abc006 Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 Yes. It would be interesting to see how many HR's he would have hit had he not spent the first 5 years of his career as a pitcher. Somewhere in the mid 800's I would imagine......Actually, I saw a book where because of the huge park dimensions of that era, many deep fly balls would now be homeruns - making him possibly hitting 104 homers in a season. (here's the link.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stecropper Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 I don't know nothin' 'bout nothin' ...... but - I do think Bonds is a great player ---- it's just I personally don't care to watch him play - mostly because he has contributed to the many big questions that cloud today's game ---- Baseball Stats / Records are a huge factor in what has always made this game a great game. Bonds along with many other recent players have, in my opinion, tarnished the game if not forever - for a very long time. Today's players are naturally bigger, stronger and faster than those I grew up enjoying. They are better trained and likely work at the game much harder than those I enjoyed ---- However, this illegal substance stuff just clouds too many aspects of today's performances to the point that they become almost meaningless in my book. I fully understand Aaron's lack of interest (as one of his reasons) he will not be present to see Bonds break the record ......... I won't pay it much attention either and certainly will not view it as a significant historical acheivement in Basebal history --- because baseball needs to find someway to clean the books of these tarnished records to recapture it's glorious past ! I fully believe with out question today's players are better ball players than those of my day --- I just feel sorry for the many great players of today that had the misfortune of having to play during these times of so many questions & Mr Bonds especially should feel sorry as well - which someday I think he will! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 Well, nomatter hwo is the homerun king, I assume that most of us will say that Ruth was the best of them all. Am I right in saying that? I mean, he just about single handedly saved the game during the Black Sox scandle. without a doubt. ruth is still the greatest. mays is the best player. but we still have a-rod and pujols with many seasons ahead of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padres67 Posted April 21, 2007 Author Share Posted April 21, 2007 I couldn't have said it better myself Don. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean O Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 Actually, I saw a book where because of the huge park dimensions of that era, many deep fly balls would now be homeruns - making him possibly hitting 104 homers in a season. (here's the link.) Have you seen the parks Ruth called home? The Polo Grounds and Yankee Stadium had right field distances of 256 and 258 feet. We're not exactly talking huge distances here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medric822 Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 No, but the 430' in center wasn't that small either. You can also consider how that players today have more expierance than the players of old, since they know the in's and outs of the game. Ruth probably was also way ahead of the others since when he was at St. Mary's, he'd play 3-5 games a day, since there realy wasn't much else to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.