So I was sitting here yesterday working on a piece I want to run this week when I got a text from Big Rell.
“Olbermann just talked about your Ruth/Bonds column on ESPN Radio.”
That was a shocker. I wrote that weeks ago. You can’t even get to it now without an Insider subscription.
Anyway, I asked Rell on the computer what Olbermann said. Turns out he didn’t mention my name, but he did say the idea that Ruth’s records are are illegimate as Bonds’ was “ridiculous.”
That was interesting. I actually got more of a kick out of the fact that he disagreed than if he had. When folks remember the things they disagree with, you’ve really hit them. I can dig that.
But is that premise really ridiculous, that Bonds and Ruth’s records should be viewed with equal skepticism? I don’t see how.
What Olbermann seemed to miss in that piece was my belief that the culprit in this steroids stuff is baseball. Bonds may have cheated according to commonly held notions of fairness, but he wasn’t breaking baseball rules by using steroids before 2004. They weren’t illegal at the time. So there’s really no knock there on Bonds.
It’s not his fault that the players’ union never allowed ‘roid testing.
And in the case of segregation, the culprit was baseball. Segregation was cheating according to commonly held notions of fairness, but it was the law of the land of baseball. Judge Landis and the boys kept the momentum going on the color barrier.
It’s not Ruth’s fault that blacks weren’t allowed to play.
What people haven’t considered is why steroids should have been illegal. We know that steroids have adverse health effects. And you don’t want a league where players have to endanger themselves to compete at the highest level. The problem with them is more than just performance enhancement. The regulations have to be in place to protect players from having to go to unreasonable lengths to succeed.
If you believe Jeff Pearlman’s Love Me, Hate Me–which is only my shelf but still unread by me–then you believe that Bonds started using steroids because McGwire and Sosa passed him using drugs and it killed Bonds inside to see that. So while he’s painted as the villain of this era of steroids, he could just as equally be painted as the reason why steroid testing was so necessary.
But even with that in mind, his numbers will be–and should be–viewed with a bit of skepticism. Claiming steroids were legal doesn’t change that baseball was full of funny business for a long time. That’s baseball’s fault, but that doesn’t mean the business wasn’t a little funny.
At the same time, Ruth’s records should be viewed skeptically. Not just that he was #1 when it’s possible that Josh Gibson was every bit the hitter he was, but exactly how many of his 714 home runs would have still been hit had there been tougher, deeper competition. That’s baseball’s fault, but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t funny business going on.
So would someone please tell me what’s ridiculous about that? And if all you’ve got is “Ruth didn’t cheat and Bonds did,” you’re not just working on a technicality. You’re working on a fallacious technicality. Remember–steroids weren’t illegal until after the 2003 season.
Sorry Keith, but I don’t see what you’re talking about on this one. If you see what Keith was talking about, just let me know. He may be right, but someone’s going to have to explain it to me.
26 Comments
by Mr. Senor Evan
Because your ideas threaten the history of the game, no matter how it gets rewritten in each era. Olbermann is as big of a baseball history nut that you will find as a broadcaster and Ruth is still viewed as a hero who’s records can be discussed in various lights and contexts.
Objective people will say that the talent available was much smaller with minorities being excluded not just from hitting competition, but also in the quality of pitcher he faced every day. The comparison can parallel that of Wilt Chamberlain who had one true rival and Russell was a defensive foil who could only slow Wilt down, not completely shut him down.
Until there are no living generations who saw or had first hand accounts of his play, objective discussion is not going to be entirely achievable, especially with those who can be considered “expert.”
evan
by Lord Amaru
Bo, memories of iconic figures like Ruth are always tricky. People think they’re talking about Ruth when they’re really talking more about what he means to them, and after several decades, what they often remember is more myth than reality. Your comments should hopefully be sobering (at least for baseball romantics) because they draw attention to the extent to which Ruth has been mythologized and placed beyond public scrutiny–a dangerous practice in any context. Good work!
