Perception of pre war baseball players vs other sports

[G1911]

Ruth was pretty much always overweight. He was obese in his late career, but he was overweight long before he hit obese.

[packs]

Wasn’t Ruth’s poor conditioning always a point of contention in the press and with his managers? How else does a guy become known for the bellyache heard around the world? That was in 1925.

[bbcard1]

I think the thing about baseball is that it is plausible or even likely that the best players or the early game (Wagner, Ruth, Johnson, Speaker, etc) would likely be stars today. I remember being a "fly on the wall" with a group of pro football players from the 1950s talking about whether they could compete with the teams of the mid-to-late 80s. There was a bunch of "we were double tough and we'd give them a scrap" Then finally one said, "The would kill us." Their running backs are as big as our lineman were." What's more, today's DLs are unimaginatively huge, strong and run faster than Jim Brown.

[Yoda]

Track and Field: Jessie Owens

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Trivia question: who was the last goalie allowed to not wear a mask in the NHL?

One look at Gump Worsley's face after years in the net without a mask makes the NHL's move prudent and wise. It would have been only a matter of time until some poor goalie got killed by an unseen, streaking slap shot.

[Lorewalker]

One thing that could be said is that those who played the game and even excelled in it before even the 1960s and 1970s, played because they loved the game. Sure it was a paycheck and a business to sell tickets but most players really seemed to love the game.

I will likely catch shit for this but I am not one of those who believe that some of the very best pre war players would be as great if they played today. The game is so different that I am not certain it is fair to compare the eras even with the analysis/stats that we have.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

^^^

On the other hand, wouldn't you just love to see Ty Cobb playing against today's comparative panty-waists?!

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Frank, your depth of knowledge astounds me, only Alex Trebek can appreciate it more than me.

Don't give Frank too much credit. Ellsworth was his doubles partner in college!

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

You may want to do more research on Ruth if you are going to claim he was overweight most of his career and not just base it off images from the tail end of his career.

You mean like read the biography on him i just finished that went season by season on his career?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

^^^

On the other hand, wouldn't you just love to see Ty Cobb playing against today's comparative panty-waists?!

How many bases do you think Cobb would steal today?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

This. For exzmple 1905-1934. Cobb Speaker Wagner Ruth Jackson Lajoie Collins Sisler Hornsby Gehrig Young Mathewson Johnson Alexander Grove shall I continue? That can't rival 47-79?

Definitely not preintegration.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Snowman

How many bases do you think Cobb would steal today?

Wow, that's a great question. My thoughts hadn't strayed beyond Cobb's being tough as nails vs. more modern players getting on the DL for a hangnail!

Fewer opportunities for an extra base due to bad throws of mashed-up Deadball Era baseballs, that's for sure. There are quite a few factors that would have to be taken into consideration. I don't have a good answer to your question! What are your thoughts?

Conversely, Cobb hitting only pristine, white Manfred balls would naturally lead me to wonder how many more hits he'd have today. His already staggering number would have to be even greater in my mind. Pitchers may be throwing faster now, but the perfect and predictable spheres of the modern game would have to be a much greater advantage to Cobb vs. the speed of delivery adding any hindrance.

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

I will likely catch shit for this but I am not one of those who believe that some of the very best pre war players would be as great if they played today. The game is so different that I am not certain it is fair to compare the eras even with the analysis/stats that we have.

It’s certainly difficult to compare eras…. I can’t imagine Trout being all that good in 1923. Once the injuries started stacking up the bus rides on dusty gravel roads without A/C and eating a roadside diners wouldn’t help alleviate the swelling and discomfort. Ol’ Earl Smith spitting tobacco juice on him at the plate wouldn’t have gone well either. Once the headhunters had him on their radar his melon better be on a swivel to compensate for the lack of batting helmets. No medications, no 5 star hotels, no AC, longer travel schedules…. Most modern day guys would fold up so fast their names would never have been known.

Modern players are better in the modern day not because they are “better” but because their era is better equipped to maximize their performance.

[ClementeFanOh]

Ding ding ding! Many of your points were solid singles or doubles, but Chris
aka "nwobhm" just hit a homer with his comment. Spot on!

