1919 Ruth vs 2021 Ohtani

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

There are several important differences about how the game was played and what the ballpark dimensions were in Babe Ruth's era that are probably worth mentioning.

As someone noted above, there were some parks that were massive. Westside Grounds was 560' to center field (but Ruth didn't play there), and Boston's Huntington Avenue Grounds was an astonishing 635' to center field (but again, Ruth never played there. This was before his time).

The game itself was completely different back then though. It was all about getting on base and advancing runners. Players would bunt or chop the ball (the "Baltimore Chop") to get on base and then try to steal 2nd and 3rd nearly every time. Stolen base numbers from that era will never be duplicated. Nobody even tried to hit home runs back then. It was considered a fool's errand. The balls were "dead". They'd use the same ball for almost the entire game. Fans had to throw them back if they caught a foul ball to keep the game going. They'd basically use the same ball until the cover came off. When Ruth came along and started hitting home runs (remember, he led the league with 11 HRs in 1918) it wasn't seen as a winning strategy. So when he started crushing homers in 1919 and 1920, he was also one of only a few people who were even trying to do it. All the other players were still trying to bunt/chop/slash their way on base so they could steal 2nd and 3rd and get bunted home. But Babe Ruth was too fat and slow to run the bases, so he knew if he was going to score he'd have to hit it out of the park or get a double and rely on someone else to bring him in. It was a different mentality. You can't really compare the number of home runs he hit to the other players at that time because they simply weren't trying to hit them.

In 1919 when Babe Ruth hit 29 home runs for Boston, only 9 of those were at Fenway Park, the other 20 were on the road. At the time, Fenway had a 313.5' right field. And remember, Ruth was a left-handed pull hitter. The vast majority of his home runs were down the right-field line. They only played against 7 different teams during the regular season back then. And in 1919, Polo Grounds had a right-field fence of 258' and Sportsman's Park was 270'.

Also, pitching was a lot different back then. Walter Johnson was king. He threw serious heat for the era (measured at 89 mph, though some anecdotal tales estimate that he threw in the 90s). Nobody could hit him. Everyone else? Most of these guys threw fastballs in the low to mid-80s on a good day, and the best of the best were throwing high 80s. Players struck out because of spitballs and "emery board balls", not because of heat.

It was just an entirely different game. You simply cannot compare the eras. Ruth was the GOAT, no question. I'm not trying to discredit his accomplishments or abilities. I'm just saying you simply can't make fair comparisons across different eras. People try to do the same with Wilt Chamberlain and modern basketball greats. Wilt played against 6'2" white guys from the YMCA. It just wasn't the same game.

The quality of bats and balls make a huge difference as well. Equipment, nutrition, modern sports medicine, everything has come a long way since then.

My 2 cents.

If I recall correctly Wilt played against Russell, Thurmond, Bellamy, Beatty, and for his last 5 years, Alcindor. 6 2 white guys indeed.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ruth had 15+ steals a few times, he wasn't THAT slow. The real issue for me in terms of how to compare players of that era is that they faced only part of the talent pool.

[butchie_t]

All I hear when I read this thread…..


Butch Turner

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If I recall correctly Wilt played against Russell, Thurmond, Bellamy, Beatty, and for his last 5 years, Alcindor. 6 2 white guys indeed.

Yeah, the "he played against short guys" thing has definitely been exaggerated over the years. What's definitely true is that the players he played against were nowhere near as good as later generations. Wilt's rebound statistics are significantly inflated because teams played at a breakneck pace while also shooting poorly. For example, in 1960/61 when Wilt set the rebounding record, teams took an average of 109.4 shots per game - EACH - while shooting 41.5% from the floor. That's an average of 128 rebounds per game for players to grab. Compare that to 2020/21 where teams took 88.4 shots per game while shooting 46.6% from the floor. That's an average of 94 rebounds per game - 34 fewer. So, yeah, your rebounding numbers are going to be higher if guys are throwing up 2.67 missed shots per minute.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Yeah, the "he played against short guys" thing has definitely been exaggerated over the years. What's definitely true is that the players he played against were nowhere near as good as later generations. Wilt's rebound statistics are significantly inflated because teams played at a breakneck pace while also shooting poorly. For example, in 1960/61 when Wilt set the rebounding record, teams took an average of 109.4 shots per game - EACH - while shooting 41.5% from the floor. That's an average of 128 rebounds per game for players to grab. Compare that to 2020/21 where teams took 88.4 shots per game while shooting 46.6% from the floor. That's an average of 94 rebounds per game - 34 fewer. So, yeah, your rebounding numbers are going to be higher if guys are throwing up 2.67 missed shots per minute.

That is just your opinion. I disagree. Playing 9 or 10 games against Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain faced tougher competition than any modern player. Teams in the 60s shot lower percentages because teams actually played defense.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

That is just your opinion. I disagree. Playing 9 or 10 games against Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain faced tougher competition than any modern player. Teams in the 60s shot lower percentages because teams actually played defense.

And when Russell left, there was Lew. And Hayes.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by rats60

That is just your opinion. I disagree. Playing 9 or 10 games against Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain faced tougher competition than any modern player. Teams in the 60s shot lower percentages because teams actually played defense.

This is a hilarious take. Teams in the 60s shot lower percentages because they sucked at shooting. Go watch some film. Half these guys look like my wife when she shoots a basketball. It's a complete joke. Russell and Wilt averaged an estimated 8-9 blocked shots per game. It's not because they were immortals, it's because they were blocking shots from YMCA guys. Olajuwan probably would have blocked 15 shots per game back then.

Here's my hot take - Bill Russell is probably the single most overrated athlete of any sport in any era.

I'm not saying Bill Russell sucked. He was very good. Possibly top 20 all-time in my book. But some people talk about him like he's the GOAT, which is completely ridiculous. Wilt was by FAR the better player and it wasn't even close.

[Snowman]

Perhaps the basketball conversation belongs in a different thread. To bring this one back to the topic in the OP:

I think what Ohtani is doing is far more impressive and valuable than a triple crown season. I just don't see any possible way that anyone other than Ohtani gets the MVP unless he gets injured or somehow forgets how to hit or pitch. But if he keeps up what he's been doing this season, there's no way in hell Vlad gets the MVP over him even if he wins the triple crown. I just don't see it happening.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Snowman

This is a hilarious take. Teams in the 60s shot lower percentages because they sucked at shooting. Go watch some film. Half these guys look like my wife when she shoots a basketball. It's a complete joke. Russell and Wilt averaged an estimated 8-9 blocked shots per game. It's not because they were immortals, it's because they were blocking shots from YMCA guys. Olajuwan probably would have blocked 15 shots per game back then.

Here's my hot take - Bill Russell is probably the single most overrated athlete of any sport in any era.

I'm not saying Bill Russell sucked. He was very good. Possibly top 20 all-time in my book. But some people talk about him like he's the GOAT, which is completely ridiculous. Wilt was by FAR the better player and it wasn't even close.

Thank you. Could not agree more.

[Yoda]

I think it is kinda cool we are comparing the Babe to a Japanese ballplayer.
I lived in Tokyo for 9 years during the 70's and 80's and can assure you that the Japanese are every bit as passionate about baseball as we are. While there, I became a die-hard, or as die-hard as possible being a gaijin (outsider), fan of the Tokyo Giants and attended many a game. I loved the custom of fans returning foul balls which are collected by an army of very pretty girls. Don't think that would work at Fenway. And while Nagashima, Oh, Ichiro and soon Ohtani are national icons, I don't believe they are held in the same esteem as Ruth, nor ever will be.

[brianclat11]

It doesn't take anything away from the Babe to acknowledge how special Ohtani is and what he is doing in this age of modern baseball and the physical specimens that play the game. The only reason that there is a comparison is the fact that no player has performed to this level as both a pitcher and everyday player since Babe did it for a short period of time back in the day. I don't think there is anything wrong with showing appreciation for both and marvel at what Shohei is doing.

[Ricky]

I mean, it’s hard to understand how pitchers of today, with better size, physique and training, break down while pitchers in 1900-1920, who were smaller, were completing every game and throwing 300-400 innings every year, year after year, in shorter rotations. They couldn’t have been throwing as hard.

And how did all of those 5’7 165 pound guys get their 45 ounce bats around on 95 mph fastballs?

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by brianclat11

It doesn't take anything away from the Babe to acknowledge how special Ohtani is and what he is doing in this age of modern baseball and the physical specimens that play the game. The only reason that there is a comparison is the fact that no player has performed to this level as both a pitcher and everyday player since Babe did it for a short period of time back in the day. I don't think there is anything wrong with showing appreciation for both and marvel at what Shohei is doing.

Stats are just numbers. Figures lie and liars figure, and we have some on this forum.

All numbers aside Brian has summarized the intent of this thread without using a calculator, or an abacus for that matter.

Bravo!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Stats are just numbers. Figures lie and liars figure, and we have some on this forum.

All numbers aside Brian has summarized the intent of this thread without using a calculator, or an abacus for that matter.

Bravo!

That is funny, because in the very first post to start this thread you ended up including all kinds of figures and stats for Ruth and Ohtani yourself. You even asked the specific question, "So how have they done?", which is basically telling everyone to compare their stats. Now, did you tell everyone in your opening post to not start comparing Ruth to Ohtani beyond those single years for both of them? No! But you know darn well that people on here are going to start comparing their overall stats and how you can't compare the two and blah, blah, blah. You can pretty much expect the thread will also get hijacked somewhat in the recurring modern versus old time player comparisons and who is better, and blah, blah, blah again. So why didn't you just leave out all the actual stats and simply say that 2021 and Ohtani is the first time since 1919 and Ruth that we've had a full time pitcher and everyday player in MLB, wish Ohtani well, and leave it at that?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Yeah, the "he played against short guys" thing has definitely been exaggerated over the years. What's definitely true is that the players he played against were nowhere near as good as later generations. Wilt's rebound statistics are significantly inflated because teams played at a breakneck pace while also shooting poorly. For example, in 1960/61 when Wilt set the rebounding record, teams took an average of 109.4 shots per game - EACH - while shooting 41.5% from the floor. That's an average of 128 rebounds per game for players to grab. Compare that to 2020/21 where teams took 88.4 shots per game while shooting 46.6% from the floor. That's an average of 94 rebounds per game - 34 fewer. So, yeah, your rebounding numbers are going to be higher if guys are throwing up 2.67 missed shots per minute.

Perhaps it's been slightly exaggerated, but I wouldn't say greatly. There were definitely a lot more shorter (and not very athletic) white guys on the court back then than there are today. But height aside, those guys were terrible overall. And I mean TERRIBLE. Just watch film from the Wilt and Russell era. It's absolutely hilarious watching most of those guys playing, or trying to play, basketball. Also, let's not forget that these were mostly layups and short-range jump shots that they were missing too. Only a couple years prior to that, when Bill Russell won MVP, the league average FG% was 38%!!! If you shoot 38% today, you're getting cut. This was league average back then! You mentioned that in 2020/21 FG% was 46.6%, but that's including 3s, the 2-pt FG% was 53%, which is a much more apples to apples comparison if discussing how good they were at shooting the type of shots they were taking back then.

Also, guys like Wilt played the entire game back then, so he racked up more statistics. Let's compare Wilt's best rebounding season to Dennis Rodman's best season. If you take the average number of available rebounds of 73.3 per team from 1960/61 vs the 43.7 from 1991/92 and adjust for playing time (Wilt averaged 47.8 mpg, Rodman averaged 40.3 mpg), then Rodman's share of rebounds would have added up to 37.2 rebounds per game in the 1960 NBA season vs Wilt's 27.2. That's how much better of a rebounder Dennis Rodman was than Wilt Chamberlain. Don't get me wrong, Wilt was insanely great. At pretty much everything. But he couldn't even hold a candle to Dennis Rodman rebound-wise.