*Babe Ruth Thread*

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Does Jenkinson address how Ruth would handle LOOGY's today? I can't remember the name of the pitcher, but there was this lefty junker baller who gave the Babe all sorts of fits. I imagine teams today would LOOGY Ruth to death similar to how Bryce Harper is treated in the late innings.

[layson27]

Does Jenkisnon address how Ruth would handle LOOGY's today? I can't remember the name of the pitcher, but there was this lefty junker baller who gave the Babe all sorts of fits. I imagine teams today would LOOGY Ruth to death similar to how Bryce Harper is treated in the late innings.

Don't know about that. But Pedro M. says if Babe called his shot against him he would promptly be knocked down.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Hub Pruett

Hub Pruett 1.jpg

Love that old school glove!!

Pruett 1a.jpg

Pruett 2.jpg

[PRW]

Don't know about that. But Pedro M. says if Babe called his shot against him he would promptly be knocked down.

I think Charlie Root said the same thing ...

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Don't know about that. But Pedro M. says if Babe called his shot against him he would promptly be knocked down.

That if it happened that way. He never pointed to CF.
I have articles, Charlie Root's words. Ruth pointed to him so to those at the park he appeared to point to CF.
If you see that video, he is pointed at the Cub's dug out.
What he did was more than enough even with no point.
Cub bench was all over him, all kinds of name, especially after the second called strike.
His reply, "it only takes one", Gabby Hartnett in an interview.
We all know what took place after that, he had the last word.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Can we get this one out of the way, harping on Babe taking two steps into a ball. How he would never get away with that today.
That was "one time" same video shown over and over.
Who can tell what happened in that one at bat, we will never know.
They tried everything on him, possible the pitcher just lobbed one pitch to him.................one time.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Lefty Grove, one of the greatest left handed pitchers.
Most career home runs off of Grove, Ruth, Gehrig and Greenberg all with 9 Hrs.
Ruth did not face Lefty until Ruth was in the game for 12 years.
Add to that, Shibe park 1930. Ruth hit a drive that clears the wall in RCF, ball strikes speaker supports, umps send him back to second base, only a double.
Small sample, only one pitcher but LH and a great great, Ruth had some success against him with the long ball.
And for sure we know Lefty had to be giving his best when facing Ruth.
We're dealing with some kind of a freak, ( they called him a blip on that show) no way to explain what he could do in the game.

[PRW]

There are several "swing analyses" of Ruth on YouTube done by modern batting coaches. They're interesting watching if you haven't seen them. All the modern folks are practically unable to hold their drool in their mouths over Ruth's swing. One of them called it the best batting swing he'd ever seen in his life. They use all kinds of angles, measurements, etc., to kind of prove why Ruth is top tier in most everyone's responses to that top 30 hitters thread.

[ipitch]

Also don't forget....

No batting helmets...
Little enforcement on pitchers head hunting....
Poor visibility of used balls and background....
I won't even mention the size of many fields
and so on and so on....

No wonder batting averages were so low...

1930 - .296
1925 - .292
1921 - .291
1929 - .289

[ipitch]

http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/7535.aspx

“This spring, GQ persuaded Albert Pujols, reigning National League MVP and the game’s most dominant slugger, to take time off from an epic home-run tear and reenact, at Washington University in St. Louis, the 1921 Babe Ruth tests,” writes Nate Penn, author of the GQ article, which is titled “Performance: How To Build The Perfect Batter.”
El Hombre vs. The Babe: Pujols swings a bat in the lab of Catherine Lang, assistant professor in physical therapy.
.
.
Pujols, like Ruth, was asked to demonstrate his hitting form while hooked up to various machines that monitored the strength and speed of his swing. Pujols, complaining of a strained back, may have “held himself back a bit” on some of the tests, but his results compared favorably with those of Ruth.

In terms of sheer batting speed, Pujols swung his preferred 31.5-ounce bat at a speed of 86.99 miles per hour. Ruth, on the other hand, using a 54-ounce bat, swung at an estimated speed of 75 miles an hour.

“Making exact comparisons between the Pujols and Ruth test results is difficult because the tests given to Ruth were not very well normed,” suggests White. “But it’s clear that both Ruth and Pujols performed well above average on a number of tests that are very similar in nature.”

The New York Times covered the Ruth testing on Sept. 11, 1921, with a front-page headline: “RUTH SUPERNORMAL, SO HE HITS HOMERUNS.” The test results were described in a 1921 issue of “Popular Science” magazine as a “revelation” that showed Ruth’s “coordination of eye, brain, nerve system, and muscle [to be] practically perfect.”

Looking back on the 1921 Popular Science article, which is available, online, WUSTL’s Richard Abrams suggests that the author of the magazine article was clearly a big fan of Ruth’s and that this may have colored his description of the test results.

“Re-reading the 1921 article today I found that Babe Ruth really was not ‘off the charts’ on most of the tasks studied - instead it was reported merely that he was some amount faster or better than average,” Abrams said.

“In only one case in the 1921 article were percentiles reported. As a result, we really don’t know how great Babe was at these tasks. It is clear, though, that the author of the 1921 article was strongly biased to suggest that Babe achieved extreme scores on most of the tasks.”

While the media may have exaggerated Ruth’s results, few modern psychologists would find fault with the array of tests Columbia used to probe Ruth’s talents with a bat, many of which are still used today. The science behind Ruth’s 1921 tests is examined in great detail in an article titled “Psychology and ‘The Babe’” published in a 1998 issue of the Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, also available online.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

They'd hit for a much higher average, that's for sure. In the last 5 years, the MLB average BA has been no higher than .255.

1930 - .296
1925 - .292
1921 - .291
1929 - .289

It's not all about the pitching today.
It's so obvious, even lightweight hitters today going for the long ball.
Also obvious, can't be debated, go for the long ball, less contact, more strike outs. Far more contact hitter in the years you list.
Even in the 1950s some hitter would choke up on the bat with two strikes.

[ipitch]

It's not all about the pitching today.
It's so obvious, even lightweight hitters today going for the long ball.
Also obvious, can't be debated, go for the long ball, less contact, more strike outs. Far more contact hitter in the years you list.
Even in the 1950s some hitter would choke up on the bat with two strikes.

That's written here a lot, but I think it's really overstated. Dee Gordon doesn't swing for the fences, and even he strikes out enough times to lead the league in Ks in Ruth's era.

[Stolensingle]

wrt Pujols' tests, he also had a very ordinary reaction time. It's now believed by many that having a fast reaction time is not essential to being a good hitter. It seems more a matter of picking up cues from the pitcher before or as the ball is released. I discussed this a little a while back on a thread about Jenny Finch, who made both Pujols and Bonds look ridiculous in trying to hit her pitches, which of course are thrown from a point that MLB players are not accustomed to.

[dominik]

I think ruth would be one of the best or the best today. he would obviously strike out more (probably around 25%) but still hit for great power and a good BABIP. I read somewhere that he struggled with good breaking balls back in the day and pitchers now would Scout his weaknesses better but he probably would hit plenty of home runs.

I would think mike trout with a Little more power but slightly more Ks.

[dominik]

http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/7535.aspx

“This spring, GQ persuaded Albert Pujols, reigning National League MVP and the game’s most dominant slugger, to take time off from an epic home-run tear and reenact, at Washington University in St. Louis, the 1921 Babe Ruth tests,” writes Nate Penn, author of the GQ article, which is titled “Performance: How To Build The Perfect Batter.”
El Hombre vs. The Babe: Pujols swings a bat in the lab of Catherine Lang, assistant professor in physical therapy.
.
.
Pujols, like Ruth, was asked to demonstrate his hitting form while hooked up to various machines that monitored the strength and speed of his swing. Pujols, complaining of a strained back, may have “held himself back a bit” on some of the tests, but his results compared favorably with those of Ruth.

In terms of sheer batting speed, Pujols swung his preferred 31.5-ounce bat at a speed of 86.99 miles per hour. Ruth, on the other hand, using a 54-ounce bat, swung at an estimated speed of 75 miles an hour.

“Making exact comparisons between the Pujols and Ruth test results is difficult because the tests given to Ruth were not very well normed,” suggests White. “But it’s clear that both Ruth and Pujols performed well above average on a number of tests that are very similar in nature.”

The New York Times covered the Ruth testing on Sept. 11, 1921, with a front-page headline: “RUTH SUPERNORMAL, SO HE HITS HOMERUNS.” The test results were described in a 1921 issue of “Popular Science” magazine as a “revelation” that showed Ruth’s “coordination of eye, brain, nerve system, and muscle [to be] practically perfect.”

Looking back on the 1921 Popular Science article, which is available, online, WUSTL’s Richard Abrams suggests that the author of the magazine article was clearly a big fan of Ruth’s and that this may have colored his description of the test results.

“Re-reading the 1921 article today I found that Babe Ruth really was not ‘off the charts’ on most of the tasks studied - instead it was reported merely that he was some amount faster or better than average,” Abrams said.

“In only one case in the 1921 article were percentiles reported. As a result, we really don’t know how great Babe was at these tasks. It is clear, though, that the author of the 1921 article was strongly biased to suggest that Babe achieved extreme scores on most of the tasks.”

While the media may have exaggerated Ruth’s results, few modern psychologists would find fault with the array of tests Columbia used to probe Ruth’s talents with a bat, many of which are still used today. The science behind Ruth’s 1921 tests is examined in great detail in an article titled “Psychology and ‘The Babe’” published in a 1998 issue of the Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, also available online.

I think the 54 ounce bat is vastly overplayed. he did use a bat at some Point of his career but for the most time he used a bat in the low to mid 40s (which is still huge of course by today's Standards).