Sykes

Click for larger image.
Yankee Stadium I (1923-1936) --- Busch Stadium (current) --- Pacific Bell Park (current)
1927 American League avg.*............................1998 National League avg.*
339 LF, 406 LC, 459 C, 385 RC, 328 RF............................332 LF, 373 LC, 404 C, 374 RC, 332 RF
* - Based upon nearest possible estimate.

Unfortunately, the only good pic of Yankee Stadium I I could find on the web has large letters splashed over the center of the image, but remains nonetheless an excellent perspective of the old park's cavernous enclaves. The above comparison really helps one understand the magnitude of Ruth's feat, achieving 60 HRs in ballparks which dwarf today's by comparison. These were, in facts, parks designed after the deadball style of playing, which emphasised pitching and defense, giving the fielders plenty of roam to roam around in.

In contrast, McGwire and Bonds have benefited immensely by ballparks which were tailored to aid home run production. While I don't yet have accurate figures on 2001 ballparks, one can readily assume them to be, if anything, shorter (Enron, Pac Bell, Miller, etc.); or at least equal to the '98 figures. What is amazing is that it took all this, plus the addition of livened balls and bats, expansion, hitter protection, a much smaller strikezone, etc., for today's top hitters to surpass Ruth's amazing record.

Da Thrilla

490 feet to center field (Yankee Stadium I)

classicman2

Sykes is simply putting up those phony figures of the phony ballpark that he has created in his own mind. If the truth be know, down the foul line in right field was about 280'.

Sykes

Good job, classicman! You've done exactly what I hoped to do with this thread--incite discussion.

Unfortunately, you're also crazy.

classicman2

Sykes will next be trying to tell us that pitchers actually used to pitch consistently on the inside part of the plate. Even more than that, he'll say that they actually knocked a hitter down 3-4 times in a game, and probably hit a couple.

You know what else he'll try to tell you? He'll actually allege that the hitters once didn't even wear batting helmets. Can you beleive that?

Sykes

Yeah, I'm a crazy enough to assert that, too.

Jeremy517

Instead of comparing parks, I'd compare them to the second place finisher in each race (or the top 10 if you'd like) or to the average number of homeruns hit by players in that season.

immortal_zeus

X

So what was it like to watch Babe Ruth hit a homerun?

Sykes

Be my guest. The reason I chose to focus on the ballpark differences is because they offer a form of cross-era comparison, in contrast to a solely contemporaneous perspective. Moreover, this is a field (heh) of baseball history which is largely unknown by the average baseball fan.

Jeremy517

1927:
1. B Ruth 60
2. L Gehrig 47
3. C Williams 30
4. H Wilson 30
5. R Hornsby 26
6. B Terry 20
7. J Bottomley 19
8. C Hafey 18
9. T Lazzeri 18
10. K Williams 18

1998:
1 M McGwire 70
2. S Sosa 66
3. K Griffey 56
4. G Vaughn 50
5. A Belle 49
6. J Canseco 46
7. V Castilla 46
8. J Gonzalez 45
9. M Ramirez 45
10. A Galarraga 44

In 1927, 18 homeruns got you in the top 10. In 1998, 18 homeruns tied you for 88th place.

Sykes

Apparently, every bit as impressive as watching Mac or Bonds hit one--and then some!

classicman2

A question for Sykes - Do you think the ballplayers who play the game now are the best players that has ever played the game?

Sykes

No.

uberjoe

I just want to point out that despite stuff like the 307ft foul line in SF, Bonds still averages about 400ft per homer. Mac averaged nearly 425ft when he hit 70.

classicman2

Neither do I, but I'll be we are in the minority.

logrus9

I heard on the radio that someone plotted Babe Ruths hits and he would have had almost 900 homeruns in todays ball parks. i have no idea how he figured this out.

uberjoe

Easy: He decided that Babe Ruth should have a lot more homeruns, so he figured out a way to give them to him.

Jeremy517

I'm not Sykes but I'll answer anyways

Obviously an incredibly vague question. Who are you comparing? How are you comparing them?

Do you mean "Is today's best player better than 1927's best player"
or
"Is the average player today better than the average player in 1927?" (Obviously impossible to answer)
or
"Is there at least one player today that are the best all time at what they excel at?" (At least one? obviously yes. Many? Obviously no)

Sykes

http://slate.msn.com/HeyWait/97-10-03/HeyWait.asp

Deftones

not so. while i wasn't alive during the early years of baseball like you were classicman, I do feel the same way that you do.

Sykes

I think he was being terribly conservative.

classicman2

Bonds, Sosa, and McGwire are consistently hitting against pitchers who would have been lucky to be in "A" baseball in the 1950s.

uberjoe

According to the details of that article, then, there is no way that Ruth could ever have hit a homerun out to centerfield. And I doubt that is the case.

uberjoe

I have another question for everyone out there: why do people make a big deal out of the number of homeruns in the new, smaller parks, but nobody points out that their old-time heroes got to hit singles, doubles, and triples in those gigantic outfields? There is no way anyone but the greatest of fielders could cover a decent amount of the outfield. So, maybe Ruth would have had more homers, but would he have hit in the .340s? And what about the fact that all the major batting average numbers were hit in the first half of the century, but dropped as power numbers went up?

Is there any one out there who thinks that Ruth's overall numbers might have gone down in smaller parks? There were a lot bigger gaps to hit 'em to back then.

(Note: Ruth is a god. I don't question this. Not in the slightest. So don't hurt me, please.)