Teddy was no where near the hitter as Ruth was

[uniquebaseballcards]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

What category do you suggest that Williams was marginally better than Ruth in?
I don't agree he was better in any category.

From a stats perspective BA and OBP, but this only from a career perspective. I'd agree with your analysis using the best 10 years mostly because someone hitting with such great ...or Ruthian power... would be more inclined to loose a little off BA/OBP at the end of their careers, I'm just trying to throw the Williams camp a bone here

 

[scotty21690]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

[quote="Mighty Bombjack":ag9h66yg]Ruth was unquestionably the better run producer, and the one I would take on my team in his prime. I will consider Williams' higher career BA and OBP (best all-time) and call him the better hitter.

this

Again, if you want career BA, why not pick COBB...

Was Cobb in your title? He was a better "hitter" than Ruth, too. The goal of baseball, in the end, is not hitting, it is scoring runs. That's why Ruth is king. But if you want to compare Ruth and Williams in "hitting," I take Williams.

Put simply:

We need a hit right now!!! Give me Williams.

We need a run right now!!! Give me Ruth.

The effectiveness of a "hit" is more meaningful than the hit itself. A double is better than a single, a triple is better than a double and a homerun is better than a triple. That is why slugging percentage is the best gauge of a hitter's effectiveness, and ranks Ruth one and Williams two all-time. Babe Ruth was the most EFFECTIVE hitter of all-time and it's indisputable in my opinion. Williams is second, a CLOSE second.[/quote:ag9h66yg]
If that's the case than I would take Hank Aaron over Babe Ruth....because he has more homeruns.


BTW a single or a double can be just as productive as a triple.

 

[jbhofmann]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

Career ops+ shows it's basically a push, even with Ted flying planes.

 

[hofautos]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

Career ops+ shows it's basically a push, even with Ted flying planes.

Ted flew, Ruth pitched...Ted was younger, ruth was fatter...whatever..
Just look at their prime years...btw,one of Ted's best seasons was in 1957.

Even if I gave Ted a push in BA, OBP, OPS, (Which i don't...i believe Ruth was marginally better), his slugging and power numbers dictate who was better if the other stats can be debated one way or the other rather you want to use prime or career numbers.

 

[jbhofmann]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

Ruth wasn't fat.

6'2" 215?

 

[hofautos]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

Ruth wasn't fat.

6'2" 215?

I didn't say he was fat.
I said he was fatter than Ted. What was Teddy's body fat?

Also FYI, Ruth's weight fluctuated between 198lbs and about 270lbs

 

[JoshHamilton]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

I know you don't want to hear it, but Ted missed 3 years that was right in the middle of his prime. Look at his WAR before and after. 3 seasons gone of +10 WAR!

And if Babe Ruth took care of himself and wasn't constantly drunk, he would have hit 1000 home runs

If you wanna use dumb and irrelevant hypotheticals, so can I

 

[ChasHawk]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

I know you don't want to hear it, but Ted missed 3 years that was right in the middle of his prime. Look at his WAR before and after. 3 seasons gone of +10 WAR!

And if Babe Ruth took care of himself and wasn't constantly drunk, he would have hit 1000 home runs

If you wanna use dumb and irrelevant hypotheticals, so can I

It's not a dumb and irrelevant hypothetical.

Ruth was a drunk.

Wiliams went to war for his country.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

I know you don't want to hear it, but Ted missed 3 years that was right in the middle of his prime. Look at his WAR before and after. 3 seasons gone of +10 WAR!

Sure, but another hypothetical: As Teddy missed considerable time during his prime years due to injury, someone could say his 'time off' to fight helped prolong or even rejuvenate his career.

 

[ChasHawk]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

I know you don't want to hear it, but Ted missed 3 years that was right in the middle of his prime. Look at his WAR before and after. 3 seasons gone of +10 WAR!

Sure, but another hypothetical: As Teddy missed considerable time during his prime years due to injury, someone could say his 'time off' to fight helped prolong or even rejuvenate his career.

yeah, I always stuff myself into the cockpit of a fighter plane when I want to rejuvinate.

 

[hofautos]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

I know you don't want to hear it, but Ted missed 3 years that was right in the middle of his prime. Look at his WAR before and after. 3 seasons gone of +10 WAR!

And if Babe Ruth took care of himself and wasn't constantly drunk, he would have hit 1000 home runs

If you wanna use dumb and irrelevant hypotheticals, so can I

It's not a dumb and irrelevant hypothetical.

Ruth was a drunk.

Wiliams went to war for his country.

Ruth enjoyed to drink like every other American...cheers!
Williams was drafted like many others were..so what?

What does any of that have to do with baseball. To suggest he was better because he went to war? Ted still was able to put in 10 solid years to accurately compare each other to...his 2nd best year was in 1957. Let's quit talking about IF's. If Ruth didn't eat so many hotdogs and did more pushups...who cares? What is, is what matters. Ruth beat Ted in every category during his prime years of his career. The only reason Ted had a higher career AVG is because Ruth played more in his "declining years". If you want to state who is a better hitter based only on career average, Cobb is your man....again Ted is not in the equation. If you want to know who was best hitter during their best years, Ruth was, and in EVERY SINGLE CATEGORY.

 

[scotty21690]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

I know you don't want to hear it, but Ted missed 3 years that was right in the middle of his prime. Look at his WAR before and after. 3 seasons gone of +10 WAR!

Sure, but another hypothetical: As Teddy missed considerable time during his prime years due to injury, someone could say his 'time off' to fight helped prolong or even rejuvenate his career.

Post war

 

[hofautos]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

I know you don't want to hear it, but Ted missed 3 years that was right in the middle of his prime. Look at his WAR before and after. 3 seasons gone of +10 WAR!

Sure, but another hypothetical: As Teddy missed considerable time during his prime years due to injury, someone could say his 'time off' to fight helped prolong or even rejuvenate his career.

Just take "IF's" out of the equation all together. The question isn't If ted ate as many hotdogs as babe, how much lower would his average be...The question is Who was better...The question isn't Who was better IF anything.....

Don't try to rationalize stupid "IF" statements with other stupid "IF" statements...just take them out of the equation.
Bottom line, take each players best years and compare them...there are plenty of solid years that each have which clearly shows each players talent.
Do we really care about who played better when they were 40 and their numbers were way down? Does that help to analyze one's talent?

Ruth beats Ted in every single category

PS - I realize you know also that Babe was the better hitter, I am just suggesting advice about your inclusions of "IFs"...they cloud the debate, of which there should be none.

 

[Mozzie22]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

I know you don't want to hear it, but Ted missed 3 years that was right in the middle of his prime. Look at his WAR before and after. 3 seasons gone of +10 WAR!

And if Babe Ruth took care of himself and wasn't constantly drunk, he would have hit 1000 home runs

If you wanna use dumb and irrelevant hypotheticals, so can I

It's not a dumb and irrelevant hypothetical.

Ruth was a drunk.

Wiliams went to war for his country.

Ruth enjoyed to drink like every other American...cheers!
Williams was drafted like many others were..so what?

What does any of that have to do with baseball. To suggest he was better because he went to war? Ted still was able to put in 10 solid years to accurately compare each other to...his 2nd best year was in 1957. Let's quit talking about IF's. If Ruth didn't eat so many hotdogs and did more pushups...who cares? What is, is what matters. Ruth beat Ted in every category during his prime years of his career. The only reason Ted had a higher career AVG is because Ruth played more in his "declining years". If you want to state who is a better hitter based only on career average, Cobb is your man....again Ted is not in the equation. If you want to know who was best hitter during their best years, Ruth was, and in EVERY SINGLE CATEGORY.

+1000 I honestly cannot see how this is even a debate.

 

[jbhofmann]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

I know you don't want to hear it, but Ted missed 3 years that was right in the middle of his prime. Look at his WAR before and after. 3 seasons gone of +10 WAR!

And if Babe Ruth took care of himself and wasn't constantly drunk, he would have hit 1000 home runs

If you wanna use dumb and irrelevant hypotheticals, so can I

You still pissed about being embarrassed by schmidtfan20 in the snow thread?

If everyone agreed with HOFAutos he wouldn't have anything to talk about.

 

[hofautos]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

If everyone agreed with HOFAutos he wouldn't have anything to talk about.

I could be more like you and go with popular opinion, regardless of any logic or lack there of...because it's the "in thing" and doesn't require any thinking.
Believe me, I talk about a lot of things and most people agree with me on most subjects...

If you don't agree with me, voice your opinion. When one stoops to attack another it just shows they have lost their ability to reason further.

 

[jbhofmann]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

If everyone agreed with HOFAutos he wouldn't have anything to talk about.

I could be more like you and go with popular opinion, regardless of any logic or lack there of...because it's the "in thing" and doesn't require any thinking.
Believe me, I talk about a lot of things and most people agree with me on most subjects...

If you don't agree with me, voice your opinion. When one stoops to attack another it just shows they have lost their ability to reason further.

You think that I'm in the majority? C'mon. Everyone with a pulse knows that Ruth put up better numbers than anyone. "The best damn hitter they ever saw..." was not meant to be quantified by stats (although if you look at his OPS+ which is almost identical to Ruth it proves he was equal). If you only say, "look at the stats", "but my stats say", "well baseball reference says", then their is no argument. Any trained monkey can look those up. What you want is a debate, but only by your terms.

 

[hofautos]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

If everyone agreed with HOFAutos he wouldn't have anything to talk about.

I could be more like you and go with popular opinion, regardless of any logic or lack there of...because it's the "in thing" and doesn't require any thinking.
Believe me, I talk about a lot of things and most people agree with me on most subjects...

If you don't agree with me, voice your opinion. When one stoops to attack another it just shows they have lost their ability to reason further.

You think that I'm in the majority? C'mon. Everyone with a pulse knows that Ruth put up better numbers than anyone. "The best damn hitter they ever saw..." was not meant to be quantified by stats (although if you look at his OPS+ which is almost identical to Ruth it proves he was equal). If you only say, "look at the stats", "but my stats say", "well baseball reference says", then their is no argument. Any trained monkey can look those up. What you want is a debate, but only by your terms.

You are in the majority of this thread...look at the poll results. But then again, FCBS average age explains a lot.
Unless you are 100 years old, you can't debate suggesting you saw both play. The only thing you can use is history and stats.
So if you can't say that you watched both play, and you don't want to look at stats, what do you want to look at...what FCBS popularity says?
Seriously, what is your basis if you don't want to use stats :lol:

PS Ruths OPS+ is 10% higher than Teddy's during their best 10 years.

 

[bongo870]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

look at what Ted Did!
1941 ML Major League Player of the Year
1942 ML Major League Player of the Year
1942 AL Triple Crown
1946 AL MVP
1947 ML Major League Player of the Year
1947 AL Triple Crown
1949 ML Major League Player of the Year
1949 AL MVP
1957 ML Major League Player of the Year

 

[jbhofmann]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

If everyone agreed with HOFAutos he wouldn't have anything to talk about.

I could be more like you and go with popular opinion, regardless of any logic or lack there of...because it's the "in thing" and doesn't require any thinking.
Believe me, I talk about a lot of things and most people agree with me on most subjects...

If you don't agree with me, voice your opinion. When one stoops to attack another it just shows they have lost their ability to reason further.

You think that I'm in the majority? C'mon. Everyone with a pulse knows that Ruth put up better numbers than anyone. "The best damn hitter they ever saw..." was not meant to be quantified by stats (although if you look at his OPS+ which is almost identical to Ruth it proves he was equal). If you only say, "look at the stats", "but my stats say", "well baseball reference says", then their is no argument. Any trained monkey can look those up. What you want is a debate, but only by your terms.

You are in the majority of this thread...look at the poll results. But then again, FCBS average age will explain some of the lunacy.
Unless you are 100 years old, you can't debate suggesting you saw both play. The only thing you can use is history and stats.
So if you can't say that you watched both play, and you don't want to look at stats, what do you want to look at...what FCBS popularity says?
Seriously, what is your basis if you don't want to use stats :lol:

PS Ruths OPS+ is 10% higher than Teddy's during their best 10 years.

What Poll? I didn't vote. I'm simply saying that yes you can use stats, but when you put stipulations on the stats (only best 10 years, "lets not look at Ruths final years", etc..), but then laugh when it is brought up that Williams missed 3 prime years, you are hypocritical.

QUESTION: Why do you continue to skirt this issue?

Career OPS+

1. Ruth-1.1636
2. Williams-1.1155
3. Gehrig-1.0798

ANSWER: You want to set your own rules to fit your topic.