What if they used today's baseballs?
 

I was watching the All-Star Game's Home Run (and pop-up) Hitting Contest and thinking about all the home runs hit this year, including the broken bat opposite field home runs hit by skinny, injured, triple A players... and it got me thinking about how I would have liked to have seen certain players from the past in the home run contest... and how certain match-ups or scenarios from the past would have been really interesting to see using today's "super ball."

I would love to see...
Jimmie Foxx connect perfectly on a Bob Feller fastball
Josh Gibson get it all on Satchel Paige's "Bee Ball." (First 800+ foot HR?)

I am sad to say though, that Willie would not have made "The Catch" if they used this ball, because it would have been a home run! :rolleyes:

Anyway, I want to hear from you about match-ups, scenarios, things you would like to see, or how this ball would have dramatically altered a specific play. (We know it would have changed the whole history of the sport... so for fun, let's keep it to singular games or series).

I have to laugh when some
Seem to think vintage players were better than the modern stars. Sure in every sport they got better except baseball. It’s undebatable in track, and other sports that compete against a clock or a measurable distance we have improved tremendously. Yet baseball fans still cling to the notion thy somehow the vintage players were better than those of today. Honestly it is a laughable notion. Now I prefer vintage cards but I would never believe any vintage star is truly a better athlete or player than the modern stars. . Trout would have crushed even Ruth’s numbers if they were playing in the same era.

I completely agree with you.

That's a separate issue. It was customary for people to win the Home Run Derby with 3 or 4 homers just one generation ago. Now the winners (and more than a few of the losers) are hitting 1000-2000% as many. I realize they've tweaked the format, but not by an order of magnitude.

I agree that for the most part, early baseball stars would have a hard time fitting in with today's game. Ty Cobb wouldn't hit .400 today. Babe Ruth wouldn't be leading the league in home runs. I think Cobb would still likely be one of the better ball players because I think he could hit. But I think he'd be much closer to something like Chipper Jones type stats. I don't know what Babe Ruth would be if he played today besides one of the most out of shape players in the league. You also had pitchers back then throwing 300+ innings and having 25-30 complete games. That certainly contributed to the higher batting averages from the hitters as I can only imagine the pitchers would wear themselves out.

It would be interesting if you could have had a radar gun on the pitchers back then and seen exit velocity off the bats. Do we really think Walter Johnson who was thought of as one of the stronger arms was throwing anything over 90? :confused:

Since part of the energy to hit a home run comes from the pitch, doesn't that make the HR hitters like Ruth all the more impressive?

Does it? Weren't they throwing batting practice pitches during the Home Run Derby the other night that were landing 460 feet away?

Absolutely +1
 

Totally agree

By the same token, modern players would collapse in the vintage era without modern medicine, training, nutrition, transportation, and off season rest.

There will never be an honest apples to apples comparison because the variables can't be controlled from era to era.

Modern players would collapse if they had to resort to late night saloons and two packs of cigarettes a day? I'm failing to understand the perspective of how you could even remotely say you can't compare today's athletes to yesterdays?

Hmmm... Did I say that yesterday's players were better than today's players? Is that really what my original post is about?

It's really about the BALL... and how different match-ups, scenarios, series, etc. might have looked if that ball was used.

That is why I mentioned Jimmie Foxx vs Bob Feller instead of Home Run Baker vs Justin Verlander. However, I did mention past players participating in home run hitting contests against 60 mph pitches. So, I'm sorry if it was unclear

Hey... Don't you think Mantle would have enjoyed an extra home run or 200 using this ball? Maybe hit a 700 foot Home Run?

I saw my man, Willie Stargell hit a baseball completely out of Dodger Stadium back when he was the only player to have ever done it (and he did it twice!). I would love to see him hit this ball!

Though, to play in today's game, Cobb and Ruth would have to be living in today's world.

That's deep, man.

I'm pretty sure all the vintage era players didn't booze it up and smoke two packs a day. Even if true, that kind of undermines your point. Imagine how much better vintage era players would be if they didn't smoke two packs a day.

As far as not being able to accurately compare modern day and vintage era athletes, I already explained it. If you don't understand, I can't help you any further.

Vintage Players vs. Modern
 

Maybe so but make no mistake about the fact that NO PLAYER EVER could hit a baseball as far as Mickey Mantle! He hit 10 documented 500+ feet Homer’s and that doesn’t include the 2 balls he hit off of Yankee Stadium’s facade. Geometrical/Calculus formulas indicate BOTH those mammoth blasts would have achieved 650-700 feet had they not hit the facade (based on distance, height, a conservative estimated exit velocity of 110 mph and the fact that BOTH batted balls were still RISING when they hit the facade)!!! This all accomplished without any sophisticated conditioning programs, PEDs, tightly wound baseball’s, lighter bats which produce enhanced bat speed, 95-100mph velocity pitchers that result in higher exit velocity off of solid contact, etc. Mike Trout would have to bat from 2nd base to hit some balls as far as Mickey hit them!!!

There's plenty of complicated physics, basically the angle and speed matter the most, but the spin and where on the bat you hit, and the initial speed of the pitch all contribute.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/adv...a4569/4216783/

So yes, a BP curve that doesn't curve will go farther than a 94mph fastball, but the 94 mph fastball will leave the bat 3mph faster than a 78mph curve. (Their numbers.) The spin and the spin leaving the bat are very different, and more backspin=more lift=more distance.
So in an actual game, comparing a hit fastball to a hit fastball, the faster pitch will go farther.

Seam height matters too, the high loose seams of well used 1920's balls create more drag and slow the ball down, lower tighter seams don't - too low and they don't generate as much lift lift.

The biggest HR hitters in the 20's-30's were probably every bit as good as the hitters today.

Bob Feller was actually clocked throwing over 100 MPH. Perhaps radar guns and clocking methods have changed over the years... but regardless, he could bring it.

Yeah, I'm not going to pretend to understand the physics involved in how a baseball takes flight at what launch angle, exit velocity, spin on the ball, etc....it's for sure two different worlds and in many ways two different games. I think if this era of players were to be dropped in a game from 1909 they'd be floored as much as if that era of players were to be dropped in a game today. For sure, there are better, faster, stronger athletes today. This kids playing now grew up playing travel ball with non stop tournaments all the time. Just different.

One thing from the past that I wish was still around was the pitchers going deeper into games. The the lost art of throwing a good screwball, knuckleball, and even in the day a good spitter. :)

Everyone always says the old players have nothing on the new players, but I really don't understand that perspective. Other sports have seen increases in talent due increases in the numbers of athletes participating in the sport. That's why I believe the level has risen so much in the NBA and the NFL; you've got way more people playing both sports than you ever did before.

That is not true with baseball. Every year there is the discussion about diminishing participation among even little league players. Whereas every kid used to play baseball, now that population is splintered across three other sports (plus soccer). In my opinion that means Major League Baseball is no longer full of the best of the best in the country; instead it is full of the best who choose to play. If you ask me, the average player in the 1920s would have still had to have been an incredible player to even get a spot on a professional roster by virtue of needing to beat out much more competition to claim it.

My understanding is that, based on the best available data, Mantle's "565 foot" home run would have traveled about 460 feet without the wind. I'm not a physicist, but that's what they say. There are a few interesting papers and one oddly engaging Powerpoint presentation about it.

Yep, there were pro football players trying to play baseball even though football was their better sport. Baseball was the sport to play - it payed better.

Babe Ruth would be great in any era he played!! Now let's see some modern steroid product swing a 42 oz bat like the old "out of shape" bambino!!!

Think about the relief pitcher of today. He would never have a roster spot on a team from the 30s. His career would never materialize because his services would have been considered useless.

Even the best starters in today's game would see their employment prospects drop when it was revealed they couldn't throw more than 100 pitches in a game. And how would they handle having to face a line up like the 27 Yankees for a third time in the same game?

Joe Wood probably tore his shoulder in half while he was pitching, so what did he do? He became an outfielder who hit close to 300 instead. How many pitchers today could do something like that? Or would even attempt to?

Picking the 27 Yankees as the bar to which today’s pitchers would fare is an obvious swayed argument. Of course most pitchers today would be run from the game pretty quickly. But that’s picking one of the best hitting teams of all time, at least statistically. But how would a Jacob Degrom handle them? I’d say at least better. How many pitchers did the 27 Yankees face that threw a mid 90s slider? How would the Yankees have handled a Randy Johnson in his prime?

