[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Its all baseball. None of it should be ignored, it all is to be enjoyed, in part from a historical perspective,imho. Heck, should Hornsby and his accomplishments be ignored? Wait, you didn't say "ignored", you said "disregarded". Perhaps there is a subtle difference there, but I don't see it. Ruth played during an era of an enlightened ball, with no spitballers. What fan will buy into disregarding what he did?

Further, I believe that the '98 crowd also played during a brief era of a similarly enlightened ball. I do not accept that it was the juice in the players as much as the juice in the ball. Some think this period should be disregarded. Well, some thought 1961 also should have been disregarded. The homerun, you see, if baseball's most treasured commodity. And it belongs, by Imperial Edict, to Ruth alone.

There is always a rational in support of the fact that everyone else's single season homeruns shouldn't count. It took the steady faultless glamorless play of Aaron to capture the acceptance of his achievement. And at that, it was still a battle.

The White Stockings did set both season team HR records. In 1877 following a season where they were first in both batting and slugging, they set the all time record for fewest Homeruns in a season with zero (some UA teams equalled that record, but their history was just a few games before being disbanded).

I wonder how many of Williamson's homeruns barely travelled the required 200'. And how many would have made it out of the 251 ft. barrier of the LA Coliseum - or some other small park. Interesting subject Dave.

I am assembling cards representing the players on this team (which includes the rookie card of Clarkson - who contributed 3 HRs to this effort). Some of the cards are going to be pretty costly. The ones I have so far (6 of 'em) are great! Im loving this niche. And many others.