Constructive gadfly
Pointless but Nostalgic
Published on July 6, 2004 By stevendedalus In Sports & Leisure

In my day, comparing contemporary baseball statistics with the past used to be fun — and in some cases enlightening. Of course, it was a stretch comparing stats of the 1920s to that of the 1890s because of the change in the environment such as improvements in ballparks, better traveling facilities, a somewhat livelier ball and better fielding gloves. However, statistical comparison held fast — but for a few changes like the lowering of the mound, tinkering with the ball and the designated hitter, no AB for sacrifice fly — from the 30s through the 50s and to a lesser extent — though  a lengthened season and astro turf were very significant — up to ‘94.

Since then, changes came fast and furious: an undeniable souped up ball almost equal to the bounce of a golf ball, steroids, shorter outfields, less foul territory, and questionable strike zone. Comparative statistics are like apples and oranges. Because officials had suspected the “lively ball” in the 60s Roger Maris’ 61 homers required an asterisk and since removed in light of the home runs escalation to 74 most recently by Barry Bonds. To try to equate McGuire and Bonds with the titans of yesteryear proves little because of the dramatic changes in the game.

Unquestionably Bonds will break Hank Aaron’s record of total career home runs, should in no way diminish the incredible record achieved by Hank through the 50s and 70s. What is needed is a demarcation zone of records for the variable eras in order to make sense of achievements. Hank Aaron’s 755 homers is of another era and to compare it with Bonds possibility of 800 is silly; nor should it take away from Bond’s unbelievable performance.

You may recall the controversy when Aaron was approaching Babe Ruth’s lifetime achievement even to the extent of dastardly death threats. Had Babe Ruth been designated as king of an era completely divorced from Aaron’s era there would be no argument — each to his own environment. The frivolous theory that had the Babe been allowed another five years as a DH — let alone his years as a pitcher — he would have had much more, serves no purpose anymore than projecting that baseball on the moon would break all kinds of records. “All things being equal” is much ado about nothing. Ballplayers today — steroids notwithstanding — are as a rule smarter athletes who take care of their bodies, and, of course, being millionaires, together with rule changes, facilitates their longevity. Bonds, for instance, can move into the American League in his twilight years, as did Aaron, and as a designated hitter reach for the stars.

To whine about the good old days — wherein Mays had he not been in the armed service for two years, or Williams for five, or a healthy Mantle, Gehrig’s untimely death, and Campanella’s tragic accident — is appropriate day-dreaming but is not reality. Let the game of the 21st Century play out free of conflict.

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: July, 6, 2004.


Comments
on Jul 10, 2004
Apparently there are no baseball fans on JU!
on Jul 10, 2004
I'm here, I just didn't see the article the first go round.

Frankly, in many ways, baseball is a sport based on tradition. Which is why purists will continue to argue the DH, wild cards in the playoffs, the list goes on. Except for the stated example of death threats against Aaron, such arguments are usually benign.

A recent example: the Yankees tried replacing Cracker Jacks with crunch n' munch at Yankee stadium, and the outcry was so immense, they had to change back (parodying Jimmy Dugan: "There's no crunch n' munch in baseball!"). Can you imagine any other sport where that would even be an ISSUE?

Nah, we can argue greatest of eras if we want (If Shoeless Joe wasn't hosed by Landis, for instance, where would he have finished?), but ultimately, I think the arguments are good for the sport.
on Jul 10, 2004

Yeah, I confess, I still love to compare stats and still dream about what if...

Speaking of frivolous tradition, whatever happened to the "Reggie Bar"?--can't imagine it ever replacing "Baby Ruth."

on Jul 10, 2004

 I just wrote a baseball article, and then I read:

Apparently there are no baseball fans on JU!


*GASP*


I think that splitting records into twenty-year "eras" would be a good thing.  Of course there will be problems with players of past eras getting forgotten, or players whose careers straddled two eras.


Part of the appeal of baseball is the type of debate you've presented.  "Do you think that Reggie Jackson in 1977 could hit Dennis Eckersley in 1989?" 

on Jul 11, 2004

Probably, but he would strike out ten times before getting hold of one. Also, would Bobby Feller intentionally walk Bonds?--I doubt it.

 

on Jul 11, 2004
Also, would Bobby Feller intentionally walk Bonds?--I doubt it.


This has been my biggest lament in pitchers of today. Time was when the pitchers would go after Bonds just to beat him (except in late innings when it is prudent to preserve a narrow lead). Nobody should be intentionally walked before the seventh inning. Ever.
on Jul 12, 2004
Good point, Mac. I've seen box scores where he went 0 for 3 and yet was still walked twice. Another was when he struck out twice and yet still got 3 BB.