A few thoughts.

I didn't vote. Still undecided, and leaning way toward appreciating both as fantastic players.

On Ruth not having a great fastball - In one of his films he teaches a kid how to throw a knuckleball. That surprised me and in a thread we sort of came to understand that wasn't just an acting thing. Knuckleball pitchers generally don't have great fastballs. Despite todays obsession with speed many great pitchers didn't have amazing fastballs. They were pitchers. The difference is something that gets lost in analytics, which oddly make for better pitchers.

Players being "soft" today? - In some ways yes. Players back in Ruths era were generally paid well compared to regular workers, but still worked in the off season. Sometimes in physically demanding jobs like farming. I forget who said it but one oldtimer said we wouldn't see a lot of complete games until the pool of players once again included a lot of farm kids who'd bring in tons of hay bales then go play a couple games.
I don't see that happening.
How many players were great until so,e now fixable injury put an end to their career? How many more hung on playing hurt making an injury that could have healed into an essentially career ending injury.
Todays guys do take off days for seemingly trivial things. Or things we don't really understand. I used to wonder and gripe about Dwight Evans back spasms, what silliness! Then I had a couple, with my couch potato muscles..... Sorry Dwight, I had no idea. But taking it easy and not doing certain things for a while made mine go away
If an injury the older guys would have played through might take a year or two off someones career, at a few million a year, I totally understand sitting out a game or two. Is playing through an achy knee or shoulder worth 6-10 million or more?

Since I've touched on talent pool.
Now it's international. But... One speaker at the club asked us if we knew how many players were in organized ball now vs say 1940, Apparently at the time the minors and independent leagues were about 17,500 players. in 1940 the estimate was 175,000 but counted the occasionally very competetive industrial and semi pro leagues. He said that he stuck around the majors as long as he did because he was easy about pay and not complaining. Guy who were "difficult" got replaced very quickly. Yes, if you were a Williams or DiMaggio you could be a bit difficult, but a more average player just got replaced.
So I sort of think that Ruth was playing against some pretty good players who had risen to the top of that 175000 person crowd. Balanced against not playing against all the players in the negro leagues.

Different people handle pressure differently. To some a game is just a game, playoffs or not.

Sort of unrelated
Wen I first saw the thing about how many had hit 3 homers in a playoff game it struck me that when I was in High school that number changed from 1 to 2 and stayed there a while.

Hmmmm. I dunno.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTzcn2bZ-yQ

I'm just not impressed.

:confused:

The Beatles are FAR more overrated. Saying the best basketball player in the world is overrated makes tons of sense...lol

They're no Limp Bizkit, that's for sure.

Maybe I'm too young for N54, but I would prefer if Ohtani didn't have to drive for UberEats in the offseason.

Why not? Those lazy pro athletes finally have to work for a living and the billionaire owners get to keep even more of their hard-earned money. It's a win-win!

There are college Division 1 All-American baseball players today that would be hall of famers if they played in the 1910/1920s

But Wilt Chamberlain hadn't yet been mentioned!

:confused:

That concept troubles me not at all. Work hard all winter so you can devote your summers to playing a little boys' game.

The billionaire owners never cross my mind. Perhaps it's because they don't appear on any bubble gum card sets but that's just the way it is.

:confused:

Perhaps they should cross your mind. The reason player salaries are so high is because the billionaires have enough money to pay them.

Interesting! My opinion of Babe Ruth just went up a notch.

"Hitting is timing; pitching consists of upsetting timing." - Warren Spahn

'Nuff said.

:cool:

Perhaps. My heart though bleeds for neither.

;)

Good pitching beats good hitting and vice versa -- Casey Stengel.

Everyone deserves to be paid their worth. From lowly dishwashers, to the global sports superstars that bring joy to millions of people's lives and who's skills are truly one-of-one.

If Ohtani is remembered for this one postseason game, then I vote Kershaw should always be remembered for this one:

http://espn.com/blog/sweetspot/post/...ns-off-kershaw

My favorite story about Newk is he and his buddy Larry Doby decided to go to Japan at the end of their careers, but Newcombe went as an outfielder not a pitcher. He outhit Doby and stayed for a second season.

