Aaron Judge is 20 HR's ahead of the next guy in MLB...and is more impressive than what Ruth did!
1948_Swell_Robinson
Posts: 1,976 ✭✭✭✭✭
Aaron Judge sitting at 59 Home Runs and the next best guy in MLB has only 39 home runs. That is more impressive than Ruth out homering every team in his league. Why?
Aaron Judge is competing against a world wide population. MLB is selecting among the best of 4 billion males in the world in a given year. MLB is selecting players that have the ability to hit home runs and they are teaching them to hit home runs....yet Judge is out-homering them at this clip.
Ruth's time was only a few million american white males he was competing against(not counting the fresh immigrants that were just arriving and increasing population but were not baseball players), and the players then were all taught to hit ground balls and line drives.
Not a knock against Ruth, but what Judge is doing home run wise is absolutely remarkable and more impressive.
In fact, when Ruth hit his 60 home runs and the league had began trying for home runs, the next guy in MLB hit 47 home runs that season.
Comments
Judge continues to dominate. With 298 home runs for his career he should easily surpass 500.
I had always argued in his favor against the naysayers saying he would get hurt. At some point he will have to DH to gain a couple of extra seasons.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Out homering entire teams is still more impressive. Ruth also did it with balls that were much harder to hit out instead of the juiced aerodynamic balls used today.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Judge is a monster of guy while Ruth was small by comparison. If Judge stays healthy his whole career he will surpass every other player in the game.
Beast Mode
Just does not seem viable to compare them- the game was different at Ruth’s peak and he changed and defined the game. Ruth set the standard.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Let's not get carried away, he's had 3 monster seasons and looks like another one in the making this year.
He's a ways away from "surpassing every other player in the game".
I want to climb aboard the Aaron train, but he has to either prove that he is clean or beat the drug record of 73 homers to get me to the station.
He needs to stay healthy and produce for at least 5 more seasons to be considered a HOFer. If you want to get him in the Ruth/Williams territory he's going to have to do it for closer to 10.
Trout looked very, very good for 8 straight years with an average 1.009 OPS. Now it's looking like he's done.
I doubt it, but good luck to Aaron. I hope he stays healthy!
He's already 32. He'd have to average 50 homers a year until he's 41 to....... not even reach Hank Aaron.
And, let's be honest, he's had 3 great seasons. That's 3 more than most guys but continued greatness for him is not even remotely guaranteed.
He started late at age 25, I don't know much about him because he is a Yankee but did he spend extra time in the minors?
Starting at 24 then getting the first full season under his belt at 25 is late
Babe Ruth had more home runs than most teams in an era where home runs were much harder.
Yankee Stadium walls were much farther back in Ruth’s day so much so that the center field plaques were in the field of play.
No Aaron Judge is no Babe Ruth but that’s takes nothing away from his accomplishments
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
A little off topic but I remember listening on the radio to a comedy show in 1948 when they announced that Babe Ruth had died. I was only 9 years old but I remember how sad I felt as it was the first time death had become a reality to me.
The primary reason was because the league was filled with dead ball style hitters. Ruth wasn't the only guy to out homer teams back then as well. Ruth was certainly the first to hit them at a prolific rate, but Foxx was right there soon enough as well, and other close too. It's just that it was a slow turnover in the league from dead ball style ground ball slap hitters into a league where more players were like Foxx, Ruth, Hornsby, Gehrig, then Greenberg were arriving.
Ruth's numbers have held up over the years quite well. Ted Williams being the only legitimate challenger to the title of greatest hitter.
Yes they. have, but not quite relevant to what I said. They haven't held up to out homering teams because everything changed that would make that impossible. Ruth would have to hit 300 home runs in a year to do that feat now. It simply isn't possible due to the circumstances(of which I don't feel like talking about again) being vastly different.
