What was Ruth like as a pitcher?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Musashi

I don't know about his pitch selection, but I know he faced Ty Cobb 76 times and struck him out 7 times. Compare that 9.2% Strikeout rate to Cobb's career rate of 5.9% against everybody else, and that tells you a little something about Babe's quality as a pitcher.

I bet that sample size is statistically not very meaningful.

[Baseball Rarities]

brunswickreeves - That is a great photo, but it is actually from Ruth's rookie year in 1915. It pictures Foster, Mays, Shore, Ruth and Leonard from left to right. Here is another image that was taken at the same time from a different angle. (not mine)

[Beercan collector]

I’d bet he used all those pitches / Probably didn’t have a an incredible fastball - being such a good hitter he knew what hitters didn’t like at a certain time - I’m thinking Greg Maddux smarts But with more walks

[glchen]

Here is Babe Ruth's pitching advice from his 1935 Schutter Johnson card (not mine).

[mrreality68]

His 2015 season not a bad year

[z28jd]

This was the scouting report right before the Red Sox purchased him from Baltimore. There are others saying similar, but this is the best one

[brunswickreeves]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

brunswickreeves - That is a great photo, but it is actually from Ruth's rookie year in 1915. It pictures Foster, Mays, Shore, Ruth and Leonard from left to right. Here is another image that was taken at the same time from a different angle. (not mine)

Thanks very much for clarifying the players and date. I love this pic!

[Lobo Aullando]

Won't take that bet. The p-value on a binomial distribution is 0.161.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I bet that sample size is statistically not very meaningful.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Lobo Aullando

Won't take that bet. The p-value on a binomial distribution is 0.161.

I don't know what you are talking about, or whether you are agreeing with me or disagreeing, but the next 76 at bats easily could have yielded a quite different strike out number for Cobb against Ruth. Not like some inevitable percentage is established by 7 strike outs in just 76 at bats, which easily could have been 5, or 9. I'll let Travis supply the technical explanation but I am trusting my gut here.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't know what you are talking about, but the next 76 at bats easily could have yielded a quite different strike out number for Cobb against Ruth. Not like some inevitable percentage is established by 7 strike outs in just 76 at bats, which easily could have been 5, or 9. I'll let Travis supply the technical explanation but I am trusting my gut here.

He's saying the same thing as you. The statistical distribution of striking out or not is a binomial event (meaning it's either true or false). The p-value gives you the likelihood of getting a 7 Strikeout sample from 76 at bats given his "true" Strikeout rate of 5.6% or whatever it was stated above.

I didn't run the test myself, just going off my gut/experience, but 0.16 passes the smell test.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

He's saying the same thing as you. The statistical distribution of striking out or not is a binomial event (meaning it's either true or false). The p-value gives you the likelihood of getting a 7 Strikeout sample from 76 at bats given his "true" Strikeout rate of 5.6% or whatever it was stated above.

I didn't run the test myself, just going off my gut/experience, but 0.16 passes the smell test.

OK that makes sense. I had actually amended my post after rereading his to say I wasn't sure if he was agreeing with me or disagreeing, but yeah I understand it better now thanks to you both.

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by Snowman

He's saying the same thing as you. The statistical distribution of striking out or not is a binomial event (meaning it's either true or false). The p-value gives you the likelihood of getting a 7 Strikeout sample from 76 at bats given his "true" Strikeout rate of 5.6% or whatever it was stated above.

I didn't run the test myself, just going off my gut/experience, but 0.16 passes the smell test.

Based on my line of work that p- value is statistically insignificant.

[packs]

I know Cobb really beat up on Joe Wood and Wood was known to throw exceptionally hard in his time. Maybe Ruth's "tantalizing slow ball" was working for him.

[Touch'EmAll]

Here are consecutive head-to-head duels of Walter Johnson & Babe Ruth. Both were in the American League and played against each other.

August 14, 1915 - Ruth defeats Johnson 4-3
April 17, 1916 - Ruth defeats Johnson 5-1
June 1, 1916 - Ruth defeats Johnson 1-0
August 15, 1916 - Ruth defeats Johnson 1-0 in 13 innings
September 9, 1916 - Ruth defeats Johnson 2-1
September 12, 1916 - Johnson defeats Ruth 4-3

Walter Johnson was in his prime. Babe Ruth was very young. Ruth defeated Johnson 5 times in a row before he lost to The Big Train. Walter Johnson is considered one of the top 3 pitchers of all time, arguably the best.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by EddieP

Based on my line of work that p- value is statistically insignificant.

Based on my line of work, the whole concept of statistical significance is borderline arbitrary nonsense to begin with lol.

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Based on my line of work, the whole concept of statistical significance is borderline arbitrary nonsense to begin with lol.

Hmmmm interesting comment from a “ data scientist” LOL.

[Lobo Aullando]

Originally Posted by Snowman

The p-value gives you the likelihood of getting a 7 Strikeout sample from 76 at bats given his "true" Strikeout rate of 5.6% or whatever it was stated above.

One actually needs to take to whole tail, so it's the sum of all the outcome probabilities from 7 Ks all the way up to 76 Ks.

I'll defer on the interpretation, but I'd also note that Ruth struck out 112 left-handed batters in their 733 at-bats against, and Cobb's splits aren't nearly as divergent.

Ruth
Cobb

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Lobo Aullando

One actually needs to take to whole tail, so it's the sum of all the outcome probabilities from 7 Ks all the way up to 76 Ks.

I'll defer on the interpretation, but I'd also note that Ruth struck out 112 left-handed batters in their 733 at-bats against, and Cobb's splits aren't nearly as divergent.

Ruth
Cobb

Yes, good clarification. It should have read "7 or more".

Also, most stats professors would quibble with my phrasing anyhow. But I was attempting to use layman's terms.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I bet that sample size is statistically not very meaningful.

You beat me to it