What would Ruth's career have been like if he had decided to stay a pitcher?

[fenrir]

Does he go down as one of the greatest pitchers in history, ranking along side guys like W. Johnson, Maddux, Young, etc. Or would he have been closer to a Bob Gibson? I think it's probably safe to say at the very least he would have had a HOF worthy career as a pitcher.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Does he go down as one of the greatest pitchers in history, ranking along side guys like W. Johnson, Maddux, Young, etc. Or would he have been closer to a Bob Gibson? I think it's probably safe to say at the very least he would have had a HOF worthy career as a pitcher.

Had he stayed on the mound and maintained the level he was at in the years as a pitcher only, 1915-16-17 and maybe matured a bit more, he may have reached the HOF. I use the years 1915-16-17 because to use the years 1918 and 1919 would not be an accurate gauge since he was not always resting between starts.

To reach the Johnson, Maddux or some other greats, I wouldn't even comment on that one, thats top shelf and he did not pitch near enough in time to ever know.

[redban]

I think the better question is "what would his career been like if he was never a pitcher?"

1000 career HR?

[fenrir]

I think the better question is "what would his career been like if he was never a pitcher?"

1000 career HR?

I find it more interesting to speculate what Ruth would have done as a pitcher simply because it's more doubtful than not that he would have been an all-time great as a pitcher. A solid HOF career as a pitcher is more likely. It's also interesting to speculate on how the "best player ever" debates would have turned out had Ruth remained a pitcher. The majority considers Ruth MLB's greatest player ever, however if he had decided to remain a pitcher, the debates would have focused more on various players from Cobb, to Wagner, to Mays, to Mantle, to Aaron, to Williams, and arguably a few others.

[chicagowhitesox1173]

I'm baffled by Ruth as a pitcher, I think he was good by all means but what really amazes me is how he pitched a few games late in his career and actually pitched halfway decent especially in a hitters era. I dont think he woulda won 300 games but he probably woulda been a hall of fame pitcher.

[pheasant]

I think he puts up a Tom Glavine type of career as a pitcher. I.e, a 300 game winner with a decent but not all-time great ERA+. But I see him being very clutch in the postseason like a Bob Gibson. After all, Ruth had Ice water running through his veins in the postseason. I.e, I see
Him as a shoe-in for the Hall, but not in Maddux's league.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I'm baffled by Ruth as a pitcher, I think he was good by all means but what really amazes me is how he pitched a few games late in his career and actually pitched halfway decent especially in a hitters era. I dont think he woulda won 300 games but he probably woulda been a hall of fame pitcher.

Not only were those last two games late, one in 1930 and his last in 1933 but he was then 35 and 38 years old.
And the last time he pitched before that 1930 game was in 1921. So he had pitched only one game in 9 years when he took the mound in 1930 and only two games in 12 seasons when he took the mound in 1933. Both complete games, talk about pitch counts today when a pitcher is out for a short period.

1930 gave up 11 hits and 3 earned runs, Yanks 9 - Bosox 3. Started 2 DPs on ball hit back to him. Gehrig played LF in that game. Babe 2 for 5. Game time 1:10
1933 gave up 12 hits and 5 earned runs, Yanks 6-Bosox 5. Game time 1:38. Also hit his 34th home run in the bottom of the 5th contributed to the win. Babe 1 for 3, 2 runs scored and 1 RBI

When asked why he completed the whole game after long lay offs, he said he knew some came to see him pitch.
The more I find out about Ruth the harder it is to believe he was real, his whole career, beginning to end..

[pheasant]

Not only were those last two games late, one in 1930 and his last in 1933 but he was then 35 and 38 years old.
And the last time he pitched before that 1930 game was in 1921. So he had pitched only one game in 9 years when he took the mound in 1930 and only two games in 12 seasons when he took the mound in 1933. Both complete games, talk about pitch counts today when a pitcher is out for a short period.

1930 gave up 11 hits and 3 earned runs, Yanks 9 - Bosox 3. Started 2 DPs on ball hit back to him. Gehrig played LF in that game. Babe 2 for 5. Game time 1:10
1933 gave up 12 hits and 5 earned runs, Yanks 6-Bosox 5. Game time 1:38. Also hit his 34th home run in the bottom of the 5th contributed to the win. Babe 1 for 3, 2 runs scored and 1 RBI

When asked why he completed the whole game after long lay offs, he said he knew some came to see him pitch.
The more I find out about Ruth the harder it is to believe he was real, his whole career, beginning to end..

Excellent post, Shoeless. What he did was absolutely amazing. I think I'd actually rather see him pitch than bat if I had a time machine. Other than his called-shot game and that 1928 World Series game that he hit 3 HRs, my favorite would be 1916 World Series game in which he pitched a 14 inning complete game victory. The 1933 game that you mentioned would be very high up on the list as well. I would have figured that he would have gotten yanked after 4 innings due to getting shelled for 7+ runs and/or having his pitching arm fall off due to lack of use during the past FOURTEEN years. How did he not cause permanent damage to his throwing arm during either the 1930 or 1933 games? I can't even imagine what the pitch counts were for those two games, particularly that 1933 game. His 1930 start was actually pretty good(3 earned runs in 9 innings). This boy was clutch. Nobody can convince me that he wouldn't have made the Hall had he remained a pitcher. Ruth from 1916-1932 played in 9 World Series(rode the bench 1915 due to being a somewhat unproven 20 year old) and was awesome in 8 of them. His 1922 Series was the only bad one. Of course, his 1922 regular season was a terrible season for Ruth. Ruth played in 5 more World Series after 1922 and the following were the WORST numbers for each category(HR, avg, ob%, slug%, ops) that he'd put up: 2 HRs, .300 avg, .444 OB%, .733 SLUG%, and 1.233 OPS. He averaged .412/.544/.976/1.520 during those last 5 series while homering once every 6.07 at bats with 1.0 RBI per game, 1.0 runs per game, and 1.04 BB per game. I believe in clutch play despite the small sample space. This guy simply had ice water running through his veins. Contributing heavily in 8 of the 9 World Series that he started in is clutch.

[Buzzaldrin]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's quite possible that he'd have been as great a career pitcher as he was a career hitter and remembered, not as a Glavine type, but as one of the handful of best pitchers ever.

Some paraphrasing from Jason Stark:

Who's the only lefty in Red Sox history to win 23 plus games in back to back seasons? babe Ruth. Who's the only lefty since 1900 to do that for any team before age 23? Babe Ruth. Ruth led the AL in ERA his first full season (1.75 in 1916). He was 21. It's now 9 decades later and he's still the youngest AL ERA champ. The years 1914-1919 were his pitching years. He led all lefties in baseball in winning pct and fewest hits allowed per 9 innings. From 1915-1918 he had 4 straight sub 2.50 ERA seasons, which might not seem like a big deal since it was the deadball era, but only one other AL pitcher also did it- Walter Johnson.

Johnson has a legitimate claim to being the best pitcher ever. Here's how they stacked up during Ruth's two breakout seasons as a pitcher while Johnson was still in his absolute prime:

1916: Johnson, 25-20, 1.90, 290 hits in 369 innings
Ruth, 23-12, 1.75, 230 hits in 323 innings

1917: Johnson 23-16, 2.21, 248 hits in 326 innings
Ruth 24-13, 2.01, 244 hits in 326 innings

If you're pitching as good as Walter Johnson, you're doing better than Tom Glavine (no offense to Glavine).

Ruth also, of course, pitched 29 2/3 straight scoreless innings in the 1916 and 1918 World Series, a record that stood for 43 years. That streak started when Ruth gave up a homer in the first inning of game two in 1916 then shut down the Dodgers through the 14th. How many other pitchers have won 14 inning complete games in the post season? None.

He did all of this before he turned 23. Had he continued to impress at that level, for even along the lines of ten more years, we'd certainly remember him as one of the best pitchers ever, I think.

All specualtion though, but a lot of fun to speculate about.

