I'm guessing Bob Costas would side a bit more with Kurkijian. Bob would probably like to see one 40 HR season a decade.

It frustrates me to see so many "experts" against the progress made in baseball. Equate 60 HR's in a season to the 4 minute mile. Once that was broken, many more people soon were able to accomplish the feat. That is seen as progress.

As an 8-year old, going to that game was my first in Atlanta. The things that I remember about the game were that it was cold, raining off and on, and that we left at the end of the fifth inning (along with everyone else in the stadium), once it became an official game.

We sat near (then) Govenor Jimmy Carter and his family (he attended games a lot back then), Pearl Bailey, Sammy Davis Jr., and the absense of Commissioner Bowie Kuhn. I'll never forget the "Phooey on Bowie" banner paraded around the stadium.

Great point and makes for a fun discussion! You, being a stats guy, know how the talent pool has changed over the years. I am not a knowledgeable stats guy, but I doubt Bonds faces the same level of pitching day in/day out that Aaron faced in the late 50's. We could go back and forth about the different era plusses and minuses. However, I respectfully disagree with Ryan equating hitting accomplishments to the 4 min mile. Running is an individual activity, hitting a baseball takes 2, so while the talent level of the hitter, like the runner will improve, the talent level of the pitcher should also improve. It would be interesting to see how Bonds does the first 2 PAs of a game vs. the best starting pitchers (top 40%-50%) against how Aaron did against all pitchers in his first 2 PA's. (Takes into account spread out talent of today, vs. starters working longer) I think Bonds might hold his own quite well. Thanks for the Blog and the opportunity to learn more about the sport I enjoy the most.

There will probably be a lot of media attention when/if Bonds gets close to Aaron, but probably not for the reason you're thinking about. One word: BALCO. I'm guessing a large portion of the coverage will be negative due to all the steroid talk. And that's fine with me. Bonds approaching the record doesn't mean nearly as much anymore. I agree with the Kirk.

Lets just imagine what Mr.Bonds would have done backl then with the pitching talent not as equal to those of today. Regardless of what is being said in the media about the Balco scandal, lets just enjoy watching one of the greatest hitters of all time.

brian, you're so lucky actually being at that game. i wasn't even born then. i was lucky enough to go to the series here in houston where barry hit #70 when no one would throw him a strike and he hit the only 2 good pitches he got that whole series. watching hank's #714 and 715 for me is like watching old pictures of the babe or ted. i wish i could have seen the real thing. which is why i'm appreciating barry right now roids or no roids. because he's just unbelieveable and i'll remember this forever and i'll tell my grandkidz all about it just like you guys talk about hank.

ryan, what the hell? it's not "progress"; it's called a phase. were the 2.00 era's and .230 batting averages of the 1960s "progress" as well? it should be MLB's duty to try to maintain a balance within the game; it would be foolish to argue that the advantage has not shifted over to the hitters. it's time to make some changes and bring a sense of balance back to the game.

dave, don't you think "occasional" 70 home run seaons and 700 HR careers will kind of dilute the grand meaning they currently have? the 50 HR barrier, for example, has gone from a momentous achievement to commonplace in the span of a decade. depending on what happens over the next few years the once magical symbol of "60" could be bypassed into insignificance as well. i refuse to see this as "progress", or as being "good for the game". the juiced era came, it brought the fans back, and now it's time for it to go away. it's time to introduce some significant rule changes that aim to lower offensive levels back to a historical midpoint. anyone who disagrees is supporting the destruction of baseball's connection with its past, something which has always been - even if it's barely clinging on these days - an integral part of what makes baseball inimitable and unparallelled among sports.

It is ridiculous to claim that there is greater pitching talent now than in the fifties and sixties. In 1954, when Aaron arrived in the major leagues, there were sixteen teams, eight in each league. In 1976, his final year, there were six teams in each of the four divisions, for a total of twenty-four. When Bonds broke in with the Pirates they were one of twenty-six teams, and his recent power surge has corresponded with MLB's latest expansion, bringing its member teams to a total of thirty. Throughout the bulk of Aaron's career, he was facing staffs culled from the top 200 pitchers in the world, while Bonds currently feasts off of diluted staffs made up of the top 300 hurlers in the world. Additionally, Aaron played in an era when baseball dominated the American sports landscape; the best athletes chose baseball. Sadly, that is no longer the case. Bonds's numbers are phenomenal, and he is clearly one of the best to ever play the game, deserving of the comparisons to Mays and Aaron, but it simply isn't correct to say that he has put up those numbers against superior pitching.