Babe Ruth or Ted Williams?

[csh19792001]

Greater Hitter: Babe Ruth or Ted Williams?


Who was the greater offensive force/better hitter? Why? Please justify your claim.

Looks like Williams beat Gehrig soundly (despite their splits), so this clash of the titans seemed inevitable.

[csh19792001]

Greater Hitter: Babe Ruth or Ted Williams?


Who was the greater offensive force/better hitter? Why? Please justify your claim.

Looks like Williams beat Gehrig soundly (despite their splits), so this clash of the titans seemed inevitable.

Here's a good starting point- thanks to Aaron Gleeman in advance for his research.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=131932&postcount=22

[csh19792001]

Splits:
Ted Williams, away (career)

.328/.468/.615

(HOME)
.361/.497/.652

Babe Ruth, away (career)
.338/.466/.681

(HOME)
.347/.482/.699

[csh19792001]

It's easier to seperate yourself further from a lower pack- Ruth was playing his own game:

American League, 1915-34
HR%- 1.05


American League, 1939-60
HR%- 1.91

[torez77]

Splits:
Ted Williams, away (career)

.328/.468/.615

(HOME)
.361/.497/.652

Babe Ruth, away (career)
.338/.466/.681

(HOME)
.347/.482/.699

Ruth is more balanced.

[csh19792001]

Ruth is more balanced.

True. I wanted to make a case for Ted, but I also want to be fair to both Titans. :clapping

[Windy City Fan]

Ruth wins in black and grey ink, OPS+, and raw numbers.

However, there are a few arguments one can make for Ted Williams. First off, Ted Williams played in a deeper and intergrated (for most of his career) league. Scouting was advancing and blacks represented a new source of talent.

The other big argument is that Ruth started off playing the slugging game all by himself. Just look at the gaps between Ruth and second place finisher in HR.

1919 Ruth leads in HR by 9 (19 to 10)
1920 35 HR difference (54 to 19)
1921 35 HR difference (59 to 24)
1923 12 HR difference (41 to 29)
1924 19 HR difference (46 to 27)
1926 28 HR differecne (47 to 19)
1927 13 HR difference (60 to 47) (Gerhig finished second and was 29 HR ahead of third)
1928 27 HR difference (54 to 27) (Again Gerhig is second and ten better than third)
1929 11 HR difference (46 to 35) (The league is finally starting to catch up, 3 players with 30+ HR)
1930 8 HR difference (49 to 41)
1931 Tied for first

Its a well known fact that Babe Ruth outhomered entire teams during a season. The question is, was Babe Ruth that much better or was the rest of the league still playing small ball in a live ball era? When we see the league close in on Ruth, the answer becomes evident. Ruth's relative stats are given an extreme boost because he was one of only a handful of players to play a "slugger's game" in the 1920's. Before Ruth, no one swung for the fences. No top player took walks or wasn't afraid to whiff. So Ruth's SLG and OBP relative to the league get a boost, because he was revolutionary.

Now when it comes to ranking players, I give Ruth extra credit for being the revolutionary player he was. I also give him a plenty of credit for being a dominant pitcher before he turned to hitting the long ball. But comparing him to Williams strictly as a hitter, I think Ted was better.

[csh19792001]

Ruth wins in black and grey ink, OPS+, and raw numbers.

However, there are a few arguments one can make for Ted Williams. First off, Ted Williams played in a deeper and intergrated (for most of his career) league. Scouting was advancing and blacks represented a new source of talent.

The other big argument is that Ruth started off playing the slugging game all by himself. Just look at the gaps between Ruth and second place finisher in HR.

1919 Ruth leads in HR by 9 (19 to 10)
1920 35 HR difference (54 to 19)
1921 35 HR difference (59 to 24)
1923 12 HR difference (41 to 29)
1924 19 HR difference (46 to 27)
1926 28 HR differecne (47 to 19)
1927 13 HR difference (60 to 47) (Gerhig finished second and was 29 HR ahead of third)
1928 27 HR difference (54 to 27) (Again Gerhig is second and ten better than third)
1929 11 HR difference (46 to 35) (The league is finally starting to catch up, 3 players with 30+ HR)
1930 8 HR difference (49 to 41)
1931 Tied for first

Its a well known fact that Babe Ruth outhomered entire teams during a season. The question is, was Babe Ruth that much better or was the rest of the league still playing small ball in a live ball era? When we see the league close in on Ruth, the answer becomes evident. Ruth's relative stats are given an extreme boost because he was one of only a handful of players to play a "slugger's game" in the 1920's. Before Ruth, no one swung for the fences. No top player took walks or wasn't afraid to whiff. So Ruth's SLG and OBP relative to the league get a boost, because he was revolutionary.

Now when it comes to ranking players, I give Ruth extra credit for being the revolutionary player he was. I also give him a plenty of credit for being a dominant pitcher before he turned to hitting the long ball. But comparing him to Williams strictly as a hitter, I think Ted was better.

Scholarly.

Probably couldn't have been put better, Windy. Excellent work. Too bad people voted basically the instant I posted the poll, before any points could be made in Ted's favor.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

It's easier to seperate yourself further from a lower pack- Ruth was playing his own game:

American League, 1915-34
HR%- 1.05

American League, 1939-60
HR%- 1.91
That is true but too often the fact that Ruth a slugger also put a great distance between himself and the rest of the league in batting average.

It just shows what a great combination hitter/slugger he was. You have a slugger going for the longball competing for batting average with the rest of the league with probably 90 percent of them going to the plate just trying to make contact. Now in the very late 1920s and early 1930s there were more hitters going for the long ball but overall most of his career his competition was the contact hitters.

I think we might all agree it's usually the contact hitters with the high career batting averages, few exceptions Ruth, Gehrig, Williams maybe a few more, sluggers and high batting average. From 1960 to the present, high career averages, Gwynn, Clemente, Boggs, Carew only Clemente with 240 home runs could be considered a long ball hitter. Lets not only focus on Ruth and his home run hitting but also look at his career batting average.

While Ruth and the gap between the hitters in his time in AB/HR ratio is understandable he still has the second best AB/HR ratio of all time 11.76. Only McGwire is ahead at 10.61 and he had many less at bats and made his biggest gain in AB/HR ratio after 1995 when all of baseball began hitting home runs like never before.

Ruth, Williams a close call. It's always been my belief that both these guys are on anothe planet when the subject is greatest hiter/ slugger over a whole career. Take your pick.

[torez77]

Well said, ShoelessJoe. For me, the decision was easy. I don't see a strong enough argument that can boost Williams over Ruth as a hitter. Ruth dominated his league like no one has dominated before, and his records stood for many years - Williams couldn't touch them, proving that Ruth didn't just dominate a league that wasn't trying to hit HRs, but future leagues as well. As you said, only Big Mac beats him in AB/HR, but Ruth kills Mac in BA. OPS+ - Ruth 207, Williams 190. Nope, I just don't see how Williams can be ahead of Ruth. This is just my opinion, of course.

[Windy City Fan]

Williams missed almost 5 years due to his service in the armed forces. Given reasonable stats for those seasons, Williams would've been only 30 HR or so short of Ruth. He would've topped Ruth in RBI, Runs, and BB.

OPS+ rewards slugging and drawing walks. Very few top players in the 20's went for the long ball or would willingly take a walk. Ruth was playing for OPS when the rest of the league wasn't. Plus Williams played in a league that was deeper due to advanced scouting covering more of the nation and intergration.

[torez77]

Williams missed almost 5 years due to his service in the armed forces. Given reasonable stats for those seasons, Williams would've been only 30 HR or so short of Ruth. He would've topped Ruth in RBI, Runs, and BB.


Now I will admit, WCF, that is the strongest argument one can make to put Williams over Ruth. This is what makes them closer than ever before - as hitters. You must also remember that Ruth lost a few years of batting to pitching. Not as big a loss as Williams had to the military, but a loss nonetheless. Also, Ruth's peak years are more impressive than Williams. Ruth set the records, with Williams we can only wonder what might have been, though your theory that we would've topped Ruth in RBI, Runs and BB is reasonable, I guess. Williams playing in a deeper talent pool? Perhaps. I happen to be a believer that it's what you accomplish against the talent of your day that counts, and Ruth did more than anybody else. We could also theorize that players like McGwire, Bonds and all of the modern-day players would've set all of the records had they played in the old days - but that's not fair to the legends of the game.
All things considered, I gotta give the edge to Ruth.

[Windy City Fan]

McGwire might have out homered Ruth in his day (maybe), but no one seriously argues he would've been a better hitter. Bonds, you might be able to make a case for if you ignore the steroids allegations, but I wouldn't support that argument.

It the level of competition doesn't matter, then how do you rank players like John Clarkson? His career ERA+ is better than Koufax, Hubbell, Ford, Gibson, and Seaver to name a few. Yet no one says he was a better pitcher. Why? Because he played from 1882 to 1894 and it is a recognized fact the level of competition wasn't very deep. The gap is not so big between the eras of Ruth and Williams, but it does exist. Baseball from about '60 (intergration really starting to take hold) to 1976 (before the expansion of 77 and the fade of baseball as THE major sport), is probably the deepest era in terms of overall talent. You can debate if the modern era or the early intergration years were deeper, but they both clearly come ahead of 30's and 20's.

[DoubleX]

Williams missed almost 5 years due to his service in the armed forces. Given reasonable stats for those seasons, Williams would've been only 30 HR or so short of Ruth. He would've topped Ruth in RBI, Runs, and BB.

Not to mention Williams would have topped Ruth in hits, by a very wide margin.

[csh19792001]

That is true but too often the fact that Ruth a slugger also put a great distance between himself and the rest of the league in batting average.

It just shows what a great combination hitter/slugger he was. You have a slugger going for the longball competing for batting average with the rest of the league with probably 90 percent of them going to the plate just trying to make contact. Now in the very late 1920s and early 1930s there were more hitters going for the long ball but overall most of his career his competition was the contact hitters.

I think we might all agree it's usually the contact hitters with the high career batting averages, few exceptions Ruth, Gehrig, Williams maybe a few more, sluggers and high batting average. From 1960 to the present, high career averages, Gwynn, Clemente, Boggs, Carew only Clemente with 240 home runs could be considered a long ball hitter. Lets not only focus on Ruth and his home run hitting but also look at his career batting average.

While Ruth and the gap between the hitters in his time in AB/HR ratio is understandable he still has the second best AB/HR ratio of all time 11.76. Only McGwire is ahead at 10.61 and he had many less at bats and made his biggest gain in AB/HR ratio after 1995 when all of baseball began hitting home runs like never before.

Ruth, Williams a close call. It's always been my belief that both these guys are on anothe planet when the subject is greatest hiter/ slugger over a whole career. Take your pick.

This is all true, but for most people today, BA is incidental, and PRO+ is everything. Since Ruth has a huge built in advantage because of the league he was playing against, the BA portion becomes a sidebar in the argument.

Still, his average is incredible considering the free swinging- he was a complete freak of nature when it came to raw ability.

[csh19792001]

Now I will admit, WCF, that is the strongest argument one can make to put Williams over Ruth. This is what makes them closer than ever before - as hitters. You must also remember that Ruth lost a few years of batting to pitching. Not as big a loss as Williams had to the military, but a loss nonetheless. Also, Ruth's peak years are more impressive than Williams. Ruth set the records, with Williams we can only wonder what might have been, though your theory that we would've topped Ruth in RBI, Runs and BB is reasonable, I guess. Williams playing in a deeper talent pool? Perhaps. I happen to be a believer that it's what you accomplish against the talent of your day that counts, and Ruth did more than anybody else. We could also theorize that players like McGwire, Bonds and all of the modern-day players would've set all of the records had they played in the old days - but that's not fair to the legends of the game.
All things considered, I gotta give the edge to Ruth.

The strongest argument is not really that the league was not going for HR's/slugging, hence the "adjusted" numbers are terribly inflated; but rather, that the league itself was simply much stronger when Williams played, on the whole.

And while the faux "modernists" here constantly whine about/denigrate old timers/pre integration players competing against inferior competition (i.e- in our top 35 player polls), they never fail to make complete hypocrites out of themselves and place Ruth as A) the greatest hitter ever, and B) the greatest PLAYER ever, by far.

[csh19792001]

You must also remember that Ruth lost a few years of batting to pitching. Not as big a loss as Williams had to the military, but a loss nonetheless. Also, Ruth's peak years are more impressive than Williams. Ruth set the records, with Williams we can only wonder what might have been, though your theory that we would've topped Ruth in RBI, Runs and BB is reasonable, I guess. Williams playing in a deeper talent pool? Perhaps. I happen to be a believer that it's what you accomplish against the talent of your day that counts, and Ruth did more than anybody else. We could also theorize that players like McGwire, Bonds and all of the modern-day players would've set all of the records had they played in the old days - but that's not fair to the legends of the game.
All things considered, I gotta give the edge to Ruth.

Ruth did lose time as an outfielder, but he didn't really "lose" 5 years, like Williams did. And playing as a full time outfielder would have cut into his rate stats bigtime- just look at 1918 (the last deadball year) as an example. Not Ruthian, because everything had not yet been shifted WAY into favor of the offensive side of the game yet.

While pitching either part time or fulltime, from 1914-19, Ruth played 391 games, scored 202 runs, knocked in 230, and had 342 hits. .308/.416/.568

In Ted's 5 missing seasons (3 right in his prime), he played a grand total of 43 games.

[therealnod]

This is all true, but for most people today, BA is incidental, and PRO+ is everything. Since Ruth has a huge built in advantage because of the league he was playing against, the BA portion becomes a sidebar in the argument.

Still, his average is incredible considering the free swinging- he was a complete freak of nature when it came to raw ability.

I think it's a stretch to call Ruth a free swinger.

[csh19792001]

I think it's a stretch to call Ruth a free swinger.

Everything here is wrapped in context of their times. The relative BA comment is apropos to Ruth's context.

When Ruth retired, he had almost TWICE as many strikeouts as the next player. Considering the rates at which people K'd, that's an enormus margin.

Ruth's strikeout record lasted well into the 1960's, after 30 years of power hitters to come and go. So, not in TODAY'S game would he be considered a free swinger, but we're not talking about today.

[therealnod]

Everything here is wrapped in context of their times. The relative BA comment is apropos to Ruth's context.

When Ruth retired, he had almost TWICE as many strikeouts as the next player. Considering the rates at which people K'd, that's an enormus margin.

Ruth's strikeout record lasted well into the 1960's, after 30 years of power hitters to come and go. So, not in TODAY'S game would he be considered a free swinger, but we're not talking about today.

He also took over the career lead in BB's in 1930, and held onto that for 70 years. We don't have the relevant play by play data, but I'd be willing to bet that Ruth saw plenty of pitches per plate appearance. Free swingers don't see many.

[westsidegrounds]

If your lifetime BA is the tenth-best ever - only three points below Tris Speaker's, to name an outstanding "small ball" player - then you certainly have no reason to fear swinging for the fences.

BA, altho an obviously imperfect stat, needs to be remembered in this context. Ruth wasn't a guy who either homered or struck out. He wasn't just a great slugger. He was a great great hitter.

[WillieMaysHayes]

Ruth did lose time as an outfielder, but he didn't really "lose" 5 years, like Williams did. And playing as a full time outfielder would have cut into his rate stats bigtime- just look at 1918 (the last deadball year) as an example. Not Ruthian, because everything had not yet been shifted WAY into favor of the offensive side of the game yet.

While pitching either part time or fulltime, from 1914-19, Ruth played 391 games, scored 202 runs, knocked in 230, and had 342 hits. .308/.416/.568

In Ted's 5 missing seasons (3 right in his prime), he played a grand total of 43 games.

I kinda think you posting Ruths offensive stats as a pitcher actually helps Ruths case.
How many guys were putting up those kind of rate stats from 1914-1919?
Also, I think he would have done better(rate stats included) had he been a fulltime hitter during those years.
That being said, its still a toss-up.

[torez77]

And while the faux "modernists" here constantly whine about/denigrate old timers/pre integration players competing against inferior competition (i.e- in our top 35 player polls), they never fail to make complete hypocrites out of themselves and place Ruth as A) the greatest hitter ever, and B) the greatest PLAYER ever, by far.

I try to avoid doing this as much as possible. Comparing the pre-integration players to today's much-better-conditioned, and yes sometimes juiced-up players is like comparing knives to guns. I try to avoid saying Barry Bonds would hit 100 HRs every year if he played in Ruth's era, because that's not fair to Ruth. I've heard analysts say, and even some people on this board, present stats that say Ruth would hit 80-90 HRs a year if he played today. Not fair to Bonds (steroids aside). The same can be said for Ty Cobb vs. Tony Gwynn. Would Gwynn hit .450 or .500 every year in Cobb's era? Not fair to Cobb, and vice versa. No one knows, and the best we can do is speculate. What else is left to do? Look at what really happened. And it seems the consensus is the old-time players are occupying most of the top spots when we rank all-time players. So it seems like most people aren't taking the huge era differences into account. Why should they? Why should they say John Smoltz is better than Walter Johnson? It's not anywhere close to being supported by the numbers.

[csh19792001]

If your lifetime BA is the tenth-best ever - only three points below Tris Speaker's, to name an outstanding "small ball" player - then you certainly have no reason to fear swinging for the fences.

BA, altho an obviously imperfect stat, needs to be remembered in this context. Ruth wasn't a guy who either homered or struck out. He wasn't just a great slugger. He was a great great hitter.

Speaker was no small ball player- look at his extra base hits and doubles- then look at his strikeout/walk ratio to boot.

Ruth was an incredible hitter- but I still see him as a free swinger (in the context of his time).

[csh19792001]

I try to avoid doing this as much as possible. Comparing the pre-integration players to today's much-better-conditioned, and yes sometimes juiced-up players is like comparing knives to guns. I try to avoid saying Barry Bonds would hit 100 HRs every year if he played in Ruth's era, because that's not fair to Ruth. I've heard analysts say, and even some people on this board, present stats that say Ruth would hit 80-90 HRs a year if he played today. Not fair to Bonds (steroids aside). The same can be said for Ty Cobb vs. Tony Gwynn. Would Gwynn hit .450 or .500 every year in Cobb's era? Not fair to Cobb, and vice versa. No one knows, and the best we can do is speculate. What else is left to do? Look at what really happened. And it seems the consensus is the old-time players are occupying most of the top spots when we rank all-time players. So it seems like most people aren't taking the huge era differences into account. Why should they? Why should they say John Smoltz is better than Walter Johnson? It's not anywhere close to being supported by the numbers.

I agree with you, and you make very good points, amigo. :)

Ask Cubbieinexile, Mac195, and Leecemark (unless we're talking about Ruth) why modern players should be taken into consideration over oldtimers despite their numbers almost always not being on par with that of old timers. They've been the three most vocal proponents of this sentiment you're talking about- over the past few months in the position player polls.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Williams missed almost 5 years due to his service in the armed forces. Given reasonable stats for those seasons, Williams would've been only 30 HR or so short of Ruth. He would've topped Ruth in RBI, Runs, and BB.


True Ted's number would have been higher if not for those 5 seasons in the military. If he did get in those 5 seasons he may have topped Ruth in some other stats but Ruth would probably have a higher percentage of RBIs, runs per at bat and a better AB/HR ratio.

Ted may have missed those 5 seasons but if you compare the career at bats, it's Ruth 8399 and Ted 7706, thats a difference of 693 at bats. Remember Ruth may not have lost full seasons but he was a pitcher only for 3 full seasons 1915-16-17 and batting every 4th or 5th day, not the greatest for keeping you timing at the plate.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Ruth wins in black and grey ink, OPS+, and raw numbers.

However, there are a few arguments one can make for Ted Williams. First off, Ted Williams played in a deeper and intergrated (for most of his career) league. Scouting was advancing and blacks represented a new source of talent.

The other big argument is that Ruth started off playing the slugging game all by himself. Just look at the gaps between Ruth and second place finisher in HR.

Its a well known fact that Babe Ruth outhomered entire teams during a season. The question is, was Babe Ruth that much better or was the rest of the league still playing small ball in a live ball era? When we see the league close in on Ruth, the answer becomes evident. Ruth's relative stats are given an extreme boost because he was one of only a handful of players to play a "slugger's game" in the 1920's.

That may be true but lets not compare Ruth to the hitters in his time in the home run and slugging department, that takes away from the point in this issue. What if the league was integrated then. It would only mean he would have more competition then, would not be as dominant. It does not mean he could not put up those numbers

I'm not discussing relative stats, take Ruth out of his era and he still shines 70+ years after he has left the game. Sure we're seeing 50, 60 and even 70 home runs today but look how the game has changed, the ball, the strike zone and smaller parks. Even at that only one slugger in todays game has a better AB/HR ratio than Ruth, McGwire and Ruth had many more career at bats than Mac. Look at the 50 and 60 home run seasons in the history of the game until 1995, it's common now, 40 and 50 have lost their value.

You bring up the fact that Ruth had that wide gap in home runs against the league in his time and I agree he was going for the long ball. Still he was far ahead of the league in batting average, competing with all those contact hitters and he was going for the long ball.

Again, forget about the competition in his time, compare him to any era, he shines even today.

[torez77]

I agree with you, and you make very good points, amigo. :)

Ask Cubbieinexile, Mac195, and Leecemark (unless we're talking about Ruth) why modern players should be taken into consideration over oldtimers despite their numbers almost always not being on par with that of old timers. They've been the three most vocal proponents of this sentiment you're talking about- over the past few months in the position player polls.

Don't get me wrong. I think the era differences should be accounted for to an extent. I think comparing Ruth to Bonds (disregarding the roids) or Williams to Bonds can make for interesting arguments, making one think that Bonds has the edge because he plays in a tougher time period so that gives him the tiebreaker. On the other hand, many people might say that Ruth and Williams would feast on the smaller strike zone and put up even bigger numbers than Bonds. Another close comparison from totally different eras is Pedro Martinez vs. Walter Johnson. John Smoltz, on the other hand, doesn't have nearly good enough stats to be considered better than Johnson in my view. If the comparisons are close, sometimes era difference can be used as the tiebreaker.

These are the things I consider when comparing players, but I'm not saying everyone should do it that way.

When comparing Ruth vs. Williams, the gap between eras isn't all that big. Ruth retired in '35, Williams started in '39. While the game was changing year by year and the talent pool getting deeper, it's just not a strong enough case for Williams to put him ahead of Ruth IMO. When considering that small era difference, I look at OPS+ and Babe has Ted beat by a good margin, so that settles it for me.

