[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by brunswickreeves

There's no doubt Ruth was among the greatest players and hitters of any generation. Many factors influenced this: his amazing ability to compute the incoming pitch, size/stature, exercise regimen, and also the end of the Dead Ball Era in 1920, which provided a greater advantage to the batter. However, digging into the stats, correlation appears here to be causation (but not from more exercise)...with more at bats Ruth's total stats increased. However, as a % of those at bats, Ruth's stats in Hits, HRs, RBI, BA, and Slugging % actually balance out between career 1/2s (1914-1924) and (1925-1935).

Hits as a % of at Bats, and BA were better in the 1st 1/2 of his career. HRs as a % of at Bats was actually equal with less than a 1% difference between career 1/2s. Slugging %, and RBI as a % of at Bats were better in the 2nd 1/2 of his career. However, RBI is dependent on better batting and OBP by teammates...

See attached Excel analysis.

So did Ruth become a significantly better player/hitter as he aged, or did he actually make everyone around him better and he sustained his individual dominance?

Great info on that spread sheet. Thanks for sharing. great assortment of cards and photos