Barry Bonds booed, cheered, hated-on at PNC Park

23 Comments

Barry Bonds was on hand at PNC Park to present Andrew McCutchen with his 2013 MVP Award this afternoon. Bonds is likely a polarizing figure in Pittsburgh. His leaving via free agency following the 1992 season kicked off the Pirates’ two decades plus in the wilderness. Plus all the PEDs stuff. As a result, you have to assume there would be a lot of boos for him. But you also would figure that some people would cheer for him there because he did play an awful lot of great baseball in Pittsburgh and his Pirates teams won a lot of games.

I didn’t get the broadcast on in time to see Bonds’ appearance, but I went to Twitter to see the reactions:

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that (a) there were boos and cheers; and (b) whether you think there were substantially more of one than the other says more about what you think of Barry Bonds than what 40,000 people in the crowd do.

In other news, regarding Sullivan’s tweet: what is one supposed to if one is booed apart from “appearing oblivious?” Is Bonds supposed to cry? Beat someone up? Or is he supposed to just sit there and display character traits that we really want him to have because we dislike him, like obliviousness?

Or maybe I’m off base here and maybe it was hard to get a gauge on what was happening there? Maybe people don’t have particularly strong opinions?

Oh.

Red Sox owner: “spending money helps”

Getty Images
4 Comments

The other day Rob Manfred said, as he and other owners have said often in the past, that there is no correlation between payroll and winning. He said that defensively, in response to criticism of the slow free agent market of the past two offseasons.

As we have noted in the past, Manfred is not being honest about that. While, yes, in any given year there can be wild variation between payroll and win total — the Giants stunk last year, the A’s won 97 games — common sense dictates otherwise. What’s more, a recent study has shown that there is a pretty strong correlation between winning and payroll over time. Yes, you can fluke into a big season with a low payroll — Deadspin compared it to a cold snap occurring during a time of climate change — but if you want that “sustained success” teams claim they want, the best way to ensure it is to spend more money over time.

If you know anything about baseball labor history, though, you know well that the Commissioner and the owners will continue to mischaracterize the dynamics of the business as it suits them. Mostly because — present lefty sportswriters notwithstanding — very few people push back on their narratives. Fans tend to parrot ownership’s line on this stuff and, more often than not, baseball media acts as stenographer for ownership as opposed to critic. That gives owners a far greater ability to shape the narrative about all of this than most institutions.

Which makes this all the more awkward. From David Schoenfield of ESPN:

In apparent contradiction to his own commissioner, Boston Red Sox owner John Henry said Monday that, while there is not a perfect correlation between a bigger payroll and winning, “spending more money helps.”

Which is right. The correlation is not perfect — teams can spend a lot of money on a bad team if given the chance and a low payroll team like the Rays can bullpen their way to 90 wins — but you’re way more likely to win year-in, year-out if you’re spending than if you go cheap all the time and hope for a miracle season.

Which is not to say that Henry is some labor activist owner. He and his fellow front office officials have a long history of backing the league office on just about everything that matters and will no doubt do so with labor matters in the runup to the next CBA negotiation. The owners tend not to have a solidarity problem.

But Henry does seem to draw the line at peddling baloney, which is a shockingly necessary thing when the league and the union’s relationship turns acrimonious.