*Babe Ruth Thread*

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Babe's first inning, first game in MLB.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Always some where, always on the move.
Signing balls on a building ledge and into the crowd.
Obviously not using his arm much in his position, just a little wrist, you can see the ball on the way down.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Only known photo, that I am aware of, Babe with his " laminated Bat" which he used for about 3 weeks in the 1923 season.

This may be the bat that Bill James referred to when he stated in Slate Magazine that Babe was "caught" using a corked bat. And then goes on to say, Babe probably continued to used corked bats for much of his career

But, I find it difficult to believe.............impossible to believe that if this is the bat Bill James was speaking of, that Bill confused a laminated bat with a corked bat, he knows better.

Anyway, laminated bats were not banned in baseball until the 1930s. Add to that, Babe didn't even "get caught" with that laminated bat, it was no secret. The photo and the article appeared in print 3 weeks before Ban Johnson informed Ruth he could no longer use the bat. How do you get caught doing something that is public news, known to MLB.

Have tried to contact Bill James, no answer, will try to find other ways to reach him.
My opinion, Bill just tossed out some BS and knows he was wrong, willing to take him on................still waiting Bill.
Anyone on the board that has contacted Bill, or can give me some info, thank you.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

BTW, that only known photo with that bat according to the caption was taken by one of the best, Louis Van Oeyen.
Louis was with the Cleveland Press and has a section at Getty Images.
Some of the best shots of Ruth, Cobb, Joe Jackson and some other past greats that have been displayed on BBF, were from his collection.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

BABE RUTH SPLITS

1918

Away: .290/.380/.587

Home: .310/.438/.517
------------------------------------
AWAY

24 singles
12 doubles
3 triples
11 homeruns
25 walks
0 HBP

50 hits in 172 AB----------.290 BA
75 times on base/197 PA--.380 OBP
101 total bases/172 AB----.587 SA
------------------------------------
HOME

23 singles
14 doubles
8 triples
0 homeruns
33 walks
0 HBP

45 hits in 145 AB----------.310 BA
78 times on base/178 PA--.438 OBP
75 total bases/145 AB-----.517 SA
------------------------------------
1919

Away: .319/.435/.694

Home: .325/.466/.615
------------------------------------
AWAY

33 singles
15 doubles
6 triples
20 homeruns
48 walks

74 hits in 232 AB-----------.319 BA
122 times on base/280 PA--.435 OBP
161 total bases/232 AB-----.694 SA
-----------------------------------
HOME

31 singles
19 doubles
6 triples
9 homeruns
53 walks

65 hits in 200 AB-----------.325 BA
118 times on base/253 PA--.466 OBP
123 total bases/200 AB-----.615 SA
------------------------------------
1920

Away: .358/.523/.736

Home: .397/.577/.985
------------------------------------
AWAY

48 singles
15 doubles
3 triples
25 homeruns
87 walks
1 HBP

91 hits in 254 AB-----------.358 BA
179 times on base/342 PA--.523 OBP
187 total bases/254 AB-----.736 SA
-----------------------------------
HOME

25 singles
21 doubles
6 triples
29 homeruns
85 walks
2 HBP

81 hits in 204 AB-----------.397 BA
168 times on base/291 PA--.577 OBP
201 total bases/204 AB-----.985 SA
------------------------------------
1921

Away: .354/.481/.775

Home: .404/.545/.925
------------------------------------
AWAY

44 singles
21 doubles
9 triples
27 homeruns
66 walks
4 HBP

101 hits in 285 AB----------.354 BA
171 times on base/355 PA--.481 OBP
221 total bases/285 AB-----.775 SA
------------------------------------
HOME

41 singles
23 doubles
7 triples
32 homeruns
79 walks
0 HBP

103 hits in 255 AB----------.404 BA
182 times on base/334 PA--.545 OBp
236 total bases/255 AB-----.925 SA
------------------------------------
1922

