What would the Babe get paid today

[Dr. Gonzo]

after reading the other babe thread

and seeing he hit 437 HR in the 20,s and that is the most in any decade

imagine what he would do now with smaller parks and fitness, training, video. etc.

so I ask

what contract would the babe get now

i also wonder what perks he would get in his contract, i would to hear those ideas. I bet a manager job would be written into that contract now


i also doubt that he would ever be sold to NY, suckers

[Sam18]

Depends when the contract was signed.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Depends when the contract was signed.

very good point

I ask that people work with that and offer differences

we have some smart guys around here who do their research

[ManilaYankee]

Bigger than A-Rod's. Why? Coz he can "call" shots.

[montrealer]

A cut of the Hotdog and beer reciepts would be a good start.
Ruth,fitness and training........doesn`t not compute!!!!!!!

[goin for 27]

Bigger than A-Rod's. Why? Coz he can "call" shots.

Nope, because he had years where his HR totals exceeded the totals of entire teams. (1920, Ruth hit more HR's than any other team in baseball except the Phillies. He out homered the rest of the Yankees)

Staggering.

I don't know if you could put a big enough contract together to represent what he would be paid today.

[JDPNYY]

You'd have to give him the Dodgers or something. Oh, and a couple of Nathans, a Bar and a Car Dealership.

[Ghost of Thurman]

after reading the other babe thread

and seeing he hit 437 HR in the 20,s and that is the most in any decade

imagine what he would do now with smaller parks and fitness, training, video. etc.

Imagine what he could do now against guys who are now allowed to play but weren't in his day (e.g. Pedro, Johan Santana, Mariano, Dontrelle Willis), also against specialist relievers like LOOGYs and closers. Those are just a couple of the changes that makes the game today far more challenging than in the Babe's day.

The game has changed and not all the changes would be favorable for the Babe. He was unbelievably great in the context in which he played, but it's tough to know how great he'd be today. My guess is that he'd still be excellent -- likely in the top tier -- but not head and shoulders above today's greats at all.

[donniesrecordholdsup]

Imagine what he could do now against guys who are now allowed to play but weren't in his day (e.g. Pedro, Johan Santana, Mariano, Dontrelle Willis), also against specialist relievers like LOOGYs and closers. Those are just a couple of the changes that makes the game today far more challenging than in the Babe's day.

The game has changed and not all the changes would be favorable for the Babe. He was unbelievably great in the context in which he played, but it's tough to know how great he'd be today. My guess is that he'd still be excellent -- likely in the top tier -- but not head and shoulders above today's greats at all.

i agree about the segregation but im not sure about the relief pitching because lets be honest, 80 percent of releivers are terrible pitchers. how may homers would ruth have hit off garbage middle releif ?? would it be any different then facing a tired starter in the 20's ?? you talk about loogys as if theres a ton of good ones out there. what are there 3 or 4 good loogys in the league ??

[JfromJersey]

How good would the Babe be today? Just using common sense, it's safe to say that he wouldn't be quite as prolific a hitter, but I recall reading that he had freakish reflexes and hand/eye coordination according to tests performed at the time. He would have been an elite player in any era. What I find interesting, is that his top salary was $80,000 in 1931, and the next highest paid player on the Yankees was Gehrig at $25,000. Ruth's salary, translated into current dollars is a little over a million bucks a year. So yes, based on current value he was underpaid by a wide margin.

[Ghost of Thurman]

i agree about the segregation but im not sure about the relief pitching because lets be honest, 80 percent of releivers are terrible pitchers. how may homers would ruth have hit off garbage middle releif ?? would it be any different then facing a tired starter in the 20's ?? you talk about loogys as if theres a ton of good ones out there. what are there 3 or 4 good loogys in the league ??

My only response to that would be: if tired starters were actually better than middle relievers, then why would middle relievers have come into existence and evolved into a pretty critical part of a team's pitching staff. No debate, many of them absolutely stink, but if leaving the starter in was clearly the better solution, don't you think most managers would do that?

[donniesrecordholdsup]

My only response to that would be: if tired starters were actually better than middle relievers, then why would middle relievers have come into existence and evolved into a pretty critical part of a team's pitching staff. No debate, many of them absolutely stink, but if leaving the starter in was clearly the better solution, don't you think most managers would do that?

well im not saying leaving in todays tired starter would be the same. im saying that facing a 1920's tired starter might be.

starting pitchers are just groomed differently. they dont pitch in 3 or 4 man rotations and things like that anymore. its a different game.

[YankeePride1967]

What Babe Ruth did in his time was incredible. Far more so than what players are doing now as simply there are more players doing so now than back then. As was mentioned above, Babe was outhomering teams! When he started in, home runs were frowned upon by most. I am reading the biography now that Leigh Montville did and he hit 2 HRs in a 1918 pre-season game and Frazee was mad saying Babe cost him $10! He made the HR an accepted part of the game.

[BigCheese]

What made the Babe so remarkable isn't that his numbers are gigantic in and of themselves (although they are incredible); it's that his production level was so much greater than any of his contemporaries. He was a demigod amongst the average players of his generation. Remember, most baseball statistics are "player vs. player" statistics (like batting average) rather than absolute statistics (i.e., fastest time to run a mile), and thus, as talent all around rises, players that appear many standard deviations above the mean become more rare. Stephen Jay Gould used this argument to explain why the number of batters hitting .400 has dropped precipitously since the early part of the century, to the point where they're virtually extinct (read the first part of his book, "Full House").

Of course, if the Babe was playing now, his numbers would probably not be nearly as impressive, though he would certainly be a great player still. Pitching has changed considerably (closers, middle relief, introduction of the slider), and the talent pool has become much wider too (the entire world now provides its best players, not just Ruth's white America). As the average pitcher gets better, Ruth's numbers decline. Of course, we'll never know what Ruth could've done, given today's nutrition and exercise regiments, provided he'd have listened to his trainer.

The real saving grace in all this is that the best players today (Pujols, Rivera, Martinez, Rodriguez, etc) are really something to appreciate. That is, to say, can you imagine what Pujols could've done if he lived during the 1920s?

[yankeesAZ]

He'd have to be paid higher than A-Rod if we are putting him and the players of his era in modern $. Of course it might be different against today's players, but given what he did vs his competition, his pay and endorsements would have to be off the charts.

[Sam18]

Doesn't OPS+ adjust for league and era?

[JamieMadrox]

How good would the Babe be today? Just using common sense, it's safe to say that he wouldn't be quite as prolific a hitter, but I recall reading that he had freakish reflexes and hand/eye coordination according to tests performed at the time. He would have been an elite player in any era. What I find interesting, is that his top salary was $80,000 in 1931, and the next highest paid player on the Yankees was Gehrig at $25,000. Ruth's salary, translated into current dollars is a little over a million bucks a year. So yes, based on current value he was underpaid by a wide margin.

he wasn't underpaid, as baseball was MUCH less lucrative.

it's not like they had TV contracts.

[Maynerd]

Imagine what he could do now against guys who are now allowed to play but weren't in his day (e.g. Pedro, Johan Santana, Mariano, Dontrelle Willis), also against specialist relievers like LOOGYs and closers. Those are just a couple of the changes that makes the game today far more challenging than in the Babe's day.

True, Babe played in the days of segregated baseball, but he also played when there were only half as many teams. There are easily twice as many pitchers in the big leagues today as there was back then. That means that he'd be getting At Bats today against guys who wouldn't have been good enough to make a roster back in the 20s.

It's hard to compare eras.

[ojo]

perhaps - the simplest, most staggering way to describe ruth:

in 2001 the avg MLB team hit 182 HR. bonds crushed 73. bonds hit 40% of the avg MLB team's HR total that year.

in 1920 the avg MLB team hit 39 HR. ruth crushed 54. ruth hit 138% of the avg MLB team's HR total that year.

[JamieMadrox]

perhaps - the simplest, most staggering way to describe ruth:

in 2001 the avg MLB team hit 182 HR. bonds crushed 73. bonds hit 40% of the avg MLB team's HR total that year.

in 1920 the avg MLB team hit 39 HR. ruth crushed 54. ruth hit 138% of the avg MLB team's HR total that year.

This is a bit unfair since Ruth was one of the hirst pure home run hitters.

Before him, the game was a lot different; in fact, if you go back long enough, baseball was basically a bunting game. They swung down instead of with an uppercut, and tried to run out the ball.

Just saying.