What if they used today's baseballs?

[Robbie]

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!

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).

[glynparson]

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.

[71buc]

I completely agree with you.

[darwinbulldog]

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.

[asphaltman]

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?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by asphaltman

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?

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?

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by asphaltman

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?

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.

[ruth_rookie]

Originally Posted by asphaltman

Babe Ruth wouldn't be leading the league in home runs.

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.

Heresy!

[timn1]

Totally agree

Originally Posted by glynparson

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.

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by glynparson

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.

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.

[asphaltman]

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?

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by asphaltman

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?

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.

[packs]

Originally Posted by asphaltman

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?

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?

[asphaltman]

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.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by glynparson

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.

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!

[drcy]

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

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by drcy

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

That's deep, man.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by glynparson

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.

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!!!

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

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!!!

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.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by JustinD

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.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by bnorth

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

Lol

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by bnorth

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

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

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

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!!!

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

[BabyRuth]

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

[Bpm0014]

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

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by glynparson

Trout would have crushed even Ruth’s numbers if they were playing in the same era.

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!!!!!

[packs]

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.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by glynparson

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.

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.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by Robbie

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!

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).

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

[DeanH3]

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?

[chalupacollects]

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...

[eliteco3]

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