Replies

Here's a great column from the Miami Herald ripping Bonds for ripping the Babe.

Bonds ripping Babe Ruth appears blasphemous

By GREG COTE
Miami Herald

MIAMI - Anything in the way of modesty coming from Barry Bonds would, by this time, seem startlingly false, be too much to expect. Barry and humility have not met. He doesn't do humble. He leads the majors in homers and arrogance, and there are people who think one forgives the other, as if great talent mandates preening ego.

But dissing The Babe?

Our prince of petulance has discovered his latest new low.

Bonds bashing Babe Ruth during the All-Star break is sort of like a cardinal (not Albert Pujols, the other kind) choosing Easter at the Vatican to knock the Pope.

You don't disrespect The Bambino; deference to him is baseball law. If America's Pastime has a deity, it's Babe Ruth.

Oh, sure, you are officially permitted to poke gentle fun at his girth, or at the mincing gait seen in black and white newsreels, or at the idea his off-the-field nickname might well have been the Sultan of Swig.

But you do not - ever - suggest that any conversation about home run hitters should start with any name other than Babe Ruth. Let alone your own name!

Unless you are Barry Bonds.

``As a left-handed hitter, I wiped him out. That's it,'' Bonds brayed Monday. ``And in the baseball world, Babe Ruth's everything, right? I got his slugging percentage, and I'll take his home runs and that's it. Don't talk about him no more.''

It's a marvel how Bonds can be so impressively athletic yet have so little grace.

What he has accomplished speaks for itself. (If only!) The season record of 73 homers. The five MVP awards. The reservation in Cooperstown . . .

But how unbecoming that Bonds would trumpet himself by knocking American sports' all-time icon, a slugger dead nearly 55 years now but vitally alive as the rarest of legitimate legends.

Did Michael Jordan boast how he ``wiped out'' Magic Johnson? Did Dan Marino denigrate Johnny U? Did Hank Aaron, in eventually surpassing Ruth in career homers if not historical esteem, display anything but class in earning the record?

Perhaps Bonds' comments were part of a grand scheme, an orchestration by baseball to divert attention from the fact Tuesday's All-Star Game in Chicago was dominated by semi-stars, with so many first-time selections and a matchup of starting pitchers (Jason Schmidt-Esteban Loaiza) meriting not a marquee but a sandwich board.

Yeah, that's it. A master plan.

First you leave Sammy Sosa off the team so the soundtrack of the game won't be Chisox fans riding Sosa like a found mule while bombing the field with wine corks.

Then you create a media diversion by originally snubbing Marlins wunderkind Dontrelle Lewis (knowing full well he will eventually get on) while including a Pirates reliever with an ERA that looks like a professional bowler's three-game series.

Then you create more controversy by sacrificing Oakland pitcher Barry Veto, oops, Zito, to make a last-minute roster spot for retiring star Roger Clemens.

Then you top it off by having Barry Bonds rip The Babe.

(Oh, one more thing. Almost forgot Tuesday night's seventh-inning stretch, when fans still angry over last year's All-Star Game tie were given bats and invited to sprint after commissioner Bud Selig, who was dressed as a gigantic sausage.)

The thing that's so self-damning about Bonds' comments, beside the gall, is that he's wrong. His career numbers do not surpass Ruth's.

Babe's 714 homers amounted to one every 11.76 at-bats, while Barry's 643 equate to one in 13.36 at-bats. Ruth led the league in homers 12 times. Bonds? Two.

Ruth invented long ball, and you must judge his numbers against his era. When he hit 54 homers in 1920, the NL leader had 15. When Babe hit 60 in 1927, 30 led the NL.

It's more than home runs.

(ASTERISK) Ruth's career batting average (.342) was 57 points higher than the sport-wide average in his era, while Bonds' .295 is 34 points higher.

(ASTERISK) Ruth's career on-base average (.474) was 121 points above average; Bonds' .428 is plus-98.

(ASTERISK) Ruth's career slugging percentage (.690) was 290 points better; Bonds' .595 is plus-191.

There are legitimate yeah-buts on either side that fairly neutralize themselves.

Yeah, but: Ruth played before integration, against only white players.

Yeah, but: Bonds played in the era of inflated home run numbers, always dogged by suspicions of steroids.

Hey, Bonds is the greatest slugger of his generation. Give him credit.

But Babe Ruth invented the genre, and remains the standard.

Give him respect.