Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, September 20, 2013

Alex Rodriguez passes Lou Gehrig with his 24th career grand slam

The Ixion Horse.

New York Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez is Major League Baseball’s all-time leader in grand slams.

Rodriguez broke a tie with Lou Gehrig and gained sole possession of the top spot on baseball’s all-time list when he hit his 24th career grand slam in the seventh inning of Friday night’s game against the San Francisco Giants at Yankee Stadium.

With the bases loaded and two outs in the seventh, A-Rod ripped a 2-1 92 mph two-seam fastball from Giants reliever George Kontos into the right-field seats for his seventh home run this season.

Prior to the homer, Rodriguez was in the midst of a 1 for 25 slump at the plate.

Repoz Posted: September 20, 2013 at 09:46 PM | 103 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: history, yankees

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: September 20, 2013 at 10:02 PM (#4546752)
The Ixion Horse

or the Iron Centaur--take your pick

(he always did)
   2. TerpNats Posted: September 20, 2013 at 10:13 PM (#4546769)
Let Alex have one all-time home run record...he won't be getting any others.
   3. Dale Sams Posted: September 20, 2013 at 10:16 PM (#4546772)
True Yankee.
   4. The Ghost of Sox Fans Past Posted: September 20, 2013 at 10:24 PM (#4546789)
I had to Google Ixion. He was not a nice guy. Offed his father-in-law. Then, per Wikipedia (bolding mine):

"However, Zeus had pity on Ixion and brought him to Olympus and introduced him at the table of the gods. Instead of being grateful, Ixion grew lustful for Hera, Zeus's wife, a further violation of guest-host relations.'

Well, yeah.
   5. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: September 20, 2013 at 10:28 PM (#4546794)
"However, Zeus had pity on Ixion and brought him to Olympus and introduced him at the table of the gods. Instead of being grateful, Ixion grew lustful for Hera, Zeus's wife, a further violation of guest-host relations.'

but did he leave a gift basket?
   6. Yastrzemski in left. Posted: September 20, 2013 at 10:39 PM (#4546800)
Dale @3 nailed it. Nothing more to be said.
   7. Howie Menckel Posted: September 20, 2013 at 10:48 PM (#4546810)

For the many Bud Selig haters here, this has to be the Holy Grail.

Not only does A-Rod break a hallowed HR record on the cusp of what may be his ultimate banishment, he breaks the record held by LOU GEHRIG.

And Bonds breaks the Hank Aaron mark that took out Babe Ruth.

His task may indeed be done here.

   8. Danny Posted: September 20, 2013 at 10:50 PM (#4546812)
Career with the bases loaded:

A-Rod: 288 PA, 24 HR, 1.093 OPS
Jeter: 294 PA, 1 HR, .786 OPS
   9. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 20, 2013 at 10:50 PM (#4546813)
Gehrig still has the Yankee Grand Slam record, by a wide margin.
   10. Gamingboy Posted: September 20, 2013 at 11:15 PM (#4546840)
DISGRACEFUL.
   11. cardsfanboy Posted: September 20, 2013 at 11:49 PM (#4546876)
Career with the bases loaded:

A-Rod: 288 PA, 24 HR, 1.093 OPS
Jeter: 294 PA, 1 HR, .786 OPS


Of course, if a team is getting the bases loaded, that means the pitcher doesn't have it(regardless of the score) so Jeter is saving his good at bats for when the team isn't likely to be beating up on a weak pitcher.
   12. Jose Molina wants a nickname like "A-Rod" Posted: September 20, 2013 at 11:59 PM (#4546891)
Wait, if Rodriguez hit the home run, then who retrieved his helmet? Is it just sitting there in the infield and the game is going on around it?

Edit: Oh wait, it wasn't a walk-off HR. Okay, I'm sure everything's fine then.
   13. rufus was here Posted: September 21, 2013 at 06:32 AM (#4547001)
Of course he waited until the Yankees were all but eliminated from post-season play before hitting it. If the team were truly in contention, he would have struck out.
   14. Mike Webber Posted: September 21, 2013 at 11:13 AM (#4547080)
1973 Topps Grand Slam Leaders this is one of the many cards I had as a kid that I loved. Was just fascinated that Gehrig had 6 more than the next guy on the list. If only I had sealed it in plastic and never touched it would be worth $7.20 today!
   15. Publius Publicola Posted: September 21, 2013 at 11:21 AM (#4547085)
Wait, if Rodriguez hit the home run, then who retrieved his helmet?


The jockey.
   16. gehrig97 Posted: September 21, 2013 at 11:41 AM (#4547099)
Michael Kay's call of the HR was quite surprising (if anyone has a clip with the YES Network audio feed, check it out). After the initial call, he flat-out said "well, it is what it is," and referenced A-Rod's PED use. There was no joy in it. O'Neill and Leiter also kept quiet for a moment -- not out of respect or awe, but because it was a somewhat awkward moment.

For those who don't watch local Yankees broadcasts, Micahel Kay is (among other things) an unabashed "homer" and in some ways the face of the YES Network. For him not to wet his pants during what should have been an iconic moment in Yankees history was somewhat startling. The Gehrig record was among the most hallowed of team accomplishments.
   17. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 21, 2013 at 12:41 PM (#4547143)
For those who don't watch local Yankees broadcasts, Micahel Kay is (among other things) an unabashed "homer"

Not really that much, and I get the YES feed for all their home games. He doesn't gloss over Yankees in slumps, he doesn't try to diminish opponents, he never uses "we" as a synonym for "the Yankees", and other than shilling the products (obviously a job requirement) I can't see any "bias" in his delivery that even remotely approaches some of the other announcers around the league. His call on the A-Rod homer last night just shows that like many people who don't stick their heads in the sand and worship nothing but the numbers on the page, he sees A-Rod's accomplishments in a less than shining light. He's certainly not the only Yankee fan who feels conflicted about all this.
   18. Foghorn Leghorn Posted: September 21, 2013 at 01:06 PM (#4547157)
For me it was awesome. 23 is a long held number. I remember the 1973 card

Good times.
   19. The District Attorney Posted: September 21, 2013 at 01:08 PM (#4547162)
Michael Kay's call of the HR was quite surprising (if anyone has a clip with the YES Network audio feed, check it out). After the initial call, he flat-out said "well, it is what it is," and referenced A-Rod's PED use.
Oh, for cryin' out flayvin.
   20. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 21, 2013 at 01:46 PM (#4547183)
For those who don't watch local Yankees broadcasts, Micahel Kay is (among other things) an unabashed "homer" and in some ways the face of the YES Network. For him not to wet his pants during what should have been an iconic moment in Yankees history was somewhat startling. The Gehrig record was among the most hallowed of team accomplishments.


He took Girardi to pieces for leaving Joba in on Thursday night to face Adam Lind, who promptly gave up a three-run homer to put another nail in the Yankees' playoff hopes.

(I'm making no judgment on Girardi's move, just noting Kay's reaction to it. Kay kept harping on it. There was a lefty ready but I'm not sure how good he is or whether Gibbons would have countered with someone. And I note that although Joba has been ruined by the Yankees, he's done much better against LHP this year. FWIW.)
   21. thok Posted: September 21, 2013 at 02:20 PM (#4547191)
Career with the bases loaded:

A-Rod: 288 PA, 24 HR, 1.093 OPS
Jeter: 294 PA, 1 HR, .786 OPS


I'm surprised they are that close in bases loaded plate appearances, given that I typically think of Jeter batting second and A-Rod batting clean up. I would have expected A-Rod to have significantly more plate appearance with the bases loaded.
   22. spike Posted: September 21, 2013 at 02:38 PM (#4547199)
His call on the A-Rod homer last night just shows that like many people who don't stick their heads in the sand and worship nothing but the numbers on the page, he sees A-Rod's accomplishments in a less than shining light. He's certainly not the only Yankee fan who feels conflicted about all this.

