119 Years Ago Today ......

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: 119 Years Ago Today ......

    "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE"  !!!!!

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from newenglanderinexile. Show newenglanderinexile's posts

    Re: 119 Years Ago Today ......

    Ruth helped make the Boston Red Sox the first great dynasty in baseball.  All subsequent baseball dynasties have been pale imitations. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: 119 Years Ago Today ......

    In response to newenglanderinexile's comment:

    Ruth helped make the Boston Red Sox the first great dynasty in baseball.  All subsequent baseball dynasties have been pale imitations. 



    We won 4 out of 7 starting in 1912. Ruth was not on the 1912 team that had 9 guys with an OBP over .346, including Speaker at .464. Smokey Joe went 34-5 and 2 other guys won 20.

    Ruth started in 1914, and he certainly "helped make the Boston Red Sox the first great dynasty". In 1915, he went 18-8 with a 2.44 ERA, but that was actually the worst ERA of the 5 starters:

    1.49 Smokey Joe  (15-5)

    1.64 Ernie Shore (19-8)

    2.11 Rube Foster (19-8)

    2.36 Dutch Leonard (15-7)

    2.44 Babe Ruth (18-8)

    Ruth also had twice as many HRs as the next guy on the team with 4, but he only had 92 ABs. (His .952 OPS was more than any regular.)

    In the 1916 championship season, Ruth went 23-12 with a 1.75 ERA- way better than anyone else. His .741 OPS was better than all but one regular everyday player (but just 152 PAs).

    We ddin't win in 1917, but Ruth went 24-13  2.01 and had an .857 OPS, which was 122 points higher than any regular. (142 PAs)

    We won in 1918. Ruth only started 19 games (13-7  2,22) in a 123 game season. But, this time he was 6th on the team in PAs (382) and had a .966 OPS. The next best guy was at .796 then .681.

    We had a losing season the next year, but Ruth had perhaps the most dominating batting seasons in MLB history with a 1.114 OPS, except for one (see below). (He started 15 games and went 9-5  2.97). The league OPS was .670. Ruth's 29 HRs was more than 11 teams had as a whole team.

    In 1920, Ruth showed why he was the greatest MLB of all time. After proving to be one of the leagues finest pitchers with the Sox, he put up these numbers with the Yanks in 1920:

    .376  54  137  (1.379 OPS)

    1) Only 1 other team, the Philles who played in a bandbox, had more HRs as a team than 54. The Phillies had 64 (50 at home and just 14 on the road).

    2) The league OPS was .707. Ruth was an astounding .672 higher than the league as a whole (which included his numbers).

    3) Ruth's .847 SLG% was more than double the best team mark of .426 (his own- no doubtedly higher due to his input). The next best team was at .419. The league SLG% was .372 that year.

    4) Ruth's OBP was .532 . The league's was .335.

    WOW!

    He led MLB in HRs for 12 out of 14 seasons and RBIs for 6 out of 10. OBP for 10 out of 14. SLG% 13 out of 14 seasons. OPS for 13 out of 14.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: 119 Years Ago Today ......

    Ruth was 3-0 with an 0.87 ERA in his 3 WS starts with the Sox.

    His career WS OPS (Boston & NYY) was 1.211 which was better than his career regular season OPS of 1.164.

    His last 5 World Series:

    1.556

    1.448

    1.244

    2.022

    1.233

    14 HRs in 85 ABs! 

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: 119 Years Ago Today ......

    In response to JIMMYPROFFER's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to newenglanderinexile's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ruth helped make the Boston Red Sox the first great dynasty in baseball.  All subsequent baseball dynasties have been pale imitations. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Hardly, they never won 5 in a row, another dynasty has done that twice.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    He didn't say the "best dynasty of all time", he said the "first dynasty".

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: 119 Years Ago Today ......

    In response to JIMMYPROFFER's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JIMMYPROFFER's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to newenglanderinexile's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ruth helped make the Boston Red Sox the first great dynasty in baseball.  All subsequent baseball dynasties have been pale imitations. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Hardly, they never won 5 in a row, another dynasty has done that twice.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    He didn't say the "best dynasty of all time", he said the "first dynasty".

    [/QUOTE]

    He called them "pale imitations"

    [/QUOTE]

    True. I missed that. Sorry.

    I don't think he meant "pale imitators as the first dynasty".

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: 119 Years Ago Today ......

    The Sox were clearly the first dynasty, unless your criteria is 5 straight.

    They won in 1912, 1914, 1915, 1916 and 1918 (5 in 7 years). I think that counts as a dynasty.

    Before the Sox, nobody won like that. The NY Giants won 2 in a row. The Phillies won in 1910, 1911 and 1913 then lost to the Sox in the next 2. That was close.

    The Yanks won 4 in a row, 5 of 6 and 6 of 8 starting in 1936, so if your criteria is tighter, one could say they were the first.

    The 1947 to 1953 looks like the best, based on WS wins: 5 in a row and 6 of 7. 

    Most recently?

    Yanks 1996-2000: 3 in a row and 4 of 5 years followed by a WS loss in 2001.

    Red Sox 2004-2013: 3 out of 10 with no other WS appearances. I wouldn't call this a dynasty.

    Cardinals 2006-2011: 2 out of 6. Not a dynasty.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from jete02fan. Show jete02fan's posts

    Re: 119 Years Ago Today ......

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Sox were clearly the first dynasty, unless your criteria is 5 straight.

    They won in 1912, 1914, 1915, 1916 and 1918 (5 in 7 years). I think that counts as a dynasty.

    Before the Sox, nobody won like that. The NY Giants won 2 in a row. The Phillies won in 1910, 1911 and 1913 then lost to the Sox in the next 2. That was close.

    The Yanks won 4 in a row, 5 of 6 and 6 of 8 starting in 1936, so if your criteria is tighter, one could say they were the first.

    The 1947 to 1953 looks like the best, based on WS wins: 5 in a row and 6 of 7. 

    Most recently?

    Yanks 1996-2000: 3 in a row and 4 of 5 years followed by a WS loss in 2001.

    Red Sox 2004-2013: 3 out of 10 with no other WS appearances. I wouldn't call this a dynasty.

    Cardinals 2006-2011: 2 out of 6. Not a dynasty.

    [/QUOTE] i think win or lose getting there in consecutive years is impressive for any team and tough to do...heck, every multiple title team has a failed title defense..


     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share