Congratulations to Barry Bonds for surpassing Hank Aaron's all-time total of 756 home runs this month. If you are a sports fan you have heard the story at least 100 times: "After the age of 35 ‘at a time that should have been the end of his career" his home run production skyrocketed; astonishingly between ages 35-39, he posted five of his six most prolific home run seasons[1] in his career; and coincidentally, the very year before his sudden rise there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that he took performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) "perhaps even out of jealousy of one of his baseball peers receiving more adulation." Of course, we are talking about Hank Aaron.
1) The Holy Hank Myth: Usually history waits for Americans, particularly African-Americans, to die or become disabled before anointing sainthood or revising their legacy in a way that distorts their true modern day relevance. Martin Luther King has been transformed from relentless confrontational activist into a hopeful dreamer. In this 60th anniversary of the breaking of baseball's color barrier, people pay homage to Jackie Robinson's on-field integration, but forget about his ongoing fight against discrimination in sports management right up until his premature death. And like Dr. King on Vietnam, we don't have to listen to Muhammad Ali rail against the war in Iraq, nowadays we could just cuddle with him instead. However, because of their urgent need for the ultimate "anti-Bonds", the mainstream sports media has grown restless on waiting for the 73 year old Aaron to kick the bucket or slip in the bath tub.
And while Aaron's legacy has been largely ignored for the last 30 years[2], honors, tributes, and magazine covers have flourished that now endlessly praise the "dignity", "honor", and "grace"of "The People's King". Fortunately, these pieces by Tommy Craggs from Slate and D.K. Wilson and Jonathan Weiler from The Starting Five (TSF) have cut in on the canonization-in-progress. Not surprisingly, it was on one of my daily blog check-in with TSF, where I first learned that Hank Aaron once tried amphetamines. Technically speaking, I knew about Hank's not-so-hidden-secret way back in 1992! That was when I first bought, read, and subsequently forgot his excellent autobiography ("I Had a Hammer: The Hank Aaron Story"). To refresh my memory I dug up and dusted off, my yellowed, dog-eared, and old-book-smelling paperback this past week. On page 268, Aaron states:
"The 500thhome run came against Mike McCormick of the Giants, which meant that Willie Mays was on the field at the time. Willie elected not to have his picture taken with me that day, saying it wasn’t appropriate for him to fraternize with a player whose team had just beaten the Giants. For years Willie had been king and I'm sure that he wasn't crazy about me elbowing into his territory. Most fans and critics still considered Willie to be a better player than me. It seems like the only ones who took up my cause were my teammates. Guys like Uecker and Boyer used to argue with the visiting writers who didn't think I belonged in the class with Mays. It made me feel a little awkward to sit by my locker and hear them going on like that, but don't think I didn't appreciate it. [new paragraph begins] Actually, the 1968 season wasn't the best time to present my case. It was the first time since my rookie year that I didn't drive in or score 100 runs. I was so frustrated that at one point I tried using a pep pill ”a greenie” that one of my teammates gave me. When that thing took hold, I thought I was having a heart attack. It was a stupid thing to do".
Hank is not the only author with a personal confession: When I was 19, susceptible to peer pressure, and in the middle of an emotional slump, I was offered and tried cocaine for the only time in my life. When that thing took hold, I thought that I was having a heart attack. It was a stupid thing to do…
It would be nice to state that my "strength of character" was greater than other continuing-users who had, let's just say, a less adverse reaction. But the plain truth is that I was easily able to blow off "blow"because of that initial negative experience. This personal flashback and many questions came to my mind when reading page 268, including: "Why have hardly any mainstream sportswriters mentioned this Aaron passage? What if Hank had LIKED the effect of "greenies" the performance enhancer of choice back in his day? And even if one believes that Hank discontinued its use beyond that one time, doesn't the fact that he TRIED them during slumping hard times tell us that his psychology around PED's from a moral perspective is no different from today's steroid user? Finally, if Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, co-authors of the "Game of Shadows", were writing an Aaron expose, would they open their book with the same juicy Aaron as jealous of Mays"soap opera narrative as the "Bonds-Mark McGwire" one? So many questions, so few answers! So instead of speculating away, let's get to the concrete meat and potatoes on what we do know about for sure: HOME RUNS.
2) The Hank Home Run Consistency Myth: From nearly every sports-writing quarter and even Aaron himself, we have heard that the primary reason for Aaron’s mark of 755 is because of his yearly home run “consistencyâ€. However, statistically speaking, a stronger case can be made that Aaron was an INCONSISTENT home run hitter. From '56-'58, he went from 26 to 44 to 30 home runs; from '63 to '64 he dropped from 44 to 24; and from '68 to '69 he went from 29 to 44 [3]. A look at the world's most valuable sports website– Baseball-Reference.com will show that Aaron's yearly home run totals jumped or declined by at least 12 home runs on EIGHT separate occasions despite a remarkably consistent number of year-to-year at bat totals. In contrast, neither Bonds, Ruth, nor Mays exceeded five yearly 12-HR fluctuations[4]. So how exactly did he end up with 755? The GREATEST SINGLE REASON that Aaron became home run king is his late career home run production.
3)The Post-35 Production Myth and The New 700 Club: Carlton Fisk shattered his previous home run high (26) by smacking 37 at age 37; Ted Williams hit .388 at 38, and Hank posted his career-best home-run-or at-bat ratio when he belted 40 while approaching 40.  Hank’s personal achievement came some 30 plus years before the Game of Shadows’ authors made the phrase “at what should have been the end of his baseball career…†part of the lexicon and PowerPoint slide show of sports journalists across the land. J.C. Bradbury – of SABERNOMICS– reminds us that Hank’s 1973 season capped off his most prolific 5-year power stretch of his career. But more specifically:
– During his first 15 years, Aaron averaged 34 home runs by belting 1 per 17.4 at-bats.
– Between ages of 35 – 39, Aaron averaged 41 home runs a year on 1 per 11.8 at bats.
In 2007, this data alone might signify an open-and-shut steroids case. Aaron hit 245 home runs after the age of 35, more than any other player in baseball history prior to Bonds. To illustrate the significance of this growth, Aaron’s latter-career home run production has been substituted for the post-35 totals of many other all-time home run greats. With adjustments, here is our brand new 13 member 700 Home Run Club:
787 – Willie Mays
784 – Sammy Sosa
772 – Jimmie Foxx
761 – Babe Ruth
755 – Hank Aaron
746 – Ken Griffey Jr.
741 – Mickey MantleÂ
738 – Eddie Matthews
732 – Harmon Killebrew
720 – Frank Robinson
709 – Lou Gehrig
708 – Mel Ott
702 – Mark McGwire
690 – Barry Bonds
Once again, Willie steals Hank's glory!
The list also casts early career burnouts Jimmie Foxx and Eddie Matthews (who batted behind Hank for most of his career) in a more respected historical light. The new list also proves that Aaron, to his credit, became king by outlasting the rest. While some players age differently (Mays), many greats decline because they drank too much (Ruth, Foxx, Mantle); had ongoing injuries (Ott, Killebrew, McGwire), or contracted Lou Gehrig's disease (Lou Gehrig:-).
Also, prior to the late 1980s, weight-training in baseball was shunned upon, nutrition was spelled H-O-T- D-O-G, and booze was as much a part of baseball as chewing tobacco, peanuts, and crackerjack. When Aaron hit #755, he established this new record by hitting 47 more than Ruth after age 35. Beyond Ruth, Aaron more than DOUBLED history's next nearest post-35 home run competitor at that time (Mays at 118). If Bonds were to distance himself with Aaron by the same exact post-35 home run margin (127) that Aaron did with Mays, he would end his career with 817 home runs. From a statistical perspective, Bonds has taken Aaron's crown in the very same fashion that made Aaron the home run king in the first place.
Conclusion: The personalities of Hank Aaron and Barry Bonds might be different, but just about everything else about their career trajectory is uncannily similar. But the mainstream sports media has omitted half of Hank's story and distorted the other half. Barry gets non-stop journalistic investigations into his potential use of performance enhancing drugs, and Aaron's admitted use, and what that admission signifies, does not get any thoughtful or meaningful attention, if even mention. Aaron's home runs become a mark of consistency, when the data shows the exact opposite to be the case. And while Hank's unprecedented late-career home run prowess is only viewed with reverence, Barry's before-unseen post- 35 power is only viewed as evidence.
How much Bonds may or may not have benefitted from performance enhancing drugs is up for debate, but whether Aaron has benefitted from performance enhancing coverage is not. A closer look at Hank helps us to discover the truth about our national sports media. When history is reviewed not revised, when Aaron is restored as human not holy, and when home run statistics are analyzed for precision not prosecution, we also discover the truth about Hank: Aaron is not the "anti-Bonds", he is "the pre-Bonds".
Related: Barry Bonds 101: The Starting Five Rolls 12 Deep… TWICE!: This link is the MIA in MSM Barry Bonds primer.
Sports Illustrated’s Curious COVERage of Barry Bonds Series
PART 1 – The Pre-BALCO Covers (above link)
PART 1A – Giving Sports Illustrated* and Rick Reilly Their DueÂ
PART 2Â -Â The Asterisk Covers (coming soon)
PART 3Â -Â The Home Run Covers (715 & 755)
OTHER -Â Rick Reilly is a Dork and Why it Matters
[1]Home runs totals as defined as percentage of home runs per at bat.
[2] Up until his two cover appearances this past year, Hank Aaron has never made the cover of Sports Illustrated since his retirement. That might not seem like a big deal when you realize that since Hank's retirement Ted Williams and Mickey Mantle have made the cover 5 times with Willie Mays, Joe DiMaggio, and, of course, Babe Ruth each making appearances.
[3] It should also be noted that the pitching mound was lowered that year which also might have contributed to this increase. However, it should also be noted that his longtime contemporary Willie Mays experienced no increase in production.
[4] This data does not include thruway season where player had major decrease/increase in at-bats (minimum of 100) due to injury (i.e. Bonds 2005), war (i.e. Mays 1952, 53); or other (Ruth 1918; 1925).
Yo MODI, this was a kick ass post. I’m sorry nobody else bothered to tell you that.
Thanks Allem, much appreciated.
I misspelled my own name. LOL
We have to remember that each year, especially in the 60s and 70s, the run environment of the major leagues was changing, due to rule changes and league expansion. Some years it was very easy to hit home runs, others it was very hard (1968 in particular, the “year of the pitcher” – after this year, they lowered the mound.) Plus don’t forget that Aaron moved from Milwaukee to Atlanta late in his career – this is ESPECIALLY significant because ATL was a neutral/hitters ballpark, whereas milwaukee was (sometimes very strongly) a pitcher’s park. It’s very easy to attribute Aaron’s late career home run improvement to that.
cephyn,
Thanks for your points. In the footnotes, I did reference the pitching mound was lowered in 1969, but also noted that Aaron’s closest aging contemporary (Willie Mays) experienced no increase in production for whatever that may be worth. While Aaron’s home run production increased 13% from his first third to his second third of his career, it increased 28% from his 2nd third to his late 35-39 years. What I would concede is that the variety of circumstantial factors you mention probably account for HALF his increase of his late-career production. A thicker, stronger Aaron probably accounts for the other. This is explained in much greater detail in: The Myths of 756 http://www.cosellout.com/?p=88
So that begs the question – if we can find factors that account for at least half of aaron’s increased production – what factors are there for Bonds? Because he moved from a slight pitcher’s park to a strong pitcher’s park. And Bonds continued his power increase into his 40′s, which Aaron didn’t. I’m not trying to say anything about Bonds beyond the fact that I don’t think you can compare (absolute numbers) late career performance of players 1995+ to players from the 60s and 70s.
Cephyn, two things to consider about Bonds. One, his away career home runs stats are almost identical to his home HR stats. That fact tells me that it didn’t matter a whole lot which park Bonds was batting in. His home runs weren’t really landing in the first row.
Secondly, the purpose of Aaron in the discussion is to show that late career growth is not unprecedented. The only difference is that Bonds growth curve is larger than anyone who came before him. Bonds increase his HR production by 33% from the first to second third of his career and by another 33% between the 2nd and third parts. (again: see Myths of 756 for explanation). That suggests more of a natural power progression than a late career spike.
PS: I don’t use home run totals for comparison, I use the much more accurate measure of increases in HR-to-at-bat-ratio. This makes it much easier to compare across eras.
You can’t compare HR/AB ratio across eras – that’s still a stat based on counting. The run environment of the modern era has increased. The ABs have stayed relatively similar, but the HRs have gone up. You need to compare HRs above era baseline, if anything.
While I agree it’s a curve of natural power progression, it’s a curve that no has ever had before (as you admit) – that is the cause for suspicion. Aaron’s numbers don’t take that away – his late career numbers can be (at least half) explained away, as you admit.
No matter how you try and explain it, Bonds and Aaron’s late careers are significantly different – and Bonds’ late career is unprecedented by any statistical measure. Is it because he’s the greatest power hitter to ever play? Is it because he’s the biggest juicer ever? I don’t know. But I do know that comparing his late career to Aaron isn’t going to fly.
cephyn
I probably didn’t make myself clear enough. I an comparing HR/AB ratio percentage INCREASES of the SAME player. This should minimize “era bias”. If we agree that half of Aaron’s late career production is due to post-1968 environmental factors ten Aaron has a steady HR growth of 14% across three parts of his career as measured against HIMSELF. Bonds growth rate is 33%. You are right, we agree that Bonds growth is unprecedented. The comparison with Aaron applies to the CONSISTENCY of growth. That was the main point. So I think that we agree here more than disagree.
Allem is Oscar Madisox.
Were pitching mounds lowered after the 1968 season or after the 1969 season??
lineups, lineups, lineups.
The next phase of the work is to compare the average hitting production of the batters around Bonds with those of other great players. There is no question that his being surrounded by marginal players in his early SF years had an impact on his production (pitch quality, etc.)
Also, are you two agreed that The Launching Pad was only a neutral/hitters park vs. a hitters park? If so, what does Bill James have to say? I imagine he informed your assessment. Just curious. Thanks.
Those are some pretty week arguments with which to bash Hank. The ups and downs look like aberrations when graphed. You might ask of Mays after hitting 51 homers why such a big and prolonged drop then after a five year drought a sudden, extreme rise for five more years to heights Aaron never approached?
One year aberrations more then likely would simply be the result of injuries. They do happen, though apparently recuperative time is less if your on steroids. Stack up yearly totals be range and it’s easy to see where the “consistency” comments originate:
50 & over Aaron 0 Mays 2
40-49 Aaron 7 Mays 4
30-39 Aaron 7 Mays 5
20-29 Aaron 5 Mays 6
0-19 Aaron 3 Mays 7
To me it just looks like Mays went to extremes as evidence by the 50+ and 19 and under totals of NINE seasons whereas Hank only totaled 3 such seasons in is whole career!
Lastly I would just ask if you seriously believe amphetamines, even if he took them regularly, could impact production as greatly as prolonged steroid use? Personally I saw both at the end of their careers and Willie looked far older than Henry at the same age, kind of like a habitual amphetamine user might age.
Jake, thanks for the response. There was no intent to “bash” Hank Aaron — but simply make him human.
By his own accounts, Aaron took amphetamines only once, but he had a bad reaction to them. The point here was a MORAL one in that Bonds and other steroid users have been vilified as lesser moral beings. This is a separate argument from the statistical one.
I agree that anyone could have one year aberrations, but five year stretches usually tell a more balanced story. The main issue that I have with your Mays stats is that they are misleading because Mays declined rapidly after 36 and was a shell of himself. The main point is that Hank passed ruth for one reason only — because of his post-35 production…
There is one point that is missing from the Aaron scenario. From age 35-39 he averaged 40 HR’s a year. In 1974 he very quickly passed Ruth and got 715. Then somehow he all of sudden could no longer hit homeruns. He only hit another 18 that year and then went further downhill in Milwaukee. After averging 40 HR’s for 5 years, as soon as he passed Ruth he only hit another 40 over 3 years. What happened? All of sudden he was too old to play? Remember Davey Johnson was a Brave & hit 43 HR’s in 1973 his next highest total was 18. Darrell Evans hit 41 HR’s in 1973 and it took him 10 years to reach 30 again. What was going on in Atlanta in 1973? In 1973 a very important year for Aaron to get in position to catch Ruth the Braves hit 206 HR’s. In 1974 with the same team they hit 120 HR’r. How does that get explained? Same team same ball parks, only the Ruth chase was over so now Aaron could be allowed to fade away.
For Bonds, I believe that it is even more accurate to do a HR / Plate Appearance ratio. Compare 1st season w/SF (3rd MVP, 46 HRs) and the similar yrs later like ’03, 04, and there is little change. One aspect of Bonds’ game late in career is how he took more and more walks. Not just IWs or semi-IWs. There were times that it seemed he cd call his own balls and strikes. The change for Bonds was NOT in HRs (outside of the one yr of 73), but his ABs and that was due to walks and that affects avg and slugging %.
I appreciate the Age 35 and over comparisons. G of S writers used those numbers as proof against Bonds but never comnpared to Hank. (Or the single seasoin increase compared to Maris, who never hit 40 before or after). Bonds and Aaron played same amount of years, had career HR best at like age 37 and just 1 50+ HR season between. Of course their post age 35 numbers cannot be too far off.
Lastly, there IS a level of moral and intellectual dishonesty as the powers that be try to protect the integrity of a previous era that used whatever drugs they cd get. (Speed-laced club house coffee pots?) Where were stars like Hank, Yaz, Mays, Kofax, et al, and many now HOF writers who sat back and watched while drugs became entrenched in the lockerrooms? Did they speak up? Steroids were probably around much early than believed but the fact that the game was already being played under the influence made it much easier to take hold. Did the earlier generation of players and media think players would all of a sudden just say no as the drugs improved? Maybe there is a reason that Hank never came out and blasted Bonds as many hoped. Maybe he knows that he and his peers are niot so clear either. And also, despite being the stars, did nothing to stop the spread of drugs in their own locker rooms either. I am not trying to put all blame on them. That would be ridicuouls. But please, lets not act as though they somehow had more integrity and need their numbers protected. Thank you for place to comment.
Hey not to set off topic but can anyone give me overview of. New York Car Insurance Reform 295 Greenwich St, New York, NY 10007 (646) 351-0824 They can be down the block from me. I was wondering if they were a good insurance company. I need to find coverage, it is the law you know, but I have to have a good price price plus I’d prefer friendly service.
could be just because they became better hitters combined with a lucky coincidence of poor (or even favorable) pitching
heck the guy was already a legend, maybe some pitchers threw him some meatballs
[...] usage of past greats is far more documented than the alleged usage of the current ballotees. Henry Aaron, in his autobiography, admitted to using amphetamines. John Milner confirmed Willie Mays’s amphetamine usage under oath in the Pittsburgh Drug [...]
[...] But he admitted to using amphetamines . He used illegal PEDs, just like Bonds [...]
I enjoyed your take on the whole aaron mysticism. Only distraction was the occasional font to symbol bug. Keep up the good work!