The baseball milestone I would MUCH rather see achieved *
Steroid Boy is stuck on 754 home runs. A-Rod is stuck on 499. Here is why neither makes much difference.
With Bonds, he used steroids because he’s a little bitch. Save your “there’s no proof yet” argument- he did it. I know it, you know it, he knows it, everyone knows it. The record book might say he has the record, but he will only be considered the Home Run King™ in his own mind and in that of any mindless Giants fan who justifies Bonds simply because he plays for their team. Hank Aaron will always be the king until a legitimate hitter hits 756.
I can’t care about A-Rod achieving 500 for two reasons: first, he’s a Yankee. I can’t support anything any current Yankee player does. If he changes teams, then fine: Go A-Rod, sis boom bah. Yeah, I suppose it’s hypocritical, but so what. The other reason is that there will be many others who will achieve 500 home runs. It doesn’t have the meaning as a milestone that it used to. Sure, the number of people that haven’t and /or won’t come even close to 500 for their career is astronomically greater, but it wasn’t that long ago that there were only about 10-12 players in all of MLB history that had 500 or more home runs. Now there are 21, with Alex Rodriguez soon to be #22. Waiting in the wings are Jim Thome with 489, Manny Ramirez with 488, Garry Sheffield with 478, and a little further back, Carlos Delgado with 424. 500 just doesn’t have the “oomph” it used to in this “chicks dig the long ball” chemically-enhanced era.
I’m looking more forward to Ken Griffey Jr. getting his 600th. He’s a far better person than Bonds and the Yankee Zipper put together; plus, 600 really starts to separate the super-elite hitters (oh, and Barry Bonds) from everyone else.
However, the milestone I’m looking most forward to is Tom Glavine getting his 300th win. Although his being the MLBPA union president (at least he was, if he’s not still) really sticks in my craw, based on my thoughts on the value (or lack thereof) of unions, I’ve always liked Tom Glavine. He’s not loud, flashy, brash, or self-promoting. He’s a simply amazing pitcher. And he’s never played for the Yankees. Yes, I know he plays for the Mets, but the Mets are not the Yankees. That is probably also hypocritical–to so badly despise one team from New York and not the other–but as I said, the Mets are not the Yankees. It’s like in the NBA- like the Clippers, hate the Lakers. It doesn’t have to have a logical explanation, it’s just how it is.
The other reason I’m looking so forward to Glavine’s 300th win is that he quite possibly could be the last one to reach 300 in a long time, if not ever. True, there is actually one more member of the 300 wins club than there currently are in the 500 home runs club, but achieving 300 wins still means something. As addressed before, this is the age of steroids and long balls, plus so many pitchers are blowing out their arms and hence their careers far too early. Randy Johnson is next closest with 284, but with his recent back surgery and his age, it’s not certain whether he’ll even return, let alone stay long enough to get 16 more wins. Next behind El Gran Unidad are Mike Mussina (245), David Wells (235), and Jamie Moyer (225), with Curt Schilling and Kenny Rogers in the 2-dollar teens. Realistically, I don’t think any of them has a shot, mainly based on their ages. Only Mussina, who turns 39 in December, is under 40, which is considered geriatric in pro sports, especially for a pitcher. Bravo to them, to Julio Franco especially, and any other athletes in any sport that thrive so well at such advanced ages. But be realistic.
There are several young bucks who could make a go at 300 IF they can keep their current paces, but again, let’s be realistic. I will be quite surprised if anyone-Sabathia, Santana, Verlander, Willis, or anyone else- comes within spitting distance.
One more hypocritical side note: if and when A-Rod comes close to surpassing whatever {tainted} record Bonds ends up with, even if A-Rod’s still with the Yankees at the time, I’ll be rooting for him like no other.
Hey- my blog, my justifications.
* ADDENDUM 8-15-2007: Legally, it is apparently now my obligation to declare this entire post as total conjecture and opinion. I don’t particularly want to get sued by a man who already has a ton of money as it is. No hard feelings, Mr. Bonds, Sir, I just think you have more important legal battles to focus on than trying to stop what Joe Private Citizen says about you. If saying you did steroids (whether presented as presumed fact or the opinion of the speaker/writer) is genuinely untrue, as you profess it to be, I should think you would want to go after the reporters and broadcasters who have been stating exactly that for many months. Bigger fish to fry and all.

[...] Steroid Boy is stuck on 754 home runs. A-Rod is stuck on 499. Here is why neither makes much difference. With Bonds, he used steroids because he’s a little bitch. Save your “there’s no proof yet” argument- he did it. I know it, you know it, he… …more [...]
Pingback by baseball » Blog Archive » The Physics of Baseball | August 3, 2007 |
[...] Steroid Boy is stuck on 754 home runs. A-Rod is stuck on 499. Here is why neither makes much difference. With Bonds, he used steroids because he’s a little bitch. Save your “there’s no proof yet” argument- he did it. I know it, you know it, he… …more [...]
Pingback by baseball » Blog Archive » NEWS FOR MEMBERS OF THE TRIBE | August 3, 2007 |
[...] Steroid Boy is stuck on 754 home runs. A-Rod is stuck on 499. Here is why neither makes much difference. With Bonds, he used steroids because he’s a little bitch. Save your “there’s no proof yet” argument- he did it. I know it, you know it, he… …more [...]
Pingback by baseball » Blog Archive » eBay sports memorabilia, baseball Card and basketball memorabilia | August 3, 2007 |
Glavine probably will be the last guy to get 300 wins. The five-man rotation isn’t going anywhere for a while, so guys just won’t be able to pitch enough. I’d say 20-win seasons are rare anymore.
I’m not as big on wins, though. Give me K/9IP groundball/flyball ration any day.
Jesus. Make that: “Give me K/9IP and groundball/flyball ratio any day.”
Have another beer, uh.. dear.
One more thing… I wish Bonds would just get it over with. I’m so sick of hearing about this “chase,” which has slowed to a crawl.
Opposing managers: Act like you have a pair and JUST PITCH TO HIM.
First, I agree- I wish he (Bonds) would just get it over with already.
Secondly, you’re right in that the fact that nobody pitches to him- even when they “pitch” to him, and I use that term loosely- makes the “chase” that much more agonizing to endure.
Third, the stats you said you prefer are examples, in my opinion, of how baseball has become so over-the-top statistical and overanalyzed. Home runs and wins DON’T mean as much anymore; it’s all about K/9IP and groundball/flyball ratios WHIP and number of extra-base hits in weeknight games in pitcher-friendly parks when facing lefthanded pitchers born in non-profit hospitals who have jersey numbers higher than 40 and other über-microstats that the average baseball fan like myself barely understands, let alone cares about. Let managers and pitching & hitting coaches worry about those types of things. Give me a 1-0 pitcher’s duel with the winning run scored in the bottom of the 9th on a suicide squeeze, or better yet, a steal of home plate. But that’s just me.
Oh, and one more thing- I knew what you meant when you typed “ration”!
Pitcher wins really should mean very little. It’s a poor way to evaluate pitchers. For the love of pete, Jason Marquis won 14 games last year, and we all know how terrible he is.
I think if you allowed yourself to consider other types of statistics, you would be able to appreciate them. You’re just summarily dismissing them, though, simply because they’re different from what you know.
K/9IP basically is ERA for strikeouts. Pitchers with higher K/9 rates tend to allow fewer hits than those with lower K/9 rates. Getting more outs by the K=fewer balls in play=fewer hits allowed.
And pitchers who get a higher number of groundball outs than flyball outs tend to allow fewer HR because, as you know, groundballs can’t go over the fence.
And if a pitcher combines those two attributes, you basically have Chris Carpenter. Well, an uninjured Chris Carpenter, anyway.
Speaking of, when Carp won the Cy in 2005, Roger Clemens actually was the better pitcher statisically. Carp, though, had more of those shiny wins, and that’s what the sportswriters love. Had Clemens gotten the kind of run support that Carp did, then he’d have had several more wins and his 48th Cy.
And that’s why wins are not a good way to compare pitchers. It’s a stat dependent on run support from the offense, something that has nothing to do with pitching.
First of all, I am NOT “summarily dismissing them because they’re different from what (I) know”.
I’m summarily dismissing them because they do not matter in the least- TO ME.
I understand the “dependence on run support from the offense” thing. I understand the “Getting more outs by the K=fewer balls in play=fewer hits allowed” thing. I THINK I even understand that groundballs can’t go over the fence.
I’m not trying to downplay the importance of these stats to the game in the least. My argument- RIGHT OR WRONG- is that these {micro}stats and those like them are hard for me to envision. I guess that, as always, I’m the only stupid one yet again, but I can picture what “300 wins” means. I can picture what “4000 strikeouts” means. Even though intangible, I can even picture what “2.79 career ERA” means. I need to be able to visualize something to be able to understand its proper value. You know me, dude, I’ve never been real good with intangibles.
I can NOT, therefore, picture WHIPs and K9s and GB:FB, and many other micro-stats, partially because I’m an idiot, but also partially because none of the yay-hoo stat nerds on TV/radio- your Olneys, your Kirkjans (sp), etc- ever tell us stupid people what “median” is, what is considered high or low, what the number actually says, etc. They just ramble off all these numbers and assume everyone knows what they mean. Again, maybe everyone (but me) DOES, but unless there is somewhere that dumbasses like me can go to have stats like these properly explained, I will not get it and will not attempt to.
The other thing is that I don’t want to have a notebook full of charts and a slide rule to enjoy a baseball game. Maybe if there was a way I could have these stats and their relative value (uh oh, THAT phrase again…) explained well enough, maybe I could enjoy the game MORE. Or maybe not.
AAAAAAAND if some of these stats are so meaningful, how come they’ve only started being kept the last decade or so? It’s like MLB has just been making up stats the last 15 years. Again, I’m sure some of these stats are VITALLY important to managers, scouts, fantasy owners, etc., but most of them are ambiguously vague, vaguely ambiguous numbers to me. Sorry.
But for you to say I dismiss them just because they’re different from what I know is way off base. Either explain them all to me or point me in the direction of a mag/website that can, and I’m happy to give them all a chance.