mind that Ruth and Gehrig were chastised for their high strikeout totals. Ruth struck out about 85 per 162, Gehrig probably about 60 per. These two guys are lifetime .340 hitters. Riche Sexson would be working in a mine in 1920. Many of today’s players wouldn’t have even made the Majors, or been able to stay healthy to play eighty years ago.
Comment 8/9/2007
digglahhh:
I’ll concede the point, if only because I really don’t give a shit.
Meanwhile, chew on this. (Sadly, I can’t find the faux-1927 article in which Babe Ruth unveils his new “Wife Bat.”)
Comment 8/9/2007
digg, not sure why the environmental items on your list only impacted hitters.
Given that today’s players are bigger, stronger, more conditioned, are pulled from a much, much larger talent pool, receive the benefit of videotape analysis, etc, etc - it is silly to think they are not vastly superior to players who played 80 years ago. On average and also individually. This holds for pitchers and batters.
Comment 8/9/2007
TG,
I remember that Onion article. This is real, though. Excerpted from the best baseball blog in the history on the world, Firejoemorgan.com
Idioms
Reader Lazarus sends us to SI.com’s Power Rankings, where we find this gem:
Joe Torre met with George Steinbrenner for a nice lunch in Tampa the other day, and I’m sure at some point the subject probably turned to the Yankees. And George, I’d bet, at some point looked at his manager and said, “#$!&@* the heck?”
I assume they meant to write: “What the #$!&@*?” But they didn’t. They wrote “#$!&@* the heck?”
Or, presumably: “Fuck the heck?”
Steinbrenner really is in poor health, if he is saying “Fuck the heck.” That is not a phrase.
Labels: fuck the heck, george steinbrenner, sports illustrated, swearing
posted by Ken Tremendous # 10:57 AM 1 comments
Comments:
Well, there are 6 characters in “#$!&@*” so I don’t think he meant “fuck.” My best guess is “cuuunt.”
# posted by Murbles : 7/17/2007 2:31 PM
Post a Comment
Comment 8/9/2007
Ted,
My response was worded that way because the original contention would that Babe Ruth would be Rob Deer if he played today.
Babe Ruth would kick ass today. Alex Rodriguez would kick ass in 1920.
Today’s game is much more conducive to offense than the game of Ruth’s time, especially power hitting. That was the crux of my point.
The problem with any of these hypotheticals is that we can’t use the “time machine method.” A-Rod would not be the A-Rod of today, had he been born in 1897 (even if we grant that he was born white) Babe Ruth would be a different person if born in 1975. What I was trying to do was counter the notion that the difficulty of adaptation only goes in one direction.
Skills were valued differently at different times too. But there is no reason to believe that Honus Wagner would not be one of the game’s best players today. There is also no reason to think that if Damian Easley was born in 1900 that he would be some sort of legend of the game.
Comment 8/9/2007
Digg, I agree with you. However, it seems to me a more accurate statement re the “best” homerun hitter would be: Ruth would be the best homerun hitter of all time if he were born in 1970 and took advantage of all modern advances related to powerhitting. Including completely changing his personality and lifestyle so he could train 12 months a year, several hours a day. It is not a given that he would be able to do that.
Bottom line, I don’t go in much for cross-generational comparisons. Too many differences to draw any meaningful conclusions.
Comment 8/9/2007
Oh, there’s no way in the world I’m ever going to defend juicing.
Why not?
I am asking you to consider that legal juicing would be good for baseball. What say you?
Comment 8/10/2007
Jeff:
You’re joking, right? The harmful effects of steroid use are well-documented. Look no further than the Arkansas wrestler who, in a fit of roid rage, killed his wife and young son, and then himself.
But if you want to go down this road, I’ll bite. Make the case for legalizing steroids in baseball. Explain why whatever performance enhancements may come should outweigh the obvious risks to the players, the aspiring players, and the young fans who look up to them.
I can only assume you’re aiming to make some sort of moral point here, but I honestly don’t remember where scripture says “Thou salt not take steroids…”
Comment 8/10/2007
Okay, Ted.
I definitely accept that. I indulge in the cross-era comparison fodder a little more readily than you do - but I have delusions about the accuracy with which one can speculate.
My position, based on the statistical, biographical, and historical information that I’ve consumed is that Babe Ruth - all things considered - is the best homerun hitter of all time. It is my opinion that no player in the history of the game, if playing under the same conditions as Ruth (be it them going back in time, him coming forward, or them meeting in the middle - not being time-machined, but living in those cotexts) would outhomer Ruth.
If anybody wants to say that they think Mantle, Bonds, Mays… would be better, I can hear that. To say that Babe Ruth would be Rob Deer though, that’s just insulting.
Comment 8/10/2007
People tend to deify Babe Ruth, so the comparison to Deer was a cheap attempt to get under your skin. I see it worked to perfection.
Comment 8/10/2007
And, since I’m feeling saucy, if you brought Babe Ruth forward, he wouldn’t be Rob Deer — he’s more likely to be Darryl Strawberry.
Comment 8/10/2007
Jeff,
I come back to the “reasonable man” argument.
Some players are willing to jeopardize their health for individual success, accolades, and wealth.
If all players did that, the playing field would be leveled. If none did, it would be too. We are unequipped to enforce the latter, but that doesn’t mean that we have to support the former.
It is reasonable, given the way players are compensated, to expect them to work out and maintain their skills in the off-season. It is reasonable to ask them to attempt to come back from injuries.
I don’t think many people would consider it reasonable to encourage players to risk their long-term health in order to give Johhny-common fan the excitement of seeing a few more homers.
Many hardcore fans don’t like seeing utility infielders being able to pop one over the opposite field fence without even getting all of the pitch, BTW.
When you say good for baseball, what do you mean by that? More fair? Higher quality play? More profitable? And, what do you mean my “baseball?” Do you mean the game or the institution?
Comment 8/10/2007
digglahhh:
A little background on Jeff is in order here. He’s a Christian blogger who’s primarily interested in “worldview.” (He’s also an all-around nice guy, but I digress.) Based on my history with Jeff, my guess is that he’s not actually all that interested in baseball, but instead is wanting to use this to illustrate some larger moral point — probably having something to do with the kind of “anything goes” morals he claims is the inevitable result of non-theism.
I could be wrong, though.
Comment 8/10/2007
I’d add Williams to the possible list. If he’s not off fighting in two wars, he hits 700 homeruns in his career…
Comment 8/10/2007
In terms of AB:HR ratio, I don’t think anyone even approaches Ruth — his 11.76 is considerably better than Williams’ 14.79, Aaron’s 16.38, and Mays’ 16.5; but in terms of K:HR ratio, Williams (1.36) smokes ‘em all: Aaron 1.83, Ruth 1.86, and Mays’ 2.31.
Comment 8/10/2007
700 is a possibility, having more than what Mays finished with is almost a given though.
Surprisingly though, Babe doesn’t have all too many plate appearances/at bats on Williams. Because Babe spent the beginning of his career as a pitcher, he doesn’t have all that many more career ABs than Williams. In fact, had Williams not been injury-riddled post 1950, he would have had even more ABs than Ruth.
Some irony, I think that Ted’s first big injury came crashing into the wall to make a catch in an All Star Game. There is no more ironic way for a guy with Williams’ reputation to get hurt than making a great defensive play in an exhibition game (though the ASG meant a lot more to the players and fans then).
Anyway, Williams was a great hitter, better than Ruth is a legit argument. When we are talking just about power though, I think Ruth has the edge. Were Williams to hit 7000, he would have needed at least in the neighborhood of 2,000 more ABs than Ruth.
Comment 8/10/2007
If Williams hit 7000, this that would be something like 3 HRs per AB.
Comment 8/10/2007
Re: “Explain why whatever performance enhancements may come should outweigh the obvious risks to the players, the aspiring players, and the young fans who look up to them.”
Baseball is entertainment, is it not? So is football. There are obvious risks to either sport. Remember Herb Score? How about Mike Coolbaugh (the coach killed last month)? How about Darry Stingley? Dennis Byrd? Mike Webster? Shall I go on?
We are already asking players to take risks in order to provide entertainment for us. That bridge was crossed long ago. And few would seriously argue that professional athletes are not paid enough for the risks they take.
If your argument was to establish laws which protected athletes from unhealthy substances, why not ban smoking in baseball? Why not ban beer? Why not ban chewing tobacco … causes mouth and throat cancer, right?
I don’t think you are applying a consistent standard.
Steroids are a form of technological enhancement. They make players stronger. They produce pitchers with amazing fastballs and better curveballs (maybe). The added strength might even result in new types of pitches we have never seen before. We would see slugging percentages go up. Home runs go farther. Base stealers run faster. Records fall. Attendance sky rocket. Interest in the game soar. TV revenues go up. Salaries go up.
In other words, steroids would be good for baseball, right?
Btw, I like baseball. I like watching Barry Bonds pound home runs. I also like watching teams like the Cards and the Brewers manufacture runs creatively. I like baseball history. I lament the fact that the sport has degenerated into a virtual circus of contract disputes between greedy owners and overpaid whiny athletes.
Tom, you think a lot about ethics and a lot about baseball. I want to see some of your ethical reasoning on why steroids would be bad for baseball. I just gave you a bunch of pragmatic reasons why they would be good. Please defeat my argument.
BTW, thank you for the kind words.
Comment 8/11/2007
Jeff, baseball is etteraining because of the competition. If not, spring training would draw as much as regular season.
Beer, chew, and smoking are legal in the US and offer no competetive advantage to players (with the possible exception of Boomer Wells).
Steroids are illegal in the US (in most cases) and they offer players competetive advantage. See the difference?
Aluminum bats are banned for safety and to protect tradition. Pine tar, sharpened spikes, oversized gloves, roster manipultion. The list goes on forever. Rules that limit performance to keep the playing field level.
Comment 8/11/2007
Jeff:
Life is risk. Risk cannot be eliminated, it can only be mitigated and controlled. We do risk analysis in nearly everything we do, weighing the hazards against the potential benefits. Where the benefits outweigh the hazards, we take risks. Where the hazards outweigh the benefits, we generally avoid them. Where it’s unclear, it becomes foggier.
With steroids and sports, the risks — not just to the players, but to the young fans who tend to emulate them — quite clearly outweigh the benefits. Except for limited use under very controlled and specific circumstances, steroids are known to have serious long-term negative effects. For these reasons, it makes sense that we would disallow their use.
Further, as Ted points out, the human element in sports is critically important. Cheating to become super-human short-circuits this point of interest. If all we cared about were performance, we could eliminate all risk to human life and have the games played by cyborgs or robots.
Finally, as Ted again points out, competition is what makes sports interesting and entertaining, not necessarily better performance. A 2-1 game at the AA level is considerably more interesting, to most fans, than a 19-4 shellacking at the major-league level. (Although, I must say, some 19-4 shellackings are even less entertaining than others…)
To advocate the use of performance-enhancing substances is to advocate a win-at-all-costs attitude that cares nothing for the history, tradition, and integrity of the sport (whatever sport that may be), and indeed human athletics in general. While there are doubtless some fans who are okay with that, I am not among them. (To those fans, I recommend one of these).
Of course, I would have a lot more interest in engaging your argument if I thought you believed it yourself, but you clearly do not. For you, it’s a purely academic exercise. You clearly have a point you’re trying to make here, so why not get to it?
Comment 8/11/2007
Jeff,
If you’re playing the game that TG is implying you are, then isn’t it somewhat reaffirming, at least to a point, that fans are clamoring to clean up the sport. We are saying that we don’t care about “improved performance” at the detriment of integrity, health, and the spirit of fair play and mutual respect.
Personally, I don’t think the sport will ever get cleaned up. I think that one day, we will be watching Ken Griffey V pound 85 dingers a year with all kinds of bionic aid. The irony is that the tar and feather Bonds crowd will be reminiscing about the good old days, saying “Bonds was only on HGH, these kids today…”
I’d caution you about creating the false dichotomy that follows from calling today’s game a circus of contract disputes between greedy owners and overpaid whiny athletes. What is the analogous description of the days of yesteryear? A good ole boy network, characterized by institutionalized racism, exploitation and virtual indenture servitude?…
The good old day had its share of moral issues too. Lest we forget that deadball star hurler Pud Galvin famously injected himself with monkey testosterone - an act that was praised by sources such as the Washington Post and New Haven Register. Ed Delahanty fell to his death, after his drunken and unruly behavior caused him to get kicked off a train.
Any industry that requires participants so skilled in their filled will result in, as a result of the exclusivity, both a streak of dishonesty amongst the many of the participants and an increased acceptance of their personal flaws. The ugly accompaniments are often part of the ugly manifestations of the same qualities that lead such individuals to such high levels of success in the first place.
Comment 8/14/2007
Anyone catch this?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293169,00.html
I thought it was timely given our discussion here.
Comment 8/14/2007
Tom,
I am interested in seeing what bothers true baseball fans the most about steroids. Is it the cheating? Or is it that the players are hurting themselves? Or is it that the players are encouraging young people to hurt themselves? Or is it that modern players are rewriting history and the legends of the past are in danger of being forgotten.
You seemed to touch on several of these things … but you clearly emphasized the fact that steroids are ultimately wrong for baseball because the health of the players who use them will be harmed and that does not justify all of the positive outcomes. While we could certainly debate that, that is your position. Fair enough.
It seems to me, that if studies emerged that empirically showed that the health concerns about steroids are way overblown, then you would not be opposed to their use as long as everyone could have equal access … any more than you would be opposed to players taking Advil to ease pain or lifting weights in the off season to gain strength.
From a worldview perspective, the issue of using technology to enhance our abilities and capacities as human beings is quickly becoming a huge ethical area. It bleeds into all sorts of things … from transhumanism to positive eugenics to gene therapy. The steroids in baseball issue is just the tip of a very large iceberg.
I know you are a consequentialist when it comes to moral reasoning. I wanted to see how a consequentialist like yourself would work through a real life ethical situation.
One thing is for sure. You have some very knowledgeable readers who contribute to your blog. I have enjoyed learning the baseball history trivia … especially the monkey testosterone incident. Never heard that one!
Comment 8/14/2007
Jeff:
Is it the cheating? Or is it that the players are hurting themselves? Or is it that the players are encouraging young people to hurt themselves? Or is it that modern players are rewriting history and the legends of the past are in danger of being forgotten.
It’s all of these, except for the last one. The last one bothers me a little, but it’s orders of magnitude less important than the others. But there’s a little more to it, which I’ll get to:
It seems to me, that if studies emerged that empirically showed that the health concerns about steroids are way overblown, then you would not be opposed to their use as long as everyone could have equal access
Actually not. I wouldn’t support it any more than I would support surgery specifically designed to physically enhance the capabilities of a person, however safe that surgery might be. Or, to use a more extreme example, genetically engineering athletes. Sports to me are about seeing people take full advantage of their natural gifts, with the emphasis on “natural.”
You can always argue about where to draw the line, of course, but to me, injected supplements and hormones are clearly on the wrong side of the line. Diet and exercise are clearly on the right side. Things like equipment get us into gray areas.
Getting back to the question at hand, though, even if the risks are “exaggerated” and even if the athletes themselves were able to mitigate those risks, that wouldn’t necessarily prevent the youth who look up to them and strive to be like them from abusing — especially when those youth wouldn’t have access to team doctors and trainers.
I wanted to see how a consequentialist like yourself would work through a real life ethical situation.
I figured we would eventually get to this. My objections to steroid use in baseball, while they do have major ethical components, are not purely ethical. Some of it is simply semantics: At what point does it stop being “athletics” and start being something else?
But you are accurate in describing me as a consequentialist, even in this context. My ethical objections to steroid use (not just in baseball, but for non-medical uses in general) have everything to do with the consequences of that action, and nothing to do with some hard-and-fast “Thou shalt not use steroids” rule.
especially the monkey testosterone incident. Never heard that one!
That makes two of us, although I’d like a cite before I quote that as gospel.
Comment 8/14/2007