## Poll

28 votes (65.11%) | |||

2 votes (4.65%) | |||

2 votes (4.65%) | |||

3 votes (6.97%) | |||

6 votes (13.95%) | |||

1 vote (2.32%) | |||

1 vote (2.32%) |

**43 members have voted**

Quote:lilredroosterI'm not so sure about that

in 1921 they walked him 145 times in 693 plate appearances - more than one in 5

he still got 168 RBIs

how many RBIs would the Yankees have lost if they walked him 3 out of 4 times?........................a lot

in addition to his 59 home runs that year he hit 44 doubles and 16 triples - more extra base hits that weren't homers than homers

All the evidence strongly shows walking Ruth every time would have been a bad strategy. You can calculate the linear weights from what he did and compare that to being walked every time. (I'll probably do that later). Bill James used simulations to show why it's bad. (New Historical Baseball Abstract, page 784-85; using his 1921 season, interestingly enough).

In 1921, Ruth had 457 total bases and 145 walks, for 602 bases. He also made 353 outs. If he walked every time, he would have accounted for over 700 bases and zero outs.

Pipp and Meusel combined for 264 hits, with 132 being for extra bases. Imagine if half the time all those hits came with an extra runner on base (as well as some of the hits from Frank Baker and others who batted fourth, fifth, and sixth).

Quote:TomGAll the evidence strongly shows walking Ruth every time would have been a bad strategy. You can calculate the linear weights from what he did and compare that to being walked every time. (I'll probably do that later). Bill James used simulations to show why it's bad. (New Historical Baseball Abstract, page 784-85; using his 1921 season, interestingly enough).

In 1921, Ruth had 457 total bases and 145 walks, for 602 bases. He also made 353 outs. If he walked every time, he would have accounted for over 700 bases and zero outs.

Pipp and Meusel combined for 264 hits, with 132 being for extra bases. Imagine if half the time all those hits came with an extra runner on base (as well as some of the hits from Frank Baker and others who batted fourth, fifth, and sixth).

yeah, I can see it now - you're right

it's hard to see because it's counterintuitive

Imagine his numbers if the walked Ruth everytime.

In 1921, Ruth had 602 bases. If he walked everytime, he'd have had 700. Interesting, but meaningless. Baseball is scored by runs, not bases. With the guys batting behind him failing seven out of ten times, I'd have to guess the Yankees would have scored less runs.

Quote:billryanWith the guys batting behind him failing seven out of ten times, I'd have to guess the Yankees would have scored less runs.

The fifth and sixth hitters for the Yankees that year did indeed fail to get a hit 69.3% of the time. But Babe Ruth himself failed 62.2% of the time. Less than six hits per 100 at bats is only marginally better. Decreasing that failure rate to 0% would have absolutely increased the amount of runs the Yankees scored by a significant amount.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/08/01/cardinals-coronavirus-outbreak/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_virus-mlb229pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans

Quote:billryanIn 1931, Lou Gerhig drove in 185 runs from the #4 spot. Babe Ruth batted third and had 46 homers and 130plus runs driven in.

Imagine his numbers if the walked Ruth everytime.

In 1921, Ruth had 602 bases. If he walked everytime, he'd have had 700. Interesting, but meaningless. Baseball is scored by runs, not bases. With the guys batting behind him failing seven out of ten times, I'd have to guess the Yankees would have scored less runs.

I see Tom beat me to the punch. Casual baseball fans not privy to the statistics that go into determining the value of a certain event (walk, stolen base, sacrifice bunt, etc..) underestimate the value of a walk tremendously. Ruth had a high number of walks because pitchers would not just throw one down the middle on a 3-1 count. That is not the same as intentionally walking a player.

Quote:billryanHow many double plays would the guys behind him have hit into with Ruth on first every time they got up?

𝟔𝟕...................................(-:}

my post was all wrong - sorry about that

at the time I didn't realize it was not a real fight

it's an exhibition with all kinds of different rules and objectives

I don't think it's worth betting on unless just for fun

https://www.cbssports.com/boxing/news/mike-tyson-vs-roy-jones-jr-fight-card-rules-ppv-price-date-and-things-to-know-for-the-exhibition-match/

Quote:SOOPOOCasual baseball fans not privy to the statistics that go into determining the value of a certain event (walk, stolen base, sacrifice bunt, etc..) underestimate the value of a walk tremendously.

Lots of people also underestimate the negative value of outs. Also how these values change as the scoring environment changes. This is the chart I like to use: http://www.tangotiger.net/customlwts.html - It's over 10 years old now, so it may not be exactly correct for the current homerun / strikeout era, but definitely great for any historical analysis. Fangraphs also has some great articles on values and linear weights.