Quote:
Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies
With all due respect, you must not know shit. Ruth did not have an excellent and complete all around game, you're arrogant for that assumption. To hit .342 he didn't need speed. As an earlier poster stated, the fields were deep. Anyone person could generalize Ruth was not fast, as evidenced by his steals and fielding, which you seem lacking to grasp. He had more triples than steals because of the deep fields. If a player hits at a .342 clip and gets on base nearly every other at bat, wouldn't you think they would run?
No Bonds was complete, 500-500. Unreal
|
You've entirely ignored the other points I made about why Ruth might not have run much.
Especially having Gehrig behind him. Why run and potentially take a run away from yourself?
The era he played wasn't a huge one for running. 1921 one of ruths better years for steals he stole 17 and the Yankees as a team stole 89, about average for that year. This year most AL teams were over 100.
If you are an excellent ballplayer you do know that steals are more about getting a good jump and a good read of the pitcher. There's only ever been a handful of guys where that may not have mattered- Henderson, cloeman, probably a couple more. Brock himself won't credit pure speed.
Steve B
For the record, I only ever made it to modified pitch softball. Probably from a lack of ability to see let alone hit even a lousy fastball. I run like a catcher- A softball catcher.....And I'm damn proud of my 1 career stolen base.
(Two triples too - hey I'm like Babe Ruth!)