August 6, 2007
Nats Update: A Series Which Will Live in Infamy
Damn Barry Bonds.
Damn Cream’n’Clear takin’, media-manipulatin’, fan-hatin’ Barry Bonds.
With apologies to sister site SFist, who has stepped up their excitement in anticipation of Bonds breaking Hank Aaron’s home run record, my recognition of his record-breaking achievement has gone from tepid acknowledgement to thinly-veiled animosity.
It was bad enough that the Nats best baseball of the year – two straight series sweeps and a six-game win streak – was overshadowed this weekend by Balco Barry’s 755th homer. Now, though, the Nationals begin a series with the Giants in San Francisco, in which Bonds is all but certain to hit #756 and break the record, placing one of our own Nats pitchers in the ass-end of the history books.
The Nats, as you might imagine, are fairly conflicted about their anticipated place in history – from how rookie John Lannan should approach tonight’s start, to what right fielder Austin Kearns should do if the historic ball falls back to the field, to TV man Bob Carpenter’s on-air comments this weekend that he will not script the call of the historic homer.
Aside from the circus surrounding Bonds, there are plenty of good reasons to catch the Nats at 10 p.m. tonight on ESPN2. The team is on the verge of leaving last place for the first time since early last summer. Ryan Zimmerman is red-hot, having raised his batting average an astounding 15 points during the homestand to .274. Dmitri Young continues to chase the NL batting crown with his own hot hitting. Rookies John Lannan and Joel Hanrahan, both scheduled to start in the Giants series, have looked promising in winning their only two decisions thus far.
All of the focus, unfortunately, will be on Bonds. While the Nats are excited about all of the hoopla surrounding the games, you get the feeling that none of the pitchers have conceded the dinger just yet. Nobody wants to be the guy hanging his head in the background of newspaper photos all over the world. As Manny Acta has said, despite the surprisingly strong performance of the Nats rag-tag assemblage of pitchers, "we know whoever gives it up, it's probably going to be the only thing they're remembered for."
|
The head to body ratio is probably about right. I actually thought I was looking at the real life Bonds in that picture.
But it was Ken Griffey, Jr. who had the growth tonic in the famous episode of The Simpsons.
The biggest part for me is the lying. Hasn't Bonds continued to deny using steroids, even though both his hat size and shoe size have grown by several sizes? That shit don't happen to grown adults without steroids.
Easy solution: Just bean him every time he comes to the plate. It's easy enough to explain too; just say you threw a strike but the gravitational pull from his head caused the ball to go off course.
No shit. Pitch like Roger Clemens with a mean streak.
And I don't think ones feel grow much on steroids, but if Bonds is any evidence, ones fat head sure does.
Let Young pitch to him....Thats right, Bonds is making a mockery out of the record, why not complete the other side, make breaking the record a complete mockery.
Bean him every at bat -- so what if we go through a bunch of pitchers? -- and throw the ball back into the stands so a) there's a fight and b) Bonds has to pony up $$$ to get his grubby mitts on the ball.
Lannan is good at beaning people! :) He's beaned at least one person during 50% of the MLB games he's played. Let's see that number go up to 66%!!
If they're not going to beam him, they should intentionally walk him. I was hoping theyd do this at 754. so for the rest of his life he would always be one away form tying it.
I agree...walk him intentionally or "unintentionally". I can't stand the dude, but I love watching his daughter do the whole chicken thing when opposing pitchers walk him. Her blind innocence and faithfulness to her dad is the only pure thing about this chase, and that is something I can hang my hat on.
Didn't Mark McGwire use steroids too, where was all of this controversy back then...oh yeah I forgot Mark McGwire is....
11, (groan...) you dropped your race card. Bonds has been known to shove autograph-seeking kids out of his way. Big Mac was good to the fans (as was fellow juicer Slammin' Sammy). So, I guess you forgot that Mark McGwire was not a d-bag.
Anyone who doesn't like Barry is a racist. How many drug times has he tested positive for steroids? That's right....zero.
Another thing to keep in mind 11, There wasn't as much known about McGwire's steroid use when he broke the record. Just like there wasn't as much known about Bonds when he broke McGwire's record. And there was a difference in coverage of Bonds back then. Sure there were rumors about both of them, but not nearly as concrete as is known about Bonds now.
Plus he's a tool.
Ummm... aren't people primarily upset that it's the integrity of (African-American) Hank Aaron's record that's being diminished by Bonds? Probably many of the same people who grew up rooting for Aaron to break (white as sugar) Babe Ruth's record?
How, exactly, is that a racist stance?
Mike Wilbon's article in the Post today should be required reading on the subject. Never one to shy away from noting the cancerous effects of race in sports, Wilbon [correctly, IMO] hits the nail on the head on the public's reaction to Bonds:
Bonds, except for Giants fans and some younger black baseball fans who see some level of persecution in criticism directed his way, gets little if any benefit of the doubt, even though the evidence against him is circumstantial. Baseball is a mess because of the steroid issue and Bonds, more than any other player, is seen as the face of his sport's mess.
Contrast that with iconic cyclist Lance Armstrong, who whenever he is accused of using some kind of performance enhancer, goes on "Larry King Live" or "SportsCenter" and eloquently faces his critics. There is only circumstantial evidence against Armstrong, too, as he's never tested positive for a banned substance. But Armstrong, who has beaten cancer and is eminently cheery and welcoming, receives every benefit of the doubt even though so many people have accused him of cheating it's impossible to keep track. The sport of cycling is a mess because of cheating, but Armstrong is seen as being separate and apart, even above, his sport's mess.
As my friend Charles Barkley says of these matters, "We give every benefit of the doubt to the people we like . . ."
(Obviously, my blockquote got messed up - all four of the paragraphs above were part of the Wilbon article... I'm not really buddies with Barkley)