Old Timers vs. Young Bucks

[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

[Exhibitman]

The best comparison for theoretical match-ups is how a player did against his contemporaries, all of whom were in the same environment, training, etc., as the player in question. The elite players from every era would be the elite players in any era in which they were raised because the same raw material would be there, just with different training and environmental factors. Or let me put it this way: Pete Rose could use his bat like a pool cue and hit an incoming pitch with the end of the bat, squarely. He did this all the time in the cage to show off his hand-eye coordination. Not because he was of his era but because he was Pete Rose and had the combination of natural talents that allowed him to excel at a physical craft. That doesn't change. The more interesting question to me is how a player with lesser tools but greater analytical skills and intense drive would succeed if he had the advantage of modern training and environment.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by celoknob

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

I'll try and find it, saw it years ago. when I track it down I will link it.

[vintagetoppsguy]

To me, there is nothing more boring than modem day baseball. I'd rather watch paint dry. Seriously. Baseball back then was a sport. Today, its more like a science. I guess it's part of the evolution process. That's just my $.02.