We can always blame Joe Buck.
He can Joe Buck himself
We can always blame Joe Buck.
Kepler, the Mets will let Matt Harvey pitch on short rest.
This is next level LOLMets.
Preposterous statement winner
Midwestern tail pulling. It's the other white meat.
53 dingers for Stanton.
He's on pace for 63 based on his season-long averages. If we look just at his post-All-Star game pace (6.63 AB/HR), he would hit about 67.
If he gets past Maris, it will be interesting to see the narrative as to his stake to being the true Home Run champion. Stanton may also be a threat to 755/762 as well, but his history would suggest too many injuries to really challenge that number. That being said, if he averaged 45 HR/season for the next 10 years, he would be sitting just over 700 HRs at the age of 38.
If he gets past Maris, it will be interesting to see the narrative as to his stake to being the true Home Run champion
If he hits one HR every 7 ab, he should hit 50 even in an injury shortened year. So with 500+ ab in a full season, he should have no problem hitting 75 a year.
Bonds, McGuire and that Cubs guy I have literally forgotten* get an asterisk for juicing. Stanton gets an asterisk for a juiced ball. Ho hum.
The record still belongs to Ruth. 60 in 154 (151), aided only by booze and whores the way Abner intended. Maris and Mantle can pound sand, too (although the Mick did his part with the booze).
* Sammy Sosa. LOL, what a joke. Most similar player to him at the age of 24: Curt Blefary.
Yeah, the problem with Ruth is that he hit 60 against a bunch of old white guys
He also did it in a beanball era with no batting helmet.
For pure impressiveness, nobody is going to beat Ruth in 1920. 54 HR in 458 AB. Second in the majors was George Sisler with 19. Ruth batted .376 and his OPS+ was 255.
He also won his only start.
Ruth's stats standing alone are impressive, and I'm certainly not going to argue against that. However, Ruth's stats are tainted because of his competition. Also, there is a whole other line of argument regarding the status of the Home Run in 1920 baseball.
Ruth's stats standing alone are impressive, and I'm certainly not going to argue against that. However, Ruth's stats are tainted because of his competition. Also, there is a whole other line of argument regarding the status of the Home Run in 1920 baseball.
I just don't buy that. At most we're talking about 10% of the population excluded, and that is bought back again by not having to compete with the NFL or NBA for athletes.
Being the best is tainted because he's the best? That's kind of what you're arguing here. That he was too good, therefore we can't count it. It's standard deviations above the mean. That's how you measure greatness. Because the means and medians will shift, how high you stand above the shoulders of other men will be a better measure.