Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

*Babe Ruth Thread*

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by csh19792001 View Post
    This might be my favorite Ruth game:

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/bo...91707110.shtml
    You may already be aware, that one hit, 8th inning infield hit
    Attached Files

    Comment


    • A bit more on his pitching. In those year the Tigers and White Sox were two of the best hitting teams in both leagues.
      Attached Files

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post


        "Even though Ruth smacked the crap out of the ball, I am going to assume he was a pull hitter since the original Yankee Stadium was designed for him."



        Another poster did respond with this.

        If Dustin Pedroia can be the AL MVP at 5'8" 165 lbs and smack 99 HR in his career, that tells you all you need to know.

        At 6'2" 215lbs Ruth physically stacks up against modern era players: Hank was 6'. Hank and ruth had the hand eye coordination and discipline to hit (one of the harder things to do in sports). And they had power.

        In the modern era, Hank or Ruth would still be Hank or Ruth.
        On PEDS, they'd hit 100 HR a year assuming they did not get walked too much.
        Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
          But wouldn't you rather be at this one? :scholar:

          August 15, 1916 vs. Wash, 1-0 win, 13 inning game against Walter. Babe pitches on two days rest.

          Ruth -----13 IP-----7 H---2 K---3 BB---0 ER
          Walter----12.2 IP---8 H---5 K---5 BB---1 ER

          Ruth gave up a mere infield single after the seventh inning and was robbed of a game-winning homer by Clyde Milan in the eleventh, ending at 1-4 with a double.
          To use the vernacular of my fellow Millennials....that is straight up FILTHY!!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by csh19792001 View Post
            To use the vernacular of my fellow Millennials....that is straight up FILTHY!!
            Chris,

            I know you had been asking for some time, to see Ruth's batting line against Walter and/or Grove.

            Spent a few hours looking through game logs, and made a post a little earlier Ruth vs Johnson. Did you happen to see it?

            For Grove we'd probably have a much smaller sample size of absolute known PA, considering he didn't throw as many CG as Walter. We'd only have those, and of course if he homered off Lefty in relief.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
              Chris,

              I know you had been asking for some time, to see Ruth's batting line against Walter and/or Grove.

              Spent a few hours looking through game logs, and made a post a little earlier Ruth vs Johnson. Did you happen to see it?

              For Grove we'd probably have a much smaller sample size of absolute known PA, considering he didn't throw as many CG as Walter. We'd only have those, and of course if he homered off Lefty in relief.
              I didn't, but I defer to Retrosheet (while admiring/emulating your effrots!).

              Originally posted by Ubiquitous View Post
              According to the data I have Ruth faced Grove in a total of 49 games in their careers. Ruth had 149 PA against Grove (3 are unaccounted for) and his line was .306/.363/.522 with 2 doubles, 9 homers, 12 walks, and at least 38 strikeouts.

              Now the three missing PA can be at most 2 singles and a walk on the positive side. On the negative side it can be 3 outs.

              If it is 3 outs then his line is .299/.356/.511. If it is 2 hits and a walk his line is .316/.376/.529.

              Comment


              • My research has nothing to do with retrosheet. It's no more reliable than Baseball reference, whose box scores are all legit. Read back a few posts and see Ruth's absolute known line against Walter. Unless ur not interested then ok.

                Fact is, Ruth hit over .300 and slugged over .700 against who many consider the greatest pitcher of all-time. And that includes at bats when Ruth was a full-time pitcher in spacious Fenway.

                His Grove numbers are decent, considering he was past 30 years old when first facing him, and it was a lefty/lefty matchup against a pitcher many consider at least in their top five all-time. Not to mention a lefty who was brought in to face specifically Ruth in relief often.

                Nine regular season homers, should be 10 considering the one that hit the speaker in Shibe, and number eleven came during an exhibition game against the fire-balling southpaw, while Ruth was playing with the Giants.
                Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 12-03-2013, 04:58 AM.

                Comment


                • Yes Ruth is tied for career home runs off of Grove with Gehrig and Greenberg, all with 9, one lost Babe home run 1930.
                  Consider this, Babe was in the game for 12 years before he faced Grove.

                  It's not a stretch to give him even a few of those 12 years and he would be the career leader in home runs against one of the greatest LH pitcher in the game.
                  He already is the leader in career home runs against one of the greatest RH pitchers with 10, Walter Johnson.

