Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Would Babe Have Hit 104 Home Runs?

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

  • Originally posted by JRB View Post
    TR: I think you nailed it.

    The powers who run Major League Baseball had already rigged the game to produce more home runs.

    The juiced baseball that travels 12% further, the new condensced strike zone, etc. were obviously all done with the connivance of the owners. Homeruns are exciting. They no doubt reckoned that more home runs would bring more fans and generate more revenue for themselves, and they were right.

    However, they made these changes surreptitiously without telling the fans that they were doing it. I think a lot of fans were duped into believing that what they were seeing was for real. The Baseball owners, like a bunch of slick grifters, basically perpetrated a hoax on a large segment of the American public. I believe that all those new team home run records that suddenly emerged in 1996, and the the unexpected power surgees of non sluggers such as Brady Anderson are directly attributable to these calculated manipulations of the owners, and have little or nothing to do with steroids.

    However, just as the owners were greedy, there were also a number of players who were not willing to simply count their blessings at all the new gift home runs generated by the surreptitious changes put in place by the owners. These players sought an even further edge by use of steroids, corked bats, etc. Hence the onslaught of McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, et al. In some ways, I think the owners are actually grateful for the distraction of these steroid allegations. It appears to shift the blame for all the absurd inceases in home run numbers on some cheating players, when in reality it was the "cheating owners" who instigated this mess. Steroids are almost a red herring. The investigations should have begun with the owners and the commissioner, before getting around to individual players.

    How would the most talented hitter in baseball, Babe Ruth, have faired in this environment? Face it, if a rather ordinary hitter like Brady Anderson can hit 50 homeruns under the new set of circustances created by the owners, I don't see how anybody can rationally believe that a talent of Ruth's magnitude would not have been able to hit at least 70 or more home runs In short, I believe he would have more than likely been able to best the current record of 73 without resort to steroids.

    There has been some talk about Ruth's 60 homeruns being the touchstone. Actually, I am even more impressed by the 29 home runs that Ruth hit in 1919 with Boston. It was done in the dead ball era. It was accomplished in a shortened season (The Red Sox played only 137 games that season). Ruth didn't play a full season as a regular as he was a pitcher for a portion of the season. Ruth hit almost three times as many home runs as anybody else in the he league, as the next highest player had only 10.

    Since Ruth's emergence as a slugger over 80 years, the history of many of the changes in baseball's rules and equipment might be best summed up as one prolonged attempt to alter conditions so as to artifically enable other players to be able to emulate what only Babe Ruth was able to do naturally.

    c JRB
    The only thing I was waiting to read about '19 was the 20 of the 29 came on the road and that he set a record with four grand slams in a single season.

    Anyway, the bold part I couldn't agree with more. Been saying that for years. Baseball goes and makes the game so offensive friendly it ain't even funny, and that just wasn't enough for the players. They had to take it a step further. Pretty redundant really. Then, in Bonds' case, you have a guy who was already a HOFer with 12+years of experience under his belt, reversing his declining physical elevator and he puts up better end of career numbers than Ruth/Williams had peaks. I laugh at those who say "everyone else was doing it" or that "pitchers were doing it too." Missing so much.
    Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 07-24-2007, 08:49 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by TonyK View Post
      Am I wrong in looking at the drawing of Old Yankee Stadium that Ruth played in and seeing that RCF is only 350 feet away? Many high schools in our league have fences 10 or 20 feet deeper in RCF.
      The 350ft marker was to the right of where today's 375ft sign would be. It was short right field. It jetted out at a steeper than 45 degree angle from there. Also keep in mind that there was a pitcher on the mound. They were well aware of Ruth's desire and ability to pull the ball and would feed him stuff away all day long. Ruth could belt long drives for outs and maybe extra bases
      to the alleys and to center, but always ready to pounce when the pitcher caught too much of the plate with one. Still, no doubt he gained a few cheapies here and there. Probably about a dozen in home games from '23-'34 but again, the cavernous dimensions of the other parts, along with the fair/foul rule cost him several dozen.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
        Then, in Bonds' case, you have a guy who was already a HOFer with 12+years of experience under his belt, reversing his declining physical elevator and he puts up better end of career numbers than Ruth/Williams had peaks. I laugh at those who say "everyone else was doing it" or that "pitchers were doing it too." Missing so much.
        We could debate all day, did Barry use steroids late in his career. There is no doubt those who say it has never been proven, up to this time have a solid case in a legal sense. Some of his words that have led some to strongly believe that he has, " used cream never knowingly used steroids" sound like that old, " I didn't know the gun was loaded " line. Could he and his lawyer be setting up a defense for the future in the event it is proven that he did use steroids, " he was not aware of it, how could he be held liable. Plus an explosion at that age that has never been challenged by any hitter in modern times.

        OK so it has never been proven but what are we supposed to think, oh well so he went off the chart and an age when most level off or decline.

        How could eyebrows not be raised when a player at the age of 36 puts up seasons, not just one but 3 or 4 seasons that challenge Babe Ruth and Ted Wiliams best or 4 seasons when they were in their prime, early 20's- late 20's.

        You would have to be fooling yourself if it didn't make you wonder. Got that, Barry in his middle to late 30's matching up to a young Babe and a young Ted. At that age he slugged for 200 points over his previous career, not just one season but 6 seasons. He nearly cut his previous career AB/HR ratio in half in the seasons 2001-2006

        I defy anyone to make some sense out of this one. A late career surge like this has never, not even been appoached in the last 100 years of baseball, a hitter that age exploding, not just for one season but 4 years at that age.

        .
        Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 07-24-2007, 09:23 PM.

        Comment


        • if babe ruth hooked up with balco, he'd probably hit 90+ homeruns. if he stayed clean, he'd average over 50 homeruns in his prime with lots of walks, imo.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by fenrir View Post
            if babe ruth hooked up with balco, he'd probably hit 90+ homeruns. if he stayed clean, he'd average over 50 homeruns in his prime with lots of walks, imo.

            Right you are. In addition to the steroids, there were all the other factors, too, including the juiced balls. Somehow, though, without any justification or explanation whatsoever, proof I recently posted here concerning the ball being juiced has been removed, though it is evidence highly and directly relevant to why Ruth would hit more home runs today - the subject of this thread.

            Specifically, I referred to and cited an independent study that tested baseballs from the last five decades and found that balls since the '90s have far more [lively] synthetic fiber, and far more lively cores - which bounce an average of 20" higher than balls from the 60's and 70's. Information on that study can be found by googling up "University of Rhode Island Forensic Sciences Partnership Baseball Study."

            Below are French Nazi's feverishly censoring all evidence conflicting with their aberrant world view, especially any information revealing the deceit and ill-purposes of their agenda.

            Attached Files
            Last edited by TRfromBR; 07-25-2007, 03:12 PM.

            Comment


            • 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. If MLB really fooled the American public and that is something that should be frowned upon so much, why isn't the same attitude given to the change of the game that occured in the 1920s?

              I also simply don't understand what the problem is with MLB making the game such a huge HR game. If you don't like the game, that's okay, you don't have to like a certain style of game, but I can't blame MLB in the least for what they have done. Increases in attendance throughout the history of the game have come hand in hand with increases in offense. Baseball is a business. Given that it was a very sound business decision on the part of MLB and the owners to make baseball a more offensive game. And they are right and they're making more money than ever because of it. Don't blame the owners for doing their job as owners and businessmen. Even if you don't like it, you should realize where they're coming from.

              And for all these supposed rabbit balls and all this supposed crazy offense one fact remains-the supposedly "pure" game of the 1920s and 1930s was more of a hitting and run scoring "bonanza" than today's game. Where are the outcries of the integrity of the game being ruined then? I think the way baseball is played just changes from time to time-and that's a good thing that we are exposed to a different kind of game in different eras. I don't think it's bad in the least that the game is continually changing. Baseball is baseball and it's integirty isn't and won't be ruined. People today are enjoying baseball more than ever.

              Always one to bring up league batting average of back then, while turning around and making a case for its over-rated-ness elsewhere. When will you get this, Chris. The league batting average back then was high for a few different reasons. You had faster players in general, who hustled more on average, who took a contact approach, and/or cut down severely with two strikes, hitting to fielders who had less reliable gloves, on rough fields, in huge ballparks. And the pitchers they were facing, often coasted against 90% of the league and they saw them four or more times a game quite a bit. The many factors add up to a high league batting average. Ruth dealt with pitchers giving him their best at all times and felt the need to extend the zone constantly, and still put up the batting average he did. All those parks that aided batting average by way of the huge outfield area, hindered Ruth's power and he still put up those numbers.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JRB View Post
                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 livelier ball may have influenced the situation to some extent, but the livelier ball is a thing so elusive that offers the scantiest evidence...We are irrestistibly impelled, therefore, to see in Babe Ruth the true cause for the amazing advance in home runs." - F.C. Lane

                "If Ruth benefitted from a rabbit ball being sneaked into play in 1919, he was the only one in Organized Baseball to cash in." - William Curran, baseball historian

                "One reason why many fans and reporters suspected a consipiracy was the Reach and Spalding tended to be secretive about their business dealings. For example, in the 1920s, few knew that Spalding had bought Reach. A great deal of time was wasted discussing the difference between National League and American League balls, when in fact they were produced by the same company to identical specifications. Still, when it came to changes in the ball - in 1911 and 1925 - the company was quite open about what it was doing and why. Nor has anyone ever presented any evidence that additional changes were ordered in some smoke-filled room of 1919." - Paul Aron

                "The inference is that at dead of night the under-secretary of the club owner sneaks to a private telephone, summons the manufacturer, and bids him pour a little strychnine of digitalis into the old apple to make its heart action quicker. The factory gets out the ball bearings, the block rubber, and the go-juice, and the home run epidemic follows." - Paul Gallico, sportswriter

                "There was a chorus of complaints form pitchers who could no longer throw a dirty ball. According to the 1922 Reach Guide, 'they were unable to curve the new balls, because they were not able to get a proper grip on them." No longer weighed down by foreign substances, balls were also slightly lighter and therefore livelier." - Paul Aron

                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
                Imagine what a fully focused-on-hitting Ruth would have done in the Fenway that Williams enjoyed. I think 40-45 is conservative. Remember, the rest of the Sox had four dingers, and the rest of the entire league had 211 HR in 1919.

                Comment


                • Found this at the library. The Buffalo Times ran this little box on it's sports page daily, detailing every single at bat for Ruth in 1923. This is along the lines of Jenkinson's book, some long drives that Ruth hit at Yankee Stadium. Quite a distance and hit the opposite way to left center.

                  No need to read the whole thing, I did bracket that one at bat. From the Buffalo Times April 20,1923.
                  Attached Files

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
                    Always one to bring up league batting average of back then, while turning around and making a case for its over-rated-ness elsewhere. When will you get this, Chris. The league batting average back then was high for a few different reasons. You had faster players in general, who hustled more on average, who took a contact approach, and/or cut down severely with two strikes, hitting to fielders who had less reliable gloves, on rough fields, in huge ballparks. And the pitchers they were facing, often coasted against 90% of the league and they saw them four or more times a game quite a bit. The many factors add up to a high league batting average. Ruth dealt with pitchers giving him their best at all times and felt the need to extend the zone constantly, and still put up the batting average he did. All those parks that aided batting average by way of the huge outfield area, hindered Ruth's power and he still put up those numbers.
                    Sultan, batting average doesn't mean much in terms of run scoring on its own, as a singular element. It is important however in pushing up OBP and SLG. My point here is simply that run scoring was higher than ever in the 20s/30s, and higher than it is today. The overall environment then was better for hitters than it is today, in terms of overall production towards scoring runs. All I was saying is that for all those people who are in such arms today over how many runs are scored and how offense-oriented the game is, there was a time when a supposedly "pure" game was much more of an offensive game. I've brought this up to you a ton of times as well-I'm talking about run scoring, and the high BAs then were a factor in increased run scoring.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by 538280 View Post
                      Sultan, batting average doesn't mean much in terms of run scoring on its own, as a singular element. It is important however in pushing up OBP and SLG. My point here is simply that run scoring was higher than ever in the 20s/30s, and higher than it is today. The overall environment then was better for hitters than it is today, in terms of overall production towards scoring runs. All I was saying is that for all those people who are in such arms today over how many runs are scored and how offense-oriented the game is, there was a time when a supposedly "pure" game was much more of an offensive game. I've brought this up to you a ton of times as well-I'm talking about run scoring, and the high BAs then were a factor in increased run scoring.

                      What's missing here, Chris, is the most significant and relevant point to this thread - that home run production is dramatically more prolific today than it was in Ruth's day. (See Chart Below) Ruth was knocking balls out all over the league, in distances and totals that dwarfed his competition. This unparalled power and frequency is the key to analyzing how many Ruth would knock out today. And when you're a power hitter of Ruth's magnitude, high batting average is of huge importance. His combination of phenomenal power and average has never been topped. That's why he's still regarded the greatest of all sluggers.


                      I've included a chart with both HR's & SB's to help show how offensive production has changed on multiple levels.
                      Attached Files
                      Last edited by TRfromBR; 07-29-2007, 08:21 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Spent this afternoon skimming this entire thread. Its fascinating to be sure, lots of very good points made by people from all sides of the arguments. I'm inclined to vote against any radical extremes of performance in the modern day, because I think I have to agree with Mr. Burgess. If Babe Ruth starts approaching an historic HR ratio of AB's to HR's, in todays game he will get the McGwire - Bonds treatment. Few would challenge him with good pitches. He would probably re-set all of his BB and IBB marks of the 20's. Even if not given IBB's people would be exercising extreme caution when pitching to him. (Regarding andro, steroids, HGH, PEDS in general, Sultan & I had a long & lively debate on that sometime ago, I feel we agreed to disagree at the end of it; I know that neither of us convinced the other. I am NOT looking to restart it here. Sultan felt Ruth would definitely have NOT used them. I feel that Ruth definitely would have used them.) I voted 50-59 because I feel the clean player in todays game finds that to be about the realistic limit. If he used PEDS however (My vote above is made assuming he wouldnt.) I would vote higher, to put him above Bonds.

                        Comment


                        • I also spent the entire afternoon reading this thread and I have to acknowledge the very well crafted arguements made by both sides.

                          While I was reading through the topic, one thing in particular that struck me was the transition from the deadball era to the 20's and 30's.

                          Firstly, wasn't the reason that Ruth was so far ahead of his peers largely due to the fact that he was the only one actually trying to hit monster shots? You have to give him credit for revolutionizing this part of the game, but I feel as though sometimes people give him credit for being so vastly superior to anyone in baseball ever due to this gap. I was always under the impression that the large gap between Ruth and his peers was due to the fact that they all grew up learning a different style of baseball than the one that Ruth was playing, and it took the rest of the league a long time to catch up with Ruth. I'm not penalizing Ruth for this, but I am not looking at him as though he is some freak of nature who is so much better than anyone today that he could hit over 30 homeruns better than today's best.

                          Secondly, I firmly believe that the biggest difference between the two eras comes down to the pitching. Others throughout this thread have already gone back and forth on this subject, and I thought a lot of good points were made. One thing that came to my mind, however, involves the rule changes from the deadball to the liveball era. Some people pointed out that not only did they "liven" the ball, but pithchers were banned from doing any trick deliveries and pitches. This makes me think that the pitchers were being stripped of some of their top weapons and had to start from scratch again, giving hitting a huge advantage. This results in high scoring offenses in the 20's and 30's. Pitching had to take many years to evolve to try and close this gap. As others have pointed out, pitching invented new pitches that Ruth never even had to see. Pitching finally seemed to be catching up and surpassing hitting by the time the 60's rolled around and the rules were again changed in favor of the offense (lowered mound in 1969). I just feel as though the rule changes made in 1920 helped hitters a hell of a lot, and through the balance of the game out of whack for a while. I personally feel as though this balance is more level in today's game than in the 20's and 30's.

                          These are just a few the thoughts I had while reading through. I would like to again acknowledge the great arguements from both sides. I've enjoyed reading through this debate although I know full well that this is one arguement that can't be won.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by TRfromBR View Post

                            What's missing here, Chris, is the most significant and relevant point to this thread - that home run production is dramatically more prolific today than it was in Ruth's day. (See Chart Below) Ruth was knocking balls out all over the league, in distances and totals that dwarfed his competition. This unparalled power and frequency is the key to analyzing how many Ruth would knock out today. And when you're a power hitter of Ruth's magnitude, high batting average is of huge importance. His combination of phenomenal power and average has never been topped. That's why he's still regarded the greatest of all sluggers.


                            I've included a chart with both HR's & SB's to help show how offensive production has changed on multiple levels.
                            I wasn't talking about just home run production, TR, I was talking about overall production, runs scored. That was the topic of what Sultan questioned. You are correct about home runs, but despite all those home runs more runs overall were scored in Ruth's era than today.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by BC227 View Post
                              I also spent the entire afternoon reading this thread and I have to acknowledge the very well crafted arguements made by both sides.

                              While I was reading through the topic, one thing in particular that struck me was the transition from the deadball era to the 20's and 30's.

                              Firstly, wasn't the reason that Ruth was so far ahead of his peers largely due to the fact that he was the only one actually trying to hit monster shots? You have to give him credit for revolutionizing this part of the game, but I feel as though sometimes people give him credit for being so vastly superior to anyone in baseball ever due to this gap. I was always under the impression that the large gap between Ruth and his peers was due to the fact that they all grew up learning a different style of baseball than the one that Ruth was playing, and it took the rest of the league a long time to catch up with Ruth.
                              I'll give you that one, the gap in home run production between Ruth and the competition in much of his early career was what you say, wide because he was one of the few playing long ball.

                              Lets move up in time, the late 1920s, all of the 1930s and some years in the 1940s.

                              We all know what an offensive decade the 1930s decade was and in that decade there were others playing long ball just as Ruth was in the 1920s and part of the 1930s.

                              Here is a comparison, Babe Ruth compared to three of the heaviest hitter that played a part of their careers in the 1930s. Three sluggers who were not contact hitters, these guys were swinging from the heels.
                              Listing all the 40 and 50 home run seasons for Ruth, Hack Wilson, Jimmie Foxx and Hank Greenberg. Also all the seasons they played at least 130 games. Listing only Ruth's seasons from 1919 when he played a number of games in the outfield.

                              ----------------------130 Games--40+ home runs-------50 Or more
                              Wilson- 1923-1934------6-----------0---------------------1
                              Foxx ---1925-1942-----12-----------3---------------------2
                              Greenberg 1930-1947----7-----------3---------------------1
                              Totals-----------------25-----------6--------------------4
                              Ruth 1919-1935--------13-----------7--------------------4



                              Ruth 1919-1935 --13 seasons 130 games- 7 seasons 40 HR--4 seasons 50 HR.

                              Three sluggers in a high offensive period with 13 seasons with at least 130 games, almost double Ruth's 13 seasons.

                              Combined they hit 40 or more 6 times.
                              Ruth hit 40 or more 7 times.

                              Combined they hit 50 or more 4 times.

                              Ruth hit 50 or more 4 times. In 1930 Ruth hit two balls that cleared the wall at Shibe Park but struck speaker supports an dhe was allowed only two bases, two doubles. Those two lost home runs cost him a 5th season with 50 or more, he finished with 49 home runs.

                              Ruth never had a 40 or 50 home run season until his career was nearly one quarter over, 1920.

                              This is not Ruth's home run production compared to any one or few hitters in his early years. This is the combined total of three very heavy hitters compared to one hitters production Babe Ruth in less seasons that that three and he handles them quite well.

                              There never was a prolific home run hitter like Ruth, only 49 career home runs going to his 7th season in 1920 and he ends up wirh 714. Take him out of his early years, compare other who followed him and he still comes out on top.
                              Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 07-29-2007, 09:05 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
                                I'll give you that one, the gap in home run production between Ruth and the competition in much of his early career was what you say, wide because he was one of the few playing long ball.

                                Lets move up in time, the late 1920s, all of the 1930s and some years in the 1940s.

                                We all know what an offensive decade the 1930s decade was and in that decade there were others playing long ball just as Ruth was in the 1920s and part of the 1930s.

                                Here is a comparison, Babe Ruth compared to three of the heaviest hitter that played a part of their careers in the 1930s. Three sluggers who were not contact hitters, these guys were swinging from the heels.
                                Listing all the 40 and 50 home run seasons for Ruth, Hack Wilson, Jimmie Foxx and Hank Greenberg. Also all the seasons they played at least 130 games. Listing only Ruth's seasons from 1919 when he played a number of games in the outfield.

                                ----------------------130 Games--40+ home runs-------50 Or more
                                Wilson- 1923-1934------6-----------0---------------------1
                                Foxx ---1925-1942-----12-----------3---------------------2
                                Greenberg 1930-1947----7-----------3---------------------1
                                Totals-----------------25-----------6--------------------4
                                Ruth 1919-1935--------13-----------7--------------------4



                                Ruth 1919-1935 --13 seasons 130 games- 7 seasons 40 HR--4 seasons 50 HR.

                                Three sluggers in a high offensive period with 13 seasons with at least 130 games, almost double Ruth's 13 seasons.

                                Combined they hit 40 or more 6 times.
                                Ruth hit 40 or more 7 times.

                                Combined they hit 50 or more 4 times.

                                Ruth hit 50 or more 4 times. In 1930 Ruth hit two balls that cleared the wall at Shibe Park but struck speaker supports an dhe was allowed only two bases, two doubles. Those two lost home runs cost him a 5th season with 50 or more, he finished with 49 home runs.

                                Ruth never had a 40 or 50 home run season until his career was nearly one quarter over, 1920.

                                This is not Ruth's home run production compared to any one or few hitters in his early years. This is the combined total of three very heavy hitters compared to one hitters production Babe Ruth in less seasons that that three and he handles them quite well.

                                There never was a prolific home run hitter like Ruth, only 49 career home runs going to his 7th season in 1920 and he ends up wirh 714. Take him out of his early years, compare other who followed him and he still comes out on top.
                                BC227 presents a very well-balanced and well-reasoned view, Shoeless Joe. I think, too, though, that Ruth is exceptionally unique in his status as a slugger. In addition to the compelling points you provide above, it is powerfully revealing to consider that, to this very day, no one has hit the ball as far as Ruth. This was the reason for the revolution. If he had hit 29 homers dropping just beyond the fences, the public would not have clamored for more, in the near fanatical way they did. The revolution came about because Ruth was hitting the ball over 500 feet! And sometimes well beyond 500.

                                To this day few ball players have ever hit a ball 500'. But Ruth was hitting balls over 500' - even in World Series Games, against top pitchers who almost never intentionally gave him a hittable pitch. Still, all season long Ruth would knock balls out of stadiums. Sure, Gehrig started hitting his share, too ... but, never anywhere near the distances Ruth hit. Foxx was closer, but still not Ruth.

                                Indeed, Ruth may very well be the only ballplayer ever to hit a ball over 550' in an official MLB AB. In BP, Spring and Exhibitions he launched them even further, nearly 600', likely even further on very special occasions.

                                So, it was more than the times and circumstances. Ruth was that rare. He not only had unparalled talent for hitting a long ball, he also had unparalled drive to do so. If he carried that talent and drive into this era, no one could touch him. He stretched the laws of physics to its limits. If you threw him a fast ball, you were in trouble; and if he caught your curve he'd possibly drive it even further, according to current scientific testing and theory.
                                Attached Files
                                Last edited by TRfromBR; 07-30-2007, 01:30 AM.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X