What about #61?

by boba schrute on Jul 2, 2009 7:45 AM EDT Comment 37 comments

Is Roger Maris' homerun record on the table again?

It's no slam dunk that Pujols will keep up the same pace suring the second half, but lets just say for arguments sake that he does. What happens if he reaches or eclipses 61 homeruns without the aid of his chemist? My opinion is that all of numbers of players who are found to have used PED's should be stricken from the record books, if not worse. Pete Rose is out forever (or until a new commish comes along) for an offense which is not nearly as damaging to the game as our current group of juicers. In my mind if Pujols gets to 62 then he is the single season record holder. And in ten years he'll pass up Hank Aaron to become the career homerun leader.

0 recs | Comment 37 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Ten years from now

Pujols might be the only name of players for the last 25 years to not have an asterisk by it.

by ridgesee on Jul 2, 2009 9:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You could definitely argue against the Rose thing

Pete Rose wasn’t playing/managing against a bunch of other guys who may/may not have been betting on or against their teams. Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa most definitely WERE facing pitchers who were also on PEDs.

I think the steroid era undoubtedly raised HR totals significantly but there’s an argument that (given everybody was more or less doing it at some point) what these guys did was less bad than Rose’s actions. And this is coming from someone who thinks Rose should be in the HOF…

Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.

by Felonius_Monk on Jul 2, 2009 9:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Betting on baseball

is pretty seriously damaging to the game. Much more damaging than steroids, in my opinion. It’s one thing for players to “enhance” their performance. It’s quite another to introduce the possibility that they may be throwing games intentionally (even if this was not what Rose was doing).

Not to mention that cheating for gain has a long history. No one knows for how long and what players have been taking steroids. But there are lots of stories about other various ways that players and teams cheated in the past. Whether through corked bats, vaseline balls, or signals from the center field scoreboard. Not saying this excuses steroids, because it does not, but it does put it into perspective, especially when compared with betting on games.

by rthorat on Jul 2, 2009 11:21 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think that...

betting on baseball should be legalized…with rules in place.

1) You can only bet on your team if you bet for them to win.
2) You can only bet on your team if you are in the starting lineup that day.

Anyone else want to add rules?

by stlfan on Jul 3, 2009 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

are you kidding?

All right, hypothetical situations here, your rules are in place.

Albert Pujols decides to bet on selected Cardinals games. He bets on today’s game, started by Carpenter, he bets on the next game Pineiro pitches, since Pineiro has been good recently, and he does NOT bet on Wellemeyer’s next start.

By doing this, there are a couple things to keep in mind (and remember, this is our hypothetical situation world, not the real world).

Consider this: Albert is, in effect, betting that the Wellemeyer game will be a loss by abstaining on that game.

1) He is showing a lack of faith in one of his teammates that day, which is not good.
2) If he has any say on when he sits and when he doesn’t, he might ask for the Wellemeyer game to be a game he gets off, which means he is acting directly on his benefit in a situation where he’s made wagers.
3) Even if he plays all three games, it will weigh on his mind that he has money on two of the three games, so this will alter the way he plays, whether that means he presses, expands the zone, makes an extra effort on a play he might not have otherwise. He will do this on the two games that he has put money on, not on the Wellemeyer game.

You may say “So what?” but the very nature of these games is that both teams are supposed to be putting the same level of effort out there every game to try to win the game. Now, I’m not naive enough to think that players are always putting forth 100%, but if there are bets on a game, then you’ve put a pretty big shadow of doubt on what’s going on in the field every single time they players go out there.

Furthermore, since this conversation was about Rose to begin with, keep this in mind, if it is the manager making bets, he may utilize his bullpen differently on a game where he has bets, maybe putting his closer out there for the 3rd or 4th day in a row, when he otherwise wouldn’t (and therefore risking injury)

Lastly, when the players start getting involved in large betting, who knows where it goes from there. Someone who started betting because they thought no harm could come of it, because it’s legal, could end up getting trapped in a Tim Donaghy situation, where they end up owing a large sum of money and then maybe do something even more unethical, such as throwing a game (even if there’s no actual bet being wagered) in order to erase debt.

Allowing players/managers to bet on games, even if it only to win, brings in such a series of ill effects that there’s no way it ever will be legalized.

by mtalken on Jul 5, 2009 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you...

that actually made me think about it and probably change my mind. Great work mtalken. I did not really put nearly enough thought into my “rules.” I would argue against your post that "people still talk in clubhouses, and body language is still read in clubhouses so pitchers like Wellemeyer can see that players aren’t as “up” to play defense behind him as they are for Carpenter. Is that outlawed, too?" but it is a feeble argument at best.

by stlfan on Jul 6, 2009 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pujols is on a good pace

I think he could very well reach 60 homers, maybe even 65. He had a year like this in 2006 before he got hurt – if he hadn’t gotten hurt then, this conversation would’ve happened three years ago.

