1919 Ruth vs 2021 Ohtani

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by packs

I think what you're saying is that people don't know how to pitch anymore. I'd agree with that. Look at Syndergaard. He worked out enough to throw a ball through a brick wall but what good did it do him? He's not even on a mound.

Very true.

I think what you had in the 1900-1920 era were pitchers who pitched hard only when they had to. I'm sure Walter Johnson and Smoky Joe Wood hit 93-95 mph for a few pitches each game, but for the majority of the game they were probably throwing mid-to-high 80s and varying their speeds. Lesser pitchers were probably throwing low 80s and maybe approaching 88-89 a few times per game. It makes absolutely no logical sense to think that those guys were throwing complete games of 120+ pitches every third day all season long and throwing 90s on every pitch, like many do today. No pitcher would have lasted doing that.

Of course, even pacing themselves, some pitchers were still going to break down with that much work.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Ricky

Very true.

I think what you had in the 1900-1920 era were pitchers who pitched hard only when they had to. I'm sure Walter Johnson and Smoky Joe Wood hit 93-95 mph for a few pitches each game, but for the majority of the game they were probably throwing mid-to-high 80s and varying their speeds. Lesser pitchers were probably throwing low 80s and maybe approaching 88-89 a few times per game. It makes absolutely no logical sense to think that those guys were throwing complete games of 120+ pitches every third day all season long and throwing 90s on every pitch, like many do today. No pitcher would have lasted doing that.

Of course, even pacing themselves, some pitchers were still going to break down with that much work.

That's what pitching is though if you want to throw 9 innings. It would be a little strange to think the last pitch and the first pitch were constant the entire game.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I love the story, probably apocryphal, of the hitter who took three straight strikes from Johnson and complained to the umpire that the third one sounded low.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by packs

That's what pitching is though if you want to throw 9 innings. It would be a little strange to think the last pitch and the first pitch were constant the entire game.

Understood, but guys today aren't throwing 9 innings. Today, pitchers might range between 89-96 for 5-6 innings. Back then, pitchers might range between 79-86 for 9 innings and only hit the upper levels if they were in a jam.

[eliotdeutsch]

Always think this is interesting watch whenever these discussions come up.

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epst...ronger/up-next

[packs]

Originally Posted by Ricky

Understood, but guys today aren't throwing 9 innings. Today, pitchers might range between 89-96 for 5-6 innings. Back then, pitchers might range between 79-86 for 9 innings and only hit the upper levels if they were in a jam.

I looked at Cobb's splits for his career:

1st at Bat against SP: 340 overall
3rd at bat against SP: 351 overall

Better the 3rd time around but not giving me the impression the guy in the first inning was all that different from the guy in the 9th. That may play to what you're saying, or it may suggest that pitchers were more durable when they were throwing more innings.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I looked at Cobb's splits for his career:

1st at Bat against SP: 340 overall
3rd at bat against SP: 360 overall

Better the 3rd time around but not giving me the impression the guy in the first inning was all that different from the guy in the 9th. That may play to what you're saying, or it may suggest that pitchers were more durable when they were throwing more innings.

If two of his at bats "only" worked out to .350, where did the .367 come from? Was he hitting .400 after the 3rd at bat?

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If two of his at bats "only" worked out to .350, where did the .367 come from? Was he hitting .400 after the 3rd at bat?

Haha actually he was. It says he hit 406 if he faced the SP 4 times or more.

I got mixed up too. The third time SP average says 351. He hit 360 when he faced the RP 3 times or more.

Baseball reference has some incredible information on it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Haha actually he was. It says he hit 406 if he faced the SP 4 times or more.

I got mixed up too. The third time SP average says 351. He hit 360 when he faced the RP 3 times or more.

Baseball reference has some incredible information on it.

A good if small anecdote supporting the use of relief pitchers, perhaps. I wonder if it's more due to the pitcher tiring, the batter adjusting to the pitcher's stuff, or both.

[jingram058]

Well if you're just going to pretend that pitchers back then were throwing little league or pee wee speeds after "wearing out" over 9 innings (if that were true, why didn't Cobb or Jackson or Ruth hit .500 or higher?), and just ignore what the players themselves said about pitching, and think everything is so much better today, and that Tommy John surgery isn't rampant today after pitching less than 6 innings a game or less than 200 innings a year, then go ahead and say whatever. You say the pitching today is so much above that era that it's like us over the amoeba, so obviously it must be. You have all the etched in stone, irrefutable metrics.

[jingram058]

How is it that Chapman of the Indians was killed by a little league ball? Oh yes, he wasn't wearing his full head, full face crash helmet, and ballplayers heads just weren't as thick as heads today.

