NBA And, Uh, More Barry
This entry was going to be about Barry Bonds' new nickname, but first things first. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has added to the enjoyment of the NBA playoffs so far with this cartoon featuring the Dallas Mavericks, spoofing your favorite crime-fighting teenagers. (OK, maybe you're not old enough to remember cartoon crime-fighting teenagers. It's Scooby-Doo.)
Back to Barry - who, by the way, no longer deserves to be leading off SportsCenter with a 1-for-4 day. The Ruth "chase'' is over, and the Aaron chase is pretty irrelevant at this point, with Bonds not looking like he'll get back to the dugout after every at-bat without an aluminum walker, much less get 40 more home runs to tie Aaron.
Last night on SportsCenter, a discussion was taking place about where Bonds might play next season, in the NL where he'd be too gimpy to play the outfield regularly, or in the AL where he can DH. For the money, the aggravation and the limited availability and production he's bring, the consensus was that he wouldn't be coveted much.
Then, Karl Ravech summed it up with what might be the best description of Bonds ever, and one that is long overdue: Bonds, he said, is like "a human porcupine.'' (The replay is probably going to be on ESPN all day, and I'm pretty sure it's playing on the website's ESPN Motion - you know, that over-loud, annoying video that comes on against your will whenever you log on to the site.)
I hereby propose that Bonds be referred to by that nickname for eternity, the way Ruth is known as the Sultan of Swat, Ted Williams as the Splendid Splinter, Pete Rose as Charlie Hustle, and so on. In fact, I propose that in lieu of a lengthy description of the steroid allegations on Bonds' Hall of Fame plaque, there should simply be a notation of his nickname and a brief explanation, along with his career accomplishments.
Barry Bonds, The Human Porcupine.
On a serious, and very unfortunate note, check out this column on ESPN.com by Jayson Stark. If you really, really, really don't buy my argument that Aaron is the most overlooked and underappreciated great player ever, then explain why, in the name of fairness and decency, would this piece even be written. The premise, as clearly stated in the column, is: "If we take all home run records out of the argument, what are the 10 greatest numbers in baseball?" Well, golly gee, that takes Aaron's 755 home runs right out of it, and it tells us all, "The home-run record used to be the most sacred number in baseball when Babe Ruth held it, but now that Hank Aaron holds it, nah, not so much.'' Jayson Stark is one of the most respected baseball writers around, but oh my God, did he drop the ball on this one. Denigrate Barry Bonds' totals if you want; he deserves it. But it's still one of the stupidest premises for a baseball story ever concocted. What's next - "If we take all the World Series championships out, what are the most successful franchises in baseball?''
No, to answer your question, I'm not going to leave this alone.
Comments
Nor should you leave this alone. I've been following your blog, and I thought of your words as soon as I read Stark's article. The thing that really should bother you is that he doesn't even mention Aaron's name or the number 755. He just goes on about "714", like that were the record and Bonds' work is done! I think Jayson's been hanging out with Chris Berman for too long; it's dumbing him down.
Posted by: Kevin in Columbia | May 30, 2006 1:56 PM
Um, David, I think you missed the point on the Stark piece. I didn't so much read it as a denigration of Aaron, just an admission that with the modern issues surrounding home runs, what are the other major numbers and streaks to be achieved. That is "other streaks". Seems to me this still recognizes home runs as being a major part of it, but wanting to see where the other interests lie. I didn't get a feel that Stark was downplaying Aaron at all, but admittedly, I did skim throught the article pretty quickly.
Posted by: Pat | May 30, 2006 2:10 PM
What Stark is getting at is that the steroid junkies have tainted the home run records in such an obvious way that they are no longer meaningful. He then turns to other baseball records that are not so clearly demeaned by steroid abuse.
He's right, and you can thank your pal Barry for ruining Aaron's greatest legacy to the game. In short, the home run records will never hold the allure that they once did, thanks largely to Melonhead, Popeye and Corky.
Posted by: Jamie | May 31, 2006 9:56 AM
In response to the last comment, how does Barry's accomplishments (questionable or not) effect what Hank Aaron did? Hank Aaron broke the so-called homerun king's record (FYI to American baseball lovers: you are NOT the king of anything if your records have been surpassed.Aaron is King...get over it!) cleanly and by the book. The only thing these two guys have in common are:
1. they are black men
Other than that treat them as they are, two different men from two different eras who accomplished their feats in two completely different manners.
Posted by: sean | May 31, 2006 4:15 PM