Sports Media Review by Jonathan Weiler

Tuesday, May 30, 2006
11:27:00 AM EDT
  Gary Gillette, regular contributor to ESPN.com, and editor of the 2006 ESPN Baseball Encyclopedia declares “enough is enough” when it comes to the incessant Bonds bashing.

 It’s a long article, but worth checking out: http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/insider/columns/story?columnist=gillette_gary&id=2453993

(only available to ESPN insiders).

Here are a couple of key grafs (I’ll italicize Gillette so it’s clear whose voice it is):

“The outcry against Bonds and his records should seem just plain silly when viewed in the context of baseball history. Bonds' "record" is no more "tainted" than many -- if not most -- of the great records in baseball history. And while Bonds enjoyed several significant advantages on the way to 715, so did every other great home run hitter.

Babe Ruth had the incalculable advantage of playing his whole career during a segregated era, when he and every other white hitter didn't have to face great black pitchers such as Smokey Joe Williams, Bullet Joe Rogan and Satchel Paige. Nor have their batting statistics compared to legendary blackball sluggers such as Josh Gibson, who many feel might have broken Ruth's single-season home run record. Ruth also enjoyed playing all of his games during the daytime while having to travel no further west than St. Louis and no further south than Washington, D.C. Furthermore, Ruth didn't have to face the fresh arms and blazing fastballs of the great relief pitchers who would intimidate so many hitters decades later.

Hank Aaron benefited from hitting in the many cozy neighborhood ballparks still in use in the 1950s and 1960s, just like contemporary sluggers have benefited from playing in the retro ballparks. Though Aaron's home parks in Milwaukee and Atlanta were not neighborhood parks, he did play in Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium when it was known as the "Launching Pad," giving him an overall home-park advantage for his career. Aaron took advantage of the newly implemented designated hitter rule at the end of his career, adding 22 home runs to the lead he had over Ruth. And, paradoxically enough, the great Henry Aaron also benefited from a lack of true integration in the game, as the level of discrimination in baseball meant that it was extremely slow to allow African-American pitchers to play a prominent role -- even as great black hitters such as Aaron, Willie Mays and Roy Campanella were knocking the stuffing out of the ball. Finally, Aaron played much of his career in an era when offense dominated in the NL, just like Bonds during the so-called "steroids era."

None of the above takes anything away from the greatness of Aaron, Ruth or Bonds. All players play in the era that they were born into, and all of them play with significant advantages and some disadvantages. As one might expect, great records tend to be set during years and eras when the natural advantages point in a particular way, aiding one group of players while simultaneously penalizing others.”

Gillette also points out the 1990s were not the peak for offense in baseball history – in the NL, the 1920s were the highest run-scoring decade, while in the AL it was the 1930s. For both leagues, the 1990s were second. As for homeruns, yes, there were more of them in the 1990s than ever before, but only by a fraction compared to other peak homerun decades.

Gillette further contends that pitchers have been far more likely to cheat throughout baseball history than batters, and that plenty of those have found their way to the Hall of Fame. And, others have pointed out that pitchers' use of steroids has been one of the most under-remarked aspects of the phenomenon.

Other writers have pointed out that the single-minded focus on steroids is misplaced. Veteran sports anchor and commentator Jim Lampley argued last year (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-lampley/the-truth-about-steroids_b_1251.html) that amphetamines have been a part of baseball since long before the so-called steroids era. Furthermore, Will Carroll, one of the Baseball Prospectus analysts who specializes in health issues, wrote a book last year, “The Juice” in which he contended that amphetamines’ effects on performance enhancement are far better known and much clearer than is the case for steroids. Here’s Carroll’s interview with Salon.com’s King Kaufman: (http://www.salon.com/news/sports/col/kaufman/2005/05/16/monday/index_np.html) 

What does all this mean? Well, it’s not likely to change the antipathy toward Bonds, nor the questions about how he amassed his career totals, especially between 2000-2004. But, it’s a useful dose of sobriety for a public drunk with moral outrage about Bonds’ performance. It’s too bad we have to be having this conversation, and there's no use denying the role Bonds has played in attracting much of the scrutiny that surrounds him, but when it comes time to talk about his place in the Hall of Fame, it will be worth some context of the type that Gillette, Lampley and Carroll provide.

Written by sportsmediaguy Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

This entry has 0 comments: (Add your own)