[jingram058]

How did pitchers throw so many innings year in and year out without breaking down. Oh yes, they were throwing baseballs like slow pitch softballs. That must be it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jingram058

How did pitchers throw so many innings year in and year out without breaking down. Oh yes, they were throwing baseballs like slow pitch softballs. That must be it.

Speculating, but maybe pitchers then threw fewer breaking balls, which put more strain on the arm?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Well if you're just going to pretend that pitchers back then were throwing little league or pee wee speeds after "wearing out" over 9 innings (if that were true, why didn't Cobb or Jackson or Ruth hit .500 or higher?), and just ignore what the players themselves said about pitching, and think everything is so much better today, and that Tommy John surgery isn't rampant today after pitching less than 6 innings a game or less than 200 innings a year, then go ahead and say whatever. You say the pitching today is so much above that era that it's like us over the amoeba, so obviously it must be. You have all the etched in stone, irrefutable metrics.

Cobb, Jackson etc. didn't hit 500 because they too were products of the same era in terms of athletic evolution. The abilities of pitchers relative to batters is probably relatively constant over time, and when it gets disproportionate you see subtle changes like mound height or fence adjustments to keep it balanced.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Well if you're just going to pretend that pitchers back then were throwing little league or pee wee speeds after "wearing out" over 9 innings (if that were true, why didn't Cobb or Jackson or Ruth hit .500 or higher?), and just ignore what the players themselves said about pitching, and think everything is so much better today, and that Tommy John surgery isn't rampant today after pitching less than 6 innings a game or less than 200 innings a year, then go ahead and say whatever. You say the pitching today is so much above that era that it's like us over the amoeba, so obviously it must be. You have all the etched in stone, irrefutable metrics.

So pitchers in 1910 were bigger, stronger, more durable than pitchers today? Or maybe they just didn't exert themselves as much and pout as much strain on their arms. And were players back then stronger than today's players? How did they get those 48 oz bats around on 100 mph fast balls when many of them were 5'7, 165 pounds?

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

The one constant amongst fans of all sports will be the endless arguments and comparisons between players of different eras. They are fascinating as well as impossible to resolve (until someone invents a time machine).

As far as my take, the Babe will never be surpassed as the best ever not only because of his performance against his peers but also his unprecedented celebrity at the time. Truly one of a kind.

That being said, if I had to wager my house on which player would fare better in a matchup against a modern day pitcher (let's say, DeGrom) and I could pick from Babe Ruth in his prime and Ohtani this year, I would take Ohtani. Not because Ohtani will ever become the legend that Ruth did, but because I think it's basically a fact that for various reasons today's athletes are superior to athletes of 100 years ago. There's a reason that world records get set almost every year in track and field.

As for the eye test, unfortunately, we aren't able to watch Ruth play in person. But I decided to take my daughters over to the Home Run Derby earlier this month (I live in Kansas City so it's only about 10 hours-ish). We were there mostly to watch Salvador Perez, but as a bonus I got to see Ohtani. He was CLEARLY the biggest draw there. Yes, hometown favorite Trevor Story got a lot of cheers, but EVERYBODY was watching Ohtani's every move...in interviews, batting practice, etc. There was even a contingent of Japanese fans that sort of just migrated around the stands during warmups trying to stay as close to him as possible.

And while his actual performance in the derby was pretty strong, his most impressive hit of the night was his final at bat in batting practice. It was "only" measured around 505 feet, but it bounced off the facing of the FOURTH deck at Coors field. If that fourth deck wasn't in the way, who knows where that ball would have landed. The entire place was buzzing...after a batting practice ball!

All this to say is that Ohtani is definitely something special right now. No, not Babe Ruth, but if you're not watching him, you are missing out.

A couple pics I took that day:

Stood behind the dugout during warmups and got a pic of Ohtani with his interpreter being interviewed by Harold Reynolds:

o1.jpg


Here's a wide shot of Coors field during warm ups and the very tip of the red arrow is where Ohtani hit that batting practice ball:

o2.jpg

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

Coors field

I could hit a home run with a whiffle bat at Coors Field

[toledo_mudhen]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

I could hit a home run with a Whiffle bat at Coors Field

Now I would really pay some serious cash to watch that - There would be threads for years to come on Net54 regarding the "Guy that hit a home Run in Coors field with a Whiffle Ball bat"

Anyway - Ive read all 4 pages of this thread hoping to see any opinions on "What is this guy's Best RC". There appear to be only a few thousand different options available out there.

So not to hijack the lively discussion on Ruth vs Ohtani but does anyone have any opinions on that?

If you were going to pick up a couple of Ohtani RCs - What would they be?