Amazing Ruth Stat

dasperp · 04-17-2002, 04:31 PM

i just read this on espn.com. During Babe Ruth's career, the average player over the span of his career hit 94 homeruns. He hit 620 more homeruns than the average player in his era. That's obscene.

hoochpit · 04-18-2002, 06:01 AM

Ruth also outhomered every team in baseball in his early years.

Khaos · 04-18-2002, 08:27 AM

I'll tell you why. They threw him a juiced ball, after lowering the mound and bringing in the fences just during his at bats. Plus he took steriods even before they were invented. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Bradley013 · 04-18-2002, 10:56 AM

That's why Babe Ruth is the best the game has or will ever see. Check out his pitching stats totally amazing that someone could be that good.
The game of baseball is great in the way someone's stats from 70 years ago can still be related to today. In many ways the game has stayed almost the same since they got rid of the dead ball in the 20's.

Carplos · 04-18-2002, 11:02 AM

He's the best player ever with segregation. People always forget he never had to compete with African Americans--who are some of the best players in the game today.

fluharty · 04-18-2002, 11:08 AM

I believe Ruth was the first player that actually tried to hit home runs. I think he sort of popularized the whole concept. Before him, a tripple was considered most exciting kind of hit you could get.

Spielman · 04-18-2002, 02:07 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Carplos:
He's the best player ever with segregation. People always forget he never had to compete with African Americans--who are some of the best players in the game today.<hr /></blockquote>Considering the continued dearth of African-American pitchers in the big leagues today, a far more relevant point (if you're making a comparison to the modern game) would be that Ruth didn't have to compete against Latin American pitchers.

Of course, even that point doesn't really stand up to the sheer amount by which Ruth outstripped his contemporaries.

He's the best ever, regardless of era or chromatic issues.

-Spielman

bamf909 · 04-18-2002, 03:06 PM

I have to disagree. I think Ruth is one of the most overrated players ever. I can think of a number of players who i would much rather have on my team, (not even counting pitchers) including Josh Gibson, Cool Papa Bell, Willie Mays (whose defense alone makes him a far more valuable asset than Ruth), Johnny Bench, Ty Cobb, and Honus Wagner.

Schmidty · 04-18-2002, 03:44 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by bamf909:
I have to disagree. I think Ruth is one of the most overrated players ever. I can think of a number of players who i would much rather have on my team, (not even counting pitchers) including Josh Gibson, Cool Papa Bell, Willie Mays (whose defense alone makes him a far more valuable asset than Ruth), Johnny Bench, Ty Cobb, and Honus Wagner.<hr /></blockquote>Give me some facts to back up this statement.

[ 04-19-2002, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Schmidty ]

IngredientX · 04-18-2002, 06:17 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by fluharty:
I believe Ruth was the first player that actually tried to hit home runs. I think he sort of popularized the whole concept. Before him, a tripple was considered most exciting kind of hit you could get.<hr /></blockquote>This is a very important point. Before Ruth came along, the home run just wasn't a strategy that teams of the time felt comfortable with. At the time, a successful team was one that stole bases and scratched out runs. It took about three years for the league to catch up with him and start swinging for the fences with regularity.

I put the following up in another forum...

----

I'm looking in <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com" target="_blank">www.baseball-reference.com</a> at the AL runner-ups to the home run title between 1919 (the first year [Ruth] hit over 20) and 1921.

<blockquote>code:<hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Year Ruth 2nd Place
1919 29 10
1920 54 19
1921 59 24</pre><hr /></blockquote>In 1922 Ruth came in third in AL home runs. He hit 35. The St. Louis Browns' Ken Williams hit 39. That's something you Oriole fans can hang over the Yanks the next time they come to Camden Yards.

TheRockCT · 04-19-2002, 05:31 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Schmidty:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by bamf909:
I have to disagree. I think Ruth is one of the most overrated players ever. I can think of a number of players who i would much rather have on my team, (not even counting pitchers) including Josh Gibson, Cool Papa Bell, Willie Mays (whose defense alone makes him a far more valuable asset than Ruth), Johnny Bench, Ty Cobb, and Honus Wagner.<hr /></blockquote>Give me some facts to back up this statement.<hr /></blockquote>Well, he doesn't really have to, he was giving his opinion, which doesn't mean he has to back it up. If he'd rather have those players on his team, that's fine. Now in MY opinion I do believe Ruth was phenomenal. He crushed baseballs in an era where pitchers lead the league in ERA with 1.67's and 1.82's and 30 something wins every single season. But that single fact alone was why Ruth going for the fences was a great psychological decision. Managers didn't have a quick hook on a guy, and pitchers pitched VERY often. I know most didn't throw 95+ MPH fastballs, but the human body hasn't changed so dramatically in 60-70 years that it meant the pitchers of the 20's & 30's didn't get exhausted with all the pitching they did. Ruth tapped into that, brilliantly, and since there were no real "relief" pitchers or "specialty" pitchers, Ruth would always get a pitcher he was familiar with in almost EVERY at-bat. This goes hand in hand with the fact that he was a pitcher before he moved. Now I know there were several pitchers/position players in the game back then, but Ruth was one of the first who was really successful at both, so he knew the mentality of a pitcher when he stood in the batter's box. And so he shelled them. But it was an incredibly smart gameplan, because he would still hit for average, and even stole some bases for a while. When a player hits 60 homeruns for you and STILL hits .356, or 59 homeruns and STILL hits .378 in the era he did it in, his defense is certainly beside the point.

angryelvis · 04-19-2002, 06:06 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by bamf909:
[qb]Isince there were no real "relief" pitchers or "specialty" pitchers, Ruth would always get a pitcher he was familiar with in almost EVERY at-bat.<hr /></blockquote>Well, to be honest, I have no idea who I am responding to with all the quote blocks I just removed but here we go.

Yep, Ruth probably did encounter some pitchers who were tired at the end of the game but when they were tired they started throwing spit-balls. Also, those ball parks were not designed for hitters like they are today. Let's also look at the tools. The balls were probably not wrapped as tight. Owners hated expenses so more beat-up balls were probably kept in play giving an advantage to the pitcher. Plus, the weight of their bats was insane.

Despite all that, the one thing that separates him from the rest of the pack, imho, is the fact he out-homered teams.

Henry · 04-19-2002, 06:25 AM

To help put this in perspective, try and imagine a pitcher today that could throw 110 miles an hour regularly, average 8 innings on 3 days rest, have an OBA of less than .200 and an ERA of less than 1.00

Now your looking at a guy that would dominate today's game the way Ruth dominated the 20s. It isn't a point of whether he was the "best" player in the game "ever", but the fact he dominated the game of the time.

In today's world with the size of ballplayers and God knows how they condition themselves, Ruth would be "good" but probably not head and shoulder above everyone... but in the 20s, there's no doubt in my mind he was the king. Add to that the fact he could pitch (and well) and he deserves his history... overrated ?? Not a chance if you measure him in his own time.

A .350 hitter with 50+ HRs a year... hell, I'd take him today

[ 04-19-2002, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Henry ]

Jason Moyer · 04-19-2002, 06:40 AM

Instead of speculating why not just quote some hard facts. Let's look at homerun totals.

1921 - Babe Ruth

9.2 AB/HR
ML Average - 90.9 (a guy with 640 AB would hit 7 HR)

2001 - Barry Bonds

6.5 AB/HR
ML Average - 30.5 AB/HR (!! -- that means the AVERAGE 600 AB guy hits 20 HR)

1980 - Mike Schmidt

11.4 AB/HR
ML Average - 46.7 AB/HR

Now let's normalize all of these to the Bonds era of 30.5 AB/HR.

Ruth - 3.1 AB/HR
Bonds - 6.5 AB/HR
Schmidt - 7.4 AB/HR

Applied to the AB they had in their respective seasons.

Babe Ruth - 174 HR
Bonds - 73 HR
Schmidt - 74 HR

Of course you also have to adjust because Ruth played around 7% fewer games in a season. But anyway, as you can see, in order to dominate last season the same way Ruth dominated 1921, Bonds would have needed about 180 homeruns. That is insane. What's even more insane, is that comparitively, MIKE SCHMIDT was more dominant in 1980. And that's not including the runs he saved his *championship winning* team with his 3B-standard-defining defensive skills.

If you want we could also debate why Pedro Martinez, Greg Maddux, and Roger Clemens are better pitchers than Nolan Ryan or Tom Seaver.

Jason

bamf909 · 04-19-2002, 06:42 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Schmidty:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by bamf909:
I have to disagree. I think Ruth is one of the most overrated players ever. I can think of a number of players who i would much rather have on my team, (not even counting pitchers) including Josh Gibson, Cool Papa Bell, Willie Mays (whose defense alone makes him a far more valuable asset than Ruth), Johnny Bench, Ty Cobb, and Honus Wagner.<hr /></blockquote>Give me some facts to back up this statement.<hr /></blockquote>Josh Gibson- 84 home runs in one season, lifetime .373 batting average, 962 home runs in his only 17 year long career which was tragically ended when he was only 35. If he had played even 1 more year, he would have probably reached the 1000 homers mark.

Cool Papa Bell- .338 lifetime BA, but he must have been the fastest baseball player ever. Jesse Owens refused to race against him. Stole 175 bases in one season. Can you imagine the run production from him. He scored from first base on infield bunts. He also ran the bases on a wet field in 13.1 seconds, including 3.1 from Home to first.

Willie Mays-at an important fielding position, Mays was one of the best of the best. Add this to his offensive production, which rivals ruth's, and was in an era of supremely competitive baseball, as well as multi ethnic pitchers, with some variety, makes him (IMHO) the greatest major leaguer ever.

Johnny Bench- simply stated, th greatest defensive catcher in major league history, the greatest offensive catcher in major league history.

Ty Cobb- never tried to hit homers because he considered it unmanly. .366 career BA, just under 900 stolen bases.

Honus Wagner- I don't know what i was thinking when i posted him. I'm sorry. I must have been drinking.

obaslg · 04-19-2002, 07:07 AM

I'm not sure about the sources of the Negro Leagues stats - I've never really looked into - but some of the stuff I hear quoted from time to time makes me wonder about the accuracy - I'm not doubting that you have a source, but that the source is accurate. The Josh Gibson stuff is certainly believable, but I don't believe that Bell was the fastest player ever anymore than I believe Ruth was the strongest. Owens, after all, wasn't nearly as fast as today's athletes - that's just the nature of things. Regardless, this is always going to be apples and oranges, b/c we have no way to compare the overall talent of the Negro Leagues. Maybe it was lower, b/c there were many more whites, or higher, b/c blacks were more likely to play, or had a strong emphasis on hitting, so Gibson's stats are inflated, or a strong emphasis on pitching, so he was actually even better than it seems. It's a shame that we can't better compare, and either way it is too bad that people don't know Gibson like they do Ruth.

Bench? Not close. Mays has a better argument, b/c awesome offense with the defense, but neither (presumably) could have been a HoF pitcher, too. Cobb...I'm always a little skeptical about Cobb's alleged philosophy. He's known as one of the feircest competitors ever - didn't he care that Ruth's run production far exceed his? Couldn't he tell that homers would win more games? On the other hand, have you heard that (possibly apocyphal) story about Cobb arguing with reporters before a game about Ruth's homers, saying "OK, I'll show you something today," and going like 3 for 4 with 2 dingers? If true, I think it helps prove: 1) that Cobb was better, and 2) that he was an idiot for not doing it every day.

AngelinOF · 04-19-2002, 07:52 AM

A good majority of Negro League stats are based on what amouts to close to 200 games a year. During the winter months some players traveled to Latin America to play and most people also include the stats that they accumlated while playing there in their overall career total. A good example of how this has led to some exaggerations or misreported stats is looking at Cool Papa Bell's Negro League stats over at <a href="http://baseball-almanac.com/players/p_bell1.shtml" target="_blank">Baseball Almanac</a>. His stats listed are the stats that were accumulated in the offical Negro Leagues, Bell is often credited with a 175 stolen base season but it was in 200 game season. And also on the same note most of the stats that Negro Leaguers compiled where against a segregated league.

I do wonder how a lifetime .342 hitter, 714 Hr, and over 2200 RBI's would be considered overrated.

[ 04-19-2002, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: AngelinOF ]

Jason Moyer · 04-19-2002, 08:00 AM

I think it would be fair to compare negro league stats to honkey league stats (i.e. baseball pre-1950) since so many players made a successful transition between the two.

Seriously, how many negro league stars struggled in the big leagues? I can't think of any off the top of my head. When you consider how many players couldn't play with whites until they were almost 40 years old and then put up stunning numbers I'd say the depth of talent in the negro leagues was pretty good.

Jason

Jason Moyer · 04-19-2002, 08:06 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by obaslg:
) that he was an idiot for not doing it every day.<hr /></blockquote>Maybe Cobb realized that homeruns won games but playing hard packed the stands. Sort of like Pete Rose 50 years later.

You have to realize than in the 1910's and 1920's, baseball players were still aware of the fact that what they do is entertainment. No one involved in the industry seems to realize that nowadays.

Jason

TheRockCT · 04-19-2002, 12:23 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jason Moyer:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by obaslg:
) that he was an idiot for not doing it every day.<hr /></blockquote>Maybe Cobb realized that homeruns won games but playing hard packed the stands. Sort of like Pete Rose 50 years later.

You have to realize than in the 1910's and 1920's, baseball players were still aware of the fact that what they do is entertainment. No one involved in the industry seems to realize that nowadays.

Jason<hr /></blockquote>I agree with this point somewhat, and wish to add that in today's world homeruns mean better individual showcasing (i.e. to shine the spotlight on that one individual ability to hit for power, thus giving the player the leverage to ask for more money or weigh free agency options). Not only that, but the homerun is basically the one play that your typical current baseball fan wants to see more than any other.

If you have a guy who swipes 100 bases, that's not going to fill a ballpark. If you have a quick hitting line drive single & double hitter, it doesn't really fill a ballpark (other than in cases similar to Ichiro, but since Seattle wins they also draw a decent crowd for other reasons). But the guys that have the talent or ability to smack 50-70 homeruns a year are the guys that people really pay to see in today's baseball or tune in on ESPN to see. The homerun is really nothing meaningful anymore.

But in the era of the Babe, it became meaningful. Because no one had ever seen such dominance and usage of that run-producing shot.

04-17-2002, 04:31 PM	#1
dasperp Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 61	Amazing Ruth Stat i just read this on espn.com. During Babe Ruth's career, the average player over the span of his career hit 94 homeruns. He hit 620 more homeruns than the average player in his era. That's obscene.

04-18-2002, 06:01 AM	#2
hoochpit Minors (Single A) Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 81	Ruth also outhomered every team in baseball in his early years. __________________ Death is not the worst evil, but rather when we wish to die and cannot. "Sophocles"

04-18-2002, 08:27 AM	#3
Khaos Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canfield, OH Posts: 473	I'll tell you why. They threw him a juiced ball, after lowering the mound and bringing in the fences just during his at bats. Plus he took steriods even before they were invented. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> __________________ squish

04-18-2002, 02:07 PM	#7
Spielman All Star Starter Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 1,668	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Carplos: <strong>He's the best player ever with segregation. People always forget he never had to compete with African Americans--who are some of the best players in the game today.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Considering the continued dearth of African-American pitchers in the big leagues today, a far more relevant point (if you're making a comparison to the modern game) would be that Ruth didn't have to compete against Latin American pitchers. Of course, even that point doesn't really stand up to the sheer amount by which Ruth outstripped his contemporaries. He's the best ever, regardless of era or chromatic issues. -Spielman __________________ Spielman was at one time the smartest person on these boards. http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...martest+Person I don't believe in AnotherAlias.

04-18-2002, 03:06 PM	#8
bamf909 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: fargo, nd Posts: 34	I have to disagree. I think Ruth is one of the most overrated players ever. I can think of a number of players who i would much rather have on my team, (not even counting pitchers) including Josh Gibson, Cool Papa Bell, Willie Mays (whose defense alone makes him a far more valuable asset than Ruth), Johnny Bench, Ty Cobb, and Honus Wagner. __________________ save the expos!

04-18-2002, 10:56 AM	#4
Bradley013 Bat Boy Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 12	That's why Babe Ruth is the best the game has or will ever see. Check out his pitching stats totally amazing that someone could be that good. The game of baseball is great in the way someone's stats from 70 years ago can still be related to today. In many ways the game has stayed almost the same since they got rid of the dead ball in the 20's.

04-18-2002, 11:02 AM	#5
Carplos Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Idaho Posts: 2,876 Infractions: 1/0 (0)	He's the best player ever with segregation. People always forget he never had to compete with African Americans--who are some of the best players in the game today.

04-18-2002, 11:08 AM	#6
fluharty All Star Starter Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Morgantown, WV Posts: 1,023	I believe Ruth was the first player that actually tried to hit home runs. I think he sort of popularized the whole concept. Before him, a tripple was considered most exciting kind of hit you could get.

04-18-2002, 03:44 PM	#9
Schmidty Minors (Single A) Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Brownwood, TX Posts: 54	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by bamf909: <strong>I have to disagree. I think Ruth is one of the most overrated players ever. I can think of a number of players who i would much rather have on my team, (not even counting pitchers) including Josh Gibson, Cool Papa Bell, Willie Mays (whose defense alone makes him a far more valuable asset than Ruth), Johnny Bench, Ty Cobb, and Honus Wagner.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Give me some facts to back up this statement. <small>[ 04-19-2002, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Schmidty ]</small>

04-18-2002, 06:17 PM	#10
IngredientX Minors (Double A) Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: New York Posts: 117	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by fluharty: <strong>I believe Ruth was the first player that actually tried to hit home runs. I think he sort of popularized the whole concept. Before him, a tripple was considered most exciting kind of hit you could get.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This is a very important point. Before Ruth came along, the home run just wasn't a strategy that teams of the time felt comfortable with. At the time, a successful team was one that stole bases and scratched out runs. It took about three years for the league to catch up with him and start swinging for the fences with regularity. I put the following up in another forum... ---- I'm looking in <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com" target="_blank">www.baseball-reference.com</a> at the AL runner-ups to the home run title between 1919 (the first year [Ruth] hit over 20) and 1921. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Year Ruth 2nd Place 1919 29 10 1920 54 19 1921 59 24</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">In 1922 Ruth came in third in AL home runs. He hit 35. The St. Louis Browns' Ken Williams hit 39. That's something you Oriole fans can hang over the Yanks the next time they come to Camden Yards. __________________ "Schopenhauer was right, wouldn't you say? 'Life without pain has no meaning.' Gentlemen, I wish to give your lives meaning."

04-19-2002, 05:31 AM	#11
TheRockCT All Star Starter Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: TN Posts: 1,083	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Schmidty: <strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by bamf909: <strong>I have to disagree. I think Ruth is one of the most overrated players ever. I can think of a number of players who i would much rather have on my team, (not even counting pitchers) including Josh Gibson, Cool Papa Bell, Willie Mays (whose defense alone makes him a far more valuable asset than Ruth), Johnny Bench, Ty Cobb, and Honus Wagner.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Give me some facts to back up this statement.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, he doesn't really have to, he was giving his opinion, which doesn't mean he has to back it up. If he'd rather have those players on his team, that's fine. Now in MY opinion I do believe Ruth was phenomenal. He crushed baseballs in an era where pitchers lead the league in ERA with 1.67's and 1.82's and 30 something wins every single season. But that single fact alone was why Ruth going for the fences was a great psychological decision. Managers didn't have a quick hook on a guy, and pitchers pitched VERY often. I know most didn't throw 95+ MPH fastballs, but the human body hasn't changed so dramatically in 60-70 years that it meant the pitchers of the 20's & 30's didn't get exhausted with all the pitching they did. Ruth tapped into that, brilliantly, and since there were no real "relief" pitchers or "specialty" pitchers, Ruth would always get a pitcher he was familiar with in almost EVERY at-bat. This goes hand in hand with the fact that he was a pitcher before he moved. Now I know there were several pitchers/position players in the game back then, but Ruth was one of the first who was really successful at both, so he knew the mentality of a pitcher when he stood in the batter's box. And so he shelled them. But it was an incredibly smart gameplan, because he would still hit for average, and even stole some bases for a while. When a player hits 60 homeruns for you and STILL hits .356, or 59 homeruns and STILL hits .378 in the era he did it in, his defense is certainly beside the point. __________________ GM, Vermont Emperor Penguins - POTD POTD Champions: 2011, 2012, 2013 GM, Monterrey Aztecs* - NABA *NABA Champions: 2013

04-19-2002, 06:06 AM	#12
angryelvis Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 89	<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by bamf909: [qb]Isince there were no real "relief" pitchers or "specialty" pitchers, Ruth would always get a pitcher he was familiar with in almost EVERY at-bat.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, to be honest, I have no idea who I am responding to with all the quote blocks I just removed but here we go. Yep, Ruth probably did encounter some pitchers who were tired at the end of the game but when they were tired they started throwing spit-balls. Also, those ball parks were not designed for hitters like they are today. Let's also look at the tools. The balls were probably not wrapped as tight. Owners hated expenses so more beat-up balls were probably kept in play giving an advantage to the pitcher. Plus, the weight of their bats was insane. Despite all that, the one thing that separates him from the rest of the pack, imho, is the fact he out-homered teams.

04-19-2002, 06:25 AM	#13
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	To help put this in perspective, try and imagine a pitcher today that could throw 110 miles an hour regularly, average 8 innings on 3 days rest, have an OBA of less than .200 and an ERA of less than 1.00 Now your looking at a guy that would dominate today's game the way Ruth dominated the 20s. It isn't a point of whether he was the "best" player in the game "ever", but the fact he dominated the game of the time. In today's world with the size of ballplayers and God knows how they condition themselves, Ruth would be "good" but probably not head and shoulder above everyone... but in the 20s, there's no doubt in my mind he was the king. Add to that the fact he could pitch (and well) and he deserves his history... overrated ?? Not a chance if you measure him in his own time. A .350 hitter with 50+ HRs a year... hell, I'd take him today <small>[ 04-19-2002, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Henry ]</small>

04-19-2002, 06:40 AM	#14
Jason Moyer Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 5,105	Instead of speculating why not just quote some hard facts. Let's look at homerun totals. 1921 - Babe Ruth 9.2 AB/HR ML Average - 90.9 (a guy with 640 AB would hit 7 HR) 2001 - Barry Bonds 6.5 AB/HR ML Average - 30.5 AB/HR (!! -- that means the AVERAGE 600 AB guy hits 20 HR) 1980 - Mike Schmidt 11.4 AB/HR ML Average - 46.7 AB/HR Now let's normalize all of these to the Bonds era of 30.5 AB/HR. Ruth - 3.1 AB/HR Bonds - 6.5 AB/HR Schmidt - 7.4 AB/HR Applied to the AB they had in their respective seasons. Babe Ruth - 174 HR Bonds - 73 HR Schmidt - 74 HR Of course you also have to adjust because Ruth played around 7% fewer games in a season. But anyway, as you can see, in order to dominate last season the same way Ruth dominated 1921, Bonds would have needed about 180 homeruns. That is insane. What's even more insane, is that comparitively, MIKE SCHMIDT was more dominant in 1980. And that's not including the runs he saved his championship winning team with his 3B-standard-defining defensive skills. If you want we could also debate why Pedro Martinez, Greg Maddux, and Roger Clemens are better pitchers than Nolan Ryan or Tom Seaver. Jason __________________ "I pretty much popped everything cold turkey. We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses." -- Tom House "I was very fortunate to have a pitching coach by the name of Tom House...Tom, I really miss those days that we spent in the weight room and out on the field working together." -- Nolan Ryan's HoF Induction Speech

04-19-2002, 06:42 AM	#15
bamf909 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: fargo, nd Posts: 34	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Schmidty: <strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by bamf909: <strong>I have to disagree. I think Ruth is one of the most overrated players ever. I can think of a number of players who i would much rather have on my team, (not even counting pitchers) including Josh Gibson, Cool Papa Bell, Willie Mays (whose defense alone makes him a far more valuable asset than Ruth), Johnny Bench, Ty Cobb, and Honus Wagner.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Give me some facts to back up this statement.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Josh Gibson- 84 home runs in one season, lifetime .373 batting average, 962 home runs in his only 17 year long career which was tragically ended when he was only 35. If he had played even 1 more year, he would have probably reached the 1000 homers mark. Cool Papa Bell- .338 lifetime BA, but he must have been the fastest baseball player ever. Jesse Owens refused to race against him. Stole 175 bases in one season. Can you imagine the run production from him. He scored from first base on infield bunts. He also ran the bases on a wet field in 13.1 seconds, including 3.1 from Home to first. Willie Mays-at an important fielding position, Mays was one of the best of the best. Add this to his offensive production, which rivals ruth's, and was in an era of supremely competitive baseball, as well as multi ethnic pitchers, with some variety, makes him (IMHO) the greatest major leaguer ever. Johnny Bench- simply stated, th greatest defensive catcher in major league history, the greatest offensive catcher in major league history. Ty Cobb- never tried to hit homers because he considered it unmanly. .366 career BA, just under 900 stolen bases. Honus Wagner- I don't know what i was thinking when i posted him. I'm sorry. I must have been drinking. __________________ save the expos!

04-19-2002, 07:07 AM	#16
obaslg All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 887	I'm not sure about the sources of the Negro Leagues stats - I've never really looked into - but some of the stuff I hear quoted from time to time makes me wonder about the accuracy - I'm not doubting that you have a source, but that the source is accurate. The Josh Gibson stuff is certainly believable, but I don't believe that Bell was the fastest player ever anymore than I believe Ruth was the strongest. Owens, after all, wasn't nearly as fast as today's athletes - that's just the nature of things. Regardless, this is always going to be apples and oranges, b/c we have no way to compare the overall talent of the Negro Leagues. Maybe it was lower, b/c there were many more whites, or higher, b/c blacks were more likely to play, or had a strong emphasis on hitting, so Gibson's stats are inflated, or a strong emphasis on pitching, so he was actually even better than it seems. It's a shame that we can't better compare, and either way it is too bad that people don't know Gibson like they do Ruth. Bench? Not close. Mays has a better argument, b/c awesome offense with the defense, but neither (presumably) could have been a HoF pitcher, too. Cobb...I'm always a little skeptical about Cobb's alleged philosophy. He's known as one of the feircest competitors ever - didn't he care that Ruth's run production far exceed his? Couldn't he tell that homers would win more games? On the other hand, have you heard that (possibly apocyphal) story about Cobb arguing with reporters before a game about Ruth's homers, saying "OK, I'll show you something today," and going like 3 for 4 with 2 dingers? If true, I think it helps prove: 1) that Cobb was better, and 2) that he was an idiot for not doing it every day. __________________ Realy good musition of many insterments, including the hyperbolic vitriol.

04-19-2002, 07:52 AM	#17
AngelinOF All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Kentucky Posts: 1,353	A good majority of Negro League stats are based on what amouts to close to 200 games a year. During the winter months some players traveled to Latin America to play and most people also include the stats that they accumlated while playing there in their overall career total. A good example of how this has led to some exaggerations or misreported stats is looking at Cool Papa Bell's Negro League stats over at <a href="http://baseball-almanac.com/players/p_bell1.shtml" target="_blank">Baseball Almanac</a>. His stats listed are the stats that were accumulated in the offical Negro Leagues, Bell is often credited with a 175 stolen base season but it was in 200 game season. And also on the same note most of the stats that Negro Leaguers compiled where against a segregated league. I do wonder how a lifetime .342 hitter, 714 Hr, and over 2200 RBI's would be considered overrated. <small>[ 04-19-2002, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: AngelinOF ]</small>

04-19-2002, 08:00 AM	#18
Jason Moyer Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 5,105	I think it would be fair to compare negro league stats to honkey league stats (i.e. baseball pre-1950) since so many players made a successful transition between the two. Seriously, how many negro league stars struggled in the big leagues? I can't think of any off the top of my head. When you consider how many players couldn't play with whites until they were almost 40 years old and then put up stunning numbers I'd say the depth of talent in the negro leagues was pretty good. Jason __________________ "I pretty much popped everything cold turkey. We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses." -- Tom House "I was very fortunate to have a pitching coach by the name of Tom House...Tom, I really miss those days that we spent in the weight room and out on the field working together." -- Nolan Ryan's HoF Induction Speech

04-19-2002, 08:06 AM	#19
Jason Moyer Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 5,105	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by obaslg: <strong>) that he was an idiot for not doing it every day.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Maybe Cobb realized that homeruns won games but playing hard packed the stands. Sort of like Pete Rose 50 years later. You have to realize than in the 1910's and 1920's, baseball players were still aware of the fact that what they do is entertainment. No one involved in the industry seems to realize that nowadays. Jason __________________ "I pretty much popped everything cold turkey. We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses." -- Tom House "I was very fortunate to have a pitching coach by the name of Tom House...Tom, I really miss those days that we spent in the weight room and out on the field working together." -- Nolan Ryan's HoF Induction Speech

04-19-2002, 12:23 PM	#20
TheRockCT All Star Starter Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: TN Posts: 1,083	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Jason Moyer: <strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by obaslg: <strong>) that he was an idiot for not doing it every day.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Maybe Cobb realized that homeruns won games but playing hard packed the stands. Sort of like Pete Rose 50 years later. You have to realize than in the 1910's and 1920's, baseball players were still aware of the fact that what they do is entertainment. No one involved in the industry seems to realize that nowadays. Jason</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I agree with this point somewhat, and wish to add that in today's world homeruns mean better individual showcasing (i.e. to shine the spotlight on that one individual ability to hit for power, thus giving the player the leverage to ask for more money or weigh free agency options). Not only that, but the homerun is basically the one play that your typical current baseball fan wants to see more than any other. If you have a guy who swipes 100 bases, that's not going to fill a ballpark. If you have a quick hitting line drive single & double hitter, it doesn't really fill a ballpark (other than in cases similar to Ichiro, but since Seattle wins they also draw a decent crowd for other reasons). But the guys that have the talent or ability to smack 50-70 homeruns a year are the guys that people really pay to see in today's baseball or tune in on ESPN to see. The homerun is really nothing meaningful anymore. But in the era of the Babe, it became meaningful. Because no one had ever seen such dominance and usage of that run-producing shot. __________________ GM, Vermont Emperor Penguins - POTD POTD Champions: 2011, 2012, 2013 GM, Monterrey Aztecs* - NABA *NABA Champions: 2013