No Asterisk Needed

Posted by Eric F. Langborgh on 27 Jul 2007 at 07:24 am

At age 37, well past what is considered the prime age for a baseball player, he had the most home runs of his career. In terms of home run power, from age 35 to 39 was the most productive five-season span of his career. In fact, so prolific was this normally “post-prime” period that he averaged a full seven homers more per season than he had the previous five seasons. As a result, he eclipsed the most hallowed record in sports.

Believe it or not, I am not describing Barry Bonds, though the description almost fits his career to a “T,” too. Rather, I am describing the late career heroics of one Henry “Hank” Aaron.

In fact, as the chart I pulled together at the end of this blog shows, in one big way, Hammerin’ Hank’s late career surge is even more improbable than critics say Bonds’s has been. While Bonds had a steady but significant upward power trend throughout the whole of his career, the five years (from ages 30-34) that preceded Hank’s late career boon suggested that he was nearing the end of his productive baseball career — or at least that his power had eroded. Aaron averaged just 33.6 home runs per season from 1964-68, down almost seven homers from the previous five seasons. In 1968, Hank launched just 29 balls into the bleachers, the second time in five years he failed to hit at least 30 — a dearth of power previously seen only his first three seasons in the Major Leagues. Nevertheless, the following season, at the age of 35, he hit 44 home runs and began a five year march to glory, averaging 40.6 dingers (up seven from the previous five seasons) along the way. At the age of 40 he finally surpassed Babe Ruth’s career mark to become the all-time Home Run King.

Am I suggesting that the beloved Hank Aaron somehow cheated his way to that crown? Certainly not. I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out that — like Willie Mays and a ton of other players of the era - he used “greenies” and every other supplement, latest nutritional miracle, and a much greater understanding than earlier generations of ballplayers of how to take care of oneself and get stronger. But I also won’t be surprised if he did not — at least not the “greenies.” And I am definitely not accusing him of such, nor am I trying to place his amazing accomplishments on the field in some shady light.

Rather, my point is that in evaluating the career of Barry Bonds, esp. at this time when he is on the doorstep of breaking Hank’s record, chalking his success up to “cheating” is incredibly simplistic. And I believe it is also profoundly unfair to Bonds.

Barry versus Hank and Roger

The fact is that outside the huge record-breaking season of 2001, when Bonds broke the single-season home run record with 73 smashes, his slightly slower start to his career in terms of power, and Aaron’s aforementioned mid-career “slump,” the careers of Barry Bonds and Henry Aaron are very similar. They both featured remarkable and growing power, seemingly getting better with age. Though he had the fabled “hammer,” Hank led his league in homers only once (1957 with 44). Bonds has hit the most home runs just twice (1993 with 29, and 2001). But they were both able to break the all-time home run records due to their consistency and longevity.

Even Bonds’s 73 home run season isn’t unheard of in terms of power boosts over past production. For example, Roger Maris’s record-breaking season of 61 homers is much more remarkable in this regard, coming as it did a year after his previous high of 39 dingers. That’s a power boost of 22 homers — or 56.4% — in just one year. Maris dropped back to 33 home runs the following season, and never again hit 30 or more. In fact, those three seasons from 1960-62 were the only seasons he did so. In contrast, Bonds blasted 73 balls into the bleachers (or beyond!) a season after launching 49 homers. That’s a power boost of 24, or 49% — a very similar increase to Maris’s. But Bonds had already blasted 40 or more home runs four times prior to his record-breaking season, and had averaged 40.4 the previous five seasons. In other words, it would have been much safer money predicting Bond’s feat than Maris’s.

Sometimes, everything just comes together. (Though it is true Bonds would have likely broken 50 and 60 homers a few more times in his career, beginning as early as 1992 when his walk totals exploded, if he would have seen more pitches to hit. Bonds walked 127 times in ‘92 — he was already one of the most, if not the most, feared hitters in baseball back then — and never walked less than 100 times a season since 1991, excepting the strike-shortened ‘94 season and the 2005 season, which was almost completely wiped out due to multiple knee surgeries).

Plausible Deniability

When I say that “sometimes everything just comes together,” I do need to concede that with Barry Bonds one of those things may have been the use of steroids and/or other “performance-enhancing drugs” that have since been banned from baseball. On the same token, many other factors may have also contributed, including smaller and more hitter-friendly parks across the big leagues, harder baseballs, better strength-training regimens and perfectly legal and non-banned substances and diets in an era when athletes in practically every sport place a premium on getting bigger, faster, stronger — and look like body builders as a result. And it may be that one of the best ballplayers in the history of the game got even better with age through accumulated knowledge, experience, and just plain, hard work. After all, lucrative contracts and much better understanding of nutrition, conditioning, and lifestyle choices on strength and health have made it so it is no longer so uncommon for ballplayers to continue playing - and at a high level — into their late 30s and even into their mid-40s. (Three notable examples are second baseman Craig Biggio, 41, pitcher Roger Clemens, soon to be 45, and outfielder Julio Franco, who will be 49 next month!)

Further, consider the effect of steroids on those players who we know for sure took them. Jose Canseco played more than 120 or more games only six times in his 17 year career (nine times he failed to even play 100 games) and rapidly saw his skills diminish. Ken Caminiti suddenly developed home run-threat power after eight years in the Major Leagues, which he more or less maintained for a few seasons, and then saw his body rapidly break down. He died as a result. Jason Giambi’s body has been a wreck for a number of seasons now, being able to stay healthy enough to maintain significant playing time only because of the DH position.

If we are to believe the book, Game of Shadows, the earliest Bonds may have taken steroids or the such was after the ‘98 season. Before the ‘99 season began he had already hit 411 home runs in his career and had just rattled off seven straight seasons of 30 or more homers, three of which were for 40 or more. But other than an injury early that season and the knee surgeries in 2005, Bonds’s body has held up amazingly well for a man now in his early 40s. Now at 43, his age is finally showing. Steroids may in fact effect different bodies in different ways, but the norm seems to be to rapidly break it down. That hasn’t been the case with Bonds.

Much ado has been made about the late career pictures of Barry Bonds versus his early career svelte self. He has definitely grown much bigger and stronger, beginning in the mid-90s. But it should also be noted that I put on more than 20 pounds of muscle in less than two years a number of years ago. I was a young man, yes, but I also didn’t have the time, resources, and professional training that Bonds has had. In other words, hard work and loading up on calories can lead to great growth for the truly committed.

All this is to say that Barry’s denials are plausible. Not necessarily likely, but plausible.

Steroids or Not, the Asterisk is Unnecessary

But let’s assume for the sake of argument that Barry Bonds did do steroids and/or other “performance-enhancing drugs,” which have only recently been banned from baseball. Does that warrant an asterisk, whether a literal one or not, in the record books? Does that cheapen his soon-to-be record, passing Hank Aaron to become the all-time leader in home runs?

It must be conceded that in one respect it already has. For very many people, they look with suspicion on the accomplishment and believe it to be artificially begotten. For them, the damage is done and nothing can be done to change their perception.

But beyond that, I argue that any usage should not detract from the record. Here’s why:

I mentioned above many of the other factors that have influenced the power surge across the major leagues in the ’90s and beyond, such as smaller parks, increased emphasis on proper nutrition and weight training, etc. On the other hand, a number of factors make Bonds home run prowess more remarkable and laudable:

• Nobody knows how much or in what ways steroids actually help a batter. But they certainly can’t help the batter make contact with the ball, improve his mastery of the strike zone, or boost his hand-eye coordination. And given “roid-rage” it seems that if anything it would make a batter less patient, not more, at the plate. Both before and after 1998, perhaps nobody in the history of baseball has had the amazing combination of incredible plate discipline, mastery of the strike zone, and superb hand-eye coordination as Barry Bonds.
• Building on this point, if Barry Bonds was doing them, so were a ton of other players (some informed estimates are upwards of 25% at the height of the so-called “steroid era”). But Bonds has still been the best, hands down. As David Ortiz of the Boston Red Sox said:
  

  “There are supposed to be guys using steroids in the game, and there’s nobody close to Barry Bonds. What’s that mean? He was using the best (expletive)? Know what I’m saying?”

• Barry Bonds has played his whole career in pitcher-friendly parks. The old Three Rivers Stadium in Pittsburgh, Candlestick Park, and whatever bank the new San Francisco Giants stadium is now named for were/are hardly known as homer band-boxes. It is safe to say that whatever extra home runs steroids might have helped Bonds hit, a large number were also taken away as a result of his home parks.
• And Bonds has played most of his career without any real protection in the line-up. Outside of Andy Van Slyke and Bobby Bonilla for a couple of years, who has really ever provided protection for Bonds?
• Most reports seem to suggest that to whatever extent steroids were/are being used in baseball, the biggest abusers were pitchers. Jason Grimsley is the most famous case we know about. Stories abound of pitchers who have reported to training camp after years in the league with an extra five mph suddenly added to their fastball. A friend of mine has suggested that the increased power for pitching is overblown, and that what steroids really do is speed up recovery time. If this is the case that also supports my argument, since that just means that batters are more likely to face the pitchers when they are at full or near-full strength. This seems to me “advantage-pitchers” or, at worst, a wash. Clearly, then, Bonds has hit many of his homers off souped up pitchers, and that would be to his credit.

All in all, then, to whatever extent steroids aided Bonds’s late career home run power, there have been many more factors throughout his career that have likely served to keep his home run totals down.

Every Stat an Asterisk

But there is even something more fundamental here, which goes to the core of baseball. And that is that while baseball is the most statistics-obsessed sport in the world — and the stats rightly mean more in baseball than in other sports — those stats are likewise more subject to subjective influences than any other sport.

All football fields and all basketball fields have the same dimensions. But every ballpark is different. Consider the effects that playing in the stadiums of cavernous Seattle versus mile-high Denver versus the bizarre proportions of Fenway Park in Boston have on player statistics. Across eras, baseball fields are, on average, smaller now than when Hank Aaron played.

Even the ball (think: the “dead-ball era”) and the equipment (think: gloves versus hands, and full body armor versus not even a batting helmet) have changed. Yesterday, my dad rattled off for me a number of considerations when comparing players across eras:

You have to consider -

• quality of equipment — much better gloves now and different bat design.
• travel — by rail overnight then and charter jet now.
• pitching — much less use of relievers then, and fewer specialty pitches like sliders.
• size of ballparks — much bigger then.
• schedule — day games and double-headers then.
• number of teams — fewer then, so you would see the same pitchers more often.
• league balance — some argue that there is really more today than then, with free agency and the success of small market teams.
• media scrutiny — players were protected by the media then, they are targets now.
• money — stars needed winter jobs then, they are set for generations today.
• training — needed spring training to get in shape then, full year training now.
• popularity of the game — besides horse racing and boxing, baseball was about the only sport then, it is one of many today. So are players better then or today?
• population of players from which to draw — white America then, the world today. So are players better then or today?

ESPN’s Jim Caple brought this point out better than anyone. In his article, “Many Issues to Ponder,” Caple offers no conclusions of his own regarding Barry Bonds and the steroids fiasco and the potential use of the dreaded asterisk for myriad records achieved throughout baseball history, but he does offer a ton of thought-provoking questions. I counted 47 question marks, in fact. Here are just a few of them:

When it comes right down to it, are we really concerned about the statistic and only the statistic? If so, shouldn’t we already understand that statistics mean nothing more or less than the context in which they were reached? That Cy Young won 511 games when the rules were different and the ball was dead? That Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs when blacks were banned from the game and pitchers hadn’t developed sliders? That Roger Maris hit his 61 home runs in an expansion year? That Aaron hit his 755 home runs in a time when there was heavy amphetamine use? That McGwire broke Maris’s record in an expansion year and in an era when ballparks and strike zones were shrinking while players were growing with better weight training and steroids? That today’s players can surgically improve their vision to 20/10? That modern orthopedic medicine might have kept Mickey Mantle hitting home runs for another five years?

Bonds should be judged against his contemporaries, and in that regard he is head and shoulders above the rest. On that basis alone he should be a first-ballot Hall of Famer. He is about to break the all-time home run record, currently held by Hank Aaron and once held by Babe Ruth. No matter how you cut it, this is a remarkable achievement. It needs and deserves no asterisk.

So, Where Does Bonds Rank Among the All-Time Greats?

As to where Barry Bonds ranks on the all-time list of baseball greats, we can debate that long into many nights, for the simple reason that every record and achievement and statistic accomplished by all ballplayers across time are effectively asterisked because of the different circumstances, advantages, and disadvantages players in different eras faced.

For what it is worth, though, I consider Babe Ruth the greatest home run hitter of all time. Bonds and Aaron may have passed the Babe’s total, but Aaron led the league in homers just once, and Bonds just twice. The Babe led it almost every year, often hitting more homers on his own than most teams did as a whole! Considering everything, I’d have to place Bonds in the number two spot, followed by Aaron.

Whoever was the best, Barry Bonds is about to break the numerical record for career home runs. I will be cheering.

* * * * *

The following chart compares the home run totals of Barry Bonds and Henry Aaron (Bonds’s stats are as of the completion of games on July 26, 2007). I chose to break the season home run average comparisons into five year increments, to better adjust for abnormal spikes and off seasons. Since Bonds only played 14 games in 2005 due to injury, I didn’t count that season in his fourth five-year average, and bumped the 2006 season up instead:

Barry Bonds	.	.	.	.	.	Hank Aaron	.	.	.	.
Year	Team	Age	G	HRs	.	Year	Team	Age	G	HRs
1986	Pit	22	113	16	.	1954	Mil	20	122	13
1987	Pit	23	150	25	.	1955	Mil	21	153	27
1988	Pit	24	144	24	.	1956	Mil	22	153	26
1989	Pit	25	159	19	.	1957	Mil	23	151	44
1990	Pit	26	151	33	.	1958	Mil	24	153	30
.	.	.	.	117	.	.	.	.	.	140
.	.	.	Ave.	23.4	.	.	.	.	Ave.	28.0
1991	Pit	27	153	25	.	1959	Mil	25	154	39
1992	Pit	28	140	34	.	1960	Mil	26	153	40
1993	SF	29	159	46	.	1961	Mil	27	155	34
1994	SF	30	112	37	.	1962	Mil	28	156	45
1995	SF	31	144	33	.	1963	Mil	29	161	44
.	.	.	.	175	.	.	.	.	.	202
.	.	.	Ave.	35.0	.	.	.	.	Ave.	40.4
1996	SF	32	158	42	.	1964	Mil	30	145	24
1997	SF	33	159	40	.	1965	Mil	31	150	32
1998	SF	34	156	37	.	1966	Atl	32	158	44
1999	SF	35	102	34	.	1967	Atl	33	155	39
2000	SF	36	143	49	.	1968	Atl	34	160	29
.	.	.	.	202	.	.	.	.	.	168
.	.	.	Ave.	40.4	.	.	.	.	Ave.	33.6
2001	SF	37	153	73	.	1969	Atl	35	147	44
2002	SF	38	143	46	.	1970	Atl	36	150	38
2003	SF	39	130	45	.	1971	Atl	37	139	47
2004	SF	40	147	45	.	1972	Atl	38	129	34
2006	SF	42	130	26	.	1973	Atl	39	120	40
.	.	.	.	235	.	.	.	.	.	203
.	.	.	Ave.	47.0	.	.	.	.	Ave.	40.6
.	.	.	.	.	.	1974	Atl	40	112	20
2005	SF	41	14	5	.	1975	Mil	41	137	12
2007	SF	43	87	19	.	1976	Mil	42	85	10
.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.
.	Career	.	2,948	753	.	.	Career	.	3,298	755

© 2004-2008 Eric F. Langborgh