755
When I arrived at Vanderbilt to begin the rollercoaster ride of college, one of the first things I did was go to the Parking Office to receive my assigned parking spot.
They gave me number 755. I'm a Braves fan. Henry "Hammerin' Hank" Aaron played for the Braves for most of his career. A career in which he hit 755 home runs.
P.S. I don't believe in coincidences.
People often ask me why I'm a baseball fan. Usually, they say they find the game boring, as if a game which nightly produces more palpable suspense than anything Hollywood has to offer could possibly be described as "boring". Of course, I'm more of a rabid student of baseball history, because baseball and the way the public approaches it is as reflective of the times as anything that happens on Capitol Hill.
But times change. Sports change. When Babe Ruth hit his 714 home runs, there were only 16 teams, and pitching talent wasn't stretched nearly as thin as it is today. But then, all the pitchers were white. When Aaron hit his 755 home runs, there were more teams (24), but at least pitchers could be found of all colors. Ruth accomplished his feat in a 154-game season. Aaron played 162 games a season.
Neither played in the era of steroids. Barry Bonds does. And now Barry Bonds has set a new standard for excellence in home run hitting.
My feelings on Bonds have remained pretty consistent. While I have very little doubt in my mind that he used performance-enhancing drugs, deep down I have to admit I hope he gets exonerated of all charges. There are several reasons for this: first, he was a great ballplayer long before steroids came into the picture, and I hate that what would have been a sterling reputation and a Hall-of-Fame career has been tarnished by steroids; and second, because it would maintain baseball's statistical purity, such as it is.
What really gets me is that, ultimately, we'll never know for sure. There will always be a lingering doubt for me, partly because I so want it to not be true. I suspect many baseball fans feel the same. But ultimately, we all realize that, from a statistical perspective, the game will probably never be what it once was.
Regardless, whatever number of home runs Bonds ends up with will never carry as much weight as 714 or 755. Or 868 (the number of home runs smacked by "Japanese Base Ruth" Sadaharu Oh). Or .406 (Ted Williams' batting average in 1941, the last to break the .400 barrier). Or 2632 (the number of consecutive games played in by Cal Ripken). Or 56 (Joe DiMaggio's hit streak in 1941 - and call me when someone breaks that record, in my opinion the most impressive in baseball).
It's a different era in a different game. That's both Barry Bonds' loss and ours.
Song lyric of the day:
"And I suppose that's the price you pay
Well it isn't what it was
She's thinking he looks different today
And there's nothing left to guess now"
- Arctic Monkeys, Leave Before the Lights Come On
They gave me number 755. I'm a Braves fan. Henry "Hammerin' Hank" Aaron played for the Braves for most of his career. A career in which he hit 755 home runs.
P.S. I don't believe in coincidences.
People often ask me why I'm a baseball fan. Usually, they say they find the game boring, as if a game which nightly produces more palpable suspense than anything Hollywood has to offer could possibly be described as "boring". Of course, I'm more of a rabid student of baseball history, because baseball and the way the public approaches it is as reflective of the times as anything that happens on Capitol Hill.
But times change. Sports change. When Babe Ruth hit his 714 home runs, there were only 16 teams, and pitching talent wasn't stretched nearly as thin as it is today. But then, all the pitchers were white. When Aaron hit his 755 home runs, there were more teams (24), but at least pitchers could be found of all colors. Ruth accomplished his feat in a 154-game season. Aaron played 162 games a season.
Neither played in the era of steroids. Barry Bonds does. And now Barry Bonds has set a new standard for excellence in home run hitting.
My feelings on Bonds have remained pretty consistent. While I have very little doubt in my mind that he used performance-enhancing drugs, deep down I have to admit I hope he gets exonerated of all charges. There are several reasons for this: first, he was a great ballplayer long before steroids came into the picture, and I hate that what would have been a sterling reputation and a Hall-of-Fame career has been tarnished by steroids; and second, because it would maintain baseball's statistical purity, such as it is.
What really gets me is that, ultimately, we'll never know for sure. There will always be a lingering doubt for me, partly because I so want it to not be true. I suspect many baseball fans feel the same. But ultimately, we all realize that, from a statistical perspective, the game will probably never be what it once was.
Regardless, whatever number of home runs Bonds ends up with will never carry as much weight as 714 or 755. Or 868 (the number of home runs smacked by "Japanese Base Ruth" Sadaharu Oh). Or .406 (Ted Williams' batting average in 1941, the last to break the .400 barrier). Or 2632 (the number of consecutive games played in by Cal Ripken). Or 56 (Joe DiMaggio's hit streak in 1941 - and call me when someone breaks that record, in my opinion the most impressive in baseball).
It's a different era in a different game. That's both Barry Bonds' loss and ours.
Song lyric of the day:
"And I suppose that's the price you pay
Well it isn't what it was
She's thinking he looks different today
And there's nothing left to guess now"
- Arctic Monkeys, Leave Before the Lights Come On
3 Comments:
Personally, I think .366 is the most impressive career number out there (Cobb's career BA). I like DiMaggio's record, but .440 (highest single-season BA, registered by some random dude named Hugh Duffy back in 1894) is pretty sweet too. But hell, I'd be happy to see someone just break .400 at some point.
Oh, just for fun: here's Baseball Prospectus' numbercrunching which equalizes the numbers from all the eras and assumes the players played their entire careers at Montreal's Stade Olympique. Bonds ends up third behind Ruth (1) and Aaron (2). Someone named Mel Ott finished fourth, though, so take this list with a grain of salt.
Yep, Hugh Duffy in '94, seconded by Tip O'Neill (which has always amused me) who hit .435 in 1887. In the "modern era", I believe Rogers Hornsby hitting .424 in 1924 is equally if not more impressive.
While we're at it on records, we might as well include pitching records such as Hoss Radbourn's 60 wins for the Providence Grays in 1884, or Bob Gibson's 1.12 ERA in 1968 (the year before they lowered the mound). But still, most ball fans are more likely to know the number I cited in my post. They would also probably be really scared to learn that I cited all those stats without even having to look anything up (which means they may be slightly off). As I said, rabid student of baseball history.
(By the way, Mel Ott was a Giant in more ways than one, the NL's greatest home run hitter during the late 20's and 30's, with 511 career home runs. Couldn't tell if you were kidding about the whole "somebody named Mel Ott" thing, so there's a little extraneous info. Still not sure I agree with his placement on the list, but in terms of home run hitting, he'd definitely be up there.)
And by the way, third on the all-time BA list (behind Cobb and Hornsby) is none other than Ruth himself. Which is why he will likely never be surpassed as the greatest ballplayer ever.
Post a Comment
<< Home