Old Timers vs. Young Bucks

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

I remember seeing a thread awhile back but can't seem to find it arguing whether pre-war superstars of the day (Ruth, Wagner, Cobb, Mathewson, Lajoie, Shoeless etc) would be able to hold their own in today's game vs. today's stars. The topic came up for me twice in the last couple weeks with both parties saying they thought you shouldn't even think of old time baseball as "real" baseball based on the way the game is played today, how well the players are trained and how specialized each position is.

Would love to hear the historians among us weigh in. Would Ruth hit bombs of Arrieta? Would Cobb bat .400 and steal bases? Could Mathewson and the Big Train gets guys out?

[nat]

It depends a lot on how the counterfactual is spelled out. Does Wagner get proper nutrition, modern weight training, etc.? Or do you just stuff him in a time machine and hope for the best? Does he get a modern glove, or does he have to use the one he actually used?

Evolution works slowly. There aren't any real genetic differences between Kershaw and Cy Young (besides those that differ between any two people). But culture and technology change quickly. If we give them the advantages of modern culture/technology we should expect them to do pretty well.* If we don't, they're going to have trouble.

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

[z28jd]

The better question is how many hours would any modern player last if they had to play under 1920 conditions. Is there a single player who you think would last an entire season? I don't think so, no way they could handle that era. On the flip side, players from that era would probably spend half their time marveling at how pampered the players are today

[egri]

I think this is the thread you were looking for

[shernan30]

Originally Posted by z28jd

The better question is how many hours would any modern player last if they had to play under 1920 conditions. Is there a single player who you think would last an entire season? I don't think so, no way they could handle that era. On the flip side, players from that era would probably spend half their time marveling at how pampered the players are today

+100


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bravos4evr]

swing analysis of Ruth showed he kept his bat square and in the zone longer than anyone else in baseball history. Combined with his awesome bat speed and it's pretty reasonable to think he would have been a great player today.

[celoknob]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

swing analysis of Ruth showed he kept his bat square and in the zone longer than anyone else in baseball history. Combined with his awesome bat speed and it's pretty reasonable to think he would have been a great player today.

Would you kindly quote the reference for this analysis study. Thanks

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by nat

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

Not just still segregated but also not international. However there are twice as many teams now as their were before.

I have always argued that integration and expansion have gradually cancelled each other out. We were preventing what was at the time about 10% of the population from participating. But we've over time added 100% to the available major league ball player slots. Even factoring in foreign born players I'd say it's closer to a wash than one might first expect.

Put another way Babe Ruth didn't have to hit against the Negro League greats of his time, but neither did he get to face Wily Peralta or Chad Bettis 30+ times a year.

[Rookiemonster]

Ruth faced the same pitchers very often. Less teams less talent and a grueling season .At that time the Yankees had most of the best pitchers. You can learn what's a guys best pitch is his best. And it was probably NOT his fastball.

[Section103]

Originally Posted by nat

Evolution works slowly. There aren't any real genetic differences between Kershaw and Cy Young (besides those that differ between any two people).

Jimmy Foxx was known as The Beast but he was 6' and 195 lbs. Daniel Descalso is 5'10 and 190. There will be no nicknames referring to his size.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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
.