Probably shouldn’t have deferred $68M of his $70M annual salary.

But I’m guessing New Balance is making him whole.

Wilt isnt the G.O.A.T. Simple

The NBA changed the rules to make it more difficult for Wilt Chamberlain to dominate; the NBA changed the rules to make it easier for Michael Jordan to dominate. Case closed.

;)

Wilt played his games in old school Converse Chuck Taylor's. Love to see modern players have to lace those things up.

Asking a vintage group to pick between a vintage guy vs a modern. No bias for sure.

They changed the rules for that little clown Curry.

I think Kareem eventually passed him at the center position, but anyone who now discounts him could not have seen him play.

There is both recency bias and nostalgia bias in all these types of discussions.

Different eras, Different competition and different skills between those players. MJ was a killer. Case closed

A killer, eh? Well the bad boy Pistons left him battered and frustrated until they got old:

1988 Eastern Conference Semifinals: Pistons won, 4–1
1989 Eastern Conference Finals: Pistons won, 4–2
1990 Eastern Conference Finals: Pistons won, 4–3
1991 Eastern Conference Finals: Bulls won, 4–0

:p

I would have voted both if given the option, I'll bet most would have

MLB changed the rules to make it easier for Ohtani, but nobody seems to downgrade him for it.

Who is? Present is Ohtani
Who was? Past is Ruth

Ohtani on the Babe

https://youtu.be/FydIRZAZxqE?si=cNTjkotBRB4cdV2-

The longer version

https://youtu.be/xy1vT19pSyo?si=9hCzRMZiDhcXdq0Q


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"...at least not right now." The last words in the first (shortened) clip.

Btw, the full 60 Minutes segment is pure gold. Thanks for sharing.

Which rules?

:confused:

The "Ohtani Rule", which allows a starting pitcher to remain in the game as a DH even after he is relieved. While this rule doesn't make his burden easier as a player, some may argue it makes it easier for him to accumulate stats. The reality is that no player before him -- not even Ruth -- presented the problem.

I thought the DH rule allowed a designated hitter to replace a pitcher at bat but it didn't mandate that a pitcher couldn't hit. Therefore as a pitcher Ohtani could hit for himself but then serve as the DH for the pitchers replacing him on the mound.

My underlying problem though is that I hate the DH business in the first place because it flies in the face of the underlying principle of the game, i.e. the nine men playing in the field come to bat in turn.

:(

The DH replaces the P in the batting lineup. For every other team, the P and the DH are different people. So the legacy rule where players who get subbed out cannot return to the game is uncontroversial. The Ohtani rule treats Ohtani the starting pitcher and Ohtani the DH as two different players. That's how I think about it.


If you don't like the DH rule, then you should love Ohtani, as he's the only starting pitcher who hits for himself.

The technical question I have regarding the Ohtani rule is what happens if Ohtani is replaced with a pinch hitter as the DH, but the Dodgers want to keep him on the mound (let's say he sustains an injury to his left hand). Can he stay in as a pitcher? Or does the Ohtani Rule only work if he's replaced on the mound?

That billionaire owner observation is the common retort when anyone suggests that players are overpaid these days. But it misses the point. Consider.

As a fan I'm disinterested in watching the owners work. I certainly have no interest in buying tickets to do so. Nor I think does any fan idolize owners nor are they hounded for autographs. And I'm no exception. I give not a thought to the owners.

But as fans we are expected to cheer for the players toiling (actually just playing a kids' game) on our favourite teams. Well that would be easier to understand if they were superbly talented athletes sacrificing to play a game they love. But the players certainly aren't sacrificing these days - or even just earning a very decent wage. They're paid and pampered like demigods. So why should we as fans live and die with their on field exploits? My own father used to occasionally make that same point back in the 1960's when I was a kid "Why do you get so sick about these games? They're all professionals you know. They're only playing for the money."

And of course back in those days players were merely well paid. Salaries have increased a quantum leap since then. Yes as a kid I viscerally identified with my teams and the players on those teams. My emotional attachment was there in spades. But that's faded now. Now my interest is more intellectual. That of course may just be because I'm sixty years older. But I still think it's rather silly for a full grown man to viscerally identify and contribute to the mega salaries of present day players from his own relatively meager earnings.

:(

That's the way the DH rule should have been written in the first place (if written at all). Otherwise pitchers would effectively be prohibited from hitting and that certainly wouldn't be right.

If he's two different players under the rule, he should be able to continue as the pitcher.

:)

I would be curious as to how a band whose recording career was about 7 years and produced 21 #1 singles and 19 #1 albums could be overrated. That is before we consider how they completely changed music and the music industry.

Says you. A lot of people think he is just like a lot of people think LeBron is.

Sure know it all.

Ruth was better relative to his peers than Ohtani has been relative to his. You don't have to think WAR is a perfect measure to realize that the 182.6 vs. 51.5 discrepancy renders the question absurd.

Huge Dodger fan here who loves watching Ohtani and can't stand Dave Roberts.

I voted for Ruth—one of a kind.

If Ohtani can pitch and hit at an elite level for 10 more years, then he may have a case.

For now, I am just enjoying watching him, and I'm glad he is on my favorite team

Just keep telling yourself they were professionals doing it for the money, no need to get emotional...

I don't actually agree with your statement the way it's phrased.

To say everyone should be paid what their "worth" presupposes that there can be some objective determinant of the value of some individual's labour and that the individual must then be paid that amount. This is nonsense. The value of any individual's labour cannot be objectively determined by an outside party. And for pay rates/scales to be enforced would be an Orwellian nightmare.

Now I don't believe there should be government legislative barriers against anyone being paid whatever he can get. But the "worth" question is another matter entirely. On the one hand to me so-and-so (e.g. many pro athletes) aren't worth as much as they're making. But it's not up to me. I'm willing to stand aside and watch as they get whatever they can get in the marketplace.

That being said I also jealously guard my inalienable right to support or refrain from supporting whichever individual/entity I please for whatever reason. I reserve the right to just say "No!" to silliness.

In a world where an owner buys the TB Rays for 1.7 billion dollars for a team that doesn't even have a stadium to play in right now...the players can take all the money they can squeeze from the owners.

Anything less would be stupid. It would make you a stupid worker. It would mean you have no idea what your value is. It would make you a sucker.

Just like a piece of cardboard, you're worth what you can extract from those who want the item...in this case, a human who can throw, pitch, or field (or 2 out of 3 for Ohtani in this thread's case).

It is the most anti-capitalist thing in the world to not achieve your value. I can't even imagine defending devaluing yourself to do the work the person is hiring you not only won't do, but can't do.

Get real. Know your value.

This.

Every one deserves to be paid as much as they can get themselves paid.

To me a salary cap is the same as telling the company I work for that I will not allow them to pay me any more money, even if they want to.

Ohtani is an amazing player, and a class act. It would be interesting to see how his skills would hold up to the nightly onslaught of booze, babes, and beef that Ruth tore through.

Never did I say that I would expect the players not to try to get whatever they can get. I merely said that I reserve the right to sneer at their high pay. And I can and will just say "No!" if I think they're silly overpaid.

So the players can bargain for whatever they can get, the owners should be allowed to pay as little as they need to run their businesses (the last time they collectively exercised this right though it was called collusion and undercut what should have been their right) and finally I still have a right not to cheer for whatever the final denouement. Like I say, I reserve the right to say "That's silly! I won't support this nonsense with my dollar votes." For whatever reason some of you think that I should cheer gargantuan player salaries because these salaries are being paid by billionaires. That detail though is to me irrelevant. I compare players' salaries to what the average white collar/blue collar working stiff earns and then decide accordingly..


True.

If the owners choose to agree among themselves not to pay above a certain amount, that's their right. No one should hold a gun to their heads and say you can't come to this agreement. If the players don't like this agreement, nobody is forcing them to stay within MLB. They can play elsewhere or do something else entirely. It's still their choice.

I don't care what they're paid, but also I care what they're paid and took action in my own life because of what they're paid because they're getting paid too much?