MLB's The Baseball Network

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Are you saying that Burns is much different than people that believe a fat, out of shape player could not be surpassed by players of today that make millions and work out all the time, but only do so with drugs?

OK....whatever you say.

Babe Ruth won 18, 23 and 24 games as the game's best left-hander and third-best pitcher overall behind Walter Johnson and Grover Cleveland Alexander. His World Series record for consecutive scoreless innings once held by Christy Mathewson stood until 1961 when Whitey Ford broke it. He won an AL ERA title and still shares the AL single-season record for shutouts by a lefty. Then, at age 25, at the dawn of the lively ball era that he ushered in, he slugged 54 homers in 142 games. By the time he was 26, he was the game's all-time home run king with two 50-homer seasons, two 20-win seasons, four home run crowns and an ERA title under his belt.

Never has another man been a league-leading pitcher and league-leading slugger. Combined, he led the league in 78 pitching and batting categories. And until someone does come along and master pitching and slugging, the two most sought-after skills in the game, Babe Ruth will remain the greatest player who ever lived.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

Babe Ruth won 18, 23 and 24 games as the game's best left-hander and third-best pitcher overall behind Walter Johnson and Grover Cleveland Alexander. His World Series record for consecutive scoreless innings once held by Christy Mathewson stood until 1961 when Whitey Ford broke it. He won an AL ERA title and still shares the AL single-season record for shutouts by a lefty. Then, at age 25, at the dawn of the lively ball era that he ushered in, he slugged 54 homers in 142 games. By the time he was 26, he was the game's all-time home run king with two 50-homer seasons, two 20-win seasons, four home run crowns and an ERA title under his belt.

Never has another man been a league-leading pitcher and league-leading slugger. Combined, he led the league in 78 pitching and batting categories. And until someone does come along and master pitching and slugging, the two most sought-after skills in the game, Babe Ruth will remain the greatest player who ever lived.

There has never been another man, because they will not let them, not because he was a much better athlete in the history of the game. Just look at Rick Ankiel of the St. Louis Cardinals. Now I would never compare the accomplishments of Ruth to Ankiel, but I am sure if given a chance there are many players that can hit and pitch, but they are often want people to focus on one or the other. And even if you can hit, people want certain kind of players for specific position.

And my ultimate point is there was an explosion of 500 Home Run hitters and let the "experts" tell it, that only happen because of drugs. Not that athletes in all sports lift more weights, train at an earlier age, played organized ball at earlier age, play more games long before they get to the pros and these "experts" want you to believe he could not be surpassed. Oh, I almost forgot, Babe Ruth did not play against Blacks or Latinos either, which some historians have shown that many of those players were better than the average player of that time. And even if they were not as good, we have no way of knowing for sure what many of those players would have done before 1947.

I honestly do not know what is so special about what the "experts" have to say other than Burns or some fantasy of what used to be.

Peace

[piaa_ump]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

Nit-picky? Hardly.

Burns is a filmmaker, not a baseball man of any kind.

I am not a Civil War expert, so I don't know how inaccurate that was.

I think you are correct to a great degree. He makes films........and in both I found them enjoyable if only for the photographs, and letters etc........content accuracy is, as it was back then,.......a subject of debate

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There has never been another man, because they will not let them, not because he was a much better athlete in the history of the game. Just look at Rick Ankiel of the St. Louis Cardinals. Now I would never compare the accomplishments of Ruth to Ankiel, but I am sure if given a chance there are many players that can hit and pitch, but they are often want people to focus on one or the other. And even if you can hit, people want certain kind of players for specific position.

And my ultimate point is there was an explosion of 500 Home Run hitters and let the "experts" tell it, that only happen because of drugs. Not that athletes in all sports lift more weights, train at an earlier age, played organized ball at earlier age, play more games long before they get to the pros and these "experts" want you to believe he could not be surpassed. Oh, I almost forgot, Babe Ruth did not play against Blacks or Latinos either, which some historians have shown that many of those players were better than the average player of that time. And even if they were not as good, we have no way of knowing for sure what many of those players would have done before 1947.

I honestly do not know what is so special about what the "experts" have to say other than Burns or some fantasy of what used to be.

Peace

Get over a lot of your preconceptions.

And your reasoning why there hasn't been such a scenario is flawed at best. There hasn't been another one, because there has not been anyone capable. If there was a 20-game winner hitting bombs all the time in batting practice, you had better bet that they would get him in the lineup.

And I never said that Babe Ruth was the greatest athlete in baseball history. I said he was the greatest PLAYER in baseball history. He was not always the overweight guy you brand him as being, there just aren't as many films around of the 1920s, when he was playing at 215 to 225. The pictures and films that you use to paint your impressions are from near the end of his career when he got as high as 255. One famous set of pictures of him blowing out all over is from a hitting exhibition from the early 40s when he was retired for six years.

Your last argument about not having to play against blacks or Latins is specious as hell and it is becoming tired. I want to ask you to name all of the black pitching stars from the Negro Leagues that would have been active during the 1920s and early 30s when Ruth was active. Satchel Paige was still young, by the way and would only have faced him for a few years of Babe's prime. Just how many would Babe have had to face, and how many would have been on his own team? You make a statement and you should back it up.

In the 90s, I had an extended talk with both a former Negro League star and a premier Negro League historian, and they both said that had the color line been broken in 1920, there would have been eight or ten black pitchers at the most sprinkled throughout both leagues. You make a specious statement like that, you should have given it thought. Other than Satchel, there would have possibly been two other All-Star caliber black pitchers playing during Ruth's era and possibly one or two of them would have wound up in the NL. And a few of the others would have been relievers. And one of the standout starters would have probably been a Yankee. So Ruth would have possibly faced a standout black pitcher maybe once or twice a month, or a dozen times a year.

And you tell me just what difference that would have made.

You just throw that out there to discredit the game's greatest star/player/pioneer like it's a valid argument. In reality, it carries virtually no weight. You've heard it said, so you repeat it and of course, it's oft-repeated bunk. How many All-Star caliber black pitchers took over the game when the color barrier finally was broken? If you ever bothered to look it up, you would see a dearth of them. Satchel was too old and had a sore arm by then. In the 50s, Don Newcombe was a major standout for a while. In the 60s there was Bob Gibson and Fergie Jenkins along with Earl Wilson and Mudcat Grant, who had a flash of brilliance. And it took until the '60s for a Latin pitcher to dominate in Juan Marichal (the greatest pitcher I have ever seen).

So how is it that you think Babe Ruth's accomplishments would have been in any way changed by facing a good black pitcher no more than twice a month? Discredit him all you want and make these arguments based on how you think it is or was. I'll stick to how it really is or really was.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I honestly do not know what is so special about what the "experts" have to say other than Burns or some fantasy of what used to be.

Peace

I'm sorry you don't respect people who have studied the game tirelessly and it is also unfortunate that you have such a low standard for the accuracy of a work that calls itself a recording of history.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

I'm sorry you don't respect people who have studied the game tirelessly and it is also unfortunate that you have such a low standard for the accuracy of a work that calls itself a recording of history.

Stop being so damn sensitive.

It is a sport; it is not solving world peace. There are billions of people all over the world (and millions in this country) that could give a darn who was the best player in MLB history.

The thing about history it is always told by the people that write the story. Those stories always have a point of view and a slant to them. And you have said nothing here that suggests that Burns is any different than your so-called "experts."

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There has never been another man, because they will not let them, not because he was a much better athlete in the history of the game. Just look at Rick Ankiel of the St. Louis Cardinals. Now I would never compare the accomplishments of Ruth to Ankiel, but I am sure if given a chance there are many players that can hit and pitch, but they are often want people to focus on one or the other. And even if you can hit, people want certain kind of players for specific position.

And my ultimate point is there was an explosion of 500 Home Run hitters and let the "experts" tell it, that only happen because of drugs. Not that athletes in all sports lift more weights, train at an earlier age, played organized ball at earlier age, play more games long before they get to the pros and these "experts" want you to believe he could not be surpassed. Oh, I almost forgot, Babe Ruth did not play against Blacks or Latinos either, which some historians have shown that many of those players were better than the average player of that time. And even if they were not as good, we have no way of knowing for sure what many of those players would have done before 1947.

I honestly do not know what is so special about what the "experts" have to say other than Burns or some fantasy of what used to be.

Peace

I don't think there's any doubt among people who have studied the game that Babe Ruth was and will likely remain the greatest player of all time.

Perhaps some would argue that Ted Williams and Ty Cobb were better hitters, but many people forget that Ruth was a lifetime .342 hitter and is #1 all-time in lifetime OPS (even with Barry Bonds and the seasons of the intentional walk thrown in to skew those numbers). Not only that, he was 94-46 as a pitcher and had a career 2.28 ERA.

I don't think opening up baseball to African-American and Latino players would've changed much of those numbers, if at all.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Stop being so damn sensitive.

It is a sport; it is not solving world peace. There are billions of people all over the world (and millions in this country) that could give a darn who was the best player in MLB history.

The thing about history it is always told by the people that write the story. Those stories always have a point of view and a slant to them. And you have said nothing here that suggests that Burns is any different than your so-called "experts."

Peace

I'm being sensitive??

No, I'm being informative, and debunking loosely based assertions. If you choose not to be informed, that's fine. Perhaps others appreciate the need to record baseball's history responsibly out of respect for the game's founders.

I happen to agree about the place of baseball in the world order, but I also respect the game tremendously and love it to a high degree.

And you should back up your elementary statement about Ruth's not facing blacks and Latins. It was a bold statement that you have not
A) backed up with any reasonable contentions or assertions,
or
B) backed away from due to its being a specious, unsupportable statement.

You made the statement and ignored my challenge to it. It does matter.