12/03/24
July 17, 2003
Bonds takes aim at the Sultan of Swat...: "As a left- handed hitter, I wiped [Ruth] out. That’s it. And in the baseball world, Babe Ruth is everything, right? I got his slugging percentage and I’ll take his home runs and that’s it. Don’t talk about him no more."
Yeah, sometimes his whole "I'm a jerk, so deal with it" persona gets tiresome. When he makes comments like this about someone many consider the best ever, it's uncalled for.
posted by bcb2k2 at 09:42 AM on July 17, 2003
what wfrazerjr said. especially the last part.
posted by garfield at 09:56 AM on July 17, 2003
What a clown...
posted by StarFucker at 09:57 AM on July 17, 2003
Here is how Ruth and Bonds compare as hitters. Games - Bonds 2,519; Ruth 2,503. Official at-bats - Bonds 8,591; Ruth 8,399. Hits - Ruth 2,873; Bonds 2,543. Batting average - Ruth .342; Bonds .296. At-bats per home run - Ruth 11.76; Bonds 13.36. Home runs - Ruth 714; Bonds 643. RBI - Ruth 2,213; Bonds 1,715. Walks - Ruth 2,062; Bonds 2,006. Strikeouts - Bonds 1,368; Ruth 1,330. On-base percentage - Ruth .474; Bonds .430. Slugging percentage - Ruth .690; Bonds .599. Led league in home runs - Ruth 12; Bonds 2.
posted by jasonspaceman at 10:34 AM on July 17, 2003
I saw this article on ESPN listed as like "Barry slams the Babe" or something and immediately thought that the media was painting him as worse than the truth. So what if he said he's taking aim at the Babe's mark now that Mays's is in reach? (BTW, the ESPN article ends up being less critical and telling the story with more context.) Not to defend Barry, but it's not like those remarks came out of nowhere. He was asked leading questions and probably pressed to the point of being sick of hearing about Ruth, hence the "don't talk about him no more". Yeah, he could have been a bit more diplomatic, but ever since he got super good 3 years ago I think his previous reputation of being a jerk has hurt perception of some current actions. Bad maybe, but not as bad as they make it sound.
posted by Bernreuther at 10:42 AM on July 17, 2003
Nope, Bern, he's still a dick. If I ask you leading questions, why aren't you smart enough to end the interview if you don't want to sound like an assclown? How about saying, "I hope to beat Ruth's records someday, but he was a great player?" I understand what you are saying, but I still think the onus lies with the player not to be a penis. I also hate this supposed burden of being asked questions about Ruth, Mays, whatever. Wow, it's sooooo hard to say something banal like I just suggested, or just say you'd prefer not to talk about it. Sure, the press won't like it, but isn't it better than giving them (us, whatever) more grist for the mill?
posted by wfrazerjr at 11:17 AM on July 17, 2003
wfrazerjr: How about I ask you the same questions every day? And here is what happens: a) you answer them truthfully without showing "respect" to someone long dead, so you get slammed in an article for your views, to the point where they imply you're using illegal performance enhancers b) you don't answer them because you're just fucking tired of these banal questions, so you get slammed in an article for your views, to the poitn where they imply you're using illegal performance enhancers c) you answer them politely and with "respect", and nobody publishes the interview because it doesn't fit with the ongoing smear campaign against you If you don't think there is a smear campaign against Bonds (led by Reilly and Sports Illustrated), you haven't read enough about him. And just wait until he becomes eligible for the Hall of Fame. There will be a handful of writers who won't vote him in, even though he may be the greatest hitter of all time.
posted by grum@work at 12:05 PM on July 17, 2003
grum, I've thought about the HoF thing as well. There's no doubt that he is a first timer, and among the top 5 or 10 of all time if he stopped playing today. And yet there will be writers who don't vote for him - more than just that one guy who NEVER votes for any of the guys on the ballot for the first time on general principle. It would be petty and somewhat childish to not vote for him.......but I can understand why they would do that. As to a smear campaign against Bonds, I'm not sure. He's had plenty of negative press over the last few years, but so have guys like Clemens and Pedro. Then there are superstars like ARod and Randy Johnson who seem to float under the radar. There are zillions of reasons why certain players are treated differently, but I find it hard to believe that the multitude of people who don't like Barry are all being led astray by Rick Reilly and his cadre of smearmongers.
