MovieChat Forums > The Babe (1992) Discussion > Factual and Mis-information

Factual and Mis-information


How factual is this film? What is stretched and what is condensed into fact... (example: Did he really hit 3 homers his last game with the Braves and then quit?)

I really don't know much about the man, and while I thought the movie could be a lot better, I wasn't sure what to believe and what liberties the filmmaker choose...

thanks in advance

reply

[deleted]

As far as the baseball facts go, this movie was wrong in a lot of ways while showing his career with the Red Sox.

- He was NOT known as a great power hitter the whole time he was at Boston until the final season. In the movie, they give the impression that he was hitting tons of home runs this whole time. The first 5 seasons he was there he hit only 9 home runs. He was a pitcher then.

- The Red Sox won 3 World Series (1915, 1916 & 1918), while Ruth was playing for them. He never hit a single HR in any of those World Series.

- In the movie, there is a news reel showing the Red Sox win a 14 inning game against Brooklyn in the 1916 World Series & Ruth is shown hitting the game winning home run. He did not hit a HR in that game. He didn't even have a hit in that World Series. He was the winning pitcher in that game shown on the news reel.

- In the second to last season w/ the Red Sox (1918), his role started to change from a pitcher to an outfielder. Half the games he played as an outfielder & half as a pitcher. He still only managed to hit 11 home runs that season.

- In his final season w/ the Red Sox (1919) he was still pitching at times, but he got more at-bats than he had before & he hit 29 home runs that season.

Only then was he just starting to get a reputation as a power hitter. But his whole image was not based upon power hitter, although the movie would have you believe that.

The next season (1920) was his first w/ the Yankees. The Yankees immediately stopped using him as a pitcher & he hit 54 home runs in his first season there, and 59 in the next season.

THAT is when he truly started to get his power hitter reputation. This movie should have accurately shown that. I think there are a lot of people who don't realize that about Ruth. I think just about everyone knows that he started as a pitcher, but not everyone knows how he really didn't have any of a power hitter reputation until just when he left Boston, although the movie would have you believe he had that reputation the entire time he was playing for the Red Sox.

reply

[- In his final season w/ the Red Sox (1919) he was still pitching at times, but he got more at-bats than he had before & he hit 29 home runs that season.]

Yeah, and that broke Ned Williamson's record that dated back to the 1880s and which was an amazing fluke aided by a 180-foot fence or something like that!

For a pitcher and part-time-outfielder to do THAT, should have shifted the baseball world out of orbit, but, as you say, it took 1920 to make Ruth a demigod. Maybe Boston was minor league back then?

reply

No, they weren't in the minor league. Babe Ruth just wasn't known for his hitting the whole time he played for them - not until his last season w/ them.

They should have had the Boston fans asking him about his pitching accomplishments, instead of constantly asking him how many home runs he would hit.

reply

Since 29 homeruns in 1919 was already the all-time single season record, he actually was considered to have tremendous power before he even came to the Yankees. Ruth liked hitting better than pitching, despite his amazing skill as a pitcher (he was almost certainly the best lefty in baseball in 1916 and 1917, and perhaps the 2nd best pitcher overall, behind only the legendary Walter Johnson) he became infatuated with hitting over pitching. His desires also sided with the fans, who have always been more likely to enjoy a blast of a homerun more than a complete game shut-out.

