BABE RUTH STATS
384292611.jpg)
Dboneesq
Posts: 18,219 ✭✭
I know, I'm not telling you anything new ... we all know just how great THE BABE was. But take a look at the stats below and see how much better he was than his peers.
The first number is the year ... the second is the # of HRs THE BABE hit ... the next three are the HRs hit by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th guys that year.
1919***29***12***10***10
1920***54***19***17***15
1921***59***24***24***23
1924***46***27***27***25
1926***47***21***19***19
1928***54***31***31***27
The first number is the year ... the second is the # of HRs THE BABE hit ... the next three are the HRs hit by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th guys that year.
1919***29***12***10***10
1920***54***19***17***15
1921***59***24***24***23
1924***46***27***27***25
1926***47***21***19***19
1928***54***31***31***27
STAY HEALTHY!
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
0
Comments
<< <i>Imagine if he actualy trained like an athlete. >>
Imagine if he takes roid
"Ruth's favorite breakfast was said to include a porterhouse steak, six fried eggs, and potatoes, all washed down with a quart mixture of bourbon whiskey and ginger ale. The Babe also had a certain fondness for hot dogs, downing between 12 and 18 one day in April 1925."
Hey Doug .... ya think it was a coincidence that Ruth only hit 25 dingers in 1925, the same year he was downing all those dogs????
PoppaJ
1920................ he alone, out homered every other team in AL and NL except 1.
One crazy stat
"Ruth's favorite breakfast was said to include a porterhouse steak, six fried eggs, and potatoes, all washed down with a quart mixture of bourbon whiskey and ginger ale. The Babe also had a certain fondness for hot dogs, downing between 12 and 18 one day in April 1925."
Hey Doug .... ya think it was a coincidence that Ruth only hit 25 dingers in 1925, the same year he was downing all those dogs????
PoppaJ
So that's where Prince Fielder has been getting his dieting tips./.
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.
Of course I'm using the FKW division method.
Steve
<< <i>Of course that says as much about his peers as it does about him >>
He never had to face a african american and everyone else weighed 50 lbs less.
Most hitters had to hit the same ball after it had been smacked around abit . Ruth from the research others have done , had a slight advantage with each at bat .
He still posted some incredible numbers , but it doesn't have the same luster , to me , anymore. I can't , and will not , speculate what could've been ( I wonder what Bond's numbers would've been , without the spike gatorade ?) , if Ruth had not had this advantage , but.......
--------------------------------------------
He was still great for the game , and his records are what they are.----- Sonny
<< <i>imagine if he was a synchronized swimmer >>
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
<< <i>
<< <i>Of course that says as much about his peers as it does about him >>
He never had to face a african american and everyone else weighed 50 lbs less. >>
There is no place on these boards for racism. So pack your $hit and get out!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Of course that says as much about his peers as it does about him >>
He never had to face a african american and everyone else weighed 50 lbs less. >>
There is no place on these boards for racism. So pack your $hit and get out! >>
Racism?? That's not what he was posting about - it's a theory that has been talked about for years. Since African Americans were not allowed in the Major Leagues, there were some potentially great African American pitchers (like Paige in his prime and countless others with whom I'm not familiar) who may have been able to challenge Ruth. Who knows what would have happened to Ruth's numbers; they still would have been incredibly awesome - but that's all the post was referencing.
So relax on the racism talk - that's not what his post was about at all!!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Of course that says as much about his peers as it does about him >>
He never had to face a african american and everyone else weighed 50 lbs less. >>
There is no place on these boards for racism. So pack your $hit and get out! >>
Racism?? That's not what he was posting about - it's a theory that has been talked about for years. Since African Americans were not allowed in the Major Leagues, there were some potentially great African American pitchers (like Paige in his prime and countless others with whom I'm not familiar) who may have been able to challenge Ruth. Who knows what would have happened to Ruth's numbers; they still would have been incredibly awesome - but that's all the post was referencing.
So relax on the racism talk - that's not what his post was about at all!! >>
Well said!!!!
The bottom line is that Ruth would have hit pitchers from any era and any league.
Steve
Satchell Page made his MLB debut on July 9, 1948 for the Cleveland Indians. His last MLB appearance was on September 25, 1965 for the Kansas City Athletics. (17 years)
Stats during that time:
W-L: 28–31
ERA: 3.29
K: 288
(Not very impressive)
If you think Satchell Paige in his prime (or anyone else for that matter) would have stopped him you are indeed wrong.
<< <i>FWIW I did not take that comment as racist. And it is a good point.
The bottom line is that Ruth would have hit pitchers from any era and any league.
>>
But we will never know will we?
For someone to do what Ruth did on Hot Dogs and Beer that players pumping steroids can't even do is an impossible concept.
Believing that is like believing that you can sail off the edge of the earth, or that Rome was built in a day.
YOU my friend are an idiot.
In the context of his era, Ruth was a great contributor - both as a pitcher and a 'position' player/hitter.
Why not keep it friendly.
If one doesn't appreciate Ruth? I'll respect their POV - tho I may not agree with it.
If one is posting to get a "rise" out of someone? That - IMO - is what the Sports Talk Forum is all about.
mike
1) The majority of the league was still using a dead ball style of hitting. Can you imagine Mike Schmidt playing in a league where the vast majority of players had a hitting style like Bill Buckner? That is what Ruth was playing in. No, it isn't a "what if scenario." It is an explanation scenario of WHY Ruth was able to out homer the leauge at such a wide margin.
2) Yes, eliminating 'people of color' did make a difference in Ruth being able to outdistance his peers. It has nothing to do with how he would have fared if more black pitchers were able to take the place of lesser white pitchers(this is also a factor though). It has to do with a black player capable of hitting 40 Home Runs not competiing in the same league...while a lesser player was hitting 13 home runs, thus making it appear that Ruth was so much better than the competition.
Again, imagine a league with Mike Schmidt where he got to eliminate Dave Winfield, Reggie Jackson, Willie Stargell, and Eddie Murray etc.. from his competition. Inferior players would be playing instead of those guys, thus making Mike Schmidt look so much more God-Like.
When Darrell Evans retired, he had the 13th most HOME RUNS in history, with a catch...when comparing him to white players only. That is what Ruth was compared to. Some may say, yeah, but somebody else would be playing in the black playes stead in Evan's era, and they are right. But it would be a guy no better than a league average MLB, otherwise he would ALREADY be playing. So in all fairness, this is how good somebody could be made to look in just using THIS point. Use the others, and you can create Gods fast.
3) Availalbe population in general. At the time of Ruth, the available population(of prime baseball ability) to draw from was much less than that of era's like from the 80's. This is a longer detailed analysis, but recognize that there were MILLIONS of more people born per year when comparing 1895-1900, compared to that of 1960-1964. When you have an extra 10 million males to draw talent from, you get more superstars. Think of it like this. Is it more impressive to be the best player in the city of Springfield, Illinois...or the best player in the state of Illinois? Ruth simply did not have as many people as close to his ability as a guy like Schmidt(or Brett, or whatever star from a tougher era). So his star shined brighter.
If you don't believe the above does not make sense, then ask your self why all the best players(dominant seasons) in terms of outdistancing their peers, in both pitchers and hitters, happened pre-war. Don't you think it is odd that the majority of the dominant seasons occured pre war??
Go ahead and look up the top 100 OOPS+ seasons of all time, and the top ERA+(among starters) seasons of all time. That leader board is littered with people from pre-war, compared to 60's-80's.
Why? Because the ability to throw 100 MPH, and hit a ball 425 consistently is a natural gift born upon people. The best players from each era would all be about as good as each other. The difference is the environment that each played in made their accomplishments(relative to their peers) look vastly different...and in Ruth's case, where they look God-Like. Something they simply could not do in era's that had different circumstances.
The most simple exercise is to ask yourself about Ruth's feat of out homering every team in the league. In order for him to do that in other era's, he would have to hit over 225 home runs in a season. That should simply sum up the above. Maybe some of you think he would do that because he is a legend(which shows why characters like Spider man and Superman are very popular).
He was great, but he was not as great as those feats suggest, when comparing him to other era's stars!
Please try to think of something better then if he played in a different decade he'd have been garbage
or
if he hit against black pitchers he'd have been garbage
<< <i>I am not a Ruth fan by any means. But he was the greatest raw power hitter of all time NO-QUESTIONS-ASKED. If someone were to dig up his skeleton, take some DNA from him and make a clone, he would dominate the league even now. >>
AMEN!
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
He was great, but he was not as great as those feats suggest, when comparing him to other era's stars!
That goes without saying, later era stars had the benefit of little league and babe ruth league ball too.
All Ruth had was sandlot and school yard ball.
You made some great points.
Steve
W-L: 28–31
ERA: 3.29
K: 288
(Not very impressive)
If you think Satchell Paige in his prime (or anyone else for that matter) would have stopped him you are indeed wrong.
===================================================================================
What 17 years? He played for 5 seasons 3 of which were with the lowly Browns, that 1 game in 1965 was for show.
You are kidding right? Paige was a 40+ year old rookie and in 1965 I think was 59 years old!!
The fact remains that Ruth did not have to face the best black players. Actually he did during barnstorming but that is for another thread.
Steve
Edited to add the first sentence.
Saberman I do appreciate your points. You should post more often.
<< <i>How exactlyis Ruth over-rated?
But he was the greatest raw power hitter of all time NO-QUESTIONS-ASKED >>
You answer your own question
Ruth was the best hitter of his generation. He was also the best player in history compared to his peers. Athletic performance has moved very far upwards since the 20s. If we find a balance between those two things, it is reasonable to consider others ahead of him
To not even allow questions is overrating him
Ruth played on very good teams. A great hitter today on a poor team will not get many good pitches to hit. I imagine it was hard to pitch around Ruth.
In years to come as baseball becomes even more of an international game, with the talent pool including not only the Western Hemisphere but also Asia and wherever else baseball takes hold will we lose respect for the current American players?
As far as Satchel Paige not being impressive, how old was he when he got to the big leagues? His best years were certainly behind him. If he was permitted to play in his prime it would have in all probability been very different. I think he was collecting a check from baseball and Social Security at the same time.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
<< <i>
YOU my friend are an idiot. >>
Or not.
<< <i>The reasons why Ruth out homered his league mates by such a wide margin are...
1) The majority of the league was still using a dead ball style of hitting. Can you imagine Mike Schmidt playing in a league where the vast majority of players had a hitting style like Bill Buckner? That is what Ruth was playing in. No, it isn't a "what if scenario." It is an explanation scenario of WHY Ruth was able to out homer the leauge at such a wide margin.
2) Yes, eliminating 'people of color' did make a difference in Ruth being able to outdistance his peers. It has nothing to do with how he would have fared if more black pitchers were able to take the place of lesser white pitchers(this is also a factor though). It has to do with a black player capable of hitting 40 Home Runs not competiing in the same league...while a lesser player was hitting 13 home runs, thus making it appear that Ruth was so much better than the competition.
Again, imagine a league with Mike Schmidt where he got to eliminate Dave Winfield, Reggie Jackson, Willie Stargell, and Eddie Murray etc.. from his competition. Inferior players would be playing instead of those guys, thus making Mike Schmidt look so much more God-Like.
When Darrell Evans retired, he had the 13th most HOME RUNS in history, with a catch...when comparing him to white players only. That is what Ruth was compared to. Some may say, yeah, but somebody else would be playing in the black playes stead in Evan's era, and they are right. But it would be a guy no better than a league average MLB, otherwise he would ALREADY be playing. So in all fairness, this is how good somebody could be made to look in just using THIS point. Use the others, and you can create Gods fast.
3) Availalbe population in general. At the time of Ruth, the available population(of prime baseball ability) to draw from was much less than that of era's like from the 80's. This is a longer detailed analysis, but recognize that there were MILLIONS of more people born per year when comparing 1895-1900, compared to that of 1960-1964. When you have an extra 10 million males to draw talent from, you get more superstars. Think of it like this. Is it more impressive to be the best player in the city of Springfield, Illinois...or the best player in the state of Illinois? Ruth simply did not have as many people as close to his ability as a guy like Schmidt(or Brett, or whatever star from a tougher era). So his star shined brighter.
If you don't believe the above does not make sense, then ask your self why all the best players(dominant seasons) in terms of outdistancing their peers, in both pitchers and hitters, happened pre-war. Don't you think it is odd that the majority of the dominant seasons occured pre war??
Go ahead and look up the top 100 OOPS+ seasons of all time, and the top ERA+(among starters) seasons of all time. That leader board is littered with people from pre-war, compared to 60's-80's.
Why? Because the ability to throw 100 MPH, and hit a ball 425 consistently is a natural gift born upon people. The best players from each era would all be about as good as each other. The difference is the environment that each played in made their accomplishments(relative to their peers) look vastly different...and in Ruth's case, where they look God-Like. Something they simply could not do in era's that had different circumstances.
The most simple exercise is to ask yourself about Ruth's feat of out homering every team in the league. In order for him to do that in other era's, he would have to hit over 225 home runs in a season. That should simply sum up the above. Maybe some of you think he would do that because he is a legend(which shows why characters like Spider man and Superman are very popular).
He was great, but he was not as great as those feats suggest, when comparing him to other era's stars! >>
WELL SAID!!!!
That argument is one that wont be won by either side.
Babe Ruth was the greatest of his time, and perhaps all time.
When people who don't even know or follow baseball are asked to name a famous baseball player, who do they say?
Babe Ruth or Eddie Murray?
He changed the way the game was played back then, and had an influence on how the game is played today.
He is a legend in my book and I would hope 50 years from now the younger ones will know of Ruth before they know of Bonds.
Actually before Gerhig and Foxx and guys like that came on the scene Ruth was NOT the only guy
hitting 30+ dingers per year. At least 10 others were doing it as well. Guys like Hornsby, Cy Williams
Hack Wilson, Chuck Klein, Bottomly and a few others were hitting 35+ with many into the 40's too.
Ruth just happened to do it first and played in the media capital of the world. Hitting 59 and 60
also helped I'm sure. Everyone knows he was the greatest ballplayer to ever played.
I think one person here claimed he was not. Everyone else has stated as such.
So I'm not sure why some here (you not included) feel those that have brought up some reasons'
why he was so great are trying to diminish what he accompiished?
Steve
<< <i>. Everyone knows he was the greatest ballplayer to ever played.
>>
He is most certainly not the best player ever. Mays for one was much better than Ruth. Mays was a better overall athlete and player. Better defensively and faced tougher competition. Ted Williams and Barry Bonds were also better players than Ruth hands down.