Found this chart in an article on ESPN.com. The article was about A-Rod's chances of breaking the HR record. I found it interesting if you look at it in light of the whole steroid phenomenon. Notice that those players not suspected of using steroids all hit the same or less HRs after their 32nd birthday as they did before their 32nd birthday. Those who we know or suspect did steroids almost all hit more HRs. (Like the good ol' Oriole Rafael.) Coincidence? I don't think so. Is Barry going to be the HR king? Not in my book.
HRs before and after 32nd birthday
HRs before and after 32nd birthday
| Player | Before 32 | After 32 |
| Hank Aaron | 398 | 357 |
| Barry Bonds | 332 | 421 |
| Babe Ruth | 356 | 358 |
| Willie Mays | 373 | 282 |
| Sammy Sosa | 386 | 218 |
| Ken Griffey Jr. | 460 | 128 |
| Frank Robinson | 399 | 187 |
| Mark McGwire | 277 | 306 |
| Harmon Killebrew | 393 | 180 |
| Rafael Palmeiro | 232 | 337 |
2 comments:
Good chart and excellent observations about age. I agree BB will[/should] never be considered the home run king. But in regards to the age comparison, isn't it worth taking into account longer career spans? Or are careers the same these days?
I did not research it anymore, but my general impression is that if anything "old timers" careers tended to last longer than today's pros, which would only exaggerate the results. I think there are definitely a lot of variables including the size of today's ballparks, but it is such a stark difference it seems that steroids must be a factor.
Post a Comment