755

Barry Bonds. Hank Aaron. Home run record. Number 755 was hit 31 years ago on this day and has been the top record in baseball since.

But pretty soon baseball's most coveted record will be broken in a very dark time in baseball. What will remembered more when Barry Bonds hits number 756 is not how special an accomplishment having hit the most home runs in baseball history is, but how Bonds possibly reached that milestone since 1998. This era in baseball, now known as The Steroid Era, has the face of Barry Bonds and always will--even if there is no direct evidence that Bonds took steroids, something I am sure he will deny until the day he dies, Bonds has been the one most discussed in it as he broke the single season homerun record in 2001 and six years later is about to break the career record.

I do not wish to have this post be an opinion piece on what I think of Barry Bonds. I'll rehash some arguments about his career, the era he's played in, and the homerun record he'll be breaking soon. But I do want to point out in here how much of a conflict Bonds and his homerun chase have been in baseball.


Why is this the Greatest Record in Baseball?

Homeruns are fun to watch. They are dramatic, entertaining, and a thing of beauty. A homerun in baseball is the only hit in the game where the player who got the hit also scores during it. And it certainly helps to have runners on base during a homerun because everyone comes home in a homerun.

It wasn't until Babe Ruth broke the single season homerun record in 1919, when he hit 29 homeruns, that homeruns became more and more common in baseball. Before that time the homerun wasn't what it is today because players hardly hit them. There are many reasons for that which I won't get into, but the point is since that time homeruns began to be hit with greater frequency after 1919. Additionally, certain players like Ruth became known as homerun hitters because they could consistently hit homeruns year after year.

The single most reason why the homerun became popularized and is the greatest record in baseball history is because it is the biggest hit in baseball. And by biggest, I mean it puts runs on the board, it can be hit a far ways, and for fans it is an amazing feat to watch because not a whole lot of people can hit a homerun.

As baseball history was made over the years, the homerun hitters paved the way decade after decade. From Babe Ruth to Mel Ott to Ted Williams to Mickey Mantle to Hank Aaron to today's hitters like Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, and Ken Griffey, Jr--the homerun has remained what it is over the course of the game.

Bonds, Homeruns, and Steroids

In the past few years, evidence has surfaced that baseball players have taken performance enhancing drugs--steroids, human hormone growth, among other things. After the 1998 season when Mark McGwire (70 homeruns) broke Roger Maris' single season homerun record (61 in 1961) he admitted to taking androstenedione, an over-the-counter muscle enhancing product that was not banned by baseball at that time. Since that year, Maris' once long standing record of 61 homeruns has been bested six times (twice by McGwire, three times by Sosa, and once by Bonds). You can't forget about the ongoing BALCO investigation which Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi testified in front of a grand jury on whether they took steroids from the drug manufacturer. And there's also the George Mitchell investigation. There have also been books like Jose Canseco's Juiced and Game of Shadows that have pointed to certain players usage and alleged rampant steroid usage in baseball that may well have influenced homerun hitting during this era. And even more recently players like Jason Giambi, Jose Canseco, and the late Ken Caminiti have all admitted to using some form of performance enhancing drugs. But for whatever evidence there is, the culture of baseball has kept steroids tight lipped because no one likes to out another player or their teammate.

Before 1998, Barry Bonds was already on a Hall of Fame track. By that time he'd won three MVP awards, had hit 374 homeruns (end of 1997), stolen 417 bases, and won seven gold gloves. He was certainly one of the best players in the game at that point and given his age of 33 going into the 1998 season he was likely past the prime of his career. He'd been around major league baseball his whole life as the son of ball player Bobby Bonds and cousin of Reggie Jackson, so I think it's fair to say Bonds' life has been about baseball and he was ingrained in its culture from a young age.

I point out Bonds' age because statistical evidence shows that baseball players on a whole have their best seasons sometime between ages 26 and 28. After that, their skills begin to decline and it is more likely than not, they won't put up their best numbers of their career. So from saying that, it is likely that a homerun hitter will slow down his pace in hitting homeruns, but we know that for Bonds that was not the case.

I'll refer you to the chart below to make my case. Here are the top 10 homerun hitters between 1998-2006 with their combined homeruns for that period and their ages during that time in ().

1. Sammy Sosa (29-36) 447
2. Alex Rodriguez (22-30) 400
3. Manny Ramirez (26-34) 361
4. Barry Bonds (33-41) 360
5. Carlos Delgado (26-34) 340
6. Jim Thome (27-35) 339
7. Vladimir Guerrero (22-30) 326
8. Andruw Jones (21-28) 319
9. Jason Giambi (27-35) 304
10. Rafael Palmeiro (33-40) 298

The chart is pretty simple but points out this. Ball players who are in this top 10 list for this period, really started hitting homeruns in their 20s. The exceptions are Rafael Palmeiro, who embarassed his way out of baseball in 2005 after testing positive for being on the juice and Barry Bonds, who is 4th on the list but could be higher if he hadn't missed most of 2005. There's also Sammy Sosa at #1 who was 29 in 1998 just on the cusp of decline, but had the best years of his career after then. I'd love to look historically to see how many homeruns all players over 30 have hit in their career, but I didn't have the time to do that.

But my point is this, Bonds hit more homeruns the second half of his career (1998 to today, 389 and counting) than when he was young and conceivably in his prime before all of this. He's also been able to completely change the way pitchers pitch to him--he was intentionally walked 120 times in 2004 (the record before Bonds had been 45 by Willie McCovy in 1970)--this was almost double than from the year before (61). From 2001 to 2004 he won four MVPs in a row--never been done before, won the batting title twice which he had never done previously, and went to his first World Series (which Barry always said he was all about, but hasn't mentioned a thing about winning a ring since 2002). He also shattered single season records in on-base percentage (.609 in 2004, Ted Williams held record at .553), slugging percentage (.863 in 2004, Babe Ruth held record at .849 in 1920), OPS (1.421 in 2004, Babe Ruth held record at 1.382 in 1920), and at-bats per homerun (6.52 in 2001 or every 6 or so at bats he hit a homerun, McGwire held the record at 7.58).

All I will say is that this raises some eyebrows from a statistical standpoint.

Will Bud Selig Attend?

With all the controversy swelling around Hank Aaron's homerun record of 755, Bonds will break it and break it soon--and one leader in baseball has to make a choice. If you haven't kept up with this story, Bud Selig the commissioner of baseball, has seen the steroid controversy occur on his watch and become public. Although Selig wouldn't admit it, the Mitchell investigation is pretty much targeted at Bonds. And so the way things are going, it's evident that Selig is not happy and does not support Bonds' pursuit of the all time homerun record.

Already, Hank Aaron, a close friend of Selig's, has said he would not be present to see Bonds break his homerun record. But there's been some question if Bud Selig himself would. Despite Selig's feelings and considerable embarassment over the entire Steroid Era, it looks like he will attend.

While theoretically this would be a time of celebration in baseball it is not. With the exception of San Francisco Giants fans, Barry Bonds is likely the most hated sports figure today. He's also never been one of the nicest sports figures carrying an ego, arrogance, and anti-team attitude most of his career. So for THE record in baseball to be broken given the circumstances and the man who will do it, baseball finds itself in a very precarious position.

Bonds' Legacy

While no one knows how much longer Barry Bonds will play, his legacy has certainly been set by the last half of his career. We may never truly know if Barry Bonds took steroids or if he did how it helped him hit homeruns, but we know he will forever be caught up in the Steroid Era of baseball as its ugly face. It has been in part because of Barry Bonds that when a player suddenly hits 35 homeruns when he never had before, fans grow suspicious of steroid use. But it has taken a player like Barry Bonds for baseball to recognize that its own culture had a problem and it needed to be fixed if anything for the integrity of the game and its greatest record.

Gettin' Back to that Bandwagon Post

I'm finally getting back to the bandwagon fans post I wrote a couple weeks back. My first reaction after writing it was that I hope I didn't piss anyone off. I didn't get any angry responses other than from my girlfriend whom I made read the post. But I'll get to her reply in a bit. My intent in writing the post was to get some feedback on this blog and write something controversial. And I say controversial in the sense that it probably challenged some people's perspectives in being a fan of a sport and having a favorite team in that sport. I didn't intend to put any fan down, but wanted to note there's a difference between what I called a "true" fan and a bandwagon fan.

Before getting to the responses, I wanted to clarify some things I did not say in the post and this is mainly in reaction to my girlfriend who thought my post belittling and that I expected readers to know everything about baseball. Well, let me clarify a few things:

1) I never said bandwagon fans were bad for baseball, the Rivalry, or any sport or team.

2) I never put down bandwagon fans because they didn't know everything. My fuss is that they don't know the basic stuff like how the game is played or who's on the team.

3) I never said not to purchase a teams paraphrinalia in whatever color you like--the links are on the post to buy stuff.

4) I never said a bandwagon fan has no feelings of love for the team they "root" for. I only question that love.

5) I never said all New Yorkers are liable to push you on the subway tracks.

Now that the air is cleaner, let's get to the responses--thanks to everyone to replied. The first one is from PJB (a close friend of Doug and I):

One thing to point out is that however annoying they may be, bandwagon fans are usually very good for the teams they happen to be supporting. There's been some research published at Baseball Prospectus on the chasm in revenue between playoff/non-playoff teams. That huge gulf can be explained partly by TV revenue and playoff ticket sales, but also because of the surge in local attention and popularity that can persist for years after a flag raises. That money of course ends up going towards keeping the team competitive (big market teams) or prompting a move or sale (nationals).

Have faith Teddy, and remember that no bandwagon fan feels the elation of winning after suffering through years of failure. Or in the Yankees case, a single down year like this one.

Yes, very good to point out BP's research and connect it with the post. Certainly bandwagon fans are a good source of revenue for the game--not only do they buy gear, they will go to games as long as their team is good. I think PJB is correct to say that baseball needs bandwagon fans for the good of the business of baseball. Afterall, how would us fans pay for part of those salaries?

And I do remember my elation in 1996--I was at a Halloween party and went running around the place cheering my head off. Probably one of the best moments of my senior year in high school aside from graduating and getting into college.

Another comment comes from Captain Caveman who has a pretty good story:

I have a related story. Back in 1999 I had the opportunity to attend the All-Star game here in Boston. My friend and I had a terrific day as we were able to play catch in the infield at Fenway Park. (He used to work behind the scenes for the Celtics, and is now the head trainer for the Pacers...so he has connections) Anyway, we were offered 2 tickets at $150 each for standing room only. We scraped together the funds and gladly bought them.So here we are at an All-Star game. We are both big fans of baseball and feel somehow honored to be at an All-Star game in our hometown. After a few innings, we became fairly angry. The whole crowd seemed interested in everything BUT the game. They all talked on their cell phones to their friends...'yeah, I'm at the ball game and your not...I don't know who started...I'm not sure who's on the mound right now but he got some people out...' We looked at each other, Thats Pedro fucking Martinez on the mound. How do these people get tickets to this and not even know whats going on? Meanwhile, honest fans who follow the sport daily (people who not only know who Pedro is, but that he is starting) are left to watch from home. Granted, I was able to get tickets, but we paid face value for them and waited for several hours to know if they were even available.We still enjoyed the game, it's just shocking to witness the stupidity. Why spend the money to go to the game when you have no idea what's going on??


Nice story--I hope the fans knew who Ted Williams was when he came out onto the field during that All-Star game. I won't go on record to say that bandwagon fans have priced true fans out of ballparks (Caveman's example is the All-Star game which costs more) or that bandwagon fans are rolling in money, but I can share in his annoyance. Afterall this was the All-Star game in Boston where in 1999 Pedro was the best pitcher in the AL. But in answer to his question at the end of the comment my reply is--I don't know--just to say you were there maybe?

Finally, from Jim:

Hey – great post on the bandwagon fans. Another thing you can’t appreciate as a bandwagon fan is the love/hate relationship Yankees fans have with their own team – the NY Post front page had this teaser for the sports section: “Yankees win one in a row.”

Quite true. Also the love/hate relationship with certain players is quite true.

I'll end it here with some final thoughts. I don't hate bandwagon fans. They may be annoying, but there is some good they bring to the game. And while I may have sounded a bit arrogant and bitchy in my post, I personally want to transform bandwagon fans into true fans of the game of baseball (and to the Yankees of course. Though my posts may create some Red Sox fans). I understand not all fans follow every little detail or watch every single game--even I don't know everything. So I hope this blog can shed some light on how to have a lifelong relationship with the game of baseball and a team, and appreciate all of it for what it is.