1919 Ruth vs 2021 Ohtani

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

These two seasons provide the best comparison based on how they were used both as pitchers and hitters. Ruth was exclusively a hurler until 1918.
He was effectively no longer pitching in 1920. He did both hitting and pitching on a regular basis only in 1919. So how have they done.

Home runs

Ohtani 37 with 60 games to pla
Ruth 29

Stolen Bases

Ohtani 14
Ruth 7

ERA

Ohtani 3.09 with 15 starts
Ruth 2.97 with 15 starts

Batting Average

Ohtani .280
Ruth .322

Opposing pitchers are beginning to walk Ohtani more.
Ruth had over 100 walks in 1919.

There is really no other season comparable to 2021 Ohtani since 1919.

I’m a believer in this kid and feel that it would be a disservice if he is not the MVP this year.

He is truly fun to watch.

While I basically agree with you, Frank, about how exciting Ohtani is, I also feel that a bit more perspective is in order. For example, the fences were typically 450+ feet from home plate back in Ruth's day. There is a book titled, "The Year the Babe Hit 104 Home Runs," which, I believe, is premised on the idea that today's fences would have yielded that many homers to Ruth in 1921 even though the record books only credit him with 59. In fact, we still have good video evidence that the Babe was able to hit a 500+ foot home run in every American League park that year! And of course we know there were years when he out-homered entire teams. As a power hitter, I don't think anyone else compares to Ruth.

[molenick]

Originally Posted by robw1959

While I basically agree with you, Frank, about how exciting Ohtani is, I also feel that a bit more perspective is in order. For example, the fences were typically 450+ feet from home plate back in Ruth's day. There is a book titled, "The Year the Babe Hit 104 Home Runs," which, I believe, is premised on the idea that today's fences would have yielded that many homers to Ruth in 1921 even though the record books only credit him with 59. In fact, we still have good video evidence that the Babe was able to hit a 500+ foot home run in every American League park that year! And of course we know there were years when he out-homered entire teams. As a power hitter, I don't think anyone else compares to Ruth.

He is only credited with 59 home runs in 1921 because that is how many he it. I don't know of any record books that make adjustments based on what the fences would be like in the future.

This is great news that there is good video evidence of Babe Ruth's home runs in every AL park in 1921. I would love to see those videos so any links would be appreciated.

[jingram058]

It is an interesting comparison, and Ohtani is pretty amazing, indeed. I hope it works out for him in the long run. We'll see what happens during "the test of time".

Ruth turned out to be bigger than life, single-handedly saving baseball from the Black Sox scandal, hitting so many home runs that, at the time, it was incomprehensible, leaving many people far more intelligent and knowledgeable than me thinking he's the greatest ballplayer, ever. With a larger than life personality to go with all that.

Ohtani has this sort of potential?

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by jingram058

It is an interesting comparison, and Ohtani is pretty amazing, indeed. I hope it works out for him in the long run. We'll see what happens during "the test of time".

Ruth turned out to be bigger than life, single-handedly saving baseball from the Black Sox scandal, hitting so many home runs that, at the time, it was incomprehensible, leaving many people far more intelligent and knowledgeable than me thinking he's the greatest ballplayer, ever. With a larger than life personality to go with all that.

Ohtani has this sort of potential?

I do not believe he has that potential to be the big influence like the babe, for one he is in a small market (by his choice) and they never win so he is not seen as much and since he is not in the playoff he is not seen and does not have a chance to build a legacy thru championships.

But we can enjoy his skills and highlights in the regular season

[D. Bergin]

LOL, it shouldn't be sacrilegious just to utter Babe Ruth and Shohei Ohtani's name in the same breath.

Nobody's comparing them beat for beat. Just one fascinating season with another, from two unique athletes from completely different era's.

To pretend it's not going to be a natural comparison for fans to make, comes off as slightly obstinate to me.

Don't worry guys. Ohtani is not going to supplant Babe Ruth in any legacy race, and he's not going to cause your Babe Ruth cards and memorabilia to lose value because a bunch of young whippersnappers are salivating all over Ohtani right now.

Personally to me, without the benefit of hindsight, Ohtani most reminds me of somebody like Bo Jackson...........but for obvious different reasons.

