PDA

View Full Version : SI: The People's Record



TOBTTReds
05-11-2006, 04:19 PM
From SI's mag today:


Maybe you will root for Albert Pujols to hit 62 home runs this season and assign that total greater value than Bonds's 73 or McGwire's 70 or Sosa's 66, even if the record book does not. Call it the people's record

What do you guys think? If he his a number above 61, but below 73, will people feel that this is a record? Will he approach 60 with anticipation? I don't think it will be celebrated obviously like it has in the past, but will 'people' feel this is a true record if he break it?

For me, I would take it as the record without an asterik. I dont hate the guy (yet) just because he is the definition of a Reds killer. Not his fault he is good.

Discuss

BRM
05-11-2006, 04:21 PM
I guess it could stir up some interesting discussions if he were to hit 62 this year.

dougdirt
05-11-2006, 04:21 PM
I would count it. With McGwire and Sosa's crap they pulled at the Congressional hearings it all but sealed their fates in my mind as steroid users. Bonds of course has admitted to taking the Clear which makes him automatically guilty.

BuckWoody
05-11-2006, 04:33 PM
I agree with the "people's record" sentiment. I think Albert chasing 61 would be a much bigger story this year than Bonds chasing 714. Outside of SF, I'm not sure too many people care about Bonds' pursuit but if Pujols is in the 50's in September, I think people would go nuts...similar to the summer of McGwire and Sosa.

KronoRed
05-11-2006, 04:36 PM
Need quite a lot of these *

OnBaseMachine
05-11-2006, 04:36 PM
Dunn is on pace for 62.

Just sayin'

BuckWoody
05-11-2006, 04:39 PM
Dunn is on pace for 62.

Just sayin'
Good point! Maybe Pujols and Dunn could be the "clean" version of McGwire and Sosa. :thumbup:

TeamBoone
05-11-2006, 05:56 PM
I'd count it. Why not?

TOBTTReds
05-11-2006, 06:05 PM
I'd count it. Why not?

Saying if he finishes between 61 and 73, would you feel it is the record? Or as SI puts it, the "people's record."

Highlifeman21
05-11-2006, 06:10 PM
I agree with the "people's record" sentiment. I think Albert chasing 61 would be a much bigger story this year than Bonds chasing 714. Outside of SF, I'm not sure too many people care about Bonds' pursuit but if Pujols is in the 50's in September, I think people would go nuts...similar to the summer of McGwire and Sosa.


I'm not too sure people of SF give a rat's tail about Bonds either. It's a Catch 22: You wanna be there for history and be a part of it... Do they really want to root for Bonds?

I think Pujols could be the feel good story of this season already blinded by all the steroids talk we could ever want.

PickOff
05-11-2006, 06:20 PM
Saying if he finishes between 61 and 73, would you feel it is the record? Or as SI puts it, the "people's record."

Pujols will get great respect if he breaks 61, but there is always some reason that Ruth's record is more of a feat...small ballparks, juiced balls, watered down pitching, today's emphasis on fitness, etc.

TeamBoone
05-11-2006, 06:29 PM
Saying if he finishes between 61 and 73, would you feel it is the record? Or as SI puts it, the "people's record."

I say it's the record, without the asterisk.

The season has been 162 games for a while now. They need to move on, especially as records are not determined by number of ABs but just by the best record... period. They can be accomplished in one season, one career span, or one lifetime... whether a guy played 10 years or 20 (and more often than not, a guy will have more hits or HRs if he plays 20 years than if he plays only 10).

So what's the difference? None in my eyes.

TeamBoone
05-11-2006, 06:30 PM
Pujols will get great respect if he breaks 61, but there is always some reason that Ruth's record is more of a feat...small ballparks, juiced balls, watered down pitching, today's emphasis on fitness, etc.

Truthfully, did Ruth's era have no advantages? I don't believe it for a second.

It's always something.

KronoRed
05-11-2006, 06:33 PM
Every era has something going for it.

Redsfaithful
05-11-2006, 09:16 PM
Truthfully, did Ruth's era have no advantages? I don't believe it for a second.

It's always something.

Babe Ruth was only playing against white people. It's funny how often people seem to forget that.

TeamBoone
05-12-2006, 12:37 AM
Babe Ruth was only playing against white people. It's funny how often people seem to forget that.

Wow! That's a really good point. One that never ever occured to me.

savafan
05-12-2006, 12:54 AM
I've heard it said that by today's rules, Ruth would have had about 800 homeruns.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/15728


The "ground rule double" regulation came into effect before the 1931 season, but I've found no evidence any of the Babe's homers before this date were other than legitimate.

On the other hand, Ruth definitely *lost* homers due to the rules. Once, he hit a game-ending homer, but in those days they only credited the hitter with enough of a hit to win the game - in that case, a two-run triple.

Also, at one point, umpires ruled "fair" or "foul" according to the ball's position when last seen, not when it left the field of play. One estimate is that Ruth lost about 75 homers this way over his career, that left the field in fair territory, then hooked foul, but would be called home-runs today.

TOBTTReds
05-12-2006, 01:06 AM
I say it's the record, without the asterisk.

The season has been 162 games for a while now. They need to move on, especially as records are not determined by number of ABs but just by the best record... period. They can be accomplished in one season, one career span, or one lifetime... whether a guy played 10 years or 20 (and more often than not, a guy will have more hits or HRs if he plays 20 years than if he plays only 10).

So what's the difference? None in my eyes.

I think we are on different pages here. The argument isn't about games played or anything, it is about Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa using steroids and the single season record, not most in a career.. So if Pujols (who is clean) hits 65 HR's, is that "people's record" because he is clean, or is Bonds's 73 still a record and Pujols' 65 mean nothing more than 65 HR's.

TOBTTReds
05-12-2006, 01:10 AM
Pujols will get great respect if he breaks 61, but there is always some reason that Ruth's record is more of a feat...small ballparks, juiced balls, watered down pitching, today's emphasis on fitness, etc.

Do you mean Ruth or Maris? Because that would be interesting if people would believe Ruths' 60 is more important of emphasized than Maris's 61.

vaticanplum
05-12-2006, 01:11 AM
As a comparison, Ruth had something insane like twice as many homers as the next league leader in his best season. That's like a player having 102 in 2005.

I've tried to make this post more coherent but have been unsuccessful.

Hollcat
05-12-2006, 01:17 AM
The most impressive thing about Maris' 61 HR's to me is that he hit 61 on the last day of the season. I don't remember how many games were left when Mcgwire or Bonds broke the record but it seems like it was pretty much a given that the record was going to be broken and the pressure to hit the record setting HR wasn't anything like the pressure on Maris to hit one on the final day of the season, and that was on top of the pressure he was under because it was him and not Mantle breaking it.

TOBTTReds
05-12-2006, 01:26 AM
As a comparison, Ruth had something insane like twice as many homers as the next league leader in his best season. That's like a player having 102 in 2005.

I've tried to make this post more coherent but have been unsuccessful.

No I see what you are saying. Babe's is much more impressive when you think of the league averages and stuff like that. I'm surprised WOY hasn't jumped all over this part of the thread and show us how in the 30's HR's just weren't hit. Babe now would hit 100 if he were playing I would imagine, given he would know how to hit all these pitches and have a better made bat, better baseballs, and eat more hamburgers and steaks that were juiced with roids at the farm in the cows.