.400 average would not have happened without Fenway. I'm sure he was a much higher career hitter at Fenway as all the long time stars of the Red Sox were.

Williams also did not face pure gas, superior to the starting pitcher, in a ton of his late inning at bats as Bonds did.

Williams was facing a worn out starter or some second rate guy. Same for Ruth. And even Mays and Aaron to a somehwat lesser extent.

As not being able to locate home-road stats, or finding limited ones, of course. They don't want you to know that stuff.

Did Williams have in Yankee stadium? With the mickey mouse almost little league right field porch. I'm sure he took advantage of that, although not to the extent Ruth did.

Bonds would have loved that.

In other arguments I have encountered---All of Ruths homers were titanic blasts.

This coming from some clown who has seen one or two of the 714 on film footage.

Reasons for much of the heralded offensive stats up through the 1940s and 50s was the general slowness of outfielders as compared to today. The triple stats were ridiculous. I'm sure this slowness afield added to the singles and doubles totals also.

I'm sure the steroid guys would have loved to have slower outfielders.

Which can be risky........But I'd say Bonds faced lefties a higher percentage of the time than Ruth or Williams.

Of his at bats.

.433 home and .380 road, big deal? Like I said, Bonds doesn't hit 73 without steroids and Williams doesn't hit .400 without Fenway

If Bonds had played his career in Fenway, and started steroids at the same time frame, some of his numbers would undoubtedly be higher, batting average way higher for one, and people would be blaming the whole thing on steroids.

So farewell.

Just to make Anonymous happy, one more post.........As far as impressive seasons that will be hard to top, Charley Rayburn----73 starts, 73 complete games, 59 wins.

A ball going to the wall would give a slower baserunner a better chance to get a triple, and get more triples, with slower outfielders.

Of course faster outfielders would get to more balls, thus limiting the balls going to the wall, thus lowering triples for slow and fast runners alike.

If you want to believe if you sent all of todays outfielders to play defense back then there'd be the same number of triples back then, it's a free country.

The outfielders probably played very deeply to prevent the ball rolling all the way to a very deep fence, but it still happened enough due to the lack of speed to insure a ton of triples. And the deep positioning in the outfield added to the singles and as well, increasing general batting averages and batting average highs from what they would be with more defensive speed.

We have to assume at this point that not making editor's choice is a good thing.

Were giving up all those homers to Griffey and the Mariners?

You realize he doesn't hit .400 without Fenway

Rice and Boggs.

You guys are digging now, that's a step in the right direction.

That's 51 points.........That's like a .300 hitter versus a .250.

Okay I had to go do it---------Here's a grab-bag of his seasons with Boston home and road batting----.397, .321.........352, 296.......418, 322.......411, 312........377, 287......359, 245.....389, 282.

That looks like steroids to me. Or puts steroids to shame.

Starting to think.

A 5 Day suspension for over-posting. But when I come back, I expect to see an improvement of analysis around here.

Since turning pro Tiger has played in 44 majors. Here are the cumulative results against some others in those 44 major tournaments......Els is in second place, 189 shots back.

Tiger Woods: -120, 13 Wins

Ernie Els: +69, 3 Wins

Phil Mickelson: +78, 3 Wins

Retief Goosen: +126, 2 Wins

Sergio Garcia: +130, 0 Wins

Vijay Singh: +131, 3 Wins

Davis Love: +146, 1 Win

Jim Furyk: +161, 1 Win

Fred Couples: +185, 1 Win

Jose Maria Olazabal +201, 2 Wins

Colin Montgomerie: +205, 0 Wins

Tom Lehman: +216, 1 Win

Many of the problems within the republican party are of a sexual nature, much to the chagrin and detriment of the entire country.

I'm sure Rove falls into this category. Once in power many of these guys can get laid, but long ago it was hopeless frustration. And they carry that chip on their shoulder.

If a beanball battle starts, LaRussa can go out to the mound and wave him in from the outfield.

For a definition of "radical Islam."............Are they the muslims most angry with our military presence on their land for decades?

For the Petraeus September report.........If we just stay on their land a while longer all this will stop.

If America had a million oil fields but not much of a military, and the Muslims had the strongest army, then we may be in danger of attack and occupation.

And then the republican party would give birth to something that makes Al-Qaida look like tiddly-winks.

They've stopped the American right wing chickenhawks dead in their tracks.

The chickenhawk base would LOVE an attack on Iran. And the chickenhawk leadership have been chomping at the bit to do it. But Iraq's been such a disaster that even the chickenhawks calling the shots are balking. It's like--Jesus, what are those Itanian assholes capable of in response to our aggression. They are 3 times Iraq. They could disrupt the entire oil game. Then our wallets take the hit.

And what managerial resume' would you submit to top LaRussa?

We are the superpower. Oil pipelines running smoothly paramount to maintaining our superpower status.

Our government has been doing shitty, underhanded, and duplicitous stuff over there going on a century. Stuff we'll never know about. And the stuff we do know about is draped in platitudes like "enemy of our enemy is our friend."

Someone post the 80's photo-op of Saddam and Rumsfeld, shit eating grins all around.

Tied for first place in the history of world terrorism are the United States and Soviet armament industries of the cold war. A worldwide weapons auction and buffet for decades.

Second place isn't even in shouting distance.