Seasonal records, Hall of Fame, and historical perspective
Posted by Andy on October 7, 2009
I'm taking a bit of a break from my usual post format to write a sort of op-ed piece.
We've had a lot of talk about steroids and other banned substances in the last several years. I've heard a lot of people call Barry Bonds a fraud and say that Mark McGwire's use of such stuff cost him his spot in the Hall of Fame. I don't understand these positions for two reasons:
- It's way to early to put The Steroids Era in proper perspective yet. We still don't have a clear picture on who used what and what effect it really had on stats and game outcomes. Yeah, power numbers are down the last few years, when most people suspect that use of banned substances has decreased. But we don't know that either for sure. I'm not sure that we'll ever have all of this information or even most of it. But what I do know is that 2-3 years after the end of a 15-year era is too soon to put it in proper historical perspective. I also don't know how one can single out guys like Bonds, McGwire, Roger Clemens, or Rafael Palmeiro when A) there's no proof that guys like Cal Ripken and Frank Thomas were clean and B) we know that many players tested positive but remain anonymous.
- Even if some players did cheat and benefited from it, who on earth could think that this is new for baseball? Would carrying a weapon on the field constitute cheating? Well Ty Cobb sharpened his spikes to intimidate and injure fielders. Dozens, if not hundreds, of players have been caught doctoring the baseball or their bats and yet these incidents are never mentioned when considering the long-term reputation of the individuals. Cheating, from minor infractions like sign-stealing to major ones like use of weapons, has been a long-standing issue in the game. It's been going on for more than 100 years. Why would anyone single out cheating from the last 20 years? If you're going to leave Barry Bonds out of the Hall of Fame strictly based on steroids (and you certainly can't leave him out based on stats) then you'd better throw out Ty Cobb, Gaylord Perry, and a bunch of other guys.
To bring home both points 1 and 2, let me give you an example that covers both historical perspective and unlevel playing fields. Yesterday there was a 1-game playoff to determine a division. Imagine that a guy playing in that game had 73 HR for the season and managed to hit his 74th in that game. Would this guy be the new single-season HR champion? The answer must be yes. But, some of you say, he did it in 163 games!!! Everybody else had only 162 games to play. You people who would say that are missing the point. The guy hit the most homers in a single season. Period. That is a fact. Period. He is the single-season home run champ. Period. Just like Barry Bonds is the current champ. Period. This is not a subject that is up for debate. If it annoys you that Bonds is named, then once you close the record book you can tell your children that he was suspected of cheating and that you fondly remember Roger Maris as the record-holder for many years before Bonds. You can skip right over McGwire if you want. Or, if you're really old school, you can say that Maris had the benefit of 162 games and you fondly remember Babe Ruth as the 154-game champion. But facts are facts. Bonds is the HR champ, and Bonds is a Hall of Famer. There's no way that guy can be kept out. There's no way that Roger Clemens can be kept out.
In the 1960s and even into the 1970s, many people absolutely refused to acknowledge Maris as the HR champ because of the 162-game schedule. To people born in the 1970s or later (who became baseball fans in the 1980s or early 1990s) this seems ridiculous. By that time, the lunatics who begrudged Maris had pretty much disappeared. Over time, the facts won out. Sure, Ruth can still be cited as the 154-game season champion. But in the 1980s, when asked who the champ was at the time, virtually everyone who knew baseball would immediately respond "Roger Maris."
Let's face it. Athletes are a rare breed. The vast majority of these guys are super-competitive and work very hard to gain any possible edge. Cheating is not uncommon. For every instance we know of cheating in professional sports, there are probably 5 instances we don't know about. Just because we know something about Barry Bonds, it doesn't mean that Robin Yount, Tom Seaver, and Carlton Fisk were clean. Were they? Probably. But who knows?
History of the last 100 years of baseball shows us that over time, the numbers on the page win out as the absolute facts and the exact context of feats are remembered only as folklore. Sometimes that folklore has a long lifetime. Thirty years from now, young fans will know Bonds and Clemens as two of the very best players from the 1990s and 2000s and as Hall of Famers. Will their alleged use of banned substances be discussed? Sure. Just like the 154- vs 162-game schedule, spitballs, sharpened spikes, and corked bats. But make no mistake about it: they will be in the Hall of Fame.
October 7th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Talkin' about the # of games in a season really isn't comparable, because there was nothing wrong with 8 extra games. Nothing.
Logically, players who WE KNOW did PED's, should be penalized in some way or another....just like any other time someone breaks the rules. There just isn't a set rule yet for determining the best way to penalize them. It's a different scale from doctoring a ball or others things you can do on the field.
History over 100 years also shows that the context of the 1919 White Sox isn't forgotten. People like Shoeless Joe and Eddie Cicotte were very talented, but they're believed to have been into throwing the games and people still know this despite how good they were. Whereas guys on the same team like Ray Shalk and Eddie Collins, went on to the HOF as there was no suspicion or likelyhood that they helped throw any games.
Interestingly, back in those days (and earlier), throwing games was not entirely uncommon and wasn't exactly against the rules but it was. There's lots of similarities to it & the steroids issues in recent years. I think the memory will be the same or very similar. So I expect players like Bonds & Clemens to be remembered as greats who ruined their careers by chemically altering themselves.
October 7th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Interesting take Devon, although I'm not sure the Black Sox are remembered by everyone the same way as you characterize it. I think many people remember Jackson, Cicotte, et al, as excellent players who were taken advantage of by external people. The one thing that always pops to many folks' minds when thinking about that era is how little the players earned. That was back in the days when all players had off-season jobs in order to make rent, and therefore I think there is a lot of sympathy for those players. (I'm not saying that I think it's correct to have sympathy for them--just saying what I think many people believe.) I'm not sure how that will translate to the steroids issue.
October 7th, 2009 at 9:47 am
It's not quite that clear-cut. There are a lot of things that are "facts, period" that aren't relevant or that people choose to ignore. If I'm running in an Olympic race and I cut across the field instead of going around the track, I could say that I crossed the finish line first, period. Thus I am the winner. Ah, ah, ah! I'm not discussing whether or not I "cheated", I CROSSED THE FINISH LINE FIRST. That's what winners do. That's a fact, period. I'm the winner.
The point is whether or not certain facts are relevant, the fact that I didn't run the prescribed distance is important in determining whether or not I am the winner, and similarly, determining whether or not Bonds played according to the rules could be important in determining whether he belongs in the Hall of Fame. (Bonds' actions are, I think, much more grey than a runner who cheats so obviously; that example was to illustrate my point more than to provide a direct analogy.) Only by ruling the fact of cheating out of bounds at the start can it be claimed that he belongs in the Hall of Fame whether he cheated or not.
The question people disagree on is whether or not Bonds' use of banned substances is relevant to his records, his HoF eligibility and his legacy as a ballplayer. If you don't think so, then his records stand, he belongs in the HoF and he was the greatest hitter who ever lived. If you do think it relevant, he has no records, will never inhabit those hallowed halls and was just another good player who sold his sporting soul to try to make it to the top. Or maybe you fall somewhere in between. To me, this is a significant portion of crime that Bonds and his ilk have perpetrated: unnecessarily muddying the waters and throwing greater doubt over everything that we try to know about this period in baseball.
As a side note, I'm with Devon on the Black Sox and I don't have any qualms about their ban. Nor do I have qualms about the ban of Rose, nor would I have a qualm about banning steroid cheats. As long as the rules are established ahead of their implementation, set the rules and let folks live by them. Argue about them 'til you're blue in the face, sure, but don't pretend that they shouldn't be applied to people who break them knowingly.
