Baseball Question: Why is it fans say you can't compare today's stats with those of Babe Ruth?

[Taverner]

Every time someone in the MLB tries to break a record, say with a Home Run record, they always mention that baseball today cannot fairly be compared to baseball of Babe Ruth's era.

Granted baseball back then was White Only, played only during the daytime and there were no steroids - but other than that, are there any technical reasons why Babe Ruth's Home Run record can't be fairly compared to Mark McGwire's or Barry Bonds'?

[wysimdnwyg]

1. One easy answer is that they play more games in a season

When Ruth played, there were 154 games in a season, while they play 162 now. Those 8 games per season mean a lot. When Roger Maris broke Ruth's single season home run record, there was much angst over whether it was really broken. It was so bad that Maris's name in the record book included an asterisk for many years.

As for McGwire and Bonds, I think it's pretty clear that those players, as well as Sammy Sosa, used performance enhancing drugs to boost their numbers dramatically. It is likely that none of them would have come close to 60 without the added benefits steroids gave them, regardless of the longer season.

Of course, there are plenty of other reasons why many don't like to compare between different eras, including those you mentioned, but the biggest factor is that as time goes by, records are routinely broken in all sports. Conditioning is such that today's athletes would almost certainly dominate against those of Ruth's time in any sporting endeavor. While there are many aspects of certain sports that will not change dramatically with better conditioning (take hitting a baseball for example, and note that the last person to hit over .400 was Ted Williams), those that utilize added force or endurance will typically improve over time.

[rug]

2. The beer was better.

[arbusto_baboso]

3. There's also a difference in the number of regular season games played.

It was 154 in the Babe's time. It's 162 now. Granted that's not much difference, but Roger Maris needed more than 154 to break Ruth's prior record.

[gratuitous]

4. Technical reasons? I dunno

The distance between the bases is the same, but the mound is lower than it used to be. Travel to road games covers longer distances, but that might be balanced out by better accommodations and more efficient methods of travel. I think the biggest difference between "then" and "now" is the sophistication of scouting the opposition and the rise of relief pitching. Pitchers in the bad old days went nine innings almost regardless of the score. The longest World Series game ever (until tied at 14 innings in 2005) featured two pitchers, and the game was won by the above-mentioned Babe Ruth. Nowadays, Cy Young winners can be starting pitchers who don't even amass 20 wins for the season, and it's been more than 40 years since anyone won as many as 30 games in a season.

What makes that significant to me is that back in Ruth's day, a batter would face the same pitcher three, four, or even more times in a game. The more you see a pitcher, the better you're going to hit him. The longer a pitcher throws, the less effective he's going to be. Nowadays, a batter might see the starter two or three times, maybe four if the pitcher is really mowing down the opposition. But even a pitcher who's having a pretty good day is often gone in the sixth or seventh inning. Batters are facing fresh pitchers all the time, and especially in the late innings of a tight game. It used to be that hitting .300 was the dividing line for doing quite well; nowadays, even guys batting .260 or .275 can be considered good hitters. And it's now been 70 years since anyone batted .400 for a season.

I think with some adjustments you can make comparisons between eras, but straight-up comparisons may give a misleading impression.

[El Supremo]

5. Who says that?

Don't you mean "before the modern era"? That would be before 1900 when there were a lot of differences in the rules. Babe Ruth was certainly in the modern era.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

6. Steroids. Various kinds of Testosterone.

[TK421]

10. yeah...Babe Ruth just liked to eat n/t

[Bake]

7. Composition of the ball itself

Today's baseball is livelier. On the other hand, today's pitching is arguably better too.

So there's that.

Bake

[rurallib]

8. differences in stadia, training, night baseball, year round training

things have become just so much more sophisticated.
Another difference is opportunities in other sports.
In Ruth's day the best played baseball. There was little other pro sport. Today they may be point guards or quarterbacks or mid-fielders in soccer.

And of course the pay. Ruth was about the only one who made it big then. Now utility infielders get pretty good bucks.

One other thing - when Ruth hit 59 in 1921(not sure what year) I believe that was more than the rest of the American League put together. He was like a 7-footer in midget basketball.

[flvegan]

9. Where to begin...first, he was a pitcher

who then was utilized as a hitter when (duh) his talent at the plate was realized.

Secondly, the rules were different back then. Field sizes were different. There's a book that I'm too lazy right now to try to go dig out, called The Year Bambino Hit a Million Home Runs or something.

Steroids don't increase talent. Wish people would grasp that tidbit of info.

[WinkyDink]

11. The bat. Different technology.