Most Unbreakable
All this talk surrounding the home run record being "broken" by Bonds has got me thinking about baseball records. At one time, Ruth's 714 was considered untouchable. Now, Bonds's record seems likely to be broken in about 5-10 years by A-Rod. Baseball has several "unbreakable" records, but I was wondering which one is the most unbreakable. Let's examine some of them...
Joe DiMaggio - 56-Game Hitting Streak
2nd Place: Willie Keeler with a 45-Game Streak
This is largely considered one of the most unbreakable records in baseball. However, when I look at the list, I don't see it as a front-runner. The fact is that while no one else has a 50 game streak, 5 other players have a 40-game streak or longer. No one has been within 10 of DiMaggio, but several are within 15. As recently as last season, Jimmy Rollins had a 38-game streak. [NOTE: Luis Castillo is tied for 11th with a 35-game streak he had in 2002 with the Marlins]. This certainly is a very tough record to ever break, but in my opinion, it's not the toughest.
Nolan Ryan - 5714 Career Strikeouts
2nd Place: Roger Clemens with 4653
Well, this one's a doozy. Roger Clemens has had a long, dominating career, and he's still more then 1000 K's short. Randy Johnson might still pass Clemens, and both might close to within 1000 before it's all said and done, but in the era of 5-man pitching staffs, this record is very safe.
Pete Rose - 4256 Career Hits
2nd Place: Ty Cobb with 4191
Here we have a mountain of a record. 4,000 hits is a ridicules mark to reach. Only 2 players have achieved it. This record stands as potentially unbreakable because of the amount of longevity needed to accomplish it. Still, the fact that Rose is only 65 hits above Cobb lends one to believe that someone else will come along that will reach the 4000 hit plateau. -And with the advancements in sports medicine that we have today, that next person just might break the record. IMO, this record is one of the weaker ones on the list. [NOTE: Hank Aaron is 3rd on the all-time hits list with 3771. To put that into perspective, Bonds has only 2915 hits. Anyone who calls Bonds the best hitter ever is an idiot. Hammerin' Hank is very under-appreciated.]
Cy Young - 517 Career Wins
2nd Place: Walter Johnson with 411
This one gets my vote. Absolutely untouchable. Cy leads this category by 106 wins! When we're talking about the possibility of no pitcher ever reaching 300 again because of the 5-man rotation, 500 seems downright silly.
Henry Aaron - 2297 Career RBI
2nd Place: Babe Ruth with 2213
At first glance, this seems rock solid. However, after thinking about it more and looking at the list, it feels weaker. Only 2 players in the modern era have eclipsed 2000 RBI, and Aaron has almost 2300. Bonds will be the third to reach 2000, but I doubt that he'll come close to Aaron. However, this record also falls under the "Lookout for A-Rod" umbrella. Rodriguez will pass 1500 next season. In the end, it will likely fall, and this record is probably the flimsiest on my list.
Ricky Henderson - 1406 Stolen Bases
2nd Place: Lou Brock with 938
Well, here we have a strong sleeper. No one thinks about the stolen base record as "hallowed." At least not nearly as much as most of the other records on this list. Still, Ricky Henderson's record is astonishing. He leads in the category by 468. Here's a better way of putting it: He as 1.5 times as many stolen bases as the next player on the list. That's almost 50% more. The sheer gap between Henderson and everyone else should make this a very "unbreakable" record.
Well, let the discussion begin on which record is the least likely to be broken. Personally, I'd put Cy Young's 517 wins first, and Ricky Henderson's 1406 Stolen Bases second. Also, please let me know if I missed any untouchable records that should be included in the discussion.
0 recs |
54 comments
Comments
I think it's almost unfair...
The hits/steals/wins/rbi/k's aren't THAT impressive to me just because they're either all about longevity or just in a completely different era. If we were on a similar scale I'd think all of them could be broken. But we're just not. Hits may be broken someday anyway for longevity's sake, and RBI's certainly will, IMO, but steals just aren't a big part of the game anymore with more power, and wins are obviously tougher because of the changes in staffs. Same for K's. It's a shame that Randy ran into injury problems because a few years ago I really thought he had a shot at it.
But 56 games of hits still is far and away the most IMPRESSIVE record in the game, and in all of sports, to me. Because it still is within the same fittings of the game today. And I just don't see anyone doing it anytime soon.
One more that obviously we'll probably never see broken; 2 no-hitters in a row.
by djskilbr on Aug 9, 2007 3:18 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't understand the talk...
NOTE: Hank Aaron is 3rd on the all-time hits list with 3771. To put that into perspective, Bonds has only 2915 hits. Anyone who calls Bonds the best hitter ever is an idiot. Hammerin' Hank is very under-appreciated.
Puh-lease. Aaron had 1402 career walks to Bonds' 2540 career walks. Adjusted for park and era, Bonds has hit about .302/.447/.613 and Aaron has hit about .315/.385/.573. Aaron was a better hitter for average, but the gap between Aaron and Bonds in OBP is huge. The gap in power is not as large as OBP, but there's still a noticable gap there. However he got there, Bonds has been a better hitter than Aaron was.
Pete Rose - 4256 Career Hits
2nd Place: Ty Cobb with 4191
I don't think the hits record is especially unbreakable. If you take Ichiro's hits in Japan and the US, he's over 2,900 and he's only 33 years old. Now, you say, it's tougher to get a hit in MLB than in Japan, and that's true, but they also play ~130 game seasons in Japan. Eventually someone will come along and break Rose's record.
by ubelmann on Aug 9, 2007 3:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this...
by djskilbr on Aug 9, 2007 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and...
by djskilbr on Aug 9, 2007 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cal Ripken Jr.
by rayken on Aug 9, 2007 3:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I hate that record...
by djskilbr on Aug 9, 2007 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree.
by Neil on Aug 9, 2007 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep...
by djskilbr on Aug 9, 2007 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hitters
What do walks have to do with hitting? The reality is Bonds walks a lot. He doesn't swing at a lot of pitches some other hitters swing at. But those hitters also get hits when they swing at some of those pitches where Bonds ends up with a walk. So are we talking about who walks more, or who is the better hitter. Because Aaron is clearly the better hitter.
It simply will not happen.
That is what was said of Gherig's record. The Cy Young record is not breakable in the modern era, it would take a dramatic change in the the nature of the game for anyone to even have a chance.
Henderson's record is remarkable because it came in the era of the home run. Its not the era that has changed, its that there has never been a player remotely like Rickey Henderson. His combination of base stealing, power and on base percentage are unique in the history of the game.
by TT on Aug 9, 2007 11:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Walks
by TheMattWilke on Aug 9, 2007 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not unfair...
What do walks have to do with hitting? Heh. And I thought it was the stat guys who supposedly never watched baseball.
by ubelmann on Aug 9, 2007 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hitter vs. Offensive player
Also, "What do walks have to do with hitting?" seems like kind of a silly question - there are very few players who can be successful swinging at any old thing the pitchers throw at them. Taking a walk lets the pitcher know that you are willing to wait for a decent pitch to hit, improving your chances of getting that pitch in a subsequent at bat.
by BeefMaster on Aug 9, 2007 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Part time hitter
The fact is Aaron was more likely than Bonds to get a hit when he came to the plate. By a pretty good margin.
As for Bond's walks, I think those numbers are misleading. A lot of Bond's walks are in situations where you want a hit because the pitcher would rather give him a base than put the ball where he will swing at it. He gets his hits in situations where a hit has less value. And the fact is Bond's does not score very often when he gets on base.
As a result of his walks, the offensive value of Bond's average and slg are misleading because he just doesn't get that many at bats.
by TT on Aug 9, 2007 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re:
Fixed
by TheMattWilke on Aug 9, 2007 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bad Pitches
But to give you some idea of how misleading Bond's averages are, if he had hit home runs at the same rate in the plate appearances where he walked in 2001 as he did the rest of the time he would have hit 27 more home runs to reach 100 on the year.
by TT on Aug 9, 2007 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re:
by TheMattWilke on Aug 9, 2007 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What doesn't make sense to you
by TT on Aug 9, 2007 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
IBB
by BeefMaster on Aug 9, 2007 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Intentional Walks
The simple reality is Barry Bonds walks a lot. Some of those are intentional, but a lot of them aren't. He makes it easy for pitchers to pitch around him.
by TT on Aug 9, 2007 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh Right
Also, I know it isn't hitting, but it is offensive, but Bonds has twice as many stolen bases in his career over Aaron.
by AdamOnFirst on Aug 9, 2007 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Walks
by TT on Aug 9, 2007 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh Yeah
It's just semantics, no big deal.
Speaking of steals, I think that's something the Twins offense is missing big time right now. Going into the allstar break they were tied for second in the AL with most steals and were by a wide margin the most successful team as far as success percentage when trying to steal (85%!). It was a major contributor to the runs we were scoring. But after the break we are in 11th in the AL with only 11 steals, and we've been caught 8 times for a harmful 58% success rate.
I mean, guys like Victor Martinez, he's TERRIBLE at throwing out runners (historically less than 30%)! In the 7 games we've played the Indians since the break, Martinez has caught 5 of them, and we've only attempted 2 steals in those games and only been successful twice. Martinez's backup, Kelly Shoppach is not a whole lot better at throwing out runners than Martinez is. That isn't enough, especially considering how close those games were.
by AdamOnFirst on Aug 10, 2007 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re:
by TheMattWilke on Aug 10, 2007 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
by TMoney on Aug 9, 2007 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Numbers
Aaron: 1 run/2.38 times on base
Bonds: 1 run/2.47 times on base
It really doesn't seem like a big difference to me. Realistically, when you're talking about the likelihood of scoring after reaching base, a walk is as good as a single.
by BeefMaster on Aug 9, 2007 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
On Base
by TT on Aug 9, 2007 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So Does
by AdamOnFirst on Aug 9, 2007 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Home Runs
If we are talking about hitting Aaron has 800 more hits than Bonds, but 1100 fewer walks. How do those translate to offense?
The fact is that Bonds has only scored 40 more runs than Aaron, despite all those extra times on base from walks. On the other hand Aaron has over 300 more runs driven in.
by TT on Aug 9, 2007 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
why are we
by TMoney on Aug 9, 2007 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seconded...
by djskilbr on Aug 9, 2007 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Team versus Player
That is obviously not true. Just take a look at any team, some players score more runs than others and some drive in more runs than others. The team plays a role, but hardly "as much" as the player. And its "just dumb" to suggest otherwise.
And the reason runs and rbi's matter is that is the way the game is scored.
by TT on Aug 10, 2007 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm
by AdamOnFirst on Aug 10, 2007 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Team dependency
- playing time
- spot in the lineup (i.e. no. of PA/G)
- random variance
By the way, who wants to know who's the better hitter if "hitting" only means your ability to get base hits? There are plenty of other ways you can benefit your team other than getting base hits - like, for example, drawing tons of walks.
If hitting was only judged by base hits - and by extension batting average - a player who got intentionally walked every time he was at the plate would be deemed a lousy hitter. And that sure doesn't make sense.
by PhoenixV on Aug 10, 2007 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Watch the Money
# spot in the lineup (i.e. no. of PA/G)
# random variance
How well a player hits has nothing to do with it? If you just stick Punto in the cleanup spot he would drive in as many runs as Morneau?
they just say very little
Actually, they say quite a bit. Which is why players who score a lot or drive in a lot of runs get paid a lot of money.
by TT on Aug 10, 2007 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Extremes
Using runs and RBI's to judge a player's worth is much like judging a factory worker's effectiveness by the whole factory's productivity.
To see why, let's look at an extreme case:
By accident, player A always gets to lead off the inning when he's at bat. He hits a triple every time up, but the following three batters in the lineup all strike out every time. That leaves player A with 0 runs and 0 RBI on the season, but with a slugging percentage of 3.000. Is player A a bad hitter?
Your argument about the big RBI guys getting the most money is just plain silly, I'm sorry to say. That argument is based on the idea that MLB front offices know how to value their players perfectly and that is most definitely not the case, because many of them reason in much the same way you do. So in reality, your argument is circulatory.
by PhoenixV on Aug 11, 2007 7:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fans View
And you know better? OK.
By accident, player A always gets to lead off the inning when he's at bat.
Accidents can apply to anything and can effect any statistic. You are speculating that over several thousand times on base and plate appearances that there is some "accident" that gave Aaron an advantage, but it is just as easy to speculate that Bond's got the advantage of an "accident" and the actual gap is even wider.
by TT on Aug 11, 2007 9:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Production
Its like judging two factory workers by comparing how much they produce.
by TT on Aug 11, 2007 9:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not what I said
- No, I don't think that I'm better at evaluating players than MLB front offices. But I think that using a combination of traditional scouting and advanced data and analysis from experts such as Baseball Prospectus would greatly enhance any team's chance of winning.
- My argument is not based on the idea of "accidents". It simply shows that runs og RBI's are a very flawed way of looking at player productivity, since (as in the extreme case described above) they are very team dependent and show very little about the individual player.
- Your crude rephrasing of my factory analogy has no basis in reality since:
- RBI's and runs are (e.g. in MVP voting) used to discern between players from different teams ("factories").
- Even inside the same team, players' RBI and run totals are greatly affected by their spot in the batting order as noted above. Thus, to expand on the analogy, you are in fact comparing two workers who have different co-workers (the guys batting in front and behind the batter) and different working hours (the number of chances that a player gets to prove himself).
by PhoenixV on Aug 11, 2007 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What you said
I don't think that I'm better at evaluating players than MLB front offices.
But that is what you claimed, that the value major league teams place on runs scored and rbi's when determining salaries is wrong, that you and Baseball Prospectus know better.
My argument is not based on the idea of "accidents"
Then why did you make an argument based on that? I didn't introduce that term, you did.
Your crude rephrasing of my factory analogy has no basis in reality since:
I didn't rephrase it, I quoted it - directly. Again, you seem to be complaining about me responding to what you said rather than what you had hoped to say.
RBI's and runs are (e.g. in MVP voting) used to discern between players from different teams ("factories").
Every other statistic compares players from different "factories as well". In fact from year to year those "factories" change. So we are actually comparing Aaron's production at the factories he worked at to Bond's at the factories he worked at. Is there any evidence the factories are the reason for the difference? No, at least none that has been presented here.
And, as I pointed out above, the fact that Bond's drives in fewer runs is exactly what you would expect given that he is much more likely to walk and less likely to get a hit when he comes to the plate. You are essentially speculating that there might be some other reason, when the evidence available points to an obvious explanation.
Even inside the same team, players' RBI and run totals are greatly affected by their spot in the batting order as noted above.
Of course they are affected, but not nearly as greatly as you suggest.
But more to the point, the value of results depends on players place in the order as well and for much the same reason. A home run by a guy in the middle of the order is often more valuable than a home run by the leadoff hitter. And a walk by the leadoff hitter is often more valuable than a walk by a guy in the middle of the order. Aaron and Bonds were both middle of the order hitters.
by TT on Aug 11, 2007 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't bother...
Be smart and get out of this ridiculous debate now.
by djskilbr on Aug 11, 2007 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stathead Religion
Yeh, get that old stathead religion. Runs only matter in terms of who wins a game. They only matter in determining salaries. They only matter in real baseball. They don't matter in the stathead religion.
Instead of repeating the stathead rosary, maybe you should acknowledge the obvious. Bond's having fewer RBI's than Aaron is exactly what you would expect given their individual stats.
by TT on Aug 11, 2007 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nobody
by TMoney on Aug 11, 2007 9:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wins and Losses
Apparently a lot of people here are. Since that Cy Young victory total being the record least likely to be broken, one would assume it has some meaning.
no one is here to argue that runs aren't important for teams
How do you speak for everyone here? I would argue that runs scored isn't an important measure for a team, wins is. But that is hardly what is being discussed here is it?
Is there anyone here who wants to argue that the reason Bonds has scored more runs than Aaron isn't that he has gotten on base more often? I doubt it. But they appear quick to deny the reason he has fewer RBI's that Aaron is that he has many fewer hits and fewer extra base hits.
by TT on Aug 12, 2007 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I
by AdamOnFirst on Aug 13, 2007 2:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Records
So we have an unbreakable record that doesn't matter. Who has the record for most foul balls? Most batters faced? If wins don't matter, no one would care and there wouldn't be a record of them at all.
The problem is that people are doing evaluations of players based on some abstract theory that separates the players from the context of their actual accomplishments. So teams get rated on run differential, instead of how many games they won. Likewise winning games is not a measure of pitching success. And producing runs is not a measure of a player's offensive value.
by TT on Aug 13, 2007 9:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most
by AdamOnFirst on Aug 13, 2007 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hits
by TT on Aug 11, 2007 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fixed numbers
Bonds: 1 R/2.12 times on base
Aaron: 1 R/2.03 times on base
The difference between them is pretty close to the same as before.
I would point out that while it's true Bonds was less likely to score after reaching base, that misses a larger point: Because he reached base so much more often than Aaron, Bonds was more likely to score each time he came to the plate.
Bonds: 1 R/5.66 PA
Aaron: 1 R/6.41 PA
by BeefMaster on Aug 10, 2007 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Runs and RBI's
And less likely to drive in a run. That may be because he had fewer opportunities. But I doubt it, since it reflects what you would expect to happen when someone walks as much as Bonds does.
My point is not that walks have no value, but that people are overvaluing Bonds in two different ways. They overvalue his walks. And they overvalue his batting and slugging averages.
here's the correct value ((H + BB - HR) / R):
I think the correct formula is (H+BB-HR)(R-HR), but if you flip it over it gives a more baseball like average (R-HR)(H+BB+HR):
Bonds (2213-757)(2916+2541-757) = .310
Aaron (2174-755)(3771+1402-755) = .321
That isn't huge, but it isn't insignificant either.
by TT on Aug 10, 2007 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Total Bases is the key
by nathaneide on Aug 9, 2007 12:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That's another thing for Aaron...
by Flip27 on Aug 9, 2007 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Longevity...
Hank Aaron was great and all, but as a hitter, he couldn't hold Ted Williams' jock.
by djskilbr on Aug 9, 2007 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
by TMoney on Aug 9, 2007 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think
But those pitching ones kind of have a big generational divide. Cy Young pitched every cuple of days! We almost need new records. Hitting record have era gaps as well, but not as big a the pitchers' ones.
I'd say Dimagio's record is pretty insane though. Statistically speaking, most of baseball's other records were statistically likely to happen. Dimagio's is a crazy outlier. It's something like if you had 25 .400 hitters in baseball every year and 50 .350 hitters it would take like a dozdn years to have a 50-50 shot of having such a streak. It isn't even close to likely.
I don't think Rose's record is really weak, but I do think it will probably be broken by some new great hitter some day.
by AdamOnFirst on Aug 9, 2007 3:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
















