How would 1921's Babe Ruth do in today's game? (1 Viewer)

[GregR_2]

1921 was arguably Babe Ruth's best season. In 152 games and 540 at bats he accumulated the following stats:

.378 batting average

59 home runs

171 RBI's

204 hits

.512 on base percentage

.846 slugging percentage

145 base on balls

81 strike outs

17 stolen bases

Ok, so given those stats... let's say hypothetically that we go back in our time machine to the start of the 1921 season and grab Babe Ruth and bring him forward to the present year. He is in the same exact physical and mental state in 2008 now as he was in 1921. He gets no benefits from modern weight lifting, supplements, etc, that today's players have.

We put him on the current Yankees batting as their designated hitter, and he plays 152 games and gets 540 at bats again. What stats would he put up playing in the modern game?

 

[Celph Titled]

He'd be mediocre, for the same reasons that world record swimming times 100 years ago wouldn't win a HS Varsity race in present times.

Baseball Between The Numbers, a book that BP put out a few weeks ago, dives into the Bonds vs. Babe argument in great detail.

 

[Darth Cheney]

He'd be mediocre, for the same reasons that world record swimming times 100 years ago wouldn't win a HS Varsity race in present times.Baseball Between The Numbers, a book that BP put out a few weeks ago, dives into the Bonds vs. Babe argument in great detail.

Yeah....because the Babe wouldn't have had the same luxuries, lack of competition, health advice,trainers etc. etc. etc. etc. that contemporary players do.

 

[MrPhoenix]

He'd be mediocre, for the same reasons that world record swimming times 100 years ago wouldn't win a HS Varsity race in present times.Baseball Between The Numbers, a book that BP put out a few weeks ago, dives into the Bonds vs. Babe argument in great detail.

Yeah....because the Babe wouldn't have had the same luxuries, lack of competition, health advice,trainers etc. etc. etc. etc. that contemporary players do.

Plus, he probably wouldn't be drafted because of weight/conditioning. He'd have trouble maintaining "playing weight" and he'd be destroyed by the media and fringe groups for his habits off the field.He might have a minor league career as a homerun sideshow a la Rob Stratton, but that's about it.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

We've disscussed this before and it has been discussed many times by many people over the years.

People who really know baseball will all say the same thing: Babe Ruth would have dominated any era. Period.

 

[MrPhoenix]

We've disscussed this before and it has been discussed many times by many people over the years. People who really know baseball will all say the same thing: Babe Ruth would have dominated any era. Period.

If untampred with, sure.

 

[JZilla]

We've disscussed this before and it has been discussed many times by many people over the years. People who really know baseball will all say the same thing: Babe Ruth would have dominated any era. Period.

I see no reason to think anything else. The argument is silly though, of course it's a different time and he would have access to modern technologies.. and probably the sense to stay out of serious trouble with the media like most scumbag pro athletes do. Would he be driving a Model T to the ballpark as well?

 

[shadyridr]

My question about Babe Ruth is this. Why was he so good? Why was he able to outhomer complete teams back in his day? I understand there are a few upper echelon players but how come he was the only one that hit home runs at his level? And then how come only a few years later how come more and more HR hitters started to crop up? Is it because baseball evolved from a speed game to a power game and he was ahead of his time?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

My question about Babe Ruth is this. Why was he so good? Why was he able to outhomer complete teams back in his day? I understand there are a few upper echelon players but how come he was the only one that hit home runs at his level? And then how come only a few years later how come more and more HR hitters started to crop up? Is it because baseball evolved from a speed game to a power game and he was ahead of his time?

Some guys who watched Ruth play and also saw baseball up until very recently said Ruth was the best ever. Buck O'Neil said the only player he ever saw that was in Ruth's class was Josh Gibson. And Buck just died.

 

[dparker713]

He'd do atleast as well, maybe better. That year the Yankees played in the Polo Grounds. Plus, while he wasnt playing against blacks, the league was alot smaller and pitching wasnt as diluted as it is now. The only thing that *might* help the modern day pitchers would be scouting reports, but I doubt it.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

He'd do atleast as well, maybe better. That year the Yankees played in the Polo Grounds. Plus, while he wasnt playing against blacks, the league was alot smaller and pitching wasnt as diluted as it is now. The only thing that *might* help the modern day pitchers would be scouting reports, but I doubt it.

We were talking about this last year about this time in anotehr thread:

Seriously, would Babe be all that good in today's game? No way to tell how he would do with the current competition.

Pitching translates. And its not like its gotten better. The only thing that would cut down on some of his hits are better conditioned fielders, but that would certainly be less important than the band boxes the league currently plays in. Make no mistake, that fat drunken slob would still dominate the league, though if you think Pacman makes alot of headlines...

I think people underestimate Ruth in today's game because he was fat. The guy was one of the best pitchers in baseball before he became what I still consider the league's greatest power hitter ever. Ruth won 24 games in 1917, 94 for his career, and was 3-0 in World Series games with an ERA under one. He had an OPS above 1100 13 times and he would have hit 850 HRs if he didn't spend most of his first five pitching, and a few more suspended. In 1919 he had 29 HRs, the next closest guy had 12. In 1920 he had 54, the next closest guy had 19. In 1920 no team collectively hit more home runs than Babe Ruth except the Philadelphia Athletics. Remember there were only 16 teams in baseball then and there was certainly enough talent to fill those rosters (taking into account the counter argument that blacks and Hispanics were not allowed to play). Statistically speaking only Barry Bonds and Ted Williams have ever had the OPS and Slugging seasons that would compare to Ruth.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I doubt that he would be accused of doing steroids.

 

[pollardsvision]

babe ruth would stink in today's game. i don't care what "baseball people" say. no sport glorifies past stars like baseball.

just to give an example of what type of pitching ruth was facing, let's look at the '21 red sox pitching staff

-they only had 4 starters (one was named "elmer")

-the best pitcher, sam jones, threw 298 innings and struck out 98 batters. he led the team in strikeouts.

-including both starters and relievers, they basically 7 pitchers on the entire staff.

now, most the batters weren't trying to hit balls out of the park, making it harder to rack up strikeouts, but still. nobody even strukout 100 batters when 7 guys accounted for almost every inning of the season (4 other pitchers combined for less than 30 innings on the year).

ruth was facing a bunch of overworked, country-bumpkin, soft-tossers.

 

[pollardsvision]

other fun stuff from looking at the '21 yankee team.

-a fella by the name of "chicken hawks" played in 41 games and hit .288.

-the best pitcher for the yankees was carl mays. he pitched 336 innings and struckout a whopping 70 batters (while walking 76). must've been some filthy stuff.

 

[dparker713]

babe ruth would stink in today's game. i don't care what "baseball people" say. no sport glorifies past stars like baseball.just to give an example of what type of pitching ruth was facing, let's look at the '21 red sox pitching staff-they only had 4 starters (one was named "elmer")-the best pitcher, sam jones, threw 298 innings and struck out 98 batters. he led the team in strikeouts.-including both starters and relievers, they basically 7 pitchers on the entire staff.now, most the batters weren't trying to hit balls out of the park, making it harder to rack up strikeouts, but still. nobody even strukout 100 batters when 7 guys accounted for almost every inning of the season (4 other pitchers combined for less than 30 innings on the year).ruth was facing a bunch of overworked, country-bumpkin, soft-tossers.

They were hardly all soft tossers. And even if they were soft tossing, they were throwing spitballs. Players didnt strikeout much back then because they were all contact hitters. All you need to do is look at how Ty Cobb held the bat to see how different the approach to hitting was before Ruth.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

babe ruth would stink in today's game. i don't care what "baseball people" say. no sport glorifies past stars like baseball.just to give an example of what type of pitching ruth was facing, let's look at the '21 red sox pitching staff-they only had 4 starters (one was named "elmer")-the best pitcher, sam jones, threw 298 innings and struck out 98 batters. he led the team in strikeouts.-including both starters and relievers, they basically 7 pitchers on the entire staff.now, most the batters weren't trying to hit balls out of the park, making it harder to rack up strikeouts, but still. nobody even strukout 100 batters when 7 guys accounted for almost every inning of the season (4 other pitchers combined for less than 30 innings on the year).ruth was facing a bunch of overworked, country-bumpkin, soft-tossers.

It would be pretty hard to address this in an intelligent manner given how much stupidity is involved with your argument. Walter Johnson was a soft tosser?

 

[shadyridr]

babe ruth would stink in today's game. i don't care what "baseball people" say. no sport glorifies past stars like baseball.just to give an example of what type of pitching ruth was facing, let's look at the '21 red sox pitching staff-they only had 4 starters (one was named "elmer")-the best pitcher, sam jones, threw 298 innings and struck out 98 batters. he led the team in strikeouts.-including both starters and relievers, they basically 7 pitchers on the entire staff.now, most the batters weren't trying to hit balls out of the park, making it harder to rack up strikeouts, but still. nobody even strukout 100 batters when 7 guys accounted for almost every inning of the season (4 other pitchers combined for less than 30 innings on the year).ruth was facing a bunch of overworked, country-bumpkin, soft-tossers.

It would be pretty hard to address this in an intelligent manner given how much stupidity is involved with your argument. Walter Johnson was a soft tosser?

But his name was ELMER!

 

[shadyridr]

They were hardly all soft tossers. And even if they were soft tossing, they were throwing spitballs. Players didnt strikeout much back then because they were all contact hitters. All you need to do is look at how Ty Cobb held the bat to see how different the approach to hitting was before Ruth.

Thats what I was kind of asking above. Did Ruth basically change the game? Because he was the only power hitter and then all of a sudden guys like Jimmie Foxx emerged. Did teams start signing power hitters or did some guys just change their approach?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

They were hardly all soft tossers. And even if they were soft tossing, they were throwing spitballs. Players didnt strikeout much back then because they were all contact hitters. All you need to do is look at how Ty Cobb held the bat to see how different the approach to hitting was before Ruth.

Thats what I was kind of asking above. Did Ruth basically change the game? Because he was the only power hitter and then all of a sudden guys like Jimmie Foxx emerged. Did teams start signing power hitters or did some guys just change their approach?

The ball changed first in 1920 which made a huge difference but Ruth didn't change the game, he reinvented it.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

This is pretty good for wiki:

The dead-ball era ended suddenly. By 1921, offenses were scoring 40% more runs and hitting four times as many home runs as they did in 1918.[1] The abruptness of this dramatic change has caused widespread debate among baseball historians, and there is no consensus among them regarding the cause of this transformation.[2][3] Six popular theories have been advanced:Changes in the ball: This theory claims that owners replaced the ball with a newer, livelier ball (sometimes referred to as the "jackrabbit" ball), presumably with the intention of boosting offense and, by extension, ticket sales. This theory has been denied by Major League Baseball. The yarn used to wrap the core of the ball was changed prior to the 1920 season, although testing by the United States Bureau of Standards found no difference in the physical properties of the two different types of balls. Outlawing of the spitball: The spitball, a very effective pitch throughout the dead-ball era, was outlawed at this time as well. This theory states that without the spitball in the pitcher's arsenal, batters gained an advantage. More baseballs per game: The fatal beaning of Ray Chapman during the 1920 season led to a rule that the baseball must be replaced every time that it got dirty. With a clean ball in play at all times, players no longer had to contend with a ball that "traveled through the air erratically, tended to soften in the later innings, and as it came over the plate, was very hard to see."[4] Game-winning home runs: In 1920, Major League Baseball adopted writer Fred Lieb's proposal that a game-winning home run with men on base be counted as a home run even if its run is not needed to win the game. The intentional walk was also banned‚ and it was decided that everything that happened in a protested game would be added to the game record. (From 1910 to 1919‚ records in protested games were excluded.) Babe Ruth: This theory alleges that the prolific success of Babe Ruth hitting home runs led players around the league to forsake their old methods of hitting (described above) and adopt a "free-swinging" strategy designed to hit the ball hard and with an uppercut stroke, with the intention of hitting more home runs. Critics of this theory claim that it does not account for the improvement in batting averages from 1918–1921, over which time the league average improved from .254 to .291. Ballpark dimensions: This theory contends that the cause of the offensive outburst were changes in the dimensions of the ballparks of the time. Accurate estimates of ballpark sizes of the era can be difficult to obtain, however, so there is some disagreement over whether the dimensions changed at all during this time, let alone whether the change led to an increase in offense.

 

[shadyridr]

pretty cool stuff

I often wonder how baseball will look 80 yrs from now

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

babe ruth would stink in today's game. i don't care what "baseball people" say. no sport glorifies past stars like baseball.just to give an example of what type of pitching ruth was facing, let's look at the '21 red sox pitching staff-they only had 4 starters (one was named "elmer")-the best pitcher, sam jones, threw 298 innings and struck out 98 batters. he led the team in strikeouts.-including both starters and relievers, they basically 7 pitchers on the entire staff.now, most the batters weren't trying to hit balls out of the park, making it harder to rack up strikeouts, but still. nobody even strukout 100 batters when 7 guys accounted for almost every inning of the season (4 other pitchers combined for less than 30 innings on the year).ruth was facing a bunch of overworked, country-bumpkin, soft-tossers.

Please tell me you're still in grade school.

 

[Finless]

Ruth would be lucky to make contact in today's game.

 

[Spartans Rule]

pretty cool stuff I often wonder how baseball will look 80 yrs from now

Pretty sure it will be exactly like that commercial where Ken Griffey IV hits an apparent home run but gets robbed by the blimp in center field.

 

[TitusIII]

I'd need to see a good video of his swing, I'm guessing he'd be average at best, due to a lack of batspeed...

 

[Anthony Borbely]

babe ruth would stink in today's game. i don't care what "baseball people" say. no sport glorifies past stars like baseball.just to give an example of what type of pitching ruth was facing, let's look at the '21 red sox pitching staff-they only had 4 starters (one was named "elmer")-the best pitcher, sam jones, threw 298 innings and struck out 98 batters. he led the team in strikeouts.-including both starters and relievers, they basically 7 pitchers on the entire staff.now, most the batters weren't trying to hit balls out of the park, making it harder to rack up strikeouts, but still. nobody even strukout 100 batters when 7 guys accounted for almost every inning of the season (4 other pitchers combined for less than 30 innings on the year).ruth was facing a bunch of overworked, country-bumpkin, soft-tossers.

If this were true, why didn't others do what Ruth did back then?Ruth had the best swing in baseball history. That's why he was so great.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I'd need to see a good video of his swing, I'm guessing he'd be average at best, due to a lack of batspeed...

Ruth invented bat speed, he really did. Maybe Williams and Bonds had more, doubt anyone else has.

 

[Koya]

babe ruth would stink in today's game. i don't care what "baseball people" say. no sport glorifies past stars like baseball.just to give an example of what type of pitching ruth was facing, let's look at the '21 red sox pitching staff-they only had 4 starters (one was named "elmer")-the best pitcher, sam jones, threw 298 innings and struck out 98 batters. he led the team in strikeouts.-including both starters and relievers, they basically 7 pitchers on the entire staff.now, most the batters weren't trying to hit balls out of the park, making it harder to rack up strikeouts, but still. nobody even strukout 100 batters when 7 guys accounted for almost every inning of the season (4 other pitchers combined for less than 30 innings on the year).ruth was facing a bunch of overworked, country-bumpkin, soft-tossers.

If this were true, why didn't others do what Ruth did back then?Ruth had the best swing in baseball history. That's why he was so great.

Baseball is more "skill" involved as opposed to pure athletic talent than most other sports. The SKILL to see a ball, see the break, swing, get power, all of that - this transcends eras.As did Ruth.

 

[pollardsvision]

babe ruth would stink in today's game. i don't care what "baseball people" say. no sport glorifies past stars like baseball.just to give an example of what type of pitching ruth was facing, let's look at the '21 red sox pitching staff-they only had 4 starters (one was named "elmer")-the best pitcher, sam jones, threw 298 innings and struck out 98 batters. he led the team in strikeouts.-including both starters and relievers, they basically 7 pitchers on the entire staff.now, most the batters weren't trying to hit balls out of the park, making it harder to rack up strikeouts, but still. nobody even strukout 100 batters when 7 guys accounted for almost every inning of the season (4 other pitchers combined for less than 30 innings on the year).ruth was facing a bunch of overworked, country-bumpkin, soft-tossers.

It would be pretty hard to address this in an intelligent manner given how much stupidity is involved with your argument. Walter Johnson was a soft tosser?

i'm not sure why you'd write that off as unintelligent. did i say walter johnson was a soft-tosser? (for that matter, though, how do you know how fast he really threw? i have a feeling johnson's fastball gets faster with every telling of his legend)but i'm not talking about walter johnson. i'm talking about all the other pitchers that ruth faced that made it seem like walter johnson really threw 104 mph.i acknowledge that some of the strikeout rate was due to the nature of the game (high contact hitters), but when there are tons of pitchers throwing 250+ innings and striking out less than 100 batters, it's not a logical stretch to say they probably didn't have great stuff. i see a ridiculously high workload (for guys with questionable conditioning anyway) and a miniscule strikeout rate and conclude that these guys don't have good stuff and i get called an idiot.my, my the power of baseball lore.

 

[pollardsvision]

babe ruth would stink in today's game. i don't care what "baseball people" say. no sport glorifies past stars like baseball.just to give an example of what type of pitching ruth was facing, let's look at the '21 red sox pitching staff-they only had 4 starters (one was named "elmer")-the best pitcher, sam jones, threw 298 innings and struck out 98 batters. he led the team in strikeouts.-including both starters and relievers, they basically 7 pitchers on the entire staff.now, most the batters weren't trying to hit balls out of the park, making it harder to rack up strikeouts, but still. nobody even strukout 100 batters when 7 guys accounted for almost every inning of the season (4 other pitchers combined for less than 30 innings on the year).ruth was facing a bunch of overworked, country-bumpkin, soft-tossers.

If this were true, why didn't others do what Ruth did back then?Ruth had the best swing in baseball history. That's why he was so great.

Baseball is more "skill" involved as opposed to pure athletic talent than most other sports. The SKILL to see a ball, see the break, swing, get power, all of that - this transcends eras.As did Ruth.

i never knocked ruth's skill versus his contemporaries. i don't think anyone could argue that there's ever been a player as superior to his own than ruth.why didn't others do it?1-most of them probably weren't very good (in comparison to today's players)2-the HR wasn't emphasized much back then

 

[pollardsvision]

babe ruth would stink in today's game. i don't care what "baseball people" say. no sport glorifies past stars like baseball.just to give an example of what type of pitching ruth was facing, let's look at the '21 red sox pitching staff-they only had 4 starters (one was named "elmer")-the best pitcher, sam jones, threw 298 innings and struck out 98 batters. he led the team in strikeouts.-including both starters and relievers, they basically 7 pitchers on the entire staff.now, most the batters weren't trying to hit balls out of the park, making it harder to rack up strikeouts, but still. nobody even strukout 100 batters when 7 guys accounted for almost every inning of the season (4 other pitchers combined for less than 30 innings on the year).ruth was facing a bunch of overworked, country-bumpkin, soft-tossers.

They were hardly all soft tossers. And even if they were soft tossing, they were throwing spitballs. Players didnt strikeout much back then because they were all contact hitters. All you need to do is look at how Ty Cobb held the bat to see how different the approach to hitting was before Ruth.

wow, they were throwing spitballs and still couldn't strike people out.i'm feeling better and better about my assumption that pitching as a whole just wasn't very good.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

i'm not sure why you'd write that off as unintelligent.

did i say walter johnson was a soft-tosser? (for that matter, though, how do you know how fast he really threw? i have a feeling johnson's fastball gets faster with every telling of his legend)

Wrong answer and you are compounding your baseball ignorance. Walter Johnson is/was the greatest pitcher in baseball history IMO and even if someone disagrees, he's gonna be top 3 on any sane person's list. A very humble Johnson said: "(Bob) Feller isn't quite as fast as I was." Feller threw in the high 90s.

"His fastball looked about the size of a watermelon seed and it hissed at you as it passed." - Ty Cobb

"The first time I faced him, I watched him take that easy windup — and then something went past me that made me flinch. I hardly saw the pitch, but I heard it... Every one of us knew we'd met the most powerful arm ever turned loose in a ballpark."

-- Ty Cobb, Detroit Tigers

"He’s got a gun concealed about his person. You can’t tell me he throws them balls with his arm."

-- Ring Lardner

"You can't hit what you can't see."

-- Cliff Blakenship, Washington Senators

"There’s only one way to time Johnson’s fastball. When you see the arm start forward-swing."

-- Birdie McCree

"Let there be no misunderstanding, no delusion, that Walter Johnson is, or was, a baseball legend. Not only inaccurate is that description, it demeans him." - Shirley Povich

"That young fellow is another Cy Young. I never saw a kid with more than he displayed. Of course, he is still green, but when he has a little experience he should be one of the greatest pitchers that ever broke into the game. He has terrific speed and a motion which does not put much strain on his arm and this will all improve as he goes along." - Addie Joss

i'm talking about all the other pitchers that ruth faced that made it seem like walter johnson really threw 104 mph.

