Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

*Babe Ruth Thread*

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

  • Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    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.
    HUb Pruett in 1922 (Browns pitcher). But, I understand Ruth did fairly well against after that season.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Death to Crawling Things
      Well, most people just assume the old ballplayers would be too stupid to take advantage of modern stuff. I sometimes get that same impression in some threads here, occasionally.
      on the other Hand modern Players would also take Advantage of pre WWII pitchers. of course with modern Training the all time greats would be greats now too but my Problem is when old time fans Claim that the old time guys would dominate just as much against modern competition and sometimes even without even expecting any adjusting time needed.

      would they be very good? - for sure
      would they be the best? - maybe

      but would they hit twice as good as the league as they did back then and post EVEN BETTER raw numbers (over 500 OBP over 800 SLG)? - not sure about that

      I have no Problem with a guy saying ruth with modern Training would be the best Player in Baseball in 2015 but when People say he would maintain a 10% K rate (despite striking out about 40% above league average back then) but still hit EVEN MORE home runs than he did back then and routinely post .350/490/800 lines against modern pitchers I think that is vastly underrating how good modern pitchers like Pedro, kershaw or Randy Johnson are.

      nobody is claiming ruth would be just another guy today but it is about the guys who say that ruth (or williams/gehrig/mantle) would ONLY benefit from moving into now (lighter bats, more visible balls, smaller parks, better training - which is true of course ) but completely dismiss any disadvantage modern hitters have (faster pitching, better scouting, better defenses, strikeout instead of contact pitchers, fresh relievers) to then create a new super ruth.

      I think it would be sensible to say that ruth had some Advantages and some disadvantages and in the end it would somewhat cancel out and ruth would still be great today. but instead the old time fans completely disregard that old time hitters had Advantages but at the same time state all the time how easy of a time today's hitters have.

      I have stated several times that I believe that ruth would be the best Player in the world in 2015 but I still get branded as a hater because I don't think he would hit 350/490/800 with 70+ home runs.
      Last edited by dominik; 10-27-2015, 05:48 AM.
      I now have my own non commercial blog about training for batspeed and power using my training experience in baseball and track and field.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by dominik View Post
        on the other Hand modern Players would also take Advantage of pre WWII pitchers. of course with modern Training the all time greats would be greats now too but my Problem is when old time fans Claim that the old time guys would dominate just as much against modern competition and sometimes even without even expecting any adjusting time needed.

        would they be very good? - for sure
        would they be the best? - maybe

        but would they hit twice as good as the league as they did back then and post EVEN BETTER raw numbers (over 500 OBP over 800 SLG)? - not sure about that

        I have no Problem with a guy saying ruth with modern Training would be the best Player in Baseball in 2015 but when People say he would maintain a 10% K rate (despite striking out about 40% above league average back then) but still hit EVEN MORE home runs than he did back then and routinely post .350/490/800 lines against modern pitchers I think that is vastly underrating how good modern pitchers like Pedro, kershaw or Randy Johnson are.

        nobody is claiming ruth would be just another guy today but it is about the guys who say that ruth (or williams/gehrig/mantle) would ONLY benefit from moving into now (lighter bats, more visible balls, smaller parks, better training - which is true of course ) but completely dismiss any disadvantage modern hitters have (faster pitching, better scouting, better defenses, strikeout instead of contact pitchers, fresh relievers) to then create a new super ruth.

        I think it would be sensible to say that ruth had some Advantages and some disadvantages and in the end it would somewhat cancel out and ruth would still be great today. but instead the old time fans completely disregard that old time hitters had Advantages but at the same time state all the time how easy of a time today's hitters have.

        I have stated several times that I believe that ruth would be the best Player in the world in 2015 but I still get branded as a hater because I don't think he would hit 350/490/800 with 70+ home runs.
        I won't dispute that he might strike out more in todays' game but that 40% above league average is misleading.
        Contact was the name of the game in his time, possible less contact hitters near the end of his career.
        Foxx in his early years was also on top or close in high strikeouts, another long ball hitter.

        Comment


        • Ruth's ability to hit for high average late in his career is impressive. Comparing Ruth's first 12 full seasons as a position player with his last 5 shows some interesting results.

          AL averages (among non-pitchers):

          K% 1918- 1929: 6.3%
          K% 1930-1934: 7.2%

          1918-1929 Batting avg: .2895
          1930-1934 Batting avg: .2872

          Ruth BA 1918-1929: .349
          Ruth BA 1930-1934: .336

          Other big name hitters from 1930-1934:

          Terry- .357
          Gehrig- .353
          Simmons- .351
          O'Doul- .345
          P. Waner- .341
          Foxx- .337
          Ruth- .336
          Manush- .336
          Cochrane- .328
          Gehringer- .325
          Dickey- .323
          Hafey- .321
          Averill- .320
          Traynor- .320
          Ott- .314


          Due to the some of the odd park layouts back then it's also relevant to look at road stats.

          Gehrig- .370
          Terry- .366
          O'Doul- .351
          Ott- .345
          Simmons- .339
          Ruth- .335
          Dickey- .335
          Gehringer- .333
          Manush- .333
          Cochrane- .328
          Foxx- .324
          P. Waner- .322
          Hafey- .310
          Traynor- .299
          Averill- .294

          What makes Ruth's late career numbers even more impressive is that physically, this was a different Ruth from his peak. He had put on a lot of weight over the years and was close to 40.
          His innate ability to consistently make powerful contact with the ball is probably underestimated.
          Last edited by layson27; 10-27-2015, 09:06 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ipitch View Post
            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.
            How is it overstated, your taking one player that doesn't go for downtown yet strikes out a good number of times.
            I'm speaking of the whole league.
            Nothing to debate, take leagues in the 1910's 1920's far more contact hitters, less strikeouts.
            If you make contact, you may get a hit.
            Not saying thats the only reason for lower batting averages today, just a part of it.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ipitch
              You are the most biased person at BBF. We get it... you think Babe Ruth is a god. All you do is type the same things over and over about him. You don't even admit that he struck out a lot, despite his "King of Strikeouts" nickname...

              "Raw totals are just a number and striking out 90 times in 650 PA is not a high total." lol. Just like his 60 HRs would be a very high total even if someone in the future hits 100 HRs, striking out 90+ times in his day is a very high total even if someone strikes out 300 times in the future.
              Your going to have to hear it again, you don't care to admit the obvious.................the name of the game was contact, certainly a slugger and he one of a few at that time, will strike out more times compared to the league.

              Comment


              • A big factor in Ruth's favor would be that he wouldn't have to deal with anything like a high strike (of his time). As good a hitter as he was, he was a better low ball hitter. He could also foul tip a home run in some parks today.

                The strike zone has seemed to come up in the last 8-10 years a little.

                Ruth also would have dominated from age 21 or 22 in my view. I have come to thing that it could have been his prime. I think he wold have burned out a little earlier but he could have DHed.

                It is a little surprising to see that Ruth only had 470 home runs through 1928.

                I am talking anyway about a Babe Ruth equivalent, if there is such a thing, born and raised today.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by brett View Post
                  A big factor in Ruth's favor would be that he wouldn't have to deal with anything like a high strike (of his time). As good a hitter as he was, he was a better low ball hitter. He could also foul tip a home run in some parks today.

                  The strike zone has seemed to come up in the last 8-10 years a little.

                  Ruth also would have dominated from age 21 or 22 in my view. I have come to thing that it could have been his prime. I think he wold have burned out a little earlier but he could have DHed.

                  It is a little surprising to see that Ruth only had 470 home runs through 1928.

                  I am talking anyway about a Babe Ruth equivalent, if there is such a thing, born and raised today.
                  I'm thinking Jim Thome with a .300+ BA and fewer K's.
                  Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by brett View Post
                    A big factor in Ruth's favor would be that he wouldn't have to deal with anything like a high strike (of his time). As good a hitter as he was, he was a better low ball hitter. He could also foul tip a home run in some parks today.

                    The strike zone has seemed to come up in the last 8-10 years a little.

                    Ruth also would have dominated from age 21 or 22 in my view. I have come to thing that it could have been his prime. I think he wold have burned out a little earlier but he could have DHed.

                    It is a little surprising to see that Ruth only had 470 home runs through 1928.

                    I am talking anyway about a Babe Ruth equivalent, if there is such a thing, born and raised today.
                    No surprise here Brett, started pitching as you know, low number of at bats.
                    What would surprise some, how many "career" home runs did Babe have as of 1919, 49 home runs.
                    After six years in the game, his career is one quarter over and only 49 career home runs.
                    Going on memory here, I think Aaron and Bonds after 6 years 170-180 career home runs.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by brett View Post
                      A big factor in Ruth's favor would be that he wouldn't have to deal with anything like a high strike (of his time). As good a hitter as he was, he was a better low ball hitter. He could also foul tip a home run in some parks today.

                      The strike zone has seemed to come up in the last 8-10 years a little.

                      Ruth also would have dominated from age 21 or 22 in my view. I have come to thing that it could have been his prime. I think he wold have burned out a little earlier but he could have DHed.

                      It is a little surprising to see that Ruth only had 470 home runs through 1928.

                      I am talking anyway about a Babe Ruth equivalent, if there is such a thing, born and raised today.
                      Lets turn it around, the fact that the strike zone went down almost to the belt the 1990's and stayed for some years, advantage modern hitters.
                      We did not agree on this one before, I see it different.
                      Let forget about low ball hitters, if the umps don't call the high strike, that to the batters advantage.
                      Because, say the first pitch if the high one is not called, that a ball, not a strike, count 1-0, not 0-1.

                      Even Aaron, Mantle, Mays and some other from that era, with two strikes had to offer at borderline high pitches.
                      If you've watched the game long enough and I'm sure you have, the biggest and strongest hitters in any era have difficulty driving, getting on top of the high pitch
                      So pitches that Ruth, Williams, Aaron had to offer at especially with two strikes, they don't have to today.
                      I do agree, the umps are calling some higher pitches in recent years.

                      Comment


                      • Remarkably, Ruth never struck out over 100 times in a season.
                        Career Strikeouts/Home Run Ratio Career (200 HR)
                        Joe DiMaggio: 1.02
                        Ted Williams: 1.36
                        Albert Pujols: 1.54
                        Babe Ruth: 1.86
                        Barry Bonds: 2.01
                        Willie Mays: 2.31
                        Mark McGwire: 2.73
                        Alex Rodriguez: 2.97
                        Cal Ripken: 3.02
                        Mark Teixeira: 3.33
                        ". . . the Ruth, the whole Ruth and nothing but the Ruth . . ."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
                          certainly a slugger and he one of a few at that time, will strike out more times compared to the league.
                          Ted Williams and Joe Dimaggio prove that you are clueless. You don't have to strike out a lot if you lead the league in HRs.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ipitch View Post
                            Ted Williams and Joe Dimaggio prove that you are clueless. You don't have to strike out a lot if you lead the league in HRs.
                            Your missing the whole point, I never said that.
                            What I said was in most of Ruth's early, there were many more contact hitters .
                            So he's playing a different game, swinging from the heels.
                            Easy to understand that he will most likely have a higher strike out rate than the league.
                            It's usually the hard swingers that will strike out more.
                            I'm sure there some lightweight hitters that have a high strike out rate, exceptions.

                            Comment


                            • When projecting him forward, what will be his home park? Will he only face the best 35-40 pitchers in the league, or everybody?
                              Your Second Base Coach
                              Garvey, Lopes, Russell, and Cey started 833 times and the Dodgers went 498-335, for a .598 winning percentage. That’s equal to a team going 97-65 over a season. On those occasions when at least one of them missed his start, the Dodgers were 306-267-1, which is a .534 clip. That works out to a team going 87-75. So having all four of them added 10 wins to the Dodgers per year.
                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5hCIvMule0

                              Comment


                                • He would have been hated instantly by everyone as soon as he debuted without doing anything to deserve it.
                                • Yankee fans love him.
                                • Underrated by sabermetrics.
                                • Fathers an illegitimate child.
                                • Subway commercials
                                • Marries a Kardashian.
                                • Yankee fans hate him.
                                • Signs the biggest contract ever. Everyone hates him more for it.
                                • Body slammed Papelbon.
                                • Beat up Joe West.
                                • Gets accused of using steroids.
                                • Goes to anger management, sex addiction rehab and alcohol rehab.
                                • Gets fat
                                • Gets divorced
                                • Gets back in shape.
                                • Does a tell all interview with Tom Verducci.
                                • Got a nutrisystem commercial.
                                • Kardashian writes tell all, plays victim.
                                • Cashman insults him.
                                • Found Jesus
                                • Got remarried
                                • Yankee fans hate him.
                                • Becomes overrated by sabermetrics.
                                • Move to DH.
                                • Get accused of using steroids.
                                • Becomes slightly beloved.
                                • Carrying the Yankees at 40, Yankee fans pretend they never hated him. But give him no credit.
                                • Announce his retirement before his final season, teams show him lots of love on the road, everyone hates him for it.
                                • Retires
                                • Works for MLB Network.
                                • Gets caught smoking crack with a transvestite hooker.
                                • Fired from TV job.
                                • Does AM talk radio, card shows and alike.
                                • Marries Asian porn star more than half his age.
                                • Does Sketchers commercials.
                                • Dies of a painkiller overdose.
                                • Nation mourns.
                                • Awful biopic.
                                "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X