Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The best 5 hitters.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    Originally posted by ssarge
    I don't know the number - probably not more than 8 or 10 in his career.

    But I WOULD note that the fence in the right field corner at Yankee Stadium doesn't seem very high. Was it different in the past?

    Regards

    Scott
    No, you're correct. The fence in right was very short, and the right fielder pretty much sat on the fence when Babe was up. It was probably short enough for the right fielder to be above it from the letters on up, or even from the belt on up. It was pretty dang short.

    Didn't factor into Babe's homers much, his pulled homers tended to be moon shots that kept going and going (his first 16 home home runs in '20 either went over the Polo Grounds roof or into the upper deck). Gehrig was more affected by it, hitting mostly line drive homers, often with topspin. Babe was a spray power hitter, and the other dimensions of YS killed him, although it added a few doubles and triples here and there.

    There's a ton of info on Babe we've put together over in the history section in the "Babe Ruth General" thread. http://www.baseball-fever.com/showth...ight=Babe+Ruth

    Leave a comment:


  • ssarge
    replied
    The bouncing ground rule thing is very interesting, but from the research I've done, there's been no accouts of him benefitting from it. Even if he had, it wouldn't matter much because:

    1)You have to hit the ball high enough for it to bounce over the fence.
    I don't know the number - probably not more than 8 or 10 in his career.

    But I WOULD note that the fence in the right field corner at Yankee Stadium doesn't seem very high. Was it different in the past?

    Regards

    Scott

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    Originally posted by ssarge
    My weight shot at Babe was gratuitous, soory.



    Is this documentable somewhere? I never heard this. Very interesting.

    Thanks!

    Scott
    Yes it is true, and Babe lost at least 2 homers that I know of from that. The balls we see today that hook around the foul pole...that didn't matter back then. It only mattered where the ball landed in the stands. If it hit the stands on the foul side of the pole, it was a foul ball.

    Also, Babe lost at least one homer from ending the game on a dong. Walk-offs weren't the way they are now. The game basically ended when the winning run scored, so with a guy on base, he was only credited with a triple.

    Two times he lost homers at Shibe Park in 1930 when the ball struck speaker supports and bounced back in play for ground rule doubles. Should have been another 50 homer season.

    In '21 at the Polo Grounds a fan reached out to catch a line drive homer and knocked it back onto the field. He was given a double. Should have been his first 60 homer season

    The bouncing ground rule thing is very interesting, but from the research I've done, there's been no accouts of him benefitting from it. Even if he had, it wouldn't matter much because:

    1)You have to hit the ball high enough for it to bounce over the fence.

    a. The fences in general were high, some had nets extending over the fence.
    b. Outfield surfaces were nowhere near the hard/flat surfaces we see today.

    2) If you hit a ball high enough to bounce over, the fielder is most likely going to have time to run under it for a catch.

    3) If the fielder can't run under it for a catch, then it must be a bomb. So if it goes that far and bounces over, it should have been a dinger anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • ssarge
    replied
    My weight shot at Babe was gratuitous, soory.

    Back then, the ball had to land fair into the stands for it to be a homer.
    Is this documentable somewhere? I never heard this. Very interesting.

    Thanks!

    Scott

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    Originally posted by ssarge
    I think this is turning the argument sideways.

    The point is, today's players DO have the benefit of advanced training and nutrition. And another couple generations of human genetic advancement. And in large part, THIS IS WHY they are better. The argument is NOT to strip today's player of those things and send him back in time. It is the opposite. Bring Ruth forward to THIS generation (if his stomach will fit in the time machine).

    I'm also not sure the field size argument is very valid. Sure you can point to a 480' CF iin the Polo Grounds. But you can also point to about 300' to Ruth's Yankee Stadium RF foul pole, (plus ground rule doubles counting as HRs for Ruth), an unchanged Fenway, etc.

    Regards,

    Scott
    lol, well Babe was 6'2", 212 pounds in 1926, so he'd fit into the machine.

    Have you looked at ALL the field sizes back then. It wasn't just the Polo Grounds, and Babe was not a dead pull hitter like Ott.

    The ground rule HR rule did exist for awhile but this has come up before, and didn't factor into Ruth's homers. What did factor in though, was that the ball could not hook around the foul pole like it does today. Back then, the ball had to land fair into the stands for it to be a homer.

    Leave a comment:


  • ssarge
    replied
    Just keep in mind how much the game has changed, and how these players have benefitted from many decades of evolution in knowledge and techniques. Everything from the bats, strike zone, field size, travel, nutrition knowledge, training, helmets, baseball, hitters backdrop, etc, etc. Goes on and on. Nothing was the same.
    I think this is turning the argument sideways.

    The point is, today's players DO have the benefit of advanced training and nutrition. And another couple generations of human genetic advancement. And in large part, THIS IS WHY they are better. The argument is NOT to strip today's player of those things and send him back in time. It is the opposite. Bring Ruth forward to THIS generation (if his stomach will fit in the time machine).

