1919 Ruth vs 2021 Ohtani

[frankbmd]

Doesn’t the opponents batting average of .332 on the Ruth page bother you. That figure is for all MLB presumably for 1919. There is not one team in 1919 that hit remotely near that average.

Look if you will at the 1962 Mets with a record of 40-120, not very good. Their pitching staff was not the best I think you would agree. The opponents batting average for the 1962 Mets was .281. Doesn’t that make you wonder about the .332 number from 1919.

Perhaps there is something wrong in Denmark or at least on the Baseball Reference website. Deadball era BAs were less than .250 by and large until 1918.

Babe Ruth is great, Comparing him to anybody is sac religious.

Gloves have been mentioned as a differential between eras and I agree. You know what happened with the deadball gloves. Yup, there were more errors. And of course you know what more errors mean, don’t you? Yup, more unearned runs and lower ERAs. Deadball era ERAs were uniformly low, but runs scored not so much. The great deadball pitchers benefitted statistically from fielders who actually caught a lower percentage of the balls hit or thrown to them.

Aren’t statistics great? Base an argument on a fallacious statiistic and bingo, you win. Congrats.

[egri]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Would The Four Horsemen flourish in today's NFL?

The Four Horsemen were used to 'three yards and a cloud of dust' football, so I would be surprised if they flourished in today's pass-heavy league. One of them, Jim Crowley, later went to Fordham and coached the Seven Blocks of Granite. I have never seen a block of granite get tackled for a loss, however mobility might be an issue with them. As an aside, one of the teammates of the seven was Steve Sorota, who later became the football coach at Phillips Andover. The center on Andover's 1970 team was Bill Belichick, who copied a lot of Sorota's methods and has had a halfway decent career.

Now would the Four Horsemen flourish on today's Supreme Court? They still have to contend with Three Musketeers, but only one swing justice, not two.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

And I'm just saying to those who say Ruth couldn't compete in today's game and Walter Johnson couldn't pitch today....

....that considering how many of today's pitchers have come back from Tommy John surgery, they obviously couldn't play back then. They'd be done before they started.

Also, I'd like to see Bryce Harper & Mike Trout in Afganistan. Like Matty & Cobb went off to War, or the guys who had jobs in the offseason. Not working out all offseason, or coddled and groomed to be baseball players basically since birth. I'd be stunned if Trout knew how to start a lawnmower.

Perhaps all of the pitchers of today who need Tommy John surgery wouldn't have been injured back in the 1900-1920 era because they wouldn't have been throwing as hard on every pitch...

[packs]

I think what you're saying is that people don't know how to pitch anymore. I'd agree with that. Look at Syndergaard. He worked out enough to throw a ball through a brick wall but what good did it do him? He's not even on a mound.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by packs

I think what you're saying is that people don't know how to pitch anymore. I'd agree with that. Look at Syndergaard. He worked out enough to throw a ball through a brick wall but what good did it do him? He's not even on a mound.

You mean health problems like Amos Rusie and Sandy Koufax had?

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by packs

I think what you're saying is that people don't know how to pitch anymore. I'd agree with that. Look at Syndergaard. He worked out enough to throw a ball through a brick wall but what good did it do him? He's not even on a mound.

Very true.

I think what you had in the 1900-1920 era were pitchers who pitched hard only when they had to. I'm sure Walter Johnson and Smoky Joe Wood hit 93-95 mph for a few pitches each game, but for the majority of the game they were probably throwing mid-to-high 80s and varying their speeds. Lesser pitchers were probably throwing low 80s and maybe approaching 88-89 a few times per game. It makes absolutely no logical sense to think that those guys were throwing complete games of 120+ pitches every third day all season long and throwing 90s on every pitch, like many do today. No pitcher would have lasted doing that.

Of course, even pacing themselves, some pitchers were still going to break down with that much work.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Tabe

You mean health problems like Amos Rusie and Sandy Koufax had?

I don't think their bodies were similar to Syndergaard.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Ricky

Very true.

I think what you had in the 1900-1920 era were pitchers who pitched hard only when they had to. I'm sure Walter Johnson and Smoky Joe Wood hit 93-95 mph for a few pitches each game, but for the majority of the game they were probably throwing mid-to-high 80s and varying their speeds. Lesser pitchers were probably throwing low 80s and maybe approaching 88-89 a few times per game. It makes absolutely no logical sense to think that those guys were throwing complete games of 120+ pitches every third day all season long and throwing 90s on every pitch, like many do today. No pitcher would have lasted doing that.

Of course, even pacing themselves, some pitchers were still going to break down with that much work.

That's what pitching is though if you want to throw 9 innings. It would be a little strange to think the last pitch and the first pitch were constant the entire game.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I love the story, probably apocryphal, of the hitter who took three straight strikes from Johnson and complained to the umpire that the third one sounded low.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by packs

That's what pitching is though if you want to throw 9 innings. It would be a little strange to think the last pitch and the first pitch were constant the entire game.

Understood, but guys today aren't throwing 9 innings. Today, pitchers might range between 89-96 for 5-6 innings. Back then, pitchers might range between 79-86 for 9 innings and only hit the upper levels if they were in a jam.

[jingram058]

Well if you're just going to pretend that pitchers back then were throwing little league or pee wee speeds after "wearing out" over 9 innings (if that were true, why didn't Cobb or Jackson or Ruth hit .500 or higher?), and just ignore what the players themselves said about pitching, and think everything is so much better today, and that Tommy John surgery isn't rampant today after pitching less than 6 innings a game or less than 200 innings a year, then go ahead and say whatever. You say the pitching today is so much above that era that it's like us over the amoeba, so obviously it must be. You have all the etched in stone, irrefutable metrics.

[eliotdeutsch]

Always think this is interesting watch whenever these discussions come up.

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epst...ronger/up-next

[jingram058]

How is it that Chapman of the Indians was killed by a little league ball? Oh yes, he wasn't wearing his full head, full face crash helmet, and ballplayers heads just weren't as thick as heads today.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Ricky

Understood, but guys today aren't throwing 9 innings. Today, pitchers might range between 89-96 for 5-6 innings. Back then, pitchers might range between 79-86 for 9 innings and only hit the upper levels if they were in a jam.

I looked at Cobb's splits for his career:

1st at Bat against SP: 340 overall
3rd at bat against SP: 351 overall

Better the 3rd time around but not giving me the impression the guy in the first inning was all that different from the guy in the 9th. That may play to what you're saying, or it may suggest that pitchers were more durable when they were throwing more innings.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Well if you're just going to pretend that pitchers back then were throwing little league or pee wee speeds after "wearing out" over 9 innings (if that were true, why didn't Cobb or Jackson or Ruth hit .500 or higher?), and just ignore what the players themselves said about pitching, and think everything is so much better today, and that Tommy John surgery isn't rampant today after pitching less than 6 innings a game or less than 200 innings a year, then go ahead and say whatever. You say the pitching today is so much above that era that it's like us over the amoeba, so obviously it must be. You have all the etched in stone, irrefutable metrics.

Cobb, Jackson etc. didn't hit 500 because they too were products of the same era in terms of athletic evolution. The abilities of pitchers relative to batters is probably relatively constant over time, and when it gets disproportionate you see subtle changes like mound height or fence adjustments to keep it balanced.

[jingram058]

How did pitchers throw so many innings year in and year out without breaking down. Oh yes, they were throwing baseballs like slow pitch softballs. That must be it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I looked at Cobb's splits for his career:

1st at Bat against SP: 340 overall
3rd at bat against SP: 360 overall

Better the 3rd time around but not giving me the impression the guy in the first inning was all that different from the guy in the 9th. That may play to what you're saying, or it may suggest that pitchers were more durable when they were throwing more innings.

If two of his at bats "only" worked out to .350, where did the .367 come from? Was he hitting .400 after the 3rd at bat?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jingram058

How did pitchers throw so many innings year in and year out without breaking down. Oh yes, they were throwing baseballs like slow pitch softballs. That must be it.

Speculating, but maybe pitchers then threw fewer breaking balls, which put more strain on the arm?

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If two of his at bats "only" worked out to .350, where did the .367 come from? Was he hitting .400 after the 3rd at bat?

Haha actually he was. It says he hit 406 if he faced the SP 4 times or more.

I got mixed up too. The third time SP average says 351. He hit 360 when he faced the RP 3 times or more.

Baseball reference has some incredible information on it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Haha actually he was. It says he hit 406 if he faced the SP 4 times or more.

I got mixed up too. The third time SP average says 351. He hit 360 when he faced the RP 3 times or more.

Baseball reference has some incredible information on it.

A good if small anecdote supporting the use of relief pitchers, perhaps. I wonder if it's more due to the pitcher tiring, the batter adjusting to the pitcher's stuff, or both.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Well if you're just going to pretend that pitchers back then were throwing little league or pee wee speeds after "wearing out" over 9 innings (if that were true, why didn't Cobb or Jackson or Ruth hit .500 or higher?), and just ignore what the players themselves said about pitching, and think everything is so much better today, and that Tommy John surgery isn't rampant today after pitching less than 6 innings a game or less than 200 innings a year, then go ahead and say whatever. You say the pitching today is so much above that era that it's like us over the amoeba, so obviously it must be. You have all the etched in stone, irrefutable metrics.

So pitchers in 1910 were bigger, stronger, more durable than pitchers today? Or maybe they just didn't exert themselves as much and pout as much strain on their arms. And were players back then stronger than today's players? How did they get those 48 oz bats around on 100 mph fast balls when many of them were 5'7, 165 pounds?

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

The one constant amongst fans of all sports will be the endless arguments and comparisons between players of different eras. They are fascinating as well as impossible to resolve (until someone invents a time machine).

As far as my take, the Babe will never be surpassed as the best ever not only because of his performance against his peers but also his unprecedented celebrity at the time. Truly one of a kind.

That being said, if I had to wager my house on which player would fare better in a matchup against a modern day pitcher (let's say, DeGrom) and I could pick from Babe Ruth in his prime and Ohtani this year, I would take Ohtani. Not because Ohtani will ever become the legend that Ruth did, but because I think it's basically a fact that for various reasons today's athletes are superior to athletes of 100 years ago. There's a reason that world records get set almost every year in track and field.

As for the eye test, unfortunately, we aren't able to watch Ruth play in person. But I decided to take my daughters over to the Home Run Derby earlier this month (I live in Kansas City so it's only about 10 hours-ish). We were there mostly to watch Salvador Perez, but as a bonus I got to see Ohtani. He was CLEARLY the biggest draw there. Yes, hometown favorite Trevor Story got a lot of cheers, but EVERYBODY was watching Ohtani's every move...in interviews, batting practice, etc. There was even a contingent of Japanese fans that sort of just migrated around the stands during warmups trying to stay as close to him as possible.

And while his actual performance in the derby was pretty strong, his most impressive hit of the night was his final at bat in batting practice. It was "only" measured around 505 feet, but it bounced off the facing of the FOURTH deck at Coors field. If that fourth deck wasn't in the way, who knows where that ball would have landed. The entire place was buzzing...after a batting practice ball!

All this to say is that Ohtani is definitely something special right now. No, not Babe Ruth, but if you're not watching him, you are missing out.

A couple pics I took that day:

Stood behind the dugout during warmups and got a pic of Ohtani with his interpreter being interviewed by Harold Reynolds:

o1.jpg


Here's a wide shot of Coors field during warm ups and the very tip of the red arrow is where Ohtani hit that batting practice ball:

o2.jpg

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

Coors field

I could hit a home run with a whiffle bat at Coors Field

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by molenick

I don't think anyone has said that 500 feet has changed or that Ruth was an average ballplayer. I think some of us (well, maybe just me) are questioning whether Ruth actually hit as many 500+ foot home runs as has been claimed. I don't think bigger ball parks is the answer because, yes, there were some crazy long distances to center field, but some were way shorter down the lines and to the power alleys (many having been built specifically to fit into a city block).

I guess if someone was able to determine to what field he hit each home run that year, and what row each one landed in, they could work something like that out...and maybe someone has.

And I am not saying that Ruth wasn't the greatest player ever. Just that perhaps some of the quoted home run distances need to be taken with a grain of salt.

I agree with you that that despite today's larger talent pool and better training, diet science, etc., and a more aerodynamically designed baseball to boot, 500+ foot big league game homers are exceedingly rare.

That just makes me question how so many could have been hit 100 years go under worse conditions.

But if anyone could hit 500+ foot home runs in every AL park in a year, it would have been Ruth. I certainly can't say for a fact that he didn't.

I have read that the original video footage still exists and that it is good enough for us to validate those 500+ foot home runs Ruth hit.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by robw1959

I have read that the original video footage still exists and that it is good enough for us to validate those 500+ foot home runs Ruth hit.

That certainly settles things then, hahahaha.

[molenick]

I would love to see video footage of Babe Ruth hitting 500+ foot home runs in every AL park in 1921 and look forward to any links or other information as to how one can view this footage.

[packs]

I think this is the book being referenced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ye..._104_Home_Runs

The book is written by a guy associated with SABR.

[Jim65]

Home runs in 1921 and 2021 are completely different animals. In 1921 Babe Ruth hit 59 home runs, Bob Meusel and Ken Williams were tied for 2nd with 24.

Thats dominance.

[molenick]

Okay, I guess I'll stop now. I don't have the book or know the methodology used, but if this is correct, it appears that Babe Ruth was able to hit multiple home runs longer than people can hit today, even with lob pitching in Coors field.

I still feel a little skeptical that someone was able to "list every home run hit by Ruth during his career, along with estimated distances that the ball flew in each case" without relying on possibly unreliable witnesses. I don't think the newspapers of 1918 were giving the exact details of every Ruth home run and I am pretty sure no one was filming every game he played. I know if someone showed me a tree off in the distance and asked me how far away it was I would be lucky to come within 100 feet with my guess.

But, again, I can't say the book is inaccurate.

By the way, I am also a member of SABR, although I have not written any books, and I will now go back to the threads where I post cards..

And I am sorry to say, this is my only Ruth card (or 1/4 of a Ruth card).

[mrreality68]

Let's Stop over thinking it and let's enjoy both the past and the present.

Let's Get Back to Cards.

Let's Share cards of these Great Players

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Home runs in 1921 and 2021 are completely different animals. In 1921 Babe Ruth hit 59 home runs, Bob Meusel and Ken Williams were tied for 2nd with 24.

Thats dominance.

and that my friends.......is thee post of the thread!


and now it's over.

[frankbmd]

Tina says "What's 1921 got to do with it?"

In 1921 Ruth's ERA was 9.00 in 9 innings of pitching.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Tina says "What's 1921 got to do with it?"

In 1921 Ruth's ERA was 9.00 in 9 innings of pitching.

maybe you'll like this one better then:

In 1919 Ruth lead in 8 offensive batting stats:

HR, RBI, Runs, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+, Total Bases


Ohtani in 2021 leads in 2:

HR & Slugging



8-2 aint exactly a close game Doc

[Peter_Spaeth]

Bob Meusel was no Vlad Jr.

And some of those categories are sort of overlapping, no?

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bob Meusel was no Vlad Jr.

And some of those categories are sort of overlapping, no?

I don't listen to anyone who thinks Mike Trout can start a lawnmower.

There's a box of rocks underneath that Angel's cap.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

I don't listen to anyone who thinks Mike Trout can start a lawnmower.

There's a box of rocks underneath that Angel's cap.

I am telling you he mastered it in 8th grade.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

maybe you'll like this one better then:

In 1919 Ruth lead in 8 offensive batting stats:

HR, RBI, Runs, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+, Total Bases


Ohtani in 2021 leads in 2:

HR & Slugging



8-2 aint exactly a close game Doc

Ruth didn't have to compete with Gibson, Suttles, Charleston, etc.

