Gazizza.Net

SI.com - Writers - John Donovan: Fans mystify with Bonds pick, get it right with Junior

There are none so blind as those who will not see. As an example:

Sunday, we saw the result of baseball fans around the country lining up strongly behind Bonds. More than a million of them, voting in ballparks and filling out online ballots over the past several weeks, decided that Bonds should start in this year's All-Star Game in San Francisco. The whole maelstrom that has engulfed him for years, the one that will come to a head in the days and weeks ahead -- you know, the whole steroids thing -- simply did not matter to the voting fans. Or, at the least, it didn't matter enough to keep Bonds out of the starting lineup.

...
What's strange, though, is that a lot of different polls -- ESPN/ABC, CBS News, USA Today, the Associated Press, CNN and many others -- have indicated that most fans don't believe Bonds when he claims he's never used performance-enhancers. A good chunk of fans, the polls say, don't want him to break Hank Aaron's career home run record. (He's now only five away from tying it.) When he finally pushes past Aaron's mark, many fans told the pollsters that they won't consider it a genuine record. Many polls show that fans, simply put, just don't like the guy.

So either those polls are way off, or the ballot boxes were stuffed, or fans changed their minds, or they simply don't care about any of that stuff anymore, or they don't think any of that should apply to an All-Star Game, or they don't think any of it should apply to this particular All-Star Game, or ... something.

I'm not the hugest Bonds fan, but I to tend to defend him a lot, because people are so irrational in their hatred of him. John Donovan argues that Bonds should not have been voted to the All-Star Game this year essentially because he's a pill popping jerk. Bonds' current performance never enters the discussion. (In fairness, fans tend to vote based off a combination of past performance and who's having a good first half, often voting for the names they know over who might be having a good first half. Prince Fielder, while a worthy All-Star is an exception to this rule as he was voted in over perennial All-Star Albert Pujols.)

The fact is, Bonds passes both the career performance and the current performance test. He's an inner-circle member of the Hall of Fame, as long as the writers don't let their dislike for him get in the way of doing the right thing. And he's currently leading the major leagues in OPS (onbase percentage plus slugging, a good quick and dirty guide to rate player's offensive values)! And even with his reduced playing time, he's fifth in VORP (Value Over Replacement Player, a measure of how much better Bonds is than the freely available talent that would replace him if he were injured). (Phillies fans: Chase Utley is forth and Aaron Rowand is 30th!) He's 13th in the National league in Win Shares and 24th in the majors (which takes into account his really poor fielding). (Utley's 1st and Rowand is 8th in the NL!)

An All-Star Game without Barry Bonds, which Donovan, and no doubt many others, were rooting for might be a game, but it wouldn't be worthy of the name "All-Star," no matter what your personal opinion is of him. Fans may dislike him personally and not want him to succeed in his quest, but they can recognize greatness. If only sportswriters eyes were so open.