Christmas Dilemma- Question of the Day
Given the salaries that have flown around since the start of free agency this winter, I think it's fair to say that most players have already received their Christmas presents, helping the hot stove lower from a boil to a simmer entering the holiday weekend. So all the big Dodgerland issues- where will the power come from, what uniform will Brad Penny be wearing come spring training, how long would it take Ned Colletti to grow the sort of 'stache to compete with these guys, etc.- in will wait until next week, at least. So let's take the time to reflect on one more gift some former players are hoping to get in the near future- a ticket to Cooperstown.
The eligibility of Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco, and Ken Caminiti for enshrinement in '07 has pushed the steroid question to the forefront, or more fore in the forefront, since it really hasn't gone anywhere. Caminiti isn't a consideration, and Canseco would be a long shot even without the needle issues, but McGwire gives writers their first opportunity to accept or reject a symbol of the Steroid Era. The general consensus is that Big Mac won't get in this year, but the larger debate is on how to handle players from the last decade and a half, give or take.
What would you do? How exactly should the writers handle the responsibility of sifting through stats and the players that created them? McGwire is the beginning of a parade of players tainted by drug suspicions which range from the Raffy Palmiero "I Got Caught" Club to The Barry Bonds "Flaxseed Oil Confusion" Club. Wink wink, nudge nudge. Then there are all the guys in the middle about whom people will always wonder. I've heard estimates that upwards of 75% of players have tried performance enhancing drugs. I've heard only 25% have done it. I've heard lower, and all sorts of names. The point is, nobody is really sure, and we may never know.
So what to do? McGwire was never caught doing anything against the rules (that includes the Andro, which was kosher at the time). And while there are suspicions... very, very, very strong suspicions... steel rod strong suspicions- is it fair to keep McGwire out? Here's my problem. I believe McGwire used some form of performance enhancers. I believe Bonds did. And Palmiero, and Sosa. And a bunch of other players. Hitters and pitchers. McGwire had the good fortune of hitting more homers than most, then the misfortune of getting subpoenaed to the dog and pony show Congress staged nearly two years ago. Call me crazy, but there were probably a lot of players who would have squirmed in the same situation.
I don't like to sanction cheating (or wouldn't if I were given an HOF vote), even when it was tacitly sanctioned by Major League Baseball, the players union, the media, and fans. But as I see it, for the next few years, writers will have a simple choice, short of hard evidence emerging that can sift out the cheaters from the choir boys: Put the steroid issue aside and vote for those who would otherwise get in, or avoid voting for anyone that comes through the system (guys like Greg Maddux being an exception, since anyone who has seen him without his shirt on can vouch for the idea that he's been clean).
As for me, without any ability to differentiate between players, and with only suspicion, innuendo, and rumor to work with, I'm inclined to set the issue aside and accept entry to those who theoretically deserve it based on their career performance. As uncomfortable as I would be rewarding people who stepped outside the system to put up numbers, I'd be more uncomfortable playing judge and jury for those same players in the absence of any evidence. It's not pleasant, but the good news is that a big asterisk has already been placed on the whole era. Saves everyone the trouble of doing it later, that's for sure.
That we're having this discussion indicates to me that baseball and the MLBPA are getting what they deserve. For the next decade or more, every year at this time, we'll be talking about steroids instead of achievement. Players will still get enshrined, but it won't be the same.
That might have to be enough. But if anyone has other suggestions, I'm open to them.
BK
Subscribe to this Blog | What is RSS?
Call me old school, but.....when it came to those Congressional hearings,
McGwire totally refused to talk about the issue, when he could have come clean. To him, NO!;
Palmiero completely lied, and had the guts to finger wag in the process. To him, NO!;
Sosa played the "I don't understand English very well game". Again, NO!
Yes, I know that there have been whispers about many others, but the aforementioned three don't deserve enshrinement. And first ballot is not an issue. They do not belong.
Posted by: Dodgerdog | December 23, 2006 at 03:36 PM
Costco hot dogs are... opps! Wrong thread.
OK. Home runs and steroids.
I think ultimately McGwire will get in the HOF, and I hate to say this, only because he didn't get legally caught. If he did steroids he shouldn't get in, period. If he was on them, that's when he hit all those homers. And that's his claim to fame, the home runs.
At the least, he should have to wait for the last possible chance to get in for all the doubt about using or not.
Things are at their all time slow right now it seems. I always crave a little Dodger "juice" each day.
Can I get a wake up call for March?
Posted by: Andy B | December 23, 2006 at 04:35 PM
Dodgerdog-
I get what you're saying, but what if McGwire didn't get called? Is it unfair to penalize him over that bit of bad luck when others who likely did the same thing had the good fortune to be ignored by Congress? That whole production, to me, was such a turnoff. A bunch of politicans posturing to make themselves look good. Not that the players didn't bring it on themselves, but hopefully you get my point.
BK
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | December 23, 2006 at 07:43 PM
BK,
Man, do I agree with you when it comes to the self-righteous politicans preening for the camera and for publicity. They're worthless.
However, McGwire was called. The "but what about those guys that you didn't call" argument is the same one I tried to use when being stopped for speeding. Although there were others, as well, in the court of public opinion, McGwire was cited.
Posted by: Dodgerdog | December 23, 2006 at 08:17 PM
I think that the key issue to the McGwire situation are the numbers. According to baseball-reference.com's similarity scores, McGwire's numbers liken him to Jim Thome, Jose Canseco, Carlos Delgado, Harmon Killebrew, Willie McCovey, Man-Ram, Juan Gonzalez, Norm Cash, Jason Giambi, and Dave Kingman. Of these players, Killebrew and McCovey are the only HOFers, and none of the currently active players (except Manny) are dominant enough to project into the HOF when they retire. And you'll see that Manny will be in a completely different league from McGwire's stats by the time he retires
Comparing career stats, McGwire had better power numbers than Killebrew or McCovey, but he much more of a one dimensional player. You can look up the actual numbers yourself, but other than the 500+ HRs, there's actually nothing eye poppingly dominant about McGwire's career. He didn't reach 2000 hits, he couldn't run for crap, and he only played 16 years in the bigs. He deserves mention in the HOF for his tremendous rookie season and dramatic HR chase, but his numbers just don't add up to be enshrined.
By the same logic, Canseco, Palmeiro, and Caminiti are not worthy, but Bonds definitely is. I really dislike the guy, but IF he is not convicted of illegal steroid use, it would be a shame if he were not inducted into the HOF. His numbers say he should have been enshrined three years ago.
Posted by: Makoto Ueno | December 23, 2006 at 10:16 PM
greetings and holiday smiles...
Interesting dilema when considering these guys as HOF'ers...I have been asking myself the "...what would Judge Landis do...?" question.
It is a hard decision. They all cheated in one way but in another not really. But when you consider that their ability to provide for their family hinged on success on the field it is hard to blame then for a year or two of cheating. But to spend a decade or more showing a complete lack of ethics is hard to ignore.
Also, I recall reading a question as to how do we know Babe Ruth did not take steroids...they were discovered in the early 30's and Ruth was known for almost freakish strength as well as musculature. So there is no way know for certain. Same goes for any number of players over the years.
Thing is I consider this sort of cheating as bad or worse then betting on baseball. It should carry an automatic lifetime ban, period, end of story. I promise that would end all use of these ahem..."supplements" Also testing should be done every week during the season...on a random day but samples should be taken either weekly or after every game. Ahhhh, but I digress...
Judging cheating looks to be the hardest thing in baseball. I mean look, it KILLED Bart Giamatti. But he actually cared about the ethics and integrity or the game. This current bunch of billionaire wanna be's became wealthy by lying, cheating and stealing and stepping on anyone in they way...so we get a commissioner that reflects these "values" and players that realize what is "ok" in order to put butts in the seats.
I say ban them all of let them all in...no middle of the road stuff.
Posted by: grumpy3b | December 23, 2006 at 10:46 PM
Andy B:
"...I always crave a little Dodger "juice" each day...."
don't let Glenn Burke or Piazza hear you say that...
Posted by: grumpy3b | December 23, 2006 at 10:47 PM
You can lay this whole steroid mess at the feet of Bud Selig. Baseball has boomed during his time in office, but I think aside from 20 new stadiums, expansion, etc, etc, his legacy is going to be marked by the steroids saga (and the loss of the '94 season). The game has been tainted. There is no way to compare Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth to McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, Palmiero et. al. One of the greatest joys of the game is debating what a certain player would have done in a different era and comparing/contrasting stats. You can basically throw out all the records and accomplishments from what, 1990 to 2005?? They are all suspicious. Even singles hitters who reached 3000 hits might have used the juice to keep them in the game an extra couple years. Does anyone think that if Bart Giamatti had lived that this would have happened? I know Fay Vincent was shown the door so the owners could force the lock out in '94. But, one has to wonder if another reason to stick the used-car salesman in as the Commish. was to keep the lid on the "juice abuse" going on. "Chicks dig the long-ball" and so did millions of fans and I'm sure the owners were more than happy to look the other way to protect their revenue stream.
Posted by: dodgerskip | December 23, 2006 at 10:48 PM
As for McGwire and his numbers. Something we might want to consider is that how many of his homers (and let's face it, homers are the only thing that would get him in the hall) were hit against pitchers using the juice? According to Jose Canseco (I cringe to use him as a reference but, he seems to have been proven accurate about his steroids claims), wasn't it something like 75% of players in the early to mid 90's that he thought were using the 'roids. Wouldn't this also include pitchers? Guys who instead of throwing in the high 80's were now throwing in the mid 90's because of the juice. Of course there is no way to know, but I'm just throwing this out there for debate: If the biggest chunk of McGwire's homers were hit early in his career (before he started shooting up--remember he hit 49 homers his rookie year as a string-bean compared to his later years) and against steroid using pitchers later in his career (so that there was an 'even playing field', cheater vs. cheater) does that mean that his numbers should be looked at as legitimate for his "era" of the game and his 580(?) some odd homers put him in the HOF?? It's a sad way to look at it but that's what we're left with thanks to Bud.
Posted by: dodgerskip | December 23, 2006 at 11:02 PM
Obviously the Sosa's and the Caminiti's dont deserve to get into Cooperstown steriod issue aside. What i would do with both McGwire and Bonds is wait until they;re like 79, or on their death bed, to induct them--dont let them enjoy it at all. They are both dirty without a doubt, but also probably deserving of the Hall (numbers wise) But that also brings up another interesting point-- should character be judged when Hall of Fame voters are doing there thing? Cheating is bad-- i dont know the technicalities of what was legal and what was not in the terms of steroids and enhancements, but something should be said towards the apparant absolute indifference the league treated the situation with. It is more of the league's fault for sanctioning such behavior, rather than the players who just want to win.
Posted by: evan | December 24, 2006 at 10:42 AM
Dodgerdog:
Well posted!! I concur as the the root cause of the game of baseball being in the state it's in reputation wise.
What gets me though it attendence is UP. And it't at record levels to boot. Maybe it is better marketing or the steroids thing just putting the MLB in front of more people every day this year.
I for one have less interest in the game. I honestly have zero desire to attend a MLB game. Though I am thinking of heading to either LV or Fresno to watch them play on my birthday weekend...figure we'll make a week of it...but that is more to visit friends and not really about baseball. I find that sad really.
I can say for sure one thing that has reduced my interest in the game is the overall quality of play. I loved the subtle parts of the game. You know bunts, SF, hitting behind a runner, stolen bases when they really matter, working the count...all that stuff that even the worst player on the field would learn to do just so they could play the game. I dunno if it is the talent dilution or ????
I also had/have a hard time with the McCourt's. I just get a slik-willy impression whenever she speaks. And he is just a slimy parking lot mogul...actually the two together reminds me of an Amway-team.
What keeps me interested right now is the Dodgers developing from within. Being able to follow players as the progress and wonder how they are gonna turn out.
But the biggest reason I am still enjoying and following the team is that Colletti seems to value the team and a community/family. He understands that when the people who work for you enjoy their job then the customers they deal with will enjoy your product all the more. And those customers might even take an active interest in the details.
