THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Is it the players driving this, or the teams?  I was thinking that any team signing Bonds would alienate too many of their fans, and they can’t afford that.  Not sure if that’s the case, but it’s my current theory.

I just linked to this post, but I believe it’s not the players who have a problem with Bonds, it’s management.  They have more concerns than just wins.

But this is my point: when did murderers, rapists, and wife-beaters become an easier sell than Barry Bonds?

Since the media decided that they hate Barry Bonds. Then you have all these owners, who are businessmen paying heed to the marketing side of their business. Some negative story broke in the press about some commodity, and they don’t want anything to do with it. And there is no doubt that whatever team signs Bonds will be battered with negative press.

I think there’s a couple issues here.  One is that people are far less forgiving if the bad guys are breaking their hero’s records.

The other is that I think American culture is way too into the idea of praising people who redeem themselves for their moments of indiscretion (even more than those who never had a moment of indiscretion).  People who always do the right thing are boring; we want people who lie, cheat, and steal, but then realize the error in their ways and promise to never let it happen again.  And apparently, that’s far more impressive to most folks than someone who never let it happen in the first place.

So that’s why, in my opinion, people are so vile about Barry.  He’s never admitted wrongdoing (publicly), he’s never said he’s sorry.  He hasn’t redeemed himself.

And Kobe?  Ray Lewis?  Jason Kidd?  Elijah Dukes?  And if you don’t like those examples (forgive me if I’m not up on their personal details), I’m sure someone can come up with a list of hundreds of names that would qualify.  Like I said, don’t focus on those names, since we can find pertinent examples to counter the “I repent” argument.

I know it’s the popular thing to say that if you repent, you shall be forgiven.  (It is.) But, it doesn’t appear that repenting is a requirement.  What is required for non-repenters is to produce at a high enough level that it’s the sports-equivalent of repenting.  “Winning” and “I’m sorry” are interchangeable. 

Except for Bonds.  He doesn’t get to count his winning performance as an implied apology.

***

The media being the news (rather than reporting it), Bonds being a baseball player, and the homerun record that stood for the longest time, is the likely trifecta backdrop against which a MLB team doesn’t wish to compete against marketing-wise.

Basically, his story is too big for an implied apology, unlike the physical abusers out there who get to continue playing.

I think you actually hit the nail on the head yourself, or at least came pretty close:

“Male teammates will play, pass to, and generally be teammates with murderers, rapists, drug abusers, and wife-beaters.  There is basically nothing that a male athlete can do, that another male athlete can’t overlook, on a personal level, if it means a W in the standings.”

Fans, for that matter, are willing to overlook a lot of off-field indiscretions.

But Bonds did his sinning on the field of play. That’s what makes him worse than a wife-batterer from a marketing point of view; that wife battery never affected the outcome of a game.

The “Church of Baseball” argument (aka “Field of Dreams").

Colin’s argument seems the most plausible: denigrate or destroy anything you want, but make sure it’s outside the field of play.

There was a similarly blackballed player in the NHL.  Back in the late 70s or early 80s, it was not uncommon to have bench-clearing brawls.  And in one such game, one player (*) decided to take a stand, and remain on the bench.  So, on the ice were his 19 teammates and 20 opponents.  He broke the code on the ice, and was banished for trying to make his point.  But, not having your teammates’ back was deemed to harsh of a byproduct.

* I thought it was Grant Mulvey, but I didn’t find anything to corroborate that name on the Net; his wiki entry hardly seems reasonable.  Don’t bother reading it.

Going back to Bonds, as though he’s different from all the non-repenting PEDers, he’s treated as different because he’s too big.

But, really?  Is this what the American fan is like?  There’s got to be equivalent situations in other countries and other sports.  Or are American fans just like all the others?

Found it:
http://www.hockeydraftcentral.com/1978/78020.html

Mulvey became the center of a major NHL controversy during the 1981-82 season when he refused to leave the Los Angeles bench to start a second-period brawl on Jan. 24, 1982, in Vancouver. Don Perry, who had recently been named head coach of the Kings, ordered Mulvey to lead a his teammates into what would become a bench-clearing brawl. Mulvey refused, despite Perry’s repeating the order three more times. Mulvey remained on the bench until Los Angeles’ Rick Chartraw and Mark Hardy took the initiative and led the entire team out onto the ice. Even though Mulvey did join the brawl, Perry was livid that he had refused to initiate it, and accused Mulvey of failing to stand up for teammates. Mulvey was benched for the rest of the game and held out of practices and games until the Kings placed him on waivers on Jan. 29, 1982. Perry said he didn’t want Mulvey on the team any longer, but Mulvey, who was coming off a one-game suspension, argued that Perry had been forcing him to perform a goon’s role that would have led to more suspensions. Mulvey said Perry told him to “go out there and don’t just dance.” Mulvey, who had only been with the team for 25 days, was so stunned by the command that he hesitated, thereby setting off the famous confrontation with Perry. Mulvey cleared waivers and was sent to the Kings’ AHL affiliate in New Haven. When details of the incident came out in the press, the NHL fined Perry $5,000 and suspended him for 15 days (six games). Mulvey, on the other hand, became overnight media darling for his stand, although he would never play another NHL game.

I guess my point was it’s not so much about saying sorry, but just moving on.  Clemens insists on making a friggin circus out of his issue, and I think he’s in the same boat as Bonds.

In the NFL, Pacman Jones is the closest equivalent.  He’s got about a half-dozen arrests in the last few years.  Great player on the field, but NE fans were flipping out a couple weeks ago when rumor was the Patriots were considering signing him.  The Pats are dying for someone to play where he does, and he’s a great talent on the field.  But his issues just won’t go away.  If it was a one-and-done offense, no matter how serious, I think he’d already be signed.  But as fans, we can’t convince ourselves that he’s “grown” and “moved on” if the nonsense keeps continuing.

Just my theory.

Colin nailed it:

“But Bonds did his sinning on the field of play. That’s what makes him worse than a wife-batterer from a marketing point of view”

When you’re a “changed” man off the field it’s a good thing; when your a changed man ON the field, as Barry Bonds is, it’s not tolerated.

Colin makes a good point and it’s probably accurate.  The problem I have with it is that it’s becoming clear (or it should be becoming clear) even to the casual fan that hundreds of players did the same thing that Bonds did.  Yet, Bonds still gets treated as if he is the only player who ever took PEDs. I find it frustrating.

As for why Bonds has not been signed, I think it has more to do with his legal situation and his salary demands.  Teams figure he is just not worth all the trouble at that price. 

Lee

So does that mean I’m the only Sabermetrician who knows something about women. 

Someone will eventually swallow hard and sign Barry Bonds this year and it won’t be the Hiroshima Carp.  And he will be embraced as much as he apparently was in San Francisco.  May I recount the time that I was sitting in the center field bleachers in 2001, when John Rocker made his Cleveland Indians debut… this was right after Rocker had let fly with some of his sociological observations on issues of identity in America.  Most people stood up and gave him an ovation as he entered the game.  The message: he might be a racist and a bigot but he’s our bigot!  Bonds might be a cheater, but as long as he’s wearing the right uniform while he’s hitting home runs, we can overlook that.

As to the men/women thing, there’s a lot written in the professional literature (and untold gobs of sometimes good stuff, sometimes garbage in the self-help section) on the subject.  Men are much more goal oriented, women are much more process oriented.  (Or as I like to sum it up: “Women shop.  Men go out to get things.") For a man, the goal is to achieve the proper outcome.  In baseball, that’s a win and the end usually justifies the means.  For a woman, the concerns rest not on what gets done, but how people are cared for while it’s being done.  That particular split works its way out into hundreds of little examples.  Sure, it’s important to win, but it’s more important to win “the right way.” Why that happens is an argument that I have neither the time nor the desire to get into.

I agree with the thought that says that Bonds is a pariah… until a GM sees that he’s still one of the finest hitters in baseball.  Right now it’s a simple mismatch between team need and salary demands.  I don’t think he’s reached the “untouchable” level yet.

What’s interesting to me is if Bonds does play, how has the Clemens saga effected the perception towards him?  Does he still receive boos, or will things simmer down because someone else with a statistical record similar to his is in the same boat?

What I’ve always wanted to see is a study on the effects of “low-character” guys on team performance, development of young players, etc.  I’ve theorized that its effects are negligible (unless a coach hates a player and benches him).  I also feel that owners whose teams are contending for the playoffs are doing their fans a disservice by not signing Barry Bonds.  He’s probably one of the top five hitters in the majors and can be signed well below what he’s worth.  He also might generate extra revenue in case any fans want to see him break records.  If he somehow managed to get to 799 home runs, then every game would be sold out till he hit 800.

