E-Sommers?
I am writing in response to Paul M. Sommers’s article on whether Barry Bonds is the greatest home-run hitter of all time (“Big Brain Theories,” spring 2008). Professor Sommers concludes the article by asserting that if Babe Ruth had not been employed as a pitcher during the first several years of his career, there is a probability of “greater than 50 percent” that he would have surpassed 900 career home runs.
While on the surface it appears plausible that Ruth would have been capable of hitting 186 additional home runs had he not spent his first five-plus years as a pitcher with the Boston Red Sox, I suspect Professor Sommers has neglected to consider that Ruth pitched during baseball’s “dead ball era,” which ended in 1919 and was characterized by softer baseballs, pitcher-friendly rules that permitted the use of the spitball, and, consequently, very few home runs. Ruth hit only 20 home runs in 678 at-bats between 1914 and 1918 (2.9 home runs per 100 at-bats).
The transition to the “live ball era” of harder baseballs and hitter-friendly rules coincided with Ruth’s transition from pitcher to everyday outfielder. In 1919, the first year of the live ball era and Ruth’s last with the Boston Red Sox, he belted a record 29 home runs in 432 at-bats (6.7 home runs per 100 at-bats). The following year he shattered his own record playing with the New York Yankees, with 54 home runs in 457 at-bats (11.8 home runs per 100 at-bats).
Although Ruth’s years as a pitcher may have watered down his career batting totals, it seems highly unlikely that he would have been able to hit 30-40 home runs per year as an everyday player during the dead ball era, which he would have needed to do to reach the 900 home-run mark. That said, if you remove this quirk of baseball history from the equation, Professor Sommers’ assertion seems plausible and supports the (correct!) position that Babe Ruth, not Barry Bonds, is the greatest home-run hitter of all time.
Dan Brutlag
Madison, Wisconsin
Paul Sommers responds: Admittedly, Ruth had difficulty putting up during the “dead ball era” the same home-run numbers with nearly the same frequency he did after 1918. In each of his first four seasons (1914-1917), he had fewer than 140 at-bats per season. In 1918, he had only 317, compared to an average of 488 at-bats in each of his first ten seasons with the Yankees (1920-1929). One can only guess how much better his hitting prowess at the plate might have been had he more at-bats with Boston.
Of course, the problem was not only too few at-bats, but softer baseballs, “pitcher-friendly rules,” and the like (before 1919).
As Mr. Brutlag correctly pointed out, Ruth hit only 20 home runs in his first five seasons. (After 1918, he hit 694 home runs.) To reach 900 home runs in his career, he would have had to hit 206 total home runs in his first five seasons or about 41 per year. (Gavvy Gravath hit 24 home runs in 1915, a record that stood until the Babe hit 29 in 1919.) If, however, Ruth had about 488 at-bats in each of his first five seasons, he would have had to hit 8.6 home runs per 100 at-bats (to reach 900), a frequency that he actually did achieve in all but two years between 1920 and 1932.
In 1918, Ruth hit 11 home runs, which exceeded the team totals for four other teams in the American League. The following year, Ruth hit 29 home runs, which again exceeded the team totals for four other teams in the AL. And, in 1927, Ruth’s 60 home runs exceeded the team totals for every one of the seven other teams in the AL that year. Did Barry even come close to doing the same (in the National League) during his career?
Needless to say, I was pleased to read that Mr. Brutlag shared my conclusion that the Babe (and not Barry) is the greatest home-run hitter of all time.
Slice of Life?
I just read Ted Perry’s excellent and quite provocative piece, “What Effect Does Film Have on Reality,” (“Big Brain Theories,” spring 2008). I only wish it had been longer. Which is a good sign, I suppose.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read about organized crime figures who’ve patterned their behavior, dress, mannerisms, belief in certain codes, etc. after the mob movies which were, of course, supposed to be describing them, not creating them. They would, for example, see the Godfather series ten, fifteen times, glorying in these depictions of themselves and then consciously imitating them. As per Perry’s point.
My own experience in the movie business as a screenwriter is also quite instructive. I have often found that while working with a director in suggesting a scene, you were much better off not citing your inspiration as coming from observation of character or event in real life. Au contraire. The way to sell a scene or character was to cite some character or scene from a well-known or successful movie. They could imagine it if it had already been done in another film. Life itself was apparently unprocessed, unfocused, unreliable, random. There was and is an overwhelming preference for movie reality over reality.
You’d say I saw a guy do this or act like this in college or my hometown and they’d look at you like you had just come straight to the meeting from a distant planet. But if you said Hitchcock did a character like this or a scene like this in Thirty-Nine Steps, you had yourself a captive audience. The problem had already been solved by a master so why figure it out for yourself. You could blow it. And after all, we know what movie life is. The audiences don’t want real life, either. It’s a little too gnarly. Why take the chance? After all, we know imitating this scene or character from another movie is going to work. It already has.
What was that old Cliquot Club ad? A penguin peering into infinite reflections of himself in infinite mirrors. He no longer exists on the ice flow. And as Perry points out, we’re the penguins, believing that the images we see are our reality.
Jon Connolly
Greenwich, Connecticut
The Price of Gas
I read with interest, Professor Pete Nelson’s discussion of the expectation that retiring baby boomers will move from urban and suburban areas to small towns and rural areas as they retire (“Big Brain Theories,” spring 2008). I think his discussion ignored the impact of the end of the cheap gas era on living patterns. As a member of the leading edge of the baby boom—I was born less than nine months before the GIs came home from World War II—I have been vacillating in my thinking about where to settle in old age. Cities are appealing with their superior access to culture, medical care and public transit. Rural areas are also appealing for the open space.
I read with interest, Professor Pete Nelson’s discussion of the expectation that retiring baby boomers will move from urban and suburban areas to small towns and rural areas as they retire (“Big Brain Theories,” spring 2008). I think his discussion ignored the impact of the end of the cheap gas era on living patterns. As a member of the leading edge of the baby boom—I was born less than nine months before the GIs came home from World War II—I have been vacillating in my thinking about where to settle in old age. Cities are appealing with their superior access to culture, medical care and public transit. Rural areas are also appealing for the open space. However, I feel like the price of gas is making the decision for me.
Will Prescott ’67
Guadalajara, Mexico
The writer is currently serving in the Peace Corps.
What About Tithing?
I was surprised that the writers of “Who Gives?” (“Big Brain Theories,” spring 2008) ignored the biblical command to tithe as a prime motivation for giving.
The Bible has many references to sharing your time/talents and giving financially to others as a standard of behavior for a rich, meaningful and full life.
The instruction to give 10 percent of your first fruits (earnings/wealth) is not offered up as a suggestion, but rather one of the commands of a true believer in God. Naturally you have to believe the Bible as the word of God, and the instructions therein are the basis for
living your life.
Larry Silvester ’63
Weston, Florida
Of Love, Light, and Melody
Thank you for publishing the article about Brad Corrigan’s work in Nicaragua (“At Hell’s Gate,” spring 2008). In a time when people are so focused about how much money they can make, it is refreshing to see someone who is focused on how much of a difference he can make.
I was fortunate enough to spend ten days in Nicaragua with Brad last Thanksgiving. We spent amazing time in La Chureca talking, singing, and playing with the children. And though the title of the recent article is “At Hell’s Gate,” I must say that my heart has never felt such a sense of peace as it did in Nicaragua. Those children laughed and smiled and jumped into our arms, ready and open to be loved.
It didn’t matter what we looked like or what we wore or what possessions we had. All that mattered were the relationships developing based on opening up our hearts. There is certainly something to be learned from that!
Brad’s foundation, Love, Light and Melody (www.lovelightandmelody.org), invites donations, but also invites you to bring whatever talent you may have to La Chureca. However, if you can’t make it to La Chureca, try bringing a little love, light, and melody to your own hometown.
Pamela Lawson Quinn ’88
Middlebury, Vermont
Getting with the Program
Anyone who has lived in Europe or stayed there in a rented apartment quickly learns that air-drying clothes is standard there (“Dry Goods,” spring 2008). Most apartments come with a washing machine, but instead of a dryer you find a drying rack, placed inside in inclement weather or outside on a terrace in the sun.
I just returned from Venice where the sight of laundry on lines hanging outside in even the “fanciest” neighborhoods was a fact of life. An unintended side effect of knowing that anything you wash will have to be hung on the line to dry is being more careful with what you launder and a tendency to wear those clothes one more day before throwing them in the hamper.
Talking to European friends, I got the feeling that line-drying is more likely a result of high electricity prices and expensive appliances, but whatever the reason, here again we can take a page from our European friends’ book in terms of environment sensitivity. As oil heads towards $150 a barrel and electricity prices follow, I think we’ll see more wash swinging on the line here in the U.S. too.
Harold Levine
New York, New York
The writer attended the French School in 1987.
Good for the Soul
Kudos to Alexander Lee ’97 (“Dry Goods,” spring 2008)!
Beginning two years ago, I started to hang my family’s laundry to dry in our basement—where our laundry facilities are and where it’s warm and dry—during the winter months.
I did it for two reasons: to cut down on the money we were paying to the electric company, and to reduce the amount of energy we used in general. Our electric bill went down from $150 to $75, at a time when electric rates in Connecticut were raised by 17 percent!
While hanging laundry may seem like it was more work than drying by machine, it actually is as time-saving as machine drying; perhaps even more so. And it is good for the soul. Here’s how:
No more socks consumed/stolen/sock-napped by the dryer. One pairs-up socks out of the washer, and they dry together on the rack—already sorted!
Sorting has to happen anyway, so one gets the sorting done out of the washer rather than after the dry cycle—kids’ laundry, wife’s laundry, husband’s laundry.
Hanging laundry serves as meditation time: just like great thinking that happens in the shower, while running or exercising. I came up with great ideas during “calm” time hanging laundry.
As Lee mentioned, by air-drying our laundry, we humidified our otherwise dry winter household and sent the scent of freshly washed laundry all over the house.
Think of the wasted time checking the dryer to make sure things have dried fully, putting the machine on for “just another 10 minutes.” Time wasted in my book. With hanging, you hang it and walk away.
I find the idea that a clothesline is “ugly,” to be ridiculous. Quite the opposite. Clothes drying on a line remind me of childhood summers in Vermont, of my time studying in Madrid, and of my Venezuelan grandmother. I had gotten off of the clothesline for different reasons. Your article on Alex Lee has re-energized my desires to rack/line-dry. Thank you!
Julio Omaña, M.A. Spanish ’95
New Milford, Connecticut
More Grammar Lessons
How odd to see a learned letter-writer correct a grammatical error, then promptly make an error. I refer to J. Roggenbauer’s claim (Letters, spring 2008) that the sentence “It is because of people like him” should read “It’s because of people like he.” Here the word “like” is not a conjunction introducing a clause, as in “Nobody sings like he does.” It is a preposition, and as such, it is properly followed by the object pronoun “him.” The writer of the original letter had it right.
Grace Weber ’77
Weybridge, Vermont
Grammar Lessons, Part II
Writer J. Roggenbauer is just right about the need for “whom,” according to strict grammatical standards, in such a setting as “John Doe, whom I found to be a fine gentleman.” A more common error, especially in newspapers, appears this way: “ . . . the candidate whom I thought would make the best decisions.” Here, “who” is needed as the subject of its clause. The basic matter is, “who would make the best decisions, I thought.” On a simpler level, “whom I thought” makes no sense, for we cannot think people.
Writer Roggenbauer mystifies me, however, with the claim that a pronoun in nominative form should follow the preposition “like.” The phrase “people like him” is correct as the editors published it, with the accusative form “him” as the object of the preposition “like.” Your correspondent’s recommendation of “like he” is a puzzler.
Robert Morrison, M.A. Spanish ’54
Hawthorne, Florida
Grammar Lessons, Part III
J. Roggenbauer in the spring 2008 issue corrects the following sentence: “I am sure he was referring to Storrs Lee ’28, who I found to be a fine gentleman.” “Who” should have been “whom,” indeed, but not because it is in apposition to a noun in the objective (or accusative) case, as Roggenbauer
implies, but because it is the subject of an infinitive. This structure is used after a number of common verbs: think, suppose, order, expect, etc., as in “I knew him to be a good teacher.” Compare “. . . who I found was a fine gentleman,” the correct form when “who” is the subject of a finite verb.
The other sentence Roggenbauer edits was correct as originally written: “It is because of people like him,” not “like he.” Here “like” has the force of a preposition in determining usage, as Fowler explains in A Dictionary of Modern English Usage.
Did the editors print Roggenbauer’s letter without comment to see if readers were on their toes?
Inez Fitzgerald Storck,M.A. Spanish ’68
Greenbelt, Maryland
Love of Letters
The Letters section of Middlebury Magazine is great. I especially get a kick out of “this person offended by that,” etc. I would suggest that they all need a 12-step meeting. I guess I do, too. I’m taking their inventory instead of my own.
Alden “Cappy” Anderson ’68
Cape Neddick, Maine
Fired Up—for Sticky Buns!
I am incensed! What a terrible cruelty to the entire Middlebury College and greater worldwide community. Why didn’t the magazine staff simply just get that coveted Dog Team Tavern cinnamon buns recipe from the thoughtful Janet Randall Cook Morgan ’38 (Letters, spring 2008), in the first place, rather than have us all mouth-watering in torture from our own little corners of the planet! You are truly mean-spirited—unless, of course, you redeem yourselves and give us all the recipe in this magazine issue.
Bruce Silverman ’92
Chicago, Illinois
Editors’ note: Point taken. We hate to appear mean-spirited, but more importantly, we don’t want you to go hungry. Here you go:
Dog Team Sticky Buns
¾ lb. potatoes, peeled and cubed
¼ lb. (1 stick) margarine, at room temperature
2 ¾ cups sugar
1 ½ teaspoons salt
1 package active dry yeast
2 eggs, well beaten
7 cups all-purpose flour
1 ½ cups packed light brown sugar
1 ½ cups chopped walnuts
½ lb. (2 sticks) lightly salted butter, melted
¼ cup ground cinnamon
Boil potatoes in salted water to cover until tender, about 10 minutes. Drain the potatoes, reserving 1 ½ cups of the cooking liquid, and mash. Measure 1 cup of the mashed potatoes and reserve the rest for another use.
Stir together the mashed potatoes, margarine, ½ cup of the sugar and salt. Cool to lukewarm and add yeast, eggs and the reserved 1 ½ cups cooking liquid. Mix well. Add flour and stir. Knead on a lightly floured surface until the dough is smooth and elastic. Set in a lightly oiled bowl, cover with a damp cloth and let rise in a warm place until doubled in bulk. Punch down and refrigerate until chilled, about 1 hour.
Butter three 9-inch round or square baking dishes. Distribute brown sugar evenly among the pans. Sprinkle with enough water to make the sugar very wet. Distribute walnuts evenly over the brown sugar.
Roll out the dough into a ½-inch-thick rectangle on a well-floured surface. Brush with melted butter. Stir together the remaining 2 ¼ cups sugar and cinnamon. Sprinkle over the buttered dough. Roll up the dough as you would a jellyroll. Cut into ½-inch-thick slices. Arrange the slices cut-side up in the prepared pans so that they are almost touching. Cover and let rise in a warm place until doubled in bulk, about 1 hour.
Preheat oven to 350 degrees F. Bake the sticky buns until golden brown, 20 to 30 minutes.
Immediately invert the buns onto a plate.
Letters Policy
Letters addressing topics discussed in the magazine are given priority, though they may be edited for brevity or clarity. On any given subject we will print letters that address that subject, and then in the next issue, letters that respond to the first letters. After that, we will move on to new subjects. Send letters to: Middlebury Magazine, 5 Court Street, Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753.
Letters addressing topics discussed in the magazine are given priority, though they may be edited for brevity or clarity. On any given subject we will print letters that address that subject, and then in the next issue, letters that respond to the first letters. After that, we will move on to new subjects. Send letters to:
Middlebury Magazine
5 Court Street
Middlebury College
Middlebury, VT 05753 E-mail: middmag@middlebury.edu