Now, don't get me wrong - as a professional historian, I understand perhaps as well or better than anyone that history is a creative process, one informed by the perspective of the historian, the audience, and the social, intellectual, and political contexts. However, what Steve Phillips suggested on the Sunday July 22nd edition of BBTN is simply ridiculous, insulting, and perhaps even pernicious. In case you missed it, Mr. Phillips insisted that Bonds MUST break the all-time home run record in San Francisco, and that if he doesn't accomplish the feat on the upcoming home stand, the Giants should bench him for the following series against the Dodgers and the Padres until they return home to San Francisco. His emphatic insistence was based upon the claim that such an important record would be tainted by an unfriendly reception at a hostile ballpark, and that baseball history cannot afford to remember such an important event in a negative light.

This point of view seems to me to be completely without merit, for any number of reasons:

 First, the fact is that if Bonds surpassing Aaron's mark has been tainted, that it is the actions of Bonds himself that have done so, and that an unreceptive visiting ballpark will do absolutely nothing to change for good or ill whatever negative sentiment is attached to this achievement.

Second, there is no guarantee that any audience will react with the disdain that Phillips expects. According to Steve Phillips, if Bonds breaks the mark on the road, it will be met with booing, objects thrown on the field, and other heinous and unsightly behavior that he could only hint at. No one knows exactly how he has come to possess this kind of foresight, especially when recent evidence completely contradicts this gloomy forecast. In fact, when Bonds homered twice in one game in Chicago recently, despite being booed for his plate appearances, the crowd cheered wildly when he connected on both home runs. It is possible, in fact, that even if this were to happen, that history would applaud Bonds for his single-minded pursuit of the record in the face of adversity. After all, much has been made of Aaron's continued quest of Ruth's then-record, despite the desires of many to see him fail.

Third, Phillips claimed that benching Bonds against the series with the first-place Dodgers and second-place Padres would have no impact on the standings, seeing as how the Giants are hopelessly out of the pennant race. Again, one wonders as to how exactly Mr. Phillips obtains his precognitive abilities, but fellow BBTN commentator John Kruk was quite right to point out that the above-.500 Diamondbacks (3.5 games behind the division-leading Dodgers and 2.5 games behind the Padres) and the .500 Rockies (5.5 games behind the Dodgers and 4.5 behind the Friars) might feel differently that the single best player on the Giants would be held out of games against both teams ahead of them in the standings. In fact, one could very easily argue (and Kruk did) that this would pose a very tangible advantage for the Dodgers and Padres, and therefore indeed has the potential to alter the playoff picture.

Fourth, and perhaps most significant, what Phillips suggests is to actively "stage" history. He seems to think that by deliberately creating an environment in which Bonds is met by a cheering multitude as he rounds the bases after breaking arguably the most hallowed record in baseball, perhaps even all of sports, that this is somehow a net positive for baseball. Isn't it possible that such a deliberate and obvious act of spin control would have the opposite effect? Doesn't it seem plausible that in retrospect, watching Bonds round the bases to cheering San Francisco fans after he was held out of the preceding road trip would ring hollow and only serve as a reminder of the crass and shallow artifice that would go into arranging such an event?

I have this to say to Steve Phillips - Let the events unfold as they should, without staging and without meddling. That, after all, is one of the great attractions of sport, namely the unpredictability and spontaneity of what happens on the field of play. By attempting to choreograph what happens, you will be contaminating the essential virtue of sport. Remember, later generations have a way of remembering the past in ways that are often impossible to predict. If the Giants attempt to become architects of history, rather than simply remain bystanders in it, they will run the risk of doing more damage to its remembrance among future generations than anything that Bonds may or may not have done.