Quote:
Originally Posted by packs
My point was that all sports aren't the same. Baseball as a sport has changed very little in the past 100 years. It's managed differently in game, but the game is the same and the same skills that made you an elite player like Ruth translate the same way today.
It's like saying Willie Mosconi wouldn't be as good at billiards now. Why not?
|
I think a player like Ruth would still be decent in MLB, but he would not dominate like he did in his era. First, as everyone has said, there is talent to be drawn from all over the world rather than just in the US, so the overall talent of every player is at a higher level. Then there have been a lot of new pitches that have been "invented" since Ruth's era such as the cutter, different variations of the fastballs, etc., which can be thrown at different arm angles. Then there is the analytics and scouting where pitchers can pinpoint which pitches that you are bad at handling or the location. If you are not a switch hitter, the opposing team can also bring in a specialist such as lefty on lefty just to get you out. (Of course, you can say that analytics/scouting can help the hitter also, but I think they still help the pitcher more.) Then of course, there the fresh closers, which really did not exist in Ruth's era to nail down the final innings. There are even things like pitchers increasing how much spin or rotation/s they put on the baseball to increase the movement. I think all of these different things will lower a batter's batting average in general, even someone like Ruth who was very gifted with hand/eye coordination, etc.