PDA

View Full Version : Say what? Poll has Jeter tied with Ruth for Greatest Yankee ever!!


Fenway
07-29-2011, 09:55 AM
New York Yankees' greatest player? Derek Jeter and Babe Ruth tied in poll of NYC voters (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2011/07/29/2011-07-29_new_york_yankees_greatest_player_derek_jeter_an d_babe_ruth_tied_in_poll_of_nyc_v.html)

doublem23
07-29-2011, 09:57 AM
Yankees fans are ****ing morons

Fenway
07-29-2011, 10:03 AM
Yankees fans are ****ing morons

We agree on something :tongue:
OVEvCwgClZg

RKMeibalane
07-29-2011, 10:08 AM
Gehrig, Mantle, and DiMaggio are spinning in their respective graves.

guillensdisciple
07-29-2011, 10:12 AM
Gehrig, Mantle, and DiMaggio are spinning in their respective graves.


To be fair, at least in the respects of Ruth and Gehrig, baseball was a completely different game back then.

If you honestly think Ruth and Gehrig could play in the bigs the way they're currently constructed then I think you're on something. Talent has increased two fold. Baby Ruth would not be playing baseball with 100 mile per hour flamethrowers gunning after him.

Fenway
07-29-2011, 10:16 AM
To be fair, at least in the respects of Ruth and Gehrig, baseball was a completely different game back then.

If you honestly think Ruth and Gehrig could play in the bigs the way they're currently constructed then I think you're on something. Talent has increased two fold. Baby Ruth would not be playing baseball with 100 mile per hour flamethrowers gunning after him.

Ruth was so far ahead of his peers it isn't even funny. He could have made it into the HoF if he had stayed as a pitcher.

Ruth would do very well today.

Risk
07-29-2011, 10:30 AM
Words fail.

Risk

VenturaFan23
07-29-2011, 10:30 AM
Yankees fans are ****ing morons

This pretty much sums it up.

doublem23
07-29-2011, 10:33 AM
If you honestly think Ruth and Gehrig could play in the bigs the way they're currently constructed then I think you're on something. Talent has increased two fold. Baby Ruth would not be playing baseball with 100 mile per hour flamethrowers gunning after him.

Baseball, more than any other sport, is about skill more than just physical talent. The notion that Hall of Fame players like Gehrig and Ruth would be castoffs nowadays is laughable.

guillensdisciple
07-29-2011, 10:39 AM
Baseball, more than any other sport, is about skill more than just physical talent. The notion that Hall of Fame players like Gehrig and Ruth would be castoffs nowadays is laughable.

Ruth was so far ahead of his peers it isn't even funny. He could have made it into the HoF if he had stayed as a pitcher.

Ruth would do very well today.


I don't mean to argue whether or not the players of past deserve to be given their respect as hall of famers, but I am sure that the competition at the time was nowhere to the standard we play in now.

Lets look at it like this, back in the day you have pitchers who top out in the 80's without proper conditioning and exercise. Now a days you're talking averages of 92 with some hurling 100's in the later innings. While baseball is as technical as you can get, there is a big difference hitting an 83 mph curve after a 95 mph fastball than there is hitting an 73 mph curve after an 82 mph fastball.

Obviously they are the greatest of all time, but just like the arguments between MJ, Kobe, Wilt etc you have to keep everything in perspective as the game changes over time and it's very difficult to say who is the best.

DumpJerry
07-29-2011, 10:39 AM
To be fair, at least in the respects of Ruth and Gehrig, baseball was a completely different game back then.

If you honestly think Ruth and Gehrig could play in the bigs the way they're currently constructed then I think you're on something. Talent has increased two fold. Baby Ruth would not be playing baseball with 100 mile per hour flamethrowers gunning after him.
:?:
Wow.

The rules are pretty much the same (except for the DH). The bat and ball are the same. Gloves are a bit more functional. The Mound is lower.

By "constructed," you mean the stadiums, then, yes, you're right since only Fenway and Wiggly are around from the 1920's. Not sure how that effects the players.

DumpJerry
07-29-2011, 10:41 AM
Obviously they are the greatest of all time, but just like the arguments between MJ, Kobe, Wilt etc you have to keep everything in perspective as the game changes over time and it's very difficult to say who is the best.
Basketball, Football and Hockey keep making major changes to the rules of their game. This makes it difficult to compare players over a 50-100 year time period. Baseball has always been pretty static, so you can compare over the eras.

guillensdisciple
07-29-2011, 10:42 AM
:?:
Wow.

