This debate has raged forever. I’d like to add this:
Take whomever your choice is and then ask yourself: Did they also win 94 games as a starting pitcher in the Majors. If the answer is no, they can not have been a better baseball player than the Great Bambino. Here’s an underrated Babe Ruth fact: In 1930, after not having pitched in the majors for nine years (and more like 11), Babe Ruth threw a complete game in for the Yankees earning the win in the final game of the season against the Red Sox. He gave up 3 runs over 9 innings.
I, for one, think it is absurd to blame Ruth for the deficiencies of his competitors. It is quite common these days to assume because we weren’t around to see it that it could not have been as it was described or that somehow it wasn’t as good. Funny part is it will happen to the current era as well - maybe it already is...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Again, Walter Johnson was topping out at a low 90's MPH guy. Measured in the labs etc.. 1917 lab measured at 91 MPH.
The league was low 80's and possibly high 70's. Garbage. Weak sisters.
All I needed to do was look at the limited population to choose from to figure that out. Common sense goes a long way. Not to mention the advancements in pitching mechanics to produce higher velocities(with command).
Also, seeing how the pitchers were smaller and lighter, and knowing how that affects both velocity and perceived velocity...you get the low 80's for MLB during the 1920's.
Not that hard. Ty France of this year would have no problem feasting on that.
Not to mention seeing all the best players on the mound and at the plate coming from before 1930 based on your measurements. That should raise a red flag of anyone with an ounce of logic in their brain.
Ruth may have to settle for Ryan Howard at this point....and that may even be a gift. At least I know Howard could handle 95MPH on a consistent basis. Don't know if Ruth could or not. Would rather take my chances with the guy who has proven he could. Sorry.
<<< Ruth may have to settle for Ryan Howard at this point....and that may even be a gift. >>>
I realize you were being facetious, but to even facetiously mention that, sorry but you lose credibility.
If you say you weren't being facetious, then you've lost all credibility regarding this debate.
He may be down to Matt Stairs soon if you mention Wilt Chamberlain again while ignoring size factors.
I've stated this before in another thread. The NBA player size difference between Wilt's era and today is only 1 1/2" on the average.
Again, Walter Johnson was topping out at a low 90's MPH guy. Measured in the labs etc.. 1917 lab measured at 91 MPH.
The league was low 80's and possibly high 70's. Garbage. Weak sisters.
All I needed to do was look at the limited population to choose from to figure that out. Common sense goes a long way. Not to mention the advancements in pitching mechanics to produce higher velocities(with command).
Also, seeing how the pitchers were smaller and lighter, and knowing how that affects both velocity and perceived velocity...you get the low 80's for MLB during the 1920's.
Not that hard. Ty France of this year would have no problem feasting on that.
Not to mention seeing all the best players on the mound and at the plate coming from before 1930 based on your measurements. That should raise a red flag of anyone with an ounce of logic in their brain.
Ruth may have to settle for Ryan Howard at this point....and that may even be a gift. At least I know Howard could handle 95MPH on a consistent basis. Don't know if Ruth could or not. Would rather take my chances with the guy who has proven he could. Sorry.
<<< Ruth may have to settle for Ryan Howard at this point....and that may even be a gift. >>>
I realize you were being facetious, but to even facetiously mention that, sorry but you lose credibility.
If you say you weren't being facetious, then you've lost all credibility regarding this debate.
He may be down to Matt Stairs soon if you mention Wilt Chamberlain again while ignoring size factors.
I've stated this before in another thread. The NBA player size difference between Wilt's era and today is only 1 1/2" on the average.
Oops, i just realized a possible connection between this comment and the pickle joke. So for the love of humanity, please, nobody go there.
Take whomever your choice is and then ask yourself: Did they also win 94 games as a starting pitcher in the Majors. If the answer is no, they can not have been a better baseball player than the Great Bambino. Here’s an underrated Babe Ruth fact: In 1930, after not having pitched in the majors for nine years (and more like 11), Babe Ruth threw a complete game in for the Yankees earning the win in the final game of the season against the Red Sox. He gave up 3 runs over 9 innings.
I, for one, think it is absurd to blame Ruth for the deficiencies of his competitors. It is quite common these days to assume because we weren’t around to see it that it could not have been as it was described or that somehow it wasn’t as good. Funny part is it will happen to the current era as well - maybe it already is...
I think it was Ty Cobb who said this (lot of paraphrase but the gist of the story is correct)
When Cobb was old, a reporter asked him how he would fare against today's pitching.
Cobb replied that he would probably hit around .300
Considering Cobb's well known penchant for being pompous, the reporter was surprised by the low number.
Cobb then replied with a smile, Don't forget I'm 70 years old.
I just want to make one thing clear before giving up and moving on.
Let's say that your choice for GOAT is Mickey Mantle (substitute whoever you like here, it makes no difference). YOUR argument is that had Mickey Mantle, or someone with identical abilities, played in the 1920's and 1930's he would no longer be the GOAT. Because then it would be Mantle, or his doppelganger, who would have "feasted off the weak sisters".
That argument is logical mush, and in fact isn't an argument at all. It's a statement which you have chosen not to support with any arguments. I get it. We all get it. Competition was weaker when Ruth played than when Mantle or Bonds played. You can stop repeating that because nobody is arguing otherwise. But that tells us precisely nothing as far as who the GOAT was. Stating the absurdly obvious, it is possible for the GOAT to have lived and played at any time in baseball history. I keep asking for the methods you're using to identify the greatness of players in different eras and how you compare them across eras, and it's clear now that you're not going to answer.
There, that should be clear; I now give up and I will now move on.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I'll be moving on as well with one final thought/comment;
Ruth used a heavy bat 50 oz(?) if indeed the pitchers throw harder now as a group, he would have overcome the difference simply by using a lighter bat.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
In all the GOAT threads the baseball version brings out much more passion than any other sport.
It is the game that most of us grew up with, even the clumsy guys could play and all you really needed was a glove (someone else always had a bat and ball.
It was the game that was on the radio or TV nearly every day for half the year and when you remember baseball, you remember summer and that is a good thing.
@MLBdays said: @tabe ....In 1992 MLB hit 3038 homers....in 1993 MLB hit 4030....1k more homers... juiced ball or players or both? I've no idea ...but Bonds wasnt the only bloke crushing all of a sudden in '93. And as far as I recall...his weight wasn't 245lbs
Pretty sure both were juiced. Bonds wasn't 245 yet but he was 220.
>
Bonds only weighed 190 in 1993, and actually lost weight between 1993 and 1994. So he probably was not using steroids.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
I'll be moving on as well with one final thought/comment;
Ruth used a heavy bat 50 oz(?) if indeed the pitchers throw harder now as a group, he would have overcome the difference simply by using a lighter bat.
The fact that he used such a heavy bat is all you need to know of the quality of the pitching. Many players then used heavy bats then. Just goes to show that those guys were throwing slow.
80 MPH fastballs....not that impressive feasting off of that. There are slow pitch softball guys in the world today that could hit that ball a mile. Still not as impressive as doing it off of pitchers six foot six and throwing 98 MPH....routinely.
You guys do realize that the height of the pitcher is not only about throwing speed. You do realize why a pitchers extra height gives him an advantage over a smaller guy with same velocity, right?
I just want to make one thing clear before giving up and moving on.
Let's say that your choice for GOAT is Mickey Mantle (substitute whoever you like here, it makes no difference). YOUR argument is that had Mickey Mantle, or someone with identical abilities, played in the 1920's and 1930's he would no longer be the GOAT. Because then it would be Mantle, or his doppelganger, who would have "feasted off the weak sisters".
That argument is logical mush, and in fact isn't an argument at all. It's a statement which you have chosen not to support with any arguments. I get it. We all get it. Competition was weaker when Ruth played than when Mantle or Bonds played. You can stop repeating that because nobody is arguing otherwise. But that tells us precisely nothing as far as who the GOAT was. Stating the absurdly obvious, it is possible for the GOAT to have lived and played at any time in baseball history. I keep asking for the methods you're using to identify the greatness of players in different eras and how you compare them across eras, and it's clear now that you're not going to answer.
There, that should be clear; I now give up and I will now move on.
First, some are under the delusion that the talent back then was as good as the last 30 years. Glad you finally recognized yourself that there is no comparison between the talent levels. Second, I've supported it plenty, in this thread and others. So onto your questions.
Why do I have to answer that question(which I did already), when you refuse to answer why the stats you use to proclaim Babe Ruth as the greatest, also means the second, third, and fourth greatest also come from that time? Furthermore, those same methods also make the first, second, fourth, five, and sixth best pitchers coming from mostly before WWI.
Looking at the weak competition, and the limited population to choose players from, and the FACT that pitchers threw much slower and were smaller...add in a little common sense, and you would see those statistical findings you are using to proclaim Ruth and those others the best, are absurd.
To answer your question(again), "Is it possible for some random Nun to have the hottest body in the world?" Yes. "But I will take my chances finding the hottest body hanging out in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit after party."
I also said, I will take the guy that has proven he could be elite vs superior competition, as opposed to someone who's achievements occurred vs far lesser players. I also gave an example. If I look at Ty France's batting line vs AAA pitching this year, he hit better than any other professional player playing in the world this year. He did it against elite players in his league(and the pitchers ironically were as good or better than the ones Babe Ruth faced). France also hit percentage wise better than any season Ruth ever did. Yet, France couldn't quite do that against another level up of pitching. France will never hit .399 in a season in MLB...yet he did that against some darn good pitching(pitching as good as Ruth's time).
Every player from 1980 and beyond faced much stiffer competition than Ruth. Pitchers were bigger and threw much harder, with wicked breaking stuff, and command. Most hitters Ruth played with hit with a style that limited their offensive output, thus making RUth stand out more than any player playing now not having a chance to replicate. Furthermore, Ruth's hitting counterparts were weak sisters too, making him(and a few other superstars) stand out even more.
NONE of your measurements take any of that into account, hence why it says all the very best players came before WWII(or even more funny, WWI).
You guys are telling me that if I want to find the hottest body in the world, that I need to go to the church's and look at the Nuns because that is where I will find them, maybe because you had a crush on some nun when you were a kid and that impression is imprinted in your head(like Ruth is). I know better...and know that the swimsuit models are going to give me the best chance to find them.
I know nothing will come out of pointing all this out...but I do know personally that I now appreciate guys like Max Scherzer, David Ortiz, and Albert Pujols more and more when looking at all this information I've been laying out. These modern guys get scorned a lot, but they are facing players with size/talent that were never seen in Ruth's time, and on a nightly basis. MLB is extremely hard now.
Comments
This debate has raged forever. I’d like to add this:
Take whomever your choice is and then ask yourself: Did they also win 94 games as a starting pitcher in the Majors. If the answer is no, they can not have been a better baseball player than the Great Bambino. Here’s an underrated Babe Ruth fact: In 1930, after not having pitched in the majors for nine years (and more like 11), Babe Ruth threw a complete game in for the Yankees earning the win in the final game of the season against the Red Sox. He gave up 3 runs over 9 innings.
I, for one, think it is absurd to blame Ruth for the deficiencies of his competitors. It is quite common these days to assume because we weren’t around to see it that it could not have been as it was described or that somehow it wasn’t as good. Funny part is it will happen to the current era as well - maybe it already is...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I've stated this before in another thread. The NBA player size difference between Wilt's era and today is only 1 1/2" on the average.
Oops, i just realized a possible connection between this comment and the pickle joke. So for the love of humanity, please, nobody go there.
😂😂😂👍👍
I think it was Ty Cobb who said this (lot of paraphrase but the gist of the story is correct)
When Cobb was old, a reporter asked him how he would fare against today's pitching.
Cobb replied that he would probably hit around .300
Considering Cobb's well known penchant for being pompous, the reporter was surprised by the low number.
Cobb then replied with a smile, Don't forget I'm 70 years old.
I just want to make one thing clear before giving up and moving on.
Let's say that your choice for GOAT is Mickey Mantle (substitute whoever you like here, it makes no difference). YOUR argument is that had Mickey Mantle, or someone with identical abilities, played in the 1920's and 1930's he would no longer be the GOAT. Because then it would be Mantle, or his doppelganger, who would have "feasted off the weak sisters".
That argument is logical mush, and in fact isn't an argument at all. It's a statement which you have chosen not to support with any arguments. I get it. We all get it. Competition was weaker when Ruth played than when Mantle or Bonds played. You can stop repeating that because nobody is arguing otherwise. But that tells us precisely nothing as far as who the GOAT was. Stating the absurdly obvious, it is possible for the GOAT to have lived and played at any time in baseball history. I keep asking for the methods you're using to identify the greatness of players in different eras and how you compare them across eras, and it's clear now that you're not going to answer.
There, that should be clear; I now give up and I will now move on.
Very well said dallas.
I'll be moving on as well with one final thought/comment;
Ruth used a heavy bat 50 oz(?) if indeed the pitchers throw harder now as a group, he would have overcome the difference simply by using a lighter bat.
I will move along as well with this last comment.
In all the GOAT threads the baseball version brings out much more passion than any other sport.
It is the game that most of us grew up with, even the clumsy guys could play and all you really needed was a glove (someone else always had a bat and ball.
It was the game that was on the radio or TV nearly every day for half the year and when you remember baseball, you remember summer and that is a good thing.
Juan Soto
(check back in 15 years)
>
Bonds only weighed 190 in 1993, and actually lost weight between 1993 and 1994. So he probably was not using steroids.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
The fact that he used such a heavy bat is all you need to know of the quality of the pitching. Many players then used heavy bats then. Just goes to show that those guys were throwing slow.
80 MPH fastballs....not that impressive feasting off of that. There are slow pitch softball guys in the world today that could hit that ball a mile. Still not as impressive as doing it off of pitchers six foot six and throwing 98 MPH....routinely.
You guys do realize that the height of the pitcher is not only about throwing speed. You do realize why a pitchers extra height gives him an advantage over a smaller guy with same velocity, right?
First, some are under the delusion that the talent back then was as good as the last 30 years. Glad you finally recognized yourself that there is no comparison between the talent levels. Second, I've supported it plenty, in this thread and others. So onto your questions.
Why do I have to answer that question(which I did already), when you refuse to answer why the stats you use to proclaim Babe Ruth as the greatest, also means the second, third, and fourth greatest also come from that time? Furthermore, those same methods also make the first, second, fourth, five, and sixth best pitchers coming from mostly before WWI.
Looking at the weak competition, and the limited population to choose players from, and the FACT that pitchers threw much slower and were smaller...add in a little common sense, and you would see those statistical findings you are using to proclaim Ruth and those others the best, are absurd.
To answer your question(again), "Is it possible for some random Nun to have the hottest body in the world?" Yes. "But I will take my chances finding the hottest body hanging out in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit after party."
I also said, I will take the guy that has proven he could be elite vs superior competition, as opposed to someone who's achievements occurred vs far lesser players. I also gave an example. If I look at Ty France's batting line vs AAA pitching this year, he hit better than any other professional player playing in the world this year. He did it against elite players in his league(and the pitchers ironically were as good or better than the ones Babe Ruth faced). France also hit percentage wise better than any season Ruth ever did. Yet, France couldn't quite do that against another level up of pitching. France will never hit .399 in a season in MLB...yet he did that against some darn good pitching(pitching as good as Ruth's time).
Every player from 1980 and beyond faced much stiffer competition than Ruth. Pitchers were bigger and threw much harder, with wicked breaking stuff, and command. Most hitters Ruth played with hit with a style that limited their offensive output, thus making RUth stand out more than any player playing now not having a chance to replicate. Furthermore, Ruth's hitting counterparts were weak sisters too, making him(and a few other superstars) stand out even more.
NONE of your measurements take any of that into account, hence why it says all the very best players came before WWII(or even more funny, WWI).
You guys are telling me that if I want to find the hottest body in the world, that I need to go to the church's and look at the Nuns because that is where I will find them, maybe because you had a crush on some nun when you were a kid and that impression is imprinted in your head(like Ruth is). I know better...and know that the swimsuit models are going to give me the best chance to find them.
I know nothing will come out of pointing all this out...but I do know personally that I now appreciate guys like Max Scherzer, David Ortiz, and Albert Pujols more and more when looking at all this information I've been laying out. These modern guys get scorned a lot, but they are facing players with size/talent that were never seen in Ruth's time, and on a nightly basis. MLB is extremely hard now.
Well as far as baseball goes these two seem to really stand out...
Oh wait, wrong kind of goat...
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars