Barry Bonds 756

[meant to write this last month; I’m a bit late]

My last post honored Bill Walsh for succeeding by doing things the right way. And now we have a sports figure who broke one of baseball’s most honored records by doing things the wrong way, or so the circumstantial evidence points. But you know, I just can’t get that worked up about it. By turns, my feelings are of indifference, gladness, and acceptance.

Indifference, because I don’t really care about baseball that much.

Gladness, because I think baseball fans in general are too sanctimonious about their records, and I’m always happy to see new records being set. Look, baseball is about whacking balls with sticks. It’s not some sort of sacred activity.

The height of baseball silliness came years ago when Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth’s single-season home run record, and the official records keeper marked Maris’s name with an asterisk, because there were more games in a season and thus it was easier for him to hit more home runs. That was a long time ago, but that attitude lingers on.

Asterisks are silly; if you take more than a casual look you could stick some next to Ruth’s name. The most commonly mentioned is that he played against weaker competition (no blacks; few if any Hispanics), which is a serious charge. But really, any comparison of players and stats from different eras is flawed. The game has changed; materials have changed; most importantly, players now are stronger, bigger, faster, and more coordinated. What matters is what players meant to the game at the time they played. When you look at it that way, when some legend’s stats are bettered, it doesn’t take away from the legend; it just means that time has moved on and new stars are here.

Let’s dig into this a little more. One thing I didn’t realize was that before Babe Ruth came around, home runs were fairly rare. And in fact, Ruth revolutionized baseball by bringing the home run to the forefront. For example, here are some team stats for the Chicago Cubs:

Year	Games	Runs scored	HR
1910	154	712	34
1920	154	619	34
1930	156	998	171

In 1910, Chicago was the best team in the NL, and their top “slugger”, Frank Schulte, hit a whopping ten home runs. In 1930, after Ruth’s impact became widespread, Hack Wilson hit 56. (Source for all data: http://www.baseball-reference.com.) Look at it another way; Frank Schulte was NL MVP in 1911 when his 21 home runs made him the home run champion; he finished his 15-year career with 1766 hits and only 92 home runs. Those numbers are inconceivable today.

Now this is really interesting. First off because it shows you how monumental Ruth’s home-run record was. Consider 714 home runs, when the best guy on one of the best teams a few years before Ruth hit all of ten in a whole season. Secondly, and more to my point, the style of the game changed with Ruth, and home runs became vastly more frequent for players and teams across the board. Doesn’t this stick a huge asterisk against Ruth’s home run records? After all, maybe there was some dude in 1890 who could have belted out homers like nobody’s business but didn’t, because that just wasn’t the style at the time? How do we know?

Well, we can’t know, and I don’t find it interesting to even ask. Let’s take players for what they were when they were playing.

If you dig deep, the attitude of baseball conservatives is that: we don’t think modern players can live up to the legends, and if the new guys have better stats we will scrutinize the numbers and situations to find ways in which they don’t measure up. That’s a great attitude if you’re an old fogey who’s only interested in proving that your generation is better than those that follow, but it’s pretty poor for a sport that’s supposed to represent the best of America.