Babe Ruth, Pitcher.

Babe Ruth would have been one of the best pitchers in his generation had he stayed a pitcher rather than going to the outfield. Being sold to the Yankees made his change full-time to the outfield much more possible because the Yankees already had a very good rotation and Ruth’s bat was obviously going to be just as prolific if not moreso than his pitching arm.

He really only spent four seasons as a full-time pitcher, from 1915 to 1918. He was still primarily a pitcher in 1919, but the Red Sox realized how much of a hitter he was, and he spent much more time in the lineup as an outfielder(111 games) than he did as a pitcher(17 games).

Now, many of these stats are on some level archaic because it was a different time period. This was a time period known for dominant pitching, and Ruth was definitely part of that. However, we can look at his stats compared to league average(as I did in the last post), and that will give us an idea of how dominant he was.

Ruth’s career ERA was a sterling 2.28. Obviously in today’s game that would make him the best pitcher in the league, but again, let’s consider it compared to Ruth’s era. The league average ERA over his pitching years was 2.86, so Ruth’s ERA was about 21% lower than the average pitcher. If we applied this to today’s ERA’s, the 2006 American League had a league average ERA of 4.56. An ERA 21% lower would equate to a 3.63 ERA, which is pretty darn good and would have put him in the top 10 in the AL in ERA.

Ruth also won the ERA crown one year, in 1916, with a 1.75 ERA. That same year, he was in the top 5 on many other categories, including: Win % (5th, .657), Wins (3rd, 23), Innings (3rd, 323.2), K’s (3rd, 170), Games Started (1st, 41), Shutouts (1st, 9) and Complete Games (4th, 23). If the Cy Young had existed, he surely would have won it this year.

He was also in the top 5 in many pretty important categories the other years of his career too, including 2nd in wins, innings and games started in 1917, 1st in complete games, and 5th in both K’s and Shutouts. He one of the best bets to win a game for his team during this time as well, in the top 5 in win % in both 1915 and 1918 as well.

In fact, his career winning % ranks 14th all time, among eligible players(100 decisions minimum to qualify) with a .671 winning percentage. This winning percentage puts him in the company of modern stars like Roy Halladay, Roy Oswalt, Roger Clemens and Tim Hudson as well as all-time greats Cristy Mathewson, Lefty Grove and Sandy Koufax.

Now, to look at Ruth’s WHIP compared to league average of his time. These stats are compiled from the 1915-1918 seasons, when he was most active as a pitcher.

Stat Comparison – Ruth / League Average / % better Ruth is

WHIP – 1.088 / 1.261 / 15.9%

WHIP is of course, Walks + Hits per Inning Pitched, or more simply, how many baserunners a pitcher allows. If a pitcher allows very few, you can bet that the pitcher is probably very successful, since there’s no one on base to score. Ruth let basically 16% fewer people on base than the average pitcher, showing that he was very good there as well. His career WHIP is a little higher, as he was later often used here and there, but obviously being out of practice never had the level of success as a regular pitcher. That career average was 1.15, which places him 70th all time in WHIP.

He was also a stellar postseason pitcher though, once posting 29 consecutive scoreless innings in World Series play(This was a record for 43 years). I know being on World Series teams can’t be an entirely individual achievement, but in his few years pitching in Boston, he was on three World Series championship teams during Boston’s most successful years. His total postseason line is: 2-0, 0.86 ERA in 31 innings pitched with a 0.935 WHIP. This was in three games pitched, over the 1916 and 1918 World Series.

So, if anyone has any doubt that Ruth is the best player ever, when you take his dominance with the bat and you, on top of that, look at the fact that he was probably one of the top 5 pitchers in baseball over a 5 year span before moving to the outfield in New York full time, the conclusion seems pretty obvious.

Update: I had some other links, but I screwed the links themselves up. Once I find those pages again, I'll re-link them, but for now, since I screwed it up, I'm just taking those down.

The Curse and the Big 10 NBDL 1st and 2nd teams

So I've gone and done it. I've ruined Butler's season.

I picked them to beat UIC, and they then went out against UIC, who was without its coach and without several players that straight up quit, and they lost to UIC in overtime.

On the bright side, things can only go up after my 0-4 start to my own NCAA Pick'em Challenge.

On another note:

I was looking at the NBDL website, actually trying to find former Illinois star and first round draft pick Frank Williams. When looking at this, I started wondering: What other big name college stars have fallen to the wayside in the D-League? Specifically looking at the Big 10 players, I found 9 Big 10 players spread out among the 12 NBDL teams. Some of them I don't remember at all. Some of them were big-time talents that either the scouts didn't think would translate to the NBA well and dropped in stock. Some were former big stars who were even drafted and floundered into the NBDL.

So, here we go, based on only the statistics easily found on the NBDL website(since I've never seen an NBDL game, nor live anywhere near where any of the teams are), here is.... your All Big-10 1st and 2nd teams.

Slotting in as the star of this writer's team is shooting guard Vince Grier, former Minnesota star. Averaging close to 20 a game(18.7) and hitting 54% of his field goals, Grier is making the most of his time in the NBDL, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's given a chance in the NBA by season's end. The rest of my first team includes the aforementioned Frank Williams, averaging 15.8 ppg and 4.6 apg for the same Sioux Falls team Grier is on, a couple of Michigan State products in Aloysius Anagonye, averaging 9.6 with 5.7 boards and 1.4 steals a game and Alan Anderson, hitting 49% of his shots for 14.2 ppg, and finally at center, Rick Rickert, who is having a fairly successful NBDL season so far at 14.5 ppg, 7.3 rpg and 55.6% shooting.

An honorable mention and 6th man award goes to Jared Reiner of Iowa, also on the Sioux Falls team. Rounding out the 2nd team is Kevin Burleson, Tyler Smith and Marcus Taylor. Marcus Taylor being the same one that was drafted high a few years ago after coming out of Michigan State.

Overall, MSU and Minnesota have 3 players each in the D-League, with Iowa, Illinois and Penn State each being represented too. I don't know if this is an honor or not, but I thought I'd mention it.

On a side note - I think I know why these guys are in the D-League. Many of the scores are scores like 129-118. Apparently these guys don't play a whole lot of defense down there.

And the big ha-ha this week goes to:

Well, me, for going 0-4, but also for Barry Bonds, who tested positive during the 2006 season for amphetamine use. He supposedly received the uppers from career bench player Mark Sweeney(brother to Kansas City star Mike Sweeney). As one of the most scrutinized players in professional sports, he didn't learn his lesson that you shouldn't just pop things in your mouth because someone says they're ok? I don't buy the story at all, but even if Sweeney did have uppers in his locker that he handed out, Barry has no one to blame but himself.

Tom Hicks is no longer the top dog for giving out bad contracts for too much money! The owner of the LA Galaxy just signed David Beckham to a ridiculous contract that eclipses what A-Rod got from the Rangers by a healthy margin. The total contract value is $250 million, 2 million less than what A-Rod got....

BUT IT'S OVER 5 YEARS!

A-Rod's average of 25.2M is ridiculous and he could never possibly live up to it. Ok, we all know. So then how does it work that Major LEague Soccer, which gets nowhere near the television contracts or the ticket sales that baseball gets, can afford to have one of its teams put out $50M a year to one player!

This might have to get a post all to itself, comparing it to other leagues.....

Who's the #1 team in the Eastern Conference for points differential?

Don’t look now, here come the Bulls!

Every year the Chicago Bulls go on a road trip while the Circus comes to the United Center, and every year they dig themselves a hole which they have to climb out of. In the 04-05 season, they started the season 0-9 before finishing as the #4 seed in a very watered down East. Last year, they again went under .500 on the circus trip before squeaking into the playoffs.

Again, like always, on their seven-game road trip, they lost the first six games before breaking the shutout at lowly New York. That dropped the Bulls to 3-9 overall.

Now, they are back to treading water in the (L)Eastern Conference, at 9-9 and two games back of Detroit and Cleveland who tie for first place right now. And don’t look now, but they actually are the best team in the East in one key statistic: Points differential. It’s not as significant of a stat as win/loss record obviously, but it does show that this team is capable of putting some serious points up.

In addition, if you look at the Vegas line on each of their games, only once have they lost to a team they were favored to beat. An 89-88 loss to Sacramento, their only loss as home this year, was the lone exception to this.

So thusfar in the NBA season, the Bulls success(or lack thereof, by some people’s standards) is not shocking. If they won every game they were favored in and lost every game they weren’t favored in, they’d be: (drum roll) 9-9. Their opening win against Miami and their home loss to Sacramento are the only times they’ve not done what Vegas expected them to(throwing out the point spread, I didn’t look, nor do I care whether they covered the spread.

Despite the Ben Wallace headband fiasco, the lack of consistent production from Ben Gordon, and the terrible circus trip, this team should still be considered a favorite to earn first round home court advantage in the playoffs as a top 4 seed.

Other news

Despite losing out on Jason Schmidt, the Cardinals are in fair shape this off-season still. Larry Borowski of Viva El Birdos puts some perspective into the situation and points out that in Anthony Reyes and Adam Wainwright, we have the pieces we need to fill 80% of our starting rotation, and that Schmidt was likely never coming to St. Louis to begin with.(Although, according to a St Louis Post-Dispatch article, they still are pursuing Schmidt, as no final deal has been signed.)

Ted Lilly has signed a 4 year, 40M contract with the Cubs. Another brilliant signing by the Cubs. While Lilly is a good pitcher, he is a fly-ball pitcher who needs to pitch in a park that is at least a neutral park.(He would be a far better sit in St. Louis, despite Duncan’s philosophy of getting ground-ball pitchers). Between Lilly and Soriano, they get two talented players who won’t improve the Cubs weaknesses even in the slightest. While they should be a better team, the Cubs likely will only make the big step towards mediocrity and a .500 record.

Cardinals skipper Tony La Russa wants to meet with, of all people, Barry Bonds. This personally scares the hell out of me, because I think I might have to become a White Sox fan(since I’m living outside of Chicago these days) if Bonds comes to St. Louis. I don’t like the idea of rooting for my team, but rooting against one of the biggest profile players on the team. The only good thing about this would be that batting behind Pujols, Bonds could lock up the MVP for Pujols for next year. Just think of what Pujols could do with a full season and if he got actual pitches to hit.