would you take ok pitching and great hitting or great pitching and horrible hitting?
2007-02-07 12:40:25 · 16 answers · asked by e/eelviselvius 1 in Sports ➔ Baseball
As they always say, Pitching and defense wins the world series. So Nolan Ryan. Babe Ruth is an obvious legend, but his skill must be taken in context. He was 6' 2" and 215, and was considered to be a beast back then. But with technologies, better nutrition, natural evolution and the growth of the sport, people more suited for the sport emerge today. The level of play today is, on a whole, higher then it was in Babe Ruth's day. I am sure he'd still be great if he were playing today, but he'd wouldn't be the standout that he was in his day. Nolan Ryan on the other hand...
2007-02-07 13:19:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Babe Ruth, an OK pitcher?
Come on now.
I am a huge fan of Nolan Ryan and I can remember his time with the Angels when it seemed like he could go out there at any time and throw a no-no. That being said, I would take Babe Ruth in a heartbeat. His career record was 94-46 with a 2.28 ERA and a 1.159 WHIP. When you normalize his stats to career standards, the ERA bumps to 2.84, which is still better than Ryan's actual of 3.19 and normalized of 3.60. Babe Ruth was a better pitcher than Nolan Ryan and the hitting is an absolute bonus, because then you can have him start one day, burn your DH by playing him in the field early so that Ruth is forced to hit, and then he hits the other four as the DH in the modern AL.
There isn't any comparison, its the Bambino in a rout.
2007-02-08 02:53:36 · answer #2 · answered by William M 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would take Babe Ruth over the Ryan Express in a minute. Don't sell Babe Ruth short. He was a very good pitcher before he switched to being an every day hitter full time.
2007-02-08 00:36:46 · answer #3 · answered by davester1970 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No contest Ruth
Career Ryan was 324-292
If you extrapolate Ruth's 89 -49 to 324 wins you get a career record of 324-179
Not too bad
Then you add Ruth's ability to hit for power and average to the mix and it's all over
2007-02-08 01:15:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Oh, that's tough. I will have to say Ruth, just because he was the better overall pitcher. Ryan struck out a lot, but he wasn't the best pitcher ever.
2007-02-07 22:27:18 · answer #5 · answered by Joe 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not sure why you think Ruth was merely an "OK" pitcher. In his years as a pitcher with Boston, his record was 89-49, he was in the top 5 in the league in strikeouts twice, and led the league in ERA once. If he hadn't switched to the outfield, it's not unreasonable to think he would have been a Hall of Fame caliber pitcher.
2007-02-07 21:00:30 · answer #6 · answered by JerH1 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Ruth is not just "OK" pitching, he held the record for most consecutive scoreless innings in the world series. If there isn't a DH it's no contest. If there is, I STILL pick Ruth, although it's closer.
2007-02-07 20:44:34 · answer #7 · answered by clueless_nerd 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ruth
2007-02-08 03:52:13 · answer #8 · answered by gman 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nolan Ryan. Pitchers batting doesn't affect me because I have an AL team.
2007-02-07 20:44:26 · answer #9 · answered by trombass08 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ryan. Sorry Babe
2007-02-07 22:50:37 · answer #10 · answered by Dusty 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