David Samson claims that literally everyone knew that there were question marks about Albert's age. It's one of the reasons why Samson was reluctant to sign him.Big Amoco Sign wrote: ↑January 26 23, 1:10 pmWeird writers? Like I said. There will be some reason. Always is. Mariano is only unanimous lately.
Age lying matters to Angels and signing a ten-year deal. Like a lot. Age cliffs and projection, etc. Obviously I don't care about billionaire funds but some writers will probably simp for them for sure.
Will Albert be a unanimous HOF vote?
-
- The Last Word
- Posts: 21588
- Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am
Re: Will Albert be a unanimous HOF vote?
- Fat_Bulldog
- likes to grate his own cheese
- Posts: 12554
- Joined: May 9 06, 12:41 pm
- Location: Drunk
Re: Will Albert be a unanimous HOF vote?
It's that wonderful time of year.heyzeus wrote: ↑January 26 23, 3:07 pmNo no, we have to argue about your opinion. I need this W.Fat_Bulldog wrote: ↑January 26 23, 1:57 pmThe Top 3 list I put together is my opinion and nothing more.
Everyone can win. My opinion can always be wrong.
- Big Amoco Sign
- Master of Hyperbole
- Posts: 14402
- Joined: December 1 17, 11:05 am
Re: Will Albert be a unanimous HOF vote?
The news came out after the signing.Socnorb11 wrote: ↑January 26 23, 3:51 pmDavid Samson claims that literally everyone knew that there were question marks about Albert's age. It's one of the reasons why Samson was reluctant to sign him.Big Amoco Sign wrote: ↑January 26 23, 1:10 pmWeird writers? Like I said. There will be some reason. Always is. Mariano is only unanimous lately.
Age lying matters to Angels and signing a ten-year deal. Like a lot. Age cliffs and projection, etc. Obviously I don't care about billionaire funds but some writers will probably simp for them for sure.
Definitely matters in a 10 year deal if Angels didn’t know. And it sounds like they didn’t—or that deal looks different. Samson isn't Dipoto.
Last edited by Big Amoco Sign on January 26 23, 4:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Online
- ghostrunner
- Hall Of Famer
- Posts: 28727
- Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm
Re: Will Albert be a unanimous HOF vote?
Big Amoco Sign wrote: ↑January 26 23, 1:34 pmHuh. I actually didn't know this.Fat_Bulldog wrote: ↑January 26 23, 12:50 pmWho was better than him? In my opinion, he is in the top 3 baseball players (hitters) ever.
Babe Ruth also had ground rule doubles counted as home runs.
Online
- ghostrunner
- Hall Of Famer
- Posts: 28727
- Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm
Re: Will Albert be a unanimous HOF vote?
Huh. I actually didn't know this.Big Amoco Sign wrote: ↑January 26 23, 1:34 pmBabe Ruth also had ground rule doubles counted as home runs.
- Big Amoco Sign
- Master of Hyperbole
- Posts: 14402
- Joined: December 1 17, 11:05 am
Re: Will Albert be a unanimous HOF vote?
Yeah. The fence was like right field Fenway at most stadiums too. Lots of "bounce homers" as they called them in the newspapers back then.ghostrunner wrote: ↑January 26 23, 4:30 pmHuh. I actually didn't know this.Big Amoco Sign wrote: ↑January 26 23, 1:34 pmBabe Ruth also had ground rule doubles counted as home runs.
-
- The Last Word
- Posts: 21588
- Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am
Re: Will Albert be a unanimous HOF vote?
The news came out after the signing, but Samson says that every executive in baseball was suspicious before the signing.Big Amoco Sign wrote: ↑January 26 23, 4:15 pmThe news came out after the signing.Socnorb11 wrote: ↑January 26 23, 3:51 pmDavid Samson claims that literally everyone knew that there were question marks about Albert's age. It's one of the reasons why Samson was reluctant to sign him.Big Amoco Sign wrote: ↑January 26 23, 1:10 pmWeird writers? Like I said. There will be some reason. Always is. Mariano is only unanimous lately.
Age lying matters to Angels and signing a ten-year deal. Like a lot. Age cliffs and projection, etc. Obviously I don't care about billionaire funds but some writers will probably simp for them for sure.
Definitely matters in a 10 year deal if Angels didn’t know. And it sounds like they didn’t—or that deal looks different. Samson isn't Dipoto.
Online
- ghostrunner
- Hall Of Famer
- Posts: 28727
- Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm
Re: Will Albert be a unanimous HOF vote?
I’d imagine there’s documentation with Albert attesting to his age as a matter of course, but I don’t know. If so I guess it would be up to the Angels to press the issue.
-
- Hall Of Famer
- Posts: 17324
- Joined: June 16 07, 2:12 pm
Re: Will Albert be a unanimous HOF vote?
I remember reading this on Reddit years ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/comme ... ound_rule/ghostrunner wrote: ↑January 26 23, 4:30 pmHuh. I actually didn't know this.Big Amoco Sign wrote: ↑January 26 23, 1:34 pmBabe Ruth also had ground rule doubles counted as home runs.
Later in the thread someone referenced the book "The Year Babe Ruth hit 104 Homeruns" and apparently they went through extensive research and concluded that Ruth hit substantially more than 714 HRs by modern standards, for what it's worth.I can’t find any conclusive research on that either, but two other rules that were in effect during his career also likely affected his home run total.
Prior to 1920, you weren’t credited with a home run if the winning run crossed the plate ahead of you; that is, if you were down by one with runners on 1st and 2nd and hit a home run, you would only be credited with a triple (once the runner from 1st scores, the game is over; similar to today, if you get a game-winning hit and the outfielder doesn’t bother to pick it up, you can’t keep running for an inside-the-park home run). Ruth lost at least one home run due to this rule.
Also, around the same time the “bounce home run” was turned into a ground rule double, umpires called any ball that went over the fence in fair territory but then landed in foul territory a foul ball; you couldn’t hook a ball around the foul pole for a home run as you can today. There was a rope attached to the foul pole stretching back to a second foul pole at the rear wall of the bleachers; the ball had to land in fair territory no matter how far you hit it. Ruth’s 60th home run in 1927 was said to have cleared the fence clearly fair but landed close enough to the line some argued it should have been called foul. By today’s standards there would have been no debate. Baseball writer Bill Jenkinson’s research concluded Ruth lost dozens of home runs to this rule.
So the answer is we really don’t know how many home runs Ruth hit by modern standards, maybe more than 714, maybe less. Maybe it all came out even in the end.
- CardsofSTL
- All Hail the GDT Master
- Posts: 47810
- Joined: April 26 11, 6:06 am
- Location: Columbus, OH
Re: Will Albert be a unanimous HOF vote?
I voted yes because I want to believe in miracles.