Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Better Than the Babe

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

  • #91
    It's a lot easier to lead an 8-team league in HRs than it is to lead a 16-team league in HRs I would think.


    That's not it, Honus. Ruth was out-homering teams which weren't going for homers. Bonds can't out-homer teams, because teams now go for homers.

    Ruth couldn't do that today, for the same reasons no one can. Ruth couldn't have done it then either, if the teams hadn't passively let him. Like reverse collusion.


    Bill Burgess
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 02-21-2005, 06:08 PM.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by [email protected]
      It's a lot easier to lead an 8-team league in HRs than it is to lead a 16-team league in HRs I would think.


      That's not it, Honus. Ruth was out-homering teams which weren't going for homers. Bonds can't out-homer teams, because teams now go for homers.

      Ruth couldn't do that today, for the same reasons no one can. Ruth couldn't have done it then either, if the teams hadn't passively let him. Like reverse collusion.


      Bill Burgess
      I don't think teams passively let him, Bill. Ruth was a notorious bad-ball hitter, which means the pitchers threw him a lot of junk because they feared him, and still Ruth hit all those HRs. Gotta give Ruth credit for that. Plus, it's not reasonable to say the pitchers just let him hit HRs. They tried futilely to stop him, they didn't just give up. Also, Ruth's monster BB totals show they didn't let him hit anything he wanted.
      Red, it took me 16 years to get here. Play me, and you'll get the best I got.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by torez77
        I don't think teams passively let him, Bill. Ruth was a notorious bad-ball hitter, which means the pitchers threw him a lot of junk because they feared him, and still Ruth hit all those HRs. Gotta give Ruth credit for that. Plus, it's not reasonable to say the pitchers just let him hit HRs. They tried futilely to stop him, they didn't just give up. Also, Ruth's monster BB totals show they didn't let him hit anything he wanted.
        The premise that Ruth was a notorious bad ball hitter does not follow in any way from the fact that he did indeed have "monster walk totals". I'm not sure what you mean, torrez.

        Comment


        • #94
          Makes perfect sense. I'm going by what I've read and the info I've obtained on this board. Ruth once said he swung at mostly bad balls because the pitchers didn't give him nothin' good to hit. Didn't mean he always swung at bad balls, as his BB totals and K/BB ratio prove he knew when to take a BB.
          Red, it took me 16 years to get here. Play me, and you'll get the best I got.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by csh19792001
            The premise that Ruth was a notorious bad ball hitter does not follow in any way from the fact that he did indeed have "monster walk totals". I'm not sure what you mean, torrez.
            Please enlighten Torrez, as you do seem to be contradicting yourself.
            If he was, as you say "a bad ball hitter" than how did he walk way more than anyone else?
            My guess is that he was being pitched around much the same way Bonds is being pitched around today, which in your view would help his OPS+.
            The problem with that argument is that Bonds still beats him there.
            On the other hand, how could Ruth be expected to hit 73HR's if nobody pitches to him...and so on.
            Which side do you want to argue?

            Comment


            • #96
              I think we all agree Ruth or no one else could hit more home runs than entire teams as Ruth did back then, it's a different game today. Still the fact is he did it, is it his fault that other hitters took years to get on board. Should Ruth have "waited" so as not to be the only fence buster in the game.

              It's almost like we penalize this guy for being ahead of the game. Even in the high offensive 1930s the combined total of 3 of the best sluggers in the game Hack Wilson, Hank Greenberg and Jimmie Foxx combined could not top Ruth in the number of 40 home run seasons and clould only tie him in number of 50 home run seasons. This isn't the 1920s it's the 1930s and Ruth still can't be matched, not even by the combined total of 3 big sluggers.

              Hank Aaron and Barry Bonds combined had 34 seasons of at least 130 games and they hit 40 or more 16 times between them.

              Babe Ruth had 13 seasons of at least 130 games and hit 40 or more 11 times.

              Do we need any more convincing on who was the greatest home run hitter ever, the most does not mean the greatest. Two members of the 700 club with 34 seasons between them had 5 more 40+ seasons than the third member and he did it in 13 seasons, not even a contest.

              Mac with the lowest AB/HR ratio had many less at bats than Ruth and his AB/HR ratio vastly improved after 1995 when the ball changed and the strike zone went South.
              Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 02-21-2005, 10:15 PM.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by WillieMaysHayes
                Please enlighten Torrez, as you do seem to be contradicting yourself.
                If he was, as you say "a bad ball hitter" than how did he walk way more than anyone else?
                My guess is that he was being pitched around much the same way Bonds is being pitched around today, which in your view would help his OPS+.
                The problem with that argument is that Bonds still beats him there.
                On the other hand, how could Ruth be expected to hit 73HR's if nobody pitches to him...and so on.
                Which side do you want to argue?
                If he was, as you say "a bad ball hitter" than how did he walk way more than anyone else? ---

