ST Alpha - "I'm not sure what the theory is. That the 1920's were terrible for all the teams without one of the 3 biggest power hitters?" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 154

I'm not sure what the theory is. That the 1920's were terrible for all the teams without one of the 3 biggest power hitters?

Posted by Will Hunting (aka JoeMetz) May 21 '09, 07:53

baseball took a generation to embrace power.

When Dimaggio retired in 1951, he ranked like 5th in career home runs at that point iirc behind Ruth, Foxx, Ott, and Gehrig.

he's now about 70th.

Responses:

The Yankees of the 20's were the Canadiens of the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Just way ahead of everyone else in a lot of areas. -- nm - Subversive May 21, 07:57 9
- Exactly. Nowadays, 90% of teams have enough guys who can put up offense in a hurry that no team is going to have an 'advantage' due to the wind tunnl -- nm - Will Hunting May 21, 08:01 2
  - [deleted] 1
    - It doesn't. Your theory (which is basically saying Gehrig and Ruth were better than the rest) doesn't hold water 80 years later. - Will Hunting May 21, 08:08
- [deleted] 5
  - What'd I say? -- nm - Subversive May 21, 07:59 4
    - [deleted] 3
      - Anyone who argues the Yankees of the 1920's wasn't a great power in sports undercuts any concept they have a clue about sports in general. - Will Hunting May 21, 08:03 1
        
        [deleted]
      - Historical Yankees! Try and get me to say something good about the current Yankees, just try! -- nm - Subversive May 21, 08:03
[deleted] 2
- I don't buy it. Great hitters are great hitters. Visiting teams hit in the same park as the home team, if you know what I mean. -- nm - Subversive May 21, 07:58 1
  - [deleted]

Post a message top

I'm not sure what the theory is. That the 1920's were terrible for all the teams without one of the 3 biggest power hitters?

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.