Gavvy Cravath out homered several teams in a few seasons as well, and before Ruth did. Does that make him more impressive than Judge too? There were circumstances that made it possible for Cravath(and Ruth and Hornsby and more) to do that, that simply don't exist anymore.
PS those same circumstances also allow Ruth and others from his time to have OPS+(and other stats) that are difficult to match in modern times, other than in career type one off years.
But doesn’t that turn full circle back to how Ruth changed the game?
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Judge isn't close to be some pioneer of homeruns. Everyone hits a ton of homeruns
Ruth is the better player without question
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Ruth is a pioneer, and that isn't in question, and doesn't refute what I said above in any way.
Lets just agree that Ruth and Judge were great players and there is no way for anyone to say who was better than the other as there have been too many changes in baseball over the years.
WWII was a bunch sadder for my family. Was not around until the following decade.
The only real way is to compare them against their peers. Ruth was better against his peers than Judge has been. Judge is a monster for sure when hes healthy, he just never really stays healthy. If nothing else Ruth being an elite pitcher as well is a clear separator between the two
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
@1948_Swell_Robinson
Let’s just agree to disagree. Judge may end his MLB career with 500-600 HRs and I hope he does. Your comparison and argument simply fails to pass the straight face test.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Steroids destroy the joints. They don't grow with the muscles.
Judge will be a trivia question by 2027.
What comparison? Are you thinking I am saying Judge was/is better than Ruth? If that is what you got out of the post, then yes, time to move on because it seems the concept is above many people's heads at this point.
I think Judge might be a better baseball player that Ruth was. He certainly plays better defense.
Ruth was better than the average of his time than Judge is in his time. I think Ruth would have trouble with today’s pitching. I think he could play but I think he wouldn’t be as dominant.
>
REALLY?
Ruth, being able to be a very good starting pitcher to go with his batting skills would get my vote.
In 1916, at the age of 21, Ruth started 40 games, pitched 323 innings and led the league in ERA. He was nearly as good the next year.
Let's look at out field assists, Judge's highest total is 10. Ruth had years of 21, 20, a couple of 15's. His lifetime Fielding % is above the league average.
>
>
>
>
Let's ignore the period where Ruth was out homering entire teams.
Take a look at Ruth's late career. From 1927 when Gehrig started putting up big numbers, then 1929 Jimmy Foxx started destroying AL pitching, Ruth was in his 30's, even with these two playing well, Ruth leads the league in OPS and OPS+ until 1931 the age of 36! He still had an OPS of over 1.00 at the age of 38.
What kind of numbers do you think Judge will be putting up at 38 against players in their primes?
The guys who were dominant then were the only ones who were not participating in a part-time game. It’s reasonable to assume that the overall level of player skill has improved. With the advent of professional leagues, sports medicine, and data analytics the level of play has come a long way over the decades. While I believe Ruth could be a top talent in todays game it would require a lot more dedication now to excel that he purportedly offered to the game.
As for the pitching. The fact that Ruth was also a very good pitcher does speak to his athleticism and his high level of skill. But he’s a long way behind today’s pitching capabilities. It’s impossible to know what he would be able to do if he was dropped into a game or even dropped into a spring training to prepare for a season.
I also think Ty Cobb would be a barely .200 hitter in today’s game. I’ll dig it up when I have better internet but there is a well considered assessment of his swing done identifying how modern pitchers would pitch him. Could he adjust, perhaps. These are just the unknowns so we can only compare the static states.
I think judge will have a tough go against pitchers as his skills decline. Unless there are new medicines which push off his cliff. But I believe that because of the average quality of competition in MLB.
These are proliferated thoughts though so I can’t really take any credit for this assessment other than I agree with it.
People have been, and obviously still are, using this garbage argument for years.
For every point saying it's harder now there's a counterpoint saying it isn't.
There's absolutely no way to prove if Ruth would dominate in today's game, though no, he wouldn't "out homer" entire teams.
These guys do what they do against the best of the best, that's all we know for sure.
Ruth might do even better today hitting pure white baseballs on every pitch.
Ty Cobb a .200 hitter in today's game, now that's a good one!
We need to institute a "preposterous comment" post of the year, decade, all time competition.
My opinion is that the top players of any time would do just fine if they played in a different era.
Ruth might not win 11 HR titles in today's game, (he might win more if he was a full time hitter from day 1) but he would be among the leaders every season. The same goes for Ted Williams.
No way of proving it either way.
That’s a poor attitude to have to promote discussion — just disparaging people. I’m sure you’re the best. When I’m back in MN next month let’s grab a drink and discuss. My treat.
@1948_Swell_Robinson
I understand your argument in that you are comparing Ruth and Judge not against each other per se but against the available male population of their time to see how their accomplishments measure up to determine which is more impressive. I think that sums it up. And your view is that Judge’s dominating season of being 20 hrs ahead of the next player and considering the world he lives in is basically more impressive than what Ruth accomplished.
Ruth hit 59 hrs in 1921 which was 36 more than the 23 hit by the runner up player. That is domination and limited to one measurable season. A season that took place 103 years ago at a time when the world was simply a different place. You simply do not have an apples to apples basis to assert which really is the most impressive.
Your concept is not above my head… I simply am not buying what you are selling.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Aside from the fact that balls are more aerodynamic, bats are better, parks are more hitter friendly etc the simple fact is the best athletes of any generation would still be the best athletes today. They would have grown up with modern training and would still be the best.
The only difference between then and now is the equipment and training
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
I don't mean to disparage! One of my (many) problems is I can be a rather blunt, crabby old man.
I just have become tired of the argument that old timers would suck in today's game, or conversely the new guys couldn't handle the way things were played back in the day.......blah, blah, blah. It's a ridiculous debate and there's no way to prove it anyway.
I ABSOLUTELY apologize to you sir.
Would love to get together to discuss sports, or even politics if you are in the area.
PM me if you want to get together. I'm retired and am usually free. I'll even buy, since I was the one to offend!
What we have observed, or should have observed, is that the mean level of skill increases significantly when money flows into sports. Further we observe that the minimum level of skill in the sport increases dramatically. This doesn’t happen overnight. It can take decades for youth programs to catch up to produce the population necessary. I would consider this to be well established understanding, but I understand there are likely many who don’t agree with this concept.
This doesn’t mean that Ruth or Foxx or Cobb were terrible or couldn’t play. It means it would be more difficult for them. They would be the Judge or Ortiz or Thomas of the more modern eras. Or maybe they would have difficulty adjusting to modern pitching. King Kelly would certainly have fewer triples since they are a bit more specific about whether or not a runner can completely bypass 2nd base.
It could be an interesting discussion but it appears too many egos are wrapped into opinions here.
Then you don't understand it, which is fine. People are welcome to view it how they please.
I agree with what you're saying BUT that theory assumes that, Cobb for example, would simply be grabbed from his time and inserted into the present day MLB.
That's unfair in that he would have to face modern players without the benefit of the better nutrition, training etc. that the modern player has.
If Cobb was playing now, he would not have been born in 1886, he would have been born around the year 2000. He would have his same superior physical tools, but he would also have the modern benefits to go with it.
Am I saying he would bat .400 in today's game? Probably not, but my money would be on him being a multiple batting title winner.
It's really only speculation either way.
I'd rather enjoy a debate that you can use facts to support your argument.
I stopped talking about the eras because you have mainly two groups of people:
1) The rose colored glasses group, the group that cannot fathom that players from back then might not be as good now in a more competitive world and environment...and that players from back then simply could not replicate their dominance now...as like I said, in order for a player to match Ruth's dominance of out homering every team, that player would have to hit 300 home runs a year...an impossible feat in MLB now...and it is that feat that lead greatly to Ruth's perception of how good he was. It isn't just home runs, it is being able to bat .340 every year with 50 home run power. Those would not happen now. No chance. Even OPS+, although that is not as sharp as a degree in contrast, it was easier to accumulate ridiculous OPS+ for the select natural few elites back then when their peers were simply not as well rounded like they are now.
2). The plumber group. It is the group of people that thinks all players from back then were plumbers and would not even have a job now. That isn't true. While someone like Ruth would not be out homering all the teams and not be hiitng .370 wiht 55 HR and 175 RBI, it is still reasonable to believe he could be among the league leaders in those stats, even if his stats would certainly not look anything like they were in the 20's or 30'.
The reality rests between those groups, and it was interesting researching it, with all the factors in play, but the rose colored glasses group gets too sensitive and the plumber group too harsh, as such since there is no money involved, people are going to believe what they want to believe anyway...so not worth talking about.
However, If someone wants to challenge me to building a team and competing against my team, and they want to build a team from the local town of 1,000 people and I can build mine from Miami and LA, then they will see first hand of 'some' of what I have said. If you want to refute what I am saying, then no more debating, I will pick your town to choose from and I will pick mine and we will build our teams and wager $25,000 for a baseball series. If you don't agree to that, then you already agree with most of what I am saying.
Another thing that gets completely ignored is that there was basically one sport being played professionally between 1900-1940 (?) Baseball, and very few teams. So, every single great (white) athlete had one sport to pursue if he wanted to be a professional.
There's many more people today, and theoretically, we're bigger faster and better, but now you have many more sports and teams, so you could claim it's now "watered down".
I'll never understand how someone can be really serious about comparing eras. It may be fun to speculate, but you can't really prove much.
Now, if I had a young person to advise that wanted to be a pro athlete, I wouldn't even suggest baseball.
Probably golf.
I agree with your perspective and I also find it interesting to consider. There’s a good chance the stars of the early 20th century would be the league leaders today but I doubt we would see anything like the level of disparity observed during their playing days. So long as it’s clear that this is only an opinion discharged at a safe distance and no animals were harmed in the making of this opinion I think we’re good. Oh. Also. I accept other opinions as equally valid. You are heard. You are worthy. Peace and love. Be well
Nirvana.
Just because it’s impossible to prove doesn’t mean it lacks merit.
War was the most common sport for prime-aged men during that period. Boxing, collegiate sports, tennis, golf. They were all quite popular. But also there were other, better, opportunities for many.
In the mid 90s I had a contract offer to play professional soccer. A league soccer. $40,000 per season plus travel and living expenses. Not much of a decision for me to stay in college. In the past 30 years a lot has changed. That league is gone, replaced with a bigger, better league. It’s drawn more talent which means I probably would t have made the cut in today’s game at that level. Also players are focused on their game year round now. I would have been going to school during the off season or working while trying to maintain a training program which required 4 hours a day. Not quite the hypothetical Time Machine that had babe Ruth hitting cleanup for the dodgers tomorrow but it’s a common theme I hear. I have a couple buddies who played NHL hockey in the 80s and I know a former Steelers player from the 60s and 70s. When they talk. I listen. The game has changed it seems and it’s big money and big expectations and “sport science” is a real thing. Sure I hear a lot of “if only I had a bowflex”, but for the most part the guys who played say it’s a different level now.
I can’t prove it and I don’t know it for certain.
Thats not true. There were a options back then too that got paid. Been over that in other threads. Not just viable US population, but also including world wide athletes. Also, societal factors are heavy in play as well(to the detriment of the old days).. All pointed out in other threads. I'm not repeating all of that here.
And it isn't theoretical that we are bigger and faster. It is a fact. Even Carl Lewis Gold Medal in 1988 Olympics. His time would have finished last in this Olympics.
@JoeBanzai it is impossible to prove and you are right on there.
But a little common sense and logic should shed light on most things, like again, if you look at Ruth Out homering every team and then realize it would take him to hit 300 home runs in todays game, you should automatically scratch your head as to why that occurred, and CERTAINLy not use it as evidence that he was THAT much better than any player today because none of them out homered teams.
Gavvy Cravath in 1915 hit the same amount(or more) home runs than 12 teams in the league that year....I guess according to some, Cravath would have hit 219 home runs last year in MLB.
In the last 20 years(not counting 2020) an OPS+ of over 200 has only happened one time. It will be twice this year. Both of those times by Aaron Judge. No other player out of all this worldwide exceptionally trained BETTER talent has been able to eclipse a 200 OPS+ in the last 20 years....and Judge will do it twice.
From 1916-1934(Ruth's career), an OPS+ of 200 or more was eclipsed TEN different times from players OTHER THAN RUTH.
So @coinkat damn skippy right that Judge's accomplishment is more impressive.
Judge still has 2 months before he finishes with that measurement. Ruth also never got the juiced balls Judge gets when hes approaching a record. The fact that Ruth would have won a Cy Young had that award existed at the time is more than enough to say what he did is more impressive
Whenever Judge has a Cy Young pitching season maybe theres an argument. Ruths numbers will end up being better than Judges and they have held up for almost a 100 years. Judge isnt even the best player of his generation
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
You mean out distancing less qualified peers, and vs 85 MPH fastballs, has held up for 100 years.
Even if Judge only ends up with one OPS+ over 200 that is still more impressive than Ruth's time where they were 'giving those out' like candy.
A for best player of the generation, even being second or third is more impressive considering the talent he is going up against.
So juiced balls means nothing? Ruth being a Cy Young pitcher means nothing? Equipment and training means nothing? Comparison to their peers means nothing?
Judge isnt even a top 10 player against his peers, he had a big year helped out by special balls in a very offensive friendly stadium and division.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Juiced balls just for Judge? OK. So there are subbing in juiced balls just for him this year when he comes up to bat? lol.
Did you get that info from the same guy who sold Jack his bean stalk beans?
Yes, the peers is the whole point...You mean Ruth out distancing less qualified peers, and vs 85 MPH fastballs, has held up for 100 years.
THat's the point, Judge is going against EVERYONE with superior equipment and training and that is one of the reasons why it is so hard to outdistance them, hence why only one 200 OPS+ season in last 20 years as opposed to Ruth's time where it was common for the elite to reign vs lesser talent overall.
And regardless of how it got there, the fact is the pitchers are throwing harder now, are bigger and taller, and have more command. Thus, hitting 62 home runs vs a league of six foot four pitchers averaging 94 MPH is more impressive than hitting 60 vs a league of six foot one pitchers throwing 85 MPH.
As for the parks, you do realize that the parks then were favorable to left handed hitters league wide. There is another thread that shows that.
As for Ruth's pitching, it would have been more impressive if he did it while he also hit full time, which he barely did...in the end it goes to his overall playing ability and nothing to do with the post. I never said Judge will have a better career. His late start almost precludes that automatically.
There are more aerodynamic balls used in the home run derby and all start game to promote excitement.
There is a conspiracy theory that there were juiced balls used in Yankees home games when judge was chasing the Maris record. This is a little out there already but the “investigative report” yielded an assessment that 3 of these balls may have been used in Yankees games. But they were never produced for review by MLB. Yet this yahoo holds it as gospel. Basebal21 is always promoting nonsense.
I don’t know why you guys don’t listen to this 1948 guy. He has the most well reasoned argument here and has the patience to suffer you fools and explain it like a patient teacher over and over. Give this man a Nobel prize in tolerance.
Of course..nonsense. Basebal21 started that thread after one week of games this year saying scoring is up the balls are juiced... after six games LOL.
Judge is doing even better this year.
Funny thing is that the live ball came when Ruth came....dead ball era to live ball era for Ruth. Ironic.
Very kind words thank you.
And I want to add that I have the highest respect for the old time players. That is one of the reason why I stopped talking about this topic because people took it as a dig on them.