Oh, well, bah-humbug... :)
Posted by: grumpy3b | December 24, 2006 at 11:16 AM
Question to ponder:
Is it more of an advantage to use steroids in a league where many people are using steroids (Bonds, McGwire, etc.) or to play in a segragated league where many of the best players are excluded from competition (Ruth, Cobb, etc.)?
Posted by: bmurph | December 24, 2006 at 04:24 PM
grumpy
I too try to catch the 51's & Grizzlies play in Fresno at least once every year (I've done it about 4 years in a row now). Last April I got to watch Martin, Guzman, Ethier, Young, & Aybar play before they were all called up. The best place to sit is along the 3rd base line next to the bull-pen bench. You're just a foot away from the guys in the pen and can carry on conversations with them. It's a great place for autographs and access. I'm hoping that if Vegas ever got a Major League team that the Dodgers' AAA team would move to Bakersfield. Fresno & B'field already have a rivaly as cities (insert your own joke here)so it would be classic to have them home to the Dodgers & Giants--not to mention the easy access for fans wanting to watch the young kids coming up. (It would also make those 2 or 3 day rehab starts for the major leaguers coming off injury within a couple hours drive from home.)
Posted by: dodgerskip | December 24, 2006 at 11:11 PM
I guess I’ll be the fly in the ointment, as Vinny would say.
I don’t understand all this “he’ll eventually get it in” business. I never have. Either he (McGwire) is a HOFer, or he’s not. What is going to change in 3 years? He’s not “cleaner”. He’s not gaining any stats. Why is he not a HOF’er now, but will be a few years down the road?
I don’t buy the idea of punishing him by making him wait. That’s a bunch of crap from no-talent writers that got the snot beat out of them in high school and now think they can play God (cough cough Mike Lupica cough cough). What gives a sports writer the right to say “I’m going to f**k with McGwire because I think he’s a cheater”?? That a load of crap.
I have more respect for people who stick to their guns and say “he’s not getting in”.
I’ve said this before, and I will say it again: this is baseball’s fault. Specifically, it’s Selig’s fault. None of these players broke any baseball rules by taking steroids. And that is what it boils down to. Blame Selig for turning the other cheek. Blame Selig for not introducing a steroid policy when he was well aware that players were taking roids. But you can’t lay the blame on the players for doing things to better themselves within the rules.
You can “asterisk” all their records, but you can’t keep them out of the HOF. As cruel as it sounds, all of these guys played by the rules. Bonds, McGwire, Palmero, and Sosa all belong in the HOF. They can put them in their own separate wing if they want to, right next to Selig’s plaque that reads “This is the idiot that allowed these players to cheat”.
Posted by: LoLo | December 25, 2006 at 09:09 AM
Since bmurph brought up the race issue, I have to ask this question: How much of this is fueled by race. Obviously the majority of the players in question concerning HOF status are minorities. Yeah, there’s McGwire. But that’s only ONE white guy. And the only reason he’s going down with the ship is because he got caught with some stuff in his locker, and because of that fiasco on Capitol Hill. Most of the players called to The Hill were minorities, and I’m sure baseball and the media have no problem sacrificing one white guy.
You have to ask yourself if this were the 50s, 60s, or 70s, and players like Mantle, Williams, DiMaggio, and Koufax were the culprits in a steroids scandal if the reaction would have been the same. I think not. People are quick to turn the other cheek in regards to the point bmurph made (something that has to be looked at when considering how skewed are the number that Ruth, Gehrig, etc, put up, even though I think the quantity of “great” black players not allowed to play baseball is greatly overstated) because it involves white players. Aaron went through hell when he approached Ruth’s record even though he was clean and an standout guy (and boy has baseball gone out of their way “asterisk” Aaron’s record by saying that he played in longer seasons than Ruth did; anything to protect the sanctity of Ruth’s record, who happens to be white). True, that era was fueled by racial discrimination in general, but you can’t tell me that the fact that Bonds is black isn’t a big factor in all of this. After all, I think people have made a bigger deal of Bonds breaking Ruth’s record than they have about him breaking Aaron’s.
Fast forward to this era, and you see the differences in how scandals involving minorities differs from those involving white players. Take Sammy Sosa and the big deal that was made when he got caught using a corked bat. A corked bat? A hitter’s equivalent to a pitcher’s spitball? Now all of a sudden Sosa’s numbers come into question because he MUST have used a cork bat for all of those home runs, right? Yet Warren Spahn, a self-proclaimed and celebrated cheater, who happens to be white, is in the HOF. None of his stats are in question, and his enshrinement is not in any jeopardy. How much of that has to do with Spahn being white? And it’s not like Sosa is a bad guy (although all of those people that said nice things about him aloud have proven that they were saying other things under their breath).
Where’s the probe on the great white pitcher Roger Clemens? How about Eric Gagne and trying to find out what fueled one of the best relief performances of history? All white players, all an afterthought about whether or not these players cheated. Yet Rafael Palmero, someone who accomplished stats that few white players have ever achieved is not a HOFer. Why? Because he HAD to have been cheating the whole time, right? Every one of his stats, steroids induced. But not Clemens. Not Gagne. And certainly not Spahn.
You have to ask these things. Are some of these points “circumstantial”? Of course they are. But you’d have to be a fool to not acknowledge that some of this stuff is more likely than not.
Posted by: LoLo | December 25, 2006 at 09:47 AM
BTW, Merry X-Mas everyone.
Posted by: LoLo | December 25, 2006 at 10:23 AM
A little off the topic.
You know what would be the best Christmas gift ever? If no one wanted to sign Zito for anything near Boras's asking price. What would be the odds of all the GM's saying ENOUGH, all at the same time?
That would be swell, by golly!
A Merry Blue Christmas to all! And blessings to you and your families.
Posted by: Andy B | December 25, 2006 at 10:44 AM
LoLo-My daughter who was 15 or 16 at the time, questioned if there was a race issue involved between Mac and Bonds. I tried to explain that Bonds is also disliked [by me and other Dodgers fans]because he is a Giant, his rudenss and arrogance and his general dislike from his peers. There were no sad goodbyes from his Pirates teamates when he signed with the Giants. Mac had his cream opened on his locker shelf. Bonds denies and denies. But, Mac evaded all the congressional questions.
She has heard me speak about how racists a lot of occurances in our history both past and contemporary.
Posted by: Bigblue48 | December 25, 2006 at 02:12 PM
i hate all this steroid talk, i dont care if ur not cheating ur not trying. Lets play ball not worry about what these players are doing its just entertainment
Posted by: taxdizzle | December 25, 2006 at 09:39 PM
Bigblue48,
Trust me. I absolutely DESPISE Bonds. Not only because he’s a Gnat (ESPECIALLY because he’s a Gnat) but because he’s a jerk and an a-hole. I can’t stand him.
But he’s a HOFer. No ands, ifs, or buts about it. In no way should my hate for the guy skew my view of him as a HOFer. While my personal contempt is fueled by hate for the guy, you have to wonder how much of others’ hate is fueled by racism. Sosa is a HOFer. Palmero is a HOFer. Palmero is the only guy who “popped”, so he’s the only guy that has that going against him, and it might end up haunting him. But none of the other guys have popped. Baseball is not the grand jury. So unless the grand jury convicts Bonds, baseball can’t because their only method of catching cheaters is through a urinalysis exam, which Bonds has yet to fail.
I wish Palmero wouldn’t have popped. I wish he would have gotten his chance to go before voters in 5 years and tested the “racial waters”. I truly wanted to see if the voters would keep him out based solely on rumors that he took steroids. Everyone knows about the magic numbers in baseball (unwritten or not). 500HRs, 3000 hits, 300 wins, 3000 Ks. Palmero achieved TWO of them, and you mean to tell me that he’s not a HOFer? The most ridiculous argument I have heard is that he shouldn’t be a HOFer because “he didn’t have that ONE big season”. What a bunch of horse sh*t!! There are plenty of players in the HOF that didn’t have spectacular seasons, and also fell short of those unwritten plateaus. Why are THEY in the HOF?? All this was being said BEFORE Palmero popped, so the proof is the pudding that they wanted to keep Palmero out before he messed up. Now the idiot screwed up and doesn’t have a leg to stand on. He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, so now he’s at the mercy of the writers.
I also hope that Giambi reaches 500+ home runs. It will be interesting to see if they allow him to be voted into the HOF after admitting that he used steroids. It will also be interesting to see if Palmero, Sosa, and Bonds aren’t the HOF yet. And it will also be interesting to see if they let them get in after allowing Giambi in.
It’s amazing how they have embraced Giambi after admitting he cheated, while they ran Sosa and Palmero out of the game. I guess those two will never be forgiven. Such a coincidence that Giambi is white, isn’t it?
What baseball doesn’t realize is that all hell is going to break loose if Bonds isn’t allowed into the HOF. The NAACP and Jesse Jackson will be on Selig and MLB like white on rice (no pun intended). MLB is one tough client to defend given their discriminatory past, and they are going to go down like dominos when the wrath of these minority groups strikes down upon them.
Funny how the “final stand” on Bonds was made when he approached Ruth’s record. Since when did we start celebrating second place? I’m not very good at math, but last time I checked 755 is more than 714. Why stop at celebrating second place? Why not third place? Why not stop Bonds from breaking Mays’ mark? Why has the attitude changed from “We absolutely have to draw the line right here to keep him from breaking Ruth’s record” to “I guess he’s going to break Aaron’s record. Oh well.”??
We all have to ask ourselves these questions. Ask why are steroids TRULY such a big issue? And if they are a big issue, why does it only affect certain players. After all, if baseball could write a waiver to put Clemens in the HOF NOW instead of having to wait 5 years, they would do it in a heartbeat.
Roger Clemens. Accused of taking steroids and probable steroids user (just as probable as Sosa and the others). Under the same allegations as the others, but not under the same scrutiny. Again, you have to ask yourself why are steroids TRULY such a big issue?
Posted by: LoLo | December 26, 2006 at 09:19 AM
My take -
If we're going to let any one of those guys into the HOF, then I have one very BIG statement to make. They each engaged in illegal activites, why they did it is up for debate, but I think it was for a bigger payday. How is that any different than what Pete Rose did? He gambled on games to make a little bit more money. They used performance-enhancing drugs to make a little bit more money. The difference? Pete Rose did something that is not illegal, just immoral. They broke federal law. Pete Rose was a far better baseball player than any one of them, hands down. He was one of the best, if not the best hitter of all time. He deserves it, whether or not they do is debatable.
Posted by: Nils Andersen | December 26, 2006 at 12:13 PM
Lolo
In response to your comment:
"Funny how the “final stand” on Bonds was made when he approached Ruth’s record. Since when did we start celebrating second place? I’m not very good at math, but last time I checked 755 is more than 714. Why stop at celebrating second place? Why not third place? Why not stop Bonds from breaking Mays’ mark? Why has the attitude changed from “We absolutely have to draw the line right here to keep him from breaking Ruth’s record” to “I guess he’s going to break Aaron’s record. Oh well.”??"
While out of the countless millions of baseball fans out there, there may be some who look at the race of Ruth & Aaron, I think they are few--especially today as opposed to 30 or 40 years ago. I just think Babe Ruth is an icon. He is a part of American history--not just baseball history. Much like a John Wayne may not have won as many academy awards as other actors, when you see him on the screen it's larger than life. Hank Aaron was an icredible player, but his greatness was achieved over time. In that I mean, he was just consistently good year in and year out and after a couple of decades of being real good, you looked at his stats and realized he was great. It kind of crept up on the masses. Ruth, on the other had, burst onto the scene. He hit 60 homers in a season when the previous record was like 13!!! It would be like someone hitting 200 homers in a season in today's game. It was mind-boggling. Then couple that with the fact Ruth played in New York (Aaron in Milwaukee), Ruth starred in movies, made all the highlight reels shown before movies, was outspoken and gave many interviews, "called his shot" in the World Series, hit 2 homers for a dying boy in the hospital!! For Pete's sake, Ruth still holds the RECORD for most scoreless innings in the World Series--as a PITCHER!!! Aaron was shy, not in the spotlight much, out of the media glare of the East Coast, didn't do anything "spectacular" except play good baseball year in and year out--he just didn't draw attention to himself. Ruth became an American icon and a baseball 'god' as a pitcher & and hitter. I think the only one who has come close to being viewed as Ruth in our time is Tiger Woods (who happens to be non-white--which hasn't seemed to slow him down). So, I can understand that people view Ruth differently from Aaron. Not because of race (while, as I said, there may be a few) but because his name still invokes an awe and recognition that transcends sports and touches our inner psyche at a deeper level than just the pure numbers. Aaron was a great baseball player--Ruth WAS/IS baseball.
Posted by: dodgerskip | December 26, 2006 at 02:03 PM
dodgerskip,
Great points. And for the record, I believe Babe Ruth is the greatest baseball player in history. But you have to ask yourself this…
“…his name still invokes an awe and recognition that transcends sports and touches our inner psyche at a deeper level than just the pure numbers.”
Really? Are you sure about that? Do you realize that most of these minority players (who now make up a large percentage of MLB) don’t give a damn who Babe Ruth is? Ruth is a big part of history. But it’s more like white history. The truth is that Ruth may transcend many things, but he doesn’t transcend race. Ruth is such a big deal because the majority of sports writers are white. But I can assure you that people in the ghetto and in “the barrio” the don’t care who Babe Ruth is. I should know. I grew up there.
The truth is that minorities are taking their stake as the best athletes in the world. For years the best basketball players have been black. Hispanics make up the bulk of the best baseball players. Track and field? Black. Same for football.
Baseball is the national pastime, and it’s core of “purists” are made up of white males. In a sport where minorities are becoming more and more prominent, Ruth is the last remaining icon where white people can say “he’s the best”. That is until his records started falling, and falling to minority players. Bonds has broken his slugging record, his walks record, his career home runs mark, has more MVPs, and obliterated his single-season HR mark. And you don’t think for one second the fact that Bonds is black has something to do with the need for white people to preserve Ruth’s stature as the greatest player of all time?
Of course, Bonds doesn’t help matters when he comes out saying things like "755 isn't a number that's always caught my eye..... the only number I care about is Babe Ruth's. Because as a left-handed hitter, I wiped him out. That's it. And in the baseball world, Babe Ruth's everything, right? I got his slugging percentage and I'll take his home runs and that's it. Don't talk about him no more."
A classless thing to say, no doubt (we all know he said that because Ruth is white, not because he actually thinks that Ruth is the greatest). But the truth sometimes hurts.
Posted by: LoLo | December 26, 2006 at 05:38 PM
Nils:
Not to nit pick...but exactly who's "morals" did Pete Rose step on? Morality has not a single thing to do with gambling. Unethical, I think so, immoral, not even close.
Always remember "morality" is in the eye of the beholder.
And as far as Pete Rose being a great player...I think he was durable and had more heart then other then a handful of players but the dude may as well have worn oven mits on the field for all the booted balls, kicks balls and flat out missed balls he had...that was his ONLY weakenss though he was mediocre on the field. But so mediocre he would not even be in the top five of my all time 3rd basemen, maybe not even top 10.
But I loved watching the guy at the plate...and YES, he cheap shot'd Ray Fosse. That should show the sort of person he is/was...
Still, Pete Rose belongs in the HOF as does Shoeless Joe...the reason Rose is not in the HOF is the same reason Marta Stewart went too jail. Niether one of them was man enough to simply say "...I am sorry, I made a horrible error in judgement..." When ya get caught, fess up and get it done with...same goes for the 'roid Boy's. Fess up and be done with it...hell Sosa LEFT THE COUNTRY just in case...how funny was that?
I really say let them all in...Aaron was THE MAN as far as homeruns. And I love the dignity he has shown during the whole mess...
Posted by: grumpy3b | December 26, 2006 at 07:38 PM
Babe Ruth did nothing to diminish the game and actually pulled it out of its darkest hour.
Bonds on the other hand has been a major contributer to a very dark period for baseball.
HOF: Was the player positive for baseball or negative.
RUTH; definitately helped the game.
Bonds; has not helped and has probably done more damage than good. Should not go in the Hall.
Posted by: Jim | December 26, 2006 at 08:02 PM