If people do not believe that fans still believe more in the homer than in watching a great pitcher (even though it is considered that pitching and defense win championships), or that a great player is considered perhaps more worthy than a great pitcher, consider the following scenario. Imagine that a high-level pitcher (take Roy Halladay from the Toronto Blue Jays, for example) could hit and play all-around like Alex Rodriguez. It seems absolutely certain that the team would turn the pitcher into an everyday player, despite his ability on the mound. If they could somehow have both, having the player take the field (in the NL) or DH (in the AL) every day he wasn't to pitch, and then pitch on the 5th day (while of course still hitting). The possible scenario would work best in the American league which, while it has the designated hitter, has the opportunity for a team to select NOT to have a DH if the team would rather the pitcher hit. Since there is no pitcher in the American League who can hit better than a designated hitter on pretty much every roster, the DH is chosen in every game and the matter never comes up. However, if a pitcher could hit like A-Rod, you can bet he'd be in the lineup rather than having someone else DH. The only question would be: can the team somehow keep his bat in the lineup everyday AND have him pitch every 5th? Or would a choice need to be made? I would expect (pretend in this scenario that, UNLIKE Ruth, who preferred hitting and chose it by a long distance over pitching, the player is 50/50, and enjoys both, but would give up either if the team required it of him) the team would choose to have him as a position player, playing every day. Because despite thoughts about pitching being the key to success over offense (perhaps it is true), an every day player is always considered more valuable than a starting pitcher in that they play EVERY DAY and a pitcher is only in once every 5 (that is why starting pitchers almost NEVER win the MVP award and in fact have their OWN award with the Cy Young).

All that being said, I am a Yankees fan and if you asked me who I considered to have been the KEY to the championships won by the Yankees in 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2000 and even up until today, I would not say Derek Jeter or any starting pitcher, but Mariano Rivera. A reliever or closer has the potential to come in every day and so give a greater impact to the success of a team than a starting pitcher. Despite Jeter's greatness, and the other Yankees who have been huge parts of the semi-dynasty (Bernie Williams, Jorge Posada, Andy Pettitte), I would go with Rivera due to the edge he has given the Yankees over the teams they have beaten.

There is a tendency (Although this has nothing to do with your above post, I am not lumping you in with the tendency, just mentioning it here) for people to think almost that Ruth never showed any of his potential as a hitter in Boston, only as a pitcher. This is not a belief held by any that know Babe's stats or history, but a way for people to take the blame away from Frazee and the Red Sox for selling Ruth away. The scenario almost puts the blame on Ruth (as if he held out his talents from the Red Sox for some reason).

"Well if you wanted to make Syrok the Preparer cry...mission accomplished."

reply

A quick check of the Baseball Encyclopedia will tell you that TWENTY PITCHERS HAVE WON THE MVP AWARD. One of them back to back, Hal Newhouser. Several of them won it when only one MVP was given out. Even relief pitchers have won it.

Help stamp out and do away with redundancy

reply

I know that many have, I was making a generalization about how hard it is. Since the Cy Young Award was introduced, it has been extremely difficult for pitchers (starters or otherwise) to win the MVP, and it was hard even before then to compare pitchers to position players who play every day, which is why the Cy Young Award was created in the first place.

It is also hard to decide which player is really the best ever in strictly MVP terms, because back when Babe Ruth won his, players became ineligible after they had won the award once prior. Babe Ruth would have a lot more MVP awards had the rules been different.

Pitchers have won just over 11% of all MVPs awarded, which includes the Cy Young years. It was wrong of me to say pitchers never win the award, but to win an award just over one time out of every ten times it is given out is not very much.

I meant no offense to pitchers by my comments. As a huge baseball fan (to clarify, a huge YANKEES fan) who follows the game very closely and also has studied a bit of the history of it, I believe that pitching is what wins championships and can (if set up correctly) give birth to dynasties. The most recent dynasty in the sport was the Yankee dynasty from, 1996-2001, which was EXTREMELY dependent on pitching, both starting and relief. Those Yankees had great starters who did very well for them with Andy Pettitte, David Cone, David Wells, Roger Clemens, and Orlando "El Duque" Hernandez, but the major reason for the dynasty was the strength of the bullpen, and more specifically, the brilliance of Mariano Rivera. Those Yankees just didn't blow games once they took the lead. Even the Murderer's Row Yanks, while they were led by the bats of Ruth and Gehrig (and bolstered by others like hall of famers Tony Lazzeri and Earle Combs), they were anchored by excellent pitching. They had hall of famers Waite Hoyt and Herb Pennock, and another great pitcher in Urban Shocker. Those players are forgotten by the casual baseball fan (then again, such a baseball fan may not know Lazzeri or Combs either), but who knows whether the Yanks would have been as great that year without such excellent pitching?

Sorry to go on for so long in defense of so old a post. I just wanted to let it be known that I DO know that pitchers have won MVP awards, but just that at 11% of all the awards given, they have not won that many. (I guess someone could say that since they are a specific position, for one position to warrant 11% is not bad, but with pitching being as important as it is, 11% shows that it is easier to award position players who go out every day, rather than pitchers who today go out every fifth...that is why pitchers have their own award). I never meant to insult pitchers, however.

"Well if you wanted to make Syrok the Preparer cry...mission accomplished."

reply

I too am an old Yankee fan. I started following them in 1947. Talking baseball is my passion. In my entire life I have only found two men who I could really talk baseball with. I don't know if was you or someone else who wrote on this thread that Joe McCarthy was the greatest manager of all time. My vote goes to Casey. Great talking with you, you seem like a true baseball fan. The names you mention bring back a lot of good memories.

Help stamp out and do away with redundancy

reply

Yes, I was the one who had mentioned McCarthy as (in my opinion) the greatest Yankees manager ever. I did not point out, however, that I believe that he is actually the greatest manager of all-time, regardless of team. Casey Stengel was great, but he never managed winners away from the Yanks. McCarthy had a winning record before he came to the Yanks, a winning record with them, and a winning record after he left, when he managed the Red Sox. He even won the 1946 Pennant with the Sox, losing the World Series in seven games to the St. Louis Cardinals. Due to his success with each team he managed (especially with the Yanks), and his ability to keep stars happy (DiMaggio, for instance, was fond of McCarthy but HATED Stengel) along with many other attributes, I believe Joe McCarthy to be the greatest baseball manager of all-time. I would make a top 5 like this:

1.) Joe McCarthy
2.) Connie Mack
3.) John McGraw
4.) Casey Stengel
5.) Sparky Anderson

I would rank the all-time Yanks best manager list like this:

1.) McCarthy
2.) Stengel
3.) Joe Torre
4.) Miller Huggins
5.) Ralph Houk

"Well if you wanted to make Syrok the Preparer cry...mission accomplished."

reply

Ah, just what I like, an old fashioned debate about baseball. I am getting so tired hearing about Bonds and steroids. A real debate about players and managers is so hard to find nowadays. Most of the people I talk to think McGwire is an old timer. Bring back the debate about whether Mantle or Maris is going to hit sixty. Who do you think is the greatest pure hitter of all time? My vote goes to the Thumper. If he hadn't had his career interrupted twice for military service who knows what kind of records he might have set.

Most of the kids on these boards are a joke. I knew more about baseball when I was in Junior High than they do now.

I am a native of Indiana, now living in Northern California. I used to live in the L.A. area and became quite a fan of the Angels.


Help stamp out and do away with redundancy

reply

[deleted]

Thank you for your kind response. Ted was one of my favorites. I can't believe anyone outside of the Bay Area could be an A's fan.

Help stamp out and do away with redundancy

reply

I realize I'm a bit late to the party, but I feel a need to correct some of the below assertions:

As far as the baseball facts go, this movie was wrong in a lot of ways while showing his career with the Red Sox.

- He was NOT known as a great power hitter the whole time he was at Boston until the final season. In the movie, they give the impression that he was hitting tons of home runs this whole time. The first 5 seasons he was there he hit only 9 home runs. He was a pitcher then.


That's unequivocally FALSE. In 1914 Ruth blasted a prodigious home run for the Baltimore Orioles "that will live in the memory of all who saw it," according to the Baltimore News-American. "The ball carried so far to right field that [Ruth] walked around the bases." In 1915 the New York Times wrote that Ruth wasn't very fast on the bases and "that is why, when he hits the ball, he makes home runs."

A few weeks later he hit a "healthy clout" at Fenway Park that cleared the fence in front of the right-center field bleachers, becoming only the second player to achieve the feat.

Yes, he hit "only" nine home runs in his first five seasons, but that needs to be placed into context to realize he was already a great power hitter. His four homers in 1915 were good for ninth best in the league and he was only three homers behind league leader Braggo Roth, who went to the plate 347 more times than Ruth. Had he batted the same number of times as Roth, he would have belted 17 home runs.

His home run percentage was almost twice as good as that of the American League runner up, and had he qualified he would have paced the league in slugging percentage by almost 100 points.

- In the second to last season w/ the Red Sox (1918), his role started to change from a pitcher to an outfielder. Half the games he played as an outfielder & half as a pitcher. He still only managed to hit 11 home runs that season.


Only 11? Those 11 gave him his first home run crown (tied with Tilly Walker) and were five more than any other AL player that year. The rest of his team hit only four between them and the rest of the league hit only 85. Fenway Park was a terrible place to play for home run hitters back then, and Ruth hit NO homers at Fenway. Had he been playing in a friendlier home environment, he might have doubled his total that year.

- In his final season w/ the Red Sox (1919) he was still pitching at times, but he got more at-bats than he had before & he hit 29 home runs that season.

Only then was he just starting to get a reputation as a power hitter. But his whole image was not based upon power hitter, although the movie would have you believe that.

The next season (1920) was his first w/ the Yankees. The Yankees immediately stopped using him as a pitcher & he hit 54 home runs in his first season there, and 59 in the next season.

THAT is when he truly started to get his power hitter reputation. This movie should have accurately shown that. I think there are a lot of people who don't realize that about Ruth. I think just about everyone knows that he started as a pitcher, but not everyone knows how he really didn't have any of a power hitter reputation until just when he left Boston, although the movie would have you believe he had that reputation the entire time he was playing for the Red Sox.


Yes, he was known more for his pitching prowess, but to say he didn't have a reputation as a power hitter is incorrect. I've already stated my case above, but one other point that proves that Ruth was a feared slugger came during the 1918 World Series when Cubs manager Fred Mitchell started both of his lefties in every game to keep Ruth from playing when he wasn't pitching. His strategy worked and all five of Ruth's at-bats came in the two games that he pitched. Of course, the Red Sox won so there's that.

To be honest, I didn't watch the whole movie because it started badly and got worse as it went along. What I saw was factually incorrect, but to say that Ruth wasn't known for his power until he became a Yankee is ridiculous. He was already a hitting star, he just put up otherworldly home run numbers once he became a full-time player.



reply

Some of it is true. But a whole lot of it is crap. Here are some of the "untrue" things about this movie:

1. Babe Ruth was not overweight as a child, nor was he overweight for most of his career. And he didn't start to become John Goodman's size until really late in his career after his best playing days were behind him.

2. Jumpin Joe and Babe Ruth were never on the Red Sox at the same time.

3. Harry Frazeez was not the Red Sox owner when Babe Ruth joined the team in 1914.

4. Babe Ruth never hit an infield home run.

5. I have never read anything about Babe Ruth farting at a cultural social event.

6. Babe Ruth did not meet Claire Hodgson until sometime in the 1920's when he was playing for the Yankees. He never knew her in Boston.

7. Babe Ruth did hit his first major league home-run as a Red Sox player against Yankees pitcher Jack Warhop, but that was in 1915 after he had already been in the league a year, not right when he joined the team.

8. Babe Ruth never hung his manager over the back of a train.

9. The "You're all yellow" incident where Babe Ruth threw dirt in an umpire's eyes, chased off after a heckler in the stands, and stood on the dug out shouting "You're all yellow" really did happen. But it was in 1922 while the Yankees were still playing in the Polo-grounds.

10. The Lou Gehrig/Babe Ruth home run war of 1927 never got to 45 a piece.

11. Babe Ruth did not marry Claire Hodgson until after his first wife, Helen Woodford passed away.

12. The 1932 called shot in the world series against the Cubs has been debated for years as to how that actually happened. It could have happened like it did in the movie, but nobody knows for sure.

13. Babe Ruth only hit 2 of his 3 home runs in Pittsburgh against Guy Bush, the first one was hit off of pitcher Red Lucas.

14. Babe Ruth did not throw his hat down and quit baseball after that 3 home run game in Pittsburgh. His last game was about a month later in Philiadelphia.

15. In the film, the game where Ruth punches out the umpire after he throws him out of the game is against the Detroit Tigers where Ruth has apparently already struck out Ty Cobb twice. Ruth could very well have struck out Ty Cobb twice in a single game. But the game he punched out umpire Brick Owens was played against the Washington Senators. Ruth walked the first hitter of the game and was thrown out after he punched Umpire Owens. Ernie Shore came on in relief and wound up pitching a no-hitter the rest of the game. I think the movie did this whole scene just to squeeze Babe Ruth's whole career as a pitcher into just one scene, which that in itself is a great misjustice.

reply

Babe Ruth never hung his manager over the back of a train.


actually..yeah he did, and was fined for it. he was almost thrown out of the league. it sounds ridiculous..but believe it or not, it did really happen.


The more I see, the less I know for sure.

reply

This film is not very accurate with the facts, but then again it is very difficult to make a movie about Babe Ruth because he does not really grow or change. While in real life the public can love a person (and he can be the best EVER at something) without that person having to LEARN something or GROW as a person, but in movies, if the protagonist doesn't somehow change from the beginning of the film to the end, people don't see it (and the character is considered a cardboard cut-out).

There are many great biographies on the Babe, I believe the two best are Robert Creamer's "Babe: The Legend Comes to Life" and the recent (2006) "The Big Bam" By Leigh Montville. They are very accurate when it comes to the life of George Herman Ruth, and point out lots of things missed by this movie, or just completely ignored.

As MANY have pointed out, Babe and Helen never divorced, although Montville points out that the Babe did ask for a divorce a couple of months before Helen died in a fire. Helen and Babe had been separated for years prior to her death, but she was NOT (as is pointed out in this movie) remarried. However, she had been living with a doctor (circumstantial evidence seems to show that later in her life she had become addicted to many different kinds of drugs, and the doctor got them for her) and saying she was his wife. She was almost buried under the wrong name until her sister noticed her picture in the paper (with the doctor's last name) and made sure the truth got out. Helen died as Helen RUTH, the wife of the Babe. It also happened in 1929 (not after the 1932 series, as it happens in the movie).

Concerning Johnny Sylvester, others have indeed pointed out that he was NOT on his deathbed or even terribly ill. He had been kicked by horse, I believe, and was in the hospital for that. Besides the fact that Babe Ruth was often going to hospitals and orphanages, he was also asked by people to do many things, and assented to them (many of this set-up by his smart business manager Christy Walsh, perhaps the first ever person to serve in such a capacity for an athlete). He DID hit the homeruns (That he had told SOMEONE he would hit), but he never met Johnny Sylvester until AFTER he had already done it, when the boy had recuperated from the injury he'd have recuperated from ANYWAY.

The story about the Babe meeting the boy's uncle in an elevator years later (within earshot of two reporters) and after the Uncle left (thanking Babe for his help to Johnny), asking "Who the hell is Johnny Sylvester?" That is ALSO true, BUT Babe Ruth was absolutely HIDEOUS was names his whole life. Montville says that perhaps today he'd have been diagnosed with ADD or another memory disorder of some kind. He could not really remember ANYONE'S name, which is why he called everyone "keed" (a bastardization of kid).

The called shot is disputed by many, and I will not weigh in on that because I have nothing of consequence to add. However, as far as the movie showing the Babe settling down and growing up (did that really ever happen?) and trying to be a manager...well he DID want to be a manager. But he did not help himself by not taking any minor league jobs, which he felt were beneath him. He had no managing experience, and there were no real signs that he'd even have been a good manager. Plus, this movie makes Rupert out to be a villain, and while he was a businessman and quite cold, and for some reason had a FAKE German accent, having been born and raised in NYC to American parents. But it does not point out that the Yankees had Joe McCarthy as manager when Ruth left the team in 1935, the man who is the best manager in Yankee history (he won 7 World Championships, 8 AL Pennants, and managed the Yanks to 4 straight titles from 1936-1939).

Babe was even scouted to manage by Connie Mack, who was looking to retire around 1935. The Babe (along with his family) went on a boat trip to Japan and then around the world after the 1934 season, and many of the baseball world went too, as far as Japan at least, for an exhibition of MLB stars. Mack secretly watched Ruth on the trip with the intention of signing him to manage the low-budget Philadelphia A's, but Claire's complete and utter domination of Ruth and his activities led Mack to believe it would be her who took control of the team. (The movie also left out Claire's supposed domination of Babe and those who were in his life. The feud between Ruth and Gehrig even stems from problems there, although that was almost entirely left out as well).

As many have also said, Ruth did NOT hit 3 homeruns in his last game as a player, even though he only played for a week or two more. However, he did hit the 3 homers and Claire, Christy Walsh, and all Ruth's closest friends DID advise him to retire after that game, because they knew he was done, and EVERYONE knew the Braves job was a sham. (Ruth himself realized it early on, and constantly feuded with management).

I am a Yankees fan and a huge fan of baseball history. I consider Babe Ruth to have been the greatest all-time baseball player by a WIDE, WIDE margin. He towered over his peers in a way no one ever has, BUT the story of his outright domination is not as interesting to tell. In any story there must be conflict, and in places where there isn't, it is ADDED when movies come up. For example, I point to the horrible (in my opinion) movie Radio (starring Cuba Gooding jr.). It is "Based on a True Story" as it claims, BUT in real life there WAS no opposition to Radio attaining the position he holds and the affection he holds in his local town/school. If a movie about Tiger Woods comes out (and more than a couple might) they will focus on his race and his battles to succeed rather than him absolutely crushing the competition year in and year out (a movie will never be made in America about Roger Federer for similar reasons...all his does is win, and he does it without color or flair).

Babe Ruth CERTAINLY had color, but not the kind that the cliched world of movies likes to embrace. While there are many independent films and films that buck trends, for some reason sports movies continue to be rife with cliche. There is always the coach of the team that can't win, who leads the team to come together...and to win. Into the sterotypical world of sports movies is where this one is found, and it is a joke to anyone who knows anything about Babe Ruth, or appreciates sports in general. For the people (I am not one of them, being only 22-years-old) who lived in that era or who worshiped the Babe, I bet they would NEVER believe a movie could make him seem boring (for all his faults, and he had many as a human being, he was NEVER boring).

I have read many biographies on sports stars of the past, mostly on baseball players. What has always struck me as sad about Babe Ruth is how almost all bios on him are pretty much over with the end of his playing career. They usually have at best one or two chapters for the rest of his life (13 years more) because there wasn't much to the Babe when you took baseball from him. I contrast this with the biography of Joe DiMaggio "The Hero's Life" by Richard Ben Cramer. DiMaggio's playing days makes up about a half of the book (even though the book is set up in three sections, and it takes place entirely within the first section, the first section is larger than the others). The rest of the book continues on with DiMaggio's life AFTER baseball (from Maylin Monroe onward). Gehrig's biography (OBVIOUSLY) doesn't go too much further after baseball because he tragically died so young, and would still have been PLAYING baseball if not for ALS.

In closing I first want to apologize for the length of this ridiculous post. I'm sorry for anyone who actually reads the thing, and if anyone goes all the way through, they have my sympathies. I don't want to give the impression that I think the Babe was a boring human being, because he wasn't, BUT it is just that he doesn't fit neatly into a Hollywood movie due to the reasons I stated...he seemingly learned no "lesson" and didn't "grow." He lived fast, slept with as many women as possible, drank a lot, ate a lot, and was the greatest baseball player who ever lived; if he had continued on as a pitcher, he might today be regarded as the best lefthander of all-time, and one of the greatest pitchers to ever play. In his era he WAS the best lefty, and in one on one duels with perhaps the greatest pitcher of all-time, Walter Johnson (the Big Train), he was 5-1.

The inconsistencies of movies do not often bother me, because movies do not need to be 100% accurate to be entertaining, I just ask that they be AS accurate as possible while still being interesting and enjoyable. I believe this movie failed on many levels. They tried to turn Babe Ruth into something he wasn't, and that makes it hard to take. Forgetting the intelligence level of the Babe (which I cannot comment on, as I don't know where it stood), he is not the heroic character we in American movies have been told to love, so the movie tries to stretch him into it. The hard-working person who comes from the bottom rung of society, and through that hard work, determination, and talent rises up to become rich, famous, and beloved. The Babe was poor and was an orphan, which fits nicely into the story. But he is not the single-minded person who worries only about maintaining success and he did not work for everything he had. Take for example the FOCUS of much of the movie: Ruth's quest to become the manager of a baseball team, preferably of the Yankees. Babe put in no work or effort, and he brushed off LEGITIMATE opportunities to manage minor league teams or to be a coach of a team (serving under a manager) based on who he was. Because he got so much out of his life by being Babe Ruth, and by being (at the game of baseball) the best, he relied on that even when it was gone, and his failure to adapt led to (by many accounts) an unsatisfying retirement for Babe, as he was not the type to be happy at home and at rest. I do not like to seem as if I am passing judgment, for I am really not, BUT I always consider a distinction, for instance, between Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron. Ruth was the better player, the best player of all-time. But Aaron was and IS (as he still lives) the better human being, and in my opinion that is more important on many levels. For that reason and many others, Aaron makes a more interesting movie subject.

In final closing (I really rambled on...and I again apologize) I just want to sum up by stating that this is a flawed movie for many reasons. The factual blunders aside, Ruth is just a hard subject to fit into the archetype for the American Movie Hero. He does not have a clear-cut "Hero's Journey," of the kind Joseph Campbell writes about. I was more bothered by all of that than the blatant historical inaccuracies. To make a LONG LONG LONG post short in closing: this just isn't a good movie, and the lack of accuracy has very little to do with that.

****A Few More Notes on Correcting the Inaccuracies*****

It was 1924, not 1925, that was Ruth's year of suspensions and booing. Ruth was suspended for breaking a RIDICULOUS rule created by baseball commissioner Keenesaw Mt. Landis. He missed much of the beginning of the season, and his numbers finished far below the previous years totals for that reason.

1925 was ALSO an awful year for Ruth both on and off the field, but for different reasons. Ruth missed LOTS of the season with a mysterious ailment, called by writers "The bellyache heard round the world." It is known that he had some kind of surgery, but not what it was for. Rumors circulated about it having to do with a sexually transmitted disease (when he came back, the other players did not at first shower with him); fans joked that he'd finally eaten too many hot dogs. 1925 ended up as his worst season as a player due to all his missed time and (when he returned) his weakness due to playing far underweight and not in shape. As a side note, he NEVER hung Miller Huggins off a train. After the season he hired what would today be called a personal trainer (pretty much the first of the kind) and worked himself back into amazing shape (Until he got older in the mid 1930s, Ruth was actually in VERY good shape, and not the fat, slow creature we have been taught to believe in).

Leigh Montville mentions how Ruth's salary (which was far above all other players, but even adjusted for inflation would be pitifully low by the standard for today's ballplayers) allowed him to become pretty much the first "year-round athlete." Today pro athletes in all sports have no other jobs, they are professional athletes, and they spend the offseason resting, and then getting back into shape for another year. In Ruth's day almost every player did not make enough money to be soley a baseball player, so in the offseason they had other jobs, and not the luxury to concentrate only on baseball and to work towards it. Many kept in shape by farming or working in factories. Ruth had an advantage by (through his great success) making enough money to not have to do anything else...he was perhaps the first year-round baseball player. After 1925's failures Ruth really DID become the year-round athlete and from 1926 until his body started to give out due to old age, he was again a tremendous player.

I could go on forever (obviously) about Ruth and baseball, and have already gone on enough. I doubt anyone has read this far (if you have, I can understand a desire to shoot me or otherwise cause me bodily harm), if so...I'm sorry. If anyone has read this far and actually still wants to talk baseball or Ruth, let me know in response. Again, I doubt to hear such response, but why not? I obviously can't stop talking about baseball...so if you can't stop listening...move into the loony bin where I'll soon be for going on this much. The men in the white coats love two-for-one deals.

"Well if you wanted to make Syrok the Preparer cry...mission accomplished."

reply

This was an excellent post...and covered a whole lot of territory...I would happily join you in the loony bin were it not for the Yankees fan thing...(im in northeast ohio myself)but maybe I can just wave my I hate the Yankees Hankee at you :) On the whole was unhappy with the movie because it was too much idol bashing and not enough fact....its a shame too cause I doubt there will ever be an actor more suited to play BAbe Ruth than John Goodman

Of the factual issues I was really annoyed at the way they treated the Babes relationships with his 2 wives and suggesting that he married Claire before Helen died.....He may have been a rather wayward Catholic but he tended to abide by the big stuff....

But the biggest problem with the movie as far as Im concerned is that they just didnt capture the pure pleasure that Ruth brought to baseball fans...maybe no one could


It is not our abilities that make us who we are...it is our choices

reply

Fine discussion, guys. Keep it up!

reply

[deleted]

Being from Pittsburgh, I can tell you that it is a fact that Bambino did hit his final home runs at old Forbes Field ("The House of Thrills") He retired five days later, not after the game. Also, the Braves lost that game to the now lowly Pirates 11-7. It's also true that he was the first to hit one out of Forbes.

He wasn't nearly so large as John Goodman, who, did a great job with what he was given, and did lose weight for the role.

Babe and Jumpin Joe Dugen did not meet until Dugan went to the Yankees. They were both on the Red Sox team, but not at the same time.

I doubt very seriously that Babe called chickens "ducks". This was likely Arthur Hiller, who had done comedies such as "Silver Streak" with Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor, and likely wanted to put more comedy in than was necessary.

Harry Frazee was not nearly as old as portrayed.

Ruth often went back to St. Mary's after Jack Dunn "adopts" him. Unlike in the movie, they never show him going back.

Babe actually cared about politics and actively campaigned for Democrats Alfred E. Smith in 1928 and Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932. This movie seems to imply that Babe didn't really understand or care.

However, there is alot of truth within this movie, such as his great rapport with children. Babe even started a charity for them shortly before his death.

Alot of the rest of this movie is factual, but there are heavy inconsistencies that really chap the ass of alot of viewers.

Dr. Cynic Has Spoken

reply

I'd say about 95% of this awful movie is factually inaccurate.


Maybe some day someone will get around to making a good, factual movie about the Babe, instead of trying to make him look like a 400 pound cartoon character.

reply

Agree with you completely, Max... How could 2 of the worst baseball movies ever be about its best player?

reply

[deleted]

A good amount of this movie is BS.

Just a few examples:

He and his first wife, Helen, never divorced because they were both Roman Catholics. They were officially separated after he began playing for the New York Yankees.

He also did not marry his second wife, Claire, until he was a widower and not before.

He never hit an infield home run.

He did not hit a home run in his first appearance in the major leagues. In fact, he didn't even homer until his second season because he was a pitcher during is early career and did not play every day.

He did make a comment about making more money than the president "because I had a better year than him." The movie indicated him making that statement in 1922, but he actually said in in 1930 because he was talking about Herbert Hoover.

He and Lou Gehrig were actually very close for much of the time they were teammates.

There is considerable controversy about his "called shot" in the 1932 World Series. Many members of the Chicago Cubs have vehemently denied that he called the shot. The only photo of the incident definitely shows Babe Ruth pointing, but it doesn't really indicate where.

He never knew Jumpin' Jim Dugan with the Boston Red Sox. The only team where they played together was the Yankees.

He did hit his final three home runs in one game as a member of the Boston Braves, but it was not his final game.

reply

Great thread! Thanks for the info. Just watched this on cable--was wondering how much was accurate.

reply

He did not hit 3 home runs in his last game. He did hit three home runs in one game while he played with the Braves, but he quit a few games later. Apparently he said that in hindsight he wished he had've quit after the 3 homer night.

"Nature is crooked. I wanted right angles, straight lines."

reply