Away: .331/.457/.748

Home: .297/.407/.589
------------------------------------
AWAY

28 singles
17 doubles
4 triples
21 homeruns
48 walks
1 HBP

70 hits in 211 AB-----------.331 BA
119 times on base/260 PA--.457 OBP
158 total bases/211 AB-----.748 SA
------------------------------------
HOME

33 singles
7 doubles
4 triples
14 homeruns
36 walks
0 HBP

58 hits in 195 AB----------.297 BA
94 times on base/231 PA--.407 OBP
115 total bases/195 AB----.589 SA
------------------------------------
1923

Away: .377/.518/.728

Home: .410/.572/.805
------------------------------------
AWAY

57 singles
19 doubles
6 triples
22 homeruns
78 walks
3 HBP

104 hits in 276 AB----------.377 BA
185 times on base/357 PA--.518 OBP
201 total bases in 276 AB---.728 SA
------------------------------------
HOME

49 singles
26 doubles
7 triples
19 homeruns
92 walks
1 HBP

101 hits in 246 AB----------.410 BA
194 times on base/339 PA--.572 OBP
198 total bases/246 AB-----.805 SA
------------------------------------
1924

Away: .371/.513/.717

Home: .384/.512/.761
------------------------------------
AWAY

54 singles
21 doubles
3 triples
22 homeruns
76 walks
2 HBP

100 hits in 269 AB----------.371 BA
178 times on base/347 PA--.513 OBP
193 total bases/269 AB-----.717 SA
------------------------------------
HOME

54 singles
18 doubles
4 triples
24 homeruns
66 walks
2 HBP

100 hits in 260 AB--------.384 BA
168 times on base/328 PA--.512 OBP
198 total bases/260 AB----.761 SA
------------------------------------

1925

Away: .288/.383/.596

Home: .290/.400/.502
------------------------------------
AWAY

26 singles
4 doubles
1 triple
14 homeruns
24 walks
0 HBP

45 hits in 156 AB----------.288 BA
69 times on base/180 PA--.383 OBP
93 total bases/156 AB-----.596 SA
------------------------------------
HOME

39 singles
8 doubles
1 triple
11 homeruns
35 walks
2 HBP

59 hits in 203 AB = .290 BA
96 times reaching base/240 PA = .400 OBP
102 total bases/203 AB = .502 SA
------------------------------------
1926

Away: .393/.527/.767

Home: .348/.503/.705
------------------------------------
AWAY

56 singles
17 doubles
3 triples
24 homeruns
70 walks
2 HBP

100 hits in 254 AB----------.393 BA
172 times on base/326 PA--.527 OBP
195 total bases/254 AB-----.767 SA
------------------------------------
HOME

46 singles
13 doubles
2 triples
23 homeruns
74 walks
1 HBP

84 hits in 241 AB------------.348 BA
159 times on base/316 PA---.503 OBP
170 total bases/241 AB------.705
------------------------------------
1927

Away: .341/.483/.770

Home: .371/.488/.774
------------------------------------
AWAY

43 singles
19 doubles
4 triples
32 homeruns
79 walks
0 HBP

98 hits in 287 AB------------.341 BA
177 times on base/366 PA--.483 OBP
221 total bases/287 AB------.770
------------------------------------
HOME

52 singles
10 doubles
4 triples
28 homeruns
58 walks
0 HBP

94 hits in 253 AB-----------.371 BA
152 times on base/311 PA--.488 OBp
196 total bases/253 AB-----.774
------------------------------------

1928

Away: .315/.466/.692

Home: .330/.456/.726
------------------------------------
AWAY

37 singles
21 doubles
4 triples
25 homeruns
77 walks
1 HBP

87 hits in 276 AB = .315 BA
165 times on base in 354 PA = .466 OBP
191 total bases in 276 AB = .692 SA
------------------------------------
HOME

45 singles
8 doubles
4 triples
29 homeruns
58 walks
2 HBP

86 hits in 260 AB-------------.330 BA
146 times on base in 320 PA--.456 OBP
189 total bases in 260 AB-----.726 SA
------------------------------------
1929

Away: .356/.431/.712

Home: .330/.429/.679
------------------------------------
AWAY

53 singles
19 doubles
3 triples
25 homeruns
35 walks
2 HBP

100 hits in 281 AB------------.356
137 times on base/318 PA----.431 OBP
200 total bases/281 AB-------.712 SA
------------------------------------
HOME

41 singles
7 doubles
3 triples
21 homeruns
37 walks
1 HBP

72 hits in 218 AB-------------.330 BA
110 times on base/256 PA----.429 OBP
148 total bases/218 AB-------.679 SA
------------------------------------
1930

Away: .346/.481/.682

Home: .373/.506/.786
------------------------------------
AWAY

53 singles
15 doubles
4 triples
23 homeruns
71 walks

95 hits in 274 AB-----------.346 BA
166 times on base/345 PA--.481
187 total bases/274 AB-----.682 SA
------------------------------------
HOME

47 singles
13 doubles
5 triples
26 homeruns
65 walks
1 HBP

91 hits in 244 AB-----------.373 BA
157 times on base/310 PA--.786 SA
192 total bases/244 AB-----.787
------------------------------------
1931

Away: .385/.506/.726

Home: .359/.483/.674
------------------------------------
AWAY

59 singles
19 doubles
3 triples
22 homeruns
65 walks
0 HBP

103 hits in 267 AB----------.385 BA
168 times on base/332 PA--.506 OBP
194 total bases/267 AB-----.726 SA
------------------------------------
HOME

60 singles
12 doubles
0 triples
24 homeruns
63 walks
1 HBP

96 hits in 267 AB-----------.359 BA
160 times on base/331 PA--.483 OBP
180 total bases/267 AB-----.674 SA
------------------------------------
1932

Home: .326/.472/.632

Away: .357/.507/.670
------------------------------------
AWAY

53 singles
2 doubles
3 triples
20 homers
65 BB
1 HBP

78 hits in 218 AB-----------.357 BA
144 times on base/284 PA--.507 OBP
146 total bases/218 AB-----.670 SA
------------------------------------
HOME

49 singles
6 doubles
2 triples
21 homers
65 BB
1 HBP

78 hits in 239 AB-----------.326 BA
144 times on base/305 PA--.472 OBP
151 total bases/239 AB-----.632 SA

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Anyone up for helping with '33, '34 and '35?

If so, go here http://www.baseball-fever.com/showth...oric-Game-Logs and click on the baberuth.xls link at bottom of Ubi's first post. That will open up an excel file with all the years.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Notice I included myself in the hero worship category as you, Randy. In the same sentence! We're both clouded by nostalgia. I NEVER said you were blind! FAR FROM IT, bro!

I revere you, Shoelessjoe, Nimrod, and Badge714 (among others) as our all time greatest Ruth scholars, just as I honor Burgess for Cobb, Westfield for Mays, and WJackman for The Ferrell Brothers.

(This doesn't mean their love and admiration and nostalgia doesn't significantly cloud their/our judgement about how players of yore would do today).

We will take this over to the Babe Ruth Thread, so we don't intrude on the other threads intentions.

It really doesn't matter if you include yourself when accusing someone else of something. It doesn't soften the accusation.

If the definition of "hero worship" is - a profound reverence for great people or their memory, then yes, I think myself, along with many others are hero worshipers. Not just toward Ruth, but many ballplayers. My problem is that you used the term in a negative light, and stated that I am in some way "clouded" by that admiration. That couldn't be further from the truth; quite the contrary actually. By delving into a subject to such a degree, you peel back the layers (good and bad) one by one, and with Ruth, you never feel like the layers will end.

The difficult part comes, when trying to describe certain events and accomplishments, to those who haven't done the same. I can start to truly believe he genuinely felt this, when Waite Hoyt said something like "Many years ago, I stopped talking about Babe Ruth, because I realized those who never saw him, didn't believe me anyway." Well to a much lesser degree obviously, I feel the same way on this site sometimes, as does Shoeless I'm sure. Some of the things he did on and off the field, you wouldn't make up.

As I have stated before, let's talk about the good and the bad. If someone makes a comment about his suspensions in '22, I am the first one to say his behavior was uncalled for. DrStrange even wanted to adjust for missed games in '22 and '25 and I didn't agree. I think a blind hero worshiper would have agreed. No, instead, my goal is to examine each and every incident, and after doing so, you come to realize that even though he didn't handle himself properly, he was being made an example of. That is the price of being the man.

So I challenge you, Mr. Christopher, so show me an example, where I have made Babe out to be something he wasn't. Or where I have over-stated any accomplishment of his...... :atthepc:atthepc

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Couldn't figure out how to get the video to show up on here.

Bob Feller talks of things, including Babe Ruth.

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=7144031&topic_id=16246194&c_id=cle&tcid=vpp_copy_7144031&v=3

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Couldn't figure out how to get the video to show up on here.

Bob Feller talks of things, including Babe Ruth.

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?co...py_7144031&v=3

At times Bob may have said some things that rubbed some the wrong way, but overall, I respect, admire and liked the guy.
Though exempt from military service, his dad was terminally ill, only days after Pearl Harbor Bob enlisted in the Navy. No Special Service like some athletes in the war, Bob saw action and was awarded some medals.
When asked about missing his chance at 300+ wins, no regrets he said, his country came first.

On that Babe bat, I did post this article long ago, some may have missed it.
Never revealed, the name of Bob's teammate who took the bat after the game, may have sold it, no details given.
After about 40 years or more Bob did locate the bat.
You won't find it in this article but another article I have. Bob paid around 90,000.00............to buy back, his own bat.

[TomBodet]

He was clearly the dominant figure in pop culture here in the States during the '20's. I don't think we realize just how pervasive RUTH was then.

[Badge714]

Agreed! But even today Ruth maintains a hold as a dominant figure in our collective concious, at least, among educated people. Perusing that greatest of sports biographies, The Life That Ruth Built, by the late, great, Marshall Smelser I find his last line reading: ". . . he is our Hercules, our Samson, Beowulf, Siegfried. No other person outside of public life so stirred our imaginations or so captured our affections." Just so. In an earlier paragraph Smelser wrote, "His fame will last. Once a living legend crosses from the first generation into the third generation the legend is secure and durable." And all this as a result of achievement; nay, stupendous achievement. As long as baseball is played the benchmark will be Babe Ruth. And yes, I know Ruth was flawed, but again, to quote Smelser, "In his departures from virtue there was nothing decadent. His lapses were because of appetite, not conviction." There is an everyman quality to Ruth and to me, that makes him all the more appealing.

He was clearly the dominant figure in pop culture here in the States during the '20's. I don't think we realize just how pervasive RUTH was then.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

"Ruth was not vice-riddled but his virtues had defects." - Marshall Smelser

[csh19792001]

We will take this over to the Babe Ruth Thread, so we don't intrude on the other threads intentions.

It really doesn't matter if you include yourself when accusing someone else of something. It doesn't soften the accusation.

If the definition of "hero worship" is - a profound reverence for great people or their memory, then yes, I think myself, along with many others are hero worshipers. Not just toward Ruth, but many ballplayers. My problem is that you used the term in a negative light, and stated that I am in some way "clouded" by that admiration. That couldn't be further from the truth; quite the contrary actually. By delving into a subject to such a degree, you peel back the layers (good and bad) one by one, and with Ruth, you never feel like the layers will end.

The difficult part comes, when trying to describe certain events and accomplishments, to those who haven't done the same. I can start to truly believe he genuinely felt this, when Waite Hoyt said something like "Many years ago, I stopped talking about Babe Ruth, because I realized those who never saw him, didn't believe me anyway." Well to a much lesser degree obviously, I feel the same way on this site sometimes, as does Shoeless I'm sure. Some of the things he did on and off the field, you wouldn't make up.

As I have stated before, let's talk about the good and the bad. If someone makes a comment about his suspensions in '22, I am the first one to say his behavior was uncalled for. DrStrange even wanted to adjust for missed games in '22 and '25 and I didn't agree. I think a blind hero worshiper would have agreed. No, instead, my goal is to examine each and every incident, and after doing so, you come to realize that even though he didn't handle himself properly, he was being made an example of. That is the price of being the man.

So I challenge you, Mr. Christopher, so show me an example, where I have made Babe out to be something he wasn't. Or where I have over-stated any accomplishment of his...... :atthepc:atthepc

I'm not saying you're blind, brother! Clearly you've dedicated years and years of your life to studying Ruth. And you've contributed more in my time here than anyone to edifying us all on Babe. And I admire your time, effort, and passion. Probably admire it more than you even know!

I suppose the best way I can sum this up....name one other athletic endeavor where you or I WOULDN'T be laughed out of the room during a debate if we claimed that someone born in the 1800's is undeniably the greatest in the history of their respective sport.

[csh19792001]

Anyone up for helping with '33, '34 and '35?

If so, go here http://www.baseball-fever.com/showth...oric-Game-Logs and click on the baberuth.xls link at bottom of Ubi's first post. That will open up an excel file with all the years.

What is Ruth's complete career line against LHP, based on your research, Randy?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I suppose the best way I can sum this up....name one other athletic endeavor where you or I WOULDN'T be laughed out of the room during a debate if we claimed that someone born in the 1800's is undeniably the greatest in the history of their respective sport.

Well to start off with "the 1800's" is technically correct, but 1895 isn't exactly 1801. The people who would "laugh" you out of a room regarding a baseball comparison, have no idea of the many factors involved in a comparison such as that.

I will say this. Even though I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall....well, probably a bad term...talking to an "already knowing" wall, is more appropriate statement. Willie Mays was born further apart from Ken Griffey Jr than to Babe Ruth. Yeah that means little, just a fun fact. Still, let's think about the sport of baseball, and how it is completely UNLIKE any other sport. In other sports where physical contact takes place, sheer size and strength means something. Not so much in baseball. Heck, when Greenberg was a freak at 6'4" and Sexson was a carnival side show at 6"6', and that size didn't necessarily help him; in fact I thin it hurt him at the plate.

Baseball has, is, and always will be a sport where success is predicated on a finite skill set..some which cannot be pin pointed. You have studied Ruth, and have learned a lot from this site. There is no hero worship needed, to make the definite statement that he is the longest hitter baseball has ever produced, no matter the era. I can't explain it, you can't, nobody can. It just is.

The proof is there. I see his skill set as the most complete in baseball history. Here is a player who should have won a gold glove, a Cy Young, a HR title, a batting title, 12 MVP's, etc. You and Burgess see Cobb as the best all-around player, even though he could never have hit for the power of Ruth (even if he abandoned his stubborn mindset) and never had half his arm. That is ok. Opinions differ and discussions arise. That's why this site is fun.

Colin Cowherd is a national ESPN radio talk show host now. He started here in Portland as a regional guy. He is famous for discounting what Ruth did, because he only played against white players. Of course, he doesn't know Ruth competed against amazing Negro Leaguers and still performed brilliantly. That would ruin his pre-conceived idea of Ruth the pretender. Then, in the next breath, on several occasions, I have listened to Colin Cowherd state that Wilt Chamberlain is the most dominant basketball player of all time, singing his praises as the greatest. Does anyone else see a problem here? A sport such as basketball, where success IS PRIMARILY PREDICATED ON SIZE AND STRENGTH, where Wilt, as a center, was going against 5'9' opponents, is being given more credit than Ruth. That pretty much sums up the ignorance.

I guess, to ultimately answer your question, I would respond with a question of my own. How educated are the people in that room?