If anyone follows baseball:

The changes in the demographics of the game are one thing, but to take a time in the games history when black players were not allowed in the MLB and equate it to the modern-day use of illegal performance enhancing drugs is ignorant at best, and displays your true intentions, which are not to do with baseball as much as it has to do with the chip on your shoulder

Similar to what the media is saying about Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire stats being overinflated because of performance enhancing drugs, the concept of Ruthroids means that Babe Ruth's stats weren't necessarily overinflated because he only faced white pitching.

So many factors in addition to race have changed. I am sure those are inconvenient facts. I can't argue against the theory that Babe would not hit as many home runs. I can argue the stat of 18% less, but there's no way to be certain what that is. However, as was agreed, I agree with the logic that a more competitive field would have resulted from desegregation, and Ruth would have faced better pitching. I can argue that based on other factors but I want to stick to what is in your post. So behold, the product of my 8th grade Algebra. I knew I'd use it for something one day!



Start with a simple formula. A player's actual performance (A)is the product of their potential performance (P). What can influence that potential? Well, we're talking about two things in your original post: Quality of opposing pitching (K), and the use of PEDs (s). Let's factor in PEDs first:

                                                      P * s = A

This says that I can adjust my potential by some factor to get a better actual. Sounds logical, and is essentially the case against guys like Barry and Mark. Now let's factor in the quality of opposing pitching. This one is a little trickier.

Since a player cannot control that variable, it is set to "1" as a default (not shown above). K only changes when we are looking at the same player but comparing against two eras, as you did for Ruth. So now the equation looks like this:

                                                      (P * s)/K = A

For purposes of discussion I'll use your stat that pitching today is at least 20% better overall than in Babe's day. So as K increases by 20% (i.e. pitching gets better), then the players potential is impacted and results in a lower actual. I also assumed s=1 here because your argument does not account for Ruth using PEDs. So with that theory, you can show how Babe's "A" value would be lower if we changed the value of K and set it equal to today's pitching. Great, we're still on the same page I think, 

Now take a player that is potentially juiced. The statement in your original argument is about how Barry/Mark's stats are overinflated due to PEDs. So, now, we can set K=1 because we're not comparing pitching, This does not mean K is the same as in Ruth's day; it holds a higher relative value to Ruth's day if you compare eras, but we're not doing that. That means we're only talking about 's', which is in complete control of the player. If the player uses PEDs, they increase 's', and therefore their Actual result is higher than their Potential without PEDs.

Now, I've already agreed with you that it is a fair assumption that K is higher today than in Ruth's day. So this comes down to a very simple question. You've got to assume that either Barry/Mark are using PEDs, or they are not using PEDs.

a) If Barry/Mark are NOT using PEDs, then 's' is never a factor. That means since we're assuming that K is higher today, then it is harder for Barry/Mark to hit the same # of home runs than it is for Ruth based on natural talent alone. This makes their accomplishment all the more impressive. Of course, let's also remember that you can increase P naturally -- not factored in here because it was not part of your original post -- by working out, having a better training regimen, etc,  you know, the stuff that guys like Barry and Roger have been saying is the key to their success. So that is why comparing against the eras to figure out who has more potenial is fruitless, because we can't boil it down to just K. The batters will adjust -- some naturally, some not.

b) Now if Barry and Mark ARE juicing, then they are adjusting 's' to increase their Actual above what their potential will allow. Once you factor in a variable that did appear in Ruth's day, the comparison falls apart. True, I cannot say for sure if there is an 's' factor in Babe's day, but your original post was not talking about it. You made the comparison independent of that factor. What I also can't say is exactly how many HR's I would take away from them; but since steroids also impact recovery time, etc, we can assume there is an unfair  advantage to taking them

Conclusions -

1) you have a fair case in arguing that the quality of pitching today would be a tougher challenge for Ruth, but you've got to factor in a lot more variables, most of which can never be estimated. I cannot come up with a stat that will tell me how much better Ruth would be if he stopped eating hot dogs every day.

2) The gripe against Barry and Mark is isolated to today's game. We're not talking about how they would play theoretically in another time, we are asking if they benefited from an unfair advantage by using PEDs.  The whole point behind RuthRoids was grounded in the assumption that they ARE using PEDs. Otherwise, there is no point to your post in the first place.

3) Although you can have these two discussions independently, you cannot compare the two because they are based on different factors. One is based on assuming the player cheated to get an advantage. That is why I disagree with you that diminishing the impact of Ruth's stats "must be done" if we are going to do that to Barry and Mark. Barry and Mark are accused of cheating. Babe is not.

The end.