No. 756

Last night Barry Bonds broke, arguably, the greatest personal record in the game of baseball - and maybe all of American sports. During his third at-bat against the Washington Nationals, Bonds crushed a 3-2 pitch into left-center field to break the tie between him and Henry 'Hank' Aaron for total (career) home runs. Aaron held the record for 33 years after surpassing George 'Babe' Ruth's previous record of 714 career home runs. I was watching ESPN when they cut into Sportscenter to televise Bonds' at-bat live. A piece of sports history was made last night whether you like the man or not. I'll be able to tell my children I watched it happen (I have to thank Colbert for not being very funny last night. Otherwise I wouldn't have switched the channel to ESPN).

After Bonds completed his trot around the bases, a small ceremony was held in which his teammates, family, and godfather, Willie Mays, congratulated him on his historical achievement. Aaron was broadcast on the giant screen over center field with a pre-recorded congratulatory message for Bonds.

Much time will be spent over the coming weeks and years talking about whether or not an asterisk should be added to Bonds career home run total (whatever it will end up being) or whether it should even be allowed to stay on the books. The "steroid era" of baseball will always cast a shadow onto Bonds' achievements, regardless of his personal culpability. Steroids certainly make you stronger, but they don't make your swing fluid, they don't tell you whether to lay off the high fastball, nor do they allow you to identify and hone in on a hanging breaking ball. If Bonds did take steroids, I am undecided about the recourse available.

If baseball didn't have a policy prohibiting the use of performance enhancing drugs in place, then in my opinion Bonds' record should stand even if he admits to knowingly taking steroids. He didn't break any rules. Does it still leave a bad taste in my mouth? Yes. An asterisk should only be added, however, if he admits to knowingly taking performance enhancing drugs. David Oritz of the Boston Red Sox recently admitted that he doesn't know if he took performance enhancing drugs in his native Dominican Republic because there isn't a governmental institution that tests dietary supplements. He stated, however, that he no longer takes supplements from the Dominican Republic. The reason people are less angry with Ortiz, Gary Sheffield, Jose Conseco, Raphael Palmero, and Jason Giambi is because they have come clean. Bonds continues to shirt the issue and his trainer continually gets placed in contempt for pleading refusing to answer the grand jury's questions. It just creates the air of impropriety.

If Bonds did take performance enhancing drugs, it's likely the pitchers he was hitting home runs off of were also guilty of the same ethically questionable, but not officially illicit, activity. We'll probably never know the list of names of every player that took some sort of performance enhancing drug over the last decade or two. Major League Baseball would have to erase every record broken in the last 15-20 years just to be safe. Of course, that isn't to say that big leaguers from eras past weren't hopped up on substances that are no illegal but weren't during decades past. MLB needs to look at more than Bonds and this record; unless they do, then Bonds is right, he's just a scapegoat.

My personal antipathy for Bonds stems more from his pompous character and his constant need to make everything a racial issue. He was quoted (I'm paraphrasing) around the time he broke Ruth's record to the effect of: "Now we can forget this old dead white guy even existed because I broke his record." His argument is that Ruth's record is tainted, or even meaningless, because Ruth didn't have to play against the African-American players still relegated to the Negro Leagues. It's a valid point of contention, but certainly doesn't diminish the impressive career and stats of Ruth. Ruth may not have played against his African-American counterparts, but there is nothing to say that they were inherently better pitchers just because they were black. Moreover, Ruth didn't have the modern dietary and training benefits of Bonds. Ruth certainly got larger in his later years, just like Bonds. However, Ruth's girth was due to hot dogs, women, and alcohol not weight training, supplements, and strict dietary regiments. Furthermore, the ballparks of lore were generally deeper than the modern corporate parks (except of course for Yankee Stadium which has always had short porches).

Even Aaron didn't have the benefits of modern athletic technology like Bonds; hell, even his bat mechanics were different. Aaron hands were crossed when he swung, instead of on top of each other (i.e. if you are right handed - like me, switch if you're a lefty- you hold the bat with your right hand on top, your arms are fully extended and straight when you swing; Aaron's mechanics would place his left hand on top, meaning his arms crossed during the swing, severely effecting the power generated). Simple mechanics of a swing can make it that much easier to hit home runs, let alone the effects and benefits of weight training and dietary regiments.

In the end, it's hard to compare eras and career statistics, even if numbers are numbers. Ruth, Aaron, and Bonds are clearly three of the greatest hitters in baseball history. Bonds is 80 hits away from 3,000 career hits, a remarkable number in itself. I will reserve my judgment of his home run record until the allegations of steroids are admissions or findings of guilt. I may not like the man because of the way he presents himself in the media, but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge his grand and historical accomplishment.

Congratulations to Barry Bonds.

A-Rod, you've got next. Go get 'em.

Hear the Roar of the Lions of Mesopotamia

Here is a BBC article on the celebration hosted by Iraqi leaders for the Asian Cup champions.

The victory earned the players a diplomatic passport and a $10,000 bonus. Three players were asbent, including the captain, because they feared for their lives.

My Great Soccer Quest

My previous hate-hate relationship with soccer was founded upon the type of people involved with the game at my high school - okay the boys involved, most of the girls were pretty damn cute. Most of them were spoiled brats and acted the the part too; in response, most of the people I knew called them "lawn faeries." A lot of the guys that played soccer were in track and cross country with me, so I'm not speaking to their character or interactions with society without firsthand knowledge of their ass-clownery.

As I have aged and grown away from high school politics and American xenophobia, I have taken greater pleasure in watching soccer. It's no longer the sport to take a nap to, or wholly foreign to me. I always enjoyed playing the NES soccer game as a kid, and now I enjoy the FIFA 2007 game I have for my Xbox. Playing video games of sports has always given me a greater appreciation for the rules. I have learned a lot more about defensive and offensive schemes for American football through playing video games. Anyway, I have come to really enjoy watching soccer and even found myself getting involved in the matches.

I was actually outwardly upset when a referee no-called a sliding tackle by a Mexican player against the United States in the CONCACAF Cup final. Much like the Olympics, I have always enjoyed watching the United States play in matches against countries in the World Cup. However, now I actually want them to win and expect US Soccer to catch up to the global standards, whereas before I viewed it with a detached indifference or even a low standard of expectations. I hope more American fans join the soccer bandwagon in the Post-Beckham era. I recently heard that 20 million American youths participate in the sport, making it more popular amongst children than the "Big Three" (Football [American], Basketball, and Baseball). Although to be fair, girls aren't allowed to play football and are quickly escorted to females-only softball after teeball baseball.

All of the soccer education lead me to ponder the origins of the word "soccer". I couldn't understand why we were the only country to use the term and where it could have come from. Foot + ball is not fuzzy math given the rules and skill of the game; similar to Base + ball and Basket + ball. The equation falls apart with Socc + er, right? Not exactly. Evidently, "soccer" fits that equation perfectly and even has its roots from across the pond.

Wikipedia was of little help on the subject. Typing in soccer provided a vast amount of knowledge on the rules of the game and the history of football, but it did little to answer my question about where "soccer" came from. Luckily, wordorigins.org and the online etymology dictionary were of some assistance.

"Soccer" is a diminutive form of association football. Late 19th century Brits - like the youth of today - liked to truncate words; they also like to add "er" to the end of words. In an effort to distinguish between rugby football and association football they coined the terms "ruggers" and "soccer". Evidently, "assers" wasn't a viable option.

According to my research (online etymology dictionary and answers.com), the reason this British slang term was originally used in the United States was largely pejorative. Baseball was "America's pastime." Until the mid to late-nineteenth century football/soccer was a sport of hooligans and pub patrons. It was lawless and violent until the rules were codified in England. The civilized sport of baseball was chosen and modified from the British games of rounders and cricket as America's sport. Soccer was a sport of foreigners and violence. Football - America-style - became popular through Ivy League sports. The elite promoted the sport and called it "football." You can thank the ivory towers for the need to clarify these days when speaking of "football."

If you are ever harassed by a non-American fan of football/soccer about the American use of the term "soccer", feel free to point out its the Brits fault, not ours.

Damn Yankees

So the Yankees are finally within one game of .500, and it only took until the second week of June. The Yanks used a three interleague game sweep of the bottom feeder Pirates (26-37) to extend their winning streak to six games.

I was certain going into this interleague home stand that the Yanks would find a way to lose to the NL Central punching bag. They came close in game one, winning 5-4 after a walk-off single by Jeter in the 10th inning. A decent start by 44 year old Clemens (6 innings, 5 hits, 3 runs, 2 walks and 7 strikeouts) yesterday, still required the Bronx Bombers to put up 1, 2, 2, 1 runs in the fifth through eighth innings respectively to win 9-3. The Yanks were leading 5-2 going into the top of the fourth today. By the time the homeside was up to bat the score was 6-5 Pirates. The Yankees responded to win 13-6 and sweep the Bucs.

While it's good to see the Yanks swinging the bat better and the bullpen not losing close games for a change, the Yankees still gave up 13 runs in three games - at home - to the bloody Pirates! A-Rod had two homeruns today accounting for 4 RBIs, bringing his series total to 6 RBIs. If A-Rod wasn't playing out of his mind this year, the Yankees would be battling the Nationals for East Coast inferiority.

I don't even like A-Rod. In fact, most people who talk basebeall with me have heard me refer to him as "Nimrod." He's overpaid, has made too many errors in big games for a player of his caliber, and has a case of fall-impotency. I don't expect the Yanks to win the World Series every year. I do however expect players of A-Rod's caliber to produce when he's expected to produce... the postseason.

Many have called for the head of Joe Torre; I say we should instead call for the head of the Boss. Ol'George is the reason that the majority of this team qualifies annually for senior citizen discounts at the Country Kitchen Buffet. Our bullpen is getting too old (Mussina, Pettite, and Clemens in the starting rotation?) and so is our outfield. George seems to think that if you take an established player and pay him more than most countries' GNPs, that they will bring home World Series Championships. The problem is that most established players that bring home eight figure paychecks are in one or both of these categories:

1) Fat cats
Give a player $20million and his reason to impress wanes quickly. Why sacrifice your body for team when you're earning tens of millions of dollars. You don't have to impress GMs to get the big bucks anymore. Just sit back and reap the benefits of making the Boss think you're worth the obscene paycheck you're getting.

2) Performance Decline
To earn the millions upon millions these players earn, typically they must produce for the better part of a decade or more. By the time they land in the Big Apple, they are too old to produce the numbers that gave the Boss drool marks on his pillow. Even if they can still produce, it's rarely to their previous level over the course of the season. See Randy Johnson and Bobby Abreu. Moreover, the older you get the easier you get injured or have chronic injury problems. See Gary Sheffield, Kevin Brown, Carl Pavano, and Jason Giambi.

The numbers most players produce when the arrive in the Bronx either proves my points or proves that New York is its own little universe for baseball stats. While New York fans may expect more from their players, they don't make them swing at bad pitches, don't make them throw horrible pitches, and don't injure them. On that point, neither does Joe Torre. So place blame where it belongs: in the front office.

Here's to the Yanks making a run at the Red Sox and bringing to August and September baseball what they do best: drama and excitement.

Baseball, hot dogs, and apple pie

Recently Melissa and I went to a Cedar Rapids Kernels game. The Kernels are a Single-A affiliate for the Los Angelos Angels of Anaheim of California of the Western Coast of the United States of America, unipole of the world. The Friday night adversary of the Kernels were the Quad City Swing - a Davenport Single-A affiliate for the St. Louis Cardinals. It was a good time. We paid $9/each for tickets about two rows behind the third base line. We purchased our ballpark food and watched a relaxing and exciting game. The Kernels won late after the Swing broke the scoreless game with two doubles - their only hits of the game at that point - in the 8th. A walk-off single in the bottom of the ninth sealed the game for the Kernels. The team mobbed the player responsible for the game winning home run like they had just won the pennant. It was great.

It's nice to go to a game without any attachments. Kernels v. Swing... I couldn't care less who wins. Unlike going to see the New York Yankees or St. Louis Cardinals (Melissa's team, and my adopted NL team), the loss of the "our" teams won't leave us feeling let down. For the record, I have never seen the team I want to win, win live. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a horrible hex. I have seen the Mets, White Sox, and Royals win at their home stadiums; but my point is that while I wanted them to win because I was at their home stadium, I didn't want them to win.

This was the second Kernels game I have been to this season and ever. Last time I went because the Cubs affiliate - the Peoria Chiefs - were in town. My friend wanted to go see the game because Ryne Sandburg is manager of the Chiefs. I was happy to obligue. Of course I rooted for the Kernels, despite sitting on the vistors side because I really dispise the Cubs. I have the Chicago-land students at the University of Iowa to thank for that. I don't even pay that much attention to the NL outside of how the Cards did, but man do those Cubs fans vex me - I am terribly vexed. My newfound annoyance with the Cubs creates a problem when going back to my "hometown" team of the Iowa Cubs. Solution: go when they are playing Memphis, the Cardinals Triple-A affiliate.