On the Subject of Karma
by Moggeee on Mar 25, 2006 4:40 PM PST
29 comments
Karma plays itself out over many generations, and usually is not summed up in one career.
I say Hank Aaron had great Karma -- belting any number of ordinary fly balls which became home runs a mere one row deep -- out of the old Launching Pad in Atlanta, and finally overtaking an aging Willie Mays to become the leading home run hitter of all time.
Mays, though friendly with Aaron, still contends that the fierce wind blowing in from left field at Candlestick for ten seasons of his later career actually knocked down an average of 10 jacks a year. Those 100 homers would have left Willie with 761 lifetime home runs vs. Aaron's 755. And, if fortune had reversed their places, Aaron's troubling knee may have seized up in Candlestick's arctic conditions, preventing him from even approaching the record.
Mays playing in Atlanta would have equaled 800 career home runs. Take it to the bank.
Here's something rarely mentioned in connection with Mays' loss of ten per year: In 1965, he had 52 jacks. Add ten, and Roger Maris' record from a few years earlier would have become merely a footnote. The barbarians of 1998 -- McGwire and Sosa -- would have been knocking down the record of Mays, not Maris.
Bonds, being Mays' godson and anointed Avenger for Historical Correctness, is merely doing his karmic duty in knocking down the home run records. Everything fell right for Aaron to end up the all-time champ. If he gets passed by Bonds, it will be Mays who would finally gets in the last laugh.
This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.
0 recs |
29 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Re: On the Subject of Karma
Must be bad karma...
by Moggeee on Mar 25, 2006 4:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: On the Subject of Karma
by E Ticket on Mar 25, 2006 4:59 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: On the Subject of Karma
by Martin BiasedGiantsFanatic on Mar 25, 2006 10:49 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: On the Subject of Karma
by nostocksjustbonds on Mar 26, 2006 3:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: On the Subject of Karma
by Martin BiasedGiantsFanatic on Mar 27, 2006 8:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: On the Subject of Karma
by Blake on Mar 26, 2006 8:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Take an aspirin, get some rest
The Mays-Aaron treatment above is called speculation. The beautiful, flexible feature about speculation is that it can be applied in trying to make sense of the present, future or even the past.
The Surgeon General has warned that if speculation makes your head hurt, do not engage in it. But it turns out to be of prime importance on sites like this. Plus, it has been clinically proven that 96.3% of earthly existence is given over to speculation.
More so, if you are a baseball fan. And most so, if you are a long-suffering Giants fan.
by Moggeee on Mar 26, 2006 11:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: On the Subject of Karma
And THAT is karma: the diminishing of the perception of greatness by the fans, and is effectively an asterisk on the accomplishment. You can choose to believe this or not, but Bonds has achieved the exact same status in the minds of the 99% of baseball fans who aren't wearing orange and black glasses.
by WilbertR on Mar 27, 2006 7:35 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: On the Subject of Karma
I don't think, however, this is not an accurate portrayal of baseball fans. To borrow from Dick Nixon, there's a silent majority of fans out there who may (or may not) be disgusted with steroid use, but do not believe Barry should be the scapegoat.
I think a majority of baseball fans see the context of Barry's accomplishments. This era has been "tainted" since 1987. Barry's accomplishments haven't diminshed as much as the era's accomplishments have. I think there's also a relatively large percentage who believes that every era of baseball has been tainted in some way or another and steroid use gets to step into its rightful place in history along side segregation, fixing games, and geenies.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd love to see a comparison of attendance numbers at Giant road games this year vs. 2004. My prediction is it will increase.
by noahthek on Mar 27, 2006 8:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: On the Subject of Karma
by seti1st on Mar 27, 2006 7:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: On the Subject of Karma
Selig should ban Selig.
by danieljgrant on Mar 28, 2006 12:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"Selig should ban Selig"
Banning the players would be way too over the top and would NEVER float with the union. Basically we have to move on, realizing that just about everything that happened in the "steroids era" (as it's sure to be called in baseball history) is tainted.
by WilbertR on Mar 28, 2006 7:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: "Selig should ban Selig"
by Sayhey on Mar 28, 2006 7:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: On the Subject of Karma
Have you been to a road Giants game in the last few years? I've been to an Orioles series and Nationals series and I'll tell you what happens: The booing and BALCO chanting starts as Barry steps into the on-deck circle. The booing and name calling continues as he steps to the plate. It continues as the at-bat progresses. And then there's silence as he hits a homerun. (Barry played in five of the games and he hit 4 homers).
During/after each homerun the same thing as happened: The booing continues although many fans are standing in silence. Then as he starts trotting around the bases a pretty large portion of the road fans slowly begin to applaud. Scattered boos continue, but so do scattered applause.
In none of the games has there ever been a "cascade of boos" after a Bonds homerun.
by noahthek on Mar 28, 2006 10:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: On the Subject of Karma
by Goofus on Mar 28, 2006 10:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: On the Subject of Karma
by WilbertR on Aug 14, 2006 10:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: On the Subject of Karma
Did you know that while he was a San Francisco Giant, Mays hit more home runs at home than he did on the road? Same with McCovey. It's true.
Anyway, Rob Neyer thoroughly debunked this old argument years ago in this column:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1374309.html
Check it out.
by Skaldheim on Mar 27, 2006 9:00 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: On the Subject of Karma
If he hit 328 at home (mostly Candlestick) maybe he' d have at 400 at home (vs. 336 on the road or whatever) at Fulton County.
by zenbitz on Mar 27, 2006 9:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: On the Subject of Karma
The stats clearly show that the Giants, as a team, hit more homers at home. Candlestick was not a drain on anyone's HR power. That means the "Mays lost 10 homers a year playing at the 'Stick" argument is wrong.
Anyway, a lot of this is really moot -- Fulton County Stadium didn't enter the league until 1966, and it wasn't until they moved the fences in about 1969/1970 that Aaron started showing those extreme home/road HR splits. Mays' career was about done by then.
by Skaldheim on Mar 27, 2006 10:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: On the Subject of Karma
by Sayhey on Mar 27, 2006 12:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: On the Subject of Karma
Memory is faulty; that's why we write things down. Having seen my fair share of games at the Stick after it was enclosed, and having listened to a ton of people talk about how it was a horrible place to hit homers, I just assumed it must be true. Problem is, the numbers don't agree. The Giants didn't did far fewer homers at the 'Stick than on the road--they hit more!
So maybe without that wind, the 'Stick would have been another launching pad like Atlanta? As my least favorite KNBR guy likes to say, two things can be equally true. The wind knocked down a lot of balls, but the 'Stick wasn't a horrible place to hit HR.
I know you won't agree, Sayhey, but that's baseball, I guess.
by Skaldheim on Mar 27, 2006 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: On the Subject of Karma
That leaves me a-wonderin' "What's the 'normal' ratio of HRs home vs. away?" I would think it natually skews toward home anyway with things like:
-familiarty with site lines and confines of the home field
-home crowd
-stars more likely to take an away game off
-jet lag on road
-good night's sleep in your own bed at home
Any idea?
by Goofus on Mar 27, 2006 1:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: On the Subject of Karma
If the normal ratio is more like 1.1/1, then the numbers from the 'Stick would indeed indicate a poor place to hit homers.
by Skaldheim on Mar 27, 2006 4:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: On the Subject of Karma
by Goofus on Mar 28, 2006 10:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: On the Subject of Karma
by Skaldheim on Mar 28, 2006 4:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: On the Subject of Karma
Now, on the other hand, if you want to argue that Candlestick wasn't as bad a homerun hitter's park as legend has it, or that 800 is too high a number as an estimate of Mays' numbers sans wind, then we have a reasonable question to debate. But the faulty stats don't change the reality that many, many balls hit to left that would have gone out without the wind, didn't because of it.
Also, if you want to debate the method, your source uses, I would suggest he get a clue about the park he is writing about. No one ever claimed (at least anyone who ever went to the 'Stick) that LEFT handed batters suffered unfairly from its winds.
Skaldheim, I LOVE baseball stats, but they should be used to try to describe the reality of the game, not used to try to prove what is plainly not true.
by Sayhey on Mar 27, 2006 4:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: On the Subject of Karma
by Sayhey on Mar 27, 2006 4:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: On the Subject of Karma
Let's just take Mays as an example, and the same applies to McCovey.
Points:
- the fact that Mays hit more HR at home than on the road SUGGESTS that he would not have hit more, but it's not very robust. For one thing - do players generally hit better at home? Maybe he SPECIFICLALY hits better at home - no matter where that home is. So, Mays' stats really say nothing about the intrinsic HR propensity of the park(s) in which he played
- Sample size. 333 HR is alot for 1/2 a player, but not a lot over all.
- You mention the Giants as a team... but did Neyer? If so, then I missed it. Typically what you want to do is compare:
o Giants OPPONENTS stats home vs. road.
I would break this down LHH vs RHH. This gives you the "value" of Mays HR at home vs on the road. You can never really say "if he had played in stadium X"... because he's a unique player playing unique games. However, the value of his HRs is a better proxy for this than just doubling his HOME HRs!
by zenbitz on Mar 27, 2006 1:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Aaron -- Charmed from the start
Candlestick was in some twist of tortured logic an advantage for Mays?
Heh?
But Mr. Science says that statistics prove....
Hey Billy Beane, chuck your calculator. There's only one stat you need to find: Ask any and all right-handed hitters from the era which stadium they'd rather swing for the fences in. Even if you buy ballots, Candlestick won't win that vote.
But let's throw Aaron's massive advantage in Fulton County Stadium out of the equation.
Because I possess even heavier ammo: Aaron (who wasn't even his team's best power hitter) had the benefit for his first twelve seasons to swing it in a HITTER FRIENDLY bandbox known as County Stadium in Milwaukee.
Where Mays would have hit 900 home runs.
(And almost did, in one game, on April 30, 1961.)
by Moggeee on Apr 1, 2006 12:13 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
