|
> >I mean, at least debate against the right people. > >Many fans of Bonds simply suggest the following:: > >a)If you want to talk about *asterisks* or "fake records" >because of steroid use, then to be consistent, all records >before Jackie Robinson(at LEAST) should be erased or >asterisked. There isn't a sensible way to debate that records >made when the league banned people from the league based on >skin color are any more valid than records set with performing >enhanching drugs. Don't try, because you'll look like an >idiot. Trust me.
They are both stupid and a gross overvalue of stats that lose meaning over eras for a variety of reasons, anyway (see Cy Young's pitching record against Warren Spahn's against what Roy Halladay's will be).
The point is that they are BOTH massive blemishes on the game and athletics in general. To say they are equal or unequal is a meaningless comparison because they are two very different issues, but they both undermine the quality and fairness of competition. I am not for asterisking any records, but we should recognize both as major problems that reflect poorly on the game entire and particularly so on certain individuals (the people who fought integration, the steroid users; they are more culpable than the merely complicit although they arent without blame).
>b)If you really want to look at players who benefitted from >steroids, the best place to look is not to the players who >were hall of famers BEFORE their power surge, but instead the >AVERAGE players who improved drastically. Bonds was already >the best player of his generation as of 1992 or 1993. Without >roids, its likely that he still would have reached 500-500, >when in addition with this glove work(one of the best >defensive Left fielders ever), makes him one of the 3 best all >around players to ever step on a field(arguable, but not by >very much). > >Again -- AS OF 1993.
That is what makes his transgression even WORSE, he is not the student cheating his way from an F to a C, he is cheating from an A to an A+. If anyone embodies the manner in which a small advantage can make a tremendous difference at the pro level, it's Bonds, he already had tremendous conditioning, natural ability and intelligence and he STILL had to go out and get better to make sure he was getting the recognition as the best player. Not only was the guy a great player before the 'roids, he was also a prototype for the egotistical modern athlete (and I dont use that as a euphemism for black athletes, I do mean modern). Well, after he took them he became an even BETTER player and an even BIGGER jerk. Again, you are fighting the good fight but backing the wrong corner here.
>c)When you consider point (B), the implications for Bonds' use >of steroids are far, far, far, far, far, far less dramatic and >impactful on his legend than Palmeiro, Canseco, Giambi, Sosa, >Mcgwire and the dozens of others who haven't yet been caught. >All of the latter, save Palmeiro(who was a good all-around >hitter) made their money solely by the long ball, and the long >ball alone. There are few gold gloves, and no seasons with 50 >stolen bases amongst those other dudes(Canseco did have 40, of >course).
This is why I am agaisnt asterisking records, we could spend an eternity going over who was using, when, how it impacted their numbers etc. You cannot honestly say all of those guys were juicing before they had their best seasons, most of them are older or roughly as old as Barry. And while you can say Barry would have massive totals without steroids, I dont think he would have been taking them for such an extended period if they were not benefitting him during a period where he put himself on the cusp of overtaking Aaron. Do you mean to tell me you are HONESTLY not the least bit hesitant about being pleased if/when that happens? I think it was a triump for Aaron to break that record BECAUSE of the separatism of the Ruth era, now we are going to allow another one of baseball's history great blunders push Aaron aside?
>d)Despite this, Bonds' bad relationship with the media(as >brought up by B9) guarantees that the impact of Steroids on >Bonds' career will be conflated with the impact of steroids on >Mcgwire and Giambi's career, when they aren't comparable, at >all.
What is more unique: going to the Hall of Fame or breaking the all-time home run record? McGwire SHOULD be mentioned exactly the same way Bonds is, someone who was already talented but cheated to extend their career and break records (BTW McGwire won a gold glove at 1B, cheesy but just pointing it out). Unless you are trying to sell me on him juicing in 1987, I think he is in the same boat as Bonds. Giambi may be a different story, but again, why are we in an Olympics of cheating here?
Bonds and the press are like Al Capone and Elliot Ness; they have been trying to bust his ass for years. On one hand, I wish they would turn their attention to a more worthy subject, on the other hand, if it took them this long to prove something this obvious, maybe they should keep their sights low.
>3)(Warning, race dialogue to follow) Throw in the fact that >he's a notoriously defiant black man, and you have the recipe >for a witch hunt that is less about Steroids and more about a >vendetta against Barry Bonds. Surely, all players who have >exposed as using 'roids get blasted in the media, no doubt >about it(perhaps deservedly so).
See above statement about Bonds and the press and "defiance" is a word that gets thrown around blanketedly as something to admire. Defiance for its own sake and complicity for one's own benefit are most of what I see in society today and that is what anyone can see from Bonds, too. Barry is out for Barry and to protect himself, obviously.
>That said -- Might I make the humble point that one needn't be >Farrakhan to suggest that race has **something** to do with >his negative press? And that this coverage can be present even >when Bonds *did* so something wrong? > >I make this last point because the reflexive white argument is >that none of Bonds' negative coverage has anything do with >race at all -- its solely because he's accused of doing >something very, very, bad. I've even had white people conjure >Pete Rose to argue why Bonds' negative treatment isn't >race-related. What they miss, like most yts, is that a >situation doesn't have to be exclusively about race to be >race-related.
I am surprised anyone would bring up Pete Rose, it astounds me the number of people who ACTIVELY stick up for him, particularly (but not exclusively) white folks. I dont doubt that there are some people involved who have been more pissed at Bonds' attitude because he is black, in fact I think that has pretty successfully swung public opinion against him. The tolerance for arrogance from black athletes is generally a lot lower, there is little doubt about that IMO.
But that isnt what has swung most of the press or a lot of people in baseball against him or even a lot of people in that same public against him. There are many very legitimate reasons to dislike Barry Bonds and more to the point to be very critical of what he is doing to the game.
I think the same is true of McGwire, maybe he did not aleinate as many people (race being one component of a handful there), but he should definitely be frowned upon for cheating his way into history (if only briefly). But again, really anyone who took their place in history through the use of a consistent unfair advantage should be looked at unfavorably.
>But I digress.....I should have just waited for one of the >white liberal okayplayers to make the exact same argument, in >which case it would be automatically be more plausible. > > >But at least consider it, even with the fact that it came from >a rabid nigger. > > >Lol.
You're black? And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
|