Asterisk Redux

[24fps]

Months ago, when I first read a story about this, I started a thread, was greeted by the usual blasé "everybody was doing it" yada, yada , yada, considered it my fair share of abuse and moved on.

The story has finally reached a critical point. Barry Bonds' 756th HR ball has reached the HOF with an asterisk emblazoned on it as was determined to be it's proper fate by an online vote, of all things. Dog-like, the HOF accepted it on fashion designer Marc Ecko's terms with nary a whimper once a little window-dressing had taken place. I was not present to see if there was any slavering or tummy-scratching involved.

And evidently nary a thought was given that principle might play a role here, if the guardians of the heritage of our national pastime are any indication. The sticking point seemed to be loan vs. donation.

Should the HOF decide to display the ball defaced as it is, they will be tacitly endorsing a point of view that has not yet been demonstrated conclusively.

I detest Barry Bonds as much (or more) as the next guy, but standards should apply here nonetheless. Let's do it right.

Here's the link to the story:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/07/01/bondsball.Hall.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

[RShack]

Should the HOF decide to display the ball defaced as it is, they will be tacitly endorsing a point of view that has not yet been demonstrated conclusively.

And if they don't, then they will actively censoring that point of view.

It's impossible for them to do nothing. They'll be doing something either way.

It comes down to "The ball is what it is. Do people get to see it or not?"

[24fps]

And if they don't, then they will actively censoring that point of view.

It's impossible for them to do nothing. They'll be doing something either way.

It comes down to "The ball is what it is. Do people get to see it or not?"

I think this is wrong on every count.

Censorship has nothing to do with it. The HOF is no more obligated to present a variety of points of view than a Catholic priest is compelled to discuss the Torah on Sunday morning. This is called curatorial judgement. If and how an artifact is presented is not merely their prerogative, it's central to their function.

Of course they could do nothing, they were under no obligation to accept the ball in first place.

The ball "is what it is" now, which is something much different than what it was when the history was made. Every museum of any scale has far more objects warehoused than on display, so the question of whether people get to see something is again purely a product of administrative decision-making and nothing else. It's at this point the museum has to decide what business it's in.

It's my point of view that the ball should be withheld from display until all court proceedings have run their course, and MLB has issued its formal statement on the matter. At that point, the question of whether Barry Bonds' achievements warrant a asterisk will be fairly determined. Then if the HOF chose to display the ball, my position on the matter would be mitigated to a great extent. But not completely.

If the decision were mine alone to make, I would never display the ball and send a message to anyone who wanted the honor of being publicly acknowledged as the donor of a genuine historical artifact that my museum was not in the business of facilitating puerile publicity stunts.

[NewMarketSean]

It comes down to this. Everything becomes history once it happens. When the kid who stuck a piece of gum on Starry Night, should the museum have gone through vigorous lengths to restore the painting to its previous state or just removed the gum and kept it up there with a small grease stain in the corner? After all, in 50 years people could be looking for the stain and saying "thats where the kid put the gum." It's history.

By trying to restore the painting to its previous state, they're trying to ignore history... change it as they see fit.

Now, of course Bonds' HR ball is a different case. No one had a reason to deface Starry Night. But with Bonds' ball, the asterik reflects the attitude fans had toward him and his breaking the HR record because of steroids. To not show it would be to ignore the elephant in the room.

I think they should show it as it is, and maybe display a sign explaining how the ball had the asterik drawn on it and how the HoF doesn't have an opinion on Bonds one way or another.

Sorry for the rant. I hope it made sense.

[DrungoHazewood]

The Hall is a great place to visit, and Cooperstown is one of my favorite places in the world.

But I think many baseball fans put way too much emphasis on what the Hall of Fame does, and they assume the people who run the place have much more competence, knowledge, and objectivity than they really do.

[Col. Claypool]

I doubt that, once displayed, the public will see the asterisk. I expect that they will turn the ball so that it is not visible.

I also think the asterisk is somewhat fitting. Sure the ball was desecrated, and is now perhaps not worthy of a place in the hall. But the game has also been desecrated by those who cheated to achieve greatness. To me that ball and its mark say more about them than it does the HR record. The entire era has been stained and that ball is a symbol for it.

[RShack]

I think this is wrong on every count.

Censorship has nothing to do with it. The HOF is no more obligated to present a variety of points of view than a Catholic priest is compelled to discuss the Torah on Sunday morning. This is called curatorial judgement. If and how an artifact is presented is not merely their prerogative, it's central to their function.

Of course they could do nothing, they were under no obligation to accept the ball in first place.

The ball "is what it is" now, which is something much different than what it was when the history was made. Every museum of any scale has far more objects warehoused than on display, so the question of whether people get to see something is again purely a product of administrative decision-making and nothing else. It's at this point the museum has to decide what business it's in.

It's my point of view that the ball should be withheld from display until all court proceedings have run their course, and MLB has issued its formal statement on the matter. At that point, the question of whether Barry Bonds' achievements warrant a asterisk will be fairly determined. Then if the HOF chose to display the ball, my position on the matter would be mitigated to a great extent. But not completely.

If the decision were mine alone to make, I would never display the ball and send a message to anyone who wanted the honor of being publicly acknowledged as the donor of a genuine historical artifact that my museum was not in the business of facilitating puerile publicity stunts.

Who said they're obligated to do anything? They can do what they want.

But they can't do nothing. It's impossible for them to do nothing. If they declined it, that's doing something.

It's a baseball with a mark on it. They either show it or they don't. Either way, they're taking some action.

But, really, who cares? It's a baseball. It's not like somebody wrote graffiti on The Declaration of Independence...

[Dipper9]

I doubt that, once displayed, the public will see the asterisk. I expect that they will turn the ball so that it is not visible.

I also think the asterisk is somewhat fitting. Sure the ball was desecrated, and is now perhaps not worthy of a place in the hall. But the game has also been desecrated by those who cheated to achieve greatness. To me that ball and its mark say more about them than it does the HR record. The entire era has been stained and that ball is a symbol for it.

Right on Col! The Hall can easily display the ball without any sight of the marking at all. I still think this whole publicity stunt was atrocious. Despite what ANYONE thinks or even KNOWS about the steroid era of baseball, this ball is an artifact in baseball history and to desicrate it for one's own publicity makes me sick!

[Odenton O]

It comes down to this. Everything becomes history once it happens. When the kid who stuck a piece of gum on Starry Night, should the museum have gone through vigorous lengths to restore the painting to its previous state or just removed the gum and kept it up there with a small grease stain in the corner? After all, in 50 years people could be looking for the stain and saying "thats where the kid put the gum." It's history.

By trying to restore the painting to its previous state, they're trying to ignore history... change it as they see fit.

Now, of course Bonds' HR ball is a different case. No one had a reason to deface Starry Night. But with Bonds' ball, the asterik reflects the attitude fans had toward him and his breaking the HR record because of steroids. To not show it would be to ignore the elephant in the room.

I think they should show it as it is, and maybe display a sign explaining how the ball had the asterik drawn on it and how the HoF doesn't have an opinion on Bonds one way or another.

Sorry for the rant. I hope it made sense.

I agree entirely. Thanks for saving me the typing.

I also agree with Shack's posts: whatever action or inaction the Hall takes, they're effectively endorsing someone's position.

Really, the marked ball is the pefect centerpiece for a display on the entire steroid controversy and its perception by the public. A good museum should be all over that.

[24fps]

It comes down to this. Everything becomes history once it happens. When the kid who stuck a piece of gum on Starry Night, should the museum have gone through vigorous lengths to restore the painting to its previous state or just removed the gum and kept it up there with a small grease stain in the corner? After all, in 50 years people could be looking for the stain and saying "thats where the kid put the gum." It's history.

By trying to restore the painting to its previous state, they're trying to ignore history... change it as they see fit.

Now, of course Bonds' HR ball is a different case. No one had a reason to deface Starry Night. But with Bonds' ball, the asterik reflects the attitude fans had toward him and his breaking the HR record because of steroids. To not show it would be to ignore the elephant in the room.

I think they should show it as it is, and maybe display a sign explaining how the ball had the asterik drawn on it and how the HoF doesn't have an opinion on Bonds one way or another.

Sorry for the rant. I hope it made sense.

You're making a false analogy in my opinion.

The museum would immediately remove the gum and restore the painting without a second of debate along the lines you propose, because standards apply in situations like these. The presumption would correctly be that if the artist wanted to have gum on his painting, he would have put some there himself.

History is not individual actions taken out of context. It is precisely not that. History is events interpreted and placed in context by human beings in order to derive meaning. Facts are components, not the end product, and historians can and do spend careers arguing over factuality as well as meaning.

You and I are convinced that Bonds took drugs and cheated, but there is a process to establish whether that is a fact or not, and it hasn't run its course yet. The only elephant in the room at the moment is constructed out of gossip and rumor.

Standards is what my whole point is about, and there is no way that any museum - certainly any hall of fame - can exist with out them. The job of a museum, like the historian, is to provide context an meaning to the artifacts it displays, issues of staff competency notwithstanding. Recognizing that something is controversial and leaving it at that is simply not good enough. You can't assert that Brooks Robinson was better than Tony Batista and then turn around and dodge the issue of Bonds HR record with a shrug of the shoulders and expect to have any credibility.

It's not only about the ball. Standards apply whether you want them too or not, and somebody has to uphold them.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Who said they're obligated to do anything? They can do what they want.

But they can't do nothing. It's impossible for them to do nothing. If they declined it, that's doing something.

It's a baseball with a mark on it. They either show it or they don't. Either way, they're taking some action.

But, really, who cares? It's a baseball. It's not like somebody wrote graffiti on The Declaration of Independence...

Maybe the asterisk is really a treasure map.

[Dipper9]

Maybe the asterisk is really a treasure map.

Quick...somebody get me some lemon juice!

[BaltimoreTerp]

Quick...somebody get me some lemon juice!

What did I tell you? You need HEAT.

(And a hot blonde with an accent to provide some...)

[SouthRider]

I am with Bonds on this one. Artifacts in museums have interest because they are preserved in their original state as closely as possible. Modifications to artifacts should be limited to preserving or returning that artifact to its state at the moment of historical importance Once this bozo defaced the ball it should no longer be considered for display. If I were the hall I would display Bond's bat and perhaps uniform worn that day instead.

If they do decide to display the defaced ball it sets a dangerous precedent. What if some fan who didn't think much of Cal Ripken caught some significantly important home run ball of Cal's and scribbled "overrated" on it before giving it to the hall? Think the HOF should just display it as is? Policies should apply equally to Ripken and Bonds.