In case you haven't noticed, Barry Bonds is Black.  Now that that elephant is out in the open, here's another thing: people in this country are racially polarised.  And for my last earth-shattering new discovery: 74 percent of black baseball fans want Barry Bonds to break the all-time home run record. 

I know what you are thinking, and you are absolutely right: well, DUH!!

I am so happy to see this poll come out, and reinforce the obvious.  Really, I am.  I am relieved that there is some shred of scientific analysis to point out that by and large, Black baseball fans simply don't share the vitriol about Barry Bonds like their white counterparts. 

Oh, don't look so shocked...

We African Americans tend to see shades of gray better than white folks do.  Think Mayor Marion Barry, OJ Simpson and even President Clinton.  Our entire history is predicated on the notion that what you see isn't always what you get, and that the measure of a man's character and accomplishments cannot always be tempered by how he is percieved in public. Fifty years ago, all a man had to do was 'be black' in public and he was a target.

Barry was perceived as a colossal egomaniac who had a strained relationship with the media.  In the pages and sports blogs, Barry became the most hated man to ever hold a bat.  The sports media business waited long and patiently for their time to get him back. 

Then along came steroids...you know the rest.

So here's a question: when was the last time Barry failed a drug test? How is it that he is labeled a cheater without a shred of objective proof? 

Here's another question: How many Black citizens have been accused of some trumped up issues purely because he/she is African American?

So Barry is egocentric; perhaps he didn't "Yassuh Boss" his way thru a career in Major League Baseball.  So do you think there may be other forces at play here?

We African Americans think so. 

Recently, a close friend prodded me to confess that deep down in my heart, under a blinding coat of Dodger blue, there's a hint of love for the Giants.  Yes, I have a smidgen, a splash--just a splash--of affection for our mortal enemies.  Maybe it was that veteran squad last year that had the talent to take the Division, that band of old guys that would have defied all odds. But it just wasn't to be.  But just the same, the love is there, like a splinter in my soul.

Go ahead, call me a traitor.  But my good Karma helped them destroy the Padres in  2006. The only time I didn't root for the Giants was when they'd venture into Dodger Stadium.  But here's the real clincher: part of that Karmic vision has me hoping that Barry Bonds can find a way to put history first, for once, and cap his career with the Home Run record...in San Francisco.

Let's get a couple of givens out of the way first:

1) In Barry's eyes, his entire career has been 'All About Barry'

2) Unless he lands in jail, he is a lock for First Ballot, so personally he has nothing to prove with respect to his ability to carry a team and "get his".

3) EVERYONE who he has torqued-off and offended during the course of his entire career is simply DYING to see him fail.

He could squash all the nay-saying, obliterate two-decades of vitriol in one fell swoop. How?  Take $10-15 million, stay in San Francisco, lose the diva-esque demands and solidify his place in baseball history by catching and passing Hammerin' Hank.

Let's face it: Barry has been an insufferable jerk for much of his career. The media has shared in the venom with respect to its dealings with Bonds, so the ire and it's repercussions have been mutually attained. And there is much that Barry could have done in the past to defuse this tenuous relationship.  Now that his status for next season appears to be on the ropes, folks are salivating at the mere hint that Barry will be in his living room on Opening Day 2007.  Not likely, but they can dream, can't they? 

Barry can shut the entire press corps down by putting his ego second--for once--taking the pay and incentives cut and do it for the Baseball history books.  He would probably say that the game only has love for him if he can produce, and that he's going to "get his" no matter what, and to hell with some "record".

But hey, I can dream, can't I?

Did you know that if a 40-year-old man is brought up on legal charges for a crime he committed at age 15, he will be charged based on the laws at the time the crime was committed?

 If that rationale is good enough for the legal system, then why isn't it good enough for the Baseball Writers Association of America?

 In all of the posturing rhetoric and sanctimonious whining surrounding Mark McGwire's induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame, one very significant dynamic is being ignored: that Mark McGwire has become the scapegoat for Major League Baseball's molasses-slow response to the use of performance-enhancing substances by its players.

 A bit of trivia: back in the 90s, Mark McGwire used a then-legal androstenedione supplement.  The key words here are "THEN-LEGAL".  Andro was not banned by the USFDA until 2004, and was not considered illegal until 2005. 

 That may seem like some judicious bean-counting, but consider this:  the home run race of 1998 was long-touted as the event that saved baseball in America.  When McGwire sent that 62nd home run into the stands--ironically against Sammy Sosa's Cubs in Busch--NOBODY dared to second-guess McGwire's use of a legal dietary supplement.  To do so would have amounted to heresy.  No one remembers that--not even the holier-than-thou sportswriters who have jumped on the moral flagpole and forgotten that eight years ago, McGwire was not rumored to have done anything underhanded, and used discipline, a renewed sense of purpose, an improved workout regimen and a bit of "dietary help"  to poise his body to make history.

 Where was all of this bible-thumping back then?  Drowned out by cheers, I suppose.

 The bottom line is this: Baseball was slow on the uptake in establishing a cogent policy regarding performance enhancing drug use by players.  And now, the BBWAA wants to parse McGwire's then-legal supplement choices based on knowledge--and laws--that we have now.   Why don't we go back and remove Babe Ruth because he cheated on his wife, and NOW we have discovered that his moral character was not befitting of the HOF. 

 Vote on McGwire based on his numbers, and not on what you think you perceive in the 21st century as 'cheating'.  Because while we know more about steroids and their dangers today, to deny Mark McGwire a place in Cooperstown will prove that you still haven't learned anything.

In a recent post, I challenged the intensity--or lack thereof--of Padres pitching (yes, I realise Dodger pitching is abysmal and castrated, but that's a different post).  I mentioned how SD's pitching staff boasts a low bullpen ERA, knows how to get a clutch performance, and are SO thankful that Cla Meredith was jettisoned by the Red Sox.  

In reply to that post, another faithful blogger brought up the role of Trevor Hoffman, and alluded to Hoffy's high-profile chokes--most notably in the All Star Game and of course the collapse in Chavez Ravine.   I find that blogger a most insighful chap, but I respectully disagree with Hoffman being a "choke job".  He's had 45 save opportunities with 40 saves, and although he's 0-2, his ERA so far this season is 2.05 in 57.0 innings played.  Compare that with an immature crybaby like the Giants' Armando Benitez (17/25 in saves, 4-2 with a 3.52 ERA in 38.1 IP) and the old Padre doesn't look bad at all.  Plus, he's closing in on Lee Smith's all-time saves record with only two more to tie the 478 mark.  On paper, in contrast to the good blogger's comments, Trevor Time looks pretty ok.  Yet the comments made me think. In light of all the cool numbers I just spouted, I have but one question:

So what?

So Trevor is about to overtake Lee Smith in the all-time number of career saves.  Is that the stuff of a future Hall of Famer when the Good Mr Smith isn't even in the Great Hall yet?  More on that in a moment.

I did some checking, and from what I can see, Lee Smith was a pretty ok pitcher with flashes of brilliance; a career 71-92, with a 3.03 ERA and of course 478 saves; 7-time All-Star with a number of awards for relief and closing--the Rolaids award comes to mind.  And almost won a Cy Young.  Compared to that, Trevor is in good company with establishing his legacy.

Again, I ask...so what?

I hear a lot of discourse on the difficulty of being a closer; how getting those last three or six outs is very tough, especially when facing a team with a 'damn-the-torpedoes' desire to come from behind.  I hear that there's an art to closing, and that only a mentally tough guy can perfect that role and "bring in on in" for the team. 

In other words: Closers ride the momentum of a team lead into the ninth inning, and provide a rested arm to capitalise on the energy generated from eight previous innings of hardscrabble play.  Is this the stuff of a Hall of Famer?  Bruce Sutter made it in as a pure reliever, which is a slightly different entity from the closer.

The question will get answered eventually.  Because the good Padres fans--arguably some of the most faithful I've ever seen--are very excited at the prospect of Trevor hitting this milestone.  Could they be setting themselves up for colossal disappointment? The number one closer isn't a Hall of Famer yet, so that doesn't bode well for Hoffy to leapfrog his way into Cooperstown. 

As I mentioned, only Trevor Time will tell.

All weekend long, I've been trying to find a good reason to tell my wife and my boss that I needed to go to Los Angeles.  No matter how hard I thought about it, I just knew that the truth wouldn't fly:

"Well, honey (or sir), see...the Dodgers and Padres are within 1.5 games of first place, see, and..."

My gut told me that "You're Fired", or "I Want A Divorce" were the next things I'd hear, so I settled for watching on HD...and for a while I was glad I stayed home.  After watching the Dodgers get shelled on Saturday, then seeing them creep to a loss on Sunday, I donned my cap and jersey with full knowledge that the boys in blue NEED this Monday game.  How right I was!!

Seeing Jon Adkins and Trevor Hoffman get hammered for four home runs in a row was almost surreal.  Mark Grant, a local Padres announcer who called the game, said that if a screenwriter wrote that into a script for a baseball movie, he'd get fired for penning something so contrived, yet here we were watching it unfold in real time.  Four in a row; THEN my man Nomar lives up to his Mr Clutch reputation, replete with gimpy legs.  It was almost too much to conceive. Epic! Magnanimous!

But let's not kid ourselves...

THE most important element in this game was the momentum that my Dodgers have hopefully generated by such an historical--and histrionic--victory.    Once again, the dreadful Dodger bullpen allowed the less-than-potent Padres offense to stay in this game, after Penny lifted himself from the depths of a first-inning Hades to hold the Padres scoreless thru the rest of his five innings. 

This momentum could be the deciding factor in how the Dodgers attack not only the remainder of the season--which treads dangerously thru the Bay Area--but also the post-season. Hey, Houston did it last year, right?

But on a high note for Dodgerfan, San Diego's bullpen doesn't leave THAT much to envy, either.  Sure, they boast a pretty low bullpen ERA--something like 3.24.  But let's face it: if it wasn't for Cla Meredith, this team would have been dead a long time ago. Trevor uses good momentum to his advantage, and carries that energy into the ninth to fast-ball you to death.  But being sandwiched between Adkins and Seanez?  That was a recipe for drama...the good kind for Dodger Nation.

I was at Petco Park in April when the Padres smacked us for five runs in the bottom of the ninth to eventually win in 5-6 in the 10th.  Payback is indeed very sweet.  Now if we can just take the NL West, because the path to the Pennant takes us thru San Francisco...