I should have kept going…Foster, Parker, Stargell(with Hernandez)!!!

Jay’s post #3 was funny whether Cal is a nice guy or not. Ap’s #11 post hit the nail on the head how only some players (not Bonds) can get the benefit of the doubt on the standard Bull-Durham speech.

Temple, I agree with your points in the #21 post. And it is quite striking when looking at the NL MVPs from ‘49 to ‘76.

As far as Eddie Murray goes, for a very long time Cal has been mentioning him as a mentor in virtually every single speech. Murray as a brooding player is more media creation than anything because Eddie wouldn’t speak to reporters after getting burned early on in his career.

A year ago, Gary Gillette wrote a long column at ESPN.com making the same points as Temple3 – that every era has come with its own built-in advantages, from whites only, to amphetamines, etc.

I flagged that column here:

http://sportsmediareview.typepad.com/sports_media_review/2006/05/bonds_and_cheat.html

As for Arod, the ballpark had a huge effect on his totals.

In his last three years in Seattle, he hit 51 homeruns at home and 74 on the road. In his three years in Texas, he fewer homeruns on the road, 70, but he hit 86 at home.

You can just click on the time of the post and use that link to repost. Feel free.

I certainly did not intend to include all players in my reflections. In fact, I did not mean to include Bonds as a whole, but only the homerun record. I think our experience of it, as a whole fandom and even nation (baseball still has the power to get non-fan attention at moments like this), is outside historical comparison. I just don’t think it has real credibility in people’s eyes. For better or worse, I think that is the case.

At the same time, you’re right: every period has its asteriks (or should). I also think the homerun record issue has obscured Bonds’ bigger legacy, his total package profile. Even before this homerun blow-up of his, I considered him the best player (second, now, to A-Rod) I’ve ever seen.

(As a Dodger fan, that kills me to say…)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3000_hit_club

Also, (http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/story/2007/2/18/53329/7647)
“In May 1961, Ernie, off to a decent .281/.360/.529 start, but with only 7 HR and 15 RBI through 33 games, suffered a knee injury that forced him out of the infield. He was moved to left field on May 23…”

Ernie Banks began his career as a shortstop and put up power numbers that eclipsed all SS before and all but 1 since. Banks hit 267 homers in his first 7 years at SS. Ripken hit only 183, but was remarkably consistent, hitting between 23 and 28 every year. Banks hit 40 four of five years. Only A-Rod has sniffed that number and was not on pace to do so until he went into Jose and Raffy’s House of ‘Roids in Texas. His dinger totals went from a Banksian 44, 42, and 41 to 52 and 57 in years six and seven. It could have been the ball park. It could have been the heat. It could have been the formidable lineup. It could have been the Juice. We’ll never know. Perhaps Ripken’s greatest legacy is coming along after the memory of Banks’ injury had faded from view.

During the induction show, I don’t believe I heard Banks’ name mentioned once.

It’s funny. When I think back into my personal “archive” of baseball memories, my favorite team was the Yankees. I had an excuse – I was born in the Bronx and could see the Stadium from my childhood window where I grew up in Harlem. As much as I liked those Yankee teams (Nettles was my favorite player because of his glove.), I could help thinking about the style of play of the Big Red Machine. The combination of speed, power and defense the Reds put on the field was something special. Not too many teams have been able to recapture that level of excellence on the diamond.

I’d probably be a bit miffed if I knew which Reds, Yankees, Oakland A’s and Pirates of that era were using PEDs to get over the top – but I can handle it now.

I agree completely. Those “purists” who decry Bonds while ignoring those factors you consider seem to me to be intellictually dshonest at best and complete with agenda at worst.

Just a few thoughts…

I think you put too much on Barry. Does he really rob us of the ability to compare players across eras?

I think its perfectly reasonable to compare steroids with amphetamines with a whites-only league. Everyone had a competitive advantage, of sorts, during their day. You can still have the debates, but you can’t turn a blind eye to the significance of JR’s entry into MLB in 1947 and the implications for prior years. For example, Bonds is an heir to the legacy of the legitimate 5 tool player…there have been many of these players to make the HOF, and the vast majority have been Black or Latino. Given this, what does this mean for the game, as it was played in 1946 and the years prior?

The same goes for the question of amphetamines in the 1950’s and 1960’s. I would even conjecture that players in Ruth’s day either found or experimented with something to keep them going. It doesn’t stand to reason that a fellow with the bearing of a David Wells and the appetites of a Wilt Chamberlain could produce as long as he did without some sobering, energizing aids.

Who knows, maybe he was able to burn the candle at both ends for 21 years without any assistance and a steady diet of steak, booze and women.

