Bonds: Not too sporting

Faithful readers, I have heard your wishes and I now respond. I'd first like to congratulate Major League Baseball's career home run hitting king: Hank Aaron! I'm somewhat surprised that I was expected to have reacted immediately to the Barry "Big Noggin"'s surpassing his God-father on the all time HR list. Why would I bother to commemorate a non-event? Someone can break the land speed record for a person on a bike, but if he does it with a rocket attached to his Huffy does anyone really care? I suppose my only quandary regarding Barry Bonds is this: Why did anyone pitch to him? Do you really want to be the pitcher who gave up #756? I think so! It is my contention that the pitcher who threw the 756th wanted to go into the record books as well and knew that this was one of the only ways to get there. No one will remember who pitched 755, but 756? That'll be in Trivial Pursuit Genus XXIX! I submit the following: Ben Johnson (Canada) set both a World and Olympic record and won a gold metal - all of which were later revoked when he tested positive for steroids. It's they if he never ran. There was a marathon runner in the 1920s who also set a World and Olympic record until his picture appeared in the paper. Turns out he'd hitched a ride with a motorist who came forward to denounce the cheater. There was no test for him to fail, yet his record was also expunged. Why then, do we celebrate this Bonds? This man who has testified that he not only knowingly took steroids but also took a masking agent to hide that fact. This man who has had countless people denounce him as a cheater, some of whom face jail time for leaking grand jury testimony! Why should his "record" stand? It should not. There should be no asterisk and there should be no "record." The only man Hank Aaron has to be concerned with is the mitt-slappin' A-Rod. 31 years old, averaging 50 HR/year, just passed 500 HRs. "I-Got-It" A-Rod will hold the top spot by the time he's 37. And here is the difference between A-Rod and Bonds. Few deny that A-Rod cheats, but his cheating is for a moment. Yes, he slapped Bronson's glove, yes he called for a pop up while he was running the bases but he doesn't cheat every time he steps to the plate. He doesn't cheat every time he walks onto the field, he hasn't cheated non stop for the past 6 years. In essence, his cheating is far more tolerable than Barry's. But here is the real kicker: The lucky man who caught #756, the random man who suffered a bloody nose for his prize, the "everyman" who had to be escorted from the stadium under police protection, must pay taxes on his acquisition as though it were income! I am not making this up. He will have to pay the federal government taxes on the value of the ball which is estimated at $600,000! Does this whole situation make anyone else wanna puke? I'm just glad it's over.

Speaking of baseball, I think it's time for the equation that determines which pitcher earns and win and which one a loss to be changed! In 2003, Tim Wakefield pitched a 1 hit complete game against the Yankees. The one hit was a home run by Jason Giambi that barely squeaked over the short porch. He lost 1-0 and got the L. Completely undeserved! In 2005, Keith Foulke blew a two run lead in the top of the ninth as the Blue Jays came back to tie the game. The Red Sox scored in the bottom of the inning and Keith, though he earned a blown save, got a W by his name, also completely undeserved. Even though I was livid when he said it, I think Pedro was correct when, after a 2-0 complete game loss, he said, "Tomorrow the papers will say that Pedro lost. But Pedro did not lose. Pedro pitched a game his team should have won." (How's that contract looking now, Mudflaps?) Here is what I suggest: If a starting pitcher allows two runs or fewer he should be ineligible for the L. The worst that he should receive is a no decision regardless of the outcome. It's not his fault if his team can't score (especially in the AL). Furthermore, a starter should not be required to go five innings in order to be eligible for the W if he can get the L as soon as he throws a pitch or a reliever can come in for a third of an inning and get the W! If a reliever blows a hold or a save and his team comes back to win he should be ineligible for the W. Finally, all of these revisions require one major change in philosophy in the recording of the Ws and Ls of each game: It will have to be ok if some games don't have a winning pitcher or a losing pitcher! For all of the cabermetrics that Billy Beanites love, why doesn't anyone but me care about this completely misleading stat?

I turned on the TV tonight and was astonished to see on FOX the following across the top of the screen: "IND 3 DAL 3" As my Yankee friend would say, "Hip hip Jorge!" Football has arrived! It made the fact that it wasn't quite as bright out when I left work today nearly bearable. After settling down and watching about four minutes of this preseason exhibition game I realized that watching 11 scrubs go three-and-out is not my idea of a good time. Bring on the real thing!

Well, you asked for it. Request sports and you'll get nothing but! Now that you've read JMO, what's yours?