Who said Ruth couldn't field or run?

Allowing a known PED user into the Hall would set a dangerous precedent, because if Sosa is in, how could voters logistically keep out stars of the era like Juan Gonzalez or Bagwell? Furthermore, as far as I know the Hall has no policy for removing a person who has already been enshrined, so I suspect the philosophy is to wait a few years to see how this era settles in the minds of the baseball galaxy. Personally, I have come to feel that the great players of the era should be enshrined because I am not willing to wipe out a decade of baseball history because of gaudy stats that don't fall in line with the time periods around them.

This is a Hall of Fame thread, which means individual performance, but I wonder why few people examine the effect PEDs might have had on team standings and even winning pennants and the World Series. Red Sox fans had the catharsis of 2004, and yet Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz have been accused of juicing, and there is no discussion about the authenticity of their team's victory. Is it inconsistent to judge individual players and yet give the teams they played on a pass? 1989 Athletics, what about them?

Baseball fans, and perhaps people in general, seek simple and clear answers, but upon reflection when has baseball ever offered a simple answer to the questions that arise? Every single aspect of and around the game is up for scrutiny, right down to every pitched ball that the hitter doesn't swing at. Strike or ball? It's not clearcut; it's up to the umpire's interpretation, and Livan Hernandez pitched to the most egregiously large strike zone in in the 1997 game that I have ever witnessed. But it's now in the books, forever. Could baseball fans arbitrarily say that Mel Ott should be punished because he hit most of his home runs at a field where an umpire might call 'infield fly rule' on a ball hit to the warning track? Do fans punish Ed Walsh or Burleigh Grimes because they used a pitch that would be eventually deemed 'unfair'? Should Yankee fans feel embarrassed because Jeffrey Maier turned a non-home run into a home run? When fans left baseball after the 1994 strike and said they would never return, well they have their reasons and that is their prerogative. Speaking for myself, I have not and most likely will not leave this game, because the game is beautiful, even though the players and the owners sometimes (often) behave deplorably. How the game was in the Steroid era may not have been (in hindsight) totally permissable, but neither should pre-1947 Major League Baseball be. There is no way to wrap a neat package around this. It's complicated, just like us. Can we possibly conceive in 2012 how we might feel about this PED baseball era in 2062? Is George High Pockets Kelly truly worthy of Hall of Fame enshrinement? He sure has a good nickname though.

Anyway, first post ever. Apologies for the length.

Nat

The greatest players of every generation could compete in any generation. The difference is that the average players have improved in every aspect of the game. This served to make the competition deeper and the quality of the game progressively better.

I really think that if MLB wanted PEDs gone they would punish the team that benefited from the cheating of the individual player. They punished Melky Cabrera but the Giants organization benefited from his use. He played 113 games prior to getting caught. Make all of those games forfeits and there is no WS for the Giants in 2012. Instead they win the World Series and Melky is given a $377,000 share.

Packs
 

For the overwhelming majority it was not a 365 day a year job, most had to work second jobs because they did not make enough money, this was true of many players even some into the 1950's. This is not supposition but fact and you can choose not to believe it but that does not make it so. You also cant seem to grasp the concept of the minute number of players ruth was able to participate against compared to the globilization of the game. Even with some not playing baseball its borderline racist to not think that the expanding of the game worldwide has not in fact made many baseball players better athletes than in the past. It was also much harder to find all of the best players and many club teams had mlb caliber talent but never got a shot due to never being noticed. It was just a little harder to get around the entire country back then then it is the world today.

Physical specimens alright. Coffey, Colon are in top physical shape.

Did I say it was everyone, did I specifically just mention baseball? Have you seen Adrian Beltre, or most NBA and NFL players?

There were plenty of players with long careers who probably had thoughts on the general skill level from one period to another. Most of what I heard the guys on the 'Glory of Their Times' cd say was that the modern players could probably play with the old-time players....no, the debate wasn't whether or not the old-timers could play with the modern generation.

There was also some mentioning of the '60s players being babies, pulling themselves out for any little injury. Funny, given that players from the '60s say the same thing about today's players. There certainly is a missing degree of toughness to today's players, despite easy access to conditioning, diet, etc., that the old guys didn't have.

With all due respect, you don't have a freakin' clue what you're talking about. Ruth had an excellent and complete all around game. As for running, you don't hit .342 lifetime if you can't run.

One can only conclude that your source material concerning Ruth is that stupid movie with John Goodman's farcical portrayal.

Ruth was an amazing baseball player probably the best of all time.

but

he didnt work out, he didnt eat right, we wasnt in great shape even when he was young. When i say great shape im comparing him to todays (most of todays) players who work out every day, have a 6 pack, (not of budwiser) bench 300 or so pounds and are all cut up and train every day.

even thought he wasnt any of that he was still the best

but bonds is damn close

The type of training done by today's players is not necessarily conducive to superiority. Guys seem to get injured just swinging a bat -- how many guys have down time due to 'oblique strains' and the like compared to a generation ago, and hamstring pulls, and all sorts of other injuries suggesting overstrengthening and insufficient stretching and flexibility/

I'm not challenging the point you're making. We're actually making similar points. Your point is that Ruth didn't play against the best. My point is today's athletes aren't playing against the best either.

When Ruth played the best athletes in the country played baseball. Today they don't. My point applies to all professional baseball players in Ruth's time, not just white players. I think the average professional baseball player at the top of their game was better in the past than they are now.

Not at all. And I'm hardly a fan of Bonds.

But if you believe the 1999 start of steroids for him, he was a pretty consistent HR hitter, upper 30's lower 40's most years.

Then
2000 49
2001 73
2002 46
2003 45
2004 45
2005 5
2006 26
2007 28

That's 317 or almost exactly 40 a year

Figure the first three years he might have been close to that,
The next three maybe only mid-low 30's and the last two the same as he did.
The breakdown in 05 I'm almost positive was a "coming off steroids" injury.
That looks like
2000 41
2001 37
2002 39
2003 35
2004 32
2005 33
2006 26
2007 28
(The numbers aren't scientifically applied, just made up)
That's 271, only 46 short of where he actually got.

Although he was hitting pretty well for his age (And not bad for any age)at the end, he was dropped very quickly after he got the record. Mostly because of the juicing and his splendid personality. Think about it, a guy hitting .276 with 28 homers got precisely 0 interest as a free agent. Not even from an AL team that could hide him at DH

A nicer guy who was about 40 HR short of the all time record and hitting 26-28 a year would have had a bunch of interest even if it was only as a gate draw for a weak team. A couple years, a record, and a graceful retirement or final year back in Pittsburg and there it is.

Steve B

And - He maybe could have done it quicker, without the monster year with 73 he'd have seen a lot more good pitches.

i think he would have tailed off a lot more than that in his late 30s early 40s without the juice.

There is one very simple truth. Nearly 100 years after Ruth first took the field he is still being considered one of the greatest players who ever lived. And it is safe to say he will still be considered that 100 years from now.

With Bonds, as technology and science continues to progress Bonds will be an after thought.

Ruth's success was based strictly on raw ability. So much so HE CHANGED THE WAY THE GAME WAS PLAYED. Bonds' success was due in a very large part to progression in sports medicine and science... the best bats, the best balls, body armor, the best nutrition, the best medicine, the best training, and the best drugs.

Make no mistake about it, if MLB opens the door to freely allow players to do what Bonds was doing, Bonds won't look so great. Can you imagine a player with Mantle's natural ability having the advantages Bonds' had? For most of Bonds' career he wasn't even the best player in the league. That would be Griffey Jr. It wasn't until he started using that he because so feared.

And since we are pointing out difference in eras, ponder these two:

Ruth hit 54 homers in 1920. Ray Chapman died late in the 1920 season. MLB did not start using new balls until after. Ruth hit 54 homers while playing with beat up baseballs.

And do you think for a second Bonds would have gotten away with crowding the plate in the 1920's? Think he would have tried without his body armor?


Playing D-3 college baseball is not a path of a pro career.

It's possible. And that's the great thing about baseball "what if " discussions.

I figured on a gradual dropoff to his final two years which I assumed were done clean.
A sharp dropoff would have maybe left him at the upper 600's ?

The big tripping point is his attitude. It cost him at least a year. clean with the same attitude and a quick dropoff? Maybe he doesn't stay around long enough for even 600.


Of course, while we're onto whatifs, If the Sox had ever signed Kingman we'd be wondering how none of these guys could hit 90 even with steroids.

And does anyone recall the Topps "cyber stats" cards from 94? They did projected stats based on some computer program and used them for an insert set. The computer had Barry at something like 73 HR. :eek:

Steve B

I'm sure some of the best athletes back then wound up as doing something else, because the risk/reward for playing baseball just wasn't worth it. I just don't think that in the olden days, that playing baseball was necessarily the glamorous job that it is today..

With all due respect, you must not know shit. Ruth did not have an excellent and complete all around game, you're arrogant for that assumption. To hit .342 he didn't need speed. As an earlier poster stated, the fields were deep. Anyone person could generalize Ruth was not fast, as evidenced by his steals and fielding, which you seem lacking to grasp. He had more triples than steals because of the deep fields. If a player hits at a .342 clip and gets on base nearly every other at bat, wouldn't you think they would run?

No Bonds was complete, 500-500. Unreal

Yes because I forgot how much you knew about my life. When you googled me, did you find anything about the scholarships I had that gotten taken away because I blew everything in my shoulder. Did it tell you about the scouts and the pro teams I worked out for?

Just shut the up and don't bring a personal matter into this fun and interesting debate, that is extremely classless and immature on your end. All because of a disagreement over someone's opinion.

You must not know shit about baseball, they find talent in all levels. Ever heard of Jordan Zimmermann? 2nd round pick of the Nats a few years ago. Guess where he came from. Yeah D3.

Just cause you were a terrible athlete and rode the pine, doesn't mean you just go and post about someone else because your daddy couldn't convince the coach to not cut you.

:)

Lets just please get back to this discussion, because I love hearing everyone's opinions and arguments, and that helps make this game great.

Longest home run I ever saw in person was Kingman at Fenway with the As. Canseco had just hit a rinky dink one to right and kingman steps up and hits it ten miles over the wall. In the paper the next day they said it paid its toll on the turnpike and was last seen heading west.

Love hearing about Mick's supposed 636 or so foot bomb. That's just unreal.

I heard of the Kingman shot, incredible

Go ahead and respond to the points I made.

And for the record I made nothing person, just pointed out D-3 college ball isn't a path to the pros. You on the other hand...

kingman had huge holes in his swing and most often would strike out or hit a pathetic grounder, but when the pitchers left one out over the plate, amazing things could happen

earlier in his career i happened to catch a game at wrigley and saw him hit one clean out of the stadium, in person it was really quite amazing to see

:confused:How the heck was that not personal!? Lets see, you spent the time to google me, found out where I went to school, then quoted my saying, "D3 isn't a path to the pros." And then the, "you on the other hand..."

What are you trying to get at? Any level is a path, dont be blind by your arrogance. Heard of Toe Nash? Probably not because it doesn't seem like you know much about baseball, but google him. I reiterate, just cause mommy and daddy couldn't get the coach to not cut you, you don't need to try to personally attack someone. Grow up

That's amazing. He reminds me a little of Matt Stairs, all or nothing, but boy, when he got ahold of one...

Only time I ever saw a ball leave the stadium was Marty Barrett of all people - hit one over the net in left field at Fenway. I guess if you lived in Boston you would see that a lot.

Let's see, if someone on a message boards says they were on track to play pro ball it is natural to look into that. Don't be embarrassed by playing D-3 ball. Then again, don't pretend it is more than it is.

Your basing my knowledge on baseball on what exactly?

You can cut the crap out about mommy and daddy and getting the coach not to cut me out. That is nothing but talking out of your rear.

Speak about talking out of your rear, you don't know what I did as a player. I'm not ashamed, I went to a tremendous school, but your arrogance still shows by saying D3 ball is nothing. I had offers, got hurt. Happens every year.

So what, I had a decent shot, it didn't work, don't need to knock on a guy that you don't know anything about to help your self esteem. You just fit in with the typical uneducated person, believe anything you read on the Internet.

Awwww is someone mad because I was right? You couldn't make a team, well that's unfortunate. Don't lay your personal problems in trying To attack others. Just classless, immature, and flat out embarrassing for yourself.

Yeah I'm from MN, so with the old dome never witnessed it. Did see a shot by Thome in right field that hit the top of the flag pole and went into the plaza, that was probably the closest. And I was at a game in the done when Thome was with the Indians, and we had huge pictures of our retired number players in center and right field. He hit two off of them, one off Pucketts the other Hrbeks. I was awestruck as a young kid

I used to love watching Thome take batting practice at Yankee Stadium when he was on Cleveland. That guy is STRONG.

Yeah he's an absolute beast, so is Prince Fielder. Probably one of the strongest in the games history

Nope, don't know what you did as a player. Never said I did. Couldn't care less either. Arrogance? I said D-3 ball is nothing to be ashamed of. You went to Bethel. I had to chuckle at the tremendous part.

I get it. I destroyed that facade you created for yourself. Sorry... not really. Apparently that is personal.

If I believed everything I read on the internet I wouldn't have found out the truth about your pro aspirations now would I?

Look, every insult you have thrown at my is completely reflected upon yourself in your own writing. And any one objectively reading this can see that. I promise you.

Now, how about getting back to your oh so loved baseball discussion. Or do you not yet feel vindicated? Or do you want to keep this up until we are both banned. Your call.

Again, you claim you don't known what I did as a player, yet you are still so damn adamant in claiming that I built up something false. Amazing how you say say no about someone's life that you know nothing of.

Yes, let me lie about potentially having a shot at a pro career on Net54, where I have no one to impress. Why not just say I did play pro ball, or something else. You're still an idiot, you think you know so damn much about my life. What, you think the scouts notes on every single kid they recruit on the Internet about private workouts. You are still clueless. You have no idea how the interworkings or intricacies of the background of baseball works, your ignorance clearly shows.

I can go all night. Why don't you see me in person and we can "chat" about it over a beer, lets see how that goes for you.

I know you went to Bethel University. That's all. Couldn't care less about anything else.

You tell me why you got so worked up about it being posted that you only reached D-3? This whole thing got started because of it.

Is that a threat?

The whole thing started by you trying to be a smart a$$. I never posted I played D3, you did, look back and read. Then you felt so inclined to,attack me from that point on. Sure seems like you care by making that post.

I don't know, is it...you don't like beer :)?

I have accepted my fate in that God has a different game plan for me. You can choose whether to believe me or not, like I said, I have no reason to lie.

If you want to continue this, you have my email, we can talk about that in exchanges. No need to distract from the OP's original post, and I will apologize and say that I am sorry for this long, pointless sidebar

Right. You posted you were on the path of a pro career. I debunked that claim.

Never made a single attack. Go back and read the thread. Can't say the same for you however.

Well, since we don't seem to be hitting it off there is no chance in hell I would want to spend a minute in person with you. That "let's see how that goes for you" comment can certainly be viewed as such.

I am done with this train wreck. My apologies to all who wasted their time reading it.

You never debunked it, how can you debunk something you have no facts to back it up. you can think that all you want, you're just a sorry sorry man who couldn't make it on a team, and are filled with regrets.

It was sure implied as an attack, go back and read it.

Hmmmm maybe it is maybe it isn't....

Don't think so highly of your ability to create a train wreck - this one is more like a big wheels wreck.

I'm amazed at how important it is to some whether or not the 'rhoid boys get in the hall. We have no say in this - it's all up to the writers, and they could care less what we think. The HOF is a mess - it was a mess before steroids and it will be a mess regardless of whether or not Barry Bonds gets in. Politics and baseball just don't mix.

Maybe you both should have tried out for the debate team.
Been to Bethel, I went To Union U.

Well said, and spot on Scott. It's all diplomatic and the favorites get voted in...reminds me of the Gold Glove award...

Hana nice.

Union is a great school, haven't been their but heard campus is gorgeous

The "arrogance" of my assumptions is based on conversations with any one of several knowledgeable people who saw Ruth play, one of whom was the sports writer Shirley Povich. So I have no idea from where your assumptions are drawn other than what any one person who is not fully informed can generalize about, with all due respect.

As to my original post, it was, shall we say, overly aggressive. Sorry for that. I'll just say that I feel you are mistaken as to the all around quality of The Babe's game.

The longest home run hit to left field at Fenway was 501+ ft. by Manny Ramirez, a half foot shorter than Williams had hit to right many years earlier. (into the wind I might add)

Kingman's longest shot I believe was hit in 1976 at Wrigley during the 23-22 game with the Phils. It traveled over 570 feet! I'm sure the wind was blowing out that day
I don't believe Mantle ever hiy a ball 636 feet.

Steriods. Give me a break. Bonds, Clemens and Sosa should have followed Babe Ruth's diet regimen of hot dogs, beer and underage girls. Controversy over.
C.

That HR by Manny should have been called at way over 501. I'm convinced it was only called that short out of respect for Williams.

The longest I saw in person were some by Rice. Not as high, but they were out quicker than any I've seen.

The one I recall by Kingman was while he was with the Yankees at Fenway. Hit in the bank of lights on the second light tower in left:eek: Mannys was only in the lights of the first tower. The one by Kingman should be the longest at Fenway, although there are a few others that were impressive. Like the handful that have gone completely out to the right of the flagpole.

Steve B

Funniest thing and best reading of this thread.

You other guys be cool. When anyone starts talking about other's personal lives, very much, it sort of creeps me out. I don't have a huge interest in this whole debate, just saying...being cool and let the personal stuff go., Thanks much....(no need to respond to this but if you so desire......go for it)

You've entirely ignored the other points I made about why Ruth might not have run much.
Especially having Gehrig behind him. Why run and potentially take a run away from yourself?

The era he played wasn't a huge one for running. 1921 one of ruths better years for steals he stole 17 and the Yankees as a team stole 89, about average for that year. This year most AL teams were over 100.

If you are an excellent ballplayer you do know that steals are more about getting a good jump and a good read of the pitcher. There's only ever been a handful of guys where that may not have mattered- Henderson, cloeman, probably a couple more. Brock himself won't credit pure speed.

Steve B
For the record, I only ever made it to modified pitch softball. Probably from a lack of ability to see let alone hit even a lousy fastball. I run like a catcher- A softball catcher.....And I'm damn proud of my 1 career stolen base.:D
(Two triples too - hey I'm like Babe Ruth!)

I just can't stand how people have become so self-righteous about steroids, relying on the verdict in the court of public opinion to declare players guilty or innocent. Look, we ALL bear the cross of the steroid era. Nobody here can honestly say that in 1998 they thought Big Mac's popeye arms were real (and if you can, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'm looking to unload for a few t205s). Every one of us was glued to the TV that season, watching every on of his 70 and Sosa's 66. We knew or should have known that they were juicing. We ignored it, just as we had ignored it through the late 80s and the entire 90s, because the baseball highs were worth it- titanic home runs, larger-than-life players, skyrocketing attendance, etc... WE need to own up to the steroid era ourselves. WE need to own up to it because it was US, not Roger Clemens or Barry Bonds who sullied the game. They were just entertainers who gave us what we wanted to see. If WE as a fan base have decided steroids are bad (and I believe they are) then WE have a responsibility to make it right; not by lynching the players who did what we wanted them to do, but by acknowledging what we've done wrong: letting the end product justify everything. An exhibit in the Hall of Fame fully treating the steroid era would be a good start: talk not only about Bonds Clemens Conte and McNamee, but on how we were all involved; the intense media coverage that steroids generated, the home run race, etc.; and on the aftermath as well: Ken Caminiti's untimely death and dangerous abuse of steroids by teenage athletes. Just as gambling once plagued the game, steroids plagued the game, and we need to acknowledge that this problem extended far beyond just the few players who happened to be randomly tested in 2003 before anybody gave a hoot who was juicing.

How does this shake out for Clemens and Bonds? I think they should be in the Hall of Fame. There's no shot that people will forget the allegations that swirl around, especially if the Hall of Fame does the right thing and addresses the steroid era. But to pretend that the all time home run leader didn't exist just because he's been found guilty in a post-hoc trial at the court of public opinion is to do a great disservice to the Hall and to baseball. There is nothing to be gained from guessing which great players are or were on steroids. The evidence record is woefully spotty and almost all concentrated in 2003, as though steroids hadn't been in use for decades prior. Steroid era players should be in the Hall, ceteris paribus, and I think there's a good chance that they will be.

I can see a Block Buster movie in the next 10 years comming out! or at least a made for TV movie, lol

Your looking at things through 'post-steroid' eyes.

I guess I for one would have bought your bridge, and I bear no crosses related to drugs and baseball.

Wasn't McGwire's explanation at the time that he was on a supplement? I remember thinking it wasn't particularly credible, but I don't recall caring all that much either.

I'll never understand the "we don't know" argument. It's like looking at brown rock painted purple and saying "well maybe it's always been purple."

Yes, you are correct. Here's a link to an article from around that time:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/bas...re_supplement/

yea said he was on Endocrine

Not being into that sort of thing, I didn't ever look for the 'before' pics. I assumed he had just bulked up a bit over the off-season. But I must confess that I thought the same thing about Lenny Dykstra. Maybe it's naiveté, but I just wasn't tying my sport (baseball) to steroid use - it never crossed my mind.

Scott...me too...but in hindsight it was naivete on my part...esp when players like brady anderson hits 50 hr's...and Nomar garciopara returns from the offseason all bulked up preaching new training techniques.

When Dykstra came back all bulked up, I remember thinking "WTF?!?", but I figured he had just worked his ass off with the weights. I gotta admit, Sosa made me think something was up - he was just a skinny kid at Texas. But McGwire was a fairly big guy. When he got off the steroids he shrunk back down even further than what he was at Oakland.

Yeah, I was naive.

Its kinda similar to those early eighties bands like culture club and all the men wearing makeup and womens clothes..."it's just the style!?"

.

all i can say is cheating is cheating and they do not belong in the hof because who will ever know how many homeruns or strikeouts they would have had if they wouldnt have done the juice.

Finally, a fresh viewpoint.

IMHO, they're all eventually coming in as the best of their era. I'd like to see it happen with an asterisk as to the known users, but come on now, really--how do you tell who's who??? According to the book written by the former Mets' clubhouse attendant, he supplied hundreds of players! But the baseball writers eventually will reach the consensus that they aren't going to throw out an entire era. It will simply be widely recognized that one simply can't compare pre PED stats with post PED era stats. There are always going to be difficulties in comparing players' performances from different eras in any event, based upon the different conditions under which the game was played.

Face it, as long as the money keeps gettig bigger and bigger, there are always going to be players willing to do whatever it takes to get at the pot of gold!

Best,

Larry

Cheating isn't just cheating. If that were the case, how did Gaylord Perry get into the Hall?