I think it’s still great to debate Gooden and Koufax, Clemens and Gibson or even Henderson and Cobb…but the conversation about baseball is richer when steroids is part of the conversation because players used steroids, players took amphetamines and commissioners and owners banned blacks…they controlled the influx of Blacks and African Latinos – and those players dominated the National League – NOT the American League…

Take a look at the MVPs and the complexion of the league MVPs from 1949 through Joe Morgan’s back-to-back job. The Dodgers, Giants, Cardinals, Pirates and Reds redefined the game through their introduction of 5 Tool Black and Latino players…It was surely a Golden Age for the game, but is seldom recalled as such. It was the era of Newcombe and Campanella and Frank Robinson…

Barry is a deserving heir to that tradition and positioned himself within its pantheon long before the question of ‘roids was raised. I’m not saying this to defend him, I’m saying this to defend the context of the argument. History intrudes on this game which has never been pure.

Bonds is really complicated. I just posted a long thing on it at my site, the crux of which is this: Bonds’ pursuit of the record robs us of that real pleasure in baseball – comparing present to the past. We can’t with the steroid thing. Baseball doesn’t make much sense without those comparisons. That’s the lifeblood of fan debate, discussion, and (for me) a lot of the bond between me, my father, and my grandfather. We could debate generations – Gooden or Koufax? That kinda stuff.

Not to throw dirt on the guy – I still think he was a good player, but his batting averages were awful for about a decade. There were two anomalous years (in one 3 year stretch his BA went from .250 to .323 to .251 – go figure), but most of that time was spent in the low-rent district of the .260-somethings.

Longevity makes the difference here; that and capturing the imagination of the nation TWICE – as a young, athletic rookie on a World Series champion and as an indefatigable warrior gutting it out. Talk about your field of dreams…all those .250/.260/.270’s get washed away. Who says timing isn’t everything?

Of course, when you’re in a situation where you’re one of the better players in baseball or any sport, you’re going to get things or special treatment that other guys might not get. Why is that surprising?

I don’t honestly agree with the whole “going to work” celebration of Cal’s streak, I think it got out of hand towards the end there. Cal’s overall numbers as a SS (which is where he spent the bulk of his career until he got older and lost his range) were good in era where power hitters didn’t hit for high average, and guys like Tony Gwynn (consistent, contact hitter) won batting titles. I believe (and I may be mistaken) that Cal still holds the all-time record for homeruns by a shortstop.

I may be biased since I have spent time with the man, but Cal did work hard on his fielding and you can see throughout his career that he tinkered with his batting stance when he was in slumps. As a former baseball player, that is almost unheard of that someone would switch their mechanics so frequently just to get out of a slump.

In the end, he may not be worth all the celebration, but remember he did play 3B at the end of his career. Sure, corner infielders and outfielders are supposed to provide pop in your lineup but he was playing 3B on the downturn of his career, his reputation kept him in the limelight rather than his numbers.

Yeah, bugaboo #20000000000. Ripkin was a product of hard work and all those negroe ball players were just athletically gifted. You’d think the idiots who edit these mediocre hacks would have come to a group consensus about allowing such trash to be published.

Hero for going to work? There you go America, fuck excellence, fuck expertism, fuck anything more complex than pick up trucks. Geezus.

Other than Ted Williams, Tony Gwynn has the HIGHEST career batting average of any player since WWII (Ichiro is still 7 points back). He has over 300 career stolen bases and his “good defense” looked like five Gold Gloves. If you win a Gold Glove playing right field in the National League, you are an absolute baller. If you win five of them playing in San Diego, you damn well better end up in Cooperstown. If Tony Gwynn played in New York, he’d have a candy bar, an annual parade and a share of the team. He was good enough to get drafted in basketball as well. I’m not surprised he placed so much higher than Ripken on the Win Shares list – his career batting average is 60 points higher. At age 33, he hit .358…then .394, .368, .353 and .372 (with a career high in homers and RBI). The next year, at age 38, he only hit .321. At 39, he hit .338.

By the way, when Gwynn set that career high in RBI’s, it was five more than Ripken’s single season high.

As good as Cal was, when the Orioles came to town, the guy that scared your pitching staff the most was Eddie Murray. Murray wasn’t the anti-Cal…he was the Proto-Cal. He was the first person Ripken mentioned today in his speech – and as much as Cal, Sr. influenced Junior, Eddie laid out the road map. Eddie played every day at a high level without drama. Cal’s on-field persona appears to be grafted from Murray’s.

And believe me, I’m not comparing him favorably to guys who the media might, by comparison, call selfish. I don’t believe that stuff anymore than you. I’m just sayin’, he doesn’t seem like the prototypical villain.

I’m not saying what Cal said was wrong. I’m just saying, you never know if they really mean it. For example if I’m an NFL running back and I win the rushing title, saying I’ve give all the credit to my o-line, wins me points with fans, and cha-ching endorsements.

Perhaps the guy is really thinking damn I’m sweet, but he better not say that one, or I’m just working harder than the rest of these bozos, can’t say that either. There is always some corny, give credit to everyone else line, that people want to hear.