Mac & Ruth

Mac & Ruth

Post by H G Pata » Tue, 13 Jul 1999 04:00:00



<If this is average, I guess that you're only calling Babe Ruth pretty good :-)

Sorry I missed this before. Lemme see......The most times Babe Ruth struck out
in a season was 93, in 1923, while batting .393, with 45 doubles, 13 triples,
41 HR's and 131 RBI's. Mac has k'd over 100 times in a season 7 times already,
well on his way to the 8th. He has averaged about 1 k per 4 ab over his career
while hitting over .300 only once in a season (100+ games). Ruth's career k's
per ab ratio was about 7 to 1 and in 100+ game seasons, only batted under .300
twice in 15 seasons and those were .288 & .290 with a career average of .342!
Aside from a whole slew of other stats, there's also the fact that Ruth was a
terriffic pitcher. In 1916 he was 23-12 with a 1.75 ERA starting 41 games and
in 1917 was 24-13 with a 2.01 ERA in 38 starts. While Mac & Ruth may have
played in the same league, Mac is clearly out of Ruth's league....
"Cuando merda tiver valor pobre nasce seem cu."

 
 
 

Mac & Ruth

Post by The Chairma » Tue, 13 Jul 1999 04:00:00


HG

I know that.  Not many folks are in Ruth's league (probably only Ted Williams,
really).  You should look at OBP as a better stat than batting, and OPS as a better
overall indicator.  Ruth's career OPS is 1.164, which is amazing.  I was just
saying that if you're calling a 1.000 OPS "average" (when your average first
ba*** is going at about .850), then Ruth would only be "pretty good."  Should've
turned on the sarcasm font :-)

Quote:

> <If this is average, I guess that you're only calling Babe Ruth pretty good :-)

> Sorry I missed this before. Lemme see......The most times Babe Ruth struck out
> in a season was 93, in 1923, while batting .393, with 45 doubles, 13 triples,
> 41 HR's and 131 RBI's. Mac has k'd over 100 times in a season 7 times already,
> well on his way to the 8th. He has averaged about 1 k per 4 ab over his career
> while hitting over .300 only once in a season (100+ games). Ruth's career k's
> per ab ratio was about 7 to 1 and in 100+ game seasons, only batted under .300
> twice in 15 seasons and those were .288 & .290 with a career average of .342!
> Aside from a whole slew of other stats, there's also the fact that Ruth was a
> terriffic pitcher. In 1916 he was 23-12 with a 1.75 ERA starting 41 games and
> in 1917 was 24-13 with a 2.01 ERA in 38 starts. While Mac & Ruth may have
> played in the same league, Mac is clearly out of Ruth's league....
> "Cuando merda tiver valor pobre nasce seem cu."

--
Regards
Roland Gau
The Chairman
http://www.FoundCollection.com/~gau/

"The will to win is overrated as a means of doing so;
 its the discipline to prepare that leads to victory."
               -The General, Robert Montgomery Knight

 
 
 

Mac & Ruth

Post by Chris Cathcar » Tue, 13 Jul 1999 04:00:00


By no means would I challenge the claim (since I'd make it
myself) that Ruth is the best ever and Mac doesn't come
very close.  But Mac is among the best hitters of today,
and all time (note I say *hitters*; the rest of his game
isn't too strong).  But there might be a good point (though
I am not sure) that his large number of strikeouts detracts
more from his effectiveness than if he got out other ways.
In any case, yes, Mac is having an "average" season - for
Mac.  Compared to the "average" player in the league, he is
way above and among the best this year.

Chris

**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****

 
 
 

Mac & Ruth

Post by Chris Cathcar » Tue, 13 Jul 1999 04:00:00


Yes, Ruth's lifetime OPS of 1.164 is really amazing; almost
no one even gets that in a season, and even 1.100 in a
season is quite hard to come by.  His lifetime SLG is .690,
which is equally astounding.  You're right that Williams is
just about the only one is his league (it's a shame he
missed 3 of his prime years), though Cobb might be up there
if you adjust for the deadball era and take into account
baserunning (Ruth and Williams couldn't throw their spikes
around like he could :-).

In comparing Mac and Ruth in OPS, Mac's is .970.  'Nuff
said.

Chris

**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****

 
 
 

Mac & Ruth

Post by The Chairma » Tue, 13 Jul 1999 04:00:00


Chris

I don't know about Ruth's wheels.  They probably weren't that bad.  I think that the
only "compliment" that Cobb ever gave Ruth was, "He runs well, for a fat man." :-)

Incidentally, Chris, where is a good place on the web (or any other free source :-) to
find information (stats) on different "eras?"

Quote:

> Yes, Ruth's lifetime OPS of 1.164 is really amazing; almost
> no one even gets that in a season, and even 1.100 in a
> season is quite hard to come by.  His lifetime SLG is .690,
> which is equally astounding.  You're right that Williams is
> just about the only one is his league (it's a shame he
> missed 3 of his prime years), though Cobb might be up there
> if you adjust for the deadball era and take into account
> baserunning (Ruth and Williams couldn't throw their spikes
> around like he could :-).

> In comparing Mac and Ruth in OPS, Mac's is .970.  'Nuff
> said.

> Chris

> **** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****

--
Regards
Roland Gau
The Chairman
http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~gau/

"The will to win is overrated as a means of doing so;
 its the discipline to prepare that leads to victory."
               -The General, Robert Montgomery Knight

 
 
 

Mac & Ruth

Post by Nick Phillip » Tue, 13 Jul 1999 04:00:00


I think Mays ranks with them.
Quote:

> Yes, Ruth's lifetime OPS of 1.164 is really amazing; almost
> no one even gets that in a season, and even 1.100 in a
> season is quite hard to come by.  His lifetime SLG is .690,
> which is equally astounding.  You're right that Williams is
> just about the only one is his league (it's a shame he
> missed 3 of his prime years), though Cobb might be up there
> if you adjust for the deadball era and take into account
> baserunning (Ruth and Williams couldn't throw their spikes
> around like he could :-).

> In comparing Mac and Ruth in OPS, Mac's is .970.  'Nuff
> said.

> Chris

> **** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****