October 7th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Good thoughts, Atlas. It's a judgment call, I guess, as to how egregious the cheating is. The difference between my example and yours is this: in your case, the race involves running around a specified path and then crossing the finish line. The runner who runs off the track hasn't completed the physical task. Maris, then McGwire, then Bonds, complete the physical task of hitting 61, 70, and 73 balls over the fence. Did some of these guys cheat? All the evidence points to that, but their cheating was off the field. I'm not saying this makes it acceptable--it's just different.
October 7th, 2009 at 10:25 am
"But make no mistake about it: they will be in the Hall of Fame."
Sounds like pure speculation to me. There are plenty of voters that said they'll never vote for them, and plenty of baseball people that think they'll never get it.
October 7th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Just want to say that I completely agree, and I love finally reading someone with some perspective; especially some historical perspective.
It's frustrating/annoying/disappointing, and I feel it's on a bit of a different scale, but when you get down to it, it happened. It's a part of baseball. And not in the "cheating is a part of baseball" way, but as in it each action was actually a part of baseball and a baseball game. If you go back and say someone's at bats didn't count/weren't fair, then do you change the pitchers stats who pitched to him, the next batter in line who batted with a runner on base, and on and on? No.
October 7th, 2009 at 10:37 am
statboy, you're making my point for me. Back in 1961 (and running through much of the 1960s) tons of baseball insiders said they would NEVER acknowledge Maris as the single-season HR record holder, and that they would fight and fight to make sure it stayed out of the record books. Eventually, though, sanity won out and these guys either saw the light, were defeated, or (to be blunt) died and went away. True, it's a little bit different with HOF elections because any guys who opposed to Bonds and actually has a vote has a direct way to affect the outcome. I suspect, however, that when it comes down to it, he will get in--he might have to wait 10 years, but he'll be in.
And as for my statement being speculation, yes--that's what an op-ed piece is. This entire post is my own opinion and includes a lot of speculation.
October 7th, 2009 at 11:07 am
An interesting piece. There are a couple of points I want to make quickly here, while I have a moment.
1) I think the clearest comparison we may have for this from the past is Pete Rose. His record is undisputed, but I would definitely not say he's a sure thing to eventually get in the HoF. Now, the biggest difference, some will argue, is that Rose's infraction was not related to his play on the field. Where does this leave us? Not in any place that's absolutely decided.
2) If instead of steroids, Bonds had somehow used an Aluminum bat without it being known until later, would you feel the same way? I'm sure that many people would say his records were then illegitimate. Some people probably would have them still stand.
Clearly, there's some kind of line for cheating where on one side of the line, it's bad enough to de-legitimize any actions, and on the other, it isn't. In Track and Field, using PEDs is considered across this line. Where is the line in baseball? I think posts like this one are a good way of probing to try to find out.
October 7th, 2009 at 11:16 am
I have the opposite opinion. Among all the people discussed here, I feel that Pete Rose and the Black Sox are in a different group. All OTHER cases here are about people setting records that may have been under unfair conditions, such as Maris having 8 more games than Ruth to hit 61 HR or players possibly injecting themselves with steroids, etc. What Rose did and what the Black Sox did were against the rules of baseball, but the actions were not an attempt to boost stats or the ability to win games.
Where all these cases ARE similar, as pointed out by a couple of the comments above, is that there is the question of how history remembers these people. I argue that with cases like Cobb or Maris, anger over questions about unfair conditions dies down over time. We've seen that historically. We haven't seen it with the Black Sox or with Rose, although in those cases it has more to do with the attitude of the commissioner and the specific players involved than in does with journalists, HOF voters, or the general public.
October 7th, 2009 at 11:22 am
In response to Andy at #4 and Sean at #6, one doesn't have to deny what happened on the field in order to try to remove the accolades that were granted. To continue with the Olympic analogy (which is, I know, imperfect) winners who have cheated "off the field" by using banned substances are still stricken from record books, their medals taken and given to others and their performances discounted.
Team sports, obviously, present a greater problem than individual competitions because the actions of one person affect the outcomes for so many others. But I don't see why it would be so awful to remove Bonds' records and allow those of everyone he faced to stand as they are. So you have a HR given up as a pitcher to Bonds that still counts "against" you, but the hitter who swung the bat is no longer recorded as the "record holder". I'm not saying that Bonds shouldn't appear in the BR database anywhere, but that when accounting who hit the most HRs in a season, it's not him. Bonds hit the most HRs in a season, sure. But he didn't hit the most HRs in a season while adhering to the rules. Or even, if you prefer it for accuracy, he didn't hit the most HRs in a season while not getting caught cheating.
Like with Rose, we don't say he didn't accomplish what he accomplished, we merely refuse to recognize and honor it as part of the penalty for violating the rules. His numbers exist, they are recorded, but when we talk about the "best" or the "most" or the "top", his name is deliberately left off as the reckoning for what he did to stain the game and the records. Rose, again, is a little different from Bonds because his records from his playing days were established before he decided to break a major rule.
Another side note, this time about Maris/Bonds analogy. Maris didn't do anything to break the rules. The length of the season had nothing to do with any of his actions. Bonds' use of banned substances had everything to do with his actions and were knowing violations of the rules. I think it will have been easier to talk people around on Maris than it will be with Bonds, etc.
October 7th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Don't forget that Maris was using greenies, which were banned at the time. There has also been speculation that he used early forms of injectible steroids. There is no hard proof of anything, or even many people who agree with the speculation. But that's my point here...nobody knows.
October 7th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
>#11
I've never heard that prior to your assertion here, but granting that there is a strong case that Maris was cheating in the same manner as Bonds, toss him out too.
If you truly don't know and can't know about anyone and want to assume the worst, then this whole website is a giant exercise in futility. That's an awfully bleak stance to take and a terrible indictment of how you're spending your time.
I have no reason to think that Maris, Ruth, Mays or whoever was a systemic cheater in the manner that Bonds was. My level of doubt in their accomplishments is insignificant and so I don't feel compelled to give Bonds a pass.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
That's fair. The interesting thing here is how little it matters to baseball. It's not like any of the guys named in the Mitchell Report or otherwise suspected of using banned substances have been blackballed by baseball. Guys who tested positive were suspended, sure. But it's not like these guys don't come back after their suspension, or guys like Andy Pettitte and Paul Byrd, both admitting to use of HGH, haven't gotten free-agent contracts. At the end of the day, stats and just stats, but nothing is preventing teams from signing guys to try to win games.
I wonder what would happen if MLB adopted a system like college basketball, where if a team had a guy proven to be a cheater, the team was stripped of its wins and any titles it won. That would change things, eh?
October 7th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
This is a debate that can and will go on forever. Just like--who was the best hitter ever? So, here's my 4 cents--if you took PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS (please note the name: "performance enhancing") you cheated. Period. Why? Because it gave you an unfair advantage over those who didn't take the drugs. So, you ask, big deal--it wasn't illegal, and everyone could have done it, some were just smarter than others. Why penalize someone for just being ahead of the curve? Answer: Because soemwhere along the way, there has to be standards. These guys aren't playing in a vacuum. They are supposedly role models. The set examples. If they use performance enhancing drugs, then all of us can. If they get away with it, then all of us can.
This is not comparable to the rotten character of a Cobb, or the drunkeness of Hack Wilson and dozens of others. They defects didn't enhance their performance. And, yes, I clearly remember resenting Maris for breaking Ruth's record, and saying it didn't count cause he had 8 more games. But I was a child then, and I now realize that the important thing to remmeber is that Ruth hit more homers per at bat than maris--that's more important.
Bottom line, the cheaters will probably not get into the hall, at least not until people have forgotten the impact of their cheating, say when everyone takes the drugs. Until then, Maris holds the HR record at 61. (Gee, I wonder how many Ruth would have hit if he could have used the drugs--125 maybe?
October 7th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
I shudder to think how many homers Ruth, or even Henry Aaron, would have hit if they played today. Small size of the ballparks alone makes it a daunting thought experiment.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Andy's point in post #15 is a key one. People like to cite era-differences in terms of HRs as the clear sign of the impact of the steroid era while ignoring OTHER factors that may lend to this. Natural weight training, for example, came to the game right alongside the so-called "Steroid era". And of course, smaller parks.
And BTW, more than any of the cheating mentioned in the OP, let me respond to post #14:
"So, here's my 4 cents--if you took PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS (please note the name: "performance enhancing") you cheated. Period. Why? Because it gave you an unfair advantage over those who didn't take the drugs."
Hank Aaron and Willie Mays took amphetamines, a 100% illegal in the United States (without a proper prescription) performance enhancing drugs. And as Tom House, Hank Aaron's teammate has shown us:
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/7721721/
The steroid era started much earlier than Jose Canseco. It is pure, unadultered moral relativism by the media to decry "cheaters" who took performance enhancing drugs in one breath and praise the name of Hank Aaron like a Golden God with the next. Cheating and finding an edge (even chemically, players back to the start were consuming natural sources of testosterone) is as old as the game itself.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
How about the number of home runs Ruth would have hit if he hadn't been a pitcher (and an outstanding one at that) for the first six or seven years of his career? Maybe if he'd hit 840 then the whole conversation would be moot. How about Ted Williams' numbers if he hadn't missed so much time to two wars? Jimmy Foxx if he'd had access to the types of medical available now (or laid off the sauce)? Mantle if he'd stayed clean and had two good legs his whole career? Bonds if he hadn't missed time to the strike and didn't play in hitter-unfriendly home parks in PIT and SFO?
Then too, lots of guys used speed by the fistful--including Willie Mays. You gonna toss him out? Mantle missed out on Maris' record owing to infection caused by an illegal shot from a hack doctor (steroids?). Even Aaron acknowedged trying amphetamines. Would he have used them regularly if he hadn't had a bad reaction to them? (Google "Hank Aaron" amphetamines)
You can chase this stuff around in circles forever (not that I won't follow, mind you), I just happen to be an unabashed Bonds fan. I don't need him to be the entertainment at a children's birthday party, just a great hitter.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
WanderWinder, I don't think the distinction beween Rose and a PED user such as Bonds is the distinction between "off the field" and "on the field". The distinction between engaging in gambling on the one hand and performance-enhancement efforts (PEDs, spitballs, corked bats) on the other is absolutely fundamental. Performance enhancement efforts, whatever one may say about them, are still efforts by the respective players to win games, and win championships, in some cases so fervently as to put themselves personally at risk. But when gambling-related motives are injected into the game, however, it raises the question as to whether the game itself is being played to win. At the point, the entire industry, baseball as an entertainment based on the idea that both sides are trying their best to win, is threatened. Trying to break the rules to help your team win is something that should be penalized by the league (and part of the probelm with PEDs historically is that the league was not penalizing it, undermining the integrity of the rule, making it almost the equivalent of the requirement that the pivot man on the DP have his foot on the base while he possesses the ball), but exposing the game itself to gambling related motives is utterly beyond the pale -- it threatens the very sport itself, the very idea of baseball as a sport. That's why the Black Sox are treated as pariahs and Pete Rose is appropriately shunned.
October 7th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
If there's one thing baseball fans love to do it's argue with other baseball fans about baseball history. Who was the best first baseman? What would have happened if X played in year Y? etc., etc. It's part of what makes this game fun. With that in mind, here's what I think should happen. Keep the record books exactly as they are and don't add any asterisks. Don't issue some sort of ban on reaching the Hall of Fame. If the voters don't vote them in, then fine they don't get in. Likewise, if they get voted in, let them stay in. Then let the fans debate the validity of any of these numbers from now until the end of time. It'll become just another variable in the "who was a better player?" debates.
October 7th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
[...] Baseball-Reference Blog » Blog Archive » Seasonal records [...]
October 7th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
First, let me say that I couldn't agree with you more Djibouti about the arguing. I am a baseball fan and I never tire of debating who is better and how to compare stats across the eras. That's what makes baseball so great, there is no one right answer to anything. Who was the best - well, in what category? Who hit the most home runs - well, do we want raw numbers or try to adjust them? It goes on and on.
Second, I have had a hard time trying to figure out where I stand on this issue ever since the debate came up with McGwire, Palmeiro, etc. For the longest time I felt like they had cheated, no other way to say it and they should be thrown out. Then I changed and agreed that steroids is no different than using vitamins and training 24/7, produced the same results in just a shorter period. Now my opinion is such (and I am voicing my opinion here for the specific reason that there is no right or wrong and I want to see what others think) - I think steroids can't be compared to any other form of cheating in baseball. Gaylord Perry doctored the ball to high heaven and even admitted it, but doctoring the ball can only work so much. It works for some of you pitches and if you're caught you get tossed out of that game. But spitballing isn't an entire career thing, and by that I mean the spitball won't affect every pitch you throw (unless you only use it, which is unlikely). Then there is stealing a sign. That helps your team for a single at-bat, maybe at most an inning or two, but once again its not going to have a major effect on everyone. Then there are steroids, which alter your entire career. You don't just take steroids for a single at-bat or a couple games, (I'm no scientist and I don't know how long a cycle of steroids will affect you for, so the following is an assumption) you are taking them for months or ever multiple seasons. That's where I am drawing the line. I think its novel or quick-witted to "pull a fast one" and mix in spitballs to a couple pitches or steal a sign when you're on second in a game once, but when you are talking about something that gives a player an unfair advantage every day of their career, that's not right. If someone were out there stealing signs every time they got to second or someone threw games every day, then I would agree they need to be banned from baseball too.
So my stance boils down to two strikes. We catch you once with steroids and we say "Okay, you had them and it was an attempt to get by, but no more and no excuses for why". We catch you again and we know you weren't just gaining the temporary advantage, but you were trying to cheat the system day-in and day-out and that's not right. I'd love to hear what others think, but that's where I stand.
October 7th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Why are steroids bad? Well, you could point to a number of reasons:
1.) They're illegal, banned substances that can lead to health problems
2.) They're a form of cheating
3.) They set a bad example for kids
You might be able to add a few other comments to this list. Either way, though, I think most/any of the arguments for keeping Bonds/McGwire/Clemens out of the Hall stem from these, and each explanation can be thoroughly debunked, at least if people are willing to consider logic and reason.
We have a big problem in America when it comes to applying a universal set of standards to "drugs" and other "bad" substances (note the use of quotes). Let's use Marijuana as an example (but the same is true of HGH, Winstrol, etc.). Obviously, if you get caught selling, growing, or possessing it, you're in for some legal trouble. But, is Marijuana SUBSTANTIALLY more addictive than a host of legal substances ranging from nicotine to caffeine? Are the intoxicating properties of Marijuana SUBSTANTIALLY more harmful or dangerous than those of alcohol? Is the regular use of Marijuana SUBSTANTIALLY more hazardous to your health than the regular use of nicotine, the regular ingestion of trans fats, or, hell, a consistently failing to wear a seat belt?
Substances like Marijuana and HGH are banned for political, not factual, reasons. Any of the arguments for controlling and banning them apply to a host of other substances that are neither controlled nor banned. The argument that steroids are bad because they're illegal, and they're illegal because they're bad for you, doesn't hold water.
We also have a hard time quantifying "cheating" when it comes to baseball. I think the real question is, "how much do steroids help?". It's difficult to answer. I believe it's a case where perception does not meet reality. If you review the list of all known (or reasonably suspected) steroid users, you're going to find something that looks a lot like most major league rosters: a couple of superstars, a few solid contributors, and a lot of mediocre/average players. To put it in other terms, both Jason and Jeremy Giambi took steroids, yet one of them hit 409 career home runs while the other hit 52. Both Barry Bonds and Frank Menechino took steroids, yet one hit 762 career home runs while the other hit 36. Both Roger Clemens and Jason Grimsley took steroids, yet one had a 3.12 ERA and the other had a 4.77 ERA. Taking steroids or HGH will augment one's natural abilities, but it can't augment abilities that weren't there in the first place. You must also consider other forms of cheating - doctoring baseballs, stealing signs, sharpening spikes. All of them give the cheating player a clear advantage, and you're kidding yourself if you think that gaining an extra break on a changeup, knowing what pitch is coming next, or putting a real fear of physical harm into a middle infielder isn't a substantial one.
There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of things that parents, relatives, teachers, clergy, and celebrities do that set a back example for children. It's hard to argue that the use of steroids by professional athletes is SUBSTANTIALLY more detrimental to kids than any of the worst violations committed by any of the above-named individuals.
So, in summary, the line of reasoning that says steroids are "bad" applies to many other substances and situations that, while perhaps technically "bad", are legal and occur frequently. Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, and Roger Clemens won't make the Hall of Fame soon - but will eventually - and it's because politicians, parents, and interest groups are idiots, not because steroids are substantially worse than any of the other things plaguing society.
October 7th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
I'd just like to say (after not having the time to read all of these comments up to this point) that I could not possibly agree more with this post...
October 8th, 2009 at 12:19 am
"Who was the best first baseman?"
Lou Gehrig. Very obviously. Jimmie Foxx is clearly #2. Albert Pujols has an ok shot at catching Foxx and an outside shot at Gehrig, but unlikely (if he did his argument would be about career length).
"What would have happened if X played in year Y?"
Well OBVIOUSLY Team Z would've won the pennant over that lowly Team Q.
October 8th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
I would just like to say that I have enjoyed reading these posts. It is such a nice change to see true baseball fans having a good conversation (or debate) about a controversial topic without the vulgar attacks and insults we see on so many other blogs. I read many baseball blogs and I must say that you guys set a high standard.
October 8th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
On behalf of myself, the other bloggers, and the many wonderful readers (without whom this blog would be meaningless)--thank you!
October 8th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
A very good discussion indeed, helping to understand where different people draw the line on these types of issues, and, more importantly, why.
I would like to re-ask, as it hadn't been adressed, how would you feel about a player using an aluminum bat? I mean, clearly, this can't happen because it would be super obvious, but if somehow a player got away with it for a significant amount of time, and then got caught, what would you want to do with that player for HOF and any records they have?
October 9th, 2009 at 9:21 am
I find it hard to wrap my head around the idea of aluminum bats because it's so unlikely to happen. It would be spotted by an umpire or opposing player (even if disguised) and the player would be called out and ejected from the game. If he had happened to complete one or two plate appearances previously with the same bat, they would stand, I believe.
If somehow a player managed to use an aluminum bat for an extended period of time, I can't even imagine the consequences. It would be like if a pitcher managed to somehow use a substitute ball. I would think the commissioner would step in and likely suspend the player, but I don't know that they could throw out the game results of games that had already been completed.
October 9th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
I don't think stealing signs is cheating in any way.
I do think a longer schedule, simply because it is a very tangible, easily measurable benefit, is sufficient reason to separate records. Yes, I consider Bonds the single-season HR record-holder, and when I was a kid it was Maris. But I think it was appropriate to note Ruth as the holder of the 154-game record. Those extra games did provide Maris with a clear advantage. If the season was extended to 350 games next season, surely we wouldn't just talk about Bonds having the 124th best home run total ever.
October 9th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I don't think sign-stealing is cheating either, but some do.