Babe Ruth

[Jim Colyer]

Babe Ruth was a giant. Hank Aaron and Barry Bonds are midgets by comparison. Aaron hit 755 home runs but did it in 3,298 games with 12,364 at bats. Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs in only 2,503 games with 8,398 at bats. Aaron came to the plate 3,966 more times, the equivalent of 7 seasons.

Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs in the days when field dimensions were much longer. Fences were pulled in by the time Aaron played. By Barry Bonds' day, baseball was doing everything in its power to see that records were broken so that interest in the game was prolonged. Balls were livelier. Bats were of better quality. Pitching mounds were lower.

Bonds' use of steroids is well-documented. We have seen what steroids have done for other hitters, Mark McGuire and Rafael Palmeiro, for example.

The big difference between Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds is seen in their batting averages. Ruth was a .342 lifetime hitter. Bonds' career average is .299.

Bab Ruth is inexplicable. He did not look like an athlete. He loved the night life. Yet, he hit home runs when no one else did. His season totals were often higher than those of other clubs.

Ruth was an outstanding pitcher for several seasons, compiling a 94-46 win/loss record with an ERA of 2.28.

Babe Ruth is still the baseball player against whom all others are measured.

Babe Ruth http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/ho.../Ruth_Babe.htm

[rockin500]

and your point is?

[HollywoodLeo]

I believe his point is Babe Ruth > Hank Aaron and Barry Bonds.

[love_that_reefer]

Aaron and Bonds played against far better competition than Mr. Ruth but somehow that point wasn't brought up.

[catman]

Neither Aaron or Bond has been as much better than his competition as Babe was, though. That hasn't been pointed out either.
Seriously, to attempt to compare players from different eras is very difficult. All of the above players have excelled during their eras, but one can only speculate as to how they would have done in the others. Could the Babe do well today? Would Bonds have been able to play in the "dead ball" era? How about Aaron? What would he have done against pitchers like Walter Johnson or Lefty Grove?

[HollywoodLeo]

Aaron and Bonds played against far better competition than Mr. Ruth but somehow that point wasn't brought up.

That's because GiantsFan83 hasn't seen this thread yet.

[Fishercat]

Really, Bonds isn't that far off of Ruth overall even if you consider the differences in offensive eras. Plus, it had to be easier to dwarf everyone else when you're one of the few trying to hit HRs.

[love_that_reefer]

Neither Aaron or Bond has been as much better than his competition as Babe was, though. That hasn't been pointed out either.
Seriously, to attempt to compare players from different eras is very difficult. All of the above players have excelled during their eras, but one can only speculate as to how they would have done in the others. Could the Babe do well today? Would Bonds have been able to play in the "dead ball" era? How about Aaron? What would he have done against pitchers like Walter Johnson or Lefty Grove?

Ruth's best years were in the "juiced ball" era. He was mostly pitching in the dead ball era. And to honest and I have said this many times, if Ruth saw a Randy Johnson 92 mph slider Babe would have shit his pants.

[HollywoodLeo]

if Ruth saw a Randy Johnson 92 mph slider Babe would have shit his pants.

As would John Kruk

[Providence A's]

Aaron and Bonds played against far better competition than Mr. Ruth but somehow that point wasn't brought up.

that isn't necessarily true as there were only 16 teams back then...I think the less teams without every race vs. every race and more teams isn't as big of a difference as some might think. There were less teams back then and the best played. It wasn't AAA. Nowadays there are more teams and the pitching is watered down especially considering the fact that stud pitchers back then pitched more often then the studs today. Therefore hitters back then were facing quality pitchers more often than pitchers today. JMHO.

[realmofotalk]

Unless people during that time were super humans, it shouldn't be humanly possible for most pitchers then to throw 90+ mph while pitching 300+ innings a season and having avoided arm problems.

[Slyder]

Unless people during that time were super humans, it shouldn't be humanly possible for most pitchers then to throw 90+ mph while pitching 300+ innings a season and having avoided arm problems.

Walter Johnson http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/johnswa01.shtml
Cy Young http://www.baseball-reference.com/y/youngcy01.shtml
Sandy Koufax http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/koufasa01.shtml
Some dude named Babe Ruth http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/ruthba01.shtml
Don Drysdale http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/drysddo01.shtml
Phil Niekro http://www.baseball-reference.com/n/niekrph01.shtml

Among countless others say "Hi we did it".

To even think that players like Babe didnt play against "as tough" of competition is completely laughable.

When Babe Played there were mid teen number of teams, you didnt see guys last long when they sucked unlike what you see today when JEFF WEAVER starts ANY playoff game let alone the deciding WS game. Teams are constantly looking for someone who "doesnt give up 5 runs in 5 or less innings" for their rotation. Despite the season being LONGER no one today comes close to the IP threshold these guys took it in excess of 300+ IP.

Hitters are better now *arguably*, and pitchers may throw harder but the very few pitchers would have made previous eras, they wouldnt last in circumstances of the previous era cause they would have been laughed right out of town cause they sucked. Pitchers are throwing harder but most arent smarter than the pitchers of yesterdays.

Pedro's type is a dying breed. As baseball continues to let jokes like Bonds suit up in body armor and say "go ahead hit me, I wont feel a thing" pitchers have gone away from what made a lot of people legends busting inside and scarring the *%$@ out hitters.

*END RANT*

*Shakes head* Huh what happened?

[Fishercat]

There's a reason why pitchers who are

A) Better conditioned
B) Better trained
and
C) Who have been bred to pitch from low levels

are unable to go significant distances (IPs) without getting hurt. Basically, any good explanation turns to idea that the difficulty and the strain on the body of modern day pitches had to have been great than such difficulty back in the dead ball era.

As for your examples, excluding dead ball era guys (early on, even the rules for throwing the ball were different, plus now illegal substances likely made pitches like the curveball and slider unnecessary, two pitches which can hinder arms). Koufax retired at age 30, Drysdale had 12 years with over 100 innings (not many for a star). Niekro was a knuckleballer. Remember, Johnson's 99 MPH fastball, a speed which many pitchers can match today, was his out pitch. A 99 MPH fastball is still tough as hell to hit, but it won't be dominating like Johnson was.

The only logic that would suffice as to explain why two-man rotations worked back in the early 20th century and as to why most teams need at least a five-man one today is that the peak performance of pitchers (as in, you take a 1920's pitcher and a 2000's pitcher in a vacuum) has increased so dramatically as to require multiple days of rest by pitchers.

And if you don't think that baseball players are smarter today, in the era of scouting reports, videos, plethora of coaches, and so on than they were at the turn of the century...well...

[realmofotalk]

Among countless others say "Hi we did it".

I was arguing against the assumption that guys like Babe Ruth and Cy Young were throwing 90+ mph.

[Providence A's]

at any rate, my point is/was that with less teams, I don't think the difference is as great as some make it out to be. People seem to forget that there were less teams back then and I don't think anyone could really argue that the league isn't a little watered down nowadays as far as pitching is concerned with there being 30 teams. We'll never know.