Mantle and Bunting in the World Series

STEVE F wrote:

This is why I marvel at Ted's hitting records and why I think they carry a lot more weight than Ruth's or any of the heavy hitters of the 20's .

To paraphrase Aretha Franklin: "Don't you blaspheme!, don't you blaspheme in here! You can leave here without your four whole fried chickens, without your dry white toast, and without blaspheming the Babe's good name."
I've said this before and I'll say it again: please read The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Homers by Bill Jenkinson. I always believed The Babe was the best but this book gave me the proof. It addresses everything that has been brought up here and more. Ruth's era vs the modern era, pre WWII vs post WWII, pre integration vs post integration and much, much more. Jenkinson is a member of SABR and is the leading authority on tape measure homeruns and consults with the Hall of Fame. Please read the book before you make any more off-handed comments about the Babe because I think this book will change your mind.

Also a shout-out to Scumby Jr.

I'll defend Ruth. 1) His excellent pitching record cannot be ignored. 2) He out-homered teams

Keep the faith brother!!! Semper Babe!

STEVE F wrote:

This is why I marvel at Ted's hitting records and why I think they carry a lot more weight than Ruth's or any of the heavy hitters of the 20's .

To paraphrase Aretha Franklin: "Don't you blaspheme!, don't you blaspheme in here! You can leave here without your four whole fried chickens, without your dry white toast, and without blaspheming the Babe's good name."
I've said this before and I'll say it again: please read The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Homers by Bill Jenkinson. I always believed The Babe was the best but this book gave me the proof. It addresses everything that has been brought up here and more. Ruth's era vs the modern era, pre WWII vs post WWII, pre integration vs post integration and much, much more. Jenkinson is a member of SABR and is the leading authority and consults with the Hall of Fame. Please read the book before you make any more off-handed comments about the Babe because I think this book will change your mind.

Also a shout out to Scumby Jr.

I'll defend Ruth. 1) His excellent pitching record cannot be ignored. 2) He out-homered teams

Keep the faith brother!!! Semper Babe!

Thanks. I don't understand the attempt to minimize Babe. As for Negro league players, many outstanding players, but they didn't come in and re-write the record books.

Ruth is impossible to evaluate.

1. He was a phenomenal pitcher.
2. His hitting stats are unreal.

BUT

A. In and around 1920 when he became a full-time hitter, "scientific baseball" ruled, where pitchers tried to hit spots and hitters above all tried for contact and tried to "hit it where they ain't." Many batters did not take full swings at pitches, and I suspect that the Tony Gwynn style of hitting off his front foot was prevalent. Pitchers also "paced themselves" - i.e. did not use their best stuff very often.

B. Ruth's 1920 and 1921 seasons were as much a function of opposing teams being unable to adjust to his unusual strategy of trying to hit everything hard as they were of his undeniable talent. I suspect that it took months for teams to even consider pitching him differently that they did other hitters. And even then, they had to decide which "different" was most likely to succeed.

C. He never had to hit under the lights, or face a slider, or fly 40,000 miles a year. Opposing teams probably used two or fewer pitchers in at least 90% of his games. They thought that a LOOGY was spitting on the sidewalk. Most likely, the normal pitcher of the day had Greg Maddux velocity, reasonably good command, and an inconsistent curve ball. Ruth struck out in about 1/8 of his PA's. The average AL hitter struck out in 1/12 in 1919, 1/15 in 1925, and 1/12 again in 1931. So Ruth was striking out at least 1.5 times the league average, against pitchers who mostly did not have the "stuff" to strike people out or the mindset to try to do so. His strikeout rate in modern baseball would be mind-boggling.

D. Saying that Ruth was 6 standard deviations over average in runs created, or slugging percentage, or whatever isn't really meaningful when he was the only guy following an outlying philosophy of hitting that emphasized power over contact. There's really no way to attempt to translate what he did to other contexts.

My guess is that, if Ruth were active in 21st century baseball, he would put up batting lines like.240-.360-.520 with 180 or more K's per year. That's still a very valuable player, but certainly not the best player alive. And there's also the issue of his lack of conditioning. But I think we can give him a pass on that one - peer pressure today would have him in good shape for a much greater portion of his career.

Thanks Rburgh , for expressing my feelings and better than I could have.
Also I am not trying to minimize the Babe, just saying that Ted did it in a totally different context

The amount of train travel they had to do on noisy, smoky, hot, kidney busting trains is far worse than any amount of travel on an air conditioned airplanes. They wore thick, hot, scratchy, wool uniforms. There was no air-conditioning anywhere! Not on the train, not in the hotel, not in the clubhouse. Nowhere! They played lots and lots of double headers. They had no lights but a lot of games started at 5:30 so without the benefit of lights they finished a lot of games in the "gloaming" to get the games in. Tell me its easier to hit in low light at twilight rather than under the lights. They played with the ball until it was black. No fresh pristine balls except for the first pitch of the game. Un-manicured dirt infields with rocks the size of golf balls. Gloves not much bigger than your hand. Gloves left on the field to trip over. Fans throwing glass beer bottles at the players and umpires. Two umpires. The pampered modern players of today wouldn't last ten seconds back then. I could go on and on!
But you know what, Teddy Ballgame would have been able to hack it back then because he wasn't a crybaby. Modern ball players are whiney crybabies. I agree with STEVE F that Teddy Ballgame was great and would play well in any era, but so would Ruth. In my mind the Splinter is an old time ballplayer. Remember he broke into the Bigs in 1939.

And while I have my dander up. When people said that Ruth would be a .240 hitter now. Come on. Be realistic. I hear this type of thing all of the time. Don't you think that a player as good and as smart as Ruth would adjust to todays conditions if he were somehow transported to the ML today? Of course he would. He would drop the 44-54 ounce bats and pick up a 33 oz bat and make all of the other necessary adjustments. And rather quickly I would think. I'm not suggesting that the old time greats were supermen but neither are modern players. But I do believe that old time players could more easily adjust to the pampered conditions of today than the modern players could adjust to the horrendous playing conditions of 1900 to WWII.When people suggest that players like Ruth, Hornsby, Lajoie, Gehrig, etc. would hit .240 or .250 today they are just being ridiculous. They might not hit .370 to .420 but I think they would hit well over .300. They were good ballplayers. They would adjust. Remember they had it a lot rougher. But............read the book, read the book, read the book! It is The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Homers by Bill Jenkinson. It's available on Amazon.

The size of the country was tiny in Ruth's day, the size of the player pool was even smaller. There is no way of knowing for sure but no one will ever convince me that Ruth would be the best player today let alone the best player of all time. Many players of Ruth's day would not be able to make single A teams today, including the pitchers Ruth got to face. Does ANYONE think Miguel Cabrera (and perhaps hundreds of other players) could not have done what Ruth did and more against Ruth's competition?

Radagast Brown wrote:

The size of the country was tiny in Ruth's day, the size of the player pool was even smaller. There is no way of knowing for sure but no one will ever convince me that Ruth would be the best player today let alone the best player of all time. Many players of Ruth's day would not be able to make single A teams today, including the pitchers Ruth got to face. Does ANYONE think Miguel Cabrera (and perhaps hundreds of other players) could not have done what Ruth did and more against Ruth's competition?

Your just being ridiculous in saying that many of Ruth's contemporaries would not make single A teams. Come on!! You act as if old time ball players are cavemen or chimpanzees. Get real! They were human beings and they were much more intelligent than people seem to give them credit for. They had it rough and they were brought up in tough times. They had much more intestinal fortitude and adaptability than we pampered, lillly livered Americans of this day sitting here arguing about who was better. They built this country and they would be able to adapt to modern conditions much more easily than we would be able to adapt to their times. AND YES I AM INCLUDING NEGRO LEAGUERS IN THESE STATEMENTS BECAUSE THEY HAD A BUNCH OF ADDITIONAL CRAP HEAPED ON THEM. And of course you ignore the fact that Cabrerera and all of the other modern players would have had to PLAY UNDER THE HORRENDENDOUS CONDITIONS I have mentioned previously. I don't think they would be able to adjust that easily. So yes I don't believe that hundreds of modern players, as you say, could perform at Ruth's level in Ruth's day. No more than a handful WOULD be able to perform at his level in HIS TIMES!

can you hear me now?

STEVE F wrote:

can you hear me now?

Your right STEVE. There is far to much hyperbole going on here. Yes many modern ballplayers would adapt and perform well under the crappy conditions of yesteryear. But by the same token, please don't make ridiculous statements like Ruth, Gehrig, Lajoie, Hornsby et all would not make modern day class A rosters. Please be sensible. The greats of the past were good ball players, they would adapt and play well.

Let me clarify my position. I stated that I thought Mays/Mantle were probably the best players ever. I did not. say that Ruth wasn't one of the greatest ever. My top 5 would be something like
1. Mays/Mantle
3. Cobb
4. Ted
5. Ruth/Wagner

I don't think I'm dissing the Babe by calling him ONLY the 5th best player of all time. And besides, this is just like, my opinion man

I think you may be confusing Steve and myself... I am not questioning the toughness of players from 100 years ago. I am questioning the talent pool and competition they went up against. The fact is they were smaller, less athletic, and they made many more errors. Many of the players of Ruth's day would not make the professional teams of today, that is a fact based on the numbers. The player pool size is over a 1000 times larger. You can think want you want, I am sure I will not change your mind. And the more I think about it, the more I know you will never change my mind. No one can say for sure but I am not convince Ruth would even be an all-star against today's competition. And I know Miguel Cabrera (and hundreds if not thousands) of players could hit as well as Ruth did against the level of competition he got to face. You can recite Ruth's stats till Shoeless Joe comes home it is meaningless if his competition was inferior and we know for a fact it was.