I'm with you Miles. I DON'T think he's the best player ever. There are just too many others. Plus, I simply don't care for his attitude. Give me a Ryne Sandberg, or a Ripken Jr. any day.

And, that over-the-shoulder catch is pretty darn sweet. That is Willie Mays, right?? (My baseball knowledge has kind of gone downhill since my life has been filled with Thomas the Tank Engine and Elmo etc.)

Mays it is.

I think Bonds has to be considered. I want to quote someone else here, because I feel like this is the best I've heard it summed (sorry, it's a bit long):

Yes, I suspect Bonds used lots of illegal stuff. I suspect many baseball players did. I suspect the powers of baseball not only allowed it to happen, they tacitly encouraged it. Those homers brought a lot of people out to the ballparks. Whether steroids were a big reason for those homers or a small reason (or even no reason at all), I don’t think anyone in baseball wanted to shake things up.

I guess the way I see it now is this way: This is our time. I don’t like the use of performance enhancing drugs. But I don’t like that before 1947, there were no dark-skinned players in the big leagues. I don’t like that for many years, greenies were popped like PEZ in clubhouses (I was told on this trip that amphetamines are actually rated more dangerous – and are therefore punished harder -- on the government drug list than steroids). I don’t like that players threw the 1919 World Series, and I don’t like that Charlie Comiskey sent those players flat champagne. Hey, I don’t like lots of stuff.

But this is what we have. Players have hit lots of home runs in the last 15 years. And now Barry Bonds is the all-time home run champ. He’s the best baseball player I’ve ever seen. He may not be lovable, he may not be admirable and he may not be clean. But I guess I'm not as bothered by that now. It's easy to forget that the home run record -- as cherished as it has been -- is only a number. People will remember Barry Bonds for more than the record, just as we remember the all-time greats for more than their numbers or achievements. Ted Williams spit at fans. Stan Musial signed autographs until the last kid was happy. Rogers Hornsby was a jackass, Ty Cobb sharpened his spikes and, later, may have killed a man, Bob Gibson pitched baseballs with a fire that bordered on pure hate, Gaylord Perry scuffed and spit on baseballs, Babe Ruth visited sick kids in hospitals and also ran naked through trains while being chased by women with knives. Pete Rose gambled on baseball and got more hits than any man ever. Mickey Mantle was an alcoholic. John McGraw once hit an umpire. Cap Anson, more than any single player, created the color line in baseball. Leo Durocher was suspended for gambling. And so on. And so on. And so on.

These are human beings who play these games – multi-layered, multi-faceted, chaotic, untidy, heroic, cowardly, honest and lying human beings – and our memories of them are not simple or stark; they don’t have to be one-dimensional. For me, it has been a thrill to watch Barry Bonds play ball even if I have my misgivings about him. I recognize him as the home run champ, even as I admire Hank Aaron’s home run achievement more. I even like Bonds in an odd way, but I don’t think it would be any fun going to dinner with him (not that he has invited me). One day in San Francisco, I met three different people, and they defined Bonds alternately as: “Cheater,” “Misunderstood,” and “Asshole.” I’ll bet he’s all three and then some.

He’s also man of our time. In many ways, he’s THE athlete of our confusing time. He’s gifted but angry, arrogant but self-aware, rich but needy, transcendent but unloved, innocent but guilty, charming but cruel, private but hungry for the spotlight. If you somehow land 200 years into the future – and the ozone layer still exists – and you were ask: “How would you describe America of the early 21st Century?” you could do worse than to tell the story of Barry Bonds.

I particularly like that last paragraph.

My point in this post was not that Bonds should or should not be villified for his shady dealings, but rather that I think the importance of offensive stats is vastly over-hyped, while attention given to the defensive component of the game in discussions of greatness is laughable.

Still the thoughts in your quote are worth examining. The writer makes a good point that there have been a lot of problems in baseball (and in sports in general) and that some of the legends we honor today were not so honorable back in the day.

Where I would disagree with him, though, is that I'm not content to throw my hands up and accept that pros will be pros. If we visit the future, the story of Bonds may well be a good metaphor for America today, but that signals to me that there's something amiss. It would be a very sad story to tell... (substitute "a nation" or "a society" for "a player") a player that was or could have perhaps been the greatest ever fails to stand apart from the rest, and in pursuit of his ambition, accomplishes great feats, but in a dubuious way that may not be uncommon, abnormal, or ahistorical, but certainly forfeits the trust of others, not only for himself, but for all the players around him too, and re-enforces the sad cynicism that plagues his generation.

True and telling perhaps, but not a story I would pass along gladly, or even dispassionately. Perhaps I should write a post on my philosophy of US history?

On factoring in defense into the greatest ever debate, it comes from a lack of reliable ways to determine and compare defensive ability. However, I think that baseball statheads are working on this, but it's still a bit complicated. Several players have developed reputations based on one or two highlight reel plays, yet the sum of their work is suspect (Derek Jeter?). Fielding percentage can be deceiving because a player who makes a lot of plays out of their position range may be more prone to the occasional error than a limited but steady fielder.

Defense can be so subjective. You almost have to watch a player day in and day out to really get a feel for them. When I was at a Braves game earlier this summer, I was blown away at how easy Andruw Jones made playing centerfield look. Though he has been criticized recently for letting his defense slip some, in the game I witnessed one could have applied the old saying made about Willie Mays: his glove was the place where triples go to die.

I read something the other day where someone was trying to come up with a reliable defensive formula. He calculated that Pedro Feliz was the best defensive 3rd baseman this season. Several Giants fans commented that they generally considered Feliz a sub-par fielder and were terrified everytime he made the throw to first base.

So, I look forward to your calculations and how you work defense into it. You are right that not factoring it at all is doing a disservice to an essential aspect of the game.

On factoring in defense into the greatest ever debate, it comes from a lack of reliable ways to determine and compare defensive ability. However, I think that baseball statheads are working on this, but it's still a bit complicated. Several players have developed reputations based on one or two highlight reel plays, yet the sum of their work is suspect (Derek Jeter?). Fielding percentage can be deceiving because a player who makes a lot of plays out of their position range may be more prone to the occasional error than a limited but steady fielder.

Defense can be so subjective. You almost have to watch a player day in and day out to really get a feel for them. When I was at a Braves game earlier this summer, I was blown away at how easy Andruw Jones made playing centerfield look. Though he has been criticized recently for letting his defense slip some, in the game I witnessed one could have applied the old saying made about Willie Mays: his glove was the place where triples go to die.

I read something the other day where someone was trying to come up with a reliable defensive formula. He calculated that Pedro Feliz was the best defensive 3rd baseman this season. Several Giants fans commented that they generally considered Feliz a sub-par fielder and were terrified everytime he made the throw to first base.

So, I look forward to your calculations and how you work defense into it. You are right that not factoring it at all is doing a disservice to an essential aspect of the game.

Hey, can anybody dig up any dirt on Lou Gehrig? If not, then he has my vote for best ever. I personally think a vote on all-time best player should include character. That's the introvert/perceptive in me. How're ya gonna factor THAT in, Miles? :) Interesting posts, Possum. Still think Bonds is a jerk and he doesn't get my vote for best ever.