Bonds*

Notes on the slugger's quest for glory

 

__________________________________________________________

 

Recalculating a tainted record - 2001*: A steroid odyssey

__________________________________________________________

 

 

The Bonds situation is one we've never faced before. On one hand Bonds is a player who has seemingly defiled baseball's great records in an immoral way. On the other, the chance to see Bonds is the chance to witness the player, who, regardless of how, has put up the greatest offensive numbers in the history of the game.

 

That is a chance I will likely only have once in a lifetime. Bonds is a divisive player, yet I cannot boo him. At this point he is almost sure to break the career home run record, so I see no point in fighting it. I would rather enjoy the chance to see it.

 

In baseball history, offensive numbers have gone up since the early 20^th century. Runs scored, for example, has risen fairly consistently for the last 100 years. Similarly, home runs have skyrocketed. When Babe Ruth started his career, fewer than 0.5 home runs were hit per 100 at bats. Now that number is nearly 3.5. It is inevitable, and only logical that a record like Ruth's or Aaron's will eventually fall. If not Bonds, then probably A-Rod. What irritates fans is that it is Bonds, a player whose late career success is much due to steroids, and not a more traditional Mickey Mantle-like player.

 

Still, breaking a record doesn't necessarily mean a player is better than the man who set the record originally. Pete Rose was certainly not better than Ty Cobb, yet the chase of that record was exciting, and Rose receives accolades for it without much dispute. His overall quality of a player was irrelevant to whether he broke the record or not. No one will forget Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron, the same as few have forgotten Roger Maris.

 

But Bonds is a great player. In 1994 Bill James noted him as the 14^th greatest player ever, long before his late career numbers shot up. Bonds has also faced many challenges other players have not faced. Ruth, for example, never played against blacks. His numbers, as I show in one attached essay, would almost certainly have gone down had his competition been greater. And while Bonds almost without a doubt was influenced by steroids, as his career home run frequency shows (CHRF tends to rise consistently over the careers of steroid users and level off early in the careers of non-steroid users), Aaron's CHRF also rises for his entire career despite the fact that Aaron is considered clean and a model of integrity to most fans.

 

While steroids are different from something like the competition one faces because they are taken willingly, so is using more advanced equipment. Bonds plays with bats and batting gloves Ruth never would have dreamt of. Yet his willing choice to take that advantage is not something people criticize, nor even note. All the while, Bonds has been playing in a park where it is far tougher to hit home runs as a left handed hitter, something rarely mentioned.

 

All this being said, I like Bonds. I don't like the fact that controversy surrounds his record, but in terms of how I like players, I like Bonds. He plays the game the sabermetric way, helping his team with walks and power hitting. He makes smart decisions and rarely strikes out. Because he walks a lot, his averages are high, and he does little to hurt his team. He is a big bruiser, not the Pete Rose style fireplug. That is why many dislike him. He has certainly grown in body mass over the course of his career.

 

My point is that since Bonds is inevitably going to set the record, why not cheer for him. The steroid mess will be sorted out, and even if the numbers aren't wiped from the record books they will certainly be tainted. But seeing Bonds is a unique experience and one I can describe years from now. It's a shame to miss such a performance.