| RotoGuru Baseball Forum View the Forum Registry |
| |
| 0 |
Subject: Greatest Team of All-Time Posted by: Myboyjack - Leader [4443038] Mon, Apr 30, 08:56 I've been killing time this morning, perusing ESPN.com's Major League Archives Stats and I came up with the following All-Time Team. Top it if you can: C Johny Bench (couple of current players are close) 1B Lou Gehrig (Nobody close to the Iron Horse) 2B Joe Morgan (incredibly productive and could glove) 3B Mike Schmidt (great bat - great glove) SS Rogers Hornsby (ARod before there was ARod) OF Mickey Mantle (Amazed at his BB totals - injuries kept him from being the greatest all-around player) OF Willie Mays (Man - too be a fan in NY in the 50's) OF Babe Ruth (Best hitter ever - hands down) DH Ted Williams (When looking at his career stats - hard to believe he lost almost 5 full seasons during the most productive time in his career to military service) RHP Walter Johnson LHP Steve Carlton | ||||||
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] | |||||||
| 111 | Brock ID: 26328214 Tue, May 01, 14:33 | I see you guys are trying to change the subject when you finally realized how wrong you were. Keep up the good work. | |||||
| 112 | Brock ID: 26328214 Tue, May 01, 14:36 | Stargell batted left handed and McGwire batted right handed. Stargell never hit any out of Dodger Stadium unless it was constructed differently 30-40 years ago. Did you see him do it or did you just read about it. That's what I thought. | |||||
| 113 | walk Sustainer ID: 592181610 Tue, May 01, 14:36 |
Yeah, I roared at that Ruthian post. Hit the ball over dead center. The latent satire was brilliant, brilliant! Serious help is on the way. No, no, no. no, no, no, Foster's did not go 450, they went 472. Yeah, yeah, 472. That was it, 472.039450395039458. And Mantle, that went 499.30495803495034958309. Yeah. I know, I took out my encyclopedia and compass and protractor and took the square root of the pythagorean theorem and then divided by the circumference of the algebraic expression of GEESH and calculated that Ruth's shot never went over center, it went over left of center, just to the right of left. And Mantle's blast was actually a special effect done by Steven Spielberg in an elementary school film of his that was never released, but is coming out on video soon. He used some interesting blue back lights and the first mainframe computer to generate the effect of Mantle's blast going up to a computer-generated facade. Then, in order to dupe the fans in attendance, he stopped time, doped their beers, and gave them these original 3-D glasses and had them hypnotized by Eddie Layton on the organ and Mel Allen over the loudspeaker saying over and over: "Can you believe it! The ball hit the facade!" And then they all woke up! - walk | |||||
| 114 | 30something deac Sustainer ID: 44447319 Tue, May 01, 14:43 |
Wow! Look at this Brock. Maybe you can go to this site and tell these guys they're idiots: Mickey Mantle | |||||
| 115 | Brock ID: 26328214 Tue, May 01, 14:44 |
Common sense. That's what this is all about. Mel Allen was wrong. Is that hard to believe? He says he thought it hit the facade and that's makes it a fact. WRONG!!! Here's an example for you. I was watching the Cards/Mets game on Saturday. Pujols hit a shot to left field. Both the announcers said the ball hit off the soreboard in left which would be a blast. After a couple of replays they still said the same thing. After a couple of more replays they figured out that it had not hit the scorebaord. Instead of being a near 500' homerun, it was only 430'. Get the picture here. | |||||
| 116 | Wammie ID: 20039259 Tue, May 01, 14:47 |
these are the same fans who can tell if a ball is a pitched strike from the left field stands. What proof is there that this Mickey's ball went that far? How about a player like Glenn Allen Hill hitting the ball on the roof overlooking left at wrigley. Hill is a below average player, and he hit a ball up there. he would probalby be a hall of famer with that kind of power in the 70's. Todays players are so much better than the old timers. | |||||
| 117 | chode at work ID: 41046211 Tue, May 01, 14:49 | Common sense tells me that Brock is an idiot. "That's what this is all about." Therefore, I am right. Brock is an idiot. Anyone else find this statement to be fact? | |||||
| 118 | steve houpt ID: 53340234 Tue, May 01, 14:49 |
Calling 'The Sporting News' a liar now. This one left handed. While no ball has ever been hit out of Yankee Stadium, on May 23, 1963 Mickey Mantle propelled a pitch thrown by Bill Fischer of KC against the third deck facade in right field. The ball struck 109 feet above the playing field and 374 feet from home plate. An engineer estimated, the potential of a 620' foot clout. Even if 620 is an exaggeration, 500 seems sure. This one right handed in Wash DC. On April 17, 1953 against Chuck Stobbs, Mantle walloped a ball over the left-field wall and into a yard BEHIND a three-story tenenant. The ball traveled 565 feet. And it could not have ROLLED. SOURCE: ME, no, The Sporting News, Take Me Out To The Ball Park. IBSN: 0-89204-205-2 | |||||
| 119 | Brock ID: 26328214 Tue, May 01, 14:51 | 30 - What a complete joke!!! I have seen all those numbers for Mantle before. I've always thought that anybody could make up better garbage than those Mantle fans. 734'?!?!?!? Maybe 470' with the wind. Off the facade? I doubt it. | |||||
| 120 | Razor ID: 48238516 Tue, May 01, 14:53 | Stargell hit it out. I saw it. I was there. Completely out. Dodger Stadium hasn't been changed structurally since then. | |||||
| 121 | Brock ID: 26328214 Tue, May 01, 14:54 | A kid picked the ball up and said it landed where it did. That is a known fact. To think that little kids don't get confused or exaggerate. I find that hard to believe. | |||||
| 122 | walk Sustainer ID: 592181610 Tue, May 01, 15:02 |
The moral of the story: Everyone's either a liar, makes errors of judgment, or exaggerates. The Allie McBeal lawyer says so! - walk | |||||
| 123 | F Gump ID: 513172421 Tue, May 01, 15:03 |
Now you boys need to stop arguing about all this and let someone settle it who KNOWS what happened. I was there. I saw Babe Ruth hit his long home runs, in person. I saw the Big Mac lay the wood on 'em the last few years. And the Mick. I saw 'em all! I am 112 years old and I am an expert. I am not just some wet-behind-the-ears college preppie like Brock. And let me tell ya, they could hit 'em a ton! Why I remember the day, the Babe hit one a mile, maybe a mile-and-a-half, and I got my boys and we started a measurin'. Got out our tape measures (they were the cloth kind back then) and measured and measured and measured. And first thing ya know, it was close to a jillion feet. Now that McGwire, he is a big ole boy, one of the best (maybe even better than the Babe at knocking the stuffing off the ball.) Why I recall one day, he hit a ball so hard, and it rolled up to where I was sitting, and it was plumb FLAT on one side! And another time, that ball got to me and I swear, it was still whimperin' 10 minutes after ole McGwire had put that whompin' on it! But even today, who can tell? Some ole boy on ESPN starts hollerin' about someone hit a 500 footer, and everyone takes it as Gospel. The next week, there's two more. And all the while, it is certainly a long 'un, but that ESPN boy ain't never pulled out a tape measure in his life! But if the "source" today is the announcers, or the ballclub, now they are experts, doncha think? Ever-body says 500, and next thing ya know that ole ballpark fills up to see the next monster hit, and tweren't one tape measure laid to it even oncet! Just "our automatic measurin' machine" and all. Why I tell ya, that can allow the most amazing whoppers of all. I should know, I tole 'em how to figger it out and all. And they never had to hire no physics perfesser or "Harvard man" or such to tell 'em how, just lil ole me, helpin' em invent big numbers to keep them turnstiles a-movin'. Now I tell ya, in any era, stadium dimensions kinda put a crimp in my ability to "interpret" them ole things as I saw 'em, cause when they hit 'em plumb out of a 500-ft stadium, it is kinda hard to argue that the ball only travelled 300 feet cause physics said so. Maybe the balls were made of rubber back then, who in blazes knows? Now the preppie college boy, Mr Brock, needs to go back to his prof and do some real learning! Instead of saying "could not have been done", he needs to go back and figger out "how'd they do that?" Was it rubberized balls? Gale force winds? Foerearms the size of Popeye? All I know is, me and my boys, we got our measurin' done, and ole preppie was not even a gleam in his pappy's eye in them days. And that's just how it is! THE END! | |||||
| 124 | steve houpt ID: 53340234 Tue, May 01, 15:06 |
Stargell at Dodger stadium. Aug 6, 1969 May 8, 1973 Out of stadium. | |||||
| 125 | walk Sustainer ID: 592181610 Tue, May 01, 15:08 |
#123 is brilliant, and I am blind to the author. It is very worthy. - walk | |||||
| 126 | Brock ID: 26328214 Tue, May 01, 15:10 | Exaggerates is about right. I don't mean to call all of you guys morons and idiots but you leave me with no choice. There's no facts that these events happened other than a wrtten account or someone saying where they thought it hit. You can see by post 115 how confused people can get even with a replay. If somebody told you that A-Rod hit 600' homeruns in high school would you believe them? I know I wouldn't. 100's of people may have seen it and thought it landed here or it landed there but common sense says it didn't go that far. | |||||
| 127 | CanEHdian Pride ID: 426351415 Tue, May 01, 15:13 |
Correct me if i'm wrong but a ball which hits of a facade would have to bounce off somewhere right. This would mean that it was headed toward the facade and then abruptly changed direction. How can someone "think" that it hit it. | |||||
| 128 | Brock ID: 26328214 Tue, May 01, 15:13 | No balls where ever hit out of a 500' stadium. Wrong again. | |||||
| 129 | Razor ID: 48238516 Tue, May 01, 15:16 | "where" and "were," while having many similiar letters, are not the same words. Your college paper must have been great. | |||||
| 130 | Brock ID: 26328214 Tue, May 01, 15:17 | Maybe I was wrong about the facade. It was only 370 ft away from home plate. You got me there. It still doesn't make it 734'. More like the 470' like I previously stated. | |||||
| 131 | Brock ID: 26328214 Tue, May 01, 15:20 | You have to result to critiquing my fast typing because you have nothing else to say. That's classic. | |||||
| 132 | CanEHdian Pride ID: 426351415 Tue, May 01, 15:21 |
This is a pointless debate. The game has changed so much that noone knows the answer. All i know is that if Babe Ruth had lifted some Barebell instead of Bar Claws between games that he might just be able to keep pace with Big Mac. Toss in a steady diet of Andro and who knows how far Ruth or Mantle would have hit the ball. Bottom line: They had the talent but didn't do the same preparation they do now! | |||||
| 133 | Brock ID: 26328214 Tue, May 01, 15:22 | Razor - How many breaks do you get at the factory? | |||||
| 134 | CanEHdian Pride ID: 426351415 Tue, May 01, 15:22 | result and resort---see post 129 | |||||
| 135 | Razor ID: 48238516 Tue, May 01, 15:25 |
Good one, Pride. | |||||
| 136 | Brock ID: 26328214 Tue, May 01, 15:26 | They didn't have the same physical abilities either. McGwire has an ideal frame. Don't forget about that. He is 6'4". Mantle was only 5'11". Ruth was 6'2" which is good but I just couldn't see that blob having the dedication it takes to get into shape. | |||||
| 137 | Pearl St. Punisher ID: 46431117 Tue, May 01, 15:30 |
One time, back in High School, I cracked one out of our park that must of went 550'. I know that because that's what I believe. And because this happened in 1990, I know I was alot better than anybody that ever played in 70's or prior.(do you smell that? that was sarcasm.) Brock, do you do steroids? Do you have a small member? You seem to be having a hard time believing that anyone prior to "Mid-1990's Offensive GoldRush"* could ever have had the power and/or talent to do such things such as 500' Homers. I understand that as time passes on, legends grow. But that is what makes the history of baseball enjoyable, to compare and contrast players from different eras. Just don't be so close minded to the fact that before you were born, there was a game called baseball. And some of those figments of America's collective memory were great players. -Punisher *that is a term I just made up. haha! | |||||
| 138 | Brock ID: 26328214 Tue, May 01, 15:43 | I'm not arguing the fact that these players were the best for the time period they played but players evolve and they are much better now than they were then. People try to say that they were as strong back then as they are now, that they hit the ball as far as they do now, that the pitching is watered down now, it's all garbage. Maybe you old timers should just stick to softball because you know little about baseball. | |||||
| 139 | Wammie ID: 20039259 Tue, May 01, 15:46 |
I don't think he is saying that guys could not dominate sports, sure they did. there is little doubt that Babe Ruth was the best player of his era. but Babe Ruth could not play today's game. Players today are bigger, faster, stronger, in better shape, and play all year round today. | |||||
| 141 | Brock ID: 26328214 Tue, May 01, 15:53 | It's called a photo. They are created with a machine known as a camera. Ask around and you'll find out more about cameras and photos. | |||||
| 142 | James K Polk ID: 32012715 Tue, May 01, 15:56 |
I fully realize the futility of questioning someone who's defending the absurd just to get a few kicks, but ... You imply that pitchers are better now than they were in the "old days." Why exactly do you believe this? Pitching, of course, being less a function of athleticism and more a function of mechanics, leverage and leg strength. Clearly this isn't a question of "frame," as shown by Billy Wagner, Pedro and others. Why exactly do you believe that human beings now can throw the ball in the high 90s, but couldn't back then? What has caused this change? | |||||
| 143 | Richard Leader ID: 1719313 Tue, May 01, 16:00 |
I've got to rate this thread a 5, just for the sheer entertainment value;-) Richard | |||||
| 144 | Brock ID: 26328214 Tue, May 01, 16:01 | The knowledge of how to pitch, training, and mechanics. | |||||
| 145 | louky Sustainer ID: 8451310 Tue, May 01, 16:03 | Nice question Mr. Prez, slowed him down to a 9 word answer, and not a very good one at that. | |||||
| 146 | APerfect10 ID: 432432619 Tue, May 01, 16:07 | If i remember correctly, Brock stated we were all computer geeks and sat at our comps all day. Looking back at the past posts, he's been posting pretty consistently from 13:17 - 16:01. Thats almost 3 hours! Hmm, someone sounds confused! | |||||
| 147 | Wammie ID: 20039259 Tue, May 01, 16:17 | if pedro martinez pitched in the 1960's, he would probalby give up one or two hits a month. no one could hit him. this is because the game has developed, for both hitters and pitchers. | |||||
| 148 | James K Polk ID: 32012715 Tue, May 01, 16:39 |
Gonna be pretty hard to defend posts 144 and 147, considering the relative simplicity of pitching mechanics and pitching strategy. The ball is pretty simple too, as are the grips required to throw breaking balls. There may be more charting going on, and computer analysis, but that doesn't affect the basics of throwing it where you want it, at the speed you want it. And pitching strategy still basically comes down to setting up a batter for something unexpected, or knowing that Batter X is vulnerable to the fastball up and in, etc. Knowledge of how to pitch has not changed much. Proper mechanics have changed even less. Training has clearly improved the most, but has more to do with stamina, which is not what we're talking about. | |||||
| 149 | F Gump ID: 513172421 Tue, May 01, 16:56 |
Preppie, now who are you callin' an old-timer in Post #138? I may be 112 years old and I may have seen 'em all, but I ain't no old-timer. You want to talk to an old-timer, you go talk to my pappy in the other room! Now HE is an old-timer, a codger of the worst sort! Now listen, you may not be wet behind the ears anymore, but ya still got a lot of learnin' to do, and learnin' that don't come from no books, neither. One thing you don't know about is how people thought about their writin', and the papers, and that sort of stuff "back in the day." Nowadays, a person can write any ole crap and it can be full of lies and made up crap and opinions and "scientific knowledge" and the like, and all of it horse hockey, and people don't pay it no never mind. (Heck, even ole Bill in the White House, he can lie to a judge nowadays and most people don't think a thing, but that ain't neither here nor there cause ole Bill can't hit a baseball a lick, and even if he could his Big-Mac-chompin' body could never make it around the bases before the game gets called on account of rain or darkness or curfew or Iraqi bombs or somesuch. But I digress.) But back in olden times - why, back then, if a feller did not tell the simple facts in his newspaper account, why he woulda got fired! Told to hit the road! And in shame, which no one seems to have any appreciation fer anymore. And what kept him honest? The other writers that were there, of course. Now if there are 10 or 15 or more people covering a game, and one of 'em starts a lyin', the others uncover the liar and the liar has no job. And if'n you recall from yer history books, the Depression times was no time to be without a job, or even to take a chance on losing one if you had it. And the newspapers, their bosses would not hire a liar or keep one, cuz'n all they had to work with to keep their papers a-sellin' was "the truth", and there was lotsa competition in them days, not just one paper in a town like there is todays. So when they said "the ball was hit out of the stadium", then dang-nabbit, the ball was gone. Vamoosed. Outta there. Gonzo. Period. Now they may of dressed it up a bit, and told it in fancier language in them ole days, but by golly, the facts was the facts. If they said the ole Babe, or any of 'em, hit it "clean out of the park", then you can bet yer panties that it was a souvenir for the non-paying fan. So that's how it is. And don't ferget, I was there. And that's all I gotta say about THAT! | |||||
| 150 | phil80 ID: 35246113 Tue, May 01, 16:59 | I totally agree with Brock. Most of you simply avoid arguing his many valid points by using sarcasm or changing the subject. | |||||
| 151 | CanEHdian Pride ID: 426351415 Tue, May 01, 17:08 |
May I reitterate my post 132 This is a pointless debate. Noone knows if Mickey Mantle would succeed in today's game. He had the talent to do so. One of the best swings in the game and hit an unjuiced ball further then a lot of today's sluggers. Could he handle the pitching. Pedro---probably not Weaver---most of the time Lima---HE'D REGULATE So that's all there is to argue. Let's agree that noone can accuratley predict how a player from 35 years ago would handle today's game. Can we atleast do that?? | |||||
| 152 | Wammie ID: 437541618 Tue, May 01, 18:22 |
Under the assumption that players from 35 years ago, we don't know if they could play today... Over the last 35 years, the game of baseball has developed to a point where players like Mickey Mantle and Willie Mayes may not actually be able to play baseball on the MLB level, much less excell. This leads me to believe that the typical players of the time had no chance to play the current game. and then also, players who were 5, 10, 20, 30 or more years before the 1964 dead line are even less likely to have been able to play much less excell. Babe Ruth played 80 years ago. There is no way he could play today's game. same goes for Ty Cobb, Cy Young, or who ever. The average college baseball team's dp combo is surely better than Tinkers to Everse to Chance. There is no doubt that as the game progress, and the players progress, the old players could not do it. Look at sports like track and field, or swimming. where the world records from 30 years ago are beaten by the average athlete every day. As well as in basketball, Shaq would score 100 points on a nightly basis if he played in the days of Wilt and Russell. | |||||
| 153 | James K Polk ID: 4455731 Tue, May 01, 19:03 |
How exactly has the game of baseball progressed over the decades? Athletically, of course, the average player today is likely better than the average player from the past, but baseball is NOT all about athleticism. Hence all the "5-tool" athletes that scouts drool over, but who can't even cut it in the minors. Sheer athletic ability doesn't make you a baseball player, because you have to channel that athleticism through specific skills -- swinging a bat, throwing a ball, etc. In fact, as John Kruk, David Wells and plenty of others will testify, you can master these skills without a phenomenal level of athletic ability. Obviously strength and athleticism are components of baseball stardom, but if they were the only factors, teams would be out scouting bodybuilders, and every kid like Josh Booty would turn into the superstar he was projected to be. It's one thing to compare track, swimming, football or basketball eras and say that today's superior athletes are better than those from the past, but baseball is an entirely different animal. Hand-eye coordination, mechanics, etc., is what sets you apart. So again, what exactly is so different about today's game compared with the game from the 1950s, or the 1920s? Still 60 feet 6 inches to the plate, 90 feet between bases. Still have to throw the ball and hit the ball. Sorry, but running faster, jumping higher and bench-pressing more just isn't going to help you do those things better. | |||||
| 154 | Texas Flood Donor ID: 12458220 Tue, May 01, 20:58 |
ture physical specimans, cecil fielder, john kruk, david wells, bartolo colon, albie lopez, tony gwynn, kirby puckett, kent hrbek, and babe ruth was fat? give me a break! | |||||
| 155 | Jehu ID: 51423120 Tue, May 01, 21:11 | i can't believe some of the things i've been reading in this thread. let me ask you brock, what makes you such an expert that you can say you are absolutely POSITIVE that someone 5'11, 190 pounds can't hit a 500 ft. homer? it's just your pure belief, one that no one else can seem to get you to change. although it's obvious that other people are putting up better arguments than you, you aren't willing to give in. maybe if you had some sort of certification that would give you some credibility of your statements, then we actually MIGHT take into consideration that some of your statements are valid and then we would no longer seem like "morons" to you. | |||||
| 157 | James K Polk ID: 4455731 Tue, May 01, 21:47 |
TF -- But Herbie was ripped, man! :) j/k, of course. Thanks for reminding me about Cecil, too. Was thinking about this on the way to work tonight but forgot to post it ... Aug. 25, 1990: Detroit Tiger slugger Cecil Fielder became the first Tiger ever to crack a home run over Tiger Stadium's leftfield roof. Cecil joined Harmon Killebrew (1962) and Frank Howard (1968) as the only batters to send a ball out of this ballpark. Cecil also is credited with a 502-foot shot at Milwaukee's County Stadium in 1991. But I guess those "blobs" just can't hit the long ones ... For the record, I do believe that some of the mythical blasts from guys like Mantle have been exaggerated over time, but I also have no problem believing that guys back then could hit 500-foot home runs. People have looked into this. Here's a good article at Baseball Almanac. From said article: "It should be noted that those regular references over the years to 500- and 600-foot home runs were born out of scientific ignorance, misinformation, or even deliberate exaggeration. The most common cause for overstatement has been the basic misconception about the flight of a batted ball once it has reached its apex. Seeing great drives land atop distant upper-deck roof, sportswriters observing the occurrence from a press box would resort to their limited skills in mathematics without any regard for the laws of physics. Perhaps the ball had already flown over 400 feet, whereupon it was interrupted in midflight at a height of 70 feet above field level. Awed by such a demonstration of power, the writers would then describe the event for posterity as a 500-and-some-foot home run. With the guidance of our scientific brethren, we know that once a batted ball has reached its highest point and lost most of its velocity, it falls in a rapidly declining trajectory. The aforementioned fictional home run could have been reported at 550 feet in a prominent newspaper, and re-created at that length by historians for years thereafter, when in fact it traveled about 100 feet less. Hyperbole has always been part of the phenomenon of long-distance home runs, and this factor must also be considered." However, just because hyperbole inflated the tales, this does not mean that some of those home runs didn't travel 500 feet. From the same article: "[Babe Ruth's] tremendous blow to right-center field in Detroit on June 8, 1926, has often been reported as traveling over 600 feet. Certainly, this drive was propelled somewhere around 500 feet in the air, which makes it legitimately historic, but proof that it traveled 600 feet cannot be found. When Mickey Mantle cleared the left-center-field bleachers at Clark Griffith Stadium in Washington on April 17, 1953, the entire baseball world was lead to believe the ball had traveled 565 feet from home plate to the point where it landed. In truth, that figure derived from the distance from home plate to the place where a neighborhood child retrieved the ball. Since this home run was the only one that ever cleared those bleachers during decades of major league and Negro League competition, it is genuinely deserving of recognition. However, the actual distance in the air was probably about 510 feet." And: "In 1921 alone, which was Ruth's best tape measure season, he hit at least one 500 foot home run in all eight American League cities. There should be no doubt about the authentication of these conclusions. Despite the scarcity of film on Ruth, we can still make definitive evaluations of the approximate landing points of all of his 714 career home runs." | |||||
| 158 | loki Donor ID: 4217517 Tue, May 01, 22:45 | Sandy Koufax should be the choice for LHP. He is remembered for his fastball, but his curve was from another dimension. I remember watching his curve appear to be heading towards the batter's head only to curve over the outside corner of the plate. He always had to settle for the first 2-3 innings, but thereafter the possibility of a no-hitter was always there. Pedro is good, but I have seen Pedro and Koufax, and Koufax was of a higher order of magnitude. | |||||
| 159 | Razor ID: 48238516 Wed, May 02, 03:26 | I can't tell if you are serious or not Wammie but if you want to call Jamie Navarro better than Bob Gibson and Sandy Koufax and call Craig Grebeck better than Babe Ruth, Wille Mays and Teddy Ballgame, I'm forced to believe you are joking. If you are indeed serious, those comments need not be addressed as they are beyond ridiculous. | |||||
| 160 | Lutefisker ID: 293172723 Wed, May 02, 04:59 | Next to Lutefisker, I would have to go with the winningest Lefty of all time... Warren Spahn. | |||||
| 161 | revengemaster ID: 9446812 Fri, May 11, 08:40 |
Brock, wake up and get a clue, you are sounding ridiculous! What are you GOD! Babe Ruth hit dead balls 450 feet, NO DOUBT! | |||||
| 162 | BoSoxfan9 ID: 33518295 Fri, May 11, 18:51 | Back to the greatest team of all time--- It's sad that Pete Rose isn't even mentioned! He was the best all around hitter of the 60's, 70's, and early 80's. What he lacked in power, he made up for it in aggression. | |||||
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. | ||||||
| |||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | |||||||