I don't think Ohtani will ever be a HOF'er (*unless his Japanese League accomplishments are taken into consideration), but we will look back and ooooh and ahhhhhh over his accomplishments over a short amount of time before injuries and expectations catch up to him.

.......and I wouldn't hand him the MVP quite yet. He's not exactly proven to be an Iron Man, and he could just as conceivably tear a ligament or blow out a knee in the next week or so, as he could strike out 12 guys, or have a 3 homer game.

Who knows, he might go on to have a long and distinguished career. If this was the late 80's or 90's, he might have the medicinal help to do just that...........but most other era's......when a player becomes injury prone, he doesn't suddenly stop being injury prone.

[Snowman]

There are several important differences about how the game was played and what the ballpark dimensions were in Babe Ruth's era that are probably worth mentioning.

As someone noted above, there were some parks that were massive. Westside Grounds was 560' to center field (but Ruth didn't play there), and Boston's Huntington Avenue Grounds was an astonishing 635' to center field (but again, Ruth never played there. This was before his time).

The game itself was completely different back then though. It was all about getting on base and advancing runners. Players would bunt or chop the ball (the "Baltimore Chop") to get on base and then try to steal 2nd and 3rd nearly every time. Stolen base numbers from that era will never be duplicated. Nobody even tried to hit home runs back then. It was considered a fool's errand. The balls were "dead". They'd use the same ball for almost the entire game. Fans had to throw them back if they caught a foul ball to keep the game going. They'd basically use the same ball until the cover came off. When Ruth came along and started hitting home runs (remember, he led the league with 11 HRs in 1918) it wasn't seen as a winning strategy. So when he started crushing homers in 1919 and 1920, he was also one of only a few people who were even trying to do it. All the other players were still trying to bunt/chop/slash their way on base so they could steal 2nd and 3rd and get bunted home. But Babe Ruth was too fat and slow to run the bases, so he knew if he was going to score he'd have to hit it out of the park or get a double and rely on someone else to bring him in. It was a different mentality. You can't really compare the number of home runs he hit to the other players at that time because they simply weren't trying to hit them.

In 1919 when Babe Ruth hit 29 home runs for Boston, only 9 of those were at Fenway Park, the other 20 were on the road. At the time, Fenway had a 313.5' right field. And remember, Ruth was a left-handed pull hitter. The vast majority of his home runs were down the right-field line. They only played against 7 different teams during the regular season back then. And in 1919, Polo Grounds had a right-field fence of 258' and Sportsman's Park was 270'.

Also, pitching was a lot different back then. Walter Johnson was king. He threw serious heat for the era (measured at 89 mph, though some anecdotal tales estimate that he threw in the 90s). Nobody could hit him. Everyone else? Most of these guys threw fastballs in the low to mid-80s on a good day, and the best of the best were throwing high 80s. Players struck out because of spitballs and "emery board balls", not because of heat.

It was just an entirely different game. You simply cannot compare the eras. Ruth was the GOAT, no question. I'm not trying to discredit his accomplishments or abilities. I'm just saying you simply can't make fair comparisons across different eras. People try to do the same with Wilt Chamberlain and modern basketball greats. Wilt played against 6'2" white guys from the YMCA. It just wasn't the same game.

The quality of bats and balls make a huge difference as well. Equipment, nutrition, modern sports medicine, everything has come a long way since then.

My 2 cents.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Snowman

There are several important differences about how the game was played and what the ballpark dimensions were in Babe Ruth's era that are probably worth mentioning.

As someone noted above, there were some parks that were massive. Westside Grounds was 560' to center field (but Ruth didn't play there), and Boston's Huntington Avenue Grounds was an astonishing 635' to center field (but again, Ruth never played there. This was before his time).

