"The House That Ruth Built"

Also, I'm not sure when they changed the rule, but there was a time when what would be considered a grounds rule double today was a home run.

Edit: (Rule changed in 1931): "A fair ball which bounces through or over a fence, or into the stands, is considered a ground rule double instead of a home run." (MacMillan Baseball Encyclopedia)

Interestingly, and I didn't know this, in 1926 a rule was made which stated "A ball hit over a fence in fair territory, where the fence is less than 250 feet from home plate, is a ground rule double, rather than a home run."

I didn't say that this rule was ever changed, so I presume that it remained in effect for the duration of the time that there were still stadiums with fences less than 250 feet from home.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Diluted pitching should theoretically make it easier for the hitters.

Specialization and "situational" pitchers definitely make it harder for the hitters.

I don't agree about the diluted pitching, BTW. Having 30 MLB teams today with today's population of the U.S. to draw players from is roughly the same as having 16 teams in 1960, with the smaller population to draw from.

Not to mention the fact that we are also getting the best Latin American and Asian players over here as well.

There were plenty of marginal pitchers 45 years ago, just as there are plenty today. [/b][/quote]We completely disagree then. Of course diluted pitching makes it much easier for hitters. And you're right, there were lousy pitchers 45 years ago. But expansion has watered down the league, especially when it comes to pitching. If there weren't 30 + teams, some of these knuckleheads wouldn't even be in the big leagues.

Once you get past the 1st 3 starters on any given team, the odds are high that the #4 & #5 pitchers suck. And saying that there are 3 quality starters on most teams IS a stretch. Look at the Diamondbacks of 2001 - they won a World Series in what amounted to a 2 man staff - Johnson & Shilling. Granted the better teams who make the playoffs regularly don't fit this mold, but teams like Cleveland, Detroit, Tampa, Philly, Texas, etc. are launching pads for good home run hitters.

Diluted pitching certainly would make it easier for the hitters. I just don't believe that the pitching is any more diluted today than in the past.

Few teams in the past had more than two (maybe three) quality starters, just like today.

And Arizona wasn't the first team to win a championship with only two front line starters.

I didn't do the research here, but I'd bet that combos like Spahn & Burdette and Koufax & Drysdale won a higher percentage of their teams games than Johnson & Schilling did.

And there were plenty of home run "launching pads" -- both stadiums and teams -- in the old days, too. Teams like the Pirates, Athletics, Phillies, and Washington Senators were consistently horrible for 30-40 year stretches.

Ebbets Field (Brooklyn) immediately comes to mind, and there were probably more stadiums with short fences in the old days than there are today.

Hey Plaw
You obviously know a lot about baseball and its history. Who are some of your all-time favorites (either players or teams) that you have seen or played during your lifetime?

I'm not old enough to have seen Koufax, Mantle, or Aaron play in person. For me growing up, I always liked the play of George Brett, Mike Schmidt, Nolan Ryan, Mark McGwire, Ozzie Smith, and Johnny Bench to name a few.

Well, my first conscious memory of baseball was 1955.

I was six years old, living in Brooklyn less than two blocks from Ebbets Field, and I could actually here the crowd noise from my bedroom window during a night game.

In 1955 the Dodgers finally beat the Yankees in the World Series, and people were wild in the streets. Made quite an impression on me, even though I didn't really understand the game.

But I was raised to hate the Yankees, and when I started to understand the game in 1957, I rooted for the Braves, who beat the Yankees in the Series that year.

I was a huge fan until my late teens, and used to go to a lot of games at both Yankee and Shea Stadiums, so I saw pretty much all of the great teams and players in person in the 60's.

If I had to pick a favorite team now I guess it would be the Mets, but I have a hard time rooting for them when they are as terrible as they are today and with such a clueless organization behind them.

I am absolutely pulling for Bonds to break the record. When he breaks the record it doesn't minimize what Ruth and Aaron have done, it just is one of those things that happen over time. Even if Bonds ends up with 800 homers, there will be scores of people that believe that Ruth is still the greatest home run hitter of all time, the same way they do now even though Aaron holds the record.

Same is true in football. Emmitt Smith is the record holder, with Walter Payton second. I am convinced that the greatest running back of all time is Jim Brown. It doesn't matter to me that he no longer holds the record. Or coaching - make me GM of a team and let me pick my coach out of all the coaches in history and I'll take Vince Lombardi any day. Others may have more wins than he did, but in my mind he was the best ever.