Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

*Babe Ruth Thread*

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

  • Fellas, guys have been swinging from the knob forever. Ruth took it to the next level by swinging from the knob every at bat while dropping the pretense of even using the split grip. Didn’t Ruth himself say he copied Jackson?
    "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


    • Tough loss for the Babe, 10 inning pitched, 5 for 5 at the plate, losing pitcher.


      Comment


      • 220695589_824782431510115_8958942545105144935_n.jpg

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GoslinFan View Post
          I have read CSH (Floyd) constantly disrespect Babe Ruth supporters and accuse them of hero worship and the like, all while being a hardcore Cobb defender at all costs. Smells funny.
          Except it isn't at all costs. I recently ranked Babe over Ted Williams himself as a hitter because he destroyed LHP, and faced them a ton, whereas Williams faced them less than 2,000 PA in his entire career, and didn't hit well against them, relative to himself. I'm the only person who brought this up in defense of Ruth.

          Ruth simply has huge holes in his game that would have rendered him ineffective, say, playing in Wagner's parks and era. I've posted how only one ball cleared the fence, pre cork centered ball, 1900-1909, in Exposition Park III. Wagner was the biggest, strongest, best hitter of that era- and a free swinger- and he only cleared the fence 6 times in 18 years in Forbes and Exposition Parks.

          Ruth played 44.9% of his games against team over .500, which is the lowest percentage in baseball history of anyone with 1500 games or more played. Strength of competition is paramount.

          He only finished 1767 of 2241 games in the outfield, mainly because he was a defensive liability after 1925. He needed his own pinch fielder. He had to be switched between fields at home and on the road throughout his career, to put him in the smallest outfield.

          These are not small deficits, over the course of a 22 year career. They would be magnified in other eras.

          Cobb had holes in his game. His fielding was only average, overall, in part because he hurt his arm 1918 in long toss contests. He would have been a much better right fielder. He had others, for sure, like being stubborn about going for HR (although, 60 years of hitting orthodoxy and tutelage was on his side, as was everyone playing at that time, essentially.)

          That said, I think Cobb had less holes in his game than Ruth. Cobb's is skill set (blinding speed, unparalleled intelligence, bat control) would likely translate beautifully to any era, whereas Ruth would have likely have much more trouble during the first 50 years of baseball, relatively speaking. He wouldn't ever be able to put up relative numbers in OBP/SLG/ISO OPS+, and WAR, in any other era, because he wouldn't be just about the only player taking his all or nothing approach on basically every swing. He was intentionally walked 80 times in 1923 alone. Cobb was never intentionally walked, because that was suicide for the opposing team. He wasn't even intentionally walked once, the year he had a .486 OBP.

          The point being, I don't see the hardcore Ruth fans ever discussing these huge flaws- or any of them, really- at Baseball Fever. I just see blind, unyielding worship.

          Also, Ubiquitous coined the much derided term and concept among Ruth fans here, not me:

          Originally posted by Ubiquitous View Post
          My true feelings are exactly what I said. My true feelings are that unless you genuflect at the altar of Babe Ruth you will get blasted for not loving the deity. Babe Ruth was a great player, perhaps the greatest player of all time. But unless you say that at all times and don't talk about the possible smudges at the elbow and behind the ears you will be accused of heresy. For whatever reason players of old need to come off as even more pure than Lancelot.

          Anyway as to the first paragraph. The problem is of course integration. Every other power period possible has integration. So every other possible power player (outside of Ruth's era that is) had to deal with integration and the problems of separation and quality of opposition.
          https://www.baseball-fever.com/forum...040#post905040

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Floyd Gondolli View Post

            Except it isn't at all costs. I recently ranked Babe over Ted Williams himself as a hitter because he destroyed LHP, and faced them a ton, whereas Williams faced them less than 2,000 PA in his entire career, and didn't hit well against them, relative to himself. I'm the only person who brought this up in defense of Ruth.

            Ruth simply has huge holes in his game that would have rendered him ineffective, say, playing in Wagner's parks and era. I've posted how only one ball cleared the fence, pre cork centered ball, 1900-1909, in Exposition Park III. Wagner was the biggest, strongest, best hitter of that era- and a free swinger- and he only cleared the fence 6 times in 18 years in Forbes and Exposition Parks.

            Ruth played 44.9% of his games against team over .500, which is the lowest percentage in baseball history of anyone with 1500 games or more played. Strength of competition is paramount.

            He only finished 1767 of 2241 games in the outfield, mainly because he was a defensive liability after 1925. He needed his own pinch fielder. He had to be switched between fields at home and on the road throughout his career, to put him in the smallest outfield.

            These are not small deficits, over the course of a 22 year career. They would be magnified in other eras.

            Cobb had holes in his game. His fielding was only average, overall, in part because he hurt his arm 1918 in long toss contests. He would have been a much better right fielder. He had others, for sure, like being stubborn about going for HR (although, 60 years of hitting orthodoxy and tutelage was on his side, as was everyone playing at that time, essentially.)

            That said, I think Cobb had less holes in his game than Ruth. Cobb's is skill set (blinding speed, unparalleled intelligence, bat control) would likely translate beautifully to any era, whereas Ruth would have likely have much more trouble during the first 50 years of baseball, relatively speaking. He wouldn't ever be able to put up relative numbers in OBP/SLG/ISO OPS+, and WAR, in any other era, because he wouldn't be just about the only player taking his all or nothing approach on basically every swing. He was intentionally walked 80 times in 1923 alone. Cobb was never intentionally walked, because that was suicide for the opposing team. He wasn't even intentionally walked once, the year he had a .486 OBP.

            The point being, I don't see the hardcore Ruth fans ever discussing these huge flaws- or any of them, really- at Baseball Fever. I just see blind, unyielding worship.

            Also, Ubiquitous coined the much derided term and concept among Ruth fans here, not me:



            https://www.baseball-fever.com/forum...040#post905040
            I'll do some thinking on your other points. OK, who will debate the fact that Honus hit under very poor conditions, not just the hugh park but the ball and trick deliveries
            But for you to say that the hugh park and the ball would have rendered Ruth ineffective.................so what about it. Any player who came after Honus would have suffered.
            If it hurt Ruth what would have done to, Foxx, Williams some other heavy hitters.
            Your saying something thats the obvious and would hurt any others.

            ,


            Comment


            • Originally posted by Floyd Gondolli View Post

              Except it isn't at all costs. I recently ranked Babe over Ted Williams himself as a hitter because he destroyed LHP, and faced them a ton, whereas Williams faced them less than 2,000 PA in his entire career, and didn't hit well against them, relative to himself. I'm the only person who brought this up in defense of Ruth.

              Ruth simply has huge holes in his game that would have rendered him ineffective, say, playing in Wagner's parks and era. I've posted how only one ball cleared the fence, pre cork centered ball, 1900-1909, in Exposition Park III. Wagner was the biggest, strongest, best hitter of that era- and a free swinger- and he only cleared the fence 6 times in 18 years in Forbes and Exposition Parks.

              Ruth played 44.9% of his games against team over .500, which is the lowest percentage in baseball history of anyone with 1500 games or more played. Strength of competition is paramount.

              He only finished 1767 of 2241 games in the outfield, mainly because he was a defensive liability after 1925. He needed his own pinch fielder. He had to be switched between fields at home and on the road throughout his career, to put him in the smallest outfield.

              These are not small deficits, over the course of a 22 year career. They would be magnified in other eras.

              Cobb had holes in his game. His fielding was only average, overall, in part because he hurt his arm 1918 in long toss contests. He would have been a much better right fielder. He had others, for sure, like being stubborn about going for HR (although, 60 years of hitting orthodoxy and tutelage was on his side, as was everyone playing at that time, essentially.)

              That said, I think Cobb had less holes in his game than Ruth. Cobb's is skill set (blinding speed, unparalleled intelligence, bat control) would likely translate beautifully to any era, whereas Ruth would have likely have much more trouble during the first 50 years of baseball, relatively speaking. He wouldn't ever be able to put up relative numbers in OBP/SLG/ISO OPS+, and WAR, in any other era, because he wouldn't be just about the only player taking his all or nothing approach on basically every swing. He was intentionally walked 80 times in 1923 alone. Cobb was never intentionally walked, because that was suicide for the opposing team. He wasn't even intentionally walked once, the year he had a .486 OBP.

              The point being, I don't see the hardcore Ruth fans ever discussing these huge flaws- or any of them, really- at Baseball Fever. I just see blind, unyielding worship.

              Also, Ubiquitous coined the much derided term and concept among Ruth fans here, not me:



              https://www.baseball-fever.com/forum...040#post905040
              A few thoughts to follow. First, just to state my opinion...I think Ruth was the greatest player ever, but he isn't even close to my favorite all time for personality reasons with his lifestyle and all...so we know where I am coming from.

              1. The reason why Ruth only played against 44.9% of games versus teams over 0.500 is that (due in large part to his own skill), that that the teams he played for had the highest winning percentage of any player of all time. Since his teams had such a high winning percentage, that decreased the number of league wins for the other seven teams in the league. With so many league wins taken away, the other seven teams were much below 0.500. It isn't hard to drive down league percentages in an eight team league. Ruth's teams were almost always over 0.500, so even with the most basic math assumptions, there would be four of seven remaining teams below 0.500, 57.1% or 42.9% above 0.500) in a standard four good, four bad team league...which is basically what the 44.9% shows.

              2. I disagree about when he became a defensive liability. I personally think he was a break even fielder to about 1930/1931. I believe this is shown (besides TZ/DRA), but by the percentage of whole games and innings Ruth played.