The scary part is my piece pointed out that exact issue.
by Tim
Olbermann’s wrong here. Too bad he didn’t plug the Bo article though, I really enjoyed it and referred it to the folks I’ve been in “discussion” about the ‘roids controversy paired with Bonds hate.
I constantly have the argument with my roommate that while I do believe there should be steroid testing in place, it’s a FACT that before ’04 they weren’t illegal. He swears up and down they were illegal. I’ve asked him to find evidence. He asks the same and I haven’t hunted it down. Does ANYONE have a definitive source (link, preferrably, online) I could reference to end that part of the argument?
Bond still is, and will forever be, the best slugger of our time. It just happens that the time coincides with a point where fans want to suddenly talk “integrity” of the game after controlling the competition for so long.
Funny how one “villiain” can move so many others.
by Ben
While it’s true steroids weren’t illegal in baseball until 2004, they’ve been illegal in the U.S. for quite some time now. That’s a truth that needs to be stated. That’s why many, including myself, look at Bonds (as well as McGwire, “No Habla” Sosa, Palmeiro, etc) as a cheater, even though he didn’t technically do anything wrong by baseball standards.
The use of a gun isn’t explicitly prohibited in any sport. So does that mean that technically ‘Sheed could shoot Shaq in the lane to keep him out of the low post? I mean, he wouldn’t be violating NBA rules, but surely that would be considered cheating, right?
Bob Costas recently made a good point on this issue. He said that you have to look at a record in the context of the time and who holds the record. Ruth had no control over segregation in baseball while he played. Bonds had every inch of control over what he put into his body. Both athletes enjoyed some advantage due to circumstances, but only Bonds created the advantage himself.
So take Ruth’s numbers with a grain of salt. Take Bond’s with a cup.
by eauhellzgnaw
But Ben, the fact that Bonds’ numbers were potentially enhanced by his personal decision to “cheat,” while Ruth had no control over the landscape that allowed him to compile his own numbers is irrelevant.
If I recall correctly, the point of Bomani’s piece was not to compare Ruth’s personality, sportsmanship, and “integrity” as a baseball player to those of Bonds; it was merely to assert that Ruth’s stats (and all those prior to integration) are just as worthy of an asterisk as the stats of Bonds and others in the steriod era, and that ultimately, MLB is responsible because it controlled the rules that allowed both eras to exist.
Your Sheed-gun analogy is problematic, but to continue it, what if Commissioner Stern looked the other way when Sheed gunned down another player (a benchwarmer, not a Shaq-caliber player) because the possibility of such a spectacle revived interest in a struggling league, packed seats, facilitated TV deals, sold merchandise, etc.?
Olberman, and all of those who elevate Ruth’s achievements and dismiss Bonds’ are making the mistake of allowing their personal attachment to the idea of each respective player to color their assessment of a very comon-sense, practical issue.
by Ben
But Oh Hellz, the common sense of the issue goes the other way entirely. The means by which Ruth and Bonds got their advantages are totally relevant.
It’s obvious that both of their stats are skewed. That’s as plain as day. But I don’t think that simply because they are both skewed you can treat them the same way. Ruth had no control of the landscape around baseball while he played. Bonds did.
It’s simple. Barry Bonds made a choice to inject himself with a substance for the express reason of enhancing his already impressive performace. Babe Ruth played during the time he was living.
Bomani told me that I was treating this as more of a moral thing. He’s right. That’s the only way to look at this once you get past the easy idea that because steroids weren’t banned by baseball when Bonds suddenly became one of the three best power hitters in American history that his use of them was ok. If that was the case, Jose Canseco and Ken Caminiti wouldn’t be some of the very few to ever admit using steroids.
However, I totally agree that both MLB and the MLBPA are culpable in this. Bud and the owners saw more asses in the seats from ’98 on because of the long ball and the players got bigger paychecks because of it, so both parties looked the other way when it became obvious that the numbers were being produced with help. Fuck ’em both on this.
