Babe Ruth

[billrock]

I just saw on the news that MLB is considering retiring Babe Ruth's number, in the same manner that Jackie Robinson's number is retired. I don't think they should, pretty soon they may have a dozen retired numbers of past great players if they start now. What do you think?

[billrock]

I have now heard that it's one of Ruth's relatives that want the number retired, not MLB. I'm still against the idea.

[GaryG]

It would open a can of worms....what about this guy or that guy. The Babe's place in history is assured anyway.

[OTM Al]

Maybe we should have Cy Young's number retired too.....wait, he didn't have one......Silly idea. Wasn't that much for the Robinson retirement either. BTW, Robinson was really the 3rd black man to play in a recognized major league. Bonus points for anyone that can name the first 2 and an extra bonus for the name of the very first black man to play in organized professional baseball.

[kenwoodallpromos]

"http://www.trivia-library.com/a/little-person-baseball-player-eddie-gaedel-part-3.htm"
Only person ever to wear the number 1/2 in a major league game!

[Overlay]

Bonus points for anyone that can name the first 2 and an extra bonus for the name of the very first black man to play in organized professional baseball.

My guesses:

Moses Fleetwood Walker and Frank Grant

Bud Fowler

[OTM Al]

Close from my source. The first african-american to play professional ball was in 1878 when Bud Fowler joined an International League team in Newcastle, PA. Interestingly enough, Bud is credited with inventing catcher's shin guards when he strapped pieces of wood to his legs to help prevent the continuous spiking he was receiving from white players.

The first black man to play major league ball was indeed Moses Fleetwood Walker who played for the Toledo Blue Stockings of the American Association, in 1884. He had joined the team the previous year when it was still in the minor Northern League His brother Wellday joined the team that year as well. They were the only 2 who played until 1947, though John McGraw tried to sneak some black players onto the Giants, but was thwarted.

Frank Grant came on the scene in the International League in 1886, so not a bad guess. It appears many black players were in this league until the late 1880s when they were all tossed out.

[andicap]

"http://www.trivia-library.com/a/little-person-baseball-player-eddie-gaedel-part-3.htm"
Only person ever to wear the number 1/2 in a major league game!
__________________

More on Eddie Gaedel. A Bill Veeck ("As in Wreck" ) promotion in August 1951 for the woeful St. Louis Browns. Second game of a doubleheader in the first inning. He walked on four pitches and was pinch-run for. Thereafter (Gaedel had a valid baseball contract) midgets/dwarfs/little people were banned from baseball. The pitcher's last name was Cain I believe, possibly Billy Cain.

I've forgotten most of the bb trivia I used to know, but at one time I was the King of baseball trivia. (OK, unofficially, and only in my mind, but you know -- :) )

Andicap ("Mr. Baseball" in another life, way back in NYC circa 1970 on the old Jack Spector sports talk show on WMCA -- just in case anyone recalls it.)

P.S. Why did the Yankees assign Babe Ruth the number 3?
And who was the only other Yankee to wear the number before it was retired?

[Bubbles]

P.S. Why did the Yankees assign Babe Ruth the number 3? And who was the only other Yankee to wear the number before it was retired?
Not sure about the second question, but the first is because it was his spot in the batting order. Ruth had 3 and Gehrig had 4. It would later become symbolic for other reasons, as "great Yankees" would automatically assume the next number up. DiMaggio wore 5, and Mantle, in his first stint with the Yanks when he couldn't live up to expectations, wore 6, before being sent down, called back up, and given 7.

[andicap]

Not sure about the second question, but the first is because it was his spot in the batting order. Ruth had 3 and Gehrig had 4. It would later become symbolic for other reasons, as "great Yankees" would automatically assume the next number up. DiMaggio wore 5, and Mantle, in his first stint with the Yanks when he couldn't live up to expectations, wore 6, before being sent down, called back up, and given 7.

Right you are on that one --

Earle Combs (The Kentucky Colonel) wore No. 1.

http://www.travel-watch.com/yankeebynos.htm

[toetoe]

George Herman Ruth. You're talking about one hell of a pitcher. :ThmbUp:

[OTM Al]

This is a bit of a misconception. Ruth was a very good pitcher for 2 years, 1916 and 1917. His stats were also good the preceding and following years, though he doesn't appear to have been quite full time in either of those years, nor was he a full time pitcher in any other year. Ruth's last year of a decent number of starts was 1919. If you just look at his ERA, you would say wow!! because it was in the 2s. One problem though. He did his pitching in the dead ball era where the league average was below 3 in those years. 1916 was execellent as he was a run below league average and ERA was actually just below 2 and 1917 was pretty good too at half a run below the league average. Would he have been able to carry this for over into the live ball era? Maybe. Some could and some couldn't. It is without doubt that he was a great ball player, but we should keep in mind that he pitched in the era of the pitcher and that he became a full time hitter in the era of the hitter and his pitching stats should be looked at in that light. Of course he also had the advantage that he didn't have to pitch to himself......

[Ray]

i guarantee he was a better pitcher than anyman to hit more than 100 home runs he was just a pure baseball player in every sense... I dont like #'s being retired but I cant argue with someone who wants to do that with Babe Ruth.... I 've always thought they should retire his jersey and hang it some where ..who really give a shit about his #.

[Bubbles]

In my showing off about trivia, I never really gave my opinion on this. I'm against retiring numbers as a concept, unless players trailblazed in a way that it could never happen again. It's like what John Wooden always believed: If you retire someone's number, you're doing a disservice to everyone else that held it before and did something meaningful with it. That, and once enough great players come along, you'll run out of numbers. But I digress.

In my opinion, there should only be one number retired in any organization in baseball: 42, for obvious reasons. The next person whose number should be retired should be that of the first player to come clean about homosexuality while still an active player. This is an issue that was once a hot-button topic. Steroids have taken precedent, but someone tell me that if, say, Ken Griffey Junior, or a likeable superstar of the game, were to come out tomorrow, the issue wouldn't be prevalent again.

There will always be power hitters like the Babe. But trailblazers like Robinson come along once in a lifetime. I say we embrace them for the heroes they are, and for the hardships that they have to go through beyond the occasional 3-2 curveball on the black. If that means people will be able to wear #3 in the future, so be it. Baseball could use this good publicity, and increasing the magnitude of a retired number would be a great way to start.

[betchatoo]

This is a bit of a misconception. Ruth was a very good pitcher for 2 years, 1916 and 1917. His stats were also good the preceding and following years, though he doesn't appear to have been quite full time in either of those years, nor was he a full time pitcher in any other year. Ruth's last year of a decent number of starts was 1919. If you just look at his ERA, you would say wow!! because it was in the 2s. One problem though. He did his pitching in the dead ball era where the league average was below 3 in those years. 1916 was execellent as he was a run below league average and ERA was actually just below 2 and 1917 was pretty good too at half a run below the league average. Would he have been able to carry this for over into the live ball era? Maybe. Some could and some couldn't. It is without doubt that he was a great ball player, but we should keep in mind that he pitched in the era of the pitcher and that he became a full time hitter in the era of the hitter and his pitching stats should be looked at in that light. Of course he also had the advantage that he didn't have to pitch to himself......

He didn't become a full time hitter in the age of the hitter, he ushered in the age of the hitter. In 1920, when Ruth first hit 50 homers (54), he had more home runs than any other team! The next best hitter had 19. The following year Ruth hit 59 and the next best (teammate Bob Musel), had 24.

It was because of the fascination with Ruth that the so called "live ball" came in to play. No one changed the conditions of baseball more.

[kenwoodallpromos]

"Ruth notched a total of 29 2/3 scoreless World Series innings, breaking Christy Mathewson's record. This amazing record stood for 43 years."
Ruth still holds the record for longest complete gsme.
"Car-.671-12" I believe Ruth had a better win % than any other left-handed pitcher in the HOF. He was 5-0 pitching for the Yankees.

[kenwoodallpromos]

"1919 Boston Red Sox American League 66 71 .482 20.5 417,291
1918 Boston Red Sox American League 75 51 .595 - 249,513
1917 Boston Red Sox American League 90 62 .592 9.0 387,856
1916 Boston Red Sox American League 91 63 .591 - 496,397
1915 Boston Red Sox American League 101 50 .669 - 539,885
1914 Boston Red Sox American League 91 62 .595 8.5 481,359
1913 Boston Red Sox American League 79 71 .527 15.5 437,194"
_______________
W-L during "Pitcher's Era while Ruth was with the team (Also, the only years they were over .590 more than 1 year in a row).