I'm just curious where you draw the conclusion that baseball would have somehow ceased to exist by 1947 if babe Ruth had not come along.
Is it because you assume that the general public was so upset over the Black Sox scandal that they would have gone on to something else? And if so, what would that something else have been? Pro football was in its' infancy, (and was looked down upon greatly - the college game was preferred) basketball was not even really playe don the pro level yet, and barely on the college level even, and hockey, well, pretty much the same - not well organized, and very limited exposure. I think people who feel that Babe Ruth was solely responsible for "saving" baseball are simplifying things quite a bit. The efforts to clean up the game in 1920 and in the decade probably had a bigger effect - players were kicked out for gambling, the spit ball was eliminated, etc.
I think that probvably the best way to put it is that Ruth probably changed the way the game is played more than any other player, but that Robinson changed the society of the game greater than any other player ever did. While Ruth changed the game to focus more on the long ball (or at least provide the impetus for baseball to change itself - again - disallowing the spit ball, the use of cleaner baseballs, and the buildong of smaller fields also helped) and, because of his personality, gave baseball some well needed good P.R.
But Robinson did more to change the society of baseball, and really American society as a whole. To dismiss his courage and determination because eventually someone else would have broken the color barrier is sort of like dismissing Neil Armstrong being the first man to set foot on the moon simply because 11 other men did it after he did. or perhaps even sayng that Ruth's accomplishments on the field are not impressive because other players have surpassedhim. Obviously his hitting 714 home runs is not important because Aaron and Ruth would have just done it later anyway. And his 60 home runs in 1927 certainly aren't all that important - Sosa, McGwire and Bonds have all surpassed that total, as has Maris, so it wasn't all that important. And keep in mind that there had actually been attempts to allow black ballplayers in the majors earlier than Robinson. Around 1906, John McGraw attempted to pass off Charlie Grant, a great black player, as a Native American. And in 1943, Bill Veeck attempted to buy the Phillies, but made the mistake of telling commissioner Landis that he planned to load them up with the greatest talent from the N-e-g-r-o Leagues. Landis blocked the move.
And Robinson was not chosen because he was the "best" minority player. While he was very good, there were probably at least a dozen black players that were better than he was. But Robinson was a safer choice because of his temperement. he was college educated (UCLA), a former military officer (Lieutenant), and willing to accept the fact that he could NOT fight back on the field of play.
So give the advantage to Ruth for changing the game on the field, but Robinson for changing the game (as well as society in general) off the field. And to me, the changes that Robinson helped get going were far more important.