Are there any player's autographs that you refuse to collect?

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

And Ruth being mentioned everywhere as the best baseball player ever, IMO is a JOKE. He was a one dimenshional player, that's it. He ONLY could hit. A god awful fielder, base runner. I don't consider him top 5. When I look at best players ever, I look at players who can do it all, the five tools, Ruth was waaaaaay off from that.

HOF Rookies,
Maybe you should look at his career pitching statistics as well. The Big Bam was more than a one dimensional player. If he continued down the path of pitching he was good enough that he might have been a HOF pitcher, FWIW.

Just my 2 cents...

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

HOF Rookies,
Maybe you should look at his career pitching statistics as well. The Big Bam was more than a one dimensional player. If he continued down the path of pitching he was good enough that he might have been a HOF pitcher, FWIW.

Just my 2 cents...

I have said multiple times in my previous posts saying I'm disregarding his pitching. I know he was a hell of a pitcher, and most likely would have been a HOF'er as a pitcher if healthy. But, when he played the field, not pitching, one-dimensional.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

But this topic is getting boring. Good debate all

[mr2686]

Since you keep using words like Awful and one demensional in regards to his fielding, I thought I'd dig up some quotes that were published over the years. Even if you don't believe he was a great fielder, I don't believe you can possibly think he was awful.
This is MUST-READING for any fan of the Babe.
Don't miss the comments by Christy Mathewson,
Tris Speaker, George Sisler and the long description
of how Ruth fooled Charley Gehringer).


"Most enthusiasts think of Ruth only as a mighty batsman.
As a matter of fact, he is a very finished outfielder
with a marvelous throwing arm. . . Ruth plays a hard-hit ball
as well as any outfielder in the business. He goes after
a ground ball like an infielder, and for all his size
he is a smart and daring base runner."
(Christy Mathewson, Collier's, October 11, 1924, pp.45)

"I have been asked my opinion of great outfielders I have known.
By outfielders I mean solely the ability to play the position
quite apart from batting or base running talent. I will say,
without hesitation, that Babe Ruth is one of the half dozen
greatest outfielders I ever saw. This is aside from his
slugging ability, which is unrivaled, and his base running ability
which is much greater than is commonly supposed.
Purely as an outfielder, Babe will rank among the game's greatest.
He was not always so. When he first shifted from the pitching slab
to the outfield, he did not seem to take his work seriously.
His thoughts were mainly devoted to his batting. No doubt
they still are. But for all that, Babe has become a great outfielder.
He covers a lot of ground, primarily because he plays the batter correctly.
He has a sure pair of hands, a wonderful throwing arm and he always
knows exactly what to do with the ball when he gets it."
(Tris Speaker, Baseball Magazine, October 1928)

"He is really a great outfielder, one of the greatest.
He plays batters correctly, covers a lot more ground than
you'd think he'd be able to do with his bulk,
and has one of the deadliest throwing arms ever known.
Besides, Babe has an accurate baseball judgment and
never throws to the wrong base."
(George Sisler, (Baseball Magazine, April 1931, pp. 484)

"By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history;
a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner,
seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most
perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew."
(Hugh Fullerton, Chicago sportswriter)

"Ruth could make marvelous catches of fly balls that were
as spectacular in their cleverness as made by any outfielder
playing ball. Especially was this true of those long high flies which,
to a slower man, it would have been impossible to get under."
(John B. Foster (Editor-in-Chief of the Official Spalding Baseball Guide),
1938 Spalding Official Baseball Guide)

"But there also were numerous occasions when the Babe made plays
which he had craftily thought up beforehand. Such as the day
he played left field in Detroit and trapped no less an experienced hand
than Charley Gehringer into thinking a fly ball had cleared the fence
for a homer instead of coming down for an easy out. This was before
the present double deck stands had been erected in what then
was call Navin Field. There was just a board fence in left and
to the Babe one day it occurred that with a runner on second
it could be possible, with a high fly ball hit out toward left,
to fake all the notions of a dejected outfielder who knows a homer
is about to sail over his head. So he bided his time and
one afternoon it came. With Gehringer on second, a high fly soared
out to left. The Babe ran back to the fence, looked up at the ball
for a moment and then with a motion of utter disgust shrugged
his shoulders and cast his eyes on the ground. It was a beautiful piece
of acting and fooled Gehringer completely. Certain the ball was
clearing the fence, the Tiger second baseman headed for home.
And in that same moment Ruth darted forward, got his eyes back
on that ball and caught it some five feet in front of the fence.
Doubling up Gehringer at second was then a simple matter.
Of course, in order to accomplish the trick an outfielder
must be equipped with the gift of being able to take his eye
off the ball for an appreciable length of time. But then
the effervescent Babe Ruth was ever a very gifted hand at anything
he tried on a ball field.
(Ferdinand Cole Lane, Baseball Magazine, 1946)

"Few modern fans may realize it, but Babe Ruth was a great outfielder.
We mean defensively. The Babe rarely dropped a ball he got his glove on
and nobody can remember when he threw to the wrong base.
How did he get that way? Not by sitting around,
watching other outfielders practice."
(Ed Rumill, Baseball Magazine, September 1947)

"As a defensive outfielder he was top-hole despite his great bulk,
and his throwing arm was one of the most feared."
(Shirley Povich, Baseball Digest, March 1959)

". . .Ruth?. . . But he wasn't just a great pitcher and a great hitter,
he was a great outfielder. His throws were very accurate and
he made long throws. He was a good ballplayer. Great ballplayer.
(Joe Wood, interview by Mark Alvarez in 1975 and published in the
Baseball Research Journal, 1987, #16, pp. 54)
.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Very nice post Mike, that's pretty neat. But, all do respect to those greats, his defensive WAR speaks for itself. Honestly, what coach/manager/former player who's so highly thought of, is going to negatively knock on his own peers in regards to saying, "Wow, Babe Ruth, tremendous ball player. Could hit the raw-hide off the ball, boy could he ever. Was a terrific pitcher as well, extremely deceptive. But 'ol Babe in the field, was a sight for sore eyes. Though he typically knew where and what to do with the ball, looked like he was running around with a load in his pants, stumblin' and fumblin' around. " That's not going to happen. That wasn't in that time period, from on HOF'er to another to rip on them. He wasn't a good fielder. His defensive metrics and WAR prove that. Unless, they reflected poorly on his actual abilities. Granted, some fields were a mile deep. Hard to say without whitnessing him. IMO

[Lordstan]

It's interesting that the person who made such demonstrative statements as the following is getting bored with the topic.

Your quote was
"Bonds is the best ever, plain and simple, who cares about steroids. Was going to be best ever even before he started juicing. He was a player who did it all. Stole, hit for power, hit for average, strong arm, amazing fielder. There is no one better IMO."

You then followed with
"Bonds IS the most feared hitter of ALL TIME, plain and simple,"

And then you went on to Ruth
"And Ruth being mentioned everywhere as the best baseball player ever, IMO is a JOKE. He was a one dimenshional player, that's it. He ONLY could hit. A god awful fielder, base runner. I don't consider him top 5. When I look at best players ever, I look at players who can do it all, the five tools, Ruth was waaaaaay off from that"

You keep coming back to the difference in defensive WAR as the crux of your argument for Bonds.
Here are a couple of interesting "defensive metrics" for you
1) Ruth has more outfield assists than Bonds(215-173), in approx 500 less games. I guess that kind of kills the Bonds is better because Ruth can't throw theory. Now that I think about it, that theory is kind of silly even without this, considering Ruth was a pitcher many think would've been HOF worthy. Edge to Ruth.

2) Non pitcher fielding percentage - Ruth's was .968 vs the league average of .965. Bonds was .984 when the league avg was .981. So they both fielded .003 above the league avg. You could interpret the data above that Bonds had a much higher percent, but he also had the advantage of the improved glove technology. I think the only way to really compare fairly is to compare them both to the league at the time. Even

3) Range Factor per game. Ruth - 2.07 vs league avg 2.35. Bonds - 2.02 vs League avg 2.22. Bonds slightly better.

4) OF Putouts/g. Ruth 1.98. Bonds 1.96 Ruth slightly better. You could use total putouts as well. Bonds has about 1200 more than in approx 600 more games played. Bonds is 7th all time. Ruth is 44th. Fun fact: All time PO leader Willie Mays has 1300 more than Bonds in 40 less games.

5) Errors. Ruth 164 or 0.07/g. Bonds 97 or 0.03/g. Edge to Bonds.

6) OF double plays Ruth 45. Bonds 25. Edge to Ruth.

7) Defensive WAR(Your favorite stat) Ruth 7.4. Bonds 20.4. Edge Bonds. So in a 22yr career Bonds defense was responsible for 13 more games won than Ruth. WOW. 3/5ths of a game more per year.

There are a hundred more examples of fielding stats I could give you that would go back and forth between Ruth and Bonds.
It seems when you dig deeper into the statistics it appears Ruth and Bonds are pretty close from a fielding standpoint.
There are a hundred other things to consider interpreting this info. Bonds had so many advantages in physical training compared to what players in Ruth's day had. Bonds was a better athlete. Ruth was a better baseball player.

5 tools
Run -Bonds SB 514 to 143
Throw -Ruth (More Assists and Dp from outfield, plus was a pitcher) Bonds had avg arm
Hit for avg - Ruth .342 vs .298 (would've been abigger difference if no juice. Bonds avg prior to age 32 .278. After .314. Hmm)
Hit for Power - Ruth (Only after steroids did Barry approach Ruth in the Power categories)
Fielder -Bonds

So your original assertation about Ruth being one dimensional is obviously incorrect. Additionally, I think the numbers show pretty conclusively that Bonds wasn't going to come close to Ruth's power or average numbers before he was juicing.

I also have grown a bit tired of this debate. I have attempted to show you clear evidence in the statistics of why a group of us responded to your statements with shock.

If stats aren't enough, them perhaps the last evidence of their place in history is their legacy. Babe Ruth went down as the man who both saved the game after the Black Sox scandal and revolutionized the way the game was played in regards to what could be done with power. Barry Bonds will go down in history as a great player who was feared to pitch to because he cheated by taking steroids and everything ball he did hit after that went for miles.

I think the most unfortunate part of this thread is that Barry robbed all of us baseball enthusiats of having a real conversation and comparison as to whether he was the greatest. Once he took them, all comparison is theoretical, because there is no way to tell what he would've done.

[Mr. Zipper]

Thanks for the very informative posts, LordStan. Fascinating.