Teddy was no where near the hitter as Ruth was

[hofautos]

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

look at what Ted Did!
1941 ML Major League Player of the Year
...
1957 ML Major League Player of the Year

^^^ No denying Ted was great...

BTW, the Major League Player of the Year Award originated after Ruth Retired.

 

[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 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.

My rules? It is just logical to look at a player's prime years in analyzing talent.
Even if I gave into your debate that you should look at career numbers to analyze talent (which is ludicrous), your own career numbers still show Ruth on top.

OK - I agree, RUTH IS ONLY MARGINALLY BETTER THAN TEDDY.

 

[jbhofmann]

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

[quote="jbhofmann":3a462d6e]

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.

My rules? It is just logical to look at a player's prime years in analyzing talent.
Even if I gave into your debate that you should look at career numbers to analyze talent (which is ludicrous), your own career numbers still show Ruth on top.

OK - I agree, RUTH IS ONLY MARGINALLY BETTER THAN TEDDY.[/quote:3a462d6e]

Then change title of the thread.

 

[hofautos]

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

^^^ I would, but it Won't fit...I will put it here for your amusement though.

Ruth is Marginally better than Teddy based on career numbers, but logic should tell you that you should analyze a player's TRUE talent based on their prime years, in which case Ruth is far superior than Teddy. Ruth dominated his era in ways that Teddy ballgame could not. When it comes to sheer domination, Ruth out-slugs all competition....but no matter how you shake a stick at it, RUTH WAS BETTER.

BABE RUTH>>"If I'd just tried for them dinky singles I could've batted around .600."
TED WILLIAMS>> "The greatest name in American sports history is Babe Ruth, a hitter."

 

[ChasHawk]

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

Mike - you want a debate, but you want to be right.

numbers are numbers. like was said before, a trained monkey can search b-r.com

historians of the game, people who saw the game played, say that Williams is the best pure hitter in the history of baseball.

 

[hofautos]

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

Mike - you want a debate, but you want to be right.

numbers are numbers. like was said before, a trained monkey can search b-r.com

historians of the game, people who saw the game played, say that Williams is the best pure hitter in the history of baseball.

Who said what and based on what? I would guess that Most people that would say Teddy is a better "pure hitter" are looking at career numbers, rather than individuals that have actually watched both play...and what is a definition of a "pure hitter"? I will take the slugger any day myself...

Ruth may have been exaggerating when he said he could bat 600 if he went for dinky singles, but it was clear, he wanted every hit out of the park, where Ted may have been more modest.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

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

numbers are numbers. like was said before, a trained monkey can search b-r.com

historians of the game, people who saw the game played, say that Williams is the best pure hitter in the history of baseball.

Just because numbers don't support an argument someone doesn't want to make doesn't mean they should be thrown out ::facepalm::

historians of the game, people who saw the game played, also say that Ruth is the best pure hitter in the history of baseball.

 

[fkw]

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

:lol:
5+ pages debating something that is so obvious.

Williams is #3 IMO so why is he in this fight???

IMO Slug% is the best way to Rank the best hitter. (removes slappy hitters with speed ie Cobb, Ichiro)

PS. Power + Contact Hitting .... none of these guys are the best... It would be Joltin' Joe

 

[jbhofmann]

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

"2.25"

The average AL strikeout rank Babe had for 16 straight years.

 

[hive17]

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

Williams struck out less. He hit better in that he missed less. Ruth missed more.

I didn't read past page 1. This entire thread is troll bait anyway...

 

[MallCopKJ]

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

.406 ballgame. Actually... Teddy Ballgame :lol:

 

[ronfromfresno]

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

.406 ballgame. Actually... Teddy Ballgame :lol:

Only 17th best all time, better than Ruth but no where near the top.

 

[elmalo]

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

I would take Gehrig over either one of them.
I would also take DiMaggio over either one of them.

 

[jbhofmann]

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

I would take Gehrig over either one of them.
I would also take DiMaggio over either one of them.

Speaking of Gehrig, it must have been nice to bat in front of the 3rd best hitter of all-time.

 

[hofautos]

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

.406 ballgame. :lol:

I might give Ted 1 or 2 seasons :lol:

Here's WAR numbers, but I know no one on this board likes WAR...none-the-less, read them and weep.
each column represents an accumulation of his best seasons...e.g. the column header with 5 means that his best 5 seasons accumulated WAR.

Granted, both had AMAZING careers.
Both almost averaged over 10 WAR for 10 years, and 8WAR is considered a GREAT MVP quality season.

 

[elmalo]

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

I would take Gehrig over either one of them.
I would also take DiMaggio over either one of them.

Speaking of Gehrig, it must have been nice to bat in front of the 3rd best hitter of all-time.

The concensus of the day was that Gehrig was the more dangerous hitter and pithers threw to Ruth to pitch around Gehrig.

 

[hofautos]

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

I would take Gehrig over either one of them.
I would also take DiMaggio over either one of them.

Speaking of Gehrig, it must have been nice to bat in front of the 3rd best hitter of all-time.

The concensus of the day was that Gehrig was the more dangerous hitter and pithers threw to Ruth to pitch around Gehrig.

As it should be...Gehrigs prime was coming in at the time of Ruth's twilight...after all Ruth was 32 years old as Gehrig turned 24.

 

[elmalo]

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

I would take Gehrig over either one of them.
I would also take DiMaggio over either one of them.

Speaking of Gehrig, it must have been nice to bat in front of the 3rd best hitter of all-time.

The concensus of the day was that Gehrig was the more dangerous hitter and pithers threw to Ruth to pitch around Gehrig.

As it should be...Gehrigs prime was coming in at the time of Ruth's twilight...after all Ruth was 32 years old as Gehrig turned 24.

Most guys are in their prime at 32.

 

[MizzouTigerFan]

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

For what it is worth, here is my Top 10
1.Ted Williams
2.Babe Ruth
3.Josh Gibson
4.Joe Jackson
5.Ty Cobb
6.Roger Hornsby
7.Lou Gehrig
8.Stan Musial
9.Honus Wagner
10.Albert Pujols

It is impossible to compare most of these players because they are in different eras. I believe that you have to compare players in the same era.
Ruth finished 1st one time in Batting Average with players in his era.
Batting Average
1918 AL .300 (8th)
1919 AL .322 (8th)
1920 AL .376 (4th)
1921 AL .378 (3rd)
1923 AL .393 (2nd)
1924 AL .378 (1st)
1926 AL .372 (2nd)
1927 AL .356 (7th)
1929 AL .345 (8th)
1930 AL .359 (3rd)
1931 AL .373 (2nd)
1932 AL .341 (5th)
Career .342 (10th)

Williams finished 1st 6 times in Batting Average
Batting Average s c a p y
1939 AL .327 (7th)
1940 AL .344 (3rd)
1941 AL .406 (1st)
1942 AL .356 (1st)
1946 AL .342 (2nd)
1947 AL .343 (1st)
1948 AL .369 (1st)
1949 AL .343 (2nd)
1951 AL .318 (4th)
1954 AL .345 (2nd)**
1956 AL .345 (2nd)
1957 AL .388 (1st)
1958 AL .328 (1st)
Career .344 (8th)

As technology advances players get better, especially pitchers. The averages may be down but I believe the pitching is far superior during Williams era. If Williams had played in Ruths era who knows what kind of gaudy numbers he would have put up.

How is this for a first post

 

[elmalo]

I would still take Gehrig or DiMaggio over either one of them.