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!

That's just not even remotely true.

1927 NEW YORK YANKEES - Pitching statistics for WS and Regular Season:

SERIES STATS | REGULAR SEASON
Player G ERA W-L SV CG IP H ER BB SO | W-L IP ERA WHIP SO SV
+-------------------+-+------+---+--+--+----+--+--+--+---+------+---+-
Wilcy Moore 2 0.84 1-0 1 1 10.7 11 1 2 2 | 19-7 213 2.28 1.15 75 13
*Herb Pennock 1 1.00 1-0 0 1 9.0 3 1 0 1 | 19-8 210 3.00 1.30 51 2
George Pipgras 1 2.00 1-0 0 1 9.0 7 2 1 2 | 10-3 166 4.11 1.35 81
Waite Hoyt 1 4.91 1-0 0 0 7.3 8 4 1 2 | 22-7 256 2.63 1.15 86 1

I'm pretty sure that Grover Cleveland Alexander and Walter "Big Train" Johnson would take exception as well. Johnson threw 100 mph +. Pitching hasn't changed much since these guys pitched. If what you said were true, everyone would have hit 714 home runs. Instead, only the Babe did, out of all the other players of his era. Look at the ERA's of the '27 Yankee pitching staff.... 3 out of 4 with ERA's at 3.00 or better. Nowdays, anything under 4.00 is considered pretty good.

Bonds would fair no better in those days than he does today, and Ruth would still be the Sultan of Swat in the Bronx right now!

Different games . . .
 

I'm not sure there can ever be a valid comparison.

Ruth began his career in the dead-ball era, primarily as a pitcher.

Bonds MAY HAVE taken steroids; Ruth most certainly did not.

By all accounts, Ruth did nothing for conditioning. He didn't work out and he certainly did not watch what he ate.

Bonds plays in a league with 16 teams (and therefore 16 parks) plus interleague games. Ruth played 7 other teams and only saw a National League club (until he finished his career with the Braves) in the World Series.

Bonds never played in Forbes Field, where Ruth hit his last two home runs. Ty Cobb was quoted as saying, "No one will ever hit a baseball out of this park," when looking at Forbes. Bonds never played in the Polo Grounds, either, Connie Mack Field, etc., etc.

Maybe the only valid comparison is how many HR per AB Bonds has in Yankee Stadium, Old Tiger Stadium, Wrigley Field and Fenway Park, which, I am pretty sure, are the only fields he and Ruth have both hit in, and compare Ruth's HR per AB in the same parks. Even then, you might get a decent argument, because the position of closer had not been invented when Ruth played.

What I am more interested in is how Bonds would compare with Hank Aaron, or even his godfather, Willie Mays.

Strikes and outs!

ruth wasnt even 1/1000000th the steroid taker bonds is either
barry bonds head is the most swollen head ive ever seen, ever. ive seen quite a few fat heads in my day.

Forbes Field was only 300 feet down the right field line. You sure that he wasn't talking about Braves Field which was 402 feet down the lines and 550 feet to center field?