Baseball-Related Program Activities

What would be a very bad time for your microphone to go out? If Barry Bonds makes it to 755, I bet KNBR will be putting a few extra microphones in the booth for every game.

Labels: barry bonds, giants, radio

I'm not sure if "honor" is the right word, but in honor of Barry Bonds' current home run total, here's Milo Hamilton's call of Hank Aaron's 715th home run on April 8, 1974, while both members of baseballrelated.com were ensconced in wombs.

Meanwhile, Albert Pujols is on the cover of Sports Illustrated again, for the second time in less than two months, and why not? Also in the issue is Baseball Prospectus's projected home run leader board from the year 2020, which I want to reproduce here for posterity:

1. Barry Bonds (765)
2. Hank Aaron (755)
3. Babe Ruth (714)
4. Alex Rodriguez (678)
5. Willie Mays (660)
6. Adam Dunn (638)
7. Ken Griffey Jr. (637)
8. Albert Pujols (620)
9. Manny Ramirez (589)
10. Sammy Sosa (588)
11. Robotic Hitting Unit HR-1 (587)
12. Frank Robinson (586)

One of the above was actually my own addition to the Baseball Prospectus list, solely to make Levi chuckle.

Labels: Albert Pujols, barry bonds, milo hamilton, predictions, robots, sports illustrated

Wow, I stayed up longer than the Los Angeles Times sports department last night! They went to press with "the White Sox quickly took control and built a 10-4 lead after 7 1/2 innings," but I was awake until I caught up with the TiVo recording in the middle of the 8th inning. Speaking of the L.A. Times, here's noted class act Vin Scully, quoted today talking about possibly being in the broadcast booth when Barry Bonds passes Babe Ruth's and/or Hank Aaron's home run records: "I would just as soon it not happen against the Dodgers....If I had my druthers, I would rather have that awkward moment happen to somebody else."

Thanks to advanced technology that is currently available to me, I'm now thinking I'm going to attempt to make a post here once an hour today, with the first one around two hours from now, at 11:00 A.M. Pacific/1:00 P.M. Central. I will also attempt to be online on AIM/iChat as trainmanplus all day while I'm watching TV, so feel free to chat. (If I don't say hi back, it'll be because the advanced technology has turned out to be too overwhelming.)

Labels: barry bonds, indianapolis indians, los angeles times, Opening Day, vin scully, white sox

Barry Bonds is sitting on 708 home runs. This means he only has to hit 65 to reach 773 and bracket the season with Chicagoland area codes. Actually, if he could hit 139, he could end the season with 847 and make it a Salute to 11 or 12 Years Ago When the Area Code for the North Suburbs Changed.

Labels: barry bonds

Given the illegal leaks from the trial last month of that shady character Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi were hanging out with, it's become more difficult to believe that Bonds has not used steroids. I remain in the innocent until proven guilty camp (a camp that, along with great s'mores, boasts the absence of both our former and our soon-to-be Attorneys General), but assuming the testimony is accurate as reported, then Bonds is either dumb, which anyone who's watched him play knows he's not, or he used some steroids that his shady trainer gave him.

So say Bonds used steroids. How does that make me feel about his accomplishments, since I've spent the last few years in the "Bonds is probably the greatest player ever" camp? King Kaufman gave his take on it at Salon: Bonds has fallen, in Kaufman's estimation, from best player ever to one of the best ever.

I still wasn't sure how I felt about it. Then one day, it hit me. I realize this isn't by any means a perfectly analagous situation, but I feel a lot about Bonds probably using steroids as I do about Bill Clinton getting blown in the Oval Office: I honestly don't really much care about the act itself, but I am irritated that either man would be so dumb as to do what he did, knowing the tremendous, irreparable damage it would do to his overall achievements if it came out.

As I said: not exactly analagous. For example, while there's no rule against getting Oval Office action, there is a rule against using steroids while playing Major League Baseball. And while the damage to Bonds's reputation is sad for me as a baseball fan (and as a champion of players of this era as, overall, the best ever), the damage to the country from Clinton's public gelding at the hands of Ken Starr's inquisition is much, much worse. Bonds's possible cheating was unfair to those who played by the rules, while Clinton's definite cheating was only unfair to his family.

But other than that, I find I can't get all worked up about it. Sure, I wish Bonds definitely hadn't used steroids. I wish Clinton hadn't unzipped. But that doesn't fundamentally change what I saw. With Bonds, I saw the best batting eye I've ever seen coupled with baseball smarts, a fierce competitveness, and a punishing work ethic. Without steroids, I firmly believe he would still have been the best player of his generation--he was well on that path way back when he was still skinnny. With Clinton, I saw the best politician of our lifetimes, who, while frequently frustrating me on particular issues, left our country in much better shape than it was when he took office. The fact that the Democrats were unable subsequently to capitalize on that, though partially his fault, doesn't change my perception of Clinton's gifts.

We're less than six weeks away from pitchers and catchers.

Original comments...

Dan: One small point, though... Steriod use was illegal only from the beginning of 2003 (I think), which makes him "legal" for certain for at least 613 of his homers.

Sure, if he was using it, it was an unfair advantage, from the standpoint that he used it and the pitchers (that we know of) didn't. But it was within the rules, on a very technical level. And all those pitchers could have used the same drugs to enhance their performance, too, during the same period.

All that said, the greatest player of all time remains Howard Johnson. With Barry Bonds and Melvin Mora "among the best."

-DR

Toby: In my opinion, he's not even the best Giants player ever (Willie Mays) or the best Pirates player ever (Roberto Clemente). Of course that could be a little biased since he left the Pirates (and made no secret he was going to...

Labels: barry bonds, Bill Clinton, jason giambi, King Kaufman, steroids

I've had a bunch of BRPA2004-related items bouncing around my head all week, some new, some forgotten items from our actual trip, but work has been busy. So now, with a free fifteen minutes, a list:

1) Overheard on our way across the Roberto Clemente Bridge to PNC Park, we overheard a kid tell his dad, "We'll be at the game today, so we won't have to watch it on TV!"

2) In Pittsburgh, for sale on the street near the ballpark, there was a yellow t-shirt with fake bullet holes on it that read, "Where was Ray Lewis when Joey Porter got shot?" On the back, it read, "Scoring dope for a teammate!"

3) And on a t-shirt I saw outside Comiskey, "Baseball's not boring. You are." Luke and I agreed that while the shirt was more or less right, we would neither one wear it.

4) King Kaufman of Salon.com has been running the Barry Bonds is MVP Stat of the Day for a week or so in his column, running through all the ways in which Bonds is almost lapping the league offensively. It's been fun--as King Kaufman usually is--so you might check it out. My favorite part of it was a reader's response to Kaufman's suggestion that a new term needs to be created to describe second place when it's as far from first place as is usually the case when you're looking at Bonds's stats. A sad Democrat suggested "Mondale."

5) The Cardinals clinched their fifth division title in nine years Monday while in Milwaukee. According to the Post-Dispatch, several Cardinals after the audience had left climbed to Bernie Brewer's house, posed for photos, and slid down the slide. I assume Steve Kline was involved.

6) I can't find the story, but it was also reported that at Monday's game, Tony LaRussa was nearly taken out by Bratwurst when he came out of the dugout right in the middle of the sausage race. Where's Randall Simon when you need him?

Original comments...

Jim: It mentions the Tony LaRussa bratwurst incident in the same Post-Dispatch story where it mentions the Bernie Brewer slide incident.

By the way, for those not fortunate enough to be hangers-on: after Levi saw the "where was Ray Lewis when Joey Porter got shot" T-shirt, it was pretty much all he talked about for the rest of the trip. And it's not even baseball-related, except for the fact that the vendor was attempting to sell it to people attending the Pirates game.

Speaking of which, sad news from Pittsburgh...not baseball-related, but related to a different kind of ball. I know Kevin Martin, subject of the article, from 1998, when I was a member of the Steel City Pinball Association, although I'm not sure if he'd remember me at all. You may note, if you scroll down to the individual standings, that he had a 49-17 record and I was 27-39. He also has enough money to buy warehouses, and a Ferrari.

Levi: The Ray Lewis t-shirt just astounded me with its vitriol and crassness. I mean, it wasn't even a t-shirt about the team playing that day, or a Pittsburgh team at all--it was a t-shirt about one of the Steelers' rivals! Talk about unpleasant obsessions.

Toby: You have to understand that the Ravens are actually the original Cleveland Browns. Though the rivalry isn't as balley-hooed (sp.?) as the Yankees-Sox, there is probably as much animosity between Pittsburghers and Clevelanders.

When I visited Pittsburgh (along with Levi's sister) a couple of years ago, we left the same day as the first-round playoff game in which the Steelers came back from a huge deficit to beat the "new" Browns.

It was quite evident all across town how Pittsburgh felt about the Browns.

thatbob: "Ballyhooed," according to Google and m-w.com.

Um, thanks Levi, I had never before seen the sausage race as a metaphor for becoming distracted from our Christian faith by the smaller details of Christian community. That's because I'm not a batshit crazy Christian looking for a homily metaphor in every moment of modern life! Did you look at John2117.org? It's jaw-droppingly amazing!

Labels: barry bonds, brpa, Cardinals, King Kaufman, pittsburgh, road trip

Back in March, a man named Michael Mahan, who has more money than me, bought the entire right-field pavilion (bleachers) at Dodger Stadium for two of the three games against the Giants the last weekend of the season. With that big a group buy, the tickets cost only $3.50 each (face value $6.00). He sold some to a broker, donated some to Big Brothers/Big Sisters, and has been selling the rest through his web site for $15.00 each.

Everyone who buys a ticket, though -- and the big brothers and big sisters themselves -- has to sign an 8-page contract that if they catch a Barry Bonds home run ball, they have to give it to him, and then he'll sell the ball and later split the money with him.

The Dodgers found out about all this, and they're a little annoyed, but there's not much they can do; in California, selling tickets above face value is only illegal on stadium property. They also threatened to let people into the pavilion for free during the games if there is a significant number of empty seats, but Mahan says he's distributed almost all of the tickets, so that shouldn't be an issue.

This was all on the front page of today's L.A. Times, but reading that article requires registration, whereas baseballrelated.com doesn't. I think the reason this made the front page today is because Bonds has gotten near 700 home runs a little faster than Mahan predicted back in March.

I'm going to the Dodgers game tonight, but sitting in the "reserved" (third) level, behind home plate, so no Barry Bonds home run balls for me. Well, since they're playing the Padres, a Bonds home run ball would be highly unlikely no matter where I'm sitting.

Original comments...

Jim: It wasn't in the L.A. Times article, so I forgot to bring up Charlie Sheen buying the entire left-field bleachers for a game at Anaheim in 1996. ("Anybody can catch a foul ball," he supposedly said. "I want to catch a fair ball.") The Angels apparently didn't even make him fill up the section, because by all accounts, it was just Sheen and a couple of friends sitting out there. No one was in danger of hitting any milestone home runs in that game, though, and Sheen went home empty-handed.

Levi: You know, I was just retelling that story to Luke on Monday, but I had Sheen at Comiskey Park. My mistake, I assume, since Jim is known to be mistake-free.

Dan: Jim knows(tm).

Labels: barry bonds, dodger stadium, dodgers, giants, los angeles times

Warning: Those of you tired of reading about the Cardinals might want to skip this post. It's long. I can't imagine anyone could be tired of reading about the team with baseball's best record, but then again, I can't imagine anyone not finding Dick Cheney repulsive, and he's married. And Vice President.

Last night's Cards-Giants game was everything a nationally televised game should be: Two good pitchers with differing styles (Jason Schmidt and Woody Williams), two of the game's best sluggers (Barry Bonds and Albert Pujols), and two of the game's best teams in one of baseball's prettiest ballparks. And it lived up to it, with the Cardinals winning 6-1, their margin of victory fattened in the late innings on a Giants bullpen that's been as reliable lately as the Bridge of San Luis Rey. Most of the game was spent with the score 2-1 Cardinals, making every pitch--especially those to a certain lefty--fraught with peril.

The great moments in the game were primarily one-on-one moments, batter versus pitcher. There were no particularly great defensive plays or baserunning heroics; the fun was in watching the power of Jason Schmidt and the guile of Woody Williams matched up against the batting eyes and hitting smarts of the likes of Bonds and Pujols.

Some highlights from that:

1) In the first inning, with Edgar Renteria on base, Pujols faced Schmidt. What followed was as pure a power vs. power battle as you'll ever see. Schmidt brought the 95-mph heat just above the belt, Pujols swung as hard as humanly possible, and he swung right through it. Stacey and I actually gasped. The next pitch was a little higher, around the shoulders, and Pujols couldn't lay off. But you can't hit that pitch, even if you're Albert Pujols*. Then, in a textbook demonstration of how to pitch, Schmidt struck Pujols out on an off-speed pitch that started thigh-high, then dropped to the dirt. It was Pujols's 29th strikeout of the year, to keep pace with his 29 home runs.
The next pitch Schmidt threw, to Rolen, was deposited far beyond the wall in dead center. That's the second time in a couple of weeks that Rolen has followed a Pujols strikeout with a long first-pitch homer. Maybe catchers need to make going to the mound a regular step following a Pujols strikeout., if only to remind the pitcher not to throw a first-pitch fastball.

2) For a couple of years, statheads online have been arguing whether teams might be walking Barry Bonds too often, in a way that's counterproductive. After all, the argument goes, if you walk him every time, he makes no outs. If you pitch to him, he makes four or five outs out of ten atbats. Maybe it's worth the home runs that he hits to get those outs. The Cardinals seem to be the only people testing this theory. This post at Redbird Nation covers the last two years of the strategy. His take: Cards come out ahead, but just barely.
I don't mind the intentional walk, but last night's four Bonds at-bats did remind me of what automatically walking Barry takes away from the game. Four times Bonds batted, and four times, the Cardinals came right at him:
a) In the first, Bonds--knowing the Cardinals were going to challenge him, just barely got under the first pitch, an outside fastball, and drove it to the warning track, and John Mabry's glove.
b) In his second at-bat, Bonds swung at the first pitch again, a fastball that made his eyes light up--then cut in a bit at the last second to jam him, a beatiful pitch that became an infield popup.
c) In his third trip, Bonds fouled off two, took two, then fouled off four straight, a variety of pitches, from a couple of inside fastballs to an outside slider to a hanging curveball that he just missed crushing. Finally, on the eleventh pitch of the at-bat, he flied out to the weird angle 420 feet away in right where home runs go to die.
d) In his last at-bat, the only time in the night when Bonds didn't represent the tying or go-ahead run, round, effective lefty (and Chicago native) Ray King faced him. Bonds took a strike on a tough slider, fouled one off, took a ball low, then drove a pitch into McCovey Cove that, like a slalom skier missing a gate, went for naught because it was on the wrong side of the foul pole. Then King jammed him inside and got a grounder to Pujols.
They were four of the most fun at-bats I've seen all year. Bonds didn't swing and miss even once, and he took very few pitches, for him. It really was baseball at its best, and the Cardinals came out on top--this time.

3) And speaking of good at-bats: I love good-hitting pitchers. Woody Williams, hitting better than .260 on the year, last night had a single in the second inning, but that wasn't his best at-bat of the night. In the 7th, he worked Schmidt for ten pitches, including four fouls with two strikes, before finally being blown away by a fastball. Those ten pitches, pushing Schmidt to 118 for the night, were instrumental in getting Schmidt out of the game before the 8th inning and bringing on the Giants bullpen.

All in all, a great game. And we're less than three weeks away from our trip now!

*I'm often surprised that hitters swing at the high fastball. It must just look too good to resist, even though you know it's not good for you, like a deep-fried Twinkie. In little league, I was so short that my coach, Eugene Lindsey, instructed me to take pitches until I got a strike. I dutifully did so, and occasionally I would draw a walk. Most of the time, though, the first strike would be called and I, freed from all shackles, would blindly hack at whatever came my way. So I don't have a lot of experience trying to lay off shoulder-high fastballs. Maybe some of the more accomplished ballplayers in the audience can weigh in on the seductiveness of the high heat.

Original comments...

Timmy: You're blog is great...it's good to see dedicated baseball fans, willing to travel the country...I recently flew out to Chicago to visit Wrigley (Pujols had 3 HRs) and Boston to visit Fenway (3rd visit to Wrigley, 1st to Fenway), and it's an experience I'll never forget...good luck on your trip (too bad you can't see a Ranger's game...the Ballpark is one of the nicer ones) http://getslaughtered.blogspot.com

Jim: Thanks, Timmy! If we do another trip in 2005 (or beyond), I definitely want to try to get to the parks in Texas. The Ballpark does look nice in the pictures I've seen of it, and since I'm a railfan, I know I'll enjoy the orange-powered steam locomotive in Houston.

Jason: I've learned you can deep-fry a Twinkie, but you can't deep-fry a Hostess cupcake.

Levi: Thanks for the kind words, Timmy.

One thing I forgot to mention: last night was only the fourth time this season that Bonds hasn't reached base in a game he played.

stacey: levi pointed out the row of rubber chickens that fans have strung up at the giants' ballpark to represent the number of times barry has been walked (intentionally, i think) this season. wow, that is a lot of chickens.

stacey: here we go: http://sanfrancisco.giants.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/sf/news/sf_news.jsp?ymd=20040620&content_id=776287&vkey=news_sf&fext=.jsp

Jason: You can deep-fry a chicken. But I dunno about deep-frying a rubber chicken.

Labels: Albert Pujols, barry bonds, Cardinals, edgar renteria, giants, jason schmidt, john mabry, ray king, scott rolen, woody williams

The last two Cardinals games have provided an example of one of the reasons I like baseball. Day to day, you never know what kind of game you'll get. One day, you hit five home runs and win 11-8. The next, you get three hits--two by your pitcher--and win 1-0.

You never know what you're going to get, that is, unless you're Barry Bonds, in which case you at least know you'll get walked about 1300 times per game.

Labels: barry bonds, Cardinals

Well, the demand from some quarters has been so high that I have to make sure you know about how Moises Alou, who doesn't use batting gloves, toughens his hands.

According to an item a ways down in this column, he pees on them.

So don't hi-five him. And when he comes to the plate, shout, "Hey, Ol' Pee-Hands!" Sounds very 19th-century.

Oh, and on the topic of waste, here's Barry Bonds's take on the Spider-Man controversy:

"What the [bleep] are you asking me for? I don't care. Our job is to play ball, not to worry about what ad is on the billboard. I don't care. They can have [bleepin'] dog-poo as bases so I have to step in [bleep] as far as I'm concerned. What the hell."

As Redbird Nation, where I found the quote, says: It's easy to hate Bonds, but it's hard to hate his incorrigible Bondsness.

Actually, we probably shouldn't spread the idea of dog-poo bases. I wouldn't put it past Selig, if someone in the dog-poo industry offered him money. King Kaufman at Salon is at his best today on this topic.

Labels: advertising, barry bonds, King Kaufman, moises alou, spider-man

There's some interesting back-and-forth between Levi and Steve in the comments related to Levi's May 4 post about Barry Bonds. Unfortunately, the display of those comments gets truncated at a certain point, it looks like, and I probably won't have a chance to try to fix the problem until at least May 13 because I'll be too busy watching the Devil Rays, among other activities.

So for now, here's Steve's final comment in its entirety:

Well Levi, you may be on to something with your Bonds-fawning but more on that in a moment. Back to the steroid scandal, I am less willing to offer a benefit of the doubt than you. In a court of law one is innocent until proven guilty but in the court of public opinion I think there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to implicate Bonds through his close association with already indicted people.

I contend Bonds was juiced up and hit 73 primarily as a result of this. His previous career high HR was 49 the year before. You contend he dedicated himself to changing his game and powering the ball out of the stadium. The next year he only hit 46HR-- why the drop off? First he played in 10 less games. One remarkable fact I have learned thanks to this discussion is that Bonds has never played 162 games in a season. He played in 143 the years before and after the 73HR. The year after Bonds hit 73 HR his IBB almost doubled, and he walked 21 more times (in 10 less games) Clearly I can't make my case that Bonds was juiced based on statistical evidence. He is a remarkable player. Let's run down some of your other points.

Regarding the segregation of baseball. Bonds does have the advantage of playing against the best players in the entire world. In a functional sense, one might argue that the integration of baseball MUST have led to league expansion because it could absorb better players. Still, baseball was integrated in 1947 and didn't expand until 1962 (15 years) I still contend this is, at best, a wash. However, one argument that would support your point in a twisted sense is the way in which Latin players are essentially farmed. Back in Ruth's day there weren't baseball colonies gathering in countless youngsters and signing them to contracts when they are in there early teens. In that sense, the players may be of better quality because they've made an industry out of it.

As talk turns to league contraction it's clear that many players in today's game don't belong on major league rosters. I would argue the nature of specialization is really there to protect the superstars. Middle relievers are the baseball equivalent of cannon fodder. They go out there and they soak up innings. They aren't good enough to start and they aren't good enough to close. If it weren't for the fact that there are so many teams you might well have a league full of Curt Schillings ready to go the distance against the Bonds' of the world. In terms of closers, there are certainly a few world-beaters, Gagne, Smoltz, Eck, Rivera. But for every one of those guys there's a head case with a big heater. Maybe it's just me but I think baseball has become much more of a psychological sport. Why is it that 32 teams don't have 32 awesome closers? It's because pitching in that context is much more mental than physical. I think 90% of hitters have a clear advantage when they are going up against a "closer" in the 90s

On your point about travel, you've certainly got me there but regarding day v night games the Giants play the second most amount of day games in baseball (or at least they used to). And, if you listen to the Cubs, playing baseball in the day is harder because you have less time to "adjust" ie. sleep off the hangover. The players of Ruth's era worked hard, played harder and then went back to work.

The parks of the old days all had their quirks but in general were much bigger than the parks of today. Sure if you can hit the porch in Tiger Stadium you are not necessarily bad-ass but if you hit a ball to dead center in the Polo Grounds you better hope you and your 4-lb bat got every bit of it.

In context, Bonds stands head and shoulders above most of league but I think A-Rod or Manny Ramirez are probably as good as he is. Of course, the trick is to put together a career of these mind-boggling numbers. It is remarkable that Bonds seems to be improving with age. 73HR is a gaudy number but I honestly think it will be broken again. It won't linger there for 30+ years like Maris. Again, compared to the rest of league, Ruth definitely stands out more than Bonds. It's too bad Gould passed or we might beg him to turn his analysis to this question. Do you know anyone at Stats? Gould may have a point but I still say, more pitchers, smaller ballparks, better nutrition and better equipment make hitting less of an art than it was in the old days. Bonds has clearly reduced it to a science. He is the MJ of baseball. I would say Ruth is more like Wilt Chamberlain. And I still think he sets the standards by which other players must be judged.

I've enjoyed this lively debate and in the spirit of our baseball wagers of years past I have one for you (but it doesn't involve fellatio) If Bonds hits .400 this year (based on the minimum number of plate appearances to qualify for the batting title) I will 1) concede your point that he is better than Ruth and 2) treat you and your wife to a baseball game at a minor league stadium of your choosing within a 90 mile radius of your home. I think that covers Schaumburg (big whoop), Kane County, Gary, Joliet, Beloit and maybe another one that is slipping my mind. If Bonds fails to hit .400, I want 12 bottles of any (1) of these beers: PBR, Special Export or Old Style. Good luck.

Original comments...

Levi: I'll take it.

Now I just have to not fret that Bonds is hitting in the .270s this week.

Labels: barry bonds

One of my favorite of the games played by Rob Neyer in his column is comparing unnamed Player A with unnamed Player B.

Today, we're going to play that game--but I'll make it easier for you. Player A is Barry Lamar Bonds.

Barry Bonds so far this season:

HR BB BA OBP SLG
10 44 .463 .704 1.111

Player B so far this season:

HR BB BA OBP SLG
14 55 .216 .268 .308

Sure, Player B's counting numbers are impressive--but the discrepancy between the huge number of walks and home runs and the low on-base percentage and slugging percentage surely have tipped you off that I'm being intentionally misleading.

Player B is not a single player. It's the Montreal Expos. They've needed 903 plate appearances to compile those numbers.

Barry Bonds has needed only 98.

Barring injury, he's going to break his own record of 198 walks. While doing that, he's going to pass Rickey Henderson for most walks all-time. He's going to break his own intentional walk record of 64.

And I'll say it on the record: he's going to hit .400.

Baggarly, I hope the circus of a .400 season will help compensate for boredom of covering the suprising wreckage of the Giants team in general. We're watching Babe Ruth here, only far, far more impressive in context. I don't expect ever to see his like again. We should watch him every chance we get.

Original comments...

Steve: Far more impressive than Babe Ruth?!??! This is a joke right? Let's start with the obvious... 154 game season and only eight teams (that's right eight) in the AL. No one will ever convince me that the overall quality of the players was not better in those days. 97mph fastball or no, back in the 30s Farnsworth is running a drill press....

