Bonds hits 73!

Major League Baseball ^ | October 7, 2001 | Unknown

[Sabertooth]

I've heard the 1919 theory as well. Look at Rogers Hornsby's numbers over in the National League during the 20s. Pretty eye-popping in their own right.

If you liked that site, check out theseWeird Baseball Statistics, etc.

[mrustow]

Hornsby was amazing, but his home run production was up and down.

[Sabertooth]

You see, when you put it like that...

I always have blind Dodger hated to fall back on.

Hey, I'm a Giants fan. ;^)

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

I'll agree about the leadoff spot entirely. Just looked at their numbers. Benard had an OBP of .320, which is anemic, and Murray posted basically the same number (.319). The better leadoff guys are always around .400, which means about 20-30 more attempts for the guys behind them to drive in runs compared to these two. Aurilia, despite his impressive stats otherwise, ended the season with a .369 OBP. That's respectable, but not great, especially for a guy who hit 37 HR's and had a .324 BA. Chalk that up to him only drawing 47 walks. You'd think a guy who had Bonds hitting behind him would show more patience and try to draw more walks. So yes, Bonds' RBI total was definitely a reflection of the inability of the guys ahead of him to get on base. And Bonds' ridiculous OBP (.515!) had a lot to do with Jeff Kent driving in 100 again even though he had a subpar year at the plate.

So, basically, the Giants were a decent leadoff hitter away from winning the division.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

I'd like to comment on the thought of diluted pitching.

When Ruth was hitting more homeruns than some entire teams, he had to face the same pitchers over and over again because of the small number of teams in the league. That means that he would get 30-40 at-bats against the same pitchers year in and year out. And if you let a great hitter see the same pitchers tossing the same pitches over a long period of time, they're going to figure them out. In my opinion, that accounts for the much higher batting averages in the early part of this century. It doesn't entirely account for Ruth's power, but it does (at least in part) his .344 career average.

If you gave me a choice in September of facing a new guy just up from AAA at the roster expansion or a guy I had faced 30 times over the last 6 seasons, I'd take the latter (excepting the handful of elite pitchers currently hurling) every time.

[CatOwner]

Also, there weren't strong-arm lefthanded relievers coming in to face Ruth like Bonds has had to endure. Most pitchers back then pitched 7-9 innings each game. That gave Ruth an opportunity to hit against pitchers who were tiring more towards the end of a game.

Different time, different game. Ruth and Bonds, great players for their eras.

[CatOwner]

"So, basically, the Giants were a decent leadoff hitter away from winning the division."

Yep, along with fewer blown saves from Nen.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

A pretty definitive look at things statistically between what Bonds did this season and what McGwire did in '98:

Bonds vs. McGwire: Who had it easier?

I've always like Rob Neyer at ESPN. This article does nothing to diminish that.

[ForOurFuture]

please prove that the balls are 'juiced'.

I have no proof. But I have heard from numerous pitchers, coaches, managers, and broadcasters that the ball is indeed 'juiced'. According to these people, the ball is consistently harder and bounces higher than it did years ago. Combine this testimony with glaringly anomalous offensive statistics, and the conclusion is obvious.

[rockfish59]

the conclusion is.... no proof!

[supercat]

It isn't just Bond's 73 homers, but how many guys are hitting 50+ homers now in a single season. It used to be getting 50 was a significant feat.

It wouldn't be totally surprising if there's some 'collective improvement'. Take a look at a pinball machine today versus one of twenty years ago; back then, getting a replay on many of those machines would have been considered difficult, but many players today would be able to do so with ease. Best I can figure is that many pinball players today are more skilled than twenty-five years ago (because many modern machines demand it).

obBrags: On a game called "Cybernaut", I once racked up nine credits while still on Ball Two. I'd already hit 9,999,999 and walked away from the machine. When I revisited in 1994 a Pin*Bot (a game I'd found playable but not terribly easy) I managed to score 27+ million (was disappointed nothing new happened the second time the score rolled over; I'd never rolled it over before). I liked Warlok, maxing out the bonus and scoring specials was pretty easy.