-
". . . the Ruth, the whole Ruth and nothing but the Ruth . . ." -
-
You won't hear much about this article, found in the newspaper archives.
I call it the real called shot. He's on deck, first inning and already the Cub bench is all over him............he points to RF while on deck and then Homers to RF.
Now, is Babe that great that he can say he's going to hit one out and then do it.
I don't think so, no one could. But if your Babe Ruth the odds are not that great.
Almost hit 3 home runs that "Called Shot", Game this one to RCF first inning, one to dead center fifth inning and in another at bat second inning he pinned Kiki Cuyler up against the wall to pull down his drive in RF.Comment
-
Always drawing the crowd, on or off the field.Comment
-
Some good stuff from Dr. Thomas Sowell:
". . . the Ruth, the whole Ruth and nothing but the Ruth . . ."Comment
-
Interesting stuff.Originally posted by Badge714 View Post
On Babe and the years he was a pitcher only 1915-1916-1917, a pitcher only not playing other positions. Then also doing some pitching in 1918-1919 and some games at first base and the outfield. Did not include 1914, only 23 innings pitched.
In those pitching only 1915-16-17 the case could be made that overall there were only two pitchers better than Ruth, Walter Johnson and Grover Alexander, two of the greatest.
Thats saying quite a bit. Small sample only 3 years, no way to ever know what might have been had he stuck to pitching.
Small sample with the 3 years but significant, only two of the greatest ever were better than Ruth. Some bringing up the fact that he was already going into decline with his pitching early in his pitching career, 1918 and 1919.
I don't see that, if one stops to think, he not only pitched part time in 1918 but also played 13 games at first base and 59 in the outfield. In 1919 he pitched part time and played 111 games in the outfield.
Understandable his pitching had to be effected, not always resting between pitching starts but taking the field on some of those days off from pitching.
I look at the bottom line, finishing behind Johnson and Alexander in his "pitching only" years. Only a few years before, he was at St. Mary's.Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 07-09-2012, 05:55 PM.Comment
-
I think Ruth was a clutch pitcher. I.e, I think Ruth would have had a career similar to Tom Glavine. He wouldn't have posted incredible ERA+ numbers. But he would have won more than his fair share of close games like Glavine did. Granted, they both pitched for good teams. But the Red Sox and Braves were much more known for their pitching than they were for hitting. As a case in point, the Sox from 1915-1918 had team OPS+ seasons of 105,91,94,97 and their league ranking in runs scored were 3,6,4,4 respectively. And I think Ruth hadn't even peaked yet as a pitcher. After all, he was only 23 in 1918, his last full year of pitching. And that year, he didn't get to rest between starts. I think Tris Speaker was right: Ruth should have stayed a pitcher. My gut says that Ruth would have made the Hall as a pitcher.Comment
-
I also think that Ruth would have put up much better stats had he not abused his body so badly. Imagine Ruth with Gehrig's work ethic and self discipline. I think he would have slugged .800+ 2 or 3 more times had he kept his weight down around 200 like he should have. What a waste of talent. Luckily, he was still pretty good.Comment
-
He averaged .3.23 walks in those three years 1915-16-18.
But ranked high in least hits per 9 innings pitched. Leaders Hit/9 IP-- Ruth 6.64---Johnson 6.94---Alexander 7.12.
ERA ------------------------------------------------------------- Alex 1.54----Johnson 1.88---Ruth 2.02.
I look at everything this guy did in the game and add to that he just missed a no hitter on an infield hit.
July 11, 1917 against the Tigers, one of the best hitting teams in both leagues.
One out in the 8th inning, Ruth deflected a ground ball to Scott at short but the runner beat the throw, one hitter.
Hitting .393 in 1923, missing .400 by 4 hits.
So close, add that to what he did, a .400 season and a no hitter.
Alexander, some pitcher, 36 shutouts in those 3 seasons.Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 07-09-2012, 09:20 PM.Comment
-
Thanks for the insights ShoelessJoe, much appreciated. Interesting to note that as a pitcher Ruth had a winning record against Walter Johnson, 6-3. The more I read about Ruth the more amazed I am. Fact is, the real Ruth is more impressive than the mythic Ruth. Myths are a bit ephemeral, reality is based on solid empirical evidence, and what evidence!". . . the Ruth, the whole Ruth and nothing but the Ruth . . ."Comment
-
Looking foward to that when it does appear. What I'm wondering, with the current economic situation, how much will the public contribute to the project.Originally posted by elmer View PostComment
-
Some Babe bits. After the clash with Ty Babe asked to pitch in the next meeting with the Tigers. Don't know what Ty did in his first at bat but after Babe struck out Ty in the 5th inning Babe went to the outfield, two home runs and Yanks win 13-8.Comment
-
A question for the Ruth experts. Ruth ushered in a new era of the home run. How quickly major league teams realize that the home run was here to say and that they need to go scout and sign power hitters? I'm sure Ruth inspired young boys, especially the big strong ones, to hit for power which eventually lead to other power hitters reaching the majors. From a historical view you have the Dead Ball game being played then this big strong guy shows up and starts hitting 500 ft home runs. Within a few short years yo get other power hitters showing up in the majors. Without Ruth would Hornsby, Gehrig, Foxx, Ott, Wilson and Greenberg have been hitting 40-50 HRs?Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 09-04-2012, 03:30 PM.Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash DavisComment
-
I think they still would have, they showed they were capable and some were in their prime year in the 1930s when more were going for the long ball. Hornsby older in the 1930s, Foxx and Greenberg very young.Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
Just noticed a mild spike in home runs leagues combined in 1925 compared to 1924 and then a drastic drop from 1925 to 1926.
1924 896 home runs---1925 1169 home runs---------plus 273.
1925 1169 home runs--1926 863 home runs---------333 less in 1926
That plus 273 plus and 333 less in 1926, significant gap, only dealing with about 1000 total.
Also Babe hitting only 25 in 1925 and Lou Gehrig 20.
If I recall eyebrows were raised in 1925 and the league did some testing of balls before 1925 and the 1925 ball, they said no difference.
Cusion cork center picked up by both leagues but that was in 1926.Comment
Tweet
Comment