[Edgartohof]

This is all true, but for most people today, BA is incidental, and PRO+ is everything. Since Ruth has a huge built in advantage because of the league he was playing against, the BA portion becomes a sidebar in the argument. .

Actually, I have hardly ever seen anyone use PRO+. It may very well be better (I actually have no idea), but do not say that it is used more when clearly it is not.

Still, his average is incredible considering the free swinging- he was a complete freak of nature when it came to raw ability.

I would have to agree here

[leecemark]

--Chris, I think you are seriously misrepresenting my position on era adjustments. I absolutely believe the average player has gotten better over time. Scouting has improved and the talent pool has expanded by a much greater amount than expansion could possibly dilute. However, I don't think that the best players today are neccessarily better. The very best players (excepting those with darker skin) have probably always found their way to the majors.
--What I adjust for is the relative ease of the best players separating from the pack. Being 50% better than the league in 1910 or 30 is not as impressive to me as being 40% better than the league in 1950 or 70.
--You should check your facts before calling others hypocrites simply because they disagree with you. My 3rd and 4th ranked players (Wagner and Cobb) played before Ruth and about half my top 20 played before integration. There is no double standard for the Babe. I don't think Mac195 or Cubbieinexile have a separate standard for Ruth either.

[Windy City Fan]

I agree with Mark and others in that there has to be some sort of timeline adjustment. Baseball in the early 20th century barely scouted the western half of the country, let along black players and the other corners of the globe we now cover. Of course, arguments can be made that baseball now has a lot more competition for athletes and the league has almost doubled in size.

Raw era adjustment is a small consideration between Ruth and Williams. There isn't a huge gap, though Williams did play most of his years in an intergrated league. The bigger story to me is that Ruth has a huge edge in stats like relative OBP, SLG, and of course OPS. Ruth was playing an OPS style game, take walks and swing for the fences. Now Ruth was also a great hitter and could hit for average.

But during the twenties only a small, small handful of players were playing a style that went for OPS. When great sluggers like Ty Cobb (and almost every other established deadball star that played into the 20's) are content to punch singles and doubles when they could've hit the long ball, the overall league's SLG is going to artificially depressed compared to what it could've been if everyone was playing the modern "Ruthian" style of play.

So yes Ruth has a 17 point edge in OPS+, but when he was only competing against a very small handful of players for OPS, that gap can be explained away. Williams played when everyone played the Ruthian game.

All that said, I feel Ruth was still the best hitter of his day and would've led the league regardless of how many players were playing "his" game. But his relative stats would've come down a bit. Just to put things into context, Ruth out homered entire teams. For Williams to do that in his best year (1941) he would've needed 48 HR. Certainly doable.

For Ruth to outhomer a team in his best year (1921), he would've only needed 18 HR. Its pretty obvious certain teams just hadn't figured out how effective Ruth's style of game was. Even in 1927, people were still a little slow on the draw. Ruth would've needed a mere 27 homers to out do the an entire team in the AL. 40 HR would've out done 7 teams in 1927! You have to put some sort of discount on Ruth's relative stats.

Both men were great hitters - clearly the two best ever. But Williams did almost as much as Ruth against a deeper league when everyone was playing the same style of game. Ruth was a pioneer playing against people who didn't realize just how revolutionary Ruth's style was. When ranking all time players, that is enough - combined with his pitching exploits - to make Ruth better than Williams (plus Ruth could field and run better), but as far as pure hitting goes, Williams was the greatest.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

There seems to be too much emphasis on Ruth and the competition in his time and not enough on Ruth and all era's by some others. Thats a valid point but still over done, as I say take him out of his era and compare him to others.

It's often said Ruth was the pioneer of the home run but getting into the 1930s others proved they could duplicate Ruth and his 40 and 50 home run seasons. Names often brought up, Hack Wilson, Jimmie foxx and Hank Greenberg, the big guns in the 1930s.

It's true near the end of Ruth's career these guys showed they could put up some big numbers, close to some of Ruth's best, but how often, again Ruth shows what he's made of when the subject is home runs.

I added the total of all seasons that Wilson, Foxx, Greenberg played at least 130 games, many of them were 140+ and 150+ game seasons. All three combined had a total of 25 seasons with at least 130 games.

I took all of Ruth's seasons where he played at least 130 games. Ruth had 13 seasons with at least 130 games.

Checked to see how many 40 and 50 home runs they had in those seasons.

___________________________________40 home runs_____50 home runs
Wilson-Foxx- Greenberg 25 seasons______6 times__________4 times
Ruth_________________13 seasons______7 times_________4 times

You have 3 sluggers in the high powered 1930s with almost double the seasons and Ruth hit 40 one more time than all 3 combined and 50 just as many times.

Only a fluke stopped Ruth from a 5th season with 50 home runs. April 15, 1930 Ruth hit a ball that cleared the wall at Shibe Park but struck a speaker support and bounced back to the playing field. There was no ground rule to cover this one. The Yanks lost this argument, Ruth credited with a double. September 26, 1930, same season again he clears the wall and strikes the same speaker supports, another double. He finished that season with 49 home runs.

Kind of strayed off my main point here, the fact that Ruth playing in less seasons than the combined seasons of Wilson, Foxx and Greenberg matches them in 40 and 50 home run seasons.

[Windy City Fan]

Oh, I agree Ruth is world's better than Wilson, Greenberg, or Foxx. But this thread isn't comparing Ruth to Wilson, Greenberg, or Foxx. It compares him to Ted Williams.

Now Williams couldn't outslug Ruth, but he had a better batting eye and he almost half as many strikeouts. Williams won two triple crowns (Ruth never won a triple crown). Williams batted .400 and was the last person to ever do so. Ruth was 57 points above the league in batting average, Williams was 67 points better. We've already covered why Ruth had such an edge in relative SLG, but Williams had 8 SlG titles. If you don't count the seasons he missed due to WW II, 7 of them were in a row. It's quite possible Willaims would've had ten straight slugging titles. Heck, its certainly feasible, and I'd say likely, he would've won the title in '52 and '53. In 1954, he would've won it if he had registered enough at bats or if the league used plate appearances over at bats like we do now.

For OBP (again not counting war years against him), Williams would've won ever title between 1940 and 1958 with the lone exception of 1955 (he was apparently injured and didn't qualify).

Ruth has some great runs for titles two, but the point is Williams is right up there with him. And Williams never had a guy like Gehrig providing lineup protection.

[Bill Burgess]

While the stats posted by Babe Ruth are very great indeed, some of the factors which alllowed him to achieve them were not available to suceeding generations, and one of those is Ted Williams.

1. Babe enjoyed a RF foul line of 252 ft. at the Polo Grounds, 1920-22. Yankee Stadium, 1923-34, 296 ft.

2. The pitchers from Babe's era were not as fast as later eras. So Babe got to tee off on 75-90 mph fastballs.

3. Babe was smart enough to hit to LF to discourage any shifts against him. Ted wasn't intellegent to hit to LF and clear his power field.

4. 1919-1938 featured a hugely inflated ball, which 1938-1992 hitters never got to swing at. This also inflated Babe's fellow hitters, like Gehrig, etc.

5. During Babe's era, the league featured hitters who protected their BA., at the expense of their SLG. Ave. Ted's peers went for homers. Once and for all, Babe isn't 9th on the all time BA list. He is 29th. Williams is fifth. Unindexed, raw numbers AREN'T APPROPRIATE for discussions of this level.

6. During Babe's times, the fielders gloves were so god-awful. They were still very bad for most of Williams era. The gloves didn't get good until around 1955, so Ted had 5 yrs. where the leagues' defenders could stop balls much easier than in Ruth's day.

Summary: As happened, Babe Ruth's numbers are the best. How and why they got so good is largely Babe's superior skills, but also to a large extent, the playing conditions were not level.

And even considering Babe's superior skills, God gave him better tools of eyesight, hand-eye coordination, reflexes, strength, etc. To a small extent, I praise Babe for the courage to be a pioneer.

Bill Burgess

[Windy City Fan]

So where's your vote Bill? Rating strictly as a hitter, who is better in your book?

[Bill Burgess]

Windy,

Hmm. Who's the better hitter? I don't know. Both are so skilled. If I were a manager, I would rather have Babe Ruth on my team, than Ted. By the way, I loved your post # 31. Excellent insights. Making my arguments better than I can. I love/hate that. I must improve.

Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

I love Ted's plate discipline/judgement, and also love Babe's ability to center most any pitch on the sweet spot and pull the trigger.

I do feel that if Babe had to hit today, he'd have to switch to a lighter model bat, and use bat speed with a much tighter, compact stroke, over his old big swing. He could never have gotten around on a 100 mph pitch.


Bill Burgess

[Windy City Fan]

You're dodging the question, Bill. We're not talking who would you rather have on your team - then issues like personality, fielding, and baserunning can come into consideration (along with Ruth's pitching talents). This thread is strictly for comparing them as hitters - only one aspect of the game. Is Ruth still your guy when just looking at what they can do with a stick?

And thanks for the compliments. Coming from a veteran poster such as yourself, that is nice to hear.

[Bill Burgess]

Well, if cornered, I think Babe Ruth is the greatest slugger ever produced, and a better hitter than Ted Williams. But I don't think it's a runaway. But I think he still maintains a qualitative edge.

But I do doubt if Babe could have sustained his edge, without the uneven playing conditions that he had. An entire league caught totally unprepared to adjust to modern hitting stategies, better RF foul line, softer pitching, inflated balls, lousy defender's gloves, etc.

But as what DID happen, regardless of how or why, I'd take Babe.

Bill Burgess

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I try to avoid doing this as much as possible. Comparing the pre-integration players to today's much-better-conditioned, and yes sometimes juiced-up players is like comparing knives to guns. I try to avoid saying Barry Bonds would hit 100 HRs every year if he played in Ruth's era, because that's not fair to Ruth. I've heard analysts say, and even some people on this board, present stats that say Ruth would hit 80-90 HRs a year if he played today. Not fair to Bonds (steroids aside). The same can be said for Ty Cobb vs. Tony Gwynn. Would Gwynn hit .450 or .500 every year in Cobb's era? Not fair to Cobb, and vice versa. No one knows, and the best we can do is speculate. What else is left to do? Look at what really happened. And it seems the consensus is the old-time players are occupying most of the top spots when we rank all-time players. So it seems like most people aren't taking the huge era differences into account. Why should they? Why should they say John Smoltz is better than Walter Johnson? It's not anywhere close to being supported by the numbers.

This is an interesting post becasue it's something I've though about for years. When we say Babe Ruth is the "greatest" player ever what do we mean? Do we mean:

1) Ruth dominated his era like no other player dominated their era before and after him.

2) Ruth was the highest skilled baseball player in baseball history and that he would donimate any era.

Number 1 can be argued from a sabermetic perspective by looking at runs created, Win Shares, OPS+, Linear Weight and various other sabermetic systems. No one to date can conclusively prove number 2 though. How can we prove that had Ruth played in say the year 1905 or 1955 of 1995 that he would dominate those eras. Until then how can we say that Ruth was the best player ever? Oh, we can speculate about how he would do in other eras but we really don't know. Baseball greatness is only obvious after several years of playing. And greatness is strictly determined by statistics. And most of us on this board know that baseball statistics can be highly skewed. So is Ruth the greatest ever because he was the most skilled or because he had the good fortune to be born at just the right time. I'm a huge Honus Wagner fan. I've read a lot about him and I believe that had he been born in 1894 (Ruth was born in 1895) instead of 1874 he would be considered the greatest player today. Wagner was a great athlete and had enormous strength. He hit 450 ft HRs in the dead ball era. Ed Barrow stated emphatically that he believed that had Wagner played in the 1920s he would have hit 50 HRs every year.

As for Ted Williams if it hadn't been for WW II and Korea there would be no argument as to who would have been considered the greatest player. HE would have had about 700 HRs, 3600-3700 hits, 2500 BB, 2300 runs, etc...

[SHOELESSJOE3]

would be no argument as to who would have been considered the greatest player. HE would have had about 700 HRs, 3600-3700 hits, 2500 BB, 2300 runs, etc...

Thats a probability Honus and a good one. Look at it another way, what if Ruth did not spend 3 full seasons as a pitcher only, batting every 4th or 5th day. It was the dead ball era and I realize his home run total may not have been as high as the live ball era but his hit total and even home run total would have been higher. Probably some of his percentage stats would have suffered but since we're all students of this game I doubt we would not have to consider that fact when putting his numbers next to Ted's, his time in the dead ball era.

Ted lost some good seasons but as I stated earlier they are not that far away in career at bats, Ruth had 693 more at bats. Both these hitters lost some time, Ruth not 5 full seasons but he did lose some while on the mound in those 3 seasons,1915-16-17.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Oh, I agree Ruth is world's better than Wilson, Greenberg, or Foxx. But this thread isn't comparing Ruth to Wilson, Greenberg, or Foxx. It compares him to Ted Williams.

Ruth has some great runs for titles two, but the point is Williams is right up there with him. And Williams never had a guy like Gehrig providing lineup protection.

The reason I compared Ruth to Wilson, Foxx and Greenberg was to show that he not only dominated those in the 1920s, understandable because he was one of the few long ball hitters, but also was more than a match for those who came later. For one man to equal the total of those 3 in 40 and 50 home run seasons shows he had no equal as a consistent home run hitter and still carried a .342 lifetime.

Gehrig, what hitter would not want him following him in the batting order. Take a look at Ruth's stats before Gehrig folowed him. His best batting average, runs scored, total bases, EBHs, seasons with 54 and 59 home runs, Gehrig just made him better. If you think Barry Bonds OBA has been high over the last 4 seasons imagine the walks Ruth would have ended up with, his OBA would have been in orbit. Yes his cumulative stats would have gone down, but look at the possibility of his career OBA off the chart.


I will deal later with Ruth's total of home runs while playing at the Polo Grounds and the short RF line. I've posted it before but for those who did not see it, you might be surprised at where Ruth hit most of his home runs there, very few into that lower RF deck, very few.

[Bill Burgess]

This is an interesting post becasue it's something I've though about for years. When we say Babe Ruth is the "greatest" player ever what do we mean? Do we mean:

1) Ruth dominated his era like no other player dominated their era before and after him.

2) Ruth was the highest skilled baseball player in baseball history and that he would donimate any era.

Number 1 can be argued from a sabermetic perspective by looking at runs created, Win Shares, OPS+, Linear Weight and various other sabermetic systems. No one to date can conclusively prove number 2 though. How can we prove that had Ruth played in say the year 1905 or 1955 of 1995 that he would dominate those eras. Until then how can we say that Ruth was the best player ever? Oh, we can speculate about how he would do in other eras but we really don't know. Baseball greatness is only obvious after several years of playing. And greatness is strictly determined by statistics. And most of us on this board know that baseball statistics can be highly skewed. So is Ruth the greatest ever because he was the most skilled or because he had the good fortune to be born at just the right time. I'm a huge Honus Wagner fan. I've read a lot about him and I believe that had he been born in 1894 (Ruth was born in 1895) instead of 1874 he would be considered the greatest player today. Wagner was a great athlete and had enormous strength. He hit 450 ft HRs in the dead ball era. Ed Barrow stated emphatically that he believed that had Wagner played in the 1920s he would have hit 50 HRs every year.

This is an incisive insight, Honus. I think it is obvious that if we switch Babe to any other era, Babe loses his greatest advantages. A league unwilling to fight the modern game. As a pioneer, he was gifted with a stat separation that would have been impossible to duplicate in any other set of circumstances. So his humongous stat separation was locked in for all time, with no other hitters so gifted by a baffled league.

It has always remained a mystery, how Babe would have fared if we moved him back in time. But . . . I just noticed something interesting. In 1918, playing OF partime, Babe hit 11 HRs. Good enough for tying fof his league lead. But . . . he hit ALL of them at away parks! He hit none at Fenway Park. Interestingly, at that time Fenway featured a power alley of over 500 feet. Which explains why Babe hit only 9 homers there in 1919, and 20 on the road.

So with quick arithmatic, in 1918, Babe hit 11 HRs in 172 ABs, for a HR every 15.63 ABs. That is the last deadball season we have for Babe. 1919 began the Live Ball era. One in which virtually no one was ready for, prepared to adjust to, or mentally willing to change their lifetime of strategic/tactical approach towards. Except one man. Babe Ruth.

So . . . if Babe had been swinging full time at the deadball, at a ballpark of standard dimensions, averaging a HR for every 15.63 ABs, he would have hit 31 HRs, for a 500 ABs season. I assume he probably would have garnered around 100 BBs out of pitcher fear/respect. 600 PA, 500 ABs, 100 BBs, 31 HRs.

I think that I must reassess my former appraisal of Babe. I have said before that if Babe had come up in earlier eras, he'd never have forced the conversion away from the mound. I now change that. 31 HRs per season would have forced him off the mound and into the garden, as an OF.

Calculator says: 8399 ABs divided by 15.63 = 537 "deadball" HRs. But . . . if the league had never converted to "live ball", would anyone else ever had gotten more that 130? Possibly not. Babe may not have inspired others to follow in his footsteps, and emulated his new approach. Impossible to know, of course.

Much would have depended on the league's pitchers, of course. How they approached him. Too many of the league's pitchers never figured out that Babe was a fastball hitter, due to their lack of being able to throw over 90 mph pitches, as they did later. Babe could time a 88 mph fastball, coming in straight, and tee off on it. He had less sucess with slow, twisting junk. Couldn't slam Cicotte, Pruett, Hubbell, and never got a chance against NLers Matty or Alexander. Damn it!! That would have been great.

And Babe never got to hit against some of the best pitchers, who were on his team. The BoSox pitchers, Dutch Leonard, Sam Jones, Carl Mays, Herb Pennock, Joe Bush, were on his team. And then joined him on the Yankees! Don't know how he did against Urban Shocker.

I think it is very clear, that if we separate Babe from his historic advantages, we separate him from his claim to the title of greatest ever.

By the same token, if we hypothetically liberate either Cobb/Wagner from their slavery to the "deadball" era, and transpose their stats accordingly, they stand to shine as the greatest players ever. Their arsenal of skills, across the boards, might have to be modified, of course, but they only gain in stats, while Babe diminishes, once we strip him of his live ball lifeline.

But that's only hypothetical. As per what did happen, Ruth's stats were locked in, and we have to live with what did happen. Not what surely would have.


Bill Burgess

[torez77]

Bill - first of all, I promise I won't get into it with you like I did before. I'm sure you remember our debate on Ruth vs. Cobb before. First of all, I want to say that you are much more knowledgeable about the game of baseball than I am, because of extensive research. I don't bother to read many books about baseball's history except for stats. I'm a stat lover! I have gained more knowledge about era differences because of the knowledge that you and others here at Fever have given me. I thank you. I just want to touch on the point you made in your last post - essentially you said Cobb and Wagner are clearly better than Ruth if we consider deadball vs. lively ball era. In the past, I've told you why I disagree with this, but I'll rehash it briefly since I've returned to Fever and in case others may have forgotten my thoughts about it.
If you recall our debate a few months back, I told you my feelings on the deadball vs. lively ball era - the fact that deadball hitters like Cobb and Speaker (I'll use Speaker instead of Wagner since Wagner retired before the lively ball) played a good amount of years in the lively ball era and couldn't come close to Ruth's stats. If I recall correctly, your counterarguments were they were getting too old, they were too set in their deadball ways to adjust, or they were too stubborn to adjust. The "too old" argument was by far the weakest because many players play into their 30's and 40's and still perform. If they were too set in their deadball ways to adjust, that means the game transcended them, it is now a HR hitter's game, bye bye deadball, bye bye great hitters of the past. If they could have adjusted and were just too stubborn (this of course assuming they would have put up even better numbers than Ruth by your assessment, which is light years ahead of the numbers they actually put up), that demonstrates either total ignorance of what the best offensive weapon in baseball is, or bitterness that a new kid has come into town and embarrassed them, and an insistence on sticking with their old and outdated tools. Whatever the reason is - it does NOT make them better than Ruth. If I had to vote, my vote would slide more in favor of their inability to adjust, because I'm using only Cobb and Speaker as examples - this goes for all of the deadball hitters. Ruth was one of a kind. He changed the game because of his tremendous ability. You brought up a good point - Ruth hit the equivalent of what would be 31 HRs in the deadball era. Would he have hit 50 or 60 had he played in the deadball his whole career? Perhaps not, but he would've led the league in HRs every year. Let's not forget Ruth's .342 lifetime BA to go with those HRs. I read once that Ruth said he could hit .400 every year if he wasn't always going for HRs. Yeah, he tooted his own horn, but the fact that he could maintain a lifetime BA which ranks 9th all-time and combine that with monster HR power makes for a one-of-a-kind hitter. I don't see any other hitter like that in the all-time BA list, other than possibly Williams and Gehrig, but their HR power doesn't match up to Ruth's.
Anyhow, that's a rehash of some of the points I made before. Now Bill, I will admit you give good points to munch on, and I will admit Ruth had some advantages that the deadball hitters didn't. I also consider that the level of pitching wasn't as good in the 20's as in the 10's. Just when I think that may hold enough water to equate them with Ruth, I look at how the deadball hitters actually hit in the 20's, and I see Ruth head-and-shoulders above them all, and that reaffirms my previous feelings. Ruth's leading the league in virtually everything and winning championships, while the former league leaders are now on the outside looking in. Not even close.
Let's just assume for a moment that had Ruth played his whole career in the deadball era that Cobb and the best deadball hitters would have been better. Very possible, and I'm not going to argue, even though you, Bill, present the fact that he probably would've led the league in HRs every year in the deadball. So they might have had him beat every year in BA, but not in HRs. He also would've led in BBs. So there's a good chance he would've still led in OPS+. On the other hand, we see what actually happened when the best deadball hitters played a good-enough portion of their career in the lively ball, and they were no longer league leaders. Ruth was now king! TO EACH HIS OWN, and Ruth's OWN was stronger than Cobb's or Speaker's. All in all, this weakens the argument that the deadball hitters were stronger than the early lively ball hitters.
Some people feel differently about deadball vs. lively ball, and I respect every dedicated baseball fan's feelings on the matter. Since you're more knowledgeable than me about the details of the eras, that probably gives you more authority on the issue. Personally, I just don't see how the deadball-lively ball era argument makes Cobb and Wagner better hitters than Ruth, and now you know why I feel that way.
Anyway, this is a Ruth vs. Williams thread, and to me Ruth vs. Williams is a much closer comparison than Ruth vs. any of the deadball hitters.

