Would Babe Have Hit 104 Home Runs?

[TRfromBR]

I've already adressed this. You're math is all wrong. In 1994 Bonds hit 37 HRs in 112 games which is about 54 HRs over a full season. And given that he had Matt Williams, who was at 43 HRs in 1994, and his perchant for hitting very well in August and September I have no doubt Bonds would have been pushing 60 HRs in 1994 without PDEs. Also, Anderson's season was a complete fluke. If he did use PEDs then why didn't he continue to hit 50+ HRs a season? Like I said Ruth would be as about as good as Calos Lee or Travis Hafner perhaps.

Bonds' averaged less than 40 homers a year or so before his heaviest steroid use began. That's all he was before Balco.

Anderson's 50 HR season was a direct result of heavy steroid use ... just as Bonds' biggest HR seasons were. So, the percentages above are perfectly reasonable to consider in figuring highest season possibilities, even those you may regard flukes.

You say Carlos Lee and Travis Hafner were as good as or better than Babe Ruth? I'd better go get some coffee.

[TRfromBR]

Today's close fences? I think the right field fence in Yankee Stadium was close enough..

You might want to take another gander at Old Yankee Stadium and reconsider that analysis. I've attached diagrams of Ruth's first three home fields - Fenway, The Polo Grounds & Yankee Stadium.

Today's stadiums are deliberately constructed to give an illusion of historic power. It was far more difficult to hit a ball over the fences Ruth faced, than today's fences. In fact, this is the central theme and thesis of Jenkinson's book.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Today's close fences? I think the right field fence in Yankee Stadium was close enough..

We've been down this road so many time on this board and others, RF at Yankee Stadium. First place Ruth was not a pull hitter. Did he probably get some down the line that were not home runs in other parks, I'm sure he did. Have you looked at the other dimensions in the park look at the whole park.
Deepest right center 429, how many of todays parks are that distance to dead center .

Centerfield 487 and just to the left of center 490. Just as he may have hit some down that RF line he had to hit some that died, were EBHs and long outs in other parts of the park. Where can you hit a ball today 470+ feet to center field and not get a home run today, 1927 you could in NY or at Fenway 488 to CF.

Some things can be debated, in this case there is no debate it's simple math and it's final. Yes RF at Yankee Stadium was short, simple math. So was League Park in Cleveland at 290 but then shoots up to 400 feet in the power alley and 460 to CF.. What some posters point was todays parks overall compared to parks from the 1920's in this case 1927 on average are about the same down the lines but shorter in the power alleys and close to 40 feet shorter in CF thats a hugh difference.Thats simple math also. Hit ball 450 to CF today and it's a tape measure job we see on ESPN, not always the case in some older parks.

It's not just one park, it's not just one line we're comparing, it's all the parks and all the dimensions. Todays parks on average are more homer friendly than the older parks.

Here is a comparison chart with the average distances shown, older AL parks and NL parks from 1998.

[TonyK]

You might want to take another gander at Old Yankee Stadium and reconsider that analysis. I've attached diagrams of Ruth's first three home fields - Fenway, The Polo Grounds & Yankee Stadium.

Today's stadiums are deliberately constructed to give an illusion of historic power. It was far more difficult to hit a ball over the fences Ruth faced, than today's fences. In fact, this is the central theme and thesis of Jenkinson's book.

Looking at the Old Yankee Stadium's dimensions I can't help but think that more of the Babe's drives would have gone to the 350' marker than the 429' deeper part of the ballpark over near centerfield. That is even a shorter distance than some of the high school ballparks of today!

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Looking at the Old Yankee Stadium's dimensions I can't help but think that more of the Babe's drives would have gone to the 350' marker than the 429' deeper part of the ballpark over near centerfield. That is even a shorter distance than some of the high school ballparks of today!

What do we have at the Giant's home park today Tony..

Old Yankee Stadium in deep right center was 25 feet deeper than center field at today's Giant's home park.

Old Yankee Stadium was 80+ feet deeper in CF than CF at the Giants home park.

[TRfromBR]

Somewhere in the origins of this thread though it was suggested we look at this from both perspectives - with Ruth not taking steroids, and with Ruth taking steroids. That's all I was doing. Ruth would still be the best (either way).

Where we disagree, perhaps, is on the impact all the offensive advantages of today would have concerning Ruth's home run totals. With the game now so fixed to produce dramatically more home runs, I think Ruth would benefit quite substantially from that rigging - just like everyone else has .... IF anyone dared pitch to him.

[Westlake]

You might want to take another gander at Old Yankee Stadium and reconsider that analysis. I've attached diagrams of Ruth's first three home fields - Fenway, The Polo Grounds & Yankee Stadium.

Today's stadiums are deliberately constructed to give an illusion of historic power. It was far more difficult to hit a ball over the fences Ruth faced, than today's fences. In fact, this is the central theme and thesis of Jenkinson's book.

Lets see, 258, 302, and 298 down the right field lines. Tough.

The alleys were obviously pretty tough, but the corners sure weren't.

