Such an unfortunate situation.Mark McGwire hits his 50th home run of the season.
For four consecutive seasons (1996-1999), Mark McGwire hit 50+ home runs, becoming the first player to ever accomplish the feat. On August 22nd, 1999, he hit his 50th home run of the season in the first game of a double-header off Jeff Tam (interesting sidenote: his first home run came off of starter Octavio Dotel -- still wrapping my head around that). McGwire started his streak in 1996 by hitting 52 home runs for Oakland, and he followed that up by hitting a combined 58 for Oakland (34) and St. Louis (24 in less than half the at-bats -- 433 to 224). 1998, of course, was the record-setting season in which he crushed 70 home runs (I still remember the liner just over the left-field wall for number 62). As for 1999, he would go on to hit 65 to lead his league for the fourth and last time. McGwire's career ended a couple of seasons later after battling numerous injuries.
When I saw that, I was slightly surprised that Babe Ruth hadn't done that. So I looked it up, and he got really close and often. In 1920 and 1921 (beginning of the Live Ball Era), he hit 54 and (record-setting) 59 dingers, respectively. Going for 3 consecutive 50+ homer seasons in 1922, Commissioner Kenesaw Landis suspended Ruth for 6 weeks to start the season after he barnstormed during the off-season (World Series participants were not allowed to barnstorm in the off-season to avoid being able to "restage" the Series), and Ruth finished with 35. He, however, was on pace for 51 or 52 home runs. Three seasons later in 1926, Ruth began a new streak. Over the next 6 seasons, he hit at least 46 home runs each season. Only 2 seasons eclipsed 50 home runs (1927 and 1928), but the others were all extremely close. His 1926-1928 number of homers was a record for number in 3 consecutive seasons until McGwire broke it on (guess what?) August 22, 1998 and then again the next season.
I wanted to avoid the steroid issue with McGwire, but at this point, I don't think it's worth ignoring. I'm not one to whitewash history, but let's take a look. Is it really that unlikely that McGwire would have put together a 4 season streak of 50+ homers? During his 1987 rookie season, he hit 49 home runs. He only hit in the 30's the next season as his average (and BABIP -- from 1989-1991, his BABIP's were all below .220; and yes, I know BABIP doesn't count home runs, but I find the tidbit interesting nonetheless) plummeted. He seemed to rediscover his massive power the next season by hitting 42 home runs in 1992, but foot injuries prohibited from playing often during the next 2 seasons in which he hit 18 home runs combined. McGwire only played 104 games the next season, but his 39 home runs in 422 AB's is impressive. Then, we arrive at his 1996-1999 years. So it wasn't as if he didn't have the power to do it. Did it increase the number of home runs and give him the record? Probably. But I think it's fairly likely that he could have still hit at or near 50 home runs a season along with a close to 60 home run season in there. He was just that good and that powerful, with or without steroids. I do hope he makes the Hall of Fame at some point.
Trivia Time
Mark McGwire is the worst triple hitter all-time in regard to players with at least 5,000 at-bats (6 in 7660). But who has the fewest (5) in at least 5,000 at-bats?
Yesterday's Answer --> Ian was right. Rick Ferrell, a Hall of Fame catcher, was Wes Ferrell's brother.
Posts
2 comments:
Hmm. Ernie Lombardi?
I don't think there's any doubt that something happened outside the players' bodies themselves to increase offense in the late 90s. It was just a much bigger change than I think pharmaceuticals alone can provide (and of course pitchers were also taking said pharmaceuticals). A guy who can hit 40+ in the late 80s and early 90s could absolutely have hit 50+ (or even 60+) in the late 90s. Then again, I've always suspected that the influence of steroids on the game was pretty overblown, so maybe I'm just biased.
Sorry. Think contemporary and sort of active.
As for PED's, I have no doubt they had an effect. But I think the effect is probably 5 homers at most for power hitters and less for guys who don't hit as many. Now, did it give them more confidence? Maybe. But I'm not positive (like you) that steroids really had that much effect. However, the fact that people did it to essentially cheat irks me a bit, but I refuse to vilify them and not the rest of baseball history.
Random thought for the day -- (time = 200 years from now and drug testing is still strict and enforced) will the 1940's-2000's be known collectively as the "Drug (PED) Era" with subsections under what they used?
Post a Comment