              For the following years, I will estimate the number of defensive innings played by adding all games, subtracting all games innings less than 9 innings, adding in extra inning games, and then subtracting out road losses (as the Yankees wouldn't have to take the field in the last inning). I believe these numbers to be accurate within a few innings (mostly due to partial inning wins/losses).

              1926: 1367 defensive Yankee innings
              1927: 1386 defensive Yankee innings
              1928: 1375 defensive Yankee innings
              1929: 1365 defensive Yankee innings
              1930: 1358 defensive Yankee innings
              1931: 1405 defensive Yankee innings
              1932: 1406 defensive Yankee innings


              1926: 149 defensive games started in OF, 135 complete OF games, 1283 OF innings, 93.9% of all OF innings in all Yankee games, estimated 97.6% of OF innings played when Ruth played OF (this removes games when Ruth didn't play, i.e. given an off day or injured)

              1927: 150 defensive games started in OF, 133 complete OF games, 1306 OF innings, 94.2% of all OF innings in all Yankee games, estimated 97.4% of OF innings played when Ruth played OF (this removes games when Ruth didn't play, i.e. given an off day or injured)

              1928: 154 defensive games started in OF, 134 complete OF games, 1327 OF innings, 96.5% of all OF innings in all Yankee games, estimated 96.5% of OF innings played when Ruth played OF (this removes games when Ruth didn't play, i.e. given an off day or injured)

              1929: 131 defensive games started in OF, 107 complete OF games, 1113 OF innings, 81.5% of all OF innings in all Yankee games, estimated 95.9% of OF innings played when Ruth played OF (this removes games when Ruth didn't play, i.e. given an off day or injured)

              1930: 144 defensive games started in OF, 119 complete OF games, 1220 OF innings, 89.8% of all OF innings in all Yankee games, estimated 96.1% of OF innings played when Ruth played OF (this removes games when Ruth didn't play, i.e. given an off day or injured)

              1931: 142 defensive games started in OF, 88 complete OF games, 1180 OF innings, 84.0% of all OF innings in all Yankee games, estimated 91.0% of OF innings played when Ruth played OF (this removes games when Ruth didn't play, i.e. given an off day or injured)

              1932: 128 defensive games started in OF, 64 complete OF games, 1046 OF innings, 74.4% of all OF innings in all Yankee games, estimated 90.7% of OF innings played when Ruth played OF (this removes games when Ruth didn't play, i.e. given an off day or injured)




              From the number of full games Ruth played in the OF versus games started in the outfield, and the estimated percentage of innings played in which games he started, I think there is a noticeable difference. In 1930, Ruth pretty much played every inning of every game when he was in the OF. In 1931, he was being was pulled for defensive purposes/save his legs a substantial amount of time.

              289 of the 454 career games in which Ruth didn't finish when he started in the OF were between 1931 and 1935.

              For the field switch, I don't believe it was for area of outfield to patrol, but for the "sun" field. In the biographies I've read, Ruth didn't like having the sun in his eyes, so he asked to have his preference of left/right so that he didn't have to have sun in his eyes. This appears more to be the prima donna picking what is better for him rather than a lack of range, but that is an interpretational discussion on my end.
              Last edited by Toledo Inquisition; 07-26-2021, 11:22 AM.
              "I, Toledo Inquisition, firmly believe that the New York Mets will win the 2021 World Series."
              Play the Who am I? game in trivia and you can make this signature line yours for 3 days (baseball signatures only!)

              Go here for a link to all player links! http://www.baseball-fever.com/forum/...player-threads

              Go here for all your 1920's/1930's OF info

              Comment


              • Take Me Out to Those Ball Fields
                (Of Old Hot Springs)
                https://youtu.be/G1XOUNgLq5k

                Comment


                • Originally posted by elmer View Post
                  Take Me Out to Those Ball Fields
                  (Of Old Hot Springs)
                  https://youtu.be/G1XOUNgLq5k
                  Great post.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by elmer View Post
                    Take Me Out to Those Ball Fields
                    (Of Old Hot Springs)
                    https://youtu.be/G1XOUNgLq5k
                    Very cool! Also, major wifey material.

                    Comment


                    • The "Bam" hit by a liner off the bat of Lou Gehrig. Babe walked to load the bases. On the Gehrig hit ball, Babe making his way to second base, struck down.



                      Babe Ruth single hen Gehrig line drive hit shin 1934..................jpg

                      Comment


                      • Babe Pitch log 1919.JPG What a bargain Babe was in 1919 and then Harry Frazee sends him packing. Pitching 9-5 12 complete games, .322 batting average led both leagues in most offensive stats.
                        You blew this one Harry, biggest blunder ever in the game. Also loaned over 300,000 by the the Yanks and get this, put up Fenway Park as collateral.

                        Comment

                        Ad Widget

                        Collapse
                        Working...
                        X