The rules are pretty much the same (except for the DH). The bat and ball are the same. Gloves are a bit more functional. The Mound is lower.

By "constructed," you mean the stadiums, then, yes, you're right since only Fenway and Wiggly are around from the 1920's. Not sure how that effects the players.


I don't understand, do you honestly believe a person could easily make the transition from hitting the talent of the 1920's to the talent of today?

hi im skot
07-29-2011, 10:46 AM
I don't understand, do you honestly believe a person could easily make the transition from hitting the talent of the 1920's to the talent of today?

Yes.

doublem23
07-29-2011, 10:46 AM
I don't mean to argue whether or not the players of past deserve to be given their respect as hall of famers, but I am sure that the competition at the time was nowhere to the standard we play in now.

Lets look at it like this, back in the day you have pitchers who top out in the 80's without proper conditioning and exercise. Now a days you're talking averages of 92 with some hurling 100's in the later innings. While baseball is as technical as you can get, there is a big difference hitting an 83 mph curve after a 95 mph fastball than there is hitting an 73 mph curve after an 82 mph fastball.

Obviously they are the greatest of all time, but just like the arguments between MJ, Kobe, Wilt etc you have to keep everything in perspective as the game changes over time and it's very difficult to say who is the best.

The competition argument is drowned out a bit because the league is larger. Pre-expansion, there were only 400 MLB players in the world. Today there are 750. Furthermore, there is increased competition from other major sports. It's no secret that some of the best athletes in America choose football and basketball over baseball. In Ruth's day, that was not as much the case.

Additionally, you're argument only seems to be that pitchers have gotten stronger and more durable as time has gone on. Which is ridiculous. While yes, I will agree that if you were to take a player from the 1920s, throw him in a time machine, and magically insert him into a 2011 lineup, he would be overmatched, if you were to have someone with the skills of a Gehrig and Ruth born into this time, I have no doubt they would be every bit the players they were back then, as well. Today, sports stars are pampered and prepared at ridiculously young ages. Some of the brightest high school aged players work out, year-round, in professional-level environments with trainers, dieticians, coaches, etc. Nothing like that existed in the 1920s, ****, most pro baseball players had to work a 2nd job in the off-season just to make sure they had enough to eat between September and April.

Hitmen77
07-29-2011, 10:55 AM
To be fair, at least in the respects of Ruth and Gehrig, baseball was a completely different game back then.

If you honestly think Ruth and Gehrig could play in the bigs the way they're currently constructed then I think you're on something. Talent has increased two fold. Baby Ruth would not be playing baseball with 100 mile per hour flamethrowers gunning after him.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRDIxIhGQ0cquHYUoxH5I605wi-44xbp9iRXm-2XtPIOFYlxJUb

I prefer a Milky Way bar myself. :tongue:

happydude
07-29-2011, 11:11 AM
Because of the canyon-wide difference between Ruth and his peers I'd be very hesitant to devalue his accomplishments based on the many years that have passed since his heyday; Ruth was a man before his time (so was Jim Brown). However, it must be pointed out that the league he played in was devoid of Blacks and Latinos and, thus, was most likely a lesser league.

RKMeibalane
07-29-2011, 11:15 AM
To be fair, at least in the respects of Ruth and Gehrig, baseball was a completely different game back then.

If you honestly think Ruth and Gehrig could play in the bigs the way they're currently constructed then I think you're on something. Talent has increased two fold. Baby Ruth would not be playing baseball with 100 mile per hour flamethrowers gunning after him.

Please don't put words in my mouth, as I said nothing about what Ruth or Gehrig might do in today's brand of Major League Baseball. Derek Jeter has had a tremendous career, and belongs in the HOF for what he has done, but are his accomplishments greater- more significant- than those of Yankees from the past? That's debateable, at best.

guillensdisciple
07-29-2011, 02:25 PM
The competition argument is drowned out a bit because the league is larger. Pre-expansion, there were only 400 MLB players in the world. Today there are 750. Furthermore, there is increased competition from other major sports. It's no secret that some of the best athletes in America choose football and basketball over baseball. In Ruth's day, that was not as much the case.

Additionally, you're argument only seems to be that pitchers have gotten stronger and more durable as time has gone on. Which is ridiculous. While yes, I will agree that if you were to take a player from the 1920s, throw him in a time machine, and magically insert him into a 2011 lineup, he would be overmatched, if you were to have someone with the skills of a Gehrig and Ruth born into this time, I have no doubt they would be every bit the players they were back then, as well. Today, sports stars are pampered and prepared at ridiculously young ages. Some of the brightest high school aged players work out, year-round, in professional-level environments with trainers, dieticians, coaches, etc. Nothing like that existed in the 1920s, ****, most pro baseball players had to work a 2nd job in the off-season just to make sure they had enough to eat between September and April.

I understand this, but I am just saying it is extremely hard to argue the case because of this. If the thing was a level playing field from generation to generation and we saw no player development throughout the ages it would be an easy comparison but since things do change it's quiet the opposite. Ruth and the other mentioned Yankees greats are exactly that, legends in the game of baseball, but so is Jeter. Right now it's harder to say because he's still playing but in a few years that's what he will be called- a legend.

I just don't think you can really be shocked that some of the current generation believe Jeter is the best. First of all they grew up with the guy and saw all those championships that he brought to the team (granted Mariano should be somewhere in the discussion as one of the yankee greats) and then they chose him as the greatest.

I believe Russell wrote a letter to Scottie Pippen talking about comparing legends, and he made a great point that you can never say one is better than the other, but instead say they were the best of their time. So Yankees fans should just say that Babe Ruth was the best yankee of his time, and Jeter was the best of his.

guillensdisciple
07-29-2011, 02:26 PM
Please don't put words in my mouth, as I said nothing about what Ruth or Gehrig might do in today's brand of Major League Baseball. Derek Jeter has had a tremendous career, and belongs in the HOF for what he has done, but are his accomplishments greater- more significant- than those of Yankees from the past? That's debateable, at best.

My apologies if that sounded off, and for misspelling Ruth's name, but I don't think it can even be debated but not because one is better than the other but just because it can't be.

SI1020
07-29-2011, 02:55 PM
The competition argument is drowned out a bit because the league is larger. Pre-expansion, there were only 400 MLB players in the world. Today there are 750. Furthermore, there is increased competition from other major sports. It's no secret that some of the best athletes in America choose football and basketball over baseball. In Ruth's day, that was not as much the case.

Additionally, you're argument only seems to be that pitchers have gotten stronger and more durable as time has gone on. Which is ridiculous. While yes, I will agree that if you were to take a player from the 1920s, throw him in a time machine, and magically insert him into a 2011 lineup, he would be overmatched, if you were to have someone with the skills of a Gehrig and Ruth born into this time, I have no doubt they would be every bit the players they were back then, as well. Today, sports stars are pampered and prepared at ridiculously young ages. Some of the brightest high school aged players work out, year-round, in professional-level environments with trainers, dieticians, coaches, etc. Nothing like that existed in the 1920s, ****, most pro baseball players had to work a 2nd job in the off-season just to make sure they had enough to eat between September and April. I dislike these youngblood old fart arguments but this is a really great post that shows an in depth understanding of the difficulties encountered trying to compare athletes of different eras. I would just like to add one more thing. In 1919, the last year of the deadball era the Boston Red Sox as a team hit 33 home runs. Babe Ruth hit 29 of them. Guys like Ruth are a freak of nature.

PalehosePlanet
07-29-2011, 03:06 PM
This isn't surprising because whenever there is an open poll/vote on something like this people will always go the way of the most recent. That's what is fresh in their minds; what they've actually witnessed, etc.

Same thing happens with film and music polls when fans/people get to vote.

I remember seeing a fan poll where Titanic was in the top ten films of all time about three months after it came out.

DumpJerry
07-29-2011, 05:35 PM
I don't understand, do you honestly believe a person could easily make the transition from hitting the talent of the 1920's to the talent of today?
You write this as if someone actually tried to do this.

The Strike Zone is pretty much the same. The Pitcher is still 60 feet 6 inches away, the bases are still 90 feet apart from each other. The ball has the same physics at work which makes it break one way or another. Three strikes has always been a strike out. Four balls has always been a walk. The Human eye has not evolved much in 80 years. Quick twitch muscles have not evolved much in 80 years. Eye/hand coordination has not evolved much in 80 years. The Human wrist is still designed in the same was as 80 years ago. Bats were made of wood in the 20's and, at the MLB level, are still wood.

Other than some shorter outfield fences (which effect home run numbers) and steroids/PEDS, I have I missed anything different from the 20's to today?

So, to answer your question, I honestly believe a player from the 20's would not be bewildered by today's game after a good BP session (I have no reason to lie).

DSpivack
07-29-2011, 05:58 PM
You write this as if someone actually tried to do this.

The Strike Zone is pretty much the same. The Pitcher is still 60 feet 6 inches away, the bases are still 90 feet apart from each other. The ball has the same physics at work which makes it break one way or another. Three strikes has always been a strike out. Four balls has always been a walk. The Human eye has not evolved much in 80 years. Quick twitch muscles have not evolved much in 80 years. Eye/hand coordination has not evolved much in 80 years. The Human wrist is still designed in the same was as 80 years ago. Bats were made of wood in the 20's and, at the MLB level, are still wood.

Other than some shorter outfield fences (which effect home run numbers) and steroids/PEDS, I have I missed anything different from the 20's to today?

So, to answer your question, I honestly believe a player from the 20's would not be bewildered by today's game after a good BP session (I have no reason to lie).


While the talent pool is diluted today with more players, players of all races can play today, so I think that might be a wash.

I agree with your overall point.

DumpJerry
07-29-2011, 06:00 PM
Oh, what's to say some of today's top players would be studs in 1920? With fewer teams and players, there were fewer low-quality pitchers to pad your hitting stats with. Also fewer low quality hitters for pitchers to pad their stats.

DumpJerry
07-29-2011, 06:01 PM
While the talent pool is diluted today with more players, players of all races can play today, so I think that might be a wash.

I agree with your overall point.
Josh Gibson was probably the best Catcher ever in all of Baseball. Imagine what Satchel Paige would have been like in MLB if he started there at 20 years old.

TDog
07-29-2011, 06:06 PM
We're talking about the Yankees.

Jeter doesn't even crack the top 10. There are some who would argue he isn't even the greatest current Yankee.

Nellie_Fox
07-30-2011, 12:12 AM
...It's no secret that some of the best athletes in America choose football and basketball over baseball. In Ruth's day, that was not as much the case.In Ruth's day, baseball was absolutely king. The only thing close was boxing.

KnightSox
07-30-2011, 01:13 AM
How do you think Jackie Robinson would do in todays game? Also, if Ruth and Gehrig were born in 1990, and trained like todays athletes do would they be absolute beasts?

sullythered
07-30-2011, 01:23 AM
Let me get this straight, there is an argument happening here as to whether or not Babe Ruth would be good today? Babe ****ing Ruth? Seriously?

DumpJerry
07-30-2011, 02:07 AM
Let me get this straight, there is an argument happening here as to whether or not Babe Ruth would be good today? Babe ****ing Ruth? Seriously?
I guess some think he was lucky to have been able to play back when there weren't any good players.

SI1020
07-30-2011, 09:53 AM
In Ruth's day, baseball was absolutely king. The only thing close was boxing. Third would be college football.

g0g0
07-30-2011, 01:53 PM
Baseball, more than any other sport, is about skill more than just physical talent. The notion that Hall of Fame players like Gehrig and Ruth would be castoffs nowadays is laughable.

I also would speculate that they would still be formidable as they would have access to all of the modern amenities of today's baseball players. Just think if they had access to today's equipment, facilities, etc.

Railsplitter
07-31-2011, 01:27 PM
If you honestly think Ruth and Gehrig could play in the bigs the way they're currently constructed then I think you're on something. Talent has increased two fold. Baby Ruth would not be playing baseball with 100 mile per hour flamethrowers gunning after him.


Walter Johnson, one of Ruth's charter HoF classmates was great fastball
pitcher. There were no radar guns back then, so we have no idea how fast guys threw in the 1920's

Baseball, more than any other sport, is about skill more than just physical talent. The notion that Hall of Fame players like Gehrig and Ruth would be castoffs nowadays is laughable.
Indeed. But the Babe cerainly had the talent. When a reporter asked him if he could hit .400 if he concentrated just on hitting, the Babe replied ".400 hell, I'd hit .500!
Ruth was so far ahead of his peers it isn't even funny. He could have made it into the HoF if he had stayed as a pitcher.

True. As late as 1933, the Yankees started the Babe on the last day of the season and he still won.