Now for some less tangible but no less important factors that contribute to Bonds' success. First, if I wear enough body armor to win a walk on part in Lord of the Rings, I'd feel pretty good about standing on the plate too. Oh for a spunky manager to tell his pitcher to back Bonds off the plate. You think the managers and pitchers of yore would give two shits about Bonds superstar status? They'd pitch him inside until he backed up or suffered a season ending hand injury...oh wait. Still, I can't wait to see Clemens pitch to Bonds this year.

Back to the point-- between a juiced baseball and a juiced player that 73 will have an asterisk next to it some day. From 49 to 73 is very Brady Anderson-esque. Sure, Babe Ruth was on the sauce and he had a little more protection in the lineup but his OBP and his slugging % are still better than Bonds. Bonds is one of the best players of all time and he is deserving of accolades but has too many negatives to be worthy of all the hyperbole you like to shower him with.

Levi: Leaving aside the steroids question, since there's no definite evidence against Bonds, and leaving aside the juiced ball question, since test after test has been done of the ball and found little to no difference between balls of today and balls of previous years (Even in the weird power year of 1987, there was no difference.), here are the important points I think are in Bonds's favor in an argument against Ruth:

1) Ruth never had to face black players. This is, clearly, a biggie. As a pitcher, he never would have had to face Bonds. As a hitter, he never would have had to face a pitcher like Bob Gibson or a fielder like Ozzie Smith.



2) Ruth never had to face Latin or Asian players. He never had to hit against a Pedro Martinez or Byung-Hung Kim or Hideo Nomo.

3) Ruth had less travel, fewer places. Yes, it was by train, so the trips were longer, but he was only having to travel in the Northeast. That's got to be easier.

4) The number of ballplayers has grown, certainly, but the growth--even if you add in athletes stolen away by other sports--hasn't come close to keeping up with the increase in the U.S. population in that period. Add in the worldwide scouting that teams do now, and we have far, far more than four times as many people available from which to cull not quite four times as many ballplayers.

4) Ruth never had to face ace relievers, working fully rested. Instead, because starters threw complete games, he got to face tired starters far more often than does Bonds. Starters were probably less tired in the ninth than they are now, because they're more used to pitching far into the game and because--as interviews with old-time pitchers will tell you--they, for the most part, didn't have to work as hard as starters today. They state clearly that they didn't have to be at full intensity on every pitch. Now, when a garden-variety shortstop is strong enough to tie a game with one swing, pitchers are forced to concentrate more closely on every single pitch, and that wears out a pitcher more. Still, that doesn't compensate for the difference between even a good starter in the 9th and a rested Billy Wagner or John Smoltz who's able to throw as hard as possible, knowing he only has to throw twenty pitches or so.

5) Ruth didn't play many night games. It's generally acknowledged that hitting at night is a bit more difficult than hitting in full daylight.

6) Ruth played half his games in a ballpark that is very favorable to left-handed hitters. Bonds plays half his games in one of the hardest parks for any hitter in the majors. Ruth, in general, played on the road in bigger parks than Bonds, did, to be fair.

7) Pitchers facing Ruth didn't have the wealth of information available that pitchers facing Bonds have. Pitchers facing Bonds can, if they want, quickly watch every atbat he's had this year. The converse is true, of course: Ruth couldn't scout pitchers in advance the way Bonds can. But, given Ruth's character and reputation as not the hardest worker, can you see him doing much of that?

8) True, Ruth didn't have body armor. And the thing Bonds wears on his elbow is absurd and should be stopped by the league--it's over the top. But at least a few other players employ equally absurd devices (Craig Biggio, for example), yet they don't seem to get the same results, or even anywhere near the same results.

9) Stephen Jay Gould's best writing about baseball was about the disappearance of the .400 hitter. I can't remember now which book it was in, but he argued that baseball, as a fairly consistent system (no insane rules changes), shows the characteristics of any system over time: variation decreases, and things settle around a norm, with far fewer extreme outliers. He buttressed his argument with evidence like the decrease in the number of absurdly good or absurdly bad teams, the decrease in the number of hitters who stood head and shoulders above or below the league, and the same with pitchers. I can't do his argument justice right here, but it was convincing, and the conclusion was that achievements remarkably greater (or worse--see 2003 Detroit Tigers) than everyone else are far more difficult these days than they used to be.

That's just off the top of my head, but I think that's quite a few points directly in Bonds's favor. The only true advantages that Bonds has that Ruth didn't are the smaller road parks (an advantage that disappears if you look, as you should, at the relationship of the achievement to the league norms) and the tremendous advances in our understanding of nutrition and physical fitness since Ruth's time. I've read about Bonds's workout regimen. It's insane. Other players who've tried it for even a few days have dropped out, exhausted. Maybe Ruth would have adhered to a similar regimen if he were to play today; he sure wasn't known for taking care of himself, but you really never know what such an amazingly talented person would do under different circumstances.

