Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Musial vs. Gehrig

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by ThePeach
    Which is certainly not true. I don't think anything from that time (1919) would suggest that Ruth was the BIGGEST start in the game, PERIOD.
    "There was no doubt about his place in baseball now (after 1918). He was now the number-one attraction in the game. If there had been a Most Valuable Player award in 1918, and there wasn't, he would have won it in a breeze. He was the best player on the best team, and if you listened, you would hear good young players compared now to Babe Ruth, not Ty Cobb, not anyone else." - Montville

    "In fact, Ruth in his career was named Most Valuable Player only once, a curious injustice. No selections were made from 1915 through 1921; if they had been, Ruth would have been a strong candidate in 1916, a sure winner in 1918, a sure winner again in 1921. He was certainly the player of the year, if not the most valuable, in 1919 and 1920. He did win the award in 1923 and he should have won it in 1926." - Creamer

    "If Babe Ruth had quit baseball after the 1919 season, his record would still stand as excellent, lacking in greatness only because it was short.

    "(1919) His pitching was as good in its way as his hitting was in its order, but the hitting caught more attention. In 1919 the Brooklyn manager Wilbert Robinson, the Yankee scout Joe Kelley, and Willie Keeler (who hit over .350 for seven consecutive seasons) agreed that Ruth was the greatest of all hitters. The sportswriter J.C. Koefoed studied all the batters from 1909 through 1919 who had hit five or more home runs in one season. Ruth led them all in slugging but in no other category. (Cobb was not among the top seventy-five in slugging percentage.)

    "Ruth had already shown a special quality that excited the public and brought them back to the park. Many players, some of them great, played baseball with care, with cunning, with artistry, perhaps even with science, but Ruth, above all other players, lived baseball with joy." - Smelser

    "The style of play before the First World War fitted Cobb's cunning in overcoming tight defense. The style of the 1920s fitted Ruth. In Cobb's heday the fans liked strong defense and liked offensive play to by sly and tricky. Wen Ruth came to his prime, tastes had changed. The big booming offense built attendance." - Smelser

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
      Boy, I'd think a Ty Cobb fan of all people would have a better understanding of the mental part of baseball.

      Let's get Cobb's opinion.

      "Let me bow my head in George Ruth's memory. I never saw a man who could beat you so utterly- and do it every day, virtually - with his mere presence on the field. The fact that he was apt to break up any gmae with one home run swing was only half the story. Think of the psychological effect of having Babe going against your team. Your pitcher always feared to walk the man who batted ahead of him for fear that Ruth would drive him home. That meant that the pitcher had to work hard and worry excessively bout that man. Then by the time he was through that ordeal, up came Ruth, and the pitcher went through another exausting few minutes. By then he was apt to relax when the next hitter stepped up. When Ruth batted, helped the man in front and the man behind."
      Amen......

      Comment


      • #93
        For the record I DO NOT discredit Gehrig for hitting behind Ruth AT ALL. But when you make statements about how much Gehrig helped Ruth because he batted behind him...and then make a protection comparison with Manny/Papi..


        Originally posted by ThePeach
        As for his 1919 stuff, it's all focused on homeruns. You obviously give more credit for those than I do. But the fans at that time didn't value the homer, either. Before 1919, it wasn't smart to go for one, considering the conditions the players had to play under.
        Oh boy. All focused on homers? Can you please just say that you mistyped that and save me the trouble? h

        Lets pretend its about homers...what was his home/road up through '19. Wasn't it like 11/38? Nevermind the 1919 SA, TB, RBI, R. More than half his hits were for extra bases (NEW RECORD), 9-5 on the mound...it was all about homers.


        Reference please. ^-^
        New York Times - 1919, but you could find that and then some, if you have access to Proquest, which I don't

        Funny thing is, I voted for Gehrig on this poll, and have Cobb ranked comfortably at number 2.
        Sultan_1895-1948
        Prince of Pounders
        Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 07-28-2006, 05:56 PM.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
          Funny thing is, I voted for Gehrig on this poll, and have Cobb ranked comfortably at number 2.

          What's funny about that? You were debating me whether or not the Babe was the biggest STAR in the game... that doesn't contradict Gehrig being better than Musial. You just went off on a tangent when I made the Ortiz/Manny comparision to Ruth/Gehrig (but no one would doubt that Big Papi's batting stats took off after getting protection from one of the best power hitters ever... I'm just saying that it was possible that happened with Ruth, since we have real-life examples to compare to... Maris/Mantle works as well).

          And believe it or not, I'm actually a Yankee fan although I say Cobb was better than Ruth.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by ThePeach
            What's funny about that? You were debating me whether or not the Babe was the biggest STAR in the game...
            There is no debate and I'd feel rather silly even laying out the entire case.

            that doesn't contradict Gehrig being better than Musial.
            This has nothing to do with Musial. In fact when I just typed Musial, it was the second time I've typed his name; the first time was when I asked if we could get back to "Musial vs. Gehrig." But you persist with this.

            You just went off on a tangent when I made the Ortiz/Manny comparision to Ruth/Gehrig (but no one would doubt that Big Papi's batting stats took off after getting protection from one of the best power hitters ever... I'm just saying that it was possible that happened with Ruth, since we have real-life examples to compare to... Maris/Mantle works as well).
            There is no real-life comparison to Ruth/Gehrig in terms of how the pitchers reacted to that dynamic duo. For starters, they were both lefties, and more to the point, the front end of that is Ruth vs. either one of them. Have you read about what a problem Babe Ruth to face for pitchers back then? Remember context here.

            Here's something to ponder.

            AB/RBI

            1926-'32

            Ruth

            1063 RBI in 3579 AB = 3.36 AB/RBI

            Gehrig

            1064 RBI in 4067 AB = 3.82 AB/RBI

            Careers

            Ruth

            2217 RBI in 8398 AB = 3.78 AB/RBI

            Gehrig

            1995 RBI in 8001 AB = 4.01 AB/RBI


            What do these numbers say to you?
            Sultan_1895-1948
            Prince of Pounders
            Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 07-28-2006, 07:43 PM.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
              This has nothing to do with Musial. In fact when I just typed Musial, it was the second time I've typed his name; the first time was when I asked if we could get back to "Musial vs. Gehrig." But you persist with this.
              Huh? Wasn't I trying to lay it to rest in the past couple of posts? You keeping on bring up more stuff. I didn't bring up anything new in my last post, but was just recapping where I started with this and what I was originally saying. You took what I wrote and ran with it.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by ThePeach
                Huh? Wasn't I trying to lay it to rest in the past couple of posts? You keeping on bring up more stuff. I didn't bring up anything new in my last post, but was just recapping where I started with this and what I was originally saying. You took what I wrote and ran with it.
                Before laying it to rest, I would like you to reconsider your position that "Gehrig helped Ruth out greatly." That's my only beef. The AB/RBI numbers and Ruth's walk totals should be enough to change your opinion about that

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
                  Before laying it to rest, I would like you to reconsider your position that "Gehrig helped Ruth out greatly." That's my only beef. The AB/RBI numbers and Ruth's walk totals should be enough to change your opinion about that
                  Numbers don't tell the whole story. Tell me, how can you know how something would have happened under different circumstaces?

                  What did Mickey Mantle do for Roger Maris (huge difference)? What did Manny Ramirez do for David Ortiz (big difference)? And so on. But this is all speculation, I already admitted that.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    My views of Lou Gehrig, my runaway choice for #1 at 1B

                    Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
                    Before laying it to rest, I would like you to reconsider your position that "Gehrig helped Ruth out greatly." That's my only beef. The AB/RBI numbers and Ruth's walk totals should be enough to change your opinion about that
                    There is an annual publication which I used to buy, but stopped buying when I got on line. In its back section, it had a list of the Top 100 of all time, in order, of all sorts of categories, from really basic stuff (Top 100 hits leaders, e.g.) to really esoteric stuff, upgraded every year. It was interesting to watch the leaders change, see if someone would hit a milestone (e.g., 700 career doubles, a club with only 4 members), etc.

                    One of its categories was RBI-to-AB ratio. Despite having hit IN FRONT of Lou Gehrig, and therefore not having artificially padded numbers because THE great hitter with a .474 OBP was being walked all the time in front of him (like the luscious situation Gehrig had), Babe Ruth had the #1 all-time career RBI/AB ratio. As I recall, it was 1 RBI every 3.79 AB's... and THAT's for a guy who wasted 5 years hitting dead baseballs, with Fenway for his home park at a time when it was, what, 500+ to CF and 488 to RF, with home/road splits on his HR's that remind one of Goose Goslin in Griffith Stadium.

                    I cannot remember who #2 was, but it wasn't Gehrig. I think it was either Ted Williams or Hank Greenberg, with something like 1 RBI every 4.02 AB's, which is very impressive, but still, a long way shy of 3.79. (Obviously these are easy to calculate, if you have the player's stats.) I'm pretty sure Gehrig was #3, but again, he had a guy in front of him who terrified pitchers and had a .474 career OBP. And as soon as that guy was gone, along came DiMaggio... who, I'll grant, was not only enormously inferior to Ruth as a hitter, but also (IMO) very substantially inferior to Gehrig. I could fire off a ton of stats to back that up, but I'll just use these two: (1) Gehrig has the #3 slugging average of all time, just barely behind Ted Williams (.634 to .632), but light years behind Ruth (.690!!!), and while Gehrig missed his "decline phase"--a fact I can't bring myself to punish him for--his OBP is a ton ahead of Joe D.'s; and (2) if you don't count 19th Century players, Gehrig has the third best career OBP, and while he's again well beyind Ruth and lacking the "decline phase," he's WAY ahead of Joe D.

                    Still, Gehrig's big calling card has always been his huge RBI totals. And THAT stat is overblown. He batted behind Ruth... something I could have gotten RBI's doing, as long as I didn't have to face Grove or Johnson. The first two hitters weren't chopped liver, so Gehrig frequently hit with two men on, which had to be heaven. Even then, and even after continuing in this role when the ultra-dominant Yankees of 1936-1937 (obviously 1938 should not count) played and he had DiMaggio, it was a much lesser version of the same, but he STILL had grossly disproportionate shares of RBI chances.

                    People should look at the offensive ratings of those Yankee teams, from 1928 on. Then they should look at the ERA+ figures of those Yankee teams, starting with 1928. You'll be blown away that the Yankees put up such terrific W-L figures--especially after the Grove/Foxx/Cochrane dynasty started fading in 1932--with such a staff. It wasn't all because of Ruth and Gehrig, or Joe D. and Gehrig. There were a LOT of people on those teams getting on base, and Gehrig was in exactly the right place.

                    Last, I'm not saying anything bad about Gehrig. I do think the guy was a stick in the mud for much of his life, and a momma's boy, but when she did the unforgivable with his wife, Eleanor demanded that Mama be ousted and Lou backed up Eleanor. He became more self-confident, worldly and suave as he aged, and Eleanor (a woman with a much more, ahem, colorful youth than he'd had) taught him social graces, confidence, common sense, etc.

                    Moreover, while Gehrig could never have been the life of any party, and was often just plain boring, he had traits which I, as I age, consider a lot more important than being a lively, fun kind of "man's man": He was 100% honest, loyal and would stand by a friend every time. He was a great teammate. If you want to know EXACTLY how intense, focused and dedicated he was, I beg you to read the chapter from Jonathan Eig's "Luckiest Man: The Life and Death of Lou Gehrig" about 1938, the year when A.L.S. first struck Lou and he somehow--you'll read the book, and say, "How in the world did he do it?"--scored 115 runs, knocked in 114, hit 29 HR's, batted .295, had a .410 OBP and a .523 slugging. Those are "nothing" in the context of his great years, but read that book and you'll perhaps feel it's the greatest season in baseball history.

                    I'm serious. Ask Sultan, if you think I'm overblowing this.

                    BHN

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
                      Yeah, hard to imagine what this did to the country.

                      1919

                      April 4 In a spring training game at the old fairgrounds in Tampa against McGraw’s Giants, Ruth smashed what Barrow called many years later, “the longest home run in history.”

                      At the Tampa fairgrounds, the baseball diamond was layed out in the middle of a huge infield, surrounded by a racetrack.

                      Ruth played left field and batted fourth. In the second inning, he got a hold of one of Smith’s high fastballs, and hit a tremendous drive deep to right center field. Ross Youngs was an amazing athlete and was the Giants right fielder that day. By all accounts, he looked like a little boy chasing after the ball.

                      The ball cleared the low rail fence by a good distance, bounced across the racetrack, and eventually ended up in a neighboring hospital yard. After the game, Youngs stood where he saw the ball land and a group of writers stood by as someone scrounged up a surveyor’s tape. They measured the distance from home plate to the spot at 579 feet.
                      I read it was 567 feet, it's still growing
                      Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
                      Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

                      Comment


                      • While we're at it with the Musial talk......

                        Just read through this thread. Quite entertaining.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GoslinFan View Post
                          While we're at it with the Musial talk......

                          Just read through this thread. Quite entertaining.
                          Yeah. Used to have Gehrig no question but looking back now, I actually have Musial ahead. No real one thing necessarily puts Stan over for me but the combination of the post-integration factor, Musial's longevity, and his positional advantage kind of did it for me. Stan really is like a 2nd Hank Aaron.

                          Although, I'm taking Gehrig as a hitter though no question.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Bamay22 View Post

                            Yeah. Used to have Gehrig no question but looking back now, I actually have Musial ahead. No real one thing necessarily puts Stan over for me but the combination of the post-integration factor, Musial's longevity, and his positional advantage kind of did it for me. Stan really is like a 2nd Hank Aaron.

                            Although, I'm taking Gehrig as a hitter though no question.
                            I agree with you.

                            Comment


                            • Yeah its Musial as a player

                              Comment


                              • Musial's dominance was more impressive (LQ) and lasted longer. Gehrig was incredible, a baseball legend, but so was Musial and just a tad better. Also very cool that these two are among the most respected role models who ever took the field. Why not have both on your team? Musial can play left!
                                "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
                                "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
                                "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
                                "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X