Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Quote Blog > Discussion
Baseball Quote Blog
— Unearthing Quotes from Baseball's Past

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

“Ruth Bought by the New York Americans for $125,000 Highest Price in Baseball Annals”

“Ruth Bought by the New York Americans for $125,000 Highest Price in Baseball Annals” is how the headline read in the January 6, 1920 addition of the New York Times. Even 86 years ago baseball’s off-season has been marked with headlines as bold as those created during the season.

“Acquisition of noted Batsman gives New York Club the Hard-Hitting outfielder long desired” As a child I often heard how brilliant the Yankees were for acquiring a left-handed pitcher, and converting him to the outfield where he went on to the be best and most important player in baseball history. Well that wasn’t exactly true, as Ruth pitched 133 league average innings in 1919. While stepping to the plate over 500 times. He was considered a slugger at the time, much more so than a pitcher. 

“Babe Ruth of the Boston Red Sox, baseball super-slugger, was purchased by the Yankees yesterday for the largest cash sum ever paid for a player. The New York Club paid Harry Freeze of Boston $125,000 for the sensational batsman who last season caused such a furore in the national game by batting out twenty-nine home runs, a new record in long-distance clouting. ” From this quote it was pretty clear that Ruth was acquire to be a slugger first and foremost.

“Colonel Ruppert, President of the Yanks, said that he had taken over Ruth’s Boston contract, which had two more years to run. This contract calls for for a salary of $10,000 a year. Ruth recently announced that he would refuse to play for $10,000 next season” I don’t remember ever hearing a reference to a potential salary depute between Ruth and the Red Sox, just that it was all about No, No, Nanette.

Talk about being prophetic “The short right field wall at the Polo Grounds should prove an easy target for Ruth next season and, playing seventy-seven games at home, it would not be surprising if Ruth surpassed his home run record of twentynine circuit clouts next Summer.” I would say 54 in 1920, and then 59 in 1921 exceeded 29, never mind the famous 60 in 1927.

Mister High Standards Posted: December 13, 2005 at 03:47 PM | 26 comment(s)
  Related News: HistoryBostonNY Yankees

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 1 pages
   1. Damon Rutherford Posted: December 13, 2005 at 07:58 PM (#1776149)
Suggestion -- when mentioning a player of old, provide a link to that player's B-R.com page.

Also, while I enjoyed reading this, I didn't like it posted within the Newsblog, as I think only current news should be posted there. That blog is already cluttered enough.
   2. villainx Posted: December 13, 2005 at 08:07 PM (#1776167)
So what happened with the contract dispute?
   3. North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan Posted: December 13, 2005 at 08:48 PM (#1776214)
I love the "long-distance clouting" phrasing. We should use that, as in "how will Bradley's long-distance clouting be with the A's next year?"
   4. Teal and Black Posted: December 13, 2005 at 10:27 PM (#1776297)
I should say, our dear chap the Babe gave that ball quite a thrashing, did he not, Phineas?
   5. Mister High Standards Posted: December 14, 2005 at 12:33 AM (#1776425)
Greg thanks. Good points. I'll consider all of them.

I don't know Rex - I havent gotten that far yet... maybe in the next installment :-)

Wasn't the language used in these quotes much more vibrant than todays sports writing.
   6. Vaux, A.B.D. Posted: December 14, 2005 at 01:34 AM (#1776465)
Yes, well people actually had vocabularies back then.
   7. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 14, 2005 at 02:31 AM (#1776501)
Shouldn't this be in Transaction Oracle?
   8. villainx Posted: December 14, 2005 at 03:01 AM (#1776518)
noted batsman and super slugger are descriptives that need to be revived in todays sports rags.
   9. Bangkok9 eschews 1 from Column A Posted: December 14, 2005 at 03:33 AM (#1776541)
went on to the be best and most important player in baseball history

Whatever.
   10. Dave Bowman Posted: December 14, 2005 at 04:39 AM (#1776576)
Shouldn't this be in Transaction Oracle?

OK, that made me laugh. Well done.
   11. The Bones McCoy of THT Posted: December 14, 2005 at 06:17 AM (#1776608)
Dave Bowman Posted: December 14, 2005 at 03:39 AM (#1776576)
Shouldn't this be in Transaction Oracle?

OK, that made me laugh. Well done.


There has been some pretty funny stuff posted since last night. It's 5:15 AM here and I just woke my family up with my laughing.

My wife just went back to bed. I fear for my life.

Best Regards

John
   12. philly Posted: December 14, 2005 at 02:16 PM (#1777162)
A couple years ago I went to the Babe Ruth Museum in Baltimore and there was an exhibit that mentioned how much it cost the Sox to originally purchase Ruth. I think it was 10 or 25k. Something in that ballpark.

Even at 25k, the Sox would have quintupled thier money on the two Ruth transactions and won 3 WS.

It's almost like they came out ahead on the whole Ruth business.
   13. Mister High Standards Posted: December 14, 2005 at 02:47 PM (#1777202)
Philly - I've seen numerous sources site 10k as the number.
   14. villainx Posted: December 14, 2005 at 02:50 PM (#1777207)
reading the quotes again, is it to fair to say that homeruns were special and homerun hitters were desireable (that chicks dig the long ball back then)? i am only asking because it seems a lot of people have said homeruns weren't as highly valued back in the days, because of small ball, large ballparks, etc.
   15. Mister High Standards Posted: December 14, 2005 at 05:43 PM (#1777549)
rex - the thing to keep in mind is that prodigal powerhitters where rare at the time. In fact their s a couple paragraphs of great paragraphs at the end of the article I was quoting describing Ruths swing. The terms that are used leads me to that it was unusual for a player to swing the way Ruth did (in what we would think of as a modern fasion).

This really was the very start of the tipping point where home runs came into vogue. In the teens the HR leader was routinely in teens. Only 3 times did the league leader in homeruns have more 20 homers in teens (Ruth in 19, Schulte in 11, and Cravath in 1915.

Then in 1920 Ruth broke out with 54 (with 3 more guys in the AL with more than 20 so a change was clearly underway... Ruth was just way way ahead of the curve) in the AL while Cy Williams lead the NL with 12. 1921 was also a slowish year for the homer, then in 1922 we more or less started seeing guys lead the league with levels similar to modern levels as guys start hit 40 bombs a year regularly.
   16. Dave Bowman Posted: December 14, 2005 at 05:54 PM (#1777561)
reading the quotes again, is it to fair to say that homeruns were special and homerun hitters were desireable (that chicks dig the long ball back then)? i am only asking because it seems a lot of people have said homeruns weren't as highly valued back in the days, because of small ball, large ballparks, etc.

Well, my sense is that, in general, HR /were/ devalued because they were the equivalent of triples today-- that is to say, they were largely a product of luck. Power hitters at the time had a ton of triples and a smattering of homers, which hints that most HR were inside-the-park jobs.

Ruth, of course, was the exception, and fun to watch, I would imagine.
   17. villainx Posted: December 14, 2005 at 07:32 PM (#1777720)
That's one of the biggest mystery to me, pressumably the people in 1922 were playing in the 19teens, where there recorded testimony of people changing their swings. I understand that because of small ball or large ballparks, homeruns were rare or difficult, but the homerun escalation couldn't just because someone hit 29, or 50 plus. I mean, if someone hit 12, or 19, isn't that enough for most players to change their swing, or actively seek to top the 12 or 19 or whatever? Or were there suddenly a great inflow of power hitters, maybe folks coming back from WW1 and developing?

I am sorry to be harping on this, but I guess I know of the change, but there wasn't much documentation on it.
   18. GGC won't apologize for liking the Red Sox Posted: December 14, 2005 at 08:55 PM (#1777817)
IIRC, Ruth used an uppercut swing but not many others did. Management frowned upon it because it was a high risk/high reward approach. Putting the ball in play was the preferred way. Fielders didn't have big gloves and the grounds weren't manicured like they are today back in the Deadball era. No one talked Ruth out of his approach because he was a pitcher.


I'm not 100% sure about this, though.
   19. villainx Posted: December 14, 2005 at 10:21 PM (#1777922)
GGC, - That's about what I heard to, but this quote blog seem like a good place to see how true this is. I mean, if players were consistently hitting doubles and triples, there gots to be some uppercut in their swings. And besides, if a player hit 5 homerun, you got to figure someone on a certain number of teams will be saying, - pssht, I can beat that.

I guess I can sort of buy that managers were discouraging people from hitting homeruns, but how can you stop someone who swung for doubles and triples not to swing for homeruns. (unless they were like Jeter, and love to sac bunt when they should be swinging away). As well, did players listen to managers more then?

And the celebration and notice of Ruth's 29 roundtrippers from the quote above seem to suggest homeruns were an attraction. Or I suppose, becoming an attraction.

Anyway, this is part of why I think this will make a great blog.
   20. GGC won't apologize for liking the Red Sox Posted: December 14, 2005 at 10:32 PM (#1777936)
rexracer, I was looking at a book from 1910 called Touching Second. It was written by Johnny Evers and Hugh Fullerton (mainly Fulleton), and it was supposed to be a scientific look at the game during the Deadball Era. It had a brief section on batting, but it didn't mention uppercutting. It talked a little about place hitting, but it really emphasized moving runners and working the count; a sorta interesting amalgamization of old school and new school principles.
   21. Mister High Standards Posted: December 14, 2005 at 10:57 PM (#1777952)
Rex - I don't really think all extra base hits are created equal... or were at the time... While now a young player with doubles power will often develop HR power. At the time it was always my understanding that many of the extrabasehits were gappers and stots down the line that were legged out... linedrives if you will not towing blasts off the wall.
   22. Andy Posted: December 15, 2005 at 12:51 AM (#1778048)
rexracer, I was looking at a book from 1910 called Touching Second. . It was written by Johnny Evers and Hugh Fullerton (mainly Fulleton),

A propos of absolutely nothing, the passage in that book which runs from p. 256 to p. 258 is one of the greatest passages ever written in a baseball book, describing a series of three brilliant defensive plays by the Cubs which broke the back of the Tigers in the fourth game of the 1908 World Series. That book in general is one of the top half dozen baseball books of all time, and that two page bit on the 1908 Series should be at the lead of any baseball anthology.

BTW Hughie Fullerton was the only writer to pick the 1906 "Hitless Wonders" White Sox over the 116-36 Cubs in that year's World Series.
   23. villainx Posted: December 15, 2005 at 02:12 AM (#1778140)
BTW Hughie Fullerton was the only writer to pick the 1906 "Hitless Wonders" White Sox over the 116-36 Cubs in that year's World Series.

Well, was Hughie right?
   24. Bangkok9 eschews 1 from Column A Posted: December 15, 2005 at 03:34 AM (#1778180)
(that chicks dig the long ball back then)?

Only syphillitic prostitutes.
   25. Catfish326 Posted: December 19, 2005 at 02:37 PM (#1784653)
I was looking at a book from 1910 called Touching Second. . It was written by Johnny Evers and Hugh Fullerton (mainly Fulleton)

I bought this book on ebay about 3 years ago, and it went for over $100. Fun reading.
   26. Ned Garvin: Male Prostitute Posted: January 17, 2006 at 05:14 PM (#1825645)
I think HRs (and all offense) boomed at the end of the 1910's and early 1920's mostly because of two things:

1) Live ball (this happened early in the decade, maybe 1911)

2) Spitballs were outlawed (I think this happened in 1919)

This combination was a huge boon for offense. I think replacing discolored balls happened around this time too. My dates may be off a bit, but I imagine without Ruth, HRs would have increased just fine in the 1920s.

In other news, Babe Ruth was good.
Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

<< Back to main

Support BBTF

donate

My Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Vivid Seats is a sports ticket broker, concert ticket broker and theater ticket broker offering the best baseball tickets like Yankees tickets, Cubs tickets, and Red Sox tickets, as well as Police reunion tour tickets and Jersey Boys tickets.

Ticket Nest sells Braves, Cubs, Padres, Indians, Marlins, Nuts, Pirates, Rangers, Patriots, Royals, Stars, Tides, Tigers, Twins, Phillies, Wings, Mets, Yankees, Angels, Dodgers tickets, and Dragons tickets.

Buy Cheap MLB Tickets

Concerts Theatre NFL Angels Dodgers MLB Celtics Theater NBA Tickets Venues NHL Lakers Tickets NFL Yankees NHL Phillies NBA Wicked Marlins MLB Concerts Cubs Mets Red Sox Wicked WWE Red Sox Mets Yankees Dodgers

Page rendered in 1.6324 seconds
61 querie(s) executed