Twinkie Town: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: Sounder At Heart for Seattle Sounders Fans!

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.

Poll
What baseball record is the most unbreakable?
56-Game Hitting Streak - Joe DiMaggio
10 votes
5714 Career Strikeouts - Nolan Ryan
3 votes
4256 Career Hits - Pete Rose
0 votes
517 Career Wins - Cy Young
28 votes
2297 Career RBI - Henry Aaron
0 votes
1406 Stolen Bases - Ricky Henderson
4 votes

45 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs  |  Comment 54 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

I think it's almost unfair...
to group these together.

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...
...of no one ever getting to 300 wins again.  Glavine pitched basically his whole career in a five-man rotation, and he's far from an inner circle Hall of Famer.  It's not going to happen a lot, but someone will definitely get to 300 wins again.

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...
Rose's record will be broken at some point.  And yes, Bonds is a better hitter than Aaron was.  But that's kind of a moot point because noone TOUCHES Ted Williams as a hitter.  I believe he led his league in OPS/OBP his ENTIRE career other than like 1-2 years, and those were either close or he had missed some time.

by djskilbr on Aug 9, 2007 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh, and...
I still think there's an outside shot that you give him his 5 years of war time, and HE's even the HR record-holder as well.

by djskilbr on Aug 9, 2007 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Cal Ripken Jr.
2632 consecutive games played. The only other player in the last 20 years to even bother mentioning was Miguel Tejada, and his streak of 1152 ended earlier this year. That's less than halfway there. With a 162 game season, a player would have to play in every single game for 16.25 consecutive seasons. It simply will not happen.
Replace Nick Punto.

by rayken on Aug 9, 2007 3:46 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I hate that record...
because while partially impressive, it's misleading.  Ripken HURT his team by playing a lot of those games, especially towards the end.

by djskilbr on Aug 9, 2007 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree.
This one goes under the "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" category.

by Neil on Aug 9, 2007 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yep...
plus the fact that Ripken, while good, can't hold Gehrig's jock.  And stupid fans seem to think he can because of that BS record.

by djskilbr on Aug 9, 2007 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hitters
However he got there, Bonds has been a better hitter than Aaron was.

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
Walks have everything to do with hitting.  Particularly how much pitchers have feared Bonds so much.  There are many late inning situations in which Bonds is so feared that he is intentionally walked or the strikezone is nibbled on so much that he's given little to hit.  Therefore, comparing Aaron and Bonds' AVGs is unfair due to the wide gap in their OBP.  The fact is that Barry has been far less likely to make an out than Aaron.  Not making outs and helping your team score runs is the essence of hitting.  I'm not saying Bonds was better, but saying Aaron was a better hitter than Bonds based on AVG is very unfair.  

by TheMattWilke on Aug 9, 2007 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not unfair...
...so much as it is incomplete.

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
I guess it depends on your definition of "hitter" - if you're talking about nothing more than how often you get base hits, then sure, you can make the argument for Aaron, because he had more hits and a slightly higher batting average.  I believe ubelmann was saying "hitter" in the sense of "offensive player", and I would argue that Bonds' walks made a contribution to his offensive value that outweighs Aaron's advantage in hits.

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
I would argue that Bonds' walks made a contribution to his offensive value that outweighs Aaron's advantage in hits.

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:
"The fact is Aaron was more likely than Bonds to get a GOOD PITCH TO hit when he came to the plate. By a pretty good margin."

Fixed

by TheMattWilke on Aug 9, 2007 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Bad Pitches
Maybe, but I doubt it. I think Aaron hit bad pitches that Bonds doesn't swing at.

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:
Did that make sense to anyone else?

by TheMattWilke on Aug 9, 2007 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

What doesn't make sense to you
That Aaron hit bad pitches or that Bond's walks make his high batting and slugging averages misleading?

by TT on Aug 9, 2007 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

IBB
Bonds has received almost 400 more intentional walks than Aaron, in 1500 fewer plate appearances.  That's a lot fewer pitches to hit.

by BeefMaster on Aug 9, 2007 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Intentional Walks
He also has 860 fewer hits, so even if he got a hit every time he was intentionally walked, he still wouldn't be getting a hit as often as Aaron.

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
Oh right, and I forgot that walks are bad because they clog up the bases.

Also, I know it isn't hitting, but it is offensive, but Bonds has twice as many stolen bases in his career over Aaron.

Baseball is great because you cant take a knee or kill the clock. You gotta put the ball over the plate and give the other guy his damn shot E Weaver abridged

by AdamOnFirst on Aug 9, 2007 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Walks
The fact is Barry hasn't scored that often, no matter how many bases he has stolen. But is the argument now that base stealing is part of hitting? Because I certainly think it plays a role in the value of some players production at the plate. I don't think anyone doubts Rickey Henderson's walks were more valuable than Frank Thomas's.

by TT on Aug 9, 2007 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh Yeah
No, I mean, I was saying that stealing bases isn't a part of HITTING so much, but it is a part of the offensive game.  I mean, if we're talking about the best pure hitter, steals don't really come into play, and it looked like that's what we were talking about here, but obviously steals can be an important part of an offensive game.

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.

Baseball is great because you cant take a knee or kill the clock. You gotta put the ball over the plate and give the other guy his damn shot E Weaver abridged

by AdamOnFirst on Aug 10, 2007 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re:
You forgot the 1139 more non-intentional walks Barry's received.  That's about 2 seasons of plate appearances of pitchers not giving him anything to hit.  

by TheMattWilke on Aug 10, 2007 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

yeah
that makes sense.  That explains why Barry Bonds is 3rd all time in Runs scored.  Because he doesn't score very often when he gets on base.

by TMoney on Aug 9, 2007 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Numbers
I added their hits and walks and divided by runs:

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
You need to adjust for home runs don't you. Obviously anyone scores when they hit a home run and Bond's hits a lot of them. The question is how much value all those walks have and runs scored on home runs don't tell you anything about that.

by TT on Aug 9, 2007 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

So Does
Adjust for Home runs?  Aaron hit a lot of those too dopey.
Baseball is great because you cant take a knee or kill the clock. You gotta put the ball over the plate and give the other guy his damn shot E Weaver abridged

by AdamOnFirst on Aug 9, 2007 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Home Runs
So what? If you take out the home runs for each, you get a clearer picture of their relative run scoring when on base.

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
why are we talking about runs and RsBI?  They are as much a function of the team as they are the player.    To use either of them as an argument for either player is just dumb.  

by TMoney on Aug 9, 2007 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Seconded...
rbi's mean virtually nothing in the big picture of evaluating a single player.  same goes for runs.

by djskilbr on Aug 9, 2007 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Team versus Player
They are as much a function of the team as they are the 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
I'm not even going to indulge you on this one.  it's stupid and pointless.
Baseball is great because you cant take a knee or kill the clock. You gotta put the ball over the plate and give the other guy his damn shot E Weaver abridged

by AdamOnFirst on Aug 10, 2007 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Team dependency
Well, obviously runs and RBI's will be different among players on the same time due to at least three things:
  1. playing time
  2. spot in the lineup (i.e. no. of PA/G)
  3. random variance
It's not that runs and RBI's don't say anything about a player - they just say very little and there are far superior stats out there to look at instead.

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
# playing time
# 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
You're not reading what I'm writing. I'm not postulating that a guy's ability to hit and run the bases doesn't show up in his runs and RBI totals, I'm only saying that those metrics are inferior to many other more advanced statistics because they are skewed by myriads of other factors which the batter himself cannot control.

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
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.

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
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.

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
Since you don't read what I write, I can't continue this discussion. I just want to clarify my points:
  • 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:
  1. RBI's and runs are (e.g. in MVP voting) used to discern between players from different teams ("factories").
  2. 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'm sorry - but I read what you write. It might not have been what you meant to write.

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...
trying to reason with TT on here.  RBI's and runs ARE meaningless as a statistical measure in the big picture, and I bet TT even realizes that.  He just LOVES to have something, anything, to argue about.

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
RBI's and runs ARE meaningless as a statistical measure in the big picture

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
no one is here to argue that runs aren't important for teams.  Wins are good for teams too.  Are you also a fan of the famous pitching statistics Wins and Losses?

by TMoney on Aug 11, 2007 9:37 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wins and Losses
Wins are good for teams too.  Are you also a fan of the famous pitching statistics 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
I'm in the camp that thinks Cy's win record is probably the most "unbreakable" of all those on that list, but I definitely don't think they matter in evaluating pitchers.
Baseball is great because you cant take a knee or kill the clock. You gotta put the ball over the plate and give the other guy his damn shot E Weaver abridged

by AdamOnFirst on Aug 13, 2007 2:33 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Records
I'm in the camp that thinks Cy's win record is probably the most "unbreakable" of all those on that list, but I definitely don't think they matter in evaluating pitchers.

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
Most of what you said isn't true about what stat conscious people think, and you know it, so I'm not even bothering.
Baseball is great because you cant take a knee or kill the clock. You gotta put the ball over the plate and give the other guy his damn shot E Weaver abridged

by AdamOnFirst on Aug 13, 2007 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hits
The comparison of home runs and walks in the batting order was probably unfortunate in this case since both Bonds and Aaron have the same number. But Aaron had 722 extra base hits in addition to his home runs, Bonds has 676. That, not the "factories" they worked at, is the most likely explanation for Aaron having more RBI's. Just as Bond's walks explain why he has scored more runs.

by TT on Aug 11, 2007 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Fixed numbers
I know you got a little flak about bringing that up (since their HR numbers are basically identical), but you're right, so here's the correct value ((H + BB - HR) / R):

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
Bonds was more likely to score each time he came to the plate.

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
Cy Young's win total will never be matched, nor will Henry Aaron's total bases record (which is ultimately more impressive than even the home run totals).

by nathaneide on Aug 9, 2007 12:28 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

That's another thing for Aaron...
I don't understand why people think that Bonds is/was better then Aaron.  You can make a solid argument that Aaron was the best ever.  1st in total bases, 1st in RBI, 3rd in hits, and (now) 2nd in homers.  No one can touch that.  Just because Barry is a more patient hitter doesn't mean that he's better then Hank.  Not even close, IMO.
-Flip

by Flip27 on Aug 9, 2007 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Longevity...
ie Eddie Murray.

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
Aaron has a 900 total base lead on Bonds.  But Bonds has drawn 1100 more walks than Aaron.  So who has truly gotten more bases?

by TMoney on Aug 9, 2007 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think
I think the wins record is obviously the most unbreakable on that list.  The strikeouts one is pretty hard to mia gine being touchable since Clemans had had much an amazing career as a power pitcher, lasting until his mid-40's, and he isn't even close.

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.

Baseball is great because you cant take a knee or kill the clock. You gotta put the ball over the plate and give the other guy his damn shot E Weaver abridged

by AdamOnFirst on Aug 9, 2007 3:07 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

TT is an SB Nation blog of, by and for the fans. We strive to be the best Minnesota Twins blog by providing quality content and analysis, as well as daily news and notes on the team. We hope you'll make Twinkie Town your home for all things Twins!
Start posting about the Twins »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Baseball's Unspoken Corruption

Recent FanPosts

Small
Implications of Picking up Cuddyers Option and Trading for Hardy
Small
Organization Review (Center fielders)
Small
Minor League Report...November 7, 2009
Joemauerjesus_small
"I am going to create a lot of RBIs for Morneau, the catcher and the other guy."
Small
Kent Hrbek as a Rookie
Joel87bw5_small
And NOW THE OFFSEASON BEGINS!
Fitch372aurora_073_small
2010 Free Agents
Small
Organization Review (Corner Outfielders)
Small
Minor League Report...October 31, 2009
Small
Gomez vs. Young

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Twinkie Town On Twitter

SPONSORS


Editor-In-Chief

Twinkietown_small Jesse

Senior Writer

Hrbek_small Jon Marthaler

The_jet_small cmathewson

Gladdentwins_small Adam Peterson

Hosken_powell_autograph_small RandBall's Stu