Is Bonds Causing A Rift Between Buck and McCarver?
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
In an almost throwaway moment last Saturday Buck and McCarver were talking all things Barry Bonds. They each seemed to take a side and Bill Taaffe of the Las Vegas Review took notice. Here's his take....
A fault line has developed between Fox's Joe Buck and Tim McCarver in their views of Barry Bonds and steroids. It was apparent during the All-Star Game telecast last Tuesday and, in McCarver's case, again during the Dodgers-Giants broadcast Saturday.Great catch by Taaffe, and this is a huge problem with announcers as of late. Isn't it your job to provide all sides of an argument and bring all things to light? It's almost as if Buck is doing a disservice to viewing audience.
Put succinctly, Buck thinks the public has realized it's going to have to tolerate a certain level of suspicion on players' use of steroids and human growth hormone. And he himself is not about to criticize Bonds or any other player who has taken them. McCarver, a former player from the pre-steroids era, is instinctively harder on the issue.
"From 1920 to 1965 there were 16 players who hit 50 home runs or more ... a 45-year period. Over the last 12 years, there have been 21 players who have hit 50 home runs or more. Did that just happen? Well, the clear answer is no, it didn't."
You can't just accept that this is part of the game. With a situation/record this big....you have to bring attention to it. Thoughts?
BONDS BEAT (Las Vegas Review-Journal)
Photo Credit: The Sports Hernia
11 Comments:
AA, I disagree with you on this one. First off, it drives me nuts when Bonds is used as the poster child for steroid use. Sure, he used. So did a ton of other players (and they continue to use PEDs, as evidenced by the continuing suspensions coming out of both major and minor league baseball). The sad fact is that you can't simply discredit Bonds because we have no idea how many of his contemporaries were using steroids either. If a steroid using hitter homers off a steroid using pitcher, what does that really mean?
Sure, it's too bad that steroid use was, and perhaps still is, rampant. But it's baseball's own fault, for tacitly encouraging use and turning a blind eye to all the evidence that was mounting during the late 90s/early 00s. Selig and company wanted the homers, wanted the increased fan attention, and they didn't much care what the cost was.
I can't blame players for using steroids: they're out for their own individual good. It's the job of the Commissioner to worry about the overall health and future of the game, and on the PED side of things Selig has been terribly negligent.
So I see Buck's point: eventually, you just can't work up anger about Bonds because he's merely a tiny facet of a much larger problem, one with no real solution. The chemistry is so far ahead of the testing that guys can, and will, use PEDs to gain an edge, and there's not much we can do about it.
Buck was forced to go to the west coast twice in a week? My god!
While I agree that is correct S-Zilla...I think it's different than the point I was trying to get across. I may agree or disagree with Buck, but he's set on not bringing it up at all.
I think it needs to be addressed, and they both can have their say. They don't need to be mean about it, or criticize...just make it available to the viewing audience.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with Joe Buck - he's the one bringing the alternate point of view.
Barry Bonds has been crucified for years as the poster boy for PEDs: that he's the bad guy, old time baseball is the good guy, and everyone else is innocent.
Now the alternate, realistic viewpoint is finally coming around: That lots and lots of players used PEDs, that baseball should have done something but didn't, and that there's no use whining about the past so lets just accept that Bonds will be the new home run king.
The Steroid Era of baseball is like a crazy ex-girlfriend; at first you're livid because she wrecked your car and fucked your best friend, but eventually you move on and swear you'll never do something that stupid again.
I hate it when Mommy and Daddy fight.
Barry Bonds rules. If I were famous, I would treat the media the same way. Why? Fuck them, that's why.
This would have more merit had Buck actually called the Dodgers/Giants game.
Umm Anon....pretty sure they called that game unless it was Bren. I didn't see the game, but all signs point to yes...
Saturday, July 14, 2007
3:30 PM
Los Angeles Dodgers at San Francisco Giants
You're all missing the point. AA wrote, "It's almost as if Buck is doing a disservice to viewing audience."
Every time he turns on the mic, baby. Every time.
Buck has always had a credibility problem. He's the guy that said, "They're making too much of the (Kenny Roger's assault on a cameraman) situation."
He also said that "Randy Moss has just done the most disgusting thing I've ever seen on a football field!"
(What did Randy do? He had PRETENDED to moon the fans at Lambeau Field.)
Buck has NEVER been entertaining and should just go away.
To dismiss the fact that PED's played a part in this would be dumb but what these two tools need to understand is that the ball parks have changed too. There are domes, retractable roof stadiums, newer stadiums with smaller dimensions, stadiums with dimensions that have been altered, etc. There are also 30 teams and not 16 or 20 or 24. That means there are probably 75-100 pitchers who in Tim's day wouldn't have even gotten a sniff of the majors. Guys train year round now, there's instant feedback via video and coaching on their at bats, the scouting is more advanced etc. While these are all factors in the increased numbers of the last 15-20 yrs there is no one factor that can explain it. That's what those two tools need to realize.