Giancarlo Stanton’s Shot at 74
You’ve probably noticed that Giancarlo Stanton has been on fire lately. After hitting exactly seven home runs in each of the first three months of the season, he powered up and hit 12 in July, the most home runs anyone had hit in a month this season besides Cody Bellinger’s 13 in June. But that was just him getting warmed up, because after his home run yesterday, he’s already hit 17 in August.
Since July 1st, Stanton has hit 29 home runs. Nelson Cruz, in second place, has hit 17. Nolan Arenado and Charlie Blackmon, who are tied for sixth-most home runs hit since the beginning of July, have combined to hit 28. And they play in Colorado. Stanton is, by himself, hitting bombs at the rate of two power hitters on hot streaks who get to play at altitude.
Any time a guy has 50 homers by the end of August, the conversation inevitably shifts to the home run record. Stanton himself has declared that he thinks of 62 as the record, given that it’s pretty well established that Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, and Mark McGwire were enjoying some chemical assistance when they surpassed Roger Maris‘ old record. And with 33 games remaining on the Marlins schedule, Stanton looks to be a pretty decent bet to get to 62 at this point; he would only need to homer once every 2.75 games from here on out; he’s averaged one homer every 2.54 games on the season, and a ridiculous one homer per 1.72 games since the start of July.
But despite protestations and Stanton’s own statements, MLB’s official home run record is 73, set by Barry Bonds in 2001. Yes, he was on “stuff”. So were the pitchers. Stanton is now pounding a ball that is probably flying further than balls have in recent years. Babe Ruth didn’t have to face non-white pitchers. There has never been a time when baseball was “clean”, however you want to define that term. There have always been reasons to claim that the current generation is getting help that prior generations did not.
If you want to pass a moral judgment on Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa for “cheating”, that’s fine. MLB has not done that, however, so their records still stand. Officially, the number Stanton is actually chasing is 74. So what are his odds of getting there?
Well, they aren’t zero, which is something in and of itself. But to get to 74, he’d have to hit 24 more home runs in the team’s final 33 games, while playing every single one of those games. That’s a home run every 1.38 games, or just slightly better than his August pace, which is at one homer every 1.47 games. If we just extrapolated out his August home run rate over 33 games, he’d hit 22 more by season’s end, finishing with 72 on the season, one shy of tying Bonds’ record.
So as crazy as Stanton’s home run binge has been of late, he’d actually have to take it up a notch. And you’d have to believe his recent home run trend represents a new sustainable level for him to have any kind of shot.
Even if we give him a 50% chance of hitting a home run in any given game, meaning he’d have a not-believable true talent level of 81 HR per 162 games, a binomial distribution would still only give him a 0.7% chance of hitting 24 homers in his final 33 games. At his August home run rate, which translates out to a laughable 110 homers per 162 game pace, he’d get all the way up to a 35% chance of finishing the season with 74 home runs. To get him up to a 50/50 chance of ending the season with 74 homers, you’d have to give him a projected home run rate of 115 homers per 162 games.
Even for Stanton, with this ball, that’s not reasonable. It doesn’t mean it can’t happen, but think about how amazed at what he’s done for the last 25 games; he now needs to be even better for the next 33. And he can’t miss any games. And opposing teams can’t start intentionally walking him.
While no one wants to be the guy who denies baseball a chance to see history, Mike Petriello noted last week that Stanton’s last road trip takes him to Arizona and Colorado for six games, and the park effects there could help him add to his total. But those two teams are also fighting for Wild Card spots, and if their chances of reaching the postseason rely on the results of those games, Stanton won’t see a strike in any situation where there’s a runner on and first base open. And he might not see many strikes even when that isn’t the situation.
Right now, Stanton has only been intentionally walked five times since the All-Star break. In his 2001 season, Bonds was intentionally walked 15 times in the second half, with eight of those coming in September. If Stanton remains a one-man wrecking ball, managers of teams with something to play for will be self-interested enough to pitch around him, and at this point, Stanton would need every at-bat he could get to get anywhere near Bonds’ record.
