PDA

View Full Version : Teddy ball game vs The Babe



Uncle Sam
09-24-2011, 06:32 PM
1 Simple question. Who was the better player? Ruth was a pitcher in the begining of his career but saw some ABs. Williams missed 4 years in his prime dureing world war 2 so his average may have been higher than it is had he not served ( When a guy hits. 340 for his career that says something. ) So, The Great Bambino or The Yankee Clipper?

SHOELESSJOE3
09-25-2011, 04:50 PM
1 Simple question. Who was the better player? Ruth was a pitcher in the begining of his career but saw some ABs. Williams missed 4 years in his prime dureing world war 2 so his average may have been higher than it is had he not served ( When a guy hits. 340 for his career that says something. ) So, The Great Bambino or The Yankee Clipper?

The fact that Babe had 1110 at bats in the deadball era 1914-1919, probably hurt his career percentage based stats,,,batting average......slugging percentage.....OBA. In those years he was hitting a dead ball, facing trick deliveries and a ball that was left in the game for many innings, dirt stained, grass stained and beat up.

Also in 1915-16-17 he was a pitcher only, batting every 4th or 5th day not very good to keep a batters timing sharp.

Here is Babe in the live ball era, the everyday player 1920-1935....Ba. 347...Slugging .708....OBA.483. So those early at bats were no advantage for him, deadball era. Also Babe had only 49 career home runs in his first 6 seasons.

If your including the outfield Babe in his younger years was very good in the outfield with a rifle arm.

Babe has only 693 more career at bats than Ted, not that far apart.
Strictly hitting they are close but it's Ruth;s slugging that gives him the edge.

Bos_Sports4Life
09-25-2011, 07:53 PM
The fact that Babe had 1110 at bats in the deadball era 1914-1919, probably hurt his career percentage based stats,,,batting average......slugging percentage.....OBA. In those years he was hitting a dead ball, facing trick deliveries and a ball that was left in the game for many innings, dirt stained, grass stained and beat up.

Also in 1915-16-17 he was a pitcher only, batting every 4th or 5th day not very good to keep a batters timing sharp.

Here is Babe in the live ball era, the everyday player 1920-1935....Ba. 347...Slugging .708....OBA.483. So those early at bats were no advantage for him, deadball era. Also Babe had only 49 career home runs in his first 6 seasons.

If your including the outfield Babe in his younger years was very good in the outfield with a rifle arm.

Babe has only 693 more career at bats than Ted, not that far apart.
Strictly hitting they are close but it's Ruth;s slugging that gives him the edge.

Too me they are the top 2 Baseball Players of all time. I Put Ruth #1/Williams #2..But there's a few things William supporters could argue

* Ruth was a lefty at yankee stadium..Give williams Yankee stadium, You'd see a decent jump in power #'s as Williams was a pull hitter

* Ted Williams played in a deeper and intergrated (for most of his career) league. Scouting was advancing and blacks represented a new source of talent.


IMO...Ruth Dominated his era more than any other baseball player. But williams would translate too this era more so than Ruth

Ruth was a revolutionary. Its a well known fact that Babe Ruth outhomered entire teams during a season. The question is, was Babe Ruth that much better or was the rest of the league still playing small ball in a live ball era? When we see the league close in on Ruth, the answer becomes evident. Ruth's relative stats are given an extreme boost because he was one of only a handful of players to play a "slugger's game" in the 1920's. Before Ruth, no one swung for the fences. No top player took walks or wasn't afraid to whiff. So Ruth's SLG and OBP relative to the league get a boost...

SHOELESSJOE3
09-25-2011, 10:42 PM
Too me they are the top 2 Baseball Players of all time. I Put Ruth #1/Williams #2..But there's a few things William supporters could argue

* Ruth was a lefty at yankee stadium..Give williams Yankee stadium, You'd see a decent jump in power #'s as Williams was a pull hitter

* Ted Williams played in a deeper and intergrated (for most of his career) league. Scouting was advancing and blacks represented a new source of talent.


IMO...Ruth Dominated his era more than any other baseball player. But williams would translate too this era more so than Ruth

Ruth was a revolutionary. Its a well known fact that Babe Ruth outhomered entire teams during a season. The question is, was Babe Ruth that much better or was the rest of the league still playing small ball in a live ball era? When we see the league close in on Ruth, the answer becomes evident. Ruth's relative stats are given an extreme boost because he was one of only a handful of players to play a "slugger's game" in the 1920's. Before Ruth, no one swung for the fences. No top player took walks or wasn't afraid to whiff. So Ruth's SLG and OBP relative to the league get a boost...

Yes they could factor those in.
But, Williams at Yankee Stadium his .309 BA. at Yankee Stadium was his third lowest BA in the 7 road parks.

His home run frequency at Yankee Stadium was every 15.8 at bats, he did better than that in Cleveland-Detroit-St. Louis- and Philadelphia.

His Slugging Lowest first
Chicago---------.541
NY--------------.543
Cleveland--------.556
Wash.-----------577
Detroit----------.670
Phil.------------.713
St. Louis-------.750

Ted's own words, I read this from an article... He did not like hitting at NY, said it was a tough park to hit in, you can see by the numbers he hit better at some other AL parks. He did not like the smoke or the high stands.
Remember get away from that short right field and Yankee stadium is not an easy park for the home run. When Ruth played deep right center was 429 and centerfield was 490 feet.

Yes Babe did get a boost in the power numbers since in his early years it was the contact game.
But Ruth was swinging from the heels and yet his .355 in the 1920s decade was the third highest. He was playing his own game the long ball and yet beating 95 percent of the league in batting average, beating the contact hitters at their own game.

Thats what set him apart from all the rest. He was the best at the combo of batting average and slugging.

Bos_Sports4Life
09-25-2011, 11:57 PM
Yes they could factor those in.
But, Williams at Yankee Stadium his .309 BA. at Yankee Stadium was his third lowest BA in the 7 road parks.

His home run frequency at Yankee Stadium was every 15.8 at bats, he did better than that in Cleveland-Detroit-St. Louis- and Philadelphia.

His Slugging Lowest first
Chicago---------.541
NY--------------.543
Cleveland--------.556
Wash.-----------577
Detroit----------.670
Phil.------------.713
St. Louis-------.750

Ted's own words, I read this from an article... He did not like hitting at NY, said it was a tough park to hit in, you can see by the numbers he hit better at some other AL parks. He did not like the smoke or the high stands.
Remember get away from that short right field and Yankee stadium is not an easy park for the home run. When Ruth played deep right center was 429 and centerfield was 490 feet.

Yes Babe did get a boost in the power numbers since in his early years it was the contact game.
But Ruth was swinging from the heels and yet his .355 in the 1920s decade was the third highest. He was playing his own game the long ball and yet beating 95 percent of the league in batting average, beating the contact hitters at their own game.

Thats what set him apart from all the rest. He was the best at the combo of batting average and slugging.


Well i agree Ruth dominated his era more than any other player..

But questions like this can be answered 2 diff ways..Who would be better in todays game or who was better during their time?

Answer too better relative too their era..its ruth
Who would translate better in todays game, i think thats ted

bosox3431
09-26-2011, 01:05 AM
1 Simple question. Who was the better player? Ruth was a pitcher in the begining of his career but saw some ABs. Williams missed 4 years in his prime dureing world war 2 so his average may have been higher than it is had he not served ( When a guy hits. 340 for his career that says something. ) So, The Great Bambino or The Yankee Clipper?

The splendid sPlinter. Yankee clipper is DiMaggio.

SHOELESSJOE3
09-26-2011, 07:21 AM
Well i agree Ruth dominated his era more than any other player..

But questions like this can be answered 2 diff ways..Who would be better in todays game or who was better during their time?

Answer too better relative too their era..its ruth
Who would translate better in todays game, i think thats ted

I hear ya BOS, got your point. But we will never know who would be the better player in today's game.

Both had great eyes, reflexes and wrists. All great hitters in any era have the qualities which made them great hitters. Great hitters hit in any era. Although they may not hit the same in another era because of changes in the game they would probably carry their skills with them and be among the leaders.

I agree that Ruth would not dominate in today's game as he did then that in no way means he could not be a super hitter in today's game, he would just have more competition. Same deal with Ted, he would be a hitting star in any era.

