Re: Bonds is a selfish prick, Exhibit ZZZQ
 

Drewdevil,
If black players played against the same pitching it is possible Ruth wouldn't be the best hitter of all time instead it would be Oscar Charleston or Josh Gibson or etc.

Re: Bonds is a selfish prick, Exhibit ZZZQ
 

[ QUOTE ]


Even today, if you look at the last 10-20 years of major league baseball, most of the dominating, Cy Young award winning pitchers have been white, even with this vast talent pool you speak of.



[/ QUOTE ]

last 10years has been Randy Johnson, Clemens, Pedro and Santana accounting for 13 of the 20 awards(and should be at least 2 more between them)

Re: Bonds is a selfish prick, Exhibit ZZZQ
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Outfield assists is a horrible metric to measure defensive ability.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea but it's a decent indicator of arm strength and accuracy, which is what I used it for. As far as defensive ability, Ruth was above average outfielder in terms of range factor, and had a cannon of an arm. Don't you think that makes him a gold glove candidate in his era?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ruth had a sub-par range. Please stop.

http://articles.news.aol.com/sports/...03204609990001

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Ruth’s range factor was 2.20 compared to a league average of 2.30. So while Bonds has been about 20 percent above average on defense, Ruth was about 5 percent below average.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ruth's first full year as an OF (1920 age 25) his range was sub-par probably from making the transition to a full time outfielder, and his range was average in his early thirties and then continued to erode as he got fat. But from ages 26-30 Ruth was above average in range factor. His best two years (1921 & 1923) his range was well above average and in combination with his arm (17 and 20 assists) probably would have qualified for gold glove consideration. And one wonders how good his defense would have been in his early twenties if he was able to focus on playing the outfield.

And thanks for posting that article. I liked one other quote from it.

[ QUOTE ]

When you look at the total package, it’s no contest. Babe Ruth is still the greatest player in MLB history, and we don’t even have to talk about steroids.


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Bonds is a selfish prick, Exhibit ZZZQ
 

In 1920 Babe Ruth hit 54 HRs. That number is more than every other TEAM in the American League. He had nearly 3X the number of HRs as #2, George Sisler.

In 1921, Babe Ruth hit 59 HRs. That number is more than 5 of the 7 other teams in the AL. He hade more than twice the number of HRs of the guys tied for 2nd.

These are just two examples of how Babe Ruth was light years better than almost every other player in the major leagues at the time.

So even if you agree that Ruth played against a somewhat lower level of competition by virtue of the exclusion of blacks and latinos ... so what? Do those of you arguing this point really think it would have made that much of a difference, that we would view Ruth any differently today?

Re: Bonds is a selfish prick, Exhibit ZZZQ
 

DC,

Ha. I wouldn't consider an AOL.com article from a self-proclaimed "stathead" to authoritative at all. I'd rather just take a peak at the numbers. Regardless, he sucked as a fielder. Bonds was an amazing left fielder, Ruth was a pretty poor outfielder. I don't even really see how you can argue this.

Could you link up to some range factors for Ruth with league average?

Re: Bonds is a selfish prick, Exhibit ZZZQ
 

[ QUOTE ]
I guess Federer isn't the best Tennis player in the world either, I mean you can't know that for sure--surely some inner city kid w/ no means to get into a country club or afford lessons or to travel to Florida to the greatest tennis academy in the country or to travel period would clearly have a legitimate shot at beating the greatest tennis has ever seen.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is only one Venus Williams? And there just happened to be another standout inner city tennis player in her own family? Isn't the link their father? If he hadn't pushed them their high school tennis coach was going to make them world class tennis players? Of course there are some kids somewhere who could play at Federers level, if only they had been pushed by the right person and given the time and training.

I think we are going to have to disagree here. You believe that a couple of the top NFL most talented players (Pacman Jones, Micheal Vick, Peyton Manning?) wouldn't end up being star MLB players if they devoted their life to baseball. I disagree.

[ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think your grasp on our history of baseball is a little off. The National League was formed in the 1870's and the American League in the early 1900's. So yea, over a century like I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

The National Association played in 1871, and Babe Ruth hit 59 HRs, doubling the previous record exactly 50 years later. That was 136 years ago, not exactly what you first said.

[ QUOTE ]
game has been around for a century now

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Bonds is a selfish prick, Exhibit ZZZQ
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Even today, if you look at the last 10-20 years of major league baseball, most of the dominating, Cy Young award winning pitchers have been white, even with this vast talent pool you speak of.



[/ QUOTE ]

last 10years has been Randy Johnson, Clemens, Pedro and Santana accounting for 13 of the 20 awards(and should be at least 2 more between them)

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, here are the Cy Young award winners for the last 20 years:


2006 Brandon Webb, Johan Santana
2005 Chris Carpenter, Bartolo Colon
2004 Roger Clemens, Johan Santana
2003 Eric Gagne, Roy Halladay
2002 Randy Johnson, Barry Zito
2001 Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens
2000 Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez
1999 Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez
1998 Tom Glavine, Roger Clemens
1997 Pedro Martinez, Roger Clemens
1996 John Smoltz, Pat Hentgen
1995 Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson
1994 Greg Maddux, David Cone
1993 Greg Maddux, Jack McDowell
1992 Greg Maddux, Dennis Eckersley
1991 Tom Glavine, Roger Clemens
1990 Doug Drabek, Bob Welch
1989 Mark Davis, Bret Saberhagen
1988 Orel Hershiser, Frank Viola
1987 Steve Bedrosian, Roger Clemens

White pitchers accounted for 14 of the 20 Cy Youngs in the last 10 years, and all 20 of the Cy Youngs in the 10 years prior to that.

My point is that I don't see any evidence that had black pitchers been allowed to play back in Ruth's day, that they automatically would have been the best pitchers in baseball, or that they automatically would have diminished Ruth's dominance. Call me dumb if you like, but just saying ZOMG BLACK PLAYERS DOMINATE isn't really borne out by the evidence.

Someone made a good point about how it's possible that Oscar Charleston or Josh Gibson or someone else might have been a better hitter than Ruth. Sure, it's possible, but that's a different argument. The argument has been that the level of competition is so much stronger now than it was in Ruth's day because Ruth didn't have to play against black players. Well, that obviously means black pitchers. Charleston and Gibson, as hitters, wouldn't have had any effect on how Ruth performed.

I'll listen to the argument that Charleston or Gibson would have been a better hitter than Ruth. But this is about BONDS vs. Ruth, and this "superior competition" thing doesn't seem to be supported by the evidence.

Re: Bonds is a selfish prick, Exhibit ZZZQ
 

[ QUOTE ]
DC,

Ha. I wouldn't consider an AOL.com article from a self-proclaimed "stathead" to authoritative at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? This is YOUR article that YOU posted to show that Ruth's defense was sub-par.

[ QUOTE ]

I'd rather just take a peak at the numbers. Regardless, he sucked as a fielder. Bonds was an amazing left fielder, Ruth was a pretty poor outfielder. I don't even really see how you can argue this.


[/ QUOTE ]

This whole discussion has been me posting facts, and you and others just firing out assertions, "nah, nah, that can't be true". Why don't you do some research? Or are you just having fun pulling my chain?

[ QUOTE ]

Could you link up to some range factors for Ruth with league average?

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. I'm your sucker.

Year Games RFg lgRFg
1918 59 2.19 2.17 Full time pitcher
1919 111 2.13 2.16 Part time pitcher
1920 141 1.99 2.16 First year as full time OF
1921 152 2.40 2.21
1922 110 2.18 2.22 Suspended, no spring training
1923 148 2.69 2.26
1924 152 2.36 2.27
1925 98 2.27 2.27 Sick, no spring training
1926 149 2.14 2.23
1927 151 2.26 2.22

After that he gained weight in his thirties he became below average, and he was terrible his last three or four years. But when he played outfield full time in his 20s, he was pretty good.


[ QUOTE ]

As impressive as Ruth's 1921 numbers were, they could have been more so under modern conditions. Bill Jenkinson's 2006 book, The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs, is a detailed examination of each of Ruth's 714 career home runs, plus several hundred long inside-the-park drives and "fair-foul" balls that would have been ruled fair after a 1931 rule change made balls that hit the foul poles home runs. The title comes from the stellar 1921 season, in which the author concludes that Ruth would have been credited with or otherwise hit an additional 104 home runs, if modern rules and field dimensions were in place.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babe_Ruth

Re: Bonds is a selfish prick, Exhibit ZZZQ
 

[ QUOTE ]
Someone made a good point about how it's possible that Oscar Charleston or Josh Gibson or someone else might have been a better hitter than Ruth. Sure, it's possible, but that's a different argument. The argument has been that the level of competition is so much stronger now than it was in Ruth's day because Ruth didn't have to play against black players. Well, that obviously means black pitchers. Charleston and Gibson, as hitters, wouldn't have had any effect on how Ruth performed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please recall that Josh Gibson's first year was 1930, 10 years after Ruth's first huge HR year.

It's also somewhat funny that we are quick to denigrate Ruth because he didn't play with blacks, but we never consider how much the "stats" (in quotes because we really don't know what the true numbers are) of a player like Gibson would have suffered had he played with whites. Perhaps in a truly egalitarian league Gibson would not have been half the player Ruth was. Who knows.

Re: Bonds is a selfish prick, Exhibit ZZZQ
 

we all know that cy youngs are the best way to determine this

no one is saying that black pitchers would dominate, but having them out of the league is a definite boon to hitters