Better Than the Babe

[538280]

3. Chris stated the pitchers would no longer be as afraid to pitch to Ruth, if others were trying for the homer. False. It would have no bearing on how they approached Ruth, he'd be doing his thing no matter what. He always got the opposing pitchers best stuff because with a few other hitters they could "coast." If they weren't able to "coast" at anytime, then they would be more mentally and physically worn down when Babe did come up, so his numbers might have actually increased if anything.

That's not true at all, Sultan. Ruth back then had an effect on pitchers similar to the way Barry Bonds did 2001-2004 when he was drawing close to 100 intentional walks in a season. I've seen studies done in which people have researched how many intentional walks Ruth had in each season, and the numbers I've seen were usually around 80, which is just an insane number of IBBs, and he probably had at least 30 or so walks that were "unintentional" intentional walks. He was getting those IBBs because he was always the center of attention, always by FAR the biggest power threat in the league. Ruth would certainly be an elite power hitter in Schmidt's era, he would be along with Schmidt the best in the league. But, his walks would not be nearly as high, and his OBP would be lower.

[ElHalo]

Besides on the rare occasions when El Halo and I agree on something it pretty much has to be true .

Absolutely.

[Bill Burgess]

No hard feelings Mark. I know you weren't intending to call Ruth a retard, it just came off that way. You simply meant that he lacked social graces, and the sophistication of most. Of course, most didn't go through what he did as a child, and then have the spotlight shine so bright for so long. On the surface, they were merely baseball players, you're correct.

Randy,

Good Friend. You must by now be realizing that even on a site like Fever, comprised of deeply informed, and even some compulsively, obsessed baseball geeks/nerds, you and I are rare. Few have our passion for a single player. Few would want to. And even fewer would be inclined to do the years long kind of deep research we have done. Wesley Frick is one of us. He's done the work like we have. He's a Cobb man. ShoelessJoe is also one of us. He's a Babe man. We are a tiny, hardy tribe.

The way our inner minds function is so rare as to be almost non-existent. Folks like RuthMayBonds, ElHalo, Mark, both Chris', Chancellor, Ubi, SABR Matt, are all VERY compulsive baseball men. They have read tons about the game. But if they were told they had to devote years to one player, they'd probably feel as if they were sentenced to prison. Might hate it and turn against the game.

But we have done this voluntarily, and happily! So I am not surprised that you feel so aggrieved when members come to a different conclusion than your life's work have taught you. I am not scolding you. I am just the same. We are rare even for Fever fans!

We simply need to take it easy, exhale, relax and have fun with the guys. They're a great bunch and actually want to exchange with us. We're like family.

Bill

[538280]

I've done a good amount of research on Reggie and Jimmy Wynn, but nothing quite like what you, Bill and Sultan have done with your players. I couldn't imagine being slavishly devoted to a single player either. Seems to take away the fun of learning about a variety of different things.

Plus, it has long been my opinion intensive reasearch on a single player can blind your objective senses.

[538280]

Where do you see Schmidt dominating his league as Ruth did, am I missing something.

Schmidt was the #1 position player in the league according to Win Shares 7 times in his career, Ruth I also think 7 times (or perhaps 8). Schmidt's numbers (even relative to league) don't look nearly as good but he was playing a game that was much harder to dominate. His domination equaled just as many deserved MVPs as Ruth did.

[Bill Burgess]

They were great baseball players, but there are alot of men more worthy of being heroes if you need one.

Quite right. Ty is only one of my "heroes". He was a role model in terms of his commitment to his goals.

If I were as committed to mine, I'd have reached them long ago. If I had to choose only 1 hero, it'd be my Dad. That man could love others like I've not seen before or since.

Bill

[Bill Burgess]

Plus, it has long been my opinion intensive reasearch on a single player can blind your objective senses.

Yes, it certainly can. It is a concern and must be guarded against every moment.

Blinded by the Light

[ElHalo]

Schmidt was the #1 position player in the league according to Win Shares 7 times in his career, Ruth I also think 7 times (or perhaps 8). Schmidt's numbers (even relative to league) don't look nearly as good but he was playing a game that was much harder to dominate. His domination equaled just as many deserved MVPs as Ruth did.

Right, but look at the league Schmidt was in. If you take 74-87 as Schmidt's prime years, who else was there in the league that he was competing with? Morgan at the very beginning; later Dale Murphy, Pedro Guerrero, Dave Parker, Al Oliver. We'll leave the discussion of Joe Morgan for another day, but those guys are hardly standouts... not a HoF'er in the bunch, and not really any with truly great arguments.

Babe? From 1918 to 1934 (a period in which, other than his lost 1925 season, his OPS+ never dipped below 160), Babe had to contend with parts of Collins, Speaker, Cobb, and Jackson's careers... and after those guys retired, he had to face Gehrig, Foxx, Cochrane, Gehringer, and Simmons... every single one of those guys is a top 50 player of all time (I also put Joe Cronin in that group, but I'm probably in the minority on that). Other than Morgan and Johnny Bench, what top 50 guys even had a little bit of their peak overlap with Schmidt's peak? The next best guy to probably overlap even a little with Schmidt was Willie Stargell, and he's hardly top 50 material. And outside of those guys, Ruth still had to deal with guys like Averill, Goslin, and Rice, any of whom I'd take in a heartbeat over the likes of Murphy, Guerrero, and Parker.

Harder to dominate in the 70's? Whatever. But it's much, much harder to be better than Foxx, Gehrig, and Gehringer than it is to be better than Andre Dawson, Reggie Smith, and Steve Garvey.

[ElHalo]

I've done a good amount of research on Reggie and Jimmy Wynn, but nothing quite like what you, Bill and Sultan have done with your players. I couldn't imagine being slavishly devoted to a single player either. Seems to take away the fun of learning about a variety of different things.

Plus, it has long been my opinion intensive reasearch on a single player can blind your objective senses.

Do you actively have something against guys who can hit for a good average?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Plus, it has long been my opinion intensive reasearch on a single player can blind your objective senses.

On the contrary. Digging deeper allows you to uncover the truth. To be able to laugh at how hollywood portrays Babe or what bogus beliefs people hold, like he couldn't run or field.

[538280]

EH, I've told you this a number of times, and you'll probably never understand it. But, you know why you (and most historians really) don't think the 70s and 80s stars are any good? Because the league was so strong.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

That's not true at all, Sultan. Ruth back then had an effect on pitchers similar to the way Barry Bonds did 2001-2004 when he was drawing close to 100 intentional walks in a season. I've seen studies done in which people have researched how many intentional walks Ruth had in each season, and the numbers I've seen were usually around 80, which is just an insane number of IBBs, and he probably had at least 30 or so walks that were "unintentional" intentional walks. He was getting those IBBs because he was always the center of attention, always by FAR the biggest power threat in the league. Ruth would certainly be an elite power hitter in Schmidt's era, he would be along with Schmidt the best in the league. But, his walks would not be nearly as high, and his OBP would be lower.

Babe would be just as feared, because his production would still be the same. The difference would be that other people in the lineup would be slightly more feared, which wouldn't allow a pitcher to "coast" at any part in the lineup. Over the course of a game and of a season, this would take a toll, and actually increase Babe's numbers. In terms of fear though, make no mistake, he would be the main focus in any lineup, no matter what the approach of the other hitters. His walk totals starting in the middle of '27 on, should tell you something.

[csh19792001]

Do you actively have something against guys who can hit for a good average?

That's a very good question, and I'm the answer is "yes", even if Chris is unwilling to freely admit it. He has an axe to grind with people that think batting average is important, so he takes arguments with guys who hit for poor averages to extremes to try to make his point.

[538280]

That's a very good question, and I'm the answer is "yes", even if Chris is unwilling to freely admit it. He has an axe to grind with people that think batting average is important, so he takes arguments with guys who hit for poor averages to extremes to try to make his point.

I'm not against guys with high averages, I don't think BA is completely meaningless. I just end up advocating mostly low average guys because they're the ones who I think are underrated, and I pull for the guys who I think are underrated, naturally.

[ElHalo]

EH, I've told you this a number of times, and you'll probably never understand it. But, you know why you (and most historians really) don't think the 70s and 80s stars are any good? Because the league was so strong.

Yes, you've said it before, and no, it's not true at all. In much the same way that you could easily name 15 NBA players today who would be better than all but the top 5 of ten years ago, some times talent comes in waves. The 70's and 80's were a particularly low ebb in baseball.