Home Run Derby

[George H Ruth]

Alright if you had a chance to see any two Major League players current or past face each other in a Home Run Derby, who would be those two players?

Also who do you think would win between the two?

[parlo]

Mark Belanger vs Rey Ordonez.
I believe it would end in a tie.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Mantle batting righty against Foxx would be pretty sweet. I would like to sit down the third base line at the Polo Grounds for this event, and I think Mantle would win but in sudden death.

[George H Ruth]

I would of love to see Mantle vs Ruth. I think that would be a great home run derby. They would hit some massive home runs, some balls would travel a very far distance, and you'd be asking yourself how the heck did that ball go so far.

I would love to see that showcase at AT&T stadium.

I think that it would be a very close competetion but Ruth winning by hitting 18 home runs and Mantle hitting 16.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I think that it would be a very close competetion but Ruth winning by hitting 18 home runs and Mantle hitting 16.

No matter which one wins, you can bet they'd go out and have a good time after the contest. Not like he needs the help, but imagine the chicks Mantle could pull with Ruth as his "wingman." lol


*Come to think of it, I'd like to see the 1993 Bonds go up against he 2001 Bonds.

[bob]

Id like to see the '27 version of Ruth up against '98 McGwire (juiced up) and '56 Mantle. No window within a mile would be safe!

[RuthMayBond]

Mark Belanger vs Rey Ordonez.
I believe it would end in a tie.Duane Kuiper could take both y'all

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Id like to see the '27 version of Ruth up against '98 McGwire (juiced up) and '56 Mantle. No window within a mile would be safe!

I get your point. That would be incredible to see. Just fwiw though, you might want to see the '21 version...here are Ruth's 500+ and 450+ foot homers, according to Jenkinson's extensive research, broken down by year.

_____500+__450+

1915---------1
1916---------1
1917---------1
1918---------0
1919--3------9
1920--5-----17
1921--9-----25
1922--1------8
1923--1-----14
1924--5-----14
1925--2------4
1926--5-----13
1927--3-----20
1928--4-----14
1929--1-----14
1930--3-----15
1931--1------6
1932--0------8
1933--1------8
1934--1------5
1935--2------2

[Minstrel]

In terms of frequency and distance, it comes down to Babe Ruth and Mark McGwire to me. As far as I'm concerned, if all you want is a home run, no two players in baseball history have been better bets to get it than those two.

On the undercard, Mantle and Bonds (in any of his Giants years, even before his likely steroid use) would be a great show.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

On the undercard, Mantle and Bonds (in any of his Giants years, even before his likely steroid use) would be a great show.

Mantle would destroy him, especially if that match was held in the older stadiums. Before his known steroid use, Bonds wouldn't have been much of a show. Hit only three homers 450 feet pre-roids and all were significantly wind aided. I'd much rather see Strawberry or Griffey than a clean Bonds but that's just my opinion.

[Minstrel]

Mantle would destroy him, especially if that match was held in the older stadiums. Before his known steroid use, Bonds wouldn't have been much of a show. Hit only three homers 450 feet pre-roids and all were significantly wind aided. I'd much rather see Strawberry or Griffey than a clean Bonds but that's just my opinion.

Well, I think you significantly underrate Bonds, pre-1998. He was a tremendous power hitter, but he wasn't very focused on home runs. Had he taken fewer walks, not gone opposite field as much and tried to pull more balls and aimed for the fences, he would have been a less valuable offensive force but hit quite a few more homers (essentially, much closer to Ken Griffey Jr.).

In a home run derby, concerned only with launching home runs, I think he would be perfectly competitive with Mantle with his great, compact swing and his natural power.

[Proctor, CF]

Well, I think you significantly underrate Bonds, pre-1998. He was a tremendous power hitter, but he wasn't very focused on home runs. Had he taken fewer walks, not gone opposite field as much and tried to pull more balls and aimed for the fences, he would have been a less valuable offensive force but hit quite a few more homers (essentially, much closer to Ken Griffey Jr.).

In a home run derby, concerned only with launching home runs, I think he would be perfectly competitive with Mantle with his great, compact swing and his natural power.

Bonds has never had the power of Mantle. Mickey in his teens hit the ball further than the Bonds at his most powerful. Not even close.

[Minstrel]

Mickey in his teens hit the ball further than the Bonds at his most powerful.

Absurd. But there's hardly a point to arguing it. There's no closing that gap in opinion.

[NJMetfan4life]

Hank Aaron vs. Babe Ruth
Babe Ruth would probably win.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Well, I think you significantly underrate Bonds, pre-1998. He was a tremendous power hitter, but he wasn't very focused on home runs. Had he taken fewer walks, not gone opposite field as much and tried to pull more balls and aimed for the fences, he would have been a less valuable offensive force but hit quite a few more homers (essentially, much closer to Ken Griffey Jr.).

In a home run derby, concerned only with launching home runs, I think he would be perfectly competitive with Mantle with his great, compact swing and his natural power.

How do I significantly underrate Bonds pre-1998? We know what he did. He was not a "tremendous" power hitter. He does not belong in the discussion of Ruth, Foxx, Mantle, etc...when it comes to length or frequency of those long ones. It's laughable that you suggest otherwise. Had he taken fewer walks? What does that have to do with when he did hit the ball, it just didn't go very far. He was lean. He had great gap power and made solid contact enough so that the occasional ball carried over the fence. Not in Mantle's league...not even close. And that's without giving Mantle the benefit of mid 1990's equipment and fields.

[Minstrel]

He does not belong in the discussion of Ruth, Foxx, Mantle, etc...when it comes to length or frequency of those long ones.
...
Had he taken fewer walks? What does that have to do with when he did hit the ball

It has to do with frequency. He hit fewer home runs because he took many more walks, due to his extreme plate discipline.


He was lean. He had great gap power and made solid contact enough so that the occasional ball carried over the fence.

You're thinking of his Pirates days. As a Giant, he was not "lean." He was not a huge slugger, but he had a powerful build and hit for a lot of power. No, he didn't hit for the length that players like Mantle and McGwire did, but that wasn't my point. My point was that in a contest to hit the most home runs, Bonds would have stacked up perfectly well. He had a rather perfect swing and made amazingly solid contact.

He was willing to drive the ball to all fields, rather than muscle up and pull everything, which cost him some number of homers while boosting his overall power numbers because he replaced a great deal of flyouts and weak contact (that a pull-happy player would have generated) with solid doubles the other way. But in a home run derby, where homers were the only thing aimed for, his power stroke would have generated consistent home runs.

[Proctor, CF]

Bonds has never had the power of Mantle. Mickey in his teens hit the ball further than the Bonds at his most powerful. Not even close.

Mickey was hitting shots over 500' in his teens - before he was a major leaguer. In pre-season of 1951, Yankees against USC, at 19 years old on Bovard Field, he hit two well over 500' - one lefty and one righty. The lefty one was hit into a 10MPH wind, for a distance of 530'. The righty may have even went further.

In May, 1951, again at 19, he hit another monster - going on, throughout his career, to hit some of the longest balls ever hit.

A record of some of his longest home runs can be reviewed at: http://www.theswearingens.com/mick/hrstats.htm

Any citations comparable to these for Bonds, Minstrel?

[Minstrel]

Mickey was hitting shots over 500' in his teens - before he was a major leaguer. In pre-season of 1951, Yankees against USC, at 19 years old on Bovard Field, he hit two well over 500' - one lefty and one righty. The lefty one was hit into a 10MPH wind, for a distance of 530'. The righty may have even went further.

In May, 1951, again at 19, he hit another monster - going on, throughout his career, to hit some of the longest balls ever hit.

A record of some of his longest home runs can be reviewed at: http://www.theswearingens.com/mick/hrstats.htm

Any citations comparable to these for Bonds, Minstrel?

I can't find a tabulated list of Bonds' longest home runs, but this is an example:

"The towering home run—one of the longest in Citizens Bank Park's two-season history, traveling an estimated 450 feet (140 m)—hit off the facade of the third deck in right field."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Bonds

At 450 feet, it hit the third-deck facade. That gives you a pretty clear indication of high it was at that point. Not striking that facade, it seems pretty clear that it would have gone well over 500 feet.

As I said in my last post, I agree that Bonds didn't generally have the length on his homers that Mantle did, but there's simply no way Mantle had more power as a teenager than Bonds ever did.

[Proctor, CF]

My point was that in a contest to hit the most home runs, Bonds would have stacked up perfectly well.

But in a home run derby, where homers were the only thing aimed for, his power stroke would have generated consistent home runs.

Hasn't he lost almost every home derby he ever competed in, Minstrel - losing regularly, and quite substantially, to Ken Griffey Jr., for instance, during the years you've referred to?

I believe the record makes it clear he is not an all time Home Run Derby champion - and no where in the league of the herculean Mr. Mantle.

[Proctor, CF]

there's simply no way Mantle had more power as a teenager than Bonds ever did.



Ah, but he did - as did Ruth, Foxx, Mantle, Allen, and others.

Take away the artificial PED power, and it's even a greater margin by which the power of truly great power hitters exceeds that of Bonds'.

[Skin & Bones]

Hasn't he lost almost every home derby he ever competed in, Minstrel - losing regularly, and quite substantially, to Ken Griffey Jr., for instance, during the years you've referred to?

I believe the record makes it clear he is not an all time Home Run Derby champion - and no where in the league of the herculean Mr. Mantle.

The years Griffey won the Homerun Derby, Bonds didn't participate in any of them. Bonds did win once in 1996, against Mark Mcgwire.

[Skin & Bones]

Ah, but he did - as did Ruth, Foxx, Mantle, Allen, and others.

Take away the artificial PED power, and it's even a greater margin by which the power of truly great power hitters exceeds that of Bonds'.

Bonds led his league in Ab/Hr 3 times before 1999, in a league where homeruns were being hit at a record pace. Allen led three times too. Bonds also boasted a higher career Relative ISO then Allen before Balco (a better indicator of power then homeruns). Distance? Wily Mo Pena hits very far home runs, but nobody considers him an all-time great power hitter.

Distance should mean very little, frequency means a lot more.

[Minstrel]

Ah, but he did

But he didn't.

I've never really understood why you feel stating that you are right counts as a useful argument. You agree with yourself...shocking.

As I said, Bonds, pre-1999, was a tremendous power hitter. Most advanced numbers regarding power point to this. Home runs tell us little, since approach to hitting and walks affect home run totals; a player may be capable of hitting significantly more home runs but choose not to in order to be a more valuable hitter overall.

[Proctor, CF]

But he didn't.



I have already provided you evidence that Mantle hit further as a teenager, than Bonds' hit at his peak of [artificial] power. Take away the artificial power and his power was even more inferior.

And your arguing that Bonds didn't want to hit home runs is completely specious. He just didn't have the power to do so - which is why he ultimately cheated with such heavy and frequent use of illegal steroids - to hit the home runs he couldn't do otherwise.

And, by the way, Bonds was also hitting a more juiced ball than Mantle - and still couldn't hit like Mantle. And then there's the much larger fence distances and strike zones Mantle had to face. Bonds' game-time strike zone was the same size as Mantle's batting practice zone.

You still take Bonds over Mantle in a Slugging Contest? How about Oscar de la Hoya over Joe Louis, too?

[Minstrel]

I have already provided you evidence that Mantle hit further as a teenager, than Bonds' hit at his peak

You didn't, though. You showed that Mantle was capable of hitting basebals 500+ feet, and I showed Bonds was, too.


And your arguing that Bonds didn't want to hit home runs is completely specious.

That's not what I said. I said that he wasn't trying to exclusively hit homers at the expense of being a better all-around offensive player. As a power hitter, if you refuse to take walks and swing away, you will hit some more home runs. As a power hitter, if you try to pull everything, you will hit some more home runs. You will also make many more outs and likely decrease your value.

Bonds hit 72 home runs in 2001 and 46 home runs in 2002. By Proctor logic, Bonds "couldn't" hit home runs in 2002. By understanding baseball, it's clear that the high number of walks Bonds generated drastically cut his home run total, which says nothing of his home run power potential.

[Proctor, CF]

Bonds led his league in Ab/Hr 3 times before 1999, in a league where homeruns were being hit at a record pace. Allen led three times too. Bonds also boasted a higher career Relative ISO then Allen before Balco (a better indicator of power then homeruns). Distance? Wily Mo Pena hits very far home runs, but nobody considers him an all-time great power hitter.

Distance should mean very little, frequency means a lot more.

I hope you're not arguing that Bonds was more powerful than Richie Allen, who, like Mantle, also hit 500'-plus shots in his teens. Allen was a far more powerful hitter.

Bring the fences a bit more and Wee Willie Keeler would out-homer almost all of the great sluggers. Distance obviously does figure profoundly in historic comparisons of home run hitters.

[Skin & Bones]

I hope you're not arguing that Bonds was more powerful than Richie Allen, who, like Mantle, also hit 500'-plus shots in his teens. Allen was a far more powerful hitter.

Bring the fences a bit more and Wee Willie Keeler would out-homer almost all of the great sluggers. Distance obviously does figure profoundly in historic comparisons of home run hitters.

Bonds was better at hitting home runs then Richie Allen. Allen (supposedly) hit them further, so what? If it was so incredibly easy to hit homeruns in this era, then why does it seem the "Best of the Best" at hitting the long ball occurred in other Era's?

I haven't Read Jenkinson's book ( I assume this is where all this distance obsession started from), but what Modern Power hitter stacks up nicely against Ruth, Foxx, Mantle, and the amazing Richie Allen? Who else besides Bonds and Mcgwire from "the steroid era" does Jenkinson compare to Ruth, Foxx, etc?

[Proctor, CF]

You didn't, though. You showed that Mantle was capable of hitting basebals 500+ feet, and I showed Bonds was, too.



Wrong again, Minstrel. I provided specific evidence that Mantle hit balls further as a teenager than Bonds ever has, even after his heavy juicing.

Before 2000, Bonds hit only three balls over 450' - all backed by winds over 20 MPH. Since 2000, his longest was 491 feet.

In contrast, Mantle is known to have hit multiple balls over 500', one of which I documented as about 530', into a 10 MPH wind.

By what you call "Proctor Logic" this demonstrates that Mickey Mantle as a teenager hit further than Bonds has at any point. Though posted with obviously misplaced condescension and malice, I am grateful for your high compliment of "Proctor Logic".

[Proctor, CF]

Bonds was better at hitting home runs then Richie Allen. Allen (supposedly) hit them further, so what?



Allen didn't just "supposedly" hit them further than Bonds, he hit them much, much further - an important thing for a slugger to do when the fences were much, much further away.

[Minstrel]

Wrong again, Minstrel. I provided specific evidence that Mantle hit balls further as a teenager than Bonds ever has

You didn't. You just keep saying you have.


Though posted with obviously misplaced condescension and malice,

Says the fellow who has trouble posting without throwing in some juvenile jibe. I assume this bit of hypocrisy on your part was meant as comedy.

Also, since you simply passed over my example of walks quite clearly impacting home run totals, I imagine you've conceded the point.

[Proctor, CF]

I haven't Read Jenkinson's book ( I assume this is where all this distance obsession started from), but what Modern Power hitter stacks up nicely against Ruth, Foxx, Mantle, and the amazing Richie Allen?



From the Seventies and Eighties, Jenkinson rates Luzinski and Kingman among the top fifteen most powerful of all time, followed by Fielder, Schmidt, Foster, Strawberry and Bo Jackson - all possibly in the top twenty five.

Reggie is rated in the top ten.

From the 90's on, there's Conseco, McGwire, Sosa, Griffey, Thomas, McGriff and Dunn. Bonds' lack of all-time power is documented at length in Chapter Six.

[Proctor, CF]

Wrong again, Minstrel. I provided specific evidence that Mantle hit balls further as a teenager than Bonds ever has, even after his heavy juicing.

Before 2000, Bonds hit only three balls over 450' - all backed by winds over 20 MPH. Since 2000, his longest was 491 feet.

In contrast, Mantle is known to have hit multiple balls over 500', one of which I documented as about 530', into a 10 MPH wind.

By what you call "Proctor Logic" this demonstrates that Mickey Mantle as a teenager hit further than Bonds has at any point. Though posted with obviously misplaced condescension and malice, I am grateful for your high compliment of "Proctor Logic".

For even more evidence of Mantle's sublime power, as well as Bonds' much lesser power, Minstrel, you may want to (re)read Chapter Six of Bill Jenkinson's definitive book on the subject. I forewarn you, though, "Proctor Logic" is much like "Jenkinson Logic" - i.e., based on facts and evidence.

