Would the Legendary Babe Ruth Still Be a Star if He Played Today?

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by rats60

He would be even better in today's watered down 30 team MLB. So many mediocre pitchers today in the majors that would have never seen the big leagues in Ruth's time. That more than makes up for the 8% of African Americans that were banned in Ruth's day or the modern day closers that Ruth might have to face one time in a game.

Could just be my math, but it seems that based on population that existed in Ruth's era, the talent was more watered down in 1920 than in 2010. In 1920 the US had a population of 106.5M while in 2010 had a population of 309.3M. There were 16 teams in 1920 with little to no minorities/foreign players involved while in 2010 30 teams participated with many nationalities represented. In 1920 0.000375% of the US population could occupy one of the 400 available MLB roster spots, while in 2010 0.000242% of the US population could occupy one of the 750 roster spots available. Another words, in 1920 a higher percent of the population would make a MLB roster than in 2010.

Bottom line is with MLB not adding teams as fast as the US population grows and the large number of foreign players currently playing, Ruth's era was far more watered down talent wise than today's era. Facing more evolved pitching strategies (relief pitching), physical training ,etc, might render Ruth a comparison to Adam Dunn in today's MLB.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

Could just be my math, but it seems that based on population that existed in Ruth's era, the talent was more watered down in 1920 than in 2010. In 1920 the US had a population of 106.5M while in 2010 had a population of 309.3M. There were 16 teams in 1920 with little to no minorities/foreign players involved while in 2010 30 teams participated with many nationalities represented. In 1920 0.000375% of the US population could occupy one of the 400 available MLB roster spots, while in 2010 0.000242% of the US population could occupy one of the 750 roster spots available. Another words, in 1920 a higher percent of the population would make a MLB roster than in 2010.

Bottom line is with MLB not adding teams as fast as the US population grows and the large number of foreign players currently playing, Ruth's era was far more watered down talent wise than today's era. Facing more evolved pitching strategies (relief pitching), physical training ,etc, might render Ruth a comparison to Adam Dunn in today's MLB.

This per capita ratio would only be relevant if the same amount of kids in both eras, relative to the population, played baseball.
Does anyone honestly believe that the same amount of kids in this modern age of video games, and general on-line shenaningans play baseball? Not to mention additional sports that presently garner considerable attention that weren't as popular in those days like football, baseball, hockey...etc.

Look at the WWII Beano T-13 hand grenades, made not only to simulate the size, but also the weight of a baseball, as it was expected that any and all American boys could throw a baseball. What would they fashion them after now??? Cell phones?
Also, as Peter mentioned, pitchers don't seem to throw any harder now, and hitters don't seem to hit the ball any further these days....
Plus are we not forgetting the absolutely pampered lifestyle a modern athlete enjoys?
As mentioned, interesting discussion, and its fun to ponder the "what ifs".

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

This per capita ratio would only be relevant if the same amount of kids in both eras, relative to the population, played baseball.
Does anyone honestly believe that the same amount of kids in this modern age of video games, and general on-line shenaningans play baseball? Not to mention additional sports that presently garner considerable attention that weren't as popular in those days like football, baseball, hockey...etc.

Look at the WWII Beano T-13 hand grenades, made not only to simulate the size, but also the weight of a baseball, as it was expected that any and all American boys could throw a baseball. What would they fashion them after now??? Cell phones?
Also, as Peter mentioned, pitchers don't seem to throw any harder now, and hitters don't seem to hit the ball any further these days....
Plus are we not forgetting the absolutely pampered lifestyle a modern athlete enjoys?
As mentioned, interesting discussion, and its fun to ponder the "what ifs".

My guess is that there is probably the same percentage of those with the desire/ability to participate across earlier generations as there is now....my Dad didn't play ball in the late 1940s-1950s because he lived/worked on a farm, didn't have the time (like many boys in the 1920s-1950s that worked) OR the opportunity due to their being no local team. The small town I grew up in in the 70s, did not field a team in any age group, we had to play in with the next town over. Forty year later, the town has grown minimally and there are two teams in most age groups. Were I live now, 2 springs ago a "new" league started and the "original" league continued to grow....the population for my area grew 10% over the past 5 years, but there are 33% more teams playing across both leagues than there were 5 years ago when my oldest started playing. Could be just a local thing though.