Early in his career he may have thrown 104 and a math nerd said his fastball probably averaged 99. You are also discounting an era of contact, where guys were slapping at the ball to reach base. That's why they had low strikout rates. If Walter Johnson would have pitched in the modern era he probably would be the all-time strikeout leader.

i acknowledge that some of the strikeout rate was due to the nature of the game (high contact hitters), but when there are tons of pitchers throwing 250+ innings and striking out less than 100 batters, it's not a logical stretch to say they probably didn't have great stuff.

Prior to 1920 the spit ball was legal. Even if they didn't have great stuff there were ways they made themselves harder to hit.

i see a ridiculously high workload (for guys with questionable conditioning anyway)

How do you know? Most of these guys were heavy laborers prior to playing in the big leagues and you must have never seen a picture on Honus Wagner.

 

[pollardsvision]

i'm not sure why you'd write that off as unintelligent.

did i say walter johnson was a soft-tosser? (for that matter, though, how do you know how fast he really threw? i have a feeling johnson's fastball gets faster with every telling of his legend)

Wrong answer and you are compounding your baseball ignorance. Walter Johnson is/was the greatest pitcher in baseball history IMO and even if someone disagrees, he's gonna be top 3 on any sane person's list. A very humble Johnson said: "(Bob) Feller isn't quite as fast as I was." Feller threw in the high 90s.

"His fastball looked about the size of a watermelon seed and it hissed at you as it passed." - Ty Cobb

"The first time I faced him, I watched him take that easy windup — and then something went past me that made me flinch. I hardly saw the pitch, but I heard it... Every one of us knew we'd met the most powerful arm ever turned loose in a ballpark."

-- Ty Cobb, Detroit Tigers

"He’s got a gun concealed about his person. You can’t tell me he throws them balls with his arm."

-- Ring Lardner

"You can't hit what you can't see."

-- Cliff Blakenship, Washington Senators

"There’s only one way to time Johnson’s fastball. When you see the arm start forward-swing."

-- Birdie McCree

"Let there be no misunderstanding, no delusion, that Walter Johnson is, or was, a baseball legend. Not only inaccurate is that description, it demeans him." - Shirley Povich

"That young fellow is another Cy Young. I never saw a kid with more than he displayed. Of course, he is still green, but when he has a little experience he should be one of the greatest pitchers that ever broke into the game. He has terrific speed and a motion which does not put much strain on his arm and this will all improve as he goes along." - Addie Joss

i'm talking about all the other pitchers that ruth faced that made it seem like walter johnson really threw 104 mph.

Early in his career he may have thrown 104 and a math nerd said his fastball probably averaged 99. You are also discounting an era of contact, where guys were slapping at the ball to reach base. That's why they had low strikout rates. If Walter Johnson would have pitched in the modern era he probably would be the all-time strikeout leader.

i acknowledge that some of the strikeout rate was due to the nature of the game (high contact hitters), but when there are tons of pitchers throwing 250+ innings and striking out less than 100 batters, it's not a logical stretch to say they probably didn't have great stuff.

Prior to 1920 the spit ball was legal. Even if they didn't have great stuff there were ways they made themselves harder to hit.

i see a ridiculously high workload (for guys with questionable conditioning anyway)

How do you know? Most of these guys were heavy laborers prior to playing in the big leagues and you must have never seen a picture on Honus Wagner.

-the first part of that confirms what we all know: for his era, walter johnson threw the ball alot harder than everyone else. i never questioned that (but that doesn't stop you from calling me an idiot). it still doesn't really tell me how fast he really threw. it's a bunch of people talking about how great he was (who themselves didn't see many great pitchers). you keep using one guy, who i never mentioned, to make a point that i never really challenged, and answered it with 2nd hand hyperbole. (and i'm the idiot?)

my orginal point had nothing to do with johnson and i don't care. i'm talking about the general level of pitching that ruth faced.

-again, if guys were throwing spitballs and still couldn't strike people out. probably not good pitchers.

-you're right, i don't know that they weren't in good shape. you'll have to excuse me, baseball wasn't the primary focus for many of them and they were all dominated by a fat, drunk, so i was a assuming.

of couse, you do bring up a good point. i wonder just how many of america's best athletes (white and black) were spending their summers on the farms instead of playing some silly game.