The Mitchell Report: The question I haven't heard answered.

And the most dominant player in baseball from 1930-31 was Lefty Grove: 59-9, 2.30 ERA, led the league in saves in '30.

 

That my friend is a stat you can hang your hat on.
I found this site about Bauman,
http://www.nocryinginbaseball.com/bauman.html with a lot of cool info on him.

Thanks for sharing that, Buck

 

Retroactively, yes. But nobody even knew what a save was until the early 1960s. They weren't established as an official stat until 1969.

 

what was bigger, the moon or the save?

 

So that's what the Geico caveman looks like shaved.

 

wow. now that you say it, that does look a little creepy.

 

Some things to keep in mind with regard to Hack Wilson from 1930-31.

In 1931, baseball did a couple of things that hurt Wilson (and other hitters). They dumped the old baseball for one that was designed not to fly as far. They also passed a rule saying that balls bouncing over or through the fence are a double rather than a home run, along with eliminating the rule that we have today, where a sacrifice fly does not count as an at-bat (this rule alone, for instance, saved Wilson 18 outs in 1930). Note that his 13 home runs in 1931 still placed him in the top 10 in the NL.

So whether the ball was actually "juiced" in 1930 or just "dead" in 1931 is debatable.

Also with Wilson, his alcoholism played a large part in his downturn. He was actually an elite power hitter in the National League from 1926-32. Led the league in home runs four times and was in the top 10 every year (top 5 all but 1931). But he drank so much that his spiral was quick. He hit 56 home runs in 1930 but had already been traded twice by January 1932. He was done as a regular player by 1933 and as a relevant one by 1934. He was dead before he turned 50.

 

now that adds to the discussion. thanks.

 

And that's why these career records aren't so hallowed to me.

How can you worry about whether a juiced player holds the career HR record when the guidelines for what determined a HR are not consistent?

Bonds gets the benefit of juice.
Bonds does not get the benefit of 1930 and earlier HR rules.
Bonds also has to face juiced pitchers and juiced fielders.

No matter what, 714/755/762 will never be an apples to apples comparison. So why worry about it?

 

The reason 1930 does not equate with the "steroid era" is the playing field was even in 1930 - everyone hit the juiced ball. Not everyone these days is juiced.

 

That's not the point.

People are not upset because Bonds juiced and Player X did not. At least that is not the major reason for outrage.

They are upset because the hallowed HR record fell.

And 1930 proves that hallowed records are meaningless, because the playing field is NOT level through history.

The batters who came up after 1930 did not ever have the same playing field that Hack Wilson did in 1930. The 1931-and-beyond batters did not hit the juiced ball, yet the RBI record belongs to someone who did.

So why is Bonds' record tainted and Wilson's not?

 

In serious baseball circles, 1930 hitting records are looked on with the same "taintedness" as 1968 pitching records. Both have to be taken in context. Nobody is ever going to approach those marks, because we're never going to see those conditions again.

The steroid era should be considered in similar terms. The numbers are skewed, we know why, and we know to take them all with a grain of salt. So, Barry's got the single-season record, and it's probably never going to be broken again -- it is what it is. Doesn't mean anybody has to take it seriously. Maris' 61 was a much more impressive feat.