Hardball Times article

[Triad]

Nice article at The Hardball Times by John Brattain on MLB's curious divorce of Barry Bonds. He makes some great points on what could only be characterized as collusion, and the media's role as enablers.

Press-ure tactics… -- The Hardball Times

[nanwynn]

The press media, for all the well-turned phrases, [at least the ones who depend on player "inside" interviews and clubhouse gossip] are suck ups on an individual basis and only put on their piranha chops in packs.

I doubt very much if the implicit threat to clubs and club owners that their clubhouses would be subjected to intolerable invasions if they made a deal to put Barry Bonds on the roster. I say this because:

1. Although MLB franchises are public entertainments, conducting their functions in largely publicly-funded venues, they are nonetheless private enterprise operations entitled to preserve the functionality and safety of every element of the enterprise [not to say "property" in the absence of the reserve clause] including player and supporting personnel.

2. The spineless attitudes of the Commissioner's Office and the colllective ownership during the 1990's-2002,3 period MIGHT be revealed again under such a threat of siege; but I very much doubt it. If said intrusions were to occur. some bright young attorney might take it on himself to challenge first amendment rights of reporters into the clubhouse. if their presence could be demonsttated as injurious to personne; well-being. I'm s'posin' that publishers might well be up in arms but inclined not to screw with the goose laying all those golden eggs.

I sincerely hope Barry Bonds retires. Two years off and coming off two years abbreviated by injuries, at his age, can only reduce him to a caricature of his former self. His career, as far as I'm concerned, puts him in pretty select company on MLB's Mt. Olympus [regulars; position players]: Ruth, Williams, Gehrig, Bonds ...... and then, the rest. [With Pujols and A-Rod waiting in the wings].

[jtur88]

" Ruth, Williams, Gehrig, Bonds ...... and then, the rest."

When "the rest" includes Cobb and Hornsby and Wagner, you have clearly put yourself among those who consider power baseball to be the only baseball worthy of note. Have you noticed that Bonds' BA was more than 40 points below the other three which perhaps do deserve such an accolade? With about 150 of "the rest" in between.

[nanwynn]

Originally Posted by jtur88

" Ruth, Williams, Gehrig, Bonds ...... and then, the rest."

When "the rest" includes Cobb and Hornsby and Wagner, you have clearly put yourself among those who consider power baseball to be the only baseball worthy of note.

Well, sir, you have then fallen into the same pit; and, I might add, in doing so, have painted yourself into the standards of excellence of some far off "golden age."

First, you look at the Ruth, Williams, Gehrig and Bonds cluster and presume I'm fixated on "power." How about the following considerations that might have escaped you:

-Ruth, first a stellar pitcher then a converted outfielder [a good one, too, before his habits started getting the best of him]; he changed the game in a revolutionary way, if we recall the "live ball" was introduced in 1911 and it wasn't until Ruth that power potential was fully realized;

-Williams, the model of plate discipline and batting eye and stroke, whose records stand as they are despite the fact that he lost 5 and one-half peak years to military service and a bit more to injury [as a result of "hustling to make catches going into walls];

-Gehrig, the Bonds' compact stroke prototype if ever there was one, whose records were tragically abbreviated by the disease that bears his name [and still awesome on a rate basis];

-Bonds, a Williams-Gehrig merging of batting talents; superb defensve OF with good arm and an extraordinarily gifted base runner - the entire package.

As I posted the note to which you responded, I realized that Mantle, Aaron and Mays were missing, then realized they could not be mentioned without first recognizing Jimmie Foxx, another awesome batting talent who was also versatile, 1B, OF, 3B, C with competence. It dawned on me that such inclusions could only proliferate, at odds with the purpose of the post.

Have you noticed that Bonds' BA was more than 40 points below the other three which perhaps do deserve such an accolade? With about 150 of "the rest" in between.

As a kid, I love the batting average as a measure of position player excellence; but I've learned over the years that it is just an opener. You want to go there; and you get me started with Cecil Travis, a tragic case, certainly destined for the HoF at 28 [when WW II intervened], or maybe even a Barney McCosky who similarly got marginalized in khaki.

On the other side of that War, we have Ichiro Suzuki, a no-brainer first ballot guy not at all a powerhouse. I can be awed by his bat handling skills and amazed at his defense; but I cannot put him in the Ruth, Williams, Gehrig and Bonds class because the final product, for some, stands out, especially when significant modifiers enter the picture.