*Babe Ruth Thread*

[SHOELESSJOE3]

You could use YouTube downloader to download the video, and then snip it somehow.

Here's a video that shows a Ruth HR (distant view from within the crowd). Might be from the 1932 WS in Wrigley:

http://www.t3licensing.com/video/cli...ds=babe%2Cruth


Tremendous whip in this exhibition swing:

http://www.t3licensing.com/video/cli...ds=babe%2Cruth

Has anyone checked out another video at this site....................this you have to see, I have this one saved.
At that site type Babe Ruth in the search box and check out the Babe video......1935 Newark New Jersey, watch the swing and listen to the bat meeting the ball BOOM.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

There could be only one answer.The text describing the video is wrong. It's not the Yankees opener.
Has to be game 3, 1932 World Series, Babe hits a 3 run homer first inning.
I notice the man to Roosevelt's right hands him the ball, most likely Chicago Mayor Cermack. He and Roosevelt campaigned together in that year.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Some info found, Oct 1, 1932, WS, Wrigley Firld.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Two similar accounts. According to the Chicago Tribune a smattering of booing was directed at FDR before the game. When Joe McCarthy walked over to greet FDR, FDR made some pointing gestures at the right field wall. Some Cub fans took that to mean, for the Yanks to hit some out there.

[toomanyhatz]

"Entitled to your opinion" is a long way from "you're a joke," but I will accept that Ruth vs. Bonds is a personal mission for you and try not to take it personally. I'm hardly the first to put Bonds at that high level, though. Take his career up through 2000 and you've already got a Hall of Famer with an unprecedented speed/power combo, the 3 MVP awards (and he arguably deserved another in '91), several Gold Gloves (deserved, I'd say), and as far as batting eye, he was leading the league in walks every year for a long time before he bulked up. In fact as James once said about Rickey Henderson, cut him in half and you have two Hall of Famers.

None of this is meant to downgrade Ruth in any way, he's absolutely #1 on my list and I was every bit as offended as I'm sure you were by Bonds' statements about making people 'forget Babe Ruth' to the point that I'd love to point out how much better Ruth was. The problem is, his baseball instincts are too good, even with the PED years taken away the stats are too impressive- what can you say about a guy that basically averaged 30/30 for a decade plus?

I'm not as knowledgeable about Ruth's fielding and baserunning as you obviously are, but I can't imagine they're on any level comparable. Ruth had barely a 50% success rate as a base stealer at his best, and the couple of times he was near the lead for base stealers is more attributable to the fact that he was on base so much, so he had to try to steal (and hence succeed) some of the time. Bonds played left thanks to his weak arm, but he wasn't just speed getting to balls either. He had incredible instincts, knew the right path to take, which throws to risk- this is based on seeing him, mostly, post-2001. Ruth may have had similar skills, but here's that magic phrase again- "the stats we have on hand"- don't bear that out.

The kicker is Ruth's pitching, undeniably, but with the exception of Mays, I can't think of another player in MLB history that excelled at absolutely every aspect of the game to the degree Bonds did. In my mind he's a solid number two, ahead of Mays, Cobb, Wagner, Oscar Charleston, etc. I'd love to think that's not true- I don't much care for the man- but when I look at his career on the whole, I don't even see those PED-aided fluke seasons- I see the degree to which he dominated multiple landscapes in the 90s. Denigrate his personality all you want- you'll find plenty of allies- but to denigrate his natural ability you really have to ignore the facts.

[toomanyhatz]

Three more quick things, at the risk of derailing this thread too.

Isn't there some evidence that Ruth cheated too? If we're really comparing like-for-like, these are obviously two people with huge egos wiling to do whatever they could to get an edge. Ruth was obviously much more likeable, and he didn't have quite the tools available to him that Bonds did, but he wasn't totally clean either.

Also, if my comparison is a joke, does that mean this is too?:

http://www.hallofstats.com/

This whole discussion reminded me of a discussion I had on another forum (a music one, curiously enough) on which great athletes were discussed. When I put up the Babe as a possibility for greatest athlete ever, another poster (European, which might be relevant) dismissed the possibility, because he didn't "look like an athlete." I lit into him like you did me.

[Badge714]

Caution: Foul Language!
Jim Leyland tearing Bonds a new one. Apparently no MLB player of recent vintage excelled Bonds in being a trouble-making, low-life wretch. Pre-steroids Bonds was one of the worst post season players ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9DHA2dJ7uQ

[pheasant]

My favorite book on Ruth is Babe Ruth in Red Stockings.

I actually think Ruth was at his very best talent-wise during his Red Sox years. He was much leaner then. He broke into the league at a ripped 186 pounds and stayed under 200 until around 1919. He was quite the outfielder back then: very good range, rifle arm with great accuracy, sure hands, perfect decision making, and great instincts as to where to play each hitter. I think for about a 2 year span(1918-1919; maybe toss in 1923), Ruth as every bit as good as Bonds was at fielding. What's most amazing to me is that Ruth, despite playing a long ball game as a pitcher in 1918 in a ball park designed for small ball, he still posted a ridiculous 197 OPS+ in 1918. And Ruth was just getting warmed up as a 23 year old in 1918. His 1918 season is my favorite. He literally carried the Sox on his back to win the World Series that year. Everybody talks about Ruth's advantage in the Live Ball era because he was playing long ball baseball against a bunch of small ball people in a game best suited for the long ball. My counter to that is 1918-1919. Here, Ruth was playing long ball in a ball park and era designed for small ball, yet he still murdered everyone(except for possibly Cobb), despite being tired and distracted from all of his pitching. It is Ruth's stint with the Red Sox that erases all doubt to me about how good he really was. And Ruth was drawing intentional walks as early as 1916 as a 21 year old pitcher.

IMHO, here are Ruth's best seasons in order:
1918--using his road stats, projected to hit 36 HRs in 154 games, 13-7 on the mound, led league XHB, HR, slug, OPS
1919--using his road stats, projected to hit 46 HRs in 154 games, 9-5 on the mound
1923
1921
1920
1927

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I Agree Ruth was a lean athletic looking ballplayer in Boston.

Babe-Ruth-Boston-Red-Sox-26.jpg

[pheasant]

Awesome pic, Honus! Almost as good as those pics you posted of Wagner jumping 2+ feet off of the ground to spear a line drive.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Babe fielding from the mound 1915-16-17, the only seasons he was a pitcher only.
Not to put too much into the numbers. Other factors would have to be considered, ground ball pitcher, fly ball pitcher, number of strike outs and some others.

Any of those top 5 pitchers missing in some of the other stats DPs...etc, that means they did not make the top 25 in those other stats.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

---------------------------Ruth's funeral-------------------------------------------------------Gehrigs Funeral

funerals.jpg

[SHOELESSJOE3]

If Barry out up a spike like this even when younger, it would cause me to wonder...............but in the years of decline, off the chart.
That peak of the older Barry rivals any put up by the greatest in their prime years.
Not going to even try to pro rate or guess how much chemicals boosted his numbers in those late years.
By his own doing he casts doubt on his career numbers and his place on the all time greats got knocked down by more than a few pegs.
This just doesn't take place in the declining years of a ballplayer..................not in the real world. Look at that AB/HR ratio, over a five year period.

[ol' aches and pains]

Jim Leyland tearing Bonds a new one. Apparently no MLB player of recent vintage excelled Bonds in being a trouble-making, low-life wretch. Pre-steroids Bonds was one of the worst post season players ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9DHA2dJ7uQ

Interesting clip, but you should probably put a NSFW warning on it.

[pheasant]

While that book isn't my "favorite" I would say it's probably one of the most underrated books on Ruth. It has a ton of info, and helped me put together this post http://www.baseball-fever.com/showth...340#post656340

I have always thought 1920 as his best seasons, for reasons desribed here http://www.baseball-fever.com/showth...039#post596039 but in that same post, one can easily see, that all things considered, you have a beef with 1918. Not sure if you mentioned all 11 of his homers in 1918 were on the road, and all came before July 1st.

Great post, Sultan. And in that post, you brought up something that's incredible: Ruth as a 21 year old was the best pitcher in the AL with a 1.75 ERA and 9 shutouts. Those are earthshaking stats, yet there was talk of putting him in the outfield. And I forgot that the Sox used their 21 year old ace as a pinch hitter. That kind of stuff is the most impressive to me, even though his 1920-1924 stint was more valuable.