                I asked this very same question to Mr. Burgess (hope you don't mind me bringing you into this Bill, but I'm trying to make a point here). And through his research he told me that Ruth was a bad-ball hitter. I took his word for it. Seemed contradictory to me, too. I argued back the same thing - that his BB totals show he didn't always swing at bad balls. If it's true that he got nothing but junk to hit, then he did a little of both - either took a walk or swung at them. Phenomenal to hit that many HRs and maintain such a high BA hitting nothing but junk! Do you buy this? Or do you buy that pitchers did a little of both - sometimes they threw him junk and sometimes they tried to stop him! I think that sounds more logical. Either way, Ruth's numbers were phenomenal.
                BBs certainly helped Ruth's OPS+, as they do Bonds'. How much % of Bonds' walks are intentional? Intentional BBs records weren't kept in Ruth's time, but I'd bet my savings account that Ruth's IBBs weren't nearly as much as Bonds'. Pitchers didn't intentionally walk nearly as much in Ruth's day. Plus it's not as beneficial to intentionally walk Ruth to get to Gehrig as it is to walk Bonds and get to Jeff Kent. More of the % of Bonds' OPS+ comes from BBs than does Ruth's, plus Ruth does more with his bat.
                Last edited by torez77; 02-21-2005, 10:39 PM.
                Red, it took me 16 years to get here. Play me, and you'll get the best I got.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by WillieMaysHayes
                  The problem with that argument is that Bonds still beats him there.
                  Beats him where??? Ruth leads Bonds in OPS+ by 23 pts, 207-184!
                  Red, it took me 16 years to get here. Play me, and you'll get the best I got.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Where does confusion come from? Once in an interview, Babe was asked what kind of pitches he mostly hit for homers. And he said, "Mostly bad balls. That's all I usually get."

                    So, where is the hard part? They so feared him that they pitched him too fine. And that's how he ended up with so many walks, and strike-outs. His strike-outs were the natural result of him trying his best to not be walked. To stay in the game and be effective. But since he was so gifted, he managed to pick out enough to hit those homers.

                    Bonds also gets precious little good to swing at. So he also takes a lot of walks. But when he does get a good pitch, he can convert those 3 good pitches in a series of games to HRs. His gift is uncanny too. And while walking is very valuable, it is also a totally effective remedy to greatly nullify such great sluggers. If not for walking, both Ruth/Bonds would have been tremendously more devastating and effective hitters. Which every pitcher always knew, hence used to dispose of such terrible plate threats, Gehrig or no Gehrig.

                    Bill Burgess
                    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 02-21-2005, 11:36 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Thanks, Bill. That makes good enough sense to me.

                      My confusion lied in our debate months ago when, if I recall correctly, you said Ruth didn't know how to take a BB. This I couldn't understand, as his K/BB ratio suggested totally the opposite. Your post tonight makes more sense to me.
                      Red, it took me 16 years to get here. Play me, and you'll get the best I got.

                      Comment


                      • Torez77,

                        No problems. It's my pleasure. Sounded to me as if you were the only one who wasn't confused. You made perfect sense to me. It sounded to me like WillieMaysHayes got a little confused. Hope this helps out a little.

                        Bill Burgess

                        Comment


                        • Metal Ed,

                          While what you suggest, that the best played long ago, is only a possibliity, the answer is, "How would I know?" I am suggesting that perhaps, when the "best" played might be more random, than suggesting that the best always get better.

                          I would say that Bonds was among the best ever, but then he confessed to cheating. I had Bonds ranked 4th, after Cobb, Wagner, and Mays.

                          Is the randomity theory so wacky? I agree that the more evenly-distributed competition at the top today, makes domination harder to do. But I really do beleive that if Cobb, Wagner, Ruth and Johnson had been dropped into today's game, that is born in our era, that their gifts would have allowed them to find a way to star. Not to crush their better competition, but to lead their leagues.

                          But not to be the Cobbs/Ruths of old. So at least we agree on that much.

                          Cobb on steroids? How much more intense could a man be? We'd probably have to make his cleats of rubber, instead of metal.


                          Bill Burgess

                          Comment


                          • is it really a question? He was the best pitcher of his time who went on to be the greatest hitter ever .Case closed

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Metal Ed
                              Torez: I hope you don't mind if I cut it down to the most important offensive stats?




                              Ruth has about twice as many league leading years as Bonds. OTOH, Ruth only had half as many people to beat out for those titles. Right? Bonds has twice as many hitters in the league to contend with for those titles. Something to think about.

                              As far as steroids go, my main concern is just how rampant they are/have been. I don't know. If it's the same way it was in the sixties with amphetamines, then I wouldn't be so quick to toss out Bonds' numbers. I regard Willie Mays as the best players of the 60's, even though he kept a bottle of the stuff in his locker. All - or almost all - of his competitors did the same ****, and nobody out there was as good as he was.

                              So it depends on how rampant steroids are, which I don't know for sure. I don't know how credible Canseco is with his 80% figure. That seems a bit a high - heck, 80% of these guys don't even LOOK like juicers. OTOH, they say that a lot of guys use steroids not to bulk up, but rather to maintain strength and stamina over the course of the season. Supposedly even the pitchers take something. I don't know; I need more information. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone who isn't "on the inside" will ever know for sure; and the guys like Canseco, who were "on the inside", are basically just putting their words against the words of others.

                              Metal Ed said --- "Ruth has about twice as many league leading years as Bonds. OTOH, Ruth only had half as many people to beat out for those titles. Right? Bonds has twice as many hitters in the league to contend with for those titles. Something to think about." ---

                              I have thought about it. I've considered there weren't as many teams and hitters in Ruth's time. That's the case with any sport in older eras, and that seems to be a good argument in favor of the modern eras. On the other hand, the argument in favor of the older eras is that since there were less teams, the talent was more densely packed, which makes for better teams. Plus, only the very best got to play in the majors, while many others who could have gotten into the league under today's system were turned down. All in all, Ruth played against the best of his time, and Bonds against the best of his time. And Ruth outperformed Bonds.

                              As far as the steroid issue goes, no, I personally don't know if Bonds is taking them. His physical appearance and his performance level now compared to the 90's is dramatically different, which makes it obvious on the outside. They haven't proven it yet, so I'll go on record and say that a man is innocent until proven guilty, as with any case. Even if he hasn't taken them and has achieved the last 4 years on sheer ability, Ruth still has him beat career-wise.
                              Red, it took me 16 years to get here. Play me, and you'll get the best I got.

                              Comment


                              • Ramiro Mendoza

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X