1919 Ruth vs 2021 Ohtani

[frankbmd]

These two seasons provide the best comparison based on how they were used both as pitchers and hitters. Ruth was exclusively a hurler until 1918.
He was effectively no longer pitching in 1920. He did both hitting and pitching on a regular basis only in 1919. So how have they done.

Home runs

Ohtani 37 with 60 games to play
Ruth 29

Stolen Bases

Ohtani 14
Ruth 7

ERA

Ohtani 3.09 with 15 starts
Ruth 2.97 with 15 starts

Batting Average

Ohtani .280
Ruth .322

Opposing pitchers are beginning to walk Ohtani more.
Ruth had over 100 walks in 1919.

There is really no other season comparable to 2021 Ohtani since 1919.

I’m a believer in this kid and feel that it would be a disservice if he is not the MVP this year.

He is truly fun to watch.

[oldjudge]

He is having a great season but the comparison is apples to oranges. A better comparison would be to look at the percentage of the players HRs to total major league HRs. When this is done there is no comparison.

[Casey2296]

100% agree Frank, Ohtani are the only modern cards I own.

[sbfinley]

Not that I believe what someone can accomplish in a season is a direct correlation to a career but I saw this stat today: Ohtani’s season OPS+ is comparable to Mantle’s career OPS+. While also his season’s ERA+ is comparable to Pedro’s career ERA+. I’m enjoying watching his amazing season.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

He is having a great season but the comparison is apples to oranges. A better comparison would be to look at the percentage of the players HRs to total major league HRs. When this is done there is no comparison.

One season apples to apples.

I’m making no assertions regarding their career totals, hall of fame credentials or anything else. I totally agree that one Ohtani season is not comparable to 20 Ruth seasons.

To deny what Shohei is doing and bringing to the game is like wearing sunglasses on a cloudy day at sundown. I wish him well.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

One season apples to apples.

I’m making no assertions regarding their career totals, hall of fame credentials or anything else. I totally agree that one Ohtani season is not comparable to 20 Ruth seasons.

To deny what Shohei is doing and bringing to the game is like wearing sunglasses on a cloudy day at sundown. I wish him well.

That’s not what I’m saying. Take team stats for the year in question. Ruth hit 29/33 HRs for the BoSox. Otani is hitting 37/137 HRs for the Angels. A great number but no comparison to Ruth.

[doug.goodman]

I agree with your point 100% Frank.

Sure we can nitpick about every stat, but the general point "There is really no other season comparable to 2021 Ohtani since 1919" is valid.

Also, no question on his MVP creds, in my opinion.

Doug

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

That’s not what I’m saying. Take team stats for the year in question. Ruth hit 29/33 HRs for the BoSox. Otani is hitting 37/137 HRs for the Angels. A great number but no comparison to Ruth.

I’m not comparing the Red Sox team to the Angels team, nor am I claiming any real similarity between 1919 and 2021.

Ruth in 1919 was unique to the game. In 2021 Ohtani is unique to the game.

They are similar in their uniquity in the years cited, even if Ruth is an apple and Ohtani is an orange.

It would be ridiculous too speculate what Ruth’s numbers would look like if he were playing in 2021 and what Ohtani’s numbers would have been had he played in 1919. Would the Red Sox team have hit more home runs in 1919 with Ohtani on the team. C’mon Man.

Three astute members of the forum understand and agree with my premise.

[G1911]

The first post is directly comparing their numbers without regard to the context in which they happened, though. It's not really nitpicking to observe the titanic gulf between offense in 1919 and 2021 that makes directly comparing non-contextual statistics extremely misleading.

Ruth was a much, much better offensive season than Ohtani's in context, but worse pitching (His ERA was 2% better than the league). Ruth's season changed how the offensive game has been played ever since; we shall see if Ohtani has any real effect.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by G1911

The first post is directly comparing their numbers without regard to the context in which they happened, though. It's not really nitpicking to observe the titanic gulf between offense in 1919 and 2021 that makes directly comparing non-contextual statistics extremely misleading.

Ruth was a much, much better offensive season than Ohtani's in context, but worse pitching (His ERA was 2% better than the league). Ruth's season changed how the offensive game has been played ever since; we shall see if Ohtani has any real effect.

Yes, Ruth was much much better, blah, blah, blah, nobody disagrees with you (probably), and Ohtani will probably have no real effect in changing the offensive structure of the game. Ok got it, let's ignore you ignoring the point of Frank's post and allow me to ask you a single question :

What other player, in what other season since 1919 has done anything that could be even remotely compared to Ruth in 1919?

If your answer is "there isn't one" than you are acknowledging that "There is really no other season comparable to 2021 Ohtani since 1919".

I would suggest that it is nitpicking to point out how great Ruth was, the initial post was just saying that nobody compares to The Babe but this Ohtani kid has come closer than anybody in terms of all around pitching & hitting prowess.

Doug "Astutely picking my own Nits" Goodman

[mrreality68]

Ruth vs Ohtani

What Ohtani is doing is amazing this season. His ability and potential is off the charts.
I look forward to watching and enjoying his career.
It is a little disappointing he is on a "Small Market" West Coast team because we on the East Coast miss most of the games and can only see the highlights
Also MLB does not do much to promote their stars so we miss out on that. Although internationally the International Press drives that exposure and he is followed from city to city with alot of international press.
The hope is he stays healthy and lives up to the Hype and potential. This year is great but the past several years health has been an issue and he has missed alot of time.

There will never be another Ruth but I hope we get the The Ohtani that we all want to see

[christopher.herman]

This is stolen verbatim from a quote Babe would give later in the 1918 season: "I don't think a man can pitch in his regular turn and play some other position and keep the pace year after year. I can do it this season all right. I'm young and strong and don't mind the work, but I wouldn't guarantee to do it for many seasons."

[Shoeless Moe]

Funny how the Angels have the 2 greatest players of all time (he said sarcastically) yet they SUCK ASS year after year.

And neither of those players will ever sniff a World Series unless they leave that SHIT HOLE and even then may never, just like Bryce Harper! LOVE IT!!!!

Don't forget to put that in your comparison chart!!!!!

[darwinbulldog]

I don't see anyone catching him in the who-deserves-the-MVP race this year, but if they can give it to Miggy over Trout for a triple crown season they could give it to Vlad Jr. over Ohtani for a triple crown season. That would of course require him to overtake Ohtani in the HR race, which isn't all that likely, but if Joey Votto can hit 8 HRs in 6 days (spoiler: he can) I wouldn't count out Vlad.

[packs]

Ohtani is really good but people should stop comparing him to Babe Ruth. Yes, Babe Ruth pitched too, but he was the greatest player in history. Unlikely ever to be topped.

In 1935 Wes Ferrell hit 342 with 7 homers, 32 RBIs and a 960 OPS while leading the league in wins, complete games and innings pitched. But he was not Babe Ruth either.

[Peter_Spaeth]

There's a pervasive bias on this forum against newer players, in my opinion. Ask almost anyone here for their all time team or all time top 15 players and nobody who came up post 1980 will be on it I would bet.

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

I’m not comparing the Red Sox team to the Angels team, nor am I claiming any real similarity between 1919 and 2021.

Ruth in 1919 was unique to the game. In 2021 Ohtani is unique to the game.

They are similar in their uniiquity in the years cited, even if Ruth is an apple and Ohtani is an orange.

It would be ridiculous too speculate what Ruth’s numbers would look like if he were playing in 2021 and what Ohtani’s numbers would have been had he played in 1919. Wooud the Red Sox team have hit more home runs in 1919 with Ohtani on the team. C’mon Man.

Three astute members of the forum understand and agree with my premise.

I agree!!

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There's a pervasive bias on this forum against newer players, in my opinion. Ask almost anyone here for their all time team or all time top 15 players and nobody who came up post 1980 will be on it I would bet.

I'm not against modern players but this is Babe Ruth. No one is ever going to be Babe Ruth. But also Ohtani is good this year. He was pretty terrible in 2020 and not all that inspiring in 2019 either. I think it's a little premature to be talking about him as an all time great.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I'm not against modern players but this is Babe Ruth. No one is ever going to be Babe Ruth. But also Ohtani is good this year. He was pretty terrible in 2020 and not all that inspiring in 2019 either. I think it's a little premature to be talking about him as an all time great.

Nobody is talking about him in those terms are they? Just acknowledging this season.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nobody is talking about him in those terms are they? Just acknowledging this season.

Your very first (of the next 20 comments to come in this thread) mentions All Time Team. So yes, YOU are.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Your very first (of the next 20 comments to come in this thread) mentions All Time Team. So yes, YOU are.

I just think that it is amazing what he is Ohtani is doing and it makes baseball exciting.
But right now it is a 1 year comparison but Othani should be the MVP for his accomplishments but comparing it to Ruth is difficult because of different era’s but also Othani is doing as a DH vs Ruth playing everyday in the field

[Leon]

I don't even know who this new guy is . But what I will say is that the players in 1919 and the players in 2021 had each of their same issues for the times.... So in that respect, to me, the eras are insignificant. They are the same for each.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There's a pervasive bias on this forum against newer players, in my opinion. Ask almost anyone here for their all time team or all time top 15 players and nobody who came up post 1980 will be on it I would bet.

This is where you talked about the all time team in a thread about Ohtani.

Anyway, I think when people say Babe Ruth it's to bring a false prestige to the conversation. Ohtani is not like Babe Ruth. Nobody will be. But he is having a great season and doing incredible things on the field. His season should be talked about in those terms.

[christopher.herman]

Thread over.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by christopher.herman

Thread over.

Love it

Great photos

Amazing what members of this forum have

[frankbmd]

Shohei did it with sushi and sake

and not ステロイド

What is the single season record for home runs without ステロイド?

61???

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

This is where you talked about the all time team in a thread about Ohtani.

Anyway, I think when people say Babe Ruth it's to bring a false prestige to the conversation. Ohtani is not like Babe Ruth. Nobody will be. But he is having a great season and doing incredible things on the field. His season should be talked about in those terms.

Nothing I said remotely suggests I think Ohtani is an all time great. It's a general point about bias against modern players which seemed to me to be informing some of the posts taking issue with the comparison of Ohtani's SEASON to Ruth's season.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There's a pervasive bias on this forum against newer players, in my opinion. Ask almost anyone here for their all time team or all time top 15 players and nobody who came up post 1980 will be on it I would bet.

There is, but I'd still guess most people here would have Bonds and Clemens somewhere in their top 15. Nobody else who came up since 1980 belongs in that discussion yet.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

There is, but I'd still guess most people here would have Bonds and Clemens somewhere in their top 15. Nobody else who came up since 1980 belongs in that discussion yet.

A Rod and Maddux.

A Rod is top 5 in two of the four Baseball Reference HOF metrics.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

These two seasons provide the best comparison based on how they were used both as pitchers and hitters. Ruth was exclusively a hurler until 1918.
He was effectively no longer pitching in 1920. He did both hitting and pitching on a regular basis only in 1919. So how have they done.

Home runs

Ohtani 37 with 60 games to pla
Ruth 29

Stolen Bases

Ohtani 14
Ruth 7

ERA

Ohtani 3.09 with 15 starts
Ruth 2.97 with 15 starts

Batting Average

Ohtani .280
Ruth .322

Opposing pitchers are beginning to walk Ohtani more.
Ruth had over 100 walks in 1919.

There is really no other season comparable to 2021 Ohtani since 1919.

I’m a believer in this kid and feel that it would be a disservice if he is not the MVP this year.

He is truly fun to watch.

While I basically agree with you, Frank, about how exciting Ohtani is, I also feel that a bit more perspective is in order. For example, the fences were typically 450+ feet from home plate back in Ruth's day. There is a book titled, "The Year the Babe Hit 104 Home Runs," which, I believe, is premised on the idea that today's fences would have yielded that many homers to Ruth in 1921 even though the record books only credit him with 59. In fact, we still have good video evidence that the Babe was able to hit a 500+ foot home run in every American League park that year! And of course we know there were years when he out-homered entire teams. As a power hitter, I don't think anyone else compares to Ruth.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

Yes, Ruth was much much better, blah, blah, blah, nobody disagrees with you (probably), and Ohtani will probably have no real effect in changing the offensive structure of the game. Ok got it, let's ignore you ignoring the point of Frank's post and allow me to ask you a single question :

What other player, in what other season since 1919 has done anything that could be even remotely compared to Ruth in 1919?

If your answer is "there isn't one" than you are acknowledging that "There is really no other season comparable to 2021 Ohtani since 1919".

I would suggest that it is nitpicking to point out how great Ruth was, the initial post was just saying that nobody compares to The Babe but this Ohtani kid has come closer than anybody in terms of all around pitching & hitting prowess.

Doug "Astutely picking my own Nits" Goodman

I didn’t even say Ruth was better, I said he was a better hitter in context but a worse pitcher in context. I doubt Ohtani changes the game significantly for the next century as Ruth did, but a reasoned case for Ohtani could be made if one values the pitching more and limits the argument into the confines of the season only.

I would agree with the claim that there are parallels and it is the first significant hitter and pitcher season since Ruth in 1919. But this was not the argument that was actually given, read the OP, it is almost entirely a direct comparison of their statistics stripped of environment context. No one is saying Ohtani is not having a great year, or that there are not parallels, some of us are saying the comparison given should not be stripped of all context. It is not unreasonable to reply to the argument and comparison that is actually put forth. It is not “ignoring the point” to directly address the bulk of the content actually posted.

[molenick]

Originally Posted by robw1959

While I basically agree with you, Frank, about how exciting Ohtani is, I also feel that a bit more perspective is in order. For example, the fences were typically 450+ feet from home plate back in Ruth's day. There is a book titled, "The Year the Babe Hit 104 Home Runs," which, I believe, is premised on the idea that today's fences would have yielded that many homers to Ruth in 1921 even though the record books only credit him with 59. In fact, we still have good video evidence that the Babe was able to hit a 500+ foot home run in every American League park that year! And of course we know there were years when he out-homered entire teams. As a power hitter, I don't think anyone else compares to Ruth.

He is only credited with 59 home runs in 1921 because that is how many he it. I don't know of any record books that make adjustments based on what the fences would be like in the future.

This is great news that there is good video evidence of Babe Ruth's home runs in every AL park in 1921. I would love to see those videos so any links would be appreciated.

[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.

[vintagewhitesox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There's a pervasive bias on this forum against newer players, in my opinion. Ask almost anyone here for their all time team or all time top 15 players and nobody who came up post 1980 will be on it I would bet.

Well said.
Also, when Ruth played, there was a large segment of players who were not allowed to play in the majors.
If Ruth had to play against the negro league all stars of his time, would he be as dominant? He was great for his time, and Im not taking anything away from him. but I dont think it's a fair comparison given the lack of opposition Ruth had.
Ruth didnt play coast to coast or face night pitching. What Otani is doing now has never been seen.

[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 vintagewhitesox

Well said.
Also, when Ruth played, there was a large segment of players who were not allowed to play in the majors.
If Ruth had to play against the negro league all stars of his time, would he be as dominant? He was great for his time, and Im not taking anything away from him. but I dont think it's a fair comparison given the lack of opposition Ruth had.
Ruth didnt play coast to coast or face night pitching. What Otani is doing now has never been seen.

Ruth played exhibition games against Negro League teams and he was just as dominant. Ruth played in an era with only 16 teams compared to 30 teams today. The idea that he somehow played against weaker competition is an opinion that can't be backed up by facts.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

Ruth played exhibition games against Negro League teams and he was just as dominant. Ruth played in an era with only 16 teams compared to 30 teams today. The idea that he somehow played against weaker competition is an opinion that can't be backed up by facts.

Do we have stats from these exhibition games or is this just loose anecdote? Also hard to draw any conclusions from games that didn't count. BTW a good argument you could also make might be that unlike today, the best athletes weren't funneled so much to other sports.

[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 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.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by rats60

Ruth played exhibition games against Negro League teams and he was just as dominant. Ruth played in an era with only 16 teams compared to 30 teams today. The idea that he somehow played against weaker competition is an opinion that can't be backed up by facts.

Of course he played against weaker competition. That's not difficult to prove. Just look at the ratio of the size of the available pool of talent that players were drawn from vs the number of players who played in the league. Baseball is an international sport today. Your talking 10-fold the talent pool today but only twice as many teams. It's not even remotely close.

[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.