Old Timers vs. Young Bucks

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by nat

* Acknowledging that they faced weaker competition since baseball was still segregated.

I might argue that point to a degree. While baseball was not integrated, there were far less teams to populate. And it gets murkier from there...cross country travel, dilution of the talent pool from other sports. Bottom lining it there is just no way to know, but I suspect these things have a way of evening out.

I am pretty sure that the biggest stars then would be among the biggest stars now. I think the very lowest 25% of the mlb players in the deadball era would not come close to playing now, but more due to modern scouting and development techniques.

One of the beauties of baseball is you truly can't say. I remember reading similar conversation with some old football players on how their team (a championship team of the 1950s) would fare against modern teams. Of course a couple of the guys pipe up with, "They might beat us, but we'd give them a game. We were tough as nails." then somebody piped up," They's kill us! They outweigh us by 100 pounds per man and their defensive tackles are as fast as our receivers and backs."

But with baseball, you never know. A ball is a ball. A bat is a bat. The complexity of the sport is a great equalizer across the years.

[egri]

I think the improvements in scouting, and teams becoming less tolerant of 'characters' deserve a mention. Ellis Kinder, who tore up the league as a 35 year old, completely fell through the cracks and didn't even turn professional until he was 24, and it was another couple of years before he signed with an affiliated team. If he had been caught earlier and spent his prime years in the majors, instead of a lumber mill in Arkansas, he might have had a much more substantial MLB career. OTOH, he was a notorious carouser, and I would not be surprised if teams today were unwilling to put up with his antics to the extent that Tom Yawkey was.

[packs]

If you sent Mike Trout back in time to 1910 I think he'd have just as hard a time playing the game as Ty Cobb would today. Modern luxuries breed modern temperaments. Any injury could kill your career at any time back then and there was a lot less separating you from the common man when it came to accommodations and lifestyle.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by packs

If you sent Mike Trout back in time to 1910 I think he'd have just as hard a time playing the game as Ty Cobb would today. Modern luxuries breed modern temperaments. Any injury could kill your career at any time back then and there was a lot less separating you from the common man when it came to accommodations and lifestyle.

I find it hard to believe that Ty Cobb would not be great in today's game. We might view him in the same light as Ichiro; however, that is good company IMHO.

Cobb was a skilled batsman and a fierce competitor. He would likely have trouble adjusting to 21st Century social norms. Most people removed from their environment would, though, too.

Babe Ruth would also likely do well in any era after the one in which he played. Same with WaJo, Matty, and Wagner.

As for Trout, I also believe he would have been a fine ballplayer if you took him back in time. His ability to hit, run, and field would be affected by the different equipment. However, he would still be a better player than most.

It's baseball. The game hasn't changed too much since 1909. Ballplayers are still ballplayers. Bases are still 90 feet apart. The ball itself may be livelier; however, the pitcher still gets the best hitters out 70% of the time.

Just my opinion. I am home from work on a sick day. Could be the medication talking.

Best regards,

Eric

[packs]

I agree with you 100 % I only wanted to point out that players of today would have as much trouble adjusting to the game of the past as past players would have adjusting to the game of the future. Kershaw is great today but could he throw 9 innings day in, day out for 10 or 15 years and remain the dominant pitcher he is now? Maybe, but maybe not.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

I am pretty sure that the biggest stars then would be among the biggest stars now. I think the very lowest 25% of the mlb players in the deadball era would not come close to playing now, but more due to modern scouting and development techniques.

But with baseball, you never know. A ball is a ball. A bat is a bat. The complexity of the sport is a great equalizer across the years.

I agree with Todd

The beauty of BASEBALL is it...."is a great equalizer across the years".


Consider this: In 150 years of playing the game, the better players in the game have career BAvg. that are just .300 to .367 (on average achieving 1 Hit for every 3 times At Bat).

With the exception of Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle (who drove baseballs 500 to 600 feet), 99.99 % of players over the years normally hit a baseball a distance of 300 - 450 feet.

And, the various HR hitters in the game (since the deadball era ended) have hit 20 - 61 HR's per year.

These 3 significant factors have remained CONSTANTS in baseball for nearly 100 years.


P.S. This analysis does not take into account recent ballplayers who started "juicing up" their physical bodies.


TED Z
.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by tedzan

I agree with Todd

The beauty of BASEBALL is it...."is a great equalizer across the years".


Consider this: In 150 years of playing the game, the better players in the game have career BAvg. that are just .300 to .367 (on average achieving 1 Hit for every 3 times At Bat).

With the exception of Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle (who drove baseballs 500 to 600 feet), 99.99 % of players over the years normally hit a baseball a distance of 300 - 450 feet.

And, the various HR hitters in the game (since the deadball era ended) have hit 20 - 61 HR's per year.



These 3 significant factors have remained CONSTANTS in baseball for nearly 100 years.


P.S. This analysis does not take into account recent ballplayers who started "juicing up" their physical bodies.


TED Z
.

In fact, according to "The Homerun Encyclopedia" (1996, Simon & Shuster), the majority of MLB players cannot hit a baseball even 450 feet, and a homer of 500 feet is historic. In 1982, computerized IBM baseball measuring equipment was installed at every ball park. By 1995 only ONE player had hat hit ONE 500-foot homer, and it was not Canseco, Bonds, or McGwire. It was Cecil Fielder, who once reached 503 feet. Compare that truth to what the research tells us about Babe Ruth. There is enough old video footage to definitively account for the distance of all of his 714 home runs. In his best tape-measure season, 1921, Ruth hit at least one 500+ home run in all (8) American League ballparks! And those 600-foot estimates are nonsense, merely the fictional accounts of some ticket holding journalists. Mantle's 565 footer in 1953 was actually only about 510 feet in the air, but it was measured at the point of where a kid retrieved it. All of this information appears on pages 25-26 of this book.

[sycks22]

I remember hearing an interview of Cobb a couple months back and when asked how he kept it such good shape he said "I walk around a lot when I hunt." So off season training back in the day consisted of just moving around while today every player has a strict daily workout plan just to compete. I think the greats (Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, etc) would be good, but not great players in today's game. Wajo was a flame thrower back in the day and they were saying he threw 91-93 mph, hell every scrub pitcher we have on the Twins throws that.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by sycks22

Wajo was a flame thrower back in the day and they were saying he threw 91-93 mph

Out of curiosity, where did this into come from? I find it hard to believe that good high school pitchers are throwing harder than WaJo did.

[Rookiemonster]

Nick what we are talking about is today's player vs the old timers.We are not changing the person. I'm sure Ty Cobb on PEDs would be a fine baseball player.
But that's not the topic.

If all the all time greats just materialized on a baseball field as they were all of prime age. If they separate by dead ball era and after. Then separate by teams. Who would win? Even in a series ?

Ok so ,I would say the more modern team would win. The other guys would hang a bit, but lose. IMO at least . so I don't see how interchanging the oldies to the new would work out as great as it would for the the more modern team going back.

[sycks22]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Out of curiosity, where did this into come from? I find it hard to believe that good high school pitchers are throwing harder than WaJo did.

Although a lack of precision instruments prevented accurate measurement of his fastball, in 1917, a Bridgeport, Connecticut munitions laboratory recorded Johnson's fastball at 134 feet per second, which is equal to 91.36 miles per hour (147.03 km/h),

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

The new documentary Fastball improves upon the reading of Wajo's fastball as the test the army did was inaccurate given the measurement relied on the ball hitting a backdrop 15 feet behind the plate. Can't remember the correct mph but it was faster than 91

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by sycks22

Although a lack of precision instruments prevented accurate measurement of his fastball, in 1917, a Bridgeport, Connecticut munitions laboratory recorded Johnson's fastball at 134 feet per second, which is equal to 91.36 miles per hour (147.03 km/h),

Thanks for that info, but I would not put much credence in those munition tests. In the before-mentioned documentary Fastball, they mention one of these tests that only measured Johnson's fastball at 122 feet per second or 83 miles per hour.

[Rookiemonster]

Let me start by saying talent is talent no matter what time you are from .

Even a average player from today would go back and be a star. The game has not changed that much true . But today's training methods and sports science puts ever ball player ahead of yesterday's.

So cal Ripken could not cut it back then? He would have puttered out?

A young Griffey Jr. Would not be able to adapt ?

Roided or not Roided bonds would have broke the game.

It's not even close . Maybe a hand full of guys from way back could hang. Once you get to the late 40s early 50s things start to change. For the better !

Why do you think nobody will hit .400 again? Because every ball player since Ted Williams has sucked ? This is a good sign of what I'm trying to convey. Let's say Ted Williams was of modern day star caliber. He had a great knowledge of the game and was fundamental sounds. While his military duties took away from his career it also add a more complete exercise program. Look how awesome players were after returning from war. When they should have been rusty and behind they came back to career years. Why? Exercise ! Now add what we have today to today's average player. Send him back Boom star. I think Ted would be a high average hitter today but nothing like he was then. And the further back you go the less likely the would be a dominant player today.

[bravos4evr]

See, but that argument only works if you send the past guys t the future but require them to keep old timey exercise ,nutrition and other regimes. (and vice versa)

a player with an eye like Ted Williams, raised playing baseball, travel teams, scouts, camps...etc combined with all the modern advancements would be a superstar in today's game. Just as an avg player now sent back to the ttens and 20's, with old timey exercise, pitching,crappier equipment, brown ball, weird parks, bad travel would not have some advantage cuz he was born later, he would probably be avg then too.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

Why do you think nobody will hit .400 again?

Tony Gwynn hit .394. George Brett hit .390. Rod Carew hit .388. It is not like anyone is not coming close. Fielders have much larger gloves. That has to count for something. They are robbing hitters of hits, so the difference is even smaller.

As someone else said, if they are just dropping guys into a game without modern training and equipment, they wouldnt be as good. If Babe Ruth was born in 1990 and playing today, he would be destroying the competition.

[Mountaineer1999]

Originally Posted by rats60

Tony Gwynn hit .394. George Brett hit .390. Rod Carew hit .388. It is not like anyone is not coming close. Fielders have much larger gloves. That has to count for something. They are robbing hitters of hits, so the difference is even smaller.

As someone else said, if they are just dropping guys into a game without modern training and equipment, they wouldnt be as good. If Babe Ruth was born in 1990 and playing today, he would be destroying the competition.

Tony Gywnn was the last and that was over 20 years ago. It also feels tainted because of the 110 games played. No one will ever hit .400 again.
No way Babe Ruth destroys the competition today. He may be pretty darn good but I dont think elite.

[sago]

There are other fundamental issues that have to be considered by changing eras they played in.

For example, taking Mickey Mantle exactly the way he was and bringing him into today's game, he would end up in rehab more times than Steve Howe did.

It's entirely possible that he would have stayed sober as well, and who knows how much better he would have been, great as he was.

[tedzan]

this new breed of ballplayers do not have the patience to wait out the pitcher and make him "work".

Check-out Ted Williams in 1941......

PA = 606
AB = 456
Hit = 185
BB = 147
BA = .406

Check-out Ted Williams in 1957......

PA = 541
AB = 420
Hit = 163
BB = 119
BA = .388

Now compare those numbers with the stats of Brett, Carew, Gwynn......

Brett (1980)

AB = 449
Hit = 175
BB = 58
BA = .390

Carew (1977)

AB = 616
Hit = 239
BB = 69
BA = .388

Gwynn (1994)

AB = 419
Hit = 165
BB = 48
BA = .394


The point I am making here is......"a Walk is as good as a Hit".

How many times have you heard this from your coaches (managers) when you were playing BB ?

If you do the math regarding Brett, Carew, Gwynn....all it takes is the following number of Walks
for them to have hit .400

Brett needed only 12 more Walks to achieve .400

Carew needed only 19 more Walks to achieve .400

Gwynn needed only 7 more Walks to achieve .400



TED Z
.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by robw1959

In fact, according to "The Homerun Encyclopedia" (1996, Simon & Shuster), the majority of MLB players cannot hit a baseball even 450 feet, and a homer of 500 feet is historic. In 1982, computerized IBM baseball measuring equipment was installed at every ball park. By 1995 only ONE player had hat hit ONE 500-foot homer, and it was not Canseco, Bonds, or McGwire. It was Cecil Fielder, who once reached 503 feet. Compare that truth to what the research tells us about Babe Ruth. There is enough old video footage to definitively account for the distance of all of his 714 home runs. In his best tape-measure season, 1921, Ruth hit at least one 500+ home run in all (8) American League ballparks! And those 600-foot estimates are nonsense, merely the fictional accounts of some ticket holding journalists. Mantle's 565 footer in 1953 was actually only about 510 feet in the air, but it was measured at the point of where a kid retrieved it. All of this information appears on pages 25-26 of this book.

Hey robw1959

I'm not sure I buy all the stuff that this book you are referring to is presenting.

I was an avid Yankees fan when I was a kid, and I saw many, many games from 1947 - 1964. I saw all three tremendous HR's Mantle hit that are depicted in this photo.
Also, I may have seen DiMaggio's HR into the left-center field seats depicted here, but I'm not sure of it.

The most memorable, of course, is the tremendous "facade HR" that Mantle hit at Yankee Stadium on May 22, 1963. The wind that night was from the SW (about 12 MPH)
which may have prevented the ball from clearing the roof. The point of impact against the facade (363 feet from home plate and at a height of 102 feet) was short a foot
from going out of the Stadium. Some analysts have projected that the ball would have travelled 600 feet, others have projected that it would have travelled 500 feet.

Whatever, we'll never know for certain. It was front page headlines in the New York newspapers. I still have one of those newspapers with the classic photo of Mantle's HR.





Hey guy, please don't misconstrue my words here. I'm not trying to argue with you on this subject....far from it, for you are making my general point that there are constants
in baseball the have essentially stayed the same for at least 100 years.



TED Z
.