[Minstrel]

For even more evidence of Mantle's sublime power, as well as Bonds' much lesser power, Minstrel, you may want to (re)read Chapter Six of Bill Jenkinson's definitive book on the subject.

Thanks for the recommendation. That said, you've still not backed up that Mantle had more power than Bonds ever did. Mantle did have more power than Bonds pre-1999 in terms of hitting for distance, but Bonds was always a historically great power hitter. Limiting yourself to home run totals as a measure of power is incomplete.

[Proctor, CF]

since you simply passed over my example of walks quite clearly impacting home run totals, I imagine you've conceded the point.



Yes, I do concede that your "walking point" has absolutely no impact on the discussion of who would win a home derby between Mantle and Bonds. Mantle was far the superior home run hitter. As you may recall from the evidence already cited, Mantle, as a teenager, could hit the ball further than either Barry or Barroid.

[Proctor, CF]

but Bonds was always a historically great power hitter.



Not so. He was not "always" a historically great home run hitter. But Mantle was, from day one. Bonds did not make any "history" with home runs, until he began cheating with massive doses of steroids. But that's not at all "great" history - more like scandalous history, and eventually legal history.

[Proctor, CF]

To answer the original question, I'd like to see a contest between Ruth and Mantle at Yankee Stadium. It would be like watching Zeus & Hercules competing at Mount Olympus.

[jjpm74]

Rabbit Maranville vs. Ozzie Smith

I wonder who would win? Both had the same number of home runs in their careers.

[Skin & Bones]

Not so. He was not "always" a historically great home run hitter. But Mantle was, from day one. Bonds did not make any "history" with home runs, until he began cheating with massive doses of steroids. But that's not at all "great" history - more like scandalous history, and eventually legal history.

Why do you have to make History to be considered among the best power hitters? What History did Dick Allen make?

[Skin & Bones]

From the Seventies and Eighties, Jenkinson rates Luzinski and Kingman among the top fifteen most powerful of all time, followed by Fielder, Schmidt, Foster, Strawberry and Bo Jackson - all possibly in the top twenty five.

Reggie is rated in the top ten.

From the 90's on, there's Conseco, McGwire, Sosa, Griffey, Thomas, McGriff and Dunn. Bonds' lack of all-time power is documented at length in Chapter Six.

This is not a shocker. Ever since Bonds made that comment about Ruth in 03, Jenkinson has been about as Anti-Bonds as you can get. It doesn't come to me as a shock that he dedicated a chapter (or close to one) on why he believes Bonds doesn't have "all-time power".

[Sultan_1895-1948]

This is not a shocker. Ever since Bonds made that comment about Ruth in 03, Jenkinson has been about as Anti-Bonds as you can get. It doesn't come to me as a shock that he dedicated a chapter (or close to one) on why he believes Bonds doesn't have "all-time power".

You have Jenkinson painted all wrong, but don't let that stop you from disregarding the book. He spends as much time on Bonds as many other hitters, and much less than some. He simply points out well researched findings. If you can't handle it, that's your business. Facts are facts.

[Skin & Bones]

You have Jenkinson painted all wrong, but don't let that stop you from disregarding the book. He spends as much time on Bonds as many other hitters, and much less than some. He simply points out well researched findings. If you can't handle it, that's your business. Facts are facts.

I never disregarded any of his findings. They are what they are. Just don't expect everyone to agree with them. How far someone can hit a homerun doesn't mean much in my book. Even before steroids became "known", do you think anyone would consider Canseco a better homerun hitter than Aaron simply because he hit them further?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

You didn't. You just keep saying you have.


He pointed it out over and over again but you insist on acting ignorant. Let's make this simple. You keep claiming that the pre-1999 Bonds was a historically great power hitter. His SA was about .550 at that point. He never hit a ball over 450 feet that wasn't SIGNIFICANTLY wind aided, his homer totals were nothing special, and his AB/HR ratio was over 16. What is everyone else missing that you see? The teenage Mantle, even given the inferior equipment and much larger field sizes, proved to be head and shoulders above the pre-1999 Bonds and well ahead of the steroid version when it came to distance.




Also, since you simply passed over my example of walks quite clearly impacting home run totals, I imagine you've conceded the point.

1. As if other hitters didn't walk as well.
2. Walks are irrelevant when talking about how far a player's homers go.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I never disregarded any of his findings. They are what they are. Just don't expect everyone to agree with them. How far someone can hit a homerun doesn't mean much in my book. Even before steroids became "known", do you think anyone would consider Canseco a better homerun hitter than Aaron simply because he hit them further?

Well, he has an open invite to anyone wanting to challenge ANYTHING in his book. Feel free. Or just sit there disagreeing because it makes you feel better.

Fans have always been fascinated with how far homers travel, and it is particularly relevant to this discussion. How would a natural Bonds handle those much larger stadiums? How many homers would he have lost? Tons.

[Skin & Bones]

He pointed it out over and over again but you insist on acting ignorant. Let's make this simple. You keep claiming that the pre-1999 Bonds was a historically great power hitter. His SA was about .550 at that point. He never hit a ball over 450 feet that wasn't SIGNIFICANTLY wind aided, his homer totals were nothing special, and his AB/HR ratio was over 16. What is everyone else missing that you see? The teenage Mantle, even given the inferior equipment and much larger field sizes, proved to be head and shoulders above the pre-1999 Bonds and well ahead of the steroid version when it came to distance.




1. As if other hitters didn't walk as well.
2. Walks are irrelevant when talking about how far a player's homers go.

Bonds actually led his league 3 times in Ab/Hr, compared to Mantle two times. Mantle through his first 13 years had a .582 Slugging%, Bonds .556. Not exactly a huge difference. Advantages for Bonds? Smaller parks, juiced balls. Advantages for Mantle? A league that wasn't fully integrated, playing on the best team in baseball. Why make it seem like Bonds had all the advantages?

[Skin & Bones]

Well, he has an open invite to anyone wanting to challenge ANYTHING in his book. Feel free. Or just sit there disagreeing because it makes you feel better.

I'd have to read it before challenging it.


Fans have always been fascinated with how far homers travel, and it is particularly relevant to this discussion. How would a natural Bonds handle those much larger stadiums? How many homers would he have lost? Tons.

I have no idea, I'm not into the Time Machine method, but at the same time, you have no idea yourself. Neither does Jenkinson. At the end of the day, it's all guess work. All I know is that the "natural Bonds" had fantastic home run power that was overshadowed by sluggers who were juicing long before him, and despite that he was always among the best in AB/Hr during his pre 1999 years anyway.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I'd have to read it before challenging it.


You really should do so.



I have no idea, I'm not into the Time Machine method, but at the same time, you have no idea yourself. Neither does Jenkinson. At the end of the day, it's all guess work. All I know is that the "natural Bonds" had fantastic home run power that was overshadowed by sluggers who were juicing long before him, and despite that he was always among the best in AB/Hr during his pre 1999 years anyway.

This isn't some make believe time-machine method. This is taking known home run distances, and plotting them with known outfield dimenstions. Is it precise to the foot...no, and Jenkinson will be the first to tell you that. But I can assure you that spending over 20 years carefully researching and documenting every one of Ruth's 8400 AB led to something more profound than "guesswork."

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I'd love to see prime Sadaharu Oh vs a prime Hank Aaron.

[Proctor, CF]

Why do you have to make History to be considered among the best power hitters?



I was simply responding to Minstrel's inaccurate assertion that Bonds was always a historical home run hitter.

I should point out, though that, if one is "among the best power hitters", that is almost definitionally historical.

With respect to Richie Allen, he was history making in that he was hitting balls over 500' as a teenager. Very few men in history have ever achieved such a feat. The man truly had historically great power.

[Minstrel]

You keep claiming that the pre-1999 Bonds was a historically great power hitter. His SA was about .550 at that point.

I did say Bonds as a Giant. His SLG (in non-hitter friendly parks) as a Giant, prior to 1999 was .619.

His at-bats per home run, for his career, is third all-time at 12.90. What's that, it's inflated by his "steroids years?" His at-bats per home run, as a Giant, prior to 1999 is 12.92. Identical. And that's the third best rate ever.

So, it is exactly as I said. When he wasn't walking, he was hitting home runs at the third greatest rate ever, behind two guys named McGwire and Ruth. (Mantle is tied for 14th all-time with Dave Kingman at 15.1 at-bats per home run.)

Historically great? Yes.


1. As if other hitters didn't walk as well.

Bonds is one of the most disciplined hitters ever. Every hitter did some of everything. Bonds did more of almost everything good at the plate. Including walk and hit homers.


2. Walks are irrelevant when talking about how far a player's homers go.

Distance is irrelevant when talking about players' proficiency in hitting home runs.

[Proctor, CF]

Ever since Bonds made that comment about Ruth in 03, Jenkinson has been about as Anti-Bonds as you can get. It doesn't come to me as a shock that he dedicated a chapter (or close to one) on why he believes Bonds doesn't have "all-time power".



I don't know what your source for these inaccuracies are, but I can assure you Bonds is rated with total objectivity in Jenkinson's book. Indeed, Bonds' home run production should have been devalued much more in the book, not less. He is given absolutely no downgrading for PED abuse, despite the undeniably pivotal impact it had on increasing his home run distances and frequency.

Nothing in Jenkinson's profoundly and meticulously well researched book is biased against Bonds in any manner. His home runs are documented and evaluated in the exact same manner as Ruth's, Mantle's, & Foxx's - with facts & evidence. Bonds just doesn't happen to measure up. Of course, even Bonds knew that, which is why he so flagrantly violated federal law to boost his home run distances, annual production, and lifetime total.

P.S. Chapter Six is not devoted to disparaging Bonds. It provides a comparison of all the candidates for great sluggers. Bonds is thus not discussed at great length.

[Proctor, CF]

Distance is irrelevant when talking about players' proficiency in hitting home runs.



Therein lies one of your misunderstandings and logical flaws concerning the comparative home run abilities of Mantle & Bonds. Distance is indeed highly relevant as to who was the greatest of the two.

Put Bonds in the huge stadiums Mantle had to contend with - including Yankee Stadium, which dramatically hurt Mickey's right-handed numbers, and Bonds wouldn't make it the final round in Home Run Derby. In fact, in the Fifties and Sixties, he wouldn't even have made the top ten - not even past his own Godfather, who was not known so much for great distances, but could surely hit further than Bonds.

Factoring in Bonds joke of a strike zone, short fences, juiced balls & numerous unlawful performance enhancements makes his significant lack of historic home run distance and production even more apparent.

[Proctor, CF]

[h]ere are Ruth's 500+ and 450+ foot homers, according to Jenkinson's extensive research, broken down by year.

_____500+__450+

1915---------1
1916---------1
1917---------1
1918---------0
1919--3------9
1920--5-----17
1921--9-----25
1922--1------8
1923--1-----14
1924--5-----14
1925--2------4
1926--5-----13
1927--3-----20
1928--4-----14
1929--1-----14
1930--3-----15
1931--1------6
1932--0------8
1933--1------8
1934--1------5
1935--2------2

Good God almighty, what power. In BP - with a strike zone essentially the same as Bonds' game zone - he occasionally hit balls over 600'. And this was in the days of steroid-free hot dogs.

Thanks for that terrific breakdown, Sultan, which shows not only Ruth's prodigious peaks of power, but also how many years he could hit with such Ruthian force.*

*And, of course, if he had been allowed to bat full time early on, these numbers would have been even more staggering.

[Minstrel]

Put Bonds in the huge stadiums Mantle had to contend with - including Yankee Stadium, which dramatically hurt Mickey's right-handed numbers, and Bonds wouldn't make it the final round in Home Run Derby. In fact, in the Fifties and Sixties, he wouldn't even have made the top ten - not even past his own Godfather, who was not known so much for great distances, but could surely hit further than Bonds.

Random and baseless speculation. Bonds wasn't barely getting the balls over the wall. Whether the balls were hit 450 or 500 feet is not particularly relevant to a player's in-game home run hitting abilities.

In Bonds' Giants career, prior to when he was alleged to have begun taking steroids, he was hitting home runs at the third best rate of at-bats to home runs. So, even before the issue of steroids comes into play, he was hitting home runs at a historically great level.

After further refining his swing, his plate discipline, doing more weight training and, perhaps, taking steroids/HGH, he was basically the greatest power hitter ever.

But even if you're suspicious of those years, his rates before that were historic.

[Proctor, CF]

Random and baseless speculation. Bonds wasn't barely getting the balls over the wall. Whether the balls were hit 450 or 500 feet is not particularly relevant to a player's in-game home run hitting abilities.

In Bonds' Giants career, prior to when he was alleged to have begun taking steroids, he was hitting home runs at the third best rate of at-bats to home runs. So, even before the issue of steroids comes into play, he was hitting home runs at a historically great level.

After further refining his swing, his plate discipline, doing more weight training and, perhaps, taking steroids/HGH, he was basically the greatest power hitter ever.

But even if you're suspicious of those years, his rates before that were historic.

When you're entire case hinges on the following laughably "random and baseless" arguments, you know you're in trouble:

(1) Doubts that Bonds actually took "HGH/steroids";

(2) Claims that long distance power is "not relevant"to home run production, even in historically huge stadiums; and

(3) Bonds was a greater power hitter than both Ruth & Mantle (and everyone else who ever picked up a bat)*

THREE STRIKES, YOU'RE OUT.



* "Bonds the greatest power hitter ever". You're killing me. ... I'm not sure it's more denialist or obscurantist, but the Minstrel show continues.

[Proctor, CF]

I can't find a tabulated list of Bonds' longest home runs, but this is an example:

"The towering home run—one of the longest in Citizens Bank Park's two-season history, traveling an estimated 450 feet (140 m)—hit off the facade of the third deck in right field."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Bonds

At 450 feet, it hit the third-deck facade. That gives you a pretty clear indication of high it was at that point. Not striking that facade, it seems pretty clear that it would have gone well over 500 feet.

As I said in my last post, I agree that Bonds didn't generally have the length on his homers that Mantle did, but there's simply no way Mantle had more power as a teenager than Bonds ever did.

I have searched objectively and assiduously for any evidence or estimation of Bonds' home run at Citizens Bank Park travelling over [a projected] 500', but I can't find any such evidence or estimation. Though it is very likely Bonds' longest shot, it was equally likely a shot of less than [a projected] 500'.

I have found the below graphic, which shows where Ryan Howard's 505' center field home run (deemed the longest ever at Citizens) landed, as well as where it would have had to hit in both the right and left upperdecks, in order to travel the same distance it actually did to center. Bonds' shot hit close to the McDonalds' arches - at the red sign at the very bottom of the third deck - substantially short of Howard's. I believe Thome may have hit one further at the same Park, too.

If you have any scientific evidence contradicting these findings, I will gladly acknowledge it. But, with all the evidence currently available, I believe the original point about Mantle hitting further as a teenager than Bonds at his peak remains true. Mantle hit 530' - twice in one game - at the age of nineteen. Bonds has never approached that distance, even after his heavy steroid abuse.

[Proctor, CF]

Below are two Hittracker graphics showing 1) Bonds' "True Home Run Landing Spots" for 2006, and 2) Bonds' Home Run No. 713 (5/6/06 @ Citizens Bank Park) - calculated to have travelled a distance of 444'. This is of course significantly less than the 530' distances Mantle was hitting as a teenager.

[hellborn]

I would love to see a showdown between Foxx and Killebrew...two of my favorites, righties who could put an real charge in the ball and don't really get their due in baseball history, in my opinion.

BTW - if you're going to use HitTracker when discussing Mantle, you should probably mention that it estimated his facade shot in '63, which Mantle said was the hardest ball he ever hit, at 507 feet.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Bonds led his league in Ab/Hr 3 times before 1999, in a league where homeruns were being hit at a record pace. Allen led three times too. Bonds also boasted a higher career Relative ISO then Allen before Balco (a better indicator of power then homeruns). Distance? Wily Mo Pena hits very far home runs, but nobody considers him an all-time great power hitter.

Distance should mean very little, frequency means a lot more.

Frequency does mean more but you can't downplay the importance of distance especially when you speaking of the old park distances especially in CF.

To really evaluate, compare park distances we should not just look at home parks but all parks played in, also not just line distances but all, the lines, power alleys and centerfield distances. I don't rule out the importance of home park distances since the hitter plays more games there than any one other park but we should look at all parks.

A while back I looked at the NL parks from 1999 and I would think the average distance then is about the same in todays NL parks.

Down the lines all parks averaged out about the same in Ruth's time, Mantle's time and Bonds time. Centerfield Mantle's time close to 20 feet deeper on average. Ruth's time CF average distance was 40+ feet deeper than todays, hugh difference.

Some deep centerfields in Mantle's time, NY 461, Baltimore 445 from 1954 to 1965, Detroit 440. Ruth's time CF was on average much deeper, NY 487, Boston 488, Shibe 468 and Detroit 467.

Look at it this way, some of the bombs we see, those long 430 and 450 foot home runs we see nightly on ESPN would not make the bleachers or walls in some of the older parks. Some doubles and triples and some just long outs.

Todays parks overall are more favorable for the home run.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Below are two Hittracker graphics showing 1) Bonds' "True Home Run Landing Spots" for 2006, and 2) Bonds' Home Run No. 713 (5/6/06 @ Citizens Bank Park) - calculated to have travelled a distance of 444'. This is of course significantly less than the 530' distances Mantle was hitting as a teenager.

It would be nice to have a hit-tracker like that for all of his years. Anyway, this will give an idea of what Ruth dealt with, and how many homers Bonds would lose if he played back then. Here is 1928 Yankee stadium. The distances don't line up perfect...you can see that center should be out a little further but it's good for a rough idea.

[hellborn]

You don't think that Bonds would have gained some HRs down that shorter RF line?? Your argument completely misses the fact that he had balls that were outs in his stadium that would have been HRs in Ruth's park, and those balls don't show up on the chart in the first place.
Also, discussing the CF distance alone in these parks is misleading...Shibe, for example, had walls that ran straight from the foul lines to a common point in center. The distances down the line were normal and CF was a long ways, but the LF and RF power alleys were VERY comfortable for power hitters. Check out how well Foxx hit in Shibe. Tiger in Greenberg's time had a very deep CF, too, but the lines and alleys were fine, especially for a lefty.

I just don't buy the argument that the best older players were supermen and did things that modern players just couldn't do. If Ruth could really hit a ball 600' and that can't happen now, that tells me that the ball was different then. If the best players of the last 20 years can't hit a ball that far in BP or a HR derby, the conditions just aren't the same. Maybe I'm wrong, but that makes a lot more sense to me than Ruth and Mantle being heroic demigods like Achilles and Aias who could do things that mortal men couldn't. I'm not even thinking of Bonds in particular here for modern players, more like McGwire, Gonzalez, Fielder...the real distance men.

BTW...how come Ruth never hit a ball out of the Stadium?? Seems like he would have been the guy to do it...

[Sultan_1895-1948]

You don't think that Bonds would have gained some HRs down that shorter RF line?? Your argument completely misses the fact that he had balls that were outs in his stadium that would have been HRs in Ruth's park, and those balls don't show up on the chart in the first place.

I didn't post an "argument." Just an illustration to give an idea of how deathly far Yankee Stadium was from left center to deep right center. It is not lost on me that some of Bonds' long fly outs to right center and right would have sneaked over the fences of some of the older parks. I think he would have lost a lot more than he'd gain though. If a power hitter of Ruth's magnitude would gain a ton more than he'd lose, how can the reverse not be true of Bonds. Of course there's also the fact that pitchers would be approaching Bonds differently...giving him many more balls on the outer half, resulting in less balls being pulled in general and many more long fly-outs.



BTW...how come Ruth never hit a ball out of the Stadium?? Seems like he would have been the guy to do it...

From Jenkinson....

As noted earlier, Babe Ruth never reached the roof facade because it simply didn't exist during his career. However, by entering in the dimensions of Yankee Stadium from both eras into a computer, you can start an interesting process. By eventually plugging in all the relevant data, including landing points of Ruth's longest right field Stadium homers, you get a revealing conclusion. Almost certainly, any balls landing above the sixtieth row of the Ruth-era bleachers would have landed on the Mantle-era rooftop. That means that the Bambino would have reached the roof at least eight times if he had played in the same Yankee Stadium as Mickey.


I just don't buy the argument that the best older players were supermen and did things that modern players just couldn't do. If Ruth could really hit a ball 600' and that can't happen now, that tells me that the ball was different then.

The furthest projected home run Ruth ever hit was '575, completely out of Navin to dead center, and there's no doubt in my mind the wind was blowing in his favor.

With pitchers throwing harder, players have gotten stronger and switched to much lighter bats in order to get around on pitches. I believe that there are out there, some strong enough guys today, who could switch to much heavier bats and still keep the swing speed nearly the same, resulting in increased distances. As far as the ball, I find it hard to believe the ball has ever been harder than it is today.

[hellborn]

OK, I understand your position better now, Sultan. Sorry if I was going off the deep end.
I had forgotten that the RF stands had changed so much at Yankee...was it actually harder to get the ball out of the park back then, or is the addition of the roof the main difference? Was the height of the stands actually scaled back when the roof was put in?
I agree that Ruth was gaining some extra distance on his very best shots with the heavy bats. His mechanics were also geared more towards distance than any modern hitter, in my opinion. Whether he was able to do this because of the pitching being different then or his unique skill, I don't know...probably both.
I vaguely recall reading that an early '20s ball was tested against a early '30s ball and was still just as lively...suggested to me that the older one could only have been more lively when it was new. Not sure if I could ever dig that up, though, but it may have been on BBF.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

You don't think that Bonds would have gained some HRs down that shorter RF line?? Your argument completely misses the fact that he had balls that were outs in his stadium that would have been HRs in Ruth's park, and those balls don't show up on the chart in the first place.
Also, discussing the CF distance alone in these parks is misleading...Shibe, for example, had walls that ran straight from the foul lines to a common point in center. The distances down the line were normal and CF was a long ways, but the LF and RF power alleys were VERY comfortable for power hitters. Check out how well Foxx hit in Shibe. Tiger in Greenberg's time had a very deep CF, too, but the lines and alleys were fine, especially for a lefty.

I just don't buy the argument that the best older players were supermen and did things that modern players just couldn't do. If Ruth could really hit a ball 600' and that can't happen now, that tells me that the ball was different then. If the best players of the last 20 years can't hit a ball that far in BP or a HR derby, the conditions just aren't the same. Maybe I'm wrong, but that makes a lot more sense to me than Ruth and Mantle being heroic demigods like Achilles and Aias who could do things that mortal men couldn't. I'm not even thinking of Bonds in particular here for modern players, more like McGwire, Gonzalez, Fielder...the real distance men.

BTW...how come Ruth never hit a ball out of the Stadium?? Seems like he would have been the guy to do it...


Sure some of Barry's outs to RF would have been home runs at Yankee Stadium but then a number of his home runs to CF would have been EBHs or fly outs in NY or some other older AL parks. It's a trade off that is why if you notice I use the word "overall" in my earlier post, post #58. We can't just zero in on RF, LF or CF or just home parks. Overall average distances and all parks played in have to be considered.

Tiger Stadium in Greenbergs time was not the same in Ruth's time. RF was reduced in 1936 to 325. When Ruth played there it was 367 to 370 down the RF line, power alley was not much deeper.

Again the only fair way, LF, CF, RF average distance and home and away parks have to be factored in. I dealt mostly with the right side since Babe and Barry batted left handed.

I'm not saying past players were supermen and todays players can' hit for those distances. We're speaking of a rare long ball hitter, one hitter an exception to all the rules, Babe Ruth. And it's possible there are hitters in todays game who can approach 570-600 feet, it's just that Ruth hit long ones consistently.

Why he never hit one out at Yankee Stadium, because he just didn't do it, don't know what that proves.

The whole object of my earlier post was to say that overall todays parks are more homer friendly.

[Proctor, CF]

I would love to see a showdown between Foxx and Killebrew...two of my favorites, righties who could put an real charge in the ball and don't really get their due in baseball history, in my opinion.

BTW - if you're going to use HitTracker when discussing Mantle, you should probably mention that it estimated his facade shot in '63, which Mantle said was the hardest ball he ever hit, at 507 feet.

All good points, Hellborn. Foxx & Killebrew certainly do seem to get short shrift. I wonder if it's because they were right-handed and/or because they were both preceded by and thus playing in the very long shadows of true home run giants, Ruth & Mantle. Foxx & Mantle are both strong contenders for the number two spot. All four guys hit over 500' - and all four were hitting extreme distances as teenagers, without the favoring circumstances & factors Bonds had available to him, and otherwise employed. All four would crush Bonds in a Home Run Derby.

You are correct to point out Hittracker's estimate of Mantle's '63 homer - which wasn't his longest, but was quite long. The problem with that particular estimate is that it hinges on a great deal of speculation, for such key factors as bat speed, trajectory, inter alia - all of which appear to be resolved against widely reported witness accounts describing the hit. For example, Hittracker - without any evidence - unilaterally dismisses the reported trajectory, and substitutes another, resulting in an admittedly less powerful one. Same for bat speed, which, without any evidence, is graded at a speed consistent with the projected trajectory.

With current home runs, Hittracker is far more accurate and trustworthy - being that they have actual video of the swing, trajectory and landing, stadium dimensions, and immediate access to live witnesses, etc. It's an excellent site, but has prohibitive limitations in its estimate of home runs not captured on video. Even with its over-conservative estimate of Mantle's home run, though, it still travelled more than 60' further than Bonds'.

It should also be considered that the home run referred to was not Mantle's longest hit. Elmer, a world leading authority on Mantle, posted an excellent overview of Mickey's longest shots about a week ago on the Mickey Mantle Thread. He is a very scientific researcher and analyst of long home runs. Posted below is one of his many first-class graphics - this one portraying Mickey's Spring Season BP Homer to St. Petersburg's Fountain of Youth.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

OK, I understand your position better now, Sultan. Sorry if I was going off the deep end.

No worries. It didn't come off like that.


I had forgotten that the RF stands had changed so much at Yankee...was it actually harder to get the ball out of the park back then, or is the addition of the roof the main difference? Was the height of the stands actually scaled back when the roof was put in?

In right field it was 70 rows deep. As noted by Jenkinson, anything landing in the 60th row or beyond, would have been over the Mantle-era rooftop (pictured below). Right center didn't have 70 rows but there were quite a few going back to the stadium's outer wall. In 1930, Ruth hit a 535 footer that actually landed in a water barrel in the very last row of that section.

I'm no expert on the Stadium, but in 1928, the three level left field grandstands were added, and in 1937 they were extended out into right field. In the early '70s I guess major work was done. Extending the seats back maybe? All I know is they shortened the fence in left cause before that, the monuments were in play.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

[QUOTE=Minstrel;1163194]I did say Bonds as a Giant. His SLG (in non-hitter friendly parks) as a Giant, prior to 1999 was .619.
His at-bats per home run, for his career, is third all-time at 12.90. What's that, it's inflated by his "steroids years?" His at-bats per home run, as a Giant, prior to 1999 is 12.92. Identical. And that's the third best rate ever.

So, it is exactly as I said. When he wasn't walking, he was hitting home runs at the third greatest rate ever, behind two guys named McGwire and Ruth. (Mantle is tied for 14th all-time with Dave Kingman at 15.1 at-bats per home run.)

Historically great? Yes.[QUOTE] Minstrel



Have you checked those prior to 1999 numbers. Am I misreading your dates?
This is what I have prior 1999.... Barry 1986-1998---- AB/HR ratio 16.10
Prior to 1999 slugging .556

Look at what Barry did 1999-2006 AB/HR ratio 8.93, that is off the chart he maintained that for 7 seasons. Walked a lot thats true but there is a significant number of at bats 2886. Is it any wonder why he became suspect.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Have you checked those prior to 1999 numbers. Am I misreading your dates?
This is what I have prior 1999.... Barry 1986-1998---- AB/HR ratio 16.10
Prior to 1999 slugging .556

Those were the numbers I earlier stated from memory. .550 and a ratio over 16. Thanks for confirming it Joe.

[Minstrel]

Have you checked those prior to 1999 numbers. Am I misreading your dates?

You are. I said "As a Giant, prior to 1999." My first post in this thread mentioned Bonds in any Giants season against Mantle. Bonds was not an elite power hitter as a Pirate, I fully agree about that.

As a Giant, he had a six year span before 1999. In that stretch, he had a home run every 12.93 at-bats. His post-1999 seasons essentially balance out his Pirates years, career-wise. In his prime before 1999, he was hitting home runs at the third-best rate ever.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

You are. I said "As a Giant, prior to 1999." My first post in this thread mentioned Bonds in any Giants season against Mantle. Bonds was not an elite power hitter as a Pirate, I fully agree about that.

As a Giant, he had a six year span before 1999. In that stretch, he had a home run every 12.93 at-bats. His post-1999 seasons essentially balance out his Pirates years, career-wise. In his prime before 1999, he was hitting home runs at the third-best rate ever.

Bottom line is that IN HIS CAREER, BEFORE STEROIDS he was not a historically great power hitter in terms of slugging average, number of homers, distance of homers or AB/HR ratio.

[yanks0714]

Duane Kuiper could take both y'all

The man who put Steve Stone into retirement.

[Minstrel]

Bottom line is that IN HIS CAREER, BEFORE STEROIDS he was not a historically great power hitter

First of all, in his prime, as a Giant, he was one of the very best home run hitters ever. Before he was alleged to have done steroids. In my original post, I clearly said I'd want to see Bonds, in any Giants season, against Mantle. So vent your fury in another direction.

Secondly, even if you take into account his Pirates years, his 16.10 at-bats per home run would put him just one at-bat per home run behind Mantle and place him ahead of Lou Gehrig. Or is Lou Gehrig also not a historically great power hitter?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Bonds actually led his league 3 times in Ab/Hr, compared to Mantle two times. Mantle through his first 13 years had a .582 Slugging%, Bonds .556. Not exactly a huge difference. Advantages for Bonds? Smaller parks, juiced balls. Advantages for Mantle? A league that wasn't fully integrated, playing on the best team in baseball. Why make it seem like Bonds had all the advantages?

Not much to debate, the fact that all hitters from all time periods had some advantages that other time periods did not have, a wash.


One more favorable condition that todays hitters have that Ruth, Foxx, Mantle, Aaron and others did not have is the shaved strike zone. Lower than ever in the history of the game and the shame is that it is not that low in the rule book. For what ever the reason in the early 1990s the umps shaved the top of the zone from the letters to the belt, that is drastic.

Look in the book and the top of the zone, no where near the belt, hitters love that.
The shrunken strike zone was a hugh topic in the mid 1990s but the steroid issue pushed it off the table, no longer discussed. Bud Selig turned the other way, why would the commissioner who was also an owner go by the book and put a damper on the home run derby. Bud the owner knows it's not only a game it's a busine$$.

Sandy Alderson made a feeble attempt, asking the umps to call a higher strike but if you look at what Sandy asked, it is still lower than the rule book strike. Mantle, Mays, Killebrew had to be concerned about the high hard borderline pitch, hard to get "on top" of. Today, it's a ball.

There is no doubt the strike zone so low played a part and continues to play a part in the home run derby born in the early 1990s.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Not much to debate, the fact that all hitters from all time periods had some advantages that other time periods did not have, a wash.


One more favorable condition that todays hitters have that Ruth, Foxx, Mantle, Aaron and others did not have is the shaved strike zone. Lower than ever in the history of the game and the shame is that it is not that low in the rule book. For what ever the reason in the early 1990s the umps shaved the top of the zone from the letters to the belt, that is drastic.

Look in the book and the top of the zone, no where near the belt, hitters love that.
The shrunken strike zone was a hugh topic in the mid 1990s but the steroid issue pushed it off the table, no longer discussed. Bud Selig turned the other way, why would the commissioner who was also an owner go by the book and put a damper on the home run derby. Bud the owner knows it's not only a game it's a busine$$.

Sandy Alderson made a feeble attempt, asking the umps to call a higher strike but if you look at what Sandy asked, it is still lower than the rule book strike. Mantle, Mays, Killebrew had to be concerned about the high hard borderline pitch, hard to get "on top" of. Today, it's a ball.

There is no doubt the strike zone so low played a part and continues to play a part in the home run derby born in the early 1990s.


Here it is, the top of the strike zone went south in the 1990s with the umps but not in the rule book.Horizontal line midpoint between the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Secondly, even if you take into account his Pirates years, his 16.10 at-bats per home run would put him just one at-bat per home run behind Mantle and place him ahead of Lou Gehrig. Or is Lou Gehrig also not a historically great power hitter?


First of all, that number would get worse as he declined. Second, it's not as if all AB/HR ratios are created equal. What do you think Gehrig would have done in this era. He was probably hurt more than Ruth by the extreme fence distances of the day, considering his ball tended to be more on a line, rather than the high carrying type.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Started out good in theory, but the file size limit caused distortion. :rolleyes:

[Proctor, CF]

You don't think that Bonds would have gained some HRs down that shorter RF line?? Your argument completely misses the fact that he had balls that were outs in his stadium that would have been HRs in Ruth's park, and those balls don't show up on the chart in the first place.

BTW...how come Ruth never hit a ball out of the Stadium?? Seems like he would have been the guy to do it...

Compared to today's distance down the right field line, Ruth only gained an average of about two home runs a year at Yankee Stadium. He lost far more home runs than he gained, due to the mammoth distances of fences in his day. Indeed, this is the reason Jenkinson's book is entitled "The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs".

One look at a graphic of the old stadium tells almost the whole story. To get a true understanding of Yankee Stadium's right field in Ruth's day, one must also consider the approximately 7' slope in the outfield - which, of course, effectively rendered the fence distance inacurrate. In reality, the distance a ball had to be hit was further than the distance identified on the fence. Essentially, Ruth was hitting his homers out of a 7' depression, which can be seen to some extent in the photo below.

BTW: There are reports that Ruth did hit balls out of Yankee Stadium, free-swinging, during batting practice.

[Minstrel]

First of all, that number would get worse as he declined.

After first being boosted by more prime years. In fact, his decline phase probably would still have been more home run productive than his Pirates seasons. So, I doubt his at-bats per home run would have come down.


What do you think Gehrig would have done in this era. He was probably hurt more than Ruth by the extreme fence distances of the day, considering his ball tended to be more on a line, rather than the high carrying type.

Oh my. Didn't hit for distance. He was an "on a line" hitter, like Bonds. Gehrig clearly not very elite. Remember...home run distance is very, very, very meaningful.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

After first being boosted by more prime years. In fact, his decline phase probably would still have been more home run productive than his Pirates seasons. So, I doubt his at-bats per home run would have come down.

I disagree. How many hr hitters had their number raise during their decline?




Oh my. Didn't hit for distance. He was an "on a line" hitter, like Bonds. Gehrig clearly not very elite. Remember...home run distance is very, very, very meaningful.

You're a piece of work. Answer this question. Has Gehrig's name been brought up one time on here as someone who either A) Would do well in a derby against the titans B) hit historically long homers

Answer is no to both.

But the point remains. Gehrig was severely affected by his era's ballparks. A nice long gapper of his day would be 20 rows deep in most parks today. Imagine him in Philly? lol, what a joke that park is.

[Minstrel]

I disagree. How many hr hitters had their number raise during their decline?

He wouldn't have raised his prime rate (12.16). He'd have raised his career rate to that point (16.1) which was "low" due to his Pirates years. Even if he fell to around 14 at-bats per home run in his decline phase (significantly worse than his prime rate from 1993-1998), that would still lift his career rate.


You're a piece of work.

That's sweet.


Answer this question. Has Gehrig's name been brought up one time on here as someone who either A) Would do well in a derby against the titans B) hit historically long homers

Answer is no to both.

You've been quite adamant that Bonds was not a historically great power hitter, prior to 1999/2000. From what I've seen, you do seem to think Lou Gehrig was. You seem to feel Bonds' 16.1 at-bats per home run rate was somewhat pedestrian, yet it was better than Gehrig's, despite being weighed down by his Pirates' years, when he wasn't a power-hitter. I don't find these to be consistent views.

[Proctor, CF]

You seem to feel Bonds' 16.1 at-bats per home run rate was somewhat pedestrian, yet it was better than Gehrig's, despite being weighed down by his Pirates' years, when he wasn't a power-hitter.



"Pedestrian" is an apt description, in the sense that it fits his taking so many walks, with the smallest strike zone in the history of the game.

I know he's hoping to walk on these charges against him, too.

[Proctor, CF]

In his very brief but magnificent career, Gehrig hit just short of 500 home runs - many times close to 50-a-season. He did so in the old days & old stadiums, making his achievements all the more remarkable. And there was no HGH in Ma Gehrig's weinerschnitzel, that I know of.

Check out the huge dimensions of the Yankee Stadium, remembering also the 7' slope to the fence. Lou did not hit the majestic shots the Babe, Foxx & Mantle did - but he was still light years better than that middleweight, pre-Barroid Barry Bonds.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

You've been quite adamant that Bonds was not a historically great power hitter, prior to 1999/2000. From what I've seen, you do seem to think Lou Gehrig was. You seem to feel Bonds' 16.1 at-bats per home run rate was somewhat pedestrian, yet it was better than Gehrig's, despite being weighed down by his Pirates' years, when he wasn't a power-hitter. I don't find these to be consistent views.

When you consider everything, the in-game Lou Gehrig was far ahead of the in-game natural Barry Bonds in terms of power. I believe Jenkinson's next book will include entire chapters dedicated to single players, one of which, is Ludwig Heinrich Gehrig. We know what his splits are. He was not helped one bit by Yankee Stadium and that is no surprise. The balls he hit often were scorchers with top spin. Not the erections with backspin that Ruth and other sluggers routinely produced. This is why he has not been mentioned as holding a candle to Ruth, Foxx, Mantle, Allen, etc..during a derby, but in-game, if you put him in Bonds' era, forget about it. His AB/HR ratio would be much better than it is.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

You are. I said "As a Giant, prior to 1999." My first post in this thread mentioned Bonds in any Giants season against Mantle. Bonds was not an elite power hitter as a Pirate, I fully agree about that.

As a Giant, he had a six year span before 1999. In that stretch, he had a home run every 12.93 at-bats. His post-1999 seasons essentially balance out his Pirates years, career-wise. In his prime before 1999, he was hitting home runs at the third-best rate ever.

Thats putting it mildly. What ever, steroids who can say for sure but that AB/HR ratio of 8.93 for seven seasons 1999-2006. That more than balanced out his earlier career ratio.

How does any hitter aproaching 35 and then continues to average that 8.93 into his late career happen in real life. We may never know but hard to look at his numbers late career and not be in doubt, steroids.

Those are years when hitters decline or level off and Barry lowers his previous (1986-1998) AB/HR by 6 points.

[AstrosFan]

I guess it depends on one's definition of a historically great power hitter. Bonds had an impressive home run hitting career before he started juicing, but I doubt his pace at the time would get him to what would be considered top ten all time. He'd have a good shot at the top 20. How great does one need to be to be considered historically great?

[Proctor, CF]

I'm not saying past players were supermen and todays players can' hit for those distances. We're speaking of a rare long ball hitter, one hitter an exception to all the rules, Babe Ruth. And it's possible there are hitters in todays game who can approach 570-600 feet, it's just that Ruth hit long ones consistently.



Here's a fascinating first-hand account of one of those consistently long shots Ruth hit - this one being rather late in his career, off of Waite Hoyte.

This is from a great post Sultan made tonight over on the Babe Ruth thread - from a Waite Hoyt audio collection.

http://www.baberuthcentral.com/Voices/Voices.asp?a=20

As impressed as Hoyt was with The Babe's Shibe Park Labor Day Weekend homer in 1931, it's not nearly Ruth's longest. He had many even longer. And in BP, preseason and barnstorming, he hit them still further.

[Proctor, CF]

I guess it depends on one's definition of a historically great power hitter. Bonds had an impressive home run hitting career before he started juicing, but I doubt his pace at the time would get him to what would be considered top ten all time. He'd have a good shot at the top 20. How great does one need to be to be considered historically great?

However one defines it, he's no match for The Mick - who was historical by any definition.

[Minstrel]

Thats putting it mildly. What ever, steroids who can say for sure but that AB/HR ratio of 8.93 for seven seasons 1999-2006. That more than balanced out his earlier career ratio.

It clearly balanced it out exactly. Bonds from 1993-1998 had a 12.16 at-bats per home run rate. Which is almost identical to his career rate.

So, there's no question that even before he's believed to have taken steroids he was a tremendous home run hitter.

His raw home run totals for that period are not enormous due to his high number of walks. Even before his 2001-2007, he was one of the best ever at drawing walks. Fewer at-bats mean fewer home runs. But his rates show that when he wasn't walking, he was hitting homers at an incredible pace.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

As impressed as Hoyt was with The Babe's Shibe Park Labor Day Weekend homer in 1931, it's not nearly Ruth's longest. He had many even longer. And in BP, preseason and barnstorming, he hit them still further.

Indeed. Hey Proctor, have you been to the stadiums forum. Those guys over there have some amazing shots of old ballparks. Ruth hit two off Hoyt that day, it was the second game of a double-header. Jenkinson has the first one going over the fence, across the street, and landing on a porch of a house at 410 feet. The second goes over the fence, over the street, over the row of houses, and lands in the next street, 475 feet according to Jenkinson.

[Proctor, CF]

Indeed. Hey Proctor, have you been to the stadiums forum. Those guys over there have some amazing shots of old ballparks. Ruth hit two off Hoyt that day, it was the second game of a double-header. Jenkinson has the first one going over the fence, across the street, and landing on a porch of a house at 410 feet. The second goes over the fence, over the street, over the row of houses, and lands in the next street, 475 feet according to Jenkinson.

No, I've never been there, Sultan. Thanks for the invite, I'll check it out.

I've come to learn that Jenkinson is very conservative with his estimates concerning Babe's hits, never projecting beyond what's absolutely certain - even when there is occasionally evidence a ball may have travelled further. I find his meticulous research, objectivity and credibility to be unsurpassed.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I've come to learn that Jenkinson is very conservative with his estimates concerning Babe's hits, never projecting beyond what's absolutely certain - even when there is occasionally evidence a ball may have travelled further. I find his meticulous research, objectivity and credibility to be unsurpassed.

I've had the pleasure of speaking with him on the phone quite a bit, and I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, the nature of his last project causes some to think otherwise, without having read the book. I believe he wanted the title of the book to be "Fact Transcends Myth" or something to that effect, but this or that prohibited that name...probably publisher issues. But yeah, he seems to be whole heartedly interested in truth no matter what it may be, and he's never been one to credit Ruth with something he didn't do.

[Proctor, CF]

I just don't buy the argument that the best older players were supermen and did things that modern players just couldn't do. If Ruth could really hit a ball 600' and that can't happen now, that tells me that the ball was different then. If the best players of the last 20 years can't hit a ball that far in BP or a HR derby, the conditions just aren't the same. Maybe I'm wrong, but that makes a lot more sense to me than Ruth and Mantle being heroic demigods like Achilles and Aias who could do things that mortal men couldn't. I'm not even thinking of Bonds in particular here for modern players, more like McGwire, Gonzalez, Fielder...the real distance men.



Ruth really could hit further than anyone before or since. As tremendous as Mantle was, he fully acknowledged that - rendering the Achillies & Aias analogy at least partially inapplicable. (As I'm sure you know, hellborn, Aias thought he was the greater hero than Achilles. Mickey knew that mantle would always truly belong to The Babe.)

McGwire, after he took steroids, did ultimately get closer to reaching Ruthian distances. For years his maximum distance was 455' or so. In his thirty-third year he crossed the 500' threshhold, ultimately hitting about a dozen over that distance, with his longest being 535'. On PEDs, he hit over 500' for about four years, Ruth for eighteen. Close but no Babe Ruth cigar.

Regarding Mantle's incredible, almost superhuman power, I'm including a link to a Sports Illustrated article from June 18, 1956, which contemporaneously describes just how powerful and majestic his home runs really were.

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1069805/1/index.htm

[SHOELESSJOE3]

It clearly balanced it out exactly. Bonds from 1993-1998 had a 12.16 at-bats per home run rate. Which is almost identical to his career rate.

So, there's no question that even before he's believed to have taken steroids he was a tremendous home run hitter.

His raw home run totals for that period are not enormous due to his high number of walks. Even before his 2001-2007, he was one of the best ever at drawing walks. Fewer at-bats mean fewer home runs. But his rates show that when he wasn't walking, he was hitting homers at an incredible pace.

Don't want to beat this one to death, maybe you missed my point. Not even sure what that means.....balanced out exactly 8.93 AB/HR ratio 1999-2006. He shaved 6 points off his 1986 to 1998 AB/HR (15.09) ratio and 4 points off his 1993-1998 12.93. To say it was a significant drop is an understatement.

So I'm in agreement with you, he was very good home run hitter but with out that 8.93 for that last 7 seasons he would not be at 12.93 for his career.

Do you get my point, yes it goes in the books as such but who can believe a hitter late in his career goes at 8.93 for 7 seasons.His numbers are in doubt, maybe not in the book but in the minds of many.

Whats your take, how did he do it at that age. Those last 7 seasons are numbers a young Babe Ruth never averaged.

[AstrosFan]

The talk of Bonds's drastic improvement in his AB/HR ratio raises some interesting questions.

I figure for a player to develop some steroids suspicions, a player has to:

A) be establishing a new level of performance. A single year could just be a fluke (Davey Johnson is probably the best example of this).

B) be establishing that new level at an age when he is not expected to. A player who is just hitting his prime and establishes a new level should not automatically come under suspicion.

C) establish a level that is significantly above his prior norms, given the other factors hold true.

What is significant, though? I don't mean that in statistics-speak. I mean, how much does a player's AB/HR ratio have to drop, given the first two factors hold true, for you to suspect him of steroid use?

[Proctor, CF]

The talk of Bonds's drastic improvement in his AB/HR ratio raises some interesting questions.

I figure for a player to develop some steroids suspicions, a player has to:

A) be establishing a new level of performance. A single year could just be a fluke (Davey Johnson is probably the best example of this).

B) be establishing that new level at an age when he is not expected to. A player who is just hitting his prime and establishes a new level should not automatically come under suspicion.

C) establish a level that is significantly above his prior norms, given the other factors hold true.

What is significant, though? I don't mean that in statistics-speak. I mean, how much does a player's AB/HR ratio have to drop, given the first two factors hold true, for you to suspect him of steroid use?

In Bonds' case, of course, well-founded suspicions arose not only because of his increased numbers, but also because of the overwhelming physical, documentary and testimonial evidence confirming his surreptitious use of steroids.

[Minstrel]

So I'm in agreement with you, he was very good home run hitter but with out that 8.93 for that last 7 seasons he would not be at 12.93 for his career.

I think you're missing my point. My point is that during his prime before any possible steroids (1993-98), his average was 12.16.

So, he was more than a "very good home run" hitter. From 93-98, he was one of the best ever.

As a Pirate, he wasn't. And I'm not saying he was. But as a Giant, he clearly was. Before any steroid use.

[Proctor, CF]

When you consider everything, the in-game Lou Gehrig was far ahead of the in-game natural Barry Bonds in terms of power. I believe Jenkinson's next book will include entire chapters dedicated to single players, one of which, is Ludwig Heinrich Gehrig. We know what his splits are. He was not helped one bit by Yankee Stadium and that is no surprise. The balls he hit often were scorchers with top spin.



Excellent point, Sultan. Perhaps the 7' upward slope at Yankee Stadium hurt Gehrig more than anyone. The top-spin "scorchers" you describe would have had tremendous difficulty rising that extra 7 feet as they approached the outer perimeter of the field. I wonder how many other fields presented similar slopes.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I think you're missing my point. My point is that during his prime before any possible steroids (1993-98), his average was 12.16.

So, he was more than a "very good home run" hitter. From 93-98, he was one of the best ever.

As a Pirate, he wasn't. And I'm not saying he was. But as a Giant, he clearly was. Before any steroid use.

Wouldn't it be great if we could all just pick and choose certain points of a players career and evaluate them based on that. :rofl: There is the pre-roids Bonds and the post-roids Bonds. Pre-roids he couldn't hit a ball 450 feet without 25 mph wind gusts in his favor, whether he was a Pirate or a Giant Post-roids, the best he could muster was a 491 footer, which would have barely made it out of old Yankee Stadium to dead center. And this whole walking business is meaningless. All great power hitters walk. Ruth walked a ton. Christ, Howard struck out 199 times and walked over 100 times and still put up nearly 60 homers. Talk about wasting chances for a homer. This idea that Bonds was one of the best home run hitters ever before steroids is a joke.

By the way, on that 575 footer that Ruth hit in Navin...Jenkinson mentions that there was a wind blowing in his favor of 18 mph according to the US Department of commerce weather records. About 7-10 mph less than Bonds had for his three 450 footers pre-roids in case you were wondering.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

How great does one need to be to be considered historically great?

In terms of answering this thread question? Well, Hank certainly has a ton of homers but I don't think he'd do too well against some of the guys mentioned. Same with Bonds. Same with Mays. If we're talking about home run hitters during regular play, then I think you need to look at their AB/HR ratio and judge it based on the era conditions. I think you need to look at how far they hit the ball and did they hit it far on a consistent basis. Then look at season totals and career totals. Bonds would have compiled quite a few homers during his natural decline, but in the end, he'd be much like Aaron in the sense that he just had good totals year in and year out. He would have ended up with over 100 fewer than Aaron but in less AB...his ratio would have been better, but his era would give it a little black eye.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

The talk of Bonds's drastic improvement in his AB/HR ratio raises some interesting questions.

I figure for a player to develop some steroids suspicions, a player has to:

A) be establishing a new level of performance. A single year could just be a fluke (Davey Johnson is probably the best example of this).

B) be establishing that new level at an age when he is not expected to. A player who is just hitting his prime and establishes a new level should not automatically come under suspicion.

C) establish a level that is significantly above his prior norms, given the other factors hold true.

What is significant, though? I don't mean that in statistics-speak. I mean, how much does a player's AB/HR ratio have to drop, given the first two factors hold true, for you to suspect him of steroid use?

A) Barry more than one year, rules out fluke.
B) A level at age 36 to 41 never even approached by any other hitter at that age, never.
C) Far above his previous numbers, older and out performing a Younger Barry.

Barry some prime years 1993-1998 age 28-33 and the older Barry 2001-2006 both 6 year periods. I went to 2001 because I wanted to compare a 6 year period with Barry at his oldest.

-------------------------------Ab-------HRs------AB/HR ratio------Slugging
1993-1998 age 28-33----------3037------235-------12.92------------.617
2001-2006 age 36-41----------2051------240---------8.5------------.759
How does this happen, older approaching his 40s and hitting with much more power, like he never did before.

Babe Ruth in some prime years 1923-1929 age 28-33.
AB 2981-----HRs 278----AB/HR ratio 10.91----SLg. 709
The younger Ruth 28-33 hit 38 more home runs than the older Barry age 36-41 but he batted 930 more times.

The older Barry, a lower AB/HR ratio by two at bats than Babe's, thats hugh, out slugs the younger Ruth by 50 points.
How does this happen. Maybe at this time Barry has to be considered innocent, no physical evidence. But who can believe his late performance numbers on the level, his "never knowingly" used steroids story.

Nearing 40 he puts up peaks that rival any by a younger Babe and a younger Ted Williams.

[hellborn]

... (As I'm sure you know, hellborn, Aias thought he was the greater hero than Achilles. Mickey knew that mantle would always truly belong to The Babe.)


Aias was stronger than Achilles...but Achilles could run. Achilles was Bo Jackson, the scary strong bully you couldn't possibly get away from, Aias was more like Alexander Karelin or Lennox Lewis, the impossibly huge strongman who could fight. Everybody acknowledged that Achilles was the greatest, but Aias could not tolerate losing the competition with Odysseus (the wily one) for the dead Achilles' armor...he went mad and eventually killed himself. Couldn't accept that a man could be prized for his mind more than his physical prowess...not that Odysseus was a slouch, he could still throw a discus farther than anybody could see after surviving the Trojan War and taking 20 years to get back home.

I still think that there is false info being spread here, that all the old ballparks were "huge". Most were deep to CF and to LF (hosing the righties), but many were fairly soft touches for lefties who could get the ball down the line or in the RF power alley...Sportsman's, Shibe, Yankee, League Park in Cleveland, Baker Bowl, Ebbets Field. Wrigley was never a bad place to hit all around (the power alleys were even closer when it had a deep CF). Fenway has always been nice for righties, and was actually easier for lefties before the 1934 renovation than now. Polo Grounds...what a weird place, a popup down the lines is a HR, CF was a different ZIP code, and the "alleys" are shooting straight out there. Tiger was nice for righties, a little weird for lefties with the long line and notch in RC before the decks were added, deep to CF again.
Some places were just caverns, it's true...Griffith, Forbes, Braves Park, Crosley before renovation.
There was a lot more variety in those days, and there were a lot of spots where guys would have to hit the ball 450-500' to get a HR, especially to the CFs...but, there were also a lot of places where a shot under 300' would also be a HR. You want to talk about cheap HRs, look at what a lefty could do in League Park or Shibe!

[Proctor, CF]

Aias was stronger than Achilles...but Achilles could run. Achilles was Bo Jackson, the scary strong bully you couldn't possibly get away from, Aias was more like Alexander Karelin or Lennox Lewis, the impossibly huge strongman who could fight. Everybody acknowledged that Achilles was the greatest, but Aias could not tolerate losing the competition with Odysseus (the wily one) for the dead Achilles' armor...he went mad and eventually killed himself. Couldn't accept that a man could be prized for his mind more than his physical prowess...not that Odysseus was a slouch, he could still throw a discus farther than anybody could see after surviving the Trojan War and taking 20 years to get back home.

I still think that there is false info being spread here, that all the old ballparks were "huge". Most were deep to CF and to LF (hosing the righties), but many were fairly soft touches for lefties who could get the ball down the line or in the RF power alley...Sportsman's, Shibe, Yankee, League Park in Cleveland, Baker Bowl, Ebbets Field. Wrigley was never a bad place to hit all around (the power alleys were even closer when it had a deep CF). Fenway has always been nice for righties, and was actually easier for lefties before the 1934 renovation than now. Polo Grounds...what a weird place, a popup down the lines is a HR, CF was a different ZIP code, and the "alleys" are shooting straight out there. Tiger was nice for righties, a little weird for lefties with the long line and notch in RC before the decks were added, deep to CF again.
Some places were just caverns, it's true...Griffith, Forbes, Braves Park, Crosley before renovation.
There was a lot more variety in those days, and there were a lot of spots where guys would have to hit the ball 450-500' to get a HR, especially to the CFs...but, there were also a lot of places where a shot under 300' would also be a HR. You want to talk about cheap HRs, look at what a lefty could do in League Park or Shibe!

It was really just all Greek to me, hellborn, until you broke it down that way. Thanks. How did you like Brad Pitt's version of Troy? What about George Clooney's "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?" I just saw "Leatherheads", which is Clooney's humorous take on Pro Football in its infancy, during the '20s. Alot of it was very clever and I highly recommend it.

Excellent points on the old stadiums. I guess there are places a guy like Mel Ott could actually "slug" it out with the true kings of the tape measure. I guess we could call that "Ottball".

[SHOELESSJOE3]

He wouldn't have raised his prime rate (12.16). He'd have raised his career rate to that point (16.1) which was "low" due to his Pirates years. Even if he fell to around 14 at-bats per home run in his decline phase (significantly worse than his prime rate from 1993-1998), that would still lift his career rate.


What does that actually mean, how does that factor in. That was a part of his career, thats where he played.

It's akin to saying his numbers, his AB/HR ratio suffered earlier in his career by the team or park he was with and played in. It's all part of the game, his career.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I think you're missing my point. My point is that during his prime before any possible steroids (1993-98), his average was 12.16.

So, he was more than a "very good home run" hitter. From 93-98, he was one of the best ever.

As a Pirate, he wasn't. And I'm not saying he was. But as a Giant, he clearly was. Before any steroid use.

I got that he was a good long ball hitter before his steroid use, if he did, assuming he did use, I think so. Something out of the ordinary certainly cause an offensive explosion, late career.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I still think that there is false info being spread here, that all the old ballparks were "huge". Most were deep to CF and to LF (hosing the righties), but many were fairly soft touches for lefties who could get the ball down the line or in the RF power alley...Sportsman's, Shibe, Yankee, League Park in Cleveland, Baker Bowl, Ebbets Field. Wrigley was never a bad place to hit all around (the power alleys were even closer when it had a deep CF). Fenway has always been nice for righties, and was actually easier for lefties before the 1934 renovation than now. Polo Grounds...what a weird place, a popup down the lines is a HR, CF was a different ZIP code, and the "alleys" are shooting straight out there. Tiger was nice for righties, a little weird for lefties with the long line and notch in RC before the decks were added, deep to CF again.
Some places were just caverns, it's true...Griffith, Forbes, Braves Park, Crosley before renovation.
There was a lot more variety in those days, and there were a lot of spots where guys would have to hit the ball 450-500' to get a HR, especially to the CFs...but, there were also a lot of places where a shot under 300' would also be a HR. You want to talk about cheap HRs, look at what a lefty could do in League Park or Shibe!

Not sure what that means, false info. I think the point being made is that on average older parks were deeper in CF where a number of todays home runs are hit. Look back on my posts and you will see that I did say line distances on average about the same, CF hugh difference. 1910s-20s-30s parks average 40+ feet deeper than todays.

I've dealt with only the AL parks in Ruth's time, not the NL older parks.

We could go back and forth for all time, some pointing out some of the deep line distances and you and others counter with the short ones, nobody wins the point. That is why I posted a while back, the only way to evaluate, compare is to go by the average, how could it be any other way.

Hit a 310 foot drive to right at League Park or Yankee Stadium and it's a home run.

Hit a 350 foot drive down the RF line at Comiskey or Tiger Stadium and it could be a long out.
Centerfield a good number of 420-440 foot home runs today would not make the bleachers in the some of the older parks.

It has to be the average, back and forth with the long and the short ends up no where.

Here are some park distances from the NL in 1998 and some distances from the AL in 1927.

You can see not much difference in the lines. Older park power alleys just a bit longer, not much. Centerfield significant average distance.

[hellborn]

It was really just all Greek to me, hellborn, until you broke it down that way. Thanks. How did you like Brad Pitt's version of Troy? What about George Clooney's "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?" I just saw "Leatherheads", which is Clooney's humorous take on Pro Football in its infancy, during the '20s. Alot of it was very clever and I highly recommend it.

Excellent points on the old stadiums. I guess there are places a guy like Mel Ott could actually "slug" it out with the true kings of the tape measure. I guess we could call that "Ottball".

I like Homer! Especially the Iliad...
:cap:
I couldn't bear to see Brad Pitt in that movie...that man CANNOT be picked to play Achilles. Achilles needs to be somebody impressive, not just a pretty boy who hit the gym for a few months. Russell Crowe might be OK, but I actually see him as Odysseus...it's hard to think of a quality actor who would be a good Achilles. Michael Clarke Duncan would be an excellent Aias...or, maybe Alexander Karelin could be talked into temporarily abandoning politics and moving into acting, then back into politics to run for governor of CA. I don't know, maybe The Rock could stretch his acting skills to play a role like Achilles?
I skipped "300" for similar reasons...I read a plot synopsis and was horrified. Thermopylae was one of the most fascinating events in history, and Hollywood has to "improve" the story and introduce undead troops, a cross dressing Persian emperor, etc. What a sham!!! I do have a '50s version called "300 Spartans" on DVD that is great fun to watch.
I thought "O Brother, Where Art Thou" was a hoot...it amazes me that a lot of people who watch old movies didn't catch on that Clooney was channelling Clark Gable. From the hilarious "Damn, we're in a tight spot!" scene, I was hooked. Some of the references to the Odyssey were a little heavy handed, but it didn't spoil the fun.
Clooney is a fun actor...maybe he could play Agamemnon or Priam in my version of the Iliad.

Ottball...I like it!
Mel was a guy who could take advantage of the Polo Grounds, but, man, you really had to pull that ball...what we would think of as the center of the power alley was a long ride. Dead CF, forget it...amazes me that Lou Brock, of all people, hit a ball out there. I used to wonder why Ruth didn't hit at least one out there, but then learned that the park was configured differently when he played there. CF was reachable, and Ruth hitting one out there would not have been a notable event...he didn't get a chance to aim for the 483' mark.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

aOttball...I like it!
Mel was a guy who could take advantage of the Polo Grounds, but, man, you really had to pull that ball...what we would think of as the center of the power alley was a long ride. Dead CF, forget it...amazes me that Lou Brock, of all people, hit a ball out there. I used to wonder why Ruth didn't hit at least one out there, but then learned that the park was configured differently when he played there. CF was reachable, and Ruth hitting one out there would not have been a notable event...he didn't get a chance to aim for the 483' mark.

When ruth played there it was 433 and he did hit a few there, don't know how far back.

No one ever hit one out at that 483 mark. You can see the configuration here, Brock and Aaron hit balls in there on consecutive days either to the left or right side.. At that point a ball has to be hit around 450+ to make the bleachers. Not 483 but still Hank and Lou with some long drives, Brock a surprise.

[hellborn]

Not sure what that means, false info. I think the point being made is that on average older parks were deeper in CF where a number of todays home runs are hit. Look back on my posts and you will see that I did say line distances on average about the same, CF hugh difference. 1910s-20s-30s parks average 40+ feet deeper than todays.

...

Here are some park distances from the NL in 1998 and some distances from the AL in 1927.

You can see not much difference in the lines. Older park power alleys just a bit longer, not much. Centerfield significant average distance.

Good info, SJ3...I do wonder where RC and LC are measured in some of the parks. I see that League Park's RCF is shown at 400 feet, but what I would consider the power alley is more like 340 feet, by my crude measurement...I think that the 400 foot mark would be way over towards CF. Yankee's 429 to RCF also doesn't seem to match what I would consider the alley, that looks more like ~380 feet to me. Maybe those measurements are to particular features or changes in the wall?
You're right, though, we could quibble for months and get nowhere. I don't think it was you, but I saw some blanket statements about the huge old parks, and just wanted to encourage people to actually look at the individual stadia. I see value in the averages you show, but we also have to consider particular players and their home parks...we can't compare two players who had Braves Field and Shibe, say, as their home parks fairly without considering how different those places were, no matter what the league average park was. I don't think that many people would argue that Chuck Klein was really an elite power hitter based on his eye popping numbers in Philly.

BTW, thanks for correcting me on Brock...I always thought he had banged it 483+!!

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Good info, SJ3...I do wonder where RC and LC are measured in some of the parks. I see that League Park's RCF is shown at 400 feet, but what I would consider the power alley is more like 340 feet, by my crude measurement...I think that the 400 foot mark would be way over towards CF. Yankee's 429 to RCF also doesn't seem to match what I would consider the alley, that looks more like ~380 feet to me. Maybe those measurements are to particular features or changes in the wall?
You're right, though, we could quibble for months and get nowhere. I don't think it was you, but I saw some blanket statements about the huge old parks, and just wanted to encourage people to actually look at the individual stadia. I see value in the averages you show, but we also have to consider particular players and their home parks...we can't compare two players who had Braves Field and Shibe, say, as their home parks fairly without considering how different those places were, no matter what the league average park was. I don't think that many people would argue that Chuck Klein was really an elite power hitter based on his eye popping numbers in Philly.

BTW, thanks for correcting me on Brock...I always thought he had banged it 483+!!

That is a problem, some parks have the power alley numbers in different areas, some closer to CF or the line, others differ. One example the chart I posted does not give a real breakdown. They give Yankee Stadium power alley as 429 others call that deep RCF.

On Brock I'm pretty sure that Joe Adcock also hit on into that area, to the left or right side, Polo Grounds . Big at 6' 4" 220 pounds he hits 4 homers and a double 18 total bases in one game at Ebbetts Field in 1954. The very next game Dodger pitcher Clem Labine beans Joe, no helmets in 1954, he was taken to the hospital, OK.

1956 hit on the wrist by Giant pitcher Ruben Gomez, Joe glares at the pitcher then rushes him. Gomez throws at Joe striking him on the thigh, then runs into the Giant dugout. He tries to return to the field carrying an ice pick but is restrained.

[Minstrel]

Wouldn't it be great if we could all just pick and choose certain points of a players career and evaluate them based on that.

You seem to have conveniently "forgotten" that I proposed Barry Bonds as a Giant versus Mickey Mantle. So, why wouldn't we evaluate by his Giants years?

Also, even if you include his Pirates seasons, he was still a historically great power hitter before any steroids. A 16.1 at-bats per home run mark is right among some of the great power hitters ever. Even a "natural" decline would likely have improved that number, since even a decline from his prime numbers would have been superior to his Pirates hme run production, when he wasn't much of a power hitter at all.

If you look at his (pre-1999) prime, he's one of the few greatest home run hitters ever.

And of course, if you look at his post-1999 prime, he's the greatest home run hitter ever.

[Minstrel]

What does that actually mean, how does that factor in. That was a part of his career, thats where he played.

It doesn't factor in. I'm not saying it should be removed from his career. My point was that, in his prime, Bonds was one of the few greatest home run hitters ever. His Pirates years were pre-prime, so looking at his entire career up to 1999 gives a "too low" impression of his prime ability.

All my claims about Bonds as a historically great power hitter revolve around his Giants years. And if you look at his Giants years (even before steroids enter the picture), his home run rates were third only to Ruth and McGwire.

[AstrosFan]

In Bonds' case, of course, well-founded suspicions arose not only because of his increased numbers, but also because of the overwhelming physical, documentary and testimonial evidence confirming his surreptitious use of steroids.

This is true in Bonds's case, but the fact is, ever since the Balco scandal came out, we become suspiscious whenever we see a dramatic change in someone's numbers. Whether we want to admit it or not, people don't need much more than highly improved performance to suspect PEDs. So, getting back to my original question, what kind of performance jump triggers your suspicions? (Your refers everyone who wishes to answer, not just Proctor)

[Proctor, CF]

This is true in Bonds's case, but the fact is, ever since the Balco scandal came out, we become suspiscious whenever we see a dramatic change in someone's numbers. Whether we want to admit it or not, people don't need much more than highly improved performance to suspect PEDs. So, getting back to my original question, what kind of performance jump triggers your suspicions? (Your refers everyone who wishes to answer, not just Proctor)

For me, no suspicions whatsoever have ever been raised, except when coupled with extraordinary visible changes in body muscularity and/size - and/or credible documentary, physical, or testimonial evidence.

With Bonds, there's no doubt in my mind. Recent events have further convinced me of Clemen's guilt. Pujols I'm not certain. McGwire I am. Sosa, too, though with less evidence. Brady Anderson, definitely. Ryan Howard, no. I guess that gives you some idea of where I draw the line. But, I'm sure many have superior qualifications or knowledge of evidence than I do. I believe in hearing every exonerating fact and opinion, even ones I emphatically disagree with. I think that's good for the investigative, rehabilitation, healing processes.

[AstrosFan]

Good for you, Proctor. I wholeheartedly agree with your approach.

[George H Ruth]

I'm loving the debate right now, it's really interesting. But I would like to see other people post who they'd like to see go head to head in a Home Run Derby.

But this doesn't mean to stop debating about Bonds and Mantle.

[Proctor, CF]

edited below

[Proctor, CF]

I would love to see the two finalists (and all the competitions leadings to the finals) in a full-fledged derby tournament featuring all the great home run hitters and contenders. Perhaps early match-ups could be between sluggers from the same general era and historic circumstances, proceeding forward or backward toward a fair compromise of fields, equipment, and conditions. The 1950s era might provide a model for such a compromise.

In a true Home Run Derby, I don't imagine pitching would be of great significance, but balls, bats, and field dimensions certainly would be. No compromise would be perfectly fair for all, but when is it ever?

By very rough chronology & era, I propose the following, recognizing I have almost certainly inadvertantly excluded some deserving canditates:

Big Dan Brouthers
Harry Stovey
Roger Connor
Buck Ewing
Hugh Duffy
Ned Williamson
Jocko Milligan
Ed Delahanty
Sam Thompson
'Chief' Louis Sockalexis

Harry Davis
Hans Wagner
Sam Crawford
Frank Baker
Buck Freeman
Frank Scxhulte
Jim Thorpe
Cavvy Cravath
Joe Jackson
George Sisler
Wally Pipp

Babe Ruth
Pop Lloyd
Rogers Hornsby
Lou Gehrig
Hack Wilson
John Beckwith
Martin Dihigo
Turkey Stearnes
Cristobal Torriente

Jimmy Foxx
Hank Greenburg
Oscar Charleston
Joe DiMaggio
Josh Gibson
Chuck Klein
Buck Leonard
Mel Ott

Ted Williams
Ralph Kiner
Larry Doby
Luke Easter
Stan Musial
Bill Nicholson

Mickey Mantle
Harry Rosen
Willie Mays
Hank Aaron
Eddie Matthews
Frank Robinson
Joe Adcock
Dick Stuart
Rocky Calavito

Ernie Banks
Frank Howard
Willie Stargell
Harmon Killebrew
Willie McCovey
Dick Allen
Boog Powell

Reggie Jackson
Dale Murphy
Greg Luzinski
Dave Kingman
George Brett
Cecil Fielder
Mike Schmidt
George Foster
Darryl Strawberry
Bo Jackson
Jim Rice
Jesse Barfield

Jose Conseco
Mark McGwire
Ken Griffey Jr.
Frank Thomas
Albert Belle
Jack Clark
Jeff Bagwell
Larry Walker
Andre Dawson
Fred McGriff
Adam Dunn
Sammy Sosa

Jim Thome
Barry Bonds
Raphael Palmeiro
Vlad Guerrero
Albert Pujols
Jason Giambi
Ryan Howard
Alex Rodriquez
Prince Fielder
Gary Sheffield
Manny Ramirez
David Ortiz

[Proctor, CF]

mistaken duplication

[Proctor, CF]

mistaken duplication

[AstrosFan]

Just out of curiosity, how many home runs do you think Ruth would have hit in 2001 if he were put on the exact same program as Barry Bonds? That is:

A) He uses all the same PEDs, in the same doses and on the same schedules, as Bonds.

B) He is on the same workout program as Bonds, and sticks to it.

So we have a chemically enhanced, chiseled Babe Ruth to contend with in 2001, battling Barry Bonds for the single season home run record. What would Ruth do, given those factors?

[Proctor, CF]

Just out of curiosity, how many home runs do you think Ruth would have hit in 2001 if he were put on the exact same program as Barry Bonds? That is:

A) He uses all the same PEDs, in the same doses and on the same schedules, as Bonds.

B) He is on the same workout program as Bonds, and sticks to it.

So we have a chemically enhanced, chiseled Babe Ruth to contend with in 2001, battling Barry Bonds for the single season home run record. What would Ruth do, given those factors?

104 Plus, except that he'd rarely intentionally, or intelligently, get a pitch in today's strike zone.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

This is true in Bonds's case, but the fact is, ever since the Balco scandal came out, we become suspiscious whenever we see a dramatic change in someone's numbers. Whether we want to admit it or not, people don't need much more than highly improved performance to suspect PEDs. So, getting back to my original question, what kind of performance jump triggers your suspicions? (Your refers everyone who wishes to answer, not just Proctor)

Have you read my post # 99. No one has touched that one yet, still waiting for any logical explanation. That has never happened in the history of the game. Instead of talk or trying to explain that which can not be explained other than the most likely, PED use, some one show me some numbers of any other in the history of the game that can even come close to Barry from age 36 to 41.

To hear these comparisons, attempts to show that what Barry did was not out of the norm falls flat, the one year wonders, Brady Anderson, one year.

Maris who had a high of 39 before he hit 61. Two different worlds, Maris one year and Barry rewriting the record book in multiple seasons.

Barry was 35-36 when he exploded.
Maris in his prime 26, a LH pull hitter at Yankee Stadium in an expansion year. Add to that they continue to pitch to him because the most feared slugger in the game at that time is on deck, Mickey Mantle, 54 home runs and he dropped out early 153 games. Think of it, Maris hits 61 and did not received one intentional walk all season. That 61 was no mystery.

I'm willing to read, to listen, anyone show me one hitter who did what Barry did at that stage of their career, never happened.

[philipthegreat]

Roger Connor vs. Babe Ruth.

It would end with Ruth winning and Connror complaining about the unfair standards.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

So, getting back to my original question, what kind of performance jump triggers your suspicions? (Your refers everyone who wishes to answer, not just Proctor)

I guess it's sorta like trying to explain what pornography is. Really, you just know it when you see it.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Roger Connor vs. Babe Ruth.

It would end with Ruth winning and Connror complaining about the unfair standards.

lol....

Brouthers or Delahanty might be a better (but futile) matchup, don't ya think?

"No matter what kind of ball you use, no one in the world can hit one as far as Babe Ruth." - Brouthers, 1920

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Although it is certainly helped by an era where homers are easier to hit and the strike zone is smaller, this isn't just about homers. But let's take a look at Power Factor....Total bases divided by the number of hits.

If every hit were a homer it would be 4. If every hit were a double it would be 2.

To give an idea of what very good numbers are, here are a few. As you can see, one point is a larger difference than it appears.

Careers

Foxx - 1.87
Mantle - 1.86
Gehrig - 1.85
Williams - 1.84
Aaron - 1.81


Ruth

Career - 2.01

'14-'17 - 1.58

'18-'35 - 2.05

'20-'24 - 2.09

'26-'32 - 2.03

Bonds

'86-'92 - 1.83

'93-'98 - 2.00

As you can see, Bonds does quite well. His career number would not get better through a natural decline, but up through '98 he has a 1.91. No telling how far it would drop through a natural decline, but the point is that he would still wind up with a very good Power Factor due to him having a great eye, and being a fast runner with gap power, but with the ability to hit the long ball.

Here's what he transformed into.

'00-'05 - 2.34 :eek:

This doesn't have much to do with a discussion on how Bonds would perform in a home run derby in a large park against the likes of Ruth, Foxx, Mantle...but in-game during this era, Bonds does really well in Power Factor.

[AstrosFan]

Have you read my post # 99. No one has touched that one yet, still waiting for any logical explanation. That has never happened in the history of the game. Instead of talk or trying to explain that which can not be explained other than the most likely, PED use, some one show me some numbers of any other in the history of the game that can even come close to Barry from age 36 to 41.

To hear these comparisons, attempts to show that what Barry did was not out of the norm falls flat, the one year wonders, Brady Anderson, one year.

Maris who had a high of 39 before he hit 61. Two different worlds, Maris one year and Barry rewriting the record book in multiple seasons.

Barry was 35-36 when he exploded.
Maris in his prime 26, a LH pull hitter at Yankee Stadium in an expansion year. Add to that they continue to pitch to him because the most feared slugger in the game at that time is on deck, Mickey Mantle, 54 home runs and he dropped out early 153 games. Think of it, Maris hits 61 and did not received one intentional walk all season. That 61 was no mystery.

I'm willing to read, to listen, anyone show me one hitter who did what Barry did at that stage of their career, never happened.

I did indeed read it, and while such numbers deservedly raise some suspicion, it also shows that we need much more than numbers to make an accusation. If Barry Bonds is unique in establishing a significantly greater level of performance at an age when he is not expected to, and that is all we have in making our accusations, then Barry Bonds is a lone wolf in baseball's steroids scandal, aside from those who actually test positive. Clearly this is untrue. That is why it saddens me that such cheats as Bonds have created an environment in which any great performance comes under suspicion.

[elmer]

In the 1950's and 1960's Willie Mays toured with barnstorming teams and before each game some players held home run contests' in which each
entrant was allowed 5 and sometimes 6 swings. Mays won his share. In a game in Syracuse N.Y. He defeated these unheralded singles hitters
Jim Lemon, Rocky Colovito, Gil Hodges, Mickey Mantle, Willie McCovey Hank Aaron, Harmon Killebrew.

A Link to Dream selection for HRD

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06191/704651-335.stm

Home Run Derby dream ballots from players, managers, media
Monday, July 10, 2006
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
We asked, and they responded.

In a survey based more on fun than science, the Post-Gazette asked players, managers and media around the country to name the eight players they would most want to see go head-to-head in the Home Run Derby. The winner -- surprise, surprise -- is the Sultan of Swat himself, Babe Ruth.

Here's a look at the ballots of the 23 players, managers and media members who took part in our dream derby.
ason Bay
Player
Mark McGwire, Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, Dave Kingman, Frank Howard, Ken Griffey Jr., Willie Stargell.

Winner: Mark McGwire. "That's what he did so well. He had guys on the other team watching batting practice."


Chris Berman
ESPN anchor

Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Willie Stargell, Willie McCovey, Mark McGwire, Josh Gibson.

Winner: Babe Ruth. "He hit his final three home runs in Pittsburgh as a member of the Boston Braves."


Steve Blass
Former player, broadcaster

Willie Stargell, Barry Bonds, Babe Ruth, Brian Giles, Willie McCovey, Mark McGwire, Mickey Mantle, Reggie Jackson.

Winner: Mark McGwire. "The greatest batting practice home run hitter -- ever."


Greg Brown
Broadcaster

Barry Bonds, Babe Ruth, Willie Stargell, Mickey Mantle, Reggie Jackson, Boog Powell, Willie McCovey, Ted Williams.

Winner: Willie Stargell. "His swing was tailor-made for the Clemente Wall. Plus he was a lifelong Bucco."


Jeromy Burnitz
Player (who once nearly won the HR Derby)

Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, Babe Ruth, Ken Griffey Jr., Willie Stargell, Dave Parker, Jim Thome.

Winner: Jim Thome. "He might be the best power guy of my generation."


John Delcos
Baseball writer

Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Josh Gibson, Ted Williams, Frank Robinson.

Winner: The Babe. "He was the greatest showman in the history of the sport, and I believe in a derby he would hit them at will. The Babe was born to hit the long ball."


Charley Feeney
Former baseball writer, Post-Gazette

Babe Ruth, Mike Schmidt, Stan Musial, Willie Stargell, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Hank Greenberg, Reggie Jackson.

Winner: Ted Williams. "If they all became serious in an exhibition such as this, Ted Williams would win it. In my book, he was the greatest hitter of all time."


Roberto Hernandez
Player

Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Hank Aaron, Jim Thome, Jose Hernandez, Carlos Delgado, Mike Piazza, David McCarty.

Winner: David McCarty. "He was the best hitter at 5 p.m. I've ever seen."


Jose Hernandez
Player

Barry Bonds, Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Ken Griffey Jr., Sammy Sosa, Willie Stargell, Willie Mays, Mark McGwire.

Winner: Mark McGwire. "I saw him hit BP a few times. It was unbelievable."


Al Hrabosky
Former player

Josh Gibson, Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Willie Stargell, Ken Griffey Jr., Mark McGwire, Reggie Jackson, Willie McCovey.

Winner: Willie Stargell. "Because the Pittsburgh faithful will cheer him on to victory -- and more important he's the guy I like the best of the bunch as a person."


Nate McLouth
Player

Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, Willie Stargell, Ken Griffey Jr., David Ortiz.

Winner: Ken Griffey Jr.. "He's just got that swing."


Paul Meyer
Baseball writer, Post-Gazette

Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Mickey Mantle, Sammy Sosa, Albert Pujols, Hank Aaron, George Foster.

Winner: Babe Ruth. "I assumed this fantasy derby would be held at PNC Park, Ruth was left-handed -- and because he had success as a home run hitter in Pittsburgh in his old age."


Hal McCoy
Baseball writer, Dayton Daily News

Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Ken Griffey Jr., Mike Schmidt, Home Run Baker, Josh Gibson.

The winner: Babe Ruth. "With today's bat and today's balls, it would be no contest. And what would he be, 106 years old?"


Lloyd McClendon
Former player, coach

Babe Ruth, Josh Gibson, Dave Kingman, Mark McGwire, David Ortiz, Barry Bonds, Ken Griffey Jr., Willie Stargell.

Winner: Josh Gibson. "He was the most prolific home run hitter of all time."


Karl Ravech
ESPN anchor

Babe Ruth, Dave Kingman, Mickey Mantle, Dick Allen, Willie Stargell, Frank Howard, Reggie Jackson, John Kruk.

Winner: Frank Howard. Why? "Kruk said so."


Freddy Sanchez
Player

Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Bobby Abreu, Jeromy Burnitz, Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Jose Hernandez.

Winner: Jose Hernandez. "He hit eight home runs in 10 pitches in the home run derby they had when we were up at Cooperstown this year. You've got to go with anybody who can do that."


Mike Shannon
Former player, broadcaster

Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Albert Pujols, Willie Stargell, Mark McGwire, Eddie Matthews, Ted Williams, Willie McCovey.

Winner: Babe Ruth. "He's the greatest player ever and he would love something like this. It's right up his alley.''


Bob Smizik
Columnist, Post-Gazette

Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Reggie Jackson, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Sammy Sosa, Willie Stargell.

Winner: Mickey Mantle. "Poor health hobbled his career, but in an exhibition contest no one, not even the mighty Bambino, could match the greatest power switch-hitter in baseball history."


Tom Singer
Baseball writer, mlb.com

Dick Stuart, Stan Musial, Brian Downing, Reggie Jackson, Willie Stargell, Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds.

Winner: Reggie Jackson. "Best pure jack swing -- and showman -- ever."


Jayson Stark
Baseball writer, espn.com

Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Mark McGwire, Dick Allen, Frank Howard, Reggie Jackson, Willie Stargell, Adam Dunn.

Winner: Babe Ruth. "... because ... he's Babe Ruth. I just hope he doesn't eat too many hot dogs before the Derby -- or during it!"


Bob Walk
Former player, broadcaster

Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Ken Griffey Jr., Willie McCovey, Mark McGwire, Reggie Jackson, Willie Stargell, Frank Howard.

Winner: Mark McGwire. "He was the best batting-practice hitter I ever saw.''


Craig Wilson
Player

Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Hank Aaron, Mark McGwire, Ken Griffey Jr., Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Sadaharu Oh.

Winner: Sadaharu Oh. "I believe he's hit more home runs than anyone on the list."


Jack Wilson
Player

Mark McGwire, Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, Willie Stargell, Kirk Gibson, Mickey Mantle, Ichiro Suzuki.

Winner: Ichiro. "The guy can hit a home run anytime he wants to. Dude, I saw him take a batting practice once where it was, bunt, bunt and then everything was out of the stadium. I'm not kidding."

Beyond the top eight
Players who didn't make the top eight, but received quite a few votes:

Willie McCovey (6), Sammy Sosa (6), Ted Williams (6), Willie Mays (5), Josh Gibson (5), Frank Howard (4), Dave Kingman (3), Dick Allen (2), Jim Thome (2), Stan Musial (2), Mike Schmidt (2), Lou Gehrig (2), Albert Pujols (2), Jose Hernandez (2)."

[hellborn]

Looking at Proctor's big list got me to thinking about what a fun matchup Frank Howard vs. Dave Kingman would be. Kingman was not a skilled hitter in general, but I'm sure he was a great BP hitter. Howard was one of the few men in ML history who was even bigger and stronger than Dave, and a far more talented hitter who was somewhat hosed by his era and home parks. Despite the physical similarities, it's an interesting contrast of personalities...Kingman a much-disliked jerk, Howard unfailingly nice and polite.

Concerning Bonds, something has been in the back of my mind...I personally have no doubts that he used PEDs, and not just a few times. However, I do wonder how much he would have gained just from shifting his workouts to focus on building muscle mass without the PEDs. He was always fanatical about his workouts, but understand that agility and flexibility were also important to him before he apparently went on PEDs. I guess it's kind of pointless, but wonder if some of those here who know more about bodybuilding and strength training could hazard any kind of guess about how much of his size and strength gain came from the changes in his workout regimen, and his devotion to it.
I don't mean to defend the guy, but you don't just take roids and get bigger while you lay on the couch...these guys gotta hit the gym, too. Bonds always hit the gym, but didn't lay into the heavy iron so much before he wanted to "get even" with Sosa and McGwire, as I understand it. It may be that he turned to PEDs when natural lifting didn't get him the results he wanted, but that's not the story I've heard.

[Proctor, CF]

.

A Link to Dream selection for HRD

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06191/704651-335.stm

Home Run Derby dream ballots from players, managers, media
Monday, July 10, 2006
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette



Very cool post, ELMER!!! :highfive: - based on which, out of deference to the experts opining, I am now adding to my all time list above:

Jose Hernandez
David McCarty
Ichiro

AND (from further review based on your post)

Troy Glaus

(All of whom I predict are eliminated very early in the tournament):twocents:

[Proctor, CF]

Frank Howard vs. Dave Kingman



Good call, hellborn. If the fish aren't running and kids are barred from asking for autographs, King Kong might even show up .... maybe.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I did indeed read it, and while such numbers deservedly raise some suspicion, it also shows that we need much more than numbers to make an accusation. If Barry Bonds is unique in establishing a significantly greater level of performance at an age when he is not expected to, and that is all we have in making our accusations, then Barry Bonds is a lone wolf in baseball's steroids scandal, aside from those who actually test positive. Clearly this is untrue. That is why it saddens me that such cheats as Bonds have created an environment in which any great performance comes under suspicion.

I just listed stats, late career numbers that Barry never put up in any peak in his career when in his prime. That was just a part, other factors.

Before any accuse me of using guilt by association, that is not my point but it certainly makes one wonder even more. His trainer Greg Anderson has admitted to supplying a number of athletes with steroids. When asked about Barry he said no, never supplied Barry with steroids. He could be telling the truth and he could also be protecting Barry, we don't know.
Barry under oath states he "never knowingly" used steroids. I'm not an lawyer but my take on that one, Barry and his attorney were looking ahead when he said that. By looking ahead, in the event it is proven he did use steroids he can't be accused of lying, perjury. He didn't say no, he said "never knowingly" his supplier was untruthful to him, that one is difficult to believe.
All of the above in no way proves he did but looks to me he was prepared to have a way out if proven to use, he didn't know.

Then I fall back on the numbers, thats the most telling. I've posted them a number of times and I've never seen a poster come up with a reasonable counter, something logical. How a hitter late in his career puts up numbers like Barry did, take your pick 4 season peak, 6 season peak, never even approached in the entire history of the game by any hitter, starting at age 36. Where was the younger Barry in his prime, how was he recreated to smash records, put up numbers he never did before.

[hellborn]

Good call, hellborn. If the fish aren't running and kids are barred from asking for autographs, King Kong might even show up .... maybe.

:rofl:
Maybe we could send him the invitation in a box with a rat in it???

I loved this story from early in Kong's stint with the Cubs (where he was wildly popular with fans for a while)...he decided to invite his teammates over to his bachelor pad for a party, presumably to get to know everybody. After everybody had arrived and the place was starting to swing a little, Dave went to the door and said something like, "OK, I have to leave for a date...have a great time, and make sure to lock up when you leave."
I guess the place wasn't looking too great when Dave got back home...

[Sultan_1895-1948]

However, I do wonder how much he would have gained just from shifting his workouts to focus on building muscle mass without the PEDs. He was always fanatical about his workouts, but understand that agility and flexibility were also important to him before he apparently went on PEDs.

From Jenkinson.....

"Barry increased both his muscle mass and his power at a time in his career when he should not have been able to do so by natural means. If Bonds had not engaged in state-of-the-art strength training prior to 2000, a somewhat plausible argument could be made in support of nonuse. However, during my study of Bonds' career, I have encountered multiple personal acknowledgments of his intense participation in weight lifting and conditioning. This is to his credit. Barry Bonds has always worked hard to be the best player that he can be. But there is a scientifically established performance curve that demonstrates the limitations of what a person can do. Once an athlete has engaged in optimum training, beyond about age twenty-five he or she can no significantly increase either strength or muscle mass.

In his first year with the San Fransicso Giants on May 23, 1993, Barry Bonds gave a pregame talk to a group of Little Leaguers at Candlestick Park. An integral part of Bonds' message was the importance of his off-season conditioning regimen. Barry explained that he took a three-week rest, but spent the remainder of the winter working out five to six hours a day, five days a week. For those who don't know, that exercise schedule represents the maximum workload for achieving optimum strength. In other words, Barry was already doing everything humanly possible to gain power as far back as 1993. Bonds was just shy of his twenty-ninth birthday and weight about 195 pounds. Barry's weight during the 2000 season was unofficially estimated at 240 pounds. I then contacted Dr. Charles Yesalis (Professor Emeritus, Penn State University) for some scientific assistance in this analysis. Yesalis is one of the nation's leading experts in the field of drug use in sports. I provided him with the facts about Bonds's belated power surge in the context of Barry's personal exercise history. Yesalis concluded that it was "virtually impossible" to accomplish those results through natural means. That is the essence of my research, and I will leave it to the readers to make their own judgments."

[AstrosFan]

I just listed stats, late career numbers that Barry never put up in any peak in his career when in his prime. That was just a part, other factors.

Before any accuse me of using guilt by association, that is not my point but it certainly makes one wonder even more. His trainer Greg Anderson has admitted to supplying a number of athletes with steroids. When asked about Barry he said no, never supplied Barry with steroids. He could be telling the truth and he could also be protecting Barry, we don't know.
Barry under oath states he "never knowingly" used steroids. I'm not an lawyer but my take on that one, Barry and his attorney were looking ahead when he said that. By looking ahead, in the event it is proven he did use steroids he can't be accused of lying, perjury. He didn't say no, he said "never knowingly" his supplier was untruthful to him, that one is difficult to believe.
All of the above in no way proves he did but looks to me he was prepared to have a way out if proven to use, he didn't know.

Then I fall back on the numbers, thats the most telling. I've posted them a number of times and I've never seen a poster come up with a reasonable counter, something logical. How a hitter late in his career puts up numbers like Barry did, take your pick 4 season peak, 6 season peak, never even approached in the entire history of the game by any hitter, starting at age 36. Where was the younger Barry in his prime, how was he recreated to smash records, put up numbers he never did before.

Game of Shadows states that there was a secretly taped recording in which Anderson talks about giving Bonds The Cream, The Clear, and other substances. Anderson was sentenced to prison time on multiple occasions for refusing to testify against Bonds despite the evidence the prosecution had that Anderson had supplied Bonds with steroids.

The part I said about us needing more than statistics was just a statement and was not directed at you personally, Shoeless. Sorry if it came across that way.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The more I think about it I think the best head-to-head matchup would be Babe Ruth vs Josh Gibson!

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Game of Shadows states that there was a secretly taped recording in which Anderson talks about giving Bonds The Cream, The Clear, and other substances. Anderson was sentenced to prison time on multiple occasions for refusing to testify against Bonds despite the evidence the prosecution had that Anderson had supplied Bonds with steroids.

The part I said about us needing more than statistics was just a statement and was not directed at you personally, Shoeless. Sorry if it came across that way.

Not a problem on my end, I understood, all is fine.
I welcome the same, from other posters more numbers. I think the numbers, comparisons I gave were pretty descriptive. Hard to believe the comparison early/prime/late career numbers for Barry and the fact that no one can even come close to his late years. How does this happen.

Now that you mention it I do recall those taped conversations, but the language was vague. Could have been coded talk in case the conversations were picked up, which they were.

[Proctor, CF]

The more I think about I think the best head-to-head matchup would be Babe Ruth vs Josh Gibson!

Hard to top that matchup, HW. I recently heard from a very good source that Ruth and Gibson did in fact once engage in an informal home run derby - in Puerto Rico. I got this info from a second hand source who spoke (directly and formally) to someone who said he saw it (as a teenager I believe.) If I got it correctly, Josh and the Babe alternated back and forth to the plate, slamming pitches. Though competing mightily, both were reported to be laughing and having alot of fun - but "sweating profusely".

[George H Ruth]

Two of the longest Home Runs are credited to Micky Mantle. 656 feet on April 17, 1953 at Washington's Griffith Stadium. The other being 634 feet at Detroit's Brigg's Stadium on September 10, 1960.(This was later estimated to be closer to 643 feet.)

[AstrosFan]

Now that you mention it I do recall those taped conversations, but the language was vague. Could have been coded talk in case the conversations were picked up, which they were.

The book specifically said the conversations were about Bonds, and also referred repeatedly to doping calendars that outlined Bonds's schedule for steroid use.

Are the recordings available somewhere? How are you aware the language was vague? As far as I know, they are confidential government possessions.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Hard to top that matchup, HW. I recently heard from a very good source that Ruth and Gibson did in fact once engage in an informal home run derby - in Puerto Rico. I got this info from a second hand source who spoke (directly and formally) to someone who said he saw it (as a teenager I believe.) If I got it correctly, Josh and the Babe alternated back and forth to the plate, slamming pitches. Though competing mightily, both were reported to be laughing and having alot of fun - but "sweating profusely".

Wow! What year did this meeting possibly take place? Perhaps Sultan knows when the Babe was in Puerto Rico?

[Proctor, CF]

Wow! What year did this meeting possibly take place? Perhaps Sultan knows when the Babe was in Puerto Rico?

The exact date and circumstances have been under thorough investigation for many months now. If it's verified, it will be included in a documentary now in its middle stages of filming. The subject is The Babe's pioneering relationship and widespread popularity with cultures throughout the country and world. Sultan would be a extra-stellar candidate for participation in the project (of course, he may already be) - expected to be on HBO in about six months time - as would ShoelessJoe. The film's director is collecting all relevant historical accounts of Babe's intercultural relationships, contributions & charities.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The exact date and circumstances have been under thorough investigation for many months now. If it's verified, it will be included in a documentary now in its middle stages of filming. The subject is The Babe's pioneering relationship and widespread popularity with cultures throughout the country and world. Sultan would be a extra-stellar candidate for participation in the project (of course, he may already be) - expected to be on HBO in about six months time - as would ShoelessJoe. The film's director is collecting all relevant historical accounts of Babe's intercultural relationships, contributions & charities.
Awesome! :thumbsup:. I look forward to this documentary.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

The book specifically said the conversations were about Bonds, and also referred repeatedly to doping calendars that outlined Bonds's schedule for steroid use.

Are the recordings available somewhere? How are you aware the language was vague? As far as I know, they are confidential government possessions.


How am I aware I think I saw it in the same place you mention, Game Of Shadows. I also saw it at one time all over the internet.

Maybe I used the wrong word "vague". By that I meant the words used cream and clear, can't really prove they were referring to, could have meant steroids, using a code and cream and clear could mean something else.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Wow! What year did this meeting possibly take place? Perhaps Sultan knows when the Babe was in Puerto Rico?

I believe I did see an article some where over the years, Babe in Puerto Rico, difficulty finding info on that.
He did play some in Cuba. He was made an offer in August 1920, hard to refuse. Not sure who was putting up the money, offer to Ruth to not only pay him to come and play there (exhibition) but also would pay all travel and hotel expenses. There is still a bronze plaque outside suite 216 at the Hotel Plaza where he stayed. He supposedly lost 35,000.00, horse betting and rumors, the fix was in.

Some where there are some scant game reports from his Cuba trip in 1920, have to do some looking unless SULTAN has them on hand. I do have some on one game in November 1920, 1 for 3. As usual even over there he hit some of the longest the Cubans ever saw.

[Proctor, CF]

Frank Howard vs. Dave Kingman ... Kingman was not a skilled hitter in general, but I'm sure he was a great BP hitter.



Check out this magnificent graphic by Elmer of an in-game homer Kingman hit in the Spring of '83, hellborn. He's the only person ever to hit the Bayfront Center beyond the left field fence of Al Lang Field in St. Petersburg. Of course, it wasn't there in the days of Ruth, Foxx, Mantle, or Allen. (Ruth & Manle both hit verified longer ones in St. Pete) Still, it's a jawdropper.

After he hit it, his first time at bat, he left the stadium, refusing all autographs and shunning all congratulations, to go fishing for king mackerels. And that's no fish story.

I have authoritative eye-witness evidence of an approximately 545' BP'er he also hit in St. Pete, as well as a monstrous in-game dead center 520' shot by Jim Thome.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Frank Howard as I remember him did not uppercut as much as most long ballers did. He hit some of the quickest home runs I ever saw. Some of them line drives, like a bullet and gone.

[Skin & Bones]

From Jenkinson.....

"Barry increased both his muscle mass and his power at a time in his career when he should not have been able to do so by natural means. If Bonds had not engaged in state-of-the-art strength training prior to 2000, a somewhat plausible argument could be made in support of nonuse. However, during my study of Bonds' career, I have encountered multiple personal acknowledgments of his intense participation in weight lifting and conditioning. This is to his credit. Barry Bonds has always worked hard to be the best player that he can be. But there is a scientifically established performance curve that demonstrates the limitations of what a person can do. Once an athlete has engaged in optimum training, beyond about age twenty-five he or she can no significantly increase either strength or muscle mass.

In his first year with the San Fransicso Giants on May 23, 1993, Barry Bonds gave a pregame talk to a group of Little Leaguers at Candlestick Park. An integral part of Bonds' message was the importance of his off-season conditioning regimen. Barry explained that he took a three-week rest, but spent the remainder of the winter working out five to six hours a day, five days a week. For those who don't know, that exercise schedule represents the maximum workload for achieving optimum strength. In other words, Barry was already doing everything humanly possible to gain power as far back as 1993. Bonds was just shy of his twenty-ninth birthday and weight about 195 pounds. Barry's weight during the 2000 season was unofficially estimated at 240 pounds. I then contacted Dr. Charles Yesalis (Professor Emeritus, Penn State University) for some scientific assistance in this analysis. Yesalis is one of the nation's leading experts in the field of drug use in sports. I provided him with the facts about Bonds's belated power surge in the context of Barry's personal exercise history. Yesalis concluded that it was "virtually impossible" to accomplish those results through natural means. That is the essence of my research, and I will leave it to the readers to make their own judgments."

According to the book "STREET & SMITH'S GUIDE TO BASEBALL" which was the preview of the 1993 season, Bonds weighed 210.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

According to the book "STREET & SMITH'S GUIDE TO BASEBALL" which was the preview of the 1993 season, Bonds weighed 210.

Like it's a big difference. Could have been 195. Could have been 210. At that point, in 1993, I would lean toward 195. The guy's natural skeleton stucture supported 200 max in a healthy manner. 1993 was pretty early. Here he is in 1993. Totally different guy than he became. 195 looks about right. He is 6'1" correct?

[Skin & Bones]

Like it's a big difference. Could have been 195. Could have been 210. At that point, in 1993, I would lean toward 195. The guy's natural skeleton stucture supported 200 max in a healthy manner. 1993 was pretty early. Here he is in 1993.

Well, isn't he 6'2? 210 seems reasonable. Of-course nobody really knows exactly what he weighed, since the weights posted in various books or baseball encyclopedia's differ.