Then consider Mark Armour's recent article about participation of Asian and Latinos in baseball and how it has grown since 1947. It shows that 70% or 525 roster spots (ONLY 125 more than in 1920) are currently held by US players versus the nearly 400 roster spots held by US players in 1920 with approx. a third of the population. Clearly, the talent in the 1920s was far more diluted then than it is now.

https://sabr.org/bioproj/topic/baseb...hics-1947-2012

[JeremyW]

For baseball, I believe hand-eye coordination is the key. Even though athletes have gotten bigger, stronger & faster, there's no getting by the hand-eye coordination factor. If Babe Ruth was born in 1990, he'd be 27 years old & dominating.

[wondo]

Originally Posted by JeremyW

For baseball, I believe hand-eye coordination is the key. Even though athletes have gotten bigger, stronger & faster, there's no getting by the hand-eye coordination factor. If Babe Ruth was born in 1990, he'd be 27 years old & dominating.

And that is the argument that is often made; heck, I make it all the time, too. Except when steroids made Barry Bonds so much better.................

Has human hand / eye coordination not improved in the past century? Has it been constant for the the past 100, 200, 1000 years?

Hey, Ruth was the most dominant player in baseball history - that is a fact. I just don't believe that he would have the same impact now as when he did play.

[JeremyW]

My only response is, can you imagine Ruth on steroids instead of all the performance-de-enhancing things he's so famous for?

[JeremyW]

To answer your other question, yes, I think hand-eye is a gift that hasn't improved.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

Also, as Peter mentioned, pitchers don't seem to throw any harder now, and hitters don't seem to hit the ball any further these days....

But they do, don't they? Even if they don't "seem to." WaJo was probably throwing in the 90s pretty consistently over the first several innings, but not in the high 90s and not after the 5th inning. 90 mph was a serious fastball back then. And who, other than Ruth himself, hit more than a few shots beyond 450'?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

But they do, don't they? Even if they don't "seem to." WaJo was probably throwing in the 90s pretty consistently over the first several innings, but not in the high 90s and not after the 5th inning. 90 mph was a serious fastball back then. And who, other than Ruth himself, hit more than a few shots beyond 450'?

Johnson was tested on two different occations where his fastball was clocked in the high 90s. So, he probably was throwing in the high 90s in games.

[tedzan]

Hey guys,

Johnson's speed was clocked between 91 - 95 MPH. But, more significantly, he pitched with a "wicked" Sidearm motion. Right-handed batters could not touch his stuff.
And, Left-handed batters were not too successful, either. In my opinion, Johnson would be very effective in today's game.

Furthermore, Babe Ruth was the greatest BB player in the 20th Century....and, would still be the greatest in the 21st Century. He is a unique human being in the realm
of sports history. Since he started playing BB approx. 100 years ago, we have not seen the likes of him. And, I doubt that we ever will again


TED Z
.

[PowderedH2O]

We can't just take Ruth out and say that if he was born in 1990 he would have better nutrition and training, so he'd be just as good or whatever. What made Ruth was his circumstances. He grew up in the orphanage. His fuel for winning was based on his life. Baseball was America's pastime, and boys all over the country wanted to play it. If Ruth is a 10 year old in 2000, he'd probably be playing video games in his free time and who knows if he is even motivated to play sports at all?

I am a high school teacher. We have 1,500 students at our school. Guess how many guys tried out for the baseball team this year. 13. If you tried out, you made the team. Period. When I was a teenager, I can remember baseball tryouts had dozens of guys showing up. I was thrilled to squeeze onto the roster. It was an honor to play. It just isn't the same anymore. This is why we see so many Latin American players in MLB. It still is competitive in the Dominican Republic. Those guys still love the sport and still want to compete. And, I would surmise that this will not change for some period of time.

So, Ruth is forever stuck in his own era, right where he belongs.

[Leon]

1500 kids and 13 tried out for the baseball team. That is sad. I guess today's Babe Ruth is Mark Zuckerberg. OH well, the Babe will always be the Babe, possibly grander than life but definitely grand for his time.

Originally Posted by PowderedH2O

We can't just take Ruth out and say that if he was born in 1990 he would have better nutrition and training, so he'd be just as good or whatever. What made Ruth was his circumstances. He grew up in the orphanage. His fuel for winning was based on his life. Baseball was America's pastime, and boys all over the country wanted to play it. If Ruth is a 10 year old in 2000, he'd probably be playing video games in his free time and who knows if he is even motivated to play sports at all?

I am a high school teacher. We have 1,500 students at our school. Guess how many guys tried out for the baseball team this year. 13. If you tried out, you made the team. Period. When I was a teenager, I can remember baseball tryouts had dozens of guys showing up. I was thrilled to squeeze onto the roster. It was an honor to play. It just isn't the same anymore. This is why we see so many Latin American players in MLB. It still is competitive in the Dominican Republic. Those guys still love the sport and still want to compete. And, I would surmise that this will not change for some period of time.

So, Ruth is forever stuck in his own era, right where he belongs.

[tedzan]

Hey guys,

Babe Ruth really started his career in 1915, and Mickey Mantle's first year was 1951.....note the " transposed-coincidence " of those two years in the 20th Century.

At the risk of being accused a biased Yankees fan. In the modern era, I'd say Mickey was the closest BB player we've had to Ruth (in terms of hitting performance).


Indeed, Babe Ruth was the greatest BB player. And, all I am saying here is Mickey came close in terms of power and clutch hitting in big games just as Ruth did in
his era. Therefore, I totally agree with those here who have said that Ruth would be a "star" in the current BB environment.


TED Z
.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Hey guys,

Babe Ruth really started his career in 1915, and Mickey Mantle's first year was 1951.....note the " transposed-coincidence " of those two years in the 20th Century.

At the risk of being accused a biased Yankees fan. In the modern era, I'd say Mickey was the closest BB player we've had to Ruth (in terms of hitting performance).


Indeed, Babe Ruth was the greatest BB player. And, all I am saying here is Mickey came close in terms of power and clutch hitting in big games just as Ruth did in
his era. Therefore, I totally agree with those here who have said that Ruth would be a "star" in the current BB environment.


TED Z
.

Hi Ted it's JoeT and I hope all is well! Great point on Mantle and consider this: Mickey Mantle hit 10 DOCUMENTED 500 FT+ home runs which is an absolutely incredible feat. If a current player hits ONE in todays PED driven era it's plastered all over ESPN as a miraculous accomplishment. Mantle did it 10 times with no steriods, world class conditioning programs, etc. He was simply the strongest hitter in baseball history, bar none. True, athletes are faster, stronger and more athletic in the 21st century. However, there will always be a handful of supernatural-like athletes that even outdistance today's superstars, with Ruth and Mantle being two classic examples. Also consider this: the physics of baseball has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that lighter bats generating more bat speed augment the distance of a batted ball. Imagine Ruth & Mantle swinging 33/34 ounce bats with these tightly laced baseballs...wow!

So I think the bottom line here is that every sport will have its past supernatural players that would outdistance even the "hi-tech" 21st century studs. Another perfect example of that is the immortal race horse Secretariat who set track/ racing records that continue to easily stand the test of time. Consider even in lieu of faster Tracks and more advanced training, he still holds all 3 Triple Crown records for the fastest times. In fact, if you put all 3 TC races together, he would have beaten TC winner American Pharoah by an astounding 57 lengths or 1-1/2 football fields!!!! There is no science for this.....just the fact that Secretariat was a "once in a lifetime" freak of nature. Same with Ruth & Mantle. They would dominate in 1890...1930...1960....2017....and in the year 3000!!!

Best Regards,.
Joe

[Bocabirdman]

Yes...He would be a star, certainly not an asterisk.

[packs]

People keep bringing up how hard Walter Johnson threw and are using archaic measurements taken in his own time to say that he threw 91 to 95. When they wanted to find out how hard Bob Feller threw he threw a baseball while another guy rode a motorcycle. I wouldn't put any stock in those numbers. I think it's clear that Johnson threw extremely hard for any time period considering he was the top of the food chain when he pitched and the human arm isn't any stronger now than it was then.

[darwinbulldog]

Also we can't run 100 meters any faster now than we could then.