Is Hank Aaron still the home run king?

1975 Topps #1: Hank Aaron Highlights

On August 8, 2007, Barry Bonds hit his 756th home run in the major leagues, passing Hank Aaron as the all-time leader.

Those are the facts….but does public perception match?There was remarkably little fanfare when Bonds set the record. For the days leading up to the event, media speculated as to whether commissioner Bud Selig would even attend. Bonds was embroiled in the steroids scandal and many fans didn’t want him to break the record.

Ironically, many fans didn’t want Aaron to break Babe Ruth‘s record, which he did on April 8, 1974. Much of the resistance to Aaron was based in racism, but in the case of Bonds (one African American man supplanting the record of another), it seems to be that much of the public just didn’t like Bonds. Aside from his cheating, he had a history of being pompous, gruff, and standoffish.

Many seem to still honor Hank Aaron today as the home run king, even though Bonds passed him. Just about all baseball fans know the number 755, and even the number 714 (Ruth’s total that was eclipsed by Bad Henry.) Few know Bonds’ final career total of 762. Maybe that’s because it hasn’t been even 5 years since Bonds hit his last homer and because nobody is close to challenging him for the record yet.

This idea was discussed on Twitter recently with some great contributions from @OldHossRadbourn and @Bill_TPA (of The Platoon Advantage). They wondered how many people knew the number 755 within 5 years’ of Aaron’s retirement–in truth probably not many.

But will Bonds ever be revered? I sincerely doubt it. He will always, on paper, be ahead of Aaron in homers, but I suspect that Hank Aaron will continue to reign supreme as the home run king for many years to come.

0 0 votes

Article Rating

105 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Ben

12 years ago

I was thinking of this very thing the other day. Every era in baseball is different and players within each generation have different challenges and different tools that might not be present with other eras. I try to look at baseball as objectively as possible even though I am a passionate fan. Barry Bonds probably used PEDs but PEDs were a tool available to him (and everyone else in his era) and MLB didn’t seem to mind. Guys in other eras used ‘greenies’ and guys in other eras doctored up their baseballs. All throughout baseball history (or any sport for… Read more »

Dr. Remulak

12 years ago

Reply to Ben

Ben, it looks like we were saying pretty much the same thing at pretty much the same time.

Ben

12 years ago

Reply to Dr. Remulak

haha yep. People have forgotten or don’t even know about Ty Cobb’s character flaws. He benefited from playing in an era that did not have 25 ball park video cameras, tabloid television shows, and did not have teammates who Tweet about their breakfast that morning.

I hope that a day will come where people can look past the noise and just see numbers when they think about who are the greatest players of an era.

Dr. Remulak

12 years ago

Sadly, it is the record and we should accept it. Otherwise, we’ll be putting “however” asterisks in front of everything: 162 game seasons vs. 154; spitballs; ball scuffing; corked bats; white-only era; small gloves = higher batting avgs.; ballpark sizes; “greenie” abuse; vaseline; mound height; LSD-aided no-hitters (illegal, yes. performance-enhancing? hmmm)…
The list goes on…

vivaeljason

12 years ago

Reply to Dr. Remulak

This reminds me of an article on ESPN.com from right around the time Rafael Palmeiro wagged his finger in front of Congress that argued that the single season HR record is the record whether we like it or not because if you want to take it away from Bonds, you can find an excuse to take the record away from anyone.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=schoenfield/041207

Dr. Doom

12 years ago

Good post, Andy.

One of my close friends and I have often remarked that “How many home runs is the all-time record?” has gone from an obvious answer to an obscure one. The single-season mark is, as well. It is interesting, though, that Bonds and Ruth are the only two players to actually unite those two records since the turn of the century.

Mike L

12 years ago

There are too many variable to start to rationalize away Bond’s total as opposed to Aaron’s. Ruth played 15 years for the Yankees, and averaged a Home Run every third game. If he had played those years in the 162 game era, plus the time spent on the Red Sox (which included one year as a regular outfielder) maybe he would have added fifty more. Too many supposes. I think we take the stats as they are and root for whomever we like.

dave

12 years ago

Reply to Mike L

when ruth play, or for the majority of it, i believe the rule was where the home run landed, as in if it landed foul, it was not a home run, only later was it rulled where it crossed the fence. It is said this rule alone would have been good for 50 more homers for the Babe. Lets not even start in with Ted Williams and his lost 5 years at war?

Lawrence Azrin

12 years ago

Sports records by themselves do not have any moral, ethical, or political meanings. They are nothing more than the RECORDing of a particular event that happens on the playing field. To ascribe any meaning beyond that usually reveals more about the writer or speaker, than the record itself. 762 times Barry Bonds stood in the batters box during a regular-season MLB game, hit a baseball fair, and touched all the bases safely after that particular at-bat. To actually deny that Bonds is the current MLB career HR leader, again, reveals far more about the speaker than the record. There is… Read more »

topper009

12 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

This is it, all the baby boomers try to blame everything on steroids because they don’t like players looking better than Aaron or Mays or Mantle. Period. As soon as that generation is done ruling the BBWAA you will see all of the best players from the 90s get in the HOF likely from the Veterans committee. Steroids or not, the best players from each generation should be in the HOF, just because you think Mark McGwire should have hit less HR’s than Mickey Mantle does not mean he wasn’t the best power hitter for an entire generation. What really… Read more »