We can pick whoever we want. A typical fifth starter today I would think could have 7 quality starts out of 10 pitching against the 1907 Boston Doves.

I guess I don't really understand why the perception is that someone like Babe Ruth couldn't hit a 90s slider. Why not? He obviously had an insane eye for the ball to be able to hit for the power and average he did. Same for Gehrig, same for Ted Williams or Ty Cobb. Why wouldn't they be able to hit any ball anyone threw in any time period? Speed has very little to do with success at the professional level. It always helps, but it's not like there aren't a thousand guys out there throwing 98 who aren't successful major league pitchers.

I’m not saying Ruth wouldn’t have hit home runs today. But would he be the elite home run hitter in MLB? There’s a reason to me there were numerous players that hit over .400 prior to World War II. I think it’s partly due to the starting pitcher pitching the whole game. We know pitchers are throwing harder now then they did years ago. Just in the last 20-25 years we’ve went from a couple guys that hit 100 on the radar to every team having 2-4 guys that do it. I also wonder back in the day how often was a ball put in play by say Rogers Hornsby credited as a hit where today the same play might be an E-5?

Great post Steve. I remember a interview with Barry Bonds with him saying how Ted Williams said the exact thing I made bold in Steves post. Barry said Ted told him to hit the ball with a slight downward swing to give the ball that backwards spin. I am sure that explains all of the monster HRs Barry hit.;)

I think it has more to do with the groundskeepers than the scorekeepers.

Mantle would have easily hit 700+ home runs despite all of his injuries...

Imagine how good Ruth/Gehrig/Mantle etc could be with all the modern advances today. I imagine, if Ruth played today, he'd have all the advantages that modern players enjoy. Same with modern players. If they played in Ruth's day. Would they be as good without all the modern day training techniques?

I think a interesting comparison would be to see today's hitters hit in yesterday's canyonesque ballparks and yesterday's hitters hit in todays relatively small ballparks... Polo Grounds, old Yankee Stadium, Forbes etc...

Sorry, Mantle clean? Any Max Jacobson client was given his "muscle regeneration shots". The steroid era is a myth. The story that he received that 61' abscess from just "one" shot and it was only meth is about as believable as a North Korean press release.

Sir, how dare you. Next i bet you are going to say he also used a corked bat.;)

Different eras for sure.

Todays players can get an incredible amount of organized experience, but players before sometimes played more, even if the games were less organized.
To me one of the saddest things is seeing todays baseball fields for kids. My kids play at two parks near baseball fields... Wonderful baseball fields. Stands, decent infield and grass, big backstop, even stands, and a passable outfield wall. A long way from the fields I played on, which either had no outfield wall, or a bit of snow fencing with 350 painted on it at what was probably much less. No stands at some, everyone sat on folding chairs.
Of course, we played on our fields pretty much every day. Todays fields are all posted along the lines of "reserved for little league, don't even think of playing ball here. Or the police will come"

I can't imagine some of todays guys getting used to the minimal clubhouse areas they had in 1909. Just as I can't imagine some of the tougher characters adjusting to whirlpools and wall to wall carpet and a spread of free food. (ok, they might adjust to the buffet pretty easily)

Lol

My favorite Ted story was from a guy who spoke at the club, and had played for him in Washington.

The first year he was on them about waiting for a more hittable pitch and made a big difference in team batting average.
The next year they had Nolan Ryan coming in for a game and asked him how they could hit his pitching. He said that early on he'd try to hit the top of the ball to drive it somewhere, but that late in the game he'd try to hit under the ball to get more distance, maybe a homer or sac fly.
And that that comment made most of the guys stop listening since they were asking how to hit a ball they couldn't really see vs his advice of trying to hit it a certain way.

It's sad that Bonds had to take stuff, he probably would have been fairly close to the record without it. Maybe Teds advice helped early and chemistry helped more later?

Foxx hit a ball that broke a seat in the next to last row of the upper deck in left.
Gibson hit one that probably cleared the corner of the upper deck but landed in the bleachers.

In every generation there's a few players that can hit for impressive distance, but what seems to be the limit is somewhere just over 500ft.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/feats/art_hr.shtml

Seems like our old Sultan of Swat would fair quite well in any era:

"At one time Tampa had a downtown sports stadium named Plant Field, which would host Spring Training baseball games. It was here, on April 4, 1919, in a game between the Boston Red Sox and the New York Giants, that Babe Ruth hit his longest home run ever -- 587 feet."
www.RoadsideAmerica.com

Ruth came to the Wyoming Valley on October 12, to take part in an exhibition game between Hughestown and Larksville. After challenging Larksville pitcher Ernie Corkran to throw his fastest pitch over the plate, Ruth cracked what is now deemed to be the longest ball in baseball history.
The day after the exhibition game, the Associated Press gave a descriptive account of the Bambino's blast.

"The ball cleared the right field fence 400 feet from the plate by more than 40 feet and was still ascending. The ball landed on the far side of the running track of a high school athletic field in Kirby Park. Officials estimated the length at 650 feet."

According to Jenkinson, who hails from the Philadelphia area, it was the only time in Ruth's baseball career that he asked for one of his home runs to be measured. Ruth also claimed that it was the farthest ball he ever hit.

"I've personally researched more than 1,000 home runs hit by Babe Ruth and this is the only time he asked someone to measure how far it went. Immediately after he hit it, he declared it to be the farthest home run he had ever hit."
http://www.wilkes.edu/about-wilkes/c...t-homerun.aspx

A lot of folks have called Trout the greatest they've ever seen, so I'm not trying to knock him here. But just remember that this guy probably eats like a king - big breakfast, then breakfast #2, protein shakes, vitamin pills, lunch, lunch #2, dinner, snacks, etc. He hurts his toe and he'll have a specialist check it out for him. He has pain in his neck, then he'll get sent to a different specialist. He starts having mental issues, then he gets sent somewhere else.

Now let's look back at Mantle's era: they ate bread, coffee (with ten packs of sugar added), hot dogs, cigarettes, beer, whiskey, more bread, etc. They didn't know what concussions or mental problems were back then. If you complained, then it was like "shut the hell up and play - are you a man or what?" Heck, even if your leg was broken, you still had to get out there and play or risk getting booted from the club.

If guys like Mantle played today - WOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

I guess the most surprising thing about this thread is how much people are discounting Babe Ruth's abilities. He outhit the ENTIRE LEAGUE while using the same equipment they did. Why would his skills diminish today? I would think his stats would have only skyrocketed beyond what they already were.

...and for the most part, the fences were still 325 375 400 375 325 (or greater) back then.

When Ruth set his first single season record of 29 home runs in 1919 the next closest guy hit 10. TEN! His OPS was almost 200 points higher than the guy behind him, TY COBB.

Trout will never come close to doing anything like that, despite how great he is. Ruth was from another planet and he did that while all things were equal with his contemporaries.

Many parks were 430 to 450 to center field back then...

Heresy!

You have to judge these people against their peers.

If Babe Ruth was way out of shape, then what was everyone else's excuse for not hitting 90 home runs since they're all 'in shape'?

If you brought Walter Johnson forward in time, would he be able to pitch even minor league ball? No.

Could a modern day pitcher get sent back in time and be able to start 50 games with 35 complete games year after year? No. Not even for one year. They wouldn't last a month and they'd get cut since they can't keep pace with the schedule. Meanwhile, that is your all star starting pitcher of today.

You are full of you know what, Mantle allegations, really?? BS...Mantle was 5-11, and weighed about 180 lbs and hit the ball out of sight....And by the way, spell out your freaking name instead of all that symbol BS....

what a crock of shit that you actually believe this....:eek:

The bat was up for auction but the family said they would sue so I was taken down.

I'm not talking about a bat numb nuts, I'm talking about reference to Mantle taking steriods like your lame ass partner suggested.....

We will never know but yes I do, just like I think several others from that era did including Maris. Why wouldn't they, they were not against the rules or even illegal then?:confused:

What do you folks think about the depth of talent ? I kinda agree the top players would be top players in any era. However, I feel the bottom 25% of the players today are closer to the top than the bottom 25% of 100 years ago - basically the talent spread is much closer today than way back. That enables the top players way back players to put up better stats - both pitchers and hitters. Could be wrong, food for thought.

Agreed, if it is not illegal and easy to get would he be doing his job if he didn't? A two minute google tells you that he got that abcess from Jacobson...the exact guy who had the president on methamphimines. His shot mixtures were well known and had animal hormones and steroids.

Chose to believe what you want but the earliest admission of steroid use was HoF member Pud Galvin in the 1800s who was shooting horse testosterone. If you want to pretend that professional athletes ignored steroids in the sixties and the commies were the only ones in the world with their athletes on them with all the evidence in world that that's not the fact then enjoy those Vaseline covered glasses.

That's not for you Brian, it's for the one standing in front of the Darwin Museum ignoring how science works.

Do you even know what the Hell you are talking about?

Not completely sure, but you might be the dumbest person I have ever heard pertaining this subject...Pud Galvin shooting horse steriods? Really? Let me ask you something....Barry Bonds went from about 6-1 165 lbs, to 240 lbs and a head the size of a pumpkin. Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris were the same physical stats pretty much throughout their careers. Also, Mark McGwire was a string bean with the A's, and then all of a sudden, the Jolly Green Giant with size 38" thighs....Please know what the Hell you are talking about, OK?

What you think steroids do on their own shows you know jack. The best use of steroids is speed of healing and recovery. I guess they only work the way you think and lance Armstrong was 250 with Hogan arms.

Done with talking to you on this because your extent of knowledge consists of things you "think" and ignore any actual subject matter.

This is interesting. Could you tell me more about this story? So Mantle was having some issues and the Yankees sent him to see this doctor, and then he developed an abscess from the injection - was this a one time thing? Did Mantle see this doctor in the past? What about the other guys on the team? I need more information.

Not sure who took what when, launch angles, WAR, MPH off the bat etc. etc, but give me my all time favorite Harmon Killebrew in today`s HR derby against anyone else I`ve seen.

The population base if far larger today than it was, especially pre- 1947/8

One of the guys who spoke to the club years ago had a couple interesting numbers. He asked how many players were playing when he was vs how many now. At the time he said organized baseball in the US, counting independent leagues had about 17,500 players. Just before WWII the number was supposedly closer to 175,000. Now I don't think those figures are entirely accurate, as they probably don't include international leagues that weren't scouted then, and some of that 175K was in town and industrial leagues which had extremely variable levels of play.

But his point was that unless you were a Ted Williams or DiMaggio or nearly that good, you had to be good, get along, etc, or they could replace you with a phone call.

How many teams today keep guys on the roster because "well, we're paying him X million a year, we'll keep putting him out there until he gets better or the contract is up."

Since this claim probably needs some backup...

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...her-of-juicing

And from here a bit more balanced look at it. It was actually dog and guniea pig testicles....And apparently didn't actually work
https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/38c553ff

With the publication of Roger I. Abrams’ The Dark Side of the Diamond: Gambling, Violence, Drugs and Alcoholism in the National Pastime, in 2007, Galvin became 21st-century news. He was given the title of baseball’s first user of performance-enhancing drugs. Abrams found an article in the Washington Post from August 14, 1889, that said:
“Galvin was one of the subjects at a test of the Brown-Séquard elixir at a medical college in Pittsburgh on Monday. If there still be doubting Thomases who concede no virtue in the elixir, they are respectfully referred to Galvin’s record in yesterday’s Boston-Pittsburg game. It is the best proof yet furnished of the value of the discovery.”34
In that game Galvin pitched a two-hit shutout and was uncharacteristically successful at the plate. Abrams takes the article at face value, connecting Galvin’s participation in the trial with his success in the following game, in the process defying the long-held and correct notion that correlation does not imply causation.
The Brown-Séquard elixir was invented in 1889 by Charles Brown-Séquard, a French-American doctor. The elixir, which was injected, was based around extracts from guinea-pig and dog testicles and was apparently the first known modern treatment that contained testosterone. Abrams thus relates the elixir to the anabolic steroids that we know of today and ties Galvin to cheating and performance-enhancing drugs.
Abrams, however, fails to take into account the primitive nature of the Brown-Séquard elixir, which made it biologically ineffective according to scientific research published in 2002. The only possible benefit for Galvin, therefore, would have been a placebo effect. Moreover, the instance cited by Abrams appears to have been isolated. Abrams’ association of Galvin’s one-time use of the Brown-Séquard elixir in 1889 with modern-day steroid use is further undermined because the elixir was not banned by professional baseball. It is anachronistic to look back at Galvin’s one-time use of this elixir and consider it performance enhancement, cheating, or unethical behavior. Still, national news outlets and websites publicized and excerpted Abrams’ work, thus helping to slightly tarnish Galvin’s reputation and legacy.

2 points:
1. The possible population for MLB baseball players today extends beyond the USA far more than it ever has. Before 1947 it was essentially limited to white males in the USA.

2. They change out the baseballs far more than they did in the past. Before 1920 (Mays sidearm kills Chapman and Spitballs legal) they tried assiduously to conserve baseballs during MLB games.

These 2 changes make cross-historical comparison of hitters very difficult. The former clearly means that there was much much less competition in the past. The later meant that hitting was often a very different challenge than it is today.

This is certainly missing the point and putting up an odd defense by the author. It does not matter if it worked or not. Nor should his reputation be tarnished in anyway.

Intent is what should be measured and certainly he was hoping it would help him. If I either successfully or unsuccessfully rob a bank, the charges are the same.

What I believe is that when you are under pressure to be a professional athlete and a supplement is available that is legal that could better that effort then you are more likely than not to use it. This was what he was trying and what is logical for players of past. To discount that the same guys with candy dishes of speed and pain killers in the locker room next to the tobacco, sunflower seeds and bubble gum had some moral dilemma on a legal practice is absolutely silly.

There are plenty of accounts available if you look for them, but generationally those players are honestly less likely to be "rats" as the Jose's of the 90s that redirected attention every time it came to him by throwing people under the bus.

I just personally hold the notion that the "steroid era" was less of an increase in steroids but a change in user habits as they were using the healing properties in a more modern way for weight training recovery. They didn't just appear in 1987.

Lyle Alzado admitted he started using in college. Mind you this was 1967 at Yankton College in the NAIA in South Dakota. Let's hit some simple logic here, a 19 year old kid at a tiny no-name college in 1967 can find steroids with no effort but a professional athlete in the MLB can't? There is no logical argument to say that based on high moral grounds they ignored it. In all likelihood it was far more common than ever as it was not tested for and probably on par with the other drug use. That is my opinion of course, but I consider it not an excessive leap of faith.

NO they haven't. There hasn't been a running back in the NFL that comes close to Jim Brown. Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest athlete to ever play in the NBA. No one has ever been stronger or had his vertical in a 7 foot body. These guys were freaks without the need for modern training. The idea that man has evolved that much is a joke.

+1

Evolved?

Tommy John surgery is a rite of passage today.

Complete games - forget about it

More than 200 innings a year for more than a decade - dreamer

Did Nolan Ryan have yesterday’s arm?

Hell, they probably have pitch counts in Tee Ball today.:D

mantle, ruth, etc
 

feller could throw over 100, pretty awesome.
before his injury mantle could run from home plate to first base in 3.1, whos the fastest today? 3.4?
ruth hit more home runs than ANY OTHER TEAM in what, 1921 or so.
jimmy foxx, the beast.
likewise as commented already, what training and what diet did these pre 1970 era guys live on.
still, it is fun to compare. i can't wait for time travel, it will be a blast.

The Babe Ruth, Mike Trout comparison is total malarkey, my friend! How many 500-foot home runs has Trout ever hit? Zero. In 1921, Babe Ruth hit at least one 500+ foot homer in every single ballpark he played in - all eight American League cities. If he didn't lose five prime years to pitching for Boston, Ruth's career home run totals would have been well over 800, despite playing out seasons of only about 154 games each instead of 162.

Now the rest of your argument has merit. Today's athletes are generally better than the vintage era athletes for two primary reasons: 1) Modern resources have allowed today's athletes to exercise more effectively and efficiently, and 2) Modern worldwide recruiting has dramatically increased the size and scope of the talent pool available to perform professionally.

Not really sure why we are comparing the eras here. Yes the baseballs are juiced now but pitching back then was nowhere near what we have now. Night and Day for sure

Athletes have looked for an edge for a long time. Even if what is then thought to be effective really isn't. Cyclists in the 30's smoked as they thought it "opened up the lungs"
Another early believed PED was strychnine...:eek:

It's difficult to compare era's. Babe dominated his peers in HR's more than any player in history.