I hate these debates. It completely devalues intelligence of human beings. It devalues pure talent. It devalues competitive drive. We are talking about the .00001 of humans who have the triple combo of talent, intelligence, and drive to rise to the top to play MLB. Of course Babe Ruth could play today. He would have coaches and trainers who would optimize his swing. He could be Miguel Cabrera. He could be Adam Dunn. Or he could have been Barry Bonds - the most feared hitter of my lifetime. And Mike Trout could certainly play in 1920. Would some of the other role players die out in the transitions? Yes, sure, because their skills would not be valued under different conditions. But others would thrive under different conditions and different opportunities as they see their skills become more valued. That's just the way it is. We can't foresee how every player transitions. But the stars are most likely to remain stars because they have that special something that separates them as a generational talent.
Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk
__________________
Barry Larkin, Joey Votto, Tris Speaker, 1930-45 Cincinnati Reds, T206 Cincinnati
Successful deals with: Banksfan14, Brianp-beme, Bumpus Jones, Dacubfan (x5), Dstrawberryfan39, Ed_Hutchinson, Fballguy, fusorcruiser (x2), GoCalBears, Gorditadog, Luke, MikeKam, Moosedog, Nineunder71, Powdered H20, PSU, Ronniehatesjazz, Roarfrom34, Sebie43, Seven, and Wondo
|