BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Terence Moore: Designated hitter skews home-run totals

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, February 02, 2012

Terence Moore: Designated hitter skews home-run totals

Yea, and relief wins skew career win totals! Start thinking about even moore asterisks!

No question, baseball’s home run records are tarnished by those who spent part of their careers with artificially enhanced bodies, or have been suspected of it.

That said, why don’t folks talk much—if at all—about that other great evil in this regard called the designated hitter?

In other words, may the baseball gods help us purists if Alex Rodriguez really does spend a lot of time this season and beyond as a DH for the New York Yankees. At 36 and sitting just 134 home runs shy of passing Barry Bonds’ record for career homers of 762, Rodriguez could get a mighty boost toward history with more than a few DH homers.

...As a DH, Rodriguez could play well past 40, while putting the career homer record nearly out of reach. He could catch Bonds by averaging about 44 homers over the next three years, or about 33 over the next four years.

Rodriguez could do much of this as a DH, and then baseball officials could do something they don’t like to do.

Start thinking about asterisks.

Repoz Posted: February 02, 2012 at 10:51 AM | 74 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: fantasy baseball

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. JJ1986 Posted: February 02, 2012 at 11:06 AM (#4051894)

The Rod has averaged 25 home runs over his last 3 years and 28 over his last 4. 44 seems like a reach.

2. Enrico Pallazzo Posted: February 02, 2012 at 11:08 AM (#4051896)

baseball officials could do something they don’t like to do.

Start thinking about asterisks.

Um. No. They won't. Like, at all. I am very confident it will never even cross their minds.

3. Athletic Supporter leads the nation in drifters Posted: February 02, 2012 at 11:10 AM (#4051897)

more like designated steroid user LOL amirite?

4. Jose Can You Seabiscuit Posted: February 02, 2012 at 11:19 AM (#4051903)

I think this is a great point from Moore. It would be awful if someone as pure as Barry Bonds lost out on his home run record to DH-Rod.

To be honest I'm stunned that Moore even acknowledges that it's Bonds' record. I'm not giving him the click thru to read the whole piece but I would have expected him to opine that it's really Aaron's record.

5. Bob Dernier Cri

Posted: February 02, 2012 at 11:31 AM (#4051911)

it's really Aaron's record

What, Henry "Brewers' DH" Aaron?

6. The elusive Robert Denby Posted: February 02, 2012 at 11:31 AM (#4051912)

To be honest I'm stunned that Moore even acknowledges that it's Bonds' record.

Barry has fewer tainted homers than Aaron.

7. YR Denies Jesus Montero Posted: February 02, 2012 at 11:36 AM (#4051917)

The DH remains an abomination. Immobile fatsos who can still hit can join a softball league.

8. Bob Dernier Cri

Posted: February 02, 2012 at 11:44 AM (#4051926)

Immobile fatsos who can still hit can join a softball league

HI THIS IS JI

JIM THOME IM ENJOYING THE CHIPPEWA FALLS LEINENKUGEL LEAGUE

I HAVE 84 HOME RUNS SO FAR

9. Booey Posted: February 02, 2012 at 11:46 AM (#4051930)

This makes you respect Babe Ruth and Willie Mays even more

Yep, records were a lot more pure back in the good old days of segregation. That pesky color barrier thingy didn't affect the record books at all...

To be honest I'm stunned that Moore even acknowledges that it's Bonds' record. I'm not giving him the click thru to read the whole piece but I would have expected him to opine that it's really Aaron's record.

He does. Here's his exact quote:

...Hank Aaron, who remains the standard bearer for home runs if you take the so-called steroid era into consideration.

Asterisks are moronic. Period. All numbers are a product of their times, and records aren't supposed to be "fair." They're just a straight up, no bias recording of what happened. Why they happened is a separate debate for those interesting in debating. But the powers that be should never try and force people to view certain numbers differently by adding an asterisk. Luckily, this guy is an idiot and MLB will never even consider doing that.

10. Booey Posted: February 02, 2012 at 11:49 AM (#4051933)

Edit: deleted accidental post

11. Bob Tufts Posted: February 02, 2012 at 12:12 PM (#4051953)

I am upset that the invention of the computer has enhanced the productive ability of sportswriters, an advantage that Grantland Rice et al did not have in their day when they were under deadline.

That enhancement has not helped the quality of Moore's output, however.

(Shakes fist at popup ads crosssing his virtual lawn)

12. Mike Webber Posted: February 02, 2012 at 12:31 PM (#4051965)

That enhancement has not helped the quality of Moore's output, however.

I'm betting spell check has helped the quality of his output a bunch, it has mine.

13. cardsfanboy

Posted: February 02, 2012 at 01:03 PM (#4052000)

I'm fairly certain that most any record could be asterisked. I mean you asterisk Aarons record because he played in a 162 game season(over a 20 year career that is an extra season, for Hank it's a possible extra 120 games, along with his DH and Speed usage) with Ruth you have the color barrier, with Bonds you have the pesky roid thing and smaller stadiums, with Arod you have the roid thing, smaller stadiums and the dh etc.

I mean should we really consider Cy Young the all times wins leader? he's a product of his era, how about Sam Crawford and his 304 triples? I mean shouldn't that be asterisked? Heck Mariano Rivera should be asterisked because closers didn't pitch the same way in the past.

Once you let the abomination of even pretending there is an argument for an asterisk, it can become silly rather quick.

14. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 02, 2012 at 01:14 PM (#4052009)

What is the "right" number of home runs?

15. Natty Fan Posted: February 02, 2012 at 01:17 PM (#4052014)

I don't know why, but when I first read #7, I mentally pronounced "immobile fatsos" as if it were a Latin phrase.

16. bookbook Posted: February 02, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4052016)

Liveball era? More like super ball era, I say! Bring back thereal balls.

17. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: February 02, 2012 at 01:21 PM (#4052020)

You'd think that the writers might be slowed for a nanosecond by Roger Maris' journey -- a journey taken without the actual participation of Maris -- from selfish, surly fluke to sainted, stoic hero.

18. SandyRiver Posted: February 02, 2012 at 01:23 PM (#4052022)

If, as Moore opines, hr by players who don't have to field or throw should not count, do we then deduct all pinch homers? (Just some more silliness added to the points made well by cfb.)

19. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: February 02, 2012 at 01:25 PM (#4052024)

DH HR:

Aaron 22
ARod 16

20. ValueArbitrageur Posted: February 02, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4052039)

Has any record ever been asterisked? Maris's record wasn't.

http://www.salon.com/2001/10/03/asterisk/

21. Booey Posted: February 02, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4052043)

What is the "right" number of home runs?

Whatever number the authors favorite player/boyhood hero ended up with.

22. cardsfanboy

Posted: February 02, 2012 at 01:45 PM (#4052053)

Has any record ever been asterisked? Maris's record wasn't.

nope, at least not in the real sport, maybe lesser past times, and childrens games like basketball, football or jai alai, they might have done something like that.

I'm still thinking of all the absurdity of how they could asterisk records. I mean they could asterisk recent players because they face so many pitchers that they are bound to face some below quality pitchers or they could asterisk the past because there were so few pitchers that the players got a better feel for each pitcher. I don't think there is one major career record that someone couldn't come up with a silly reason to asterisk something, and still it be a more sound idea than what Moore is proposing.

23. flournoy Posted: February 02, 2012 at 02:06 PM (#4052079)

Whatever number the authors favorite player/boyhood hero ended up with.

Huh. Okay, then. Two.

24. Greg Pope Posted: February 02, 2012 at 02:13 PM (#4052089)

I'm still thinking of all the absurdity of how they could asterisk records.

I do think that when people talk about asterisks it's just shorthand. I mean, for the home run record, wasn't it listed for a while as separate lines (or whatever) in the record book?

Home runs, season, 154 games: 60
Home runs, season, 162 games: 61

Effectively, that's an asterisk. And if you wanted to, you could make as many as you wanted:

Home runs, season, pre-1947: 60
Home runs, season, post-1947: 72

I am NOT saying that I support this, but I think this is what people mean when they say they want an asterisk.

25. cardsfanboy

Posted: February 02, 2012 at 02:18 PM (#4052093)

I mean, for the home run record, wasn't it listed for a while as separate lines (or whatever) in the record book?

not just the homerun record, but all the major records, at least in the 1969 McMillan, and I believe the 77(?) one also.

26. Repoz

Posted: February 02, 2012 at 02:27 PM (#4052104)

but all the major records, at least in the 1969 McMillan, and I believe the 77(?) one also.

Neft's 1975 followup doesn't have separate lines.

27. cardsfanboy

Posted: February 02, 2012 at 02:32 PM (#4052106)

Neft's 1975 followup doesn't have separate lines.

I haven't looked at it in a while, but just thought that I was using the newer book when I looked and that it had separate lines. Guess not.

28. Jose Can You Seabiscuit Posted: February 02, 2012 at 02:34 PM (#4052109)

Home runs, season, post-1947: 72

Which homer are you taking away from Barry?

29. YR Denies Jesus Montero Posted: February 02, 2012 at 02:42 PM (#4052114)

nope, at least not in the real sport, maybe lesser past times, and childrens games like basketball, football or jai alai, they might have done something like that.

You take that back, jai alai is awesome.

30. cardsfanboy

Posted: February 02, 2012 at 02:50 PM (#4052121)

You take that back, jai alai is awesome.

I'll take it back as long as I never ever have to hear someone call bowling, Nascar or Golf a sport. :)

31. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: February 02, 2012 at 02:55 PM (#4052129)

I do think that when people talk about asterisks it's just shorthand. I mean, for the home run record, wasn't it listed for a while as separate lines (or whatever) in the record book?

Home runs, season, 154 games: 60
Home runs, season, 162 games: 61

By the way, I never saw a problem with this approach to the keeping of the record book.

In this case, Maris (or anyone else) would have been considered both the single-season and 162-game record holder, while Ruth remained the 154-game record-holder. If desired, if a record took fewer than 154 games to break (as was the case with McGwire in 98) you could eliminate the notation for the 154-game record holder. Or you don't have to, I wouldn't be married to it either way.

32. Nasty Nate Posted: February 02, 2012 at 02:55 PM (#4052130)

I see plenty of asterisks when I see lists of baseball records.

They usually indicate active players...

33. GEB4000 Posted: February 02, 2012 at 03:20 PM (#4052149)

There would be a lot less members of the 3,000 hit club if we took away their DH hits.

34. Booey Posted: February 02, 2012 at 03:29 PM (#4052156)

There would be a lot less members of the 3,000 hit club if we took away their DH hits.

Haven't you been paying attention to any of the steroid articles over the last 5 or so years? Only HR numbers matter. The DH rule is no exception. It has increased career HR totals and nothing else.

35. Walt Davis Posted: February 02, 2012 at 04:00 PM (#4052181)

I think track, swimming, weightlifting, etc. may have asterisked for a couple years before just yanking the Ben Johnsons out.

(c'mon now, straight lines don't come any more obvious than that)

And I'm pretty sure Mac or Bonds holds the 154-game record now. :-)

I'm also pretty sure that if AROD can still crank out 33-44 HR a year, they'd find some place to play him if they didn't have the DH. Maybe he'd miss a few more games for extra rest (or suffer some more serious injury in the field) but it's not like AROD would be adding 33-44 HR a year by the existence of the DH -- he'd probably be adding 4-5. Might still make the difference.

36. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 02, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4052217)

Records with asterisks are one of the few things dumber than the DH itself.

37. Brian

Posted: February 02, 2012 at 05:42 PM (#4052246)

At some point you've homered enough.

38. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: February 02, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4052273)

And I'm pretty sure Mac or Bonds holds the 154-game record now. :-)

As Maris said when Frick came up with his ridiculous asterisk, which 154 games? The first? The last? The middle?

39. Crispix Attacks Posted: February 02, 2012 at 06:39 PM (#4052289)

Didn't Reggie Jackson break the 154-game record some time in the 70s, with 30-some in the second half of one season and 30-some in the first half of the next season?

Was it someone else?

40. Booey Posted: February 02, 2012 at 07:14 PM (#4052309)

Didn't Reggie Jackson break the 154-game record some time in the 70s, with 30-some in the second half of one season and 30-some in the first half of the next season?

That's why it's called a SINGLE SEASON record, so numbers split across two seasons don't count. Still cool to notice this kind of stuff sometimes, though.

Didn't Boggs and Gwynn both hit over .400 during a 162 game span split across two seasons?

41. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 02, 2012 at 07:56 PM (#4052332)

You take that back, jai alai is awesome.

Sterling Cooper Draper Price is earning their commission.

42. Something Other Posted: February 02, 2012 at 08:48 PM (#4052353)

Has any record ever been asterisked? Maris's record wasn't.

I wouldn't asterisk Maris's total any more than I'd asterisk Babe Ruth's. They belong side by side, showing the records for the 154 game season, and the 162 game season. I'd do the same for the various length seasons in the NFL. It's silly to claim that someone in the 16 game season "broke" the single season rushing record without acknowledging that it's one third longer than the 12 game season.

43. bobm Posted: February 02, 2012 at 08:48 PM (#4052354)

From BB-REF PI event finder:

All of MLB: 11919 Home Runs in 1973-2011, As DH
35 leading off game, 163 game-ending, 3707 go ahead, 1139 tying

901 Batters
David Ortiz 333
Frank Thomas 269
Edgar Martinez 243
Harold Baines 236
Don Baylor 219
Jose Canseco 208
Chili Davis 200
Jim Thome 198
Travis Hafner 177
Hal McRae 145
Andre Thornton 125
Brian Downing 125
Cliff Johnson 115
Rafael Palmeiro 107
Jason Giambi 105
Juan Gonzalez 104
Paul Molitor 102
Reggie Jackson 101
Dave Kingman 101
Cecil Fielder 98
Jim Rice 98
Willie Horton 96
Ken Phelps 96
Eddie Murray 92
Mike Sweeney 86
Oscar Gamble 86
Vladimir Guerrero 86
Greg Luzinski 83
Rico Carty 83
Brad Fullmer 79
Ron Kittle 77
Hideki Matsui 76
Richie Zisk 72
Manny Ramirez 71
Ruben Sierra 70
Aubrey Huff 69
Larry Parrish 68
Jack Cust 67
Mickey Tettleton 66
David Justice 65

44. Something Other Posted: February 02, 2012 at 08:51 PM (#4052355)

As Maris said when Frick came up with his ridiculous asterisk, which 154 games? The first? The last? The middle?

Silly question. The first 154. Which games did he think the other guy played in?

45. bobm Posted: February 02, 2012 at 08:52 PM (#4052356)

1960 Pitchers
Frank Tanana 66
Bert Blyleven 61
Jack Morris 59
Chuck Finley 52
Roger Clemens 52
Tim Wakefield 50
Mike Moore 47
Brad Radke 47
Kenny Rogers 44
Mark Buehrle 43
Dave Stewart 43
Jim Slaton 42
David Wells 42
Bartolo Colon 42
Mike Mussina 40
Dennis Martinez 40
Pat Hentgen 39
Charles Nagy 39
Jimmy Key 39
Dennis Eckersley 39
Jamie Moyer 38
Frank Viola 38
Scott McGregor 38
Charlie Hough 37
Mike Flanagan 36
Mark Langston 36
Fergie Jenkins 35
Jarrod Washburn 35
Floyd Bannister34
Jim Clancy 34
Doyle Alexander 34
Dave Stieb 33
Freddy Garcia 33
Dennis Leonard 33
Kirk McCaskill 32
Mike Smithson 32
Bret Saberhagen 32
Bobby Witt 32
Sidney Ponson 32
Scott Erickson 31

46. bobm Posted: February 02, 2012 at 08:55 PM (#4052358)

DH HOME RUNS BY YEAR

47. Booey Posted: February 03, 2012 at 12:46 AM (#4052493)

I wouldn't asterisk Maris's total any more than I'd asterisk Babe Ruth's. They belong side by side,

Nah. Putting a 154 game "record" alongside the real one is no different than listing pre and post-integration records side by side or pre and post-DH records side by side or pre and post-roid records side by side, etc, etc. The list could go on and on. It's an unnecessary waste of space. Anyone who's interested in finding out the context behind each record is welcome to do it on their own and decide for themselves how much worth each one has.

It's silly to claim that someone in the 16 game season "broke" the single season rushing record without acknowledging that it's one third longer than the 12 game season.

As stated somewhere above, record books should just list numbers exactly as they happened. It's not their job to worry about what's "fair" or which record is more impressive.

48. Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: February 03, 2012 at 01:31 AM (#4052521)

You know, the older I get the more I think "This is a game played for entertainment. Who really gives a sh!t about this stuff?" I mean, really, "great evil"? Cancer is a great evil. Baseball is a diversion. It's a waste of time to argue about 90% of this crap. The worst thing about baseball fans is their ability to get their panties in a wad over trivial junk.

49. cardsfanboy

Posted: February 03, 2012 at 01:38 AM (#4052523)

You know, the older I get the more I think "This is a game played for entertainment. Who really gives a sh!t about this stuff?" I mean, really, "great evil"? Cancer is a great evil. Baseball is a diversion. It's a waste of time to argue about 90% of this crap. The worst thing about baseball fans is their ability to get their panties in a wad over trivial junk.

I think you got on the wrong site then.

It's a fun diversion, that is why people argue it, discuss it, etc. I mean how much fun is it to talk about cancer. (for the record I oppose cancer) And on top of it, because it's a diversion, the hatred can only get so intense before you realize---hey it's only a game---.

50. Something Other Posted: February 03, 2012 at 07:04 AM (#4052598)

It's silly to claim that someone in the 16 game season "broke" the single season rushing record without acknowledging that it's one third longer than the 12 game season.

As stated somewhere above, record books should just list numbers exactly as they happened. It's not their job to worry about what's "fair" or which record is more impressive.

Exactly!

The numbers as they happened:

Home Runs Record - single season

154 game season: Babe Ruth 60
162 game season: Roger Maris 61

Actually, since you mentioned it, why not list records by pre- and post-segregation? It's an interesting teaching tool and suggests the game changed dramatically as a result.

51. TomH Posted: February 03, 2012 at 10:12 AM (#4052653)

we already list records by "modern" (post 1900) when we feel like it. Do you include Spalding among greatest W-L pct? Pud Galvin with more wins than Spahn? Is Anson 3rd in RBI behind only Aaron and Ruth? And my favorite, Jim Devlin 3rd all-time in ERA (despite leading his league in most losses for the majority of his career!). All depends on the record book chosen at the moment.

52. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: February 03, 2012 at 10:25 AM (#4052667)

Just use the Santa Claus approach. Make Barry Bonds the all-time "Naughty" champion. Aaron is "Nice."

53. Hack Wilson Posted: February 03, 2012 at 10:27 AM (#4052671)

Terence Moore: Journalist*

*alleged

54. Booey Posted: February 03, 2012 at 12:15 PM (#4052809)

Exactly!

The numbers as they happened:

Home Runs Record - single season

154 game season: Babe Ruth 60
162 game season: Roger Maris 61

Actually, since you mentioned it, why not list records by pre- and post-segregation? It's an interesting teaching tool and suggests the game changed dramatically as a result.

Because why stop there? You could go on and on. Do you really think every record in the books needs to look like this?

154 game record, deadball era: 29 - Babe Ruth, 1919
154 game record, live ball, pre-integration: 60 - Babe Ruth, 1927
154 game record, post integration: 54 - Ralph Kiner, 1949
162 game record, pre DH: 61 - Roger Maris, 1961
162 game record, post DH: 73 - Barry Bonds, 2001
162 game record, post DH, no proof of roids: 66 - Sammy Sosa, 1998
162 game record, post DH, no suspicions of roids: 58 - Ryan Howard 2006

And I'm sure someone could come up with a lot of other distinctions too. For every single record. Seems like a collassal (spelling?) waste of space to me.

55. Something Other Posted: February 03, 2012 at 12:24 PM (#4052825)

Why not? That's actually a fascinating list you've got there. I'm not being facetious, either. It tells us a great deal about the game.

56. Booey Posted: February 03, 2012 at 12:47 PM (#4052849)

Why not? That's actually a fascinating list you've got there. I'm not being facetious, either. It tells us a great deal about the game.

Cuz it just takes up too much space in the books if they listed every record like this. And I honestly don't think the casual fan that just wants to find out who holds a few simple records would be interested in all that.

I love learning about the history of the game and why records are what they are too, but that's something people can research on their own if they're interested. IMHO, record books just need to list numbers, not educate people on the history behind them. There are other books for that.

57. Crispix Attacks Posted: February 03, 2012 at 12:55 PM (#4052858)

Actually, since you mentioned it, why not list records by pre- and post-segregation? It's an interesting teaching tool and suggests the game changed dramatically as a result.

If integration hadn't happened so gradually we could do that.

58. Booey Posted: February 03, 2012 at 01:06 PM (#4052873)

Actually, since you mentioned it, why not list records by pre- and post-segregation? It's an interesting teaching tool and suggests the game changed dramatically as a result.

If integration hadn't happened so gradually we could do that.

Agreed. I certainly don't think of the late 40's as being "integrated" just because there were a few black players. Seems to me that the NL wasn't really fully integrated until the 50's and the AL wasn't until the 60's.

59. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot

Posted: February 03, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4052888)

Actually, since you mentioned it, why not list records by pre- and post-segregation? It's an interesting teaching tool and suggests the game changed dramatically as a result.

If integration hadn't happened so gradually we could do that.

Agreed. I certainly don't think of the late 40's as being "integrated" just because there were a few black players. Seems to me that the NL wasn't really fully integrated until the 50's and the AL wasn't until the 60's.

And besides, "integration" exists on an ever-changing continuum. If I had to pick a point at which to say it had really occurred, it would've been when all the teams in the Majors began to compete for Latin American talent. That took a lot longer than it took all the teams to go after African Americans.

Even now, we still haven't reached the point where the best available talent around the world is playing in one North American league, and we probably never will. But we're a lot closer to that Platonic ideal than we were in 1960 or even 1980.

60. Something Other Posted: February 03, 2012 at 03:00 PM (#4052966)

Then... don't list integration. I don't see record books as sacred, and I don't see record books as necessarily having to cater to the superficial fan.

I'm a hardliner when it comes to season length. The details elude me but I can remember as a kid being outraged after the NFL season went to 14 games and so and so was touted as having broken Jim Brown's (?) single season rushing record. Something like an additional 74 yards in two extra games. And for that cheap beat Jim Freaking Brown disappears from the record books? No way. It's just wrong.

61. Jose Can You Seabiscuit Posted: February 03, 2012 at 03:16 PM (#4052989)

The problem is that so many of these writers claim to be outraged at the impact to the history of the game but then they do such a horrible job of knowing it and educating us on it. Just because a record is broken doesn't mean the player who previously held the record should be forgotten about. To the contrary, if Terence Moore is worried about Hank Aaron's legacy he can serve that legacy by writing at length about Aaron the player and Aaron the person.

To elevate Aaron it is not necessary to bring down Bonds, Hank Aaron's legacy can stand quite nicely on its own.

I use Aaron as an example but this is true of so many. Instead of complaining that "Steroid Junkie X" has passed Mickey Mantle's HR total a writer should simply take the opportunity to write about Mantle. "Hey, John Smith just hit his 537th home run. This reminds me of a great player of my youth, Mickey Mantle. Here is why I loved and still love Mickey Mantle."

62. Booey Posted: February 03, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4053079)

The details elude me but I can remember as a kid being outraged after the NFL season went to 14 games and so and so was touted as having broken Jim Brown's (?) single season rushing record. Something like an additional 74 yards in two extra games. And for that cheap beat Jim Freaking Brown disappears from the record books? No way. It's just wrong.

See, this is the exact reason why I think a lot sportwriters do call for asterisks and separate records and all that - because they want their favorite players to keep their records forever and they want to believe that no one who comes later could possibly match up to their boyhood hero's. If it's not season length, it's the DH. If it's not the DH, it's steroids. There's always going to be a reason (excuse?) for someone to discredit modern records. Just like there's always going to be a reason for new fans of the modern game to shrug off the achievements of their parents generation. I really do think for most people it has more to do with preserving childhood memories than it does about being "fair."

I liked McGwire way more than I did Bonds and I didn't want his record to be broken, especially so soon. But it happened and I'm not going to try to think of reasons why the new record shouldn't count just because I didn't like it. Records are what they are.

Luckily, no one has forgotten Jim Brown or Babe Ruth just because some of their most famous records have been surpassed. :)

63. Something Other Posted: February 03, 2012 at 05:22 PM (#4053103)

See, this is the exact reason why I think a lot sportwriters do call for asterisks and separate records and all that - because they want their favorite players to keep their records forever and they want to believe that no one who comes later could possibly match up to their boyhood hero's. If it's not season length, it's the DH. If it's not the DH, it's steroids. There's always going to be a reason (excuse?) for someone to discredit modern records. Just like there's always going to be a reason for new fans of the modern game to shrug off the achievements of their parents generation. I really do think for most people it has more to do with preserving childhood memories than it does about being "fair."

Hey, nice mindreading! As for the "validity" of your argument (the most specious I've seen since Nieporent last showed up), I have no idea why you can't live with legitimate records side by side, but obviously, for reasons you won't own up to, you can't deal with it. Too bad.

Seriously, the idea of listing records for seasons of different lengths upsets you this much? WTF?

I mean, for all the smoke you're blowing about steroids, you still, underneath it all, realize that if you end up lengthening the NFL season by 50%, and "break" a record by a couple of yards, you really haven't broken it, right? I'm pretty sure you grasp that. And once you do, you have to admit it makes sense to have distinct listings. Unless you want to go back to making up silliness about steroids and fantasize about motives, that is.

64. RMc is the loyal supporter of the MLB event Posted: February 03, 2012 at 05:23 PM (#4053104)

No love for Joe Bauman?

65. Booey Posted: February 03, 2012 at 06:00 PM (#4053132)

Hey, nice mindreading!

I didn't have to try and read your mind - you flat out said that you remembered being a kid and thinking it was wrong that Jim Brown's record was "broken" by someone playing a few extra games per season. I don't know if Jim Brown was your personal "boyhood hero" or not, but that example is basically the very definition of the boyhood hero argument I was making above.

Seriously, the idea of listing records for seasons of different lengths upsets you this much? WTF?

Dude, you sound much more angry about this issue than I do. It doesn't upset me. It's just unnecessary and the same logic could be used to create an infinite number of "records." Like I tried to imply above, why are separate records for different lengths of seasons any different than separate records for any number of other changes in the games history?

I mean, for all the smoke you're blowing about steroids

Um, what "smoke" have I been blowing about steroids in this thread or any other?

if you end up lengthening the NFL season by 50%, and "break" a record by a couple of yards, you really haven't broken it, right?

If the record is "most yards in a single NFL season", then yes, it has been broken. That doesn't mean in any way that the new record is better or more impressive, and I never said or implied that it was. It just means it's MORE.

66. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: February 03, 2012 at 06:48 PM (#4053167)

If the record is "most yards in a single NFL season", then yes, it has been broken. That doesn't mean in any way that the new record is better or more impressive, and I never said or implied that it was. It just means it's MORE.

But by pretending the different season lengths don't exist, the record book is giving the appearance that it is better or more impressive.

Yes, you can take this too far (though, as noted above, the presentation of baseball records already does this with pre-original turn of the century marks, so that slippery slope has already been slud down). I just always thought season length was pretty damn meaningful when you're looking at single-season counting records.

Like I said above, I never saw what was the issue with acknowledging that some records are set through the use of a longer season. I would have seen little harm if prior to 1998, Roger Maris was considered the single-season and 162-game season home run record holder for homers, and Babe Ruth was the 154-game record holder; or if right now the record book showed Ichiro as the single-season/162-game record holder for hits, while George Sisler was identified as the 154-game record holder. It's just more information.

67. Booey Posted: February 03, 2012 at 07:19 PM (#4053191)

I just always thought season length was pretty damn meaningful when you're looking at single-season counting records.

It definitely is. I was just trying to point out that other things (segregation, especially) were very meaningful in shaping records too. I remember having a conversation with a Ruth fan (not on BTF) a few years back that was claiming that Aaron wouldn't have broken the Babe's record if he had played back in Ruth's day and didn't have the benefit of a 162 game season for the last 15 years of his career. I had to agree; Aaron surely WOULDN'T have broken the record back in Ruth's days. In fact, he wouldn't have hit ANY Major League homers cuz he wouldn't have been allowed to play. That sure seems like a more significant hit to the record books to me than an extra 8 games a season could ever be.

Like I said above, I never saw what was the issue with acknowledging that some records are set through the use of a longer season. I would have seen little harm if prior to 1998, Roger Maris was considered the single-season and 162-game season home run record holder for homers, and Babe Ruth was the 154-game record holder; or if right now the record book showed Ichiro as the single-season/162-game record holder for hits, while George Sisler was identified as the 154-game record holder. It's just more information.

"Harm" isn't the word I would use. Of course there's no harm in listing two records; just like there's no harm in only listing one. I personally don't think it's needed or that the average casual fan would really care about the extra information, but for those who do, the info is there for them to look up. It's just a matter of personal preference, really. Why the other poster assumed I found the mere suggestion infuriating or offensive is beyond me; I just don't find it necessary. I certainly wouldn't scribble out the 154 game record or anything if I bought a record book and it was listed.

Edit: fixed grammatical error

68. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: February 03, 2012 at 07:40 PM (#4053201)

154 game season: Babe Ruth 60
162 game season: Roger Maris 61

The 1927 Yankees played 155 official games. The 1961 Yankees played 163.

As Maris said when Frick came up with his ridiculous asterisk, which 154 games? The first? The last? The middle?

Maris didn't hit his first HR of 1961 until the 11th game of the season, but as noted above the Yankees played 163 games that year so Roger hit his 61 in a span of 153 games. Ruth hit his first of 1927 in game four, but again, the Yankees played 155 games in 1927. So Ruth needed 152 games to hit 60. Also, Maris homered on the last day of the 1961 season, but Ruth hit his 60th on the next to last day of the 1927 season, so he picks up a game there. If you count games played instead of team games, Ruth edges a bit further ahead since he took four days off while Maris only skipped two of his team's games.

69. GotowarMissAgnes Posted: February 03, 2012 at 10:51 PM (#4053268)

Terence Moore skews IQ decline.

70. LionoftheSenate (is the grammer police!) Posted: February 04, 2012 at 01:55 AM (#4053328)

Let the NFL argue which player or team was better "if only we had a laboratory" to create identical playing conditions, until then we TRULY won't know!! Boring.

I continue to point out greenie enhanced Hank Aaron's best HR season was age 37, a year older than a juiced up Bonds.

71. a bebop a rebop Posted: February 04, 2012 at 03:02 AM (#4053345)

This is a silly discussion, of course. Structural factors in the 90s and 00s allowed hitters to hit home runs at a much greater rate -- this is a much larger factor than the 162 vs. 154 game season change in the home run "record". Fixating on the number of games is uninteresting. Now, if you want to list home run leaders by decade, that's fine with me. Heck, break it down by year, even!

I guess the really silly thing here is thinking that the home run "record" matters -- we're in the BBRef era, with HR factors, park factors, and all kinds of normalized statistics! I like to use the BBRef tool that neutralizes everything to the run scoring environment of the 2000 Colorado Rockies. Is it possible to make a leaderboard out of those stats? For instance, Barry Bonds would have hit 93 (!!) home runs instead of 73, McGwire had 85, Maris had 77, Ruth had 74...

72. cardsfanboy

Posted: February 04, 2012 at 03:46 AM (#4053349)

Structural factors in the 90s and 00s allowed hitters to hit home runs at a much greater rate

you really can't be serious about going there are you? the fact is that pitchers didn't have the education on how to prevent homeruns in the 20's so it was MASSIVELY easier to hit homeruns if you are the only player in the game that took advantage of it.

I'm sorry but anybody who honestly thinks that any record prior to 1930 or so should be taken at gospel, is an uninformed moron. (which is precisely the point of this discussion)

73. Shock Posted: February 04, 2012 at 04:39 AM (#4053353)

What is the "right" number of home runs?

PureHomeRuns = HR - (HRs hit from 1996-2004) - (HRs hit as a DH) - (HRs hit off Eric Milton)

74. Ron J Posted: February 04, 2012 at 06:30 AM (#4053360)

#51 And if we're going to count Spalding's NA totals I don't see any basis for not counting Pud Galvin as the record holder for single season wins. After all, I have no doubt he was playing against stronger competition than Spalding was. He went 72-25 in the IL and 10-5 in exhibitions against the NL. His 96 complete games (in the IL -- not sure how many of the exhibitions he completed) are pretty impressive too.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Thursday, February 02, 2012

Terence Moore: Designated hitter skews home-run totals

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics