Glamour of the single-season HR record

[Appling]

When I was eleven or twelve years old, the single most famous baseball record was Babe Ruth's 60 homeruns in 1927. It was part of the legend of the fabled 1927 Yankees team. It was more famous than Hornsby's single-season batting average of .424, Cobb's career BA of .357, or any other homerun record set by The Babe.

Every time a hitter made a credible challange to the Ruthian record, our daily paper would carry a box comparing that hitter with "Ruth 1927" total for the same number of games.

Ruth was "challanged" by Kiner and Mize in 1947, Kiner again in 1949 and 1950, Matthews in 1953, Kluszewski in 1954, Mays in 1955, Mantle in 1956 -- but all would fall short, just as Jimmie Foxx and Hank Greenberg had failed before them. It seemed no one could match the magic of Ruth's Sixty Homerun Season.

Until 1961, when Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris both made a race of it -- and in the first baseball expansion of the 20th Century, Maris actually broke the most famous of all baseball records. Of course, the Maris record was tainted -- due to expanision he often faced watered-down pitching, and of course the season had 8 extra games. Through the first 154 games of 1961 Maris had "only" 59 homeruns. Without those eight added games, Maris would also have fallen short -- hence the famous Ford Frick Asterisk.

After the record was "stolen" from Ruth, the public seemed to lose interest in the single-season homerun record -- until 37 years later, when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa made a tight race, and both sluggers ended up ahead of Maris (and Ruth). McGwire finished with 70 HR and Sosa with 66. This homerun race seemed to inspired the public again -- but only for a short time. Barry Bonds broke their record with 73 homeruns in 2001 (a scant three years later). This achievement created a brief period of "public interest" but that seemed to fade very soon afterward.

Is this because homerun records had now become too commonplace? Was there too little time for the McGwire record to become entrenched in the public mind before a new standard was set? I suspect that may be the problem.

There now seems to be very little public attention to the single season homerun record that Bonds set in 2001. Current focus is on the career homerun record (Aaron's 755,which surpassed the Ruth record of 714). During Ruth's lifetime there was relatively little attention given to his career homerun total, but now the Aaron record of 755 has become the most important of all MLB hitting records. When Bonds or someone else sets a new MLB record for career homeruns it will probably draw more attention than would any new record for a single season. It will be advertised as the greatest hitting achievement ever -- much more important than Barry's single-season record of 73 HR in 2001.

Do you agree? Why is this so?

[Blackout]

I think your shortchanging Ned Williamson's HR record, it took 35 years before Ruth broke it''

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Ruth's record wasn't stolen, it was simply surpassed. Why do we find it necessary to denigrade Maris? :rolleyes: In football many poeple have surpassed Jim Brown's single season rushing record. But Brown is still the greatest running back ever. And Ruth is still the greatest HR hitter ever.

[Victory Faust]

I think you're partially right about the comparative lack of interest in Bonds' 2001 season. When McGwire hit his 70 HR in '98, nobody had topped the 60 mark since 1961. But by the time 2001 rolled around, folks were hitting 60 homers every year, so it became watered down.

I think by the time Bonds got around to breaking the record, the gig was up, and everyone realized the incredible numbers that were being put up were tainted.

But there are two other things which I think added to the apathy of Bonds' season:

1. The guy is a total jerk, and it's very hard to pull for him.
2. The nation had just went through the 9/11 tragedy. That tended to overshadow what was happening on the baseball diamond.

[Appling]

I think your shortchanging Ned Williamson's HR record, it took 35 years before Ruth broke it''
Good point! How many people even know about Williamson hitting 27 homeruns in 1884 -- or Buck Freeman and Wildfire Schulte hitting over 20 in a season after Williamson (but before Ruth's 29 in 1919)?

So what is it that draws attention to any individual hitting record today when the same record might go unnoticed in years past?
Would a Triple Crown Season draw more attention today than it did in 1942?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Having McGwire and Sosa both surpass 61 the way they did, spoke volumes about their "enhancements" and the games "enhancements." We've all become numb to the homerun in today's game. We're more shocked when we see a triple, a well exectuted hit and run, or a drag bunt.

Babe hit his 60th in game number 150 in 1927.

