Which single season home run record do you respect the most?

[runningshoes]

I posted this poll for Johnny.

Which single season home run record do you respect the most:

Barry Bonds

Mark McGuire

Roger Maris

[aarond23]

Yeah Maris did it in a ten team league, expansion year, playing under alot of pressure, and with no chemical help.

McGwire had andro for sure, possibly more in a 16 team league, expansion year...can assume he was facing more rested relievers then Maris who might have faced tired starters.

Bonds 16 team league apparantley had plenty of chemical help.

All 3 deserve respect but maris probably the most.

[Astro]

I posted this poll for Johnny.

Which single season home run record do you respect the most:

Barry Bonds

Mark McGuire

Roger Maris
Never thought about it... in my mind a record is a record is a record... so I guess Bonds' 73

[leecemark]

--Ruth 27?

[runningshoes]

I didn't include Ruth because he set the bar.

I didn't think it was necessary.

[leecemark]

--He set the bar and then set it higher for himself and then jumped over it again - and then yet again. No matter how many HR someone else may hit in a season or career its highly unlikely anybody will match the Babe's dominance as a HR hitter. Maris was a fluke and the other two were juiced.

[aarond23]

Wasn't the Babe juiced on beer and hot dogs? :D

[runningshoes]

--He set the bar and then set it higher for himself and then jumped over it again - and then yet again. No matter how many HR someone else may hit in a season or career its highly unlikely anybody will match the Babe's dominance as a HR hitter. Maris was a fluke and the other two were juiced.

I agree that Maris was a fluke, but on the other I can't deny that he did beat the record and even if he was on a PED, I think we can all agree it didn't turn him to the monster Big Mac and Bonds became.

[aarond23]

ok what is a PED?

[runningshoes]

ok what is a PED?

Performance enhancing drug.

[ESPNFan]

To me its not even a contest. Maris easily.

The guys on the sauce breaking records shouldn't impress anyone.

[Edgartohof]

Like it was said already, I'll take the records as is, that's what they are. McGwire hit 70, Bonds hit 73, Maris hit 61. Maris gets props for no steroids, but as much as I don't like the use of steroids by the other two (or anyone for that matter), MLB and the general public weren't exactly complaining (until more recently). The MLB allowed this to go on, and while the players themselves obviously are at fault, because the MLB didn't do anything about it, I don't think anything of it.

Heck, I LOVED the Mcgwire/Sosa Chase back in the day, as did most people, and I knew they were using something, and the MLB knew, and didn't do anything about it, because the public was eating it right up, it brought people back to the game. They are just trying to woo the fans, they give them what they want. A few years ago, it was HR's and that is what we got, a LOT of them, now the fans want the game "cleaned up", so that's what they are doing (although the fans still want the HR's - sticky situation for them huh?!?). So I figure if the MLB allowed all of that to happen, then I won't doing anything. But I can understand the difference between Maris and McGwire, I know why we were seeing those HR's, I say the record book stands as is:

Bonds - 73
McGwire - 70
Sosa - 66
.
.
.
Maris - 61
Ruth - 60

I know that just because Bonds hit 13 more HR's in that season that Ruth did, that he was just THAT much better, it was more due to the "era". So I figure let the records stand, just with the understanding of how they came to be. Ruth was able to hit his because of a new, tighter ball, Barry was able to hit his because of drugs (tighter ball, small park, the list goes on). The environment was just "right" for it. But don't mistake this as saying that I condone illegally using steroids, as it is wrong, I figure, just leave things the way they are, and try to get back to they way things were, and hopefully we can leave the whole steroid issues behind us - and while they will never FULLY be gone, at least they won't be at the center of the game.

[Edgartohof]

ok what is a PED?

Performance Enhancing Drug - Steroids

[runningshoes]

Performance Enhancing Drug - Steroids

I'm refering to Maris possibly taking an amphetamine which, of course, there is no evidence of but in the light of so many others taking them, the possibility exists.

[runningshoes]

And I have to go with Maris.

I'm not prone to giving legitimacy to the illegitimate unless we're talking about children.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Like it was said already, I'll take the records as is, that's what they are. McGwire hit 70, Bonds hit 73, Maris hit 61. Maris gets props for no steroids, but as much as I don't like the use of steroids by the other two (or anyone for that matter), MLB and the general public weren't exactly complaining (until more recently). The MLB allowed this to go on, and while the players themselves obviously are at fault, because the MLB didn't do anything about it, I don't think anything of it.



Still not buying that one, it's acceptable, it's OK because MLB had to know about it. In the end, the bottom line some were using steroids, they made that choice.

I would guess it's only OK because there was no ban on at that time, thats acceptable. But to say that they are to be excused because MLB did not get on this problem years ago is not a good enough alibi.

[Rennie Stennett]

part of the question and answer, but Ruth's 60 does it for me. This at a time when guys didn't hit the long ball. Maris I respect because of the pressure.

[redlegsfan21]

The Single-Season HR record has always been controversial ever since Maris broke the record. Maris didn't get full credit for playing in a 162 game season and McGwire and Bonds are "cheaters."

[Mattingly]

I didn't include Ruth because he set the bar.

I didn't think it was necessary.
I could add his 60 jacks in 1927 to the poll if you'd like.

I'd personally say that Ruth's over 154 games would be my top pick, followed by Maris, who did this despite not being as beloved as the then-injured Mickey, and he couldn't help being in a 162-game league.

As to Mac and Bonds, I'm not too sure if the word "respect" should be mentioned alongside their names re the HR record.

[johnny]

Wasn't the Babe juiced on beer and hot dogs? :D
and redheads...

[Mattingly]

I agree that Maris was a fluke, but on the other I can't deny that he did beat the record and even if he was on a PED, I think we can all agree it didn't turn him to the monster Big Mac and Bonds became.
When you consider that Maris hit 275 dingers, whereas Big Mac hit 583 and Bonds hit 708, I'd say it's no contest.

As to greenies or something, unless someone wishes to prove that he took something illegal in the USA and/or illegal according to then-existing MLB rules, I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt.

[johnny]

I posted this poll for Johnny.

Which single season home run record do you respect the most:

Barry Bonds

Mark McGuire

Roger Maris

Thank you Shoes...
The fact that Marris did it for a team in contention AND wasn't the popular choice by MLB or many of the 'fans' who wanted no part in Ruth's record beaten by 'mere' Roger (2 time MVP) versus the immortal Mick with the right Yankee pedigree makes it a true uphill battle.

Do you know what I really love about Marris is his feeling towards HR Ball 61. An excerpt from SF Gate tells a great little story:

(The fan who caught it) Sal Durante made $5,000 on No. 61, bought by a Sacramento restaurateur. Durante, 19 at the time, gave half to his parents and used the rest to get married. The wedding took place four weeks after he caught the ball. Media clogged the church entrance, and the couple barely got through.

"We lost our flower girl," said Rosemarie Durante, seated next to her husband. "Someone had to go find her to bring her to the reception."

...Durante got to meet slugger who made everything happen.

Before he sold the ball, he offered it to Maris, who advised him to take the money.

A while later, a package came in the mail. It was a wedding gift from Maris, a silver gravy boat. They still have it, in their 42nd year of marriage. No. 61 didn't bring in a lot of money, but it made them very rich.

[1doug]

What Mac, Bonds and Sosa did is impressive, no doubt. But my vote goes to Maris, he did it in a tougher time, not in the smaller parks that are built today just for the homerun. But watching the Sosa/Mac year was as exciting as it could get.

[Brownie31]

No doubt at all from this precinct! Roger Maris all the way. Maris went through sheer torment from the media & the baseball establishment. The * business stank from the get go-the very next year Maury Wills broke Ty Cobb's base stealing record but nary a word about an * by his name! Of course, Commissioner Ford Frick had never been Ty Cobb's ghostwriter! Brownie31

[RedSoxVT92]

Rodger Maris is the season home run leader. He wasn't on steroids unlike Bonds and McGwire which let them to hit unbelivable numbers. But to me the most impressive is Ruths 60 in 1927. He played in 10 less games with 50 less at bats. And the parks were even bigger then in Maris's day. Even so Maris holds the title fair and square, unlike Bonds and McGwire who took performance enhancing drugs at the time to acheive home run hitting supremecy.

[Astro]

What Mac, Bonds and Sosa did is impressive, no doubt. But my vote goes to Maris, he did it in a tougher time, not in the smaller parks that are built today just for the homerun. But watching the Sosa/Mac year was as exciting as it could get.
Are the parks really that much smaller? I believe the Yankee Stadium right field walls (might have been left field) were only around 300 feet from homeplate...

[Blackout]

Ruth did his in a 154 game season, i respect that the most

however, I view Roger Maris as the single season holder

[Mattingly]

Rodger Maris is the season home run leader. He wasn't on steroids unlike Bonds and McGwire which let them to hit unbelivable numbers. But to me the most impressive is Ruths 60 in 1927. He played in 10 less games with 50 less at bats. And the parks were even bigger then in Maris's day. Even so Maris holds the title fair and square, unlike Bonds and McGwire who took performance enhancing drugs at the time to acheive home run hitting supremecy.
http://ballparks.com/baseball/index.htm

If you go to "American League" then "present", then "Yankee Stadium", you'll find the following for dimensions over the years:

Dimensions: Left field: 280.58 (1923), 301 (1928), 312 (1976), 318 (1988); left side of bullpen gate in short left-center: 395 (1923), 402 (1928), 387 (1976), 379 (1985); right side of bullpen gate: 415 (1937); deepest left-center: 500 (1923), 490 (1924), 457 (1937), 430 (1976), 411 (1985), 399 (1988); left side of cente-field screen: 466 (1937); center field: 487 (1923), 461 (1937), 463 (1967), 417 (1976), 410 (1985), 408 (1988); deepest right-center: 429 (1923), 407 (1937), 385 (1976); left side of bullpen gate in short right-center: 350 (1923), 367 (1937), 353 (1976); right side of bullpen gate: 344 (1937); right field 294.75 (1923), 295 (1930), 296 (1939), 310 (1976), 314 (1988); backstop: 82 (1942), 80 (1953), 84 (1976); foul territory: large for the catcher behind home plate, but small for fielders down the foul lines.

Fences: Left-field foul line: 3.92 (3 wire above .92 concrete, 1923), 8 (canvas, 1976); left-center, left of visitors’ bullpen: 3.58 (3 wire above .58 concrete); [i]right of visitors’ bullpen: 7.83 (3 wire above 4.83 concrete), 7 (canvas, 1976); center field, left screen when up for hitters’ background: 20 (1953), 22.25 (1959), 22.42 (1954); screen when down: 13.83, (canvas, 1976); right-center, right of screen: 14.5 (3 wire above 11.5 concrete, 1923); left of home bullpen: 7.83 (3 wire above 4.83 concrete, 1923); right of home bullpen: 3.58 (3 wire above .58 concrete, 1923), 8 (canvas, 1976), 9 (canvas, 1979); right field foul line: 3.75 (3 wire above .75 concrete, 1923), 10 (canvas, 1976).

As to San Francisco's renamed AT&T Park (http://sanfrancisco.giants.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/sf/ballpark/sbcpark.jsp), formerly SBC Park, here are its dimensions, from the link in this paragraph:

Field Dimensions
Left Foul Line: 339 Feet
Right Foul Line: 309 Feet
Center Field: 399 Feet
Left-Center Field Alley: 364 Feet
Right-Center Field Alley: 421 Feet

[CTaka]

Out of the choices given, I picked Maris.

If Ruth's 60 in 154 games was an option, that would be my choice. But it wasn't listed.

[plask_stirlac]

I suppose I respect Maris' the most, even with Mantle behind him. He put up with the most, not deservedly so.

Bonds' was still the most daunting if we're not talking Ruth. Pac Bell/SBC is a terrible HR park, and Bonds set the then records for HRs and walks.

At least Maris is still the AL king.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Are the parks really that much smaller? I believe the Yankee Stadium right field walls (might have been left field) were only around 300 feet from homeplate...

Old and new Yankee Stadium.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Pac Bell/SBC is a terrible HR park

Actually, it's park factor wasn't that bad on hitters for a few seasons. It was 99 in 2003, 103 in 2004 and 98 in 2005. There's a few other years where it was down at 91 though.

You'd need to see a park factor that only included lefty pull hitters with power, to be the most accurate. Pretty sure Bonds hasn't been hurt too much by his home park if you look at his home/road splits. Or maybe he has, who knows, right center there is quite a poke compared to other parks around.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Home parks of course a big factor but away park distances should also be factored in. Not sure of park distance comparison AL 1961 and NL during Mac, Sammy and Barry's time.

I don't think there was a hugh difference on average from the 1960s to the mid 1990s-2000s.

[Mattingly]

Home parks of course a big factor but away park distances should also be factored in. Not sure of park distance comparison AL 1961 and NL during Mac, Sammy and Barry's time.

I don't think there was a hugh difference on average from the 1960s to the mid 1990s-2000s.
It may be impossible to calculate away park factors. I'm not just talking about combining all of the NL parks during modern times or AL parks in 1927 or 1961. You'd also have to see which specific parks these guys played in on the road and how often.

Right now, guys play 19 games against each of their division rivals and their records, including which games they didn't play in, are easily attainable. I'm not too sure how you'd figure out how many games at Comiskey, Fenway and other AL parks that Ruth and Maris played in 1927 and 1961, respectively.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

It may be impossible to calculate away park factors. I'm not just talking about combining all of the NL parks during modern times or AL parks in 1927 or 1961. You'd also have to see which specific parks these guys played in on the road and how often.

Right now, guys play 19 games against each of their division rivals and their records, including which games they didn't play in, are easily attainable. I'm not too sure how you'd figure out how many games at Comiskey, Fenway and other AL parks that Ruth and Maris played in 1927 and 1961, respectively.

1927 Yankee Away games - Park Factor - Dimensions (left to right, centerfield in bold)

PHI - 11 (106 Park Factor) 312 - 393 - 468 - 393 - 307 (12 ft concrete)

WASH - 10 (99 Park Factor) 358 - 383 - 409 - 391 - 423 - 378 - 326 (30 ft concrete)

BOS - 12 (98 Park Factor) 320 (37 ft) - 379 - 388 - 488 - 550 - 405 - 358

CHI - 11 (98 Park Factor) 365 - 375 - 455 - 375 - 365 (12 ft fence)

CLE - 11 (101 Park Factor) 376 - 415 - 450 (just left of center) - 420 - 290(45 ft screen)

DET - 11 (101 Park Factor) 340 - 365 - 467 - 370 - 371

STL - 11 (103 Park Factor) 333 - 379 - 430 - 354 - 320 (11.5 ft fence)

[Pghfan987]

I do understand why people would become so upset over the steroids controversy. However, it's is not like Bonds and McGwire were the only ones taking something- pitchers were too, as well as a plethora of other hitters. I am not saying that this is necessarily right, morally or legally, but the fact is is that steroids were rampant throughout the big leagues during the era, and to single out the two record holders is perhaps a bit unfair. Also keep in mind that MLB did not have a clear-cut steroids policy at this time.

I just think that, eventually, the "juicers" will be analagous to the "spitballers" of almost a century ago. While it is currently illegal and gave them an advantage, I do not believe that they should be banned from the record books because it was such a common practice during that era. (in both cases)

Right now, I am going to have to say Bonds deserves the record. As for the most impressive accomplishment, I will go with Ruth's 60 in '27.

Mark

[SHOELESSJOE3]

It may be impossible to calculate away park factors. I'm not just talking about combining all of the NL parks during modern times or AL parks in 1927 or 1961. You'd also have to see which specific parks these guys played in on the road and how often.

Right now, guys play 19 games against each of their division rivals and their records, including which games they didn't play in, are easily attainable. I'm not too sure how you'd figure out how many games at Comiskey, Fenway and other AL parks that Ruth and Maris played in 1927 and 1961, respectively.


Well, as you can see looking at SULTANS post we do have the number of games played at away parks for Ruth, Maris and any hitter from those time periods.

I haven't really compared the parks of 1961 to the parks of the 1990s up until today. I did look closely at AL parks in the 1920s ( 1927 in particular) and compared them to NL parks in the 1990s.

This is all on average all parks factored in.

Down the lines 1920s and 1990s were about the same.
Power alleys 1920s parks a bit longer 10 to 15 feet.
Center field, a hugh difference. I averaged out all the NL parks from the 1990s and compared them to all the AL parks in the 1920s and found on average the 1920s parks in CF were 40+ feet deeper.

Just a small number of distances to CF from the 1920s AL parks.
Yankee Stadium---------487
Comiskey--------------- 420 from 1920 to 1925. 450-455 from 1926 to 1930.
Detroit------------------467
Fenway-----------------488
Shibe-------------------468 from 1920 to 1922. 448 from 1923 to 1930 and beyond.

These are some of the longer ones, others in the neighborhood of 420. As you can see there are no CF distances as long as those from the AL 1920s, that was the biggest difference, center field.

[Pghfan987]

I did not watch a whole lot of baseball on mlb.tv during the 1920s. With some of these ballparks having centerfield fences near 500 feet, were there a lot of inside-the-park home runs? Does anyone know how many in-the-parkers Ruth hit? Obviously fewer homers overall were hit, I was just wondering as to the effect of in-the-parkers.

Mark

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I did not watch a whole lot of baseball on mlb.tv during the 1920s. With some of these ballparks having centerfield fences near 500 feet, were there a lot of inside-the-park home runs? Does anyone know how many in-the-parkers Ruth hit? Obviously fewer homers overall were hit, I was just wondering as to the effect of in-the-parkers.

Mark

10 inside the park jobs, and none of 'em were pop ups as hollywood would have you believe. He got triples twice on those, not HR.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I haven't really compared the parks of 1961 to the parks of the 1990s up until today. I did look closely at AL parks in the 1920s ( 1927 in particular) and compared them to NL parks in the 1990s.


Good work Joe.

Overall, down the lines might not be a big difference, but check out BOS, CHI, and DET down the right field line. Not only that, but many parks back then had netting, or concrete, or whatever other type of wall placed up when the fence was shorter than normal. FIr example CLE was only 290 in right, but had a 45 foot screen to clear for a homer. Eight feet higher than the green monster.

[Mattingly]

1927 Yankee Away games - Park Factor - Dimensions (left to right, centerfield in bold)

PHI - 11 (106 Park Factor) 312 - 393 - 468 - 393 - 307 (12 ft concrete)

WASH - 10 (99 Park Factor) 358 - 383 - 409 - 391 - 423 - 378 - 326 (30 ft concrete)

BOS - 12 (98 Park Factor) 320 (37 ft) - 379 - 388 - 488 - 550 - 405 - 358

CHI - 11 (98 Park Factor) 365 - 375 - 455 - 375 - 365 (12 ft fence)

CLE - 11 (101 Park Factor) 376 - 415 - 450 (just left of center) - 420 - 290(45 ft screen)

DET - 11 (101 Park Factor) 340 - 365 - 467 - 370 - 371

STL - 11 (103 Park Factor) 333 - 379 - 430 - 354 - 320 (11.5 ft fence)
Interesting stats. Where'd you get those from?

Since you include Park Factor, they seem to be listed differently from this ESPN link (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor), which uses the following definition:

Glossary
Park Factor compares the rate of stats at home vs. the rate of stats on the road.
A rate higher than 1.000 favors the hitter. Below 1.000 favors the pitcher.
PF = ((homeRS + homeRA)/(homeG)) / ((roadRS + roadRA)/(roadG))
* Teams with home games in multiple stadiums list aggregate Park Factors.

If I may trouble you some more, can you or someone else please show Ruth's home and away stats? Not just HR, but BB, 2B, 3B, H, etc.

Thanks greatly for all the legwork you've done on this. :)

[chrismarullo]

I still think there should be seperate 154 & 162 game records, Maris of course owning the 162 game record.

[west coast orange and black]

what about the 144-game season records?
why do those guys get short-changed? :eek:

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Interesting stats. Where'd you get those from?

Since you include Park Factor, they seem to be listed differently from this ESPN link (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor), which uses the following definition:

Glossary
Park Factor compares the rate of stats at home vs. the rate of stats on the road.
A rate higher than 1.000 favors the hitter. Below 1.000 favors the pitcher.
PF = ((homeRS + homeRA)/(homeG)) / ((roadRS + roadRA)/(roadG))
* Teams with home games in multiple stadiums list aggregate Park Factors.

If I may trouble you some more, can you or someone else please show Ruth's home and away stats? Not just HR, but BB, 2B, 3B, H, etc.

Thanks greatly for all the legwork you've done on this. :)

1927 Season


HR Date Game RuthInning Opposing Team, Pitcher Men Result
1 April 15 4 4 1 Philadelphia, Howard Ehmke 0 W 6-3
2 April 23 11 11 1 at Philadelphia, Rube Walberg* 0 L 3-4
3 April 24 12 12 6 at Washington, Hollis Thurston 0 W 6-2
4 April 29 14 14 5 at Boston, Slim Harriss 0 W 9-0
5 May 1 16 16 1 Philadelphia, Jack Quinn 1 W 7-3
6 May 1 16 16 8 Philadelphia, Rube Walberg* 1
7 May 10 24 24 1 at St. Louis, Milt Gaston 2 W 8-7
8 May 11 25 25 1 at St. Louis, Ernie Nevers 1 W 4-2
9 May 17 29 29 8 at Detroit, Harry Collins 0 W 9-2
10 May 22 33 33 6 at Cleveland, Benn Karr 1 W 7-2
11 May 23 34 34 1 at Washington, Hollis Thurston 0 L 2-3
12 May 28 (1) 37 37 7 Washington, Hollis Thurston 2 W 8-2
13 May 29 39 39 8 Boston, Danny MacFayden 0 W 15-7
14 May 30 41 41 11 at Philadelphia, Rube Walberg* 0 W 6-5 (11)
15 May 31 (1) 42 42 1 at Philadelphia, Jack Quinn 1 W 10-3
16 May 31 (2) 43 43 5 at Philadelphia, Howard Ehmke 1 W 18-5
17 June 5 47 47 6 Detroit, Earl Whitehill* 0 W 5-3
18 June 7 48 48 4 Chicago, Tommy Thomas 0 W 4-1
19 June 11 52 52 3 Cleveland, Garland Buckeye* 1 W 6-4
20 June 11 52 52 5 Cleveland, Garland Buckeye* 0 W 6-4
21 June 12 53 53 7 Cleveland, George Uhle 0 L 7-8
22 June 16 55 55 1 St. Louis, Tom Zachary* 1 W 8-1
23 June 22 (1) 60 60 5 at Boston, Hal Wiltse* 0 W 7-4
24 June 22 (1) 60 60 7 at Boston, Hal Wiltse* 1
25 June 30 70 66 4 Boston, Slim Harriss 1 W 13-6
26 July 3 73 69 1 at Washington, Hod Lisenbee 0 L 5-6
27 July 8 (2) 78 74 2 at Detroit, Don Hankins 2 W 10-8
28 July 9 (1) 79 75 1 at Detroit, Ken Holloway 1 W 19-7
29 July 9 (1) 79 75 4 at Detroit, Ken Holloway 2
30 July 12 83 79 9 at Cleveland, Joe Shaute* 1 W 7-0
31 July 24 94 90 3 at Chicago, Tommy Thomas 0 W 3-2
32 July 26 (1) 95 91 1 St. Louis, Milt Gaston 1 W 15-1
33 July 26 (1) 95 91 6 St. Louis, Milt Gaston 0
34 July 28 98 94 8 St. Louis, Walter Stewart* 1 W 9-4
35 August 5 106 102 8 Detroit, George Smith 0 W 5-2
36 August 10 110 106 3 at Washington, Tom Zachary* 2 W 4-3
37 August 16 114 110 5 at Chicago, Tommy Thomas 0 W 8-1
38 August 17 115 111 11 at Chicago, Sarge Connally 0 W 3-2 (11)
39 August 20 118 114 1 at Cleveland, Jake Miller* 1 L 8-14
40 August 22 120 116 6 at Cleveland, Joe Shaute* 0 L 4-9
41 August 27 124 120 8 at St. Louis, Ernie Nevers 1 W 14-4
42 August 28 125 121 1 at St. Louis, Ernie Wingard* 1 W 10-6
43 August 31 127 123 1 Boston, Tony Welzer 0 W 10-3
44 Sept 2 128 124 1 at Philadelphia, Rube Walberg* 0 W 12-2
45 Sept 6 (1) 132 128 6 at Boston, Tony Welzer 2 W 14-2
46 Sept 6 (1) 132 128 7 at Boston, Tony Welzer 1
47 Sept 6 133 129 9 at Boston, Jack Russell 1 L 2-5
48 Sept 7 134 130 1 at Boston, Danny MacFayden 0 W 12-10
49 Sept 7 134 130 8 at Boston, Slim Harriss 1
50 Sept 11 138 134 4 St. Louis, Milt Gaston 0 L 2-6
51 Sept 13 (1)139 135 7 Cleveland, Willis Hudlin 1 W 5-3
52 Sept 13 (2)140 136 4 Cleveland, Joe Shaute* 0 W 5-3
53 Sept 16 143 139 3 Chicago, Ted Blankenship 0 W 7-2
54 Sept 18 (2)147 143 5 Chicago, Ted Lyons 1 W 5-1
55 Sept 21 148 144 9 Detroit, Sam Gibson 0 L 1-6
56 Sept 22 149 145 9 Detroit, Ken Holloway 1 W 8-7
57 Sept 27 152 148 6 Philadelphia, Lefty Grove* 3 W 7-4
58 Sept 29 153 149 1 Washington, Hod Lisenbee 0 W 15-4
59 Sept 29 153 149 5 Washington, Paul Hopkins 3
60 Sept 30 154 150 8 Washington, Tom Zachary* 1 W 4-2

* lefthanded pitcher

Home Runs:

vs. Boston (11)
vs. Cleveland (9)
vs. Philadelphia (9)
vs. St. Louis (9)
vs. Detroit (8)
vs. Washington (8)
vs. Chicago (6)

Home Runs by Inning:

First (17)
Second (1)
Third (4)
Fourth (5)
Fifth (7)
Sixth (7)
Seventh (5)
Eighth (8)
Ninth (4)
Eleventh (2)


Yankees were 43-9 (.827) in games which Ruth homered
HR at Yankee Stadium: 28
HR on the road: 32
HR off righthanded pitchers: 41
HR off lefthanded pitchers: 19
Multiple HR games: 8
July 8th in Detroit was Ruth's only inside-the-park HR in 1927
Two Grand Slams: #57 and #59
27 Solo HR
His 60 HR drove in 102 RBI


I'm not a big buff on park factors, but you're right over 100 favors batters, under favors pitchers.

[Zito75]

I'll take McGwire's rookie record in 1987. 49 bombs in his first year? What are the chances we'll see that again? I seriously doubt he was messing with 'roids then.

Also, Cecil Fielder's 51 jacks in '90 (or was it '91?) get totally lost. How many years went by before he broke 50?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Interesting stats. Where'd you get those from?


If I may trouble you some more, can you or someone else please show Ruth's home and away stats? Not just HR, but BB, 2B, 3B, H, etc.



Some home away numbers from 1927.

--------AB-----Ba-------2B-----3B----Hr----Slg.----TB-----RBI's-----BB
Home--253----.372-----10------4-----28---.775----196----70-------62
Away--287----.341-----19------4-----32---.770----221----94-------76

[SHOELESSJOE3]

what about the 144-game season records?
why do those guys get short-changed? :eek:

Thats a thought, seldom does anyone even consider those shorter seasons.

[west coast orange and black]

we giant fans will always wonder about matty williams and what might have been.

[lautrec]

Wasn't the Babe juiced on beer and hot dogs? :D


I hope your not serious on this comment. Assuming from your smiley, you probably aren't.

HOWEVER, there has been a lot of comment to that very thing. Ruth being hopped up on beer, drinking, etc. And these people ARE serious. It blows my mind to see people comparing HGH, andro, etc. to hot dogs and beer. This is like the nutjobs who insist on compating gays to minorities. What a load of crap all this is.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

we giant fans will always wonder about matty williams and what might have been.

lautrec, looks like he was just kiddin'.

WC- yeah, he had 43 in 112 games. One dong every 10.3 AB up to that point. Although that's a large chunk of the season, you don't think he would have regressed towards his normal level? Who knows though huh, could have just stayed in the zone. Shame we'll never know. Btw, was Bonds hitting third or fourth during that season?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

On Sep. 6th and 7th of '27 Babe had 5 homers. Anyone know what the record is for consecutive games?

nevermind, I read it wrong. Sep. 6th was a double header, so he only had 5 in 3 consecutive games.

[Pghfan987]

the record is 8 games. Held by Don Mattingly, Griffey Jr, and a third guy- I believe Dale Long.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

the record is 8 games. Held by Don Mattingly, Griffey Jr, and a third guy- I believe Dale Long.

Right. 8 consecutive games. I meant the total number of homers in either a 2 game or 3 game stretch. Any way to look that up?

[Pghfan987]

Ah sorry, I read it wrong. 5 is the record. I know Shawn Green has it, but he is tied with some other people.

[Pghfan987]

And Green hit 7 in that 3 game stretch, which I believe is the record for three games.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Wow. Ok, thanks.

[Rennie Stennett]

September 30th, 1927 Ruth hit number 60 off of Tom Zachary of the Senators. Who pinch hit for Zachary in the ninth ? That's right, Walter Johnson. It was the "Big Train's" final appearance and he flied out to Ruth. In addition to winning 416 games, Johnson hit (.236) with (24) home runs in his career.

[digglahhh]

I'd probably vote for Ruth's 60. To me, the records themselves mean little intinsically. Their true meaning is in relation to, and as a reflection of the player who sets them. That's why nobody cares about the record for most HRs in 3 consecutive games- because its held by Shawn Green. The single season homerun record is of value because its ownership should reflect the greatest power hitter of all time. In that light, Ruth's is the most meaningful because his ownership of the record was most "accurate" in terms of what the record is supposed to represent.

Were Jimmy Rollins to break Joe D's 56, the new, and presumably more amazing record would actually evolve to be less revered than it was when it was held by Joey D, basically because it would be held by Jimmy Rollins as opposed to Dimaggio.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

September 30th, 1927 Ruth hit number 60 off of Tom Zachary of the Senators. Who pinch hit for Zachary in the ninth ? That's right, Walter Johnson. It was the "Big Train's" final appearance and he flied out to Ruth. In addition to winning 416 games, Johnson hit (.236) with (24) home runs in his career.

Since you mentioned Zachary...on a sider side note:

That 60th homer in '27 was hit down the right field line just fair, and Zachary was screaming "Foul Ball, Foul Ball!!!". He argued with the ump for awhile as Ruth rounded the bases, but the ball was fair.

In 1947 Zachary was part of the festivities at Yankee Stadium, the last time Babe every put on a Yankee uniform. At one point Zachary shook hands with Ruth, and in his cancer stricken voice Babe said, "You crooked arm son of a bitch, are you still claiming that ball was foul?"

[SanDiegoSteve]

No doubt at all from this precinct! Roger Maris all the way. Maris went through sheer torment from the media & the baseball establishment. The * business stank from the get go-the very next year Maury Wills broke Ty Cobb's base stealing record but nary a word about an * by his name! Of course, Commissioner Ford Frick had never been Ty Cobb's ghostwriter! Brownie31

Roger Maris, no * required. To put up with all the BS he had to endure, and to still hit 61 was an acheivement in itself.

Ford C. Frick was such a butthead.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Roger Maris, no * required. To put up with all the BS he had to endure, and to still hit 61 was an acheivement in itself.

Ford C. Frick was such a butthead.

He was just lookin' out for his boy. If anything, since the 154 game seasons were over and done with, the asterisk should have went beside 60 imo. Not next to 61.

[runningshoes]

HOWEVER, there has been a lot of comment to that very thing. Ruth being hopped up on beer, drinking, etc. And these people ARE serious. It blows my mind to see people comparing HGH, andro, etc. to hot dogs and beer.

That's how they all sleep at night. :laugh

[csh19792001]

On Sep. 6th and 7th of '27 Babe had 5 homers. Anyone know what the record is for consecutive games?


Well, several have tied it, but I have a good candidate for the most impressive out of that bunch.... :)

On May 5, 1925, Cobb began a two-game hitting spree better than any even Ruth had unleashed. He was sitting in the dugout talking to a reporter and told him that, for the first time in his career, he was going to swing for the fences. That day, Cobb went 6 for 6, with two singles, a double, and three home runs. His 16 total bases set a new AL record. The next day he had three more hits, two of which were home runs. His single his first time up gave him 9 consecutive hits over three games. His five homers in two games tied the record set by Cap Anson of the old Chicago NL team in 1884. At the end of the series, 38-year-old Cobb had gone 12 for 19 with 29 total bases.

Ty also set the alltime record for total bases in two games (25) (later tied by Joe Adcock in 1954), and the single game record for total bases (16) (previously had been 13 over the first 50 years of professional baseball).

In researching it, I came across a couple other odd synchronicities...

Oddly enough, during that spree Cobb passed Honus Wagner for the alltime record for extra base hits, and Everett Scott's then record of 1,307 consecutive games was snapped.

Sid Keener wrote that two of Cobb's doubles were long ones, and one hit the top of the fence. Too bad- Cobb, considered by many to be the consummate contact hitter, could have ended up with an alltime record 6 homeruns in two games.

[BadKarma]

Gotta go with Maris on this one. Nothing respectable about Big Mac's and Bonds' steroid aided records. Even if Ruth was an option here, I would still go with Maris as far as respecting his record more. Ruth was the greatest HR hitter of his time hands down, nobody else was even close. Maris wasn't even considered the best HR hitter on his team. And then to deal with all the pressure and scrutinization, and still be able to jack 61? That's incredible. Not sure how 61 HRs in ayear can be considered a "fluke" though. To me a fluke would be something like a non-power guy hitting 2 or 3 HRs in a game. To hit 61 over the course of a season is no fluke.

[Sweet Lou]

To me a fluke would be something like a non-power guy hitting 2 or 3 HRs in a game. To hit 61 over the course of a season is no fluke.
You know something? That makes a lot of sense to me. I think we forget how long the season is...there are career years, to be sure, everyone has them, but there are no flukes for entire seasons.

[runningshoes]

To me a fluke would be something like a non-power guy hitting 2 or 3 HRs in a game. To hit 61 over the course of a season is no fluke.

I agree, Mike.

You can liken it to a musician who pushes the envelope for a particular album that gets critical acclaim. He may not have done it before and he may never do it again, but he raised his own bar and achieved the accomplishment.

[christian gentleman]

Amazing that Maris or Ruth hit 60 without juice.

If the juice only gives you 10 or 12 more homeruns, then what does it say for the ability of a non-juice-using player.

Imagine if Maris or Ruth had used the stuff, that's mind boggling.

I respect Maris's record the most. The pressure, the team, the fans, the timing, the Mick. It's a special thing he did.

[Ex-Expo fan]

I believe that Maris's accomplishment is without a doubt the most impressive.
I do not believe that Ruth could have come close to hitting 60 homer's in a league that was

1) Integrated with at least the upper tier of African American's.
2) Now had the pitching adjusted to his style of hitting.

You must keep in mind that 1927 was just 7 years after Ruth first initiated the powerhitting style and pitcher's were probably raised to pitch against dead ball hitting styles. I certainly don't believe that Ruth would've hit 714 homer's had there been a man before him who hit above 40hr's consistently every season. I give him credit for changing the game, for being both a succesfull hitter and pitcher, but when I think about it his 60 homer's were bashed in an era that was not yet coompletely changed. The fact that he hit more homer's than any other american league team but his own underlines my point.

[Cubsfan97]

Maris is still the most respected. It seems to be a huge landslide here. Maris is the only one to do it without some kind of enhancer. Its a shame hes not even in the top 5 anymore.

[Horror]

I'm not going to vote for any of them, because I respect them all equally. They all were set in different era's, under different circumstances, each with their pro's and con's.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I believe that Maris's accomplishment is without a doubt the most impressive.
I do not believe that Ruth could have come close to hitting 60 homer's in a league that was

1) Integrated with at least the upper tier of African American's.
2) Now had the pitching adjusted to his style of hitting.

You must keep in mind that 1927 was just 7 years after Ruth first initiated the powerhitting style and pitcher's were probably raised to pitch against dead ball hitting styles. I certainly don't believe that Ruth would've hit 714 homer's had there been a man before him who hit above 40hr's consistently every season. I give him credit for changing the game, for being both a succesfull hitter and pitcher, but when I think about it his 60 homer's were bashed in an era that was not yet coompletely changed. The fact that he hit more homer's than any other american league team but his own underlines my point.

:crazy :crazy

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I believe that Maris's accomplishment is without a doubt the most impressive.
I do not believe that Ruth could have come close to hitting 60 homer's in a league that was

1) Integrated with at least the upper tier of African American's.
2) Now had the pitching adjusted to his style of hitting.
.

Let me se if I can understand this. Roger Maris could hit 60 in the 1960s but Babe Ruth could not come close. So the hitter (Ruth) who is second only to McGwire in AB/HR and Mac refuses to discuss the past and what he may have used. The hitter who is one of only 3 hitters with 700 home runs, the hitter who has more 40 home run seasons than any other despite the fact that he spent some years pitching, who hit some of the longest ever, who has the most multiple home run games in a career. You don't think he could come close to hitting 60. Well, I guess I don't understand

[BadKarma]

It seems you took his statement out of context. He did not say Ruth wasn't one of the greatest hitters ever. He just said that they played in different era's where the atheletes were of a different caliber, and the pitching style was different. Thats the hard thing about comparing players from different eras, too many variables to really get a good comparison. Who is to say if Maris played at the same time as Ruth, that he wouldn't have had 700 HRs? Or any other slugger of another era? By the same token, maybe Maris would have only hit 10-15 HR a year if he played in the same era as Ruth. We will never know. Maybe Ruth would not be able to hit as many HRs if he had played during Maris's era, no real way of telling that either.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

It seems you took his statement out of context. He did not say Ruth wasn't one of the greatest hitters ever. He just said that they played in different era's where the atheletes were of a different caliber, and the pitching style was different. Thats the hard thing about comparing players from different eras, too many variables to really get a good comparison. Who is to say if Maris played at the same time as Ruth, that he wouldn't have had 700 HRs? Or any other slugger of another era? By the same token, maybe Maris would have only hit 10-15 HR a year if he played in the same era as Ruth. We will never know. Maybe Ruth would not be able to hit as many HRs if he had played during Maris's era, no real way of telling that either.

