A-Rod needs steroid testing

Cafe Society
21

Personally, while I think Hank Aaron was great I don’t rank him as one of the best players of all time. As much as I dislike Bonds, I do rank him as one of the best players of all time. Do I dislike Bond’s attitude? Yup. Do I dislike the fact that he almost certainly has doped? Yes.

However, every baseball era has “something” that can be argued to have given some players an unfair advantage.

When Babe Ruth was the sultan of swat, the lively ball was a new innovation, as was changing balls throughout play. Ruth’s style of swinging for the fences was relatively new, dead ball ballplayers swung for contact, not power. There’s an interesting article in an old issue of the Sporting News in which it relates the tale of Ty Cobb proving he could hit for power. Cobb was a bit miffed that the upstart Ruth was starting to get so much press attention for his home run hitting ability. So over a two game span in 1925, Cobb said he was going to swing for power to demonstrate that any good hitter can do so. The first game he was 6 for 6 with 3 HRs. The next game he had two more home runs. Cobb went back to his regular split-hand grip on the bat and to his style of play which relied on hitting for contact and being incredibly aggressive on the base paths.

However, we’ll never really know if Ty Cobb could have hit for serious power over his career, for most of his career hitting for power was unheard of; and for the part of his career in which the lively ball existed, he deliberately chose not to hit for power. But it does illustrate a point that even Babe Ruth, who played in an era before widespread doping, had certain advantages. For years pitchers could pitch with the knowledge that it was okay to give up the fly ball. Today, we have some pitchers who specialize in forcing ground balls–and easy outs, as opposed to the pitchers who rely on strikeouts and pure power to send batters back to the dugout. In the deadball era, there were many pitchers who specialized in forcing lofting fly balls that were just as easy to turn into outs as some ground balls are today. With the “dead” nature of the ball at the time, and the architecture of ball parks, there just wasn’t any real threat of home runs. Home runs were oddities, not worth worrying seriously about. Scoring happened because of aggressive play on the base paths and crisply hit line drives. A lot of the pitchers who were used to pitching this way probably didn’t adjust well to the changes in the physics of the baseball and the ballparks themselves; so when Ruth started swinging for the fences, their only real response that worked was to walk him.

Up until 1969, pitching mounds were not really standardized height-wise. Some mounds were rumored to be 20" tall and the average was around 16". Pitchers like Sandy Koufax most certainly benefited from this, but I saw Koufax pitch, and he was great and would have been on a 40" mound or a 2" one.

To a degree, the best you can do is judge baseball players in comparison to their peers. It’s very hard to judge baseball players in comparison to players from different eras. We have no idea how Koufax would have done on the mounds that Clemens has pitched from. We have no idea how Koufax’s numbers would have looked against designated hitters, either. Nor do we know how he would have done in a 5-man rotation, in which his arm would have been able to rest much more. Koufax is quite possibly one of the best pitchers of all time, but since his career was extremely truncated by injury, he’s not on a lot of people’s lists of top-pitchers all time.

Keeping that in mind, I will say this much. Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs, Hank Aaron hit 755, and Barry Bonds will probably hit 755+.

Ruth did it in 8,398 at bats.

Aaron hit 755 in 12364 at bats, so it took Aaron almost 4,000 more at bats than it did Ruth to break into the 700 club and eventually break his record. Aaron is amongst the all-time career leaders in ABs; the all time career leader, and incidentally the all time hits leader, is Pete Rose. I didn’t care much for Rose when he played, but I did like Rose’s honesty when he responded to comparisons to Ty Cobb. He admitted he’d break Cobb’s hits record, but to do so he also had to set the record for most at bats and most outs, which Cobb did not have to do.

Barry Bonds is currently at 9,676 at bats. And Bonds did not break 714 prior to exceeding Ruth’s total ABs. I don’t have exact numbers, but I do know that between the 2003 and 2004 season Bonds’ career ABs were at 8,725 and he had yet to beat Ruth’s record (his totals stood at 658 home runs.)

So for what it’s worth, I think Ruth was the hands down best home run hitter of all time. He hit more per AB than anyone else, and the only men who have broken his career records had to play into their 40s to do so.

And while I said it’s mostly impossible to compare players of different eras, I like to do so for fun, anyway. IMO the top ten position players of all time are:

  1. Babe Ruth
  2. Ty Cobb
  3. Barry Bonds
  4. Willie Mays
  5. Ted Williams
  6. Mickey Mantle
  7. Honus Wagner
  8. Lou Gehrig
  9. Josh Gibson
  10. Tris Speaker
22

I’m sorry, but I was just struck by the passage, “By the new standards …even Mickey Mantle” was not clean.

Haven’t we known that Mickey and many others of his era weren’t clean since Jim Bouton’s “Ball Four” was published in 1970?

23

You make some good points, but Ruth’s decision and ability to hit for power didn’t give him an unfair advantage over anyone. He used a different strategy. Cobb’s refusal to do wasn’t more fair. The livelier balls gave him an advantage over previous players and palyed to his strengths, but I think this is a different issue.

24

This story is, as you might imagine, almost certainly a myth. Cobb did in fact once hit five home runs in two games, but the part about him claiming immediately before the games that he would show he could do it, too, did not appear in any publication at the time, and in fact was not reported until 20 years later, which is precisely what you would expect of an urban legend. Cobb did not dislike Ruth; Tom Stanton, who studied the Cobb-Ruth transition, claims Cobb respected Ruth’s abilities - Ruth, of course, was also a high average hitter and (at that time) a good outfielder.

The story also does not make any sense, since if Cobb was capable of hitting three home runs a game at will, he would of course have continued to do so.

Sorry to be a spoilsport.

25

I don’t think anyone believes that Cobb could have hit three home runs a game at will. However the Sporting News is a generally respected publication, and was extremely respected when the article in question was written. I also didn’t make the claim that Cobb disliked Ruth, only that he was somewhat envious concerning the attention Ruth was getting.

There’s no particular reason to apologize for being a spoilsport since I don’t really accept your interpretation of the events in question. This isn’t the first time I’ve related this story on a forum nor is it the first time it has been challenged. Whether or not you choose to believe a decades old Sporting News article is your choice; I’ve always felt it was reliable and continue to feel so.

26

I used to participate in a usenet group where a catchphrase was: “Ty Cobb could’ve done it, if he wanted to.”

Thanks for the funny memories.

27

I’d argue, as a non-Yankees fan, that the Yankees are better the way it worked out. I don’t think Jeter could have made the transition nearly as well. Yes A-Rod is a better shortstop, but I think he’s way better at 3rd that Jeter could be.

I’m sure Jeter could have done it, and I know A-Rod struggled, but just the message that you are essentially demoting the team leader from the most important position on the field can’t be overlooked. So you give up a little ability at short, but for a lot of improvement at 3rd, and keep your captain in place and not doubting his leadership. We all know the symbolism the Yankees place on the team captain.

From a pure stats point of view, I do think they have a more solid left side this way, simply, as I said, they gave up a little at SS to improve 3rd, but I think what they would have lost at 3rd with Jeter wouldn’t make up for the gain at SS with A-Rod

Realistically though, Stienbrenner would’ve signed him and sat him as #2 SS, just to keep him away from the BoSox.

28

Not really:



