Ruth’s HR total

[puckpaul]

Hi all, not that his stats need any help, but i just saw this partial article posted on the anniversary of Ruth’s purchase by the Yankees. It notes that Ruth really had 31 homers in 1919 (his baseball reference number is 29) but they counted walkoff homers as only whatever bases were needed to score the winning run?! Why hasn’t this ever been corrected? I guess its been customary to only count the way Baseball was scored in your era that you played?

I think there were other ways he was shortchanged but maybe that what the way i had heard before, cant recall at the moment.

Happy New Year everyone.

Paul

[z28jd]

I just went through his game log from 1919 and there isn't a single game that ended with him hitting a walk-off double, but he is credited for a walk-off homer on September 20th at home.

A record of those lost "homers" on Retrosheet credits Ruth with one during the 1918 season, and it was a triple. The rule changed in 1920. Prior to the rule, you couldn't win by more than one run on a walk-off hit. While it might not be a complete list, Retrosheet has it happening 44 times before the rule changed, so it didn't happen often (basically an average of once a year)

[puckpaul]

Thank you. Interesting. Strange that the article would have it wrong, was stated so matter-of-factly. So just 715 then.

[doug.goodman]

1919 home games with Ruth as the last batter :

July 5 loss - grounded out to first
July 31 win - single, run scores due to catcher obstruction, no rbi
Aug 8 loss - popped to shortstop in foul territory
Aug 12 loss - unknown play (out)
Sept 18 loss - flied to right
Sept 20 win - home run

[molenick]

I'm of the school that what actually happened under the rules of the time is what should be in the record books.

Ruth may have hit some walk-off home runs that were not counted as home runs. He may also have hit what we would now call "ground rule" or "bounce" or "automatic" doubles that were credited as home runs (before the 1929 season in the AL, balls that bounced into the stands in fair territory were home runs). He may also have hit some very long balls that, based on current field dimensions would have been home runs, but which were not home runs at the time. And if you want to really go crazy, check out all the changes to the sacrifice fly rule https://www.theoleballgame.com/when-...n-scoring.html

I found a quote saying "Jimmie [Foxx] should have had at least 65 homers in 1932... rain outs robbed him of two and the right field screen at Sportsman's Park in St. Louis robbed him of at least five more." But the games were rained out and there was a right field screen.

This can be done endlessly: Johan Santana did not pitch a no-hitter for the Mets because if we had replay review then, he would have given up a hit to Carlos Beltran. But there was no replay review at the time.

So according to the rules and field layout of the time, Foxx hit 58 home runs in 1932, Ruth had 714 home runs, and Santana pitched a no-hitter.

I don't mind when it is discovered that a clerical error was made that gave someone incorrect totals or when someone discovers a scoring error was made according to the rules of the time. When I was learning about baseball, Radbourn had 60 wins in 1884 and Wilson had 190 RBIs in 1930. Both have since changed, and I am fine with that. But I am not big on "if we apply the current rules/conditions/technology retroactively, then we should change the numbers."

[Section103]

Agreed that you really have to go with the rules as they were at that time. Its really important to consider the further back in the history of the game you go.

[GeoPoto]

Another source/cause of ambiguity regarding Ruth's HR totals, stems from the fact that there were no foul poles, and fair/foul calls were made based on where the ball landed.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk