Which pre-war stars could play today?

[DanP]

I don't know if this has ever been asked on this forum but I'd like to hear what you think:

Which of the pre-war stars could play in the MLB today?

A couple of notes before everyone else mentions them:
1. I mean in the condition they were in at their prime. Take them out of the game and insert them into a game in 2011.
2. I know it's not fair (i.e. they didn't have access to the same training programs, travel was tougher, etc.).

My opinion, no one would be a star in today's game. Not Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, etc. I wish there was a way to prove it, but I'd bet Walter Johnson didn't even throw 90mph.

What are your thoughts/opinions?

Dan

[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.

[vintagecpa]

lol. I've never heard that Cobb line before. From what I see in baseball today, I'd say every pre-WWII left-handed pitcher would have a spot in today's game.

[DanP]

Originally Posted by vintagecpa

lol. I've never heard that Cobb line before. From what I see in baseball today, I'd say every pre-WWII left-handed pitcher would have a spot in today's game.

I didn't even think of that (lefty pitchers). You're probably right. At least Lefty Grove and Carl Hubbell and I'm sure many other lefty pitchers could play today.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by DanP

I don't know if this has ever been asked on this forum but I'd like to hear what you think:

Which of the pre-war stars could play in the MLB today?

A couple of notes before everyone else mentions them:
1. I mean in the condition they were in at their prime. Take them out of the game and insert them into a game in 2011.
2. I know it's not fair (i.e. they didn't have access to the same training programs, travel was tougher, etc.).

My opinion, no one would be a star in today's game. Not Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, etc. I wish there was a way to prove it, but I'd bet Walter Johnson didn't even throw 90mph.

What are your thoughts/opinions?

Dan

The short, best answer is that you're completely wrong. A longer reply: Do you want to bet that Feller never hit 90? And if you concede that Feller hit 90, then how do you account for the testimony of those who say that Johnson threw at least as hard if not harder? If you want to be scientific about it, go look at the old films of Matty and Johnson and the other stars. It turns out that they followed the same principles of "explosive pitching" that are being taught today. Note the rotation of the hips, the arm angle, the stride. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc8Mb...eature=related

[oldjudge]

Today many of the best athletes play football and basketball. In the pre-war era baseball was the main sport. Sure training and nutrition is better today, but the old time players would also be eating better and training better too. Additionally, the old time players were better versed in the game's fundamentals. My guess is that the stars of yesterday would also be stars of today. Ruth, especially if he still played at Yankee Stadium, would be a home run leader. Ty Cobb would be a league leader in hitting. The great pitchers would probably be as great as ever, especially with the increased rest and care for thier arms. In fact, the average players of the past might be stars today.

[pitchernut]

I think pitchers of that era would fair better than fielders but you may give them a heart attack when they see their paycheck

[ctownboy]

I think pre-WWII starting pitchers would have a HUGE advantage today. Back then, they were in four man rotations and expected to finish what they started even if it meant throwing 150+ pitches to do so. So, by the end of the season, they were racking up 250 or more Innings pitched AND huge pitch counts.

Move those guys to today and see what happens.

They would have better training, better nutrition, would be in five man rotations and would only be expected to go into the Sixth Inning and throw 110 pitches (or less).

Sure the parks are smaller and the mound is lower BUT the hitters don't try to make as much contact today. They try for the Home Run more often and thus are more vulnerable to striking out. Take a good pitcher with good stuff and instead of him trying to pace himself for nine or more Innings just let him throw his best stuff for six and see what happens.

David

[dabigyankeeman]

Originally Posted by DanP

I didn't even think of that (lefty pitchers). You're probably right. At least Lefty Grove and Carl Hubbell and I'm sure many other lefty pitchers could play today.

Dont forget one of the greatest left-handed pitchers of all time, BABE RUTH.

This to me is why Ruth was so incredibly great. The man was one of the absolute best pitchers in baseball, then went on to hit more home runs in a year than any other team did that year. Put that in a movie and nobody would believe it. Yes, Ruth could play today.

[prewarsports]

Short answer ALL OF THEM could play today!

Bigger and stronger does not mean better. If Billy Wagner at 5' 9" can throw 100 MPH out of sheer God Given ability are we really to assume that guys born 100 years ago couldn't because they didn't have Gatorade?

Is Ichiro any different than Cobb, is he any bigger faster or stronger?

Is Tim Lincecum any bigger/faster/stronger than the pitchers of 100 years ago?

Jays argument is the one I always make. 100 years ago there were 16 MLB teams that EVERY kid athlete in the world wanted to be on. Today there are about 200 pro sports teams that divide kids up at young ages between the sports. Example, Collin Kaepernick (Nevada's College Qaurterback) could throw 99 MPH as a High Schooler but chose Football. That would not have happened in the past and he would have been right there competing with every other kid in America for the few Baseball spots.

100% EVERY star Baseball player of the prewar era could play in the Major Leagues today.

To me the better argument would be can any of todays playes make the transition back 100 years ago and be any good. That would be a much tougher task than the players of yesterday suddenly being given better equipment/facilities/salary/lifestyle and asking them to perform!

Rhys

[sayhey24]

Have to agree with all the posters that they would all be top flight stars in today's game. I'm actually surprised that anyone would think otherwise. Can you imagine what Ruth, Gehrig, Crawford and Hornsby would do against expansion era pitching? Very good points made too about the top athletes all playing baseball back then, and how much stronger pitchers were then.

One point that should be made in fairness to the other side of the argument is that pre-war players were not competing against African American and Latin American players.

Greg

[FrankWakefield]

This thread is obviously on the wrong board, 'cause it looks like everyone is pretty much in agreement, even me. Can't have that here!

Mentioning Lincecum reminds me of what I thought when I first saw him pitch. If you cut the hair you have an old fashioned ballplayer. He leans a bit to get the delivery point higher, has old arm extension, stride, pivot, follow through... he looks like he should be in flannel, with sweat soaked sleeves. The kid is from a previous generation, or three, in style. A stout-hearted pitcher, as mentioned in that poem at the beginning of a chapter in The Glory of Their Times.

[D. Broughman]

Tinkers to Evers to Chance on artificial grass. I would love to see the look on there faces the first time the ball came to them

[Orioles1954]

Due to systematic racism and the lack of an international pool of talent, we have to take that into account when determining just "how great" the players of the pre-1947 big leagues were. There's NO doubt that football and basketball players of today are eons better than their peers, not so sure about baseball though....that's what makes it so great.

[tbob]

Satchell Page would be the best pitcher in baseball.
Page, Grove, Alexander and Johnson would make the Phillies 2011 staff look like pipsqueaks.

[Shoeless Moe]

Jimmie Foxx & Josh Gibson would do some serious damage, Gehrig & Cobb too!

[Mollys Dad]

IMO todays players are a bunch of pampered sissies enjoying the benefit of athletic engineering, free agency and disgustingly obese salaries when compared to the players of yesteryear.

On the back of Gil Hodges 1952 Topps card, after the brief sport bio, the last line on the cards says that Gil sells clothing in the off season. Tell me a guy like that wouldnt trump the players of today.

[prewarsports]

In response to the racism argument, Black Men were playing MORE baseball back then than now, by far, and it actually helps the argument. Just because they were excluded by the Major Leagues does not mean we dont know who they were, and they absolutely belong in the argument. Gibson, Paige, Bell, Leonard, etc. all would be stars today and the fact that they did not play in the Major Leagues does not really mean anything when assessing pure talent. The black talent 100 years ago was better than today because now they would be wearing Kobe and "D-Wade" jerseys and refusing to play such a "boring" game like most kids across this Country.

Rhys

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

In response to the racism argument, Black Men were playing MORE baseball back then than now, by far, and it actually helps the argument. Just because they were excluded by the Major Leagues does not mean we dont know who they were, and they absolutely belong in the argument. Gibson, Paige, Bell, Leonard, etc. all would be stars today and the fact that they did not play in the Major Leagues does not really mean anything when assessing pure talent. The black talent 100 years ago was better than today because now they would be wearing Kobe and "D-Wade" jerseys and refusing to play such a "boring" game like most kids across this Country.

Rhys

Hey Rhys,

Systematic racism absolutely does not detract from the quality of Negro League players. HOWEVER, can we really say how well Ruth, Cobb, etc. would translate it today's game when they never played against African-Americans or the Latin American influx of big league talent? I know we tend to romanticize the past, but there's nothing wrong in realizing the limitations of pre-1947 big league baseball. Just something to think about.

[bigtrain]

I recall reading that in the late 40s, Feller's fastball was clocked at 98 mph using a device that was used to measure the velocity of artillery shells. This measurement was as the ball crossed the plate, not as it left his hand, so it probably more like 100 mph. Even considering that the measuring device may have been less accurate than modern technology, that is some heat. And that was Feller slightly past his prime. I would think that guys like Paige and Johnson had similar speed.

[wrapperguy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMPxpOapRuU

That catcher is scared shitless!

[drc]

As baseball was the #1 sport, I would imaging that the old players were more familiar with the game, the details and techniques than today's players. Advantage in the details if not the muscle. I mean, I would think Cobb would know a lot more about batting and running that any of today's players.

[esd10]

I think some of the dead ball era players could play today and be great. Y ou have to remember the balls they played with where almost black in color and if you could hit .400 against that then you should be able to hit a brite white ball.The thing is they didnt have radar guns for the speed these players thrown so we dont know how fast walter johnson ot matty could throw so its like comparing apples to oranges.Another thing is they didnt swing for the fences in those days they wanted to get on base and they played small ball and it wasnt about themm selves it was about the team and they didnt make crap either and it was for the love of baseball not the money. we just dont know thats it point blank.

[pitchernut]

I think about it they would match up because a good athlete is a good athlete no matter what era

[FrankWakefield]

Thanks for the youtube link, Jeff. Gotta figure that if the ball hit the edge of that frame it would be like a foul tip coming at that catcher... that would scare anyone.

[B O'Brien]

Sisler would still be a stud!

I think a lot of folks would be able to play today. When you watch some of the old films, a lot of players seem to be fundamentally sound on both sides of the ball. I also think the new grass would be great for these guys in the field. I would think most of those old parks would be like fielding on a bad middle school field.

Hope all is well,
Bob

[CMIZ5290]

are you kidding about ruth? he could play in any era

[ChiefBenderForever]

Are you insane ? You should've asked what all stars of today could've played back in the day, only a few could've made it.

[Hankphenom]

I wish there was a way to prove it, but I'd bet Walter Johnson didn't even throw 90mph.
Dan[/QUOTE]

Johnson retired in 1927, Bob Feller came up in 1936. Late in his career, Feller was clocked at almost 99 MPH. There were many players that batted against both of them, and lots of coaches, managers, etc, who saw them both up close many times. Find me ONE who said that Feller was faster than Johnson. Johnson had no curve ball, usually it was one fast ball after another, and batters knew that. What good did it do them? Every other great fast ball pitcher you can name could mix it up with a great curve or other off pitch, all of them: Grove, Feller, Koufax, Ryan, Carlton, Clemens, Randy Johnson, etc. I've been asked this question many times: how fast do you think Johnson was in his prime? I won't tell you what I really think because you'd laugh, but you can start at 100 and use your imagination from there.
Hank Thomas

[kcohen]

None of us saw these guys play. As for Johnson, the words of Ty Cobb speak volumes.

"The first time I faced him, I watched him take that easy windup. And then something went past me that made me flinch. The thing just hissed with danger. We couldn't touch him... every one of us knew we'd met the most powerful arm ever turned loose in a ball park."

Imagine him pitching every 5th day. Although, I'll concede he probably would have needed to develop an off-speed pitch, I suppose he would have been able to do so if necessary.

[rhettyeakley]

I don't want this post to be taken the wrong way and I'm not sure if I can write what a mean to write without it coming off the wrong way but...

It is definitely true that the pre-1947 players did not play along side the African American players and that needs to be kept in mind as we evaluate their statistics and their skill. That being said, in today's game there are an amazing number of Latin players (some black and some not) and there are quite a few African American position players but for whatever reason there are actually very few African American pitchers (there are less African Americans playing now than there were 20-30 years ago.) This is probably due mainly to the increased popularity of Football and Basketball among the African American population and the diminishing popularity of baseball among the same demographic. Do we then put an asterisk on today's players like we do with the pre-1947 guys because the players today also don't have to face as many African American players?

We live in the expansion era with so many teams with such large rosters that we forget that the pre-1947 Major Leaguer had 16 teams available with smaller rosters and a much larger part of the American population actively pursuing a baseball career.

I don't doubt that had African American's been allowed to play pre-1947 they would have been great and perhaps some of the best--but each era needs to be treated independently, but I don't think one can say that just because they face African American's today that it is more difficult (one could argue expanded rosters, more athletic alternatives, etc. all have diminished the overall # of all demographics playing baseball on a regular basis while increasing the overall chances of that player would reach the Major League level). It is an interesting situation.

[SteveMitchell]

"To me the better argument would be can any of today's players make the transition back 100 years ago and be any good. That would be a much tougher task than the players of yesterday suddenly being given better equipment/facilities/salary/lifestyle and asking them to perform!" - Rhys

Specifically, how would today's player handle the use of the tiny gloves that were standard in the Deadball Era or the pancake mitts of the twenties and thirties. (Few one-handed catches, I'll bet.)

The tools of the trade, general playing conditions (St. Louis in summer, unpadded walls, etc.), travel conditions (train), the pay and the Deadball game itself make things somewhat tougher for today's major leaguer to swallow. Give the oldtimers their youth and talent and they would compete favorably in nearly every case.

[steve B]

I was thinking about the gloves as I read this too.

The point about there being a deeper talent pool or not today doesn't make much sense to me. While there's not enough information to tell much many oldtime ballplayers played against latin and negro leage players while barnstorming or playing in the off season.

A player who played in the late 30's spoke to the club I'm in and mentioned the differences between the available players when he played compared to now. I think the numbers were something like 17,000 players in organized ball now and 175,000 then. So I think the competition for the available positions was pretty tough.

The point he was adressing is actually important here. That point was that guys with any weaknesses in their play had to be incredible at some aspect of the game to have any real chance, and that any player with a difficult attitude also had to be too good to release.
How much would Cobb be allowed to get away with today? I can only imagine the fine and suspension he'd get for beating a guy in a wheelchair today. Lifetime ban? Would he have even made the majors with attitudes that would be a PR nighmare?
How much would Ruths famous appetites be ignored?
Or those of the guys that supposedly had major drinking problems.

Rather than the athletic ability being the problem, I think some prewar guys would have a rough time adjusting to a more PC world.

The rest would probably be more than fine.

Steve B

[FrankWakefield]

I agree with Steve about the PC adjustment. The old guys would get with the program for modern training techniques, they'd quickly adapt. But seeing Steve's PC comment has me thinking that in some ways society's pendulum has swung past the midpoint with PCness. The fourth estate seems less responsible than they were years ago; they get the public in a frenzy over nothing. Maybe folks of an earlier time had thicker hides and let some nonsense slide, rather than getting all worked up about it. Nonetheless, going from flannel to synthetic knit; from Pulman cars to jets; and from restrained, knowledgeable newspaper writers to TV talking head idiots; that would take some getting used to for the old ballplayers. The compensation would have them all about making the change!!! (pi).

[barrysloate]

Just about all the old time players could play today, but they would bring with them a different set of skills. I don't think the dead ball era players would hit a whole lot of home runs, but they were better schooled in the fundamentals than today's players and would play some mean small ball. Better bat control, more hit and run plays, I think the old time ballplayers would out think and out hustle today's players. In fact, a line up comprised of oldtimers at the top of the order, and some of today's sluggers in the clean up positions, would be pretty cool.

Could you imagine Ed Delahanty playing today? I think he would be a superstar.

[martyogelvie]

Baseball requires more god given talent than any other sport that I can think of. There is no amount of traning you can do that will allow you to throw a baseball 90+. If you don't have the god given arm to do that, too bad and there is nothing you can do about it. The same goes for hitting curve balls and fast balls. You can practice in a cage all day long and sure you'll get better but not good enough for the major leagues.. so there is no doubt in my mind that Christy Mathewson could pitch for any team in the league today and a young 20 year old Ty Cobb could walk on the field play for the Braves today.. probably hit lead off too! If a 20 year old Babe Ruth showed up at Yankees stadium today, they would put him in the pitching rotation and he would never pick up a bat..

JMO

[Frank A]

Everyone of them could play in todays games. Why not? Look at the baseballs they used, do you think all of those players would be hitting better with todays baseball? Look at the size of the gloves today. Look at the equiptment as compared to the past. Look how much better the players are treated. All these things would make the players of the past much better at what they did. Cobb would still steal bases, Ruth would still pound the ball and the pitchers would last forever. Frank

[mr2686]

I think one thing that would level the playing field for the pre-war players would be modern medicine. How many of them did not/could not put up better stats because they had injuries they had to play through (pulls, strains, dead arms etc)? Today, they could have surgery and rehab and comeback better than before. If you have talent and smarts, you'll always find a way to adapt as the game changes and progresses. Also, better equipment today would make a lot of the pre-war players that much better.

[Touch'EmAll]

Yesteryear players may be able to play today, but maybe not.

The issue is wheather they would be in their "old" bodies - or be able to take advantage of modern times and develop a "new" body.

Physiologically, each successive generation, on average, gets bigger, stronger and faster.

I am a competitive Masters swimmer, but, growing up in the era I did, I am able to go faster than Johnny Weissmuller at the 100 Meter Freestyle. If Johnny Weissmuller were to be born when I was, he most assuredly be much faster than his times if the 1920's.

Look at the Track & Field 100 Meters sprint - todays runners are far superior in times. BUT - if older runners could take advantage of modern medical & training & diet, they would be in modern bodies and able to run much faster than they did long ago.

Same for baseball. Today's pitchers can throw faster. Today's outfielders can throw the ball farther. Todays hitters can hit the ball farther.

Common sense folks.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by mr2686

I think one thing that would level the playing field for the pre-war players would be modern medicine. How many of them did not/could not put up better stats because they had injuries they had to play through (pulls, strains, dead arms etc)? Today, they could have surgery and rehab and comeback better than before. If you have talent and smarts, you'll always find a way to adapt as the game changes and progresses. Also, better equipment today would make a lot of the pre-war players that much better.

An interesting point. And if the old fellows accepted advances in modern medicine, would they also accept modern guidance on pitch counts?

[barrysloate]

Backstroke (and now I know why you use that name)- I think some sports from yesteryear are different than others. While I do believe the old time baseball players could adjust and succeed in the majors today, I would not say the same for professional basketball players. Did you ever see NBA footage from the late 1940's? Do you think those guys could hold their own against Kevin Durant or Lebron James? They would be completely outplayed. And NFL players would suffer too because players today probably outweigh them by 100 pounds. But baseball is a different kind of game and I think the old time players would do quite well.

[Touch'EmAll]

The most likely type of yesteryear player to make it today would be singles hitters - more of just a pure hand/eye coordination issue. I doubt if athlete hand/eye coordination has improved over the years like strength.

The strength required to be a top HR hitter today - I don't know if many prewar players could bring that to the table successfully.

Ty Cobb - time warp him up - would be been Pete Rose/Rod Carew.
Rogers Hornsby - time warp him up - would be George Brett/Tony Gwynn.

Cobb would have to lay off the basepath tactics/antics, however. Today he would get his ass so fast picked off and thrown out it would make his head spin.

And Mr. Walter Johnson & Mr. Cy Young would have to "bring it" on most every single pitch nowadays - no more laying off until they needed it mentality enabling them to stockpile mind boggling Inning Pitched and Wins totals.

Pitcher wise, I would be comfortable that Satchell Paige and Lefty Grove would be in a starting rotation today. Tables turned, how many no-hitters do you think Nolan Ryan would have had back then?

[Mark]

There's a question whether Cobb would have adjusted his swing to adapt to the new game. But hitters like Wheat, Jackson, and Ruth would do more than just fit in. I suspect that Hornsby would put up nice power numbers today: he combined the linear and rotational motions that gave the others great power. As for the pitching, even today's starters pace themselves at times.
As for Ryan's ability to throw a no hitter way back when, I would guess he would sneak one in there, maybe pitching against the Browns.

[prewarsports]

You cant think of Baseball like the other sports because it is completely different. Throwing a baseball is COMPLETELY seperate than anything else in other sports. The "bigger faster stronger" argument means nothing when it comes to throwing a baseball. No amount of weight training/nutrition/science can make a person who throws 90 MPH be able to throw 99 MPH. You can either do it or you cant which is why players 100 years ago ABSOLUTELY could throw just as fast as players today can.

I played Baseball at a very high level (College and semi-pro Summer Leagues with tons of Professional players). I was a VERY good player and hit .449 in the last league I played in during College. I was a big/strong/fast guy but I never once hit 80 MPH on the radar gun.

Science making a fastball faster is as absurd as science being able to make a chess player better with gatorade.

I would challenge ANYONE to answer these questions regarding these three players and explain how they are products of the modern game and that players like this did not exist before.


1. Is Prince Fielder (at least 80 pounds overweight) really taking advantage of all that modern science?

2. Is Tim Lincecum any bigger/faster/stronger than the pitchers of 100 years ago?

3. at 5'9" should we assume that "science" made Billy Wagner able to throw 103 MPH and there is no way he could have done it in 1910?


Rhys

[DanP]

I had a feeling I would be in the minority, but I didn't think I'd be the only one who felt the old-timers couldn't compete in today's game!

I have an open mind here .. So let me ask these questions:
Why is baseball the only sport where guys from 100 years ago could compete today? All Olympic Sports: No way, Football: No way, Basketball: No way, etc. etc. but Baseball, yes??

Let's say Walter Johnson did throw around 100mph. I don't know of any star pitchers with just a fastball. Why would it be different for him? Yes, he could develop another pitch, but that wasn't the question. We would be taking him from 1910 with what he had then and insert him into the 2011 season.

The old-timers didn't grow up playing organized baseball from the 6 years old. They didn't play 100 games in a single little league season (or even play little league), they didn't play year round in high school and college, they were much smaller and weaker than today's players, they didn't face competition from all over the world, there wasn't anywhere near the financial incentive there is today to become a great player, the hitters didn't have to face relief specialists starting from the 6th inning, the hitters never saw a slider, etc. etc.

I believe some of the pitchers could have done OK, and of course some could have been stars (Feller, Ruth, Grove, Hubbell, etc.) but not many of the hitters.

I believe Babe Ruth probably could have been a great pitcher, but I still believe he would have batted .250 in today's game.

I'm trying to rationalize what I'm missing here!

Dan

[Touch'EmAll]

Tim Lincecum has top form and mechanics - thats how he pitches so well. The form and mechanics enable him to acheive maximum effectiveness for his given body. It would be scary to see Tim Lincecum, same awesome proportional mechanics, but with a bigger body.

When i swim, I swim fast because I have great technique. I am definitely not the most buff guy on the starting blocks. If the really buff guys had the same technique and flexibility as I, then they would record setters.

So the question is: Did Walter Johnson, or other, have form and mechanics comparable to todays pitchers? If so, he would probably do well.

[ElCabron]

Walter Johnson had arms that were like 40 feet long. He'd throw gas in any era. The only thing you're really proving with your arguments is that you're a kick-ass swimmer.

The only real differences would be that Wagner would hit like 40+ homers a year today and Cobb would only see pitches on the outside corner or off the plate since he would never be able to reach them with that goofy grip.

-Ryan

[rhettyeakley]

It's a fallacy to think that we as humans are constantly getting better at everything. All the examples you show are where bigger bodies, strength and new training techniques have completely altered the form of the competition. Baseball has changed to some degree but not to the point that basketball, football, hockey, etc. have changed.

Do you honestly think people 100 years ago were worse at chess, pool/billiards, rifle shooting, etc.? I'd argue that pitching is more similar to these types of activities than trying to compare the game of basketball in 1910 to today's game--they aren't even the same game.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by DanP

The old-timers didn't grow up playing organized baseball from the 6 years old. They didn't play 100 games in a single little league season (or even play little league), they didn't play year round in high school and college, they were much smaller and weaker than today's players, they didn't face competition from all over the world, there wasn't anywhere near the financial incentive there is today to become a great player, the hitters didn't have to face relief specialists starting from the 6th inning, the hitters never saw a slider, etc. etc.
Dan

In fact, back then, kids who played sports played almost nothing BUT baseball spring, summer, and fall. Every small town had its own semi pro or pro team, and many factories and clubs played baseball, too. As for their size and strength, it is a factor in athletics. but not the only factor in the game of baseball. The great players were both great physical specimens (e.g. Wagner and Ruth) and highly skilled baseball players. As for relief pitching, it's a solid point in your favor. Many starters burned out their arms trying to go hard the whole game. But as for the slider, it is more than made up for by the spitball, the emery ball, and the simple fact that they used the same ball for entire games. The old, game used ball is a dirty, rough item.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Short answer ALL OF THEM could play today!

Bigger and stronger does not mean better. If Billy Wagner at 5' 9" can throw 100 MPH out of sheer God Given ability are we really to assume that guys born 100 years ago couldn't because they didn't have Gatorade?

Is Ichiro any different than Cobb, is he any bigger faster or stronger?

Is Tim Lincecum any bigger/faster/stronger than the pitchers of 100 years ago?

Jays argument is the one I always make. 100 years ago there were 16 MLB teams that EVERY kid athlete in the world wanted to be on. Today there are about 200 pro sports teams that divide kids up at young ages between the sports. Example, Collin Kaepernick (Nevada's College Qaurterback) could throw 99 MPH as a High Schooler but chose Football. That would not have happened in the past and he would have been right there competing with every other kid in America for the few Baseball spots.


100% EVERY star Baseball player of the prewar era could play in the Major Leagues today.

To me the better argument would be can any of todays playes make the transition back 100 years ago and be any good. That would be a much tougher task than the players of yesterday suddenly being given better equipment/facilities/salary/lifestyle and asking them to perform!

Rhys

As usual, Rhys is spot on! I completely agree.