The Race to the Bottom: A Semi-Defense of Barry Bonds
| 19
|
by user DNL
By now, Barry Bonds apologists must face the music -- Barry almost certainly used performance enhancing drugs.
And by now, all but the most determined Bonds haters have adopted the believe that Bonds' PED use did not begin until after the 1998 season -- as season in which Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa both passed Roger Maris's famed mark of 61 home runs. As the story goes, Bonds had a pretty good year that year -- fourth in SLG, fourth in OBP, third in OPS; top ten in runs, doubles, triples, homers, RBI; second in walks and fifth in SB; and a .308 batting average -- but was overshadowed by the increasing home run totals of those allegedly using PEDs. So, Bonds figured, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
It's a classic race to the bottom situation. The result we want is a drug-free game, at least in our public statements and such. However, we give awards and honors to the drug users, at the expense of the clean players. This intices them to do things we don't want them to do -- namely, use PEDs. After all, the 70 home runs McGwire hit each count as much as the 37 Bonds hit.
So, Bonds joined the race -- and won by a mile. He, not Sosa, has the 734+ career home runs -- an NL record and second all-time. He, not McGwire, has the single-season homer record.
And, in winning, he is labeled Public Enemy #1. But is it fair? Should the brunt of our anger fall on Bonds, who while the victor in this race to the bottom, was a late-entry? Or should it fall on Canseco, McGwire, and Sosa -- three players who were among the first out of the gate, but stumbled toward the finish line?
I think the latter group is more deserving of our scorn. Had they never used PEDs -- or if our collective ire struck at them in 1998, when the home run parade began -- Bonds would have never entered our discussion. Instead, the McGwire-Sosa tandem drew our applause, our accolades, and our endless debates as to who was the best in that generation.
For Bonds, though, that debate must have had a personal sting. For before 1998, the question was not "McGwire or Sosa" -- it was "Bonds or Griffey." (ARod is his own generation, being 10 years younger than Bonds.) Before he was a steroid user, Bonds was a victim of steroid use.
Exhibit 1: Superstar vs. All-Star
When news came out that Bonds starting doping in response to the 1998 homer barrage, the gut reaction held by most -- myself included -- was that Bonds was being the selfish primaddona that unfortunately describes his temperment. Bonds, we argued, wasn't happy with being one of the best. He wanted to be the best.
But in retrospect -- and, after looking at the table below -- I find that stance hasty. In 1993, Bonds, age 28, won his third MVP -- his third in four years, with a second-place finish rounding it out. In 1993, Sammy Sosa, age 24, burst on the scene with a 30/30 performance. Sosa was a clear All-Star. Bonds, though, was a superstar.
The first table below matches Bonds and Sosa, year by year, from 1993 to 1997, inclusive. I've titled the Bonds column "Superstar," because the numbers he put up over that period are that of a perrenial MVP candidate. Indeed, Bonds won one MVP during that period and was top 5 in three of the other four years. Sosa, though, while putting up All-Star numbers, is not in the same class. (The second year, 1994, was the strike year, so I pro-rated the data.)
The second table? 1998 -- the year Sosa was probably on steroids and Bonds apparently not. Suddenly, the roles reverse.
| Superstar | All-Star | ||||||
| BA | HR | RBI | SB | BA | HR | RBI | SB |
| .336 | 46 | 123 | 29 | .261 | 33 | 93 | 38 |
| .312 | 49 | 109 | 39 | .300 | 34 | 95 | 30 |
| .294 | 33 | 104 | 31 | .268 | 36 | 119 | 34 |
| .308 | 42 | 129 | 40 | .273 | 40 | 100 | 18 |
| .291 | 40 | 100 | 37 | .251 | 36 | 119 | 22 |
| .303 | 37 | 122 | 28 | .308 | 66 | 158 | 18 |
But this role reversal is really a fiction of relativity. Compare Bonds' 1998 season to any of Sosa's other seasons over the period in question. Bonds' .303 average is higher than Sosa ever reached, as is his 122 RBI. Bonds' 37 homers would constitute Sosa's second best total. The stolen bases are competitive.
The fact is that Bonds was putting up the same superstar totals that he always did. But suddenly, because of some potion and witchcraft, someone else began dwarfing his output. Had the environment not changed, Bonds would have probably found himself in the top 5 in MVP voting again.
Exhibit 2: Bonds's Drug-Free Career
Imagine, as many wish were true, that he never (regularly) used steroids. His career numbers? Let's use Bill James' Favorite Toy, a tool to project career stats based on current ones, to shed some light on this.
Bonds was 33 years old at the close of the 1998 campaign, allegedly his last PED-free one. His career line, at that point:
.290 BA, 411 HR, 1216 RBI, and 445 SB.
If we take the Toy, using those numbers as his career to date, we can make a prediction as to how he would have finished had he simply stayed on this drug-free course. Says the toy:
- "Based on his age, your player can be expected to play for 4.2 more years, at an average of 38.8 per year. At that rate, he will finish at 574.1 for his career."
That may be a bit high, but probably not by much, and similarly not out of the realm of possibility. Let's say Bonds plays five more years -- ages 34 to 38. His 1996 to 1998 homer totals were 42, 40, and 37, respectively. So, let's say he puts up 35, 33, 29, 26, and 19 homers over his last five ficticious seasons. Perfectly reasonable albeit conservative. While the Toy projects an additional 163 home runs, that back-of-envelope guess gives Bonds 142. Let's call it 565.
The Toy also projects Drug-Free Bonds to have 600 SB, a .292 BA, and 1703 RBI. I'll nerf the SB and BA totals because both tend to suffer at the ends of careers, so, we'll put it at 565 SB and a .285 BA.
The Toy says that Drug-Free Bonds has a 97% chance of hitting both 500 HR and stealing 500 bases. For what it's worth, 97% is the Toy's artificial max. So he was, regardless of drug use, likely to be MLB's first 500/500 player. (Actually, the steroids probably hurt him here, due to the SB total.)
To summarize:
1) Stat line for a Drug-Free Bonds: .285 BA, 565 HR, 1700 RBI, 565 SB. First ballot, easy.
2) Drug-Free Bonds would still be the first MLB to hit the 500/500 mark.
Oh, and in case you're wondering about Drug-Free Bonds's chances at homer milestones:
- 36.3% chance of 600
- 15.5% chance to reach 660 (Mays)
- 6.4% of 700
- 3.8% of 714 (Ruth)
- 0.0% of 755 (Aaron)
Exhibit 3: Mr. Clean
Let's compare Drug-Free Bonds' career HR numbers to the PED-influenced numbers of his peers, and a not-so-mystery guest.
| Sosa | McGwire | Palmeiro | DFB | ??? |
| 588 | 583 | 569 | 565 | 563 |
There are two interesting things to note here.
First, as above, the career totals of Drug-Free Bonds are, in a league with many gods, pedestrian. That is, when five players from your generation approach Frank Robinson's mark of 586 homers -- and one eclipses it -- you no longer look so special. Rather, you look like another player who, while great, is as much a product of his environment as he is his own talent.
Our mystery guest demonstrates this to a T. He is, unsurprisingly, Ken Griffey Jr. As of this writing, Junior Griffey has 563 home runs, quietly approaching Palmeiro's total, and with a good chance of passing McGwire next year. And as a CBSSportsline columnist put it last year:
- "There is one slam-dunk future Hall of Famer, however, who is not on the run. One recent inductee into the 500-home run club whose statistics have never been in question and whose name is in the clear. Nobody, so far, has ever dreamed or insinuated that Ken Griffey Jr. and steroids ever met."
Yet Griffey, a sure Hall of Famer, and almost certainly a first-ballot type, is not revered like the other, pre-steroids sluggers. He, like Drug-Free Bonds would have been, has been robbed of the accolades he rightfully, and cleanly, earned. In not entering the race to the bottom, Griffey lost.
All because McGwire, Sosa, and others had to start the race to begin with. Not because Bonds had to end it.
Date
Fri 09/29/06, 7:46 am EST