Year Ag Tm  Lg  G   AB    R    H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP   SLG *OPS+  TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP 
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
 1986 21 PIT NL 113  413   72   92  26  3  16   48  36  7  65 102  .223  .330  .416  103  172   2   2   2   2   4 RoY-6
 1987 22 PIT NL 150  551   99  144  34  9  25   59  32 10  54  88  .261  .329  .492  114  271   0   3   3   3   4
 1988 23 PIT NL 144  538   97  152  30  5  24   58  17 11  72  82  .283  .368  .491  147  264   0   2  14   2   3
 1989 24 PIT NL 159  580   96  144  34  6  19   58  32 10  93  93  .248  .351  .426  125  247   1   4  22   1   9
 1990 25 PIT NL 151  519  104  156  32  3  33  114  52 13  93  83  .301  .406  .565  170  293   0   6  15   3   8 SS,MVP-1,AS
 1991 26 PIT NL 153  510   95  149  28  5  25  116  43 13 107  73  .292  .410  .514  161  262   0  13  25   4   8 SS,MVP-2
 1992 27 PIT NL 140  473  109  147  36  5  34  103  39  8 127  69  .311  .456  .624  205  295   0   7  32   5   9 SS,MVP-1,AS
 1993 28 SFG NL 159  539  129  181  38  4  46  123  29 12 126  79  .336  .458  .677  206  365   0   7  43   2  11 SS,MVP-1,AS
 1994 29 SFG NL 112  391   89  122  18  1  37   81  29  9  74  43  .312  .426  .647  182  253   0   3  18   6   3 SS,MVP-4,AS
 1995 30 SFG NL 144  506  109  149  30  7  33  104  31 10 120  83  .294  .431  .577  168  292   0   4  22   5  12 MVP-12,AS
 1996 31 SFG NL 158  517  122  159  27  3  42  129  40  7 151  76  .308  .461  .615  186  318   0   6  30   1  11 SS,MVP-5,AS
 1997 32 SFG NL 159  532  123  155  26  5  40  101  37  8 145  87  .291  .446  .585  170  311   0   5  34   8  13 SS,MVP-5,AS
 1998 33 SFG NL 156  552  120  167  44  7  37  122  28 12 130  92  .303  .438  .609  177  336   1   6  29   8  15 MVP-8,AS
 1999 34 SFG NL 102  355   91   93  20  2  34   83  15  2  73  62  .262  .389  .617  162  219   0   3   9   3   6 MVP-24
 2000 35 SFG NL 143  480  129  147  28  4  49  106  11  3 117  77  .306  .440  .688  191  330   0   7  22   3   6 SS,MVP-2,AS
 2001 36 SFG NL 153  476  129  156  32  2  73  137  13  3 177  93  .328  .515  .863  262  411   0   2  35   9   5 SS,MVP-1,AS
 2002 37 SFG NL 143  403  117  149  31  2  46  110   9  2 198  47  .370  .582  .799  275  322   0   2  68   9   4 SS,MVP-1,AS
 2003 38 SFG NL 130  390  111  133  22  1  45   90   7  0 148  58  .341  .529  .749  231  292   0   2  61  10   7 SS,MVP-1,AS
 2004 39 SFG NL 147  373  129  135  27  3  45  101   6  1 232  41  .362  .609  .812  260  303   0   3 120   9   5 SS,MVP-1,AS
 2005 40 SFG NL  14   42    8   12   1  0   5   10   0  0   9   6  .286  .404  .667  177   28   0   1   3   0   0
 2006 41 SFG NL 130  367   74   99  23  0  26   77   3  0 115  51  .270  .454  .545  156  200   0   1  38  10   9
 2007 42 SFG NL  63  169   34   49   8  0  14   31   4  0  69  28  .290  .496  .586  187   99   0   1  26   1   7
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
 22 Seasons         9676      2890     77     1961    141    1513  .299  .444  .608  182        4  90 671 104 159

Source: Barry Bonds Stats, Height, Weight, Position, Rookie Status & More | Baseball-Reference.com

Besides the anomaly that was the 73 home run year, his numbers have remained relatively consistent. Even though his body has certainly blown up, his home run numbers don’t really seem to.

I can’t wait for Barry to break The Record.

29

When I first started debating baseball online I had some encounters with a guy who took Ty Cobb love to a whole new level. For most of my life, I had thought of Cobb as a generally great, old-time ballplayer, but I never really ranked him up there with Ruth, Mays, Mantle, Williams et cetera.

This particular guy actually has a Ty Cobb shrine more or less online, with meticulously researched articles galore. Me and him never did see eye-to-eye on Cobb (he thinks Cobb is the best all time, I think Ruth is a superior offensive player.) But his arguments were extremely well-grounded statistically, and it did lead me to eventually come around to believing Ty Cobb is definitely one of the 5 best baseball players ever, and quite possibly better than any position player other than Ruth.

FWIW when it comes to sportswriters and peers who had seen/played with both Ruth and Cobb, more of them seem to suggest Cobb was the best all time than they do Ruth. Cobb also set more records during his career than anyone before or since (90 or so) and about 30 of them still stand and probably will never be broken (records like most career steals of home, highest career batting average and et cetera.)

30

Also, I believe Cobb had legitimate power that never manifested as home run hitting power because of the era he played in.

If you look at pretty much every power statistic aside from home runs, Cobb’s numbers were dominating throughout the era in which he played. He lead the league in slugging 8 times and was in the top 3 14 times.

31

Realistically, the Yankees didn’t make their move until the Rodriguez-for-Ramirez trade fell through. :wink:

The jump in slugging and on base percentage doesn’t stick out to you? Nor does the fact that, starting at age 35, he basically matched or beat his intial career high for home runs (46, when he was 28) for five years in a row?

32

Now, that simply isn’t true at all. In the year before the 73 homers Bonds hit 49, a career high, in only 480 at bats - better than a homer every 10 at bats, something he had never done before. Just the year before that he hit 34 homers in just 103 games/355 at bats, which to that point was his best homer pace ever.

Then, AFTER the 73-homer season, Bonds hit 46 homers in just 403 at bats, 45 in 390, and 45 in just 373 - Ruthian levels of homer-hitting. The raw totals don’t look amazing becuse he was never being pitched to, but his ability to hit homers when he WAS pitched to was astonishing, way above anything he’d done in the first half of his career. Bonds’s home run rate starting in 1999 jumped a huge amount.

33

Plus the homers increased when his age would suggest they would be falling off.
Two reasons he wont get caught.
1> baseball does not want to catch Arod.
2. The users are far ahead of the testing procedures. If the layman is aware of steroids and HGH , it is likely even newer drugs are being used.
When players plead lack of knowledge about what they take ,I am skeptical. Most athletes get very intelligent about drugs, from vitamins to HGH. You can have a long discussion about them and be amazed at how much they have learned. From medical impacts to how they act in combination and whats coming up, users get educated.

34

So, when do you project A-Rod’ll beat the record?

35

Gotta stay another 5 or 6 years.

36

Are you kidding me?

Total number of home runs per year, maybe he’s been consistent. Try calculating the number of plate appearances per home run instead.

If you add together his ABs and BBs to get a rough idea of his number of appearances at the plate, what you get is…

First five seasons: 18.54 PAs per HR
Second five seasons: 18.96 PAs her HR
Third five seasons: 12.18 PAs per HR
Fourth five seasons: 10.2 PAs per HR

That’s not what I’d call “relatively consistent.”

37

I stand corrected. I was simply looking at the home run numbers. I didn’t get into any of the other statistics.

38

I have no idea what you are talking about. He is not even 32 years old. This is when he should be peaking. It’s not like he is being fitted for a cane. His homers should increase with age until his early thirties and then start falling off later. That is when men tend to be strongest, especially after years of constant training.

39

Baseball players peak at age 27-28. Some peak later but it’s unusual. If he ages the way superstar players usually do, Rodriguez will decline slowly for the next few years (though, granted, he got off to a huge start this April.)

Lots of players have looked like they had a shot at 700-800 homers and then something came up - injury, usually. It’s easy to say Rodriguez, well, he’s only 31 years old and has hit 491 so he’s a lock, right? But 31-year-olds are at the END of their peak years, usually. Suppose Rodriguez were to end this year with 520 homers and then hit 40 a year for 3 years, then he gets hurt, and hits 20 a year for 3 years, then retires at 38. He’d still be short of Aaron/Bonds, and that would be a hell of a lot of home runs yet to hit.

Sammy Sosa just hit his 600th homer and obviously will not make 700; at this point 620 will be a stretch. But he was already at 539 by the age of 34 coming off a 40-homer season, and then he just got old.

Ken Griffey Jr. had already hit 460 homers at the age of 31. He’s still playing well but 700 looks very unlikely. Injuries.

Jimmie Foxx had 500 homers at the age of 32. He hit only 34 more. Injuries and substance abuse.

As amazing a pace as he is on, the odds are actualkly against A-Rod getting to 700-750 homers. I kjnow it seems bizarre to say that but it’s true. A ballplayer, especially in his 30s, is always one injury, one microsecond of bat speed lost, one bad circumstance away from his career grinding to a halt. Most players decline in their 30s; if A-Rod goes out there at age 35 three years from now and bats .309 with 31 homers it’ll be a great year but will probably not be enough homers to keep pace with Aaron. It’s harder than the numbers would suggest at first glance.

Now, of course, maybe he does stay healthy and productive. He COULD hit 850 homers. Ya don’t really know.

40

Yep staying healthy is the key. Griffey could have done it if he didn’t keep running into walls when he was younger. If A-Rod doesn’t get hurt I think he has a great shot at it. After all Aaron never hit 50 HRs in a single year. But he was able to maintain a steady pace until he was 40 and then he trailed off. In fact he hit 47 at age 37, the highest in his career and then hit 40 two years later. The next three years (his last 3) he hit 42 total.