NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you give an opinion of a person or company your full name needs to be in your post. Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 06-16-2016, 12:22 PM
Section103's Avatar
Section103 Section103 is offline
Rich v@n He$$
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Denver-ish
Posts: 611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nat View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-16-2016, 12:22 PM
bbcard1 bbcard1 is offline
T0dd M@rcum
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 2,415
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nat View Post

* 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.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-16-2016, 12:39 PM
egri's Avatar
egri egri is offline
Sco.tt Mar.cus
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 460
Default

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.
__________________
Signed 1953 Topps set: 232/274 (84.67 %)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-16-2016, 12:52 PM
packs packs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,512
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-16-2016, 02:59 PM
Eric72's Avatar
Eric72 Eric72 is offline
Eric Perry
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Posts: 1,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packs View Post
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
__________________
Eric Perry

Currently collecting:
T206 (95/524)

"The kid doesn't chew tobacco, smoke, drink, curse or chase broads. I don't see how he can possibly make it."
- Richie Ashburn
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-16-2016, 03:33 PM
packs packs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,512
Default

I agree with you 100 % I only wanted to point out that players of today would have as much trouble adjusting to the game of the past as past players would have adjusting to the game of the future. Kershaw is great today but could he throw 9 innings day in, day out for 10 or 15 years and remain the dominant pitcher he is now? Maybe, but maybe not.

Last edited by packs; 06-16-2016 at 03:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-16-2016, 11:47 PM
bravos4evr's Avatar
bravos4evr bravos4evr is offline
Nick Barnes
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: South Mississippi
Posts: 724
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by celoknob View Post
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.
__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."- Tom Waits
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-17-2016, 12:05 AM
vintagetoppsguy's Avatar
vintagetoppsguy vintagetoppsguy is offline
D@v!d J@m3s
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Richmond, TX
Posts: 4,473
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-17-2016, 03:10 PM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbcard1 View Post
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
.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-17-2016, 04:02 PM
robw1959 robw1959 is offline
Rob
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 303
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Yankee old timers day programs Denny Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used 2 09-11-2014 01:05 PM
Need help from the long timers please... veleno45 Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 7 06-03-2014 01:38 PM
1921 Old Timers photo w/ Cy Young UnVme7 Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used 5 02-19-2014 04:28 PM
Old Timers Games Chris Counts Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 11 08-08-2013 02:18 PM
Old Timers~ Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 44 06-26-2006 03:52 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:11 PM.


ebay GSB