(Humor) Some consolation for baseball fans...

CruelSummerLord

First Post
If you're at all depressed about Barry Bonds breaking the home run record while being juiced (I don't know if he was or not, so I'm not going there, that just seems to be the perception), think about this...

If anything, guys like Babe Ruth deserve even more recognition for their athletic accomplishments than they already get.

Why?

Because while guys like Bonds might be taking performance-enhacing substances, guys like the Sultan of Swing took performance inhibiting substances-namely, tobacco and liquor.

Think about it-the Babe smoked like a chimney and drank like a fish, and he still managed to rack up dozens of homeruns every season. I don't know about Hank Aaron, but if the Babe managed to do all that without caring about conditioning, just think about how well he'd do today, when players are so much more health-conscious.

It boggles the mind.

So, if Babe Ruth is your hero, this is just one more reason to admire him.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ruth also came up to the majors as a pitcher, and played as a pitcher for the first several years of his career. He transitioned to the outfield so he could be in the hitting lineup every day. He also played part of his career in the dead ball era. I've heard that the live ball was developed in response to Ruth's popularity as a power hitter.

You can find his stats on mlb.com, as well as the career stats for every other player in history.
 

A good point if not a fallacy. Among many other factors couldn't one argue that because Bonds has played against better pitchers and a better defensive field in general than Ruth that Bonds is even more amazing? I don't find it necessary to declare one player 'better' than another. They were/are both amazing and should be recorded as such.
 

Well, there are also plenty of stories that pre-steriods major league players used amphetamines and other stimulants, so they may have just been jacked up on other stuff while setting records.
 

Baseball has changed considerably over the years.

You can only make realistic comparisons between a player and his contemporaries. I won't offer up any sort of argument against Babe Ruth being the best player of his era.

Add the fact that he was also an ace pitcher, and he's easily the best player in history.

Still, he didn't have to face any black opponents.

He didn't have to pitch off of the more recent lowered pitching mound.

The game has changed so much you can't make good comparisons between a player from his era and today, or even the 50s.
 

cattoy said:
Baseball has changed considerably over the years.

You can only make realistic comparisons between a player and his contemporaries. <SNIP>
Very true. There is even a movement by baseball statisticians and historians to start lumping records by era, as play styles, equipment and rules have altered the game in such a way that it is really impossible to accurately measure a player from one era against another.

By way of comparison, modern-day football is only slightly more advanced than its 'historical' counterpart. Better equipment and training abound, yes, but it is only 'slightly' (in the engineering sense) better than the original equipment. Please note, the leather helmets of the 'olde tyme' photos and films were not used by professional players because a true league didn't exist yet. So comparing Johnny Unitas versus Dan Marino or even Any current QB is still very much a possibility. Professional baseball has been around since the late 1800's so, do the math. :)
 



cattoy said:
You can only make realistic comparisons between a player and his contemporaries.


What I can take comfort in is that while Babe Ruth held the record for about fifty years (1925 IIRC - 1974), and Hank Aaron held the record for more than thirty years (1974-2007), Barry will be eclipsed by Alex Rodriguez in five to six years, at A-Rod's current rate of production.

Now that's funny!


Harry

Go Brewers!
 


Remove ads

Top