Right now, on MLB.com,
October 4, 2001 8:49 PM Subscribe
posted by MAYORBOB at 9:04 PM on October 4, 2001
posted by clevershark at 9:44 PM on October 4, 2001
Folks, none of you know grief. Now Miami, that's a sad team. Have you seen the attendance numbers for Marlins games? They're pathetic.
There's talk about a league contraction, of actually shutting down a few teams. If that happens, the Marlins will be top of the list.
(Oh, and there may be another player's strike.)
posted by Steven Den Beste at 10:06 PM on October 4, 2001
Also: There are baseball fans in Miami?
posted by sj at 10:46 PM on October 4, 2001
I'm a Giants fan, and I'd just like to say how happy I am for Barry Bonds.
I have recently been engrossed in the Ken Burns Baseball documentaries, and to see Bonds in that perspective is to truly realize his worth as a player. He deserves to be mentioned as one of the greatest not just of this time, but of all time.
I am from the Bay Area and also got the chance to see Rickey back in his glory years, when they had Armas, Murphy and Henderson out there. He is something special too.
I am going to ask this question, though it might inspire some negative comments: Do you think racism played any role in Houston's treatment of Bonds in this series? My feeling is that for the decision to be made that (in effect) hurting your playoff chances so Bonds wouldn't get his HRs, it would have to be made from higher up than just the manager. I am just throwing this out there, but especially the Burns documentaries had brought the "Gentlemen's Agreement" to the forefront of my noggin. I felt that was a factor also in the way Sosa got maybe a tenth of the press of McGwire when they were in their race.
And the last point I want to make: I don't think the Astros agreed with their higher-ups' decree of how to pitch Barry. They looked to me like they were ashamed. I've never seen a team look so defeated. In effect, the pitchers were told "I don't think you can get Bonds out". I think they felt cheated. As a pitcher, you want to face the best and try to get him out. In the eyes of the Astros I saw disappointment. And I say this partly as wishful thinking (so we can get the wildcard) but I wouldn't be surpried if they get swept in St Louis too.
Here's to Barry! One of the best to grace the field.
posted by Kafkaesque at 11:08 PM on October 4, 2001
Was it just the other day I was watching the Marlins in the World Series, the team who's games on the radio took me through high school? The good old days of 1997.
Only one word can exorcise my baseball demons: CAL!
posted by owillis at 11:48 PM on October 4, 2001
posted by litlnemo at 12:12 AM on October 5, 2001
posted by poodlemouthe at 12:51 AM on October 5, 2001
Anyway, Bonds has been keeping me awake these past nights, courtesy of KNBR's commentary. And I just wonder whether Dierker finally decided to pitch to him late in the series to give him a PacBell 71st... not doing so certainly screwed over the Astros' run-in, given that Kent and Galarraga were on fire, and probably sowed enough seeds of discontent in the dressing room to make St Louis' life that bit easier over the weekend.
posted by holgate at 1:18 AM on October 5, 2001
posted by gyc at 2:33 AM on October 5, 2001
Thank christ.
The MLB's done a lot wrong in the past few years all in the name of making the game more exciting. But a horrible free agency policy and league have taken all of the fun out of it for me.
Whatever happened to the good old days, when you could root for a team...A team that was more than a different collection of players each year? IMHO, 'teams' should be made up of a similar group of people year to year. If not, what's the point? You're simply rooting for a city, for a uniform, for a mascot. But not for a team.
And as for league expansion--does anyone really think that making the talent pool so shallow was a good idea? Yes, it's good to watch the superstars play. But should inflated numbers come at the expense of watchable baseball? Is it better to make the superstars look better by putting them next to guys that wouldn't have a job if there weren't 30 teams in the league?
posted by dogmatic at 4:57 AM on October 5, 2001
Ah, but what if you're a fan of those young scrappers, the Oakland A's, with the second-best record in MLB, the hottest team in baseball right now, and bound to destroy the M's on the way to the World Series, though damn near the bottom of the payroll heap?
Ah yes...
posted by Zurishaddai at 5:29 AM on October 5, 2001
posted by wsfinkel at 6:02 AM on October 5, 2001
posted by ParisParamus at 6:08 AM on October 5, 2001
There's talk about a league contraction, of actually shutting down a few teams.
Don't be fooled by the owners when they say that. They have no way of actually eliminating teams from the league without getting hammered by Congress (anti-trust laws) or the players union. Can you imagine the lawsuit if MLB called up Jeff Loria and said "Thanks for your time and money, but we're going to drop you from the league. No, we aren't going to let you move the team or sell the team for a profit. Thanks anyways." Do you think that the union would approve of a plan that would eliminate a MINIMUM of 40 jobs per team dissolved? That's not including all the minor league affiliates that would be left without a team to affiliate with.
There is no chance of any contraction. It's just a way for the owners to put the big scare into the players union and try to win over the support of the fans. It's just not going to happen.
does anyone really think that making the talent pool so shallow was a good idea?
Asfor the idea of a shallow talent pool, that's also a crock. There are more great players in the league today than at anytime in MLB history. As well, even the "bad" players of this day and age are better than at any time in history...imagine the "shallow talent pool" of the times before blacks, hispanics or playes outside of North America (Dominican Republic, Cuba, South America, Japan) were playing in the league. I guarantee you that the quality of players today is far superior to the quality of players than at any other time.
(Here's a Sports Illustrated article by Rick Reilly, that rips him.)
Sports Illustrated has been on a smear campaign against Barry Bonds from when he bailed out of an interview a couple of years ago. In fact, most of the media is writing negative pieces about him because he hasn't been accomodating for interviews for his entire career. Mark McGwire used to be the same way until 1998, but because he changed his mind that year with all the attention, he was called a great man. Just because Bonds hasn't caved into the media pressure and divulged all his private information, he's still seen as a bad man. The media is great at propping up playes for people to like and making players into "bad people". How soon we forget that Ken Griffey Jr. was a "bad person" for leaving Seattle for lots of money, and for refusing (for a while) to bat in the HR derby at the All-Star Game a while back.
Until someone shows me proof that Barry Bonds threw fire crackers at fans (Vince Coleman), had sex with an underage girl (Luis Polonia) or attacked a handicapped man in the stands (Ty Cobb), I'm not going be swayed into believing Barry Bonds is a "bad man".
posted by Grum at 6:35 AM on October 5, 2001
Oh, Oakland for the series, bringing relief to lots of pundits, given that they predicted them in April but were looking pretty silly in July...
posted by holgate at 7:05 AM on October 5, 2001
Well, honestly, I'm just hoping next year that Pedro will start to actually to be Pedro again, and that Nomar will start to be Nomar again... And that Duquette will be swallowed by a whale and never released.
posted by terceiro at 7:24 AM on October 5, 2001
posted by Steven Den Beste at 8:07 AM on October 5, 2001
Reilly would rip his own mother to maintain his "status" as King of the Sports Writing Worms. Bonds has gotten a bad rap. Is he the most personable guy in the game? No. If I met him in a bar might I think he's an asshole? Maybe. But he's hardly the biggest jerk in the game *cough* Roger Clemens. The treatment Bonds has gotten in the press is (as has been pointed out above) solely because he's been an asshole to the press, and they've been sticking it to him ever since.
posted by jpoulos at 9:21 AM on October 5, 2001
Sosa was considered a happy-go-lucky "boy" who smiled a lot, and that was considered OK. He was neck-and-neck with McGwire from the end of June on, but only McGwire was considered a suitable challenger to Maris' record.
Remember too (and this is one my biggest pet peeves in sports) that Sosa was always "Sammy", McWire was never "Mark". Listen closely to a baseball game someday. The darker players are called by their first name much more often than the whiter ones. But now I'm going off-topic....
posted by jpoulos at 9:29 AM on October 5, 2001
As a Mets fan I hate Clemens, but I think only those of us who have been burned by him (Mets, BoSox) think so poorly of him. (Carl Everett could definitely give Bonds a run for his money, or is he just misunderstood also?)
posted by wsfinkel at 9:33 AM on October 5, 2001
posted by wsfinkel at 9:37 AM on October 5, 2001
I like Bonds. I think he is one of the greatest ever. He just wants to be a private individual. I understand that and respect him for it.
also:
Bonds is a bonehead.
What exactly do you mean by that? I don't get it. Do you mean he is not intelligent? To me he seems sharp as a tack. He is well-spoken and I think he could be a good ambassador for the game. Bonds should be proud of his accomplishments and is under no obligation to be a media darling. He is a good role model because of his accomplishments on the field and his obvious care for his family.
As far as Bonds being an asshole to the fans.....I'm a fan and I never once have thought of him being an asshole. I am in awe of his achievements.
posted by Kafkaesque at 9:51 AM on October 5, 2001
posted by zempf at 10:19 AM on October 5, 2001
As Kafkaesque says, that's just not true. From my perspective, it's a creation of the media. I've been doing informal surveys about Bonds all season long. Many I've talked to don't dislike him at all. From those who do, I often hear this:
"Do you like Bonds?"
"No"
"Why not?"
"He's an asshole"
"How? What has he done to be an asshole?"
"Ummm...err....I just heard that he is."
Perception is often reality, and I'm aware that there are plenty of fans who don't like the guy, but I don't think it's really deserved. He's not a kind of guy like Griffey or A-Rod or Pedro Martinez, who are pretty much universally liked and respected. He's much more appreciated by the fans of the team he's playing on. But he's got plenty of fans, and deserves a better treatment than he's been getting.
posted by jpoulos at 10:23 AM on October 5, 2001
I still haven't heard a good reason that people don't like him, except he's upset some geek with typewriter. I think it's racial. There is no other explanation.
I will now duck... ;-)
posted by thekorruptor at 10:31 AM on October 5, 2001
No one said anything about his sexual prowess....
posted by jpoulos at 10:32 AM on October 5, 2001
posted by Kafkaesque at 10:37 AM on October 5, 2001
As for Bonds, one of the reason's he talks down the press might be because the press plastered his name all over the newspaper and television when he was going through a messy divorce trial a couple of years ago (At least here in the Bay Area).
posted by culberjo at 10:38 AM on October 5, 2001
You get payed to play baseball, enjoy it - dammit!
posted by owillis at 11:40 AM on October 5, 2001
However, I don't watch sports to watch good citizens and nice people. So I'm rooting hard for Bonds to break the record -- I've never seen a baseball leave a park faster than when I saw Bonds hit one out of candlestick a few years ago.
posted by rcade at 11:50 AM on October 5, 2001
Exactly. Similarly, just because you may not like Bonds doesn't mean you should take the bat out of his hands for personal reasons. Close your eyes to your personal feelings and look at his numbers. Appreciate the amazing talent.
posted by Kafkaesque at 12:10 PM on October 5, 2001
OK!
Blue Jays!
Blue Jays!
Let's! Let's! Play! Play! Ball!
posted by Succa at 12:30 PM on October 5, 2001
Also: There are baseball fans in Miami?
sj: guess that makes me the saddest of the sad: a Cubby fan in Miami.
There are baseball fans here. Like myself, most of them have retained their "hometown" loyalties.
But what Huizenga did to the Marlins after winning the series in '97 soured everyone on the team, even though they are now under new management. Besides, who the hell wants to go to a football stadium to see a baseball game? Oh, for the Friendly Confines!
posted by groundhog at 12:30 PM on October 5, 2001
When Bonds hit his 500th home run, in April, only one person came out of the dugout to greet him at the plate: the Giants' batgirl.
The batgirl (which, btw, shows how cool SF is that they have a batgirl) was the first to greet him, and a nice gesture at that, and then the rest of the players mobbed him mere seconds later.
And is Jeff Kent any better than Barry? He's just as gruff to the fans, certainly not a better player, but he's white and kisses the right sportswriter asses. So which is really more divisive: having a barcalounger inside the clubhouse, or ripping on your team's best player in the press during the heat of a pennant race?
Besides, if you wanna talk sports figures who deserve to get knocked down a peg, how about fawkin' Cal Ripken? What did this guy ever do to deserve such unabashed fellatio from the sports media? We hear he's a "class act" and even sometimes "bigger than baseball" (I thought no one was bigger than baseball) yet never really why we're supposed to believe that crap. Great, seminal shortstop? Yeah, sorta- basically, he was that rarity of a 3rd baseman moved to short instead of the other way around, which is why he stood out; had he stayed at 3rd like most 6'+ athletic infielders do, he wouldn't have been quite as remarkable. And the streak at a certain point was selfish, pure and simple. Great numbers, hall of famer, but a "great guy"? Never met him, never heard specific tales great selflessness or class- all I've ever heard is that sportswriters seem to like him for some vague, unspecified reason. Maybe he picks up dinner tabs, and that's all it takes. Bill Simmons, ESPN's resident Boston fan, sums it up as to why Cal leaves him feeling... just "eh". Me, I'd argue that Cal Ripken is baseball's Mother Teresa- glorified in the press, but upon close examination doesn't remotely live up to the hype...
