Posted on 12/15/2019 12:05:27 PM PST by BenLurkin
Ruth hit his 500th homer on Aug. 11, 1929, in a game against the Cleveland Indians. According to SCP Auctions, the ball cleared the right field wall at League Park and rolled down Lexington Avenue.
He gave the autographed bat to his friend, former Suffern, New York, Mayor Jim Rice, in the 1940s. It’s been in the family for nearly 75 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at ktla.com ...
I read somewhere than no one came close to Ruth in home runs per times at bat.
Google is your friend:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_bats_per_home_run
>> Mark McGwire possesses the MLB record for this statistic with a career ratio of 10.61 at bats per home run and Babe Ruth is second, with 11.76 at bats per home run. <<
Now, the Babe probably has the most unchemically-assisted.
Just sayn’
>>I hit a grand slam once in Little League, but that was it.<<
I went to Denny’s once and had the Grand Slam breakfast — but I substituted toast for pancakes so I am not sure it counts.
LMAO!
Best </chuckle> of the day...
“Now, the Babe probably has the most unchemically-assisted.
Just sayn’”
Babe was probably assisted by C2H5OH many times.
>>Babe was probably assisted by C2H5OH many times.<<
Probably legal today, if unadvisable. Back then, probably 1/3 of the league had that assistance.
Mark McGwire was first all-time in HR/AB, Ruth was second.
It would not be unreasonable to say McGwire shouldn’t qualify, because he was juiced up.
Thinking about it, when I read that was during the 60s when Mantle and Maris were chasing his single season record.
And wasn’t the ball a lot heavier at that time? I don’t think there were a lot of people hitting over 40 back then I could be wrong
That’s batty
I just asked this but I’ll ask again. Wasn’t the ball a lot heavier
Or something like that back then making it more difficult to hit home runs?
I don’t know about the weight but it is well known that the ball was dead back then. Also they used a ball for much longer before replacing it.
THAT’S the word I was looking for.
Wonder how many he’d hit today?
More? Less?
I’m thinking more, even if pitching has gotten faster through the years. Though i’m not sure it has or if it would have mattered.
>>And wasn’t the ball a lot heavier at that time? I don’t think there were a lot of people hitting over 40 back then I could be wrong<<
I can’t find anything about the modern weight vs. 1914 but back then the pitchers used the spitball extensively which should have handicapped him. But it didn’t.
Grandpa told me stories about he and Brian Williams chasing that ball down the street
All the time Brian never missed a beat doing the play-by-play.
Man I just read an article that really made it sound like a tough game back on the day.
Fist fights on the field..or in the stands with players involved.
The balls hit into the stands were retrieved to save money.
The players all had other jobs as pay was so low.
They were not as big as today’s players but were tougher because childhood deaths were still frequent and life was still very hard.
The bats were heavier, the clothes were wool and heavy.
Cheating of all kinds happened, including grabbing the buckles of runners to slow them down.
wow.
My understanding is that Ruth either parked in the stands, or fanned. None of this “hit ‘em where they ain’t” to get on base. It was all or nothing.
In 1921 he hit .378 with 59 homers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.