Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46

Thread: How would Babe Ruth fared in today's game?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Duryea, Pa
    Posts
    117

    How would Babe Ruth fared in today's game?

    How different do you think The Babe's numbers would be if he played in this modern era of baseball. Throw in any thoughts you'd like. The pitchers, ballparks, equipment, media, whatever. I personally think his power numbers would be slightly higher, with his batting average not as lofty.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Littleton, Colorado
    Posts
    4,780
    If you dig around down here these guys have threads of info like that on the legends of the game with all the adjustments your heart desires.


    IMO though you can take any of the greats that were superior to their peers of any era and the same thing would happen no matter which era you threw them in with the different equipment and training. The game will always be played by humans that run about 98.6 F and there will always be the blessed one's like the Babe.

  3. #3
    He'd would have a hall of fame pitching career - he was that good a pitcher and because of the DH rule he would never get to bat enough for people to realize he was also the greatest hitter the game has ever seen.

  4. #4
    If he was a pitcher in today's game, I would think that Ruth would probably be a premier pitcher. Here is my prediction of his stats:

    Wins: 326
    Losses: 147
    ERA: 3.21
    Strikeouts: 2731

    I think he would also be a great hitter. Here's my prediction of his stats if he were solely a hitter:

    Batting Average: .323
    Home Runs: 568
    RBI: 1841

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    11,431
    Quote Originally Posted by MDog795 View Post

    I think he would also be a great hitter. Here's my prediction of his stats if he were solely a hitter:

    Batting Average: .323
    Home Runs: 568
    RBI: 1841
    No reason to to think he wouldn't play as long and probably longer given today's advancements. Considering all the other factors, and knowing that he put up in 714 in those parks, with those conditions, even after wasting his first five years hitting a deadball, that 568 seems awful low. 868 would be more reasonable imo.
    "The inference is that in the dead of the night the under-secretary of the club owner sneaks to a private telephone, summons the manufacturer, and bids him pour a little strychnine of digitalis into the old apple to make its heart action quicker. The factory gets out the ball bearings, the block rubber, and the go-juice, and the home run epidemic follows." - Paul Gallico

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Sammamish, WA
    Posts
    2,414
    He'd probably be in better shape, at the least.
    “There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and to shame the devil.” – Walter Lippmann

    "A pitcher has to look at the hitter as his mortal enemy." -
    Early Wynn

    "My own little rule was two for one. If one of my teammates got knocked down, then I knocked down two on the other team." - Don Drysdale

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Duryea, Pa
    Posts
    117
    [QUOTE=.


    IMO though you can take any of the greats that were superior to their peers of any era and the same thing would happen no matter which era you threw them in with the different equipment and training. The game will always be played by humans that run about 98.6 F and there will always be the blessed one's like the Babe.[/QUOTE]

    Very nicely put.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
    No reason to to think he wouldn't play as long and probably longer given today's advancements. Considering all the other factors, and knowing that he put up in 714 in those parks, with those conditions, even after wasting his first five years hitting a deadball, that 568 seems awful low. 868 would be more reasonable imo.
    Yeah, thats probably true that I underestimated his home run totals, but Ruth would also face relief pitchers and players of different races, which he did not ever get to play against. Babe's home run total would be very high, but it would depend on whether Babe would overcome his bad habits, which might hamper him a little bit in today's game.

    Here's my new prediction:
    Babe with bad habits: 450-570 home runs
    Babe with good habits: 675-775 home runs

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Sammamish, WA
    Posts
    2,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burgess View Post
    I doubt if any of us can speculate on just what the Babe might have in mind. You're intellectually masturbating.

    In his his life, Babe became a hostage to his own gift/fame. His fans were often so new/shallow that they'd actually boo no matter how well he played, if he gave no moonshots.

    But today, he just might be free of those shackles, and surprise us all with the kind of ball he might prefer to show us. Instead of going 70 homers/.340, he just might decide to go 40/.400 as his baseline. He might decide to be a quite different kind of player and focus a lot more on his fielding/running/BA.

    How can you guys get in his head and assume he'd still want to remain a stereo-type? I give him full credit for having the potential to surprise us all. He had the potential. Or what if he wanted to be Nolan Ryan? How can you guys know so much when I haven't the faintest clue?
    Fair point.
    “There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and to shame the devil.” – Walter Lippmann

    "A pitcher has to look at the hitter as his mortal enemy." -
    Early Wynn

    "My own little rule was two for one. If one of my teammates got knocked down, then I knocked down two on the other team." - Don Drysdale

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Love The Game View Post
    How different do you think The Babe's numbers would be if he played in this modern era of baseball.
    Wait! We have to clarify before this kind of exercise can take place properly. (Trust me, I've been doing it here for 5 years straight).

