11/05/24
May 16, 2006
Babe Ruth's lost home run: In 1918, Ruth hit what would be called a walk-off homer today. But back then, the rules called it a triple. And, except for a brief period in the late 1960s, it's been a triple ever since. Talk about an asterisk.
Dan, did you write the linked article? If so, you'll want to know that it's considered bad form to post your own stuff to the front page.
posted by qbert72 at 12:41 PM on May 16, 2006
Homeruns also counted if they bounced over the wall in some ballparks(through 1930). How many "ground rule" homers did Babe have? This was just discussed in the Cubs mailbag
posted by timdawg at 01:17 PM on May 16, 2006
who cares who wrote it-good article!! I also agree that the * is a good implementation in situations like these
posted by oh2rooper at 01:17 PM on May 16, 2006
Well, self-linking is a rule that's there for a specific reason. If you want to submit a column, you can, but the front page is for new links to other people's work.
posted by chicobangs at 01:29 PM on May 16, 2006
[Y]ou shouldn’t post a link on the front page to your own site or any other page you had a hand in creating. We care because not caring leads to spam. There's a columns feature if you want to write something. If you want to post something you wrote, just email it to a member.
posted by yerfatma at 01:38 PM on May 16, 2006
Kill the ump! Self linkers have small wieners!
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 01:45 PM on May 16, 2006
Yeah... I don't know why we didn't see through Dan's clever ruse before.
posted by jerseygirl at 02:08 PM on May 16, 2006
I didn't write it. I got spammed by them but have their feed in my RSS reader, and think it's interesting.
posted by Dan121377 at 02:18 PM on May 16, 2006
You just seem to link to DNL's posts there a lot...
posted by jerseygirl at 02:23 PM on May 16, 2006
Shame, too, because this could have been a mildly interesting story. We'll talk about it some other time, I guess.
posted by chicobangs at 02:31 PM on May 16, 2006
I have heard allso , not positive it's true, that there was a time when Babe Ruth was playing that credit was given for a home run when the ball bonced from the outfeild into the stands, a now day ground rule double. If true this could have changed the home run total allso.
posted by Snipes at 02:38 PM on May 16, 2006
Anybody else click on the Cubs mailbag above? That certainly paints an entirely different picture with respect to all home runs hit prior to 1930, with the variances in the rules and so forth - not just with respect ground rule homers but holes in the fences and such - assuming the same held true elsewhere around the league... To quote Dan at the top of the thread, talk about an asterisk.
posted by MW12 at 02:38 PM on May 16, 2006
Not to stir the shit so to speak, but it was an intersting read, what is the gripe against self-linking?
posted by HATER 187 at 02:51 PM on May 16, 2006
You've been here long enough to know that answer, right Hater?
posted by jerseygirl at 02:53 PM on May 16, 2006
I know you guys don't like it but if the Dan in this case writes an ok peice why not let him link to it? I don;t see a difference to him linking to his site vs cutting and pasting it into a column. There probably is some very obvious reason I am over looking.
posted by HATER 187 at 02:56 PM on May 16, 2006
Because the site, especially a front page post, isn't about self promotion. If he wants people to check out his work, he can write a column. Columns and FPPs are completely different animals. Columns were created as a mode to do exactly what he wants to do - reach out with a personal opinion piece without appearing to spam the readership of SpoFi and drum up site traffic elsewhere. And the thing is, even if his article is great, he's done this before. It's not a situation where he wants to share what he wrote. It's a "Hey, come check out my site" instance. Plus, armchairGM is clearly looking for traffic, as they have spammed a major part of the SpoFi membership already with emails directing them to the site. He could, you know, buy a Google Ad. That'd be a Kosher way to get his site noticed by the SpoFi community, still support Spofi and have it all be legit.
posted by jerseygirl at 03:03 PM on May 16, 2006
The obvious reason, HATER, is that one method generates traffic for SportsFilter, and one generates traffic for your own blog.
posted by Amateur at 03:03 PM on May 16, 2006
Anyway, Dan says he is not the author -- I am willing to take his word for it. I see two links to DNL's work ... I'm sure I am guilty of more repetition than that.
posted by Amateur at 03:06 PM on May 16, 2006
Oh of course. But, it's a bit coincidental that "Dan Lewis" from Spofi keeps linking to DNL's posts on armchairgm, though...
posted by jerseygirl at 03:11 PM on May 16, 2006
Well, that and that the armchairgm.com domain is registered to Daniel Lewis out of NYC. Probably just coincidence, though.
posted by jerseygirl at 03:16 PM on May 16, 2006
Before the 1920's there was no foul pole. For a ball to be considered a homerun,the ball needed to land to the fair side of the foul line in the stands. How many homeruns do you think the Babe lost that way?
posted by seansterps at 03:17 PM on May 16, 2006
SpoFi CSI... (singing) Who are you...Who, Who... Who, Who... I really wanna know...
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:19 PM on May 16, 2006
He probably does have my name. There's a guy whose a sportswriter with my name, and there's a guy in my office with my name, and I have a cousin (distant -- 2nd cousin, I think) with my name, and I regularly get mail and email with my name. It'd hardly be the first time, but it would be up there among the more annoying.
posted by Dan121377 at 03:27 PM on May 16, 2006
Dude.
posted by jerseygirl at 03:35 PM on May 16, 2006
As an aside while you guys string him up.... 1) There never was an asterisk. Frick f*ed the pooch. 2) It's an "automatic double" if it bounces over the fence. It's a "ground rule double" if the specific stadium rules dictate it so. (Ex: It gets caught in the ivy.)
posted by ?! at 03:42 PM on May 16, 2006
I know you guys don't like it but if the Dan in this case writes an ok peice why not let him link to it? Well, what everyone already said. Plus, we're suppose to be a filter (at least we try), to get the best links. Just like you can't trust a parent to tell you how wonderful their child is, you can't can't rely on the author to submit their stuff as linkable. Besides, the column option really takes away the need to link to your own stuff. Dan, I'm not saying it is your article, but it sure does seem that way. I'm going to change the link to another article on the same subject. If it's not your link, I'm sure you won't mind.
posted by justgary at 03:56 PM on May 16, 2006
I regularly get mail with my name on it too. Coicidence? I think not... Of course, perhaps it's not intended for me. Perhaps it's the other MW... Hey, wait a minute- who's mortgage am I paying anyhow?!? who AH oo AH oo AH who AH oo AH oo AH Sorry. Just had to keep it going. J.G's simply stated "Dude" comment has me rolling...
posted by MW12 at 04:00 PM on May 16, 2006
Justgary that would clear up the immense amount of confusion I have about the self link since after reading it and then reading the posts here I was entirely confused. posted by Dan121377 at 3:27 PM CDT on May 16 If you're going to try to make an excuse please for our sake try to make one that actually sounds credible. Any chance I had at believing you was swept away when I read that post. As for the topic, I found it an interesting read but I don't think it will matter in the long run since I'm pretty sure Bonds will at least break Babe's real and asterisked records.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 04:14 PM on May 16, 2006
Danny boy, you get an E for effort for that last post. Just let it go, the truth will set you free. Oh I guess I see the point about self linking. I don't really think of the net in terms of drumming traffic to a site or anything.
posted by HATER 187 at 04:27 PM on May 16, 2006
So.....Babe good & Dan bad
posted by seansterps at 04:39 PM on May 16, 2006
Ying: Of course I don't mind. In fact, I'd probably have been better off finding one at a legit website. It would have prevented the ridiculousness that overtook this thread. But for those skeptics out there, I hope you appreciate the irony. Here I am, bemoaning the mistaken identity, and your response is that I am my doppleganger. Wonderful.
posted by Dan121377 at 05:05 PM on May 16, 2006
Hey, um, back to the original point of all this: nice post! Thought-provoking fer sure. But I'm suprised that Babe Ruth had only one walk-off homer back then. Shirley that can't be true?
posted by diastematic at 05:15 PM on May 16, 2006
Dan, I really wish I had logged on earlier. Then I could have seen the link that everyone got mad about. Then I'd know why everyone is treating you like the new Barry Bonds. Now, as far as Ruth deserving an extra home run, I can't say I really care. I never saw him play and I don't care about protecting his legacy. And if we're talking about former Red Sox pitchers, I think it'd be more fun to see Bronson Arroyo hit his next home run in person over footage of any Ruth home run.
posted by forrestv at 05:23 PM on May 16, 2006
diastematic -- the rule changed early in Ruth's career.
posted by Dan121377 at 05:34 PM on May 16, 2006
If nothing else Dan, you've got a future in fiction.
posted by yerfatma at 06:19 PM on May 16, 2006
nice artical but a moot point. it really wouldnt be fair to give ruth another hr simply for the fact that you have to play the game by the rules of the game. i think the record books should be devided into 154 game records and 162 game records but no one should ever be awarded something because the rules changed. if so bonds should have home runs taken away because it wasnt the rule when he hit them but it is now. anyways i dont like barry, but untill he gets caught using with the new rules...all homers stand..its only fair
posted by skippy76 at 06:32 PM on May 16, 2006
Well...the rules when Babe Ruth played were that way and that home run should stay a triple to remind people that Babe Ruth played in a different era than Hank Aaron. An asterisk is not good for this because it should stay the way it is.
posted by Young Mikey at 07:06 PM on May 16, 2006
And people should not question the way the game once was.
posted by Young Mikey at 07:11 PM on May 16, 2006
This also goes a long way to demonstrating why records are a little silly. Ruth and Aaron and Bonds all played in different eras. They did the best they could following the rules of their time. Bonds could hit a million home runs, and Ruth and Aaron would still be great players. The difference between 714 and 715 home runs is minor in measure Ruth's impact on the game. That all being said, this is a great story and I love records and statistics. Oh well.
posted by Joey Michaels at 07:35 PM on May 16, 2006
Clear or Cream Dan? I missed the liked that caused the stir, but I had to ask. Maybe Dan should change your screen name too: * Interesting subject.
posted by directpressure at 07:43 AM on May 17, 2006
well the asterisk in this day dictates the way the game was played then and it is now i think it is good for the game to have it