The all-time best? Bonds has a case

SHELTON E-mail: Click here Archive

© St. Petersburg Times
published June 19, 2002

It was a clear night, one of those Southern nights where the air is clean and the stars seem as close as an outfield fence. I remember it well.

The Cubs were in town, and praise be, so was I. I remember sitting in the back seat of a faded blue Ford, wide-eyed, as it crept through the streets that surrounded the old Atlanta Stadium. I remember that delicious energy, from the crowd and from inside, and the way it seemed to increase as we got closer.

It was the night I attended my first major-league baseball game, one of those moments in time that has a way of sticking in your soul forever.

I remember my sister turning to me and asking. "So, where do you want to sit?"

I remember my answer. "How close can we get to Hank Aaron?"

Even for a kid, greatness has its gravity. It pulls at you, draws you in, envelops you. Aaron was the best player in the game, wasn't he? Why wouldn't a kid from Georgia want to be near him?

This memory has tickled the mind lately. There is a reason.

Barry Bonds is a better player than Hank Aaron.

The first baseball autobiography I ever read was My Turn at Bat, by Ted Williams. By the time I completed it, I loved Ted Williams.

Barry Bonds is a better player than Ted Williams.

The first baseball player's name I can remember is Babe Ruth's, perhaps because of his greatness, perhaps because of the candy bar that bore a similar name. I remember the reverence the old folks in my neighborhood used when they spoke of Babe Ruth, although most of them were too young to have seen him, too.

Is Barry Bonds a better player than Babe Ruth?

The magic of Bonds is that he cannot only take you deep, he can take you back. Watch him approach the plate -- watching always has been the easy part with Bonds -- and you find yourself wondering if anyone has been more frightening for a pitcher, if anyone has been more dominant with a bat in his hands. Mays? DiMaggio? Cobb? Anyone?

These days, all comparisons are legitimate, all debates are admissible. Bonds, unloved and at times unlovable, has transformed from mere greatness to one of the top handful of players of all time. You might have to grit your teeth to do so, but it is time to admit it.

Bonds has 589 home runs and reaching 700 is a good bet. He's already the only man to hit 400 homers and steal 400 bases, and soon he'll be a 500-500 guy. Eight gold gloves. Four MVPs (it could have been six). One thousand, eight hundred and seven walks. Seventy-three homers in a season. A total of 4,876,419 bad moods.

All in all, it's a pretty good argument Bonds is as good as anyone has been. If he were as charming as Tony Gwynn, if he carried himself like Cal Ripken, if he were as graceful as Derek Jeter, I suspect a lot more people would be saying it.

As a sport, baseball always has been in love with yesterday's heroes. No one ever would suggest the NFL's stars of the 1920s would hold up to today's bigger, faster game. It's laughable to imagine the basketball stars of the 1940s in today's NBA. But suggest that someone might be, just might be, as good as Ruth, and you're risking a sock in the eye.

That's why the first notion of Bonds as one of the top one or two players of all time is immediately rejectable. Hey, the ball is juiced! (Funny. They said that in Ruth's day, too.) There has been expansion! (On the other hand, they allow black players to play these days. Not to mention Hispanics and Asians.) The pitching is thinned out! (As if Ruth never hit a home run off a bad pitcher.)

The most common defense against Bonds these days appears to be the steroid argument, although there is no proof linking Bonds. Nevertheless, as fans have heard the allegations of Jose Canseco and Ken Caminiti, Bonds has been labeled a suspect. Almost certainly, the altering of players' body chemistry has helped to skew modern-day statistics.

That said, no one has suggested Bonds has done anything against the law or, such as they are, the rules. You get the feeling that if it would have helped his game, Ruth might have consumed a little creatine, too, especially if you put it on a hot dog. (Come to think of it, maybe fifth-inning hot dogs helped juice Ruth. In a day when scientists can't agree whether milk or eggs help or hurt you, who knows?)

The thing is, there also are things that hurt Bonds. Night games, for instance. Coast-to-coast travel. Situational relief pitching. Jeff Kent. Harsher media. Jason Alexander and his accursed chicken nuggets.

So how good is Bonds? From my side of the water cooler, he's in the top three with Mays and Ruth.

No, Bonds isn't the best player in history. But he's good enough to make you ask.

A couple of more years, and he might be good enough to make you reconsider.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright