Quote:
Originally Posted by Syd Thrift
Part of the issue is that the homers really aren't "there". If you were to truly normalize Babe Ruth's 1920 to 2011 numbers his card would have him hit 100 or more HRs in a year. In real life he personally IIRC hit more homeruns than any other *team* except one and also more HRs than four teams *combined*. He alone represented something like a third of the AL's total HR output. People would complain about him belting 120 HRs a season in rookie ball even though that's perfectly accurate.
The BABIP does seem low but there too I think it might be given some maluses just to make the card a 100 and not a "if you have this card you will automatically win your league" deal. IRL Ruth's BABIP in 1920 was .365, a number that would be in the top 30 or so best BABIPs since World War II. Doing that *on top of* everything else he does is, well, insane.
|
Thatīs very true, it was amazing how far ahead of his contemporaries Ruth was, and were he to match that performance in PT it would fail the sanity check, so insane is a good choice of words.
With the earlier argument that players in the past didnīt face fresh relievers, I took my own advice and googled Ruthīs homerun output for 1927 and was surprised to find that only 20 of his 60 were hit in the 7th inning or later. I would have expected it to be more, something around half. I donīt know what it means, but there it is.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, that 27 team won quite a few games so at home he wouldnīt have come to bat in the 9th, so maybe then one third is a decent number to hit late game.