Selig to be in attendance when Bonds passes Aaron

Intentionally walking Bonds every time would be a far more proveable dent in baseball's integrity than anything Bonds may or may not have done.

 

The fact that a great number of these Pitchers With a Cause also, you know, did steroids makes this hypothetical even more absurd (if that's possible).

 

Still waiting for fj to show me the photo/film of him dumping steroids down his gullet.

 

I think Dr. J administered the steroids.

 

Bullshit. Baseball is a completely different game than it was when Aaron played, and it was a completely different game then than it was when Ruth played.

Aaron holds the record right now, but I'd almost guarantee that more people would tell you that Ruth is the all-time "Home Run King" if there is one.

It doesn't matter who holds the record--every single fan is going to have a different point of view on who the best home run hitter of all-time is. And you know that. When Barry Bonds hits number 756, it will mean that he hit one more home run that Henry Aaron during his career. It will say nothing of who the better home run hitter is, who the better ballplayer is or who the best home run hitter ever is. Each and every fan will decide that on their own, regardless of who owns the record.

It's why you have people argue that Sandy Koufax is the greatest lefty of all time, or that Jim Brown is the top running back to ever live. Because records are media-driven bullshit.

 

Records are a big part of the history of baseball. They have tremendous meaning in the game. Enjoying baseball isn't just about watching the action on the field. It is about context and history and records are a big part of that.

And no record in baseball means more than the home run record. None. It's not even close to the hardest to reach (I'd say that is Cy Young's victory total. I can't imagine a pitcher reaching 400 wins in the current game, much less 500). But it is special. If you don't get that, I can't even begin to explain it to you.

 

I'm one of the biggest baseball fans you'll ever meet. It's the only professional sport I follow and the only one I care about.

And I understand why it might mean something to someone that Bonds is going to be the all-time home run leader.

What I don't understand is why everybody is worrying about it so much. Bonds is going to hit 755. Then, he's going to hit 756. He's probably going to get close to 800. And there's nothing we can do about it.

I'm just tired of seeing Bonds get thrown under the bus. Yeah, he probably juiced. But he's not the only one, and as has been posted, I'm quite sure more pitchers have done it than hitters. That doesn't make it right by any means, but Bonds is the only one who's really gotten career-changing scrutiny for it (other than maybe Giambi, who would've been hated for being a complete sell out when he hit NY anyway).

I just wish people would let it go. It's a moot point by now, which is why it's a very good idea that Selig show up and acknowledge the record.

 

No one is denying records are a big part of the game.

The question is whether they should be.

Face it, the game being played today bears only the tiniest resemblance to the one played in 1920.

Different ball. Different gloves. Skin color those allowed to play. Different conditions (night games, train trips, doubleheaders, middle relievers, closers). Different medical options. Expansion. Money. Media. Different strike zone, Different rules (HRs used to be judged where they landed, not where they crossed the foul pole).

If Ruth hit 714 home runs on one planet and Bonds hit 800 on another planet, I wouldn't even bother to compare them or worry about which number was "real".

And that's pretty much what they are doing.

 

Bonds doubled the number of home runs he hit when he was 27 when he was 37.

Baseball has been around a long time, and people have been counting everything that happens almost as long, and that is an absolutely uniqe phenomenon.

Whether that mitigates the record in some eyes -- after all, a lot of players took steroids, and they didn't all do that -- or is merely proof that the record is devalued -- what he did is simply impossible to have done without cheating -- is in the eye of the beholder, to a large extent.

But the argument that Bonds shouldn't suffer greater scrutiny than other players simply belies the facts. When you do something no one else has done -- indeed, when you do something that directly contradicts all existing research -- you're going to get looked at, and hard. Baseball players give their peak performances when they are 27-28-29. This isn't hard and fast, but it is as close to truth as the human compilation of statistics allow. Likewise, players do not become significantly better in their late 30's. It just doesn't happen.

If a medical researcher came out with a study that showed cigarettes prevented cancer, it would be gone over with a fine-tooth comb. Same deal here. To make some kind of an argument that the "media" -- and who the fuck uses that term and expects to be taken seriously? -- should not be skeptical of this record and its legitimacy flies in the face of common sense.

 

Zeke, I don't think it's the skepticism that bothers me. That's proper and right.

It's the fact that some people would want to take action on their skepticism without being 100% sure of the facts.

 

And that's fair enough. We disagree, but I think that's a reasonable position -- my point was addressed to college journalist in the main, anyway.

I would submit that the statistics themselves -- coupled with a simple examination of the dude's head -- are as much proof as I'll ever need. Since I'm not really in a position to "act" that's where it ends for me.

 

Because all those changes open up room for debate. And that is part of enjoying baseball -- talking about it. None of the other major sports in this country features less action than baseball. The game needs tradition and debate. Otherwise it's way too damn slow for the attention-span challenged culture we live in.