Talk:Babe Ruth/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

References

A number of the sources listed under references were not actually used to cite text in the document. Many of them are clearly valuable sources. However, I do not believe they have been effectively used. Since most of the information that is in the article is sourced at this time, i have moved these sources. In case they are used in the near future, I felt it would be good to keep the list in tact.

• Allen, Maury. Baseball's 100. A & W Publishers, 1981, 316 pages.
• The Baseball Biographical Encyclopedia. Total/Sports Illustrated, 2000, 1298 pages.
• The Baseball Encyclopedia, 10th Edition. Macmillan, a Simon and Schuster Macmillan Company, 1996, 3027 pages.
• Cohen, Richard M, David Neft and Jordan Deutsch. The World Series. The Dial Press, 1979, 416 pages.
• Creamer, Robert W. Babe: The Legend Comes to Life. Simon and Schuster, 1974, 440 pages.
• Graham Jr., Frank. Great Hitters of the Major Leagues. Random House, 1969, 171 pages.
• James, Bill. The New Bill James Baseball Abstract. The Free Press, a division of Simon and Schuster, 2001, 998 pages.
• Levinson, David, and Karen Christensen, editors. The Encyclopedia of World Sport. Oxford University Press, 1996, 488 pages.
• Montville, Leigh. The Big Bam. Doubleday, 2006.
• Pietrusza, David, Matthew Silverman & Michael Gershman, ed. (2000). Baseball: The Biographical Encyclopedia. Total/Sports Illustrated.
• Reidenbach, Lowell. Cooperstown: Where the Legends Live Forever. The Sporting News Publishing, 1993, 344 pages.
• Ritter, Lawrence, and Mark Rucker. The Babe: A Life in Pictures. Ticknor and Fields, 1988, 282 pages.
• Ritter, Lawrence. The Glory of Their Times. The Macmillan Company, 1966, 300 pages.
• Schlossberg, Dan. The Baseball Catalog. Jonathan David Publishers, 1980, 310 pages.
• The STATS All-Time Major League Baseball Handbook. STATS Publishing, 1998, 2696 pages.
• Stout, Glenn. Yankees Century. Houghton Mifflin, 2002, 478 pages.

// Tecmobowl 07:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Answers.com and older Ruth Wikipedia article

I noticed Answers.com is running this older and much longer [1]Wikipedia article on Ruth that was a very impressive article. I was wondering why answers.com is running the older Ruth article instead of this current one. With all due respect to the writers of this current Ruth article, this current Ruth bio not organized nor written well, and it really pales in comparison to the older article. What happened to the older article? Thanks Steve M 11/29/2006

• Length does not equate to quality. The information was not sourced, poorly written, and in some cases, flat out wrong. The current article is well organized and much better written. There are some "flow" issues, but the article is in much better shape than it was. The recent re-write of the intro and the update to the infobox is a benefit to the quality. // Tecmobowl 03:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Article status

I'm going to try to restore most of the information from its older version but with the proper in-line citations. However, I don't have any books so I'm relying on web references for info. If anyone has better sources for the info, please replace the ones I include. Also, if people have references that document information I can't find online (such as Pius Schamberger being a German immigrant) please update the information and citations accordingly. -Mattingly23 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Before you start adding in more content, i would suggest that we continue to refine what is already there. The article is fairly lengthy as is. There is plenty of room right now to work with, but please watch the article size. While it is no longer a hard rule, making this article longer would not necessarily make it better. You should familiarize yourself with WP:SIZE before adding too much content to this thing. // Tecmobowl 15:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Tecmobowl - Thanks for fixing the errors you inadvertently included in your revert, however you did not replace the citations I included for Ruth's accolades. Why were these removed? Also, I'm going to assert that this sentence: "Major League Baseball, sportswriters, and fans have recognized Ruth as one of the greatest baseball players of all time" does not violate NPOV precisely because of those citations I had included. Look at this example from WP:NPOV: So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results. Please explain how this does not apply in this situation. If you are concerned about showing only one viewpoint, than I would not be adverse to referencing in the same paragraph a credible source that claims Babe Ruth was not one of the greatest baseball players of all time. - Mattingly23 20:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Tecmobowl - As you suggested, I looked at WP:SIZE to determine if this article is close to exceeding the recommended amount of content. It states this about the main body of prose for an article: Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. Thus the 32 KB recommendation is considered to have stylistic value in many cases. I copied the main body of text directly from my web browser into Microsoft Word and did a word count. This method states that the article has about 3,200 words, or about half of the recommended length when users should begin to worry about length. Is this the length rule you are referring to or are you using something else as a guideline? - Mattingly23 20:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm not specifically familiar with the references you are talking about but generally accepted information (like the awards he won) does not need to be referenced. We might be talking about an entirely different issue, so please let me know if i'm missing something.

The article already communicates that he was named the "greatest" athlete on a number of polls. Beyond that, I don't believe any further comments about his relative greatness are encyclopedic. For perspective, many people make that same statement about Ty Cobb, Willie Mays, and others. I would probably remove any other content that is added in about ruth being the greatest baseball player.

In regards to the length, the article is approximately 9 pages in length. The supplemental information puts the article onto 10 pages. In reading WP:SIZE, you will see that 12-15 pages is really "pushing" it as far as readability. As I have said, there is definitely some room to work with. However, I think that the length as of now is pretty good. The best thing for the article would be to weed out information about superfluous topics and the "laundry" list of stats that are used. People should not have to be baseball experts to read an article on Ruth (or any player for that matter). The notes section has become splintered with the new sources being added and that might need to be addressed. Another area that needs "help", is the sale section. I will tag it appropriately. // Tecmobowl 01:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

My attempt was to write a lead-in to what reads as a "laundry list" of awards. As far as sentences such as this used in other articles, see Michael Jordan (Considered by many to be greatest basketball player of all time, he became the most effectively marketed athlete of his generation) and Wayne Gretzky (He is generally regarded as the best player of his era and has been called "the greatest hockey player ever" by many sportswriters, players, coaches, and fans.) I still feel that this sentence is acceptable to include in the article - perhaps it would be even better to remove mentioning the specific awards and just give references to them, since the introduction is not supposed to be too detailed. - Mattingly23 04:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not break up comments. If that statement is added to the article, i will remove it. This is not to engage in an edit war, but rather to protect the integrity of this article. Using the Jordan and Gretzky as examples does not help prove your point. What it shows is that these articles need attention. If you want to invite others to the discussion, please do so. Pointing out that he was named the greatest player of all-time in a poll is perfectly acceptable and should satisfy your goals. I generally use the guideline:"Stick to the facts, avoid opinions". If you can point me to some content on this site that supports your stance, please do so. // Tecmobowl 04:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree on this last part. Take a look through WP:PEACOCK (also WP:WEASEL). I know it's tempting to say how great he was and how many people think he was great (I've been guilty of it and so have "many others") but it's much more effective to give real verifiable info. Just because the articles on Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky use peacock terms, doesn't mean this article has to stoop to that level.

By the way, I'll assist with helping this article when I can. I'm glad there's finally some focus on it! I think the previous rewrite was done by one person in a vacuum which isn't usually the best way to do things. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Help welcomed! I actually did a decent amount of the "re-write". I had a huge problem with the article in general so I tried not to be overly zealous with the editing. Once I removed all of statements that did not have a source, what was left was pretty bad. It's getting there, but needs a lot more love. // Tecmobowl 06:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I won't add the sentence in. I think what I got hung up on was the Beatles example on WP:NPOV. I still can't fully see how Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band is acceptable but Major League Baseball, sportswriters, and fans have recognized Ruth as one of the greatest baseball players of all time is not when the statement is a cited fact. If someone could clearly explain why the first sentence is acceptable and the second is not I would fully agree with keeping the sentence out of the article. - Mattingly23 15:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles example mentions that it's verifiable by survey results, etc. If you have reliable sources with similar survey results, then I think it would be okay to include it for Babe Ruth too. Just to simply say "Many consider Babe Ruth to be the best" with no supporting info is bad. You're right that the example at WP:NPOV is contradictory to WP:PEACOCK. I'll raise that issue at WT:NPOV. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is worthy of note that Ruth filled out two voter registration cards; one of these was for WW I and the other (at age 47!) for WW II. In the first, he lists his birthdate as 2/7/1896 (humorously, the "where employed line" is filled out as "Fenway Park"), but he gets it right (2/6/1895) on the WW II card. Both of these can be viewed on ancestry.com, as of May 2007 when the Military Records section came online. I do not know if this is common knowledge; at the very least I have not heard it previously.

One sentence paragraphs

I'm sure this has been mentioned before but the one sentence and one line paragraphs sprinkled throughout this article really need to go. It's especially ugly if you have a high resolution computer screen. Quadzilla99 08:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we be more interested in having a well written article than one that looks pretty on our monitors? --djrobgordon 19:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

One sentence paragraphs are considered poor writing by most academic textbooks. Quadzilla99 05:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

They can be effective if used sparingly. 70.54.125.156 22:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No. They are poor form, plain and simple, especially for an encyclopedia. Quadzilla99's comment that they look bad on his high-falutin' system is silly, 'though. The one sentence paragraphs should either be combined with the paragraph that precedes or follows it, like when talking about Ruth's marriage, for example. But when speaking about Ruth-like figures included in media, that most certainly can be expanded. I am still too much of a noob, apparently, to make such edits so someone else will need to.--ColonelKernel (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

??

What's up with saying he was the gayest person on the face of the earth?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.177.42.130 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 31 January 2007.

It was vandalism, it's been reverted. --Borgarde 03:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

NY Times Obituary

The following would make a good External Links addition to the main article: Obituary, NY Times, August 17, 1948 Babe Ruth, Baseball's Great Star and Idol of Children, Had a Career Both Dramatic and Bizarre

I would do it myself, but... Too bad that it has become necessary to lock down even this article on the Babe. What is becoming of Wiki? Pretty soon, over half of it will be locked down, I venture. Another example of bad winning out over good, like the problem we have with spray paint wielding grafitti artists that slither out from the sewers of all large American cities.

68.228.70.223 13:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• A good suggestion, I've added it. JGHowes ^talk - 03:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ruth vs. Negro Leaguers

The stereotypical notion that Ruth's numbers would have been reduced by integration is challenged in the recent book The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs, by Bill Jenkinson. His analysis of every Ruthian home run in regular season, spring training and exhibition games throughout his career indicates that he hit as well against the top Negro League pitchers in exhibitions as he did against the white pitchers that he faced in regular competition. The fact is, Ruth was so far ahead of his time as a slugger that nothing could stop him except his own excesses. Wahkeenah 09:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bias and Racism in Baseball

Bottom line, America is a very racist country, all humans should be treated equally. With that being said, if one wants to quesion say Barry Bond's records, then the manipulation of who played in the MLB can also be questioned. Specifically the records of all whites before Robinson broke the color barrier in 1947. Therefore, the numbers of Gehrig, Cobb, Hornsby, Ruth, part of Ted Williams, etc.. every player that played before does not have relaible or viable because the statistics of blacks who potentially were better but did not have the opportunity to play were not credited. Furthermore, as far as stats, Hank Aaron was the greatest, as far as how the game was played Willie Mays was the greatest but with a white majority the white player is still held in highest regard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.74.11.76 (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

• Every country is racist and ethnocentric, America is no different. There is no way to turn the clock back, so all we have is what we have. Aaron was not the "greatest" slugger, he hit them much less frequently than Ruth, he just played more years, and he played a good chunk of his career at a higher altitude, thus inflating his overall career numbers. In modern times, McGwire and maybe Bonds hit them at nearly the same rate as Ruth, albeit with performance enhancers (most likely). Forgetting that, those guys are statistically the closest to Ruth, but it's more than numbers. The impact Ruth had culturally is hard to fully measure. Mays was the greatest I ever saw, but he was not also a pitcher like Ruth was. Ruth hit Negro League pitchers in exhibitions just as hard as he hit regular competition. FYI, Ruth himself had no race prejudices, and was loved by black kids as well as white. He also sometimes had to withstand small-town criticism for playing in mixed-race exhibitions. Wahkeenah 09:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Racism isn't a problem in baseball. Racism isn't why there is so much contrversey with Barry Bonds, it's because he's practily doubled in playing weight since his carreer debut (not really, but he got a little too huge). There's never been problems with Hank Aaron surpassing Ruth because he's black. I think Ruth received more attnetion because he was a Yankee, and there are millions of Yankee fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.223.240 (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Notes" section

The trivia section needs to go, re-naming it does nothing. Aaron Bowen 13:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the harm? Wahkeenah 17:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I also have issues with the "Notes" section. What's the point of mentioning the way his voice sounded? Opinions like this are included while the rumors of his existence (or lack thereof) are completely unmentioned in the article. 134.29.6.7 14:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Various authors of books on Ruth have cited his voice sounding like Clark Gable. If you can cite a rumor questioning whether he ever existed, knock yourself out. Wahkeenah 23:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:TRIV. Quadzilla99 05:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Various biographical articles explore areas of interest to some readers, such as a reasonable description of what someone's voice was like. And some possibly interesting facts fit better in a separate section than in "hiding" them in the article. One thing to be aware of is that this article was once much longer and detailed, and some editor cut it down substantially, thus losing lots of detail that is slowly finding its way back in. Wahkeenah 06:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There are various recordings of Ruth's voice that can be used for comparison, for anyone who wants to check it out for themselves. Probably the easiest to get would be Pride of the Yankees, in which Ruth plays himself in several scenes. Another famous recording, with his voice horribly gravelly from surgery and sounding nothing like his old self, has found its way onto CD's here and there. By contrast, Gary Cooper's flat monotone was not very similar to Gehrig's somewhat higher pitched and New-York-tinged voice, which most everyone has heard thanks to the clip from his "Luckiest man" speech, in which he says "man" with a New York style dipthong. And of course Ray Liotta, with his New York accent, sounds nothing like Shoeless Joe Jackson, but that's getting a tad off base. d:) Wahkeenah 06:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"See also" section

Why is Baby Ruth in "see also?" The opening line to the article states that the candy bar is in fact not named after Babe Ruth. dool325 18:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Because they were culturally connected, and because someone might come to this article and wonder what the connection was, if any, and the link takes them to the other article. Wahkeenah 06:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section in disguise

(this text has been copied from the article until it can be integrated appropriately.)

Removing pieces as I insert (some of) them into article body. In fact, I placed all of them except this one, which seems to warrant placement but I'm not quite sure where... Wahkeenah 04:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Won 1923 AL League Award (Precursor to the MVP). Note: the current version of the MVP award has been given since 1931. Prior to that year, the League Awards were only given to a player once (from 1922-1929) and sometimes not at all (from 1915-1921). This meant that during many of Babe Ruth's most dominant years - such as his famous year in 1927 - he was not considered for the honor. Many of his seasons were on par with his MVP year of 1923, such as from 1920-21, 23-24, and again from 1926-1931. It's even possible that Ruth could have won 5 in a row, and as many as 9 overall awards..

This article is undergoing a featured article review, and the "Notes" section has been identified as a trivia section in disguise. Please source and reintegrate important items as appropriate, discarding the more trivial information. Thank you, Burntsauce 23:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible neutrality problem?

I'm wondering why there isn't any information about his near life long heavy drinking and smoking, since he is very famous for it. Has anybody bothered to include it or has it just been tossed aside by one group of editors in a edit war at one time? We cant change history by just choosing to ignore certain parts of it. Mithotyn 05:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Good question. As long as the information is included simply to relay the facts to the reader, I'd say go for it. Just make sure to cite the examples and to avoid using weasel words. // Tecmobowl 05:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Drinking, smoking, womanizing, etc. All well-known and documented many places. As is the fact that he's in the upper echelon of ballplayers in history, which Tecmo doesn't want you to know either. Baseball Bugs 13:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Shameful

To the morons who have been recently editing this article, you should be ashamed. How could the article have been as informative and well written as this [2] at one point, and then get reduced to the heaping pile trash it currently is now? No wonder wikipedia is in the state its in. Oh well, at least if I want the good version of the article, all I have to do is go to the edit history...124.176.9.223 12:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Too many have been messing with it. Maybe some interested parties could comment here and work on consensus as to the "best" version. Baseball Bugs 17:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the shameful comment. This article has been torn apart by some of the worst editing and writing ever seen on Wikipedia. The mindless dolts who ripped up this article show why Wikipedia still has a long way to go, and why it may never get there as long as functional illiterates are allowed to contribute. Sorry, I know one has to be polite here, but you can't sugarcoat something when it is really bad. BearGuard 20:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

1935 with the Braves section

The section reads In 1935, Boston Braves owner Emil Fuchs signed Ruth to a Free Agent contract. On opening day, before a capacity crowd of over 25,000, Ruth played in his first game with the Braves. They defeated the New York Giants in Boston by a score of 4-2.. The New York Giants links to the current NFL team. Anybody have an idea of how this should be fixed? I'm thinking it should be the New York Giants but I want to hear a second opinion. --DMW 00:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

missing a "protected" tag?

It nowhere days this is wiki is locked or whatever, yet I cannot edit. Why? Zarlok 09:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• It is semi-protected, I've added the tag. Only established editors can edit the article at this time. JGHowes ^talk - 11:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Article replaced on June 30

This article was completely replaced by a much older version on June 30, with the cryptic edit summary "rv to last good version" by User:Mr Monty Marbles. This older version has a dozen dead image links and not one single in-line citation. To compare with last pre-replacement version, click here. I for one find this replacement objectionable and propose reversion by consensus. JGHowes ^talk - 05:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the reverter gave no version number, I take it as a malicious edit, which should be reverted, and then the more recent changes should be evaluated for usefulness. I had stopped watching the article, due to User:Tecmobowl's messing around with it, otherwise I would have caught it and reverted it at the time. Baseball Bugs 12:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Error - Correction To Be Made

{{editprotected}} At the end of "Sold To New York" the article states "Ruppert and Huston also loaned Frazee $100,000, with the mortgage on Fenway Park as collateral."

This is incorrect. The loan was for $350,000 216.2.193.1 20:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Creamer's Babe Ruth: The Legend Comes to Life, it was a $300,000 loan. However, it was a good deal for the Yanks, as their new buddy Harry Frazee kept sending good players the Yankees' way, or so the book claims. Baseball Bugs 00:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Photograph of Babe Ruth's headstone

I can't understand why somebody keeps deleting the photograph of Babe Ruth's headstone in Gate of Heaven Cemetery. This is a good photograph that has a place in the article and the deletion constitutes vandalism. A lot of people don't know what they're doing when they edit articles. Will someone please reinstate this photo and block the vandal from editing Wikipedia?

Anthony22 00:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the link to that photo? Baseball Bugs 00:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

26 World Championships

The Yankees have won 26 world series, not 27 as the beginning of the entry would have you believe. 66.82.9.79 06:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Baseball Bugs 11:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dodgers, desire to manage

The article seems to completely omit Ruth's desire to manage and his coaching for the Brooklyn Dodgers. JAF1970 00:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Photograph of grave of Babe Ruth

I just reinserted the photograph of the grave of Babe Ruth. Somebody on Wikipedia has already deleted this photograph at least twice in the past. I do not want the photo to be deleted again. It is a good photograph that deserves a place in the article. If the photo is deleted again, the act constitutes vandalism and the user should be blocked from editing.

Anthony22 00:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Problems with intro

The mention of Ruth's trade from the Red Sox to the Yankees "spawning" the "curse of the Bambino" should not be in the intro. First of all, the term curse of the Bambino was not even coined until the 1990's. Second, more obviously, is the term "curse" of anything is more anecdotal and used mainly more for amusement purposes.

The bigger problem is that tbe statement itself is faulty reasoning, and why it should be left out of the intro. The paragraph implies that the Ruth trade solely and directly led to the Yankees dynasty and the Red Sox decades long futility. The trade definitely helped "spawn" the Yankees dynasty, but to solely blame Ruth for the decades long World Series plight of the Red Sox is poor logic. I feel the information about all the Yankees success and the Red Sox lack of success due to the "curse" should be left out of this article and left only in the "curse of the Bambino" article.

Actually, Ruth is blameless, and in fact I don't think anyone actually does blame him. He had no power to prevent being traded, other than by retiring. The true author of this "curse" was the Red Sox owner who sold Ruth and the Red Sox "down the river", with Ruth being just the first of a number of deals with the Yankees that helped build their first dyansty. But the author probably didn't think a book called "The Curse of Harry Frazee" would be such a catchy title. Ruth didn't cause the curse, the trade did. Whether it belongs in the intro is questionable, but since it has become so well-known in the last 17 years, it could be justifiable. Baseball Bugs 03:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Also, are the titles "The King of Crash", "The Titan of Terror" and "The Colossus of Clout" for real? I've not seen them widely used at all. Unless anyone objects (with cites), let's trim that JGHowes ^talk - 19:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speaking of the curse of the Bambino, It just got broken --Alien joe 20:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It was broken in 2004. The Red Sox and Yankees have now switched places. In short, things are back to where they were prior to the sale of Ruth in 1920. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Not really back to where they were. During the Bosox-Ruth era, the Yankees often finished seasons below .500 and never placed higher than 3rd. Kingturtle 18:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ruth hit 20% of all MLB home runs one year?

I have heard the Babe hit 20% of all home runs one year. This legend is neither debunked nor mentioned by the great Wikipedia article. This wikipedia article perhaps deserves the adjective "Ruthian"! Still, if somebody could pin down that 20% story it would be even better, don't you think?

-- gnohmon -- You can goocle me, and get about a thousand hits since 1982 on www and on usenet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.252.209 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the second part of the above, the assumption would be that the entire entry is a joke. But in case anyone asks legitimately, it's not true...

1919 Ruth 29 AL 240 NL 207 -> 6 percent

1920 Ruth 54 AL 369 NL 261 -> 8.5 percent

1921 Ruth 59 AL 477 NL 460 -> 6 percent

Before the above, Ruth hit too few to come anywhere close to MLB totals. After, the major league totals accelerate. 1920 is the year he was really out there, before many others caught on to the lively ball and the power game approach. By himself he hit more homers than any MLB team except for the Phillies and of course the Yankees.

Start with [3] and progress through leagues and years. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

anyone got a cite for the poll?

I can't find any ESPN poll related to what is suggested in this wiki.

Babe's wife (first wife)

I just reverted an edit which changed the Babe's wife's name from Woodford to Woodring. The editor included such in the edit summary. I was sure that was wrong. I did a G search, and found one hit for Woodring (I believe the site was an Italian language site). There were 1,300 for Woodford. Considering that it was uncited, I reverted it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Creamer book and others confirm that Ruth's first wife was Helen Woodford. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Babe in Army uniform

I've found a photo from the National Photo Archives that show's Babe in May 28, 1924, after just signing up with the Army for the New York National Guard for 3 years. Would this photo be useful to the article? --Brownings (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would think so. ibjhb (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ratio vs. Record

A sentence in the second paragraph states, "He compiled an 89-46 win-loss ratio during his time with the Red Sox..." This isn't a ratio, but his actual record, so it should probably read, "He compiled an 89-46 win-loss record during his time with the Red Sox..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.213.93 (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. The term was switched from "record" to "ratio" on November 28, but no one caught it until now. [4] It could arguably be considered a "ratio", but that term is really not used in baseball that way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

notability

the first paragraph should tell the reader why ruth is so notable. Explain in concise, precise sentences about his dominant records and how he changed baseball and culture. Easier said than done, of course. But something to work on. Kingturtle (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We need to be sure the readers understand we're not exactly talking about Casey Wise here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, i just looked it up. Wise had a lifetime OPS+ of 32! Kingturtle (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

To put things in perspective, Dal Maxvill, possibly the worst-hitting position player I ever saw, had a lifetime OPS+ of 57. The much-maligned (by his own comments) Bob Uecker was a 62. Chuck Connors, about whom Mike Royko once said, "No one could hit the way he couldn't," was a 55. Wise, like Connors, didn't have a very lengthy career... for apparently obvious reasons. Ruth was the leader at 207, Teddy Ballgame was 191, and Barry Bonds is/was 182. I confess that I'm not a figger filbert, so I had to look this stuff up. Ruth was a fair player in his day, but you hardly ever hear his name nowadays. (If you believe that, I have several bridges for sale.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can add that to OPS+! Kingturtle (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It has the top 10. I would have to find the bottom 10, and that would depend on some factors. Weak-hitting pitchers like Hank Aguirre and Bob Buhl, for example, are in the negative. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Proposed new Lead paragraph:

George Herman Ruth, Jr. (February 6, 1895 - August 16, 1948), also popularly known as "Babe", "The Bambino", and "The Sultan of Swat", was an American Major League baseball player from 1914 to 1935. Named the greatest baseball player in history in several surveys and rankings, his home run hitting prowess and charismatic personality made him a larger than life figure in the Roaring Twenties. He was the first player to hit 60 home runs in one season (1927), a record which stood for 34 years until broken by Roger Maris in 1961. Ruth's lifetime total of 714 home runs at his retirement in 1935 was a record for 39 years, until broken by Hank Aaron in 1974. Ruth was one of the first five players elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame and, in 1969, he was named baseball's "Greatest Player Ever" in a ballot commemorating the 100th anniversary of professional baseball. In 1998, The Sporting News proclaimed him Number One in its list of "Baseball's 100 Greatest Players." JGHowes ^talk - 06:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems reasonable. It just needs to be clear that Ruth was among the handful of all-time greats, as with Cobb, Wagner, and more modern players. I recall the tussle we had with the long-since-banned User:Tecmobowl, who insisted that talking about a player's greatness up front was "POV-pushing". Don't get me started on that. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice. I'd like there also to be something that says something like "When he retired he held over ______ Major League Records, including..." Kingturtle (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That can be a slippery subject. I recall a similar discussion about Cobb. Many sources claim he held over 90 records when he retired, yet no one can seem to produce a list of them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

This page has been vandalized from IP address 207.63.242.254. A quick check shows that the same person has vandalized many other pages. As an occasional contributor, I'm not sure of the proper response. Could a more experienced hand please intervene? Thanks. Ishboyfay (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The page has also been vandalized by a person at IP address 24.93.225.46, and all edits originating from there are vandalism, often racist or homophobic. Ishboyfay (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a page for reporting vandals. I think it's called WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

At that page it says the vandal should first be warned. I'm not sure how one does that. 128.146.203.135 (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:VANDAL should cover it. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Statistics

Why is there a statistics chart on this page? Surely these stats can be found on numerous sites. Wikipedia's policy seems to imply that articles should not list a bunch of stats. I suggest the section is removed. Timneu22 (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Even Ty Cobb has only a career summary. Ruth was an extraordinary impact player, and his individual season stats are astonishing in some years. However, you might want to take up that question with whoever it was that posted the chart. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to get a feel for the policy. It just doesn't seem right that we post charts for some players and not others. And the policy itself seems to make me think we shouldn't display them at all. Timneu22 (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I recommend you raise the issue at the baseball project talk page, as I'm not sure what the policy is either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Timneu22 (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Height

Surprised to find the article does not include Ruth's height/weight. How tall was he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephV (talk • contribs) 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

He stood taller than any other player ever has or ever will. Or do you mean his actual height and weight? Check the baseball-reference link. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Repitition of information in introduction

The introduction mentioned in two different places that Ruth hit 60 home runs in a season and 714 in his career, and that both of these records subsequently were broken. I have deleted the second mention of this information. People should be more careful, and should avoid inserting redundant information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.53.226 (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

People should also be careful to sign their posts with four tilde characters. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Consolidation of information in introduction

Previously, the introduction had two different paragraphs describing how Ruth has been named to various all-century and top 100 lists. I have consolidated that information into one paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whip3 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Describing Ruth's dominance

Currently, the article fails to mention several of Ruth's most important records, which give some sense of the degree to which he dominated baseball. I suggest the insertion of a new paragraph, which would become the second one in the introduction, as follows:

"No hitter has dominated his league the way that Ruth did. He led the league in home runs during a season twelve times, slugging percentage thirteen times, OPS thirteen times, runs scored eight times, and RBIs six times. Each of those figures remains the modern record." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whip3 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you can cite that, what's stopping you? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"No hitter has dominated his league the way that Ruth did." That is not NPOV. I think a rewrite is in order. Also, the picture of his number on the left looks weird. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Negro Leagues

There is not one mention of the Negro Leagues is this article. Babe Ruth is referred to as an acknowledged great in Baseball history with correct citations but why are there no citations to articles that view that fact that 1920's Baseball didn't allow blacks to play to be a taint on his legacy:

For example, this article in The Nation:

"Ruth's 714 home run record lacks the spit-shined purity his backers trumpet. The Sultan of Swat made his bones playing against only a select segment of the population because of the ban on players whose skin color ran brown to black. Ruth never had to hit against Negro League greats Satchel Paige or Lefty Mathis to amass the magic 714. Yet no asterisk for institutionalized racism mars the Babe's marks."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060522/zirin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.196.80.210 (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That's someone's opinion based on emotion rather than analysis. Ruth hit the best white pitchers in the game well, and he hit the best black pitchers well in exhibition games, including when they were really trying to get him out. There is no taint on Ruth's legacy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And where's your analysis that 'they were really trying to get him out'. In fact, this dismissive reply seems to suggest that you're the one using emotion rather than analysis. Exhibition games are not league games, and Satchel Paige never did pitch against Babe Ruth so there is no way of knowing how well he would have done. The Nation is a significant publication and no doubt they are not the only major publication that cites this issue (Time does too I remember) - yet this article doesn't use refer to the Negro League even once. A non-baseball player reading this article would not even be aware that Babe Ruth played in an discrimatory sport - whether this was his fault or not is immaterial: he was the most celebrated player of his day, and that is significant.

The Nation article: 'Ruth never had to hit against Negro League greats Satchel Paige...'

Fact: Ruth never had to hit against Negro League greats Satchel Paige...

How precisely is this emotion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.196.80.210 (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It makes the unwarranted assumption that somehow they would have had better luck against Ruth than the best white pitchers did. What analysis did they do for that article? Read The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs for some actual analysis of this issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruth played against the best players in the Major Leagues, that's all he could do, and his statistics were obtained under those circumnstances. That's an obvious statement in the article. He didn't get this records against Black players, yes, but neither anybody who played at this time, that's obvious too. Should every article about every player who played before 1947 have a statement indicating that there were no black players in the MLB at the time? What about other factors? There are many adjustments factors then that could be consider, stadiums, dirty balls, night games, usage of relievers, etc. Statistically speaking, not having black players in the majors is just another factor, should then all of the factors being mentioned in the article? No, it is understood that his statistics were compiled under the circumstances of his time, whatever they might had been. Morally speaking, not allowing black players to play in the majors stands apart from the other factos, but that deserves it's own article and Ruth didn't have an important role regarding that. Hugo 69.137.61.42 (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

re: impact on pitching

I deleted this section of recently added unreferenced text:
Ruth's impact on pitching continues to this day. Between 1910 and 1920, eight pitchers had a 30-win season. Since the beginning of the 1921 season, the first full season of the live-ball era, only three pitchers have had 30-win seasons (Lefty Grove in 1931, Dizzy Dean in 1934, and Denny McLain in 1968).
While Ruth arrival heralded the end of the dead ball era, I think pinning this all on one man is oversimplification. Before seeing it re-added, I think there should be some consensus reached. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. It may be better suited in the "Live-ball era" article. Ericster08 (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Live-ball era is one factor, of which Ruth as a part, but there are other factors. Note the lack of 30 game winners on the Yankees, none of whom had to face Ruth. An important clue would be to look at the size of the pitching rotation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Typo That I Can't Fix

Apparently I'm not an AutoConfirmed Editor so I can't fix the tiny typo I found. Will someone who can please fix it?

It's in the Retirement and post-playing days section and currently reads -
"...In a charity game at Yankee Stadium, he pinch hit and drew a walk.mIn 1947, he became director of the American Legion's youth baseball program.[31]"

If the edit needed isn't obvious, it should read -
"...In a charity game at Yankee Stadium, he pinch hit and drew a walk. In 1947, he became director of the American Legion's youth baseball program.[31]"

Tiny and small, yes, but I am powerless to do anything about it.

--ColonelKernel (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)