September 26, 2007

Previously discussed here. Disgusting. I'm beside myself. In my book, this is akin to signing your own name to the Declaration of Independence or adding a few extra strokes to your original Matisse so it goes better with your couch. The ball is history -- for good or for bad, it is what it is. Ecko is articially, but permanently, inserting himself into the history of the game, where he has no place whatsoever. That stupid brand is going to exist a lot longer than the context in which the record is viewed. What a jackass.

posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 02:59 PM on September 26, 2007

Good Lord, man, overreact much? Sometimes it feels like you're coming after me quite a bit, but then I just assume that it's my oversensitivity kicking into paranoia mode. There was a 33% chance that the ball was going to be shot into space. Yes, the Hall of Fame is happy it's coming to them. Gift horses and mouths and all that. My comparisons stand, and I think Ecko himself would agree with me. From your link: "We're going to be working with the folks at the Hall of Fame. It is an historical museum. We want to treat this ball as such, as an artefact with respect," Ecko said on the Today Show. He acknowledges that respect should be shown to historical artifacts, but he thinks it's okay to deface it before he bestows it? He's a hypocrit and he is disrespecting the museum and the history of the game by making himself a character in both. I apologize to everyone who thinks I'm just too overraught about maintaining the integrity of historical artifacts and the preservation of baseball history. It's kinda what I do for a living.

posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 04:00 PM on September 26, 2007

TBH, I'm with TCS on this one. The only reason Ecko has more of a say than the rest of the baseball-loving populous is dollars. It's like assholes spending a night in the Lincoln Bedroom. There are some advantages that money should not confer. Ingratiating yourself into a historic situation you couldn't earn your way into should be one.

posted by yerfatma at 04:29 PM on September 26, 2007

Your comparisons don't stand Craft. Declaration of Independence? The cornerstone of America? (Or as Dennis Miller said, before he turned to evil, "a 200 year old to-do list") It's a fucking ball. That's all. Get over it. Unlike the items you've compared it too, without branding, they could easily substitute for a totally different ball and nobody would be any the wiser. Get over yourselves, all of you.

posted by Drood at 04:57 PM on September 26, 2007

Thanks for contributing Drood. For what it's worth, The Declaration of Independence is paper and ink. That's it. Get over it. I do agree that this shouldn't be taken all too seriously though. If Bonds really gave a damn about the ball he could have bought it himself. He makes $750K in a week or two. The ball could EASILY be displayed with the asterisk hidden from view. So, at the end of the day, it's really up to the HOF whether this ball has or doesn't have an asterisk on it.

posted by DudeDykstra at 07:19 PM on September 26, 2007

That stupid brand is going to exist a lot longer than the context in which the record is viewed. I can understand your anger and disappointment. But doesn't understanding the context bringer a richer understanding of history, baseball history or otherwise? Isn't context what makes Jackie Robinson's contribution to history, baseball and otherwise, so compelling and heroic? If I don't understand what race relations were like in 1947, I can't properly judge what he did. One day I will take my three year old son to Cooperstown and we will not doubt stop and check out Bond's baseball complete with asterisk. No matter what happens with Bonds, the asterisk provides a historical context for the summer of 2007 and the controversy surrounding Bonds home run chase. And who knows what the future will bring. Anything from "wow, you mean PEDS used to be bad for you" to "that's why his head exploded". It is, indeed, a marketing ploy, but an extremely successful one, and he did leave the decision up to the public, rather than making the decision himself.

posted by cjets at 09:18 PM on September 26, 2007

Your three-year-old son is going to be bored at Cooperstown. Just saying....

posted by DudeDykstra at 10:40 PM on September 26, 2007

Drood, Eeyore called. He lost the number for your therapist again. Unlike the items you've compared it too, without branding, they could easily substitute for a totally different ball and nobody would be any the wiser. I've seen Matisse prints. Just like the original. Your argument doesn't make any sense. Once the ball crossed the boundary of the outfield fence, I know you recognize that it's monetary value rose from roughly $5.00 to over $750,000. Why can't you accept that it's status also changed from ordinary, everyday baseball to historical artifact. As such, it deserves to be handled with respect, not stained by the whims of some narcissistic publicity hound. I know you said that they wouldn't not display the asterisk, but if the Hall of Fame were to attempt to hide it could it work? The Hall of Fame is dedicated to preserving the history of the game. The Ecko story is now part of the history of the ball -- it is inextricable. And we are not part of some secret society in on the whole Ecko thing -- anyone who has a Yahoo page knows about it. Mine is not an insider view (my realtionship with the Hall, while good, is more peripheral than it used to be), but I would be very surprised if the Hall attempted to deny Ecko's role in the story of the ball. Too many people would look for it and ask about it. And for good or for bad, this is the history of the ball. But doesn't understanding the context bringer a richer understanding of history, baseball history or otherwise? Absolutely. My point was that there is no telling how time will treat Bonds. Years from now he may become a sympathetic figure and the brand will be viewed as a rash and unfair judgment of his achievement. To me, it's like getting a tattoo of your girlfriend's name. Ask Johnny Depp how that works out. 20 years ago we couldn't imagine how our relationship with the Soviet Union would evolve. The right thing to do is to let the ball be what it is, and let time decide whether it has an asterisk over it.

posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 12:26 AM on September 27, 2007

My opinion on what should happen to the ball hasn't changed.

posted by squealy at 03:23 AM on September 27, 2007

Has he already branded it? If not, I spy a loophole. He claims to have "engaged the country in a public debate", but he didn't do that - he engaged the internet in an anonymous vote. When I read about him first, I went to the site. I voted. The website thanked me. I'm Northern Irish. I live in England. I've never been to a baseball game in my life and seen about a fifth of one on TV once. I've read some column yardage about baseball thanks to links in here and enjoyed some of the subsequent discussions thrown up, but am I really to be permitted a vote in all of this? Also, I'd question whether or not he has gained the mandate he was looking for. He provided two realistic options and one laughable one (not unlike the British election system in that respect). The "launch it into space" option reduces the supposed gravity (no pun intended) of the question. In gaining 47% of the vote, branding may have gained more votes than either of the other two options, but 53% of the voters (which constitutes a majority in my book) didn't want it branded.

posted by JJ at 05:43 AM on September 27, 2007

And that story should be "this is how the public viewed Bonds at the time" not "look what Mark Ecko did." To me what Ecko did represents how a large portion of the public views Bonds. Whether they are right or wrong is a different matter. I also think Ecko will be the forgotten footnote to this story. The Monica Lewinsky, if you will, of the Bonds home run chase. I hope that his name isn't even mentioned in the HOF. And you're absolutely right, the story could be told in an accompanying text. But a picture, or asterisk in this case, is worth a thousand words. And, just to be clear, Bonds innocence or guilt is irrelevant in terms of the historical context. He is "perceived" to be guilty by a large portion of the public and that is the historical context. By that I mean the asterisk will provoke discussion. And that discussion will be anything from a cautionary tale about rushing to judgement/race relations (if he is cleared) to the a discussion about why MLB permitted so many players to use PEDS (if he is found guilty).

posted by cjets at 12:08 PM on September 27, 2007

It is one of the best articles that I've seen on this topic. I've never read that article before but I'm sure glad I had the chance to read it. Mike Celizic is dead on about the different eras and the players that played in those eras. We all know that players of all eras did something in order to gain an advantage over the competion but guess what? There's no asterick's anywhere near those records. Leave well enough alone, Barry Bonds is the home run king until someone comes along and breaks his record.

posted by BornIcon at 07:15 AM on September 28, 2007

I can appreciate that all of you are passionate about the game of baseball, most especially TCS. However,... ...baseball is just a game. The Bonds ball doesn't signify anything of great historical importance. The only people who will even know about Barry Bonds 100 years from now will be dedicated baseball fans. Some have said that the ball is an important part of history. I disagree. It certainly can't be considered a "historical artifact." A historical artifact is something like the Declaration of Independence or the Magna Carta. Sure, they are just pieces of paper with wrting on them. However, they signify a dramatic change in the world. Barry Bonds' can't even be considered to have impacted the steroids issue, never mind caused a change in anything, since it had already begun before his guilt or innocence became a question. I agree that the significance of the asterick on the ball is important to baseball. But don't fool yourselves into thinking that the rest of the free world knows, or even cares, about this issue at all.

posted by Lester at 09:53 AM on October 02, 2007

No, it provides one person's view of the historical context for the summer of 2007. Imagine this alternate history scenario: In 1939, the Baseball Hall of Fame is officially opened. At the entrance of the hall, there is a beautiful marble floor. Inscribed on this floor, in big gold letters is the phrase: Welcome to the National Baseball Hall of Fame Home of the greatest white baseball players of all time In 1939, that's all the National Baseball Hall of Fame was about. The historical context at the time would have been correct, but in the future, that context would have to be removed from the Hall of Fame because it would be very incorrect. There's a huge difference in what went on in 1939 and what is going on in 2007. In 1939, the segregation of the major leagues was not an issue. In 2007 Bonds home run chase was the controversy (emblematic of the steroids controversy) that plagued baseball. This is not about whether he did it or not. It's about public perception. I think it's historically dishonest not to mention the controversy surrounding Bonds when one mentions his record. And, by the way, the fact that the ML was segregated until 1947 is a huge issue that should be addressed by the HOF.

posted by cjets at 02:19 PM on October 02, 2007

And, by the way, the fact that the ML was segregated until 1947 is a huge issue that should be addressed by the HOF. In what way? Seeing as how you work there, I would leave it to you. And the suggestions I'll make are, I believe, suggestions that the HOF has already implemented. But here are two: The Negro Leagues should certainly be included, as well as the need for the Negro Leagues until the mid 50's or thereabouts (because of the segregation). And, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, the impact of Jackie Robinson on the roster of the Dodgers in 1947 can not be measured without understanding that the ML was segregated before him. Many people believe that Robinson's breaking down the color barrier makes him the athlete of the 20th century, in any sport. How does one explain his importance without explaining the segregation that existed and the racism that existed? In other words, the historical context. I'm sure there are other examples but those are the most obvious to me.

posted by cjets at 03:36 PM on October 02, 2007

My fault for rushing a previous post. The sentence should have read: "The fact that the ML was segregated until 1947 is a huge issue that should be addressed by the HOF if it has not been addressed already." Not having been there, I can't answer your specific question. But methinks the Negro Leagues and Jackie Robinson both have much material and space devoted to them.

posted by cjets at 03:59 PM on October 02, 2007

Initially I had no desire to look at this ball since it looks like any other ball. Now that an asterisk is being attached, it may be worth looking at - for 5 seconds anyway. Ecko spends 750Gs for his 15 minutes and gives the ball away. Apparently nobody cared enough about Bonds to try and save his ball by purchasing it from Ecko, who would have looked like a genius had he been able to double his money in a short period of time. So, the people have spoken and only 19% thought Bonds deserved the ultimate honor of having the ball launched into space in what would have been a super-steroids shot. It would be more fitting if Bonds and the ball were launched together and orbited around Earth. It would be ironic that a narcissist who thought the world revolved around him would actually revolve around the world.

posted by longgreenline at 01:59 AM on October 03, 2007

Apparently nobody cared enough about Bonds to try and save his ball by purchasing it from Ecko, who would have looked like a genius had he been able to double his money in a short period of time. Gilbert Arenas cares.

posted by bperk at 08:46 AM on October 03, 2007