Which pre-war stars could play today?

[John V]

Dan P and Backstroke are right on the money. Today's athletes are bigger, better, stronger. IMO, very few if any of our pre-war heroes would have a chance in today's game.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by John V

Dan P and Backstroke are right on the money. Today's athletes are bigger, better, stronger. IMO, very few if any of our pre-war heroes would have a chance in today's game.

If that's true, it makes little sense for you to regard them as your heroes.

[cubsfn01]

I would think that the pre-war stars may not even make it on the field, if they were playing a all star game against the best of the 21st century. The minute someone told them the game would be played at Wrigley Field, Ruth would blurt out, "they are still using that freaking dump?", and all the old timers would be laughing so hard they would get back in the time machine and go home!!

[rhettyeakley]

Ask Ruben Sierra how getting bigger and stronger helped out his baseball career.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Ask Ruben Sierra how getting bigger and stronger helped out his baseball career.

...and Brian and Marcus Giles (Roid Brothers)....and Mark Prior.....and.....

[John V]

We're not talking about steroid users.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by John V

We're not talking about steroid users.

Well if your talking modern day ball players (Arod, Manny, Pudge) then you are talking steroid users. And the ones not on Roids are on other growth supplements. So kinda hard to compare players from 70+ years to modern players.

It's like saying do you think the Soldiers of the Revolutionary War could take on todays Army. It's apples and onions.

[DanP]

I read an article in Baseball Digest 20+ years ago. The writer suggested that Babe Ruth should have an asterisk next to his home run record, not Roger Maris. His reasoning (if I remember correctly) was that most of the pitchers that the Babe hit his HR's off of would not even have made it to the majors in 1961. He listed all the pitchers and I think some stat's.

I believe that is true, while there certainly were some great pitchers back then, most would not make it to AAA in today's game.

I did a quick google search, here's the list:
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/feats/feats12c.shtml


Dan

[DanP]

Originally Posted by Mark

If that's true, it makes little sense for you to regard them as your heroes.

Saying they couldn't compete in today's game has no bearing on whether we should call them heroes. Personally I've never considered any baseball player (or any other professional athlete) a hero not even when I was a kid.

It's not even close to fair comparing them to players from today, just a fun topic of discussion.

Dan

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by DanP

I read an article in Baseball Digest 20+ years ago. The writer suggested that Babe Ruth should have an asterisk next to his home run record, not Roger Maris. His reasoning (if I remember correctly) was that most of the pitchers that the Babe hit his HR's off of would not even have made it to the majors in 1961.

And he based this "reasoning" on what? 1961 was less than 30 years after the Babe was actively playing baseball. What exactly happened (other than the Color barrier) changed so dramatically (other than expansion) to the game in 30 years that the author could make that type of statement?

That would be like someone sayng that Mike Schmidt or Willie Mays would be bums today because everyone is so much better--does anyone really believe that?

[uffda51]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In the 50s they asked Ty Cobb what he would hit if he was playing then. He said, around .270. Surprised by the answer, they said, is that all? Are today's players that much better? He allegedly replied, well, I am in my 60s.

My favorite Cobb story. I've heard this identical story except with the average being .290 instead of .270.

I wonder what kind of salary would Cobb, Ruth, Williams, Musial, etc. command?

[Fred]

Reverse it. I'm not trying to take the topic off course but could you imagine if Pujols (in his physical condition now) were hitting in the pre war days? He'd be able to face the starting pitcher later in the game. He wouldn't have to worry about hitting against some fireballing relief pitcher or closer. Just a thought...

[FrankWakefield]

DanP, I think you might have transposed what someone was saying about the asterisk and pitchers.

In 1961 the American League expanded, added 2 teams, ie from 8 (as when Ruth played) to 10. If a team has 5 starters, then when there were 8 teams in the AL there were 40 ML calibre starters. In 1961 2 teams are added, 10 new starting pitchers who hadn't made the majors the year before (so the argument goes). In 1960 Maris would have faced 35 starting pitchers over 154 games (7 other teams X 5 starters). In 1961 he faces 45 starting pitchers over 162 games, 10 of which would not have been in the majors the prior year (9 other teams X 5 starters).

If he faces a pitcher 3.6 times in the season ( 162 games divided by 45 pitchers); then he'd face the 10 "minor league" pitchers in 36 games over the season.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by DanP

Saying they couldn't compete in today's game has no bearing on whether we should call them heroes. Personally I've never considered any baseball player (or any other professional athlete) a hero not even when I was a kid.

It's not even close to fair comparing them to players from today, just a fun topic of discussion.

Dan

I don't think there's much fun to be had in a discussion if no one learns anything from it.

[prewarsports]

It is an endless debate, but the bottom line is that in every other sport there is proof that todays athletes are better, and they are.

However there is not ONE SHRED of evidence to actually suggest the guys from 100 years ago in Baseball would not be as good today because in baseball faster/bigger/stronger does not make you a better baseball player.


My final thought:


If it was all about bigger/faster/stronger then Ozzie Canseco would be in the Hall of Fame and Ozzie Smith would not be!

Rhys

[ValKehl]

IMO, at the very least, even without much of a breaking ball, Walter Johnson would be a killer closer in today's game.
Val

[Wite3]

Okay...here is something that has been driving me crazy for a long time...the people who always say that pre-war players were only playing against 50% of the best players in the world because of the Negro Leagues.

First let me say that there were fantastic Negro League players who were every bit as good and often far better than the stars in the Majors.

BUT...with that being said...the competition to make it to and stay in the Majors was far more intense. Why?...simple...there were only 16 teams total with smaller rosters than today's team. In order to become Ty Cobb, you had to beat out the best of the best.

Imagine today's league with 30 teams and larger rosters. Yes, you are still beating out the best of the best even with the League's added players after Jackie. But people keep saying 50%...well, that 50% is added now and I suspect that Cobb, Wagner, Wheat, Johnson, Matty, and all the rest would fit right in. Heck, I would venture to say that many of the fourth men on several rotations in the first half of the 20th century would be 20 game winners now.

Now think about those first few years after Jackie when many of the best of the Negro Leagues started entering baseball...those years in the late '40s and early '50s must have been TOUGH! 16 teams before expansion and now twice the competition to make it? Was it harder for any player to be a star since the Negro Leagues opened up? Probably a bit but still just as tough. I do not think that every Negro League player was great and could play Major League ball. I also feel that the stars in the Negro League were probably the same proportion to the stars in the Majors. That 50% comparison probably does not hold up.

This is all just arm chair talk and my opinion but if anybody has studied this seriously, I would like to hear their take on it.

Joshua

[alanu]

Originally Posted by DanP

Take them out of the game and insert them into a game in 2011.
Dan

As much as I'd like to think they could play, IMHO, I think if you truly dropped them into a 2011 game, very few could make it. I think the overall speed and size of the players (natural or not), the average velocity of the pitchers and the "what I assume are" smaller strike zones would make it difficult.

Given some time to adapt some could maybe make it.

I think it's especially true for the the early 1900's players, those that played in the 40's might have a better chance.

Probably true for all the major sports.

-Alan

[DanP]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

It is an endless debate, but the bottom line is that in every other sport there is proof that todays athletes are better, and they are.

However there is not ONE SHRED of evidence to actually suggest the guys from 100 years ago in Baseball would not be as good today because in baseball faster/bigger/stronger does not make you a better baseball player.


My final thought:


If it was all about bigger/faster/stronger then Ozzie Canseco would be in the Hall of Fame and Ozzie Smith would not be!

Rhys

Rhys, I agree with you. If you dropped Ozzie Canesco into the 1910's in the condition he was in during his prime for a period of 15 years he would be in the HOF!! LOL...

[DanP]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

DanP, I think you might have transposed what someone was saying about the asterisk and pitchers.

In 1961 the American League expanded, added 2 teams, ie from 8 (as when Ruth played) to 10. If a team has 5 starters, then when there were 8 teams in the AL there were 40 ML calibre starters. In 1961 2 teams are added, 10 new starting pitchers who hadn't made the majors the year before (so the argument goes). In 1960 Maris would have faced 35 starting pitchers over 154 games (7 other teams X 5 starters). In 1961 he faces 45 starting pitchers over 162 games, 10 of which would not have been in the majors the prior year (9 other teams X 5 starters).

If he faces a pitcher 3.6 times in the season ( 162 games divided by 45 pitchers); then he'd face the 10 "minor league" pitchers in 36 games over the season.

Frank, you could be right it was a long time since I read the article (actually more like 30 years ago). I tried looking through the Baseball Digest archives to find it. Either way, I agree with Rhys, it didn't make sense. I'll keep checking for it if I have time today.

Dan

[pitchernut]

If you all are talking about time warping a player from one era to another... I would think that a player from 1910 could handle not only the warp but playing the game better than a player from 2010. Just imagine for a player from 1910 everything relating to baseball would be such an improvement trainers, showers, clean facilities even food in the club house, (did they even have club houses back then?) way better equipment etc etc. Now drop in a player from 2010 into 1910... maybe after five days huddled in the corner crying for mom they may snap out of it maybe, but after that the stench, hygiene wasn't even known, no trainers, food was way blander and the equipment sucks, I'm not certain but wonder if they even called games due to weather. This would make a great movie.

[Kawika]

Originally Posted by pitchernut

This would make a great movie.

Barry Bonds time warps back to the 1905 New York Giants. Demands his own clubhouse. McGraw rips his head off, literally. Movie over in 11 seconds. Rated R for coarse language and scenes of extreme violence.

[pitchernut]

Originally Posted by kawika

barry bonds time warps back to the 1905 new york giants. Demands his own clubhouse. Mcgraw rips his head off, literally. Movie over in 11 seconds. Rated r for coarse language and scenes of extreme violence.

thats too funny

[pitchernut]

just a scenario but imagine warping a 1910 Cobb to lets say the 2010 Yomiuri Giants (Japanese MLB).. that could be interesting

[mr2686]

Time warp Bonds to the 1905 Giants. Bonds to McGraw "Do you have any Roids"? McGraw to Bonds "Yes, why do you think I stand a lot in the dugout"?

[uffda51]

Originally Posted by mr2686

Time warp Bonds to the 1905 Giants. Bonds to McGraw "Do you have any Roids"? McGraw to Bonds "Yes, why do you think I stand a lot in the dugout"?

Can we send Scott Boras back to 1905? And Frank McCourt?

[steve B]

I've never bought into the idea that the talent is watered down because of expansion or anything else. If there are so many pitchers who aren't ML material right now compared to any era with 16 teams why has the overall batting average been nearly the same since 1940? And lower quality hitters can't be blamed, if they're hitting so often against bad pitchers

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hitting/hibavg4.shtml

I also don't buy that todays players are that much stronger. The weight training as built up some impressive strength, and homers are up. But many old time players built up strength through off season jobs that involved a lot of manual labor.
Stuff like farming - try slinging 100 Lb feed sacks all day sometime.
Or other jobs. Not prewar, but Aaron supposedly worked on an ice truck. I'm sure I could find a bunch of very physically demanding jobs checking prewar players.

And the point about how long a ball stayed in the game is a good one. Ruth hit 60 hitting dirty mushballs. How many would he hit hitting clean new tight ones?
Foxx hit some very long homers too, some of them haven't ben matched by the steroid crowd. Deep upper deck at yankee stadium, one of 3 fully out of Fenway to the right of the flagpole... The others were Mantle and Rice. (Nomar would have had #4, but they added a bit of wall that's now gone)

So weaker? I don't think so.

And no ammount of training will help make a good hitter. Unlike another poster I'm a terrible hitter. Never faced a real curve, but I did try a 90mph + batting cage. I was very happy to get one audible foul tip out of 60 pitches. And I'm pretty sure there's not much I could have done to improve a whole lot.

Steve B