Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric72
I'm not so sure about this. In football and basketball, yes. Baseball, though, would be a bit different.
- The ball used in 1913 wasn't nearly as lively as the ones in use today. This would almost certainly be a factor that favors the old timers.
- The ball was also changed with much less frequency. Modern hitters are accustomed to a new, gleaming white ball to hit at. Not as significant; however, would still tilt things towards the 1913 players.
- Good pitching beats good hitting, and there were some pretty solid hurlers back in 1913. Hard to imagine WaJo and company getting "clobbered," especially playing under conditions they were used to.
- Most modern players would be on the 15-day DL after getting spiked by Cobb. OK, not a game changer...however...thought it was a valid point. The old timers were tough as leather. Today's athlete...maybe not so much.
Just my two cents. Personally, I think it it would be a close matchup.
Respectfully,
Eric
|
It is a very tough comparison to judge, that's for sure. Modern players are stronger, faster, better equipment, etc. Pre-War or Deadball players have bad baseballs and equipment like you stated, larger fields, but not necessarily as strong or fast. I can say one thing, it sure as hell would be a fun game to watch the best of the best in pre-war vs post-war in a Best of 7. Wow.