                  Comment


                  • I was recently reading about the advent and development of sunglasses in baseball. Much was made of Ruth and his refusal and/or ineptness in playing in the sun field at each ballpark. The article implied that Babe would play either right field or left field depending on the park and where the sun was hitting on any given day.

                    Just how much of Ruth's positioning was actually tied to avoiding the sun in his eyes?

                    Comment


                    • From the Buffalo Courier Express, Septembr 22, 1930.
                      One other time, a guy who could hit them as far as anyone could. Luke Easter playing for the Buffalo Bisons.
                      Did not see that one but went to many a game and saw Luke hit his share to RF, across Woodlawn Avenue and over the roof tops, way over those rooftops.
                      You didn't go to the concession stand whan Luke was batting, you might miss one of his bombs.
                      Attached Files
                      Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 12-04-2013, 02:45 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Brian McKenna View Post
                        I was recently reading about the advent and development of sunglasses in baseball. Much was made of Ruth and his refusal and/or ineptness in playing in the sun field at each ballpark. The article implied that Babe would play either right field or left field depending on the park and where the sun was hitting on any given day.

                        Just how much of Ruth's positioning was actually tied to avoiding the sun in his eyes?
                        Hey Mckenna

                        Interesting you bring this up. I recently discussed this with Jenkinson. Another chance to put a silly myth to bed, one I've read on here and heard about for years. That he was switched around depending on where the shorter field was. That couldn't be further from the truth. He was a more than capable fielder until the early 30s when his legs started to go. Range was never an issue early on, in fact he started 43 games in CF in 1920 and 1921.

                        Granted not all of those were in the Polo Grounds and that isn't to suggest he was a natural center fielder by any means. But no manager in his right mind would put someone in CF who was such a liability that he needed to be switched according to field size. Just looking at box scores, you can see that in Griffith, which had a HUGE left field (and helped Walter out a lot btw) he played left field often. Also in Sportsmans Park where left field had considerably more acreage he played many games in left.

                        The sun was certainly in issue. Not a huge one but an issue. I think he was protective of his eyes and it was simply a preference. Him and Meusel were pretty tight and the sun never bothered Meusel, so they probably just said, hey, let's swap and everyone went along with it. How could they not? Ruth's arm wasn't world-class in the power department like Meusel's but it sure wasn't far behind, and his accuracy is well-known. So one can't really make a strong argument that Ruth's preference "hurt" his teams.

                        Hope that sorta answered what you wanted to know. If not, lemme know. Here's a quote from Lee Allen.....


                        “So Babe could do everything required of a player. His strong left arm provided a wonderful weapon when he became an outfielder, and few were the runners who dared test it. In most ball parks right field is the sun field and in order to prolong his career, the Yankee management usually played him in left field when the club was on the road. But at Yankee Stadium it is left field that bears the heaviest burden of the sun, so when the New York team was at home, Babe could most often be found in right.

                        Owing to the necessity for avoiding the rays of the afternoon sun as much as possible, the grandstand of Yankee Stadium had to face the northeast. This made left field the sun field, and Ruth was to be used mostly in right when the Yankees were at home.” – Lee Allen
                        Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 12-04-2013, 04:23 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
                          ps. Are you talking about the zip files Ubi posted over on the stats forum under "Historic Game Logs" or something? All you need to do is open them with Excel or any other spreadsheet program.
                          I'm not. I'm talking about the files Dave Kent used to post before most of the rest of us even knew what "play by play event files" were. When I tried to extract the information and transpose it into Excel or other programs, I couldn't decrypt it.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by csh19792001 View Post
                            I'm not. I'm talking about the files Dave Kent used to post before most of the rest of us even knew what "play by play event files" were. When I tried to extract the information and transpose it into Excel or other programs, I couldn't decrypt it.
                            Gimme a shot. Where's the file?

                            Comment


                            • Thanks for the response Sultan I got the reference from Steve Rushin's The 34-ton Bat. I thought he over did the whole sun field angle but I wanted a little perspective.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Brian McKenna View Post
                                Thanks for the response Sultan I got the reference from Steve Rushin's The 34-ton Bat. I thought he over did the whole sun field angle but I wanted a little perspective.
                                Never heard of that book.

                                Can you post a paragraph or two about how he describes this sun issue? Nothing would surprise me but just curious.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X