On a related note, it was funny that someone above called golf a sport.
That's a non-starter

Trent King

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Snowman

How many bases do you think Cobb would steal today?

Actually, there is an easy answer. The number would be 5 or 6, but keep in mind that he'd be 136 years old!

[Seven]

Baseball itself is predicated on its history. Baseball has prided itself that it is nothing without its past. I think also being the National Pastime and the most popular sport for the majority of the 20th century also helps. The basics of the game have barely changed, I think it's well agreed upon that the hardest thing to do in any era is to hit a baseball. The gaudy numbers that players like Cobb, Ruth, Johnson, Gehrig, Wagner, put up also have a ton of staying power. Plus we have the mythos and legend that surrounds the pre-war era, which, only adds to the prestige of these players. Even at the nations worst moments, baseball was there. It provided an escape. It endured the first world war, the depression, it became the great equalizer.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by rats60

Definitely not preintegration.

True, the major leagues were sadly missing out on a lot of great black talent, but on the other hand, baseball was THE game for all kids back then, and MLB got the cream of a much larger white crop. I've always thought--and Goose Goslin says this on the "Glory of Their Times" audio--that the big stars then would also be great today, but because of better conditioning, training, travel conditions, etc., the average ballplayer of yesteryear wouldn't be able to compete with those of today.

[packs]

I’ve always felt like the average pre-war player was most likely much better than the average player today. Today the pool of major leaguers is only made up of those who decide to play baseball. Way less of the population is playing than during pre-war days. If you were a player on any pre-war team you beat out almost ever of age male in the country for your spot. Today you only compete against of a tiny percentage of the people you would have in 1910.

[Snapolit1]

It's a fun question to debate and no right answer of course.

I would argue that professional baseball players today are much better baseball players and far far (far) better athletes than prewar players, with limited exceptions. Guys today are cultivated for MLB careers sometimes as early as 12 years old.

Gehrig is always touted as looking like a football player body. Was consider huuuuuuge for his time. Look at all those muscles. What a monster. And he was a great raw athlete. But he was 6 feet tall 200 pounds. Just a little bigger than Francisco Lindor today. Guys today and so ripped and so strong and (most of them) so fast. Except in rare case would be no comparison on physicality and skills.

I'd argue that a fringe major leaguer today -- let's say Tomas Nido on my Mets -- probably has hitting and fielding skills better than 95% of the catchers of the prewar era.

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I'd argue that a fringe major leaguer today -- let's say Tomas Nido on my Mets -- probably has hitting and fielding skills better than 95% of the catchers of the prewar era.

You may be right. Game became easier for his generation.

I’m guessing Nido has the advantages of better footwear, padding, helmets, gloves, uniforms…. How about the ball…is it easier to see now? Easier to judge fielding it now? It’s round now, it’s clean now. How about the field? Now they are immaculate, how about 1923? Weeds, divots, bald spots…. No Astroturf for sure.

[Ray Van]

Soccer, has anyone even heard of a pre-war player?

A very (American) myopic pov from the OP in my opinion. You referenced serious fans so I can tell you yes, serious soccer fans know pre-war names. Most general soccer fans start with Pele in the late 1950's and go from there. But serious fans can talk your ear off about great prewar players from all different countries. From England alone, Dixie Dean and Stanley Matthews are well known, while Derby County fans still sing about Steve Bloomer.

As mentioned by others, the timing of the development of the game plays a huge role and benefits baseball over other sports. While soccer was also developed in the 1800's, it wasn't until the first World Cup in 1930 that things really started moving internationally, but that's still pre-WWII.

[Snapolit1]

All very true. Guys today live a pampered existence that could not have been imagined by prewar players. How about Negro league players driving all night, sleeping on a bus, and then playing two game the following day.

Originally Posted by nwobhm

You may be right. Game became easier for his generation.

I’m guessing Nido has the advantages of better footwear, padding, helmets, gloves, uniforms…. How about the ball…is it easier to see now? Easier to judge fielding it now? It’s round now, it’s clean now. How about the field? Now they are immaculate, how about 1923? Weeds, divots, bald spots…. No Astroturf for sure.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Ray Van

Soccer, has anyone even heard of a pre-war player?

