Quote:
Originally Posted by UKCardGuy
This!
And remember that the rules changed in 1921 so that balls were changed when they got dirty or worn or damaged. That combined with a "juiced" ball and smaller parks helps to explain some of Ruth's success.
Have a look at this comparison of Cobb and Ruth's stats. https://mlbcomparisons.com/babe-ruth...bb-comparison/
Except for the categories influenced by being a home run hitter, Cobb wins on almost all counts. That says to me that if you take away the benefits that Ruth had (fresh balls, juiced balls, parks etc) then Cobb is clearly the better player. Put it another way, if Cobb played ball from 1918-1938, his stats would be even better!
Ruth most definitely transformed baseball but that doesn't make him the best.
As an analogy, I'm a huge Beatles fan. They changed music when they came along. Like Ruth, they were the right people at the right time. But would I say that they were bigger musical geniuses than Mozart? Nope. |
Ruth had two big seasons before that rule change, 1919 presumably non juiced ball, he hit 29hr and batted .322. nd 1920, presumably juiced ball, as total HRs was a lot higher than 1919 - 369 to 240 Ruth hit 54 HR and batted 376 still with the ball being used until it wore out. (and played in 12 more games) 54HR was more than any other AL team, and more than double the second place HR hitter.
looking at the top 10 HR hitters, some had similar increases, some didn't.
Even for 1921 with the clean ball and a lot more HR hit overall not everyone in the top 10 saw a major increase.
So Ruth was outpacing everyone for power even before the clean ball. and probably before the dead ball was gone completely.