    I'm also not sure the field size argument is very valid. Sure you can point to a 480' CF iin the Polo Grounds. But you can also point to about 300' to Ruth's Yankee Stadium RF foul pole, (plus ground rule doubles counting as HRs for Ruth), an unchanged Fenway, etc.

    Regards,

    Scott

    Leave a comment:


  • Riverdog
    replied
    Sultan is right, you can't compare players from different decades unless you actually raise them in that situation. Babe Ruth would have been drafted out of Little League with today's baseballs and an aluminum bat. Jose Canseco's attitude would have kept him out of professional baseball. Bonds would have been a pretty good player without the chemicals.
    The fields are different, the equipment is different - hell, life is different. Bring today's players back and they couldn't play on the old fields with the old balls and the clubs for bats. Bring yesterday's players up and the speed of the game would overwhelm them.
    No comparison. What you're asking for is to compare a war with the soldiers in the early 1900's to the soldiers today. Who would win? It's too far fetched to answer.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigdaddy
    replied
    Sultan,

    I appreciate your passion...I just humbly disagree! Faster, stronger, more athletic is better in every sport.

    Your telling me that A-Rod or Bonds or Schmidt wouldn't ABSOLUTELY dominate ANY previous era?

    Keith

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    Originally posted by bigdaddy
    The question isn't whether the greats from yesteryear could dominate now. We all agree they probably could. The question is...how would today's top players perform if they were playing 60 years ago.

    Toady's athletes are bigger, stronger, smarter, better conditioned, faster and playing against better competition day in and day out.

    I believe an all-star team made up of the best players from the last twenty years would EASILY beat an all-star team from say the 1920's and 1030's.

    Baseball seems to be the only sport that has trouble admitting this. Is there any doubt in hockey, football, basketball, nascar, tennis, golf etc.?

    Keith
    Baseball has trouble admitting it, because it's simply not true. Baseball, above all other sports, does not require bigger, faster, stronger to be successful. It only means more when the environment is setup for those types of players to thrive, such as in todays game.

    In your example, if you just transport today's players to back then, they would get eaten up in their dedication, grit, and hardwork. You'd be stripping them of all their luxuries, and todays one dimensional player would be of little use to a manager back then. They would not, and could not, take the same hitting approach because the environment wouldn't encourage it. Transporting is a dangerous "what if" and actually makes very little sense anyway, cause they wouldn't be the same players if they had been born in that time.

    Just keep in mind how much the game has changed, and how these players have benefitted from many decades of evolution in knowledge and techniques. Everything from the bats, strike zone, field size, travel, nutrition knowledge, training, helmets, baseball, hitters backdrop, etc, etc. Goes on and on. Nothing was the same.
    Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 03-18-2006, 10:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigdaddy
    replied
    The question isn't whether the greats from yesteryear could dominate now. We all agree they probably could. The question is...how would today's top players perform if they were playing 60 years ago.

    Toady's athletes are bigger, stronger, smarter, better conditioned, faster and playing against better competition day in and day out.

    I believe an all-star team made up of the best players from the last twenty years would EASILY beat an all-star team from say the 1920's and 1030's.

    Baseball seems to be the only sport that has trouble admitting this. Is there any doubt in hockey, football, basketball, nascar, tennis, golf etc.?

    Keith

    Leave a comment:


  • Mark H
    replied
    Originally posted by jbooth
    If you are making a list of the best of ALL-TIME you have to find hitters who hit with both power and average.
    I think the ops stat takes care of anything you want to know about a middle of the order hitter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    Originally posted by ssarge

    And here, I'd give the edge to Ruth. What was the previous HR record when he started hitting 50 every year? Maybe 24?
    He set the record with 29 in 1919. In '20 he outhomered every team in the AL, and set the record again with 54, the next guy (Sisler) had 19. Set the record again in '21 with 59, the next guy (Meusel) had 24. Outhomered every team in the league in '27, and set his own record again with 60.

    First to 30, 40, 50, and 60 homers. When he hit his 700th HR, he had more than twice as many career homers as anyone else.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    Originally posted by bigdaddy
    The problem with these lists is that it's difficult to compare hitters from different periods.

    You have to take into account...travel, relief pitching etc.

    I like Bonds if he's going to face the same pitcher 5 times per game and see that pitcher 100's of times in his career while playing all day games and never traveling into different time zones or playing day games after night games.

    Keith
    Nothing about this era on or off the field makes things harder. I'd take a private luxurious jet over a cramped, bumpy train any day. Didn't have to play day games after night games? No they didnt play night games, but they played many double headers, and played exhibition games on "off days." Some including myself actually prefer to play in night games. The long list of advantages all swing toward this era, no question.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ohfor
    replied
    You have no clue what creates a tight radius.

    In fact, most of what I read from you lengthens the radius.

    Good luck facing top pitching.

    Leave a comment:


  • swingbuster
    replied
    Why....quickest most efficient swing ever. Knows how to use his center in a manner unsurpassed. Has the tightest radius of rotation ever recorded.

    -------------------------------
    -------------------------------------------------
    Aided by the best loading pattern that created it. take the loading pattern away and couldn't turn in an airport

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X