A very (American) myopic pov from the OP in my opinion. You referenced serious fans so I can tell you yes, serious soccer fans know pre-war names. Most general soccer fans start with Pele in the late 1950's and go from there. But serious fans can talk your ear off about great prewar players from all different countries. From England alone, Dixie Dean and Stanley Matthews are well known, while Derby County fans still sing about Steve Bloomer.

As mentioned by others, the timing of the development of the game plays a huge role and benefits baseball over other sports. While soccer was also developed in the 1800's, it wasn't until the first World Cup in 1930 that things really started moving internationally, but that's still pre-WWII.

Point taken, but are English fans arguing that Dean and Matthews and Bloomer are on a par or better than Pele, Maradona, Messi, etc."

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

All very true. Guys today live a pampered existence that could not have been imagined by prewar players. How about Negro league players driving all night, sleeping on a bus, and then playing two game the following day.

I wasn’t thinking pampered…. More like sterile.

Ever see a pool hustler work? They play with house cues on bad tables and still hustle well. Point being… great players adapt to their environment.

Modern players have adapted to their sterile environment. Not a good thing IMHO.

[Misunderestimated]

Back to the OP ---> These dates seem relevant (I may be off I didn't double check the years)...

American baseball has been celebrating its history since Spaulding helped promote the Doubleday creation myth in the early 20th century... The HOF first started to induct players in 1936 (I think).

Hockey -- a largely Canadian sport at the outset -- struggled to fund its HOF and started inductions in the late 1950's as I recall.,

The NFL HOF started in 1963 (I think)
College football has its HOF too.

Basketball's HOF (which is NOT an "NBA or Professionally Basketball HOF or even an American basketball HOF) began choosing its greats in 1959 -- the building opened in the late 60's. Basketball's HOF is very different from the baseball HOF in the ways in which it honors its past. You can get it more than once. John Wooden is a HOFer as a player and coach. The Olympic teams from 1992 etc are inducted as a team and many of them are also individual inductees (Bird, Jordan , Magic etc). Women's greats are included as are Harlem Globetrotters who never played in the NBA like Meadowlark Lemon.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

It’s certainly difficult to compare eras…. I can’t imagine Trout being all that good in 1923. Once the injuries started stacking up the bus rides on dusty gravel roads without A/C and eating a roadside diners wouldn’t help alleviate the swelling and discomfort. Ol’ Earl Smith spitting tobacco juice on him at the plate wouldn’t have gone well either. Once the headhunters had him on their radar his melon better be on a swivel to compensate for the lack of batting helmets. No medications, no 5 star hotels, no AC, longer travel schedules…. Most modern day guys would fold up so fast their names would never have been known.



Modern players are better in the modern day not because they are “better” but because their era is better equipped to maximize their performance.

It's interesting how people think. My take is completely opposite. 90 years ago, hitters most days got 4 at bats against a sore arm pitcher. Starters were not throwing smoke back then, for most of them 4-5 k's per game was standard. Relievers were just the guys who were not good enough to be starters.

When Feller threw one 98 mph, it was incredible. Now, a team has several pitchers who can break 100. Batters have to face 2 or 3 different pitchers a game, and many of the relievers are better than the starters.

On top of that, every pitch a batter swings at is now recorded and studied. Any weak spots are identified and exploited. Batters used to be able to wait for their pitch. Now, they need to be able to hit a lot of different pitches to be successful.

If Trout went back in time to play, it would be like batting practice for him. And on the other side of the coin, I think a lot of the top old time hitters would not be able to adjust to the speed and intensity of today's game.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Snapolit1]

Delete. ..

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by G1911

Ruth was pretty much always overweight. He was obese in his late career, but he was overweight long before he hit obese.

Lot of Ruth's career he was like 210-225. Hardly massive by todays standards. Personally speaking.

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

True, the major leagues were sadly missing out on a lot of great black talent, but on the other hand, baseball was THE game for all kids back then, and MLB got the cream of a much larger white crop. I've always thought--and Goose Goslin says this on the "Glory of Their Times" audio--that the big stars then would also be great today, but because of better conditioning, training, travel conditions, etc., the average ballplayer of yesteryear wouldn't be able to compete with those of today.

Put today's players back in those times. I can't see Mike Trout working in a coal mine in the off season.

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

It's interesting how people think. My take is completely opposite. 90 years ago, hitters most days got 4 at bats against a sore arm pitcher. Starters were not throwing smoke back then, for most of them 4-5 k's per game was standard. Relievers were just the guys who were not good enough to be starters.

When Feller threw one 98 mph, it was incredible. Now, a team has several pitchers who can break 100. Batters have to face 2 or 3 different pitchers a game, and many of the relievers are better than the starters.

On top of that, every pitch a batter swings at is now recorded and studied. Any weak spots are identified and exploited. Batters used to be able to wait for their pitch. Now, they need to be able to hit a lot of different pitches to be successful.

If Trout went back in time to play, it would be like batting practice for him. And on the other side of the coin, I think a lot of the top old time hitters would not be able to adjust to the speed and intensity of today's game.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Interesting points. Would Trout be taking his shoes, gloves and bats with him? Will his Chiropractor be going too?

MLB is becoming a sterile vacuum where the key skill is hitting a 100mph fastball deep.

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

You may be right. Game became easier for his generation.

I’m guessing Nido has the advantages of better footwear, padding, helmets, gloves, uniforms…. How about the ball…is it easier to see now? Easier to judge fielding it now? It’s round now, it’s clean now. How about the field? Now they are immaculate, how about 1923? Weeds, divots, bald spots…. No Astroturf for sure.

No brush back pitches or body armor. How about no AC and either sleeping on the fire escape of sleeping in wet sheets they soaked in water during the summer in St. Louis. I remember my mother saying they put their beds out in the yard the one year during the dust bowl because it was to miserable to sleep in the house. Of course today's players are better but I say put today's players in those conditions back then and yesterday's players in today's conditions and a great player would be a great player.

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

Interesting points. Would Trout be taking his shoes, gloves and bats with him? Will his Chiropractor be going too?

MLB is becoming a sterile vacuum where the key skill is hitting a 100mph fastball deep.

Let's see all those 100 mph guys go back in time and chop cotton or bail hay to help the family out instead of playing on traveling All-Star teams as teenagers.
Zinc mines were a lot of fun to. Here's your pick Verlander now go get your ton an hour.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Let's not forget today's strength & conditioning coaches and numerous medical staff vs. yesteryear's lone old guy with a bottle of worthless liniment, replete with stogie and undershirt.

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by jakebeckleyoldeagleeye

No brush back pitches or body armor. How about no AC and either sleeping on the fire escape of sleeping in wet sheets they soaked in water during the summer in St. Louis. I remember my mother saying they put their beds out in the yard the one year during the dust bowl because it was to miserable to sleep in the house. Of course today's players are better but I say put today's players in those conditions back then and yesterday's players in today's conditions and a great player would be a great player.

Totally agree with this. Anyone who was a great athlete relative to their peers then would be a great athlete now under the new conditions.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Snowman

How many bases do you think Cobb would steal today?

Would and could are very different.

He played in an era where stealing bases was what was done by everyone who could. Getting a good jump I've been told is the key, maybe more important than speed.
So I think, given a perpetual green light like Henderson was Cobb would still steal a lot of bases.

But I also think he was all about the competition, and winning. If someone explained the concepts that usually a stolen base attempt isn't always "better" he would probably make fewer attempts.

And that's one of the big differences between the way it was played then and now.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

I wasn’t thinking pampered…. More like sterile.

Ever see a pool hustler work? They play with house cues on bad tables and still hustle well. Point being… great players adapt to their environment.

Modern players have adapted to their sterile environment. Not a good thing IMHO.

Yes, I sure have. Not someone big time though.

One of the places I hung out at in college was part arcade part pool hall. The pool guys always came across as a bit tough, and money was bet for sure.

My friend and I played occasionally. The guys would always try to get us to play for small stakes, but eventually accepted that we knew the drill and weren't up for losing money.

Until one night one of them asked for a free game, it was slow and he wanted practice against someone other than the other good players.
Ok, but only on my favorite table....
First ball I got in followed a very crooked path and he had a wtf expression.
Oh yeah, my favorite table was the worst one I'd ever played on. Multiple major cracks under the felt, and one section angled down to the hole. I loved it because I was pretty bad at pool, but liked the really weird way that one played.
His friends gave him a hard time for a couple weeks over losing to one of the worst pool players they'd seen.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by jakebeckleyoldeagleeye

Put today's players back in those times. I can't see Mike Trout working in a coal mine in the off season.

Of course not, but 20 of the other guys on his team would have been working instead of spending the offseason working out, focusing on nutrition, hitting the batting cage, etc. Not sure what your point is in response to my post. Today's players are just so much bigger, stronger, well trained and coached year round, etc., the players of old wouldn't stand a chance of competing with them, IMO.

[steve B]

I'm not really buying the bit about how much older the sport is.

There's a sport that goes back nearly as far, and in an organized way, almost exactly as far. And in the 1920's -30's (and for some even farther) it often paid much better than baseball. Beginners typically got $100 a day and stars between 500 and 1000 a day. Plus in event prizes. In the late 1890's and early 1900s


That's six day bike racing.
Pro motor pacers in europe often made even more. Although many moved into doing air shows after a disaater in 1909, as the appearance money was even better and you didn't actually have to fly.


Both faded here in the late 30's and into the war, and are now gone in the US and have been for a long time.

The guy I met who did a documentary said nearly all the old racers he spoke with were willing to sit down for hours, just glad that anyone remembered and wanted to hear their stories - Sometimes even their family hadn't bothered.


I think in many ways it's more about the popularity of the sport.
College football was a much bigger deal than pro football, was at least well into the 60's and in some ways still is.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by steve B

Would and could are very different.

He played in an era where stealing bases was what was done by everyone who could. Getting a good jump I've been told is the key, maybe more important than speed.
So I think, given a perpetual green light like Henderson was Cobb would still steal a lot of bases.

But I also think he was all about the competition, and winning. If someone explained the concepts that usually a stolen base attempt isn't always "better" he would probably make fewer attempts.

And that's one of the big differences between the way it was played then and now.

Yes, but isn't the idea to "get into scoring position" even more important? Back during Cobb's prime, there were very few home runs hit, so someone getting on 1st base wasn't actually a person considered in scoring position. Having a guy on 1st steal 2nd to get into scoring position was a big deal back then. Nowadays with all the big guns going for home runs, once a player gets on 1st base, to the home run hitters that may be coming up to bat behind them they are already in scoring position. So why take a chance on stealing and getting thrown out, and thus removing them from a scoring position in today's modern game, right?

In Cobb's case it would likely depend on the type of modern team he was playing on. A team like the Indians/Guardians this past year were not all about the home run, like most current MLB teams, and Cobb would have fit in a lot better. They were into players getting on base, and then moving them around via steals, hit and run, etc. Plus, if you had a guy that could steal bases like Cobb was able to, it could change some of the dynamic of the team, and how much stealing they would consider doing. Good food for thought question though.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

Interesting points. Would Trout be taking his shoes, gloves and bats with him? Will his Chiropractor be going too?

MLB is becoming a sterile vacuum where the key skill is hitting a 100mph fastball deep.

When I was a kid we played baseball all day all summer. We found scrap wood and built our own backstop. One time while I was on deck the kid at the plate threw his bat and I caught the barrel square in the mouth, breaking both my front teeth.

My boys played ball too, with professional coaches in travel leagues, and they had classes with video feedback to teach them mechanics and swing speed.

I loved my life growing up and it was a bit tougher then, and more independent. It taught me a lot and I am better for it, but it didn't make me a better ballplayer than my children.

If you have a gripe about how the game has evolved, join the club. If you wish life could be simpler again, I hear you. But if you think that Trout is somehow lesser for that, you're wrong.

[Snapolit1]

Stan Coveleski worked in a coal mine when he was 12. Over 70 hours a week. Don't think anyone is hankering to get back to those good old days.

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

When I was a kid we played baseball all day all summer. We found scrap wood and built our own backstop. One time while I was on deck the kid at the plate threw his bat and I caught the barrel square in the mouth, breaking both my front teeth.

My boys played ball too, with professional coaches in travel leagues, and they had classes with video feedback to teach them mechanics and swing speed.

I loved my life growing up and it was a bit tougher then, and more independent. It taught me a lot and I am better for it, but it didn't make me a better ballplayer than my children.

If you have a gripe about how the game has evolved, join the club. If you wish life could be simpler again, I hear you. But if you think that Trout is somehow lesser for that, you're wrong.

[Ray Van]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Point taken, but are English fans arguing that Dean and Matthews and Bloomer are on a par or better than Pele, Maradona, Messi, etc."

Depends who you talk to of course, English fans have their favourites and will argue till they are blue in the face that their players are better. Plus it's so hard to compare across eras when the game was very different back then.

Still, Tom Finney (1946-60) was regarded by many as the best player in the world during his era, while Dixie Dean's 60 goals in 1927-28 was considered a Ruthian achievement.

My Mount Rushmore is still Pele, Maradona, Messi, & Brazilian Ronaldo - but there are lots of players from all eras just below that threshold.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by BobC

Yes, but isn't the idea to "get into scoring position" even more important? Back during Cobb's prime, there were very few home runs hit, so someone getting on 1st base wasn't actually a person considered in scoring position. Having a guy on 1st steal 2nd to get into scoring position was a big deal back then. Nowadays with all the big guns going for home runs, once a player gets on 1st base, to the home run hitters that may be coming up to bat behind them they are already in scoring position. So why take a chance on stealing and getting thrown out, and thus removing them from a scoring position in today's modern game, right?

In Cobb's case it would likely depend on the type of modern team he was playing on. A team like the Indians/Guardians this past year were not all about the home run, like most current MLB teams, and Cobb would have fit in a lot better. They were into players getting on base, and then moving them around via steals, hit and run, etc. Plus, if you had a guy that could steal bases like Cobb was able to, it could change some of the dynamic of the team, and how much stealing they would consider doing. Good food for thought question though.

Generally, but there's a whole thing about who is on what base and how many outs. Run expectancy.

So the risk/reward of a steal
Lets say cobb gets a single.
No outs, runner on first will expect .94 for the rest of the inning.
If he steals second that's good! 1.17
If he gets caught? Oh, down to .56

Generally the father the runners are and the fewer outs the better off you are.
But as those odds get better, the reward is less and the risk larger.

I'm not so sure I agree with the math, but the people that do calculate the expected runs for each season. And I'd bet that the teams get more detailed, like which pitcher and what runner/batter combination.

https://baseballwithr.wordpress.com/...omment-page-1/

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Of course not, but 20 of the other guys on his team would have been working instead of spending the offseason working out, focusing on nutrition, hitting the batting cage, etc. Not sure what your point is in response to my post. Today's players are just so much bigger, stronger, well trained and coached year round, etc., the players of old wouldn't stand a chance of competing with them, IMO.

What's your point? Only an idiot would think yesterday's players could compete with todays players but let's have Trout born in 1915 and see how he would do during the depression era with no advantages because they weren't known. By the way Mike also go off for 4 years and fight in WW 2.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by steve B

Generally, but there's a whole thing about who is on what base and how many outs. Run expectancy.

So the risk/reward of a steal
Lets say cobb gets a single.
No outs, runner on first will expect .94 for the rest of the inning.
If he steals second that's good! 1.17
If he gets caught? Oh, down to .56

Generally the father the runners are and the fewer outs the better off you are.
But as those odds get better, the reward is less and the risk larger.

I'm not so sure I agree with the math, but the people that do calculate the expected runs for each season. And I'd bet that the teams get more detailed, like which pitcher and what runner/batter combination.

https://baseballwithr.wordpress.com/...omment-page-1/

Steve, I agree with you, which is part of my point. Those factors/percentages they are using today, are based on today's game, and the number of HRs that are being hit. I did not, and don't have the data or resources to, do the math, and am only offering an opinion based on the use of some logic. My guess is that if you were to run the same kind of math using information and data from back in Cobb's prime playing days, the answers are going to definitely be different. Depending on what other teammates Cobb would have batting behind him if he were playing today, I agree with you that if he had some HR bashers coming up behind him, his manager would be screaming at him to stay put and not take as many chances as he may otherwise to steal a base. Now if he just had a bunch of singles hitters behind him.............