    1) Are we transporting Babe Ruth (born in hardscrabble Baltimore, 1895) in a time machine from his era to this one, without any prior exposure or training?

    2) Are we assuming Ruth (same origin) is playing in the Major Leagues with some time to gain exposure, training and adjustment?

    3) Or are we "timelining" Ruth? That is, are we assuming he is being born in the modern era, conferred with the modern advantages and disadvantages all players today face, relative to players of his actual era??

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burgess View Post
    You're intellectually masturbating.

    How can you guys know so much when I haven't the faintest clue?
    Bill, you do realize that the hundreds of polls you've started, conducted, and demanded participation in have been nothing more than mental masturbation, correct? (thank you Woody Allen for coining the term).

    Furthermore, how aren't all comparisons that are comprised of two players that played in different leagues and/or at different times anything really more than strict conjecture?????

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burgess View Post
    Instead of going 70 homers/.340, he just might decide to go 40/.400 as his baseline.
    Bill,
    Not picking on you, but I have to inquire here....you don't actually believe someone could consciously try to go 40/.400 per season in today's game and do it, could you?

    Even Babe Ruth?

  13. #13
    He'd probably go 16-6 on the hill and hit about 320 with 25 homers and 85 rbi as a dh
    That by the way is in the same season

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    11,431
    Quote Originally Posted by lovethegame View Post
    He'd probably go 16-6 on the hill and hit about 320 with 25 homers and 85 rbi as a dh
    That by the way is in the same season
    Last year, the lanky leadoff hitting Granderson hit 23 homers. You really think Ruth would only hit 2 more? We need to get real here. Understand what he did, when he did it, and in what parks he did it in. Would a guy like Ruth have his numbers suffer from facing more pitchers of color? Doubtful. Would his batting average lower (and strikeouts go up) due to more specialized relief pitching. Absolutely imo. However that is the only area where he'd be hurt. He put up 714 in a game that wasn't geared for homers. This game is. Imagine him with all his physical and mental gifts. With a helmet on, no fear of the pitcher coming inside, the small zone, a 34 ounce bat, a modern swing, the perfect hitters backdrops, the rock hard ball, in these parks. Forget about it. You thought 714 was something.
    "The inference is that in the dead of the night the under-secretary of the club owner sneaks to a private telephone, summons the manufacturer, and bids him pour a little strychnine of digitalis into the old apple to make its heart action quicker. The factory gets out the ball bearings, the block rubber, and the go-juice, and the home run epidemic follows." - Paul Gallico

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    20,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
    Last year, the lanky leadoff hitting Granderson hit 23 homers. You really think Ruth would only hit 2 more? We need to get real here. Understand what he did, when he did it, and in what parks he did it in. Would a guy like Ruth have his numbers suffer from facing more pitchers of color? Doubtful. Would his batting average lower (and strikeouts go up) due to more specialized relief pitching. Absolutely imo. However that is the only area where he'd be hurt. He put up 714 in a game that wasn't geared for homers. This game is. Imagine him with all his physical and mental gifts. With a helmet on, no fear of the pitcher coming inside, the small zone, a 34 ounce bat, a modern swing, the perfect hitters backdrops, the rock hard ball, in these parks. Forget about it. You thought 714 was something.
    Didn't Ruth already have a "modern" swing? Or you talking about something more subltle here, Sultan?
    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

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Section 538, Row 1
    Posts
    6,952
    I think the most important question of all is... if Mr. George Herman "Babe" Ruth were, in fact, around today:

    • would he still sign free autographs?
    • would he do card shows?
    • and if so, how much would he charge for autographs?
    • (and how much extra for large items, personalization/inscriptions, &c.?)
    • Or would he just chuck it all and do a deal with Steiner or Upper Deck or someone like that?????


    Of course, we do have to include csh19792001's various variables in the mix... can't ignore them, no way, no how, wouldn't be prudent...

    Quote Originally Posted by csh19792001 View Post
    Wait! We have to clarify before this kind of exercise can take place properly. (Trust me, I've been doing it here for 5 years straight).

    1) Are we transporting Babe Ruth (born in hardscrabble Baltimore, 1895) in a time machine from his era to this one, without any prior exposure or training?

    2) Are we assuming Ruth (same origin) is playing in the Major Leagues with some time to gain exposure, training and adjustment?

    3) Or are we "timelining" Ruth? That is, are we assuming he is being born in the modern era, conferred with the modern advantages and disadvantages all players today face, relative to players of his actual era??
    X
    I wonder what it’s like after death. Prob’ly it’s like it is b’fore birth. Is it nothing? Non-existence? That’s not hard t’understand, but it’s hard for people t’accept. It’s hard for them to imagine not existing because all of their memories are of their existence, not non-existence. An’ people ain’t too crazy about the idea of themselves not existing. - Harvey Pekar, “Short Weekend: A Story About the Cosmic and the Ordinary,” American Splendor #3, 1978.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    11,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    Didn't Ruth already have a "modern" swing? Or you talking about something more subltle here, Sultan?
    Modern compared to most others of his day and before his day, yes. But if he were to play today, he would need to alter his swing imo. I think he would need to setup with his feet further apart, ultimately cutting down his stride, and tone down on the hitch.
    "The inference is that in the dead of the night the under-secretary of the club owner sneaks to a private telephone, summons the manufacturer, and bids him pour a little strychnine of digitalis into the old apple to make its heart action quicker. The factory gets out the ball bearings, the block rubber, and the go-juice, and the home run epidemic follows." - Paul Gallico

  18. #18
    Any feelings on these questions below? All answers depend on approaching them.

    Quote Originally Posted by csh19792001 View Post

    1) Are we transporting Babe Ruth (born in hardscrabble Baltimore, 1895) in a time machine from his era to this one, without any prior exposure or training?

    2) Are we assuming Ruth (same origin) is playing in the Major Leagues with some time to gain exposure, training and adjustment?

    3) Or are we "timelining" Ruth? That is, are we assuming he is being born in the modern era, conferred with the modern advantages and disadvantages all players today face, relative to players of his actual era??

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by csh19792001 View Post
    Wait! We have to clarify before this kind of exercise can take place properly. (Trust me, I've been doing it here for 5 years straight).

    1) Are we transporting Babe Ruth (born in hardscrabble Baltimore, 1895) in a time machine from his era to this one, without any prior exposure or training?

    2) Are we assuming Ruth (same origin) is playing in the Major Leagues with some time to gain exposure, training and adjustment?

    3) Or are we "timelining" Ruth? That is, are we assuming he is being born in the modern era, conferred with the modern advantages and disadvantages all players today face, relative to players of his actual era??

    The only way to transport a player from the past to the present would be to have him subject to the environment, the living conditions of the general public and the training methods of this time.

    To cut out all the words, in short no past player would be moved up to modern times or no modern player be transported to the past "as is."

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Duryea, Pa
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by csh19792001 View Post
    Any feelings on these questions below? All answers depend on approaching them.
    I like #3.

  21. #21
    Historian Bill Jenkinson believes he'd hit over a thousand and slug .800 for a career.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    20,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Gregory Pratt View Post
    Historian Bill Jenkinson believes he'd hit over a thousand and slug .800 for a career.
    That's just silly.
    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

  23. #23
    I think he makes a great case in his book.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Yountville, CA (Napa Valley)
    Posts
    2,584
    Quote Originally Posted by Love The Game View Post
    How different do you think The Babe's numbers would be if he played in this modern era of baseball. Throw in any thoughts you'd like. The pitchers, ballparks, equipment, media, whatever. I personally think his power numbers would be slightly higher, with his batting average not as lofty.
    Taking into consideration that Ruth would be 113 years old today..........

    Bob

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Q.U. Hectic
    Posts
    5,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
    Last year, the lanky leadoff hitting Granderson hit 23 homers. You really think Ruth would only hit 2 more? We need to get real here. Understand what he did, when he did it, and in what parks he did it in. Would a guy like Ruth have his numbers suffer from facing more pitchers of color? Doubtful. Would his batting average lower (and strikeouts go up) due to more specialized relief pitching. Absolutely imo. However that is the only area where he'd be hurt. He put up 714 in a game that wasn't geared for homers. This game is. Imagine him with all his physical and mental gifts. With a helmet on, no fear of the pitcher coming inside, the small zone, a 34 ounce bat, a modern swing, the perfect hitters backdrops, the rock hard ball, in these parks. Forget about it. You thought 714 was something.
    If we work under the premise that from 2001-2004 we saw, in a chemically-enhanced Barry Bonds, an approximation of a modernized version of Ruth, any speculations about his career numbers beg questions regarding how frequently he'd be pitched to.
    THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

    In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •