Quote:
Originally Posted by Vintageclout
Or maybe Babe Ruth was simply that GREAT and a "once in a lifetime" ballplayer". I think you are OVERANALYZING this scenario, and based on your sentiment towards Lou Gehrig I completely understand. NO player BEFORE, DURING or AFTER will depict the combined hitting/pitching skills sets exhibited by Ruth. It is unfathomable that a player could dominate at such a pinnacle level on the mound and in the batter's box, and there is ZERO hedging for tipping your cap to Ruth. There were thousands of pre-1930 pitchers that didn't even come close to Ruth's coupled talent base, and the FACT that no pitcher has reflected such a talent since says it ALL!!!
|
You're not understanding me if you are convinced I'm somehow
not tipping my cap to Ruth. I am not at all denying his greatness. I am, however, playing devil's advocate to those of you who are so quickly dismissive of the "was Aaron better than Ruth" question which serves as the genesis of this whole discussion. No, I don't think Aaron was better than Ruth. But, I do think that Aaron was on Ruth's level. How close is difficult to ascertain, as they played in different eras. And that is the point. The game has been played for over 80 + years since the Babe hung up his cleats, and there have been a lot of other incredible players. Babe Ruth, as great as he was, did not establish statistics that are so high that they are completely unchallengeable. Hell, a .career 260 hitter broke his 60 home run mark.
The overall level of competition in baseball is higher as African Americans and Latin Americans are no longer excluded. Some of you guys don't seem to acknowledge just how many truly incredible players were not allowed to face Ruth. He put up incredible numbers, but there were players who, if they were allowed to play, could have seriously lessened his production. Additionally, the game is more specialized now than it was in Ruth's day. Back then, a pitcher would throw thirty or forty complete games a season. By the end of the game, these pitchers would be understandably fatigued. And when you're tired, velocity drops. Curveballs break less. Mistakes are made more often by pitchers. More opportunity for batters. More home run opportunities for Ruth. In the modern game, you might see three, four or more pitchers in one game. When Aaron played, you had pitchers consistently hitting 20-30 saves a season. In Ruth's day? Leaders had 5, 6 or 7 saves. Maybe 10 to 12 in a good season. Back then, in football, you had players like Don Hutson, who would play wideout, kicker, and safety. You don't see that today, either. Games evolve. Baseball is no different.
And I'm curious as to what sentiment you think I have about Gehrig? I'm not a Yankees fan, or a Gehrig fan. The point was made that nobody even approached the great Ruth's abilities in his era, and I refuted it, quite effectively, I might add. I think what happened to him was tragic, but beyond that, I don't hold any special affinity for the man.
The numbers don't lie. Ruth was an historic player, one of the all-time greats. I'd clearly put him in the top 10, top 5 players in the history of the game. But to treat him as if he were somehow super human, doing things nobody else could come within miles of, is simply not so. I'd be willing to bet that Josh Gibson hit homeruns as often as the Babe, and just as far. But he never got to show what he could do in the Major Leagues because of the color of his skin, so he is discounted, and Ruth is deified.
And I'm sorry, to say that Ruth was so much better than Hank Aaron is just absurd.
06-02-2013, 08:38 PM
Aaron vs. Ruth
Similar Threads
Hybrid Mode
