If Ryan Howard hits 62

[leopard88]

Oh, don't forgot the small strike zone. Or, I've heard it's smaller than it used to be. I'm not old enough to remember.

As someone who is old enough to remember, I can tell you that the strike zone is definitely smaller now (especially in the AL).

Back in the 70s, when AL umps used the outside/balloon chest protector, it was known as the high strike league, while the NL was known as the low strike league (relatively speaking, anyway). I can distinctly remember strikes being called on pitches across the letters back then (you know, about where the top of the strike zone would be if the rulebook was followed). Pitchers like Jim Palmer used to live up there with high fastballs.

These days, anything above the belt is usually a ball, even though the rulebook strike zone ends about 12 inches higher. There is no doubt that it is easier to hit when you can safely lay off of high fastballs that used to be strikes.

[Eye]

Oh, don't forgot the small strike zone. Or, I've heard it's smaller than it used to be. I'm not old enough to remember.

As someone who is old enough to remember, I can tell you that the strike zone is definitely smaller now (especially in the AL).

Back in the 70s, when AL umps used the outside/balloon chest protector, it was known as the high strike league, while the NL was known as the low strike league (relatively speaking, anyway). I can distinctly remember strikes being called on pitches across the letters back then (you know, about where the top of the strike zone would be if the rulebook was followed). Pitchers like Jim Palmer used to live up there with high fastballs.

That is how it should be today. When I started playing baseball with actual pitching, not teeball, I was told that the strike zone was from the letters to the knees. This was around 1994 or 1995, but that's how the strike zone should be in my opinion.

[bludevl21]

And so it begins . . .

It's time to celebrate Howard's run at Maris' old mark

[CC97]

Maris' record stood for 37 years. Then, in the eyeblink of four seasons (1998-2001), smack in what we now know to be the height of the Steroid Era, it was smashed six times by three men who flat-out flunk our sniff test when it comes to being the genuine article (Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds).

[The_Admiral]

ok if Howard hits only 62 this year he probably would not be considered the home run champ because:

The babe hit 60 home runs in 154 games. Maris hit 61 in 162 games.

In theory the babe would've hit more if the played 162 games.

Going with that ruth hit 0.3896 homers every game(60/154)

So in 162 games he was on pace to hit 63.1168 home runs(0.3896x162)

So even rounded down howard would be 1 short of the true non steroids home run single season record.

any questions?

Yes. Do you actually take yourself seriously?

[KevinMcD]

Now this question is the poll on ESPN.com

[winghaz]

ok if Howard hits only 62 this year he probably would not be considered the home run champ because:

The babe hit 60 home runs in 154 games. Maris hit 61 in 162 games.

In theory the babe would've hit more if the played 162 games.

Going with that ruth hit 0.3896 homers every game(60/154)

So in 162 games he was on pace to hit 63.1168 home runs(0.3896x162)

So even rounded down howard would be 1 short of the true non steroids home run single season record.

any questions?

Yes. Are you the ghost of Ford Frick?

[FiddySicks]

I think anyone who would consider Howard the home run champ with only 62 home runs is wasting time. I pray that Howard doesnt get 62 or more just for the brainless morons who would consider him the HR king. Bonds is the HR King. Mcgwire was before Bonds, and Sosa is third. Anyone who truely thinks otherwise is just bitter and has too much time on their hands.

[zer0dotcom]

Was there any real celbration when Bonds passed Ruth? Not really. Why? Because that wasn't the home run mark. 62 is not the record anymore. Yeah, it is a hell of an accomplishment. So is a 50 goal season in hockey.

Hitting 62 will not make him the single season champion. It will make it easy for him to be the 2006 HR champ, but to be THE champ, he needs 71 or whatever it is now. You can dispute it all you want, but there have been 3 men already to pass the 62 mark

[CZzyzx41]

Screw the steroid question. Howard already owns a record now doesn't he? Record for home runs by a rookie? Is he still considered a rookie? I know McGwire broke the record with 49 in 1987. I can't think of any rookie who hit more since then.

[VandyDelphia Mike]

Screw the steroid question. Howard already owns a record now doesn't he? Record for home runs by a rookie? Is he still considered a rookie? I know McGwire broke the record with 49 in 1987. I can't think of any rookie who hit more since then.

Not a rookie. He was 2005 NL Rookie of the Year.

And does it count that the Maris clan would consider Howard the true recordbreaker? In my opinion, not really, but hey, you can always read this ...

[Epiphanic]

...but to be THE champ, he needs 71 or whatever it is now.

I think you make a sound point zer0dotcom. However, I think that the fact that you don't know the "official" record is 73 is an example on what the steroid issue has done. The home run records (both career and season), were widely known by everyone. But know no one really cares that Bonds hit 73. Sure they might know he did it, but he did cheat (yes, I consider using steroids cheating), and because of that his accomplishment is tainted. Don't take it personally, I'm just trying to illustrate a point.

In response to baseballking99's comment that Babe Ruth is the true king because he did it in 154, I'm reminded of a seen in 61*. Roger Maris (Barry Pepper) wonders, "If Mickey hits 61 in 154, and I pass him later, what happens then?" That is an interesting thought. If it is a season record, then a season is a season.

On the topic of Howard, I think that if he does break Maris' mark, I hope that baseball does something special for him (other than the obligatory HR champ award). It really is a shame that this issue is tainted by the steroid issue.

[STL FANATIC]

I just wish people waited for legit evidence before pronouncing people guilty. Bonds has tons of stuff built up against him. Fair to state as a fact that he's guilty? No, but you can choose to believe that if you want to (I for the most part do).

But McGwire? Any evidence I've heard against him can be fairly easily rebunked. All the evidence against McGwire calls for, is maybe further investigation to get facts. The speculation is crap. It's ashame the Hall of Fame votes are so high and mighty that they buy into factless (I won't say baseless) speculation.

As for Sosa, I don't know if anyone has any dirt on him. Like, I mean, I think there's even less crap brought against him than McGwire. But again, people just assume.

I'm not ruling out the possibilities, but I'd like legit evidence before deciding.

As far as I'm concerned, Bonds probably cheated to hold the record of 73. McGwire is 2nd with 70, and it's possible cheated. Then there's Sosa with 66, and again it's possible.

[fiasco!]

As for Sosa, I don't know if anyone has any dirt on him. Like, I mean, I think there's even less crap brought against him than McGwire. But again, people just assume.

let me think for about a fraction of a second.

corked bat.

isolated incident? highly doubt it.

[STL FANATIC]

As for Sosa, I don't know if anyone has any dirt on him. Like, I mean, I think there's even less crap brought against him than McGwire. But again, people just assume.

let me think for about a fraction of a second.

corked bat.

isolated incident? highly doubt it.

I know, I almost mentioned that I find it easier to believe Sosa cheated than McGwire because he'd cheated in other ways. The point is there is still no solid steroid evidence on either.

[HedleyLamarr]

I just wish people waited for legit evidence before pronouncing people guilty. Bonds has tons of stuff built up against him. Fair to state as a fact that he's guilty? No, but you can choose to believe that if you want to (I for the most part do).

But McGwire? Any evidence I've heard against him can be fairly easily rebunked. All the evidence against McGwire calls for, is maybe further investigation to get facts. The speculation is crap. It's ashame the Hall of Fame votes are so high and mighty that they buy into factless (I won't say baseless) speculation.

As for Sosa, I don't know if anyone has any dirt on him. Like, I mean, I think there's even less crap brought against him than McGwire. But again, people just assume.

I'm not ruling out the possibilities, but I'd like legit evidence before deciding.

As far as I'm concerned, Bonds probably cheated to hold the record of 73. McGwire is 2nd with 70, and it's possible cheated. Then there's Sosa with 66, and again it's possible.

Can YOU say that Bonds in 2001, with absolute, 100% certainty, was assisted by steroids?

[OB33]

If Ryan Howard gets to 62 there won't be a special celebration for two reasons:

1) Ultimately, until proven otherwise Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, and Sammy Sosa all hit more HRs.

2) His last six games are on the road, including the last 3 in Florida where the wild card might be up for grabs. Do you think the Marlins will want to throw a party if he hits 62 in their ballpark and potentially knock them out of the playoffs? Didn't think so.

[marlinfan]

Yeah, if Ed Wade was still GM, Howard would either have been sent back to AAA, or would have been traded in the offseason for a couple of no-name middle relievers.

Had Thome never have gotten hurt, Howard would still probably have zero major league experience, even though he has nearly every franchise minor-league HR record.

Actually I read somewhere Wade almost traded him to Pittsburgh for Benson or Wells, but Dave Littlebrain thought he was getting ripped. Funny how that man's mind works...

Anyway, anyone who needs evidence on whether McRoider did roids just needs to watch his congressional testimony and his "I'm not here to discuss the past blah blah blah" BS.

Just like NFL linemen at a point you look at these guys and say "how the hell did they get so big?*"

*Note: There is a such thing as players getting big especially in their early to mid 20s as many ballplayers fill in (check out some early and late Ty Cobb and Ted Williams pics if you want) but when a player explodes (muscularly not fat) like Bonds did in his mid thirties, .

[WJMorris3]

I believe that the Phillies should recognize when he hits #59 first, only because it breaks the Philadelphia record.

[jkrdevil]

...but to be THE champ, he needs 71 or whatever it is now.

I think you make a sound point zer0dotcom. However, I think that the fact that you don't know the "official" record is 73 is an example on what the steroid issue has done. The home run records (both career and season), were widely known by everyone. But know no one really cares that Bonds hit 73. Sure they might know he did it, but he did cheat (yes, I consider using steroids cheating), and because of that his accomplishment is tainted. Don't take it personally, I'm just trying to illustrate a point.

I think that is more of when it was hit than steroids. Bonds broke 70 just 3 years after McGwire. When records are broken soon after someone else broke it the numbers tend to lose it's mystic. The home run chance was something that would have happened every 30 years not every 3. So when Bonds chased it so soon there was a feeling of the having already been through it from the public perspective. Add in the fact the he broke it right after 9-11 and the compounded the lack of fan fair to the point where the numbers get mixed up. All this was before the massive steroid suspicions.

But McGwire? Any evidence I've heard against him can be fairly easily rebunked. All the evidence against McGwire calls for, is maybe further investigation to get facts. The speculation is crap. It's ashame the Hall of Fame votes are so high and mighty that they buy into factless (I won't say baseless) speculation.

What's wrong with waiting on putting him in the Hall of Fame? Why the rush to put him in. You have to admit there is reasonable suspicion of McGwire why not wait a while to put him? What happens if they admit him in on the first ballot and some harder evidence comes out then what does the Hall do? It would become an embarrassment to the point where they might have to remove a player from the Hall. He is eligible for 15 years, it's not like it is a 1 shot deal. So what is the harm of waiting a few years for this to clear up? After all that is remembered is that a player got in not how long it takes. I think that is what will happen, not for McGwire but for most players of this era.

As for Howard it looks like MLB will no celebrate him hitting the 60 milestone which is good it that how it should be play the game and celebrate afterwards. It was ridiculous how they stopped the games in the past for stuff like this. The game itself should always come first.