Holgate's a red sox fan? Is it just me, or do the Red Sox have a disproportionate fan base overseas? It's just something I've noticed...I grew up in NH as a Boston fan, although I've had a much better time this year watching these local Mariner fellows romp through the season than another crumbling Red Sox team... :)
posted by hincandenza at 1:41 PM on October 5, 2001
Re: Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire, I agree that McGwire was favored by many people to break Ruth's record, but I don't think it was due to racism, but because McGwire is a big lunky Paul Bunyan of a man and fits the role of a legendary recordbreaker. Sosa has been very impressive and more consistent than McGwire since 1998.
Bonds' performance this year is more impressive to me than McGwire's in 1998, because he's doing it during a pennant race, and amid a lot of personal (death of a close friend) and public distractions (the one we all know about). I also admire how he was able to stay focused and hit #70 so quickly and so far after all the walks.
I agree with Joe Morgan: the Astros played scared by pitching around Bonds, and the rest of the Giants punished them. The Astro's strategy cost them the NL Central and possibly the wildcard.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:30 PM on October 5, 2001
What he said. That was what I thought watching the games: The Astros really wanted the chance to compete, and were denied it.
posted by Kafkaesque at 3:09 PM on October 5, 2001
And here's a totally unbiased look at Cal's legacy (homer!)
posted by owillis at 3:46 PM on October 5, 2001
nH
posted by niteHawk at 6:17 PM on October 5, 2001
Thank God someone else realizes this commonly held cliche is rubbish. One of those opinions that is passed around because it sounds good, but with not factual backing, and often made by fans too young to even remember pre-eighties baseball.
The only backing evidence I ever hear is the loss of talent to other sports.
Well, the growth alone in population more than makes up for that. Add to that black players, followed by every other nationality, including now Asians.
Seriously, think about the best players in the game and many would not be playing as little as 20 years ago.
Then realize baseball players today are far better conditioned than at any other time in history. Baseball players use to hold second jobs during the offseason. Now they take two weeks off and then head straight into a weight lifting program.
The talent may be more concentrated to a few teams, but the talent level as a whole is far better than at any time in history.
posted by justgary at 8:04 PM on October 5, 2001
He just smacked number 71 a couple of minutes ago, and Vin Scully did his absolute best job of SUCKING THE LIFE OUT OF IT by making sound like he was reading a phone book. Absolutely BRUTAL television call, with no emotion whatsoever. Now, I don't expect Vin to jump up and down and shout "Do you believe in miracles!?" at the top of his voice, but at least say SOMETHING with emotion. In fact, it sounded like he was upset that Barry hit the HR. Hopefully someone has already recorded the Giants radio call of the home run and converted it into an mp3 for downloading.
I still have the McGwire #62HR in mp3 form and it gives me goosebumps every time I listen to it (since I can still visualize the event when I saw it on TV).
posted by Grum at 8:34 PM on October 5, 2001
posted by justgary at 8:58 PM on October 5, 2001
I'm thinking to myself, WTF? It's not Fourth of July...
And then some girl ran by me and said that she just saw him hit the 72nd homer on TV...
What syncronicity...
posted by fooljay at 9:27 PM on October 5, 2001
ABSOLUTELY true- the talent pool to draw the very very very best players on the planet has gotten vastly larger since Ruth's time- due to population increase of the country, the removal of the color barrier, and then international scouting in this hemisphere and the other. Let me say it clearly: Babe Ruth was not the best player to ever play the game, he just had weaker opposition to beat up on and look better by comparison. If we put Barry Bonds into AA or AAA next season, he'd beat up on sub-par pitching and look far better than Ruth ever did. Oh sure, there'd be a few pitchers in AAA next season with major league ability- but today, they'd just be pulled to the next level. In Ruth's day, they were the Walter Johnsons and Christy Mathewsons.
The ability to not only draw from a much larger pool but also identify and maintain the most talented players is the key- in Ruth's day, people like him or Gehrig or Walter Johnson or Rogers Hornsby were the outliers- the genuinely talented players in what was otherwise beer league. Now, the outliers are the rule, not the exception, a little more so than 10 years ago and a LOT more so since 1920. Remember when a 7' center was something special on a basketball team? Remember when a 95mph fastball was some kinda heat, not the typical speed of half your bullpen? Remember when slugging centerfielder Willie Mays was 5'10", 180 pounds, yet today some shortstops are 6'3"/ 215? Somewhere in the heart of China or former Russia right now is a li'l kid who will grow up to throw regular 104mph gas and make his contemporaries look foolish. Fortunately, today's and yesterday's stars don't ever have to face him... :) Add in the fact that the entire sport has gotten better due to training, educational tools, and improving athleticism as a whole, and it's no stretch to say that today's players are both talentwise and in absolute terms far, far better across the board.
posted by hincandenza at 11:27 PM on October 5, 2001
posted by poodlemouthe at 12:08 AM on October 6, 2001
me
at the bar
screaming my lungs out
COME ON DUNSTON! COME ON!!
There is no joy in Mudville.
I am a sad sad man.
Thanks for the memories Bonds. I sincerely hope we can keep you
pissed as a newt
K
posted by Kafkaesque at 12:59 AM on October 6, 2001
I missed hearing Vin Scully or seeing it on TV, but it's OK 'cause I was at the game.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:22 AM on October 6, 2001
posted by MAYORBOB at 6:40 AM on October 6, 2001
Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one, even though I'm the one that first attacked the idea of a modern day lack of great players.
Babe Ruth has to be considered the greatest baseball player of all time because he was one of the best HITTERS of all time (you don't absolutely destroy records like he did without being one of the best ever), and because he was one of the best PITCHERS of his time. While his time as a pitcher was short, he displayed an ability that would have put him in the top 5 at the time.
(to see his how good he was, check out his stats here)
For anyone to challenge Babe Ruth's historical greatness, they will have to be both an amazing hitter and an accomplished pitcher. John Olerud had a chance to do that when he was drafted by the Toronto Blue Jays years ago, but the Jays (rightly) decided to have him become just a hitter.
posted by Grum at 7:28 AM on October 6, 2001
And I utterly dismiss the great pitcher part- I recall reading something by credible sports physiologists saying that what little film and photos exist of Walter Johnson's pitching motion suggests that he didn't throw 95-100mph but more likely 85-88mph- the speed of modern day finesse pitchers, like Jamie Moyer, basically. And this guy was called "The Big Train"?! Mark McGwire, like Olerud, had something like a 90mph fastball in college; Ichiro Suzuki had been clocked at 94-95 (and anyone who's seen him unleash a bullet from right-field to third base can believe that). Innumerable shortstops and right-fielders and other position players around the league can throw into the 90's, some with decent accuracy. But they aren't quite good enough to be pitchers- today. That tells you how good today's pitchers are, and thus how much harder it is to be a hitter. But against college players, I bet Olerud would look really good...
College tennis players put up scores similar to the finals at Wimbledon- [6-4, 4-6, 6-2]- but if Sampras or Agassi walked onto the court, they'd make them look foolish. The underlying point is that Ruth was a statistical outlier in a time of relatively mediocre talent, the same way the few really gifted kids stand out like supernovas in their high schools- until they get to a college like MIT where EVERYONE is the gifted kid in their class. So of COURSE Ruth seemed fantastic by comparison, as did Johnson, Cobb, etc. The greats of yesteryear were big fish in little ponds, making them look all the more titanic.
Let me reiterate the mental experiment: take the top 10 pitchers and the top 10 hitters of the 2001 season, and put them in AAA next year. While AAA as a whole looks, statistical, similar to the majors- 90 feet to first base and everything- the talent level isn't close- every AAA team has maybe 1 or 2 players with legitimate ML ability, while every ML team has at least 20 if not all 25 players at that level. Those 10 pitchers and 10 hitters will DESTROY the competition, not because they suddenly became better but because we put those big fish into a little pond.
This doesn't mean Ruth wasn't talented, or even supremely talented- rather, it means that his statistical accomplishments were made against a league that wasn't exactly the best of the best, and that has to be taken into consideration when discussing his greatness. Some of the greatest players in the game today are from the Dominican Republic or Puerto Rico; think Ruth in 1920 had to hit against his generation's Pedro Martinez? Nope... because MLB in 1920 wasn't scouting the globe to get the very very best- they weren't even completely scouring their OWN nation to get the best (Satchel Paige) of the best (Josh Gibson).
posted by hincandenza at 6:50 PM on October 6, 2001
« Older The Darwin Award wining story | Will a changing world change film? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by geoff. at 8:58 PM on October 4, 2001