[Bill Burgess]

Torez77,

Wow! That was a very excellent posting you just did. Thanks! I love articulate writers. And your writings now show good growth. You have come a long way, and are coming across much more matter-of-fact, and less biased than last year. I hope I am too, but I still sound far too shrill and biased when writing about the Bambino.

I will surprise you, torez77. I happen to agree with you on a lot of what you say. Sadly for both of us, a lot of what we need to know will never be available to us. I'd like to keep Cobb understated here and not pull it into another of the endless Cobb/Ruth debates. So I'll focus on Babe.

His record is a matter of history, and when I speculate how he might have done in another era, it is an unknowable speculation.

Here is an example. If Babe had come in around 1900, and was hitting 31 HRs a season, he would have been an umprecedented revolutionary pioneer then, just as later. Drop Babe from a plane, in any era, and he's gonna be great. So let's not minimize a phenomenal, one-of-a-kind player.

What we don't know is how the league will respond to him. Will they roll over, and play dead, like in 1920-34. Just ignore him and allow him to roll up the score, using his cutting-edge technique, the "grooved power swing." Or will they bear down more on him, feed him a diet of slow curves, changing speeds, pure junk. Will they pitch to him or work around him? A lot of a man's work consists not only of his own work, but how others respond to him.
And this we don't know! I am as ignorant of this as everyone else is, and thus cannot pontificate on what might have ensued.

In Babe's day, some of the best pitchers were on his own team, and thus he didn't have to face Carl Mays, Pennock, Sam Jones, Dutch Leonard, Joe Bush, etc.

Babe's record, his huge stat separation is to a very large extent, an historic anomaly, due to the league's non-participation in modern scoring strategies. Many, including you, always go wow at Babe's total separation from the pack. But this is understanable when we see that by 1934, few had hit over 20 HRs in a single season. A small handfull became famous. Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg, etc. got famous and benefitted from the same league, which refused to play Big Ball. From 1919-34, the ball is lively, but the leagues played for BA, and refused to swing big. So Gehrig, Foxx were also gifted with a huge, unwarranted stat separation. Which makes them far too lustrous, to this very day.

Torez77 - If you took the sluggers of that day, and dropped them into the 1950's -60's era, when all swung hard for the fences, the former sluggers would have done well, and led their leagues, probably, but nowhere near the stat separation. In the 50's, Mays and Aaron had a HELL of a time leading their leagues in the various power categories, because the competition was so damn stiff. And they could never separate like Ruth, due to how the league responded to power guys. From 1950 on, since the leagues had fully adjusted to the power game, Ruth's stats would have been fully absorbed, and his curve discounted appropriately. Lead league yes, achieve historic stat separation, highly doubtful. Possible? Maybe. Destined? Far from it.

Don't get me wrong here. Ruth was pre-disposed to lead his league in power, regardless of era. But leading a league and achieving a historic separation are two very different animals. Babe was not destined by fate to go into orbit, regardless of era. It was his leagues' refusal to face the NEW Dawn which allowed his stature to appear unwordly. Normally, his degree of superiority would and should have flattened out.

A brief word on Cobb/Wagner:
If these two had been dropped into an era post 1940, their gifts, as demonstated, should have allowed them to dominate any era. Given Cobb's demonstrated ability to hit 150% of his league's BA, and give him 35-40 HRs per, I would value his seasons, at a higher rate than Ruth's .370 BA with 45-55 HRs. Cobb's .410 with 35 HRs, to Ruth's .370 with 50 HRs. I give Cobb his .410 because the leagues were hitting much higher BA than when Cobb was playing. Cobb hitting .410 in the 40's & 50's, would be around 120% of the league, instead of 150%. So I'm knocking off 30% of his league lead, due to his going for more homers.


Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--WCF made the observation earlier that he thought Williams was a better hitter than Ruth, but Ruth was the better player due to his superior defense and baserunning. I don't neccessarily agree with that assesment, but it make me wonder how that would apply to someone who really was a great baserunner and defender.
--Ruth was a fairly good corner outfielder and baserunner as a young player. He was also a horrible liability in the outfield and on the basepaths as an older player. I think he was probably worse, even much worse, at both as in the second half of his career than Williams. How much more could he have contibuted over the life of his career at the non-hitting aspect s of the game than Williams?
--On the other hand, you take a guy like Willie Mays who is arguably the best defensive CF of all time and was also the best baserunner of his time. He has a huge advantage over both men in those categories. I won't attempt to argue he was as great a hitter as these two, but he certainly wasn't any slouch there either. He was hitting against a much tougher league than Ruth and a significantly better one than Williams. Ted played almost half his career pre-integration and the rest in a partially integrated AL. Willie played his entire career in the integrated NL of the 50s and 60s - which may well have been the highest level of baseball competition ever.
--Given all that, is there a reasonable arguement that Mays and not Ruth is the best player of all time?

[Bill Burgess]

Mark,

"--Given all that, is there a reasonable arguement that Mays and not Ruth is the best player of all time?"

I would say yes, there is an argument. Just as there is one for Cobb/Wagner/Bonds also. The thing is, while I would rank them in that order, most would not. Most Fever posters would not. They might feel that they would lose the argument to Babe.

Bill Burgess

[torez77]

Torez77,

Wow! That was a very excellent posting you just did. Thanks! I love articulate writers. And your writings now show good growth. You have come a long way, and are coming across much more matter-of-fact, and less biased than last year. I hope I am too, but I still sound far too shrill and biased when writing about the Bambino.

I will surprise you, torez77. I happen to agree with you on a lot of what you say. Sadly for both of us, a lot of what we need to know will never be available to us. I'd like to keep Cobb understated here and not pull it into another of the endless Cobb/Ruth debates. So I'll focus on Babe.

His record is a matter of history, and when I speculate how he might have done in another era, it is an unknowable speculation.

Here is an example. If Babe had come in around 1900, and was hitting 31 HRs a season, he would have been an umprecedented revolutionary pioneer then, just as later. Drop Babe from a plane, in any era, and he's gonna be great. So let's not minimize a phenomenal, one-of-a-kind player.

What we don't know is how the league will respond to him. Will they roll over, and play dead, like in 1920-34. Just ignore him and allow him to roll up the score, using his cutting-edge technique, the "grooved power swing." Or will they bear down more on him, feed him a diet of slow curves, changing speeds, pure junk. Will they pitch to him or work around him? A lot of a man's work consists not only of his own work, but how others respond to him.
And this we don't know! I am as ignorant of this as everyone else is, and thus cannot pontificate on what might have ensued.

In Babe's day, some of the best pitchers were on his own team, and thus he didn't have to face Carl Mays, Pennock, Sam Jones, Dutch Leonard, Joe Bush, etc.

Babe's record, his huge stat separation is to a very large extent, an historic anomaly, due to the league's non-participation in modern scoring strategies. Many, including you, always go wow at Babe's total separation from the pack. But this is understanable when we see that by 1934, few had hit over 20 HRs in a single season. A small handfull became famous. Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg, etc. got famous and benefitted from the same league, which refused to play Big Ball. From 1919-34, the ball is lively, but the leagues played for BA, and refused to swing big. So Gehrig, Foxx were also gifted with a huge, unwarranted stat separation. Which makes them far too lustrous, to this very day.

Torez77 - If you took the sluggers of that day, and dropped them into the 1950's -60's era, when all swung hard for the fences, the former sluggers would have done well, and led their leagues, probalby, but nowhere near the stat separation. In the 50's, Mays and Aaron had a HELL of a time leading their leagues in the various power categories, because the competition was so damn stiff. And they could never separate like Ruth, due to how the league responded to power guys. From 1950 on, since the leagues had fully adjusted to the power game, Ruth's stats would have been fully absorbed, and his curve discounted appropriately. Lead league yes, achieve historic stat separation, highly doubtful. Possible? Maybe. Destined? Far from it.

Don't get me wrong here. Ruth was pre-disposed to lead his league in power, regardless of era. But leading a league and achieving a historic separation are two very different animals. Babe was not destined by fate to go into orbit, regardless of era. It was his leagues' refusal to face the NEW Dawn which allowed his stature to appear unwordly. Normally, his degree of superiority would and should have flattened out.

A brief word on Cobb/Wagner:
If these two had been dropped into an era post 1940, their gifts, as demonstated, should have allowed them to dominate any era. Given Cobb's demonstrated ability to hit 150% of his league's BA, and give him 35-40 HRs per, I would value his seasons, at a higher rate than Ruth's .370 BA with 45-55 HRs. Cobb's .410 with 35 HRs, to Ruth's .370 with 50 HRs. I give Cobb his .410 because the leagues were hitting much higher BA than when Cobb was playing. Cobb hitting .410 in the 40's & 50's, would be around 120% of the league, instead of 150%. So I'm knocking of 30% of his league lead, due to his going for more homers.


Bill Burgess

I totally agree with you, Bill, that Ruth would not have achieved the same heights had he played in a later era. Common sense tells anybody that, though some people say he would've achieved even greater heights, but I don't buy that. Nor do I buy that Cobb would've hit .410 with 35 HRs post-1940. This is where you seem a little biased, Bill. You assume Cobb would've achieved greater heights playing in a later era, but Ruth would not have. Again, the fact that Ruth blew Cobb away when they played at the same time, in the same league and against virtually the same pitching (Dutch Leonard pitched for Bos and Det, never for NY, Sam Jones and Joe Bush weren't dominant pitchers, so this pitching argument seems like grasping for straws), has to be considered in my view. Your numbers seem well thought out, but with a tinge of bias and unrealism.

[Bill Burgess]

Ruth/Williams:

Aside from their hitting, I feel Babe had the better attitude towards his work.

In the batter's box, Babe hit to LF whenever they tried to shift on him. So Babe had the common sense to keep his power field clear of shifting. Ted did not.

Babe also had a better attitude towards his work in the field. Although later plagued with weight problems, Babe never had a cavalier attitude towards any balls batted his way. His quick reflexes allowed him a good jump, but he lacked the next gear. He couldn't build up momentum, acceleration.

But that was not his fault. Even as a young player, he lacked the explosive fast-twitch muscles types. But that never stopped him from doing the utmost that he could do. He never failed to hustle hard after batted balls his way, and make the most of his potential, whatever that was.

So, I must cite Babe's commendable approach to his work. I wish I could say the same for Ted. Babe may have stunk as a base runner, but at least he could say that he gave it a shot. He tried his best, which Ted cannot claim on the bases.

Bill Burgess

[csh19792001]

Actually, I have hardly ever seen anyone use PRO+. It may very well be better (I actually have no idea), but do not say that it is used more when clearly it is not.



I would have to agree here

Hi Edgartohof-
PRO+ is actually OPS+, if I'm not mistaken.

[csh19792001]

--WCF made the observation earlier that he thought Williams was a better hitter than Ruth, but Ruth was the better player due to his superior defense and baserunning. I don't neccessarily agree with that assesment, but it make me wonder how that would apply to someone who really was a great baserunner and defender.
--Ruth was a fairly good corner outfielder and baserunner as a young player. He was also a horrible liability in the outfield and on the basepaths as an older player. I think he was probably worse, even much worse, at both as in the second half of his career than Williams. How much more could he have contibuted over the life of his career at the non-hitting aspect s of the game than Williams?
--On the other hand, you take a guy like Willie Mays who is arguably the best defensive CF of all time and was also the best baserunner of his time. He has a huge advantage over both men in those categories. I won't attempt to argue he was as great a hitter as these two, but he certainly wasn't any slouch there either. He was hitting against a much tougher league than Ruth and a significantly better one than Williams. Ted played almost half his career pre-integration and the rest in a partially integrated AL. Willie played his entire career in the integrated NL of the 50s and 60s - which may well have been the highest level of baseball competition ever.
--Given all that, is there a reasonable arguement that Mays and not Ruth is the best player of all time?

Mark-
Great post. The answer is yes- in fact, despite dedicating what seems like years arguing over Cobb vs. Ruth, and hearing all the best arguments for both players, I'm strongly considering Mays was the greatest player who ever lived. This is especially since we now know the truth about Barry Bonds (who was the only other viable candidate from the last 50 or so years.)

[torez77]

Yes, arguments can be made for Mays over Ruth, and I apologize for almost turning this into another Ruth-Cobb thread. I said I wouldn't, so I'll stop now (arguments can be made for both players, so I'll let it rest there). I've always thought Mays may well have been the best all-around player ever. I'm willing to discuss this on the "Better than Babe" thread. This thread should go back to Ruth vs. Williams.

[ElHalo]

--WCF made the observation earlier that he thought Williams was a better hitter than Ruth, but Ruth was the better player due to his superior defense and baserunning. I don't neccessarily agree with that assesment, but it make me wonder how that would apply to someone who really was a great baserunner and defender.
--Ruth was a fairly good corner outfielder and baserunner as a young player. He was also a horrible liability in the outfield and on the basepaths as an older player. I think he was probably worse, even much worse, at both as in the second half of his career than Williams. How much more could he have contibuted over the life of his career at the non-hitting aspect s of the game than Williams?
--On the other hand, you take a guy like Willie Mays who is arguably the best defensive CF of all time and was also the best baserunner of his time. He has a huge advantage over both men in those categories. I won't attempt to argue he was as great a hitter as these two, but he certainly wasn't any slouch there either. He was hitting against a much tougher league than Ruth and a significantly better one than Williams. Ted played almost half his career pre-integration and the rest in a partially integrated AL. Willie played his entire career in the integrated NL of the 50s and 60s - which may well have been the highest level of baseball competition ever.
--Given all that, is there a reasonable arguement that Mays and not Ruth is the best player of all time?

Depends on how highly you value outfield defense.

As to Ruth / Williams... Williams was, supposedly, a Manny Ramirez level defender and baserunner for his entire career. Ruth was that bad for the last four or five years of his career, but certainly not much worse... he wasn't a quadrapleagic. And he was pretty good up until 1930 or so. There really isn't, in my view, any way of saying that Ruth's baserunning/ defense wasn't worth more than Ted's. At Babe's worst, he might have been slightly worse than Teddy's average... but that worst level only lasted from 1931 through the end of his career. Overall, I give Ruth about as much credit on those two things as I give Paullie O'Neal... not bad, not great, but useful at both. I give Ted about as much credit as I give Manny Ramirez... i.e., should be a D.H.

[ElHalo]

As to the Mays/ Ruth thing... I don't really think so. Baserunning is important, and Mays was a great baserunner. Not an all time baserunner, though. Probably not the best of his era (I give that to Mantle, even though Mays was a better base stealer). And his glove was, no doubt, outstanding.

But look at things this way: Tris Speaker was, most would say, a better defender than Mays. Speaker was a better hitter than Mays (Mays obviously has the HR's, but even at that, Speaker wins in OPS+). Mays was a better baserunner than Speaker, but not by leaps and bounds. The only thing putting Mays ahead of Speaker is a timeline advantage.

If you took away the fact that Speaker played 90 years ago, would you call him better than Babe Ruth? I don't think so. They played at the same time, and nobody really called Speaker better than Ruth (Yes, Bill, I'm sure you can dig up some names, but which one went into the Hall first?). So why should Mays be different?

[Bill Burgess]

Jim,

"They played at the same time, and nobody really called Speaker better than Ruth (Yes, Bill, I'm sure you can dig up some names, but which one went into the Hall first?). So why should Mays be different?"

Now, now Jim. I do not ever recall saying that Grey Eagle, was better than Ruth. But since you and others are calling historic things into question, and re-evaluating stuff, I feel compelled to offer my top 10 guys, just to show hisortic perspective. Note: I had Barry Bonds down in 4th position, before I had to reassess him. So, for the record. Numbers which follow the players name are Bill James ranking of said player.



1. Ty Cobb -------------------5
2. Honus Wagner------------- 2
3. Willie Mays ----------------3
4. Babe Ruth ----------------1
5. Oscar Charleston, NL------ 4
6. Eddie Collins -------------16
7. George Sisler -unlisted
8. Tris Speaker -------------10
9. Buck Ewing ---unlisted
10. Pop Lloyd, NL----------- 22
11. Rogers Hornsby ---------18
12. Lou Gehrig--------------- 13


From this, I would think that the real hard comparison, the true nut-breaker, would be Wagner/Mays. Now that's the killer face-off.


Bill Burgess

[BoSox Rule]

Ted Williams was perfectly fine in the OF, with a very, very good arm. He averaged 9 assists over 162 games. He was 17/1 in FRAR/FRAA in LF. So, if nothing else, he was definitley good enough to be out there, and never hurt the Red Sox.

Babe in LF/RF combined for 25/5 out there, so he was only worth 4 more runs above average than Williams, and that isn't much at all.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

--best defensive CF of all time and was also the best baserunner of his time. He has a huge advantage over both men in those categories. I won't attempt to argue he was as great a hitter as these two, but he certainly wasn't any slouch there either. He was hitting against a much tougher league than Ruth and a significantly better one than Williams. Ted played almost half his career pre-integration and the rest in a partially integrated AL. Willie played his entire career in the integrated NL of the 50s and 60s - which may well have been the highest level of baseball competition ever.
--Given all that, is there a reasonable arguement that Mays and not Ruth is the best player of all time?

Pardon the partial deletion of your post, want to zero in on the latter portion.Yes the argument could be made that Willie could have been the best player of all time With that said there are still a great number who would choose Ruth was a much greater offensive force. Very seldom when the subject is greatest hitter will you see Willie near the top, Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Williams, Hornsby on another level.

The argument is reasonable as to who was the best but you can be sure that Ruth's hitting and slugging would make him a more desirable pick more often.

As for the best, Willie has to be in the mix, tough competition from Ty Cobb and Honus Wagner.

[Imapotato]

Great arguments by both sides and I would only be repeating others for my Yes for Williams and my Yes for Ruth

One thing is Williams was known as a bad fielder and so was Ruth, BUT both were minimized to an almost 0% effect

Ruth was tossed in the smaller field during his time
Williams was LF for the Red Sox, so very little room was there to expose his defensive liability (like Yaz) Teddy was proficient at playing balls off the Monster, which is all you need to do as LF for the Red Sox.

(neither of course have to do with their hitting)

and I have been consistent, a players pigmentation has NOTHIN to do with his baseball skills...ok what IF Oscar Charleston played with Ruth? Would Oscar hit 40 HR....NO...he played the small ball game like everyone else. It would not have mattered if 6 Negro League ballplayers were in each league during Ruth's time


I still say Ruth was better, he had better opportunity to be a revolutionary type player, but he MADE that opportunity all on his own...and he didn't open the door, he shattered it

As for Mays vs. Wagner...Mays is better
All of you know how I cite the NL was weaker from the onset of the AL until 1905...and so Wagner had very weak competition then Mays did.

[Yankees7]

As to the Mays/ Ruth thing... I don't really think so. Baserunning is important, and Mays was a great baserunner. Not an all time baserunner, though. Probably not the best of his era (I give that to Mantle, even though Mays was a better base stealer). And his glove was, no doubt, outstanding.

But look at things this way: Tris Speaker was, most would say, a better defender than Mays. Speaker was a better hitter than Mays (Mays obviously has the HR's, but even at that, Speaker wins in OPS+). Mays was a better baserunner than Speaker, but not by leaps and bounds. The only thing putting Mays ahead of Speaker is a timeline advantage.

If you took away the fact that Speaker played 90 years ago, would you call him better than Babe Ruth? I don't think so. They played at the same time, and nobody really called Speaker better than Ruth (Yes, Bill, I'm sure you can dig up some names, but which one went into the Hall first?). So why should Mays be different?

Mays the better basestealer?? Mantle was very good at stealing bases, however he very seldom was asked to run, but when he did he was often successful. No player was tougher to catch in a double play than Mantle was.

[Blackout]

who was the better offensive player?

[Yankee Legend]

The babe....no question about it

[csh19792001]

The babe....no question about it



http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=131932&postcount=22

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=24252

Williams did his damage in a much more developed/stronger league where there were dozens of great homerun hitters. During Ted's career pitchers developed new pitches, and continued to gain back the edge over hitters that they had completely lost from 1920-39.

Ruth had his greatest offensive seasons in the early 20's, when he was the only guy swinging from the heels on every swing. His ridiculous relative power stats that people cite to are partly a function of playing through his prime against a league of singles hitters. In the 20's and 30's, pitchers almost exclusively threw 3 pitches- a fastball, curve, and change. With the exception of a few spitballers who had been grandfathered in, pitchers could no longer tamper with the ball as they wished, using emoryballs, shineballs, blackballs, spitters, and whatever they wished All of this, along with a jackrabbit baseball conspired to make the 1920-39 era ridiculous in terms of offense.

[Blackout]

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=131932&postcount=22

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=24252

Williams did his damage in a much more developed/stronger league where there were dozens of great homerun hitters. During Ted's career pitchers developed new pitches, and continued to gain back the edge over hitters that they had completely lost from 1920-39.

Ruth had his greatest offensive seasons in the early 20's, when he was the only guy swinging from the heels on every swing. His ridiculous relative power stats that people cite to are partly a function of playing through his prime against a league of singles hitters. In the 20's and 30's, pitchers almost exclusively threw 3 pitches- a fastball, curve, and change. With the exception of a few spitballers who had been grandfathered in, pitchers could no longer tamper with the ball as they wished, using emoryballs, shineballs, blackballs, spitters, and whatever they wished All of this, along with a jackrabbit baseball conspired to make the 1920-39 era ridiculous in terms of offense.
what about Ruth's 1919 season against spitballers? he set the HR record that year as well, while maintaining a respectable .322 BA

and Ruth still had some quality seasons in the early 30s (219 OPS+ in 1931, and by then EVERYONE was swinging for the fences).

[flash143817]

I'd probably go with the Babe, as I rate him the #1 player all-time. But Babe and Ted are WAY ahead of everyone else offensively. They are easily the top 2 offensive players. I move Ted down to #3 as an overall player, but offensively he might be equal to the Babe, but Babe's rate stats are mostly just a little better than Ted's so he stays #1 for now.

[efin98]

Babe without a doubt.

[CyNotSoYoung]

Different eras, different circumstances. Babe was the best in his, Ted was the best in his.

[leecemark]

--Babe was the best hitter ever, but Teddy is the only guy who can reasonably challenge him for the honor.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Ruth had his greatest offensive seasons in the early 20's, when he was the only guy swinging from the heels on every swing. His ridiculous relative power stats that people cite to are partly a function of playing through his prime against a league of singles hitters. .

Pardon the partial deletion of your post, you made some good points, but I wan't to zero in on the above.

We all understand that Ruth's power numbers were way over both leagues at that time but what about his batting average... over the league AL.

The fact that Ruth had the 5th highest batting average in the game and that he hit for 60 points over the league in his career shows what a great all around hitter he was. The reason, Ruth was going for the long ball and competing with a game full of contact hitters most of his career. Competing with hitters going to the plate who were just tryng to make contact, get a base hit.

Numbers do not tell the whole story in the following. At times we see Ruth's batting average relative to the time he played in and it may look a bit unimpressive. But when we consider that the league batting average was put up by a great number of contact hitters, going for the base hit, avoiding the strikeout, Ruth's batting average still looks good, very good.

Tough choice, Babe or Ted whan we evaluate the best hitter/slugger combo.

[csh19792001]

Pardon the partial deletion of your post, you made some good points, but I wan't to zero in on the above.

We all understand that Ruth's power numbers were way over both leagues at that time but what about his batting average... over the league AL.

The fact that Ruth had the 5th highest batting average in the game and that he hit for 60 points over the league in his career shows what a great all around hitter he was. The reason, Ruth was going for the long ball and competing with a game full of contact hitters most of his career. Competing with hitters going to the plate who were just tryng to make contact, get a base hit.

Numbers do not tell the whole story in the following. At times we see Ruth's batting average relative to the time he played in and it may look a bit unimpressive. But when we consider that the league batting average was put up by a great number of contact hitters, going for the base hit, avoiding the strikeout, Ruth's batting average still looks good, very good.

Tough choice, Babe or Ted whan we evaluate the best hitter/slugger combo.

That's a good point, however batting average only represents about half of offensive value.

I agree that Ruth was an incredible hitter for average, but then, Williams was just as good (the park factor and era basically balance each other out), and Williams struck out close to half as much. Also, it was probably a lot harder to hit for a high average against a generation of pitchers who grew up accustomed to the liveball style, and had adjusted by creating new pitches to compensate. In the 20's (esp. the early 20's), pitchers were really at a huge disadvantage and way behind hitters because of the monumental rule and equipment changes that were suddenly forced upon them.

The era adjustment incorporated should be simliar to the Mays/Ruth for greatest player ever debate- except that Mays' numbers don't even approach Babe's in terms of domination, and people still put Mays ahead. People should put Williams ahead for the same reason- his league probably wasn't quite as strong as Willie's, but he's alot closer in terms of value as a hitter (than Mays is to Ruth as a player) when you look at their adjusted numbers side by side.

[NeverJustAGame]

How many players in the history of Major League Baseball have been worthy enough in their career to deserve winning a Cy Young Award and MVP?

One is the answer George Herman "Babe" Ruth.

[csh19792001]

How many players in the history of Major League Baseball have been worthy enough in their career to deserve winning a Cy Young Award and MVP?

One is the answer George Herman "Babe" Ruth.

Right, but who was a greater hitter, and why?

[Ubiquitous]

How many players in the history of Major League Baseball have been worthy enough in their career to deserve winning a Cy Young Award and MVP?

One is the answer George Herman "Babe" Ruth.


how many players were allowed to try? How many players possessed the skills for this to be a possibility? Is the number to both questions the same?

[RuthMayBond]

how many players were allowed to try?At least a couple dozen? (Joe Wood, Monte Ward, Cy Seymour ...)

<How many players possessed the skills for this to be a possibility?>

With the above, I think that is NJaG's point

[Ubiquitous]

No I don't think it is.

My point is that only a handful of players ever got to try out of probably hundreds that possessed the skill to do it.

Babe Ruth looks like a freak because he pitched, he looks like an exception because so few people got to try and do it. He looks rare because those who could have done it were not allowed to do it.

[Metal Ed]

How many players in the history of Major League Baseball have been worthy enough in their career to deserve winning a Cy Young Award and MVP?

One is the answer George Herman "Babe" Ruth.


Cy Seymour? Martin DiHigo, Joe Rogan (if they had been white?)

[RuthMayBond]

My point is that only a handful of players ever got to try out of probably hundreds that possessed the skill to do it.You actually think hundreds of players had the skill to deserve an MVP and a Cy Young?

[Ubiquitous]

Two leagues over 100 years. Theoretically that means over 200 MVP titles and 200 Cy Young titles. Of course that is considering if they had actually issued the award. Now in each year I think we can assume that on average 3 to 5 players have a legit shot at the MVP or CYA. Probably closer to 3 so I will work with that. So 600 to 1000 player spots (moany of which would be occupied by the same people)for an MVP award and 600 to 1000 spots for a Cy Young award.

Then look at some of the people who did win an MVP or CYA and then look at their career, look at their skill.

So yes I do think that is possible that hundreds of players could have had the ability to win an MVP and a CYA.

[skeletor]

Different eras, different circumstances. Babe was the best in his, Ted was the best in his.


I concur...I think Ted had more great players to go head to head with,
than Babe did...but no matter what...both were GREAT GREAT players.

[NeverJustAGame]

Cy Seymour? Martin DiHigo, Joe Rogan (if they had been white?)

Well they were not white and were held back back by the powers that be but as I have always said just because they were great in the Negro Leagues does not make it fact that they would have been a great Major League star.

[RuthMayBond]

Two leagues over 100 years. Theoretically that means over 200 MVP titles and 200 Cy Young titles. Of course that is considering if they had actually issued the award.Except they HAVE given out the Cy Young and MVP simultaneously for almost half of that.

<Now in each year I think we can assume that on average 3 to 5 players have a legit shot at the MVP or CYA. Probably closer to 3 so I will work with that. So 600 to 1000 player spots (moany of which would be occupied by the same people)>

And I think you're underestimating this last concept

<Then look at some of the people who did win an MVP or CYA and then look at their career, look at their skill.>

What does this have to do with their ability to be the best at pitching AND batting?

[Ubiquitous]

No you are being too literal and not thinking. We are talking about Babe Ruth and someone made the comment that he could have won a Cy Young Award and an MVP. So obviously we are talking about the hypothetical. Which of course I already mentioned in the previous post, because I knew somebody would view the awards narrowly as if that somehow proves a point.


How many players do you think could have pitched and hit? Is it only a dozen? I don't think it is. Who are the best players in high school? Generally they are the pitchers, and they are also usually the best hitters. At some point after high school they end up specializing in one of the two fields but very rarely are they allowed to specialize in both. So again I'll ask how many players could have tried to do both? Lots right? How many were actually allowed to try? Very few right?

[RuthMayBond]

How many players do you think could have pitched and hit? Is it only a dozen? I don't think it is. Who are the best players in high school? Generally they are the pitchers, and they are also usually the best hitters. At some point after high school they end up specializing in one of the two fields but very rarely are they allowed to specialize in both. So again I'll ask how many players could have tried to do both? Lots right? How many were actually allowed to try? Very few right?I thought pretty much every NL starter pitches and hits. But if you're talking about doing both well, there may be a reason for specialization (specializing in both is a contradiction of terms)

[Ubiquitous]

It is not a contradiction. You can specialize in more then one skill.

[Metal Ed]

Well they were not white and were held back back by the powers that be but as I have always said just because they were great in the Negro Leagues does not make it fact that they would have been a great Major League star.


I think they probably would have been. Anybody who can do what these guys did in a league somewhere between triple A and MLB in quality is going to be a formible big leaguer. But we can play this game all day long, i.e., "Just because Babe Ruth was a demigod in one era does not make it fact that he would have been so in another one", etc. Also Cy Seymour wasn't black.

But this is getting away from the point. The point is that, while Ruth was certainly the greatest of those players who could do double-duty, the skill certainly wasn't unique to him. We modern fans are watching a game that has become so highly specialized that we can't even dream of a player being both a successful hitter AND a successful pitcher. Twasn't always the case in the less-specialized days of yore.

[Metal Ed]

No you are being too literal and not thinking. We are talking about Babe Ruth and someone made the comment that he could have won a Cy Young Award and an MVP. So obviously we are talking about the hypothetical. Which of course I already mentioned in the previous post, because I knew somebody would view the awards narrowly as if that somehow proves a point.


How many players do you think could have pitched and hit? Is it only a dozen? I don't think it is. Who are the best players in high school? Generally they are the pitchers, and they are also usually the best hitters. At some point after high school they end up specializing in one of the two fields but very rarely are they allowed to specialize in both. So again I'll ask how many players could have tried to do both? Lots right? How many were actually allowed to try? Very few right?


The lower down the baseball food chain you go (majors > minors > college ball > high school ball > little league ball) the better the pitchers hit. The lowest leagues usually feature the pitchers as their best hitters, whereas in the highest leagues, the pitchers are usually their worst hitters. Which raises the question as to how much lower down the food chain the league was back in the day. Increasing specialization is a feature of improving systems, not devolving ones.

[RuthMayBond]

The point is that, while Ruth was certainly the greatest of those players who could do double-duty, the skill certainly wasn't unique to him.I guess it might be more likely if you don't want the sport to mature, if that's what you want

<We modern fans are watching a game that has become so highly specialized that we can't even dream of a player being both a successful hitter AND a successful pitcher.>

See Brooks Kieschnick

<Twasn't always the case in the less-specialized days of yore.>

Nor was it commonplace either, even eighty years ago

[Metal Ed]

I guess it might be more likely if you don't want the sport to mature, if that's what you want

<We modern fans are watching a game that has become so highly specialized that we can't even dream of a player being both a successful hitter AND a successful pitcher.>

See Brooks Kieschnick

<Twasn't always the case in the less-specialized days of yore.>

Nor was it commonplace either, even eighty years ago


True, double duty was not commonplace, but neither was it omygoshwow unheard of.

Now, the home run hitting, different story.....

[Ubiquitous]

It wasn't commonplace but it happened much more frequently then it does now.

[Ubiquitous]

The lower down the baseball food chain you go (majors > minors > college ball > high school ball > little league ball) the better the pitchers hit. The lowest leagues usually feature the pitchers as their best hitters, whereas in the highest leagues, the pitchers are usually their worst hitters. Which raises the question as to how much lower down the food chain the league was back in the day. Increasing specialization is a feature of improving systems, not devolving ones.


over on the stats section LouGehrig has a thread started in which he is trying to make the case that it is impossible to compare eras. I think the performance of a pitcher offensively would make for a good marker to league quality. Perhaps as the years go on pitchers make less and less of a contribution with the stick then they did in years before.

[RuthMayBond]

How many players do you think could have pitched and hit? Is it only a dozen? I don't think it is. Who are the best players in high school? Generally they are the pitchers, and they are also usually the best hitters. At some point after high school they end up specializing in one of the two fields but very rarely are they allowed to specialize in both. So again I'll ask how many players could have tried to do both? Lots right? How many were actually allowed to try? Very few right?I'm looking at Bill James' Historical Abstract section Pitchers Plus on the greatest pitcher/hitter combos of all time. His first ten are Babe Ruth and nine guys who he mostly talks about 1880's stuff. The next eight guys are done by the 1920s.

[Ubiquitous]

So by the 1920's baseball is done experimenting with a player who could hit and pitch. That does not mean that there were no players who could have done it.

All BJ did was look at players who did it at the major league level. That is by no means comprehensive or the end all be all of the research.

Even in Ruth's time generally speaking the only time a pitcher was allowed to try and hit was if he washed out as a pitcher.

[Metal Ed]

I'm looking at Bill James' Historical Abstract section Pitchers Plus on the greatest pitcher/hitter combos of all time. His first ten are Babe Ruth and nine guys who he mostly talks about 1880's stuff. The next eight guys are done by the 1920s.

Ruth was done pitching by the 1920's too...

'Tis as others have said, Ruth was the last and the greatest of the double-dutiers in the Majors. The practice persisted in the Negro Leagues in the 30's, probably because the Negro Leagues were a little lower in quality of play than the Majors.

[538280]

I think many people over the past 70 years could have pitched and hit, but they probably would have been much, much less effective in both roles. I think they would be more valuable to their teams if they just pitched or just hit. I think most people like that would be better off as hitters, because they tend to be more valuable than pitchers.

[sschirmer]

If you're talking hitting, then it might be close. If you talking Ballplayer, it's an absolute no-brainer.

[flash143817]

There are some guys in MLB today who have tried both pitching and hitting and had to stick to one of them because they weren't good enough at the other. Mostly hitters converted to pitchers because they couldn't hit. It is not completely foreign. I can think of at least 3 guys who started their pro careers as hitters, failed at that aspect, and then made the majors as pitchers. The 3 I thought of were Troy Percival (catcher in minors), Felix Rodriguez (catcher), and Yhency Brazoban (I believe catcher but I know started out as position player). On the reverse side, I believe Rick Ankiel is now attempting to make the majors as a hitter.

As you can see, it is not impossible for a guy in today's age to try both aspects and fail at one and make it at the other. But to think that hundreds can do it, and make it at both, is probably a huge exaggeration. There have been people who have tried, even today, and only one in history has been able to pull it off, and even he only did both at the same time for a short period. The Babe was just an all-around freak that would have been good at anything he tried in baseball.

[Ubiquitous]

So are you saying that in the entire 130 odd year history of professional baseball only a small handful could have done it? Am I saying that right now there are hundreds of people who could do it? No if anything we could probably count the people who could maybe do it with one hand. What I am saying is that in the entire history of the game and more specifically the first 50 years of the game there were probably overall couple hundred people who could have done it.

[william lee]

So are you saying that in the entire 130 odd year history of professional baseball only a small handful could have done it? Am I saying that right now there are hundreds of people who could do it? No if anything we could probably count the people who could maybe do it with one hand. What I am saying is that in the entire history of the game and more specifically the first 50 years of the game there were probably overall couple hundred people who could have done it.
I agree with your statement Ubiquitous,but there is one comment that i believe needs to be said about this subject.I believe it is a WASTE of time to compare what black players at that time could have done in the Dead Ball era. Whether we like it or not, America was a very racist country at that time, in a term"It is What it is".There very well could have been MANY blacks who could have pitched and hit better than Tyrus, Babe or Ted. BUT we will never know!!! Lets just celebrate the GREATNESS of this game in both leagues(Negro and American and National league Ball), and look at this situation as Buck O'neil put it. When asked if he wished if he had been born in another era, he said "No, I was around at just the right time".Now thats a man who has put things (As hard as it was for him to do) in proper perspective. William lee

[westsidegrounds]

Hey, don't forget Jose Canseco!

He coulda been a great pitcher too ... if they'd just given him a shot ....

[william lee]

And another thing to guys!!! The GREATEST HITTER of all time is Tyrus Raymond Cobb. Both Williams AND Ruth said so. .367 lifetime hitter,GIVE ME A BREAK, its "The Peach". Willaim lee

[Blackout]

And another thing to guys!!! The GREATEST HITTER of all time is Tyrus Raymond Cobb. Both Williams AND Ruth said so. .367 lifetime hitter,GIVE ME A BREAK, its "The Peach". Willaim lee

notice how this thread was "who is better", not "who is the best of all time"

[flash143817]

So are you saying that in the entire 130 odd year history of professional baseball only a small handful could have done it? Am I saying that right now there are hundreds of people who could do it? No if anything we could probably count the people who could maybe do it with one hand. What I am saying is that in the entire history of the game and more specifically the first 50 years of the game there were probably overall couple hundred people who could have done it.

I might agree with this statement if you made it a couple hundred people could have tried it back then. I highly doubt there were that many that could have successfully done it. There might have been a few, maybe even close to a hundred (being generous) that could have done it at a competent level for both hitting and pitching. But to do both at a "best in the league" level that winning Cy Young and MVP would require, I doubt more than a handful in baseball history, and obviously only one to have proven it.

[flash143817]

notice how this thread was "who is better", not "who is the best of all time"

Yes it does, although I still pick the Babe as #1 for best hitter and player ever. And consequently, I pick Ted as the #2 hitter and #3 overall player ever, placing Cobb between those 2 as an overall player.

[Blackout]

what do some of you guys think about people who say Ruth wouldn't have been great if he had played blacks?

[runningshoes]

You know, I love the Babe and this is not a biased opinion. I've seen so many pictures of Ruth looking up like he's waiting for the ball to come down before he tees off on it.

[zman]

So by the 1920's baseball is done experimenting with a player who could hit and pitch. That does not mean that there were no players who could have done it.

All BJ did was look at players who did it at the major league level. That is by no means comprehensive or the end all be all of the research.

Even in Ruth's time generally speaking the only time a pitcher was allowed to try and hit was if he washed out as a pitcher.

Which brings John Lindell to mind. He started as a pitcher, was switched to outfielder/hitter and switched back again to a pitcher.

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/L/Lindell_Johnny.stm

Between Ruth and Williams, I'd say Ruth was the better offensive player.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

How many players in the history of Major League Baseball have been worthy enough in their career to deserve winning a Cy Young Award and MVP?

One is the answer George Herman "Babe" Ruth.


Ummm...the following have won MVPs and CYAs in the same season.

Dennis Eckersly (1992)
Roger Clemens (1986)
Willie Hernandez (1984)
Rollie Fingers (1981)
Vida Blue (1971)
Bob Gibson (1968)
Denny MClain (1968)
Sandy Koufax (1963)
Don Newcombe (1956)

[zman]

what do some of you guys think about people who say Ruth wouldn't have been great if he had played blacks?

I think Babe Ruth would still have been great but if the competition had included the best of the negro league players it would have taken just a little shine off the statisical apple for Ruth, Williams, Cobb and every other Major League player whose career spanned, in whole or part, baseball's segregated era.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I think Babe Ruth would still have been Babe Ruth but if the competition had included the best of the negro league players it would have taken just a little shine off the statisical apple for Ruth, Williams, Cobb and every other Major League player whose career spanned, in whole or part, baseball's segregated era.

Would Josh Gibson have outshined the Babe?

[zman]

I don't know but I tend to think not. I base that on my assumption that MLB was a higher league in terms of overall quality. Just as Ruth didn't have to compete against the best players in the negro leagues, neither did Josh Gibson have to compete against the best players in the Major Leagues. Given the opportunity, I think Gibson would probably have been one of the greatest players in MLB history but his stats would have been less gaudy. Defensively, Gibson played a far more demanding position than Ruth so his value as an overall player might have been greater than Ruth's. In terms of offense, my guess is that the Babe would still come out on top. It's an intriguing question and I think there's a thread devoted to this topic elsewhere. I think I'll try to find it and have myself a good read.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I don't know but I tend to think not. I base that on my assumption that MLB was a higher league in terms of overall quality. Just as Ruth didn't have to compete against the best players in the negro leagues, neither did Josh Gibson have to compete against the best players in the Major Leagues. Given the opportunity, I think Gibson would probably have been one of the greatest players in MLB history but his stats would have been less gaudy. Defensively, Gibson played a far more demanding position than Ruth so his value as an overall player might have been greater than Ruth's. In terms of offense, my guess is that the Babe would still come out on top. It's an intriguing question and I think there's a thread devoted to this topic elsewhere. I think I'll try to find it and have myself a good read.

I've heard and read that Gibson was basically Babe Ruth as a catcher. If that is an accurate description then Gibson may well have been the most valuable player in bseball history. Maybe Bill Burgess can shed some light on this.

[RuthMayBond]

I've heard and read that Gibson was basically Babe Ruth as a catcher. If that is an accurate description then Gibson may well have been the most valuable player in bseball history. Maybe Bill Burgess can shed some light on this.More valuable than Cobb? Lotsa luck

[Bill Burgess]

I've heard and read that Gibson was basically Babe Ruth as a catcher. If that is an accurate description then Gibson may well have been the most valuable player in bseball history. Maybe Bill Burgess can shed some light on this.

One of the unanswerable questions of history. If Joshua Gibson could have hit 900 HRs in the MLs, I assume he would be ranked quite highly, especially if he was a good defensive catcher, which hearsay suggests he was.

But, we must factor into the equation that only about 220 of his HRs came in organized, scheduled Negro League games. All the rest, supposedly came in exhibitions, Mexican L. (2 winters), and Cuban L. games (2 winters) & 1 winter season in Puerto Rico. So, Joshua remains one of the most intriguing, enigmatic figures in baseball, along with Japanese HR champ, Oh. Sure wish I could shed better light.

Whatever happened to that study, commissioned by the MLs to give us detailed info on Negro L. stats, based on newspaper box scores? Anyone know who kidnapped that study?

Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

Real cute, Jeff. Ha ha.

[538280]

As far as Gibson, Imapotato is running a simulated history of the major leagues from 1901 to the present time, and he allowed Negro Leaguers to join the league (he integrated the game in 1921), so stats were acculated for all Negro League stars who played after 1921. Here are Gibson's stats:

http://free.hostultra.com/~jtcampbell/players/g/gibsonjosh608.html

There is a whole website which tracks Potato's whole simulated history:

www.free.hostultra.com/~jtcampbell/

[zman]

I'm surprised that Gibson's simulated MLB career didn't produce stronger numbers. Should I infer from this that Gibson was inferior to Campanella? Also does it bother anyone that I'm asking this in a thread that's supposed to be about Ruth and Williams?

[four tool]

Your question doesn't bother me, after all, threads have curved before.
I agree that the numbers seem low, but things like that are why I don't put negro league players in an all time top ten. Can't do it without the evidence.

[leecemark]

--You shouldn't be surprised that Gibson would be less than amazing in a simulation designed by Imapotato. He is the most outspoken poster in this forum in downplaying the accomplishments of Negro Leaguers.

[538280]

Your question doesn't bother me, after all, threads have curved before.
I agree that the numbers seem low, but things like that are why I don't put negro league players in an all time top ten. Can't do it without the evidence.

Gibson's numbers are low in the sim, but you should check Oscar Charleston and Chritobal Torriente. They certainly have proven themselves.

Mark, I think Potato has been fair to Negro Leaguers. Most of them have similar numbers to what you'd probably expect. Gibson is one of the few who hasn't performed up to his reputation. I think Potato has been honest in his sim, and I thank him for that. I'm also shocked he included Win Shares on his website, and I thank him for that as well.

[Imapotato]

Offensive only

No one was better then Ted Williams

But he was so bad in every other facet of the game that Ruth, Cobb, Mays, Gehrig, Mantle blow him away

[Imapotato]

--You shouldn't be surprised that Gibson would be less than amazing in a simulation designed by Imapotato. He is the most outspoken poster in this forum in downplaying the accomplishments of Negro Leaguers.


Totally unfair

Gibson has the HIGHEST HR rating...Talent wise of all players, thing is with Negro Leaguers...you have only an inkling...plus after 1921...some players came in young...and younger players have more chances for rises in talent and bumps. Gibson's Avoid K's plummeted, his contact went down but his Gap power (2bs and speed+gap+PF=triples)rose...

He had one phenominial year with the Giants, traded to the Tigers and for some reason...slumped, he did lose his ability to draw walks...but hey Charlie Gehringher STUNK as did Lefty Gomez...who had a career ending injury in his 4th year IIRC, but you don't bring that up, or that Gehrig w/o his dreaded disease might not hit 500 Hrs, or Hack Wilson and Babe Herman being ok but not HOF players...or Mickey Cochrane having a Career ending injury (irony there, he was HBP)

Pick any great player...half failed, half lived up to the hype, some guys like Bucky Veil and Johnny Lush became legends, Sally Hoffman became a 23 year career man playing in 6 WS and getting 2750 hits in the process.

Or Chief Yellowhorse...a scrub, has one great year...his 7th start, doing AMAZING at age 35...blows out his arm


Nor that the Reds...THE REDS had two Dynasty's the second led by Joe Rogan and the 3rd best P (in my sim) of all time Eppa Rixey. NO one could match Rixey and Rogan...and Cristobal was on that team...and made the HOF even with his short career, Cristobal was amazing...as was Pop Lloyd


Next time I update...I will put in their history, showing injuries and such

I mean gheesh, my 2 best Pitchers are Jose Mendez...and Bullet Joe Rogan (only man to have 2 no hitters...one a perfect game)

Development is random...so don't say I MADE Gibson fail, he hade one of the best World Series' of all times in 1936 and hit 45 Hrs once

I mean Hank Greenberg is a HR machine...and his HR talent is lower then Gibson's, and Gibson is young....I was hoping by age 26 he hit his PEAK, but who knows...

[Blackout]

As far as Gibson, Imapotato is running a simulated history of the major leagues from 1901 to the present time, and he allowed Negro Leaguers to join the league (he integrated the game in 1921), so stats were acculated for all Negro League stars who played after 1921. Here are Gibson's stats:

http://free.hostultra.com/~jtcampbell/players/g/gibsonjosh608.html

There is a whole website which tracks Potato's whole simulated history:

www.free.hostultra.com/~jtcampbell/

i just checked out some other stats for other players

in example, Ruth's .393 BA in 1923 is supposed to go down to .282? :laugh

[Imapotato]

Well if you see 1922 Ruth was injured...seems his Eye went down in 1023...as noted by the career high in K's with 126, then bounced back up

Ruth never walked as much IRL, nor K'd as much....hard to tell a CPU to IW a guy

But his 63 HRs in 1930 in only 124 games...best season ever, Oscar Charleston had the second best year, when he was the only NLer (and only 3rd player) to ever hit .400

Anyway, any other questions...ask them in the Fantasy Forum under my replay thread, I'd more then happy to answer

[pjf]

Getting back to Ruth and Williams, Ted was the better pure hitter, Babe the greater offensive force. While this is not one of my greater interests I've always wondered why the Babe always batted ahead of Lou. Seems contrary to baseball logic for a variety of reasons. If anyone cares to speculate that's fine but I wonder if someone who has done some reading on the subject has an answer, especially from the managers point of view. There must be literature on it somewhere.

[timmarkell]

This subject caught my attention recently when I read an article about protective cups on another website. I was surprised to find out that many MLB players don't or didn't wear a protective cup. I would have thought that protective cup use would have been at 100% or very close to 100%.

Did Babe Ruth wear a protective cup? What is your source?

Did Ted Williams wear a protective cup? Source?

[Cubsfan97]

I look at it this way. Both players in there prime if I needed someone to bat in the bottom of the ninth to drive in the winning run on third I take Williams. ruth hit home runs. Williams did what was needed. If he needed a single to win a game he hit a single. If Ruth needed a single he tried showing off with a home run. Everybody looks at Ruth because he hit 714 Home Runs. Didnt Aaron hit 755? If your going Home Run wise then Aaron would have to win. Ifit was bottom of the ninth with a winning run on third I'd take Cobb over anyone. But really Williams is better than Ruth. However if your going on everything then you go for Ruth because he could pitch. If you can win 90+ games and hit 700 Home Runs then you are the best. Overall I take Ruth as number 1 but if your going on batting stats its Williams.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I look at it this way. Both players in there prime if I needed someone to bat in the bottom of the ninth to drive in the winning run on third I take Williams. ruth hit home runs. Williams did what was needed. If he needed a single to win a game he hit a single. If Ruth needed a single he tried showing off with a home run. Everybody looks at Ruth because he hit 714 Home Runs. Didnt Aaron hit 755? If your going Home Run wise then Aaron would have to win.

I don't know about Ruth trying to show off by going for the long ball. You have to hit more than just a good number of home runs to carry a career .342 batting average..

Ruth did hit 1517 singles and Williams hit 1537 singles. Williams was better at hitting singles since he had 693 less at bats than Ruth but still Ruth the slugger managed 1517 a good number.

As for Aaron hats off to this guy 755 home runs consistent hitting over many seasons. But if your talking about a home run threat bottom of the 9th, Ruth was more likely to hit one out. Ruth's career AB/HR ratio was 11.76 and Aaron was 16.37.

Bottom of the 9th Ruth as good a pick as any. Only Mark McGwire had a better AB/HR ratio than Ruth, Mac 10.61, Ruth 11.76 and Ruth had over 2000 more career at bats than Mac.

OBA, only Ted Williams was better than Ruth, Ted .482 and Ruth .474 only .008 behind Ted.

With that .342 Ba., 11.76 AB/HR ratio and that .474 OBA there was a very good chance of Ruth walking, getting a hit or hitting one out.

Close call, who would you want at the plate, bottom of the 9th, has to be Ted or Babe, can't lose with either one of these two.

[darkplague17]

Actually, during his career with the Sox, Ted was hated by the press and the Red Sox fans (his relationship with the media compares to Bonds' today). Only 10,000 fans showed up for his final game at Fenway. And the biggest criticism of Ted (unfairly) by the media was that, in the bottom of the 9th with the tying run at 3rd, Ted would not swing at a pitch that was an eighth of an inch of the plate on a full count and walk instead.

Remember, in the world series and the 1949 pennant game, Ted was horrible.

Ted was a great scientific hitter, but he's no Ruth. Ruth has Bonds like numbers in an era of a lot less runs, bigger ballparks, and a lot less offense. In fact, Ruth changed the whole nature of offense in baseball, by showing everyone that the bunt-and-single offense could not compete with the homerun offense. When it comes to hitters, there's Ruth, and Bonds, and nobody else on their level.

[Ubiquitous]

Not everyone hated Ted Williams. Ted had a specific few Boston reporters who went after him and he after them. And yes he was not loved like say a Cal Ripken by the fans but people did enjoy him and were fans of him. Ted is very much like Barry Bonds in this regard.

AS for Ted and his final game I would have to say look at the situation. In 1960 for Teds final game Boston draws 10,454 fans. The next year without Ted's final game they draw 2,412. Also if you look at the attendance for 1959, 1960, and 1961 you can see an attendance spike for Ted's final season. People were coming out to see Ted in his final year. The 1960 team won 65 games and drew 1.13 million people. The 1961 team won 76 and drew 850,000.

[Ubiquitous]

As for Babe, he was consistently beat by the Giants in his early Yankee career. The bunt and single Giants were showing up Ruth and slugging tactics. If the White Sox don't lose their team because of the throwing of the world series it could be until the coming of Lou Gehrig before the Yanks win a world series or go to one.

The Yanks with Ruth do win the pennant in 1920, they lose out to Cleveland playing the old style. 1921 and 1922 they win the pennant against a severely weakened competition but lose out both times to McGraws Giants. 1923 the Yanks finally beat out the Giants. 1924 and 1925 you don't even hear from the Yanks. In 1926 the eek out a pennant but fall to the Cards. 1927 is history and then they win it again in 1928 but then you don't hear from Ruth and the Yankees again until 1932. They win 3 world series and don't become the "YANKEES" until 1926. If anything Babe Ruth didn't show that you can't win by sac and a single but that you can win by doing that. From 1920 to 1925 those kind of teams were winning.

[csh19792001]

When it comes to hitters, there's Ruth, and Bonds, and nobody else on their level.

Bonds is only being mentioned these days because of steroids. Before 2001, Bonds' career line was .289/.412/.56 (OPS+ of 167). In 15 seasons, he'd won zero batting titles, once leading the league in homeruns, once in RBI, once in homeruns. He was not an alltime hitter by any stretch.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=131932&postcount=22

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=32651&page=1&highlight=williams+ruth

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=365148&postcount=6

Williams' career EqA is .364- ironically, tied with none other than Babe Ruth himself. I give Williams the edge as a hitter because Ruth had a chance to "run up" his relative power stats against a league full of singles hitters. The Babe also did much of his damage against a league full of pitchers who had just been divested of ALL of their weapons (shineball, blackball, spitball, emory ball). Not only that, but they were now also forced to use a jackrabbit ball, and have it replaced whenever it got dirty, at that. This was instead of using one ball the entire game that became horribly lopsided that pitchers could manipulate using any means they wished, as had been the way baseball was played for 50 years previous.

The 1920-40 period was by far the greatest offensive period in modern baseball history for these reasons. Ted Williams, by contrast, played in a very neutral era for offense.

Also, on an individual level, consider that the pitchers during Ruth's best years (which were put up in the early 20's) had also never faced a real homerun hitter before, and were used to pitching in order to neutralize guys who choked up 6 inches on the bat. In addition, they were basically throwing 3 pitches- a fastball, curve, and change (the slider, cutter, and other specialized pitches were not developed yet) . Pitching had evolved and a whole generation of pitchers had learned to deal with homerun hitting and HR hitters.

Finally, it depends on how you define hitting prowess, but Ty Cobb was one hell of a hitter, too, albeit one of a completely different ilk.

[csh19792001]

If anything Babe Ruth didn't show that you can't win by sac and a single but that you can win by doing that. From 1920 to 1925 those kind of teams were winning.

An interesting take, and one I'd never really considered before. Good points.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

If anything Babe Ruth didn't show that you can't win by sac and a single but that you can win by doing that. From 1920 to 1925 those kind of teams were winning.

Even if that were true what does it have to do with the comparison of the the ranking of two individuals and their hitting prowess.

You can add to that Ruth did more than just swing for the fence. Scanned a good number, in the hundreds of game recaps from the archives of the New York Times and found Ruth to be a far better all around hitter than most might be aware of.

Long before the Williams shift there were teams loading up the right side of the diamond when Ruth came to bat. Ruth was willing to and did hit a good number of hits to left field. The archives show him even bunting ( 1923) in four at bats, down the third base line, three singles and one a double that rolled out into left field. The "Ruth shift" soon disappeared.

Over the years we are fed the same old small number of news footage of Ruth in his home run trot or of Ruth practically spinning himself into the ground with s vicious swing at a pitch, he was more than that, he could also go for the base hit, .342.

[pjf]

Bonds is only being mentioned these days because of steroids. Before 2001, Bonds' career line was .289/.412/.56 (OPS+ of 167). In 15 seasons, he'd won zero batting titles, once leading the league in homeruns, once in RBI, once in homeruns. He was not an alltime hitter by any stretch.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=131932&postcount=22

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=32651&page=1&highlight=williams+ruth

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=365148&postcount=6

Williams' career EqA is .364- ironically, tied with none other than Babe Ruth himself. I give Williams the edge as a hitter because Ruth had a chance to "run up" his relative power stats against a league full of singles hitters. The Babe also did much of his damage against a league full of pitchers who had just been divested of ALL of their weapons (shineball, blackball, spitball, emory ball). Not only that, but they were now also forced to use a jackrabbit ball, and have it replaced whenever it got dirty, at that. This was instead of using one ball the entire game that became horribly lopsided that pitchers could manipulate using any means they wished, as had been the way baseball was played for 50 years previous.

The 1920-40 period was by far the greatest offensive period in modern baseball history for these reasons. Ted Williams, by contrast, played in a very neutral era for offense.

Also, on an individual level, consider that the pitchers during Ruth's best years (which were put up in the early 20's) had also never faced a real homerun hitter before, and were used to pitching in order to neutralize guys who choked up 6 inches on the bat. In addition, they were basically throwing 3 pitches- a fastball, curve, and change (the slider, cutter, and other specialized pitches were not developed yet) . Pitching had evolved and a whole generation of pitchers had learned to deal with homerun hitting and HR hitters.

Finally, it depends on how you define hitting prowess, but Ty Cobb was one hell of a hitter, too, albeit one of a completely different ilk.
Good information. This is the type of research we need instead of just using the numbers. In other words there are a lot of stories and explanations behind any number.

[Bill Burgess]

Ubiquitous,

Your post #70 was actually quite good. Most incisive. Another point, which many folks almost never bring up, is that The Babe didn't have to bat against some of the finest pitchers of his day, because they were on his own team.

On his Yankee's they had Carl Mays, Herb Pennock, Sam Jones, Waite Hoyt, Joe Bush, Ernie Shore, Urban Shocker, Wilcy Moore, Bob Shawkey. The 1st 6 had been acquired from the Red Sox, meaning, he had not had to face them when he was a Red Sox either. He did have to face Shocker for a good number of seasons.

My point is that a disproportionate amount of the best pitching of Babe's time, were on his side, and he never had to face it.

Bill Burgess

[hellborn]

Getting back to Ruth and Williams, Ted was the better pure hitter, Babe the greater offensive force. While this is not one of my greater interests I've always wondered why the Babe always batted ahead of Lou. Seems contrary to baseball logic for a variety of reasons. If anyone cares to speculate that's fine but I wonder if someone who has done some reading on the subject has an answer, especially from the managers point of view. There must be literature on it somewhere.

I'm sure they could have switched positions and done just as well, but I believe that Babe was generally a little higher in OBP than the Horse. Their managers at the time may not have thought in terms of OBP, but I can just picture them watching Babe draw a tremendous number of walks and wanting to have a strong RBI guy behind him to drive the Babe in from first. Of course,
Lou had tremendous OBPs as well, but the Babe was already proven in this regard before Lou showed up.
Didn't Meusel bat 4th before Gehrig?

[Ubiquitous]

Even if that were true what does it have to do with the comparison of the the ranking of two individuals and their hitting prowess.


I was responding to a post in which the writer in which it was stated that Babe's "new" style of played showed that it would consistently beat the "old" style of play.

[Ubiquitous]

Bonds is only being mentioned these days because of steroids. Before 2001, Bonds' career line was .289/.412/.56 (OPS+ of 167). In 15 seasons, he'd won zero batting titles, once leading the league in homeruns, once in RBI, once in homeruns. He was not an alltime hitter by any stretch.






Bonds was being mentioned as one of the all-time greats even before 2001. Many people thought it was a farce that he didn't get named to the all-century team. You can't really use traditional methods to describe how great Barry was during this period. There are batters you can define by how many batting average titles they have, or how many hr titles they have, or RBI's, or doubles, or any other single category. Bonds was a great home run hitter, a great base-stealer, and a great slugger. Bonds was one of those very rare power-speed ballplayers. He wasn't a Mike Schmidt or a Wade Boggs but truly a complete ballplayer like Willie Mays.

[RuthMayBond]

Bonds is only being mentioned these days because of steroids. Before 2001, Bonds' career line was .289/.412/.56 (OPS+ of 167).Oh, you mean better than Yaz, Delahanty, Aaron, FRobinson, RJackson, Crawford, Gwynn, Kaline, Clemente ... and better than 1B like Bagwell, Anson, McCovey ...

<In 15 seasons, he'd won zero batting titles, once leading the league in homeruns, once in RBI, once in homeruns.>

Fortunately, you "forgot" the 400+ SB, three SLG% titles, five OPS+ titles, six power/speed titles, eight Silver Sluggers, and three MVPs with two second places(deserved more) :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :waving

[BoSox Rule]

csh19792001, I love how you use stats such as EqA in your arguments and you still say Barry Bonds wasn't an all-time great hitter. Prior to 2001, Barry Bonds had a career EqA of .335. Mickey Mantle had a career .336 EqA and was out of baseball at 36, the same age as Barry's 73 HR season.

I suppose these guys aren't all-time great hitters
Hank Aaron .323
Ty Cobb .323
Willie Mays .326
Rogers Hornsby .333
Joe Jackson .321
Jimmie Foxx .328
Manny Ramirez .333
Stan Musial .331
Tris Speaker .316
Dick Allen .321

[csh19792001]

Bonds was being mentioned as one of the all-time greats even before 2001. Many people thought it was a farce that he didn't get named to the all-century team. You can't really use traditional methods to describe how great Barry was during this period. There are batters you can define by how many batting average titles they have, or how many hr titles they have, or RBI's, or doubles, or any other single category. Bonds was a great home run hitter, a great base-stealer, and a great slugger. Bonds was one of those very rare power-speed ballplayers. He wasn't a Mike Schmidt or a Wade Boggs but truly a complete ballplayer like Willie Mays.

He was a great all-around player, but he wasn't anything close to an alltime hitter. That was my contention, and both his very good (but not alltime great) rate stats and complete lack of domination over the league evidence this fact.

Could you really say he was an all-around in Mays' caliber? (I.e., arguably the greatest all-around player ever)? I'd say he's way up there, but not with the top few "all around greats" alltime.

hit
hit for power
run
field
throw

He wasn't a great average hitter (.289 in a hitter's era is not great by any stretch), and he never had a great arm. In fact, he was probably moved out of CF after the 1986 season because of his weak arm. He was more like a Schmidt or Boggs- outstanding in most areas, but only slightly above average in one (average only for Schmidt), (or perhaps two, in Wade's case).

Mays, Wagner, Speaker, and perhaps ARod are probably the most complete, all-around players in baseball history.

[darkplague17]

Babe Ruth had a career runs created per 27 outs of 12.92, career OPS+ of 207. Ted Williams was 12.03 RC/27 and 190 OPS+.

Ted Williams's best season of runs created was 184 (good for 27th on the all time list). Ruth's best seasons go like this: 233, 216, 205, 203, 199, 187, 187, 186, 185.

I read Bill James's historical abstract a long time ago, but I remember him saying that Ruth was the best hitter of all time using his win shares method.

[RuthMayBond]

he never had a great arm. In fact, he was probably moved out of CF after the 1986 season because of his weak arm.
He led the league in assists SIX times

<He was more like a Schmidt or Boggs- outstanding in most areas, but only slightly above average in one (average only for Schmidt), (or perhaps two, in Wade's case).>

Boggs outstanding in most areas? Let's see, hit for average, uh . . .

[csh19792001]

csh19792001, I love how you use stats such as EqA in your arguments and you still say Barry Bonds wasn't an all-time great hitter. Prior to 2001, Barry Bonds had a career EqA of .335. Mickey Mantle had a career .336 EqA and was out of baseball at 36, the same age as Barry's 73 HR season.

I suppose these guys aren't all-time great hitters
Hank Aaron .323
Ty Cobb .323
Willie Mays .326
Rogers Hornsby .333
Joe Jackson .321
Jimmie Foxx .328
Manny Ramirez .333
Stan Musial .331
Tris Speaker .316
Dick Allen .321

If you took all of those guys above and calculated their EqA's through age 35, what would they be? You're comparing Barry's EqA mid career to that of some alltime greats who played till or past age 40 (Aaron, Cobb, Mays, Musial, Speaker), through their decline phase. Since this is a pure rate stat, their numbers are going to suffer a great deal by presenting the numbers in this light.

But more importantly..

I used EqA to compare Ruth and Williams as hitters because I feel that because of Ruth's unique predicament (for reasons I delineated above), any mean adjusted stat would not do Williams justice. I know of no other comprehensive offensive stat that attempts to incorporate league quality, so I used EqA as a thumbnail.

That said, looking at your examples above, perhaps EqA might not be useful for comparing people who played several generations apart; the timeline adjustment seems way too steep and punative when dealing with people from vastly disparate eras. Dick Allen the equal of Ty Cobb as a hitter? Please.

Honus Wagner's career EqA is .305. It would be a waste of time to find all of the good-very good hitters from 50-90 years removed that would best Wagner easily here, but obviously this discounts Wagner's record too much. Would you say Bernie Williams is roughly the equal of Honus Wagner at the plate?

Of course, Williams and Ruth were (relatively) close in time, so this might not be as much of an issue in this particular instantiation.

In any case, I've highlighted the limitations of EqA before- most importantly, it does not take career length into account, like OPS+, and this really limits it's utility- but again, Williams and Ruth ended up with very similar career lengths.

That said, notice that EqA was only one small component of my argument. Most of the factors were extrinsic to numbers anyway- they're vital historical imperatives that allowed the numbers to be created as they were.
I don't even need to use EqA at all to justify why Williams was better.

If you can find a litany of statistics that show Bonds as an alltime great hitter before steroids, then I'll agree with you. I can find several that deem Ruth and Williams as 1-2 alltime, but none with Bonds anywhere close to them. A singular (and obviously highly idiosyncratic) stat shouldn't convince anyone anyway.

[BoSox Rule]

EqA correlates higher with run scoring than BA, OBP, SLG, and OPS. I don't need any other stats.

[csh19792001]

He (Barry) led the league in assists SIX times


People run on players with weaks arms more, for obvious reasons. Why has Barry played the weakest OF position if he has a cannon arm (as you would like to connote when citing his leadership in assists?) Why not in CF, RF, or even SS?

[BoSox Rule]

By the way, through age 35
Hank Aaron .327
Ty Cobb .331
Willie Mays .328
Rogers Hornsby .330
Joe Jackson .321
Jimmie Foxx .325
Manny Ramirez .333
Stan Musial .338
Tris Speaker .321
Dick Allen .321
Clearly you have an agenda, though.

[csh19792001]

By the way, through age 35
Hank Aaron .327
Ty Cobb .331
Willie Mays .328
Rogers Hornsby .330
Joe Jackson .321
Jimmie Foxx .325
Manny Ramirez .333
Stan Musial .338
Tris Speaker .321
Dick Allen .321
Clearly you have an agenda, though.

My agenda is to state the obvious. Yours (so far, at least) has been to try to make a pre-steroid Bonds into the hitter that Ruth and Williams were by using one quirky stat, while completely ignoring all of the other evidence available.

[darkplague17]

EqA correlates higher with run scoring than BA, OBP, SLG, and OPS. I don't need any other stats.

Does it correlate better than runs created?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

My agenda is to state the obvious. Yours (so far, at least) has been to try to make a pre-steroid Bonds into the hitter that Ruth and Williams were by using one quirky stat, while completely ignoring all of the other evidence available.

Who is trying to do that? No one would serioulsy argue that he was as good a hitter as Ruth and Williams pre-2000. But he doesn't have to be that good. Just because he wasn't at the Ruth/Williams level as a hitter doesn't mean he wasn't playing on a HoF caliber level in the 1990s. Bonds brought great defense and speed, two things Ruth and Williams never had. I believe that Bonds in the 1990s was a better all-around player than Williams ever was. Bill James was saying this as early as 1993.

From 1990-99 Bonds batting .302 as whole. He did this while playing at Three Rivers and Candlestick Park, two pitchers parks. Here are some of his better seasons:

1990: .301/.406/.565, 33 HR, 104 R, 114 RBI, 52 SB, OPS+ 170
1992: .311/.456/.624, 34 HR, 109 R, 103 RBI, 39 SB, OPS+ 205
1993: .336/.458/.677, 46 HR, 129 R, 123 RBI, 29 SB, OPS+ 206
1994: .312/.426/.647, 53 HR, 129 R, 117 RBI, 42 SB, OPS+ 182----projected (strike year)
1996: .308/.461/.614, 42 GR, 122 R, 129 RBI, 40 SB, OPS+ 186
1998: .301/.438/.609, 37 HR, 120 R, 122 RBI, 28 SB, OPS+ 177

These are all HoF and MVP caliber caliber seasons though not quite at the Ruth/Williams level. Bonds was very consistent as a player in the 1990s.

Talking about 2001-2004 stirs quite a bit of debate. Taken at face value they are equal to Ruth/Williams best seasons. Of course BALCO muddles the water. I had Bonds ranked ahead of Williams but since his grand jury testimony leaked I am forced to drop him a few places below Williams. I rather not but I must in all fairness to Williams. Bonds will probably always stay below Williams in "my book" which is a shame because I've had the privilege to watch Bonds play now f or 12 seasons in SF...

[pjf]

As far as I'm concerned any of the Barry Bonds statistics are tainted. How far back we go nobody really knows. The man made a choice many years ago and I'm sure he had his reasons. No doubt he was an extremely talented player but I'm not going to attempt to figure out what could have been, how much steriods affected his performance, or when usage began. Several years ago I heard an interesting discussion on what advantages (baseball wise) these products provide. Several scientists on the panel pointed out that greater strength was not the only benefit.The consensus was that steriods heightened all the senses including eyesight i.e. the ability to see and hit a baseball better. Interesting!

[darkplague17]

Yeah, but out of a lot of major league hitters taking steroids -- and this includes Bret Boone, Jose Canseco, Mark Mgwire, Sammy Sosa, Jason Giambi -- none even came close to achieveing the level Bonds did.

Sure, he cheated, everybody knows it. But you simply have to marvel at the numbers he's been putting up. If a major league player went to play in high school, he'd be at the same level Bonds is on now in the majors. An OBP of 609? OPS of 1.4?

If we take stats at their face value, then when it comes to hitters, there's Bonds, Ruth, and nobody. Ted Williams, good as he was, isn't on the same level as either of them.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

As far as I'm concerned any of the Barry Bonds statistics are tainted. How far back we go nobody really knows. The man made a choice many years ago and I'm sure he had his reasons. No doubt he was an extremely talented player but I'm not going to attempt to figure out what could have been, how much steriods affected his performance, or when usage began. Several years ago I heard an interesting discussion on what advantages (baseball wise) these products provide. Several scientists on the panel pointed out that greater strength was not the only benefit.The consensus was that steriods heightened all the senses including eyesight i.e. the ability to see and hit a baseball better. Interesting!

Of course some people know. Bonds himself, Greg Anderson, and Bond's mistress know. She stated that Bonds started his steroids in 2000-01 time frame.

[pjf]

Yeah, but out of a lot of major league hitters taking steroids -- and this includes Bret Boone, Jose Canseco, Mark Mgwire, Sammy Sosa, Jason Giambi -- none even came close to achieveing the level Bonds did.

Sure, he cheated, everybody knows it. But you simply have to marvel at the numbers he's been putting up. If a major league player went to play in high school, he'd be at the same level Bonds is on now in the majors. An OBP of 609? OPS of 1.4?

If we take stats at their face value, then when it comes to hitters, there's Bonds, Ruth, and nobody. Ted Williams, good as he was, isn't on the same level as either of them.
I don't marvel at his numbers because I (nor anyone else) know how to evaluate them. We will never know what the numbers could have or would have been. Everything is speculation. As I said he and OTHERS made that choice. Perhaps you make a good point in that his numbers should be compared to other steriod users, known and unknown. Certainly, I would proclaim him the greatest of the users.

[Cubsfan97]

Bonds is only being mentioned these days because of steroids. Before 2001, Bonds' career line was .289/.412/.56 (OPS+ of 167). In 15 seasons, he'd won zero batting titles, once leading the league in homeruns, once in RBI, once in homeruns. He was not an alltime hitter by any stretch.

I will give you 3 reasons why bonds was never mentioned in the 90s. McGwire, Sosa and Griffey Jr. Do I need any other reasons?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I will give you 3 reasons why bonds was never mentioned in the 90s. McGwire, Sosa and Griffey Jr. Do I need any other reasons?

Where does this stuff come from? :confused: You really believe Bonds was never mentioned in the 1990s? Then how did he win the Sporting News Player of the Decade award? Not bad for a player that was never mentioned in the 1990s, huh. I've been motived to dig out all the old newspaper articles about Bonds. I shall post very soon. As for McGwire, nobody talked about him from 1990-95. Especially when he hit .201 in 1991 and .235 in 1992. During the 1993-94 seasons he batted 219 times total. I doubt anyone was talking about Big Mac in those seasons.

I guess some believe the entire decade was just 1998? :D

[Cubsfan97]

I guess some believe the entire decade was just 1998? :D
lol. Im sure thats the only year many fans can recall from the 90s, well except for 94 and the strike. And I spose people remember 99 having high expectations for Big Mac and Sosa.

[therealnod]

Does it correlate better than runs created?
Yes, it does. (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2596)

[Bill Burgess]

Mays, Wagner, Speaker, and perhaps ARod are probably the most complete, all-around players in baseball history.

AHEM! AHEM!

[RuthMayBond]

AHEM! AHEM!Did someone leave a peach out of their grocery basket? :laugh :laugh

[therealnod]

Did someone leave a peach out of their grocery basket? :laugh :laugh
A peach grown in which state? :D

[csh19792001]

Who is trying to do that? No one would serioulsy argue that he was as good a hitter as Ruth and Williams pre-2000. But he doesn't have to be that good. Just because he wasn't at the Ruth/Williams level as a hitter doesn't mean he wasn't playing on a HoF caliber level in the 1990s. Bonds brought great defense and speed, two things Ruth and Williams never had. I believe that Bonds in the 1990s was a better all-around player than Williams ever was. Bill James was saying this as early as 1993.

From 1990-99 Bonds batting .302 as whole. He did this while playing at Three Rivers and Candlestick Park, two pitchers parks. Here are some of his better seasons:

1990: .301/.406/.565, 33 HR, 104 R, 114 RBI, 52 SB, OPS+ 170
1992: .311/.456/.624, 34 HR, 109 R, 103 RBI, 39 SB, OPS+ 205
1993: .336/.458/.677, 46 HR, 129 R, 123 RBI, 29 SB, OPS+ 206
1994: .312/.426/.647, 53 HR, 129 R, 117 RBI, 42 SB, OPS+ 182----projected (strike year)
1996: .308/.461/.614, 42 GR, 122 R, 129 RBI, 40 SB, OPS+ 186
1998: .301/.438/.609, 37 HR, 120 R, 122 RBI, 28 SB, OPS+ 177

These are all HoF and MVP caliber caliber seasons though not quite at the Ruth/Williams level. Bonds was very consistent as a player in the 1990s.

Talking about 2001-2004 stirs quite a bit of debate. Taken at face value they are equal to Ruth/Williams best seasons. Of course BALCO muddles the water. I had Bonds ranked ahead of Williams but since his grand jury testimony leaked I am forced to drop him a few places below Williams. I rather not but I must in all fairness to Williams. Bonds will probably always stay below Williams in "my book" which is a shame because I've had the privilege to watch Bonds play now f or 12 seasons in SF...

I never disagreed that Barry was the best player of the 90's, or that he was a HOFer before Balco. He was both, easily. In fact, I agree with everything you said, Honus. :)

This all started because "Ubiquitous" said that "in terms of hitters, there's Ruth, Bonds, and everyone else". I took issue with that, and nothing else.

Very concise, and well stated. Nice post. :waving

[csh19792001]

AHEM! AHEM!

Fair is fair, William. :o Or is it?

If Barry gets left off for his average arm, doesn't The Peach have to be left off too? :confused:

[Bill Burgess]

the most complete, all-around players in baseball history.

By definition, I would have thought this was quite obvious. Prior to 1918, Ty had a fine OF arm. Proved by he actually pitched. Not well, mind you, but he still did it. And also had many assists, DPs.

Bill Burgess

[Blackout]

By definition, I would have thought this was quite obvious. Prior to 1918, Ty had a fine OF arm. Proved by he actully pitched. Not well, mind you, but he still did it. And also had many assists, DPs.

Bill Burgess

william, as i know you despite ruth, im curious as to where you stand in the ruth-williams debate? :confused:

[therealnod]

Prior to 1918, Ty had a fine OF arm. Proved by he actully pitched. Not well, mind you, but he still did it.

Bill Burgess
Many position players pitched. Not well, mind you, but they still did it.

[Bill Burgess]

william, as i know you despite ruth, im curious as to where you stand in the ruth-williams debate? :confused:

Although I know that the way I've often posted has led a lot of folks to believe I don't like The Babe, the actual truth is, I do like him. I like him a lot and consider him a very great player. A wondrous slugger, the likes of whom we're not likely to see again.

My past rants were immature and there is a certain amount of regret there. It shouldn't have happened. When I came onboard Fever in Oct., 2003, I had Babe rated around 13th. Kinda ignorant of me, I know, and I'm paying for it now in my rep. Stupid of me. But I kinda think that my low ranking of Babe partly stemmed from Bill James ranking Ty Cobb 10th in peak value, in his Historical Abstract, 1985-1988.

So, now I can see how I let myself be controlled by someone else's problem, and suffered in my own rep due to it.

I have tried to make up for it by sharing my great knowledge of The Babe in the Babe Ruth thread, and other posts. But, alas, the mould is now set, and the damage is done. I'm labeled the anti-Ruth.

I usually only go on an anti-Babe rant when others over-praise him and say nobody was nearly as good as him. It's my nature to go against the flow when one is over-ranked, or under-ranked.

I think the Babe was a better hitter than Ted by a small margin, and a better player than Ted by a much wider margin. And had a much better attitude towards his overall job than Ted.

Bill Burgess, no longer the anti-Babe:)

[Ubiquitous]

This all started because "Ubiquitous" said that "in terms of hitters, there's Ruth, Bonds, and everyone else". I took issue with that, and nothing else.

Very concise, and well stated. Nice post. :waving


Um no I didn't.

[Ubiquitous]

Barry from 1990 to 1999 had this line .302/.434/.602. That is hitting for average, that is hitting for power, and that is being a patient hitter. In other words that is a line of an all time great hitter.

You know who else did that?
Babe Ruth
Rogers Hornsby
Lou Gehrig
Jimmie Foxx
Ted Williams
Mickey Mantle


I believe that is it, plus you factor in that he was a very good base-stealer and good defenders and you have an even stronger case for all time great status

[Ubiquitous]

By the way here is Ken Griffey's 10 year runs starting in 1989 and ending in 1995.

.300/.379/.568
.302/.384/.581
.299/.386/.590
.295/.383/.593
.292/.384/.593
.288/.381/.588
.282/.376/.574

Ken Griffey never came close to being the hitter that Barry was from 1990 to 1999, and of course those are not even Barrys's best 10 year stretch. Barry from 1991 to 2000 had this line:
.303/.438/.614

Ken Griffey for most of those years got to play in the homer friendly kingdome and he still couldn't match Barry.

[darkplague17]

Griffey was more image friendly, and was the face of baseball at that time. But Bonds was always the better player, not even close.

[therealnod]

Not even close? Depends on what is is.

[RuthMayBond]

A peach grown in which state? :DI can't think of it right off, but the state is on my mind. I might as well leave on a midnight train.

[therealnod]

I can't think of it right off, but the state is on my mind.
Always....

[csh19792001]

Um no I didn't.

Mea culpa, Ubick. I confused you with another poster with whom I'm also not familiar. It was "darkplague" who wrote that.

[csh19792001]

Not even close? Depends on what is is.

It does depend. Griffey was a better, more complete fielder playing a more difficult and important defensive position than Bonds. As I said before, though, Bonds was better in most of the other facets of the game.

[therealnod]

It does depend. Griffey was a better, more complete fielder playing a more difficult and important defensive position than Bonds. As I said before, though, Bonds was better in most of the other facets of the game.
Griffey also didn't have quite the on base skills that Bonds had, not to mention the SB technique. Both were talked about as potential best of all time.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Who was the greatest offensive player of all time and please don`t say Barroid Bonds who clearly cheated by using PED's. If you believe it is someone else please post who.

[Skin & Bones]

What about Aaron and Mays who used PED'S ?

Anyway, I voted for Ruth.

[Myankee4life]

I say Ruth.

[csh19792001]

Click the links:

We've done this one too. (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=24252)

Aaron Gleeman's Oustanding Contribution. (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=131932&postcount=22)

[Mariano_Rivera]

Click the links:

We've done this one too. (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=24252)

Aaron Gleeman's Oustanding Contribution. (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=131932&postcount=22)
Interesting post but I don`t like bumping up iold threads so I`ll just keep this one, okay :)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

So what's the case for Williams? Based on war credit "what-ifs?" Does Ruth get '15-'18 with non-pitching "what-if" credit. Not really apples to apples since one is with a dead ball in Fenway when the dimensions were much different, so the counting stats will be skewed.

[leecemark]

--I think this is a fairly straight forward comparison. The time Ruth lost to pitching almost balanced the time Williams lost to military service, so I make no adjustments. Teddy is the Babe's closest competitior for best hitter ever, but comes up a little short.

[538280]

--I think this is a fairly straight forward comparison. The time Ruth lost to pitching almost balanced the time Williams lost to military service, so I make no adjustments. Teddy is the Babe's closest competitior for best hitter ever, but comes up a little short.

I disagree. Give Ted back those war years and his rate stats go up. Give Babe back those years as a pitcher and his probably go down. I made a post about this a while ago and concluded it was really, really close, to close to call IMO.

[Mariano_Rivera]

I disagree. Give Ted back those war years and his rate stats go up. Give Babe back those years as a pitcher and his probably go down. I made a post about this a while ago and concluded it was really, really close, to close to call IMO.
Good Point their.

Sultan the case for Williams is basically this: Williams had tremendous OBP ability and misssed some of his prime years which would elevate his counting statistics and likely his OBP. think about it, it was already 0.484 (a record). It could have been above 0.490 or even 0.500 if he had those years back. Not to mention he had tremendous power as well.

The case for Ruth is fairly obvious. He slugged like nobody else in history. Even Barroid Bonds armed with steroids, HGH, etc. just barely squeezed past him in career homers and he played years that Ruth spent pitching when he could have hit far more homers. Hank Aaron got past him more because of longevity then being the superior slugger (No knock on Aaron of course but remember he never hit 60 homers in a season). Every person that has passed Ruth in single season HR has an asterik next to them for one reason for another (Maris only passed him on the last day of the season under a 162 game schedule compared to Ruth's 154 and Sosa, McGwire and Bonds all have asteriks of their own). Ruth even gathered 2,900 hits and a career BA above 0.300. He also holds the highest career EQA of all-time (ahead of Ted Williams by only 5 points).

It's a very close argument so it could come down to Baserunning which neither of them were very great at this

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I disagree. Give Ted back those war years and his rate stats go up. Give Babe back those years as a pitcher and his probably go down. I made a post about this a while ago and concluded it was really, really close, to close to call IMO.

Only because we're talking about before '20 here for Babe, and for Ted, his numbers would be boosted by a lively ball and shortened dimensions of Fenway. Surely with all your adjustments, you have one in there for that sort of thing, right.

Posted by: Bill Burgess

Examined a little more, we find out that those 20 homers, on the road, in 1919 came from only 232 at-bats. So, from those few numbers, we can easily project that if The Babe had had a full season, playing at any other neutral ballpark, with that same ratio of 20 homers/232 at-bats, 1 homer every 8.62 at-bats, we come up with 47.41 homers, if he had 550 at-bats.

In simple words, if Babe had played outside Fenway Park in 1919, he would have hit 47 homers. We know this because he hit 20 homers in only 232 at-bats on the road.

Babe: 47 HRs: 1919.
-------------------------------------
Do that for 1918 and add a focus factor, dead ball factor, and stadium factor.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

It's a very close argument so it could come down to Baserunning which neither of them were very great at this

It was neither of their "specialty" but in the field and on the bases, along with arm, its no contest imo. And I say that as somebody who generally considers all the harsh talk about Williams' other skills slightly unwarranted.

[leecemark]

--Babe was certainly a better fielder and probably a better baserunner when both were young. Williams took alot better care of humself though and never became the extreme liability as an older player than Ruth was outside the batter's box. In fact, Williams started working on his defense late in his career and might have been better defensively in his 30s than his 20s. For career value they are probably close to a wash on defensive nd baserunning value.

[538280]

Only because we're talking about before '20 here for Babe, and for Ted, his numbers would be boosted by a lively ball and shortened dimensions of Fenway. Surely with all your adjustments, you have one in there for that sort of thing, right.


Yes, my comment was actually more about context adjusted measures like OPS+ anyway. Give Ted 1943-1945 (which would have likely been just as good as the seasons outside, 200+ OPS+), and his career mark goes up. Same with '52 and '53 in Korea. That could get his number up in the 195 or so range, still short of Ruth's. But then when you give him the war credit he also gets more longevity (unless we give Ruth credit for the time he was a pitcher, but then his rates go down with it), and the fact that he probably played in a stronger league.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--Babe was certainly a better fielder and probably a better baserunner when both were young. Williams took alot better care of humself though and never became the extreme liability as an older player than Ruth was outside the batter's box. In fact, Williams started working on his defense late in his career and might have been better defensively in his 30s than his 20s. For career value they are probably close to a wash on defensive nd baserunning value.

I see how you could think that, but I think your perception is all off. Babe took care of himself very well in his later years, which is what allowed him to play for so long. Not just the workouts, but changing his eating habits, getting more rest, and playing more golf during he season. These changes were no doubt thanks in large part to Claire, but he stuck to it because he understood the ramifications of swaying from the new lifestyle. His legs started to go in '31 and throughout '32 but until then I would put him ahead of Williams by a significant margin on the bases and in the field. Ruth didn't enjoy the short Fenway Field in his late years, and he always had his arm, something Williams never had. Another thing is that if we're going to do this and give Ruth credit for playing everyday for his pitching years, the career edge would be HUGE imo, considering the young and skilled svelte Babe would have shone in the outfield and on the bases for those seasons. We know what Williams did from ages 20-23 and it was nothing special.

"The Babe Ruth of 1918 was a fine looking athlete, trim waisted, fast, a remarkably skillful base runner." - Ed Barrow

"He is physically from five to ten years younger than he was two years ago." - Artie McGovern, February 9, 1928

"Ruth was fielding well, throwing accurately, and running the bases as if he weighed 175 pounds." - Smelser on 1928

"I never realized until this season (1927) what a really great player he (Ruth) is," said Fletcher. "I had regarded Ruth only as a phenomenal hitter. Now I know he deserves to be rated among the greatest outfielders of all time. He covers a wide territory, is sure death on fly balls and all the line drives he can get his hands on, plays ground balls that come to him as well as an infielder, and throws amazingly. I have seen a lot of accurate throwing by outfielders, but I never saw a man who had even a slight edge on the Babe in pegging." - Frank Graham, New York Sun - Wednesday, May 25, 1927

[Blackout]

I'll take the man with the 207 OPS+, 12 home run titles and #1 in black ink all time

[CTaka]

I disagree. Give Ted back those war years and his rate stats go up. Give Babe back those years as a pitcher and his probably go down. I made a post about this a while ago and concluded it was really, really close, to close to call IMO.

I agree as far as rate stats, but rate stats don't give a full view. Look at Babe's performance versus the rest of the deadball league when he was a pitcher. In 1915, Babe blasts a .576 slugging percentage as a pitcher (didn't play any games other than pitcher) while the league was only .330 - his OPS+ was 189. With only 94 at bats, all of them as a pitcher, the Babe finished 9th in the league in home runs! Put it this way: in 1915, Ruth pitched in the same number of games as Roger Clemens did last year. Clemens did not finish 9th in the league in homers (he hit zero). If the Rocket had finished 9th in home runs, how incredible would that be??

In 1918, Ruth slugs .555 against a league average of .329. His OBP was .411 versus a league average of .329. His OPS+ was 194. Pitching 166 innings with some time as a part-time OF and 1B, Ruth led the league in homeruns, slugging, extra base hits, OPS, OPS+, and second in OBP. NO, Babe wouldn't be hitting 50 homers in the deadball era, but he likely could have put up very impressive OBP and slugging percentages compared to the rest of the deadballers.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Posted by: Dave Kent

One of the absurd comments we hear in discussion groups is how Ruth had no offense to lose during his early years with the Sox. With the exception of his 10 plate appearances in 1914, he ranged from a good to a great batter.

In 1915 Ruth had 4 HR in 103 PA, the league leader had 6 in 439 PA.
In 1916 Ruth had 3 HR in 150 PA, the league leader had 12 in 617 PA.
In 1917 Ruth had 2 HR in 142 PA, the league leader had 9 in 668 PA.
In 1918 Ruth had 11 HR in 380 PA - tied for the league lead. Tilly Walker who also had 11 HR needed 466 PA to reach the same total.

In 1919 Ruth led the league with 29 HR almost tripling the totals of George Sisler, Tilly Walker and Home Run Baker.

In every year that he was in Boston, Ruth was the league leader in HR or had a better ratio than the league leader. This in a park in which it was very difficult to hit HRs.
------------------------------------

FTR: His 1918 total should have been 12. One of his "triples" that year was a game winning homer with a guy on base.

[ThePeach]

Posted by: Dave Kent

One of the absurd comments we hear in discussion groups is how Ruth had no offense to lose during his early years with the Sox. With the exception of his 10 plate appearances in 1914, he ranged from a good to a great batter.

In 1915 Ruth had 4 HR in 103 PA, the league leader had 6 in 439 PA.
In 1916 Ruth had 3 HR in 150 PA, the league leader had 12 in 617 PA.
In 1917 Ruth had 2 HR in 142 PA, the league leader had 9 in 668 PA.
In 1918 Ruth had 11 HR in 380 PA - tied for the league lead. Tilly Walker who also had 11 HR needed 466 PA to reach the same total.

In 1919 Ruth led the league with 29 HR almost tripling the totals of George Sisler, Tilly Walker and Home Run Baker.

In every year that he was in Boston, Ruth was the league leader in HR or had a better ratio than the league leader. This in a park in which it was very difficult to hit HRs.
------------------------------------

FTR: His 1918 total should have been 12. One of his "triples" that year was a game winning homer with a guy on base.


These numbers aren't very surprising. All they show is how hard it actually was to hit HRs before 1919. They seem to think that even if the young Babe was a full time player, he'd hit about 10-15 HRs. Either he learned somehow to hit for power starting in 1919 and 1920, or it was about a 4th as difficult to hit a ball out pre-1919 as it was in post-1919.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

These numbers aren't very surprising. All they show is how hard it actually was to hit HRs before 1919. They seem to think that even if the young Babe was a full time player, he'd hit about 10-15 HRs. Either he learned somehow to hit for power starting in 1919 and 1920, or it was about a 4th as difficult to hit a ball out pre-1919 as it was in post-1919.

Well, he hit 12 in 1918 in something like 317 AB IN FENWAY with his focus split off the dead ball. No way to tell what he would have done as a full-time player from the get-go.

He didn't "suddenly" learn how to hit for power in '19 and '20, he was getting more AB to feel the rhythm of how pitchers would work him day in and day out. Anyone who has read up on him understands his power swing was developed LONG before '19 and '20.

[ThePeach]

He didn't "suddenly" learn how to hit for power in '19 and '20, he was getting more AB to feel the rhythm of how pitchers would work him day in and day out. Anyone who has read up on him understands his power swing was developed LONG before '19 and '20.

I know that, my comment was about the conditions of the deadball era, not of Babe Ruth. Maybe sometimes I should write longer explainations for things. :(

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I know that, my comment was about the conditions of the deadball era, not of Babe Ruth. Maybe sometimes I should write longer explainations for things. :(

No worries,

I think you're right. It WAS more difficult to hit a homer in '15-'19 than in '20, no doubt about that.

However, what he was doing with a dead ball just blew everyone away. Not just the total number, but the style and frequency of his homers.

In 1918 he had three dingers in three straight games from May 4-7 (the 5th was a Sunday), and had EIGHT in June including four in four straight games and four more from the 15th to the 30th. After his ninth in '18 he was dubbed the home run king in papers.

His last one on July 8th was hit 2/3 into the bleachers at Fenway in the 10th inning. Different rules; only a triple was given.

Those 8 June dingers were 2 more than anybody not named Tilly Walker had all season long, and would be enough to contend for the league lead in any other year.

Rather than looking at those numbers through Cobb colored glasses, I think its appropriate to step back and consider what he could have done relative to the league as a full-time player.

[ThePeach]

Rather than looking at those numbers through Cobb colored glasses, I think its appropriate to step back and consider what he could have done relative to the league as a full-time player.

Relative to the league, of course. When have I ever said the opposite? But it was just harder to hit homeruns then. Pretty much everyone from that era would have their homeruns multiplied in another era. We know this, because it happened instantly, not gradually.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--Babe was certainly a better fielder and probably a better baserunner when both were young. Williams took alot better care of humself though and never became the extreme liability as an older player than Ruth was outside the batter's box. In fact, Williams started working on his defense late in his career and might have been better defensively in his 30s than his 20s. For career value they are probably close to a wash on defensive nd baserunning value.

Not to carry this on since its supposed to be an offense only thread....but it was bound to come up considering the two players in question and their "missing" years.

Anyway here's Williams' defensive career according to PCA

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1940 123 1.20 0.258 (11th among LFers)
1941 124 0.45 0.227 (<20th)
1942 145 3.20 0.321 (1st)
1946 142 2.92 0.313 (2nd)
1947 152 1.78 0.268 (6th)
1948 129 1.03 0.249 (12th)
1949 155 1.05 0.243 (13th)
1950 82 0.52 0.241 (<20th)
1951 149 0.64 0.230 (18th)
1953 16 0.05 0.225 (NR)
1954 102 0.49 0.233 (dead last)
1955 75 2.13 0.354 (NR - I only ranking you if you have 81 games)
1956 90 0.89 0.259 (<20th)
1957 110 1.13 0.261 (9th)
1958 84 0.20 0.220 (Dead Last)
1959 46 0.95 0.314 (NR)
1960 63 0.39 0.240 (NR)[/code]

This does not take into account how little ground Williams had to cover at home. Something which most certainly helped him.

Here's where Babe ranks all-time among right fielders in defensive wins. Williams is at 22.18.

Al Kaline 49.26
Roberto Clemente 48.54
Hank Aaron 44.39
Sam Rice 41.92
Harry Hooper 41.15
Paul Waner 40.3
Andre Dawson 39.54
Tony Gwynn 35.35
Frank Robinson 35.17
Reggie Smith 33.66
Enos Slaughter 33.47
Willie Keeler 32.56
Sammy Sosa 31.71
Babe Ruth 31.08

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I think he was showing signs of great power right from the beginning. I saw some stats from the Interational League in 1914. The stats were for a part of the season, looked to be about the 3/4 point of the season.

Anyway at that point of the season there were only two players in double figures in triples. One an outfielder, don't recall his name but he had 15 triples. The other a pitcher Babe Ruth with 11 triples in a far smaller number of at bats.

Don't know how much attention this brought to him being in the minors.

[538280]

I agree as far as rate stats, but rate stats don't give a full view. Look at Babe's performance versus the rest of the deadball league when he was a pitcher. In 1915, Babe blasts a .576 slugging percentage as a pitcher (didn't play any games other than pitcher) while the league was only .330 - his OPS+ was 189. With only 94 at bats, all of them as a pitcher, the Babe finished 9th in the league in home runs! Put it this way: in 1915, Ruth pitched in the same number of games as Roger Clemens did last year. Clemens did not finish 9th in the league in homers (he hit zero). If the Rocket had finished 9th in home runs, how incredible would that be??

In 1918, Ruth slugs .555 against a league average of .329. His OBP was .411 versus a league average of .329. His OPS+ was 194. Pitching 166 innings with some time as a part-time OF and 1B, Ruth led the league in homeruns, slugging, extra base hits, OPS, OPS+, and second in OBP. NO, Babe wouldn't be hitting 50 homers in the deadball era, but he likely could have put up very impressive OBP and slugging percentages compared to the rest of the deadballers.

I agree, that Ruth would have been a tremendously great hitter in his years as a pitcher, probably the best in the league. But his career OPS+ was 205. Add on those years as a pitcher and it probably does not stay over 200. His best year in the pitcher years was 194. While Ruth certainly was an awesome hitter those years, I don't think he was as good as he would later become. That's why I disagree that you should make it a straightforward comparison. Give Williams those war years back his OPS+ surely goes up, give Ruth back the pitcher years and his OPS+ goes down.

[CTaka]

I agree, that Ruth would have been a tremendously great hitter in his years as a pitcher, probably the best in the league. But his career OPS+ was 205. Add on those years as a pitcher and it probably does not stay over 200. His best year in the pitcher years was 194. While Ruth certainly was an awesome hitter those years, I don't think he was as good as he would later become. That's why I disagree that you should make it a straightforward comparison. Give Williams those war years back his OPS+ surely goes up, give Ruth back the pitcher years and his OPS+ goes down.

I don't see it as a given the Ruth's OPS+ would necessarily have dropped to such a degree if he had been a full-time outfielder. An OPS+ of 194 as only a part-time position player while still pitching 166 innings is nothing to sneeze at. There is no reason to assume it would have been lower if he did not have to devote so much attention to pitching. There is very good reason to believe that it would have been even higher. Ruth's homerun numbers were severely impacted by his home park, which would hurt his rate numbers but enhance his adjusted OPS+ even more. I'm not saying Ruth's career OPS+ would have been enhanced to the same linear degree that Ted's would have if given war credit, but it doesn't make sense to just assume Ruth's career OPS+ of 205 would have dropped.

If both had the benefit of playing full-time during the periods they missed, I agree that the difference between Ruth and Williams would be smaller, but I still think Ruth would be in the top spot. I also understand that many don't consider any "what if" scenarios and only base it on what they actually did accomplish. I have Ruth as the clear winner under that circumstance.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Keep in mind if were speaking of cumulative stats, stats based on totals not percentages, if I recall Ruth had only around 700 more at bats than Ted had.

Of course Ted would have added to those career stats based on totals if he had those 5 seasons back but then he also would have had in the neighborhood of 2000 more at bats than Ruth.

Then we have to factor in the number of plate appearances and at bats and it's still a close call.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I agree, that Ruth would have been a tremendously great hitter in his years as a pitcher, probably the best in the league. But his career OPS+ was 205. Add on those years as a pitcher and it probably does not stay over 200. His best year in the pitcher years was 194. While Ruth certainly was an awesome hitter those years, I don't think he was as good as he would later become. That's why I disagree that you should make it a straightforward comparison. Give Williams those war years back his OPS+ surely goes up, give Ruth back the pitcher years and his OPS+ goes down.

Maybe I'm not understanding OPS+ but if we agree that his relative stats would be great for those deadball years, given that he would be solely focused on hitting (and his career defensive value would go up too), then doesn't OPS+ take that into account. How would it not go up from what we know it to be?

[leecemark]

--He could have had great seasons which were still not as great as his career average season, thus beginning down his career OPS+ some.

[ThePeach]

Maybe I'm not understanding OPS+ but if we agree that his relative stats would be great for those deadball years, given that he would be solely focused on hitting (and his career defensive value would go up too), then doesn't OPS+ take that into account. How would it not go up from what we know it to be?

Like all people he went through a learning curve. He would not START OFF his career with any OPS+ seasons over 200. I doubt he'd have his best years at 20-22 years old. Even by the time he was 23, he only hit a 194 OPS+, and by that time, he had years to adjust and get used to major league pitching. Sorry, no dice.

[runningshoes]

I'm going with Ruth, but if Williams hadn't missed those years, I suspect we all might be singing a different tune.

[Dodgerfan66]

ted williams.

[CTaka]

Like all people he went through a learning curve. He would not START OFF his career with any OPS+ seasons over 200. I doubt he'd have his best years at 20-22 years old. Even by the time he was 23, he only hit a 194 OPS+, and by that time, he had years to adjust and get used to major league pitching. Sorry, no dice.


"Even by the time he was 23, he ONLY hit a 194 OPS+...

Keep in mind that his 194 was accomplished when he was still pitching 166 innings. Keep in mind that 194 was exceeded by Stan Musial and Mike Schmidt only ONCE in their great careers. That matches the highest ever achieved by Hank Aaron. Joe Jackson and Willie Mays never reached that level in any full-season. For someone who had to focus much of his time on pitching, 194 isn't too shabby (actually its the 71st highest in any single season).

But again, this is all based on things that didn't actually happen. Ted or Babe could have blown out their knee and ended their career with the extra plate appearances.

[ThePeach]

"Even by the time he was 23, he ONLY hit a 194 OPS+...

Keep in mind that his 194 was accomplished when he was still pitching 166 innings. Keep in mind that 194 was exceeded by Stan Musial and Mike Schmidt only ONCE in their great careers. That matches the highest ever achieved by Hank Aaron. Joe Jackson and Willie Mays never reached that level in any full-season. For someone who had to focus much of his time on pitching, 194 isn't too shabby (actually its the 71st highest in any single season).

But again, this is all based on things that didn't actually happen. Ted or Babe could have blown out their knee and ended their career with the extra plate appearances.

WE WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT OTHER PLAYERS

Why in the world did you bring up how he compares to Stan Musial or Mike Schmidt?

We were talking about how the Babe's early years would affect his career OPS+. His career OPS+ was 207; 194 is still below 207. Considering that that was his fourth (well, really fifth) year in the major leagues, he had plenty of time to familiarize himself with the pitching. So, the point was, if he was a full-time outfielder from the start, those first four years (well five years) would bring his career OPS+ down from what it is now. In contrast, if Williams had his war years, his prime years, then his OPS+ would go UP, thus making their career OPS+s much closer then they are now.

You have to read into context first, please.

[sturg1dj]

the thing is what ifs? You can't just compare them down the middle. What if Teddy played in Yankee stadium? What if he didn't miss seasons, what if Ruth hadn't ever pitched.


I have two questions


1) when Williams first came up did he hit before or after Foxx

2) which season do you think is more impressive......Teddy's 1941 or Ruths 1921?

[538280]

2) which season do you think is more impressive......Teddy's 1941 or Ruths 1921?

Ruth's 1921. I wouldn't call either their best seasons though. For Ruth I'd choose '23 and for Williams '46.

[csh19792001]

You have to read into context first, please.

Speaking of context...

How meaningful is OPS+ when talking about Babe Ruth in the teens and early 20's, when he was the ultimate iconoclast in style? When he was outhomering entire teams, and facing a league of pitchers that had been never seen (or had to be forced to learn to deal with) anything like him? A league which in 1920 completely changed the rules and equipment, all to the detriment of these same pitchers?

Would his OPS+ have been nearly the same he not been playing in a league where almost everyone else choked up 6 inches on the bat? If studying the sepia toned photographs and reading about the drastic contrast between the game of yore and that of today isn't enough, the statistics tell the tale.

Just to illustrate, look at Ruth's prime, and his best years.

AMERICAN LEAGUE
1918-1923
HOMERUNS HR
1 Babe Ruth 229
2 Ken Williams 108
3 Tilly Walker 100
4 Harry Heilmann 80
5 Bob Meusel 60
T6 George Sisler 51
T6 Elmer Smith 51
T8 Bobby Veach 44
T8 Jack Tobin 44
10 Wally Pipp 43

And as a sidenote, Ken Williams was a complete product of his park. He hit 142 homeruns at home during his career, and only 42 on the road. In 1922 he hit 32 at home and 7 on the road. Same thing for Tilly Walker. 79 career homeruns at home, and only 39 on the road. This only reinforcing the point that there were no real homerun hitters during Ruth's best years.

ISO = Slugging % - Batting Average. It measures extra base hit ability.

AMERICAN LEAGUE
1918-1923
ISOLATED POWER ISO
1 Babe Ruth .387
2 Ken Williams .232
3 Bob Meusel .202
4 Elmer Smith .190
5 Harry Heilmann .185
6 Tilly Walker .182
7 Bing Miller .181
8 Joe Jackson .180
9 Tris Speaker .178
10 George Sisler .177

Contrast that with the AL of this era.

AMERICAN LEAGUE
1994-2004
ISOLATED POWER ISO
1 Mark McGwire .373
2 Ken Griffey Jr. .317
3 Jim Thome .292
4 Albert Belle .285
5 Manny Ramirez .285
6 Carlos Delgado .274
7 Alex Rodriguez .268
8 Juan Gonzalez .267
9 Frank Thomas .266
10 Jay Buhner .264

The #10 guy here is way, way ahead of the #2 guy in Ruth's prime. In fact, you have to go all the way out to #19 (John Jaha) who had an equivalent ISO to Ken Williams (who, again, was only a product of Sportsman's).

Babe Ruth was Babe Ruth, and I'm not trying to knock him. He was a ridiculous slugger (probably the best ever, irrespective of era) and probably the best HR hitter ever. The point is that looking at him using relative stats (OPS+ is just one of the many) is going to make him look greater than he was.

[ThePeach]

Ruth's 1921. I wouldn't call either their best seasons though. For Ruth I'd choose '23 and for Williams '46.

Come again?

[ThePeach]

Speaking of context...


Yeah, this is true.

[KCGHOST]

The Babe was the best ever no matter who you compare him to.

[sturg1dj]

Ruth's 1921. I wouldn't call either their best seasons though. For Ruth I'd choose '23 and for Williams '46.


well, its not even worth debating, because it is opinion and how someone defines a great year...but for some reason I feel like debating it.

I like the '23 season because it ends many debates and shows many casual fans how great a hitter Ruth was with his .393 average and his amazing OBP....BUT the numbers he put up in '21 show everything he could do. His production was at its highest. His runs created were his tops, his total bases were incredible....and he still hit for a very high average.
Career Ranking
AVG - .373 2T
Hits - 204 2
Runs - 177 1
2b - 44 2
3b - 16 1
HR - 59 1
RBI - 171 1
SB - 17 1T
BB - 145 3
OBP - .512 4
SLG - .846 2
TB - 457! 1

now debating a best Ruth season is dumb, but fun because there are so many great ones....he was awesome. I do believe, however, that history has done him a disservice by making it generally known (although false) that his 1927 season was his best. The number 60 became so important that his other seasons were lost. Ven though, truly, I would rank that season as maybe his 5th or 6th best. But getting back to his 1923....I am in agreement that is was truly an amazing season.

As far as Ted's 1946, I would say I must have a quite different perspective than you since I couldn't see a season where he didn't win a batting title as his best...expecially when you have two triple crowns and a .400 season.

[sturg1dj]

but another way of looking at it would be who would be a better hitter today? And I would have to say Ted Williams just because he was such a student of the game, while Ruth was more of a natural (we've all seen the old footage of him working out, but come on).

[csh19792001]

The Babe was the best ever no matter who you compare him to.

That was comprehensive and utterly convincing.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Speaking of context...


Would his OPS+ have been nearly the same he not been playing in a league where almost everyone else choked up 6 inches on the bat? If studying the sepia toned photographs and reading about the drastic contrast between the game of yore and that of today isn't enough, the statistics tell the tale.


This only reinforcing the point that there were no real homerun hitters during Ruth's best years.

.

We're comparing Babe and Ted as hitters but we're focusing on OPS+ as though thats about all that matters. What about batting average relative to the league. I don't have the figures in front of me but I am sure if we just flat out compare Babe's and Ted's batting average relative to the league in their time Ted would come out on top by a wide margin.

I have seen some numbers posted that have Ruth around 29th in ranking hitters batting average relative to the time played in. Not an accurate or fair picture. Comparing a slugger's batting average compared to a sea of contact hitters. Only in the very late 1920's and early 1930's did the long ball come into the game.

What gets lost here is the fact, as you point out is that Ruth in his time when the game was full of contact hitters, make contact, choke up and don't strike out. It was a different game when Ted was playing, far less contact hitters. I'm certainly not trying to sell Ted short regarding his Ba. over the league average only pointing out the difference in the time they played in.

You ask the question, would his OPS+ have been the same had he played in a league where almost everyone choked up 6 inches on the bat. I'm with you on that one, it would not. Turn it around, would the league batting average have been as high if others were swinging from the heels as Ruth was.

This is my point, I can give in on your poin his OPS+ would not have been as high. My point, how did Ruth the fence buster swinging from the heels manage to hit for 60 points higher than the league, a league full of contact hitters.
Lets not get lost on OPS+ and give Ruth some credit for holding more than his own in league batting average.

Ruth was playing his own game, the long ball and at the same time playing the league's game contact, high batting average.

[538280]

well, its not even worth debating, because it is opinion and how someone defines a great year...but for some reason I feel like debating it.

I like the '23 season because it ends many debates and shows many casual fans how great a hitter Ruth was with his .393 average and his amazing OBP....BUT the numbers he put up in '21 show everything he could do. His production was at its highest. His runs created were his tops, his total bases were incredible....and he still hit for a very high average.
Career Ranking
AVG - .373 2T
Hits - 204 2
Runs - 177 1
2b - 44 2
3b - 16 1
HR - 59 1
RBI - 171 1
SB - 17 1T
BB - 145 3
OBP - .512 4
SLG - .846 2
TB - 457! 1

now debating a best Ruth season is dumb, but fun because there are so many great ones....he was awesome. I do believe, however, that history has done him a disservice by making it generally known (although false) that his 1927 season was his best. The number 60 became so important that his other seasons were lost. Ven though, truly, I would rank that season as maybe his 5th or 6th best. But getting back to his 1923....I am in agreement that is was truly an amazing season.

1923 may not have quite been Ruth's best hitting year, that was probably 1920, but '23 was VERY close behind, with the tremendous BA and OBP, and more PA than in '20. But, the thing that really lifts '23 in my estimation (and in the metrics' as well) is that '23 was by far Ruth's best defensive season. Look at what any statistical metric says and you'll see that they have Ruth as a true defensive monster in '23.

As far as Ted's 1946, I would say I must have a quite different perspective than you since I couldn't see a season where he didn't win a batting title as his best...expecially when you have two triple crowns and a .400 season.

1946 was much more of a pitcher's year than '41, so relative to league he's actually not that far behind. Then you take into account that he had 66 more PA, and that again it was probably his best defensive season.

[CTaka]

WE WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT OTHER PLAYERS

Why in the world did you bring up how he compares to Stan Musial or Mike Schmidt?

We were talking about how the Babe's early years would affect his career OPS+. His career OPS+ was 207; 194 is still below 207. Considering that that was his fourth (well, really fifth) year in the major leagues, he had plenty of time to familiarize himself with the pitching. So, the point was, if he was a full-time outfielder from the start, those first four years (well five years) would bring his career OPS+ down from what it is now. In contrast, if Williams had his war years, his prime years, then his OPS+ would go UP, thus making their career OPS+s much closer then they are now.

You have to read into context first, please.

Wow, 194 is less than 207?? Never realized that....

You need to understand the context. 194 for a pitcher moonlighting in the OF and 1B is phenomenal. It is very likely that it would have been higher, possibly MUCH higher, if he had not had to focus on pitching. Not talking about rate stats, but his OPS+ may well have exceeded 207, or far exceeded 207, if he only concentrated on hitting. His home park was an awful park for hitting homeruns, thus positively affecting his adjusted OPS+ even more. And yes, if he had exceeded 207 in his deadball years, that would raise his career OPS+ even higher. Again, not as high as I think Ted would have raised his 190, but certainly not a given that Ruth's 207 would have gone down. It puts Ted much closer to Ruth, but I still think the Babe would be in the top position.

[Mariano_Rivera]

I just want to remind everyone that this is about comparing the two offensively, clearly Ruth was the better overrall player with his great arm, solid range and quality years as a pitcher.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Like all people he went through a learning curve. He would not START OFF his career with any OPS+ seasons over 200. I doubt he'd have his best years at 20-22 years old. Even by the time he was 23, he only hit a 194 OPS+, and by that time, he had years to adjust and get used to major league pitching. Sorry, no dice.

Thats not much to go on, to reach any conclusion. At the age of 23 Ruth had only 678 career at bats. Before that season (1918) he had only 361 career at bats. Those 361 at bats took place between 1914- 1917 and in those those years he came to bat only every 4th or 5th day, he was a pitcher only in those three seasons.

I would have to think batting every 4th or 5th day would not be the best for keeping a hitter's timing sharp and besides I go back to the low number of at bats, 361 in his first 4 seasons

1918 when he was at the age of 23 had to be learning season for him, very low at number of bats and seeing pitchers in the three seasons leading up to 1918.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--He could have had great seasons which were still not as great as his career average season, thus beginning down his career OPS+ some.

They don't have to be as great as his career avg season for his career OPS+ to go up. Those few years just need to be better than THEY WERE because everything else stays the same. If you give him those years where he's focused solely on hitting and playing the outfield, not only is his career defense greater, but his hitting during those years would have no choice but increase imo. It can't be stressed enough...getting steady AB against various league pitchers and seeing how they approach you day in and day out, is crucial to development and success. I don't think it would have taken even a half season into '15 for him to adjust and produce, playing every single day.


AL------SA---HR

1915 - .326 - 160
1916 - .324 - 144
1917 - .320 - 133
1918 - .322 - 96*
1919 - .359 - 240*
1920 - .387 - 369
1921 - .408 - 477
1922 - .398 - 525
1923 - .388 - 442
1924 - .397 - 397
1925 - .408 - 533
1926 - .392 - 424
1927 - .399 - 439

Today's AL slugging average is usually around .430 and that's with the DH in there. The NL has had several years around .410-.415 recently.

Everybody benefitted from the live ball no matter what their style. Are his relative power numbers slightly inflated, sure. But simply saying "well others just weren't goin' for homers" assumes that others would have been able to hit them anywhere near Ruth's frequency if they'd tried. Pretty far reach. And if they'd tried, its very likely that their batting averages would fall drastically. More in the league try for homers, still fall short of Ruthian numbers and Babe's relative power numbers aren't as godly.....but his relative BA skyrockets.

[csh19792001]

We're comparing Babe and Ted as hitters but we're focusing on OPS+ as though thats about all that matters.

OPS+ isn't the only stat that matters. However, every single metric I know of factors in OBP and SLG (and most heavily so), and most of them are also relative adjustments. And that includes Win Shares, TPR, and all of the ancillary stats that get thrown around here incessantly. These are what people rank players based on, not batting average.


Lets not get lost on OPS+ and give Ruth some credit for holding more than his own in league batting average.

Ruth was playing his own game, the long ball and at the same time playing the league's game contact, high batting average.

I give Ruth tremendous credit for being an outstanding average hitter relative to his league. He was a freak of nature, and one of the great natural talents (IMO the greatest natural talent) that ever played this game.

But again, the relative BA is secondary (probably tertiary) to the larger point that running up the score in terms of overall production stats on a league full of guys choking up 6 inches on the bat is a huge part of what makes Ruth the statistical God that he is.

Even if you look at the style change that you guys espouse happened (and indeed, the game did shift a bit more towards the HR game towards the end of Babe's career), it's still extremely minor compared to the HR/SLG orientation of later eras.

Take Ruth out of the equation to get a more accurate picture of the style of the day- and the pack of players against whom his relative slg, obp, and accompanying power/production stats are measured against.

AMERICAN LEAGUE
1917-24
HR%
.75

AMERICAN LEAGUE
1925-1934
HR%
1.24

Now contrast that with other modern timeframes.

AMERICAN LEAGUE
1950-60
HR%
2.30

And I'll use the NL of the present day, because the DH would unfairly skew things against Ruth.

NATIONAL LEAGUE
1994-2004
HR%
3.05

And even more telling is the SO/AB ratios. The strikeout percentage for Ruth's time as a regular player (1918-34) was 8.6%. From 1994-2004, the K rate was 19%. That doesn't seem like much on face value, but just consider...

During Ruth's entire career, the major league leader eclipsed 100 strikeouts only twice (1932 and 1934- Clift had 100 on the mark). Obviously, there are far fewer teams and larger rosters today, but just to put that in perspective, in the 2004 National League ALONE there were 67 players who struck out more than 100 times.

The point is that the game has an ethos of swinging from the heels today. This is set in diametric opposition to that of 70, 80, or 90 years ago.

Separating one's self from the pack in terms of overall production is a function of the style and quality of the players around the individual in question. And again I submit that Ruth was able to run up the score against a league that was mostly comprised of players choking up for singles, not taking walks/putting the ball in play, and never going for homeruns. Guys in baggy uniforms still playing Base Ball, for the most part.

How much would he come back to the pack playing today, or at any time during the last 50 years? I have no idea, but clearly it would be at least some. All I know is that looking at the offensive approach of the league is a vital contextual component of any analysis of Ruth's statistical value.

[ThePeach]

I agree that the hitters of the twenties were good examples of fine-tuned batters (not sluggers). It was a ripple affect from the deadball era. The reason is that it was against the odds to try and lift a deadball back then, so guys had to adjust, or preformed terribly (and were out of the game). People were unaware of the affects of the lively ball at the time, so most didn't realize that they could adjust with success. Now, I do think that over time people started to take it too far, and lost track of their roots. The strike outs and batting averages reached a dismal level IMO. People forgot that there was a happy "middle ground" that they could hit in with success (ala Rogers Hornsby).

[Sultan_1895-1948]

All I know is that looking at the offensive approach of the league is a vital contextual component of any analysis of Ruth's statistical value.

Problem is, we just don't know the exact approach of the entire league. We can look at strikeout numbers and batting averages and safely assume that probably at least 75% of the league was not taking his approach. But we can also look at the power numbers and say that others benefitted from the rule changes and the livelier baseball. The SA and hr numbers of the entire league rose.

I think it would be incredibly naive to think that there weren't dozens upon dozens of players who at one point tried to do what Ruth was doing, but realized (with a high emphasis on BA) that they just couldn't do both. They needed to make a choice. They weren't going to come close to matching him in power even if they emulated, and while doing it their BA would suffer greatly. Something they couldn't afford. So adjusting on the premise that others would have been able to match him is pretty absurd imo. Would the gap have closed a bit, sure, but I think the BA gap would grow more than the power gap would close.

Somebody somewhere is supposedly doing research, and looking into how many homers he would have had, if only the fences were a reasonable distance. The 400 foot long fly-outs to center and the 380 foot fly-outs to the gaps...and then there's the bogus rule that I believe changed in '31, where the ball was judged fair or foul based on where the ball was last seen; didn't matter if it hooked around a foul pole. Estimates are somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 lost homers to that rule alone.

If anyone has a shot against Ruth, just the hitter, its Ballgame. There are issues that need to be ironed out and agreed upon before any true comparison can start though. Maybe everybody can offer their opinions and fill in each of their missing years, then we can judge relative to the league (raw won't do it with the dead ball). This would be giving Ruth his early years as just a hitter and giving Ballgame back his years. Do we assume Fenway would have the dimensions Ballgame enjoyed? What happens in 1918 if Babe wasn't playing everyday while still taking a regular turn on the mound for the last six weeks of the season. What happens if he takes a small time in '15 to adjust and then strictly plays the outfield with his focus only on hitting. Scary thought.

[MantleFan911]

I think this is a pretty pointless arguement, i would take either one of them in a heartbeat. But 4 my money i think i would take the splendid splinter

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Just curious how they did against common pitchers, if anyone knows.

Ruth played through 1935, although his run of great seasons ended in 1932 and Williams started in 1939 and was great from the start.

HoFer Ted Lyons pitched for the Chi Sox from 1923-1942, plus a handful of games in 1946 after wartime service.

HoFer Red Ruffing pitched for the Red Sox from 1924-1929, then was traded to the Yanks in 1930 and pitched for them until WWII, and a few seasons after.

Mel Harder was an All-Star pitcher for the Tribe from 1928-1947.

Tommy Bridges was an All-Star pitcher for the Tigers from 1930-1946.


So there's four quality pitchers, at least, who faced both Ruth and Williams for 4 or more seasons. How'd those sluggers do against common opponents?

[Bench 5]

I vote for Babe Ruth.

As an aside, I recall watching Ted Williams on TV several years ago in which he named his list of all time hitters. He named the Babe number 1. He didn't include himself on the list but he always seemed deferential to the Babe. I looked up the list on the web and here's a copy:


Babe Ruth
Lou Gehrig
Jimmie Foxx
Rogers Hornsby
Joe DiMaggio
Ty Cobb
Stan Musial
Joe Jackson
Hank Aaron
Willie Mays
Hank Greenberg
Mickey Mantle
Tris Speaker
Al Simmons
Johnny Mize
Mel Ott
Harry Heilmann
Frank Robinson
Mike Schmidt
Ralph Kiner


Most of the guys on the list were contemporaries or else stars from his childhood.

[Blackout]

thats a solid list by Teddy Ballgame, except Mantle is a little too low

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I vote for Babe Ruth.

As an aside, I recall watching Ted Williams on TV several years ago in which he named his list of all time hitters. He named the Babe number 1. He didn't include himself on the list but he always seemed deferential to the Babe. I looked up the list on the web and here's a copy:


Babe Ruth
Lou Gehrig
Jimmie Foxx
Rogers Hornsby
Joe DiMaggio
Ty Cobb
Stan Musial
Joe Jackson
Hank Aaron
Willie Mays
Hank Greenberg
Mickey Mantle
Tris Speaker
Al Simmons
Johnny Mize
Mel Ott
Harry Heilmann
Frank Robinson
Mike Schmidt
Ralph Kiner


Most of the guys on the list were contemporaries or else stars from his childhood.

Not a surprise to see Jackson that high up, but yeah, Mantle seems a bit too low. Wonder what Ted was thinking?

[torez77]

Yeah, I remember that show with Teddy ranking the all-time greatest hitters. I remember Bob Costas was on that show and he said something like "modesty prevents Ted from ranking himself, but he's at worst the #2 hitter of all time."

[AlecBoy006]

I gave it to Ruth. Though Williams slugged .406, and missed some time, Ruth changed baseball.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I disagree. Give Ted back those war years and his rate stats go up.

I know this is off topic, but correct me if I am wrong, you don't have DiMaggio very high...and he lost three (four if you count the year he came back0 of his prime to war where he could put up some amazing numbers and be stats wise ahead of Stan Musial in the averages BA/OBP/SLG and even HRs, but are you giving Williams war credit or not? I am just curious. If you are why Ted but not Joe?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Yeah, I remember that show with Teddy ranking the all-time greatest hitters. I remember Bob Costas was on that show and he said something like "modesty prevents Ted from ranking himself, but he's at worst the #2 hitter of all time."

That was an incredible show. Do you think that's available on DVD or anything?

[AlecBoy006]

Even if Teddy didn't have war years, I'd still put him at 650 HR's at best.

[ChrisLDuncan]

thats a solid list by Teddy Ballgame, except Mantle is a little too low

Yeah I would agree my list of hitters is probably

Ruth
Williams
Gehrig
Foxx
Hornsby
DiMaggio
Cobb
Mantle
Jackson
Manny Ramirez
Aaron
Musial
Speaker
Mays
Greenberg
Mize
Ott
Frank Robinson
Schmidt
Kiner

But back to the origional question, I'd say Ruth...Ted is close, VERY close.

[AlecBoy006]

You put Ramirez ahead of 5 500 hr hitters?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I know this is off topic, but correct me if I am wrong, you don't have DiMaggio very high...and he lost three (four if you count the year he came back0 of his prime to war where he could put up some amazing numbers and be stats wise ahead of Stan Musial in the averages BA/OBP/SLG and even HRs, but are you giving Williams war credit or not? I am just curious. If you are why Ted but not Joe?

He didn't use to give Dimaggio any war credit, but caved due to Fever peer pressure. So now he reluctantly gives him some credit due to lost time. And he doesn't think YS hurt Joe D. That about right Chris?

ps. I still don't get how Ruth's OPS+ doesn't go up if you replace his known pitching season OPS+ numbers with better ones.

pps. Ted's career splits.

Home - .361/.497/.652
Away - .328/.468/.615

[AlecBoy006]

I'd like to see how many homeruns Ruth would have if he played during the war.

[torez77]

That was an incredible show. Do you think that's available on DVD or anything?

I just checked on Ebay. The only DVDs of Williams I see are "The Science of Hitting", "Batting with Ted Williams" and another show about Williams' career. It's probably out there somewhere, maybe I just gotta type in the right keywords. Bench 5 mentioned the show above, maybe he remembers the title.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I'd like to invite Matt to post some of his PCA findings/comparisons on Ruth's offense or pitching. Whether good or bad, it would be nice to have it documented.

Posted by: SABR Matt

Ask and you shall receive.

We'll start with some commentary on his hitting, cover his fielding, and then his pitching...and then I'll make a summary statement about Ruth's place in history.

To demostrate how truly phenominal Ruth's career was, let's show his offensive record using PCA adjusted Wins and PCA-BA:
PlayerID Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
ruthba01 1914 10 0.00 0.233
ruthba01 1915 103 1.98 0.349
ruthba01 1916 150 1.46 0.291
ruthba01 1917 142 1.62 0.301
ruthba01 1918 380 9.31 0.382
ruthba01 1919 542 16.14 0.415
ruthba01 1920 616 22.36 0.455
ruthba01 1921 693 23.23 0.438
ruthba01 1922 495 11.11 0.369
ruthba01 1923 699 20.60 0.413
ruthba01 1924 681 21.03 0.421
ruthba01 1925 426 4.53 0.297
ruthba01 1926 652 19.46 0.415
ruthba01 1927 691 16.29 0.376
ruthba01 1928 684 17.82 0.392
ruthba01 1929 587 13.86 0.377
ruthba01 1930 676 15.65 0.374
ruthba01 1931 663 16.48 0.384
ruthba01 1932 589 15.36 0.392
ruthba01 1933 575 8.37 0.321
ruthba01 1934 471 7.09 0.324
ruthba01 1935 92 0.77 0.283

His career Offensive PCA-BA of .385 is best in baseball history among players with at least 2500 PA. Just try to imagine what people would say about a player who had a .385 career batting average (!)...when you put offensive production on the scale of batting average it really helps put things into perspective. Note that Ruth bests Ted Williams by 4 points and the third place hitter (in terms of career production rate, that's Barry Bonds) by SIXTEEN points.

6 Seasons Over .400
8 More Seasons Over .350
Aside from when he was injured or a pitcher, he NEVER finished below .300 (and bear in mind, the adjusted wins and PCA-BA are normalized to account for the standard deviation of performance which during Ruth's time was rather large).

Check this out...here are the the top 25 seasons in major league history where the player recorded at least 500 PA in offensive PCA-BA...count the times Ruth appears:
PlayerID Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
Babe Ruth 1920 616 22.36 0.455
R. Henderson 1990 594 20.74 0.446
Barry Bonds 2004 617 21.55 0.446
Barry Bonds 2002 612 20.72 0.44
Babe Ruth 1921 693 23.23 0.438
Ty Cobb 1910 590 19.09 0.431
George Brett 1980 515 16.68 0.431
Honus Wagner 1908 641 20.55 0.429
Ty Cobb 1917 669 21.27 0.427
Nap Lajoie 1901 582 17.89 0.421
Babe Ruth 1924 681 21.03 0.421
Honus Wagner 1904 558 17.18 0.421
Mickey Mantle 1956 652 19.94 0.42
Ted Williams 1957 546 16.72 0.42
Mickey Mantle 1962 502 15.28 0.419
Mickey Mantle 1957 623 18.81 0.417
Jim Thome 2002 613 18.51 0.417
Ted Williams 1941 606 18.25 0.417
Babe Ruth 1919 542 16.14 0.415
Base Ruth 1926 652 19.46 0.415
Ted Williams 1948 638 19.04 0.415
Jason Giambi 2001 671 19.88 0.414
Barry Bonds 2001 664 19.61 0.413
Babe Ruth 1923 699 20.6 0.413
Nap Lajoie 1904 594 17.41 0.412
Jason Giambi 2000 664 19.34 0.411

Out of the top 25 hitting seasons of all time by PCA, six of them were Babe Ruth.

When you break his marvelous career into the three components that make up the GI method, (career wins or LONGEVITY, wins prorated to a standard career length or EFFICIENCY, and performance above the 90th percentile along with a career half-life projection, which when combined together form a DOMINANCE term), You get a good picture of how Ruth compares to the other great offensive players.

In terms of career offensive wins, here are the top five:
First Last LONGEVITY Ps
Ty Cobb 265.2 CF
Babe Ruth 264.52 RF
Barry Bonds 258.57 LF
Ted Williams 238.52 LF
Rickey Henderson 237.42 LF

Cobb ekes out an extremely slim victory over Ruth here but does so in about 2400 extra plate appearances.

Other than Barry Bonds, no one else comes even close to Ruth.

Here's are the top five most efficiency offensive players of all time:
First Last EFFICIENCY Ps
Babe Ruth 260.61 RF
Barry Bonds 248.54 LF
Ty Cobb 245.74 CF
Ted Williams 239.84 LF
Rickey Henderson 216.23 LF

Neat...same five players, but now Ruth dominates the field being the only player with a relatively short career in this grouping (even Ted Williams had more PA despite having to fight in two different wars).

When we look at how much the best players dominated over their field, Ruth again lands squarely on top:
First Last MASTERY Ps
Babe Ruth 245.05 RF
Ted Williams 221.95 LF
Barry Bonds 216.34 LF
Ty Cobb 201.09 CF
Mickey Mantle 179.45 CF

The new player in this list is the Mick...and this makes sense given his impressive string of league-leads in PCA wins created. But notice how big the drop-off is between Ruth and the next three...and again to the third tier oif players (led by Mantle). No one dominated the game anything like Ruth offensively.

His offensive rating, when you add those three fields together reflects this:
First Last TOTAL Ps
Babe Ruth 770.18 RF
Barry Bonds 723.45 LF
Ty Cobb 712.03 CF
Ted Williams 700.31 LF
Rickey Henderson 627.82 LF

Ruth blows away the field, fellas. This will be important later when I talk about defense in the next post.
With the available data, though, I will stick to my belief that Ruth is the best hitter of all time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to Matt for the data. Here's a line-chart to give a different visual perspective of offensive PCA-BA and how these players performed throughout their careers.

Bonds ('86-'04), Ruth ('18-'35), Mays ('51-'73; no '53 of course), Williams ('39-'60; no '43-'45, and no '52 - only 12 PA)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I just checked on Ebay. The only DVDs of Williams I see are "The Science of Hitting", "Batting with Ted Williams" and another show about Williams' career. It's probably out there somewhere, maybe I just gotta type in the right keywords. Bench 5 mentioned the show above, maybe he remembers the title.

It was on ESPN right? Its gotta be out there somewhere. Maybe ESPN Classic could be contacted and we could request them to air it. Turn on your VCR's for that one boys and girls :D

[ChrisLDuncan]

You put Ramirez ahead of 5 500 hr hitters?


My apologies that's assuming he has two-three more Manny-esque seasons.

[ChrisLDuncan]

He didn't use to give Dimaggio any war credit, but caved due to Fever peer pressure. So now he reluctantly gives him some credit due to lost time. And he doesn't think YS hurt Joe D. That about right Chris?

ps. I still don't get how Ruth's OPS+ doesn't go up if you replace his known pitching season OPS+ numbers with better ones.

pps. Ted's career splits.

Home - .361/.497/.652
Away - .328/.468/.615

Yes, that sounds about right, DiMaggio is an underrated player in my mind. Mostly because people think he was all hype, he had a short career, and he lost time to the war. Also Yankee Stadium hurt him, James "proved" it, so do his home/road splits. Most people that knew how good he was were his peers, e.g. Ted Williams, but what ever. He has Nine World Series rings an a marriage to Marylin Monroe so I'm sure he ended up pretty happy with his career all things considered. It's just a shame though that his iconic status took away from his greatness.

[ChrisLDuncan]

It was on ESPN right? Its gotta be out there somewhere. Maybe ESPN Classic could be contacted and we could request them to air it. Turn on your VCR's for that one boys and girls :D

ESPN Classic, it's usually on there in the doldrums of sports, i.e. Febuary-early March.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Yes, that sounds about right, DiMaggio is an underrated player in my mind. Mostly because people think he was all hype, he had a short career, and he lost time to the war. Also Yankee Stadium hurt him, James "proved" it, so do his home/road splits. Most people that knew how good he was were his peers, e.g. Ted Williams, but what ever. He has Nine World Series rings an a marriage to Marylin Monroe so I'm sure he ended up pretty happy with his career all things considered. It's just a shame though that his iconic status took away from his greatness.
Thats the truth, a shame some inject personal feelings into the mix when evaluating Joe. Should it be held against him because he was not always Mr. nice guy and had a number of charactar faults, like every other human being.

Did he get more than enough press because he played for the Yanks and played in New York. Probably true but does that, should that take away from the great all around ball player he was.

Yankee Stadium was murder when the subject is home runs for Joe and any other RH Yankee, although some give some figures trying to shoot down that notion. Simple and to the point, take all the Yankee RH hitters that played in Joe's time and for some years after until the park was made smaller and you will see the great difference in home runs home and away, there are only a few exceptions.

He had a short career but in that time when he put on the spikes he was as good and better than most as an all around player in the game and he was a RH hitter facing a greater number of RH pitchers.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

That was an incredible show. Do you think that's available on DVD or anything?

Lucky me, you guys refreshed my memory. I remembered I taped that Ted Williams "Twenty Greatest Hitters" and just pulled it out and took a look. It was shown during a Yanks/Mets rain delay some years ago, so I missed a few of the opening minutes but missed none of the count down from twenty to one on the list.

One thing was clear although Ted stated that the formula used was complicated he stressed OBA and slugging as being two of the most important ingredients. He compared a .330 hitter as being as valuable as a .360 hitter when the .330 hitter had a significantly higher OBA.

Some may be a bit surprised to see Mel Ott at number 16, short porch at the Polo Grounds. Ted gave Mel credit for making the most out of the situation, pulling the ball, getting it up in the air when pitchers were pitching away from him attempting to defeat his purpose, pulling to RF.

Joe Dimaggio spoke some stating that from 1936 to the present he has never seen as great a hitter as Ted. Speaking for myself, in my time I see Ted with no equal.

I'm searching for this one on DVD. I prefer DVD's to tapes, better quality and you can employ SLO-MO and frame by frame that is far superior than that of a tape. Great for watching a hitter take his swing.