*Babe Ruth Thread*

[alannathan]

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.

I sent Greg an e-mail with my response to this statement. Here is some what I sent him:

Bat speeds are exceedingly difficult to measure, even with today's technology. What matters is the speed of the bat at the moment of contact and at the particular point on the bat that is in contact with the ball. I am very skeptical of any measurement done in 1921. I am less skeptical--but still pretty skeptical-- of the 2006 Pujols measurement. Without knowing more about how the measurements were done, I would not take them very seriously. I came up with a bat speed of about 78 mph for the 450 HR with a 31 oz bat. It is certainly possible to swing the bat faster than that. In fact, slow pitch softball players (the elite one) routinely exceed 90 mph. So I would imagine an elite MLB player could do that also, provided he is willing to accept a very large fraction of swings and misses (the penalty for a hard swing).

[csh19792001]

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.

Thank you, CCN.

Sincerely,
A vehemently "anti-troll" BBF Veteran.

[csh19792001]

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

Thanks for the kudos, mi compadre viejo......pero......the deck would be severely stacked against any of us plebiscites...especially HERE. The particular "Bravadeur" has garnered incredible press and all requisite hype.... and, the legion of fans that love hype and image more than science and historical facts.

There are many who strive mainly to preserve Babe Ruth's lore by propagating lore as fact...this juxtaposed with the real historians here, who only seek Veritas, and have no agenda to sell books for profit or promote their boyhood (or adulthood) heroes.

My true feelings about Ruth 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 then 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.

[elmer]

There are many who strive mainly to preserve Babe Ruth's lore by propagating lore as fact...this juxtaposed with the real historians here, who only seek Veritas, and have no agenda to sell books for profit or promote their boyhood (or adulthood) heroes.

the above kind of statement is cause for challenge..

Your statements are refuted in the Introduction to the first book.

[elmer]

Originally Posted by 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.

and what about statements like this CCN
"Statements of these by Jenkinson seriously strain his credulity as a legit, honest journalist and author."

"Many of these were based on second or third hand observer accounts."

"but I have to seriously question using second or third hand accounts.....and stipulate those perceptions as hard facts...."

"This coming from a cadre of people who think it's accurate and scientific to base an entire series of books purporting Ruth's exact (or basically exact) home run distances based on second and third hand accounts, fraught with tremendous bias and hype?"

Originally Posted by elmer
The home run Shoeless refers to in all reports is stated to have cleared or struck the roof of the
Roesinks Pants Store.

Bill Jenkinson's father observed the home run Ruth hit into Opal street. Another boy witnessed the ball
fly through the upstairs window of 2735 Opal St.


[QUOTE=csh19792001;1975124]This is third hand information.

Where is this in the book?????

OR ANY others for that matter.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Thanks for the kudos, mi compadre viejo......pero......the deck would be severely stacked against any of us plebiscites...especially HERE. The particular "Bravadeur" has garnered incredible press and all requisite hype.... and, the legion of fans that love hype and image more than science and historical facts.

There are many who strive mainly to preserve Babe Ruth's lore by propagating lore as fact...this juxtaposed with the real historians here, who only seek Veritas, and have no agenda to sell books for profit or promote their boyhood (or adulthood) heroes.

What does that mean, others with a different, view, conclusions are not qualified or real historians.
I hope your not speaking of Bill Jenkinson, with an agenda to make some bucks with his book.
No doubt that does take place, I doubt that was even a part of his reason for writing that book.


Even if we take away some of the words on Ruth that might be challenged, the numbers and the facts that we know to be true are enough to keep him near or at the top of the greatest hitters.
There were some great hitters for average and some great sluggers but the field of great hitters that could also slug is very small, talking about super numbers hitting and slugging.
I see Ruth and Williams right at the top., Gehrig and maybe only a few more.

[Captain Cold Nose]

[QUOTE=elmer;1978287]Originally Posted by 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.

and what about statements like this CCN
"Statements of these by Jenkinson seriously strain his credulity as a legit, honest journalist and author."

"Many of these were based on second or third hand observer accounts."

"but I have to seriously question using second or third hand accounts.....and stipulate those perceptions as hard facts...."

"This coming from a cadre of people who think it's accurate and scientific to base an entire series of books purporting Ruth's exact (or basically exact) home run distances based on second and third hand accounts, fraught with tremendous bias and hype?"

Originally Posted by elmer
The home run Shoeless refers to in all reports is stated to have cleared or struck the roof of the
Roesinks Pants Store.

Bill Jenkinson's father observed the home run Ruth hit into Opal street. Another boy witnessed the ball
fly through the upstairs window of 2735 Opal St.

This is third hand information.

Where is this in the book?????

OR ANY others for that matter.

What about them? Posters are not on topic in this forum. Period.

Regardless of how substantiated or real people think the book is, it is still conjecture. Mythos. Substantiation does not make it true or actual. Challenging the assertion that it is fact is not heresy, nor is it something to get upset over. It's a could have would have should have because writing it down does not make it a did have. Do you think Jenkinson, being an informed writer, actually thinks he should not be questioned because he thinks it should be taken as literal fact?

This is standard practice academia, if you will. Theories get questioned. They should be. This is a discussion board.

[pheasant]

Here's my case against Ruth: from 1915-1917 while winning 65 games on the mound, Ruth hit poorly by his standards. During that time, his avg/obp/slug/ops+ were .302/.359/.479/153+ in 351 at-bats with only 9 home runs. An OPS+ of only 153 is not great. Granted, he did this while batting only once every 4 games. But to me, the move to the mound isn't justified by his numbers. On the mound, he was 65-33 with a an era of 2.02 and an era+ of 134. Ruth should have remained a starter. He was the 3rd best pitcher in MLB during a pitchers' era.

[elmer]

"Do you think Jenkinson, being an informed writer, actually thinks he should not be questioned because he thinks it should be taken as literal fact?"

Not at all CCN but I question the manner in which it is done and the seeming need for the many repetitions of the it. I hope you do too.
I hope you would agree that some of the expressions used in 'questioning the theories' is over the top and more
significantly off thread.

[stuarthouse]

May we assume you meant "from" the mound? Remember, the transition was gradual. The Red Sox did not intend in 1917 that Babe would play the outfield. That did not happen until 1918, when he worked the swing-shift between outfield and the mound. Eventually Ruth rebelled and refused to pitch, demanding to be in the line-up every day so that he could hit more often. Management relented and moved him to the outfield, not only because he could hit, but because so many people would pay good money to see him hit one out of sight. Previously, there had been no one even remotely like him. That this was done with one of the best pitchers of his era, an era of pitching, is stark testimony as to the impression he made even on jaded baseball old-timers. Whenever he connected jaws dropped. There was nothing management could do but follow the will of the fans, the money and of course Ruth himself. The rest, as they say, is history.

Here's my case against Ruth: from 1915-1917 while winning 65 games on the mound, Ruth hit poorly by his standards. During that time, his avg/obp/slug/ops+ were .302/.359/.479/153+ in 351 at-bats with only 9 home runs. An OPS+ of only 153 is not great. Granted, he did this while batting only once every 4 games. But to me, the move to the mound isn't justified by his numbers. On the mound, he was 65-33 with a an era of 2.02 and an era+ of 134. Ruth should have remained a starter. He was the 3rd best pitcher in MLB during a pitchers' era.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

May we assume you meant "from" the mound? Remember, the transition was gradual. The Red Sox did not intend in 1917 that Babe would play the outfield. That did not happen until 1918, when he worked the swing-shift between outfield and the mound. Eventually Ruth rebelled and refused to pitch, demanding to be in the line-up every day so that he could hit more often. Management relented and moved him to the outfield, not only because he could hit, but because so many people would pay good money to see him hit one out of sight. Previously, there had been no one even remotely like him. That this was done with one of the best pitchers of his era, an era of pitching, is stark testimony as to the impression he made even on jaded baseball old-timers. Whenever he connected jaws dropped. There was nothing management could do but follow the will of the fans, the money and of course Ruth himself. The rest, as they say, is history.

Babe was going to the every day player position no matter where he was, staying in Boston or as what did take place going to NY.
Even getting in only part time position player his power hitting was so evident, just a matter of time before he left the mound. in 1918, one game Sunday June 16 he was given an intentional BB in his last three at bats. In his very next game Monday June 17 an IBB in first two at bats. Over two games 5 consecutive IBB.
He wasn't just a young very good hitter, already he was striking fear into opposing teams.The Boston Globe was calling him Tarzan

One reason, to make use of that power in the line up every day and the other reason because he was causing a sensation with that bat. Playing every day would be a real boost in attendance. Owners very aware it's not only a game it's a bu$ine$$

[pheasant]

May we assume you meant "from" the mound? Remember, the transition was gradual. The Red Sox did not intend in 1917 that Babe would play the outfield. That did not happen until 1918, when he worked the swing-shift between outfield and the mound. Eventually Ruth rebelled and refused to pitch, demanding to be in the line-up every day so that he could hit more often. Management relented and moved him to the outfield, not only because he could hit, but because so many people would pay good money to see him hit one out of sight. Previously, there had been no one even remotely like him. That this was done with one of the best pitchers of his era, an era of pitching, is stark testimony as to the impression he made even on jaded baseball old-timers. Whenever he connected jaws dropped. There was nothing management could do but follow the will of the fans, the money and of course Ruth himself. The rest, as they say, is history.

Good point, stuart. Your point of a gradual shift to the outfield makes sense. As an owner or manager, I never would have had the guts to make that transition with my best player. I guess that's why I don't currently own a baseball team or a regular business, for that matter. That move, even as a gradual transition, seems to way too risky to me. However, I'm clearly wrong since we know the end result.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

The Bam earning his pay on that day. In this game, second game of a DH he leaves first base to pitch the 8th and 9th in relief to protect a Bosox 3-2 lead.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Good point, stuart. Your point of a gradual shift to the outfield makes sense. As an owner or manager, I never would have had the guts to make that transition with my best player. I guess that's why I don't currently own a baseball team or a regular business, for that matter. That move, even as a gradual transition, seems to way too risky to me. However, I'm clearly wrong since we know the end result.

There were many critical of this move and even though I believe it was just a matter of time, understandable to take an ace pitcher off the mound and put him in the outfield and not look like a bad move. How would anyone know the type hitter he would turn out to be, now we know.

Some critics regarding Babe's pitching future come up with the same old stories. Sure he looked good, he pitched in the dead ball era.......just like some other greats, why zero in on him.

Some claim, look at his numbers in 1918 and 1919, he was slipping, compared those number to his 1915-1916-1917.
What could be expected, how could he be the same pitcher in 1918 and 1919 when he wasn't on schedule, in the starting rotation.

1918 Started 19 games completed 18, he was 13-7, ERA 2.22
1919 Started 15 games completed 12, he was 9-5, ERA 2.98

But, in 1918 he also played 13 games at first base and 59 games in the outfield.
In 1919 he played 4 games at first and 111 in the outfield.
How could anyone pitch on the level he was earlier when he's not resting between starts. Imagine any pitcher today playing so many games on days off, what would be the result.

Foolish talk to say he was slipping without looking at the whole picture.
And I won't, never have said that had he stayed on the mound he would hve been a great pitcher over his career, a HOF. He had the potential but we can never know what might have been.

[pheasant]

9-5 with a 2.98 ERA during the first year of the Live Ball era is slipping? Those are some tough critics. IMHO, if Justin Verlander ended up smashing the all-time HR record in 2012 with a more juiced up ball, then his W-L record and era would probably "slip" to 9-5 with a 2.98 ERA as well; maybe even worse. I would argue that Ruth didn't slip at all. Given the live ball, I'd say it's business as usual. Actually, I'd say he did slightly better. Why? In 1919, the Red Sox had a losing record. As a case in point, Carl Mays dropped to 5-11 with the Sox that year. He then went to the Yankees and went 9-3 with them the rest of the way during that same year. The Red Sox were no longer the dominant team in the AL. They finished a very disappointing 6th that year DESPITE Ruth's 9-5 record during the first year of the Live Ball. Ruth was the type of competitor as a pitcher that won 65% of his games, regardless of the team behind him. And that 1919 team was below average. From 1915-1919, Ruth's winning pcts were: .692,.657,.649,.650,.643. That is very impressive. This guy was much better than his ERA indicated. What a shame. I think Ruth would have won 300-325 career games with a .630 career winning pct assuming a normal decline period had he remained on the mound. Through 4 years, Ruth was 78-40 with 2.05 ERA and he went 3-0 with a 0.87 record in he World Series. This guy was tough to beat on the mound, especially during a pressure packed game. I actually think Ruth would have beaten Pete Alexander straight up had they met in the World Series. Of course, we'll never know. Some guys are excellent and some are clutch. Ruth was very good, but improved drastically during clutch outings as a pitcher. I will say that 1918 is Ruth's most impressive season to me; even more impressive than his 1921 season. Show me a better season than a 194 OPS+ in 95 games AND a 13-7 record on the mound in addition to a 2-0 record with a 1.06 record in the World Series. That to me is the most impressive season in MLB history.