FanNation - The Republic of Sport

Sixth Grade huh?

Of course it wouldn't. He would have faced a good amount of superior talent to what he was facing. Also... Butterfly effect is possible. What if he faced a black pitcher and he got dominated, never recovered. I just don't like these "What if" TD's because the entire course of history could be changed. For instance "What if Black players were allowed in MLB". What says the Yankees don't have a black slugger already and they don't need Ruth? He stays in Boston, the Red Sox go on the win 27 world championships... And No, no, Nanette wouldn't be here.

QUOTE(#1):

Originally posted 06:12 PM ET  11.09 by Mondo Jay

Sixth Grade huh?

YUP TELLING THE TRUTH ALWAYS LOVED THE SITE SO IN SIGNED UP

i actually think it would b/c his numbers would definetly not have been as good if he faced paige- but idk if paige was even alive when ruth was playing

intresting point

QUOTE(#3):

Originally posted 06:25 PM ET  11.09 by in6grade615

YUP TELLING THE TRUTH ALWAYS LOVED THE SITE SO IN SIGNED UP

Good luck to you.

This place is not for the faint of heart.

Why do we talk about junk when no one on this website ever attended or seen Ruth or the Negro League during Ruth's era?

Its like comparing apples and oranges.

not the best throwdown ever, but ruth would have dominated any league, anywhere.

"If there is a Negro League hitter better than Ruth, please tell me who he is"

Josh Gibson. Unfortunately since the Negro league teams played many games against non-league opponents, it will never be verified how many home runs he hit. However the estimate is 800, including over 80 in 1936. People who played against him have said he was better than Aaron or Mays easily.

What does left mean by if it was segregated? There was segregation in baseball then.......RIGHT? I'll abstain.

there's no way to tell how Ruth would have fared against Negro League Pitchers or how those pitchers would have fared against Ruth

QUOTE(#10):

Originally posted 07:30 AM ET  11.10 by rstowe

there's no way to tell how Ruth would have fared against Negro League Pitchers or how those pitchers would have fared against Ruth

In 1952 Satchel Paige appeared in 46 games, started 6, threw 3 complete games and had 2 shutouts. In 138 innings, he gave up 5 home runs. His ERA+ was 127, his WHIP was 1.254 and also had 10 saves.

Did I mention that he was 45 at the time?

My guess is that if Satchel Paige was allowed to pitch in the MLB in his prime, he would have been one of the best, if not the best pitcher.

QUOTE(#11):

Originally posted 07:44 AM ET  11.10 by Schadenfreude - Chitown bound.

In 1952 Satchel Paige appeared in 46 games, started 6, threw 3 complete games and had 2 shutouts. In 138 innings, he gave up 5 home runs. His ERA+ was 127, his WHIP was 1.254 and also had 10 saves.Did I mention that he was 45 at the time?My guess is that if Satchel Paige was allowed to pitch in the MLB in his prime, he would have been one of the best, if not the best pitcher.

right, there may have been 1 or 2 Negro League Pitchers that would have done well, but what about the rest?

not all the negro league players would have been MLB level talent (just like not all the MLB players would have remained if the Negro Leaguers were allowed to play)

it's not like all the Negro League Players were HOF caliber type players. You had great players (Paige, Gibson, ONeill) but you also had a lot of players that weren't good enough to be MLB players

it's an interesting thought, but unfortunately we will never know.

QUOTE(#12):

Originally posted 07:58 AM ET  11.10 by rstowe

right, there may have been 1 or 2 Negro League Pitchers that would have done well, but what about the rest?not all the negro league players would have been MLB level talent (just like not all the MLB players would have remained if the Negro Leaguers were allowed to play)it's not like all the Negro League Players were HOF caliber type players. You had great players (Paige, Gibson, ONeill) but you also had a lot of players that weren't good enough to be MLB playersit's an interesting thought, but unfortunately we will never know.

The flip side is that how many major leaguers wouldn't have been there with a level playing field? I know it is a question that there is no answer for. I do believe that there would have been more than 1 or 2 pitchers though, it would have been a lot more.

QUOTE(#13):

Originally posted 08:07 AM ET  11.10 by Schadenfreude - Chitown bound.

The flip side is that how many major leaguers wouldn't have been there with a level playing field? I know it is a question that there is no answer for. I do believe that there would have been more than 1 or 2 pitchers though, it would have been a lot more.

I did cover that:

(just like not all the MLB players would have remained if the Negro Leaguers were allowed to play)


that's the thing, we'll never know

QUOTE(#14):

Originally posted 08:07 AM ET  11.10 by rstowe

I did cover that:(just like not all the MLB players would have remained if the Negro Leaguers were allowed to play)that's the thing, we'll never know

I forgot to put in "that would have done well". I'll rephrase, there would have been more than 1 or 2 negro league pitchers that would have done well in the Major Leagues if they had been allowed to pitch.

Better?

it's a shame we'll never know

would love to see Ruth against Paige in his prime

or Josh Gibson versus Walter Johnson

Did anyone catch the title? Just to let ya know, kid, the MLB WAS segregated when Ruth played...

QUOTE(#17):

Originally posted 08:39 AM ET  11.10 by Ivellious and Valai

Did anyone catch the title? Just to let ya know, kid, the MLB WAS segregated when Ruth played...

Hooray! I thought I was the only one to notice that. MLB was not segregated in Ruth's time, but baseball shamefully was. Hence...abstaining, as the opening arguement ought to be trashed pronto! MAKES NO SENSE!

Who would win between BATMAN and SPIDER-MAN?

there WAS segregation.....so if you are asking if he would have the same numbers in a segregated league that he HAD in a segregated league, the answer is YES.