1919 Ruth vs 2021 Ohtani

[jingram058]

It is an interesting comparison, and Ohtani is pretty amazing, indeed. I hope it works out for him in the long run. We'll see what happens during "the test of time".

Ruth turned out to be bigger than life, single-handedly saving baseball from the Black Sox scandal, hitting so many home runs that, at the time, it was incomprehensible, leaving many people far more intelligent and knowledgeable than me thinking he's the greatest ballplayer, ever. With a larger than life personality to go with all that.

Ohtani has this sort of potential?

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by jingram058

It is an interesting comparison, and Ohtani is pretty amazing, indeed. I hope it works out for him in the long run. We'll see what happens during "the test of time".

Ruth turned out to be bigger than life, single-handedly saving baseball from the Black Sox scandal, hitting so many home runs that, at the time, it was incomprehensible, leaving many people far more intelligent and knowledgeable than me thinking he's the greatest ballplayer, ever. With a larger than life personality to go with all that.

Ohtani has this sort of potential?

I do not believe he has that potential to be the big influence like the babe, for one he is in a small market (by his choice) and they never win so he is not seen as much and since he is not in the playoff he is not seen and does not have a chance to build a legacy thru championships.

But we can enjoy his skills and highlights in the regular season

[D. Bergin]

LOL, it shouldn't be sacrilegious just to utter Babe Ruth and Shohei Ohtani's name in the same breath.

Nobody's comparing them beat for beat. Just one fascinating season with another, from two unique athletes from completely different era's.

To pretend it's not going to be a natural comparison for fans to make, comes off as slightly obstinate to me.

Don't worry guys. Ohtani is not going to supplant Babe Ruth in any legacy race, and he's not going to cause your Babe Ruth cards and memorabilia to lose value because a bunch of young whippersnappers are salivating all over Ohtani right now.

Personally to me, without the benefit of hindsight, Ohtani most reminds me of somebody like Bo Jackson...........but for obvious different reasons.

I don't think Ohtani will ever be a HOF'er (*unless his Japanese League accomplishments are taken into consideration), but we will look back and ooooh and ahhhhhh over his accomplishments over a short amount of time before injuries and expectations catch up to him.

.......and I wouldn't hand him the MVP quite yet. He's not exactly proven to be an Iron Man, and he could just as conceivably tear a ligament or blow out a knee in the next week or so, as he could strike out 12 guys, or have a 3 homer game.

Who knows, he might go on to have a long and distinguished career. If this was the late 80's or 90's, he might have the medicinal help to do just that...........but most other era's......when a player becomes injury prone, he doesn't suddenly stop being injury prone.

[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.

[ullmandds]

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.

I beg to differ that the babe was too fat and slow to run the bases as his rationale for hitting dingerrrrrs?

[frankbmd]

One hundred years is a long time. Ruth was outstanding in 1919. Ohtani is outstanding in 2021. Are they comparable?

Look at it this way. Would Jim Thorpe have won any Gold Medals in Tokyo in 2021? I think most would say very doubtful.

Would Babe Ruth hit as many home runs against a steady diet of 98-100 MPH fast balls out of the 2021 bull pens? You would have to speculate.

Would Ohtani in 1919 make people doubt that Walter Johnson had no equal? You would have to speculate.

Would a 1919 All-Star even make the roster of a current team? I dunno.

Who is the best current dead ball hitter? I dunno.

If a line drive hitter hit a shot to right center or left center in 1919, it doesn't matter if the fences were over 500 feet, he would still have circled the bases.

What is the optimal exit velocity and launch angle for a dead ball? Please provide references.

[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.

[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.

[Ricky]

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.

Walter Johnson was measured at 89 mph? I’ve never read that… do you have a source for that?

[packs]

There's no reason to believe that the most dominant major league pitchers were only throwing in the low 80s. Rube Waddell was a freight train. I highly doubt he struck out all those guys throwing high school fast balls.

[Peter_Spaeth]

In 1917, a Bridgeport, Connecticut munitions laboratory recorded Johnson's fastball at 134 feet per second,which is equal to 91 miles per hour (146 km/h), a velocity that may have been unmatched in his day, with the possible exception of Smoky Joe Wood.

And this.
https://theaceofspaeder.com/2019/01/...-threw-88-mph/

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by packs

There's no reason to believe that the most dominant major league pitchers were only throwing in the low 80s. Rube Waddell was a freight train. I highly doubt he struck out all those guys throwing high school fast balls.

It's not completely crazy - these guys were swinging bats that were extremely heavy. Joe Jackson's weighed 48oz. Ruth used a 42oz model before switching to a 38oz model. Cobb used bats that weighed up to 40oz. Mike Trout, by contrast, uses a bat that weighs 30oz.