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by jakebeckleyoldeagleeye

What's your point? Only an idiot would think yesterday's players could compete with todays players but let's have Trout born in 1915 and see how he would do during the depression era with no advantages because they weren't known. By the way Mike also go off for 4 years and fight in WW 2.

Are you saying you think he wouldn't do well?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

In hockey, there were only 6 teams and maybe 20 spots, so you are talking about competing against the 120 best players vs today the top 700 players. Yes, more diverse pool, but the best of these guys were great athletes.

120 guys drawn almost exclusively from Canada, a country whose population was 18 million people in 1960.

Now there's 700, yeah, but drawn from a pool of 375 million in North America alone. So a league that's 5.83x as large but drawing from a pool roughly 21x as large. And that's completely ignoring Europe where a huge percentage of the best players in the world are born.

The very best NHL players of that era were really, really good. But, overall, there's absolutely no comparison to today's players.

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by Tabe

120 guys drawn almost exclusively from Canada, a country whose population was 18 million people in 1960.

Now there's 700, yeah, but drawn from a pool of 375 million in North America alone. So a league that's 5.83x as large but drawing from a pool roughly 21x as large. And that's completely ignoring Europe where a huge percentage of the best players in the world are born.

The very best NHL players of that era were really, really good. But, overall, there's absolutely no comparison to today's players.

I get that but they did use Americans back then in northern states, and it’s a big stretch to say that the US population is the pool today….maybe 3-4 states and a few other pockets. Europe does help a lot today to even it out, especially Russia/Sweden/Finland.

And I made a mistake, only 15 players on a team back in the 20-30’s at most, maybe fewer in the 20’s (don’t have my programs handy). The best players would still be the best players. The depth in the league is a problem today, most teams have little skill on the bottom half/two thirds of the roster even if the guys are in better shape and can skate.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Of course there were guys in amazing shape. But a great many of them weren't amazing athletes at all.

Considering the ESPN study I've mentioned previously, where hockey was ranked the #1 most skilled and difficult team sport in the world, it's fair to say relative to the time that hockey players were and are some of the best overall athletes. Period.

Judged by a "panel of experts, a group made up of sports scientists from the United States Olympic Committee, of academicians who study the science of muscles and movement, of a star two-sport athlete, and of journalists who spend their professional lives watching athletes succeed and fail", the study was based on 10 categories...

- endurance
- strength
- power
- speed
- agility
- flexibility
- durability
- nerve
- hand-eye coordination
- analytic aptitude

Hockey scored the highest for team sports second only to boxing, with football the #2 most skilled team sport. Baseball was ranked #9 overall.

Also, keep in mind that this was a study by an American organization, so there could have been bias towards the "American" Big 3 sports (many consider hockey Canadian), hence, hockey may have scored even higher.

There was also a second study by a group labeled "unbiased" recently where they came to the same top 3 conclusion (can't find it online).

https://www.espn.com/espn/page2/sportSkills

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

Considering the ESPN study I've mentioned previously, where hockey was ranked the #1 most skilled and difficult team sport in the world, it's fair to say relative to the time that hockey players were and are some of the best overall athletes. Period.

Judged by a "panel of experts, a group made up of sports scientists from the United States Olympic Committee, of academicians who study the science of muscles and movement, of a star two-sport athlete, and of journalists who spend their professional lives watching athletes succeed and fail", the study was based on 10 categories...

- endurance
- strength
- power
- speed
- agility
- flexibility
- durability
- nerve
- hand-eye coordination
- analytic aptitude

Hockey scored the highest for team sports second only to boxing, with football the #2 most skilled team sport. Baseball was ranked #9 overall.

Also, keep in mind that this was a study by an American organization, so there could have been bias towards the "American" Big 3 sports (many consider hockey Canadian), hence, hockey may have scored even higher.

There was also a second study by a group labeled "unbiased" recently where they came to the same top 3 conclusion (can't find it online).

https://www.espn.com/espn/page2/sportSkills

"I went to a boxing match and a hockey game broke out."