>>> Part 2 of 2...
 SF> Gee. You left out Newcombe and the Babe? T'sa matta you?
 EG> NO, I DIDN'T. YOU posted their stats (Ruth's were wrong) so why in the
 EG> hell would I rehash what you had already posted?
Well, he was a pitcher until 1919 and he averaged 8 homers and 80 RBI. If my 
figures were only HALF right that would still make him quite a hitter.
 SF> And do these figs show Gibbie hit 24 homers? For 1300 at bats?
 EG>>             AB   H  HR    BA
 EG>> Gibson    1328 274  24  .206
 EG> Yep. I guess you just didn't look hard enough, did you? Maybe that's
 EG> why you're having such a hard time finding stats for pitchers.
Perhaps, but it doesn't explaing why you still say that pitchers can't hit.
I don't find them because they are not available to me right now. Sooner or 
later I will run across them. Either way, I'm not quoting from stats that I 
do 
not have, only from those that I do, and even at such a disadvantage, you 
still have not proven your case nor disproven mine.
 SF> Tell me where they are. There are NONE on the AL to go by, and I'll
 SF> check and see if USA_Today Baseball has the records of pitchers (NL).
 EG> Check the WWW. Check TB. Check several other sources of information.
That's a big help. Are you trying to be evasive? Why? If I had the figures 
you 
say are there, and they bear you out, I'd concede in a heartbeat. But as long 
as we are going on opinion, I can stay as long as I want.
 EG> You'd be surprised at the wealth of information that you can find when
 EG> you go looking.
So all I have to do is quote something and say "Now YOU go see if you can 
verify it", and you would accept that? If I have a source of information, 
I'll 
tell you straight up. No beating around the bush.
Stephen
---
---------------