Crazy Baseball Fact Again: Babe Ruth won 1 MVP

[Mr. Friscus]

Yes it's true, Ruth played from 1914 to 1935, but there's a reason he only has one technical MVP to his name.

1. The "Chalmers Award" (the MVP at the time) was between 1911-1914)
2. Between the Chalmers and the "League Award" there were the years of 1915-1921 with no MVP's.
Between 1922 and 1928, Players could only win the "League Award" (aka MVP at the time) once. Once you won 1, you couldn't win another.

Thus, The Babe's only MVP was in 1923. Meanwhile, the modern version of the MVP began in 1931.

So Let's look at years Babe played without an MVP possiblity (** led league)
NO MVP YEARS:
1918: .300 avg, 11 HR's**, 61 RBI
1919: .322 avg, 29 HR's*, 113 RBI's*. Led league in WAR
1920: .376 avg, 54 HR's , 135 RBI's. Led League in WAR
1921: .378 avg, 59 HR's*, 168 RBI's*. Led League in WAR
1922: (decreased stats)

1923: WON MVP (can't win anymore until 1931)
1924: .378 avg*, 46 HR's*, 124 RBI. Led League in WAR
1925: (decreased stats)
1926: .372 avg, 47 HR's*, 153 RBI's* Led League in WAR
1927: .356 avg, 60 HR's**, 165 RBI's. Led League in WAR
1928: .323 avg, 54 HR's**, 146 RBI's. Led League in WAR
1929: .345 avg, 46 HR's**, 154 RBI's. Led League in WAR

NO MVP
1930: .359 avg, 49 HR's**, 153 RBI's. Led League in WAR

1931: .373 avg, 46 HR's**, 162 RBI's. Led League in WAR

So Ruth has 1 MVP. How many should he have? I'm not going to delve into each year's comparison.. but I'd imagine he could easily be a 7x MVP or more

Let's look at Babe's seasons 1923 and on.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Yes it's true, Ruth played from 1914 to 1935, but there's a reason he only has one technical MVP to his name.

1. The "Chalmers Award" (the MVP at the time) was between 1911-1914)
2. Between the Chalmers and the "League Award" there were the years of 1915-1921 with no MVP's.
Between 1922 and 1928, Players could only win the "League Award" (aka MVP at the time) once. Once you won 1, you couldn't win another.

Thus, The Babe's only MVP was in 1923. Meanwhile, the modern version of the MVP began in 1931.

So Let's look at years Babe played without an MVP possiblity (** led league)
NO MVP YEARS:
1918: .300 avg, 11 HR's**, 61 RBI
1919: .322 avg, 29 HR's*, 113 RBI's*. Led league in WAR
1920: .376 avg, 54 HR's , 135 RBI's. Led League in WAR
1921: .378 avg, 59 HR's*, 168 RBI's*. Led League in WAR
1922: (decreased stats)

1923: WON MVP (can't win anymore until 1931)
1924: .378 avg*, 46 HR's*, 124 RBI. Led League in WAR
1925: (decreased stats)
1926: .372 avg, 47 HR's*, 153 RBI's* Led League in WAR
1927: .356 avg, 60 HR's**, 165 RBI's. Led League in WAR
1928: .323 avg, 54 HR's**, 146 RBI's. Led League in WAR
1929: .345 avg, 46 HR's**, 154 RBI's. Led League in WAR

NO MVP
1930: .359 avg, 49 HR's**, 153 RBI's. Led League in WAR

1931: .373 avg, 46 HR's**, 162 RBI's. Led League in WAR

So Ruth has 1 MVP. How many should he have? I'm not going to delve into each year's comparison.. but I'd imagine he could easily be a 7x MVP or more

Let's look at Babe's seasons 1923 and on.

Insane, as I thought for sure he won it in 1927. That was the year of Murderers Row. Who won it, Gehrig? Man those Yankee teams were just stacked beyond anything before or since in pro sports.

 

[egp320i]

Yes it's true, Ruth played from 1914 to 1935, but there's a reason he only has one technical MVP to his name.

1. The "Chalmers Award" (the MVP at the time) was between 1911-1914)
2. Between the Chalmers and the "League Award" there were the years of 1915-1921 with no MVP's.
Between 1922 and 1928, Players could only win the "League Award" (aka MVP at the time) once. Once you won 1, you couldn't win another.

Thus, The Babe's only MVP was in 1923. Meanwhile, the modern version of the MVP began in 1931.

So Let's look at years Babe played without an MVP possiblity (** led league)
NO MVP YEARS:
1918: .300 avg, 11 HR's**, 61 RBI
1919: .322 avg, 29 HR's*, 113 RBI's*. Led league in WAR
1920: .376 avg, 54 HR's , 135 RBI's. Led League in WAR
1921: .378 avg, 59 HR's*, 168 RBI's*. Led League in WAR
1922: (decreased stats)

1923: WON MVP (can't win anymore until 1931)
1924: .378 avg*, 46 HR's*, 124 RBI. Led League in WAR
1925: (decreased stats)
1926: .372 avg, 47 HR's*, 153 RBI's* Led League in WAR
1927: .356 avg, 60 HR's**, 165 RBI's. Led League in WAR
1928: .323 avg, 54 HR's**, 146 RBI's. Led League in WAR
1929: .345 avg, 46 HR's**, 154 RBI's. Led League in WAR

NO MVP
1930: .359 avg, 49 HR's**, 153 RBI's. Led League in WAR

1931: .373 avg, 46 HR's**, 162 RBI's. Led League in WAR

So Ruth has 1 MVP. How many should he have? I'm not going to delve into each year's comparison.. but I'd imagine he could easily be a 7x MVP or more

Let's look at Babe's seasons 1923 and on.

they were not into stats back then like they are now by a long shot

If he was doing that today he would be at the top of the list and paid 40M a year

but pitching has become and art form now, with 100 MPH 2/4 seam
breaking balls and just die off the plate
sliders that break hard left or right depending in pitcher

honestly I don't think his numbers would be that great today
plus he was chubby, he could not run like they do today

 

[shockedcanadian]

they were not into stats back then like they are now by a long shot

If he was doing that today he would be at the top of the list and paid 40M a year

but pitching has become and art form now, with 100 MPH 2/4 seam
breaking balls and just die off the plate
sliders that break hard left or right depending in pitcher

honestly I don't think his numbers would be that great today
plus he was chubby, he could not run like they do today

Well, it is always an issue of apples to oranges.

If he had the hand eye coordination to hit the ball it would just be a matter of updated diets, training routines, dealing with different pitchers etc.

Remember Cecil Fielder and his kid? Big Papi was not the most athletic either.

He definitely wouldnt have those numbers today. No one could, since they now face 3-4 pitchers a game whereas back then pitchers would pitch into extra innings when they started.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

they were not into stats back then like they are now by a long shot

If he was doing that today he would be at the top of the list and paid 40M a year

but pitching has become and art form now, with 100 MPH 2/4 seam
breaking balls and just die off the plate
sliders that break hard left or right depending in pitcher

honestly I don't think his numbers would be that great today
plus he was chubby, he could not run like they do today

Yeah you're trying to do the "Back to the Future" bit and rip people out of time and compare them. That's BS.

Just imagine for a second.

Had Ruth had modern technique training, modern nutrition, Modern strength training...

Plus, Ruth was hitting 54 HR's while 2nd place was hitting like 27. A telling sign of an all-time great is when they out-pace their competition.

 

[egp320i]

Yeah you're trying to do the "Back to the Future" bit and rip people out of time and compare them. That's BS.

Just imagine for a second.

Had Ruth had modern technique training, modern nutrition, Modern strength training...

Plus, Ruth was hitting 54 HR's while 2nd place was hitting like 27. A telling sign of an all-time great is when they out-pace their competition.

not really, yes he was good for his time, no doubt
but theoretically he would not with modern pitchers

but he did not have modern anything, he chewed or smoked and drank
he was chubby, he was NOT fit with today's standard top paid athlete

is what it is

 

[Mr. Friscus]

not really, yes he was good for his time, no doubt
but theoretically he would not with modern pitchers

but he did not have modern anything, he chewed or smoked and drank
he was chubby, he was NOT fit with today's standard top paid athlete

is what it is

You're not getting it

Had Ruth been born in 1995, He'd have been brought up with modern mechanics, modern lifting, modern plyometrics, modern nutrition...

If someone is heads and tails above all others in a previous era, you have to carry that dominance over and assume it would be true in the modern era. You can't compare a 1930 powerlifter who deadlifted 800lbs to a 2025 deadlifter who deadlifted 1100lbs. That's stupid

 

[egp320i]

You're not getting it

Had Ruth been born in 1995, He'd have been brought up with modern mechanics, modern lifting, modern plyometrics, modern nutrition...

If someone is heads and tails above all others in a previous era, you have to carry that dominance over and assume it would be true in the modern era. You can't compare a 1930 powerlifter who deadlifted 800lbs to a 2025 deadlifter who deadlifted 1100lbs. That's stupid

well yes that is true

but could he compete with the best though?

were his eyes better than most, his stance, his swing, his hand to eye?

those are all factors

why not speculate ted williams who had 90/10 vision?

he would be a modern version of wade boggs, not a huge HR hitter
but he would bat at 400

 

[Mr. Friscus]

well yes that is true

but could he compete with the best though?

were his eyes better than most, his stance, his swing, his hand to eye?

those are all factors

why not speculate ted williams who had 90/10 vision?

he would be a modern version of wade boggs, not a huge HR hitter
but he would bat at 400

Williams would be judged against his piers like Ruth would.

You're introducing a bunch of what-if's that nobody can know, and expecting others to accept it.

My take is, if you're heads and toes above everyone in 1930, if all athletes in 1930 were suddenly shifted to 2025, the same elite athletes in 1930 would be elite in 2025

 

[egp320i]

Williams would be judged against his piers like Ruth would.

You're introducing a bunch of what-if's that nobody can know, and expecting others to accept it.

My take is, if you're heads and toes above everyone in 1930, if all athletes in 1930 were suddenly shifted to 2025, the same elite athletes in 1930 would be elite in 2025

theoretically possible but also impossible to know how they would factor

Mantle, Clemente, Mays, Aaaron, Koufax.......the list is endless

I have a complete 1958 topps set my dad built as a kid and left me
thus I am familiar with these great players

 

[Mr. Friscus]

theoretically possible but also impossible to know how they would factor

Mantle, Clemente, Mays, Aaaron, Koufax.......the list is endless

I have a complete 1958 topps set my dad built as a kid and left me
thus I am familiar with these great players

I'm currently making a quiz sheet for my dad (who has Parkinsons) to see how many historical players he can identify. Thus, all of this is fresh. I plan on posting it on here and seeing if people can get all of them correct (many are obvious, and the honors system would be required).

But to your point, yes, it's impossible to know, which is why I leave it open, while you seem to close it.

 

[egp320i]

I'm currently making a quiz sheet for my dad (who has Parkinsons) to see how many historical players he can identify. Thus, all of this is fresh. I plan on posting it on here and seeing if people can get all of them correct (many are obvious, and the honors system would be required).

But to your point, yes, it's impossible to know, which is why I leave it open, while you seem to close it.

not at all, not closing anything........it's interesting to speculate who can do what in a different era

How would Wayne and Mario do in hockey in 2026 in their prime?

would they still get 200 points a year?

think of it in reverse, Ohtani goes back to the 50's

would he have a 500 BA, 85HR and 140 RBI?
Would skenes have a 0.50 ERA and 300 SO?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

think of it in reverse, Ohtani goes back to the 50's

would he have a 500 BA, 85HR and 140 RBI?

Ohtani would not have those exact numbers if went back to the 60's, because his upbringing and training would be different.

If you erased Ohtani's training, and placed him in 1950, he'd likely have a natural inclination to be great.. but compared to his current numbers, He'd have lower numbers. Yet, his lesser numbers compared to 2025 would be elite in 1950.

If you went "Back to the Future" and put 2025 Ohtani into the 1956 Dodgers team, he'd hit 100 HR's.

 

[egp320i]

Ohtani would not have those exact numbers if went back to the 60's, because his upbringing and training would be different.

If you erased Ohtani's training, and placed him in 1950, he'd likely have a natural inclination to be great.. but compared to his current numbers, He'd have lower numbers. Yet, his lesser numbers compared to 2025 would be elite in 1950.

If you went "Back to the Future" and put 2025 Ohtani into the 1956 Dodgers team, he'd hit 100 HR's.

theoretically yes, he has a great swing, good eyes and if he was in the exact
same physical condition he is now he would have and elite body
compared to many other's for the time

they did not take training to the degree they do today to be the best they can

 

[TheInfiniteSadness]

Jackie Mitchell - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Mr. Friscus did you know Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig were both struck out by a 17 year old girl? After seeing your first thread about baseball I came across it while looking up things.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

they did not take training to the degree they do today to be the best they can

But you have to assume the training Ohtani did today, Ruth would do if he were in his prime today... correct?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Jackie Mitchell - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Mr. Friscus did you know Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig were both struck out by a 17 year old girl? After seeing your first thread about baseball I came across it while looking up things.

Um, okay? I don't know the story, but even if true, what is the story, context, etc?

 

[TheInfiniteSadness]

Um, okay? I don't know the story, but even if true, what is the story, context, etc?

If you read the article it will tell you.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

If you read the article it will tell you.

I'm not being condescending, but if you have a point through a source, you paste the portion of the source with a link to the source. You don't just paste links and expect me to find your "point".

 

[TheInfiniteSadness]

I'm not being condescending, but if you have a point through a source, you paste the portion of the source with a link to the source. You don't just paste links and expect me to find your "point".

jackie kitchell mlb type that into a search