FanHouse BruceJenkins

I'll just get this out of the way. I hate people who are too reliant on stats when judging baseball players and/or teams. I've said it before, but the game is not played on a spreadsheet. Human beings play this precision sport on the field. On the other hand, it's very much a stat-based game when you are arguing for things such as MVP awards or who qualifies as a Hall of Famer. Bruce Jenkins, of the San Francisco Chronicle, flies to the opposite of the stat-based point of view.

If you require a set of numbers to make a case for someone, you're probably trying too hard. More often than not, players strike a Hall of Fame look by their fifth or sixth year in the league. You see them play, watch how they carry themselves, hear tributes of respect from other players, and you just know.

Look, I'm not going to go as nuts on this paragraph as Ken Tremendous would have (sigh), because I do believe there's a happy medium between the stat sheet and the eye test.

There are lots of reasons one might find for why Barry Zito has been egregiously ineffective this year. They include, but are not limited to: a drop in velocity, weirdly inconsistent mechanics, poor defense, and so forth. All you have to do is watch, really, and you can see it: Zito's just not the same player he used to be.

None of the above reasons include Barry Bonds somehow still haunting Zito, but that's exactly the hypothesis San Fransisco Chronicle columnist Bruce Jenkins posited today (via BBTF). Huh?

Having seen Barry Zito in two of his favorite comfort zones - jamming on guitar and gazing at a pristine surf break - I can't help but lament his choice of teams. There's a lot to like about the revitalized Giants, but last year, in the cauldron of Barry Bonds-related gloom, took the fun out of the game for Zito. He did his best to worship at the Bonds shrine, but he knew he was kidding himself. With the team sinking into oblivion, life at the ballpark became an eternal bummer.

So, last year Zito sucked, and that was Clubhouse Poison (TM) Barry Bonds' fault. Fine. But this year, Zito sucks again -- even worse, in fact -- and that's ... also Barry Bonds' fault. Perhaps clubhouse poison has an extremely long decomposition half-life. Or maybe Zito's just bad at baseball, no matter who his teammates are.

It's not just our man Larry Brown who thinks Steve Phillips is way off base when it comes to Barry Bonds breaking the all-time home run record at home -- it's San Fransisco Chron columnist Bruce Jenkins, too, who rails against Phillips in his latest blog post:

Like most everyone with common sense, Phillips believes that Bonds should hit his 755th and 756th homers at home. That's how it should play out, for the sake of Bonds, his adoring San Francisco fans, and posterity. But Phillips takes it a step farther. He says the record has to be broken here, and that if Bonds remains short of the mark when the Giants leave next week for a six-game road trip through Los Angeles and San Diego, he should sit out the entire trip.

I'd like to see Bonds make history at Mays Field, just like the majority, but I also think it would be bitterly appropriate for him to do it in L.A. or San Diego. He has a long history of damage in both stadiums; some of his most impressive moments have occurred there. If the fans are booing -- hey, isn't that the story here, that people question the legitimacy of his record? Many will cheer, because they just can't help themselves. Many will bring cameras, flashbulbs going off like crazy. Many will boo. Some might get a little bit nasty. Isn't that a lot more authentic than performing at home to unadulterated worship?

While I'd argue that Jenkins ought to tread lightly when invoking authenticity in the same breath as any discussion of Barry Bonds, he makes the important designation here. Yes, it'd be great if Bonds broke the record at home, but he doesn't have to do so for the record to be worthwhile, as Phillips insists. After all, it'd be nice to inject some semblance of pragmatism into the surreal saga that is this home run chase.

Bruce Jenkins, baseball writer for the San Fransisco Chronicle, says that before Bonds really begins this season's chase in earnest, we need to get a few things straight. One: Hank Aaron and Bud Selig should stay away from the chase at all costs, and two: there's no way the Giants would dream of trading Barry Bonds away.

If there's an argument over whether Aaron should show up and "root" for Barry to take his record, Jenkins attempts to squash it:

Aaron did a wonderful thing this week, telling reporters that he has no intention of attending any Giants games. He was pretty cold about it, too, stopping short of direct criticism but suggesting he might get around to sending Bonds a telegram.

Aaron doesn't admire Bonds as a person, and he is certain that steroids, not talent, will have taken down his record. Why in heaven's name would he show up as a hypocrite, pretending everything is great? ...

That's a pretty good point, and in tandem with Jenkins' assertion that standing next to Bonds could raise concerns about any potential methamphetamine use by Aaron, it makes perfect sense why the former slugger would want to avoid that spotlight. Wouldn't you?

Jenkins also thinks Selig should stay away, if only to preserve an image of honesty. Instead, Selig can ignore Bonds at the MLB level and let the Giants celebrate him, and any future complications can be sent directly to their front office, not MLB's.