Bill James discusses the "loveable rogue"

Bill James has been challenging baseball orthodoxy since the 1970's, and has been right a good portion of the time.  Today at slate.com, he discusses the virtues of not letting the rules prevent a person from being creative or doing the right thing, while at the same time acknowledging the price that must be paid for taking that attitude, but how that's still better than the alternative.

Case in point:  Babe Ruth.  The Babe never saw a rule he didn't want to break.  At the same time, however, it was precisely because of this attitude that he became an American hero.  Americans have a soft spot for the "loveable rogue."

First of all, I have absolutely no doubt that, had steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs existed during Babe Ruth's career, Babe Ruth would not only have used them, he would have used more of them than Barry Bonds. I don't understand how anyone can be confused about this. The central theme of Babe Ruth's life, which is the fulcrum of virtually every anecdote and every event of his career, is that Babe Ruth firmly believed that the rules did not apply to Babe Ruth.

He's careful to say that this is not necessarily a good thing.  There's a price to be paid for it.  Lift the lid off our behavioral impulses even a little bit and who knows what demons might come roaring out?  On the other hand, you can live in Singapore and do time for spitting on the sidewalk.  Which is better? 

He argues that Martha Stewart went to jail because she was an easy target.  It is now obvious, or should be, that regulators had far bigger problems on their hands than Martha Stewart, such as trading in something called "derivatives" which they did not understand, nor anyone else.

So now it is Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds in the crosshairs of the prosecutors, and the question I would urge you to think about is not only "Are these people guilty?" It is also, "Is this prosecution necessary and appropriate?"

Who is it that these people are not watching? We know now, in retrospect, who the people who sent Martha to jail should have been watching. In 10 years, we will know who is robbing the candy store while the feds are chasing Roger. It is not our job to know that now; it is their job, and frankly they should go do it. Is it really necessary to send Babe Ruth to jail, to teach him a lesson about refusing to go to school and making off-color remarks at nice old ladies' dinner parties and drinking during Prohibition? Or can we let him be Babe Ruth, arrogant and charming and irresponsible?

Even the Babe tipped his hat to public opinion, however.  He visited children in hospitals and knew how to say the right things when he had to.  That done, the public gave him considerable latitude otherwise.

My grandpa would get a twinkle in his eye when talking about Babe Ruth.  He knew about his drinking bouts--or suspected them--and grandpa was a tee-totaling conservative Christian.  Still, he liked the Babe, which is why I suspect that, had my grandpa lived into the 1990's, he, Republican though he was, would also probably have voted for Bill Clinton, twice. 

Comments

[Hypatia]

There is nothing remotely lovable about Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens. Ruth was a genuine lovable rogue, the kind of man people loved for and in spite of his failings. Whether he would have juiced today or not is irrelevant; his feats were accomplished with no such aid while living a lifestyle some would have called unhealthy. These guys were cheating to rack up better numbers, prolong their careers and rake in bigger bucks. Ruth was seemingly doing everything he could to sabotage his numbers.

As for Congress sticking its nose in where it doesn’t belong, Major League Baseball is what it is today because Congress decided it shouldn’t have to bother its fluffy head about competition. Holding the occasional investigation is not only not bad, it’s the least our generally docile Congresscritters can do.

If I’m reading James correctly, when Martha Stewart lied federal investigators should have shrugged their shoulders and pushed off. Hey, it was only a little fib to the feds, kinda like like jaywalking. They can afford to overlook that sort of thing.

[John Petty]

Well, you do have to admit that Martha Stewart is small potatoes next to Goldman Sachs.

I don't care for Clemons either, but, speaking as a Giants fan since the days of Willie Mays, Barry's all right.

[Hypatia]

Bonds was reportedly a big fat jerk in the clubhouse and has gained additional notoriety in the field of marital law. He forced his unemployed fiancee, whose first language is not English and who did not have an advanced education, the day before the wedding, to sign a prenup. He brought along two lawyers and a financial advisor. She had no one and Bonds threatened to call off the wedding if she did not comply immediately. Ultimately the prenup was upheld on the grounds that if she had no attorney available she should have waited and if she didn’t, tough bananas. (The law in California has since been changed, thanks in part to Bonds’ unchivalrous conduct.) He’s the salt of the earth.

[John Petty]

Except that what multi-millionaire athlete would NOT require a pre-nup? Tiger and Elin had a $10 million business arrangement, basically, although she wound up getting much more than that!

Barry Bonds may be a jerk, although opinions do differ on that, but he is also the Greatest Force at the plate I have ever seen.