Luckily Aaron’s still the man, and hopefully Bonds won’t reach him. But in my mind, because of everything, until Pujols or A-Rod or Andruw or anyone else gets there, the home run records still belong to Hank Aaron and Roger Maris.
by Shot Clock
I agree with what Ben has said overall.
The difference between Babe and Bonds, Babe playing in a segregated league where competition was watered-down, and Bonds playing in a league where steroids weren’t technically illegal, is still undoubtedly relevant. I don’t see how it couldn’t be. Both situations affected the numbers the respective players put up, plain and simple.
But does that mean one asterisk (if we were to put it there) is any more significant than the other? I would say yes.
Whether it becomes a moral question or not, the fact is that Bonds used an illegal substance to enhance his play. As a player, he should have been aware of the consequences of that choice far before he decided to even the playing-field with Sosa and McGwire on his own. To use an analogy, if someone kills my brother, surely, I wouldn’t be able to take the law in my own hands and kill his murderer to avenge his death without standing trial for murder myself. I understand how Bonds felt, irritated and frustrated knowing that others were cheating and benefiting from it – but that doesn’t make it anymore right. That whole theory of, well, Sosa and McGwire used drugs too (although true) doesn’t justify Bonds steroids use.
The point is, I feel as though one played within the rules with morality in tact. And the other, Bonds, played within the rules (on a technicality that does not justify his action) without making the appropriate sound moral choice. I think both Babe and Bonds numbers were products of a mmorally less-than-stellar league. First the league segregated players, then they allowed steroids to exist. (it’s not like Bud nor any of the league office hadn’t heard about what people were seeing in clubhouses across the country)
So, like Ben, I think both players should have asterisks next to their names in the record books. Who’s asterisk should be more signnificant, is based on who’s side you take. Some will take Bonds, others will take the Babe’s.
And like Ben, the only legitimate home run mark, without any asterisks, should be that of Mr. Hank Aaron’s, and Mr. Roger Maris.
I think that makes a lot of sense.
by Shot Clock
Ideally, in 20 years, Bonds passing Babe Ruth shouldn’t be anymore controversial than Babe Ruth being number 3 on the list in the first place.
Hopefully, in the future, people will see that both players’ numbers were undoubtedly skewed due to their respective eras.
Both Shot Clock and Ben are comparing the men’s acts. I’m simply comparing their numbers. Best of luck to either of you if you try to requantify the feats of either of them.
by Kirk
All of this stuff is relative and must be considered in the proper context. For instance, which do you think is more likely? Could Bonds legitimately hit 73 HR in a season and 714+ in a career without being on steroids, or, could Shot Clock/Auroon finish a single thought (using the term loosely) in a single comment? I’d put my money on Bonds every time.
But that’s just me. I’m probably still just bitter from watching Kobe stick a knife in the heart of…..wait, no, sorry, they lost that series, my bad.
by Rex
Ben said it all… Steroids are and were illegal in the REAL WORLD, so yes, it supersedes any of baseballs rules of what is illegal or not…
What is it with this sports mentality that sports should be self-governing? When Brashears was attacked on the rink, many sports journalists and pundits were all up in arms over the fact that it was being investigated outside the sport by the “law,” as an assault. The general consensus was that sports should regulate itself and outside regulation shouldn’t happen. What kind of bullshit is that?
That’s why baseball and Bonds are in the situation they’re in. Too many people looking the other way.
Strip Barry’s, Mark’s and Sammy’s HR record and return it back to Maris until someone clean can beat it fair and square. We all KNOW McGwire and Sosa were juiced up too.
by Rex
OK, off-topic a bit there with that one, but back to your topic: I think most things in life can be viewed with skepticism. It’s how we filter what should be viewed with it or not that is important. I think there is a clear threshold where one can view it that way. In the case of Ruth, speaking purely from the fact that his numbers WERE influenced by practices that may not have been illegal at that time, they certainly were MORALLY reprehensible. And even though it was not by his own involvement, it is what is, and Ruth’s numbers are worthy of being scrutinized.
by Fred Batiste, A Weapon of Mass Destruction
Well also with Bonds…the balls were juiced and the parks got smaller…that’s the only thing I could say is the difference between Bonds and Ruth’s numbers
by Rex
Hi Fred. You say the “only” thing? Are you making a point that ‘roids and segregation cancel each other out?
by Farmdog
a few more asterix(es), and why Olbermann is a kook…people freak out on Ruth because he would have a season where he hit more home runs than entire TEAMS, which is an amazing feat…and, as legend has it, he also experimented with the “potions” available at the time to increase his male vigor, on one occasion being sick for a few days after injecting some type of sheep fluid into himself…nevertheless, his accomplishments should not be diminshed because of this…Bonds was the greatest player of our era, without question, even before the ‘roids. Meanwhile, pitchers are having Tommy John surgery which makes their elbow stronger than it can be naturally by using tendons from stronger muscle groups and hitters are having lasic surgery to correct their vision. Bonds enhancements just weren’t medically sanctioned…nevertheless, his accomplishments should not be diminished because of this. Bo, as you know, if you put it out there, somebody’s going to get upset about it. Olbermann is just reading white baseball history. Ruth was a truly mythic baseball player, with the documentation to back it up. He was a character, a dominating pitcher, and a truly unprecedented homerun hitter, hitting a dead ball out of enormous ball parks designed for horseracing. Unfortunately, while we know that there was certainly a black “Ruth” (or two) in the Negro Leagues, Olbermann’s history book doesn’t reach out into that demographic. Perhaps the most telling aspect of Baseball isn’t that black athletes were banned from baseball for so long, it’s the reason why they were allowed to play in the “major leagues” in the first place: the negro league games were outdrawing the major league games in the cities where the two leagues operated simultaneously. The negro league all stars outdrew the major league all stars. The major leagues were losing money to a more popular product, so they integrated. Simple. Money. Just like Bonds, just like Ruth, just like Bud Selig. So, Bo, your piece isn’t ridiculous, and Olbermann is being a sweaty jerk like he was on ESPN. Baseball players, black and white, have always been interesting, anecdotal, and in many ways tragic. Major League Baseball itself, on the other hand, has been greedy, racist, and tremendously short-sighted. Bud Selig is a puppet. He just wanted some money, the seats filled, so he let players do whatever they wanted, regardless of the consequences of baseball, player health or the record books. He has no spine whatsoever. He’s the same guy that let the all star game end in a tie. What the fuck is THAT? Are Ruth and Bonds two of the greatest players of all time? Absolutely. Would each of them been this great in any Baseball era? Definitely. Would we have heard of Bonds if he had played in the Negro Leagues of the 20’s and 30’s? Maybe. If you can answer a question like that with an answer like that, then you absolutely know that Ruth’s numbers would have been altered by the presence of better competition…nevertheless, his accomplishments should not be diminshed because of this…
by Tim
Professional baseball players were an active part of a country which supported the immoral act of segregation. Baseball’s uneven playing field wasn’t just what players were handed down by force from their government.
Just as we can speculate that these large players who hit long home runs are juicing, we can assume that the majority of players supported segregation when that was the norm way back when. So let’s not talk “immoral acts” about steroids without remembering that a worse immoral act went on in the past. The players, along with their country, chose to reject persons of color from their league., which is now integrated. Non-white players did not have the ability to earn the same money, numbers and Hall of Fame honors as white players.
Steroids weren’t legal in baseball until 2004. Integration in baseball didn’t happen until 1947. Both are against US law now.
Is taking steroids more immoral and asterisk-worthy than taking part in segregation in sports?
**Obviously segregation is wrong in general, but in our case here we’re focusing on sports, numbers and morality surrounding both**
Tell me if I’m wrong.
by Rex
As Ben stated earlier, steroids have been illegal in the US for years. Doesn’t matter if baseball listed it as illegal or not before 2004. Illegal is illegal.
by Tim
typo… last part… *Steroids weren’t officially ILLEGAL in baseball until 2004*
by Kirk
Purely for the sake of playing Devil’s Advocate, since when did breaking the law get you punished in professional sports? With a good number of wife beaters, reckless drivers, etc. in various leagues and on various teams, you’d have to eventually start distinguishing between “serious” crimes and “trivial” crimes. To do that on any systematic level alone would bring any league crashing down, much less enforcing the rules once a decision is made. Shit, the NBA would have to completely erase any mention of the Portland Jailblazers from all of recorded history, a la George Orwell/1984.
For that matter, do you then also have to put an asterisk next to the stats of any pitcher who struck Bonds out? What if the extra muscle he gained from juicing caused him to lose flexibility or reach and he missed a pitch outside that he may have gotten to otherwise?
No matter what anyone says, most people form their opinions on this on whether or not they like Bonds. Personally, I like him, therefore I say let it go. Even if there were an asterisk next to his name, big deal. The number is the same. And if you start erasing records, you set a disturbing precedent that over time invalidates all records, no matter what. Baseball would much rather let Bonds keep his numbers and hope his knee blows out before he gets to 756.
by eauhellzgnaw
Within the problematic/immoral context that the league fostered during segregation, Ruth had the same advantage as his MLB contemporaries (it wasn’t just Ruth who didn’t have to play the great black players of the day; none of the white players had to).
However, within the problematic/immoral context that the league fostered during the Steroid Era, Bonds and the other roid-heads had an advantage over the non-juiced players (though we call it the Steroid Era, we know that not all players were juicing).
I think that this, in addition to the aspect of Bonds’ choice, is what is bothering many of the Olberman supporters (at least those of them who are using reason more than emotion). It explains their hatred of Bonds’ recent accomplishments, but it’s still irrelevant in my book: tainted numbers are tainted numbers.
by williethepimp
Battery, reckless driving, and use some recreational drugs are illegal. That’s correct. However, these transgressions are not associated with enhanced “baseball performance”. If you get caught speeding in a school zone that’s not baseball’s problem. If you’re shooting up illegal ourported “performance enhancers” is that baseball’s problem? I reckon so.
by Mubic P
Lets say a few years from now George Bush’s stacked Supreme Court legalizes private-sector segregation. The MLB bans all blacks and latinos (except for those of pure Spanish blood). Richie Sexon hits 150 home runs against t-ball pitching. Wouldn’t there be an asterisk next to that record? Maybe we’d pretend everything was ok, but its alot harder to pretend blacks are invisible in the present day.
by Ron
Honestly, I was really pleased when you wrote that piece. Because I’d heard a few rumblings here and there regarding that position before, but..no one in the mainstream media (yeah man, you’re mainstream now..) had previously made that position in any real way or at least, in such a venue where lots of folks (Keith Olbermann included) could raise their collective voices and cry foul.
After all, the great Babe was great regardless and it wouldn’t have matter how many colored hitters and pitchers came in the game to get in his way, he still would’ve been the great Babe.
Nevermind what black folks were doing in other sports that they were allowed to compete in at the time.
I don’t care how many steroids Barry Bonds too. The fact that there isn’t an active player anywhere NEAR him currently in a ton of categories says that he must’ve been pretty damn good to do what he was doing.
But people are hellbent on doing something about this rampant problem and what better way to do that than to affix a black face to the problem. After all, it’s easy to rally around that way.
It’s funny how everyone plays the “steroids were illegal” card when it comes to Bonds (and only Bonds…they don’t care that McGwire was breaking records on god knows what…but they’ll also forgive athletes who use ILLEGAL recreational drugs. But I guess that’s supposed to be different, because…those don’t make pitchers and opposing managers walk to you at unprecedented rates.
The fact is, folks have no real leg to stand on and right now, its popular to crap on the fact that Barry Bonds is single handedly the best hitter in the history of the major league game. No one outside of San Francisco were all tha impressed with 73 homers, either. The excuse then was “oh, its just because of the home run chase from a few years ago. Everyone is tired.”
Last thing…..back during the McGwire/Sosa chase, I lived in the STL. Someone actually said to me — and they didn’t mean any “harm” by it — when we talked about it, “Man, let McGwire break the record. Let the white guy get a record get something. Black people are taking over everything else.”
I’m paraphrasing, but…that’s basically the gist of his argument. And I can sympathize. That doesn’t mean that Barry doesn’t make things hard on himself most of the time, but its funny how no one is denying even a small hint of the racial element of all of this steroids/home run/asterik stuff.
And to me, its ridiculous, sad and not surprising at the same time.
by Tim
Black folks aren’t playing baseball as much as white and latino folks. If I could predict the future, I’d say that in 20 years latino players will reside at the top of most baseball records.
After the scrutiny that black players have traditionally gone through, it’s not surprising that the black community hasn’t tried baseball outreach programs.
It shouldn’t matter what color record-holders are, so long as they’re all treated the same.
Bonds and McGuire aren’t treated the same.
It just so happens that one is very easy to hate and anti-social, while the other USED to be very fan friendly and likable (now he’s anti-social, as he’s taken to forgetting all of the past).
I’m actually glad Bonds is the steroids scapegoat. It brings to light hate related to racial equality in sports. Somewhere along the way talking about race issues became a taboo subject. To deal with apparent issues, they must be discussed and dealt with. Bo, Scoop Jackson and Michael Wilbon are good examples of columnists who have used their public stage to cover race issues in sports to the mainstream audience.
Go read the following article from the BSN which offers an interesting view on why black athletes face extra scrutiny –
http://www.blacksportsnetwork.com/articles/features/Opinion_052106.asp
by Tim
Black folks aren’t playing baseball as much as white and latino folks. If I could predict the future, I’d say that in 20 years latino players will reside at the top of most baseball records.
After the scrutiny that black players have traditionally gone through, it’s not surprising that the black community hasn’t tried baseball outreach programs.
It shouldn’t matter what color record-holders are, so long as they’re all treated the same.
Bonds and McGuire aren’t treated the same.
It just so happens that one is very easy to hate and anti-social, while the other USED to be very fan friendly and likable (now he’s anti-social, as he’s taken to forgetting all of the past).
I’m actually glad Bonds is the steroids scapegoat. It brings to light hate related to racial equality in sports. Somewhere along the way talking about race issues became a taboo subject. To deal with apparent issues, they must be discussed and dealt with. Bo, Scoop Jackson and Michael Wilbon are good examples of columnists who have used their public stage to cover race issues in sports to the mainstream audience.
Go read the following article from the BSN which offers an interesting view on why black athletes face extra scrutiny –
http://www.blacksportsnetwork.com/articles/features/Opinion_052106.asp
by Fred Batiste, A Weapon of Mass Destruction
Segregated baseball lessens/dilutes Babe Ruth’s numbers just like the steroid age lessens/dilutes Barry Bonds’ numbers.
So, in my opinion, those two subjects cancel each other out.
However, there’s an argument for Bonds numbers being inflated because of expansion and the ever-shrkining baseball stadiums and “juiced baseball theory” over his career. I’ll take that over the ‘roid usage (allegedly) any day.
The only caveat (sp) on the expansion/shrinking stadium-juiced ball thing is Barry faced a far greater number of pitchers and a more diverse array of pitchers. Especially in this day and age of middle relievers, closers, situational pitchers (dudes that come in only to face on batter and sit their asses on the bench).
Think about it, Bonds probably faced more Hall of Fame pitchers than Ruth. On the other hand, Ruth played in far larger stadiums (fieldwise) than Bonds.
NOTE: I know Babe was lefty, hence the 312-foot distance from home to the right field fair/foul pole. However, all the parks as a whole were bigger than those here today.
But what do I know, I’m just a run-of-the-mill sports writer. I totally understood Bo’s argument from jump, but the majority of writers have ignored the more obvious facts outside of competition Ruth faced.
by Shot Clock
good one Kirk. how old are you, 35? 40?
and forget the Lakers not beating the Suns, you didn’t think they’d even make the playoffs – that was my only beef with you. that and the fact that you seem like a giant loser.