Sunday, July 29, 2007

Why Gaylord Perry But Not Barry Bonds?

I'd like to get serious for a moment and share something that's been troubling me. Why is it that we allowed Gaylord Perry into the Hall of Fame but we say Barry Bonds shouldn't be eligible? Remember old Gaylord? He of the spitter and other means of cheating from the mound?...

Everyone always chuckles about Perry, acknowledges that he cheated but has no problem whatsoever recognizing him as a Hall of Famer. What exactly has Barry Bonds done that's worse?! (Besides being an enormous jerk, of course.)

I'm asking you this question because I struggle to answer it. Don't get me wrong... I hate Barry Bonds as much today as I ever have, but I can't quite figure out why I can't stand him and yet I still get a kick out of Perry.

2 comments:

Bob said...

I think the reason why no one has a problem with Gaylord Perry being in the hall of fame but does not want Mark McGwire or Barry Bonds in the hall is because Perry was a pitcher. First, the practice of pitchers doctoring the baseball is as old as the game itself, and was not even outlawed until 1920. Because there is a tradition of pitchers doing this, that somehow makes it ok in the public's mind as opposed to steroid use, which is a relatively new phenomenon. Second is the double standard applied to pitchers when it comes to what is considered "cheating." Even though you could argue that pitchers benefit more from taking steroids than hitters do because of the recuperative powers of steroids, people only seem to care that steroids help players hit more home runs. Does anyone know or care that of the 16 major leaguers suspended for steroids 10 of them have been pitchers? No, because pitchers don’t hit home runs.

Fake George Steinbrenner said...

Excellent points, Bob! Hey, would you ever be interested in being the GM of a well-known, metropolitan major league baseball team? Not that Cashman's job is in jeopardy or anything, but,...