Outside of San Francisco, it's hard to find anyone who believes Barry Lamar Bonds' recent 756th home run is the new standard for baseball's most treasured record. A fashion industry kingpin, Marc Ecko, is determined to find out what America truly thinks of Bonds and his place in history. Ecko recently purchased the ball for over $750 K and has created a website that allows people to vote on its fate. While many fans applaud the move, Mr. Ecko has been called out by one harsh critic. It is being reported in a news story on ESPN.com that the new home run king has labeled the ball's new owner as "stupid, an idiot." Unfortunately (or, as an anti-Bonds crusader, fortunately) he couldn't be farther from the truth. What is being done is a stroke of marketing brilliance by the clothing line entrepeneur. At the very least, he and his brand are getting recognition for being tied with sports' most polarizing record. At best, he is being championed a hero of the people who hope to see the record viewed for what it is: a chemically produced farce. Not to mention Mr. Bonds himself has completely fallen in to the marketing trap. By opening his mouth, he has simply stoked the flames on this hot story and provided even more coverage to Ecko's efforts. No publicity is bad publicity, so he just made the plan look a whole lot smarter. And Ecko's bottom line a whole lot wealthier.
Regardless of the outcome, people are genuinely interested in the balls' fate. Whether they believe it should be handed over to the Hall of Fame, branded with an asterisk, or shot in to space (as the three options allow), people want to feel that they had some voice in how this conflict should be resolved. Personally, I'm rooting for it to be branded, and not just because I think of Mr. Bonds as a despicable figure. My reasons are far more sadistic. Could you imagine the predicament MLB and the Hall of Fame would be in? If the ball is publicly branded, how could they attempt to display a pristine one? How about Mr. Bonds' reaction to the Hall displaying the original in its altered state? Quite honestly, it would serve them right. If not for baseball's blatant encouragement of performance enhancing drugs, the game's integrity may still be intact. The sad truth is that most people believe all baseball stars are dopers, and it doesn't help that Bonds has a callous, abrasive personality to supplement his "alleged" use. So vote early, vote often, and hopefully the true results will be carried out in the upcoming weeks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
A chemically induced farce Gleason? .260 hitter, 120 home runs in nearly 3,000 at-bats. You know what those numbers are? The career stats of Jay Gibbons. Alex Sanchez, Jorge Piedra, Ryan Jorgenson... I could go on for a while, but these cheaters who have actually been caught aren't exactly beating down the gates of Cooperstown.
Yea, it's most likely true that Bonds took the juice. But that doesn't negate the fact that he is one of the greatest contact hitters of all time, and the greatest power hitter of all time.
Cheater? Yes. Chemically induced farce? Hardly.
Marvelous, Nice work pulling out the numbers. You can tack on many other mediocre guys who even failed to make the Show despite being 'roided out of their minds.
Please change the "it's most likely true". It's naive to think a man's head can grow that large, his body can shape that drastically after most men can not produce that kind of muscle mass over the age of 35, and hes never had another season in which he's hit over 50 homeruns.
I would never contend that Barry Bonds is not a Hall of Famer. He was a hall of famer by the time he landed in San Francisco. His blend of power and speed dating back to his days in Pittsburgh made him one of the best players of all time. However, I will never accept his legitimacy as the "greatest power hitter of all time". I'd like to see him hit 60 in 154 team games while scarfing down hot dogs and drinking booze like water. That's your best power hitter of all time.
Gleason,
Unfortunately, perhaps for both of us, success is not measured as a ratio of performance over effort. I thought that carrying a gpa above 3 in college was pretty good given that I didn't do jack sh**. However, I would never (as your Ruthian logic implies) claim to be a better student than the Valedictorian who studied their a** off.
You want to see Bonds hit 60 clean? I suspect he would have hit 60 without the juice, but we may never know. Of course, Hank Aaron, who many consider the greatest power hitter of all time, never hit 60, or even 50, for that matter.
Marvelous,
You seem to have misinterpreted my Ruth analogy. That is no fault of your own, I didn't give it sufficient support. It's not necessarily an effort/performance ratio, it's a testament to how players take care of their bodies. Just because Ruth had an unhealthy lifestyle, I don't think that necessarily speaks to effort.
What would lead you to believe he would hit 60 without it if he never surpassed 49? Eleven more homeruns in a season is very difficult.
The Aaron analogy works for you. He was consistently great for many years, which begs the question, is longevity the most important qualifier in determining the greatest power hitter?
This is how I like to look at it. Ruth would outslug entire teams. If a guy hits 50 home runs (which is becoming more rare) that's only 20-30% of his teams ouput for the season. Wrap your head around that. It's absolutely staggering. Could it speak to the great depth of athletes we have today? Certainly. But more likely, it just means he was THAT good.
Post a Comment