Ohtani has to compete with Guerrero, Tatis, Abreu, etc

Ohtani also leads in WAR.

If you don't think that the best players of color would not have diluted Ruth's dominance, I can't help you.

Once again, 100 years is a long time, different eras.

The numbers do not change the fact that 1919 Ruth is the most similar season to 2021 Ohtani in what the two players were doing on the field every day. If you disagree, perhaps you need to see an ophthalmologist.

The premise of the thread stands. Ruth is great. Ohtani may be. When another pitcher/hitter comes along, we can compare him to both Ruth and Ohtani, but that may not happen for another 102 years, which once again would be a different era.

See you then.

Ta Ta

[Shoeless Moe]

and if you really want to go there Peter......fine....here's some more if 8-2 wasn't bad enough......

1919

Ruth at the plate
Walks 101
K's 58


2021

Ohtani at the dish
Walks 50
K's 130

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

and if you really want to go there Peter......fine....here's some more if 8-2 wasn't bad enough......

1919

Ruth at the plate
Walks 101
K's 58


2021

Ohtani at the dish
Walks 50
K's 130

That's cause he's facing much FASTER and better pitching LOLOL. It was hard to fan the Babe with a 82 MPH heater. Even the lawnmower man strikes out a lot when he's otherwise obliterating records.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am telling you he mastered it in 8th grade.

Unless you have a Youtube video of this occurring (I'll accept a cellphone video as well) or a note from one of his neighbors I'm not convinced.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Unless you have a Youtube video of this occurring (I'll accept a cellphone video as well) or a note from one of his neighbors I'm not convinced.

How about a photoshopped image?

[Shoeless Moe]

Doc Holiday,

The cry of Ruth didn't play against the best is just that.....a cry


Here's a few guys that played when Ruth played:

Honus Wagner
Ty Cobb
Christy Mathewson
Walter Johnson
Grover Cleveland Alexander
Lou Gehrig
Tris Speaker
Pie Traynor
Shoeless Joe Jackson
Nap Lajoie
George Sisler
Rogers Hornsby
Jimmie Foxx
Al Simmons
Lefty Grove
Dizzy Dean
Ed Walsh
Eddie Collins
Eddie Plank
Eddie Cicotte
Eddie Olczyk
Eddie Munster
Carl Hubbell
Frankie Frisch
Mickey Cochrane
Rabbit Maranville
Paul Waner
Lloyd Waner
Mel Ott
&
Hank Greenberg

and I'm sure I'm missing a few, but sure sounds like he played against the best to me.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How about a photoshopped image?

It'll have to due at this point because there ain't no other one out there.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

It'll have to due at this point because there ain't no other one out there.

If you don’t think this thread’s premise is valid, why not use your your creativity to start a thread you can understand. If not, just have another beverage, cheers.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

and I'm sure I'm missing a few, but sure sounds like he played against the best to me.

An interesting premise. So "the best" excludes every black player. Alrighty then.

[toledo_mudhen]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

I could hit a home run with a Whiffle bat at Coors Field

Now I would really pay some serious cash to watch that - There would be threads for years to come on Net54 regarding the "Guy that hit a home Run in Coors field with a Whiffle Ball bat"

Anyway - Ive read all 4 pages of this thread hoping to see any opinions on "What is this guy's Best RC". There appear to be only a few thousand different options available out there.

So not to hijack the lively discussion on Ruth vs Ohtani but does anyone have any opinions on that?

If you were going to pick up a couple of Ohtani RCs - What would they be?

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

maybe you'll like this one better then:

In 1919 Ruth lead in 8 offensive batting stats:

HR, RBI, Runs, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+, Total Bases


Ohtani in 2021 leads in 2:

HR & Slugging



8-2 aint exactly a close game Doc

I Love the passion in these forums. I Love the use of stats and comparing the similarities and the differences in the times. Even love the discussions on the different training methodologies and the ways we use stats to try and the rest of the league like when someone mention Ruth had more home runs in 1 season then the next closest 2 hitters combined.

Keep it coming.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Tabe

An interesting premise. So "the best" excludes every black player. Alrighty then.

And your premise is "what if" instead of "what was".

Did you want Ruth to change the mindset of the United States back then, I'm not quite sure he had the power to allow Black players to play in the MLB, that would have been the commissioner and others job?

Ruth's job was playing baseball. And Ruth played against the BEST that was playing.

If the Germans had a better game plan they would have won WWII right?

If someone else drafted Tom Brady then blah blah blah.

You can only play against who is playing. Maybe if Russell Wilson, Jamies Winston, John Elway, and many other chose baseball instead of football the talent level would be slightly better in baseball. So maybe THEE best arn't all in, just like back then.

Today 7% of MLBers are BLACK. Don't give me this Japan, Dominican, etc BS either, because they were not playing in the US back then regardless. More what if's. And that 7% is for 30 teams, so cut that in half like the number of teams and that's 3.5% Black players would play back then. I don't think that would alter the numbers/stats all that much.

Maybe if there were still 16 teams like in 1919 instead of 30 now the talent pool wouldn't be so diluted today, and we'd be watching super teams instead of watching the garbage Texas Rangers and Baltimore Orioles.

And would Ohtani even be pitching if there were only 16 teams, maybe maybe not, more what if's.

Go by what happened and what is happening, and what will happen.

Germans lost WWII

Babe Ruth was the greatest player of all time.

FACTS

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by toledo_mudhen

Now I would really pay some serious cash to watch that - There would be threads for years to come on Net54 regarding the "Guy that hit a home Run in Coors field with a Whiffle Ball bat"

Anyway - Ive read all 4 pages of this thread hoping to see any opinions on "What is this guy's Best RC". There appear to be only a few thousand different options available out there.

So not to hijack the lively discussion on Ruth vs Ohtani but does anyone have any opinions on that?

If you were going to pick up a couple of Ohtani RCs - What would they be?

For modern cards I would buy, depending on which you like best, the base of the first Topps or Topps Chrome card, or the base Heritage card. I avoid all the other million issues.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

And your premise is "what if" instead of "what was".

Did you want Ruth to change the mindset of the United States back then, I'm not quite sure he had the power to allow Black players to play in the MLB, that would have been the commissioner and others job?

Ruth's job was playing baseball. And Ruth played against the BEST that was playing.

If the Germans had a better game plan they would have won WWII right?

If someone else drafted Tom Brady then blah blah blah.

You can only play against who is playing. Maybe if Russell Wilson, Jamies Winston, Tom Elway, and many other chose baseball instead of football the talent level would be slightly better in baseball. So maybe THEE best arn't all in, just like back then.

Today 7% of MLBers are BLACK. Don't give me this Japan, Dominican, etc BS either, because they were not playing in the US back then regardless. More what if's. And that 7% is for 30 teams, so cut that in half like the number of teams and that's 3.5% Black players would play back then. I don't think that would alter the numbers/stats all that much.

Maybe if there were still 16 teams like in 1919 instead of 30 now the talent pool wouldn't be so diluted today, and we'd be watching super teams instead of watching the garbage Texas Rangers and Baltimore Orioles.

And would Ohtani even be pitching if there were only 16 teams, maybe maybe not, more what if's.

Go by what happened and what is happening, and what will happen.

Germans lost WWII

Babe Ruth was the greatest player of all time.

FACTS

I agree with you completely, but you can't get through to these guys, no matter what you come up with or say. They are loaded with today's facts and stats. They've had big drinks of the sacred Kool-Aid. Today's ballplayers are just so much better, never mind Jacoby Ellsberry and Giancarlo "don't call me Mike" Stanton, neither of which can get over their hangnails, but can sure draw a big paycheck. Obviously MLB was Wiffel Ball back when Ruth played. Walter "The Big Train" Johnson was really throwing slow-pitch softballs. All other pitchers were tossing even slower, maybe even placing T-balls. Ray Chapman didn't die from being hit in the head from one of those balls of fluff, he died of fright.