Again we have to remember Ruth was more than a power hitter, his .342 career BA. is the 5th highest in modern times. He was playing long ball and small ball like no one ever did. He also had 43 verified bunt base hits in his career.

No doubt it's a close call. I have always said that Babe's only rival if we are speaking of a combo of hitting/slugging it would have to be Ted.

todu82
09-26-2011, 09:23 AM
Babe Ruth

Bos_Sports4Life
09-26-2011, 02:51 PM
It's a tough comparison too make due too the fact Ruth played in a league full of players that played the small ball type game

During the twenties only a small, small handful of players were playing a style that went for OPS. When great sluggers like Ty Cobb (and almost every other established deadball star that played into the 20's) are content to punch singles and doubles when they could've hit the long ball, the overall league's SLG is going to artificially depressed compared to what it could've been if everyone was playing the modern "Ruthian" style of play.

So yes Ruth has a 17 point edge in OPS+, but when he was only competing against a very small handful of players for OPS, that gap can be explained away. Williams played when everyone played the Ruthian game.

All that said, I feel Ruth was still the best hitter of his day and would've led the league regardless of how many players were playing "his" game. But his relative stats would've come down a bit. Just to put things into context, Ruth out homered entire teams. For Williams to do that in his best year (1941) he would've needed 48 HR. Certainly doable.


For Ruth to outhomer a team in his best year (1921), he would've only needed 18 HR. Its pretty obvious certain teams just hadn't figured out how effective Ruth's style of game was. Even in 1927, people were still a little slow on the draw. Ruth would've needed a mere 27 homers to out do the an entire team in the AL. 40 HR would've out done 7 teams in 1927! You have to put some sort of discount on Ruth's relative stats.

Both men were great hitters - clearly the two best ever. But Williams did almost as much as Ruth against a deeper league when everyone was playing the same style of game. Ruth was a pioneer playing against people who didn't realize just how revolutionary Ruth's style was. When ranking all time players, that is enough - combined with his pitching exploits - to make Ruth better than Williams (plus Ruth could field and run better), but as far as pure hitting goes, Williams was the greatest.


Sorry about rambling on and on..And I hope I made some sense. It's an interesting discussion too say the least

SHOELESSJOE3
09-26-2011, 03:58 PM
It's a tough comparison too make due too the fact Ruth played in a league full of players that played the small ball type game

During the twenties only a small, small handful of players were playing a style that went for OPS. When great sluggers like Ty Cobb (and almost every other established deadball star that played into the 20's) are content to punch singles and doubles when they could've hit the long ball, the overall league's SLG is going to artificially depressed compared to what it could've been if everyone was playing the modern "Ruthian" style of play.

So yes Ruth has a 17 point edge in OPS+, but when he was only competing against a very small handful of players for OPS, that gap can be explained away. Williams played when everyone played the Ruthian game.

All that said, I feel Ruth was still the best hitter of his day and would've led the league regardless of how many players were playing "his" game. But his relative stats would've come down a bit. Just to put things into context, Ruth out homered entire teams. For Williams to do that in his best year (1941) he would've needed 48 HR. Certainly doable.


For Ruth to outhomer a team in his best year (1921), he would've only needed 18 HR. Its pretty obvious certain teams just hadn't figured out how effective Ruth's style of game was. Even in 1927, people were still a little slow on the draw. Ruth would've needed a mere 27 homers to out do the an entire team in the AL. 40 HR would've out done 7 teams in 1927! You have to put some sort of discount on Ruth's relative stats.

Both men were great hitters - clearly the two best ever. But Williams did almost as much as Ruth against a deeper league when everyone was playing the same style of game. Ruth was a pioneer playing against people who didn't realize just how revolutionary Ruth's style was. When ranking all time players, that is enough - combined with his pitching exploits - to make Ruth better than Williams (plus Ruth could field and run better), but as far as pure hitting goes, Williams was the greatest.


Sorry about rambling on and on..And I hope I made some sense. It's an interesting discussion too say the least

I do understand that and Ruth gets no extra points or consideration for out homering teams or from his hugh gap over the league in OPS+, not from me. And that is because what you say is true, he was the forerunner of the long ball. He was going for the fences so it's obvious the league full of contact hitters was far behind him in home runs and OPS+.

Now I go back to my earlier post. While playing long ball and competing with a league full of contact hitters, batters going to the plate with the intention of not striking out, Ruth still managed to hit for 54 points over the league average. That 54 point gap for a long ball hitter over contact hitters shows he was more than a slugger. He was slugging and still beating most of the league at their own game.

Obvious Ruth or no hitter could hit more homers than a team once more started going for the long ball.
So I don't even consider OPS+ when comparing Ruth to those in his time, he had the advantage but he was doing more than hitting home runs.

Ted hit for 74 points over the league average and Ruth 54 over the league average. We could look at it this way, when Ted was playing there was far less contact hitter in the game,long ball and strikeouts now, would he hit 74 points higher if there were as many contact hitters as there were Ruth's time since Ted was a slugger.

I give Ted a small edge as a hitter but the gap between them in slugging is bigger for Ruth than Teds edge as a hitter.

papipapsmanny
09-26-2011, 05:16 PM
ted williams..... he played in a much more modern age. Ruth, if he acted like he did then now..... he could be out of the league

I can't say the same about williams because well at the age of 41 in 1960 he numbers across the board were

.316 AVG- .451 OBP- .645 Slg

SHOELESSJOE3
09-26-2011, 06:43 PM
ted williams..... he played in a much more modern age. Ruth, if he acted like he did then now..... he could be out of the league

I can't say the same about williams because well at the age of 41 in 1960 he numbers across the board were

.316 AVG- .451 OBP- .645 Slg

How do we know how he would act in today's world. It may have beena Babe that did not spend almost his entire childhood in an institution age 7 to 19. He was too young to sign himself out, the Orioles owner was his legal guardian till he reached age 21.

Also not as wild as when younger Babe began to train in the winter months, 1926. He was one of the first and only baseball players to go on winter workout program started in 1926 and yearly at Art McGoverns gym.... the whole deal, exercise regimen, stationary bike, running, handball, the whole shot. Ruth was doing in the winter months in 1926 what is common today, getting in shape for the coming season. Ruth may have carried more weight than he should have but he was in better shape than many think he was.

You can't be out of shape and be one of only 5 players to play 2500 or more games from 1900 to 1935, Babe 5th on the list with 2508 games.

I do believe that marrying Claire Ruth in 1929 did add a year or two to his career. No Claire Ruth, I think he falls short of 700 home runs. She often traveled with the team and kept him in check, getting his rest and watching his food intake.

SHOELESSJOE3
09-26-2011, 06:59 PM
On Ted Williams. As a young boy I always regretted that I never got to see the great hitters, Cobb, Ruth, Dimaggio, Hornsby and some others.

Then it occurred to me, I did see one of the greatest, I saw Ted Williams in a game my dad took me to in Cleveland. I didn't get to see the young Ted, only in his last few seasons, even then he could murder that ball. When it's taking place you don't realize it. But some years after he retired, it sunk in to my mind, I did see one of the greatest ever, Ted Williams.
In that game at Cleveland I do recall he did hit a home run, upper deck, high and far.

Bos_Sports4Life
09-27-2011, 12:03 AM
I do understand that and Ruth gets no extra points or consideration for out homering teams or from his hugh gap over the league in OPS+, not from me. And that is because what you say is true, he was the forerunner of the long ball. He was going for the fences so it's obvious the league full of contact hitters was far behind him in home runs and OPS+.

Now I go back to my earlier post. While playing long ball and competing with a league full of contact hitters, batters going to the plate with the intention of not striking out, Ruth still managed to hit for 54 points over the league average. That 54 point gap for a long ball hitter over contact hitters shows he was more than a slugger. He was slugging and still beating most of the league at their own game.

Obvious Ruth or no hitter could hit more homers than a team once more started going for the long ball.
So I don't even consider OPS+ when comparing Ruth to those in his time, he had the advantage but he was doing more than hitting home runs.

Ted hit for 74 points over the league average and Ruth 54 over the league average. We could look at it this way, when Ted was playing there was far less contact hitter in the game,long ball and strikeouts now, would he hit 74 points higher if there were as many contact hitters as there were Ruth's time since Ted was a slugger.

I give Ted a small edge as a hitter but the gap between them in slugging is bigger for Ruth than Teds edge as a hitter.


I agree..

Allthough its hard too even say Ruth/Williams are clearly the 2 best hitters EVER. They are CEARLY the 2 greatest hitters in the live ball era, without a doubt.

Who knows what may have happened if a guy like Wagner played 15 years later. Ive heard stories of him hitting 450 ft shots..its just a lot of what if's

SHOELESSJOE3
09-27-2011, 12:50 AM
I agree..

Allthough its hard too even say Ruth/Williams are clearly the 2 best hitters EVER. They are CEARLY the 2 greatest hitters in the live ball era, without a doubt.

Who knows what may have happened if a guy like Wagner played 15 years later. Ive heard stories of him hitting 450 ft shots..its just a lot of what if's

Wagner was big and powerful, 200 pounds.
I think he could have really hit for some high numbers, home runs had he come into the game with the live ball.

Played at Forbes Field, big park, long dimensions LF 360--CF 457-460--RF 376
Also he played most of his career 1897-1917 with the real dead ball.
Baseball began using the cork center ball in 1911, before that the ball was really dead.

Bos_Sports4Life
09-27-2011, 01:06 PM
Wagner was big and powerful, 200 pounds.
I think he could have really hit for some high numbers, home runs had he come into the game with the live ball.

Played at Forbes Field, big park, long dimensions LF 360--CF 457-460--RF 376
Also he played most of his career 1897-1917 with the real dead ball.
Baseball began using the cork center ball in 1911, before that the ball was really dead.

:nod:

Which is why its almost impossible too say who was the best hitter of all time..

But I do agree Ruth/Williams are the 2 greatest in the live ball era, Arguing any one else is a stretch. Bonds "prime" was obviously crazy but he didn't have the brilliance with the bat throughout his career like Williams/Ruth..

JordansBulls
09-27-2011, 01:20 PM
Did this a little earlier this summer

http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=633519

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Willie Mays
4. Barry Bonds
5. Ty Cobb

SHOELESSJOE3
09-27-2011, 04:14 PM
:nod:

Which is why its almost impossible too say who was the best hitter of all time..

But I do agree Ruth/Williams are the 2 greatest in the live ball era, Arguing any one else is a stretch. Bonds "prime" was obviously crazy but he didn't have the brilliance with the bat throughout his career like Williams/Ruth..

That is true BOS, the game has gone through so many changes. We can only offer what we believe, factor in the changes and "attempt" to come to some conclusion.

No doubt Barry hurt himself, his legacy, his rep by what looks to be certain now, using steroids. What saved him was his trainer Gary Anderson who refused to testify but that was in a court of law. Public opinion seems to weigh heavy in belief he used. The fact that other used won't help him or Roger Clemens, it's the guys with the big numbers that make the biggest targets.

Hard to believe that Barry age 35 to 40 could hit so much better than the younger Barry. That is the age when players level off or decline yet he put up peak year that Ruth and Williams might not have when they were much younger than him.

yankeefan54
10-10-2011, 06:43 PM
babe ruth. But ted william did miss 3 years. babe ruth no matter what really took baseball to a whole new level and overall as a figure babe ruth is far more known.

Pinstripe pride
10-11-2011, 09:10 AM
babe ruth

NE Sportsfan
10-15-2011, 12:00 AM
Teddy Ball Game

jbro732
10-15-2011, 09:51 AM
Ruth's seasons where just more dominant than Williams. 177 Runs 171 RBI 59 HR .378 AVE with a .512 RBI for Ruth in 1921. Thats a filthy year.

Ruth put up the better seasons all while hitting for high average and getting on base at a clip of over .500. The only other player to put up as dominant of a season as Ruth was Gehrig.

For me its Ruth by a landslide.

NE Sportsfan
10-15-2011, 01:33 PM
Teddy was the best hitter of all time, missed 3 seasons to fight for his country and came back and didn't miss a beat.

papipapsmanny
10-15-2011, 01:40 PM
Williams missed about 5 years not 3

bagwell368
10-16-2011, 08:13 AM
Loaded question.

Babe was a much better fielder then Ted, a better base runner, and obviously a better pitcher.

A more interesting and closer debate is hitting alone. Hitting alone, Ted IMO is better. There is plenty of data to suggest such a claim:




Ruth being a revolutionary didn't have any real competition in the 1919-1924 time frame, so his comparison stats are through the roof. However hitters such as Gehrig, Foxx, and others came along quickly and nearly matched Ruth as a production hitter. So Ruth wasn't unique - just first.

Babe's era (the 2nd half) was a much offensive era then Ted's time - so you have to use adjusted stats to even get in the ball park.

players (pitchers and hitters both) were clearly at least 7-10% better* in Ted's time then Ruth's (career midpoint) if not more so. I've posted studies that support this before - from someone from the SABR group that pointed them out to me.

Ted was also a great hitter into old age then Ruth (Ted hit .388/.526/.731 at age 38).

His hitting was also potentially badly damaged by the not ONE but TWO leaves he took to defend the United States.


1943 - 0 of 154 (age 24)
1944 - 0 of 154 (age 25)
1945 - 0 of 154 (age 26)
1952 - 6 of 154 (age 33)
1953 - 37 of 154 (age 34)

It should be noted had he played those war years, like Musial against weaker competition, it's a good bet he would have had 1 or 2 more .400 seasons, probably with mid/high .500 OBP's, and .800 SLG's.



* http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/league-difficulty-part-4/

bagwell368
10-16-2011, 08:26 AM
Ruth's seasons where just more dominant than Williams. 177 Runs 171 RBI 59 HR .378 AVE with a .512 RBI for Ruth in 1921. Thats a filthy year.

Coming out of the dead ball era there were hardly any pitchers that threw harder then the high 80's, and none that sustained speeds into the 90's more then a small handful of pitchers per game.

Ruth often used bat of 44 or more ounces. Nobody has been near that AFAIK since Dick Allen in the early 70's (42). It's simply not possible to hit speeds seen from the early 30's onward with such a bat.

By Ted's time the average FB speed was higher.


Ruth put up the better seasons all while hitting for high average and getting on base at a clip of over .500. The only other player to put up as dominant of a season as Ruth was Gehrig.

For me its Ruth by a landslide.

Not in the hitting.

bagwell368
10-16-2011, 08:31 AM
They are CEARLY the 2 greatest hitters in the live ball era, without a doubt.

The end of the dead ball era and start of the live ball era did not happen in one moment or one year.

Elements of the dead ball era were still in evidence at least as late as 1928 - if not 1930.

The 1920's is clearly a transitional era, led by the hitters, which the pitchers adjusted to. Ruth was first and befitted from that status to a very large degree. If Joe Jackson had been first, and Ruth had pitched two more years, then what? Ruth is then another guy in the Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg line after Jackson, is what.

jbro732
10-16-2011, 09:49 AM
Loaded question.


Ted was also a great hitter into old age then Ruth (Ted hit .388/.526/.731 at age 38).


[/LIST]

At age 40 he hit .254 so that kind of kills that argument.


I'll still take Ruth as a hitter. More power with .002 less of a BA then Williams.
Anyone can skew stats or arguments.. For me Ruth's dominance is much more evident.

bagwell368
10-16-2011, 12:20 PM
At age 40 he hit .254 so that kind of kills that argument.

Really?

OPS+ age 38 and beyond Ted vs Ruth:

Ted: 233, 179, 114, 190
GHR: 175. 160, 118, Retired

It's always a good idea to do the research first before making claims I find....


I'll still take Ruth as a hitter. More power with .002 less of a BA then Williams.

Many people do, but they don't pay attention to details, or historical truth. No serious baseball historian will claim Ruth's competition was as good as Ted's. They may have trouble expressing the difference in quality, but not that it exists.

Did you know about stat "geeks" that Williams OBP advantage of .008 goes some of the way to canceling out Ruth's .054 advantage in SLG - and that' without accounting for Ruth's inferior competition.


Anyone can skew stats or arguments.. For me Ruth's dominance is much more evident.

But people with more understanding and grounding in the topic that are showing the true differences are not the same as fan's that take the first clues they find to satisfy the belief they already have.

hugepatsfan
10-16-2011, 01:07 PM
I think Ted Williams was the better individual player. But Ruth was just sooooooooo much more dominant. Dominant is how good you are compared to peers. There really is no wrong answer here. It depends on if you value the times they played in.

bagwell368
10-16-2011, 01:23 PM
I think Ted Williams was the better individual player. But Ruth was just sooooooooo much more dominant. Dominant is how good you are compared to peers. There really is no wrong answer here. It depends on if you value the times they played in.

But Ruth was a man playing against boys in 1921. What does that prove, except that he was playing a different game? Look at him in 1924 thru 1934. While he was still much better then the average player. In any given season there 1-2 of similar ability, and 3-6 that were one step off. So he was basically matched by hitters - and quickly.

Being first overstates his actual talent, not his value, but his talent.

Guys who came in:

1925-1928: Hornsby, Simmons, Muesel, Gehrig, Wilson

1929-1934: Foxx, Ott, Klein, Berger, Goslin, Trosky, Johnson, Averill, Greenberg

hugepatsfan
10-16-2011, 01:48 PM
But Ruth was a man playing against boys in 1921. What does that prove, except that he was playing a different game? Look at him in 1924 thru 1934. While he was still much better then the average player. In any given season there 1-2 of similar ability, and 3-6 that were one step off. So he was basically matched by hitters - and quickly.

Being first overstates his actual talent, not his value, but his talent.

Guys who came in:

1925-1928: Hornsby, Simmons, Muesel, Gehrig, Wilson

1929-1934: Foxx, Ott, Klein, Berger, Goslin, Trosky, Johnson, Averill, Greenberg

I agree. It's a value vs talent argument. Isn't that impressive to you that he was so far ahead of his time? That's a great accomplishment. But Ted Williams to me was probably a better hitter individually (didn't see either play so I admit my stance is kind of uninformed).

I don't think there really is a wrong answer here. It's hard to compare guys that played in different times like this because now the standards by which we judge them have to be subjective. If they played together (like the A-Rod and Manny thread) we can just analyze the #s of both and determine. Here there is a subjective nature to evaluation so it's hard to get a consensus.

bagwell368
10-16-2011, 02:22 PM
I agree. It's a value vs talent argument. Isn't that impressive to you that he was so far ahead of his time?

He admired Shoeless Joe's swing and copied it. He was bigger and stronger. He was a pioneer. That's all impressive. But, in 500 years if Ruth is still seen as the greatest hitter, then the amount of boost he got to his comparison numbers because he was first (or first since about 1885) falls short on the talent side.

Because the population of white only players he was drawn from is dwarfed today, he's not the best hitter ever, and he won't be in 500 years either. Williams with the 8-10% era adjustment wipes Ruth right off of the board, and that's a generation later.


But Ted Williams to me was probably a better hitter individually (didn't see either play so I admit my stance is kind of uninformed).

I don't think there really is a wrong answer here. It's hard to compare guys that played in different times like this because now the standards by which we judge them have to be subjective. If they played together (like the A-Rod and Manny thread) we can just analyze the #s of both and determine. Here there is a subjective nature to evaluation so it's hard to get a consensus.

See my post above with the added document. It has been teased out, and baseball keeps getting better, like basketball and football as well.

Since I got more interested in historical baseball about 20 years ago (including reading, film study) - and increased the level of coaching I do it's become very clear to me that post 1980 players > 1960 > 1945 > 1930 > 1920 > 1910 >> 1895.

The fact to giving an adjustment to Ruth of say * .91 while not 100% perfectly accurate compared to Ted - or about * .65 compared to Pujols - is far better then taking Ruth's numbers as written in stone as 100% repeatable today.

My guess on Ruth's slash today in an average park in the AL is: 290/.380/.550 AT BEST. I am talking "out of the box" as it were. People have argued with all the diet, training he'd still be great. He was brought up in an orphanage, and he'd be playing hoops or maybe football. Few kids in cities play baseball anymore. He'd be playing video games and chowing down on hot dogs, not like kids that go to the Majors nowadays from the US. AAU, private lessions, acadamies. No, it's Ruth as he was. If the split, slider, cutter really throw him for a loop, the numbers would be worse.

I didn't just hatch this out for this thread (as I believe you might know). I've written on this a lot in the past.