Which pre-war stars could play today?

[DanP]

I don't know if this has ever been asked on this forum but I'd like to hear what you think:

Which of the pre-war stars could play in the MLB today?

A couple of notes before everyone else mentions them:
1. I mean in the condition they were in at their prime. Take them out of the game and insert them into a game in 2011.
2. I know it's not fair (i.e. they didn't have access to the same training programs, travel was tougher, etc.).

My opinion, no one would be a star in today's game. Not Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, etc. I wish there was a way to prove it, but I'd bet Walter Johnson didn't even throw 90mph.

What are your thoughts/opinions?

Dan

[Peter_Spaeth]

In the 50s they asked Ty Cobb what he would hit if he was playing then. He said, around .270. Surprised by the answer, they said, is that all? Are today's players that much better? He allegedly replied, well, I am in my 60s.

[vintagecpa]

lol. I've never heard that Cobb line before. From what I see in baseball today, I'd say every pre-WWII left-handed pitcher would have a spot in today's game.

[DanP]

Originally Posted by vintagecpa

lol. I've never heard that Cobb line before. From what I see in baseball today, I'd say every pre-WWII left-handed pitcher would have a spot in today's game.

I didn't even think of that (lefty pitchers). You're probably right. At least Lefty Grove and Carl Hubbell and I'm sure many other lefty pitchers could play today.

[dabigyankeeman]

Originally Posted by DanP

I didn't even think of that (lefty pitchers). You're probably right. At least Lefty Grove and Carl Hubbell and I'm sure many other lefty pitchers could play today.

Dont forget one of the greatest left-handed pitchers of all time, BABE RUTH.

This to me is why Ruth was so incredibly great. The man was one of the absolute best pitchers in baseball, then went on to hit more home runs in a year than any other team did that year. Put that in a movie and nobody would believe it. Yes, Ruth could play today.

[prewarsports]

Short answer ALL OF THEM could play today!

Bigger and stronger does not mean better. If Billy Wagner at 5' 9" can throw 100 MPH out of sheer God Given ability are we really to assume that guys born 100 years ago couldn't because they didn't have Gatorade?

Is Ichiro any different than Cobb, is he any bigger faster or stronger?

Is Tim Lincecum any bigger/faster/stronger than the pitchers of 100 years ago?

Jays argument is the one I always make. 100 years ago there were 16 MLB teams that EVERY kid athlete in the world wanted to be on. Today there are about 200 pro sports teams that divide kids up at young ages between the sports. Example, Collin Kaepernick (Nevada's College Qaurterback) could throw 99 MPH as a High Schooler but chose Football. That would not have happened in the past and he would have been right there competing with every other kid in America for the few Baseball spots.

100% EVERY star Baseball player of the prewar era could play in the Major Leagues today.

To me the better argument would be can any of todays playes make the transition back 100 years ago and be any good. That would be a much tougher task than the players of yesterday suddenly being given better equipment/facilities/salary/lifestyle and asking them to perform!

Rhys

[uffda51]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In the 50s they asked Ty Cobb what he would hit if he was playing then. He said, around .270. Surprised by the answer, they said, is that all? Are today's players that much better? He allegedly replied, well, I am in my 60s.

My favorite Cobb story. I've heard this identical story except with the average being .290 instead of .270.

I wonder what kind of salary would Cobb, Ruth, Williams, Musial, etc. command?

[Fred]

Reverse it. I'm not trying to take the topic off course but could you imagine if Pujols (in his physical condition now) were hitting in the pre war days? He'd be able to face the starting pitcher later in the game. He wouldn't have to worry about hitting against some fireballing relief pitcher or closer. Just a thought...

[FrankWakefield]

DanP, I think you might have transposed what someone was saying about the asterisk and pitchers.

In 1961 the American League expanded, added 2 teams, ie from 8 (as when Ruth played) to 10. If a team has 5 starters, then when there were 8 teams in the AL there were 40 ML calibre starters. In 1961 2 teams are added, 10 new starting pitchers who hadn't made the majors the year before (so the argument goes). In 1960 Maris would have faced 35 starting pitchers over 154 games (7 other teams X 5 starters). In 1961 he faces 45 starting pitchers over 162 games, 10 of which would not have been in the majors the prior year (9 other teams X 5 starters).

If he faces a pitcher 3.6 times in the season ( 162 games divided by 45 pitchers); then he'd face the 10 "minor league" pitchers in 36 games over the season.

[DanP]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

DanP, I think you might have transposed what someone was saying about the asterisk and pitchers.

In 1961 the American League expanded, added 2 teams, ie from 8 (as when Ruth played) to 10. If a team has 5 starters, then when there were 8 teams in the AL there were 40 ML calibre starters. In 1961 2 teams are added, 10 new starting pitchers who hadn't made the majors the year before (so the argument goes). In 1960 Maris would have faced 35 starting pitchers over 154 games (7 other teams X 5 starters). In 1961 he faces 45 starting pitchers over 162 games, 10 of which would not have been in the majors the prior year (9 other teams X 5 starters).

If he faces a pitcher 3.6 times in the season ( 162 games divided by 45 pitchers); then he'd face the 10 "minor league" pitchers in 36 games over the season.

Frank, you could be right it was a long time since I read the article (actually more like 30 years ago). I tried looking through the Baseball Digest archives to find it. Either way, I agree with Rhys, it didn't make sense. I'll keep checking for it if I have time today.

Dan

[pitchernut]

If you all are talking about time warping a player from one era to another... I would think that a player from 1910 could handle not only the warp but playing the game better than a player from 2010. Just imagine for a player from 1910 everything relating to baseball would be such an improvement trainers, showers, clean facilities even food in the club house, (did they even have club houses back then?) way better equipment etc etc. Now drop in a player from 2010 into 1910... maybe after five days huddled in the corner crying for mom they may snap out of it maybe, but after that the stench, hygiene wasn't even known, no trainers, food was way blander and the equipment sucks, I'm not certain but wonder if they even called games due to weather. This would make a great movie.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by DanP

I don't know if this has ever been asked on this forum but I'd like to hear what you think:

Which of the pre-war stars could play in the MLB today?

A couple of notes before everyone else mentions them:
1. I mean in the condition they were in at their prime. Take them out of the game and insert them into a game in 2011.
2. I know it's not fair (i.e. they didn't have access to the same training programs, travel was tougher, etc.).

My opinion, no one would be a star in today's game. Not Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, etc. I wish there was a way to prove it, but I'd bet Walter Johnson didn't even throw 90mph.

What are your thoughts/opinions?

Dan

The short, best answer is that you're completely wrong. A longer reply: Do you want to bet that Feller never hit 90? And if you concede that Feller hit 90, then how do you account for the testimony of those who say that Johnson threw at least as hard if not harder? If you want to be scientific about it, go look at the old films of Matty and Johnson and the other stars. It turns out that they followed the same principles of "explosive pitching" that are being taught today. Note the rotation of the hips, the arm angle, the stride. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc8Mb...eature=related

[oldjudge]

Today many of the best athletes play football and basketball. In the pre-war era baseball was the main sport. Sure training and nutrition is better today, but the old time players would also be eating better and training better too. Additionally, the old time players were better versed in the game's fundamentals. My guess is that the stars of yesterday would also be stars of today. Ruth, especially if he still played at Yankee Stadium, would be a home run leader. Ty Cobb would be a league leader in hitting. The great pitchers would probably be as great as ever, especially with the increased rest and care for thier arms. In fact, the average players of the past might be stars today.

[pitchernut]

I think pitchers of that era would fair better than fielders but you may give them a heart attack when they see their paycheck

[ctownboy]

I think pre-WWII starting pitchers would have a HUGE advantage today. Back then, they were in four man rotations and expected to finish what they started even if it meant throwing 150+ pitches to do so. So, by the end of the season, they were racking up 250 or more Innings pitched AND huge pitch counts.

Move those guys to today and see what happens.

They would have better training, better nutrition, would be in five man rotations and would only be expected to go into the Sixth Inning and throw 110 pitches (or less).

Sure the parks are smaller and the mound is lower BUT the hitters don't try to make as much contact today. They try for the Home Run more often and thus are more vulnerable to striking out. Take a good pitcher with good stuff and instead of him trying to pace himself for nine or more Innings just let him throw his best stuff for six and see what happens.

David

[CMIZ5290]

are you kidding about ruth? he could play in any era

[ChiefBenderForever]

Are you insane ? You should've asked what all stars of today could've played back in the day, only a few could've made it.

[Hankphenom]

I wish there was a way to prove it, but I'd bet Walter Johnson didn't even throw 90mph.
Dan[/QUOTE]

Johnson retired in 1927, Bob Feller came up in 1936. Late in his career, Feller was clocked at almost 99 MPH. There were many players that batted against both of them, and lots of coaches, managers, etc, who saw them both up close many times. Find me ONE who said that Feller was faster than Johnson. Johnson had no curve ball, usually it was one fast ball after another, and batters knew that. What good did it do them? Every other great fast ball pitcher you can name could mix it up with a great curve or other off pitch, all of them: Grove, Feller, Koufax, Ryan, Carlton, Clemens, Randy Johnson, etc. I've been asked this question many times: how fast do you think Johnson was in his prime? I won't tell you what I really think because you'd laugh, but you can start at 100 and use your imagination from there.
Hank Thomas

[kcohen]

None of us saw these guys play. As for Johnson, the words of Ty Cobb speak volumes.

