I missed mentioning on Thursday that it was the 30th anniversary of Hank Aaron's 715th home run. David Pinto brings it up in linking to this Tim Kurkjian column in which Kurkjian expresses some sadness at the thought that Aaron's record may be short-lived at this point.
Someday, perhaps, Barry Bonds will break Aaron's record, but with all due respect to the brilliant Bonds, it won't be the same. Aaron broke Ruth's record, one that had never been seriously approached. Aaron broke it in an era when the home run was significant, as opposed to today, when it is overexposed and devalued. In 1974, no one had hit 50 in a season since Willie Mays in 1965. Last year was the first time since 1994 that there wasn't a 50-home run man. When Aaron hit 714, he was one of only 11 players with 500 career home runs, only 15 players had 400. Now, we have 19 players with 500, and 36 with 400 -- over twice as many as in 1974. In 10 years, there's probably going to be 30 guys with 500 home runs and perhaps four players -- Bonds, Aaron, Ruth and Sosa -- with 700.It was a different time then. It was more about the game and less about celebrity, chest-thumping, raising the roof and long home runs shown relentlessly on ESPN. It was about a shy right fielder who quietly snuck up on 700 home runs by blasting a record 245 of them after turning 35. He first passed Mays, which wasn't greeted warmly everywhere because some people thought it should be Mays, not Aaron, to break Ruth's amazing record.
There's also the risk of injury. After all, in the year 2000, a lot of people were talking about Ken Griffey and Mark McGwire as Hammerin' Hank's mortal threats. Sammy Sosa hardly gets mentioned any more, and he's still playing at a fairly high level. Anything can happen. There's a reason Aaron's record has stood this long, just as there was a reason why Babe Ruth's had stood so long before it.
Personally, I don't agree with Kurkjian's grumbling about so many players with 400 or 500 home runs. In the 50 years between Babe Ruth's emergence as the game's first home run hitter to Hank Aaron's eclipse of his career record, 11 men reached 500 homers. In the 30 years since then, eight more have joined that club. That's not exactly a flood. Two more may join them this year, if the carcass of Fred McGriff is on an active roster somewhere and if Junior Griffey can stay healthy this time around; after that, it's three more guys who are on the wrong side of 35, injury risks, and in need of at least two more full seasons to get there if all goes well - Juan Gonzalez, Jeff Bagwell, and Frank Thomas. Can you really say any of them didn't earn their way there?
Anyway, I wish Barry Bonds well, and will consider him to be an all-time great whether he breaks Aaron's record or not. I strongly suspect he won't be subjected to the same kind of ugly hatred or racism that Aaron faced as he approached the Babe. At least there we can say things are unquestionably better now than they were then.
(By the way, does anyone remember - or better yet, know someplace online where I can find - the "Peanuts" strips that were done around this time, in which Snoopy was challenging the home run record and was getting hate mail for it? A Google search failed me. Thanks.)
UPDATE: Interestingly enough, David Pinto is suggesting that Junior Griffey is still alive in the catch-Aaron race. Let's see if he can make it through this year with 150 games played first.
Posted by Charles Kuffner on April 10, 2004 to Baseball | TrackBackAccording to The Rerun Project, the Babe Ruth home run story appears in several Peanuts books.
More information can be found at:
http://www.manicfan.com/browse.asp?page=episode&number=10501
Bonds is in good shape, but I think this year or next will be his last. He has an outside chance of coming close to Aaron, but I just don't think he'll make it.
Junior Griffey won't make it. He's lost too much time now to injuries and, as he ages, I think it'll only get worse. Twenty or thirty years from now, we'll be talking about him as a "what could have been."
Alex Rodriguez has a chance, but I don't see that happening, either. And I don't want it to happen now that he's a Yankee.
Posted by: Sue on April 10, 2004 7:05 PMJunior Griffey won't make it. He's lost too much time now to injuries and, as he ages, I think it'll only get worse. Twenty or thirty years from now, we'll be talking about him as a "what could have been."
True, but we still shouldn't lose sight of the fact that he was the best for several years. I mean, you could play the same game with Mickey Mantle, but almost no one does.
Posted by: Charles Kuffner on April 10, 2004 8:04 PMHank Greenberg approached Ruth's record in 1938, when he hit 58 home runs (2 short of the record).
Some baseball historians believe that pitchers were unwilling to allow Greenberg, a Jewish man, to beat the record... (but I don't know if he was walked more than usual in the last few games or anything else to back that up).
Posted by: Julia on April 10, 2004 8:54 PMGreenberg walked a career-high 119 times that year (see his career stats), but he did walk at least 80 times in seven seasons, and had two other 100+ walk seasons, so this wasn't far out of the ordinary. I don't recall that allegation being made in The Life And Times of Hank Greenberg, but perhaps I'm misremembering.
Posted by: Charles Kuffner on April 11, 2004 9:23 AMActually, that movie is exactly where I heard that allegation...Hank himself didn't believe it, but others did/do. I'm sure there were many people who didn't want ANYONE to break the record, but in the 1930's, I'm sure there were also many who REALLY didn't want a Jew to break it.
Anyways, my original point was that Greenberg in fact came very close to breaking Ruth's record (he was ahead of him for a while during the season, said the movie), yet he is not remembered at all - I can't help but wonder if the fact that he breaks all the Jewish stereotypes has anything to do with that.
I actually don't know that much about baseball, but happened to watch the movie on PBS a few days ago. Being both Jewish and a history geek, I found it fascinating. And lo and behold, a few days later I have a chance to use my new knowledge!
: )
Actually, that movie is exactly where I heard that allegation...Hank himself didn't believe it, but others did/do. I'm sure there were many people who didn't want ANYONE to break the record, but in the 1930's, I'm sure there were also many who REALLY didn't want a Jew to break it.
Been awhile sice I've seen the movie, so I'll take your word for it. As Ruth was still alive while Greenberg was chasing his single-season record, I'm not that inclined to believe there was a big hubbub about someone breaking it. I don't think his accomplishment was really idolized until after he died. But I could be wrong - I've never researched this, it's just a gut feel on my part.
It's important to remember that in 1961, the fuss over Roger Maris' pursuit of the Babe was magnified by two forces: the expanded 162-game schedule, and the fact that Commissioner Ford Frick, who first proposed the infamous asterisk, had ghostwritten a biography of Babe Ruth and was a big booster of the Babe and his memory. On the other hand, while Maris was reviled, Mickey Mantle was cheered on for his attack on 60, which does suggest that the identity of the chaser was a factor. Can anyone say if Jimmie Foxx came under pressure the year he hit 58 HRs? It's a point worth pondering.
Anyways, my original point was that Greenberg in fact came very close to breaking Ruth's record (he was ahead of him for a while during the season, said the movie), yet he is not remembered at all - I can't help but wonder if the fact that he breaks all the Jewish stereotypes has anything to do with that.
There's a lot of Greenberg's contemporaries who aren't well-remembered, either - Foxx, Mel Ott, Ralph Kiner, Al Simmons, Joe Cronin, Ducky Medwick, and so on. They're all Hall of Fame sluggers, but how much do you know about them offhand? Outside of New York (and that includes the Giants and Dodgers), it's mostly record holders of one kind or another (think Hack Wilson) who are on the tips of most modern tongues.
Posted by: Charles Kuffner on April 11, 2004 4:15 PM