Friday, August 10, 2007
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
How appropriate that, in his first venture away from the cozy adulation of San Francisco, the much-detested home run king is coming back to the place where they hated him before it was a national craze.
That's Pittsburgh. Always ahead of the curve.
Barry Bonds, not the greatest Pirate but the greatest player to wear a Pirates uniform, will return Monday to where it all began. It is intriguing to ponder how many will buy tickets for the twi-night doubleheader at PNC Park, which was not on the original schedule and was caused by two postponements in April.
It will be more intriguing to see how he is greeted.
Bonds is now an historic figure, and not because he failed to throw out Sid Bream at home in the seventh game of the 1992 NLCS. His name will live as long as they play baseball. In discussions of the all-time greatest players, his name is near the top of the list. No one denies him that.
It would be nice to say we saw this level of greatness coming. Few, if any, did. When he arrived in Pittsburgh in late May of 1986 after less than a year of minor-league ball, it was with little fanfare. Sure, he was a first-round pick, but back then, as now, the Pirates had miserable luck with such choices. From 1965, the first year of the draft, until Bonds was selected in 1985, the Pirates' only first-round choice to have any kind of major-league career was Richie Hebner, an above-average third baseman. Ten of the picks never made it to the majors. The remainder were bit players.
Why would Bonds be different?
His first start was May 30 against the Los Angeles Dodgers. He led off against Orel Hershiser and popped up to shortstop Mariano Duncan. He would go hitless in five at-bats that day. His first hit came in his first at-bat the next day, a double off Rick Honeycutt. He was 4 for 20 and once had been pinch-hit for by Mike Diaz before a June 4 game against Atlanta. In the fifth inning, he hit his first homer in what was to become a 12-3 Pirates victory.
There barely was any stopping him after that, except, of course, for those postseason flops. That's something Pittsburgh can't get past. But let's take another quick look.
He was awful, no question, in three consecutive playoff series. But, in two of those postseasons, he was facing the Atlanta Braves, which meant there were three future Hall of Famers pitching against him -- Greg Maddox, Tom Glavine and John Smoltz. Beyond that, it's such a small sampling. The beloved Willie Stargell was a combined 6 for 54 in the 1971 and 1972 postseasons with no homers and two RBIs.
As for the play on Bream, it was a good one -- not the massive failure his critics suggest. Bonds, a great defensive outfielder, did everything right. He just did not have a strong enough throwing arm. It would have taken a great throw to get Bream. Bonds made a good one.
Combine his failure to hit in the postseason, the misunderstanding of the Bream play and the fact he is not a nice person and what you have locally is an intense dislike of Bonds that manifests itself in loud booing every time he plays here.
Brazenly overlooked in these calculations is the fact he won two Most Valuable Player titles with the Pirates, twice as many as any player in team history, and that there would have been no playoffs -- not a chance -- without him.
Nationally, it is his chemical enhancement that most makes him so unpopular, although his personality is a close second. In breaking Hank Aaron's all-time home run record, he has been excoriated by the national media. That is certainly their right, but it seems a bit off since the 350th win of Roger Clemens, another player who may well have used chemicals to achieve his late-career success, received no such scrutiny or anger.
Nor is Bonds the only player who allegedly has used steroids. There's no way of knowing, but a good estimate would be 30 percent of the major-leaguers were using and maybe some still are.
And, while it is virtually indisputable that the success of the 1970s Steelers and many other NFL teams of that era was aided by steroids, those lapses in judgment are conveniently overlooked.
As for those wishing an asterisk, that is laughable. Bonds has hit the most home runs in major-league history without breaking the rules. Why should there be an asterisk?
If you want an asterisk, consider this: The most prolific home run hitter in history is Mark McGwire, who homered every 10.6 at-bats. Babe Ruth is second at 11.8 and Bonds third at 12.9. Aaron is 36th, homering every 16.4 at-bats. This puts him behind, among others, Jim Gentile (16.3), Jay Buhner (16.2) and, my favorite, Ron Kittle (15.4).
Maybe it's Aaron who should have had the asterisk.
But Aaron is deservedly revered and Bonds greatly despised.
When his name is announced Monday at PNC, you can be sure there will be plenty who will stand and cheer. And you can be just as sure there will be more who sit and boo.
Bonds would not have it any other way.
Bob Smizik can be reached at bsmizik@post-gazette.com
No comments:
Post a Comment