Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

*Babe Ruth Thread*

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

  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    Babe Pitch log 1919.JPG What a bargain Babe was in 1919 and then Harry Frazee sends him packing. Pitching 9-5 12 complete games, .322 batting average led both leagues in most offensive stats.
    You blew this one Harry, biggest blunder ever in the game. Also loaned over 300,000 by the the Yanks and get this, put up Fenway Park as collateral.

    Leave a comment:


  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    The "Bam" hit by a liner off the bat of Lou Gehrig. Babe walked to load the bases. On the Gehrig hit ball, Babe making his way to second base, struck down.



    Babe Ruth single hen Gehrig line drive hit shin 1934..................jpg

    Leave a comment:


  • scottmitchell74
    replied
    Originally posted by elmer View Post
    Take Me Out to Those Ball Fields
    (Of Old Hot Springs)
    https://youtu.be/G1XOUNgLq5k
    Very cool! Also, major wifey material.

    Leave a comment:


  • carsdaddy
    replied
    Originally posted by elmer View Post
    Take Me Out to Those Ball Fields
    (Of Old Hot Springs)
    https://youtu.be/G1XOUNgLq5k
    Great post.

    Leave a comment:


  • elmer
    replied
    Take Me Out to Those Ball Fields
    (Of Old Hot Springs)
    https://youtu.be/G1XOUNgLq5k

    Leave a comment:


  • Toledo Inquisition
    replied
    Originally posted by Floyd Gondolli View Post

    Except it isn't at all costs. I recently ranked Babe over Ted Williams himself as a hitter because he destroyed LHP, and faced them a ton, whereas Williams faced them less than 2,000 PA in his entire career, and didn't hit well against them, relative to himself. I'm the only person who brought this up in defense of Ruth.

    Ruth simply has huge holes in his game that would have rendered him ineffective, say, playing in Wagner's parks and era. I've posted how only one ball cleared the fence, pre cork centered ball, 1900-1909, in Exposition Park III. Wagner was the biggest, strongest, best hitter of that era- and a free swinger- and he only cleared the fence 6 times in 18 years in Forbes and Exposition Parks.

    Ruth played 44.9% of his games against team over .500, which is the lowest percentage in baseball history of anyone with 1500 games or more played. Strength of competition is paramount.

    He only finished 1767 of 2241 games in the outfield, mainly because he was a defensive liability after 1925. He needed his own pinch fielder. He had to be switched between fields at home and on the road throughout his career, to put him in the smallest outfield.

    These are not small deficits, over the course of a 22 year career. They would be magnified in other eras.

    Cobb had holes in his game. His fielding was only average, overall, in part because he hurt his arm 1918 in long toss contests. He would have been a much better right fielder. He had others, for sure, like being stubborn about going for HR (although, 60 years of hitting orthodoxy and tutelage was on his side, as was everyone playing at that time, essentially.)

    That said, I think Cobb had less holes in his game than Ruth. Cobb's is skill set (blinding speed, unparalleled intelligence, bat control) would likely translate beautifully to any era, whereas Ruth would have likely have much more trouble during the first 50 years of baseball, relatively speaking. He wouldn't ever be able to put up relative numbers in OBP/SLG/ISO OPS+, and WAR, in any other era, because he wouldn't be just about the only player taking his all or nothing approach on basically every swing. He was intentionally walked 80 times in 1923 alone. Cobb was never intentionally walked, because that was suicide for the opposing team. He wasn't even intentionally walked once, the year he had a .486 OBP.

    The point being, I don't see the hardcore Ruth fans ever discussing these huge flaws- or any of them, really- at Baseball Fever. I just see blind, unyielding worship.

    Also, Ubiquitous coined the much derided term and concept among Ruth fans here, not me:



    https://www.baseball-fever.com/forum...040#post905040
    A few thoughts to follow. First, just to state my opinion...I think Ruth was the greatest player ever, but he isn't even close to my favorite all time for personality reasons with his lifestyle and all...so we know where I am coming from.

    1. The reason why Ruth only played against 44.9% of games versus teams over 0.500 is that (due in large part to his own skill), that that the teams he played for had the highest winning percentage of any player of all time. Since his teams had such a high winning percentage, that decreased the number of league wins for the other seven teams in the league. With so many league wins taken away, the other seven teams were much below 0.500. It isn't hard to drive down league percentages in an eight team league. Ruth's teams were almost always over 0.500, so even with the most basic math assumptions, there would be four of seven remaining teams below 0.500, 57.1% or 42.9% above 0.500) in a standard four good, four bad team league...which is basically what the 44.9% shows.

    2. I disagree about when he became a defensive liability. I personally think he was a break even fielder to about 1930/1931. I believe this is shown (besides TZ/DRA), but by the percentage of whole games and innings Ruth played.

    For the following years, I will estimate the number of defensive innings played by adding all games, subtracting all games innings less than 9 innings, adding in extra inning games, and then subtracting out road losses (as the Yankees wouldn't have to take the field in the last inning). I believe these numbers to be accurate within a few innings (mostly due to partial inning wins/losses).

    1926: 1367 defensive Yankee innings
    1927: 1386 defensive Yankee innings
    1928: 1375 defensive Yankee innings
    1929: 1365 defensive Yankee innings
    1930: 1358 defensive Yankee innings
    1931: 1405 defensive Yankee innings
    1932: 1406 defensive Yankee innings


    1926: 149 defensive games started in OF, 135 complete OF games, 1283 OF innings, 93.9% of all OF innings in all Yankee games, estimated 97.6% of OF innings played when Ruth played OF (this removes games when Ruth didn't play, i.e. given an off day or injured)

    1927: 150 defensive games started in OF, 133 complete OF games, 1306 OF innings, 94.2% of all OF innings in all Yankee games, estimated 97.4% of OF innings played when Ruth played OF (this removes games when Ruth didn't play, i.e. given an off day or injured)

    1928: 154 defensive games started in OF, 134 complete OF games, 1327 OF innings, 96.5% of all OF innings in all Yankee games, estimated 96.5% of OF innings played when Ruth played OF (this removes games when Ruth didn't play, i.e. given an off day or injured)

    1929: 131 defensive games started in OF, 107 complete OF games, 1113 OF innings, 81.5% of all OF innings in all Yankee games, estimated 95.9% of OF innings played when Ruth played OF (this removes games when Ruth didn't play, i.e. given an off day or injured)

    1930: 144 defensive games started in OF, 119 complete OF games, 1220 OF innings, 89.8% of all OF innings in all Yankee games, estimated 96.1% of OF innings played when Ruth played OF (this removes games when Ruth didn't play, i.e. given an off day or injured)

    1931: 142 defensive games started in OF, 88 complete OF games, 1180 OF innings, 84.0% of all OF innings in all Yankee games, estimated 91.0% of OF innings played when Ruth played OF (this removes games when Ruth didn't play, i.e. given an off day or injured)

    1932: 128 defensive games started in OF, 64 complete OF games, 1046 OF innings, 74.4% of all OF innings in all Yankee games, estimated 90.7% of OF innings played when Ruth played OF (this removes games when Ruth didn't play, i.e. given an off day or injured)




    From the number of full games Ruth played in the OF versus games started in the outfield, and the estimated percentage of innings played in which games he started, I think there is a noticeable difference. In 1930, Ruth pretty much played every inning of every game when he was in the OF. In 1931, he was being was pulled for defensive purposes/save his legs a substantial amount of time.

    289 of the 454 career games in which Ruth didn't finish when he started in the OF were between 1931 and 1935.

    For the field switch, I don't believe it was for area of outfield to patrol, but for the "sun" field. In the biographies I've read, Ruth didn't like having the sun in his eyes, so he asked to have his preference of left/right so that he didn't have to have sun in his eyes. This appears more to be the prima donna picking what is better for him rather than a lack of range, but that is an interpretational discussion on my end.
    Last edited by Toledo Inquisition; 07-26-2021, 11:22 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    Originally posted by Floyd Gondolli View Post

    Except it isn't at all costs. I recently ranked Babe over Ted Williams himself as a hitter because he destroyed LHP, and faced them a ton, whereas Williams faced them less than 2,000 PA in his entire career, and didn't hit well against them, relative to himself. I'm the only person who brought this up in defense of Ruth.

    Ruth simply has huge holes in his game that would have rendered him ineffective, say, playing in Wagner's parks and era. I've posted how only one ball cleared the fence, pre cork centered ball, 1900-1909, in Exposition Park III. Wagner was the biggest, strongest, best hitter of that era- and a free swinger- and he only cleared the fence 6 times in 18 years in Forbes and Exposition Parks.

    Ruth played 44.9% of his games against team over .500, which is the lowest percentage in baseball history of anyone with 1500 games or more played. Strength of competition is paramount.

    He only finished 1767 of 2241 games in the outfield, mainly because he was a defensive liability after 1925. He needed his own pinch fielder. He had to be switched between fields at home and on the road throughout his career, to put him in the smallest outfield.

    These are not small deficits, over the course of a 22 year career. They would be magnified in other eras.

    Cobb had holes in his game. His fielding was only average, overall, in part because he hurt his arm 1918 in long toss contests. He would have been a much better right fielder. He had others, for sure, like being stubborn about going for HR (although, 60 years of hitting orthodoxy and tutelage was on his side, as was everyone playing at that time, essentially.)

    That said, I think Cobb had less holes in his game than Ruth. Cobb's is skill set (blinding speed, unparalleled intelligence, bat control) would likely translate beautifully to any era, whereas Ruth would have likely have much more trouble during the first 50 years of baseball, relatively speaking. He wouldn't ever be able to put up relative numbers in OBP/SLG/ISO OPS+, and WAR, in any other era, because he wouldn't be just about the only player taking his all or nothing approach on basically every swing. He was intentionally walked 80 times in 1923 alone. Cobb was never intentionally walked, because that was suicide for the opposing team. He wasn't even intentionally walked once, the year he had a .486 OBP.

    The point being, I don't see the hardcore Ruth fans ever discussing these huge flaws- or any of them, really- at Baseball Fever. I just see blind, unyielding worship.

    Also, Ubiquitous coined the much derided term and concept among Ruth fans here, not me:



    https://www.baseball-fever.com/forum...040#post905040
    I'll do some thinking on your other points. OK, who will debate the fact that Honus hit under very poor conditions, not just the hugh park but the ball and trick deliveries
    But for you to say that the hugh park and the ball would have rendered Ruth ineffective.................so what about it. Any player who came after Honus would have suffered.
    If it hurt Ruth what would have done to, Foxx, Williams some other heavy hitters.
    Your saying something thats the obvious and would hurt any others.

    ,


    Leave a comment:


  • Floyd Gondolli
    replied
    Originally posted by GoslinFan View Post
    I have read CSH (Floyd) constantly disrespect Babe Ruth supporters and accuse them of hero worship and the like, all while being a hardcore Cobb defender at all costs. Smells funny.
    Except it isn't at all costs. I recently ranked Babe over Ted Williams himself as a hitter because he destroyed LHP, and faced them a ton, whereas Williams faced them less than 2,000 PA in his entire career, and didn't hit well against them, relative to himself. I'm the only person who brought this up in defense of Ruth.

    Ruth simply has huge holes in his game that would have rendered him ineffective, say, playing in Wagner's parks and era. I've posted how only one ball cleared the fence, pre cork centered ball, 1900-1909, in Exposition Park III. Wagner was the biggest, strongest, best hitter of that era- and a free swinger- and he only cleared the fence 6 times in 18 years in Forbes and Exposition Parks.

    Ruth played 44.9% of his games against team over .500, which is the lowest percentage in baseball history of anyone with 1500 games or more played. Strength of competition is paramount.

    He only finished 1767 of 2241 games in the outfield, mainly because he was a defensive liability after 1925. He needed his own pinch fielder. He had to be switched between fields at home and on the road throughout his career, to put him in the smallest outfield.

    These are not small deficits, over the course of a 22 year career. They would be magnified in other eras.

    Cobb had holes in his game. His fielding was only average, overall, in part because he hurt his arm 1918 in long toss contests. He would have been a much better right fielder. He had others, for sure, like being stubborn about going for HR (although, 60 years of hitting orthodoxy and tutelage was on his side, as was everyone playing at that time, essentially.)

    That said, I think Cobb had less holes in his game than Ruth. Cobb's is skill set (blinding speed, unparalleled intelligence, bat control) would likely translate beautifully to any era, whereas Ruth would have likely have much more trouble during the first 50 years of baseball, relatively speaking. He wouldn't ever be able to put up relative numbers in OBP/SLG/ISO OPS+, and WAR, in any other era, because he wouldn't be just about the only player taking his all or nothing approach on basically every swing. He was intentionally walked 80 times in 1923 alone. Cobb was never intentionally walked, because that was suicide for the opposing team. He wasn't even intentionally walked once, the year he had a .486 OBP.

    The point being, I don't see the hardcore Ruth fans ever discussing these huge flaws- or any of them, really- at Baseball Fever. I just see blind, unyielding worship.

    Also, Ubiquitous coined the much derided term and concept among Ruth fans here, not me:

    Originally posted by Ubiquitous View Post
    My true feelings 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 than 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.
    https://www.baseball-fever.com/forum...040#post905040

    Leave a comment:


  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    220695589_824782431510115_8958942545105144935_n.jpg

    Leave a comment:


  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    Tough loss for the Babe, 10 inning pitched, 5 for 5 at the plate, losing pitcher.


    Leave a comment:


  • bluesky5
    replied
    Fellas, guys have been swinging from the knob forever. Ruth took it to the next level by swinging from the knob every at bat while dropping the pretense of even using the split grip. Didn’t Ruth himself say he copied Jackson?

    Leave a comment:


  • carsdaddy
    replied
    Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
    Down on the farm. No distance from target given. Babe shoots outline of an Indian on a tin plate mounted on tree. Some time late 1920s-early 1930s.
    Matt Dillon had nothing on him.

    Leave a comment:


  • GoslinFan
    replied
    Originally posted by carsdaddy View Post

    Every player patterns some part of their game after those who came before them.
    I have read CSH (Floyd) constantly disrespect Babe Ruth supporters and accuse them of hero worship and the like, all while being a hardcore Cobb defender at all costs. Smells funny.

    But aside from that. If this is referencing Babe Ruth emulating himself after Shoeless Joe, there is no evidence Babe Ruth ever saw him play before he became a pro. And before he ever became a pro he was hitting distance home runs at St. Mary's. Brothers from St Mary;s attest that his style never changed. But here's an avenue that might be possible....

    Around 1910/1911 Babe Ruth would have been established as a 15/16 year old stud on his youth teams, playing a few years above his age. But someone might have told him how Jackson looked while hitting. Maybe he heard it second hand and altered his stance or swing a bit and that is where his comments come from. Who knows. Seems clear he admired him and in later years wanted pay respect.

    Leave a comment:


  • carsdaddy
    replied
    Originally posted by Floyd Gondolli View Post
    Is it really unthinkable to believe that Ruth might have emulated and took tips from perhaps the greatest slugger baseball had ever seen to that point? Or... are we to simply and blindly Genuflect At The Altar of Ruth and worship him as a deity who was created and made perfect from the day he first started playing baseball?
    Every player patterns some part of their game after those who came before them.

    Leave a comment:


  • bluesky5
    replied
    Babe Ruth colorized film:

    edit: there is also great footage of McGraw and some Giants practicing at the end.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0tvmkAnqJvw
    Last edited by bluesky5; 07-18-2021, 08:15 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X