Gimbel:

http://www.blackathlete.net/artman2/publish/Baseball_20/A_Call_To_All_Baseball_Fans.shtml

I think that there is a very good chance that there is some kind of collusion by the teams in terms of not acquiring Bonds.  Either that, or he or his agent have made it known that he won’t play for less than 10 mil or so, guaranteed.  I would not find it hard to believe that no team would shell out that kind of money for him, but I DO find it hard to believer that no team would offer him 5 mil to play.  (He is probably worth 10 mil though, even if he played only 100 games.  Heck, just the amount of times they would incorrectly IBB him would be worth 2 wins a year!)

I also think that the treatment of him by the Giants and by Selig is and was despicable, especially in light of the fact that we KNOW that scores, and perhaps hundreds, of players used PED’s just like Bonds likely did. And of course, one the (sad) ironies of the way Bonds has been treated is that, unlike, dozens of OTHER plays, it has not been confirmed that he knowingly used PED’s (not to start that debate again - only to point out that there is SOME line, however narrow, between Bonds and all the players who admitted to knowingly taking PED’s).

Why does it have to be collusion? Why can’t all the GMs just happen to share the same opinion that Bonds is not worth the trouble? With all of the collusion stuff in the 90s, I would be surprised if there was any sort of active communication amongst GMs about excluding Bonds. And if there was, I’m sure they made sure there is no record at all.

And as to the point that it has not been “confirmed” that Bonds knowingly took PEDs--with all we know, why are you clinging to this “absolute proof” standard?

I agree completely with MGL on this.  Even if Bonds did take PED’s when he was alleged to, since the allegations were made he has probably been the most tested player in baseball and there has been no hint that he has taken PED’s during that period.  So the worse case scenario is that Bonds took PED’s when they weren’t specifically banned by baseball and when many other player’s are known to have been taking them, quit before many other player’s did, and continued to perform at nearly the same level after quitting.  For that he has been villified more than any other known or alledged user.  On his recent performance alone Bonds is deserving of a DH job with many teams.  That no team appears to have entered into even preliminary negotiations with him smells highly of collusion, especially in light of his treatment by baseball’s powerful commissioner.  David, why are you clinging to an “absolute proof” standard of collusion?

Re: the too high a price.

Since every one of us are all part of the oldest profession in the world, what is the highest price that one team would offer over the other 29?  Is someone suggesting that if the Yanks offered 400,000$, that some other team would not offer 500,000$?  (Remember, the Yanks is the team that claimed Jose Canseco off waivers to prevent whoever-it-was from claiming him.) This is what we are faced here: Bonds is on waivers. 

If 400K is too high a price, then what?  Free?  How about if Bonds had to pay?  Say, Bonds pays the Redsox 2MM to join the team.  Would the Redsox take it?  How about 10MM?

Like I said, EVERYONE has a price.  What exactly is the price that the team that most wants him and least wants him would pay?

***

And the PED is irrelevant at this point.  It seems that we either need a conviction or an apology for the media to get out of the jury business.

Why does there have to be collusion?

I think that there is a very good chance that there is some kind of collusion by the teams in terms of not acquiring Bonds.  Either that, or he or his agent have made it known that he won’t play for less than 10 mil or so, guaranteed.

why are you clinging to this “absolute proof” standard?

we KNOW that scores, and perhaps hundreds, of players used PED’s just like Bonds likely did.

You don’t read too well.

Another one that just likes to hear himself argue…

I wouldn’t necessarily say David/18 was a post for argument’s sake.  It’s possible he read your post without appreciating all the conditional statements you made. 

You gotta admit, it’s sometimes a challenge to read one paragraph that has 8 lines and only two sentences!

I’m in the collusion camp.  If he signs the media are going to write bad things about him, but I can’t see a decrease in attendance if Bonds is in your lineup.  Even if the fans just show up to boo.

I’d love for the Angels to give in to their hate, embrace the dark side, and sign Bonds while putting Garret Anderson on the bench.  Not holding my breath for it to happen though.

"---another one one that just likes to hear himself argue...”

Tango/22 is correct, mgl. I was responding to my immediate interpretation of the spirit of your post, rather than to all of the conditions you gave. I apoligize if I got the jist wrong (but I’m not sure that I did).

But, you are an a$$hole for saying that I ‘just want to hear myself argue’. If you want to point out where I’m wrong, that’s fine. I am quite aware of my limitations in baseball analysis.  But, that’s all it is. There is no big ego involvement for me in ‘arguing for argument’s sake’.

I simply don’t expect that there was ‘active’ collusion’ in Bonds’ case, and I can easily see why no GM would independently want him, given his baggage, age, and likely salary demand.

My comment about you liking to hear yourself argue was not just about that post.  It was about many posts of yours.  You are welcome to post here and write whatever you want of course. In fact, your posts are more than welcome, but personally, I have little use for you, with your childish and petty arguments.

And your excellent research and baseball insight is certainly welcome, but I have little use for you personally, with your condescending attitude that has turned off many, besides myself.

As a general point, it is much easier to be rude and confrontational on the net, than face to face. I have tried to remember this, and treat others like I would in person. Occasionaly I fail, as in this case. But, I’ll learn from my lack of ettiquette here. It’s been 5 years since I called someone an a$$hole on the net. It’ll be 10 years before I do it again. There are better ways to communicate…

Actually, I have no problem with you calling me names.  I really don’t. Those things are completely overblown on the internet.

What I have a problem with is the chip on your shoulder you seem to have with my posts.  If I had more time, I would search your posts and list all the times you have made some petty comment or argument, in reference to an innocuous post of mine.  The above is a perfect example.

As I pointed out, in a snark way (because of what I perceive as your track record), you made two comments about my thoughts on Bonds, neither one of them making much sense at all, at least with regard to what I said.  Why would you do that, other than because you have some chip on your shoulder about something I may have said or done (I guess) some time ago, or again, you just like to argue for the sake of argument, which often involves not reading someone’s comments carefully? 

If you are going to comment somewhat harshly about what someone says ("Why does it HAVE to be collusion?” and “Why do you cling to the ‘absolute proof’ standard?"), at least make an attempt to read the other person’s comments somewhat carefully, which CLEARLY you did NOT since I did NOT say that it HAD to be collusion - in fact, I said that it was LIKELY collusion - a far cry from HAVING to be, and am the LAST person that “clings to the absolute proof standard” with Bonds - I merely said that there was “a line” between him and the ones that have admitted to knowingly using or have been punished for a positive test.  I even said that the line is admittedly a NARROW one!

If I have a beef with someone, I usually don’t even remember it after a while.  Or even who that person is.  I don’t recall any beef with you, but either you seem to have a long-standing one with me, or you DO like to argue just for the sake of arguing.  Either way is distasteful to me, so don’t imply to me that you are a person of such great character.  Calling someone a name has little to do with one’s character anyway.  Your one post alone above belies that.  And, as I said, if I bothered to search your posts on this site, I could come up with others that are equally out of line, for no apparent reason that I can think of, other than, as I said, you have some kind of chip on your shoulder.

If you have some old beef with me, speak your piece, or get over it, and we can forgive and forget. If not, then we’ll just have to learn to live with what we consider each other’s character faults. Peace!

I have no old beef of any significance. I do recall, thinking back a long ways, that you have responded to some of my posts in what I perceived as too ‘dismissive’ a tone--like it wasn’t even worth your effort to respond. People are sensitive to things like that. Maybe that’s in the back of my mind somewhere, and there’s a slight ‘get MGL’ sentiment in my sunconscious. If so, I’ll own it. But OTOH, that sentiment probably exists with quite a number of posters who have been ‘put in their place’ by you in some way or another (the latest I recall seeing recently is M Emeigh and I think C Dial)-- so you bear some ownership, too. Remember, the “the world is your mirror”.

As far as the Bonds thing, I was really responding, not to your post specifically, but to sentiments I have seen over and over on the net 1) there is (has to be) collusion, and 2) until there is proof, Bonds has to be considered innocent. I simply wanted to give my quick opinion on those things. It could have been anyone’s post I was responding to. And I have no problem admitting that I should have read your post more carefully before responding.

Peace.

No problem.  Sure, I own the way I have treated other posters - not always with the same respect I would give them in person when I have to look them in the eye.  It is a fault of mine.

Don’t even get me started on Dial and Emeigh. They are in a class by themselves! In my opinion and from my flawed and self-inflicted perspective of course!

About the Bonds and collusion thing, I have no idea whether there is/was “collusion” or not among the teams, which implies that they have talked to one another and made some kind of agreement with regard to not hiring him (which seems a little far-fetched now that I think about it some more). 

I just thought it was strange that no one would hire him since he obviously has a lot of value in terms of his marginal run/win value.  Saying that “there is/was likely collusion” was a bad choice of words.  I just should have left it as “strange” or “odd.” Just as good of an explanation, or perhaps even better, is that some teams really don’t need a fairly high priced DH, most or all of the NL teams wouldn’t get much value from him, as his defense is atrocious (Griffey-like) now, some teams could not afford him, even at 6 or 8 mil, and some teams will not hire him for any price, PR-wise, collusion or no-collusion, and perhaps he has told several teams that he won’t play for less than 10 mil or even more.

And I was NEVER a fan of the “he was never convicted of anything, therefore he deserves the benefit of the doubt” argument.  It makes little difference whether there is a 98% chance that someone took PED’s or 100% chance.  Frankly I don’t care one way or another.

My only point was that if you are going to single someone out, which I think Bonds has been (and it might only be because he was one of the original scapegoats), it is a little ironic that you are singling out the one guy who has not admitted to knowingly taking PED’s and has not been punished for failing a test.  It would make a trifle more sense to single out a guy that has been been officially sanctioned than one who was not.  But, yes, I agree, that for most practical purposes, there is no difference between Bonds and the rest of the players who have either admitted to using, or have failed their drug tests.  If someone wants to invoke the “innocent until proven guilty” theory, they should save it for a criminal court of law.  That is the only place where it has much merit.  In real life we get to think anything we want and draw any conclusions we want from the available evidence.  There are few things in life that pass the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.  If we used that standard in real life, very few things would ever get accomplished.  And yes, sometimes we get to be proven wrong, which is why 98 or 99% is not 100%.

John writes a great piece, and echoes what I’m saying:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/baseballs-greatest-villain/

But gives some great examples.

I added at ballhype:

And Todd Bertuzzi continues to get employment, be it the Olympic Team, the Redwings, the Ducks, and now the Flames.  Apparently, Bonds is worse than that.

Bertuzzi, for those late in the game, is the hockey player that punched someone from the back, knocked the guy out, landed on top of him, ended the player’s career, and was suspended for 18 months.  He was a star player at the time, good enough that he would have been an otherwise no-brainer selection for the Olympic team (which he made anyway).  And Bertuzzi has had his criminal case, and is now in a civil case.

Barry Bonds apparently is worse than Bertuzzi.

If Manny Ramirez were released today on recallable waivers, I would think the Mets, among others, would pick him up and pay his salary, his 20MM, prorated.

And yet, there he sits with the Redsox.

If Barry Bonds were available for the minimum, I would think the Mets, among others, would pick him up and pay him $130,000 for two months and get the playoff salary FOR FREE.

And yet, there Bonds sits at home.

Is someone trying to tell us that the difference between Bonds and Manny is so lopsided in favor of Manny, given both of the players’ peripherals, that even all the extra millions is nothing in comparison?  Even with Manny actually sitting out an AB against Mariano Rivera?

Really?  I mean, really?

The hypocrisy of it all.

And of course, the longer Bonds sits and waits, the more ammunition you give the “yeah, but he hasn’t played in almost a year… how good could he be?” How convenient.

Maybe Gordie Howe good?  Gordie last played for the Redwings when he was 43 years old.  He then returned to action 2.5 years later.  And led his team in scoring.  Then finished 2nd.  Then led the team in scoring again.  And two years after that, led his team in scoring again.  At 50 years old.

Don’t tell me that you know anything about how the human body responds, when it is already at such an elite and high level.

How about a 41-year old person, after giving birth of all things(*), coming back to being an Olympic swimmer, Dara Torres?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29torres-t.html

(*) If men had to give birth, the world would be on the verge of extinction.

Take all the steroid sins of the world, wrap them up and pin them to the cross of Barry Bonds.  All that’s left is for the resurrection.

Like I said, murderers, rapists, wife-beaters, players giving a half-a$$ed performance between the lines, fighting with teammates, beating opponents from the back to give them a concussion, insulting an owner and coach, taking steroids and admitting it… all of that is forgivable.  Bonds?  Nope.

Brattain’s has a great article on the media becoming the newstory:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/press-ure-tactics/

Of course, what makes it a distraction or an issue are the media hordes going around asking about whether Bonds’ presence is a distraction when in reality it is the press’s insistence on finding out whether THEIR pursuit of Bonds is causing problems in the clubhouse…

Call it the HeisenPress Principle

I didn’t know about Brett Myers 2 years ago:
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/14352520/

Man, look at that photo of him and his wife… she’s literally half his size.

Number of teams that would put a claim on Myers if he were on irrevocable waivers?  30 (including the Phillies!).

Brattain is right.  You take the media out of the equation, and everyone looks the other way.  If his wife can look the other way, aren’t sports fans, left to their own devices, going to look the other way on their own players using steroids? 

According to fans surveyed, steroids is on the same ethical plane as corking your bat, headhunting, or spitballs.  Media coverage should reflect this.