Barry Bonds = Steroid User. So What?

Eh. I don't disbelieve it, I'll say that. But it's not as big a deal to me as it is to other people. He doesn't bother me in particular, so that's one thing. (He seems to rub most people the wrong way.) Aside from the fact that he's about to pass Babe Ruth, I don't see why there's so much attention focused on him when there are so many other players, stars as well as scrubs, who also probably used steroids over the past decade or so. The only other relevant, currently productive (i.e., not Raffy Palmeiro) player who was hounded this much for steroids was Jason Giambi. Of course, once Giambi started playing well last year, people all of a sudden forgot all about his steroid use--and he's actually admitted to it, which Bonds hasn't done. (Giambi, because of his Yankee-ness, is the steroid user that I really hate. Of course, if he had been playing for Kansas City for the past 5 years, I'd care about him about as much as I care about Bonds.)

I know a lot of people are upset about steroid abuse in the game, but I figure that it wasn't against the rules at the time (so the players weren't cheating) and there's never been a set way of comparing players across different eras (so steroids didn't ruin the "integrity" of the game, inasmuch as there never really was any integrity to the game.)

I should say that I think there should have been rules against steroids, and it's bad that baseball is only now getting around to it. But I just can't work up the righteous indignation and outrage over Barry Bonds doing something that was within the rules of the game that was also apparently done by large numbers of other players, not just the handful of stars associated with steroids. Forgive me, I'm five years into the GW Bush administration, which has given me something new to be outraged about nearly every day. I've got outrage fatigue. Anyways, the steroids: they were stupid, yes, and short-sighted in terms of the health risks. And I suppose it set a bad example for the youths, but I've never really given that argument much weight, whether it was applied to star athlete steroid abusers or presidential blowjobs. I just can't bring myself to frothing anger against Barry Bonds personally. Your mileage may vary.

As for the integrity of the game, it's true that Babe Ruth didn't have steroids. But he also didn't have to play against black or Latino players. Look at the WBC. Perhaps the two most talented teams are the Dominicans and the Venezuelans, while the equally powerful American team is led by Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, and Dontrelle Willis. Anyone who wants to put an asterisk by Barry Bonds' stats better also be willing to put an asterisk next to Babe Ruth's stats. Personally, I think the "stats inflated by not having to face many of the most potentially talented players in the world" asterisk should be bigger than the "stats inflated by taking drugs available to all of his competitors" asterisk. Maybe they'll put the Babe's in bold. Or italics. Or both, dare to dream.

(Quick digression: is it possible that 50 years from now we'll be looking back at today's game and saying that it was tainted because there are only a handful of East Asian and European players in the game and no South Asians or Africans? 50 years ago was only the beginning of the integration of the game with black and Latino players, and the demographics of the game are still shifting today. I see no reason to believe that it won't keep changing for decades to come, as other nations begin to develop players able to play at a major league level.)

Hank Aaron, meanwhile, didn't have the benefit of steroids, and he also didn't have the benefit of full-time strength coaches and nutritionists, or first-class flights to away games, or the latest advances in medical science. And he didn't have videotaped analysis of every one of his at-bats or highly trained specialists working on every aspect of his swing. But then again, neither did the pitchers he faced--today's pitchers have reaped the benefits of improved conditioning and analytical tools along with the hitters. Steroids have been one way that the modern player is an improved physical specimen over his predecessors, but certainly not the only one and maybe not even the most important one. Can you imagine what kind of numbers Mickey Mantle would have put up if he had the nutritionists and conditioning coaches and PR flacks ("Now, Mick, the Yankees are presenting a clean-cut image for the family audience out there--how about instead of the booze you have a nice cool glass of milk with dinner and get to bed early tonight?") that he'd have around him as a modern player? Or what Roger Clemens, with his year-round conditioning and preparation, would have done to 1940s lineups filled with hitters who spent the offseason working the counter at the local hardware store?

And this is to say nothing of the way the game itself has changed, in terms of how it's played. Right now there's a big shift in tactics by teams like the Red Sox and Athletics to highly value on-base percentage and move away from giving away outs through sacrifices and stealing bases. Now, if you take that to an extreme, can't you say that Hank Aaron probably would have put up different numbers if he had always been trying to put every pitch into play (Sox/A's style) rather than occasionally taking good pitches so that a runner can steal, or swinging at bad pitches as part of a hit-and-run, or going for a sac fly because the situation called for it? Or, to give another example, the rise of the specialty reliever. How many of Hank Aaron's homeruns came off tired starting pitchers working into the 8th inning, north of 100 pitches, on 3 days of rest because of the four-man rotation? Because of the change in how managers use bullpens, Barry Bonds might see three different pitchers in four at-bats, all of whom were chosen to be the most difficult matchups for him to hit. Other considerations, just off the top of my head: the dilution of talent from expansion (offset by the increase in talent from other countries?) and the trend toward smaller, homerun-friendly ballparks. The game's always changing, so I'm not going to pretend that steroids are the only thing that ruins the integrity of the thing.

So...yeah. We'll be hearing a lot about Barry Bonds and steroids over the next few days/weeks/months. Hell, maybe even years. But I'll be interested to hear, in all of the chatter, how much of it actually considers what it means for Barry Bonds to "disrespect the purity of the game." I'm sure that 90%+ of the coverage will condemn him, but I suspect that a good portion of that will come from people who either dislike Bonds personally or who see the past through rose-tinted glasses and simply can't believe that the players today measure up to the greats from the past. The whole issue is a lot more complicated than all of the "Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron never used steroids" commentators are going to make it sound.