For what it's worth, since I never answered the OP, I'd be interested in seeing Mcgwire of 98 Vs Bonds of 01. Leave steroid jokes out please :)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Well, isn't he 6'2? 210 seems reasonable. Of-course nobody really knows exactly what he weighs, since the weights posted in various books or baseball encyclopedia's differ.

For what it's worth, since I never answered the OP, I'd be interested in seeing Mcgwire of 98 Vs Bonds of 01.

He's 6'1" as far as I can remember. And in 1993 pics he looks 195 if not 190.

[Proctor, CF]

Being that this is a home derby thread ... I can and probably should present, though, a record of Ruth's longest BP in St. Petersburg, where he trained for 10 years. This has been known of by locals for almost 80 years, and recently officially-certified by Florida's leading surveying firm. It's the famous West Coast Inn home run, which Ruth considered his greatest memory in all the years he trained in St. Petersburg - longer even then his in-game Florida State Fair home run in 1919.

This monstrous shot could be measured with great precision, because it actually hit a hotel, and home plate could be fixed with a foot or two - making the extremely well-researched hit easily surveyed. Plus, there is still (at least) one living witnessed. It landed 624-feet from old Waterfront Park's home plate, far beyond the distant right center fence. In the photo below, Ruth has his eyes right on the hotel, while fans - of all ages - have their eyes right on Ruth.

Red Smith recounted Ruth's recollection of this historic blast, duringThe Babe's farewell tour of Florida, at the inauguration of Al Lang Field - then known as "The Other House That Ruth Built". The man was phenomenal, to say the least.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Two of the longest Home Runs are credited to Micky Mantle. 656 feet on April 17, 1953 at Washington's Griffith Stadium. The other being 634 feet at Detroit's Brigg's Stadium on September 10, 1960.(This was later estimated to be closer to 643 feet.)

Are these HR distances supposed to be on the fly?

[Proctor, CF]

Being that this is a home derby thread ... I can and probably should present, though, a record of Ruth's longest BP in St. Petersburg, where he trained for 10 years. This has been known of by locals for almost 80 years, and recently officially-certified by Florida's leading surveying firm. It's the famous West Coast Inn home run, which Ruth considered his greatest memory in all the years he trained in St. Petersburg - longer even then his in-game Florida State Fair home run in 1919.

This monstrous shot could be measured with great precision, because it actually hit a hotel, and home plate could be fixed with a foot or two - making the extremely well-researched hit easily surveyed. Plus, there is still (at least) one living witnessed. It landed 624-feet from old Waterfront Park's home plate, far beyond the distant right center fence.

Red Smith recounted Ruth's recollection of this historic blast, after The Babe's farewell tour of Florida, at the inauguration of Al Lang Field - then known as "The Other House That Ruth Built". The man was phenomenal, to say the least.



Below is a graphic of Ruth's West Coast Inn, constructed from a contemporaneous aerial photograph of old Waterfront Park. The second is an idealized and color enhanced postcard from the same general timeframe, The Roaring Twenties, with the Goodyear Blimp added to the photo two posts above.

[Proctor, CF]

Here's the account of Red Smith describing Babe's historic smash to the West Coast Inn, depicted on the left.

[hellborn]

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-mantlehomer041708&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

I guess I need to get the Jenkinson book at some point for his desciption of Babe's Detroit blast.
I can see two things leading to a 624 foot shot in FL...
1. Gale force winds
2. Highly non-standard ball.
Are we sure that Babe wasn't pitched a golf ball? I could probably hit one of those 500 feet with a bat...
:cap:

[hellborn]

From Jenkinson.....

"Barry increased both his muscle mass and his power at a time in his career when he should not have been able to do so by natural means. If Bonds had not engaged in state-of-the-art strength training prior to 2000, a somewhat plausible argument could be made in support of nonuse...

Sounds like there is clear evidence that Bonds was heavily engaged in bulk-building lifting well before the PEDs. I have no doubt in my mind that he used PEDs, and this is even more damning. I had figured that he would have gained SOME muscle just due a change in his workout focus, but that's probably wrong. I had thought he trained more like an NFL wide receiver, say, as a younger player...lots of speed and flexibility drills, etc, mixed in with the weight training, and an emphasis on not gaining a lot of weight.
I feel that I have him rated too high in my votes in the recent all time best players polls, now that I understand better...
:noidea

[elmer]

http://www.wilkes.edu/pages/1636.asp


Sports Facilities|Babe Ruth's longest home run

Wilkes Baseball Field Determined To Be Home Of
Babe Ruth's Longest Shot

The Bambino's blast traveled more than 600 feet according to expert

Babe Ruth hit quite a few lengthy home runs during his storied baseball career. But, according to baseball historian Bill enkinson, it was Ruth's home run at Wilkes University's Artillery Park in 1926 that topped them all.

Jenkinson made the trip to Artillery Park, the home of the Wilkes baseball and field hockey teams, on Thursday to determine the exact distance of Ruth's shot. Jenkinson, who has been researching home runs for the past 23 years, arrived with aerial photographs, old newspaper accounts of the event, and a tape measure. Although he was unable to come to a conclusion on the actual length of the mammoth homer, he was able to conclude that it was indeed the longest home run in the history of the sport.

"I think the people from this area can rightfully claim that the longest ball in competitive baseball history was hit here," stated Jenkinson. "I think we can fairly conclude that this ball traveled well over 600 feet. There's no question about where the ball landed. There are several accounts that say the ball landed on the far side of the running track. It's just a question of whether or not the running track and home plate are in the same location. I think we are going to find that the running track was moved back from where it was in 1926."

Ruth's home run came only two days after the New York Yankees fell to the St. Louis Cardinals in the 1926 World Series. During that series, Ruth cracked four home runs, including what is deemed to be the longest in World Series history, a 510-foot blast. It was also the World Series in which Ruth made a promise to hit a home run for hospitalized youngster John Sylvester. Ruth came through on the promise and actually paid a visit to Sylvester on October 11, one day prior to his historic home run at Artillery Park.

Ruth came to the Wyoming Valley on October 12, to take part in an exhibition game between Hughestown and Larksville. After challenging Larksville pitcher Ernie Corkran to throw his fastest pitch over the plate, Ruth cracked what is now deemed to be the longest ball in baseball history.

The day after the exhibition game, the Associated Press gave a descriptive account of the Bambino's blast.

"The ball cleared the right field fence 400 feet from the plate by more than 40 feet and was still ascending. The ball landed on the far side of the running track of a high school athletic field in Kirby Park. Officials estimated the length at 650 feet."

According to Jenkinson, who hails from the Philadelphia area, it was the only time in Ruth's baseball career that he asked for one of his home runs to be measured. Ruth also claimed that it was the farthest ball he ever hit.

"I've personally researched more than 1,000 home runs hit by Babe Ruth and this is the only time he asked someone to measure how far it went. Immediately after he hit it, he declared it to be the farthest home run he had ever hit."

Jenkinson stated that Ruth had a special place in his heart for the Wilkes-Barre area. After playing in the exhibition game at Artillery Park, Ruth paid a visit to Mercy Hospital where he shook hands with many patients. Several newspaper accounts said Ruth was emotional when leaving the hospital.

"Babe Ruth loved the people in this area," added Jenkinson. "He came here to hunt and fish during the off-season. This was one of his favorite off-season destinations. He had a lot of good friends here."

Jenkinson is hoping that someone will come forward with more information regarding the "Sultan of Swat's" Artillery Park visit. But, even without additional information, Jenkinson firmly believes that Artillery Park now holds a place in baseball history.

"No matter what direction this thing takes from this point on we are going to find out that this ball traveled well over 600 feet. I don't think that there is any way that it didn't."

[elmer]

More on Wilkes Barre home run

http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070702&content_id=269068&vkey=news_t531&fext=.jsp&sid=t531
http://www.citizensvoice.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17490550&BRD=2259&PAG=461&dept_id=595727&rfi=6

[Proctor, CF]

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-mantlehomer041708&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

I guess I need to get the Jenkinson book at some point for his desciption of Babe's Detroit blast.
I can see two things leading to a 624 foot shot in FL...
1. Gale force winds
2. Highly non-standard ball.
Are we sure that Babe wasn't pitched a golf ball? I could probably hit one of those 500 feet with a bat...
:cap:

Probably a slight bit further with a golf ball, hellborn*. In fact, he hit the longest double eagle in St. Petersburg history - over 500 YARDS.

No evidence of any gale force winds, but I don't doubt he would try extra hard during batting practice when winds were favorable. One of the still living witnesses was shagging balls that day as a kid and wasn't blown away (except by the hit itself), so no gale winds. No record of any non-standard balls, either.

Ruth lived to hit home runs and likely tried to hit that hotel on many occasions. It was the home of the Braves (literally), which may have given him extra delight.

With Ruth hitting Major league pitching in the mid-500 range throughout his career, I do not find it that hard to believe he could hit over 600 in batting practice, free-swinging mightily at a grooved pitch, with a fovorable breeze. In fact, all the evidence confirms he did - in St. Pete, and apparently in Wilkes-Barre, too, if not elsewhere.

Putting it in mythological terms - another field in which you are extremely well versed - he really was "Hercules in Pinstripes".

Below is another perspective of Waterfront Park in the days of Ruth.

* If it was a golf ball, hellborn, it would've landed somewhere near Cuernavaca.

[Proctor, CF]

Ruth Swinging his War Club

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Most don't think of Ruth as a front foot hitter but he really was. Not in the "wristy" sense that Aaron was but he certainly transferred his weight and then let loose. I slowed down the three frames which I believe show what made him truly unique. Take a look at his feet.

[George H Ruth]

Here's a video of his batting stance. It will help you guys see more then the GIF that sultan and Protor posted.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uS7Iq_I0i6M&feature=related

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Any way to save that as a GIF?

[hellborn]

Most don't think of Ruth as a front foot hitter but he really was. Not in the "wristy" sense that Aaron was but he certainly transferred his weight and then let loose. I slowed down the three frames which I believe show what made him truly unique. Take a look at his feet.

Foxx was like this, too, really jumped out on the front foot. I think that Beast was more like Frank Thomas is these days in that you see him getting the back foot up in the air more dramatically that you see for Babe. Hornsby was similar in some ways, too. And, those old time guys all hitched like crazy!
Interesting that all of these guys were known for hitting with power to all fields, including Thomas...

[George H Ruth]

Sorry Sultan I personally cannot do it, but I'm sure someone out there could be able to do it, but don't know who that person is.

Hopefully you guys enjoyed that great shot of Babe Ruth hitting a home run.

[DisabledMess]

I'd like to see Babe Ruth go against Lou Gehrig. Gehrig can't hit the home run too and if you look at pictures of Gehrig, he was built like a tank. He was really big and strong. If Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig faced each other in a home run competition, I actually don't know who would win but that's who I'd like to see.

[DisabledMess]

Most don't think of Ruth as a front foot hitter but he really was. Not in the "wristy" sense that Aaron was but he certainly transferred his weight and then let loose. I slowed down the three frames which I believe show what made him truly unique. Take a look at his feet.
Awesome picture. Ruth is my favorite player ever even though I never watched him play. Gehrig is a close second.

[Proctor, CF]

Babe Ruth's Historic Florida State Fair Home Run of 1919

[Badge714]

I think Ruth the most powerful ever. This is beyond dispute. Jenkinson states that Bonds never hit a verifiable 500 footer while Ruth hit a whole passel of them. I remember being awed by McGwire's performance at Fenway. What was surprising to me is that he was using a "rabbit ball." And I don't think he hit one over 500 feet in that Home Run Derby. By contrast, Ruth hit one at Fenway that landed on a garage (opposite field) that bested any of McGwire's and Ruth's was in a regulation game. Ruth routinely won hitting for distance contests; on one occasion (according to Smelser) he hit a fungo 447 feet at the Polo Grounds. This is truly amazing. He also won a fungo hitting contest after he had retired. Hard to explain. He generated tremendous power. He used a closed stance and he always strode into the ball with the front toe closed. He definetly hit off that front foot which I believe accounts for that power. And everything came together at the point of impact. It's really simple physics. Unlike Bonds, he didn't have that reduced strike zone. He didn't wear body armor; consequently, he wasn't impervious to the inside pitch as Bonds was. That armor negates the inside pitch. To me (I admit a bias here) Bonds was really just participating in a glorified batting practice with his Little League bat and those short fences. One other thing that impresses me about Ruth (you can see it on film) was his reaction to a fast ball. He was very quick in reaction. I also remember reading that over a two year period Walter Johnson gave up only two home runs. And Ruth hit both! He was quite simply sui generis, the ne plus ultra and sine qua non of power hitting. He was also the American version of Roderick Random, Tom Jones, Peregrine Pickle & Gil Blas rolled into one. No one compares with him.

[Tampa Bay Giants]

Id like to see the '27 version of Ruth up against '98 McGwire (juiced up) and '56 Mantle. No window within a mile would be safe!

I would like to add 1979 Dave "King Kong" Kingman.

[stuarthouse]

Badge714 you are absolutely right! Exactly how or why someone born in the 19th C is still considered, by those who are indeed the experts in such matters, as the most powerful of all batsmen is difficult to understand. Columbia University tried to find out around 1921 and concluded that Ruth's combined reflexes made him a man-in-a-million. Still, that did not answer how he could knock ball after ball out of round for over 20 years. Other great sluggers hit a bunch of long drives, but no one hit the ball as hard, as far, as OFTEN as Ruth did. Symposiums have been conducted on Ruth by the brainiacs over the years, but I still don't think they have discovered the secret. Perhaps we should try again. This is actually a physics problem, not just a physiology problem. Ruth was indeed a freak of nature. It would be nice to have an explanation of exactly what was going on when he caught one on the nose!

[Badge714]

[Pghfan987]

I know that the OP asks for two Major Leaguers, but I want to see Babe Ruth and Josh Gibson.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

714, what is the attacment IMG, unable to open it up.

[Badge714]

Shoeless Joe, I messed up. I just sent an e-mail to Sultan asking him if could post some photos I have of Ruth at this thread. I'm afraid I'm a techno-cripple. Perhaps, I can send them to you and you could post them. I haven't heard from Sultan yet. The photos indicate great power from a closed stance with virtually no wasted energy or motion, just brue power. Badge714

[Buczilla]

Willie Stargell vs Willie McCovey would be my choice.

Best of 3.... Stargell wins at Forbes, McCovey wins at Candlestick.... Rickwood Field hosts the final and Willie wins.

[STLCards2]

Ruth and McGwire (when I still believed all of those homeruns were 100% natural) would have been the best.

[mwiggins]

I would love to see Honus Wagner vs. Sam Crawford.

[philipthegreat]

Gavy Cravath and Fred Luderus. It would be interesting to see what two dead ball home run hitters would do in today's game.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Shoeless Joe, I messed up. I just sent an e-mail to Sultan asking him if could post some photos I have of Ruth at this thread. I'm afraid I'm a techno-cripple. Perhaps, I can send them to you and you could post them. I haven't heard from Sultan yet. The photos indicate great power from a closed stance with virtually no wasted energy or motion, just brue power. Badge714


Here are two you sent me, the other two not good size or quality, these two are good ones.

First one he looks set, looks to be batting practice, you can see players in the background. Game conditions his front foot is at times more forward of his back foot and of course stance more closed in game conditions.

Second pic, more batting practice but you can see his trademark.....almost has his back to the pitcher to a degree, as he prepares to swing.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

More Babe swings. This one was taken off a video, not the best quality.

Many who saw him said at times his swing was a most beautiful sight, perfect coordination, under control, smooth.

Other times he would take a vicious cut, whirl around, this sequence is one of those times.

In frame 4 you see a spectator framed. In the next frame or two the fan jumped out of his seat, hands held high. All he saw was a strikeout. It was said that the greatest thrill in baseball was seeing Babe hit a home run, the second greatest, seeing Babe strike out.
Here is the sequence and an article not connected to the pictures, I found in the local Buffalo, NY news archives, describes a womans experience, seeing her first MLB game.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I like this one, a wonder this guy never threw out his back, I mean enough to keep him out for a while.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

As for the home run derby, some dream match ups. As we know, in some derbys the winner is at times not the favorite.
As for who hit the longest, who can even guess. If it was Ruth, how much further could he hit one than the next best. If Mantle, Foxx, Bonds or some other, I would think who ever hit the longest, it can't really be that much farther than the rest.
Ruth hit the long ones consistently, so did Foxx. In my time, Mantle was doing it from day one, Killebrew also. McGwire also hit many long ones. Barry also but I don't recall him hitting the long ones in his early career.