Who Deserves What
Posted by SBG on Wednesday, June 29th, 2005 at 9:54 pm
Almost twenty years ago, when I cared about such things, there was a high school basketball player in North Dakota who made quite a splash. He lived in a little town in North Dakota, and he was a little guy himself. Listed at 6'0", but barely above 5'10", this kid was fast, a gunner who shot a ton and for a high percentage, a lightening quick defender... and he routinely dunked in games. He averaged 36 points a game as a senior, shooting over 50% from the field, and he lead his team to a third place finish in the state tournament. He was clearly the best basketball player in the state.
It just so happened that he was also a little prickly. He was cocky, he was brash, and the local media trashed him for it. I knew the kid a little, mainly because I'd seen him play and I'd played against his hometown when I was high school. He was portrayed as the villain. I really had no beef with him -- off the court he was a very quiet kid, and he was a little uneasy, really shy in public. When it came time to award Mr. Basketball, the local media decided that they didn't want to give the award to the best player in the state, so they decided to change the criteria for the award in the middle of the season. Now, the award, for the first time, had a "character" element. In other words, if the media didn't like the best player in the state, they could give the award to someone else, with the justification that the best player wasn't a good enough person.
And that's what they did. Despite the fact that the best player in the state had never been in any sort of trouble, there was no evidence that he was a bad student or anything like that, the media, in their wisdom, gave the award to a much lesser player. During the summer, the Lions club or Shriners or someone hosted an all-star game for charity. The best player in the state played in the game. Did Mr. Basketball? No. Why? Because he'd gotten caught drinking and was disqualified from playing in the game. So much for that character requirement.
When I read stories in the media about this guy being a good guy or that guy being a bad guy, I usually think, hey, stick to analysis of the game. I was a subscriber to Sports Illustrated for almost 15 years-- but I let the subscription run out when I read the pompous Rick Reilly's article about Kobe Bryant. Reilly, fool that he is, told anyone who would read his column that Kobe Bryant was a better basketball player than Michael Jordan. That was ridiculous on its face. But, what was especially delicious was his proclamation of Kobe as a Good Guy. One thing about Kobe, said Reilly, is that you'll never see him in the back seat of a squad car. Nope. Two months later, Mr. Bryant turned himself in, rather than riding in the squad car.
What's the point? Well, I was over reading Scott Miller at cbs.sportsline.com. Miller said that Bonds should retire because he doesn't deserve to surpass Hank Aaron's (or Babe Ruth's for that matter) total for career homeruns. Give me a break. Yes, Miller brings up the steroid issue, but remember, even if Bonds KNOWINGLY took steroids, he didn't break any established major league rules. Ahhhh, you say. But, steroids are ILLEGAL. True enough. So are amphetamines. Since amphetamines have been widespread in baseball forever (read Ball Four), there's no proof that Aaron didn't use amphetamines, an illegal performance enhancing substance.
But, beyond the steroid issue, Miller argues that Bonds is just a bad guy. He is mean to reporters. He has ached and moaned and played the sympathy card. He's been prickly towards his teammates. Whatever. Darryl Strawberry can snort cocaine till the cows come home and he's a sympathetic figure. Cal Ripken, who admittedly was a great ambassador for the game, reportedly stayed in a hotel separate from all his teammates and called pitches from his shortstop position on the field. Further, he put his managers in a difficult position by all but demanding that he play every day. This is not to denigrate Ripken in any way. He was one of the all-time greats at shortstop and I've always liked him. But, I'm not so naive to believe that he wasn't anything but the best guy ever.
But, for the media, or at least parts of the media, the best story is a black and white story. Separate the good guys from the bad guys. No gray allowed. The good guys deserve good things to happen to them and the bad guys deserve nothing but misfortune and scorn. The good guys are the "face of baseball," and damn the truth, we'll make up stories to tell you how good they are. And if the bad guys should accomplish great things, their accomplishments are minimized because they are deemed to be unworthy. Just like the fools back in North Dakota who changed the rules to give Mr. Basketball 1987 to an unworthy "good guy."
Santana Poll
The results are in.
| What kind of second half will Johan Santana have? | Votes | Percentage |
| Lights out -- he's on his way to another Cy Young Award | 7 | 15% |
| Much better than the first half, but not what we saw last year | 32 | 67% |
| About the same as the first half. The league has figured him out a little | 9 | 19% |
| Blow up. He's gonna really struggle | 0 | 0% |
| The injury bug is gonna bite him | 0 | 0% |
You are pretty optimistic. At least 15% of you think he's gonna capture lightning in a bottle again. Another 2/3 of you think the second half will be better. I tend to think that he'll be about the same in the second half as he has been in the first half. His months have been pretty consistent this month, indicating that his numbers are not so much the product of a few bad outings lately, but rather, the result of a fairly consistent performance.
On the other hand, Santana has been pretty unlucky. With 131 strikeouts in 112 innings along with just 21 walks and 13 homeruns, Santana has a FIP (field independent pitching) number of 1.95. If he pitches like that in the second half, he likely will have a lower ERA and more wins.
Tonight's Poll (closed, results below)
| What Do You Think of the Twins' TV Announcers | Votes | Percent |
| Top Shelf -- Dick and Bert are the Best | 4 | 14% |
| Not Too Bad -- but not exactly Bob Costas | 11 | 38% |
| I like Dick, but Bert needs to circle less | 2 | 7% |
| I like Bert, but Dick how about pretending to be objective | 6 | 21% |
| Turning the sound off sounds like a good option | 6 | 21% |
| Total Votes | 29 | |
Loading ...
I think Scott Miller should retire because a hack like him doesn't deserve the professional legacy handed down by J.G. Taylor Spink, Ring Lardner, Grantland Rice, Shirley Povich, Roger Angell, Roger Kahn, and Peter Gammons, much less his press passes and paycheck. If there were a Hacking Mass award for sportswriters, Scott Miller would be a finalist for it every year.
The real bombshell of your story, though, is this news that Strawberry has been reduced to snorting cocaine in cow pastures?? That is just sad.
Sportsline.com has comments on their articles. No doubt Bonds is a controversial figure. But, one of the commenters actually used the "N-word" to describe him. Others said they'd rather watch Richie Sexson play baseball than Barry Bonds. That is positively ridiculous. I've seen hundreds of major league games. And Bonds stands out as one of the very few players who stunned me with his play.
I've only seen Bonds play baseball in person once, well actually twice, in two consecutive games in Wrigley Field back when he played for the Pirates about 13 or 14 years ago. He was a phenomenal player back then. The booing he took was pretty incredible. He made a couple great plays out in the field, once sliding into the brick wall in foul territory (Bartman territory) to make an incredible catch. And he was hitting the ball; I couldn't stop looking at him. In the second game, he went back to the fence for a ball. Some idiot poured a pretty full beer right on his head. Bonds made the catch, threw the ball into the infield, and went back to his position as if nothing happened. Didn't even acknowledge the beer throwing idiot. I was a fan right there.
I was so looking forward to seeing him in Minneapolis this summer. The fact that he wasn't in town took all the luster off of the Giants' visit. Miller's article was unnecessary, irrelevant, stupid, and just plain wrong. Bonds may not be Albert Schweitzer, but as a baseball player, he's quite simply, ALL THAT.
Dick and Bert may not be the best announcers around, but they are definately top half. Just think how fortunate we are to not have those guys from the White Sox.
As for Barry Bonds, I have something to say. Personally, I think the man is a jerk. I wouldn't spend 10 minutes with him if I didn't have to. Would I watch a game with him playing, especially in his 30/30 days? You bet. Barry may not be a friendly character but he just may be the best player of my lifetime thus far, and you have to respect that fact regardless of his personality.
I actually have seen Barry play before. It was an interleague game in KC back in the summer after HS graduation. I suppose that's summer '03. As I remember the Royals won in the bottom of the 9th. Barry hit a home run in that game somewhere around the 4th, I think.
You are right on it, Andrew. He's got all the talent in the world, and he's not wasted his potential, he's realized it.
A lot of truly brilliant people in many different fields are "difficult." That's part of the human condition. Ted Williams flipped off his own fans and refused to tip his cap at the end of his career. Through the lens of history, his exploits on the field (and in service to his country) are honored. The human foibles seem less important.
Appreciate the brilliance for it's own sake. Listen to Wagner's music for its greatness. Watch Brando's work as an actor. Read the brilliant simplicity of Hemmingway. Appreciate their gifts even as you recognize their human foibles. Or be an ass like Scott Miller.
I put Dick and Bert as tops just because I hate Bob Costas irrationally. (Unlike my rational hatred of Buck and McCarver).
I think both Bert and Dick are excellent announcers, especially better than Costas, but Bert definitley needs to circle less. Or not at all. It might stop morons from bringing cheaply made signs with horrible jokes that block your view of the infield.
AMR -- I love Costas, but I also know that others don't. Matter of taste.
McCarver is a confused old fool. I think that Bob Gibson should knock some sense into his head.
Buck's overeaction to the Moss mooning incident was ridiculous. Hey Joe, I hear "Leon" wants to grant you another interview.
Costas is a great interviewer and very good at play-by-play, but in recent years it seems like he feels the need to interject his Deep Thoughts into the game more often than I remember him doing on the old Game of the Week. Maybe he's the same, but I've changed.
Dick and Bert are better than average, but this year Dick's the one who is getting on my nerves. He has a good broadcasting voice, does a fine play-by-play, and knows how to feed questions to Bert that can bring out his color man's knowledge of the game. Dick's really good with guests in the booth, too. But I don't consider him to be especially insightful about the games in his own right, and this year it seems he's constantly imposing his opinions onto the games or acting as a Twins apologist on some issue--and he does it with a defensive, whiney tone that reminds me of a kid who's trying to rationalize the secret stash his Mom just found in his sock drawer.
I just want to hear him describe the damn game, feed straight lines and questions to Bert, fill me in when he has some news to share, and sound like he's enjoying himself. Leave the soapboxes and defensive speeches at home. Is it too much to ask?