The game itself was completely different back then though. It was all about getting on base and advancing runners. Players would bunt or chop the ball (the "Baltimore Chop") to get on base and then try to steal 2nd and 3rd nearly every time. Stolen base numbers from that era will never be duplicated. Nobody even tried to hit home runs back then. It was considered a fool's errand. The balls were "dead". They'd use the same ball for almost the entire game. Fans had to throw them back if they caught a foul ball to keep the game going. They'd basically use the same ball until the cover came off. When Ruth came along and started hitting home runs (remember, he led the league with 11 HRs in 1918) it wasn't seen as a winning strategy. So when he started crushing homers in 1919 and 1920, he was also one of only a few people who were even trying to do it. All the other players were still trying to bunt/chop/slash their way on base so they could steal 2nd and 3rd and get bunted home. But Babe Ruth was too fat and slow to run the bases, so he knew if he was going to score he'd have to hit it out of the park or get a double and rely on someone else to bring him in. It was a different mentality. You can't really compare the number of home runs he hit to the other players at that time because they simply weren't trying to hit them.

In 1919 when Babe Ruth hit 29 home runs for Boston, only 9 of those were at Fenway Park, the other 20 were on the road. At the time, Fenway had a 313.5' right field. And remember, Ruth was a left-handed pull hitter. The vast majority of his home runs were down the right-field line. They only played against 7 different teams during the regular season back then. And in 1919, Polo Grounds had a right-field fence of 258' and Sportsman's Park was 270'.

Also, pitching was a lot different back then. Walter Johnson was king. He threw serious heat for the era (measured at 89 mph, though some anecdotal tales estimate that he threw in the 90s). Nobody could hit him. Everyone else? Most of these guys threw fastballs in the low to mid-80s on a good day, and the best of the best were throwing high 80s. Players struck out because of spitballs and "emery board balls", not because of heat.

It was just an entirely different game. You simply cannot compare the eras. Ruth was the GOAT, no question. I'm not trying to discredit his accomplishments or abilities. I'm just saying you simply can't make fair comparisons across different eras. People try to do the same with Wilt Chamberlain and modern basketball greats. Wilt played against 6'2" white guys from the YMCA. It just wasn't the same game.

The quality of bats and balls make a huge difference as well. Equipment, nutrition, modern sports medicine, everything has come a long way since then.

My 2 cents.

I beg to differ that the babe was too fat and slow to run the bases as his rationale for hitting dingerrrrrs?

[frankbmd]

One hundred years is a long time. Ruth was outstanding in 1919. Ohtani is outstanding in 2021. Are they comparable?

Look at it this way. Would Jim Thorpe have won any Gold Medals in Tokyo in 2021? I think most would say very doubtful.

Would Babe Ruth hit as many home runs against a steady diet of 98-100 MPH fast balls out of the 2021 bull pens? You would have to speculate.

Would Ohtani in 1919 make people doubt that Walter Johnson had no equal? You would have to speculate.

Would a 1919 All-Star even make the roster of a current team? I dunno.

Who is the best current dead ball hitter? I dunno.

If a line drive hitter hit a shot to right center or left center in 1919, it doesn't matter if the fences were over 500 feet, he would still have circled the bases.

What is the optimal exit velocity and launch angle for a dead ball? Please provide references.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

There are several important differences about how the game was played and what the ballpark dimensions were in Babe Ruth's era that are probably worth mentioning.

As someone noted above, there were some parks that were massive. Westside Grounds was 560' to center field (but Ruth didn't play there), and Boston's Huntington Avenue Grounds was an astonishing 635' to center field (but again, Ruth never played there. This was before his time).

The game itself was completely different back then though. It was all about getting on base and advancing runners. Players would bunt or chop the ball (the "Baltimore Chop") to get on base and then try to steal 2nd and 3rd nearly every time. Stolen base numbers from that era will never be duplicated. Nobody even tried to hit home runs back then. It was considered a fool's errand. The balls were "dead". They'd use the same ball for almost the entire game. Fans had to throw them back if they caught a foul ball to keep the game going. They'd basically use the same ball until the cover came off. When Ruth came along and started hitting home runs (remember, he led the league with 11 HRs in 1918) it wasn't seen as a winning strategy. So when he started crushing homers in 1919 and 1920, he was also one of only a few people who were even trying to do it. All the other players were still trying to bunt/chop/slash their way on base so they could steal 2nd and 3rd and get bunted home. But Babe Ruth was too fat and slow to run the bases, so he knew if he was going to score he'd have to hit it out of the park or get a double and rely on someone else to bring him in. It was a different mentality. You can't really compare the number of home runs he hit to the other players at that time because they simply weren't trying to hit them.

