"He will be a Hall of Famer someday..."

[CMH]

.

Babe Ruth would still be a hall of fame type player, but his numbers wouldn't have a large increase if there was an increase at all.

This puts new meaning to "do you read what you write?"


Sent from my mobile device.

[snepp]

Re: "He will be a Hall of Famer someday..."

I think snepp originally said that no one said that because the point was irrelevant to begin with. As in no one was saying that his numbers would increase, so it didn't need to be said. No one was arguing that.

Right, that's exactly it.

[Friar Fanatic]

Re: "He will be a Hall of Famer someday..."

I think snepp originally said that no one said that because the point was irrelevant to begin with. As in no one was saying that his numbers would increase, so it didn't need to be said. No one was arguing that.

Ah ok that makes more sense. I wasn't trying to say people were aruing for or against that, just a point I brought up. I do see how it could have gotten confused though.

This puts new meaning to "do you read what you write?"


Sent from my mobile device.

No I did say that haha. I thought Snepp was saying that I was putting words in someones mouth, which I was not. I do see how it get confusing though.

[Friar Fanatic]

Re: "He will be a Hall of Famer someday..."

Right, that's exactly it.

My fault on that I misinterpreted what you said.

[CMH]

Re: "He will be a Hall of Famer someday..."

Ah ok that makes more sense. I wasn't trying to say people were aruing for or against that, just a point I brought up. I do see how it could have gotten confused though.



No I did say that haha. I thought Snepp was saying that I was putting words in someones mouth, which I was not. I do see how it get confusing though.

All good. Glad we're on the same page.

[snepp]

Re: "He will be a Hall of Famer someday..."

My fault on that I misinterpreted what you said.

Not really your fault, my post was awfully vague.

[PrettyT11]

Re: "He will be a Hall of Famer someday..."

As much as I'd like to see another Canadian in the HoF, Votto's enshrinement would be pretty unlikely. Given the offensive standards for 1st basemen, he'd probably need 600HR, meaning an average of 40 homers over the next dozen seasons. At age 28, Votto's only hit over 30 HR once.

I agree that the odds of him making it aren't very high given his age now and career totals but it wouldn't take the kind of numbers you are saying for him to make it. There have only been 8 guys hit 600 HR's and only one of them is a first baseman. Frank Thomas is a virtual lock and he is only at 520. Eddie Murray is in and he is at like 502. There is also talk that Helton might get in and he is only at 354.

If Votto can keep up his BA,OB%, and slugging percentage (all three numbers trump Murray's and are comparable to Thomas) and get up to 450 to 500 HR's he could make it in. If he finishes up with those numbers with his MVP and a few more gold gloves he would have a good shot. But again the odds of him ending up with those HR totals are not likely given his age.

[Amoo316]

Re: "He will be a Hall of Famer someday..."

I still don't understand this "the pitchers were trash" argument. Even if the pitchers weren't as physically gifted, the game was heavily skewed towards their advantage (the mound being 5 inches higher, the ball being looser and harder to hit long distances, the strike zone being about a foot bigger, plus the allowance of spitballs and other junk balling until the late 20s.)

There's a reason the early part of baseball's history is referred to as "The Dead Ball Era" It's because offenses were non-existent.

If the pitchers were so bad, that would mean that every hitter would be able to kill the ball, hit tons of homers, and bat for a high average? I want to look at this more in depth, because it honestly made me a little curious. I chose to look at Ruth and the MLB in 1920 and 1921 for a two year sample.


In 1920:
Ruth led baseball in HRs with 54, the next closest hitter to that had 19
Batting Average leader was George Sisler with a .407, and the 10th hitter had a .339 http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...-leaders.shtml


In 1921:
Ruth led baseball in HR with 59, next closest had...24.
Batting average leader was Rogers Hornsby with a .397, 10th best in baseball was .350. http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...-leaders.shtml

EDIT: Ruth also was in the top 10 for average in both of those years. Finishing 4th in 1920 with a .376 and 4th in 1921 with a .378.


So lets recap, everybody WASN'T having the same success that Ruth was, and I didn't feel like posting out every stat from the pitchers back then, but if you click on pitching leaders under the leaders tab on the pages I posted you can see them. The pitching leaders had good numbers and all looked to be dominating, based on the low WHIP and ERA numbers, while putting the ridiculously low K/9 numbers into heavy consideration. Lower K's means more balls in play, which means more opportunity to give up hits and runs for everyone.

Ironically I'm not sure this actually discredits his argument for Pujols as much as you may have intended, and honestly I'm not even suggesting that was your intention.

What this shows is that it was indeed harder to hit the ball for power back in those two seasons, but it was significantly easier to hit the ball for average. If MLB.com is correct the highest batting average in 2011 was M. Cabrera with a .344. meanwhile the 10th best BA came in at .309.

A better way to make a fair comparison, would be to see the mean average for MLB hitters in Ruth's career and compare that to the mean average for MLB hitters in Pujols career and adjust Pujols/Ruth's numbers accordingly. You could probably take the top 10 and get pretty close, but averages in those days look to be somewhere between 50-60 points higher then today.

Unfortunately because Ruth's power numbers are so far outside of the MLB average it's impossible to create a realistic correction of what his homeruns would look like today, the best example you can use would be his AB/HR.

According to:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...n_career.shtml

Ruth was at 11.76 while Pujols is at 14.43. So while we can definitely say Ruth was the better power hitter, especially considering the "dead ball era" factors, just looking at stats without going deeper, doesn't show us whether or not he truly was a better overall hitter.

This http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...g_career.shtml actually shows us that Pujols has the highest career batting average of any player playing today. I'm not positive if he caught Boggs or Gwynn at the tail end of their careers but if not he has the highest career BA of any player playing during his entire career.

Meanwhile Ruth played during the same time as Cobb, Hornsby, Shoeless Joe, Lefty O'Doul, & Speaker.

Basically what I'm saying is I think Ted Williams is the greatest hitter of all time based on his all around performance against players of his era, but I would put Pujols a close second and I can see arguments either way for one or the other.

To tie this back into the original question as well, I just think Pujols is a poor example for this question. He has 12 years of being the best all around hitter on the planet. It doesn't matter if he limps home or not as long as he's never suspected of being dirty he's in regardless of how he ends his career. If you look at Chipper Jones career numbers I think they more accurately reflect a fair real life scenario for this question.

[TheNumber35]

Re: "He will be a Hall of Famer someday..."

I wasn't necessarily intending to discredit his Pujols argument, but rather discredit the "pitchers were trash" one.

I simply wanted to point out that Ruth was leaps and bounds above everyone else of his time with the power numbers and that if "the pitchers were trash" then all hitters would be putting up those gawdy numbers, not just Ruth...right? I mean, if the pitchers were horrible wouldn't the advantage be towards hitters all the way? This wasn't the case necessarily and I just think it isn't fair in the posters case to make bold assumptions based off an emotional response and their opinion.

[12]

Re: "He will be a Hall of Famer someday..."

I am impressed with the quality of the posters here and how well thoughts are articulated.

I say that because I was in the camp of people that thought Ruth would not do that well in today's game. My opinion was that he might be on an MLB roster somewhere, but he would not be anywhere close to the player that he was back in his day. Some arguments were put forth that have me on the other side of the fence now, and that's cool.

One of my favorite things about message boards is when you become swayed and re-evaluate your opinion.

Truth be told, we can't warp back into time and bring Ruth back to face Felix Hernandez, Justin Verlander or Stephen Strasburg - but his skill set at the dish does transcend eras. The guy was just a monster and the numbers attest to that. A lot of us tend to over value the current challenges of the game without really recognizing the vast challenges that ended back then. Can you imagine how many bombs Ruth would hit in some of these short porches in today's ballparks? I remember reading a book on Mickey Mantle and he flew out to center field in Detroit like 80+ times in his career when the ball traveled over 425 feet. I am sure the same applies to Ruth.

snepp said it best... Hitting a baseball is probably the hardest thing to do in all of sports and when you put up the numbers that Ruth did, well... My logic finally kicked on in realizing that truly does transcend all eras.

[PrettyT11]

Re: "He will be a Hall of Famer someday..."

To answer the OG question of the thread I really dont have any problem with guys using the phrase future hall of famer or anything like it because pretty 90 percent of the time it is used on the right context and can't really be argued.

When we hear it they are used on guys like Kobe, Kidd, Duncan etc. in the NBA, guys like Manning, Brady, Lewis, etc. in the NFL and to bring it back to baseball it was used for guys like Griffey, Thomas, Glavine, and now for guys like Chipper Jones and Pujols. Those guys are certified locks for the HOF so it doesn't bother me at all and in a sense showcases and acknowlede the greatness they have displayed.

Now if they started using it for guys who haven't done enough or just had a couple of seasons then I would probably have an issue with it. But in those cases for guys like Adrian Peterson or Durant they use the term hall of fame level talent. I don't have a problem with that either because those guys clearly have the talents and ability to get there if they continue to get it done.

[Heroesandvillains]

Re: "He will be a Hall of Famer someday..."

When we hear it they are used on guys like Kobe, Kidd, Duncan etc. in the NBA, guys like Manning, Brady, Lewis, etc. in the NFL and to bring it back to baseball it was used for guys like Griffey, Thomas, Glavine, and now for guys like Chipper Jones and Pujols. Those guys are certified locks for the HOF so it doesn't bother me at all and in a sense showcases and acknowlede the greatness they have displayed.

Every player you mentioned above is within the twilight of their careers.

Except Pujols.

I'm not offering an opinion, though I will say I'm captivated by this thread. It's been a fun read.

But anyway, you have to see the distinction there.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: "He will be a Hall of Famer someday..."

Even before a bunch of those players entered their twilight, you knew they were locks for HOF anyway.

[Heroesandvillains]

Re: "He will be a Hall of Famer someday..."

Even before a bunch of those players entered their twilight, you knew they were locks for HOF anyway.

This is true.

Except they also didn't succumb to this hypothetical nose-dive decline (which I doubt will happen to Pujols) as discussed earlier in the thread.

[Blzer]

Re: "He will be a Hall of Famer someday..."

This is true.

Except they also didn't succumb to this hypothetical nose-dive decline (which I doubt will happen to Pujols) as discussed earlier in the thread.

Well, the whole question of this thread was asking why we could claim them as locks when we truly don't know what kind of decline they might have? Furthermore, if the rest of their career is **** (or at least rather mediocre), is that helping their chances with the longevity and totals-padding, or does that hurt it at all by lowering the averages/per-year stats?