1919 Ruth vs 2021 Ohtani

[Shoeless Moe]

Babe Ruth vs Ohtani Career pitching

Ruth
94-46
2.28 era

3-0 in 2 WS with 0.87 era

Owetani
9-4
3.58 era

hasn't sniffed a playoff game (when everybody and their sister gets into the playoffs these days) let alone a WS

GOODNIGHT!

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Babe Ruth vs Ohtani Career pitching

Ruth
94-46
2.28 era

3-0 in 2 WS with 0.87 era

Owetani
9-4
3.58 era

hasn't sniffed a playoff game (when everybody and their sister gets into the playoffs these days) let alone a WS

GOODNIGHT!

10-4, you said it.

To think and state that Walter Johnson threw his heater 83 MPH is total BS nonsense. That's little kid stuff, then and now. Total BS.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Ohtani is 5-1

6 whopping decisions.

Wins are against Texas, Seattle, Detroit, Boston and Colorado - big deal.

Jeff Springs of Tampa is also 5-1, who? exactly.


Ohtani is a nice 6th starter.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Babe Ruth vs Ohtani Career pitching

Ruth
94-46
2.28 era

3-0 in 2 WS with 0.87 era

Owetani
9-4
3.58 era

hasn't sniffed a playoff game (when everybody and their sister gets into the playoffs these days) let alone a WS

GOODNIGHT!

GOOD MORNING!

era as a word does not mean earned run average

and babe ruth is not a candy bar

I think you missed the point about comparing records 100 years apart

Against the pitching Ruth faced in 1919 as a batter, I would guess that Ohtani would hit more than 714 HRs.

Given the pitching that Ohtani is facing as a batter, I would guess that Ruth would hit less than 714 HRs.

This does not mean Ohtani is a better player than Ruth. It does not mean Ohtani will play for 20 years. It does not mean that Ruth should not be in the HOF.

The thread merely looks at the obstacles both faced by pitching and hitting daily in the same season, even though the seasons are 102 years apart and today’s game is different in many, many ways from 1919.

Babe Ruth said he couldn’t do it forever and it is likely that Ohtani will not either.

To mention their names in the same sentence is not balderdash though.

[jingram058]

Against the pitching Ruth faced in 1919 as a batter, I would guess that Ohtani would hit more than 714 HRs.

Nonsense! Just delusional nonsense.

Where did people today get the idea that MLB pitchers back then threw little league speed, when there were only 8 teams in each league, and the gene pool wasn't watered down?

Read Ritter's book to gain some insight into 19 teens and 20s pitching. I put more credence on reality rather than on speculation decades removed.

[packs]

I brought it up earlier but Bob Feller debuts in 1936, only a decade after Walter retires. I don't think anyone says Bob Feller threw in the 80s. Is it reasonable to think that the human body evolved so much in such little time? Bob Feller was 17 years old in 1936.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I brought it up earlier but Bob Feller debuts in 1936, only a decade after Walter retires. I don't think anyone says Bob Feller threw in the 80s. Is it reasonable to think that the human body evolved so much in such little time? Bob Feller was 17 years old in 1936.

I wonder how fast Grove threw, that would be interesting.

[packs]

That's another good example. Bob Feller was measured at 98 in 1946. I don't know how accurate that reading was either and even if it was, I think it's safe to assume he probably threw harder when he had less mileage.

If it is to be believe that Walter was throwing in the low 80s, and Walter retires 20 years before Feller is recorded at 98, how can that evolution be explained? Isn't it more likely the measurements for Walter were flawed?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by packs

I brought it up earlier but Bob Feller debuts in 1936, only a decade after Walter retires. I don't think anyone says Bob Feller threw in the 80s. Is it reasonable to think that the human body evolved so much in such little time? Bob Feller was 17 years old in 1936.

Walter Johnson was 49 years old in 1936. I think it's reasonable to think the arm developed that much in 32 years.

[packs]

Why? People are still throwing 98 to 100, which is where Feller was measured all the way back in 1946. It is 2021. In nearly 80 years the human body is still at the same peak when it comes to elite heat. Bob Feller was an elite arm in his time and would still be considered an elite arm now. How can 80 years change nothing but mountains were moved between Johnson and Feller?

The human body is only capable of so much. I would contend that elite arms have always thrown close to 100 mph and 100 years from now they will still be throwing 100 mph.

Steve Dalkowski might have been the hardest thrower in history and it wasn't due to any type of modern training. He just had the arm and his arm would have been the same no matter when he was born.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Why? People are still throwing 98 to 100, which is where Feller was measured all the way back in 1946. It is 2021. In nearly 80 years the human body is still at the same peak when it comes to elite heat. Bob Feller was an elite arm in his time and would still be considered an elite arm now. How can 80 years change nothing but mountains were moved between Johnson and Feller?

The human body is only capable of so much. I would contend that elite arms have always thrown close to 100 mph and 100 years from now they will still be throwing 100 mph.

Steve Dalkowski might have been the hardest thrower in history and it wasn't due to any type of modern training. He just had the arm and his arm would have been the same no matter when he was born.

Another point that may support you is that the longest home runs don't really seem to be any longer than they were well back in the day. Something I haven't figured out.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by packs

Why? People are still throwing 98 to 100, which is where Feller was measured all the way back in 1946. It is 2021. In nearly 80 years the human body is still at the same peak when it comes to elite heat. Bob Feller was an elite arm in his time and would still be considered an elite arm now. How can 80 years change nothing but mountains were moved between Johnson and Feller?

Feller is one guy. And he wouldn't be the fastest guy if he's throwing 98 today. Or even top 15 or 20. If Johnson was really throwing 89 - or 91 - then that's a 7-9 mph jump in 30 years. And the top guys now are throwing 104 or 105 - a 6-7 mph jump since Feller. Except now there's DOZENS of guys throwing 98-101 where back in Feller's day, there was....Feller. There's a physiological maximum for the human body in terms of throwing hard. And now there's a lot more guys that are a lot closer to that max then ever before.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Babe Ruth vs Ohtani Career pitching

Ruth
94-46
2.28 era

3-0 in 2 WS with 0.87 era

Owetani
9-4
3.58 era

hasn't sniffed a playoff game (when everybody and their sister gets into the playoffs these days) let alone a WS

GOODNIGHT!

Ruth pitched in the dead ball era though. Not even remotely close to an apples to apples comparison.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Ruth pitched in the dead ball era though. Not even remotely close to an apples to apples comparison.

Frank A just made a very good point in the post above yours. Ruth didn't have that luxury of only going 5-6-7 innings then having the bullpen come in, he went the distance. Or Ruth's ERA would be even lower and Ohtani even higher if he had to go as deep in a game.

Of course you can come back with Ruth didn't play against everyone he could have played against.

It could go back and forth, bottom line is the final numbers in the book, and Ruth's annihilate Ohtani's pitching & hitting statistics. Not even a comparison. Call me in 10 years, when the Angels still suck.

Trout's been stuck in purgatory 11 years ZERO playoff wins .083 lifetime playoff batting average. Enjoy the money boys, you'll never wear the ring!! Unless they are bidders in Goldin's Auctions.

[Shoeless Moe]

In fact I'll go on record and say Trout's Rookie Card will sink like a stone once his career is over and he never made a WS appearance.

A rich man's Ernie Banks.

There will some new "best ever" player who will be the hot thing to own.

SELL NOW

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Ruth pitched in the dead ball era though. Not even remotely close to an apples to apples comparison.

Are you referring to Ruth's ERA being so much lower than Ohtani's, even though Ruth pitched in more than 5X the number of games in his career than Ohtani has so far, and that during the dead ball era teams scored less runs than they do now, and thus a reason why Ruth's era was so much lower? Or how about the that fact that of the 147 games Ruth started in his career, 107 of them were complete games, whereas of the 27 games Ohtani has started in his MLB career, he has yet to pitch a single complete game?

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by bobc

are you referring to ruth's era being so much lower than ohtani's, even though ruth pitched in more than 5x the number of games in his career than ohtani has so far, and that during the dead ball era teams scored less runs than they do now, and thus a reason why ruth's era was so much lower? Or how about the that fact that of the 147 games ruth started in his career, 107 of them were complete games, whereas of the 27 games ohtani has started in his mlb career, he has yet to pitch a single complete game?

love it!!!!!!!!!

[Frank A]

In Ohtani's defense, he is not allowed to pitch a full game. They take him out in the 6th inning and let the relievers lose it for him. Had he stayed in some of those games his record would probably be 11 or 12 wins. Angels bullpen pitches like shit.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Frank A

In Ohtani's defense, he is not allowed to pitch a full game. They take him out in the 6th inning and let the relievers lose it for him. Had he stayed in some of those games his record would probably be 11 or 12 wins. Angels bullpen pitches like shit.

I think nobody has suffered more statistically for this modern thing than Jacob DeGrom.

[Ricky]

Is it possible that the reason pitchers 100 years ago were able to complete so many games and pitch so many innings is because they didn’t throw the ball as hard? Sure, maybe Walter Johnson hit the low to mid 90s a few times each game but maybe he and other pitchers only threw that hard in specific spots… and for most of the games they were throwing 80-85, saving wear on their arms.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Frank A

In Ohtani's defense, he is not allowed to pitch a full game. They take him out in the 6th inning and let the relievers lose it for him. Had he stayed in some of those games his record would probably be 11 or 12 wins. Angels bullpen pitches like shit.

Wasn't knocking Ohtani for not pitching complete games. Just noting that since most pitchers get tired as a game goes on, you would normally expect them to be giving up more hits and runs by pitching later into games, which tends to make Ruth's career ERA even more impressive when compared to Ohtani.

And as for Ohtani not getting wins his bullpen blew, that argument cuts both ways. How many more wins/less losses might Ruth have if he had been regularly taken out of games when he did start tiring?

[BobC]

Some additional pitching comparisons:

Ruth at 94-46 and Ohtani at 9-4, have comparable winning percentages of around .691-.692. But Ohtani has started a total 27 MLB games so true winning percentage based on actual starts is really only .333. Meanwhile, Ruth has 94 wins in 147 starts, for a true winning percentage based on starts of around .693. Now to be fair, Ruth also had 16 relief appeances in his career, leading to a total of 163 pitching appearances lifetime. I doubt all 16 of those relief appearances resulted in wins for Ruth, but even if you factor in all his pitching appearences, he still ends up with an overral winning percentage based appearences of about .577, quite a bit higher than Ohtani.

Nows here's a pitching stat that does favor Ohtani. Over his career so far, MLB batters have averaged hitting only .199 against him, whereas Ruth's career average by hitters batting against him was .224, which though still really good, is a bit higher. Of course, in Ohtani's case the MLB batting average during the years he's pitched in so far is .248, so he's doing .049 better than the league average, not bad at all. Oooohhh, wait though, during the years Ruth pitched the MLB batting average was .332, which means Ruth was .108 below the MLB average, pitching over a much longer period of time and a lot more appearances, the majority of which were complete games.

Ohtani is still considered in the early part of his MLB career, and therefore has a lot more playing to do and stats to put up. However, he's already incurred significant injuries and downtime from playing, and in going forward in his MLB career to get close to some Ruth pitching stats will take an exceptional improvement in some areas for him to begin approaching Ruth. I wish him well, good player.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by BobC

Some additional pitching comparisons:

Ruth at 94-46 and Ohtani at 9-4, have comparable winning percentages of around .691-.692. But Ohtani has started a total 27 MLB games so true winning percentage based on actual starts is really only .333. Meanwhile, Ruth has 94 wins in 147 starts, for a true winning percentage based on starts of around .693. Now to be fair, Ruth also had 16 relief appeances in his career, leading to a total of 163 pitching appearances lifetime. I doubt all 16 of those relief appearances resulted in wins for Ruth, but even if you factor in all his pitching appearences, he still ends up with an overral winning percentage based appearences of about .577, quite a bit higher than Ohtani.

Nows here's a pitching stat that does favor Ohtani. Over his career so far, MLB batters have averaged hitting only .199 against him, whereas Ruth's career average by hitters batting against him was .224, which though still really good, is a bit higher. Of course, in Ohtani's case the MLB batting average during the years he's pitched in so far is .248, so he's doing .049 better than the league average, not bad at all. Oooohhh, wait though, during the years Ruth pitched the MLB batting average was .332, which means Ruth was .108 below the MLB average, pitching over a much longer period of time and a lot more appearances, the majority of which were complete games.

Ohtani is still considered in the early part of his MLB career, and therefore has a lot more playing to do and stats to put up. However, he's already incurred significant injuries and downtime from playing, and in going forward in his MLB career to get close to some Ruth pitching stats will take an exceptional improvement in some areas for him to begin approaching Ruth. I wish him well, good player.

League batting average was .263 in 1919.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

League batting average was .263 in 1919.

Not arguing, just look at Ruth's Advanced Pitching stats on baseball-reference.com

The .332 is shown as the MLB average supposedly over the years Ruth was pitching, unless I'm reading something wrong.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by BobC

Some additional pitching comparisons:

Ruth at 94-46 and Ohtani at 9-4, have comparable winning percentages of around .691-.692. But Ohtani has started a total 27 MLB games so true winning percentage based on actual starts is really only .333. Meanwhile, Ruth has 94 wins in 147 starts, for a true winning percentage based on starts of around .693. Now to be fair, Ruth also had 16 relief appeances in his career, leading to a total of 163 pitching appearances lifetime. I doubt all 16 of those relief appearances resulted in wins for Ruth, but even if you factor in all his pitching appearences, he still ends up with an overral winning percentage based appearences of about .577, quite a bit higher than Ohtani.

Nows here's a pitching stat that does favor Ohtani. Over his career so far, MLB batters have averaged hitting only .199 against him, whereas Ruth's career average by hitters batting against him was .224, which though still really good, is a bit higher. Of course, in Ohtani's case the MLB batting average during the years he's pitched in so far is .248, so he's doing .049 better than the league average, not bad at all. Oooohhh, wait though, during the years Ruth pitched the MLB batting average was .332, which means Ruth was .108 below the MLB average, pitching over a much longer period of time and a lot more appearances, the majority of which were complete games.

Ohtani is still considered in the early part of his MLB career, and therefore has a lot more playing to do and stats to put up. However, he's already incurred significant injuries and downtime from playing, and in going forward in his MLB career to get close to some Ruth pitching stats will take an exceptional improvement in some areas for him to begin approaching Ruth. I wish him well, good player.

This is known as doing a deep dive, research-wise, and very well done, Bob.

[robw1959]

Sorry - somehow there was a double entry here.