Well, he stated that Ruth wouldn't come close to hitting 60 homers. Not sure how you can take that out of context. The entire post was ludicrous imo, not even worth responding to. What Shoeless touched on doesn't come close to explaining how outlandish the opinion is.

[SanDiegoSteve]

He was just lookin' out for his boy. If anything, since the 154 game seasons were over and done with, the asterisk should have went beside 60 imo. Not next to 61.

He hit 59 in 154, so what? I realize you are biased toward your hero, but records are records, and there were no asterisks next to other records which fell due to to expanded seasons. If he had tied Ruth on his last at bat that 154th game, we wouldn't be talking about it at all, much less making a big deal about it.

How would you have liked to have been Maris, to have the media misunderstand you, the fans, both away and home, revile you? How would you like to have worked your butt off to get the record, and then have an * placed next to it in the record books? I am sure it wouldn't sit well with you. It's just a shame on baseball for not removing the * until after Roger was long dead, and never getting to see it removed.

Ford Frick was not a butthead just because of the asterisk. Check out his 10 Commandments Of Umpiring, for example. Written like a typical person with no idea of the difficulty of the job. From what little I know of him, I'm certain I would not have liked him very much.

[Appling]

I picked the McGwire record because it meant the most to me when it happened. Like Maris, Mark McGwire broke a famous record that had stood for over 30 years. The McGwire-Sosa race to catch Maris brought excitement to the game, which we needed after that infamous strike/lockout.

And when it happened I was still among the naive and trusting, who knew nothing about PED's and HGH.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

He hit 59 in 154, so what? I realize you are biased toward your hero, but records are records, and there were no asterisks next to other records which fell due to to expanded seasons. If he had tied Ruth on his last at bat that 154th game, we wouldn't be talking about it at all, much less making a big deal about it.



I don't get your attitude. It has nothing to do with "my hero" or me discrediting Maris. My point was, that if there's going to be an asterisk, then IMO they should have put it next to Babe's and NOT Maris'.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

It seems you took his statement out of context. He did not say Ruth wasn't one of the greatest hitters ever. .

I think I answered directly to his statement that he believed Ruth could not come close to 60 home runs in integrated baseball and with pitching given time to adjust to his style of hitting.

Even more of a surprise, he didn't say Ruth could not hit 60, he said he believed he could not come close to 60. When you hit 700+ home runs in any era, your near the top. Ruth even in his declining years was showing his power.

1930-----49 HR---------145 games---age 35
1931-----46 HR---------145 games---age 36
1931-----41 HR---------133 games---age 37

If not Ruth who from the 1920s-1930s could come close to 60. Greenberg, Foxx and Hack Wilson came close and Ruth hit 50 or more 4 times. The other 3 sluggers combined hit 50 or more 4 times. Ruth hit 40 or more 11 times, Wilson, Foxx and Greenberg combined hit 40 or more 10 times. So what is he saying no one from the 1920s or 1930s could come close to hitting 60 in the time Maris played. I'm not buying.

[Ex-Expo fan]

Well, he stated that Ruth wouldn't come close to hitting 60 homers. Not sure how you can take that out of context. The entire post was ludicrous imo, not even worth responding to. What Shoeless touched on doesn't come close to explaining how outlandish the opinion is.

First of all I'm insulted by the fact that you don't only say my posts are not worth responding to, but also for the fact that you don't even tell me directly and immaturely go towards the crowd sharing youre opinion to tell them.

My argument was that Ruth had an advantage, due to the fact that he initiated the Homer as baseball's primary offensive weapon. I don't have to tell you that baseball before Ruth didn't rely on the homerun, and that the pitcher's were not yet completely adapted to the new situation 7 years after it came on the baseball stage.

Would it be to hard to comprehend that some of those balls may have gone out of the park because pitcher's were not yet completely adapted to throwing to powerhitters? (same goes for his 11 40+ hr's seasons)

Or do you really believe that no matter what era Ruth in his godly fashion would crush 60 homers in any era of baseball? His stats are also a reflection of the era he played in as are the stats of the Juiced up players, it's a basic fact that you know but don't seem to apply to Ruth because you are blindfolded by his legend.

Wilt Chamberlain scored 100 points in a game because he was one of the only true tall scorers of the game and there was no defensive stop to guys like him, would he score a 100 today? Ruth had an advantage just like Wilt did.

I for one believe Maris had a magical year where the homer's seemed to fly off his bat, and also believe it was a fluke year that involved a lot of luck. The way you seem to see his accomplishment today would be about the same as the Yankees fans then who just wouldn't accept that a good player could surpass their god.

[csh19792001]

He hit 59 in 154, so what? I realize you are biased toward your hero, but records are records, and there were no asterisks next to other records which fell due to to expanded seasons. If he had tied Ruth on his last at bat that 154th game, we wouldn't be talking about it at all, much less making a big deal about it.


There is some merit to the season length/asterisk postulate, although I'd never considered it.

Think about it.....Ned Williamson set the record single season HR record in 1884 with 27, that stood for 36 years until Ruth broke it (by comparison Babe's record stood for 41 years). The Cubs only had 112 games scheduled that year...should Ruth's record have been asterisked because he played in a protracted season by comparison?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

First of all I'm insulted by the fact that you don't only say my posts are not worth responding to, but also for the fact that you don't even tell me directly and immaturely go towards the crowd sharing youre opinion to tell them.


I'm insulted that you are insulted. I simply stated that my opinion is your post was way off base.


My argument was that Ruth had an advantage, due to the fact that he initiated the Homer as baseball's primary offensive weapon. I don't have to tell you that baseball before Ruth didn't rely on the homerun, and that the pitcher's were not yet completely adapted to the new situation 7 years after it came on the baseball stage.


Did Ruth have an advantage of his peers? In terms of the home runs, other tried but realized they couldn't do what he was doing. He wasn't hitting .260 with 45 homers. In a league FULL of contact hitters, he was among the batting average leaders, while outhomering entire teams. His unique talent wasn't doing either one, it was in doing both of them at the same time. Others couldn't do that, they just didn't have the skill to do that.


Would it be to hard to comprehend that some of those balls may have gone out of the park because pitcher's were not yet completely adapted to throwing to powerhitters? (same goes for his 11 40+ hr's seasons)


Yes it's hard to comprehend that. He was much more feared than Barry is today. In order for Barry to be feared as much today, or for him to dominate like Babe did, he would need to hit 200 homers a year. Even with the large strikezone, pitchers didn't know how to deal with his type of skill. Now, a great pitch down and away would be taken over the fence in left field, rather than a slappy single the other way.


Or do you really believe that no matter what era Ruth in his godly fashion would crush 60 homers in any era of baseball? His stats are also a reflection of the era he played in as are the stats of the Juiced up players, it's a basic fact that you know but don't seem to apply to Ruth because you are blindfolded by his legend.


Perhaps you can let me in on how his stats are a reflection of the era he played in. He outhomered an entire team 90 times in his career; that includes up through the 30's. His era had huge ballparks, no helmets, no body armor, a larger strike zone, a softer ball, softer bats, etc. How is that condusive to hitting homers. The fact is, he did what he did despite the conditions. What players are doing today is mostly because of the conditions. Smaller parks, smaller zone, harder ball, harder bats, watered down pitching, helmets, body armor, luxuries off the field, hitters backdrops, etc..


Wilt Chamberlain scored 100 points in a game because he was one of the only true tall scorers of the game and there was no defensive stop to guys like him, would he score a 100 today? Ruth had an advantage just like Wilt did.


What was Ruth's advantage over everyone else again? That he was trying for the home run? You're mistake is assuming that others could have come close to what he did had they tried. Just in taking his approach, it would have lowered their batting average significantly. So while his relative power numbers would go down a little, his relative BA would go through the roof.

Others didn't take the same approach as Cobb did, so does that make his accomplishments any less impressive. The point is, others just couldn't do what these guys did. Why punish them for that?

[jaquish]

I could add his 60 jacks in 1927 to the poll if you'd like.

I'd personally say that Ruth's over 154 games would be my top pick, followed by Maris, who did this despite not being as beloved as the then-injured Mickey, and he couldn't help being in a 162-game league.

As to Mac and Bonds, I'm not too sure if the word "respect" should be mentioned alongside their names re the HR record.

Just because mcgwire did steroids does that make him a bad person? hey, he did work harder to get the record. for God's sake he took steroids in order to work LONGER and HARDER! who in their right mind would want to do more work! I give guys who do roids props. it's ballsy. i think most gym rats would agree with me on that.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I for one believe Maris had a magical year where the homer's seemed to fly off his bat, and also believe it was a fluke year that involved a lot of luck. The way you seem to see his accomplishment today would be about the same as the Yankees fans then who just wouldn't accept that a good player could surpass their god.

If we look back on some posts put up here there are some who believe that Barry is a God. Some don't care to hear anything negative about Barry. The Barry and possible steroid debate started around 3 years ago. It started with one side believing he did and the other side saying where is the proof. Now that it appears he did we are hearing "so what", look at past rule breakers and then some trying to convince us that steroids are of little or no benefit.

Get used to it, the cloud over Barry is there for all time, regardless of past or present rule breakers, he made a bad choice. I should say I believe at this time there is no proof that he used steroids after the ban but the fact remains that his statements that he never did were lies. I repeat again Barry is not alone, there were others, suspected and proven to have used steroids. They are no better than Barry but he is the guy under the spotlight because of the big numbers in recent years.

As for Roger Maris lets give him the credit due. You can't call a whole season a fluke or just luck. should you bring up the fact that it was an expansion year(1961) that could be considered, but a fluke, luck to hit 60 home runs. For that matter it was an expansion year for the whole American League.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Just because mcgwire did steroids does that make him a bad person? hey, he did work harder to get the record. for God's sake he took steroids in order to work LONGER and HARDER! who in their right mind would want to do more work! I give guys who do roids props. it's ballsy. i think most gym rats would agree with me on that.

No what appears to make him a bad person is suddenly saying he did not want to discuss the past when questioned under oath. His answer was always no when questioned by reporters, than when he's put on the line under oath he has nothing to say.

[Astros4Life]

i picked maris...when u look at what he went through and the fact that he was #2 behind the mic or even #4 behind the mic yogi and whitey...and the pressure of being a yankee trying to pass a yankee...those are a few reasons why he is the greatest

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Surprising that there's only a few votes for Mac. Apparently nobody bought the whole "andro smoke-screen" act. What's different about him and Bonds though; one was called to congress and one wasn't?

[BadKarma]

Well, he stated that Ruth wouldn't come close to hitting 60 homers. Not sure how you can take that out of context. The entire post was ludicrous imo, not even worth responding to. What Shoeless touched on doesn't come close to explaining how outlandish the opinion is.


Not following here. Are you saying that my post was too ludricous to respond to? Obviously, no one will ever be able to say anything negative to you about Ruth and have you actually digest the information. If you are talking about the other poster's statement; I don't see how that is too ludricous to respond to either. What is so hard in even contemplating the fact that if Ruth was playing against better atheletes overall and better pitching that he would not hit 60 HRs? Do you really think Ruth would be a star in todays game? Ruth was the greatest player of his era, period. Differences in eras are too great to say what one person from one era could do in any other era. Just because he jacked 700 HR in his era, doesnt mean he could jack half that amount today.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Not following here. Are you saying that my post was too ludricous to respond to? Obviously, no one will ever be able to say anything negative to you about Ruth and have you actually digest the information. If you are talking about the other poster's statement; I don't see how that is too ludricous to respond to either. What is so hard in even contemplating the fact that if Ruth was playing against better atheletes overall and better pitching that he would not hit 60 HRs? Do you really think Ruth would be a star in todays game? Ruth was the greatest player of his era, period. Differences in eras are too great to say what one person from one era could do in any other era. Just because he jacked 700 HR in his era, doesnt mean he could jack half that amount today.

My response was regarding Ex-Expofan's post #68, which was beyond rediculous imo. That's my opinion of his opinion, period.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

What is so hard in even contemplating the fact that if Ruth was playing against better atheletes overall and better pitching that he would not hit 60 HRs? Do you really think Ruth would be a star in todays game? Ruth was the greatest player of his era, period. Differences in eras are too great to say what one person from one era could do in any other era. Just because he jacked 700 HR in his era, doesnt mean he could jack half that amount today.

I think even those that think Ruth played in an era where he could be so dominant would find it difficult to believe that 60 could be hit so many times in the last decade and Ruth would not be capable of doing the same. If I recall the original post did not say he could not do it but went even further saying he could not even come close to 60.

Even the those who do not think Ruth was the greatest almost always rank him in the top 3, not only as home run hitter but a hitter for average. There were a great number of others who played in his era, many just contact hitters and Ruth out hit most of them in batting average.

Only 4 hitters in modern times hit for a higher career batting average than Ruth did. You can't be 5th in batting average and one of the top 3 in career home runs and not be blessed with great talent and ability. If "swish and miss" Sammy Sosa could hit 60 in three different seasons why not Ruth.

[Gino Guacamoolie]

I think even those that think Ruth played in an era where he could be so dominant would find it difficult to believe that 60 could be hit so many times in the last decade and Ruth would not be capable of doing the same. If I recall the original post did not say he could not do it but went even further saying he could not even come close to 60.

Even the those who do not think Ruth was the greatest almost always rank him in the top 3, not only as home run hitter but a hitter for average. There were a great number of others who played in his era, many just contact hitters and Ruth out hit most of them in batting average.

Only 4 hitters in modern times hit for a higher career batting average than Ruth did. You can't be 5th in batting average and one of the top 3 in career home runs and not be blessed with great talent and ability. If "swish and miss" Sammy Sosa could hit 60 in three different seasons why not Ruth.


I dont think anybody denies ruth's talent, I have him ranked among the five best players ever. But IMO, I don't think he would hold all of the offensive records he currently holds now if he played in a stronger league. I also don't think he would outhomer teams today, or do any pedro martinez impersonations.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I dont think anybody denies ruth's talent, I have him ranked among the five best players ever. But IMO, I don't think he would hold all of the offensive records he currently holds now if he played in a stronger league. I also don't think he would outhomer teams today, or do any pedro martinez impersonations.

Ruth would not out homer any team today, nothing to debate there. It is a different game today, impossible for any one man to hit more home runs than an entire team. I don't agree with those who say that the fact that he hit more home runs than entire teams proves the low level of competition. The reason he hit more than other teams is because he was the forerunner of the fence buster, the guy going for the long ball while most hitters in the 1920s were contact hitters.

The fact that some believe he set some records because of his competition does not apply to some of his records. His career slugging, his career OPS record, his seasonal records, 177 runs scored, 119 extra base hits, 457 total bases and record for reaching base more times in one season would not be effected by better competition. The numbers would not suffer, more competition would only mean he would not have been as dominant.

Some of these records are more than 80 years old and lasted through many changes in the game. The 1990s for example a high offense decade and his extra base hits, runs scored, total bases and time reached base still stand.

[Gino Guacamoolie]

The fact that some believe he set some records because of his competition does not apply to some of his records. His career slugging, his career OPS record, his seasonal records, 177 runs scored, 119 extra base hits, 457 total bases and record for reaching base more times in one season would not be effected by better competition. The numbers would not suffer, more competition would only mean he would not have been as dominant..


I certainly think it would be effected by better competition, especially better pitching. Pitchers throw harder today because they are in better shape, and have better offspeed pitches that have developed over the last 80 years into wicked knuckle curves and volcom changes. Let's not forget setupmen and closers. A starter could pitch 6 strong innings, then the setup man comes in. He throws 2 good innings and hands it over to the closer. The gas throwing closer comes in to shut down the other team in the ninth. Add it up, 3 fresh arms, 3 different deliveries, and likely 12 different pitch types. Babe Ruth faced one guy all game, same delivery with just a couple/few pitches. Ruth likely faced a tired guy struggling through the 8th and 9th innings, an opportunity today's players don't commonly have.


With all that said, Ruth is undoubtedly one of the five best players ever, but you can't take his career totals at face value, IMO.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I dont think anybody denies ruth's talent, I have him ranked among the five best players ever. But IMO, I don't think he would hold all of the offensive records he currently holds now if he played in a stronger league. I also don't think he would outhomer teams today, or do any pedro martinez impersonations.

Not once has anyone said that Ruth could outhomer an entire team today; something he did 90 times in his career.

You think he wouldn't hold all of the offensive records. Who would then? Who would hold the slugging average record, or the home run records? For him to not hold them, he would have had to follow up on his chosen trade at St. Mary's and pursued a shirt tailoring career, instead of playing baseball.

This guy wasn't just dominating a weak league. He got the pitchers best every single AB. He was the focal point day in and day out; the player to shut down, yet they couldn't. He perfected a style of hitting that was never before imagined. Being amongst the league BA leaders while slugging like he did was something that nobody else could do, plain and simple. It's not like if others had "tried" for homers, they would have also been able to do what he did. To think so, is ignoring his unique talent that would shine in any era, not just his own.

Had he played in the 60's and 70's, his SA and BA most likely wouldn't be what they are, but relatively speaking, it's very likely that his power numbers would still be overwhelming, given the evolution of everything. In terms of today's game, you've got middle infielders hitting 35 homers. So where's the logic that says Babe Ruth wouldn't have hit 50 - 60 homers naturally? I don't see it. Bringing everything forward, he couldn't use the same massive bat, and his adjustments at the plate would be relative to the era, along with everything else being advanced.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Babe Ruth faced one guy all game, same delivery with just a couple/few pitches. Ruth likely faced a tired guy struggling through the 8th and 9th innings, an opportunity today's players don't commonly have.


This is a false common belief about that era. Was it as "specialized" as it is today? Of course not. Today, many failed starters go into the pen. The goal is to knock the starter out to get to the bullpen. Not to keep the starter out there. If the starter is going good, he'll stay out there.

In Ruth's time, if the starter stayed in, he was pitching effectively. When he wasn't, then someone else would come in, but it wasn't as specialized as today with 3 changes per inning. Ruth was a rare case in that coaches did plan for him, often bringing in lefties who had good offspeed stuff to try and get him to chase something. The belief that Babe just stayed in and faced the same guy 4 or 5 times every game is false. And the belief that he wouldn't eat harder "throwers" alive, and that he didn't possess the necessary skills to make adjustments and still succeed, is also false imo.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I certainly think it would be effected by better competition, especially better pitching. Pitchers throw harder now because they're in better shape, and have better offspeed pitches which have developed over the last 80 years into wicked knuckle curves and volcom changes. Let's not forget setupmen and closers. A starter could pitch 6 strong innings, then the setup man comes in. He throws 2 good innings and hands it over to the closer. The gas throwing closer comes in to shut down the other team in the ninth. Add it up, 3 fresh arms, 3 different deliveries, and likely 12 different pitch types. Babe Ruth faced one guy all game, same delivery with just a couple/few pitches. Ruth likely faced a tired guy struggling through the 8th and 9th innings, an opportunity today's players don't commonly have.


With all that said, Ruth is undoubtedly one of the five best players ever, but you can't take his career totals at face value, IMO.


Well, there are two sides to this story.

I'll give you relievers but there is also a lower mound in the game for the last 38 seasons which by the way was lowered to boost offense in the late 1960s.

The strike zone is the biggest joke, from the knees to a fraction over the belt. The rule book strike zone ( upper portion) calls for a point midway between the the shoulders and the belt line. Hitters love this one, pitches a fraction above the belt are now called balls almost all the time, thats not what the rule book says.

The ball has a tighter cover and lower seams. In a previous year, 1930 in the National League the ball was fitted with a thinner cover and lower seams and Hack Wilson hit 56 home runs and 191 RBI's. In that season the NL hit .304 the only time in modern history when an entire league hit .300 or better. In that season the NL hit 892 home runs and when they returned to the old ball in 1931 the NL hit .277 and hit 493 home runs. The ball matters, plays a part, livelier ball in todays game

Ruth had some things going for him but some later periods had some things going for hitters in those times, it's not all one sided in Ruth's favor.


As for hitting of of tired pitchers. In 1927 Ruth hit 16 of his 60 home runs in the first inning. He hit 41 home runs before the seventh inning.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Ruth had some things going for him but some later periods had some things going for hitters in those times, it's not all one sided in Ruth's favor.


The list in favor of todays hitters is too long to list.


As for hitting of of tired pitchers. In 1927 Ruth hit 16 of his 60 home runs in the first inning. He hit 41 home runs before the seventh inning.

This is good info. As you know Joe, most pitchers back then pick and chose their spots to "turn it on." With so many contact hitters in the league, pitchers would often "coast" through certain hitters, relying on the big parks and defense. Which is why complete game totals were fairly high. My point I was making in an earlier post, was that Ruth was the main focal point each and every time he stepped up to the plate. All the energy and focus was saved for him, and he still was able to do what he did. He didn't face "tired" pitchers.

[Goooooo]

For all we know, Babe Ruth might be david ortiz if he played today.

Pitchers are advanced, new pitches have been created, and the Babe didn't have to deal with specialized pitchers.

For all we know, Babe might not be able to hit a cutter for his life, because there's a good chance that he didn't have to face that pitch at all.

To say he's the best hr hitter ever is ignorant and asinine. Put David Ortiz back in those days and he'd hit 100 HRs.

The players today are simply better.

It is also speculated that pitchers served meatballs to the Babe to build fan interest again after the Black Sox scandal.

You know, kind of like how white pitchers did to mcgwire, and spanish pitchers to sosa in 98.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

For all we know, Babe Ruth might be david ortiz if he played today.

Pitchers are advanced, new pitches have been created, and the Babe didn't have to deal with specialized pitchers.

For all we know, Babe might not be able to hit a cutter for his life, because there's a good chance that he didn't have to face that pitch at all.

To say he's the best hr hitter ever is ignorant and asinine. Put David Ortiz back in those days and he'd hit 100 HRs.

The players today are simply better.

It is also speculated that pitchers served meatballs to the Babe to build fan interest again after the Black Sox scandal.

You know, kind of like how white pitchers did to mcgwire, and spanish pitchers to sosa in 98.

Boy, our society is in trouble :ughh

Read a book or ten before you spew nonsense please.

[HOOTIE]

Probably McGwires, but Bonds is close. There was alot of pressure on McGwire. Much more media pressure in 1998, then in 1961. And no one knows for sure if Maris wasn't taking anything. Mays, Aaron, Stargell were all caught with greenies. Maris, McGwire, Bonds have the same amount of suspensions for PEDs, none. Maris had the benefit of expansion in 1961, putting very bad pitching into MLB. He also had a park built for him, and had Mantle smacking 54 hrs. McGwire and Bonds had nothing close to Mantle on deck, when they batted. Plus Maris walked far less then both, giving him more swings. Maris season was great, but i think Macs and Bonds were far better. Bonds hit a staggering 12 more hrs in a tougher park.