[DoubleX]

I think the 90s have definitely diminished the home run record, especially with so many 60 homerun seasons and 50 homerun seasons packed together. How many times was 60 hit in the 90s? 6 times? For 70 years 60 home runs was a mythical number, then it's done 6 times in 3 years. Totally devalues the record, IMO. Perhaps if the current mark stands for several decades, or even if 60 homeruns remains elusive again for a number of decades, the record will again have some meaning.

[Appling]

What matters most is the number of opportunities to play.

I believe the official MLB record book still maintains separate lists for some records for 154 game seasons v. 162-game seasons. (This is for records where the old record has since been exceeded, due to the longer 162-game schedule).
* Most at-bats, season
* Most plate appearances, season
* Most hits by pinch hitter, season
* Most homeruns, season
* Most homeruns by 2nd Baseman, season
* Most homeruns with bases filled (American League), season
* Most games, rookie season
* Most total bases, rookie season
-- and many others

[west coast orange and black]

it's "most home runs in a season", not "most home runs in whatever jive-else thing" someone wants to argue.
the season was extended from 154 to 162 games, but it's still a season.

those with a problem with "162-game players" overtaking 154-game records are those who wish for the ol' days of spitballs or what have you or have a personal grudge of some type or something else that evades me right now.
:grouchy

[west coast orange and black]

it matters not at all that maris did not homer i his first 10 games.
it would not matter if he went homerless in his first 20 and final 15.
the man broke the existing record for "most home runs in a season".

[Appling]

it matters not at all that maris did not homer in his first 10 games.
it would not matter if he went homerless in his first 20 and final 15.
the man broke the existing record for "most home runs in a season".
That's true. At the time, some feared that the extended 162-game schedule would continue to errode the hallowed mark set by Ruth -- that it might be broken again every few years (and many other "counting" records as well).

As we all know now, those fears were unfounded. In fact, Maris record of 61 HR ended up lasting longer than Ruth's record of 60. That seems to be a measure of a record's importance: "How long before it is broken again?"

BTW: In the first post, I put the word "stolen" in quotes. I myself admired Roger Maris (and I worked in the same Norwood Ohio factory as Roger's brother Rudy, who was a Manufacturing Engineer there until he left to become his brother's business manager in 1962).

[SHOELESSJOE3]

it matters not at all that maris did not homer i his first 10 games.
it would not matter if he went homerless in his first 20 and final 15.
the man broke the existing record for "most home runs in a season".

I'm on the same page.

[Blackout]

I think the 90s have definitely diminished the home run record, especially with so many 60 homerun seasons and 50 homerun seasons packed together. How many times was 60 hit in the 90s? 6 times? For 70 years 60 home runs was a mythical number, then it's done 6 times in 3 years. Totally devalues the record, IMO. Perhaps if the current mark stands for several decades, or even if 60 homeruns remains elusive again for a number of decades, the record will again have some meaning.

95 - 50 (belle)
96 - 52 (mcgwire), 50 (anderson)
97 - 58 (mcgwire), 56 (griffey)
98 - 70 (mcgwire), 66 (sosa), 56 (griffey), 50 (g vaughn)
99 - 66 (mcgwire), 63 (sosa)
00 - 50 (sosa)
01 - 73 (bonds), 64 (sosa), 57 (gonzolez), 52 (rodriguez)
02 - 57 (rodriguez), 52 (thome)
05 - 51 (jones)

all were either outfielders or first basemen except for A-rod

ironic how none of them were DH's

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Good point! How many people even know about Williamson hitting 27 homeruns in 1884 -- or Buck Freeman and Wildfire Schulte hitting over 20 in a season after Williamson (but before Ruth's 29 in 1919)?


If anyone deserved an asterisk, it was Ned Williamson.
Playing for the Cubs at Lake Shore Park. If I recall it was about 180 feet down the foul line. before Ned hit that 27 a ball hit over the fence was a ground rule double. it was changed for one season 1884 and Ned hit 25 of his 27 in that park. In 1885 the old rule came back, ground rule double, that year Ned hit a total of 3 home runs.

The Cubs team home runs a few years before and after that change in 1884.

1882--15 home runs
1883--13 home runs
1884--142 home runs
1885--54
1886--53

The most by one hitter on that team.
1882--4 home runs
1883--3
1884--27---25--22--21-- Four hitters with over 20 home runs in that season.
1885--11 home runs

Ne

[Blackout]

If anyone deserved an asterisk, it was Ned Williamson.
Playing for the Cubs at Lake Shore Park. If I recall it was about 180 feet down the foul line. before Ned hit that 27 a ball hit over the fence was a ground rule double. it was changed for one season, 1884 and Ned hit 25 of his 27 in that park. In 1885 the old rule came back, ground rule double, that year Ned hit a total of 3 home runs.

The Cubs team home runs a few years before and after that change in 1884.

1882--15 home runs
1883--13 home runs
1884--142 home runs
1885--54
1886--53

The most by one hitter on that team.
1882--4 home runs
1883--3
1884--27---25--22--21--9 four hitters with over 20 home runs
1885--11 home runs

Ne


but he had the most homers on his team, despite the other three guys with 20+ homers having more at-bats than him

including the legendary Cap Anson with 21

[SHOELESSJOE3]

95 - 50 (belle)
96 - 52 (mcgwire), 50 (anderson)
97 - 58 (mcgwire), 56 (griffey)
98 - 70 (mcgwire), 66 (sosa), 56 (griffey), 50 (g vaughn)
99 - 66 (mcgwire), 63 (sosa)
00 - 50 (sosa)
01 - 73 (bonds), 64 (sosa), 57 (gonzolez), 52 (rodriguez)
02 - 57 (rodriguez), 52 (thome)
05 - 51 (jones)

all were either outfielders or first basemen except for A-rod

ironic how none of them were DH's

That seems to have been the case most, not all of the time. Heavy hitters mostly outfielders, first basemen and then some third basemen. Some fairly heavy hitting catchers.

Probably because for many years the two middle men, SS and second basemen were usually smaller, quicker. In later years we are seeing a change, the middle men now bigger, going for the long ball. I think AROD is around 230 pounds, bigger than many outfielders.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

but he had the most homers on his team, despite the other three guys with 20+ homers having more at-bats than him

including the legendary Cap Anson with 21

Your speaking of Ned Williamson and that season 1884, when a ball hit over that short fence was a home run. Well he may have hit more per at bat than some teammates but still he benefitted from that ground rule change.

The Cubs as a team hit more home runs in 1884 than they did two years before and two years after combined.

No matter how you look at it, Ned cashed in. I think Little League parks are around 180 feet or more down the lines.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I checked and Maris had 698 PAs in 1961. Ruth had 691 PAs in 1927. So Maris had 1 HR/11.44 PAs and Ruth had 1 HR/11.52 PAs.


I know some have debated this one before, PA's or at bats, but it has to be based on at bats. We all know that a walk is not considered an at bat. Why charge a hitter with an opportunity to hit safely when he was walked. Add to that, I don't know, If Maris received even one intentional base on balls and I'm sure Ruth had a number of them. An IBB takes the bat right out of the hitters bat, like he never even stepped to the plate.

[Tigerfan1974]

I think the single season record is tainted by Bonds.
Here is a guy who had never even hit 50 in a year and suddenly he cranks out 73!! If there were 'roid inklings, Bonds confirmed them.

You'll notice Bonds nor anyone else has come close since!
Coincidence, I think not.

Bonds cheated, everyone knew it, and he ruined the single season record, at least until a legitimate new mark is set.

I think if Bonds ends up breaking Aaron's record, it is also tainted.

[Cubsfan97]

I dont think this really matters because Maris hyas been surpassed like 5 or 6 times. I like the arguement though. I agree Maris did break it in the amount of games Babe played. Thiose 8 extra games diudnt matter because he didnt hit one in his first 10 games.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I know some have debated this one before, PA's or at bats, but it has to be based on at bats. We all know that a walk is not considered an at bat. Why charge a hitter with an opportunity to hit safely when he was walked. Add to that, I don't know, If Maris received even one intentional base on balls and I'm sure Ruth had a number of them. An IBB takes the bat right out of the hitters bat, like he never even stepped to the plate.
PAs is more accurate because it gives the total number of opportunities to hit a HR. Whether a hitter has an actual opportunity to hit a HR is another mater. But Ruth walked a lot. Sometimes he may have walked intentionally other times he worked a a walk. But a walk is a vaild outcome to any PA so to take them away is not really fair.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I think the single season record is tainted by Bonds.
Here is a guy who had never even hit 50 in a year and suddenly he cranks out 73!! If there were 'roid inklings, Bonds confirmed them.

You'll notice Bonds nor anyone else has come close since!
Coincidence, I think not.

Bonds cheated, everyone knew it, and he ruined the single season record, at least until a legitimate new mark is set.

I think if Bonds ends up breaking Aaron's record, it is also tainted.
And of course you have actual evidence, right? west coast orange and black will be by soon to "educate" you. ;)

[Tigerfan1974]

And of course you have actual evidence, right? west coast orange and black will be by soon to "educate" you. ;)

Bonds testified to the Grand Jury that he used 'clear' and 'cream' substances.
He says he didn't know they were steroids. Puh-leeze!!!

If that is true, then he is not a cheat, just stupid.
I don't know about you, but I am not having something rubbed on me that will absorb in and not know what it is. It could be illicit drugs for all he knew.
Turns out it was MLB illicit 'roids.

[west coast orange and black]

Tigerfan1974: Bonds testified to the Grand Jury that he used 'clear' and 'cream' substances.
He says he didn't know they were steroids.

question: do you know that the substances that bonds used contained steroids?

all substances that are clear in appearance and substances that are creamy are not the illegal substances known as "the clear" ("clear") and "the cream". look inside your own medicine cabinet as proof positive of that.

according to the allegedly leaked partial transcripts of the san francisco federal grand jury, bonds did not ever testify that he used banned substances, or that he used banned substances unknowingly.

there is no way to determine what, exactly, were the ingredients of the substances that bonds used.

[west coast orange and black]

Tigerfan1974: Here is a guy who had never even hit 50 in a year and suddenly he cranks out 73!!

You'll notice Bonds nor anyone else has come close since!

while bonds has indeed not neared his 73 of 2001, his 49 in 2000*, 46 in '02, 44 in '03 and '04 and his 5 of last season are not impressive?

dude.

2000: hr every 9.8 ab
2001: 6.52
2002: 8.76
2003: 8.86
2004: 8.47
2005: 8.40

* maybe if bonds had a few more ab than the 480 that he did, he would'a hit that 1 home run that would shut down your "bonds never hit 50" claim.
he didn't, so you are well within your rights to make the 50 an issue.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Tigerfan1974: Here is a guy who had never even hit 50 in a year and suddenly he cranks out 73!!

You'll notice Bonds nor anyone else has come close since!

while bonds has indeed not neared his 73 of 2001, his 49 in 2000*, 46 in '02, 44 in '03 and '04 and his 5 of last season are not impressive?

dude.

2000: hr every 9.8 ab
2001: 6.52
2002: 8.76
2003: 8.86
2004: 8.47
2005: 8.40

* maybe if bonds had a few more ab than the 480 that he did, he would'a hit that 1 home run that would shut down your "bonds never hit 50" claim.
he didn't, so you are well within your rights to make the 50 an issue.
Also Bonds hit 46 HRs in 1993 and he hit 37 HRs in the strike season 1994, which comes out to 53 HRs over a full season.

[Brian McKenna]

whenever i think of the single season hr mark - i always envision ruth and maris - sort of lost its luster to me with mcgwire and bonds - i much more appreciate the effective pitchers of the 1990s-2000s - home runs have become a dime a dozen for the amusement of kids and television personnel

[digglahhh]

Walks have not only been the reason Barry has not hit 50 again, or 70 or 80 for that matter, since '01, they were actually the reason why didn't hit 50 any previous season either.

1993: 46 HRs 126 BBs
1996: 42 HRs 151 BBs
2000: 49 HRs 117 BBs (although my suspicion is that this is the year he began using the PEDs)

Anyway, the guy obviously had 50 HR power for most of his career. Had he been willing to sacrifice OBP and AVG to hit solely for power, I think we could have seen several 50 HR seasons from Bonds pre '01, and 40+ every year.

Ted Williams never hit 50 either. This sounds paradoxical to say, but Bonds was too good of a hitter to hit 50, too multi-dimensional. He was straight avoided by pitchers frequently even before the superhuman binge, he was extremely disciplined and predominantly a line drive hitter. All in all, he was too talented to reduce himself to the all or nothing approach that benefited guys like Cecil Fielder. Bonds was a true "power hitter" not merely a batter who hit for power.

Roids or no roids, the guy is a truly phenomenal hitter!

[Sultan_1895-1948]

PAs is more accurate because it gives the total number of opportunities to hit a HR. Whether a hitter has an actual opportunity to hit a HR is another mater. But Ruth walked a lot. Sometimes he may have walked intentionally other times he worked a a walk. But a walk is a vaild outcome to any PA so to take them away is not really fair.

Honus, this just doesn't make sense. If we want to find out the ratio of homeruns/chances to hit homeruns, AB has to be used.

By your rationale, every ball hit to a right fielder should be a chance for an assist. Regardless whether a man is on base or if he made the throw or not. It's hit at him, it must be an assist chance. Makes little sense.

I agree that PA's should be used when talking about certain stats, but for the particular one, the only fair and logical judgement is HR/AB.

[west coast orange and black]

considering digglahhh's talk of bonds' high number of bases on balls...

stack bonds up against the home runs leaders of the past several years by way of hr-per-ab:

2002
bonds: 46 / 403 ....... (8.76)
rodriguez: 57 / 624 ... (10.95)
sosa: 49 / 556 ........ (11.35)

2003
bonds: 45 / 390 ....... (8.67)
rodriguez 44 / 607 .... (13.8)
thome: 47 / 578 ....... (12.3)

2004
bonds: 45 / 373 ....... (8.29)
beltre: 48 / 598 ...... (12.49)
ramirez: 43 / 568 ..... (13.21)

now let's give bonds the at-bats of the home run leaders, and give the home run leaders the at-bats of bonds.
retaining the respective hr/ab percentages, here are the would-be home run totals :

2002:
bonds (rodriguez): ..... 71
bonds (sosa): .......... 63
rodriguez (bonds): ..... 37
sosa (bonds): .......... 36

2003:
bonds (rodriguez): ..... 70
bonds (thome): ......... 67
rodriguez (bonds): ..... 28
thome (bonds): ......... 32

2004:
bonds (beltre): ........ 72
bonds (ramirez): ....... 69
beltre (bonds): ........ 30
ramirez (bonds): ....... 28

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Honus, this just doesn't make sense. If we want to find out the ratio of homeruns/chances to hit homeruns, AB has to be used.

I agree that PA's should be used when talking about certain stats, but for the particular one, the only fair and logical judgement is HR/AB.
I disagree. PA is all plate appearances. A walk is one possible outcome from a PA. I'm sure sometimes Ruth laid off as pitch one ich off of the plate. He could have swung at that pitch.



By your rationale, every ball hit to a right fielder should be a chance for an assist. Regardless whether a man is on base or if he made the throw or not. It's hit at him, it must be an assist chance. Makes little sense.

I'm not sure how this anology refutes my position? A hit to RF is a chance to make an assist at first base. I've seen right fielders throw out baserunners at first on occasion. But that has nothing to do with walks, though.

[Barnstormer]

Tigerfan1974: Bonds testified to the Grand Jury that he used 'clear' and 'cream' substances.
He says he didn't know they were steroids.

question: do you know that the substances that bonds used contained steroids?

all substances that are clear in appearance and substances that are creamy are not the illegal substances known as "the clear" ("clear") and "the cream". look inside your own medicine cabinet as proof positive of that.

according to the allegedly leaked partial transcripts of the san francisco federal grand jury, bonds did not ever testify that he used banned substances, or that he used banned substances unknowingly.

there is no way to determine what, exactly, were the ingredients of the substances that bonds used.

WCOB I understand what you're trying to do here and admire it. You are right in saying there's no way to know exactly because we can't go back and test Bonds in 2001, so you'll always be right in that extremely narrow sense. But he got the cream and clear from a guy WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED AND WILL SERVE IN JAIL FOR DISTRIBUTING STEROIDS IN THE FORM OF LOTIONS to dozens of athletes. Add that to the increased strength, size and performance, and you have the dead girl, the gunpowder residue on the suspect's hands, the suspect's footprints and fingerprint's all over the girl's house, the girl's blood on the suspect's clothing, you even have witnesses (albeit shady ones), but you don't have the gun. In most cases, you still get the conviction.

[Appling]

It seems to me there is more "hard evidence" that Bonds used steroids (knowingly or not) than there is that Pete Rose bet on baseball -- or least that Pete bet on his own team.

Perhaps more evidence against Bonds than was presented against Joe Jackson.

[Tigerfan1974]

It seems to me there is more "hard evidence" that Bonds used steroids (knowingly or not) than there is that Pete Rose bet on baseball -- or least that Pete bet on his own team.

Perhaps more evidence against Bonds than was presented against Joe Jackson.

Are you saying Bonds should be banned as Rose and Jackson were?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

It just seems to take more nowdays to harshly penalize a player for anything. Years ago, a few pieces of circumstantial evidence was all it took. Now we HAVE to have a smoking gun, which won't happen. Bonds makes a ton of money for a lot of people. Maybe that has something to do with it. That, and baseball realizing it's mostly their fault.

[Tigerfan1974]

It just seems to take more nowdays to harshly penalize a player for anything. Years ago, a few pieces of circumstantial evidence was all it took. Now we HAVE to have a smoking gun, which won't happen. Bonds makes a ton of money for a lot of people. Maybe that has something to do with it. That, and baseball realizing it's mostly their fault.

How is it MLB's fault? :confused:

[Sultan_1895-1948]

How is it MLB's fault? :confused:

Regardless of the players associations view, baseball should have included random testing years ago. It should have been a part of the CBA; as an issue that wasn't negotiable. Owners knew what was going on, and baseball saw where the game was headed. Money got in the way like it always does.

[Ubiquitous]

After the record was "stolen" from Ruth, the public seemed to lose interest in the single-season homerun record -- until 37 years later, when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa made a tight race, and both sluggers ended up ahead of Maris (and Ruth). McGwire finished with 70 HR and Sosa with 66. This homerun race seemed to inspired the public again -- but only for a short time. Barry Bonds broke their record with 73 homeruns in 2001 (a scant three years later). This achievement created a brief period of "public interest" but that seemed to fade very soon afterward.
I disagree with you conclusions. I don't think Sosa-McGwires home run race inspired the public for only a short time. It was huge and probably had the same half-lifes of intensity as MAris and Ruth's.
Nor was Bonds record a brief interest that soon faded.



There now seems to be very little public attention to the single season homerun record that Bonds set in 2001. Current focus is on the career homerun record (Aaron's 755,which surpassed the Ruth record of 714). During Ruth's lifetime there was relatively little attention given to his career homerun total, but now the Aaron record of 755 has become the most important of all MLB hitting records. When Bonds or someone else sets a new MLB record for career homeruns it will probably draw more attention than would any new record for a single season. It will be advertised as the greatest hitting achievement ever -- much more important than Barry's single-season record of 73 HR in 2001.

Do you agree? Why is this so?

There is little public attention for the single season record because somebody is close to breaking the career record. Just like when Hank was nearing the record it got huge press.

[digglahhh]

Absolutely Sultan,

The homer explosion was like the Enron fiasco. Those on the inside knew that is was built on deception. Those making millions knew that the ride would eventually crash. The profits from the money train and renewed admiration and interest were just too much and the those on the train were too blinded by greed and (false) love to convince themselves to jump off, and hence were still on that train for the inevitable crash.

MLB, the owners, etc. are all facilitators if not accomplises in the scandal. Not everybody agrees with this logic, and its didn't fare well for Ward Churchill when he made his bold statements. But to paraphrase his highly contraversial assertion, the owners, etc were not innocent bystanders here.

[digglahhh]

There is little public attention for the single season record because somebody is close to breaking the career record. Just like when Hank was nearing the record it got huge press.


Also, the only person who would have a had a legitimate shot to break it was the guy who currently holds it.

[Imapotato]

Good point! How many people even know about Williamson hitting 27 homeruns in 1884 -- or Buck Freeman and Wildfire Schulte hitting over 20 in a season after Williamson (but before Ruth's 29 in 1919)?

So what is it that draws attention to any individual hitting record today when the same record might go unnoticed in years past?
Would a Triple Crown Season draw more attention today than it did in 1942?


I say yes, and heck yes

America is so specialized in regards to jobs today...and it has flowed into baseball and other sports (a long snapper specialist in Football, oh boy)

That rarely will a guy be asked to hit, walk, hit Hrs, steal bases etc.

Guys have specific 'jobs' in a baseball lineup now...so to excel in 3 categories...is very hard

[SHOELESSJOE3]

PAs is more accurate because it gives the total number of opportunities to hit a HR. Whether a hitter has an actual opportunity to hit a HR is another mater. But Ruth walked a lot. Sometimes he may have walked intentionally other times he worked a a walk. But a walk is a vaild outcome to any PA so to take them away is not really fair.

First, we have to get this one out of the way intentional bases on balls (IBB) are a whole different world. In no way should IBB's be charged to a hitter when the issue is home run frequency or home run proficiency.
How do we justify factoring in a plate appearance when the issue is home run frequency, when the batter never had the chance to hit safely. It's like he never batted. I don't see anyone making a case counter to that. I've been wrong before, maybe you or another can shoot that one down, I would be surprised.

Look at the top home run leaders in the NL in 2004, Beltre, Pujols, Dunn and Bonds all close, 48-46-46-45. Bonds had 120 IBB, the rest of them put together are some where around 50 IBB's. It's not even a contest, who is the more proficent home run hitter. Should Bond's 120 IBB's be factored in to figure home run frequency.

Any base on balls should not be factored in. We don't know, can't know the circumstances of walks that are not intentional. We can't say the hitter had the opportunity to swing, he chose not to, how do we know, a walk is a walk. Have you seen some of Barry's walks that were not intentional, thrown pitches that there is no way he could offer at, high, low way of the outside. It's for sure, Ruth was pitched the same way.

Batting average, slugging, ISO, Home run percentage, HR/AB are all based on at bats, not plate appearances. We want to know what the hitter did when he put the ball in play or even struck out, thats the true picture of home run proficency.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Guys have specific 'jobs' in a baseball lineup now...so to excel in 3 categories...is very hard

The triple crown is about luck as much as anything else though. And while each category is their own, they rely on eachother. A homerun hitter is going to be feared more. If he is patient, and doesn't power a small city with his swing (Dunn), then he will draw a lot of walks. Drawing a lot of walks, leads to a higher batting average. The RBI's are going to come from a home run hitter too, but that is so lineup dependent, that it's just about being in enough situations throughout the year.

Imo, a 57 game hitting streak would be unbelievable hype wise. Imagine how much pressure that hitter would be under starting at around game #30 and building. By game 45 or 50, fuggeddaboudit.

[Bench 5]

I think that the glamour of records takes time to build up. The record has to be in place for a long time to gain reverence.

Remember when Wayne Gretzky demolished all of the scoring records in the 80s? Prior to Gretzky a good year was 50-60 goals and the records was 76. He broke the record by 16! Then Mario Lemieux broke the old record as well. They blew away the old records by so much that it was clear that the game had changed quite a bit.

Same with baseball's HR records. I don't think it's really sunk in that 73 is the record. And I think most people have placed a mental asterisk next to all of the guys that have hit 60 plus homers over the past several years. If someone broke the record by 1 or 2 homers and was the only one to do so people would pay more attention to it. But since the old record was destroyed many times, it's not a big deal anymore. If someone put up 60 plus homers next year, it won't be as big of a deal as when George Foster hit 52 in 1977. Strange as that may seem.

[west coast orange and black]

barnstormer, it's not just that samples from bonds can not be tested today. the feds had samples of balco product tested and only a very very small percentage of them were tainted with steroids.

it's not that i want to be "right". i want to know the facts. dozens of athletes received steroid-containing substances you say? well, true. but more than a thousand athletes used legitimate balco products. how many legitimate ways can one increase strength and size and perhaps performance?

there's no dead girl. no gunpowder residue. no footprints. no fingerprints. no victim's blood on the suspect's clothing. what you got so far is a "bushy-haired stranger."

i am not interested in the results of most cases. i am interested in the facts of this one.

[Appling]

... I think most people have placed a mental asterisk next to all of the guys that have hit 60 plus homers over the past several years. If someone broke the record by 1 or 2 homers and was the only one to do so people would pay more attention to it. But since the old record was destroyed many times, it's not a big deal anymore. If someone put up 60 plus homers next year, it won't be as big of a deal as when George Foster hit 52 in 1977. Strange as that may seem.
I agree that 60+ homeruns is no longer a big deal -- especially when you remember that the Ruth record of 60 homeruns has now been broken seven times: by Maris in 1961; McGwire in 1998 and 1999; Bonds in 2001; -- and Sosa three times: 1998, 1999 and 2001. Ironically, Sosa did not win a HR title in any of his 60+ homerun seasons!