Given the significant difference in demeanor shown one Yankee abuser, and the entirety of the rest up to and including Clemens, this rings quite hollow. Given the multiple PED users on the Yankee championship teams that O'Neill played for, I am shocked Kay didn't ask him to surrender his rings on-air, or at least mention the taint surrounding the Aura and Mystique era.
   23. Foghorn Leghorn Posted: September 21, 2013 at 03:29 PM (#4547219)
His call on the A-Rod homer last night just shows that like many people who don't stick their heads in the sand and worship nothing but the numbers on the page
Stick their head in the sand? About what? WHo do you think does that? Who do you know that worships nothing but numbers on a page?
   24. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 21, 2013 at 04:20 PM (#4547235)
For those who don't watch local Yankees broadcasts, Micahel Kay is (among other things) an unabashed "homer" and in some ways the face of the YES Network. For him not to wet his pants during what should have been an iconic moment in Yankees history was somewhat startling. The Gehrig record was among the most hallowed of team accomplishments.


Not really that much, and I get the YES feed for all their home games. He doesn't gloss over Yankees in slumps, he doesn't try to diminish opponents, he never uses "we" as a synonym for "the Yankees", and other than shilling the products (obviously a job requirement) I can't see any "bias" in his delivery that even remotely approaches some of the other announcers around the league. His call on the A-Rod homer last night just shows that like many people who don't stick their heads in the sand and worship nothing but the numbers on the page, he sees A-Rod's accomplishments in a less than shining light. He's certainly not the only Yankee fan who feels conflicted about all this.

Stick their head in the sand? About what? WHo do you think does that? Who do you know that worships nothing but numbers on a page?


My comment was in direct reply to the one that suggested that (a) Kay is "an unabashed 'homer'", and (b) that there was something surprising about Kay's low-key call on A-Rod's grand slam. If anyone was even micro-surprised that Kay played it low key, they haven't been watching many YES telecasts, or they must have muted the sound whenever Kay was talking about A-Rod and steroids.

And if you can't find anyone around here who worships nothing but numbers on a page when it comes to evaluating baseball players, you've been out in the Sun too long. Try searching this site for "anecdotal evidence" if you're in need of any help.
   25. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: September 21, 2013 at 05:00 PM (#4547242)
His call on the A-Rod homer last night just shows that like many people who don't stick their heads in the sand and worship nothing but the numbers on the page
Says the guy who admits to wanting desperately to protect the pre-Bonds record book. Those numbers, apparently, are okay to worship.
   26. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 21, 2013 at 05:37 PM (#4547258)
His call on the A-Rod homer last night just shows that like many people who don't stick their heads in the sand and worship nothing but the numbers on the page

Says the guy who admits to wanting desperately to protect the pre-Bonds record book. Those numbers, apparently, are okay to worship.


Let's see: Should I just call that statement a lie and be done with it, or should I be a sport about it and offer you a hundred bucks if you can provide me with one statement I've ever made to that effect? The closest I ever came to anything like that was when I said that anyone who wanted to had a perfect right to publish an "adjusted" record book, but never once did I say that any such book should replace the one we have now.

Seriously, you're generally a good guy and this was probably just a memory slip on your part, but not once have I ever based my views on steroids on their effect on individual records, in part because I don't give a #### about individual records to begin with. Barry Bonds holds the home run records, and no amount of "steroid adjustment" can ever change the numbers in the book, nor should they. The only "punishment" I've ever wanted to mete out to proven pre-testing era steroid users is to deny them a Hall of Fame induction. That's it, period. Disagree with that and call me all the names you want because of it, but at least acknowledge that I'm not looking to change the record books.
   27. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: September 21, 2013 at 05:44 PM (#4547263)
The closest I ever came to anything like that was when I said that anyone who wanted to had a perfect right to publish an "adjusted" record book...
Oh, stop. You actively argued for the silly-ball era records to be branded with asterisks in the book, or have them left shunted to some section where they can be de-legitimized and forgotten.

Seriously, you're generally a good guy, but the whole "people who stick their heads in the sand and worship nothing but the numbers on the page" is unbelievably insulting, especially given how well you know those of us here making the counterarguments.
   28. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 21, 2013 at 06:05 PM (#4547273)
The closest I ever came to anything like that was when I said that anyone who wanted to had a perfect right to publish an "adjusted" record book...

Oh, stop. You actively argued for the silly-ball era records to be branded with asterisks in the book, or have them left shunted to some section where they can be de-legitimized and forgotten.


I think you're conflating my enthusiastic and unapologetic support for the asterisk BALL with support for asterisking the record book. Two entirely different matters. I've never once shed a single tear for Roger Maris's 61 or Hank Aaron's 755, and certainly not to the point of wanting to see Bonds's records stricken. My entire complaint about steroids is that it tilted the scales on the playing fields that Bonds & Co. competed on, long after Maris was dead and long after Aaron had retired.

Seriously, you're generally a good guy, but the whole "people who stick their heads in the sand and worship nothing but the numbers on the page" is unbelievably insulting, especially given how well you know those of us here making the counterarguments.

That comment was as much directed at the sabermetrically obsessive turns that many HoF debates take as it was about steroids. Again, search for "anecdotal evidence" on BTF and see how many times that things like contemporary reputations and the opinions of a player's peers get routinely dismissed. That's what I call "numbers worshipping" to the exclusion of anything else, and it's a common feature to just about every HoF debate on this site that's about non-slam dunk candidates.
   29. Foghorn Leghorn Posted: September 21, 2013 at 06:10 PM (#4547275)
And if you can't find anyone around here who worships nothing but numbers on a page when it comes to evaluating baseball players, you've been out in the Sun too long. Try searching this site for "anecdotal evidence" if you're in need of any help.
Oh, you are a Frankie Frisch voter.

   30. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: September 21, 2013 at 06:13 PM (#4547277)
I think you're conflating my enthusiastic and unapologetic support for the asterisk BALL with support for asterisking the record book.
It was in one of the asterisk ball threads where you said clearly that the whole reason behind your enthusiasm was to protect those old records.

Again, search for "anecdotal evidence" on BTF and see how many times that things like contemporary reputations and the opinions of a player's peers get routinely dismissed. That's what I call "numbers worshipping" to the exclusion of anything else, and it's a common feature to just about every HoF debate on this site that's about non-slam dunk candidates.
That's just another, much longer, way of saying "get your head out of a spreadsheet and watch a game." You're not at RDP-level in your dismissiveness, but on this issue you're close.
   31. AJMcCringleberry Posted: September 21, 2013 at 06:25 PM (#4547282)
I'm surprised they are that close in bases loaded plate appearances, given that I typically think of Jeter batting second and A-Rod batting clean up. I would have expected A-Rod to have significantly more plate appearance with the bases loaded.

That's because Jeter makes the guys in front of him better!
   32. Random Transaction Generator Posted: September 21, 2013 at 06:54 PM (#4547294)
I'm surprised they are that close in bases loaded plate appearances, given that I typically think of Jeter batting second and A-Rod batting clean up. I would have expected A-Rod to have significantly more plate appearance with the bases loaded.


Excluding the first inning PAs:

Derek Jeter: 9518 PA
Alex Rodriguez: 9260 PA

So Jeter's had 250 extra PA outside the 1st inning, so that might help account for making up the difference in bases-loaded chances.

   33. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 21, 2013 at 08:33 PM (#4547337)
Stick their head in the sand? About what? WHo do you think does that? Who do you know that worships nothing but numbers on a page?


Andy thinks steroids are magic pills.
   34. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 21, 2013 at 08:36 PM (#4547339)

Let's see: Should I just call that statement a lie and be done with it, or should I be a sport about it and offer you a hundred bucks if you can provide me with one statement I've ever made to that effect? The closest I ever came to anything like that was when I said that anyone who wanted to had a perfect right to publish an "adjusted" record book, but never once did I say that any such book should replace the one we have now.

Seriously, you're generally a good guy and this was probably just a memory slip on your part, but not once have I ever based my views on steroids on their effect on individual records, in part because I don't give a #### about individual records to begin with. Barry Bonds holds the home run records, and no amount of "steroid adjustment" can ever change the numbers in the book, nor should they. The only "punishment" I've ever wanted to mete out to proven pre-testing era steroid users is to deny them a Hall of Fame induction. That's it, period. Disagree with that and call me all the names you want because of it, but at least acknowledge that I'm not looking to change the record books.


The Mark Ecko thread says hello.
   35. Publius Publicola Posted: September 21, 2013 at 09:00 PM (#4547357)
Michael Kay's call of the HR was quite surprising (if anyone has a clip with the YES Network audio feed, check it out). After the initial call, he flat-out said "well, it is what it is," and referenced A-Rod's PED use. There was no joy in it. O'Neill and Leiter also kept quiet for a moment -- not out of respect or awe, but because it was a somewhat awkward moment.


I think this says two things:

1. Michael has "Property of New York Yankees" stamped on his ass.

2. The Yankees front office genuinely dislikes A-Rod to the point of disowning him.

Of course, we already knew both so it doesn't change much.
   36. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 21, 2013 at 10:13 PM (#4547415)
I think you're conflating my enthusiastic and unapologetic support for the asterisk BALL with support for asterisking the record book.

It was in one of the asterisk ball threads where you said clearly that the whole reason behind your enthusiasm was to protect those old records.


I guess you figure that if you repeat a lie often enough, you might think that people will believe it. But here's one of those Ecko threads from November of 2007. Be my guest. The record book isn't even mentioned. The entire thread was about the "defacement" of the ball and my opinion (which I still hold) that the asterisk was a beautiful way of beginning a discussion of the controversy that surrounds Bonds.

And BTW you also might check out Post #170 on that thread, where Gambling Rent had the character to apologize directly to me three times for having previously misrepresented my views on Bonds. I doubt if the likes of a habitual misrepresenter like Ray would ever display such character as to admit he'd been wrong about my views, but miracles have been known to happen.

Oh, and here's another 487 post thread on the Ecko ball, AFAIK the first thread of any length. Feel free to look for a smoking gun there, too, in between Szym's sputterings about vandalism. Here's the only reference I made about the record book:

364. Jolly Old St. Nick Done Jumped The Ship Posted: September 28, 2007 at 04:36 PM (#2547927)
And don't worry, the record itself will always be there, along with the accompanying game tapes and other Bonds-related paraphernalia. You won't have to fret that Bonds's side of the story will always be on prominent display---the record book alone will guarantee that, as it should.


I'm sure there were other Ecko threads besides those two, but since they contain over 600 comments, including many of mine on every page, they're likely to be fairly representative of all of them. I haven't changed my views on either the ball or the record books since then.
   37. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 21, 2013 at 10:28 PM (#4547428)
Andy, how in the world is your post #36 not support for the assertion that "the whole reason behind your enthusiasm was to protect those old records"? You mention that the asterisk on the ball was a "beautiful way of beginning a discussion of the controversy that surrounds Bonds" -- you support beginning a "discussion" about the controversy based on the asterisk ball, because you think Bonds's home run record is illegitimate. You state "You won't have to fret that Bonds's side of the story will always be on prominent display" -- suggesting very clearly that you have a different view of the home run record from "Bonds's side of the story."

You don't have to demand a "new record book" - whatever the hell that means - to be out to protect the old records. Smearing the new records in itself protects the old records. That's what the asterisk ball does.
   38. cardsfanboy Posted: September 21, 2013 at 10:41 PM (#4547433)
You don't have to demand a "new record book" - whatever the hell that means - to be out to protect the old records. Smearing the new records in itself protects the old records. That's what the asterisk ball does.


Not in the slightest. The asterisk ball creates a discussion about how the record happen, it doesn't have ONE thing to do with the actual record book.

Events prior to 1920/1947/1961 are still in the record books, but people are educated enough to adjust those when discussing the quality of the performance. Josh Gibson is not in any official record book, and people know about him. People are complex enough to look at things at multiple levels.
   39. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 21, 2013 at 10:55 PM (#4547442)
Not in the slightest. The asterisk ball creates a discussion about how the record happen, it doesn't have ONE thing to do with the actual record book.


Lol.
   40. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 21, 2013 at 10:55 PM (#4547443)
Events prior to 1920/1947/1961 are still in the record books, but people are educated enough to adjust those when discussing the quality of the performance. Josh Gibson is not in any official record book, and people know about him. People are complex enough to look at things at multiple levels.


But not complex enough to be able to do that without seeing a defaced ball with an asterisk in order to "start the discussion," apparently.
   41. cardsfanboy Posted: September 21, 2013 at 11:01 PM (#4547445)
But not complex enough to be able to do that without defacing the ball with an asterisk in order to "start the discussion," apparently.


People make statements all different ways. It has nothing to do with the actual record book. Sure there are a few people that want to change the record books, but you get these type of people all the time. Those who want to deny the facts in front of them, that is how you get 9/11 conspiracy theorist, JFK conspiracy nutjobs, and global warming denier nutters.... People are stupid on issues all the time that they are passionate about. It doesn't change the facts.



   42. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 21, 2013 at 11:18 PM (#4547449)
I never said Andy had called for "the record book" to be changed. That has always been a strawman on his part.

He thinks steroids users (but not amps users!) are cheaters. He thinks steroids enhanced performance (but not amps!). He thinks Bonds took steroids. So how could he possibly feel that Bonds's record is legitimate? He doesn't. That's why he wants to "start the discussion" via the defaced ball, to get out another "side of the story." What does this accomplish? It helps protect the Maris record of Andy's youth, by denigrating Bonds's record.
   43. Walt Davis Posted: September 21, 2013 at 11:33 PM (#4547458)
It helps protect the Maris record of Andy's youth, by denigrating Bonds's record.

If that's Andy's plan then he should retract his previous statements that he doesn't think that there is sufficient evidence against Sosa to deny him the HoF.
   44. cardsfanboy Posted: September 22, 2013 at 12:06 AM (#4547464)
He thinks steroids users (but not amps users!) are cheaters.


I don't see a problem with that. I don't agree with that at all, but I don't see a problem with it.

He thinks steroids enhanced performance (but not amps!).

Then on this issue, he's clearly wrong. I don't see how anyone can reasonably argue that, but sometimes people are set in their ways. I've seen that argument twisted, and it's one of the more popular argument, but it just makes no logical sense when spelled out.

He thinks Bonds took steroids. So how could he possibly feel that Bonds's record is legitimate? He doesn't. That's why he wants to "start the discussion" via the defaced ball, to get out another "side of the story." What does this accomplish? It helps protect the Maris record of Andy's youth, by denigrating Bonds's record.


If that is truly his point of view, I don't see a problem with it. Plenty of people argue about Ruth's career record not being legitimate because a good 20% of the best players in the world were kept out of the game. I've seen people put forth arguments that timeline Honus Wagner to being a bench player on a non-contending team. I see what they are trying to do, and it creates some wonderful discussions, but I'll never agree with them.



