Bonds, 756, and Continuing Asininity

I'm not going to type up any hand-wringing about Bonds and the steroids controversy. My position on that continues to be that enough has been written about that elsewhere, you don't need me repeating the same tired routine.

Instead, I'm going to complain about the comments regarding Bonds that are, well, asinine. I was looking forward to 755 and 756 because it would mean the end of fairy-tale fantasy world suggestions that Bonds should hit his 754th homer and then retire out of respect for Aaron/the record/the game. Even leaving aside the whole "quit wasting your time dreaming of pansy gestures Bonds won't be doing" issue, why should he have waited for his 754th homer to do it? If you think/thought that he should suddenly retire, why not immediately, let alone several years ago? Alas, my hopes were dashed when, after 755, I heard someone say that Bonds should hit 756 and then hang it up, which makes even less sense. You could argue that it would make more sense in that, having the record, Bonds would have removed a disincentive to retirement (I really couldn't say added an incentive to retire), but then how would retirement really be an act of respect towards anything? Now, hopefully, we'll be rid of all that for good. I don't really have issue with those wishing to see Bonds retire immediately or at season's end -- sure, they may be deluding themselves if they think he will, but at least what they're wishing for is not downright anti-logical (illogical does not seem a strong enough term).

Several "experts" have suggested that Bonds's playing time will be (or could be, for those hedging their bets) severely reduced over the rest of the season. This, too, is nonsense. While Bonds will almost certainly not be the draw he was while striving for 756, he's still the biggest draw on the team, beating out several exciting young pitchers, while the individual draw for other position players is pretty much left to family and friends, many of whom can get tickets for free. Bonds is the best offensive player on the team, and one of the best in the league. He leads the majors in on-base percentage, OPS, walks, intentional walks, ranks sixth in slugging, and is tied for ninth in homers. While you sit veterans to test rookies after falling out of the playoff race, you don't sit your best players. Thirdly, the Giants' outfield prospects are not exactly an impressive bunch. Sure, they could make the majors and stick around for several years, but they seemed destined more for fourth outfielder, maybe third. Lastly, Bonds has repeatedly stated a desire to play next season -- he's not going to want to sit out a bunch of games (or, perhaps more accurately, a bunch more). Barring injury, expect Bonds to top last year's games played total.

As a final note, despite Bonds's statements to the effect that the chase was not affecting his play, I don't believe it, and I think his play backs up my disbelief (not just the struggles in, say, the batting average department, but in things like the mechanics of his swing). I full expect his August-September play to be better than that of the first four months (or, to remove a poor end of July from the equation and give the statement more meaning, better than his play in the first half).

More Baseball

It never ceases to amaze me just how great a player Babe Ruth was. For today's lesson on the subject, we'll look at slugging percentage. Ruth had a career slugging mark of .690, easily the highest of all time (Ted Williams is second at .634). It's not common for a player to play at that level for even a single season. It's been done 45 times in history if you count two instances in the 19th century (thanks to mlb.com, by the way, for having all their historical stat databases working). Here's a breakdown of how often individual players accomplished it:

10 Babe Ruth
4 Lou Gehrig
4 Jimmie Foxx
4 Barry Bonds
3 Rogers Hornsby
3 Mark McGwire
2 Ted Williams
2 Albert Belle
2 Larry Walker
1 Al Simmons
1 Hack Wilson
1 Stan Musial
1 Mickey Mantle
1 Jeff Bagwell
1 Frank Thomas
1 Sammy Sosa
1 Manny Ramirez
1 Todd Helton
1 Tip O'Neill (the 19th-century baseball player, not the 20th-century Speaker of the House)
1 Hugh Duffy (the other 19th-century player)

I tried to arrange all ties on the list in order of when they first accomplished it, with the exception of dropping the 19th-century players to the bottom. Only seasons in which the player in question qualified for the batting title were counted. Bonds just missed out on a fifth season with a .688 in 2000 (two total bases short). Helton and Walker would not have reached this level without playing in Colorado (Helton had a .698 while Walker had a .710 and a .720). If you raise the standard to .700, you lose ten of the forty-five seasons, one each by Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Hornsby, McGwire, Belle, Ramirez, Helton, O'Neill, and Duffy. Nobody reached .690 between 1961 (when Mantle last did it) and 1994 (when Belle, Bagwell, and Thomas each did it in a strike-shortened season). Even in this age of offensive expansion, Ruth still owns this category. You hear lots of people raving about the season Alex Rodriguez is having; going into today's game, he's only slugging .626 (which would be the lowest for a major league leader since 1992, when Bonds was the leader at .624).

Speaking of Rodriguez, ESPN was asking if he'd get to 60 homers today. I'd have to say no. I was skeptically that he'd get to 50 back in April, and I stand by my skepticism. I also think Steve Phillips is smoking crack for saying that he'd end up around his career high of 57. His current season pace is about 52/53. That, however, includes a record-tying April output that he's not matched since. He's failed to hit ten homers in any month since then, and has averaged seven per month over the last three. give him that average for the next two months and he'll have .... 49 homers. See, my skepticism isn't crazy. Now, I'm not saying it's a foregone conclusion that he'll fall short of 50, but 50 is far from a gimmee. The Yankees two games before today featured eight homers by seven different players and five homers by four different players, with neither game having one of Rodriguez. That amuses me.

On to Barry Bonds. Many people have commented that Rodriguez could hit his 500th homer the same night Bonds ties and/or breaks the record. Fewer people have mentioned that Bonds's 600th double could come in the same game. I know the double's not as impressive, but 600 is pretty exclusive territory (he'd be the fourteenth player to reach that mark, comapred to Rodriguez being the twenty-second to reach 500 homers). Watching Bonds's at-bats over the last month, his swing looks really screwed up. He's chasing more pitches and seems to be trying for a 600-ft blast with each swing. It's really not his style, and I'd suggest it's the reason for his struggles. He's said he noticed his swing was messed up after looking at video, so maybe that will change. Despite all this, Bonds is still the major league leader in OPS. I've heard a lot of talk from the chattering classes in baseball questioning whether he'll find a place to play next season. I have to think that he will. First, as his OPS prowess testifies, he's still a great hitter to have in your lineup. The distraction he brings with him is questioned, but I have to think that it will decrease after he breaks the homerun record. There's a chance that he could be around 800 homers at the end of next season, in which case it would pick up again, but it wouldn't reach the same level. As far as steroids, his "attitude" and other general distractions go, look no further than Detroit, which has welcomed Gary Sheffield, every bit as involved in the steroid controversy (though he's garnered fewer headlines for it), and someone who is uncapable of opening his mouth without saying something mind-bogglingly stupid. If Sheffield can find a home, why not Bonds? Not to mention all those accused of spousal abuse, et cetera. As long as Bonds's financial demands are not too onerous, I'm sure someone would sign him. Plus, if he goes to the AL, I could see him playing over 150 games in a season. One writer thought, for some reason (probably mental deficiency), that he'd still only play about 130 games a season for an AL club, but that makes no sense when you figure that he'd primarily be a DH (though I bet you'd see him in the field in a few intraleague (yes, intra-) games still). As to the previously mentioned possiblity of 800 homers, I see a good chance for that if he moves to an American League team with a good offense; he'd play more often, get more plate appearances when he does, and get pitched around less. If he plays for the Giants again, the chances are less good (though he could, of course, play two more seasons). I still think the Giants are his most likely team for next year. Hopefully for the Giants, they'll manage to add someone under 30 during the offseason ... or at least under 35.

Brian Sabean, GM of the Giants, is vastly overrated. Not just the Zito deal, but trading Nathan, Liriano, and Bonser to Minnesota for one disappointing season of Pierzynski? Possibly the worst trade sicne I started following baseball. Then there's the obsession with adding old players. Weird.

I recently saw it written that the Pirates would be better if only they could get some more money. I doubt this, given the way their front office works. This was even before they traded for Matt Morris, agreeing to pay the entirety of his salary. They gave Jeromy Burnitz $6 million for 2006 even after a bad 2005, seemingly in the hopes that he would put up his inflated Coors Field numbers of 2004. They're paying Jack Wilson something in the neighborhood of $6 million this year apparently based on his one good season in 2004. Until they start using the money they have more wisely, I don't see how more will help (unless you suddenly grant them a $200 million payroll, in which instance I'm sure they'd stumble into at least a few decent moves, or, at least, decent players (they'd be the team that signed Alex Rodriguez for over $30 million a year). I suppose the Cubs have compensated for some bone-headed moves with their large payroll.

On the matter of contracts, I'd love to see a move towards more performance-based ontracts. The union would hate this, I'm sure, but there are already many contracts that contain performance bonuses, so I see this as a possible move. A team would offer less guaranteed money, but offer assorted bonuses based on performance at levels the player thinks he can attain, that would bring the total amount of the contract to a higher level than the amount paid by the other hypothetical contract with a greater amount of guaranteed money. Appeal to the player's ego, and there's a good chance they'd go for it.

As a final note, censorship can be entertaining. I was reading this compilation of bad trades in baseball history on the Fox Sports website, and the first name of Boof Bonser was bleeped out, and the phrase "trading a young player" was rendered "tradinBLEEPoung player" because, apparently, there are three letters that just can't appear in a row, even if seperated by spaces and part of three different words.