Home run - OT

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

I'm not a stats guy. But baseball is the ultimate game for stats. There are certain threshholds that are held dear to our hearts. Threshholds that have evolved over time. 3000 k's, 500hr's, etc. etc. But if you look back, there are only "114" guys that have hit 300 home runs, or more, in their career. Some of course are still playing. In the scheme of things, that is not very many guys. When you consider how many players have been in the bigs the last 125 years or so. I've stated it ot many friends, and I will say it again, hitting a major league home run is the hardest thing to do in any professional sport. makes you appreciate Ruth and the boys even more. Just a comment on something I noticed this morning. Sorry for the OT.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

Actually, a triple is much harder to hit. And while I understand why fans go bonkers over home runs, in my opinion a triple is more entertaining as well. I'm reminded of a poem, "The Old-Fashioned Batter," by George E. Phair

How dear to my heart was the old-fashioned batter, who scattered line drives from the spring to the fall.

He did not resemble the up-to-date batter, who swings from the heels and misses the ball.

The up-to-date batter Im not very strong for; He shatters the ozone with all of his might.

And that is the reason I hanker and long for those who doubled to left, and tripled to right.

The old-fashioned batter,

The eagle-eyed batter,

The thinking-mans batter,

Who tripled to right.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

I agree triples are more exciting, because of the usual close play at the bag. But home runs count as a run, and a triple doesn't always transfer into a run, or having driven in a run. But I can't disagree with you. Triples usually require a bit of speed. Home runs don't. Unless they are inside the parkers. But conceptually, I agree with you. All part of God's greatest sport.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

One of the saddest things about the continuing steroid controversy is that 500 Home Runs is becoming relatively common. There was a time when that milestone would be reached by a ballplayer only once in a long while. Now just look at the number of ballplayers that could reach that number in a couple of more years.

Gary Sheffield, Jim Thome, Manny Ramirez etc.

500 is not the magic number it used to be.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

As time goes on and if baseball survives there'll be 50 players with over 500 HRs and then more after that. The new standard will be 600 and then 700 HRs.

HRs are just one of those "sexy" stats. If you're looking at stats that will be difficult to reach it will be 300 game winners. We're seeing an end of an era with Maddux and Clemens. After them, how many others do you think will have a shot at 300 (Glavine right around the corner but after that...)? I'm sure there will be more but overall that is a milestone to be in awe of.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe Tocco

and it was before most of us were born.

More recently,
From 1960-1972, 8 players joined the 500 HR club.
In the last 12 years? 6 players.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

Smaller parks have something to with it also. Look how far deep center used to be at Yankee stadium, compared to now. The players aren't necessarily better players than they were in the 50's but they are much bigger. For a myriad of reasons. Better nutrition, better pre natal care at birth, better training methods, better medical care, and of course the much heralded steroid issue. Look at the films of the players in the mid 70's, and see how much thinner they used to be. Hank Aaron and Mel Ott, prove you don't need drugs to hit 'em out.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

I agree, Mike. The smaller parks are rarely brought up when the modern home run binge is discussed. I guess they don't grab headlines like steroids do. Also, the players today are much bigger. To get an idea how much bigger players are, get out a baseball encyclopedia and check out the heights of players who played in the 19th century. It's truly staggering how small people were in those days compared to today ...

[Archive]

Posted By: S Gross

Agree with smaller ball parks and bigger players. Hell, they used to keep the batting cage and other field equipment in center field at Forbe's Field, because it was so deep. And, you can get out your Encyclopdedia and look up the sizes of players who played in the 1980s and see a vast difference.

My pet-peeve has always been the "long out" home run. A batter loafs a easy long fly into the outfield. The outfielder gets an easy beat on it, and then it falls over the wall by 1 foot. Should be an out, but it's a HR. Conversely, a batter hits a screaming line drive that is still rising down the line and it hits the wall. The OF fields it (well) and holds the batter to a double or even a single.

I always felt it'd be interesting to watch a game with no outfield wall. All the wall is is to make a field a park, to enclose it, sell admission and bill boards. A HR is really only a Ground Rule. A Ground Rule Double is a ball that bounces over the wall, and a ball that flies over the wall, really should be called a Ground Rule HR. An In-The-Park HR, is really a true HOME RUN.

Grayson Stadium (home of the 6-20 Sav. Sand Gnats) was a multi-purpose field, baseball/football, so it's demensions are odd. 290 to LF, 400 CF, 390 RF. A HR to left is pretty unexciting, BUT any ball hit to right, ANYTHING can happen. So, I'll take a triple to right anyday ...........

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

while I partially agree that 500 hr's aint what it used to be...maybe we're just in an extraordinary period in baseball...like the late 60's early 70's...when there were a bunch of players at or near 500 hr's...mantle, robinson, aaron, mays.

pete

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

players are bigger, bats are lighter,baseball are wound tighter, and ballparks are smaller. homeruns will continue to fly till they move the fences back and raise the mound. and i don't think they will be doing that anytime soon as people like scoring.

i always remember as a kid looking at those 1930's stats and wondering what it was like back then? now i know,i've seen it in this era!