You can unrecommend a post, too. That could come in handy. If you change your mind or something…

Actually, I can’t really think why you would unrecommend a post.

Back to topic: I yark at the revisionism…

Yeah, Ruth “might” have been the shiniest pitcher of his generation. Or he may have blown his arm out in one of those games he didn’t pitch. Yeah, Ted Williams “might” have set all the career records for offense if 1.5 wars hadn’t gotten in the way. Or he may have taken a fastball in the eye in one of those games he didn’t play.

All you can say, in any era, is there’s one guy you least want to face with runners on in a close game. That line runs through Ruth, Williams, Mays and Bonds but is not exclusive to them, of course. They all tie for first.

First, pitching.

What if Rick Ankiel hadn’t imploded as a pitcher? You think he would have had the chance to do what he is doing? I’m not saying Rick Ankiel the pitcher or hitter is as good as the Babe was at either of those things. The point is, since you missed it the first time, nobody has had the opportunity to do it since then. The outlook of the game has changed. From the moment a player is drafted they are pidgeon holed into one side of the game or the other. This wasn’t always the case. It was rare in Ruth’s time for a player to switch like Ruth did but it’s pretty much impossible now. The reason why the Babe even had the opportunity was because the Red Sox were using him as an outfielder when he wasn’t pitching. You think any player since would get that opportunity, regardless of how good they were as a hitter?

Once again, I give him credit for it. I just a little perspective doesn’t hurt.

Second, homeruns

Hitting more homeruns than other teams is over blown because the game was different. Baseball players did not try to hit homeruns until the late twenties or so. Do you not see why this makes a difference? The implication behind “he hit more homeruns than entire teams” is that the Babe was that much more talented than every other player in the game at the time at hitting homeruns. This is not true.

He just was doing something that every one else didn’t think was important at the time. And once the rest of the league caught on, others appeared who could do the same. Just with a cursory perusing, I found that Cy Williams, Lou Gherig, Jimmie Foxx, Al Simmons and Hack Wilson also hit more homers than entire teams.

The thing I get annoyed at is that there is an implication involved with the “he hit more homeruns than entire teams” argument that is just not true.

Third, select quotes from your response

When a player truly changes a game – which one could argue no one has ever done anywhere nearly as importantly as did Babe Ruth – doesn’t he deserve more credit than getting annoyed at some of the arguments for him?

When you call into question others ability to use logic, you might want to make sure everything you say makes sense. This isn’t just poor grammar, it makes no sense whatsoever.

If I am correct in determining what you meant to say, I obviously give credit to the fact that he changed the game. I said as much. I don’t know how much that really matters, though. If somebody who wasn’t as obviously great as Ruth had been the one to start hitting homeruns, leading to the rest of the league to understand the value of the homerun, we wouldn’t be proclaiming him the greatest would we?

Just how is hitting more home runs than all the other teams overblown? Did it happen or not? Does it no longer happen because players are better than Babe, or because he changed the game?

I could turn this around and use it myself. Do you think Ruth hit more homeruns than entire teams because he was that much better than the players both then and today? If you don’t, then we agree. If you think that the only significance of Ruth hitting more homeruns than entire teams is that he changed the game, then we agree. I do not know why we are arguing about this, in that case. Unless, of course, we disagree about the significance of his changing the game.

Please note, it’s the implication (which you might not have been trying to put forth) that Ruth was just that much better, that I get annoyed with. And even if you were not trying to put forth that idea, the idea exists and is passed on with this argument.

But whereas you say that you get annoyed at some of the arguments for Babe, the rest of us might get annoyed at the lack of logic you presented for your arguments that for instance the whole "’he hit more home runs than entire teams’" argument was overblown.

The rest of us? Like those who recommended my post? sharksrog, you are a very respected member of this site. This is because you often provide very good insight. Here, however, you have not even addressed my argument and then you have the gall to say I did not use any logic. All you did was see that I wrote that your arguments were overblown. You apparently did not understand why I said that because no where in your post did you address any of my reasons.

I don’t think anyone is saying that Babe would do so in today’s game.

Then why is it so important? Why mention it? Wouldn’t it just be easier and more to the point to say “He changed how the game was played?” Why do people say that he hit more homeruns than entire teams? They say it because it sounds impressive. They say it because nobody today could even come close to this. Most of the time, the fact that he changed the game is never mentioned. It’s just “he hit more homeruns than entire teams!!” You obviously have some historical perspective. Most who both pass along this argument and who hear it do not have any, however.

That is what I get annoyed at.

Babe DID do it—not once, but twice.

He did it more than twice actually. But, like I said, so did at least five other players.

Oh, and never has there been a combination of pitching and hitting that ever approached the Babe—before or after.

Yes. But had he come up in the fifties or sixties or any time later, he would have not gotten this chance. He would have either been a pitcher or a hitter.