Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Would Babe Have Hit 104 Home Runs?

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

  • GoslinFan
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post

    The problem is that once you reach a certain level, people are going to pitch around you so much or walk you intentionally so much that 104 home runs would be impossible. Bonds in 2002-2004 could have probably hit that many HR if he was pitched to like a 'normal guy'. Babe Ruth in 2021 would probably face the same situation, where he would HR so often that he just wouldn't see any good pitches to hit after a while.
    All that book did was take known home runs and plot them against modern smaller parks. It didn't seem to take into account whether a batter would be pitched around more or not. I think that is a given. Baseball is unique as a sport in that sense.

    Babe Ruth extended the zone and could hit with power to all fields (oppo field in Fenway as far as Foxx pulling the ball for example) where Bonds did not. So that is a big difference.

    Plot even Bonds' steroid fueled home runs against the average ballpark of the 20's and he probably goes from 73 to 45. And that is with all the modern advantages which created those distances. People don't realize what pastures some of those parks were.

    Plot Mac's 1998 in Griffith. How does he do. Plot Pujols in old Yankee Stadium how does he do. Dimensions matter but are far too overlooked.
    Last edited by GoslinFan; 02-01-2022, 08:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • willshad
    replied
    Originally posted by bluesky5 View Post
    If the current parks were in existence in 1920 I definitely think Ruth could have it 104 home runs. But everyone else hits a boatload more too so, whatever. I mean holy crap Bonds only hit 73 and he had the strength of 100 men. If Ruth roids sure 74 bombs but clean I’ll give him 62 maximum. Hell, Maris did it so why not.
    The problem is that once you reach a certain level, people are going to pitch around you so much or walk you intentionally so much that 104 home runs would be impossible. Bonds in 2002-2004 could have probably hit that many HR if he was pitched to like a 'normal guy'. Babe Ruth in 2021 would probably face the same situation, where he would HR so often that he just wouldn't see any good pitches to hit after a while.

    Leave a comment:


  • bluesky5
    replied
    If the current parks were in existence in 1920 I definitely think Ruth could have it 104 home runs. But everyone else hits a boatload more too so, whatever. I mean holy crap Bonds only hit 73 and he had the strength of 100 men. If Ruth roids sure 74 bombs but clean I’ll give him 62 maximum. Hell, Maris did it so why not.

    Leave a comment:


  • GoslinFan
    replied
    Originally posted by elmer View Post

    that book doesn't have anything new, we see it all the time here.
    Not that I have seen. That book takes an entirely new approach. Lays out in detail how the establishment was against Ruth and his new brand of ball along with it higher salaries. That is not talked about here. All I have read here is how lucky he was to be in NY and how lucky he was that the game was tailored to him. No, this is definitely a must read/listen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Honus Wagner Rules
    replied
    Originally posted by Floyd Gondolli View Post
    104 Home Runs? Is it even humanly possible?
    Of course not. That is completely absurd. The Ruth fanboys think Ruth could do anything. Even if a player actually had 104 home run ability teams would just walk him most of the time especially if he were a poor/slow baserunner.

    Leave a comment:


  • Floyd Gondolli
    replied
    104 Home Runs? Is it even humanly possible?

    Leave a comment:


  • elmer
    replied
    Originally posted by GoslinFan View Post

    So if multiple first person accounts describe a homerun as going halfway up the bleachers, do you doubt that? What if one of those writers had a bias and described it as only going 10 rows deep. Would that writer risk his credibility among readers and peers by doing such a thing?

    By the way have you read this? It goes a long way toward dispelling the notion that is was all peaches and cream for Ruth when it comes to the media and the powers that be.

    https://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Babe...067777&sr=8-23
    that book doesn't have anything new, we see it all the time here.

    Leave a comment:


  • GoslinFan
    replied
    Originally posted by sturg1dj View Post

    I went down that rabbit hole years ago. When I had more time I did go through the newspapers and did read the book.

    That is why my opinion is what it is.
    So if multiple first person accounts describe a homerun as going halfway up the bleachers, do you doubt that? What if one of those writers had a bias and described it as only going 10 rows deep. Would that writer risk his credibility among readers and peers by doing such a thing?

    By the way have you read this? It goes a long way toward dispelling the notion that is was all peaches and cream for Ruth when it comes to the media and the powers that be.

    https://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Babe...067777&sr=8-23
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • sturg1dj
    replied
    Originally posted by elmer View Post

    if the Jenkinson book, thoroughly read, doesn't convince you, try looking up the evidence for yourself in newspapers. It will take years of looking but maybe that will.
    I went down that rabbit hole years ago. When I had more time I did go through the newspapers and did read the book.

    That is why my opinion is what it is.

    Leave a comment:


  • bluesky5
    replied
    Originally posted by Toledo Inquisition View Post
    I firmly disagree with playing in lower LQ leagues. Even with segregation, such a higher percentage of teeens and adult men were playing constantly, the league LQ was extremely high. Baseball was the game. What we have today is a low participation sport past age 13, and almost no participation past age 17. A month or two ago I posted a list of all the adult men who came into the minors and majors past age 21, which is unheard of today. Many men do not peak physically at age 18-20, and a huge untapped market which isn't tapped today was used then. Why are there so many Dominicans? It is a small country with 11 million people in it. Why are such a high percentage of people from it dominating? Because the people from the US have fallen away from the fanatical playing they did a hundred years ago. Post WWII all the factory, town, church, social baseball leagues fell away, but 100 years ago, so many more adults played baseball.
    This really has me thinking.

    Leave a comment:


  • elmer
    replied
    Originally posted by sturg1dj View Post

    but has it regressed?

    I think that is where the division comes. There is a group that just accepts that babe ruth was the pinnacle of the baseball evolutionary process and that all before and after have not had the natural ability that he did.

    but as we know, there was an era where players did not allow for their 'natural' abilities to hold them back and while their numbers grew (not 104, just 70 and 73) the distances still did not reach the point at which Ruth was supposedly hitting them regularly. And it is not like I cannot believe Ruth was capable of hitting it as far as an Adam Dunn, Mark McGwire, Mickey Mantle. It is that I am being told he hit is further than all of them, and more often. For that I would like more evidence than a 90 year old man's recollection or a sensationalized newspaper story.
    if the Jenkinson book, thoroughly read, doesn't convince you, try looking up the evidence for yourself in newspapers. It will take years of looking but maybe that will.

    Leave a comment:


  • sturg1dj
    replied
    Originally posted by elmer View Post
    The 104 book focuses on what Ruth might have done 1921 if the dimensions of those parks reflected those of today's, NOT what he would do NOW. Natural ability has not somehow magically improved among humans today vs. then.
    but has it regressed?

    I think that is where the division comes. There is a group that just accepts that babe ruth was the pinnacle of the baseball evolutionary process and that all before and after have not had the natural ability that he did.

    but as we know, there was an era where players did not allow for their 'natural' abilities to hold them back and while their numbers grew (not 104, just 70 and 73) the distances still did not reach the point at which Ruth was supposedly hitting them regularly. And it is not like I cannot believe Ruth was capable of hitting it as far as an Adam Dunn, Mark McGwire, Mickey Mantle. It is that I am being told he hit is further than all of them, and more often. For that I would like more evidence than a 90 year old man's recollection or a sensationalized newspaper story.

    Leave a comment:


  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    Babe Ruth some kind of a freak. Forbes Field, playing with the Braves 1935.
    Past his prime and 40, his legs were gone and he was out of shape.
    So on that day he hits 3 home runs and a single and as most of us know 714 cleared the roof at Forbes, never been done before.
    How bad were his legs, after rounding the bases he sat in the Pirates bench and at the end of the inning, he left the game.
    Later asked why he sat in the opponents bench, his legs were hurting and the Pirate's bench was closer to the dressing rooms.
    What is it about this guy?

    They milked him right to the end. Coaching for the Dodgers in 1938. In his contract he was obliged to take batting practice in Dodgers home games.
    Easy to figure that one, for sure more $eat$ would be filled to watch him hit take some swings.

    Leave a comment:


  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    Originally posted by elmer View Post
    The 104 book focuses on what Ruth might have done 1921 if the dimensions of those parks reflected those of today's, NOT what he would do NOW. Natural ability has not somehow magically improved among humans today vs. then.
    That wraps it up Bruce. Has to be understood usually the player from the past being discussed is one of the elite, not just the average players from the past.
    There just had to be some just as talented as some of the best today. All the qualities that make a great hitter and could compete with the best today.
    Turn it around, George Brett, Hank Aaron, Tony Gwynn, playing in the 1910s-20s-30s, they are would be among the best hitters back then.

    Leave a comment:


  • elmer
    replied
    The 104 book focuses on what Ruth might have done 1921 if the dimensions of those parks reflected those of today's, NOT what he would do NOW. Natural ability has not somehow magically improved among humans today vs. then.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X