re: Hank Aaron compares GOP to the Klan

quote:

---

or maybe since he lived through it and you did not HE KNOWS WHAT THE HELL HE IS TALKING ABOUT AND YOU IDIOTS DO NOT

---

I don't know if you are aware of this, but you are able to put emphasis on items in your posts by use of italics or bold effects. You look like a common fool (or Peej) when you capitalize half of your post.

Aaron's comment was ignorant.

To say that the Republicans are the equivalent of the Klan in ties starched shirts because he sees a problem with the way that Obama is treated? I would think that Hank knows what true racism looks like, but apparently he doesn't. People differ in opinions on how things should be handled; that goes without saying. To call them racists because of the disagreements is just fricking stupid.

Maybe he's slipping into senility. Maybe he's just that much of an ignorant a-hole.

It is unfortunate heroes do not help change things that are 50 years over due.

quote:

---

No matter how much success a black man has....he can always blame whitey for his failures.....whiteys that were Democrats during Civil Rights Era

---

FIFY

quote:

---

But in this case, Aaron played only one more year than Ruth: 23 years vs 22, but played in 1000 more games.

---

2 reasons for this:

1. Aaron played the bulk of his career with a 162 game schedule vs. the 154 game schedule of the Ruth era.

2. Ruth spent the first 5 years of his career almost exclusively as a pitcher, meaning that he appeared in (at best) about 1/4 of his team's scheduled games.

quote:

---

1. Aaron played the bulk of his career with a 162 game schedule vs. the 154 game schedule of the Ruth era.

---

23*8=184 - potential games.

quote:

---

2. Ruth spent the first 5 years of his career almost exclusively as a pitcher, meaning that he appeared in (at best) about 1/4 of his team's scheduled games.

---

And he didn't play the whole game in many of his appearances, as well.

However - a career record is a career record. While you have to have a minimum number of at bats, appearances, etc. to be eligible for things like ERA, batting average, etc., a career record that is somehow subject to caveat because of rule changes or "But Ruth was a pitcher for 5 years" nonsense defeats the entire purpose.

A career record is a career record. Subjective qualifications aside (again, I concur that Ruth was, probably, the greatest offensive player ever - a true sports superstar, before there was really even such a thing - and should be credited with the wide popularization of baseball in the 20th century), we can, literally do this with every career record - from Rose's total hits, to Bonds 762*, and on and on and on.

If you play on a better team, you get more opportunities to record stats. However, what if the team is better because of you (Ruth, Gehrig, Rose, Mantle, Mays, etc.)?

I can sort of understand the 61 in 61, as he did hit 60 and 61 after the 154 game mark. But the way it was handled was all bull$hit - if anything, you asterisk Ruth's record and specify (* no other player has hit 60 or more home runs within a 154 game schedule) - not Maris who had, the season record for homeruns after 1961 - period.

You'll notice that Ruth's 1920 single season record wasn't subject to an asterisk (* this season was the first to feature the new composition ball - thus making homeruns much easier than before).

I guess it didn't hurt that he was shattering his own record from the previous year - but that is a coincidence of history - doesn't make the comparison any less valid.

quote:

---

Don't know how many Ruth hit.

---

I doubt those are easily accessible - Ruth was a long ball machine, though. And he did not really take baseball seriously - he was just naturally gifted at it (meaning, hitting homeruns).

It cannot be overstated how, while Ruth deserves almost all the credit he gets, he benefitted from batting in the 3 hole ahead of Gehrig as clean up all those years.

While Ruth is the undisputed OPS+ career leader (probably the justification for his "greatest offense player ever" tag), Gehrig was third - FOR A CAREER.

That means that, in "Murderers Row" - an opposing pitcher would face (arguably) 2 of the 3 best offensive players...in history...every 2 to 3 innings - back-to-back.

The 1927 year is particularly illustrative of the problem (arguably the best baseball team of all time) Again, Ruth, typically batting 3rd and Gehrig batting 4th, combined for 107 homeruns, 338 RBIs, averaging about .365 (combined) on fewer than 1100 combined at bats. That means that - in a typical 3 game weekend series, just those 2 players would account for 3 or 4 RBIs, a home run or 2, and would combine for 5 hits or so, 3 of which for extra bases. Just those 2 out of 9 guys.

For the day, I don't know how a team could have produced more offense.

quote:

---

Here is an interesting tidbit that even Elias probably doesn't keep track of. HRs that were eliminated due to rain outs without five innings being completed.

Aaron once said that he hit 7 HRs that were scratched due to rain. Don't know how many Ruth hit.

---

How many did he hit in the makeup games?

quote:

---

And Aaron batted in the 3 hole behind Hall of Fame slugger Eddie Matthews.

---

True - nobody gets to the Hall of Fame, alone.

Matthews, in particular, is one of those guys who is forgotten - although he only hit .271 for a career, he was, arguably, one of the better left-swinging pull hitters of all time. 1453 RBIs off of only 2315 hits is pretty amazing, as well. Think about that - over 60% of the time he hit it fair, a run scored - almost 25% of the time, it was a homer.