Guy named Roger Conner, who played for the Giants and a couple other teams before the turn of the century. He retired in 1897 with 138 career home runs.
Before Ruth, the single-season record was held by Ned Williamson, who hit 27 for the Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) in 1884.
2006-09-29 09:33:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by JerH1 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
You already have your answers. My addition is strictly along the lines of explaining why there is such a disparity in numbers. If you already know this, I apologize for boring you.
Before Ruth (and maybe a few other batters who hit at the same time as Ruth), the home run was not a big deal in baseball. A home run was considered an anomaly. It was just not that important. They played what we call "small ball" in those days. Get a guy on base with any kind of hit and then bunt him over to second. Use speed of runners and steal bases. Get additional singles or sacrifices and get him to score a run. Ty Cobb is a perfect example of the "small ball" mentality. The player of this era didn't try to hit home runs. Today we'll accept a lower batting average from a guy that makes up for it by hitting 30 to 40 home runs a year. In those days they would not. The coaches wanted ground ball hits or line drive hits.
Then Ruth started playing. (Were you aware that he was originally a left handed pitcher that still holds pitching records that have not been equaled? People forget that Ruth was one of the best left handed pitchers in baseball history. But then he was switched to being an everyday player because his bat was too important to only have in the lineup every 4 days.) Ruth started hitting home runs on a regular basis. Owners quickly realized that fans were finding home runs to be exciting and that home runs put fans in the seats. More fans in the seats meant more money. This is when the home run took on a much greater importance in baseball. And the rest is baseball history or at least that is what some baseball historians think.
2006-09-29 10:16:31
·
answer #2
·
answered by Spiritual but not religious 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
For a single season, Ned Williamson with 27 in 1884.
For a career, Roger Connor with 138.
2006-09-29 09:33:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by J Z 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Career Roger Connor with 138
Single season Ned Williamson with 27
2006-09-29 09:58:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by jojo 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ned Williamson's 27-homer season, by the way, is as much a sham as any of today's steroid-influenced numbers. He played in a park where the the right-field fence was at 196, 180 to left, and 300 to centerfield.
Poor Harry Stovey - his record should have stood for longer than one year.
As for the career, the other guys all beat me to it. It was Roger Connor.
2006-09-29 09:37:42
·
answer #5
·
answered by Craig S 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Roger Connor, with 138. No, you probable by no skill heard of him earlier. Neither had the different 2 dozen those who've requested the "who wuz it b4 ruth" question over the past month.
2016-11-25 02:49:28
·
answer #6
·
answered by mehboob 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ned Williamson, single season, and Roger Conor, carreer. Great question.
2006-09-29 09:33:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by canela 5
·
0⤊
0⤋