The real question is, is what Bonds is doing, relative to the league, as impressive as what Ruth did, relative to his league? On the face of it, it's clearly not. The year Ruth hit 54 homers, only two other _teams_ even had that many. But I think all the arugments you're making, Steve, when really looked at, turn around and support Bonds. Maybe they don't entirely close the gap--Ruth was an unbelievable player, and I would love to have seen him hit--but I think they clearly make the comparison worth thinking about. And if Bonds finishes the year with numbers even remotely like this--at age 41--I'll be serious that he's better than Ruth.

Levi: Oh, and a couple of other things:

1) While advanced nutrition techniques and physical fitness regimes have benefitted hitters much more than pitchers, they have benefitted pitchers (and fielders) some, too. The fielders today are almost certainly better than in the old days, on average, for reasons ranging from the established fact that people in developed countries are faster, quicker, bigger, and stronger than they were 75 years ago to the better and larger gloves fielders use. Even such a great play as Willie Mays's catch of Vic Wertz's line drive in the 1954 World Series doesn't look _that_ impressive these days. I really believe I've seen plays just as good, by guys who aren't even that well known for their fielding.

2) One advantage Bonds has that Ruth didn't, but would definitely have made use of: thin-handled, scoop-ended bats. The understanding of the physics of bat speed has been crucial to the increase in power in the past decades. Look at the bats on ESPN Classic even in the 1980s. They're giant and unwieldy.

3) Ruth, too, played most of his hitting career in a high-offense era. He largely created that era with his understanding of how to hit, and he stood head and shoulders above it, but he did benefit from other changes that other hitters benefitted from, too, like the introduction of a truly livelier ball and the more frequent substitution of new balls into play (following the death of Ray Chapman on a pitch where he didn't seem to see the dirty, beat-up baseball at all).

4) The bit about 49 homers to 73 is, I assume, a steroids reference. Again, I suppose it's possible. But from what I've seen since Bonds began hitting more home runs, it's been largely because he has become even more selective than he was as a younger player, he's taking more of an uppercut swing, and his swing has shortened considerably since his younger days. The shortened swing could be argued as a reflection of the benefits of steroids, if it turns out he's on them, and you could even say his selectivity would benefit from the quicker hands and wrists that steroid-assisted strength might add. But in the absence of evidence, I'll stay with the argument that Bonds decided, following Sosa/McGwire in 1998, to hit more home runs, and he adjusted his swing and approach accordingly.

Levi: Re-reading my post, I agree that I shouldn't have said "far, far more impressive."

I think it's more impressive, but the emphatic additions were probably too much.

Steve: We'll continue this tomorrow. You have many good points, some of which I was going to deploy (especially the nutrition angle) As I sign off for the day however I want to start with this. I'm a little troubled by the subtle undertones of this statement....

1) Ruth never had to face black players. This is, clearly, a biggie. As a pitcher, he never would have had to face Bonds.....Ruth never had to face Latin or Asian players. He never had to hit against a Pedro Martinez or Byung-Hung Kim or Hideo Nomo.

I don't really see what race has to do with it. I think the league was small enough that even though it segregated against many deserving players, this did very little to alter the overall talent pool. If there were players from different races in the league do you really think it would have made a noticable difference spread out over an entire career? Anyway, Bob Gibson would have backed Bonds off the plate, too.

A guy stood at the plate with a heavy-ass bat, hung over and sweating booze in his flannels and made it happen. It's kind of like you and your little glove from intramurals. I'm surprised you ever caught anything with that. That you could do it 99% of the time made me respect your skills as a fielder. You didn't need fancy equipment and to this subjective observer I would say that glove was even a handicap. You weren't basket catching anything. You understood the fundamentals of how to catch a ball, rarely practiced but were ,daresay, a natural. That's what I'm getting at stats or no (stats which I think still support my arguments) Bonds is a robot but Ruth was a giant. It's like preferring Kraftwerk to Hank Williams or Woody Guthrie. Digital v analog. Cats v dogs. Two different things and we'll get to the steroids tomorrow but I think you are being a little Scalia-esque with the level of proof you seem to require.

Levi: I agree with your assertion (and I am pleased by the compliment to my fielding. Go small gloves!): Ruth really did tower over the field. It's indisputable.

The reason that the absence of black, Latino, or Asian players is important is not that they are black, Latino, or Asian: it's that their absence means that the league was manifestly _not_ composed of the best available players, let alone the best available athletes. Maybe it was composed of most of the best available. Maybe even 80% or 90%. But there is no argument that can convince me that excluding 10-15% of the US population (let alone the world population) from consideration on grounds that have nothing to do with talent will result in a league with an overall talent level as high as the one we have now, where teams--for all the biases they're still working with--are looking for the best baseball players, worldwide, with no other considerations.

It's not about race, per se. It's about cutting off a source of talent. What galls about it is that the exclusion was based on race, certainly, but for this argument, that's not the important part of the point.

Steve: Well Levi, you may be on to something with your Bonds-fawning but more on that in a moment. Back to the steroid scandal, I am less willing to offer a benefit of the doubt than you. In a court of law one is innocent until proven guilty but in the court of public opinion I think there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to implicate Bonds through his close association with already indicted people.

I contend Bonds was juiced up and hit 73 primarily as a result of this. His previous career high HR was 49 the year before. You contend he dedicated himself to changing his game and powering the ball out of the stadium. The next year he only hit 46HR-- why the drop off? First he played in 10 less games. One remarkable fact I have learned thanks to this discussion is that Bonds has never played 162 games in a season. He played in 143 the years before and after the 73HR. The year after Bonds hit 73 HR his IBB almost doubled, and he walked 21 more times (in 10 less games) Clearly I can't make my case that Bonds was juiced based on statistical evidence. He is a remarkable player. Let's run down some of your other points.

Regarding the segregation of baseball. Bonds does have the advantage of playing against the best players in the entire world. In a functional sense, one might argue that the integration of baseball MUST have led to league expansion because it could absorb better players. Still, baseball was integrated in 1947 and didn't expand until 1962 (15 years) I still contend this is, at best, a wash. However, one argument that would support your point in a twisted sense is the way in which Latin players are essentially farmed. Back in Ruth's day there weren't baseball colonies gathering in countless youngsters and signing them to contracts when they are in there early teens. In that sense, the players may be of better quality because they've made an industry out of it.

As talk turns to league contraction it's clear that many players in today's game don't belong on major league rosters. I would argue the nature of specialization is really there to protect the superstars. Middle relievers are the baseball equivalent of cannon fodder. They go out there and they soak up innings. They aren't good enough to start and they aren't good enough to close. If it weren't for the fact that there are so many teams you might well have a league full of Curt Schillings ready to go the distance against the Bonds' of the world. In terms of closers, there are certainly a few world-beaters, Gagne, Smoltz, Eck, Rivera. But for every one of those guys there's a head case with a big heater. Maybe it's just me but I think baseball has become much more of a psychological sport. Why is it that 32 teams don't have 32 awesome closers? It's because pitching in that context is much more mental than physical. I think 90% of hitters have a clear advantage when they are going up against a "closer" in the 90s

On your point about travel, you've certainly got me there but regarding day v night games the Giants play the second most amount of day games in baseball (or at least they used to). And, if you listen to the Cubs, playing baseball in the day is harder because you have less time to "adjust" ie. sleep off the hangover. The players of Ruth's era worked hard, played harder and then went back to work.

The parks of the old days all had their quirks but in general were much bigger than the parks of today. Sure if you can hit the porch in Tiger Stadium you are not necessarily bad-ass but if you hit a ball to dead center in the Polo Grounds you better hope you and your 4-lb bat got every bit of it.

In context, Bonds stands head and shoulders above most of league but I think A-Rod or Manny Ramirez are probably as good as he is. Of course, the trick is to put together a career of these mind-boggling numbers. It is remarkable that Bonds seems to be improving with age. 73HR is a gaudy number but I honestly think it will be broken again. It won't linger there for 30+ years like Maris. Again, compared to the rest of league, Ruth definitely stands out more than Bonds. It's too bad Gould passed or we might beg him to turn his analysis to this question. Do you know anyone at Stats? Gould may have a point but I still say, more pitchers, smaller ballparks, better nutrition and better equipment make hitting less of an art than it was in the old days. Bonds has clearly reduced it to a science. He is the MJ of baseball. I would say Ruth is more like Wilt Chamberlain. And I still think he sets the standards by which other players must be judged.

I've enjoyed this lively debate and in the spirit of our baseball wagers of years past I have one for you (but it doesn't involve fellatio) If Bonds hits .400 this year (based on the minimum number of plate appearances to qualify for the batting title) I will 1) concede your point that he is better than Ruth and 2) treat you and your wife to a baseball game at a minor league stadium of your choosing within a 90 mile radius of your home. I think that covers Schaumburg (big whoop), Kane County, Gary, Joliet, Beloit and maybe another one that is slipping my mind. If Bonds fails to hit .400, I want 12 bottles of any (1) of these beers: PBR, Special Export or Old Style. Good luck.

Steve: Where'd the rest of my post go?

I can't recreate it again but basically it said that I am right and you are wrong and in our tradition of talking ball, we need to put a wager on it (no fellatio involved)

If Bonds hits .400 based on enough plate appearances to qualify for the batting title I will...
1) Admit that Bonds is better than Ruth and, indeed, the best player of all time.
2) Host you and Stacey to a minor league ballgame within a 90-mile radius of your house. You can pick from such whistle stops as Schamburg, Cook County, Joliet, Kane County, Gary or Beloit.

If Bonds fails to hit .400 I want a 12pack bottles of either PBR or Special Export.

Today Bonds says he won't hit .400 because he buys Levi's argument that pitchers are just too good.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cs0405050295may05,1,5667075.story?coll=cs-baseball-print

Labels: barry bonds, expos

Here's Barry Bonds so far this year.

I said to Stacey last night, "Maybe this will be the year he hits .400, just to show that he can."

Stacey said, "Maybe this will be the year he hits .500."

I'll go out on a limb and say that if he hits .500, he'll win another MVP.

Of course, he's going to have to get past Dontrelle Willis to do that. Dontrelle Willis as a hitter, I mean.

Original comments...

Steve: So is he using a new more glamorous steroid or just trying that much harder? I like those projections but what about the non-breakable record no one talks about 190 RBI?

Labels: barry bonds, dontrelle willis