Already more words have been written about The Mitchell Report than there are actually IN the Mitchell Report, which is itself a pretty big hunk of word pie. And millions more words are to come. Words, words, words. I must admit: Not much of it interests me anymore. Everybody has had their say, and everybody is dug into their trenches, and no matter what opinion you may throw out there, someone will lob a grenade at you.
It seems to me steroids in baseball, in surprising ways, has taken on the polarizing charms of other political issues, so that now the issue isn’t about players cheating or the Union standing up for their right to do that or Baseball officials winking and counting money or fans and media cheering and writing paeans to the 500-foot dinger and the 42-year old who could still throw 95. No, now it all has come to represent those controversial things that are large and vast and the cause of wars — morality, the ethics of science, the question of law enforcement, the depth of cheating, the responsibility of people to follow rules and finally, most importantly, how the world is going to hell in a hand basket.
I don’t want to get into any of that. At all. Instead, I want to ask a question, just something that I’ve thought about today. Curious what you might think.
We all understand that there are inconsistencies in the way many of us feel about drug cheating in sports. Most people, I assume, would suspect that a large percentage of players in the NFL use steroids. Few seem to mind. Heck, Shawne Merriman was somehow caught by that Pro Wrestling Referee drug policy they have in the NFL, and he’s playin and, doing Nike commercials, living the high life. Meanwhile, one-time Olympic darling Marion Jones tested positive, and her life has been destroyed. From what I can tell, she’s had her medals stripped, she’s destitute, she’s in trouble with the law, she’s been banned from even showing up at the Olympics, and people are STILL lining up to kick her. Not making a judgment call here … just saying our feelings are not consistent.
The same goes even inside in baseball. The outrage over the use of amphetamines in baseball seems miniscule compared to outrage over steroid use. Again — two sides to the argument. On one side, people can argue that amphetamines are even worse, morally, than steroids. They are Schedule II drugs while most anabolic steroids are Schedule III drugs — this means that the government believes amphetamines have a higher potential for abuse and are more likely to lead to physical dependence (Cocaine is a Schedule II drug). On the other side, people can argue that steroids use is more harmful to the body and has had a much larger effect on the game. I don’t know who is right or wrong. I’m just saying both are illegal. And our feelings are not consistent.
So with so many inconsistencies … here’s what I’m wondering.
What if Roger had been first?
Do you know what I mean? What if Roger Clemens had been the first really big-name athlete to be connected with steroids instead of Barry Bonds (I realize that there were others before Barry, but I would say Barry was the one to really set people off). What if all us wise guy journalists had been showing pictures of Clemens as a young player and then as an older player.
(Am I wrong or has his head gotten bigger? Maybe that third photo is just bigger.)
What if it had been Clemens who had been involved with BALCO? What if he had been the one to get called to the grand jury? What if he had told those half truths and gotten himself in trouble with the law? What if the books had been written about him?
Here’s what I”m asking: Do you think everything would have been different if it had been Clemens who was the first big steroid fish flapping around in the net? I ask very seriously because I think it’s at least possible that it would have been a little bit different. I don’t think people feel the same animosity toward Clemens that they do toward Bonds. I don’t think people would have had the same appetite for a Roger Clemens roasting. I think the whole story might have changed some.
Of course, I’m just throwing out something to talk about here. I honestly don’t know how people might have reacted. But I just have this feeling that Bonds being Bonds created a perfect storm. His play and arrogance angered so many people from so many walks of life. It’s hard to be quite as despised as Bonds was — what do you think his approval rating was? Lower than any U.S. President, I would imagine. And with an easy target, and popular scapegoat, at the center, suddenly everyone got involved — including the U.S. government — and everything just exploded. I don’t know what percentage of baseball players were using some sort of PED. I suspect it was high. Bonds, though, was the face of steroid evil. And it seemed that nobody liked that face. I do wonder if everything might have moved a bit more slowly, with a bit more care if it had been someone more popular like Clemens at the center of it.
And this leads to something else, something a lot of people are asking: Why do people seem to feel differently about Clemens NOW than they do about Bonds? Let’s assume based on the reports that they both used steroids. If so, both used them at the end of great careers, both used them to make a lot more money and leave an even more lasting imprint on the game. There does not seem a lot separating them.
So what’s the difference? Many have quickly made the jump that the difference is race (I have my own strong opinions about this, but for the point I’m trying to make here, I’m keeping those to myself). Some have said that Clemens is just a more likeable person (having met and talked with both, I don’t see this at all). Others say it’s because Clemens is a pitcher and one of the many inconsistencies in America’s feelings about steroids is that it ain’t as bad for pitchers.
There’s probably some truth in every theory. I’d suggest something else. Take a quick look at their numbers:
Roger Clemens was let go by Boston and signed with Blue Jays in 1997, and he pitched on rage that year. He was 34, ticked off, determined to prove himself, and he went 21-7 with a 2.05 ERA. The next year, according to the MR, he started learning some tricks from Jose Canseco, who was apparently the Tony Montana of steroids in baseball — man, everyone learned from this guy. Say hello to my little friend.
Here are the very basic Clemens’ numbers after that.
1998: 20-6, 2.65 ERA, 271 K.
1999: 14-10, 4.60 ERA, 163 K
2000: 13-8, 3.70 ERA, 188 K
2001: 20-3, 3.51 ERA, 213 K
2002: 13-6, 4.35 ERA, 192 K
2003: 17-9, 3.91 ERA, 190 K
2004: 18-4, 2.98 ERA, 218 K
2005: 13-8, 1.87 ERA, 185 K
2006: 7-6, 2.30 ERA, 102 K
2007: 6-6, 4.18 ERA, 68 K.
OK, there are a lot of really good numbers on the board there (PC — Post Canseco — he went 141-66 with 1790 Ks, yeah, not bad for an old guy). But there’s nothing there that defies and insults baseball history. Sure, the 1.87 ERA in 2005, at age 42, is freakish. But all in all, Clemens was basically able to MAINTAIN his greatness. His best year was probably still 1990, when he was 27, or 1986 when he was 23. With Clemens, it’s just like he held off time.
Now, there’s Bonds. The story with him goes like this: After watching the McGwire-Sosa show, he was so sickened (and felt so unappreciated) that he decided he would show everybody what a workout fiend on steroids could REALLY do.
Here are the basic numbers after that:
2000: .306/.440/.688, 49 HR, 106 RBIs, 129 runs, 117 walks, 188 OPS+
2001: .328/.515/.863, 73 HR, 137 RBIs, 129 runs, 177 walks, 259 OPS+
2002: .370/.582/.799, 46 HR, 110 RBIs, 117 runs, 198 walks, 268 OPS+
2003: .341/.529/.749, 45 HR, 90 RBIs, 111 runs, 148 walks, 231 OPS+
2004: .362/.609/.812, 45 HR, 101 RBIs, 129 runs, 232 walks*, 263 OPS+
*Always worth pointing out that an obscene 120 of these walks were intentional.
See the difference? Bonds made the game a mockery. He was so good that managers simply stopped pitching to him. He broke just about every meaningful offensive record — highest on-base percentage, highest slugging percentage, most home runs, most walks, most intentional walks, and the top three OPS+ seasons in baseball history. Bonds wasn’t just cheating — he was mocking history. He’d been absolutely sensational before the power surge, but his four best seasons are probably those last four — ages 36-39.
As Bill James said in an email, Clemens would had to have a 37-2 record with 420 strikeouts to create the same sort of confusion, awe and, eventually, disgust.
Sure, there are other factors, but I think this was the big one. Bonds was, I think, one of the 10 best players in baseball history BEFORE 2000. Given illegal substances and an intense drive to separate himself, he became superhuman. It felt cartoonish and wrong even while we were watching it, even before BALCO exploded and the grand jury testimony was leaked and George Mitchell started getting rejection letters on his interview requests. Once all that other stuff happened, yeah, I think lots of people for lots of reasons started asking, “What happened to our National Pastime?” What has followed, I think you can call it the Bonds Crusade. Just my opinion, but I don’t think Clemens (or McGwire or Giambi or any of the other guys) could have ignited it.
Loading ...
31 Comments, Comment or Ping
Michael Lewis
I agree with you about Bonds becoming the perfect steroid storm. People have such a difficult time with Bonds because the man was obviously blessed with good genes and it seems to run counter to most people’s sense of fairness that he was then to boost his performance even further through using means banned by baseball.
One question I have about this whole issue is that so many players are now children of former major league players. Those who are not may have rationalized their own PED use by saying to themselves, “How can I keep up with these other players when the only thing my father did was __insert mundane middle class job__ here?”
As to the question of the disparate treatment of PED users, it makes no sense. the NFL receives a pass because the press relations and importance to network TV and newspaper revenue prevents any one issue from becoming a focus unless the league wants to make it so (see Goodell’s stance on “thug” culture).
The Olympics are the only one taking a hard stand to try to discourage PED use through erasing records. MLB is going to do everything it can to avoid that because the numbers are so important to the appeal of the game.
One question for you Joe, would you vote for both Bonds and Clemens if the election were held today?
Dec 15th, 2007
Paul White
Joe - I agree with your overall premise that only someone who was abusing the record book as heavily as he was abusing performance enhancing drugs could have started the steroid firestorm. That would have to be Bonds.
But I completely disagree with the notion that Clemens wouldn’t have received an intense roasting himself. In fact, I believe that’s exactly what he’s about to receive, though admittedly not to the same level as Bonds for the reasons you cited.
People lose site of the fact that Clemens is a pretty unsympathitic character himself. I’m admittedly biased on this subject since I’m a Red Sox fan, and Bill Simmons has written it better anyway, but in essence I agree with Bill that Clemens has set himself up as the ultimate baseball mercenary. He’s burned bridges in every stop he’s made, and has done it all with such….toolishness. (That’s a word, right?) I mean, he went on “This Week in Baseball” and introduced himself as “Rocket”. There was the annual Roger Clemens Retirement Festival every Fall and the sequel headline “Roger Clemens Ponders Return” every Spring. There was the strange Pettitte/Clemens mutual appreciation society going on. And there’s the whole “each kid’s name must start with a K” thing. It’s all basically the stuff that tools are made of.
In short, I consider him to be a perfect pitching match to Bonds in pretty much every way, so if another superduperstar has to share the steroids spotlight with Barry for eternity, I can think of no one better than Roger to be on that stage.
Dec 15th, 2007
Josh
You make a great point… obviously Bonds put up the bigger numbers…. but in the last 50+ years there have been many more hitters who excelled in their late 30’s thru early 40’s (Ruth, Aaron, Mays, Williams, etc) than pitchers who did (Neikro, Ryan…..???) so it may be that it is more impressive (read out of the ordinary) what Clemens did (multiple CY Youngs and sub 2.00 era) than Bonds….
Dec 15th, 2007
Josh
On a side note I forgot about Randy Johnson who obviously did great late in his career… and being from Seattle I love the guy but he too seems like an obvious target…. as he got much better with age…. from 2001-2004 when he was nearing 40 was much better then when he was 27-32… and for a power pitcher a late career surger is odd to say the least…
Dec 15th, 2007
wcw
I’m a little surprised you didn’t mention race.
And please, commenters to come, restrain your spluttering unless you have a little facility with what the data say about US attitudes.
Though if you do, I welcome any and all analysis.
Dec 15th, 2007
Josh
Is it fair to say that any player from now on that is a big power hitter or a hard throwing pitching that does great after that age 35 (or so) will have question marks???
Dec 15th, 2007
Steve
I’d like to say that if it were reverse and Clemons had been the first big fish caught in the steroid net, he’d have been roasted the same way that Bonds has. For one, he brings in a Yankee AND a Red Sox link, which means there would be a ton of speculation if he cheated for one side, but not that other,so it’s not hard to believe the media blitz would outrageous. Secondly, while he hasn’t exactly been as angry with the media as Bonds has, he also doesn’t seem to have endeared himself with the media either. Put in the same situation, who knows? Maybe all the questions, all the media, all the accusations would wear on him and bring out the worst in him.
However, while I’d LIKE to say he’d receive the third-degree similar to Bonds (deserved) treatment…that doesn’t mean I think he WOULD receive that treatment, and I think Bonds and Clemons place in history goes a long way, Clemons, undoubtedly, will be remembered as one of the greatest pitchers of his time, and possibly top 5 or 10 all-time. However, he didn’t have that one, singular, polarizing record chase to drive the media frenzy into overtime. Bonds on the the other hand, and “The Chase for 756″, and while the blitz didn’t really happen until this last season, it had been building for some time.
It’s been said countless times, over and over again, but records and numbers play a greater role in baseball than in any other sport, and 755 was without question the biggest one of them all. I’m not sure what the pitching equivalent to 755 home runs would be, or even if there is one…511 career wins comes to mind, as does 30 wins in a season and 59 scoreless innings, though those last two aren’t career numbers like 511 and 755 are. But I think the only way to really expect the firestorm surrounding Bonds to be replicated around Clemons is if Clemons is chasing history, like Bonds was last season.
Dec 15th, 2007
Ed
Bonds’ crime in the court of public opinion is that he used banned substances to break two of the most hallowed records in sports- the single season home run record, and the career home run record. Clemens would have to pass Cy Young and 511 wins to come close to the magnitude of the home run records, and even then it won’t match the impact of the home run record. It’s ingrained in the baseball culture as the holiest of holies, the link to the Bambino who brought forth the modern era. And for fans, it’s a huge thrill to watch the ball fly out of the park- more a thrill than any other play in sports.
I do believe race played a factor as well, but look at McGwire and see that he’s also being dragged on the carpet, albeit to a lesser extent because he doesn’t have the legal issues or an active playing career. Maris was beat up when he broke the record, and Hank Aaron’s tales of racism and death threats accompany every story of his chase. The fact is that the home run record comes with a price. That price is that we (public/ media/ fans) exalt and celebrate the achievement, find reason to knock down the achiever, then celebrate a cruel schadenfreude celebration when you fall. Part of the reason we do this is because we like the story. We’ve read the story a hundred times, but we still like it with different names. We buy the papers and watch the shows that tell the story. If we buy it, writers will write it.
If Bonds broke Pete Rose’s hit record, would the cry be the same? If Ichiro’s single season hit record had a taint attached (and I am not suggesting there is), would the cry be the same? I don’t think so. And I don’t think Roger will face the same scrutiny as Bonds because the home run record has such a huge weight attached.
Dec 15th, 2007
Chris Dankberg
I think it’s a terrific question. I’m compelled to believe much the same thing - that Bonds’ PED usage was a great excuse for those “in the know” to let him roast publicly. I think the media’s collective reaction to this (I don’t count Posnanski in the media, because he makes too much sense) will be priceless. As you say, the nonsense with the hat size must stop, immediately. The circumstantial evidence with Clemens has been there almost as long as it has existed for Bonds.
I also love that baseball’s collective willingness to hang Bonds out to dry, and that this indictment would effectively end the BALCO controversy is about to be blown out the window. I’ve heard some wonder if the Mitchell was a let down. Because they didn’t name 2000 people. Because Albert Pujols and David Ortiz didn’t get name. Or because Yankee Stadium didn’t spontaneously combust. The news cycle has been so absurdly accelerated that if a story doesn’t peak in 24-hours, it’s not huge enough.
This is going to be a slow build, and there may not ever be any real payoff. But baseball was severely damaged today. And I hope important people in the sport begin to recognize how poorly their leadership is acting.
Dec 15th, 2007
Gary Goulet
Joe,
Great posts as always.
I have always had a huge problem with labeling steroids and HGH as “performance” enhancing. From my seat, (health care professional) neither truly enhance performance, they help you recover quicker after intense training. IOW, if I take HGH right now(I exercise to maintain health), it will have limited to no effect. If however, I embark on a rigorous training regime in order to reach peak performance and take HGH, I may benefit.
Now, to me, amphetimines, cortisone shots and other things given to get a player on the field TODAY, to perform after an injury, or to get back from an injury faster than normal healing time, those are truly “Performance enhancing” drugs.
But we don’t get worked up about those, do we? And another pet peeve, steroids are not illegal if prescribed by a health care professional with script writing privileges. (And no, I do not have script writing privileges, so don’t call me!)
Dec 15th, 2007
Snowman
I honestly don’t think Clemens would have been roasted in the same way as Bonds. As Paul White pointed out above, he has been every bit Bonds’ equal in asshattery in his career (and that’s without even mentioning his getting banned from his son’s Little League park for charging onto the field and screaming at an ump who called his kid out at second base), but he has always had mostly good press, while every remark Barry has ever made has been dissected for ways to make him look bad. His body changed in much the same way as Bonds’, but very few ever speculated about him and roids. I’ve wondered for years if his annual retirement was a way to avoid the offseason testing to which active players are subjected, but no one wrote articles wondering the same.
I don’t know… I’ve reached the point where I just no longer believe you can have this conversation without the mention of race. It seems you can be an ass all you want if you’re white (see Kent, Jeff and Brown, Kevin), and while there will be the occasional critical article, there is no firestorm. But if you’re black and an ass, some in the media seem to spend their every waking hour waiting for you to make a comment upon which they can seize, or failing that, one which they can twist to make it seem as if you’ve said something you did not (see Milledge, Lastings).
Maybe I’m wrong, but the pattern just seems to obvious for me to believe it all a coincidence.
Dec 15th, 2007
Old Man Duggan
I don’t know that there have ever been a bunch of guys lining up to sing Clemens’ praises from the rooftops. I’ve never liked him. He always seemed like a jerk to me.
Dec 15th, 2007
Zach
With baseball and steroids, you can’t ignore the fact that baseball is on every single day for half the year. Barry Bonds just gets rubbed in your face to a degree that no pitcher really does (maybe Gagne in his dominant seasons). Every single home run he hits is on Sportscenter, as are the three intentional walks. Every discussion of the best players in the game, there’s Bonds. Every time your favorite player goes on a hot streak, he’s on a leaderboard which is led by … Bonds. It’s opressive.
Especially once I started to doubt that Bonds was legitimate, that just got incredibly annoying. Every time you see him, you get this mental asterisk. Steroids is always on the tip of your tongue, but you don’t want to talk about it because what can you say that hasn’t been said before?
I was surprised how much I enjoyed the year that Bonds was out hurt. Not that I enjoyed him being hurt — it was more that you could enjoy the fun parts of baseball without this ugly, tiresome, played-out story hovering over everything.
Dec 15th, 2007
GWO
A discussion of Barry and Roger and its the 10th comment before anyone mentions the elephant in the room? Really? None of you think skin colour had a major bearing here?
The US has cultural and racial stereotypes that it still struggles to see beyond. If you’re an surly white guy, you’re “intense” or “focussed” or full of “will to win” (Paul O’Neill, come on down). If you’re black, then I’m afraid you’ve little chance of being seen as anything but you’re “uppity”, usually with its most common accompanying noun.
If you’re surly and white, baseball will forgive you. If you’re non-surly but black, baseball will positively embrace you. But to be surly and black — that, to steal a phrase from a recent biography of Jack Johnson — is Unforgivable Blackness. And that’s why Bonds is the perfect steroids storm. The records are secondary although they do give a convenient excuse for why Bonds is singled out; no-one talked about the integrity of the record books when Clemens took Steve Carltons record for Cy Young wins. Only a very few people question about the integrity of a home-run record set in a league populated entirely by Caucasians. Very few people discuss the fact that Roger Maris lost all his hair and became exceedingly injury prone during and after his ‘61 season. Almost no-one mentions the playing time lost by Mickey Mantle that same season, after receiving a “vitamin shot” from a non-licensed physician. There’s a massive double standard here, and a great deal of it is, if not racist per se, at least racial. Those stereotypes exist, and once players are put into them, it colours ever perception of them.
As to Marion Jones, she wasn’t caught by the US authorities. From the 80s on, there’s a list a mile long of US athletes who failed internal drug tests but were allowed to continue (Carl Lewis heads it). Interestingly, the reason USADA turned a blind eye is similar to the reason Bonds seems to have had: since the East German/USSR [resp. McGwire/Sosa] athletes are getting so good by doping, we need to dope to, just to restore the natural order of things. Bonds believed in injust that anyone else was thought the best player in baseball; the United States has consistently led the league in giant-foam-rubber-hands-with-”We’re-Number-1″-on-them.
Dec 15th, 2007
Jon Morse
I have always argued, up until the other day, that “being generally liked/looked up to” vs. “already being a malcontent” was the biggest driving factor in these things, well above race. Let’s face it, when it comes to Big Mac and Sammy, most people were more saddened than anything to see them connected with all this. People liked them. They were big ol’ cuddly nice guys having fun, never causing trouble. When Palmeiro got busted, it got a great big shrug (because in all honesty, Palmeiro was basically a fairly colorless individual for whom most people had no strong feeling one way or another before his downfall).
Bonds? Hey, we can argue all day whether or not people’s dislike of Barry is itself race-driven. Probably is, to a degree. But when HE got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, well, there really was no alternative to the reaction he got from the press and the general public. When you’re either chronically misunderstood or simply a jackass, people aren’t going to cut you a break.
As for Rajah, he’s going to catch his share because there are tons of people who think he’s a “bad” guy already. But there’s tons of people who still love him too (many of them for the precise reasons others despise him) and the worst he’s going to get from them is resigned bitterness. He won’t have it as bad as Bonds; he’ll probably have it worse than McGwire (although I doubt his HOF candidacy will be affected unless Someone makes a Rule or something.
Dec 15th, 2007
Vardibidian
I’m a Giants fan who lived in Boston from 94-2003, so my perception of the whole thing is skewed. I understand that. But at least among Giants fans, it’s been assumed for years that Roger Clemens was using PED. “What about Clemons?” we said to each other. “Why doesn’t anybody get on him?” In fact, when I told my wife that Sen. Mitchell had got one really big name, anyway, she immediately said “He got Clemens?”
Now, I agree with a lot of the above: it was about race; it was about the magical home run record, which we were told over and over was the most beloved record in the history of sports; it was about the media telling a story that everybody was already comfortable with, all of those were factors.
Here’s another thing to chew on, though. There was nobody like Barry Bonds. As Mr. Posnanski points out, when he was demolishing the league, there hadn’t been anything like it for a generation, and more like three generations. Roger Clemens was very, very good, but there wasn’t one year where he was the best pitcher in baseball without anybody else having anything like a claim to it. Now, if Barry Bonds was “cheating”, then that was a Barry Bonds problem; he was acknowledged to be sui generis. But if Roger Clemens was “cheating”, that was a baseball problem. That might mean that other very good players were cheating. And maybe players that weren’t so good. Maybe Neifi Perez was cheating.
Which of course we knew was happening, but we didn’t want to admit it to ourselves. We weren’t comfortable with that story. We were happier telling and being told the story that it was Barry Bonds that distorted the game. Unless, of course, we were Giants fans. We in the black and orange were happier with the other story, the story that said it wasn’t that big a deal that Barry Bonds was “cheating”, because so were the other players that weren’t as good as he was, and so were the pitchers he was facing, and Barry Bonds (and by extension the Giants and their fans) were being unfairly singled out, not because of our sins, but because of our successes.
And we were right! Ha ha! Er, I mean, I’m still finding the story I’ve been telling myself pretty persuasive. I wonder whether other people have had to change theirs.
Thanks,
-V.
Dec 15th, 2007
Kyle
While I agree with nearly everything in Joe’s post, like many other commenters, I’m not certain that Clemens is as well liked as Joe seems to think. Personally, I’ve hated the Fat Tub o’ Goo™ for years and years, and just about all of my friends who watch baseball feel the same.
Dec 15th, 2007
D.B. Cooper
I’d argue that a form of Joe’s hypothetical did occur: McGwire and Sosa were just as “visibly” using (physical changes, historic feats, and some rumors), yet they never received 1/10th the vitriol that Bonds did (and I’m talking about before the BALCO “proof” was made public).
You had Rick Reilly (tool himself) daring Sosa to pee in a cup, but that was about it.
The interesting thing about the Sosa example is that it would remove the race issue … Sosa was also doing things far beyond his own history, but maybe McGwire was his shield for that? All of this confuses me, b/c I feel that race is a major part of the Bonds thing. Could it be as simple as the fact that Sosa grinned and blew kisses?
Dec 15th, 2007
T.Fawkes
So, because steroids and HGH seem to help batters (statistically) more than pitchers, the difference in treatment between Clemens and Bonds is justified? I can’t agree with that.
Dec 15th, 2007
GWO
I wouldn’t disagree with that, but I would argue that the perception of “being a malcontent” frequently has an implicit racial overtone. Dick Allen and Reggie Jackson are cases in point. Undoubtedly both had massive egos, but they received far more negative press for those egos than equivalently ego’d Caucasians. Even today, Jeff Kent gets to badmouth Dodger teammates without ever being labelled a malcontent — quite the opposite, the press lauds him for trying to “make them better.”
Dec 15th, 2007
Kyle
While I don’t disagree that race is sometimes a factor in labeling players “malcontent”, Jeff Kent is a terrible example. The Truck-Washer™ has long been labeled as a clubhouse problem and malcontent.
Dec 15th, 2007
randy r
the funny thing for a while Barry was the only one I would stop to watch. as i get older I focus more on the teams I have chosen to follow and less and less on the leagues. Mr bonds greatness was evident.
in turn, as sports reporters increasingly fancied themselves as journalists and investigative journalists as that complete with unceasing negative stories about every aspect of the sports they followed, I found myself sympathizing with the only man who had likeability ratings less than congress. (the president is even three times more popular).
the joy of the sport has been diminished as much as by the players occasional mistakes and crimes as by those who forget the point of their existance is to highlight the beauty and competitiveness of sport. If I wanted bad news, all i have to do is read the front page or go to google news.
though some mention was made about Bonds generally being a curmudgeon with distrust of the press (the latter with good reason, ask any public figure, in and out of sport), I missed any mention that many of the reporters have had a publicly stated animus toward Bonds. and don’t think that didn’t color the stories any. Clemens moved around enough that the animus was not as deep and he was not as transparently distasteful of the press as bonds. could have been all those endorsements or the fact he had different role models like Ryan versus bonds with that other curmudgeon Willie Mays (would he be as beloved now?) or his father Bobby Bonds.
love your site Joe,
Dec 15th, 2007
Kyle
I’d like to point out that HGH and anabolic steroids aren’t the same thing and HGH’s effects on athletic performance are far less conclusive than steriods (which are clearly PEDs).
JC Bradbury (author of The Baseball Economist) posted a great compliation of references with regards to this topic on his site:
http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/12/more-reasons-not-to-worry-about-hgh-in-baseball/
Dec 15th, 2007
Jay
If it’s an enhanced numbers issue, then let’s deal with Mark/Sammy circa 1998. Let’s deal with Giambi making an absurd amount of money for playing a below mediocre 1B, DH’ing and having injury plagued seasons.
I agree with the idea that Bonds mocking baseball is a factor in his infamy, but that goes for all who used PED to excel. Barry was just better at it.
I think we should look at ALL the factors; the totality of the circumstances.
You made the point in your BJIP about looking at the numbers in a related context. Let’s look at Barry’s. He hit better than most others while those same others were also hitting well, and sometimes for the same reason.
I don’t ride kyacks in the cove, but in context, Barry is not the villian some may want you to believe he is.
Speaking of enhanced numbers, how much did MLB profit off PED use?
Dec 16th, 2007
Mike Bagnall
Clemens may not be the best comparison if you want to measure whether unpopularity would affect the onus of guilt. How about comparing Barry Bonds to an earlier guy who was a supposed cheater? Norm Cash (may he rest in peace) in 1961 had perhaps the most outstanding (in terms of the rest of his career) season of all time. Later on, I THINK it was after he retired, but I’m not sure, he “admitted” that he used a corked bat, which was illegal. I have often wondered whether he really did that or whether he was just trying to deflect a complement, which was something he did a lot. In any event, most everybody LIKED Norm Cash and there was very little media uproar about his illegal activity. When Sammy Sosa was caught using a corked bat in a HR contest, there was a lot more comment than I ever saw about Cash who admitted using one during regular season games. Of course, in my recollection, and I may be wrong, people are a lot freer with criticism of “public figures” now than they were in the ’70’s. It’s probably all Richard Nixon’s fault.
Dec 16th, 2007
fdfdf
I highly doubt that Clemens started in 98. He most likely started in 97. Infact when he had mcnamee inject him with roids in 98 clemens already had the steroids on him.
Dec 16th, 2007
fdfdf
For what it’s worth, starting in 1997 clemens averaged more strikeouts per game then he had before. Not to mention winning 4 cyyoungs, and set his career high in ERA+ in 1997 ( 221 ), and again in 05 ( 226 ). He may have not benefitted from roids as much as bonds, but he most certainly did benefit from them much more than simply proloning his greatness.
Dec 17th, 2007
The B-Man
I think the pitcher’s equivalent of 756 home runs would be the career strikout record held by Nolan Ryan. I can’t see that ever getting broken, but if Clemens had come close, there might be a lot more vitriol spit out about him. Here’s the top ten on the list. Joe’s boy Blyleven at #5, but still hopelessly behind #1.
Rank Player (age) Strikeouts Throws
1. Nolan Ryan+ 5714 R
2. Roger Clemens (44) 4672 R
3. Randy Johnson* (43) 4616 L
4. Steve Carlton+* 4136 L
5. Bert Blyleven 3701 R
6. Tom Seaver+ 3640 R
7. Don Sutton+ 3574 R
8. Gaylord Perry+ 3534 R
9. Walter Johnson+ 3509 R
10. Phil Niekro+ 3342 R
Dec 17th, 2007
Robert
Wow. Those numbers of Bonds from 2000-04 absolutely make a mockery of the game.
But, as you mentioned, Bonds was a top 10 player in baseball history before 2000–and you suspect the % of players using PEDs is high.
That just goes to show how great a player Bonds is. Even with a high % of players using PEDs, Bonds still blew away the competition and his numbers still made a mockery of the game.
BTW, I still contend fans don’t like Bonds because he’s a jerk (and the media writes about how he’s a jerk), not because of his use of steroids.
There’s a difference between reasons and excuses.
Analogy: The US went to war in Iraq for a number of reasons (I won’t mention them here because I don’t want to open up a political powderkeg), but as we know the excuse was WMDs (which was never the reason).
Dec 18th, 2007
Mr. Leisure
Look, Roger Clemens was just as scary to face for hitters as Barry Bonds was scary to face for pitchers.
The difference is hitters couldn’t just give up. Pitchers absolutely gave up against Bonds. Those batting averages are an illusion created by the pitch selection Bonds had during those years. When you KNOW you aren’t going to see strikes, you can sit on whatever you want.
Meanwhile, hitters were still going to have to try and hit Clemens. They weren’t gonna line up three at a time and take 9 swings at one pitch like in a Bugs Bunny cartoon.
The scrutiny for Clemens is coming. Some of the backlash against the MR is that the evidence against Bonds is much deeper. Well, reporters and investigators have had six years to devote 10 times the money and manhours to Barry Bonds alone compared to what the MR investigators had for all of MLB.
What will be interesting is to see whether all the time and effort is expended to develop a case against Clemens and others in the report.
Dec 20th, 2007
Brent
A note on Clemons’ 2005 season with the newly gaudy numbers — this also coincided with his move to the more pitching friendly National League AND the start of his “feaux” retirements that allowed him to pitch in a shortened season where the indurance needed in a 162 game season (and 35 starts) were no longer a factor. So those numbers have more to do with changes in his situation than age-defying feats.
Dec 22nd, 2007
Reply to “Barry vs. Roger …”