Barry Bonds 756 - continued

So I hear people are upset because they think Bonds set the home-run record by cheating, by taking illegal substances. They want him disqualified, by any means necessary. I certainly understand that; I’m not fond of cheaters myself, and don’t really like to see them succeed. But there are some larger issues here.

First of all, I don’t see why there’s any controversy. Haul out the official MLB rule book, find out if you can prove that Bonds broke any rules, and if so, apply the punishments that the book states. Maybe you need to hold a hearing; if that’s the case; so be it; make it happen. If he didn’t break any rules, or no one can prove it, or the rule book doesn’t provide adequate punishment, then I guess it’s the end of the story, and we can lobby MLB to change the rules, but beyond that we should probably shut up.

But beyond that, I still have a few things on my mind. For the rest of the post, let’s just assume that Bonds has been taking steroids – I know that hasn’t been proved, but if he’s innocent of those charges then the whole subject is moot. So let’s just take his steroid use as given for the sake of argument.

People want to see Bonds punished because he is a poor role model, and sets a bad example for kids. I see where they’re coming from (although personally it’s sounds pretty funny to call a hard-drinking, smoking, womanizing, overeating guy like Babe Ruth a role model for aspiring athletes). But I would say that the example that Bonds provides is valuable and illuminating, if not praiseworthy.

As I said in my post on Bill Walsh, I like to look at sports as a reflection on society. Does Bonds’ story show that you can cheat, get away with it, and succeed? Yes. Is that the way society works? Certainly, and it’s important to understand that. Does that mean that cheating is good? No; it just means that we can’t have expectations that cheating is always caught and punished proportionately. I don’t want my children to have those expectations, for several reasons:

i) If your only reason for not cheating is to avoid punishment when caught, then what happens to you when you find out that most cheating is never found out? There’s a significant risk that you will try it, and like it.

ii) There are plenty of people who subscribe to the attitude of “if you’re not cheating, you’re not trying hard enough.” Chances are, at some point in your lifetime, you will work for one of them, or be on a team run by one of them. What will you do in that case? Will you be able to keep your integrity and still succeed on the job/make the team? If so, how?

iii) Throughout your life, other people will try to cheat you. Sometimes they will be people you don’t know (telemarketers, computer scammers, advertisers); sometimes they will be competitors in sports, school, jobs, wherever. The first step in defending yourself is to understand that cheating exists and often succeeds.

Another thing I want my children to understand: there are two moral rules that many people in our modern society subscribe to:

- It’s the letter of the law, not the spirit, that matters. Anything that’s not explicitly forbidden is acceptable.

- If a law isn’t monitored for compliance, then you don’t have to follow it.

Now I don’t really like either of those attitudes, and although I don’t always succeed, I try not to take them. But it’s important to realize that they exist.

I don’t agree with the way a lot of the world works, but I find my life is better if I can understand and accept the world as it is. When my children are a bit older, then we can follow the decisions of famous athletes and see how they turn out, for better or for worse. I will try to teach my morality to my kids, and teach them what I know about how the world works, and then they can make their own choices about what is right and wrong, and how they want to lead their lives.

Getting back to sports as morality story, I love it when the right thing happens and the good guys win. When the bad guys win, I wouldn't say I like it, but I accept it, and try to learn what that teaches me about the world.

Barry Bonds 756

[meant to write this last month; I’m a bit late]

My last post honored Bill Walsh for succeeding by doing things the right way. And now we have a sports figure who broke one of baseball’s most honored records by doing things the wrong way, or so the circumstantial evidence points. But you know, I just can’t get that worked up about it. By turns, my feelings are of indifference, gladness, and acceptance.

Indifference, because I don’t really care about baseball that much.

Gladness, because I think baseball fans in general are too sanctimonious about their records, and I’m always happy to see new records being set. Look, baseball is about whacking balls with sticks. It’s not some sort of sacred activity.

The height of baseball silliness came years ago when Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth’s single-season home run record, and the official records keeper marked Maris’s name with an asterisk, because there were more games in a season and thus it was easier for him to hit more home runs. That was a long time ago, but that attitude lingers on.

Asterisks are silly; if you take more than a casual look you could stick some next to Ruth’s name. The most commonly mentioned is that he played against weaker competition (no blacks; few if any Hispanics), which is a serious charge. But really, any comparison of players and stats from different eras is flawed. The game has changed; materials have changed; most importantly, players now are stronger, bigger, faster, and more coordinated. What matters is what players meant to the game at the time they played. When you look at it that way, when some legend’s stats are bettered, it doesn’t take away from the legend; it just means that time has moved on and new stars are here.

Let’s dig into this a little more. One thing I didn’t realize was that before Babe Ruth came around, home runs were fairly rare. And in fact, Ruth revolutionized baseball by bringing the home run to the forefront. For example, here are some team stats for the Chicago Cubs:

Year	Games	Runs scored	HR
1910	154	712	34
1920	154	619	34
1930	156	998	171

In 1910, Chicago was the best team in the NL, and their top “slugger”, Frank Schulte, hit a whopping ten home runs. In 1930, after Ruth’s impact became widespread, Hack Wilson hit 56. (Source for all data: http://www.baseball-reference.com.) Look at it another way; Frank Schulte was NL MVP in 1911 when his 21 home runs made him the home run champion; he finished his 15-year career with 1766 hits and only 92 home runs. Those numbers are inconceivable today.

Now this is really interesting. First off because it shows you how monumental Ruth’s home-run record was. Consider 714 home runs, when the best guy on one of the best teams a few years before Ruth hit all of ten in a whole season. Secondly, and more to my point, the style of the game changed with Ruth, and home runs became vastly more frequent for players and teams across the board. Doesn’t this stick a huge asterisk against Ruth’s home run records? After all, maybe there was some dude in 1890 who could have belted out homers like nobody’s business but didn’t, because that just wasn’t the style at the time? How do we know?

Well, we can’t know, and I don’t find it interesting to even ask. Let’s take players for what they were when they were playing.

If you dig deep, the attitude of baseball conservatives is that: we don’t think modern players can live up to the legends, and if the new guys have better stats we will scrutinize the numbers and situations to find ways in which they don’t measure up. That’s a great attitude if you’re an old fogey who’s only interested in proving that your generation is better than those that follow, but it’s pretty poor for a sport that’s supposed to represent the best of America.