714
Your humble scribe is not an overly rabid sports fan, but since baseball is certainly top of my list, I feel I must take a moment to acknowledge the news this weekend that Barry Bonds hit his 714th home run to tie Babe Ruth's position in second on the all-time list.
Much controversy surrounds Bonds' success, perhaps most notably his link to and use of performance-enhancing steroids. I certainly don't condone the use of steroids. I used to coach little league ball and I believe it's tough to instill a fair play attitude in kids when the stars of the game are bending the rules, tougher still for varsity and semi-pro coaches whose players might be tempted to do whatever it takes to gain an edge. But put the role-model argument aside for a discussion among sports fans.
One of the favourite pastimes of ball fans and sportswriters is to make comparisons between the stars of today and the greats of yesterday. Consider all the 'all-time' fantasy teams that periodically show up in newspapers and magazines. In some ways, it's easy enough when looking at raw numbers (hits, runs batted in, strikeouts - whatever), but any fan and any statistician will tell you the important intangible is relativity. The historical numbers for winning pitchers that predated four or five day rotations, or the use of relief pitchers, cannot be compared easily to the numbers put up by today's hurlers. For hitters, even the physical properties of the ball itself have changed over the decades, along with pitching, coaching and training styles.
Basically, when the numbers are beyond argument, it is the context in which each player lived and played that truly determines their historical impact. For some, the context of Bonds' numbers are that they were artificially created by steroid use. Is he better than Babe Ruth? I don't know, but the context of Ruth's playing years needs to be considered as well. A famous drunkard, what might the Babe's output have been if he never played a game under the influence or with a hangover? Of course we'll never know, and the barroom debates will continue.
But in the meantime, congratulations to Mr. Bonds. He's reached a remarkable milestone. I, however, will always have a soft spot for Frank Baker, who played primarily for the Philadelphia Athletics in the first two decades of the twentieth century. He hit 96 home runs over 13 seasons, and never more than 12 in one year, but is memorialized forever as "Home Run" Baker.
Much controversy surrounds Bonds' success, perhaps most notably his link to and use of performance-enhancing steroids. I certainly don't condone the use of steroids. I used to coach little league ball and I believe it's tough to instill a fair play attitude in kids when the stars of the game are bending the rules, tougher still for varsity and semi-pro coaches whose players might be tempted to do whatever it takes to gain an edge. But put the role-model argument aside for a discussion among sports fans.
One of the favourite pastimes of ball fans and sportswriters is to make comparisons between the stars of today and the greats of yesterday. Consider all the 'all-time' fantasy teams that periodically show up in newspapers and magazines. In some ways, it's easy enough when looking at raw numbers (hits, runs batted in, strikeouts - whatever), but any fan and any statistician will tell you the important intangible is relativity. The historical numbers for winning pitchers that predated four or five day rotations, or the use of relief pitchers, cannot be compared easily to the numbers put up by today's hurlers. For hitters, even the physical properties of the ball itself have changed over the decades, along with pitching, coaching and training styles.
Basically, when the numbers are beyond argument, it is the context in which each player lived and played that truly determines their historical impact. For some, the context of Bonds' numbers are that they were artificially created by steroid use. Is he better than Babe Ruth? I don't know, but the context of Ruth's playing years needs to be considered as well. A famous drunkard, what might the Babe's output have been if he never played a game under the influence or with a hangover? Of course we'll never know, and the barroom debates will continue.
But in the meantime, congratulations to Mr. Bonds. He's reached a remarkable milestone. I, however, will always have a soft spot for Frank Baker, who played primarily for the Philadelphia Athletics in the first two decades of the twentieth century. He hit 96 home runs over 13 seasons, and never more than 12 in one year, but is memorialized forever as "Home Run" Baker.
posted by Benjamin Thornton at 8:58 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home