How good of a player would Babe Ruth be in todays MLB?

He'd be 118 years old, so I don't think he would be very good.

If he hooked up with david ortiz he would be good, even at his age. David has all the good vitamins.

how good would gretzky be in todays NHL? probably an avg player at best.

Minor league? Average?

you guys know nothing about sports.

With that mentality, Kareem Abdul–Jabbar would've been nothing in today's age. Am I right?

Just like running, every sport has groundbreaking discoveries in training, health, etc that develop the sport. For an athlete to be so much ahead of his time, he must have talent.

He was the best baseball player of his era, and by a good bit. That's all he could have done. It is pointless to compare athletes of different eras.

Jim Varney wrote:

He was the best baseball player of his era, and by a good bit. That's all he could have done. It is pointless to compare athletes of different eras.

He also played in an all white league, so we'll never know how he would have stacked up had other races been allowed to participate. I feel like if we discredit the accomplishments of baseball players playing in the Negroe Leagues, we should discredit players who played in the all white league as well.

joalturn wrote:

Jim Varney wrote:

He was the best baseball player of his era, and by a good bit. That's all he could have done. It is pointless to compare athletes of different eras.

He also played in an all white league, so we'll never know how he would have stacked up had other races been allowed to participate. I feel like if we discredit the accomplishments of baseball players playing in the Negroe Leagues, we should discredit players who played in the all white league as well.

This was the only legitimate comment in this thread.

Roger Hornsby wrote:

joalturn wrote:

He also played in an all white league, so we'll never know how he would have stacked up had other races been allowed to participate. I feel like if we discredit the accomplishments of baseball players playing in the Negroe Leagues, we should discredit players who played in the all white league as well.

This was the only legitimate comment in this thread.

Not so fast. Right now, many of the best athletes (all colors) choose basketball or football over what used to be the national pastime.

Ruth had superior eyesight, which led to the huge numbers. He would have that same advantage today, but with today's training methods.

Who discredits accomplishments of players in the Negro Leagues? Many are now in the Hall of Fame, and Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson, just to name two, are considered among the very few all-time greats.

Ruth had a couple of years where he had more than twice as many home runs as the #2 guy in the Majors. No one in MLB has every had that kind of statistical supremacy, unless you want to count intentional walks to Barry Bonds.

Different eras as many have pointed out, this was a second job for a lot of these guys. Ruth's numbers are pretty stunning though if you have a minute to look them over. He threw 300in as a starter one year, ERA under 2.00, won 20 games. Hit over .370 a half dozen times. In 1920-ish he had more homeruns than all but two other teams in the league. Guy was like four levels above anyone else for half his career.

Weary wrote:

Who discredits accomplishments of players in the Negro Leagues? Many are now in the Hall of Fame, and Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson, just to name two, are considered among the very few all-time greats.

Ruth had a couple of years where he had more than twice as many home runs as the #2 guy in the Majors. No one in MLB has every had that kind of statistical supremacy, unless you want to count intentional walks to Barry Bonds.

But their stats aren't included with the all time greats, hence the discredit. They only give you stats from guys in the MLB, which was an all white club til 1947. So why regard those players before that time as all time greats when they weren't competing against the best athletes?

It pretty tough to know but here are some arguments why he wouldn't. I don't think pitching speed has in terms of starters, but the development of advanced off-speed pitches is one factor. Personally I also believe pitches now have more movement then the one's from the 20s.

Another is the introduction of the 5-man rotation and the deeper bullpens. Pitchers in the in the dead ball era pitched in 4 man rotations often complete games. In 1927 Left Grove finished the season tied for 9th in complete games with 9. In 2012, Verlander led the league in complete games with 6. I would assume pitchers tired quicker making pitches easier to hit as the game went on.

We now have situational pitching with bullpens. I believe the LOOGY was introduced in the 1960s, and would be used for sure against lefties like Ruth and Gehrig. On top of that, relievers are now also pitching faster then ever recorded:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-most-startling-trend-in-baseball/

.

Even though Ruth smacked the crap out of the ball, I am going to assume he was a pull hitter since the original Yankee Stadium was designed for him. Right field was short 295 and called "Ruthville". Shift infields were rare in the 20s, and now are used all the time.

Finally, it has been mentioned already, but an increase in the talent pool. De-segregated and large foreign influenced game now, something Ruth never faced professionally.

I do think Ruth's power is undeniable and easily would be worth +30-35 HR at a minimum in modern baseball. I just don't see him as a career .342 hitter. To just guess completely random numbers, a DH hitting .260-.280, 33HRs.

You're a fool. The stadiums Ruth and Gehrig played in were much larger than today. They were both hitting balls out of the park - 500-600ft. Once they had a chance to adjust to modern pitching, they would be every bit as effective as they were in their era.

Baseball Analyst wrote:

You're a fool. The stadiums Ruth and Gehrig played in were much larger than today. They were both hitting balls out of the park - 500-600ft. Once they had a chance to adjust to modern pitching, they would be every bit as effective as they were in their era.

Yes Ruth hit tons of +500 bombs but Yankee Stadium in 1923 in Right field was 295 ft down the line and 350 straight right. Yankee stadium in 1988 in those same spots... 314ft and 353ft. Center came in and right field was pushed back. Polo Grounds "Bathtub" where Ruth played his early years, was something like 255 down the Right field line with short fences and 480 straight to center. Ruth wasn't hitting all his HRs dead center.

He would be a top 5 player easily. I don't know why this is an argument. Watching him play in the old vids... his eye-hand coordination was something to marvel at.

Hits that bounced over walls were considered home runs when Ruth played, his numbers are a little skewed. The pitchers mound was lowered by 5 inches and the strike zone was made smaller after 1968 when Bob Gibson destroyed everyone. Both of those things would work well into Babe Ruth's favor, as he did possess mutant like hand-eye coordination.

However he was a well known partier, with the strength of drugs out now he would've possibly been another Darryl Strawberry in today's MLB. I think with Juiced balls and the factors i mentioned earlier, If he was to play today he would definitely be a force. If the Darryl Strawberry outcome didn't befall him first.

As for the Ortiz reference, if your inferring that athletes a the turn of the century weren't doping with what they had available you are hugely misguided.

Jack of all master of none wrote:

As for the Ortiz reference, if your inferring that athletes at the turn of the century weren't doping with what they had available you are hugely misguided.

There wasn't a hellava lot available at the turn of the 20th century. Maybe cocaine, but that wouldn't have done anything strength wise.

I assume that people mean that if he were equally skilled, lived the same way off the field, etc. as he did in his day, not if he fell into today's training methods, drugs, etc.

I think he'd be a non-factor. In the pre-Internet, pre-TV era, his carousing and womanizing and shit didn't catch up to him -- he had a reputation, perhaps an overblown one, but it didn't dog him the way such stuff does now. With the paparazzi hounding his every move and a million bloggers on his case, he might have folded under the pressure even if he was regarded as unflappable 80 or 90 years ago. Different world.

Also, the pitching alone he'd face today would knock a good 100 points off his batting average. I doubt that even if he made the Major Leagues that he would have topped 100 career dingers, maybe 150. He's be a journeyman if he was lucky.