Babe Ruth would've had more home runs
 

Was at a D'Back game last night and was sitting next to a baseball encyclopedia. He said that during the Babe Ruth era balls that curved around (or in back of) the foul pole were called foul instead of fair like they are today. Had never heard of this. Any comments??

Up to around 1930-31 the ball was judged fair/foul at the point "last seen by the umpire." So yes, the Babe probably had some homeruns ruled foul balls.

However, he was compensated by the fact that until the same time batted balls that bounced over the fence were called home runs. So he got credit for some home runs that would be ground rule doubles today.

Probably balanced out.

There was an article the other day that said based on the size of ball parks in that era, Babe Ruth would have hit over 1150 homeruns ! He had a lot of 450 foot outs.

1150 +
 

http://www.c-n.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...605210383/1011

http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/yawn.gif

So he got credit for some home runs that would be ground rule doubles today.

They did award home runs on what today would be ground rule doubles, but I seem to remember reading that Babe Ruth did not get any such home runs. But I would not swear to it. The truth must be on the Web somewhere.

perhaps out of laziness he allowed some walkoff homeruns to go as singles if the winning run scored ahead of him. Short of that I can't believe he didn't complete the trip.

Can't help it...
 

Regardless, Babe Ruth was not HALF the hitter that Barry Bonds is!

huh ?!?.............................
 

Reference, please ?



Doug

When Bonds was HALF his current size he wasn't twice the batter Ruth was.
I'm not conceding that he is now either. The debate can never be decisively won, but I choose not to give a cheater and soon to be felon many kudos.
Though I appreciate your opinion, I doubt you have much more than familiarity with Bonds to base it on.

A few quick comparative stats.

Games AB AVG OBP 2b 3b K RBI

Ruth 2503 8398 .342 .474 506 136 1330 2217

Bonds 2730 9140 .300 .442 564 77 1430 1853

hmmmm
I think the stats speak for themselves. To say Ruth is half the hitter Bonds is probably not a defensible position.
IMHO

Don't waste your typing-breath NI - anyone who would make such a ridiculous statement has taken too many fouls to the facemask.

This may be the dumbest thing ever posted on this website and that is saying a lot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Check out anything posted by SAump and you'll reevaluate that statement.;)

Pitching in Ruth's era was ridiculously too easy to hit. If Bonds and Ruth had to switch era's to bat in, Bonds would have about 3000 home runs, and Ruth might have 50!

Congratulations! You've just won the Most Idiotic Post award!