Congratulations to Barry Bonds

I don't understand the hatred toward Barry Bonds. I'm not sure why the media hates Barry Bonds. They always have hated Barry Bonds, even before these steroid accusations. I mean, they don't have the same hatred toward Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa, and they seem to have the same increased home run production and increased in bulk. And the media can't just claim they didn't realize the steroid use in 1998 so that's why McGwire and Sosa got a pass, since Sosa didn't get the boos and negative media on the road this season when playing with the Rangers.

Barry Bonds led the major leagues in home runs in 1993, long before anyone thinks the bulking up (allegedly from steroids) of 1999 happened. Even if he did take steroids in 1999, do the media think he continuously takes steroids to keep up his massive bulk, even with the excessive media scrutiny and increased testing by MLB? Even if he once took steroids, wouldn't he have lost a lot of that bulk during the past several years? Sure, it does seem unlikely that someone could bulk up as much as he did over just one off season, but there is plenty about Barry Bonds that is extraordinary, so perhaps it just is natural.

Again, the media focus on Barry Bonds and steroids is what is unnatural. If Shawn Merriman of the San Diego Chargers, an immensely talented linebacker, sets the all-time sack record this year, will the media say the sack record need an asterisk, as Merriman was actually shown to have used steroids in the past? Had he not been suspended for violation of the drug policy last year, he was on pace to do exactly that, and despite the suspension he went on to play in the NFL Pro Bowl. Why love Merriman and hate Bonds, someone that has never been shown to be in violation of the drug policy? There is no sports-related reason. So let's celebrate Barry Bonds. My only disappointment was that he hit the record-setting home run 9 days after I was in attendance at AT&T Park to watch him play.

Why Bud Selig sucks

I think it's good to be reminded from time to time why Bud Selig has done such a bad job as baseball commissioner.

1) He was commissioner during the baseball strike which served no purpose.

2) The All Star Game tie.

3) The All Star Game "now counts." It seems he didn't understand that the All-Star game always counted to baseball fans. The problem with the All-Star game wasn't that it didn't matter, but that he showed he really wasn't a baseball fan by allowing the All Star game to end in a tie. (Another sign he's not a baseball fan -- his "herculean" effort to watch Barry Bonds hit the record-tying home run. I mean, he's not even watching every game. He took time off for the Hall of Fame induction and another day off for no particular reason.)

4) Interleague play. Since teams aren't playing each team evenly, this really isn't fair. If baseball would want to follow the NFL's lead (like it did in adopting interleague play/wild card) they would rotate the teams that play in each city and give up the need to keep the rivalry games. Sure, rivalry games bring big crowds, but it's not worth the cost of the integrity of the schedule. If the integrity of the schedule didn't matter, then I'd rather see the Red Sox play the Yankees about 40 times per year.

5) Uneven divisions. Why does the NL Central have 6 teams while the AL West has only 4? The Milwaukee Brewers, Selig's former team, had to move to the NL where they "traditionally" played? Why wasn't this addressed prior to expansion? I guess this fits Selig's thought process of the schedule not really meaning anything.