So, yeah, it’s probably not happening. Our rest-of-season projections, which regress him back towards his career norms have him hitting just nine more home runs over the rest of the year, finishing one shy of 60 on the year. It’s easy enough to argue that ZIPS and Steamer aren’t adjusting heavily enough for the ball or his weak remaining schedule of opponents — 15 of the Marlins’ final 33 games are against the Braves and Phillies — and perhaps those factors should be enough to expect him to end up with more than 62.
But 62 isn’t the record. 74 is the record. And despite Stanton’s absurd tear of late, Bonds’ record still appears safe for now.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
Good stuff, Dave.
I think that as we look at baseball as a whole, that each of the record/outlier seasons (Ruth, Maris, McGwire, Bonds) tell a story of where baseball was and what made it both beautiful and flawed. Seeing Stanton get 62, I think, would be another tent pole in baseball’s story that would give fans a reason to argue and debate and marvel and tall about this season for years to come. Even if it isn’t 74, it’ll feel like it has that weight and significance to a lot of folks, and the story will be one worth remembering and telling. Here’s hoping he can get it!
“Stanton himself has declared that he thinks of 62 as the record, given that it’s pretty well established that Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, and Mark McGwire were enjoying some chemical assistance when they surpassed Roger Maris‘ old record.”
This might seem like a nitpick to some, but is it pretty well established? Or should it be said it is pretty well accepted? Because the former requires some level of proof, while the latter does not. We might have something on McGwire (i.e., Androstenedione), but isn’t it still technically just innuendo when it comes to Bonds and Sosa? Just because practically everyone simply thinks it’s true doesn’t make it necessarily so.
Sosa was on the infamous list leaked to the New York Times of players who tested positive for PEDs. McGwire straight-up admitted it. And Bonds, if I’m not mistaken, also admitted to taking the “cream and the clear” while claiming ignorance about what it actually was.
So “pretty well established” seems fair to me. (But I still think all their accomplishments should be recognized as “legitimate”.)
Well, there was a book (Game of Shadows) written about Bonds’ use, so I’d say his was also well established.
PED usage by Bonds and McGwire are pretty well established, but it remains innuendo in Sosa’s case. The list leaked to the NYT is so infamous in part because it’s so flawed (containing more names than actual positive tests, for example), and as far as I know it remains the only actual evidence that Sosa was using PEDs.
I remember watching Sammy Sosa with the White Sox and then later seeing him with the Cubs and being astonished it was the same person.
I agree that there’s not as much evidence for him, not like Jason Giambi or Rafael Palmeiro (or Bonds or McGwire or Clemens), but holy cow something happened. The before/after pictures are shocking, but don’t really do justice to it.
In the end, he doesn’t have any more evidence against him that David Ortiz except the images.
Okay, why are you throwing Clemens in there? He denied it, and was taken to court over it and won. Seems like you would need a little more than innuendo to include him with a list of people where it is “well established” that they used steroids.
lol
Bonds was cleared of all charges in the court case though, including the obstruction charge he was initially found guilty of. In order for it to be well established, one would have thought that at least the obstruction charge would have held up. It is probable that he used, but definitive evidence is pretty elusive. A book being written about it does not make it fact.
I guess you are right about “definitive evidence” in the sense that we don’t have video evidence of him using drugs. I can’t imagine what else would be more convincing than him admitting it, a bunch of people near him admitting it, and a ton of documents showing he used it. And that’s not even including the fact that the outcome was basically 100% in line with what we would expect with steroid usage.
If you need more evidence than what we already know to form an opinion about it, you might as well give up on knowing anything you didn’t witness with your own two eyes.
Yup.
There’s significantly more empirical evidence for Bonds’ steroid usage than there is for, say, the theory of evolution.
Not cool, Lester. Not cool.
100% in line with what would be expected with steroid usage? What Bonds did was unique. Are you claiming that he was the only player in MLB using steroids?
How about turning from a skinny, athletic guy into a hulking monster despite entering an age in which even athletic guys tend to lose muscle mass? This is exactly how steroids work.
The production is also what we would expect. He managed to up his power production dramatically despite moving to a park that kills left-handed power at almost exactly the same time as the alleged steroid usage. That surge in power production is what we saw from other steroid users too. He just did everything better than the other steroid users, so the production was better (hence the “uniqueness”).
But you don’t even need to rely on that to know that he used steroids. He used it. His associates said he used it. There are documents showing he used it. I don’t know why anyone would even bother trying to cast doubt on Bonds’ steroid usage at this point, except as homerism (pun not intended) or trying to stake out a reputation for extreme skepticism.
I want to see Stanton do this for a whole season. He has 24 homers in 151 PAs after the ASG. I want to see a 96 homer season.
Or, as long as we’re daydreaming, let’s get him to Cincy and see him try for triple digits.
That will give us something to tell our kids/grandkids.
I’ve always found it hilarious how MLB video games try to sweep the HR records under the rug.
Just change the schedule so he plays the Mets every day until October.
“But despite protestations and Stanton’s own statements, MLB’s official home run record is 73, set by Barry Bonds in 2003.”
This should be 2001.
Also a typo in the part about IBB – Bonds was intentionally walked 15 times in the 2nd half in 2001, not 2004.
(In 2004, 15 IBB was the lowest MONTHLY total for Bonds)
1. Write an article that talks about steroids and whether we should consider 61 or 73 the legitimate home run record.
2. Drink beverage of choice while watching page views climb.
3. Profit
(hey, we figured out Step 2! the underwear gnomes needed to go digital)
Semantics, but why do you say 62 or 74 should be/are the records if the current record is 61 or 73? Stanton would need 62/74 to BREAK the record but if he TIED 61/73 he would still be a record holder.
Of course, if this is actually his new, adjusted true talent level, he’ll probably just need to wait another year or two to actually break Bond’s record… Just call this his warmup towards that… 😛
I like Stanton but really want him to fall short of 62. It would just be really annoying to see people claiming he’s the real HR king when they probably have never even heard of the new ball, or God forbid I switch to MLB Network and have to hear Russo screaming at me that Stanton is the legitimate home run record holder.
I basically copied this sentiment. I apologize, you were first, I should have read the comments first.
The juiced ball factor has hindered my ability to enjoy Stanton’s feat, as incredible as it is. The same could be said for what Judge and Bellinger have done this year or Rhys Hoskins more recently.
I know there are multiple factors contributing to the insane home run numbers we’re seeing, but it seems like hitting a HR has just become significantly easier the past few seasons.
But, isn’t it true that although total home runs have gone up, people aren’t reaching ridiculous totals? In 2016 and 2015 nobody even reached 50 home runs. I’m not saying Stanton isn’t getting any benefit from the juiced ball at all, but he’s also always hit crazy home runs and is finally putting together a healthy season.
In conclusion, I think you should enjoy his feat 🙂
Since he is so far ahead of his contemporaries who can enjoy the same benefits of juiced ball, etc., I think it is worth celebrating.
Non-white pitchers didnt have to face Babe Ruth.
he would have had to face a deeper pool of pitching if the best non-white players had as much a chance as the best white players did, and not instead miss out to lesser pitchers who were favored for their white skin. but you couldn’t help yourself from pulling an ‘all lives matter’ could you?
Pretty sure it was just a joke. I know I chuckled.
yes, it appeals to the lowest common denominator.
I’m just making a joke, and making light of the weird wording regarding the greatest player in the history of the game, in strict baseball terms, the other pitchers were lucky not to face him.
And all joking aside, I don’t think anyone seriously believes that Ruth facing non-white pitchers would have affected his numbers that much.
Go get offended somewhere else.
go be a bitter white supremist somewhere else.
Do you also think banning Archer, Quintana, Carrasco, Cueto, C. Martinez, Gio Gonzalez, Tanaka, Darvish, Stroman, Salazar, Pineda, etc. and replacing them with number 5-6 starters in the league would not affect Trout and Harper’s numbers much?
I was thinking more of the 60’s and 70’s, the era of Gibson, Jenkins, Bob Veale, Newcombe (OK 50’s on him), Vida Blue, Al Downing, Marichal, Cuellar, Camilo Pascual…and during that period, minorities were pretty much limited to stars. A mediocre white player would make a team while a somewhat better minority wouldn’t. So I’d say there is absolutely some truth to the opinion that expanding the player pool was harder on the hitters than in Ruth’s time.
Keep thinking of more. Blue Moon Odom, Juan Pizzaro (terrific pitcher for a few years), Earl Wilson (won 22 in 1967)….Don Wilson of Houston, J.R. Richard (what a beast!), Jim Grant, point being, also, there weren’t very many minority pitchers that weren’t really good. Grant Jackson was miles better than Dave Morehead. Al Jackson was better than Don Elston. Yet those white pitchers lasted 10 years while horrible and the minorities didn’t. There are more….but in today’s game, those minority pitchers would be pitching far more games. This tells me there were even more that were better than their mediocre white counterparts. It tells me that Maris and Mantle and Aaron and Mays had it tougher than Ruth/Gehrig/Foxx, etc., and so do today’s players.
when did the neo-nazi horde log on to fangraphs?
I dunno man, better go find a safe space
If Stanton or anyone else wants to think that 62 would be a record, they are free to think that. It’s not hurting you or anyone else for them to think that. And I’m not trying to sit here and say that facts don’t matter (this isn’t a political discussion, after all), but Stanton hitting 62 home runs would be a monumental achievement, and it will be given more historical importance by some people than others. Talking about “official records” and trying to change peoples’ minds will only cause you unnecessary stress (similar to the whole Rose v. Ichiro hit debate).
If Stanton hits his 62nd home run, it will be a huge story. Much larger, for example, than someone breaking the NL hit-streak record. You can sit and talk about official records all you want, but that won’t change how people view this achievement.
rose vs ichiro is not in the same ballpark of discussion
Of course it’s the same ballpark. Ichiro and Stanton play for the same team.
When he says 62 is the record, he is indirectly claiming that he himself is clean, not using PEDs. Very astute of him. Batista had to endure the innuendo despite the fact he was repeatedly tested; the random test seemed to keep rolling his number!
It is interesting that Stanton threw shade on Bonds after Bonds was a Marlins coach last year. The two must not have gotten along or you would think that Stanton would not dismiss Bonds’ record when it clearly is the record whether we like it or not.
According to the internet, the team with the strongest interest in Stanton is the Giants.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2017/08/28/marlins-giancarlo-stanton-trade-home-runs/607345001/
As a person with no interest in either the Giants or Marlins, this is not okay! I want him to move to a team like Philly so we can see what he can do in a normal-sized stadium.
I’d like to see him on the Braves, but I’d settle for out of the NL East.
Fun fact: Stanton has exactly as many ABs as Barry got during the 2001 season.
So about the same chances as Rhys Hoskins.
So what happens if Stanton hits his 72nd HR on the 162nd game of the year, but the Marlins wind up tied for a WC spot? And in that game, he hits 2 home runs?
Technically, if you have a play-in game to see who the Wild Card teams are, doesn’t that count as the 163rd game of the regular season? Would that make it even more confusing who the real HR king is?
Sports Illustrated ran a “what-if” article back during the 1994 strike in which they forecast fictional storylines for what the rest of the season might have been like if it existed, and they scripted exactly that scenario to happen with Matt Williams (except the record back then was of course 61, not 73).
I can’t help but wonder if MLB juiced the ball specifically to allow someone to eclipse Bonds’s mark
“There has never been a time when baseball was ‘clean,’ however you want to define that term. There have always been reasons to claim that the current generation is getting help that prior generations did not.”
This needs to be pasted into each and every steroids-related and Hall of Fame-related article from this point forward.
Since Hr’s seems to be flying out at seemingly record pace this year, There is always second guessing on the cause. The fact that the player still has to hit the ball and square it up enough to clear the fence still makes this exciting.
Without looking, I hope I am not the ONLY person who considers 61 by maris to be the REAL home run record. Screw you balcoboy, mcgwire and “I don’t speak english” sosa.
1. There is a difference between “real” and “legitimate”.
2. “I don’t speak English”? Seriously?
3. I actually don’t think Bonds et al records should “count” since I’m a Hank-Aaron-4-Ever guy but I still want to downvote you.
Re 2. I think his jab at Sosa stems from:
March 17th 2005: In the MLB Congressional steroid hearings, Sosa had his attorney testify on his behalf because—after 20 years of being in the States and countless interviews—he suddenly couldn’t speak a lick of English.
Yes, but it does come off as a bit racisty. It also doesn’t help calling Bonds “boy” and leaving off any childish nickname for the one white guy.
white, black, asain…balco’boy’ flows, thus, the use.
As for no-name on mcwire, it is only because I haven’t heard of, nor thought up, a witty enough moniker.
McGwire showed humility. He admitted his use. He didn’t adamantly shake his finger at congress. He didn’t hide behind his attorney. He didn’t pretend to be naive about what he used.
I’d go with “McGwire the non-liar”. (I know corny)
Somehow that’ll make me a racist though.
I guess, if you look hard enough for it, you’ll find whatever you’re looking for…
I have to clarify: McGwire absolutely hedged his testimony. For me to make him sound as if he was open about his steroid use from the get go would be wrong. He wasn’t dishonest, but he chose to not testify under oath, stating: “I’m not here to talk about the past.”
It wasn’t until ~5 years later that he described, in great detail, his well known use, ultimately cleansing himself from his guilt and shame. Something that, to my knowledge, only a handful of players have done to this day.
That is where he differs from Palmerio, Sosa and Bonds.
I’m not a Sosa apologist, but I can understand why speaking in one’s second language under oath is much different than speaking it to sports reporters.
Fair enough.
Like mentioned, it was a smart move by Sosa. I’m not denying that. However, it had been well documented that Sosa was rather fluent in English and actually had become as comfortable communicating in English as in Spanish.
Goggle: English is very, very good to Sosa. You’ll find an article dated 9/24/2002 from the ChicagoTribune. Notice the date is ~2 1/2 years before he needed to testify in court.
I agree it was smart of Sosa to deny his ability to speak English well. I don’t agree that it was truthful though.
Smart move. No matter how long you live in Mexico, I bet you’d feel less confident of your Spanish if you had to testify in a governmental hearing.
bingo
This is going to sound horrible but I’m dreading Stanton getting 62. The flaming hot takes of trash words that will be spouted from certain members of the media will be unbearable. With that said, go Giancarlo you beast of a man– keep crushing the cover off the baseball.
Isn’t this more a reason to get excited about NEXT year? It’s a long shot this year, but if Stanton can carry this forward to 2018 and even just split the distance between his ok first half and ridiculous second half to end up at 2.1 or so games per homer, he has the record. He’s clearly become a better, more consistent, hitter, he could honestly threaten this record in 2018 or 2019, especially if he is traded to a bandbox like Citizen’s Bank.
Dave, interesting article. But what’s the point to your comment that “Babe Ruth didn’t have to face non-white pitchers.” I don’t get it.
Not to speak for Dave, but I would say there is a strong similarity between Ruth gaining an advantage (weaker talent pool of pitchers) through no actions of his own and Stanton possibly gaining an advantage (“juiced” ball) through no actions of his own.
But also that if you go looking, you can find reasons to argue for or against anything in the record books being legitimate. Some may be better arguments than others.
You seriously don’t get it? Baseball wasn’t integrated in the 1920’s so his pool of competition was much smaller. Replace all of baseball’s non-white pitchers today with white pitchers who right now can’t make an MLB roster and see how many HR’s players would be hitting.
I remember reading that historically it is easier to hit in September, with speculation that the September call ups are getting a lot of innings. I was able to find that at least the individual records per month show September is a good month to hit. http://www.baseball-almanac.com/recbooks/rb_hr3.shtml
Considering the weak opponents followed by the strong hitting environments in Col & Az, I think Stanton has a serious shot at 62. 74? There’s always next year.
So the juiced ball doesn’t count as assistance? Come on!
Dave mentioned the juiced ball.