Ultimately it's this simple. Ask Andy who holds the major league career single season homerun record. His answer will probably be "Bonds, but...." and that is a perfectly legitimate argument. Is he going to get this question wrong if he's on who wants to be a millionaire and it's asked? If he is going to get it right, then he isn't denying the record, and everything else he does is reasonable in that regards.
   45. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 22, 2013 at 07:57 AM (#4547503)
I see that FINALLY it seems to have gotten across that I'm not trying to change the record books. Nice try, Ray, and don't pretend that the entire point of your one-liner in #34 wasn't to imply that I have been, since those Ecko threads prove the exact opposite. Strawman, indeed. I'm curious to see how the Hombre of LA/Anaheim responds if he ever gets around to it.

He thinks steroids users (but not amps users!) are cheaters. He thinks steroids enhanced performance (but not amps!). He thinks Bonds took steroids. So how could he possibly feel that Bonds's record is legitimate? He doesn't. That's why he wants to "start the discussion" via the defaced ball, to get out another "side of the story." What does this accomplish? It helps protect the Maris record of Andy's youth, by denigrating Bonds's record.

As Walt notes, if that were the case, why wouldn't I be trying to denigrate Sosa's record as well? If Bonds and McGwire had been salined in their mother's wombs, my "boyhood hero" Maris's record would still have been shattered, and yet I'm probably in a minority in holding that the evidence against Sosa is insufficient to deny him the HoF. If my concerns were really all about Roger Maris**, why wouldn't I also follow the great majority of writers and HoF voters and try to discredit Sosa?

----------------------------------------------

Ultimately it's this simple. Ask Andy who holds the major league career single season homerun record. His answer will probably be "Bonds, but...." and that is a perfectly legitimate argument. Is he going to get this question wrong if he's on who wants to be a millionaire and it's asked? If he is going to get it right, then he isn't denying the record, and everything else he does is reasonable in that regards.

To that I'd only add that "Bonds, but...." would be followed by my opinion ONLY about what I think Bonds and other known juicers did to the game on the field they were competing on, and NOT to the home run record. What Bonds did to tilt the level playing field in his own time by using steroids is what that asterisk on the Ecko ball symbolizes to me; the actual number on the ball is merely incidental. I realize that this rather elementary distinction is beyond the grasp of some people, but perhaps we've now raised the level of awareness by a sliver or so among people whose prior problems have been faulty recollection rather than chronic dishonesty.

**Who BTW never broke Babe Ruth's record, since he only hit 59 home runs in his first 154 games. Maris instead set a separate 162 record of his own that was later broken by McGwire, Sosa and Bonds, who also smashed Ruth's record in the process. I hope that clears up my view on record book "asterisks".

   46. bobm Posted: September 22, 2013 at 08:49 AM (#4547518)
I saw online this morning a science fiction story from years ago called "Centaur Fielder for the Yankees."
   47. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 22, 2013 at 10:05 AM (#4547543)
It's nice to see you proclaiming victory over something that I never argued, Andy. I never said you wanted to change the record book. I said you were out to protect the old records, by denigrating the new ones. The asterisk on the ball is a de facto way to do just that. It's hard to believe you are even arguing that it isn't.
   48. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 22, 2013 at 10:23 AM (#4547551)
It's nice to see you proclaiming victory over something that I never argued, Andy. I never said you wanted to change the record book. I said you were out to protect the old records,

That's still a lie, but nothing can apparently stop you from lying, since you've been repeating the same lie for the past six years. Apparently you're also too stupid to understand the difference between an objection to how steroids affected the game being played in real time and an objection to something as trivial as an individual home run record.

And again, if my motive is being Roger Maris's posthumous bodyguard, why haven't I also tried to protect him against Sammy Sosa? Don't strain your little brain trying to figure out a response to that.

The asterisk on the ball is a de facto way to do just that. It's hard to believe you are even arguing that it isn't.

Yes, and your bogus "libertarianism" is just a "de facto" way of keeping your taxes to a bare minimum, which is all you care about, and all your concern about "freedom" is nothing but a smoke screen. Everyone "knows" that, so why don't you just admit it?
   49. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM (#4547578)
Yes, and your bogus "libertarianism" is just a "de facto" way of keeping your taxes to a bare minimum, which is all you care about, and all your concern about "freedom" is nothing but a smoke screen. Everyone "knows" that, so why don't you just admit it?


? I've admitted that I want my taxes kept to a bare minimum. I've stated that over and over again, for years. I'm stating it now. Here: I want my taxes kept to a bare minimum. But there's no "freedom smokescreen"; that's part of what freedom IS.

Now that you've tried to divert the discussion to politics, I await your admission that you are out to protect the old records. Or don't admit it. It's obvious because there's no other way to read your stance on the steroids issue, from the Ecko ball to wanting "juicers" kept out of the Hall to your nonsensical distinctions about amps to everything else. The real mystery is why you are even denying this. It's not like you're being asked to confess to the JonBenet Ramsey murder.
   50. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 22, 2013 at 11:40 AM (#4547583)
? I've admitted that I want my taxes kept to a bare minimum. I've stated that over and over again, for years. I'm stating it now. Here: I want my taxes kept to a bare minimum. That's part of what freedom IS.

No, to you that's ALL of what "freedom" is: The lowest possible tax rate. Why don't you just admit it? All that other BS about "freedom" is just a smokescreen.

Beyond that, all you're doing is repeating the same old lie about why I oppose steroids, despite zero evidence to back it up, and despite mountainous evidence to the contrary. I guess I can't expect anything else from such a serially dishonest person.
   51. BDC Posted: September 22, 2013 at 11:43 AM (#4547584)
I saw online this morning a science fiction story from years ago called "Centaur Fielder for the Yankees."

Dang, that really exists, and I've never seen it. Fiction is stranger than truth.
   52. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 22, 2013 at 01:05 PM (#4547640)
Beyond that, all you're doing is repeating the same old lie about why I oppose steroids, despite zero evidence to back it up, and despite mountainous evidence to the contrary. I guess I can't expect anything else from such a serially dishonest person.


Yawn. There is no other way to read your presentation. But I've always been willing to grant that you are irrational on this topic, rather than dishonest.
   53. bobm Posted: September 22, 2013 at 01:34 PM (#4547662)
I saw online this morning a science fiction story from years ago called "Centaur Fielder for the Yankees."

Dang, that really exists, and I've never seen it. Fiction is stranger than truth.


Browse here: http://www.ebooktrove.com/science-fiction/58-a-is-for-prolific-asimov.html

and scroll down to the link to "Mythical Beasties"
   54. boteman Posted: September 22, 2013 at 04:06 PM (#4547732)
@ZuckermanCSN: Juan Pierre now has more career hits (2,216) than Joe DiMaggio. Yeah, I'm trying to wrap my head around that one, too.

Begin rending of garments, wringing of hands...when will the Yankees carnage end???!!
   55. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: September 22, 2013 at 04:35 PM (#4547747)
That's still a lie, but nothing can apparently stop you from lying, since you've been repeating the same lie for the past six years. Apparently you're also too stupid to understand the difference between an objection to how steroids affected the game being played in real time and an objection to something as trivial as an individual home run record.
I'm curious to see how the Hombre of LA/Anaheim responds if he ever gets around to it.
On this particular issue, I agree with Ray's interpretation of your comments. Look at it this way: If someone were seriously going to brand Aaron's 715 ball with an asterisk because the ball's owner thought amphetamines were a performance enhancing drug, you'd lose your #### because, among other reasons, it's a historically important artifact. Yet you have no problems having someone do the same to the Bonds ball because you don't like it.

I have no problems with people expressing their differing opinions on Bonds' record. You actively rooted for the defacement of a historic baseball artifact because you don't like the record it represents. You don't like it, so you want to disfigure it.

What Bonds did to tilt the level playing field in his own time by using steroids is what that asterisk on the Ecko ball symbolizes to me; the actual number on the ball is merely incidental.
Then why not go back and brand every ball from the era? McGwire's homers, Sosa's, Palmiero's... Hell, why stop there? Destroy any artifact that might be tainted with the stench of PEDs! History should only say what we want it to say. Or is it just Bonds' ball that we should worry about? Why should symbolic defacement of artifacts be so targeted? If you want to send the message that steroids affected the era negatively, then why not brand everything in the era? Feh.

Have whatever opinion you want, and we can argue about it all decade, but when you start endorsing the defacing and destruction of actual historical artifacts, you've moved into the area where you aren't to be taken seriously.
   56. BDC Posted: September 22, 2013 at 04:57 PM (#4547774)
Wow! Thanks, bobm, that's great.

EDIT: Just read "Centaur Fielder." It is a hoot.
   57. SoSH U at work Posted: September 22, 2013 at 04:58 PM (#4547775)
Then why not go back and brand every ball from the era? McGwire's homers, Sosa's, Palmiero's... Hell, why stop there? Destroy any artifact that might be tainted with the stench of PEDs! History should only say what we want it to say. Or is it just Bonds' ball that we should worry about? Why should symbolic defacement of artifacts be so targeted? If you want to send the message that steroids affected the era negatively, then why not brand everything in the era? Feh.


Oh good lord. These are baseballs. They are meant to be hit and thrown and caught until they are no longer suitable for hitting, throwing and catching. The only defacement that can happen to a goddamned baseball is to take it out of commission and put it on a ####### shelf somewhere. Blecch.

I can only imagine this conversation at the hall. "Oooh, look there's the actual baseball that Dale Long hit for a home run, his eighth straight game with a circuit clout. You might notice its striking similarity to every other baseball in here."

These aren't works of art. They're not important historical artifacts. They are mass-produced orbs that dumbasses fought for in the stands and then peddled to some other dumbass with way too much money.

There's only one baseball at the Hall I would find remotely interesting, and that's the Ecko ball. Not because I think Bonds isn't the true homer champ. He is. Without buts. But because the Ecko ball is the only one in there that's actually got something to say other than "I was there." It hints at something about that time and that chase and what surrounded it in a way none of those other untarnished balls can. And as it's got an asterisk without an explanation, what it ultimately says is entirely up to the viewer.

Oh, and he bought it. So if you are one of those libertarian types who value personal property over all else, that should have been the end of the discussion, I reckon.

But hell, whether you agree with me is kind of beside the point. I'm unmistakably pro-Bonds as homer king and pro-Ecko ball. I don't see why Andy can't be likewise.
   58. Howie Menckel Posted: September 22, 2013 at 05:11 PM (#4547806)

"They are meant to be hit and thrown and caught until they are no longer suitable for hitting, throwing and catching."

Not a McGwire fan, but I remember, I guess it was 1998, when someone asked McGwire what he would pay to have possession of the record-breaking home run ball.

His answer, paraphrased, was basically, "I don't know, 10 bucks? It's just a ball."

I did love that answer.
   59. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 22, 2013 at 05:33 PM (#4547825)
Look at it this way: If someone were seriously going to brand Aaron's 715 ball with an asterisk because the ball's owner thought amphetamines were a performance enhancing drug, you'd lose your #### because, among other reasons, it's a historically important artifact. Yet you have no problems having someone do the same to the Bonds ball because you don't like it.

Well, Aaron's #715 never left the ballpark, because back in 1974 the first thought that came to someone's mind wasn't "Gee, how much money can I get for this?" Instead, it was turned over to Aaron by his teammate Tom House, and now resides in a case in Turner Field. Blame whatever 21st century greed impulse you wish for the fate suffered by poor #756.

Anyway, now I notice that you've stopped making any more bogus claims about what I actually wrote back in those Ecko threads, as you were doing in #25** and #27***. Now you're just retreating to the tried and true Ray-Ray move of claiming you can read my mind. I'll count that as progress of sorts.

And BTW why do you think I've never said anything negative about Sosa's 66? Where's my Roger Maris protective shield there, if it's all about my "wanting desperately to protect the pre-Bonds record book"? If I gave a rat's patooie about Maris, wouldn't you think I'd be parroting the anti-Sosa crowd and be talking about corked bats, leaked testimony, and Sosa's congressional testimony?

Of course Ray's simply too cowardly to answer that simple question, because an honest answer wouldn't fit into his grand narrative. But since in other threads your general mode of honesty is way above Ray's, perhaps you might like to ponder the question and come up with an answer that makes sense.

** "Says the guy who admits to wanting desperately to protect the pre-Bonds record book."

*** "You actively argued for the silly-ball era records to be branded with asterisks in the book, or have them left shunted to some section where they can be de-legitimized and forgotten."

   60. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 22, 2013 at 05:38 PM (#4547829)
There's only one baseball at the Hall I would find remotely interesting, and that's the Ecko ball. Not because I think Bonds isn't the true homer champ. He is. Without buts. But because the Ecko ball is the only one in there that's actually got something to say other than "I was there." It hints at something about that time and that chase and what surrounded it in a way none of those other untarnished balls can. And as it's got an asterisk without an explanation, what it ultimately says is entirely up to the viewer.

Oh, and he bought it. So if you are one of those libertarian types who value personal property over all else, that should have been the end of the discussion, I reckon.

But hell, whether you agree with me is kind of beside the point. I'm unmistakably pro-Bonds as homer king and pro-Ecko ball.


My sentiments exactly, and very well expressed, especially the part that I highlighted.

I don't see why Andy can't be likewise.

Maybe Ray and / or El Hombre can answer that one without twisting themselves into knots. We'll see.

   61. CrosbyBird Posted: September 22, 2013 at 06:06 PM (#4547840)
And as it's got an asterisk without an explanation, what it ultimately says is entirely up to the viewer.

That's not entirely true. The asterisk has a meaning: this, on it's own, doesn't tell a complete story.

If I see two baseballs that commemorate different records, and one has an asterisk, I cannot help but naturally think that there's some qualification involved in that second record. It could be a positive qualification, to be sure, like listing OJ Simpson's single-season rushing record as 2003* (in 14 games, to be distinguished from the typical 16 games in a season).

Specifically, however, I expect that practically everyone who is enough of a fan to show up at the HOF museum will know that this particular asterisk represents negative commentary. If I write Ruth's single-season HR record as 60*, we could debate whether that's a negative (pre-integration) or a positive (154 rather than 162 games). But there's no mystery in the Bonds ball at all.
   62. SoSH U at work Posted: September 22, 2013 at 06:24 PM (#4547842)
That's not entirely true. The asterisk has a meaning: this, on it's own, doesn't tell a complete story.


That's what I'm saying. Now, what Ecko likely intended was for the viewer to draw a conclusion about the validity of the record due to juicing. But that's the beauty (whether intentional or not) of the explanation-free asterisk. It really is an open-ended "but...."

Ray, if he were so inclined, could someday point to the ball and tell Ray Jr.* that the asterisk signifies how this milestone was so unlike any other in that many of the powers that be in MLB were actively rooting against it and the man who would be king. And the vindictiveness of these evil lords was so obvious and thorough that only months later the man who set the mark was essentially blackballed from the game, despite producing at levels mere all-stars only dream of.

*
   63. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 22, 2013 at 06:25 PM (#4547845)
Look at it this way: If someone were seriously going to brand Aaron's 715 ball with an asterisk because the ball's owner thought amphetamines were a performance enhancing drug, you'd lose your #### because, among other reasons, it's a historically important artifact. Yet you have no problems having someone do the same to the Bonds ball because you don't like it.

Well, Aaron's #715 never left the ballpark, because back in 1974 the first thought that came to someone's mind wasn't "Gee, how much money can I get for this?" Instead, it was turned over to Aaron by his teammate Tom House, and now resides in a case in Turner Field. Blame whatever 21st century greed impulse you wish for the fate suffered by poor #756.

Anyway, now I notice that you've stopped making any more bogus claims about what I actually wrote back in those Ecko threads, as you were doing in #25** and #27***. Now you're just retreating to the tried and true Ray-Ray move of claiming you can read my mind. I'll count that as progress of sorts.

And BTW why do you think I've never said anything negative about Sosa's 66? Where's my Roger Maris protective shield there, if it's all about my "wanting desperately to protect the pre-Bonds record book"? If I gave a rat's patooie about Maris, wouldn't you think I'd be parroting the anti-Sosa crowd and be talking about corked bats, leaked testimony, and Sosa's congressional testimony?

Of course Ray's simply too cowardly to answer that simple question, because an honest answer wouldn't fit into his grand narrative. But since in other threads your general mode of honesty is way above Ray's, perhaps you might like to ponder the question and come up with an answer that makes sense.


I don't see a response to the Aaron 715 ball hypothetical anywhere in there.
   64. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 22, 2013 at 06:27 PM (#4547846)
And as it's got an asterisk without an explanation, what it ultimately says is entirely up to the viewer.

That's not entirely true. The asterisk has a meaning: this, on it's own, doesn't tell a complete story.


The asterisk's meaning in this context is negative. "This record is tainted."

The "discussion" Andy wants "started" with the asterisk is a conversation about how the Bonds record is tainted.

Is this seriously in dispute?
   65. Publius Publicola Posted: September 22, 2013 at 06:32 PM (#4547849)
The asterisk's meaning in this context is negative. "This record is tainted."


You say that like it's a bad thing.
   66. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 22, 2013 at 06:36 PM (#4547854)
You say that like it's a bad thing.


It may or may not be, depending on your perspective.

Andy is trying to claim with a straight face that his support with branding the Bonds ball with an asterisk doesn't mean he cares about home run records.
   67. The District Attorney Posted: September 22, 2013 at 06:43 PM (#4547857)
I'm shocked that any non-steroid crusader would back Andy on his dumb Ecko ball thing. I find the simple claim that amps were qualitatively different than steroids much more plausible than I do the claim that the Ecko ball is some sort of puckishly humorous, yet deeply meaningful performance art that helps progress the conversation about PED in baseball.
   68. Publius Publicola Posted: September 22, 2013 at 06:46 PM (#4547862)
It's his ball. He paid for it. He can do anything he wants with it. And all the asterisk is doing is emphasizing what everyone is thinking anyway.

What have we become, the BTF Gestapo?
   69. SoSH U at work Posted: September 22, 2013 at 07:06 PM (#4547870)
I'm shocked that any non-steroid crusader would back Andy on his dumb Ecko ball thing. I find the simple claim that amps were qualitatively different than steroids much more plausible than I do the claim that the Ecko ball is some sort of puckishly humorous, yet deeply meaningful performance art that helps progress the conversation about PED in baseball.


And I find the claim that placing the simple mark generated by hitting the shift and 8 keys simultaneously on a leather spheroid mass-produced by the Rawlings Company is akin to drawing a dildo over the mouth of the Mona Lisa. So I guess we're at a standstill.

I don't care what Ecko was intending. I think what he ended up with is far more interesting than all of the other "historic" balls in Cooperstown. And I think this as a non-steroid crusader. I thought so then. I think so now. And I came to that conclusion without any help from Andy at all, even with the big words.

And as for the question Ray posed upthread. I'm generally going to trust Andy believes what Andy says he believes rather than what Ray says Andy believes. I would do that regardless, though in the specific case here, Ray has such a tremendously piss-poor record of declaring what I believe that it's really a no-brainer.



   70. Publius Publicola Posted: September 22, 2013 at 07:23 PM (#4547876)
Can somebody read the short story Bob references and give a review please? For instance, did the centaur have purple lips? Did he have a less talented but more heralded centaur around him all the time? Was he always running afoul of centaur statutes and proprieties, while always claiming innocence? Did he slap the carrot out of another centaur's mouth with his white hoof?
   71. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: September 22, 2013 at 07:26 PM (#4547877)
What have we become, the BTF Gestapo?
Clearly not, because guys who get banned multiple times for being lying liars who live to start fights still get to hang around.
   72. CrosbyBird Posted: September 22, 2013 at 07:34 PM (#4547879)
I don't care what Ecko was intending. I think what he ended up with is far more interesting than all of the other "historic" balls in Cooperstown. And I think this as a non-steroid crusader. I thought so then. I think so now. And I came to that conclusion without any help from Andy at all, even with the big words.

I would agree with this. I just don't think it's appropriate to make a particular historical object more "interesting" by defacing it. The Mona Lisa probably would be much more interesting to me with that aforementioned drawn-on dildo, but I don't think it would be a valuable change and I also don't think a private owner, despite being well within his rights to alter his property as he sees fit, should be making such a change.
   73. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: September 22, 2013 at 07:37 PM (#4547880)
Oh good lord. These are baseballs. They are meant to be hit and thrown and caught until they are no longer suitable for hitting, throwing and catching.
We've got plenty of copies of the Declaration of Independence. The Mona Lisa's just a painting, and we've got plenty of copies of that, too. Anyone arguing we shouldn't preserve those things? Of coruse not. Things tied to historic moments matter, and the mere fact that Echo would even bother to (1) buy the ball, and (2) actually publicize the idea of branding it tells us that it mattered to him, too. (And for what it's worth, nobody's saying that Echo doesn't have the right to do it, only that he shouldn't.)

Anyone want to claim that they wouldn't be bothered if #715 got branded?
   74. Publius Publicola Posted: September 22, 2013 at 07:46 PM (#4547882)
Anyone want to claim that they wouldn't be bothered if #715 got branded?


Right here.
   75. SoSH U at work Posted: September 22, 2013 at 07:46 PM (#4547883)
I just don't think it's appropriate to make a particular historical object more "interesting" by defacing it.


And I don't see a mass-produced baseball that just happened to be a prop in history's ride as truly a historical object. It's a baseball. One of billions. Many famous home runs have been hit, and many more will be hit in the future. I suspect the current locations of a great, great many of these famous home runs (or other milestone balls) are completely unknown, and a great many have been reduced to nothing but dust. And no one really gives a crap if the current home* of Merkle's boner ball is unknown, or whether it exists at all.

* I have no idea if that ball's location is known. That just seemed a reasonable example.



Anyone want to claim that they wouldn't be bothered if #715 got branded?


I think my position on that should be abundantly clear. The only defacement that happens to a baseball is when it's taken out of commission before it's exhausted its usefulness for its single purpose. You want to put your mark Hank's ball, I'll heat up my branding iron* for ya.

McGwire was right.

I'll tell you what though. If you can get your hands on the original baseball, much like the original DoI or Mona Lisa, I think that would be worth preserving. That's a historical object.

* Sadly, I don't have a branding iron.
   76. Publius Publicola Posted: September 22, 2013 at 07:50 PM (#4547885)
We've got plenty of copies of the Declaration of Independence. The Mona Lisa's just a painting, and we've got plenty of copies of that, too. Anyone arguing we shouldn't preserve those things?


Most. Inappropriate. Analogy. In. History.
   77. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 22, 2013 at 07:51 PM (#4547886)
And no one really gives a crap if the current home* of Merkle's boner ball is unknown, or whether it exists at all.


What are you talking about? I wouldn't celebrate the marking of that ball either.
   78. SoSH U at work Posted: September 22, 2013 at 07:55 PM (#4547888)
What are you talking about? I wouldn't celebrate the marking of that ball either.


I didn't say you would. What I said was that there are hundreds of historic baseballs that have been lost to time. I've never seen anyone lamenting that simple truth. If these were such important historical artifacts, surely there'd be some tears over that.
   79. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 22, 2013 at 07:56 PM (#4547889)
I'd like to see the uniform Jackie Robinson wore in his first MLB game nailed to a wooden stick and burned. It would say so much to future generations about the debate at the time when he broke the color barrier. And though some might perceive the burning as a negation or a criticism, it could just as plausibly be considered a positive compliment to Robinson and what he was able to achieve. Either way, the ensuing discussion would be invaluable. That's the beauty of burning Jackie Robinson's uniform.

That is, as long as we're trying to elevate a Beavis & Butt-Head-level prank to a platform for historical significance and thoughtful analysis. The Semiotics of Nyah-Nyah.
   80. BDC Posted: September 22, 2013 at 07:56 PM (#4547890)
Can somebody read the short story Bob references and give a review please?

Unfortunately, Hoch's story isn't quite as prescient as you'd like. It's set in the 22nd century, when a young centaur arrives from a Greek island to play for the Yankees. He's a good fielder and great baserunner, can hit a little. The Yankees are on their way to the World Series when somebody figures there must be a way to bribe the centaur to throw games. Sex, maybe? They find a female centaur on the island, but sex is out; she's his sister. The thing is, she plays baseball better than he does, and is signed by the Cardinals. She's hurt during the Cards/Yanks series and both centaurs retire from baseball and head back to Greece.

I figure this is the basic plotline for the 2014 Yankees.
   81. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: September 22, 2013 at 08:05 PM (#4547894)
Most. Inappropriate. Analogy. In. History.
This is a baseball site and a baseball thread. The ball Bonds hit broke one of the most significant career marks in this sport's history. In the context of this sport, that ball signifies an extremely significant moment.

What I said was that there are hundreds of historic baseballs that have been lost to time. I've never seen anyone lamenting that simple truth.
You've never heard someone say, "I wish I had Artifact X from Moment Y in baseball history?" People say it all the time, and we know this because many people actually go out of their way to collect baseball artifacts, and millions more visit the museum where a bunch of these artifacts reside just to look at them through a glass panel.
   82. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 22, 2013 at 08:09 PM (#4547895)
I'd like to see the uniform Jackie Robinson wore in his first MLB game nailed to a wooden stick and burned. It would say so much to future generations about the debate at the time when he broke the color barrier. And though some might perceive the burning as a negation or a criticism, it could just as plausibly be considered a positive compliment to Robinson and what he was able to achieve. Either way, the ensuing discussion would be invaluable. That's the beauty of burning Jackie Robinson's uniform.


In the end just some articles of clothing, oh good lord. Meant to be worn and sat on and slid into second with until they are no longer suitable for hitting, throwing, and catching. These aren't works of art. They're just clothes. They're not important historical artifacts. McGwire was right. Jackie Robinson's first MLB uniform can be defaced, and what of it? What reasonable person could possibly get upset, or think that those who support nailing Robinson's uniform to a wooden stick and burned are against African Americans in major league baseball?
   83. Publius Publicola Posted: September 22, 2013 at 08:14 PM (#4547899)
In the context of this sport, that ball signifies an extremely significant moment.


I think the bottle of The Clear he used the day before would be even more significant. I wonder where that is now? It's a shame that was lost to history.
   84. SoSH U at work Posted: September 22, 2013 at 08:15 PM (#4547900)
"I wish I had Artifact X from Moment Y in baseball history?"


No, I've never heard anyone say, "Oh my gosh, where is Artifact X from Moment Y in baseball history?"

   85. BDC Posted: September 22, 2013 at 08:25 PM (#4547902)
I'd like to see video of Option J throughout baseball history.
   86. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: September 22, 2013 at 08:27 PM (#4547903)
I think the bottle of The Clear he used the day before would be even more significant.
A "significant" event doesn't actually mean "event that I approve of," sort of like "I was in the Army" doesn't actually mean "I was not in the Army." I want to make that as plain as possible, as you've been known to have problems making that distinction.
   87. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 22, 2013 at 08:33 PM (#4547906)
And BTW why do you think I've never said anything negative about Sosa's 66? Where's my Roger Maris protective shield there, if it's all about my "wanting desperately to protect the pre-Bonds record book"? If I gave a rat's patooie about Maris, wouldn't you think I'd be parroting the anti-Sosa crowd and be talking about corked bats, leaked testimony, and Sosa's congressional testimony?

Of course Ray's simply too cowardly to answer that simple question, because an honest answer wouldn't fit into his grand narrative. But since in other threads your general mode of honesty is way above Ray's, perhaps you might like to ponder the question and come up with an answer that makes sense.


I don't see a response to the Aaron 715 ball hypothetical anywhere in there.


I wouldn't like it, but if someone had grabbed the ball from Tom House and written "LONG LIVE RUTH" on it, that'd also be part of history, it would have represented a vocal minority sentiment, and I wouldn't have wanted to see it removed before placing it on display. It certainly wouldn't have discredited either Hank Aaron or his record.

Now perhaps you might get around to explaining why I've never said anything against Sammy Sosa, who also broke the home run record of my "boyhood hero", if my concern is solely about protecting records. I'm not holding my breath.
   88. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: September 22, 2013 at 08:41 PM (#4547909)
I wouldn't like it, but if someone had grabbed the ball from Tom House and written "LONG LIVE RUTH" on it...
Wait, why wouldn't you like it?
   89. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 22, 2013 at 08:44 PM (#4547912)
I wouldn't like it,


Well, there. As opposed to the issue of the Ecko defacing, which you enthusiastically supported.

It certainly wouldn't have discredited either Hank Aaron or his record.


Said with a straight face? Then why wouldn't you have liked it?

Now perhaps you might get around to explaining why I've never said anything against Sammy Sosa, who also broke the home run record of my "boyhood hero", if my concern is solely about protecting records. I'm not holding my breath.


Sosa doesn't have the record, never had the record, never even had a home run title while hitting more than 61 homers. He is utterly irrelevant to the Ecko issue. But the smearing of Bonds and the other "juicers" who played in the Steroids Era, the refusal to support them as deserving Hall of Famers even though you support all the amps players, effectively smears Sosa and his performances as well. You have denigrated the achievements of an entire era of players by engaging in the anti-steroids crusade. That protects the records of the players of your youth.

This isn't complicated.
   90. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 22, 2013 at 08:54 PM (#4547918)
I'd like to see the uniform Jackie Robinson wore in his first MLB game nailed to a wooden stick and burned. It would say so much to future generations about the debate at the time when he broke the color barrier. And though some might perceive the burning as a negation or a criticism, it could just as plausibly be considered a positive compliment to Robinson and what he was able to achieve. Either way, the ensuing discussion would be invaluable. That's the beauty of burning Jackie Robinson's uniform.

If one of the thousands of racists who'd written hate letters to Robinson had somehow gotten a hold of that uniform after the game and defaced it with an indelible marking, what should baseball have done? Burned it and tried to pass off a different uniform as the McCoy? I certainly hope not, any more than I'd want the Smithsonian to refuse donations of historically significant racist memorabilia. History is history, and trying to whitewash it contributes nothing of value.

If Bonds's ball had been bought by you or Ray and donated to the HoF unmarked, and then someone had broken into the display case and placed an asterisk on it, I would have smiled at the sentiment but condemned the act itself, because the ball wasn't his to mark. But Ecko paid more money for the ball than anyone else was willing to pay, and by that he earned the right to do whatever he wanted to do with it. You obviously see something sacrilegious about defacing the Bonds ball, and that's fine. But that wasn't for you to decide; it was Ecko's decision to mark it, and the HoF's decision to accept it.
   91. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 22, 2013 at 09:00 PM (#4547921)
If Bonds's ball had been bought by you or Ray and donated to the HoF unmarked, and then someone had broken into the display case and placed an asterisk on it, I would have smiled at the sentiment but condemned the act itself, because the ball wasn't his to mark


A newfound concern for property rights? Touching.
   92. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 22, 2013 at 09:08 PM (#4547925)
I wouldn't like it, but if someone had grabbed the ball from Tom House and written "LONG LIVE RUTH" on it, that'd also be part of history, it would have represented a vocal minority sentiment, and I wouldn't have wanted to see it removed before placing it on display. It certainly wouldn't have discredited either Hank Aaron or his record.

Well, there. As opposed to the issue of the Ecko defacing, which you enthusiastically supported.


Why, yes, I do view Hank Aaron's place in baseball history to be somewhat more honorable than that of Barry Bonds. Do you find this view surprising?

Sosa doesn't have the record, never had the record, never even had a home run title while hitting more than 61 homers. He is utterly irrelevant to the Ecko issue.

Wait, I thought you were talking about Roger Maris's record, and why that was my sole motivation for being against steroids. You were the one who inserted the Ecko ball into the mix, not me.

Sosa may not hold "the" record, but he certainly broke Roger Maris's, which according to everything you've written should have me just as steamed as the other two.

But the smearing of Bonds and the other "juicers" who played in the Steroids Era, the refusal to support them as deserving Hall of Famers even though you support all the amps players, effectively smears Sosa and his performances as well. You have denigrated the achievements of an entire era of players by engaging in the anti-steroids crusade. That protects the records of the players of your youth.

Yes, that sure explains why I support both Sosa and Clemens for the Hall of Fame, who are opposed by nearly every other steroid hardliner. But maybe that's nothing but some devious campaign of disinformation on my part. Nothing can possibly get past the all-seeing eye of Di Perna.
   93. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 22, 2013 at 09:11 PM (#4547927)
If Bonds's ball had been bought by you or Ray and donated to the HoF unmarked, and then someone had broken into the display case and placed an asterisk on it, I would have smiled at the sentiment but condemned the act itself, because the ball wasn't his to mark

A newfound concern for property rights? Touching.


Ray, I would've offered the same objection if some sneaky nanny state agent had removed the crocodile tears from the receipts of your three seat belt tickets. Some historical artifacts are more sacred to me than others.
   94. Publius Publicola Posted: September 22, 2013 at 09:11 PM (#4547928)
A "significant" event doesn't actually mean "event that I approve of


It apparently doesn't even mean significant as in significant either.
   95. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: September 22, 2013 at 09:12 PM (#4547929)
Why is Ecko's right to brand the ball constantly being brought up? For the hundred billionth time, nobody's arguing against Ecko right to do it.

History is history, and trying to whitewash it contributes nothing of value.
Branding the ball is precisely the same deal. Like whitewashing history, it's a stab at controlling the narrative of the events around the home run ball.

You obviously see something sacrilegious about defacing the Bonds ball, and that's fine.
It is, most charitably, a child's tantrum — you don't like Bonds and that home run chase, so you want to see it mutilated for all time.
   96. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: September 22, 2013 at 09:13 PM (#4547932)
It apparently doesn't even mean significant as in significant either.
Don't you have Wizards pre-season roster moves to concern yourself with. Oh, wait, that was a lie, too. Never mind.
   97. Publius Publicola Posted: September 22, 2013 at 09:15 PM (#4547933)
it's a stab at controlling the narrative of the events


"Stab". Excellent choice of nouns there, LAEHoA. Really excellent.
   98. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 22, 2013 at 09:21 PM (#4547935)

Yes, that sure explains why I support both Sosa and Clemens for the Hall of Fame, who are opposed by nearly every other steroid hardliner. But maybe that's nothing but some devious campaign of disinformation on my part.


But the smearing of Bonds and the other "juicers" who played in the Steroids Era, the refusal to support them as deserving Hall of Famers even though you support all the amps players, effectively smears Sosa and his performances as well. You have denigrated the achievements of an entire era of players by engaging in the anti-steroids crusade. That protects the records of the players of your youth.


   99. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 22, 2013 at 09:26 PM (#4547938)
History is history, and trying to whitewash it contributes nothing of value.

Branding the ball is precisely the same deal. Like whitewashing history, it's a stab at controlling the narrative of the events around the home run ball.


Yeah, it's "controlled the narrative" so much that probably half the people who see it take your view on it. Some control.

You obviously see something sacrilegious about defacing the Bonds ball, and that's fine.

It is, most charitably, a child's tantrum — you don't like Bonds and that home run chase, so you want to see it mutilated for all time.


Well, I'll admit that what Barry Bonds did wasn't a child's tantrum.
   100. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 22, 2013 at 09:32 PM (#4547940)
Ah, just flip the m-fer.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BarrysLazyBoy
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogAngels, Red Sox discontinue pension plans for non-uniformed personnel - LA Times
(11 - 11:41am, Dec 20)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogOT: Soccer December 2014
(312 - 11:31am, Dec 20)
Last: frannyzoo

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(129 - 11:09am, Dec 20)
Last: cercopithecus aethiops

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(752 - 11:09am, Dec 20)
Last: GregD

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(5068 - 11:06am, Dec 20)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogMax Scherzer not a realistic option, New York Yankees' Randy Levine says - ESPN New York
(78 - 10:18am, Dec 20)
Last: cercopithecus aethiops

NewsblogThe right — and wrong — way for Mets to get Tulowitzki | New York Post
(2 - 10:09am, Dec 20)
Last: BDC

NewsblogAmazin' Avenue - Cohen: Mets and Rockies discussing Troy Tulowitzki deal with Noah Syndergaard as the centerpiece
(41 - 10:07am, Dec 20)
Last: formerly dp

NewsblogTrading Justin Upton means the Braves are in full rebuilding mode | Mark Bradley blog
(81 - 10:04am, Dec 20)
Last: Rickey! trades in sheep and threats

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1360 - 9:21am, Dec 20)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogThe 4 surprisingly quiet teams of the MLB offseason
(31 - 9:05am, Dec 20)
Last: Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer

NewsblogOC Register | Former Angels prospect Ryan Bolden shot to death
(5 - 8:32am, Dec 20)
Last: AndrewJ

NewsblogFull Count » Source: Red Sox close to deal sending Will Middlebrooks to Padres for Ryan Hanigan
(11 - 3:27am, Dec 20)
Last: The TVerik of Lordly Might

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(9174 - 1:15am, Dec 20)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogJerry Crasnick on Twitter: "Jake Peavy has agreed on 2 yr deal with
(13 - 12:13am, Dec 20)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

Page rendered in 0.9585 seconds
48 querie(s) executed