Barry Bonds just hit his record-breaking 756th career home run off Mike Bacsik. It was caught by a fan in a New York Mets jersey. Details to come.

UPDATE: Here it is with the crappy ESPN2 call:

The Fox Sports call is much better:

source file

And here’s the radio call.

P.S. Here’s a longer, but lower quality, version of the Fox Sports clip. It’s a saved copy of the streaming video that I watched live via Internet as it happened, so it’s a bit herky-jerky as the clip buffered and stuff. But it shows much more of the reaction after the home run.

source file

And here’s an audio clip of my reaction — I was using WireTap Pro to record both the Mac’s audio track and the sounds in the room (via the computer’s microphone), so you can hear the Fox call and hear me say, “Whoa! Whoa! … He did it!”

source file

UPDATE 2: Here are some photos:

38 Responses to “756*”

  1. Mad Max, Esquire says:

    In all fairness to Bacsik, Bonds should have been out from the previous hit. Despite what the 1st Base Ump said, the ball was fair when Dmitri Young got it.

    Well, looking at Bacsik’s career to date, it wasn’t going to be particularly memorable. Now he will be a trivia answer for the ages.

  2. C. Bassett says:

    Guess nobody got hurt in the crowd. It’s like tossing a million dollar bill into the stands.

  3. Mad Max, Esquire says:

    I will add that Hank Aaron was a class act for doing the video congratulating Bonds. And Bonds gave a heartfelt speech. For Bonds’ sake, it was a good thing this happened in SF, the only city that still likes him.

  4. Mad Max, Esquire says:

    I imagine field security swept in and grabbed the guy right away and hustled him out of there. They do that so nobody jumps him.

  5. The Man says:

    Until he’s proven guilty of using steroids, I will not put an asterisk next to 756 or whatever his final total will be. Check my blog for the official particulars of the home run.

  6. Mad Max, Esquire says:

    I think the correct thing to do is to put the asterisk there until Bonds is proven innocent. If he is found guilty, there shouldn’t be a 756 in Cooperstown to have an asterisk by. Convicted felons shouldn’t be inducted.

  7. gahrie says:

    It couldn’t have happened to a worse guy.

    And it started from the very beginning. His college baseball team, in a race for the national championship, voted to kick him off the team.

    He’s been a jerk and an ass all his life.

  8. David K. says:

    I think the correct thing to do is to put the asterisk there until Bonds is proven innocent. If he is found guilty, there shouldn’t be a 756 in Cooperstown to have an asterisk by. Convicted felons shouldn’t be inducted.

    Uh, why? he doesn’t HAVE to prove his innocence, innocence is assumed until someone proves otherwise. And in addition to actually proving he used steroids, they would have to prove he did so AFTER Major League Baseball banned them.

  9. Andrew says:

    David, this isn’t a court of law. And the preponderance of evidence makes it pretty damn clear Bonds cheated. Still, MLB brought this on itself by not testing for steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. There’s no way to tell when Bonds started cheating, what other hitters were on ‘roids, what pitchers throwing gopher balls to Bonds were on ‘roids, etc. So lay off Bonds. He’s an ass, he obviously cheated… and he’s a Hall-of-Famer and home-run champ.

  10. The Man says:

    Andrew, what evidence do you have that the rest of us have not been privileged to view? Sure, Bonds has bulked up in recent years and he hit 73 home runs in 2001 when he’d never hit more than 49 home runs in a season, but that in no way proves that he is guilty of taking steroids. The only thing MLB can do now is pat Bonds on the back and institute a rule prohibiting performance-enhancing drugs.

  11. ND student says:


    Bonds used steroids! This is a fact! This is proven! He said so himself. In his grand jury testimony, Bonds admitted to using the Cream and the Clear (banned by MLB at the time), albeit he “claims” he thought he was merely using flaxseed oil. Nonetheless, Bonds used steroids and this point is not even debatable.

  12. David K. says:

    Even if he was taking steroids Andrew, it was only cheating after MLB banned it. MLB and the fans have no room to complain as they cheered on McGuire and Sosa and helped revive interest in baseball after the strike. If they wanted us to believe baseball was clean they should have done so a long time before. If they want to do it now, fine do it now, but unless they can show that Bonds was using it when it was illegal, then they have nothing.