In 1919 when Babe Ruth hit 29 home runs for Boston, only 9 of those were at Fenway Park, the other 20 were on the road. At the time, Fenway had a 313.5' right field. And remember, Ruth was a left-handed pull hitter. The vast majority of his home runs were down the right-field line. They only played against 7 different teams during the regular season back then. And in 1919, Polo Grounds had a right-field fence of 258' and Sportsman's Park was 270'.

Also, pitching was a lot different back then. Walter Johnson was king. He threw serious heat for the era (measured at 89 mph, though some anecdotal tales estimate that he threw in the 90s). Nobody could hit him. Everyone else? Most of these guys threw fastballs in the low to mid-80s on a good day, and the best of the best were throwing high 80s. Players struck out because of spitballs and "emery board balls", not because of heat.

It was just an entirely different game. You simply cannot compare the eras. Ruth was the GOAT, no question. I'm not trying to discredit his accomplishments or abilities. I'm just saying you simply can't make fair comparisons across different eras. People try to do the same with Wilt Chamberlain and modern basketball greats. Wilt played against 6'2" white guys from the YMCA. It just wasn't the same game.

The quality of bats and balls make a huge difference as well. Equipment, nutrition, modern sports medicine, everything has come a long way since then.

My 2 cents.

If I recall correctly Wilt played against Russell, Thurmond, Bellamy, Beatty, and for his last 5 years, Alcindor. 6 2 white guys indeed.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by Snowman

There are several important differences about how the game was played and what the ballpark dimensions were in Babe Ruth's era that are probably worth mentioning.

As someone noted above, there were some parks that were massive. Westside Grounds was 560' to center field (but Ruth didn't play there), and Boston's Huntington Avenue Grounds was an astonishing 635' to center field (but again, Ruth never played there. This was before his time).

The game itself was completely different back then though. It was all about getting on base and advancing runners. Players would bunt or chop the ball (the "Baltimore Chop") to get on base and then try to steal 2nd and 3rd nearly every time. Stolen base numbers from that era will never be duplicated. Nobody even tried to hit home runs back then. It was considered a fool's errand. The balls were "dead". They'd use the same ball for almost the entire game. Fans had to throw them back if they caught a foul ball to keep the game going. They'd basically use the same ball until the cover came off. When Ruth came along and started hitting home runs (remember, he led the league with 11 HRs in 1918) it wasn't seen as a winning strategy. So when he started crushing homers in 1919 and 1920, he was also one of only a few people who were even trying to do it. All the other players were still trying to bunt/chop/slash their way on base so they could steal 2nd and 3rd and get bunted home. But Babe Ruth was too fat and slow to run the bases, so he knew if he was going to score he'd have to hit it out of the park or get a double and rely on someone else to bring him in. It was a different mentality. You can't really compare the number of home runs he hit to the other players at that time because they simply weren't trying to hit them.

In 1919 when Babe Ruth hit 29 home runs for Boston, only 9 of those were at Fenway Park, the other 20 were on the road. At the time, Fenway had a 313.5' right field. And remember, Ruth was a left-handed pull hitter. The vast majority of his home runs were down the right-field line. They only played against 7 different teams during the regular season back then. And in 1919, Polo Grounds had a right-field fence of 258' and Sportsman's Park was 270'.

Also, pitching was a lot different back then. Walter Johnson was king. He threw serious heat for the era (measured at 89 mph, though some anecdotal tales estimate that he threw in the 90s). Nobody could hit him. Everyone else? Most of these guys threw fastballs in the low to mid-80s on a good day, and the best of the best were throwing high 80s. Players struck out because of spitballs and "emery board balls", not because of heat.

It was just an entirely different game. You simply cannot compare the eras. Ruth was the GOAT, no question. I'm not trying to discredit his accomplishments or abilities. I'm just saying you simply can't make fair comparisons across different eras. People try to do the same with Wilt Chamberlain and modern basketball greats. Wilt played against 6'2" white guys from the YMCA. It just wasn't the same game.

The quality of bats and balls make a huge difference as well. Equipment, nutrition, modern sports medicine, everything has come a long way since then.

My 2 cents.

Walter Johnson was measured at 89 mph? I’ve never read that… do you have a source for that?