I never thought I would see the day when someone would break Roger Maris'
record for home runs, but as I write this, Mark McGwire stands at 61 with 17
games to go. How many more can he hit? Can Sammy Sosa also break or surpass
what McGwire has done?
   I personally think that he will probably end the season with 75 or so. Sosa
probably will catch up, but he will be number 2 on the list.

   Thoughts?

16 responses total.

You're predicting 14 home runs in 17 games, Jim?  That's nuts.  It could 
happen (Sosa hit 20 homers in 21 games earlier this year), but 
predicting it is nuts.  He's been getting 1 homer in 8 at bats on the 
average this year, so it qould be reasonable to expect 8 or 9 homers -- 
which could put him at 70 for the year.  I predict he'll finish at 65 
for the season.

I predict 62 for Sosa, by the way.

The home run race has been amazing, and very good for baseball.  Now if 
some of these fans who are tuning in to see McGwire hit the long ball 
will realize what a great game baseball is, and stick with it, baseball 
will return to it's rightful position of pre-eminence in American 
sports.

  CBC did the same thing this morning, so I'm in good company. 

  Don't kid yourself, jep. I nearly fell asleep while watching the Cubs-Cards
game on the box yesterday. I drank a cup of coffee, picked up my book _Mutiny
on the Bounty_ and returned to watching the action of the book play out before
me. The game became the radio someone left on. It is one hell of a book. ;)

65 for Bic Mac, 68 tops.

 He did it. #62 was the first pitch of his second atbat. He put it in the
left field bullpen area. It happened at 8:19 St. Louis time. After it was over
I went back to watching the movie I had going. 
 
  If I am wrong about McGwire, I'll wash your car by hand. 

65 is about what I expect, too.  

Well my "68 tops" would have been correct as of the *next to last* game of
the season, but durned if he didn't hit 2 more the *last* game of the season
 ;-)   An even 70 ought to last for awhile...

And Sammy Sosa has an extra game in which he might add another homer or two.
The Chicago Cubs and the San Francisco Giants have a 1-game playoff to
determine the NL wild card.  Winner is in the playoffs; loser watches them
on TV.

McGwire 70
Sosa    66
Griffey 56 (for the 2nd year in a row)
Vaughn  50

It wasn't an overwhelmingly spectacular year for home runs in baseball, 
but it was spectacular for the top home run hitters.  This year wasn't 
about a juiced baseball, in other words, or about bad pitching giving 
up a lot of homers to everyone; it was about individual accomplishment 
by a few exceptional sluggers.  What a year!

I dunno, I think there were "many" players with 40+ homers.  Albert Belle,
Vinnie Castilla, ...

AL 40 home run hitters:

Ken Griffey Jr, SEA            56
Albert Belle, CHA              49
Jose Canseco, TOR              46
Juan Gonzalez, TEX             45
Manny Ramirez, CLE             45
Rafael Palmeiro, BAL           43
Alex Rodriguez, SEA            42
Mo Vaughn, BOS                 40

Over the last 10 years, the #1 home run hitter has hit:
56, 52, 50, 40, 46, 43, 44 (2 players), 51, 36, 42

Griffey, Belle, Canseco and Gonzalez have previously won the yearly home 
run championship.


NL 40 home run hitters:

Mark Mcgwire, STL              70
Sammy Sosa, CHN                66
Greg Vaughn, SDG               50
Vinny Castilla, COL            46
Andres Galarraga, ATL          44

Over the last 10 years, the #1 home run hitter has hit:

49, 47, 40, 43, 46, 35, 38, 40, 47, 39

McGwire and Galarraga have previously won the yearly home run 
championship.

This information is from fastball.com; I don't know where to find a list 
of the top 10 home run hitters for each year.  I imagine you're right, 
there are several more 40 home run hitters this year than in most 
previous years, and maybe than in any year.  But what would that prove?  
To me, it's an indication that several guys had really exceptional 
years.  If it's due to a juiced ball, there'd be more homers across 
baseball.  If it's due to expansion and weak pitching, same thing, *and* 
we'll see a lot of 40 home run hitters next year, too.  More than this 
year.

Well, I don't think we have to much worry about that now, hockey's started
up again and all, amd McGwire's got it. And besides, even if the Cubbies had
made it as far as people were saying they were going to, they'd have a hell
of a time taking down the Yankees. Not saying they couldn't do it, just that
it'd take the full 7 games.

After a great season, Baseball ended with a thud.  Now there are salary 
issues.  One wonders if the Tigers will ever be competitive again when 
the Yankees, Dodgers, and Mets can outspend them like this.  Ah well.  
McGwire is still cleaning up with the sports awards, having earned a 
couple Espys.

1998 may have been the best year in baseball history, according to some 
people, anyway, with the Yankees run for the record in wins, and the 
McGwire/Sosa home run race, and the completion of Cal Ripken's utterly 
amazing streak of consecutive games.

Baseball will have a tough time matching that in 1999.  Already, some 
are predicting McGwire will hit more than 70 homers this year.  That 
seems impossible to me, but then, it seemed impossible anyone would get 
62 homers last year, as I said all through the year.

I don't believe 1999 will be the year for the Tigers.  I think they're a 
few prime players away from contending with Cleveland for their 
division.  They'll be a better team than they were last year.  I hope 
they'll be a .500 team, which will be a good indication they'll be real 
contenders in 2000, their first year in the new stadium.

1999 will be the last year of baseball in Tiger Stadium.  I'm planning 
on going to 8-10 games this year.  I organized the Clinton PTO's 
Mother-Son Event Committee to have the moms and kids go to the ballpark 
the weekend before Mother's Day, and we're looking at sending 100 or so 
Moms and sons to the game.  I love that ballpark, and I'm going to miss 
it.

However... the new ballpark *will* allow the Tigers to match spending 
with the big teams.  10 years ago, Cleveland was a hopeless 
non-contender, who had been in last place or close to it for 30 years, 
and who didn't have the money to contend.  Now they do.  Their new 
ballpark brought in the fans, and that brought in the money.  They've 
been serious World Series contenders, and big spenders, throughout the 
1990s as a direct result.

I agree, I'll miss Tiger Stadium, but the new park will be nice and the 
spending will be important.  Right now the Tigers are gamely attempting 
to compete on a lousy payroll (which is pretty much impossible) while 
they build up money for a real free agent-and-title run in a year or 
two.  Baseball seriously needs to restructure itself, though.  1998 was 
a spectacular year, and the down teams had the look of teams on a 
downswing, so it all worked out.  However, if the same teams are 
*always* down, there's a problem.  At the moment there might as well be 
a ten team first division and a 20 team second division.  It would be 
the greatest upset in the history of sports for a low payroll team (like 
the Tigers or the Minnesota Twins or the Montreal Expos or something) to 
win the championship.  Baseball needs a serious salary cap.

Anyone know what the new stadium will actually look like?  I haven't 
heard too much specifically.  Some new parks are better than others.  
I'd love for it to have another gaping centerfield like the current 
stadium does.  There's too much emphasis on close homer-friendly fences.

There's a lot of information at: http://www.detroittigers.com, 
including a Webcam of the construction in progress.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss