Greatness Among Us!

[raulus]

Originally Posted by CJinPA

On the flip side, Ruth wasn't facing 3-4 pitchers each night who were fresh and throwing pills at 95 - 102 mph. Think of how many starting pitchers in his era went 9 innings/game, and threw 300+ innings/yr... humans haven't devolved since that era so in pre-war and beyond, the time a lineup got to their 3rd AB in a game, in mid-season, a lot of arms were worn. Never taking away anything from the stars and greats of that era, but it was completely different!

Good points here.

A few more observations (not to take away from the Bambino, but just some real differences in the game from 100 years ago ):

Ruth only faced AL pitching. There was no interleague play (other than the WS). 8 teams in the AL? And he didn’t face his own team’s pitchers. So the number of pitchers he faced during the season was limited. I suspect he got to know most of them really well.

The league wasn’t integrated, so he was only competing against maybe half of the available talent.

Spray charts and spin rates and all the modern analytics didn’t exist, which seems to benefit pitchers today.

Of course, there are any number of factors that cut the other way as well, some of which have been outlined already.

I could go on, but obviously while we attempt to compare players from vastly different eras, it can be difficult to really feel confident in those comparisons, even when the counting stats are this similar.

[G1911]

Ohtani is a great player and I'm rooting for him, but 674 and 455 is such a meaningless cherrypick of a standard. People have been comparing current-hot-player to Babe Ruth for a century. It's never really been true. Just let Ohtani stand on his own pedestal of accomplishment instead of trying to place him as new Ruth.

[packs]

I also think it's a non-starter to compare anyone to Ruth.

Since we're talking about what was left out of the stats, it was also left out that while Ruth was hitting his home runs, he was out hitting entire teams on his own. Ohtani is not doing that and another player never will.

Ruth was the single most dominant player there will ever be. No one will ever come close.

[CJinPA]

Originally Posted by G1911

Ohtani is a great player and I'm rooting for him, but 674 and 455 is such a meaningless cherrypick of a standard. People have been comparing current-hot-player to Babe Ruth for a century. It's never really been true. Just let Ohtani stand on his own pedestal of accomplishment instead of trying to place him as new Ruth.

I agree - over the long haul let Ohtani stand on his own. That said, these can understandably be seen as cherrypicked, but comparing the first 674 and 455 and seeing the similarities is interesting, no? When I saw it, I thought so. And Ruth stopped being a pitcher around his mid-20's I believe (save a few starts here and there later in his career).

I started watching MLB baseball in the late 70's so from then to now is my frame of reference. I'm not aware of anyone comparing the two-way playing abilities of Ruth with anyone. Have there been really good hitting pitchers, sure... the most impressive in my life was Ankiel and what he was able to do but that was more him becoming a position player after the yips on the mound - so not really a comparison there.

As a hitter, I can only imagine Barry Bonds as even coming close to Ruth in his ability to change a game from the offensive side (in the mid-latter part of his career while 'enhanced').... that's another conversation altogether and not worth getting into here.

btw - I love Ruth, was lucky enough to play on the same ballfields in Trenton, NJ that he did while barnstorming. So awesome those days had to be for the common baseball fan!

https://www.trentondaily.com/babe-ru...ambers-street/

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by CJinPA

I agree - over the long haul let Ohtani stand on his own. That said, these can understandably be seen as cherrypicked, but comparing the first 674 and 455 and seeing the similarities is interesting, no? When I saw it, I thought so. And Ruth stopped being a pitcher around his mid-20's I believe (save a few starts here and there later in his career).

I started watching MLB baseball in the late 70's so from then to now is my frame of reference. I'm not aware of anyone comparing the two-way playing abilities of Ruth with anyone. Have there been really good hitting pitchers, sure... the most impressive in my life was Ankiel and what he was able to do but that was more him becoming a position player after the yips on the mound - so not really a comparison there.

As a hitter, I can only imagine Barry Bonds as even coming close to Ruth in his ability to change a game from the offensive side (in the mid-latter part of his career while 'enhanced').... that's another conversation altogether and not worth getting into here.

btw - I love Ruth, was lucky enough to play on the same ballfields in Trenton, NJ that he did while barnstorming. So awesome those days had to be for the common baseball fan!

https://www.trentondaily.com/babe-ru...ambers-street/

Great stuff and well said.

[packs]

Lefty O'Doul was a pitcher turned hitter and so was Joe Wood, but no one ever says things like "Ohtani is today's Joe Wood". Why not?

[akleinb611]

Because O'Doul was a mediocre pitcher, and Wood was, at best, an adequate hitter. Neither was outstanding at both skills.

Alan Kleinberger

[packs]

Originally Posted by akleinb611

Because O'Doul was a mediocre pitcher, and Wood was, at best, an adequate hitter. Neither was outstanding at both skills.

Alan Kleinberger

True, but Ohtani has won 38 games and may not pitch again after he signs his next contract.

I was only throwing Wood and O'Doul out there because people often forget about their own unique careers. Both players had to completely reinvent themselves and despite being an adequate hitter, Wood still battled his way back into the league and won a World Series in the field while he was at it.

[Exhibitman]

I am with Greg on this one: let's enjoy Ohtani's great play and leave the comparisons to the HOF debate after he retires. I do have a few takes on what I'd read here.

Ruth might've kept pitching if there had been a DH at the time. From what I've read, he really enjoyed it. Playing a field position and pitching was too much. I doubt Ohtani would last more than a few seasons if he had to play two ways without the DH, unless his intensity was ratcheted way down, but that is definitely not his style (and we love his play for it). Even as a DH and pitcher, he is wearing down this year.

The old-time ballplayers had to cope with horrible conditions that today's players cannot dream of. No HVAC on the trains or the hotels, no planes, no handlers or team staff to handle luggage (Tom Seaver once reminded a young pitcher not to lug his suitcase with his pitching arm), no sports medicine to speak of, crazy training methods (no water in heat, no weights), etc. And don't forget double-headers, terrible pay, rudimentary facilities, and rotten coaching.

As far as the impact of apartheid in MLB, that is a difficult question, but it did not represent a 50% dilution of talent as has been suggested. America's Black population in 1920 was about 10% of the total population, so I doubt that populace would make MLBers at 5x the rate of other populations. The other apples to oranges issue with race is that MLB was 16 teams located in the Northeast and Midwest versus thirty teams now. The number of player slots has gone up by 87.5%. Nor do I think that Ruth or Cobb would have been relegated to the minors with an integrated game. What we would have seen most likely is what we see now: a multi-racial, multi-ethnic panorama of great players.

Pitching is the other great debate. Yes, there are a lot more pitching changes and relievers, and we see lots of heat, but I do not believe that we have evolved as a species in the last 100 years to account for the arm speed. We don't have good measures of earlier pitchers due to the tech. I watched that Nolan Ryan documentary and his 100.9 was more like 108 based on models correcting the tech. Again, I don't think the standouts of the past would have had any problems adapting to the conditions of the present, but I am not sure the 100 pitches max starters and relievers today would adapt to a more robust regime.

[jayshum]

More teams now means more pitchers who wouldn't be in the majors when there are half as many teams like when Ruth played so while Ruth generally didn't face as many different pitchers in a game, the pitchers he did face were probably generally better than the average pitcher today even if they weren't all throwing 100 back then.

It really is tough to compare raw numbers from different eras with so many variables. That's what the advanced stats try to adjust for. One example.

OPS+
Ruth 206
Ohtani 148

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

As far as the impact of apartheid in MLB, that is a difficult question, but it did not represent a 50% dilution of talent as has been suggested. America's Black population in 1920 was about 10% of the total population, so I doubt that populace would make MLBers at 5x the rate of other populations. The other apples to oranges issue with race is that MLB was 16 teams located in the Northeast and Midwest versus thirty teams now. The number of player slots has gone up by 87.5%. Nor do I think that Ruth or Cobb would have been relegated to the minors with an integrated game. What we would have seen most likely is what we see now: a multi-racial, multi-ethnic panorama of great players.

Not trying to pick a fight, but what % would you use? My "half" was intended to be a very, very generic representation.

[timber63401]

Originally Posted by packs

Lefty O'Doul was a pitcher turned hitter and so was Joe Wood, but no one ever says things like "Ohtani is today's Joe Wood". Why not?

Ohtani is closer to Ruth the Joe Wood. Now don't get me wrong he's no Babe Ruth and never will be, but what he's doing is pretty awesome.