Welcome to Baseball Heaven.

by zoomzoomj88 on Jul 2, 2009 11:26 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Still an Asterisk No Matter How You Slice It

The game a few days ago, where El Hombre “called” his home run off the Royals HOF Club to Aldrete down in the dugout – in game, after viewing the video of his previous at-bat – if that’s not a modern day advantage vs. anybody who didn’t do it before, I don’t know what is. That’s better than elbow guards and probably drugs. I’m as stoked presently to see Pujols’ jacks as I was to see McGwire’s standing O’s back in 1998, but fact of the matter is they both have an advantage over the players in the days prior to these enhancements. It all falls generally into my hate of the DH, inter-league play, wild cards etc. bin, which doesn’t help promote the cause of future baseball – but hell, that’s the line.

Other mysteries remain. TL

by BKKCard on Jul 2, 2009 11:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

But pitchers have all these advantages too

it slices both ways. They can dissect an opponent’s swing in minutiae on video. With the modern bullpen, defences can exploit platoon splits and use their best pitchers in high-leverage situations. With lower pitch counts, pitchers can afford to be throwing their best stuff 100% of the time, rather than just phoning it in for most pitches as they used to do when they’d throw two or three times the number of innings they do now. Defences are, generally speaking, more mobile, well-drilled, and take advantage of video and scouting of opposition teams to set their positioning. They’re also more athletic and have better-made gloves than in the past.

Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.

by Felonius_Monk on Jul 2, 2009 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thought of that also

But, to my mind, the advantage of scouring video between innings goes to the hitter. The pitcher has to throw it in that rectangle. He has maybe 3 effective pitches that he can get into that space. Once the hitter has identified those variables, the options of the incoming pitch are extremely limited. From the pitcher’s perspective, he has seen what worked, i.e. what over-powered the hitter and where he’s fooled him. The pitcher can make variations based on the above two observations, but in the end, he still has to plant it near that rectangle. That predictable fact alone, makes it easier for the hitter to capitalize on the new information.

In any event, this opinion just occurred to me when I was talking recent homeruns with a friend. I don’t have any statistical data to back up the thought. I tend to agree that it should even out, but the fact the pitcher is worried about 9 guys and the hitter just 1 guy, seems to balance the advantage in favor of the hitter. Nevertheless, I think it makes sense.

Other mysteries remain. TL

by BKKCard on Jul 2, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Babe Ruth never hit a home run off a black or dominican pitcher.

As players gain individual advantages, the level of talent in the game rises. Do you think every team in the division doesn’t have a highlight reel of every pitch sequence ever to K Albert Pujols? Don’t be ridiculous. Just because Pujols can use this information to his advantage because he has the motor skills for it doesn’t mean every other player in the game isn’t attempting to gain the same advantage.

Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.

Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU

by hazel on Jul 2, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't imply

that other current hitters are not privy to this technology, as you have inferred. (although not mentioned in my comment – I wonder why our other hitters don’t seem capable of capitalizing on this advantage as well as Albert reputedly has). Rather, I have suggested that the use of this technology provides present day hitters a different advantage than those of others, in even recent eras. Moreover, and admittedly without data to back it up, it seems to me, on an in-game temporal level, that the hitter’s ability to pop into the basement after every at-bat to review video would tend to favor the hitter’s chances over the span of the game, rather than the pitcher.

As to your initial statement re: the era when MLB hitters were not facing Black or Dominican pitchers, this logic suggests that so long as every hitter in that same period is afforded the same advantages, whether it be a racially limited pool of talent or, by extension, availability of PEDs, it makes it all fair in the long run, it doesn’t detract from my own personal view that the incredible homerun I just saw isn’t quite as magnificent as I at first supposed. In that regard, i.e. with respect to my feeling, perhaps it is, from your perspective, rather ridiculous, but there it is just the same.

Other mysteries remain. TL

by BKKCard on Jul 2, 2009 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pitchers

game plans are based on predicting what a batter will do, and that is based on his previous at-bats. Video of those at-bats. (Plus the tracking of pitches.)

"If I prepare myself, my stuff is good and I'm going to get outs. That is a fact." - Chris Carpenter

by spants on Jul 2, 2009 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just gave rise to another idea

the pitchers could go inside innings and see what strike zone the umpires happen to be giving, in-game, but I haven’t noticed that. How about you~

Other mysteries remain. TL

by BKKCard on Jul 3, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just because

the pitcher isn’t looking at that video, it doesn’t meant that someone else isn’t doing some in-game umpire scouting and informing them or adjusting game plans based on that info.

"If I prepare myself, my stuff is good and I'm going to get outs. That is a fact." - Chris Carpenter

by spants on Jul 3, 2009 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good Point

That’s something that could be developing, but it seems logical that It’d be best info for the pitchers to actually see it themselves – game time. That would balance out the video advantage concept for the hitter. No doubt in my mind that first-hand review is superior to second hand reportage. Of course, combine both and you’d get premium (subscriber’s only) content.

Other mysteries remain. TL

by BKKCard on Jul 3, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree

about pitchers seeing it themselves. I think having the assistant pitching coach (or whoever) tell you “Hey – you’re not getting the outside corner against Beltran so let’s change tactics,” or whatever, is simpler than the pitcher bogging himself with details between innings.

Look at it this way: pitchers have to get all those guys out. Batters only have to face the one pitcher. If Albert knows he got fooled, or thinks he sees a hitch in the pitcher’s delivery that tells him something, he can confirm it with video. Pitchers don’t have time to deal with that type of detail. They have to pitch to the next batter and the next and the next.

"If I prepare myself, my stuff is good and I'm going to get outs. That is a fact." - Chris Carpenter

by spants on Jul 3, 2009 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You may be right

Which suggests it’s mentally easier for a batter to process and take advantage of this resource than a pitcher, i.e. pitcher trying to process info for 9 hitters, hitter processing info for 1 pitcher.

Other mysteries remain. TL

by BKKCard on Jul 3, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But

that’s not an unfair advantage. It’s the nature of the game, even without video.

"If I prepare myself, my stuff is good and I'm going to get outs. That is a fact." - Chris Carpenter

by spants on Jul 3, 2009 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

True Dat

Other mysteries remain. TL

by BKKCard on Jul 4, 2009 5:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This simply sounds like a "get off my lawn" it was "better back in the day" argument.

We have objective measures that show how talented a hitter is relative to the average talent of the league in any given year. Because talent can rise or fall based on the litany of examples of competitive advantages discussed above, the talent of a player is better compared to his peers. Yet we can still see how far a hitter was above average, for instance, Babe Ruth has the highest career OPS+ of any player, while Barry Bonds has the highest OPS+ season(s) of anyone.

Perhaps instead of hating the modern game you should hate the idiotic measures by which it is compared to the historical game. I think we can all agree that single-season HR and RBI totals are pretty weak as a measuring stick for greatness. If Garret Anderson hobbles out there for a few more years and miraculously passes Mays in hits, does that make him a better player? Hell no. But there are objective reasons that you can cite to support that position, rather than relying on platitudes of era and age and competition.

Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.

Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU

by hazel on Jul 3, 2009 1:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah - Get off my Lawn!!!

Somebody burned a DeRosa shirt on it in the middle of the night and it’s not pretty – so don’t come back again!

I think your comment that there are [presently accepted as the best] objective measures to show how relatively talented a hitter is era-wise supports the continuous asterisk thought. So the possible upshot of all that is AP may be the best in-between inning video receptive hitter known to creation. I’m satisfied with that conclusion, but still it does not quell my perception that reviewing video against a pitcher you just faced in-game, which was my original idea in the above-cited discussion, constitutes an advantage for the hitter, present day. The platitudes you reference and condemn are unrelated to this original thought, except to imply that every era has an asterisk, and they are mainly the result of your own input and my response thereto. Moreover, just because I hate the DH, the inter-league play and (until quite recently the wild card) does not mean “I hate the modern game”. Making such a generalization of my position on the game is not germane to the post topic and is, I think, uncalled for in this forum.

Other mysteries remain. TL

by BKKCard on Jul 3, 2009 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you're still not quite hearing me.

Because every hitter in this era has that advantage, the average level of hitting should go up, yet Albert’s stats still rank among the best even when rated objectively by how far they are above average. People still think Ty Cobb was one of the best ever despite the fact that he didn’t hit home runs because he was so much better than everyone else at the time; he was so much better than average. If he was playing today, watching the video and taking the supplements, would he be better than Albert Pujols? I don’t think so, and not because I think competition simply evens out over the long term (i.e. now pitchers throw harder, you face more different pitchers from a larger pool of talent), because it doesn’t. He wouldn’t be as good because he wasn’t as talented. According to objective measures he wasn’t as far above average. Would Babe Ruth be the most talented hitter in the modern game? Probably. For his career, Babe Ruth was further above the average talent of his time than any other player in history. That doesn’t mean players now deserve to be asterisked any more than Ruth would if he were born 20 years ago and was just beginning as a professional today.

Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.

Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU

by hazel on Jul 3, 2009 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I Hear You

I comprehend the “much better than contemporary average concept”. Comparatively speaking, according to the objective standards available [subject to change] AP is better historically than almost any other player because, metrically speaking, he has a higher level of performance than his contemporaries, than did anyone else in their given era. Nevertheless, there are still a few “I think” and “probably” assumptions in your processing. I don’t mean to demean those assumptions, but they call to light a degree of speculation. I have to agree, that my original implied, but not explicitly stated slant, that everyone after the Ruthian era has an asterisk, is not fair. Everyone has to be considered in light of the circumstances in which they played. But I am still left wondering how comfortable I feel with the ability of hitters (and now presumably pitchers or their advisers as discussed elsewhere in this thread) to utilize between innings video to improve their game. I’m not sure that makes me “it was a back better in the day” proponent or just a “provide some basic rules we can rely on in a game designed for distraction” fan.

Other mysteries remain. TL

by BKKCard on Jul 3, 2009 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

although not mentioned in my comment – I wonder why our other hitters don’t seem capable of capitalizing on this advantage as well as Albert reputedly has

Because Albert Pujols is ridiculous. Durrrrr.

Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.

by Felonius_Monk on Jul 3, 2009 4:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yup

he is ridiculous, but he’s not so ridiculous to refrain from the video. Meaning, if he is the Mang he is, this thing works. And it’s hard to believe no one else has the cranial and physical capacity to capitalize on this resource. But if only the truly talented can benefit from this technology, why not expand it to allow more, to be extreme for example, allow the hitter to see the catcher’s signs. Sure, there will be more base hits, but only the best hitters will profit from this new information and so long as everyone is given the same advantages, what’s there to complain about?

Other mysteries remain. TL

by BKKCard on Jul 3, 2009 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And it’s hard to believe no one else has the cranial and physical capacity to capitalize on this resource

I’m sure they do, but it stands to reason that they won’t do it as well as Pujols because he’s like one of the greatest 10 or 15 hitters in history…

Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.

by Felonius_Monk on Jul 5, 2009 6:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Live ball

For that matter, most of Babe Ruth’s career he was cheating with those new-fangled machine stitched balls. Like to see him hit 60 home runs with the time-honored hand stiched ball. Call it a “dead” ball if you want, it’s how baseball was meant to be played. Any hitting records after 1919 should have an asterek.

But then again, all pitchers were cheating before 1969 with their elevated mound and whatnot. Who did they think hey are anyway? Bunch of cheaters they were.

Baseball rules, training methods, and technology always change. It’s what makes debates about great players so entertaining and unwinnable. Certainly their are advantages and disadvantages to playing in any era of baseball – just makes for good discussion, but certainly does not diminish a player’s accomplishments (remember – Babe Ruth is still the HR king (both season and career to many because Maris and Aaron both got to play in more games/season).

Finally, while most of th modern era’s differences arguably favor hitters – by no means do all of them. Never before has there been anything close this much world-wide talent to draw from for MLB; modern use of pitchers means a hitter may see as many as three different pitchers in 4 or 5 at bats – many times at least one will be a specilist called in specifically to get a good or great hitter out; modern use of pitchers and league size/depth means a hitter may not face an individual pitcher as often over they careers as in older eras (though that could be off-set by the current division allignment and unbalanced schedule, plus longer season – which in turn could be off-set by free-agency and the frequent movement of players in and out of division and league).

by fltfire on Jul 2, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the wild card is great

whatchoo talkin’ ’bout?

by prophetjohn on Jul 3, 2009 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, you're right, I'm sorry little wildcard feller, I love you.

Other mysteries remain. TL

by BKKCard on Jul 3, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

interesting take

4B - beer baseball bands blog
DeRosa>MB

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 2, 2009 12:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Don't think he'll make it.

by FSUSOM on Jul 2, 2009 3:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The other side of the coin

If Pujols ends up with a 61+ HR total, sure there will be talk about whether this is the “legitimate” record.

At the same time, fairly or unfairly, I imagine a large percentage of fans will also look at Pujols as another PED user who somehow managed to avoid getting caught.

We’re a long way away—he’s never hit 50 in a season yet.

by olddomination on Jul 3, 2009 5:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Sometimes he’s so good that I’m afraid it will come out that he’s used something. Not because of his character, but because he’s superhuman out there. I’m predicting somewhere in the 53-57 region to end the season.

"I don't take no anesthetic. Did Lincoln ask for any girlie gas when they blowed his head off?"

by boba schrute on Jul 3, 2009 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs