Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff S.</b><p>This has been debated before, but I'd like to hear our opinions on the truly greats of yesteryear up against the likes of a great contemporary fireballer. For instance, Pedro circa '99 with Cobby or Ruth in the box?

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>I personally believe that great pitching will usually beat great hitting...usually. I believe any great pitcher will have his/her way with most hitters when his/her stuff is en fuego. And on the other hand...every now and then...the great pitcher will make a mistake.

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Ruth would have been a star in any era. Nothing could convince me otherwise.

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Mark L</b><p>I reckon that the best we could do is to find out how Cobb fared against Walter Johnson and how Ruth hit Grove. Sam Crawford told Larry Ritter that Cobb had trouble with Johnson, but it would be nice to see the stats.

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Cobb actually hit Walter Johnson very well - I'm not sure what exactly his average was against him, but he noted that Johnson was afraid of hitting batters so Cobb crowded the plate and he got Johnson to throw him hittable pitches. Somewhere there is a chart showing Cobb's average against every single pitcher he ever faced. I can't recall where I saw it...maybe in the back of one of his numerous biographies??

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>Those two would be great hitters in any era.<br /><br /><br />Steve

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>Cobb would have hit about .265 against Pedro in 1999--maybe lower if he couldn't find help getting dug out of the grave.

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>"Those two would be great hitters in any era."<br /><br />agreed.

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Ed Ivey</b><p>The only pre-war hitter that I feel for sure could blend into today's game against any pitcher is Ted Williams. I don't know why. I just have a lot of difficulty crossing baseball eras. I'm a Yanks fan and I love Ruth lore, but I just don't know.

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff S.</b><p>Has there been mention to pitch speeds in different eras? I'm sure as baseball has progressed, bat speed and pitch speed has increased in unison. Linking one from modern times to one from perhaps the dead ball era would seem an unfair matchup...perhaps a comparison would be a single-A batter vs. a major league pitcher? <br /><br />There's also the adjustment factor - Ruth and Cobb were such incredible athletes that they could surely adjust to any new pedigree of pitcher presented before them.

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Once those deadballers got used to 34 oz bats instead of the 40+ oz clubs they were using I think bat speed wouldn't be a problem.

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Mark L</b><p>Pitch speed hasn't necessarily changed when you're considering the fastest pitchers. Feller was clocked at around 100 mph late in his career---and old-timers say that he was comparable to Johnson. So there you go.

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>paulstratton</b><p>Yes, but could modern day pitchers go 9 innings every fourth day?

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Mark, exactly: Feller threw 100. How many of today's pitchers throw that fast? And how would Feller or Johnson or Matty have pitched if they only had to throw 89 pitches every 5 days?

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>If I remember correctly Cobb was asked this question around 1950. He replied that he would probably only hit around .290 against the pitching of that era. When asked why he thought they were so much better, he responded, "I'm 60 years old! What do you expect?" This is my paraphrase of the story, but the general gist of it is correct.<br />JimB

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>I think given today's diet and exercise regimens, smaller ball parks and "juiced" baseball, Cobb and Ruth would do just fine. This is especially true in places like Cincinnati's Great American Ball Park (or like I call it, GASP - Great American Small Park). Bill James says that park aids Left Handed hitters power numbers and if you look at Adam Dunn (a POOR hitter) you can see it. His Home and Away numbers are much different.<br /><br />One other thing to consider is that old time ball players, like Ruth and Cobb, were offended if they Struck Out. So, if they got past that and swung for the fences like a LOT of today's ball players do, then their power numbers would increase.<br /><br />Just my opinion,<br /><br />David

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Eric Brehm</b><p>Ty Cobb facing Randy Johnson would make a great premise for an episode of <I>Twilight Zone</I>. Unfortunately time travel is possible only in the world of fantasy, so we'll never know.<br /><br />What I would say is, that it is obvious that today's athletes are generally stronger, faster, and more durable than those of years ago. You can see it in the continual progression of performance in Olympic events such as sprinting, distance running, jumping, and so on. Specialized training techniques and technology have advanced as well. Maybe baseball is somehow different; maybe hitting and pitching abilities depend less on pure physical prowess than do the skills required for success in other sports, I don't know. But my feeling is that a team of modern players would pretty much wipe out a team from the deadball era. Walter Johnson could throw 90mph+ fastballs, but could he make the ball move and sink and do all the other crazy things that today's pitchers can?<br /><br />Anyhow, I think Cobb would be able to hit in today's game, but he wouldn't have anything like the kind of success he had in his own era.

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Mark L</b><p>Eric<br />I think that baseball may be different from other games in the manner that you suggest. Did Johnson have a lot of movement on his fastball? I'm not sure. But according to witnesses he had excellent command of his fastball. And the record book says that he gave up one walk every four innings, which isn't bad. Did other old time pitchers have any stuff? any movement on their pitches? Many surely did since many of them specialized in the spitball, the shineball, the emery ball, etc. But pitchers like Matty and Alexander managed to outpitch them all with their natural stuff AND superb contol. Therefore I believe that they were pretty good pitchers, as such.

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff S.</b><p>"Smoky Joe Wood often said, "I threw so hard, I thought my arm would fly right off my body." Walter Johnson, often cited as the fastest throwing pitcher in Major League history by experts, believed that Wood was faster than himself and once said, "Mister, no man alive can throw a baseball harder than Joe Wood.""<br /><br />And this has been mentioned before, but great reading:<br /><br />"The fastest pitcher ever may have been 1950s phenom and flameout Steve Dalkowski. Dalkowski signed with the Orioles in 1957 at age 21. After nine years of erratic pitching he was released in 1966, never having made it to the Major Leagues. Despite his failure, he has been described as the fastest pitcher ever.<br /><br />Ted Williams once stood in a spring training batting cage and took one pitch from Dalkowski. Williams swore he never saw the ball and claimed that Dalkowski probably was the fastest pitcher who ever lived. Others who claimed he was the fastest ever were Paul Richards, Harry Brecheen and Earl Weaver. They all thought he was faster than Bob Feller and Walter Johnson, though none of them probably saw Johnson pitch.<br /><br />In 1958 the Orioles sent Dalkowski to the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, a military installation where Feller was once clocked. Feller was clocked at 98.6 mph. Dalkowski was clocked at only 93.5, but a few mitigating factors existed:<br /><br />1) Dalkowski had pitched in a game the day before, so he could be expected to throw 5-10 mph slower than usual;<br /><br />2) there was no mound to pitch from, which Feller had enjoyed, and this would drop his velocity by 5-8 mph;<br /><br />3) he had to pitch for 40 minutes before the machine could measure his speed, and he was exhausted by the time there was a reading. Other sources reported that the measuring device was a tube and that he took a long time to finally throw one into the tube.<br /><br />It was estimated that Dalkowski’s fastball at times reached 105 mph. Dalkowski was not physically imposing, standing only 5'8" and wearing thick glasses. He had legendary wildness, which kept him out of the Major Leagues. In 995 minor league innings, he walked 1,354 batters and struck out 1,396. He walked 21 in one minor league game and struck out 21 in another. In high school he pitched a no-hitter while walking 18 and striking out 18.<br /><br />He threw 283 pitches in a complete game against Aberdeen and once threw 120 pitches in only two innings. He played in nine leagues in nine years.<br /><br />In 1963 for Elmira he finally started throwing strikes. During spring training in 1964, Dalkowski was with the Major League club. After fielding a sacrifice bunt by pitcher Jim Bouton in spring training, Dalkowski’s arm went dead and he never recovered. He drifted to various jobs and landed in Bakersfield, California, where he was arrested many times for fighting.<br /><br />He once threw a ball at least 450 feet on a bet. He was supposed to throw the ball from the outfield wall to home plate, but he threw it well above the plate into the press box. He once threw a pitch so hard that the catcher missed the ball and it shattered an umpire’s mask. Dalkowski was the basis for wild fastball pitcher Nuke LaLoosh in the movie Bull Durham.<br /><br />Source: The Cultural Encyclopedia of Baseball, 1997."

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>john w</b><p>There is no doubt that both Ruth and Cobb (and several comtemporay stars) would have similar success against todays competition - albeit not as spiked in relation to league averages. The drop off is in the lower echelon players that, against conventional proprganda, would not be able to compete. Many purport that talent, specifically pitching, has been diluted through the generations, but I hold fast to the opposite fact that talent as a whole (and specifically the lower levels) has increased greatly over the past 100 years. The big boys would still be stars, however, the major league entry level talent would be at a higher standard.

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>It's hard to believe that the Orioles couldn't find a spot on their 40 man roster in September for the fastest pitcher in the game. I'm not sure what to make of that. It's just strange.

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Dalkowski had ZERO control and he walked as many as he struck out. The Orioles worked very hard to teach him control and nothing worked. Perhaps if he'd played for a Bill Veeck owned team he may have made the majors, but with his lack of control he was more a curiosity than a commodity.

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>john w</b><p>Dan,<br />I read somewhere that Earl Weaver had success when he placed a batter on both sides of the plate - not practical in game situations lol. I believe I read this in "The Suitors of Spring".<br /><br />Has anyone else heard this?<br />

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>John, I hadn't read that, but I do know that Earl Weaver worked very hard with him....he just could not harness his power and his control got worse if he tried to slow his pitches down.

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Eric Brehm</b><p>Assuming that pitching "control" or "command" has been relatively constant over time (I see no reason to believe that deadball era pitchers were <i>better</i> in that respect), then if modern pitchers are stronger or have fancier stuff then their forbears, then on average, they are better pitchers. Therefore Cobb had an easier time of it in his era than he would have if he could play now. (Also, stronger and more agile fielders would rob him of more base hits or extra bases.)

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>I think both Cobb and Ruth would have been better if they played today. Reasons:<br /><br />1.Dilution of talent today--more teams and more sports to compete for athletes--today's players are better athletes and worse baseball players<br />2.Brushback pitches have essentially been eliminated from the game<br />3.Juiced baseball<br />4.Better training facilities<br />5.Yankee Stadium smaller for Ruth--CF has been moved in a lot<br /><br />Partial Offsets<br /><br />1.Impact of Latin,Black and other foreign players<br />2.Night baseball (don't know how they would adjust to this but probably fine)

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Mark L</b><p>Steve<br />I, at least, don't grant that it was easier to hit a pitch in, say, 1915 than it is today. Back in the early years of the century, they would use the same ball as long as possible throughout the game. During the course of a game, the ball would be darkened, scuffed, and adorned with spit, grease, coffee, licorice, etc., so that it did very fancy things when thrown with art. In addition, the ball was not as "lively" as it is today, so it was tougher to drive it into the outfield gaps. <br />

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Andrew S.</b><p>Ruth lived for the fastball. There just weren't enough of them when he played and he only hit 714 HRs as a result. Now move forward to today where pitchers are firing the ball much faster. Ruth would have over 1000 HRs. I remember reading that scientists tested Ruth and stated he had the fastest reflexes and eye/hand coordination ever measured at that time.<br /><br />Cobb would fare much worse and would likely be frustrated by the speed of today's pitchers.

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>This discussion always reminds me of a joke I heard once, because it's the only way we're going to find out.<br /><br />Two best friends were huge baseball fans. They grew up together, and watched games together every year. They played together until they were too old to play, and they watched games together on TV every night. As they got older, they made a deal with each other: the one who died first would come back as a ghost, to tell the other one whether or not there was baseball in heaven.<br /><br />Eventually, one died.<br /><br />True to form, one night after he died, he came back to visit his friend while he was sleeping. He woke up his friend, and said "Hey, pal!"<br /><br />His friend looked up and said "Wow! You're back! So? What's the deal?"<br /><br />The ghost said "Well, I have good news and bad news."<br /><br />His friend said "Good news first."<br /><br />The ghost said "There is baseball in heaven, and it is FANTASTIC. I'm on the most unbelievable team. Babe Ruth plays DH, because Roberto Clemente is a better right fielder. Ty Cobb and Jackie Robinson hit first and second, and Cobb is definitely a better player. Satchell Paige struck out Hank Greenberg on three pitches last week, and Hal Chase plays first base over Jimmie Foxx. It's amazing, watching all these players compete against each other. It's summertime every day, the umpires get the calls right every time, there's no wind and no rain, the grass is perfectly manicured and the infield is the most gorgeous infield I've ever played on."<br /><br />His friend said "Wow! That's fantastic! It sounds like the most amazing thing I could imagine! After hearing that, what could the bad news possibly be?"<br /><br />The ghost said "You're pitching on Sunday."<br /><br />-Al

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>Haven't you seen how slowly they moved in all that old video footage?!<br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />honestly, though...no. No chance could they enter today's game and compete immediately. no way.<br /><br />Cobb could eventually work his way into it, but Ruth wasn't even an athlete. That being said, I have no idea what Dmitri Young or Prince Fielder are, so I guess there's a good chance I could be wrong...<br /><br />

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>ANDREW S<br /><br />Ruth might have had 1000 HR's if he didn't WALK 2000+ times (Major League record). The opposing pitchers (understandably)<br />did not want to pitch to him.<br />Initially, Cobb might have had a problem with 95-99 MPH fast balls, since he swung the bat with fists apart. But,what I have<br /> read about him, he would have adjusted his swing and sliced those pitches to Left Field for hits.<br /><br /><br />AL C.r<br /><br />Great story.<br /><br /><br />And....<br />Anyone who thinks Babe Ruth was not a great athlete....read this recent post here.....<br /><br /><a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1201726884/At+30%2C+weighing+254+%28no+steroids" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1201726884/At+30%2C+weighing+254+%28no+steroids</a><br /><br /><br />T-Rex TED<br /><br /><br /><br />

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Rhys</b><p>People forget that Ruth was built like a house when he first came up. He got fat late in his career, but if Prince Fielder is an athlete, Ruth is too. Hey, if you can be fat and still have girls want you while you get paid, what did Ruth really have to work out for? As for Cobb, people said Ichiro was too small and could not make it in todays American game as a place hitter similar to Cobb, how has he done with that style?<br /><br />Another thing to remember is that strength training can only do so much for a pitchers fastball. If a guy like Billy Wagner at 5'7" can throw 100 mph today, it is nothing short of arrogance to think that guys could not throw that fast 100 years ago simply because they did not know as much about science and diet. The game has become better and more streamlined in general, but we are not even in an era where baseball gets the best athletes anymore (like Jay said).<br /><br />No doubt Ruth and Cobb could play today. I doubt that Ruth would hit as many Home Runs because of specialized pitching, but they would both be successful major leaguers with numbers similar to Ichiro and guy like Pujols.<br /><br />Rhys

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>With today's strike zone where the pitchers have to groove everything, I think Cobb's legs would fall off from all of the hits and Ruth's bat would wear out from all of the home runs. Of course Mussina would mow both of them down consistantly! Sorry dad, I just had to do that.

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>Alan U</b><p>Assuming Ruth and Cobb honed their skills in the modern era(including having steroids available.. ha ha) I think they would both be able to play today, but I don't think they would be the dominate players they were in their day.<br /><br />If you just plucked them from their prime and put them into today's game I think they would struggle, imho.<br /><br />Not just athletes, but people in general are so much bigger and stronger than 80-90 years ago. Another way to look at it is if you put Nolan Ryan or Roger Clemens back to pitch in the early 1900's do you think they would do well with the bigger strike zone and all?<br /><br /><br />-Alan<br /><br />edited for spelling and grammar<br /><br /><br /><br />

Would Cobb or Ruth Stand Up Against Today's Pitchers?
 

Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>The greats of every era would excel if warped into the future. Give the players of the deadball era clean baseballs, no spitters, clear hitting backgrounds, modern medicine and training, and comfortable first class travel arrangements and they will rise to the occasion.<br /><br />The fastest I can recall being clocked was Nolan Ryan at over 106; I believe it is on the back of his 1975 Topps card and they wouldn't lie to kids...would they?<br /><br />The story about Cobb is not from Cobb, it is a joke that Lefty O'Doul tells in The Glory of Their Times. He was asked in the 1950s about how Cobb would do today and he said about the same as Mays. When asked how come Cobb was so good when he would only do as well as Mays, Lefty responded that you have to remember that Cobb's about 70. <br><br>Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc