I have no idea what you're talking about. Bonds gets paid to play. Who would be the jackass paying him or anyone else millions of dollars to be a role model? If you want a role model, go to Big Brothers or Boys Club, or your local police office. Baseball players just play ball...
Althalius wrote:Barry Bonds doesn't get paid just to play, he gets paid to be a role model. That's why Kobe's taking the heat for the rape charges and why a lot of people think Tyson is a piece of shit. Bonds needs to learn that being happy is ok, even if your name isn't barry bonds.
Tyson is a piece of ****. They are players, not role models. Players are a reflection of society. There is the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Hall of Fame Hero
(Past Year: 373)
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pearl Jam country, right next door to Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Alice in Chains.
Even if what Althalius said is true, how is Bonds not a role model? He's not going to court on August 6th. Kobe is.
He's not a convicted felon. Tyson is.
He didn't get busted for drugs several times. Everyone on the Trail Blazers did.
He clearly loves his kids. He goes and takes care of his ailing father. He's remained loyal to the Giants when he could have gotten more money elsewhere. He donates time and money to many organizations and doesn't bring a flock of reporters to film his good deeds.
I don't blame Bonds for getting pissed and I don't blame Zambrano for doing what he did. IMHO, Bonds has gotten better at a later age more than any player that I can remember. What upsets me more are the STUPID comments that he makes about Babe Ruth and people who use both of their names in a sentence other than "Bonds is A great player but Ruth was THE greatest player". Let me see Bonds do what he does:
1. Without the armor (so he is at least a little concerned about the inside pitch)
2. In stadiums without little league dimensions
3. While outhomering entire teams in the league
4. While finding the time to be at least 1 of the best pitchers in the league for a time
5. Without facing a lot of pitchers who should still be in AAA
I understand the bias towards annointing Bonds as the greatest slugger as there are a lot of younger fans who didn't see anyone before Bonds but give credit where credit is due. I also understand that Bonds didn't force the fences to be moved in and the balls to be juiced. IMHO, even when Bonds COMPILES his homerun record and passes the Babe, the Babe will still be the greatest slugger of all time. Ruth dominated his era while the same can't be said about Bonds. Ruth changed and affected the game like no other. Bonds hasn't. Bonds already has more AB's than Ruth yet he trails him in just about every stat.
This is intended to give Ruth his due rather than take away from Bonds' career. Is Bonds a great player? Yes. Is he a first ballot hall of famer? Yes. Is he the greatest slugger of all time? Not even close.
Ah...now we're bringing back the Ruth vs. Bonds topic...
To rebut some of your points, Ruth did what he did:
- With a short right field fence at Yankee stadium.
- Without "finding time" to steal even close to 500 bases.
- Without having to face black or hispanic pitchers.
This argument could go on and on, but in addressing the original point of this thread, The Babe is not entirely off topic...
Can anyone honestly say Ruth was a great role model? Had he done half the things he did back then with all the media scrutiny of this era, he would have been demonized much more than he was idolized.
By comparison, and for all the reasons timkell mentioned above, Bonds is quite the role model. Unfortunately he's not media saavy, and in this age, that can really hurt a player's image. There should be no argument about his place in baseball history, and hopefully his legend will be preserved, as was The Babe's.
That is why I left out the role model inferences. Like it or not, these athletes are role models even if the kids could always look to other places. Kids don't grow up wanting to be a teacher. They grow up wanting to be Barry Bonds. Right or wrong, that's the way it is. Bonds has been guilty of nothing other than occasionally putting his foot in his mouth.
I would like to comment on the "best player of his era" statement. There is no question that Ruth was the greatest player of all time, let alone his era. I don't think that the same can be said of Bonds. Before people call me crazy, remember this. Up until a few years ago, everyone was annointing Griffey as the best player in the game. Then, it was A-Rod. It was not until 2001 that Bonds flew past those guys and the rest of the league. INHO, you need a bigger body of work before you put him in the same class as Ruth.
I will close with this column that I saw. While I might not agree with everything in it, it is food for thought:
"Barry Bonds believes that he is a better player than Babe Ruth? Puh-leaze. It's obvious who the better player is. In 22 seasons, Ruth played in 2,503 games, had a career batting average of .342, hit 714 career homers, drove in 2,213 runs, scored 2,174 runs, and walked 2,056 times. Those are truly mythic numbers. Bonds is in his 18th season. As of Monday, he's played in 2,522 games, has a career batting average of .296, hit 644 home runs, totalled 1,716 RBIs, 1,903 runs and 2,009 walks. The Bambino was also one of the best pitchers of his era, recording 94 wins, 46 losses, and a 2.28 ERA. Bonds has never pitched. Ruth won three World Championships with the Red Sox and four with the Yankees. Bonds has never won a World Championship. In 1920, Babe hit 54 HRs, four more than the total of any other major league team that year. Bonds has never done that, has he? Ruth also revitalized baseball and drew millions of fans to the sport after the 1919 World Series scandal. He played in the Dead Ball Era, as opposed to Bonds, who is playing in a very Live Ball Era. Bonds will never be better than Ruth. Ever. After looking at these facts, would anyone who is not named Bonds disagree? I hope not."
As was so nicely pointed out by Joe Morgan on ESPN Sunday night baseball. Bonds faced 3 different pitchers in his 4 plate appearances. He didn't get the luxury that Ruth got of facing the same pitcher over and over during the game. And are you telling me that some of the pitchers Ruth faced (all the whities, as has been pointed out) were major league caliber? I'm sure some of them sucked as much as bad pitchers today.
I agree that if the media didn't love Ruth the way they did, and had the microscope out like they do today, Ruth would be reamed.
Lets see, if I remember correctly, Ruth made more money that President Hoover. When asked by the media if he deserved such, his comment was "I had a better year." I wonder how that would go over these days? Dissing the Prez. There's your role model.
And why don't your kids want to grow up to be teachers? Maybe cause teachers are paid crap and our society is all about money. Your kid doesn't want to grow up to be Bonds. He wants to be Rich. Not provide a positive contribution to society by inspiring children on the fasination of science or the wonders of history.
Give me a break. Bonds is great. I don't think Ruth in today's game would be as great an impact as Bonds would be in Ruth's era.
(That should stir up the hornet nest)
I don't fall into your under 40 category. I saw or remember the stories of some great sluggers. Remember Frank Howard? Man, did this guy have arms! Wasn't the story that one of his home runs at Senators stadium went over 500 feet and smashed the wood seat it hit?
And some great hitters whose careers ended too early like Mantle.
But enough about the Ruth vs Bonds line.
But still Bonds is impressive. You're going to stop what you're doing and watch his at bat. Youi're going to feel excitement as the pitcher winds up cause you know this next swing could be something special. And if the pitcher doesn't walk him, and does get him out somehow, that highlight will appear on ESPN regardless of whether the pitchers pumps his fist or not.
I'm always impressed, and the 39yr old is the great.
As great as Aaron, Mays? The debate continues.