[ol' aches and pains]

Ruth 24-13, 2.01, 244 hits in 326 innings

The more time goes by, the harder it is for me to get my mind around what the deadball era must have been like. Imagine losing 13 games with a 2.01 ERA! Although come to think of it, King Felix came close a couple of years ago.

[pheasant]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's quite possible that he'd have been as great a career pitcher as he was a career hitter and remembered, not as a Glavine type, but as one of the handful of best pitchers ever.

All specualtion though, but a lot of fun to speculate about.

You bring up a valid point. I think the difference between a Ruth being a Glavine(ranked around 20th in my book) vs Ruth being a Maddux(ranked around 5th in my book) is whether or not you believe Ruth had peaked. I ran my analysis assuming Ruth had peaked. He seemed to know the game already, as evidenced by his incredible 1916 season. And diddo with hitting. In 1918, Ruth's first full time year as a hitter, he topped a 190 OPS+ in the Dead Ball era. Had he not been exhausted from pitching, I have no doubt that he would have topped 200. I personally think Ruth only need 3 years to peak as a hitter(1920=3rd full season as hitter). I also believe this to be true with his pitching. However, Ruth's last season as a pitcher-only was in 1917 at the rip old age of 22. It is reasonable to believe that Ruth hadn't peaked yet as a pitcher.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

The more time goes by, the harder it is for me to get my mind around what the deadball era must have been like. Imagine losing 13 games with a 2.01 ERA! Although come to think of it, King Felix came close a couple of years ago.

1916 Ruth was 23-12, 12 games lost with an ERA of 1.75. That 1.75 was the lowest ERA for a lefthander in the AL until Ron Guidry beat it in 1978, 1.74.

Getting back to 1917, those 13 losses, the Bosox were shut out in 6 of Ruth's defeats. He won his first 8 games.
Scores 13 defeats
8-2
3-0
3-0
7-2
3-0
3-1
2-1
3-1
2-0
5-1
2-1
1-0
6-0.
You can see in a number of those game he gave up little runs.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Close but came up short. This would have really added to his accomplishments on the field, a no hitter. In 1923 he came up 4 hits short of batting .400, ended up at .393.

All that he did and just missing the no hitter and .400 season.

In 1917 in the AL the Tigers were first in Ba., runs per game, RC/game, ISO, Hits, Total bases, slugging, BPA, OPS, EBH's, RBI and second to only the White Sox in OBA, Chicago .329 and Tigers .328.

This guy was just loaded wth talent. I often wonder if his years pitching was a plus to his hitting later. No great hitter ever, had the experience of seeing the game from the mound as well as from the batters box. Couldn't hurt.

[pheasant]

1916 Ruth was 23-12, 12 games lost with an ERA of 1.75. That 1.75 was the lowest ERA for a lefthander in the AL until Ron Guidry beat it in 1978, 1.74.

Getting back to 1917, those 13 losses, the Bosox were shut out in 6 of Ruth's defeats. He won his first 8 games.
Scores 13 defeats
8-2
3-0
3-0
7-2
3-0
3-1
2-1
3-1
2-0
5-1
2-1
1-0
6-0.
You can see in a number of those game he gave up little runs.

The Red Sox offense was rather mediocre during Ruth's run as a pitcher. I guess I'm not surprised there. Also, didn't Ruth have a 6-3 record vs Walter Johnson, including a couple of 1-0 shutout victories? Once again, talk about a gamer!

Here are the Red Sox offensive rankings in runs scored during Ruth's 3 year that he was primarily a pitcher(1915-1917)

1915 3rd in Runs, 3rd in OPS
1916 6th in Runs, 6th in OPS
1917 4th in Runs, 5th in OPS

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Talk about a tough loss, May 9, 1918.
Babe loses a ten inning game, winning pitcher Walter Johnson.
Ruth pitched the complete game, Johnson in relief pitched one inning, the 10th inning.
Credit to Johnson, he pinch hit in the 9th inning, sac fly put the Senators ahead 4-3.
Johnson facing Babe 10th inning, Ruth doubles but then thrown out attempting to steal third base for the second out.

At the plate Babe was 5 for 5..........single, 3 doubles and a triple, losing pitcher.