  13. Andrew says:

    So McGwire and Sosa cheated as well, what’s your point? Steroids are illegal in real life, so they are de facto illegal in baseball as well. In any case, you obviously missed the gist of my comment, which was that A. Bonds is an assholish cheater, and B. Bonds absolutely deserves to be in the HOF and have the record(s).

  14. ND student says:

    Also, Bonds used ADMITTED to using the Cream and the Clear in 2003, while the substances were banned.

    “Bonds told a U.S. grand jury that he used undetectable steroids known as “the cream” and “the clear,” which he received from personal trainer Greg Anderson during the 2003 season.”

  15. David K. says:

    Steroids are illegal in real life, so they are de facto illegal in baseball as well.

    If that were true then why did the specifically ban them?

  16. Brendan Loy says:

    If that were true then why did the specifically ban them?

    David, with all due respect, this is an extremely dumb argument. You should never, ever use it again, because it completely lacks logic and discredits your whole line of reasoning. I’m dead serious. I’m saying this not because I disagree with you on the merits (though I do), nor because I want to insult you (which I don’t), but because I want to focus your argument in a direction that at least makes sense, and this particular aspect of argument is completely untenable on its face, as matter of elementary logic.

    There are endless examples of institutions passing duplicative, overlapping, arguably unnecessary laws and rules. For example, if sexual harassment is illegal, and any company can fire an employee for harassing against a fellow employee regardless of whether the company has a specific in-house policy against sexual harassment (which is certainly true), then why would the company feel the need to pass an in-house rule? Does the passage of the rule somehow imply that, absent such a rule, they would be unable to fire employees for sexual harassment? Of course not. It just means they’re covering all their bases, removing all doubt, emphasizing the importance of the prohibition, etc. The rule is, strictly speaking, “unnecessary,” but it can still be passed, and the fact that it’s passed doesn’t somehow prove that it was needed in order to make punishment possible. That is just absolutely, 100%, unquestionably, undeniably false, as a general proposition.

    You really, really, really, really need to drop this particular line of argument, and stick to your core point, which, although I believe it’s wrong, CAN be supported by arguments which have some semblance of internal logic. You can argue that Andrew’s wrong — that steroids’ general illegality didn’t mean they were “de facto illegal in baseball as well.” But it ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT IN ANY WAY to point out that baseball subsequently passed a rule banning what was already against federal law. That simply does not mean what you think it means. It just doesn’t. Period, end of story. There is no room for debate on that specific point; you are just using totally faulty logic. And I’m just urging you to stick with the portions of your argument that make some sense (even though I think they’re wrong).

  17. Brendan Loy says:

    P.S. It occurs to me that you might disagree with me about the sexual harassment example. You’d be wrong to disagree, but even if you weren’t wrong, I’d still be right on my broader point, which is that there are tons of examples of institutions passing superfluous, duplicative, overlapping, “unnecessary” rules and laws, and the passage of those rules DOES NOT prove that they were somehow necessary to make punishment possible. It just does not. It is impossible to logically argue that it does.

  18. Gardner says:

    Finally! No Barry can disappear to the ash heap of history and the fans of SF can realize they have a terrible baseball team just so he could reach that milestone.
    For what its worth, Aaron is the Homerun King of all time and Bonds in the Homerun King of the Steroid Era,

  19. Marty West says:

    F*** Barry Bonds.


    People who defend Bonds should not be allowed to watch sports. The man is a cheater and a liar.

  20. Joe Mama says:

    Entertaining thread.

    Evidently Mike Bacsik’s father, also named Mike, pitched to Hank Aaron as a member of the Texas Rangers staff in the mid-70s (but didn’t contribute to his home run count).

  21. Joe Mama says:

    The Worst Answer By A Presidential Candidate In A Debate . . .

    . . . was given last night by Barack Obama.

    Asked whether, if he were president now, he’d honor Barry Bonds in the White House, Obama said:

    “First of all he’s still got to hit one more. … He hasn’t done it yet, so we’ll answer the question when he does.”

    Mere hours before Bonds hit his record-setting homerun, Obama hadn’t figured out his thoughts on whether he’s a hero or a villain? What difference would it have made before or after number 756? How would that additional homerun have affected Obama’s thoughts?

    Baseball may seem trivial next to, say, bombing our allies in Pakistan — but the Barry Bonds story does present fascinating and profound social issues for America. Many Americans have strong opinions on him. Apparently Obama is not among them.

    A strike out for the Senator.

  22. Angrier and Angrier says:

    Joe Mama-

    That was a dumb answer from Obama.

    David K-

    I’m glad Brendan pointed out the obvious about your steroids not being banned by MLB argument. I assume MLB doesn’t specifically ban its players from murdering people, but murdering people is still against the law.

  23. dcl says:

    It had to be the Nationals that gave it to him…

    But the other point is, oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive… Seriously this is the the problem baseball currently faces and they see the damage it has done to other sports when they try to clean up their act. Cycling and track and field events in recent years have launched an all out attack on performance enhancing drugs. And all it has done is made them appear less credible–made it appear that everyone in the sport is juiced. Which is, of course, not true but the long standing practice of looking the other way being replaced by we will catch you is admirable. But it means there are a lot of cheats to clean out and it looks pretty darn bleak for a while while you weed them out. When you implement the kind of serious drug testing the IOC, UCI, &c. &c. governing bodies for various sports now use you catch people. Unfortunately catching people makes you look bad. Baseball wants to say there are no cheaters–we don’t use performance enhancing drugs. But they don’t want to implement the kinds of testing and controls that would be required to catch people, make it impossible to cheat. They don’t want to do it because they know they will catch people’s heros in the act of cheating. And for a while that will hurt the sport.

    There is a strong appearance of impropriety with Bonds. He is certainly * worthy. The reality is the Giants should have fired him a long time ago. But they didn’t because he sells tickets and they don’t want to look bad. It sucks, but that’s the way it is. And baseball won’t really be clean until teams are willing to fire their best slugger in the middle of the World Series because they are fairly sure the guy is cheating. Not certain, just fairly sure should be enough to put the guy’s ass on the bench, or out on the pavement. If you aren’t willing to do that you won’t get rid of the cheats.

    Of course the other reality is, as long as there have been sports there have been those that attempted to gain an unfair advantage over the competition.

  24. ballin says:

    Brendan- this is the first time I’ve ever disagreed with a comment of yours, so I hope you’ll put me in my place.

    Think of it like this, marijuana use is illegal. But that doesn’t that if you work in a head shop, the the use of marijuana is considered against your employer’s rules. One might even say that marijuana use by head shop employees is not only forgiven, but accepted and in some ways encouraged. So, despite it generally being illegal, itwas probably not de facto illegal.

    However, lets say that the owner of the shop rethought her stance on marijuana use. In such a situation, it would make a great deal of sense for the head shop to specifically ban the use of marijuana by all employees and implement drug testing. Despite it being illegal, it was tolerated, allowed, and encouraged in that specific environment. and THAT is the reason that they specifically banned them.

    Hence, I think David K.’s point is not at all ridiculous. Given the history of baseball/steroids, I feel this is a more apt analogy than sexual harrassment. Especially since sexual harassment benefits no company I can think of.

  25. Angrier and Angrier says:

    “Especially since sexual harassment benefits no company I can think of.”

    Company? What about entire industries? Or aren’t you familiar with porn?

  26. David K. says:

    I’m glad Brendan pointed out the obvious about your steroids not being banned by MLB argument. I assume MLB doesn’t specifically ban its players from murdering people, but murdering people is still against the law.

    And if they murder someone they should be criminally prosecuted, and if Bonds knowingly used steroids at ANY point so should he, but as ballin points out MLB made the decision to look the other way for quite awhile because it was beneficial for them to do so, if Bonds used steroids during that time were they didn’t seem to have a problem with it then how is that cheating? The whole organization was tacitly allowing it. Only later did they decide to specifically ban it because they wanted to try and clean up their act, which while it may be a good thing, means that they themselves created the dividing line on when steroids was and wasn’t cheating.

    I’m not saying this would stand up in a court of law, its simply my opinion that MLB themselves created a dividing line and its wrong to hold only one player accountable for behavior before that while cheering on others. MLB set the standards here for “cheating”, and by their own standards i have yet to see proof that Bonds did so.

  27. Marty West says:

    I agree with David.

    MLB funked this up big time in the mid 90s when steroids were out of control. They now have the daunting task of cleaning up the mess THEY made for themselves. Not saying Barroid is innocent but the majority of this falls on the MLBs terrible management of the situation.

  28. ND student says:


    There is a big problem with your response. The reason the MLB ban is significant is because, steroids, unlike sexual harassment, murder, and many other drugs, are not always illegal. There are legitimate uses for steroids. Many times steroids can easily be obtained through a doctor’s prescription. Many players have gone that route, going to a shady doctor and obtaining a prescription- LEGALLY. By doing this, players are not violating the law and are thus not violating an MLB policy, unless MLB has a policy. Furthermore, andro, the substance McGwire was on, was not illegal in the U.S. and could be purchased over the counter. So MLB decided that it would go beyond the scope of U.S. laws. Yes, many times the MLB policy and the law does overlap, but the above examples illustrate instances which it does not, thus making MLB’s policy relevant to the discussion.

    The above statement may be irrelevant to Bonds, since it appears that he actually obtained his substances illegally.

    P.S. David,
    Whether Bonds “Knowingly” took steroids is irrelevant. If Bonds really was mistaken when he ingested those substances (which is nothing short of comical) that fact would not make 756* any less tainted. It would possibly make Bonds a more likeable person and maybe we would give him a pass, but the record itself was tainted the second Bonds took the illegal substance, whether he knew it or not.

  29. ballin says:

    A&A- I am familiar with porn. Porn is not sexual harrassment. While I wouldn’t consider it a hobby of mine, I have seen a bit of it and have friends in the industry. Whether or not you support pornography, it is an industry that suffers from many problems because of its very nature. Sexual harassment is one of these problems and it is an industry where the lines on hostile work environment are blurry and unforgiving to most of those who suffer from it. However, sexual harassment does not benefit the porn industry, with the possible exception of the Clarence Thomas hearings giving publicity to one particular movie.

  30. c from the sea says:

    Hank Aaron’s message was incredibly stiff. It’s just sad that nobody can appreciate an incredible moment in baseballs history without having an asterisk flashed upom them.
    I’m from the Bay Area and can say that us Giant fans aren’t ignorant. The evidence is pverwhelming, but Barry is our guy and whe’ll cheer him as long as he has a giant uniform on. he goes out there everyday and does his thing as most of you wish he wold fall flat on his face.Thats incredible mental toughness.
    Barry will go down as one of the greatest players of all time, asterisk or no asterisk. I watched last night live and i can proudly tell my kids that I saw a piece of baseball history

  31. Brendan Loy says:

    Y’all are missing my point, which isn’t that David’s underlying point is wrong (I think it is, but that’s not what I’m arguing here) — it’s that the question “If [the federal laws banning steroids were adequate to punish players for them] then why did [baseball] specifically ban them?” does NOTHING to support his argument, because there are PLENTY of examples where institutions pass superfluous, overlapping, unnecessary rules or laws, without thereby implying that the rules/laws which were previously in place were necessarily inadequate.

    If David, or anyone else, wants to argue that the earlier regime of rules/laws wasn’t enough to justify punishment in this case, due to unique aspects of the federal drug laws, or due to unique aspects of the nature of the game baseball, or whatever, that’s fine. But the question “then why did they specifically ban them?” has no place in the discussion, because the underlying premise that’s assumed by the question (that specifically banning a particular behavior necessarily implies that there was previously no way to punish that behavior) is false.

  32. c from the sea says:


  33. c from the sea says:

    Babe Ruth never faced colored pitchers.


  34. Anonymous says:

    I’ll give you Ruth’s 714*

    Hank Aaron is too legit to quit.

    Bonds? Nope. 757*

  35. David Ross says:

    This “legal at the time!” argument is bogus. Even at the time – which was hardly long ago – there were laws against steroids in other sports, and general contempt for those who used them. Before the strike if Bonds had been caught at it, he’d have been thrown out on his ear.

    Bonds cheated, whether he claims it was allowed or not (and yes, Sosa and McGwire cheated to – your point?). Obama’s a nitwit but then so is Bush, for congratulating Bonds instead of calling him out as a cheat.