Old Timers vs. Young Bucks

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

I remember seeing a thread awhile back but can't seem to find it arguing whether pre-war superstars of the day (Ruth, Wagner, Cobb, Mathewson, Lajoie, Shoeless etc) would be able to hold their own in today's game vs. today's stars. The topic came up for me twice in the last couple weeks with both parties saying they thought you shouldn't even think of old time baseball as "real" baseball based on the way the game is played today, how well the players are trained and how specialized each position is.

Would love to hear the historians among us weigh in. Would Ruth hit bombs of Arrieta? Would Cobb bat .400 and steal bases? Could Mathewson and the Big Train gets guys out?

[nat]

It depends a lot on how the counterfactual is spelled out. Does Wagner get proper nutrition, modern weight training, etc.? Or do you just stuff him in a time machine and hope for the best? Does he get a modern glove, or does he have to use the one he actually used?

Evolution works slowly. There aren't any real genetic differences between Kershaw and Cy Young (besides those that differ between any two people). But culture and technology change quickly. If we give them the advantages of modern culture/technology we should expect them to do pretty well.* If we don't, they're going to have trouble.

* Acknowledging that they faced weaker competition since baseball was still segregated.

[z28jd]

The better question is how many hours would any modern player last if they had to play under 1920 conditions. Is there a single player who you think would last an entire season? I don't think so, no way they could handle that era. On the flip side, players from that era would probably spend half their time marveling at how pampered the players are today

[egri]

I think this is the thread you were looking for

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by nat

* Acknowledging that they faced weaker competition since baseball was still segregated.

Not just still segregated but also not international. However there are twice as many teams now as their were before.

I have always argued that integration and expansion have gradually cancelled each other out. We were preventing what was at the time about 10% of the population from participating. But we've over time added 100% to the available major league ball player slots. Even factoring in foreign born players I'd say it's closer to a wash than one might first expect.

Put another way Babe Ruth didn't have to hit against the Negro League greats of his time, but neither did he get to face Wily Peralta or Chad Bettis 30+ times a year.

[Rookiemonster]

Ruth faced the same pitchers very often. Less teams less talent and a grueling season .At that time the Yankees had most of the best pitchers. You can learn what's a guys best pitch is his best. And it was probably NOT his fastball.

[shernan30]

Originally Posted by z28jd

The better question is how many hours would any modern player last if they had to play under 1920 conditions. Is there a single player who you think would last an entire season? I don't think so, no way they could handle that era. On the flip side, players from that era would probably spend half their time marveling at how pampered the players are today

+100


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bravos4evr]

swing analysis of Ruth showed he kept his bat square and in the zone longer than anyone else in baseball history. Combined with his awesome bat speed and it's pretty reasonable to think he would have been a great player today.

[celoknob]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

swing analysis of Ruth showed he kept his bat square and in the zone longer than anyone else in baseball history. Combined with his awesome bat speed and it's pretty reasonable to think he would have been a great player today.

Would you kindly quote the reference for this analysis study. Thanks

[Exhibitman]

The best comparison for theoretical match-ups is how a player did against his contemporaries, all of whom were in the same environment, training, etc., as the player in question. The elite players from every era would be the elite players in any era in which they were raised because the same raw material would be there, just with different training and environmental factors. Or let me put it this way: Pete Rose could use his bat like a pool cue and hit an incoming pitch with the end of the bat, squarely. He did this all the time in the cage to show off his hand-eye coordination. Not because he was of his era but because he was Pete Rose and had the combination of natural talents that allowed him to excel at a physical craft. That doesn't change. The more interesting question to me is how a player with lesser tools but greater analytical skills and intense drive would succeed if he had the advantage of modern training and environment.

[Section103]

Originally Posted by nat

Evolution works slowly. There aren't any real genetic differences between Kershaw and Cy Young (besides those that differ between any two people).

Jimmy Foxx was known as The Beast but he was 6' and 195 lbs. Daniel Descalso is 5'10 and 190. There will be no nicknames referring to his size.

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by nat

* Acknowledging that they faced weaker competition since baseball was still segregated.

I might argue that point to a degree. While baseball was not integrated, there were far less teams to populate. And it gets murkier from there...cross country travel, dilution of the talent pool from other sports. Bottom lining it there is just no way to know, but I suspect these things have a way of evening out.

I am pretty sure that the biggest stars then would be among the biggest stars now. I think the very lowest 25% of the mlb players in the deadball era would not come close to playing now, but more due to modern scouting and development techniques.

One of the beauties of baseball is you truly can't say. I remember reading similar conversation with some old football players on how their team (a championship team of the 1950s) would fare against modern teams. Of course a couple of the guys pipe up with, "They might beat us, but we'd give them a game. We were tough as nails." then somebody piped up," They's kill us! They outweigh us by 100 pounds per man and their defensive tackles are as fast as our receivers and backs."

But with baseball, you never know. A ball is a ball. A bat is a bat. The complexity of the sport is a great equalizer across the years.

[egri]

I think the improvements in scouting, and teams becoming less tolerant of 'characters' deserve a mention. Ellis Kinder, who tore up the league as a 35 year old, completely fell through the cracks and didn't even turn professional until he was 24, and it was another couple of years before he signed with an affiliated team. If he had been caught earlier and spent his prime years in the majors, instead of a lumber mill in Arkansas, he might have had a much more substantial MLB career. OTOH, he was a notorious carouser, and I would not be surprised if teams today were unwilling to put up with his antics to the extent that Tom Yawkey was.

[packs]

If you sent Mike Trout back in time to 1910 I think he'd have just as hard a time playing the game as Ty Cobb would today. Modern luxuries breed modern temperaments. Any injury could kill your career at any time back then and there was a lot less separating you from the common man when it came to accommodations and lifestyle.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by packs

If you sent Mike Trout back in time to 1910 I think he'd have just as hard a time playing the game as Ty Cobb would today. Modern luxuries breed modern temperaments. Any injury could kill your career at any time back then and there was a lot less separating you from the common man when it came to accommodations and lifestyle.

I find it hard to believe that Ty Cobb would not be great in today's game. We might view him in the same light as Ichiro; however, that is good company IMHO.

Cobb was a skilled batsman and a fierce competitor. He would likely have trouble adjusting to 21st Century social norms. Most people removed from their environment would, though, too.

Babe Ruth would also likely do well in any era after the one in which he played. Same with WaJo, Matty, and Wagner.

As for Trout, I also believe he would have been a fine ballplayer if you took him back in time. His ability to hit, run, and field would be affected by the different equipment. However, he would still be a better player than most.

It's baseball. The game hasn't changed too much since 1909. Ballplayers are still ballplayers. Bases are still 90 feet apart. The ball itself may be livelier; however, the pitcher still gets the best hitters out 70% of the time.

Just my opinion. I am home from work on a sick day. Could be the medication talking.

Best regards,

Eric

[packs]

I agree with you 100 % I only wanted to point out that players of today would have as much trouble adjusting to the game of the past as past players would have adjusting to the game of the future. Kershaw is great today but could he throw 9 innings day in, day out for 10 or 15 years and remain the dominant pitcher he is now? Maybe, but maybe not.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by celoknob

Would you kindly quote the reference for this analysis study. Thanks

I'll try and find it, saw it years ago. when I track it down I will link it.

[vintagetoppsguy]

To me, there is nothing more boring than modem day baseball. I'd rather watch paint dry. Seriously. Baseball back then was a sport. Today, its more like a science. I guess it's part of the evolution process. That's just my $.02.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

I am pretty sure that the biggest stars then would be among the biggest stars now. I think the very lowest 25% of the mlb players in the deadball era would not come close to playing now, but more due to modern scouting and development techniques.

But with baseball, you never know. A ball is a ball. A bat is a bat. The complexity of the sport is a great equalizer across the years.

I agree with Todd

The beauty of BASEBALL is it...."is a great equalizer across the years".


Consider this: In 150 years of playing the game, the better players in the game have career BAvg. that are just .300 to .367 (on average achieving 1 Hit for every 3 times At Bat).

With the exception of Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle (who drove baseballs 500 to 600 feet), 99.99 % of players over the years normally hit a baseball a distance of 300 - 450 feet.

And, the various HR hitters in the game (since the deadball era ended) have hit 20 - 61 HR's per year.

These 3 significant factors have remained CONSTANTS in baseball for nearly 100 years.


P.S. This analysis does not take into account recent ballplayers who started "juicing up" their physical bodies.


TED Z
.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by tedzan

I agree with Todd

The beauty of BASEBALL is it...."is a great equalizer across the years".


Consider this: In 150 years of playing the game, the better players in the game have career BAvg. that are just .300 to .367 (on average achieving 1 Hit for every 3 times At Bat).

With the exception of Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle (who drove baseballs 500 to 600 feet), 99.99 % of players over the years normally hit a baseball a distance of 300 - 450 feet.

And, the various HR hitters in the game (since the deadball era ended) have hit 20 - 61 HR's per year.



These 3 significant factors have remained CONSTANTS in baseball for nearly 100 years.


P.S. This analysis does not take into account recent ballplayers who started "juicing up" their physical bodies.


TED Z
.

In fact, according to "The Homerun Encyclopedia" (1996, Simon & Shuster), the majority of MLB players cannot hit a baseball even 450 feet, and a homer of 500 feet is historic. In 1982, computerized IBM baseball measuring equipment was installed at every ball park. By 1995 only ONE player had hat hit ONE 500-foot homer, and it was not Canseco, Bonds, or McGwire. It was Cecil Fielder, who once reached 503 feet. Compare that truth to what the research tells us about Babe Ruth. There is enough old video footage to definitively account for the distance of all of his 714 home runs. In his best tape-measure season, 1921, Ruth hit at least one 500+ home run in all (8) American League ballparks! And those 600-foot estimates are nonsense, merely the fictional accounts of some ticket holding journalists. Mantle's 565 footer in 1953 was actually only about 510 feet in the air, but it was measured at the point of where a kid retrieved it. All of this information appears on pages 25-26 of this book.

[sycks22]

I remember hearing an interview of Cobb a couple months back and when asked how he kept it such good shape he said "I walk around a lot when I hunt." So off season training back in the day consisted of just moving around while today every player has a strict daily workout plan just to compete. I think the greats (Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, etc) would be good, but not great players in today's game. Wajo was a flame thrower back in the day and they were saying he threw 91-93 mph, hell every scrub pitcher we have on the Twins throws that.

[Rookiemonster]

Let me start by saying talent is talent no matter what time you are from .

Even a average player from today would go back and be a star. The game has not changed that much true . But today's training methods and sports science puts ever ball player ahead of yesterday's.

So cal Ripken could not cut it back then? He would have puttered out?

A young Griffey Jr. Would not be able to adapt ?

Roided or not Roided bonds would have broke the game.

It's not even close . Maybe a hand full of guys from way back could hang. Once you get to the late 40s early 50s things start to change. For the better !

Why do you think nobody will hit .400 again? Because every ball player since Ted Williams has sucked ? This is a good sign of what I'm trying to convey. Let's say Ted Williams was of modern day star caliber. He had a great knowledge of the game and was fundamental sounds. While his military duties took away from his career it also add a more complete exercise program. Look how awesome players were after returning from war. When they should have been rusty and behind they came back to career years. Why? Exercise ! Now add what we have today to today's average player. Send him back Boom star. I think Ted would be a high average hitter today but nothing like he was then. And the further back you go the less likely the would be a dominant player today.

[bravos4evr]

See, but that argument only works if you send the past guys t the future but require them to keep old timey exercise ,nutrition and other regimes. (and vice versa)

a player with an eye like Ted Williams, raised playing baseball, travel teams, scouts, camps...etc combined with all the modern advancements would be a superstar in today's game. Just as an avg player now sent back to the ttens and 20's, with old timey exercise, pitching,crappier equipment, brown ball, weird parks, bad travel would not have some advantage cuz he was born later, he would probably be avg then too.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by robw1959

In fact, according to "The Homerun Encyclopedia" (1996, Simon & Shuster), the majority of MLB players cannot hit a baseball even 450 feet, and a homer of 500 feet is historic. In 1982, computerized IBM baseball measuring equipment was installed at every ball park. By 1995 only ONE player had hat hit ONE 500-foot homer, and it was not Canseco, Bonds, or McGwire. It was Cecil Fielder, who once reached 503 feet. Compare that truth to what the research tells us about Babe Ruth. There is enough old video footage to definitively account for the distance of all of his 714 home runs. In his best tape-measure season, 1921, Ruth hit at least one 500+ home run in all (8) American League ballparks! And those 600-foot estimates are nonsense, merely the fictional accounts of some ticket holding journalists. Mantle's 565 footer in 1953 was actually only about 510 feet in the air, but it was measured at the point of where a kid retrieved it. All of this information appears on pages 25-26 of this book.

Hey robw1959

I'm not sure I buy all the stuff that this book you are referring to is presenting.

I was an avid Yankees fan when I was a kid, and I saw many, many games from 1947 - 1964. I saw all three tremendous HR's Mantle hit that are depicted in this photo.
Also, I may have seen DiMaggio's HR into the left-center field seats depicted here, but I'm not sure of it.

The most memorable, of course, is the tremendous "facade HR" that Mantle hit at Yankee Stadium on May 22, 1963. The wind that night was from the SW (about 12 MPH)
which may have prevented the ball from clearing the roof. The point of impact against the facade (363 feet from home plate and at a height of 102 feet) was short a foot
from going out of the Stadium. Some analysts have projected that the ball would have travelled 600 feet, others have projected that it would have travelled 500 feet.

Whatever, we'll never know for certain. It was front page headlines in the New York newspapers. I still have one of those newspapers with the classic photo of Mantle's HR.





Hey guy, please don't misconstrue my words here. I'm not trying to argue with you on this subject....far from it, for you are making my general point that there are constants
in baseball the have essentially stayed the same for at least 100 years.



TED Z
.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by sycks22

Wajo was a flame thrower back in the day and they were saying he threw 91-93 mph

Out of curiosity, where did this into come from? I find it hard to believe that good high school pitchers are throwing harder than WaJo did.

[Rookiemonster]

Nick what we are talking about is today's player vs the old timers.We are not changing the person. I'm sure Ty Cobb on PEDs would be a fine baseball player.
But that's not the topic.

If all the all time greats just materialized on a baseball field as they were all of prime age. If they separate by dead ball era and after. Then separate by teams. Who would win? Even in a series ?

Ok so ,I would say the more modern team would win. The other guys would hang a bit, but lose. IMO at least . so I don't see how interchanging the oldies to the new would work out as great as it would for the the more modern team going back.

[sycks22]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Out of curiosity, where did this into come from? I find it hard to believe that good high school pitchers are throwing harder than WaJo did.

Although a lack of precision instruments prevented accurate measurement of his fastball, in 1917, a Bridgeport, Connecticut munitions laboratory recorded Johnson's fastball at 134 feet per second, which is equal to 91.36 miles per hour (147.03 km/h),

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

The new documentary Fastball improves upon the reading of Wajo's fastball as the test the army did was inaccurate given the measurement relied on the ball hitting a backdrop 15 feet behind the plate. Can't remember the correct mph but it was faster than 91

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

Why do you think nobody will hit .400 again?

Tony Gwynn hit .394. George Brett hit .390. Rod Carew hit .388. It is not like anyone is not coming close. Fielders have much larger gloves. That has to count for something. They are robbing hitters of hits, so the difference is even smaller.

As someone else said, if they are just dropping guys into a game without modern training and equipment, they wouldnt be as good. If Babe Ruth was born in 1990 and playing today, he would be destroying the competition.

[Mountaineer1999]

Originally Posted by rats60

Tony Gwynn hit .394. George Brett hit .390. Rod Carew hit .388. It is not like anyone is not coming close. Fielders have much larger gloves. That has to count for something. They are robbing hitters of hits, so the difference is even smaller.

As someone else said, if they are just dropping guys into a game without modern training and equipment, they wouldnt be as good. If Babe Ruth was born in 1990 and playing today, he would be destroying the competition.

Tony Gywnn was the last and that was over 20 years ago. It also feels tainted because of the 110 games played. No one will ever hit .400 again.
No way Babe Ruth destroys the competition today. He may be pretty darn good but I dont think elite.

[sago]

There are other fundamental issues that have to be considered by changing eras they played in.

For example, taking Mickey Mantle exactly the way he was and bringing him into today's game, he would end up in rehab more times than Steve Howe did.

It's entirely possible that he would have stayed sober as well, and who knows how much better he would have been, great as he was.

[tedzan]

this new breed of ballplayers do not have the patience to wait out the pitcher and make him "work".

Check-out Ted Williams in 1941......

PA = 606
AB = 456
Hit = 185
BB = 147
BA = .406

Check-out Ted Williams in 1957......

PA = 541
AB = 420
Hit = 163
BB = 119
BA = .388

Now compare those numbers with the stats of Brett, Carew, Gwynn......

Brett (1980)

AB = 449
Hit = 175
BB = 58
BA = .390

Carew (1977)

AB = 616
Hit = 239
BB = 69
BA = .388

Gwynn (1994)

AB = 419
Hit = 165
BB = 48
BA = .394


The point I am making here is......"a Walk is as good as a Hit".

How many times have you heard this from your coaches (managers) when you were playing BB ?

If you do the math regarding Brett, Carew, Gwynn....all it takes is the following number of Walks
for them to have hit .400

Brett needed only 12 more Walks to achieve .400

Carew needed only 19 more Walks to achieve .400

Gwynn needed only 7 more Walks to achieve .400



TED Z
.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by tedzan

this new breed of ballplayers do not have the patience to wait out the pitcher and make him "work".

Check-out Ted Williams in 1941......

PA = 606
AB = 456
Hit = 185
BB = 147
BA = .406

Check-out Ted Williams in 1957......

PA = 541
AB = 420
Hit = 163
BB = 119
BA = .388

Now compare those numbers with the stats of Brett, Carew, Gwynn......

Brett (1980)

AB = 449
Hit = 175
BB = 58
BA = .390

Carew (1977)

AB = 616
Hit = 239
BB = 69
BA = .388

Gwynn (1994)

AB = 419
Hit = 165
BB = 48
BA = .394


The point I am making here is......"a Walk is as good as a Hit".

How many times have you heard this from your coaches (managers) when you were playing BB ?

If you do the math regarding Brett, Carew, Gwynn....all it takes is the following number of Walks
for them to have hit .400

Brett needed only 12 more Walks to achieve .400

Carew needed only 19 more Walks to achieve .400

Gwynn needed only 7 more Walks to achieve .400



TED Z
.

Maybe I'm missing your point but walks do not figure into batting average. Also, Ted Williams was an exceptional case. George Sisler walked less often than any of the three players you mentioned and still managed to bat over .400 twice.

[Exhibitman]

Batting average is not the end-all stat. A few points over 600 plate appearances is as little as a fluke single a month instead of a ground out.

Walks are valuable, not just offensively but because they impose a hitter's will on a pitcher. Williams was perhaps the greatest hitter of all time in part because he refused to expand the strike zone. That was one of his hitting philosophies: make the pitcher give you a pitch to hit. And you cannot just walk a Williams or a Bonds every time up because the continual on base presence will end up worse in the end for the opposing team. Bill James ran a test comparing what would happen to an average team with a Babe Ruth who was walked every time versus a team with Ruth where he hit his career norm. The always walked Ruth team did better.

The discussion over dropping a player in this era or that one like he'd beamed down on the transporter is silly. Unless a player was raised in the era you cannot fairly gauge how he would have done because you are creating an anachronism. Think of it this way: if I beamed down to colonial New York I could hang out a sign and instantly become the most knowledgeable medical practitioner of the age, even though all I have is a decently educated layman's knowledge of first aid and medicine. I know CPR, the Heimlich, germ theory, and a bunch more techniques and facts that were unknown at the time but are basic first aid standards today. It would be an anachronism, same as parachuting Mike Trout into a deadball era game.

Pitching speed is an interesting issue that I feel has been misinterpreted in some posts here. If the average guys today are faster than before, in the low 90s and a flamethrower is around 98-101, what makes the average guy so much faster than the old timers? It isn't that the upper end of speed has expanded. What fascinates me is not that the average pitcher today is faster but that the outlier, the fastest, is still around 100-105 MPH. That has remained consistent for as long as we have been able to measure accurately (e.g., Ryan and Feller, #1 and #2 for a single pitch). What that tells me is that there is a mechanical limit to pitching speed regardless of technical perfection. I am guessing that Johnson and Grove at their best approached that limit and would still be elite power pitchers if they were raised and trained today, because they were the outliers of their era. My speculation also is that the average guy today may throw faster than the average 100 years ago because of better technique and training. But technique and training benefits the elite guys too. Here are two images of Clayton Kershaw from May:




When I got the cards I was struck not by how consistent his motion is, but how textbook it is for modern mechanical teachings for pitchers: balance, leg drive, no inverted W arm, etc. That is not unusual today. Pitchers today have been carefully trained to have very sound mechanics. It was unusual even 50 years ago to see a wide variance in motions because oddball pitchers who were effective were not trained otherwise. Marichal's leg kick, Spahn's windmill, Tiant's no-look, Gibson's fall off the mound, all would not have survived training. Might have made them better or perhaps not, even though it does make the average guy better to have a more consistent and efficient technique. So the lower end of the spectrum rises (average speed) but the elite flame throwers still hit around 100-105 because the amount of force an arm can generate is limited by basic structural factors: how much load can the bone take, how much leverage can be generated by the motion, etc.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by howard38

Maybe I'm missing your point but walks do not figure into batting average. Also, Ted Williams was an exceptional case. George Sisler walked less often than any of the three players you mentioned and still managed to bat over .400 twice.

Howard38

Pardon me for correcting you, but Walks are a significant factor in determining BA.
As a Walk in place of an Out subtracts from a time at Bat.

For examples....

Brett (1980) needed only 12 more Walks

AB = 449 - 12 BB = 437 AB ...... 175 Hits / 437 AB = .400
Hit = 175
BB = 58
BA = .390

Carew (1977) needed only 19 more Walks

AB = 616 - 19 BB = 597 AB ...... 239 Hits / 597 AB = .400
Hit = 239
BB = 69
BA = .388

Gwynn (1994) needed only 7 more Walks

AB = 419 - 7 BB = 412 AB ...... 165 Hits / 412 AB = .400
Hit = 165
BB = 48
BA = .394


P.S.
George Sisler was an amazing hitter....his batting performance is quite unique in the history of BB.


TED Z
.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Howard38

Pardon me for correcting you, but Walks are a significant factor in determining BA.
As a Walk in place of an Out subtracts from a time at Bat.

For examples....

Brett (1980) needed only 12 more Walks

AB = 449 - 12 BB = 437 AB ...... 175 Hits / 437 AB = .400
Hit = 175
BB = 58
BA = .390

Carew (1977) needed only 19 more Walks

AB = 616 - 19 BB = 597 AB ...... 239 Hits / 597 AB = .400
Hit = 239
BB = 69
BA = .388

Gwynn (1994) needed only 7 more Walks

AB = 419 - 7 BB = 412 AB ...... 165 Hits / 412 AB = .400
Hit = 165
BB = 48
BA = .394


P.S.
George Sisler was an amazing hitter....his batting performance is quite unique in the history of BB.


TED Z
.

I understand what you're saying, Ted, but a walk can also replace a hit and therefore lower batting average as well. There are other old-timers who batted near or over .400 who also had walk totals as low or lower than Brett, Carew and Gwynn. Al Simmons, Bill Terry and Harry Heilmann had fairly low totals and Nap Lajoie's were even lower than Sisler's.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by sycks22

Although a lack of precision instruments prevented accurate measurement of his fastball, in 1917, a Bridgeport, Connecticut munitions laboratory recorded Johnson's fastball at 134 feet per second, which is equal to 91.36 miles per hour (147.03 km/h),

Thanks for that info, but I would not put much credence in those munition tests. In the before-mentioned documentary Fastball, they mention one of these tests that only measured Johnson's fastball at 122 feet per second or 83 miles per hour.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by howard38

I understand what you're saying, Ted, but a walk can also replace a hit and therefore lower batting average as well. There are other old-timers who batted near or over .400 who also had walk totals as low or lower than Brett, Carew and Gwynn. Al Simmons, Bill Terry and Harry Heilmann had fairly low totals and Nap Lajoie's were even lower than Sisler's.

dead ball era is an entirely different critter tho, the ball was rarely replaced in games, the spitter was legal, ball was hard to field, players would accept bribes not to field a ball correctly...etc there's a reason batting avg dropped after 1920 relative to the avg before then.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Thanks for that info, but I would not put much credence in those munition tests. In the before-mentioned documentary Fastball, they mention one of these tests that only measured Johnson's fastball at 122 feet per second or 83 miles per hour.

That test, which took place in 1912, was flawed to the point of absurdity. It was done in street clothes, with no warmup, and conducted on a range designed to test the speed of rifle bullets. Johnson had to throw overhand, not his usual sidearm, with the ball passing through a field of hanging metal triggers before hitting the backboard. Obviously, he could throw way faster than the machine measured, and he was clocked considerably faster than Nap Rucker, also taking the test as the fastest pitcher in the National League. I've always thought that Johnson threw at least 100 MPH and probably a little more when he let it all out. Feller was measured at 99, and of the many people who saw and even hit against them both in their prime, I never came across anyone claiming that Feller threw harder than Johnson.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

That test, which took place in 1912, was flawed to the point of absurdity. It was done in street clothes, with no warmup, and conducted on a range designed to test the speed of rifle bullets. Johnson had to throw overhand, not his usual sidearm, with the ball passing through a field of hanging metal triggers before hitting the backboard. Obviously, he could throw way faster than the machine measured, and he was clocked considerably faster than Nap Rucker, also taking the test as the fastest pitcher in the National League. I've always thought that Johnson threw at least 100 MPH and probably a little more when he let it all out. Feller was measured at 99, and of the many people who saw and even hit against them both in their prime, I never came across anyone claiming that Feller threw harder than Johnson.

Hank - I agree with you. I was pointing out how inaccurate the tests back then were.

I would also guess that Johnson threw right around 100.

[Rookiemonster]

They fix the errors of the test in the documentary fastball. He in fact did not throw Hundred .

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

They fix the errors of the test in the documentary fastball. He in fact did not throw Hundred .

They did not fix the errors - they just tried to approximate how fast his 83 mph (122 feet per second) throw was when the ball was 50 feet from home plate (which is the way that modern pitchers are clocked) instead of 15 feet in back of the "plate" as it was done in the 1912 test - definitely not an exact science. I believe that they estimated that it was around 94 mph.

The conditions where they timed Johnson at 83 mph were certainly not optimal for Johnson - he was wearing his Sunday suit for the test! The test was done at the Remington ammunition testing field and it is doubtful if he even had a mound or a rubber to pitch off of. One of the writers that witnessed the event said that he thought that Johnson could have hit 150 feet per minute if he was given more time to warm up which would equate to a tick over 102 mph.

Anyways, this was just a very unscientific test and I would agree with Hank that if Feller threw 98 or 99, then Johnson was certainly 100 or more.

[the 'stache]

A great player is a great player. It doesn't matter the era. Greats have instincts, and a meticulous attention to detail that will play in any era.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

A great player is a great player. It doesn't matter the era. Greats have instincts, and a meticulous attention to detail that will play in any era.

Pretty much agree with this.....

[aro13]

A great player is a great player. It doesn't matter the era. Greats have instincts, and a meticulous attention to detail that will play in any era.

I agree. The game evolves but the best players evolve with the game. The players that suffer are those that benefit from their era - be it a different strike zone, steroids, higher mound, bigger parks, etc.

Nolan Ryan was a good pitcher in 1969 and he was still good in 1992.

Pete Rose was good in 1964 and still good in 1984.

Frank Robinson could hit in 1956 and still hit in 1975.

[bravos4evr]

Pete Rose was good in 1964 and still good in 1984.

well, about that second part.......... (0.8 WAR in 421 PA's)

:-p

[irishdenny]

Every thought that I've Evar had on this Topic...
"Has a Counter thought to it!?"

I Would Howevar, Love ta See Cobb Stare down a Kershaw Curve...
Matty Bliss a Fade Away by Goldschmidt...
Johnston Ring uP ARod(in His Prime )

and So oN, and So oN, and Scooby Dooby Daayy ~ Ayyyy

THiS Game is AwSome!!!

Whatya THiNK Cobb's "Walk uP Music" Would Be?

[bravos4evr]

Whatya THiNK Cobb's "Walk uP Music" Would Be?

"Georgia on My Mind"" of course!

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by irishdenny

Whatya THiNK Cobb's "Walk uP Music" Would Be?

"The Bitch is Back".

[Joshchisox08]

[QUOTE=
Whatya THiNK Cobb's "Walk uP Music" Would Be? [/QUOTE]

Sweet Georgia Brown