Editor

John Autin

12 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

I don’t know, Lawrence. I’m not seeing that at all. By the time Bonds was in sight of Aaron’s record, it was already widely (almost universally) believed that he used steroids. Not only that, but he was well-known as a world-class jerk. So I don’t see how anyone could try to tease out other contributing factors (such as baby-boomer anger) from the overall disdain in which he is held. Furthermore, when McGwire (and Sosa) were chasing and then shattering Maris’s season record, I heard almost no negative reaction of the “why, those nervy upstarts!” sort. In general, I think while… Read more »

Author

Andy

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

The phrase “word-class jerk” makes me laugh since it’s somewhat of an oxymoron–being word-class in something bad. It reminds me of something that happened in grad school when my roommate and I had to write a letter of complaint to a neighbor who was engaging in some really troubling behavior–I started the letter “Dear Asshole,” because I couldn’t think of anything else to write, and it just about killed my roommate with laughter.

Lawrence Azrin

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

John A., Well, I didn’t say I agreed entirely with the Baby Boomer theory (I know that sounds like kind of a weasel-ey thing to write), but I believe that it is one of the contributing factors. I do agree that Bonds’ negative personality is a much larger contributor to people’s opinions. I do feel very strongly that any record, such as the career HR record, is simply a number without any other meanings that people may read into it. For instance, I remember back in 1968 (when I just started following MLB), that some old-timers were outraged that Yaz… Read more »

Dr. Remulak

12 years ago

…and Cy Young’s absurd 511 is and likely always be the record and the fact that he pitched in a dead-ball era, with 3 or 4-man rotations, no specialty relievers, and lower game pitch counts as a result of fewer K’s doesn’t warrant an asterisk. So, the wins were racked-up due to 11 seasons with 40+ starts and 12 seasons with more complete games (35+) than today’s pitchers can even hope to start.

Nevertheless, it is still the record…

Lawrence Azrin

12 years ago

Reply to Dr. Remulak

Well, we can distinguish between different eras, to get a better perspective on the meaning of any particular record. For instance, you have to go down to #107 on the record for Single-Season Wins, for a season since the live-ball era started (1920). Looking over all those other seasons (mostly from the 1880s) doesn’t really help you sort out what the best pitching seasons might be.

Andy

12 years ago

Some of you may be misunderstanding the point of my post–I am in no way suggesting that Aaron should be regarded as the official record-holder. I strongly agree with Ben at #1 that the facts are what the facts are. My question is more like this—if asked “Who is the greatest home run hitter of all time?” would more fans answer Aaron or Bonds? I think between the two of them Aaron would win easily. I wonder whether this will change over time or not–my guess is that it will somewhat, as the generation of fans comes along, and they… Read more »

Lawrence Azrin

12 years ago

Reply to Andy

Andy – Sorry, perhaps I phrased that wrong; while there are indeed some fans who do in fact refuse to acknowledge Bonds as the _official_ career MLB HR leader, I was addressing the mindset that while Bonds did indeed pass Aaron, his record still “doesn’t really count” because of PED allegations, in the same way that Roger Maris is still the true single-season HR leader. I think the massive dislike of Bonds will recede somewhat, but never go away entirely – in this internet age, the PED allegations are far too well documented. The positive and negative character traits of… Read more »

Dr. Remulak

12 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

Indeed, Babe Ruth stands alone as the greatest HR hitter of all-time. In 1920, I believe he hit more homeruns than all but one other TEAM. That’s the equivalent of about a 200+ HR season today.

All hail the Bambino!

RealBabesGhost

12 years ago

Reply to Dr. Remulak

Thanks for the kind words Doc

Richard Chester

12 years ago

Reply to Dr. Remulak

He was out-homered by the Phillies and the rest of the Yankee team. He accounted for 8.6% of all the ML homers that year.

Dr. Doom

12 years ago

Reply to Dr. Remulak

I remember a conversation on the old B-R blog, in which Johnny Twisto (why doesn’t he ever post HERE) did a little checking. My guess was that Ruth’s HR totals were more like 80-90 HRs in today’s game, using standard deviations above the 2nd place finisher, rather than looking by percentage. JT looked it up, and backed me up. So, really, Ruth’s best HR seasons (1921, I think, was the example) would be more like 90 HRs today. Nothing to scoff at, but definitely not 200 HR. Nonetheless, your point is valid from the standpoint of sheer dominance of an… Read more »

Author

Andy

12 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

I talk to JT offline all the time…he’s busy now and saving himself for the regular season. He’ll be back.

Lawrence Azrin

12 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

You should check out the book “The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs” by Bill Jenkinson, where he used eye-witness accounts of each of Ruth’s HRs overlaid on modern ballpark dimensions, to estimate how many HR Ruth would’ve hit playing in recent/current times. It’s been mentioned here before.

As the title implies, a peak of 200 HR is ludicrous, but 80-90 HR is a reasonable estimate. This reduces him from being from the planet Krypton, to merely being (still) the greatest slugger ever.

Richard Chester

12 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Also, until 1931, balls hit into the stands on the fair side of the pole and then hooked foul were strikes. He probably lost a few homers that way. Also he lost one walk-off homer because a base-runner scored the winning run.

Dr. Doom

12 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Andy – good to hear about JT. I look forward to his return, as he has traditionally been among the most prolific commenters in this community. L.Az. (someone else used this earlier, and I liked it – hope you don’t mind) – I’ve heard of the book, but never read it. It sounds interesting. Of course, we have the eyewitness accounts to deal with, the changes in pitching quality, etc., etc., etc. Nonetheless, an interesting idea. I’ll check it out sometime. And, obviously, I would agree with the 80-90 estimate. Still shocking and HUGE, but more imaginable. RC – Yes,… Read more »

Lawrence Azrin

12 years ago

Reply to Dr. Remulak

Ruth also hit more HRs than all but one other team in 1927, and hit more HRs than most of the other AL teams several other years. It appears that MLB collectively took about a decade to move from the “inside baseball” approach, to the new power game. Another way of looking at this is comparing Ruth to the other leading HR hitters (throwing out 1922, 1925). In 1920 he has more HR than #2+#3+#4; in 1921 #2+#3; in 1924 the same as #2+#3; in 1926 and 1928, #2+#3. 1929 was the first year he had a full, healthy year… Read more »

Devon

12 years ago

In 1982 (5-6 years after Aaron’s final game), I remember 755 being well known. I was just getting into baseball at that time and even people who weren’t baseball fans knew what 755 and 714 meant. So I think it was pretty well known. Although… it is kinda funny that I didn’t remember 762. Why? Well, deep down, I think bonds was great and would’ve been a HOFer without any enhancements — but I don’t think he would’ve reached 756 without them. That’s the difference in my mind. I could be wrong, but I’d have to be talked & reasoned… Read more »

Voomo Zanzibar

12 years ago

Aaron limped to the finish, hitting at replacement-level his last two years. Bonds was still the most feared hitter in the game his last season and then he couldn’t find a job. Public perception is formed by media outlets with an agenda telling people what to think. This article states that the public doesn’t like Bonds because he is ‘pompous, gruff, and standoffish.’ I haven’t had that experience with Barry Bonds. You know why? Because I have never met him. Never had interesting times with him. Never seen him interact with his family. Never seen what kind of friend he… Read more »

Author

Andy

12 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

Fair points, Voomo, but we have seen Bonds lie to a grand jury, be rude in interviews, and behave in a pompous manner. True, the glimpses we’ve seen on camera are not necessarily representative of his all-around behavior, but if the rest of the population is an indication, his off-camera behavior is WORSE than what we’ve seen. I’m not going by the words of sportswriters–I’m going by what I’ve observed.

Paul E

12 years ago

Reply to Andy

Andy:
We’ve had a president lie to a grand jury about oral sex with an overweight intern for chrissakes and HIS wife became the Secy of State. No damage done there. I just don’t think everyone is or can pretend to be Brooks Robinson or Gary Carter. And if Bonds is such a terrible bastard, what the hell is Greg Anderson keeping quiet for?

Mike Felber

12 years ago

Reply to Paul E

His wife should not suffer for Clinton’s sins, the bigger one still being making it literally a federal case. And of course any generally mean & abusive person-which he was with ex GFs too, which is why she testified against him-can be good to a buddy, especially a supplier or intermediary to illegal activity.

Fireworks

12 years ago

Reply to Mike Felber

She was his mistress and he bought her a house. She testified he threatened to leave her dead in a ditch, cut out her implants, and burn down the house–but he did none of those things. I’m reasonably convinced Bonds did PEDs, and I am aware that sportswriters have for ages painted him as aloof and arrogant (dare I say that whether or not Bonds ever used PEDs, lied to the feds, had a mistress, etc., we’d still very much not like him as a person given the narrative sportswriters had crafted about him over the years). But this woman.… Read more »

Fireworks

12 years ago

Reply to Mike Felber

And please excuse if I seemed to come off as vehement in my remarks. It’s not that I’m some huge Bonds fan, it’s just that I don’t think she should be considered a credible witness, or that Bonds should’ve even been on trial in the first place. The feds have this complex about wasting taxpayer money prosecuting people that they think lied to them (Martha Stewart, Lil’ Kim, Bonds, Clemens), and I think it’s usually a waste of time. Though in Lil’ Kim’s case, lying *in* court about whether or not an individual accused of a shooting was with you… Read more »

Marc C

12 years ago

Reply to Paul E

Why is Greg Anderson keeping quiet? My guess would be unreported income that is subject to tax. 🙂

topper009

12 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

When I was 13 years old I made direct eye-contact with Barry Bonds after he took batting practice, with a card and sharpie in my hand, and asked for an autograph. He laughed a little bit to himself, didn’t say anything, and walked right by me into the clubhouse.

Editor

John Autin

12 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

So you never form opinions of a public figure unless you’ve met him or had a report of his character from someone you know personally? Come on, this is pure denial. There are countless stories of what kind of teammate Bonds was, how he set himself apart from the rest of the Giants. Most of us have heard numerous arrogant, egotistical, tasteless remarks from his own mouth. (“Babe Ruth? Don’t talk about him no more.”) We have court testimony about how he treated (and cheated) his wife and his lovers. Etc., etc., etc. I don’t deny that some sportswriters have… Read more »

Voomo Zanzibar

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

No, JA, I truly don’t form opinions based upon anecdotal info. A lot of my career I’ve been in collaboration with mad-genius creative types. Most of it live theatre. So many times I’ve had people say to me “How do you work with that person?” The implication being that the person is clearly an asshole. And there has been truth to the observation of assholism of some of my associates. And as the sane “Producer” I’ve swallowed many mouthfuls of poop. What I have also observed in over 20 years of said work is that some of the most beautiful,… Read more »

Dave V.

12 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

“It is easy to dismiss a difficult person.
More effort to see through the challenging aspects and see the whole story.”

…or sometimes, someone is just an assh0le.

Editor

John Autin

12 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

About Bonds not being able to find a job after 2007, consider that in his latter seasons he was lustily booed and jeered in every ballpark outside of San Francisco. Even if that was the product of distorted reporting, the hatred was still a fact. What GM would want to tick off his fan base by signing Bonds? Can you imagine the Mets signing Roger Clemens, even if there were no steroid cloud? Also, he was indicted in November 2007, and no one could say for sure when the trial would be or how available he would be to play… Read more »

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

I’ve got to defer to Jeff Pearlman on this one who interviewed over 500 people for his book Love me, Hate me. Pearlman says Bonds is an evil person. Here’s one classic bonds Story via Pearlman:

“I still often think of Dan Peltier, the former Giant backup who brought his young son to the team’s Family Day. When Bonds asked the kid to name his favorite ballplayer, he said, “My dad!” To which Bonds replied, “Why? He never plays.””

http://deadspin.com/281739/jeff-pearlman-on-his-subject-barry-bonds

Voomo Zanzibar

12 years ago

One more point, specific to Bonds. It was his last, or second-to-last year. He was being interviewed at his locker. Amazing amount of people pressed in to get near him. They were close. Real close. Bonds said “You guys are too close. Please, I’m freaking out a little. Please back up.” He said it several times. Nobody backed up. The “public” stopped treating BB like a human being a long time ago. He’s a commodity, a brand, and a villain-persona. Once that de-humanizing shift takes place, it gathers momentum, until otherwise good people don’t think twice about judging him. And… Read more »

Tmckelv

12 years ago

Hey, I want to talk about that baseball card, because it is very interesting. One of my favorite features on Baseball Cards growing in the 1970’s was the “all-star” designation directly in the players card (as opposed to a separate subset, like Topps had done in previous years). 1975 was the first set to utilize this. Like the Pete Rose card shown here. http://www.checkoutmycards.com/Cards,=1975+topps+rose But if you notice, the card at the top of the post is Hank Aaron’s ‘record breaker’ card, not his regular issue card. This is interesting because he has a regular card which shows he had… Read more »

Mike L

12 years ago

It seems to me that how surly a guy appears to be is irrelevant to his stats. We want to put these guys up on pedestals-to be worthy of admiration-and to be aw-shucks about their fame. Part of Babe’s mystique is the visit to the hospital bed of the sick boy, promising him a home run, and then crushing it. And Lou Gehrig is almost like Lincoln, dying a martyr’s death. My mother idolized Joe D-he was class, he was grace, he carried himself regally. But the reality beyond the image was a little less flattering. There are probably a… Read more »

birtelcom

12 years ago

I think part of what is happening with Bonds’ career and season home run records is that as a result of steroids and other developments, the notion of all-time baseball records as totemic numbers is itself eroding. The numbers in other sports have generally been understood as being heavily dependent on changing conditions, rules, and strategies and thus have never really had the same magical associations that certain baseball numbers gathered. After the steroids era, baseball fans may now be catching up to the level of demystification about these things that fans of less venerable sports have shown for a… Read more »

Lawrence Azrin

12 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

…Or maybe baseball historians are becoming better at putting particular statistics in their proper context. Most serious students of the game now understand that many of the pitchers with sub-2.50 ERAs during the Deadball Era (1903-1919) and the Second Deadball Era (1963-68) were not great pitchers, and also that many of the batters with .350+ BA’s from the 30s/40s were also not great HOF-quality hitters.

Michael E Sullivan

12 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

Minor quibble, but even in the 30s/40s, .350 was a damn good BA. I doubt there were many mediocre hitters with .350 seasons even then, and there certainly weren’t many who could do it consistently. Here’s the list of who hit over .350 for their career: Ty Cobb Rogers Hornsby Shoeless Joe The list of players above .330 with at least 3000 PAs after 1901 is 20 players long and 15 of them are hall of famers. Sorting by career WAR, the bottom of the list has 4 guys who don’t belong and aren’t in, but were certainly good players:… Read more »

Lawrence Azrin

12 years ago

Reply to Michael E Sullivan

Michael,, I was not referring to players with lifetime .350+ BA’s, but rather _individual_ seasons of .350+ BA. Obviously Cobb, Hornsby, and Jackson, are all-time great hitters. I am in particular referring to players such as George Burns, Al Wingo, Babe Phelps, Lave Cross, George Watkins, Carl Reynolds, Jack Clements, Freddie Lindstrom, Pie Traynor, Johnny Hadopp, or Bob “Fats” Fothergill; good hitters all, but certainly not close to the most dominant hitters of their time. In 1930, Lindstrom batted .379, and is in the HOF (IMO one of the weakest HOFers). But – in the 1930 NL, there were _nine_… Read more »

Paul E

12 years ago

In general, we know this much: If the journalist gets the interview when in need, that ballplayer becomes more esteemed in his eyes and it’s reflected in his writing. Dick Allen blew off sportswriters his entire career and they portrayed him as a horse’s ass his entire career. Peter Rose always had something to say (and was glad to say it) and he was able to steal an MVP award in 1973 from his own teammates (Bench/Morgan). Reggie Jackson loved talking so much, he started speaking of himself in the third person – THAT’s an asshole

Author

Andy

12 years ago

Reply to Paul E

I’d say Reggie talking about himself in the 3rd person is more indicative of him being what all of these pro athletes are: super-ambitious guys with massive egos. That, in and of itself, doesn’t make him an asshole. I think it’s what leads to him looking at himself as an entity and referring to himself that way. There are plenty of other things about Reggie’s behavior that might mean he’s an asshole, though.

Dr. Remulak

12 years ago

Reply to Andy

Thurman & Billy would back you up on that, Andy.

Timmy Pea

12 years ago

Reply to Dr. Remulak

I was young at Reggie’s peak, but every interview I’ve ever seen with him he comes off very thoughtful, and well spoken.

12 years ago

Reply to Timmy Pea

Reggie claimed to have an IQ of 160. To which Mickey Rivers famously quipped: “Out of what – a thousand?”

Timmy Pea

12 years ago

Reply to Timmy Pea

I’d never heard that,
I would say Reggie’s IQ is much above average.

12 years ago

Reply to Timmy Pea

I don’t really have an opinion re: Reggie’s IQ. I think the quote is more of statement on how disliked Reggie was by his own Yankee teammates.

kds

12 years ago

Reply to Timmy Pea

A couple of years ago there was a book published, “sixty feet six inches”, which was basically interviews with Reggie and Bob Gibson. Lots of questions of the sort, “Reggie, how would prepare to face this pitcher?” And the pitchers included Gibson. Reggie does come across as articulate and intelligent. Gibby, even more so. Lonnie Wheeler is given author credit along with the 2 players.

Doc_Irysch

12 years ago

Reply to Paul E

But when Rickey speaks of himself in the third person – it is just natural.

Mark in Sydney

12 years ago

I think a lot of this comes down to human nature: BB was such a good ball player, right up there with the very best, that we really really wanted to like him. And that wasn’t going to happen. So we end up hating him. Much like Cobb. The trouble is that, because he is who he is, we find ourselves having to form an opinion on his character. And that opinion is formed by the media. And given that he didn’t really play nice with the media, and they ended up hating him, we get the baddie reinforced. $0.02… Read more »

Steven Page

12 years ago

Bonds has the numbers and the record. That’s all, though.

Hank will always be a hero and an inspiration to me. Any kid that I get to coach, in any sport, is pointed to Aaron as an example of “how to face the game, and life”. Character makes Hank bigger than life.

Jeff Hill

12 years ago

Bonds holds the record, Aaron doesn’t, just like McGwire over Maris or whatever. The key is this, each era defined certain players in a certain light based on a truck load of things, a list too long to mention. Bonds was the best pure baseball player since Willie Mays, period! Aaron wasn’t as good at stealing bases or defense as Bonds was(8 gold gloves when the award meant something). People often forget how Bonds played in Candlestick, 3 rivers and At&t for his career home games…notorious pitchers parks. If he had played in Yankee Stadium or the Launching Pad where… Read more »

Author

Andy

12 years ago

Reply to Jeff Hill

Jeff, I don’t particularly agree with you, except echoing what another commenter said above…Ty Cobb was a bastard. His contemporaries knew it, and generations since have known it. But by now, getting to 100 years after the fact, a lot of people have forgotten, and Cobb is generally judged by his numbers and not his reputation. Bonds, meanwhile, is currently experiencing a peak of negative opinion based on his reputation. Cobb probably experienced that too at the equivalent time. 100 years from now, people will likely forget about Bonds’ personality as well.

Thomas

12 years ago

I’m interested in the idea that “Few know Bonds’ final career total” after it was tweeted a few days before this post I asked the 6 people I know who follow baseball (small sample size, not at all random or wide reaching) but 5 knew the exact number and the other said 760something, as well as I knew the exact number. I don’t think we’re the norm here, but I don’t know that only ‘few’ know it.

Author

Andy

12 years ago

Reply to Thomas

If you watched the Twitter traffic when I tweeted that, and that’s a community of baseball stats “experts”. One person even got the number wrong.

Thomas

12 years ago

Reply to Andy

i didn’t, and that’s crazy!

Author

Andy

12 years ago

Reply to Thomas

My reply didn’t make any sense. What I was trying to say was that very few of them knew.

Jeff Hill

12 years ago

Here’s what I do know about Bonds. He was the only player EVER to amass 400HR’s and 400SB’s and he did it by 1998 in his 13th season. FYI, he’s also the lone member of the 500/500 club. That in itself speaks volumes of how great a ballplayer this guy was. Who cares if he was a good guy, this isn’t Gary Carter, Hank Aaron, Cal Ripken Jr. or Tom Glavine here… There are few people in the world who are truly great at something, regardless of job description and not all of them were nice respectable guys. Bonds was… Read more »

PhilM

12 years ago

I’ve written off Bonds for years, until I read that he is offering to put Brian Stow’s kids through college. That’s real life, and for me that trumps his surly attitude to the press or his teammates. And that strikes me as a better measure of the man.

Author

Andy

12 years ago

Reply to PhilM

It says something really sad, either about Bonds or about me, that when I heard this news, the first thing I thought was that Bonds’ publicist suggested the move as a cheap way to buy back some reputation from the public. The few hundred thousand dollars it costs him–even less if done properly in an annuity now–is a pittance of his career earnings and has the effect as stated above.

Still, as you say, it IS reality–many people may have considered such a thing, but only one actually did it.

Mike Felber

12 years ago

Reply to PhilM

OK Phil, so he gets some credit for that, though how much the money means to him/how difficult must be considered. Most who make fortunes give substantial sums to charity, often not just for tax write offs. How does one good thing well measure the whole man? All must be considered, & the evidence shows he was gratuitously nasty to most all he encountered in public, & the private record is not better. 1) I think everyone should be a role model, period. 2) Everyone in society should be a role model, not only for their own self-respect, but for… Read more »

Mike Felber

12 years ago

Records are facts, & even without PEDs Bonds would have likely rated top 10 all time. But drugs made him better in peak & career value than anyone but the Babe. I am surprised the comment about “if” he has been found guilty was not contested. All steroids were banned by commissioner’s edict at the start of the ’90s. They just did not test & punish for it until years later. Look up his testing re: “The Cream” & “The Clear.” He just gave an absurd answer that a control freak did not know what it was. Also, there is… Read more »

Mike Felber

12 years ago

I do not like the simplified conclusion that most all are lemmings conditioned by the sportswriters. Some are, but Bonds was not only mean & abusive to so many, but they also form their own judgements so often about his obvious juicing & how it effected his play. And how it effected the game as a whole. Yesssss-there has been tons of cheating throughout baseball. But we know that changing your whole body via using illegal drugs, in a way you could not naturally normally even with the advanced training alone, can render a large advantage on every play, or… Read more »

Jeff Hill

12 years ago

“The marginal player who took them also often increased ability. This he denied others who were as good or better than him money & their MLB dreams, in some cases”. Those who were as good or better??? I’d love to see some names here. Also, lets not forget all the pitchers Bonds faced who were juiced up as well. He didn’t have any bigger advantage than any other hitter did taking PED’s except he was naturally better at playing the game. I’m sure Aaron, Mays and Mantle didn’t face specialty pitchers who were juiced up, instead they had guys who… Read more »

e pluribus munu

12 years ago

I wonder whether Bonds’s record has not been slow to sink in partly because for a period of time it was unclear that it would be his final number – there was no retirement moment to freeze it in mind: it was an interim total that no one ever wrote on a banner. I think the way Bonds is now viewed can’t be explained by issues of personality or PEDs alone: I think it’s a combination, compounded by the perjury issue. Cobb was probably more disliked within baseball than Bonds (he actually hurt people, on the field and in the… Read more »

Editor

John Autin

12 years ago

Reply to e pluribus munu

Nice analysis, well written. And for those who would compare the treatments of Cobb and Bonds, I would just add that the social norms of Cobb’s era were far different than our own. In baseball, fistfights were way more common then, including fights with opponents, teammates, umpires and fans. I’m not denying that Cobb was among the very worst in this regard, nor that he was a vicious racist and just an awful person in many ways. He may even have thrown a meaningless game or two late in his career, as has been charged. (The same charge has stuck… Read more »

K&J

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

I agree with you John. SI writer Tom Verducci is EXTREMELY outspoken in his great disdain for Bonds and his pledge to never vote for him. I’m sure there are many writers who dislike Bonds and now have “legitimate” reason to vote against him will do just that. I put the quotes around legitimate only because steroids were a condition of the era and their use was widespread. I don’t think some should be punished while others are not. While I’m convinced that the BBWA will never vote Bonds in, I’m very curious to see what happens when popular admitted… Read more »

Mike Felber

12 years ago

epm & John Austin, you are both right on. Jeff Hill, you may misunderstand the short statement i quoted. Notice i said the “marginal” player denied others a shot at MLB. This clearly has nothing to do with superstars with Bonds, who distorted the games & records more through the gravitational pull of his natural talent combined with drugs. You can pick any at best mediocre player, say, named in the Mitchell report or who has been caught by drug testing, & logically some of them would not have been starters, some not made the majors, absent drugs. Thus they… Read more »

Mike Felber

12 years ago

Incidentally, anyone who was clearly good enough for the Hall absent using drugs, & admits & apologizes for it fully: i would put them in. But not those who damaged the game so much, tangibly, reputation-wise, essentially stole glory, money, & victories, & still lies to our face about it.

This is a rare case where the ethical offense is not only strong, but so relevant to the game that the character clause should certainly be invoked.

Mike L

12 years ago

I don’t think anyone wants to mock the character clause. It’s my impression, not just from reading sports columnists but also the comments I see on this site, that most of us are really conflicted on how to rationalize the entire era. We know a lot of players juiced. We know that very often when the juiced hitter came to the plate, he was facing the juiced pitcher. We can look at the leader-boards and the stats and we know they are in some way fake. And it pisses us off because it taints our personal history. Winning is sweet,… Read more »

K&J

12 years ago

Reply to Mike L

And this how I come to terms with this: The steroids problem was with Major League Baseball, not with the individual players. By completely, totally ignoring the insane prevalence of steroids in the game at the turn of the century, MLB not only made steroid use permissible, but almost made it necessary to compete. If MLB had taken their responsibility to keep the game clean when they first became aware of the problem, steroids would not be an issue today. I’m not going to change anybody’s mind about Bonds. However, when Bonds made the decision to use steroids, it was… Read more »

Mike L

12 years ago

Reply to K&J

I’m not going to argue with anyone’s way of reconciling this, given how complex the issue is. I certainly agree that MLB and the MLBPA were complicit in this-both put dollars above principle, even after they became aware of the scope of the problem. But from my perspective, I can’t equate the accomplishments of the players who juiced to the players who didn’t. I’m not standing at the door of Cooperstown with a pitchfork and a torch, and I’m not telling anyone else what to think or who to root for. But I don’t see it as a witch-hunt for… Read more »

Editor

John Autin

12 years ago

Reply to K&J

The fact that leaders failed does not excuse the actions of individuals.

And while I can forgive a hungry man for stealing bread, I can’t forgive a megamillionaire who was already considered one of the very best in the game for cheating in order to recoup his “rightful” place in terms of status and compensation.

What you call “addressing an imbalance,” I call an unethical and jealous response. To copy the bad behavior of others, without first making an effort to bring their misdeeds to justice, is dishonorable.

Mike Felber

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

Amen John. K & J, I respect your intelligence, but your argument is an extreme one that obviates personal responsibility. It is not a “witch hunt”, by historical comparisons or any loose logical analogy, to hold players accountable who helped warp the integrity, reputation, & ultimately success of the game. Especially if we are going to honor guys, or care about who did what & deserves how much credit. Bonds would still have been a star & made millions. He did not need to cheat & lie to compete. MLB should apologize as you say. If men have free well… Read more »

K&J

12 years ago

Reply to Mike Felber

I respect both your and John’s opinions on Bonds. It’s not my intent to excuse Bonds (or any juicer) from taking personal responsibility for his actions. However I place more responsibility on those who are charged with making and enforcing rules rather than those who are subject to them. Mike, you take this to a higher level and imply that Bonds not only shouldn’t have used steroids, but also that he had a responsibility to take action and help fix the steroid problem. Yet no one, absolutely NO ONE acted as if there was a problem. MLB was trying to… Read more »

Bill

12 years ago

Look at Bonds Homers and age from 2000-2004. Something is wrong.Hank Aaron is the official King.

randyr

12 years ago

the 762 number left me feeling robbed. All this pontification led to the early retirement of demonstrably the greatest hitter of his time. Say what you will but anyone channel surfing coming across Bonds up or due up would come to a screeching halt to see what he would do. Seemingly three true outcomes when he was up. Seemingly… who else does that now? Bautista? Puhols? mighty short line How many more would he have hit if he had played three more years? How many would have he hit without the huge number of intentional walks.? So yeah he was… Read more »

DaveR

12 years ago

Reply to randyr

I think Jordan’s “exile” was David Stern’s consternation at MJ’s gambling. I think Stern had a decision to make whether to suspend the greatest draw in the NBA, or tell him to take time off to let the public forget his illegal debts. So Jordan played baseball.

Mike Felber

12 years ago

Jordan had his dark side, but he was not habitually mean & abusive to friends, fans, & teammates. Bonds had already missed virtually a whole year, seemed to have a stereotypical steroid injury, & his knees in particular were in bad shape. Who thought he coiuld have done 3 more years? Possibly p/t, with the DH. I admired his Zen like focus & ability & skill at the plate. but he NEVER would have been that good absent the power bought from cheating & drugging up. He could not settle for just being one of the greats & the best… Read more »

K&J

12 years ago

Reply to Mike Felber

Bull. Being conservative here, I probably watched 1/4 of Bonds’ ABs when he was with the Giants. I know what Bonds was swinging at. I know what pitchers were throwing him. Bonds had a spectacular eye. I am not engaging in hyperbole. He knew the strike zone and almost never swung outside of it. In May of 2001 the Giants played a 3-game series in Atlanta. Bonds hit 6 HRs in the series. This is when I begin to notice players in the other dugout would come up on the top steps to watch Bonds. They would stop and make… Read more »

Mike Felber

12 years ago

Reply to K&J

First, there are plenty of analysis that show Bonds was given more walks than anyone who was an overall?HR threat at his level should get. Even WITH all the walks his best years were around, & peak barely above, The Babe for OPS +. And Babe dwarfed him in how good at HRs he was compared to the league, certaibly & especially in his early & mid 20 years. OK, I did not see all those games. I did not dispute, instead I paid tribute, to how great he was at hitting. Also, he ofetn got few good pitches to… Read more »

MikeD

12 years ago

“Much of the resistance to Aaron was based in racism…” — While racism played a part, my guess is it had more to do with the iconic nature of the man he was replacing at the top of the HR list, Babe Ruth, who still to this day transends any ballplayer, holding a mythic spot in American culture. Roger Maris, like Aaron, faced tremendous hate (and from Yankees fans!), received death threats, and was under enormous stress to the point that his hair was falling out as he challenged Ruth’s single-season HR record. To say the least, there was great… Read more »

Dr. Remulak

12 years ago

Reply to MikeD

Exactly, Mike D (love you in the Beastie Boys, by the way). As a young Yankee fan, I was rooting against Aaron simply for the preservation of the sanctity of the beloved and iconic Ruthian number. It could have been Eddie Matthews and I would have felt the same way. And I seethed (and still do) at Ripken hurting his team and refusing to take a day off in his pursuit of Gehrig’s record. I’m sure race played some role in the Aaron case, particularly in the south, but you are right, for most of us, it was hard to… Read more »

Richard Chester

12 years ago

Reply to Dr. Remulak

Sorry to disappoint you but Whitey Ford broke that consecutive scoreless innings record, in 1961 no less.

Dr. Remulak

12 years ago

Reply to Richard Chester

Thanks Richard. I can live with that, Yankee bumping Yankee.

Voomo Zanzibar

12 years ago

Reply to Dr. Remulak

Kind of unfair to Ripken.
Obviously Cal wasn’t the saint that he was made out to be,
(what? but he’s an Ambassador of the Game, he is the anti-Bonds!!!),
but its pure speculation to say that his offense would have improved if he took a day off.

He played three + years with a replacement level bat before breaking the record, but his defense was still superb.
2.3 dWar in ’95.

Would the Orioles really have been better off if Jeff Huson and his 64 ops+ gave Cal a rest?

MikeD

12 years ago

Reply to Dr. Remulak

Yes. Lou Gehrig/Cal Ripken is another good comparison. When Ripken was approaching Gehrig’s record, my mother mentioned to me that she didn’t know “how she felt” about Ripken passing Gehrig. My mother never really said anything negative about anyone, so that was her gentle way of saying she didn’t like the idea at all. I understood. I could have told her (as I actually did) that by all indications Cal Ripken was a good person and a hard-working baseball player, not like the many players that make it into the news for all the wrong reasons, but that wasn’t the… Read more »

Dr. Remulak

12 years ago

Reply to MikeD

I am Dr. Remulak (repeat as necessary).

Caught the reference I see, Mikey.

Richard Chester

12 years ago

Reply to MikeD

When Maris broke Ruth’s record there were only 23,000 people at the game. If Mantle were challenging the record there probably would have been 63,000.

Editor

John Autin

12 years ago

Reply to Richard Chester

Richard, I’ve no doubt that Mantle was more popular, but I think you’re missing an important piece of that story. Commissioner Ford Frick had stated earlier that Maris would not be recognized as breaking Ruth’s record unless he did it within 154 games; if he did it during the extra 8 games of the new schedule, it would be listed as a separate record for the 162-game schedule. The whole “asterisk” thing. So when Maris didn’t get the record by game 154, a lot of the excitement faded. I suspect this was enhanced by the fact that 1961 was the… Read more »

Richard Chester

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

There was no need to promote that game, everybody knew about it.

oneblankspace

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

Also, in 1961, the National League only played 154 games.

TrivialSteve

12 years ago

My guess is that 25 years down the road, Bonds will be thought of in the same way Hornsby and maybe Cobb are thought of today – a talented player whose accomplishments are undermined by the era in which they were achieved and who is considered an ass. It may be decades before someone challenges Bonds HR, OBP and walk records, but no one will give them the respect they would normally deserve (if he wasn’t a cheater and an ass).

Mike Felber

12 years ago

Your passion does not seem mean spirited or personal Fireworks: & given your moniker, I would expect some sparks! 😉 But I do wonder if some personal feelings about woman invade your reasoning here. 1st, nobody SHOULD be silent if abused. That you are rich & choose to give to a love, lover or to get a woman does not mean it is still no vicious abuse where the guy shlould be publicly shamed & go to jail. If true. Is it? I can accept that I cannot know with any degree of certainty, re: those worst charges. But why… Read more »

Fireworks

12 years ago

Reply to Mike Felber

I wasn’t saying that abuse victims should be silent. I was saying mistresses that benefit financially have an obligation to keep quiet. That’s a mistress’ job–to reap the benefits of an illicit relationship and to keep her mouth shut. Additionally while if he said those things they are vile things to say, if every public figure had the vilest things they said in private arguments revealed in public we’d have no respect for anyone. I just don’t believe she should be part of that case. And I still don’t find her credible because she did the whole attention-whore trifecta: hurt… Read more »

Drew

12 years ago

To get as good as he was (which was basically Babe Ruth-level, only in an era where the rest of the league could actually play), Bonds probably still had to work 10 times harder than anyone else, ‘roids/cream/PED’s or not, as far as working out, watching tapes, taking BP. He didn’t just take some magic pill and get a lot better so he could hit 73 home runs instead of 45. If I’m wrong, and he did not in fact work out extra hard in the late 90’s, and all he did was take some drugs to inflate his head… Read more »

air compressor

11 years ago

I am curious to finbd out what blog platform you’re using?

I’m having some small security issues wioth my latest sie and I woild llike to find something mor secure.

Do you ave any recommendations?

Arthur H

10 years ago

Hank Aaron is still the home run king. How many home runs would he have hit had he been as supplemented as Bonds was? Maybe Aaron could have hung around a couple of years longer. Nevertheless Aaron still finished with 755. You can argue that Ruth was the greatest but I hate to compare his era to Aaron’s and Bonds’. When all is said and done in my heart and mind Henry Aaron is the King…..