Could you or I have dominated the 1880s?

[boneheadandrube]

Shortly after Keefe's hopping and wiffle ball pitching style gimmick's got him pulled, Pud Galvin would have to be helped off the field, suffering whiplash from spinning to watch the moon shot formerly known as his "speed ball" bouncing off of a beer cart in right field. My bat would later be nicknamed the "Galvinizer" and immortilized in a Harpers woodcut depicting the majestic blast.

[mechanicalman]

Originally Posted by boneheadandrube

Shortly after Keefe's hopping and wiffle ball pitching style gimmick's got him pulled, Pud Galvin would have to be helped off the field, suffering whiplash from spinning to watch the moon shot formerly known as his "speed ball" bouncing off of a beer cart in right field. My bat would later be nicknamed the "Galvinizer" and immortilized in a Harpers woodcut depicting the majestic blast.

I remember that game like it was yesterday. I recall, after the game, the boys split a jug of whiskey sour mash and almost missed the rail to Roanoke.

[Jeff_cvc]

Originally Posted by buchner

Why don't you guys who get a "kick" out of putting down 19th century ballplayers, pick up a history book and read how people had to live back in the 19th century. I doubt that any of you would last very long in the 1880's, and you certainly couldn't play the brand of baseball played back then. But than again, I'm sure you all could go 10 rounds with John L. Sullivan.

I batted over .500 in little league, if I didn't retire at the ripe age of 13, I'm sure I would of dominated back then. As far as toughness, my air conditioner went out last summer, it was unbearable. I also had to walk to school, uphill both ways, and it was always snowing. Got to go, time for a warm shower, massage later today, a little tv time and ordering in some pizza. Yea, I'd definitely kick ass in the 1800's.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by drcy

The answer is backwards human time travel is impossible (notes on time).

I would not discount the possibility. We may not have found a way to travel in time yet, but who is to say what the future my may bring?

[egri]

Originally Posted by horzverti

You seem angry so I have to ask...are you a time traveling 19th century ballplayer? If you are, then can you tell us how you stack up against your modern game competition? Also, how did you get here? You may be able to put this debate to rest. Insert smiley face here...not trying to offend, just keeping it light.

I think maybe he's William McKinley, and he's still peeved that his doctors didn't use the x-ray machine that was on display at the fair (literally two booths away from where McKinley was shot) to search for the bullet.

Also not trying to offend here, just saw the shot and couldn't resist (no pun intended) .

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Don't care how I'd do, just think it would be amazing to play with those guys with early rules and go have some brews afterwards. Maybe get some OJ's signed while I'm at it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Joe_G.]

1880s baseball wasn’t as some are portraying here. It was fiercely competitive landscape with owners and managers scouring the country for the best players. By the 1880s, the men playing the game were surrounded by it their whole life, it was America’s game. And it was a brutal sport, not for the weak at heart.

Many pitchers were throwing hard long before 1884, the curve ball was established in the 1870s (try to curve a ball with an underhand lob). The League finally allowed overhand delivery (pitching restrictions lifted 1884) as many pitchers were already pushing the envelope and delivering the ball north of a side arm motion.

A quick note on pitching distance, the transition to 60’-6” (1893 to present) is estimated to be only 4’ -3 ½” longer than the pitching distance of the 1880s (not the 10’ -6” often quoted). Pitchers of the 1880s had to deliver the ball from within a box, releasing the ball behind a line that was 50 feet from the center of home plate. The 1893 to present pitching distance of 60’ -6” is measured from the pitching rubber to the back of home plate. When you consider the average release point off the rubber and the difference in measuring from center of home plate vs back of home plate you get a difference of 4’-3 ½”. (this being a paraphrase of several John Thorn and SABR articles)

The link I provided earlier in the thread discusses Rusie’s amazing speed, estimated at low to mid 90s. This extra 4’-3 ½” gave the batters a little better chance to react to a pitch (or get out of the way of a wild one). I’d hate to be facing Rusie in 1892. So the batters of the 1880s were standing 4’ 3 ½” closer to a pitcher who could, prior to 1887, hit the batsmen without penalty. Tim Keefe had a reputation of keeping batters honest. Sam Thompson described Tim Keefe as a pitcher with speed to burn . . . Keefe may not have intended hitting as many men as he did, but he kept us black and blue just the same.

The pitchers of the 1880s used all the tricks of the trade. Another Sam Thompson story (I recently finished Roy Kerr’s biography on Big Sam) relates to the pitching talents of John Clarkson, both mental and physical. With trash talking a plenty, Clarkson always seemed to throw what you least expected, alternating between an in or out shooting curve and a fast one straight as a string. Sam also mentions how Clarkson would dig a hole in the pitchers box to leverage off of; using every and all advantage he could dream up.

There are countless 19th century stories of a prodigy that could throw faster than the speed of light or a batter that hit over .500 on a college team that just couldn’t cut it in the NL, AA, or even leading minor league. Most every boy played the game, only the best advanced.

[boneheadandrube]

For the record, I thought the title of the thread was hilarious when I read it, so I decided to play the devils advocate and "talk of dominating" these guys in a couple posts for fun. For their time these men were certainly the best, and are to be respected as such, but lets not take this too seriously.
I do think that a good common sense analysis of that time vs now is to simply understand that the game, and people physically have both evolved and improved, just as almost anything else has since then. Also, I don't think that statistics or tales from the past are an accurate resource for judging their abilities, but thats what baseball fans use as gospel for these discussions.

GB

[Rookiemonster]

Bottom line men have evolved since then . We are bigger , stronger , faster , smarter , healthier , live longer , we have a longer prime age . It's a joke to compare . They were not raised playing tee ball , little league etc . Don't take the stats they put up to serious . Even well in to the 1900s if you truly think most of those guy would hit off Gibson , Koufax, Spahn your not in touch with reality . ( forget about Ryan , Clemens , Seaver , ) . Just flip the senarios send them in to today's game . They would be laughed off the field . These were not athelites .

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by z28jd

I always laugh when this question comes up because 99% of people frame it as those players coming to play now and not being able to keep up with the speed.

If you could transport a current player back to that period, I don't think there is a single Major League player today who would last an entire season in the 1880's, let alone be a star. They would probably fear for their lives and not be able to adjust to life without all the amenities. Imagine someone now going to play a summer game in those uniforms under those conditions. They would be waving a white flag by June 1st. But on the opposite end, someone from that era might be overwhelmed by how pampered the players are now.

As far as a team of Net54 All-Stars, I can't imagine we would have a shot in hell against them and you can bet when I say "we" that I'd be playing in that game if it could happen. You have to remember how small the majors were back then and how popular baseball was, so there weren't many bad players in the league like there are now.

Then you look at the disaster some players turned out to be when given a trial. Michael Corcoran is a great example. He was the brother of the team's star pitcher in 1884 for the White Stockings, and he was also a minor league pitcher at the time. He gave up 14 runs to the 28-84 Detroit Wolverines. If a 25-year-old minor leaguer got crushed by the worst MLB team, what chance would the Net54 Keyboard Warriors have.

Great post, John. Dan's also. I also like your newly-coined phrase.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I would not discount the possibility. We may not have found a way to travel in time yet, but who is to say what the future my may bring?

So - have you ever met anyone from the future?

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

So - have you ever met anyone from the future?

Everyone has time traveled...if they change time zones


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[packs]

I know people talk about the modern game, but today's player does not have to beat out half the amount of other players to earn a job as the pre-war player did. Everyone played baseball in 1910. If you were on a pro team, you were in all seriousness better than everyone else. Today I don't necessarily think that's true anymore. I think you're just better than the people who play too.

Having said that, I have to think the 1910 player was a heck of a player even if he was dwarfed physically by today's athlete.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

Bottom line men have evolved since then . We are bigger , stronger , faster , smarter , healthier , live longer , we have a longer prime age . It's a joke to compare . They were not raised playing tee ball , little league etc . Don't take the stats they put up to serious . Even well in to the 1900s if you truly think most of those guy would hit off Gibson , Koufax, Spahn your not in touch with reality . ( forget about Ryan , Clemens , Seaver , ) . Just flip the senarios send them in to today's game . They would be laughed off the field . These were not athelites .

Actually, men have not evolved at all. There has been no meaningful genetic change over such a short period of time. Men now are the same as men then. Certainly they are not any smarter.

What has changed is nutrition (though not all for the better), health care and the science behind athletic training and performance. The apparent result of this is an overall rise in the average performance of serious athletes (as evidenced, for example, in track and field results).

Batting averages during the Deadball Era were generally low. However there were huge outliers like Wagner, Cobb, Lajoie. We don’t seem to have outliers like that now because the average guy is better due to the above mentioned factors (BTW - this is not an original thought by me). That does not mean that the very top players now are better than those early outliers. There is no reason to think that these top performing Deadball era outliers (and 19thC outliers as well) would not be top players now.

[Leon]

Obviously the signs of the time affect all players. I am sure there are good athletes on the board and if you are pro-caliber today then I think you probably would have been back then. I was high school caliber. Now I am Sr. (old people) League caliber.... It's all relative (as Mark alluded to).