Would the Legendary Babe Ruth Still Be a Star if He Played Today?

[Bill77]

Would he be a pitcher or an outfielder?

Another interesting question would be is how big of an impact on baseball would he have made if he remained a pitcher for his entire career?
Even today everyone is still chasing Ruth on the home run lists even though he was pasted by Hank Aaron and now Barry Bonds. If Ruth stays a pitcher who would become the original home run king? Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, someone else? Or would baseball have still remained more about hitting for high batting average and home run hitting specialists need not apply?

[tedzan]

Too, too many stories about the Babe not taking care of his physique. Not really true. In 1925 Ruth was out of shape, his weight peaked up to 245 lbs,
and his "less than Ruthian" performance that year reflected this.

The Babe was determined to get back into shape. So, during the Winter of 1925 he started a rigorous physical training regime at a New York City gym.
And, every Winter there-after, Ruth continued this fitness program. By the start of the 1926 season, Ruth's weight was down to 205 lbs; and, in 1926
his fitness program paid him dividends.

Do the research, and you'll be amazed when you compare Ruth's performance from 1926 - 1932 with his performance during his younger years.

George Herman Ruth was the best there was circa 1915 - 1934. And, would be the best there is if he were playing the game today.






TED Z
.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

What I never understand in these scenarios is what exactly is being asked. Are we asking if Babe Ruth was magically brought into the future from let's say 1927 to 2017? Or are we saying Babe Ruth was Born in 1990 and became a player today? Some people operate under the odd misapprehension that humans are fundamentally physically different than 100 years ago. From an evolutionary standpoint this is ludicrous. Was HAS changed is diet, medicine, sports science etc. If you take Babe Ruth of 1927 and transport him to today I think he's probably still successful. If you allow Babe to be born in 1990 I see no reason why he wouldn't dominate today's game to the same degree he dominated the game of his day.

Also for those who talk about globalization etc... remember that in his day there were only 16 teams, so while the population to draw players from was smaller (largely white North American males) the number of available positions to fill was half of what it is today. That's probably not a wash, but it certainly does ameliorate the globalization issue somewhat.

[JollyElm]

Two words: designated hitter.

[sycks22]

Ruth would be good, borderline great in today's game, but not an all-time legend. Pitching is 100x's better today than in the 20's and 30's. Back then he'd face the same guy 3-4x's in a game, nowadays you're lucky to see a guy 3x's. Also: every bullpen today has multiple guys who can throw 95 mph with some throwing triple digits, back in the day you were lucky to have a guy throw 90. How many starters in the 20's had 3 legit pitches like most starters today? He also couldn't keep up with the training that all players do on a daily basis.

[nrm1977]

It's hard to say for sure. You can't take away the natural talent he had for the game. Though, if he had modern training routines and nutrition, I'd say it could be possible.

This subject is always hard to debate due to the fact; modern training has evolved so much along with proper nutrition. Which these old-timers never had access to.

[vintagerookies51]

Some of you are answering the question as if Ruth is being transported from the 1920s to modern times, and some as if he was born in 1990. The answer is clear to me...

If you took the Babe out of the 1920s and put him in today's game absolutely he would not be the same player, not even close. Today's game is just too different. Far more difficult pitches to hit as someone else mentioned. The equipment is a lot different. Speed is way more important in today's game unless he played 1st base or pitched. I'd say it would take him awhile to adjust and become a David Ortiz or prince fielder type player

If Ruth was born in 1990 however, then I think we would have dominated today's game just as much, because he'd already be acclimated to everything

[seanofjapan]

The Babe was the right man in the right place at the right time. I don't think he would be the same person if he played today, and if you just time warped 1920s Ruth to now and put him in an MLB game, he would probably strike out each time up and get sent down to the minors.

I like this clip comparing Olympic gymnast gold medalist performances in 1932 and today, which I think sums up the problem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmyoC6bYbmE

The game and standards have changed so much (maybe not as dramatically in baseball as in gymnastics but still) in small increments over the decades that its basically a different game.

Walter Johnson, who was probably the hardest throwing pitcher who Ruth faced in his career, had a fastball that topped out at about 90mph. Today even guys that never make the majors can throw that hard. And that is just one example. Ruth would be facing a completely different, and much higher, standard of pitchers than what he was used to.

There are a lot of other things too which are worth mentioning. Making it to the majors was undoubtedly a lot easier in his time. The argument made in some comments that MLB quality has been watered down because now there are 30 teams is, I think, completely wrong. The population of the United States in 1920 was 106 million, today it is over three times that. So the number of teams per capita was actually higher back then that it is now and I think that is a more accurate metric for judging that - the number of MLB players is higher now but the number of people competing to become MLB players is also much higher. You also have the fact that in addition to the US population increasing, you also have players from numerous other countries playing in MLB now, so the actual talent pool it draws on is even larger still.

Also a career in MLB was nowhere near as lucrative back then as it is now, so a lot of talented people who could have had HOF careers in the early 20th century may have opted to pursue other careers (Lou Gehrig almost became an engineer instead of a baseball player, perhaps other equal talents made the other choice).

Then of course you have the usual arguments about segregation, the lack of a minor league system to develop talent, differences in sports medicine and training regimens, etc etc. There just really is no comparing the games across that much time.

[BobbyVCP]

Everyone is saying that the pitching is so much better today then back then. You are not taking into consideration that the pitchers doctored the ball, spit on it and the ball stayed in play a lot longer. With that the pitcher could make the ball move a lot more then todays pitcher. So the lack of speed is made up with movement. Much harder to hit a curve ball then a fastball.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

Walter Johnson, who was probably the hardest throwing pitcher who Ruth faced in his career, had a fastball that topped out at about 90mph. Today even guys that never make the majors can throw that hard. And that is just one example. Ruth would be facing a completely different, and much higher, standard of pitchers than what he was used to.

Greg Maddux topped out at about 90mph and he was one of the greatest pitchers of all time. Walter Johnson was timed as high as 99mph. I don't think pitchers throw that much harder, even though that is really irrelevant. It is just easy for people to dismiss pitchers of that era because they didn't have speed guns timing every pitch.

[Snapolit1]

I think the bottom line, for me at least, is that if you put 1925 Babe Ruth in a time machine and dropped him on a field today, I think he'd struggle to hit 25 home runs. If you dropped him in 1992 and gave him all the benefits of modern training, know how, nutrition, etc. . . . .who the hell knows what would happen. I do not believe for one moment however under the later scenario that he'd be hitting 60 home runs in a year or more than entire teams are hitting. I do not believe he would be the man, myth and the legend that is is today. As I send above, he might well be Cecil Fielder.

[JustinD]

I would say absolutely not.

I think each player was made for the eras they succeeded in and most likely would not be as successful in another...this is why you know their name. This also works in reverse, today's players may be faster and better trained but would never be able to handle the toughness and differences of the past eras. I enjoy the contributions of each player to the history their sport.

[packs]

I guess I just don't understand that viewpoint. Ruth so clearly was an antithesis to that thinking. During the dead ball era he set the home run mark. During the lively ball era he set the home run mark. He set a career home run mark that has only been eclipsed twice in the 80 plus years it's been since he last appeared in a game. He was an atypical player for each era he played in. I don't see why he wouldn't be the same atypical player today. It's not even just about the home runs. The guy hit 342 over his entire career while hitting the home runs. His career OPS plus is over 200. Not even Bonds is close.

[GregMitch34]

It's a ridiculous argument anyway. You either accept standing of player within his era or not. If the latter, you have to kick nearly everyone out of the Hall since you are basing everything on alleged improved players today. Why even have a HOF?

[obcbobd]

Originally Posted by drcy

I believe they ran on cinder tracks back in Owen's day. As a former track runner who once ran on a cinder track, I can tell you there's a bid difference. A big of an exaggeration, but it can be like running on gravel versus the sidewalk.

I saw a show last year where they had Andre De Grasse the Olympic Bronze medalist run in conditions similar to Jesse Owen's ran in. Cinders, shoes, etc. Owens did quite well in comparison

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jas9ff0hdFI

[packs]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I think the bottom line, for me at least, is that if you put 1925 Babe Ruth in a time machine and dropped him on a field today, I think he'd struggle to hit 25 home runs. If you dropped him in 1992 and gave him all the benefits of modern training, know how, nutrition, etc. . . . .who the hell knows what would happen. I do not believe for one moment however under the later scenario that he'd be hitting 60 home runs in a year or more than entire teams are hitting. I do not believe he would be the man, myth and the legend that is is today. As I send above, he might well be Cecil Fielder.

To offer a different take on the modern training, equipment, etc. argument, please remember that when Ruth began playing baseball it was at an orphanage. He became Babe Ruth without any advantages at all in his life. I wouldn't hold modern equipment or training up against someone with that kind of perseverance and incredible talent.

[wondo]

Originally Posted by obcbobd

I saw a show last year where they had Andre De Grasse the Olympic Bronze medalist run in conditions similar to Jesse Owen's ran in. Cinders, shoes, etc. Owens did quite well in comparison

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jas9ff0hdFI

That is very cool. It would be better if he had some running mates and I don't know how you ramp up the adrenaline factor. But, very cool - thanks!

[seanofjapan]

Originally Posted by rats60

Greg Maddux topped out at about 90mph and he was one of the greatest pitchers of all time. Walter Johnson was timed as high as 99mph. I don't think pitchers throw that much harder, even though that is really irrelevant. It is just easy for people to dismiss pitchers of that era because they didn't have speed guns timing every pitch.

Yeah, but Maddux, while one of the greatest pitchers, was never considered one of the hardest throwers of his generation. Johnson was, and by a wide margin at that. According to his Wikipedia entry, Johnson was clocked at 91mph (not sure if that is accurate, but its where I got my info).

I'm not saying that pitching speed is a suitable means of measuring a pitcher, tons of great pitchers didn't throw particularly hard while a lot of hard throwers weren't particularly great. It is however one of the few things where you can put a number on how things have changed over the years - I don't think its controversial to state that the top speeds of pitchers today is higher than it was in the early 20th century (correct me if I am wrong on this). For all the other factors that make a pitcher good - control, finesse, ability to read a batter, movement on a breaking ball, etc - they are pretty much impossible to measure and thus impossible to compare in a meaningful way. We might infer however that given all the other ways in which all sports have progressed, probably there have been incremental increases in these areas as well.

[seanofjapan]

Originally Posted by BobbyVCP

Everyone is saying that the pitching is so much better today then back then. You are not taking into consideration that the pitchers doctored the ball, spit on it and the ball stayed in play a lot longer. With that the pitcher could make the ball move a lot more then todays pitcher. So the lack of speed is made up with movement. Much harder to hit a curve ball then a fastball.

This is a fair point, but its worth mentioning that these factors were far more pronounced during the dead ball era prior to 1920 than they were during Ruth's prime, and changes to the rules limiting these (ie requiring balls be replaced when they got dirty) are sometimes cited as one of the things that enabled Ruth to do what he did.

[pcoz]

Absolutely he would still be great. Could you imagine if he weight trained in today's times? How can anyone stick him in today's game based upon the disparity of how good he was vs the rest of baseball then and not think he would still be great now is mind boggling. Era's change, players change, but all you can do is look at how well they did against their competition. If he played today he'd have 20 more pounds of muscle with short fences, in a juiced ball era. He'd still be the Babe.

[packs]

I haven't seen anyone offer any evidence that pitchers throw harder today than they did in the past. The reason you hear about so many guys throwing 99 or 100 is that they are specialized pitchers. They throw one inning. If they threw more than one inning they would be useless because having only one pitch is a death sentence to pitchers. Back when Ruth played you either had three pitches and could throw seven to nine innings a game, or you threw multiple innings in relief. You would have still had guys throwing 99, but if they only threw 99 they weren't going to be successful in the past iterations of baseball.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by glchen

I don't know if Ruth would be a star today, to be frank, or really anyone from the prewar era. For me, I don't think it would be the issue of international or African Americans playing the game. Ruth did go on barnstorming tours and to Japan, so I think he did play against those types of players and did equally well during that era. So even if Ruth's era had international and African American players, I think Ruth would do just as well or close to it. To add to this, I don't think you saw the star players whose careers crossed eras such as integration or adding more international players, their stats didn't just drop through the floor. Players like Ted Williams or Stan Musial did just fine adjusting as more players were added to the league and were still huge stars.

However, today's game has a lot more different types of pitches and you have specialty pitchers who pitch to just lefties, etc. Ruth may have had the talent to hit the fastball or curve in any era. However, he may not have had the talent to hit the slider or change-up or all of the different types of pitches in the modern era. Even with the modern training regimen, you still need the talent to hit those types of pitches and in different areas of the strike zone, and once pitchers of today's era know that you can't hit a certain type of pitch, they'll just keep throwing it at you all of the time.

I seem to recall that Ruth was tested by personnel from Harvard, who found his eyesight to be around 20/10, and his reflexes off the chart. Given his drive, I'm sure he would have taken full advantage of modern training methods (and I don't mean artificial additives) and would have been even faster and stronger. He would also have adapted to the newer pitches. I played over 30 fast pitch hardball in my early to mid 40's, and Jeff Hamilton, formerly of THE LOS ANGELES DODGERS, was also in that league on an opposing team. We had one pitcher with a slider I could never hit, even in batting practice, when he told me it was coming, due its very late, sharp break. Hamilton, however, went 3 for 5 off him in a game, with two homeruns and a double. When we talked to him after the game, he said that all he really needed to do was see the pitch once, and he would be ready for it. I am sure the Babe would have been able to do the same thing quite well, with his God-given gifts.

Also, if you've ever seen game film of the Babe hitting, you might think his full-body windup style (which is where the "swinging from the heals" phrase originated from) might be a hindrance, but a very similar style worked quite well for Bryce Harper in 2015 and has thus far this year. Just my 75 cents worth.

Highest regards,

Larry

[csotus]

I think to answer the question on if Babe Ruth would have a phenomenal career in todays MLB, you would also need to look at the pitching between his era and our current league. I don't know enough to be able to give a good answer to this, but I do know that Babe in the 20s still had to deal with a spitball which I bet any current MLB player would have difficulty hitting. The spitball was banned in 1920 but we all know it had continued usage in additional to other doctored balls.

Also, look at complete games pitched during the dead ball/beginning of live ball era. Those pitching records are considered unbreakable. Someone pointed out Walter Johnson barely broke 90 mph, but he would throw consistent complete games, and get over 30 wins a season, both unheard of today. The pitchers might not have throw faster than todays MLB pitchers, but I think its safe to say batters facing elite pitchers in the 1920s dealt with their own unique challenges.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

MY issue always comes down to this. Human beings haven't evolved in 100 years. On an evolutionary scale that's a blip. So are we transporting 1920 Babe Ruth to today, or is Babe Ruth being reborn in 1994 and playing today? If it's the latter, it shouldn't even be a question, if it's the former, well, I still think he'd be great, not like he was then, but still a great player.

[Buythatcard]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In the 50s Cobb was asked what he would hit if he were playing today, and he said, around .270. The questioner was shocked and said are today's players really that much better? He said no, but I am 70 years old.

[paulcarek]

Although he'd be 121 years old if he played today, I'd still gladly put him in left for my Giants.

[PowderedH2O]

Here's a comparison for you: Nobutaka Taguchi of Japan won the Gold Medal in the 1972 100m backstroke (the same Olympics of Mark Spitz's 7 wins) with a time of 104.94. He would have finished second in the 2016 Olympics behind Lilly King's time of 104.93. Of course, he would have been racing against women in the 2016 Olympics, as opposed to the males he won against in 1972.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Yes but if he was born in 1996 he likely is still a gold medalist. Humanity has not evolved physically in such a short time, it's better training, nutrition science, etc...

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

Also, as Peter mentioned, pitchers don't seem to throw any harder now, and hitters don't seem to hit the ball any further these days....

But they do, don't they? Even if they don't "seem to." WaJo was probably throwing in the 90s pretty consistently over the first several innings, but not in the high 90s and not after the 5th inning. 90 mph was a serious fastball back then. And who, other than Ruth himself, hit more than a few shots beyond 450'?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

But they do, don't they? Even if they don't "seem to." WaJo was probably throwing in the 90s pretty consistently over the first several innings, but not in the high 90s and not after the 5th inning. 90 mph was a serious fastball back then. And who, other than Ruth himself, hit more than a few shots beyond 450'?

Johnson was tested on two different occations where his fastball was clocked in the high 90s. So, he probably was throwing in the high 90s in games.

[tedzan]

Hey guys,

Johnson's speed was clocked between 91 - 95 MPH. But, more significantly, he pitched with a "wicked" Sidearm motion. Right-handed batters could not touch his stuff.
And, Left-handed batters were not too successful, either. In my opinion, Johnson would be very effective in today's game.

Furthermore, Babe Ruth was the greatest BB player in the 20th Century....and, would still be the greatest in the 21st Century. He is a unique human being in the realm
of sports history. Since he started playing BB approx. 100 years ago, we have not seen the likes of him. And, I doubt that we ever will again


TED Z
.

[PowderedH2O]

We can't just take Ruth out and say that if he was born in 1990 he would have better nutrition and training, so he'd be just as good or whatever. What made Ruth was his circumstances. He grew up in the orphanage. His fuel for winning was based on his life. Baseball was America's pastime, and boys all over the country wanted to play it. If Ruth is a 10 year old in 2000, he'd probably be playing video games in his free time and who knows if he is even motivated to play sports at all?

I am a high school teacher. We have 1,500 students at our school. Guess how many guys tried out for the baseball team this year. 13. If you tried out, you made the team. Period. When I was a teenager, I can remember baseball tryouts had dozens of guys showing up. I was thrilled to squeeze onto the roster. It was an honor to play. It just isn't the same anymore. This is why we see so many Latin American players in MLB. It still is competitive in the Dominican Republic. Those guys still love the sport and still want to compete. And, I would surmise that this will not change for some period of time.

So, Ruth is forever stuck in his own era, right where he belongs.

[Leon]

1500 kids and 13 tried out for the baseball team. That is sad. I guess today's Babe Ruth is Mark Zuckerberg. OH well, the Babe will always be the Babe, possibly grander than life but definitely grand for his time.

Originally Posted by PowderedH2O

We can't just take Ruth out and say that if he was born in 1990 he would have better nutrition and training, so he'd be just as good or whatever. What made Ruth was his circumstances. He grew up in the orphanage. His fuel for winning was based on his life. Baseball was America's pastime, and boys all over the country wanted to play it. If Ruth is a 10 year old in 2000, he'd probably be playing video games in his free time and who knows if he is even motivated to play sports at all?

I am a high school teacher. We have 1,500 students at our school. Guess how many guys tried out for the baseball team this year. 13. If you tried out, you made the team. Period. When I was a teenager, I can remember baseball tryouts had dozens of guys showing up. I was thrilled to squeeze onto the roster. It was an honor to play. It just isn't the same anymore. This is why we see so many Latin American players in MLB. It still is competitive in the Dominican Republic. Those guys still love the sport and still want to compete. And, I would surmise that this will not change for some period of time.

So, Ruth is forever stuck in his own era, right where he belongs.

[Bocabirdman]

Yes...He would be a star, certainly not an asterisk.

[packs]

People keep bringing up how hard Walter Johnson threw and are using archaic measurements taken in his own time to say that he threw 91 to 95. When they wanted to find out how hard Bob Feller threw he threw a baseball while another guy rode a motorcycle. I wouldn't put any stock in those numbers. I think it's clear that Johnson threw extremely hard for any time period considering he was the top of the food chain when he pitched and the human arm isn't any stronger now than it was then.

[darwinbulldog]

Also we can't run 100 meters any faster now than we could then.

[TUM301]

Anyone who has own adjective, "Ruthian" is all right in my book be it past present or future !

[Leon]

Good point!! Actually, a Ruthian point!!

Originally Posted by TUM301

Anyone who has own adjective, "Ruthian" is all right in my book be it past present or future !

[tedzan]

Hey guys,

Babe Ruth really started his career in 1915, and Mickey Mantle's first year was 1951.....note the " transposed-coincidence " of those two years in the 20th Century.

At the risk of being accused a biased Yankees fan. In the modern era, I'd say Mickey was the closest BB player we've had to Ruth (in terms of hitting performance).


Indeed, Babe Ruth was the greatest BB player. And, all I am saying here is Mickey came close in terms of power and clutch hitting in big games just as Ruth did in
his era. Therefore, I totally agree with those here who have said that Ruth would be a "star" in the current BB environment.


TED Z
.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Hey guys,

Babe Ruth really started his career in 1915, and Mickey Mantle's first year was 1951.....note the " transposed-coincidence " of those two years in the 20th Century.

At the risk of being accused a biased Yankees fan. In the modern era, I'd say Mickey was the closest BB player we've had to Ruth (in terms of hitting performance).


Indeed, Babe Ruth was the greatest BB player. And, all I am saying here is Mickey came close in terms of power and clutch hitting in big games just as Ruth did in
his era. Therefore, I totally agree with those here who have said that Ruth would be a "star" in the current BB environment.


TED Z
.

Hi Ted it's JoeT and I hope all is well! Great point on Mantle and consider this: Mickey Mantle hit 10 DOCUMENTED 500 FT+ home runs which is an absolutely incredible feat. If a current player hits ONE in todays PED driven era it's plastered all over ESPN as a miraculous accomplishment. Mantle did it 10 times with no steriods, world class conditioning programs, etc. He was simply the strongest hitter in baseball history, bar none. True, athletes are faster, stronger and more athletic in the 21st century. However, there will always be a handful of supernatural-like athletes that even outdistance today's superstars, with Ruth and Mantle being two classic examples. Also consider this: the physics of baseball has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that lighter bats generating more bat speed augment the distance of a batted ball. Imagine Ruth & Mantle swinging 33/34 ounce bats with these tightly laced baseballs...wow!

So I think the bottom line here is that every sport will have its past supernatural players that would outdistance even the "hi-tech" 21st century studs. Another perfect example of that is the immortal race horse Secretariat who set track/ racing records that continue to easily stand the test of time. Consider even in lieu of faster Tracks and more advanced training, he still holds all 3 Triple Crown records for the fastest times. In fact, if you put all 3 TC races together, he would have beaten TC winner American Pharoah by an astounding 57 lengths or 1-1/2 football fields!!!! There is no science for this.....just the fact that Secretariat was a "once in a lifetime" freak of nature. Same with Ruth & Mantle. They would dominate in 1890...1930...1960....2017....and in the year 3000!!!

Best Regards,.
Joe

[EvilKing00]

He not only would be great today but he would b the best player in the league, yes over trout and harper. He would hit third on any team every day, except the days he pitches as the teams 1 or 2 starter.

[ksfarmboy]

I'd love to see how Mike Trout would hit with a 46+ ounce bat against a 90+ mph fastball. Even an 80+ mph fastball would be interesting.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Hi Ted it's JoeT and I hope all is well! Great point on Mantle and consider this: Mickey Mantle hit 10 DOCUMENTED 500 FT+ home runs which is an absolutely incredible feat. If a current player hits ONE in todays PED driven era it's plastered all over ESPN as a miraculous accomplishment. Mantle did it 10 times with no steriods, world class conditioning programs, etc. He was simply the strongest hitter in baseball history, bar none. True, athletes are faster, stronger and more athletic in the 21st century. However, there will always be a handful of supernatural-like athletes that even outdistance today's superstars, with Ruth and Mantle being two classic examples. Also consider this: the physics of baseball has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that lighter bats generating more bat speed augment the distance of a batted ball. Imagine Ruth & Mantle swinging 33/34 ounce bats with these tightly laced baseballs...wow!

So I think the bottom line here is that every sport will have its past supernatural players that would outdistance even the "hi-tech" 21st century studs. Another perfect example of that is the immortal race horse Secretariat who set track/ racing records that continue to easily stand the test of time. Consider even in lieu of faster Tracks and more advanced training, he still holds all 3 Triple Crown records for the fastest times. In fact, if you put all 3 TC races together, he would have beaten TC winner American Pharoah by an astounding 57 lengths or 1-1/2 football fields!!!! There is no science for this.....just the fact that Secretariat was a "once in a lifetime" freak of nature. Same with Ruth & Mantle. They would dominate in 1890...1930...1960....2017....and in the year 3000!!!

Best Regards,.
Joe

Thanks Joe T

Speaking about Mantle's 500+ ft HR's....if you haven't read this Spring Training exhibition game (March 25, 1951 at USC) story regarding Mickey then please check-it-out......
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar...antle-20110326

It was an amazing performance by the 19-year old rookie....an unbelievable start to an illustrious BB career.


TED Z
.