2025 Major League Baseball Thread

[Hi-Def Steve]

Originally Posted by toef

Ruth is still the best in my book, but Hank Aaron is certainly among the best.

Ruth.... 714 home runs; 8,399 at-bats
Aaron... 755 home runs; 12,364 at-bats

I've heard the argument that Ruth didn't have to face the great negro league pitchers that Aaron did. Don't know if there is any merit to that though.

[Hi-Def Steve]

And time for another classy Philly fan story.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_yl...ingfanarrested

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by Hi-Def Steve

And time for another classy Philly fan story.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_yl...ingfanarrested

Typical with that bunch of clowns. I wouldn't take my kids near a single Stadium in Philly.

Just trying to enjoy the game and have that going on

[ChadFL]

Originally Posted by Hi-Def Steve

I've heard the argument that Ruth didn't have to face the great negro league pitchers that Aaron did. Don't know if there is any merit to that though.

In MLB that is true since there were no black players in the league. But Ruth quite often barnstormed during his career against negro league teams and did just as well.

[toef]

Originally Posted by Hi-Def Steve

I've heard the argument that Ruth didn't have to face the great negro league pitchers that Aaron did. Don't know if there is any merit to that though.

There's certainly merit to that, but it works both ways, because Ruth didn't have the benefit of batting against the supposed "thinned out" talent of the expansion years.

16 MLB teams (8 per league) in the 1920s. There were 24 (12 per league) by the end of the 60s.

Even with the negro league pitchers, how many are we really talking about? 10? 20? If they're split 50/50 between the leagues, Ruth wouldn't have faced half of them anyway. And I'm sure the Yankees would've went after some of the good ones, since that's their tradition. So in the end, I'm not sure how much facing a few pitchers a few times per year would really eat into Ruth's overall numbers.

And rumor has it that he hit well against negro league pitchers anyway (as Chad mentions above).

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by Hi-Def Steve

I've heard the argument that Ruth didn't have to face the great negro league pitchers that Aaron did. Don't know if there is any merit to that though.

I agree it might have made a difference, but then you'd need to say well if the foul ball rules were like they were now how many more HR's would have counted on his stats.

I would have liked to have seen the speeds the guys back then were pitching so what maybe was fast back then might be nothing now, or maybe it hasn't changed that much , it really would change the way I look at Oldtimers if the fastest people were throwing were like 70-90.

[ChadFL]

Originally Posted by toef

And rumor has it that he hit well against negro league pitchers anyway (as Chad mentions above).

Ya, I'll try to find some stats. I know I found some recorded stats for Ruth against negro leaguers somewhere awhile back that showed he hit something like .350 against them.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by ChadFL

Ya, I'll try to find some stats. I know I found some recorded stats for Ruth against negro leaguers somewhere awhile back that showed he hit something like .350 against them.

If those are correct then it really wouldn't have mattered who played where lol.

[Hi-Def Steve]

Originally Posted by toef

There's certainly merit to that, but it works both ways, because Ruth didn't have the benefit of batting against the supposed "thinned out" talent of the expansion years.

16 MLB teams (8 per league) in the 1920s. There were 24 (12 per league) by the end of the 60s.

That's a good point.

[SteelPen]

Originally Posted by ChadFL

Aaron actually finished with 755 home runs.

I knew that! I don't know why, I put 715!

Originally Posted by toef

Ruth is still the best in my book, but Hank Aaron is certainly among the best.

No, I agree with you! Ruth was the best and is the biggest name in sports, even today! Ruth > Jordan or Ali!

[SDon1969]

Originally Posted by Glassroots

Well the Jays may not be leading the division but they're leading the MLB in Homers with 76.

And I believe the Red Sox are second, which is kind of surprising.

[toef]

Originally Posted by supersix4

I agree it might have made a difference, but then you'd need to say well if the foul ball rules were like they were now how many more HR's would have counted on his stats.

I would have liked to have seen the speeds the guys back then were pitching so what maybe was fast back then might be nothing now, or maybe it hasn't changed that much , it really would change the way I look at Oldtimers if the fastest people were throwing were like 70-90.

Cy Young was known for his fast ball. Walter Johnson is considered one of the fastest pitchers of all time. A Ty Cobb quote: "'The great thing about Walter Johnson was that even though you knew a fastball was coming, it didn't help. You never had to worry about a curve or any change of pace. Just speed, raw speed, blinding speed, too much speed."

But in general I don't know about average pitchers back in the early 20th century.

Speed isn't everything though. There are plenty of good pitchers throughout baseball, and even today, who can't throw very fast at all.

Also, don't forget about the spitball that hitters had to deal with. Despite being banned in 1920 (read: early in Ruth's career), spitball pitchers were "grandfathered" in, and were allowed to keep using it until they retired (so the rule just prevented any new pitchers from using it).

[SteelPen]

The home ump for tonight's Rays/Sox game is calling an awful game! Crawford and Madden have been thrown out!

EDIT: Give me a couple of minutes and I'll show you!

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by toef

Cy Young was known for his fast ball. Walter Johnson is considered one of the fastest pitchers of all time. But in general I don't know about average pitchers back in the early 20th century.

Speed isn't everything though. There are plenty of good pitchers throughout baseball, and even today, who can't throw very fast at all.

Also, don't forget about the spitball that hitters had to deal with. Despite being banned in 1920 (read: early in Ruth's career), spitball pitchers were "grandfathered" in, and were allowed to keep using it until they retired (so the rule just prevented any new pitchers from using it).

True, True speed isn't everything but would you agree hitting an 70-90 is much easier then a 90-100 not to mention if the guy pitching it does have good movement?

Like I said it would have been real interesting to see just how the styles/ speeds were back then to really get a good comparison.

[toef]

Originally Posted by supersix4

True, True speed isn't everything but would you agree hitting an 70-90 is much easier then a 90-100 not to mention if the guy pitching it does have good movement?

Like I said it would have been real interesting to see just how the styles/ speeds were back then to really get a good comparison.

If they're the same pitch, then yeah, the faster it is, the harder to hit.

But a really good curveball that's only going 75 mph could be harder to hit than a 95 mph fastball. So it all comes down to the pitching repertoires.

A big reason why Strasburg makes batters look like fools isn't because he can top out near 100mph, but because he can also throw a curveball in the 70s.

Similarly, Lincecum won back-to-back Cy Youngs because he has a really good changeup.

It's all about throwing the batters off, not necessarily overpowering them with speed.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by toef

If they're the same pitch, then yeah, the faster it is, the harder to hit.

But a really good curveball that's only going 75 mph could be harder to hit than a 95 mph fastball. So it all comes down to the pitching repertoires.

A big reason why Strasburg makes batters look like fools isn't because he can top out near 100mph, but because he can also throw a curveball in the 70s.

Oh I know I've watched every game he's pitched since its been on our local cable channel and it really is amazing when he puts 97, 98, 95, and BOOM 76 these kids just look at it or their knees give out, its amazing

But I agree guys can be amazing without speed I just don't know what the pitching standards were back then, maybe you didn't need some type of FB like almost everyone does now

[SteelPen]

Bob Davidson: your nothing, but a rat bastard...

[ChadFL]

Originally Posted by Redliner17k

Bob Davidson: your nothing, but a rat bastard...

LOL! Those are horrible calls.

[SteelPen]

Originally Posted by ChadFL

LOL! Those are horrible calls.

I know! Bob must be from Boston!

[ChadFL]

Originally Posted by toef

If they're the same pitch, then yeah, the faster it is, the harder to hit.

But a really good curveball that's only going 75 mph could be harder to hit than a 95 mph fastball. So it all comes down to the pitching repertoires.

Or a 60 mph knuckleball. Tim Wakefield continues to amaze me. The guy is 43 and still almost unhittable on some nights. He badly outdueled Roy Halladay a couple days ago.