What if they used today's baseballs?

[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?

[asphaltman]

Originally Posted by steve B

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?

Does it? Weren't they throwing batting practice pitches during the Home Run Derby the other night that were landing 460 feet away?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by asphaltman

Does it? Weren't they throwing batting practice pitches during the Home Run Derby the other night that were landing 460 feet away?

There's plenty of complicated physics, basically the angle and speed matter the most, but the spin and where on the bat you hit, and the initial speed of the pitch all contribute.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/adv...a4569/4216783/

So yes, a BP curve that doesn't curve will go farther than a 94mph fastball, but the 94 mph fastball will leave the bat 3mph faster than a 78mph curve. (Their numbers.) The spin and the spin leaving the bat are very different, and more backspin=more lift=more distance.
So in an actual game, comparing a hit fastball to a hit fastball, the faster pitch will go farther.

Seam height matters too, the high loose seams of well used 1920's balls create more drag and slow the ball down, lower tighter seams don't - too low and they don't generate as much lift lift.

The biggest HR hitters in the 20's-30's were probably every bit as good as the hitters today.

[asphaltman]

Originally Posted by steve B

There's plenty of complicated physics, basically the angle and speed matter the most, but the spin and where on the bat you hit, and the initial speed of the pitch all contribute.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/adv...a4569/4216783/

So yes, a BP curve that doesn't curve will go farther than a 94mph fastball, but the 94 mph fastball will leave the bat 3mph faster than a 78mph curve. (Their numbers.) The spin and the spin leaving the bat are very different, and more backspin=more lift=more distance.
So in an actual game, comparing a hit fastball to a hit fastball, the faster pitch will go farther.

Seam height matters too, the high loose seams of well used 1920's balls create more drag and slow the ball down, lower tighter seams don't - too low and they don't generate as much lift lift.

The biggest HR hitters in the 20's-30's were probably every bit as good as the hitters today.

Yeah, I'm not going to pretend to understand the physics involved in how a baseball takes flight at what launch angle, exit velocity, spin on the ball, etc....it's for sure two different worlds and in many ways two different games. I think if this era of players were to be dropped in a game from 1909 they'd be floored as much as if that era of players were to be dropped in a game today. For sure, there are better, faster, stronger athletes today. This kids playing now grew up playing travel ball with non stop tournaments all the time. Just different.

One thing from the past that I wish was still around was the pitchers going deeper into games. The the lost art of throwing a good screwball, knuckleball, and even in the day a good spitter.

[packs]

Everyone always says the old players have nothing on the new players, but I really don't understand that perspective. Other sports have seen increases in talent due increases in the numbers of athletes participating in the sport. That's why I believe the level has risen so much in the NBA and the NFL; you've got way more people playing both sports than you ever did before.

That is not true with baseball. Every year there is the discussion about diminishing participation among even little league players. Whereas every kid used to play baseball, now that population is splintered across three other sports (plus soccer). In my opinion that means Major League Baseball is no longer full of the best of the best in the country; instead it is full of the best who choose to play. If you ask me, the average player in the 1920s would have still had to have been an incredible player to even get a spot on a professional roster by virtue of needing to beat out much more competition to claim it.

[darwinbulldog]

My understanding is that, based on the best available data, Mantle's "565 foot" home run would have traveled about 460 feet without the wind. I'm not a physicist, but that's what they say. There are a few interesting papers and one oddly engaging Powerpoint presentation about it.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by asphaltman

Yeah, I'm not going to pretend to understand the physics involved in how a baseball takes flight at what launch angle, exit velocity, spin on the ball, etc....it's for sure two different worlds and in many ways two different games. I think if this era of players were to be dropped in a game from 1909 they'd be floored as much as if that era of players were to be dropped in a game today. For sure, there are better, faster, stronger athletes today. This kids playing now grew up playing travel ball with non stop tournaments all the time. Just different.

One thing from the past that I wish was still around was the pitchers going deeper into games. The the lost art of throwing a good screwball, knuckleball, and even in the day a good spitter.

Different eras for sure.

Todays players can get an incredible amount of organized experience, but players before sometimes played more, even if the games were less organized.
To me one of the saddest things is seeing todays baseball fields for kids. My kids play at two parks near baseball fields... Wonderful baseball fields. Stands, decent infield and grass, big backstop, even stands, and a passable outfield wall. A long way from the fields I played on, which either had no outfield wall, or a bit of snow fencing with 350 painted on it at what was probably much less. No stands at some, everyone sat on folding chairs.
Of course, we played on our fields pretty much every day. Todays fields are all posted along the lines of "reserved for little league, don't even think of playing ball here. Or the police will come"

I can't imagine some of todays guys getting used to the minimal clubhouse areas they had in 1909. Just as I can't imagine some of the tougher characters adjusting to whirlpools and wall to wall carpet and a spread of free food. (ok, they might adjust to the buffet pretty easily)

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by steve B

There's plenty of complicated physics, basically the angle and speed matter the most, but the spin and where on the bat you hit, and the initial speed of the pitch all contribute.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/adv...a4569/4216783/

So yes, a BP curve that doesn't curve will go farther than a 94mph fastball, but the 94 mph fastball will leave the bat 3mph faster than a 78mph curve. (Their numbers.) The spin and the spin leaving the bat are very different, and more backspin=more lift=more distance.
So in an actual game, comparing a hit fastball to a hit fastball, the faster pitch will go farther.

Seam height matters too, the high loose seams of well used 1920's balls create more drag and slow the ball down, lower tighter seams don't - too low and they don't generate as much lift lift.

The biggest HR hitters in the 20's-30's were probably every bit as good as the hitters today.

Great post Steve. I remember a interview with Barry Bonds with him saying how Ted Williams said the exact thing I made bold in Steves post. Barry said Ted told him to hit the ball with a slight downward swing to give the ball that backwards spin. I am sure that explains all of the monster HRs Barry hit.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Great post Steve. I remember a interview with Barry Bonds with him saying how Ted Williams said the exact thing I made bold in Steves post. Barry said Ted told him to hit the ball with a slight downward swing to give the ball that backwards spin. I am sure that explains all of the monster HRs Barry hit.

My favorite Ted story was from a guy who spoke at the club, and had played for him in Washington.

The first year he was on them about waiting for a more hittable pitch and made a big difference in team batting average.
The next year they had Nolan Ryan coming in for a game and asked him how they could hit his pitching. He said that early on he'd try to hit the top of the ball to drive it somewhere, but that late in the game he'd try to hit under the ball to get more distance, maybe a homer or sac fly.
And that that comment made most of the guys stop listening since they were asking how to hit a ball they couldn't really see vs his advice of trying to hit it a certain way.

It's sad that Bonds had to take stuff, he probably would have been fairly close to the record without it. Maybe Teds advice helped early and chemistry helped more later?

[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!

[ReefBlue]

You have to judge these people against their peers.

If Babe Ruth was way out of shape, then what was everyone else's excuse for not hitting 90 home runs since they're all 'in shape'?

If you brought Walter Johnson forward in time, would he be able to pitch even minor league ball? No.

Could a modern day pitcher get sent back in time and be able to start 50 games with 35 complete games year after year? No. Not even for one year. They wouldn't last a month and they'd get cut since they can't keep pace with the schedule. Meanwhile, that is your all star starting pitcher of today.