Rob Neyer: Babe Ruth the Best Ballplayer Ever

[YASNY]

I concur...........

 

I used to play a little game with some of my regulars many years ago when I used to tend bar.  I would have them pick an all-time team, one player at each position, three outfielders and one RH and one LH pitcher.  I would usually have them pick an all-time team and a "B" team.  It is amazing how many great players get left of such lists and how fun the discussions were......

 

If anyone is motivated to do so by this post, I would sugget starting another thread, but that is just my thought. 

Developing an alltime team for each league could be fun as well. The ultimate All-Star teams.

[southsider2k5]

Babe Ruth's dominance cannot be touched. When Bonds has an OPS+ of 200 (with league average being a 100) or wins 100 games as a pitcher, then we'll talk. 

I think there is no way to argue that anyone dominated the game the way Babe Ruth did. He was hitting more HR's than all of the rest of the teams in baseball.

 

Heck even the Bob Gibson 1.12 era was met by a bunch of guys with an era under 2.

 

When Ruth hit 60's there was no one close.

[Nokona]

Man, i wish players like Oscar Charleston and Josh Gibson could have been in the bigs, or atleast had records kept. Oscar may have been the greatest player ever, Buck O'Neil talks about him in ASB 04. He says he had Babe's Power, Willie's Speed and Defense, and Cobb's baserunning ability. Phew that would have been devastating.

 

I always felt that Willie was a better ball player then Babe. He was the package. The 5 tool player teams have wet dreams about night after night. Except Willie made 5 tool. Willie could throw the ball 400 feet and get people out tagging up at home. He was known to tag up on infield flies and beat the throw. He hit 660 homers, which back then was Ruthian and he hit 660 homers off pitchers like Bob Gibson. The Babe never had to face Satchel Paige, he never had to face any Latino pitcher. Willie took on the best of the best of that era. Babe took on the best of the white.

[SoxAce]

Man, i wish players like Oscar Charleston and Josh Gibson could have been in the bigs, or atleast had records kept.

Wasn't Josh Gibson the one who hit like 80 hrs. in one year for the Negro Leagues?

[BrandoFan]

Man, i wish players like Oscar Charleston and Josh Gibson could have been in the bigs, or atleast had records kept. Oscar may have been the greatest player ever, Buck O'Neil talks about him in ASB 04. He says he had Babe's Power, Willie's Speed and Defense, and Cobb's baserunning ability. Phew that would have been devastating.

 

Yep, those two brothas were crazy-talented. Gibson was the one who hit 80 homers. There was also Cool Papa Bell...

 

But you talk about inferior pitching during Ruthian times....Negro Leagues had significantly weaker pitching than MLB. Josh Gibson could have been better better than Willie Mays or he could become another Reggie Jackson or even a Dick Allen. Nobody knows for sure.

 

As for Mays....defense is not as important in baseball as it is in basketball or football (Ruth wasn't a butcher in the OF, either) and Wilie Mays hit during 50's -- offense-heavy era -- with many same ballparks already shrunk in dimensions as compared to when Ruth played just 30 years prior. And Mays was NEVER as comparatively dominant as Ruth, although he came close on a few occasions.

 

Without dorking it up with the Win Share System or whatever other system James disciple Neyer wants to use....Ruth, Mays, Bonds, Wagner, Williams-- I have NO problem with this top 5.

[WillieHarris2]

i'd have to say i think babe ruth is the greatest to ever play the game.

[SoxAce]

Gibson was the one who hit 80 homers.

I thought it was him. Man there were some amazing players in the Negro Leagues. If only it could of been..

[knightni]

There was also Cool Papa Bell...

He was the guy who was so fast he could switch the light off from across the room and be under the covers before the room got dark.

[Rex Hudler]

As for Mays....defense is not as important in baseball as it is in basketball or football

 

I have a problem with this theory. I know my thoughts go against every Bill Jamesian theory out there, but defense does matter.

 

I used to be a pitcher and I know that I was a better pitcher when I had good defensive teams behind me. I was more confident, challenged hitters more and pitched differently. I can honestly say that I felt I was a run or two a game better when I had good defense behind me.

 

That does not mean I crumbled after an error by any means. It's just a mental edge a pitcher has when he knows a good defense can save him 2-4 hits per game. Those hits can be huge.

 

So while stats may not reflect it, there is no way you can measure what goes on in a pitcher's head. And what goes on in his head, definitely reflects how he will throw to each hitter.

[BrandoFan]

I have a problem with this theory. I know my thoughts go against every Bill Jamesian theory out there, but defense does matter.

 

It's not a Bill Jamesean theory -- it's a common sensian one. One that is supported by actual numbers.

 

I didn't say that defense doesn't matter-- just that it doesn't matter quite as much. Defense in football = pitching PLUS fielding in baseball.

 

So while stats may not reflect it, there is no way you can measure what goes on in a pitcher's head.

 

That's why no one even ATTEMPTS to. Otherwise, it's easy to say that the reason why Magglio Ordonez hit into a bases loaded DP is because he was still under distess over the horrible fielding blunder he witnessed his teammate commit a few innings before.....

 

I am not denying that good defense positively affects a pitcher's psyche. But then again, you could also say the same thing about a good BP and especially for run support -- both are supposed to inspire greater confidence in a pitcher.

 

Who knowns why a pitcher starts falling apart -- perhaps because his SS booted a routine grounder leading to 2 runs scoring OR because he suspects his girlfriend of blowing his best friend behind his back.....

 

And with all due respect....one of the reasons why Mark Prior is out there on the mound and not you is because he is extremely tough MENTALLY -- as a PRO, he is expected and is getting paid to OVERCOME fielding mistakes, crowd noise, media, etc, etc, etc.

[Rex Hudler]

It's not a Bill Jamesean theory -- it's a common sensian one.  One that is supported by actual numbers.

 

I didn't say that defense doesn't matter--  just that it doesn't matter quite as much.    Defense in football = pitching PLUS fielding in baseball.

 

 

 

That's why no one even ATTEMPTS to.    Otherwise, it's easy to say that the reason why Magglio Ordonez hit into a bases loaded DP is because he was still under distess over the horrible fielding blunder he witnessed his teammate commit a few innings before.....

 

I am not denying that good defense positively affects a pitcher's psyche. But then again, you could also say the same thing about a good BP and especially for run support --  both are supposed to inspire greater confidence in a pitcher. 

 

Who knowns why a pitcher starts falling apart -- perhaps because his SS booted a routine grounder leading to 2 runs scoring OR because he suspects his girlfriend of blowing his best friend behind his back.....

 

And with all due respect....one of the reasons why Mark Prior is out there on the mound and not you is because he is extremely tough MENTALLY --  as a PRO, he is expected  and is getting paid to OVERCOME fielding mistakes, crowd noise, media, etc, etc, etc.

With all due respect, Mark Prior is out there and not me because Mark Prior is not a 5'9" righthander who tops out at 86 and routinely throws (should I say threw) 82-83.

 

Bill James, Billy Beane, or whoever you want to name is fine.... But many of the Moneyballers today do think defense is not very important. This is not an all or nothing argument, but I definitely disagree with the theory that defense is less important than offense.

 

I am not saying you should have a team full of .220 hitters that are Gold Glovers, just that a good defensive team will contribute to winning more games than statistical analysis of defensive stats will give it credit for.

[BrandoFan]

With all due respect, Mark Prior is out there and not me because Mark Prior is not a 5'9" righthander who tops out at 86 and routinely throws (should I say threw) 82-83.

 

Notice how I said "one" of the reasons, NOT "the" reason.

 

Who's to say that the real reason why hundreds of Rick Ankiels and Neal Cottses aren't sniffing the majors while Jaime Moyer and Mark Burhle are all stars isn't because of the mental aspect of the game, including but not limited to the ability to rise above unfavorable vicissitudes of fat, er, defense?

 

 

but I definitely disagree with the theory that defense is less important than offense.

 

If by "defense" you mean "fielding AND pitching", then I agree.

 

But if you mean just fielding, you're absolutely wrong. This was true for 1930s-- well before James came into limited prominence-- and it will true in 2030's

[Rex Hudler]

I'll give you that...... yes, pitching and defense goes together. My point is that a good defense makes a pitcher better. Great pitchers may overcome bad defense, but you can't tell me they wouldn't be even better if the defense behind them was great.

[Pastime]

Past, you are drunk if you think the talent is watered down now compared to the 1920's? And the pitching better? Puhlease...

 

Then we'll just agree to disagree. Do you honestly think guys Scott Schoeweiss, Jeff Fassero, Carl Pavano, Ryan Rupe, Joe Kennedy, Runelyvs Hernandez, or pitchers of that ilk (just to name a few) would even make a team's pitching staff back in the day? No way. Back then, you were a starting pitcher - and if you got old or got injured, you ended up in the bullpen. A lot of bullpen guys from Ruth's era could be 4th or 5th starters for a lot of today's teams. And look up and down the roster of the Expos, Pirates, Devil Rays, or any team for that matter - there's at least 3 guys (or more) on any given roster today that wouldn't have even gotten past AAA back then. And look at some of the pitchers on teams' rosters as well - a lot of them wouldn't have ever pitched in the majors, but since there's so many teams, you have to fill those rosters with bodies - even if those bodies are marginal big leaguers at best. Less teams = better talent top-to-bottom on a team's roster - no fodder.

 

I've never - and never will - argued that today's athlete is bigger, stronger, and faster. That is true. However, Babe Ruth had to hit the baseball, and last time I checked a 92-mph fastball in 2004 and a 92-mph in 1927 are both still 92-mph fastballs! He still had to hit it, and he could now.

 

Two big differences in the eras:

 

1. Nowadays, Ruth would face a starter 2 or 3 times during a game, and then face a "specialist" and maybe another pitcher 1 or 2 times. In other words, he could easily see 3 different pitchers in one game, which would require adjustments at the plate.

 

2. However, pitchers back in Ruth's were spitting on the ball, wiping snot on the ball, etc.

 

And as for the pitching being better back then - just look at the pitching statistics from both eras, and compare team ERAs of today against those of teams back then. If you have an ERA of 4.50 today, that's considered to be not that bad. Back then, if you had an ERA of 4.50, they would probably cut you, trade you, or send you down to the bush leagues. And how many 300-game winners came from that era, and how many have come in our era? Pitching WAS better back then. I would love to see today's hitters face Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Grover Alexander, Cy Young, Joe Wood, or even Herb Pennock, or Lefty Gomez.

 

Once again, it's just my opinion.

[Rex Hudler]

I would love to see today's hitters face Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Grover Alexander, Cy Young, Joe Wood, or even Herb Pennock, or Lefty Gomez.

 

They do.... they are called Curt Schilling, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Kevin Brown, Roger Clemens, Josh Beckett, Mark Prior, Kerry Wood, etc.

[cwsox]

That is a great answer, because that is exactly right.  how many pitches today didn't exsist in the Babe's age?  How many guys could bring it in the upper 90's?  How many different pitchers does an ARod see in a game, when Babe used to see one, two on rare occasion.  You can talk about things like strength training, conditioning, offseason play, etc.  And we won't even get into steroids and stuff like that...,

I disagree.

 

The evolutionary trend is not such that human beings today, athletes included, are just that much superior to those of two generations or one generation ago.

 

Babe Ruth vs a Marlin pitcher - not a fair comparison because of all the variables. Give today's players the same training and equipment as a member of the 27 Yankees would have had and see if they make the AA team. If Ruth had been born in this generation and had access to the training and equipment of this generation, he'd smash all the records still. Can one imagine a Christy Matthewson with access to year round training and an income sufficient to afford the same?

 

Mr Showtime is of course right when he points out the exclusion of the Negro Leagues from white MLB. The inverse: what about the exclusion of pharmaceuticals from this generation?

 

I think a Roger Clemens would make it in any generation as would a Willie Mays or a Ty Cobb or a Eddie Collins because they brought something else to the game rather than a generation's technology. And I suspect a lot of today's major league players would be at bet minor leaguers in generations past.

 

 

And other sports wise - the 60s Celtics would destroy the current Lakers if all things were equal. Michael Jordan would be Michael Jordan if the game were leaden dead balls in peach baskets. The great players given the same technology and equipment of whatever generation will always be the great ones because what drove them, what was innate with them for the game, is the intangible beyond all else.

[Pastime]

They do.... they are called Curt Schilling, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Kevin Brown, Roger Clemens, Josh Beckett, Mark Prior, Kerry Wood, etc.

 

I agree with all of those guys except Josh Beckett. Let's remember that he had ONE good stretch in his career - last year's postseason. And Kerry Wood is iffy - his win/loss record needs to improve.

 

The big difference between the guys you mentioned and the ones I mentioned is that the guys I mentioned completed a LOT more of their games, without having relievers hold the fort for 1-3 innings. Also, the "old" guys were allowed to throw at your head, which I will assume might make a hitter less likely to be comfortable at the plate.

[cwsox]

They do....  they are called Curt Schilling, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Kevin Brown, Roger Clemens,

I left off the three unprovens over time off that list. The great ones will always be the reat ones in every generation. The not so great ones will always be the 4th and 5th piches on a team. Although head to head, why has no one touched Cy Young's victory total? And apart from differences in strategy, why is no one winning 40 or even 30 anymore? I feel old because I saw the last pitcher to win 30. I don't see a player out there and haven't for years approach 30. There is such a thing that the "bigger stronger" has over developed some muscles at the expense of proportional balance so the pitcher of today lacks the physical strength to get 30 wins, let alone 500. What looks bigger and stronger isn't necessarily so. But a Clemens or a Maddux is going to outstanding in any era because of the intangibles they bring and if those two played 50 years ago they would have been great then just as a Walter Johnson or even an Eddie Ciccote would be today.

[Pastime]

Another big difference is the "trick pitch." Back in the "old days," a pitcher basically threw a fastball and curveball, although a few guys threw the knuckler. Nowadays, you have the split-finger, the slider, the cutter, the palmball, the screwball, etc.

[TLAK]

Another big difference is the "trick pitch."  Back in the "old days," a pitcher basically threw a fastball and curveball, although a few guys threw the knuckler.  Nowadays, you have the split-finger, the slider, the cutter, the palmball, the screwball, etc.

My Dad told me about the time Dizzy Trout (Steve's father) visited in Sherman Park. The local boy's tried to hit against him and Dad says it was impossible. One ball would drop a foot, another move sideways, the next one rise but they all looked the same leaving his hand. This was around the WWII years. I don't know if they called these different pitches by different names back then, but the old timers could make a ball dance as well as anybody.

[BrandoFan]

The evolutionary trend is not such that human beings today, athletes included, are just that much superior to those of two generations or one generation ago.

 

Would you say the same thing about, say, scientists or poets?

[BrandoFan]

I wonder...Would Ted Williams be a .400 hitter today?

[southsider2k5]

I wonder...Would Ted Williams be a .400 hitter today?

Short answer. No.