[Ubiquitous]

Accordging to ShoelessJoes list Babe in 1927 played in a park with these dimensions:
314-391-470-406-315


Mantle and Maris played in a park with these dimensions:
323-389-439-392-312

[AstrosFan]

Ruth's spray charts in the Jenkinson book suggest he was something of a pull hitter; not a strict pull hitter like Ted Williams, but still, a sizable portion of his home runs (and equivalent home runs) were going to the right side of the field.

[TRfromBR]

You might want to keep studying those fences, Westlake. And not just the porches. Ruth could and did hit to every part of the field. We're not talking about Mel Ott. Ruth lost FAR more home runs to the cavernous fields he played in than he ever gained on short porches. I can't understand why you won't admit that today's fields are FAR easier parks to hit out of - by design.

[Westlake]

Ruth's spray charts in the Jenkinson book suggest he was something of a pull hitter; not a strict pull hitter like Ted Williams, but still, a sizable portion of his home runs (and equivalent home runs) were going to the right side of the field.

I'd agree with that.

You might want to keep studying those fences, Westlake. And not just the porches. Ruth could and did hit to every part of the field. We're not talking about Mel Ott. Ruth lost FAR more home runs to the cavernous fields he played in than he ever gained on short porches. I can't understand why you won't admit that today's fields are FAR easier parks to hit out of - by design.

Today's fields are easier to hit out of, but not to the extend that many here think IMO.

"Ruth lost FAR more home runs to the cavernous fields he played in than he ever gained on short porches." - I really don't think I can agree with this. Any reading or study on this you could point me to where I could get a better understanding of this point of view?

[JRB]

Where we disagree, perhaps, is on the impact all the offensive advantages of today would have concerning Ruth's home run totals. With the game now so fixed to produce dramatically more home runs, I think Ruth would benefit quite substantially from that rigging - just like everyone else has .... IF anyone dared pitch to him.

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

[Ubiquitous]

I have to seriously doubt the whole 12% further notion for baseballs. If you stop and think about that for a second the ramifications of a liveball increasing flight distance by 12% is mindboggling.

That means that 380 foot homer was aided by 41 feet because of the ball. That means that sluggers today on their own are only capable of getting to about the middle of the outfield on most of their drives. A 400 foot shot was aided by about 45 feet because of the ball then, meaning using a different ball it would have only traveled 355 feet! So somehow modern players have gotten weaker when it comes to hitting the ball then players 85 years ago.

I haven't seen the study so I have no real way of rebutting it. But most of the studies are severely flawed in that they generally measure and "old" ball vs. a new ball and yes of course the newer ball travels further. What I would like to see is a university like Penn to do a 10 year study in which they measure the characteristics of the ball of say 2007 in 2007. Then do the same thing in 2008, measure the 2008 ball, then in 2009 measure the 2009 ball, so on and so on, until you get 10 years worth a data or 20 years of data or so on. Because as far as I know that is not what we are getting. We are getting people in 2000 measuring balls from 1990 or 1975 or 1995 or whatever and that has a bias in it for several reasons.

[Gee Walker]

The critical thing about comparing the dimensions of old vs. new ballparks is to look at the differences in outfield AREA, not distance. Merely showing that old Yankee Stadium had a 490' point at its deepest is no argument at all. An overlap of, say, the Polo Grounds and AT&T would, in my opinion, clearly show that the Polo Grounds was an easier park for home runs.

Somebody with access to the new stadiums and a good grid overlay would need to overlap the old ballpark, the new ballpark, and the grid, with the parks matching up at home plate and down the lines. The two outfields would overlap, with one shade showing how the Polo Grounds was an easy park (along the lines to about the power alleys) and another shade showing how AT&T is an easy park (between the power alleys). Compare the two shaded areas with the grid, and the question is answered.

If someone has already done this, could they please refer me to the proper site?

[Gee Walker]

To add on to my previous post, it would also be useful to run arcs starting at home plate with radii of 300, 350, and 400 feet over the ballparks. Look at the intersection points of where the arcs hit the fences.

Fair territory covers a 90° angle from the first baseline to the third baseline. Let's guess that the 300 foot arc in the Polo Grounds would cover about 15° of fair territory, along the two lines. Any home run hit into these areas can be certified to be "very cheap" - in other words, 1/6 of the Polo Grounds (15°/90°) was in an area of "very cheap" home runs. No modern park gives these up, as far as I know, outside of a tiny fragment in RF in Fenway.

The 350 foot arc could qualify as the area of "cheap" homeruns. This could cover about 10° of most modern parks, but probably covers about 20° of old Yankee Stadium, almost all of it in RF.

Repeat for the 400 foot arc - the "difficult" home runs... and you have a better idea of how easy or hard it was to hit a home run in a given park. A lot of modern parks would have 0° of "difficult" home run area, as opposed to probably 45° or so in the Polo Grounds. But there are a lot more 300 foot fly balls hit than 400 foot flies...

I wish I had the stadium shapes and a good drawing program... this seems a lot easier to do than the area calculation.