posted by mbd1 at 01:00 PM on July 17, 2003
Hi there - new guy, no idea how close knit this community is - but as far as I'm concerned, I could care less how Barry is percieved or vilified by the media - he compared himself to Ruth, he sparked the debate, and he could be the nicest guy in the world and still be wrong. The one thing he may have going for him is that Ruth never played against the Negro league talent, and never had to face the 'specialty' pitchers that Bonds does. Of course, Ruth never got to play against the expansion era players either. Anyway - the numbers don't add up, and certainly the impact-of-one-man-on-the-game-and-nation arguement doesn't go his way either. Oh, and Ruth would've struck him out.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 05:30 PM on July 17, 2003
WeedyMcSmokey makes a strong appearance in the big show! Excellent point about Ruth's pitching, a dimension that Bonds would surely like us not to even consider. This is not such a close-knit community that it can't always welcome another fanatic. Don't be a stranger. do you go by weed, weedy, weedy mac, mcsmokey, or weedy mcsmokedawg?
posted by vito90 at 05:38 PM on July 17, 2003
what-ev - when I make people mad, they call me Pole-smokio. That's pretty funny.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 05:41 PM on July 17, 2003
Kill the new guy! Kill the new guy! (just kidding...welcome aboard!) When I talk about smear campaigns, it usually starts and ends with S.I./Reilly. On one of his back page rants, Reilly pointed out how Bonds didn't show up for the team picture one year, but "good guy" Jeff Kent did, and how Bonds had done this before. He made a big deal about it. What Reilly failed to mention was that Jeff Kent didn't show up for the previous two team pictures either. In another article, he says that Bonds growled "Get away from me. Back off." to reporters when they asked him questions after a game. In fact, it wasn't Reilly that was there, it was another reporter that he was lifting from, and that reporter mentioned that Bonds said those things after the crush of reporters in the locker room had knocked down Bonds' young son. Anyways, I agree that Bonds hasn't been a very good media person for most of his career. However, he hasn't been more "evil" than most professional athletes, and is probably critized more harshly for trying to maintain some privacy and showing reluctance for having a smiley-guy attitude with the press (like his compatriots Gwynn and Ripken). I'm pretty sure that in 40 years the reporters will be fawning over him like they did Ted Williams, another legendary "jerk" with the media. And really, that's not bad company to have... Oh, and note I said that Bonds is the greatest hitter of all time, not player. Until he converts himself into a pitcher, Ruth is going to be very hard to top in historical terms. Though that kid in Texas, ARod, might just do it...
posted by grum@work at 05:45 PM on July 17, 2003
Not only is the pitching very different today but so is the media, and one wonders what difference that would have made in the Babe's performance as well. IIRC, he was actually protected rather than exposed for behavior that would be all over the front pages today, with our microscopic reporting.
posted by billsaysthis at 07:18 PM on July 17, 2003
Grum, trying to "maintain some privacy and showing reluctance" are not a part of Barry's agenda. Doing what I advised (giving banal answers or politely declining) would be examples of trying to distance yourself from the press. As I recall, Ripken did not have a smiley-guy attitude. He was simply rarely quoted because he didn't say anything worthwhile. That didn't make him a dick - it made him standoffish, and I think the Baltimore press let him be. Hey, it's Carl Everett Syndrome ... ask the dick a question and get an interesting response. I have yet to see in an article someone be snarky about Bonds because he said nothing. Perhaps if he would shut his damn trap, people would stop asking him the same silly shit over and over. Weedy, dead on - now stop bogarting, dude!
posted by wfrazerjr at 09:56 PM on July 17, 2003
Bonds' comments are more or less complaints that Ruth is still talked about far more than Hank Aaron. The Ruth vs. Aaron question is complicated, but that is clearly what Bonds is focusing on. In attitude, of course, Bonds has a lot more similarities with Lou Gehrig and Ted Williams than with the Babe. Greg
posted by spira at 03:52 AM on July 18, 2003
Bonds is nasty. I'm glad he's getting his due. Hey, he's one of the top 5 players of all time ... if he has a big ego he's earned it in my book. I don't think he's as good as Ruth but if he want's to think that he is, that's his perogative. It's at least debatable. Maybe the difference is I remember how Bonds was perceived five-six years ago before all the home runs ... a great player but not necessarily a superstar (Guys like Juan Rodriguez and Ken Griffey were getting more hype). Meanwhile, Bonds was putting up monster seasons like clockwork ... and the year Terry Pendleton got the MVP ... Pullllleeeezzzz. Compare Bonds with Jordan ... if Mike said 'I wiped Larry Bird out... I won six rings ... end the story' he'd probably be praised for his killer instinct. Because it's Bonds the story gets a negative slant.
posted by Mike McD at 11:41 AM on July 18, 2003
Two things: 1) If Mike had said that about Larry, he would have been called a dick. Period. Jordan had enough class to never say those kinds of things. Even though he has some weiner-like qualities, at least he attempts to keep them to himself. 2) Who's Juan Rodriguez?
posted by wfrazerjr at 05:25 PM on July 18, 2003
I saw this this morning, and I thought, "Hmmm, Barry ... how many World Series rings do you have?" Exactly the same number as iotas of class he has. What a jackass.