Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

*Babe Ruth Thread*

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I look at it this way. Only six players are within 100 points of Ruth's career slugging percentage! Six!
    Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 03-18-2013, 03:18 PM.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

    Comment


    • Speaking of The Bam and slugging, and another guy who could really rip the cover off the ball.
      Attached Files

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
        That's pretty impressive.

        We know he's a .700 career slugger without pitching years.

        How bout...if you remove half of his HR (357), he'd still be right behind Mantle, and just ahead of Frank Thomas on the career SA list. Frank is at .55494, Ruth would be at .55499.
        Your concept is a good one. I'll take a crack at it. If you replace all of Babe's hits during his famous 1921 season with strikeouts(thus, in 540 at-bats, he gets credit for a 0.000 avg and a 0.000 slug%), then his career line would be .318/.455/.635. I.e, he'd still 1 pt ahead of Williams in career slugging pct.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
          That's pretty impressive.

          We know he's a .700 career slugger without pitching years.

          How bout...if you remove half of his HR (357), he'd still be right behind Mantle, and just ahead of Frank Thomas on the career SA list. Frank is at .55494, Ruth would be at .55499.
          I think it SavoyBG or willshad who has said on several occasions that there is a natural upper limit to the level one can dominate a league. Slugging .600 for a career seems to be one of those limits. Currently, other than Ruth only six others have done it.

          .634 Ted Williams
          .632 Lou Gehrig
          .609 Jimmie Foxx
          .608 Albert Pujols
          .607 Barry Bonds
          .605 Hank Greenberg

          Pujols is still active and may already be in decline. If he is, I think it's unlikely he'll be over .600 when he retires if he plays into his late 30's. Bonds doesn't make this list without PED's. And Hank Greenberg had a short career. It seems for normal ballplayers a .630 slugging percentage is the ultimate upper ceiling. If we look at other leagues I find interesting parallels. I'm a huge Sadaharu Oh fan. He hit 868 HRs, slugged over .700 nine times, six seasons of which were over .720. And he had another season at .690. Yet he "only" slugged .634 for his career. Buzz Arlett for many years was the all-time minor league career HR leader. He was voted by SABR as the greatest minor league player of all time. He hit .341 and drew a huge number of walks. He was called "The Babe Ruth of the Minor Leagues". Yet he "only" had a career .604 slugging percentage. (.341 BA/.604 SLG%, 432 HRs in 2,392 games)

          Ruth's .690 slugging percentage is simply out of this world.
          Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

          Comment


          • Originally posted by pheasant View Post
            Your concept is a good one. I'll take a crack at it. If you replace all of Babe's hits during his famous 1921 season with strikeouts(thus, in 540 at-bats, he gets credit for a 0.000 avg and a 0.000 slug%), then his career line would be .318/.455/.635. I.e, he'd still 1 pt ahead of Williams in career slugging pct.
            So what would Ruth's OBP be in 1921?
            Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
              .215?-------------
              .215 is correct. The babe still gets to keep his 145 walks, 4 hbp, and 4 sacrifice hits.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
                I agree he was still developing. His walks seemed to come in bunches but overall his WHIP numbers are good, thanks to his H/9IP numbers.
                That is the reason he was very stingy with the base hits.
                Kind of high in walks but over the years 1915-16-17 his 6.64 H/9Inn was the lowest in both leagues followed by Johnson 6.94 and Alex at 7.12.
                To be fair to Alex 286 more innings than Babe and Johnson 165 more innings than Babe, still a good showing for young pitcher.

                Comment


                • For a change of pace, I'll put Ruth in a competition that cannot be won. From 1915-1917, let's see how this younger stacked up against a legendary pitcher in his prime.

                  B. Ruth, 65-33, .663 pct, 2.02 ERA, 134 ERA+, 18 Shutouts, 6.6 hits/9 IP, 1.096 WHIP
                  Johnson, 75-49,.604 pct, 1.88 ERA, 149 ERA+, 16 shutouts, 6.9 hits/9 IP, .971 WHIP

                  Ruth finally met his match and is beaten firmly by the great Walter Johnson.

                  Let's toss out Ruth's rookie season of 1915 and see how they compare from 1916-1917:

                  B. Ruth, 47-25, .653 pct, 1.88 ERA, 142 ERA+, 15 shutouts, 6.6 hits/9 IP, 1.077 WHIP
                  Johnson, 48-36, .571 pct, 2.04 ERA, 133 ERA+, 11 shutouts, 7.0 hits/9 IP, .989 WHIP

                  Ruth has closed most of the gap if we exclude his rookie year. Now granted, Walter had another gear in other years. But Ruth really stepped up here.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by pheasant
                    Hey Sultan

                    The "Ultimate Babe Ruth Thread" is great. You've done a great job de-fragmenting this thread. It's as though you put this thread on PEDs. It has a great flow to it, starting with Babe Ruth's history, then recommended readings on Ruth. That thread has a ton of valuable info, pictures, readings, and recommended books. The quotes you've selected from posters here are great too. Also,I just purchased Ruth's "The Life that Ruth Built" and it's really good. The books that I've purchased that have been recommended by posters here have all been great. The final draft of your new thread will no doubt be a masterpiece.
                    I think it's the best Babe book. Not a put down of another great Babe book Creamer's. Smelser's book is not only a story about Babe, contains bits, descriptions of specific games, articles from the news archives, magazines and comments from Babe's teammates and opposing players.
                    Babe In Red Stockings, Babe from the mound a different view and a terrific book,

                    Comment


                    • My sentiments exactly Shoeless. I think the Smelser, Creamer, and Jenkinson books the trifecta of Ruthiana. Before Smelser Ruth was just a legend to me. Smelser fleshed him out for me. Before reading the book I thought Ruth had a great deal of hype about him. But once I got into Smelser that thought evaporated. I remember being absolutely incredulous at Ruth's exploits. He just didn't look like an athlete. If anything the reality of Ruth far outdistanced the mythic Ruth. It seems that on every other page the narrative would read, "it was the longest hit ever" in that town or at that ballpark. Not only is it the best bio of Ruth, for what its worth, I consider it the finest sports bio ever. Smelser was a great historian to boot. We studied him in graduate school in history. One of his books was a title in the Harper Torch Book series.

                      Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
                      I think it's the best Babe book. Not a put down of another great Babe book Creamer's. Smelser's book is not only a story about Babe, contains bits, descriptions of specific games, articles from the news archives, magazines and comments from Babe's teammates and opposing players.
                      Babe In Red Stockings, Babe from the mound a different view and a terrific book,
                      ". . . the Ruth, the whole Ruth and nothing but the Ruth . . ."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Badge714
                        There is one good DVD about Ruth I'd like to recommend. It was done by HBO in 1998 and entitled Babe Ruth: The Life Behind the Legend. It's about an hour long and worth a look. One of guys featured was Tommy Henrich. One expects a fan to be impressed but here was a ballplayer (a Yankee after Ruth retired) who was absolutely incredulous at his .690 SA.

                        http://www.amazon.com/Babe-Ruth-Bruc...hbo+man+legend
                        I don't think that one was ever put on a DVD for sale. I have searched for years and can't find it, DVD or even VHS. What burns me, I recorded that one on VHS and have moved since then and can't find it. I had a few dozen VHS tapes toss some out a few years ago, that may have been one of them.

                        Title "Babe Ruth" starring Stephen Lang, played on TV in 1991. This one is worth watching, it's a good one. Hollywood did not get the chance to screw this one up like the other two, this one wa made for TV only. Lang plays a great part, put on 30+ pounds for the part.
                        Still looking for that one......................
                        Attached Files

                        Comment


                        • I recently read that Babe Ruth's came into the 1924 season overweight and that his weight increased steadily from there. And that season could have been his greatest, had his weight and nagging injuries didn't catch up to him. Also, that year was a precursor to his famous belly ache season. It spearheaded the whole deal. So I had to take a look at 1924, a season that is often overlooked.

                          Through August 8th, Ruth had played 107 of the team's 109 games. At that point, he had a whopping 38 HRs, 104 BB, and his rate stats were .408/.540/.820. Ruth played mostly hurt the last month of the season and his stats plummeted. Ruth had hit 240 lbs by the end of that year.

                          Ruth was at his physical peak in Boston when he was a cut 195 lbs. 240 or even 215 is unacceptable. I believe that if Ruth had the discipline to stay around 195, he could have batted .400+ and slugged .800+ a few times in the same season. He also could have slugged .700 a few more times towards the end. Also, Ruth never fully recovered from those 1924-1925 terrible weight gain years. He reversed most of the damage, but not all of it. Ruth's double and triple totals dropped dramatically after 1923. Ruth was no longer speedy after 1923.

                          Also, Ruth was given terrible advice during his waning years that probably shaved 2 more solid years off of his production. Ruth's knees eventually became shot from carrying those extra 30 lbs around for all of those years. Management told Babe to "save his legs" by not golfing during is waning years. Are you kidding me? Ruth with his achy knees now couldn't strengthen his leg muscles, which is one key component to healing your knees.

                          I recently fixed 90% of my knee problems with medicine, PT, adjustments(out of alignment), dieting,and you got it....the proper exercises to strengthen my leg muscles. I'm 44 and I've played racquetball for 20 years while being 20-30 lbs overweight. I went from cringing when walking up stairs to playing racquetball again. My crummy knees have been mostly fixed. Ruth had access to NONE of what I had and he was pro athlete. And I'm just a regular Joe.

                          Ruth's stats would be even more ridiculous with just some basic tweaks. His talent was insane. As it was, he had no right putting up the stats that he did.
                          Last edited by pheasant; 03-22-2013, 10:22 AM.

                          Comment


                          • It would have been interesting to see what he would've done if healthy in 1924. He won his only batting crown that year with a .378 average, led the league in home runs with 46 and slugged a whopping .739. He also led the league in runs with 143 and his OBP was .513! Had he stayed healthy he might have surpassed the years of 1920 and 1921. I've said it before and it seems trite, but the mind boggles.


                            Originally posted by pheasant View Post
                            I recently read that Babe Ruth's came into the 1924 season overweight and that his weight increased steadily from there. And that season could have been his greatest, had his weight and nagging injuries didn't catch up to him. Also, that year was a precursor to his famous belly ache season. It spearheaded the whole deal. So I had to take a look at 1924, a season that is often overlooked.

                            Through August 8th, Ruth had played 107 of the team's 109 games. At that point, he had a whopping 38 HRs, 104 BB, and his rate stats were .408/.540/.820. Ruth played mostly hurt the last month of the season and his stats plummeted. Ruth had hit 240 lbs by the end of that year.

                            Ruth was at his physical peak in Boston when he was a cut 195 lbs. 240 or even 215 is unacceptable. I believe that if Ruth had the discipline to stay around 195, he could have batted .400+ and slugged .800+ a few times in the same season. He also could have slugged .700 a few more times towards the end. Also, Ruth never fully recovered from those 1924-1925 terrible weight gain years. He reversed most of the damage, but not all of it. Ruth's double and triple totals dropped dramatically after 1923. Ruth was no longer speedy after 1923.

                            Also, Ruth was given terrible advice during his waning years that probably shaved 2 more solid years off of his production. Ruth's knees eventually became shot from carrying those extra 30 lbs around for all of those years. Management told Babe to "save his legs" by not golfing during is waning years. Are you kidding me? Ruth with his achy knees now couldn't strengthen his leg muscles, which is one key component to healing your knees.

                            I recently fixed 90% of my knee problems with medicine, PT, adjustments(out of alignment), dieting,and you got it....the proper exercises to strengthen my leg muscles. I'm 44 and I've played racquetball for 20 years while being 20-30 lbs overweight. I went from cringing when walking up stairs to playing racquetball again. My crummy knees have been mostly fixed. Ruth had access to NONE of what I had and he was pro athlete. And I'm just a regular Joe.

                            Ruth's stats would be even more ridiculous with just some basic tweaks. His talent was insane. As it was, he had no right putting up the stats that he did.
                            ". . . the Ruth, the whole Ruth and nothing but the Ruth . . ."

                            Comment


                            • Hey Sultan

                              I did post what Ruth's opponents did against him during his 23 complete games in 1916(post #1908). I think I may have misunderstood what numbers that you were looking for. Otherwise, Ruth's complete game stats for 1916 are listed below:

                              Ruth's pitching stats for his 23 complete games, 1916(opponents' avg/ob%/slug%).

                              739 at-bats, 138 H, 17 2b, 2 3b, 0 HR, 55 BB, 5 HBP, 13 Sacs, .187/.244/.215, 1.25 ERA, 19-4 record, 9 shutouts.

                              Note: In Ruth's other appearances in 1916, he went 4-9 with a 2.66 ERA.

                              Comment


                              • Ruth's 1920-1931 stats,

                                1689 g,7562 pa, 5936 ab, 1664 runs, 2119 hits, 373 2b, 94 2b, 562 HRs, 1647 rbi, 1504 bb, 29 hbp, 94 sh, .357/.489/.736
                                per 162 games, that breaks down to: 160 runs, 204 hits, 54 HR, 159 RBI, 144 BB .357/.489/.736

                                That is a ton of RBI for a guy that was being walked that often.

                                In 1922 and 1925, Ruth wasn't himself. Those 2 seasons were by far his worst during his 1920-1931 peak. His 1922 season's slugging pct was nearly 200 pts lower than 1920-1921 and his 1925 season was nearly 200 pts lower than 1923-1924.

                                If we remove those 2 terrible seasons from his 1920-1931 peak, we get:

                                1481 g, 6640, 5171 ab, 1509 runs, 1887 hits, 337 2b, 84 3b, 502 HRs, 1482 rbi, 1361 bb, 26 hbp, 84 sh, .365/.498/.754
                                per 162 games, that breaks down to: 165 runs, 206 hits, 55 HR, 162 RBI, 149 BB, .365/.498/.754

                                The scary thing is, I believe those stats above are watered down compared to what they truly could have been during his 12 year peak. Ruth should have taken much better care of himself. He was obese by the end of 1924 when he hit 240 lbs. During that season, his stats plummeted the last 2 months. In 1926, he looked fairly lean again 215, but was still 20 lbs heavier than his cut 1910s Sox days. I'm sure that there were other years that he could have done better too. Even when he started making an attempt to turn back the clock when he was in his early 30s, he still was a good 20-30 lbs heavier than his ripped Red Sox days. I'm really impressed that Ruth was able to bounce back as strongly he did. But imagine if his working out was applied towards improving his peak instead of simply recovering. Obviously, noboby knows for sure. But I bet he could have slugged .800 over a 5-7 year period.
                                Last edited by pheasant; 03-24-2013, 01:29 PM.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X