Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 109

Thread: Babe 17ing Ruth---

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    8,799
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by Commercecomet24 View Post
    This. Babe was hitting 30-50 hrs a year when most teams weren?t even hitting that many. Also this isn?t hitting but Ruth was a pretty dang good pitcher at one time, too. So many great hitters through history that you can learn from any of them from any era. Who knows what stats Teddy Ballgame would?ve racked up if he hadn?t lost 5 years of his prime due to military service. Nod has to go to Ruth cause he was first, he set the standard. Great hitters will always be compared against Ruth. Also Barry doesn?t have a candy bar named after him
    Lol
    Probably would've been a hall of fame pitcher if he hadn't become a full-time player after his 1st 4 years in the league. Has a lifetime 67% winning record as a pitcher.

    Held record for consecutive scoreless innings pitched in World Series play until 1961 when Whitey Ford broke it. Then Rivera broke Ford's record.
    Last edited by dawgday166; 01-27-2018 at 06:23 PM.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    8,799
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by msstate7 View Post
    I looked up bWAR for each, and the stats agree with you that babe was much better than his peers. If I need a hit bottom of the 9th facing Mariano Rivera in his prime though, I want Barry bonds in his prime at the plate
    I'll take the Babe. He also swung a 36 ounce bat. All while staying out all night womanizing, drinking, and eating hot dogs. And he hit .342 lifetime (I believe that is tied for 8th all-time).

    Pitching was soo bad back then that no one has approached Cy Young or Walter Johnson's records. Not to mention all the crap you could load the ball up with. No doctored ball rules back then.

    ETA: I've said since I was a youngster ... Babe is easily the best ball player of all-time.
    Last edited by dawgday166; 01-27-2018 at 06:24 PM.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    8,799
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg View Post
    You can go either way but I take Bonds.

    Here is why:

    - Bonds has FAR more defensive value. Bonds had a life time defensive WAR of 67.6 & Ruth was -18.6

    - Bonds had 500+ more lifetime walks than Ruth. Give him those 500 more BBs & his lifetime WAR is higher.

    - Bonds stole 514 bases compared to Ruth's 123. Barry simply caused more headaches for other team.

    - Ruth had far more protection in the lineup than Bonds.

    - Bonds played in an era of bullpens & free agency, where he had to face numerous more pitchers once a game or once in a career.

    - Bonds is the only player in history to completely change his game. Was an batting average/stolen base guy & then transformed into a home run guy. How he did that is irrelevent in this conversation.

    We don't know if Chipper used PEDS, Vlad, Hoffman, etc. We simply don't KNOW, but I truthfully believe that if you were building a baseball team from scratch with any one person to ever grace planet Earth, you would choose Barry Lamar Bonds.
    How many homers a year was Bonds hitting before he started to take the 'roids? 30 - 40 or so.

  4. #24
    Senior Member shoeless joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    3,636
    vCash
    3129
    Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg View Post
    You can go either way but I take Bonds.

    Here is why:

    - Bonds has FAR more defensive value. Bonds had a life time defensive WAR of 67.6 & Ruth was -18.6

    - Bonds had 500+ more lifetime walks than Ruth. Give him those 500 more BBs & his lifetime WAR is higher.

    - Bonds stole 514 bases compared to Ruth's 123. Barry simply caused more headaches for other team.

    - Ruth had far more protection in the lineup than Bonds.

    - Bonds played in an era of bullpens & free agency, where he had to face numerous more pitchers once a game or once in a career.

    - Bonds is the only player in history to completely change his game. Was an batting average/stolen base guy & then transformed into a home run guy. How he did that is irrelevent in this conversation.

    We don't know if Chipper used PEDS, Vlad, Hoffman, etc. We simply don't KNOW, but I truthfully believe that if you were building a baseball team from scratch with any one person to ever grace planet Earth, you would choose Barry Lamar Bonds.
    I wouldn't.

    Several of the stats you spewed only occurred because he was a cheater. I wish he had never cheated because he was a great player without it...but he did cheat and his subsequent numbers came about because of his cheating.

  5. #25
    Senior Member msstate7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    72,079
    vCash
    10439
    Quote Originally Posted by dawgday166 View Post
    I'll take the Babe. He also swung a 36 ounce bat. All while staying out all night womanizing, drinking, and eating hot dogs.

    Pitching was soo bad back then that no one has approached Cy Young or Walter Johnson's records. Not to mention all the crap you could load the ball up with. No doctored ball rules back then.

    ETA: I've said since I was a youngster ... Babe is easily the best ball player of all-time.
    Meh... look at mlb today and you see a ton of great players of color. I put at asterisk on anything football related pre-integration, and I do the same for baseball.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Todd4State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    40,214
    vCash
    3700
    I did a major research paper on Babe Ruth and I am convinced that he was the greatest player of all time. You have to consider the era and the context of what he did and when he did it. He really was only a hitter for about 16 seasons- compared to something like 24 for Aaron and 21 for Bonds. Ruth played in an era that was not conducive to hitting home runs and the parks were much larger in general than they are now. Also, the rules were different- in Ruth's day if you hit the foul pole it was a foul ball and not a home run. There is a book called The Year Babe Ruth hit 104 Home Runs which basically poses that had Ruth played in today's era he would have hit 104 home runs at his peak season of 1921. Obviously, that's all speculative but it does give an idea of the context of how dominant he was then and comparing it to today's standards. He could have probably played another year or two with the DH rule too.

    But the other reason I think Ruth was the greatest is because I think he would have made the HOF as a pitcher if he stuck to that. He was a 20+ game winner for the Red Sox and I believe he was undefeated for the Yankees pitching in cameo appearances late in the season. In his prime he was a better defensive player than given credit for because most people remember the out of shape Babe Ruth. He also struck out a lot less than people realize- he was an outstanding hitter.

    I think if he played today he would be a DH/closer maybe like what the Angels are possibly going to do with Shohei Ohtani. I'm curious to see what the Angels do with him and how they use him. Ruth was probably one of the very few people that could have been a legit dual position player at the MLB level.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    8,799
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd4State View Post
    I did a major research paper on Babe Ruth and I am convinced that he was the greatest player of all time. You have to consider the era and the context of what he did and when he did it. He really was only a hitter for about 16 seasons- compared to something like 24 for Aaron and 21 for Bonds. Ruth played in an era that was not conducive to hitting home runs and the parks were much larger in general than they are now. Also, the rules were different- in Ruth's day if you hit the foul pole it was a foul ball and not a home run. There is a book called The Year Babe Ruth hit 104 Home Runs which basically poses that had Ruth played in today's era he would have hit 104 home runs at his peak season of 1921. Obviously, that's all speculative but it does give an idea of the context of how dominant he was then and comparing it to today's standards. He could have probably played another year or two with the DH rule too.

    But the other reason I think Ruth was the greatest is because I think he would have made the HOF as a pitcher if he stuck to that. He was a 20+ game winner for the Red Sox and I believe he was undefeated for the Yankees pitching in cameo appearances late in the season. In his prime he was a better defensive player than given credit for because most people remember the out of shape Babe Ruth. He also struck out a lot less than people realize- he was an outstanding hitter.

    I think if he played today he would be a DH/closer maybe like what the Angels are possibly going to do with Shohei Ohtani. I'm curious to see what the Angels do with him and how they use him. Ruth was probably one of the very few people that could have been a legit dual position player at the MLB level.
    Give him those 4 to 5 years as a pitcher back and you're looking at an additonal 120 - 170 hrs.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Todd4State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    40,214
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by msstate7 View Post
    Meh... look at mlb today and you see a ton of great players of color. I put at asterisk on anything football related pre-integration, and I do the same for baseball.
    Ruth played a lot of exhibition games against Negro League players and dominated them as well. This may not be PC- but white people are pretty good at playing baseball too. Especially when you consider the fairly low number of African Americans in the game at this point in time to the point where MLB is having inner city programs to try to increase their numbers.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Todd4State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    40,214
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by dawgday166 View Post
    Give him those 4 to 5 years as a pitcher back and you're looking at an additonal 120 - 170 hrs.
    That's probably pretty accurate. I believe Ruth actually led the league in home runs one year when he was a pitcher- I think he hit 16 or something like that. And then the Red Sox started to try him at first base and the outfield to try to get his bat in the lineup.

  10. #30
    Senior Member Commercecomet24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    24,719
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg View Post
    You can go either way but I take Bonds.

    Here is why:

    - Bonds has FAR more defensive value. Bonds had a life time defensive WAR of 67.6 & Ruth was -18.6

    - Bonds had 500+ more lifetime walks than Ruth. Give him those 500 more BBs & his lifetime WAR is higher.

    - Bonds stole 514 bases compared to Ruth's 123. Barry simply caused more headaches for other team.

    - Ruth had far more protection in the lineup than Bonds.

    - Bonds played in an era of bullpens & free agency, where he had to face numerous more pitchers once a game or once in a career.

    - Bonds is the only player in history to completely change his game. Was an batting average/stolen base guy & then transformed into a home run guy. How he did that is irrelevent in this conversation.

    We don't know if Chipper used PEDS, Vlad, Hoffman, etc. We simply don't KNOW, but I truthfully believe that if you were building a baseball team from scratch with any one person to ever grace planet Earth, you would choose Barry Lamar Bonds.
    Gun Bully13 said greatest hitter not greatest all around player so defense and stolen bases don?t come into play.

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    8,799
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by msstate7 View Post
    Meh... look at mlb today and you see a ton of great players of color. I put at asterisk on anything football related pre-integration, and I do the same for baseball.
    Ordinarily I'd agree with you, especially in football and basketball. Maybe baseball some too. But it wouldn't have mattered with the Babe.

    Beside, there have been far more white dudes throwing smoke than blacks, even post-integration. There's 1 Bob Gibson. There's a ton of Curt Schillings.

  12. #32
    Senior Member Commercecomet24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    24,719
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd4State View Post
    I did a major research paper on Babe Ruth and I am convinced that he was the greatest player of all time. You have to consider the era and the context of what he did and when he did it. He really was only a hitter for about 16 seasons- compared to something like 24 for Aaron and 21 for Bonds. Ruth played in an era that was not conducive to hitting home runs and the parks were much larger in general than they are now. Also, the rules were different- in Ruth's day if you hit the foul pole it was a foul ball and not a home run. There is a book called The Year Babe Ruth hit 104 Home Runs which basically poses that had Ruth played in today's era he would have hit 104 home runs at his peak season of 1921. Obviously, that's all speculative but it does give an idea of the context of how dominant he was then and comparing it to today's standards. He could have probably played another year or two with the DH rule too.

    But the other reason I think Ruth was the greatest is because I think he would have made the HOF as a pitcher if he stuck to that. He was a 20+ game winner for the Red Sox and I believe he was undefeated for the Yankees pitching in cameo appearances late in the season. In his prime he was a better defensive player than given credit for because most people remember the out of shape Babe Ruth. He also struck out a lot less than people realize- he was an outstanding hitter.

    I think if he played today he would be a DH/closer maybe like what the Angels are possibly going to do with Shohei Ohtani. I'm curious to see what the Angels do with him and how they use him. Ruth was probably one of the very few people that could have been a legit dual position player at the MLB level.
    This you nailed it, Todd.

  13. #33
    Senior Member ShotgunDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    37,276
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by dawgday166 View Post
    How many homers a year was Bonds hitting before he started to take the 'roids? 30 - 40 or so.
    That’s irrelevant in this discussion.

    I’m judging him as a player on the field.

    Was he convicted of steroids?

  14. #34
    Senior Member msstate7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    72,079
    vCash
    10439
    Quote Originally Posted by dawgday166 View Post
    Ordinarily I'd agree with you, especially in football and basketball. Maybe baseball some too. But it wouldn't have mattered with the Babe.

    Beside, there have been far more white dudes throwing smoke than blacks, even post-integration. There's 1 Bob Gibson. There's a ton of Curt Schillings.
    This discussion started the premise that babe was more dominant during his era than any other player in their era. Kind of a valid point that only white players could play in Ruth era. Hell, the other player in this discussion is bonds who could not play then.

  15. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    8,799
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg View Post
    That’s irrelevant in this discussion.

    I’m judging him as a player on the field.

    Was he convicted of steroids?
    Ok. Whatever. Give the Babe some 'roids, take away the late night women, beer, and booze ... adds probably an extra 10 years or so to his career. Probably looking at 1100 hrs or so.

  16. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    17,158
    vCash
    1003450
    Quote Originally Posted by shoeless joe View Post
    All true but still doesn't change the fact that nobody was as dominant during their time than Ruth. He's not the greatest player of all time IMO but he did seperate himself from his peers more than anyone ever.
    Gracias. That's the point.

  17. #37
    Senior Member shoeless joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    3,636
    vCash
    3129
    Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg View Post
    That’s irrelevant in this discussion.

    I’m judging him as a player on the field.

    Was he convicted of steroids?
    How can whether or not he cheated to gain a competitive edge irrelevant to the conversation of the greatest hitter of all time??? Especially when you're using numbers influenced by his cheating as evidence??!!

  18. #38
    Senior Member Commercecomet24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    24,719
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by dawgday166 View Post
    Ok. Whatever. Give the Babe some 'roids, take away the late night women, beer, and booze ... adds probably an extra 10 years or so to his career. Probably looking at 1100 hrs or so.
    He would?ve had 850 hrs if he hadn?t spent first 4 years as one of the best pitchers in mlb

  19. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    17,158
    vCash
    1003450
    Quote Originally Posted by Bully13 View Post
    Gracias. That's the point.
    Except I think Ruth was indeed the greatest.

  20. #40
    Senior Member Commercecomet24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    24,719
    vCash
    3100
    I can?t believe nobody has mentioned art shamsky as greatest hitter*********

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Disclaimer: Elitedawgs is a privately owned and operated forum that is managed by alumni of Mississippi State University. This website is in no way affiliated with the Mississippi State University, The Southeastern Conference (SEC) or the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The views and opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the post author and may not reflect the views of other members of this forum or elitedawgs.com. The interactive nature of the elitedawgs.com forums makes it impossible for elitedawgs.com to assume responsibility for any of the content posted at this site. Ideas, thoughts, suggestion, comments, opinions, advice and observations made by participants at elitedawgs.com are not endorsed by elitedawgs.com
Elitedawgs: A Mississippi State Fan Forum, Mississippi State Football, Mississippi State Basketball, Mississippi State Baseball, Mississippi State Athletics. Mississippi State message board.