There are those who say that Ruth being a great pitcher and a great hitter proves that the quality of play was far inferior in his day. That specialization means that such can never happen again.

I don't argue that quality has improved (though quantifying it is an impossible task), but I think that such a player COULD happen. Take Bryce Harper, fresh off one of the greatest, maybe the greatest, teenage hitting seasons ever. Bryce also has an absolute cannon for an arm. Is it possible that if Bryce really, really wanted to pitch, and focused on doing so for the last 4 years, he could be a pitching prospect similar to Dylan Bundy? Or maybe in a few years a fine young pitcher with similar results to say, teammate Jordan Zimmerman?

I think it's possible, but totally unrealistic because if someone has the hitting tools Harper has, he's going to play every day. You just would not make him a pitcher, even if he has the skills to be a good one (give him once in a generation Strasburg skills, then maybe, but still probably not if he can hit like Harper.)

So the question to me is, with such awesome hitting skills, why was Ruth allowed to pitch a few years before his value as an everyday player became too obvious? I think the answer is in his unique timing, debuting at the tail end of the deadball era. Ruth may have had great batting skills, but he didn't look like what a top 1915 batter was supposed to look like. Even though he hit for high averages, he swung and missed too much, and the uppercutting, what is the point of that? Nobody knew what a power hitter was supposed to look like back then because Ruth hadn't invented the power game yet.

Here, for fun, are the teammates who have combined for 100 homers in a season:

But for a minor labor annoyance, Matt Williams/Barry Bonds 1994? They were at 80 with about 45 games to go.

Proof of the theory of evolution: pitchers don't hit because if pitchers could hit they wouldn't be pitchers.

Also the birthday of the boy held hostage in Alabama and me. Henry Aaron is 2/5 which makes him ahead of Ruth alphabetically, by birthdate and on the home run list.

Kid Gleason was not Hall of Fame caliber either way, but he was a pretty good pitcher (won 138 games), a pretty good hitter (1,946 career hits) and then he was the beleaguered manager of the 1919 White Sox. Then, he stole from that retirement home causing great pain to his lovely daughter who fell in love with the guy who owned that record store whose mother was a grifter, though I could be confusing movies.

Good stuff in the article

Kid Gleason was not Hall of Fame caliber either way, but he was a pretty good pitcher (won 138 games), a pretty good hitter (1,946 career hits) and then he was the beleaguered manager of the 1919 White Sox. Then, he stole from that retirement home causing great pain to his lovely daughter who fell in love with the guy who owned that record store whose mother was a grifter, though I could be confusing movies.

Doh! Until reading the above, my feeble mind had not made the connection that John Mahoney and John Cusack were in 2 films together...

Also the birthday of the boy held hostage in Alabama and me.

Me too.

Ward and Gleason weren't really "hitters and pitchers." They were guys who started out as pitchers, came up with sore arms, and moved to the infield. When they were actually pitching, they didn't hit that well. Al Spalding, Bob Caruthers, Dave Foutz and a few others were 1800s guys who actually hit well while they were actually pitchers. Modern guys would include George Uhle, Wes Ferrell, Don Newcombe and Bob Lemon. Bob Gibson was a good hitter FOR a pitcher, but not really a good "hitter AND pitcher." He more or less represents the line where you're talking about a good hitter for a pitcher as opposed to a good hitter and pitcher. - Brock Hanke

The birthday thing is fun, however I reckon just for pure historical coolness, nothing beats 12th Feb 1809.

Only great player born on my birthday..Steve Carlton.

If anyone is interested, Headin' For Home starring Babe Ruth is now streaming on Netflix.