*Babe Ruth Thread*

[csh19792001]

How exactly does one "substantiate" fantasy?

What a perfectly apt question!

Perhaps we should ask the quixotic bravadeur who propagated the ridiculous postulate that a someone born in the 19th century could not only consistently achieve feats that no modern player has EVER achieved- but ALSO, achievements that they could almost categorically EVER pull. Ya know, the guy threatening (apparently several vis-a-vis sycophantic lackies here)...then, conveniently stepping away, instead of joining the fray and debating point by point the "facts" he made tens of thousands on bastioning this (mainly sheer conjecture) as hard facts for those blinded by bias, partisantism, and servile credulity.

[pheasant]

Look at his competition, still active, their age and his age and where they stand as power hitters in the NL at that time period. Not to mention, he retired three years ago. What is it with this guy.

Wow, this is a great post and great article, Shoeless. Nice work!

[Lpeters199]

............

[Lpeters199]

What a perfectly apt question!

Perhaps we should ask the quixotic bravadeur who propagated the ridiculous postulate that a someone born in the 19th century could not only consistently achieve feats that no modern player has EVER achieved- but ALSO, achievements that they could almost categorically EVER pull. Ya know, the guy threatening (apparently several vis-a-vis sycophantic lackies here)...then, conveniently stepping away, instead of joining the fray and debating point by point the "facts" he made tens of thousands on bastioning this (mainly sheer conjecture) as hard facts for those blinded by bias, partisantism, and servile credulity.

We're lackeys, not lackies. You forgot to look that one up. You might want to check "partisantism" too.

[stuarthouse]

We're still waiting.

What a perfectly apt question!

Perhaps we should ask the quixotic bravadeur who propagated the ridiculous postulate that a someone born in the 19th century could not only consistently achieve feats that no modern player has EVER achieved- but ALSO, achievements that they could almost categorically EVER pull. Ya know, the guy threatening (apparently several vis-a-vis sycophantic lackies here)...then, conveniently stepping away, instead of joining the fray and debating point by point the "facts" he made tens of thousands on bastioning this (mainly sheer conjecture) as hard facts for those blinded by bias, partisantism, and servile credulity.

[elmer]

Ditto with sugar on it.

We're still waiting.

[Captain Cold Nose]

No one here needs to prove themselves for anything. This is getting more personal than it needs to be, so consider the "challenges" halted. Thanks.

[gator92]

I emailed Dr. Alan Nathan, the well-respected baseball physicist, asking him a question, here is the exchange:

for a given bat speed (let's say a bat speed typical of a long (450 foot) home run with a typical modern bat), how much faster might the ball come off the bat if it had been struck by a significantly heavier bat (say one that Ruth used in his prime)?

His reply:

If I increase the bat weight from 31 to 48 oz, I find that a 450' drive will increase to 522', keeping all else the same. Ball exit speed increases from 110.3 to 124.9 mph. Of course, keeping the swing speed the same might not be too realistic.

Now, I think this gives a good rough estimate of the potential impact of Ruth's heavier bats, and perhaps some degree of explanation of how today's sluggers consistently top out on distance around 470-490...

Alan's point about not necessarily being able to swing the heavier bat as hard as the lighter bat provides a worthwhile note of caution, however, any hypothesis about Ruth's bat speed that includes an assumption about the weight of his bat (e.g. "if Ruth's bat was much heavier than today's bats, he must have swung it slower") should also include some explanation for Ruth's .342 lifetime batting average. It would be difficult to believe that Ruth could hit .342 lifetime if his bat speed was slow...

Has anyone got any info on actual measurements of Ruth's bat speed (as opposed to qualitative observations of the same)?

[Nimrod]

I emailed Dr. Alan Nathan, the well-respected baseball physicist, asking him a question, here is the exchange:



His reply:



Now, I think this gives a good rough estimate of the potential impact of Ruth's heavier bats, and perhaps some degree of explanation of how today's sluggers consistently top out on distance around 470-490...

Alan's point about not necessarily being able to swing the heavier bat as hard as the lighter bat provides a worthwhile note of caution, however, any hypothesis about Ruth's bat speed that includes an assumption about the weight of his bat (e.g. "if Ruth's bat was much heavier than today's bats, he must have swung it slower") should also include some explanation for Ruth's .342 lifetime batting average. It would be difficult to believe that Ruth could hit .342 lifetime if his bat speed was slow...

Has anyone got any info on actual measurements of Ruth's bat speed (as opposed to qualitative observations of the same)?

Popular Science Monthly published the results of various tests that were done on Babe Ruth in 1921(at Columbia University).He swung a 54oz. bat at the speed of 75mph.In 2006,similar tests were done on Pujols.Albert swung a 31.5oz bat at 86.99mph.

[gator92]

Popular Science Monthly published the results of various tests that were done on Babe Ruth in 1921.He swung a 54oz. bat at the speed of 75mph.In 2006,similar tests were done on Pujols.Albert swung a 31.5oz bat at 86.99mph.

I'm going back to Alan for a comparison of those two swings, in terms of how far the ball goes...

[EdTarbusz]

I have no doubt that Csh would be able to hold his own in a debate with Jenkinson.

[elmer]

Ruth is known to have hit two 500 foot home runs in 1935 Forbes field
the ball landing on a house on the other side of Joncaire. The nearest corner
of the house the ball landed on was almost exactly 500 feet.

the other homer was in Newark in April the ball traveling at least 500 feet
and possibly as much as 525.
These hit with his 37 oz. bat.

[csh19792001]

Dr. Alan Nathan's vital contingency: "All things being equal."

And what makes you think basically was equal when we're talking about Bonds vs. Ruth or Pujols vs. Ruth in home run distance? The average guy throws much harder today- most surmise 5-10mph faster. We have to take this into account.

[stuarthouse]

No. 713 was headed for 500' territory when it hit the rcf corner of the grandstand with a vicious line drive. The footage of the exhibition homer in Newark on Thought Equity gives a vague idea of how he was able to begin his coil quite early (as the pitcher wound up) and suddenly release, much like the tip of a bull whip.

Ruth is known to have hit two 500 foot home runs in 1935 Forbes field
the ball landing on a house on the other side of Joncaire. The nearest corner
of the house the ball landed on was almost exactly 500 feet.

the other homer was in Newark in April the ball traveling at least 500 feet
and possibly as much as 525.
These hit with his 37 oz. bat.

[alannathan]

And what makes you think basically was equal when we're talking about Bonds vs. Ruth or Pujols vs. Ruth in home run distance? The average guy throws much harder today- most surmise 5-10mph faster. We have to take this into account.

Actually, the speed of the pitched ball is nowhere nearly as important as bat speed in determining a fly ball distance. For example, I estimate that an additional 10 mph of pitched ball speed will add about 10 ft to a fly ball on a typical HR trajectory.