Would Babe Have Hit 104 Home Runs?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • SHOELESSJOE3
    Registered User
    • Jan 2000
    • 16052

    Originally posted by TRfromBR View Post
    Semantics, perhaps, AF. It's a batting bonanza, where a large majority of the hits happen to go over the fence - because the fences have been moved in. So, it's a home run bonanza within a batting bonanza. Besides, batting bonanza is so much more alliterative.
    The difference between the 1920s-30s and now is how the runs are scored. I see some bringing up that the runs per game was higher in 1920-30s than it was from the 1990s to the present.

    I think we were discussing home runs then and now and the conditions hit under.

    For one thing parks were bigger then, more area for balls to drop in.

    Strikeouts per at bat were lower, contact back in that time, lots of free swingers in todays game.

    Some other numbers. I took the years 1920-36 and 1990 to 2006, both 17 year periods.

    --------------------AB---------AB/2B-------AB/3B-------AB/HR
    1920-1936-------1453470-------20.2--------75.62--------76.59
    1990-2006-------2645894-------19.54------175.09--------33.65

    Double ratio close, triples far higher ratio putting runners 90 feet from home more often per at bat. Home runs, today hit at a far better ratio than the 1920s-1930s.

    A whole different way of scoring in the 1920s-30s then in the last 17 seasons, 1990-2006. I think most would agree some favorable condition for base hits back in those day, more favorable conditions for the long ball today. I have not discounted the fact that on average players are bigger today, but the parks do play some part.
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 07-23-2007, 05:39 AM.

    Comment

    • JRB
      Registered User
      • Sep 2006
      • 1021

      Originally posted by 538280 View Post
      No disputing that. MLB balls have very small seams. Try holding an MLB ball next to a high school or youth ball. The difference in the size of the seams is significant.

      But, anyway, a point to be made here is that for all the talk of how ridiculously juiced up the game is today, something that is overlooked is that the time in which Ruth came up was a time when the game became far more juiced up than it ever has. People are constantly decrying the balls today and how the public has been fooled by a new era of offense, well, why can't the same be said about the 1920s as can be said about the era from about 1994 to the present? The 1920s and 1930s were actually the two highest run scoring decades in history-not the 1990s or the 2000s. There were more runs scored in Ruth's era than this modern era and overall batting totals were higher. Home runs were not, but overall run scoring was. And that was coming off the deadball era.
      Chris: I partially agree with some of the points you are trying to make. Making clandestine changes which fool the public is wrong whether these underhanded tactics occurred in the 1920's or 1930's or in the 1990's. It would be inconsistent to give a pass to unconscionable behavior by the owners in the 1920's and then condemn them for the same thing in the 1990's.

      I think the point made by Shoeless Joe and TR is that the changes the owners implemented in 1920 seem to have been done (at least in part) more transparently and in a less underhanded manner than what was done in the 1990's. The clean ball and the banning of certain pitches was done publicly in advance of the season. Both fans and players knew what the new playing conditions were beforehand. I believe it was the clean ball more than anything else which caused league averages to rise.

      MLB also introduced a new livelier ball. They started using the new ball in the AL early in the 1920 season and the new ball was introduced into the NL at the very end of the 1920 season (the reason for the difference in timing is that the leagues had different equipment distributors even though the same company manufactured the ball used in each league). The question is whether the owners let the public and players know in advance that they were using a new livelier ball? I'm not sure, I'll have to do some research on that one. If they didn't let the public know what was happening then they would be just as guilty as the owners were in the 1990's.

      The same goes for 1930. My understanding is that the owners were worred about the economic impact of the Stock Market crash of October 1929.. They introduced a livelier ball for use in 1930, and you know the results of that experiment. However, they deadened the ball used in the National League for the following season. In fact we recently discussed the deadening of the ball prior to the start of the 1931 season in the Hack Wilson thread (it caused the balls Hack hit in 1931 to be fly ball outs instead of home runs like they had been in 1930). If the owners decision to make the ball livelier for the 1930 season was done secretly without informing the public then I say they behavior is just as wrong as what the owners did in the 1990's, thought I would add the historical note that the economic situation in all of America in 1930 was dire and at least the owners had the excuse that there were unusual and exigent circumstances which compelled their precautionary action.

      As far as Babe Ruth is concerned, he didn't need any of those changes. He was alread head and shoulders above the other hitters in the league, and he would have continued to dominate without any changes. I think an interesting question is how many home runs in one season do you think Ruth would have eventually hit with the dead ball (he had just hit 29 in a partial season). Would he have eventually set the record at around 40, 45, or 50?

      c JRB

      Comment

      • Ubiquitous
        stats moderator
        • Aug 2005
        • 14302

        Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
        The difference between the 1920s-30s and now is how the runs are scored. I see some bringing up that the runs per game was higher in 1920-30s than it was from the 1990s to the present.

        I think we were discussing home runs then and now and the conditions hit under.

        For one thing parks were bigger then, more area for balls to drop in.

        Strikeouts per at bat were lower, contact back in that time, lots of free swingers in todays game.

        Some other numbers. I took the years 1920-36 and 1990 to 2006, both 17 year periods.

        --------------------AB---------AB/2B-------AB/3B-------AB/HR
        1920-1936-------1453470-------20.2--------75.62--------76.59
        1990-2006-------2645894-------19.54------175.09--------33.65

        Double ratio close, triples far higher ratio putting runners 90 feet from home more often per at bat. Home runs, today hit at a far better ratio than the 1920s-1930s.

        A whole different way of scoring in the 1920s-30s then in the last 17 seasons, 1990-2006. I think most would agree some favorable condition for base hits back in those day, more favorable conditions for the long ball today. I have not discounted the fact that on average players are bigger today, but the parks do play some part.

        I think your post brings up an interesting point or maybe we can call it a theory. Those parks compared to today's parks are cavernous, and being cavernous tend to dappen home runs on an individual basis. But what cavernous parks do not to necessarily is to dampen offense. Which we clearly see to be the case in the 1920's. Consider also if you will Coors Field pre-humidor. Coors Field is a home run park that is true, but as we all know it isn't because the walls are so close. No it is because of geography. Coors Field though is also a great place to hit doubles, triples, and singles. It is this great place to do all that because it is cavernous, it has (it might not anymore) the biggest outfield in the majors. To me the early 1920's AL looks a lot like playing in Coors Field. Lots of doubles, triples, singles, and homers. It appears the batters were not having trouble making contact with the ball as strikeouts dropped. In Coors it is because the ball doesn't break as much, perhaps in the 1920's it was because the pitchers initially couldn't get the ball to break as much because the cheat pitches were taken away.

        Anyway to step away from the Coors field relationship and focus on the 1920's. I think what we see in the 1920's is the giant parks which in reality are great for offenses, I don't believe for a second that these big parks were great for pitchers. Yes long distances are bad for extreme flyball hitters but for everybody else they are great. Could it be that shrinking the distances accomplished two things? Could it be that shrinking the fences created more home runs but at the same time took away all that acreage that defenders had to patrol and hitters had for safe hits?

        Yes Babe Ruth lost homers because of those distant fences but he also "lost" outs because of those giant pastures. That was something Jenkinson I believed never discussed. How many line drives or flyballs dropped in safely because the CF'er was positioned 440 feet away from the plate? We have ample stories of outfielders positioning themselves with their backs to the wall when Babe is up. Which if true just imagine those giant stadiums with all that outfield space and not an outfielder in site. The other day Aramis Ramirez came up and all the OF'ers had a foot on the warning track when he was up to bat. Which basically means the farthest OF'er was about 385 feet or so from the plate. Others what 350 feet? How much ground can an OF'er cover in 3 seconds? In 4 seconds? In 5 seconds. Now go back and picture an OF'er doing that in 1920.

        So yes Babe lost homers because of the distance but how many hits did he gain because he didn't make an out? How many homers did he hit because his team didn't make outs?

        Am I saying the two cancel each other out? Nope, just spitballing here.

        Comment

        • SHOELESSJOE3
          Registered User
          • Jan 2000
          • 16052

          Originally posted by Ubiquitous View Post
          I think your post brings up an interesting point or maybe we can call it a theory. Those parks compared to today's parks are cavernous, and being cavernous tend to dappen home runs on an individual basis. But what cavernous parks do not to necessarily is to dampen offense.
          Anyway to step away from the Coors field relationship and focus on the 1920's. I think what we see in the 1920's is the giant parks which in reality are great for offenses, I don't believe for a second that these big parks were great for pitchers. Yes long distances are bad for extreme flyball hitters but for everybody else they are great. Could it be that shrinking the distances accomplished two things? Could it be that shrinking the fences created more home runs but at the same time took away all that acreage that defenders had to patrol and hitters had for safe hits?

          How many line drives or flyballs dropped in safely because the CF'er was positioned 440 feet away from the plate? We have ample stories of outfielders positioning themselves with their backs to the wall when Babe is up. Which if true just imagine those giant stadiums with all that outfield space and not an outfielder in site. How much ground can an OF'er cover in 3 seconds? In 4 seconds? In 5 seconds. Now go back and picture an OF'er doing that in 1920.

          So yes Babe lost homers because of the distance but how many hits did he gain because he didn't make an out? How many homers did he hit because his team didn't make outs?
          Am I saying the two cancel each other out? Nope, just spitballing here.
          I did touch on that in my previous post #177, bigger parks allowing for more balls to drop in, in front of the outfielders. Also the deeper outfielders play back the bigger the space between them becomes, depending shading some hitters and positioned straight away for others. Maybe only a few feet or more apart side to side but a few feet can make the difference on balls hit in between outfielders, an out or an extra base hit

          I guess that would allow Ruth more at bats if his team made fewer outs, he would come to bat more times. That effected his total home run number but his AB/HR ratio was second only to McGwire another stat that is a part of ranking the best home run hitters.

          That was the point of my previous post, high runs per game in those times and now but different methods of scoring then and now.
          Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 07-23-2007, 05:36 AM.

          Comment

          • 538280
            Prophet of Rage
            • May 2005
            • 11335

            Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
            I would say the difference is that in the 1920's we knew what took place. The ball was different, possible the ball was changed in 1919. That one we can't be sure of but there were two other important changes in the game that swung the balance the hitters way.

            Trick deliveries were banned, this took away one of the pitchers biggest weapons. They could not wet the ball, tobacco stain the ball, discolor it in any way making it more difficult for the batter to "pick up" the pitch.

            Also very important balls were no longer left in the game for many innings. This practice came about around mid season 1920. Before than a ball could be left in the game for many innings, dirt stained, grass stained, scuffed up and having been hit several times. For some time spectators were obliged to return balls hit into the stands. Refusing meant being ejected from the park and in some cases some were even placed under arrest.

            The death of Ray Chapman also played a part. It was believed that had the ball been clean and white he may have better seen the pitch.

            Thats it all the reasons why the offense took of in the 1920s a different story in the early 1990s, fans wondering what took place, supposedly no major changes that we were aware of. The 1920s explosion was not questioned because we knew why it took place.
            I realize that changes were made in the game in 1920 that were realized by people such as the banning of spitballs and pitchers' trick deliveries and changing balls more often. However I don't see how that makes things any less different for the fans of that time. yes, people could guess that maybe offense would be a little higher this year because of those changes, but #1 I seriously doubt anyone was predicting such big changes, and #2 it still illegitimizes things like records which such a big deal are made over today to exactly the same extent, in fact even more so because the changes were much more dramatic in the 20s. I don't think in the least that fans knew what was going to happen in 1920. In fact I have read that some fans were dissapointed and liked the deadball game better. No one saw what was coming any more than they did in this modern era.

            Comment

            • 538280
              Prophet of Rage
              • May 2005
              • 11335

              Originally posted by JRB View Post
              Chris: I partially agree with some of the points you are trying to make. Making clandestine changes which fool the public is wrong whether these underhanded tactics occurred in the 1920's or 1930's or in the 1990's. It would be inconsistent to give a pass to unconscionable behavior by the owners in the 1920's and then condemn them for the same thing in the 1990's.

              I think the point made by Shoeless Joe and TR is that the changes the owners implemented in 1920 seem to have been done (at least in part) more transparently and in a less underhanded manner than what was done in the 1990's. The clean ball and the banning of certain pitches was done publicly in advance of the season. Both fans and players knew what the new playing conditions were beforehand. I believe it was the clean ball more than anything else which caused league averages to rise.

              MLB also introduced a new livelier ball. They started using the new ball in the AL early in the 1920 season and the new ball was introduced into the NL at the very end of the 1920 season (the reason for the difference in timing is that the leagues had different equipment distributors even though the same company manufactured the ball used in each league). The question is whether the owners let the public and players know in advance that they were using a new livelier ball? I'm not sure, I'll have to do some research on that one. If they didn't let the public know what was happening then they would be just as guilty as the owners were in the 1990's.
              I'm not sure about the ball either. As far as them making changes public with the balls being cleaner and being replaced I think that if you're talking about the actions of the owners, then, yes, the ones in the 1990s were probably more "underhanded", unless they didn't let people know about the new balls. However, I was speaking more in terms of what is often brought up about "integrity of records" and such, and how this era is often maligned by many on this forum for just being a juiced up and all or nothing era. My point is that the changes in the game between the 70s/80s and the 90s/2000s are not nearly as big or sudden or widespead as the changes between the 1910s and 1920s. Why isn't the 1920s game maligned in a similar way for having ridiculous offensive levels (higher than those in the 90s/2000s) and home runs, of which there was an even larger percentage difference between the two decades in terms of HRs/game.

              Comment

              • SHOELESSJOE3
                Registered User
                • Jan 2000
                • 16052

                Originally posted by 538280 View Post
                I realize that changes were made in the game in 1920 that were realized by people such as the banning of spitballs and pitchers' trick deliveries and changing balls more often. However I don't see how that makes things any less different for the fans of that time. yes, people could guess that maybe offense would be a little higher this year because of those changes, but #1 I seriously doubt anyone was predicting such big changes, and #2 it still illegitimizes things like records which such a big deal are made over today to exactly the same extent, in fact even more so because the changes were much more dramatic in the 20s. I don't think in the least that fans knew what was going to happen in 1920. In fact I have read that some fans were dissapointed and liked the deadball game better. No one saw what was coming any more than they did in this modern era.
                Agreed the changes were more dramatic a bigger leap in the 1920s but again it was no secret why it took place. Not only the banning of trick deliveries and replacing scuffed up beat up balls more often but the whole strategy of the game changed.

                With Ruth leading the way more began swinging for the fences in the 1920s.
                Without trying to justify one leap in offense over the other, it's two different worlds. Whether some cared for the leap in the 1920s, they knew what took place. It was a whole different game before 1920 and after 1920.

                This was not the case before the early 1990s and after. We were already in the long ball era and fans could not understand how all of a sudden some slugging records were being challenged, home run records were smashed.

                Again not saying one leap was more acceptable than the other but you can't compare the leap in the 1920s even though it was more dramatic than the leap in the 1990s.

                Comment

                • TRfromBR
                  ..Let's Play Ball..
                  • Jan 2007
                  • 1501

                  As evidence of the unparalled distances Ruth could hit [the older balls], and what challenges the fields of old presented, one could examine Bonds' 2001 season, in which he hit 73 HR's. Excluding altitude-aided Denver, Bonds longest hit in his best year was only 462 feet. In Ruth's day, a 462 ft. drive to center would not have reached centerfield fences. This further demonstrates the enormous power Ruth generated, and how the much smaller size of today's parks alone would have dramatically boosted his home run totals - nevermind all the other offensive advantages.
                  Last edited by TRfromBR; 07-23-2007, 12:25 PM.

                  Comment

                  • SHOELESSJOE3
                    Registered User
                    • Jan 2000
                    • 16052

                    Originally posted by 538280 View Post
                    I'm not sure about the ball either. As far as them making changes public with the balls being cleaner and being replaced I think that if you're talking about the actions of the owners, then, yes, the ones in the 1990s were probably more "underhanded", unless they didn't let people know about the new balls. However, I was speaking more in terms of what is often brought up about "integrity of records" and such, and how this era is often maligned by many on this forum for just being a juiced up and all or nothing era. My point is that the changes in the game between the 70s/80s and the 90s/2000s are not nearly as big or sudden or widespead as the changes between the 1910s and 1920s. Why isn't the 1920s game maligned in a similar way for having ridiculous offensive levels (higher than those in the 90s/2000s) and home runs, of which there was an even larger percentage difference between the two decades in terms of HRs/game.

                    Same answer as in my previous post. Two different worlds before 1920 and into the 1920s, changes made in the game known to all, no more trick deliveries, cleaner balls and the big one, contact hitters were in fewer numbers, the long ball was in. Didn't it stand to reason that the offense had to take off. Of course the 1920's leap had to be more dramatic than that of the 1990's it was a new game in the 1920's.

                    I've found out one thing in all the years I've followed this game. When there is a dramatic change in the game and there seems to no known reason why, fans are more suspicious. Fair or not thats the way it is.

                    Another reason why the 1920's leap is not spoken badly of. None of us were here at that time. We grew up in the long ball era, this is the game we knew. I doubt there are any on this board that were here in 1919 and old enough to be aware of that change, if there are any from that time God bless you. At that time the new power game was looked down by some players and fans.

                    Give us some credit for at least considering the conditions the hitters faced before 1920 when evaluating them. I am sure most of us take that into account and I'm sure that some who played before 1920 could have put up some far better home run totals than they did had they played after 1919.
                    Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 07-23-2007, 12:38 PM.

                    Comment

                    • JRB
                      Registered User
                      • Sep 2006
                      • 1021

                      Originally posted by 538280 View Post
                      I'm not sure about the ball either. As far as them making changes public with the balls being cleaner and being replaced I think that if you're talking about the actions of the owners, then, yes, the ones in the 1990s were probably more "underhanded", unless they didn't let people know about the new balls. However, I was speaking more in terms of what is often brought up about "integrity of records" and such, and how this era is often maligned by many on this forum for just being a juiced up and all or nothing era. My point is that the changes in the game between the 70s/80s and the 90s/2000s are not nearly as big or sudden or widespead as the changes between the 1910s and 1920s. Why isn't the 1920s game maligned in a similar way for having ridiculous offensive levels (higher than those in the 90s/2000s) and home runs, of which there was an even larger percentage difference between the two decades in terms of HRs/game.
                      Chris: I think the main reason the the 20's and 30's game isn't maligned as much as the 90's and 2000's game is because baseball never went back to the way it was prior to 1920. After the changes made in 1920, all batters since that time have reaped the benefit of those changes.

                      I'm sure that back in the 1920's there were a lot of purists who didn't like the changes and probably had a low opinion of the then current state of the game. However, since MLB never reverted back, everyone eventually just accepted the change as permanent.

                      The same thing may very well happen with the current era. If players continue to use steroids or other PED's and the league contnues to slackly enforce the rules or legalizes the use of PED's then eventually the situation will just be accepted, and there will be greater acceptance of the current era. Baseball history will in effect be divided into 3 eras, the deadball era, the first liveball era, and the second liveball/PED era.

                      However, if the PED ban is stictly enforced, then in the future the contempt for the records of this era will likely grow, not subside. If players in the future, who are not using PED's, have to have their peformances compared to records set by players who were using them, I don't think they would tolerate such a situation. I believe that such a situation would eventually lead to a movement to have the records from this era exorcised is some manner.

                      Once again only time will tell.

                      c JRB

                      Comment

                      • TRfromBR
                        ..Let's Play Ball..
                        • Jan 2007
                        • 1501

                        In relation to the relative levels of league deception and fan outrage in the '20s, as compared to now, one could look at the steroid scandal. Not a day or hour has gone by in years where a multitude of fans have not complained about what they believe to be deliberate deception on the part of the league, and cheating on the part of certain ballplayers. I have recently studied many hundreds of news accounts of Baseball from the early '20s through the mid-30's. In not one report or editorial did I see any charge of cheating or fraud against the league for the home run revolution Babe Ruth led. (The only possible exception to this, depending on interpretation, had to do with the NL's superball, involving Hack Wilson, and Wahoo's 4-piece bat, which was a very brief affair.)

                        So, in comparison to the steroid scandal, there was absolutely nothing on that level during the '20's and '30s. Moreover, the explosion of offense during Ruth's day was initiated because of Ruth. He was so phenomenal that he caused the league(s) to follow him. In recent times, it has been just the opposite - the power hitters paled in comparison to Ruth, so conditions were fixed to make hitters LOOK more powerful. That was not needed with Ruth; in 1919 he hit a ball over 550'. In other words, he started his own revolution.
                        Last edited by TRfromBR; 07-23-2007, 12:55 PM.

                        Comment

                        • Ubiquitous
                          stats moderator
                          • Aug 2005
                          • 14302

                          Except virtually no one can approach the records of the first liveball era.

                          Roger Maris needed 162 games and expansion and modern equipment to get to 61. From 1946 to 1993 there were only 10 50+ homer seasons all of them except for 61 was 54 or less. From 1920 to 1938 there was 8 50 or more homer seasons.
                          There was 6 seasons of 49 homers from 162 game era. There was 6 seasons of 47 or more homers in 154 game era.

                          RBI leaders are from that era, doubles leaders are from that era, until Maris both home run leaders were from that era.

                          Virtually every positive record post 1901 was set in the era of between the wars.

                          To me there is no long continuous progression here. Baseball in 1920's and 30's was a different kind of ball then was played after it.

                          Oddly enough once again we are seeing an era that is similar to the offensive exploits of the 1920's and a lot of "purists" are against it. I should also point out that many were against before the specter of steroids cast a gloom over the field. Take a look at what people were saying on this board, in newspapers, and elsewhere before Bonds went crazy in 2001. People were looking for anything to discount what they were seeing. They didn't want happened now to be equal or surpass what happened 80 years ago.

                          There was a huge change in the game after WWI that huge change created impressive results. Those results show themselves in impressive records and feats. The problem is that people want to somehow make the feats all man created instead of some man created and some environment. They want to be able to say player X is the greatest because he and he alone did Y whereas Player Z in 1997 isn't as great because Player Z may have done Y or better but it wasn't all him. It was the ball, it was the stadium, it was the rules, it was the umps, it was his bat, so on and so on.

                          Records are simply a recording of what happened. Without a doubt Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Rogers Hornsby, and anyone else you want to name don't achieve those fabulous without the environment helping them in a big way. That isn't a knock on them, it is simply the truth about records. Records are achieve in environments conducive to extreme results.

                          Look at virtually every single record that stands for more then a season or two and please show me how many of those records were not achieved in environments conducive to setting those records. You will find very very few records.

                          Comment

                          • TRfromBR
                            ..Let's Play Ball..
                            • Jan 2007
                            • 1501

                            Originally posted by Ubiquitous View Post
                            Take a look at what people were saying on this board, in newspapers, and elsewhere before Bonds went crazy in 2001.

                            For good reason. Steroids were a well known problem long before 2001. It usage was obvious at least as early as Conseco. Everyone knew he was using. And then there was Anderson & McGwire, etc. And more sophisticated observers knew, too, about the rigging of the game through smaller strike zones and parks, and all the rest. Of course, intelligent fans would object to what was going on. It was plain as day that Bonds was juiced up. Who could miss it?

                            In Ruth's case, there was no cheating involved. He did what he did with sheer, unadulterated batting power.
                            Last edited by TRfromBR; 07-23-2007, 01:22 PM.

                            Comment

                            • JRB
                              Registered User
                              • Sep 2006
                              • 1021

                              Originally posted by Ubiquitous View Post
                              Except virtually no one can approach the records of the first liveball era.

                              Roger Maris needed 162 games and expansion and modern equipment to get to 61. From 1946 to 1993 there were only 10 50+ homer seasons all of them except for 61 was 54 or less. From 1920 to 1938 there was 8 50 or more homer seasons.
                              There was 6 seasons of 49 homers from 162 game era. There was 6 seasons of 47 or more homers in 154 game era.

                              Ubi; Once again you are making a distorted presentation.

                              No one hit 50 or more home runs in the National League in the 1920's and 1930's, except for the 56 homeruns hit by Hack Wilson in the freak season of 1930 when a super rabbit ball was used.

                              In the NL in the 1920's no one hit more than 43 home runs.
                              The lead leading numbers for the 1920's in the NL were 15, 23, 42, 41, 27, 39, 21, 30, 31, and 43. Hardly, an onslaught of power compared to other later eras.

                              Outside of the fluke 1930 season, the league leading numbers in the NL for the 1930's for the rest of the decade were 31, 38, 28, 35, 34, 33, 31, 36, 28. Once again low power numbers.

                              In the 1940's the league leading numbers in the NL soared at the end of the decade and were 43, 34, 30, 29, 33, 28, 23, 51, 40, 54.

                              In the 1950's the league leading numbers in the NL continued at the higher level of the late 40's and were, 47, 42, 37, 47, 49, 51, 43, 44, 47, and 46, which are obviously much higher power numbers that of the 1920's and 1930's, and were achieved in the same 154 game schedule.

                              In the 1960's the league leading numbers in the NL stayed high with 41, 46, 49, 44, 47, 52, 39, 36, and 45.

                              The players of the late 40's, 50, and 60's went for homeruns and as a result sacrificed average for some extra home runs

                              You tried to make a big deal that 8 times players hit 50 or more homeruns in the 20's and 30's. However, you neglected to mention that only 1 of the 8 occasions occurred in the National League, in a season, everyone agees was a fluke year.

                              You also neglected to mention that one player, Babe Ruth, is responsible for 4 of the 8 50+ seasons. Another player, Jimmie Foxx, is responsible for 2 of the seasons. Babe Ruth was simply an exceptional player, and Jimmie Foxx is a player of legendary strength. Just because one or two players, like Babe Ruth, stand out you want to invalidate two entire decades of major league baseball. It seems to me pretty clear from the cumulative reading of your posts the last week that your attempts to demonize the 1920's and 1930's is some sort of political agenda that has nothing whatsoever to do with baseball.

                              c JRB

                              Comment

                              • Ubiquitous
                                stats moderator
                                • Aug 2005
                                • 14302

                                I also neglected to mention that the NL used a deader ball then the AL for much of the 30's too.

                                I'm also pretty sure I didn't say I am invalidating records. In fact I'm pretty sure you pretty much ignored my entire main point, which is that records are set in environments conducive to extreme events.

                                But what I do find odd is that Babe Ruth is a god, Jimme Foxx great regardless of the numbers or the environment but players like Sammy Sosa or Mark McGwire or well anybody from nowadays cannot be great because of the numbers and because of the environment.


                                What seems clear to me is that you are projecting some really odd notions on my behalf when I have said nothing of the sort. I'm demonizing the 1920's and 1930's, really? What have I said about that era that can be construed as demonizing that era?

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X