[frankbmd]

Doesn’t the opponents batting average of .332 on the Ruth page bother you. That figure is for all MLB presumably for 1919. There is not one team in 1919 that hit remotely near that average.

Look if you will at the 1962 Mets with a record of 40-120, not very good. Their pitching staff was not the best I think you would agree. The opponents batting average for the 1962 Mets was .281. Doesn’t that make you wonder about the .332 number from 1919.

Perhaps there is something wrong in Denmark or at least on the Baseball Reference website. Deadball era BAs were less than .250 by and large until 1918.

Babe Ruth is great, Comparing him to anybody is sac religious.

Gloves have been mentioned as a differential between eras and I agree. You know what happened with the deadball gloves. Yup, there were more errors. And of course you know what more errors mean, don’t you? Yup, more unearned runs and lower ERAs. Deadball era ERAs were uniformly low, but runs scored not so much. The great deadball pitchers benefitted statistically from fielders who actually caught a lower percentage of the balls hit or thrown to them.

Aren’t statistics great? Base an argument on a fallacious statiistic and bingo, you win. Congrats.