What was Ruth like as a pitcher?

[steve B]

We have a pretty good thread running about ruth and if he could hit todays pitching.

This video came across my facebook feed, and it's interesting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAlNdz30TX4

And it made me realize that we talk a ton about Ruth as a batter, but not as much about his pitching.

The two things that come to mind right off, is that he has aalmost a sidearm motion, instead of the straight overhand. And not just when pitching to kids, the small bit of game film out there shows the same thing.

The other one led to a bigger question.
He demonstrates a knuckleball. Was Ruth a Knuckleball pitcher, or at least mixing it in with other pitches. Or was it just done for the film.


I think this film is part of a series he did showing baseball playing tips. I have one that if I remember it right shows him teaching batting.

[Musashi]

I don't know about his pitch selection, but I know he faced Ty Cobb 76 times and struck him out 7 times. Compare that 9.2% Strikeout rate to Cobb's career rate of 5.9% against everybody else, and that tells you a little something about Babe's quality as a pitcher.

[packs]

No idea about his actually repertoire but just looking at his raw stats the knuckleball makes sense. He walked a ton of guys and wasn’t a power pitcher. He seems both hittable and hard to hit. Like players were putting the ball in play but not hitting it very well, which may also be explained by that knuckle.

[brunswickreeves]

I’m reading a great book on Joe Jackson. It mentions Babe Ruth’s MLB debut with the Red Sox was on July 11, 1914 at the age of 19. On that day he pitched a 4-3 win against…the Cleveland Naps. Ruth faced Joe Jackson as batter #3 and Nap Lajoie as batter #4. Joe hit 2 for 4, driving in 1 run.

Could you imagine that game?! Joe Jackson who hit .373 the year prior and what would be his last season with Cleveland before going to the fabled White Sox! And Ruth’s rookie year!!

[bnorth]

He would be by far the best ever. If you brought him to todays game he would dominate todays wimpy stars so much that he would make them look like they should still be playing t-ball.

[Snapolit1]

Watching this made me realize I have seen Ruth's face 10,000s of times and maybe heard his voice no more than 2 or 3 times.

[EddieP]

I mentioned this on another post, but Tris Speaker once said “ Babe Ruth made a great mistake when he gave up pitching.”

[wondo]

His two prime years, 1916-1917, he threw 650 innings an had a sub 2.00 ERA. Led the league in ERA, CG, GS, and shutouts in one or other of those years. A pretty darn good pitcher.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/ruthba01.shtml#1916-1917-sumitching_standard

[packs]

I was looking at those years too. He walked a lot of guys and didn't strike out a ton of people, but still managed to barely get touched. I wonder if that knuckleball was truly in his arsenal. It seems to make so much sense when you look at the raw stats. It would be hard to control, which would lead to walks and limited strike outs, and would also be hard to hit squarely and put into play with any power, which would explain why he was able to keep his ERA so low and suffer such little damage despite the walks.

[todeen]

I never imagined Ruth as RA Dickey, I always saw him like a pre-historic David Wells. Thanks for starting this thread!

[jingram058]

Then there was the game Ruth started, I forget what year, 1917 or 18. He got ejected after walking the first batter, arguing balls and strikes. Ernie Shore came on in relief and was perfect the rest of the way. For decades it was looked on as a perfect game, then years later a further review figured it should just be a no-hitter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Musashi

I don't know about his pitch selection, but I know he faced Ty Cobb 76 times and struck him out 7 times. Compare that 9.2% Strikeout rate to Cobb's career rate of 5.9% against everybody else, and that tells you a little something about Babe's quality as a pitcher.

I bet that sample size is statistically not very meaningful.

[Baseball Rarities]

brunswickreeves - That is a great photo, but it is actually from Ruth's rookie year in 1915. It pictures Foster, Mays, Shore, Ruth and Leonard from left to right. Here is another image that was taken at the same time from a different angle. (not mine)

[Beercan collector]

I’d bet he used all those pitches / Probably didn’t have a an incredible fastball - being such a good hitter he knew what hitters didn’t like at a certain time - I’m thinking Greg Maddux smarts But with more walks

[glchen]

Here is Babe Ruth's pitching advice from his 1935 Schutter Johnson card (not mine).

[mrreality68]

His 2015 season not a bad year

[z28jd]

This was the scouting report right before the Red Sox purchased him from Baltimore. There are others saying similar, but this is the best one

[brunswickreeves]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

brunswickreeves - That is a great photo, but it is actually from Ruth's rookie year in 1915. It pictures Foster, Mays, Shore, Ruth and Leonard from left to right. Here is another image that was taken at the same time from a different angle. (not mine)

Thanks very much for clarifying the players and date. I love this pic!

[Lobo Aullando]

Won't take that bet. The p-value on a binomial distribution is 0.161.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I bet that sample size is statistically not very meaningful.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Musashi

I don't know about his pitch selection, but I know he faced Ty Cobb 76 times and struck him out 7 times. Compare that 9.2% Strikeout rate to Cobb's career rate of 5.9% against everybody else, and that tells you a little something about Babe's quality as a pitcher.

This would not be a statistically significant difference in a sample size of just 76 at bats though, just FYI

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Lobo Aullando

Won't take that bet. The p-value on a binomial distribution is 0.161.

I don't know what you are talking about, or whether you are agreeing with me or disagreeing, but the next 76 at bats easily could have yielded a quite different strike out number for Cobb against Ruth. Not like some inevitable percentage is established by 7 strike outs in just 76 at bats, which easily could have been 5, or 9. I'll let Travis supply the technical explanation but I am trusting my gut here.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I bet that sample size is statistically not very meaningful.

You beat me to it

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't know what you are talking about, but the next 76 at bats easily could have yielded a quite different strike out number for Cobb against Ruth. Not like some inevitable percentage is established by 7 strike outs in just 76 at bats, which easily could have been 5, or 9. I'll let Travis supply the technical explanation but I am trusting my gut here.

He's saying the same thing as you. The statistical distribution of striking out or not is a binomial event (meaning it's either true or false). The p-value gives you the likelihood of getting a 7 Strikeout sample from 76 at bats given his "true" Strikeout rate of 5.6% or whatever it was stated above.

I didn't run the test myself, just going off my gut/experience, but 0.16 passes the smell test.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

He's saying the same thing as you. The statistical distribution of striking out or not is a binomial event (meaning it's either true or false). The p-value gives you the likelihood of getting a 7 Strikeout sample from 76 at bats given his "true" Strikeout rate of 5.6% or whatever it was stated above.

I didn't run the test myself, just going off my gut/experience, but 0.16 passes the smell test.

OK that makes sense. I had actually amended my post after rereading his to say I wasn't sure if he was agreeing with me or disagreeing, but yeah I understand it better now thanks to you both.

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by Snowman

He's saying the same thing as you. The statistical distribution of striking out or not is a binomial event (meaning it's either true or false). The p-value gives you the likelihood of getting a 7 Strikeout sample from 76 at bats given his "true" Strikeout rate of 5.6% or whatever it was stated above.

I didn't run the test myself, just going off my gut/experience, but 0.16 passes the smell test.

Based on my line of work that p- value is statistically insignificant.

[packs]

I know Cobb really beat up on Joe Wood and Wood was known to throw exceptionally hard in his time. Maybe Ruth's "tantalizing slow ball" was working for him.

[Touch'EmAll]

Here are consecutive head-to-head duels of Walter Johnson & Babe Ruth. Both were in the American League and played against each other.

August 14, 1915 - Ruth defeats Johnson 4-3
April 17, 1916 - Ruth defeats Johnson 5-1
June 1, 1916 - Ruth defeats Johnson 1-0
August 15, 1916 - Ruth defeats Johnson 1-0 in 13 innings
September 9, 1916 - Ruth defeats Johnson 2-1
September 12, 1916 - Johnson defeats Ruth 4-3

Walter Johnson was in his prime. Babe Ruth was very young. Ruth defeated Johnson 5 times in a row before he lost to The Big Train. Walter Johnson is considered one of the top 3 pitchers of all time, arguably the best.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by EddieP

Based on my line of work that p- value is statistically insignificant.

Based on my line of work, the whole concept of statistical significance is borderline arbitrary nonsense to begin with lol.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

Here are consecutive head-to-head duels of Walter Johnson & Babe Ruth. Both were in the American League and played against each other.

August 14, 1915 - Ruth defeats Johnson 4-3
April 17, 1916 - Ruth defeats Johnson 5-1
June 1, 1916 - Ruth defeats Johnson 1-0
August 15, 1916 - Ruth defeats Johnson 1-0 in 13 innings
September 9, 1916 - Ruth defeats Johnson 2-1
September 12, 1916 - Johnson defeats Ruth 4-3

Walter Johnson was in his prime. Babe Ruth was very young. Ruth defeated Johnson 5 times in a row before he lost to The Big Train. Walter Johnson is considered one of the top 3 pitchers of all time, arguably the best.

This tells us almost nothing about either pitcher's capabilities.

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Based on my line of work, the whole concept of statistical significance is borderline arbitrary nonsense to begin with lol.

Hmmmm interesting comment from a “ data scientist” LOL.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by EddieP

Hmmmm interesting comment from a “ data scientist” LOL.

Let me guess, you think a p-value of 0.049 tells you something about your null hypothesis that a p-value of 0.051 does not? Unless of course you've chosen an alpha of 0.10 (or some other arbitrary value), in which case both are somehow now informative when they previously weren't under your alpha of 0.05?

Frequentist statisticians use a tired framework. If you want to make useful predictions & observations, you should be using Bayesian methodologies.

[nat]

"Like players were putting the ball in play but not hitting it very well"

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's what was happening. But it doesn't really distinguish Ruth from anybody else in the deadball era (Rube Waddell aside).

IIRC, it used to be common for pitchers to throw a knuckleball every once in a while without being dedicated knuckleball pitchers. (Wikipedia confirms, FWIW.) So, it wouldn't be a surprise if Ruth threw the occasional knuckler, even if that wasn't his main pitch.

[Lobo Aullando]

Originally Posted by Snowman

The p-value gives you the likelihood of getting a 7 Strikeout sample from 76 at bats given his "true" Strikeout rate of 5.6% or whatever it was stated above.

One actually needs to take to whole tail, so it's the sum of all the outcome probabilities from 7 Ks all the way up to 76 Ks.

I'll defer on the interpretation, but I'd also note that Ruth struck out 112 left-handed batters in their 733 at-bats against, and Cobb's splits aren't nearly as divergent.

Ruth
Cobb

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Lobo Aullando

One actually needs to take to whole tail, so it's the sum of all the outcome probabilities from 7 Ks all the way up to 76 Ks.

I'll defer on the interpretation, but I'd also note that Ruth struck out 112 left-handed batters in their 733 at-bats against, and Cobb's splits aren't nearly as divergent.

Ruth
Cobb

Yes, good clarification. It should have read "7 or more".

Also, most stats professors would quibble with my phrasing anyhow. But I was attempting to use layman's terms.