To those of you discussing the hitting of Babe Ruth in any era, I would like to gently suggest the following;
Please check into a fantastic book by Bill Jenkinson, titled "The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs" (about his 1921 [sorry Yankeefan90, I need to correct you there] season and what could have been if he played in modern parks with modern rules) and do not make assumptions based upon Ruth's abilities or any advantages or disadvantages he faced from Yankee Stadium, the Polo Grounds or even Fenway, without first educating yourself on the truth of pull-hitting and the Bambino. Just because several players pull their home runs down the line today, does not mean that it was so when Ruth was changing the game.
If you prefer to take things a step further, I would suggest heading over to the History section of this forum and checking out the thread "Would Babe Ruth really have hit 104 home runs?" or something to that effect. There is a very in-depth analysis of the book and the flat out facts it presents in that thread.
If you would like to question pitchers of Ruth's day, you may also find that in the History section. Quite an eye opener to say the least.
I also offer a post I did a while back about the same subject. One that I think I will keep copied for the several instances that this subject so falsely comes up.
I've discussed these things (albeit briefly) in person with Mr. Jenkinson and I am in total agreement with him. Ruth simply is one of the most talented hitters to have ever played the game.
Incidentally, during Ruth's day, it was looked down upon to be called out on strikes, Ruth was one of the first to disregard this. He swung at a lot--some of it bad--and still managed to come within .007 of .400 in 1923 and a lifetime of .342. It amazes me to think of what his batting average could have or would have been if he had played the same type of hitter's game everyone else was doing at the time.
He probably would have broken .400 on several occasions.
Again, I don't mean any disrespect when it comes to posting something like this and I am fully aware that it can very easily be construed as such.
I am simply trying to offer a sliver of light in an area where so many assumptions are made by comparing him to modern players.
He wasn't a modern player.
He wasn't a modern player for his time, either.
He was bigger than the game and a talent that has not been seen on the field since.
Richard
P.S. - We now return to our regularly scheduled program.
Please check into a fantastic book by Bill Jenkinson, titled "The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs" (about his 1921 [sorry Yankeefan90, I need to correct you there] season and what could have been if he played in modern parks with modern rules) and do not make assumptions based upon Ruth's abilities or any advantages or disadvantages he faced from Yankee Stadium, the Polo Grounds or even Fenway, without first educating yourself on the truth of pull-hitting and the Bambino. Just because several players pull their home runs down the line today, does not mean that it was so when Ruth was changing the game.
If you prefer to take things a step further, I would suggest heading over to the History section of this forum and checking out the thread "Would Babe Ruth really have hit 104 home runs?" or something to that effect. There is a very in-depth analysis of the book and the flat out facts it presents in that thread.
If you would like to question pitchers of Ruth's day, you may also find that in the History section. Quite an eye opener to say the least.
I also offer a post I did a while back about the same subject. One that I think I will keep copied for the several instances that this subject so falsely comes up.
Originally posted by RichardLillard1
View Post
Incidentally, during Ruth's day, it was looked down upon to be called out on strikes, Ruth was one of the first to disregard this. He swung at a lot--some of it bad--and still managed to come within .007 of .400 in 1923 and a lifetime of .342. It amazes me to think of what his batting average could have or would have been if he had played the same type of hitter's game everyone else was doing at the time.
He probably would have broken .400 on several occasions.
Again, I don't mean any disrespect when it comes to posting something like this and I am fully aware that it can very easily be construed as such.
I am simply trying to offer a sliver of light in an area where so many assumptions are made by comparing him to modern players.
He wasn't a modern player.
He wasn't a modern player for his time, either.
He was bigger than the game and a talent that has not been seen on the field since.
Richard
P.S. - We now return to our regularly scheduled program.
Comment