Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Better Than the Babe

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

  • Originally posted by [email protected]
    Yes, I do. I was merely stating that The Public chose to love Babe more than anyone else. I suspect it had lots to do with him personally. I would need to be in the room with him to really know what I think.

    But The Public chose NOT to embrace Maris, McGwire, Aaron, etc. And it certainly will not embrace Barry Bonds.

    I do not know why the public loves who it does. But I accept the attendance records.

    Bill
    Ok Bill. I wasn't sure if you'd learned more about Babe since you made that post, that would help you understand why he was so loved.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by 538280
      Bill, do you have me down for Mays as the greatest player ever yet? I remember a few days ago you showed your chart and you still had Charleston with 3 supporters (there were two I remember you saying before me), and I think it have recollections of like a month ago you not listing me with Mays supporters.

      Just making sure you remain accurate.
      Moi? Inaccurate? Ha ha ha ha ha. That's a good one. Here is what I have for those who support anyone other than Ty/Babe.
      ------------------------------------------------------------------

      Mays - 11
      leecemark, BR, HW6,TC8,
      538280-BR,OC,BB,HW7,TC9,JGibson
      Metal Ed -TC,BR
      DoubleX-BR,TC3,HW6
      Zeth -TC2
      Bump11 -
      Metsfan -
      Say Hey -
      BC227
      It's Over The Wall!
      Ex Expo fan

      Charleston - 3
      MikeCameronfan
      Etheridge2
      christian gentleman-TC,BR,HW,WM

      Williams - 2
      Mr. Russ
      cubbieinexile

      Bonds - 1
      NickG

      Wagner - 2
      KHenry14- TC-2
      AG2004-BR,OC,WM,TC,JGibson,
      --------------------------------------------------------------
      Last edited by Bill Burgess; 03-20-2006, 02:59 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
        Ok Bill. I wasn't sure if you'd learned more about Babe since you made that post, that would help you understand why he was so loved.
        I don't know why others loved Babe, but I certainly do know why I love him. He was lovable, honest, natural, unpretenious, ethical (if we don't count sleeping with married woman), warm, positive, happy, enthused about life, in love with baseball, loved to eat/drink/party, woo women.

        And I felt this way since the 1950's. I only got into this problem because the post 1970's BB community raised him over Ty. And so when I posted I sounded distorted from my original sentiments.

        But now, I'm learning how to defend my hero, without having the defense being at the expense of innocent bystanders, like Babe. Babe didn't put himself over Ty, his supporters do. So why should I not like Babe?

        Bill

        Comment


        • Originally posted by leecemark
          --Mays was also regarded as an exceptionally smart player and a team leader. Ruth was not noted for his intellect or his dedication to the team. He was frequently suspended for failure to follow team rules. He was also famous for his inability to remember even the names of many of his teammates.
          Hopefully his inability to remember names didn't play into your moving Mays ahead of him. Wouldn't that be a shame.

          Babe was actually noted for his baseball smarts. On the bases he was smart, in the field he was smart, and at the plate he was even smarter. Sometimes too smart, such as when he ignored Huggins' signs twice because the situation called for something else. It takes a smart hitter to be selective when every team is pitching around you. To have the patience to take a walk, but also be ready to hit the ball if it's within your hot zone. To bunt when the situation calls for it, or to know how the defense is playing you and take what they give you. He was very much a smart hitter and understood what he was doing every step of the way. He was the focul point for the other team. He was THE guy that they wanted to stop; he always got their best, and in order to still thrive as THE guy, you have to be a smart hitter.

          Not following team rules; not sure how you can hold this against him and use this as a reason to bump Mays ahead of him. He was a team leader. He helped mold Gehrig into the hitter he became, and just having him there instilled a confidence in the entire team.

          Comment


          • I need to try this, so...

            I read through much of this thread (skimmed through parts that didn't interest me that much), and I must say it's one of the most interesting threads I've seen here on BBF. I wish I could have been a member for it. Of course, I wasn't so I didn't participate at the beginning.

            But, I would like to try this for someone. Looking at my list, I have Mays #1, and he's already been done (and extremely well done!) by Mark. I have Ruth #2. Then comes Charleston, who I'd love to do but lack of statistical evidence would make it tough. Then I have Bonds, but the reasoning for that has more to do with my belief many are being way to harsh on the 'roids, and little to do with actually comparing him to Ruth. I'm going to go with my #5 guy, Mike Schmidt.

            Ruth was a better hitter than Schmidt. In fact, he was a better hitter than anyone who ever lived. I'm not disputing that. What I am saying is that other than that, Schmidt has every advantage. And Ruth's hitting value isn't as far ahead of Schmidt as you might think.

            Ruth played right field his whole career, which is of course an offensive position, even more so in that era. Schmidt played third base which for his time was pretty much neutral.

            Ruth's relative line in his prime years (1920-1929) versus the other RFers in the leauge was 111/128/158. Schmidt's line compared to other 3Bmen was 101/116/144. Ruth's still ahead, but the difference isn't humungous anymore, and Ruth does benefit from playing in an easier league to dominate, especially for him, since Ruth was one of the only guys going for HRs. For example, Ruth hit 467 home runs in that time period. The average RFer would have hit 87 given the same playing time. That's entirely due to the differences in Ruth's game versus the other players. If Ruth played in Schmidt's era, his rel. SLG compared to position would probably be lower, and his OBP may be as well because the pitchers wouldn't be so terrified of pitching to him.

            Fielding-Mike Schmidt is one of the greatest fielding 3B of all time, perhaps the best. His reputation while he was active was tremendous (10 Gold Gloves). Most seem to think he's not as good as Brooks Robinson, but I've seen opinions to the contrary. Defensive Win Shares shows Schmidt at 4.40 per 1000 innings, Robinson at 4.24. Fielding Runs shows Schmidt as the best 3Bman of all time with the glove. There's no disputing he was a tremendous fielder.

            Schmidt excelled at more than third base too. He moved to first base in 1985 to make room for Rick Schu and was called the greatest defensive first baseman the Phillies ever had

            Ruth was a good fielder while younger, but got pretty bad as he aged. Any way you look at it, I think even Sultan would have to say a huge edge for Schmidt.


            Baserunning-Schmidt was a good runner when younger, stealing 29 bases in 1975 and finishing second in the league in triples in 1977. Baseball Library calls Schmidt "an intelligent baserunner".

            Ruth had decent speed in his younger days and did get into double figure stolen bases a number of times, but he was a reckless baserunner. His stolen base percentages are consistenly awful and he was famously caught stealing to end the 1926 World Series. Ruth also became fat and slow in his old age, and was almost certainly a baseclogger in his later years. Overall, it's hard to see how Ruth's baserunning did anything positive for his teams. It really isn't worth anything to be stealing bases at a 51% clip.

            So, Ruth is a better hitter but not as much better as a quick look at the stats would suggest, and Schmidt is a much better fielder and baserunner. Hitting is the most important part of a player's value, so Ruth is still ahead at this point in the analysis. But, there's one more thing-league quality.

            Schmidt played in a fully integrated, fully advanced league, where scouting was high and players were physically much better. Despite the high level of competition, he was able to dominate his league like Ruth, Wagner and Cobb before him. Not a joke. Using Win Shares, Schmidt was the best player in his league seven times. In modern baseball since 1970, no one has come close to that type of dominance except Barry Bonds, who probably would rank ahead of Schmidt if not for steroid issues. After Schmidt, the player who has the most WS MVPs is Rickey Henderson, with three. When talking league dominance since 1970, Schmidt and Bonds are on one level, everyone else is a huge notch below.

            Ruth did dominate his league just as much as Schmidt. He is called the best position player in the league by WS 7 times as well Here's a question-is seven times in that era as good as seven times in Schmidt's era? The answer is no. In that era, it seemed every period had one of two players who just dominated the league. Wagner and Cobb before him, Gehrig after him, Speaker and Foxx had a real lot of WS titles too. However, in the modern era, when there are more good players and the average player is better, it has become much harder to rise above the pack like that. Schmidt was able to do it anyway. Him and Bonds are light years ahead of everyone else in the modern era in terms of league domination (and Bonds needed steroids to do it). I have to give this contest to Schmidt overall.

            --------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Now, that was spoken as the devil's advocate, as someone who has Schmidt #1 all time, not necessary as myself. All the basic premises are (positional adjustments, league quality) are my own beliefs.
            Last edited by 538280; 03-20-2006, 04:04 PM.

            Comment


            • does this sound like anyone currently in the game?

              ____ was actually noted for his baseball smarts. On the bases he was smart, in the field he was smart, and at the plate he was even smarter. It takes a smart hitter to be selective when every team is pitching around you. To have the patience to take a walk, but also be ready to hit the ball if it's within your hot zone. To bunt when the situation calls for it, or to know how the defense is playing you and take what they give you. He was very much a smart hitter and understood what he was doing every step of the way. He was the focal point for the other team. He was THE guy that they wanted to stop; he always got their best, and in order to still thrive as THE guy, you have to be a smart hitter.
              "you don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. just get people to stop reading them." -ray bradbury

              Comment


              • Originally posted by west coast orange and black
                does this sound like anyone currently in the game?

                ____ was actually noted for his baseball smarts. On the bases he was smart, in the field he was smart, and at the plate he was even smarter. It takes a smart hitter to be selective when every team is pitching around you. To have the patience to take a walk, but also be ready to hit the ball if it's within your hot zone. To bunt when the situation calls for it, or to know how the defense is playing you and take what they give you. He was very much a smart hitter and understood what he was doing every step of the way. He was the focal point for the other team. He was THE guy that they wanted to stop; he always got their best, and in order to still thrive as THE guy, you have to be a smart hitter.
                lol, good point WC. Everything except the bunting and hitting it the other way to avoid them staying with the shift.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 538280


                  Baserunning-Schmidt was a good runner when younger, stealing 29 bases in 1975 and finishing second in the league in triples in 1977. Baseball Library calls Schmidt "an intelligent baserunner".

                  Ruth had decent speed in his younger days and did get into double figure stolen bases a number of times, but he was a reckless baserunner. His stolen base percentages are consistenly awful and he was famously caught stealing to end the 1926 World Series. Ruth also became fat and slow in his old age, and was almost certainly a baseclogger in his later years. Overall, it's hard to see how Ruth's baserunning did anything positive for his teams. It really isn't worth anything to be stealing bases at a 51% clip.
                  Chris,

                  Valiant effort. That's an uphill struggle, but you seemed to tweak stats and make certain questionable adjustments that would at least bring Schmidt within sniffing distance.

                  Baserunning isn't even a question. It goes to Ruth hands down. Speed and baserunning are two separate tools. Neither had speed although in his younger days I'd give Ruth the edge. While they were both smart baserunners, Babe's aggressiveness give him the edge there. You bring up being caught to end the '26 World Series without full understanding of why it was a good gamble. Two years later he made a long running grab to end the Series, so should I use that as why his fielding is superior to Schmidts? See my point? His SB% is meaningless as you full well know. It was something negative to highlight, so props on using it, but it has very little meaning.

                  I really don't think the fielding edge is as large you make it out to be. Third base really isn't that difficult a position when it comes right down to it. It's a reaction based position that doesn't require great arm strength or footspeed. Much like at second base, you can afford to bobble the ball or not field it cleanly and still get the runner at first.

                  Overall, good effort Chris.

                  Comment


                  • yer a good sport, man.
                    "you don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. just get people to stop reading them." -ray bradbury

                    Comment


                    • --Sultan, I think you greatly overrate Ruth's baserunning (and am certain you overrate his fielding). The Babe did have pretty good speed as a young player, but speed alone does not make a good baserunner. Ruth was aggressive to the point of recklessness. We know his SB percentage was awfull (and he really shouldn't have even been trying with the guys batting behind him most of the time), but I also wonder how mnay additional outs he made on the baspaths.
                      --He did hit some inside-the-park HR, but how many triples did he turn into outs trying for them? How many doubles turned into outs at third? That combined with his extreme baseclogging as an older player makes me think his career value on the basepaths was negative.
                      --As a fielder he was two indignities that are unique to him to the best of my knowledge. Being switched to the short field for basically his whole career (Chris was too generous in calling him just a RFer, he played almost as much LF) is a situation I've never heard of with another player (and saying he was avoiding the sun as you do doesn't make it any more flattering). He is also the only player I'm aware of who allowed another to earn a nickname based n his persistent defensive substition (and pinchrunning) for him.
                      --Chris' Schmidt arguement is not unreasonable, although it would take accepting a really extreme league quality adjustment to buy into it. Schmidt had some weak years getting started and didn't last as long as the Babe, so even if you considered his peak as good (for the record I don't), he would lose out on career value.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by [email protected]

                        Williams - 2
                        Mr. Russ
                        cubbieinexile
                        Ubiquitous (cubbieinexile) named Ted Williams as the greatest player ever? I find that odd, considering (I don't think) he ever votes in the polls or rank orders guys.

                        Is that or is that not the person who now posts as "Ubiquitous", and why did he change accounts? This is puzzling.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by leecemark
                          --Sultan, I think you greatly overrate Ruth's baserunning (and am certain you overrate his fielding). The Babe did have pretty good speed as a young player, but speed alone does not make a good baserunner. Ruth was aggressive to the point of recklessness. We know his SB percentage was awfull (and he really shouldn't have even been trying with the guys batting behind him most of the time), but I also wonder how mnay additional outs he made on the baspaths.
                          --He did hit some inside-the-park HR, but how many triples did he turn into outs trying for them? How many doubles turned into outs at third? That combined with his extreme baseclogging as an older player makes me think his career value on the basepaths was negative.
                          --As a fielder he was two indignities that are unique to him to the best of my knowledge. Being switched to the short field for basically his whole career (Chris was too generous in calling him just a RFer, he played almost as much LF) is a situation I've never heard of with another player (and saying he was avoiding the sun as you do doesn't make it any more flattering). He is also the only player I'm aware of who allowed another to earn a nickname based n his persistent defensive substition (and pinchrunning) for him.
                          --Chris' Schmidt arguement is not unreasonable, although it would take accepting a really extreme league quality adjustment to buy into it. Schmidt had some weak years getting started and didn't last as long as the Babe, so even if you considered his peak as good (for the record I don't), he would lose out on career value.
                          Nah, you're just not understanding his game. You have the impression that he recklessly tried for inside the park homers and got thrown out on them? Where does that come from. That's an extreme reach and unrealistic. He managed 136 triples, and many of those would have been homers in any other era. You have the impression that he would just randomly try to turn doubles into triples and singles into doubles and get thrown out? That is absolutely insane, and makes no sense whatsoever. You honestly have no idea the type of player he was Mark.

                          You take his horrible SB% and use it as some type of concrete evidence he wasn't a good baserunner. He was a great baserunner even though he didn't have the speed of a Cobb. That should tell you something.

                          The the 30's his legs weren't what they once were. So you hold it against him that they brought in a really fast guy to run for him? Doesn't make much sense. Him being switched around in the outfield later on doesn't mean much either. It shows he was versatile and that he slowed down a bit. Being a solid outfielder takes more than speed, and being a solid baserunner does as well. So all these little side issue you use to knock him down mean nothing. Wasn't a good teammate, couldn't remember people's names, etc. Makes no sense and you have proven you have no knowledge on which to judge him.

                          Right and left field aren't as valuable as centerfield. Babe played over 60 games in center, 64 I think, but those came in his younger days. I just think you're seriously under-rating him up through '26 and seriously under-rating him after he had begun to decline. You seem to be taking his post '30 years and judging him based on that. He was fat, old, and slow at that point. His only true value coming at the plate, and although he was still a smart fielder and baserunner, he had lost so much physical ability that it mattered very little.
                          Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 03-20-2006, 06:36 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
                            Him being switched around in the outfield later on doesn't mean much either. It shows he was versatile and that he slowed down a bit.
                            Code:
                             1914 19 BOS AL   P   
                             1915 20 BOS AL   P   
                             1916 21 BOS AL   P   
                             1917 22 BOS AL   P ---------------------------LF---CF---RF  
                             1918 23 BOS AL  OF                            47   12    0
                             1919 24 BOS AL  OF                           111    0    0
                             1920 25 NYY AL  OF                            36   20   85
                             1921 26 NYY AL  OF                           134   18    0
                            ---------------------------------------------------------
                             1922 27 NYY AL  OF                            71    0   40
                             1923 28 NYY AL  OF                            68    7   73
                             1924 29 NYY AL  OF                            50    7   99
                             1925 30 NYY AL  OF                            33    0   66
                             1926 31 NYY AL  OF                            82    0   68
                             1927 32 NYY AL  OF                            56    0   95
                             1928 33 NYY AL  OF                            55    0   99
                             1929 34 NYY AL  OF                            55    0   78
                             1930 35 NYY AL  OF                            53    0   91
                             1931 36 NYY AL  OF                            51    0   91
                             1932 37 NYY AL  OF                            44    0   87
                             1933 38 NYY AL  OF                            55    0   78
                             1934 39 NYY AL  OF                            34    0   77
                             1935 40 BSN NL  OF                            22    0    4
                            -------------------------------------------- 1057   64 1131
                            Last edited by Bill Burgess; 03-20-2006, 06:42 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Bill, you've seen pictures of him from '23-'24. He was very fit and trim, and was fast. His being moved strictly for a smaller field is nothing more than a myth. So let me get this straight. He's gonna play 7 games in center each of those years in HUGE ballparks, but yet, he was being moved around because of his speed? Yeah, that makes a ton of sense.

                              Do you have actual quotes from Huggins saying he was moved because he wasn't fast? He was one of the fastest Yankees on the team, so I find that hard to believe. There's gotta be more to the story than that. How do you know that Babe just didn't prefer to play left field at home? Maybe the manager was accomodating him, we don't know. As it stands, even if you buy into that as the reason, it's not a reason to move somebody down in your rankings due to fielding. Not when they were a great fielding pitcher, had an alltime arm, put up the assists he did, and had a fielding % 2 points above league average.

                              Seriously Bill. Meusel was notorious for being lazy in the field and he wasn't as fast as Babe. He had a cannon for an arm, but as smart as Huggins was, do you really think he would purposely put Meusel in a larger field with more ground to cover? It all just doesn't add up. I've read about the sun playing a part, but the speed thing is like 2+2= 7.
                              Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 03-20-2006, 06:58 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Randy,

                                I don't have quotes to pull out of a hat on cue, but I remember reading about this a good deal. Huggins/Barrow weren't obtuse. They were very shrewd and cunning people. Barrow had not only managed Boston, but he had also managed Detroit in 1903-04 too. So they were pretty sharp guys. They were out to win games, and whatever helped them to do that, they'd do.

                                And just because Babe played CF a few times could be attributed to not having faster guys at the moment.

                                It was also known that fleet Earle Combs would assist both Bob/Babe if he could reach a ball before them.

                                If you think it's silly to move Babe to the smaller field, imagine how much more shallow it would be to use the sun field as a reason. Have you ever heard of moving Mantle, DiMag, Mays, Cobb, or Speaker to save their eyes? Their eyes were no less valuable, but they played the large CFs because they could cover the territory.

                                Few know it, but I am really into sports writers. I remember reading sports writers talking about it. Those who liked him and were his friends, and wouldn't have stabbed him in the back by trashing him.

                                If I can find anything on it, I'll get back to you.

                                Bill
                                Last edited by Bill Burgess; 03-20-2006, 09:24 PM.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X