Page 55 of 94 FirstFirst ... 545535455565765 ... LastLast
Results 1,351 to 1,375 of 2344

Thread: *Babe Ruth Thread*

  1. #1351
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    20,229
    Quote Originally Posted by stuarthouse View Post
    Once again, I think the premise of the Jenkinson book is misinterpreted. The book is not intended to prove or even advocate that Ruth would have hit that many home runs either in a season or a career if todays fences existed back then, or if Ruth were playing today. The premise is that ANY PLAYER who hit that particular long ball would have had a home run under average modern stadium layouts. These statistics were intended merely to highlight Ruth's unparalleled power. This is done by the time-honored "all-other-things-being-equal" method. And as we all know, such things can never really be "equal" because of so many variables being in play. Any player on a pace to hit 104 home runs in a season today would certainly inspire creative pitching tactics in an attempt to neutralize such an offensive onslaught, not the least of which would be the intentional walk. Once again, the book is intended to highlight Ruth's power quotient in a statistically intelligent and understandable way. Not to be an accurate predictor of the truly unpredictable!
    A good point stuarthouse. Ruth's power domination is almost unparalleled in American sports. The only other athlete that I consider to have dominated his sport to the extent Ruth did was Wilt Chamberlain with his insane scoring and rebounding.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

    http://sfgiants-forum.com/forum/index.php

  2. #1352
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    location, location
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    A good point stuarthouse. Ruth's power domination is almost unparalleled in American sports. The only other athlete that I consider to have dominated his sport to the extent Ruth did was Wilt Chamberlain with his insane scoring and rebounding.
    And, AGAIN, an otherwise-intelligent poster misses the point. *sigh*
    A swing--and a smash--and a gray streak partaking/Of ghostly manoeuvres that follow the whack;/The old earth rebounds with a quiver and quaking/And high flies the dust as he thuds on the track;/The atmosphere reels--and it isn't the comet--/There follows the blur of a phantom at play;/Then out from the reel comes the glitter of steel--/And damned be the fellow that gets in the way.                 A swing and a smash--and the far echoes quiver--/A ripping and rearing and volcanic roar;/And off streaks the Ghost with a shake and a shiver,/To hurdle red hell on the way to a score;/A cross between tidal wave, cyclone and earthquake--/Fire, wind and water all out on a lark;/Then out from the reel comes the glitter of steel,/Plus ten tons of dynamite hitched to a spark.

    --Cobb, Grantland Rice

  3. #1353
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    20,229
    Quote Originally Posted by HitchedtoaSpark View Post
    And, AGAIN, an otherwise-intelligent poster misses the point. *sigh*
    Then please, by all means, tells us what is "the point"? I was responding to thre bolded part of sturathouse's post.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuarthouse View Post
    Once again, I think the premise of the Jenkinson book is misinterpreted. The book is not intended to prove or even advocate that Ruth would have hit that many home runs either in a season or a career if todays fences existed back then, or if Ruth were playing today. The premise is that ANY PLAYER who hit that particular long ball would have had a home run under average modern stadium layouts. These statistics were intended merely to highlight Ruth's unparalleled power. This is done by the time-honored "all-other-things-being-equal" method. And as we all know, such things can never really be "equal" because of so many variables being in play. Any player on a pace to hit 104 home runs in a season today would certainly inspire creative pitching tactics in an attempt to neutralize such an offensive onslaught, not the least of which would be the intentional walk. Once again, the book is intended to highlight Ruth's power quotient in a statistically intelligent and understandable way. Not to be an accurate predictor of the truly unpredictable!
    Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 02-24-2012 at 10:24 AM.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

    http://sfgiants-forum.com/forum/index.php

  4. #1354
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    location, location
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    Then please, by all means, tells us what is "the point"? I was responding to thre bolded part of sturathouse's post.
    Please correct me if I misconstrue. Your reply to stuarthouse seemed to be addressing the issue of competitive dominance (as in your analogy to Wilt Chamberlain). Whereas the cited Jenkinson exercise illustrates solely Ruth's distance hitting power, which has nothing whatever to do with the matters of competitive dominance.
    A swing--and a smash--and a gray streak partaking/Of ghostly manoeuvres that follow the whack;/The old earth rebounds with a quiver and quaking/And high flies the dust as he thuds on the track;/The atmosphere reels--and it isn't the comet--/There follows the blur of a phantom at play;/Then out from the reel comes the glitter of steel--/And damned be the fellow that gets in the way.                 A swing and a smash--and the far echoes quiver--/A ripping and rearing and volcanic roar;/And off streaks the Ghost with a shake and a shiver,/To hurdle red hell on the way to a score;/A cross between tidal wave, cyclone and earthquake--/Fire, wind and water all out on a lark;/Then out from the reel comes the glitter of steel,/Plus ten tons of dynamite hitched to a spark.

    --Cobb, Grantland Rice

  5. #1355
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    20,229
    Quote Originally Posted by HitchedtoaSpark View Post
    Please correct me if I misconstrue. Your reply to stuarthouse seemed to be addressing the issue of competitive dominance (as in your analogy to Wilt Chamberlain).

    Whereas the cited Jenkinson exercise illustrates solely Ruth's distance hitting power, which has nothing whatever to do with the matters of competitive dominance.
    I was commenting on stuarthouse's sentence:

    "These statistics were intended merely to highlight Ruth's unparalleled power."

    The bolded part is reffering Ruth competitive dominance IMO which led to my comment about Wilt Chamberlain. That is all.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

    http://sfgiants-forum.com/forum/index.php

  6. #1356
    When a single player (Ruth) hits more home runs in a season than any other team I think it safe to use the words "competitive dominance." Not to nitpick, but it was Ruth who was the first to hit 30, then 40, then 50, then 60 home runs in a season. He was the first to hit a home run in the House That Ruth Built, and on opening day at that. He was the first player to hit a home run in an All-Star game. He was the first to hit three home runs in a World Series game, and he did that twice. Had the opposition in the World Series been more competitive he may have hit a total of 20 homers in the World Series. While Ruth was playing the Yankees actually won 12 World Series games (not in consecutive years however) in a row. I know this is speculation, but I wonder how many more dingers he would have hit if those Series had gone 7 games each. I used to think Ruth was all hype and myth, especially after seeing old footage when he weighed so much and also viewing that abomination The Babe Ruth Story starring William Bendix. But I finally got around to Smelser's epic bio The Life That Ruth Built and became aware of just how great he really was. If you haven't read it, get a copy. Smelser was an historian who taught at Notre Dame. His bio wasn't mere hagiography. He showed Ruth warts and all, but there's no doubt he was the ne plus ultra of power in baseball, truly sui generis.
    ". . . the Ruth, the whole Ruth and nothing but the Ruth . . ."

  7. #1357
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    location, location
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    I was commenting on stuarthouse's sentence:

    "These statistics were intended merely to highlight Ruth's unparalleled power."

    The bolded part is reffering Ruth competitive dominance IMO which led to my comment about Wilt Chamberlain. That is all.
    No, your comparison as used is a non-sequitur. When stuarthouse is referring, in the quoted post, to "Ruth's unparalleled power", he seems to be remarking solely on the sheer linear distance he was able to achieve in his power hitting, not in any way to how far he outclassed his contemporaries in power numbers. (stuarthouse can correct me if I misconstrue.) How far you hit the ball is not, in itself, a competitive aspect in the game of baseball. A 450-ft. home run and a 330-ft. home run are of equal value when putting runs on the board. (Further underscoring this illustration is the fact that a 330-ft. home run is of scoring value, whereas a 450-ft. flyball caught for an out is not.)

    When you bring up Chamberlain and his "insane scoring and rebounding"--basketball actions related solely to its competitive aspects--you seem to be making an argument about competitive dominance. (Chamberlain is otherwise seldom brought up in conversations about Ruth, unless it in reference to his equally-awesome ability to bed women.) If you had instead brought up the example of Bob Beamon, and how much further he could jump than his contemporaries (at least that one time); or Usain Bolt and how much he outclasses his running peers in footspeed, your analogy would have been relevant and made sense, and would not have solicited my concern.
    Last edited by HitchedtoaSpark; 02-24-2012 at 01:08 PM. Reason: clarifying
    A swing--and a smash--and a gray streak partaking/Of ghostly manoeuvres that follow the whack;/The old earth rebounds with a quiver and quaking/And high flies the dust as he thuds on the track;/The atmosphere reels--and it isn't the comet--/There follows the blur of a phantom at play;/Then out from the reel comes the glitter of steel--/And damned be the fellow that gets in the way.                 A swing and a smash--and the far echoes quiver--/A ripping and rearing and volcanic roar;/And off streaks the Ghost with a shake and a shiver,/To hurdle red hell on the way to a score;/A cross between tidal wave, cyclone and earthquake--/Fire, wind and water all out on a lark;/Then out from the reel comes the glitter of steel,/Plus ten tons of dynamite hitched to a spark.

    --Cobb, Grantland Rice

  8. #1358
    Quote Originally Posted by Badge714 View Post
    When a single player (Ruth) hits more home runs in a season than any other team I think it safe to use the words "competitive dominance." Not to nitpick, but it was Ruth who was the first to hit 30, then 40, then 50, then 60 home runs in a season. He was the first to hit a home run in the House That Ruth Built, and on opening day at that. He was the first player to hit a home run in an All-Star game. He was the first to hit three home runs in a World Series game, and he did that twice. Had the opposition in the World Series been more competitive he may have hit a total of 20 homers in the World Series. While Ruth was playing the Yankees actually won 12 World Series games (not in consecutive years however) in a row. I know this is speculation, but I wonder how many more dingers he would have hit if those Series had gone 7 games each. I used to think Ruth was all hype and myth, especially after seeing old footage when he weighed so much and also viewing that abomination The Babe Ruth Story starring William Bendix. But I finally got around to Smelser's epic bio The Life That Ruth Built and became aware of just how great he really was. If you haven't read it, get a copy. Smelser was an historian who taught at Notre Dame. His bio wasn't mere hagiography. He showed Ruth warts and all, but there's no doubt he was the ne plus ultra of power in baseball, truly sui generis.
    First of all, they should take the Bendix Babe movie and the John Goodman Babe movie..............burn them both.They portray Ruth as a big clumsy oaf. I think there is even one scene in the Goodman movie where Babe hits one out, runs to first and a pinch runner rounds the bases for him..........leave it to Hollywood. The only real good Babe movie was one made for TV in the 1990s starring Stephen Lang. I have searched every where, can't locate it on DVD or even VHS.

    With that said, Robert Creamer's book "Babe The Legend Comes To Life" is a great book, but Smelser's is more than a match, it's my favorite Babe book. It gives more details than Creamers, excerpts of articles that appeared in newspapers and comments from teammates and others who played against Babe.

    I've posted this article before,in the field, a bit long but interesting. I shows the real Babe, who always went all out, I have a sequence of him doing a head first dive but being tagged out at home plate, close play.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  9. #1359
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    20,229
    Quote Originally Posted by HitchedtoaSpark View Post
    No, your comparison as used is a non-sequitur. When stuarthouse is referring, in the quoted post, to "Ruth's unparalleled power", he seems to be remarking solely on the sheer linear distance he was able to achieve in his power hitting, not in any way to how far he outclassed his contemporaries in power numbers. (stuarthouse can correct me if I misconstrue.) How far you hit the ball is not, in itself, a competitive aspect in the game of baseball. A 450-ft. home run and a 330-ft. home run are of equal value when putting runs on the board. (Further underscoring this illustration is the fact that a 330-ft. home run is of scoring value, whereas a 450-ft. flyball caught for an out is not.)

    When you bring up Chamberlain and his "insane scoring and rebounding"--basketball actions related solely to its competitive aspects--you seem to be making an argument about competitive dominance. (Chamberlain is otherwise seldom brought up in conversations about Ruth, unless it in reference to his equally-awesome ability to bed women.) If you had instead brought up the example of Bob Beamon, and how much further he could jump than his contemporaries (at least that one time); or Usain Bolt and how much he outclasses his running peers in footspeed, your analogy would have been relevant and made sense, and would not have solicited my concern.
    I'm not sure what you are really arguing about? stuarthouse used the phrase "unparalleled power". Unparalleled with respect to whom? To other HR hitters I would assume. That is no different than my "insane scoring and rebonding" comment about Wilt Chamberlain. Wilt outscored and out rebounded his follow basketball contemporaries by huge amounts. How is that any different that Ruth's "unparalleled power"? By the way why are you "concerned" how others post in this thread?
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

    http://sfgiants-forum.com/forum/index.php

  10. #1360
    More Babe in the field, he did go all out, played the game hard. Might have been more difficult to put on the brakes after downing all those hot dogs but...............the point is, he went all out.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  11. #1361
    Okay. Can we take it down a notch? I understand and appreciate the Wilt Chamberlain comparison. It relates to the statistical offensive dominance of their respective games during their tenure. While this may have been the subtext of the Jenkinson work, its major premise was to statistically illustrate Ruth's particular ability to hit a baseball harder and farther than any other player ever. While this too is a form of dominance, it is more extensive in nature and less related to the actual offensive numbers wherein the Chamberlain comparison is more apt. In other words, even if Ruth were a .250 hitter, this distance hitting ability would still have set him apart from all others.
    Quote Originally Posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    I'm not sure what you are really arguing about? stuarthouse used the phrase "unparalleled power". Unparalleled with respect to whom? To other HR hitters I would assume. That is no different than my "insane scoring and rebonding" comment about Wilt Chamberlain. Wilt outscored and out rebounded his follow basketball contemporaries by huge amounts. How is that any different that Ruth's "unparalleled power"? By the way why are you "concerned" how others post in this thread?

  12. #1362
    Quote Originally Posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
    About here I stopped searching because I realize this does not answer your question or prove anything. How Babe hit these guys for average.

