Is He Still The Greatest Of All Time?

[redsrbetter]

In 1895 a star was born. A star that had a talent that surpassed all others. An unlikely hero became a legend told for many generations. He was a troublemaking kid who had an outrageous appetite, but an even bigger ability to play a game at a higher level then ever witnessed. George Ruth Jr. was his name and that named will live forever in baseball history.

So why have I introduced the most famous name in baseball? Not only have I mocked some people’s intelligence, but I may have dumbfounded a few. Except for, of course, Scotty Smalls in the movie The Sandlot, George Herman Ruth also known as “The Babe” has a name recognized by everyone in the world. We all know about his glorious home run prowess and his short-lived ability to pitch a good game. He is truly a legend whose list of records are getting smaller every year, but still can command the title of the greatest baseball player that ever lived.



Many will argue that point, as I would do the same in some cases. But the man is the face of baseball. As Michael Jordan has become the face of basketball and Wayne Gretzky is the face of hockey, the same can be said of The Babe.

So, where am I going with this? What I would like to do is examine what kind of a man Ruth was and why he was as dominate at the plate as he was. And I would also like to face the challenge of connecting him with the stars of today and align their talents with his to measure his greatness to those who can be compared to him or perhaps argue that they are even better than he was.

Many people know of Ruth’s love for eating and drinking. His escapades followed him throughout his career and live on as legendary as are his performances on the field. The man’s appetite was large and thus his body frame was that of a man who consumed a great amount. He was big, very big. So big in fact that he loved to play the game big. Here is a quote from him talking about his approach to hitting home runs and the connection of his living big and hitting big.

"How to hit home runs: I swing as hard as I can, and I try to swing right through the ball...The harder you grip the bat, the more you can swing it through the ball, and the farther the ball will go. I swing big, with everything I've got. I hit big or I miss big. I like to live as big as I can."

No question, he was a legend before he ever finished playing the game. But the questions still float around the world every single day. Is Jim Thome comparable to The Babe? Is David Ortiz the new Babe Ruth? Cecil Fielder, Prince Fielder, and even Dmitri Young have been mentioned in strange and somewhat clueless circles. What makes these guys comparable is their large frames and their ability to use those big bodies to hit the ball hard.

So why isn’t this comparison made on a larger scale than just sitting around with your pals popping off at the mouth about your contention as to who is or was the greatest player of all time? Babe Ruth was a great ambassador for the game in his own rights. It was he who said;

"I won't be happy until we have every boy in America between the ages of six and sixteen wearing a glove and swinging a bat."

Though far less talked about, but no less a matter of fact, Babe Ruth was also a legend on the mound. We cannot forget that he still holds the record for the longest scoreless inning gem in World Series history. Babe Ruth threw 13 innings without giving up a single run in Game 4 of the 1916 Series. For 43 years, He held the record for having 29.2 scoreless innings in his World Series career. Babe Ruth was an amazing pitcher, but his bat took him off the mound and made him an outfielder. He was an ace, but needed at the plate far more than needed on the mound. Could David Ortiz put that decision in Theo Epstein and Tony Francona’s mind when he went to Boston? Absolutely not, he is a hitter and that is all. Flip the script a moment and imagine if Roger Clemens were a power hitter. Do we think the Red Sox would have made him an outfielder because of his bat? Imagine if they did? Furthermore, imagine if the Red Sox never made Ruth an everyday outfielder that season in 1919. Would he be as remembered as he is today? Would he still be the face of baseball?

Even though we know that a staff ace will not likely turn into a prolific home run hitter any time soon, what is it that tells us Babe Ruth has not been outdone? His records are getting beat. There are many players today who are just as large as he was and swing even larger. Not only do we have fat bodies, but the steroid era has come into play as well. The guys who play professional baseball are much larger than they were before. It is like comparing Wilt Chamberlain’s dominance to what his performance would be now. He towered all other players on the court, and therefore destroyed his opposition. Was Babe Ruth before his time in that his body was larger than most? Are those players who are as big as he was hitting the ball equally as hard?

The debate is yours. But it is a fine discussion to finally be able to admit that there are some who can flirt with giving our generation a glimpse of how Babe Ruth played the game.

Pictures and quotes made available by: Welcome to BabeRuth.com

[Providence A's]

he dominated his era. You can't really judge what people did back then to what they would do today...it's not the same situation. He may be a different person/player if he was born in this era. You can't take Babe Ruth from 20s and figure out how he'd do in the 2000s. It doesn't work like that. You have to take it at face value. The guy was one of the greatest of his era. He wasn't the only one. Jimmie Foxx was often referred to as the right-handed Babe Ruth...yet he was about the size of Tony Graffanino. They were products of their era...they might have developed differently today. Players back then played all the time rarely getting a day off. Pitchers pitched far more often with less rest, too. There is no real way of telling, but he, and others back then, are still some of the greatest players in my book.

[redsrbetter]

Great points man. This is why I tried to stay away from most of the stats on this one. I honestly think that comparing ones stats back then to a players stats now is not a smart move. But look beyond the numbers and tell me if there is a player today who can compare to Ruth's legendary stature. Who will we be telling our grandkids was the best player that ever lived? Will we still be talking about The Babe?

[love_that_reefer]

In my opinion Ruth wouldn't have done much in this era of baseball as people are just bigger and better. There is far more talent today than there was back then. But one thing I do know for a fact is that he wouldn't use that heavy ass 42 oz bat.

By the way, Jimmie Foxx was a pretty stout dude and a lot bigger than Graffanino.

[Providence A's]

By the way, Jimmie Foxx was a pretty stout dude and a lot bigger than Graffanino.

I had read somewhere that they were about the same size. According to baseball reference Foxx was 6'0", 195 LBs and according to the Brewers site Graffanino is 6'1", 190 LBs. Essentially, they are about the same size...you get my point.

[redsrbetter]

Yep, that is a great argument. Whether it is steroids or not, players are much more fit for the game. The Babe's competition may have been much worse, thus giving him the edge over all who were not semi-talented at all.

This goes along with a lot that Provi talked about. It is hard to imagine what The Babe would be like in this era because each professional sport learns in itself every year.

I think it may be best to think of The Babe as a godfather type perhaps. Maybe a player ahead of his time and taught many players that came after him.

Look at Jordan, then look at Kobe Bryant. The guys walk the same, talk the same, shoot the same, and even chew gum the same. Jordan was an obvious mentor to today's best players.

Is Ruth that mentor for baseball even though he played 90 years ago?

[redsrbetter]

I had read somewhere that they were about the same size. According to baseball reference Foxx was 6'0", 195 LBs and according to the Brewers site Graffanino is 6'1", 190 LBs. Essentially, they are about the same size...you get my point.

Check this out. On my reference for the pics I posted, that site has Babe Ruth listed as 6'2" and 215 lbs. WOW! What?

But yeah, I caught the point and agree completely.

[love_that_reefer]

I think Ruth was the mentor for the mentors of guys now. Guys that played in the modern era have way more influence than Ruth and Gehrig. Players like Mays, Clemente and Mantle have more influence than Ruth does but Ruth started it all so it all trickles down.

Here's a pic of Ruth and Foxx. Both guys are stout and about the same size. Foxx has those broad shoulders.
Yahoo! Image Detail for www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2003/05/27/sp_foxx.jpg

[redsrbetter]

Good picture there bro. To be honest, Babe looks quite a bit bigger IMO. But Foxx was no stick figure himself. I think the media had or has it worng though. I think everyone's weight and height are tinkered a bit.

Overall, I think it is a great comparison from Provi. These guys were the premier power hitters in their time.

[redsrbetter]

I think Ruth was the mentor for the mentors of guys now. Guys that played in the modern era have way more influence than Ruth and Gehrig. Players like Mays, Clemente and Mantle have more influence than Ruth does but Ruth started it all so it all trickles down.

Yep that is how I figure it as well. Many of those players who once admired him may have become the ones who were better than him as the game started to change.

So is it that Ruth was a great opitcher as well that sets him apart from all other greats?

[love_that_reefer]

It absolutely does. The guy could pitch a shutout one day and then go play RF and hit two bombs the next. He was also clutch. No one has come close to doing what he did at both sides of the game.

[missionhockey21]

he dominated his era. You can't really judge what people did back then to what they would do today...it's not the same situation. He may be a different person/player if he was born in this era. You can't take Babe Ruth from 20s and figure out how he'd do in the 2000s. It doesn't work like that. You have to take it at face value. The guy was one of the greatest of his era. He wasn't the only one. Jimmie Foxx was often referred to as the right-handed Babe Ruth...yet he was about the size of Tony Graffanino. They were products of their era...they might have developed differently today. Players back then played all the time rarely getting a day off. Pitchers pitched far more often with less rest, too. There is no real way of telling, but he, and others back then, are still some of the greatest players in my book.

It's all about considering the situation. Sure players today train differently and are in better shape, they are better overall athletes with the aid of 10 million dollar complexes to train, nutrition experts, detailed workout plans, among all the other new additions to the game. But those players played in one era and todays players play in a different era, as you mention. The playing field for an individual in comparison to the peers of his generation is fair, thus making comparisons or what if situations of if a player to be in another generation (especially from that era to this) just not apt.

To me Ruth is without comparison and his pitching statistics make the case for him. You can argue steals or legendary defense as things the Babe might of not had, but to dominate both sides of the game in any era, is something I doubt we will ever see again (mostly due to the different nature of the game, but I also doubt there to be a talent that could make the switch not in the minors but after a dominating major league career from the mound to the plate.) That isn't to say there aren't comparisons for his bat, Barry Bonds is the obvious choice for more reasons than just the homers as we all know.

[missionhockey21]

In my opinion Ruth wouldn't have done much in this era of baseball as people are just bigger and better. There is far more talent today than there was back then. But one thing I do know for a fact is that he wouldn't use that heavy ass 42 oz bat.

By the way, Jimmie Foxx was a pretty stout dude and a lot bigger than Graffanino.

Ruth had obvious pure power and a tremendous eye at the plate, I am not saying he would of replicated his statistics but given the perks that all major leaguers have the chance to partake in to reach a higher level of physical shape, I find it hard to believe he wouldn't translate over. Again, the comparisons are hard to make for many reasons, but the kind of natural power and plate discipline (like the Babe had) are things that you just can't teach to players to get to Ruth's skill level. And obviously with the expansion of baseball to allowing more types of people into the game has increased it's scope of talent, but the league is also much more expansive than it once was and things that big power hitters feast on, like poor pitching, exists today like it did back in his day.

[love_that_reefer]

I am taking Ruth as he was back then meaning the overweight, boozing ballplayer. That Ruth would not fair well in today's game in my opinion. He never faced blacks or latinos and never faced the talent we have today. If won't to concentrate the league as it was back then, the talent is far too superior. If we the expansion of the league I think the talent is better.

[missionhockey21]

I am taking Ruth as he was back then meaning the overweight, boozing ballplayer. That Ruth would not fair well in today's game in my opinion. He never faced blacks or latinos and never faced the talent we have today. If won't to concentrate the league as it was back then, the talent is far too superior. If we the expansion of the league I think the talent is better.

I understand that, but if a player has Ruth's offensive prowess then there is a good chance they will find their path to sobriety and cleaner living a lot faster when you see salaries approaching 20 million a season. I agree with your assessment that Ruth in that state wouldn't fair well, but we also have to keep in mind that Ruth had a long career with many productive years in that state and I think he did it because he wanted to live big and he could get away with it due to his talent. My statement was more in line with that the game has changed, the way players live and train has changed and I am assuming a present day Ruth would cut down on his vices to some degree.

As with the talent, of course it's better. I was just merely stating one of the facts that is overlooked with expanding the league (other than coddling the minor league players much more than would of occurred before) is lower tier talent teams do call up a lot of schlubs that are schlubs today and would of been 100 years ago as well. Despite improved talent depths, there is always a few guys on a staff that someone like Ruth could of feasted on (probably even in his less than peak state.) But I agree that the talent makeup is a lot different and that just makes players feel the urge to stay in even better shape with all the improved competition.