"The first time I faced him, I watched him take that easy windup. And then something went past me that made me flinch. The thing just hissed with danger. We couldn't touch him... every one of us knew we'd met the most powerful arm ever turned loose in a ball park."

Imagine him pitching every 5th day. Although, I'll concede he probably would have needed to develop an off-speed pitch, I suppose he would have been able to do so if necessary.

[SteveMitchell]

"To me the better argument would be can any of today's players make the transition back 100 years ago and be any good. That would be a much tougher task than the players of yesterday suddenly being given better equipment/facilities/salary/lifestyle and asking them to perform!" - Rhys

Specifically, how would today's player handle the use of the tiny gloves that were standard in the Deadball Era or the pancake mitts of the twenties and thirties. (Few one-handed catches, I'll bet.)

The tools of the trade, general playing conditions (St. Louis in summer, unpadded walls, etc.), travel conditions (train), the pay and the Deadball game itself make things somewhat tougher for today's major leaguer to swallow. Give the oldtimers their youth and talent and they would compete favorably in nearly every case.

[steve B]

I was thinking about the gloves as I read this too.

The point about there being a deeper talent pool or not today doesn't make much sense to me. While there's not enough information to tell much many oldtime ballplayers played against latin and negro leage players while barnstorming or playing in the off season.

A player who played in the late 30's spoke to the club I'm in and mentioned the differences between the available players when he played compared to now. I think the numbers were something like 17,000 players in organized ball now and 175,000 then. So I think the competition for the available positions was pretty tough.

The point he was adressing is actually important here. That point was that guys with any weaknesses in their play had to be incredible at some aspect of the game to have any real chance, and that any player with a difficult attitude also had to be too good to release.
How much would Cobb be allowed to get away with today? I can only imagine the fine and suspension he'd get for beating a guy in a wheelchair today. Lifetime ban? Would he have even made the majors with attitudes that would be a PR nighmare?
How much would Ruths famous appetites be ignored?
Or those of the guys that supposedly had major drinking problems.

Rather than the athletic ability being the problem, I think some prewar guys would have a rough time adjusting to a more PC world.

The rest would probably be more than fine.

Steve B

[FrankWakefield]

I agree with Steve about the PC adjustment. The old guys would get with the program for modern training techniques, they'd quickly adapt. But seeing Steve's PC comment has me thinking that in some ways society's pendulum has swung past the midpoint with PCness. The fourth estate seems less responsible than they were years ago; they get the public in a frenzy over nothing. Maybe folks of an earlier time had thicker hides and let some nonsense slide, rather than getting all worked up about it. Nonetheless, going from flannel to synthetic knit; from Pulman cars to jets; and from restrained, knowledgeable newspaper writers to TV talking head idiots; that would take some getting used to for the old ballplayers. The compensation would have them all about making the change!!! (pi).

[rhettyeakley]

I don't want this post to be taken the wrong way and I'm not sure if I can write what a mean to write without it coming off the wrong way but...

It is definitely true that the pre-1947 players did not play along side the African American players and that needs to be kept in mind as we evaluate their statistics and their skill. That being said, in today's game there are an amazing number of Latin players (some black and some not) and there are quite a few African American position players but for whatever reason there are actually very few African American pitchers (there are less African Americans playing now than there were 20-30 years ago.) This is probably due mainly to the increased popularity of Football and Basketball among the African American population and the diminishing popularity of baseball among the same demographic. Do we then put an asterisk on today's players like we do with the pre-1947 guys because the players today also don't have to face as many African American players?

We live in the expansion era with so many teams with such large rosters that we forget that the pre-1947 Major Leaguer had 16 teams available with smaller rosters and a much larger part of the American population actively pursuing a baseball career.

I don't doubt that had African American's been allowed to play pre-1947 they would have been great and perhaps some of the best--but each era needs to be treated independently, but I don't think one can say that just because they face African American's today that it is more difficult (one could argue expanded rosters, more athletic alternatives, etc. all have diminished the overall # of all demographics playing baseball on a regular basis while increasing the overall chances of that player would reach the Major League level). It is an interesting situation.

[alanu]

Originally Posted by DanP

Take them out of the game and insert them into a game in 2011.
Dan

As much as I'd like to think they could play, IMHO, I think if you truly dropped them into a 2011 game, very few could make it. I think the overall speed and size of the players (natural or not), the average velocity of the pitchers and the "what I assume are" smaller strike zones would make it difficult.

Given some time to adapt some could maybe make it.

I think it's especially true for the the early 1900's players, those that played in the 40's might have a better chance.

Probably true for all the major sports.

-Alan