    Does anyone out there have any stat sheet or source for batter/pitcher match up with some numbers, Ruth of course being the batter.
    1. Until we have full PBP (fully accessible) data on retrosheet or BBref, we will never know exactly how well hitters did against pitchers...and vice versa...prior to 1950. People who throw out data as fact from their "black box" without anything near a complete listing of PA by PA claim to have basically 100% of the data from the old days, as we do for modern players.

    2. I'm sure one of the bevy of Ruth biographers has every single PA of his MLB career documented. I just don't know which scribe/author it would be...or whether we could get that information.

  13. #1363
    Quote Originally Posted by csh19792001 View Post
    1. Until we have full PBP (fully accessible) data on retrosheet or BBref, we will never know exactly how well hitters did against pitchers...and vice versa...prior to 1950. People who throw out data as fact from their "black box" without anything near a complete listing of PA by PA claim to have basically 100% of the data from the old days, as we do for modern players.

    2. I'm sure one of the bevy of Ruth biographers has every single PA of his MLB career documented. I just don't know which scribe/author it would be...or whether we could get that information.
    Looks to me like that would be a tough task, account for every PA against certain pitchers. I see so many box scores and game recaps that appear in the newspaper the very next day. The problem is when more than one pitcher was used, there is no way to tell how the batter did against each pitcher. There are some recaps where it may be noted what inning the hitter batted against each pitcher but that is not often the case. It may tell what inning the second pitcher entered the game but not always what inning the batter got a hit, struck or, what ever. At time there may be three pitchers used.

  14. #1364
    This could be the big one, that remains to be seen. Babe's jersey circa 1920. Expected to top the 1.3 million paid for the bat he hit his first home run at Yankee Stadium in 1923. May challenge the 2.8 million paid for the Honus Wagner card T-206
    All that suggested by those at SCP Auction.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  15. #1365
    Quote Originally Posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
    Looks to me like that would be a tough task, account for every PA against certain pitchers.
    Ask "Ubiquitous", who claims/claimed (surrepititiously, and without anything close to full disclosure" to account for every single PA of Ted Williams against LHP from 1939-1950.

    For those curious, this summative info was strewn about by Ubiquitous on our "Ted Williams vs. Left-Handed Pitchers" thread.
    Last edited by csh19792001; 02-27-2012 at 06:44 PM.

  16. #1366
    This is Japan and a Babe article makes the front page, before TV, before the computer, 1919.
    This really shoots down the Curtiss Candy line from the 1920s. The royalty rights dealing with the Baby Ruth Candy bar....In court, Curtiss lawyers said, Babe Ruth wasnt even that famous in 1921.

    Ok, they knew of him in Japan, even a couple of years before the candy bar came out, but he was not that famous in the USA years later. They did win the battle. Babe comes back many years later, Nabisco buys out Curtiss then Nestle takes over Butterfinger and Baby Ruth bar, Curtiss then pays Babe's estate some bucks for using his image.

    Blew up this front page article so it could be read.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 03-04-2012 at 10:22 AM.

  17. #1367
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Memphis,Tn
    Posts
    564
    I wonder if Dave Kingman is ever going to be compensated by Nestle for the Curtiss`folks naming their Butterfinger bar after him?
    Last edited by Nimrod; 03-04-2012 at 05:00 PM.

  18. #1368
    Right from the start of the called shot game, first inning , first at bat. Babe in the on deck circle and the war of the words begins, the Cub bench and The Babe.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  19. #1369
    Casey on The Babe.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  20. #1370
    Interesting the rest of the league was playing the final day of the season; the Red Sox and Yanks finished on 9/29

    DREW

  21. #1371
    Quote Originally Posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
    Exhibition game, double header against Tesreau's team, 3, 1920. This was accompanied by an article that appeared in a black newspaper, Chicago defender. Don't know who was wagering but the article said some bets were placed, that Ruth would hit at least 3 home runs, he did hit 3 home runs.
    Interesting the rest of the league was playing the final day of the season; the Yanks and Red Sox finished on 9/29

    DREW

  22. #1372
    Ruth and Root on the home run.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  23. #1373
    Some words on Babe.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  24. #1374
    Cicotte on Babe.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  25. #1375
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Memphis,Tn
    Posts
    564
    Notice how common it was for hitters to be knocked down and constantly thrown at back then.Of course the batters didn`t wear helmets and didn`t wear hockey gear,or whatever all those pads and cushions are.Batters would dig in at their own peril.Nowadays, it`s"dig right in boys,make yourself comfortable-that`s YOUR plate."

Page 55 of 94 FirstFirst ... 545535455565765 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •