Shohei Ohtani vs. Babe Ruth: Who’s really better?
By Bill Felber
Who’s better: Shohei Ohtani or Babe Ruth?
After the end of the World Baseball Classic last week, Chris Russo, TV’s “Mad Dog,” brought former Mets GM Steve Phillips, now a fellow media personality, onto his MLB Network show discuss that provocative question. It was all the more provocative at that moment given Ohtani’s star turn with the winning Samurai Japan team, that included striking out Mike Trout to win the championship.
As you might guess, Russo argued the case for Ruth, while Phillips argued the case for Ohtani. As you might also guess — we’re talking about Russo’s show here — the argument was long on volume and often short on logic.
Phillips’ case was founded on the argument that Ohtani was greater than Ruth because Ruth never played against the game’s best, the color barrier being in full vigor for all of the Babe’s career. Had that not been the case, Phillips contended, and had Ruth played against the true best of his day, his numbers would have been substantially less remarkable.
Given the volume and disjointed fashion at which he presents them, it’s always challenging to ascertain the objective rationale behind Rizzo’s positions. But I think Russo’s argument could fairly be boiled down this way: Ruth was so far and away superior to all others of his time that it would have been impossible to strengthen the competition to a level that would have made him seem less exceptional.
What’s needed is an objective analysis of the arguments on both sides, and of the question generally. That analysis needs not only to deal with the points made by Russo and Phillips, but to recognize the valid arguments and counter-arguments they did not make, but which ought to have been made. Here goes.