81 Responses to “Mailbag: Biggest Differences Between HR Leader and Runner-Up”

1. Matthew Says:
   January 11th, 2011 at 10:38 am

   Are *all* league leaders on this list? Ryan Howard beat Albert Pujols by 9 HR in 2006, and I don't see it on here.

2. Neil Paine Says:
   January 11th, 2011 at 10:49 am

   Ugh, for some reason it only picked up on AL leaders after 1901. Good catch, I'll have to get that fixed.

3. Matt Says:
   January 11th, 2011 at 10:54 am

   It looks like you're missing NL results from the 20th and 21st centuries.

4. Neil Paine Says:
   January 11th, 2011 at 11:02 am

   Fixed.

5. Tmckelv Says:
   January 11th, 2011 at 12:12 pm

   It is still pretty impressive that Bautista has done something that hadn't been don in 50+ years (1956). Cy Williams is the only non-HOF player in front of him. And Cy had 4 HR titles while playing for 2 different teams (Cubs/Phils) and 2 different eras (dead ball/live ball). Good company.

6. Frank Says:
   January 11th, 2011 at 12:28 pm

   When two guys hit the same number of home runs, one is not first and the other second with a difference between them of 0. They are tied for first - the next lower total is second (or third is you want to quibble).

   When discussing "differences between a league HR leader and the runner-up", there has to be a difference.

7. Frank Says:
   January 11th, 2011 at 12:30 pm

   Plainly Yaz was not the "runner-up" when he won the triple crown.

8. Whiz Says:
   January 11th, 2011 at 12:37 pm

   @6 and 7,

   I don't think Neil was saying they weren't tied for first, he just needed a criterion to decide whom to put in the first column.

9. John Q Says:
   January 11th, 2011 at 12:40 pm

   @6 Frank,

   Good catch. In those last 32 entries there was no second place finisher because there was a tie for first place.

   This list omitted Tony Armas and Dwight Evans from the league leaders in HR from the 1981 season because there was a 4 way tie along with Grich and Murray. So in 1981 there was no 2nd, 3rd, or 4th place finishers in the HR race.

10. Neil Paine Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    Technically, you guys are correct. Here are the tied cases from the list above if we consider everyone with equal HR tied for the same rank:

    Year	Lg	Leader	HR	Runner-Up	HR	Diff
    1947	NL	Ralph Kiner/Johnny Mize	51	Willard Marshall	36	15
    1931	AL	Babe Ruth/Lou Gehrig	46	Earl Averill	32	14
    1991	AL	Jose Canseco/Cecil Fielder	44	Cal Ripken	34	10
    1932	NL	Mel Ott/Chuck Klein	38	Bill Terry	28	10
    1984	NL	Mike Schmidt/Dale Murphy	36	Gary Carter	27	9
    1959	AL	Harmon Killebrew/Rocky Colavito	42	Jim Lemon	33	9
    1967	AL	Harmon Killebrew/Carl Yastrzemski	44	Frank Howard	36	8
    1963	NL	Willie McCovey/Hank Aaron	44	Willie Mays	38	6
    1935	AL	Jimmie Foxx/Hank Greenberg	36	Lou Gehrig	30	6
    1952	NL	Ralph Kiner/Hank Sauer	37	Gil Hodges	32	5
    1918	AL	Babe Ruth/Tilly Walker	11	Frank Baker/George Burns	6	5
    1891	NL	Mike Tiernan/Harry Stovey	16	Walt Wilmot	11	5
    1890	NL	Oyster Burns/Mike Tiernan/Walt Wilmot	13	Herman Long	8	5
    1937	NL	Mel Ott/Joe Medwick	31	Dolph Camilli	27	4
    1928	NL	Hack Wilson/Jim Bottomley	31	Chick Hafey	27	4
    1927	NL	Cy Williams/Hack Wilson	30	Rogers Hornsby	26	4
    1917	NL	Gavvy Cravath/Dave Robertson	12	Rogers Hornsby	8	4
    2009	AL	Carlos Pena/Mark Teixeira	39	Jason Bay/Aaron Hill	36	3
    1980	AL	Reggie Jackson/Ben Oglivie	41	Gorman Thomas	38	3
    1912	AL	Frank Baker/Tris Speaker	10	Ty Cobb	7	3
    1889	AA	Harry Stovey/Bug Holliday	19	Charlie Duffee	16	3
    1982	AL	Reggie Jackson/Gorman Thomas	39	Dave Winfield	37	2
    1975	AL	Reggie Jackson/George Scott	36	John Mayberry	34	2
    1910	NL	Frank Schulte/Fred Beck	10	Jake Daubert/Larry Doyle	8	2
    1981	AL	Bobby Grich/Eddie Murray/Dwight Evans/Tony Armas	22	Gorman Thomas/Greg Luzinski	21	1
    1948	NL	Ralph Kiner/Johnny Mize	40	Stan Musial	39	1
    1934	NL	Mel Ott/Ripper Collins	35	Wally Berger	34	1
    1916	NL	Cy Williams/Dave Robertson	12	Gavvy Cravath	11	1
    1886	NL	Dan Brouthers/Hardy Richardson	11	Cap Anson	10	1
    1880	NL	Harry Stovey/Jim O'Rourke	6	Charley Jones	5	1

    For the purposes of individual dominance, though, it really didn't make sense to used shared leaders. That's why in the event of ties, I sorted from fewest AB to most -- essentially making HR% the tie-breaker.

11. dukeofflatbush Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    It would be interesting to see the percentages.
    I always thought The Bill James BLACK INK test was a little flawed in that way.
    In '81 Tony Armas gets the the same black ink Ruth received in '20 & '21.
    While Armas Held a tie of less than 5% of the runner(s) up, Ruth had 60 and 65% more HRs than the runner up.
    Also in '20 & '21, with the leagues much smaller, and relief pitching and lefty/righty match-ups not nearly the same, Ruth and Williams probably faced the same quality of pitching (quality being good or bad). Where as in a two division, relief heavy league, Armas and Thomas and the others probably had very different pitching adversaries.

12. John Q Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    @11,

    Technically or semantically there wasn't a "Runner-Up" in those seasons listed because there were no second place finishers.

13. MrGJG Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    Amazing that in 2001 Sosa hits 64HR but he's still in the top 20 percentile of biggest gaps.

14. John Q Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    There's so many interesting little tidbits on this list.

    Samy Sosa hit 60+ HR 3 times and never led the league in HR in any of those seasons. It would basically be thought of as inconceivable if you told someone in 1993 that One player in a span of 4 years would break Roger Maris' HR mark 3 times and finish second in each of those seasons.

    Dave Kingman hit 35 HR and finished 2nd in HR in 1986 and never played in the Majors again. Is he the only player to finish 1-2 in HR and be out of the majors the following season? Kingman believed he was blacklisted as to not allow him to hit 500 HR.

    I'm not Advocating Kingman's HOF canadicy far from it, but is he the only eligible player since 1921 to finish 1rst-2nd in HR six times+ and not be in the HOF?

    Mark McGwire led the majors in Home Runs in 1997 yet didn't lead any league in HR and actually finished 9th in the AL in HR. I'm not sure but I would think that has to be the only instance of that happening.

    Mantle hit 54 HR in 1961 and finished 2nd

    Thome hit 52 in '02 and finished 2nd

    I kind of forgot Nettles finished 1rst-2nd in '76-77.

    Howard Johnson's 1989 gets completely overlooked by the Mets franchise yet its one of the best seasons by a position player in their history.

    I'm not sure if I missed someone but it looks like the Royals have never had a Hr leader or a runner-up.

    The Padres never had a HR leader and only had one 2nd place finish with Nate Colbert in 1972.

15. Johnny Twisto Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    Mark McGwire led the majors in Home Runs in 1997 yet didn't lead any league in HR and actually finished 9th in the AL in HR. I'm not sure but I would think that has to be the only instance of that happening.

    Eddie Murray led MLB in batting in 1990, but didn't win the batting title. He stayed put, but Willie McGee was traded and left his leading BA in the NL.

16. Skip Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    @ 14

    In regards to "Howard Johnson's 1989 gets completely overlooked by the Mets franchise yet its one of the best seasons by a position player in their history."

    I'm not sure what you mean by "completely overlooked"...

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/193825-ranking-the-top-10-hitting-seasons-in-mets-history/page/10

    http://nybaseballdigest.com/?p=32736

17. dukeofflatbush Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    John Q,

    A little off topic, but since you mentioned Big Mac leading the majors but not a league it reminded me of Murray having the highest BA in MLB but not winning a batting title.
    Also, 2008 had CC Sabattia leading both leagues in Shutouts. Both leagues, one season.
    Greg Vaugn also hit 50 while splitting time between the NL & AL.

18. dukeofflatbush Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    Twisto,
    Quick off the draw.

19. Dr. Doom Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    @14

    Of course the Royals have never had a leader or runner-up. Their team HR record is pitifully low (too lazy to look it up right now).

    Also, It would be interesting to see these separated by standard deviation, rather than just by raw number. I'm curious - not curious enough to check it myself, but curious nonetheless. So if anyone has the info, I'd love to hear it.

    @17, you were quick off the draw too: I was going to unleash the Sabathia fact, but you beat me to it.

20. Jimbo Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    I think Polanco led the majors in BA a couple of years ago but not either league due to a trade.

    And in your list of high homer totals that didn't lead the league, you left out Louis Gonzalez and his 56 home runs, I believe 3rd when Bonds had 73 and Sosa had 64.

    Sosa's run of 66, 63, 50, 64, and 49 home runs in a 5 year stretch is remarkable in so many ways. And yes, especially remarkable that his 50 and 49 led the league, but his 66, 64, and 63 were runner up!

21. John Autin Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    @6, Frank -- "When two guys hit the same number of home runs, one is not first and the other second with a difference between them of 0. They are tied for first - the next lower total is second (or third is you want to quibble)." (emphasis added)

    I do want to quibble. In such a situation, the next lower total is third, period. It's not some technicality; it's the only meaningful way to look at it.

    I think Neale's original take on this issue was right. He is clearly making comparisons between the top two in the league in HRs, even if the headline says "...Leader and Runner-Up." If the top two are tied, the difference between them is 0; it doesn't matter that neither of them is exclusively #1.

    Why would we want to look at the #3 total? Consider this hypothetical scenario: For 10 years in a row, Able and Baker battle for the HR crown. Every year they are close to one another, and far above the rest of the league. One year, they tie for the HR title. If you were making from those 10 seasons a list like the one above, is there any reason that you would want to bring in the #3 total for that one year Able and Baker tied? I can't see it.

22. John Q Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    @15, 17,

    Good one on that weird Eddie Murray leading the majors but neither league in 1990. Eddie Murray's season is even more strange because he wasn't the player traded Willie Magee was.

    In the post I was referring to leading the league the majors in HR but leading neither league. I'm not sure if McGwire is the only person to accomplish that.

    Duke, good one on CC, Vaughn

    Cone led the majors in k's in 1992 but led neither league.

    Sutcliffe tied for the lead in wins in 1984 but finished 4th in the N.L. Sutcliffe is also odd in that I think he's the only starting pitcher to win a Cy Young award without pitching enough innings to qualify for the ERA title or any other Rate stat.

23. John Q Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    @16 Skip,

    Valid point on the blogosphere in relation to HoJo but I was referring more to the Mets team themselves rather than the blogosphere/saber community. Howard Johnson always seems to be depicted as a supporting player by the Mets organization.

24. John Q Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 2:49 pm

    @20 Jimbo,

    Good points.

    Polanco finished 2nd overall to Derek Lee in 2005 but didn't rank in either the AL or NL because he didn't have enough plate appearances in either league.

    I just went by the names on this 1-2 list but you're right Gonzalez finished third but he hit 57 not 56. Again hitting 57 HR and finishing third would have been inconceivable just a few years earlier in 1993.

25. Geoff Young Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    @14: The Padres have had a HR leader, Fred McGriff in 1992.

26. John Q Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    John A,

    The problem is the last 32 seasons on that list don't follow the same criteria as the other seasons on the list because were No "Runner Ups" because there were no Second Place finishers in those 32 seasons. There were only two players tied for the league leaders and then a third place finisher.

    Just like there was no Runner-Up in the 1979 MVP. You wouldn't say that Stargell was the "Runner-Up" to Hernandez. You would say that Hernandez and Stargell tied for the MVP and Dave Winfield finished Third.

    You could say the "Runners-Up" to the 1979 NL MVP and then list Winfield, Parish, Knight, Niekro, & Sutter as players in Contention for the MVP.

27. John Q Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 3:16 pm

    @25,

    Good catch, I forgot about Fred Mcgriff on the Padres.

    You know what's amazing, McGriff led the league with 35 HR in 1992 and since then, no player has led the NL with fewer than 40 HR. And it's interesting to note that there was a strike in two of those seasons and a player still hit at least 40 HR.

    To tell you how wacky things got in baseball, McGriff hit 32 homers in 1999 on the Devil Rays and finished 17th in the AL.

    McGriff finished tied for 3rd overall in 1992 with 35 HR. He hit 3 less (32) in 1999 and finished 38th overall!!

    There were 10 players with 30+ HR in 1992, In 1999 there were 45 players who hit 30+ HR!!

28. mr.baseballcard Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    Interesting to look @ Cy Williams #7 and #13 on the original list. Lead the Senior Circuit 4 times in HRs, twice in OPS and once in slugging. Career OPS+ of 125 is pretty high for a player who gets no HofF rallying cry. Rather interesting career.

29. John Autin Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    @26, John Q -- I get the fact that there were no "runners-up" for the last 32 seasons on that list. What I don't get is, why does that matter for the present discussion?

    Maybe I'm still missing your point. But it seems like you're insisting on a literal interpretation of the headline, at the expense of the real point of the discussion.

    My point may be clearer in this absurd scenario:
    Imagine that every player in the league hits exactly 20 HRs except for one guy -- we'll call him "Duane K." -- who doesn't hit any. Which statement would you say more aptly describes this situation?
    (a) "Wow, the HR champion was really dominant this year!"
    -- OR--
    (b) "Gee, almost everyone had exactly the same HR total!"

    To me, it's (b). And that's why I would put the top two totals into the list -- not the first and the last.

30. barkie Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    I think Ruth must have looked by Paul Bunyan to the other players.

31. Joseph Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    @ John Q, #14:

    The play index says that Kingman is the only player to ever hit over 30 HR's in his last season.

    I checked a lot of years and couldn't find anyone who finished 1 or 2 in HR's in his last year. I might have missed something, however, because I didn't look at every year.

32. 704_Brave Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    In cases like Polanco and McGwire, it's absolutely ridiculous that the records from the other league don't carry over. Especially since we are now in the era of intra-league play. I fail to understand why this is still the case. I can see it back in the day when there was no intra-league play, but nowadays this is just silly.

    Perhaps someone on here can shed some light into this...

33. John Q Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 4:47 pm

    704 Brave,

    I don't get your point about "intra-league" play. The word "Intra" means "within" as in "intra-state" commerce. Intra-State commerce refers to commerce within the borders of one particular state.

    I think you mean "inter" as in inter-league play, AL vs NL.

34. John Autin Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    @20, Jimbo -- Placido Polanco had never led any league or the majors in any offensive category, per his B-R page. The year he hit .341, teammate Magglio Ordonez hit .363. When Polanco hit .331 (, he didn't qualify in either league, and he didn't have the highest BA in the majors; Derrek Lee led the NL at .335. (Michael Young led the AL at .331.)
    http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/polanpl01.shtml

    @32, 704_Brave: Do you want to get rid of AL and NL leaders entirely, and only recognize MLB leaders? Because that's the only way to resolve your complaint.

    Let's say Polanco had batted .340 in 2005, giving him the highest average in the majors. He didn't have 502 PAs in either league. Which league's batting title would you like him to get?

35. Phil Haberkorn in Indiana Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    Your chart points out two aspects of the true meaning of the phrase "Ruthian clout," much abused and misused by modern day play by play and "color" announcers.

    Babe hit so many more home runs than his closest competitors, and he hit them so much farther, 500+ feet on many occasions, that there truly has never been anyone like him and probably never will be.

    I also suggest that when there's a tie, like Killebrew and Yaz, you list them both as the leaders, and add the next-highest guy.

36. John Q Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 5:04 pm

    29 John A.

    The post is a listing between the biggest gap between the HR Leader and the HR Runner-UP in a baseball season in baseball history.

    Since the last 32 listings were tied for the Home Run title they shouldn't be by definition on this list because all of those players were Home Run leaders during those particular seasons.

    You wouldn't say that Dale Murphy was a "runner-up" to Mike Schmidt in the 1984 HR title because Schmidt had a better HR%. Schmidt's HR% has no relevance as to who was the HR leader in the NL during the 1984 season.

    The last 32 listings should have been omitted because there were no Second Place finishers. In the case of 1981 there wasn't even a 3rd or 4th place finisher.

37. topper009 Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 5:04 pm

    In 1927 Babe Ruth also hit 4 more HRs than the next team in the AL, the A's who hit 56 as a team.

    @17, Greg Vaughn hit 50 HRs for the pennant winning Padres in 1998, finishing 3rd behind McGwire and Sosa, maybe the most forgetable 50 HR season ever. He hit 41 splitting time between the Brewers (AL) and Padres (NL) in 1996 which was T-11 in MLB.

    Carlos Beltran hit 38 HRs between the Royals and Astros in 2004 (T-12 MLB)
    Carlos Lee hit 37 HRs between the Brewers and Rangers in 2006 (T-16 MLB)
    Manny Ramirez hit 37 HRs between the Red Sox and Dodgers in 2008 (T-4 MLB)

38. dukeofflatbush Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 7:45 pm

    @ 31 Joseph
    We had an interesting discussion on Kingman a while back.
    His last three years he hit 35, 30, 35 HRs.
    Then he was not offered a contract.
    But I checked and he had in his final season, despite the 35 jacks, the lowest OBP and OPS+ of any player with that many HRs.

    @ 35 Phil
    I nit picked earlier in the thread, that # of HRs is a bit misleading and % of difference might shed a little more light on just how dominant Ruth was.
    In 1920, Ruth hit 65% more HRs than Sisler.
    Giving that a bit more context, if Pujols hits 47 HRs next year, an imaginary player would need 135 HRs to be 65% ahead of Pujols.

39. dukeofflatbush Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 7:49 pm

    Not that Bill James' BLACK INK test is perfect, but I think it lays some nice ground work for HOF selection, I wonder if those players mentioned who received no credit for having led a league because of trades etc, should be given 'credit'?

40. Jimbo Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 9:58 pm

    @38

    Isn't that 165% more, not 65%?

41. Dr. Doom Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 9:58 pm

    @38

    The problem with percentage is just that, though. You can't really have someone hit 135 home runs. I wonder what one standard deviation for a home run in 1920 was, though. Then, we could see how many SDs above that he finished, and then see how far above Pujols (assuming that same 47) one would need to finish. My guess is that it would be more equivalent to someone hitting 80-100 HRs, rather than 135. But that's just a guess based on nothing but conjecture.

42. Johnny Twisto Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 10:20 pm

    Hmm, my thought is that by standard deviations Ruth would be even higher, like the equivalent of 500 HR now or something silly. But that's probably just my statistical illiteracy.

43. Johnny Twisto Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 11:35 pm

    OK, I'm probably not doing this right, but I gave it a try. In the 1920 AL, there was an average of .009 HR per AB (1 per 114 AB). Of qualified batters (61 of them), the standard deviation was .016. Ruth averaged .118 HR per AB. So that puts him almost 7 standard deviations above the average. Is that right or am I totally screwing this up?

    Incidentally, without Ruth, the standard deviation of the other 60 batters is just .008, half as much.

    So, perhaps doubling my error, I will apply the same system to the 2010 NL. The average was .027 HR per AB (1 per 37 AB). The standard deviation of 74 qualified batters is .017. Pujols averaged .072 HR per AB, about 2.6 standard deviations above the average. 7 SDs would be .146 HR per AB, or 88 HR per 600 AB. So Dr. Doom was right (again, unless I messed this all up).

44. MikeD Says:
    January 12th, 2011 at 12:13 am

    This Ruth guy, seems to be on your list a lot. Any one know anything about him?

45. MikeD Says:
    January 12th, 2011 at 12:57 am

    @38, Dukeofflatbush Says: His last three years he hit 35, 30, 35 HRs.
    Then he was not offered a contract.
    -----

    That's true, although it probably had as much to do with Kingman's personality than his ability. During his last year with the A's, he mailed a live rat to a woman reporter he didn't like. When confronted, he said it was a joke, but it was viewed by many as the final straw. No matter what his other stats said, a DH during that time who could crank out 30+ homers would have been brought back.

    I always wished Kingman had stuck around a couple more seasons as a DH. He would have eclipsed 500 HRs eventually, and by doing so he would have removed the automatic entry into the HOF for anyone hitting 500 HRs. As it was, I believe he was the first player ever to hit 400 HRs who was not elected.

    His career really only started a few years prior to the DH. He should have been sent off to the AL and played 150 games a year as a DH. Probably would have approached 600 HRs with the regular playing time. The ultimate all-or-nothing hitter. Easily the best distance power hitter I've seen along with McGwire. Can only imagine how many HRs he would have hit if his career peak happened in the 90s.

    Doesn't matter. I swear if the guy hit 700 HRs, he'd never make the HOF because he not only could do little else with the bat, he was just a butcher with the glove. Fun to watch, though, no doubt.

46. Jimbo Says:
    January 12th, 2011 at 1:33 am

    Yeah Kingman would've roided up for sure if he played in the 90's..

    It looked like he was done his last year though, based on his BA, OBP, etc.

47. kds Says:
    January 12th, 2011 at 3:19 am

    Mike D. #44: edit, "This girl Ruth, keeps showing up..."

48. Biff Says:
    January 12th, 2011 at 3:45 am

    The most impressive part of the 31 homers Mike Schmidt hit in 1981 in 102 games (out of a possible 107) was that he almost eclipsed the San Diego Padres TEAM total of 32 in 110 games, It will be the last chance anyone had to outhomer a team, even though it was a strike year.

49. Mike Felber Says:
    January 12th, 2011 at 3:47 am

    "Baseballs Ultimate Power" by renowned baseball Historian Bii Jenkinson is a great read. He researched all the furthest HRs ever, eyewitness, microfilm, using physics. He also rated the fastest & longest thrower, but mainly there are bios & descriptions of all the furthest clouts ever, ranked by there distance prowess.

    I just cannot fathom how Ruth could be #1 without any modern (some destructive) training, & using amongst the heaviest bats ever. but he was the most well documented athlete of the era, so many papers covered his shots.

50. Tweets that mention Mailbag: Biggest Differences Between HR Leader and Runner-Up » Baseball-Reference Blog » Blog Archive -- Topsy.com Says:
    January 12th, 2011 at 4:14 am

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jordan Smith. Jordan Smith said: Mailbag: Biggest Differences Between HR Leader and Runner-Up ...: Baseball Reference Blog · Mailbag: Biggest Dif... http://bit.ly/ffCGNo [...]

51. Bradley Says:
    January 12th, 2011 at 5:34 am

    I would suspect that 1927 featured the biggest difference between #2 and #3. Ruth had 60, Gehrig had 47 and their teammate Tony Lazzeri was third with just 18.

52. Bradley Says:
    January 12th, 2011 at 5:41 am

    Gehrig outhomered 4 of the other AL teams in 1927.

53. Bradley Says:
    January 12th, 2011 at 5:45 am

    I'm still astounded by the dominance of the New York Yankees in 27. Even without Ruth and Gehrig the Yanks still hit 51 homers, which is more than four teams and ties another. And even without Lazzeri they hit 33, which is more than three teams.

54. John Q Says:
    January 12th, 2011 at 11:10 am

    @48 Biff,

    Good call on Schmidt's 1981 season which kind of gets lost in the shuffle because of the strike. I remember having the '81 season in strat-o-matic and Schmidt's card was awesome. Raines' card in '81 was also a killer card because of his unbelievable SB ratio. Rick Monday's card sticks out in mind because it was basically a HR/BB or nothing. Monday had 11 HR in just 130 at bats in '81 and 24 walks in 156 plate appearances.

55. John Q Says:
    January 12th, 2011 at 11:26 am

    @45 Mike D.

    I was always kind of surprised that it took so long for an AL team to acquire Kingman and just put him as the everyday DH. If anybody was perfect for the DH position it was Kingman. I guess Kingman was kind of a jerk as well and probably was not too happy about being a full time DH.

    Kingman was such an odd player/person. The one thing I remember about Kingman was that when he played for the Mets he lived on a houseboat on Flushing Bay. I think the reason had something to do with avoiding NY Tax because he hadn't established residency in NY.

56. dukeofflatbush Says:
    January 12th, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    @55

    My father was one of the all time Kingman haters and unfortunately one of the biggest Mets fans.
    He told me countless stories of Kingman's antics, including the houseboat story. According to second hand accounts, Seaver nearly had to do everything for Kingman when the Mets first brought him over. Including checking him into hotels and buying him street clothes. Apparently Kingman couldn't even do that without help.
    I also told a story, too long to retype, a few threads ago, where Kingman purposefully destroyed a young fan's baseball that had all the 70's Mets autographs on it.
    I think if he were playing today, Kingman would be diagnosed with some sort of developmental or social problem. Maybe medication could of helped?

57. dukeofflatbush Says:
    January 12th, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    @45 MikeD

    That would make one of the great what-ifs of all time. If Kingman had been plugged in as DH, what kind of Frankenstein-Kong monster would be the result. Those late '80 A's, had some of the biggest PED users on those teams. McGwire, Canseco, Stan Javier, and though I didn't see them on the Mitchell report, I always suspected Tetleton, Steinbach- whom had that out-of-nowhere 35 HR season. Also Tony Phillips had cocaine issues and mix in two future World series managers; Baker and Boche.
    Quite a mix.
    If Kingman started juicing with Canseco, played DH till 42, he could of retired 5th all time in HRs. Making it very hard to keep him out of the Hall, despite, what of would of become a sub .300 OBP.

58. 704_Brave Says:
    January 12th, 2011 at 1:31 pm

    @33 - John Q -

    Duly noted...was referring to inter-league play, thanks for correcting.

    @34 - John Autin -

    "Do you want to get rid of AL and NL leaders entirely, and only recognize MLB leaders? Because that's the only way to resolve your complaint.
    Let's say Polanco had batted .340 in 2005, giving him the highest average in the majors. He didn't have 502 PAs in either league. Which league's batting title would you like him to get?"

    Now that leagues play each other, there is no reason why a player who gets traded mid-year has to leave his stats from his previous team/league in that league. So, while having individual league leaders is fine, the stats should travel if the leagues play each other... It's not like getting called up from the minors right?

    To answer your question though, I feel that Polanco should have won the AL batting title if he had 502 PA in the majors and finished the season in that league.

59. 704_Brave Says:
    January 12th, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    @John Autin,

    To clarify my stance on Polanco (and I'm using a hypothetical example, not what actually happened in 2005): if he would have led the league he ended up in at the end of the year including his first league's stats, then he should have won that league's batting title.

    My point is I just don't understand why stats don't carry over in the age of inter-league play.

60. John Q Says:
    January 12th, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    @56 Duke,

    Kingman grew up in Oregon during the 50's-60's so he might have had difficulty adjusting to life in big cities especially on the East coast. He moved around quite a bit in his career which kind of reinforces the point that he was a club-house cancer.

    It would have been interesting if he played for the Dodgers because he would have played for every Californian team as well as every team of NY origin, Mets, Yankees, Dodgers, Giants.

    Another oddity about Kingman was that he was on the '71 Giants which had a team that had 5 players, Mays, McCovey, Kingman, Foster, and Bonds that would end up with 300+ HR in their respective careers. I don't know if that ever happened before 1980.

61. John Autin Says:
    January 12th, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    704_Brave, @58-59: Thanks for your reply. Two followup questions, if you don't mind:

    1. Could you phrase your position as an official rule governing the determination of a league leader?

    2. Would your rule apply to counting stats, too, or just to rate stats like batting average?

    Thanks!

62. dukeofflatbush Says:
    January 12th, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    704 Brve
    You don't need to make this hypothetical
    Look at Eddie Murray 1991.

63. Mike Gaber Says:
    January 12th, 2011 at 7:35 pm

    @ 62 Dukeofflatbush

    I looked at Eddie Murray 1991 and don't see that he had much of a season that stood out for the Dodgers.
    He wasn't traded in 1991. Played the full 1991 season for the Dodgers.

    What am I missing on the "Hypothetical" point???

    Eddie Murray's stats on BB-Ref.com:

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/murraed02.shtml

64. dukeofflatbush Says:
    January 12th, 2011 at 8:51 pm

    @62
    Sorry, I meant Eddie Murray's 1990 season. In it, he led all of baseball with a .330 AVG.
    I was referencing #59 704_Brave's hypothetical Polanco leading the league scenario (see above).
    In 1990 Willie McGee was traded from St. Louis to Oakland at the deadline.
    At the time he was leading the league with a .335 AVG.
    In oakland he hit .274, dropping his combined AVG to .324.
    George Brett led the AL with a .329 AVG.
    Hence Murray's MLB best .330, which he is not credited with, which I agree with, despite being a huge Murray fan. I only mention it, because 704 was looking for a hypothetical and there already was a precedent.
    I guess his only quibble is now that there is interleague play, AVGs should not be split, but summed. And my answer to that is, it is way to small a sample to consider.

65. dukeofflatbush Says:
    January 12th, 2011 at 11:05 pm

    Johnny Twisto,

    THE STANDARD DEVIATIONS FROM 1920 & 2010 HR LEADERS.

    I really hope you see this, other wise I really wasted my time.
    Something does not seem right and I don't mean the math, that is sound.
    You are always good for looking outside the box. So maybe you can explain why it doesn't quite feel right to me?

    I used 200 PAs to cut out pitchers from the 20's and to make the tables a bit smaller.

    The 78 AL batters’ HR total for 1920 with > 200 PAs
    54,19,17,14,12,12,11,11,11,11,10,9,9,9,8,8,8,7,7,5,5,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,

    pop# 78
    sum tot 351
    mean 4.5
    std. dev. 7.0688

    The 161 AL batters’ HR total for 2010 with > 200 PAs
    54,39,38,33,32,32,31,30,29,29,29,28,28,27,26,26,26,25,25,24,23,23,22,22,22,22,22,21,21,21,21,21,21,20,20,20,20,19,19,19,19,18,18,18,18,17,16,16,16,16,15,15,15,15,14,14,14,14,13,13,13,13,13,13,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,11,11,11,11,11,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,7,7,7,7,7,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,2,2,2,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,

    pop# 161
    sum tot 1984
    mean 12.32298
    std. dev. 9.4485218

    1920 Player averaged 4.5 HRs. Ruth’s 54 was > 7 standard deviations from average.

    2010 player averaged 12.322 HRs. Bautista’s 54 was > 4.4 standard deviations from the average.

    If Ruth played in 2010 with the same deviation from the standard, he would have near 80.

    Not as big as it seemed, but still impressive.
    I’m sure doubling the # of the population skewed the results, but hey.

66. Johnny Twisto Says:
    January 13th, 2011 at 12:14 am

    Duke, I'm not sure what doesn't feel right to you?

    Anyway, I did it by HR/PA, you did it by raw HR. I really wasn't sure which would be the better choice for such a study. I'm hoping somewhat with a better concept of statistics (mathematically speaking, not baseball) can tell us the best way to look at this. Especially how Ruth alone so changes the standard deviation -- should he be included when calculating the SD?

67. dukeofflatbush Says:
    January 13th, 2011 at 12:28 am

    Thanx Johnny,

    What doesn't feel right is 80. I think If Bonds could get to 73, then 80 doesn't sound so... RUTHIAN. I guess I was expecting a number over a hundred.

    I did do the math for 1920 without Ruth to see how much of a difference he made to the curve.
    With Ruth: a StDe of 7.0688
    Without Ruth: a StDe of 4.2874

    I haven't checked to see what would happen if Bautista was taken out, but I imagine the greater population alone would lessen the effects.

68. Johnny Twisto Says:
    January 13th, 2011 at 1:00 am

    Since I can't sleep, I'll try looking at Bonds 2001 via both our methods.

    Mine uses league average of HR per AB, then takes batters who qualified for the batting title. Avg HR per AB was .034 (1 per 30 AB). Standard deviation of qualified batters was .026. Bonds was about 4.5 SDs above average. In that league, 7 SDs above average is about 130 HR.

    Yours looks at all players with > 200 PA, then takes the avg and SD of their HR totals. The average was 15 HR and the SD about 13. Bonds was about 4.5 SDs above average. 7 SDs above average is about 105 HR.

    Basically, the HR environment was different in 2001 than now, and you're right that a "Ruthian" level of dominance would be over 100 then.

    There's the question, especially when dealing with Bonds, of whether it makes more sense to look at HR per AB or per PA.

69. bells Says:
    January 13th, 2011 at 3:36 am

    Hey folks, first post here after following for a few years.

    So I teach stats at university, and (useless anecdote alert) one of the antiquated educational videos we show teaching standard deviation actually has Steven Jay Gould talking about .400 hitting as it relates to the standard deviation.

    Anyway, to pitch in my 2 cents, with regards to Bonds and Ruth comparisons (hopefully I'm addressing the question properly):

    #66 - Yes Ruth should absolutely be considered when calculating SD. The SD is a fundamental measure of variability in a sample, like an 'average deviation' away from the mean. Including outlier scores is crucial in this - without Ruth, the SD would be incredibly low and he'd be way more SDs away from the mean than the already monstrous 7. But because his crazy outlier score is so far from the mean, that means the 'average' deviation in the sample is wider. It's like a mean - if you had 4 scores and they were all 20, you'd have a mean of 20. But if you had 3 20s and a 60, your mean would be 30, even though most of your scores were below that. It's representative of the skew in the sample, just like having a standard deviation of 7HRs (like in post 65) represents the skew of Ruth, when really without him it'd be 4.28, waaay smaller. He's compared to the sample he's a part of, so he must be included in it.

    #68 - it would make more sense, I think, to compare HR/AB (or HR/PA) with regards to SD than it would just HR, if you're using an arbitrary cutoff (like 200PA). With just HR, you could theoretically have a lot of guys at 200PA and not getting tons of HR bringing the average down, whereas in another year you might have more guys with more PA and more HR, a bit more randomness. I think HR/AB lessens that.

    As for the topic itself, it's just a testament to how insanely original Ruth was. I don't believe he'd be 7SDs above today's average; everyone has generally gotten better in terms of refined training and fitness, first of all, so if Ruth stands as close as possible to the limits of human 'excellence' in HR hitting, everyone else has gotten closer to him. But more importantly, people grow up learning how to hit home runs. In Ruth's time, it seems like he was simply outside the box in what he did. So although to repeat how unbelievable his performance in 1920 was in Bonds' 73 year would be like hitting ~130HR, that would assume that nobody else really understood how to hit them, as seemed to be the case in 1920 (I know I'm oversimplifying, but you know what I mean). It seems more likely that if he played in that era, assuming that he had all the advantages (training/PED/whatever) that everyone else did, and took advantage of them, I think a total closer to 80-90 would be likely.

70. Mike Felber Says:
    January 13th, 2011 at 4:31 am

    That makes sense Bells, thanks. You might like to peruse "The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs". Same guy who did the book I suggested in #49. I believe he is a bit biased, but has valid points too. Ruth did face the best pitchers/relief of his day, grueling travel conditions, little or bad training..The author took his blows in '21, & put them in a typical park. There are of course 2 questions that get conflated: 1) How Ruth would do if reincarnated today, & 2) how good he would do with the same training advantages as today, absent PEDs.

    Still it is hard to imagine that with those primitive, heavy bats, he likely hit the ball FURTHER than anyone. It is widely accepted that the greater distance a ball with travel off a bat that is heavier is more than counterbalanced by the loss of bat speed by using said model. If true, & heavily weight trained & sometimes PED enhanced athletes today (who must be far stronger than Ruth in pure muscular terms) cannot generate the same power with a heavy bat, how did he do so? How did others like Foxx, Mantle, Hondo, Allen (ranked thusly behind Ruth according to Jenkinson), do so well with relatively (though not Ruthian weight usually) bats?

    In the book referenced above, it said Ruth picked put a "toothpick" of 32 oz. from a teammate once. He hit 2 HRs, one 525'. Now, even for Ruth that is titanic (though not near his very best). But still, if he could hit a rare distance blow like that in 1 game-could he have hit it even further if he always used said lumber?

    About Kingman: he was the guest speaker at a Little League end of year awards dinner when i was a kid. We were excited, he seemed easy going, though I recall my parents being none to thrilled with his attitude of "I was never none too smart at school, aw shucks, looks like I did O.K." (not actual quote).

71. Dr. Doom Says:
    January 13th, 2011 at 8:38 am

    @43, 65, 69

    Thanks, guys. Bells, it's nice to have someone who's a mathematician around. Most of us here just love baseball, and while a lot of us like numbers/statistics, we're not experts. I like standard deviations because they're a lot more accurate, in my opinion, than raw numbers or percentages. Regardless, though, thanks for adding some work on this. I would have, but I was a little busy yesterday, and not feeling up to it. So thanks for taking my suggestion and adding even more info. I appreciate it.

72. 704_Brave Says:
    January 13th, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    @61 John Autin and @64 Duke -

    My only issue is that the 2 leagues are now intertwined and they play each other during the regular season now...with interleague stats counting along the way. Why does a guy's stats start over if he gets traded between leagues, but not when he stays in the same league?

    Eddie Murray in 1990 was a good example, but the rules were different then as there was no interleague play...it was a tough luck situation for him.

    Good discussion, just doesn't seem correct anymore...

    One more hypothetical though...let's say the Twins never re-signed Joe Mauer and this year was his contract year. The Twins can't sign him for what he wants, so they trade him to the Cardinals before the deadline because they are out of it and they want value back. Problem is that he's hitting .404 in the AL but he doesn't have 502 PAs. He hits .409 the rest of the way in STL but doesn't qualify for the batting title in either league. Is he the first .400 hitter since Ted Williams? I suppose the AL could add empty PAs to get him to 502 and qualify for the batting title, but say that drops him below .400...what to do?

    I suppose that would just be one of baseball's oddities...

73. Johnny Twisto Says:
    January 13th, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    Yes, he would be a .400 hitter. But no, he wouldn't win a batting title. I understand your issue with it, and I'm not saying you're wrong, but I feel no great desire to "fix" it. Batting title or not, his season would definitely be remembered, so I don't think the little trophy matters.

    Bells, thanks. I knew someone with more knowledge on the subject had to be around.

74. dukeofflatbush Says:
    January 13th, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    704_brave

    The issue for me, is why call it the AL batting title, if you want to count games, pitchers, parks, teams, batter protection, no DH, etc...
    If you'd like to argue for not counting interleague stats as part of the player's league total, hmmm - maybe. I dislike interleague play very much and the 'charm of it' has long since worn off for me. I see no point to it, other than parading the Yankees around the country and a handful of nice rivalries - that are becoming old fast.
    This is only a recent problem due to the increase in player transactions and teams conceding contention half way through a season.
    It would seem inconceivable to trade a guy with 35 HRs at the all-star break 20 years ago, but now its just considered forward thinking.

75. 704_Brave Says:
    January 13th, 2011 at 3:01 pm

    Duke,
    It seems as if the trade deadline has gotten pushed up even as recently as this winter with the Adrian Gonzalez (1 year left on deal) and Zack Greinke (2 years left) deals within a couple weeks of each other. I'm not a fan of baseball's economics, but in this day and age some teams just won't or can't contend. But perhaps that's another discussion.

    As for interleague play, I'm all for it...but the DH is the problem. It's been what, 38 years of the 2 leagues playing 2 distinctly different games? I'm sorry, but the AL game is very simple for managers, strategy, decision making, etc. It's become a boring game strategy-wise as a result. I like the NL game much better just because of the pitcher's spot and the strategy that comes along with it...

    Oh well, looks like that's yet another topic for discussion and another reason why I love this site!

76. dukeofflatbush Says:
    January 13th, 2011 at 8:26 pm

    To Bells,

    To some extent I agree with you that HR/AB(PA) would be more accurate, but there is so many AB/PAs to count and assign to the right players.
    Your argument is sound, that @ >200 plate appearances, from year to year that # will fluctuate, but I feared there are guys who have Shane Spencer type years (10 HRs in 90 ABs), whom, in my opinion don't accurately depict a hitter. Guys having a cup of coffee as it were, will be generally encouraged to swing a bit harder in their limited time. Counting the sum instead of the percentages, I figured would be more accurate, as the Shane Spencer's will surely even out over a long enough time line. I also thought in the 1920 season, using 200 as a cut off would eliminate pitchers, showing a more accurate depiction of a 1920 'hitter'.

    I do agree with you about Ruth being the ultimate outlier for the reasons you stated. Like when the forward pass came into vogue in football, you couldn't compare Quarterbacks.
    Ruth certainly changed how the game was played, everyone knows Cobb gripped his bat in a manner that almost certainly didn't allow for HRs, and didn't change that when they changed the ball or Ruth changed the game.
    Which brings up a very important point in discussing HRs; How many homers in the 1920-21 seasons were the inside the park variety. Looking at the number of triples - I'd speculate 10% - 15% of HRs were not classic "over the fence" HRs. Even Ruth had 17 triples.
    I don't know exact dimensions, but from what I hear, several stadiums had a nearly infinite centerfield, so a 200 ft gapper looks the same on paper as the RUTHIAN 500fter.
    As far as some of the other comments, wondering if the 'homogenizing' of baseball has weeded out the freak outliers, I love to look at some of the examples Bill James uses.
    For instance, he said Mickey Mantle was a 'screen-ape' as a teenager in a mine. This was explained to me as the guy who swings a sledge hammer, breaking the larger rocks into smaller pieces, etc... but this would explain Mantle's freak strength. Today you would never see any teen, let alone a gifted teen, working in a mine. Not that I advocate teen manual labor.
    Also, James stated Henry Aaron played highschool and low A ball with his hands in the wrong positions. This might explain how Aaron had the 'fastest' wrists in baseball. Today a kid would be stopped at age 4 from swinging 'incorrectly'.

77. Mike Felber Says:
    January 14th, 2011 at 3:45 am

    Well...Mantle's labor, like some of the things Foxx did, helped make men with great potential very strong. But 1) Even a fair # of teens today are stronger than them today (in #s, not in % of teens) due to the science of weightlifting & PEDs. Though in specific skills our legends might be comparable, like in breaking rocks or forearm strength, they just did not have the scientific training, diet (many meals, protein, shakes) & of course PEDs to approach the strength & certainly size of the large muscles groups of any decent strength athlete, powerlifter, bodybuilder, many football players...

    This is roughly reflected in height & weight. They were just about 200 lbs & ~ 5'11" & 6'0". Around the same as Honus Wagner. Today many with similar bone structure & body fat outweigh them, sometimes by a great deal.

    Which is distinct from how far they could hit a baseball, or how good they are at the game. The Law of Diminishing Returns applies here.

78. dukeofflatbush Says:
    January 14th, 2011 at 10:38 am

    Hey Mike,

    I do agree with you that today's youth has much better diets, exercise regimes, etc... but that doesn't necessarily translate to 'better.' Each body responds a bit differently to stressors. I know guys who lift 3 weeks before vacation, and get into relatively good shape quickly. Others I know work out year round and never find the right combo of results to loose weight or gain strength.
    I can only speculate, but yes Mantle had the raw strength, but something as unique as 'screen ape' as a teenager is quite remarkable. It just was the right combo, the right muscles at the right time.
    When you talk about body weight and mass index and muscle density, you forget guys like Soriano. He was a twig when he came up with the Yankees. Well, at least compared to his peers.
    Honus Wagner was the exception. the general population height has 'grown' in the US a great deal since 1900, but the increase in size athletics is ridiculous. I remember the 80's Redskins offensive line was called the "HOGS" cause they were considered so large. Today those same Hogs would be the smallest O-line in the league by far.
    Some others mention Ruth using a heavy bat and speculate if he used a lighter one, what kind of damage he could of done. The reason is it is generally accepted distance comes more from bat speed than bat density or overall weight. But if one had the same bat speed with a 32oz bat and a 48oz bat, the 48oz bat would send the ball traveling farther.
    Could it be Ruth was TOO strong for the lighter bats? Would he of pulled everything foul? He was rumored to be fooled often by off-speed pitches; out-in-front, so it is a possibility his potential was maxed out using his bat.

79. FALCOR Says:
    January 14th, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    I may start a riot here (and I'm a crazy fan of the Bambino) but I think that if you put Babe Ruth in the game today, he'd be an average player (he does pain me to say this of legends).

    I think that Ruth was awesome compared to his peers and I attribute his awesomeness to an "out-of-the-box" hitting technique but also slower fastballs/less effective breaking balls. And I think it's the same in every damn sports: Marginal players today would be legends in the past.

    And I picked on Ruth because it makes more of an impact but I could say to same thing about other baseball legends of the beginning of the century (Imagine Walter Johnson throwing to hitters who are focusing on hitting the ball on the ground all the time, etc.)

80. John Autin Says:
    January 15th, 2011 at 3:20 am

    704_Brave: "I like the NL game much better just because of the pitcher's spot and the strategy that comes along with it..."

    I'll post a couple of passages from well-known baseball men -- not as if their opinions should settle anything, but just as a different view that you mind find worth considering:

    (1) "Everyone in the world disagrees with me, including some managers, but I think managing in the American League is much more difficult for that very reason (having the designated hitter). In the National League, my situation is dictated for me. If I'm behind in the game, I've got to pinch hit. I've got to take my pitcher out. In the American League, you have to zero in. You have to know exactly when to take them out of there. In the National League, that's done for you." - Jim Leyland

    (2) "I'm not an advocate of the Designated Hitter Rule; I'm only an advocate of seeing the truth and telling the truth. What the truth comes down to here is a question of in what does strategy reside? Does strategy exist in the act of bunting? If so the Designated Hitter Rule has reduced strategy. But if strategy exists in the decision about when a bunt should be used, then the DH rule has increased the differences of opinion which exist about that question, and thus increased strategy...[the research shows] that there is more of a difference of opinion, not less, in the American League." - Bill James in The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract (1986)

    (quotes copied from:
    http://www.baseball-almanac.com/quotes/designated_hitter_quotes.shtml)

81. Mike Felber Says:
    January 15th, 2011 at 3:30 am

    Falcor, i think that the athletic improvement you site is generally true, but would be somewhat less in baseball. Since raw strength & speed have impact, but not nearly as much as in football, basketball, let alone when they are measured directly, like lifting & sprinting, channeled through other skills.

    The average is better, but hand eye coordination & baseball talent is only helped, sometimes & somewhat, by improving physicality. It is ME who hates to say that my avatar would do relatively worse than Ruth, since, basically only 1 excellent pitch would not make it. Ruth saw some great pitching, & would he be unable to adjust to more heat & some better stuff? Would guys today be able to hit screwballs & spitters as well? Ruth had the reflexes to hit a Johnson-& he 1st saw him when the balls were often dark & mushy.

    Thanks for the feedback Duke. One reason I answer as above, is that despite all the advances, Ruth hit the furthest, then maybe Foxx, Mantle, Hondo, Allen...you could never go back even as far as, say, Butkis, & say his basic ability was as good as today's guys. Toa ddress your points:

    The exponentially superior training today means that any pro, with some experimentation, could build stronger muscles & be in better aerobic shape, increase agility, balance, etc...I have lifted for years, & know a great deal about variations in what works: my point is that we are light years ahead. Ruth was not "too strong", which implies lifting, pushing, pulling: he was undoubtedly unimpressive compared to even modern baseball players at these things. But something about the speed AND mass of his body, how effectively he could deploy it, made a single 'strength', ball hitting, unparalleled.

    I love Mantle, & he may have had the best raw baseball skills EVER: great speed & power & switch hitting. I am just saying that with specific training, some other teens today could be a screen ape. Not so much without modern training & eating though.

    I did not claim that all players were large, but on average they are much larger & stronger than before: one vet said during the steroid era "Our big guys were like small guys today"". Of course there are always a few lean guys-though even they have access to so much better training, video, etc...

    You are right about Wagner (who lifted Dumbbells though) & the O line, Yes! but I do feel that Football has a lot of unrecognized drugging. Some substances. cannot be tested for (HgH), or are unknown.

    Lastly, regarding Ruth & bat weights: you are recapitulating what i said about lighter bats adding more distance since swinging faster adds more power than the extra mass. I do not know that Ruth could not adjust to a lighter bat: they believed wrongly then that they were worse for power. I think he could.

    IF somehow he would not be able to connect as often for a fair, solid hit or homer, then you would be right that a heavy bat helped him maximize his baseball potential. Yet I was talking about his DISTANCE hitting potential: unless there is something wrong with conventional wisdom & the available evidence in some cases-& i cannot see that this is true-then Ruth hit the ball further than anyone with the HANDICAP of using amongst the heaviest bats ever.

    His hitting 525' with a light bat using it in a single game is evidence to this effect. Even Ruth rarely did this. What if he used it every time & got familiar with?

    Some are debating how good Ruth would be today. I am saying that there are very good historical records that he hit the ball further than anyone, ever, with inferior equipment. And that there is something astonishing about that. Though unlike something like how much a guy can lift, theoretically possible.

    But still hard to believe!