Jump to content


Recent Topics




Bleacher Nation is on Facebook, and you should totally "Like" us:
 


Bleacher Nation is also on Twitter, and you should totally follow us:




Upcoming Calendar Events

There are no forthcoming calendar events

Today's birthdays

No members are celebrating a birthday today

Photo

HR leader in the 60s


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 OCCubFan

OCCubFan

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 249 posts
  • LocationSanibel Island

Posted 04 January 2013 - 06:03 PM

Today's trivia question was: which Cub had the most HRs during the 70s? The surprising answer was Billy Williams with 143. That got me to wondering who was the Cubs' leading HR hitter in the 1960s. I'd like to see what everyone guesses. I really don't know the answer and would like to know.

Off the top of my head, if Williams had 143 in the 70's, then he must have had about 300 in the 60s. Santo had most of his HRs in the 60s, so he would have been close to 300 also. Finally, Banks had his best years in the 50s, but he played all of the 60s and hit quite a few. However, I would guess he hit fewer than 300 in the 60s.

#2 Tommy

Tommy

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 696 posts
  • LocationPekin, IL

Posted 04 January 2013 - 06:16 PM

ohhh, good question. Banks, Williams, and Santo are probably 1, 2, 3. I'd have to think Banks was still top dog out of the 60's, but I'll bet it's close.
- diehard fanclub member #002

#3 Spriggs

Spriggs

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,018 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 04 January 2013 - 06:58 PM

ohhh, good question. Banks, Williams, and Santo are probably 1, 2, 3. I'd have to think Banks was still top dog out of the 60's, but I'll bet it's close.

I would agree. I'd guess Banks, Santo, Williams in that order.... Gotta be close though!

#4 Fishin Phil

Fishin Phil

    Wally Pipp of Cubs Calendar

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,034 posts

Posted 05 January 2013 - 03:15 AM

I would go with Spriggs' answer.
Please don't feed the psychos.

#5 100 Years of Tears

100 Years of Tears

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Twitter:@ChuckDarwin1
  • LocationGeneva, Illinois

Posted 05 January 2013 - 07:17 AM

I would go with Spriggs' answer.

That's usually a wise choice...

#6 OCCubFan

OCCubFan

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 249 posts
  • LocationSanibel Island

Posted 05 January 2013 - 07:35 AM

Although disagreeing with Spriggs is usually unwise, in this case, I will disagree. I don't think Banks averaged 30 HRs in the 60s. I'm guessing the order is Williams, Santo, Banks.

Now who is going to find the answer?

#7 OCCubFan

OCCubFan

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 249 posts
  • LocationSanibel Island

Posted 05 January 2013 - 07:56 AM

I couldn't wait and looked up the answer.

During the 1960s, Banks hit 269 HRs, Santo 253, Williams 249.


Disagreeing with Spriggs is unwise.

I got it exactly backwards.

The complete data using the format: HRs in 50s / 60s / 70s as a Cub / Total as a Cub / 70s as non-Cub / Career Total:

Banks: 228 / 269 /15 / 512 / 0 / 512
Santo: 0 / 253 / 84 / 337 / 5 / 342
Williams: 0 / 249 / 143 / 392 / 34 / 426

#8 100 Years of Tears

100 Years of Tears

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Twitter:@ChuckDarwin1
  • LocationGeneva, Illinois

Posted 05 January 2013 - 09:04 AM

I couldn't wait and looked up the answer.

During the 1960s, Banks hit 269 HRs, Santo 253, Williams 249.


Disagreeing with Spriggs is unwise.

I got it exactly backwards.

The complete data using the format: HRs in 50s / 60s / 70s as a Cub / Total as a Cub / 70s as non-Cub / Career Total:

Banks: 228 / 269 /15 / 512 / 0 / 512
Santo: 0 / 253 / 84 / 337 / 5 / 342
Williams: 0 / 249 / 143 / 392 / 34 / 426


Well, there you have it... In Spriggs We Trust

#9 Tommy

Tommy

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 696 posts
  • LocationPekin, IL

Posted 05 January 2013 - 09:10 AM

I couldn't wait and looked up the answer.

During the 1960s, Banks hit 269 HRs, Santo 253, Williams 249.


Disagreeing with Spriggs is unwise.

I got it exactly backwards.

The complete data using the format: HRs in 50s / 60s / 70s as a Cub / Total as a Cub / 70s as non-Cub / Career Total:

Banks: 228 / 269 /15 / 512 / 0 / 512
Santo: 0 / 253 / 84 / 337 / 5 / 342
Williams: 0 / 249 / 143 / 392 / 34 / 426

Thanks for doing the math, OCC, and DARN YOU, DAGNABBIT SPRIGGS!
- diehard fanclub member #002




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Bleacher Nation is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago National League Ballclub (that's the Cubs).