DQS: Don't Question Silver

There was an excellent column on ESPN.com Insider last week written by Nate Silver that discussed A-Rod's chances of breaking the home run record. Subscription is required to read the story—by the way, you should subscribe because it will help me keep my job—but here's the gist: After comparing A-Rod to the 20 most similar players to him in history, Silver concluded that there is a 30 percent chance he will break Barry Bonds' home run record.

This conclusion was met with much skepticism in the comments section. As dozens of Yankees fans wrote some variation of, "who is the nerd with the numbers?A-Rod is clearly going to DESTROY Bonds record. This guys knows nothing. A-Rod RUUUULEZ! YANKEES RULE!!!!! COUNT THE RINGS BITCHES!!!!!!"

OK, that might be a tiny exaggeration, but there was definitely healthy skepticism of the results. As an aside, I've always found it interesting how Yankees fans will hate A-Rod, but then defend him for shit like this. Anyway, many of the people commenting were accusing Silver of personal bias. Now I barely know Silver, but I am pretty sure that his numbers are without bias. That would undermine the point of everything he does. He was simply accounting for the fact that players tend to, you know, decline as they get into their mid-30s, and that they experience random ailments. And whaddya know, looks like A-Rod is going to miss ten weeks (maybe more) because of a hip injury that is apparently a cyst or a torn labrum. This is exactly the kind of thing Silver's study were accounting for.

This doesn't mean that A-Rod won't break the record, but this injury comes at a perfect time as far as illustrating why historical comparisons, like Silver's, are valuable. I distinctly remember a time about 10 years ago when the world was convinced that Ken Griffey would break what was then Hank Aaron's home run record. As we know now, Griffey experienced all sorts of hamstring problems, and while he is still one of the top five home run hitters ever, he is not going to break the record. Take a look at the list of the best home run hitters through their age 30 season, and you'll get a better sense that 30s aren't kind to slugger. (Age 30 season means they were 30 years old on June 30.)

1. Alex Rodriguez 464
2. Ken Griffey Jr. 438
3. Jimmy Foxx 429
4. Mickey Mantle 404
5. Eddie Matthews 399
6. Frank Robinson 373
7. Mel Ott 369
8. Andruw Jones 368
9. Hank Aaron 366
10. Juan Gonzalez 362

What might be most amazing about this list is that Bonds isn't on it. In fact, he is 25th on the list. He is, not surprisingly, first on the list for home runs from age 30 on, with 503. Now before you go blaming steroids, keep in mind that Babe Ruth is second on that list, with 430. Yes, it appears that Bonds was on something, but it's also true that it's possible to be prodigious home run hitter after the age of 30 without the aid of HGH.

But other than Bonds' absence, you'll notice a lot of guys who burned out for a variety of reasons. There's Griffey (bum hamstring), Jones (got fat) and Mantle (lots of booze). Of course there is Aaron, who is an outlier, as is Bonds. And yes, maybe A-Rod will prove to be an outlier as well who hits home runs well into his 40s. But the point is that we shouldn't ignore history, and that lots of people who comment on blogs are idiots. Except, of course, for the nice people who comment on this blog.