English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-09-01 11:23:04 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports Baseball

15 answers

If Ruth had taken care of himself he'd hit 1,000 easy. If he hadn't spent a chunk of his career as a pitcher he might have as well.

I have no doubt if Baseball continues to be played long enough that somebody will hit 1,000. Likely not anytime soon. Teams are going back to small ball, pitching is improving and steroids will severely damage baseball or it will be all but elimanated. A return to using more junk ball pitchers is a logical step and it's harder to hit a screwball over the fence than a nice ripping fastball. Fans are also growing tired of the barrage of HRs. Seeing a HR isn't all that special when you see 3 or 4 a game. When the defensive specialist shortstop can hit 20 in a season you KNOW there are too many HRs. So the fences will probably go back to normal. They've been pulled in for a decade now to increase HRs. More teams will design parks for thier pitchers. HRs without pitching never won a division much less a pennent. The 80s Tigers set a HR record but finished in the cellar or pretty near it. Watching so many players with 40-50 HRs but barely cracking 100 RBI is a testiment to selfish hitting and poor clutch hitting. Unless they are on a really miserable offensive team or the guy in front of them has 150+ RBIs and never leaves anything for them how can a guy possibly have half of his RBIs be himself unless he is worthless in the clutch?

In the 70s and early 80s and even today it's common to see guys with 20 HRs driving in 100 RBI. Paul O'Niel did it with 18 or 19 one year. I believe Ricky Henderson did it as a lead off hitter on a couple occasions. Nah a player who keeps the runners moving, keeps the rally alive is far more valuable than the guy who can end it in one swing but rarely does. Usually that's the guy kills the rallies and takes all those RBI away from the guys behind him. He was too busy striking out to work the count, get a walk, choke up and drive the ball the other way to keep the rally alive. A single is not a bad thing man. Sure if they make a mistake and lay a big fat pitch out there take it all the way. If the pitcher isn't giving you anything it's a player's job to do whatever it takes to get on base and move the runners over. That's why KOs are so bad. A KO is an out. An easy out. No chance of an error. Nobody moves up a base. The 90s Yankee's dynasty was awesome at forcing mistakes. They never gave up in an AB. They worked hard for walks and if they couldn't walk they put the ball in play. Put enough balls in play and the other team will make a mistake sooner or later. Work the pitchers deep into counts early in the game and they wear out. When they wear out they make mistakes. When they make mistakes with men on base, whether those men got there from errrors, walks or hits it doesn't matter. What does is that one mistake can bust the game wide open. Even down 10 runs the late 90s Yanks didn;t give up and wound up coming back from 5, 6 and even 10 runs a time or two. They did it by working the pitchers until they made mistakes. Some of those mistakes were deposited over the fences, some just fell for singles. Doesn't matter it brought in runs and made those tired and frustrated pitchers face yet another hitter.

Anyway the pendulem will swing the other way. Or a guy like Pujos will wind up with somebody like Berkman hitting behind him and if he plays to 43 or 44 he can hit 1,000 HRs even in a conservitive athmosphere that discourages HRs. Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth hit thier HRs in pitchers eras when HRs were far less common than today. A guy like them in a hitters era could reach 100 HRs in a season. If steroid pumped Bonds can hit 70+ think what a real power hitter could do.

2006-09-01 14:55:33 · answer #1 · answered by draciron 7 · 0 0

Maybe if more baseball teams are created and the season is made longer...but otherwise no because even the steroid users are not on track to do that (plus pitchers use steroids too so advancements in health car will help them as well)

2006-09-01 19:38:15 · answer #2 · answered by miamiman 3 · 0 0

Only if the Season lasts 10 years!

2006-09-01 18:39:28 · answer #3 · answered by J-Kidd "07" 4 · 0 0

if they use a performance enhancing drug their whole career and average 50 home runs for 20 years. Other then that no way in hell.

2006-09-01 18:45:43 · answer #4 · answered by Andrew B 4 · 0 0

Depends on the advancement of our health care system. I still highly doubt it though.

2006-09-01 18:43:21 · answer #5 · answered by 1Edge3 4 · 0 0

a 1000 for a career? No way.

2006-09-02 21:43:11 · answer #6 · answered by rwwarwick 1 · 0 0

Yes. People are getting stronger and bigger all the time due to better health and nutrition.

2006-09-02 04:29:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

That will NEVER happen.....50 HR average for 20 seasons......impossible.

2006-09-01 18:35:51 · answer #8 · answered by Texas Horns 37 2 · 0 0

If MLB doesn't take a more serious approach to seriously eliminating steroid use by its players, then I don't see why not.

2006-09-01 19:07:03 · answer #9 · answered by Bingo's Mommy 5 · 0 1

It will never happen. Nobody will even get to 900. Next question.

2006-09-01 19:29:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers