If Babe Ruth were in his prime today, how many HRs would he hit?
Petescorner
Posts: 1,220 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
Assume he had a nice comfy spot in the Yankees' lineup right between Arod and Matsui. 30, 40, 50 Dingers? Or would today's bigger, stronger pitchers be able to keep him at bay?
0
Comments
<< <i>I will get a bunch of sh!t for saying this but imo I think he might be in the 20-30 hr area, not nearly as dominant as he was in his era. >>
I don't disagree.
However, he may need to make some adjustments to his swing. I don't see him have any chance against the array of pitches being thrown today by swinging a 42 ounce bat with a 'longer' swing. If he is able to make those adjustments, then he should be as good as the best guys.
What I am certain of is that he would have zero chance of outhomering teams, and his legacy as such wouldn't be a sliver of what it was. There would be many, many more players extremely close to his ability, and he would somewhat be just another HR contendor, instead of being the only guy(or handful of guys) who actually swung for the fences and had the ability to reach them.
He was certainly born in the right time!
I wish I were born in 1600 America, and that there was a MLB baseball league....I would be a Hall of Famer myself.
My daughter was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at the age of 2 (2003). My son was diagnosed with Type 1 when he was 17 on December 31, 2009. We were stunned that another child of ours had been diagnosed. Please, if you don't have a favorite charity, consider giving to the JDRF (Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation)
JDRF Donation
"The answer was in the Patriots eyes. Gone were the swagger and c0ck sure smirks, replaced by downcast eyes and heads in hands. For his poise and leadership Eli Manning was named the game's MVP. The 2007 Giants were never perfect nor meant to be. They were fighters, scrappers....now they could be called something else, World Champions."
<< <i>I will get a bunch of sh!t for saying this but imo I think he might be in the 20-30 hr area, not nearly as dominant as he was in his era. >>
20-30 sounds a little too high to me - I'd guess more in the 15-20 range. And I also think he would average about 220 K's per year with an ERA somewhere just south of 3.00.
Wait, you meant 20-30 playing every day? So if A-Rod played in the 1920's, how many homers does he get? By your "logic", I think he easily tops 1,000. Step back and think this thing through again, dude, 'cause what you're saying makes no sense at all.
<< <i>
<< <i>I will get a bunch of sh!t for saying this but imo I think he might be in the 20-30 hr area, not nearly as dominant as he was in his era. >>
20-30 sounds a little too high to me - I'd guess more in the 15-20 range. And I also think he would average about 220 K's per year with an ERA somewhere just south of 3.00.
Wait, you meant 20-30 playing every day? So if A-Rod played in the 1920's, how many homers does he get? By your "logic", I think he easily tops 1,000. Step back and think this thing through again, dude, 'cause what you're saying makes no sense at all. >>
Give me a break. It is really simple even for your "expert baseball mind", I said 20-30 Hrs, If you disagree with my answer fine but how do figure in Arod? nobody ever mentioned him playing back then, I answered the posters question with my opinion, dude.
collecting RAW Topps baseball cards 1952 Highs to 1972. looking for collector grade (somewhere between psa 4-7 condition). let me know what you have, I'll take it, I want to finish sets, I must have something you can use for trade.
looking for Topps 71-72 hi's-62-53-54-55-59, I have these sets started
The correct answer is more than anybody else.
In other words, if A Rod or Pujols played back then, we would be talking about them as legends.
Shane
<< <i>Give me a break. It is really simple even for your "expert baseball mind", I said 20-30 Hrs, If you disagree with my answer fine but how do figure in Arod? nobody ever mentioned him playing back then, I answered the posters question with my opinion, dude. >>
You didn't mention him because if you had it would have been obvious how ridiculous your opinion was. So I mentioned him; and I'll mention him again. For the record, your statement is that the greatest HR hitter of the 1920's had a HR-hitting ability roughly equivalent to Jay Buhner or Ryan Klesko. A-Rod hits HRs at a rate enough better than those two that if we assume, as you are, that Buhner or Klesko could have hit 714 HR in the 1920's then A-Rod would have topped 1,000. Look, I agree that it's among the most ridiculous conclusions I've ever seen - but it necessarily follows from what you're saying. You believe that a HR total from the 1920's relates to one today by a factor of about 1.5 to 2.0; if it works going from the 1920's to today, then it has to work going from today back to the 1920's.
So, you're right, this is really, really simple for an expert baseball mind or indeed any mind employing common sense; try it and you'll see. Besides, you knew you were going to get a bunch of sh!t over this so why are you acting surprised when it arrives?
Let's skip youth sports and go straight to college and the minor leagues. Do you really think there was anywhere near the number of players at that level back in 1920 as there is today? Again, there are hundreds and hundreds of both college teams and minor league teams playing today. And these are competitive spots. College players are competing for scholarships and minor leaguers are competing for paychecks. The talent pool is exponentially bigger today than it was 80 years ago. How can you not see that?
<< <i>
<< <i>Give me a break. It is really simple even for your "expert baseball mind", I said 20-30 Hrs, If you disagree with my answer fine but how do figure in Arod? nobody ever mentioned him playing back then, I answered the posters question with my opinion, dude. >>
You didn't mention him because if you had it would have been obvious how ridiculous your opinion was. So I mentioned him; and I'll mention him again. For the record, your statement is that the greatest HR hitter of the 1920's had a HR-hitting ability roughly equivalent to Jay Buhner or Ryan Klesko. A-Rod hits HRs at a rate enough better than those two that if we assume, as you are, that Buhner or Klesko could have hit 714 HR in the 1920's then A-Rod would have topped 1,000. Look, I agree that it's among the most ridiculous conclusions I've ever seen - but it necessarily follows from what you're saying. You believe that a HR total from the 1920's relates to one today by a factor of about 1.5 to 2.0; if it works going from the 1920's to today, then it has to work going from today back to the 1920's.
So, you're right, this is really, really simple for an expert baseball mind or indeed any mind employing common sense; try it and you'll see. Besides, you knew you were going to get a bunch of sh!t over this so why are you acting surprised when it arrives? >>
Your right I should not be suprised. I dont hold Babe Ruth to be as good as the ballplayers are today and thats that. My simple response is 20-30 hrs, I know I cant get into a #'s crunching thing with you or Skinpinch you guys are out of my league with that stuff, but I can have a different opinion and if that meens Arod would end up hitting a 1000 HRs in the 20's then Im ok with that.
<< <i>if that meens Arod would end up hitting a 1000 HRs in the 20's then Im ok with that. >>
Wonder how the opposing team would have reacted after he swiped at a ball or yelled "I got it" back then.
Most likely, his career would be short lived due to a beaning or cleated.
<< <i>
<< <i>if that meens Arod would end up hitting a 1000 HRs in the 20's then Im ok with that. >>
Wonder how the opposing team would have reacted after he swiped at a ball or yelled "I got it" back then.
Most likely, his career would be short lived due to a beaning or cleated.
For the record, I'd rank Ruth in my all-time top 5 along with Cobb, Mays, Mantle and Williams. Arod, as good as he is, wouldn't even be in the top 10, but I still believe he is the best player of our generation, if you focus solely on stats.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
But don't forget he'd be 112 years old, so 20 or 30 home runs wouldn't be bad for a man that age.
<< <i>Your right I should not be suprised. I dont hold Babe Ruth to be as good as the ballplayers are today and thats that. My simple response is 20-30 hrs, I know I cant get into a #'s crunching thing with you or Skinpinch you guys are out of my league with that stuff, but I can have a different opinion and if that meens Arod would end up hitting a 1000 HRs in the 20's then Im ok with that. >>
Perkdog, I don't know why I found this humorous, but I did. I chuckled in a "hey, it was a clever comment" type of way. Humorous in a you're a funny guy type of way. Humorous in the "you made me smile or smirk" type of way. NOT humorous as you are off your rocker type of way.
Perkdog, I think you are lumping today as the bigger modern era, and not just "TODAY". In other words, this era(mid 90's to now) is EXTREMELY easy to hit HR's, but from 1992 and 30 years prior it was a different story, and your 30 HR projection may in fact be realistic(as a per year average).
I think it is logical to conclude that Babe would be among the best of the HR hitters today, with Pujols etc...BUT...ONLY if he were able to make adjustments to his swing. Because there is absolutely NO WAY he could walk up there today with a 42 ounce bat and his long swing and expect to be anything better than a Jay Buhner.
Being that he was a great baseball player, I would expect he could adjust...logically speaking...but there is also that small sliver that says he couldn't.
<< <i>1,298 per season (average), plus, he would do roids if he were around today, so add another 121 homers to that total. >>
Are you including the ballpark factor?
Just the fact that Ruth used such a large bat and had such a long swing...and somtimes a softball type swing...means he could have at least a good risk of being taken advantage of in todays game if he is not able to adjust. I don't see at all how he improves though.
It is very possible that somebody else more equiped for todays game from Ruth's era could do better today than Ruth would today.
<< <i>
<< <i>Your right I should not be suprised. I dont hold Babe Ruth to be as good as the ballplayers are today and thats that. My simple response is 20-30 hrs, I know I cant get into a #'s crunching thing with you or Skinpinch you guys are out of my league with that stuff, but I can have a different opinion and if that meens Arod would end up hitting a 1000 HRs in the 20's then Im ok with that. >>
Perkdog, I don't know why I found this humorous, but I did. I chuckled in a "hey, it was a clever comment" type of way. Humorous in a you're a funny guy type of way. Humorous in the "you made me smile or smirk" type of way. NOT humorous as you are off your rocker type of way.
Perkdog, I think you are lumping today as the bigger modern era, and not just "TODAY". In other words, this era(mid 90's to now) is EXTREMELY easy to hit HR's, but from 1992 and 30 years prior it was a different story, and your 30 HR projection may in fact be realistic(as a per year average).
I think it is logical to conclude that Babe would be among the best of the HR hitters today, with Pujols etc...BUT...ONLY if he were able to make adjustments to his swing. Because there is absolutely NO WAY he could walk up there today with a 42 ounce bat and his long swing and expect to be anything better than a Jay Buhner.
Being that he was a great baseball player, I would expect he could adjust...logically speaking...but there is also that small sliver that says he couldn't. >>
Skinpinch I appreaciate your response and value it. I should never had put you and Dallas in the same category, sorry about that.
<< <i>Skinpinch I appreaciate your response and value it. I should never had put you and Dallas in the same category, sorry about that. >>
What, I tell you you don't know what you're talking about and skinpinch tells you that there is a "small sliver" of a chance that you do, and you take offense or find comfort based on that distinction? Forgive me if I find that humorous in a you are off your rocker type of way.
<< <i>
<< <i>Skinpinch I appreaciate your response and value it. I should never had put you and Dallas in the same category, sorry about that. >>
What, I tell you you don't know what you're talking about and skinpinch tells you that there is a "small sliver" of a chance that you do, and you take offense or find comfort based on that distinction? Forgive me if I find that humorous in a you are off your rocker type of way. >>
No Dallas what you dont get is that I dont have a problem at all with you disagreeing with my opinion at all, but dont get on your high horse and claim how ridicalas I sound with my opinion and all that.
It is usually fun and interesting to hear other's views on some "what if " type of situations.
Great players can usually adapt to different circumstances, Ruth did in fact change from being a very fine pitcher, into becoming a remarkable hitter. Back in his day there was no nice air conditioned hotel rooms to sleep in, travel was quite often a physical hardship for ballplayers back then, the knowledge of diet and training techniques was virtually nill. Many hurlers legally used spitters, emory balls, and the like. Competetion was more intense, 22 games per season versus each team in the league, no free agency to wait for.
My guess is that the Babe, perhaps as a DH, in today's game, could probably figure out how to adjust quite well, today's fastball throwers could not have been much more quick than Smokey Joe Wood or Walter Johnson anyway, and Ruth might lead the league in HRs a few times.
With the teams playing each other that many times, it becomes a little bit easier for the hitters as they see the same pitchers over and over. Not only that, but the starters hung around for a very long time. If you look at what happens when batters see starting pitchers for....
the First Time in a game
the Second Time
the Third Time
the Fourth + time
You will notice that the number for the fourth+ times facing the same pitcher show a very large jump in production.
Ruth didn't adjust to being a batter, he always was a batter. It wasn't like he never batted, and then one day, hey what is this big wooden thing? It wasn't a big adjustment as being able to hit with a comletely different style is. Ruth's batting style would be suspect against the array of breaking pitches. Sure there were illegal pitches then, just as there always has been and still are...but there were a higher percentage of fastballs being thrown then. This just isn't the case now, and that is why a long swing that can't account for a split fingered fastball will have a hard time in the modern game.
In Ruth's case, since the Yankees usually had the best staff in the league, he didn't have to face them...which is something that also benefitted the Yankee hitters
The travel being hard is more a fallacy than anything. First thing, unless they were riding their bikes to different cities, they sat on a train. But their trips were primarily in the east, and their western trips were considered St. Louis, and Chicago. THey had more off days to accomodate them as well. All that stuff doesn't matter much, and is washed out when compared to having to go to airports, jet lag, less off days, etc...
It is impossible to be absolutely certain of any time era changes for players of today going back, or yesterdays going forward. No time machines, nor crystal balls available.
However, you seem to dismiss all possible hardships, unique to the past.
I wonder if you ever traveled on an old train from the 20's ,which could take very long times, without a common breakdown, to get to its destination. Very often they were truly quite uncomfortable and tedious. Check some historical notes on travel from NY to Chicago, in the Summertime, when passenger cars inside temperatures were often in excess of 100 degrees.
My point about seeing each team 22 times was meant to show the true rivalry and severe "competetion" among the player back then. There were no common business/publicity agents they shared, there was much less chance than today, that they ever might become teamates. The entire salary structure was based on performance, one season at a time, every game was very meaningfull.
Each season was important, no free agency year to coast into. Many players needed off-season jobs to make ends meet. It was much more common to get a brush back or a spike, player fraternizing was against the rules and enforced. Teams got extra money for finishing in the first division, much more for getting to the WS, the economiic situation, the lack of a protective player's union, Etc., forced much more intense and consistent rivalry.
You mention a hitter has the advantage seeing a pitcher for the 4th time, but is it a one way street, a pitcher gains no knowledge of the batter's tendencies at all, with increased looks ? Ruth himself threw 9 shutouts one year, the hitters had some trouble, the first or the last time they looked at his pitches.
And you make light of Ruth's adjustments from a pitcher to a hitter, sure it was not a totally new experience, just like hitting today would not be totally new, but he had about 130 PA his first 3 full seasons as a pitcher, then about 600 PA for the next ten years, some adjustments must have been needed.
The long swing, much like Will Clark's, would probably be altered if required, the great Ted Williams stated he usually choked up a bit on the bat, when he had two strikes on him. A great hitter usually can adjust to his situation.
At least you didn't disagree that knowledge of diet, nutrition, and overall health wiould be a plus for Ruth today, probably along with much more modern training improvements and advanced medical treatment.
It is not a guess on how facing a pitcher for the fourth plus time is a benefit to the hitter. That is well documented. This is a big factor.
The swing is a very big factor. While I agree that he probably would have been able to adjust, one cannot discount the possibility that he could not.
Just the fact that he was up there swinging a 42 once bat and producing those numbers tells a whole lot about the quality and types of pitches he saw....or didn't see!
I cannot imagine a hitter today being able to do anything spectacular if he were to use a 42 ounce bat....it just wouldn't work out.
On the flip side, I see nothing to suggest the best HR hitter today would have any problem handling the primarily fastball league of back then...afterall, if guys were able to swing 42 ounce bats and be a God...a guy with a perfect swing would be able to feast on that as well. They could easily sit dead red too...and we know they could handle the tough off speed stuff of today as well.
I don't believe I am familar with any legitimate scientific results of bat weight ( or length, or swing type ) to hitting quality studies.
Richie Allen and a few other modern batters used a 40 oz. + bat, what might that tell about the quality and types of pitches he and others saw ??
Perhaps baseball, like golf, has improved the equipment ( gloves, bats, Etc. ) so much that the players of today can perform better than the old timers could have possibly done with old-fasioned, cumbersome, bulky items.
Do you really believe Babe Rith would have much trouble hitting HRs in Coors Field, or many other of today's very very hitter freindly parks ?
Dick Allen was typically using a 36 ounce bat. There were a few occasions going up to a 38 or maybe a 40 ounce bat. In Ruth's case he used a 42 ounce bat, and there were occasions of him going to 46, and even a 50+ ounce!
Ruth could not have had it too hard if he were hitting .340 with 58 HR's. It doesn't seem travel, equpment etc... had affected his hitting too much.
The equipment. The glove is a big reason for increased batting average possibilities in pre war time. It simply didn't catch as many balls...especially the outfielders on flat out runs or dives.
Bats. The past 10 years or so may have seen a better/harder bat...but like I said, this era is a piece of cake to hit in too. But the weight of the bat is the weight of the bat, and there aren't going to be any guys who will wield a 42 ounce bat and be able to have any success...they just don't see the same amount of fastballs that Ruth did...and they see more nasty off speed stuff.
none, because they don't let you play drunk and everybody knows that KingAlcohol is taken more seriously than 'roids.